That last part of my post, it's not meant to be a "oh woe is me" or prompt people to say "no keep posting!!l - I genuinely mean it.
The last gun conversation we had where you explained how the loopholes really hurt us went pretty well I thought because before that I didn't participate in them either.
Post by cattledogkisses on Sept 17, 2013 8:35:07 GMT -5
The reason I get irked (and this isn't an attack on you ttt, I promise. I know this is coming from a feeling of deep frustration and helpless for you, and I get that) is because if we are ever going to have a hope of changing the status quo, the opposing viewpoints need to be able to have a productive discussion, and hyberbolic and inflammatory statements from BOTH sides directly impede that. Statements that further polarize the discussion, even when born out of understandable frustration, are self-defeating for the pro-gun control side, IMO.
And I know I should probably just give up and stop posting since it seems to serve only to annoy people on here.
That is not the point, so please don't take it as a "take your ball and go home" type of commentary. It is the snark and cynicism that don't allow for real debate. It just puts people on defense (or offense, depending on one's POV). Posting the articles is fine, but the insert of the normal "move along, nothing to see here, just another day.....", well, that is the point. One that has been made many times. I don't think anyone is trying to beat you over the head with it, but I am not sure why anyone is surprised when a push back is made.
Anyway, the fact that he was a former military, and a buddhist (odd point today, but it struck me) just means more and more is coming out so let's wait a few hours before we hop all over the normal 'things need to change and F the NRA.' I am all over the anger and hatred of that organization, as well as the need to change.
The reason I get irked (and this isn't an attack on you ttt, I promise. I know this is coming from a feeling of deep frustration and helpless for you, and I get that) is because if we are ever going to have a hope of changing the status quo, the opposing viewpoints need to be able to have a productive discussion, and hyberbolic and inflammatory statements from BOTH sides directly impede that. Statements that further polarize the discussion, even when born out of understandable frustration, are self-defeating for the pro-gun control side, IMO.
I didn't think there was anything inflammatory or hyperbolic in the last gun control bill, yet it got shot down and the public hasn't said boo since. I feel like the power and control over the entire conversation is clearly controlled by one side.
The reason I get irked (and this isn't an attack on you ttt, I promise. I know this is coming from a feeling of deep frustration and helpless for you, and I get that) is because if we are ever going to have a hope of changing the status quo, the opposing viewpoints need to be able to have a productive discussion, and hyberbolic and inflammatory statements from BOTH sides directly impede that. Statements that further polarize the discussion, even when born out of understandable frustration, are self-defeating for the pro-gun control side, IMO.
I didn't think there was anything inflammatory or hyperbolic in the last gun control bill, yet it got shot down and the public hasn't said boo since. I feel like the power and control over the entire conversation is clearly controlled by one side.
It is definitely lopsided, but the President brought out children, brings up these children when discussion comes up/executive orders are signed. I don't think it is wrong, but it can, often, border on "why do you not care about dead children?" Much like how not all republicans are money grubbers or hate the poor.
I didn't think there was anything inflammatory or hyperbolic in the last gun control bill, yet it got shot down and the public hasn't said boo since. I feel like the power and control over the entire conversation is clearly controlled by one side.
It is definitely lopsided, but the President brought out children, brings up these children when discussion comes up/executive orders are signed. I don't think it is wrong, but it can, often, border on "why do you not care about dead children?" Much like how not all republicans are money grubbers or hate the poor.
So we think if he hadn't let the parents speak, it would have gone differently?
It is definitely lopsided, but the President brought out children, brings up these children when discussion comes up/executive orders are signed. I don't think it is wrong, but it can, often, border on "why do you not care about dead children?" Much like how not all republicans are money grubbers or hate the poor.
So we think if he hadn't let the parents speak, it would have gone differently?
Who is we? No, I don't think it would have gone differently, but that wasn't your question/point that I responded to above. It was the inflammatory aspect.
Treated for serious mental issues; hearing voices WASHINGTON (AP) -- U.S. law enforcement officials are telling The Associated Press that the Navy contractor identified as the gunman in the mass shootings at the Washington Navy Yard had been suffering a host of serious mental issues, including paranoia and a sleep disorder. He also had been hearing voices in his head, the officials said.
Aaron Alexis, 34, had been treated since August by the Veterans Administration for his mental problems, the officials said. They spoke on condition of anonymity because the criminal investigation in the case was continuing. The Navy had not declared him mentally unfit, which would have rescinded a security clearance that Alexis had from his earlier time in the Navy Reserves.
Family members told investigators that Alexis was being treated for his mental issues. ap.com
I am more than motivated to discuss mental health and the role it plays in gun violence. My brother just went through about a year of going off meds, getting arrested, getting jailed without treatment, then getting treatment but only because he had my mom calling his lawyer and mobilized a ton of us to write letters asking for him to get moved to a facility instead of the jail. And you know most people don't have that kind of team working for them to get them medical attention for their mental illness. Treatment for the mentally ill is a total joke in this country, especially for those who are incarcerated for crimes stemming from it.
Post by iammalcolmx on Sept 17, 2013 8:57:27 GMT -5
WTF is wrong with the Navy then?? I think if you are shooting at tires because you experience a rage induced blackout well again to quote Charles Ramsey " You got problems".
Regarding the inflammatory aspect, the truth is that if it werent for the emotional impact of 20 dead mostly white, middle class children, that bill never even would have seen the light of day.
Most of the victims of gun violence are poor, black. They're people who "deserved" it because of where they live or what they were involved in. They aren't "like us" so we don't really need to worry about it. And mass random shootings are (relatively) rare so the chances of an average white middle class person being a victim are fairly small. That's why it's so easy to ignore this issue, that's why most people honestly just don't care that much. That's why so many Americans think the right to own a gun outweighs the chance of violence. Because they *are* unlikely to be a victim. And therefore they don't really *need* to care.
I know I've said this before but I really believe there are two separate issues here - the random mass shootings an the everyday violence. Different causes, different solutions. The solution to one won't necessarily help the other, even Wrt gun control. Conflating the two is a mistake, IMO.
I am more than motivated to discuss mental health and the role it plays in gun violence. My brother just went through about a year of going off meds, getting arrested, getting jailed without treatment, then getting treatment but only because he had my mom calling his lawyer and mobilized a ton of us to write letters asking for him to get moved to a facility instead of the jail. And you know most people don't have that kind of team working for them to get them medical attention for their mental illness. Treatment for the mentally ill is a total joke in this country, especially for those who are incarcerated for crimes stemming from it.
I don't think this is necessarily a huge factor in gun violence but I do think this is a major issue in this country that needs to e addressed. However, very few people seen willing to fund mental health services, not least because of the stigma associated with it.
The real problem, though, is that public opinion simply doesn't support doing anything about guns. People just don't care that much. That's the bottom line. Poll after poll shows this. If the massacre of 20 six year olds didn't get people furious and prompt Congress to take action because they knew that they'd lose reelection if they didn't do *something*, then nothing will. That's just all there is to it.
What else could possibly change people's opinions? That's not a snarky question - I mean it. What could happen that would actually shock people into action, into demanding from their Congresspeople that *something* be done about guns, even if it doesn't solve the problem completely? Another first grade slaughter but this time with fifty children dead? A hundred? A nursery school with infants killed? Seriously, what would it take? I can't imagine anything that would truly shock people into action beyond what happened at Sandy Hook, short of every single family in America personally losing a child to gun violence.
So yes I am cynical. Because while money and the NRA do make a difference, the bottom line is that the American people's apathy is really to blame. And I don't know if anything can be done about that.
And I know I should probably just give up and stop posting since it seems to serve only to annoy people on here.
You and I agree eye to eye on gun control. But I so fundamentally disagree with you on who we need to mainly blame.
Despite your poll data above, the CA legislature just passed a series of tough gun laws in direct response to Sandy Hook, perhaps the strongest response in the nation, even though we already have tough in laws. Why? Because the NRA doesn't own this legislature the way it owns others. Like the way it owns Colorado. Even just the whisper of gun control had the NRA spearheading a recall of two CO legislators.
Do the people play a role? Yes. Some. But the minutia involved with getting pieces of legislation out of state houses across the country is largely held by special interests, with the NRA being one of the biggest special interests on the block.
But does anyone here really push for their given right to own a gun? I am more for external lobbying than preaching to the choir.
I also am very involved in the day -to-day violence brought on by drug war and poverty. I have lost students to gangs and to gun violence (one was shot while walking home, not 50 feet from her front door...white, female, 15 years old). I also know about the racial profiling done by the police in the name of "keeping us safe" and now will be sure that my son knows what can happen, how to act, and all when dealing with said police.
I think some areas of the country don't worry about this type of violence because they are protected in their bubbles of privilege and/or socio-economic status and they are the ones that need to be convinced. I also believe that with this case, a discharged military person, whose benefits were likely lessened under sequestration to make it hurt, was seriously disturbed. But, ease of access, possibly due in part to being former military, is a concern. Just as it is for a former law enforcement person to have access to arms with more ease than other everyday citizens ( I am just making a guess, based on reports and other news stories I have read here and elsewhere). I feel like stages are what is required.
The real problem, though, is that public opinion simply doesn't support doing anything about guns. People just don't care that much. That's the bottom line. Poll after poll shows this. If the massacre of 20 six year olds didn't get people furious and prompt Congress to take action because they knew that they'd lose reelection if they didn't do *something*, then nothing will. That's just all there is to it.
What else could possibly change people's opinions? That's not a snarky question - I mean it. What could happen that would actually shock people into action, into demanding from their Congresspeople that *something* be done about guns, even if it doesn't solve the problem completely? Another first grade slaughter but this time with fifty children dead? A hundred? A nursery school with infants killed? Seriously, what would it take? I can't imagine anything that would truly shock people into action beyond what happened at Sandy Hook, short of every single family in America personally losing a child to gun violence.
So yes I am cynical. Because while money and the NRA do make a difference, the bottom line is that the American people's apathy is really to blame. And I don't know if anything can be done about that.
And I know I should probably just give up and stop posting since it seems to serve only to annoy people on here.
You and I agree eye to eye on gun control. But I so fundamentally disagree with you on who we need to mainly blame.
Despite your poll data above, the CA legislature just passed a series of tough gun laws in direct response to Sandy Hook, perhaps the strongest response in the nation, even though we already have tough in laws. Why? Because the NRA doesn't own this legislature the way it owns others. Like the way it owns Colorado. Even just the whisper of gun control had the NRA spearheading a recall of two CO legislators.
Do the people play a role? Yes. Some. But the minutia involved with getting pieces of legislation out of state houses across the country is largely held by special interests, with the NRA being one of the biggest special interests on the block.
Yes. The majority of Americans supported the background check legislation, but the NRA has such a chokehold on Congress that our legislators caved and chose not to represent the interests of their constituents. If we could somehow reign in the NRA I think it would go a long way towards promoting the meaningful discussion that we need to have to get things accomplished.
Post by secretlyevil on Sept 17, 2013 9:29:21 GMT -5
I just can't with people this morning. This shit came up on my FB feed. Thankfully, it was someone with a "WTF? Are you teaching your kids this?" People are just fucking assholes.
The FB page is "Breaking Obama"
"Here is the Murderer in the DC Navy Shooting his name is Aaron Alexis. Where is @thereval & @revjjackson with their outrage now? If you had a son barackobama would he look like him too?"
I just can't with people this morning. This shit came up on my FB feed. Thankfully, it was someone with a "WTF? Are you teaching your kids this?" People are just fucking assholes.
The FB page is "Breaking Obama"
"Here is the Murderer in the DC Navy Shooting his name is Aaron Alexis. Where is @thereval & @revjjackson with their outrage now? If you had a son barackobama would he look like him too?"
The "if Obama had a son, he would look like Alexis" has been trending today. I was going to post an article but figured it would be inflammatory. It's such an ignorant thing to say.
Yeah, wasn't he just Secret cleared? From my understanding, that process is loose compared to, say, a TS/SCI Poly Top Secret one (well, except for that pesky Snowden).
Regarding the inflammatory aspect, the truth is that if it werent for the emotional impact of 20 dead mostly white, middle class children, that bill never even would have seen the light of day.
Most of the victims of gun violence are poor, black. They're people who "deserved" it because of where they live or what they were involved in. They aren't "like us" so we don't really need to worry about it. And mass random shootings are (relatively) rare so the chances of an average white middle class person being a victim are fairly small. That's why it's so easy to ignore this issue, that's why most people honestly just don't care that much. That's why so many Americans think the right to own a gun outweighs the chance of violence. Because they *are* unlikely to be a victim. And therefore they don't really *need* to care.
From an outsiders perspective, mass random shootings in the US are not rare. They happen almost monthly. That is NOT rare.
Regarding the inflammatory aspect, the truth is that if it werent for the emotional impact of 20 dead mostly white, middle class children, that bill never even would have seen the light of day.
Most of the victims of gun violence are poor, black. They're people who "deserved" it because of where they live or what they were involved in. They aren't "like us" so we don't really need to worry about it. And mass random shootings are (relatively) rare so the chances of an average white middle class person being a victim are fairly small. That's why it's so easy to ignore this issue, that's why most people honestly just don't care that much. That's why so many Americans think the right to own a gun outweighs the chance of violence. Because they *are* unlikely to be a victim. And therefore they don't really *need* to care.
From an outsiders perspective, mass random shootings in the US are not rare. They happen almost monthly. That is NOT rare.
Well you know I agree with you on this. But out of the ~15,000 people murdered by guns in this nation (homicides only, not counting accident or suicides), "only" about 150 of those are deaths from random mass shootings.
The real problem, though, is that public opinion simply doesn't support doing anything about guns. People just don't care that much. That's the bottom line. Poll after poll shows this. If the massacre of 20 six year olds didn't get people furious and prompt Congress to take action because they knew that they'd lose reelection if they didn't do *something*, then nothing will. That's just all there is to it.
What else could possibly change people's opinions? That's not a snarky question - I mean it. What could happen that would actually shock people into action, into demanding from their Congresspeople that *something* be done about guns, even if it doesn't solve the problem completely? Another first grade slaughter but this time with fifty children dead? A hundred? A nursery school with infants killed? Seriously, what would it take? I can't imagine anything that would truly shock people into action beyond what happened at Sandy Hook, short of every single family in America personally losing a child to gun violence.
So yes I am cynical. Because while money and the NRA do make a difference, the bottom line is that the American people's apathy is really to blame. And I don't know if anything can be done about that.
And I know I should probably just give up and stop posting since it seems to serve only to annoy people on here.
TTT, first, don't stop posting this stuff.
But I disagree with the sentiment that most people just don't care. That the only explanation to opposing the bill in question is apathy about dead six your olds.
To be sure, I support much tighter gun control. But I don't believe that the opposition doesn't care. I think that their idea of a solution to violence is different than yours. I know the idea of "good guys with guns" is endlessly mocked, but that's who these people think they are.
We drove to KC for a couples baby shower/BBQ over the weekend, and DH ended up talking with guys he just met most of the night. Suffice to say, he didn't fit in. They talked all night about football, competitive BBQing (??), hunting and guns. Every single one of them except DH own an AR 15 rifle.
They are just regular guys, with white-collar jobs and families. And I don't believe they don't care about gun violence. They just believe the answer is more "good guys" with guns, since you can't get them out of criminals' hands.
I disagree with them about a lot of things, but dismissing them as uncaring makes it harder to effectively engage and change minds.
For my part, I had to put up with their wives and try not to make a scene at a baby shower when opposition to gay marriage was evident. I calmly made my views known, then changed the subject.
And I know I should probably just give up and stop posting since it seems to serve only to annoy people on here.
That is not the point, so please don't take it as a "take your ball and go home" type of commentary. It is the snark and cynicism that don't allow for real debate.
This will surprise no one, but I find it hard to judge snark and cynicism when it comes from anger. And gun violence gives us plenty to be angry about.
Also, I'm not sure that I agree it gets in the way of debate.
The real problem, though, is that public opinion simply doesn't support doing anything about guns. People just don't care that much. That's the bottom line. Poll after poll shows this. If the massacre of 20 six year olds didn't get people furious and prompt Congress to take action because they knew that they'd lose reelection if they didn't do *something*, then nothing will. That's just all there is to it.
What else could possibly change people's opinions? That's not a snarky question - I mean it. What could happen that would actually shock people into action, into demanding from their Congresspeople that *something* be done about guns, even if it doesn't solve the problem completely? Another first grade slaughter but this time with fifty children dead? A hundred? A nursery school with infants killed? Seriously, what would it take? I can't imagine anything that would truly shock people into action beyond what happened at Sandy Hook, short of every single family in America personally losing a child to gun violence.
So yes I am cynical. Because while money and the NRA do make a difference, the bottom line is that the American people's apathy is really to blame. And I don't know if anything can be done about that.
And I know I should probably just give up and stop posting since it seems to serve only to annoy people on here.
TTT, first, don't stop posting this stuff.
But I disagree with the sentiment that most people just don't care. That the only explanation to opposing the bill in question is apathy about dead six your olds.
To be sure, I support much tighter gun control. But I don't believe that the opposition doesn't care. I think that their idea of a solution to violence is different than yours. I know the idea of "good guys with guns" is endlessly mocked, but that's who these people think they are.
We drove to KC for a couples baby shower/BBQ over the weekend, and DH ended up talking with guys he just met most of the night. Suffice to say, he didn't fit in. They talked all night about football, competitive BBQing (??), hunting and guns. Every single one of them except DH own an AR 15 rifle.
They are just regular guys, with white-collar jobs and families. And I don't believe they don't care about gun violence. They just believe the answer is more "good guys" with guns, since you can't get them out of criminals' hands.
I disagree with them about a lot of things, but dismissing them as uncaring makes it harder to effectively engage and change minds.
For my part, I had to put up with their wives and try not to make a scene at a baby shower when opposition to gay marriage was evident. I calmly made my views known, then changed the subject.
But that's the thing, the proposed legislation didn't take away peoples' rights to their guns but people have the perception that "gun control" means taking all guns from everyone. And I think heyjude was right that a lot of that rhetoric comes from the NRA. And then gun control folks are told they are being inflammatory and hyperbolic when they often didn't advocate what the NRA said they did. That part of the conversation is extremely frustrating.
That last part of my post, it's not meant to be a "oh woe is me" or prompt people to say "no keep posting!!l - I genuinely mean it.
Personally, I find your posts on the subject fascinating and informative. As superficial as that may sound, I am quite serious.
I don't often participate because I rarely have anything to add, but that doesn't mean I don't appreciate them.
Ditto. I hope you will keep posting them ttt. I don't usually respond, but I do read them, and 95% of them I wouldn't have heard about if not for you posting.
But I disagree with the sentiment that most people just don't care. That the only explanation to opposing the bill in question is apathy about dead six your olds.
To be sure, I support much tighter gun control. But I don't believe that the opposition doesn't care. I think that their idea of a solution to violence is different than yours. I know the idea of "good guys with guns" is endlessly mocked, but that's who these people think they are.
We drove to KC for a couples baby shower/BBQ over the weekend, and DH ended up talking with guys he just met most of the night. Suffice to say, he didn't fit in. They talked all night about football, competitive BBQing (??), hunting and guns. Every single one of them except DH own an AR 15 rifle.
They are just regular guys, with white-collar jobs and families. And I don't believe they don't care about gun violence. They just believe the answer is more "good guys" with guns, since you can't get them out of criminals' hands.
I disagree with them about a lot of things, but dismissing them as uncaring makes it harder to effectively engage and change minds.
For my part, I had to put up with their wives and try not to make a scene at a baby shower when opposition to gay marriage was evident. I calmly made my views known, then changed the subject.
But that's the thing, the proposed legislation didn't take away peoples' rights to their guns but people have the perception that "gun control" means taking all guns from everyone. And I think heyjude was right that a lot of that rhetoric comes from the NRA. And then gun control folks are told they are being inflammatory and hyperbolic when they often didn't advocate what the NRA said they did. That part of the conversation is extremely frustrating.
I agree with you. Ugh, the straw man argument bit in particular.
Yes, I do think that many are afraid to give an inch on gun laws, for fear it'll lead to more restrictions down the road.
The real problem, though, is that public opinion simply doesn't support doing anything about guns. People just don't care that much. That's the bottom line. Poll after poll shows this. If the massacre of 20 six year olds didn't get people furious and prompt Congress to take action because they knew that they'd lose reelection if they didn't do *something*, then nothing will. That's just all there is to it.
What else could possibly change people's opinions? That's not a snarky question - I mean it. What could happen that would actually shock people into action, into demanding from their Congresspeople that *something* be done about guns, even if it doesn't solve the problem completely? Another first grade slaughter but this time with fifty children dead? A hundred? A nursery school with infants killed? Seriously, what would it take? I can't imagine anything that would truly shock people into action beyond what happened at Sandy Hook, short of every single family in America personally losing a child to gun violence.
So yes I am cynical. Because while money and the NRA do make a difference, the bottom line is that the American people's apathy is really to blame. And I don't know if anything can be done about that.
And I know I should probably just give up and stop posting since it seems to serve only to annoy people on here.
TTT, first, don't stop posting this stuff.
But I disagree with the sentiment that most people just don't care. That the only explanation to opposing the bill in question is apathy about dead six your olds.
To be sure, I support much tighter gun control. But I don't believe that the opposition doesn't care. I think that their idea of a solution to violence is different than yours. I know the idea of "good guys with guns" is endlessly mocked, but that's who these people think they are.
We drove to KC for a couples baby shower/BBQ over the weekend, and DH ended up talking with guys he just met most of the night. Suffice to say, he didn't fit in. They talked all night about football, competitive BBQing (??), hunting and guns. Every single one of them except DH own an AR 15 rifle.
They are just regular guys, with white-collar jobs and families. And I don't believe they don't care about gun violence. They just believe the answer is more "good guys" with guns, since you can't get them out of criminals' hands.
I disagree with them about a lot of things, but dismissing them as uncaring makes it harder to effectively engage and change minds.
For my part, I had to put up with their wives and try not to make a scene at a baby shower when opposition to gay marriage was evident. I calmly made my views known, then changed the subject.
It's really hard for me to take these guys in your story seriously when I read stories like this: