Time for yet another "Mass Shooting" thread

Your answer to this shooting is that people should pack heat. Carrying a gun makes people more fearful. So, quite literally, you said we should have a culture of fear.

 

@babaorum
Give it up. Pointless like explaining the internet to a person from the 18th century. A lesson that this cute country needs to learn on his own.....

 

1. Most TV is privately run, privately owned, and unregulated by the FCC
2a. It won't happen in the US because there's not much of an audience for one.
2b. The audience isn't profitable enough to convince said TV stations to carry it.
2c. Public pressure will squash anything like that.

 

Not very well.

Your say-so isn't terribly convincing, nor is it evidence of your contention.

 

So, since pretty much anything even slightly controversial will meet this standard in one person, the intent is "for naught"?

The large majority of public debate is, by this standard, dangerous.

1. Why is it dangerous in itself to tell someone they are incorrect?
2. Is Brummie committing violence against a wide swath of people when he tells us we're wrong because a, b, c, d, e, f,...bbb, cccc, see figure 34r/832? Or that he flatly just says we're wrong and stupid. (Just using you as an illustrative example, Brummie. You know I secretly adore you.)

Your entire line of argumentation is leading to that notion. Now, if you're saying that we should be willing to accept that "danger" that you outline, then I've got no quarrel, I guess, except that I think you're rendering the word meaningless.

 

1. It's Matt's answer, though I'm sympathetic to it.
2. Your answer appears to be to submit to the inevitable.
3. Advocating for the right to defend oneself is not mandating anything. As an example, I personally choose not to exercise my right to keep and bear arms, just as I personally choose not to exercise my presumed right to smoke cigarettes, snort cocaine, shoot up heroin, or smoke the demon weed.
4. Guns != fear, because you fear guns.

 

I sure am glad no one in this thread has made any of those four fallacious arguments.

 

Seriously. It's not like they can kill you or anything.

 

The standard for "fighting words" is extraordinarily high. Cartoons do not meet that standard by some way. The person responsible for murder is, unsurprisingly, the one committing it. To contend otherwise is to put someone's feelings of offense above another's right to life in the eyes of the law. That's perverse.

 

Lots of things can kill you, including the electrical element in your toaster.

 

In a way, we did have our own holocaust, though a bit different. We sort of attempted to exterminate the various Indian tribes, when we weren't allying with them out of convenience. We mostly succeeded, too.

 

I think that if you accepted the scientific study in the link I provided, you would conclude that Guns == fear. If you have chosen not to accept that scientific evidence (it's a randomized experiment), then you will have to explain why it is not a valid experiment. If you do accept the evidence, you must come to the conclusion that guns create fear.

 

I'll worry about a toaster when someone uses one to shoot up a classroom.

 

Let's suppose I DO accept it AND draw the same conclusion you do from it (that guns == fear).

That doesn't change that your solution is to submit to the inevitable.

 

Odds of dying in a classroom shooting? "No greater than" 1 in a million (and that is a massive hedge making it seem likelier than it is)

Odds of dying by electrocution? 1 in 5000

It's evidently at least twice as likely to die by asteroid than in a school shooting. I know that doesn't comfort the families of victims, but it is what it is.

 

What is persuasion, other than "telling someone what they should think"?

Then explain or try again to answer.

So? How are you connecting interpretation with danger?

 

The way people talk about it, and the way it's almost always reported in the media, the GUN is the thing that has the agency and is the object to be feared. A gun "goes off" or "discharges", as opposed to a person "firing the gun", or "discharging a round". The gun gets the passive voice and agency by a whole lot of people.

 

Soooo... Are there no accidental discharges?