The recent shooting and the media

[C.A.B.]

I'm actually curious about the argument against gun control laws that CAB posted.
(And Jeff, if this is more something that belongs in the P&R, feel free to delete it)

You said that we need our right to bear arms in case the government becomes too overreaching. What does that even mean? Is that supposed to imply that if we feel like the government is screwing us over, we have the right to start shooting them?

""God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...

And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.""

– Thomas Jefferson

 

[Bothersome]

""God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...

And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.""

– Thomas Jefferson

You sure that was Thomas Jefferson, and not Genghis Khan?

I'll be sure to hang that on my front door, free for all the world to see as I start killing people indiscriminately.

 

[whatev]

as is standard liberal practice, you bothersome(ironic name) like to twist peoples words to something they are not. But you are right, when the children are in the school, they are now the teachers responsibility. You don't see too many conservatives up in arms about how teacher's should carry. We are classier then that and will wait until the dust has blown over and people can grieve.

 

[alchemy]

Yeah well if that's true usgrant, then how in world are these school shootings or elsewhere becoming so common? I'd like to know that answer.

The answer is sensationalism and the advancing of an agenda.

How many laws do we currently have against muder, against breaking and entering? How many guns laws are there currently on the books? How many of these laws did the shooter violate to do what he did? Did those laws make the people of that school safer or less safe? The cold, hard fact is that more gun laws on the book would not have prevented this young man from killing innocent people.

If you listen to the news media, you would think that people with guns are just roaming the streets and going around murdering people all the time, and us poor citizens are just begging the government to help us. It's a fabrication. It's sensationalism. The statistics of gun related homicide are actually relatively small compared to other forms of death in this country, but you wouldn't know that from CNN. Hell, more people die every year as a result of medical malpractice than guns:

Doctors:
The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.
Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000.
Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.


Guns:
The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000. Yes, that is 80 million.
The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.
The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188.
Nice:

Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.
Remember, "Guns don't kill people, doctors do."

Also

Here's a website that has some great charts and statistics concerning death in this country by the center for disease control:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_03.pdf

Here's a personal blog that also covers the topic with similar data:

http://soquelbythecreek.blogspot.com/2012/12/putting-gun-violence-into-proper.html

and yet another chart on the subject:

<img src="http://protectillinois.org/images/accidents_fatal.jpg">

 

[alchemy]

You sure that was Thomas Jefferson, and not Genghis Khan?

I'll be sure to hang that on my front door, free for all the world to see as I start killing people indiscriminately.

To the left, Thomas Jefferson and George Washington would seem to be more akin to mongol marauders I suppose.

If it's any consolation, Alexander Hamilton would have agreed with you...though he was shot by Aaron Burr. Irony.

 

[shark]

As much as i dislike using Wikipedia.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting

Given that there has been gang related problems in schools as far down as the elementary level, I don't see why armed guards have not been in the schools for the last 15 years or so.

 

[alchemy]

<img src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Y1vaGBgqN4o/UNE2xOi_2lI/AAAAAAAAmGU/CBJ2Gox_XpI/s640/SAMUEL+L+JACKSON.png">

 

[Bothersome]

The answer is sensationalism and the advancing of an agenda.

How many laws do we currently have against muder, against breaking and entering? How many guns laws are there currently on the books? How many of these laws did the shooter violate to do what he did? Did those laws make the people of that school safer or less safe? The cold, hard fact is that more gun laws on the book would not have prevented this young man from killing innocent people.

If you listen to the news media, you would think that people with guns are just roaming the streets and going around murdering people all the time, and us poor citizens are just begging the government to help us. It's a fabrication. It's sensationalism. The statistics of gun related homicide are actually relatively small compared to other forms of death in this country, but you wouldn't know that from CNN. Hell, more people die every year as a result of medical malpractice than guns:

Doctors:
The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.
Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000.
Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.


Guns:
The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000. Yes, that is 80 million.
The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.
The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188.
Nice:

Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.
Remember, "Guns don't kill people, doctors do."

Also

Here's a website that has some great charts and statistics concerning death in this country by the center for disease control:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_03.pdf

Here's a personal blog that also covers the topic with similar data:

http://soquelbythecreek.blogspot.com/2012/12/putting-gun-violence-into-proper.html

and yet another chart on the subject:

<img src="http://protectillinois.org/images/accidents_fatal.jpg">

Why are you linking accidents, and not homicides?

This wasn't an accident.

 

[kis123]

Yeah well if that's true usgrant, then how in world are these school shootings or elsewhere becoming so common? I'd like to know that answer.

Uh......excuse me.

Just how common are school shootings? Not that common at all considering the number of schools that haven't had incidents. As tragic as these incidents are, percentage wise, they're on a very small scale if you divide the number of schools in the country by the number of occurrences. It doesn't negate the bloodshed, carnage, and devastation, but it gives a very realistic view of just how "common" these things are. They are magnified and sensationalized by the media and politicians that have nothing better to do than to pander to the public when resistance is down and the nation is grieving. It completely disgusts me almost as much as this man's actions; at least he was mentally ill-what is their excuse??

That's the problem with the media; they keep the negative in our faces and the positive might get a 5 second blurb. Sensationalism sells, plain and simple and the public buys it every time.

Folks, government is NOT your friend and you shouldn't be looking for it to meet your needs. It's an insatiable greedy power hungry beast that is never satisfied no matter how much you feed it-it wants more. Don't let any tragedy convince you that governmental control is the answer because it isn't. It's bureaucratic, over the top, and it has the tendency to kill a gnat with a cannon! You'll end up suffering from its version of an intervention.

And another thing; arming our schools is not the answer either. I would never let a child of mine attend a school with armed security. How does anyone expect learning to take place in that type of environment? I'd rather home school my kid than let them attend a school where the teachers and staff are armed or armed security guards patrolling the halls. I'm sorry, that is not the solution either. I'm not sure what the alternative is, but that one should be off the table. Today's kids have enough social problems as it is without raising them in an environment of fear and anxiety. I know there are those who'll disagree with me and they're free to do so. But if our institutions of learning become armed camps, what is there to really gain from it?

If you want to stop or decrease these incidents, educate, educate, educate. Educate about the sanctity of life. Educate about self respect and respect of others. Turn off the damn tv, either get rid of or control the video games and make your kids go outside and play once in awhile. They'll learn how to interact with........wait for it.........OTHER CHILDREN!! Yeah, that's the ticket!

I don't know where the disconnect came from, but these kids nowadays have no coping skills, they don't know how to deal with the word "no", everything is a major catastrophic event to them, and they have absolutely no respect for other adults or each other at that matter. No wonder why they're shooting up the place!! Parents, your children are not your pals, they're your children and you have the responsibility of raising them into productive adults. Do your damn job already!! Maybe we can avoid tragedies like this if parents would be parents and kids be kids, not the other way around!

 

[kis123]

You said that we need our right to bear arms in case the government becomes too overreaching. What does that even mean? Is that supposed to imply that if we feel like the government is screwing us over, we have the right to start shooting them?

Government has historically systematically been chipping away at your human rights shortly after the ink dried on the Constitution and it's still at it. The only difference is that now they don't care if you know about it because they have the lion's share of what they want accomplished......control over "we the people."

Although this nation has it's history (slavery comes to mind here) the basic premise was freedom and self-governance. I haven't figured out where people thought they needed someone ruling over them to make them feel secure then bellyache about the long reaching tentacles that come out down the way. Self governance is always the best way but since government is involved it has evolved into something short of a god instead of being accountable to its people.

So there may come a day that "we the people" might have to defend themselves from a tyrannical government. Better to have and not need than to need and not have.

I am by no means a fan of guns but I see little reason to regulate any more than it is already. The people wanting gun control will have all the guns they need. What will happen to "we the people" after government disarms them or makes it nearly impossible to acquire and bear arms.

There must be a middle ground somewhere and gun control is NOT the answer on the short or long term.

 

[Bothersome]

Government has historically systematically been chipping away at your human rights shortly after the ink dried on the Constitution and it's still at it. The only difference is that now they don't care if you know about it because they have the lion's share of what they want accomplished......control over "we the people."

Although this nation has it's history (slavery comes to mind here) the basic premise was freedom and self-governance. I haven't figured out where people thought they needed someone ruling over them to make them feel secure then bellyache about the long reaching tentacles that come out down the way. Self governance is always the best way but since government is involved it has evolved into something short of a god instead of being accountable to its people.

So there may come a day that "we the people" might have to defend themselves from a tyrannical government. Better to have and not need than to need and not have.

I am by no means a fan of guns but I see little reason to regulate any more than it is already. The people wanting gun control will have all the guns they need. What will happen to "we the people" after government disarms them or makes it nearly impossible to acquire and bear arms.

There must be a middle ground somewhere and gun control is NOT the answer on the short or long term.

I for one haven't seen one example where anarchy was anything other than pure, uncontrollable chaos.

Humans are incapable of self-governance. If this were anything but a cold, harsh truth of the Universe, crime would not occur.

 

[kis123]

I for one haven't seen one example where anarchy was anything other than pure, uncontrollable chaos.

Humans are incapable of self-governance. If this were anything but a cold, harsh truth of the Universe, crime would not occur.

Well if it weren't for anarchy, you'd be European instead of European-American.

I govern myself and so do you......robbed, raped, or pillaged anyone lately? I'd say you haven't so you know right from wrong which are the basics of self-governance.

Maybe you need someone to rule over you, well you have what you want. You went from your parents to Uncle Sam....if that's okay with you then you have exactly what you want.

As for me, if I'm in need of government, I'll give them a holler. Otherwise, I'll take care of myself, thank you very much and I don't need anyone in government telling me what to do or how to run my life.

 

[Bothersome]

Well if it weren't for anarchy, you'd be European instead of European-American.

I govern myself and so do you......robbed, raped, or pillaged anyone lately? I'd say you haven't so you know right from wrong which are the basics of self-governance.

Maybe you need someone to rule over you, well you have what you want. You went from your parents to Uncle Sam....if that's okay with you then you have exactly what you want.

As for me, if I'm in need of government, I'll give them a holler. Otherwise, I'll take care of myself, thank you very much and I don't need anyone in government telling me what to do or how to run my life.

That wasn't anarchy. That was one branch of a country breaking off into a brand new country. The government was formed literally within hours of them officially declaring themselves separate from England.

Again. I've never seen one successful case of anarchy. Ever.

Without government, we would have no public schools, no running water, no electricity, no working roads. Basically, it'd be a lot like modern day Africa.

I don't know if you've been to Africa before, but most of it kinda sucks.

Unless you're one of those Nigerian princes I keep getting emails about. Blood diamonds and whatnot.

And you have to remember: Anarchy is the state of being totally separated from any form of government. Everyone is their own boss. There are no leaders. There are no representatives. If someone steals from you, you have a few options: Steal it back, kill them and THEN steal it back, or ignore it. If someone murders someone you like... basically same thing applies.

Government naturally forms. It's a natural state of being for us. Gangs are a form of government. They're a group of people under a leader, or a series of leaders. That is government.

(And honestly? If I had to choose between robbing someone and having myself/my family starve in an environment where it's everyone for themselves, and where there is no punishment for such things... I would steal every time. It's simply survival. I wouldn't rape or murder, but those generally aren't a requisite for survival.)

 

[kis123]

That wasn't anarchy. That was one branch of a country breaking off into a brand new country. The government was formed literally within hours of them officially declaring themselves separate from England.

Again. I've never seen one successful case of anarchy. Ever.

Without government, we would have no public schools, no running water, no electricity, no working roads. Basically, it'd be a lot like modern day Africa.

I don't know if you've been to Africa before, but most of it kinda sucks.

Unless you're one of those Nigerian princes I keep getting emails about. Blood diamonds and whatnot.

And you have to remember: Anarchy is the state of being totally separated from any form of government. Everyone is their own boss. There are no leaders. There are no representatives. If someone steals from you, you have a few options: Steal it back, kill them and THEN steal it back, or ignore it. If someone murders someone you like... basically same thing applies.

Government naturally forms. It's a natural state of being for us. Gangs are a form of government. They're a group of people under a leader, or a series of leaders. That is government.

(And honestly? If I had to choose between robbing someone and having myself/my family starve in an environment where it's everyone for themselves, and where there is no punishment for such things... I would steal every time. It's simply survival. I wouldn't rape or murder, but those generally aren't a requisite for survival.)

I absolutely have no time to argue with you.

Go do as you choose and I'll do the same. I choose to govern myself and handle my own affairs. Government has its place and if I need it, I'll call. Otherwise leave me alone and I'll leave them to screw with those who don't mind it in their business.

I just can't make it any plainer than that.

 

[Bothersome]

I absolutely have no time to argue with you.

Go do as you choose and I'll do the same. I choose to govern myself and handle my own affairs. Government has its place and if I need it, I'll call. Otherwise leave me alone and I'll leave them to screw with those who don't mind it in their business.

I just can't make it any plainer than that.

Well, I'm simply curious, but I don't think you understand what 'governing yourself' is in terms of just... living.

Being reliant on the government is more than just getting foodstamps and welfare checks.

If you have running water supplied by your city, are connected to the city's sewer line, receive power/internet from a local provider of both then you are inherently dependent on a form of government. The government's place is providing essential services to those who need them. Services that most, if not ALL Americans use.

The ones that don't use them are the homeless, and the hermits that live in log cabins way out in the mountains. The rest of us use government sanctioned and supplied goods and services that make life as we know it possible.

 

[kis123]

Well, I'm simply curious, but I don't think you understand what 'governing yourself' is in terms of just... living.

Being reliant on the government is more than just getting foodstamps and welfare checks.

If you have running water supplied by your city, are connected to the city's sewer line, receive power/internet from a local provider of both then you are inherently dependent on a form of government. The government's place is providing essential services to those who need them. Services that most, if not ALL Americans use.

The ones that don't use them are the homeless, and the hermits that live in log cabins way out in the mountains. The rest of us use government sanctioned and supplied goods and services that make life as we know it possible.

If I need something from the government, I'll give them a call

If I don't, then leave me the hell alone! I don't need big brother/Uncle Sam making decisions for me that I'm completely capable of making myself. I can drive a speed limit that's comfortable without hitting someone else. The majority of city and county ordinances are garbage and don't apply to me. I don't need government, government needs me to survive. That's what's wrong with people today, they've forgotten the purpose of government and its accountability to the people, not the other way around! Government cannot exist without we the people, but the people damn sure can exist without government and their form of intervention.

Again, I can't make it any plainer for you and I'm not in the mood for argument. I'm not changing my stance and apparently you're not changing yours. Agree to disagree (or not) and keep it moving.

Peace

 

[Bothersome]

If I need something from the government, I'll give them a call

If I don't, then leave me the hell alone! I don't need big brother/Uncle Sam making decisions for me that I'm completely capable of making myself. I can drive a speed limit that's comfortable without hitting someone else. The majority of city and county ordinances are garbage and don't apply to me. I don't need government, government needs me to survive. That's what's wrong with people today, they've forgotten the purpose of government and its accountability to the people, not the other way around! Government cannot exist without we the people, but the people damn sure can exist without government and their form of intervention.

Again, I can't make it any plainer for you and I'm not in the mood for argument. I'm not changing my stance and apparently you're not changing yours. Agree to disagree (or not) and keep it moving.

Peace

Well, what you're saying to this is that your internet, water, electricity, and sewer are all self-provided.

Otherwise you ARE dependent on the government.

Still waiting on that example of successful anarchy, by the way.

 

[kis123]

Well, what you're saying to this is that your internet, water, electricity, and sewer are all self-provided.

Otherwise you ARE dependent on the government.

Still waiting on that example of successful anarchy, by the way.

Don't hold your breath!

Besides I wasn't the one with the "anarchy" comment anyway.....go ask him okay!!

I said I operate in self governance and believe it's the best way to operate. I wasn't the one about the anarchy....that was C.A.B. so take him to task over it provided he cares to engage with you.

You've been in an argumentative mood lately. Maybe it's the school shootings that have you riled up, I don't know and I just can't extend myself to figure it out. So good luck with the arguing.....with someone else!

Peace.

 

[Jagermeistered]

That wasn't anarchy. That was one branch of a country breaking off into a brand new country. The government was formed literally within hours of them officially declaring themselves separate from England.

Again. I've never seen one successful case of anarchy. Ever.

Without government, we would have no public schools, no running water, no electricity, no working roads. Basically, it'd be a lot like modern day Africa.

I don't know if you've been to Africa before, but most of it kinda sucks.

Unless you're one of those Nigerian princes I keep getting emails about. Blood diamonds and whatnot.

And you have to remember: Anarchy is the state of being totally separated from any form of government. Everyone is their own boss. There are no leaders. There are no representatives. If someone steals from you, you have a few options: Steal it back, kill them and THEN steal it back, or ignore it. If someone murders someone you like... basically same thing applies.

Government naturally forms. It's a natural state of being for us. Gangs are a form of government. They're a group of people under a leader, or a series of leaders. That is government.

(And honestly? If I had to choose between robbing someone and having myself/my family starve in an environment where it's everyone for themselves, and where there is no punishment for such things... I would steal every time. It's simply survival. I wouldn't rape or murder, but those generally aren't a requisite for survival.)

Anarchy: is the absence in the presence of a State, and not government...

This is not the mainstream interpretation, simply because the mainstream chooses not to recognize the progress of anarchist philosophy. And, it does not matter which side of the political spectrum one lies upon. All anarchists, or at least most, are against authority - but, are not against progress!

Progress and advancement, are still ongoing theories...

At least, we are not sacrificing future wealth!

 

[Jagermeistered]

Well, what you're saying to this is that your internet, water, electricity, and sewer are all self-provided.

Otherwise you ARE dependent on the government.

Still waiting on that example of successful anarchy, by the way.

The collapse of the USSR in the early 90's... Nobody cared for their State anymore! Sure, a new State replaced the old, but anarchism saw one of its many victories. It is progressive because it promotes voluntarism, and not force and coercion. I would rather be a participant to help solve problems, and not rely on somebody else to pass on the memo.

 

[Bothersome]

Don't hold your breath!

Besides I wasn't the one with the "anarchy" comment anyway.....go ask him okay!!

I said I operate in self governance and believe it's the best way to operate. I wasn't the one about the anarchy....that was C.A.B. so take him to task over it provided he cares to engage with you.

You've been in an argumentative mood lately. Maybe it's the school shootings that have you riled up, I don't know and I just can't extend myself to figure it out. So good luck with the arguing.....with someone else!

Peace.

Well, the antonym of government is anarchy. Anarchy is a lack of government.

The shootings did have me riled up, but I'm mostly just bored. When I get bored, I come on here and debate. It is a way to blow off steam, though.

 

[Bothersome]

Anarchy: is the absence in the presence of a State, and not government...

This is not the mainstream interpretation, simply because the mainstream chooses not to recognize the progress of anarchist philosophy. And, it does not matter which side of the political spectrum one lies upon. All anarchists, or at least most, are against authority - but, are not against progress!

Progress and advancement, are still ongoing theories...

At least, we are not sacrificing future wealth!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy

Second sentence.

 

[Jagermeistered]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy

Second sentence.

Political disorder: there is no politics in anarchy... How can there be disorder? Wait, are we talking about property rights?

Lawlessness: voluntary contracts and ethics, usually replaces this myth.