3 ms·

Perhaps there's a good reason for that. Not all ideas are created equal, and the proliferation of mass shootings in the states should serve as a strong signal t

Perhaps there's a good reason for that. Not all ideas are created equal, and the proliferation of mass shootings in the states should serve as a strong signal that our gun laws are dumb. Somehow, the conversation has stalled here because some people actually believe they're going to protect their freedoms with violence. You know, by fighting against a government equipped with stealth bombers and death drones and navy seals. With their hunting rifles. I served in the army. The idea that civilians could put up anything of a fight is a fantasy more ridiculous than kung fury. What keeps you safe from "the government" is that soldiers are taught that they are there to serve and that American citizens are off-limits, not that they are somehow quivering in their boots about losing a fight with your cute little club of weekend warriors that play dress-up in the woods with walkie talkies.

mindslight 6y ago
I agree with you on the practical utility of the 2nd amendment for defending against tyranny (and if anything it seems to be more of a distraction, encouraging tyranny to developed unchecked with the idea that it will be fought at some future breaking point). But with regards to school shootings there is a much more prominent and straightforward cause - mass media itself, both news and entertainment. And they're continually working to write themselves out of the narrative by directing focus at inanimate objects.
- mbrodersen 6y ago
  I am not sure I understand your argument. Are you saying that it was actually journalists that were running around shooting the kids, and not kids wanting to take revenge with guns they had easy access to? And that without easy access to guns the kinds would have killed the same number of people with, say, a kitchen knife? Really?
  - mindslight 6y ago
    It seems like you willfully misunderstood my argument, as talking about journalists shooting kids is some obvious caricature. Society is held together by people's values and individual adherence to shared rules - aka culture. Kids, like everyone else (eg cops), are acting out cultural norms, being mostly defined by mass media. Entertainment media mostly consists of easy-to-write fight scenes where the main characters dispose of some endless supply of nameless "bad guys". A few hits or shots, that one is gone, move on to the next one. No scenes showing henchman #17 hugging his kids goodbye that morning, or henchman #31's parents grieving. Just purely transactional force-of-will violence - sound familiar? Furthermore, news media then glorifies shooting events when they do happen, showering the perpetrator with attention and making sure they go down in infamy - it's actually a quite precocious way to get one's 15 minutes of fame. And of course there's that other uncomfortable issue of why school environments cause kids to want to kill their peers in the first place! But there's no straightforward approaches to those, and they're held in place by entrenched incentives (lazy writing, clickbait advertising, ass-covering school administrators), while the people speaking up for the inanimate objects are easy to write off.
    - mbrodersen 6y ago
      Most rich western countries don’t have mass shootings in schools. Even though the media you describe is the same. So obviously the media is not the reason why. So what is the difference then? It’s simple: kids in the US have easy access to guns. Not so in other rich western countries. If kids in other rich countries had easy access to guns, there would be school shootings there as well.
worik 6y ago
I have heard that American knife murders are as high, and out of step with other countries, as for gun murders. Perhaps there is something deeply violent (deeply wrong IMO) in the USA's culture?
fuzxi 6y ago
Interesting that a soldier is ignoring both A) the incredible power of guerilla warfare (see: Vietnam War), and B) the horrifyingly bad optics, and possible sanctions, that would result from the US actually utilizing unrestrained military might against their own citizens.
- pksebben 6y ago
  A) We are engaging, currently, in a number of asymmetric (read: guerilla) wars right now, with an unfathomable level of success - see Afghanistan, Iraq et al. We have learned a lot and gotten a lot better at things since Vietnam (not to mention, we train on American soil, so the guerilla advantage is more or less lost, there). B) That's exactly what I'm saying! It's the optics and the structure of political ownership that prevents such a civil war, not deterrence, as the second amendment was designed to implement.
mbrodersen 6y ago
Agree. It doesn’t matter how much ammo you store in your little hut in the woods, the number of guns you buy, the amount of Tactical Toothbrushes in camouflage paint you squirrel away. The government doesn’t even have to use the army. It can simply declare you to be a terrorist (using one of the secret courts), and send in the local gun crazy SWAT guys to take you out. And if you as much as look at one of your Tactical Toothbrushes when they burst through your bedroom door at 4am, they will shoot you so full of holes that not even your mum will recognise you. Followed by a press conference where the government will proudly declare to the world that they have eliminated yet another terrorist and back slaps all around for the brave boys who pumped you full of lead.
GoblinSlayer 6y ago
You basically say that rebellion can never be successful.
- pksebben 6y ago
  That is precisely what I am saying.

mindslight 6y ago

I agree with you on the practical utility of the 2nd amendment for defending against tyranny (and if anything it seems to be more of a distraction, encouraging tyranny to developed unchecked with the idea that it will be fought at some future breaking point). But with regards to school shootings there is a much more prominent and straightforward cause - mass media itself, both news and entertainment. And they're continually working to write themselves out of the narrative by directing focus at inanimate objects.

mbrodersen 6y ago
I am not sure I understand your argument. Are you saying that it was actually journalists that were running around shooting the kids, and not kids wanting to take revenge with guns they had easy access to? And that without easy access to guns the kinds would have killed the same number of people with, say, a kitchen knife? Really?
- mindslight 6y ago
  It seems like you willfully misunderstood my argument, as talking about journalists shooting kids is some obvious caricature. Society is held together by people's values and individual adherence to shared rules - aka culture. Kids, like everyone else (eg cops), are acting out cultural norms, being mostly defined by mass media. Entertainment media mostly consists of easy-to-write fight scenes where the main characters dispose of some endless supply of nameless "bad guys". A few hits or shots, that one is gone, move on to the next one. No scenes showing henchman #17 hugging his kids goodbye that morning, or henchman #31's parents grieving. Just purely transactional force-of-will violence - sound familiar? Furthermore, news media then glorifies shooting events when they do happen, showering the perpetrator with attention and making sure they go down in infamy - it's actually a quite precocious way to get one's 15 minutes of fame. And of course there's that other uncomfortable issue of why school environments cause kids to want to kill their peers in the first place! But there's no straightforward approaches to those, and they're held in place by entrenched incentives (lazy writing, clickbait advertising, ass-covering school administrators), while the people speaking up for the inanimate objects are easy to write off.
  - mbrodersen 6y ago
    Most rich western countries don’t have mass shootings in schools. Even though the media you describe is the same. So obviously the media is not the reason why. So what is the difference then? It’s simple: kids in the US have easy access to guns. Not so in other rich western countries. If kids in other rich countries had easy access to guns, there would be school shootings there as well.

worik 6y ago

I have heard that American knife murders are as high, and out of step with other countries, as for gun murders. Perhaps there is something deeply violent (deeply wrong IMO) in the USA's culture?

fuzxi 6y ago

Interesting that a soldier is ignoring both A) the incredible power of guerilla warfare (see: Vietnam War), and B) the horrifyingly bad optics, and possible sanctions, that would result from the US actually utilizing unrestrained military might against their own citizens.

pksebben 6y ago
A) We are engaging, currently, in a number of asymmetric (read: guerilla) wars right now, with an unfathomable level of success - see Afghanistan, Iraq et al. We have learned a lot and gotten a lot better at things since Vietnam (not to mention, we train on American soil, so the guerilla advantage is more or less lost, there). B) That's exactly what I'm saying! It's the optics and the structure of political ownership that prevents such a civil war, not deterrence, as the second amendment was designed to implement.

mbrodersen 6y ago

Agree. It doesn’t matter how much ammo you store in your little hut in the woods, the number of guns you buy, the amount of Tactical Toothbrushes in camouflage paint you squirrel away. The government doesn’t even have to use the army. It can simply declare you to be a terrorist (using one of the secret courts), and send in the local gun crazy SWAT guys to take you out. And if you as much as look at one of your Tactical Toothbrushes when they burst through your bedroom door at 4am, they will shoot you so full of holes that not even your mum will recognise you. Followed by a press conference where the government will proudly declare to the world that they have eliminated yet another terrorist and back slaps all around for the brave boys who pumped you full of lead.

GoblinSlayer 6y ago

You basically say that rebellion can never be successful.

pksebben 6y ago
That is precisely what I am saying.