Let Freedom Ring Like a Gunshot

[Tiassa]

NBC News↱, and something about the smell of freedom in the morning.

The country has been plagued by a spate of gun violence since the weekend. On Saturday night, a gunman fatally shot 11 and wounded at least nine more in Monterey Park, California.

Ten hours later, early Sunday morning, at least 12 people were wounded after gunfire erupted in a Louisiana nightclub, according to authorities, who called it a “targeted attack.”

Two students were fatally shot Monday afternoon at a charter school in Des Moines, Iowa.

In Northern California on Monday, at least seven people were killed and one person was seriously injured in a shooting in Half Moon Bay, a coastal city of roughly 11,000 about 30 miles south of San Francisco.

And one person was killed and seven others were injured in a shooting Monday evening in Oakland, California.

The U.S. has had at least 39 mass shootings in just 24 days so far this year ....​

The price of freedom. Something about the price of freedom.

Or, as Frank Black↱ put it, "Yeah. It's the goddammned mother fucking guns."
____________________

Notes:

@MrBlackFrancis. "Yeah. It's the goddammned mother fucking guns.". Twitter. 22 January 2023. Twitter.com. 24 January 2023. https://bit.ly/3H6j4XX

Planas, Antonio. "At least 3 dead in Yakima, Washington, shooting as search for suspect continues". NBC News. 24 January 2023. NBCNews.com. 25 January 2023. http://bit.ly/3WISRok

 

[Sarkus]

Statistics from UK suggest that in the year ending 31 March 2021 there were a total of 35 homicides committed by shooting. In 12 months. Total.

Mass shootings? Well, we had one earlier this year, unfortunately. We had one in 2022, and one in 2021 as well. Then you'd need to go back to 2018, and the one before that was back in 2010. By comparison, between 2010 and 2021 the US had something like over 3,000 (*).
Prior to 2010 you need to go back to 1997 (Dunblane massacre).

Yep, I'd say it's the guns.

(*) - a mass-shooting being defined as where 3 or more (prior to the mid-2010s it used to be 4) people are shot.

 

[James R]

The problem with mass gun ownership with few control measures is that you're inevitably going to have a lot of people who shouldn't be allowed to access a gun accessing a gun.

This ain't rocket science.

 

[DaveC426913]

A recent article on TV reminded me once again why Americans feel so righteous about their guns.

An armed populace ensures that the government is afraid of the people, rather than the people being afraid of the government.
Patriotic Americans are never going to hand over their individual sovereignty to a government.

I think they're crazy too - but if you grant their premise, it's hard not to accept their conclusion as righteous.

 

[James R]

An armed populace ensures that the government is afraid of the people, rather than the people being afraid of the government.

Let's be realistic, here, though. While a citizen militia is all well and good, conceptually, the US does have an actual army, an actual police force, and so on. Quite big ones, actually.

 

[DaveC426913]

Let's be realistic, here, though. While a citizen militia is all well and good, conceptually, the US does have an actual army, an actual police force, and so on. Quite big ones, actually.

And the citizen's militia is there to ensure the army and the police force can't simply take away their rights by force.


It's got ridiculous consequences, sure, but they're not simply being jerks about their guns - they really do have a righteous leg to stand on. And this is why I see this issue as unlikely to ever really get resolved without civil war.

 

[Michael 345]

A recent article on TV reminded me once again why Americans feel so righteous about their guns.

An armed populace ensures that the government is afraid of the people, rather than the people being afraid of the government.
Patriotic Americans are never going to hand over their individual sovereignty to a government.

I think they're crazy too - but if you grant their premise, it's hard not to accept their conclusion as righteous.

But what happened to these
Patriotic Americans who are never going to hand over their individual sovereignty to a government.
What happened to the part of the Second Amendment requiring them to be A well regulated Militia?

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

 

[Tiassa]

It's got ridiculous consequences, sure, but they're not simply being jerks about their guns - they really do have a righteous leg to stand on. And this is why I see this issue as unlikely to ever really get resolved without civil war.

Some people will make any excuse.

 

[pjdude1219]

The problem with mass gun ownership with few control measures is that you're inevitably going to have a lot of people who shouldn't be allowed to access a gun accessing a gun.

This ain't rocket science.

It's not just how wildly spread the guns are. It's a gun culture that's openly contemptuous toward the very idea of having to be responsible.

 

[Seattle]

As Billvon might say, "Let's leave this to the professionals." The professionals in the Democratic Party (to a large extent) feel that more laws are needed. The professionals in the Republican Party feel that more laws aren't needed.

It's a complex issue and it should be left to the professionals. I guess more professionals thinks the status quo is OK or it would be changed. Frank Black, like the average man/woman, isn't a professional. It's complex.

 

[Tiassa]

Frank Black, like the average man/woman, isn't a professional.

So, Black Francis isn't good enough for the political solution↗:

Usually the political "solution" to a perceived problem isn't even a solution to the problem. It's usually the start to another problem while ignoring the actual problem.

 

[Seattle]

So, Black Francis isn't good enough for the political solution↗:

Billvon doesn't feel so as he's not a "professional". Does "yes it's the goddamned motherfucking guns" sound like a well thought-out position? Or a rant from a hot head? I'll leave that up to you to decide.

 

[sculptor]

ask not for whom the bell tolls

 

[sculptor]

guns don't kill people
knives don't kill people
axes don't kill people
bombs don't kill people
tanks don't kill people
etc...etc...
these are inanimate objects
leave a gun in a drawer, and it will stay there until someone takes it out and uses it
unused, it will just slowly oxidize
You, dozing off on a couch will also slowly oxidize.

Ask yourself, what kills people

In the USA, medical mistakes are the third leading cause of death.
What are you going to do about that?

Or
Does just jumping on the anti-gun bandwagon make you feel self righteous?
Do you really care about the deaths?
Or
Do you get your jollies by trying to take something from someone else?
People who take other people's stuff are commonly called thieves, or tax collectors.

 

[James R]

guns don't kill people

People who have guns kill people.

 

[billvon]

guns don't kill people

They just make it a WHOLE lot easier. Like giving a drunk the keys to a car. Hey, not your fault, it's his driving that caused the fatality, right?

People who take other people's stuff are commonly called thieves, or tax collectors.

Tax collectors don't kill people.

 

[Seattle]

They just make it a WHOLE lot easier. Like giving a drunk the keys to a car. Hey, not your fault, it's his driving that caused the fatality, right?

This is true, and I'm not completely at odds with your position but wouldn't you agree that the gun argument is similar to your other moral arguments in another thread about pushing the fat guy on a track to save 5 others, or thinking of the whole world as one or only thinking in black and white as far as something either maximizes peace or it doesn't?

Meaning, it's not realistic. The US already has a gun culture, many, many guns, they aren't going to go away under any circumstances and even if many law abiding people turned in their guns (they won't) every criminal would still be loaded to the gills and that wouldn't make anything better.

This is not to argue against any common sense gun restrictions. I'm just referring to it in the same black and white way as our other discussion about absolute charity to the world until we are all equally broke.

To me it's that lack of balance that results in Seattle of today or hoping to absolutely remove all guns from the U.S. In reality, it's not even a desirable outcome in the extreme.

 

[Tiassa]

Does "yes it's the goddamned motherfucking guns" sound like a well thought-out position? Or a rant from a hot head?

Are you new?

After enough reiterations of mass violence, "it's the goddamn motherfucking guns" is actually a fairly straightforward summary.

 

[Seattle]

Are you new?

After enough reiterations of mass violence, "it's the goddamn motherfucking guns" is actually a fairly straightforward summary.

No, it's not nuanced in the least. What's the solution take away all guns? Is that realistic in this country? No. If all law abiding people turned in their guns (they wouldn't) then criminals would be armed to the max. Is that desirable? No.

It's stupid to talk like that even when the problem is as we can all observe it to be.

You might as well post to the "rich", giveupallyourgoddamnedmoney!

 

[Tiassa]

What's the solution take away all guns? Is that realistic in this country? No. If all law abiding people turned in their guns (they wouldn't) then criminals would be armed to the max. Is that desirable? No.

It's how many decades later, and people still can't move past false dichotomies?

I suppose the alternative is that people are the problem.

It's stupid to talk like that even when the problem is as we can all observe it to be.

You're right; your fallacious bullshit is stupid:

You might as well post to the "rich", giveupallyourgoddamnedmoney!

Y'know, like that.

†​

What is it about American politics that the more conservative a position one advocates, the more they need fallacy?

It's like complaining about↗ implications of stupidity when the politic pretends such cluelessness about history. You probably shouldn't complain.