|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Fucking Guns
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
lvr--
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
There are plenty of Americans saying they want tighter gun control.
They get drowned out by the NRA because money talks. And the NRA has lots of it.
Yup. Thanks for getting this. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Maybe he lost to a hand of clubs at poker?
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Pro-life people are against abortion but for gun deaths as the price we must pay to have the freedom we need.
Freedom from being gunned down is not a thing.
"price we must pay to have the freedom we need"
You need to be packing a pistol to give you freedom?
And yes, it is a thing. If I can't go down the street for fear, I am not free.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Pro-life people are against abortion but for gun deaths as the price we must pay to have the freedom we need.
Freedom from being gunned down is not a thing.
"price we must pay to have the freedom we need"
You need to be packing a pistol to give you freedom?
And yes, it is a thing. If I can't go down the street for fear, I am not free.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
It could be argued that driving around at or under the speed limit when everyone around you is going 10 over is passive-aggressive driving.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
There will always be people on the roads driving a little bit slower than the speed limit. They may be new drivers, they may be carrying a heavy load, they may be looking for a particular side road. A driver incapable of driving in the presence of someone driving slower than them should not be allowed on the road.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
There will always be people on the roads driving a little bit slower than the speed limit. They may be new drivers, they may be carrying a heavy load, they may be looking for a particular side road. A driver incapable of driving in the presence of someone driving slower than them should not be allowed on the road.
When you're on a multi-lane freeway, people driving significantly over or significantly under the rate of flow of the rest of traffic are a hazard. It means other people have to break the flow to cope with them. Which is dangerous. Yes, people can do it. But it requires maneuvering, braking, lane-changing, etc., that would not be required if everyone were going to same speed. And each of those actions has potential danger involved.
It's beautiful and lovely to think everyone should just do the speed limit, or that if I'm blocking traffic, that's your problem not mine. But it's not reality. Everyone going the same speed is by far the safest way to use the freeway for everyone. Self-righteous slow-goers endanger other people. Which is why I use the term self-righteous. Their moral rectitude is more important to them than other people's safety or convenience. They're willing to put other people at unnecessary danger so that THEY can feel righteous.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ldjjd
Shipmate
# 17390
|
Posted
To clarify, I usually drive at or just below the speed limit. We have traffic laws for good reasons. I don't think it's unreasonable to obey those laws. I don't go out there to anger people.
Posts: 294 | Registered: Oct 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
At least drivers are licensed, and tested every now and then. When you become too fuddled or near-sighted to be safe behind the wheel, one may hope that the motor vehicle people will take away your license before you kill somebody.
I do not think this is an unreasonable requirement to lay upon gun owners. A gun is at least as dangerous as a car (you cannot kill 14 people with a car unless you select a laden school bus as your target) and many of our problems revolve around people who clearly never should have been allowed to own them in the first place. Surely we can agree that mental patients and people on the terrorist list should not be able to pick up armaments like candy. But the NRA will not allow even this.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
To clarify, I usually drive at or just below the speed limit. We have traffic laws for good reasons. I don't think it's unreasonable to obey those laws. I don't go out there to anger people.
It's unreasonable to make obeying laws more important than driving safely, yes. The laws are there to promote safety but slavish adherence to the laws is sometimes contraindicated, exactly for reasons of safety. As noted above. You're not intending to anger people, but you are, for your self-righteous reasons. You're being a prick.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
Feel free to argue you should speed because it's safer. Apart from the very rare exceptional circumstances (the oil tanker behind you is jack knifing being one of the few), you will always be wrong.
[ 04. December 2015, 13:43: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
mousethief: quote:
It's beautiful and lovely to think everyone should just do the speed limit, or that if I'm blocking traffic, that's your problem not mine. But it's not reality. Everyone going the same speed is by far the safest way to use the freeway for everyone. Self-righteous slow-goers endanger other people. Which is why I use the term self-righteous. Their moral rectitude is more important to them than other people's safety or convenience. They're willing to put other people at unnecessary danger so that THEY can feel righteous.
On the other hand:
It's beautiful and lovely to think everyone should just ignore the speed limit, or that if I'm tailgating you, that's your problem not mine. But it's not reality. Everyone adjusting their speed to take account of driving conditions is by far the safest way to use the roads for all road users. Selfish speeders endanger other people. Which is why I use the term selfish. Their time is more important to them than other people's safety or convenience. They're willing to put other people at unnecessary risk because a few minutes of THEIR time is more important than someone else's life.
I take your point about it being safer if everyone is driving at approximately the same speed. But one of the reasons for that is that most people do not allow enough distance between themselves and the car in front when driving at speed. And just because it's *legal* to drive at 70 mph on British motorways, it doesn't mean it's always safe to do so. The newspapers and Internet are littered with examples of fatal crashes caused by drivers not bothering to slow down in bad weather conditions. In Britain, where it is legal to drive at 60mph on winding country roads which are also used by cyclists, tractors, horse-riders and (often) pedestrians, it is often not safe to drive that fast. And yet you still get lunatics trying to overtake you on blind corners.
Oh, and when I was on holiday in America I was probably one of those slow drivers you are so annoyed about, because I thought I was supposed to take your 55 mph freeway speed limit seriously. I thought it was ridiculously low too, but if you don't like the law, campaign to have it changed.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ldjjd
Shipmate
# 17390
|
Posted
Absolutely right.
On multi-lane freeways, those who do not hold themselves above traffic laws, should stay in the extreme right ("slow lane"). I do.
The danger comes when self-centered law breakers weave in an out of lanes to gain a few precious seconds and come roaring up behind those of us who try to obey the law.
A good share of the traffic laws, speed limits being among the most important, are there to save lives.
Is it also self-righteous not to drink and drive? Self-righteous not to tailgate? Self-righteous not to fully stop at a stop sign? Self-righteous not to signal turns? Self-righteous to pull over when an active emergency vehicle is approaching? Then I'm self-righteous and not about to change.
I think it's twisted and fuckin' dangerous (imho) to claim that those who obey the law are the menace.
Posts: 294 | Registered: Oct 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ldjjd
Shipmate
# 17390
|
Posted
edit:
"...Self-righteous not to tailgate? Self-righteous [not-delete]to fully stop at a stop sign? Self-righteous [not - delete] to signal turns?..."
Posts: 294 | Registered: Oct 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
When you're on a multi-lane freeway, people driving significantly over or significantly under the rate of flow of the rest of traffic are a hazard. It means other people have to break the flow to cope with them. Which is dangerous. Yes, people can do it. But it requires maneuvering, braking, lane-changing, etc., that would not be required if everyone were going to same speed.
Slowly but surely all UK motorways are becoming 'smart' motorways. Which means there are cameras all along, they clock your average speed - and if you don't keep to the speed displayed (which varies with the conditions) you are sent a fixed penalty notice + points on your licence. I love these motorways - no tailgating, very little overtaking, smooth driving - great!
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
When you're on a multi-lane freeway, people driving significantly over or significantly under the rate of flow of the rest of traffic are a hazard. It means other people have to break the flow to cope with them. Which is dangerous. Yes, people can do it. But it requires maneuvering, braking, lane-changing, etc., that would not be required if everyone were going to same speed. And each of those actions has potential danger involved.
It's beautiful and lovely to think everyone should just do the speed limit, or that if I'm blocking traffic, that's your problem not mine. But it's not reality. Everyone going the same speed is by far the safest way to use the freeway for everyone. Self-righteous slow-goers endanger other people. Which is why I use the term self-righteous. Their moral rectitude is more important to them than other people's safety or convenience. They're willing to put other people at unnecessary danger so that THEY can feel righteous.
Of the your three options, it only requires a little braking, wild maneuvering to go around them so you can stay at your preferred high speed is your (bad) decision and if there is an accident, it's your sudden lane change that caused it not the driver who is going the speed limit.
Your last paragraph is just wrong by any highway safety statistics. They tell us over and over -- speed kills.
[ 04. December 2015, 14:48: Message edited by: Twilight ]
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
Here is a truly grand solution that combines two entirely separate causes of flame war! I love it, but would stipulate that gun purchasers must have an ultrasound and digital exam by a professional medical person.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Here is a <....>
See up thread.
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
I think it's twisted and fuckin' dangerous (imho) to claim that those who obey the law are the menace.
It is rare that in any interaction between two people, one person is "in the right" and the other is "in the wrong".
The case of someone driving like an idiot weaving in and out of traffic comes pretty close to the rare extreme. Most cases aren't that.
Most cases are someone sitting in the middle lane doing the speed limit, choosing to remain in the middle lane because there's a truck on the horizon doing 5mph less than the speed limit that they want to pass, and they don't like changing lanes. This person forms a bottleneck that impedes the progress of the traffic that wants to drive at 10mph over the speed limit.
Is this person in the wrong? Yes. They should move promptly into the "slow" lane, and only move out to overtake someone. Are the 10mph over the limit crew in the wrong? Yes - they're speeding.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Slowly but surely all UK motorways are becoming 'smart' motorways. Which means there are cameras all along, they clock your average speed - and if you don't keep to the speed displayed (which varies with the conditions) you are sent a fixed penalty notice + points on your licence. I love these motorways - no tailgating, very little overtaking, smooth driving - great!
We had a driver take us from Southampton to London last year and he told us about that and it was a smooth trip. On multi-lane highways there, which is the fast/passing lane? It seems it would be the right lane since you drive on the left. Ours is the left lane but we drive on the right. So, how is it?
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
The usual suspects, including me, will post on this thread and make same fucking arguments again.
Anyone want to do the latest gun atrocity in the US, or shall we ignore it and stick with motoring?
Interesting, were it not tragic, that this mighty Superpower has a gun problem of such magnitude it's now hardly possible to discern between a domestic shooting and a terrorist one.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Most cases are someone sitting in the middle lane doing the speed limit, choosing to remain in the middle lane because there's a truck on the horizon doing 5mph less than the speed limit that they want to pass, and they don't like changing lanes. This person forms a bottleneck that impedes the progress of the traffic that wants to drive at 10mph over the speed limit.
Is this person in the wrong? Yes. They should move promptly into the "slow" lane, and only move out to overtake someone. Are the 10mph over the limit crew in the wrong? Yes - they're speeding.
Yes they're both wrong but the person going the speed limit is likely to cause a bottleneck, while the person going ten miles over is more likely to cause a death.
My orthopedic surgeon has a big peg board in his waiting room covered with photographs of his patients, aged four through eighty. All have missing limbs and the title at the top of the board tells us that every one of these amputations was the result of someone speeding in an automobile.
[ 04. December 2015, 19:02: Message edited by: Twilight ]
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Yes they're both wrong but the person going the speed limit is likely to cause a bottleneck, while the person going ten miles over is more likely to cause a death.
My point is that playing "who is more wrong" dicksize games is the wrong approach. Are you driving slower than the person behind? Put yourself in the "slow lane" and allow him to pass safely. Are you driving faster than the person in front? Pass safely, leaving adequate space between you and the other cars.
It doesn't matter how fast you're both going with respect to the posted speed limit - you should behave like this anyway. And if the other guy is driving like an idiot, do exactly the same thing (but allow even more space if possible - idiots tend to use it up.)
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mark_in_manchester
not waving, but...
# 15978
|
Posted
quote:
On multi-lane highways there, which is the fast/passing lane? It seems it would be the right lane since you drive on the left. Ours is the left lane but we drive on the right. So, how is it?
One is obliged to drive in the LH lane, unless you want to overtake in which case you move one over to the right, and if your way is again blocked by more traffic moving slower than you, you move one further over to the right. Heavy Goods (limited to 56mph) may only use LH and centre lanes. One must move leftwards again at the earliest safe opportunity, regardless of speed.
Well, that was 1960s sparse traffic. Today it works well in the dead of night, but when traffic is heavy everyone pretty much sticks at one speed in one lane, with occasional overtaking.
One important thing is that only very rarely does a suicidal dickhead overtake you on the inside (here, LH side). It's not meant to happen, very rarely does happen, and you can move left in safety without worrying about what is behind you.
I didn't know that overtaking on both sides was OK when I drove in LA (ummm...20 years ago!) - so when someone came up behind me I generally tried to lane-change to the right to let them through - and often found myself still in their path!
Oh - and while we're on the subject of road manners in other countries - flashing lights in the UK means 'I see you, please do come out in front of me' or 'thanks' or very occasionally 'shit, your roof rack is about to fall off' - I infer in France (after having flashed a lot...) it means 'get out of my way'!
--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)
Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
bib
Shipmate
# 13074
|
Posted
A US friend told me that she needed a gun to defend herself from everyone else with guns. Trouble is, everyone seems to believe this and therefore nobody will make the first move. It seems to be a roller coaster of inaction which makes me think the guns situation for America will only get worse. If good people do nothing then the criminals win every time.
--------------------
"My Lord, my Life, my Way, my End, accept the praise I bring"
Posts: 1307 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Here is a truly grand solution that combines two entirely separate causes of flame war! I love it, but would stipulate that gun purchasers must have an ultrasound and digital exam by a professional medical person.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif) ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
A US friend told me that she needed a gun to defend herself from everyone else with guns. Trouble is, everyone seems to believe this and therefore nobody will make the first move. It seems to be a roller coaster of inaction which makes me think the guns situation for America will only get worse. If good people do nothing then the criminals win every time.
Add to that the people who go off on gun sprees tend to target. people who have noting to do with carrying a gun. Add to that the people who decide to opt out of the gun races will be annihilated in the crossfire of the cultural war --literal, armed war--that is ever looming closer in the US.
But luckily that will leave a nation comprised of stereotypes to hate.
[ 05. December 2015, 03:54: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Here is a truly grand solution that combines two entirely separate causes of flame war! I love it, but would stipulate that gun purchasers must have an ultrasound and digital exam by a professional medical person.
OK, I thought I knew what this was referencing, but this goes a whole new level. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
A US friend told me that she needed a gun to defend herself from everyone else with guns. Trouble is, everyone seems to believe this and therefore nobody will make the first move. It seems to be a roller coaster of inaction which makes me think the guns situation for America will only get worse. If good people do nothing then the criminals win every time.
Add to that the people who go off on gun sprees tend to target. people who have noting to do with carrying a gun. Add to that the people who decide to opt out of the gun races will be annihilated in the crossfire of the cultural war --literal, armed war--that is ever looming closer in the US.
But luckily that will leave a nation comprised of stereotypes to hate.
Add to those:
--the private militias, hate groups, end times-obsessed to the point of *wanting* it all groups, etc. that are just waiting for a chance at real war;
--armed cults (Branch Davidians, Elizabeth Clare Prophet, Jonestown, Synanon);
--anyone who could make a buck off of the whole thing;
--people who would've voluntarily gone off to the Crusades, if they'd lived then;
--folks a little/lot lost, wanting some direction and focus, wanting to count for something...maybe like some of the radical Islamists;
--folks who want to go out in a blaze of glory, send someone else out in a blaze of infamy, or both...maybe like some of the radical Islamists;
--folks with anger and fear and worry, and no place to put them;
--folks who are tired of being used, abused, and stomped on;
--and lots of folks who are just plain scared, and tired of it, etc.,
and you won't need the Middle East for Armageddon. ![[Frown]](frown.gif) Probably lots of small wars and battles, all over the country. Supplies run short because of them. Add in little health care, and an epidemic or three.
And the US is pretty much gone.
No joke.
If really, really lucky, we might wind up with something like "The Postman" or "The Fifth Sacred Thing". If so, to quote the last line of the "X-Files" series, "maybe there's hope".
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
My point wasn't so much to list everyone who had enough of a beef to pick up a gun For the most part it was to acknowledge and concur with bib's thoroughly depressing assessment of the whole frustrating, head-banging mess. Yes, it takes someone to have the guts to be the first to put down the gun, but along with that, that person has to assume they will probably be rewarded by being shot.
A more subtle point was made, but we've gone over that one enough.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Kelly--
Yes, I got that. If the subtle point was the line about stereotypes, got that, too.
AIUI, bib's point was partly about the US gun situation getting worse, if something isn't done. And you mentioned the brewing, cultural, armed war here. That's something I've been quietly concerned about for a long time.
As for bib's comment about good people doing nothing: actually, it's not true, as Americans have pointed out throughout the thread. Sometimes, gun control laws even get passed--only to be overturned, or allowed to run out.
Not long before the San Bernardino shooting, doctors gave Congress a petition to allow the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to study gun violence.
quote:
Since 1996, Congress has barred the CDC from using federal funding to "advocate or promote gun control." That language, which emerged out of pressure from the National Rifle Association (NRA), effectively halted CDC's efforts to study gun violence because of concerns that it would risk losing even more funding.
Experts who study gun violence say without CDC research, many questions about gun violence remain unanswered.
People really are trying to change things. But there's a huge amount of resistance from Congress, and from the funders in whose pockets they comfortably nest. Obama's spoken out, repeatedly, but there are limits to what he can do on his own.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Thank GAAAAARRRD! It wuz tourism! Nuthin' ter do the second commandment and divine right to keep and bear arms.
Ten thousand years.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
The latest twist to this tragic narrative is terrifying in its implications.
I guess you have to face the fact, whether pro or anti gun control, that the second amendment as currently administered makes it very easy for terror cells, rogue groups self-identifying with Daesh, or angry lone-wolf nuts, to make their own kind of war on their neighbours. The Daesh do not even have to recruit. The angry, alienated and psychopathic will recruit themselves.
I don't see how you get out of it. One of the traumatised survivors of the San Bernadino massacre, barely holding it together, said when being interviewed that he "wished he'd had a gun on him, he might have been able to save some lives". Who can't understand that? I'm sure the NRA will use it.
I think it's very likely now that you'll see an increase in local, armed, vigilante groups, wanting to check for themselves whether their ethnic neighbours with "clean skins" really are "clean".
"We need to see inside your garage, friend. And your basement. Open up. NOW."
The end game is in danger of becoming a an even more lethal re-run of the Wild West. The good guys wear white hats, the bad guys black hats or feathers, you can tell which is which by just looking at them, you shoot first and ask questions afterwards, and there's cigareets and whisky and wild wild women for comfort. Plus you can now watch progress nightly on, and get your encouragement from, Fox News.
In this version of "West World" it won't be robots turning homicidal.
[ 05. December 2015, 07:59: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Kelly--
Well, SFGate.com, one of the SF Chronicle's sites, has a truly awesome blog post by Mark Morford: "Can anything stop America’s savage gun epidemic?" Anyone--American or not--who's sickened by and frustrated with the situation is apt to like it.
---
San Francisco has come up many times in this thread. KQED public radio hosts our wonderful "Forum" call-in show. The day after the San Bernardino shooting, host Michael Krasny had several relevant guests on. I only heard part of the show, but what I heard was good. You'll get a dose of what San Franciscans and Northern Californians are thinking. Plus people across the country and around the world participate, too. You can listen to the show here. (No transcript, unfortunately.)
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
People really are trying to change things. But there's a huge amount of resistance from Congress, and from the funders in whose pockets they comfortably nest. Obama's spoken out, repeatedly, but there are limits to what he can do on his own.
American voters need to tell their representatives "No gun legislation from you, no vote for you. Vote against gun legislation, get voted against".
Not enough are doing so.
Kinda sad that net neutrality was saved this way, but lives won't be.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
A US friend told me that she needed a gun to defend herself from everyone else with guns.
I just wonder how many cases there's been of random shooters having had their killing sprees cut short because of a sharp-shooting good deeder pulling a pistol and blowing them out.
None is my guess, happy to be corrected though.
Obama has tried some common sense rhetoric, all credit to him for that. Unfortunately the slightest murmur of gun control only seems to lead Americans towards stashing even more guns and ammo. Add that to the clout of the gun lobby and I doubt if the next President will even bother to 'go there'.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
It ain't the second AMENDMENT, Buddy, it's the second COMMANDMENT.
10,000 years.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
GK-- commandeering the front page has a whole different impact than a page 10 editorial, or a blog on the sidebar. IMO. It moves things out of the realm of opinion and into the realm of national emergency. Which it is.
Lilb-- as I said, don't worry, your " not enough" will be punished for their inefficacy soon enough. I'm sure being right will feel good when that happens.
I am glad GK linked to the illustrious page seven of the last go- round, because it lead me to read two posts that were completely ignored by the "don't you know this effects us, too?" crowd and those were," what can we, shipmates, together do?"and " what if the UK hit the US in the pocketbook by formally boycotting American media that glorifies gun culture?"
actually, Gama touched on it a bit, but everyone else seemed content to despise an Ok Corral culture while preserving their right to enjoy their "Breaking Bad" and "yippie -ky-yay motherfucker."
On the one hand it was a comment on how it's not just "Murricans that feed into gun culture, on the other, re-reading it gets me thinking: despite the silly dox wars, keyboard feminists have actually made slowly encroaching strides in gaining the ear of directors, comic book artists, tv producers, etc as to the portrayal of women in media and to women's involvement in same. An anchor cannot tell a politician how cute her shoes are without the world landing on them, nowadays.
What if we could get behind a similar cultural attack-- what if we called out the culture of violence the way we call out sexism? What if we said " we are tired of the serious matter of human death being accompanied by a snappy punchline, we are tired of domination and conquering being celebrated over community and cooperation, we are tired of being told over and over again that the ultimate expression of power and accomplishment is the perogative to kill without reprocession"?
I know the idea of a "violent media" assault is bound to get shot full of holes but seriously--we can keep up this stupid us and them thing-- where some of us polish our brass about how civilised and righteous their culture is compared to that of the people who are getting picked off in front of their eyes-- or WE can put our going on 15 year collection of heads together and fucking do something. We are (unpaid) contributors to the message board of a MAGAZINE for Christ's sake ( name used intentionally.) Surely together we can figure out somehing more productive to do than finger wagging, arm folding and sighing.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
romanlion
editorial comment
# 10325
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
I just wonder how many cases there's been of random shooters having had their killing sprees cut short because of a sharp-shooting good deeder pulling a pistol and blowing them out.
None is my guess, happy to be corrected though.
Guns are used to protect lives and property all the time, and not just in the US.
--------------------
"You can't get rich in politics unless you're a crook" - Harry S. Truman
Posts: 1486 | From: White Rose City | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
I just wonder how many cases there's been of random shooters having had their killing sprees cut short because of a sharp-shooting good deeder pulling a pistol and blowing them out.
None is my guess, happy to be corrected though.
Guns are used to protect lives and property all the time, and not just in the US.
I wonder if cost-benefit analyses have been done, looking at how effective gun ownership and use really are in protecting lives and property.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Congress has forbidden government agencies from doing research into what kind of legislation would actually help lower gun violence. Under intense pressure from the NRA, of course. Read how that happened.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Guns are used to protect lives and property all the time, and not just in the US.
But far more lives are lost to gun violence in the US than are protected.
But you are of course free to go right along in supporting the outrageous numbers of murders and suicides facilitated by the ready access to firearms in this country. You're stupid and you're contributing to evil, but hey, it's a free country.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Guns are used to protect lives and property all the time, and not just in the US.
Citations? You position has limited or no support.
Here's better info than your silly opinion: The Self-Defense Self-Delusion: Owning guns doesn't actually help stop gun violence
quote:
...only professionals who drill continuously in live shooter situations can hope to succeed in such chaotic situations.
The truth about guns and self-defense
quote:
Do armed civilians ever foil mass shootings? Yes, but not regularly. An FBI study of 160 active-shooter events between 2000 and 2013 found seven incidents in which an armed civilian shot the gunman and ended the rampage.
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Congress has forbidden government agencies from doing research into what kind of legislation would actually help lower gun violence. Under intense pressure from the NRA, of course. Read how that happened.
Oh well, I'll have to win the lottery and fund a couple of PhD students and a good data analyst to do the research. I'm sure it could be done for £100,000.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
That occured to me-- is it possible to have the gun control analysis privately funded?
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Lilb-- as I said, don't worry, your " not enough" will be punished for their inefficacy soon enough. I'm sure being right will feel good when that happens.
Not sure how to process this. It isn't about winning. I am stating what should be obvious, but apparently isn't, not finger wagging. I have said the same thing more broadly about everyone's political responsibilities.
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
what if the UK hit the US in the pocketbook by formally boycotting American media that glorifies gun culture?
UK, and other countries, would have to admit they too glorify such. Bond isn't merely an export, nor is Guy Ritchie. Media feeds the problem, but the roots are deep.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
romanlion
editorial comment
# 10325
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Guns are used to protect lives and property all the time, and not just in the US.
Citations? You position has limited or no support.
....
--------------------
"You can't get rich in politics unless you're a crook" - Harry S. Truman
Posts: 1486 | From: White Rose City | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
