non violence

[jrob]

This talk of gun control strikes me as being a very reactive (non-proactive) approach to reducing violence.

The government of this country has full power of policy, propaganda, and mass media usage to promote non-violence in a top-down driven manner.

Why would anyone jump to gun-control before engaging in the far less expensive and less intrusive propaganda efforts?

[songfourone]

This talk of gun control strikes me as being a very reactive (non-proactive) approach to reducing violence.

The government of this country has full power of policy, propaganda, and mass media usage to promote non-violence in a top-down driven manner.

Why would anyone jump to gun-control before engaging in the far less expensive and less intrusive propaganda efforts?

Does the NRA compensate you for that message?

[jrob]

Does the NRA compensate you for that message?

There are no lobbies or interests that advocate my anti-US policy stances.

It's interesting and consistent that the US government policy shills will always attribute my views to some 'nefarious' lobby, though.

[AttackPlanR]

Shouldn't this be one of those "that's better left up to the churches" ideas?

We're a 'effed up paranoid and fearful society and to me that is how we seem to like it.

[zenwalk]

It's interesting and consistent that the US government policy shills will always attribute my views to some 'nefarious' lobby, though.

The bats in the belfry lobby.

[jrob]

The bats in the belfry lobby.

Take your stupid conspiracy theories and get lost.

[jrob]

Shouldn't this be one of those "that's better left up to the churches" ideas?

We're a 'effed up paranoid and fearful society and to me that is how we seem to like it.

Not everyone goes to church. Everyone partakes of the mass media and the figureheads it puts forth.

If you could control the media and could control whom it presents as 'leader of this' and 'leader of that', what would you change? (with the objective of reducing violence in society)

If you have the ability to bombard the reader with messages and values, what messages and values would you repeat? Whom would you slander?

[johnpolitics]

Semi auto guns are designed to kill people and protect your drugs in the hood. Useless to hunting game.

[flyboy56]

Now these are the druggies choice of guns!

http://www.google.com/search?q=MAC10...w=1020&bih=677

[AttackPlanR]

Granted, somebody in government could make that kind of thing happen. However, that would not be in their best interests, getting re-elected is in their best interests. Putting out anti-violence PSAs does not get the kind of campaign donations that are needed to win re-election rolling in. In fact, it probably would turn a lot of big donors off if the very thing they were making money off of were the very thing the PSAs would be denouncing. In a way they would see the do-good message (and it would be a good message) as slander.

If I could bombard a reader with a message it would be "use common sense". Since gun-violence is the topic du jour it would be "keep them away from kids", "be aware of the signs of mental illness", "f you think something is up, here's where you can get help"..... "use common sense". Unfortunately what is often seen as common sense is to some people uncommon sense...

[slapshot]

does the nra compensate you for that message?

+1

[BlandFood]

Semi auto guns are designed to kill people and protect your drugs in the hood. Useless to hunting game.

Sounds like you're talking to the animals in the hood and NOT lawful citizens that have no interest in drugs or hurting people.

[Phoenix]

Does the NRA compensate you for that message?

JRob's post was entirely neutral, with the idea of government promoting non violence from the top down.

And you jumped to the erroneous assertation that JRob is working for the NRA.

Everything about the NRA is designed to STOP violence, where civilian firearms are a weaker tool than military tools, BOTH designed to maintain peace, law and order.

NOWHERE will you find any article published or endorsed by the National Rifle Assocation that implies, infers, or condones the illegal use of firearms, period.

I challenge you and anyone to find any article to the contrary.

[AttackPlanR]

JRob's post was entirely neutral, with the idea of government promoting non violence from the top down.

And you jumped to the erroneous assertation that JRob is working for the NRA.

Everything about the NRA is designed to STOP violence, where civilian firearms are a weaker tool than military tools, BOTH designed to maintain peace, law and order.

NOWHERE will you find any article published or endorsed by the National Rifle Assocation that implies, infers, or condones the illegal use of firearms, period.

I challenge you and anyone to find any article to the contrary.

Which leads me to my second point. If a message did come out from the top of the government that encouraged "using common sense", and other things like that, do you honestly believe the NRA would back something like that; or would they go on the attack calling such a message coming from the government the first step in repealing the 2nd Amendment?

I believe if it were 40 years ago the NRA would have backed such a message, and they actually did promote those kinds of messages. Now-a-days they most certainly would take the paranoid "they're coming to take your guns" point of view.

And that is why such a top down message in this day and age would never work, IMHO.

[Phoenix]

I believe if it were 40 years ago the NRA would have backed such a message, and they actually did promote those kinds of messages. Now-a-days they most certainly would take the paranoid "they're coming to take your guns" point of view.

And that is why such a top down message in this day and age would never work, IMHO.

The track record of the President and many others is more gun restriction to the point of confiscating every firearm in the nation, a la Senator Diane Fienstein. Various comments from the left point to yet another tidal wave in gun control legislation a la 1969, subsequent to the assasinations of Kennedy and King. I distinctly recall having to sign a ledger at the "mart" store each time I bought a 50 round box of lowly .22 rimfire ammo. Complete waste of time and money, the regulation eventually removed.

Nevertheless, the goal is to reduce these senseless shootings. And there are two very different tracks to take, one being to put additional legal restrictions on gun purchases/ownership, whatever. Which many embrace.

Versus the tried and proven method of fighting fire with fire, that of having someone put one or more bullets straight into the torso/brain of whatever human monster is out there doing extreme evil.

[jrob]

Granted, somebody in government could make that kind of thing happen. However, that would not be in their best interests, getting re-elected is in their best interests.

But the government is a left wing organization is it not? Or so all the Obama supporters would have me believe, as they call everyone that opposes the federal government a 'right wing extremist'.

PSA's are worthless. Surely you can do better than that. The government, for the sake of national security, can use the mass media to say that *anything* is cool and hip, *anything* is 'left wing', *anything* is diabolically evil and 'right wing'.

Surely you or slappy can come up with ideas better than PSAs.

[jrob]

JRob's post was entirely neutral, with the idea of government promoting non violence from the top down.

The surest way to tell who the nefarious US policy shills are: they can't give a meaningful answer to much of anything, and they try to tar anyone that questions their policy as an NRA/AIPAC/evangelical lobbyist.

These shills really hate the old testament, as well as the new testament, US media propagates their hatred, and US policy does likewise.

[Phoenix]

In my home state with over 4 million residents, we have but a paltry 40,000 plus original issue CCW permits since 1996, the year in which Louisiana joined the CCW bandwagon. 40,000 permits out of over 4 million is just a drop in the bucket. Sharp criminals obviously know this, and even with CCW on the books for 17 years, our state still has its share of monsters and human predators feeding on vulnerable people:

http://www.katc.com/news/person-of-interest-named-in-recent-lafayette-armed-robberies-and-car-thefts/

http://www.katc.com/news/gas-station-armed-robbery-suspects-at-large/

http://www.katc.com/news/cab-driver-fatally-shot-during-robbery/

http://www.katc.com/news/man-shot-at-lafayette-motel-police-looking-for-information/

http://www.katc.com/news/relatives-in-disbelief-over-man-s-murder-in-his-own-front-yard/

Unfortunately for us, it is very rare that a criminal type will assault a CCW permit holder. Don't know why, maybe we do not go out in public enough, or maybe the thugs can size up and sense the "hardened targets" in public, or so several CCW police instructors told me over the years.

I can only tell from my personal experience that being a CCW holder is a non event, and that one defintely enjoys the very real additional level of security a permit offers.

Granted, possesing a firearm either at home or on one's person does not guarantee 100% safety, but for many government officials all across these states, the track record of the law abiding, gun owning population segment justifies continued trust.

And if we should lose part of our second amendment rights, then we will be thrown into the same pot as the unlucky citizens living in so called "gun free zones" - utopia for many misguided souls.

[johnpolitics]

Sounds like you're talking to the animals in the hood and NOT lawful citizens that have no interest in drugs or hurting people.

I have no problem with gun ownership I just do not understand the need for a semi auto weapon. When hunting the idea is one shot to the head, too many bullets wrecks the deer meat.

[AttackPlanR]

So much for having a rational, insult free discussion with the OP. I should have known better.