DescentBB

woodchip wrote:Like I said, when everyone knows everyone else is armed, you'll be surprised at how polite everyone will be.

Great, an entire society founded on paranoia!

Ferno wrote:

callmeslick wrote:so Fermo, it doesn't seem obviously logical to you that if a society loosens and near-encourages public carrying of weapons, one can expect to see a few more outliers emboldened by their newfound 'power' that go off like the fellow in the movie theater?

No. What does seem logical is if someone tries to pull a boneheaded move like captain stupid did in the movie theatre, he'd have an entire group pointing their guns at HIM.

sure, that will end well, huh?

And this talk of 'emboldening'.. come on, really?

you just verified it, whether you realize it or not. You imply that masses of people would be ready to play the Hero in a crowded public space. Yeesh!

It'll play out like so: "Hey I know what! I'll just brandish this thing like Rambo, because I HAVE THE POWAH!" and everyone around him.. who are likely carrying (because you can't tell if they are or not) will pull theirs out and go, 'Yeah I don't think so buddy. Why don't you put that thing away."

yee-hah!! It's like the Wild West!!!! Oh, except most of those towns, once settled, forced those entering town to check their firearms. Hmmmmm.

Top Gun wrote:

woodchip wrote:Like I said, when everyone knows everyone else is armed, you'll be surprised at how polite everyone will be.

Great, an entire society founded on paranoia!

TG you do know there is a difference between paranoia and respect, you seem to be using that word in the wrong context a lot.

Paranoia is the “false” belief that people are out to “get” you…not a well founded fear of something that actually exists.

Spidey wrote:

Top Gun wrote:

woodchip wrote:Like I said, when everyone knows everyone else is armed, you'll be surprised at how polite everyone will be.

Great, an entire society founded on paranoia!

TG you do know there is a difference between paranoia and respect, you seem to be using that word in the wrong context a lot.

no, she isn't. Perhaps, 'fear' would replace it in the above, but we already have that. At the root of much of the American psyche is FEAR.

Paranoia is the “false” belief that people are out to “get” you…not a well founded fear of something that actually exists.

living to face events or threats that have a 1/200,000 chance of ever happening in your lifetime is not 'well founded'

Yes, that’s why I have owners and renters insurance, fire extinguishers and security systems in my home and shop.

Because of a 1 in 200,000 chance.

But there is a HUGE difference between taking precautions because something might happen, and taking precautions because someone is out to get “YOU”.

The obvious difference between fear and paranoia.

Fear is good…paranoia is not.

Until everyone learns to love God and each other, I feel better with a firearm

good for you, Flip......I'll pass, thanks, and maybe the fact that far more folks agree with my view might actually carry political weight some day.

Slick, you have expressed much more fear than anyone else here! You cite your fear of events that haven't happened and you have no evidence to show they will occur as justification for forcing others to change their behavior just to accommodate your fear.

Meanwhile we have cited actual events as reason for taking our precaution.

So quit trying to preach about fear. You are just projecting....


And if you want political weight to change things you better get your liberal friends to start speaking honestly about the cause and effect of the events that have us taking precaution.

Will Robinson wrote:Slick, you have expressed much more fear than anyone else here! You cite your fear of events that haven't happened and you have no evidence to show they will occur as justification for forcing others to change their behavior just to accommodate your fear.

um, no, I pretty much react and comment on what has already happened. Try re-reading my words.

Meanwhile we have cited actual events as reason for taking our precaution.

precious few, and none of them remotely close to affecting you.

So quit trying to preach about fear. You are just projecting...

wanna talk fear? I'll point you to the clown who carries a piece when out with kids to make them safe......

And if you want political weight to change things you better get your liberal friends to start speaking honestly about the cause and effect of the events that have us taking precaution.

not exactly waiting for you to join the fold, Will. Trust me, the numbers WILL go my way, eventually. As with much of what passes for political differences, also, by the way.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Slick, you have expressed much more fear than anyone else here! You cite your fear of events that haven't happened and you have no evidence to show they will occur as justification for forcing others to change their behavior just to accommodate your fear.

um, no, I pretty much react and comment on what has already happened. Try re-reading my words. ...

I read them again. They are still lies.
You blatantly falsely associate the behavior of the shooter to people and circumstances that had nothing to do with the event.

When I called you out on it you cited your fears for what may unfold.

You can keep denying it all you like. I'll let your words speak for themselves you have fun with your denial.

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Slick, you have expressed much more fear than anyone else here! You cite your fear of events that haven't happened and you have no evidence to show they will occur as justification for forcing others to change their behavior just to accommodate your fear.

um, no, I pretty much react and comment on what has already happened. Try re-reading my words. ...

I read them again. They are still lies.

ahh, but not anywhere the lie your previous assertion was, huh?

You blatantly falsely associate the behavior of the shooter to people and circumstances that had nothing to do with the event.

in what way, pray tell?

When I called you out on it you cited your fears for what may unfold.

when I made my initial post I stated those fears. You never 'called' me on anything.

You can keep denying it all you like. I'll let your words speak for themselves you have fun with your denial.

you've lost your mind. No denial necessary.

callmeslick wrote:sure, that will end well, huh?

Well, if you think it's going to be a giant shootout like what happens in the movies, probably not.

You imply that masses of people would be ready to play the Hero in a crowded public space

How do you know I'm implying that? What I'm suggesting is maybe people might help to stop a situation from going out of control. Fact is, both of us don't know for sure what would happen. We can only guess.

yee-hah!! It's like the Wild West!!!! Oh, except most of those towns, once settled, forced those entering town to check their firearms. Hmmmmm.

You're talking to a man who knows, on a personal level, that gun control doesn't work. You can try to convince me otherwise, but you're going to have your work cut out for you.

callmeslick wrote:
wanna talk fear? I'll point you to the clown who carries a piece when out with kids to make them safe......

Too bad you get to live in the nice upscale neighborhoods you do. Tell that to a inner city parent and watch the reaction you get.

callmeslick wrote: not exactly waiting for you to join the fold, Will. Trust me, the numbers WILL go my way, eventually.

If the numbers didn't go your way after Sandy Hook...they never will.

Anyone who thinks outlawing guns will get them off the street is not ONLY naive but a fool.

they've been trying the same thing for decades with illegal drugs. Worked real well there didnt it.

Although somewhat contrary to the argument, the war on drugs is not being fought to get drugs off the street or to really stop their usage. Maybe it was originally, but now its only about money and it is a very profitable war for both sides in that regard. It continues because neither side ever wants it to end.

You could also draw up a fairly solid looking conspiracy theory that the war on drugs is just one of the early steps in a campaign to turn the US into a military/police state and gun control is the next step after that. Granted, the conspiracy part isn't even realistic or necessary, I think it is actually way more likely it is just spontaneous mob mentality that drives us towards becoming a police state instead of some sinister force pushing in that direction. Well, I suppose you could say spontaneous mob mentality is actually the most sinister force of them all, since it is the one people are least likely to recognize or acknowledge. And it is even part of the mob mentality to prefer the conspiracy theories because conspiracies have "bad guys" that you can defeat or oppose, it is a lot easier to accept than the realization that the villains are actually yourselves.

I totally agree. This is not, nor has it ever been about safety. This is about government control.

Krom wrote:Although somewhat contrary to the argument, the war on drugs is not being fought to get drugs off the street or to really stop their usage. Maybe it was originally, but now its only about money and it is a very profitable war for both sides in that regard. It continues because neither side ever wants it to end.

You could also draw up a fairly solid looking conspiracy theory that the war on drugs is just one of the early steps in a campaign to turn the US into a military/police state and gun control is the next step after that. Granted, the conspiracy part isn't even realistic or necessary, I think it is actually way more likely it is just spontaneous mob mentality that drives us towards becoming a police state instead of some sinister force pushing in that direction. Well, I suppose you could say spontaneous mob mentality is actually the most sinister force of them all, since it is the one people are least likely to recognize or acknowledge. And it is even part of the mob mentality to prefer the conspiracy theories because conspiracies have "bad guys" that you can defeat or oppose, it is a lot easier to accept than the realization that the villains are actually yourselves.

I think you have nailed a lot of what the 'problem' is.

If we, as a whole, reject the tough love that upholding morality demands of the people, reject the expectation and responsibility to voluntarily clean our own cultural house, we reject creating peer pressure where it is needed and instead we, as sub groups look to government to legislate a solution then it becomes us versus them and whichever 'us' gets to pull the strings of the government enforcement gets to proclaim the moral high ground even though there is nothing moral about the net results of the war on drugs, etc.

Just because there was an outspoken "moral majority" that was rejected due to the religious influence at it's core the baby was thrown out with the bathwater. Moral behavior wasn't kept as a goal. Instead it has been replaced with 'fairness'. Well 'fairness' is just a different gospel with different 'preachers' and they come with their own problematic agenda and short sighted tactics.

We need to secularize morality and put it back into the mainstream peer group's agenda. Without it the cops, the legislation, etc. become nothing but weapons for pimps and wannabe despots to use to grab and hold power for themselves.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights is the bedrock of so much of what makes this republic unique and full of potential. The people that build on that bedrock need to have their morality back or what is built is divisive and constantly being torn down by the swinging of power among the sub groups. Without morality the system breaks down.

And of course there needs to be that voice of the free press willing to call out the amoral deeds with non-partisan objectivity. If the people were smart enough to make a moral standard a priority, a test which all policy debate had to be able to survive then the market wouldn't support a partisan media so really that can take care of itself but it is worth mentioning since that protection is so far gone right now and a non-corrupted media is critical to the chances of salvaging the system.

Here is a simple example. In your town, if the sergeant on the police force is proven to be a bank robber he will never be promoted to Police Chief. He will be forever a thief in the local media and in the eyes of the citizens. That is as it should be.

Some how we have accepted that a national politician doesn't face that same test of morality. And the only way he has been able to survive that is the standards for holding the highest offices in our society are not based on morality. We have set it aside, and for what?!? What has it really gained us as a whole? You have to deny the value of morality and break off into one of the sub groups and put that groups fate above the fate of the society in order to justify what ever twisted answer you think you have.

Spidey wrote:Paranoia is the “false” belief that people are out to “get” you…not a well founded fear of something that actually exists.

Actually, a lot of people ARE out to get other people. We're a nation that's got a lot of self-centered people that see others as means to an end. That's why we have violent crime, graft and theft. Thievery is institutionalized in Wall Street and corporate America as a legitimate business practice, with all the risk thrown onto the public. Why do you think we have school shootings? Those kid shooters were usually bullied by their classmates, so they internalized that their classmates were are out to get them and the problem needed solving one way or another, because the adults did nothing to stop things. Disrespect is what breeds paranoia, so paranoia is not false.

Yes, of course, but the natural response to that should be a healthy fear...not paranoia.

Fear is good
Fear is healthy, and we evolved fear to keep us safe.

Paranoia is a mental illness!

But in order to have fear, a person needs a little paranoia to think of that fear in the first place.