That's the thing that baffles me. People sit and parrot that Fox News/NRA bullshit, "People are evil! Government is useless! You are helpless! You can't get rid of guns! You can't stop gun deaths!" that enables the gun manufacturers keep piling up money, but all you have to do is spend a minute or two on some research to see how full of shit that all is. If you're not a country of idiots, you can reduce firearm deaths through proactive measures. Honestly guys, when was Fox News right about anything? Why are we cosigning their garbage right now?
None of that "broken clock" bullshit either.
Why the fuck is our objective to reduce shootings? Way to set the bar.
Doesn't matter how "educated" the populace is, or how conscientious society is about gun safety and regulation. Guns were made for the sole purpose of shooting other things/people. So long as there's guns, there's shootings. But hey, I guess a reduction in 8 year old's being shot by their classmates is as good a goal as any at this point.
What a psychotic black-and-white worldview. "Either no one has guns, or everyone has guns--nothing in between!" "If guns exist, then they can only exist for murder!" If it's not one extreme, then it's the other. Where are the shades of grey here? The world is not this simplistic.
(just gonna quote like half of this, sorry to divert from the zeitgeist)
With a shrinking share of total income and wealth, the middle class and poor simply don’t have the purchasing power to get the economy back on solid footing. (The wealthy don’t spend enough of their income or assets to make up for this shortfall, and they invest their savings wherever around the world they can get the highest return.)
As a result, consumer spending — fully 70 percent of economic activity — isn’t up to the task of keeping the economy going. This puts greater pressure on government to be purchaser of last resort.
The dilemma isn’t just economic. It’s also political. As money concentrates at the top, so does power. That concentrated power generates even more entrenched wealth at the top, and less for the middle class and the poor.
A case in point is what’s now happening in Michigan. In the state where the American labor movement was born – and where, because of labor unions, the American middle class once had the bargaining power to gain a significant portion of the nation’s total income – Republicans and big money are striking back.
Legislators in the Michigan state House, followed almost immediately by Republicans who dominate the state Senate, voted Thursday afternoon to eliminate basic union organizing and workplace protections for both public and private-sector workers. Michigan Republican Governor Rick Snyder says he’ll sign the measure.
This anti-labor blitzkreig was launched and coordinated by “Americans for Prosperity” – a group developed and funded by the right-wing industrialists and billionaire campaign donors Charles and David Koch, to “pave the way for right to work in states across our nation.”
The Koch brothers are the same ones, not incidentally, who several years ago backed a group called “Citizen’s United,” on its way to the Supreme Court for an opinion by the Court’s Republican majority that opened the floodgates to big money corrupting our federal and state governments. (The brothers Koch have also entertained Justices Scalia and Thomas at strategy meetings they’ve organized of Republican donors.)
Connect the dots: As unions have withered, the middle class’s share of total income and wealth has dropped. The decline of the median wage in America over the last three decades correlates exactly with the declining percentage of American workers who are unionized.
And as the super-rich have grown even wealthier, they’ve been able to extend their power through the Supreme Court and the Republican Party – advancing a war on the middle class.
This is all a slight tangent, but it's definitely a deliberate attempt to break the backs of the Democratic fundraising machine as well. Break the unions, break their funding.
By the same token, I really think we need to question just how effective money is in political races (in an even bigger tangent). We have candidates spending millions of dollars on their campaigns and losing considerably despite their deep pockets. The effect of outside money in political races may be grossly exaggerated.
I honestly don't have an opinion on unions as a whole. It's one of the few issues that I'm undecided on. In fact, it's probably the only one.
That's looking at realistically Rev. Shades of grey, what fucking shades of grey are there with guns? If only certain people should be allowed to have guns (read, no possible chance that they would EVER use them for nefarious purposes), who, and how do you pick? Screenings? Psychological evaluations? Insert other "foolproof" method?
Name one other use for a firearm that isn't shooting someone/something. Name one. Normally, I would agree that there are always shades of grey, that things aren't always so simply black and white, but with guns, that's the reality. There is no shade of grey. There is absolutely fuck all that can be done with a gun aside from shooting something. It is the sole purpose for their existence.
Not all shootings are created equally. Self-defense isn't the same as murder, as I'm sure you'd agree. The loss of a life is tragic regardless of the reason, but some deaths are justified while others are not. A shooting in and of itself (a favorite phrase of mine today) is not inherently evil--the reasons behind it are what make that determination. If you shoot somebody who has pulled a weapon on you or a loved one, then that surely isn't the same as a man executing 20 elementary students. Guns can exist both for murder and self-defense, or even reasons beyond those such as for hunting. Hell, shooting firearms at a range just helps me relax. It's harmless fun and a good stress reliever when done in the company of responsible adults.
Furthermore, there will be no getting rid of firearms entirely, as we all seem to agree. We're talking about a technology that dates back 500 years--that genie is out of the bottle for good. So the proposition that either nobody has guns or we all have guns means that every psychopath who draws air will be entitled to have one. I don't think that many people would find that to be an ideal situation.
The only alternative is that we try to make sure that weapons are not getting into the wrong hands. Will it be perfect? No. Will these events still happen? Probably. But it goes back to getting 50% of what you want as opposed to 0%. I'd rather save some lives as opposed to giving up because it won't be perfect, even if it means that I have to be inconvenienced a little in the process.
I never proposed getting rid of guns entirely, I don't chase dragons. I merely pointed out that to be rid of shootings, the only possible solution is to be rid of guns.
Yes, I'm well aware there is a difference between the slaughter of children and self defense, but this goes right back to what I first said; guns exist for self defense because there are guns, because other people have guns. It's an unfortunate self-perpetuating cycle with no reasonable end in sight. Obviously they can be a good source of entertainment or stress relief when in like-minded company with other responsible people, again, not advocating the entire removal of firearms (As a reasonable solution to any problem). Just bear in mind there is no invisible force preventing any one of those responsible people from just deciding to go out shooting with no regard for who they're shooting at. It's not likely your buddy of 20+ years is going to just wake up one day and decide to shoot into a crowd, but it's not an impossibility. Anyone is capable at anytime of using a gun for just this type of travesty.
As far as hunting goes, being a Michigander my entire life, I'm a big fan of venison, and have no real problem with hunting (done to a reasonable degree), but at this day and age we don't need to hunt to survive, it's done for sport or for the luxury meat (aka, something you can't just buy in the store, or plain don't want to because of quality), and honestly, if you can't take down a deer with a bow, you don't really deserve to be killing it. Call it a personal preference of mine if you will, but I still believe in hunting as being something that should require skill on the part of the hunter, not something any 8 year old can do.
We can instate all the screening processes we like, and maybe we will reduce shootings like these, and in general. I just don't like the prospect of living in a society where reducing innocent deaths is the best we can do, but like I said in my initial tirade, it doesn't matter how much back and forth we do here, we're both just a couple assholes on the internet who will ultimately never change anything. It was an interesting time killer though.
Also, this shooting is just terrible. I don't pay much attention to the gun issue in America but it doesn't sound like an easy issue to tackle because whatever happens there's still a lot of guns in America. The logistics of actually cutting down on people who have guns would be pretty hard. I imagine the black market would prosper from that too with people not even getting the checks they have now before they have a gun in their hands. People compare the situation to how we dealt with guns here in the UK. I don't think we ever had the same culture or anywhere near the same amount of guns to people though.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/fuc...reports,30743/Americans reported feelings of overwhelming disgust with whatever abhorrent bastard did this and with the world at large for ever allowing it to happen, as well as with politicians, with the NRA, and above all with their own pathetic goddamn selves, sitting in front of a fucking computer instead of doing fucking anything to help anyone—Christ, as if that were even fucking possible, as if anyone could change what happened, as if the same fucking bullshit isn’t going to keep happening again and again and fucking again before people finally decide it’s time to change the way we live, so what’s the point? What the hell is the goddamned point?
This is the onion here.
Pretty much nailed it, like always.
Onion news is realest news.
I just got home, turned on MSNBC, and within five seconds noped that shit out for the rest of the week. I wish them best of luck in their business endeavors, because business is all it is. Mothafuckas have no heart.
In other breaking news there's an awesome X-men cartoon on G4
And, it turns out the shooter may have had Asperger's.
Edit - It's not even an news report. i just kind of skimmed through it without putting too much consideration towards the context of this particular thread when i posted earlier. But yeah, anybody wants to call bullshit on it, feel free to do so.
Last edited by Sir Legendhead; 12-14-2012 at 11:06 PM.
At this point, it's all just going to be a bullshit speculation and blame game show, nobody will ever know the truth about why the guy did this. He took that one with him.
Wonder if it's true though. Maybe that guy had some kind of Rain Man episode. I don't really know that much about autism. Of course in presenting the possibility I'm doing the exact thing the article says not to do, but...y'know. I question everything. We're adults here. We can handle it.
It's not necessarily a bad thing to do, I'm a fan of questioning just about everything myself. This is just one of those situations where the best we could ever do is speculate, there's just never going to be a definitive answer. Did the guy have any mental deficiencies? Hard to say when his brain's in that many pieces. I personally put my money on he was bullied as a kid in that school.
But fuck, maybe he just really believed in the apocalypse being a week away and decided he'd make the news and go out with a bang.
Probably not subtle enough on that last part but fuck it, you probably knew where I was going with it anyway. For me Presidential elections are all about who I'm voting against.
Hey, who knows, maybe South Park was right and mormonism was the right choice.