Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Well you would need to interview the unknown anonymous Chinese inventor of the first gun --Zackly. I've never seen a snail invent a gun.
Hermaphrodites unite! So to speak....
...guns are supposed to do harm --- that's what they're designed to do. If a firearm is incapable of doing harm, it's not working. That's exactly why we call them "arms".
...
Uummmm, I was under the assumption that we were discussing the so called gun culture and naturally concluded your "guns shoot" as part of your argument hence my responses to the perceived association to your argument........ Was that incorrect? Had the conversation changed without my knowledge?So you do narrow the discussion when it suits your purpose.......... Uummmmm........Rationalized deflection. Sorry Pogo but even you are controlled by your own bias, ya can't escape it unless you chose to.As for the first you're looking for logic in an illogical response, obviously many believed gun control was implied, normal psychological reaction within a highly emotive and contentious issue.
As for the second statement, that's called self bias construction/rationalization. It still doesn't prove a glorification of guns it simply reinforces your belief in a glorification of guns.
In number one, obviously an illogical response that proves at the very least that people aren't even listening to the very video they just uploaded. That's another social problem we have --- people not listening and plugging in their preconceptions (and then when it's pointed out, sinking into absolute self-delusion). But that's got nothing to do with Gun Culture ---- does it?
And in number two, you didn't answer the question. What else shoots besides a gun? A basketball player?
Isn't a "bias" -- it's a simple definition. What shoots? Answer -- guns. Well, and penises but that's sort of a different thing. Sort of.
Philosophically, if penises did not exist ---- would guns?
I do explore the unanswered questions, yes. If you don't do that they remain .... well, unanswered.
I would iterate Philosophy in context of social/cultural norms/taboos (sociology & cultural anthropology), human psychology and history (history is the window of events to those differing social/cultural norms/taboos and their manifestations).Ringel05 you are correct.All of us humans have biases, nothing ironic about it. All us humans utilize availability heuristics and confirmation bias to differing degrees, the real trick is recognizing it in ourselves and fighting it as best as possible something the vast majority will never do. It takes real strength of character to even look for it let alone confront it and even those of us who do don't always succeed, we're still human. As for highly emotive issues unless one can separate the emotive from the logic then one will always be influenced by the emotive (even unconsciously) but again we are emotive creatures and not purely logical "Vulcans" so emulating Spock is nearly impossible for us. However that said it doesn't mean we can't recognize and separate the emotive if we choose to and by doing so minimize the need for rationalization though again most will never do that which is plainly obvious on this board daily.
And it is because all of us are brainwashed differently by our parents, teachers, ministers, schools, governments, and employers.
Each of these various brainwashers has a stated interest in brainwashing us for their own purposes.
At some point we can erase the brainwashing and become unbiased but only if we study Philosophy intensely.
And few people study Philosophy at all.
There are multiple factors but one explanation (at least partially) is ethologist John Calhoun's Behavioral Sink. Overpopulation is one factor that can turn individuals into monsters but there is also impulse surrender, learned helplessness and dystopian paranoia.It's Males and their need to dominate, people talk about women as bad drivers? I remember thirty years ago, people where a lot more civil. More courteous and nobody shot each other for a mistake. People used their bloody turn signals, and did the speed limit Back then, we managed to get over slights and mistakes and even egregious stuff, and nobody feared maniacs in multi ton weapons packing an other weapon . I think we need to ban cars. That would be the solution to pollution and the urban sprawl.I am so glad they caught this guy. I have seen were these creeps get away Scott free. I don't own a car any more, I bike to work now. I see what total and oblivious jerks motorist can be. Last time I drove, (in a loaner) Yesterday, that was, July 7th.some idiot trucker played games with me. It isn't a competition, peeps, share the freakin' road. vehicles are also weapons, too.
Yanno --- and this is telling, referring right back to the root of the issue --- I can almost always tell the gender of a driver on the road who's too far away to see, by how they drive. The males will be the ones passing cars for no other reason than that "there's a car up there, therefore I must pass it".
This testosteronic mentality finds its way all the way down to my GPS, if this isn't too much of a stretch, which, given a destination, automatically assumes that my goal is to get there in the fastest way possible. As if I'm driving to "win" some "competition".
I will be real here. We NEED cars, even though car accidents overwhelmingly kill more Americans that gun violence. Guns are basically toys, consumer products with no intrinsic value. They do a lot of harm, beyond their necessity.
Of course the flaw in the implied comparison is that guns are supposed to do harm --- that's what they're designed to do. If a firearm is incapable of doing harm, it's not working. That's exactly why we call them "arms".
Cars only do harm accidentally, like most things.
They call cigarettes the only product that when used as designed and intended, kills the user. But even cigarettes aren't deliberately designed to do that.
That is one factor but not specifically the primary factor as your overarching claim has no basis in science though it does have a strong basis in political rhetoric.There are multiple factors but one explanation (at least partially) is ethologist John Calhoun's Behavioral Sink. Overpopulation is one factor that can turn individuals into monsters but there is also impulse surrender, learned helplessness and dystopian paranoia.It's Males and their need to dominate, people talk about women as bad drivers? I remember thirty years ago, people where a lot more civil. More courteous and nobody shot each other for a mistake. People used their bloody turn signals, and did the speed limit Back then, we managed to get over slights and mistakes and even egregious stuff, and nobody feared maniacs in multi ton weapons packing an other weapon . I think we need to ban cars. That would be the solution to pollution and the urban sprawl.I am so glad they caught this guy. I have seen were these creeps get away Scott free. I don't own a car any more, I bike to work now. I see what total and oblivious jerks motorist can be. Last time I drove, (in a loaner) Yesterday, that was, July 7th.some idiot trucker played games with me. It isn't a competition, peeps, share the freakin' road. vehicles are also weapons, too.
Yanno --- and this is telling, referring right back to the root of the issue --- I can almost always tell the gender of a driver on the road who's too far away to see, by how they drive. The males will be the ones passing cars for no other reason than that "there's a car up there, therefore I must pass it".
This testosteronic mentality finds its way all the way down to my GPS, if this isn't too much of a stretch, which, given a destination, automatically assumes that my goal is to get there in the fastest way possible. As if I'm driving to "win" some "competition".
The main problem .....single teenage girls having multiple children from multiple males without a husband living in the home, an adult male who is there to teach the young males how to be civilized....you have this problem here, and in Britain....these young males growing up in homes headed by single teenage girls are not learning impulse control...that is the problem...
AWR Hawkins, the 2nd Amendment writer for Breitbart has it right....he said it is a self control problem, not a gun control problem...
Until we address broken homes with single teenage girls raising young males you aren't going to solve the problem....and guns aren't the issue....
Uummmm, I was under the assumption that we were discussing the so called gun culture and naturally concluded your "guns shoot" as part of your argument hence my responses to the perceived association to your argument........ Was that incorrect? Had the conversation changed without my knowledge?So you do narrow the discussion when it suits your purpose.......... Uummmmm........Rationalized deflection. Sorry Pogo but even you are controlled by your own bias, ya can't escape it unless you chose to.In number one, obviously an illogical response that proves at the very least that people aren't even listening to the very video they just uploaded. That's another social problem we have --- people not listening and plugging in their preconceptions (and then when it's pointed out, sinking into absolute self-delusion). But that's got nothing to do with Gun Culture ---- does it?
And in number two, you didn't answer the question. What else shoots besides a gun? A basketball player?
Isn't a "bias" -- it's a simple definition. What shoots? Answer -- guns. Well, and penises but that's sort of a different thing. Sort of.
Philosophically, if penises did not exist ---- would guns?
I do explore the unanswered questions, yes. If you don't do that they remain .... well, unanswered.
It still doesn't prove a glorification of guns it simply reinforces your belief in a glorification of guns.
That is one factor but not specifically the primary factor as your overarching claim has no basis in science though it does have a strong basis in political rhetoric.There are multiple factors but one explanation (at least partially) is ethologist John Calhoun's Behavioral Sink. Overpopulation is one factor that can turn individuals into monsters but there is also impulse surrender, learned helplessness and dystopian paranoia.It's Males and their need to dominate, people talk about women as bad drivers? I remember thirty years ago, people where a lot more civil. More courteous and nobody shot each other for a mistake. People used their bloody turn signals, and did the speed limit Back then, we managed to get over slights and mistakes and even egregious stuff, and nobody feared maniacs in multi ton weapons packing an other weapon . I think we need to ban cars. That would be the solution to pollution and the urban sprawl.I am so glad they caught this guy. I have seen were these creeps get away Scott free. I don't own a car any more, I bike to work now. I see what total and oblivious jerks motorist can be. Last time I drove, (in a loaner) Yesterday, that was, July 7th.some idiot trucker played games with me. It isn't a competition, peeps, share the freakin' road. vehicles are also weapons, too.
Yanno --- and this is telling, referring right back to the root of the issue --- I can almost always tell the gender of a driver on the road who's too far away to see, by how they drive. The males will be the ones passing cars for no other reason than that "there's a car up there, therefore I must pass it".
This testosteronic mentality finds its way all the way down to my GPS, if this isn't too much of a stretch, which, given a destination, automatically assumes that my goal is to get there in the fastest way possible. As if I'm driving to "win" some "competition".
The main problem .....single teenage girls having multiple children from multiple males without a husband living in the home, an adult male who is there to teach the young males how to be civilized....you have this problem here, and in Britain....these young males growing up in homes headed by single teenage girls are not learning impulse control...that is the problem...
AWR Hawkins, the 2nd Amendment writer for Breitbart has it right....he said it is a self control problem, not a gun control problem...
Until we address broken homes with single teenage girls raising young males you aren't going to solve the problem....and guns aren't the issue....
I would iterate Philosophy in context of social/cultural norms/taboos (sociology & cultural anthropology), human psychology and history (history is the window of events to those differing social/cultural norms/taboos and their manifestations).Ringel05 you are correct.All of us humans have biases, nothing ironic about it. All us humans utilize availability heuristics and confirmation bias to differing degrees, the real trick is recognizing it in ourselves and fighting it as best as possible something the vast majority will never do. It takes real strength of character to even look for it let alone confront it and even those of us who do don't always succeed, we're still human. As for highly emotive issues unless one can separate the emotive from the logic then one will always be influenced by the emotive (even unconsciously) but again we are emotive creatures and not purely logical "Vulcans" so emulating Spock is nearly impossible for us. However that said it doesn't mean we can't recognize and separate the emotive if we choose to and by doing so minimize the need for rationalization though again most will never do that which is plainly obvious on this board daily.
And it is because all of us are brainwashed differently by our parents, teachers, ministers, schools, governments, and employers.
Each of these various brainwashers has a stated interest in brainwashing us for their own purposes.
At some point we can erase the brainwashing and become unbiased but only if we study Philosophy intensely.
And few people study Philosophy at all.
Uummmm, I was under the assumption that we were discussing the so called gun culture and naturally concluded your "guns shoot" as part of your argument hence my responses to the perceived association to your argument........ Was that incorrect? Had the conversation changed without my knowledge?So you do narrow the discussion when it suits your purpose.......... Uummmmm........Rationalized deflection. Sorry Pogo but even you are controlled by your own bias, ya can't escape it unless you chose to.
Isn't a "bias" -- it's a simple definition. What shoots? Answer -- guns. Well, and penises but that's sort of a different thing. Sort of.
Philosophically, if penises did not exist ---- would guns?
I do explore the unanswered questions, yes. If you don't do that they remain .... well, unanswered.
To track this back to where it started the question of "what shoots?" came from here:
It still doesn't prove a glorification of guns it simply reinforces your belief in a glorification of guns.
"It" here refers to my observation that the Bob Costas commentary about gun culture was insistently and persistently (and universally) mischaracterized as a commentary about gun control, which it clearly and provably was not.
This in turn, shows us something about those persistent insistent mischaracterizers. That is, that they are in fact driven by the very fetish described in the commentary. Which, in turn, disproves your assertion that "it doesn't prove a glorification of guns". Clearly, it does prove just that. Were firearms not the recipient of the very idolatry described, no one would make the leap to the defensive, i.e. trying to call it "gun control" --- which is a deflection because they don't want to address the real issue, that of the social value which IS what the commentary was all about.
Needles to say I get the same reaction here even though I've never advocated "gun control" and have opined repeatedly that throwing laws at it won't work. Same dynamic.
I often draw the comparison with the practice of smoking. After it was heavily marketed coming out of World War One, smoking was commonplace if not quite universal. It was expected, because its value was "cool". We turned that around without any significant "cigarette control". You can point to laws about selling cigarettes to minors or no-smoking areas but redesigning public social values is what made it "uncool". I think social mores are a far more influential force than throwing laws at something.
Incorrect, as I stated before it shows nothing more than a misplaced defense mechanism against a perceived attack, the same reason some attack you as your argument is seen by some to be a round about approval of 'gun control'. Your problem is you're being to literal in your observation/conclusion by not recognizing/acknowledging the underlying psychological/emotive reaction/response mechanisms. You mistakenly apply those responses to some nebulous 'gun culture' when the real fear for most is what they perceive as a degradation of the Bill of Rights, a violation of the rights (as they see them) handed down from our forefathers. If I were to classify it as a culture I would classify it as a 'constitutional culture' based on real or perceived (your choice) inalienable rights.This in turn, shows us something about those persistent insistent mischaracterizers. That is, that they are in fact driven by the very fetish described in the commentary. Which, in turn, disproves your assertion that "it doesn't prove a glorification of guns"
I didn't say it didn't exist, I said it was only an overarching conclusion within the realm of political rhetoric. If it was as overarching as you claim then violent crime would be tenfold what is is today.That is one factor but not specifically the primary factor as your overarching claim has no basis in science though it does have a strong basis in political rhetoric.There are multiple factors but one explanation (at least partially) is ethologist John Calhoun's Behavioral Sink. Overpopulation is one factor that can turn individuals into monsters but there is also impulse surrender, learned helplessness and dystopian paranoia.It's Males and their need to dominate, people talk about women as bad drivers? I remember thirty years ago, people where a lot more civil. More courteous and nobody shot each other for a mistake. People used their bloody turn signals, and did the speed limit Back then, we managed to get over slights and mistakes and even egregious stuff, and nobody feared maniacs in multi ton weapons packing an other weapon . I think we need to ban cars. That would be the solution to pollution and the urban sprawl.Yanno --- and this is telling, referring right back to the root of the issue --- I can almost always tell the gender of a driver on the road who's too far away to see, by how they drive. The males will be the ones passing cars for no other reason than that "there's a car up there, therefore I must pass it".
This testosteronic mentality finds its way all the way down to my GPS, if this isn't too much of a stretch, which, given a destination, automatically assumes that my goal is to get there in the fastest way possible. As if I'm driving to "win" some "competition".
The main problem .....single teenage girls having multiple children from multiple males without a husband living in the home, an adult male who is there to teach the young males how to be civilized....you have this problem here, and in Britain....these young males growing up in homes headed by single teenage girls are not learning impulse control...that is the problem...
AWR Hawkins, the 2nd Amendment writer for Breitbart has it right....he said it is a self control problem, not a gun control problem...
Until we address broken homes with single teenage girls raising young males you aren't going to solve the problem....and guns aren't the issue....
Sorry....there is research out there that shows children from single female headed households are more likely to be involved in crime and end up in poverty......deny it......by you are wrong...
The Real, Complex Connection Between Single-Parent Families and Crime
The bottom line is that there is a large body of literature showing that children of single mothers are more likely to commit crimes than children who grow up with their married parents. This is true not just in the United States, but wherever the issue has been researched. Few experts, including Cohen, dispute this. Studies cannot prove conclusively that fatherlessness—or any other factor—actually causes people to commit crimes. For that, you'd have to do the impossible: take a large group of infants and raise each of them simultaneously in two precisely equivalent households—except one would be headed by a father and mother and the other by a lone mother. But by comparing criminals of the same race, education, income, and mother's education whose primary observable difference is family structure, social scientists have come as close as they can to making the causal case with the methodological tools available.
That's actually where I thought we were the whole time.I would iterate Philosophy in context of social/cultural norms/taboos (sociology & cultural anthropology), human psychology and history (history is the window of events to those differing social/cultural norms/taboos and their manifestations).Ringel05 you are correct.All of us humans have biases, nothing ironic about it. All us humans utilize availability heuristics and confirmation bias to differing degrees, the real trick is recognizing it in ourselves and fighting it as best as possible something the vast majority will never do. It takes real strength of character to even look for it let alone confront it and even those of us who do don't always succeed, we're still human. As for highly emotive issues unless one can separate the emotive from the logic then one will always be influenced by the emotive (even unconsciously) but again we are emotive creatures and not purely logical "Vulcans" so emulating Spock is nearly impossible for us. However that said it doesn't mean we can't recognize and separate the emotive if we choose to and by doing so minimize the need for rationalization though again most will never do that which is plainly obvious on this board daily.
And it is because all of us are brainwashed differently by our parents, teachers, ministers, schools, governments, and employers.
Each of these various brainwashers has a stated interest in brainwashing us for their own purposes.
At some point we can erase the brainwashing and become unbiased but only if we study Philosophy intensely.
And few people study Philosophy at all.
You guys are now taking this where I always thought it most productive --- philosophy, ethics and sociology. That's my point and always has been. Zero to do with "politics".
Frankly when politicians get involved in this I think they're pandering and posturing into "look at me, I'm doing something about it". Well ---- no, you're not. You're just pandering.
Where did the faded red pickup driver get a gun, it must be asked.>> It was during the peak of the homebound commute, witnesses said, that they saw a dangerous “cat-and-mouse game” in which two motorists were jockeying for positions on a quarter-mile stretch of highway where two lanes become one.
When it was over, an 18-year-old college-bound Chester County girl was dead, her family and friends were devastated, and a nationwide manhunt had begun for the driver of a faded red pickup who shot and killed Bianca Roberson in what police said was a road rage murder.
“This homicide was completely senseless,” said West Goshen Police Chief Joseph Gleason. “A beautiful young lady of 18 years of age, in the prime of her life, getting ready to go off to college. And for reasons that are incomprehensible to me, the family is now planning her funeral instead of a going-away party for college.”
More than 20 investigators were sorting through hundreds of leads by email and phone from across the country, collecting video clips, and canvassing the streets for clues to what happened on the Route 100 bypass at about 5:30 p.m. Wednesday. Police Capt. Gregory Stone called the incident a “heartless” act unlike any he’d witnessed in his 32-year career.
Police have retrieved and reviewed video footage from PennDot cameras just moments before the shooting, Noone said. Still images can be viewed on the Crime Stoppers webpage.
.... Authorities on Friday announced a $5,000 Crimestoppers reward and urged anyone with information to contact police at 610-696-7400 or [email protected].
“This is going to come down, ladies and gentlemen, to assistance by the public,” Gleason said. “The family deserves this. Society in general deserves this.” << --- Philly.com
He shot a stranger dead, for the purpose of getting ten feet further ahead on an exit ramp.
But what's important to remember is, "we don't have a gun problem".
theHawk
Incorrect, as I stated before it shows nothing more than a misplaced defense mechanism against a perceived attack
You mistakenly apply those responses to some nebulous 'gun culture' when the real fear for most is what they perceive as a degradation of the Bill of Rights, a violation of the rights (as they see them) handed down from our forefathers.
Where did the faded red pickup driver get a gun, it must be asked.>> It was during the peak of the homebound commute, witnesses said, that they saw a dangerous “cat-and-mouse game” in which two motorists were jockeying for positions on a quarter-mile stretch of highway where two lanes become one.
When it was over, an 18-year-old college-bound Chester County girl was dead, her family and friends were devastated, and a nationwide manhunt had begun for the driver of a faded red pickup who shot and killed Bianca Roberson in what police said was a road rage murder.
“This homicide was completely senseless,” said West Goshen Police Chief Joseph Gleason. “A beautiful young lady of 18 years of age, in the prime of her life, getting ready to go off to college. And for reasons that are incomprehensible to me, the family is now planning her funeral instead of a going-away party for college.”
More than 20 investigators were sorting through hundreds of leads by email and phone from across the country, collecting video clips, and canvassing the streets for clues to what happened on the Route 100 bypass at about 5:30 p.m. Wednesday. Police Capt. Gregory Stone called the incident a “heartless” act unlike any he’d witnessed in his 32-year career.
Police have retrieved and reviewed video footage from PennDot cameras just moments before the shooting, Noone said. Still images can be viewed on the Crime Stoppers webpage.
.... Authorities on Friday announced a $5,000 Crimestoppers reward and urged anyone with information to contact police at 610-696-7400 or [email protected].
“This is going to come down, ladies and gentlemen, to assistance by the public,” Gleason said. “The family deserves this. Society in general deserves this.” << --- Philly.com
He shot a stranger dead, for the purpose of getting ten feet further ahead on an exit ramp.
But what's important to remember is, "we don't have a gun problem".
theHawk
Not that there's some sort of massive gun culture but that there's a perceived attack on individual liberties, that's all it proves. Remember, perception is everything...........Incorrect, as I stated before it shows nothing more than a misplaced defense mechanism against a perceived attack
You mistakenly apply those responses to some nebulous 'gun culture' when the real fear for most is what they perceive as a degradation of the Bill of Rights, a violation of the rights (as they see them) handed down from our forefathers.
I think you're way behind me. Here's the point ---
---- Yes it absolutely is a defence against a perceived attack. No difference of opinion there at all. My question then is --- whence comes this perception of attack, given the fact that it literally does not exist anywhere in the commentary?
Whence indeed. It can only come from within. And that opens the psyhological window. And the fact that it's universal (try to find any upload of this video that does not call it a "gun control" rant) -- simply demonstrates the penetration of that very psychology and how deeply ingrained it is.
In other words by their attempt at deflection they prove its whole point.
Dead children have no perception.Not that there's some sort of massive gun culture but that there's a perceived attack on individual liberties, that's all it proves. Remember, perception is everything...........Incorrect, as I stated before it shows nothing more than a misplaced defense mechanism against a perceived attack
You mistakenly apply those responses to some nebulous 'gun culture' when the real fear for most is what they perceive as a degradation of the Bill of Rights, a violation of the rights (as they see them) handed down from our forefathers.
I think you're way behind me. Here's the point ---
---- Yes it absolutely is a defence against a perceived attack. No difference of opinion there at all. My question then is --- whence comes this perception of attack, given the fact that it literally does not exist anywhere in the commentary?
Whence indeed. It can only come from within. And that opens the psyhological window. And the fact that it's universal (try to find any upload of this video that does not call it a "gun control" rant) -- simply demonstrates the penetration of that very psychology and how deeply ingrained it is.
In other words by their attempt at deflection they prove its whole point.
Okay, is it even possible for you to separate your emotive from the logical realities and actually join the conversation in an adult and intelligent manner?Dead children have no perception.Not that there's some sort of massive gun culture but that there's a perceived attack on individual liberties, that's all it proves. Remember, perception is everything...........Incorrect, as I stated before it shows nothing more than a misplaced defense mechanism against a perceived attack
You mistakenly apply those responses to some nebulous 'gun culture' when the real fear for most is what they perceive as a degradation of the Bill of Rights, a violation of the rights (as they see them) handed down from our forefathers.
I think you're way behind me. Here's the point ---
---- Yes it absolutely is a defence against a perceived attack. No difference of opinion there at all. My question then is --- whence comes this perception of attack, given the fact that it literally does not exist anywhere in the commentary?
Whence indeed. It can only come from within. And that opens the psyhological window. And the fact that it's universal (try to find any upload of this video that does not call it a "gun control" rant) -- simply demonstrates the penetration of that very psychology and how deeply ingrained it is.
In other words by their attempt at deflection they prove its whole point.
Not that there's some sort of massive gun culture but that there's a perceived attack on individual liberties, that's all it proves. Remember, perception is everything...........Incorrect, as I stated before it shows nothing more than a misplaced defense mechanism against a perceived attack
You mistakenly apply those responses to some nebulous 'gun culture' when the real fear for most is what they perceive as a degradation of the Bill of Rights, a violation of the rights (as they see them) handed down from our forefathers.
I think you're way behind me. Here's the point ---
---- Yes it absolutely is a defence against a perceived attack. No difference of opinion there at all. My question then is --- whence comes this perception of attack, given the fact that it literally does not exist anywhere in the commentary?
Whence indeed. It can only come from within. And that opens the psyhological window. And the fact that it's universal (try to find any upload of this video that does not call it a "gun control" rant) -- simply demonstrates the penetration of that very psychology and how deeply ingrained it is.
In other words by their attempt at deflection they prove its whole point.
