Jon, you are still being very confrontational. When someone says they’re not being sarcastic, please take it at face value and treat it as if they have given you an honest response. No-one has anything to gain from bullshitting.
Again you are tone deaf to the general consensus of opinion from everyone else in the world vs. America:
[quote]Java gaming -> Video game violence is bad -> no, guns are bad -> why? -> silence! ->
[/quote]
We are not here, it is only American gun advocates (I hasten to reiterate that the other half of America thinks you have a problem too).
There is no silence. It is stated over and over and over again, all over the internet. Guns are bad because they kill people so well. That is their primary function. Killing people. Most guns made are not made for sharpshooting target practise. They are designed to kill. That is why guns exist. That is why armies do not use swords any more - because guns are 10000x better at killing. Guns are so good at killing that it makes it easy for nutcases to kill people en masse all the time, and only in your country. There is no argument - there are only facts. The only thing worth debating is why you hang on to the argument that somehow guns are great and that people should in general be allowed to have them. What will it take to make you think about it? When your neighbour’s kid gets shot dead? When your kid gets shot dead? When your wife gets shot dead? When you get shot dead? I suspect from the tone of your argument you are essentially irrational on the subject and no further useful debate will be possible with you. When confronted with sound discussion you accuse people of sarcasm or caricaturing.
Now, for the good of everyone, please stop posting in this thread. The moderator function appears to be broken atm which is why I haven’t already ended it or at least thrown it into the Chitchat Monster.
I felt the his statement was intentionally hyperbolic and void of nuance that it was to some extent made in jest. It seems my interpretation was wrong.
I don’t think I’m being unreasonably confrontational. I’m certainly not very happy about your threats, but I don’t think I’m being particularly unconstructively aggressive. In order to be able to think you have to risk being offensive.
I don’t presume to speak on behalf of the world or anyone else but myself and what I think.
Obviously I’m influenced by other people and their opinions but that’s not the same thing. We have mechanisms in our societies to select people to speak on behalf of other people. Usually they’re something akin to democratic elections.
“Tyranny is the deliberate removal of nuance”
I don’t think it’s necessary to overly simplify and cast vast generalizations in order to have a thoughtful discussion.
Maybe you have scoured the whole internet and gotten a solid picture of what the majority of the people on the internet think. Or maybe you haven’t.
Or was this intentionally hyperbolic and sarcastic meant mostly in jest?
I agree. Wouldn’t it be great if bad things didn’t exist in the world?
Guns are certainly very lethal and arguable makes killing much more easy than, say, with a knife. But I wouldn’t say it makes killing easy as such.
I think it would be very beneficial to explore this statement in detail.
Particularly nutcases, en masse and all the time
There are many categories of mass killings, sadly enough. I would say most of them are done by people who feel like the suffering and injustice of the world is intolerable. And that they want to take revenge against life itself for hurting them.
There’s no doubt that life is filled with suffering and tragedy, and then also tainted by willful malevolence. It’s a thought I’d say most people have to contend and come to terms with one way or another in the course of their life.
I don’t think it is beneficial to simply label and lump these people as some other kind of species. I’m not condoning their actions. Not at all. But I don’t think taking these kinds of things casually is helpful. You can’t, or shouldn’t, just brush it off.
People are capable of absolutely horrendous acts of evil. And I do think evil is an accurate term to use. But you should remember that you are also one of these people. And you have evil within you. And if you don’t know that and you don’t take responsibility for that then I don’t think you can be good.
Being “nice” and “harmless” is not a virtue, being “good” in the face of evil is better. Something like that.
Youknow, you can put yourself in the shoes of an Auschwitz prison guard. If you use your imagination a little bit. It’s not a particularly pleasant meditative experience… but you can do that. You can conjure up parts of yourself that could do that. And then maybe you’ll get a glimpse of what being human really means. And then maybe you can try to live in such a way that if an opportunity like that presented itself to you, you wouldn’t take it.
I think most people like to think of themselves as the kind of person who would stand up for the good. And when reading about horrors of the past assumes that they would’ve been the courageous individuals who would’ve stood up for the good. Or imagines themselves as the victims. And I’m not saying there’s no utility in that, but nobody imagines themselves as the perpetrators. And why would they? It’s not very pleasant and it’ll definitely scar you one way or another. But I think it’s necessary if you want to learn and avoid the mistakes of the past.
In terms of deaths in total these don’t even register on the charts. Now I’m not saying they don’t matter but purely in terms of scale it’s not very significant.
We take calculated risks as a society all the time to keep us as free as possible.
Now, I’m not saying the way death occurs doesn’t matter. Not at all. But you’re emphasizing scale so I’m just trying to figure out what exactly you mean by that.
Building onto the previous point maybe you’re arguing that these kinds of killings have increased? And maybe you’re right. Certainly the Media likes to milk them as much as possible and make the perps infamous and give them attention. Attention they so desperately didn’t get any other way.
And so your suggestion is that if we try and restrict access to guns these killings would go away?
I’m not American, not that I think it particularly matters one way or another. I’ve never owned a gun. I served in my countries (obligatory) MP division. During our training we shot a variety of weapons. Mostly pistols, rifles and sharp shooters.
Careful. Facts are void of interpretation by design. Your interpretation isn’t right by default. We need to talk with each other.
Never said they were great. I’m saying they are real and they have to be taken seriously. You can’t just wave them off.
Given that guns as a technology exists, I think there’s a reasonable possibility that we would be able to live with each other in a world where everyone had access to guns but would choose not to use them.
Maybe that’s overly naive of me?
I know guns are lethal. Perhaps not as personally as some others, but I have certainly tried to think about it a great deal. I’m not entirely sure that the blame is the device itself, however. If someone gets shot you hardly ever just confiscate the gun and call it a day. You get the actual operator of the device as well. And I don’t mean to be a smartass about this, ok perhaps a little, but I mean it seriously and sincerely.
My mistake. I will try and take every word you use at face value. But if I doubt my interpretation of your words, is it still OK for me to let you know of my doubts and allow you to clarify your meaning so that I am able to get a better picture of what you were truly intending to say instead of solely relying on my initial interpretation?
