Skip to main content

View Diary: There is nothing more that can be said (191 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  It DOES need to be addressed, (9+ / 0-)

    and with mutual respect. Otherwise there will be no progress, and everyone will remain firmly entrenched. I've noticed that, over the last couple of weeks, the tone has changed a bit. I may be delusional, but it seems that the cooler heads are getting slightly bigger slices of the pie lately. I do hope so.

    Maybe I'm just getting luckier with better quality diaries..? :-)

    •  I have totally seen that. (5+ / 0-)

      And when extremist on either side start bullying the conversation, others seem better able to talk them down.

      Cats are better than therapy, and I'm a therapist.

      by Smoh on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 06:29:07 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  See my comment below (5+ / 0-)

        And please talk me down.

        I just can't seem to accept the arguments some people make that put ownership of guns on equal footing as the basic human right to life, and the more I hear such arguments, the more convinced I am that the people advancing these ideas are either moral or actual idiots that should never be allowed near guns or sharp objects.

        Granted, I'm being a bit judgmental, but then, I'd hope to judgement would serve me well to recognize them on sight so I could avoid them for self-protection, since some of them are concealed carry wackos that present a risk.

        What about my Daughter's future?

        by koNko on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 10:23:25 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Can I talk you down? (3+ / 0-)

          Many people who own guns actually feel that they are protecting their lives, and/or the lives of their kids. In some (IMO pretty rare) instances, there is legitimate basis for this. If you live in a very rural area where police can take up to 30 minutes to respond to a distress call, you can see why someone would want to have a gun in their home. If you live in an area where predatory animals prowl, you are probably going to want a gun. You can read my post a little downthread about my reasons for owning a gun (although I no longer do) for protection.

          The gun lobby also plays on both legitimate and manufactured fears, and blow them completely out of proportion. Fear and paranoia are the best tools in their arsenal. The result is people who believe, in the core of their soul, is the only thing that stands between them and a tyrannical government that will throw them into FEMA concentration camps is their arsenal. It's easy to laugh at them-and sometimes it is absurd to the point of being humorous. But at the same time, it helps to understand the mindset.

          Just get informed, get facts and logic on your side, and use them. If the person you are debating with gets nasty and disregards everything you have to say, and won't make even the smallest compromise because they think it's all just going down the slippery slope of confiscation and tyranny, then they are probably too far gone to reason with. Don't waste your energy on them, they are a very small minority  and should not be allowed to dominate the debate.

          You must work-we must all work-to make a world that is worthy of its children -Pablo Casals Please support TREE Climbers for victims of child sexual abuse and exploitation.

          by SwedishJewfish on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 11:05:34 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Much better job than I would have done. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Canis Aureus

            Cats are better than therapy, and I'm a therapist.

            by Smoh on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 04:47:35 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  I do use facts to argue (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            SwedishJewfish

            For example, providing some here.

            The problem is with people who have become "gun nuts" (terrible label, but it is descriptive), i.e., they seem to have crossed the moral rubicon where they put a higher value on the right of an individual to possess firearms than the human lives threatened by said guns in places public or private.

            Their answer to the problem of too many guns is more and more guns.

            Facts and reason don't seem to register with them, and as you say, a lot of them seem to be living in a hell of manufactured fears that makes it impossible for them to think clearly.

            Beyond a point, I think such people have lost their moral bearings and ability to reason. Their thought process has become reflexive and motivated by fear.

            Giving them facts about the increased risk to themselves by possessing weapons (statistically, there is a knock-down argument for that) does not register either because they magically think it won't happen to them.

            So they seem care more about guns, than themselves or others.

            Now put guns in the hands of such people and I think we have a legitimate concern about public safety and the rights of others.

            Personally, I don't think any civilian needs a rapid fire semi-automatic weapon of high capacity for any reason other than to compensate for feelings of inadequacy or irrational fear, and I sure don't want people with those issues to possess them because we can see what happens, and it is not acceptable "collateral damage" to protect "right" of some nut to play with automatic weapons at the expense of innocent children's lives.

            That is, arguably, insane, immoral and idiotic.

            I can't seem to get that out of my head, and accept the argument that all these guns are OK.

            What about my Daughter's future?

            by koNko on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 09:49:36 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Your using the an alternate version of the same (0+ / 0-)

              argument that has been used to justify torture, extraordinary rendition, warrant-less wiretaps, no-knock warrants, and drone strikes.  You want to take away people's liberties in the name of a cause you think is just.  

              they put a higher value on the right of an individual to possess firearms than the human lives threatened
              You then follow this up with:
              it is not acceptable "collateral damage" to protect "right" of some nut to play with automatic weapons at the expense of innocent children's lives.
              Wit this you try to imply that one who owns guns and refuses to give up their liberties is some sort of sociopath who wants to kill children.

              You also said:

              I don't think any civilian needs a rapid fire semi-automatic weapon of high capacity for any reason other than to compensate for feelings of inadequacy or irrational fear,
              Combining this with your previous statement above, it is clear that you have continued to cling to your position ignorance regard weapons as demonstrated by your use of terms.  The issue isn't turning the argument to terminology.  It is that you deliberately misuse terminology as a tactic for your argument.  

              With regards to your "compensate for feelings of inadequacy or irrational fear". this is a nice convenient label that certainly allows you to put yourself upon a nice moral pedestal.

              •  It's really much more simple (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Beetwasher

                You are reading in too much so let me make this simple by re-stating my position:

                I think the right to life is a basic human right that is superior to the legal right (in some countries) to bear arms, and when those come into conflict, the inferior right must be subordinated.

                Children are living things. Guns are objects.

                I absolutely put the right of children to live above the right of adults to own guns.

                And you may note that the US Supreme Court has ruled the right to bear arms is hardly absolute and unlimited given they have upheld laws that limit what arms may be allowed and the conditions to be applied, so the legal question is merely the definition of that. If you doubt that, maybe you should check the facts.

                Wit this you try to imply that one who owns guns and refuses to give up their liberties is some sort of sociopath who wants to kill children.
                No, your imagination has run wild, I said no such thing.

                Most gun related injuries and death are not the work of sociopaths; indeed many are the result of mis-use or mis-adventure by legal gun owners that probably don't fit the psychological profile of a sociopath although I'm sure a lot of them (particularly the murder-suicides) have psychological problems of other classifications, chronic or temporary.

                With regards to your "compensate for feelings of inadequacy or irrational fear". this is a nice convenient label that certainly allows you to put yourself upon a nice moral pedestal.
                No, I'm not putting myself on a moral pedestal. I have stated my moral convictions; you may disagree or have other moral convictions that inform your opinions and that's fine too.

                Certainly some gun owners clearly have feelings of inadequacy and irrational fears, something the manufacturers and sellers of weapons use in their advertising of guns and promotion of their use; go to any website of the manufacturers of these weapons and you can see for yourself. Likewise, you can read or listen to what man gun owners say for themselves. Perhaps that's an inconvenient truth for people such as yourself that do not share these feelings or beliefs, but society cannot and should not ignore this because such people are a danger to others.

                The simple solution is to strengthen gun regulations to outlaw weapons of unreasonable force and capacity that enable persons (psychopathic or not) to use them against others.

                If you are going to argue that no such limits should exist, that the "right to bear arms" should have not limits, then fine, please make that argument.

                In case there is any doubt, I would consider such arguments immoral, irrational and counter to the interests of a civil society.

                And the facts support that; societies that strictly regulate or man guns have far fewer gun related casualties and are safer places to live.

                What about my Daughter's future?

                by koNko on Sat Feb 09, 2013 at 11:26:24 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

        •  I'll be honest with you; the notion of (0+ / 0-)

          clinging to guns to preserve the very foundations of life & liberty still strike me as a "new" or at least "new-ish" development. I remember when the civilian "assault rifles" were first mass marketed and they were seen as a novelty item. I was a kid then and hadn't yet owned a weapon (much less shot one) but still saw the shift occurring and thought it was interesting, but never saw it as a foreboding harbinger.

          The funny thing is, with the shift in marketing to "scary death doom fear" stuff, I've since shifted to the idea that more control is a good thing. Before, guns really were seen more like "just another tool in the shed" and not such a... prop. The culture of the NRA's hard shift right has encouraged a paranoia that I find unsettling.

    •  I'd like to see more respect for life (3+ / 0-)

      Before we go all-in for respect of guns and any so-called "rights" to possess them in balancing these debates.

      It's pretty screwed-up when people try to equate the right of owning guns as equal to the right to life, and suggests a rather narcissistic lack of mutual respect on the part of some gun advocates.

      Such equivalence is totally immoral, totally irrational and, IMHO, totally fucked-up.

      Just my 2 cents, of course. I welcome opposing views.

      What about my Daughter's future?

      by koNko on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 10:13:08 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site