User Tag List

First 18262728293038 Last

Results 271 to 280 of 623

  1. #271
    Senior Member LEGERdeMAIN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,545

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post

    Just because you started out as a gang of outlaws, doesn't compel you to continue in your folly.
    That statement is of little value, it takes more than legislation to change a sick society.
    “Some people will tell you that slow is good – but I’m here to tell you that fast is better. I’ve always believed this, in spite of the trouble it’s caused me. Being shot out of a cannon will always be better than being squeezed out of a tube. That is why God made fast motorcycles, Bubba…”


  2. #272
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    From Rod Dreher at The American Conservative:

    Crazy Old Nick Gillespie

    The Reason editor talks sense on our convulsive reactions to the Sandy Hook massacre. Did you know, for example, that according to federal statistics, there are only half as many violent crimes today as there was 20 years ago, and the rate of gun crime is down by almost that much? I didn’t know that until I read Gillespie’s piece. More:

    The general decline in gun-related violence and the inability even of mental health professionals to identify future mass killers should be the essential starting points of any serious policy discussion generated by the absolutely horrific slaughter at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. We should also add a third starting point: Few good policies come from rapid responses to deeply felt injuries. Many of the same people who are now calling for immediate action with regard to gun control recognize that The Patriot Act, rushed through Congress in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, was a terrible piece of legislation that ultimately did nothing to protect Americans even as it vastly expanded the state’s ability to surveil law-abiding citizens. There’s no reason to think that federal, state, or local gun control laws promulgated now would result in anything different.
    Want to know something else? The New York Times reports that:

    … statistics [indicate] that unlike handguns or shotguns, rifles of any type account for only a fraction of homicides in the United States — of 12,664 murder victims last year, 323 were killed with rifles, according to the F.B.I.’s Uniform Crime Report.
    If you were a bad man determined to kill a bunch of people, you wouldn’t need an AR-15 to do it. You could do it with any number of handguns that are perfectly legal.

    I continue to be amazed by how so many folks look at guns as talismans of evil. Yesterday afternoon I was at a kid’s party talking to some other fathers about hunting. We have a feral pig problem around here, and one of the dads had killed two wild pigs on his property. People hunt, and eat what they kill. People sometimes have to kill rattlesnakes, or coyotes eating their chickens. Guns are a normal part of life where I live. Gun violence is not. A while back I had a couple of European visitors in my house, and when they found out that I had a gun in the house (one of them asked), they got visibly upset, as if I’d told them that I kept king cobras in my closet. I’m not putting them down, understand; it’s just that it seemed emotionally impossible for them to see guns as anything but purely evil, and to entertain the idea that maybe, just maybe, it’s possible to own them and use them responsibly.

    How you make it possible for a responsible homeowner or hunter to own a gun for sport or personal protection, but not possible for Nancy Lanza to do so, I have no idea. You’d have to repeal the Second Amendment, and confiscate everybody’s weapons. Good luck with that. In Connecticut, the mandatory background check and waiting period (which I fully support as commonsense measures) worked in Adam Lanza’s case. He tried to buy a rifle days before the shooting, but left the store when he refused a background check. How does the law keep the hands of someone like Adam Lanza off guns legally purchased? Must everybody give up their guns (if that were possible) because Nancy Lanza may have failed to keep hers out of the hands of her psychotic son?

    Not only is it interesting to observe how foolish people can be when caught up in the emotionalism after a horrific event (I’ve done that, and came to regret it), it’s also interesting to see how quick many people are to throw out constitutional protections that they’re not using, or that they don’t see as important. Many of the people who would go to the mat for the First Amendment, no matter what monsters take shelter behind its shield, seem all too eager to throw out the Second Amendment, apparently because it doesn’t mean anything personally to them.

  3. #273
    Superwoman Red Herring's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sp/sx
    Posts
    5,647

    Default

    There is an interesting theory that the declining crime rate is actually linked to birth control and family planning - fewer low income single mothers with unwanted children = fewer gangsters in the making.
    The good life is one inspired by love and guided by knowledge. Neither love without knowledge, nor knowledge without love can produce a good life. - Bertrand Russell
    A herring's blog
    Johari / Nohari

  4. #274
    my floof is luxury Wind Up Rex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    853 sx/sp
    Posts
    4,981

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    From Rod Dreher at The American Conservative
    Respectfully, I don't understand the whole gun thing. My father owns a number of guns, and has taken me shooting before. But I don't get what guns symbolize or mean that people are so hell bent to protect their right to own one. The Second Amendement just seems obsolete to me. Is it just the intrusion of the government into citizen's private lives that gets people going?

    I understand that, logistically speaking at least, banning guns would be about as effective as the War on Drugs has been. But people who are gun proponents seem genuinely afraid when it comes to this topic. It's that fear that I don't understand.
    And so long as you haven’t experienced this: to die and so to grow,
    you are only a troubled guest on the dark earth

  5. #275
    Senior Member Bamboo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    XXFP
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SilkRoad View Post

    ...

    Even if statistically, these weapons kill less people, surely there's something - ideological? if that's the right word? (probably not) - to be looked at here? Why do these crazy, heartless people who kill a group of defenceless children, a bunch of moviegoers, whatever, choose these types of weapons in particular? Is it that they are being glorified? Does the presence of the weapons help to give them the idea? (like, this guy's mother was really into guns and had a collection including this type of weapon?)
    Perhaps. However, clearly mental illness was the major contributing factor. I seriously doubt there is evidence that supports that gun enthusiasm and collection leads to criminal behavior. And there is a difference between collection and hoarding, and even stockpiling. The vast majority of people who own these type of weapons, and a very large number of people do, don't do this.

    A variety of people may seem interested in these type of weapons. If you go to a gun show, for instance, you'll meet a lot of quiet people who don't seem to want to hurt anyone except if someone tried to hurt them, you'll see some polite young teenage girls there with their parents or siblings, you'll see some rowdy teenagers joking around and posing with their guns, you'll see some guns which are ornamental, some are bare bone utility, some for hunting, some for defensive. You'll see people striking up friendly conversations with the police officers at the front of the building, and you might see a few who want to avoid authority entirely. You'll see people selling knives, you'll see people selling pepper spray and flashlights, and you'll see people selling bumper stickers with slogans that run from silly to offensive.

    Not everyone fits into one category, and not everyone associates with other groups.

    That said, people who have some serious mental issues may be attracted to weapons for all the wrong reasons.

    I think the cultural rise of this type of shooting is interesting, in the same way that the suicide bomber or IED attack on civilian targets is interesting. It seems that this is, unfortunately, now apart of our culture, and we have to react to it somehow.
    Don't know how much it'll bend til it breaks.

  6. #276
    resonance entropie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    entp
    Enneagram
    783
    Posts
    16,761

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sprinkles View Post
    Yeah. It's easy to get a gun and shoot those that bug you, but most people mysteriously don't. They seriously don't.

    I hate to bring up statistics yet again because it's tragic if even one person is murdered, but people seriously do over react. It's just not in line with what actually happens.

    In the US the total firearm death rate is 9 for 100,000 people. Nine people out of every hundred thousand. Nine. That's murders, suicides, and accidents.

    Truly, while it is terrible that this happens, it is hardly the epidemic people make it out to be. Is it entirely unacceptable? I guess that's up to you to decide.


    All I ask is that people look at it clearly and not let the sensationalists on either side of it frighten or coerce you into any beliefs.

    Edit:
    Also The US is absolutely not first in the world regarding firearm deaths. I think we are about 12th. I'm not sure what is current.

    We are up there but definitely not in first.
    If a teenager is able to get himself an assault gun and kill a lot of people that is pretty outrageous to me. Maybe it has grown second nature to you over the Ocean but to me its pretty out of the ordinary. And yes it is totally unacceptable.
    Regarding statistics the USA is on rank 1 counting the biggest industrialized countries, without Sicily. It's 8 times more likely to get shot in the States than in Europe.

    If you want my opinion regarding all these problems: talk less about it and do more.
    [URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEBvftJUwDw&t=0s[/URL]

  7. #277
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    From Rod Dreher at The American Conservative:

    How you make it possible for a responsible homeowner or hunter to own a gun for sport or personal protection, but not possible for Nancy Lanza to do so, I have no idea. You’d have to repeal the Second Amendment, and confiscate everybody’s weapons. Good luck with that. In Connecticut, the mandatory background check and waiting period (which I fully support as commonsense measures) worked in Adam Lanza’s case. He tried to buy a rifle days before the shooting, but left the store when he refused a background check. How does the law keep the hands of someone like Adam Lanza off guns legally purchased? Must everybody give up their guns (if that were possible) because Nancy Lanza may have failed to keep hers out of the hands of her psychotic son?
    Yeah, I personally think this particular shooting is not a great case for the gun control group. It's the fact that children were shot and killed that is driving the argument, because it looks like the guns here were bought through regular channels and the restrictions otherwise worked. It's not a case where someone just walked into a gun show and walked off with automatic weapons without a check, or bought guns in a shady alley deal out of the back of a truck. The culprit got his hands on legally purchased and owned weapons within his own family; the only question is whether the mother had appropriately contained the guns at the house, and that was her responsibility.

    I suppose the other obvious argument can be about whether the types of guns she owned were necessary for her to own; there's a direct correlation between shooting deaths and automatic/semi-automatic weapons, and states with restrictions on these types of weapons show a drop in shooting deaths. That seems to be common sense. So does such a restriction make sense?

    I also wanted to ask people's opinions on this post made by an older INTP guy on another forum, which as long as the facts are correct seems to be a pretty valid question to ask, regarding the second amendment and its original intention -- that people were, according to the wording, being accredited the right to bear arms because they were expected to act as a volunteer militia in order to support the law (he compares it to a volunteer fire company)... and that was context and framing, not necessarily this uninhibited unqualified "right to own a gun, and especially any type of gun available." What is the rebuttal to that kind of argument, from those of you who have examined this in more detail?

    http://intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=14826
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  8. #278
    Lay the coin on my tongue SilkRoad's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    3,938

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post

    I also wanted to ask people's opinions on this post made by an older INTP guy on another forum, which as long as the facts are correct seems to be a pretty valid question to ask, regarding the second amendment and its original intention -- that people were, according to the wording, being accredited the right to bear arms because they were expected to act as a volunteer militia in order to support the law (he compares it to a volunteer fire company)... and that was context and framing, not necessarily this uninhibited unqualified "right to own a gun, and especially any type of gun available." What is the rebuttal to that kind of argument, from those of you who have examined this in more detail?

    http://intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=14826
    I have indeed heard that the "right to bear arms" thing for everyone may be a misinterpretation of the Second Amendment and that it wasn't intended for everyone, just this volunteer militia sort of thing.

    Apparently at the least, the wording is quite ambiguous.
    Female
    INFJ
    Enneagram 6w5 sp/sx


    I DOORSLAMMING

  9. #279
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    An except from Nick Gillespie's article at Reason:

    4 Awful Reactions to Sandy Hook School Shooting - And Thoughts on a Better Response

    At the start of a second term and facing a terrible economic situation and an equally awful foreign-policy situation, it's plausible that Obama will turn to gun control as a way reconnecting with his liberal base and as an attempt to soothe the nation. At a press conference about the shooting, the president said, "We're going to have to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics."

    And his spokesman Jay Carney has also said that the president will fight to reinstate the ban on so-called assault weapons (an imprecise category of guns that typically targets semi-automatic weapons festooned with military-style detailing).

    None of that will be easy, for a number of reasons. Over the past several decades, virtually every state in the country has liberalized its gun control laws. In 2008 (in the Heller decision) and 2010 (McDonald), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld an individual right to bear arms. Despite a number of high-profile gun-violence cases - including this year's mass shooting in an Aurora, Colorado movie theater and 2011's shooting of Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords - the past 20 years has seen a sharp and continuing decrease in violent crime.

    In 1992, for instance, the violent crime rate per 100,000 residents was 758. In 2012, it was 386. Between 2000 and 2009 (the latest year for which I could easily find data) use of firearms in violent crime had decreased from a rate of 2.4 per 1,000 to 1.4 per 1,000. [here is a link to the DOJ statistics]

    So gun violence overall is down significantly from where it was about 20 or more. At the same time, comfort with guns, which are present in about 45 percent of households, has been increasing. Gallup reports that in January of this year, only 25 percent of Americans wanted to see gun laws be made more strict. Two-thirds either wanted laws to stay the same or be less strict, while 8 percent had no opinion. It's likely that those percentages will shift somewhat over the coming weeks or even months, but the long-term trend lines - that include the years of Columbine, Virginia Tech, and other gun-related massacres - will make it difficult for gun control proponents to gain large majorities.

    Beyond all questions of politics is a more basic question of efficacy. What exactly might be done to prevent mass shootings, especially at locations such as schools? In the wake of the Giffords shooting by Jared Lee Loughner, there were many calls for institutionalizing more people who seemed mentally unhinged and potentially violent. The same thing is happening now, for obvious reasons (by various accounts, none of which has been fully substantiated yet, presumed gunman Adam Lanza was unhinged). As Reason's Jacob Sullum wrote regarding Loughner, even the most vociferous propopents of locking up potential killers grant that maybe 10 percent of schizophrenics become violent. Academic studies of presumptive detention of the mentally ill suggest that mental health professionals do about as well, and sometimes worse, than regular people in figuring out who exactly is going to go postal. Such results should temper any and all calls to start rounding up more people in the name of protecting innocents.

    The general decline in gun-related violence and the inability even of mental health professionals to identify future mass killers should be the essential starting points of any serious policy discussion generated by the absolutely horrific slaughter at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. We should also add a third starting point: Few good policies come from rapid responses to deeply felt injuries. Many of the same people who are now calling for immediate action with regard to gun control recognize that The Patriot Act, rushed through Congress in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, was a terrible piece of legislation that ultimately did nothing to protect Americans even as it vastly expanded the state's ability to surveil law-abiding citizens. There's no reason to think that federal, state, or local gun control laws promulgated now would result in anything different.

    If hard cases make bad laws, it's even more true that rare crimes make terrible public policy. In a piece for Quartz, journalist Lenore Skenazy recalls that the deadliest school massacre in U.S. history took place in Michigan in 1927, when a disgruntled school-board official blew up 38 people, including himself. She writes that the real difference between now and then is the immediacy of the media, which shrinks the distance between victims and the rest of us. Even as that allows us to have more empathy for the grieving, it creates the conditions for an overreaction that will ultimately be little more than symbolic:

    I expect we will now demand precautions on top of precautions. More guards. More security cameras. More supervision. We will fear more for our kids and let go of them even more reluctantly. Every time we wonder if they can be safe beyond our arms, these shootings will swim into focus.

    Will this new layer of fear and security make our children any safer? Probably not, but for a reassuring reason: A tragedy like this is so rare, our kids are already safe. Not perfectly safe. No one ever is. But safe.

    That’s a truth the folks in 1928 America understood. We just don’t feel that way now.
    Acknowledging the horror of what happened and mourning for innocent lives snuffed out and families destroyed by the incomprehensible act of a madman is precisely what the country should be doing right now. If it seems as if that is a passive non-reaction, that's because too many people understand what mourning entails. After that can come a policy battle that can be fought with passion but not with emotionalism and ignorance of relevant, basic facts standing in for rational analysis and honest debate.

  10. #280
    resonance entropie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    entp
    Enneagram
    783
    Posts
    16,761

    Default

    I'ld start to think about this psychologically. Why do I, living in a civilized country, need to own a gun at all ? Disregardless of bear attacks and police officers, why does the normal man and woman need to own guns ? What for ? To shoot the burglar in the garden ? Is that civilized ? I mean we are talking about taking someones life just because he wanted to steal your already dead ming vase ? Whats more important, a persons life or the ming vase ?

    Those questions always totally lack in those discussions.

    If my country was always so much into security and self defending itself, I'ld always ask what do I fight for ? I'ld have been the worst nazi cause I had always asked myself what do I fight for. Isnt there a point reached somewhere when the need for self-defense have twisted your lifes so much that the life has grown into something not worth fighting for anymore ?

    So what for does a normal citizen need a gun ?
    [URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEBvftJUwDw&t=0s[/URL]

Similar Threads

  1. Yet Another Shooting
    By MacGuffin in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 08-29-2012, 08:55 AM
  2. Another shooting, seven dead
    By MacGuffin in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 08-07-2012, 06:45 PM
  3. Yet ANOTHER police shooting on New Years eve
    By kendoiwan in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-14-2009, 08:16 PM
  4. Another INTJ, woohoo!
    By Metamorphosis in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 05-10-2007, 08:19 PM
  5. Another Forum?
    By "?" in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 05-02-2007, 11:44 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO