Good post, thank you for replying. One of my repeated themes here when this subject always comes up is: Guns have also been something that Americans have grown up with too and considered a natural right and we never really thought about it as a Yes or No issue. It just is. Just like Free speech is in America as well as the rest of the world. Since guns have always been plentiful and actually were FAR easier to get in the past - despite deliberate lies to the contrary now - why are guns only now really a problem when it comes to both murder, mass killings and even suicide??? What's changed?It's interesting and a point that has been brought up often here. The idea of free speech (which is what would be limited here) is something we've mostly grown up with to be a given, a natural right if you will. But technology has extended the reach of an individual which changes the impact. It used to be a crazy guy in the town square screaming "the end is nigh" where his reach was maybe a few hundred people walking by. Now, we have internet forums dedicated to "Q" that can reach thousands if not millions of people and posing a very real threat to the stability of the USA.
Moreover, it used to be a bullied or marginalised kid would be exposed to bullying for 40 hrs a week at school. With social media and messaging, that can now be relentless 24/7 with the outcome potentially being catastrophic for that kid or those around them.
We joke that some people are too dumb to sue the internet, we also see people here getting irrationally angry over the thoughts/opinions expressed by an anonyms person and they should take a break. So yes, I actually do think some people should be restricted from having access. However, much like your concerns over a tyrannical government WRT guns, how and where do you set those limits and who decides. What if TFG was able to limit his detractors from publishing counter points to his narrative, where would the US be now? I also brush off the 2A argument about a tyrannical government too easily, but then reflect on events such as Tiananmen Square and more recent coups in Myanmar.
Maybe I'm a little too idealistic in that you do have to have some trust in the checks and balances of more developed nations rather than pontificate on the what if's of the emerging nations we typically associate with oppression. Jan 6th illustrated just how fragile my idealistic view point is, maybe I am too trusting...
This is probably different for me, but my father (70) would disagree. He grew up with guns. He had cadets at school and enough guns, ammo and mortors to wage a small war. He often carried his rifle through Melbourne city and on trams (albeit in uniform) without issue there was never really a question. They were far easier to get here too with minimal to no license or registration, pick up a rifle and ammo at the local kmart.Good post, thank you for replying. One of my repeated themes here when this subject always comes up is: Guns have also been something that Americans have grown up with too and considered a natural right and we never really thought about it as a Yes or No issue.
I believe lots has changed, the bigger our population grows the less connected we are with others. In a small village theft is incredibly rare because it's difficult to steal from people you know and are connected with (unless you're a psychopath), as the cities grow it becomes easy to steal or assault people not known to you.It just is. Just like Free speech is in America as well as the rest of the world. Since guns have always been plentiful and actually were FAR easier to get in the past - despite deliberate lies to the contrary now - why are guns only now really a problem when it comes to both murder, mass killings and even suicide??? What's changed?
I don't disagree with some of your perspectives but while you work towards the world that you want, you've got to deal with the world that you have. The relatively easy access to guns, means those that are disenfranchised for what ever reason can wreak havoc with little effort. The bandaid to that is to remove access to them until you can address the disenfranchised portions of society. That means social programs so people aren't bankrupted by a medical condition or having to work three jobs totalling 80 hrs a week just to make rent and food meaning there's no time to raise their child to be a member of society. I feel I'm getting into get off my lawn old man territory here but I think you get my point.If you track back to when this trend really started in the US tracks back almost perfectly to the rise of the internet in the mid 90s and then accelerated as social media accelerated in use and popularity. Don't get me wrong, I'm in no way that naive to think it's as simple as that. But it also tracks well against the increased funding and aggressive policing in the War on Drugs as well as the defunding of mental health in the US.
The oft asked question in rebuttal is: Other countries have the internet, social media and violent video games - so why don't they have the same murder and mass shooting rates? It's a fair question, but it's being deliberately disingenuous. America IS unique in that we do have the same internet and violent video games. But there is nowhere near the scale of drug use and drug related violence anywhere else in the first world nor the policing and incarceration to deal with it. Most other countries have reasonable health care systems that are able to deal with the mentally stressed and those on the verge of a mental break. The US is almost bereft of those lifelines. So it's a perfect storm of issues that is creating and perpetuating this problem we have today in the US that very few other countries have this confluence of issues hitting all at once.
But I maintain that the gunz were here first and they were rarely an issue until these other "perfect storm" events came together. So I would rather work to deal with what changed and address those, than to point to an inanimate object and ascribe all our societal ills to it rather than address the actual root causes of what is driving people to shoot up a school or shoot up a party of a rival gang. Otherwise we are treating symptoms only and never getting to the causal issues.
just as a frame of reference In the Vietnam War over 10+ years 58,000 US service man died. So tell me this country not at war when as many Americans shoot each other in a year as did in a long WAR That is really fucked upThere were 45,000 firearms-linked deaths in the USA in 2021. That's 866 a week. 124 a day.
Every day in this country, 124 people die from fire-arms linked shit. That's roughly the same as the number of Ukrainian soldiers who die on the front lines, every day.
Every hour, 5-6 people die a gun-enabled death in the USA. In the time it took you to write yet another post about tyranny, The Militia That Will Save Us, and postulate about what percentage of US Army types will honor their oath...
Someone died from a gun.
And you want to let that just go on, so we can debate further about the social causes of change in the USA and then try to spend more on
Or who the fuck knows what, because what? YOU know what caused the destruction of whatever-it-was that changed in the USA that made this place a gun-killers hell? No, you don't know. Nobody knows, everybody has their pet guess. It will take YEARS to solve those problems if they can even be solved. Meanwhile, for every week that we carefully and thoroughly debate the issues, call on the brightest minds to provide insight, chatter on about how terrible it all is, fight in congress about funding yadda yadda yadda yadda....
Another 866 people die.
I'm really sick of reading about the fucking Militia protecting us from some hypothetical never-never-land boogieman while kids die every fucking day.
The two ways to change all this are spelled out clearly in the Constitution. Bitching on the internet is not one of them unfortunately: "Article V of the Constitution provides two ways to propose amendments to the document. Amendments may be proposed either by the Congress, through a joint resolution passed by a two-thirds vote, or by a convention called by Congress in response to applications from two-thirds of the state legislatures."I'm really sick of reading about the fucking Militia protecting us from some hypothetical never-never-land boogieman while kids die every fucking day.
I agree with you!The two ways to change all this are spelled out clearly in the Constitution. Bitching on the internet is not one of them unfortunately: "Article V of the Constitution provides two ways to propose amendments to the document. Amendments may be proposed either by the Congress, through a joint resolution passed by a two-thirds vote, or by a convention called by Congress in response to applications from two-thirds of the state legislatures."
Think big but act close to home. What seems possible, maybe, is getting the populace behind an amendment to the 5th to state that national referendums be allowed.
Events of the past few years have put the lie to the gun bullshit about defence from a tyrant.
If there was any validity to the concept, why were TFG and his fascist thug cohorts not dealt with by "The Militia"?
Jeff, Jeff, Jeff . . . Don’t confuse my motives with your motives. I have no need to “show how smart” I am. That’s your fixation.I never once attempted to say that part of it was "fact". ofc it's speculative. I stated facts using the stats then drew a conclusion based on those data. But its a fucking pretty good educated guess that connects the obvious dots. So again, what is YOUR theory of why 18-19 your old
adults"kids" account for more than half of all child murders? Here is your chance to show how smart you are
I think this was how and what the militia aka protestors thought they were doing... righting a stolen election wrong. Lack of leadership left them hanging out to dry but we've heard about at least the one van in nearby VA with a weapons cache presumably for an occupation. My guess is the insurrectors were as surprised as all of us viewers were that it was that easy and so underprotected, and of course were helped along by our constitutional peaceful assembly rights. If a handful had been packing ARs or had then delivered to them ... whole different outcome with militiamen with ARs fighting police with sidearms. Uvalde redux times a bunch.If there was any validity to the concept, why were TFG and his fascist thug cohorts not dealt with by "The Militia"?