originally posted by: kaylaluv
I don’t think it’s a baseless claim. While hammers are used occasionally as tools of death in movies, I don’t think anyone would argue that guns
are used a lot more. Hammers are most often thought of as tools for building and repairing things - guns are bad ass, so they are used much more in
The baseless claims that I was referencing was where you said that no one takes selfies with new tools like they do with new guns--on the contrary, I
don't take selfies of me with my firearms, but I have with tools. THAT is what I was referencing, not anything about movies.
Hollywood, public schools, whomever. Social engineering IS a form of education, in my opinion. Using my example of attitudes towards gays,
people learned that gay people are just people - they can be smart, they can be funny, they can be kind, they can be heroic - just like any other
group of people. Of course there are people who still believe that gays are an abomination, or that they are a bunch of pedophiles, or that they are
all mentally ill freaks (all very common misconceptions that most of the population had 30 or 40 years ago), but by and large, those attitudes are in
the minority now.
You could also use the example of attitudes towards blacks, especially in the South. I believe laws forced people to treat blacks with equality, but
social engineering over the years has changed many, many people’s attitudes towards blacks.
I would only agree to a point about social engineering, but you also have to understand that it works both ways and can do as much harm as it does
good. During slavery, there were many people--I would hope a majority--who found the ownership and subjugating and abuse of other human beings
sickening, but were conditioned to accept it as 'the way it is' because of social engineering. Eventually, though, those who found it sickening, in
spite of social engineering, won out, only partially because of edict from a president (whose goal, BTW, was only to keep the Union in
tact...emancipation was just a positive byproduct of that).
Or look at the demonization of immigrants and marijuana, especially in the early- to mid-20th Century--social engineering run amuck. Or the
second-class treatment of women throughout much of America's history.
And now we're at the point in our history where we've been socially engineered to thing that government--and by extension, government entities--know
best for our personal lives, our health, our retirement, our activity in the bedroom, our ability to marry, our option to own a home, our ability to
borrow money for higher education, our ability to use natural resources on our own property, our ability to say "no" to people who want to do commerce
with us, etc, etc.
It's much like, say, the infamous Presidential Edict--err, Executive Order--that is always applauded by the base of a party when their person is in
office, then condemned when it's the other party holding the coveted Almighty Pen.
What I'm saying is that, while social engineering can be a good thing (which is a relatively subjective claim per topic), it has too much ability to
be used in a negative way, so I cannot champion, at all, the mass engineering of people.
Just the opposite. I am afraid of an unintelligent public.
Then advocating for us to be told what to believe is not the way to go. Education and intelligence are not synonymous, and no one becomes intelligent
by being told what to do or believe--allowing us to figure it out for ourselves and adapt knowledge to a problem to find a solution, that's the
genesis of intelligence.
I believe that America has a gun culture that is different from other 1st world countries. I don’t think this culture is necessarily healthy,
which is why we seem to have more mass shootings than any other country.
Actually, that's not necessarily the case. IF you are willing to look at the average amount of gun deaths attributable to mass shootings like what we
see in schools (not the arbitrary four-or-more-injured-or-killed-no-matter-the-circumstances stats), then you would understand that we are looking at
a tiny, tiny percentage of gun violence happening in these school shootings:
Notwithstanding the occasional multiple-fatality shooting that takes place at one of the 100,000 public schools across America, the nation’s
schools are safe. Over the past quarter-century, on average about 10 students are slain in school shootings annually.
So, when you consider that, on an annual average our nation experiences 10,000 non-suicide related instances of gun violence per year (not
distinguishing between justified and unjustified violence), the average 10 students per year equates to exactly 0.1% of all gun violence. And when you
consider the average discussed on another USA Today
(interactive and pretty nice), "about 1%" of all murders that happen are attributable to mass shootings. It also cites that there is about a 57%
accuracy rate with FBI data because of incomplete or erroneous reporting, but when you consider that we're talking about 1% of all killings, that
needle isn't going to move much with better accuracy.
Other countries have mental illness, other countries have guns, other countries have a lot of the same elements we have - the difference is
their attitudes towards guns don’t seem to be the same as our attitudes towards guns. I advocate for changing those attitudes - not banning
Most other countries, save for two (Mexico and Guatemala, from what I've heard although not actually researched yet) do not have a constitution right
to own firearms, nor do they have a total of firearms that outnumber their population. If you consider that it is estimated that we have more than
350-million firearms in this counter, and there are "only" (term used very loosely) 10,000 annual incidents of non-suicide firearm violence, you are
looking at a statistic that shows that only (term not used loosely at all this time) 0.00286% of firearms in the U.S. are used in violent ways against
someone other than the gun owner--and again, that percentage does not discriminate between justified and unjustified uses of said firearms, meaning
the illegal use of firearms in violence is even lower than that.
There are many, many other countries that have a much higher per-capita rate of gun violence than America. Just looking at the numbers and only doing
so from the angle of firearm availability both do critical thinking on the topic a large injustice.
Personally, I think that our attitude concerning guns is playing out perfectly well when you look at the statistics. Just because a few psychopaths
and emotionally infantile people who have access to guns do very bad things with them does not mean that access to the rest of the 99.99914% of
firearms are not considered with a healthy attitude towards the weapons.
Thank you for a civil debate on the topic--I was hoping that you wouldn't take my response to you as being confrontational toward you individually.