[D'rek]

Well I disagree, but whatevs, we're not going to ever see eye-to-eye on this one.

[Tapper]

Silencer, on 02 June 2019 - 11:32 PM, said:

All I can say, D'rek, is you appear to be vastly overestimating the efficacy of civilian soldiers and underestimating the devastation of modern military hardware. Carpet bombing one city would wipe out your civilians while they're storming buildings.

That sort of uprising would simply not work. Hence why I focused on guerrilla warfare and why it also would not work.


To your point that it doesn't matter what you think - again, it does. Playing Devils Advocate for the perspective of these people lends them legitimacy and makes them more emboldened. Pointing out that their fantasy is unrealistic and doomed isn't just logical, it's helping.

And more importantly it's about taking excuses off the table. If armed rebellion against the suddenly tyrannical US government is accepted as impossible, as it should be, then the lie of why guns are "needed" is peeled back another layer. Eventually the excuses run out. But not when people entertain the delusion that enough guns can topple a modern military force the size of the US!

The question does remain whether or not the military *as a whole* would shoot with live ammunition at the citizens it is raised from and which it is sworn to protect.
This isn't a feudal retinue loyal to its lord, or a mercenary corps to its paymaster, nor a revolutionary army driven by ideology, like the French revolution or bolshevik ones.

Every time a unit would refuse to do so, more people will take to the street - and it will set a precedent for other units/commanders to pack up and leave or insist on reform, either internally or by joining the protests.

[Silencer]

Tapper, on 05 June 2019 - 06:31 AM, said:

Silencer, on 02 June 2019 - 11:32 PM, said:

All I can say, D'rek, is you appear to be vastly overestimating the efficacy of civilian soldiers and underestimating the devastation of modern military hardware. Carpet bombing one city would wipe out your civilians while they're storming buildings.

That sort of uprising would simply not work. Hence why I focused on guerrilla warfare and why it also would not work.


To your point that it doesn't matter what you think - again, it does. Playing Devils Advocate for the perspective of these people lends them legitimacy and makes them more emboldened. Pointing out that their fantasy is unrealistic and doomed isn't just logical, it's helping.

And more importantly it's about taking excuses off the table. If armed rebellion against the suddenly tyrannical US government is accepted as impossible, as it should be, then the lie of why guns are "needed" is peeled back another layer. Eventually the excuses run out. But not when people entertain the delusion that enough guns can topple a modern military force the size of the US!

The question does remain whether or not the military *as a whole* would shoot with live ammunition at the citizens it is raised from and which it is sworn to protect.
This isn't a feudal retinue loyal to its lord, or a mercenary corps to its paymaster, nor a revolutionary army driven by ideology, like the French revolution or bolshevik ones.

Every time a unit would refuse to do so, more people will take to the street - and it will set a precedent for other units/commanders to pack up and leave or insist on reform, either internally or by joining the protests.

Hence armed rebellion is actually unnecessary. If the military is unwilling to shoot the populace then what need for civilians to have so many guns? If a substantial portion of the military is not willing to suppress the population then who, exactly, are the people fighting? You don't need an m4 to drag your local politician onto the street. Moreover, I contend that the military of the USA would, by and large, actually not carry out tyrannical population suppression to the point they would do the overthrowing of the portion of the military that does. Hence no need for any m4s in the hands of the citizenry.
Hell, the more heavily armed the population is the more likely the military will shoot them, due to threat response (See the behaviour of US police offers "assuming" people are drawing guns and "firing out of fear").

[Nicodimas]

Silencer, on 05 June 2019 - 08:11 AM, said:

Tapper, on 05 June 2019 - 06:31 AM, said:

Silencer, on 02 June 2019 - 11:32 PM, said:

All I can say, D'rek, is you appear to be vastly overestimating the efficacy of civilian soldiers and underestimating the devastation of modern military hardware. Carpet bombing one city would wipe out your civilians while they're storming buildings.

That sort of uprising would simply not work. Hence why I focused on guerrilla warfare and why it also would not work.


To your point that it doesn't matter what you think - again, it does. Playing Devils Advocate for the perspective of these people lends them legitimacy and makes them more emboldened. Pointing out that their fantasy is unrealistic and doomed isn't just logical, it's helping.

And more importantly it's about taking excuses off the table. If armed rebellion against the suddenly tyrannical US government is accepted as impossible, as it should be, then the lie of why guns are "needed" is peeled back another layer. Eventually the excuses run out. But not when people entertain the delusion that enough guns can topple a modern military force the size of the US!

The question does remain whether or not the military *as a whole* would shoot with live ammunition at the citizens it is raised from and which it is sworn to protect.
This isn't a feudal retinue loyal to its lord, or a mercenary corps to its paymaster, nor a revolutionary army driven by ideology, like the French revolution or bolshevik ones.

Every time a unit would refuse to do so, more people will take to the street - and it will set a precedent for other units/commanders to pack up and leave or insist on reform, either internally or by joining the protests.

Hence armed rebellion is actually unnecessary. If the military is unwilling to shoot the populace then what need for civilians to have so many guns? If a substantial portion of the military is not willing to suppress the population then who, exactly, are the people fighting? You don't need an m4 to drag your local politician onto the street. Moreover, I contend that the military of the USA would, by and large, actually not carry out tyrannical population suppression to the point they would do the overthrowing of the portion of the military that does. Hence no need for any m4s in the hands of the citizenry.
Hell, the more heavily armed the population is the more likely the military will shoot them, due to threat response (See the behaviour of US police offers "assuming" people are drawing guns and "firing out of fear").

Most likely the military would be armed with modern mass non lethal weapons that would involve chemicals and sound weapons used on a populace in this style Silencer.

This is something we will probably see occur first in China( my theory) if their populace ever truly revolts. Pull the net. Grab the people and remove them from view. Looking at history it will be grim for these people if this occurs on a large scale. It has happened before and will happen again when you let a governmental system get large and powerful. The system will demand progress and certain people will need to go. In the modern world they will be efficiently ruthless and unforgiving. It will happen quick and by the time the military questions the orders given mostly likely the damage will be done.

Why kill people outright when you can erase people from existence with the use of modern tech. Combative's will mostly all start disappearing.quickly. It’s not really that hard to envision with the way a modern military works and efficiency a modern super computer works. Let’s put it this way the Algos exist and will formulate ways to do this precisely.

Don’t think about the scenario without just how ruthless modern technology draws into this argument.

Removing people’s ability to defend is not in anyone’s interests ever. People just don’t get how quick this will occur.

This post has been edited by Nicodimas: 16 June 2019 - 06:51 PM

[Macros]

China?

In China they will drag the leaders off in vans and they will vanish.
And they would not hesitate to turn the army lose on the people.

[Illuyankas]

"It will happen too quickly for any kind of defense to be mounted, rendering our guns worthles- oh shit this destroys my whole point about keeping guns at the cost of all those unnecessary deaths, oh well"

[Tiste Simeon]

So it seems a cop who was fired over a deadly shooting has been rehired for the sake of his pension. The man he shot was allegedly well within 2nd Amendment rights and the NRA are silent.

This dude on Reddit explains better than I could, and there's a link to an article about it too:
https://www.reddit.c...to_get/euawbwh/

[Tsundoku]

I'm sure most of us have seen this story, but I figured I'd put it on here just in case:

https://www.news.com...8a0c0600609e7c1

I add this brief article of unassailable logic:

https://www.theatlan...ception/595450/

What is so unique about the USA that it leads to so many gun deaths? Was Michael Moore on the right track with his talk of fear?
I do believe that alone among developed western nations, the USA is just supremely schizoid (for want of a better term). A country of extremes of ... everything.

Is it all just 'too much'?

I tend to view the appalling ease of access to be the biggest factor.

I could fly to Texas tomorrow, walk into a Walmart and buy a semi-auto with a bunch of high capacity magazines (plus ammo of all kinds), then get a bump stock kit from the net - all legal - and hey presto! Instant carnage! I'm also not a bad shot, and have better training than most spree killers. Maybe I could get myself some body armour as well? It's also not as if I'm unfamiliar with wearing it, and firing at moving targets at under 100m ranges. Or even 5-30m which is what would be typical at the locations these arseholes choose. Crowds. Narrow exits. Confusion. Panic.

That shit is scary.

[Tiste Simeon]

According the crap that Nico spews it's something to do with freedom?

[Cause]

Ease of access is certainly part of it. I think another major factor is that because their are so many and they are so highly publicized they encourage others to emulate them. For most people the idea of shooting random strangers never enters their head but the more you see others do it, the more it becomes an option you know exists. Most sane people will still never contemplate it but the concept is understood. I don't think its co-incidence that one mass-shooting has happened after the other recently.

Worry found a link, its in the other thread, that describes the concept as cascading terrorism. Even when separated by months or years Id argue the more often it happens the more likely it will happen again. I cant do so at work but id not be surprised to see a spike in school shootings after columbine for example and I wont be surprised to see the trend continues to escalate.

There was that nutjob who shot up his university because he believed women were conspiring to not have sex with him. Unfathomable! Rather than being mocked and derided into obscurity he actually made the term incel (involuntarily celibate) mainstream and thousands of men on the internet commiserated with his ideas. He inspired copycat events. Though I think as you say, ease of access is still perhaps the most important factor. Id like Gigi hadid to call me to arrange sex at her earliest convenience (she can even invite her friends) but I have never once considered violence to be the answer to the fact that she has not. Some peoples brains don't work right, this will always be true, and the more of them have guns the more likely one of them will do something stupid. Responsible gun-ownership is paramount.

Something I think should be done immediately (I odnt believe it will solve the problem, not all, but it may help somewhat) is that the media should wherever possible not publish the perpetrators names. Use terms like the shooter, the shooters manifesto was inspired by white supremacy etc. Not publishing the manifestos may be censorship and so I guess they should still be made available but as much as possible the shooters should be denied their fifteen minutes of fame.

[Tsundoku]

Yeah, another (short) article. Deal with it.

2189 mass shootings and 7000 kids killed by gun violence since Sandy Hook.

https://www.news.com...464f50ac3c5f79d

[worry]

Anyone feeling kinda traumatized by all this? Not necessarily just this past week but in general, or even one event in particular. And also I don't necessarily mean severe trauma, like on the level of being directly affected (unless you were at some point). But just like, at whatever level, your mental health being damaged or your emotional health worsening.

I dunno, I was just struck by reading this yesterday:

[worry]

@Cause: You know, I've heard good arguments both for and against that notion. I don't know where I fall. Not to diminish it, but I guess I feel it's a smaller piece of the puzzle -- but the US is a gigantic puzzle with lots of pieces, so even a 'smaller' piece can have significant consequences, and if it does help then it's worth doing. I just don't know. But also as many point out, all the things that exist here exist elsewhere...except (at least among wealthy nations) it only happens here with regularity. Our relationship with guns -- culturally, economically, legislatively, regulatorily -- appears to be unique, and disastrously so.

And I for sure agree with this:

This post has been edited by worry: 05 August 2019 - 07:23 PM

[Aptorian]

The world has taught me to be cynical and let stuff like the above wash over me and then forget it until it pops up again. I guess that's a way to deal with trauma actually.

You'd go mad otherwise. Wars, famines, natural disasters, people being killed for the way they look or act, refugees dying in sinking boats, children being sold into sextrafficking, politicians too busy worrying about their careers to do anything, the elite too happy in their own wealth to reach out...

To quote Kurt Vonnegut: "And so it goes."

This post has been edited by Aptorian: 05 August 2019 - 07:22 PM

[Andorion]

The state of gun regulation in the US is appalling. But I do not think it is the sole causative factor. No major social phenomenon in history has ever relied on one factor.
I often find that a lot of online discussions on many issues become very superficial. Lets take this one for example:
Gun violence - bad gun regulation.

But why did the shooters pick up a weapon and start shooting?
I see the term "mental health" tossed around a lot. But what is it about the US that makes so many people so mentally unhealthy that they feel the need to pick up firearms and cut loose?
There is something very wrong at the socio-economic level that makes it possible for so many people to consider mass homicide a doable thing
Many factors probably feed into that - the glamourisation of guns, the increasing economic inequality, social isolation and alienation....but without very thorough studies into these things, everything else is guesswork.

[Mezla PigDog]

There is a fundamental thing people don't tend to talk about with these mass shooters - they are all men. Male violence has to be up there as a root cause doesn't it?

Worry - I don't feel traumatised but I'm not as close as you are. That wave or terrorist attacks in Europe a few years ago I probably had a similar feeling. Fortunately we have had a break. You aren't getting that any time soon.

[worry]

@Ando: Don't take this as counterargument so much as riffing on what you said, please, cuz I don't disagree with a lot of your post.

It's true that the issue is multi-faceted, and we're unlikely to pinpoint a single 'cause' for it all, but I don't necessarily think that's the same as complicated or difficult. Especially when it comes to the biggest, most sensible early steps. A more holistic and honest view of societal health in this country would be a welcome blessing. Tragically, at least here, whenever these kinds of things are trotted out, they are 1) empty rhetoric; and 2) deliberate distractions.

For instance, you're right that 'mental health' gets brought up every time there's a shooting. But the GOP aren't interested -- not now, not ever -- in funding mental health care. And besides, people with mental illness are much more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators (whether it's self inflicted violence or otherwise), and the vast majority of violence is perpetrated by people without severe mental health issues. Socio-economics is definitely a factor for some violence, but you'll note that focuses squarely on people at the bottom of the rung -- like, what about the socio-economic causes of Lockheed Martin and Boeing doing violence? Anyway, when it comes to these making-a-point mass killings, it seems misogynistic and right-wing sociopolitical motivations appear to dominate, by a landslide. Toxic masculinity and white supremacy are global phenomena, of course, but neither qualify as mental illness I would think, and though they lead to horrific practices the world over too, mass shootings perpetrated by domestic abusers (for instance) are still largely a U.S. phenomenon by orders of magnitude.
It's fair to say that without studies, it's guesswork. Fortunately, there have been studies -- many -- and what they show is that more guns = more violence.

So while I 100% support the holistic, thoughtful, answer-seeking view you're advocating, while we're doing that, let's also study whether gun control measures work, and to what degree -- via gun control legislation at the federal level. Let's do that, give it a shot, and study what works that way.

This post has been edited by worry: 06 August 2019 - 05:43 AM

[worry]

Mezla PigDog, on 06 August 2019 - 05:26 AM, said:

There is a fundamental thing people don't tend to talk about with these mass shooters - they are all men. Male violence has to be up there as a root cause doesn't it?

Speaking of! I just read this, which addresses this head on, if all too briefly. It includes discussion of a preventative program (in a California state prison) that combats these destructive notions of manhood and has a pretty good track record. It's the kind of preemptive, not-tunnel-visioned idea Ando was talking about in his post, I think.

[Mezla PigDog]

There is a stat I read somewhere that said most of the UK home grown Muslim fundamentalist terrorists had committed domestic violence before they went on to blow people up.

[Cause]

Mezla PigDog, on 06 August 2019 - 08:27 AM, said:

There is a stat I read somewhere that said most of the UK home grown Muslim fundamentalist terrorists had committed domestic violence before they went on to blow people up.

I don't think this indicates much except that most Muslim terrorists will be strict believers in Islam. I think domestic violence is more common than we generally realize. The Japanese who I don't consider to be violent or particularly good examples of toxic masculinity have domestic violence in 1 in 4 households. Until a few years ago it was 1 in 3 (the government has made it a huge policy to tackle). Its more of a cultural hold over from their past, 'its acceptable', than it indicates deeply hidden violent tendencies waiting to boil over.

_____________________________________________________________________

OMG, I'm dying. After trump sent his prayers to both cities who were victims of mass shootings within days of each other I saw someone ask if that was a real treat. Someone sarcastically said it cant be trump because he got both cities correct. Now I see Trump gave a tweet or a speech where he got one of them wrong.

This post has been edited by Cause: 06 August 2019 - 09:31 AM