Wow !!! - Check Out The Front Page Of HuffPo... The Price Of "Freedom"

[WillyT]

Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

[think]

1. Chilling /nt

[oldandhappy]

2. Great, eh?

Visuals of what is happening. Keep covering this, everyone. Thanks.

[otohara]

4. I Agree, Keep Showing Pictures

of the dead.

I think a lot about my neighbors 9 year old who was an adorable kid.
Her ex picked up the boy and pulled a murder/suicide last year.
His little face pops into my brain every so often and the tears flow.
Pretty soon, we will all know someone who was killed by a gun and then maybe things will change.

[calimary]

62. Welcome to DU, oldandhappy!

Glad you're here! I hope this stays in the news. Loudly, and Long! May be up to us to keep avalanching Congress with calls and emails. Toll Free Capitol Hill switchboard numbers in my sig line below!

[oldandhappy]

63. thanks

[samsingh]

3. it's gut-wrenching

however, it is the price we pay for gun lovers to have their guns. Since 1776, i don't believe civilian guns have done anything to ensure freedom.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

51. Killed a lot of first nation people.

Took their land and freedom.

[L0oniX]

5. 55% of gun related deaths are from suicide ...and then there is the asshole

who used his van to kill himself by going the wrong way on a 6 lane road at 60mph and now my wife is permanently disabled from avoiding his attempt to kill her and anyone who happened to be driving a car. The other driver he hit head on was critically injured but survived.

This is only one example of why I say I am afraid of other drivers far more than anyone with a gun or a terrorist.

[Whovian]

31. Sorry for your tribulations

but that sort of thing does not happen nearly as often as gun violence.

[Demo_Chris]

6. Good point, I think this freedom stuff is overrated anyway

Last edited Sat Feb 2, 2013, 06:06 PM - Edit history (1)

GONE ON EDIT!

EDIT.... The above now deleted post was meant to be tongue in cheek and was a complete failure. There is a very real HUMAN price we pay for our guns, there is a human price we pay for everything, but the cost of regulating these things is not our freedom. This carnage is the price of guns and nothing more. When we say we need fences around pools, we are not attacking liberty we are addressing drowned kids. Sometimes we need a lot of regulation, sometimes a little, sometimes public awareness is enough.

The arguement that we must accept the unacceptable as a price of freedom has been used many times to defend some serious injustice. It can, in fact, be used to justify virtually anything. I reject that premise.

Guns are not necessary for FREEDOM, restrictions will not eliminate my freedom, and the carnage is not the cost we must pay for freedom. It's the price we currently choose to pay for gun ownership and nothing more.

I apologize for wasting everyone's time, and in particular to the people who took the time to read this and who responded to me.

[thucythucy]

7. So many straw men

you could start a broom factory.

"There is ALWAYS a human price paid for the freedoms we enjoy."

Try telling that to the Newtown parents. I'm sure they'll appreciate knowing their children died as the price for your "freedom."

[Demo_Chris]

15. Yeah, but I don't own any guns.

Last edited Sat Feb 2, 2013, 05:14 PM - Edit history (1)

* An estimated 4.7 million dog bites occur in the U.S. each year

* Each day, about 1,000 U.S. citizens require emergency care treatment for dog bite injury

* Nearly 800,000 dog bites require medical care

* More than 350,000 dog bite victims are seen in emergency rooms

* 72% of attack victims are children

(links below)

And while these attacks are rarely fatal, they are often associated with blood-curdling injuries and horrific scaring and disfiguration. That's the price we pay as a society for the freedom to own dogs -- it's not the price of freedom. Want PICTURES of the victims? As it happens, you accept this societal cost because you happen to like dogs. Me too, we have that in common.

We also share a belief that the second amendment is not an absolute right. We might even agree on what restrictions are reasonable.

Where we disagree, I imagine, is in our opinion of this Huffpo article. Simply put, I think it's a weak and lazy argument. Further, it's not simply an attack on gun rights (I ignore those threads for the most part), but by equating freedom with carnage it undermines the very idea of freedom. Screw that.


http://www.americanhumane.org/animals/stop-animal-abuse/fact-sheets/dog-bites.html
http://dogbitelaw.com/dog-bite-statistics/dog-bite-statistics.html

[Lordquinton]

18. And the perpetrators usually face a death sentance

dogs that bite people are usually killed. so there is a still price for it.

[Demo_Chris]

24. I guess you missed the point

Dog bites are not the "Price of Freedom" they are just a cost we accept as a society for our furry buddies.

The author of that article is suggesting we curtail "freedom" because the human price is too high. The author even uses pictures to make the case. This, the author claims, is the price of freedom. I was attempting to point out the irrelevance of that statement. We do not need to give up our freedom as a condition of controlling weapons. Nor are dead people victims the price we pay for liberty.

That's just the price we pay for guns.


If you want a picture of the "price" we pay for freedom here you go. Education and knowlege are the foundation of freedom:

[img][/img]

[Lordquinton]

28. Nice change of the subject

you get called out on it and resort to a semantic argument with a really condescending tone. When your dog bites someone, which rarely ends up in a fatality, and is usually a small bite, at most stitches are required. The gun deaths we are talking about are only the deaths, not injuries, just the deaths.

If there were 80~ deaths from dog bites a day, then yea, we would be having a different conversation. Price and Cost mean practically the same thing, virtually interchangeable, they are synonymous, and if your argument boils down to "It's the cost, not the price!" then you should go do some more research and get a bit of education on the subject.

[Demo_Chris]

33. Sorry, I read that several times and I am missing what you are saying.

I am not making a distinction between price and cost. I kinda assumed the meant the same thing.

In any case, I have been somewhat confused by the responses to this post. So... I went back and reread it and now it's a whole lot clearer. I need to edit that, as it sounds like I am saying: "If you want to ban guns you should also want to ban frisbees or whatever."

THAT was not my point at all. It's easy to see how everyone drew that conclusion though.

I have editted the original post, and hopefully that clears up the misunderstanding.

[Lordquinton]

43. Ok, no harm no foul

I thought things were getting a little weird there in light of the edits. Sorry if I come on strong, I like a good online argument.

[Demo_Chris]

44. The fault was ENTIRELY mine and I apologize for wasting everyone's time

[thucythucy]

54. Dogs have to be licensed. They are regulated:

Last edited Sat Feb 2, 2013, 10:02 PM - Edit history (1)

for instance, owners are required to get them rabies shots. Owners of problem dogs are responsible in civil court for injuries. And there are (at least where I live) strict leash laws.

And dogs that are perceived to be a danger are "put down"--meaning that they are eliminated.

Perhaps we agree: license all gun owners, register all guns, eliminate guns that are shown to be a repeated problem, hold gun owners civilly if not criminally liable for injuries caused by their guns.

I think attaching faces to the statistics we see every day about gun violence is a great way to personalize this issue. One way the Vietnam War lost support was when TV stations and magazines began publishing photos of those soldiers killed.

So if someone wants to highlight the costs of irresponsible dog ownership by publishing photos of dog bite victims, I say right on. The fact that you might find such images distasteful is just another "cost of freedom"--in this case our freedom of expression.

[OldDem2012]

8. Thanks for your CONCERN. Duly noted and filed. nt.

[JaneyVee]

9. What rightwing dot com did you copy & paste that from?

[Demo_Chris]

16. I didn't, but if you read it thanks!

[JaneyVee]

35. Hysteria like that is usually a RW trait. Kind of like equating ObamaCare with Socialism & the

complete destruction of the United States. ZOMG!

[Demo_Chris]

40. Yeah, I reread it and saw why there was so much confusion... :(

I now understand why it got the response it did. To be honest, I was kinda disappointed at the reaction to this post. I thought it was funny, and in no way anti-gun control, but I missed the mark completely. I have gone back and editted the post, but it's flat and lifeless now.

[RevStPatrick]

10. Hey Chris?

You're an asshole...

[Demo_Chris]

21. I don't think so, but not everyone shares my opinion. Thanks for reading anyway. :)

[etherealtruth]

26. The sentiments expressed are nothing short of asinine!

I am not sure that I would call an other DU'er an ass-hole .... might just point out how asinine his/her post is

[Demo_Chris]

32. That was the point

I don't believe we need to ban pool noddles, skateboards, or whatever else I wrote there. My point was to illustrate the absurdity of claiming that the very real human price of gun ownership is the price we pay for FREEDOM.

The same argument can be made in favor of anything, or as a call to ban anything. As absurd and mind twisting as it sounds, I have even heard this "price of freedom" fallacy used as a defense of Southern SLAVERY and discrimination. That is, in fact, the foundation of the state's rights position.

Again, this carnage is not the price we pay for freedom. It's the price we pay for guns. We do not have to give up the former to restrict the later.

[etherealtruth]

41. Your post does not read that way ...

It reads as the convoluted posts by "gun nutz" arguing that there should be no limits or bans on weaponry.

I accept that your explanation here was your original intent; however, if you read the responses to your post it appears that most that read it understood it as convoluted gun zealotry. If that is not your true intent you can edit or delete.

[Demo_Chris]

42. I know, I reread it and saw what everyone else was seeing (cont)

I apologize to you (and everyone else) for wasting your time reading and responding to this.

[etherealtruth]

45. Its not a waste of time

You can edit it (with an explanation). That's an "OK" thing to do ... this way that particular view point won't be attributed to you.

(posts are a very imprecise way of communicating ...open to misunderstandings on all sides)

[Ajaye]

12. Really?

Blah blah blah. Another blathering slippery slope argument. I can turn that on its head in 1 second. Here it goes: are there any reasonable restrictions on gun ownership and use you would agree with? If not then you are an idiot gun nut and we are fucking sick of being bullied by you people.

We live in a society asshole. I could match you word for word with a tit for tat on all the "freedoms" that it would be blindingly obvious society has the authority to regulate so that folks are not allowed to hurt other folks. Nor does it curtail your freedom one whit for people to discuss the ill effects of guns in this society. We are allowed to talk about that, right? We are allowed to point out that on balance guns may cause more harm than good, right? Or are you just another gun nut hypocrite who thinks your rights supercede everyone elses.

[Demo_Chris]

19. My objection to that article has nothing to do with my position on gun control

I believe reasonable restrictions on gun ownership is necessary and long overdue. I think most would agree.

I object to this article not because it is attacking guns, but because it is attacking both reason and the concept of freedom. These deaths are not the "Cost of Freedom" they are the cost of GUNS. We do not need to abandon our belief in freedom in order to fight for reasonable (or even severe) restrictions on firearms ownership.

[99th_Monkey]

13. I'd settle for just banning guns and leaf-blowers ~nt

[DogPawsBiscuitsNGrav]

34. I'm with you on the leaf-blowers. In my neighborhood they have leaf-blower wars. Everyone pays

lawn people to blow their dirt and excess leafs onto the next persons lawn, car, or drive way. To date I've not participated as we do things the old fashioned way with a rake, broom and dust pan. I don't get it.

[99th_Monkey]

64. + 10

leaf-blowers are the ultimate absurdity: 1) the cost way more than a rake, 2) plus I lose
the opportunity for a little exercise, and instead pay even more to a gym to go do it there,
maybe (if I'm not a complete idiot). 3) they impose dangerously toxic & unbreathable air
-- usually without any warning whatsoever -- on everyone within a 75 foot radius, whether
they like it or not <-- (this in itself should be illegal).

I have dust, mold and pollen allergies, and so getting all that dusty crud off the street blown
into this random pedestrian's lungs is literally an uninvited assault on my health & well-being,
and ought NOT to be legal. And it's not just about me, as actually, LOTS of people ALSO have
these kinds of allergies, but even if they did't, that air is NOT good for ANY living being to be
breathing into their lungs.

So that makes at least two of us, as I clearly "don't get it" either

[DogPawsBiscuitsNGrav]

65. I wouldn't go so far as making them illegal because there are already so many laws on the books

that I bet if we looked hard enough we'd find one that already covers the type of assault you describe. I hadn't considered that part of it
I never thought lief blowing could get any more obnoxious - yet it has. I have it listed near the top of my really rude and stupid things people do without thinking list.

Unfortunately the list isn't short.

[99th_Monkey]

67. Maybe you're right

perhaps we should leaf well enough alone, as far as new laws and such.

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. I just love them slippery slopes and straw men

To of them sophisms I learned in school. If I look careful I a sure a red herring is in there too!

Thanks!!!!

[RainDog]

11. k&r n/t

[Nuclear Unicorn]

14. So HuffPo is now decidedly pro-stalker, pro-rapist

Or is hyperbole the sole providence of the anti-self defense league?

[Lordquinton]

20. It's not about taking away the right to self defence

it's about taking away the need. I would prefer my stalker weren't armed, thankyouverymuch.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

22. No weapon is used in 85% of rapes/sexual assaults

The presence of a firearm by the attacker doesn't even statistically register; knives and bludgeons being the preferred weapon --

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=43

Peace through superior firepower.

And please tell me how the authorities can affect a prohibition on guns when the last century betrayed their abject failure at prohibiting alcohol and drugs. Seriously; it's not snark. Let's face it, they aren't that good at the few things we ask them to do and sometimes they're actually the problem.

[Lordquinton]

27. About the prohabition strawman

We're not talking prohibition, we're talking regulation. Second, I can make both drugs and alcohol in my house, I can't grow my own guns (well, you can, but I'd advise against it)

Second, you are focusing on one small part of the issue, and not providing any proof. Tell me now, how many rapes are stopped by guns? how effective is it really?

I think it's rather offensive that your reaction to rape is "Carry a gun" not "Hey, let's stop raping people" because that gun may give you a small percentage of fighting back. plus:

|

[Nuclear Unicorn]

30. You said you preferred rapists and stalkers not be armed

How could that be accomplished by "regulation" for people as unregulateable (Is that a word? I think it should be a word.) as rapists and stalkers?

The manufacture of guns isn't the issue. The number of rapes prevented by possessing a gun isn't the issue (1 is good enough for me). The converse of your position is for every woman that has used a gun to repel an attacker to just lie there and take in the name of some higher good (1 is too many for me).

The most obvious response to my statement would be that the presence of the gun such women might employ somehow enables the victims pictured at HuffPo to become victims.

Except none of those women harmed any of the vicitms pictured.

If words could stop a rapist then laws printed on a page somewhere would suffice. No rapist ever had the law read to him and suddenly had an epiphany that rape was wrong. They knew it was wrong when they decided to become rapists. In fact, the wrongness of it is their intent."Stop raping people," is a worthless declaration to a rapist.

Sorry, I don't take my cues from TV shows. Viewing declined.

[Lordquinton]

39. So you're not going to listen to any counters to your arguments?

You bring up prohibition, and I illustrate how the analogy is completely misplaced. You claim that anyone who actually wants to prevent gun violence is enabling rapists. You're pitting dead children vs raped women (that may get my post hidden, but it's the truth) This is so not even related to the discussion going on that I'm having trouble bringing it back. Plus every time I try to show you what I am saying you ignore it and call me a rape enabler.

So you want every women to carry around an M-16 to stop rapists, because even trying to spread education about "Hey don't rape" isn't worth it. Like you said, if even one guy has his mind changed, then it's worth it, no? Or do you believe that all men are rapists and women are all victims who have to defend themselves?

Few people are talking about total disarming, in fact, it's mostly the NRA who spreads that meme, most gun regulation folks who feel that we should ban and confiscate all guns know that won't happen and are trying to find a compromise that will work. No "defence" weapons are being targeted, just guns that are designed for military uses.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

47. In all sincerity, I'm not ignoring what you say

You said you wanted regulation. Gun regulation is useless with regards to rape because 1) guns are statistically not a factor in rape, as shown by the DOJ link I provided and 2) it's a rapist. No amount of regulation or public awareness campaigns are going to get them to stop. These are valid points and I think they deserve an address or an admission.

I have never advocated every woman carrying an M-16 every where she goes. If you complain about what you perceive as unfair rhetoric please abide by your own rules. That being said: my thought on the matter is this --

-- people are entitled to self defense
-- even the best-intentioned law enforcement department will admit the police are neither omniscient, omnipresent nor omnipotent
-- as such a person's first, best defense is their own preparedness
-- the police, however, do have practical field experience. The equip their officers to deal with single threats/small groups while minimizing potential for collateral damage based on their need to ensure overall public safety
-- the tools the police have chosen are semi-automatic handguns with 9 to 15 round magazines; shotguns, some of which are semi-automatic and semi-automatic long guns with detachable magazines
-- they do this, not because cops like guns, but because their experiences tell them not every tool is practical for every situation

With these considerations in mind I then proceed on the assumption that anything a cop might use would be practical for a civilian to use because the scenarios confronting a police officer, i.e. single/small group attackers would also apply to a civilian -- because the police are responding to the crime committed against the civilian.

Yet, every regulation proposed by those who promise they don't want to ban guns would deprive the citizenry of the tools that are time-tested and chosen for professional use. The front page of HuffPo will not bring those poor people back nor will it do anything to prevent future tragedies. It is an appeal to uncritical emotionalism; and I would think that is the last thing anyone would want governing their decisions in a crisis.

Whatever "reasonable regulation" or "compromise" or whatever PR marketing term is being offered should be viewed through the filter: would I impose this on the police? If the answer comes back, "No, that would take away their edge over criminals" then maybe it isn't a good idea to impose it on civilians who do not have the manpower and other resources the police enjoy.

Denying a person a right to defend their person and their family based on a cheap emotional, sensationalist appeal isn't rape-enabling but it is short-sighted. The people defending their own families aren't the ones destroying other people's families. They should neither be punished by the law nor made easy victims of the lawless. To me, THAT is "reasonable."

[Lordquinton]

49. "It is an appeal to uncritical emotionalism"

is the basis of your entire argument. any talk of regulating guns is responded with "Rape-enabler" you create a straw man and then make the other person defend them self against it instead of honestly talking about the issue.

You draw a very false analogy, ordinary people should not have de-facto access to the same arms that professionals use because they are not professionals, and they don't go around seeking out crimes to stop them. Unless you are proposing a wild west atmosphere where everyone is a vigilantly stopping "bad guys" then everything you said up there is a distraction from the point.

The discussion is about military grade hardware, a concealed hand gun for defense is very different from a military rifle. and you're trying to defend owning one, with the situation of another, so unless you expect women to carry around M-16 type weaponry, then there is no substance to your argument.

And yes, programs to prevent crime work, they just have to be supported.

Why do you want to keep crime up, instead of trying to prevent it in the first place?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

50. HuffPo used a cheap, uncritical appeal to emotion. I threw it back at them intentionally

If the rules seem too harsh then don't play that game. I make no apologies for using someone's rhetorical devices against them.

And I do not agree with your declaration that it is a false analogy. The discussion is not about military grade weapons because no military uses semi-automatic rifles as its basic weapon. You're either deliberately assigning words where they do not belong to skew the terms of the debate or you are misinformed about weapons in general. No one brought up women carrying M-16s except you.

The "wild west" canard has never proven true despite being issued every time a new state elects to loosen gun regulations for its citizens.

And yes, programs to prevent crime work, they just have to be supported.

Why do you want to keep crime up, instead of trying to prevent it in the first place?

Seriously? Are you really implying that crime prevention will obviate the need for self-defense? I know you're not but the tactic seems so ill-conceived I'm a little surprised that someone making the pretense of serious debate would offer it.

I would think that a public-awareness gun safety and shooting proficiency campaign would be equally, if not more effective than an anti-crime campaign because people with good intentions desire good results. A father who keeps a gun to defend his family doesn't want tht same family destroyed by an accidental shooting. The same cannot be said of those who desire bad intentions (we'll call them "criminals" for the purpose of this discussion). Would that not, then, allow me to co-opt your argument to my own purposes? Should we not then bring shooting clubs back to the public schools and endorse the NRA's "Don't Touch!" safety campaign for children? I think you're on to something. We should have the government fund this.

You're not against gun safety and shooting proficiency, are you?

[Lordquinton]

56. Yea, let's bring back the "Don't touch" campaign

Gun safety is vital, if you're going to have guns around.

I'm sorry, but when you equate arming citizens with the same gear police have because you expect people to be regularly going to shootouts then you are advocating a wild west atmosphere. Heck, let's do away with police entirely and just make everyone carry a pistol, and pack a shotgun and assault rifle in their cars, that is in effect what you were advocating.

We need to do many things, gun regulations are one piece of them, but any time anyone brings that up, the RKBA crowd jumps immediately to "They're taking our guns!" and basically shut down any kind of progress in actually doing something about the problem.

There are many things we need to do, it's not an easy issue, and there are no simple answers. We need to fix the rampant poverty we have. We need to reign in wall street. We need to reduce the number of guns on the street. We need to regulate industry. We need to strengthen Unions. We need to pass the ERA. and the list goes on and on.

This is something that needs a national fix, The handgun ban in Chicago didn't work because there wasn't one in the surrounding area. If the law was nation wide, then it would be effective.

Mexico has a major problem with guns because they just walk over the border. the UK doesn't because they aren't neighbors with people who manufacture guns, and just sell them to anybody.

Gun regulations work, we can have self defense and control, it's not a zero sum game.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

58. Since you're so determined to reassure me that no one is going to take the guns away

Perhaps you would like to declare here what weapons free and law-abiding people are allowed to own for hunting, sports and self-defense.

[Lordquinton]

59. You're really all over the place

If only you were this passionate about other issues, like preventing rape, or fixing the economy, or women's health rights as you are with the details of gun regulation.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

60. I thought we were talking baout the fallacy of the gun-grabber.

And I'm all for equal pay for equal work. That way women aren't being relegated to be barefoot, pregnant and defenseless.

[Lordquinton]

61. Gun-Grabber is the fallacy

Show me one point where any talk by anyone has been about taking away guns.

[DogPawsBiscuitsNGrav]

36. + 1000 We've seen what they've done to our schools, our social security, our economy. It's all fail.

[frylock]

37. ironic much?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

38. It was deliberate.

[another_liberal]

23. Little children . . .

So many are such little children.

[Recursion]

25. And nearly all of them killed by handguns

They're a scourge, but a very popular one.

[Duckhunter935]

52. so lets

ban scary looking rifles, that will fix it.

[The Wizard]

29. There are two kinds of freedom

freedom from and freedom to. One is not had without giving up some of the other. It's the Yin and Yang and Newton's law of motion: for every action there's a reaction. The balance of the Universe and relativity.
Lest anyone forget, freedom fries.
We're going down the crapper and no amount of chest thumping and claims of American exceptionalism will change the course we've set.
Locking up some major bank CEOs and closing foreign military installations would go a long way toward recovery.

[Warpy]

46. Shit. That pretty much says it all.

If a disease had been responsible for all those deaths, the CDC would be in overdrive trying to come up with vaccines and treatments.

A shit organization that represents 1.8% of the population is now blockading any attempt to reverse the escalating carnage.

This is clearly wrong.

[renate]

48. both of your points are very, very well made

[thucythucy]

55. Great post:

"If a disease had been responsible for all those deaths, the CDC would be in overdrive trying to come up with vaccines and treatments."

But until the President's recent executive orders the CDC wasn't allowed anywhere near the issue of gun violence.

[WillyT]

53. Kick !!!

[apocalypsehow]

57. Kick & Rec. Though our "pro-gun progressives"* don't give a shit about the faces on that front page

or any other victims of gun violence for that matter: their misguided reading of the 2nd amendment means more to them all the carnage, mayhem, and bloodshed the gun culture has wrought on America. The NRA they support and repeat talking points from here on DU doesn't care, either, so why should they?

They. Just. Don't. Care. Period.

I used to wonder how they got away with being able to strut around DU giving the rest of us who don't support the right-wing gun lobby the big metaphorical finger, but I wonder no more.

Again, great OP - moving pictures. Very sad.


*( )


Edit: added content.

[Logical]

66. Better link! Can't find it!