Look, I know @lilbuddha has us all trained to read her signature interaction style as impossibly judgmental and filled with unspoken scorn.
However, with respect to the need to parse statistics versus individual experience, she's totally fucking right. N=1 data is a terrible way to evaluate how to conceptualize federal laws affecting everybody. The whole basis of this thread is a a gut-wrenching reminder of how horrific the proliferation of weapons is on the general population. The anecdotal exceptions when a gun didn't kill somebody is interesting, since not-killing and not-being-killed is laudable as fuck, but these are exactly the sort of fodder for selfish fantasies that inhibit the general political will to make things better.
Hence my earlier snarl to both mousethief (respect, brother) and Rossweisse (whom I love dearly). They're not bad people for having those stories, nor are they wrong for being thankful for the access to guns in those stories. But in the gestalt, it is a simple fact that overall things would be better with (strategically) less access to guns. And that's all I think @lilbuddha was implying.
The question isn’t whether a gun ever stopped something bad, but what is the overall effectiveness vs the dangers.
Kinda feel that the danger significantly overshadows the benefit. ...
Not in my case, honey.
Kinda feel that you have an opinion on everything, and that in many cases it's one that's not entirely backed up by facts. You need to get over that.
YOur response doesn't make sense. My post acknowledges that particular circumstances happen in which the possession of a gun works to the benefit of a potential victim. Like Duh.
Let me put my statement another way: Is your safety/life worth all the dead from gunshot children?
Because that is the question.
No, it's not. It's your response that makes no sense; mine makes perfect sense under the circumstances in that time and place. I didn't get beaten and raped, and nobody got shot.
This has absolutely nothing to do with "gunshot children."
I would love to live long enough to see you admit that you were actually wrong about something. I don't think that will happen, though, and I certainly wouldn't put money on the proposition, because I think you're incapable of it. I really feel sorry for you. You seem to have serious mental problems.
Hence my earlier snarl to both mousethief (respect, brother) and Rossweisse (whom I love dearly). They're not bad people for having those stories, nor are they wrong for being thankful for the access to guns in those stories. But in the gestalt, it is a simple fact that overall things would be better with (strategically) less access to guns. And that's all I think @lilbuddha was implying.
I would never have denied your claim in (my) italics. I believe I have said it at least once and probably more than once on this thread.
Yes, things would be better with less access to guns. The fact, however, is that guns are all over the place. As a physically small woman (smaller now, thanks to the cancer moving into my bones, and much weaker), I can't fight back if attacked by the average man. I love RooK dearly, but I'm grateful I had access to Snubby all those years ago.
Now I live in a house with an alarm system, and I don't own a gun. I don't feel the need.
The deaths of chilren who are shot are worrying,but what also gets to me is the future lives of childen who have shot someone, possibly a family member. How is it for a child who grows up having shot and killed a parent or sibling?
When I was growing up the laws governing the storage of firearms in NZ were less strict than they are now. In the valley where I grew up there was a boy who shot and killed an older brother. I heard the story when I was a teenager - it haunted me then, and 50 years later it still does.
Have you seen the American film "My Bodyguard"? One of the core characters blamed himself for the accidental gun death of his little brother, and working through that is a key part of the film.
It's not *just* about that. Most of the characters are teens, though John Houseman and Ruth Gordon are there and great. And there's humor about other things.
Things are complicated. We do what we think best at the time in an imperfect world. Almost no-one in the UK has or needs a firearm for self defence, but that's because in the main the bad guys - at least the ones most people are even remotely likely to come into conflict with - don't have them either, because our legal system makes any offense committed carrying one (even if it's not discharged) considerably more serious than the same offence committed without.
People living in less restrictive jurisdictions don't get to make decisions based on the climate in a more restrictive one.
Almost no-one in the UK has or needs a firearm for self defence
No one in the UK has a legal firearm for the explicit reason of defence of themselves, their family or property. To get the necessary paperwork to legally own a gun you need to specify what the gun is for - and, ever since that was introduced 100 years ago, self-defence has always been excluded as a reason to own a gun.
Look, I know @lilbuddha has us all trained to read her signature interaction style as impossibly judgmental and filled with unspoken scorn.
However, with respect to the need to parse statistics versus individual experience, she's totally fucking right. N=1 data is a terrible way to evaluate how to conceptualize federal laws affecting everybody. The whole basis of this thread is a a gut-wrenching reminder of how horrific the proliferation of weapons is on the general population. The anecdotal exceptions when a gun didn't kill somebody is interesting, since not-killing and not-being-killed is laudable as fuck, but these are exactly the sort of fodder for selfish fantasies that inhibit the general political will to make things better.
Hence my earlier snarl to both mousethief (respect, brother) and Rossweisse (whom I love dearly). They're not bad people for having those stories, nor are they wrong for being thankful for the access to guns in those stories. But in the gestalt, it is a simple fact that overall things would be better with (strategically) less access to guns. And that's all I think @lilbuddha was implying.
Pretty much this. Thank you
The yawning gulf between you two has never been more stark. Please learn.
According to Pew Research, fewer than 1/3 of Americans own guns, despite the stupendous, irresistible pressure LB sees bearing down on all of us to arm ourselves to the teeth. I grant you, 30% is (IMO) way too high a percentage, given the horrifying daily carnage which results.
Interesting. I had the impression that weapons penetration was almost universal in the USA, mostly because my lesbian friends from Sacramento were gun owners. I figured if leftist lezzos from the West Coast had a gun, everybody had a gun. In my analysis, I accidentally missed the part where they were emergency service workers... and one of them is kind of into blokey things. I was disconcerted when she punched me in the arm when I first met her.
So the 30% stat is interesting. Is it relevant that I mostly know white Americans these days? Like, am I more likely to know gun owners if I only know white people?
According to Pew Research, fewer than 1/3 of Americans own guns, despite the stupendous, irresistible pressure LB sees bearing down on all of us to arm ourselves to the teeth. I grant you, 30% is (IMO) way too high a percentage, given the horrifying daily carnage which results.
Interesting. I had the impression that weapons penetration was almost universal in the USA, mostly because my lesbian friends from Sacramento were gun owners. I figured if leftist lezzos from the West Coast had a gun, everybody had a gun. In my analysis, I accidentally missed the part where they were emergency service workers... and one of them is kind of into blokey things. I was disconcerted when she punched me in the arm when I first met her.
So the 30% stat is interesting. Is it relevant that I mostly know white Americans these days? Like, am I more likely to know gun owners if I only know white people?
Read the article; it also claims that Republicans are twice as likely to own guns as Democrats.
According to Pew Research, fewer than 1/3 of Americans own guns, despite the stupendous, irresistible pressure LB sees bearing down on all of us to arm ourselves to the teeth. I grant you, 30% is (IMO) way too high a percentage, given the horrifying daily carnage which results.
Interesting. I had the impression that weapons penetration was almost universal in the USA, mostly because my lesbian friends from Sacramento were gun owners. I figured if leftist lezzos from the West Coast had a gun, everybody had a gun. In my analysis, I accidentally missed the part where they were emergency service workers... and one of them is kind of into blokey things. I was disconcerted when she punched me in the arm when I first met her.
So the 30% stat is interesting. Is it relevant that I mostly know white Americans these days? Like, am I more likely to know gun owners if I only know white people?
Yes. Interestingly, open carry was a thing in California until the Black Panthers exercised their rights to do so.
Interesting. I had the impression that weapons penetration was almost universal in the USA, mostly because my lesbian friends from Sacramento were gun owners. I figured if leftist lezzos from the West Coast had a gun, everybody had a gun. In my analysis, I accidentally missed the part where they were emergency service workers... and one of them is kind of into blokey things. I was disconcerted when she punched me in the arm when I first met her.
So the 30% stat is interesting. Is it relevant that I mostly know white Americans these days? Like, am I more likely to know gun owners if I only know white people?
Another factor to consider is that there is a not-insignificant part of the LGBT community in the US (google "Pink Pistols" for an example) that is pro-gun, on the theory that armed LGBT folks don't get bashed.
When you look at how many guns there are in the US, you must take into account that few gun owners are going to only own one, and some are going to have entire arsenals. So if there are more guns than Americans, it's not because every American has a gun.
Look, I know @lilbuddha has us all trained to read her signature interaction style as impossibly judgmental and filled with unspoken scorn.
However, with respect to the need to parse statistics versus individual experience, she's totally fucking right. N=1 data is a terrible way to evaluate how to conceptualize federal laws affecting everybody. The whole basis of this thread is a a gut-wrenching reminder of how horrific the proliferation of weapons is on the general population. The anecdotal exceptions when a gun didn't kill somebody is interesting, since not-killing and not-being-killed is laudable as fuck, but these are exactly the sort of fodder for selfish fantasies that inhibit the general political will to make things better.
Hence my earlier snarl to both mousethief (respect, brother) and Rossweisse (whom I love dearly). They're not bad people for having those stories, nor are they wrong for being thankful for the access to guns in those stories. But in the gestalt, it is a simple fact that overall things would be better with (strategically) less access to guns. And that's all I think @lilbuddha was implying.
Pretty much this. Thank you
The yawning gulf between you two has never been more stark. Please learn.
I'm pretty sure I get what you mean to say with that, and I completely agree from a functional standpoint.
But there is a shadow meta-context that should be acknowledged: how much of my willingness to be comfortably vulnerable by assuming the best of other people's words is based on the broad supportive plateau of my affluent middle-aged cis-het white male privilege? How might my default debate-space mode be different if my lived experience was as a gender systemically undermined, while having a skin-colour historically oppressed, while also a sexual orientation that is actively vilified and reviled, and that the main tools for success were functionally indistinguishable from paranoia?
So... thanks? But, um, maybe there was some responsibility on the reader to navigate bias too.
Statistics for 1/8/2020
Total mass shootings (4 or more casualties): 0
Total deaths: 30
Total injuries: 35
Children under 12 killed: 0
Info courtesy of Gun Violence Archive.org.
Any errors mine.
I shall briefly climb down off my high horse for this.
Yes, absolutely. However, one of you took the time and trouble to acknowledge that Ross's use of a handgun was reasonable given the imminent threat being raped and/or murdered by an intruder. And one of you took the time and trouble to accuse her of being culpable in the death of thousands of children from gunshot wounds.
If lB wants to bring the personal into the equation regarding the wider use, availability, ownership and iconography of guns, then there can't really be much complaint when other people want to point out that no matter how many oppressed minority boxes she manages to tick, she can still be an absolutely horrendous dick on occasions.
As she was here. There will be no apology from her, because that's just not her style, but the more-than-implicit suggestion that Ross should have allowed herself to become a victim rather than use what was to hand doesn't exactly strike me as an example of sisterhood.
You will not believe this, but it is true. That was not an attack on Rossweisse.
It was using an example of the consequences of gun ownership decisions. It was a perfect example of the dilemma faced by voters.
Sometimes two competing things are true. In this case, it was good that she was able to stave off attack whilst still being true that laws permitting gun ownership cause innocent deaths.
And that is the very real question people need to ask themselves. And it is not an unfair question, though it is fucked up and unfair that it is necessary to ask. Life often doesn't have pretty pink bows with which to tie things up, but if we are not willing to risk ourselves to do what is right, things will only get worse.
As for an apology; I do not apologise for positing the question, for the reasons I just wrote.
However, if someone else had posted what she did, I would likely have tried to write it more gently than I did. So I do apologise for not being more gentle and considerate.
Here's a thought: How about apologizing for being a tone-deaf insensitive git so intent on imposing her personal system of moral rectitude on others that she's perfectly willing to tag another poster with responsibility for mass baby-killing because said poster once staved off potentially mortal danger by cocking a pistol?
This isn't about being "gentle and considerate." It's about recognizing that real, living people make themselves vulnerable here when to learn from discussing their experiences, while you -- who have been at some pains over the years to keep your own details under heavy wraps -- leap in to pounce on such discussions as evidence of generalized turpitude.
It's about some semblance of fairness. I belong to a writing group. We don't have many rules, but one of them is that members don't get to critique others' work unless they submit their own to be critiqued in turn.
This is what I find so infuriating about your comment to Ross (and many others, over time). You have almost nothing to say about yourself, but so much opprobrium (and rarely anything but opprobrium) to heap on others. Doc Tor speaks of his high horse; does he have one? Not compared to you. You sit astride some stratospheric Pegasus, ready to hurl lightning bolts at all and sundry. Gets too hot and heavy? You vanish for a while. But you do. Not. Engage. On any human level.
I take RooK's points about different groups facing widely divergent threats, especially in the current US political climate. In addition, I doubt anyone here, including those who've shared tales of gun-cocking, would lobby in favor of more guns or easier access. I also take lB's point about open carry re: the Black Panthers.
But as none of us can change our own past actions, and as you remain so obdurately aloof from sharing anything about yourself beyond your general moral contempt for the rest of us, I really have to question why you bother. We're all so clearly inferior to yourself.
You will not believe this, but it is true. That was not an attack on Rossweisse. ... As for an apology; I do not apologise for positing the question, for the reasons I just wrote.
However, if someone else had posted what she did, I would likely have tried to write it more gently than I did. So I do apologise for not being more gentle and considerate.
Bullshit. It was absolutely an attack on me. And you make all sorts of mistakes, and cast all sorts of aspersions at all sorts of people, and you Do. Not. Apologise, no matter how horrible you've been - and that can be pretty damned horrible.
You are the worst of hypocrites. Accusing me of being culpable in the deaths of infants because I once, in a difficult and dangerous situation, used a handgun to scare off - not shoot, not harm - a rapist, is horrific even for you. You can go to hell, by the fastest, most direct route available, and you can stay there until you crumble into ash. I have lost what little respect I had for you.
@Doc Tor and @Ohher, I thank you. You have absolutely nailed the issue here. LilBuddha uses these boards to kick fellow Shipmates in the head at every opportunity, but she sure gives no clues about herself, and she is utterly dishonest in a variety of other ways.
@Doc Tor and @Ohher, I thank you. You have absolutely nailed the issue here. LilBuddha uses these boards to kick fellow Shipmates in the head at every opportunity, but she sure gives no clues about herself, and she is utterly dishonest in a variety of other ways.
@Doc Tor and @Ohher, I thank you. You have absolutely nailed the issue here. LilBuddha uses these boards to kick fellow Shipmates in the head at every opportunity, but she sure gives no clues about herself, and she is utterly dishonest in a variety of other ways.
Got it in one.
And fuck you with a rusty, red hot, ragged-edged, shit encrusted farm implement. I expect such from Rosweisse, but you should know better.
Dishonest I am not; intentionally mean, rarely. There are many epithets and insults fairly sent my way, but those two are so much shit that even Heracles could not clear the piles.
lB, your contributions to threads consist almost entirely of black-and-white moral judgments which can sail pretty close to the personal attack border at times. Suggesting that Ross is responsible for mass firearm deaths because of one long-ago act in which nobody got killed or even injured is one example. Do you also want to claim that mousethief and I are guilty of murdering Soleimani because Trump is the US president, despite our never having voted for 45?
You’re trying to assume a moral authority you have not earned. You may have earned it IRL (how would we know?), but you haven’t earned it here. Membership in various oppressed minority groups (assuming this is true) doesn’t automatically confer this. Put a little skin in this Shiply game, and we might buy your “authority.” No skin, no game, no authority.
Earning that moral authority will require you to stop treating other posters like chess pieces on your personal moral chessboard. Try to show a smidge of regard for the genuine struggles and feelings people here bring to the table beyond just the “rightness” and “wrongness” of their words and actions in your moral calculus.
Consider adjusting your moral calculus to include some thought to how YOUR comments affect others.
Consider how you undermine your own positions on topics when you constantly make unsupported assertions about them. Why should we simply take your word for things? On this very thread, you go on about the alleged intense pressure on Americans to own guns. When confronted with the fact that some 70% Americans seem to have resisted this alleged pressure, you don’t even acknowledge that you might be mistaken. Yet we’re supposed to believe you’re never “dishonest.” Honesty, like charity, begins at home. Try being honest with yourself. You just post random shit off the top of your head without bothering to find out first if it bears any relation to fact. But we're supposed to accept your word as gospel.
Your moralizing has become predictable, off-kilter, and profoundly tiresome. The human condition exposes every single one of us to shit, some far more than others. Why is it your mission to point this—and only this—out to us? Are we all too dense and stupid to notice? Is there nothing more helpful, or more human, you can offer than pointing out, over and over, how very, very wrong we all are about almost everything?
lB, your contributions to threads consist almost entirely of black-and-white moral judgments which can sail pretty close to the personal attack border at times.
Though this is exaggerated, it has bones of the truth in it.
Suggesting that Ross is responsible for mass firearm deaths because of one long-ago act in which nobody got killed or even injured is one example.
This is inaccurate. For one, I have no way of knowing how she votes.
It is a fact that access to guns means tragic events will happen and that in supporting that access, one is facilitating that inevitability.
People should understand the consequences of their choices, not doing so has led to the world we have.
Head over to the thread with your name on it for the piles of evidence of the dishonest way you comport yourself here.
I do not recall ever writing a falsehood here, so I don't see the point in that.
And people are not there to have a dialogue. The fact that I say something here and it is "wrong", but when Rook says it everyone shuts the fuck up and doesn't argue that point with him indicates that the whingers were not hearing what was being said but reacting to who said it.
So what would be the point?
lB, your contributions to threads consist almost entirely of black-and-white moral judgments which can sail pretty close to the personal attack border at times.
Though this is exaggerated, it has bones of the truth in it.
It's not exaggerated at all, but at least you actually admit to it. That's progress.
Suggesting that Ross is responsible for mass firearm deaths because of one long-ago act in which nobody got killed or even injured is one example.
This is inaccurate. For one, I have no way of knowing how she votes.
It is a fact that access to guns means tragic events will happen and that in supporting that access, one is facilitating that inevitability.
People should understand the consequences of their choices, not doing so has led to the world we have.
Sure you do. I've expressed enough political opinions here. But for the record, I'm a moderate liberal independent. In practice, that generally means voting Democratic.
It is both absurd and reprehensible for you to assert that I am personally responsible for mass firearm deaths because I once declined to be a victim, while injuring no one in the process.
In fact, your statement is downright evil. We're back to the "black-and-white moral judgments" with which you have built your well-deserved reputation for dishonesty and hypocrisy. You use Shipmates as your personal punching bags, and take no responsibility for the injuries you so carelessly dispense.
There are indeed consequences for choices - even yours. Clean up your act.
You're not here to have dialogue yourself. You're here to lecture and find fault. And yes, it matters who says a thing - when you have behaved so badly for so long it affects how people receive what you've said.
You're not here to have dialogue yourself. You're here to lecture and find fault. And yes, it matters who says a thing - when you have behaved so badly for so long it affects how people receive what you've said.
Last comment on this tangent.
Something is correct or incorrect regardless of who says it.
"for so long" is rubbish.
And most dances require partners.
If everyone says there's a problem lB, and you alone don't, are you the ruler of truth, the arbiter of all that is right? Might you take under advisement that we find your manner of posting offensive and amend your conduct.
Here's a thought: How about apologizing for being a tone-deaf insensitive git so intent on imposing her personal system of moral rectitude on others that she's perfectly willing to tag another poster with responsibility for mass baby-killing because said poster once staved off potentially mortal danger by cocking a pistol?
This isn't about being "gentle and considerate." It's about recognizing that real, living people make themselves vulnerable here when to learn from discussing their experiences, while you -- who have been at some pains over the years to keep your own details under heavy wraps -- leap in to pounce on such discussions as evidence of generalized turpitude.
It's about some semblance of fairness. I belong to a writing group. We don't have many rules, but one of them is that members don't get to critique others' work unless they submit their own to be critiqued in turn.
This is what I find so infuriating about your comment to Ross (and many others, over time). You have almost nothing to say about yourself, but so much opprobrium (and rarely anything but opprobrium) to heap on others. Doc Tor speaks of his high horse; does he have one? Not compared to you. You sit astride some stratospheric Pegasus, ready to hurl lightning bolts at all and sundry. Gets too hot and heavy? You vanish for a while. But you do. Not. Engage. On any human level.
I take RooK's points about different groups facing widely divergent threats, especially in the current US political climate. In addition, I doubt anyone here, including those who've shared tales of gun-cocking, would lobby in favor of more guns or easier access. I also take lB's point about open carry re: the Black Panthers.
But as none of us can change our own past actions, and as you remain so obdurately aloof from sharing anything about yourself beyond your general moral contempt for the rest of us, I really have to question why you bother. We're all so clearly inferior to yourself.
LB, you are the only person I can recall who has seriously tempted me to try to psychoanalyze you. You hold so furiously (in both senses of the word) to completely crackers positions, and you double down, and down again--I'm seeing echoes of Trump. You never apologize, not after the most damaging statements to the most respected and vulnerable Shipmates. And I'm wondering how damaged you must be to behave in such a way.
Statistics for 1/9/2020
Total mass shootings (4 or more casualties): 0
Total deaths: 26
Total injuries: 34
Children under 12 killed: 0
Info courtesy of Gun Violence Archive.org.
Any errors mine.
CORRECTION to 1/8/20 report:
1 mass shooting in Mississippi: 2 dead, 2 injured.
Suggesting that Ross is responsible for mass firearm deaths because of one long-ago act in which nobody got killed or even injured is one example.
This is inaccurate. For one, I have no way of knowing how she votes.
It is a fact that access to guns means tragic events will happen and that in supporting that access, one is facilitating that inevitability.
People should understand the consequences of their choices, not doing so has led to the world we have.
As I made no mention of Ross's voting habits, you've lost me with that one.
As to the rest, are you seriously suggesting that Ross doesn't understand the consequences of her choices?
Might we just call to mind who we're discussing here? This is Ross, a woman currently acting as Hell host while working part-time despite simultaneously undergoing difficult and painful treatment for a life-ending illness which affects her bones, mobility, energy, various internal organs, etc., yet has decided to strive for every last moment of meaningful life she can wrest from the powers that be. And you want to land on this woman with both feet for having once -- ONCE -- some years back made a sound with a pistol which scared off an intruder and potentially saved her own bacon.
By all means, do go on and tell us in excruciating detail about Ross's utterly heedless disregard for the consequences of her choices.
Fuck you and the diseased blobfish you hitched a ride in here on.
The availability of guns is going to force that equation. It is unavoidable.
Here are the words which appeared to me to suggest that you think the vast majority of Americans somehow feel compelled to buy into the whole gun-ownership phenomenon. As noted, not even a third (as of 2017, anyway) of Americans have fallen prey to this delusion.
According to Pew Research, fewer than 1/3 of Americans own guns, despite the stupendous, irresistible pressure LB sees bearing down on all of us to arm ourselves to the teeth. I grant you, 30% is (IMO) way too high a percentage, given the horrifying daily carnage which results.
Interesting. I had the impression that weapons penetration was almost universal in the USA, mostly because my lesbian friends from Sacramento were gun owners. I figured if leftist lezzos from the West Coast had a gun, everybody had a gun. In my analysis, I accidentally missed the part where they were emergency service workers... and one of them is kind of into blokey things. I was disconcerted when she punched me in the arm when I first met her.
So the 30% stat is interesting. Is it relevant that I mostly know white Americans these days? Like, am I more likely to know gun owners if I only know white people?
Read the article; it also claims that Republicans are twice as likely to own guns as Democrats.
It is very informative. I'm glad you referred me back. Even if you look at white blokes, the top category for gun ownership at 48%, the figure is lower than I thought. I think it is about perceptions. I think that even though I visit the USA frequently and talk with Americans heaps, my perception of the place is skewed by the media I consume and the assumptions I make. Anyway, thanks for giving me the chance to confront my bias.
This, children, is called the tu quoque fallacy. The basic idea of the fallacy is that the person making it is saying that what they do wrong doesn't matter, because somebody else has also done wrong. It is a way to (try to) weasel out of accountability for one's wrongdoing. Don't do this, children. It's wrong, it's poor form, and it makes you look like a twat.
I realise this is Hell, and I realise lb put her foot in it- but could we back off a little. The point has been made hasn’t it.
Yes, it has been made, but people are still either angry, or in denial. Hell is the Ship's safety valve, so whether or not your advice is wise, it's still junior hosting.
The availability of guns is going to force that equation. It is unavoidable.
Here are the words which appeared to me to suggest that you think the vast majority of Americans somehow feel compelled to buy into the whole gun-ownership phenomenon. As noted, not even a third (as of 2017, anyway) of Americans have fallen prey to this delusion.
[Edited to fix coding - Rossweisse]
That was part of a longer chain of interaction. The context of that statement leads to its actual meaning.* As does a reasonable processing of the rest of my posts, But I will reiterate for you:
If guns are available, there will be innocent deaths from accidents. And in choosing to support laws allowing private ownership of guns, one is accepting those deaths.
*The statement by itself doesn't lead to the the meaning you came to, not without some pharmacological help. You have no worries that your dealer is cheating you, whatever you are smoking is powerful stuff.
This, children, is called the tu quoque fallacy. The basic idea of the fallacy is that the person making it is saying that what they do wrong doesn't matter, because somebody else has also done wrong.
Rubbish. Some interactions leading to hell calls require dual participation to get to that point. Even in a zero-sum world, that allows for fault on both sides.
The availability of guns is going to force that equation. It is unavoidable.
Here are the words which appeared to me to suggest that you think the vast majority of Americans somehow feel compelled to buy into the whole gun-ownership phenomenon. As noted, not even a third (as of 2017, anyway) of Americans have fallen prey to this delusion.
[Edited to fix coding - Rossweisse]
That was part of a longer chain of interaction. The context of that statement leads to its actual meaning.* As does a reasonable processing of the rest of my posts, But I will reiterate for you:
If guns are available, there will be innocent deaths from accidents. And in choosing to support laws allowing private ownership of guns, one is accepting those deaths.
*The statement by itself doesn't lead to the the meaning you came to, not without some pharmacological help. You have no worries that your dealer is cheating you, whatever you are smoking is powerful stuff.
Quite.
Meanwhile, it's possible that one or two of the less-dim bulbs here have sussed out, despite our regrettable limitations, that more guns = more innocent deaths, which is why one or another of us daily posts stats about these.
My questions, still unanswered, are these: have you worked out why accusing Ross of baby-killing on the basis of her self-defense might possibly have been (A) hurtful and insensitive, (B) misplaced, (C) illogical, and (D) off the mark? Have you yet worked out why your remarks on this issue might be deserving of a sincere, abject, heart-felt apology from you? Or, as Dafyd put it earlier:
O wad some Pow'r the giftie gie us
To see ourselves as others see us!
Can you not see what is wrong with personalising the matter like this?
Let me put my statement another way: Is your safety/life worth all the dead from gunshot children?
Can you not see what is wrong with avoiding this? We need to understand the consequences of our decisions. Avoiding addressing them doesn't change them.
One could put it a little less personal:
Allowing gun ownership means innocent children will die.*
The problem is, the less personal the statement, the more it allows us to wiggle free.
Life sucks and sometimes there are no, easy win-win decisions. But we should make decisions understanding the outcomes of those decisions.
*This isn't even a new thing, it is part of the gun control groups' statements. This is not even a new thing on this thread. Go back for yourself and read the laments for innocent children shot by legally purchased guns.
...Life sucks and sometimes there are no, easy win-win decisions. But we should make decisions understanding the outcomes of those decisions.
...
Yes, life sucks sometimes. Mine would definitely have sucked in a big way had I lacked the means to scare that rapist away 40 years ago, while I was waiting to move into a safer apartment. The outcome of that decision was a positive one for all concerned.
It's very easy for a self-righteous know-it-all, sitting far away in time and space from that frightened woman in her early 20s, to hand down careless judgments. It's also wrong. It's still an absurd and offensive suggestion, and you still owe me an apology. But I won't get one, because lilbuddha the all-knowing never apologizes for anything. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Statistically speaking, having a gun for self protection is a stupid idea as it's much more likely that having the gun will result in harm to you or someone you love than ever be used to protect you. But, in extreme circumstances when you have an immediate and real need to defend yourself and happen to be able to access a gun then it makes sense to use it. Living for a short while in a situation where other means of defence have been denied you (eg: a secure front door) then getting a gun for that period of time may be the best you can do. It's not ideal - ideally you'd want a home where the doors and windows can be secured, where you have control over who has the means of access, etc. But, we don't live in an ideal world.
Comments
This has absolutely nothing to do with "gunshot children."
I would love to live long enough to see you admit that you were actually wrong about something. I don't think that will happen, though, and I certainly wouldn't put money on the proposition, because I think you're incapable of it. I really feel sorry for you. You seem to have serious mental problems.
I would never have denied your claim in (my) italics. I believe I have said it at least once and probably more than once on this thread.
Respect back at you.
Now I live in a house with an alarm system, and I don't own a gun. I don't feel the need.
When I was growing up the laws governing the storage of firearms in NZ were less strict than they are now. In the valley where I grew up there was a boy who shot and killed an older brother. I heard the story when I was a teenager - it haunted me then, and 50 years later it still does.
Have you seen the American film "My Bodyguard"? One of the core characters blamed himself for the accidental gun death of his little brother, and working through that is a key part of the film.
It's not *just* about that. Most of the characters are teens, though John Houseman and Ruth Gordon are there and great. And there's humor about other things.
People living in less restrictive jurisdictions don't get to make decisions based on the climate in a more restrictive one.
The yawning gulf between you two has never been more stark. Please learn.
Interesting. I had the impression that weapons penetration was almost universal in the USA, mostly because my lesbian friends from Sacramento were gun owners. I figured if leftist lezzos from the West Coast had a gun, everybody had a gun. In my analysis, I accidentally missed the part where they were emergency service workers... and one of them is kind of into blokey things. I was disconcerted when she punched me in the arm when I first met her.
So the 30% stat is interesting. Is it relevant that I mostly know white Americans these days? Like, am I more likely to know gun owners if I only know white people?
Read the article; it also claims that Republicans are twice as likely to own guns as Democrats.
Another factor to consider is that there is a not-insignificant part of the LGBT community in the US (google "Pink Pistols" for an example) that is pro-gun, on the theory that armed LGBT folks don't get bashed.
I'm pretty sure I get what you mean to say with that, and I completely agree from a functional standpoint.
But there is a shadow meta-context that should be acknowledged: how much of my willingness to be comfortably vulnerable by assuming the best of other people's words is based on the broad supportive plateau of my affluent middle-aged cis-het white male privilege? How might my default debate-space mode be different if my lived experience was as a gender systemically undermined, while having a skin-colour historically oppressed, while also a sexual orientation that is actively vilified and reviled, and that the main tools for success were functionally indistinguishable from paranoia?
So... thanks? But, um, maybe there was some responsibility on the reader to navigate bias too.
Statistics for 1/8/2020
Total mass shootings (4 or more casualties): 0
Total deaths: 30
Total injuries: 35
Children under 12 killed: 0
Info courtesy of Gun Violence Archive.org.
Any errors mine.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on us.
Yes, absolutely. However, one of you took the time and trouble to acknowledge that Ross's use of a handgun was reasonable given the imminent threat being raped and/or murdered by an intruder. And one of you took the time and trouble to accuse her of being culpable in the death of thousands of children from gunshot wounds.
If lB wants to bring the personal into the equation regarding the wider use, availability, ownership and iconography of guns, then there can't really be much complaint when other people want to point out that no matter how many oppressed minority boxes she manages to tick, she can still be an absolutely horrendous dick on occasions.
As she was here. There will be no apology from her, because that's just not her style, but the more-than-implicit suggestion that Ross should have allowed herself to become a victim rather than use what was to hand doesn't exactly strike me as an example of sisterhood.
It was using an example of the consequences of gun ownership decisions. It was a perfect example of the dilemma faced by voters.
Sometimes two competing things are true. In this case, it was good that she was able to stave off attack whilst still being true that laws permitting gun ownership cause innocent deaths.
And that is the very real question people need to ask themselves. And it is not an unfair question, though it is fucked up and unfair that it is necessary to ask. Life often doesn't have pretty pink bows with which to tie things up, but if we are not willing to risk ourselves to do what is right, things will only get worse.
As for an apology; I do not apologise for positing the question, for the reasons I just wrote.
However, if someone else had posted what she did, I would likely have tried to write it more gently than I did. So I do apologise for not being more gentle and considerate.
This isn't about being "gentle and considerate." It's about recognizing that real, living people make themselves vulnerable here when to learn from discussing their experiences, while you -- who have been at some pains over the years to keep your own details under heavy wraps -- leap in to pounce on such discussions as evidence of generalized turpitude.
It's about some semblance of fairness. I belong to a writing group. We don't have many rules, but one of them is that members don't get to critique others' work unless they submit their own to be critiqued in turn.
This is what I find so infuriating about your comment to Ross (and many others, over time). You have almost nothing to say about yourself, but so much opprobrium (and rarely anything but opprobrium) to heap on others. Doc Tor speaks of his high horse; does he have one? Not compared to you. You sit astride some stratospheric Pegasus, ready to hurl lightning bolts at all and sundry. Gets too hot and heavy? You vanish for a while. But you do. Not. Engage. On any human level.
I take RooK's points about different groups facing widely divergent threats, especially in the current US political climate. In addition, I doubt anyone here, including those who've shared tales of gun-cocking, would lobby in favor of more guns or easier access. I also take lB's point about open carry re: the Black Panthers.
But as none of us can change our own past actions, and as you remain so obdurately aloof from sharing anything about yourself beyond your general moral contempt for the rest of us, I really have to question why you bother. We're all so clearly inferior to yourself.
You are the worst of hypocrites. Accusing me of being culpable in the deaths of infants because I once, in a difficult and dangerous situation, used a handgun to scare off - not shoot, not harm - a rapist, is horrific even for you. You can go to hell, by the fastest, most direct route available, and you can stay there until you crumble into ash. I have lost what little respect I had for you.
@Doc Tor and @Ohher, I thank you. You have absolutely nailed the issue here. LilBuddha uses these boards to kick fellow Shipmates in the head at every opportunity, but she sure gives no clues about herself, and she is utterly dishonest in a variety of other ways.
Got it in one.
Dishonest I am not; intentionally mean, rarely. There are many epithets and insults fairly sent my way, but those two are so much shit that even Heracles could not clear the piles.
You’re trying to assume a moral authority you have not earned. You may have earned it IRL (how would we know?), but you haven’t earned it here. Membership in various oppressed minority groups (assuming this is true) doesn’t automatically confer this. Put a little skin in this Shiply game, and we might buy your “authority.” No skin, no game, no authority.
Earning that moral authority will require you to stop treating other posters like chess pieces on your personal moral chessboard. Try to show a smidge of regard for the genuine struggles and feelings people here bring to the table beyond just the “rightness” and “wrongness” of their words and actions in your moral calculus.
Consider adjusting your moral calculus to include some thought to how YOUR comments affect others.
Consider how you undermine your own positions on topics when you constantly make unsupported assertions about them. Why should we simply take your word for things? On this very thread, you go on about the alleged intense pressure on Americans to own guns. When confronted with the fact that some 70% Americans seem to have resisted this alleged pressure, you don’t even acknowledge that you might be mistaken. Yet we’re supposed to believe you’re never “dishonest.” Honesty, like charity, begins at home. Try being honest with yourself. You just post random shit off the top of your head without bothering to find out first if it bears any relation to fact. But we're supposed to accept your word as gospel.
Your moralizing has become predictable, off-kilter, and profoundly tiresome. The human condition exposes every single one of us to shit, some far more than others. Why is it your mission to point this—and only this—out to us? Are we all too dense and stupid to notice? Is there nothing more helpful, or more human, you can offer than pointing out, over and over, how very, very wrong we all are about almost everything?
Oh spare me. You're a base hypocrite filled with rank nastiness and no more human feeling than a sated mosquito.
This is inaccurate. For one, I have no way of knowing how she votes.
It is a fact that access to guns means tragic events will happen and that in supporting that access, one is facilitating that inevitability.
People should understand the consequences of their choices, not doing so has led to the world we have.
Could you point to what you think I said that leads you to this conclusion? Because I don't remember saying anything like this at all.
And people are not there to have a dialogue. The fact that I say something here and it is "wrong", but when Rook says it everyone shuts the fuck up and doesn't argue that point with him indicates that the whingers were not hearing what was being said but reacting to who said it.
So what would be the point?
Sure you do. I've expressed enough political opinions here. But for the record, I'm a moderate liberal independent. In practice, that generally means voting Democratic.
It is both absurd and reprehensible for you to assert that I am personally responsible for mass firearm deaths because I once declined to be a victim, while injuring no one in the process.
In fact, your statement is downright evil. We're back to the "black-and-white moral judgments" with which you have built your well-deserved reputation for dishonesty and hypocrisy. You use Shipmates as your personal punching bags, and take no responsibility for the injuries you so carelessly dispense.
There are indeed consequences for choices - even yours. Clean up your act.
Something is correct or incorrect regardless of who says it.
"for so long" is rubbish.
And most dances require partners.
You've been behaving badly here for as long as you've been aboard.
There are such things as solo dances, and you've been a spotlight-hugging diva for as long as you've been behaving badly here.
Damn, that's some fine writing.
Statistics for 1/9/2020
Total mass shootings (4 or more casualties): 0
Total deaths: 26
Total injuries: 34
Children under 12 killed: 0
Info courtesy of Gun Violence Archive.org.
Any errors mine.
CORRECTION to 1/8/20 report:
1 mass shooting in Mississippi: 2 dead, 2 injured.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on us.
As I made no mention of Ross's voting habits, you've lost me with that one.
As to the rest, are you seriously suggesting that Ross doesn't understand the consequences of her choices?
Might we just call to mind who we're discussing here? This is Ross, a woman currently acting as Hell host while working part-time despite simultaneously undergoing difficult and painful treatment for a life-ending illness which affects her bones, mobility, energy, various internal organs, etc., yet has decided to strive for every last moment of meaningful life she can wrest from the powers that be. And you want to land on this woman with both feet for having once -- ONCE -- some years back made a sound with a pistol which scared off an intruder and potentially saved her own bacon.
By all means, do go on and tell us in excruciating detail about Ross's utterly heedless disregard for the consequences of her choices.
Fuck you and the diseased blobfish you hitched a ride in here on.
Here are the words which appeared to me to suggest that you think the vast majority of Americans somehow feel compelled to buy into the whole gun-ownership phenomenon. As noted, not even a third (as of 2017, anyway) of Americans have fallen prey to this delusion.
[Edited to fix coding - Rossweisse]
To see ourselves as others see us!
Can you not see what is wrong with personalising the matter like this?
It is very informative. I'm glad you referred me back. Even if you look at white blokes, the top category for gun ownership at 48%, the figure is lower than I thought. I think it is about perceptions. I think that even though I visit the USA frequently and talk with Americans heaps, my perception of the place is skewed by the media I consume and the assumptions I make. Anyway, thanks for giving me the chance to confront my bias.
This, children, is called the tu quoque fallacy. The basic idea of the fallacy is that the person making it is saying that what they do wrong doesn't matter, because somebody else has also done wrong. It is a way to (try to) weasel out of accountability for one's wrongdoing. Don't do this, children. It's wrong, it's poor form, and it makes you look like a twat.
I'd say the ball is in LB's court.
Yes, it has been made, but people are still either angry, or in denial. Hell is the Ship's safety valve, so whether or not your advice is wise, it's still junior hosting.
DT
HH
If guns are available, there will be innocent deaths from accidents. And in choosing to support laws allowing private ownership of guns, one is accepting those deaths.
*The statement by itself doesn't lead to the the meaning you came to, not without some pharmacological help. You have no worries that your dealer is cheating you, whatever you are smoking is powerful stuff.
Quite.
Meanwhile, it's possible that one or two of the less-dim bulbs here have sussed out, despite our regrettable limitations, that more guns = more innocent deaths, which is why one or another of us daily posts stats about these.
My questions, still unanswered, are these: have you worked out why accusing Ross of baby-killing on the basis of her self-defense might possibly have been (A) hurtful and insensitive, (B) misplaced, (C) illogical, and (D) off the mark? Have you yet worked out why your remarks on this issue might be deserving of a sincere, abject, heart-felt apology from you? Or, as Dafyd put it earlier:
One could put it a little less personal:
Allowing gun ownership means innocent children will die.*
The problem is, the less personal the statement, the more it allows us to wiggle free.
Life sucks and sometimes there are no, easy win-win decisions. But we should make decisions understanding the outcomes of those decisions.
*This isn't even a new thing, it is part of the gun control groups' statements. This is not even a new thing on this thread. Go back for yourself and read the laments for innocent children shot by legally purchased guns.
It's very easy for a self-righteous know-it-all, sitting far away in time and space from that frightened woman in her early 20s, to hand down careless judgments. It's also wrong. It's still an absurd and offensive suggestion, and you still owe me an apology. But I won't get one, because lilbuddha the all-knowing never apologizes for anything. You should be ashamed of yourself.