|
dk:
your post no. 105 made me laugh.
let me rephrase some elements from my last post that you obviously missed.
1) the abstract condition of possibility for this was and remains the easy availability of guns.
but if you actually read the post, i make no argument for gun control on that basis--in fact, most of what i wrote was about the simple fact that this is a singular situation, arbitrary..and from there that i find it really quite difficult to make any general arguments from it.
that you do not find it to be difficult as well strikes me as bizarre.
what i see in your posts is a proactive defensiveness: it is like simply stating the obvious fact concerning the ABSTRACT condition of possibility being the easy availability of guns for you amounts to an argument for gun control.
the proximate cause that links this abstract condition of possibility to these particular actions is whatever the psychological situation was of the guy who did the shooting. i dont know what that situation was--AND YOU DONT EITHER----so there is at this point nothing more to be said on this until more information comes out, if it does.
2. i do not care whether you disagree with my assessment of your proposal that students carry guns around with them as they move through a university as totally insane. there is nothing you have said, can say or could possibly say that would persuade me that this idea is not wholly insane.
so that is the end of my interaction with you across this point.
there is no debate.
3. recourse to psychological terminology is not an argument for gun control except perhaps in your private world. i considered the terminology that i used and meant the categories i used in the way in which i used them--you know, in the context of the actual sentences i wrote.
if anything, i was being nice by using these categories on the topic of your proposal that university students walk around strapped. i was being nice by trying to connect it to some level of coherent motivation that had something vaguely to do with the situation at va tech.
your entire motivation here appears to be warding off possible threats to your guns uber alles politics. i find this bizarre.
btw: i dont buy any of your arguments--not one of them--for unlimited availability of guns.
but for your information, i am kind of agnostic on the question of gun control---my position had shifted based on some of the saner arguments i have encountered here---i tend to favor local controls--and i would favor tight controls in urban areas. but i haven't gpt a position on universal gun control. sometimes that surprises me.
but i can also tell you this: your positions have done nothing to alter my views----if anything i find them to be so out there that they make me question them, wondering whether some kind of universal gun controls might be a good idea--so i would seriously ask myself what kind of service your way of arguing does for the politics you espouse.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|