How much should we accept in the interest of freedom?

This latest act of terrorism in Oak Creek, WI has me deeply saddened and frustrated. So much so that I'm really beginning to question some of the things I've been taught are sacred. In particular, I'm seriously wondering if we deserve the extent of freedom we have in this country when we consistently demonstrate that we are incapable of handling it responsibly.

We suck at acting like adults.

Paleocon wrote:

This latest act of terrorism in Oak Creek, WI has me deeply saddened and frustrated. So much so that I'm really beginning to question some of the things I've been taught are sacred. In particular, I'm seriously wondering if we deserve the extent of freedom we have in this country when we consistently demonstrate that we are incapable of handling it responsibly.

We suck at acting like adults.

Yup.

And the folks who whine the loudest about imagined affronts on "freedom" tend to be the absolute worst at acting responsibly.

With great freedom comes an even greater responsibility. We suck at the responsibility piece.

What makes you think you would be more secure by sacrificing your freedoms? Sorry, but if someone wants to kill someone, there is very little that can stop them. I'll take freedom over any amount of false security.

Furthermore, how can you look at this incident and extrapolate that people do not deserve their freedoms? We are living in a country of over 300,000,000. These things happen, but they are extremely rare.

I'm not even making a judgement that we'd be "more secure". I'm not interested in the calculation between freedom and security. I'm just making the commentary that we suck at freedom because we fundamentally don't accept that we have underlying responsibilities to act our age.

We all talk about how we need to "defend our freedoms", but we are a freer society now than any time in human history. We just choose to use that freedom in a manner that makes us paranoid, powerless, isolated, and stupid.

The counter argument tends to be that we ought not restrict freedoms because a few nutjobs happen to abuse them.

I think the culture as a whole could perhaps use some thinking about this issue though and some stern reminders that it's not freedom to do whatever you want without consequence, judgement, or criticism; your words and actions yield results. Maybe start encouraging the population as a whole to have more personal responsibility and accountability, and not just when things are going well.

Freedom requires sacrifice. And to a degree that people might find unconscionable.

Seriously, the fact that a good portion of the nation and at least one political party panders to the likes of these kinds of asshats makes me truly ashamed to be an American tonight. I'd say we deserve better, but we don't.

Wow.

So a guy shoots people at a movie theater, and it's such front-page news blasted all over the f*cking place that it's unavoidable to be confronted with it. But a white supremacist shoots people at a Sikh temple, and I don't even hear about it for a full day until it's mentioned in a P&C thread? Seriously, there was NO mention of this on the radio or at work, and I wasn't browsing any news today with any particular fervor, so this is the first I've heard of this.

Gorramit America, we're supposed to be better than this.

And the fact that anyone's even debating whether it's terrorism or not (by our nation's standards, it more than qualifies) pisses me off even more.

Funkenpants wrote:
Farscry wrote:

So a guy shoots people at a movie theater, and it's such front-page news blasted all over the f*cking place that it's unavoidable to be confronted with it. But a white supremacist shoots people at a Sikh temple, and I don't even hear about it for a full day until it's mentioned in a P&C thread? Seriously, there was NO mention of this on the radio or at work, and I wasn't browsing any news today with any particular fervor, so this is the first I've heard of this.

Gorramit America, we're supposed to be better than this.

It's been all over the news sites and network news since it happened. No massive live coverage, but it was on the front page of Yahoo and the top of Google news. It's not like it wasn't reported all over the place.

Much of the coverage I saw was tinged with a message of, "those Sikhs were asking for it - they're so easy to mistake for Muslims!"

Additionally, a mosque in MO has been firebombed twice this month:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...

The second firebombing razed it to the ground.

Well that's... comforting, I guess (poor word but not sure what else to use). I haven't really checked any of the news aggregators I look at today, and no one has mentioned it anywhere else (online communities, social media that I receive, etc). Bad on me for not checking the major news outlets today (the AP, at a minimum).

Farscry wrote:

So a guy shoots people at a movie theater, and it's such front-page news blasted all over the f*cking place that it's unavoidable to be confronted with it. But a white supremacist shoots people at a Sikh temple, and I don't even hear about it for a full day until it's mentioned in a P&C thread? Seriously, there was NO mention of this on the radio or at work, and I wasn't browsing any news today with any particular fervor, so this is the first I've heard of this.

Gorramit America, we're supposed to be better than this.

It's been all over the news sites and network news since it happened. The networks could have made it into a bigger "LIVE" wall-to-wall coverage story, but it's not like it wasn't reported all over the place.

Tanglebones wrote:

Much of the coverage I saw was tinged with a message of, "those Sikhs were asking for it - they're so easy to mistake for Muslims!"

I saw reports that mentioned that their communities have been attacked by people who thought they were attacking muslims, but nothing implying the reporters thought they were asking for it or that attacks on muslims or any other minority group were justified.

Funkenpants wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:

Much of the coverage I saw was tinged with a message of, "those Sikhs were asking for it - they're so easy to mistake for Muslims!"

I saw reports that mentioned that their communities have been attacked by people who thought they were attacking muslims, but nothing implying the reporters thought they were asking for it or that attacks on muslims or any other minority group were justified.

I'm sorry - I was being sarcastic there. I did not mean to imply that the reporters thought they were asking for it, more that the reporters were speaking with an underlying expectation that acts of terrorism were more likely to be committed against Muslims.

No society is going to be safe from the "one nutjob" scenario, regardless of the freedoms that they give up. Crazy doesn't care about the law.

LouZiffer wrote:

No society is going to be safe from the "one nutjob" scenario, regardless of the freedoms that they give up. Crazy doesn't care about the law.

This is true, but I think a lot of people are equivocating what the OP posited with "let's give things up and that will fix it!"

The question that no one seems to be addressing (maybe because it's just too subjective) is - We already restrict certain freedoms for national and societal concerns, so where is the balance achieved? And I'm not even talking the whole Patriot Act stuff, it's just a basic premise of society that you give up some of your individual freedom for the greater good.

Tanglebones wrote:

I'm sorry - I was being sarcastic there. I did not mean to imply that the reporters thought they were asking for it, more that the reporters were speaking with an underlying expectation that acts of terrorism were more likely to be committed against Muslims.

I agree that was part of the story. Like the reporters, I've been assuming that's why the shooter targeted the sikhs. But it could be he just didn't like any flavor of non-white people and shot them for that reason alone.

Funkenpants wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:

I'm sorry - I was being sarcastic there. I did not mean to imply that the reporters thought they were asking for it, more that the reporters were speaking with an underlying expectation that acts of terrorism were more likely to be committed against Muslims.

I agree that was part of the story. Like the reporters, I've been assuming that's why the shooter targeted the sikhs. But it could be he just didn't like any flavor of non-white people and shot them for that reason alone.

Could be. Not a good state of affairs to have, either way.

Bloo Driver wrote:
LouZiffer wrote:

No society is going to be safe from the "one nutjob" scenario, regardless of the freedoms that they give up. Crazy doesn't care about the law.

This is true, but I think a lot of people are equivocating what the OP posited with "let's give things up and that will fix it!"

The question that no one seems to be addressing (maybe because it's just too subjective) is - We already restrict certain freedoms for national and societal concerns, so where is the balance achieved? And I'm not even talking the whole Patriot Act stuff, it's just a basic premise of society that you give up some of your individual freedom for the greater good.

Not only is it too subjective, but there can be a raft of unintended consequences with each freedom that you give up.

I think our main issues that could be addressed are societal in nature and require social solutions. For example, I'm of the opinion that we don't talk with and depend upon our neighbors enough these days. That leaves us open to all sorts of exploitation which otherwise could be avoided. It also means that fewer people know what their neighbors are doing. Will a restriction of freedoms balance that out? Only something radical could, IMO. A social solution would work better, but it's still a difficult problem to solve.

Maybe I'm oblivious but can someone please cite a freedom that's been given up and the horrifying consequences that ensued as a result? Something in the last hundred years or so? The biggest attack on personal freedom and privacy in the last decade was the Patriot Act and that was to make us "safer".

I keep hearing people tell me that we cant give up freedom for safety but I'm really struggling what freedom would actually be lost if the general public was not allowed to own firearms? Sure a bunch of gun owners would lose the right to hunt and shoot skeet but wouldn't the safety of the greater population trump that? We're not exactly forming militias these days or fighting off tyrannical governments.

Where's the freedom for the average citizen who doesn't want to be a victim of gun violence? They FAR outnumber the gun owners.

And for the record, I'm not anti-gun but this nonsense has to stop.

Bear wrote:

I keep hearing people tell me that we cant give up freedom for safety but I'm really struggling what freedom would actually be lost if the general public was not allowed to own firearms? Sure a bunch of gun owners would lose the right to hunt and shoot skeet but wouldn't the safety of the greater population trump that? We're not exactly forming militias these days or fighting off tyrannical governments.

Where's the freedom for the average citizen who doesn't want to be a victim of gun violence? They FAR outnumber the gun owners.

And for the record, I'm not anti-gun but this nonsense has to stop.

According to quite a few people their right to own guns literally trumps everyone else's right to life...

Well you have to consider the absolute corrupt places we live in today. You take away guns in certain locations they will end up in the hands of people you don't want to have them. I personally agree with the right to own weapons, I want to feel safe in knowing that if someone tries to break into my house, I have a defense.

Gun control only works if all things line up, and in many cases they just don't, corruption in places of power only insure gang members and the like, end up with weapons mysteriously (I have friends who have witnessed this first hand). Many people think that banning weapons will solve most problems, when in reality it makes the victims weaker and the predators stronger.

Crazy finds a way.

The Conformist wrote:

Well you have to consider the absolute corrupt places we live in today. You take away guns in certain locations they will end up in the hands of people you don't want to have them. I personally agree with the right to own weapons, I want to feel safe in knowing that if someone tries to break into my house, I have a defense.

Gun control only works if all things line up, and in many cases they just don't, corruption in places of power only insure gang members and the like, end up with weapons mysteriously (I have friends who have witnessed this first hand). Many people think that banning weapons will solve most problems, when in reality it makes the victims weaker and the predators stronger.

I think the question of whether or not to ban weapons is not entirely the right question to ask--why did no one in the Colorado theater have a concealed weapon to fight back with, regardless of how effective it would have been? Apparently all they would have needed was a license, which is easy to get in that state. The NRA argues that fewer gun restrictions would allow more people to arm themselves, and be better prepared to fight the bad guy with a gun. But I don't think more people would arm themselves, at least not enough more to matter. The only way the NRA's logic would pan out is if the US started requiring citizens to arm themselves. I wonder if the gun lobby would support that.

What are people's thoughts on Vermont? It's a state with some of the most lax gun control laws in the country, more so than Colorado's, and very little gun-related violent crime. It also has a very lax open-carry stance, so you could wear your gun in a visible holster if you want (not sure many people actually do this though). Not saying I think tighter controls wouldn't help in states like Colorado or Wisconsin, but there are clearly other factors at play. Mental health care isn't great in Vermont either, though the state does offer a basic healthcare plan for the poor.

Chairman_Mao wrote:
The Conformist wrote:

Well you have to consider the absolute corrupt places we live in today. You take away guns in certain locations they will end up in the hands of people you don't want to have them. I personally agree with the right to own weapons, I want to feel safe in knowing that if someone tries to break into my house, I have a defense.

Gun control only works if all things line up, and in many cases they just don't, corruption in places of power only insure gang members and the like, end up with weapons mysteriously (I have friends who have witnessed this first hand). Many people think that banning weapons will solve most problems, when in reality it makes the victims weaker and the predators stronger.

I think the question of whether or not to ban weapons is not entirely the right question to ask--why did no one in the Colorado theater have a concealed weapon to fight back with, regardless of how effective it would have been?

I've read that the theater had a no weapons allowed sign so anyone who followed the law disarmed themselves before entering the premise. It's the right thing to do since the property owner creates the rules for their property, but then you create situations where you disarm people who might be able to stop the situation.

I'm not sure I want this to turn into yet another gun control conversation. We have plenty of those already thank you very much.

What I'd like to explore, if possible, is the fact that we, as Americans, pretty well suck at understanding what it means not to act like a fcking petulant manchild. We confuse "freedom" with a conspicuous flaunting of propriety and social convention. We lift up crass demonstrations like gigantic luxury SUV's, AR15's, and monster fatburgers and talismans of American "freedom". We scream about how simple public works projects are examples of modern "tyranny". And instead of vigorously challenging the violent, dying throes of entitled white privilege, we sit back impotently and proclaim that tolerating "a few nutbars" is the cost of "freedom".

We make a mockery of real struggles for freedom. We disgrace our ancestors who fought and died for a meaningful definition of it.

Chairman_Mao wrote:

I think the question of whether or not to ban weapons is not entirely the right question to ask--why did no one in the Colorado theater have a concealed weapon to fight back with, regardless of how effective it would have been? Apparently all they would have needed was a license, which is easy to get in that state. The NRA argues that fewer gun restrictions would allow more people to arm themselves, and be better prepared to fight the bad guy with a gun. But I don't think more people would arm themselves, at least not enough more to matter. The only way the NRA's logic would pan out is if the US started requiring citizens to arm themselves. I wonder if the gun lobby would support that.

Of course they would. They've been waging a campaign for years to remove any and all restrictions on how people can acquire and use firearms.

But the question of how effective concealed weapons would be in preventing things like these mass shootings is one that really needs to be answered before any policy changes are made. I mean there was a concealed carry guy at the scene of the Tucson shooting and his grand contribution was to come within a whisker of shooting the guy who had wrestled the gun away from Jared Lee Loughner.

Chairman_Mao wrote:

What are people's thoughts on Vermont? It's a state with some of the most lax gun control laws in the country, more so than Colorado's, and very little gun-related violent crime. It also has a very lax open-carry stance, so you could wear your gun in a visible holster if you want (not sure many people actually do this though). Not saying I think tighter controls wouldn't help in states like Colorado or Wisconsin, but there are clearly other factors at play. Mental health care isn't great in Vermont either, though the state does offer a basic healthcare plan for the poor.

Sure, let's model our nation's gun policy on a tiny, virtually all white, economically stable, and primarily rural state like Vermont. What could go wrong?

How about we model our nation's gun policies on what would make sense for say the 25 or 50 largest cities in the country? I very much doubt law enforcement officials, health care professionals, and other officials in those cities would have the same view of firearms than the "good fences make good neighbors" crowd from New England.

Paleocon wrote:

I'm not sure I want this to turn into yet another gun control conversation. We have plenty of those already thank you very much.

What I'd like to explore, if possible, is the fact that we, as Americans, pretty well suck at understanding what it means not to act like a fcking petulant manchild. We confuse "freedom" with a conspicuous flaunting of propriety and social convention. We lift up crass demonstrations like gigantic luxury SUV's, AR15's, and monster fatburgers and talismans of American "freedom". We scream about how simple public works projects are examples of modern "tyranny". And instead of vigorously challenging the violent, dying throes of entitled white privilege, we sit back impotently and proclaim that tolerating "a few nutbars" is the cost of "freedom".

We make a mockery of real struggles for freedom. We disgrace our ancestors who fought and died for a meaningful definition of it.

Well, this thread started kinda vague and angry and now it's still pretty vague and angry. If there's something specific you'd like to talk about maybe start a thread about that. Right now you're just railing.