Guns 4 Peace, Really

[Aianawa]

Never saw this side of this debate > https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-08-04/heres-why-3d-printing-guns-are-win-world-peace-and-potential-death-blow-tyranny


Here's Why 3D-Printing Guns Are A Win For World Peace And A Potential Death Blow To Tyranny
Profile picture for user Tyler Durden
by Tyler Durden
Sat, 08/04/2018 - 22:30
831
SHARES
Twitter
Facebook
Reddit
Email
Print

Authored by Matt Agorist via The Free Thought Project.

As the debate continues about whether or not 3D-printed firearm plans should be banned, even the ostensible pro-2nd Amendment folks are worried that shooting rampages will occur as a result of these plans being published online. But the reality is far different.

For generations, advocates of private gun ownership have been fighting exhaustively through political channels to protect their right to keep and bear arms. Gun owners even have one of the strongest lobby groups in Washington, the highly disappointing NRA. Yet over the years, gun rights continue to diminish in America, despite the constant political campaigns by the NRA and politicians that claim to support gun rights.

However, in the past few years, one guy with a good idea has managed to do more to protect gun rights than the NRA has in decades of political involvement. Cody Wilson is the founder of “Defense Distributed” and the “Wikiweapon” project, which allows anyone with a 3D printer to create their own untraceable gun in the privacy of their own home.

While alarmists claim that 3D-printed guns will be the end of humanity, the fact is that these plans have been online on torrent and dark web sites for years and we’ve yet to see a single person killed with one.

What’s more, as the gruesome murder-suicide on a college campus in Walnut Creek, California illustrates is that people don’t even need these plans if they want to make their own untraceable gun. Scott Bertics built the gun he used to shoot himself and Clare Orton without anyone knowing and entirely through legal measures.

Psychopaths who want to cause harm to others will cause harm to others using any means necessary. Limiting the ability for law-abiding citizens to protect themselves will never change this.

Wilson makes no secret that the intention behind distributing CAD files to create homemade guns is to make gun control measures obsolete and bolster the Second Amendment, which is under continual assault from anti-gun activists.

As Wilson explains, these files could be used to empower oppressed people all over the world who’ve been disarmed and ruled by criminals and warlords.

“We put a lot of world governments on notice, and I think that’s good in the history of the balance of power between sovereigns and subjects,” Wilson told the Brown Political Review.

From the Armenian Genocide to the Nazi Holocaust to “Black Gun Codes” in America: throughout history, societies who have been disarmed by their governments have given way to massive bloodshed. This is still the case today in countries who’ve turned in their guns.

Depending on the current government, life in disarmed societies can go on peacefully for a while. However, in some cases, citizens — men women and children — are slaughtered by the millions.

Even when gun control seems to work in the short term, the scapegoatists are never satisfied. As we are seeing in the United Kingdom, politicians are now going after knives as the “evil weapon” that no law-abiding citizen should ever need.

For those who don’t recall, the disarming of citizens took place in the US and was used as a means to slaughter blacks and Native Americans.

Perhaps the first known attempt at disarming citizens in the new world occurred in 1751 when the French Black code was enacted requiring colonists to “stop any blacks, and if necessary, beat any black carrying any potential weapon, such as a cane.”

This attempt to disarm blacks was repeated under United States’ rule 50 years later when the U.S. purchased the Louisiana territory. According to a paper published in the Kansas Journal of Law & Public Policy:

When the first U. S. official arrived in New Orleans in 1803 to take charge of this new American possession, the planters sought to have the existing free black militia disarmed, and otherwise exclude “free blacks from positions in which they were required to bear arms,” including such non-military functions as slave-catching crews.

Upon the defeat of the confederacy in the Civil War, many southern states enacted “Black Codes” that barred the newly freed slaves from exercising their basic civil rights. One such example of these new laws was an act passed in the state of Mississippi that stated:

no freedman, free negro or mulatto, not in the military service of the United States government, and not licensed so to do by the board of police of his or her county, shall keep or carry fire-arms of any kind, or any ammunition, dirk or bowie knife, and on conviction thereof in the county court shall be punished by fine

[Emil El Zapato]

Cody Wilson is a Texas native... 'nuf said.

Flawed Reasoning

The term “gun control” is not, in fact, synonymous with “gun confiscation,” “gun prohibition,” or “gun registration” (although gun control can take any of those forms). Nor is the “gun control debate” about whether or not gun control laws ought to exist in the United States at all — they already do on both the federal and state levels, because the right to bear arms must be balanced against the safety and well-being of the populace as a whole. In practical terms, gun control boils down to addressing issues such as how to keep lethal weapons out of the hands of criminals and the mentally deranged, how to regulate their manufacture and sale, and what types of firearms and ammunition are appropriate for private citizens to own and use.

Besides leaving the term undefined and implying it means taking away people’s weapons, the text fallaciously asserts a causal link between “gun control” and mass exterminations. The argument fails to take into account other determining factors — most notably, what sorts of political regimes committed all these atrocities (hint: they weren’t democracies). It also fails to take into account counter-examples of nations (including the United States) with longstanding gun control laws on the books where no mass exterminations have occurred. Consider, too, that, in several of the cited instances the gun control laws in effect when the genocides took place were enacted years or even decades earlier.

It’s further implied that unrestricted private gun ownership would have prevented the genocides from occurring. Although a greater availability of weapons would have put targeted populations in a better position to defend themselves, however, it’s not a given that they would have prevailed over the better-equipped, better-trained government forces sent to annihilate them.


Conclusion

Based on the actual evidence at hand, we find it reasonable to conclude that gun confiscations, facilitated by laws requiring the registration and/or licensing of firearms, played a crucial role in the carrying out of twentieth-century genocides. However, gun control per se — properly defined as a set of laws regulating gun ownership that can range from minimally restrictive to outright prohibitive — is neither a cause nor even a reliable predictor of mass exterminations, whereas the presence of a repressive military dictatorship most certainly is.

- Snopes -

[Kathy]

I have a dark skinned friend in USA who is a policeman and carries a gun.

[Emil El Zapato]

I have a dark skinned friend in USA who is a policeman and carries a gun.

It would be hard to calculate what percentage of policeman are psychopaths...but I'm betting it is higher, much higher than in the general population. And I know, I have a brother and sister-in-law that have a history in the profession. An ex brother-in-law whose family is riddled with mental illness and personality disorders of various kinds. That's 2 for 3, my sister-in-law is a very fine human being. Her role was to provide training for female inmates, and to act as a therapist for those in distress or in need of understanding. But then we see the 'fascist' psychopathy on the news everyday. I hope you don't tell me your dark skinned friend is a Trump supporter?

[Dreamtimer]

Joe Rogan's shows with Michael Wood, former cop in Baltimore, are a must listen. If you want truly good insight into the dynamics between cops and blacks in the inner cities, listen to these. They are numbers 670 and 808. (I think there's another more recent) They've been posted here.

The Black Lives Matter movement is about cops shooting unarmed black men, often in the back. Many killed were finishing high school, engaged, going into the military, paying taxes, not in gangs...

[Fred Steeves]

What's usually lost on the Genesis of this particular subject is that it's all about the 1st Amendment, not the 2nd. Scratch just a little below the surface on this guy, past the usual rhetoric, y'all may be surprised.

[Emil El Zapato]

What's usually lost on the Genesis of this particular subject is that it's all about the 1st Amendment, not the 2nd. Scratch just a little below the surface on this guy, past the usual rhetoric, y'all may be surprised.

:) done scratched and then peed on it, Fred. There are no revelations to be had beyond...on 2nd thought...how about fleshing that notion out? One criteria...no mention of the 2nd amendment...let's pretend it doesn't exist. kinda like American political parties... :)

[Dreamtimer]

It's usually the opposite, NAP. Folks might look only at the 2nd Amendment at the expense of the Bill of Rights which is very important as a unified entity and contains the first 10 Amendments.

[Fred Steeves]

What's usually lost on the Genesis of this particular subject is that it's all about the 1st Amendment, not the 2nd. Scratch just a little below the surface on this guy, past the usual rhetoric, y'all may be surprised.


:) done scratched and then peed on it, Fred. There are no revelations to be had beyond...

I doubt very seriously you did much surface scratching NAP, it's not your style. After all, he's from Texas, nuff said right? :)

So while your busy peeing on the first to Amendments (any others you don't care for?), just know that Cody considers this, and I tend to agree, "proper leftist politics". Leftist as in the classic Liberalism of the creators of the Bill of Rights? Pretty radical by today's standards.


Anyone who wants a better read on this, the following short interview will provide much deeper insights beyond the typical portrayels of righties like Tyler Durden.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3lKXEuQTA4

[Dreamtimer]

Lefties? Righties?

They're all Americans.

[Dreamtimer]

The Koch brothers have been working hard. The are now 30 something states moving towards a Constitutional Convention.

Our rights will not be expanded if that happens. We're most likely to lose a whole lot of rights if we go that route.

There are plenty of Americans who want to get rid of a slew of 'pesky Amendments"

In my opinion, that's the ultimate pissing on our rights.

[Fred Steeves]

Lefties? Righties?

They're all Americans.

Did I say they weren't?

But if I have missed something, if Americans no longer self identify according to differing political labels, philosophies, and those are no longer relevant or in conflict here in the U.S., please enlighten me.

Last I checked people like the Koch brothers are the mortal enemy of the left, while those like George Soros the mortal enemy of the right, but again, perhaps I've missed the Fox News Alert. In which case as a good citizen I would promptly self censor such terms from further public view, so as not to reignite any further unnecessary divisiveness. :p

[Dreamtimer]

I just see a whole lot of people identifying as independent or some kind of other.

And I see us all as Americans rather than as on a side.

[Emil El Zapato]

I doubt very seriously you did much surface scratching NAP, it's not your style. After all, he's from Texas, nuff said right? :)

that's where it gets murky...classic liberalism is conservatism...so it doesn't work already...but i'll watch it...i might be surprised...but I doubt it.

ok, this guy will likely grow up at some point and perhaps become a proper Republican...he has all the skills...his ability to spin philosophical bullshit is pretty exemplary. Honestly, he seems like a very bright guy...classic revolutionary...in this case....as in most cases a strong authoritarian orientation.

The constitutional amendments are like the Ten Commandments. They say one thing but get interpreted in as many ways as people have thoughts...some thoughts tend toward the behest of humanity, others tend to self-service, self-aggrandisement, manipulation...blah, blah, blah...see, that wasn't painful and it didn't take me long, Fred...

[Emil El Zapato]

Lefties? Righties?

They're all Americans.

and half of them are cracked right up the middle... :)

[Dreamtimer]

I plan to listen/watch, but I won't have the time until after tomorrow, at best.

I don't know how long it's been since I mentioned this, but I have a friend who has more guns and ammo than he can realistically use and is available for instruction as needed. He also makes his own ammo.

I have another friend who is not only well armed but well trained. And I have a couple others who have special training and experience. Not to mention the military types.

Anywho...

[Emil El Zapato]

:) don't we all...this is America, after all... :)

[Fred Steeves]

Again this subject matter is most purposely to do about the 1st Amendment, not the 2nd, what is so difficult to grasp here?

[Emil El Zapato]

what is the 1st amendment, Fred?...I'm an illegal immigrant... :)

[Dreamtimer]

I'm unsure of the genesis of your question, Fred? Who's not addressing what?

[Dreamtimer]

The article finishes with this statement:


...anyone who wants to defend themselves and their family, should be able to do so in any manner they see fit — as the only other option is tyranny.

That's pretty much standard 2nd Amendment talk.

I'm curious, Fred, why it is you say that this is really about the 1st.

Is it simply that we need the 2nd to protect the 1st? That is the usual reason why gun rights advocates talk mostly about the 2nd.

There have been regular guns available for a very long time. Those guns go all over the world. Women in their huts could have been given guns ages ago.

As far as these women go, the fact is that small loans to women in third world countries which enable them to start their own businesses have had a much larger and more beneficial effect than any guns have.

[Dreamtimer]

I see, it's the fact that Cody downloaded the info for printing the guns and that's protected by the 1st amendment.

It was a ballsy thing to do, and I'm glad he did it.

My friend explained to me that you still have to have a metal top to the gun. The plastic doesn't work for all parts.

It's deliciously ironic, really.

[Emil El Zapato]

In addition, the printing technology is not accessible by just anyone...One has to have the resources to afford it...like an organization dedicated to ludicrous social principles.

[Fred Steeves]

I see, it's the fact that Cody downloaded the info for printing the guns and that's protected by the 1st amendment.

It was a ballsy thing to do, and I'm glad he did it.

Yes, exactly, the more I watch his interviews from over the years, the more I see he's a natural born revolutionary of the rarest breed. His ideas and actions not only transcend the typical gun debate, they transcend the way established power in general is challenged.

I don't necessarily agree with him on everything, but that's irrelevant, the way he likes to poke big brother in the eye and challenge him in ways he never saw coming, IMO is in the truest spirit of what these forums are supposed to be about.

There are some amazing people roaming the Earth these days, the likes of which will likely feature in future history books like Martin Luther King, Nikola Tesla, Henry Ford, etc.

[Dreamtimer]

Well said, Fred.

Wasn't that a band name?

Oh wait, that was Right Said Fred. ;)

[palooka's revenge]

There are some amazing people roaming the Earth these days, the likes of which will likely feature in future history books like Martin Luther King, Nikola Tesla, Henry Ford, etc.

ypu, yup, yup, absolutely!!!


There are some amazing people roaming the Earth these days, the likes of which will likely feature in future history books like Martin Luther King, Nikola Tesla, Henry Ford, etc.

ypu, yup, yup, absolutely!!!



There are some amazing people roaming the Earth these days, the likes of which will likely feature in future history books like Martin Luther King, Nikola Tesla, Henry Ford, etc.

yup, yup, yup, absolutely!!!

sorry for the dups. tried to post and got a fatal error saying no more PM's to fred until his box is cleared. glitch i guess?

[Dreamtimer]

You, or we, can edit out the repeats in your post. Looks like third time was the charm. YPU!

[palooka's revenge]

thank you. but as it turns out, in this case 3 yup yup yup's is better'n yup yup yup...

[Elen]

You, or we, can edit out the repeats in your post. Looks like third time was the charm. YPU!

It's charming...that's what I picked up as well. :grin:

[Aragorn]

sorry for the dups. tried to post and got a fatal error saying no more PM's to fred until his box is cleared. glitch i guess?

You can always edit out the duplicates from your own post, and I also always recommend clicking the "Go Advanced" button when replying. That way, you get the option of seeing a preview of your post before you submit it. ;)

As for the error regarding Fred's mailbox and the occurrence of the duplicates, it is apparently a bug in this version of vBulletin, because I got it too earlier this week when replying to a post by Fred. I also got to see lots of gibberish — read: raw XML code — along with the error message, and when trying to refresh the page in my browser, I saw that I too had a duplicate, albeit that in my case, it was two duplicate but separate posts.

Maybe it is indeed triggered by Fred's mailbox being full — I have no way of ascertaining that — but if so, then it would be futile for me try and send him another PM in order to ask him to empty it. :hmm:

I'll try with a visitor message. :) :priest:

[Emil El Zapato]

"Yes, exactly, the more I watch his interviews from over the years, the more I see he's a natural born revolutionary of the rarest breed."

Can you describe the difference between a revolutionary and a terrorist? Not really a trick question, Fred. :)

[Fred Steeves]

"Yes, exactly, the more I watch his interviews from over the years, the more I see he's a natural born revolutionary of the rarest breed."

Can you describe the difference between a revolutionary and a terrorist? Not really a trick question, Fred. :)

I think you know the answer to that one as well as I do. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. To old King George for instance, the guys who dared challenge his colonial rule were terrorists of the highest order.

[Emil El Zapato]

Seriously, that is somewhat of an ambiguous precept and is a view from the top down. A better view is from the bottom up. If a change-maker has the support of the people, in my estimation, he/she is a revolutionary and if he/she doesn't then he/she is a terrorist.

[Fred Steeves]

If a change-maker has the support of the people, in my estimation, he/she is a revolutionary and if he/she doesn't then he/she is a terrorist.

Now that might just depend on which group of people is being referred to, no?

[Dreamtimer]

And then there are just the psychopaths who want to create terror for their own reasons. And to gain power, if only temporarily. And money.

[modwiz]

https://cdn.minds.com/fs/v1/thumbnail/879894363661758464

[Emil El Zapato]

Now that might just depend on which group of people is being referred to, no?

yes, it would...which keeps things interesting...The high road and the low road. We have to choose one. And from a less narcissistic view, there is usually a 'consensus reality' to refer to if we wish.


https://cdn.minds.com/fs/v1/thumbnail/879894363661758464

good point, if true... but i doubt it because murders are not the sole problem, many more people kill each other by accident or by suicide than murder each other...but this would bolster my argument that rural and metro areas should have different gun laws to live by. The guns not coincidentally come from areas with lax laws which is how Mexico gets much of their cartel weaponry.

Gun homicides get far more attention in the popular press, but most gun deaths are the result of suicide. In 2013, the last year for which the CDC provides numbers, 21,175 people committed suicide by firearm, while 11,208 people died in gun homicides.

Suicide is more common in places with more guns
The relationship between gun prevalence and suicide is stronger than the relationship between guns and homicide, as the Harvard Injury Control Research Center's Means Matter project shows. People who die from suicide are likelier to live in homes with guns than people who merely attempted suicide, and states with higher rates of gun ownership have higher rates of gun suicide.


Guns can kill you in three ways: homicide, suicide, and by accident. Owning a gun or having one readily accessible makes all three more likely. One meta-analysis "found strong evidence for increased odds of suicide among persons with access to firearms compared with those without access and moderate evidence for an attenuated increased odds of homicide victimization when persons with and without access to firearms were compared." The latter finding is stronger for women, a reminder that guns are also a risk factor for domestic violence.

The same thing is true for accidents. States with more guns see more accidental deaths from firearms, and children ages 5 to 14 are 11 times more likely to be killed with a gun in the US compared to other developed countries, where gun ownership is much less common. About half of gun accident fatalities happen to people under 25, and some recent analyses suggest that the official count of gun accident deaths among children is understated.

While everyone is at a greater risk of dying by homicide if they have access to a gun, the connection is stronger for women. In a survey of battered women, 71.4 percent of respondents reported that guns had been used against them, usually to threaten to kill them. A study comparing abused women who survived with those killed by their abuser found that 51 percent of women who were killed had a gun in the house. By contrast, only 16 percent of women who survived lived in homes with guns.


I did the math total murder rate is about 3.54 per 100,000 with those 5 cities and about 2.9 per 100,000 without them...you can do the rest. Those 5 cities which have been devastated by social conditions for many generations account for 14.0 % -14.5 % of homocides in the U.S. Those 5 cities metro population is about 8% of the U.S.

[Wind]

Guns can kill you in three ways: homicide, suicide, and by accident. Owning a gun or having one readily accessible makes all three more likely. One meta-analysis "found strong evidence for increased odds of suicide among persons with access to firearms compared with those without access and moderate evidence for an attenuated increased odds of homicide victimization when persons with and without access to firearms were compared." The latter finding is stronger for women, a reminder that guns are also a risk factor for domestic violence.

The same thing is true for accidents.

I'm sure this is very true. Suicide with a firearm is a relatively easy and painless way to go if done right and also in the wrong hands guns can cause many accidents and incidents. This may sound a bit morbid, but if I would commit suicide (don't worry, I won't), I would choose suicide by handgun out of all of the other available options if I had a gun nearby.

Many people who try to commit suicide other ways often botch their attempts. Such a thing is often not the case with weapons because a gunshot to the head is 99 % lethal. If people do survive such attempts done with weapons, they are permanently left with quite severe facial or brain damage. Also we know how irrational people can be with their emotions. What if they get angry for what ever reason on a really bad day and they have a gun next to them? Just thinking out loud here.

[Fred Steeves]

Guns can kill you in three ways: homicide, suicide, and by accident. Owning a gun or having one readily accessible makes all three more likely. One meta-analysis "found strong evidence for increased odds of suicide among persons with access to firearms compared with those without access and moderate evidence for an attenuated increased odds of homicide victimization when persons with and without access to firearms were compared." The latter finding is stronger for women, a reminder that guns are also a risk factor for domestic violence.

The same thing is true for accidents.


I'm sure this is very true.

Maybe, maybe not, but unfortunately this thread demands commentary on everything besides the original topic concerning the philosophy behind the actions of Cody Wilson, so I'm bowing out. In doing so however, I want to point out NAP was taking copy/paste liberty with the vast majority of that post, so you weren't quoting him Wind.

Beginning with the quotes highlighted in red:


yes, it would...which keeps things interesting...The high road and the low road. We have to choose one. And from a less narcissistic view, there is usually a 'consensus reality' to refer to if we wish.

good point, if true... but i doubt it because murders are not the sole problem, many more people kill each other by accident or by suicide than murder each other...but this would bolster my argument that rural and metro areas should have different gun laws to live by. The guns not coincidentally come from areas with lax laws which is how Mexico gets much of their cartel weaponry.

Gun homicides get far more attention in the popular press, but most gun deaths are the result of suicide. In 2013, the last year for which the CDC provides numbers, 21,175 people committed suicide by firearm, while 11,208 people died in gun homicides.

Suicide is more common in places with more guns
The relationship between gun prevalence and suicide is stronger than the relationship between guns and homicide, as the Harvard Injury Control Research Center's Means Matter project shows. People who die from suicide are likelier to live in homes with guns than people who merely attempted suicide, and states with higher rates of gun ownership have higher rates of gun suicide.


Guns can kill you in three ways: homicide, suicide, and by accident. Owning a gun or having one readily accessible makes all three more likely. One meta-analysis "found strong evidence for increased odds of suicide among persons with access to firearms compared with those without access and moderate evidence for an attenuated increased odds of homicide victimization when persons with and without access to firearms were compared." The latter finding is stronger for women, a reminder that guns are also a risk factor for domestic violence.

The same thing is true for accidents. States with more guns see more accidental deaths from firearms, and children ages 5 to 14 are 11 times more likely to be killed with a gun in the US compared to other developed countries, where gun ownership is much less common. About half of gun accident fatalities happen to people under 25, and some recent analyses suggest that the official count of gun accident deaths among children is understated.

While everyone is at a greater risk of dying by homicide if they have access to a gun, the connection is stronger for women. In a survey of battered women, 71.4 percent of respondents reported that guns had been used against them, usually to threaten to kill them. A study comparing abused women who survived with those killed by their abuser found that 51 percent of women who were killed had a gun in the house. By contrast, only 16 percent of women who survived lived in homes with guns.


I did the math total murder rate is about 3.54 per 100,000 with those 5 cities and about 2.9 per 100,000 without them...you can do the rest. Those 5 cities which have been devastated by social conditions for many generations account for 14.0 % -14.5 % of homocides in the U.S. Those 5 cities metro population is about 8% of the U.S.
https://www.vox.com/cards/gun-violence-facts/gun-suicide-homicide-common

[Dreamtimer]

It's pretty obvious that this is about people, not guns.

So we print a million of them. So we outlaw them all. So what?

It's what the people do with them that matters. We can be smart, or not.


My sister-in-law got a gun. She went on and on about how you have to be willing to fire it and willing to kill.

It took her a year to get around to having lessons. I'm not sure if she's even proficient yet.

She's also very anxiety filled, emotionally reactionary, and has a hot temper.

I personally am glad her kids are grown and out of the house.

Maybe no accidents or suicide will happen.

This is where prayer comes in. Because no matter how smart or well trained people are, when they get emotional they do really stupid shit.

[Wind]

It's a fact that guns do make killing much easier. That's what they are designed for. It's quite simple although for a normal person it wouldn't be so easy to kill another human being instead of just shooting targets. For sociopaths that's not a problem. Makes me wonder if the trigger happy cops in US are somehow mentally unstable and how people like that can even get enlisted?

As an European (who is not anti-gun) I do have to wonder about the US statistics when it comes to the shootings. Just cultural differences? I feel that "more guns" won't make any society more safe, it's just fear-based thinking. Anyways here you wouldn't be legally to defend yourself with a firearm, that's excessive use of force which is only allowed for the officials and even they use it with discretion (https://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/police_in_finland_shoot_their_firearms_in_the_line _of_duty_about_ten_times_each_year/10183865).

[Dreamtimer]

I don't know why our gun violence is worse here. It's certainly not because of gun laws. It's the people and their mental state.

We have Stand Your Ground laws and yet person after person getting shot on their driveway, in their homes, in their backyards by police.

Laws don't solve this stuff.

Maybe we're still fighting the Civil War. Maybe we still have a 'frontier' mentality. Maybe we have too many people on drugs, legal and illegal. Maybe we have too much breakdown of the family and community.

Maybe it's all of the above and more.

[Fred Steeves]

Makes me wonder if the trigger happy cops in US are somehow mentally unstable and how people like that can even get enlisted?

That's a tricky one, but for sure it's a problem. Not that there are all that many because like most people, I don't need the police in my life LOL, but on the off occasions where interaction has been inevitable, over the years I've walked away from the interactions thinking under different circumstances I might enjoy a beer or two with that guy. The vast majority of the time anyway, but a few years back I *did* run across one that was a Class A petty tyrant.

Right around this time last August I went to film a protest/counter protest here in Knoxville Tennessee fresh in the wake of the Charlottesville cluster fuck, because there was word Antifa and the white supremacists might be taking aiming for round two here. After seeing what happened in Charlottsville, local law enforcement was having none of a possible repeat performance. They had a designated place for people to still freely express their 1st Amendment right but it was contained, all connecting side streets blocked off with city dump trucks, the opposing sides were separated on opposite sides of the street, and the cops were decked out in riot gear and M 16's. Bottom line though was that except for one I encountered who was a rude jack ass, the rest, if anything, were overly polite to attendees. They simply weren't going to let that bullshit happen again, and I respected that sentiment, along with the courtesy shown.

Now, so far as the increasing rate of police shootings is concerned. From what I see a lot of that is the combination of how they are trained to be more and more paranoid these days, with very *little* training or emphasis on de-escalation tactics, and the rather small (but important) percentage who either don't have the required mental capabilities for proper decision making in a sudden high stress situation, or the hot heads on a power trip. As an aside the hot head on a power trip type was the jack ass cop I briefly encountered at that protest, and my instincts kicked in immediately to tread carefully with this guy.


Just cultural differences? I feel that "more guns" won't make any society more safe, it's just fear-based thinking.

I don't think that's really part of Cody's argument, it's how Tyler Durden framed that part of his argument. The 2nd Amendment guarantee of the right to bear arms, was meant as a back stop for the 1st Amendment guarantee of free speech. Also the right to self defense of course. But whether it be foreign invasion that may infringe on that, or our own government gone bad, the 2nd is the direct protector of the 1st, which is also the most important one. That's why they are 1st and 2nd. It's nothing about guns making society safer, hunting, none of that. I think it was a bit disingenuous for Tyler to frame Cody's argument in that light.

Cody is all about the restraint of government, and even if they were to impose an all out ban on guns, besides the ones already on the streets, the train would have already left the station with 3 D gun printing.

[modwiz]

I don't know why our gun violence is worse here. It's certainly not because of gun laws. It's the people and their mental state.

We have Stand Your Ground laws and yet person after person getting shot on their driveway, in their homes, in their backyards by police.

Laws don't solve this stuff.

Maybe we're still fighting the Civil War. Maybe we still have a 'frontier' mentality. Maybe we have too many people on drugs, legal and illegal. Maybe we have too much breakdown of the family and community.

Maybe it's all of the above and more.

My above post stated the five cities that distort the national average. Remove those shit holes from the 'statistics' and we are almost the least gun murderous nation in the world. So, the question is, why are the people in these cities so kill happy? What is wrong with the cities? Could it be how they have been managed by gooberment?

[Emil El Zapato]

I don't know why our gun violence is worse here. It's certainly not because of gun laws. It's the people and their mental state.

We have Stand Your Ground laws and yet person after person getting shot on their driveway, in their homes, in their backyards by police.

Laws don't solve this stuff.

Maybe we're still fighting the Civil War. Maybe we still have a 'frontier' mentality. Maybe we have too many people on drugs, legal and illegal. Maybe we have too much breakdown of the family and community.

Maybe it's all of the above and more.

We're still fighting a proxy Civil War. The right, in particular, the southern right has raised it to a psychological level way beyond its current relevance. Jung might characterize it as the shadow side of an archetypal fetish. A misplaced sense of what is valuable about us and our cultural viability. "We lost the war, we were emasculated by a loss of a sense of self as a strong relevant human group identity". "No, that didn't happen!" "We will fight on!". It's an abject failure of a segment of our society to face its collective shadow.

[Emil El Zapato]

My above post stated the five cities that distort the national average. Remove those shit holes from the 'statistics' and we are almost the least gun murderous nation in the world. So, the question is, why are the people in these cities so kill happy? What is wrong with the cities? Could it be how they have been managed by gooberment?

No, it's because of the way they've been mismanaged by society...We are our own worst enemies. Government is just an annoyance...and the people that support one side or the other are just confused, very confused about the really relevant aspects of existence. And before someone points out that I'm a vocal liberal...let me explain that one more time. I am a vocal supporter of natural law, justice, fairness, compassion, and common sense. One side, coincidentally or by synchronicity tend to support those things that are important to me...fake or not. As i've said before, I will favor the fakers of good over those that are overtly evil anytime of the day. Fakers are easy to spot and they place limits upon themselves simply because they have to maintain the facade. On the other hand, the evil ones just don't give a sh*t as the last 40 years has evidenced

[Kathy]

I think it would be a good idea to remember that the observer is the observed. Take Ike Turner, for example, who was pilloried for his violence. One would think that he was the only violent person in the world, when in many homes throughout the world violence was rampant. It would seem from this thread that violence still is. Many, many husbands beat up their wives and children, it used to be the norm. Nowadays, the fact that some wives beat up their husband is becoming acknowledged. We are all responsible for Society, and we should know it if we don't.

[Emil El Zapato]

yeah, good point...harville hendrix and helen lakelly hunt are excellent sources of information. So is Robert Burney

[Fred Steeves]

The latest on this subject, a quick 5 minute interview:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZUXq9KlXq8

[Emil El Zapato]

They never asked him a relevant philosophical question. He's talking philosophy and their talking practicalities/realities. It was a wasted interview.

"Because their are limitations, there should be limitations". The interviewers needed to question the logical validity of that statement. It was a giant leap from the assertion to the conclusion.

Wilson would do better as a philosophy professor than an anarchist...he can do real harm. But then he wouldn't be making the huge bucks that he apparently is.

In his own words:

"You're asking me how I would feel? If somebody shot a kid with a Liberator? I guess I'd feel bad. It would be bad. It'd become this whole event. I'm sure I'd have this sinking feeling, 'Oh my God, they're going to make a big circus out of it.'"

—Interview with The Guardian, February 10, 2014

“And so, when I see, like, the elimination of a symbol, right, the elimination — I'm not just sympathizing with southern white racists — I'm basically recognizing a dangerous mode of post-politics: the need to eradicate a historical narrative. Not just the need to combat it, the need to make sure that its symbols are gone, the way to articulate it is gone.”

—Interview with Radio 3Fourteen, November 17, 2015

[Dreamtimer]

I hope that people can apply his views about law and freedom to religious issues. People are creating laws to enforce their religion while calling it protecting their religious freedom.

There's a disconnect with many people where they can't/won't see the religious oppression, yet scream and yell about arms and speech.

[Emil El Zapato]

I hope that people can apply his views about law and freedom to religious issues. People are creating laws to enforce their religion while calling it protecting their religious freedom.

There's a disconnect with many people where they can't/won't see the religious oppression, yet scream and yell about arms and speech.

That's the truth...Dr. Phil: 'psychic blindness' :)

[palooka's revenge]

“And so, when I see, like, the elimination of a symbol, right, the elimination — I'm not just sympathizing with southern white racists — I'm basically recognizing a dangerous mode of post-politics: the need to eradicate a historical narrative. Not just the need to combat it, the need to make sure that its symbols are gone, the way to articulate it is gone.”

what is the popular agenda? eradication?

or... get the damn thing otta the town square. like, ut it over there in the confederate cemetery.

or...

or...

etc....

[palooka's revenge]

I hope that people can apply his views about law and freedom to religious issues. People are creating laws to enforce their religion while calling it protecting their religious freedom.

There's a disconnect with many people where they can't/won't see the religious oppression, yet scream and yell about arms and speech.

yup... palooka sez: imprints, denials, judgements.

war in the heavens comes to planet earth.

as above, so below

[Aianawa]

Ooopps, catching up as been busy boy of late.

Yes yes below n above