Texas campus mass stabbing event.

[FourthBase]

Cross-posting from one thread that turned into a gun control debate to another:

How about: Tasers. Everywhere.
No, they are not totally non-lethal, they are capable of precipitating deaths.
But, on the whole, magnitudes safer than bullet-y guns.

Oh, except, one condition:
All law enforcement and military are limited to tasers, too.
Stun guns, tranquilizer rifles, phasers, etc.
No more bullets, though, ever made.

(Except for maybe, like, one SWAT sniper in each PD, in case a hostage is about to be killed, etc.?)

It's the kind of solution nobody likes, i.e., the best kind.
"But non-lethal weapons aren't effective in such-and-such situation!"
"But non-lethal weapons are still capable of killing, and...they're fascist!"
Meanwhile, the number of people dead from gunshots would've plummeted to, oh, "negligible".
So, what's important? What would actually have happened? Arming everyone? Disarming everyone?

Again, I'm not sure what the point of this sort of post is. See my post about wanting to ride unicorns instead of drive cars.

Oh, right. Unicorns. Because if something doesn't exist yet, if it's not already on the verge of happening, then it's an impossible daydream not worth even discussing. Gee, I wonder how those things that exist and are on the verge of existing ever manage to get to that point? Must be magic. A wizard must declare, "Let it be so!"

Just to be clear, are you saying non-lethal individual weaponry doesn't exist? Are you saying it won't evolve and advance in the next decade? That non-lethal (or less-lethal, whatever) guns could never be as effective as explosive bullet shooting guns, could never be sufficient for the purposes of self-defense, war, law enforcement? Or are you saying that even if all the above were the case, the situation is what it is now and there will never be an opportunity to make such a wholesale shift, that the horse is already out of the barn, the ship sailed, or some other such self-defeating throwing-in of the towel?

[operator kos]

Oh, right. Unicorns. Because if something doesn't exist yet, if it's not already on the verge of happening, then it's an impossible daydream not worth even discussing. Gee, I wonder how those things that exist and are on the verge of existing ever manage to get to that point? Must be magic. A wizard must declare, "Let it be so!"

Just to be clear, are you saying non-lethal individual weaponry doesn't exist? Are you saying it won't evolve and advance in the next decade? That non-lethal (or less-lethal, whatever) guns could never be as effective as explosive bullet shooting guns, could never be sufficient for the purposes of self-defense, war, law enforcement? Or are you saying that even if all the above were the case, the situation is what it is now and there will never be an opportunity to make such a wholesale shift, that the horse is already out of the barn, the ship sailed, or some other such self-defeating throwing-in of the towel?

Sure, tazers exist. Do you really think for a moment that that means governments are ever going to stop using guns? Guns exist. They cannot be uninvented. Given that guns exist, I find it preferable that they are available to everyone, not just a political/military elite. I'm just repeating myself here, because I'm not sure what wasn't clear the first time I said it.

[FourthBase]

Oh, right. Unicorns. Because if something doesn't exist yet, if it's not already on the verge of happening, then it's an impossible daydream not worth even discussing. Gee, I wonder how those things that exist and are on the verge of existing ever manage to get to that point? Must be magic. A wizard must declare, "Let it be so!"

Just to be clear, are you saying non-lethal individual weaponry doesn't exist? Are you saying it won't evolve and advance in the next decade? That non-lethal (or less-lethal, whatever) guns could never be as effective as explosive bullet shooting guns, could never be sufficient for the purposes of self-defense, war, law enforcement? Or are you saying that even if all the above were the case, the situation is what it is now and there will never be an opportunity to make such a wholesale shift, that the horse is already out of the barn, the ship sailed, or some other such self-defeating throwing-in of the towel?

Sure, tazers exist. Do you really think for a moment that that means governments are ever going to stop using guns? Guns exist. They cannot be uninvented. Given that guns exist, I find it preferable that they are available to everyone, not just a political/military elite. I'm just repeating myself here, because I'm not sure what wasn't clear the first time I said it.

Not just tazers.

If god forbid there is some brutal crackdown by a tyrannical government, and some state-sponsored thug is aiming for you with an M4 or whatever, is it really going to matter if you have a revolver versus a non-lethal tranq-rifle or epidermal-burner or whatever is available in 5-10 years, the shortest conceivable amount of time it would take to initiate such a universal shift? There'd be downsides, but there'd also be upsides. Maybe a non-lethal weapon would better serve your purposes sometimes, who knows. You might know. If you bothered to contemplate the prospect.

Do I "really think for a moment that that means governments are ever going to stop using guns"? It's possible. I'm not a deep-pessimism doom-fanboy. I think a lot of things are possible. It's people with my attitude who have ever brought about one goddamned good thing in this world. It's 1930. Some black guy asks another: Do you really think for a moment that governments are ever going to stop legally discriminating against blacks? It's [insert year], and some pessimist asks an optimist if he really thinks for a moment that [insert institution] will ever stop [insert bad thing], and the answer is: "Yes. Why not. It's possible." And every now and then, the optimist is right. Do you not think there are eggheads and intellectual-type high-ranking officers in the military who are, today, contemplating the upsides of non-lethal warfare, the drastically-fewer downsides, and strategizing about how such a methodological overhaul could take place, and estimating when at the earliest? The way I see it, it's actually inevitable. Just a matter of when, not if. Are you going to help subvert that good cause by wallowing in pessimism and insisting that it'll never happen so why bother, or conjuring up some dark reason why lethal weapons will always be preferred because one of the goals of war is depopulation and terror (as if there are no other ways to accomplish such goals), or mis-receiving the suggestion of a non-lethal society as a utopian pipedream, or pointing to the widespread existence of lethal guns as some kind of threshhold of irreparability (ignoring the possibility of equally-effective non-lethals and ignoring that the discontinuation of bullet manufacturing would render those guns eventually useless), or...what?

Or, you know, you could maybe think about it.

[82_28]

Gun people are all nuts. Like seriously? It's a gun, chiefs and has no use in civilization. I have fucking grown up to the age of 38 not ever HAVING TO FUCKING USE ONE. Even though a shit ton of people have passed on in life. The only argument for guns is that they are necessary. No, no they are not. Fuck guns.

Thanks for your continued rational contributions to this discussion.

Hahaha, Seriously? No guns anywhere is the only "rational" position to take. Guns are irrational by nature. So are fucking fireworks and I love blowing those up. What I am saying is that in an ideal environment for life there would be no need for a gun because the need wouldn't exist. You're the one who needs it. As for me, I have never "needed" a gun. It's your mentality, not mine that is at issue here. I would prefer to live in a world without guns and live a life of unlocked doors. Perhaps that is irrational, living in a world where people "need" guns. Fuck that shit.

[operator kos]

Gun people are all nuts. Like seriously? It's a gun, chiefs and has no use in civilization. I have fucking grown up to the age of 38 not ever HAVING TO FUCKING USE ONE. Even though a shit ton of people have passed on in life. The only argument for guns is that they are necessary. No, no they are not. Fuck guns.

Thanks for your continued rational contributions to this discussion.

Hahaha, Seriously? No guns anywhere is the only "rational" position to take. Guns are irrational by nature. So are fucking fireworks and I love blowing those up. What I am saying is that in an ideal environment for life there would be no need for a gun because the need wouldn't exist. You're the one who needs it. As for me, I have never "needed" a gun. It's your mentality, not mine that is at issue here. I would prefer to live in a world without guns and live a life of unlocked doors. Perhaps that is irrational, living in a world where people "need" guns. Fuck that shit.

Okay, let's do a little thought experiment then. Let's picture a hypothetical world where we CAN'T just magically wish all the evil guns out of existence. Let's picture a world where guns exist and will continue for the foreseeable future to exist because not everyone has smoked DMT and become one with the cosmic ubermind, realizing that we're all one and violence is pointless. Given the reality of guns in this hypothetical world, what would you say that our legal policy regarding guns should be?

[Iamwhomiam]

http://FunnyOrDie.com/m/7w3q

[82_28]

Okay, let's do a little thought experiment then. Let's picture a hypothetical world where we CAN'T just magically wish all the evil guns out of existence. Let's picture a world where guns exist and will continue for the foreseeable future to exist because not everyone has smoked DMT and become one with the cosmic ubermind, realizing that we're all one and violence is pointless. Given the reality of guns in this hypothetical world, what would you say that our legal policy regarding guns should be?

What part of what I said upthread is unintelligible?

I don't begrudge gun owners and their "rights". I just don't think the enshrining of guns is the way to go because really, end of day, guns are stupid and ideally should not exist in and of self protection because no human should harm another. I mean, what the fuck did they do before gun powder? The invention of "firearms" was a pandora's box because it existentially, as an invention, puts our lives into conflict with easily ending them in ways unforeseen.

I'm not saying it is at all realistic, but that wasn't my point. You need to do the thought experiment in the exact opposite way -- the way I am suggesting. If guns were needed then birds, rabbits, bears and squirrels, along with humans would have them the moment they emerged out of the egg and the womb. Guns are not needed. See, I'm not saying your points are invalid, I am just saying they should not be valid, ideally.

[82_28]

http://FunnyOrDie.com/m/7w3q

That was awesome.

[Twyla LaSarc]

Okay, I'll be the one to state the obvious. We're long overdue for some strict regulations on who we let own knives, or at least certain types of knives. Remember that mass stabbing that just happened in China a few months ago? How much longer are we going to allow knife manufacturers to put profits over people's safety and peace of mind?

They'll have to pry my 9" Wusthof Classic Chef from my cold, dead hands.

[justdrew]

so just to give you an idea what's out there on the anti-gun control, totally freaking out side of thee world... (listen to the end for some really bad advice)



now the dude who does the channel does some ok videos sometimes, he uses most often an interview with the man on the street technique, (but I think mostly the interviews are set up and prearanged in reality). nonetheless, he points out some interesting 'collapse' related anecdotes.

[82_28]

Okay, I'll be the one to state the obvious. We're long overdue for some strict regulations on who we let own knives, or at least certain types of knives. Remember that mass stabbing that just happened in China a few months ago? How much longer are we going to allow knife manufacturers to put profits over people's safety and peace of mind?

They'll have to pry my 9" Wusthof Classic Chef from my cold, dead hands.

That's the whole point of the stupidity of the whole "guns are tools" argument. I don't stick a gun in my mouth in order to shave, I use a knife or blade. In order to eat a carrot in bite sized pieces I don't obliterate it with my AK. In order to walk down the street and feel safe is myself knowing that a gun is not necessary because I am likely headed to a restaurant where they cook the food by sending bullets into what I am about to eat, but actually using real tools. However, I do see the need for guns insofar as hunting and stopping crime and whatnot, just not the ENSHRINEMENT of them to the degree that you actually can't admit that they are basically stupid and to own one and venerate it is even more stupid. Deadly things should not be enshrined and that's the point.

[compared2what?]

I'm not anti-gun either. I'm just anti-ridiculously-transparent-diversionary-issue-that-prevents-people-from-protecting-the-rights-they're-actually-in-some-danger-of-losing..

Newsflash: I've been arrested multiple times for standing up for my other rights and various social and economic justice issues. Just because I'm concerned about my right to defend myself doesn't mean I've magically forgotten about my other rights.

I was replying to Elihu. And I respect you both as politically serious people. The "Newsflash" was just a bullshit style thing.

Newsflash: Your rights don't include keeping whatever arms you want and bearing them wherever and whenever your heart desires. Does the gun you do own do whatever it is that you want to have a gun in order to do ? If so, excellent. Stop complaining.

Every living being has a right to defend themselves. I work late at night in one of the worst neighborhoods of one of the most violent cities in the United States. There is a realistic possibility of my being attacked either by a group or an individual with a weapon. Since I don't have Hollywood-level kung-fu abilities, my only realistic chance of defending myself in such a scenario is to be carrying a pistol, which people are not legally allowed to do here.

You said that the only guns that have ever been pointed at you belonged to cops. So presumably it's been possible for you to work late at night in one of the worst neighborhoods of one of the most violent cities in the United States so far without having any need to shoot anybody in order to defend yourself.

I'm not trying to minimize your situation or your feelings. I've also lived and worked in neighborhoods where there was a real, frightening, permanent threat/risk that I'd be violently assaulted. It's a terrible experience.

So I'd say that I actually have a very legitimate complaint.

About a completely theoretical possibility. As stated, anyway.

But maybe. How regularly have other people who work in that neighborhood at that hour been unable to defend themselves from an attack by groups or individuals with weapons?

It's possible that those pointless restrictions might actually appear to have a point if you tried considering them in the context of everybody to whom they applied rather than that of their inapplicability to you, personally.

Nope, sorry. They were enacted by Dianne 1% Feinstein and other fear-mongering politicians who don't actually known jack shit about guns. A pistol grip or a telescoping stock are cosmetic features on a rifle which have ZERO impact on its lethality.

I believe you.

But if that's the case, why do you feel that your rights are being infringed upon by those restrictions?

Also: Nobody is taking your guns away. The restrictions on semi-automatic rifles that they're talking about were the law for years quite recently. They're toothless and easily side-steppable. And they might not even pass.

No, semi-automatic rifles are currently legal, but there is discussion of making them illegal.

Yes. I know. I was talking about the Clinton-era assault-weapons restrictions that didn't take anybody's guns away. Because that's what they're discussing doing again, more or less.

They might not pass is a sorry excuse for inaction. CISPA might not pass either, but you can bet your ass that I'm still hounding my representatives about it on a regular basis.

More power to you. Keep it up. But I wasn't just saying: "Oh, who knows what the future may hold?" I was saying: "There's not enough political support for passing those laws right now. And there's a ton of opposition. So they might not pass."

I thought your first post was perfectly acceptable snark and undeserving of the pile-on, btw.

Well thanks.

Welcome.

But there are plenty of regulations and restrictions on who can keep and bear what kind of car already.

You lose your license if you drive drunk and recklessly endanger other people. I'm fine with violent criminals losing their right to bear arms. You lose your own rights when you violate the rights of others as far as I'm concerned. But we don't make cars illegal just because a small minority of people use them irresponsibly or kill with them.

Sure. But nobody's even discussing making guns illegal. And, you know. Talk is cheap. So the parallel still stands.

[compared2what?]

Okay, let's do a little thought experiment then. Let's picture a hypothetical world where we CAN'T just magically wish all the evil guns out of existence.
Let's picture a world where guns exist and will continue for the foreseeable future to exist because not everyone has smoked DMT and become one with the cosmic ubermind, realizing that we're all one and violence is pointless. Given the reality of guns in this hypothetical world, what would you say that our legal policy regarding guns should be?

I know you weren't asking me. But I'd say that we live in that world already. That's why nobody (NOBODY) is talking about, contemplating or showing the slightest signs of making an effort to wish and/or legislate evil guns out of existence. And it's also why no very substantial changes in legal policy on guns are presently in the offing. It's just not a politically possible thing, atm.

____________



It's true that our stupid outgoing "no-sodas-no-cigarettes-no-guns-and-it's-past-eight-thirty-so-go-to bed-immediately" mayor here in NYC seems to be intending to make money somehow, I'm sure a big deal out of the issue when he leaves office, though.

But I have no idea what he hopes to accomplish by it.

[FourthBase]

So...just forget I wrote anything? Nothing to see there but unicorns?

[82_28]

The thing that occurs to me is that this is the final wedge issue that the right has. Deal with it wingers, guns are the right wing's nom de plume. So good for it and go for it, that's your right. But in a world with guns on the level you motherfuckers love to see and champion and "defend". I don't give a shit if you own one. What I care about is the worship that all wingers of every stripe must de-enlist the 1st amendment and take the 2nd as though it is the most important one.

No, being able to kill is not the most important amendment. With your gun rhetoric, fuck all the amendments all together, fuck 'em, if instruments of death and death only are a fucking right and not what they actually are and not what they mean. Shoot your guns, but it's still stupid.

Do you see kinda what I mean? You're the one with the gun who gets to decide with my own life. You don't have that right, but yet you do.