If I had to guess (and I certainly don’t), I would expect that’s nothing more than a defense mechanism against a whole world full of, “Hey, you should smile more.” “Hey, why are you being bitchy?” “Hey, show us your tits.” “Hey, give me your or I’ll [harm] you.”
And for the life of me I wish I’d recognized that when I was a young teen male.
Yes, because this is not a serious issue…
Well if I missed it, it’s because you have yet to make that point. Though I am aware of the PERCEPTION of what the NRA promotes, prompting my correction and my assumption you are lumping them into other causes.
But hey - guess which group DOESN’T promote the idea that “certain” groups shouldn’t have guns - that would be the NRA. Hell, remember the “no fly - no buy” scheme a year or so ago? That would have affected mainly brown people and Muslims. Who wasn’t ok with that? It couldn’t have been the NRA who only wants Anglos to own guns, could it?
Their literature, media, nor activism does nothing to support your initial statement. The NRA’s fear mongering is mainly about the potential of LAWS being passed. Their actual defense based propaganda is pretty tame. But I highly doubt you have read an actual magazine of their or anything like that.
I disagree that any of the NRAs propaganda is done to boost gun sales directly. Most of their funding comes from private members, not companies. Though I am sure some of their actions do affect gun sales to a degree. That point at least has some merit and if that was the issue you brought up I wouldn’t have even commented.
But instead you brought up that they are supposedly promoting an “anglos only” platform, which is not the case. Hence my response.
No, these defense laws are to PROTECT VICTIMS. Tthe concept is more important than one case which some people feel wasn’t handled correctly. For example, people getting sued because they FOUGHT BACK in an armed robbery is BS. I’ve read cases where a black women shot an abusive boyfriend or spouse in defense and went to jail - THAT is BS.
I’ll be the first to admit that the APPLICATION of the law is not equal across America. That doesn’t necessarily make the concept of defense bad. It should protect everyone equally.
Who is fear mongering now? Criminals killing other criminals is responsible for most of the violence. Two guys who get in a fight and won’t back down is exceedingly rare, if it even happens.
What do you mean by preemptive? If someone is in your house, they started the chain of events by breaking in preparation of god knows what. That isn’t preemptive, that is reacting to a crime at hand. Shooting someone because they looked at you funny is still illegal.
But anyway, all of this is tap dancing around my main complaint the your perception isn’t being back up by evidence. If you think everyone who is armed does so to shoot an “urban youth” you are sorely mistaken. Fun fact - many black Americans are armed for defense, and many of the gun control laws in the past were made to avoid this.
And most importantly, the actual ACTIONS by the NRA doesn’t promote any law that would keep guns only in the hands of Anglos - which is the comment I was upset about.
Your initial statement was hyperbole at best, and an insulting generalization at worst.
BS hyperbole is BS hyperbole, even if it isn’t a super popular opinion.
Yes, it is, and I appreciate your willingness to counter it point by point in a civilized manner. However this thread isn’t about the NRA or 2A. May I suggest this is a
and you two could
If you want to continue?
This is great. Keep 'em coming!
I’m lovin’ takin’ it! ®
Sorry that it wasn’t clear to you. While it is clearly arguable that I needed to do more, my point seemed to be clear to others.
But what is the makeup of their leadership? Is it skewed toward the private members, or the heads of companies?[quote=“Mister44, post:64, topic:92875”]
people getting sued because they FOUGHT BACK in an armed robbery is BS
[/quote]
Yes, it is. But “Stand Your Ground Laws” are typically written to protect the survivor from prosecution by law enforcement, not being sued by a private individual (or the decedent’s family). This can effectively remove arguably criminal cases out of the justice system without more than a cursory review by police.
[quote=“Mister44, post:64, topic:92875”]
Who is fear mongering now? Criminals killing other criminals is responsible for most of the violence. Two guys who get in a fight and won’t back down is exceedingly rare, if it even happens. [/quote]
It would be interesting to see the actual statistics on the different types of violence involving firearms. Oh, wait. We can’t. Thanks to lobbying by the NRA.
Yes, but now you’re discussing the Castle Doctrine (which I support in many cases), which is a totally different set of scenarios.
I will concede this point. It is apparently only a vociferous minority of NRA members who seem to hold this view.
Now if there was just some way for one of the most powerful governmental lobbying groups in the country to effectively communicate that they don’t support the views of this tiny group in any way… but that might be too much to ask, what with their limited reach and scarce resources. 
The only real solution to this issue?
Put guns in the hands of the chicken mcnuggets.
Chickens in Choppers.
Dumb kid. If you have a real gun, stick up the McDonald’s instead, it has a lot more McNuggets, plus drawers full of cash.
This story seems to be missing some information. It only makes sense if it was a really unconvincing watergun, and/or the boy was acquainted with the girl and playing a practical joke, which she gets back at him for by calling the cops. Something. Even given the well-known poor judgement of tweens, the story doesn’t pass the smell test.
Just like McNuggets!
A superhero from the same people behind The Tick.
An excellent and thought-provoking comment and well worth the 40 likes, including mine.
However, the reason why I (and any others) commented on the victim’s action rather than the perpetrator’s is simply that there’s only one actor there that anyone can identify with and thus can have any meaningful comment about the appropriateness of their action.
In essence, the perpetrator’s actions have removed from him from being considered human. I don’t comment on what wind, fire or animals should have done differently.
As for the social changes that are needed to prevent his actions like this from occurring in general, I suspect they’re well known and supported by 100% of the readers here, so it adds little to the conversation to state them.
I don’t think that the gender of the perpetrator or victim was germane to my mindset when I made my comment, but I will say that your comment has me thinking, and I am no longer 100% sure. Well said.
NO!
He is absolutely human. Humans do this kind of thing and have been since they could be called humans. To say otherwise is to open up the door to all the “fun” that happens when we consider other humans as not worthy of consideration. It is an excuse to ignore the reasons that he may have done this and hence the ways we can make things like this happen less.
Good point. But in order for me to be able to consider someone human (and maybe this is not quite the right phrasing), I need to be able to understand how they could commit such an action. I can conceive of perpetrating many horrible things in some alternate reality version of me, including objectively worse crimes. But I cannot conceive of being the perpetrator of this crime.
Note, the perpetrator has removed himself from my consideration as human only for purposes of this act. I do not presume to judge his totality.
Also, this is most emphatically NOT fatalism. Society is more than capable of pushing many away from performing inhuman acts. But I have nothing meaningful to say about the individual who committed this act, and as for the necessary social changes, I think they’re obvious to 100% of the readers, so I’ll save my electrons for something slightly less obvious.
I’ll stop, but at the same time I didn’t start the train off the tracks. If anyone came in spouting crap about some other group that was peripheral to the subject, I wouldn’t expect others to remain silent either. Misinformation, especially for important subjects and rights groups, is bad.
I strongly disagree. Being a jerk or even a dangerous individual doesn’t make one less human. That’s a dangerous mode of thinking, even for heinous crimes, because it gives you no reason why someone does something.It takes it out of the realm of humanity and puts it squarely in the realm of… well, fantasy. It gives us comfort and tells us that something like that can’t happen with “normal” people, so it’s not something we have to think about in terms other than based on human relationships, institutions, and interactions. It lets US off the hook for systemic and institutions problems that could help with some of the problems of crime in our society. Which is basically what @Auld_Lang_Syne just said… Also, that famous phrase “banality of evil” by Hannah Arendt comes to mind. It’s an othering tactic… [quote=“tlwest, post:74, topic:92875”]
I don’t think that the gender of the perpetrator or victim was germane to my mindset when I made my comment, but I will say that your comment has me thinking, and I am no longer 100% sure. Well said.
[/quote]
I’m glad to hear that! I’ll take you at your word that you weren’t thinking in gendered terms, so it’s good to keep in mind how what we say can be perceived and why it can be perceived in that way. The reality is, whether you’re thinking in those terms or not, many women spend much of their lives with a rather constant barrage of comments about how what happens to us is our fault, that we need to act or be a certain way in order to be safe, something men generally don’t have to deal with.
But there are lots of decisions people make, good or bad, that you might not be able to fathom, that doesn’t make them less human. It just means you’re not in their shoes, with their lifetime of experience that led to that one thing. [quote=“tlwest, post:76, topic:92875”]
consideration as human only for purposes of this act. I do not presume to judge his totality.
[/quote]
But if you’re saying he’s not human, for this one act, then he’s never human, right? I’m not sure you can arbitrarily pick when someone is a human. Their humanity is not your call to make (or mine, or anyone else here). One’s humanity is something intrinsic to themselves and can’t be taken away.[quote=“tlwest, post:76, topic:92875”]
But I have nothing meaningful to say about the individual who committed this act
[/quote]
And I think that’s fine. [quote=“tlwest, post:76, topic:92875”]
as for the necessary social changes, I think they’re obvious to 100% of the readers, so I’ll save my electrons for something slightly less obvious.
[/quote]
I disagree. If the social changes we need to make were obvious, we wouldn’t be having public debates about such things. We don’t agree on the root causes or possible solutions… not even here on the BBS. It’s a political struggle because we all don’t agree.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
