Discussion in 'Community' started by Ghost, Dec 14, 2012.
Speaking of zombies, this freaking thread.
Then why even bring it up in that context, unless you are trying to insinuate a causal relationship?
During the same time frame as the Palin graphic, both the DLC and the DCCC used similar bulls-eye graphics to target various Republicans. At the same time, Laughtner's acquaintances uniformly described him as having relatively left-wing political views, which no love whatsoever for Palin and her views.
Sometimes a graphic is simply a graphic, you know?
It isn't simply a graphic when it is tied into the macho-posturing ethos that the Republicans have been pushing into politics since the rise of the Tea Party.
Also, I'm skeptical just how "similiar" these Democratic ads are, especially when placed in a context where, you know, you didn't have Democrats talking about second amendment solutions and forcibly detaining reporters.
No, I realize it Laughner's actions were the result of mental illness and Gabi Giffords ended up being a victim of that by his actions. That being said, I brought up the Palin graphic because A) she didn't handle it too terribly well herself when the gun sites were brought up in the aftermath of the Gifford's shooting (during the timeframe when we had absolutely NO clue what motivated Laughner to do what he did. In a sense, we still don't really, and likely never will), and more importantly B) this current gun - control lobby target does nothing to make the pro - gun side look good in the slightest.
How the Gun-Rights Lobby Won After Newtown
Most relevant quote: "By the end of 2013, only 43 gun-control laws had passed, nearly one-quarter of them in California."
Gun control isn't effective. The only way to actually reduce mass shootings like these is to repeal the second amendment and massively restrict guns - to the point that Australia did, basically.
Firearms are the greatest deterrent to crime the world has ever known.
why are we still talking about this bruns control thing?
Honestly I stopped being anti gun control. Not that it would do anything cause it won't. Honestly the state of the mental health system in America is what causes tragedies. Sane people don't shoot people anymore.
I, among others, said as much a year ago. What this Frontline report demonstrates is that even benign, weak, ineffective gun control is defeated overwhelmingly.
I wish that was true, but you have a culture which values your rights above others rights. I mean, you came up with stand your ground laws. Horrific.
Incidentally, the most effective firearms ban wasn't the famous one of 1996, it was the 1928 Firearms Act. Sydney had a rich and frankly fascinating criminal fraternity and working class suburbs were host to regular shootings. People often carried revolvers. (The book from this exhibition is worth a look: http://www.hht.net.au/discover/highlights/insites/city_of_shadows)
Banning guns won't undo a belief that My Rights, Dammit! don't allow concessions to your rights.
I don't really understand your argument here. Yes, the worship of gun "rights" is what prevents effective action in the first place-- and lobbying from industry shills prevents even something the overwhelming majority of Americans agree with (universal background checks). But if, in a crazy hypothetical world, an effective gun ban were instituted, it would mean that point-of-view lost. Just as it did in Australia (and it did/does exist there). "MAH RIGHTS" wouldn't invalidate a law if it were implemented and enforced.
Well I guess I'm saying I think it's erroneous to link gun control to gun crime in the US. Re-reading you're probably right and it would mirror the 1928 Act's effectiveness in some part. But yes. What I was trying to say was the culture caused the problem, but I suppose you can't really stand your ground with a frying pan in nearly so horrific a way.
Define sane for me, beezel.
Meanwhile, here in Missouri, a study shows that repeal of background check laws have led to a 23% increase in gun-related homicides. From the article:
"That upward trajectory did not happen with homicides that did not involve guns; it did not occur to any neighbouring state; the national trend was doing the opposite – it was trending downward; and it was not specific to one or two localities – it was, for the most part, state-wide,"
The article also indicated that research took into account other factors like changes in unemployment and incarceration rates. Moreover, the study indicates that guns recovered from crime scenes or from criminals doubled.
The research suggests that the changes in gun-related homicides added up to approximately 60 more gun murders per year.
Nothing should be allowed to interfere with our rights to be shot - infringing others right to shoot us is un-'Merican.
I honestly don't think this issue is fixable until no one has a gun.
How would you prevent the illegal acquisition of a gun?
Yes! Obviously prohibition wouldn't vastly decrease the supply. You can, like, grow a gun! They're easy to make! Bullets grow on trees!