Your thoughts about Steve's essay

Exzel, here's more:

When McGovern returned home, he said he logged on to several online forums for gun owners and found an unusually high number of advertisements from arms dealers, including one ad that said, "Get ‘em while you still can,” referring to the prospect that last week’s shooting will lead to stricter gun control laws. Soon enough, online sellers were boosting prices, McGovern said. On CheaperThanDirt.com, a leading web-based gun store, the price of a magazine for assault weapons jumped from $30 to $60, one firearms blog noted.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2332612.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moderator

That is an opinion, not a fact, and I would submit that your perspective is influenced by your personal feelings about gun rights. I personally hold no such opinion because I believe that something needs to be done and that this is one piece of the organization's mission which came about because it was time to put an end to the senseless tragedies that have been happening. That gun manufacturers and sellers are simply by their existence selling weapons whose primary outcome when used against an individual is death or serious injury and profiting from those sales is enough for me to think that of them.

---

And I would say yours is also opinion, not fact... and submit that your perspective is also influenced by your personal feelings about gun rights... as their profits are also realized by their use from our military and police in protecting us, and lives saved by those who guns were used in self defense.

Did you happen to get the email by chance?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by exzel

And I would say yours is also opinion, not fact... and submit that your perspective is also influenced by your personal feelings about gun rights... as their profits are also realized by their use from our military and police in protecting us, and lives saved by those who guns were used in self defense.

Did you happen to get the email by chance?

---

Which is exactly why I italicized opinion.

But they aren't just selling them to the military and police, are they? And isn't that exactly the point and the goal of the current gun restrictions?

And.....

Back to the thread.

Just read chapter two. I had no idea that so

Show Spoiler

many things happened that involved Rage directly. I knew it was pulled but I just thought that was Mr. King trying not to influence. I had no clue that he was really just doing what he could to be a responsible human being.

Good for him!

I am appreciating this more and more with every chapter read.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shasta

Here you go:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2316413.html

Just because the source leans left doesn't mean it didn't happen.

---

Thanks, I went to the website to call them on the carpet for using the Newtown tragedy in order to make profits - regardless if it, but it doesn’t provide a means to give one's comments. Guess I’ll have to write the odd duck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moderator

Which is exactly why I italicized opinion.

---

In your opinion, do you think this Obama organization will use all lthe funds obtained by using the tradedy at Newtown to score donations... soley to help in the gun discussions?

I think I screwed up. My posts were supposed to be in the Your thoughts about Steve's essay thread. I somehow posted to the Partisan Bull****tery about "Organizing for Action" thread by accident. Moderator, could you fix that, pretty pretty please?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by exzel

In your opinion, do you think this Obama organization will use all lthe funds obtained by using the tradedy at Newtown to score donations... soley to help in the gun discussions?

---

This will be the last comment I'll post about this because it is not about Stephen's essay. First I should have been saying Organizing for Action, not Organizing for America--two different organizations. The Newtown tragedy was the last straw in a long line of shootings and what brought the organization into existence, not that it was a gratuitous power grab for more sensible gun control laws than we currently have on the books. I have no problem with their using it as finally drawing the line in the sand to say enough is enough--my disappointment is that it should have happened much sooner. And no, I do not have the personal opinion that the money that is raised will be used for the purpose other than what it was intended. But admittedly I am biased.

Thank you......Thank you......Thank you...... for your essay on Guns.

I really enjoyed the "essay" and felt SK did a good job of seeing the gun debate from both angles...heck the man even admits to owning three guns himself. He isn't calling for all guns to be banned, but simply recommending that people use a little bit of common sense and question whether your ordinary average joe really needs high powered assault rifles designed to fire 30/50 rounds. In the real world weapons like that aren't used for self defence purposes. As the man says, if you can't defend your home with 10 rounds or less then you better get back to the gun range for more practice. Pronto! (Paraphrasing, but it was something to that effect.)

King isn't saying that gun owners are violent maniacs, and instead recognises that people in the USA aren't violent "junkies" by nature. When you take into account the movies/tv shows they prefer to watch, and the books and games they enjoy they are rarely gun/shooter related. He recognises that these sprees are often performed by people experiencing some form of psychotic episode--but not always--and maybe if these weapons weren't readily available to them they possibly would have experienced a cooling off period and many lives could have been saved. He isn't saying it's a fact, just his opinion. I agree with him. Reading exactly why he pulled Rage was interesting. He could have stuck by the simple/dismissive reasoning that his words don't make people kill--a bit like guns don't kill, I guess?--but acknowledging his book could be part of the catalyst towards triggering such tragedies is admirable, and refreshingly honest.

This essay is so much more than a gun debate, it speaks volumes about society and culture in general, and how as individuals we can be influenced by the media from every angle. Maybe there is too much glorification of these killers? The opening chapter felt eerily familiar, because it is true. We always remember the killers names, but rarely the victims. Anyway, I thought this thread was meant to discuss the essay? So far it's mainly people repeating their views/ideologies, and seems nothing more than an extension of the gun thread.