Dealing With The Two Mass Shootings

[Leo Gura]

@AlldayLoop No, I am not suited for that. And even if I wanted to, with the things I have said in the past, I would never be electable to anything.

[Leo Gura]

@Mikael89 There are 300 million guns in America. It is simply unrealistic to get rid of them all.

Realistically you cannot get rid of handguns, shotguns, and hunting rifles. And those alone are enough to create many mass shootings.

Yes, we can have better background checks and ban assault rifles, but a handgun is enough to kill 10-20 people. Handguns are NOT going away.

So this problem needs to be addressed at a deeper, cultural level.

If only it was as simple as banning guns.

What you have to understand is that American culture is big on hunting and guns. You have to take this into account. You can't just compare America to Europe or Japan because our cultures are different. Americans will not ban handguns. And even if we did, millions of people would just own them illegally because they would disagree with the spirit of the ban. It would be like banning weed or alcohol. You can't ban something which millions of people think is reasonable to own.

Banning handguns would be as unrealistic as banning cars. Responsible gun owners will get understandably very upset when you penalize them for the actions of a handful of extremists. There are 10s of millions of responsible gun owners. Try to imagine how you'd feel if some kid shot up a school after playing Grand Theft Auto, so then we ban all Grand Theft Auto games. Millions of decent Grand Theft Auto players would be pissed because out of 10 million players there is bound to be one extremist.

The reason the problem of mass shooting hasn't been resolved is because it's a very tricky problem.

Even if the Democrats succeed in passing strict gun regulation, I still predict mass shootings will continue to happen. So what then? How do you solve that?

[Aakash]

When I was in Kentucky I walked into Walmart and they were selling guns there. That’s not even funny, I was shell shocked. You would not see that anywhere in European countries. You don’t understand how dumbfound I was that this was even possible. 

[SerpaeTetra]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

These shootings are an expected phenomena of a hyper materialistic society. As stage Orange runs its course, the limitations of Blue/Orange will become more and more apparent in the form of these kinds of ego backlashes. But this shines collective awareness on the problem, which will ultimately lead to its resolution and a transition into a stage Green society.

Banning guns will not be enough to resolve this. What's necessary is to make society more fair and to provide more opportunities and social support for alienated people.

It's an alienation problem. Alienated, nihilistic, depressed, angry, impoverished, poorly-socialized, and sexually frustrated people adopt radical and violent ideologies. Same as in the Middle East.

As stage Orange becomes more and more excessive and unhealthy, alienation will increase, violence and radicalism will increase.

When people lack a proper spiritual connection to life, they become hopeless and turn to drugs, sex, exploitation of others, and nationalist ideologies.

This is why it's important to foster a sense of community and to help those who are in bad shape. Because if they are not helped, they will not simply suffer silently by themselves, they will lash out at the world. These shootings are really a cry for help. Society is failing not only the victims of these shootings, but the shooters especially. The shooters are lashing out because they don't have proper channels for getting the love they want in healthy ways.

And of course Trump is pouring gasoline on this problem because he epitomizes toxic Orange while goading on Blue and demonizing Green.

That makes too much sense - and something the news channels will never put on the air unfortunately.

Edited August 4, 2019 by SerpaeTetra

[SerpaeTetra]

Also, as technology is exponentially getting more advanced, more and more people will be getting their hands on weapons that are much destructive than guns.  It's going to be a blood bath...

[Leo Gura]

8 minutes ago, SerpaeTetra said:

Also, as technology is exponentially getting more advanced, more and more people will be getting their hands on weapons that are much destructive than guns.  It's going to be a blood bath...

I actually don't see this as a big problem. We've already had weapons of mass destruction technology for a long time. It is very strictly regulated and so no citizens can realistically access it.

You can't access rocket launchers, flame throwers, grenades, chemical weapons, land mines, etc. That stuff is so dangerous even the most extreme gun advocates are not foolish enough to suggest that people have a right to own rocket launchers.

Really, the trickiest case is hand guns. Because on the one hand they are very reasonable to own. But on the other hand, they are still very lethal and can cause a mass shooting when in the wrong hands. How do you regulate that? That's a very tricky balance.

I would like to see mandatory gun safety training courses for anyone who wants to own a firearm. Similar to getting a driver's license. But of course this still won't be enough to stop mass shootings.

[Inliytened1]

Have to agree with Leo...banning guns won't fix this.  What he laid out would but we are a far cry from that type of society.   Banning guns would be a step in that direction though.  But we honestly need a mystic to run the country -- however if we can get Bernie or someone like him it would be a start.

The problem with a guy like Leo running for pres is that society isn't ready to vote him in yet.  He is so far advanced he wouldn't stand a chance.

[Leo Gura]

11 minutes ago, Mikael89 said:

I don't think that.

Start with changing the laws slowly. And the mindset of people should also slowly change. Long term thing.

This is exactly what the right-wingers foresee and the reason they get so defensive and don't allow any gun laws whatsoever. They see it as a slippery slope which will eventually lead to the ban of even handguns.

The biggest fear of right-wingers is that liberals will take away all their guns through a gradual series of bans.

Don't forget, we have a 2nd Amendment here:

Quote

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

So you cannot ban all firearms without a Constitutional Amendment, which requires 3/4ths of all states to agree. This is highly unrealistic.

I propose a compromise where liberals guarantee that handguns and hunting rifles will not be banned, in return for sensible gun control. But see, right-wingers won't even agree to that because they will think it's just a ploy with further bans to come (as your strategy suggests).

In the very long term (perhaps 100 years), I agree that many kinds of firearms will probably end up banned. But not without a fight. The right-wingers understand this, so they are already digging in their heels.

[Inliytened1]

@Mikael89 that's obvious.  When everyone is awake killing has no meaning.

[ValiantSalvatore]

You can get a license for handguns here, similar to a drivers license I assume, but semi-automatic weapons are not purchaseable. People who hunt can most likely also receive some license so it's regulated and buy hunting rifles, but I assume again not semi-automatic or autmoatic weapons etc. There should be a ban on these here.

My neighbour has a handgun and is a judge he also goes hunting, but he is a bit odd, friendly but odd he has a lot of academic spirit. Without seeing it 100%. Also very open and tolerant, but he is quite old. 

Still buying a semi-automatic gun and stuff like this, I mean the hunting culture here is also present, not sure how they would think about having semi-automatic guns for shooting boars in the forest. A bow and arrow could do the same, but potentially it takes out the fun out of the "sport", but talking about self-protective measures, I know the statistics superfically, owning a gun kills more than having none. 

Less guns and use the material for something else. I did not even know that shootings again occured, it seems to be the norm ? 





 

[AlldayLoop]

@Leo Gura Sorry if I’m sounding like a broken record with the “have you thought about...” suggestions, but have you ever considered having a separate YouTube channel where you specifically cover politics? Like having your own news podcast for example.

[Leo Gura]

@AlldayLoop Yes, but I don't have the time for running two channels.

[Annoynymous]

@Leo Gura i live in a third world country and even in my country, these sort of mass shooting  are a rare thing. We dont have access to own guns on a mass level like US has. But it feels weird to see so many mass shootings happening in the US in every year and i think like despite of having so many problems in my country, atleast we have better situation than advance country like US in terms of mass shooting.

Don't you think having so many guns on a private level is creating this problem? And as far as i know, most of the advance countries do not allow this in their own country.

Edited August 5, 2019 by Annoynymous

[Leo Gura]

17 minutes ago, Annoynymous said:

Don't you think having so many guns on a private level is creating this problem? And as far as i know, most of the advance countries do not allow this in their own country.

Yes, it is definitely creating a problem. But that's not the question. The question, how do you fix it?

It's easy in other countries because you guys have never had a Wild West gun culture. It's like trying to ban pickup trucks in Europe. That would be very easy because they are basically non-existent. But how do you ban 300 million firearms?

Just because you ban something does not mean people stop using it. If only it were so easy.

To truly fix this problem requires changing the culture. Which is analogous to asking Japanese people to stop eating fish. Good luck with that. They won't even stop hunting whales. Because it's in their culture.

[Shadowraix]

Banning guns will not fix dysfunctional people. The gun ban solution is tackling a symptom to the bigger problem. So in the end even if we did do that, it would only be a start to eventually tackling a root. 

[Annoynymous]

@Leo Gura i understand your point. But wasn't slavery part of many cultures too?

I think we can expect gun culture to change. But it will take maybe a century or so. 

Edited August 5, 2019 by Annoynymous

[Leo Gura]

7 minutes ago, Annoynymous said:

@Leo Gura i understand your point. But wasn't slavery part of many cultures too?

I think we can expect gun culture to change. But it will take maybe a century or so. 

In the long term, yes, gun culture must change. But it's not just gun culture, it's also the alienation and various radical ideologies which much change.

And also notice, in your slavery example, how much blood had to be spilled for that to change. Culture always changes, but not without a fight. Which is precisely what we're seeing today in the news. The transition from Blue/Orange to Green will involve violent resistance.

[Annoynymous]

12 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

In the long term, yes, gun culture must change. But it's not just gun culture, it's also the alienation and various radical ideologies which much change.

And also notice, in your slavery example, how much blood had to be spilled for that to change. Culture always changes, but not without a fight. Which is precisely what we're seeing today in the news. The transition from Blue/Orange to Green will involve violent resistance.

I agree with you. Violence was always part of the equation when society gets transitioned from one position to another position. It happened in the past and it will be happening in the future.

Question : What is the price of Progress?

Answer : Blood 

[Aeris]

20 hours ago, Aakash said:

@AlldayLoop Right so what's wrong with the mass shooting? love is not making something better, love is letting it be exactly how it is. 

Wanting to change something, is itself a "form" of love. 

the paradox is they are both equal in the absolute sense. its just one is selfish and one is selfless and so the selfless one is more love, consciously. 

but the conscious love doesn't demonize, it changes things whilst leaving everyone with absolute free will to do what they want

 

Real consciousness means when someone shit your garden..do you accept it ?

The garden is the whole earth. 

So your reaction should be equal.

Ignorance of ecology is the contrary of enlightenment.

And I keep sayin that nazi was stage green/blue/red. ( Not only red ) sure it was still a very low consciousness politics.

Imagine for a second their has been no holocaust. ( it is illégal to tell that in my country )

Winner write stories

 he triggered all the blue/orange.

Hitler sided on Green. Art- animals laws protection... If Hitler name trigger you. Means something.

For me bush was more evil than Hitler could have ever been.

And coral means : ALL tools at hands for peace of mind and body. 

Love Can be still full of ignorance.

This is war outside. This is the duty of conscious to create order out of chaos. Sometimes with more chaos.

Maybe I m wrong. I m just storming ideas and following god will.

Green nation can't maybe exist without active war ( or someone doing it for you )

P: See War in my text just as a conscious act of wanting to change things

[Aeris]

20 hours ago, Aakash said:

@AlldayLoop Yes, what is it "love of" the answer is consciousness and god. 

a fully awakened being would resort to less harmful methods, such as destroying your ego. But really, they could be disconnected in no-self enlightenment and therefore it's not even them doing it the killing. Its just the human which has remnants of ego, left in the enlightened being. 

This is accurate