Show Us the Carnage from the Mass Shootings!

This is why I'm some what againtst release photos. It's an appeal to emotion. I can just as easily use the picture to show how defenselees the teachers were and we should allow tgem to be armed. With permission of the parents, yes, show the carnage, but be wary of arguing out of emotion.

 

We should release the footage of 9/11 for all to see every September 11th as well.

 

They'll just say the pics were fake too.

 

Apparently a judge wants to release some video footage to the public, but it's not of the sort which has been our primary focus here. He says that the public should see the video in question because it may help them decide whether or not the polices handling of the situation in a different way might have produced a different outcome. Here is a link to the article ---> Judge: Parkland video should be seen by the public

 

I think it's a bad idea because the gun nuts are incapable of being convinced.

4chan will make memes, some people will get off on it, some other shooters will be inspired by it... and the people who were victimized will have to relive their tragedy over and over in the media. Alex Jones will scream about the images being fakes and/or crisis actors and special effects, NRA lobbyists and their pet politicians will talk about how it's tasteless that the media is exploiting the tragedy to ban guns, FOX news will quickly steer the conversation away from the images and towards the gun control debate in a really dishonest way that frames it as an 'all or nothing' scenario... and the gun nuts will lap it all up and regurgitate it online, endlessly switching the subject and refusing to accept that guns are even part of the problem.

The reason images of foreigners being slaughtered/humiliated/etc are released is because Americans see them as less important than Americans so it's more acceptable... as well as the fact that since these people are foreigners, their own media might not show it (assuming they have access to the media).

 

There's a certain American arrogance, although it may be shared with other nations, where seeing images of Middle Eastern horrors is permissible but let's shield and protect ourselves from the horrors of our own being lain to waste. And, it's that very arrogance - at least in part - that draws out these attacks.

I don't desire images of the reality for any perverse gratification but I suppose some may believe that seeing the images will only serve to advance pathology. Garbage in, garbage out.

The psychological impact of decades of attacks, massacres and slaughters has been severe. People, some people, believe some of the attacks are false flags, staged, hoaxed, etc.. As far as I'm concerned, that perception is distorted, detrimental, adverse psychological impact. Yes, the attacks are all real but if you think about it, whether real or hoaxed, there is a loosed malice in the world.

 

But that's why WikiLeaks was invented.

 

That scream was pure terror.

We carry on (Portishead Third LP comes to mind). Let's laugh more, turn up the music, distract ourselves, argue and fight over politics and who the idios and morons are.

 

I don't know if it appeals primarily to emotion but I'm sure that would be the case for some. What it should do is connect the mind in such a way that cognitive, conscious awareness takes place. We can be aware of things but that doesn't mean we're cognitively aware. We need understanding if we're going to be able to respond effectively.

There's little understanding because the debates on causal factors rage on, with priorities needing ^proper orderly structure.

 

i believe there are available archival photos of the genocide of indigenous communities. the numbers of casualties are somewhat greater then recent killing sprees.

 

I think we should be allowed to watch the videos. I know that I saw stuff when Sandy Ridge (name?) happened, there were several people that had darted off into the woods. These people were never interviewed or discussed by the media. Who were they?

 

Does rotten.com still exist?

 

Everything is emotion based. It's crucial to human decision making. It's not something that is bad necessarily.

Like why do you own a gun? The emotion of fearing being attacked. The emotion of feeling like it's right. It's the same as the emotion of empathy and wanting to protect people. A gun can be used on family members or children in accidents. Statistically most people are never in a situation that needs a gun. Maybe that is why gun owners say better to not need it and have it then need it and not have it.

So owning one comes back to your emotion you need it. It's not logical and it can even make things more dangerous for you. Fear is as powerful an emotion for making selfish and stupid decisions as is empathy which you seem to have an issue with.

 

You're contradicting this with your "need" sermon. In the first case you go with the often quoted "better to not need it and have it then need it and not have it". But in this case the need is demonstrated, not an inborn "need" to own a hunk of deadly metal.

I live out in the sticks, and it's pup season for coyotes. This means a lot of pets are being lured by them as a food source. I didn't realize how bad the problem was until I saw one of them in our fenced back yard. At the time the closest gun I had was an air pistol (BBs) that I usually use to scare off possums. It worked, but if the animal had decided to turn at me, I'd have been fucked, reaching for garden implements and such.

The gun is just a tool. They are also very easy to make, so the prospect of eliminating them is a pipe dream. That genie is already out of the bottle and has been for a few centuries. Better to focus on the control of maniacs and psychopaths. Thankfully MOST gun owners are neither.

 

What sermon?

The ideas that it's too late to take guns out of circulation so no one would is an equally big pipe dream. It's what a gun owner wants to think for an extra layer of security. If they try to take it they can't and they can not try anyway.

Most gun owners are pretty public with it. If and it's a big if the goverment encouraged kids and neighbors to snitch on gun owners in the way they did with DARE or post 9/11 with Muslims law enforcement would have a lot of eyes in the field. Those two examples are full of people who see something from a neighbor and call it in.

Attitudes to guns are changing. It's very possible your neighbors don't like them. A lot of people would never give up guns and would somehow hide them. In a new world they know it's a private "are you cool" thing like drugs. Even then they live in a world probably without things like stand your ground laws gone. If guns are illegal laws regulating legal use do not exist. So, even then they can not do much of the things they want guns for now.

Like if a guy steals your TV you can not see your kids for 20 years over a murder change and possession of an illegal firearm or you can get a new TV after he drops it cause you kicked him in the face. There is no good dad gun protect people person in this future which is possible for America at some point.

What can you do with no legal use for guns? Just wait for the Green Deal tyranny to come so they can shoot libturds? Gun laws are unlikely to go that far in the next few years. But if the big goverment wants it to the NRA is not stopping it.

 

That is incorrect. The NRA has the power to prevent the federal government from outlawing guns.

Further, the Supreme Court will strike down any such laws as well.

 

Who is causing what?

 

That would be unconstitutional. It would be like passing a law requiring you to do that.

 

Effective how? What would the point be?

The Slate article seems to think that showing these images will allow the NRA to be defeated, allowing leftists to start violating people's civil liberties for fun.

That will not happen. The NRA will continue to protect our civil liberties even if those pictures are shown.

And the Supreme Court is starting to back up the NRA in their defense of civil liberties.

 

No but appeal to emotion is bad. If you don't give all of your money to the poor then you're a horrible human being who wants people to starve.

That is backed up by statistical evidence supporting my decision to carry.

According to the US Constitution, it IS a right. My emotions has nothing to do with that fact.

Unless you're saying that you think I have a firearm because I think it's the correct thing to do, in that case, to an extant it is based on emotion, but more so it's the result of my own research on the issue.

Having a gun doesn't make things more dangerous for myself than owning a car. In fact, owning a car is far more dangerous than owning a gun, statistically. I can personally attest to this as I've experienced more close calls while driving than I had with my firearm.