This is another Cranky Old Goat post and this debate takes place in the confines of my own mind. It is limited by my own abilities, own knowledge, etc. I often have these imaginary debates. They help me to process things I encounter, sometimes change my mind, and they allow me to try to imagine other perspectives.
I try to present them as a bit of humor, though the topics are always very serious. I am the cranky old goat, though I am friends with some cranky older goats here on steemit. (Love you guys, and you know who you are)
This particular post is inspired by the type of debate I can imagine I'd have with my uncle or aunt if I still did Facebook, and why I left facebook long ago. People started getting in trouble for writing on facebook with thoughts like mine.
[ENTER SOCIAL MEDIA]
Crowd of people talking: "That mass shooting is terrible"
"Yeah, and still all they do is talk and do nothing"
"They are more concerned about their guns and some stupid old piece of paper than saving kids"
"They still haven't banned the bump stock"
"Look at these assault weapons. Why are they still easy to get?"
"It is so easy to get a gun, and that is just wrong."
"Why do we need guns at all?"
"Guns are evil, wrong, and cause so much death?"
Cranky Old Goat: "Knives, Cars, Alcohol, Medicine, and Extreme sports must be evil too."
Person: confused "What are you talking about?"
Cranky Old Goat: "All of those things are involved in the deaths of a lot of people too? Most of them actually more so than guns."
Person: "They are not bringing those into schools?"
Cranky Old Goat: "They're not? I found that my friends drank the most alcohol during school ages before they were legally permitted to do so. It didn't stop them. In fact, they tended to binge drink to try to make up for times they couldn't manage to 'score' alcohol. They also had this idea that a party wasn't truly a party if there was no alcohol. In most cases every person present at such parties was below the legal drinking age. This was the norm. It was unusual for this not to be the case. That is strange considering it was illegal. In fact, I bet every single person here witnessed or participated in such things themselves. I believe it'd be hard for you not to have. I suspect people that know of people that died in relation to these things."
Person: "People were choosing to do that, and that is not the same as guns."
Cranky Old Goat: "I agree it is not the same as guns. Yet it is still illegal, it is still allegedly caused by an inanimate non-sentient object known as alcohol, and people still do it in mass. In fact, they seem to crave it more due to it being taboo. It is something there is a law to stop, yet that law doesn't actually appear to do anything except perhaps make youth who are curious and willful more interested due to it being taboo. After all, just because other people have bad experiences doesn't mean they will. Because, other people get addicted doesn't mean they will. At least that is the argument I've heard many times. Many of you likely have, or have potentially even given that argument. Are any of you now in AA?"
Person: angry "Are you proposing we ban alcohol? They tried that during prohibition and it didn't work."
Cranky Old Goat: "Nope, I am not proposing they ban anything. Banning doesn't work. Every case I am aware of that something is banned the problem is not eliminated but grows. It does help create a criminal black market that is very lucrative to the 'stereotypical' criminals as well as the criminal politicians. It also taps right into that human nature curiosity about the taboo."
Person: "We're off subject, let's get back to guns and mass shootings. Even the NRA and some politicians are okay with the idea of banning the bump stock."
Cranky Old Goat: "To some degree it seems that may be simply throwing people protesting it a bone. It could be a mistake, but there is a reason they are okay with it. The bump stock is a gimmick. It is not particularly effective and only came into light during the video blackout event known as the Las Vegas shooting, though how much or if it was actually used is still unclear, speculation, and not proven other than they were present on some guns. Yet they don't work particularly well, and reduce accuracy."
Person: "Accuracy didn't matter when they were firing into a crowd with the intention of mass casualties.*"
Cranky Old Goat: "If they are inexperienced shooters then this would be true. If they are experienced like the alleged sole shooter was then this would reduce their effectiveness in causing casualties. If they need a bump stock like effect, banning it would do nothing. The same effect can be done with a simple belt. All it does is allow you to bounce your finger against the trigger so you can fire faster."
Person: "Then why do they want it banned, and why is the NRA, and potentially the president even agreeing with it?"
Cranky Old Goat: "As I said, it is a gimmick. If banning it will appease the masses of ban happy people that suddenly think banning anything works then banning a gimmick that doesn't do much seems rather safe to people with knowledge and experience of guns. Though there is still some hesitation and that probably pisses some of you off."
Person: "Yes, it is so wrong! They don't care about the kids, just their guns. Why do they even hesitate?"
Cranky Old Goat: "I suspect why they hesitate is that they see this as what is known as a slippery slope. If they agree to ban this, how long before the people are demanding the next thing be banned, then the next thing, and then they TRY to take the guns completely?"
Person: with great emotion "Who cares? We must protect our children now?!?"
Cranky Old Goat: "How would that protect your children?"
Person: "There would be no more mass shootings without guns."
Cranky Old Goat: "You don't think there is anything significant to the fact that 95% of mass shootings take place in 'gun free' zones? In other words, where it is illegal for people to take guns?"
Person: "They can't take guns there if they can't buy them."
Cranky Old Goat: "Really? I guess they can't buy illegal drugs, buy alcohol, or anything else that is banned and illegal then. If you think that is true you haven't been paying attention as the drug problems and its results are many multiples WORSE now than they were before the so-called 'war on drugs' began. In fact, the places with the least drug problems are nations that decriminalized them all like Portugal and instead focused on providing treatment and help to those that wanted it. Yet, not being able to legally buy things doesn't stop people."
Person: "It works in other countries."
Cranky Old Goat: "Are those countries where everyone wants to immigrate to? If our 2nd amendment is so horrible why would anyone in their right mind want to immigrate here. I mean especially if you are black right? Think about all the police killings of black people."
Person: "They immigrate here to help us make a change. And yes cops are a big part of the problem."
Cranky Old Goat: "So you think they are coming here to help change our country because the place they are leaving is so wonderful that they simply must come here and spread their ways and make the United States just like their homeland?" bemused chuckle "And you are anti-cop and their treatment of blacks, yet you would take the guns legally away and leave them only in the hands of cops, or heaven forbid the evil dictator minions of Trump."
Person: "We didn't say anything about Trump!"
Cranky Old Goat: "You don't think it was his fault? That's what the news is saying."
Person: "It might be, but we didn't say that and you just assumed."
Cranky Old Goat: "Yes, it was important to something I think you need to consider. I mean so many of you I've seen here talking about Trump being a Nazi, a Dictator, a racist, Hitler, etc. Yet, somehow you want to abolish the 2nd amendment and leave the forces of Trump as the only ones with guns."
Person: "We are not talking about abolishing the 2nd amendment."
Cranky Old Goat: "Didn't you ultimately indicate you'd like to see guns illegal to purchase completely?*"
Person: "Yes, but that doesn't mean we want Trump to remain."
Cranky Old Goat: "If Trump truly does become Hitler how do you propose to stop him?"
Person: "He already is Hitler?"
Cranky Old Goat: "Oh really? One of the first things Hitler did was disarm the citizens. He did exactly what you are proposing. I've noticed Trump seems more to defend your right to bear arms. That means even those of you that HATE him. I think you need to research Hitler better and just stop throwing labels around that you haven't really researched beyond knowing he was a bad man, and therefore since you think Trump is a bad man he must be Hitler."
Person: "That is so offensive."
Cranky Old Goat: "So?"
Person: "You are talking hate speech."
Cranky Old Goat: "No hate has entered my mind. Perhaps contempt, pity, or dismay have entered my mind a couple of times, but never hate."
Person: "It offends me."
Another Person: "It offends me too."
A Third Person: "And me..."
Cranky Old Goat: "What are you going to do about it?"
Person: "You shouldn't be able to speak hate speech."
Cranky Old Goat: "As I said the emotion of hate never entered my mind, and even if it did why can't I speak it?"
Person: "If it offends someone then it is hate speech."
Cranky Old Goat: guffaw "You truly believe that? You believe the intents of the speaker are defined by what occurs in YOUR head rather than their own? You believe that when I speak I am somehow reading your mind and predicting it will offend you and that my goal is to offend you. Thus, you decide the reason you are offended is my fault. I magically manipulated your mind and made you be offended. Thus, your solution is to stop me from saying things that you find offensive."
Person: confused "Yes."
Cranky Old Goat: "What is the name of your religion?"
Person: "I am not religious, I am an atheist, and what does that have to do with anything?"
Cranky Old Goat: "That is a lie. You are not an atheist. You perceive yourself as the center of reality. You would limit and shape others so that events and words that might cause offense in YOUR head never occur. So, you old grand deity, what do you call your religion, as it is certainly not atheism either?"
Person: "There you go with the hate speech again."
Cranky Old Goat: "No, hate though I do feel a bit like a spider sitting in a web."
Person: "You should not be allowed to say hateful things."
Cranky Old Goat: "Do you think it should be a crime?"
Person(s): "Yes"
Cranky Old Goat: "What about free speech?"
Person: "I support free speech, but hate speech doesn't qualify."
Cranky Old Goat: "So you are going to set limits on what 'free' means based upon things you don't like to hear?"
Person: "That is not what I said. I said hate speech."
Cranky Old Goat: "and I've told you the emotion of hate did not enter my mind once."
Person: "Well it did in mine, as you offended me."
Cranky Old Goat: knowing smile "So I said something and your mind felt it was an attack and you felt hate for me however briefly and you want to stop hating?"
Person: "Yes, that's it exactly."
Cranky Old Goat: "So, you want to limit what me and others are allowed to say so that you don't have to learn any self control of your own mind? You can simply blame your own mental faults, and mental immaturity upon the words someone else utters? You would enslave others and restrict their freedom in order to protect yourself from any responsibility for your own thoughts and emotions. You don't want to have to realize the truth that reality doesn't care about your emotions, whether you are offended, or anything like that. Bad things happen. Good things happen. Some things I like you won't and vice versa. Thinking the world should change to make sure that nothing bad or that you dislike can ever happen can only occur by limiting the freedoms of others. You would enslave everyone else to be at peace and believe you are living in reality, when it really would only be a make believe land with you the master, and everyone else the slaves. For you have those agreeing with you now about my speaking to you. Yet each of you have this same mental immaturity and same will to force the world not to offend you. So when you are done with me, and the current easy targets do you actually believe it will stop there? What happens when those of you sitting here in the herd of group think no longer have targets like me to gang up on and you start being offended what you say to each other? Which of you get's to be the master, and which of you get's to join the rest of the slaves? The truth is you have no concept of freedom. You believe freedom stops at the edge of your being. So I refuse not to say offensive things to you, in fact keep at it and I might be tempted to show you what someone truly trying to offend you is like. Those people are what people like to call trolls. You see I haven't been trolling you YET. Disagreeing and debating is not Trolling. Trolling requires saying things intentionally to offend, agitate and cause anger. Yet trolling is still free speech. I don't like trolls, so I don't do it. Yet that might show you what truly offensive speech is. Furthermore, the only person that has mentioned the emotion HATE is you. You were offended as it made you momentarily hate me. So if you are hateful and you are speaking, then wouldn't that logically dictate that it is your speech which would best be defined as 'hate speech'? Yet, I am not calling for you to be silenced. That is freedom of speech. You could say 'I hate you', or 'why don't you die', or anything like that which would fit the definition of hate speech and that would be your right. I may not like it, but there are a lot of painful and uncomfortable things about reality. I mature and learn to live with them, learn to control myself, and take some time to think WITHOUT forcing my will upon the rights of others."
Person: "TLDR; You are an ass."
Cranky Old Goat: "Thank you for virtue signalling about your reading disabilities. In the past people didn't usually proudly state they didn't read something and talk about it anyway. That's another good sign of mental immaturity. If you didn't read do you truly think anything you say beyond that point matters?"
Person: "It was so long, what is the point?"
Cranky Old Goat: "You notice we are not on Twitter? I am also a person that knows it is very rare that you can sum up deep thought or a good debate inside a tiny title. So if you expect to ever learn anything or to truly claim to have an open mind and welcome challenge then TLDR should be something you would feel shame in using as it is no badge of honor. It is admitting inadequacy to meet the requirements of debate. You could say 'I don't want to read that as I've had enough' and that'd be fine. Yet the tendency to say TLDR and then try to continue an intellectual debate beyond that point is pretty societally embarrassing."
Person: "TLDR. So we are off subject. Let's ban guns to save the kids."
Cranky Old Goat: "I see the mental spam filters clicked in. Good luck in fantasy land. This is not Australia, good luck with your gun ban."