Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Grizzly on October 05, 2015, 04:49:43 am
-
And I can't blame him (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/02/us/obama-oregon-shooting-umpqua-community-college-gun-control.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=1&module=ArrowsNav&contentCollection=U.S.&action=keypress®ion=FixedLeft&pgtype=article).
Because honestly, this is bull****. I honestly can't believe that there's so many politicians (Obama aside, natch) that look at the price of their 'gun freedom' and go "Well, it's still less gallons then my car uses every week"!
I mean, I know a bit about US politics and it's lobby (lobster?) infested nature, but a lot of this whole gun debate bull**** is so completely backwards and filled to the brim with double standards that I am surprised at this point nobody has stood up and outright said "You are a bunch of ****ing pathetic morons!". I simply can not believe that a country that is so uptight about controlling stuff like drugs, who ****s who, and what people do to their own bodies is so lax in controlling it's own weapon trade and lets psychopaths slaughter their own population freely.
EDIT: and I highly recommend you read that article in full, as Obama went out swinging against the gun lobbyists.
-
Nothing like politicking while bodies are still warm. It helps with objectivity, said no one ever.
-
If a plane had crashed into that school, and he had used the speech to talk about stricter regulations for planes, would you consider that politiking as well?
-
If a plane had crashed into that school, and he had used the speech to talk about stricter regulations for planes, would you consider that politiking as well?
Planes are not in the constitution. You cannot strictly regulate guns unless you also change second amendment. Id rather deal with regular shootings than make a mockery out of basic law of the country. Statistically speaking, these shootings are not a big threat anyway.
-
Yeah, I'm not surprised that he's pissed off. Given that we've had nearly a thousand mass shootings during his 2nd term alone (http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/01/oregon-umpqua-community-college-shooting). But unlike him I'm at the point where I think the rest of the world should join me in a loud collective "meh"
This is actually one of the few issues where it's not lobbying that is the issue. It's the general public who can't get behind any kind of gun reform. The rest of us are for the most part from countries that managed to come up with a sensible gun policy. Whether they decided to go with the route of banning guns or giving almost everyone guns we made it work. If Americans can't be bothered to give a **** about it (at least in the kind of numbers to actually get anything done), I don't see why I, or anyone outside America should really give a ****.
Keep paying the 2nd amendment tax guys.
-
Nothing like politicking while bodies are still warm. It helps with objectivity, said no one ever.
This is honestly one of the sickest things about watching this sort of thing play out. In literally no other form of man-made disaster does this line get trotted out. Nobody said we shouldn't be legislating huge changes to how we approach potential terrorists after 9/11. Nobody said it was wrong for the Koreans to crack down on their ferry industry after a disaster. Nobody argued that Metrolink didn't need to immediately clean up its act after the 2008 Chatsworth crash killed 25 people. Nobody argued we didn't need a Benghazi investigation.
"Said no one ever".
Yeah.
This is actually one of the few issues where it's not lobbying that is the issue. It's the general public who can't get behind any kind of gun reform.
I shouldn't be entirely surprised, but you're completely wrong. A majority of Americans don't support open carry even in places it's legal. A majority of Americans have supported various measures like greater and more in-depth background checks. Opposition in the political class does not translate to opposition on the street.
The issue has become, as many others, an ideological loyalty test, particularly among Republicans. The reason the NRA et. al. wield such power isn't that they're supported by a broad spectrum of the population. It isn't even that they're particularly good lobbyists, though they are. It's the casting of the question as an ideological purity one, similar to, say, abortion. These aren't dealbreaker issues for most people; they believe, rightly, that other issues matter more in the grand scheme of things. You know, food on the table? Most people do have to think about that before they can think about whether they'll get shot.
Also, seriously, if you're going to come into topics about people dying and just go "meh" and deploy some vaguely sadistic schadenfreude, why the **** are you even posting? We get into some pretty monstrous digressions in GenDisc on occasion, witness the AIDS thing not long ago, but at least those are people who actually have convictions and subscribe to some kind of morality no matter how wrongheaded it might be. This kind of contemptuous sniggering means nothing and adds nothing.
Planes are not in the constitution.
Neither are guns. There's merely a vague "arms" and it was written at a time where men still carried swords and even pikes as real battlefield weapons. It's literally only since the '90s that anyone has interpreted it to an individual right to gun ownership, and only since the mid-2000s that there's been a Supreme Court decision to that effect.
-
This is honestly one of the sickest things about watching this sort of thing play out. In literally no other form of man-made disaster does this line get trotted out. Nobody said we shouldn't be legislating huge changes to how we approach potential terrorists after 9/11. Nobody said it was wrong for the Koreans to crack down on their ferry industry after a disaster. Nobody argued that Metrolink didn't need to immediately clean up its act after the 2008 Chatsworth crash killed 25 people. Nobody argued we didn't need a Benghazi investigation.
"Said no one ever".
Yeah.
You're right, in fact too many people are saying it, even this very forum. It's bad practice, and you know what, the ****ing iraq war PROVES IT. The Patriot act PROVES IT. There *has* been people who have looked at what happened and even suggested that governments should have a law forbidding it from making harsh decisions while emotions were still running hot.
MANY of your examples are precise concrete examples of how this methodology sucks. Because actual efficient measures are not going to be porsued in this emotional state, only *something* to show off as some kind of "vengeance", like, say, invade the ****ing wrong country that didn't do anything to your twin towers.
-
You cannot strictly regulate guns unless you also change second amendment.
Yeah, let's just ignore the words "well-regulated" and "militia", I'm sure they're not important.
-
You're right, in fact too many people are saying it, even this very forum. It's bad practice, and you know what, the ****ing iraq war PROVES IT. The Patriot act PROVES IT. There *has* been people who have looked at what happened and even suggested that governments should have a law forbidding it from making harsh decisions while emotions were still running hot.
MANY of your examples are precise concrete examples of how this methodology sucks. Because actual efficient measures are not going to be porsued in this emotional state, only *something* to show off as some kind of "vengeance", like, say, invade the ****ing wrong country that didn't do anything to your twin towers.
You know what else happened this week? The legislation that effectively prohibits the CDC from financing a comprehensive study into the causes of gun violence in the US got an extension.
-
I shouldn't be entirely surprised, but you're completely wrong. A majority of Americans don't support open carry even in places it's legal. A majority of Americans have supported various measures like greater and more in-depth background checks. Opposition in the political class does not translate to opposition on the street.
Take a very careful look at my wording. I didn't say that they don't want stronger gun control. I said they can't get behind it.
The issue has become, as many others, an ideological loyalty test, particularly among Republicans. The reason the NRA et. al. wield such power isn't that they're supported by a broad spectrum of the population. It isn't even that they're particularly good lobbyists, though they are. It's the casting of the question as an ideological purity one, similar to, say, abortion. These aren't dealbreaker issues for most people; they believe, rightly, that other issues matter more in the grand scheme of things. You know, food on the table? Most people do have to think about that before they can think about whether they'll get shot.
You've basically confirmed what I said. Other issues matter more to Americans. They might want gun control more but this is not an issue they can get behind and push on. This is not an issue people are going to say "Change your point of view or I'm voting Democrat next election" over. This should be a really, really simple issue, especially given how people feel about it. Look at how immediately guns were banned in the UK after Dunblaine. But in the US it is not a priority. It ****ing well should be, but it's not.
Also, seriously, if you're going to come into topics about people dying and just go "meh" and deploy some vaguely sadistic schadenfreude, why the **** are you even posting? We get into some pretty monstrous digressions in GenDisc on occasion, witness the AIDS thing not long ago, but at least those are people who actually have convictions and subscribe to some kind of morality no matter how wrongheaded it might be. This kind of contemptuous sniggering means nothing and adds nothing.
Once again you should try to take a look at who you are talking to. How many of these discussions have I been involved in? I care about the victims. What I think "meh" about is the fact that we're going to sit and watch the same debate again with not an iota of change. Can you tell me a single thing that is going to be said in this one that hasn't been said in 2005? Only the places and the names of the victims change. There are plenty of Americans who do want a change, and I'm happy to hear them speak on the subject but the rest of the country doesn't really consider this to be important enough to make it a debate.
The situation is only going to change if Americans want change. And I've seen enough of these debates to show that the second someone from another country gets involved the debate degenerates. This is a subject that really should be left to America to solve.
-
Nothing like politicking while bodies are still warm. It helps with objectivity, said no one ever.
Letting people die again and again for the sake of 'objectivity' is bull****. Waiting untill the bodies are cold is not going to work because in that timeframe there will be another shooting. This isn't a one off event like 9/11 was, missapropriated for notions of ill concieved revenge, this is a recurrent issue, like dams breaking. There is no notion of vengeance here as the perpetrator is already dead.
**** every cause that ends in murder and children dying, and in this case, **** every argument that advocates for letting that happen.
-
You cannot strictly regulate guns unless you also change second amendment.
Yeah, let's just ignore the words "well-regulated" and "militia", I'm sure they're not important.
They arent very important, from the wording it does not logically follow that being in a regulated militia is a must to bear arms. Otherwise the amendment would be saying directly that it is the members of a well-regulated militia who have right to bear arms, instead of general "the people". Anyway, I dont think it is wise to play word games with the constitution and stretch its meaning so much. Even if we assume that the wording is unclear and can be interpreted both ways, then lawmakers should err on the side of government non-interference and require changes to the constitution before any strict gun regulations are enacted.
Neither are guns. There's merely a vague "arms" and it was written at a time where men still carried swords and even pikes as real battlefield weapons.
It adopted in 1791, not in middle ages or antiquity. "arms" obviously includes guns.
-
But why would these have to be issued with ammunition? IIRC that is how the swiss do it: Every service member has a rifle, but the ammo is locked in the armory.
-
You're right, in fact too many people are saying it, even this very forum. It's bad practice, and you know what, the ****ing iraq war PROVES IT. The Patriot act PROVES IT. There *has* been people who have looked at what happened and even suggested that governments should have a law forbidding it from making harsh decisions while emotions were still running hot.
MANY of your examples are precise concrete examples of how this methodology sucks. Because actual efficient measures are not going to be porsued in this emotional state, only *something* to show off as some kind of "vengeance", like, say, invade the ****ing wrong country that didn't do anything to your twin towers.
You know what else happened this week? The legislation that effectively prohibits the CDC from financing a comprehensive study into the causes of gun violence in the US got an extension.
I saw that too. Disgusting.
I see people around here attacking what I said, thinking perhaps that I agree with the american law regarding guns or smth. I don't. What I do think is that using people's raw emotions to bring about your political goals has always been a terrible method.
And it was divisive. Conservatives were fuming that the president was using this thing to further his "talking points". All I see here is further divisiveness and polarization, tribalism and without some sort of consensus, I really can't see many things changing.
I guess it's the american way.
e:
Nothing like politicking while bodies are still warm. It helps with objectivity, said no one ever.
Letting people die again and again for the sake of 'objectivity' is bull****. Waiting untill the bodies are cold is not going to work because in that timeframe there will be another shooting. This isn't a one off event like 9/11 was, missapropriated for notions of ill concieved revenge, this is a recurrent issue, like dams breaking. There is no notion of vengeance here as the perpetrator is already dead.
**** every cause that ends in murder and children dying, and in this case, **** every argument that advocates for letting that happen.
Yeaaaah, no. Politics cannot be driven by raw emotions like that. Just look at your mind state here. Do you think any reasonable efficient legislation can come about from raw emotional disgust? I'm sorry, I really don't believe in that.
Of course this is a "recurrent" thing, but it's also pretty harder to solve than any random talking points I constantly hear about, so all this can do is make everyone go into brinksmanship.
-
Keep paying the 2nd amendment tax guys.
you're assuming they are not already completely aware of this and happy to.
and, yeah this has become a loyalty test, on both sides, as has every other issue no matter how minute.
-
The shooting took place in Oregon, a state with higher than average gun control laws, and at a community college, which is a "gun-free zone". So the solution being proposed is more of what didn't work?
What needs to be done is to allow teachers to carry weapons for self-defense, which is their constitutional right. Every time mass shooters have been confronted with resistance, they have either surrendered or killed themselves.
-
Oh boy, let me out of this thr
-
Keep paying the 2nd amendment tax guys.
you're assuming they are not already completely aware of this and happy to.
Quite the reverse actually. I'm assuming that the vast majority are happy to keep paying. That's why things don't change.
-
oh, ok, I think you've got a good grasp on it then.
-
Which is why I said that I don't think the rest of the world should bother with this. There are enough Americans who are okay with the state of affairs that it's going to carry on for the foreseeable future. There have been 142 mass murders (i.e shootings where 4 or more people were killed) since Sandy Hook (http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/01/obama-oregon-college-shooting-routine). So in what way is it really news? Especially when you consider that by ignoring any future mass shootings, we're preventing the killers becoming world-famous. At best they'll be America-famous.
To be honest, the only thing that was in any way different about this was when Obama basically said that he couldn't do anything himself and that people need to help him. I doubt they'll listen this time though. Maybe if he says it enough.
-
the people who aren't listening already are the least likely to start now.
-
Of course.
You get people who argue that exposing children to gay teachers is a clear and present danger having no issue with people openly carrying semi-automatic weapons. And you have people who feel that teenagers getting exposed to sex is basically an inevitability that can only be countered with sexual education to reduce pregnancies recoiling in horror at the idea of children being taught basic gun safety so as to prevent the ridiculous number of children killed in accidental shootings.
In the end, this isn't about making people safer. This is about being right. The rules we want must be enacted so that when the crime figures fall, we're proven correct. In no way should we attempt to find some middle ground. It's all or nothing.
-
Yeaaaah, no. Politics cannot be driven by raw emotions like that. Just look at your mind state here. Do you think any reasonable efficient legislation can come about from raw emotional disgust? I'm sorry, I really don't believe in that.
You are assuming that I am operating on raw emotional disgust. I am not, I am using strong wording. Look at your own arguments instead: Arguing for apathy by making snide assertions about your opponent's mind state? That's exactly the kind of discourse that prevents these discussions from happening.
Which is why I said that I don't think the rest of the world should bother with this. There are enough Americans who are okay with the state of affairs that it's going to carry on for the foreseeable future. There have been 142 mass murders (i.e shootings where 4 or more people were killed) since Sandy Hook (http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/01/obama-oregon-college-shooting-routine). So in what way is it really news? Especially when you consider that by ignoring any future mass shootings, we're preventing the killers becoming world-famous. At best they'll be America-famous.
To be honest, the only thing that was in any way different about this was when Obama basically said that he couldn't do anything himself and that people need to help him. I doubt they'll listen this time though. Maybe if he says it enough.
Part of Obama's point was also that people seemed to have become numb on this. I think that problem lies in part in the media: One part of the media is arguing for the status quo because the slaughter of innocents is good headlines, one part of the media is arguing for the status quo becuase that's their idea of political neutrality. That's why Obama calls for media to actually start fact checking, to compare the stats of these incidents with terror attacks (for example), and question the current political enviroment (ya know, what they should be doing, being the fourth estate and all).
-
Yeaaaah, no. Politics cannot be driven by raw emotions like that. Just look at your mind state here. Do you think any reasonable efficient legislation can come about from raw emotional disgust? I'm sorry, I really don't believe in that.
You are assuming that I am operating on raw emotional disgust. I am not, I am using strong wording. Look at your own arguments instead: Arguing for apathy by making snide assertions about your opponent's mind state? That's exactly the kind of discourse that prevents these discussions from happening.
Which is why I said that I don't think the rest of the world should bother with this. There are enough Americans who are okay with the state of affairs that it's going to carry on for the foreseeable future. There have been 142 mass murders (i.e shootings where 4 or more people were killed) since Sandy Hook (http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/01/obama-oregon-college-shooting-routine). So in what way is it really news? Especially when you consider that by ignoring any future mass shootings, we're preventing the killers becoming world-famous. At best they'll be America-famous.
To be honest, the only thing that was in any way different about this was when Obama basically said that he couldn't do anything himself and that people need to help him. I doubt they'll listen this time though. Maybe if he says it enough.
Part of Obama's point was also that people seemed to have become numb on this. I think that problem lies in part in the media: One part of the media is arguing for the status quo because the slaughter of innocents is good headlines, one part of the media is arguing for the status quo becuase that's their idea of political neutrality. That's why Obama calls for media to actually start fact checking, to compare the stats of these incidents with terror attacks (for example), and question the current political enviroment (ya know, what they should be doing, being the fourth estate and all).
An era that the media dosnt make politicians feel uncomfortable enough to discuss serious issues about the status quo when mass killings is the norm, is an era the media has collectively grossly failed in its social role of making politicians accountable to their public
-
My comment was not a snide remark, it was on point. I also don't see the thread going anywhere. What is this talk about the media not giving crap to politicians? It's happening all the time. But when it happens, it's "liberal media" doing their usual "liberal nonsense", and when they're not, it's the media "failing the public, failing to be the fourth estate".
From my vantage point, it's a total stalemate that only serves the status quo.
IOW, it's usually a conversation that is not, it's two different tribes talking past each other right into their own echo chambers, each interaction proving to each tribe that they got it right (that the other tribe is "up to something, instead of solving the real issues", etc.).
Then, some other horror happens and one tribe will again go on an emotional rampage on how the other side is so inhumanly disregarding the horror of what's going on, and how "something has to be done, don't you dare tell me it doesn't". And thus the train of righteousness keeps going.
I mean, for instance, I gotta love how everyone just pretended that Goober didn't make his comment on the thing. And yet, until you americans start to realise you have to actually talk to each other, rather than talk past each other on how righteous you are, nothing will be achieved. And politicking with warm bodies.... is a bad start.
-
Waiting for a calm down doesn't help though. Cause of this.
[attachment deleted by nobody]
-
I mean, for instance, I gotta love how everyone just pretended that Goober didn't make his comment on the thing. And yet, until you americans start to realise you have to actually talk to each other, rather than talk past each other on how righteous you are, nothing will be achieved. And politicking with warm bodies.... is a bad start.
Who exactly are you adressing with "You americans"?
Edit: As for Goober, well Oregon gives gun permits to anyone without a criminal record without a waiting period (http://statelaws.findlaw.com/oregon-law/oregon-gun-control-laws.html). I'm not sure by what metric that passes as "stricter then average".
-
I'm addressing Americans. Not exactly nobel-level literature grammar there, I admit the way it is phrased made it a little ambiguous, but I don't think there's hardly any point in addressing that kind of comment to non-americans.
e: Regarding the Columbine effect, well OK. And if we correctly diagnose how completely innefectual that cycle is, how about stop doing the exact same thing all over again? Also, connect it with the PETA principle and you have dynamite (The more controversial something is, the more it gets talked about.)
-
I saw some quote on facebook from a journalist named Dan Hodges, he said:
"In retrospect Sandy Hook marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over"
Can't say I disagree.
-
I'm addressing Americans. Not exactly nobel-level literature grammar there, I admit the way it is phrased made it a little ambiguous, but I don't think there's hardly any point in addressing that kind of comment to non-americans.
Believe it or not this is at best very generalist and delves into the realm of racist along the lines of you French, you British, you Pakistani.
It also dosnt help in that it paints all Americans the same when like with the rest of the world there are extremes, there are moderates, there are undecided. the issue is that American media and political culture as it stands promotes the taking of a clear position and sticking to that position with religious zeal which means that it is these people with the media spotlight and as such are the one's that need to be catered to as they affect the views of the more moderate/undecided.
e: Regarding the Columbine effect, well OK. And if we correctly diagnose how completely innefectual that cycle is, how about stop doing the exact same thing all over again? Also, connect it with the PETA principle and you have dynamite (The more controversial something is, the more it gets talked about.)
The point is that it reflects the current social/policical/media cycle which is indeed very ineffective at dealing with the problem hence why the cycle perpetuates. The direction this discussion needs to head into and I believe what some here are trying to do is discuss how to break the cycle so that change can happen.
edit
fixed quotes
-
What the hell are you talking about, headdie, it's "you americans" because it's an american problem at the end of the day. I cannot in any possible way help to solve it. It has to be americans talking to each other and try to get to a reasonable solution. Of course there are moderates, but the conversation was completely overtaken by loud extremists who are getting more and more polarized, I completely agree with you there.
Regarding the attempts to "break the cycle", well all I see are dejá vus. Whenever something terrible like this happens, everyone talks about it for a week or less, outrageously and waving their fists against "the other tribe" that is "enabling horror", and then they get frustrated that nothing is being done, and then they move on with their lives and to other problems.
-
Regarding the attempts to "break the cycle", well all I see are dejá vus. Whenever something terrible like this happens, everyone talks about it for a week or less, outrageously and waving their fists against "the other tribe" that is "enabling horror", and then they get frustrated that nothing is being done, and then they move on with their lives and to other problems.
And yet that ineffective mess is the cycle Kara pointed out,
1) bring the issue during the aftermath of one of these events and you are accused of making political capital off of the dead bodies
2) bring it up once everything calms down and you get apathetic meh responce
3) because nothing is done it happens again
4) go back to point 1)
Breaking this cycle is the key, but to break it you need to break the zellous politics that surrounds guns in the US
-
Well I'm all hears about this new "break-the-cycle" Crucible-like weapon.
-
Whether people are anti or pro doesn't matter, what does is the political jockeying and politicking. Warm corpses makes a good political mound - and a nice place to stab a political flag into.
What boggles me is the increasing timidness people have to these sort of shootings. It's like lining people up in a chicken coop waiting to be strangled by the proverbial fox.
Some would say I'm making a logical leap, but I'm going to go ahead and say the problem is that people are being mollified and made into sheep rather than being taught to react and minimize collateral.
I'm for increasing mental background checks and tightening up mental health rules, but I'm also of the growing opinion that despite all the tragedies, we aren't teaching people how to cope and minimize these sort of evens. Whether it be a personal with their own sidearm for defense, or a group working to take down the gunmen - the reaction seems to be a timid meh among the populace. And I'm definitely going to say our current crop of college students seem more like fated idiots to die in a horror movie. The current agenda is tell people they have to be afraid and cower - not to start defending themselves.
If one thing riles me up, is the idea that many pro/anti gun advocates seem to think we are pathetic, little frail lambs, who cannot defend themselves. And that's what I find more frightening when people are being told that they cannot and should not take precautions to reduce problems like this. It's better to pro-active and prepare for the worst, rather then cower in a corner to be shot pathetically. Attempting to ban weapons won't solve this and these sort of thing will continue because American's don't take mental stability seriously. In fact, in the wake of trigger warnings and microaggressions, we're actually afraid ot it.
-
What needs to be done is to allow teachers to carry weapons for self-defense, which is their constitutional right. Every time mass shooters have been confronted with resistance, they have either surrendered or killed themselves.
(emphasis mine)
Man, if your teachers are anything like ours, I sure as hell don't want them to have access to anykind of firearms, I'd much rather have security guards with a gun cabinet in case of emergency instead.
-
What needs to be done is to allow teachers to carry weapons for self-defense, which is their constitutional right. Every time mass shooters have been confronted with resistance, they have either surrendered or killed themselves.
(emphasis mine)
Man, if your teachers are anything like ours, I sure as hell don't want them to have access to anykind of firearms, I'd much rather have security guards with a gun cabinet in case of emergency instead.
You can take exactly one guess to what happened to the security guard present on the island where the 2011 norway attacks took place...
-
What boggles me is the increasing timidness people have to these sort of shootings. It's like lining people up in a chicken coop waiting to be strangled by the proverbial fox.
Some would say I'm making a logical leap, but I'm going to go ahead and say the problem is that people are being mollified and made into sheep rather than being taught to react and minimize collateral.
I'm for increasing mental background checks and tightening up mental health rules, but I'm also of the growing opinion that despite all the tragedies, we aren't teaching people how to cope and minimize these sort of evens. Whether it be a personal with their own sidearm for defense, or a group working to take down the gunmen - the reaction seems to be a timid meh among the populace. And I'm definitely going to say our current crop of college students seem more like fated idiots to die in a horror movie. The current agenda is tell people they have to be afraid and cower - not to start defending themselves.
related (https://www.reddit.com/r/LifeProTips/comments/3n8uet/lpt_in_an_active_shooter_situation_police/)
American's don't take mental stability seriously. In fact, in the wake of trigger warnings and microaggressions, we're actually afraid ot it.
hey-now, don't be ableist.
-
and "break the cycle" is only something you have to do if you are dissatisfied with the status quo, if you find the current trade off acceptable that cycle ensures you get to keep things the way you like them. If you are trying to change things, sure the loss of life is regrettable and it would be nice to find a way to reduce that, it does keep the librul gubament off your guns. It's just the price of freedom.
-
Well, 2nd Amendment rights and all. Even if we were to cut off the flow of weapons, people can and will still go crazy or commit crimes like this for infamy.
I also run under the assumption as long as humanity persists, there will always be certain elements and criminal mindsets that will never change, no matter the tools on hand.
People killing each other will not change and the criminally minded will happily find different tools to commit such atrocities. I think we should start working on engendering a sense of defense back into people - that they can take actions that make a difference. More often than not, it's not so much the guns, but this idea "we cannot defend ourselves" type of line approached by some more leftist commentators bugs me. It's not a question of whether or not you've a gun for self defense - but what you can do to defend, protect, and save others.
Why are some people big on guns? For them, it represents an aegis that can protect themselves. But it goes without saying that we can defend ourselves without having guns.
Because the more I look at it, I feel that the coverage tries to paint victims as helpless, pathetic creatures who need some politicking to save them - quite often more than not, the news stories that don't get widely covered with shootings are people thinking quickly and taking choices to reduce the harm. People being heroes doesn't promote news, body bags and agendas do. And with how the Left has literally flown off the rails, it seems that many pro/anti advocates conveniently forget that normal people can and have methods to save lives, while not necessarily supporting or promoting pointless idealogues.
-
I agree with Luis. What really frustrates me - not just in gun control debates - is that very often, neither side addresses the other side's points, or even acknowledges that the other side has any points. (Quick self-test: if you need to ask what the other side's points are, then you're probably guilty of this.) They either reiterate their own points more and more loudly, or brandish recent events that support their position. We need a dialogue, not two monologues.
I may be preaching to the choir.
-
I also run under the assumption as long as humanity persists, there will always be certain elements and criminal mindsets that will never change, no matter the tools on hand.
‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens (http://www.theonion.com/article/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-36131)
-
I'm going to drop in here to say that I find it incredibly offensive that supporters of legal gun ownership are being blamed for shootings. I know that's not the exact phrasing being used, and few people believe this is what they are doing, but stop and think about it. I'm even more offended at the notion that I'm just towing a line. No, I can't POSSIBLY be a goddamn free-thinking individual basing my opinion on my own thought out logic and reasoning. It MUST just be those damn republicans all just following the party line. It's just not possible that so many people would all agree on a logical argument being valid. And politicians would work in support of their constituents. Nope, that can't be what's happening at all.
I went intending to purchase a firearm yesterday, and the only reason I didn't is that the one I carefully selected was out of stock. I will do so when they get more in. That decision had absolutely NOTHING to do with any kind of group think and was absolutely NOT impacted by the recent (or any other) shooting. I take that back, mass shootings in general did IN SMALL PART support my decision to buy a gun. Just not this specific one, as I didn't even know about it until I after I had committed to buying.
I have no problem with REASONABLE gun laws that attempt to restrict firearms sales to people likely to use them for ill, so long as they don't unduly burden legal gun ownership by responsible citizens. I say 'attempt' because I have little confidence that stricter gun laws will result in less guns. At the risk of a cliche argument and being again accused of towing a line, drugs are already illegal. To own and to sell. Please think for a second about how those laws have stopped criminals from using and dealing. I have no problem with universal background checks. I don't exactly support the notion, but restricting private sales to have to go through a licensed dealer (i.e., traceable) wouldn't offend me greatly. What I DO have a problem with is "All guns are evil and must be banned!!!" Bull****. That's irrational response to criminals and crazy people doing things that are already illegal. I don't blame people for feeling that way, but I DO blame them for acting on it by attempting to restrict MY right to defend myself and potentially putting MY life in jeopardy. On more 'party line,' if you don't like guns, don't buy one. Make your personal property a 'gun free zone' and see how that works out for you.
I'm not saying "give everyone a gun" as this argument is usually painted by anti-gun people. We don't need to "give all teachers guns" (for example, apply to whatever context is appropriate). What we need to do is allow the teacher to have a gun, if they so desire.
-
And someone posts another monologue. :rolleyes:
This, right here is exactly the problem. Don't talk to the liberals, talk down at them about how they are affecting you. They'll do the same and absolutely nothing will get done.
-
And someone else posts a dismissive statement.
Well, my money was on full-on flame anyway. So.... progress?
-
Well, seeing as how "liberals" have started to fracture into authoritarian strains, libertarians, and traditional liberal viewpoints, I think "talking down" is more like stereotyping. I have to correct myself sometimes when I use the term "liberal" because it's no longer really representative of its actual ideals, as the lefties (personal catch-all) have done a pretty good job of killing "liberal" in every sense of the word. Lefties have done more damage to sever their historical liberal ties.
Gun control is more like an ideological football, and I think since people fight over the same old things, I've little left to say about it.
-
Why is not having a gun potentially putting your life in jeopardy?
Maybe the real obstacle to gun control is not the 2nd amendment but the US media culture of fear mongering. As long as people are more scared than compassionate then why would they want restrictions that potentially affect their own security and well-being.
-
And someone else posts a dismissive statement.
Did you say a single thing that is actually going to help? You simply ranted about your point of view. Despite this entire thread being composed of people complaining that the reason nothing gets done is exactly that.
Sure you made noises about being okay with what you term as sensible gun control, have you actually DONE anything towards that end? Or are you just waiting for the other side to do something? And if you have done something, why not talk about that instead of being negative and complaining about people who want to take your guns?
-
Edit: As for Goober, well Oregon gives gun permits to anyone without a criminal record without a waiting period (http://statelaws.findlaw.com/oregon-law/oregon-gun-control-laws.html). I'm not sure by what metric that passes as "stricter then average".
Oregon has universal background checks. Most states allow exceptions for private sales and gun shows. It's worth noting that the Oregon shooter passed the background check and, as you say, did not have a criminal record. Maybe we need the checks to be conducted by the Department of Pre-Crime instead.
I saw some quote on facebook from a journalist named Dan Hodges, he said:
"In retrospect Sandy Hook marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over"
This is a very odd argument for a supporter of abortion to make. It's supposed to be unbearable for children to be killed by guns but perfectly fine to be killed by their mother?
And yet that ineffective mess is the cycle Kara pointed out,
1) bring the issue during the aftermath of one of these events and you are accused of making political capital off of the dead bodies
2) bring it up once everything calms down and you get apathetic meh responce
3) because nothing is done it happens again
4) go back to point 1)
Breaking this cycle is the key, but to break it you need to break the zellous politics that surrounds guns in the US
Gun control is far from the only way to break the cycle. (And considering that gun control hasn't worked -- even people who don't believe the scientific studies still concede that it is not politically practical -- people who truly want to break the cycle should be open to other approaches.)
This interesting article (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/03/barack-obama-ignores-obvious-yet-another-fatherless-killer/) cites a Harvard study which claims that one of the strongest predictors of violent offenders is growing up in a home without a father.
-
And yet you were the one to bring up the department of pre-crime.
This is a very odd argument for a supporter of abortion to make. It's supposed to be unbearable for children to be killed by guns but perfectly fine to be killed by their mother?
If you bring up abortion again, I'm going to ask you to leave this discussion.
You know full well what the response would be so this is a deliberate attempt to derail the topic.
To be honest, your entire post is pretty much more of the same thing I've been on about this entire thread. Talk past the other side. Claim it's about family values and abortion instead of gun control. If you talk loud enough you can completely ignore the other side while convincing yourself that you are right.
-
This is a very odd argument for a supporter of abortion to make. It's supposed to be unbearable for children to be killed by guns but perfectly fine to be killed by their mother?
If you bring up abortion again, I'm going to ask you to leave this discussion.
You know full well what the response would be so this is a deliberate attempt to derail the topic.
No, I was merely responding to Akalabeth Angel using the same language he used. Perhaps the subtlety escaped you. If he thinks it's fine to cite a journalist who implies that his political opponents are in favor of killing children, then it's perfectly reasonable to turn that argument around on him.
But I'm happy to refrain from using that line of argument if Akalabeth Angel does as well.
To be honest, your entire post is pretty much more of the same thing I've been on about this entire thread. Talk past the other side. Claim it's about family values and abortion instead of gun control. If you talk loud enough you can completely ignore the other side while convincing yourself that you are right.
Your dismissiveness is unwarranted. I engaged with both -Joshua- and headdie, and proposed a third option that may not have occurred to others participating here.
As for which one of us is talking louder, I suggest counting the number of our respective posts in this thread.
-
Note: This lock is not permanent; it will be unlocked in ~twelve hours.
If the major strain of discussion is of the relative quality (or lackthereof) of your opponents' posting habits, I suggest that everyone involved has gotten rather far off the track of what is important and what is on-topic. Please take a few hours to reflect on that and come back at it without automatically approaching this discussion from a position of obvious and condescending moral superiority. I suspect that it won't work.
-
Edit: As for Goober, well Oregon gives gun permits to anyone without a criminal record without a waiting period (http://statelaws.findlaw.com/oregon-law/oregon-gun-control-laws.html). I'm not sure by what metric that passes as "stricter then average".
Oregon has universal background checks. Most states allow exceptions for private sales and gun shows. It's worth noting that the Oregon shooter passed the background check and, as you say, did not have a criminal record. Maybe we need the checks to be conducted by the Department of Pre-Crime instead.
But here's the thing: Universal background checks is not a big measure at all. Contrast it with, say, New York City (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_New_York#New_York_City). You say that other states have even less gun control, but that does not qualify Oregon as stricter then average at all: Those other states are significantly below the average.
The argument here, that gun control laws don't work becuase look Oregon has gun control laws is not an argument. Oregon's gun control laws are minimal. There's no requirement to be part of a shooting club, militia, or profession where these firearms are needed. There's no sanity checks. There's... well, nothing. Getting a driving license is harder, and cars are partly designed to prevent harm whilst the very purpose of a firearm is to cause it. The only thing that we can learn from this is that Oregon's gun laws, as they currently are, are not effective at preventing these tragedies. That does not at all rule out harsher measures (like those taken in NYC).
The same with "Gun free school zones". That schools want to take these measures to prevent their students or teachers from taking their agression out via gunpowder abuse is a reasonable thing, but if the rest of the state does not comply they're worthless. Requiring that teachers get guns? That makes it rather easy for a student to aquire a gun without going trough the background checks, by seizing it from a teacher whilst they are performing teaching duties like explaining a math equation to a student in person. But the teacher dies first, it happened in this shooting too. Go into a classroom, shoot the teacher and then shoot the kids, and then perhaps you are yourself shot by another teacher. Okay. But that didn't prevent the tragedy from happening, it only contained it.
In the end they are all half hearted measures.
-
Oregon legally requires campuses to allow concealed carrying. (http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/04/oregon-shooting-state-universities-campus-gun-laws-concealed-carry) In fact, one of the survivors claims he was carrying a gun during the shooting. (http://www.rawstory.com/2015/10/armed-vet-destroys-gun-nuts-argument-on-mass-shooters-by-explaining-why-he-didnt-attack-oregon-killer/) Goober is, as far as I can tell, totally wrong about the campus being a gun-free zone.
-
The claim about the Harvard study is also similarly funny. That article cites no such thing.
No, I was merely responding to Akalabeth Angel using the same language he used. Perhaps the subtlety escaped you. If he thinks it's fine to cite a journalist who implies that his political opponents are in favor of killing children, then it's perfectly reasonable to turn that argument around on him.
Perhaps the subtlety in the original comment escaped you.
"In retrospect Sandy Hook marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over"
This comment can be read as being equally scathing of both sides. Sandy Hook is a great example of exactly the point when America decided that being proven correct about their ideological viewpoints was more important to most people than actually coming together and trying to figure out any kind of compromise that would actually reduce the death toll. Even the death of children wasn't enough to get people off their soapboxes and actually have a dialogue.
I very clearly remember posting in 2012 that both sides were being idiots. I don't see anything that has changed in the intervening time.
-
Yeah, I'm with Kara here. The less the rest of us discuss this, the less visibility it gets elsewhere, and the more contained it will be to US only.
This is a US problem, we don't need to bother with it. They either will or will not solve their own mess, and either goes to the rest of us.
-
The shooting took place in Oregon, a state with higher than average gun control laws, and at a community college, which is a "gun-free zone". So the solution being proposed is more of what didn't work?
What needs to be done is to allow teachers to carry weapons for self-defense, which is their constitutional right. Every time mass shooters have been confronted with resistance, they have either surrendered or killed themselves.
I'm from Oregon, and I agree. "Gun-free" zones are the most ludicrous and idiotic idea ever, espcially if there isn't anything in place to protect said zone (such as an armed security detail).
-
Good thing the college wasn't gun-free! Read my post above.
-
I think gun control laws need to be federal in order to be effective, states can have as strict gun laws as they want, but people can still bring guns from other states fairly easily.
-
well, lets say that somehow a law was passed tomorrow making all firearms illegal in the US, that wouldn't make the guns actually go anywhere.
-
well, lets say that somehow a law was passed tomorrow making all firearms illegal in the US, that wouldn't make the guns actually go anywhere.
I never said guns should be illegal. The idea would be to enact laws that would make it as hard as possible to possible mass murdered to get their hands on firearms, primarily compact weapons. Of course, their are already so many guns among the american population, I'm actually not sure how you would approach the issue of confiscating guns from would be murders whilst ensuring law abiding gun owners are not inconvenienced too much.
I suppose I'm a little biased because I'm from Canada, so the idea of walking around with a firearm in my bag seems bizarre. But I do think the US should take a page from our book and try to make their gun laws more along lines of Countries like Canada, Norway, New Zealand etc.
But this issue is somewhat complex, so I think its important it gets debated as much as possible so we can come to a reasonable consensus.
-
didn't say you said that, was just using that as an extreme that went well past yours. doing way more that you are suggesting still wouldn't solve the problem just on the fact that the genie is out.
-
But here's the thing: Universal background checks is not a big measure at all. Contrast it with, say, New York City (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_New_York#New_York_City). You say that other states have even less gun control, but that does not qualify Oregon as stricter then average at all: Those other states are significantly below the average.
The argument here, that gun control laws don't work becuase look Oregon has gun control laws is not an argument. Oregon's gun control laws are minimal. There's no requirement to be part of a shooting club, militia, or profession where these firearms are needed. There's no sanity checks. There's... well, nothing. Getting a driving license is harder, and cars are partly designed to prevent harm whilst the very purpose of a firearm is to cause it. The only thing that we can learn from this is that Oregon's gun laws, as they currently are, are not effective at preventing these tragedies. That does not at all rule out harsher measures (like those taken in NYC).
Which gun control measures would have prevented this tragedy from taking place?
The same with "Gun free school zones". That schools want to take these measures to prevent their students or teachers from taking their agression out via gunpowder abuse is a reasonable thing, but if the rest of the state does not comply they're worthless. Requiring that teachers get guns? That makes it rather easy for a student to aquire a gun without going trough the background checks, by seizing it from a teacher whilst they are performing teaching duties like explaining a math equation to a student in person. But the teacher dies first, it happened in this shooting too. Go into a classroom, shoot the teacher and then shoot the kids, and then perhaps you are yourself shot by another teacher. Okay. But that didn't prevent the tragedy from happening, it only contained it.
First, I said allow, not require. Those teachers which feel they cannot properly safeguard a firearm do not need to get one.
In that hypothetical scenario, containment is much better than no containment. But in a real-world scenario, the prospect of defenseless targets is what motivates mass shooters to target schools, malls, and workplaces. If they knew the teachers were armed and prepared to defend themselves and their students, they would not target the school. Thus the tragedy would indeed have been prevented.
Oregon legally requires campuses to allow concealed carrying. (http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/04/oregon-shooting-state-universities-campus-gun-laws-concealed-carry) In fact, one of the survivors claims he was carrying a gun during the shooting. (http://www.rawstory.com/2015/10/armed-vet-destroys-gun-nuts-argument-on-mass-shooters-by-explaining-why-he-didnt-attack-oregon-killer/) Goober is, as far as I can tell, totally wrong about the campus being a gun-free zone.
It turns out that the actual legal situation is rather complicated. Snopes has a good summary. (http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/umpquagunfree.asp) Although school policy prevented students from carrying guns, and the school's president said the campus was a gun-free zone, this did not have legal force.
However, Oregon only authorizes concealed carry permit holders to bring guns on campus. The shooter did not have a concealed carry permit. Thus, for him, the campus was indeed a gun-free zone.
The claim about the Harvard study is also similarly funny. That article cites no such thing.
Did you read that article? Here is the relevant quote, with link to the study:
Another researcher, Harvard sociologist (https://www.russellsage.org/publications/decline-marriage-among-african-americans) Robert Sampson, has written that “family structure is one of the strongest, if not the strongest, predictor of variations in urban violence across cities in the United States.”
No, I was merely responding to Akalabeth Angel using the same language he used. Perhaps the subtlety escaped you. If he thinks it's fine to cite a journalist who implies that his political opponents are in favor of killing children, then it's perfectly reasonable to turn that argument around on him.
Perhaps the subtlety in the original comment escaped you.
"In retrospect Sandy Hook marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over"
This comment can be read as being equally scathing of both sides. Sandy Hook is a great example of exactly the point when America decided that being proven correct about their ideological viewpoints was more important to most people than actually coming together and trying to figure out any kind of compromise that would actually reduce the death toll. Even the death of children wasn't enough to get people off their soapboxes and actually have a dialogue.
All right, I'll spell it out for you. Although you can choose to read the comment as critical of both sides, the comment's first reading, its intended reading, is to say that the gun control debate is over and the child-killers won. This is meant to characterize opponents of gun control as child killers. That is a nasty rhetorical trick meant to completely disengage the rational part of the brain and poison the well.
The most effective way to counter that is by flipping the argument around. The journalist, Dan Hodges, is on the record as a strong supporter of abortion, so the irony of his statement was obvious.
I never said guns should be illegal. The idea would be to enact laws that would make it as hard as possible to possible mass murdered to get their hands on firearms, primarily compact weapons. Of course, their are already so many guns among the american population, I'm actually not sure how you would approach the issue of confiscating guns from would be murders whilst ensuring law abiding gun owners are not inconvenienced too much.
I'll ask you what I asked -Joshua-: which laws would have prevented this mass murderer from obtaining firearms? And how would you have identified him as a target for confiscation?
-
The claim about the Harvard study is also similarly funny. That article cites no such thing.
Did you read that article? Here is the relevant quote, with link to the study:
Another researcher, Harvard sociologist (https://www.russellsage.org/publications/decline-marriage-among-african-americans) Robert Sampson, has written that “family structure is one of the strongest, if not the strongest, predictor of variations in urban violence across cities in the United States.”
You really need to look closer at that. Where does it say that the comment is from a study? If you actually follow the link it takes you to a website about a book the guy once contributed to on divorce amongst Aftrican-Americans. Now maybe that book cites a study to back up that comment but I don't see any proof of that anywhere.
All right, I'll spell it out for you. Although you can choose to read the comment as critical of both sides, the comment's first reading, its intended reading, is to say that the gun control debate is over and the child-killers won. This is meant to characterize opponents of gun control as child killers. That is a nasty rhetorical trick meant to completely disengage the rational part of the brain and poison the well.
Then don't sink to that level yourself. Given that this entire thread is about the despicable levels that BOTH sides have sunk to in a desperate attempt to keep proving they are correct, why would you choose to part of the problem? BOTH sides are child killers because being right is more important than solving the problem. Live with it.
Or better yet, do something about it other than soapboxing.
-
Has either side proposed laws to address the issue?
I honestly think the "control the guns!" and the "control the shooters!" agendas won't resolve the mass-shooting issue on their own, a combination of the two must be made in order to clamp this down tightly. My engineering background has some say on this, the gun control agenda being on the back-end of the process while the shooter control agenda being on the front-end.
If political lobbying wasn't in place, the gun control agenda would be easy and straightforward to implement. However, guns are not the only way to do mass killings. Explosives, chemical agents, and brainwashing co-conspirators are other effective tools.
The shooter control agenda is hard as **** to get going, since you have to do all of this without alienating any of a persons constitutional rights, but it would be the best as it would reduce the number of offenders to begin with. No shooter, no mass shooting. I've heard many folks proclaim "Well, it's the ****er's parents fault that they didn't raise him up right!" or "Well, it's because the ****er had no faith! He should have followed the peace teaching in religion X" that cannot be addressed by the government since that conflicts with a whole slew of rights given by the Constitution. Public education may be a vantage point, and maybe publicly provided parental education is another.
-
Soapboxes aside, what are the options available to tackle mass shootings?
Gun control (very controversial)
Education
Detection of mental health issues
What else can be done?
What can be done to implement?
-
Oregon legally requires campuses to allow concealed carrying. (http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/04/oregon-shooting-state-universities-campus-gun-laws-concealed-carry) In fact, one of the survivors claims he was carrying a gun during the shooting. (http://www.rawstory.com/2015/10/armed-vet-destroys-gun-nuts-argument-on-mass-shooters-by-explaining-why-he-didnt-attack-oregon-killer/) Goober is, as far as I can tell, totally wrong about the campus being a gun-free zone.
It turns out that the actual legal situation is rather complicated. Snopes has a good summary. (http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/umpquagunfree.asp) Although school policy prevented students from carrying guns, and the school's president said the campus was a gun-free zone, this did not have legal force.
However, Oregon only authorizes concealed carry permit holders to bring guns on campus. The shooter did not have a concealed carry permit. Thus, for him, the campus was indeed a gun-free zone.
The legal situation isn't really 'complicated': the campus banned guns 'except as permitted by law', and the law clearly said concealed carrying was allowed. Students were apparently aware of this to the extent that some of them carried guns. Whether the shooter himself was allowed to carry guns on the campus is irrelevant: the progun dogma is that 'good guys with a gun' will stop mass shootings unless stripped of their arms by gun control, something which has clearly and tragically failed to happen here.
-
What else can be done?
What can be done to implement?
Well for one thing, I've already suggested that schools teach basic gun safety. I'd suggest as a counterpoint that laws on storage of guns be tightened, for instance passing a law that states that you can't buy a gun unless you have proof that you have a suitable gun safe or lockbox to keep it in (or you must buy one at the same time). Basically a system of licensing for not just guns, but the safety precautions you should have to own a gun. I'm not suggesting any way to force the user to prove that they use it. But at least forcing them to have one is a step in the right direction.
The effect on mass shootings would be small but positive. More importantly it would help a ****load with accidental shootings and cases like this (http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/06/tennessee-girl-shot-neighbor-boy-puppies-mother-mourns-death)
I've got plenty of other suggestions but I doubt even that fairly sensible one would get past those who see the 2nd amendment as being the absolute ability to have guns with absolutely no restrictions.
-
Which gun control measures would have prevented this tragedy from taking place?
Hold on a second. It's not about preventing this tragedy. It's not about preventing that other tragedy that occured on the same day either (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34428946). Or the one that occured 2 days prior (http://abc7chicago.com/news/3-dead-2-wounded-in-fuller-park-shooting/1007546/). Or the one that happened on the day before that (http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/7/71/996375/five-people-including-infant-shot-back-yards\). It's about cutting down on the insane amount of mass shootings from an amount that occured these past (http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2015) three (http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2014) years (http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2013) to an amount that is more managable. It's impossible to prevent all tragedies from occuring, and focusing on an individual case and saying "How could we have prevented this" does not work in a country where this year there have been more mass shooting incidents this year then there have been days. The goal here is not preventing tragedies, it's cutting down their number by severely increasing the responsabilities that gun owners have on a federal level.
First of all: Make federal laws that severely discourage handing your gun to someone else or leaving it around. Make a law that says that giving your gun away or letting it get stolen means that you are complicit in a crime trough criminal neglicence. Force gun permit owners to always keep their weaponry in a locked safe and legally oblige them that, in the moment they will use their guns, they always take the shortest route to the place where they use the guns as is possible. Gun owners who lose their guns lose their permits indefinitely and at least for a year, untill they can show that they definitely had their gun taken against their will. Burden of proof is on the former owner.
Secondly: Seize all ammunition. Ammunition may only be issued by shooting ranges, hunting associations before setting out on the event, registered militia or by gun stores after showing permission from the local police police department. In the latter case, permission can only be granted for calibres that the buyer has a gun permit for, and the amount of clips is limited depending on the owner's intended purpose for the firearm. A new permit may not be granted untill the owner of the firearm can specify a valid reason for why their bullets are missing (the burden of proof is placed firmly on the gun owner here). All owned ammunition must be registered and any non-registered ammunition must be returned immeaditely. All ammunition must also be locked in a safe. Leaving ammunition outside the safe, having more ammunition then an owner is supposed to have, or developing a mental illness will see all the owner's ammunition seized and the permits revoked until the former owner can prove that he has learned their lesson or can show an indication from a psychologist that their mentall ilness does not make them a threat to other human beings.
All gun permit owners will submit to a check to see if they are not procuring their own ammuntion. Procuring ammunition yourself is also a crime unless you are a registered.
Thirdly (this is the one that may start infringing on the second amendment depending on the zealotry of the interpretation): Federalize gun permits. All gun owners must have a reason for owning a gun, whether it for collection, sporting, or self defense purposes. For any purpose other then self defense, the owner may not aquire their own ammuntion. All gun owners must have a decleration that states that they are mentally sound. All gun owners must be active members of a shooting club and must have followed basic training before a gun permit has been granted. Exceptions are made for gun collectors, who instead must ensure that their weapons can not be fired.
That is gun control. And it's either that or deploying the national gaurd to trouble spots if you want to see meaningfull change. And no, it's not going to prevent some tragedies, just like places that have these sort of laws do very occassionally have their own tragedies. But it's better then what is going on now.
-
While I'm not going to disagree with you Joshua, you have as much chance of getting that passed as I have of sprouting wings and flying around the room. Why not start with something realistic?
-
While I'm not going to disagree with you Joshua, you have as much chance of getting that passed as I have of sprouting wings and flying around the room. Why not start with something realistic?
Well, I did put it in three stages of escalating severeness :p, and yeah, that would not get passed, atleast not in one go, just like you would not sprout wings and fly around the room right now. But the larvae that were nested inside your body after your death will sprout wings and fly around the room, and they consist of bits of you. It just takes a bit longer and yes I know this is a terrible analogy.
However: Part of the issue (if not the entire issue) is that anything that can be considered a realisticly working solution is outside the extremely narrow minded political discourse. Radical things need to be put on the table so that the feasible-yet-still-working becomes part of the political discourse as well. Right now, most people discussing this don't really have a grasp of how big the problem actually is, and how big the solutions to that problem have to be. The current enviroment does not allow for that. The perception of reality by the politicians is in itself grossly unrealistic, and this has to change.
-
Instead of waiting for my death, I prefer to buy a WiFi drone and watch that fly around the room. :p Basically I'd rather see something small put in place now, than wait in the hope of something large that might never happen.
-
I've noticed that another State, Florida, has passed an Open Carry law. Forgive me if I missed it, but is there any correlation (positive or negative) with the Open Carry laws presence and the mass shootings?
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster
-
Instead of waiting for my death, I prefer to buy a WiFi drone and watch that fly around the room. :p Basically I'd rather see something small put in place now, than wait in the hope of something large that might never happen.
I think we're talking past eachother a bit: I see a thing like "universal background checks" being stated as a big thing by Goober, whilst it's actually a very small thing. My proposal is more about showing what a big thing actually is.
If one were to consider my proposal as an end goal to work towards, I'd first start with the responsability clauses: If another person does bad stuff with your gun, you are complicit by providing that gun.
Another thing I have noticed is the... chaos that is caused by these sort of incidents, yet they happen quite often. We all know what to do if a firedrill starts, but we don't know what to do if an assault happens.
-
Instead of waiting for my death, I prefer to buy a WiFi drone and watch that fly around the room. :p Basically I'd rather see something small put in place now, than wait in the hope of something large that might never happen.
I think we're talking past eachother a bit: I see a thing like "universal background checks" being stated as a big thing by Goober, whilst it's actually a very small thing. My proposal is more about showing what a big thing actually is.
If one were to consider my proposal as an end goal to work towards, I'd first start with the responsability clauses: If another person does bad stuff with your gun, you are complicit by providing that gun.
Another thing I have noticed is the... chaos that is caused by these sort of incidents, yet they happen quite often. We all know what to do if a firedrill starts, but we don't know what to do if an assault happens.
You are essentially saying that by owning a firearm, you are guilty until proven innocent, of another person's crimes !!
Now that doesn't run afoul of rights guaranteed by the Constitution or anything....
And nobody seems to note that you can make your own firearms and your own ammunition.
"Well people don't do that much."
People didn't make their own whiskey much before prohibition, either, now, did they? :rolleyes: I also strongly suspect that if marijuana gets legalized everywhere, the number of people growing their own plants will decrease.
-
No, he's essentially saying that if someone commits a crime with a gun you were supposed to have secured, you are criminally liable and will get a trial of your own. In the story I linked to earlier, a man who did so little to secure his gun that an 11 year old was able to get hold of it and shoot someone. Don't you think he should be charged with a crime?
As for being able to make your own guns, yes you can. You can also make your own explosives, chemical weapons and nuclear reactors if you're determined enough. Doesn't mean that you can't have some kind of prohibition on them because of that. As the barriers to entry grow, the likelihood of someone doing it also grows less.
-
Well the idea behind gun control is to reduce the ease of access to firearms so mass shootings are less in occurrence.
Though, I've become contemptuous of most of the debate because the sides involved devalue both the tragedies and humanity of the victims in the process. Rather than be allowed to grieve, people are more quick to bandy various slogans, ideologies and half-assed claims. I believe the mass shootings are symptoms of a larger malaise in society, not to absolve shooters of their responsibilities, but establish that a combination of factors drive people to do such things. The way things are, people snap at some point and intend to go down by causing a ruckus.
Simply put, I think these spree killers are the product of societal stress, isolation, and dehumanization.
Media hysteria doesn't help, rather it helps to obfuscate and not only make the issue worse, but pushes for simply more histrionics.
-
And nobody seems to note that you can make your own firearms and your own ammunition.
"Well people don't do that much."
Making your own firearm requires a serious amount of knowledge and craftiness. Simple pipe guns are usually single-shot mechanisms. Hand loading your own ammunition takes time, is dangerous if you do not know what your doing (overpressure rounds will easily blow up your gun) and making your own brass requires specialized equipment, all of which take time to acquire.
It's my opinion that homemade weaponry is thus not an issue in regards to mass shootings. It is still an issue, yes, but one that cannot be addressed by government prevention. Focus should be on the psychological and sociological aspects when homemade weaponry pose a greater threat than manufactured weaponry.
-
3d printing technology is advancing rapidly.
-
3d printing technology is advancing rapidly.
Current 3D printing resins are not strong enough to make a firearm that can survive a shot or two. Katie Couric hosted a show about them, at least, although I haven't seen that episode.
-
3d printing technology is advancing rapidly.
Current 3D printing resins are not strong enough to make a firearm that can survive a shot or two. Katie Couric hosted a show about them, at least, although I haven't seen that episode.
A point to be considered though is that 3D printing is a rapidly developing sector and I am guessing that we are not looking at more than a few years before a viable multi shot design becomes available
-
3d printing technology is advancing rapidly.
Current 3D printing resins are not strong enough to make a firearm that can survive a shot or two. Katie Couric hosted a show about them, at least, although I haven't seen that episode.
A point to be considered though is that 3D printing is a rapidly developing sector and I am guessing that we are not looking at more than a few years before a viable multi shot design becomes available
Hm, that it is a fair point. Gun control laws would not work in this case, so the psychological/sociological side must be considered more.
-
Bullet control? You can't 3d print gunpowder I hope.
-
Bullet control? You can't 3d print gunpowder I hope.
the recipe for black powder is not difficult to find, and while it is not as efficient as a smokeless compound when made properly certainly has enough umph to make your bullet deadly
-
A 3D printed gun with improvised gunpowder is not nearly as deadly or indeed accessible as a mass-produced handgun or assault rifle that you can buy in a normal shop. Pretty much the last page of discussion has been people bringing up minor loopholes in gun control measures as if that proves they're useless.
-
Black powder firearms are about as deadly as a high-power airgun. Not something you'd just shrug off, but not a modern high-velocity round, either. Also, you can't use it in cartridges without a percussion cap. The best you could do with a printer and homemade powder would be a flintlock pepperbox or a primitive revolver, with all efficiency that this implies and probably much less safety than a proper, metal gun. 3D printing is overrated, the only reason for someone to print a gun like that would be to make a political statement. Buying an actual flintlock would, in most cases, be a more viable option (even in Europe you can get them without a license, if you have the money). Or going with an airgun, some of which can be very lethal if used with right ammo and are usually not overtly regulated as well. I investigated black powder guns as personal defense weapons, and the conclusion is "airguns and gas projectors surpass them in everything but coolness".
I'm in favor of a modest increase in gun control (and standardizing it across the board), but IMO, a way to avoid school shootings would be to arm the teachers and require them to carry a gun on their person, in a secured holster. It's far easier to walk in and open fire than it is to walk up to someone and take their weapon, then start shooting. Especially that if the rest of the class realizes what the would-be shooter is up to and mobs him. Quite frankly, I don't think most shooters would have the balls to even try that. Most of this scum would rather commit suicide than pick a fight they can actually lose (as it's often seen when their victims do fight back).
A gun in possession of a trained, responsible person is not dangerous. Gun control should be designed to keep weapons out of hands of those who can't be trusted with them. Indeed, having more trained, responsible people carrying guns around increases security, as anyone dumb enough to try anything would be quickly gunned down. Restricting access to the guns usually results in people who obtain weapons from illicit sources (such as organized crime) going armed, leaving everyone with little means to fight them. This does mean the typical European mugger carries a knife or a club, but this is of little comfort if you're smaller than him and didn't take close combat classes.
-
don't forget the "advancing rapidly" part, think about where we were 5 years ago. imagine where we will be 20 years from now.
-
You still can't print primers or smokeless powder. Even assuming you can get affordable metal printing, you're stuck with an ordinary flintlock revolver at best. This is still an inferior weapon to a high-power airgun. The most dangerous weapon you can 3D print is a multi-shot, gas-powered air rifle. Admittedly, that's a pretty good weapon (such weapons were actually used by Napoleonic-era special units, since they were almost inaudible), but still nowhere near as lethal as a semiautomatic firearm. Unless you're a very good shot, prompt medical attention would allow most victims to recover. The amount of shots is also limited (regardless of magazine size), with lethality dropping with each shot fired. Somehow, I never heard of a crime committed with either an airgun or a black powder weapon (short of somebody trying to threaten people with an air pistol, then usually failing miserably at whatever they wanted to achieve with that).
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smokeless_powder
that gives me enough knowledge of the subject to start working on making my own, I already know nitric acid + glycerin makes nitroglycerin, if this becomes a thing, you really think you're going to be able to stop instructions on making smokeless powder from getting around?
-
don't forget the "advancing rapidly" part, think about where we were 5 years ago. imagine where we will be 20 years from now.
Gun control at this point is a stop gap to reduce the mass shootings to something more sane. IMO, There must be a campaign run in the public to address the motives behind the mass violence. Stamping out means of destruction will be fruitless in the long run, because man is crafty and will come up with another way to kill.
-
I pretty much agree with what I think is your main point
-
TBH, you can probably dig up patents already. Chemical procedures are, from what I know, no big secret. However, the preparation is not staightforward, sufficient to say. You can surely try making guncotton and some even more efficient derivatives, but unless you're a chemist, then you're more likely to blow yourself up.
Besides, you can have your powder, for all I care. It's worthless without a primer. Anyone up for dissolving mercury in nitric acid then trying to adding ethanol to the solution (and live to tell the tale)? How about a modern primer, with lead azide? That's why I've been mentioning the primers. It's not stuff you want anywhere near you. Without it, you can have good powder, but the lock will remain a bottleneck.
Gun control at this point is a stop gap to reduce the mass shootings to something more sane. IMO, There must be a campaign run in the public to address the motives behind the mass violence. Stamping out means of destruction will be fruitless in the long run, because man is crafty and will come up with another way to kill.
The problem is that it's by no means easy to do. It's not something that happens to normal people. If we knew who shooters are and why they do that, we'd be taking steps against that. The problem is not even limited to the US, since Russians had their own mass shooting some time ago. It can happen anywhere.
-
you honestly think the sort of people who are going to make their own gunpowder are going to hesitate to try that also?
-
Gun control at this point is a stop gap to reduce the mass shootings to something more sane. IMO, There must be a campaign run in the public to address the motives behind the mass violence. Stamping out means of destruction will be fruitless in the long run, because man is crafty and will come up with another way to kill.
The problem is that it's by no means easy to do. It's not something that happens to normal people. If we knew who shooters are and why they do that, we'd be taking steps against that. The problem is not even limited to the US, since Russians had their own mass shooting some time ago. It can happen anywhere.
By all means it is not easy to do. As I've stated earlier, the sociological and psychological side of the argument is difficult for governments and communities to address without carefully stepping around some long standing ideologies. It also takes a lot of time.
-
The insanity of home brewing dangerous chemicals has yet to stop ppl making crystal meth or pipe bombs
-
And occasionally going up in flames. Now, pipe bombs usually feature something less explosive and hideously toxic than mercury fulminate (especially if electrically detonated). Same for drug production. Really, homemade primer production is completely impractical. It seems to be more dangerous than meth with much lower profit margins. Here, every ingredient is just waiting to burst into flame, explode or poison you. The end product does all three.
you honestly think the sort of people who are going to make their own gunpowder are going to hesitate to try that also?
Hesitate? No. Survive? Not all of them, to be sure. :) You can get the ingredients legally, sure (though mercury is getting though these days). What you can't get is a fume hood and chemical expertise needed not to poison yourself, blow yourself up or otherwise screw up the procedure. Also, if you acquire those things in large quantities you might get targeted by antiterrorist forces, as the very same ingredients are used for priming bombs. This is way out of range for some semi-determined shmuck who wants to kill someone. Making smokeless powder is tricky, but doable. Making your own fulminate primers is dancing with death. More modern primers generally use chemicals not available to general public (in addition to being dangerous). If you are with a group capable of providing you with equipment, chemicals and semblance of training needed to do that, then you probably also have an illegal source of real ammunition to start with.
And even if you do survive, there's no guarantee the caps will work. There's no real way to test them, so any single cap has a good chance of either exploding too early or not exploding at all.
-
Dragon, how does that advance the argument?
-
Well, we're arguing over 3D printed guns. :) I'm pointing out that they're not dangerous if the ammo is no available, as the chemistry involved in making the primers way too dangerous for a normal person (i.e. not a chemist, mafioso or a terrorist) to handle. Thus greatly limiting both rate of fire and lethality of 3D printed weapons.
By all means it is not easy to do. As I've stated earlier, the sociological and psychological side of the argument is difficult for governments and communities to address without carefully stepping around some long standing ideologies. It also takes a lot of time.
The problem I see is that people don't know how to deal with psychological aspect of the problem. So far, I haven't seen government attempts at social engineering be a real success. The government has a hard time keeping up with its own society, let alone engineer it.
-
Why are we even having a discussion about 3D printed guns when there are already eleventy billion actual guns out there in the wild?
-
someone mentioned about using 3D printing to get around gun controls and it took on a life of its own
-
Why are we even having a discussion about 3D printed guns when there are already eleventy billion actual guns out there in the wild?
Possibly because it falls under the realm of "home brew" weaponry, to which there is no current legislation that can address, much less enforce. It may be an issue in the future, but honestly I think we shouldn't be very concerned about it right now.
By all means it is not easy to do. As I've stated earlier, the sociological and psychological side of the argument is difficult for governments and communities to address without carefully stepping around some long standing ideologies. It also takes a lot of time.
The problem I see is that people don't know how to deal with psychological aspect of the problem. So far, I haven't seen government attempts at social engineering be a real success. The government has a hard time keeping up with its own society, let alone engineer it.
Well, not to be rude, but we could have known how to deal with the psychological aspect. Congress put a stop to that with their legislation prohibiting the science communities from investigating (looking for a link...). I don't think we'll be able to get any further unless that gets repealed somehow.
[EDIT]
Here is a link. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/cdc-still-cant-study-causes-gun-violence-180955884/?no-ist (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/cdc-still-cant-study-causes-gun-violence-180955884/?no-ist)
-
I mean yeah, you can make an improvised gun on your own and it might get a lot easier with 3D printing, but it's not that hard to make a homemade bomb either. You can do it by accident, even, hence all those explosions at fertiliser factories. But nobody uses this as an argument against 'bomb control', because it's still much harder to kill people with homemade bombs than if you could buy them from a shop and it's pretty easy for the police to pick up on people manufacturing illegal goods.
-
Why are we even having a discussion about 3D printed guns when there are already eleventy billion actual guns out there in the wild?
Probably because it's a good diversion from the real issue. Instead of worrying about the AR-15 Assault Rifles, worry about the plastic Derringers. Because buying a 3000 3D printer is much easier than buying a 40 dollar gun from a shop. Right?
-
wow, an AR-15 costs $40?
-
wow, an AR-15 costs $40?
Wow, another diversionary comment? Maybe you can start a discussion about the prohibitive costs of weapons when the Oregon shooter was packing about seven guns?
While you can be easily confused by my lazily written comments as to which "gun" that 40 dollar price tag was associated, the fact remains that it's beyond silly for grown adults to be comparing 3D-printed guns with store bought guns given the relative ease and cost by which both are obtained.
Maybe next you can address the dangers of civil-war vintage restored weapons? Or perhaps the general ease by which a flintlock rifle could be stolen from a museum and the need for additional guards and security meaures?
-
Yeah, I want to know where I can buy a $40 firearm, since that can't even get you a good BB gun. Please tell me you accidentally a zero on that statement, especially because there are many AR-15 rifles that do indeed cost at least $3000 dollars to buy at a gun shop.
-
Because buying a 3000 3D printer is much easier than buying a 40 dollar gun from a shop. Right?
Where do you live? Africa? :) The only semi-reliable gun you can get at that price is a second-hand Chinese AKM copy (and that's because being an AK, it's reliability is a given). And even then, they only go for that price in 3rd world countries. I can't really speak for the US, but I don't think you can get a decent weapon for less than 500$. And the AR-15 is a a big step up from simply a "decent weapon".
Maybe next you can address the dangers of civil-war vintage restored weapons? Or perhaps the general ease by which a flintlock rifle could be stolen from a museum and the need for additional guards and security meaures?
If you steal a real Civil War-era rifle from a museum, the correct course of action is to sell it and use the money to buy a modern gun. :) A Civil War-era cartridge rifle is still as deadly as a modern gun (unless we're talking blackpowder muzzleloaders which were still in use at the time), but I think that the same regulations apply to them as to the more modern guns. The difference is that a 3D printed weapon could be manufactured with just a 3D printer and a bunch of material. That said, I think that good ammunition control can handle those, as stated above.
I mean yeah, you can make an improvised gun on your own and it might get a lot easier with 3D printing, but it's not that hard to make a homemade bomb either. You can do it by accident, even, hence all those explosions at fertiliser factories. But nobody uses this as an argument against 'bomb control', because it's still much harder to kill people with homemade bombs than if you could buy them from a shop and it's pretty easy for the police to pick up on people manufacturing illegal goods.
You can actually buy perfectly good explosives from a shop. You can then proceed to blow yourself and others up with them, a much beloved activity on the 4th of July and New Year's Eve (for best effect, pair with a strong alcoholic drink). :) They even make them in a wide variety of casings, yields and flame colors. :) Actually, making a bomb from fertilizer is downright trivial and much easier than buying a large quantity of fireworks in the store (not to mention it attracts less attention). Such a bomb is pretty well behaved if you do it right, which isn't that hard, either. It doesn't mean it won't blow you up if you do something stupid or screw the production up, but it's a secondary explosive (meaning that usually, something else needs to explode first for it to go boom), not a primary.
-
wow, an AR-15 costs $40?
Wow, another diversionary comment?
wow, I'm responding to ****ing you.
ok you know what, ****it. why do you hate freedom?
-
Take some time to cool off, Bob. That goes for everyone else, too.
-
got a PM that has caused me tp come back to this thread to clarify something
My "why do you hate freedom" comment?
You will be pleased to know that was me announcing my departure from this thread.
-
You really need to look closer at that. Where does it say that the comment is from a study? If you actually follow the link it takes you to a website about a book the guy once contributed to on divorce amongst Aftrican-Americans. Now maybe that book cites a study to back up that comment but I don't see any proof of that anywhere.
Are you being deliberately dense? The book is the study. Presumably - given that the book was cited as the source of the comment - the comment can be found there.
Then don't sink to that level yourself. Given that this entire thread is about the despicable levels that BOTH sides have sunk to in a desperate attempt to keep proving they are correct, why would you choose to part of the problem? BOTH sides are child killers because being right is more important than solving the problem. Live with it.
Or better yet, do something about it other than soapboxing.
Eh. You have no idea what I do when I'm not on HLP.
The legal situation isn't really 'complicated': the campus banned guns 'except as permitted by law', and the law clearly said concealed carrying was allowed.
Which is what I said. I'm glad you agree with me.
Whether the shooter himself was allowed to carry guns on the campus is irrelevant
Ah, now you're moving the goalposts.
Hold on a second. It's not about preventing this tragedy.
But you said:
The only thing that we can learn from this is that Oregon's gun laws, as they currently are, are not effective at preventing these tragedies.
Do try to be more consistent. Your arguments carry more force when you don't contradict yourself. Also:
The goal here is not preventing tragedies, it's cutting down their number
How do you cut down on their number other than by preventing some of them?
And incidentally, do you have any idea how tyrannical your proposals are? Let's look at what you said:
"Gun owners who lose their guns lose their permits ... Burden of proof is on the former owner." - Reversal of "innocent until proven guilty"
"Seize all ammunition" -- Confiscation of private property
"A new permit may not be granted untill the owner of the firearm can specify a valid reason for why their bullets are missing" -- Totalitarian control of behavior
"All gun permit owners will submit to a check to see if they are not procuring their own ammuntion" -- Invasion of privacy
If one were to consider my proposal as an end goal to work towards
This is why gun owners oppose gun control so strenuously. Because they know what their opponents have in mind as the end goal. They know that even if they give up an inch, their opponents will not be satisfied. They will take it and demand the mile.
-
A book is not a study. A study needs to be published in a journal so it can be peer reviewed. What you have is not a study but a comment from a guy. We have no idea if that comment is the result of scientific research or simply the guy's personal opinion.
Eh. You have no idea what I do when I'm not on HLP.
Neither do I care. What you do on here is what is important. And on HLP you're not helping.
-
In a similar vein to the above, can we please knock off the stupid quote-chain bull****? There have been maybe two or three good threads on HLP with quote chains, and this is already not one of them. These discussions aren't won in the trenches, so to speak, so don't drag them into that particular muck.
-
This is why gun owners oppose gun control so strenuously. Because they know what their opponents have in mind as the end goal. They know that even if they give up an inch, their opponents will not be satisfied. They will take it and demand the mile.
And they think the exact same thing about you. So round and round it goes forever cause no one is willing to compromise. It's idiotic. And it's a specifically American kind of idiocy because as I've pointed out even though there are other countries with guns, single parent families, mentally ill or whatever cause you want to blame for this problem, it's only in America where shootings are THIS common.
-
Goober, what i meant was that focusing on one particular incident (what could have prevented this tragedy from happening) is innefectual in itself. One has to look at the broader picture of the regularely occuring trragedies, find common points, and try to adress those common points.
You also claim my proposals are totalirian, but... well, they're all based on gun laws in various european countries. The dutch are rather stringy, sure, but the example of the regulation of ammunition comes from the swiss, where there are loads of service rifles in people's homes, but no ammunition. I struggle to think of any of these countries as totalitarian (and I know the swiss get brought up as a shining example of freedom by the NRAs). But off course, one does not need to implement all of it. Politics is more about finding compromise then anything else.
-
Okay, let's try this. Instead of demanding what you want, everyone suggest a compromise they could live with. One that would actually have an effect on the number of people getting shot every year.
-
Here's a few proposals that I ran off the top of my head. Again, I would like to stress that going through with only one side of the system will most likely not eliminate the issue, both must be considered.
Gun control side of things:
- Pscyh eval on new gun owners.
- Existing gun owners do not need an eval if they can prove ownership.
- Eval is confidential on a pass-fail basis.
- Evaluators (who are separate from the gun sellers) are encouraged to provide help to those who fail the eval.
- Evaluators are not required to report to authorities unless there is fear of imminent danger to the requester or others.
- New gun owners would be required to undergo basic firearms handling and safety, including a defensive class on what to do in the event a hostile shooter is on the scene
- New gun owners would be required to house an adequate gun safe cabinet, etc. to safely house their firearm(s) and ammunition. To sweeten this deal, a reasonable discount on an adequate gun cabinet is advisable.
- New gun owners would be required to take a class on how to prevent unauthorized use of their firearm. Essentially, everyone in the household of the gun owner should be aware that there is a gun in the house and should take the necessary precautions from accidental discharges. Have the concept of firearms introduced to children at an early age via the parents.
Pscyh/Sociology side of things:
- Promote local gun clubs and events! Here children and adults alike can get together and learn safety and other essential skills regarding firearms while having fun plinking.
- Get the teachers educated on pscyhology and sociology. They already have some degree of this as a required course, so they just need to expand on this a bit to address prevention of "disharmony"
- Get the police on the good side of the neighborhood. Sponsor get togethers, BBQ, benefits, etc. that help make the police force bond with the community.
- Have a public campaign explain why news should be doubted when it is first revealed, and why speculation must be cut down. Newspaper and internet news sensationalism is a major enemy here as they are very good at getting people pissed off. When emotion goes high, rationalism is the first thing to go. The govt. legally cannot restrict what the media says, but they have the full right of running their own ads, etc. to explain why speculation from breaking news is a bad thing.
- Have "tornado" drills for public schools. These drills are meant to move people into classrooms and into areas that put doors between them and the shooter. Should teachers be allowed to have a concealed weapon (which everybody is aware of its presence), they should be drilled on how to defend the classroom to minimize harm. The responding police force must be aware of their drill routines.
Bonus: public area defense
Have open public areas surveyed up the wazoo. The first time I went to college I could not believe how just how easy it was for anybody off the street to go to any building they wanted to without being noticed. No cameras, no security guards, and very sparse cover. Fencing off the public area is expensive, uninviting, and quite frankly paranoid. Strategically place art boulders, benches, etc. something that'll stop a bullet so that civilians can hide behind and safely move indoors. As a bonus, support a paintball club that'll occasionally use the public space to see how well the cover works at the same time training them on how to avoid fire in that area. I'm aware that the cover can be used both ways, so art and other cover items that are enclosed shouldn't be used. A boulder would make a great piece a cover for civies at the same time being vulnerable from flanking.
-
That seems reasonable (not that I necessarily agree with all of the ideas, but that it seems to be middle of the road instead of one-sided).
-
The problem that supporters of gun control don't seem to understand is that gun culture is deeply embedded in US culture. Even if guns were banned, nothing would change. There are umpteen million guns in the US and they're not going anywhere. Some people will give up their weapons but most won't, and then they'll be felons in the eyes of the law. Criminals will still have guns. People that want to shoot kiddies will get guns. Stricter psychological examinations and legislation will not help this because it's easy as piss to get guns on the black market.
I will reiterate what some have already said in this thread: The only way to cut down on mass shootings is to tighten control on the ammunition supply and train people how to defend themselves against an assailant. Teaching our students to lock the classroom door and hide under their desks in the event of a school shooting is foolish.
-
One thing that does surprise me about the gun debate in the US is that the arguments about why gun control would be ineffective are also the exact same arguments their opponents use when discussing drug or sex issues. Not getting at you here, FlamingMamba, but it's perhaps another example of the deadlock any political debate in the US gets itself in.
I agree with you on there being simply too much guns in the country for gun control to be effective (unless one is willing to be harsh). Take a look at the gunpolicy website, (http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states)and specifically the gun numbers tab...
-
One thing that does surprise me about the gun debate in the US is that the arguments about why gun control would be ineffective are also the exact same arguments their opponents use when discussing drug or sex issues. Not getting at you here, FlamingMamba, but it's perhaps another example of the deadlock any political debate in the US gets itself in.
I agree with you on there being simply too much guns in the country for gun control to be effective (unless one is willing to be harsh). Take a look at the gunpolicy website, (http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states)and specifically the gun numbers tab...
The culture is so heavily ingrained into US society that you would need small incremental changes over several generations just to make change possible. For example one statistic i have read puts the ownership situation at 1.126 guns per person in the states... you just are not going to get that number down for a long time, so if gun control is part of your goal you wont see a meaningful impact on ownership numbers in your lifetime without direct state intervention like a government buy back scheme on firearms.
-
@FlamingMamba:
You must realize that there is nothing simple when it comes to politics. People far too often try to simplify a political argument to "Black and White", but the reality is that everything is a different shade of "Gray." Thus, assuming that one side or the other is ignorant about the reality of the situation is a moot action.
As Goober and others have suggested, part of the problem of progressing the argument past each party's initial stance is the opinion that if either side offers an inch, their opponent will take the mile. They thus then solidify their position and won't budge any further. Communication breaks down, insults fly, and nothing happens to resolve the issue. Somebody or some group must step in and moderate when this happens, otherwise it'll be a fight of who has the bigger number of participants.
Also, there is no "one way" to do any thing. There are always options with their own level of effectiveness.
I don't really agree with tightening ammunition supply, but that is something that should be discussed.
I agree with self-defense training, but where are you going to supply that training?
I don't see how isolating groups from an assailant is a foolish defense, as it puts the assailant at a tactical disadvantage and slows him down. Entrance into classrooms are usually highly limited, so it is simple to barricade the door with desks, bookcases to prevent entry. Different rooms have different levels of defense.
@Joshua
I disagree with the number of guns in the country having anything to do with the effectiveness of controlling who can obtain a gun.
-
Okay I'll admit I wasn't thinking when I mentioned the isolating groups bit. Locking the doors when there's a school shooting is a brilliant tactic, except it doesn't work for the first classroom the shooter walks into. The first group will always get ****ed if they don't put up a fight.
And here's how to supply the self defense-training class. Every single student in the US education system has to take physical education. So each school year, one week or two weeks of PE is replaced by the police department coming down and teaching the students how to fight back in the event of an active shooter. They could even do practice drills where the police fire rubber bullets, paintballs, or airsoft pellets at the students.
-
Sounds good, although I would have it as an after-hours paintball course or maybe use like nerf guns or laser tag instead of rubber bullets and airsoft pellets, and have a student randomly selected as the shooter. Having the police act as the shooter will just confuse them and may actually make relations worse. Parents would need to sign a permission form of course.
-
OK, good ideas so far. I think a buyback would be a good idea though. You don't need to even have the government do the heavy lifting. You could push for it in the same way that people suggest you get a rescue dog rather than one from a dog breeder. A sort of "Give a gun a safe home" campaign.
"Gunny's parents were abusive of her. They bought a gun but had no idea how to treat one. Rather than being kept in a safe lockbox like guns should, Gunny was forced to live under a pillow.
No gun should live like this."
I'm being somewhat facetious in the way I'm putting it but I think the basic idea is a good one. If you are a gun owner it is a far more responsible thing to take a poorly looked after gun off the streets and keep it somewhere safe than it is to buy a new gun. Yeah, people want a new gun, but people also wanted a puppy rather than a rescue dog and we've seen a big change in that attitude.
-
The gun buy back plan is not likely to hold water at all in most States. An exchange for newer models that have new safety features, such as thumbprint locks, may work.
I do like the "give gunny a good home" idea to push for sales of safes and cabinents.
-
And they think the exact same thing about you. So round and round it goes forever cause no one is willing to compromise.
So since you seem to recognize that compromise on gun control is unlikely, why not consider other means of reducing gun violence that don't involve gun control? I mentioned one article that cited a person who examined the sociological causes of gun violence, and instead of engaging in a thoughtful discussion on that topic, you ranted about the citation and then claimed that the study wasn't actually a study. (Apparently you didn't notice that the statistics are right there on the book's page for anyone to download.)
Goober, what i meant was that focusing on one particular incident (what could have prevented this tragedy from happening) is innefectual in itself. One has to look at the broader picture of the regularely occuring trragedies, find common points, and try to adress those common points.
The problem is that that's an easy way to shield your ideas from criticism. Any proposal must be evaluated against the real-world scenario it is meant to address. Study the actual cause and effect, not sweeping generalities.
The other problem is that this is a double standard. Plenty of gun control advocates are focusing on this one particular incident to claim that "a good guy with a gun will stop a bad guy with a gun" is false.
The gun buy back plan is not likely to hold water at all in most States.
It's not gun buyback, exactly, but there have been plenty of instances of police departments holding "gun amnesty days" where illegally owned guns can be turned in without fear of prosecution. These usually net a large number of guns.
I think it's important for anyone proposing gun buyback to specify whether they mean voluntary or mandatory.
-
I can't see why a voluntary gun buyback wouldn't work unless the problem is with financing. One idea that might make it even more practical is to give the money in a form that can be used to buy gun cabinets and lockboxes. Suppose you say that you give them a voucher worth $10 but also $50 towards some form of protection for guns.
So since you seem to recognize that compromise on gun control is unlikely, why not consider other means of reducing gun violence that don't involve gun control?
I've already suggested methods which don't involve gun control. And I don't think compromise on gun control is unlikely if people are reasonable, the problem is people are being very unreasonable.
-
Where do you live? Africa? :) The only semi-reliable gun you can get at that price is a second-hand Chinese AKM copy (and that's because being an AK, it's reliability is a given). And even then, they only go for that price in 3rd world countries. I can't really speak for the US, but I don't think you can get a decent weapon for less than 500$. And the AR-15 is a a big step up from simply a "decent weapon".
Whatever not 40 dollars but 120 dollars. Price of two console games will get you a pistol. So instead of getting the new Call of Duty plus a season pass, just get a real live gun instead.
http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/index.php/cPath/21_0/page/1/sort/6a
http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/product_info.php/cPath/21/products_id/411549349/Handguns/COB%20FREEDOM%20380%203.5IN%207RD-STN/
Assuming regular sale. I recall on the Columbine documentary by Michael moore that a bank was giving away free shotguns with new accounts, whether that still happens anymore who knows but in that case the price is zero.
ok you know what, ****it. why do you hate freedom?
Better question is why do you love fear?
American media from what I've seen of it is all about selling fear. Fear the terrorist. Fear the black man. Fear the government. Fear the mexican illegal immigrant man who is raping your daughter and stealing your job. Whatever. Any media designed to keep people scared is basically a form of control. Like keeping people on the bottom level of Maslo's hiearachy of needs. If a person never feels safe, why would they need to start thinking about anything else? (like how ****ty their standard of life is) Keeping people poor or financially insecure is even better as throws them down another rung.
(http://mrjoe.uk/assets/Maslow-hierarchy-1024x761.jpg)
Your core concern should not be, why can't I have a gun? But rather why do I live in a society where I feel I need one?
Another problem with the whole gun killing spree thing is simply a society which has no compassion, ala "10 people got killed, man that sucks, but hey it isn't me so, what're ya gonna do? IF it happens, it happens, just glad it didn't happen to me."
-
Ok, a voluntary gun buyback for illegal firearms sounds good. Offering credit towards saftey gear is even better.
I believe that the volutunary gun buyback would be more successful than the mandatory buyback, largely in part that it makes citizens feel like they have a choice (because they do) when interacting with govt. agencies rather than being shepherded by them.
It's also good to see that psycho-analysis has finally entered the discussion, but unfortunately it seems to be aiming in the wrong direction. Please remember folks that the issue we're discussing is not each others flaws, but rather how to go about squelching this wave of mass violence in the U.S..
Thank you, Akalabeth, for showing us the Maslow hierarchy triangle, as it is an important thing to consider when discussing the psychology side of what happens before, during, and after a mass violence event. One thing I would like to point out, though, is that the Maslow hierarchy can differ from person to person, meaning that some people place more emphasis on, say, intimacy over safety.
-
http://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/ (http://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/)
-
So there is a correlation between gun bans and higher murder, homicide rates.
I must point out that correlation does not mean causation. I know, at least, that the years immediately after the September 11, 2001 attacks were very stressful for folk in the United States, which likely had a larger influence than gun control policies.
That article also postulates that gun control in most instances are a rather poor method of reducing crime rates, which makes sense, because it does not do anything to address the cause of the violence, which is usually high psychological stress.
OverDhill: do you know of any studies that compare the gun control policy adoptions vs. violent crimes involving guns? I suspect most of the policies cited on your link were rather half-assed.
-
A few things to mention about the results posted
Ireland - 1960's - 1980's we have a low level multi faction civil war with the murder rates peaking on the graph at about the peak of the troubles
Jamaica - there is a discernible trend of rising homicides prior to the ban, also Jamaica has a very significant gang dynamic which makes the numbers for the country much more complicated than pure gun control.
UK - looks scary until you realise that graph peaks at 18 instances per million whereas the other stats on the page are per 100,000 also the 1997 date fails to take into account that the legislation was an amendment to existing handgun controls
-
It is a simple fact that if you take away guns from people then only the criminals and anyone wanted to use one will have them. Just look at the statistics of gun free zones in the country like Chicago. Drugs are illegal and yet no matter how much effort and money we spend on trying to stop it people who want it manage to get it. Also you can't compare country to country as you will not be taking in the cultures of those countries in account. Being the great melting pot means we probably have some of the best society has to offer but also the worst elements. The sanctity of life in this country has significantly gone down in the 60 years I have been alive.
On a whole different view point. Our forefathers had a good reason to arm the people. It was to protect them not only from outside forces but also from their own government. Someday you will be glad that your neighbor is armed.
One last thing as this is a never ending debate subject. If you really want to save lives and this is what it is all about there are a whole hell of a lot of other 'low hanging fruit' that could prevent people from dying. Take a look on how many deaths involve texting or drinking while driving. How many deaths are from cigarettes and yet we do little to stop either. We also abort the innocent unborn by the millions. You can't not legislate morality.
Gun control for some groups including Washington is not about saving lives. It is about taking away the guns. People kill people with knives also. Don't see anyone suggesting we take them away.
It is simple minded to think guns will ever be purged from society. It is more simple minded to think this will solve the problem. It would be better to spend those resources on mental health and moral education. Things that would strengthen the family unit.
But hey this is a free country (for now) so have your discussion. But remember we are talking about the second amendment. No executive order is going to over turn that. Politicians need to brush up on separations of power and the Constitution they swore to defend. The President does not make laws. If you want a dictator or Socialism then I suggest moving to a country that has it.
-
OverDHill please read through the thread before getting on the soapbox, it appears you have missed where others have expressed exactly the same views as you have.
headdie, very good points to bring up, these go towards showing that gun control laws alone do not have a direct influence over the acts of violence.
I'll ask again, is there any data comparing gun related crimes against policies vs time? The wording on the OverDHill's link seems to only cite Homicides, not Homicides due to gun inflicted wounds.
-
http://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/ (http://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/)
When they refer to the island nation of England, I question their ability to understand anything, let alone something as complex as the relationship between gun ownership and crime. England is not a ****ing island!
-
When they refer to the island nation of England, I question their ability to understand anything, let alone something as complex as the relationship between gun ownership and crime. England is not a ****ing island!
...what?
England is not an island. England is an island nation.
-
When they refer to the island nation of England, I question their ability to understand anything, let alone something as complex as the relationship between gun ownership and crime. England is not a ****ing island!
...what?
England is not an island. England is an island nation.
England is not a nation - The United Kingdom is.
-
England is not a nation - The United Kingdom is.
Oh, right, that might be. Since he specifically pointed out "island" I assumed that the nation part wasn't what he objected to. I'm not sure about the nation/country/state terminology, really, but I presume England is a country that's not a nation, and the UK is a nation that's not a country?
-
England is not a nation - The United Kingdom is.
Oh, right, that might be. Since he specifically pointed out "island" I assumed that the nation part wasn't what he objected to. I'm not sure about the nation/country/state terminology, really, but I presume England is a country that's not a nation, and the UK is a nation that's not a country?
Sort of. It's rather weird, but the key thing is that England is a part of the island of Great Britian which is part of the nation of the United Kingdom which in turn is a part of the British Empire.
-
No, the British Empire hasn't existed for half a century. Were you thinking of the Commonwealth?
http://qntm.org/uk
-
No, the British Empire hasn't existed for half a century. Were you thinking of the Commonwealth?
:warp:
-
I know I said I was done with this topic, but
-
Just read this (http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/21760-harvard-gun-control-study-destroys-gun-control-agenda):
Buy a gun, folks — do it for the children. That could now be the message after the revelation that a Harvard University study (http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf) has thoroughly refuted the gun-control agenda. The research, conducted in 2007 but suspiciously ignored until now, is enough to make a grown man cry — if that grown man happens to be Piers Morgan. Writes BeliefNet (http://www.beliefnet.com/News/Articles/Harvard-University-Study-Reveals-Astonishing-Link.aspx?p=1#ROerlqvpesAWA5TQ.99):
According to a study in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, which cites the Centers for Disease Control, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the United Nations International Study on Firearms Regulation, the more guns a nation has, the less criminal activity.
In other words, more firearms, less crime, concludes the virtually unpublicized research report by attorney Don B. Kates and Dr. Gary Mauser. But the key is firearms in the hands of private citizens.
The above facts have long been related in works such as economist John R. Lott Jr.’s book (http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493660) More Guns, Less Crime. But this study (http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf) is different in that it originated with leftist bastion Harvard University. Entitled “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?” it is a trove of firearms truths. Among them is the following, writes BeliefNet:
The popular assertion that the United States has the industrialized world’s highest murder rate, says the Harvard study, is a throwback to the Cold War when Russian murder rates were nearly four times higher than American rates. In a strategic disinformation campaign, the U.S. was painted worldwide as a gunslinging nightmare of street violence — far worse than what was going on in Russia. The line was repeated so many times that many believed it to be true. Now, many still do.
Note that as Soviet KGB defector Yuri Bezmenov pointed out (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqSV72VNnV0), such “strategic disinformation campaigns” were common. Also called “active measures” in KGB jargon, they were used, among other ways, to smear former FBI director J. Edgar Hoover (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/11/j_edgar_the_film_falls_for_kgb_disinformation.html) as a homosexual and WWII-era pontiff Pope Pius XII as a Nazi collaborator (http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/history/item/4699-pope-pius-xii-hero-in-the-unmaking). BeliefNet continues:
Today violence continues in Russia — far worse than in the U.S. — although the Russian people remain virtually disarmed. “Similar murder rates also characterize the Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and various other now-independent European nations of the former U.S.S.R.,” note Kates and Mauser. Kates is a Yale-educated criminologist and constitutional lawyer. Dr. Mauser is a Canadian criminologist at Simon Fraser University with a Ph.D. from the University of California Irvine.
The study also addresses anti-firearms zealot Piers Morgan’s favorite gun-control poster boy. BeliefNet again:
When Kates and Mauser compared England with the United States, they found “’a negative correlation,’ that is, ‘where firearms are most dense violent crime rates are lowest, and where guns are least dense, violent crime rates are highest.’ There is no consistent significant positive association between gun ownership levels and violence rates.”
In 2004, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences released an evaluation from its review of existing research. After reviewing 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications and its own original empirical research, it failed to identify any gun control that had reduced violent crime, suicide, or gun accidents, note Kates and Mauser.
... [Yet] [s]omehow, it goes unreported that “despite constant and substantially increasing gun ownership, the United States saw progressive and dramatic reductions in criminal violence,” write Kates and Mauser. “On the other hand, the same time period in the United Kingdom saw a constant and dramatic increase in violent crime to which England’s response was ever-more drastic gun control. Nevertheless, criminal violence rampantly increased so that by 2000 England surpassed the United States to become one of the developed world’s most violence-ridden nations.
The reality is that there’s simply no empirical evidence indicating gun control reduces crime. There are nations with far stricter gun-control laws than the United States but higher murder rates; along with Russia, Mexico and Brazil are examples. There are also countries with high gun-ownership rates but very little homicide, such as Israel and Switzerland (which has the world’s ninth-lowest murder rate (http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/indicators/VC.IHR.PSRC.P5/rankings)).
And while gun-control zealots portray the United States as a wild west of murder and mayhem, our nation actually ranks only 98th in homicide rate on a list of 194 countries (http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/indicators/VC.IHR.PSRC.P5/rankings) — in the bottom 50 percent. Of course, it’s true that the U.K., often cited by gun-grabbers, has an even lower rate (note: this doesn’t contradict the Harvard study; Britain’s murder rate is lower, but its overall level of violence isn’t). It’s seldom pointed out, however, that New Hampshire has both a far higher gun-ownership rate than the U.K. but a lower murder rate. Explanation?
Demographics. As Dr. Thomas Sowell put it (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/335848/gun-control-ignorance-thomas-sowell) in 2012, “Neither guns nor gun control is the reason for the difference in murder rates. People [are] the difference.”
A major factor in the U.S. murder rate having dropped during the last few decades is that the proportion of young people — the age demographic with the highest crime rate — has dropped as our society has grayed. There are other demographic correlations, too. As Sowell wrote, “The rate of gun ownership is higher in rural areas than in urban areas, but the murder rate is higher in urban areas. The rate of gun ownership is higher among whites than among blacks, but the murder rate is higher among blacks.”
Then there’s an even more striking example. Japan, which has strict gun control, “technically” has the world’s fifth-lowest homicide rate (critics point out (http://www.davekopel.com/2A/Foreign/Japan-Gun-Control-and-People-Control.htm) that, due to the application of different criteria, that nation’s actual rate is twice the reported one). Yet Japanese-descent Americans living in the United States — under our relatively lenient gun-control laws — have a murder rate (https://books.google.com/books?id=QXeGX67ezSYC&pg=PA189&lpg=PA189&dq=japanese+american+homicide+rates+FBI&source=bl&ots=nVtUwofuJu&sig=gr9SKO-dwQcM_N4RWEk8yHA_p88&hl=en#v=onepage&q=japanese%20american%20homicide%20rates%20FBI&f=false) half that of Japanese living in Japan.
Unfortunately, none of this changes the minds of demagogues bent on advancing an anti-Second Amendment agenda. For example, after the tragic Charleston shootings that left nine dead, Barack Obama said that “this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries.” But he’s wrong. In terms of mass killings relative to population, the United States actually ranks (http://www.ijreview.com/2015/06/348197-obama-said-mass-shootings-dont-happen-in-advanced-countries-like-in-us-one-chart-proves-him-wrong/) behind five nations, including Norway and Finland — which both have firearms regulations labeled “Restricted.”
So, as North Coast Journal’s Terry Roberts noted, “What we are seeing is ideology in collision with reality.” And when reality loses, we get nonsense such as “Gun Free Zones,” and Americans lose their lives. But perhaps reality needs to be brought home to the ideologues. Note that when liberal journalists were offered the opportunity in 2013 to “support the cause” and place signs stating “THIS HOME IS PROUDLY GUN FREE” on their lawns (video here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt1Zy_ASNyA)), they all declined. One even said, “Somebody driving by around here might think it’s an invitation to come barging in.”
Perhaps the solution is to accept new gun-control bills with one rider attached: Any legislator voting for it or chief executive signing it into law must place a “Gun Free Zone” sign in front of his house. Now that would be ideology colliding with reality.
-
Interesting. This is what I've often though to be the case, but backed by a lot of actual, solid numbers. The magnitude of the effect is quite amazing. I guess even the possibility of someone being able to defend him/herself makes potential criminals reconsider. I suppose it has to do with risk to reward ratio. In Poland, if you decide to rob someone, the worst thing that would normally happen would be that you get beaten up and put in jail (not even for particularly long). If you try that in the US, especially in a gun-rich area, that might be the end of you right there. This is why I'm for gun registration and mandatory training, not gun removal. It is more about accident prevention than anything else since guns, unfortunately, also tend to introduce another way for idiots to hurt themselves and others by accident.
-
In Poland, if you decide to rob someone, the worst thing that would normally happen would be that you get beaten up and put in jail (not even for particularly long). If you try that in the US, especially in a gun-rich area, that might be the end of you right there. This is why I'm for gun registration and mandatory training, not gun removal
In my mind, beaten up and thrown in jail for petty theft sounds about right. Being shot dead does not.
-
Great find, jr2. :)
-
Great find, jr2. :)
Thanks. Happened upon it and thought maybe it would add to the discussion here.
-
It's yet another driveby ****post from jr2, not sure why you're praising it so much?
-
It'd add to the discussion if not for the fact it works very hard to be out of context and otherwise distort information.
-
Yeah, that's the most cherry-picked nonsense I've ever read in my life. Japan has no guns and the 5th lowest murder rate in the world. It's completely contradictory to our claim that more guns = less murders but we're going to explain that by saying Japanese-Americans (Many of whom are by now 3rd or later generation Americans) don't commit a lot of murders and therefore it's not in their culture to murder people back in Japan.
N.B I'd also love to point out how despite the entire tone of the thread was on the reasons why this never gets solved, one side has gone entirely back to shouting their rhetoric again. Why am I not ****ing surprised.
-
Well shame on me for being lazy and going by what people present at face value, I guess. :banghead:
-
Yeah, that's the most cherry-picked nonsense I've ever read in my life. Japan has no guns and the 5th lowest murder rate in the world. It's completely contradictory to our claim that more guns = less murders but we're going to explain that by saying Japanese-Americans (Many of whom are by now 3rd or later generation Americans) don't commit a lot of murders and therefore it's not in their culture to murder people back in Japan.
N.B I'd also love to point out how despite the entire tone of the thread was on the reasons why this never gets solved, one side has gone entirely back to shouting their rhetoric again. Why am I not ****ing surprised.
Cherry picking and skimming, eh? :P
Let's try again:
Then there’s an even more striking example. Japan, which has strict gun control, “technically” has the world’s fifth-lowest homicide rate (critics point out (http://www.davekopel.com/2A/Foreign/Japan-Gun-Control-and-People-Control.htm) that, due to the application of different criteria, that nation’s actual rate is twice the reported one). Yet Japanese-descent Americans living in the United States — under our relatively lenient gun-control laws — have a murder rate (https://books.google.com/books?id=QXeGX67ezSYC&pg=PA189&lpg=PA189&dq=japanese+american+homicide+rates+FBI&source=bl&ots=nVtUwofuJu&sig=gr9SKO-dwQcM_N4RWEk8yHA_p88&hl=en#v=onepage&q=japanese%20american%20homicide%20rates%20FBI&f=false) half that of Japanese living in Japan.
-
Read what I said again.
When Kates and Mauser compared England with the United States, they found “’a negative correlation,’ that is, ‘where firearms are most dense violent crime rates are lowest, and where guns are least dense, violent crime rates are highest.’ There is no consistent significant positive association between gun ownership levels and violence rates.”
I figured I'd address this too cause it shows the basic level of deception going on here. The statement sounds good until you consider one important fact. Handguns are basically banned for private ownership in the UK. So when we're talking about the highest density of firearms, we're basically talking about villages in the countryside where farmers have rifles for shooting game or vermin. Is anyone ****ing surprised that they have a lower crime rate than inner cities?
Seriously, both sides need to leave "The island nation of England" the **** out of this debate. Our crime statistics have **** all to do with what America should do about their countries gun laws yet we constantly get dragged in by both sides. This is an American problem. It needs an American solution. Comparing things against the UK only causes problems and misinformation because the people doing the review are usually incredibly badly educated about the differences between the UK and US.
Leave us the **** out of your nasty little disagreements.
-
That article is so desperate to find convenient stats it's pathetic. I mean seriously, if you end up having to break the US down into individual ethnic groups to get material you can cherry-pick it says a lot about how one-sided the actual gun violence stats are.
-
Japan has no guns and the 5th lowest murder rate in the world. It's completely contradictory to our claim that more guns = less murders but we're going to explain that by saying Japanese-Americans (Many of whom are by now 3rd or later generation Americans) don't commit a lot of murders and therefore it's not in their culture to murder people back in Japan.
Sounds reasonable to me. I do believe that cultural attributes of the people living in some place, including age structure, ethnicity, poverty rate, education, are FAR MORE important for violent crime rates and murder rates than rate of gun ownership or gun laws. You cannot claim that Japan is an example of successful gun control unless you account for these differences first. And in all likelihood they will drown out any effects of gun legislation. It is just very hard to isolate. And that goes for both sides of this argument, I doubt any of them is really supported by solid science.
-
when i see arguments like this they always seem to be, to one extent or another, code for 'gun violence isn't the problem, black people are'
-
except the issue is not [Racial Group] is the problem
the problem is the social situation [Racial Group] often finds itself in
-
when i see arguments like this they always seem to be, to one extent or another, code for 'gun violence isn't the problem, black people are'
Well in all these cases we are dealing with white male shooters, so I dont think you can make that argument. I am talking about cultures here, not races.
-
The arguments jr2 was posting about was nothing to do with spree killers and everything to do with standard gun violence.
As for the Japanese thing. I don't have an issue with saying that certain cultures are less prone to violence. My problem is then using it to say "See! Gun control is unnecessary!" For all we know, the reason Japan is so peaceful is cause of years and years of not having a gun culture. To then claim that this then proves America + guns = OK is idiotic.
That said, using it to prove America - guns = OK is similarly stupid.
-
The topic of mental health gets brought up a lot after these mass shootings. John Oliver did a piece on it, which is a cool piece!
-
Sounds like some pretty strong points all around, also interesting to see the low percentage of mentally ill as being perpetrators of mass shootings and higher percentage as being victims of crime, so that pretty much blows a hole through the psych screening idea.
-
Sounds like some pretty strong points all around, also interesting to see the low percentage of mentally ill as being perpetrators of mass shootings and higher percentage as being victims of crime, so that pretty much blows a hole through the psych screening idea.
Just because it dosnt happen often dosnt mean it dosnt happen. Also cant watch the video due to region locking but is there any mention of instances where suspected mental health issues with no formal diagnosis?
-
Yeah, but if the mentally ill are more often victims of crime than perps, they need to be able to have guns to defend themselves, right? Or is that where the pro-gun lobby would finally draw the line?
-
Duh, if we didn't arm the mentally ill, then only the bad lunatics would have guns.
-
Yeah, that's the most cherry-picked nonsense I've ever read in my life. Japan has no guns and the 5th lowest murder rate in the world. It's completely contradictory to our claim that more guns = less murders but we're going to explain that by saying Japanese-Americans (Many of whom are by now 3rd or later generation Americans) don't commit a lot of murders and therefore it's not in their culture to murder people back in Japan.
N.B I'd also love to point out how despite the entire tone of the thread was on the reasons why this never gets solved, one side has gone entirely back to shouting their rhetoric again. Why am I not ****ing surprised.
Cherry picking and skimming, eh? :P
Let's try again:
Then there’s an even more striking example. Japan, which has strict gun control, “technically” has the world’s fifth-lowest homicide rate (critics point out (http://www.davekopel.com/2A/Foreign/Japan-Gun-Control-and-People-Control.htm) that, due to the application of different criteria, that nation’s actual rate is twice the reported one). Yet Japanese-descent Americans living in the United States — under our relatively lenient gun-control laws — have a murder rate (https://books.google.com/books?id=QXeGX67ezSYC&pg=PA189&lpg=PA189&dq=japanese+american+homicide+rates+FBI&source=bl&ots=nVtUwofuJu&sig=gr9SKO-dwQcM_N4RWEk8yHA_p88&hl=en#v=onepage&q=japanese%20american%20homicide%20rates%20FBI&f=false) half that of Japanese living in Japan.
The whole point was that just "having guns" doesn't increase murder rates: otherwise, Japanese living in the US would have a higher murder rate than those living in Japan.
I'm not certain, but I think a lot of what you're getting from that article is confirmation bias from what 'most' pro-run rights arguments are. Or maybe I'm just too tired to sort this right now. Anyways.
-
@jr2:
Race shouldn't have anything to do with the discussion. Other ethnic groups might, but not race.
@headdie:
I don't remember if John Oliver included the statistics of crime by persons who were suspected of mental illnesses, I'll try going through video again with some notepaper or something later on.
@karajorma, swashmebuckle:
I honestly see "mentally ill" as a blanket term, some illnesses can have a person rational enough to defend themselves, but others require assisted living. If they are able to safely handle and care for firearms, then there's no reason to restrict their access to them.
[Edit] I wasn't aware before that "ethnicity" does not equate with "race," its rather a super class of the term.
-
@jr2 Don't you think it somewhat racist to assume that anyone of Japanese descent can be compared to Japanese people living in Japan regardless of how many generations may have passed since they left?
It's worth remembering that in terms of demographics, Japanese-Americans are pretty well off. Surely that has more to do with the low level of violence than some psuedo-racist bull****?
-
So, jr2 cites statistics and you call it racist. And yet you accuse your opponents of shouting rhetoric?
-
jr2 quoted statistics that say that 3rd, 4th and 5th Generation Japanese-Americans and native born Japanese people are the same thing. Statistics that basically say that culture is determined by skin colour or genetics not where or how you grew up. How the **** is that NOT racist?
-
And who made you the arbiter of who is and who isn't Japanese?
You live and work in China. Does that make you Chinese?
-
What the **** are you on about Goober?
I'm not deciding who is and isn't Japanese, that is what the quote from jr2 is doing. I'm actually pointing out how racist it is to decide who is and isn't Japanese. Because jr2's quote implicitly claims that it doesn't matter what generation immigrant someone is, if they are of Japanese ethnicity, they are culturally Japanese.
Look much more closely at it. The report claims that the difference between the crime rate in Japan and Japanese-Americans is due to availability of handguns. There is no attempt to claim that there might be any other possible cause for it. So the report is basically claiming is that Japanese-Americans and native born Japanese have the exact same culture. Can you really not see that not only is that an incredibly stupid claim (there is no way that people growing up in completely different countries could possibly have the same culture) but also a racist one ("All Japanese have the same culture, regardless of where they were born")?
-
jr2 quoted statistics that say that 3rd, 4th and 5th Generation Japanese-Americans and native born Japanese people are the same thing. Statistics that basically say that culture is determined by skin colour or genetics not where or how you grew up. How the **** is that NOT racist?
Obviously the reason why a 5th generation Japanese-American would lean more than average towards japanese culture would be things like their own awareness of their ancestry and familial connections, not genetics. :rolleyes:
-
It's a completely absurd statistic that you'd only use if every other statistic was pointing the other way. That's my problem with it.
-
Obviously the reason why a 5th generation Japanese-American would lean more than average towards japanese culture would be things like their own awareness of their ancestry and familial connections, not genetics. :rolleyes:
Seriously? That's where you're going with this? You're actually trying to defend this bull****?
My point was that the article was saying that Japanese-Americans can not change their culture! That because they are Japanese-Americans they must be exactly the same as Japanese culture for all eternity. And you're going to argue for a familial rather than genetic reason rather than realising it's complete and utter nonsense? Did you honestly think I was making the argument that culture is transmitted genetically?
Seriously?
I was arguing that the article basically claims that if you are genetically Japanese you will have Japanese culture. Not that the culture itself is transmitted genetically. :rolleyes:
If Phantom Hoover hadn't posted I'd right now be wondering if I was having a stroke or something and words have different meanings for me.
Let me give you an idea how stupid this is. If you took the crime statistics for Black Americans and then compared it with say the statistics for Kinshasa do you not think that would be racist? Can you not see how stupid and racist it would be to say "Well they're both black so the only difference between the two has to be availability of guns. Once African, always African"? Why is anybody having difficulty grasping this?
Is it really so hard to understand that just the fact that it wasn't a representative sample of Japanese people who moved to America means that any conclusions you draw are already bollocks even before we consider the effect of decades or even centuries living in another country?
-
Obviously the reason why a 5th generation Japanese-American would lean more than average towards japanese culture would be things like their own awareness of their ancestry and familial connections, not genetics. :rolleyes:
If that were the case, then 2nd, 3rd or 4th generation Japanese-Americans would be featured more prominently in the relevant crime statistics, yes?
-
Like, you can just see the desperate denialism behind that statistic. "****, every other developed nation has fewer guns and fewer murders! Right, let me just break each of them down into ethnic groups so I get five times as many statistics to cherrypick..."
-
My point was that the article was saying that Japanese-Americans can not change their culture! That because they are Japanese-Americans they must be exactly the same as Japanese culture for all eternity. And you're going to argue for a familial rather than genetic reason rather than realising it's complete and utter nonsense? Did you honestly think I was making the argument that culture is transmitted genetically?
No, I thought you were making the argument that claiming a correlation between ethnicity and culture in people born and raised elsewhere (for example between Japanese-Americans and japanese culture) is racist because the only explanation would be genetics, and I rolled my eyes at that assumption.
Of course, your argument actually seems to be that the statistic does not first establish such a strong correlation before making the comparison, but simply assumes there is one, and that's what you find racist. Something which I completely agree with!
-
What are gun ownership rates among Japanese Americans, I wonder?
-
My point was that the article was saying that Japanese-Americans can not change their culture! That because they are Japanese-Americans they must be exactly the same as Japanese culture for all eternity.
I dont think the article is making such a strong claim. At most it just says that Japanese-Americans are more likely to be like Japanese compared to the general population in the US. This is a statistical claim, one that applies only when we are talking about populations, not individuals (when it comes to individuals, it can only be interpreted in terms of probabilities, not certainties). And of course culture changes, but it does not change instantly.
-
It implicitly makes that claim because it ignores every single other contributing factor. Would you compare anyone of British decent with people from the UK and expect them to be similar? Without making any sort of argument how similar Japanese-Americans are to Japanese the entire statistic is worthless.
The source material on the other hand explicitly states that any such comparison is crude at best. Of course the source material is comparing figures from 1976-1978 but quite frankly if I try to argue why this is a bad idea, or how it is inherently deceitful to present such old data as if it were current, they'll just cherry pick some other data.
But even if you don't believe the argument is racist. It fails on so many other levels. We are talking about murder rates. Has there been any attempt to correct for factors such as organised crime? After all it's fairly likely that the Yakuza are more established in Japan than in they are in the US (where they are mostly limited to Hawaii). I mean, it seems reasonable to expect that a fair percentage of the homicide rate in Japan would come from that. Given that in America they'd face strong competition from non-Japanese cartels, couldn't that alone account for some or all of the difference?
Is there any correction for the fact that immigrants are already a non-representative sample? (as I stated above).
There's just so much wrong with any kind of comparison between the two that I find it laughable that anyone would try. I'm just waiting for a Japanese member of HLP to turn up and tell you to also leave them the **** out of it.
-
So, we can pretty much throw out jr2's statistics that he linked, since it's got some glaring issues with how it went about achieving its topic statement.
To reiterate, race should not be brought up as a factor in this discussion, due to the simple fact that it alone has no solid ground to stand on, and is most likely a distraction from the main topic.
Going back to the mental health subtopic, I'm now thinking that the psych screening would be a waste of resources, considering that there are other factors that have a much higher weight, most notably stress.
-
This, right here, is what I'm on about:
So, we can pretty much throw out jr2's statistics that he linked, since it's got some glaring issues with how it went about achieving its topic statement.
Several posters in this thread, particularly karajorma, are far more concerned about slandering jr2's argument as racist than about actually reading it. Calling it "racist" allows you to dismiss the whole post without allowing it to challenge your thinking.
Never mind that the Japanese comparison was only one small section of the statistics, and the author even admitted it was a "crude and partial" solution. Talking about "cherry-picked nonsense", karajorma -- your last several posts have been fixated on the Japanese/Japanese-American argument, while ignoring every other statistic in jr2's post (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=90583.msg1798781#msg1798781) and the linked article.
That's why, I say again, jr2 cites statistics and you call it racist. And yet you accuse your opponents of shouting rhetoric?
-
the rest of jr2's statistics are just as bad though
-
Well, no, jr2 didn't cite statistics, he cited an article that cited statistics, of which appears to be the source of karajorma's ire.
I still need to go through the Harvard study and compare it against the article to see where the journalist's biases and summaries might have come in.
-
This, right here, is what I'm on about:
So, we can pretty much throw out jr2's statistics that he linked, since it's got some glaring issues with how it went about achieving its topic statement.
Several posters in this thread, particularly karajorma, are far more concerned about slandering jr2's argument as racist than about actually reading it. Calling it "racist" allows you to dismiss the whole post without allowing it to challenge your thinking.
Never mind that the Japanese comparison was only one small section of the statistics, and the author even admitted it was a "crude and partial" solution. Talking about "cherry-picked nonsense", karajorma -- your last several posts have been fixated on the Japanese/Japanese-American argument,
Because your earlier post (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=90583.msg1799433#msg1799433) fixated the discussion on that.
-
Several posters in this thread, particularly karajorma, are far more concerned about slandering jr2's argument as racist than about actually reading it. Calling it "racist" allows you to dismiss the whole post without allowing it to challenge your thinking.
Never mind that the Japanese comparison was only one small section of the statistics, and the author even admitted it was a "crude and partial" solution. Talking about "cherry-picked nonsense", karajorma -- your last several posts have been fixated on the Japanese/Japanese-American argument, while ignoring every other statistic in jr2's post (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=90583.msg1798781#msg1798781) and the linked article
I pointed out what utter bull**** the UK part of the argument was too. And that was completely ignored, presumably cause everyone realised what bull**** it was. I have only replied to the parts that other people have attempted to argue with me about. My last posts have only been about that part of the argument because that has been the only thing anyone has cared to talk about.
Never mind that the Japanese comparison was only one small section of the statistics, and the author even admitted it was a "crude and partial" solution.
No. The source pointed out that it was crude and partial. The author of the argument jr2 posted completely ignored that fact (and the fact that it was an argument based on data that is 37 ****ing years old!) and presented it as a relevant argument why Japan's current crime rate is nothing to do with their gun ban. The source then goes on to argue that you should not use data in exactly the way that jr2's article uses it. It argues that comparing the difference between two countries in such a crude fashion should not be used to buttress pro or anti gun control arguments. Having read that, the author of jr2's article used it to buttress a pro-gun argument. That's why it is not only cherry-picked, but downright disgustingly deceitful.
The article that jr2 post is just as bad in its entirety. We could go through it line by line and dissect it. I've done that sort of thing several times before and seen others do it too, but I'm not going to do that not because I can't but because of a much more important reason.
That's why, I say again, jr2 cites statistics and you call it racist. And yet you accuse your opponents of shouting rhetoric?
Yes. Did you fail to read my earlier posts on this thread? At no point during this thread have I attempted to put forwards a pro-gun control argument. I may have called jr2's argument bull**** but I'd have done exactly the same had someone posted a similar pro-gun control post. Did you fail to notice that I have repeatedly said that using bull**** statistics about the UK to advance either side of the argument is stupid?
My feeling on this subject is that Americans will never solve the gun crime debate in any meaningful way because they prefer to shout pro and anti gun control arguments at each other rather than actually try to compromise on a solution. That is why I have no interest in taking apart the entirety of jr2's post. Because by doing so I would be continuing the fine tradition of arguing about minutia while the body count builds up.
If you want to argue pro vs anti gun control, go to it. Hell, I might even join in whenever they start bull****ting about the UK. If that's the attitude of your country, fine. It merely proved my first post on the subject was spot on about what the rest of the world should think on this issue. "It's not the people of my country dying by the bucket load, **** it!"
But if you want to actually try to suggest a compromise that might work like other people on this thread including myself have done, if you actually want to try to improve matters rather than spitting rhetoric and bull**** statistics at each other, that would be a better way to continue this thread. But given that this is not the first time I've suggested you do that, I very much doubt that's what you want.
-
I see the tone keeps very much the same in this thread... but here's something I heard Sanders say in an interview that sounded very... moderate for a hard-line socialist. I was intrigued:
edit: time stamps don't seem to work. Check 14 minutes and 50 seconds in.
-
@headdie:
I don't remember if John Oliver included the statistics of crime by persons who were suspected of mental illnesses, I'll try going through video again with some notepaper or something later on.
It should be worth noting that John Oliver's vid was not primarely about gun control, but that people need to get off their asses and fix the damn mental health issues if they say they care about it so much (instead of using it as a rhetorical device see also OP).
-
here's something I heard Sanders say in an interview that sounded very... moderate for a hard-line socialist. I was intrigued
YouTube isn't going to work here in China without a lot of effort on my part, so summarise please.
-
I'll try to use the transcript function with some (a lot of) corrections:
Let's talk about the gun issue, you called for and we we've been we've been through this a lot with you so I don't want to get into the details of it but you've called for moderation in this saying you know what you think you can bring both sides together
I wouldn't use the word moderation, not quite the right word... this is what I do believe: I come from a state that has virtually no gun control and yet at political peril I voted for an instant background check which I wanna see strengthened and expanded. I voted to ban certain types of assault weapons which are designed only to kill people, I voted to end the so-called gun show loophole. What I did say is that we can keep shouting at each other which is what's been going on here for 20 years and going nowhere and kids on campuses and children in schools are being slaughtered. What I think that needs to be is a dialogue and here's what I do believe, I believe what I would call common-sense gun reform plus a revolution in mental health making sure that our people having a nervous breakdown, suicidal or homicidal they get the care they need when they need it. I think there are vast majority of the american people can support an agenda composed of those features.
-
So he's basically saying what both of us have been saying on this thread? Yeah, he's not getting elected. :p
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the whole point of mentioning the Japanese in the article I linked to debunk the other side's claim that the low crime rates in Japan were due to their not having firearms?? And wasn't it also mentioned that it's not lots of guns or gun control laws that are the primary factor in the number of mass murder incidents?
I'm usually pretty good at reading comprehension, so if I could get a couple of verification passes on that I'd appreciate it. Good articles aren't just a string of connected ideas supporting a main point placed next to each other; the statements are supposed to be parsed in context...
And while gun-control zealots portray the United States as a wild west of murder and mayhem, our nation actually ranks only 98th in homicide rate on a list of 194 countries (http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/indicators/VC.IHR.PSRC.P5/rankings) — in the bottom 50 percent. Of course, it’s true that the U.K., often cited by gun-grabbers, has an even lower rate (note: this doesn’t contradict the Harvard study; Britain’s murder rate is lower, but its overall level of violence isn’t). It’s seldom pointed out, however, that New Hampshire has both a far higher gun-ownership rate than the U.K. but a lower murder rate. Explanation?
Demographics. As Dr. Thomas Sowell put it (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/335848/gun-control-ignorance-thomas-sowell) in 2012, “Neither guns nor gun control is the reason for the difference in murder rates. People [are] the difference.”
A major factor in the U.S. murder rate having dropped during the last few decades is that the proportion of young people — the age demographic with the highest crime rate — has dropped as our society has grayed. There are other demographic correlations, too. As Sowell wrote, “The rate of gun ownership is higher in rural areas than in urban areas, but the murder rate is higher in urban areas. The rate of gun ownership is higher among whites than among blacks, but the murder rate is higher among blacks.”
Then there’s an even more striking example. Japan, which has strict gun control, “technically” has the world’s fifth-lowest homicide rate (critics point out (http://www.davekopel.com/2A/Foreign/Japan-Gun-Control-and-People-Control.htm) that, due to the application of different criteria, that nation’s actual rate is twice the reported one). Yet Japanese-descent Americans living in the United States — under our relatively lenient gun-control laws — have a murder rate (https://books.google.com/books?id=QXeGX67ezSYC&pg=PA189&lpg=PA189&dq=japanese+american+homicide+rates+FBI&source=bl&ots=nVtUwofuJu&sig=gr9SKO-dwQcM_N4RWEk8yHA_p88&hl=en#v=onepage&q=japanese%20american%20homicide%20rates%20FBI&f=false) half that of Japanese living in Japan.
-
Yes, people are the difference -- but the article you cited explicitly makes a connection between the murder rate in Japan, the murder rate among US citizens of japanese descent, and the murder rate of the US as a whole. That sort of comparison is utter bull****. You can either compare two countries against each other, or compare the statistics for the various ethnicities inside a single one, but combining both into a single statement as the author of that article did is plainly bogus.
-
Yes, people are the difference -- but the article you cited explicitly makes a connection between the murder rate in Japan, the murder rate among US citizens of japanese descent, and the murder rate of the US as a whole. That sort of comparison is utter bull****.
I would not go as far as to say that it is utter bull****. There could be a connection. Then again, there could be not.
-
The point is that comparing them in the way that jr2's article does is bull****. This is something that the source of jr2's article makes explicitly clear. The author of jr2's article then ignored that and used the data to make exactly the sort of argument his own source said not to make using that data.
So not only is it bull****, it's highly dishonest bull****.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the whole point of mentioning the Japanese in the article I linked to debunk the other side's claim that the low crime rates in Japan were due to their not having firearms?? And wasn't it also mentioned that it's not lots of guns or gun control laws that are the primary factor in the number of mass murder incidents?
No it wasn't. If that was the reason, then they would have paraphrased the sources argument about how such comparisons are stupid. They would have explained how you can easily distort statistics in this fashion. Instead they deliberately presented a flawed argument as if it was a good one in order to mislead people. Nor would the author have quoted this particular section
When Kates and Mauser compared England with the United States, they found “’a negative correlation,’ that is, ‘where firearms are most dense violent crime rates are lowest, and where guns are least dense, violent crime rates are highest.’ There is no consistent significant positive association between gun ownership levels and violence rates.”
Since once again this is the kind of bull**** their own source warned against.
-
Just because it dosnt happen often dosnt mean it dosnt happen. Also cant watch the video due to region locking but is there any mention of instances where suspected mental health issues with no formal diagnosis?
Mr. Oliver's segment didn't mention any instances where perpetrators were suspected of mental illness without a formal diagnosis, here's a link to the article he probably cited: Community Violence Perpetration and Victimization Among Adults with Mental Illnesses (http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301680)
Unfortunately the publisher's website requires users to have an account to actually view it. :banghead:
-
Dunno if it's been posted before, but I found a nice analysis of one of Obama's statements on gun laws:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/06/barack-obama/obama-more-gun-laws-means-fewer-gun-deaths/
It highlights (and backs with numbers) a few interesting correlations between gun ownership, gun laws and gun deaths.
-
About gun laws. Looks like recent events made it "hot topic" among EU officials.
http://www.firearms-united.eu/firearms-united-articles
I have a strange feeling that terrorists in Europe may have another goal. Topic of gun ownership is raised every time something tragic happens and some people always try to force more restricted laws that will strike only law-obeying citizens. So it means that with every attack they are closer to completely disarm Europeans. Which is pretty possible in my opinion, knowing the "wise" decisions of which European Commission is capable.
As a person who plans to obtain a gun licence for sport purposes and is an active Airsoft player this is unacceptable. I can understand some fear about firearms but dragging "replicas" or deactivated guns into that is just pure bull****. What will be next? Pepper spray, knives, axes? Reckless, hectic move made under influence of boiling emotions.
Anyway. I hope that this idea will die soon and not proceed any further. Bad guy will always get a gun if he wants to. legally or not.
-
I have a strange feeling that terrorists in Europe may have another goal. Topic of gun ownership is raised every time something tragic happens and some people always try to force more restricted laws that will strike only law-obeying citizens. So it means that with every attack they are closer to completely disarm Europeans.
How would that help them? I don't think there's much likelihood even now that upon a terrorist attack, a private citizen runs home, gets their gun out of a cabinet and runs back to the scene of the attack to shoot the terrorist. I'm pretty sure that in no european country is concealed carry a thing like it is in for example the US.
Bad guy will always get a gun if he wants to. legally or not.
Really? If I turned a bad guy tomorrow, I'd have no idea where and how to get a gun illegally. It'd take quite some time to figure out, with presumably a very uncertain outcome. I might make educated guesses about where some hunting rifles could be found, but stealing those would incur its own risk of getting caught.
If I was a career criminal, part of a terrorist organization or just otherwise happened to have particularly shady acquiantances? Sure, then I probably could. But bad guys connected to a network of other bad guys from whom to acquire guns is just a subset of all bad guys (and if that's all that you meant, then fair enough).
Of course, stricter gun legislation probably doesn't make it any harder to obtain a gun illegally, which I suppose was your point. I'm just saying that it's not something anyone can just automatically accomplish (especially on short notice) if they want.
-
I have a strange feeling that terrorists in Europe may have another goal. Topic of gun ownership is raised every time something tragic happens and some people always try to force more restricted laws that will strike only law-obeying citizens. So it means that with every attack they are closer to completely disarm Europeans.
How would that help them? I don't think there's much likelihood even now that upon a terrorist attack, a private citizen runs home, gets their gun out of a cabinet and runs back to the scene of the attack to shoot the terrorist. I'm pretty sure that in no european country is concealed carry a thing like it is in for example the US.
Bad guy will always get a gun if he wants to. legally or not.
Really? If I turned a bad guy tomorrow, I'd have no idea where and how to get a gun illegally. It'd take quite some time to figure out, with presumably a very uncertain outcome. I might make educated guesses about where some hunting rifles could be found, but stealing those would incur its own risk of getting caught.
If I was a career criminal, part of a terrorist organization or just otherwise happened to have particularly shady acquiantances? Sure, then I probably could. But bad guys connected to a network of other bad guys from whom to acquire guns is just a subset of all bad guys (and if that's all that you meant, then fair enough).
Of course, stricter gun legislation probably doesn't make it any harder to obtain a gun illegally, which I suppose was your point. I'm just saying that it's not something anyone can just automatically accomplish (especially on short notice) if they want.
In Poland if I had a sport gun license I can carry a LOADED gun in a holster (that is a quite recent change in our law. It was changed in 01.10.2014 and I was pretty shocked when I found out. Before that you had to carry weapon and ammo separately) Actually many people complain that our law is very tough in that matter but after some studying and drilling deeper into the topic I found out that it's not true. If you are responsible person without criminal past then it's not a problem. Just follow the procedures. As for your latter point. Well. I have to agree. Legal distribution of firearms also creates some risk. But that's what the verification procedures are for and it's up to police to give permissions to proper people. But to me, the EC's ideas are a complete misunderstanding. They want to counter terrorism acts but as you mention. If somebody is a member of an organized criminal network he will get illegal weapon no matter how hard for a lawful citizens gun policy will be.
Of course I'm not agitating for uncontrolled and radical liberalization of gun laws. It could be more dangerous then tightening them. But I do not think that will do any good as well. Other people, not only hunters or sportsmen will be affected by this idiocy as well. For example historical weapons collectors and Airsoft players.
No need to make life more difficult for lawful shooters and firearms fans.
-
If somebody is a member of an organized criminal network he will get illegal weapon no matter how hard for a lawful citizens gun policy will be.
Ask the yakuza in Japan how well that works. They're actually having a major dustup right now; the dominant organized crime group in the country is in the middle of a civil war and the smaller groups are attacking them. One of the major figures in the struggle was recently beaten to death.
Not shot. In fact the largest organized crime struggle in decades in Japan has resulted in precisely zero people being shot so far.
Because it's hard for them to get guns due to Japan's extremely strict laws about acquiring and importing firearms.
The tautological statement that if you outlaw guns only criminals will have them is literally true, but its metaphorical truth is intensely debateable. In the US where laws vary by state, for example, it's been common for people who trace guns used in gang violence in LA to Arizona, or New York City to Georgia; from areas with high restrictions to areas with low ones, and no borders that would have to be surmounted in between. If the guns were not easily accessed at their points of origin, they would not be easily used elsewhere either.
-
@Col.Hornet
no sir. this world is no place for reasonable middle grounds, you need to pick a side and then go to it's furthest most radical, most unreasonable extreme.
-
In the US where laws vary by state, for example, it's been common for people who trace guns used in gang violence in LA to Arizona, or New York City to Georgia; from areas with high restrictions to areas with low ones, and no borders that would have to be surmounted in between. If the guns were not easily accessed at their points of origin, they would not be easily used elsewhere either.
And that's why the EU feel the need to get involved in this. EU borders are pretty open and the countries with strict laws don't want guns coming in from the countries without.
-
If somebody is a member of an organized criminal network he will get illegal weapon no matter how hard for a lawful citizens gun policy will be.
Ask the yakuza in Japan how well that works. They're actually having a major dustup right now; the dominant organized crime group in the country is in the middle of a civil war and the smaller groups are attacking them. One of the major figures in the struggle was recently beaten to death.
Not shot. In fact the largest organized crime struggle in decades in Japan has resulted in precisely zero people being shot so far.
Because it's hard for them to get guns due to Japan's extremely strict laws about acquiring and importing firearms.
The tautological statement that if you outlaw guns only criminals will have them is literally true, but its metaphorical truth is intensely debateable. In the US where laws vary by state, for example, it's been common for people who trace guns used in gang violence in LA to Arizona, or New York City to Georgia; from areas with high restrictions to areas with low ones, and no borders that would have to be surmounted in between. If the guns were not easily accessed at their points of origin, they would not be easily used elsewhere either.
Of course. But let's consider why and how Japan was so successful on getting rid of the gun crimes. At least not Japanese by themselves in 100% ;) It were the WWII victors who wanted their people completely disarmed so they removed all firearms from the civilian sector and army was reduced to the minimum. Add to it the fact that Japan is a complex of Islands in the middle of the ocean with pretty well organised border security. So no doubt getting permission for a gun is almost impossible, so does firearms smuggling. I doubt that an all out "gun ban" without the revision of border security policy in the first place will give us more safety. Illegal, smuggled guns are much bigger threat then firearms possessed legally.
As for buying legal gun in one place to use it for a crime in the other. It all depends on the procedures. I don't know how the gun policy in every EU country looks like but I guess that in the vast majority they are pretty tight. Another factor is the time to go through all them. It also costs a lot of money. And let's not forget that police departments among the EU share intel between themselves so let's say that if somebody associated/ suspected of supporting terrorists groups would like to buy a gun in Poland and use it to let's say perform an attack in Germany he would have never got the permission for the gun because our police would have already been informed of the fact. Of course there is a possibility that such guy could buy a gun through another person but the costs of entire procedure are very high (higher then the price on the black market I suppose).
-
But let's consider why and how Japan was so successful on getting rid of the gun crimes. At least not Japanese by themselves in 100% ;) It were the WWII victors who wanted their people completely disarmed so they removed all firearms from the civilian sector and army was reduced to the minimum.
Stop. You don't know a thing about Japanese history at all, and your arguments fall apart right here. This didn't happen, mainly because it wasn't necessary.
Japan's history with arms control goes back at least to the Tokugawa Shogunate, if not earlier, and the Sword Hunt that sought to prevent non-samurai from owning blades longer than the proscribed length. They've been doing gun control-like measures since before they had guns. As such they've been wildly successful in lowering the amount of violence (the current gang war is equally notable for the fact that few people are getting stabbed, again because of regulation on the ownership of knives instituted after the mass-stabbing incidents of the '70s).
For an alternate answer, we could consider the low rate of firearms crime in the UK, which has been regulating the ownership of personal firearms at least since WW1 as a response to the IRA. How would you opt to explain that?
-
yeah, Japan has a gun culture that is almost the polar opposite of the US's for about three times as long. There were military forces that used guns back in the day and generally considered assholes for it.
-
But let's consider why and how Japan was so successful on getting rid of the gun crimes. At least not Japanese by themselves in 100% ;) It were the WWII victors who wanted their people completely disarmed so they removed all firearms from the civilian sector and army was reduced to the minimum.
Stop. You don't know a thing about Japanese history at all, and your arguments fall apart right here. This didn't happen, mainly because it wasn't necessary.
Japan's history with arms control goes back at least to the Tokugawa Shogunate, if not earlier, and the Sword Hunt that sought to prevent non-samurai from owning blades longer than the proscribed length. They've been doing gun control-like measures since before they had guns. As such they've been wildly successful in lowering the amount of violence (the current gang war is equally notable for the fact that few people are getting stabbed, again because of regulation on the ownership of knives instituted after the mass-stabbing incidents of the '70s).
Point taken. Thanks for explanation :) But still, the "core" of my thought remains correct. This country has a good conditions to prevent weapon-related violence. Combination of social attitude <forged by as you mentioned, hundreds of years of regulations. People are just used to the rules> and limited opportunities to create a black market for firearms. Can't say the same thing about Europe. Even if we raise restrictions <which will affect not only the firearms!>, the problem of illegal stuff will remain intact. Eu's current actions are just scratching the surface of the problem which is far more complicated. Desperate attempt to heal the symptoms while ignoring the source of them. The weapons purchased on black market. This trace leads further like the question from where these weapons come from and how they are transported to our countries and a lot more.
But hitting the rightful people's freedom is always easier. Maybe some politicians will feel better if they do anything, show the people that they are doing something to solve problem, no matter if it's reasonable or not.
As for the situation in the UK. Can't answer right now. I would have to dig through the sources. That should not be a problem. I did a university cartographic project few months ago. I created a map which showed the quantity of registered firearms in EU per capita and it's relations with the crimes. I based it mostly on the data from EuroStat.