General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHere we go again, another school shooting (gun rant)
Aside from the usual freaks who will attribute this to a government false-flag operation, there will be the other freaks who will use that Lewis Carroll logic that more guns will lead to less shootings. "Oh, if just one person had a gun, they could have stopped the shooter." As if an armed person could have pulled their gun and landed a perfect shot after being taken by surprise like Clint Eastwood.
That's what the gun nuts will say. They seem to think all methods of killing are the same. I once read a preposterous argument that went like this: "I can kill you with a gun or my fists. Or I can throw you in an oven, or push you off a skyscraper. It doesn't matter." Hmmm, that's neat. I didn't know ovens and skyscrapers are portable and easily concealable in a pocket, and can move faster than the speed of sound into your body, ricochet around and cause as much damage as possible. Those are some impressive ovens and skyscrapers.
Another one of my Facebook friends (who is now unfollowed) posted a picture of a gun and said, "I left my gun at home. It didn't kill anyone." This is their doofy way of mocking their strawman of our views. I responded leaving your gun at home was a great idea. If that movie theater guy left his gun at home, the guy he shoot would still be alive. If Michael Dunn had left his gun at home, Jordan Davis would be alive. She responded if those guys wanted somebody dead, they would have killed them with or without a gun. Sure, like Dunn would have punched Davis to death through the van's windows while it was fleeing. These simplistic people think humans are either good or bad and will kill regardless of their weapon. They can't seem to comprehend that humans have short tempers and lapses in judgement.
Guns are power, the power over life and death. I don't want that power. I'm sure there are plenty of responsible gun owners who use their weapons properly, but I want nothing to do with the weapons industry and their ministers of propaganda, the NRA.
villager
(26,001 posts)But, guns, hey -- what difference could that make!?
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)is not Muslim? How many were actually directly terrorized by this man's insanity, but the word has lost all meaning it seems in the attempt to slap the label only on Muslims.
To me, another case of hidden insanity, the insanity fuelled by an inherent mental instability, a love of firearms and made more possible and frequent by the easy as pie availability and societal worship of guns to make it all right.
Rinse and repeat in America several times a month, just do not call school shootings terrorism....unless, of course, the shooter is Muslim, the it MUST be terrorism.
As you say, more on topic, guns are powerful weapons capable of great and instant carnage, WTF is so hard to wrap even a moronic brain around that?
linuxman
(2,337 posts)Terrorism has a defining characteristic of being committed in the name of an ideology or set of beliefs, typically in an effort to perpetuate,garner support for, or draw attention to those beliefs.
This was murder, plain and simple.
If you're going to cheapen the term, you might as well label all robberies, riots, uses of harsh language, and murders as terrorism.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)the definition? Just because they are Muslim and were "influenced" by other insane folks?
Because the definition is being changed to fit the narrative.
Not that I agree with your definition, seems to leave out the part about making people afraid, masses of people, as a primary goal for the purposes of control and manipulation.
linuxman
(2,337 posts)However I'm still inclined to disagree.
The radicalization of certain killers, combined with their voicing of sympathies, admiration, and the influence of these beliefs onto their crimes is what makes the acts "terrorism", as the acts are committed in the name of and for the furtherance of the agendas to which the perpetrators subscribe. The simple fact is that there aren't any membership rolls, monthly meetings, or potluck dinners for radical Islamist groups such as ISIS or AL-queda. When someone supports the agenda of radical Islamists, voices that support, and starts cutting off heads while screaming "allah akbar" it puts these type of killers into association with the groups.
Association and acts in line with radical belief are enough for one to be considered part and parcel with those groups. It is similar to the inclusive declarations of other extremist groups, such as ALF. These groups extend invitations if you will through the declaration that "anyone who believes this, does this, and supports this are members of x". These people hear this as a clarion call to join in the struggle. From that point on, they are members of the group, for all intents and purposes. If a white man began listening to the ramblings of supremacist podcast calling for a race war, then tatted himself up and started killing folks as suggested by the propaganda he ingested, nobody in their right mind would argue that he wasn't committing terrorist acts in the name of the ideology he subscribed to.
Could you lay out for me your criteria for what would be required for a murder/set of murders to be considered terrorist acts? I feel like we're talking semantics here (and neither of us is going to convince the other of his position) but I'd like to know what you feel would constitute an act of terrorism.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)to anything more, in any context.
Terrorism involves being part of and attached to a larger group, one guy influenced by social media is a lone wolf, not part of the group, merely a tool being used by the group that are the terrorists. Which I would add as an attachment to my other stab at it without consulting a dictionary.
So the school shooter is not a terrorist, he is not part of the larger group, although the NRA would fit in as an enabler and the shooter their tool...to spread terror and then manipulate the fear.
linuxman
(2,337 posts)In your eyes, is the NRA a terrorist organization?
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)linuxman
(2,337 posts)valerief
(53,235 posts)gun-toting men who follow orders protect them (even when they don't realize who they're protecting).
Mister Nightowl
(396 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Obama is coming for your guns, gun manufacturers will make massive profit after a tragedy, another tragedy will occur due to more guns. Rinse. Repeat.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)that always involves more powerful weapons in more quantities.
You just described the cycle I talked about in my book "This God, I," where a gun manufacturer funds a homegrown terrorist group to perpetuate the cycle.
Sorry for the shameless plug.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)propaganda endlessly repeated....big shout out to the media for the endless repetition on behalf of both.
Orrex
(63,234 posts)"Registration always results in confiscation," or something to that same paranoid effec.
Entirely correct, alas.
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)I know someone who immediately buys guns stocks after something like this. He's rarely disappointed. I guess I would do it too if it wasn't for that moral compass that makes me want to vomit just thinking about profiting from this shit.