- Thread starter
- #141
No I don't think "more efficiently" is arguable. If that were the case the invention of firearm technology would have been a failure.
("failure" meaning in the sense of popular/widely used of course, not the ethical sense)
Nor can I agree that propensity to murder leads gun violence; rather the technology --- and its very efficiency -- leads to that violence.
Again, random gun nuts going off like this are not out for "murder" per se. Murder is when you catch your spouse in the act. It's specific and personally targeted. The goal here is carnage, visual, aural sensory input of blood and screams and targets running for their lives in fear. Only a gun delivers that. In a way it's more akin to rape than murder, because at the psychological base it's about power (i.e. lack thereof). Firearms deliver instant, if perverse, access to ultimate power.
Murders, intentional targeted ones, can be and certainly are committed by firearms, as are suicides. Part of the same efficiency factor. Without firearms, they would still happen, though to a lesser extent due to the same efficiency factor.
But this sort of random picking off innocent strangers would not.
Oh I think you might be mistaken on that, a particularly nasty knife crime gets all of the above in a far more "sensational" way... They use guns because their afraid to get close to their victim's, they use guns to maintain an advantage in the fight; distance. You could argue that taking guns away means they have to get closer and risk getting disarmed, but that relies on the victim being strong enough to repel their attack. If you ban guns then you have these fucks finding another weapon to hunt with, and facing, a population who isn't /allowed/ to be armed, someone who's got a bat or a tire iron.
Again, neither in this post, nor in this thread, nor anywhere on this site or the entire internet have I advocated "banning guns". And I'd appreciate it if you don't strip out the context of my post (I replaced it above). No, I think the fact that a gun acts as a Horror Remote Control Device is exactly the impetus. That's exactly why it's glorified and romanticized in way too many movies, TV shows, comic books, video games and novels than any of us could ever count. That's why it becomes news fodder -- we all want the gory details to participate vicariously. When you're in a hidden position with a rifle, or just walked into a scene where nobody would expect a war zone, you have a power advantage. And if you inspect any case of a mass/multiple gun shooting, the base dynamic driving them is always just that -- Power. It's a psychological question and has very much to do with (perceptions of) masculinity. That is where the focus should be.
With guns available to everyone, these attackers face the very real possibility that anyone could be carrying, and if the victim pulls a gun the attacker has lost their advantage, and better yet they know it. Fear is a good motivator for not attacking people for sport or money, especially good against the dipshits who just want to look "cool" or "dangerous" waving a gun around. Really the worst that happens is what? The attacker shoots their victim? Who's to say the attacker wouldn't have shot them or their next victim anyway? The victim shoots the attacker? Our streets are safer by removing them anyway. Or the attacker runs, maybe gets shot in the back, either way all the other predator's out there are going to have to think a bit more about their action.
There's a reason most wild animals don't typically attack healthy adult pray, they go after the old, sick, and young because its easier, because it's safer - taking away a moose's antlers and hooves would only enable the wolves to kill any of them at will...
Sorry but I find this approach absolutely mindless. It's basically attacking a fire by tossing gasoline on it. More broadly it's requiring all of us to live in a war zone. What, we're all supposed to hang around and risk getting picked off because our culture can't find the cojones to stand up and decide killing is a value we don't need, until we get our gummint-issed Glock so we can participate in the war too? That's not a planet I'm gonna live on, ever. That's senseless.
No, it's not. It is realizing that man is an animal, and like animals the world over there are predators and prey. Man though, is the only "prey" creature that can fight back with better then poor odds in their favor. When a mountain lion attacks a deer the deer usually loses. Occasionally the deer gets the pyhrric victory of doing enough damage to also kill the mountain lion, but that is rare. Far more rare is the deer that kills the mountain lion and gets to walk away.
Mankind though has developed weapons that make everyone equal. No more can the 225 pound, MMA practicing, steroid addled man, assault, and rape or kill, the 95 pound, comparatively feeble woman, with impunity. She can fight back. The reality is that your world doesn't exist. It has NEVER exited, and more to the point, it will never exist, except in your mind.You've just basically expanded on the same premise of paranoia. The idea that there are monsters under the bed. We have to get past of that mentality, collectively. Grow up, as it were. Otherwise it dooms us to be the very animals you describe. A self-fulfilling prophecy. It says we're incapable of evolving beyond, say, cannibalism. I'm not buying it.
There's throwing up one's hands and giving up as a path of least resistance, and then there's getting one's hands dirty to effect change. You'll find me in the latter camp. You may say that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. Ghandi serves humanity; Rambo does not.
It's not paranoia dude. It is the reality of the human condition. Yours is the premise of delusional thinking. I don't give a rats ass what YOU think, what matters is what the rest of the world thinks....and more importantly does. One day, when you get a little older you'll understand that. Or, you may not, and choose to remain delusional. But, the world, and the inhabitants thereof, will continue to ignore you.
Throw a tantrum all you like but I very much doubt you polled "the rest of the world", and if you had, that you'd come up with that answer. The delusion of monsters under the bed is simply an irrational juvenile fantasy that needs to be left behind with the tooth fairy and the other trappings of childhood. GI Joe fantasies simply don't reflect any mode of reality. They reflect the emotional-level fantasies of children -- who don't know any better. Adults are supposed to have grown beyond that.
Tantrum? Hyperbole much? Tell the class ANY period in time when man has treated man with respect, courtesy, honor, and compassion on a large scale. Go ahead. Show us. Your very post here claiming I am having a tantrum is a classic example of man treating man in a disrespectful way. Without respect there can be no other way of treating with your fellow man than with violence and hatred.
Thank you for making my point oh so eloquently.The argument that we'll all be nice to each other if we just got rid of guns is ludicrous.^^ Completely off topic.
You wish. In point of fact it is completely ON TOPIC, that's why you try and censor it.
Yes...just ask the senior citizen who had his eye sockets broken, his nose broken, his ribs broken and had bleeding on the brain because he was attacked by an unarmed, teen mob.....no guns used...and just asked them to stop fighting on his car......
Interesting use of fallacy here -- Appeal to Emotion to refute an argument nobody made...
