comment of the month – guns and fear
For those of us fortunate enough to live without weapons and who feel no need to possess them, it’s very difficult to get someone to even imagine what that might be like. Once experienced, of course, the state of being unafraid is so obviously superior to living in fear that it sometimes boggles the mind that there really are people who prefer the fear and who believe that possessing even more weapons is the right way – nay, the only way – to deal with that fear!
I have a large family with many branches that lives in the US, Canada, and Australia so I get the differences (including a close friend and neighbour from NZ). In all cases, we agree that the US gun culture (for a well regulated militia, don’t forget) has evolved into a real life example of the mythical Ouroboros.
(Tildeb)
It’s a short comment of the month (sorry Raut, your crown is temporarily in the wrong hands) by I have to say that my politically incorrect nemesis Tildeb bangs this nail squarely on the head. Will anyone or anything ever be able to get through to the stunningly deluded citizens of the USA when it comes to the question of gun control?
“Will anyone or anything ever be able to get through to the stunningly deluded citizens of the USA when it comes to the question of gun control?”
I doubt it. It seems a form of mental illness. It’s not an accidental one either, it’s been spread intentionally by the gun lobby and by extension conservative politicians. It’s easier to persuade through fear and hatred, and once fear sets in it’s very difficult to root out. The NRA and their minions continuously feed this fear, and the people who are afflicted spread it themselves and it becomes sort of a self-reinforcing echo chamber. It’s a massive problem, and I am not sure what the way out is.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It just goes to show how deep and illogical cultural indoctrination is. There must be a significant movement within the country by now that goes against it, perhaps only another couple of generations to go …
LikeLike
Nothing will. If they refused to act after 20+ little kids were gunned down with a legally purchased assaut rifle, then they are never going to act.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The USA is such a massive cultural influence now. I just hope this horror doesn’t illogically spread. It will just need a couple of high profile idiots to claim that terrorists can be stopped with civilian guns for the mudslide to begin. Now I’ve seen Brexit with Farage and Johnson at the fore, I can see that anything is possible.
LikeLike
The idiots in their Congress (Repuiblicans, of course) voted down a bill to restrict the sale of weapons to people on Terror Watch Lists.
Re-read that.
They defended the right of potential terrorists to buy assault weapons.
Can anyone spell, M A D N E S S ?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes, M A D B L O G, in her response to you below.
LikeLike
sorry Raut, your crown is temporarily in the wrong hands…
A temporary aberration, I assure you…
As for claiming me a nemesis, let me just say that anytime you agree with me, you must be absolutely correct!
LikeLike
And twice in a week. I thought you’d rather like the idea of being a PC nemesis. Maybe I should have said PC scourge?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t actually assume I’m getting a comprehensive perspective of what’s going on in Europe from watching a news program or two, and it might be wise for you to assume likewise about life in the US. We’re not actually all gripping our guns and waiting to riot or commit mass shootings. The media’s wild-west picture, you must surely recognize, is rather skewed toward sensation and agenda. Trust me.
LikeLike
You’re right Madblog, but I’m not sure a wild west picture is painted above, is it? The problem isn’t the picture you seem to assume has been painted, but the fact that in the face of considerably higher levels of gun violence and murder than any other developed country, Americans refuse to accept that gun control could make a difference. Can you shed any light on why this might be?
LikeLike
Ah Madblog, I see you’re still enjoying the freedom of commenting on blogs that don’t censor and ban.
Good for you!
LikeLike
We are in fact very close to enacting much stricter gun control. “Americans” are mostly for it. Whether that will turn out to be a solution is certainly not certain.
However it is not true that we have “considerably higher levels of gun violence and murder than any other developed country”; that’s a little piece of that agenda-ed narrative which is wildly incorrect. Now, I’m not going to embark on a statistic debate with you, and I’m sure you’re not going to take that at face value, so we’ll just have to disagree about that. But I hope you’ll concede that since I’m here and you’re there, I may have a more informed perspective.
LikeLike
I’m sure you don’t want to have a debate about the facts, because none are actually on your side:
I did a quite detailed post some time ago about just some of the common myths that do the rounds courtesy of your gun lobby – it was an eye opener reading what nonsense they churn out. I hope you have time to read it:
LikeLiked by 1 person
The wild west picture I gathered from the post before as well. You must admit that if I was writing posts about how idiotic and violent Brits were, you’d probably have something to say to me about it, like: “You don’t know what the heck you’re talking about.”
LikeLike
Well, it would depend who you were talking about and where you got your facts from. Please feel free to link to any of your work. 🙂
LikeLike
Oh thanks, but I don’t write about this topic. It’s not my gun lobby, I will never own a gun, and I probably know two people (remotely) who own a gun.
Your attitude is rather ill-informed as you paint all of America with this one-color brush.
LikeLike
Yes, I take your point. But clearly the majority of US citizens back the current lack of gun control, or changes would be made?
LikeLike
More than half of all firearms in the world are owned by Americans. So forgive those of us who foolishly think this rather large number actually reflects gun ownership IN the US, BY US citizens. A silly assumption, I know. There are actually only 6,483 US citizens who own several million apiece.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Madblog, I’m with ya on this one. I’m a half-n-halfer, with 50% of my time in Canada and 50% in the US. I’ve lived in good neighborhoods and bad ones in the US, and in cities all across your great country. I believe the majority of Americans, as you say, are similar to people anywhere and not as gun-crazy as they’re depicted and I think the characterization is horribly unfair.
Full disclosure, though – I am against both the gun lobby and the paranoia/gun culture that permeates American society in general, and I criticize the “slippery slope” arguments that are made on both sides of the issue often.
For me I’ve decided that it’s ultimately a State issue. I get that it’s still the 2nd Amendment in the Constitution and a federal matter, but I believe each State should govern its gun laws accordingly. For instance, if I lived on a southern border state, and in particular had land on the border, I’d want the right to “arm up” in case I was ever attacked. Assault rifles, long clips, etc. – whatever the bad cartel guys would be using against me. The right to walk through a downtown Phoenix or Dallas street with an AR-15 strapped to my back, however? Unnecessary, in my opinion, and doesn’t need to be a “right” – I get into debates on this often.
And to VW’s question “But clearly the majority of US citizens back the current lack of gun control, or changes would be made?”, (I know we’re “fighting” on the other thread, WV, but we can be nice here? :)) my experience is that most everyday people in America want the basic right to have a weapon if they so choose (same as what we’re allowed in Canada) but on a national level, unless that person is part of the NRA or far left, that person feels pretty powerless on the matter. Madblog may disagree, and I’m not saying I’m right, but that’s been my experience in a number of cities east, west, north, and south. (Virginia, though, being the exception – for some reason everyone I know there has at least 25 firearms – not kidding!)
LikeLike
“The idiots in their Congress (Repuiblicans, of course) voted down a bill to restrict the sale of weapons to people on Terror Watch Lists.
Re-read that.”
Link please? This is exactly the sort of nonsense I’m talking about. The problem: It didn’t happen.Nothing remotely like it happened. Really, fellow bloggers, you’re hearing a lot of sensationalized crap. Please be more discerning.
LikeLike
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/gop-blocks-bill-stop-terrorists-buying-guns
LikeLike
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36563337
LikeLike
There are loads. Let me know what news sources you trust most and I can send you links to them too. Even Fox News, which has an interesting spin, but nonetheless confirms it.
LikeLike
I said I didn’t want to debate this, especially by cut-and-paste. Of course you can find whatever you want as “proof”, and so can I. The problem is that you can’t see the errors in your own sources.
Here are several problems:
The terror watch list is not what you would assume. Under Mr. Obama it is becoming a political enemies list, and it is being wielded as a tool to strip away basic rights guaranteed under our Bill of Rights, without due process. And under Obama, it is most definitely NOT being applied to terrorists! This is wildly unconstitutional and a dangerous precedent for all Americans.
Mr. Obama refuses to acknowledge that most of our mass shootings have been done by Islamic terrorists; he won’t even use the words. He ascribes all shootings to lack of gun control rather than admit that we are being assaulted by entities who self-proclaim as our enemies in a war. Too many roads to go down here. He doesn’t acknowledge his failure in the war against terrorism or his implicit encouragement to those who claim that they are our enemies. Shift the blame, move the focus. All this to say: our “Terror Watch List” is not a terror watch list. But I don’t expect that that you will understand the significance from where you are anyway.
Old political games.Put a clean water item in the budget bill which includes something your opponents cannot vote for, and when they vote down the budget, put out news stories that opponents voted against clean water. Do you fall for that at home too? The first link you sent doesn’t even identify the bill. But you bite and swallow.
LikeLike
For goodness sake Madblog, you exclaimed that “nothing remotely like it happened” in the face of John’s completely factual statement. You see the facts and take an hour to read up on the excuses for such an illogical action, and then accuse us of swallowing something whole? Now you may genuinely feel the vote against implementing restrictions is valid, but at least have the decency to admit your error.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It was not a factual statement, and I see you didn’t make it through my last comment. John’s claim was nothing but parroting of propaganda with no basis in truth. I did not spend an hour reading up; I have things to do in the morning.
LikeLike
In that case, what exactly about John’s comment was inaccurate?
LikeLike
Oy, I’m not doing this and I said so from the beginning. Too much to just respond to my point and let it go?
LikeLike
If you want. He wrote one sentence.
LikeLike
No, we wouldn’t want reality to intrude on your very correct and godly beliefs. You don’t do reality. You only do your beliefs. That’s why you ban anyone on your blog who insists we respect what it has to say in the whatever the matter under consideration may be… in this case America’s dysfunctional love affair with guns. Got it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ve only ever “banned” ,if you must, one person who was actually a bully and drove away all serious discussion with his childish haranguing of his own off-topic single thought. Anyone is free to discuss on my blog as long as he/she can be human and respectful.
And you’ve once again shown that you would have no idea what I’m referring to.
LikeLike
tildeb, where have I mentioned beliefs here? Where have I suggested that I endorsed gun ownership? And I don’t write about this issue on my blog. But of course your one-dimensional attack alert goes off when you find out someone is a Christian, and you know just what she thinks about everything top to bottom. You aren’t even “doing” the reality of this discussion thread. Your slurs are very wide of the mark. I am not a representative of the gun culture of the USA.
LikeLike
Not a factual statement?
Oh really? Care to read the linked aricle, or are you just happy swimming in your wilfull ignorance?
LikeLike
From the LA Times article, first line:
So, you were saying….
LikeLike
Again, I’m not here to debate the gun issue, I politely explained that but you wouldn’t let me go without your pound of flesh, calling me to account as though I am a representative of NRA-loving America.
I came on to object to your shallow and insulting generalizations of American character, and to suggest you don’t might want to apply a little thought to your assimilation of blatantly agendaed news reporting.
LikeLike
Sorry…I left a word there when revising…”to suggest that you might want to…”
LikeLike
Nonsense? LOL! You’re ignorance is showing. It happened only days after Orlando… Republicans couldn`t even bring themselves to forbid people in Terror Watch Lists for purchasing assault weapons.
Nice job!
Here, first article on Google. There are pages of related articles for your pleasure.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-gun-votes-20160620-snap-story.html
So, isn’t it nice, Madblog, to be able to express your differing views without being banned? Some pople have intellectual integrity. You do not.
LikeLike
hey jonz of the andes-
I’ll defense of m-blog, not because she needs my help, but because others may not be aware of your false charges, which you are wont to do on a regular basis. (enter violet here and your lame remarks yesterday. Your comment was actually banned from this very site thank you very much)
You have a track record of taking posts into the weeds, then charge the blogger with ‘hiding’ or avoiding your baggage. Uh, nnnno. You positively hate it when you cannot be the conductor on a another person’s train. You laud yourself in your pornographic and irrelevant content, then gripe that your comments are not received.
There is a standard of decency even while disagreeing which would behoove you to entertain. Do I exaggerate here? One visit to your blog proves I am entirely correct. Decency? Look it up in Websters.
So perhaps an apology to vwisp and to m-blog for you are guilty of the very thing you accuse others of. Your last line says it all.
LikeLike
Good grief you’re an idiot.
Scroll up to the top, all the way. See my comment? That stands alone, factually correct. The thread did not go beyond that. It really didn`t need to. Republicans want terrorists to be able to purchase assault weapons.
Madblog, for reasons only she can answer, responded to that, calling that a lie, and therefore opening herself up to that awkward world of facts,
Got all that? Good.
LikeLike
Agree with everything you say here John, it’s astonishing, except the use of ‘idiot’. What Madblog has given us here is a stunning view of the Christian mind in action when it comes to inconvenient facts. We should thank her.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I could think of other, more accurate words, if you like 😉
LikeLike
I swear you cannot follow a line of thought.
YOU said THIS which I addressed:
—So, isn’t it nice, Madblog, to be able to express your differing views without being banned? Some people have intellectual integrity. You do not—.
I pointed out the where and why of your blogging behaviour, plain and simple. Once more though, I will not stoop to calling you an idiot.
LikeLike
It would be wise for you to limit your poorly-thought-through screeds to things you are actually aware of, John. Madblog banned me because she could not bring herself to answer yes or no to the question: ”Does the woman’s life takes precedence”.
It’s a simple, straightforward question.
Her refusal to answer such a simple question (a question no rational, moral person should hesitate in answering) revealed her answer: No, she does not believe the woman’s life takes precedence. This, of course, demonstrates that Madblog is not “pro-life,” as she pretends to be, rather simply Pro-Forced-Birth.
It’s an irrational position to hold. It cannot be justified, and her embarrassment in being exposed was why she banned me.
Period.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So what jz, and I asked you: Yes or No if you would shoot a squirrel so you would not starve to death, putting you on the horns of a dilemma.
You cast it aside so as not to be embarrassed.
Some questions have real context, while others are……………nevermind.
LikeLike
And you’re another hypocrite… Won’t allow the free exchange of ideas on your blog (edit, censor, delete and ban bloggers), yet here you are, enjoying the freedom of expressing yourself, regardless of how deranged your comments might be.
LikeLike
For the tenth time, I have banned no one. (but many of your friends have banned me, and you know it)
Perhaps you do not understande: all things are good………..in moderation.
And I gave perfect reasons for adding running commentary, as some do not know how to be proper guests in the home of another.
LikeLike
You’re a pathetic hypocrite. Period.
LikeLike
And this coming from a person who says the Creator of water is evil……….
So, in front of a world wide audience, thank you for this compliment.
(and a mild apology to vwisp for helping to steer the ship off course)
LikeLike
CS is hypocrisy-blind when it comes to himself.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This might seem odd, me defending ColorStorm, but I expect that being blind to our own hypocrisy is typical, rather than the exception.
Having said this I reach quite different conclusions to CS when considering the same evidence.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, we may not realize when we exercise hypocrisy but when it is pointed out again and again and again and again and explained in excruciating detail and still one does not ‘see’ it then one is blind to it.
There is no question at all that CS agrees with curtailing the free speech of others to his standard alone, which is why he moderates, edits, re-writes, and bans comments he deems to be worthy of his ‘special’ god-like touch and yet here he is speaking freely without grovelling and mewling at the feet of this administrator begging for permission to say what the admin wants him to say. That’s hypocrisy in action.
And CS does not ever consider evidence to be worthy of consideration when it comes to the truth value of his religious beliefs. He knows, you see, and nothing from reality – no evidence of any kind no matter how overwhelming or compelling or problematic it may be – will ever give him pause long enough to consider the possibility that he may be wrong. CS is not wrong, ever, about his faith-based claims nor even capable of error in his beliefs. CS is absolutely certain that his revelation comes directly from the metaphorical lips of his historical god and will not even consider that his certainty in this faith-based understanding of this divine creator is a creation of his a priori beliefs. He will not even consider that he has imported to his beliefs a certainty they have not earned from reality independent of his beliefs but have been awarded certainty by his faith alone. He does not recognize that his rationalizations based on this circular little bubble world his beliefs have created for his little befuddled mind also establishes an immunity for them unfettered in all ways from reality’s arbitration of them. He does not allow evidence-adduced reasoning to influence his faith-based certainty but uses his certainty to defend his faith-based claims from contrary and conflicting evidence. Every time. That’s why when legitimately challenged by knowledgeable people like John Zande, shallow minds like CS’s retreats to spouting scripture and maligning the challenger as evil.
CS defines what being a small, close-minded, and deluded religious fool looks like in action. His comments stand as a testament to this claim.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mr Zande cannot seem to get over not being welcome on my blog anymore. This was weeks ago, he does not write posts on his own blog anymore, but he goes to the trouble to actually bring it to the attention of other bloggers on their blogs when it is off-topic, lie about the reasons why, and to put words in my mouth. Usually this rant is ignored (even by those he is on good terms with) because people are discussing the issues at hand, and his being moderated on my blog is of no interest to anyone but him.
The question he put was not relevant; I have indeed covered it extensively over many posts, (just not in the way he would prefer: “either/or” being the only way to conceive of the issue), and he bullied and “I know you are, but what am I?” -ed his way to a withdrawn welcome mat at my door. Nobody has time for that crap.
Here I am being savaged (and other commenters are “liking” his lies without knowing whether or not they are true) because I came here merely to express my small opinion that foreigners sizing up American political events without assessing sources well strikes me as offensive. That is all I wanted to say. In a polite world, my comment would be noted, maybe disagreed with, and the discussion would move on.
Not here. I must be challenged to defend the “gun lobby” in America, a position I stated repeatedly I was totally unqualified for, and likewise totally uninterested in.
I do not see why my faith beliefs are relevant here. It has no bearing on the issues being discussed. I did not refer to them. I do not see what I may have done to demonstrate anything of the Christian mind or anything else.
Should I begin criticizing British politics? My grandparents came fro Ireland during the period of history when YOU were attempting genocide upon them. Are you ready to represent the side I choose in the lilywhite political world of Brazil? Should I assume your position on a number of Brazilian political issues and then savage you fir them?
LikeLike
Here’s where you are supposed to say:
“Mmm, John was actually 100% right. I was dead wrong, and I apologise wholeheartedly for calling him a liar. Republicans did indeed vote to have assault weapons made available to people (terrorists) on Terror Watch Lists. This vote occurred just eight days after Orlando… exactly as John said. I was wrong, he was right, and I apologise.”
And no, Madblog, you have never answered the question put to you: Does the woman’s life take precedence?
It was more than relevant, and it was presented to you numerous times, and you did nothing but evade it, making it perfectly clear what your answer actually is.
You do not believe the woman’s life takes precendence.
And as asked to you numerous times: if this is not your position, then just say so.
Your silence (then and now) reveals your answer.
And no, Madblog, I’m not bothered by being banned. You pen fiction without any grounding in reality. Not reading that is no loss. I am, however, bothered by your lies and you’re staggering hypocricy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I like how you illustrate my bullying charge by telling me what I am supposed to say.
No John, the stories are nonsense just as I said. Your expression of them illustrates my point here wonderfully. All of you are buying into rank propaganda which so depicts one side of the political spectrum as monsters that you ought to be suspicious of it, but you are easily led to go right for the destruction of people who have a different political perspective. Perhaps my explanations earlier were too difficult. Let me try again.
The “Terror Watch List”: 7 Ways That You (Yes, You) Could End Up On A Terrorist Watch List
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/25/terrorist-watch-list_n_5617599.html
The Huffington Post, no right-leaning publication, tells us that 1.5 million people have been added in the last five years. Please read. This FBI list is no longer a list of actual terrorist threats; it has become a list that anyone could end up on, even by mistake, after which many of his basic rights, gun ownership being the least of them, would be suspended without due process.
Someone wrongly on the list, once he found out at the airport after being forbidden to fly, since it is secret, would have to prove his innocence with great expense and difficulty. “Innocent until proven guilty” is a fundamental tenet, not only of US Constitutional law, but derives from English law and is basic to the equity of western civilization. In the US we are founded upon the belief that we all possess inalienable rights which our gov’t may only abridge under specific circumstances and through fair due process. This list is a tyrant’s tool to strip free speech and many other rights from political enemies.
Step 1: The TWL is not a list of people suspected of terrorist intentions.In fact, it has been famously ineffectual on that score.
Step 2: No one EVER voted to make weapons available to terrorists. That sentence ought to make you chuckle, it is so ridiculous.
The Republican legislators voted as they did mostly for the reasons I have outlined. It would have been an alarming precedent indeed had the measure passed, a vote in conflict with our Constitution and fundamental principles.
Besides all that, were you under the impression that our Democrat president or his administration was in favor of any measures to keep down the number of terrorist-leaning actors, or to track them, or to keep them out of the country? I am laughing, with our open borders to unvetted refugees.
Or to keep weapons out of their hands? That would be even more hilarious. Our prez cannot even acknowledge that Islamic terror happens domestically, a fact which is tragically obvious to everyone else. He blames domestic attacks on everything BUT terrorism. I said before that no one ever acted to make weapons available to terrorists, but I misspoke. Obama did, and does:
https://www.rt.com/usa/obama-terrorist-arms-supply-966/
http://thehill.com/opinion/katie-pavlich/261555-the-obama-administration-not-the-nra-sells-guns-to-terrorists
Never heard of “Fast and Furious” scandal?
I hope this sheds some light on the hysterical propaganda. But I doubt it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good stuff and context m-blog.
Surely you have heard too of people who were harassed to the nines (TWL) because they share the share name of other misfits. Yeah, like there is only one Joe Smith.
The horror stories abound about American citizens who would not hurt a fly whose lives have been pillaged because of red tape and false information. And the word ‘terror’ itself is subject to interpretation………..ever heard of people around these parts who have accused simple believers of terrorism? Put THEM on the no fly list………….Uh huh, sure.
The liberal mind should change the smelly clothes every so often.
LikeLike
The Orlando shooter was on the Terror Watch List. He purchased his assault weapons legally.
Again, here is the first sentence in the LA Times article concerning the gun vote in the Senate:
“The Republican-led Senate on Monday voted down proposals to bar gun sales to terrorism suspects, notching another victory for gun rights advocates eight days after a gunman who had been on an FBI terrorism watch list killed 49 people at a nightclub in Orlando, Fla.”
Let’s repeat that: “VOTED DOWN PROPOSALS TO BAR GUN SALES TO TERRORISM SUSPECTS”
And to repeat, the Orlando shooter was on the Terror Watch List. The Republicans (your party, right?) have ensured any future terrorists will have that same right as he did, to purchase assault weapons and kill people.
So, please enjoy your next massacre. Let’s just hope it’s not another Sandy Hook.
And BTW, your argument is a showcase in ignorance. The No-fly, no-buy legislation (a compromise bill written by Susan Collins) had a provision for people on the lists to appeal their inclusion… and happily (legally) buy their assault weapons.
LikeLike
And I included that provision. Imagine you’re declared guilty of being a suspected terrorist. What do you have to do to get off that list? Hire lawyers, travel, take time off work, all expensive and life-consuming. I can’t speak to your country, but this is not how we do things here. We are innocent until proven guilty by a jury of peers and permitted to face our accusers with all fair due process.
Yes, John, I understand that THERE ARE HEADLINES that say that Republicans voted to allow terrorists to buy guns. I get that. I’m trying to tell you that those headlines are not accurate depictions of what really happened. Was my explanation still too difficult, and are you actually unable to respond to my comments?
And after reading my comment, you are still sticking with that utterly stupid spin meant for utterly stupid useful idiots?
The Orlando shooter was on the TWL so they say. This confirms my point! You might ask Mr. Obama why, if he was on the TWL, he was still here, why he was able to act freely even though there had been warnings about him, and yes, why he was able to buy a gun. Are you getting my point yet? Islamic terrorists are immune from suspicion here, thanks to Mr Obama’s denial of reality, and free to commit mass shootings while actually screaming Praise to Allah. No matter, Obama will speak over the dead and put the blame on the NRA Republicans, and Christians.
No the Republicans are not my party. But just shuffle along assuming you know all about me. But please stop assuming you understand American politics at more than a sound byte level.
Shall we talk about Brazil?
According to most sources, Brazil possesses high rates of violent crimes, such as murders and robberies; depending on the source (UNDP or World Health Organization), Brazil’s homicide rate is 30-35 homicides per 100,000 inhabitants, placing Brazil in the top 20 countries by intentional homicide rate.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2016/01/29/months-before-rio-olympics-murder-rate-rises-in-brazil/#6b62abb71a0b
Brazil just cannot — cannot — get a break. If it’s not their Banana Republic-esque politicians and oligarchs, commodity deflation, inflation and pesky mosquitoes spreading the zica virus to the world, its violent crime. A new report out this month has Brazilian cities dominating a list of the 50 murder capitals of the world.
The report by Mexico City based Center for Public Security And Criminal Justice shows clearly that no country in the world has more cities plagued by violent crime than Brazil.
How can you possibly defend that John? You’re quite the hypocrite.
LikeLike
Please point me to where I was defending Brazil?
We are not talking about Brazil. We are talking about a supposed First World country with a political party who voted recently to defend the right of suspected terrorists to purchase assault weapons.
End of story.
LikeLike
I have already explained how that is not so. Are you an idiot?
But I am talking about Brazil. I think you should have to justify your country’s lawlessness and extremely high rate of violent death. If I am to represent the NRA, you can certainly be called to account for your third-world home’s rampant violent crime rates, can’t you? I mean, if that’s what’s going on in Brazil, it’s obvious that most Brazilians are all for it. Why do you endorse murder, John?
Why do you endorse murder, John? Are you afraid to answer? (repeat x 100)
According to you, our Republican congressmen are more dangerous, perpetrating more death and destruction, than your revolving governments and your gangland city life.
@tildeb, It Is far easier to shoot off some insulting quips than it is to respond to a single comment I made with any substance. Don’t tire yourself.
LikeLike
I feel I should jump in and calm this down a little. I can see the connection you’re making here between USA and Brazil Madblog, but I think there’s a slight difference.
In my post, I talk about the ‘stunningly deluded citizens’ with regard to the lack of gun control, and this has obviously upset you. I didn’t mean everybody is, but obviously there is a big enough pro-gun movement (I’m assuming more than 50%) to ensure that no reasonable action is ever taken on gun control. Many US citizens are desperate for more gun control and I’m sure they would agree with my words.
You disagree with me, but claim you aren’t pro-gun, which is kind of ambiguous. You either are happy with the status quo and the work of the gun lobby in keeping it so, or you want stricter control and you can’t understand why you fellow citizens aren’t fighting for it. Which is it?
When you criticise Brazil, you are criticising aspects of life there of which John is also critical – he’s not happy with the violent crime rates. But you would have to state what specific policies he is supporting that you believe are directly contributing to violent crime, in order for your comparison to make even slightest bit of sense.
Thanks for the conversation.
LikeLike
It’s interesting that you want to calm things down now that I have started to give back in kind, but you let your friends pile on rather shamefully for two days and didn’t see the need then.
My point here is that I am being asked to speak for the gun lobby of my country, or else to disavow the lack of gun control, but only exactly as you specify, and that there are no other options, no nuance or combined options. Words are put in my mouth and then I am attacked for them.
I have done something here that I studiously do not do, which is to let John have it in the manner which he is accustomed to dishing out.
As for the rest, it is plain that the things I’ve said so far are not engaged, in favor of making insulting references to things (about me) which have no bearing here and I didn’t introduce. It would be great if someone would actually recognize points I’ve made and respond, but that clearly isn’t going to happen. I did not come to defend the gun lobby, I’ve said so many times. So I think I’m done here, no point in continuing.
LikeLike
Oh please. Here is your comment:
madblog on July 13, 2016 at 10:43 am said:
“The idiots in their Congress (Repuiblicans, of course) voted down a bill to restrict the sale of weapons to people on Terror Watch Lists.
Re-read that.”
Link please? This is exactly the sort of nonsense I’m talking about. The problem: It didn’t happen.Nothing remotely like it happened. Really, fellow bloggers, you’re hearing a lot of sensationalized crap. Please be more discerning.
You called it “nonsense,” and I proved you wrong. Or what, every newspaper reporting on the senate vote got it wrong? You are the sole purveyor of truth, Madblog?
Give me a break.
LikeLike
Like the rest of the pious banning cabal, Madblog states her beliefs and accusations as if facts and, when challenged or corrected by facts, refuses to alter them. If one continues to try, then she becomes even more strident but adds the spice of dismissiveness into the mix with more moderation. Any further corrective responses are interpreted by Madblog to be examples of unsolicited rudeness and meanness and vindictiveness, resulting in what she interprets to be her unfair persecution… especially if they come from some godless baby killing heathen, but a burdensome cost that is the result of her piousness and one she bears with a sense of victimhood. She is never wrong, just a sinful yet meek Seeker of Truth (TM)… a truth from divine insight into all her claims, of course, but also granted to like-minded believers who share her piety and ever-so-humble self-righteousness.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Her anger is somewhat strange considering there are headlines that read:
“Almost Every GOP Senator Just Voted to Keep Letting Terror Suspects Buy Guns”
and
“GOP blocks bill to stop terrorists from buying guns”
and you have direct quotes from Senator’s, such as this:
“If you need proof that Congress is a hostage to the gun lobby, look no further than today’s vote blocking a bill to prevent known or suspected terrorists from buying guns and explosives” (Sen Feinstein)
I know Fox News viewers live in a derranged bubble of misinformation, but her position is just staggeringly bizarre given those awkward things called facts.
LikeLike
Okay, I am genuinely sorry the discussion didn’t progress anywhere useful on either side. I think it’s a genuine communication block in terms of how we process information.
You told John that his comment about Republicans blocking gun control legislation for people on the terror watchlist was incorrect (“It didn’t happen.Nothing remotely like it happened.”). Of course, it DID happen, exactly as he stated. Whether you think the terror watchlist is nonsense, or whether you think Republicans will go on to find a better way of stopping guns falling in terrorists hands, is your opinion, but unfortunately has nothing to do with the factual nature of John’s statement. And I think we all got caught up in trying to make that point about the nature of facts to you, but it seemed to be invisible to you. It’s odd from our point of view, but I can understand everyone sees things differently.
So, I’m sorry if you felt under attack here, and I hope it won’t deter you from jumping in on any future posts that catch your interest. 😀
LikeLiked by 1 person
From my perspective, it was abundantly clear that no one here was even reading my responses to John’s statement. It was exactly as if my explanations were completely ignored. No one engaged with a single sentence of mine save the one he kept copying for us over and over.But that didn’t stop anyone from heaping on as though I had said nothing in response. I had real answers there and it was an opportunity to converse.
I don’t really see what the point of entering into this environment again would accomplish. Thanks.
LikeLike
From my perspective, it was abundantly clear that no one here was even reading my responses to John’s statement.
Not true. Again.
I was.
The points you raised did not justify the factually incorrect claims you made, the claims John took issue with, the claims you were shown many times over were indisputably incorrect. You absolutely refused to admit it but continued to avoid taking responsibility for your obvious errors and tried (and STILL try) to pretend the problem of you refusing to admit what’s true lies elsewhere, with others, and that’s its motivation is to be mean.
How dishonest!
Oh, poor wittow you… so misunderstood (we understand just fine), so picked on (yes, brute facts are so… well… brutish), so victimized (imagine, the gall of other people actually caring about what’s true rather than go along with your deceitful beliefs repackaged as if immune from reality’s facts).
Yes, Madblog, once again you are the victim. But what you won’t wrap your head around is the fact that you are deserving of contemptuous treatment because you treat facts with such blatant contempt and dismissal. You cannot seem to summon forth the intestinal fortitude to admit that you were wrong, that you claims were factually wrong, as if the sky will fall and the world will shatter should you ‘lower’ yourself to the same standards of respecting what’s true that so many others submit to willingly.
But not you. No way. You’re too special a snowflake (what with God Himself whispering insight into your selected ears… [But I’m not worthy, Lord! Look how humble I am!). Everyone else should treat you and your diversionary comments (meant to avoid the issue of you getting your facts confused with your incorrect beliefs) with respect and just go along with your exemption… because you deserve it, of course. I mean, God Himself selected you – humble as you are – so hey, we should too and presume your disregard for facts is perfectly reasonable and quite acceptable.
Umm… no.
The problem here, Madblog, is not with others. It is entirely with and on you.
By all means let’s have an adult conversation, but that involves you giving up your demand for special privileging from facts. Without accepting that ground rule, your comments are without truth value. AT ALL. They are devoid of any intellectual integrity and lack any respect for what is the case; rather, they just become bullhorn pronouncements of your beliefs imposed on a reality we share accompanied by a demand by you that we treat them with equivalent respect to what’s actually the case. Ain’t gunna happen, ever, except by mewling apologists who are willing to forego their own respect for reality and grant to you the privilege you demand.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That was a bit rude ,Tildeb. I think she read John’s comment and (assuming she did know about the situation) felt the whole story wasn’t represented by such a simple statement. When you read, for example, the spin that Fox News take on the events, John’s statement would be seen as ‘misleading’ as it makes the reader draw different conclusions those a Fox viewer is invited to belief. It’s all about the frame you have around facts, and her frame is different to ours. So while I find it odd she couldn’t acknowledge that, I can see that the tone of the conversation didn’t lend itself to anyone giving ground, or even caring about what the other person was trying to say.
LikeLike
Only a bit? The whole thing is rude… if, by rude, you mean challenging someone with facts who dismisses them not because they are invalid but because they don’t align with one’s beliefs. Yes, indeed: very rude.
And this goes to the heart of my criticism of Madblog’s commentary methodology shared by her cabal: she brooks no criticism from reality. It’s not a question of ‘framing’; it’s a question of integrity and honesty. Without those, I do offer contempt to a commentator who says she desires respect for her contribution but is unwilling to offer it to commentary saddled by inconvenient facts and troubling questions.
According to Madblog, all media that reported the bill’s demise because of the popularity of gun ownership and the lobbying influence of the NRA is “rank propaganda.” Again, hundreds of millions of handguns and tens of millions of long gun automatic weapons legally dispersed through the population is not a factor at all, apparently. Any use of media to counter Madblog’s claim that “No John, the stories are nonsense just as I said” isn’t just framed a particular way: it a method to deny any evidence counter to her claim if it comes reported in ‘media’.
How conveeenient… for Madblog.
John claimed that if the country cannot reform it’s automatic weapons gun law in the wake of Sandy Hook, then it’s probably never going to happen because the population respects their right to gun ownership more (and by demonstration of defeating almost every attempt to regulate gun ownership) than rights of children to live and go to school without any need apparently for legal protection from being shot by one of these hundreds of millions of dispersed a legally purchased firearms. Even the bullets have failed to fall under reasonable regulation. So it’s not surprising, according to John, that trying to legally curtail obtaining automatic weapons by those on the terror watch list would fail as well. John’s unspoken point is that if the political capital cannot be accrued from the mass killing of children, then likely terrorists would be too heavily burdened to have legal regulations impede them from arming themselves for some future mass killing, either.
According to Madblog who says she’s no advocate for the gun lobby (there a Red Flag), his point is a fiction, is a product of buying into propaganda, of falling for the media’s intention to deceive. Not Madblog, of course…. she can see through the Left Wing media fog and get at The Truth (TM). Her argument revolves around the point she thinks has not been reported in the media that the bill failed because it goes against the principle of having the right to a well armed militia (interpreted by non-Wild West Americans Supreme Court Justices to be the right for individuals – including suspected terrorists and terrorist sympathizers – to arm themselves however they see fit). She then claims that the perception of a ‘Wild West’ mentality by Americans to justify this massive gun ownership by the civilian population of the United States determined to avoid any reasonable restrictions on firearms and ammunition available to the general public designed for maximum kill potential over the shortest time possible is actually a Left Wing media fiction.
Now, this goes far beyond how an issue is framed. It delves into making claims that are factually incorrect and offers no counterbalance to the points raised by John. Madbolog, as she does on her own blog when challenged by compelling contrary evidence, simply declares that this mountain of evidence is nonsense and waves it away. Challenging that assertion leads her into claiming victimhood. She’s right on script. And so on.
There is no means to have a reasonable and rational discussion with such a person who uses this methodology to protect her beliefs – no matter what they are, no matter how they are framed – from honest inquiry.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I understand all that, Tildeb. But we don’t even have a chance of reaching middle ground or understanding each other when the conversation veers off into the realm of rude and personal insults. Madblog is one of the few who would venture over to give her opinion, and from the point of view that is key (I expect) in all of this – not the gun toting NRA fanatic, but what appears to be a passive supporter. I think it would have been interesting to discuss her views further, rather than put stakes in the ground and hurl insults from opposite ends of the field.
Not massively constructive, and kind of disappointing from someone who works in education. 😉 (I really enjoyed that dig!)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Who planted the first peg? I believe it was this statement:
Link please? This is exactly the sort of nonsense I’m talking about. The problem: It didn’t happen.Nothing remotely like it happened.
It didn’t happen? None of it happened? Nonsense?
Pantomime world’s must be me met with rational rebuttals. And no one was rude. One doesn’t have to be rude (or lie, like Madblog does, regularly) when one is correct 🙂
LikeLike
Hmm, disagree. Tildeb’s last comment was a sarcastic and sneering patronising rant. That’s rude in my book.
LikeLike
Last one, sure, but well-deserving, I think.
LikeLike
I don’t agree, she simply didn’t get it. And she wasn’t left with anything to ponder, just a sense she had been wronged.
LikeLike
A lot of that going on inside the evangelical world…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Although I think your criticism of my tone is fair, I would prefer it to be qualified as ‘contempt’ which I think includes the others and I come by it honestly. Doesn’t mean I have to say it, however, but I think it serves those who might wish to take Madblog’s ‘request’ to heart when she asks us “fellow bloggers, you’re hearing a lot of sensationalized crap. Please be more discerning.” Well, my commentary IS just that: more discerning because it is filled with justifiable contempt for Madblog’s tone, style, content, and method.
LikeLike
She’s right on script.
Amen to that.
LikeLike
(sorry for the ugly typos, now (mostly) rectified, I need to proofread before I send …)
LikeLike
“The Republican-led Senate on Monday voted down proposals to bar gun sales to terrorism suspects, notching another victory for gun rights advocates eight days after a gunman who had been on an FBI terrorism watch list killed 49 people at a nightclub in Orlando, Fla.”
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-gun-votes-20160620-snap-story.html
“Almost Every GOP Senator Just Voted to Keep Letting Terror Suspects Buy Guns”
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/06/gun-safety-measures-defeated-senate-republicans-orlando
“GOP blocks bill to stop terrorists from buying guns”
“If you need proof that Congress is a hostage to the gun lobby, look no further than today’s vote blocking a bill to prevent known or suspected terrorists from buying guns and explosives” (Sen Feinstein)
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/gop-blocks-bill-stop-terrorists-buying-guns
I could go on, but really, what’s the point…
LikeLike
And Madblog, there are only 47,000 people on the No-fly list.
But no, Republicans ensured these people must be able to purchase assault weapons. Their right to kill with guns must be preserved.
LikeLike
Madblog, John is saying that when one is factually wrong as you are in this case, one readily admits it. He’s even provided an example because you seem a little slow to grasp the idea. You’re so dishonest recognizing when your beliefs do not mesh with compelling evidence from reality that you can’t even do that much. That’s why you earn allies like CS who suffer from the same faith-fueled colossal arrogance and intellectual hypocrisy. This method you think armors you against making factual mistakes makes you in fact foolish.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh then there must be one other person in Brazil who visits my blog about every four days. Sorry I thought it was you.
You’re = you are
your = possesive, belongs to you
LikeLike
I haven’t been to your site since you banned me.
Why would i bother? I’m certainly not missing anything by not reading your fact-less pantomines.
LikeLike
“…sorry Raut, your crown is temporarily in the wrong hands…” How do you mean wrong? You are the power behind the throne and you choose who is worthy. For what its worth, I think Tildebs comment was better than any of mine ever.
As to the subject at hand, as I have expressed even here before, I would propably arm myself with a gun, if I ever lived in the USA. It is obvious, that there are far too many guns and it is far too easy to get a gun over there, for me to rely on their police alone. Why should I, since so many of them do not rely on their own police to be able to protect them? I have the advantage of being trained to use guns relatively safely, so as to not get shot by a todler, or even a dog weilding my own gun. As I have understood happens on a more or less regular basis to the US gun owning citizens. A nother benefit I happen to have, without any achievement of my own, is that were I ever to live in the US I would not be racially profiled by the US quite obviously inadequately educated and somewhat rightly fearfull US police force.
Here in Finland we have more guns per capita, than people in the US, but it is fairly regulated who gets one. Most of our guns are for hunting and no gun permits are given to anyone for self protection. That is what we have the police for. Our police have to have a training of several years before they are let out on the street, to do their job, and not just some six months training, like in the US. No wonder they do not trust their police and want to own a gun to protect themselves. There are a lot of illegal guns and among them even military guns around here too, but not too many people get killed by gun related violence. Most who do are infact suicides. I for one think, it is as much about the rather egalitarian society we have as it is about gun awailability. Our poor have social safety nets to fall on to unlike ever dreamed of in the US. And yes, I think it is also about the culture of how guns are percieved. The US seems like the “wild west” looking at it from here. If people do not feel idiotic defending easy access to guns, by saying that they need the guns to protect themselves – ie. to shoot at other people – the logic is the same as with the vigillantes in superhero stories and indeed in wild west stories.
Yet, when I critizise the US for having bad gun culture and a weak police force, it does not mean we have everything peachy here either. We have had these gun related siege situations, where a dude armed with an illegal gun has to be besieged by the police. We have even had a few school shootings here too over the past decades.
A couple of days ago, there was a news event here as a popular Finnish musical artist James Nikander alias “Musta Barbaari” posted on twitter about the police behaviour towards his mother and sister who had been singled out by some plain clothes officers, from a taxi queue after a night out in a bar, on the basis of “illegal immigration control”. He and his sister are Finnish citizens like their father and their mother is from Tansania and yes they are “black”. Apparently the plain clothes officers had demanded for them to show passports, and when they had none to produce they had been handcuffed. But there is no law in Finland that you need to carry around your passport, if you are a Finnish national or currently reciding in Finland, nor for any ohter sort of identification documents. Later when a uniform unit had arrived at the scene, one of the plain clothes officers could not even present his police ID card, so it was an embarrasing event for the police all in all. Yet it means there are racist willing to use legal loopholes to try to racially profile people on the street, when they do some sort of immigration controll. There is an investigation by the bureau of prosecution on the police behaviour on the matter now going on, so, maybe we will shall have better information about the events later on. To make things worse, one of our most right wing parliamentary representatives made comments about the news in the social media, and told the artist, that people should “move back home”, if they are not satisfied on how things are done in Finland. It was extremely stupid, not just because he was actually born in Finland, and by the way, has served in the Finnish army, but even more so, because what sort of logic is that supposed to be? If someone actually ever, regardless wether they came from the outside to join a nation or were a natural born citizen, told that nation has something wrong about how, for example, their police force treats citizens, would it not benefit the nation to evaluate wether the claim is true on , instead of trying to brush it off by saying this is how we do things good, or bad and take it or leave it? Is that not the picture of conservative tribal moralism and stupidity?
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s frightening, poor people. And to get that kind of reaction from a politician is simply shocking. There’s a horrible rise in the social acceptability of racism in Europe at the moment, couched in ‘concern’ about effects of immigration. I’m dismayed to say the least.
As for your declaration that you would probably have a gun if you lived in the USA – !!?**??! It only takes one person to have a gun because everyone else allegedly has them …
LikeLike
Indeed, the rise of open expression of racistic fear mongering is staggering in Europe. In the USA, it seems racial profiling is an everyday situation, not only used by the police, but by the entire society. People over there do not seem to see each others as simply individuals, but all the time as representatives of some sort of racial or ethnic demographies. That sort of evaluation of other people by appearance tends to lead to worse and worse situations, and this applies to other differences between individuals just as well. If we are constantly evaluated by our appearance be it our tone of skin, colour of hair or eyes, height, or weight, the end result seems to be segragation and no surprice there at the end of the lane what awaits us is suffering.
Yes, if I lived in the US I would buy a gun. But it does not mean I would support the “freedom to bear arms” notion. I honestly think their problem with the guns is not just the guns. The racial profiling, the poor education and deep religiosity as a result of it, the deep division between social classes, the dissonance between the ideals of self made men and the reality of very little if any possibility for social movement and the pressures of marketed needs commercialism brainwashes people to have, are the reasons that lead to the dire straits where they are now with their gun problems. Even the imperialistic policies they have towards the rest of the world are part of the scenario, wich – sadly so – makes them blind to the facts. But none of the other problems serve as excuses to the stupid laws and culture about guns.
Yet, if I had to live in a country with so many problems and a free weilding gun culture, I sure would not want to be the only dude in town who has no gun. Removing the problem would not start from me becoming the victim of these idiots. I would not present myself as the martyr to my ideals. I value my life too much. Especially since the crowd around me is deluded almost to the point where they think that getting shot is your own fault, if you did not carry a gun to shoot first…
In most civilized countries people can rely on the police for protection. Clearly this is not the case in the US, as so many citizens genuinely present the case that they feel the need to own a gun to protect themselves from other citizens who have guns. Even when they have no clue as to how dangerous property a gun is. Clearly the current and previous US governments have agreed that the police force is too weak to deal with rampant crime and that the genral population should be armed to the teeth to be able to protect themselves, even if it is on the cost of criminals and mentally unstable individuals having equally easy access to military type fire arms as everybody else and even if it is on the cost of thousands of accidental gun related deaths of innocent bystanders, family members of the typical good willing gun owning citizens. Even the harsh use of force by the police and related racial profiling including deaths that necessarily follow this combination have been seen for ages as a social norm they in general as a society accept as the result of their police force being totally unable to tackle with armed criminals. Right?
Yet with all the good US citizens armed with a gun, how much violence has that stopped? How often do we read, from a good US citizen having shot an armed criminal before the inadequate police even arrived at the scene of crime? Maybe such news reports are frequent in the US? Somehow I do doubt it. As it happens, self educated gun owners do not seem to be the most efficient force to stop crime. But they are very good at shooting each others, family members and other more or less innocent bystanders by accident. Just buying a gun and having taken a few shots at the target rounds may give an individual the illusion of safety, but it is equal to an illusion of freedom from buying a motorbike and having a couple of “cold rides” on it within the safety of your own garage. The emotional appeal may work, but the difference is, that while stored in your garage the motorbike is not a lethal weapon.
No, I am not suggesting that everybody in the US should start to spend a lot of time to learn how to use their guns more effectively, though it might be a start, that it would be required, that people who do buy guns first have a clue as to how dangerous a property a gun is and what are the related risks. Obviously a very large portion of them have no clue at all.
To me, it seems, the major problem in this issue is, that a very high number of the US voters have not grasped the reality of it. As some comments abowe prove, there are people in the US who do not realize how serious of a problem they are facing, how the culture of violence begets violence and no matter how well you arm yourself, it does not make you in any way invoulnerable, or even less likely to become a victim of violence in a culture of easy access to firearms. The better armed the all citizens are the less able the police infact are to do their job. Before people can go out to solve a problem, they first need to recognize that they have a problem in the first place.
LikeLike
Before people can go out to solve a problem, they first need to recognize that they have a problem in the first place.
Aye, there’s the rub. And it’s not a neutral one.
How do we know we even have a problem? By its pernicious effects on all of us.
So, what do we do? Two things: we figure out a goal that we think might alleviate the problem while addressing its symptoms in ways that align with achieving that goal.
Seems pretty straightforward, doesn’t it? It’s not.
It never ceases to amaze me how many adults never really think about what the major goal is of their actions and so they haven’t the first clue how to align their activities and behaviours in order to move towards obtaining it. A perfect example is asking parents – seeking help because of challenges from their child’s behaviour – what their final goal is for that child. They have forgotten the maxim ‘To a ship without a destination, no wind is favourable.’ What is happening is that parents are reacting rather than proacting. Understanding the difference of what the problem actually is – there is no parental goal for that child – rather than constantly addressing its many and varied symptoms makes all the difference in parenting effect.
When contrary facts are excluded or rationalized away from our consideration that don’t fit the preferred narrative, then a problem often becomes confused and synonymous with its symptoms. To make matters worse, problem solvers and symptom alleviators (I just made that word up) tend to follow their media examples (“To talk about this issue, we have two guests: for and against….”) and divide themselves into political and social camps. What usually ensues is camp spokespeople who address the topic of the now seemingly insoluble hydra-headed problem by placing blame with and vilifying the Other camp followers for not dealing with these symptoms but not those symptoms while the core problem merrily continues to go unaddressed and continues to wreak havoc. (Again, think of how many parents allow their union to dissolve amidst accusations and blame for their child’s ongoing and increasingly disruptive behaviour.) Think of climate change, vaccinations, alternative medicine, conspiracies, religions, and a depressingly growing list of similar and very important pernicious problems.
There’s a reason good public education has ‘problem solving’ embedded throughout its curriculum. But even here we have a core problem: assuming all problems are the same kind that actually has a right and wrong ‘answer’. Differentiating what kind of problem we have is really important. There’s the kind that has a single correct answer (but only within axiomatic systems like math and logic and engineering) from those that do not (like healthcare, politics, social change, child development, and so on). Problem solving is actually an ongoing process in the latter and does not contain a single answer. Solutions to social problems is not a single thing, not an event… in real life. It’s a process towards a goal, a process filled with imperfections and mistakes and errors that requires patience, dedication, and a willingness to try alternative approaches, tailoring chosen actions by its real world effects. Real life, in other words.
So if one doesn’t first allow reality to be the guide, the arbiter, of judging our actions, if one doesn’t have a goal to address a problem, if one doesn’t even admit there is a problem to be addressed, if one confuses symptoms with core problems, then one is guaranteed not just to fail but do their part to maintain a core problem. One must then accept responsibility for its pernicious ongoing effects.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Not being super clued-up on US politics and especially their rather weird attitude to gun laws/ ownership I am now confused ( easily done) by the responses from Madblog in this regard
Is she:
1. Defending the NRA/ (Majority)Republican view on this matter?
2. Suggesting that the reports concerning blocking legislation have been wildly exaggerated?
She also mentioned that certain new laws on gun control would be brought in soon with the tacit implication this legislation is imminent.
”We are in fact very close to enacting much stricter gun control.”
Can anyone tell me what these laws might be?
LikeLiked by 1 person
My suspicion is that she doesn’t have guns and isn’t a member of the NRA so considers herself not to be a supporter of gun things. However, she is a Republican, so she is naturally inclined to feel sympathy for the notion that the USA needs lots of guns available to everyone (even though she probably can’t articulate why).
So, she arrived here furious that I suggested people in the USA are deluded about guns, but couldn’t express why she’s not one of them, and got in a tangle about Republican arguments that she doesn’t actually believe. Luckily for her, people were so rude about her general ignorance on the matter, that she could easily flounce of in a huff before she herself had to the face the fact that nothing she had said made sense.
I do hope she comes back to finish the discussion and prove me wrong. 🙂
LikeLike
Ironically, the Republican national convention bans all firearms.
Wouldn’t everyone there, including the Donald, feel so much safer if every delegate came toting some kind of automatic rifle with extended cartridges and hollow point bullets, a couple of sidearms, maybe a frag grenade or two, and perhaps a few 18″ hunting knives?
Now, banning cast iron frying pans I understand (they can be lethal), but guns for safety? Go figure.
LikeLike
It’s become amongst friends they don’t need their weapons. A show of love, if you will. 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
I have something, um, special for you — an article written by a pro-gun psychiatrist (I thought at first it was a satire): http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/ragingagainstselfdefense.htm
Goes to show ya two things (at least):
1. how deeply entrenched is the love of guns in the psyche of American ammosexuals;
2. how misguided mental health professionals can be.
But I thought you’d appreciate it, as it gives a glimpse of this unique culture (which I, a European transplant, will likely never understand despite spending most of my life here) and the assorted cognitive distortions that feed it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ammosexuals? Oh, that’s too funny not to shamefully steal.
LikeLiked by 1 person
By all means. I stole it myself, so this makes it alright. 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for that, Emma.
Ah, the good doctor Thompson selling her misinformation again, I see. Those who stand against widespread gun ownership without any ties to a regulated militia she conveniently labeled as ‘hoplophobic’, namely, an irrational fear of guns. And because a doctor says it, it sounds all medical-like, right?
Turns out, hoplophobia is “a political neologism coined by retired American military officer Jeff Cooper as a pejorative to describe an “irrational aversion to weapons.” It is also used to describe the “fear of firearms” or the “fear of armed citizens.” Hoplophobia is a political term and not a recognized medical phobia.”
So why does The Donald and all them thar delegates to that there RNC not want every delegate, every protester, every BLM advocate, every Tea Partier (where did they all go?), every Muslim, every nut job in Cleveland, armed to the teeth for the Big Wah Who!? ThThose organizers and senior Republicans must all suffer from a sudden onset of hoplophobia, right doctor Thompson?
LikeLiked by 3 people
Pffff… I like guns and I like shooting, but I do not see myself as suffering from a case of ammosexuality. I sure do not suffer from any “hoplophobia”, but it does, nor should it mean, I support the political notion, that every idiot, mentally unstable and every criminal should have an easy access to firearms. Honestly speaking, that idea is just stupid. Am I allowed to call people who support such nonsense idiots, or does that simply lead to a situation where the idiots refuse to hear me out, or even look at the evidence in reality by themselves?
I guess, the republican party convention organizers have understood, that the notion of every willing citizen carrying a gun is actually not a very good idea at all. What I wonder about, is how stupid are their voters to be unable to recognize nonsense, when it is as blatant as in this case? I mean economics are complex and difficult to predict, and I understand that there are various parties of intellectual people who have different views on what might be the best policy about future economics, but this!!! How obvious do things need to become, before such large masses are able to recognize the realities and how were they deluded in the first place? Appealing to fear seems to be a rather popular method of conservative and regressive policies around the globe in order to make people react, before they stop to think. And when people have reacted strongly on something, their reaction becomes part of their identity in such a way, that they feel every criticism of that reaction is a criticism of their persona, be it however obvious, that the reaction did nothing to solve the problem, wich was the cause of their fear.
LikeLike
Lordy lord, I’ve never heard of Thompson until now. I came upon this doozy by accident.
Hoplophobia, eh? I’ll be darned. The more we know.
I have a post in the works on the psychiatry’s collusion with political power — nothing new, of course, but somewhat relevant in this age of Trump — and will include the good doctors in it IF I manage to finish it. (sigh)
And, for the record, I am all for the ammosexuals bringing ALL their weapons to the Republican convention. If not there, then where would they so ably demonstrate their usefulness? It’s a wasted opportunity, is what it is.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Oh my goodness! I never realised I’m a “misguided advocate of victim disarmament”. I’m wanting all the wrong things for my country, clearly. 🙂
Thanks for the link, I suspect it’s going to generate a post or two. At a glance, an absolute classic!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Don’t forget about the rage. Anti-gunners suffer from (irrational, of course) rage.
LikeLike