U.S. Politics - Page 574 - Cyclingnews Forum

Go Back   Cyclingnews Forum > Cafe > General

General Grab a short black and come join in the non-cycling discussion. Favourite books, movies, holiday destinations, other sports - chat about it all in the cafe.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #5731  
Old 12-18-12, 22:13
BroDeal BroDeal is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Above 5000 feet
Posts: 12,937
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rhubroma View Post
Evidently the passage from huntsman to psycho is embedded in selective market determinants that work subliminally within the spectrum of a mass insecurity thatís largely cultivated, which naturally is a product of the marketing campaigns and the cultural affinities they address.

Create a "need" to buy, which naturally involves sexing it up, in the right environment is the easiest way to make money, though not necessarily the most sane.
Yup, that must be it. You nailed it. It is the fault of the free market. Nothing that a good helping of Marx won't fix.
Reply With Quote
  #5732  
Old 12-18-12, 22:17
aphronesis aphronesis is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,737
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroDeal View Post
Yup, that must be it. You nailed it. It is the fault of the free market. Nothing that a good helping of Marx won't fix.
So what are your viable causes and solutions? Wait, I know, selective individual dysfunction, cost of a free society, nothing a bit of disaffected libertarianism can't handle.
Reply With Quote
  #5733  
Old 12-18-12, 22:19
aphronesis aphronesis is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,737
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rhubroma View Post
Have you perhaps seen Marco Tullio Giordano's La meglio gioventý?

Pure poetry....
Not all of it. Maybe I'll try to get back to it.
Reply With Quote
  #5734  
Old 12-19-12, 00:10
Amsterhammer's Avatar
Amsterhammer Amsterhammer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 3,345
Default

Quote:
I have covered stories for 15 years in the field, some of the biggest, and have never seen anything like this, nor felt so uncomfortable about being part of it.

There are hundreds upon hundreds of journalists here, all of us searching for a new angle on a story that, really, came and went in a few terrible minutes on Friday morning.

How much more is there to say about such horror?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20763752
__________________
The LOTE has won, all hail the LOTE.
Reply With Quote
  #5735  
Old 12-19-12, 00:22
mikeNphilly mikeNphilly is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 245
Default

http://www.inquisitr.com/442729/1927...rican-history/

Never knew the above happened! How sad, for those families as well.

Also a note to my earlier post, the AR-15 used in this school shooting would not have been banned for sale from 1994-2004, as it is not considered an assault rifle. In the years 2009-2010 alone(I don't have figures for years previous, or after) over 500,000 AR-15 type guns were sold to US citizens, just to give you idea of the amount of these weapons out there...not sure my point with that, but just wanted to insert some facts.
Reply With Quote
  #5736  
Old 12-19-12, 01:04
Scott SoCal's Avatar
Scott SoCal Scott SoCal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 4,228
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeNphilly View Post
http://www.inquisitr.com/442729/1927...rican-history/

Never knew the above happened! How sad, for those families as well.
As was stated earlier, evil goes far beyond gun laws. Paraphrasing Ben Stein, if evil will fatally shoot it's mother in the face four times, steal her weapons and go and kill (twenty) six year old children then it's hard to imagine what kind of law would have prevented it.

Looks like Kehoe may have been even worse.
__________________
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009
Reply With Quote
  #5737  
Old 12-19-12, 01:15
patricknd's Avatar
patricknd patricknd is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: houston texas
Posts: 1,661
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeNphilly View Post
I hunt, I have 12 guns in my house. I have an AR-15 type weapon, and I have an M1 that my father bought for me 1991 before the assult weapon ban, I have been shooting guns since I was five...just to give some perspective of my background. My good friend Joe Manchien from West Virginia, hit the nail on the head...people do not need 100 round, or hell even 30 round clips for hunting.

I don't agree there should be no guns in America, but law enforcement needs to crack down on the straw puchase people that are feeding the arms race in Philly and other cities.

Just clear some of the missimformation about the AR-15 that I have seen on many websites, the AR-15 is a single shot gun, that looks damn cool to gun people...that is all. It is not an automatic rifle, such as the M-16, Ak-47. I have hunting rifles with much more power and range then the AR-15. It is made to make huge money for the gun companies, because of the look of it and the ability to stack so many options on it that a $700 gun quickly can develop into a $1500 gun, with light mounts, scope mount, many shoulder stock options and so forth...In WV you can hunt with one, in PA, you can hunt with no semi-automatic(single shot when you pull the trigger) gun. I use my level action 30-30 for deer hunting in PA.

I hate the fact in the US, 400 people in Philly get killed every year and no one really cares, but shoot up a mall/movie house/or school in the suburbs and the Constitution must be changed by the 6 o'clock news. Mental Health issues are a huge issue in the US, since most of the funding was cut years ago, as many of you are finding out now. I do not know the soultion for all of the crime and gun issues in the US, but hopefully 3-4 years down the road some good discussions can finially bring some middle ground to this issue.
my sentiments as well, and one of the points i think brodeal has made accidentally. there has been wholesale slaughter in chicago this year but i haven't seen the outraged cries here or elsewhere, but hey, it's just a bunch of black drug dealers so who gives a ****, right?
Reply With Quote
  #5738  
Old 12-19-12, 01:46
Tom375's Avatar
Tom375 Tom375 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 277
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott SoCal View Post
As was stated earlier, evil goes far beyond gun laws. Paraphrasing Ben Stein, if evil will fatally shoot it's mother in the face four times, steal her weapons and go and kill (twenty) six year old children then it's hard to imagine what kind of law would have stopped it.

Looks like Kehoe may have been even worse.
That's as maybe, but surely having access to guns is the issue when killing so many indiscriminately. He killed all of those people in a matter of minutes. Using guns has to be the easiest non- pre-meditated way of doing this. Of the two I think guns are more realistic as there is not much forethought needed and therefore less time to change your mind. This person from accounts I've read was mentally ill. If that's the case and he has easy access to guns he only has to flip out for half an hour get the guns and roll up in whatever sleepy town is least expecting it - and no-one's got a chance. If he had no access to guns - What's he going to do? Maybe get a knife try and get into the school - there is no way as many people die also he's got far higher chance of getting apprehended before perhaps anyone is killed. Also I think there is more of a chance of him bottling it completely - spraying a load of bullets around is not the same as having to kill a load of people with your hands/knife. It's too easy to kill the defenceless with guns, + surprise element.

Btw - I'm not completely anti-gun if people use them for hunting/sport etc. that's their business, but license holders need to be properly regulated, and vetted, not just some pretense at it. Also don't see the need for military style weapons being available down the local mall next to the golf section or something. Military style weapons (semi-automatics etc.) should be just that for the military only not for some **** to get a hard-on about himself..
Reply With Quote
  #5739  
Old 12-19-12, 02:15
BroDeal BroDeal is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Above 5000 feet
Posts: 12,937
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by patricknd View Post
my sentiments as well, and one of the points i think brodeal has made accidentally. there has been wholesale slaughter in chicago this year but i haven't seen the outraged cries here or elsewhere, but hey, it's just a bunch of black drug dealers so who gives a ****, right?
It was not accidental. My whole point is a combination of the actual risk and where effort could make a much much greater benefit. Emotion driven moonbats like Rhubroma are wailing about a couple dozen deaths but the reality is those are a drop in the bucket. The risk of being killed in a mass shooting by a crazy is literally inline with being struck by lightning. On a guage of all the ways to die "unjustly," mass shootings do not even move the needle.

The real risks of dying that people face daily cannot be turned into hysterical news stories that are covered 24/7 until the next money making incident comes along for the media, so those risks get neglible coverage even though they have a have a far higher human toll. Those risks have no opportunity for sanctimonious academics who don't even live in this country to lecture the provincials about their backwardness, so they get ignored.

I am not afraid of being murdered during a mass shooting, but I am a cyclist. A major danger than I and any of the people here who actually ride, is drunk or distracted drivers. They kill 40+ people a day in the U.S. Now someone like Rhubroma will make a specious argument that it is different because autos are not made to kill. Bullsh!t. Dead is dead. People killed by by an irresponsible drunken d-bag in a SUV are just as tragic as those killed by a lunatic with a gun, and there are far far more killed by drunk drivers. Deaths from DUI only have to be reduced by a fraction of 1% to save more people than are killed in mass shootings. There is a large difference that can be made there.

Reducing general gun violence would yield similar benefits. A large percentage of the violence in this country is not the fault of the existence of guns. It is the result of gross imbalances in the economy that have left the lower tier of society to fend for themselves without the opportunity to improve their lot by legitimate work.

As far as guns suitable for hunting, the second amendment was not included in Bill of Rights to guarantee the people's access to the means to hunt or even to protect themselves from burlgers. It was included so the people would have the means to fight tyranny, including changing their own government if need be. With presidents like Bush and Obama running roughshod over the Constitution, recklessly violating the people's rights and retroactively protecting corporations that participate in such violations from civil suits, the second amendment is more important than ever. There is a cost associated with that right. A small percentage of of gun owners will use their guns irresponsibly. I don't see that we need a bunch of foreigners and ex-pats telling us whether the cost is too high or not.

Last edited by BroDeal; 12-19-12 at 02:18.
Reply With Quote
  #5740  
Old 12-19-12, 02:41
Tom375's Avatar
Tom375 Tom375 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 277
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroDeal View Post
It was not accidental. My whole point is a combination of the actual risk and where effort could make a much much greater benefit. Emotion driven moonbats like Rhubroma are wailing about a couple dozen deaths but the reality is those are a drop in the bucket. The risk of being killed in a mass shooting by a crazy is literally inline with being struck by lightning. On a guage of all the ways to die "unjustly," mass shootings do not even move the needle.

The real risks of dying that people face daily cannot be turned into hysterical news stories that are covered 24/7 until the next money making incident comes along for the media, so those risks get neglible coverage even though they have a have a far higher human toll. Those risks have no opportunity for sanctimonious academics who don't even live in this country to lecture the provincials about their backwardness, so they get ignored.

I am not afraid of being murdered during a mass shooting, but I am a cyclist. A major danger than I and any of the people here who actually ride, is drunk or distracted drivers. They kill 40+ people a day in the U.S. Now someone like Rhubroma will make a specious argument that it is different because autos are not made to kill. Bullsh!t. Dead is dead. People killed by by an irresponsible drunken d-bag in a SUV are just as tragic as those killed by a lunatic with a gun, and there are far far more killed by drunk drivers. Deaths from DUI only have to be reduced by a fraction of 1% to save more people than are killed in mass shootings. There is a large difference that can be made there.

Reducing general gun violence would yield similar benefits. A large percentage of the violence in this country is not the fault of the existence of guns. It is the result of gross imbalances in the economy that have left the lower tier of society to fend for themselves without the opportunity to improve their lot by legitimate work.

As far as guns suitable for hunting, the second amendment was not included in Bill of Rights to guarantee the people's access to the means to hunt or even to protect themselves from burlgers. It was included so the people would have the means to fight tyranny, including changing their own government if need be. With presidents like Bush and Obama running roughshod over the Constitution, recklessly violating the people's rights and retroactively protecting corporations that participate in such violations from civil suits, the second amendment is more important than ever. There is a cost associated with that right. A small percentage of of gun owners will use their guns irresponsibly. I don't see that we need a bunch of foreigners and ex-pats telling us whether the cost is too high or not.
I kind of followed you're argument up to here Bold bit.Are you saying that most people carry guns these days in the U.S. so that they "can fight tyranny and bring down the Obama government? - what by shooting them? - And this is more important than a few kiddies dying at a school coz statistically they had more chance if being hit by lightening? - but hey - admittedly I'm a foreigner, certainly ain't trying to preach, just find the viewpoint fascinating.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:23.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited. All rights reserved. Future Publishing Limited is part of the Future plc group. Future Publishing Limited is a company registered in England and Wales with company registration number 2008885 whose registered office is at Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW England.