Aussie comedian goes to town on the 2nd amendment.

[jerry]

Posted by Zamolxe (here)

Posted by TargeT (here)
in the first 15 min this video describes why you will not see my side of the argument, why most people live their entire lives with out changing their opinions on strongly held beliefs; this video shows us (with proof to back it up) the mental workings that trap us

Very interesting video, though I did not quite like the way he tried to explain consciousness.

So, are you trying to say that the first 15 mins of the video describe why you might BOTH not see the other's side of the argument or just why Napping might not see YOUR side of the argument?

I'm asking because my first impression (and I'm sorry if I'm mistaken) is that you don't "practice what you preach", that you are only taking in the possibility that he is wrong and not that also you might be wrong. Couldn't the same mechanism be triggered in your brain, "acting on a neural level as if you're being threatened, even if this threat comes from harmless opinions or facts that you may otherwise find helpful and could rationally agree with"? - quoted from the video -

If so, that would make your post seem condescending to say the least.

Only because the comedian doesn't know that many of these massacres might have been false flags, does that actually invalidate his arguments? Aren't the massacres still possible? Wouldn't there be a higher probability for these events to take place in a country where children/adults have a far greater ease to get hold of weapons?

You say that guns bring lower crime rates. Most probably true, but is this how we want to solve problems? With fear? Instead of solving the underlying causes that lead to crime/war?

I do understand that I might be wrong and this mechanism inside my brain would prevent me to rationally see this, but still I hold my beliefs.

I don't believe you solve fear with fear.
I don't believe violence and war are an answer to anything,
I don't believe armed citizens are a way to deter other nations from invading, I think no country should invade or wage war on another country ever, period.
I don't believe armed citizens are a way to deter a government from sending its soldiers against the people. I think armed citizens would actually be an excuse/tool for the soldiers to be coerced into viewing the people as enemies ("terrorists")
I believe guns and violence will only sow confusion and fear in any revolution and I think a peaceful stand will always be the best solution for protest against a government.

I don't believe in "banning" in general but I also don't agree with tools for killing. I think killing is objectively wrong so... shouldn't this be banned? It just feels that guns shouldn't actually exist in the first place, even if this sounds really extreme.

If x people out of a population have thoughts of killing someone only a percentage of them will actually do it (why society has put those thoughts in their head is a different discussion). I trully and objectively believe that the percentage would be higher if the x people would have access to guns - it's just easier, a way to just pull a trigger and poof - than if those people would have to brutally do the killing (with knives/axes/rocks).
In my country almost nobody has guns, we have practically no gun deaths and I wouldn't want it any other way.

Big ifs in this response ,was it the chicken or the egg?

[observer]

Posted by heyokah (here)
I would feel uncomfortable with a weapon in my house. I might kill someone 'by accident' when in fear, or angry

Well, I could kill myself while cleaning it, or a burglar, or someone who seems a burglar (my husband pottering round the house at night LOL). One of my grandchildren could find it and get an accident.... Don't tell me these things never occur.
The angry part was with a wink of course. I never felt the urge to take a knife either, don't worry .
As I said, it's a cultural thing. I'm simply not used to arms. Have actually never seen a real one in my life.....
Ooops, am I 'not of this world' to you now?

Yes heyokah,

All of these things are an issue, and can I reply:

If one is inexperienced with the tool, any reasonable individual should not attempt to use that tool. No one would expect someone inexperienced in the operation of an hydraulic excavator to hop into the machine and attempt to operate it around men working on the ground.

It's the same thing with a fire arm.

Any well trained fire arms handler will tell you to learn all the basics first. There are textbooks written on the proper handling, maintenance, and storage of these tools.

No one is suggesting every adult should have one, only those responsible adults.

Disarming the responsible, law abiding adult community is the real crime.

As an example, my fire arms are locked in a safe, until I come home each night. I take one specific weapon out of the safe and place it next to my position in bed before I go to sleep. The last thing I do, before going out of the house, is put it back into the safe. No other individual is permitted to touch the fire arm, because it is never out of my sight.

[Operator]

Posted by heyokah (here)
--
I would feel uncomfortable with a weapon in my house. I might kill someone 'by accident' when in fear, or angry
---

Interesting remark ...
I think it all revolves around 'power'. Guns give you fire-power. If you buy a gun you are then in the
possession of such power. But can you control it?

If someone loses control (or in other words power) they might (accidentally) abuse it.
I think the whole issue in general is that common people are totally not used to access to power
anymore. They are alienated from it and would not know what to do with it.
Reminds me of the movie "Bruce almighty"

[A Voice from the Mountains]

A lot of people in this thread seem to keep wanting to go down the road that guns are the reason people kill each other and if we got rid of guns people would stop killing each other, or kill each other less. I don't agree with this entire philosophy but let's pretend that it's true.

American civilians themselves wouldn't be anywhere near the biggest problem, if this philosophy were correct. We could start with national militaries. So what you people should demand first, is that your own militaries disarm, and then your domestic police forces as well. Then after you lobby for this long enough you can start talking about lobbying foreign civilian populations to give up their guns too. So start at home and start with the real killers: soldiers in your military. They don't need guns either.

[Operator]

Posted by bsbray (here)
A lot of people in this thread seem to keep wanting to go down the road that guns are the reason people kill each other and if we got rid of guns people would stop killing each other, or kill each other less. I don't agree with this entire philosophy but let's pretend that it's true.

American civilians themselves wouldn't be anywhere near the biggest problem, if this philosophy were correct. We could start with national militaries. So what you people should demand first, is that your own militaries disarm, and then your domestic police forces as well. Then after you lobby for this long enough you can start talking about lobbying foreign civilian populations to give up their guns too. So start at home and start with the real killers: soldiers in your military. They don't need guns either.

In the UK the policemen do not carry any guns ... (if nothing has changed in the meanwhile).
So I wonder how figures compare or differ with those of the US ... especially deadly shootings by the police ...

[A Voice from the Mountains]

Posted by Operator (here)
In the UK the policemen do not carry any guns ... (if nothing has changed in the meanwhile).
So I wonder how figures compare or differ with those of the US ... especially deadly shootings by the police ...

I bet when someone is shot to death with a gun (and there still are shooting deaths in the UK) the police aren't just going to show up with billy clubs. If they do then I have even less hope in their system.

But if you catch my point I was talking about disarming your military too. Why not take their guns away too if guns are so evil?

[Operator]

Posted by bsbray (here)

Posted by Operator (here)
In the UK the policemen do not carry any guns ... (if nothing has changed in the meanwhile).
So I wonder how figures compare or differ with those of the US ... especially deadly shootings by the police ...

I bet when someone is shot to death with a gun (and there still are shooting deaths in the UK) the police aren't just going to show up with billy clubs. If they do then I have even less hope in their system.

No of course not. They have armed 'SWAT' like teams too. And in more complex cases, like terrorism and high profile hostage cases, there is
always still the SAS which can operate in different capacities. But I gave it just as an example that a situation exists which we can use for
comparison purposes.

Posted by bsbray (here)
But if you catch my point I was talking about disarming your military too. Why not take their guns away too if guns are so evil?

Yep, but it would rather mean to abolish the military. Without guns (or other weaponry) there is no reason for it to exist. And of
course it is a strange concept that authorities can order you (e.g. in case of draft) to fight a war for them and implicitly
order you to kill other people.

[jerry]

Posted by jerry (here)

Posted by Napping (here)
If I was convinced re Port Arthur and Sandy Hook I'd 100% agree with those points Target. Call it cognitive dissonance, but I'm still not convinced. To suggest all of the mass killings in recent years are false flags for me is a stretch. To suggest all of the mass shootings pre Port Arthur in Australia were false flags is a stretch. That's just my humble opinion.

I'm not suggesting for a minute there aren't some surprising facts re pro gun ownership if they are to be believed. Like anything it's far from a black and white issue, there's plenty of shades of grey.

However, take the potential false flag scenarios that you're referring to away, and I bet Jim had you self reflecting a couple of times thinking, "yep, you've got a point". That's what I loved most about the video, the power comedy can have in tackling controversial issues and enabling individuals to question their beliefs without immediately antagonising.

Cheers,

Matt

Matt do yourself a big favor and watch this well done documentary .....please ...if this doesn't convince you ....then nothing will
http://www.mediasolidarity.com/watch_video.html

They have repeatedly taken this one down. But so many have hard copied it and are putting back up just as fast. This link may or may not work it is the site where it originated some media outlets have blocked the site itself...in case there is a problem you can do a you tube specific search using "We Need To Talk Sandy Hook" and you will find it. Many of the media outlets are blocking it but they cant stop it, for now.

[Napping]

I was gonna say Jerry, I've not had any luck with this link after a couple of attempts. I'll have another crack. I'm far from closed on the issue. There's two sides, the problem is one rarely considers the other….same as most things (vaccines to mention just one…..there's another hornet's nest)….that's why "divide and conquer" is child's play. I'm on the same side as most people on this thread, but geez you'd be easily convinced otherwise.

My intent was largely around the use of comedy for some introspection. In hindsight, it was always gonna be a guns vs no guns thread. It's run it's course… I'll get back to you post that vid though Jerry….you obviously hold some value in it.

[jerry]

Posted by Napping (here)
I was gonna say Jerry, I've not had any luck with this link after a couple of attempts. I'll have another crack. I'm far from closed on the issue. There's two sides, the problem is one rarely considers the other….same as most things (vaccines to mention just one…..there's another hornet's nest)….that's why "divide and conquer" is child's play. I'm on the same side as most people on this thread, but geez you'd be easily convinced otherwise.

My intent was largely around the use of comedy for some introspection. In hindsight, it was always gonna be a guns vs no guns thread. It's run it's course… I'll get back to you post that vid though Jerry….you obviously hold some value in it.

We know your on our side
Bill put this up on the Avalon server today in case your still not having any luck . TPTB have an all out assault on this one which makes it that much more important we get it out there
http://projectavalon.net/We_need_to_...Sandy_Hook.mp4

[jerry]

Posted by jerry (here)

Posted by Ellisa (here)
Port Arthur in Tasmania was only one of a series of massacres in Australia. There previously was a shooter on a busy arterial road who picked off people in their cars before surrendering to police. This is rare as most people committing mass murder either kill themselves or are killed by police. He is still alive, in prison. Then there was a shooting in a high-rise building of offices by a disgruntled customer. He killed a number of people. I know all about that one as my daughter was evacuated from the building. This guy died at the time, I think shot by police. Guns were often used in crime. They were easy to obtain. There was a gun shop in the town where I live--- there isn't now. Port Arthur seemed like the last straw, and the Prime Minister of the day promised much welcome reform with huge support. Since that time there has not been a massacre or multiple gun incident in Australia, and the death rate from guns is very low by international standards. I don't think think that is coincidental, but is a deliberate and successful attempt to reduce one way of killing people.

Whilst this topic has been debated here, another unarmed citizen of the US has been shot, by police. As an observer I find it hard to see why it is so difficult to understand that the fear of harm will become toxic for everyone, and so all the frightened people carry guns, law officers and criminals alike, and they will use them, even on people who are not armed at all. Doesn't this seem wrong?-- it does to me.

the key phrase in your compelling argument is "Since that time". and to that I say YET

how ironic that "since that time" as yet has come