News Us politics - read first post before comment

[Anarchy]

It's important to recognise that the two empty shells of united state political parties, don't describe where most people are.

The parties have more in common than they have different.

Both believe in violent coercion

Both believe in robbing less politically connected groups in society to pay more politically connected groups

Both believe in a national exceptionalism and a manifest destiny to violently rule over everyone else

The disagreement is only over minor details of who should be robbed (or bombed) to pay whom, and who should be softened up in readiness to be robbed.

And how much should be taken.

I don't think that you'll find many ordinary people on either side who "want" to give guns to potential school shooters

You will find people who consider the cost of achieving a total monopoly of gun ownership in the hands of the state sector, to be far too high.

Civilian disarmament is perhaps not a sufficient cause for a genocide or a democide, but in every instance in the twentieth century (at the very least 220,000,000 people murdered by governments outside of war, (reference the late prof Rudy Rummel, university of Hawaii) ), civilian disarmament was a necessary condition for it to happen.

 

[SaharaSon]

I don't know that the conspiracy theorists are suggesting that no one got killed. Perhaps some are?

Th...

There are alot, alot of questions about all of these kinds of events. The Las Vegas cover-up is really scary. Who's watching the watchers? :D

 

[Anarchy]

No one needs a...

The comment or something who write that, are welcome to speak for themselves

Several millions of people, have demonstrated by spending the $500+++ that an AR, AK, SKS, Ruger Mini 14/30 etc costs, that they do believe that they need.

These aren't full auto. Because of the Hughes ammendment, the register of legal full autos is closed to new entries. Because supply is short, prices for legal full auto guns are extremely high, at the vey bottom of the legal full auto market, a shitty STEN smg starts at around $10,000 to $12,000.

The guns with scary black plastic are functionally the same as the FN Browning model 1900, and Remington model 1908. Introduced as sporting guns 110 years ago.

Who's view isome more valid?

Those who say "no one needs..."?

Or those who've spent $500+ demonstrating that they think they do need?

The big booms in sales were during the Clinton years, and then during the O'bama years, when ideas of bans were being talked about.

People who buy ahead of a possible ban, are not the people who will meekly show up to hand in again when a politician tells them to

I've not seen a recent tally of the estimated sales. The older tallies were well into the millions of guns.

The military theorist Clausewitz, had a lot to say about large numbers of people with guns, and indeed, one of the interpretations of the second ammendment to the American counter revolution constitution, is an insurrectionary interpretation (see Robert H Churchill, "to shake their guns in the tyrants face" for a discussion, he is a serious historian of the revolutionary period).

Damn the auto incorrect!

It's changed stuff after I'd proof read!

The comment or something

That had already been corrected to read:

"The commentators"

 

[Justmehere]

What mass killers want and how to stop them

The author outlines the role of certain personality disorders, that shootings should be treated like an outbreak of an epidemic, and what can be done in changing media coverage to stop these mass shootings.

How might journalists and police change their practices to discourage mass shootings? First, they need to do more to deprive the killer of an audience

There are ways to get the information out there about mass shootings in a less sensataional way. Mass shootings are supposed to provoke a certain type of response. Americans have become very good playing into that response.

The author says the Parkland students are not behaving a “good helpless” victims but bad victims by taking back control and taking action. Agree or disagree with their actions, they are taking away the power for the shooter to make people feel helpless.

Time to flip the script.

Time to also decrease the saturation of the reporting of mass shootings. Mass shooters want senseless carnage to get on the news.

And most interestingly,

Tell a different story. There is a damping effect on suicide from reports about people who considered it but found help instead. Some enterprising reporters might find similar stories to tell about would-be mass shooters who reconsidered.

 

[Deleted member 45988]

I don’t agree that liberals make shooters into celebrities. As with any horrific crime, it’s the nat...

I don't think conservatives are trying to make sure potential shooters can get guns or liberals are trying to give disturbed people ideas that they can go out in a blaze of messed up glory and infamy, but I think they are doing it anyway. And I think they are doing a very good job of working together to cause a horrendous problem.

Another example where both sides worked together to cause a massive problem was subprime mortgage disaster. Liberals wanted to make sure hispanics could get mortgages, even if they were in the us illegally, because they saw an inequality where whites were getting loans for houses and hispanics and other minorities and poor whites were getting fewer mortgages, but it's just a lot more profitable and far less risky to give loans to rich whites than it is to give loans to poor illegal Mexicans. Plus more moderate conservatives wanted to make sure hispanics could buy houses because they felt that hispanics were pretty socially conservative and if they could be part of the American dream, they might vote republican. But still the issue was it is just risky and not profitable to give poor people mortgages, especially if they are illegal immigrants, so profit oriented lending institutions aren't going to comply without some incentive.

So somehow some idea occurred to charge poor and risky home buyers higher interest rates (subprime mortgages), making everyone fairly happy. Minorities could get more loans, lending institutions could make money, etc. Even there were more jobs because more people could get loans and more people could get refinanced. Some of these jobs went to minorities like black loan officers working with black loan applicants.

But it got lost in all the happiness that minorities and poor were getting loans, jobs were created, banks were making money, etc that this was just a really bad idea. It's like it's beyond obvious that if you charge poor people high interest rates without requiring much money down and the slightest problem occurs in the economy (losing of jobs) or housing market values decrease that there is going to be disaster. But it's like everyone was happy that their selfish interests and political inclinations and internal inclinations were being met, that the obvious was entirely ignored.

Then, not surprisingly, there was disaster and everyone blamed those other people and took no responsibility for their own part in the mess. Conservatives were furious at liberals for causing the disaster by making banks give risky loans to people like illegal immigrants and liberals were furious that evil rich white people manipulated minorities and poor into risky loans. Neither side had any interest whatsoever in accepting that their side was half of the problem.

I feel like the shootings are a bit like this. Of course if you make assault rifles readily available some disturbed nut is more likely to do something deadly than if assault rifles weren't readily available. Of course if you give extremely disturbed people who have been bullied and harassed all their lives repeated examples of how to not only go out in a blaze of infamy but also of how to get revenge on a society which has mistreated them, some are going to get the idea that things mostly liberal press keep replaying are actually a really good idea. Probably it's not that difficult to largely solve the problem, you just outlaw assault rifles and entirely ignore shooters and don't talk about mass violence in any way (including if violence is a good example that can be used to prove of how evil and dangerous those other people are).

 

[SaharaSon]

Pokey, you can not take away my right to defend myself from terrorists or tyrants.:D

 

[Deleted member 45988]

Pokey, you can not take away my right to defend myself from terrorists or tyrants.:D

Yep, it's unfair to take away assault rifles because they are fun and a terrorist might attack. It's also unfair to control the press, especially when events are clearly showing how dangerous those pro-gun conservatives are, because it's extra important to talk nonstop about something that proves how those how those dangerous those pro-gun conservatives are to society.

The comment or something who write that, are welcome to speak for themselves

Several millions of peo...

Another thing is that I'm not sure how aware the general population might be about how to get guns or exactly where to find them if media didn't mention such things, but since liberals like to talk non-stop about how easy it is to get guns, with examples of how to get them, it might just require watching tv or reading news for potential mass killer to get a good explanation of how to get a gun.

 

[Deleted member 541]

@Pokeyslow Whether you like it or not, the news is an independent entity, and their job is to report the news. It doesn’t mater to them if it’s about Trump and his family that are screwing up the country, an earthquake in Mexico, a hurricane forming in the ocean, or the president of China deciding he’s going to stay in power till he dies. It’s the news, its their job is to report it and they are protected under the first amendment. So you can bitch all you want, but it isn’t going to change their RIGHT to report it. You have the right to NOT turn on your TV, or read the newspaper or surf the news online.

There are liberal stations and conservative one, and we all have the choice as to which one we will watch, I choose the liberal news station.

@SaharaSon I don’t know where you live, but if it’s the states, no one is trying to take away your rights to protect yourself. It’s just that many of us don’t think that you need an assault rifle to do so.

I’m super impressed that Dicks Sporting Goods in America have stood up and are not selling assault rifles, and are not selling guns to anyone under the age of 2, no matter what the state law is...... We need more companies to do this and to stand up against the NRA!!!!!!!

 

[SaharaSon]

Another thing is that I'm not sure how aware the general population might be about how to get guns or...

The first thing tyrants do is take away your right to defend yourself. Then you can forget freedom of speech altogether. Then the next thing they do is enslave you, or kill you. Witness the gulags under Stalin or the furnaces under Hitler. My people have been enslaved and in furnaces, it shall not happen again. I love guns, because guns keep me free. I hate tyrants and terrorists. They are both forcing me to stay hypervigilant in order to stay free. :D

 

[Deleted member 45988]

@Pokeyslow Whether you like it or not, the news is an independent entity, and their...

But it's really just Fox News and conservative talk radio that have more conservatives than liberals. Every other major visual/audio news outlet, including Hollywood, including public radio, is made up of a staff that is majority liberal. I don't feel like it would be remotely as difficult to convince fox and conservative talk radio to stop talking about this problem as it would be to convince everyone else to stop talking about this problem. Maybe fox and radio hosts should shut up and then challenge everyone else to.

 

[Deleted member 541]

Like it or not....... They have the RIGHT under the constitution to report the news, and to be liberal or conservative. The only choice we have is to NOT watch, read or listen to it.

The news in NOT RESPONSIBLE for these attacks. The people that have committed them are. People need to get this, and their not. The only one responsible for their actions are the ONES COMMITTING the act............. They are the ones that have crossed the line and made the choice to act in the way that they have. The news didn’t make them do it.......

 

[Justmehere]

I’m guessing no one read the article I posted. It wasn’t calling for conservative or liberal media to not report the news.