Gun Violence

[77zach]

A trite question and one that I can probably answer myself in many different ways, but I'm curious about the psychology and motivation of non state employees that favor heavy regulation of firearms. It seems that if I were really afraid of something I'd research it, try to learn how to avoid it, try to understand it.

Assume I am a typical control freak who is middle class and votes.

When I apply this course of action I find that my chance of being murdered or maimed by a firearm is essentially 0. Since I'm middle class in a suburban area and not involved in any unethical or criminal activities, I'm essentially immunized against it.

If I were really afraid of something I'd learn about the other side, and their talking points. Obviously the framers of our founding documents thought armed citizens were important.
So, my chance of dying violently in or by a vehicle is significant, but I do it anyway because driving is convenient, necessary for modern life in a suburban area, and can even be fun. Because of driving's utility I put up with the risk. In order for me to want heavy handed restrictions on firearms, I'd have to see no benefit ever, a pretty arrogant conclusion. Additionally, I'd have to see it as a such a big negative, that it's worth it to me to oppose passionate people who feel the opposite way. Which would make me come full circle and realize that my chances of being murdered by a firearm are essentially 0. Don't get it.

 

[solus]

~

snipp...

Don't get it.

Tis a 64K question and has an elusive answer based mainly on the myriad of US' various societal communities where the societal individuals push their unique biases which center on their decade(s) of communal upbringing.

For example, NYC's citizens have since the early 1900s been told citizens have no need for firearms...this pervasive thought, and others, has been propagated as these NYC/NY citizens migrate to various parts of the country and innocently perpetrate their biases in their new communities.

Further, people of color from before the turn of the 1900s have been minimized by the whites they could not or should not have access to firearms. cite: http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/ngn-download-view.htm

Also, since the 80's the newspeek media have push sensational quick stories to boast their profit center. unfortunately, those stories, focus on local events ~ car wreaks and robbery/shootings, etc. now those who accomplish mass events get national attention as evidenced recently by the LV event. cite:
https://www.carnegiecouncil.org/publications/ethics_online/0117

To return to the present, those anti-advocates, based on their upbringing biased by their perception from the continued capitalization by newspeek media coupled on this psychological need for attention, both positive and negative, via social media and the newspeek media leads to emotional blathering of their cause.

because of the ingrained biases from decades of bombarding of misinformation, these anti-advocates are emotionally attached (i liken the concept to those citizens who unwaveringly follow a religious path) even tho there are massive amounts of viable, reliable, peer reviewed unemotional objective evidence showing their position is not sustainable whatsoever.

Finally, remember some of the anti-advocates are making a living as professional advocates.

a final thought...tho this country loses 35K a year in automobile accidents across this great country...there is no national legislative call to ban the car, suv, motorcycles, etc. (passenger car ~ 13K, SUV ~ 9K, motorcycles ~ 5K, pedestrians ~ 5.3K, bicycles ~ .8K, semi ~ .6K)

 

[color of law]

........For example, NYC's citizens have since the early 1900s been told citizens have no need for firearms...this pervasive thought, and others, has been propagated as these NYC/NY citizens migrate to various parts of the country and innocently perpetrate their biases in their new communities.....

Let me explain it.

Four Monkeys:

"You start with a cage containing four monkeys and inside the cage you hang a banana on a string, and then you place a set of stairs under the banana.

Before long a monkey will go to the stairs and climb toward the banana.

You then spray ALL the monkeys with cold water. After a while, another monkey makes an attempt. As soon as he touches the stairs, you spray ALL the monkeys with cold water.

Pretty soon, when another monkey tries to climb the stairs, the other monkeys will try to prevent it.

Now, put away the cold water. Remove one monkey from the cage and replace it with a new monkey. The new monkey sees the banana and attempts to climb the stairs. To his shock, ALL of the other monkeys beat the crap out of him After another attempt and attack, he knows that if he tries to climb the stairs he will be assaulted.

Next, remove another of the original four monkeys, replacing it with a new monkey. The newcomer goes to the stairs and is attacked. The previous newcomer takes part in the punishment - with enthusiasm - because he is now part of the "team."

Then, replace a third original monkey with a new monkey, followed by the fourth. Every time the newest monkey takes to the stairs, he is attacked...

Now, the monkeys that are beating him up have no idea why they were not permitted to climb the stairs.

Neither do they know why they are participating in the beating of the newest monkey. Having replaced all of the original monkeys, none of the remaining monkeys will have ever been sprayed with cold water.

Nevertheless, not one of the monkeys will try to climb the stairway for the Banana.

Why, you ask? Because in their minds, that is the way it has always been!

This is how today's House and Senate operates, and this Is why from time to time, ALL of the monkeys need to be REPLACED AT THE SAME TIME!"

DISCLAIMER: This is meant as no disrespect to monkeys

 

[357SigFan]

Let me explain it.

Four Monkeys:

"You start with a cage containing four monkeys and inside the cage you hang a banana on a string, and then you place a set of stairs under the banana.

Before long a monkey will go to the stairs and climb toward the banana.

You then spray ALL the monkeys with cold water. After a while, another monkey makes an attempt. As soon as he touches the stairs, you spray ALL the monkeys with cold water.

Pretty soon, when another monkey tries to climb the stairs, the other monkeys will try to prevent it.

Now, put away the cold water. Remove one monkey from the cage and replace it with a new monkey. The new monkey sees the banana and attempts to climb the stairs. To his shock, ALL of the other monkeys beat the crap out of him After another attempt and attack, he knows that if he tries to climb the stairs he will be assaulted.

Next, remove another of the original four monkeys, replacing it with a new monkey. The newcomer goes to the stairs and is attacked. The previous newcomer takes part in the punishment - with enthusiasm - because he is now part of the "team."

Then, replace a third original monkey with a new monkey, followed by the fourth. Every time the newest monkey takes to the stairs, he is attacked...

Now, the monkeys that are beating him up have no idea why they were not permitted to climb the stairs.

Neither do they know why they are participating in the beating of the newest monkey. Having replaced all of the original monkeys, none of the remaining monkeys will have ever been sprayed with cold water.

Nevertheless, not one of the monkeys will try to climb the stairway for the Banana.

Why, you ask? Because in their minds, that is the way it has always been!

This is how today's House and Senate operates, and this Is why from time to time, ALL of the monkeys need to be REPLACED AT THE SAME TIME!"

DISCLAIMER: This is meant as no disrespect to monkeys

An oldie but goodie that sums it up perfectly.

 

[solus]

"Hello Americans, you know what the news is -- in a minute, you're going to hear the rest of the story...."

quote:
Apparently it (added: the parable you just stated) is supposed to describe a real scientific experiment that was performed on a group of monkeys, and it is supposed to raise profound questions about our tendency to unquestioningly follow the herd. Unfortunately it is complete and utter nonsense, because no such experiment ever happened.

Ironically, so many people are sharing this unverified pseudoscientific gibberish that it really does reveal our tendency to unthinkingly follow the herd; after all, why would you bother verifying an article about monkeys that literally has the tag line “think before you follow”?

This story has been doing the rounds since 1996, and it has never been verified. It seems to have first appeared in a book called Competing For The Future by Gary Hamel and C. K. Prahalad, and by “appeared” I mean it was just made up. The authors never provided a source. None of the authors who have referred to the experiment in the past eighteen years have provided a source either. None of the appealing memes or infographics that describe the story now provide a source. Suffice to say, there is no source, because the experiment never happened.

Stepper’s “proof” that it happened “a little differently” is an article by G.R. Stephenson called Cultural Acquisition Of A Specific Learned Response Among Rhesus Monkeys (1966). The very existence of a scientific-sounding source seems to be enough to lend this ‘experiment’ some credibility (it’s got a big name and a date and everything) but all you need to do is read the experiment yourself to see that it has absolutely nothing to do with this ‘fable’ at all.
(cite for original Stephenson's experiment: http://www.throwcase.com/wp-content...Specific-Learned-Response_Stephenson_1966.pdf )

Unfortunately, a few decades after this study was published some moronic self-help author read it and thought “it’s almost good, but if I make it much more sensational and implausible, I will sell a lot of books! Though I don’t have any real truths, I can help people by showing them essential truths I’ve just made up!” And then you read it on Facebook, and thousands of people shared it, believing it to be true. unquote

"And now you know -- the rest of the story ~ Good Day!"

 

[Grapeshot]

--snipped--

"And now you know -- the rest of the story ~ Good Day!"

Paul Harvey, broadcasting pioneer, dies at age 90

http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2009/03/paul_harvey_broadcasting_pione.html

 

[color of law]

"Hello Americans, you know what the news is -- in a minute, you're going to hear the rest of the story...."

quote:
Apparently it (added: the parable you just stated) is supposed to describe a real scientific experiment that was performed on a group of monkeys, and it is supposed to raise profound questions about our tendency to unquestioningly follow the herd. Unfortunately it is complete and utter nonsense, because no such experiment ever happened.

Ironically, so many people are sharing this unverified pseudoscientific gibberish that it really does reveal our tendency to unthinkingly follow the herd; after all, why would you bother verifying an article about monkeys that literally has the tag line “think before you follow”?

This story has been doing the rounds since 1996, and it has never been verified. It seems to have first appeared in a book called Competing For The Future by Gary Hamel and C. K. Prahalad, and by “appeared” I mean it was just made up. The authors never provided a source. None of the authors who have referred to the experiment in the past eighteen years have provided a source either. None of the appealing memes or infographics that describe the story now provide a source. Suffice to say, there is no source, because the experiment never happened.

Stepper’s “proof” that it happened “a little differently” is an article by G.R. Stephenson called Cultural Acquisition Of A Specific Learned Response Among Rhesus Monkeys (1966). The very existence of a scientific-sounding source seems to be enough to lend this ‘experiment’ some credibility (it’s got a big name and a date and everything) but all you need to do is read the experiment yourself to see that it has absolutely nothing to do with this ‘fable’ at all.
(cite for original Stephenson's experiment: http://www.throwcase.com/wp-content...Specific-Learned-Response_Stephenson_1966.pdf )

Unfortunately, a few decades after this study was published some moronic self-help author read it and thought “it’s almost good, but if I make it much more sensational and implausible, I will sell a lot of books! Though I don’t have any real truths, I can help people by showing them essential truths I’ve just made up!” And then you read it on Facebook, and thousands of people shared it, believing it to be true. unquote

"And now you know -- the rest of the story ~ Good Day!"

Absolutely, monkeys are smarter than that, but politicians I'm not so sure.

 

[357SigFan]

"Hello Americans, you know what the news is -- in a minute, you're going to hear the rest of the story...."

quote:
Apparently it (added: the parable you just stated) is supposed to describe a real scientific experiment that was performed on a group of monkeys, and it is supposed to raise profound questions about our tendency to unquestioningly follow the herd. Unfortunately it is complete and utter nonsense, because no such experiment ever happened.

Ironically, so many people are sharing this unverified pseudoscientific gibberish that it really does reveal our tendency to unthinkingly follow the herd; after all, why would you bother verifying an article about monkeys that literally has the tag line “think before you follow”?

This story has been doing the rounds since 1996, and it has never been verified. It seems to have first appeared in a book called Competing For The Future by Gary Hamel and C. K. Prahalad, and by “appeared” I mean it was just made up. The authors never provided a source. None of the authors who have referred to the experiment in the past eighteen years have provided a source either. None of the appealing memes or infographics that describe the story now provide a source. Suffice to say, there is no source, because the experiment never happened.

Stepper’s “proof” that it happened “a little differently” is an article by G.R. Stephenson called Cultural Acquisition Of A Specific Learned Response Among Rhesus Monkeys (1966). The very existence of a scientific-sounding source seems to be enough to lend this ‘experiment’ some credibility (it’s got a big name and a date and everything) but all you need to do is read the experiment yourself to see that it has absolutely nothing to do with this ‘fable’ at all.
(cite for original Stephenson's experiment: http://www.throwcase.com/wp-content...Specific-Learned-Response_Stephenson_1966.pdf )

Unfortunately, a few decades after this study was published some moronic self-help author read it and thought “it’s almost good, but if I make it much more sensational and implausible, I will sell a lot of books! Though I don’t have any real truths, I can help people by showing them essential truths I’ve just made up!” And then you read it on Facebook, and thousands of people shared it, believing it to be true. unquote

"And now you know -- the rest of the story ~ Good Day!"

Everything you say may be 100% true, but it doesn't change the fact that despite it being a joke with no scientific basis, it does accurately describe how the US government works, and 'sometimes you need to replace all the monkeys at once' is DEFINITELY true of the US government.

 

[Grapeshot]

Everything you say may be 100% true, but it doesn't change the fact that despite it being a joke with no scientific basis, it does accurately describe how the US government works, and 'sometimes you need to replace all the monkeys at once' is DEFINITELY true of the US government.

Monkey see, monkey do-do. :uhoh:

 

[77zach]

It's just weird because my default setting is to see people telling me what to do as bullies. For example, a controller would like to throw me in jail if I own a bump stock or a fully automatic weapon. Not only does it make me want to own a bump stock or a fully automatic weapon, it makes me embarrassed for the controller and makes me loathe the controller. Intensifying my feeling is the fact I have no desire to control the controller or force him to own a bump stock or anything else.

When someone tells me something I like to know why. The controller wants to control me with no good reason, I haven't done anything wrong. He wants to use violence against me if I do not submit to his controls. He tries to make me feel guilty if I do not submit to his controls even though I have done nothing to deserve controlling.

Wielding power over other people makes the controller feel safe, and sometimes it gets him off.

 

[OC for ME]

Let me explain it.

Four Monkeys: ...

How did you get from non-state employees to the US House and Senate (Congress Critters).

The greatest threat to the 2A and our free exercise thereof is the FUDD.

 

[MamaLiberty]

Let me explain it.
This is how today's House and Senate operates, and this Is why from time to time, ALL of the monkeys need to be REPLACED AT THE SAME TIME!"

These monkeys serve no actual purpose for anyone but themselves, so why replace them? In the meantime, I think a spray of ice water on all of them, each time they try to pass another "law" would be a wonderful thing. And I'd love to see it get to the point where they would gang up on and beat any newcomer.

I'd buy tickets.

 

[JTHunter2]

A very interesting premise Color. It's a shame that it can never happen through the voting booth.

 

[Grapeshot]

A very interesting premise Color. It's a shame that it can never happen through the voting booth.

".....we repeal it or defeat it in the courts."
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/misc.php?do=showrules

 

[WalkingWolf]

How did you get from non-state employees to the US House and Senate (Congress Critters).

The greatest threat to the 2A and our free exercise thereof is the FUDD.

Not just Fudds, but Fudds that form a money driven lobby.