Reply With Quote
Because they've got nothing else.
I'd like to ask why conservatives default to this deflection every time a mass shooting occurs (Hannity is doing it now. Yes, I was morbidly curious enough to see how this asshole would spin it)? Cub probably answered the question that it just muddies the waters and confuses debate, but I'd like to hear some other opinions. Anyhow, I'll guess what I think conservatives are hoping to achieve.
- They believe focusing on mass shootings is selective outrage and that if Liberals "really cared" about gun violence, they would be incensed 24/7 about inner city gang violence.
False analogy. It's basic human psychology to be more outraged and fearful at events where innocent people are targeted in such places as schools, churches, movie theaters, and Walmarts than it is when you read/hear about gang members killing each other. Yes, unfortunately innocents get caught in drive by crossfire and the like, but there is something just more viscerally horrifying about a guy walking into a Walmart and indiscriminately shooting innocents than a gang shootout. The Christchurch shooting was on a whole 'nother level of deranged.
- They think Liberals avoid talking about inner city gang violence because they happen in "Liberal cities and gun free zones."
Just. Is the fact lost on conservatives that "gun free zones" don't give a about black market weapons brought into them? And we'll be a bit politically incorrect here. Liberal cities are typically inhabited by more African-Americans, African-Americans tend to vote democrat. African-Americans commit a disproportionate amount of murder by gun. And no, I don't think it's due to any inherent moral deficiency in blacks. We have a pretty good idea of the sociological factors (factors that African-Americans experienced more severely than others) at work that contribute to violent behavior, and ironically enough, many of those sociological factors were created by conservative policy. So to try to suggest that Liberal policy=violence is nonsensical.
And why would conservatives want liberals talking about inner city gun violence? It'll just give libs MORE ammunition (no pun) in the gun control debate. Many of those black market weapons were once "legal weapons." Is this fact lost of them?
I simply don't get the purpose of the "But Chicago" deflection. Help me out.
Because they've got nothing else.
Because it's there & handy for times like this. We needed it & took it.
& Dayton is turning for us as well.
It's not built in logic, it's built on soothing angry conservatives' need to still view libs as the bad guys when one of their own commits a racist terror attack.
That's why you won't get a thoughtful response to this. But it's a good post anyway.
You're stove up because we have a foothold with Chicago anytime we need it---it's there. Without it, we didn't know that Dayton was going to be lucky for us. We had to "Chicago" the battlefield. Dayton came late and worked out...Warren is on the spot there, thank Christ.
I can respect Cub's response. At least he's honest about why they use it, as a deflection his side "needed." But we know Cub sees everything as a game, a troll. But many conservatives probably do believe they're somehow retaking a moral high ground by mentioning Chicago.
It's because gun violence in Chicago is perpetrated by predominantly those who aren't licenced to carry (hence gun laws wouldn't work), and the city is a Dem stronghold.
But, as I've said, I don't include gang banger gun violence in "mass shooting" incidents.
Correct on my pathology, midst, but, there ain't a real moral high ground anywhere along the battle lines. But, you're right, (people) believe there is, with a straight face no less. People (need) it. I don't. I see thru it and see no need to fool myself.
Bingo! & the victims on both sides of the gun are black. Trump was going to clean it out upon taking office. Remember? Gonna send federal troops in, etc. Uh, uh. (Chicago) told him:::"Walk away, this isn't for you."
& he walked away.
And it's a false analogy in any event, as I think the solutions to gang violence are different than they are for mass shooting violence. Gun control would limit mass shootings far more than they would limit gang violence, since the former are often purchased legally by people who I think are too young for gun ownership responsibility. It's unlikely these socially stunted "incels" would travel to some inner city and buy a black market firearm. They probably wouldn't know how to find a black market. And most likely, they would probably be robbed anyhow. People like this El Paso would be fresh prey in the "hood."
Solutions to gang violence are more about dissolving the drug market, whether that be through creating less addicts and thus customers, legalization, etc.
It is selective outrage and the numbers back it. I don’t buy the “more outraged” bit. Gun homicide is gun homicide. Mass shootings are a tiny percentage of gun homicides, AR15’s are a tiny percentage of firearms used in homicides, yet all the outrage is focused there. Focusing your outrage on mass shootings and AR-15 style rifles won’t put a dent in US gun violence. If people from both sides really cared the focus would be on investing in these violent cities, installing long term job opportunities, fixing the broken home/school system, and getting as many illegally owned handguns off the streets as possible.I'd like to ask why conservatives default to this deflection every time a mass shooting occurs (Hannity is doing it now. Yes, I was morbidly curious enough to see how this asshole would spin it)? Cub probably answered the question that it just muddies the waters and confuses debate, but I'd like to hear some other opinions. Anyhow, I'll guess what I think conservatives are hoping to achieve.
- They believe focusing on mass shootings is selective outrage and that if Liberals "really cared" about gun violence, they would be incensed 24/7 about inner city gang violence.
False analogy. It's basic human psychology to be more outraged and fearful at events where innocent people are targeted in such places as schools, churches, movie theaters, and Walmarts than it is when you read/hear about gang members killing each other. Yes, unfortunately innocents get caught in drive by crossfire and the like, but there is something just more viscerally horrifying about a guy walking into a Walmart and indiscriminately shooting innocents than a gang shootout. The Christchurch shooting was on a whole 'nother level of deranged.
- They think Liberals avoid talking about inner city gang violence because they happen in "Liberal cities and gun free zones."
Just
And why would conservatives want liberals talking about inner city gun violence? It'll just give libs MORE ammunition (no pun) in the gun control debate. Many of those black market weapons were once "legal weapons." Is this fact lost of them?
I simply don't get the purpose of the "But Chicago" deflection. Help me out.
Not disagreeing with any of what you posted. Just trying to answer your original question.
Tell it, TSA. Testify!!!
It's not zero sum. You can be outraged at both events, but yes, there's just something more psychologically troubling about a guy live streaming himself killing 50 people (I know this wasn't a domestic event) or strolling into a public space and killing innocents than a gang shootout. A death is death, but certain methods are just more horrifying. It's like if I read about a murder. Someone murdered with a single shot to the head won't disturb me as much as reading about somehow who was dismembered while they were still alive. The cir stances around these two deaths aren't equal.
Furthermore, gang violence isn't reported nationally to the extent of a mass shooting, but at the local level, there usually is outrage. I was telling DMC about an incident in my city that resulted in an 11 year old being caught in gang crossfire. A lot of outrage and call for laws, solutions, resulting in a law being named after her. And gun violence indeed declined.
I personally don't think an incel should be able to shoot 40 people in 30 seconds.
Seems pretty outrageous tbh.
I could fix it in 1 year
Former president from there does not care about where he from
He could be mayor there and fix it
He has no answers for that Windy City
What is Trump doing about it?
Chicago told him to shut up & stay out of Chicago. He shut up & is staying out. They're on their own.
Me and TSA did talk about this before, and he does agree incels shouldn't be allowed to purchase these firearms. I do think he believes in stringent background checks and even raising the age limit. His argument concerning the AR-15 is that it's the best home defense firearm, especially one that is effective for females. And yeah, fact is women are physically at a man's mercy most of the time, so I don't think it's a bad idea if they have access to an equalizer, so to speak. He elaborated that other weapons, like larger caliber handguns and shotguns have too much recoil and too easily penetrate walls, meaning more chance of, say, hitting your sleeping child in his room.
I think the argument is sound.
Oh-my-God.
That is a pretty elaborate hypothetical.
How do women protect themselves in countries that don't give them access to such weapons?
I think women can practice and learn how to use all manner of firearms. If we're dreaming up scenarios might as well armor plate the baby's room.
What’s more psychologically troubling to you doesn’t really matter to the numbers. It’s selective outrage and you admit it. Call it for what it is, no shame in that. The pictures of dead kids rip me apart, but that doesn’t change the fact that 10,000+ more people died the same way that year. This isn’t all directed at you, just trying to help you understand why some people react how they do to mass shooting outrage.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
