U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old Yesterday, 03:27 PM
 
Location: Nescopeck, Penna.
11,424 posts, read 6,827,771 times
Reputation: 14495

Advertisements

So we're again confronted by the frightening picture of a lone male, apparently driven to desperation (or just extreme frustration) by negative events in his own life, who decided to claim his "five minutes of fame" (or infamy -- the phrase itself is a product of our media-saturated culture) by writing his name in blood. As usual, we''ll see him publicly subjected to amateur psychoanalysis, and we'll hear the usual calls for those with access to the levers of power to "do something".

Before going any further, let me elaborate just a little on my personal background and take on the issue. I live in a rural, predominately white area where sport hunting is a tradition. My natal family were farmers; my father never handled a firearm after his discharge from the Army in 1946, but my grandfather, and many of my uncles did, and kept one rifle or shotgun. I personally have never handled anything bigger than a .22 caliber rifle; that as part of a college Phys Ed class; and for reasons related to a physical condition, I knew from that time on that I'd always be a poor shot.

And I know of three separate occasions in my home town where teenagers got their hands on a parent's gun with tragic consequences; one shot himself fatally with his father's deer rifle; a second shot himself in the leg, but recovered, and a third was wounded in the spine while he and a friend fooled around with a pistol; he survived, but paralyzed from the waist down, and recently died at least thirty years before his time.

And while I'm convinced that any attempt at wholesale prohibition of firearms won't work, the only real argument which resonates with me is that the predominately-rural tradition of sport hunting provides our military with a supply of citizen-soldiers who know how to handle a firearm before they're inducted. That argument has been tested and proven in combat situations for over two centuries.

But the point I seek to stress here is that the current impasse over gun violence and control has intensified because of (1) the concentration of more of our population in urban centers, (2) an influx of immigration, both legal and undocumented, from regions where familiarity with firearms is less-common, and (3) a linkage of the issue to the broad-spectrum "Social Justice" movement -- the single largest component of which is feminism -- in turn, the most prominent societal change of our times.

I spent most of the last decade of my working years in impersonal, "corporate anthill" jobs -- where "lip service" was always paid to an apparent consensus on social issues of the day. "Weapons" of any kind (sometimes including items as small as a pocketknife) were officially prohibited, and access to the plant restricted. This included the parking lot, of course, but there was no way to verify what might have been in the glove compartment or under the seat.

And on a few occasions, always in the mens' room or similar locations. one could hear a complaint about the smugness of some supervisors, usually young and female, who were perceived as holding a bias against outspoken, usually male employees. The polarization isn't always there, and it's subtle, but it definitely exists among, and between a not-that-small number of individuals on both sides of the controversy.

And so it seems fated to boil over, with tragic consequences, from time to time. The "New Puritans" and advocates of the nanny-state scenario have no stronger prospects for outlawing and confiscating all privately-held firearms than a foreign power would have of occupying rural America without the rise of a guerilla-type local resistance. As with the emancipation of women itself, the individual incidents within the spectrum are too diverse, and too widespread, to permit a centralized response.

Last edited by 2nd trick op; Yesterday at 03:50 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old Yesterday, 11:00 PM
 
Location: Oklahoma
1,928 posts, read 655,694 times
Reputation: 913
Freedom comes with a price. Sometimes the price is paid within the civilian population. Last I recall the US population is continually increasing, which means we are not in fear of killing off our society. The last thing I’m afraid of is being a victim of a mass killer. Just because it happens on occasion does not constitute a need to infringe the 2A. A mass shooting can happen in any city or country on earth.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 04:32 AM
 
Location: Long Island, NYUSA, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way.
6,765 posts, read 1,950,192 times
Reputation: 1646
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd trick op View Post
So we're again confronted by the frightening picture of a lone male, apparently driven to desperation (or just extreme frustration) by negative events in his own life, who decided to claim his "five minutes of fame" (or infamy -- the phrase itself is a product of our media-saturated culture) by writing his name in blood. As usual, we''ll see him publicly subjected to amateur psychoanalysis, and we'll hear the usual calls for those with access to the levers of power to "do something".

Before going any further, let me elaborate just a little on my personal background and take on the issue. I live in a rural, predominately white area where sport hunting is a tradition. My natal family were farmers; my father never handled a firearm after his discharge from the Army in 1946, but my grandfather, and many of my uncles did, and kept one rifle or shotgun. I personally have never handled anything bigger than a .22 caliber rifle; that as part of a college Phys Ed class; and for reasons related to a physical condition, I knew from that time on that I'd always be a poor shot.

And I know of three separate occasions in my home town where teenagers got their hands on a parent's gun with tragic consequences; one shot himself fatally with his father's deer rifle; a second shot himself in the leg, but recovered, and a third was wounded in the spine while he and a friend fooled around with a pistol; he survived, but paralyzed from the waist down, and recently died at least thirty years before his time.

And while I'm convinced that any attempt at wholesale prohibition of firearms won't work, the only real argument which resonates with me is that the predominately-rural tradition of sport hunting provides our military with a supply of citizen-soldiers who know how to handle a firearm before they're inducted. That argument has been tested and proven in combat situations for over two centuries.

But the point I seek to stress here is that the current impasse over gun violence and control has intensified because of (1) the concentration of more of our population in urban centers, (2) an influx of immigration, both legal and undocumented, from regions where familiarity with firearms is less-common, and (3) a linkage of the issue to the broad-spectrum "Social Justice" movement -- the single largest component of which is feminism -- in turn, the most prominent societal change of our times.

I spent most of the last decade of my working years in impersonal, "corporate anthill" jobs -- where "lip service" was always paid to an apparent consensus on social issues of the day. "Weapons" of any kind (sometimes including items as small as a pocketknife) were officially prohibited, and access to the plant restricted. This included the parking lot, of course, but there was no way to verify what might have been in the glove compartment or under the seat.

And on a few occasions, always in the mens' room or similar locations. one could hear a complaint about the smugness of some supervisors, usually young and female, who were perceived as holding a bias against outspoken, usually male employees. The polarization isn't always there, and it's subtle, but it definitely exists among, and between a not-that-small number of individuals on both sides of the controversy.

And so it seems fated to boil over, with tragic consequences, from time to time. The "New Puritans" and advocates of the nanny-state scenario have no stronger prospects for outlawing and confiscating all privately-held firearms than a foreign power would have of occupying rural America without the rise of a guerilla-type local resistance. As with the emancipation of women itself, the individual incidents within the spectrum are too diverse, and too widespread, to permit a centralized response.
This is an interesting OP. Personally, I think it's interesting because you've focused on the aspect of the relationship between social justice & gun violence for one. & secondly, that you've identified "the single largest component of which is feminism -- in turn, the most prominent societal change of our times."

Historically, when there are prominent societal changes, there tends to be also variously prominent resistance movements responding to the same.

What do you think about groups like MGTOW? How do these & the like 'fit into' the relationships you're describing?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 05:15 AM
 
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
1,700 posts, read 642,023 times
Reputation: 3399
Let's see: ~3x 10^8 people in US ~3x 10^8 guns in US & ~ 3x 10^8 autos in US


~ 40,000 traffic deaths/yr and 10,000 deaths by fire arms/yr


There has ALWAYS been a lot of guns here, but these violent episodes of public, mass assassinations seem to be on the increase (?are there really more or does the 24hr/d cable news cycle just make it seem like more)


Something must have changed to increase this style of violence. The guns were always there. They haven't changed.


Is it the frustration of more divergent political philosophies? Is it changing role of men vs women? Is it increasing rate of drug use? Is it lowered rate of male participation in "violent sports?" Is it increasingly liberal indoctrination in our schools? Is it abandonment of the role of family & local community to govt programs? Is it the increasing rate of home runs hit in the National League?--- All (and I'm sure more) are positively correlated with the increasing rate of mass shootings. ..Be careful in assigning roles of cause & effect.


ps/ The concepts of "control" and of "freedom" are mutually exclusive. Isn't it ironic that the political party that always calls the other one fascist is the one that wants more control?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 07:55 AM
 
6,450 posts, read 1,557,367 times
Reputation: 4670
Quote:
Originally Posted by guidoLaMoto View Post
Let's see: ~3x 10^8 people in US ~3x 10^8 guns in US & ~ 3x 10^8 autos in US


~ 40,000 traffic deaths/yr and 10,000 deaths by fire arms/yr


There has ALWAYS been a lot of guns here, but these violent episodes of public, mass assassinations seem to be on the increase (?are there really more or does the 24hr/d cable news cycle just make it seem like more)


Something must have changed to increase this style of violence. The guns were always there. They haven't changed.


Is it the frustration of more divergent political philosophies? Is it changing role of men vs women? Is it increasing rate of drug use? Is it lowered rate of male participation in "violent sports?" Is it increasingly liberal indoctrination in our schools? Is it abandonment of the role of family & local community to govt programs? Is it the increasing rate of home runs hit in the National League?--- All (and I'm sure more) are positively correlated with the increasing rate of mass shootings. ..Be careful in assigning roles of cause & effect.


ps/ The concepts of "control" and of "freedom" are mutually exclusive. Isn't it ironic that the political party that always calls the other one fascist is the one that wants more control?
One thing that is changing over time, is the amount of power and control over the people, that the Govt seeks. I think this definitely plays a big part in all these shootings.

When a Govt attempts to disarm or regulate the types of weapons its public can have...historically that is usually not a good sign, and there are always ulterior motives (mainly to protect THEIR security).

Look at it like this...if you were a power hungry tyrannical govt and wanted as much control over your people as possible, the first thing you would do is to disarm them, take away their ability to fight back or resist, attempting this by changing public opinion (mass shootings) is just an easier way than a brute force total ban, which would result in an uprising or revolution...its more effective for the people to willingly disarm themselves under the guise of safety or security.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 08:12 AM
 
Location: Nescopeck, Penna.
11,424 posts, read 6,827,771 times
Reputation: 14495
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest View Post
What do you think about groups like MGTOW? How do these & the like 'fit into' the relationships you're describing?
It would be anyone's right, but it seems like a pretty empty way to live.

And there is no doubt it my mind that the most radical aspects of feminism, in the hands of a few militant judges, have weakened the institution of marriage, and left a relatively small number of men with large obligations and few options. I've met a few of them, tied to jobs which reduce their take-home pay to a few hundred dollars a month, and feeding themselves via SNAP cards.

It's not my place to sit in judgement, but when applied by those not familiar with individual cases, the "new rules" seem to produce some strange results.

Last edited by 2nd trick op; Today at 08:33 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 08:22 AM
 
12,465 posts, read 14,612,280 times
Reputation: 14236
Quote:
Originally Posted by rstevens62 View Post

When a Govt attempts to disarm or regulate the types of weapons its public can have...historically that is usually not a good sign, and there are always ulterior motives (mainly to protect THEIR security).

Look at it like this...if you were a power hungry tyrannical govt and wanted as much control over your people as possible, the first thing you would do is to disarm them, take away their ability to fight back or resist, attempting this by changing public opinion (mass shootings) is just an easier way than a brute force total ban, which would result in an uprising or revolution...its more effective for the people to willingly disarm themselves under the guise of safety or security.
Yes.....Thomas Jefferson was correct (and still is in my opinion) when he said....

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 09:17 AM
 
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
1,700 posts, read 642,023 times
Reputation: 3399
^^^^Exactly why access to arms by the public should never be curtailed.


I think the rising number of mass shootings points directly to the increase in size of central govt and the resulting dehumanization of how we detect and deal with mental illness. Responsibilities for detecting and dealing with mental illness, once the domain of families and small communities has been abrogated to "The Authorities."


As a corollary, social media and home entertainment (less opportunity to get out and socialize) has magnified the dehumanization process.


Europe has its pubs. Bars there are more like social clubs or community centers, as opposed to the age-segregated, alcohol centered bars here. We really don't have an equivalent to the pub here. Loneliness here is a huge problem rarely mentioned by the "experts."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 09:24 AM
 
4,837 posts, read 1,565,722 times
Reputation: 7918
If a teen who had very little knowledge of planes, took a plane and crashed it into restaurant, would people be blaming the planes?

Somehow it's always the 'guns' fault.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 09:31 AM
Status: "Independent/free" (set 12 hours ago)
 
Location: Land of the Caddo and Tonkawa
4,013 posts, read 1,509,853 times
Reputation: 5669
There's no justification or white-washing for someone "losing it". If they can't function within the bounds of society and law, they need to kill themselves, not others.

There's a thing called "personal responsibility". Get used to it. When our country was wiser and saner, people understood that, respected it, and supported it.

Now, we've become of nation of shielding the guilty, while redirecting the blame onto others. We need to get tough and crack down on this nonsense, not welcome it. If not, matters will only get worse, and many more people will die unnecessarily.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top