Actually before that, high paying industrial laborer started dying out at the end of the Ford administration around '75/'76, Carter didn't help much by going on a regulatory blitzkrieg, and that sector seemed to be forever lost to China.Well said goshin...but good paying bluecollar jobs existed till the begining of the 80s...then the outsourcing began in earnest
There isnt one iota of doubt that outsourcing screwed american workers and made only the very rich much richer at the working class' expense.
Actually before that, high paying industrial laborer started dying out at the end of the Ford administration around '75/'76, Carter didn't help much by going on a regulatory blitzkrieg, and that sector seemed to be forever lost to China.
Absolutely, I don't mean stop them in the preventative sense, it's impossible. What I mean by stop them is to physically disable their attempt to create a mass murder in the act and so visibly that the next person who wants to try and has any sanity left will stop and say "Woah, they aren't playing anymore, look what they did to that other guy!".I think it is nearly impossible to stop someone from doing a suicide type attack. But people need to and I believe are becoming more reactive.
We can't be sheep and hope the wolf leaves alone. As soon as some SOB starts wrecking havoc then everyone has to attack him. Just try standing up in an airline and start spouting off some crap and I will guarantee you at least two sets of hands are going to pull your ass down. That is the way you have to combat these scum. Finally when they are stopped they need to have the imprint of someone's boot up their rectum.
Perfect for instance: Even 30-40 years ago you had better be pretty sure of yourself to approach a woman who enters a place with a man, nowadays I have actually had these little thug wannabes come up to the woman I was dating asking if they wanted to trade up. What I would have done to those little punks would be a felony today but the police would have issued no charges back then and probably looked away for a second so I could get one parting shot.It's been 45 years of insisting that no one ever be made to feel ashamed of themselves. Ever.
I think the Chinese market was tested and proven at that point, it wasn't that their goods were superior, they weren't, but they were cheap and could replace many of the superior American products sufficiently to reduce cost. The genie was out of the bottle and we were too far in to reverse course.It seemed to start in the 70s, here in the South as textile mills began to vanish... but I'll grant you it went into hyperdrive somewhere in the late 80s or early 90s.
No offense but I think you're projecting your own bias onto these discussions to which you refer. You view guns as a negative, so you view discussions about guns in that same light.
If I were to buy, let's say, a .45 Kimber autopistol with a 5" barrel, I'd probably do some bragging... it is a finely made firearm, bloody expensive, and extremely good for its purposes. Somebody like me, with an ordinary working man income, would have to save up quite a while to buy such a fine firearm, so yeah I'd be proud of my purchase. I might even make some comment about how .45 in a 5" barrel has some of the best stopping-power stats for any handgun.
Does that mean I'm looking forward to/fantasizing about the "glorious day" when I get the chance to shoot a PERSON with it? Hell no. I'm not stupid, nor am I some bloodthirsty barbarian. I hope and pray I never find it necessary to shoot a human being; I don't enjoy causing people pain or taking human life, and I know full well I will have to answer to the legal system and that even if I am fully cleared the process will not be "fun".
I think you fail to distinguish between a person being glad they have a finely-made and effective firearm available for self-defense if they need it, and someone glorifying the taking of human life.
Now let me make an admission here. I don't have much sympathy for violent criminals who engage in acts that could easily result in the deaths of innocents. I don't have a problem with armed citizens, acting in proper and lawful self-defense, killing armed robbers and suchlike. I've said so before and I stand by what I said. Perhaps sometimes I engaged in statements that seemed callous, like "one less scumbag is fine with me". Yup, I've said that.
Now if you want to know my deepest thoughts and feelings on the matter, they're a little more nuanced. I've actually known a lot of criminals; in many cases I even found them likeable or felt a certain sympathy for them, if you ignore what they do... many come from really bad backgrounds and I often think it is a shame that their lives have ended up so fracked up.
But my empathy for them comes to an end when they callously and uncaringly threaten the lives of innocent people. That's the "sheepdog" in me if you like; the sense that the wolves in human form need to be put down and their threat removed from the human herd. Some part of me may be saying "it is a shame this young man's life came to this, that he forced someone to put an end to him", but in the main I see it as the removal of a wolf from the fold.
I will admit that I have trouble understanding the mindset of someone who views guns entirely as a negative.... but I think it is plain that you don't understand the mindset of people like me very well either.
Wrong. It is designed to fire a projectile, what the target is depends upon the intention of the shooter. This is a fallacy that I have seen enough times, it's also a long defeated talking point, I have seen it probably about 200 times just at this forum alone. Let this fallacy RIP will ya?People who do not collect guns or use them as a hobby are often perplexed by the those who do for one simple inescapable fact: it is a tool designed for death.
Considering those who see it as a "funeral maker" tend to have less knowledge of the subject, their perception means nothing to me.Gunners see the fine craft work, attention to detail and the uncanny natural wrap of a well designed grip. To others, they are funeral makers in a tuxedo.
Guns are not really the issue, are they?
Some people like nervous chicken hearted Barneys probably shoudn't carry and can't be taught judgment and restraint. People who are marginally sane or taking lots of medication probably shouldn't carry.
Those who drink and drug.. probably shouldn't carry.
Of course we don't want those with criminal records to carry.. or those with domestic violence records.
Uhhhh.. If you carry, you take on a huge responsibility.............
Your assessment is both overly broad and far too simplistic. I used to carry a firearm until I stopped. In certain areas a firearm is is necessary, such as the wilderness where human population is low. In a crowded metropolitan area a firearm is can be a danger, especially when law enforcement is readily available. Moreover, there are two type of people that should not carry at all; those who are crazy and those who act irresponsibly. I do not wish to make gun control an issue, but, when firearms are made available too easily the crazy and irresponsible ones seem to the ones who are committing heinous acts with these weapons.
I never heard of a crazed killer ask someone if they were "on the right" or "on the left" before shooting them. Perhaps political perspectives are a non issue here and public safety is the issue at hand.
This is kind of a dumb analogy. For most people a car represents essential transportation. Society would be radically changed if cars were restricted. Guns ... not so much.
OTOH, you're required to have a license to drive a car, and your care registration and license must be periodically renewed....
Here's another statistic: at least since 1945, more people are killed by cars every year than nuclear bombs. Therefore it's silly to restrict nuclear bombs.
I think there could be a probationary standard that could please both sides. I say if someone stays clean for five years let them apply for clemency automatically, and if they are clean for ten then full clemency should be automatic. The reason I think there should be some time is just simple recidivism, those odds go down significantly within the five to ten year range.Bold: If someone has a criminal record and are not safe enough to have their full rights (including the right to own a gun) then perhaps they shouldn't have been let out? Continueal punishment past the initial set punishment is not what any civilized society should aim for.
People who do not collect guns or use them as a hobby are often perplexed by the those who do for one simple inescapable fact: it is a tool designed for death. Gunners see the fine craft work, attention to detail and the uncanny natural wrap of a well designed grip. To others, they are funeral makers in a tuxedo.
I know you have extensive M.A. training Goshin including weaponry. One little point here, the Bushido code pertained to both the sword crafter and the sword user, the object wasn't to make a sword based on lethality, but rather to cut well. It did follow of course that cutting well added to the weapons lethality. Then again I must concede that the Bushido code was region specific and different Asian nations had different weapons and tactical moral standards.Yeah, I get that... well said, btw... but I suppose I (and others like me) are just not as obsessive about the "death" aspect. Possibly because we have no intention of killing anyone if it can possibly be avoided.
I also have something of a passion for edged weapons, and own a couple of swords and several combat knives. These are really more "collectable" items than anything I have any anticipation of ever USING, other than practicing with them. I admire the workmanship, the lines and finish, the handle material and carving, the functional utility combined with beautiful craftsmanship. Yes, ultimately these weapons were designed to carve the guts out of another human being, and could be used for that purpose, but that is not my focus.
Guns are a little different, since I actually use them for self-defense, hunting and target shooting. I am more concerned with functionality and less with collect-ability. Still, I don't obsess over their lethal purpose.
Maybe I'm just less freaked-out about mortality in general? I don't know. Obviously there's a wide gulf in mindset here though.
Wrong. It is designed to fire a projectile, what the target is depends upon the intention of the shooter. This is a fallacy that I have seen enough times, it's also a long defeated talking point, I have seen it probably about 200 times just at this forum alone. Let this fallacy RIP will ya? Considering those who see it as a "funeral maker" tend to have less knowledge of the subject, their perception means nothing to me.
Why? Because they place bounties on the heads of innocent American citizens based on race? Because they intimidate voters at polling places? With clubs, no less? Because they get on public radio and vow to hunt down and kill people with different skin color that theirs, bury them, dig them up, and then kill them again?
Or is it because they do those things with the full blessing and consent of our "justice" department?
Don't get me wrong, I have a great deal of disgust for most groups that base their existence on race. We, as the most diverse society ever, need to move beyond that. We can start by recognizing this sort of race (and religion)-based hypocrisy whenever it rears its ugly head.
Good Morning America erroneously (and quickly and cheerfully) tried to tie this tragedy to the Tea Party. No one outside of (or sympathetic to) the Tea Party seemed to be too upset over that. Why? If ABC had immediately tried to make the connection to this crime and Muslims, would there have been outrage? You betcha, and rightfully so.
We, as a society, need to start recognizing the divisions placed amongst us, regardless of the color/creed/religion/sex of the source. And then we need to attack it. And kill it. And dig it up and kill it again. So to speak. Our society could make great leaps forward if we, as a society, universally decried the forces that attempt to divide us.
That's it, you can use projectiles for more than killing. Full autos weren't designed to kill but they do have that effect if you are in the projectile's path and it hits a vital area, or if a tumbler hits you due to the barrel's rifiling. Do you know what full autos actually were designed for? Two things, 1) Rapid projectile deployment and 2)______________.So you are saying when they were designed the goal was simply to shoot a projectile? That's it? That is an example of how gunners use intellectual dishonesty.
You know absolutely nothing about my experience with guns and it is irrelevant to the discussion.
So you are saying when they were designed the goal was simply to shoot a projectile? That's it?
That's it, you can use projectiles for more than killing. Full autos weren't designed to kill but they do have that effect if you are in the projectile's path and it hits a vital area, or if a tumbler hits you due to the barrel's rifiling. Do you know what full autos actually were designed for? Two things, 1) Rapid projectile deployment and 2)______________.
And on a slightly different, but related point, assault rifles such as the M-16 were designed specifically to wound, not to kill.
(Different assuming you mean the blank to be "lay down suppression.")
Yeah, I get that... well said, btw... but I suppose I (and others like me) are just not as obsessive about the "death" aspect. Possibly because we have no intention of killing anyone if it can possibly be avoided.
I also have something of a passion for edged weapons, and own a couple of swords and several combat knives. These are really more "collectable" items than anything I have any anticipation of ever USING, other than practicing with them. I admire the workmanship, the lines and finish, the handle material and carving, the functional utility combined with beautiful craftsmanship. Yes, ultimately these weapons were designed to carve the guts out of another human being, and could be used for that purpose, but that is not my focus.
Guns are a little different, since I actually use them for self-defense, hunting and target shooting. I am more concerned with functionality and less with collect-ability. Still, I don't obsess over their lethal purpose.
Maybe I'm just less freaked-out about mortality in general? I don't know. Obviously there's a wide gulf in mindset here though.
That's it, you can use projectiles for more than killing. Full autos weren't designed to kill but they do have that effect if you are in the projectile's path and it hits a vital area, or if a tumbler hits you due to the barrel's rifiling. Do you know what full autos actually were designed for? Two things, 1) Rapid projectile deployment and 2)______________.
Oh, and the only intellectual dishonesty was passing along that verbatim repetition of "guns were designed to kill" it was issued by the anti-gun lobby, who has zero functional knowledge of this topic.
I look forward to the Haymarket answer. I tried, in an ealier post to get it, but failed to get a reply.
No offense but I think you're projecting your own bias onto these discussions to which you refer. You view guns as a negative, so you view discussions about guns in that same light.
Now let me make an admission here. I don't have much sympathy for violent criminals who engage in acts that could easily result in the deaths of innocents. I don't have a problem with armed citizens, acting in proper and lawful self-defense, killing armed robbers and suchlike. I've said so before and I stand by what I said. Perhaps sometimes I engaged in statements that seemed callous, like "one less scumbag is fine with me". Yup, I've said that.
Now if you want to know my deepest thoughts and feelings on the matter, they're a little more nuanced. I've actually known a lot of criminals; in many cases I even found them likeable or felt a certain sympathy for them, if you ignore what they do... many come from really bad backgrounds and I often think it is a shame that their lives have ended up so fracked up.
But my empathy for them comes to an end when they callously and uncaringly threaten the lives of innocent people. That's the "sheepdog" in me if you like; the sense that the wolves in human form need to be put down and their threat removed from the human herd. Some part of me may be saying "it is a shame this young man's life came to this, that he forced someone to put an end to him", but in the main I see it as the removal of a wolf from the fold.
Does a gun do more than that?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?