Gun Control

An ex-cop I know did some research after both these events, and it turns out distrust on the police is not only at an almost historical peak but it's not limited to the US, but also spread to other western (primarily european) countries, mainly Britain as that was where he knew best, almost completely independent from the amount of police violence, crime, and actual events warranting it.

Hassknecht said:
Daily mass shootings are good, it's Hyperdarwinism.
Click to expand...
Why do you think Battle Royale games are so popular?

Hassknecht said:
I get that going into an active shooter situation is terrifying and shooting first, planting incriminating evidence later is the most safe option for the US policemen
Click to expand...
Fixed :boy:
 
Arnust said:
An ex-cop I know did some research after both these events, and it turns out distrust on the police is not only at an almost historical peak but it's not limited to the US, but also spread to other western (primarily european) countries, mainly Britain as that was where he knew best, almost completely independent from the amount of police violence, crime, and actual events warranting it.
Click to expand...

This shouldn't be a surprise. The two parties in the U.S. spread the same ideology regarding Police - oppressive, fascist, racist, etc - in other words an entity that can't be trusted. Albeit this doesn't deter them from calling for help when a mouse farts, kitchen cupboards creak, or a young girl tries to sell bottled water on a hot day in the wrong neighborhood.

Fundamentally, society has become ideologically inbred, and I say that without irony while posting on a circle-jerk forum for shitting on nu-Fallout and remembering the good days we could just sledgehammer kids in the nuts.
 
I believe that's not as much to blame as the fact that they're rarely seen as the public servants that they actually are, but some sort of militia, for good and bad, mostly bad. And yes, going around in humvees wearing gear more appropiate of an anti terrorist operation on Yemen REALLY doesn't help this, when at least out of the US, the most of the time, as it should be, they're giving directions to old ladies and tourists and herding hobos off the main avenues, with that one rare ocassion they stand on the door to your highschool to make sure nobody's trying to sell the kids weed.

And I think "oh they criticize them but still need them hah" is pretty dumb to say considering that better responsability and formation, as well as public image, are things the public es entitled to ask and not mutually exclusive from their purpose. Reminds me of *hyehehe ur arguing for communism with your smartphone isn't that ironic nyeh*.

They're right to be skeptical, or even afraid, when stories like this only become more and more common.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That's entirely a perception issue and something Incredibles 2 (hilariously enough) highlighted when they embedded a camera into Elastigirl's suit and broadcast her fighting crime and saving the day, rather than her husband smashing through buildings and broadcast all of the damage he left in his wake just to stop a French bank robber.

That 'Bowling for Columbine' documentary that Moore put out? The most sobering and sane part of that documentary was Marilyn Manson talking about saturation of media and controlling narratives: "Look this way or she won't want to fuck you." Ostracization is damaging and the media perpetuates that by presenting you the just out of reach carrot on the stick. The world we live in is precisely that which Huxley warned about in Brave New World.

What's the point of this? Going back: perception - if the only thing you see on the 'news' is people dying, police shootings, crime, robbery, rape, murder, theft, etc, what kind of world would you believe we lived in? How would the average viewer process that information? The South Park season about sponsored content posing as news was trying to say something, and it's unfortunately ignored because "lol adult cartoons, who cares?" Should we still be questioning this after somebody assembled a montage of hundreds of "individual" news outlets repeating the same exact message to their viewers?

Are conservative and liberal outlets just as responsible for driving gun sales through over-coverage of school shootings, and then posturing the ancient debate of "GUN CONTROL" in their daily specials? Gun stores don't care about the over-coverage, they welcome it because it helps drive paranoid individuals to their stores in droves thanks to the metaphorical doomsday of "they terk uh guuunnz".

Would gun sales decline if we didn't over-cover mass-shootings and martyr these insane individuals? We don't know, it's the proverbial golden goose and the media can't stop themselves from not touching it. It's drama and we, implicitly or explicitly, love that shit. We eat it up - it's for better or for worse more interesting than Timmy figured out that cancer might be stopped with research in this field. That's a 2 minute spot at most. Now, back to our two week long breaking news special about how some <insert ideology> maniac shot up a <insert public place here>.

Arnust said:
And I think "oh they criticize them but still need them hah" is pretty dumb to say considering that better responsability and formation, as well as public image, are things the public es entitled to ask and not mutually exclusive from their purpose. Reminds me of *hyehehe ur arguing for communism with your smartphone isn't that ironic nyeh*.
Click to expand...

It's a criticism to be had. The point, is that it's hypocritical to dishonestly lambaste and generalize the fringe as the status-quo and toe your party line around that concept, while not hesitating to reach out to that singular entity you've demonized and dragged through the mud. This mostly applies to the upper levels of party-politics. It's beyond just 'criticizing' and more so a character assassination masquerading as such, of a group that 99% of people will have an uneventful experience with.

Was Bill Cosby the correct person to be criticizing black men for their behavior while he was off drugging and raping women? "Yeah, well, I mean, he had a point black men should really pull up their pants." Really?
 
The issue I have with all this MILITARIZATION nonsense is that the average cop STILL does not look like a soldier. Police STILL drive regular fucking patrol cars. Officers still ride REGULAR motorcycles. Police still carry pistols when they leave their vehicles and ONLY bring their rifles when necessary.

AGAIN, SWAT or every states version of it, are the only folks who have the MRAP/APC/ETC, and they RARELY even bring them out. Seriously, I am so sick and tired of this fear mongering. Police SHOULD have special tools needed to do the job when a situation requires it, but those situations are rare.
 
MutantScalper said:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46314065

In Milwaukee a kid was shot, presumably accidentally by a stray bullet. She had written an essay earlier about gun violence.
Click to expand...

Well lets get some more info on the story shall we.

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news...-girls-fatal-shooting-inside-home/2083010002/ (link right from in your posted article)

And both men involved has prior criminal records so how did the one who actual shot get the guns? Maybe more should be done to actually keep people on a better track when they leave prison? Too bad some bystander was not there who could have permanently ended this guy who was shooting indiscriminately at buildings. Blame the gun and not the asshole behind the trigger, I hope that he lives in a state with the death penalty for the murder of this young girl.
 
GonZo_626 said:
Too bad some bystander was not there who could have permanently ended this guy who was shooting indiscriminately at buildings
Click to expand...
I think that's a good thing, that already rare hypothetical would probably have been shot as well if not by the shooter, by the cops :V

GonZo_626 said:
Maybe more should be done to actually keep people on a better track when they leave prison?
Click to expand...
You can just do both, literally no one with a vague sense of support for GC is gonna argue with you about that one...
 
There should be a much bigger discussion on why the wrong people get so easily access to guns, legaly and illegaly. But, then you are also quit ofte welcomed with, no regulashions! Wasn't there recently a discussion about, Trump signing a bill revoking Obama-Era Gun Checks for people with mental illnesses?

Sometimes, I am really not sure what they really want. They don't want 'us' to blame guns. Fair enough. Go for the shooter. Makes sense. But then you have to actually go and implement tools to make this possible. But, they also refuse to do that. So, the cycle continues ...

If you don't want people to blame guns, then you have to come up with something that works. Even if that means, as Republicans say we don’t need new gun laws, we just need to enforce the laws already on the books. Then. Just. Do. it.

Beacause this is the feeling I have. They always complain, but they never offer real solutions, except for only a good a good guy with a gun can stop the bad guy! Well I am afraid, that alone won't fix it. It's easy to always criticse the opposition, but well, offer an alternative.
 
Crni Vuk said:
but well, offer an alternative.
Click to expand...
The thing is that "the alternative" for pretty much any right leaning affiliation is "leave it as is and it'll probably figure itself out", Crni. The status quo, it's kind of in the definition of "right wing". Cases where it's made even worse notwithstanding.

Half the time you can't blame shooters either because they were white mentally ill lone wolves barely responsible for their actions that should be answered with better mental care, with next day a roar to send essentially the same people to the death row and a deontological punishment enforced by roughing up and threatening these people, and not by shipping them to a nice one ala Green Mile precisely.
 
Crni Vuk said:
There should be a much bigger discussion on why the wrong people get so easily access to guns, legaly and illegaly. But, then you are also quit ofte welcomed with, no regulashions! Wasn't there recently a discussion about, Trump signing a bill revoking Obama-Era Gun Checks for people with mental illnesses?

Sometimes, I am really not sure what they really want. They don't want 'us' to blame guns. Fair enough. Go for the shooter. Makes sense. But then you have to actually go and implement tools to make this possible. But, they also refuse to do that. So, the cycle continues ...

If you don't want people to blame guns, then you have to come up with something that works. Even if that means, as Republicans say we don’t need new gun laws, we just need to enforce the laws already on the books. Then. Just. Do. it.

Beacause this is the feeling I have. They always complain, but they never offer real solutions, except for only a good a good guy with a gun can stop the bad guy! Well I am afraid, that alone won't fix it. It's easy to always criticse the opposition, but well, offer an alternative.
Click to expand...
Arnust said:
The thing is that "the alternative" for pretty much any right leaning affiliation is "leave it as is and it'll probably figure itself out", Crni. The status quo, it's kind of in the definition of "right wing". Cases where it's made even worse notwithstanding.

Half the time you can't blame shooters either because they were white mentally ill lone wolves barely responsible for their actions that should be answered with better mental care, with next day a roar to send essentially the same people to the death row and a deontological punishment enforced by roughing up and threatening these people, and not by shipping them to a nice one ala Green Mile precisely.
Click to expand...

Well first off, most of the solutions that are offered (I have offered many myself before) don't help in some situations like this one in the US. You will not be able to get rid of all the firearms there, and somebody already prohibited from having firearms (you know having a criminal record... it is not a free for all after all) ended up with some to do this. So tell me how you block somebody who is already banned from guns getting ahold of them in the country with the most firearms in the world? Any method would take decades now to change things in the US just due to the pure amount of firearms, and if you ban them you will just inject thousands if not millions more into the underworld.
 
This, is something I do not really believe. I know what you mean and yes the US is a different culture, society, yada yada. But they are people. And societies can change. What ever if for the better or worse remains to be seen. Maybe people will change their stance so much on the current gun culture, that they will give them up, freely without any laws. For example, if the general opinion about guns and why you should have them changes, if new politicans come in to office with a diferent attitude, even in the republican party.

It might take 100 years, who knows, but it's not impossible.
 
Crni Vuk said:
This, is something I do not really believe. I know what you mean and yes the US is a different culture, society, yada yada. But they are people. And societies can change. What ever if for the better or worse remains to be seen. Maybe people will change their stance so much on the current gun culture, that they will give them up, freely without any laws. For example, if the general opinion about guns and why you should have them changes, if new politicans come in to office with a diferent attitude, even in the republican party.

It might take 100 years, who knows, but it's not impossible.
Click to expand...

So decades like I said, it takes time for attitudes to change. Meanwhile when you try to do things to fast....

https://conservative-daily.com/2018...VO-Gn-f0qnn_aNIfq04zvfiPu7Sgm6tjdWbpmC_7PO5U0

This is what happens.
 
This obviously is a very unfortunate situation and it simply highlights how much of a political and ideological issue it is. It's a mess, no doubts about it with many ordinary people, caught in the crossfire.
 
Crni Vuk said:
This obviously is a very unfortunate situation and it simply highlights how much of a political and ideological issue it is. It's a mess, no doubts about it with many ordinary people, caught in the crossfire.
Click to expand...

Your right it is unfortunate and it is very ideological for sure. But if both sides quit fighting each other and actually engage one another and discuss these things it may get better. It would take an understanding that compromise is a 2 sided thing and not one sided. I have many on the gun control say it is compromise because you would get to keep some of your guns instead of taking them all. There is no look at base evidence and both sides just go off the emotions of " people die ban guns", and "pry from my cold dead hands". Hell I don't even know if you could actually get both sides into a room to talk anymore with the way people act.
 
Christ, that article was... something to read. I haven't read specifically conservative aimed news in a long time and I can't say I missed that. Anyway.
GonZo_626 said:
But if both sides quit fighting each other and actually engage one another and discuss these things it may get better.
Click to expand...
The problem with many, many diametrically opposite, is that there is no real middleground to reach. "Let's start genocide!" ""Let's not" "Shall we set for *some* genocide?" "No." "Goddamn you uncooperative cunts". Obvious and extreme example, but you just can't make everyone happy. Of course this angle is arguable, but in these ever increasingly bigger societies the idea is to aim for the best for the most.

And as it is, "people die ban guns" even as a straw man would be a better solution to the level of violence of a society. "Leave it as is" "Arm the teachers" "Hire security guards" "Show teens how to patch bleeding" are, ultimately, bandaids. They could maybe change the numbers a smidgeon. There could be an event and an article confirming someone's choice of support. But there is no contemporary evidence of "fight fire with fire" ever working, because the scene is way too big and has too many participants to actually sort itself out, for even either side. Gun de-regulators get screwed over by "A shooting? Well, so much for GUN CONTROL" while Pro Gun, um... right, "This happened because nobody could stop it". Nobody is proven right and everybody loses, because nothing ever fixes itself.

It's not about "civility", because that's obvious nonsense made up to devalue anyone going "too far" for what thy think is confortable, but honesty. "TAKE MAH GUNS"/"ME DEAD HANDS" seems to head the rethoric, but (I won't say one of the sides is less of a caricature because I'm being nice) "nobody" is actually upholding that, at least not in the positions that are actually able of change. And in either case, there IS a change to be had, and that's what we should be talking about.

Apathy, "well people are shit", "maybe we should just kill each other or sumthin" isn't any less technically correct, but that gets you less far than a Monopoly bill at the buffet.
 
Arnust said:
Christ, that article was... something to read. I haven't read specifically conservative aimed news in a long time and I can't say I missed that. Anyway.

The problem with many, many diametrically opposite, is that there is no real middleground to reach. "Let's start genocide!" ""Let's not" "Shall we set for *some* genocide?" "No." "Goddamn you uncooperative cunts". Obvious and extreme example, but you just can't make everyone happy. Of course this angle is arguable, but in these ever increasingly bigger societies the idea is to aim for the best for the most.

And as it is, "people die ban guns" even as a straw man would be a better solution to the level of violence of a society. "Leave it as is" "Arm the teachers" "Hire security guards" "Show teens how to patch bleeding" are, ultimately, bandaids. They could maybe change the numbers a smidgeon. There could be an event and an article confirming someone's choice of support. But there is no contemporary evidence of "fight fire with fire" ever working, because the scene is way too big and has too many participants to actually sort itself out, for even either side. Gun de-regulators get screwed over by "A shooting? Well, so much for GUN CONTROL" while Pro Gun, um... right, "This happened because nobody could stop it". Nobody is proven right and everybody loses, because nothing ever fixes itself.

It's not about "civility", because that's obvious nonsense made up to devalue anyone going "too far" for what thy think is confortable, but honesty. "TAKE MAH GUNS"/"ME DEAD HANDS" seems to head the rethoric, but (I won't say one of the sides is less of a caricature because I'm being nice) "nobody" is actually upholding that, at least not in the positions that are actually able of change. And in either case, there IS a change to be had, and that's what we should be talking about.

Apathy, "well people are shit", "maybe we should just kill each other or sumthin" isn't any less technically correct, but that gets you less far than a Monopoly bill at the buffet.
Click to expand...

"If one side automatically is rejecting the premise of your argument, maybe your argument is flawed", this is what I would say to both sides in the US right now. You have the one side wanting to ban guns, and while your take is that a full ban would be better at reducing the violence, I see it from a different angle and I alluded to that above with the thousands if not millions of newly illegal guns that would enter into the black market. This would happen because if even 5% of the existing guns in the US did not get turned in that would leave 17.5 million newly illegal guns flooding the market.

Also it obviously cant be left as is either or any other the other stupid suggestions brought forth (I know not by you). What I do think is that instead of trying to go full retard with the banning (something that has been decided in the US supreme court as not happening anyway....) that gun control should start small and in effective places. Like trying to eliminate state firearms laws and having one set across the country instead of the patchwork of laws currently existing, this includes allowing concealed carry across all states (once again covered by the supreme court), safe storage requirements and such. When the talk turns to banning you will lose almost every gun owner from even trying to see the other side. The purpose of the government in a society that truly believes in a Liberal way of thinking should not be trying to stop people from having there freedoms but from trying to allow those rights and freedoms to happen safely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top