Posts Tagged ‘social media’

By R.C. Seely

“THE ENTIRE END CITIZENS UNITED team is heartbroken by the senseless loss of life in Las Vegas. To those grieving, please know that we are with you. Even in the face of such tragedy though, we must resolve to identify a new path forward. 

    At ECU, we believe our role in this fight is to call out the undue and devastating influence of the gun lobby in America . We all know the big money in politics corrupts our Democracy and nowhere is more clear than in the rejection of commonsense gun laws that could help our communities be safer.”

    That was a declaration made on October 2nd, 2017, shortly after the Las Vegas shooting by The End Citizens United campaign. This is common sentiment among those in favor of gun control. 

    The Progressive Turnout Project referred to not immediately advancing more strict gun laws as “ignoring the will of the people” and excoriated the Republican Party saying “tragedy after tragedy, the GOP has done nothing absolutely NOTHING but offer ‘thoughts and prayers’ to victims of gun violence.” Joe Biden called out the Republican Party for their “inaction” after the shooting.  

    Libertarian Party Presidential candidate Gary Johnson had this to say:

   “It is an unspeakable act causing unspeakable pain. As we would expect in this great country, the stories of horror and death are accompanied by inspiring stories of Americans doing what Americans do: Strangers saving the lives of strangers. First responders going into harm’s way. Thousands lining up for hours to donate blood, and millions of dollars pouring into funds for victims and their families.

 But sadly and predictably, the partisans on each side have already retreated to their respective trenches. Some laying blame on gun rights activists, and some of my fellow supporters of the 2nd Amendment refusing to even engage in a conversation.”

 

   I agree with that but it’s difficult to have a conversation with those who only offer demogogery. It doesn’t sound like they want to engage in a conversation. The activist group Some Of US, at least has a point, commenting about the recent push to deregulate gun silencers.

“Silencers would prevent a gun from making a loud popping–making it harder for the average person or even law enforcement to know when and from where shots are being fired.”

 

   I will give them credit for at least critical thinking but all the arguments against deregulating silencers are also valid ones in favor.

    If a gun owner at the scene had a silencer on their firearm and choose to act and ended the shooter’s life they would be more encouraged to do so. Say they took a shot and missed or only wounded the shooter, and another shot was necessary to end it. That anonymity would be a comfort in such a situation. The shooter would only want anonymity so they could get away and cause more chaos, and there has not been a recorded account of a shooter using one. A shooter wants chaos and a loud gunshot would provide that, these are not snipers remember, and many don’t care about hiding.

    The shooter having a silencer wouldn’t be as much of an asset as postulated anyways, the sounds of gun shots are not the best method for determining the location of the shooter. The visual clues, such as the blast from the muzzle or the trail from the bullet, are far more accurate. At best, it’s a pointless law but more than likely it’s causing more harm. 

    Many have been trying to determine the rationale for the violence. Was it because he lost big at the gaming tables? Was he slighted by a member of the hotel staff?

    The Las Vegas shooter scouted locations in Boston and Chicago as well, demonstrating a clear determination to kill multiple people and it didn’t really matter where. This was about ending as many lives as possible and making a name for himself, making him a clinical psychopath and making motivation a moot issue. Notority was all the motivation he needed. He also was planning more than the single incident–including a bombing similiar to the Oklahoma City bombing–but wasn’t counting on the efficiency of Las Vegas Law Enforcement. 

    Many criticize the media in all this, to a degree they are correct. If the media didn’t over-cover these tragedies it wouldn’t entice these glory-seekers of violence to commit such atrocities. On the other hand, such coverage probably saves lives too. Visitors and residents of Las Vegas knew to stay away from the area and they called loved ones in the city to make sure they were all right. Maybe limiting coverage wouldn’t be such a bad thought.

    Tougher gun laws are the answer and can make things worse and the control freaks in Washington know this, they have the CDC study on gun violence which was later replicated by Harvard University, and both had the same results. The largest source of deaths by guns are suicides, then the criminals and last the victims. 

    They are also ignoring the FBI statistics on violent crime, violence is at an all time low–even with the spikes during the Obama administration and this first year of the Trump administration. So what is going on here? 

    If legislators have access to all this data, why proceed do a pathway of obsolete laws? Because they are control freaks and they want you dependent on government services. But consider that a lot can happen between the time you call 911 for law enforcement or the ambulance. If you have the chance to end a violent shooting, you should do so rather than running like a scared rabbit. Otherwise this predator will treat you like a scared rabbit! If you can assist someone else after an accident, you should, or their death is on you. What’s more you have the right to buy a gun and you shouldn’t have to ask permission.

    We have to stop those with mental illness from getting guns though, is the most common response. Fine, I’ll discuss that, to start off we need to make sure that this is established as a case by case basis and strictly defined. According to many gun control advocates, even the desire for a gun is a mental illness. Sounds like they are unbiased and able to set realistic and fair laws in this issue. Mental illness is the problem but more strict laws on that demographic won’t do anything either, psychopaths and sociopaths generally are the most difficult to diagnose, they are exceptionally intelligent and easily manipulate others. Many doctors don’t even know they are being conned by them unless specifically trained to deal with them. Yet again, the laws would harm those who are innocent.

    Gun control has been tried many times in the United States, in different scales. The earliest attempts were simply cities, many in the mining and cattle towns during the heavy romantizing “Wild West” era. As the name implies, it wasn’t very successful and the criminals ignored the laws. Same as they do today. 

R.C. Seely is the founder of americanuslibertae.com and ALTV. HE has also written books about pop culture the most recent Victims of White Male: How Victims Culture Victimizes Society is available at Amazon.

By R.C. Seely

IF YOU SEARCH THROUGH LIBERTARIAN GROUP PAGES on social media sites one of the most common openings from trolls would have to be the question: “What is the libertarian stance on…” You don’t often see this on duopoly pages and it’s not only odd but demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the party by the online passerby, or is drive by a more accurate description? Usually those who post such comments are not looking for a discussion, but to cause trouble, libertarians do this all the time as well, so I’m not condemning the behavior simply find the common socially accepted opening extremely amusing. It’s at a level that would be even less than sophomoric. Which also appears to match their understanding of the movement they so eagerly mock.

A far more effective phrasing would go along the lines of: “From your understanding of libertarian principles​, what is the party’s stance on…” or even better “What is your stance on…” Not only is it more respectful but demonstrates an understanding of those being addressed and the desire for an actual exchange of ideas.

The manner in which you conduct yourself both online and in person is entirely up to you, but if you want to have an actual discussion, statements such as “that’s a typical response” will get a typical–and well deserved–response of hostility. A piece of advice is simply don’t do it. If it would offend you, why do you think it wouldn’t offend others? And yet, they are surprised by the lack of engagement from the other person–go figure!

Critics of online social commentary claim that the anonymity makes them more brazen and hostile–and what’s your point? Of course it makes us more daring, it also spreads ideas and views that are contrary, and protects us from unreasonable consequences of rogue government agency enforcers. Just because we have the freedom of speech, doesn’t mean that those in power–who in general are not exactly advocates of constructive criticism–won’t enact laws to censor that said right. The law of Civil Disobedience for one, think it’s a coincidence it is open for interpretation? Or the Seditions Acts that have been introduced, and reintroduced, and reintroduced. Or how about the future laws from the current administration and social media compliance to curtail “fake news.”

What those who make their drive-by remarks don’t seem to grasp is they are not wrecking havoc on the libertarian party, in fact they are probably helping. Yes, there will be many who react to the intruder, but others will actually answer and engage, even when it’s clear the one who posted has fled. The libertarian prespective is less one of a collective view and more principles with an open dialogue to get back on the road of limited government. Some see that as keeping the death penalty, others abolishing it; some are pro-life, others pro-choice; some want a strong social safety net, others want it completely dismantled. Some are hard core environmentalists and feminists. Some voted Gary Johnson, others Hillary Clinton, and others Donald Trump and they are not any less libertarian for it.

The libertarian Party is not one that believes in ownership of the individual in any fashion, that’s why the common views are the draft is tantamount to slavery, why “taxation is theft”, and the wall is more of a tool to restrict movement than protection for the citizenry. That also means that the party doesn’t own the libertarian and the question “what is the libertarian stance on…” is a logical fallacy, it can’t really be answered, because that makes the implication the party owns you and you have to fall in line with their political dogma. So what is the libertarian stance on that? I don’t know but this is my stance.

R.C. Seely is the founder of americanuslibertae.com and ALTV. He has also written books on pop culture, the most recent Victims of White Male: How Victim Culture Victimizes Society is available at Amazon.