Attitude to Gun Control - split from Guns in the Classroon

[tar]

Overtone,

 

Yeah, I would probably have labeled you as a self hating American.

 

Authoritarian? Interesting how power is a good thing, when in your hands, and a bad thing when in somebody elses hands.

 

This probably has a lot to do with the gun control question, on several levels.

 

Do you watch CNN or FOX? Who do you feel comfortable associating with?

 

Gore just sold his Current TV to Al Jazeera. Whose propaganda do you rather?

 

I would imagine, by your lumping me in with your "outsider" group, that you imagine me a FOX viewer.

I don't watch either CNN or FOX, much, they are both tainted and disturb me...if either would hold sway, and power over me. For different reasons. Fox is too religious and right wing for me, CNN too socialist and "nanny state" for my taste. But that is just me, I don't require that either hold sway, I rather hope that some average of the two rules my life. And I would hope you would allow me to cherry pick the reason and sense that comes from either camp, and wish that that reason and sense would be what holds sway, and not figure me an enemy of either, or a staunch supporter of either.

 

The pendulum swings left and right in this country, and there are "authoritarian" dangers to be had, at both extremes. I am a fan of the gravity of reason, and human judgement, that attempts to keep us centered. And our reverence to "rule of law" and personal freedom, both, factor in my judgements.

I yield to the president we choose to lead us, whether I voted for him/her or not. But I always know that no matter who is in power, there is a large segment of the electorate that would rather it had been someone else. For one reason or another.

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited January 5, 2013 by tar

[rigney]

I'll have to say on thing in your favor overtone. When making a ka-ka sandwich, you pull out all of the good bread in between and use only the heels. I still don't know which side of the fence you're on????

[overtone]

Yeah' date=' I would probably have labeled you as a self hating American. [/quote'] And you refuse to learn better. And you insist on personal attack when your little labeling reflex is in the least threatened.

 

That's one reason W got elected (you sure showed those elitists, eh?), and that's how gun control got jammed between howling packs of "extremists" (as they are called). That's how an entire faction of people who claim to love America so publicly and so proudly come to be jingoistic patsies for self-enriching fascists, and spend thirty years trying to wreck its foundations, shame its history, and pound the best of it into the nearest sewer - or sandpile, if there's enough oil in it.

Authoritarian? Interesting how power is a good thing' date=' when in your hands, and a bad thing when in somebody elses hands. [/quote'] That's a very wide miss. This reading between the lines bs is not working for you.

 

Look: You have to read people's posts, first, (not peruse your own bigot zoo of imaginary meanings ), before you can hit target with that kind of playground response. I'm not present to intimidate physically - you have to be perceptive, to bully. Besides, you are no longer twelve years old, eh? Other modes of discourse are available to you.

 

I would imagine' date=' by your lumping me in with your "outsider" group, that you imagine me a FOX viewer.
I don't watch either CNN or FOX, much, they are both tainted and disturb me...if either would hold sway, and power over me. For different reasons. Fox is too religious and right wing for me, CNN too socialist and "nanny state" for my taste. [/quote'] Your imaginings are batting zero so far. Penny drop yet?

 

Actually, i would have imagined you as belonging to the faction who thinks CNN is leaning socialist, leftwing, or something like. But I didn't bother, because not only is it misleadingly insulting (you aren't that completely clueless in general), but it's irrelevant to the thread.

 

I am a fan of the gravity of reason' date=' and human judgement, that attempts to keep us centered. [/quote'] Great. Now all you have to do is get a clue about where "center" is, and what that kind of reason and judgment you claim to value looks like in real life. You can use both hands and a map, if it helps. Or you can listen to people who have demonstrated, for the past thirty years now, that they are better at that than you are.

 

{quote] This probably has a lot to do with the gun control question, on several levels.

As I have been repeating for days now, yep. But - - what happened to the followup?

 

I still don't know which side of the fence you're on????

And that is entirely your fault. I should what - repeat myself fifty times? Type in caps?

 

Give up on that stupid fence, and the entire toyworld of Fox stereotypes that goes with it. Start over, maybe (since it came up) beginning with the demonstrated fact that the people who voted for W were making an incontrovertibly demonstrated, serious, a priori obvious, and bizarrely stupid error in political judgment. And the reasons they did that carry over into their political thinking generally, including about guns - the insignia is a shoulder chip whenever they think they've spotted an intellectual.

Edited January 5, 2013 by overtone

[tar]

Overtone,

Not at all tangent to this thread.

Relevant to the characteristics of the red rural, and blue urban states.

Cities mean unions and universities, industry and innovation which seem to go blue.

Rural means family farm, and the conservative values of personal responsibility, and the maintenance of personal freedom, self sufficiency and the like, which seems to turn the states red.

But in either case, nobody wins with 100% of the vote. Certain conservative values might lean a Cuban, city population toward the republican candidate, while Jewish constituentcies might lean toward the democrat. And private business owners in the cities might vote for less regulation of their enterprises, and be in favor of keeping more of their hard earned profits, which would lean them red. And an individual dependent on the state for their food, housing and health care might lean blue.

And as in any election, the choices are not so clear cut, as to present any voter with his or her ideal candidate, and people tend to go with the party they are registered to, as a default position.
Which leaves most elections up to the registered democrats and replubicans, and the judgement of the independants. Except in those cases where ones own party's platform has strayed too far to an extreme position, or one's party's candidate has demonstrated faults too significant to ignore.

Such as Romney's 47% comment, which disqualified him in the minds of many, who might have voted for him simply as the republican challenger to the democratic president.

Which, to this thread, and attitudes toward gun control, disqualifies you as a good judge of reality and the people of this county, whether city or rural, intellectual or average, in that you have already labeled half the country as dupes and fools.

Regards, TAR2

P.S. Unless, you, like Romney see it better to retract your ill advised position, and attempt to understand 100% of the country.

As to "fooling" and intelligence, I have a theory that one can fool one of lower intellegence most of the time, about 50 percent of the time with people of approxiamately equivilant intelligence and rarely, with people of significantly higher intellegence.

 

Using this theory alone, I would vote for Bush Jr. over Clinton (the male), since Clinton is considerably more intelligent than I am, and Bush Jr. is on my level.

 

 

 

 

Rationale being, I have a 50/50 chance of NOT being fooled by Bush.

And a 95% chance of being fooled by Clinton. (Depending of course on what one's definition of is is.)

Edited January 6, 2013 by tar

[overtone]

Cities mean unions and universities' date=' industry and innovation which seem to go blue.

Rural means family farm, and the conservative values of personal responsibility, and the maintenance of personal freedom, self sufficiency and the like, which seems to turn the states red. [/quote'] Now you're just being silly.

 

Just for openers, there are these things called suburbs - they aren't rural, and they aren't cities. And they are at least as influential, politically, as those rural and city places. They are bereft of self sufficiency, very much opposed to personal freedoms of the rural variety, comparatively short of personal responsibility, and the current center of Republican power in most States.

 

And note the failure to acknowledge the deep connections between innovation,self sufficiency, industry, personal responsibility, and personal freedom. You don't get them in different places.

 

The small towns of the rural regions are much more constraining of personal freedom than most neighborhoods of cities (the saying "in the city you can breathe free air" dates to a time when the rural population actually was more like the kind of family oriented responsbility fostering situation you find in your fantasy world). The unions are barely present in most of the larger and faster growing cities of the Confederacy and West, but serious factors in many rural mining areas and the like. The primary economic and political forces in rural America are large agribusiness interests and large exploitation operations - mining, logging, industrial farming. Rural areas are much more economically dependent on Federal level government policy and funding than most cities. Single industry dominance in general is more common in the rural regions than in the major cities - and it calls the tune.

 

Which' date=' to this thread, and attitudes toward gun control, disqualifies you as a good judge of reality and the people of this county, whether city or rural, intellectual or average, in that you have already labeled half the country as dupes and fools. [/quote'] ? Presuming you are referring to my observation that voting for W twice was obviously poor judgment - I have to presume, because you are careful not to make your exact assertion clear: If half the country voted for W twice - which did not happen, comfortingly enough - then how is a good judge of reality and people supposed to handle the situation? So as not to be disqualilfied, I mean.

 

Clearly anyone who voted for W twice was either duped or foolish, and in the face of overwhelming evidence from actual reality and events, but that happens, in life. Show me someone who has never been duped, never been foolish. And there was plenty of extenuating circumstance: The marketing forces brought to bear on the vulnerable - based in the cities, aimed at the Confederacy and the suburbs and the ignorant - dominated the media. The issue is one of political judgment, and that rides on the ability to learn from political error. And so the issue for the rest of us is noticing whether that is happening, in this crass and blatant example so easily evaluated.

 

Apparent amnesia, an inability to examine or even recognize past events, does not reassure, in that respect. Inability to find the meaning in simple English sentences that do not square with the errors in political judgment that led to voting for W, bodes ill. Projection of asinine bigotries and downright stupid stereotypes into the spaces where other people are not saying anything of the kind, is what one calls diagnostic of serious trouble.

 

And it bodes ill for sane national policy regarding guns and their sensible control. If the rightwing libertarians can't make common cause with the leftwing libertarians on issues of liberty, if they continue to harbor the prejudicial nonsense that brought them into line for the corporate authoritarians, then they are going to get beat on issues of liberty - sooner or later. The people who went around confiscating guns after Katrina were not lefty liberal types under the command of a leftwing government, after all.

[tar]

Overtone,

 

So you think we are better off, as a populace, retaining as much personal power as we can?

 

And you think that trusting the military/industrial complex and the local land/resource baron or baroness is not politically reasonable?

 

You may be correct, or maybe not. It is quite obvious to me, that in general we are, as citizens, each others pawns and patsies. It is difficult, philosophically to distinquish between when one is being used, or sacrificing for the team.

 

Unrequited love in some cases. Valued friendship and mutually understood efforts toward a common goal in others.

 

But there are "bosses" in all our lives. We have to follow somebody's rules and plan. It is somehow easier to consider myself an "insider", part of a team, that has my best interests in mind, and a member of a team that knows I have its best interests in mind.

 

When we boss each other around with the laws we pass, who is doing the bossing? Is it us? Is it the land barons? Is it the secret societies manuvering for dominance? How would one know for sure, and be able to say whether ones trust in others, and the "system" is well placed trust, or politically foolish, and harmful to ones personal freedom?

 

I will return to my statement that power is a good thing, when in your hands and a bad thing when in the hands of somebody else.

 

So the "attitudes toward gun control" seem to involve one's personality and attitude toward society. Which parts and peices of society do you trust? Which parts are you in control off, by membership and mutual consent and understanding? And which parts are you wary of, that are operating without your consent and counsel, and seem to be taking things in an ill advised direction.

 

Personnally I dislike being marginalized. I dislike being fooled. I find any number of things, ill advised. But I am not in charge, and I am not making the decisions. All I can do is voice my opinion, give my suggestions, and hope that what is sensible gets worked into the plan, and what is unworkable gets filtered out. I have to extend a good deal of blind trust in other people's judgement and rely on good capable people to do the right thing. Occasionally I am disappointed. Mostly, I am impressed.

 

Saw the other day, that Jersey City has rearranged their police schedule to allow for a police officer in every school and at every school event. I do not know how this is being received by the students or the teachers, but seeing a trained, good, responsible, accountable person there to take charge if danger showed its face, made me feel it was a good thing, and not any challenge to civil liberties from an authoritarian state.

 

Regards, TAR2

[overtone]

So you think we are better off' date=' as a populace, retaining as much personal power as we can? [/quote'] The imaginary meaning business is not working out, truly. I recommend giving up on it, and arguing more honestly, based on the posting in front of you.

I will return to my statement that power is a good thing' date=' when in your hands and a bad thing when in the hands of somebody else. [/quote'] Why put that in a post ostensibly responding to something of mine? You originally posted that as having some kind of relevance to an identifiable post of mine, which made it then visibly just another of your projected bigotries you refer to as "meaning";

 

but so far removed from any specific connection this time it just floats - innuendo of the nastiest kind, nice and vague.

 

Unrequited love in some cases. Valued friendship and mutually understood efforts toward a common goal in others.

And almost inexcusable betrayal of your team' date=' your country, your friendships, your mutually understood efforts, and everything you claim to value, in other cases. Voting for W the second time, would be an example of that kind.

 

So the "attitudes toward gun control" seem to involve one's personality and attitude toward society.

What doesn't?

 

One's personality and attitude toward society are fine general categories of consideration, but the devil is not in the fine generalities.

 

The devil is in whatver prevents the independents of the Confederacy, with its population of rightwing libertarians, from rebelling against its native fascism and accepting agreement, joining cause, with the leftwing liberals, for example. That would change the gun control public discussion dramatically, eh?

 

Personnally I dislike being marginalized. I dislike being fooled. I find any number of things' date=' ill advised. But I am not in charge, and I am not making the decisions. [/quote'] So?

 

btw: being marginalized and being fooled are often incompatible events - one must choose. In W's political campaigns, for example, it was the unfooled who were marginalized. If avoiding marginalization is a strong personal motive, then it's good to know that, and keep a weather eye on its role in assessments.

[tar]

Overtone,

 

So what is the fight down to?

 

I called you on stereotyping half the country as being bigots and/or fools and you answer by suggesting that not only is your position the unquestionable truth, but I also must be a bigot and a fool, because I don't agree with your assessment.

 

Let's just leave it, at that. Sorry I offended you. It was foolish of me.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

P.S. I will read your response to this post, if you see the need to, but I will try very hard not to respond.

Far as I am concerned, our positions have been expressed, and we are done.

 

 

Edited January 8, 2013 by tar

[overtone]

I called you on stereotyping half the country as being bigots and/or fools

I did no such thing. Your imagination is batting zero' date=' still.

 

Your incredible lack of self-awareness here is the important matter of interest in your posts, and only because it could inform the discussion of gun control, if (as you and others agree) personality and the like are key factors. But not if you continue to avoid following up on the generality.

 

Let's just leave it, at that. Sorry I offended you. It was foolish of me

Not at all - you took offense, rather than delivering. As noted above, you can't lecture and bully so wide of the mark - how could i take such assertions and claims personally?

 

Far as I am concerned' date=' our positions have been expressed, and we are done [/quote'] That's a call you can't make. You don't know my position, and your own is still couched in generalities and truisms and stereotypes.

 

But as context for a discussion of gun control, all that blathering about intellectual elites and stereotyping and rural values (personal freedom, personal responsibility, etc) contributes. The political fantasy world of the American "conservative" is central to this debate - it's the barrier between the libertarians of right and left, I think. It's where the personality stuff comes into heavily into play on gun control.

[ralfy]

At the very least, gun control in the form of registration, whatever background checks can be made, and training and education should be encouraged in order to at least decrease incidences.

[rigney]

At the very least, gun control in the form of registration, whatever background checks can be made, and training and education should be encouraged in order to at least decrease incidences.

Yes, registration is gun control and restraint to some extent, but is this actually what we need or are looking for? How much more could be done if the perp knew "his life" would be forefeit without question for committing such a deed? Oh, I'm sure It won't work in every case, but most nuts are aware of what they are going to do, or have done. Then make it known they will be buried in a "potters field without grace, benediction" or family presence when their dead ASS is put in a sack and tossed in a hole. Perhaps using this action as a deterrent may not totally stop this ugly thing, but nuts professing a religious belief of some sort may be deterred a bit.

Edited January 10, 2013 by rigney

[john5746]

how about if we shoot the kneecaps of anyone who owns a gun used in a rampage? with said gun.

[overtone]

How much more could be done if the perp knew "his life" would be forefeit without question for committing such a deed? Oh, I'm sure It won't work in every case, but most nuts are aware of what they are going to do, or have done.

So far we've been looking at suicides, in these mass murder events. I'm not sure how much the threat of execution deters a suicide, or notoriety (extra notoriety always comes with capital crime trials) deters these kinds of psychos - one can plausibly speculate that promised execution might be an attractive reward (we have at least one case of that - a serial killer who moved his operations to Florida because it was a death penalty State. I'm of the opinion that the famiies of his Florida victims have grounds for lawsuit).

 

We note that death penalty States show no deterrent effect for any crime of this type - the opposite, if anything.

 

Certainly capital punishment is no substitute for, or even in the same discussion with, proposed gun control.

Edited January 10, 2013 by overtone

[ralfy]

Yes, registration is gun control and restraint to some extent, but is this actually what we need or are looking for? How much more could be done if the perp knew "his life" would be forefeit without question for committing such a deed? Oh, I'm sure It won't work in every case, but most nuts are aware of what they are going to do, or have done. Then make it known they will be buried in a "potters field without grace, benediction" or family presence when their dead ASS is put in a sack and tossed in a hole. Perhaps using this action as a deterrent may not totally stop this ugly thing, but nuts professing a religious belief of some sort may be deterred a bit.

 

I was looking at the issue in terms of prevention, as the results of the effects of capital punishment on crime appear to be mixed. One should also consider the point that if "nuts" are involved then they will likely not be "aware of what they are going to do, or have done." That's why they are "nuts".

 

With that, and given an arms industry that, as part of Big Business, essentially controls the U.S., then the immediate means for now would be gun control. Unfortunately, the same arms industry has been lobbying against it, and has even called for deregulation of arms exports.

[rigney]

I believe "Nuts", or at least the majority of them are quite aware of what they are going to do or have done, and most, very cunningly so. Our problem is, in this country no one wants to be the bad guy when it comes to dealing out the punishment. We are at best a bleeding heart society. The incarcerated criminal element here is cared for far better than the poor mentally incompetent, or indigent, sleeping in a cardboard box. Three hundred million guns doesn't make a single criminal, but knowing how to manipulate the law, does. Some interesting statistics below.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list

[overtone]

I believe "Nuts", or at least the majority of them are quite aware of what they are going to do or have done, and most, very cunningly so. Our problem is, in this country no one wants to be the bad guy when it comes to dealing out the punishment.

This fantasy balloon world is getting farther and farther away from solid ground.

 

There is obviously, blatantly, in your face unavoidably, no shortage whatsoever of Americans champing at the bit to be allowed to deal righteous punishment to the deserving, and quite willing to inflict some error on a few unfortunate innocents along the way. We're awash in volunteer "bad guys", so much so that we have quite a bit of evidence regarding the real life effectiveness of their beloved punishments - they don't seem to work, at all.

 

And their ineffectiveness seems to make no difference to the people who wish to redouble their righteous efforts.

 

I'm still waiting for the argument that threat of subsequent execution or maltreatment effectively deters suicide, for example - or even recognition of the role such threat has played in mass murders past.

[ParanoiA]

 

I'm still waiting for the argument that threat of subsequent execution or maltreatment effectively deters suicide, for example - or even recognition of the role such threat has played in mass murders past.

 

....followed by the argument that suicide being illegal effectively deters the practice...and then the argument that banning clip sizes and gun types effectively deters mass murder.

 

...and then the argument that home made bombs will kill less people than those banned guns...and then the argument for bomb control, that we can effectively eliminate all products that could be used to make bombs...

 

Yes, I'm waiting for all of those arguments, myself.

 

 

 

Rigney - we, the people, have killed innocent people in the pursuit of justice. Capital Punishment has flaws, even if you think it's an effective deterent, just like innocent people have been incarcerated. The difference is, one is permanent, the other can be arguably compensated. Our justice system is designed to allow every opportunity for an innocent person to be exonerated - and we err on the side of letting guilty go free. I am damn proud of that too.

 

(Although I'm not very proud of how stubborn our system is about freeing the convicted innocent with subsequent evidence that proves their innocence...very shameful)

[rigney]

While I can't argue the validity for most of your comment, I hope that it is the difference of such opinions that can always be rationally argued. Got this from a conservative friend and even though it isn't esclusively geared to gun control or has been authenticated, I thought it made for a good read.

Wow! Is Chicago a great city state, or what? During the past 12 months, 500 people have been killed (murdered) there. Chicago has gun laws which are among the strictest in the United States, allowing only police and military to carry weapons. Yet, Chi Towns gun violence is among the highest if not the highest in America. Let’s take a look at the slate of characters supposedly elected to bring this total mayhem under control.

Senator: Dick Durbin

House Rep: Jesse Jackson Jr.

Governor: Pat Quinn

House Leader: Mike Madigan

Atty. Gen: Lisa Madigan (Mikes daughter)

Mayor: Rahm Emanuel

Now, a bit more of Chicago's problems.

Their School system is rated as one of the worst in the nation.

State Pension Funds are $78 Billion in the red, worst in the U.S.A.

Cook County, (Chicago) Sales tax: 10.25%

Mr. President, before asking other nations to send us more of their poor,

tired and heavy laden to our shores, let's take care of Chicagos problems

first. Face it: George Ryan, former Governor is in the “Big house” doing time.

His replacement: Rob Blajegovitch is also there wearing pin stripes.

Representative: Jesse Jackson Jr. resigned, fearing the same.

That being said: One thing the “LAND OF LINCOLN” can be proud of.

Their “Right To Work Law” is very effective. Even a couple of governors

are gainfully employed: Making License Plates for the state of Illinois.

Edited January 12, 2013 by rigney

[John Cuthber]

So, to summarise, Chicago has high levels of poverty and poor schooling which lead to a high murder rate in spite of stringent gun control laws.

(And a few bent politicians got jailed, which is good).

[rigney]

So, to summarise, Chicago has high levels of poverty and poor schooling which lead to a high murder rate in spite of stringent gun control laws.

(And a few bent politicians got jailed, which is good).

Sort of like looking at a hot horse shoe John. Admonishment can be easily uttered with little or no interest or consequence, unless you're holding the shoe.

[overtone]

So, to summarise, Chicago has high levels of poverty and poor schooling which lead to a high murder rate in spite of stringent gun control laws.

You are asserting cause when you don't even have correlation.

 

The parallel with the advocacy of capital punishment is near perfect.

[John Cuthber]

You are asserting cause when you don't even have correlation.

 

The parallel with the advocacy of capital punishment is near perfect.

I'm not sure which correlation you are saying that I don't have, but since I took them from Rigney's post I wonder why you didn't point out the fact that his post has just the same problem.

I accept that mine was just one possible way to interpret the data, but the point is that it's just as valid as the tacit interpretation that Rigney gave.

[rigney]

I'm not sure which correlation you are saying that I don't have, but since I took them from Rigney's post I wonder why you didn't point out the fact that his post has just the same problem.

I accept that mine was just one possible way to interpret the data, but the point is that it's just as valid as the tacit interpretation that Rigney gave.

I didn't look at my friends verbiage as factual John and have no idea from where he got it. But here are some links that may help you out. The first two, so so. But # 3rd is very revealing.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/history-former-illinois-governors-prison-221100852.html

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/piigs-america-illinois-preparing-request-federal-bailout

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/28/Obama-s-Gun-Control-Not-Working-Out-So-Well-In-Chicago

Edited January 13, 2013 by rigney

[overtone]

I accept that mine was just one possible way to interpret the data' date=' but the point is that it's just as valid as the tacit interpretation that Rigney gave. [/quote'] The very reply you quoted equated the structure of your argument re gun laws and Rigney's argument re capital punishment, the focus of the reply. I ignored all "tacit" stuff.

 

Rigney's more explicit argument re gun laws, the narrow one mixed in with the Tea Party stamping, is not so clearly invalid as that. His mechanism does have some modest evidentiary support, despite its association with the likes of the pathologically dishonest Breitbart&Co, and some was mentioned above (mechanism of racial oppression, etc).

 

We see there the delineation of bodies of "attitude" and "personality" as put on the table by Tar above. The assertion is that their role in the gun debate is central.

Edited January 14, 2013 by overtone