Monday, February 19, 2018

Coddling the Gun Nut for Country & Corporate



Jesse Ferguson - Read this. Trust me.



Jesse Ferguson - This is where we are.

And the President and Congress wants to do nothing about it.

Ijeoma Oluo - This country. This country has our babies volunteering to die for each other because grownups don't want to give up their assault rifles.

JPemberton‏ - It's Guns > KIDS... America will give it's thoughts & prayers over the death of kids, BUT will fight tooth & nail over the thought of losing their rights to GUNS!

Robert Gajewski‏
- Says an adult who thinks gun free zones for school kids w/o enforcement or defense is aok. Take away citizen's rights is preferable to defending kids lives?

Muhammad Rasheed - Says an adult who believes that manipulative partisan talking points and increasing the wealth of the oligarchs is more important than the lives of our children.

Robert Gajewski
‏ - I speak for myself. You would prefer all citizens be as defenseless as school children in a gun free zone.

Muhammad Rasheed
- If you speak for yourself, then why are you regurgitating the exact same boiler plate GOP political talking point from the exact same hive mind?

Robert Gajewski‏ - Rasheed. You want me as defenseless as school children in a gun free zone. You make no sense for me.

Muhammad Rasheed - Gajewski. I want you and your folk to stop shooting our children. If you can't differentiate that from "Taking away the Right to Bear Arms," then you clearly don't need to be armed.

Ever.

Robert Gajewski - Saying that my opinion is boiler plate does not mean I do not speak truth.

Muhammad Rasheed - You're NOT speaking truth. You're speaking the scripted propaganda tract of a oligarch mouth-piece puppet. Your opinion cares only for enriching corporations at the expense of our children, while pretending you care about US citizen rights.

Muhammad Rasheed - You also give the impression of being a paid Russian Internet troll.

Dallas Herrmann - This cartoon is part of the problem.

I fall into the “law-abiding gun owner” category. I might even own scary assault weapons. Like tens of millions of other law-abiding gun owners, I have never killed or even threatened anyone with a firearm. You’re calling me a murderer, me and millions of others, based on the actions of a handful of deeply disturbed individuals.

I’m more dedicated to stopping the vanishingly small handful of monsters who commit mass murder than the average gun control advocate, since while the realistic threat of being killed in a mass murder is basically nil, there’s a very real chance that this small number of outliers will cause me to lose my rights.

The problem is that you’re setting up a paradigm where I must oppose you.

Literally nobody is advocating “letting mass murder slide.” That’s pure strawman.

While I have numerous points of divergence with your viewpoints, you usually have something valuable to say. There is absolutely nothing of value in this cartoon, except perhaps as a rallying cry for gun owners to oppose you.

Muhammad Rasheed - Dallas wrote: "This cartoon is part of the problem.”

Was a school evacuated in panic & terror when I uploaded it?

Dallas wrote: "You’re calling me a murderer, me and millions of others, based on the actions of a handful of deeply disturbed individuals.”

That’s one way of putting it. Another more accurate way of putting it is that I’m calling for a more efficient vetting process to do a better job keeping weaponry out of the hands of psychopaths.

It hasn’t been lost on me, Dallas, that bubbling within similar responses to yours is the implication that you believe there should be an acceptable body count of innocent Americans as part of the price of allowing you to maintain your pagan gun fetish shrine. You need a better justification.

Dallas wrote: "I’m more dedicated to stopping the vanishingly small handful of monsters who commit mass murder…”

Post the link that provides evidence of this “vanishingly,” please. Here, I’ll prime the pump with these two:

1.) In Rural America, Violent Crime Reaches Highest Level in a Decade

2.) As Crime Falls Nationwide, White, Conservative Rural Areas Fuel A New Prison Boom

Counter them if you’re able.

Dallas wrote: "… there’s a very real chance that this small number of outliers will cause me to lose my rights.”

I don’t want to lose my gun rights either, bud. There are people among us who do not deserve those rights for the sake of innocent lives. It’s ALWAYS the smallest number of unreasonable people that cause the most YUGE/BIGLY problems. I disagree that we should treat these tragedies (and the many that don’t catch the nightly news) as “nil” and “meh” because innocent Americans are worth protecting from threats both foreign AND domestic.

Dallas wrote: "The problem is that you’re setting up a paradigm where I must oppose you.”

Not a problem. I use the battle field to learn new stuff and test the mettle of my ideologies. I will gladly welcome you as a foe if you are worthy of the honor. #ThrowDownYourRod

Dallas wrote: "Literally nobody is advocating ‘letting mass murder slide.’ That’s pure strawman.”

Meanwhile, that’s exactly what your messaging states. You want to let the current status quo ride—literally allowing an acceptable body count of innocent Americans—so you get to maintain and hold nude orgy parties in front of your pagan gun shrine (or whatever y’all do with it). If this ISN’T what your message actually is then by all means, please do a better job of packaging it. There’s no other way I can interpret what y’all’s pushback is about. Cuddling with your pet 50 cal. is more important to you than some jackass shooting into a grade school. That’s unacceptable.

Dallas wrote: "While I have numerous points of divergence with your viewpoints, you usually have something valuable to say.”

I appreciate you saying so, though I suspect that’s only for those times when my personal ideology does cross over into the conservative lane. lol

Dallas wrote: "There is absolutely nothing of value in this cartoon, except perhaps as a rallying cry for gun owners to oppose you.”

Bring it. *jazz fingers*

I got at least one new cartoon idea out of this exchange already. :)

Dallas Herrmann - M. Rasheed wrote: "Was a school evacuated in panic & terror when I uploaded it?"

Not the mass shooting problem, the ideological divide with regards to gun regulation problem.

M. Rasheed wrote: "Post the link that provides evidence of this 'vanishingly,' please."

Mother Jones is a pretty reliable source here. No, There Has Not Been a Mass Shooting Every Day This Year. I tend to break the statistics down into “kinds,” such as suicide, criminal-enterprise-related homicide, homicide perpetrated by normally law-abiding individuals, terrorism-based mass murder, psychosis-based mass murder, and accidental deaths. I read the cartoon as aiming more at mass murders than the more general case, but if you’re talking about the more general case, that also seems to be on the decline: Newly-Released FBI Crime Data Shows Violent Crime Decline in 2017.

M. Rasheed wrote: "I don’t want to lose my gun rights either, bud."

I think we’re probably in semi-agreement here, in general concept if not in policy. Since neither of us has really outlined any specific policies, it’s hard to be more specific. I definitely don’t want a system where the burden is on me to prove that I am fit to bear arms though.

M. Rasheed wrote: "Not a problem. I use the battle field to learn new stuff and test the mettle of my ideologies. I will gladly welcome you as a foe if you are worthy of the honor. #ThrowDownYourRod"

I’m fairly similar myself. I’m definitely on the libertarian conservative end of the field, but I learn a lot from discussing stuff with folks who disagree with me, and I enjoy a good discussion with someone I disagree with. My original observation was more along the general sense though, in the vein that while I’m open to discussing ways in which we can preserve our rights while addressing problems, casting the discussion as “reasonable people being ignored by murderous, psychotic ‘law abiding’ gun owners” is going to lead to reasonable, law-abiding gun owners coming together as a bloc to oppose new gun regulations of any kind.

M. Rasheed wrote: "Meanwhile, that’s exactly what your messaging states."

This point took some serious thinking to parse through, in part because it’s really a strawman that is not that far from a major tenant of the pro-gun-rights argument: namely that the net negative effect of a given regulation will outweigh the positive effects of that regulation, and that the regulation is consequently undesirable. I’m very much a “a gun is a tool that does a job and can be used for good or evil” guy. I do, however, find the essay why the gun is civilization by Marko Kloss to be quite excellent. Actually, the parting line about the .50 is a pretty good example, as the .50 BMG is fairly commonly referred to as “something that civilians have no legitimate reason to own,” yet I’m aware of no instances in which a .50 caliber weapon was used in a suicide, homicide, or mass shooting. In fact, .50 caliber rifles are effective for the purpose of harvesting deer, though in this case it’s typically a lower energy than the redoubtable .50 BMG. The Nifty Fifty isn’t really a practical rifle, but there’s no logical, evidence-based reason why civvies shouldn’t be allowed to own one.

M. Rasheed wrote: "I appreciate you saying so, though I suspect that’s only for those times when my personal ideology does cross over into the conservative lane. lol"

Not as much as you might think. In a lot of cases, I agree with folks on the left that there’s a problem, but disagree on the best way to tackle it or where the problem comes from.

M. Rasheed wrote: "Bring it."

I’d rather work with pro-gun-control folks to develop solutions that address problems without causing unnecessary problems for gun owners.

Muhammad Rasheed - Dallas wrote: “Not the mass shooting problem, the ideological divide with regards to gun regulation problem.”

I disagreed with the position of my ideological opponent, I then illustrated my opinion of their position, and you’re pointing out that my opposing viewpoint represents one of the two sides of the ideological divide. So basically you’re demonstrating your expert-level grasp of the obvious. Impressive.

Dallas wrote: “I read the cartoon as aiming more at mass murders…”

The cartoon is satirizing the pushback from the anti-gun restriction crowd, specifically in how they typically sound in the aftermath of a new shooter tragedy.

Dallas wrote: “…but if you’re talking about the more general case, that also seems to be on the decline”

Yes, that’s exactly what the links I posted said—that violent crime has dropped in general nationwide, but it has increased where all the anti-gun restriction crowd live. You’re supposed to be countering my links, not supporting them. Try harder.

Dallas wrote: “I think we’re probably in semi-agreement here […] I definitely don’t want a system where the burden is on me to prove that I am fit to bear arms though.”

I think we can start by adding some form of reasonable evaluation they have to pass. Group[s] from local areas can provide the required authorization certification. That will cut down on the amount of “whites can perform angry-faced open-carry in Black neighborhoods, but Blacks will get shot/arrested if they did it in white neighborhoods” types of hypocritical discrepancies we deal with today. For example, the GOP holds the exclusive ‘crony capitalist’ contract for administering the vote apparatus every election, and you see they pulled out ALL the vote suppression techniques they could find in the 1870s vault. None of THAT mess needs to repeat, so each area (with its own emphathetic ethnic groups) can control its own people’s gun owner fitness evaluation, with regular, strict audits from the USG for accountability. No cheating.

Dallas wrote: “I’m definitely on the libertarian conservative end of the field…”

I am, too, but from the direction of the original source material of the movement, The Discovery of Freedom (1943), written by Rose Wilder Lane. I don’t care for what the good ole boy network has done with her vision since publication.

Dallas wrote: “…casting the discussion as “reasonable people being ignored by murderous, psychotic ‘law abiding’ gun owners” is going to lead to reasonable, law-abiding gun owners coming together as a bloc to oppose new gun regulations of any kind.”

From my point of view, since I was so kind as to illustrate exactly how that side is actually coming across, I don’t think the burden is on me to soften the impression they are giving; that’s asking for an unreasonable amount of generosity from me on an unbelievably serious topic (people are shooting kids in primary schools, Dallas). The choice is civilization or barbarity. They can either come to the table recognizing there is a problem and let’s in good faith work together in solving it like we are all civilized adults, or they can continue to dismiss the problem, be proudly beholden to the gun manufacturer puppet masters and choose their pagan gun fetish over innocent American lives as dedicated barbarians. If they choose the latter they may expect more cartoons like this one.

Dallas wrote: “…it’s really a strawman that is not that far from a major tenant of the pro-gun-rights argument”

That means it’s not a strawman, Dallas. I’ve expressed your admitted major tenet in its rawest, bluntest form. You just don’t like how it looks without the ultra-colorful and complex plumage of partisan rhetoric to hide the savagery of it, and you SHOULDN’T like it.

Dallas wrote: “I’m very much a ‘a gun is a tool that does a job and can be used for good or evil’ guy.”

A reasonable position to take since that’s literally what it is. The automobile is the exact same. In fact, it makes sense to just mimic the red tape gauntlet we need to clear in order to legally purchase/drive one of those.

Dallas wrote: “Actually, the parting line about the .50 is a pretty good example…”

No, it’s not since I was only satirizing again. To be honest, the partisan back-n-forth regarding which type of guns, etc., is silliness to me. All fire arms are deadly tools that can be used for good or for evil like you pointed out. We don’t squabble over the deadliness potential between the Lamborghini Countach versus the Ford Escort, do we? Yet both can kill the crap out of a mere human in the same way and for the same reasons. Does it ultimately matter if a psychopath killed your 4 yr old with a direct shot to the brain using either a .50 BMG or a Colt revolver? Either way she’s unnecessarily dead. We should focus on whether a given individual is fit to have this arsenal with some kind of basic level vetting similar to what the auto industry uses as a base and then see if these numbers take a dip. We’ll adjust as needed after the data analysis.

Dallas wrote: “In fact, .50 caliber rifles are effective for the purpose of harvesting deer…”

They’re effective for the purpose of killing engine blocks from a million miles away. lol

Dallas wrote: “I’d rather work with pro-gun-control folks to…”

You already BROUGHT IT, bud! #YourMove

No comments:

Post a Comment