1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. We've had very few donations over the year. I'm going to be short soon as some personal things are keeping me from putting up the money. If you have something small to contribute it's greatly appreciated. Please put your screen name as well so that I can give you credit. Click here: Donations
    Dismiss Notice

Politics Gun violence in CT

Discussion in 'Tilted Philosophy, Politics, and Economics' started by Joniemack, Dec 14, 2012.

  1. redux

    redux Very Tilted

    Location:
    Foggy Bottom
    • Like Like x 2
  2. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    Location:
    Toronto
    ^That last clip is the best.
     
  3. redux

    redux Very Tilted

    Location:
    Foggy Bottom
    I like this:

    [​IMG]

    In a 1994 letter to Congress, co-signed by Reagan, Ford and Carter

    To Members of the U.S. House of Representatives:
    We are writing to urge your support for a ban on the domestic manufacture of military-style assault weapons. This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety. Although assualt weapons account for less than 1% of the guns in circulation, they account for nearly 10% of the guns traced to crime.​

    Every major law enforcement organization in America and dozens of leading labor, medical, religious, civil rights and civic groups support such a ban. Most importantly, poll after poll shows that the American public overwhelmingly support a ban on assault weapons. A 1993 CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll found that 77% of Americans support a ban on the manufacture, sale, and possession of semi-automatic assault guns, such as the AK-47.​

    The 1989 import ban resulted in an impressive 40% drop in imported assault weapons traced to crime between 1989 and 1991, but the killing continues. Last year, a killer armed with two TEC9s killed eight people at a San Francisco law firm and wounded several others. During the past five years, more than 40 law enforcement officers have been killed or wounded in the line of duty by an assault weapon.​

    While we recognize that assault weapon legislation will not stop all assault weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals. We urge you to listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of these weapons.​

    Sincerely,​
    Gerald R. Ford​
    Jimmy Carter​
    Ronald Reagan​

    The NRA response? That was the "old" (early Alzheimers) Reagan so it doesnt count.
     
  4. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    Location:
    Toronto
    American conservatives, like they do with the Constitution, prefer to pick and choose their preferred aspects of Reagan and ignore the stuff they don't like as though it's irrelevant, doesn't exist, or should be changed.
     
  5. redux

    redux Very Tilted

    Location:
    Foggy Bottom
    I guess this can happen when you are waving the flag with one hand and the Constitution with the other.

    --- merged: Jan 19, 2013 at 6:27 PM ---
    Two similar incidents occurred at entirely separate gun shows in the Midwest, one in the Cleveland suburb of Medina, Ohio and the other at the state fairgrounds in Indianapolis, Indiana. In Ohio, the local ABC affiliate reports that one individual was brought to a hospital by EMS, and in Indiana Channel 8 WISH says that an individual shot himself in the hand while trying to reload his gun in the show parking lot. That brings the tally to 4 victims of gun violence so far at three different gun shows during the country’s first Gun Appreciation Day.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 26, 2013
  6. Quoted from above (since my phone doesn't cut-and-paste well):

    "That brings the total to four victims of gun violence..."

    Question:

    Are culturally-genocidal left-statists;

    1: Incapable of telling the difference between "violence" and "a rare, idiotic accident," or

    2: Dishonestly conflating the two?

    Hmm...I wonder- might this be the same reason, and method by which, they conflate suicides, accidents, self-defense, and murder to arrive at their inflated, contrived "gun violence" numbers? Sort of like counting 19-year-old gangbangers who get shot by their intended victims as "child victims of gun violence?"

    Hmm...I wonder...
     
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2013
  7. samcol

    samcol Getting Tilted

    Location:
    indiana
    i must admit that's pretty funny. you couldn't pay me enough to check guns at a gun show.

    if i was bringing a gun in i'd probably be obsessive compulsive and check the chamber a few dozen times. can't imagine bringing one with a round chambered, and apparently safety off, finger on trigger, and the barrel pointed at someone.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 26, 2013
  8. redux

    redux Very Tilted

    Location:
    Foggy Bottom
    I think the whole Gun Appreciation Day in response to the fear mongering characterization of Obama's plan as unconstitutional and a slippery slope to confiscating your firearms is pretty funny.

    But I dont think 15,000+ gun related accidents a year is all that funny.
     
  9. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    Location:
    Toronto
    First, what's a left-statist? (It may help to identify what right-statists are as well.) It sounds one of those terms that's more nebulous than people realize. Are you simply referring to liberals? Are you referring to non-anarchists on the left?

    Second, what cultural genocide do you refer to?

    Third, while "violence" is normally defined as an action that has the intention to injure or kill, I imagine it's the case that unintentional injury and death is included in statistics for the purpose of comparison. Otherwise, you'd ignore a rather large swath of numbers where gun injury and death is concerned. If you think unintentional injury and death be removed from the statistical analysis of gun death and injury, please state the case for doing so.

    Fourth, the data isn't conflated, and people aren't dumb and know the difference between murder and a gun accidentally going off.

    Fifth, suicide, self-defence, and murder are all violent actions. The exception would be self-defence in which the defender purposefully avoids inflicting pain and injury.
     
  10. 1: A left-statist is a statist who operates from a leftist paradigm. I would have thought that was obvious. And yes, there are right-statists as well: commonly known in the US as republicans. A catch-all term covering both might be "authoritarian collectivist."

    2: The cultural genocide to which I refer is the ongoing atempt by statists on the left (and a few on the right as wel) to eradicate the Gun Culture of the US and, to a lesser degree, those of Canada, Switzerland, and the Czech Republic (to name the most active fronts).

    3 & 4: Confusing, conflating, or adding "accidental" injury and death, which lack intent to harm, with "violence," which is -defined- by such intent, is intentional, widespread, and dishonest. If intentional, it is done by the dishonest and culturally imperialist solely for the purpose of creating a larger number of "gun violence" incidents with which to frighten the gullible, cowardly, and stupid, or to create a larger "stick" with which to beat those having the temerity to defend their culture and rights. Contrariwise, it may be an inadvertent act by those lacking the intellectual horsepower to tell the difference between an accidental action and an intentional one. The quote above deliberately refers to stupid accidents as "violence," either through innocent ignorance or deliberate dishonesty.

    5: Yes- suicide, murder, and self-defense are all inherently violent. However, self-defense is morally right- it is violence undertaken for a morally positive reason: to preserve life, liberty, and property against the unlawful taking of such through aggressive (read; initiated) force. Not all violence is bad, believe it or not. If an initiator of force is dissuaded or halted, or better yet removed from the gene-pool entirely, the violence was proper, right, and beneficial to the species. This is why nobody mucb objects to that little spat known as the Second World War, to which Canada made such a profound contribution.
     
  11. redux

    redux Very Tilted

    Location:
    Foggy Bottom
    Are Reagan (supported '94 "assault" weapon ban) and Scalia (ruled that there are limitations on Second Amendment rights) left-statists or right-statists?

    The CDC data on firearms deaths and accidents are there for all to see.

    Anytime a projectile pierces the skin at a high velocity, I would suggest it is violent.
    --- merged: Jan 19, 2013 at 8:43 PM ---
    You dont find it humorous that Gun Appreciation Day encouraged carrying the flag and the Constitution to gun stores, ranges and gun shows as if that makes one more of a patriot?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 26, 2013
  12. Alistair Eurotrash

    Location:
    Reading, UK
    I would agree that there is a distinction between the different types of gun death and that words need to be used carefully and properly. "Gun violence" is a broader term and much looser (and less helpful). It isn't clear the extent to which people are talking about wounding, for example, in addition to deaths.

    There's a lot of loose talk on all sides of the argument, some deliberate and some less so. It isn't helpful, I agree.

    I am not going to agree that protection of property constitutes self-defence, though. That, for me, is a step too far.
     
  13. Reagan and Scalia are/were right-statists. Contrary to Republicrat myth, Reagan was no friend to the Gun Culture- he not only supported the 1994 Ugly Gun Ban but began the modern Victim Disarmament movement in 1968, thanks to the fear of armed black political activists (which group did contain a smattering of legitimate criminals and terrorists) which he and his right-statist constituency shared.

    And again, violence must be defined by intent (the conscious intent to do harm). Otherwise the definition of violence, and the crimes of the truly violent, become diluted and eventually meaningless. I would take it further and suggest that only immoral violence- ie the initiation of non-defensive force- should be considered for the purposes of such discussions of this nature.

    To Alistair: A person's property is gained through their labour, whether directly or by using money gained through said labour. When someone steals another person's property, they are in effect stealng the labour used to gain said property. The correct word for "stealing a person's labour" is "slavery."

    And to my mind, defending onesself against enslavement is entirely moral. A person who attempts to rob me, especially if by force, takes their life in their hands. And that, in my opinion, is as it should be.
     
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2013
  14. redux

    redux Very Tilted

    Location:
    Foggy Bottom
  15. Nope. They lack the intent to injure which, in my opinion, defines 'violence'. This is why involuntary manslaughter and negligent homicide are not considered equal to voluntary manslaughter or murder: the former offenses lack intent to injure or kill, the latter offenses do not- they are crimes of intentional initiation of force, as opposed to negligence or idiocy, and are punished more severely as a result.
     
  16. Alistair Eurotrash

    Location:
    Reading, UK
    I have to admit that most of the reporting that I have seen have talked about gun deaths (total) or gun-related homicide (excludes accidents and suicides).

    According to that site, there were around 60,000 incidents of violent, non-fatal injuries and around 30,000 violent, gun-related deaths. The legal intervention total within that number of deaths is around 350 (and 440 for the non-lethal count).

    Of course, we can discuss the CDC definitions. Either way, it's a big number.
     
  17. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    Location:
    Toronto
    I'm not getting caught up on left vs. right; I'm getting caught up on "statist." The only categories of people I know who aren't statists are extremists such as anarchists and libertarians (whether in the form of libertarian socialists or anarcho-capitalists). So when you say "left-statist," shall I assume you are making statements from an anarchist perspective? It's kind of important, as it will help me frame my responses to you in terms you may better understand.

    Wow, what a gross misuse of the term. I think in most contexts, people assume this term is used for something a bit heavier. When I think of cultural genocide, I think of such situations as what the Chinese have been doing in Tibet for decades.

    Please, please tell me you aren't equating changing a few regulations to how guns are purchased and used in America to what China has been doing in Tibet. One is an amorphous group of gun advocates who engage in gun politics and active usage, the other is a distinct ethnic group that has endured decades of neocolonial hardship to the extent that their culture is quite significantly (and intentionally) being eroded.

    You'll have to determine who you're talking about. Is this all about what redux said? Or do you have other specifics?

    Either way, the numbers are large no matter how you parse them. What do you propose to do with data on accidental deaths involving guns?

    There are problems with this. First, you seem to suggest shooting people as the means to protect things, whether life, liberty, or property. Shooting people isn't the only means. Second, you imply that the perpetration of violence is genetic (which unfortunately reminds me of the swell theories of social Darwinism). Third, you're seriously using the Second World War to justify shooting people who take others' shit?

    This, in addition to other things you've said above, has lead me to ask you this: Where do/did you get your propaganda education/training?
     
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2013
  18. 1: Some days, I am an anarchist. Other days, I am a minarchist. I suppose which day is which depends upon how irascible I am, how many idiots (and how much governmental idiocy) I've been exposed to, and who's trying to trample on my rights that day.

    2: Frankly, I really don't care what you think of the term. And no, I'm not describing -only- the changing of laws in such terms. I refer to the campaign of legislation, demonisation, isolation, ostracisation, incitement and invitation to violence against, and attempts to eradicate by force the specific hoploculture (if the term suits, which I think it does) of the nations I mentioned above. I maintain, furthermore, that the hoploculture -is- a distinct cultural entity, and it -is- under co-ordinated attack from various sectors. Please note that throughout history one of the first steps in eradicating a unique culture is to deny its' existence, or at least its' uniqueness.

    3: You are correct- violence is not the -only- means by which life, liberty, and property are protected. It is, however, the -ultimate- such means. In my culture, it is said that "life and liberty are supported by four boxes: the ballot box, the soap box, the jury box, and finally the cartridge box." Meaning the right to vote, the right to free speech, the right to an impartial trial by jury, and the right to resist by force when those other means fail.

    3b: Whether the tendancy towards violent aggression and the violation of the rights of others is transmitted by genes (which I do not believe- I was employing a figure of speech) or by family and other human influences, removing a violent aggressor permanently prevents, permanently, that person doing further harm themselves -or- encouraging/teaching others to do so. I call that a win for the species and for peaceful, rights-respecting people everywhere.

    3c: I make an argument of kind, not an argument of scale. Was the Second World War a larger, more monstrous, more costly conflict than that between me and an armed robber? Certainly. But both are motivated and set in motion by the same basic notion: that a person or group of people (the mugger or Nazi Germany) have the right to take what they desire (my money or Lebensraum in Ost) by force. One is the more hideous crime, of course, but the genesis of both is in the same evil.

    4: I have no formal education in propaganda, rhetoric, or any other science of persuasion. Since I am a product of the abyssmal statist propaganda farm known as the American public-educational system, I am entirely self-taught. My inspirations are, among others: Robert Heinlein, L. Neil Smith, Claire Wolfe, Vin Suprynowicz, Lysander Spooner, Jaroslav Haysek, Thomas Jefferson, Vaclav Havel, and a passing familiarity with Thomas Paine, Frederic Bastiat, a smattering of Rand (though I find her personally distasteful and far too statist for my liking), and the occaisional dollop of Kropotkin and Tolstoy for flavour, though I've not exposed myself to -nearly- as much of those two as I should.
     
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2013
  19. Joniemack

    Joniemack Beta brainwaves in session

    Location:
    Reading, UK
    You are the one doing the conflating. A call for responsible control on guns and gun ownership in order to provide for the greater safety of "all" American citizens (not just gun owners) is not equivalent to eradication. No sane or reasonable person is suggesting or promoting such a thing. I tend to regard those who regard it as such, as conspiracy nuts.

    A pissy and insignificant point which does nothing to change the fact that violent acts by guns (excluding any accidental acts) is still significant and still of concern. I could give a good shit about your gun culture and your gun rights. I'm far more concerned about my own rights. Those being the basic rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Your "culture" threatens my basic rights, my friend. I'm not asking you give up your precious culture. I'm asking you reign in the consequences of it. If you can't, then it shall be reigned in for you. No one needs to conflate a damn thing to frighten the masses. The reality does a great job all by itself.

    Ok, you're frightening me, now. How armed to the teeth, are you? :confused:
    --- merged: Jan 20, 2013 3:11 AM ---
    Are you not a violent aggressor? Or is that term reserved for the point at which someone with violent tendencies acts upon them in a way that upsets you? If you would kill to protect your property, I would suggest you have such violent tendencies.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 27, 2013
  20. Alistair Eurotrash

    Location:
    Reading, UK
    Goodness me. To me, a human life is more valuable than a TV set. Perhaps musicians should push for the death penalty for kids who download their songs without paying?

    It's way too extreme for me (and a bit scary when I link it with gun ownership).