I was going to post an OP in GD about this (minus the gun part), but I may as well float it here.


This article, and to a greater extent the more media exposure to crime and criminality in general, has exposed a fundamental rift in what one could call "moral values" in the up and coming generations of both young adults and children. Whereas morality as a social contract was previously held in a dominant status through the pressure of peers and perception of social adequacy, a significant number of the upcoming generations are showing to have morals more in tune to their social interactions today, namely expression through anonymity of the internet or through other impersonal communications methods (Texting, social media, et cetera.) Thanks due in no small part to technological advances, people are finding it increasingly possible to communicate largely through the internet, almost exclusively behind the veil of anonymity and all of the benefits and perils that it contains.

In years past, one would be hard-pressed to call another human being a vicious name to their face or hurl baseless accusations, as such an act would normally be responded to with social stigma and ostracization. Given the inability of society at large to respond to anonymous threats, acts or statements, the internet is proving a tool and an outlet for thoughts or emotions that would otherwise remain unsaid for the sake of civility. However, with the advent and expansion of the internet community, anonymity is a weapon in and of itself; This, it seems, is being replicated in society's interactions with one another, face to face.

Slut-shaming, outright threats, insults, slurs, bullying and slander are facts and, debatably, outright staples to the internet community consisting of younger generations. Recently, these incidents are starting to come to the light for society as a whole, but this is far from a new behavior and it is indicative of a much larger systematic breakdown of the social graces normally considered sacrosanct. Just as internet anonymity has become part and parcel of the online experience, so too have evolved the defenses against such acts, resulting in an "Eye for an eye" sentiment and an escalation of hostilities. So long as this attitude is confined to the online realm, such acts are, while morally stunted, acceptable and expected. The problem manifests as such only if said attitude is carried outside the digitized confines of the web, and the repercussions of this attitude are minimal, even in the real world, as such actions are rarely frowned upon. With the majority of America online, and with each new generation growing more and more integrated into the social structure of the Internet -before- that of real life, discourtesy and, to a lesser extent, retribution are becoming the normal response to perceived slights or aggravations.


This is only a small part of the problem. Americans as a whole are upset, disgruntled, discouraged and in some cases outright angry for perceived entitlements or desires and only go further in perpetuating the "retribution is normal" social status in passing their troubles onto their children. In addition to providing a downward spiral of social grace, the combination of the online community and, to a lesser extent, disgruntled parents is resulting in a casual, almost sociopathic disregard for the social contract and all that it entails. With the digital community expanding rapidly and more and more people are wired to the internet, the trend of "Retribution", online or off, may very well become the social norm. The potential effects on society at large remain to be seen or proven, but should be observed carefully and with a wary eye.


Input would be lovely, and I'll likely crosspost, but given your article, and my brief thoughts here, what do you think, BB (and others)?

Calling someone names is hardly equivalent to shooting them.

a-la Zimmerman, regardless of weapon or method of death.


What does it matter what the instrument of death is? The motivation -for- said murder is what needs to be addressed, and is part of the problem that I see up and coming in the generations behind us. Just recently, there was a brutal three-on-one stabbing near me, simply because a pedestrian said "Nice hat" (or something to that effect) to one of the three. Whether or not there was sarcasm implied or directed, the response should -not- have been "Stab him until he runs out of blood because he insulted my hat."


-That- is the main problem, in my mind; the prevailing attitude, not just that someone died.

and the simple fact is that knives do not have the same mortality levels.

I prefer to try to mitigate or negate crime "In general", while the Gun Control side only cares about Gun Control. When's the last time anyone posted a news story about a knifing, or a baseball-batting, or a fistfight-gone-fatal? Almost never. To me, it reeks of selective outrage, using the latest tragedy as political motivation.

I understand -where- you're coming from BB, but what I don't understand is "Why guns?" Why not act to directly affect the root cause of violence/crime at the source?

and data because it doesn't suit your agenda. Yes, that's very clear.
Those other methods don't approach the lethality of guns, as homicide statistics make clear.

Not just "Gun crime", but -all- crime. Getting rid of gun crime won't stop knife crime, bat crime, fist crime, gang crime or blue-collar crime, but addressing and treating the root cause of criminality as a whole -will- stop gun crime, as well as the rest of them. Aye, I'm concerned with the harsh reality that crime is a bad thing, not just because of the weapon or tool used in it.

And that's where we differ, and I think we'll never be able to reconcile between the two viewpoints. You're so fixated on stopping the "Gun", that you're ignoring the "Crime" part.

Gun crime is. Guns are the most common and effective means of homicide in the US. That is a fact. Moreover, not all deaths with guns are crimes. Toddlers and dogs that discharge guns are not committing crimes because they lack the capacity to form intent. More than half of gun deaths are suicides. Guns kill, precisely as they are designed to do. That is reality. Pretending otherwise is absurd.

in drive-by baseball-battings, knifings, and fistings is becoming a real concern. Not to mention the number of holdups and robberies which are committed by brandishing baseball bats and knives. Suicides by baseball bats, knives, and fists are also on the upswing.

And we all know that the designed intent of automobiles, shovels, picks, and other tools is to kill and maim living things. The "fact" that these objects are also used as utilitarian implements is only an incidental application of their real purpose.

Guns, on the other hand are specifically designed and manufactured as implements for the good of mankind, and their occasional lethality is just a product of misuse and criminal opportunity. If only everyone carried guns 24/7 we would soon become a crime-free society with no real need for baseball bats, knives, automobiles, or shovels.

Now I'm off to the Gungeon to get my daily fill of reasonable and rational NRA fun-filled facts about the virtues of keeping and bearing arms. I may even join the Gungeon Militia so that I can wear the hat, and learn the secret pledge.

so much so that it's listed as my favorite group.
I can't have that.


Yes, the surge of mass baseball beats is a real plague on America. They will do and say anything to avoid basic reality. If guns are so innocuous, why do they even own them? There is such a disconnect between the design of the weapon and the gunner's arguments about them.