The only way I will call for bAn GuNs!1 is if I am given a false choice and in a false binary choice, put in front of me by another. If I were then "forced to choose", only then will I accept that faustian bargain of bAn GuNs!1
-----
I am against this toxic gun culture of now, but where does that toxic gun culture end and a more wholesome (I need a better word here but I am leaving it) gun culture emerges I do not think language in a top down way can define the boundary. No the difference between the toxic gun culture and a wholesome gun culture is via the living not via the language, it is via the presence of people, though we do have symbolic exchange via people with images that overwhelm us.
Case in point the family is awesome, and the family can also be despicable. I am going to make a bendzooling point that you may see as hyperbole. All the stuff you said about Community, the Commies of the 1850s were saying how it is awesome the industrial revolution has produced more stuff but at least the people of the 1500s and earlier had community and so on before the English enclosed the commons with the land reform acts of Henry the 8th. Well those dirty commies of the 1850s were calling for a return to those Enclosure riots of the 1530s to 1640s, that factories should be owned by the community (not necessary everyone in the community, but like the city) and so on.
Nothing new in this language, even though history has obviously changed in the last 170s years or the last 500 years. The presence, the real that language can not capture, that is more important even if we can not tie it down.
-----
My point was the same language you used about defending home and hearth is what has been used to do pogroms and so on. I know you do not mean it like that, but some people do and home and hearth is blessed but it can also be used as a destructive force.
About 3% of Americans own 50% of the Guns. I am comfortable with men and women having Guns (not all types of Guns) but when it is distributed like that,
Uh, hold the fuck up a second here. I thought the Buffalo shooter had just purchased his weapons? We know the Uvalde did. I'm fairly certain neither of them belonged to that 3%.
In fact, I'd argue it's the other, what, 27% who buy the other 50% that would be a bigger threat. Those who own large caches know they're probably in databases, know that due to the sheer number of purchases they could certainly be physically tracked, and clearly have every intention of not dying tomorrow.
In this specific two cases of the last two weeks yes. This is not the case for all mass shootings. While one of the common things with mass shootings about 80% of the cases* there is some history of violence against women (depends on how you define the term and the conditions of what counts as violence)
But sometimes the guns are recent purchases, other times they buy half a dozen guns. Sometimes the guns are in the shooter's name other times they are stolen from family members, and other times they are in family members names but are "gifted" to the shooters. That is the things about families they can be complicated little things, where one loves and hates another person at the same time. A parent or grandparent that is later murdered can coexist with a shooter that also loves the person they murdered and in fact this coexisting feelings can allow them to transgress and have a higher limit of experience.
It is still a moral offense against all that is good in the world, but humans are capable of this, and we as humanity kind of understand why it happens if we think about it, it has been studied enough that it appears sensible. Such people are not literally insane in defective brain kind of way, it is logical, they are just messed up in a moral kind of way.
*NM*
- 26/05/2022 08:05:48 PM
170 Views
- 27/05/2022 11:59:21 PM
313 Views
