The Lunatic Polarisation of the Social Media Silo

The survivors of the Florida school mass murder are organising by all means at hand. The media of all types, including the conspiracy nut daily, the Times, the Washington Post and the Adelaide Advertiser and the “Australian” Newspaper are reporting both on the latest routine mass murder at an American school, and on the ground swell of opposition of American students to the means by which these mass murder events are enabled.

All media are reporting it. All over the world.

To the long distance casual observer such myself to all things American, it seems to me that the organised resistance to any attempt to meaningful modernisation of US gun laws stems from diverse individuals, as is their unquestionable right, and from a peak body of gun owners, the Nation Rifle Association.

When one rationally and seriously asks oneself “how much damage can a single shooter do in 30 minutes?” the answer has to be contingent upon four things: 1. The rate of fire of the weapon. 2. How many pre loaded magazines the mass murder has 3. The target density 4. How long it takes for successful defenders to confront the mass murderer.

It is generally the case in US school shootings that the number of victims is overwhelming and devastating. Nothing has changed in about 20 years.

The rate of fire of an AR-15 style weapon is about 45 rounds per minute. As magazines generally hold about 32 rounds, it means that at rapid fire the murderer has to change magazines more than once a minute. The Florida mass murderer had, according to police, many preloaded magazines. He did not use many of them up before fleeing the scene, to be captured alive.

It could have been worse. It could have been better had he been confronted during the his frenzy of firing. Sadly, though someone was there who could have confronted him, the confrontation did not take place.

Had he been limited by US gun laws to use a “lesser” weapon, things could have been better. He would have been only able to fire fewer bullets. Less damaging bullets. He would have been slower to shoot, slower to reload perhaps.

The number of dead and wounded would have been lower in all probability had he not be allowed by law to buy a military style weapon.

Of course, once the event had been reported by all media, those with an interest in maintaining America’s current laws, including the current unfettered access of the public to military weapons, made their representations. And their protestations. These representations included attacking the “legacy” media (I guess that means TV and print – or anything other than social media based stand alone silos of single minded and narrow view points.)

One classic representation made by an advocate of the status quo made it into the “legacy” media. I’ll include it here. Its from the “Australian” newspaper of February 24-25 Feb 2018. Page 11.×427.jpg Picture of National Rifle Association spokesperson D. Loesch. Photo Credit: Jim Watson / Getty

“NRA leaders emerged in unannounced appearances at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference at National Harbor in Oxen Hill, Maryland. “Evil walks among us and God help us if we don’t harden our schools and protect our kids,” said chief executive Wayne LaPierre. “The whole idea from some of our opponents that armed security makes us less safe is completely ridiculous.

“NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesch accused Democrats and media outlets of exploiting the Florida shooting. “Many in the legacy media love mass shootings,” she said. “Now I am not saying that you love the tragedy, but I am saying that you love the ratings. Crying white mothers are getting gold.”

“She and Mr. LaPerre did not mention the age limit issue in their fiery remarks at CPAC.

“But Ms Loesch said on Thursday that the NRA opposed the higher age limit for rifles because, “if we are asking young men and women to go serve their country (in the military) they should be able to also have a firearm.” She added “I’m also thinking of young women” who may need a rifle for self-protection. ” end quote.

With the silo in which the NRA exits within the context of social media, the narrow band of permissible views make the statements and derogatory judgements of different views and open reporting seem reasonable. In the clear light of day where I still though, I sense no gleeful rubbing of hands at the profit value of mass murders in schools by the media. The article is on page 11, and it is reporting on the statements of people who deny absolutely that the right to bear any sort of firearm should be “fettered” at all by the actual contents and provisions of the Second Amendment.

The question has to be asked : how much money did the “legacy” press, both in the USA and around the make out of the Florida school mass murder, enabled, as it was, by a high rate of fire, relatively large calibre weapon? Probably very little or none actually. The Australian does not make much money and the story quoted above is on page 11.

The other thing that bothers me about the statements of the NRA personnel is this: The expressed resentment at the press reports imply that the NRA would rather that ordinary people had no access to the free traditional media such as TV and newspapers. The implication is they think the people of America and the world should, apparently, ignore what they call the legacy media and confine their information sources to those contained within the NRA opinion silo.

Let’s have another look at the contents of the US Second Amendment:

Second Amendment
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: “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.”

and yet the NRA refuses the need to even acknowledge the rational and right need to impartially examine the need to restrict rapid fire military variant weapons so that school children cannot buy them, thus preventing high casualty shooting attacks upon US schools, which are now routine! Why? Because the United States has an army that these children may one day be conscripted into. Does the USA have an active Army conscription program? And even if it did, what use are dead students to the US Army? None. What use is an untrained urbanite with his own AR 15 which he or she may or may not know very much about?

An irrational call to patriotism is no answer to the thousands of American students and their parents, who, with each passing hour cry out with more and more determination “We want a well regulated right to bear arms, just like the Second Amendment says.”

And the conspiracy nuts and the chauvinists in the gun lobby complain along party lines about an issue that has surely as many Republican parents as Democrat ones. And both cohorts don’t blame the other for the facts. But both cohorts are united by the facts which led to their losses. And both are one in wanted a well regulated right to bear arms which excludes the incompetent and the latent maniac from access to rapid fire deadly weapons.

In the latest news it is revealed that at least 4 police officers refused to confront the Florida gunman. No doubt the nature of the weapon the murder was using presented the police with a suicide mission. In their minds at the time. For they could match the fire power with 4 hand guns. Suicide missions are not even compulsory in the Army.

In later news, the Adelaide Advertiser reports as follows:

Florida school shooting: NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesch grilled by students
Debra Killalea,
February 23, 2018 12:33pm

“A STUDENT who survived the Florida school massacre has lashed out at the face of America’s National Rifle Association after her appearance at a CNN forum on gun control yesterday.

The televised forum brought together a crowd of students, teachers and parents, giving them a chance to directly question politicians, law enforcement officials and lobbyists – including NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesch.

Speaking to CNN host Don Lemon after the forum, student Alfonso Calderon delivered a withering assessment of Ms Loesch’s performance.

“She isn’t living in reality. How dare she?” Mr Calderon said, accusing Ms Loesch of dodging hard questions by going off on “irrelevant” tangents. “She tip-toed around questions, and dodged the yeses and the nos.” ”

To her credit, Ms Loesch did have the guts to show up to CNN’s forum, knowing she would face a hostile crowd. And the survivors of the Florida shooting grilled her.

Student Emma Gonzalez asked whether Ms Loesch thought it should be harder for people to buy guns like the AR-15 rifle – which was used to kill 17 people at her school – and the modifications which make such weapons even deadlier.

“I don’t believe this insane monster should ever have been able to obtain a firearm,” Ms Loesch responded.

“This individual was nuts,” she said. “None of us support people who are crazy, who are a danger to themselves, who are a danger to others, getting their hands on a firearm.”

Ms Loesch told Ms Gonzalez she was on her side.

“I have kids, and I’m not just fighting for my kids. I’m fighting for you. I’m fighting for all of you. Because I don’t want anyone to ever be in this position again.”

Pressed on the specifics of the question, she continued to focus on the individual case of Florida shooter Nikolas Cruz, saying crazy people should not have guns.” end quote.

Dana, who does the diagnosis of the entire population of the USA prior to the next event? The NRA?

Why Dana do you refuse to accept that the right to bear arms is, under the contents of the full text of the US Second Amendment a right conditioned by the obligation that those that bear arms be formed into a “well regulated militia”? If you love the full text of the Second Amendment so much Dana, why do you refuse to admit that the rag tag uncontrolled “militia” that actually has no discipline and no leadership and which does not formally exist is woefully poorly regulated in direct contradiction of the Second Amendment?????

There has to be appropriate regulation of the bearers of arms in America. Why do you refuse the reality of that fact? Is it because you believe that gun owners should be in the position that they can viably confront the government of the USA?

In any event, within the space of time it will take for the next 3 school shootings to occur (give it 5 years max), people like Dana and the NRA itself will as relevant as a tobacco advert in the legacy media. Meaningless and illegal.

There’s nothing wrong with the US Secondment. It is just that it has never ever been implemented. The right is conditional upon the provisions of the first part. That is, the right to bear arms in the USA by civilians is conditional upon appropriate regulation. It is up to the entire body politic and the whole of society in the USA to rationally discuss what those regulations should be in 2018.

The mental state of people is never uniform throughout life. It can be varied in an instant by external and internal events. Someone certified fit to carry a weapon by Dana and the NRA today may be tomorrow’s shooter of innocent people. No one is immune from a brain snap.

The arguments for the appropriate regulation, mandated by the text of the Second Amendment, are clearly not an infringement of that Amendment. The arguments about what is good regulation are not binary “either or” they are “both and”. That is: you take all reasonable steps to ensure safety so that the conditions of the Second Amendment are fulfilled and only those who fulfil those mandated obligations may bear arms in an unfettered manner.

Best of luck America. It has to change or otherwise you will tear yourselves apart. wow she actually thinks she and her association is in the majority!!!! lol.

Per the Census, there are roughly 245 million adults aged 18 and over in the U.S. Multiplying the adult population by the ownership rate gives us between 73 million and 81 million adult gun owners in the U.S. And the 5 million NRA members represent about 6 or 7 percent of that total.