LaPierre on a Stick!
- Thread starter Glenn E. Meyer
- Start date
I believe the following point has very much to do with heated rhetoric, gun bans and how merely even just suggesting them, could make the situation worse. Worse by way of creating more of what we seek to prevent.
A couple of days ago Glenn Meyer posted a link to the following New York Times article, its very interesting and definitely worth reading.
What Drives Suicidal Mass Killers
For years, the conventional wisdom has been that suicide terrorists are rational political actors, while suicidal rampage shooters are mentally disturbed loners.
There appears to be a triad of factors that sets these killers apart. The first is that they are generally struggling with mental health problems that have produced their desire to die.
The second factor is a deep sense of victimization and belief that the killer’s life has been ruined by someone else, who has bullied, oppressed or persecuted him.
Above are a few excerpts from the article to help make my point. Please read the article for their full context and meaning within that article.
...belief that the killer's life has been ruined by someone else, who has bullied, oppressed or persecuted him.
Right now untold thousands are setting in shelters because they think the World might end tomorrow. The day after the Sandy Hook event 56,000+ AR15s were sold. There are 100,000,000+ firearms owners in the USA, 300,000,000+ firearms. Political distrust and division are higher than I've ever seen in my life.
I strongly believe most of us here are rational, sane, responsible persons, who would only harm someone in the direst of circumstances. I'd wager that the vast, vast majority of firearms owners are too. Thats the good news.
Now lets get to the bad news. How many out of those 100,000,000 firearms owners aren't sane and rational? How many have stockpiles of ammo and high cap magazines? How many think the Government is the devil and out to get them? How many would think that a gun ban, or even magazine ban was their cue that their World was ending and they were being oppressed? How many hear the calls for NRA members to be shot, or peoples heads to be put on a stick and take it to heart? How many honestly believe the Government is oppressing, bulling and persecuting them?
Truth is, there is no way to know. However, a little simple math tells us, that if even a tiny percentage of the 100,000,000+ firearms owners chose action against perceived injustice, the results could be more horrific than we like to think of. It doesn't even have to be suicidal people either, just ones who believe they are in the right and willing to act. The true believers.
How many Timothy McVeighs, or Waco type incidents, etc, etc would a ban, or confiscation create? How many incidents would anti-firearms groups deem acceptable, in order to get the evil rifles, magazines, or whatever. Every time that a bomb went off, or an agent got killed, or a house with little children in it was destroyed, would they say it was worth it, worth it to get those evil guns that kill little children? Will they say "see, these crazy guns and gun owners are to blame"? While ignoring their own culpability.
Is the very, very real possibility of untold thousands of deaths and property destruction on a mass scale, really worth banning an inanimate object? An object that millions of normal, sane law abiding people own? I don't think so, but I do think this is something for all sides to consider. Not in terms of a threat, or an if you do this, or anything of the kind, but as a very real probability of unintended consequences.
My own opinion of what to first is A) tone down the rhetoric, on all sides and B) lets all think long and hard, before we enact anything.
A couple of days ago Glenn Meyer posted a link to the following New York Times article, its very interesting and definitely worth reading.
What Drives Suicidal Mass Killers
For years, the conventional wisdom has been that suicide terrorists are rational political actors, while suicidal rampage shooters are mentally disturbed loners.
There appears to be a triad of factors that sets these killers apart. The first is that they are generally struggling with mental health problems that have produced their desire to die.
The second factor is a deep sense of victimization and belief that the killer’s life has been ruined by someone else, who has bullied, oppressed or persecuted him.
Above are a few excerpts from the article to help make my point. Please read the article for their full context and meaning within that article.
...belief that the killer's life has been ruined by someone else, who has bullied, oppressed or persecuted him.
Right now untold thousands are setting in shelters because they think the World might end tomorrow. The day after the Sandy Hook event 56,000+ AR15s were sold. There are 100,000,000+ firearms owners in the USA, 300,000,000+ firearms. Political distrust and division are higher than I've ever seen in my life.
I strongly believe most of us here are rational, sane, responsible persons, who would only harm someone in the direst of circumstances. I'd wager that the vast, vast majority of firearms owners are too. Thats the good news.
Now lets get to the bad news. How many out of those 100,000,000 firearms owners aren't sane and rational? How many have stockpiles of ammo and high cap magazines? How many think the Government is the devil and out to get them? How many would think that a gun ban, or even magazine ban was their cue that their World was ending and they were being oppressed? How many hear the calls for NRA members to be shot, or peoples heads to be put on a stick and take it to heart? How many honestly believe the Government is oppressing, bulling and persecuting them?
Truth is, there is no way to know. However, a little simple math tells us, that if even a tiny percentage of the 100,000,000+ firearms owners chose action against perceived injustice, the results could be more horrific than we like to think of. It doesn't even have to be suicidal people either, just ones who believe they are in the right and willing to act. The true believers.
How many Timothy McVeighs, or Waco type incidents, etc, etc would a ban, or confiscation create? How many incidents would anti-firearms groups deem acceptable, in order to get the evil rifles, magazines, or whatever. Every time that a bomb went off, or an agent got killed, or a house with little children in it was destroyed, would they say it was worth it, worth it to get those evil guns that kill little children? Will they say "see, these crazy guns and gun owners are to blame"? While ignoring their own culpability.
Is the very, very real possibility of untold thousands of deaths and property destruction on a mass scale, really worth banning an inanimate object? An object that millions of normal, sane law abiding people own? I don't think so, but I do think this is something for all sides to consider. Not in terms of a threat, or an if you do this, or anything of the kind, but as a very real probability of unintended consequences.
My own opinion of what to first is A) tone down the rhetoric, on all sides and B) lets all think long and hard, before we enact anything.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
I would caution members to not let your zealotry lead to inappropriate posts.
Head on a stick...History professor didn't even know to say "pike"..
what a world we are in!
Witness the soft gentle language of the reactionary...in this case, I believe he is on the political left, but the right does it as well...
Nugent gets a visit from the Secret Service because he used the phrase "shot across the bow.." and someone in the govt wet their panties thinking he was saying he wanted to shoot the President...
At least this Prof got a visit from the police (to assess the threat, one assumes), instead of a total pass.
There is a tremendous double (or maybe triple) standard at work in both the media and the govt. And, sadly, collectively it is our fault. Each change we simply accept, each compromise we make, whether it is a gun control law, or what is the acceptable way to communicate sets precedent.
Our entertainment is overflowing with images and language that (within my lifetime) at one time would have gotten you punched in the mouth if you said it in front of a lady.
Which is yet another thing. At one time, people could fight, and if the cause was just, not suffer much from authority. Not today. Smacking someone who roundly deserves it, is legally not much less trouble than shooting them!
I do find it odd (not to say incredibly hypocritical) that so many of the radical, reactionary liberals so readily voice a desire to kill those who disagree with them (and it only seems to vary slightly dependant on the specific issue - guns being one of the hottest, "hot button" topics).
English is a rich language, with many, many colorful phrases to choose from, to express an infinate range of ideas. BUT, by traditional, and common usage, some of them are understood to imply certain specific things.
Run out of town (on a rail) is "a metaphor to hold them responsible for their actions". Tarred and Feathered is another one (if a bit stronger).
Head on a stick (pike) is, and always has been a metaphor for killing someone, or something as a warning to others.
I suppose a history professor might be forgiven a small gaff in English, as its not their area of expertise, BUT I cannot and will not forgive them ignorance in their own supposed area of expertise, and "head on a stick" is definately a phrase, and an act, found throughout history.
what a world we are in!
Witness the soft gentle language of the reactionary...in this case, I believe he is on the political left, but the right does it as well...
Nugent gets a visit from the Secret Service because he used the phrase "shot across the bow.." and someone in the govt wet their panties thinking he was saying he wanted to shoot the President...
At least this Prof got a visit from the police (to assess the threat, one assumes), instead of a total pass.
There is a tremendous double (or maybe triple) standard at work in both the media and the govt. And, sadly, collectively it is our fault. Each change we simply accept, each compromise we make, whether it is a gun control law, or what is the acceptable way to communicate sets precedent.
Our entertainment is overflowing with images and language that (within my lifetime) at one time would have gotten you punched in the mouth if you said it in front of a lady.
Which is yet another thing. At one time, people could fight, and if the cause was just, not suffer much from authority. Not today. Smacking someone who roundly deserves it, is legally not much less trouble than shooting them!
I do find it odd (not to say incredibly hypocritical) that so many of the radical, reactionary liberals so readily voice a desire to kill those who disagree with them (and it only seems to vary slightly dependant on the specific issue - guns being one of the hottest, "hot button" topics).
English is a rich language, with many, many colorful phrases to choose from, to express an infinate range of ideas. BUT, by traditional, and common usage, some of them are understood to imply certain specific things.
Run out of town (on a rail) is "a metaphor to hold them responsible for their actions". Tarred and Feathered is another one (if a bit stronger).
Head on a stick (pike) is, and always has been a metaphor for killing someone, or something as a warning to others.
I suppose a history professor might be forgiven a small gaff in English, as its not their area of expertise, BUT I cannot and will not forgive them ignorance in their own supposed area of expertise, and "head on a stick" is definately a phrase, and an act, found throughout history.
I don't find it odd at all. I figured out along time ago when they claim CCW weapons, etc will lead to common arguments turning deadly, they are basing that assumption of behavior on the person they know best, themselves.
Also, if I was as radical as some of them seem to be, I'd probably want the populace disarmed as well.
