Another School Shooting

[Revoltingest]

And how did such polarization come to be?

Opposite sides are fervent, & recurring relevant events inflame passions further.
Tis human nature that this will polarize, & the fringe elements will command the spotlight.
Even those of us in between the extremes will tend to advocate for one side, & it won't
be noticed that our positions are more varied & nuanced.

 

[freethinker44]

Opposite sides are fervent, & recurring relevant events inflame passions further.
Tis human nature that this will polarize, & the fringe elements will command the spotlight.
Even those of us in between the extremes will tend to advocate for one side, & it won't
be noticed that our positions are more varied & nuanced.

It's group dynamics. The other side is always wrong, no exceptions, even if both sides agree on the same thing. It's an amazing phenomenon, almost instinctual I'd say if I believed in that sort of thing.

 

[CMike]

I advocate gun ownership rights.

As an American I have the Constitutional right to own and carry a gun to protect myself and my family.

Large hint: Criminals don't follow laws

 

[LuisDantas]

Opposite sides are fervent, & recurring relevant events inflame passions further.

Aren't those opposite sides basically the NRA and its sympathisers and those who refuse to keep silent when faced with its outrageous propaganda, though?

In other words, if we are quite honest about it, isn't it really the NRA's fault? Didn't it raise the volume out of its own convenience?

Somehow I just can't bring myself to believe that at some point there arose an unprovoked, passionate militance against gun ownership. Even now, what exactly does that "fervent, inflamed" opposition to gun carry do? How does it compare to the NRA's side's outlandish claims such as this one?

Joe the Plumber: 'Your dead kids don

Not to put too fine a point to it, I will ask right here whether there is any substance at all to the idea that there are "extremists at both sides" as opposed to the far more apparent evidence that the only extreme present is the insistence that people should have the right to carry guns and be proud of it.

It seems to me that this is just one further occurrence of the myth of the extremists at both sides.

Tis human nature that this will polarize, & the fringe elements will command the spotlight.

Yep. People get so passionate when violent unnecessary deaths become a regular occurrence. I guess you can attribute it to that pesky human nature.

Of course, if you ask me, the fringe elements are liberal pro-guns and it is in essence impossible for a comparable pro-gun control fringe to exist.

Simetry is a beautiful model and a conforting picture, but it is not always realistic.

Even those of us in between the extremes will tend to advocate for one side, & it won't be noticed that our positions are more varied & nuanced.

How much nuance does such a matter even allow, tough? What would a balanced position when it comes to school shootings be? In which way is it even distinguishable from the "extreme" pro-gun control position?

 

[LuisDantas]

I advocate gun ownership rights.

As an American I have the Constitutional right to own and carry a gun to protect myself and my family.

That is indeed the current understanding. It probably should change.

Large hint: Criminals don't follow laws

But they do get enormously empowered and motivated by gun culture. As do individuals that are simply unbalanced, as so painfully evidenced by the school shootings and so many other recurrent violent episodes.

 

[Revoltingest]

Aren't those opposite sides basically the NRA and its sympathisers and those who refuse to keep silent when faced with its outrageous propaganda, though?

Or is it that gun rights advocates refuse to keep silent in the
face of outrageous propaganda of the anit-gun rights crowd?

In other words, if we are quite honest about it, isn't it really the NRA's fault? Didn't it raise the volume out of its own convenience?

One could speculate that it's really the fault of the anti-gun rights crowd,
with their continual attempts to take away our constitutional rights.
But if we are to be "quite honest about it", we will look at both sides with
some objectivity, seeing both merit & shortcoming wherever it might lie.

Somehow I just can't bring myself to believe that at some point there arose an unprovoked, passionate militance against gun ownership. Even now, what exactly does that "fervent, inflamed" opposition to gun carry do? How does it compare to the NRA's side's outlandish claims such as this one?

Joe the Plumber: 'Your dead kids don

Not to put too fine a point to it, I will ask right here whether there is any substance at all to the idea that there are "extremists at both sides" as opposed to the far more apparent evidence that the only extreme present is the insistence that people should have the right to carry guns and be proud of it.

It seems to me that this is just one further occurrence of the myth of the extremists at both sides.




Yep. People get so passionate when violent unnecessary deaths become a regular occurrence. I guess you can attribute it to that pesky human nature.

Of course, if you ask me, the fringe elements are liberal pro-guns and it is in essence impossible for a comparable pro-gun control fringe to exist.

Simetry is a beautiful model and a conforting picture, but it is not always realistic.




How much nuance does such a matter even allow, tough? What would a balanced position when it comes to school shootings be? In which way is it even distinguishable from the "extreme" pro-gun control position?

 

[Revoltingest]

Aren't those opposite sides basically the NRA and its sympathisers and those who refuse to keep silent when faced with its outrageous propaganda, though?

In other words, if we are quite honest about it, isn't it really the NRA's fault? Didn't it raise the volume out of its own convenience?

Somehow I just can't bring myself to believe that at some point there arose an unprovoked, passionate militance against gun ownership. Even now, what exactly does that "fervent, inflamed" opposition to gun carry do? How does it compare to the NRA's side's outlandish claims such as this one?

Joe the Plumber: 'Your dead kids don

I was unaware that this guy spoke for the NRA.
How do you know he does?

Not to put too fine a point to it, I will ask right here whether there is any substance at all to the idea that there are "extremists at both sides" as opposed to the far more apparent evidence that the only extreme present is the insistence that people should have the right to carry guns and be proud of it.

Perhaps I notice the extreme views of the anti-gun rights side more than you do
because you're sympathetic to them, while I see a threat. They are there nonetheless.

It seems to me that this is just one further occurrence of the myth of the extremists at both sides.

Or perhaps you've succumbed to the myth that your side is right & virtuous,
but the other side is wrong & evil, eh?

Yep. People get so passionate when violent unnecessary deaths become a regular occurrence. I guess you can attribute it to that pesky human nature.

Of course, these deaths are not the only important issue.....at least
not the only one to gun rights advocates & constitutional originalists.

Of course, if you ask me, the fringe elements are liberal pro-guns and it is in essence impossible for a comparable pro-gun control fringe to exist.
Simetry is a beautiful model and a conforting picture, but it is not always realistic.
How much nuance does such a matter even allow, tough? What would a balanced position when it comes to school shootings be? In which way is it even distinguishable from the "extreme" pro-gun control position?

Balance would be to reason from the multi-facted general case,
& not allow the passions over a singular event to drive simplistic
& extreme solutions.

 

[LuisDantas]

Or is it that gun rights advocates refuse to keep silent in the face of outrageous propaganda of the anit-gun rights crowd?

See, that is the kind of question that I have to stop for a moment and logically consider whether it can even be asked seriously.

And in the end I still just don't know what to think of it.

 

[Revoltingest]

See, that is the kind of question that I have to stop for a moment and logically consider whether it can even be asked seriously.

Tis every bit as serious as your position.
It's just the opposing view.

And in the end I still just don't know what to think of it.

You should think that there are people who hold views about guns which
are diametrically opposed to yours. The world a diverse place, eh?

Hey, what about your claim that Joe The Plumber speaking for the NRA?
I'd never heard of that. I'd be surprised they'd give him the job. How do you know?

 

[LuisDantas]

Tis every bit as serious as your position.
It's just the opposing view.

It is an opposing view, I suppose.

But it is not serious. It is not respectable. It is not to be confused with a respectable position in any way, shape or form.

It is just a caricature gone terribly wrong.

You should think that there are people who hold views about guns which are diametrically opposed to yours. The world a diverse place, eh?

You miss the point, Rev. Some positions are just not worth of any respect. That is a very clear fact that we all should not fear acknowledging and acting upon.

For whatever reason, you have a tendency to see a lot of false equivalences in situations that are in reality terribly jaundiced.

For whatever reason, I sometimes find myself in the situation to call you on that.

I wonder how much effect it has.

Hey, what about your claim that Joe The Plumber speaking for the NRA? I'd never heard of that. I'd be surprised they'd give him the job. How do you know?

I never claimed that. I am just pointing out that the underlying ideology - one that, make no mistake, deserves no respect whatsoever - is much the same and should, well, be destroyed.

 

[Revoltingest]

It is an opposing view, I suppose.
But it is not serious. It is not respectable. It is not to be confused with a respectable position in any way, shape or form.
It is just a caricature gone terribly wrong.

I think I see....you're saying that only your view is serious & deserving of respect.
And my pro-gun rights is a caricature unworthy of respect, right?
What a heavy burden it must be for you, to be the bearer of the inerrant truth,
and yet deign to converse with me, & suffer thru my unworthy posts.

You miss the point, Rev. Some positions are just not worth of any respect. That is a very clear fact that we all should not fear acknowledging and acting upon.

Are you purposely trying to peg the needle in my irony meter?

For whatever reason, you have a tendency to see a lot of false equivalences in situations that are in reality terribly jaundiced.
For whatever reason, I sometimes find myself in the situation to call you on that.

Funny you should say that. I notice that you often fail to appreciate any merit
the other side has about an issue when you feel certain you have "the truth".
This is the danger of being overly certain, ie, being intolerant of other views.

I never claimed that.

Really? You said....

How does it compare to the NRA's side's outlandish claims such as this one?
Joe the Plumber: 'Your dead kids don

If you now admit he doesn't represent the NRA, then we're OK.
It's a misleading trick to quote the most extreme elements as
representing the NRA's / gun rights side.

I am just pointing out that the underlying ideology - one that, make no mistake, deserves no respect whatsoever - is much the same and should, well, be destroyed.

One might say that making a false claim about the NRA deserves disrespect.
But I won't.

 

[Father Heathen]

See, that is the kind of question that I have to stop for a moment and logically consider whether it can even be asked seriously.

And in the end I still just don't know what to think of it.

Considering that the anti-gun crowd is notorious for knee-jerk reactions, emotional theatrics, hysteria, exaggerations, and distorting data, I think it's a rather apt question.

It's quite sad that you would hold more respect for something simply because it appeals to your emotion rather than because it's honest and accurate.

I think living in one of the worst empoverished, crime ridden countries in the world might have limited your ability to be rational and objective on this topic.

 

[Father Heathen]

That is indeed the current understanding. It probably should change.

Maybe I'm just old fashioned, but I like the idea of being able to defend and protect yourself, your family,
and your property.

 

[Father Heathen]

A gun is the most efficient thing anyone can use for killing.

Factor in cost, use, availability, tactical advantage and you have the most efficient inanimate object for killing. Am I being fanatical in this belief or do I actually have a point? Or maybe you are being fanatical with your beliefs because you should easily point out to me what other purpose a gun is used for outside of killing. And if you say support or feed your family, well, what are you killing in order to do that?

You were going somewhere with this, but stopped?

 

[oldbadger]

I'm also peripherally involved in fighting over-regulation of hair-dressers, eg, LA's requirement that hair braiders get a cosmetology license (2000 hours of schooling
to apply chemicals that braiders don't use).

Yes, I'm a hairdresser advocate, & proud of it!

Well I'm damned....... how's that for a coincidence?

Well....... the UK is copying the US, methinks, in that offices can be formed to 'control' the issue of licences for various activities, jobs, careers, equipment etc and receive significant monies from the revenues, whilst also enjoying kick-backs from the various training networks that are given contracts. You like forklifts? Got a licence? Security Guard? Kindergarten worker? ........ it goes on...... the lot, apart from carpet cleaning operative, .

But...... since this is the norm now, how about a Federal office for gun licences. I know how much you enjoy that word.... federal . And so the training quals, the Criminal Record Check (with sensible decisions over 'spent' crimes), the proven use, the insirance... blah blah might be a good idea? I know you a repelled by the idea of nationwide gun insurance, but if somebody you love got seriosly wounded in an accident I'll bet that you would want the tort-perp to be insured for all costs, losses and expenses.

EDIT: Sorry for the typos..... new keyboard.....

 

[Revoltingest]

Well I'm damned....... how's that for a coincidence?

Well....... the UK is copying the US, methinks, in that offices can be formed to 'control' the issue of licences for various activities, jobs, careers, equipment etc and receive significant monies from the revenues, whilst also enjoying kick-backs from the various training networks that are given contracts. You like forklifts? Got a licence? Security Guard? Kindergarten worker? ........ it goes on...... the lot, apart from carpet cleaning operative, .

But...... since this is the norm now, how about a Federal office for gun licences. I know how much you enjoy that word.... federal . And so the training quals, the Criminal Record Check (with sensible decisions over 'spent' crimes), the proven use, the insirance... blah blah might be a good idea? I know you a repelled by the idea of nationwide gun insurance, but if somebody you love got seriosly wounded in an accident I'll bet that you would want the tort-perp to be insured for all costs, losses and expenses.

EDIT: Sorry for the typos..... new keyboard.....

Oh, you poor, sad & neutered little men who only recently stopped wearing foppish
powdered wigs. All problems are solved by a massive central bureaucracy with
ever increasing authority over us. Well, insurance is available from our wonderful
agents & underwriters in the private sector.

 

[metis]

The minute we start labeling people as being "anti-gun" or "pro-gun" or "pro-Second Amendment", we've already muddied the waters. I think it would be hard to find someone here at IF who wants to repeal the 2nd Amendment or totally eliminate guns or totally ban guns from most people.

For most of us, it's typically what kind of guns should be available, the question of background checks, and who should have which kind of gun.

 

[freethinker44]

Maybe I'm just old fashioned, but I like the idea of being able to defend and protect yourself, your family,
and your property.

But then you have to handle that awkward moment when you buy a gun to protect your family and statistically make them more likely to be injured or killed in their home by a gun.

 

[Revoltingest]

But then you have to handle that awkward moment when you buy a gun to protect your family and statistically make them more likely to be injured or killed in their home by a gun.

This is often said, & occasionally backed up by facile interpretation of apocryphal
statistics. I like to see it supported by a cogent argument with evidence.

Usually, I see arguments analogous with this:
Most injuries due to accidents happen within 20 miles of home.
Therefore, being withing 20 miles of home causes accidents.

I'm suspicious because I personally know several individuals who have
shot in self defense, but I know no one who injured a family member.

 

[oldbadger]

Oh, you poor, sad & neutered little men who only recently stopped wearing foppish powdered wigs.

Not yet! You're early! I see a consultant about my calcified nut on Thursday. You can scrag me after the op, if he agrees! And I don't need a wig just yet..... my silvery hair is more pleasing to me now than its mousy-dun colour before!

All problems are solved by a massive central bureaucracy with
ever increasing authority over us.

I don't particularly like that aspect at all. That needs shaking very hard. In 2003 the UK had its first 'Security Industry Authority' and the Govment put a lady in charge of it who had never been involved in any aspect of security in her whole life. In her opening message she explained 'This is ideal, because I will be able to look at all aspects of security with a fresh and open mind' or words like that. Can you beat that for bulldust?

Well, insurance is available from our wonderful agents & underwriters in the private sector.

Well..... yes. So is vehicle insurance, but you gotta have it.