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.
Enjoy…
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.]
Tia
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.”]
Peter
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.]
Tia
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!
Peter
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.]
Bill Mancuso
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.]
Peter
Ah Bill, LOL! If you haven't, then you should really read
"Ishmael" by Daniel Quinn...
Bill Mancuso
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?
Peter
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.
Bill Mancuso
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.
Peter
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.
Bill Mancuso
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.
Peter
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.]
No comments:
Post a Comment