But if we’re going to go with dream scenarios that have no chance of happening, aren’t there better ones to dream up. Personally I’d like to see an imaginary future world where a team of slightly-evil scientists create a viral pandemic that causes people’s faces to mutate to become more like pigs the greedier they are, develop horns and grow red skin the angrier they are, and have noses that grow longer and longer every time they deliberately lie.
I cant even.
This strikes me as oversimplified to the point of naïveté, and I hope it strikes you as a great opportunity to open a new thread about it because its off topic and maybe you can see if anyone wants to talk about this tangent of yours, there. Most of us are here to talk about this horrible tragedy and what can be done.
4 Likes
They’re working on it; so far, they’ve only succeeded in making their test subject’s face turn orange the whenever he indulges in greed, anger, or lying.
However, in that test subject, it seems to be working fine!
6 Likes
The earlier orange-ifying test was successful on Boehner as well, though it appears the virus may have gotten loose in New Jersey.
3 Likes
It’s horrifyingly what they teach in active shooter training, so at least someone can survive to help the rest.
1 Like
She wanted to murder her daughters and a powerful ranged weapon was close at hand.
There aren’t other relevant details. There’s some gossip, but lets not.
1 Like
I wasn’t referring to the father but to the person I was responding to that discussed their own child in their comments. You’re off target.
1 Like
It is as if you think the gun makers aren’t selling to a willing market that wants to buy their guns.
1 Like
See, if someone threatened to kill my daughter in a credible way, I would kill them if it was an immediate threat (otherwise, I’d contact police). No ifs, ands, or buts. I’m sorry you aren’t willing to protect your family in favor of an imagined social contract.
3 Likes
Nothing happens by itself. I am not proposing idle daydreams, but rather putting forth strategies which, if implemented, would improve the situation rather than making it even more unjust. The federal government of the US bides its time with those it nominally represents until public pressure “forces them into action”, at which time they enact conciliatory measures which further entrench their exploitation of the public. For example, how the 9/11 attacks finally gave them an opportunity to sneak in the surveillance measures wishlist from the 90s. And how they are now hoping to criminalize encryption and privacy when they can make a case for it. Hoping that centralizing the power of these people, arming them, and disarming everybody else so that a few hundred lives are saved and hundreds of millions are enslaved sounds more like an ineffective dream to me. Deciding that “some people are worth more than others” is a dream also, an ideology which we may or not subscribe to.
And if enslaved or exploited are terms too strong to use, them why would people instantly assume that the average person is too politically insolvent to make any practical difference in how government works? If people are already convinced that their input makes no difference, then what is there to lose by trying?
I was not aware that there were specific pre-approved ways to discuss how to prevent murder. I am sorry if you think it ruins your groupthink vibe, but I am trying to be polite and sincere. and think that it seems dishonest to suggest that I go talk elsewhere. Re-thinking how the US deals with firearms seems to be topical discussion among most here when trying to deal with the deaths which occur, so it is not clear to me why I should be treated as an exception.
You’re making me regret saying I was missing you now.
We put a t in front of a hat
Doesn’t my demon-Pinnochio-pig scenario stand about as much of a chance in terms of feasibility, and in terms of situational improvements?
2 Likes
I think you’re comparing apples to guns. Can’t have that here …
Is that what we are doing?
Are there other rights guaranteed by the constitution that you are willing to trade for security, or is that the only one?
Yeah if you look at it that way … there’s not much left apart from guns now. All the important rights are already compromised.
Wonder why it looks like there are so many gun-nuts but so few anti-torture-nuts, privacy-nuts, no-secret-courts-nuts etc?
6 Likes
I respectfully disagree. I think the courts have done an admirable job of protecting our rights. They don’t always get it right nor are they always timely, but given enough time I think they get things right most of the time.
Yeah, but nobody’s saying “let’s make a world without guns,” they’re saying, given the reality of a world with guns, what’s the best way to reduce harm.
I feel like that’s a distinction without a difference.
1 Like
If by “our” you mean only those who have the ‘right complexion’ for protection, then you are quite correct.
12 Likes
That speaks to your prioritizations more than anything else. They protect the rights, persons, and “values” you find important. Others get left behind.
5 Likes
