Its things like this that make me hope humanity ends so the raccoons can take a shot at running the planet.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not only are the people doing this paranoid and utterly devoid of empathy, but they're likely to be heavily armed.
What could possibly go wrong?
I just want to say this: not that anyone is doing this, but let's not get all uppity about how bad people gun nuts are. Every incident that has happened in the last...forever has had responses that were ludicrous and unacceptable. On both ends of the political spectrum.
As long as these types of responses are the exception, rather than the rule, I consider us to be winning.
I'm not trying to erect a false equivalence, I'm trying to gird against it. That was sort of my point, perhaps it wasn't well made... allow me to elaborate.
There will always be a lunatic fringe who reacts to ANYTHING with threats of violence while frothing at the mouth. Holding them up as examples that "X or Y does this, too!" is disingenuous. There was, like, a single death threat of a Republican state senator during Wisconsin's shakeup a couple years back, and the progressives around here will never live it down since we're branded union thugs and whatnot.
Quantity matters. I don't think the vast majority, or even any significant portion, of right-wingers are reacting with vitriol specifically toward the faculty of Sandy Hook. I think they are an example of the lunatic fringe which will always be present.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sure there are plenty of people on the other side facepalming about this sort of knee-jerk reaction as well.
One side: "We have a 2nd amendment right to own firearms."
Other side: "Gun violence is a recurring issue that needs to be addressed. We want further legal restrictions on gun ownership."
One side fringe: "Try and take away my guns and I'll freaking shoot you in the head!"
*cue facepalm*
|
I don't know. Maybe I just don't see them, but I don't recall a lot of examples in the recent past of leftists making videos with their guns about how they're going to start killing people if some atrocious piece of legislation gets passed.
Plenty of rants about how the law will kill people or let them die in the streets. A lot less direct threats.Let's not go to far with the false equivalence.
If you go back decades or look at other countries with different political dynamics, then you can find examples. I'm talking about US politics here.
Not a video from someone on the left, but a video game that targets specific people (NRA leaders) with gun violence.
-
If you can stand the source (which is biased) watch it to see some of the images from the game and you'll see that violent nuttery is on both sides of the issue.
For the sensitive viewer - just fast forward through if you can't stand Hannity parts (which is around 99% of OT paizo posters) to see the image captures of the game.
I think "fanatics" is the proper term for this situation. I think that there are always fanatics in everything that someone can put a belief into.
Whether its being a fanatical gun owner promising to die before giving up her guns, a pro "government pay for my birth control pills", someone who believes in aliens, the only reason these people get attention is because they are "fanatical".
But "fanatical" does not mean "all". Not everyone believes in this conspiracy theory.
I think the best thing people can do, when confronted with this, is to try to remember that not everyone believes in this.
I don't know. Maybe I just don't see them, but I don't recall a lot of examples in the recent past of leftists making videos with their guns about how they're going to start killing people if some atrocious piece of legislation gets passed.
Plenty of rants about how the law will kill people or let them die in the streets. A lot less direct threats.Let's not go to far with the false equivalence.
If you go back decades or look at other countries with different political dynamics, then you can find examples. I'm talking about US politics here.
Not a video from someone on the left, but a video game that targets specific people (NRA leaders) with gun violence.
-
If you can stand the source (which is biased) watch it to see some of the images from the game and you'll see that violent nuttery is on both sides of the issue.
For the sensitive viewer - just fast forward through if you can't stand Hannity parts (which is around 99% of OT paizo posters) to see the image captures of the game.
Image defemation is not the same thing at all as harrassment or physical threats of violence.
there is at least a dozen videos out on sandy hook being a hoax.
The trouble is:
1) this is based on people in the background (supposedly parents) smiling and people on camera "laughing" (id call it an uncomfortable nervous giggle)
2)people being interviewed not being able to answer questions, or avoiding questions.
Ok so, as far as people smiling, Ive been to foreign countries, and seen people trying to live in a cave of rubble that used to be their home that was bombed...and they are smiling. I thought it was weird too. But many people overcome grief by finding silver linings. Hey my wife is still alive, hey people are here that care about me, hey I believe my child has gone to heaven,,,, whatever the case may be.
Then we have supposed interviews of people asking kids questions like "did you hear guns shots"
Wait so kids are supposed to know what gun shots sound like? I'm picturing scared children huddle under their desk holding their hands over their ears. There was noise, confusion and shortly there after lots of cops. Kids can't be credible witnesses.
I did see one video of an interview that was supposedly CBS footage of a woman being interviewed on how she found out about the school shooting (a parent) and she claims in the video she got a text from the school, and then later a text from CBS...... Hmmm I'm thinking this video is either a) made up by the conspiracy theorist himself or b) possibly the women is just delirious in shock and has diarrhea of the mouth.
There were also some photos of kids who were some of the dead ones. the first shows the kids "before" and then later shows the same kids in a hugging embrace with Pres. Obama.
So ummm I dunno who these kids are, since I don't know for a fact any of these pics are in fact pics of anyone even related to the shootings... the video showed no proof of whom these kids were.
It is also possible the the President had visited a school or area at one time and it's a coincidence that these youngsters had been in a photo with the president.
The video tries to make it seem like this photo with the president was taken AFTER the shooting, but provides no evidence for that.
So I think there is a definite campaign of misinformation afoot.
I also think there is a lot of this on both sides however.
Like the NYC newspaper releasing the names and addresses of all lawful gun owners, like they were on a sex predator watch list or something. IF that's not harassment what is? I mean first of all, by printing all these names, thats an invasion of privacy, but by doing so you've altered criminals to all the places guns are NOT. Seems extremely counter productive.
So I wouldn't limit the lack of tact, taste or unbelievable behavior to just one side of the of gun politics debate.
I also think there is a lot of this on both sides however.
Like the NYC newspaper releasing the names and addresses of all lawful gun owners, like they were on a sex predator watch list or something. IF that's not harassment what is? I mean first of all, by printing all these names, thats an invasion of privacy, but by doing so you've altered criminals to all the places guns are NOT. Seems extremely counter productive.
Similarly, around here the names of everyone who signed the petition to recall Scott Walker were published. Despite voting being secret ballot, apparently the courts decided that the petition was public information. There was a pretty widespread campaign of people being intimidated, threatened, harassed, and fired from their jobs for simply signing a petition.
A good number of journalists, including a friend's partner who is a photojournalist, had their employment suspended or terminated due to this (it is claimed) tainting their position of political neutrality. Which is poppycock, but when the newspaper you're working for is owned by a company who contributed massively to the election campaign of said governor...
Ironically, or perhaps not, that NY newspaper was deluged in death threats as well.
Also, this article says someone's home was broken into BECAUSE they were listed as owning guns.
Now-breaking into someone's house because you know they have a firearm? That's irony for you.
The last I checked, the police had called the link between the burglary and the map "pure speculation." That was two days ago; they may have changed their working theory since then, but I doubt it. Besides, one of the central arguments of the gun rights side has been that guns make you safer because a criminal who knows you have a gun will avoid your house when deciding who to rob/burgle, because he doesn't want to get shot. Are gun rights advocates now adopting the idea that owning a gun is dangerous because it makes you a target if criminals are aware of it?
I'm sure there are plenty of people on the other side facepalming about this sort of knee-jerk reaction as well.
One side: "We have a 2nd amendment right to own firearms."
Other side: "Gun violence is a recurring issue that needs to be addressed. We want further legal restrictions on gun ownership."
One side fringe: "Try and take away my guns and I'll freaking shoot you in the head!"
Frankly, I haven't heard many people arguing against the idea of additional gun control who weren't part of that latter fringe group. Most supporters of 2nd amendment rights are in favor of additional firearms regulations in this case. The most vocal gun-rights proponents in the last thread(s) supported the idea of - or threatened that they themselves would start - killing those who tried to restrict their rights to own guns. Mind you, we're not even talking about violence if the government tries to take guns away from them - I think even most of that fringe realizes that their guns aren't actually going to be seized. We're talking about people who are encouraging violent rebellion against the United States government if we enact restrictions on what you can buy.
there is at least a dozen videos out on sandy hook being a hoax.
Speaking as a person who moved to Connecticut just prior to Sandy Hook, and being as I'm living about 19 miles from there and have driven through the area before and since... let me just say that if this is a hoax, it is the most elaborate, fool-proof, authentic, and leak-free hoax evah. All of Connecticut is properly 'fooled' and grieving.
Now, let's take bets on when the lunatic fringe will denounce me as a fraud and 'part of the conspiracy'.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
there is at least a dozen videos out on sandy hook being a hoax.Speaking as a person who moved to Connecticut just prior to Sandy Hook, and being as I'm living about 19 miles from there
Otherwise known in Connecticut as "the other side of the state."
Gorilla Sales Skyrocket After Latest Gorilla Attack
Probably the most brilliant and pointed satire that can be written about the situation, honestly.
|
|
Image defemation is not the same thing at all as harrassment or physical threats of violence.
So it would be ok if they had the same game, crosshairs, bodies and all - but instead of the NRA leadership being targeted you replace them with, oh I don't know - maybe and image of the POTUS?
Would that just be image defamation in your opinion?
I don't know about image defamation, but it's still a damn sight less than waving your gun around saying "I'm going to start killing people if this law passes."Image defemation is not the same thing at all as harrassment or physical threats of violence.So it would be ok if they had the same game, crosshairs, bodies and all - but instead of the NRA leadership being targeted you replace them with, oh I don't know - maybe and image of the POTUS?
Would that just be image defamation in your opinion?
That, and the story seems rather contrived. It's Hannity, after all. Dude's hardly a legitimate source.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know about image defamation, but it's still a damn sight less than waving your gun around saying "I'm going to start killing people if this law passes."Image defemation is not the same thing at all as harrassment or physical threats of violence.So it would be ok if they had the same game, crosshairs, bodies and all - but instead of the NRA leadership being targeted you replace them with, oh I don't know - maybe and image of the POTUS?
Would that just be image defamation in your opinion?
Ok, just to be clear.
It's worse to say you that "I'm going to start killing people if this law passes" than to make a game that advocates assassinating specific people?
I’m just trying to gauge as to what qualifies as proper righteous indignation and hypocrisy around here.
Gorilla Sales Skyrocket After Latest Gorilla Attack
Probably the most brilliant and pointed satire that can be written about the situation, honestly.
350 lbs? Someone get that poor gorilla some bananas, stat.
It's worse to say you that "I'm going to start killing people if this law passes" than to make a game that advocates assassinating specific people?
Yes.
Unless you want to assert that most people playing videogames can't tell the difference between them and reality, and playing said game might incite violence in its players.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OK, so just a note: four recent threads about gun control have had to be locked by Liz or Chris in the past month or so.
That's a pretty fair indication that the discussion going on in those threads had taken on a nature not in keeping with the messageboard rules/what is considered acceptable here.
And while some of those threads started out as separate discussions, they quickly were co-opted as continuations of arguments that had been locked.
Please don't use this thread as a cover to resurrect personal arguments/styles of debate that Liz and Chris have already had to shut down multiple times. Thanks!
Are gun rights advocates now adopting the idea that owning a gun is dangerous because it makes you a target if criminals are aware of it?
Hmm. Is the Daily Caller a gun rights advocate site? I know nothing about them. I actually went looking for that NY newspaper on google and I found what I thought was an interesting article.
As for me: After Newtown Massacre: Bourgeois Hypocrisy and Gun Control Schemes and Revolution and the Right to Bear Arms: The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
It's fun to count how much ground is covered between these two articles and all of my links in the past four threads:
MOVE massacre? Check. Waco? Check. Greensboro? Check. Malcolm X? Check. Deacons for Defense? Check. Black Panther Party? Check. H. Rap Brown on pie? Check.
I did miss the racist bombing of Tulsa, OK in 1921 though.
Hmm. I wonder if this is what Citizen Price was talking about...
|
|
I don't know. Is it worse to walk up to you with my (slung, so it's not directly pointed at you or ready to use) AR-15 and say "I will kill you if I ever see you around here again" or to draw a picture of you being shot?
Hint: One of those things is unquestionably a crime.
So the slung AR-15 situation happened already? Someone went to take their guns away and they said "I will kill you if I ever see you around here again"?
Since one is a theoretical situation vs. reality I would say that the latter case was worse, since it already happened.
Someone did make a video game targeting specific people, where the point is to assassinate them.
Which they have a right to do - unless of course the principals in the game were changed to the POTUS.
Hint: In which case they would be investigated by the Secret Service.
I think part of the reason some people are saying it was staged is because of all the erroneous reporting the day of the massacre,
The entire reason some people are saying it was staged is that they are conspiracy nuts who want the event to have been staged because it plays into their world view. Hunting for and finding "suspicious" activity in the enormous amount of media coverage of the event is just an excuse to give them the barest amount of credibility and the confidence to speak publicly about it.
So the slung AR-15 situation happened already? Someone went to take their guns away and they said "I will kill you if I ever see you around here again"?
We've been told by people, on this forum, that if someone tries to restrict their "right" to purchase whatever firearms they wish, that they will start killing people.
This isn't theoretical. The threats have happened. They are real. In fact, they happen all the time. The only thing that hasn't happened is anyone actually following through.
Now-breaking into someone's house because you know they have a firearm? That's irony for you.
Well NYC is a special case. It's an extremely gun restrictive municipality due to a lot of gun violence in it's past and the facts that 1) they have an extremely large police force 2) are densely urban and 3) robbery/mugging is really high.
In a place like NYC there are NOT a lot of gun toting civilians. Only special use permits are available (people like the owner of jewelry store)
This means place where guns ARE (and are there legally) makes it a target for theft. because you have the name and address of the person who is known to have a gun on record. Because of NYC's specific laws, that means if you are law abiding, and say a jewelry store owner, but you are going to you kids school play, and not to work at the store, the gun is at home, waiting to be stolen. Now the criminal has the address.
NYC is a different animal in that respect.
The Pro-Gun argument is, that the criminal doesn't know who might or might not have a gun, so the deterrent is the unknown. If it were illegal to have guns they would know there is no chance (or very little chance) of coming up against one.
Places like Switzerland are often used by the PRO-gun Lobby as an 'example'. True, they have laws requiring guns in the home (for some) but the country also has very different gun laws than the US, many of them are more restrictive than here. They still manage to be one of the highest gun owner countries in the world and enjoy an active gun culture, but guns aren't everywhere flowing in the streets like flowers and candy, like some might have you believe.
the way the Swiss handle their gun ownership and militia, does, inadvertently, greatly deter home break ins. But note they are also a much less indulgent, excessive and violent society than the US, and there is much less population and population density. So no direct correlation can easily be made, save one. Gun ownership by responsible citizens is NOT a threat to public safety. (otherwise Switzerland would be a blood bath)
|
|
So the slung AR-15 situation happened already? Someone went to take their guns away and they said "I will kill you if I ever see you around here again"?We've been told by people, on this forum, that if someone tries to restrict their "right" to purchase whatever firearms they wish, that they will start killing people.
You mean fight a revolutionary war if tyrannical powers start to illegally strip people of their rights? Or just kill people randomly?
This isn't theoretical. The threats have happened. They are real. In fact, they happen all the time. The only thing that hasn't happened is anyone actually following through.
Ah, so by your own admission this hasn't actually happened.
For all the millions of times it's been threatened this hasn't actually occurred. At least not one case hat made major news.Got it.
the way the Swiss handle their gun ownership and militia, does, inadvertently, greatly deter home break ins. But note they are also a much less indulgent, excessive and violent society than the US, and there is much less population and population density. So no direct correlation can easily be made, save one. Gun ownership by responsible citizens is NOT a threat to public safety. (otherwise Switzerland would be a blood bath)
I'm not sure that's a claim that can be responsibly made. While gun ownership (or, perhaps more accurately, gun possession) is widespread, from what I understand no one has ammunition. (The government used to issue it, but recalled all of it in 2007 and 99+% has been returned. Shooting ranges sell ammunition, but you have to use it there.)
...neither has anyone attacked people that work for the NRA.
Nor has there been attempts on the president's life (that I know of).
Let's keep talking about things that haven't happened.
/boggle
You mean fight a revolutionary war if tyrannical powers start to illegally strip people of their rights? Or just kill people randomly?
I have little doubt that most would manage to convince themselves that what they are doing is fighting a noble, revolutionary war. I also have little doubt that they'd kill plenty of people at random.
Ah, so by your own admission this hasn't actually happened.
For all the millions of times it's been threatened this hasn't actually occurred. At least not one case hat made major news.
I've been saying that for multiple threads, now. In fact, I've said it to you before. Extreme gun rights advocates are not scary because I'm worried they'll follow through on their threats - I very much doubt they ever will; it's just macho talk that makes them feel patriotic without actually doing anything worthwhile for their country. They scare me because they vote.
Image defemation is not the same thing at all as harrassment or physical threats of violence.So it would be ok if they had the same game, crosshairs, bodies and all - but instead of the NRA leadership being targeted you replace them with, oh I don't know - maybe and image of the POTUS?
Would that just be image defamation in your opinion?
Yes. And I'm pretty sure you can find a couple games like that on Newgounds.
|
|
I have little doubt that most would manage to convince themselves that what they are doing is fighting a noble, revolutionary war. I also have little doubt that they'd kill plenty of people at random.*******
Extreme gun rights advocates are not scary because I'm worried they'll follow through on their threats - I very much doubt they ever will; it's just macho talk that makes them feel patriotic without actually doing anything worthwhile for their country. They scare me because they vote.
So basically what you are saying is...well it's hard to tell what you are saying.
You completely contradicted yourself in one post. GG on that one.In your mind gun rights advocates would actually fight in a revolutionary war and convince themselves that they are fighting a noble cause, all the while killing people at random. But they will never actually kill anyone because it's all talk.
It’s good that you are trying to cover your bases with diverse rhetoric - but you should split up the contradictory points into separate posts so the contradictions are not as obvious (to rational people).
The convoluted and conflicting thoughts must make it hard for you to think straight.
Anyway - not looking to get another thread closed over here.
Out of respect for the moderators and other posters I will bow out on this one so it can continue on with the standard extreme left wing vs. less extreme left wing debate on the evils of inanimate objects and their abuse.
So basically what you are saying is...well it's hard to tell what you are saying.
You completely contradicted yourself in one post. GG on that one.
What's so difficult to understand?
I very much doubt extreme gun rights advocates will ever begin an open, armed rebellion on anything resembling a widespread scale; all that talk is just that - talk. However, if they ever did manage to start an open rebellion, I'm sure they would style themselves freedom fighters, patriots, and liberators, while meanwhile killing plenty of people in a disorganized fashion and with little regard for whether their violence will accomplish anything.
In your mind gun rights advocates would actually fight in a revolutionary war and convince themselves that they are fighting a noble cause, all the while killing people at random. But they will never actually kill anyone because it's all talk.
Basically, yes. They won't do it, but if they did, they'd think themselves heroes on the side of the people but actually be incredibly dangerous to just about everyone.
It’s good that you are trying to cover your bases with diverse rhetoric - but you should split up the contradictory points into separate posts so the contradictions are not as obvious (to rational people).
My position isn't that hard to follow. I've explained it. You can ignore that explanation, but there it is.
The convoluted and conflicting thoughts must make it hard for you to think straight.
Oh, you!
I know, nuance is hard, huh?
Anyway - not looking to get another thread closed over here.
Out of respect for the moderators and other posters I will bow out on this one so it can continue on with the standard extreme left wing vs. less extreme left wing debate on the evils of inanimate objects and their abuse.
Probably a fine idea.
I just wish that people wouldn't give those nutjobs a stage for their views. How much better the world would be if we could all ignore hateful speculation until the perpetrators found more productive uses of their time.
the way the Swiss handle their gun ownership and militia, does, inadvertently, greatly deter home break ins. But note they are also a much less indulgent, excessive and violent society than the US, and there is much less population and population density. So no direct correlation can easily be made, save one. Gun ownership by responsible citizens is NOT a threat to public safety. (otherwise Switzerland would be a blood bath)I'm not sure that's a claim that can be responsibly made. While gun ownership (or, perhaps more accurately, gun possession) is widespread, from what I understand no one has ammunition. (The government used to issue it, but recalled all of it in 2007 and 99+% has been returned. Shooting ranges sell ammunition, but you have to use it there.)
People can buy their own ammunition and shooting sports is widespread.
The government ammo was accountable, sealed package etc. Some rapid deployment designees still have that ammo, but it's not everyone anymore. it was only about 50 rounds, and it's purpose is to have enough ammo to 'fight to the armory' if necessary (this would be an all hell breaks loose blitzkrieg type situation)
People are allowed to buy ammo, take guns to ranges, shoot them etc.
They don't run around town with them strapped to their back or carry them for personal protection about town, however. It's generally not needed, if something where to happen, someone could run into their home/homes and fetch their gun in defense of some other citizen who wasn't near their home. No real need to carry your own when eery block has a gun somewhere within reach.
But like I said...that violence isnt really an issue in that country, it doesnt happen... I think the numbers where 45 violent deaths in the whole country in one year.... that has A LOT more to do with the countries culture and it's difference from the US than guns or no guns.
The government ammo was accountable, sealed package etc. Some rapid deployment designees still have that ammo, but it's not everyone anymore. it was only about 50 rounds, and it's purpose is to have enough ammo to 'fight to the armory' if necessary (this would be an all hell breaks loose blitzkrieg type situation)
People are allowed to buy ammo, take guns to ranges, shoot them etc.
Again, from what I understand the rule is that you can purchase ammunition, but it is only sold at ranges and must be used at ranges. Purchasing ammunition for private use requires registration of that ammunition. I don't know how closely this rule is followed in practice, but that is the regulation as it stands.
Switzerland is certainly a unique case with a number of important cultural and structural differences that make its use as an example of how supposedly safe gun ownership is spurious.
--After Citizen R.'s post--
No, that's all right, folks, don't bother making the trip. Keep the grar in here.
--After Citizen R.'s post--
No, that's all right, folks, don't bother making the trip. Keep the grar in here.
It doesn't look like there's anything worth getting up in arms (no pun intended) over. Andrew R's just fishing.
[Groan]
