Firstly, a frog is disinclined to stay in a pot of water at any temperature. Secondly, in those experiments in which they lidded the pot, the frog would get more and more agitated as the water warmed up.
When it comes to guns, the problem is that human beings really like to scapegoat. Rather than considering that a complex problem often has complex causes, we are desperate for a simple cause that we can surgically remove with a simple solution.
We've pushed the issue with video games, violent movies, books (which continue to be challenged to this day), role playing games, rock and roll music and even bicycles.
So I submit that anyone who blames a shooting on the legality of guns has no more veracity than those who blamed shootings on video games. Or teen deviance on secret messages in Stairway to Heaven. Yes, that really happened.
We have a long, long history of moral panics by which to induce that people can't tell what's dangerous, and the right to bear arms, even before we argue its intent in the US Constitution, is simply a part of liberty. It's the same basis that we get to use power tools, toss ourselves out of airplanes for recreation and camp in the Sierra Nevadas during winter, even those these all come with known hazards.
They'll care when Microsoft decides to bust them for minor sharing activity. Or kill switch their system because some MS tech got suspicious.
Microsoft is made up of a lot of people, some of whom have a tendency to get stupid and abuse their monitoring position.
Kinda like Google and the NSA. In Google it seem fairly rare (or they cover it up really well). In the NSA it's prevalent but not considered abuse from within for (say) a tech to stalk his exes and collect private cheesecake photos.
I've yet to find the allure of Chipotle, though to be fair, San Francisco is a city of great taquerías.
After the Scarecrow campaign, I looked up how much of Chipotle food was really from organic and free-range sources and found that there were an awful lot of exceptions where they couldn't find an organic or free-range provider. It seemed Chipotle wasn't trying as hard as the Scarecrow campaign implied.
The couple of times I've eaten there, the food was bland but palatable. It was also expensive for a buritto in San Francisco (which are, in turn, more expensive than burittos in Oakland).
Someone took advantage of a notion once, therefore the notion is wrong!
Yeah who gives a crap of the health and welfare of that bottommost rung of working stiffs, the bar waitress? the next thing you know, they're going to expect us to care about gas-station attendants.
Cooks don't have to wear hazmat suits because OSHA requires the installation of a fairly high-powered active ventilation system, and this is for smoke that doesn't (typically) contain tar or nicotine.
Smoking in bars in California is legally banned, but it's a ban not well enforced and many bars are full of cigarette smoke. And they dont have a kitchen-standard ventilation system. Neither, for that matter, do family rooms where parents smoke and don't quit for the sake of their kids, either because they don't care or are just plain that addicted. But fuck 'em, they're someone else's larvae.
Never mind that the smog from Los Angeles has been regarded as a health threat, also without the tar or nicotine, at a lesser density than is found in bars, homes and motor vehicles. But we can ignore that data given it might tap into our already meager profits.
Fuck the commons if we can profit by wrecking it for everyone else!
...or any terrorist front are often people who don't know where else to turn, or don't have a choice.
Now emotionally, Glenn, I'm right there with you. After the assassination of Dr. George Tiller, I was hot to decide that every single pro-life family was made up of crazies as bad as Roeder, who'd gun a man down in a church. I would have been glad to see them all burn.
But realistically, I know different, and I know that's not fair. Even that creepazoid who was running Operation: Rescue, who was ready to go out with his buddies for hot wings and beer on the afternoon of the murder.
So no. We (by which I mean the US and its rag-tag team of willing coalitionists) have to resolve to be better than that, and demonstrate our civility is genuine. This would mean striving to extend to ISIS / ISIL reasonable war provisions and rights that would be due any people (maybe as demonstration that we are, in fact, civilized). Historically, by treating our enemy better than they do, we would be able to sway the people away from affiliation with terror groups and towards NATO relief organizations.
If we're not going to do this, we need to come to terms with the truth (according to our behavior so far) that we don't give a fuck about any of those shitskins on the ground, and we don't care that this makes us as bad as ISIL or the taliban or the Huns or the Nazis for that matter.
And at that point we can do fire strikes on the towns and seed bioagents all over the theater and wipe out the entire population... unless we're wanting to round up the children and sell them into sex and labor slavery. (Probably at ~$8K per virgin female child).
Right now the US pretends we have the moral high ground and then shits everywhere. We should either abide by morality, or get rid of the pretense and get busy.
Juxtaposition of who a person is vs. what he does.
I'm pretty sure a felon who is engaging in more benign activities is just a person with the same rights as anyone else.
It is the the activity that makes someone a militant. Take the gun out of the revolutionary and let him raise a farm and a family, and he's a farmer and family man.
If you want to be fair and just and ethical, you don't blow people up for fear of what they might do.
As for our victims of missile strikes, sure we at home aren't told who they are. The US calls them all militants. When I heard the statistic, civilians were specified.
I do know this: US officials lie a lot and they have now a long running history of lying to cover their own asses (contrast: the asses of their workforce or of the US in the eyes of the international community). So I've learned to be not just skeptical, but cynical when an official statement is made about anything.
That said, I have good cause to presume casualties are civilians and innocent until proven otherwise. As a child I was raised under the notion that this is a wise and good presumption to make regarding anyone. At least anyone whose affiliation is unknown.
When we pick up the bodies, do they have ISIL membership cards? Or do we presume any Muslim or Arab or brown-skinned person in the area is an ISIL affiliate?
Makes sense when they're clustered together in their training camp far removed from anywhere else, including their own families.
Drone strikes into towns full of civilians to get one or two guys, less so.
And the casualty statistics coming out of the drone strike program seem to imply that we're hitting towns full of civies. US pilots, officers and officials are willing to massacre a whole bunch of people to get one guy.
Maybe we should choose a more appropriate technology by which to get tangos where there are civilians? Because it's looking more and more like we believe The only good brown-skinned foreigner in his own country is a dead one.