Mr. Ambien Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 They occur "with such frequency" because most of them, such as the latest one, have happened in a country that is so obsessed with guns and warfare that they now seem to just accept mass shootings as a consequence of living in the country. Until the USA does something about their gun problem - the problem being that way too many people own guns and view them as engrained in their lifestyles - these mass shootings won't go away. Yes, of course, criminals will still get guns etc etc etc. But bringing in gun control is the first step to changing the USA's entire gun culture. And what most gun advocates don't realize is that it's the "gun culture", not the guns themselves, that are the problem. Laws don't change culture, or nature. Obviously some fail to grasp that, because anti-gun politics. The fact that anyone thinks government slapping an added gun restriction or outlawing guns will actually dent violent crime by any considerable margin shows how their political leanings have seriously clouded their ability to think rationally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 To what end would they fake all these shootings? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
literaphile Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 Laws don't change culture, or nature. Obviously some fail to grasp that, because anti-gun politics. The fact that anyone thinks government slapping an added gun restriction or outlawing guns will actually dent violent crime by any considerable margin shows how their political leanings have seriously clouded their ability to think rationally. If less people have guns, over time guns will not be as engrained in American society as they are today. Americans are gun nuts because they're easy to get, they're sensationalized, and it's generally socially acceptable to carry one (concealed carry is, in fact, a point of pride for many). Obviously a culture shift won't happen overnight. But it will happen. If you remove guns from a large portion of society then they will find a new fetish to focus on. And that's what guns are for many Americans: a fetish. But hey, what's your solution? If they're not going to do anything about guns they might as well just buy every citizen a bullet-proof vest and be done with it, right? And by the way, "because anti-gun politics" isn't an argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 If less people have guns, over time guns will not be as engrained in American society as they are today. Americans are gun nuts because they're easy to get, they're sensationalized, and it's generally socially acceptable to carry one (concealed carry is, in fact, a point of pride for many). Obviously a culture shift won't happen overnight. But it will happen. If you remove guns from a large portion of society then they will find a new fetish to focus on. And that's what guns are for many Americans: a fetish. But hey, what's your solution? If they're not going to do anything about guns they might as well just buy every citizen a bullet-proof vest and be done with it, right? And by the way, "because anti-gun politics" isn't an argument. The rationale for guns is protection from violent criminals, protection from government, hunting, etc. How you think a law will suddenly change the desire for guns without ever addressing the actual reason they desire it is amazing. Obviously you've thought this through quite well.. not. You can forget about such terrible arguments gaining clout in an era where more jurisdictions in the US are turning to US citizens to protect themselves. Even the nutcase liberal city of Detroit, their mayor went out and told people to get guns to protect themselves. Trying to tell people to stop protecting themselves or that they don't need guns is going to fall upon deaf ears. Trying to make the argument that a law (and disarming law abiding people) is going to change criminal behaviour is even more laughable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
literaphile Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 The rationale for guns is protection from violent criminals, protection from government, hunting, etc. How you think a law will suddenly change the desire for guns without ever addressing the actual reason they desire it is amazing. Obviously you've thought this through quite well.. not. You can forget about such terrible arguments gaining clout in an era where more jurisdictions in the US are turning to US citizens to protect themselves. Even the nutcase liberal city of Detroit, their mayor went out and told people to get guns to protect themselves. Trying to tell people to stop protecting themselves or that they don't need guns is going to fall upon deaf ears. Trying to make the argument that a law (and disarming law abiding people) is going to change criminal behaviour is even more laughable. You are either purposely presenting straw man arguments, or you're not reading what I said. Here's what I said: If less people have guns, over time guns will not be as engrained in American society as they are today. Americans are gun nuts because they're easy to get, they're sensationalized, and it's generally socially acceptable to carry one (concealed carry is, in fact, a point of pride for many). Obviously a culture shift won't happen overnight. But it will happen. If you remove guns from a large portion of society then they will find a new fetish to focus on. To make things easier for you, I put the important bit in bold. It won't happen overnight. Culture shifts take a long time. Just look at how many parts of America still struggle with black/white racism. But, most people would concede that racism is a lot less prominent now than it was in the 1960s. It's the same thing with guns. Remove guns from American culture and, SLOWLY, change will happen. Remember, I said SLOWLY. Not "suddenly" as you misquoted me above. Obviously the current dominant generation will still want their guns. But their kids will grow up in a country that doesn't fetishize guns (and, hopefully, violence). It's that generation and future generations in which we would see the shift. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 You are either purposely presenting straw man arguments, or you're not reading what I said. Here's what I said: To make things easier for you, I put the important bit in bold. It won't happen overnight. Culture shifts take a long time. Just look at how many parts of America still struggle with black/white racism. But, most people would concede that racism is a lot less prominent now than it was in the 1960s. It's the same thing with guns. Remove guns from American culture and, SLOWLY, change will happen. Remember, I said SLOWLY. Not "suddenly" as you misquoted me above. Obviously the current dominant generation will still want their guns. But their kids will grow up in a country that doesn't fetishize guns (and, hopefully, violence). It's that generation and future generations in which we would see the shift. Even with increasingly lax gun restrictions, even to a point of government jurisdictions in the US endorsing people arming themselves, violent crime has been consistently decreasing. Obviously you haven't taken the time to educate yourself on the subject that you argue. General declarations of laws changing culture, the notion that removing guns from law abiding citizens even addresses, never mind changes the reason law abiding people seek to arm themselves.. the violent criminals. Just a way for those who have personal prejudices about a piece of metal and plastic to feel more comfortable with their illogical biases. I actually feel bad because this is only one aspect one would want to arm themselves.. it disparages those who use the nearly infinite other reasons to get a gun. One of the best other reasons comes from Dr. Suzanna Hupp (if you can see past the Chuck Schumer smirk in the video that makes one want to punch him in the face): Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerridwen Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 There is a 7 second delay in all "live" events, giving ample time for the control room to prevent such a video being shown in its entirety. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2012/10/fox_news_live_suicide_how_do_you_censor_live_television_.html Who knows what really is true, but the fact is we should be questioning these kind of outlandish events, especially when they occur with such frequency. There was the live viewing which the station cut off and then there was the video released by the gunman himself. Obviously the general public knew/suspected what had occurred before the station managed to cut off the live viewing and the shooter, himself, posted the video for members of the public to see. The cat was already out of the bag before police could corral it. The shooter's manifesto was faxxed to the media. Which part of this are you not understanding?The shooter made sure that the news of his deed was well out there before the investigation was truly underway. Why should we be questioning the legitimacy of these sort of events? What is so outlandish about it? These events occur, sadly. It must be a sad and scary world you live in where the loss of 2 innocent lives is the basis of the latest conspiracy theory. I'm sure the folks who lost their loved ones and who are currently planning funerals would love to hear all about it. Why not send them an email detailing how this 'outlandish' and 'far too often occurring' state of affairs is really all fake... I'm sure they'd appreciate it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neversummer Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 When will they get it? From CBC.ca - http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/mass-shootings-in-the-u-s-guns-glory-broken-dreams-1.3203335 'A new study sheds light on why mass shootings in the U.S. are 'an exceptionally American problem' The shocking murder of two journalists carried out on live television this week has Americans once again asking questions about why these kinds of crimes seem to happen with such frequency in their country. The University of Alabama professor found that despite having less than five per cent of the world's population, the United States was home to 31 per cent of the world's mass shooters between 1966 and 2012. His work discusses the reasons behind his finding, and in the context of the theory of American exceptionalism, he finds that there is indeed something uniquely American about mass shootings. They are "an exceptionally American problem," he writes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 When will they get it? From CBC.ca - http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/mass-shootings-in-the-u-s-guns-glory-broken-dreams-1.3203335 'A new study sheds light on why mass shootings in the U.S. are 'an exceptionally American problem' The shocking murder of two journalists carried out on live television this week has Americans once again asking questions about why these kinds of crimes seem to happen with such frequency in their country. The University of Alabama professor found that despite having less than five per cent of the world's population, the United States was home to 31 per cent of the world's mass shooters between 1966 and 2012. His work discusses the reasons behind his finding, and in the context of the theory of American exceptionalism, he finds that there is indeed something uniquely American about mass shootings. They are "an exceptionally American problem," he writes.What is there to get?Americans know about the violence in their own country, and their communities, that's one of the many reasons why they elect to arm themselves.The publications on this study are garbage. Junk science published straight to the media by a liberal anti-gun association. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 Sandy Hook was really really shady. Sandy Hook was absolutely fake. Anyone who looks into it with an open mind will see massive holes and lies. Starting with Robby Parker when he's laughing on camera right before his interview and then starts hyperventilating himself to get into character. Of course the only argument by the ignorant is that "everyone handles a loss of a loved one different". All of them never have tears and are perfectly happy going on CNN or FOX for a live interview the SAME day as their loved one got blown away. Yeah, that's normal... It's no different with this case. If you pay attention you will see the pattern. If you see a story run non-stop on the main stream media you WILL see the pattern of fake interviews, the agenda will be talked about, (whether it's guns, cameras on cops, black vs. white etc) by the "victims". It's the exact same story every time. But hey, it's on the main stream media so it must be true and anyone who questions it or points out inconsistencies is scrutinized as a quack. I'm used to it. I'm just trying to wake some folks up to the reality of what is happening, is all. The footage alone of the Charlie Hebdo shooting proves it's fake to anyone not suffering from cognitive dissonance. It may have been the most blatant one of all. Absolutely hilarious. The tinfoil is strong with these two. Hugely publicized mass shootings in two different countries. Several people dead, including many children, yet no-one in either country has come out and exposed these incidents as fake. Think about it. Either none of the reported dead ever existed, or every family member, every friend, everyone that knew them in any way is keeping silent about it. This in a world where people can't keep text messages between two people a secret. Somehow, the powers that be have managed to pull the wool over everyone's eyes, not just once, but multiple times. The US government in particular, which couldn't manage to "discover" a chemical or biological weapons facility in the Iraqi desert. To what end would they fake all these shootings? Haven't you heard? It's a plot designed to disarm law abiding citizens. However, it makes little sense in the case of Charlie Hebdo, since France already has the type of common sense gun regulation that terrifies the so-called responsible American gun owners so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugor Hill Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 Even with increasingly lax gun restrictions, even to a point of government jurisdictions in the US endorsing people arming themselves, violent crime has been consistently decreasing. That's mostly because the population is getting older. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
literaphile Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 What is there to get? Americans know about the violence in their own country, and their communities, that's one of the many reasons why they elect to arm themselves. The publications on this study are garbage. Junk science published straight to the media by a liberal anti-gun association. "The answer to gun violence is to give more people guns!" "Studies that I don't agree with are garbage!" "Blah blah liberal blah blah anti-gun blah blah not a real argument blah blah!" Such stunning and irrefutable logic. I'm happy that we have someone in this discussion who doesn't cloud us with too many facts and instead uses baseless beliefs and political agendas. Facts get in the way - much like innocent people in the way of bullets fired by patriotic Americans. Right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 "The answer to gun violence is to give more people guns!" "Studies that I don't agree with are garbage!" "Blah blah liberal blah blah anti-gun blah blah not a real argument blah blah!" Such stunning and irrefutable logic. I'm happy that we have someone in this discussion who doesn't cloud us with too many facts and instead uses baseless beliefs and political agendas. Facts get in the way - much like innocent people in the way of bullets fired by patriotic Americans. Right?Studies I don't agree with, that's cute, how about studies that publish straight to the media way before they even go through their own criteria of peer review?Oh that's right, we trust anything with the word "study" when it fits the narrative."Blah blah 5 second Google search I've found a study cut and paste I win the internets pat self on the back"Moving along.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bocivus Posted August 29, 2015 Share Posted August 29, 2015 Proof this piece of garbage is an actor. Just a coincidence thought, eh? Y'all will believe anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BradyBoone Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 Did they come out and say Andy Parker was not an actor? Could have been an actor who lost some loved ones? Coincidence? Maybe, maybe not. Not sure what to think anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bocivus Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 Did they come out and say Andy Parker was not an actor? Could have been an actor who lost some loved ones? Coincidence? Maybe, maybe not. Not sure what to think anymore. I don't recall the media saying he wasn't an actor, but this is no coincidence that he IS one. It's always the same. Look up the vast majority of the violent stories that air non-stop on CNN, FOX etc. You will see people willing to go on live TV the SAME day their so-called brother, son, mother, father, aunt or whomever got blown away. THAT right there is a huge red flag. Then you watch the interview and there are NO tears and a lot of times they're smiling away saying all kinds of asinine things that don't in any way portray someone who just lost a loved one in a violent act. The only "reason" (if you want to call it that) most people make in an attempt to justify this is that everyone reacts differently to the loss of a loved one. Well, when they all act in unison with this type of behavior on the main stream media, what's the explanation now? You can look up verifiable stories where mothers/fathers/sons are doing interviews that lost a family member MONTHS after it happened and they still can't stop the tears from flowing yet these people can't seem to shed ONE. You will also see in the interview the agenda being pushed. It's a pattern and it's all too obvious to anyone who can set emotions aside and recognize it for what it is. A ploy, a lie, a hoax, call it a anything. What it is NOT, however, is a real event. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Mike Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 Bocivus is legit one of my favorite posters on here he's so insane it's freaking hilarious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 I still don't get what the end result of this hoax is? What's the goal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lionized27 Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 Bocivus is legit one of my favorite posters on here he's so insane it's freaking hilarious Quoted for truth. Seconded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 I still don't get what the end result of this hoax is? What's the goal? To take guns away from decent, law-abiding Americans... You'd think that they'd give it up. After a dozen or so of these "fake" mass shootings, we're nowhere closer to any kind of meaningful change than we were before Columbine. Even "pretending" to murder a bunch of kindergarten to 4th grade school children has had no real effect. Clearly, the "staged" shootings are not working. It's time for Obama to adopt a new "strategy". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.