Freedom Has a Bodycount

***I bumped this thread from a couple of years ago, it was originally posted in response to a mass shooting in Canada***

 

Hi OG, this may be a little FRAT, but cliffs are below.

I'm a Canadian and this business with the Moncton gunman has given rise to a lot of "what should we do about this" talk as mass shootings tend to do.

Obviously we don't know the particulars of this case yet, but I want to speak to this urge to "do something" (making more things illegal, curtailing civil liberties) every time a bunch of people die violently (except when it's blacks in a "high crime area" which bothers nobody.

I accept without trepidation that freedom exposes us to a risk of death. About 30,000 Americans die every year in automobile accidents, but we never feel the need to "do something" about this enormous body-count because it's "accidental", and the automobile cannot be removed from our technological society. If three RCMP officers died in a car wreck yesterday nobody would want to "do something" about driving rights, because automobiles sustain our lifestyle.

I see these mass shootings through much the same lens. Our highly organized and regulated society lets us eat sushi, view pornography, get high on a million different drugs, have a low infant mortality rate, talk in real time with people on the other side of the earth, etc. It also makes round pegs that can't fit into square holes freak the fuck out, sometimes murderously.

Most round pegs are like me, they take pharmaceutical anti-depressants and "function" while harbouring resentment but harm only themselves. But rarely, the round peg goes nuts and kills people.

In these cases, we want to "do something" and diminish freedom of speech (people saying he should have been "reported" for facebook posts about guns and "anti-societal" messages) and the freedom to be armed.

I'd rather retain these freedoms and the risk that people including children will rarely be killed in horrific mass shootings, than give away these freedoms to diminish the bodycount, same as we accept tens of thousands of automobile deaths per year for the freedom of the automobile.

***Cliffs***

1. Freedom of speech (i.e. not being "reported"/arrested for anti-societal speech) and the right to bear arms will lead to small numbers of people including children being murdered now and again, but this is no different than the mass convenience of the automobile killing much larger numbers of people.

2. Freedom kills. We should not, however, react to dead people by restricting personal freedom.

Good post op vtfu Phone Post 3.0

Mihow - The problem is that people on psychotic medicine give me the heebie jeebies Phone Post 3.0


Me too!

But the whole point is that our highly organized society that gives us so many "good" things will also produce more mentally ill people (suicide rates of those aged 18-25 have quadrupled since the 50s, depression and anxiety are endemic), and a small number of those will be murderous.

They are the "car wrecks" of the technoindustrial society. They claim victims, including children, but I'm not gonna stop driving my car because it might save women and babies, are you?

Why are you harboring resentment?

Spinelock - Why are you harboring resentment?


Because we can't opt out of all this (without wealth).

Buffer720 - Good post op vtfu Phone Post 3.0


Thank you, my foxhole friend.

neonbelly - 
Mihow - The problem is that people on psychotic medicine give me the heebie jeebies Phone Post 3.0


Me too!

But the whole point is that our highly organized society that gives us so many "good" things will also produce more mentally ill people (suicide rates of those aged 18-25 have quadrupled since the 50s, depression and anxiety are endemic), and a small number of those will be murderous.

They are the "car wrecks" of the technoindustrial society. They claim victims, including children, but I'm not gonna stop driving my car because it might save women and babies, are you?



I just heard a psychiatrist and psychologist discussing why there seems to be an uptick in mass murders as of late.. their take was interesting.

Its that in this day we are always on the go, we are always on, and we have to answer every call, every text, every post. When we wake up we get on Facebook, then watch the news then go to work, then come home and get on the computer or wtch tv till late at night. Most people are getting well below the recommended 8 hours of sleep. We never rest, we never take time to contemplate or enjoy. In the is crazed "always on" society those that cant keep up get lost.. and very rarely is there anyone who can take time out of their busy schedule to address them. People are just stressed beyond what their psyche can handle and some people have very negative reactions to this stress.

Someone once talked about meditation for ADD - while I disagreed with him I think he is right that it is an exercise most people especially in this day and age would benefit from hugely.

You've missed a few points.

You bring up cars. While cars are not banned, they are highly regulated. You have to have a license to drive. There are speciality licenses for vehicles that are more difficult or dangerous to drive (large vehicle, motorcycle, etc). There are safety laws involving vehicles (DUI, seatbelts). Manufacturers are required by law to have certain safety features built into every vehicle (bumpers, air bags, restraints, even the basic key and lock).

The firearms lobby has prevented most if not all of these from being in place. This is where there is a disconnect.

Chocolate Shatner - You've missed a few points.

You bring up cars. While cars are not banned, they are highly regulated. You have to have a license to drive. There are speciality licenses for vehicles that are more difficult or dangerous to drive (large vehicle, motorcycle, etc). There are safety laws involving vehicles (DUI, seatbelts). Manufacturers are required by law to have certain safety features built into every vehicle (bumpers, air bags, restraints, even the basic key and lock).

The firearms lobby has prevented most if not all of these from being in place. This is where there is a disconnect.


Automobiles are highly regulated, and yet tens of thousands of people still die in car accidents. We accept this.

Very few people die in random mass shootings. Why is the fatality threshold for regulating firearms so much smaller than the threshold for regulating automobiles?

neonbelly - 
Chocolate Shatner - You've missed a few points.

You bring up cars. While cars are not banned, they are highly regulated. You have to have a license to drive. There are speciality licenses for vehicles that are more difficult or dangerous to drive (large vehicle, motorcycle, etc). There are safety laws involving vehicles (DUI, seatbelts). Manufacturers are required by law to have certain safety features built into every vehicle (bumpers, air bags, restraints, even the basic key and lock).

The firearms lobby has prevented most if not all of these from being in place. This is where there is a disconnect.


Automobiles are highly regulated, and yet tens of thousands of people still die in car accidents. We accept this.

Very few people die in random mass shootings. Why is the fatality threshold for regulating firearms so much smaller than the threshold for regulating automobiles?



And perhaps I didn't express myself clearly, but I wasn't comparing cars to guns, but rather cars to freedom.

neonbelly - 
neonbelly - 
Chocolate Shatner - You've missed a few points.

You bring up cars. While cars are not banned, they are highly regulated. You have to have a license to drive. There are speciality licenses for vehicles that are more difficult or dangerous to drive (large vehicle, motorcycle, etc). There are safety laws involving vehicles (DUI, seatbelts). Manufacturers are required by law to have certain safety features built into every vehicle (bumpers, air bags, restraints, even the basic key and lock).

The firearms lobby has prevented most if not all of these from being in place. This is where there is a disconnect.


Automobiles are highly regulated, and yet tens of thousands of people still die in car accidents. We accept this.

Very few people die in random mass shootings. Why is the fatality threshold for regulating firearms so much smaller than the threshold for regulating automobiles?



And perhaps I didn't express myself clearly, but I wasn't comparing cars to guns, but rather cars to freedom.



cars are not freedom. Cars are a privilege. In fact, many people in free countries live without cars. They use other forms of transit, usually mass transit. They use busses, subways, trains, etc, all operated by trained professionals.

Chocolate Shatner - 
neonbelly - 
neonbelly - 
Chocolate Shatner - You've missed a few points.

You bring up cars. While cars are not banned, they are highly regulated. You have to have a license to drive. There are speciality licenses for vehicles that are more difficult or dangerous to drive (large vehicle, motorcycle, etc). There are safety laws involving vehicles (DUI, seatbelts). Manufacturers are required by law to have certain safety features built into every vehicle (bumpers, air bags, restraints, even the basic key and lock).

The firearms lobby has prevented most if not all of these from being in place. This is where there is a disconnect.


Automobiles are highly regulated, and yet tens of thousands of people still die in car accidents. We accept this.

Very few people die in random mass shootings. Why is the fatality threshold for regulating firearms so much smaller than the threshold for regulating automobiles?



And perhaps I didn't express myself clearly, but I wasn't comparing cars to guns, but rather cars to freedom.



cars are not freedom. Cars are a privilege. In fact, many people in free countries live without cars. They use other forms of transit, usually mass transit. They use busses, subways, trains, etc, all operated by trained professionals.



Again you miss.

Cars give us things we like and kill people.

Freedom gives us things we like and kills people.

We suck it up with one but not the other.

neonbelly -
Chocolate Shatner - 
neonbelly - 
neonbelly - 
Chocolate Shatner - You've missed a few points.

You bring up cars. While cars are not banned, they are highly regulated. You have to have a license to drive. There are speciality licenses for vehicles that are more difficult or dangerous to drive (large vehicle, motorcycle, etc). There are safety laws involving vehicles (DUI, seatbelts). Manufacturers are required by law to have certain safety features built into every vehicle (bumpers, air bags, restraints, even the basic key and lock).

The firearms lobby has prevented most if not all of these from being in place. This is where there is a disconnect.


Automobiles are highly regulated, and yet tens of thousands of people still die in car accidents. We accept this.

Very few people die in random mass shootings. Why is the fatality threshold for regulating firearms so much smaller than the threshold for regulating automobiles?



And perhaps I didn't express myself clearly, but I wasn't comparing cars to guns, but rather cars to freedom.



cars are not freedom. Cars are a privilege. In fact, many people in free countries live without cars. They use other forms of transit, usually mass transit. They use busses, subways, trains, etc, all operated by trained professionals.



Again you miss.

Cars give us things we like and kill people.

Freedom gives us things we like and kills people.

We suck it up with one but not the other.
I think that intent matters.

Mass shootings are not an "accident" in the same way that car wrecks are and the publics reaction reflects that.

I hear what's being said but both incidence don't exist in a vacuum and to equate the two is disingenuous at best.

Intent matters, like it or not. Phone Post 3.0

^ I addressed this in my OP.

You're thinking of the intent of the individual perpetrator, which hardly matters.

Car wrecks are an unintentional byproduct of the automobile, mass killers are an unintentonal byproduct of the highly organized industrial society.

Or, perhaps I'd say, the resentment, rage, paranoia, and hopelessness that generates the killer's "intent" in the unintended byproduct of our social organization.

neonbelly - Hi OG, this may be a little FRAT, but cliffs are below.

I'm a Canadian and this business with the Moncton gunman has given rise to a lot of "what should we do about this" talk as mass shootings tend to do.

Obviously we don't know the particulars of this case yet, but I want to speak to this urge to "do something" (making more things illegal, curtailing civil liberties) every time a bunch of people die violently (except when it's blacks in a "high crime area" which bothers nobody.

I accept without trepidation that freedom exposes us to a risk of death. About 30,000 Americans die every year in automobile accidents, but we never feel the need to "do something" about this enormous body-count because it's "accidental", and the automobile cannot be removed from our technological society. If three RCMP officers died in a car wreck yesterday nobody would want to "do something" about driving rights, because automobiles sustain our lifestyle.

I see these mass shootings through much the same lens. Our highly organized and regulated society lets us eat sushi, view pornography, get high on a million different drugs, have a low infant mortality rate, talk in real time with people on the other side of the earth, etc. It also makes round pegs that can't fit into square holes freak the fuck out, sometimes murderously.

Most round pegs are like me, they take pharmaceutical anti-depressants and "function" while harbouring resentment but harm only themselves. But rarely, the round peg goes nuts and kills people.

In these cases, we want to "do something" and diminish freedom of speech (people saying he should have been "reported" for facebook posts about guns and "anti-societal" messages) and the freedom to be armed.

I'd rather retain these freedoms and the risk that people including children will rarely be killed in horrific mass shootings, than give away these freedoms to diminish the bodycount, same as we accept tens of thousands of automobile deaths per year for the freedom of the automobile.

***Cliffs***

1. Freedom of speech (i.e. not being "reported"/arrested for anti-societal speech) and the right to bear arms will lead to small numbers of people including children being murdered now and again, but this is no different than the mass convenience of the automobile killing much larger numbers of people.

2. Freedom kills. We should not, however, react to dead people by restricting personal freedom.


"In these cases, we want to "do something" and diminish freedom of speech (people saying he should have been "reported" for facebook posts about guns and "anti-societal" messages) and the freedom to be armed."

I just want to mention something I heard on the radio specifically about this in the context of the Moncton shootings.

A local radio show had officers on from the police departments of Chicago and New York (I believe). They were representatives from a special branch of the police which goes undercover online with fake facebook accounts etc, to look for people saying things that would indicate that they are exhibiting antisocial or dangerous behavior, then these people are watched.

Just think about this for a minute. It could very well stop some sociopath before they go on a rampage, but more than likely they will find people exactly like OG'ers who spout off harmlessly about how all police officers are scum, or how they collect numerous guns or any number of subjects that you see daily right here on mma.tv

How far does this reach? How far can you go online before you are flagged as a potential threat?

Very slippery slope we are approaching.

Good post OP

sparkyman - 
neonbelly - Hi OG, this may be a little FRAT, but cliffs are below.

I'm a Canadian and this business with the Moncton gunman has given rise to a lot of "what should we do about this" talk as mass shootings tend to do.

Obviously we don't know the particulars of this case yet, but I want to speak to this urge to "do something" (making more things illegal, curtailing civil liberties) every time a bunch of people die violently (except when it's blacks in a "high crime area" which bothers nobody.

I accept without trepidation that freedom exposes us to a risk of death. About 30,000 Americans die every year in automobile accidents, but we never feel the need to "do something" about this enormous body-count because it's "accidental", and the automobile cannot be removed from our technological society. If three RCMP officers died in a car wreck yesterday nobody would want to "do something" about driving rights, because automobiles sustain our lifestyle.

I see these mass shootings through much the same lens. Our highly organized and regulated society lets us eat sushi, view pornography, get high on a million different drugs, have a low infant mortality rate, talk in real time with people on the other side of the earth, etc. It also makes round pegs that can't fit into square holes freak the fuck out, sometimes murderously.

Most round pegs are like me, they take pharmaceutical anti-depressants and "function" while harbouring resentment but harm only themselves. But rarely, the round peg goes nuts and kills people.

In these cases, we want to "do something" and diminish freedom of speech (people saying he should have been "reported" for facebook posts about guns and "anti-societal" messages) and the freedom to be armed.

I'd rather retain these freedoms and the risk that people including children will rarely be killed in horrific mass shootings, than give away these freedoms to diminish the bodycount, same as we accept tens of thousands of automobile deaths per year for the freedom of the automobile.

***Cliffs***

1. Freedom of speech (i.e. not being "reported"/arrested for anti-societal speech) and the right to bear arms will lead to small numbers of people including children being murdered now and again, but this is no different than the mass convenience of the automobile killing much larger numbers of people.

2. Freedom kills. We should not, however, react to dead people by restricting personal freedom.


"In these cases, we want to "do something" and diminish freedom of speech (people saying he should have been "reported" for facebook posts about guns and "anti-societal" messages) and the freedom to be armed."

I just want to mention something I heard on the radio specifically about this in the context of the Moncton shootings.

A local radio show had officers on from the police departments of Chicago and New York (I believe). They were representatives from a special branch of the police which goes undercover online with fake facebook accounts etc, to look for people saying things that would indicate that they are exhibiting antisocial or dangerous behavior, then these people are watched.

Just think about this for a minute. It could very well stop some sociopath before they go on a rampage, but more than likely they will find people exactly like OG'ers who spout off harmlessly about how all police officers are scum, or how they collect numerous guns or any number of subjects that you see daily right here on mma.tv

How far does this reach? How far can you go online before you are flagged as a potential threat?

Very slippery slope we are approaching.



This is exactly it. But principle will always lose to the emotionalism of the "b-b-but dead babies!" argument.

Cookie Monster - 

Good post OP


Thanks CM!


.



 



I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.