Originally Posted by Deb C

What are some solutions to the ever increasing violence? As I have indicated in other posts, I don't want guns to be outlawed but I do want some viable solutions. Our own government is one that stock piles weapons and promotes too much so called justice through violence.

We are becoming an ever increasing violent culture driven by fear of the other. More and more of our entertainment and TV programs are filled with violence and vengeance. The sad part, we see this as normal. Even the discussions about gun violence has turned into a verbal slug fest.

What is the *root* of all this violence? Personally, I see it as fear personified, and somehow, being desensitized to the killing of living things. Be it our planet, people, animals, or whatever, it appears that some people just don't give a rats booty.


He Shot First: Yet More Senseless Shootings of Kids


With Senate hearings on gun violence still underway, more horrific stories of senseless gun deaths. Rodrigo Diaz, a 22-year-old native of Colombia studying to be a mechanic in Georgia, was shot in the head and killed after he committed the unspeakable crime, en route to ice skating with friends and thanks to a flawed GPs reading, of mistakenly pulling into the driveway of an armed 69-year-old Vietnam veteran and Christian missionary, who without asking questions shot first, because he could. Law enforcement officials called the shooting "not a question of race (but) a tragic event dictated by fear.” Also guns. And Hadiya Pendleton, a 15-year-old Chicago girl of whom her godmother said, "Good opportunities were coming her way," was randomly shot and killed while hanging out with her volleyball team in a park in the middle of the afternoon. She had just returned the week before from performing as a majorette at Obama's inauguration. Today, Gabby Giffords, testifying deliberately and powerfully in the Senate, proclaimed, "Too many children are dying. You must act now." Yes.

Surreal Update: Shortly after Giffords testified, several people were reportedly shot at a Phoenix office complex.

http://www.commondreams.org/further/2013/01/30-1

The solution is to prohibit/ban all human activities that could either scare humans or make them angry.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

The solution is to prohibit/ban all human activities that could either scare humans or make them angry.

Start with traffic jams. They are known to produce road rage.

Originally Posted by Deb C

Where did you learn about the attack?

You can read about it here.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Start with traffic jams. They are known to produce road rage.

Which cars are involved in the most road rage?

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Which cars are involved in the most road rage?

There is no certain type of vehicle that determines road rage. It's purely traffic jams and the resultant long commute times that ensue.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

There is no certain type of vehicle that determines road rage. It's purely traffic jams and the resultant long commute times that ensue.

No dude, the cars are the problem. If we didn't have cars, we'd have no more traffic jams and far less road rage.

Snark based on classicXer's snark. Totally irrelevant.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Do you know the specifics of what is involved in "background checks at gun shows and for all guns sales?" I don't. If you do, feel free to enlighten me, and I'll tell you if I think they would be effective in reducing violence or not, and why.
Heyyy ... wait a second. We already have background checks.

No we don't. All of that is well-known and there's no reason to complicate it. Either you are in favor of the current proposal to extend background checks to gun shows and the internet or you are not. If not, you are in favor of loonies with guns.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

No dude, the cars are the problem. If we didn't have cars, we'd have no more traffic jams and far less road rage.

Uh, cars are a subset of traffic jams. Don't forget to add buses, semis, and stuck trains. Thusly:
Traffic jam = (cars,semis,buses,stuck trains) Simple set theory, man. So if you want to reduce the spiral of violence wrt road rage, we'd have to have mass transit and of course folks would have to opt to use it. The new set for that = (buses,passenger trains,subways). Semis? These could be reduced a bit if folks bought some food which is locally grown.

Originally Posted by B Butler

I am dubious. In the immediate aftermath of the September 11th attacks, the American people were really ticked off. The sentiment I remember clearest was that the Middle East should be turned into a glass parking lot, meaning the heat from the nuclear weapons should be used to turn sand into glass. The mood was such that we allowed Bush 43 free reign to declare whatever wars he felt like.

Slight quibble. I recall that the desired effect from nukes was to make the place an ashtray.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I understand your dedication to gun "rights."

I'm no more dedicated to gun rights than FDR was dedicated to Jim Crow. But in order for the latter-day New Deal coalition to maintain a safe margin of victory in elections, it must not alienate white working-class voters in Southern congressional districts, or in states like West Virginia and Missouri which would be easily winnable for Democrats if they were more reasonable on this, and arguably a few other peripheral; that is to say, non-economic, issues.

The proposals now being made are a good start, and I doubt it will go further in this 4T era. These proposals don't take any rights away. You could still buy a gun that is not a military weapon under these proposals, if you are qualified. I would personally like to go further someday; there are way too many handguns out there. But that's just my opinion, and what happens will depend more on education than confiscation. I don't see much education going on here yet. Little seems to be sinking in. But nationally, the trend is there; we're moving away from the gun culture. The faster the better; but it depends on Americans waking up to the new ways of life, and moving past the old ways. That's what our times are all about, since the 1960s. It is our greatest heritage.

Bingo! There's the problem with the left. It should be focused on what our times are all about since the 1930s - not the 1960s.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

I'm no more dedicated to gun rights than FDR was dedicated to Jim Crow. But in order for the latter-day New Deal coalition to maintain a safe margin of victory in elections, it must not alienate white working-class voters in Southern congressional districts, or in states like West Virginia and Missouri which would be easily winnable for Democrats if they were more reasonable on this, and arguably a few other peripheral; that is to say, non-economic, issues.

West Virginia and Missouri are no longer Democratic blue states, and are not needed for Democratic victories. The New Deal coalition does not exist now, since the 1960s, and the new younger, more ethnic coalition does not need white working class voters in the South. And the proposals on guns which Obama and Feinstein are making now could not be more "reasonable." What is unreasonable is to do nothing, which you are advocating.

Bingo! There's the problem with the left. It should be focused on what our times are all about since the 1930s - not the 1960s.

You views are obviously outdated. You are pro war, as well as pro-gun. The 60s represent the movement for peace and ecology, and those are the issues of our times. And that means domestic peace as well, so we don't have assassinations and massacres.

Today it is not the "working class" that is the subject of the progressive or revolutionary cycle now in force. It is "the 99%." Greater equality is a goal that is common to the old and the new left. We face a similar kind of plutocracy, and the same trickle-down economics philosophy which enables it. But the goal is not the workers taking over the means of production. The issue is adjusting to the new global, post-industrial economy, so that all the people of all races and genders can fulfill their goals and ideals in what I called above "the new ways of life." One of those old ways is certainly our obsession with guns, and in general the idea that force can only be met with superior force. Martin Luther King, our leading spirit, talked about using soul force instead, and that also means people power.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

I'm not tied to him understanding my posts anymore. Eric's "meaningful debate"=TRTDAR(tee-hee)

That's certainly obvious! And successful.

You and The Rani have some kind of mind link; so why post it here? That seems superfluous.

I engage in one-dimensional thinking-- I like to stick to the point. Xers prefer distraction.

Originally Posted by B Butler

I am dubious. In the immediate aftermath of the September 11th attacks, the American people were really ticked off. The sentiment I remember clearest was that the Middle East should be turned into a glass parking lot, meaning the heat from the nuclear weapons should be used to turn sand into glass. The mood was such that we allowed Bush 43 free reign to declare whatever wars he felt like.

But not without a very noticeable, simultaneous, resistant counter-mood. The Iraq War was very controversial, and, belatedly, voted against by the people (in 2006 and 2008).

Buy Wal-Mart:

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/wal-...rges-1B8189699

Guns don't kill people. HR mediation kills people:

http://www.azfamily.com/news/Shootin...189042011.html

Originally Posted by Bad Dog

Buy Wal-Mart:

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/wal-...rges-1B8189699

Absolutely! The more working capital they can amass, the better they're going to be able to stock high-demand items going forward.

Buy Walmart! They need the money so they don't run out of bullets to sell! Help avoid a recurrence of the tragedy in Pood- I mean Pink Sp- I mean Monsie- I mean Wal- I mean "Bad Dog"'s spammed article.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Your momma obviously didn't raise no fools.

Sadly, she did. But just my little brother. The other four of us are pretty good.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

The solution is to prohibit/ban all human activities that could either scare humans or make them angry.

Typical. Instead of thinking about solutions, you avoid conversation and possible answers with trying to be funny. Well, your not funny. In fact, this type of response shows a high degree of immaturity.

Solutions come from grownups willing to converse in a civil way.

Originally Posted by Deb C

Solutions come from grownups willing to converse in a civil way.

You have thus marked this forum, and most of our government as being no possible source for solutions. There are possible areas for agreement, but the whole "aim for the stars to get the moon" mentality which has infected both sides does not lead to constructive or civil discourse (Exhibit A: This thread).

Originally Posted by Deb C

Typical. Instead of thinking about solutions, you avoid conversation and possible answers with trying to be funny. Well, your not funny. In fact, this type of response shows a high degree of immaturity.

Solutions come from grownups willing to converse in a civil way.

I gave you the solution. Evidently, you weren't grownup enough to be able to recognize or handle it. BTW, how much liberal drama queen does it take for a mature grownup to become allienated, or just get plain old sick and tired of listening to it, to abruptly intervine or cut you off or just tell you in plain old english to sit down and shut the "F" up?

Originally Posted by The Rani

I say this only because I know you can take the heat ...
Is it civil conversation to call someone else highly immature and not a grownup?

I said his *response* was immature. There is a difference in calling people names and pointing out an attitude. I didn't say he was not grown up. I said solutions come from grownups willing to talk about solutions.

Paragould, Arkansas has the answer:

http://www.paragoulddailypress.com/a...1511092932.txt

We don't need no FEDERAL government taking our freedoms away!

Originally Posted by The Rani

Do you think that calling someone's response (or attitude) immature is conducive to civil discussion?

Yes I do. It points to the attitude and not an attack on the person themselves. This also sets boundaries for further discussions.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Absolutely! The more working capital they can amass, the better they're going to be able to stock high-demand items going forward.

Buy Walmart! They need the money so they don't run out of bullets to sell! Help avoid a recurrence of the tragedy in Pood- I mean Pink Sp- I mean Monsie- I mean Wal- I mean "Bad Dog"'s spammed article.

Strangely, you don't seem to like the citations first, before they are demanded. It's not like the public relations situation is going to continue to get worse for Responsible Gun Owners.

Speaking of spamming, someone spammed me for months to report a certain MD to a state medical board, because of the MD's online persona. I passed up my chance for historical glory, and ignored the spammer. You could just put me on ignore, if you don't like what I have to say.