Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Now is not the time to talk about this

Posted 2 years ago on July 25, 2012, 3:13 p.m. EST by bensdad (8977)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement


talk to JFK, RFK, Lennon, MLK, Brady, Giffords


When will they ever learn?
When will WE ever learn ?

57 Comments

57 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Bush and Obama killed people with bombs.

When will they ever learn?

When will we learn?

It's time for our leaders to pose an example of peace and have a society structured around that and spread from there.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Oooh Rah to that!

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by gsw (2697) 2 years ago

It does not benefit either party, in our inverted democratic totalitarian corrupt political system to dialog about limiting gun sales. That would circumvent capitalist free-for all will not happen because our democracy has been stolen by corporations, lobbyists, democrats and republicans and especially corporations that have more rights than citizen people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5w0FA5P8hQ The GOP are quasi corporate fascists; and most liberals have been banished or lost their reason or backbone.

There can not be any debate about what ideals our country should aspire to, as we are in a dictatorship of the corporations. The people have lost their democracy.

We are all under the controll of the gun lobby. Go buy your assult weapons and 6000 rounds of ammo. it is your divine constitutional right.

We all need assault weapons to protect ourselves from the Wackos, so we're all going to be in an arms race to the bottom. (This is what the repubs spew as the answer) Better buy stock in Smith and Wesson. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zotYU21qcU Chris Hedges, in these and other videos, as well as his books, sheds so much light on our current state of affairs in his accurate analysis of our situation.

[-] 2 points by gsw (2697) 2 years ago

Oh great. The NRA just robo-push polled me. They NRA will never compromise on any aspect of "tracking, registering, relinquishing or modifying" in any way any of their 2nd ammendment rights to United Nations Treaties?

.... because the corporations have taken over and corporate policies can't be discussed, or regulated.

Our planet is being consumed by immoral corporations, who have more rights than people, and whose leaders can not be held legally or morally responsible. The rulers are taking our national resources, (How about the huge new copper mine near Bristol Bay Alaska, the company won't give any real science to government regulators until the permitting process is begun, and permits are always granted once the process has started. http://www.avclub.com/tvclub/tvshow/frontline,166/

[-] -1 points by Porkie (-255) 2 years ago

Well... the defining word here is "assault" - the AR is not viewed as a weapon of a defense purpose; even when used for defense it is still utilized in an assault role.

[-] 2 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Get used to the fact that guns are here and not going away. The question then becomes who should have them? Us? Yep.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

I believe anyone should be allowed to buy a registered gun if they have a license

[-] 1 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

I agree. I think the propaganda against guns within the left does harm because it promotes the illusion that the government is going to keep the peace. When the Tea Partiers decide to move that's what they are going to do. The more they believe it's going to be a cakewalk the sooner that day comes.

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

The "left" Clinto n signed to assault weapons ban - and mega-clip ban. And the congress, afraid of nra money did not extend it

[-] 1 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 2 years ago

And that's where it stands. The government is not going to disarm the fascists.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

That's what I hear, this isn't the time. Well, I AGREE with that one. The time to talk about this was before it happened. We are way too late. Before, Columbine would have been a good time. Before the Virginia Tech Massacre would have been a good time. Talking about it before the next time isn't a great time, but it is a whole lot better than waiting until after it happens again.

Apparently some of us want to make completely sure that it happens again. They are the ones who say 'absolutely nothing could have been done to prevent the last one', or the one before that, or even the one before that. They are absolutely certain.

They are so certain, that no one is allowed to talk about the possibility of preventing it, making it less disastrous, altering in any way the choices of tools for the killers, altering the process that killers must go through to get their most desired tool of mayhem, or any screening of the psychology of people who might choose such an activity.

They are certain because they either want it to happen or they are completely certain that it will not make them too feel bad when it does happen. "Oh, nobody wants it to happen.' Hmmm. Well, at least one person, and possible more than one, wanted it to happen. Just like wild fires, some people get some sort of thrill when these things happen. Some people set the fires. Some rush to them to enjoy them. You know that is true.

People are so certain that they don't even want you to think about how these events could be prevented. Why, do you suppose? Is it because you might actually have an idea that would work?

They are convinced that that couldn't, won't, shouldn't happen. Are these the people that we should be listening to? Really?

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

It is the same thing that we see with the "I am an energy voter" ads from the fracking business. The lobby for the gun industry ( commonly called the nra ) wants PROFITS. If people get shot , or poisoned - they are a renewable resource.
Wait for a soylent green shop to open in your neighborhood.

[-] -1 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

So how do you stop someone who gets a thrill out of starting fires, or rushing to enjoy them - get rid of all ignition devices?

The problem is as you stated prior to the incident starting - look at what happened at Penn State - why wasn't that stopped?

People knew about it but didn't do anything - why is that?

Our society has become so violent and "lax" about respect towards others that that is a large part of the problem. If you don't respect yourself why would you even think about respecting someone else.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

I don't accept the responsibility for solving every problem in society. And I certainly don't accept responsibility for those I don't exacerbate. However, I also don't take the position that the problems are insoluble or that there is no possible mitigation. I am open to any suggestions that will address the problems in any positive way.

If we can start from that position I believe we may be able to save lives and injuries. If you want to offer only suggestions that you believe are ridiculous and that can't possibly work to "prove" that absolutely nothing can be done, you seem to say. "I like these problems and don't want them solved." It that your position? Is that the best you have to offer?

The question isn't, "How do you" it is, "How do we..."? If you can't offer a single suggestion for mitigating the Penn State situation which continued for many years, have a nice day.

[-] -1 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

I don't have the answers just like the vast majority of people don't. Now as I have stated in my previous post we can require school age children to take a psychological exam to test for sanity, agression, etc. Then we can test them again at the age of 26 - again for sanity, agression, etc..

So do you think that will solve the problem? How about if we stop teaching children violence like they do in Iran, china along with a host of other countries where they bainwash children into thinking killing someone is not a violent act but a act of god or for the good of the country.

[-] 3 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

The vast majority doesn't need to have the answers. One or two will do. Then let's try them, somewhere. We can start in my town. There are probably a half dozen to a dozen ideas that we could get some town to try. I say if you can't measure it you can't manage it.

I'll bet in 2-5 years some of them would show some results. You can bet more towns will jump on the ones that look like winners, increasing the amount of data we get. If we aren't better off in less than ten years, I will be shocked and will apologize or drink dirty water or whatever you think is fair.

This is too important to just lie down and do nothing.

[-] -1 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

Your thinking that more control over something will change things doesn't happen in this society.

Lets look at drinking, driving without seatbelts, texting while driving, obesity - the list goes on and on but "shit" happens all the time.

It has to be the "mindset" of the population that has to be "adjusted". If the government wants to chang the way people react to things they start with the young and it eventually will happen

So between now and then unless everyone is on board - it just won't happen.

People are too self-absorbed in themselves rather then be concerned about what is happening to others unless it affects them directly.

And of course lets not forget about the "emotional factor" that falls into place.

[-] 3 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

I see what you are saying and for one of the possible solutions, you may be right. But is that the only solution possible?

If it isn't, we can try some things on a smaller scale. Success on a smaller scale can be levered up in some cases rapidly. If it looks like it works, lots of towns will want to try it. Soon it will be of such a scale that we will really know it will work (or not). Then it would be hard to keep people off board.

I agree that convincing 310 million to try a pig in a poke, all at the same time is not realistic. But now, the conversation is about what we can do, not that nothing can be done. Feels right, doesn't it?

[-] -1 points by Porkie (-255) 2 years ago

In the desire to insulate ourselves from bloody confrontation, we have grown far too tolerant. Even now, we observe the court proceedings on TV as mere emotionally detached spectators; we should be tearing the court room down.

[-] -2 points by Porkie (-255) 2 years ago

I think we're all capable of committing heinous acts; you're asking us to rein all in, with a population of 310 million, many of them entirely undocumented. That doesn't sound realistic without a much increased police presence.

[-] 3 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

I didn't say do this and do it this way. Let's be as creative as we can. We have done a lot of behavioral changes with various kinds of carrots and sticks. Let's look at what others have done that seem to work.

I would rather have more police than more $ trillion fighter plane programs, if we decide we have to brute force it with man power, we so be it but I would try to come up with better ways first.

I don't think undocumented people want to get shot. If they did, they would go home. Maybe it is more important to have them on the side of a solution than to be criminals for cleaning your neighbor's toilet for a dollar a day?

When you do what you are doing, you get what you got. If you want something else, you got to do something else.

[-] -3 points by Porkie (-255) 2 years ago

You'd need 310 million police armed to the 'T' to fully police 310 million people; that's not feasible. Americans will commit heinous acts no matter what we do, and no matter what words fall on the few here; it's simply our nature.

What of the druggie who stands on every corner of the USA, day after day? We look the other way; he kills people, and destroys families... we don't even have the will to address that.

We need to be consistent in our rationale.

[-] 3 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Did I suggest that or is that something you are tying me to, to make me look ridiculous? I'm not very smart, so you will probably get away with it.

I guess when we get enough cops to stand at everybody's bedroom door to make sure they aren't using some kind of birth control or doing something equally heinous, in a sexual sort of way, we might have enough to police something I didn't advocate? Wasn't slavery one of those things that was in our nature to do?

Give me your rationale again, please? Oh, and do be consistent. You might include your very consistent solution, as well. I'm making a scrap book. What was your alias before it was changed, again? With a number of (-18) I can see you have invested some serious work here. Gotta admire somebody who won't fly under false colors.

[-] -2 points by Porkie (-255) 2 years ago

I would rather have more police than more trillion dollar...

Those are your words.

You're right about one thing: you're not very smart. We've gone from the inability to police (especially in light of "undocumented") to alien citizenship to sexual perversion in less than three seconds. And it wasn't my spin, it was yours. This is not a very good gun control defense; the defense would laugh until they had tears in their eyes and then tear you to shreds. Because you're circumventing.

My point is that man is corrupt by nature, and no, that's not a religious determination - it's a fact. And we cannot rein in all heinous acts no matter what we do; our only hope is a thorough dose of morality and responsibility to society; neither of these align very well with those who chose to entertain such hedonistic views.

You can't legalize drugs on the one hand and take guns as harmful on the other; where's the rationale in that?

People with control issues who cower in the face of authority; it's bizarre.

[-] 3 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

I never suggested anything that involved policing. You made that up. So, since you were happy making up both sides of a conversation, I decided to extend your leg, chiropractically speaking, and you got hook, line, sinker, and maybe even the bobber.

You do know what a bobber is, don't you?

[-] -1 points by Porkie (-255) 2 years ago

Ok, you lost me, what exactly are you suggesting? Another Federal unconstitutional law that would prohibit "assault" weapons?

You people don't get it; you can't go through life stomping on other people who do not like your social agenda. There's nothing wrong with Colorado's laws; there's something wrong with Holmes. And he's not Conservative; he's not Republican or a member of the NRA - he's one of yours.

[-] 3 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

"You people", who is that exactly? You were pretty happy with what you wanted me to be suggesting. You could just stick with that or: "The vast majority doesn't need to have the answers. One or two will do. Then let's try them, somewhere. We can start in my town. There are probably a half dozen to a dozen ideas that we could get some town to try. I say, if you can't measure it you can't manage it.

I'll bet in 2-5 years some of them would show some results. You can bet more towns will jump on the ones that look like winners, increasing the amount of data we get. If we aren't better off in less than ten years, I will be shocked and will apologize or drink dirty water or whatever you think is fair.

This is too important to just lie down and do nothing."

There you are, I suggested that we try some ideas that someone suggests in a willing town, to see what happens. Or, more towns, if there are ideas that they want to try. Policing? Where did I allude to policing?

"You people", hmmm, that is a classic symptom. Do you harbor hatred for certain segments of society? Do you own a sword? Do you still wet the bed? And why is it that you will expend exactly no effort to prevent mass murders from happening in the future? It's one of yours? It's OK then, we can use that. How long have you had conversations that were completely inside your own head?

Guess we scratched through that thin veneer of camo rationality and see what we got? Harris and Klebold, what were they?

[-] -1 points by Porkie (-255) 2 years ago

The one common thread in all, including Harris and Klebold, generally appears to be an above average intelligence. I don't believe Columbine was of a "traditional" background, either; there appears to have been a general instability.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

There may be patterns. If there are we should be looking for them, it seems to me.

[-] -1 points by Porkie (-255) 2 years ago

By and large there are three common themes: above average intelligence, social instability, and a left leaning ethical nihilism. This is true of virtually all of the last thirty years.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

I am not sure you have all of the themes identified, or identified them correctly, but this is one of the avenues that can be investigated further. There may be multiple answers, just like in breast cancer (which my wife is fighting) which has been split into 10 different types (so far) with unique attributes and therefore unique treatments, only two or three of which have been found to work, at this point.

But there is plenty of work to be done, to find and identify causes, formulate tailored solutions, implement in trials, and assess outcomes. I still get upset when people say, "Nothing can be done." I have spent my life solving problems that people said couldn't be solved. Sometimes some people lost and some gained but if the net result is better, I am satisfied. I will be in this case, as well.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

If there were no guns this man may have killed more people. In his apartment they found dozens of home made grenades and fire bombs.

Personally I do not see the need for people to have access to assault weapons that hold many rounds however let's not pretend that guns are the cause.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

Lets be honest, gun advocate that I am, THIS guy is CRAZY and I think you are right. BUT
We outlaw speeding and some people break the law - so we should not have speed limits? This disaster pr obably would not have be en stopped by any law but this set of laws (IMHO) would cut gun deaths by 90%:


A serious attempt at a natioinal gun control law - what do you think?

All gun sales require a background check &
minmum two week waiting period &
no "gun show" loop holes
All guns must be registered like cars
All gun owners must be trained & licensed like drivers.
Buying bullets requires proof of license & registration
Owning an unregistered gun, or by an unlicenced owner carries a
$1000 fine.
Using an unregistered gun or by an unlicenced owner carries a
$10,000 fine
Selling or buying a an unregistered gun or to an unlicenced buyer caries a
$100,000 fine
Police are authorized to anonomously buy back unregistered guns
...from unlicenced owners at 50% over "street" price
ban gun clips that hold more that 12 bullets
ban semi-automatic weapons
Gun owners must carry liability insurance:
Since so many people are careless about where they keep it,
…if a child gets their hands your gun and shoots someone,
...the insurance will protect the victim, and gun owner's insurance
...COST will go up after it is used
cut wayne lapierree’s salary from $1,000.000/year to $50,000/year Legalize drugs

All contributions to the NRA over $100 must be accompanied by a trigger finger

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

We will learn when we learn to control "violent people". Give all our school children psychological exams to see if they have violent tendencies.

Then when they reach the age of 21 require them to take another psychological exam to see if things have changed.

That will definitely stop the violence. Otherwise, all the gun control in the world won't do a thing.

If all the weapons are taken away from every citicizen could you guarentee that there will be no more mass killings - or daily killings in general?

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

I heard a story from ONE source - the "Texas clocktower" shooter from decades ago was autopsied and they found a large brain tumor.
Anti-social behavior ranging from violence to bullying probably exists in 5%-10% of people.
"testing" will solve nothing.

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

Hey, he may have gotten the brain tumor when he was older. I know of people who have had brain tumors at the age of 25 when in fact they didn't have anything prior to that.

So what you say is true, but nothing is certain - not even more gun control.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

As long as we let special interests - nra , koch, adelson own our government we will not get control of guns

[-] 0 points by Porkie (-255) 2 years ago

I don't believe that Homes exhibited any of these tendencies.

[-] 0 points by marvelpym (-184) 2 years ago

mandatory pysch tests like that remind me of the story Examination Day by Henry Slesar.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Cool, WE should tax the manufactures of the guns and bullets to pay for it.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (26913) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

A portion of every sale to go into the Ins/fund.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

It's looking more and more like the ONLY solution, that "might" eventually save some lives, and slow this insanity.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (26913) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Well it is one factor in a situation made one whole hell of a lot worse by the sickness of society = Rampant poverty, dwindling wages, vanishing employment, fucked-up economy, criminals being rewarded.

Care and responsibility/accountability should be addressed starting in 1st grade then continue throughout school years and continue in media presentations for the general public.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

All of those things can be factors, yet it happens in "good times" too.

I don't at this time, believe that it can be completely eliminated, but I do believe steps can be taken to reduce it close to zero.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (26913) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Six sigma - an approach to zero defects.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

If we don't try something, it will only get worse and more frequent.

And it's the NRA and it's supporters that refuse all changes.

[-] 1 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

Show me a guarentee that more gun laws will change stop people from killing each other.

[-] 2 points by freakyfriday (179) 2 years ago

Chicago! Until VERY recently you could not own a handgun there and you still cannot take one outside of your house. That is, if you have the time and money to venture OUTSIDE the city to buy one since there are no guns stores there. And then go thru all the time and finacial hoops to get licensed.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

After you show me proof that more guns make for less gun violence.

As I recall, I did present a possible long term solution.

You?

No solution at all.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

Well you want a way to solve the problem - Require every school child to take a psychological exam and again after they are at the age of 26.

That should sort out the "bad apples from the good apples". or the "bad gun owners from the good gun owners.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Now the federal gov is in charge of determining who is mentally stable and who isnt.

Psychopaths leading psychopaths I guess.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

You've already suggested that. I responded that the gun and bullet manufacturers should pay for it.

You originally said 21 for the retest, but I agree 26 makes more sense.

The problem you create, is what to do about what you have mistakenly called bad apples.

These are kids we are talking about, not produce.

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

Ok, I retract the "bad apple" statement but stand by the "bad gun owners"

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (26913) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Again it is like the birth of the Occupy movements.

OWS began in reaction to the economic meltdown caused by greed and criminal actions on wall street - this pointed to the fact that it was not just wallstreet that was fucking-up this country/world Big Time but that they were representative of the wide spread sickness of business and government - the very visible tip of the massive ice-berg.

And just like this hellacious mess it will take more than one issue/action to cure the illness.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by Porkie (-255) 2 years ago

I agree: THOU SHALT NOT KILL!

Would that suffice?

How 'bout, THOU SHALT NOT STEAL?

Do you think that might work?

Or how 'bout, Thou shalt not covet ANYTHING that is thy neighbor's?

Thou shalt work six days?

Or how 'bout the number one biggie, Thou shalt have none other Gods before me? Where "none," means NONE. That pretty much denies corrupt governors; don'tcha think? In fact, it denies all corruption.

We have come full circle.

Just saying...

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (26913) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

You just said nothing.