Mass Killings - You Get What You Want in Society

[minermark]

Thread still hangin in there eh?

 

 

[ZEUS121996]

Interesting

https://www.facebook.com/TheComicalConservative/photos/a.133361476797039.26402.133352176797969/673510052782176/?type=3

 

Mark

[Jim Naseum]

Dwilawyer,

The one that yield the most democratic outcomes.

There's quite a bit of data available. In some analysis the US comes in well down the list of democratic governments. But again, I must reiterate that any such judgment begins with asking the question, "who is supposed to benefit, and is that happening?"

If the object is to amass all the capital for an elite class, that will be a very different government arrangement than one whose object is to raise prosperity for all the governed.

The USA is an elitist system by design, and yields the results predicted for an elitist system. The data don't lie.

Very few people get to experience comparisons. So, the tendency is to assume the home system must be the best.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

Edited October 7, 2015 by jo56steph74

[Paducah Home Theater]

Would it be treacherous or un-patriotic for me to suggest that the founding fathers are to blame for this shit? People hold the constitution up like it is a holy book....either of which were written by men, who are fallible....But no, I don't think so, I think the problem lies in the way people like to interpret it, another similarity with holy books....No consensus will ever be reached. It's funny how people will yell and scream "It's in the constitution" when it suits their argument...But will say "F### the constitution" when it's held up as an argument against them.

 

If you're talking about the 2nd amendment, I don't agree with this if no other reason than the fact that other countries have guns and they get along just fine.  Everybody tends to look at places where cool guns are banned when talking about other countries, such as England and Australia, but consider the UAE.  There's guns everywhere at least among nationals.  Kids are brought up using them, full auto AK-47's are common.  And, they have the lowest violent crime in the world.  No, really.  

[Jim Naseum]

And, they have the lowest violent crime in the world.  No, really.  

 

It depends whether or not you include the crimes of the ruling monarchy. If you do, you could hardly say they have the lowest violent crime in the world.  These are violent crimes: http://www.newsweek.com/worlds-most-barbaric-punishments-74537

 

You could say the crime rate was very low in Stalinist Russia too, if you discount crime under color of authority. 

 

Just sayin.

[Paducah Home Theater]

 

And, they have the lowest violent crime in the world.  No, really.  

 

It depends whether or not you include the crimes of the ruling monarchy. If you do, you could hardly say they have the lowest violent crime in the world.  These are violent crimes: http://www.newsweek.com/worlds-most-barbaric-punishments-74537

 

Some of the stuff they get flogged for would land you in federal prison over here, which often means you get to be somebody's girlfriend and get violently raped regularly.  Somehow they're the barbaric ones.  

[Bella]

In some analysis the US comes in well down the list of democratic governments.

Is that analysis current, or from 1950? Because I wouldn't be surprised of far different results from those two time periods.

 

The USA is an elitist system by design, and yields the results predicted for an elitist system. The data don't lie.

Hmm. Then the 1950 data I ask about should prove the elitist system in full bloom, correct? After all, the country at that time was almost 200 years old and if it was designed to benefit the elite, it should have been well established by then? Or are you saying we are just now reaching the intended design?

I would respectfully disagree with your whole premise in that the American system WAS the best ever designed. That doesn't mean we didn't have some faults, but we worked to fix them. The problem is, in my opinion, it is currently being ravaged from all angles. I suspect the results of that ravaging are shown in the analysis you speak of, and that the results from 1950 would stand head and shoulders above practically every other country now or historically.

To summarize, we are no longer the country we were meant to be and have past our pinnacle - our slide has commenced and your data is reflecting those results.

Edited October 7, 2015 by Bella

[oldenough]

Would it be treacherous or un-patriotic for me to suggest that the founding fathers are to blame for this shit? People hold the constitution up like it is a holy book....either of which were written by men, who are fallible....But no, I don't think so, I think the problem lies in the way people like to interpret it, another similarity with holy books....No consensus will ever be reached. It's funny how people will yell and scream "It's in the constitution" when it suits their argument...But will say "F### the constitution" when it's held up as an argument against them.

 

If you're talking about the 2nd amendment, I don't agree with this if no other reason than the fact that other countries have guns and they get along just fine.  Everybody tends to look at places where cool guns are banned when talking about other countries, such as England and Australia, but consider the UAE.  There's guns everywhere at least among nationals.  Kids are brought up using them, full auto AK-47's are common.  And, they have the lowest violent crime in the world.  No, really.

So!! Therein lies the problem...."that other countries have guns and they get along fine".....So what's your solution?

[rebuy]

I do get tired of having to defend MY Rights--

If you eliminateThe largest Democratic controlled cities in the U.S.--Gun violence rates in The U.S. are quite low.

Yes we have had some Mass Shootings but many of those were done by People on Drugs--You cannot blame me for that.

I don't live in the drug user world--I enjoy my life and I don't need to be STONED to do that.

Many--Many people are stoned from legal drugs and some of them commit these crimes.

This is Not my fault.

Most shooting in big cities are black on black crime as people don't seem to care about who they kill.

These cities have the most restrictive gun laws--that doesn't stop Bad Guys from getting guns.

That is Not My Fault.

Yet--I have to defend my right to self defense--Why is that?

My country is being invaded by people from other countries without our government "Vetting Them".

So many are being brought here that it would be impossible for us to find out who they are and they

don't like us and say they wany us dead--yet some of you want us unarmed in case these people take action.

This is Not A Game--Our very way of life is at stake--I take this seriously.

I don't hang around with people who say they want to kill me.

Yes--we are generally--Nice People--who want others to have a nice life--

OTOH there are people who DO NOT see things that way--They tell you they don't

but many of you don't believe them--I believe them because of What They DO.

 

The Police cannot protect me and they cannot protect you.

It is my Responsibility and Duty to protect MY FAMILY.

If you do not want to protect your family--Then Don't.

That is a choice you as a person has to make.

You cannot tell me I cannot protect my family.

There are "bad guys" everywhere and they are looking for an Easy Target.

If you want to be a victim of these scum--be my guest--Not Me.

 

If you hell bent on disarming my country--good luck

There are many of us who will Not Comply with that request.

 

I don't want to hurt anyone--and I don't want anyone to hurt me,

but the world is a dangerous place went you step outside your castle.

[Jim Naseum]

In some analysis the US comes in well down the list of democratic governments.

Is that analysis current, or from 1950? Because I wouldn't be surprised of far different results from those two time periods.

The USA is an elitist system by design, and yields the results predicted for an elitist system. The data don't lie.

Hmm. Then the 1950 data I ask about should prove the elitist system in full bloom, correct? After all, the country at that time was almost 200 years old and if it was designed to benefit the elite, it should have been well established by then? Or are you saying we are just now reaching the intended design?

I would respectfully disagree with your whole premise in that the American system WAS the best ever designed. That doesn't mean we didn't have some faults, but we worked to fix them. The problem is, in my opinion, it is currently being ravaged from all angles. I suspect the results of that ravaging are shown in the analysis you speak of, and that the results from 1950 would stand head and shoulders above practically every other country now or historically.

To summarize, we are no longer the country we were meant to be and have past our pinnacle - our slide has commenced and your data is reflecting those results.

The analysis I referred to was in the 2000s, not 1950.

As to elite system, the data is current. When 90% of the wealth of the nation is held in the hands of 1% of the population, you have an elite system.

The elite caste rules through interlocking institutions in which membership is strictly controlled. These NGOs, like CFR, provides the basic policy controls for government. As an example, this is how neo liberal economics are enforced. E.g. the new trade agreement in Congress now.

What was intended isn't very relevant. Dead guys don't, and shouldn't, rule. All societies are responsible to create the environment that works best for them. Life today isn't what it was in 1790. I don't place much value in originalism.

Sent from my ALCATEL A564C using Tapatalk

[Bella]

The USA is an elitist system by design, and yields the results predicted for an elitist system. The data don't lie.

What was intended isn't very relevant. Dead guys don't, and shouldn't, rule.

Forgive me for laboring here but I am trying to understand your position and these two statements seem to be at odds.

[Jim Naseum]

Hmmm? I don't feel the contradiction. The first statement is just an observation of what is happening today. The second is a response to your comments about things being different from what the Founders intended. In general, I have no concern about what they intended.

Sent from my ALCATEL A564C using Tapatalk

[Jim Naseum]

To be clear, my advocacy is always for "more democracy."

Sent from my ALCATEL A564C using Tapatalk

[Paducah Home Theater]

So!! Therein lies the problem...."that other countries have guns and they get along fine".....So what's your solution?

I never proposed a solution, am only pointing out that there's a bigger problem than the availability of guns. Blaming our forefathers on this is silliness.

[Paducah Home Theater]

It was odd, when Michael Carneal went on his spree, everybody around here was looking for something to blame. Biggest thing that was settled on was the movie "Basketball Diaries" as well as "Natural Born Killers", the latter of which was more or less unofficially banned around here, it was a big no-no. The parents of the kids who got shot went as far as suing Nintendo for producing Mortal Kombat, as well as the parent company to some p0rn sites, and the movie producers. These arguments seemed legit at the time but seem silly now. The reaction is exactly the same though, when you get a shooter who has played online RPG first person shooter games, that's exactly how people were acting about Mortal Kombat and Quake back in the 90's with Michael. Look at Quake sometime, very pixelated, you shot friggin bulls and stuff with fantasy weapons, pretty dumb by today's standards. And Mortal Kombat? You've got a guy who can fly, teleport, and shoot electricity, and he's fighting a guy who can freeze a mud puddle and shoot ice chunks which freezes people temporarily. Somehow I doubt this directly led to putting a .22 bullet in a 15 year old girl's head. Seemed like a perfectly legit conclusion back then though.

Edited October 7, 2015 by MetropolisLakeOutfitters

[Jim Naseum]

 

As a nation, we seem to be stuck at the level of "safety" according to Maslov. In any discussion about mass murders, it's hard to get anyone interested in the upper levels. 

[Islander]

Believe it or not, there are countries where few people have guns, except for police and criminals, and yet life goes on.  Some people even have to be reminded to lock their doors.

 

If you have an emergency in the middle of the night, like being injured in a car crash, you know you can knock on almost anyone's door and get help, not get shot through that door by a paranoid homeowner.

 

There's almost zero chance that an elderly lady will be shot and killed in the middle of the night when she returns from using the toilet, because her paranoid elderly husband thought she was an intruder and reached for his bedside gun.

 

There's almost zero chance that a mother shopping in a grocery store will be shot to death by her toddler in the shopping cart who reached into Mom's purse, pulled out her handgun and accidentally discharged it at her.

 

There's almost zero chance that a little boy will kill his brother because they found their paranoid father's bedside gun and were playing with it when the little boy accidentally discharged it.  How many times a year does that particular tragedy happen?

 

Did you notice that the word "paranoid" cropped up several times?  Consider a country like Israel, which is surrounded by larger countries that have vowed to wipe it off the map, where suicide bombers go to markets, or get on buses, in a frequent effort to kill as many Israelis as possible.  Those Israelis have very good reasons to be paranoid.  And yet, you'd probably find more Texans carrying sidearms than Israelis.

 

The world is a scary place sometimes, but it's not as scary as the NRA would have you believe.  Their ongoing efforts to put a gun in every pocket or purse or bedside table or home vestibule or car or RV have made America a far more scary place than it used to be, but it's still not as bad as they'd like you to believe.

 

In addition to the large number of accidental shootings that are the inevitable result of having guns in the homes of large numbers of citizens, along with ease of legal purchase of guns, mass murders are now much easier to accomplish, because it has become so easy for people with grudges or mental problems to get their hands on a gun, or several guns in many cases.

 

In many ways, the NRA is the problem, not the solution.

Edited October 7, 2015 by Islander

[oldenough]

So!! Therein lies the problem...."that other countries have guns and they get along fine".....So what's your solution?

I never proposed a solution, am only pointing out that there's a bigger problem than the availability of guns. Blaming our forefathers on this is silliness.

1...I know you didn't, but I was simply asking for your solution.

2...Yes, now all we need is someone to point out what the problem is...not what it isn't.

3... I wasn't blaming our forefathers, but blaming those who interpret what they wrote or intended.

[Jim Naseum]

In many ways, the NRA is the problem, not the solution.

 

 

The NRA is just a lobbying front for the arms industry. So, nothing much has to be said there. Arms makers want to make and sell more arms. They give NRA a pile of money, which NRA uses to bribe Congresspeople. Nothing important to be said. Our entire system is based on this formalized bribery. Congresspeople are not complicated. They want to stay in office because it's the greatest job in the world. It takes money to stay in, so whomever has the money is a friend to the congressperson. We need to get much deeper than that to understand our gun obsession. 

 

We get what we want, so why is it we want this? It obviously creates a massive benefit somewhere, right?

[Islander]

 

In many ways, the NRA is the problem, not the solution.

 

 

The NRA is just a lobbying front for the arms industry. So, nothing much has to be said there. Arms makers want to make and sell more arms. They give NRA a pile of money, which NRA uses to bribe Congresspeople. Nothing important to be said. Our entire system is based on this formalized bribery. Congresspeople are not complicated. They want to stay in office because it's the greatest job in the world. It takes money to stay in, so whomever has the money is a friend to the congressperson. We need to get much deeper than that to understand our gun obsession. 

 

We get what we want, so why is it we want this? It obviously creates a massive benefit somewhere, right?

 

 

It does create a massive benefit.  A small number of rich people get massively richer, at the cost of the lives of the people they claim to be helping.