Masked gunman kills 14 at Batman premiere in Denver

  On 7/21/2012 at 5:51 PM, The Overlook said:

  Quote

All it would have taken was one prepared, capable individual to stand up...

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

 

LOL!

  On 7/21/2012 at 5:53 PM, The Overlook said:

http://www.harpers.o...07/hbc-90008724

 

  Quote

Compare that to the coverage and conversation after Anders Behring Breivik murdered sixty-nine people on the island of Utøya in Norway, a year ago next Sunday. Nobody focused on the gun. I had a hard time learning from the news reports what type of gun he used. Nobody asked, “How did he get a gun?” That seemed strange, because it’s much harder to get a gun in Europe than it is here. But everybody, even the American media, seemed to understand that the heart of the Utøya massacre story was a tragically deranged man, not the rifle he fired. Instead of wringing their hands over the gun Breivik used, Norwegians saw the tragedy as the opening to a conversation about the rise of right-wing extremism in their country.

 

  Quote

It’s true that America’s rate of violent crime remains higher than that in most European countries. But to focus on guns is to dodge a painful truth. America is more violent than other countries because Americans are more violent than other people. Our abundant guns surely make assaults more deadly. But by obsessing over inanimate pieces of metal, we avoid looking at what brings us more often than others to commit violent acts. Many liberal critics understand this when it comes to drug policy. The modern, sophisticated position is that demonizing chemicals is a reductive and ineffective way to address complicated social pathologies. When it comes to gun violence, though, the conversation often stops at the tool, because it is more comfortable to blame it than to examine ourselves.

I really disagree with this line of thinking. Let's imagine for a moment it was possible for everyone to carry a pocket nuclear device with a few block's blast radius. Would you argue that everyone should have the right to carry one because it would be a good deterrent against al qaeda? Hell, we could even take them on planes so that if terrorists tried to take one over, we could detonate it mid-flight before it could crash into any tall buildings. I doubt anyone would support this line of reasoning. Why? Because the weapon does matter. How lethal it is.

Think about how we've voluntarily pulled back from the brink of nuclear war. We've reduced stockpiles. Yes, we know how to make nukes. But we no longer feel the need to continue on a suicidal course. I think we should show the same mental evolution regarding guns, or at the very least, assault rifles. But I'd prefer it for all guns. Yes, there would still be psychos, but the damage they could inflict would be far more limited.

Believe me, we'd all feel a lot safer. And the only ones who would miss them would be the enthusiasts and the guys with small dicks. Small price to pay imo. Could leave the guns in video games where they belong

The argument of the essay, however, isn't that the tool is irrelevant. It's that "the conversation often stops" there. I think the point is important and will be quickly lost in the gun control zzzzzzz debate.

  On 7/21/2012 at 6:23 PM, usagi said:

  On 7/21/2012 at 5:16 PM, auxien said:

yes civilians would be able to hold their own. people currently in the military account for approximately 1% of the population, if that much. yes the people in the military (assuming they would each and every one continue following orders handed down by their superiors) have, in general, more advanced weapons, and surely many at their disposal. not many tanks owned in the private sector (unless RDJ wants to bring his over here to fight for the American people!). not many missiles or large explosives either. but the sheer number of people who could take up arms would be able to at least put up a hell of a fight.

 

in the end victory would likely be dependent on a couple of things. mainly, if the military, and particularly the members of that military, saw issues with killing thousands of American citizens. which i think would be very possible. it would also be dependent on how many citizens would die in order to overpower their government in that fight. if you really are in Australia i think it's safe to say i know more Americans than you do, and if it came down to such a terrible confrontation, many would lay down their lives for what they believe was right for America as a whole. the Civil War only happened about 150 years ago....3% of our population at the time died. the spirit that sent all those people to combat, many of them to death, is still in many of the people in America, despite what it may seem at times.

 

whether the notion we still have would truly work in that situation, who knows. i hope we never have to find out. but that's one of the main points of logic for personal arms ownership nonetheless.

 

yeah, I dunno, I still don't quite buy it. wouldn't it more about the training and organisation than the numbers? an army of clueless (i.e. untrained in warfare, never mind that you own/can shoot a gun) civilians would be destroyed by co-ordinated combat-experienced soldiers with field support. I think I just gave some knob at Infinity Ward the next CoD idea.

 

anyway, this is all some theoretical shit. I am in Australia and I've never visited the US, so I'm just projecting how I think it would turn out. I'm not doubting that a good number of valiant US citizens would put up a fight, I just reckon that they'd be slaughtered in any case, so the "right to bear arms" thing doesn't make sense to me because... well, they'd all die anyhow. but at least they'd be able to put up a fight. but they'd die anyway. but they'd die fighting. but...

well the training and organization would certainly be a factor, as chen fleshes out below. but sheer numbers would be important as well, and could have a certain advantage.

yeah, this is all very hypothetical, luckily. i may be projecting my own personal thoughts of the general American populace a little farther than i should even, but in the area of the US i'm in, this is a pretty truthful view of the ideology of most.

as for your 'right to bear arms, get slaughtered, but put up a fight, but die anyway....' thing, i'd have to call back to old American ideals again. give me liberty or give me death. or to quote The Clash with a more modern way of looking at it,

  Quote

When they kick at your front door

How you gonna come?

With your hands on your head

Or on the trigger of your gun

 

When the law break in

How you gonna go?

Shot down on the pavement

Or waiting on death row

i've no idea if that was the intended meaning of those lines, but that's how it comes across to me. and for the record i don't even own a gun.

  On 7/21/2012 at 6:48 PM, chenGOD said:

Well, one way to think about it is look at how effective the US forces have been in Iraq/Afghanistan. Yes, they're very good at killing civilians, but fighting the actual insurgents? And the insurgents are probably less better armed than a lot of the militia groups in the States.

Additionally, many of the militia groups in the states contain ex-military (and if they can get John Rambo, they're golden), who would have had some training and have knowledge of how basic combat tactics work.

Finally, there's the psychological factor - yes the US military could win, if they use all of their technological superiority (and I don't mean nukes) - much like the only way they were beating the Vietnamese in the end was by using scorched earth sort of tactics. Now it's one thing to do that against "gooks" or "towel-heads", but how many of the military would be willing to turn those advanced weapons against their fellow US citizens? Sure there would be some (the US military is a great place for psychopaths to hide), but would there be enough?

So while I think the military could win in a civil war, I don't think it would be as clear cut a victory as it seems. And of course, the possibility of a long, drawn out affair is very real, with no clear winner emerging.

all very good points, much more fleshed out than what i tried for. i'm sure there's alternate-history-fiction or at least some recorded thoughts of plans of action somewhere online that would better illustrate what could happen...but i think the muddled ending pretty much sums it up.

people will genuinely lose touch between the film joker and the real joker

  On 7/21/2012 at 7:40 PM, The Overlook said:

The argument of the essay, however, isn't that the tool is irrelevant. It's that "the conversation often stops" there. I think the point is important and will be quickly lost in the gun control zzzzzzz debate.

this

  On 7/21/2012 at 7:40 PM, The Overlook said:

The argument of the essay, however, isn't that the tool is irrelevant. It's that "the conversation often stops" there. I think the point is important and will be quickly lost in the gun control zzzzzzz debate.

heh, probably should read before talking out my ass. Does the conversation really stop there, though? In my experience, the media loves to try and "find out why." Of course they go the most facile route: video games, rock music, devil worship.

Seems to me in any population sample there will always be X% psychos, so this sort of thing is completely natural and probably not based on any larger societal trends. Which brings the issue back around to the guns.

a three month old baby was shot and killed

WHAT WAS THE NEXT JOKE PIC YOU FUCKS ARE GOING TO PUT UP?

l

a

s

t

p

o

s

t

  On 7/21/2012 at 11:10 PM, Atop said:

a three month old baby was shot and killed

 

WHAT WAS THE NEXT JOKE PIC YOU FUCKS ARE GOING TO PUT UP?

 

l

a

s

t

 

p

o

s

t

its the internet man. the internet has no decency. its an unrestricted anonymous subconscious desirefest.

I know man and I respect you.

A lot of folks on watmm need to check their humanity.

you cant force genuine emotional response atop, it's something that happened far away (for most of people) and will have no effect on their life, yeah its horrible but you can easily find much more horrible things that happened that very day.

baby deaths are overrated anyway, they barely have any connection to the world, and they don't really have a conscience either. basically barely a human being. it's just that they are completely innocent, that's what gets people.

I know horrible things are happening every second of every day.

We shouldn't support it though.

Laughing at something laughable is one thing but making jokes about this, the day after, is very insensitive.

To the point of it being sociopathic behaviour.

We all die.

To die this way though?

Sorry, man.

  On 7/21/2012 at 11:10 PM, Atop said:

a three month old baby was shot and killed

 

WHAT WAS THE NEXT JOKE PIC YOU FUCKS ARE GOING TO PUT UP?

 

l

a

s

t

 

p

o

s

t

Really not trying to butt in here, but who the hell brings a 3 month old baby to a midnight showing of a violent and loud movie?...

Just like all the wrongful tragedies that happen within the world, whether it be an ant colony being stepped on, a forest being destroyed and killing tons of wildlife, or a bunch of humans dieing, I hope that they find better things drifting the cosmos and that all that awaits them in the next world is love and light.

i think offensive jokes are hilarious

Atop it's not sociopathic, it's a natural defense mechanism to not knowing how to process shocking information. People try to maintain a feeling of normalcy by joking about it.

You can argue it's inappropriate, but I wouldn't worry about the mental health of your fellow watmmer. Well, more than we all do already :)

i understand how it could upset you though.

if someone had made a joke like that in front of me offhand, id probably have my opinion of the man drastically lowered.

  On 7/21/2012 at 11:45 PM, Audioblysk said:

Really not trying to butt in here, but who the hell brings a 3 month old baby to a midnight showing of a violent and loud movie?...

 

Just like all the wrongful tragedies that happen within the world, whether it be an ant colony being stepped on, a forest being destroyed and killing tons of wildlife, or a bunch of humans dieing, I hope that they find better things drifting the cosmos and that all that awaits them in the next world is love and light.

Dying

  On 7/22/2012 at 12:05 AM, gmanyo said:

i think offensive jokes are hilarious

Hope the lithium helps.

  On 7/22/2012 at 12:11 AM, lumpenprol said:

Atop it's not sociopathic, it's a natural defense mechanism to not knowing how to process shocking information. People try to maintain a feeling of normalcy by joking about it.

 

You can argue it's inappropriate, but I wouldn't worry about the mental health of your fellow watmmer. Well, more than we all do already :)

You are right, it is simply stupidity and insensitivity but offensive to myself.

  On 7/22/2012 at 12:27 AM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

i understand how it could upset you though.

 

if someone had made a joke like that in front of me offhand, id probably have my opinion of the man drastically lowered.

Totally.

I have had acquaintances that I found out to be racist or misogynists and never associated with them again.

Life choices.

Make decent ones.

  On 7/22/2012 at 12:55 AM, Atop said:

  On 7/22/2012 at 12:05 AM, gmanyo said:

i think offensive jokes are hilarious

 

Hope the lithium helps.

irl lol

  On 7/21/2012 at 11:10 PM, Atop said:

a three month old baby was shot and killed

 

This is false... Fox News mis-reported this.

it's interesting to me how the timeframe for "offensive" memes and 4chan'y online jokes shrink everytime something like this happens. it doesn't really bother me that much personally (except i think it's a bit depressing in general), i just think it's insensetive to any family members of the dead that might come across it (even worse if they can't stop themselves from laughing at it i suppose). like after 9/11 it took months and months before stuff like that started to pop up online, and even then it was pretty shocking. these days it's down to less than 24 hours.

I really don't see it as anything but more people active online and better tools for information to spread virally, so more of it is present around us, but it's not conclusive to assume that society is becoming less sympathetic because of the internet.

  On 7/22/2012 at 1:49 AM, compson said:

I really don't see it as anything but more people active online and better tools for information to spread virally, so more of it is present around us, but it's not conclusive to assume that society is becoming less sympathetic because of the internet.

Thank fuck somebody said this.

  On 7/22/2012 at 1:46 AM, data said:

it's interesting to me how the timeframe for "offensive" memes and 4chan'y online jokes shrink everytime something like this happens. it doesn't really bother me that much personally (except i think it's a bit depressing in general), i just think it's insensetive to any family members of the dead that might come across it (even worse if they can't stop themselves from laughing at it i suppose). like after 9/11 it took months and months before stuff like that started to pop up online, and even then it was pretty shocking. these days it's down to less than 24 hours.

I am pretty sure that it didn't take months after 9/11 before memes started showing up, my guess would be it took less than a week before the first things showed up.