30 May 22
@fmf saidThe thing that massive deaths by a crazy person does to me is highlight the
That most people are "law-abiding citizens" is good. They will abide by the laws.
The question is, if people got to see what slaughtered victims of a mass murder look like on their TVs, would enough people want to change the laws that the "law-abiding citizens" would then continue to abide by?
The topic is "seeing death" as opposed to being insulated from really seeing it.
need to be able to defend myself, not to be a victim and powerless to act in
the face of that type of firepower.
30 May 22
@kellyjay saidI am not disputing your right to own and use a firearm to defend yourself. So, another red herring from you.
The thing that massive deaths by a crazy person does to me is highlight the
need to be able to defend myself, not to be a victim and powerless to act in
the face of that type of firepower.
The topic is not about your right to "bear arms".
The topic is about whether people being insulated from the carnage distorts the debate about what would be sensible, well-regulated arrangements for people to exercise their right to "bear arms".
30 May 22
@fmf saidYou are not being consistent, not about your right to bear arms, but to keep this
I am not disputing your right to own and use a firearm to defend yourself. So, another red herring from you.
The topic is not about your right to "bear arms".
The topic is about whether people being insulated from the carnage distorts the debate about what would be sensible, well-regulated arrangements for people to exercise their right to "bear arms".
on the topic so we can regulate people our rights.
30 May 22
@kellyjay saidI am being consistent. I am not disputing your right to own and use a firearm to defend yourself.
You are not being consistent, not about your right to bear arms, but to keep this
on the topic so we can regulate people our rights.
The debate is about regulating the arms that people can have - along with how easy it is for just anyone to obtain them, and not about removing your right to own arms.
You surely believe there should be SOME regulation of who can obtain weapons and you surely believe there should be SOME regulation of what weaponry a citizen can own, yes?
The topic is this: would seeing the damage a weapon like the AR-15 can do to a child's body, for example, and so stop insulating people from the physical horror - which would give some visceral context to the emotional horror - affect the debate? If not, why not?
The topic is the impact of "seeing" the physical consequences and not about your 2nd amendment rights, which are not being questioned.
30 May 22
It has often been said that SUPPOSING the true and graphic nature of the Vietnam War - in terms of gore and carnage and hideous injuries and mutilations - had been depicted uncensored on American TV instead of being withheld from the general public, the U.S. might have pulled out from that war in the mid-60s and so, literally, hundreds of thousands of lives might have been saved.
30 May 22
@fmf saidRegulating my rights by telling me I can have this and not that is regulating
I am being consistent. I am not disputing your right to own and use a firearm to defend yourself.
The debate is about regulating the arms that people can have - along with how easy it is for just anyone to obtain them, and not about removing your right to own arms.
You surely believe there should be SOME regulation of who can obtain weapons and you surely believe there sho ...[text shortened]... " the physical consequences and not about your 2nd amendment rights, which are not being questioned.
my rights.
30 May 22
@kellyjay saidI am not disputing your right to own and use a firearm to defend yourself.
It is about rights and regulating those rights get consistent, please and be
about your talking about.
But you obviously don't believe you have the right to own and use a rocket-propelled grenade launcher or an Uzi submachine gun or that you'd have the right to own a gun if were clinically insane or 6 years old, unless, of course, you DO believe those things?
So of course there is a legitimate debate about regulation which does not nean your right to own a firearm is taken away.
That aside, the topic is the impact on that valid debate of people not being insulated from seeing the physical consequences of mass shootings.
30 May 22
@kellyjay saidCan you widen this out to consider more than just your own rights? Can you imagine a situation eventually being created whereby no member of the American public owed or carried legal firearms, so that there would be no need for you to own a gun to defend yourself against people with guns? In other words would you consider it a good thing to have less rights if everyone else also had less rights? Would this not make your society a safer place, and perhaps prevent schoolchildren from being horribly killed?
Regulating my rights means altering them from what they are to something less,
that is taking away rights by regulating them.
I realize that this is an aside from the topic being discussed.
30 May 22
@indonesia-phil saidYes, we could widen it out that way and what we find when we look at the history
Can you widen this out to consider more than just your own rights? Can you imagine a situation eventually being created whereby no member of the American public owed or carried legal firearms, so that there would be no need for you to own a gun to defend yourself against people with guns? In other words would you consider it a good thing to have less rights if everyone ...[text shortened]... dren from being horribly killed?
I realize that this is an aside from the topic being discussed.
of the human race is we are always finding new ways of killing one another. Did
anyone ever outlaw swords, bow and arrows, poison, bombs, strangulation, and run
over people with trucks and cars, crashing jets into buildings? What is it about
casting blame on the human heart, not the weapon of choice, do you not understand?
30 May 22
@kellyjay saidI believe the possession by civilians of certain poisons and bombs is actually against the law, as is strangulation, deliberately running people over with trucks and cars, and I even think crashing jets into buildings is illegal. We're discussing guns, here, and whether their removal from the hands of the American populous would make America a safer place in which to live and go to school.
Yes, we could widen it out that way and what we find when we look at the history
of the human race is we are always finding new ways of killing one another. Did
anyone ever outlaw swords, bow and arrows, poison, bombs, strangulation, and run
over people with trucks and cars, crashing jets into buildings? What is it about
casting blame on the human heart, not the weapon of choice, do you not understand?
And by the way the human heart is a muscle for pumping blood around the circulatory system, and is I think otherwise blameless.