The Real Cause of "Gun Violence"

The Real Cause of "Gun Violence"
and
Why There is No Sustainable Peace in the World.

Simply put:
the real cause of the incidents of "gun violence" is our punishing people for sleeping (this is real: ask just about any homeless person!). This, of course, is only one example of the very many, socially non-sustainable acts we (we, as in "we, the people") commit against ourselves.

The reason we are so cruel to ourselves is that we are at war perpetually. In times of open warfare when we fight other nations, we direct our cruelty towards them. When there is a lull in the hostilities towards other nations, the cruelty turns inwards and serves "useful" purposes:

We keep ourselves in state of readiness for the next round of open warfare with other nations by stressing ourselves as much as we can--those who can stand the stress less become visible and are eliminated before they can diminish our success on the battlefield. Of course--by their becoming visible many innocent bystanders become a casualty, but that is a price to pay for our being ready for the real war, and despite all the sorry output in the media, the cruelty that we exercise towards ourselves (the real cause of most societal disorders) never diminishes.

The way to eliminate many societal disorders would be to eliminate the stress that we are creating for ourselves in order to be better in fight than any of our real and/or imagined adversaries. We would have to start waging sustainable peace at least as vigorously as we are waging war now. Till we come to this stage, we will continue to suffer increasingly, and no amount of verbiage will ever make any real difference.

Thank you, Hearthstone - ModelEarth.Org .

"Americans Kill People:" The Newtown, Mass Shootings, and the U.S. Culture of Violence

https://www.democracynow.org/2012/12...chael_moore_on

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by hearthstone:

The Real Cause of "Gun Violence"
and
Why There is No Sustainable Peace in the World.

Simply put:
the real cause of the incidents of "gun violence" is our punishing people for sleeping (this is real: ask just about any homeless person!). This, of course, is only one example of the very many, socially non-sustainable acts we (we, as in "we, the people") commit against ourselves...

Thank you, Hearthstone - ModelEarth.Org .

---

Dear Edward,

I am having difficulties getting to the video--what is it about?

Thanks, Hearthstone.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Edward Mendoza:

"Americans Kill People:" The Newtown, Mass Shootings, and the U.S. Culture of Violence

https://www.democracynow.org/2012/12...chael_moore_on

---

I'm not sure what is wrong, but when I clicked on it the link worked fine. Sometimes this website posts a request for donations (because it is a viewer and listener sponsored news source) and that might be causing the problems.

However, simply go to their website:
www.democracynow.org

And then do an internal website search for: "Michael Moore." A list of internal search results will pop up. Click on the result titled, "Americans Kill People."

Democracy Now! has thousands of articles achieved through excellent investigative reporting that you will not find in mainstream media, at least not with the same transparency and completeness.

Democracynow.org is one of my most important sources of research.

Edward

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by hearthstone:

Dear Edward,

I am having difficulties getting to the video--what is it about?

Thanks, Hearthstone.

---

To Michael Moore ( https://www.democracynow.org/2012/12...chael_moore_on ):

Michael Moore is against something; he merely follows the same pattern humanity has been locked in since the times when the resource of finite habitable area started becoming obvious--there started being "us" against others, the enemy.

This approach will only continue to perpetuate violence--"us" against an enemy forever (if we indeed had any "forever" left).

We have to start being for something wholesome, if we ever are to break out of this vicious "positive feedback"* loop situation (pls. see bellow).

I am suggesting that we start being for a sustainable world peace--a something that we have to start defining to all Earth's inhabitants' satisfaction forthwith, so that we all know what it is that we want to strive for.

More on this in "Designing a Lasting World Peace Together" - www.modelearth.org/peace.html .
Also of interest might be "Why Prayers, Meditations, Wishes, and Any Such Don't Help to Establish a Lasting Peace in the World" - https://www.modelearth.org/praypeace.html .

Thanks, Hearthstone - www.ModelEarth.Org .

*"positive feedback loop": loosely defined - vicious spiral, events that eventually escalate exponentially, resulting in a crash, catastrophically.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Edward Mendoza:

"Americans Kill People:" The Newtown, Mass Shootings, and the U.S. Culture of Violence

https://www.democracynow.org/2012/12...chael_moore_on

---

I am for gun control, which is something wholesome.

You can't have world peace and societies armed to the teeth like the US. They are mutually exclusive. If you believe that we Americans can have an arsenal in every home AND have world peace, then that is the same as having your cake and eating it too. Not possible; it is unsustainable, and it is simply an untrue fantasy.

Other post-industrialized democracies, such as the UK (our closest allies), Germany, France, Italy, Scandinavia, etc, are not armed to the teeth like the US is and they do not suffer from the plague of gun death rates we have in the US.

If your vision of world peace is one of having everybody packing one wherever they go, having armed police or guards at every school (which is what the NRA is saying we should do), then that is not a vision that I share.

Edward

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by hearthstone:

To Michael Moore ( https://www.democracynow.org/2012/12...chael_moore_on ):

Michael Moore is against something; ...

---

Back to my first post--banning private ownership of guns would be only a cosmetic, superficial measure; it would not deal with the causes; causes that would express themselves in other ways that would be (in the event of implementing "gun control") not as dramatic as killing children at a school perhaps, but that could be just as costly.

The basic problem is that we are in a perpetual state of war--there is no alternative for us. We are forced to take sides. Whether we are on the "good guys" side, or the "robbers" side doesn't really matter--we are still fighting!

We need a situation in which the 1% and the 99% become 100% united by a vision of a satisfactory (to all) common future on a common ground. We already are on a common ground (the Earth), albeit not united by pursuing a common vision that would be depicting a future accommodating all life on Earth optimally.

This is the challenge--we have to find ways of finding a platform on which we ("foe" and "friend" alike) could sort out our differences without causing any irreparable damage to ourselves and the Earth. Currently we are sorting our differences in real life, incurring real damage ...

I suggest a platform on which we all (the 100%) could start sorting out our differences in "Universal Platform for Developing Sustainable Earth Vision/Model Cooperatively" - www.ModelEarth.Org/seed.html , if you are interested.

Thanks, Hearthstone.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Edward Mendoza:

I am for gun control, which is something wholesome.
...

---

You speak nonsense, "hearthstone"

We need gun control. Period.

By the way, I saw your "website." It does not look like a typical website to me. It looks more like a phoney facade. Are you pretending to be someone you are not? You can see my name and a photo of me. Who and what are you, really? What are you trying to prove? Are you some kind of a ghost? Are you afraid to reveal who you really are? What your true intentions are? Is it your job to be trolling here on the list? Do you get paid to do so or do you do it on your own? Do you work for some organization?

Edward

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by hearthstone:

Back to my first post--banning private ownership of guns would be only a cosmetic, superficial measure;

---

Dear Edward,

Edward:
"I am for gun control, which is something wholesome."

Me:
A "control" would be "wholesome" if all the parties involved in a problem would be content with the outcomes of such a control.

( dictionary.reference.com/browse/whole?s=t

whole:
3. undivided; in one piece.
10. an assemblage of parts associated or viewed together as one thing; a unitary system. )


Edward:
"You can't have world peace and societies armed to the teeth like the US. They are mutually exclusive. If you believe that we Americans can have an arsenal in every home AND have world peace, then that is the same as having your cake and eating it too. Not possible; it is unsustainable, and it is simply an untrue fantasy."

Me:
At present there is no effective alternative for people to achieve a lasting peace in the world, but to use violence to oppose perceived violence. Mere protests against what-so-ever, so far, have not achieved much. If the gun control gets implemented, it would be using the power of the state to suppress the people with guns who might, after all, have a reason for their wanting to be armed. Why not start by addressing those reasons?

If there would be a way that would address the concerns of all parties in any conflict by resolving such conflicts *before* those resolve themselves in real life, causing real damages (the current political process is inadequate for that purpose), then there would be a chance ...

If there indeed would exist an impartial political mechanism for resolving all the differences that there might exist among us, then there would exist (at least for a while) people with guns and without guns side by side, with the side of people with guns diminishing in size, because having guns would start losing its purpose--there would be better ways of resolving conflicts than by using (or threatening to use) violence. But so far there exist no such sufficiently effective means of resolving conflicts yet. (There are a plenty of ineffective ones in existence, though.)

Thank you, Mr. Jan Hearthstone - www.ModelEarth.Org .

Your message is very sad and very wrong.

We need to ban all assault weapons. Make gun trafficking a federal crime. And require background checks for all gun sales, including private sales.

Edward

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by hearthstone:

Dear Edward,

Edward:
"I am for gun control, which is something wholesome."

Me:
A "control" would be "wholesome" if all the parties involved in a problem would be content with the outcomes of such a control.

( dictionary.reference.com/browse/whole?s=t

whole:
3. undivided; in one piece.
10. an assemblage of parts associated or viewed together as one thing; a unitary system. )


Edward:
"You can't have world peace and societies armed to the teeth like the US. They are mutually exclusive. If you believe that we Americans can have an arsenal in every home AND have world peace, then that is the same as having your cake and eating it too. Not possible; it is unsustainable, and it is simply an untrue fantasy."

Me:
At present there is no effective alternative for people to achieve a lasting peace in the world, but to use violence to oppose perceived violence. Mere protests against what-so-ever, so far, have not achieved much. If the gun control gets implemented, it would be using the power of the state to suppress the people with guns who might, after all, have a reason for their wanting to be armed. Why not start by addressing those reasons?

If there would be a way that would address the concerns of all parties in any conflict by resolving such conflicts *before* those resolve themselves in real life, causing real damages (the current political process is inadequate for that purpose), then there would be a chance ...

If there indeed would exist an impartial political mechanism for resolving all the differences that there might exist among us, then there would exist (at least for a while) people with guns and without guns side by side, with the side of people with guns diminishing in size, because having guns would start losing its purpose--there would be better ways of resolving conflicts than by using (or threatening to use) violence. But so far there exist no such sufficiently effective means of resolving conflicts yet. (There are a plenty of ineffective ones in existence, though.)

Thank you, Mr. Jan Hearthstone - www.ModelEarth.Org .

---

Why is my message "... very sad and very wrong."?
Hearthstone - ModelEarth.Org .

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Edward Mendoza:

Your message is very sad and very wrong.

We need to ban all assault weapons. Make gun trafficking a federal crime. And require background checks for all gun sales, including private sales.

Edward

---

There is NO justification for assault rifles, hearthstone. Do you get that or not??? This is what we need to be focused on, not all of this other banter.

We need to ban ALL assault weapons asap, nationwide. Period.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by hearthstone:

Why is my message "... very sad and very wrong."?
Hearthstone - ModelEarth.Org .

---

I don't disagree (assault weapons being just slighty less dangerous than fully automatic machine guns) but then what? It very likely would have no impact at all on gun violence. Assault weapons account for something less than 2% of gun deaths, and those guys would just get shotguns or more pistols. So, while I don't disagree, why waste time on something that will have no effect...oh that's right, this is Sebastopol. (how's you universal pay-for Comcast Wifi going?)

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Edward Mendoza:

There is NO justification for assault rifles, hearthstone. Do you get that or not??? This is what we need to be focused on, not all of this other banter.

We need to ban ALL assault weapons asap, nationwide. Period.

---

An assault weapon is a fully automatic weapon, and by large, civilians are not allowed to have these. People are pretty well misinformed as to what an assault weapon truly is.

Everyone wants to ban the AR15, but aside from the appearance and a grip, it is no different than an M1 Garand that my Grandfather carried during his time of service. No one wants to ban those, even though they can fire at the same rate (one trigger pull, one bullet), with the same accuracy, and with a larger bullet.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by spam1:

I don't disagree (assault weapons being just slighty less dangerous than fully automatic machine guns) but then what? It very likely would have no impact at all on gun violence. Assault weapons account for something less than 2% of gun deaths, and those guys would just get shotguns or more pistols. So, while I don't disagree, why waste time on something that will have no effect...oh that's right, this is Sebastopol. (how's you universal pay-for Comcast Wifi going?)

---

Handguns are the weapon of choice in most gun-involved killings. However, high capacity magazines, or clips, are made for handguns as well as for rifles. These allow the user to expend a large volume of fire in a very brief period of time. It is gratifying to see that the President included high capacity magazines in his push to limit the ability of a shooter to spray a large number of bullets into a crowd. There is no need for magazines with 30 or 50 or 100 rounds of ammunition.

I want to ban those. I want to ban all guns. The second amendment is a suicide pact, IMHO.
Peggy

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Twisted Minis:

No one wants to ban those, .

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by daynurse:

I want to ban those. I want to ban all guns. The second amendment is a suicide pact, IMHO.
Peggy

---

While I agree with you, I know that this is not going to happen now. Not as long as the people of the United States live in fear of each other. The culture of violence is based on fear. Fear of people who have guns and want to take what is yours, be it your "stuff" or your life. Fear begets rage begets violence. If one has a gun and one is frightened and enraged, that gun will be used, regardless of how "responsible" that person is under normal circumstances. But guns are not required for violence to exist. All that is needed is fear, rational or not.

Because so many of us are fearful of our neighbors; because so many of us are fearful of those "others" who do not look like us, or sound like us, or live like us; we are ready and able to be violent....easily. We will use a gun, if we have it. If we don't, we will use a knife, a rock, a stick or our hands.

So perhaps, in the quiet of our own thoughts, we can ask ourselves honestly, what is it that we fear? Perhaps, in the quiet of our own thoughts, we can give ourselves, honestly, an answer.

I wonder what impact this would actually have (on gun violence) if a ban was in place tomorrow. Can you share what you foresee, and the logic to support it? I'm having difficulty connecting the dots, so I'd appreciate some guidance, from you or others who are willing.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Edward Mendoza:

There is NO justification for assault rifles, hearthstone. Do you get that or not??? This is what we need to be focused on, not all of this other banter.

We need to ban ALL assault weapons asap, nationwide. Period.

---

Peacemaker, thank you for a calm and intelligent response. I agree with you on most points.


Shandi, here is a link about the 1994 assault weapons ban.
https://www.claytoncramer.com/popular/Impacts.htm

This was the most unbiased article I could find in a quick Google search.

Here are some other interesting articles, not directly related to an AWB, but to gun violence in general.
https://www.guardian.co.uk/news/data...crime-us-state
https://dailycaller.com/2011/09/28/g...gun-ownership/
https://dwighthouse.tumblr.com/post/...-vs-california

Thank you so much. So far I just read the first link, and it's just as I suspected, more or less.

My thought is that even if we ban something.....anything, and people still have them, that ban can only affects future "legal" sales. Doesn't everyone know that anything can be had for the right price? And those things that are out there already can be passed on/sold to others for the life of the item. Guns seem to be such a durable, long lasting item. I know someone who has an antique rifle that still works fine. I think the bullets are still made for it.

I just can't wrap my brain around the actual expected results of a ban. It might drive the price up, along with increased prosecution for those who can't afford lawyers to get them off if they're caught with them. And maybe it would discourage law abiding citizens from trying to get them, and they'll settle for something that's cheaper and "legal".

I'm thinking now of the war on drugs, (specifically cannabis) and how much has been destroyed, and how much just keeps on coming. As long as one seed exists, it holds the potential for thousands of plants.

Sorry for getting off the subject, but I find that my mind wonders, around this issue of government protection, and I have a hard time staying focused. Something inside me feels uneasy about the whole thing. "Black boxes" in new cars gives me that same feeling, but I can't put my finger on it.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Twisted Minis:

Peacemaker, thank you for a calm and intelligent response. I agree with you on most points.


Shandi, here is a link about the 1994 assault weapons ban.
https://www.claytoncramer.com/popular/Impacts.htm

This was the most unbiased article I could find in a quick Google search.

Here are some other interesting articles, not directly related to an AWB, but to gun violence in general.
https://www.guardian.co.uk/news/data...crime-us-state
https://dailycaller.com/2011/09/28/g...gun-ownership/
https://dwighthouse.tumblr.com/post/...-vs-california

---

The ban on these "assault rifles" is an iffy thing in terms of whether it can be accomplished and how much good it will do. I don't believe that any program to confiscate guns will be at all successful and might, in fact, be counter-productive. However, I do think that modifying the capacity of magazines that are for sale, and limiting the number of bullets that someone can buy in a given period of time could have some effect. In the end, the worship of guns is just a symptom of a deeper problem. It should be addressed so as to mitigate the horrible effects that guns are having on our society, but it's only part of the problem.

The real issue is not being addressed very much. That is: How do you begin changing a culture that values violence and vengeance taking as ways to solve problems? Other countries and cultures have managed to accomplish this task. Those cultures are generally older than the American culture. I'm afraid I have no answers for this. I'm just pretty sure that this is the correct question to ask.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Peacemaker:

The real issue is not being addressed very much. That is: How do you begin changing a culture that values violence and vengeance taking as ways to solve problems? Other countries and cultures have managed to accomplish this task. Those cultures are generally older than the American culture. I'm afraid I have no answers for this. I'm just pretty sure that this is the correct question to ask.

---

I agree very much.