Okay. That last post about guns was supposed to be the final one in my gun control series, but I can’t control the actions of mass murderers. They occur so often now. And I can’t control the gun lovers declaring that guns never kill people. I could control my bothering to even comment on their posts. But why should I?
Before we get started, I want to make one thing perfectly clear: A gun is not a fucking "tool." It is a fucking weapon. Specifically fucking designed to fucking kill.
Peter via Perry
The lesson is clear: good guys with guns save lives. And while bad guys may be evil, they are not stupid. They don’t typically target gun stores or police stations to perpetrate their crimes. No, they consciously select areas where their victims are disarmed by law. [Yes. That is very astute. Robbers don’t target people with guns. It’s a good thing everyone with a gun is advertising it. That’s why you never see robbers being shot back at: they always know who has a gun. I would totally rob a police station of all its wads of cash if they didn’t have guns. And I would totally rob a gun store if it didn’t have guns. And these aren’t blatantly obvious examples that would not under any circumstances be included in a statistical average for blatantly obvious reasons except to vastly skew a biased opinion.]
True. If someone is coming to the rescue with their own gun, they need to be careful not to be mistaken for the shooter amongst the chaos. [So, you mean ‘False’ then. For that statement to be ‘True,’ it would have to be, “If someone is coming to the rescue with their own gun, they don’t need to be careful because rescuers with guns never make mistakes.”]
The difference is: a good guy, when confronted by a police official, would probably [Probably?] drop his weapon when prompted. There is a different mindset; they are not doing anything wrong, so there is no reason not to comply. [That shiny happy notion ignores the potentiality of a second “good guy” with a gun mistaking the first “good guy” with a gun as a “bad guy” with a gun and killing the first “good guy” with a gun and going to prison for it. Let alone a mall full of “good guys” all shooting at “bad guys.” These situations are almost never, “Oh, the cops are here. Let me put away my weapon now because I’m a “good guy” who obeys the law. Go get ‘em, guys!” The situations are usually over before police arrive.]
Exactly. I just remember reading about the shooting in Arizona w/ Giffords...the hero had a gun but actually chose not to use it because he didn't want to be mistaken for the shooter, whether by police or other bystanders, and took the guy out with a folding chair!
You hit it (with a folding chair) right on the head!!! Just because you HAVE a gun, does not mean you need to USE a gun! If you have other options available, you should defer to them first! Guns are always a last resort option, period. People need to use their brains before they use their "tools"... [What a fantastically optimistic outlook of people who want to carry guns without any regulations whatsoever. The problem is, they rarely DON’T use the gun as the FIRST option. There are wounded or dead children and delivery men and girlfriends scattered all over the country because of this fact. One example supporting your opinion seems to have completely erased the multitude of examples that don’t.]
You're looking at this story from the wrong angle. Even if "tools" were allowed in the mall, how many people would he have killed before he was taken out with someone else's "tool?" Had there been a mandatory trigger lock law or mandatory safe storage law, this fucknut wouldn't have been able to steal or use the gun in the first place. This situation placing hundreds of lives in jeopardy could have been prevented altogether. And nobody's Constitutional rights would have been infringed. The gun owner still owned the gun he wanted and all the bullets to go with it. But hey, with absolutely no laws regarding guns, what do you expect? I know, I know - he would have just kept looking until he found another gun to steal. Or maybe instead used a knife and went on a stabbing spree. That's why we should never ever try to ever stop even one possible murder if it means everybody can't do everything they want all the time with easily obtainable lethal weapons. The transportation and sale of bananas are more regulated than guns.
[Why do gun people advocate that guns should not be regulated at all? And that everyone should be armed? That viewpoint makes the killer’s right more important than the person who is killed. And it advocates that we should have to wait until someone has already killed innocent people before we can have the gung-ho pleasure of killing someone in return. Don’t try to prevent needless deaths, create more needless deaths instead.]
Ah Bill, LOL! If you haven't, then you should really read "Ishmael" by Daniel Quinn...
Yes, an excellent existential piece about a telepathic gorilla teaching a man about his flawed beliefs stemming from made up stories in the Bible.
Regardless of what that excellent, yet irrelevant think-piece supposes, if the rifle was kept in a safe or had mandatory trigger locks, the shooter would not have been able to steal or use the gun in the first place.
Maybe the killer didn't read Ishmael. Then he would have followed the Law of Limited Competition.
And I suppose the problem with this latest massacre was that all the 5-year-olds weren't armed and couldn't shoot back. Or maybe you believe teachers should now be armed around 5-year-olds...
[Yes. A mass murder occurred two days after the previous mass murder and rudely reinforced my point about gun nuts not trying to prevent mass murders.]
The problem with your mentality is that it favors violent situations. You don't seem to believe in trying to prevent them, just being able to kill someone after they've already killed innocent people.
But now is not the time to talk about gun control, right?
They arm teachers in Israel. I am not saying that we should do that here, but obviously there are people out there that are competent enough to know to target places that guns will not likely be at. I am glad to see that you are familiar with Ishmael, however since you do not see the relevance, I shall point it out to you (and it is not the Law of Limited Competition). When a lion attacks a group of gazelles, the lion is bound to take one (or more) down. The gazelle cannot fight back... all it can do is choose flight as its response. However, when a lion chooses to attack another lion, the other lion has a choice. It can choose to submit, run away, or fight back. Mind you, lions do not go out of their way to hunt down other lions. People DO however. They go against the Law. Which means we need to have a choice; Do we submit? Do we run? Or do we fight back? I am not condoning violence here. I am not condoning the use of excessive force. Violence is not and is NEVER a cure, or a deterrent to violence. Defense however IS allowed, and encouraged and falls WELL within the laws that are written about in Ishmael. As for gun control, I stand resolute. Guns are not the problem here. PEOPLE are the problem here. We need to "fix" the people first. When that happens, guns will not be an issue... nor will they be necessary - a byproduct that I am sure you and many others (myself included) would be HAPPY to receive. It is not the heart attack, nor the cancer that kills the person, but the string of bad choices that LEAD UP TO the heart attack or the cancer... Change the person, and you cure the problem.
If Israel is your standard-bearer, your argument is inherently weak.
Are you saying that this very mentally unbalanced person would not have killed his targets - his mother and principal, plus more to make some sort of twisted point - if they were all packing? That is nonsense. Especially since mentally unbalanced people are not just lacking love and understanding of guns. Nor are they simply able to be "fixed." And as it stands, practically no laws prevent mentally unbalanced people from obtaining guns in America.
I understand the relevance of Ishmael - being able to equally fight back. It is irrelevant in gun situations because no one is saying people should not be able to defend themselves. No one wants to prevent mentally balanced people from legally obtaining guns. The argument here is to prevent this type of situation from happening in the first place so people won't have to fight fire with fire - which always means you have to wait for a gunman to kill innocent people first before you can then kill the killer. If you advocate no gun regulation and that just everyone should be armed, then you advocate waiting for murder to happen just so you can stop more murder by murdering the murderer.
There are more guns per capita in America than almost any other country in the world. Why is it not one of the safest countries in the world?
If this person's mother kept her legally owned guns locked in a safe or had trigger locks that her son couldn't remove, what would he have used?
Babies get cancer. What is the string of bad choices they made that led to cancer? Lifelong vegan non-smokers that take vitamins and regularly exercise get cancer. What bad choices do they make? Cancer is nature. There is no cure and not always a known cause. Guns are specifically manufactured to kill. They can be regulated, we just have virtually no regulations. Natural cancer vs. man-made guns have always been and always will be a false equivalency.
I don't see what you find wrong about having something like a simple mandatory trigger lock law that could have prevented a few of the mass murders this very week. Like I said, no one's Constitutional rights would be infringed.
Yep, you are totally missing the point (or possibly ignoring it to make your own). Israel is NOT a standard bearer, mine or otherwise. I was merely stating a fact and making the point that arming teachers IS happening. It is A way... not necessarily OUR way, because ultimately there is NO "right" way. But it IS "a way".
[Before you continue reading this segment, may I suggest you go make yourself a cup of chamomile tea?]
I am not saying that "this very mentally unbalanced person would not have killed his targets... if they were all packing". Nor is this about fighting back. Go back to Ishmael... in particular to the group of gazelles. In nature, everything is food for something. (I can hear you already; "Oh so now the children are the equivalent of gazelles and hence, food? -NO. Read on) [I would have said that if any of this made any sense. But it’s not even that clear.] For the lion, the gazelle is a source of food, and so he kills. Not out of violence; out of necessity. According to the Law, The gazelle's life is not any less meaningful than a human's; but gazelles understand the Law and live within the Law. Human's have tried to remove themselves from the Law, and when the Law reveals itself to humanity, they can't understand it and question it and question god and life and fairness. Killing in this manner is NOT violence. Lions have to eat. [Just like mass murderers.] Sometimes the lion will catch the gazelle and have a feast, and sometimes the gazelle will outrun and outmaneuver the lion and the lion will go hungry. It is the Law in action. Sometimes what is good for the lion is bad for the gazelle, and sometimes what is good for the gazelle is bad for the lion, but it does not change the fact that eventually SOMETHING is going to die. We shall not question this.
[It's not too late for that tea.]
Death happens. We do not know WHY it happens in the exact manner it does (though we LOVE to hypothesize) nor do we have total control over the circumstances. All we can do is understand that sometimes, LIFE is going to choose to give, and sometimes life is going to choose to take away. We have little control over this fact. It does not make the act less painful, and the day man decided to try to opt out of the equation does not change the fact that the LAW is still in effect, and sometimes people are going to do things that you do not like; and sometimes they are going to succeed; and sometimes people you love are going to be taken from you before you are ready to let them go. (Are we ever truly "ready"?) That is not our choice, but it is our lesson. We have to accept that Life makes these decisions under the Law and do what we can to pick up the pieces and move on with better understanding, taking the lesson, and learning from it. Again, I am NOT saying that this tragic event could not be prevented OR at least diminished. But people are creative; and if someone wants to accomplish something, they are bound to do so if it is meant to be. And if someone is going to die, it is bound to happen if it is meant to be. That is not our choice. It falls to the Law. And no matter how many rules, regulations, "man-made laws" and links to articles stating someone's manufactured statistics" it will not change the Law.
[Still not too late for the tea.]
The shooting of children at a school is a tragic event. It is not something I would wish upon anyone, nor is it something I would want to experience first hand, and I feel for the families that are affected. It is a galvanizing moment. But it needs to be taken into perspective. If someone is determined to wreak havoc on society, it is going to happen. The same day that 20 children were shot in the USA, 22 children of similar age were stabbed at a school in China. Now mind you, there were NO deaths to my knowledge in the China incident, but that is irrelevant. It is NOT death that matters in this. [Holy fucking shit.] The "intention" is going to disrupt the norm. The intention is going to create an environment that leaves you feeling threatened, vulnerable, and unable to completely control the outcome. The intention is going to mess with your psyche. And whether they died or they lived, the psychological effects are going to live on for a long, long time... even more- so for those that live through and suffer a violent event, like a stabbing, because you will forever have the reminder UPON you AND embedded into your psyche.
The "tool" used ultimately does not matter. [Tell that to the 20 dead kids and their families.] The lesson has been handed down. NOW our choice is to "positively" learn from it (something we have not done for as long as we have been alive; the proof being that we KEEP creating new and more effective means to destroy) and adapt 'positively" or to continue having the lesson revealed to us until we finally listen to the Law. Again, the "tool" is irrelevant because ultimately it is not about the killing - it is about the message left behind: the affect on the psyche.
[You could maybe have a shot of whiskey instead of tea.]
We need to focus on "the people". Change the person and you change the environment. And that change starts from within. We are better than this, and we have forgotten this. We LOVE to glorify violence. We LOVE to keep violence in our daily lives. We LOVE to make violence a way of life, a means of profit and a source of greed. And as long as we KEEP our focus on destruction, we shall never grow.
We will never be able to control the Law or live above the Law. We need to recognize our position, step back in line and plug the hole we punched out of, or we will continue to bleed out. Death will always be a natural part of life. Tragedy will always be a natural part of life. Killing will always be a natural part of life. These are unchangeable. Violence is learned. Violence is adaptable. Violence can be diminished.
[If you haven't already gone for the whiskey, it may be too late.]
The TRICK is... showing people (and people who are corporations) that PEACE is profitable, both financially and psychologically. But going beyond that... showing them that it is MORE profitable to support and to LOVE, than it is to tear down (to rebuild in our image) and to destroy. Show them that we belong to the Earth, not the other way around. Show them that Everything is Connected, and the way we treat the insignificant things in life affect the significant things. As long as we continue to make our focus on OWNERSHIP, we will always "own" our own destruction.
When you focus on peace... on understanding... on compassion... on HELPING others... we GROW. When we condition ourselves toward LOVE of ALL, the weapons become obsolete. It starts with learning. It starts within.
I neither missed nor ignored your point. You are simply repeating existential nonsense that has no bearing in reality even though it makes a great think-piece story for a book.
Lions and gazelles are nature. Comparing guns to nature is false.
In Israel, there is not a gun culture like we have here. Military service is required before you can get a permit to carrying a gun. No military service and training, no gun. Civilians are not allowed to own guns. So, yes, you are correct, teachers carrying a gun is A way - just not nearly an equivalent comparison to what is feasible in America.
[Fact: except for some teachers in the West Bank, teachers in Israel are not armed. Schools have locked gates and armed guards. I’m sure militarized zone-looking schools are exactly what the America-freedom-liberty-Jesus right-wing wants.]
You say death will happen no matter what so we should never ever do anything to try and stop any harm from happening. As evidence, you compare 20 dead children in virtually-no-gun-laws America to 22 children with cuts in crazily-gun-restricted China. Then you try to say the difference between dead children and living children with cuts is irrelevant. And you further explain that the gun "tool" is the same as the knife "tool" because everyone is scared by their "message." Then, you deny statistics by calling them 'manufactured' because they don't agree with existential wishy-washy nonsense.
And you discard the notion that death was NOT meant to be - that the situation of death was completely man-made and unnatural. You could also nonsensically argue that everyone will eventually die no matter what of old age, so we should never try to make medicine or have hospitals and doctors. Existential hogwash.
And last, you say everything would be shiny and happy if we just taught love and peace and understanding.
I am unable to follow any part of that line of thinking.
We need a better mental health system. That is tangent to the gun control issue, not instead of it.
[My next comment is based on what Peter said in another discussion about a woman being murdered by her boyfriend (who had previously been convicted of murdering a man) after he was released from jail on charges of domestic violence against her: “…I will continue to support Stand Your Ground and Castle laws, because restraining orders only work when they are obeyed. When the person is non-compliant, then you BETTER have a Plan B.” I would suggest maybe our laws should not be so lax concerning convicted murderers instead of creating new laws that allow anyone to murder anybody for any reason. But hey, that’s just me.]
Also, you claim to not condone violence or excessive force but...
In hundreds of cases, the Stand Your Ground laws have enabled people to act as vigilantes, killing people who were clearly no danger or threat. SYG protects people who were not defending themselves but chasing down someone long after an altercation - if there was even an altercation in the first place. Many people have disobeyed 911 operators and pursued and executed criminals who have fled. Others blow the heads off salesmen knocking on doors at 3PM. Others hunt down kids with candy. Some were upset by loud music. All legal gun owners executing people for no reason but for the extra balls the SYG laws provide them. More statistics you will probably consider manufactured. You say no one should ever do anything to prevent murder because "if someone is going to die, it is bound to happen if it is meant to be" yet you support Stand Your Ground laws that only protect murderers from being prosecuted for killing people for no defensible reason. You are apparently against trigger locks. You seem to be against storing guns in a safe. All things that could have prevented the many mass murders we've had of late.
You may not think we can prevent its inevitability, but you also seem to be in support of expediting the coming of death.
And through all this, I'm confused. Earlier, you said a string of bad choices is what leads to death. Now, you say it's bound to happen if it's meant to be, so we have no choice. Choice/no choice?
I'm lost, because you seem to be supporting the opposite of everything you stand for.
You certainly are... confused. SMH. LOL! Nice try though... but next time, don't try to translate my words into statements that I did not say, just read them. Perhaps you would be less confused then...
[Tell me, anyone reading this – did I translate his words into statements he did not say? Or did he just gracefully exit the conversation for lack of a reality-based reply? Seriously, what am I misinterpreting? Maybe I’m the one who is full of self-righteous shit. Judge for yourself. But being rooted in the real world as I try to be, circular nonsense-talk rarely makes any sense to me. It is possible I simply do not understand this rambling, esoteric jibber-jabber that has no practical meaning in the world in which I live. The way I interpret this, as all the conversations I have regarding gun control, is that guns never kill anyone and every single other available option (no matter how irrelevant) killed the people with the gun “tool” – whether it be cancer or lack of love or no God in schools. Or roving gangs of mass murdering swimming pools. Yes, I am indeed confused.]