The News Thread

Culture is an abused term, and one that invites way too many applications; but it's the word that's come into use, and so it serves a general purpose. I'd say something a bit more specific, such as a culture of gun promotion, or gun ownership, or gun enthusiasm. A culture itself is an abstract thing, and is comprised of multiple issues, but for the sake of brevity I'm clarifying what I think is the central issue, i.e. the issue that determines most if not all behavior within what we're calling "the culture."

For what it's worth, if we adhere strictly to "gun culture," then we would have to admit anti-gun activists into "gun culture." In other words, those who support any form of governmental management, whether regulation or restriction, are part of the gun culture. The central idea of "us vs. them," in the specific form that I described in my last post, is what I identify at the center of the "gun culture," and so both sides would be a part of it. What ST is talking about is what I would specify as a culture of gun enthusiasm.
 
But Trump is literally Hitler if he does suspend Posse Comitatus...right guise?!

http://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/389056-mr-president-please-send-the-troops-to-chicago

President Trump, during your presidential campaign you made a promise to send federal troops to drain the swamp in Washington, D.C., and also one festering with feral thugs and gang-bangers who are committing genocide among black Americans right in the great city of Chicago.

I won’t quote you the homicide statistics, past and present, because by the time you read this they will have changed. Suffice it to say: They are horrific.


Something is terribly wrong when, in the most moral nation on earth, its third-largest city is ruled by gangs with a crime rate that is 35 percent higher than the national average.




Wannabe-commandos terrorize neighborhoods, challenging not only local authorities but the very authority you exercise as president of this great nation. The potency of your own presidency is ridiculed when thugs and barbaric criminals take it upon themselves to establish lawless fiefdoms, usurping the law and order on which this republic was built and upon which its continued existence depends, as they kill innocent lives.

I implore you to use your powers to suspend the dated Posse Comitatus Act, which unfairly limits your ability to use domestic militarization to respond to crises, and send in the resources necessary to stem the violence overrunning Chicago. Let me explain why this measure is necessary, starting with my story.

I am a black college professor who came to this country as a legal immigrant from Jamaica 32 years ago with $120 in my pocket. I worked for a year to save enough money for one semester of college, and for four years worked up to 45 hours per week while going to school full time. I graduated magna cum laude and then earned a scholarship to pursue a doctorate in philosophy. Not once did I believe that the state or America owed me anything except a chance to earn a living and pay my way as I journeyed through life.

When I came to this country I promised that, in the name of the best within me, I would cultivate the American virtues of individualism and personal excellence and take advantage of the opportunities that lay before me. These virtues would guide my actions and serve as the only legitimate currency to purchase a life that would be worthy of an American. And I would extend the American ethos of benevolence and goodwill to others, and expected it to be reciprocated. The America I have come to know and love as an American citizen is a country predicated on mutual exchange.

I am sure that there are countless other black individuals who want to make that covenant with America, who want to see the best within themselves be reflected and achieved in their noblest aspirational identities. This is because America can bring out the best in all persons if one chooses to cultivate one’s highest self. But I am pained when my young student from the South Side tells me that he has to drop out of college and join a gang because that’s the only way he won’t get harassed or killed. I am angry when I hear of the young woman who cannot cross the street to catch the bus to get to her university because she has to make herself sexually available to gang members before she can “cross turf.”

We teach, as we should, the values of self-reliance and personal responsibility. But those virtues needs a clean space to thrive and flourish, a place where an innocent 13-year-old Hispanic girl trying to earn some extra money as a babysitter is exempt from having to negotiate with extortionist gang-bangers who extract half her earnings from her under the pretense of protecting her life and her virginity. In Chicago, some neighborhoods are overseen by gangs that ought to be viewed as operators of terror cells, nihilistic institutional organizations that invade the sphere of civilized life. These gangs have declared themselves above the law.

Our city is under siege. It is bleeding to death by thousands of tiny scratches. In this age of nihilism, the American Dream is being executed day by day by the genocidal warfare against black and brown bodies by other back and brown bodies. When each murdered person dies, the dream dies with it. Since nihilism is the belief in nothing, the erasure of all values and the wanton destruction of all foundations out of which value systems arise, it is inimical to reason and to law and order. One cannot reason with nihilists; one must eradicate the nihilists to protect the victims and inoculate the innocent.

So again, I ask that you use your powers to suspend the dated Posse Comitatus Act, which unfairly limits your ability to use domestic militarization to respond to crises. Posse Comitatus makes no mention of the use of the militia, the National Guard, the Navy or the Marines. You can suspend this law and send in the forces necessary to quiet our streets and restore safety to at-risk neighborhoods.

Do not let the fire of our national promise go out, a fire forged in the crucibles of a commitment to erecting order against chaos and barbarity which, if left unchecked, will spread and topple our great republic. Do not abandon the visions, hopes and aspirations of the venturesome young individuals held hostage by thugs. The innocent and the young, the forebears of our future, lie in wait of some emancipation from their feral prison-neighborhoods, which are the only homes they have.

Unleash those troops not to instill fear, but as the insignia of urban civility and order. Do it not just to save black and Hispanic lives. Do it because it is the moral thing to do. All lives matter. You are in a position to save them.

Jason D. Hill is honors professor of philosophy at DePaul University in Chicago. His areas of specialization are ethics, social and political philosophy, cosmopolitanism, philosophical psychology, philosophy of education and race theory.
 
Culture is an abused term, and one that invites way too many applications; but it's the word that's come into use, and so it serves a general purpose. I'd say something a bit more specific, such as a culture of gun promotion, or gun ownership, or gun enthusiasm. A culture itself is an abstract thing, and is comprised of multiple issues, but for the sake of brevity I'm clarifying what I think is the central issue, i.e. the issue that determines most if not all behavior within what we're calling "the culture."

For what it's worth, if we adhere strictly to "gun culture," then we would have to admit anti-gun activists into "gun culture." In other words, those who support any form of governmental management, whether regulation or restriction, are part of the gun culture. The central idea of "us vs. them," in the specific form that I described in my last post, is what I identify at the center of the "gun culture," and so both sides would be a part of it. What ST is talking about is what I would specify as a culture of gun enthusiasm.

So we have two potential submissions for defining "gun culture" so far:

1. An "us vs them" contest between people who believe in individual gun ownership and those who do not.
2. An enthusiasm for firearms.

While the former has a variety of implications, an increase in crime doesn't seem to be one of them. The only implication in the latter seems to be substantial dollars spent on guns and ammo. Connecting it to crime is fairly difficult. You can't reverse the causation to try and, for instance, connect the LV shooter to gun enthusiasts.
 
The Las Vegas shooter was a gun enthusiast. He bought something like fifty guns prior to the shooting. Even if he was thinking he might need multiple guns for various purposes, fifty is overkill. He was indulging an enthusiastic attitude toward firearms.

Gun enthusiasm pumps more firearms into circulation. Even if a mass shooter--or any shooter--doesn't qualify as a gun enthusiast (meaning he didn't collect or purchase a large number of firearms), gun enthusiasm and ownership is what drives the mass production of firearms, making them more easily accessible to a greater number of people.
 
The Las Vegas shooter was a gun enthusiast. He bought something like fifty guns prior to the shooting. Even if he was thinking he might need multiple guns for various purposes, fifty is overkill. He was indulging an enthusiastic attitude toward firearms.

Buying a lot of something as a means rather than as an end isn't enthusiasm for the thing. No one has demonstrated he was buying guns for any other purpose than a mass killing. He wasn't one of these guys:

https://www.youtube.com/user/hickok45

Gun enthusiasm pumps more firearms into circulation. Even if a mass shooter--or any shooter--doesn't qualify as a gun enthusiast (meaning he didn't collect or purchase a large number of firearms), gun enthusiasm and ownership is what drives the mass production of firearms, making them more easily accessible to a greater number of people.

I agree with this more or less. But then tying that to crime, or violence itself is tenuous, and even so for gun violence. Or, if we take the factor approach from psychological science, it's minuscule. I know the argument is "you can't have gun crime/gun violence without guns", but this is a mere tautology. In creating a model of gun violence, you have to include all the data points where guns are not used in violence/crime, as well as when they prevent violence/crime. Due to the sheer number of guns in America, and the overall paucity of relative violence or crime commissioned with a gun, the relationship should be effectively zero.
 
Last edited:
I take an opportunity to actually attempt to have rational discourse in one of these threads with you and you squander the opportunity to prove your point? Brilliant. It doesn't really surprise me that instead of actually asking for clarification, you immediately pull the 'HURR DURR OZZ IS DUMMY' card and write off what I'm trying to say because it's trendy to do on this board. What is also not surprising is your brushing aside of my questions posed to you about gun control and my requests for clarification. But, I guess it's easier to just label me an idiot than to actually think outside your liberal echo chamber.

How is the heroin epidemic just a problem with the supply of heroin? I'm being serious. There are people who get addicted to it because they run out of prescriptions to painkillers (that they may need) and then turn to illicit drugs because they get addicted or because the regular drugs aren't enough to kill the pain. Is it a problem with overprescription of painkillers? Is it a general addiction problem? Plenty of people know about the dangers of heroin use and proceed to do it anyway. Is it a problem with an increasingly decadent and degenerate culture? Is it an issue with apathy or complacency? I don't think you can say it's just a problem with heroin just as you can't say that the school shootings are the sole result of a gun problem or gun culture (that doesn't exist just like rape culture)

I didn't engage with you on the gun debate earlier, and typically don't on here in general, because I quite frankly have no interest. My brother is an AR-15 toting NRA member and I've had it out enough with him to be finished with it. Nothing is going to change anyways without a constitutional amendment.

Of course the heroin epidemic is more than just about heroin. A vast majority of my circle of high school friends fell into heroin addiction, so the process isn't alien to me. You said "We have a heroin epidemic too. Is it a heroin problem?," not "Is it just a problem with the supply of heroin?" It's not just a problem with heroin, but it's pretty evident that without heroin there wouldn't be a heroin epidemic, just as there wouldn't be a gun death epidemic if there weren't more guns than people in the US. What I'm not saying here is that it's possible to make either of these two disappear. What I am saying is that if you want to post an absurd, provocative one-liner with a layer of meaning and nuance behind it that you're not adding to it, then you shouldn't be so sensitive when somebody responds to the post in a similar manner.
 
It didn't, but it did evolve into that. It initially began as a club to promote gun safety, training, and shooting matches (grabbing from Wiki).

The NRA is no longer acting in the interests of people who are actually pro 2A anyway. I got a year membership and I'm not renewing this year but I'll probably join some other advocacy group like GOA once the membership expires.

That's what I meant by "current existence", I know they had a different role going back to the 1800s prior.

It's not this black and white. Although gun rights activism preceded the NRA, the general attitude and understanding of guns and their protection under the second amendment is largely a product of the NRA's involvement in gun rights activism. The hostile mentality between pro- and anti-gun activists stems from the marketing campaign led by the NRA in the mid-twentieth century, when they promoted the ownership of guns by leading people to believe that the government wanted to ban guns, which wasn't the case. The government had taken some regulatory measures, but it was nothing like the totalitarian imagery that the NRA produced. We still suffer the effects of this today, and it reverberates on both sides of the aisle.

Our modern notion of decent, goodhearted gun owners opposing the indecent, gun-denying bureaucrat never had much basis in reality. It was born out of the NRA's marketing campaign to increase the purchase of firearms.

It wasn't a marketing campaign, it was a coup within the organization. The NRA kept their mouths shut through the many gun laws passed from the 30s up until the 70s, at which point some members had enough, causing a temporary schism that ultimately won out for reinventing the NRA as an organization to protect guns from over-regulation. The use of hysterics/sensationalism is nothing special. Just look at every civil rights group that thinks electing Trump and some neckbeard running into a crowd in his Dodge is literally Kristallnacht v2.
 
It wasn't a marketing campaign, it was a coup within the organization. The NRA kept their mouths shut through the many gun laws passed from the 30s up until the 70s, at which point some members had enough, causing a temporary schism that ultimately won out for reinventing the NRA as an organization to protect guns from over-regulation. The use of hysterics/sensationalism is nothing special. Just look at every civil rights group that thinks electing Trump and some neckbeard running into a crowd in his Dodge is literally Kristallnacht v2.

I disagree with the claim that it wasn't a marketing campaign--since the early twentieth century, the NRA has been an active media force, publishing cartoons, columns, and newsletters. Also, I think your history's off. The NRA commandeered the gun rights movement as early as the 1930s, posting advertisements meant to elicit nationalistic pride and emotional fervor over gun regulations and actively promoting gun ownership.

The NRA was, admittedly, far less radical in the early-20th than it is today. In the 1930s they openly opposed concealed carry, for example. But this doesn't change the fact that they published political cartoons, weekly columns, and other forms of media meant to sway public opinion over firearms. They weren't simply promoting gun safety and familiarity, in other words.

Buying a lot of something as a means rather than as an end isn't enthusiasm for the thing. No one has demonstrated he was buying guns for any other purpose than a mass killing.

I know, I said as much. I also said that over fifty guns suggests a level of enthusiasm beyond "I need guns to kill people."

I know the argument is "you can't have gun crime/gun violence without guns", but this is a mere tautology. In creating a model of gun violence, you have to include all the data points where guns are not used in violence/crime, as well as when they prevent violence/crime. Due to the sheer number of guns in America, and the overall paucity of relative violence or crime commissioned with a gun, the relationship should be effectively zero.

I think this is a misleading argument. You're saying that yes, there's more gun violence in America; but there are also way more guns, meaning the ratio of gun violence per number of guns goes way down. Even if that's the case, it's not an argument against doing something about gun accessibility and ownership.

I know that my argument deployed a tautology, but the tautology isn't where my interest lies. I'm interested in the effect that mass consumerism of firearms has on the availability and accessibility of firearms, and how this leads to a situation in which the tautology is applicable.

>fifty is overkill

By what standard?

By the limits of the scenario. Different guns serve different purposes, but within the time frame and physical space that the Las Vegas shooter was active, there was no way he could have expected to use every single weapon he purchased. He may have entertained some fantasy of using each gun, and he may have even switched between guns arbitrarily; but it's more than likely that his purchasing spree and any variability during the shooting itself was driven to some extent by an enthusiasm for the guns themselves.

But it's all speculation, I admit; I'm just commenting on the sheer number of weapons he bought.
 
Last edited:
Apologies, I've had no time at all for internetting since last week and this discussion looks to be done anyway. I'll take my UltimateApathy hat off and try to remember not to get into arguments about guns with Americans again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: viewerfromnihil
Suicide is higher away from cities, crime is higher in cities. Different people, different environment, different problems. Isolation is generally bad for people (social animal), while being too crammed increases irritability etc.

Guns are a tool to be applied to different problems.

If you have a kid hurting themselves, taking away the tool doesn't solve the problem. Same for if the kid is hurting someone else. But we apply the logic thst it does to adults. Statistics like "gun crime" or "gun suicide" are easier to manipulate top down without understanding the problem, which is appealing to "technocrats". Statistical whackamole keeps them employed.
 
Last edited:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...e-is-dividing-america/?utm_term=.69c556459ae1


Self-Defense, because sometimes the Self is too much to handle on your own.

People wanting to die utilize the instrument which most efficiently promotes death. What a surprise.

Statistics like

“There is enormous differences in lethality of methods. Among all people who attempt suicide, only one in 10 will die [in the attempt]. Conversely, when they use a gun to attempt suicide they’re successful 90 percent of the time.”

Are total bullshit. When you include things like teenagers scratching their wrists or downing sleeping pills as "suicide attempts", it dramatically exaggerates the extent to which gun control can even solve gun suicide. People pretend that the male:female suicide ratio exists because "gun culture" magically brainwashes men into using guns because it's tough and manly or some stupid shit, despite the fact that in Western Europe where guns are not as easily available, men experience the same rates and ratios and instead simply hang themselves with a belt or jump from a high place.