|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On June 19 2015 11:16 Wegandi wrote:
Makes argument that drug prohibition has caused untold 'unintended' consequences, least of which is drug violence, gangs/cartels, and police militarization. Goes on to advocate for gun prohibition. You can't make these things up. Then someone points to alcohol prohibition as a model. LMAO. Good, one guys. Keep up those sterling arguments.
I actually like the fact that you bring up this argument. Prohibition doesn't work for things like alcohol and cigarettes, but do you know what does decrease use? Taxation.
|
On June 19 2015 12:06 Livelovedie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2015 11:16 Wegandi wrote:
Makes argument that drug prohibition has caused untold 'unintended' consequences, least of which is drug violence, gangs/cartels, and police militarization. Goes on to advocate for gun prohibition. You can't make these things up. Then someone points to alcohol prohibition as a model. LMAO. Good, one guys. Keep up those sterling arguments. I actually like the fact that you bring up this argument. Prohibition doesn't work for things like alcohol and cigarettes, but do you know what does decrease use? Taxation.
No, taxation just moves it into the black market. That's how/why Eric Garner died. If you want to decrease something that you perceive as dangerous (or whatever your moral judgment) you have to convince others through evidence. That's the reason why cigarette use is down with our generation because we're more medically knowledgeable (for the most part) and we'd rather spend our money on something else (for the most part). No command on high from the deity; our god - the Government.
If there is any entity/people/organization that needs to be disarmed it is the Government. For all the moral outrage (and rightfully so), there is little condemnation about all the killings and murders the USG has committed. Of course, if the Government were disarmed they'd have no 'teeth' to do the authoritarian bidding of using violence to shape the way people act and behave to fit your personal moral beliefs.
Governments kill more than 200 million in the 20th Century, enslave their populations, and no cries for disarmament. Some thousands are killed by 'private' gun ownership each year, mostly a result from the Governments own act of Drug Prohibition, and hell hath razed to disarm the population to put us at the mercy of those who are armed (The Government). I'm sure voting will do a lot of good, as history is any indication.
|
On June 19 2015 11:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2015 10:24 Introvert wrote:
Thank heavens we still have our guns and gun rights for a while longer. Still scary that Heller was 5-4, but at least that kept the second amendment alive and useful for much longer. Out of curiosity, what do you think would happen to Americans if they lost their right to bear arms? I think there would be a lot of outrage, but I don't think Americans would be any less safe or that we would be any worse off as a society in the long run.
You mean if it happened quickly? I assume there would be a lot of gun owners refusing to turn them in, and a lot of emphasis on the matter at the next election.
|
On June 19 2015 12:39 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2015 12:06 Livelovedie wrote:On June 19 2015 11:16 Wegandi wrote:
Makes argument that drug prohibition has caused untold 'unintended' consequences, least of which is drug violence, gangs/cartels, and police militarization. Goes on to advocate for gun prohibition. You can't make these things up. Then someone points to alcohol prohibition as a model. LMAO. Good, one guys. Keep up those sterling arguments. I actually like the fact that you bring up this argument. Prohibition doesn't work for things like alcohol and cigarettes, but do you know what does decrease use? Taxation. No, taxation just moves it into the black market. That's how/why Eric Garner died. If you want to decrease something that you perceive as dangerous (or whatever your moral judgment) you have to convince others through evidence. That's the reason why cigarette use is down with our generation because we're more medically knowledgeable (for the most part) and we'd rather spend our money on something else (for the most part). No command on high from the deity; our god - the Government. If there is any entity/people/organization that needs to be disarmed it is the Government. For all the moral outrage (and rightfully so), there is little condemnation about all the killings and murders the USG has committed. Of course, if the Government were disarmed they'd have no 'teeth' to do the authoritarian bidding of using violence to shape the way people act and behave to fit your personal moral beliefs. Governments kill more than 200 million in the 20th Century, enslave their populations, and no cries for disarmament. Some thousands are killed by 'private' gun ownership each year, mostly a result from the Governments own act of Drug Prohibition, and hell hath razed to disarm the population to put us at the mercy of those who are armed (The Government). I'm sure voting will do a lot of good, as history is any indication.
Yes, cigarette education is improving...because of Government enforced rules and regulations for the sale and advertising of cigarettes.
It's amazing to think that political strawmen sometimes exist...
|
On June 19 2015 12:39 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2015 12:06 Livelovedie wrote:On June 19 2015 11:16 Wegandi wrote:
Makes argument that drug prohibition has caused untold 'unintended' consequences, least of which is drug violence, gangs/cartels, and police militarization. Goes on to advocate for gun prohibition. You can't make these things up. Then someone points to alcohol prohibition as a model. LMAO. Good, one guys. Keep up those sterling arguments. I actually like the fact that you bring up this argument. Prohibition doesn't work for things like alcohol and cigarettes, but do you know what does decrease use? Taxation. No, taxation just moves it into the black market. That's how/why Eric Garner died. If you want to decrease something that you perceive as dangerous (or whatever your moral judgment) you have to convince others through evidence. That's the reason why cigarette use is down with our generation because we're more medically knowledgeable (for the most part) and we'd rather spend our money on something else (for the most part). No command on high from the deity; our god - the Government. If there is any entity/people/organization that needs to be disarmed it is the Government. For all the moral outrage (and rightfully so), there is little condemnation about all the killings and murders the USG has committed. Of course, if the Government were disarmed they'd have no 'teeth' to do the authoritarian bidding of using violence to shape the way people act and behave to fit your personal moral beliefs. Governments kill more than 200 million in the 20th Century, enslave their populations, and no cries for disarmament. Some thousands are killed by 'private' gun ownership each year, mostly a result from the Governments own act of Drug Prohibition, and hell hath razed to disarm the population to put us at the mercy of those who are armed (The Government). I'm sure voting will do a lot of good, as history is any indication.
I don't think a lot of the youth that pick up smoking are desperate to go to the "black market" for cigarettes. Price point does have a substantial effect on youth smoking rates.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25658771
|
Taxation doesn't automatically move cigarettes to the black market. You can tax them pretty heavily without creating a big black market. It's when you tax the ever loving shit out of them you create the need for a black market, the cost is so obscene there's a demand for it and it's actually worth it. If you don't go full retard on the bit you can dissuade some people from buying because its too expensive while not being worth it to involve criminal enterprise. At ~$7 for a pack people feel it and they might quit or switch to vaping because they can't justify the spending but a black market isn't happening. At $14 a pack it's time to start selling some black market cigarettes boys!
Taxation can be used to decrease usage without moving anything to the criminal underground if done properly.
|
On June 19 2015 12:39 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2015 12:06 Livelovedie wrote:On June 19 2015 11:16 Wegandi wrote:
Makes argument that drug prohibition has caused untold 'unintended' consequences, least of which is drug violence, gangs/cartels, and police militarization. Goes on to advocate for gun prohibition. You can't make these things up. Then someone points to alcohol prohibition as a model. LMAO. Good, one guys. Keep up those sterling arguments. I actually like the fact that you bring up this argument. Prohibition doesn't work for things like alcohol and cigarettes, but do you know what does decrease use? Taxation. No, taxation just moves it into the black market. That's how/why Eric Garner died. If you want to decrease something that you perceive as dangerous (or whatever your moral judgment) you have to convince others through evidence. That's the reason why cigarette use is down with our generation because we're more medically knowledgeable (for the most part) and we'd rather spend our money on something else (for the most part). No command on high from the deity; our god - the Government. If there is any entity/people/organization that needs to be disarmed it is the Government. For all the moral outrage (and rightfully so), there is little condemnation about all the killings and murders the USG has committed. Of course, if the Government were disarmed they'd have no 'teeth' to do the authoritarian bidding of using violence to shape the way people act and behave to fit your personal moral beliefs. Governments kill more than 200 million in the 20th Century, enslave their populations, and no cries for disarmament. Some thousands are killed by 'private' gun ownership each year, mostly a result from the Governments own act of Drug Prohibition, and hell hath razed to disarm the population to put us at the mercy of those who are armed (The Government). I'm sure voting will do a lot of good, as history is any indication.
What do you say about the fact that our country is an outlier for gun deaths? I mean come on you are talking like government is inherently evil and will dominate their citizens through violence and that people need to be armed to somehow stop this? How has people being armed with the small arms ever going to be some real deterrent? The shit the USG pulls when it kills people is a serious issue but its an entirely different issue imo. individual or small groups of individuals vs the large conglomerate of institutions are not the same issues (but both have the need to be addressed). Plus isn't government something that is an extension of the "moral" beliefs of its populace (in a democracy theoretically anyways).
Europe seems to do pretty well for itself with populations that are much less armed. Yes the police and such need to be demilitarized but you can't say that the status quo on the gun issue is perfectly working. You don't even need to be radical about it, you can gradually try to shift away from guns being a big part of our culture. Why are guns so easy to get illegally and how can we stop them should be a big issue.
|
On June 19 2015 15:01 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2015 12:39 Wegandi wrote:On June 19 2015 12:06 Livelovedie wrote:On June 19 2015 11:16 Wegandi wrote:
Makes argument that drug prohibition has caused untold 'unintended' consequences, least of which is drug violence, gangs/cartels, and police militarization. Goes on to advocate for gun prohibition. You can't make these things up. Then someone points to alcohol prohibition as a model. LMAO. Good, one guys. Keep up those sterling arguments. I actually like the fact that you bring up this argument. Prohibition doesn't work for things like alcohol and cigarettes, but do you know what does decrease use? Taxation. No, taxation just moves it into the black market. That's how/why Eric Garner died. If you want to decrease something that you perceive as dangerous (or whatever your moral judgment) you have to convince others through evidence. That's the reason why cigarette use is down with our generation because we're more medically knowledgeable (for the most part) and we'd rather spend our money on something else (for the most part). No command on high from the deity; our god - the Government. If there is any entity/people/organization that needs to be disarmed it is the Government. For all the moral outrage (and rightfully so), there is little condemnation about all the killings and murders the USG has committed. Of course, if the Government were disarmed they'd have no 'teeth' to do the authoritarian bidding of using violence to shape the way people act and behave to fit your personal moral beliefs. Governments kill more than 200 million in the 20th Century, enslave their populations, and no cries for disarmament. Some thousands are killed by 'private' gun ownership each year, mostly a result from the Governments own act of Drug Prohibition, and hell hath razed to disarm the population to put us at the mercy of those who are armed (The Government). I'm sure voting will do a lot of good, as history is any indication. What do you say about the fact that our country is an outlier for gun deaths? I mean come on you are talking like government is inherently evil and will dominate their citizens through violence and that people need to be armed to somehow stop this? How has people being armed with the small arms ever going to be some real deterrent? The shit the USG pulls when it kills people is a serious issue but its an entirely different issue imo. individual or small groups of individuals vs the large conglomerate of institutions are not the same issues (but both have the need to be addressed). Plus isn't government something that is an extension of the "moral" beliefs of its populace (in a democracy theoretically anyways). Europe seems to do pretty well for itself with populations that are much less armed. Yes the police and such need to be demilitarized but you can't say that the status quo on the gun issue is perfectly working. You don't even need to be radical about it, you can gradually try to shift away from guns being a big part of our culture. Why are guns so easy to get illegally and how can we stop them should be a big issue.
Yes, Government is inherently evil, and the very nature of Government is a domination of one group of people over another. I think Franz Oppenheimer made that case water-tight (both empirically, and philosophically/politically). Tell it to Native American's that the Government isn't an evil institution. All history is, is the lineage of one group of people proclaiming themselves the Government, dominating another group of people under their own domineering Government. It's no different today.
I am also curious as to why you either dismissed or ignored the fact that Governments killed over 200+ million people last century, and are on course for more deaths this century. This seems to be of such a sheer humanitarian disaster that it warrants way more resources and attention than a few thousand at the hands of the consequences of the Government's own writs of prohibition (for the most part). Beyond that fact, there is also the fact that violent crimes (including homicides) have been on a sharp decline the past 25 years. This has coincided (while the causal relationship can be said to be tenuous, it's pretty far-fetched to dismiss it out of hand) with a liberalization of gun laws in this country (in the classical sense of liberalism). I could also point to so-called 'gun free' countries and their high rates of violent crime in comparison to the US. Either way you want to spin the statistics on the minutae can make it look however you want for whatever viewpoint that is being espoused. The fact that cannot be ignored, is the atrocities committed by Governments the world over, history over. Why on Earth there is no clarion call for their disarmament with the same fervor I can only chalk up to their wonderful propaganda organs in the media and in academia and in the quite insane modern idea of 'Democracy' and us being the Government (how laughable).
In any event - disarm the Government, not the people.
|
On June 19 2015 15:48 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2015 15:01 Slaughter wrote:On June 19 2015 12:39 Wegandi wrote:On June 19 2015 12:06 Livelovedie wrote:On June 19 2015 11:16 Wegandi wrote:
Makes argument that drug prohibition has caused untold 'unintended' consequences, least of which is drug violence, gangs/cartels, and police militarization. Goes on to advocate for gun prohibition. You can't make these things up. Then someone points to alcohol prohibition as a model. LMAO. Good, one guys. Keep up those sterling arguments. I actually like the fact that you bring up this argument. Prohibition doesn't work for things like alcohol and cigarettes, but do you know what does decrease use? Taxation. No, taxation just moves it into the black market. That's how/why Eric Garner died. If you want to decrease something that you perceive as dangerous (or whatever your moral judgment) you have to convince others through evidence. That's the reason why cigarette use is down with our generation because we're more medically knowledgeable (for the most part) and we'd rather spend our money on something else (for the most part). No command on high from the deity; our god - the Government. If there is any entity/people/organization that needs to be disarmed it is the Government. For all the moral outrage (and rightfully so), there is little condemnation about all the killings and murders the USG has committed. Of course, if the Government were disarmed they'd have no 'teeth' to do the authoritarian bidding of using violence to shape the way people act and behave to fit your personal moral beliefs. Governments kill more than 200 million in the 20th Century, enslave their populations, and no cries for disarmament. Some thousands are killed by 'private' gun ownership each year, mostly a result from the Governments own act of Drug Prohibition, and hell hath razed to disarm the population to put us at the mercy of those who are armed (The Government). I'm sure voting will do a lot of good, as history is any indication. What do you say about the fact that our country is an outlier for gun deaths? I mean come on you are talking like government is inherently evil and will dominate their citizens through violence and that people need to be armed to somehow stop this? How has people being armed with the small arms ever going to be some real deterrent? The shit the USG pulls when it kills people is a serious issue but its an entirely different issue imo. individual or small groups of individuals vs the large conglomerate of institutions are not the same issues (but both have the need to be addressed). Plus isn't government something that is an extension of the "moral" beliefs of its populace (in a democracy theoretically anyways). Europe seems to do pretty well for itself with populations that are much less armed. Yes the police and such need to be demilitarized but you can't say that the status quo on the gun issue is perfectly working. You don't even need to be radical about it, you can gradually try to shift away from guns being a big part of our culture. Why are guns so easy to get illegally and how can we stop them should be a big issue. Yes, Government is inherently evil, and the very nature of Government is a domination of one group of people over another. I think Franz Oppenheimer made that case water-tight (both empirically, and philosophically/politically). Tell it to Native American's that the Government isn't an evil institution. All history is, is the lineage of one group of people proclaiming themselves the Government, dominating another group of people under their own domineering Government. It's no different today. I am also curious as to why you either dismissed or ignored the fact that Governments killed over 200+ million people last century, and are on course for more deaths this century. This seems to be of such a sheer humanitarian disaster that it warrants way more resources and attention than a few thousand at the hands of the consequences of the Government's own writs of prohibition (for the most part). Beyond that fact, there is also the fact that violent crimes (including homicides) have been on a sharp decline the past 25 years. This has coincided (while the causal relationship can be said to be tenuous, it's pretty far-fetched to dismiss it out of hand) with a liberalization of gun laws in this country (in the classical sense of liberalism). I could also point to so-called 'gun free' countries and their high rates of violent crime in comparison to the US. Either way you want to spin the statistics on the minutae can make it look however you want for whatever viewpoint that is being espoused. The fact that cannot be ignored, is the atrocities committed by Governments the world over, history over. Why on Earth there is no clarion call for their disarmament with the same fervor I can only chalk up to their wonderful propaganda organs in the media and in academia and in the quite insane modern idea of 'Democracy' and us being the Government (how laughable). In any event - disarm the Government, not the people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_relative_privation
It's not one or the other. Disarm both.
And your "sharp decline" of violent crimes still leaves your entire country with far more comparatively than most other 1st world nations.
|
On June 19 2015 15:01 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2015 12:39 Wegandi wrote:On June 19 2015 12:06 Livelovedie wrote:On June 19 2015 11:16 Wegandi wrote:
Makes argument that drug prohibition has caused untold 'unintended' consequences, least of which is drug violence, gangs/cartels, and police militarization. Goes on to advocate for gun prohibition. You can't make these things up. Then someone points to alcohol prohibition as a model. LMAO. Good, one guys. Keep up those sterling arguments. I actually like the fact that you bring up this argument. Prohibition doesn't work for things like alcohol and cigarettes, but do you know what does decrease use? Taxation. No, taxation just moves it into the black market. That's how/why Eric Garner died. If you want to decrease something that you perceive as dangerous (or whatever your moral judgment) you have to convince others through evidence. That's the reason why cigarette use is down with our generation because we're more medically knowledgeable (for the most part) and we'd rather spend our money on something else (for the most part). No command on high from the deity; our god - the Government. If there is any entity/people/organization that needs to be disarmed it is the Government. For all the moral outrage (and rightfully so), there is little condemnation about all the killings and murders the USG has committed. Of course, if the Government were disarmed they'd have no 'teeth' to do the authoritarian bidding of using violence to shape the way people act and behave to fit your personal moral beliefs. Governments kill more than 200 million in the 20th Century, enslave their populations, and no cries for disarmament. Some thousands are killed by 'private' gun ownership each year, mostly a result from the Governments own act of Drug Prohibition, and hell hath razed to disarm the population to put us at the mercy of those who are armed (The Government). I'm sure voting will do a lot of good, as history is any indication. What do you say about the fact that our country is an outlier for gun deaths? I mean come on you are talking like government is inherently evil and will dominate their citizens through violence and that people need to be armed to somehow stop this? How has people being armed with the small arms ever going to be some real deterrent? The shit the USG pulls when it kills people is a serious issue but its an entirely different issue imo. individual or small groups of individuals vs the large conglomerate of institutions are not the same issues (but both have the need to be addressed). Plus isn't government something that is an extension of the "moral" beliefs of its populace (in a democracy theoretically anyways). Europe seems to do pretty well for itself with populations that are much less armed. Yes the police and such need to be demilitarized but you can't say that the status quo on the gun issue is perfectly working. You don't even need to be radical about it, you can gradually try to shift away from guns being a big part of our culture. Why are guns so easy to get illegally and how can we stop them should be a big issue.
On June 19 2015 08:51 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2015 08:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:The Number Of People Who Use A Gun In Self-Defense Is Pretty Much Negligible
The day after 21-year-old Dylann Roof allegedly shot and killed nine members of the Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, SC, Fox & Friends claimed congregants could have defended themselves if someone had a gun.
But a timely study from the Violence Policy Center (VPC) concluded that guns are rarely used for defensive purposes. According to the most recent data that’s available, there were 8,342 criminal firearm homicides by private citizens (non-law enforcement members) in 2012 — as opposed to 259 justifiable homicides. In other words, there were 32 criminal homicides for every killing of a felon who was in the process of committing a crime. And 13 states reported zero justifiable homicides that year.
As noted by VPC, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) observed a similar trend in previous years. Between 2007 and 2011, 29,618,300 people experienced a violent crime, but only 235,700 — 0.8 percent — of victims used or threatened to use a gun in self-defense. Findings from both the VPC and NCVS supplement studies verifying that more guns lead to more crimes.
Still, gun advocates keep arguing that guns are great for self-defense.
“The reality of self-defense gun use bears no resemblance to the exaggerated claims of the gun lobby and gun industry. The number of justifiable homicides that occur in our nation each year pale in comparison to criminal homicides, let alone gun suicides and fatal unintentional shootings,” the study reads. “The idea that firearms are frequently used in self-defense is the primary argument that the gun lobby and firearms industry use to expand the carrying of firearms into an ever-increasing number of public spaces and even to prevent the regulation of military-style semiautomatic assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines.”
In response to the tragedy, President Obama discussed the frequency of mass shootings in the U.S. “We don’t have all the facts, but we do know that once again, innocent people were killed in part because someone who wanted to inflict harm had no trouble getting their hands on a gun,” he said. “Now is the time for mourning and for healing. But let’s be clear. At some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries. It doesn’t happen in other places with this kind of frequency." ~ http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/06/18/3671392/study-people-use-guns-self-defense/ It sounds like gun owners need a better argument than "self-defense", as that possibility is apparently very, very unlikely. Isn't this a self-fulfilling prophesy though? Guns are almost impossible to legally obtain and carry in high-crime areas like Chicago, D.C., Baltimore, etc. Additionally, many public places where "random" violence would break out like a school, theater, bar, etc also do not allow guns via legislation. Thus, the data is systematically skewed against people having a gun available for self defense where they are most likely to need it. Its like when you argue against the "militia" reasoning for personal weapons by saying, "what are you going to do with a handgun against an army" which is just using previous legislation (banning people from having military-grade weapons) to justify further legislation.[/QUOTE]
Plus we are seeing that immigrant populations in Europe are often also highly violent:
The French government does not publish statistics on the religion or ethnicity of its prison population, but sociologists estimate that at least 50 percent of French prisoners come from the roughly 7 percent Muslim minority.
Links
Using European statistics to justify gun control is like using Jared to justify eating at Subway.
|
What does it matter that european countries have crime Problems too? Europe seems to do better in this aspect, is it perfect? Hell no. but if you only want change that achieves perfection you might also stop before even trying.
|
A Washington Post analysis of Pew Research Center polling on racial issues shows that half of white people do not sense black people are treated less fairly than whites -- by police, employers, doctors, restaurants and schools, and at the ballot box.
The whites who see no racism around them are far more conservative than the population as a whole, more often male and more likely to live in rural areas. Three-fifths of white Republicans see no racism, compared to about a third of white Democrats.
Source
|
Obama's on about America's mass murders, after Hebdo. Marketplace favoring Jews assaulted, 11 dead 11 injured. But France is an advanced country, as Obama says? Breivik anyone? School shootings, I think Germany's leading on that one .. Erfut & Winniden. But when you qualify frequency and depending on how you define advanced, I suppose Obama's got some technical basis.
Topic prompts all this discussion on gun control (Never let a good crisis go to waste!), and unluckily SC is one of the strictest in the nation, up there with my state of California. Open carry banned, permits required with simple passage of background check, state-approved course, fingerprints, live fire, and a written test. Bad luck, gun control advocates.
|
On June 19 2015 18:16 Danglars wrote:
Obama's on about America's mass murders, after Hebdo. Marketplace favoring Jews assaulted, 11 dead 11 injured. But France is an advanced country, as Obama says? Breivik anyone? School shootings, I think Germany's leading on that one .. Erfut & Winniden. But when you qualify frequency and depending on how you define advanced, I suppose Obama's got some technical basis.
Topic prompts all this discussion on gun control (Never let a good crisis go to waste!), and unluckily SC is one of the strictest in the nation, up there with my state of California. Open carry banned, permits required with simple passage of background check, state-approved course, fingerprints, live fire, and a written test. Bad luck, gun control advocates.
You have to be purposeful when distributing this much ignorance.
The rampant legality of guns has made the entire country, as a whole, the world's best marketplace for guns. We manufacture more guns. We trade and sell more guns. We have more guns. This isn't a city issue. It isn't a state issue. The entire country is effected by the mass-production and distribution of guns.
Also, you "think" Germany is leading in school shootings? Then you're grossly ignorant. There isn't anything in the world to back up that statement.
The gun violence, any way you slice it, any comparison you want to make, is exorbitant in this country. It is a problem, unless you think people getting shot is a good thing. And problems need to be discussed -- most especially when they result in a tragedy.
"Never let a good crisis go to waste"?
How nice of you to judge the intent of anyone who worries about gun violence. Honestly: fuck you for that comment, I don't care if that gets me a ban, I'm so tired of hearing this bullshit pathetic excuse every time we're confronted with a tragedy, which is sickeningly, obviously, far too often.
You insinuate that anyone who complains about gun-violence is "exploiting tragedies". I insinuate that people who want gun-control care about American lives. And you, really don't.
Maybe that stupid "you're exploiting a tragedy" bullshit would make a modicum of sense, except we have gun tragedies all the time. If we can't talk about gun control after an incident of gun-violence, out of respect to your delicate "sensibilities", then we can never talk about gun control.
Who cares that we have multiple times the gun violence per capita than every other civilized country? Let's ignore that out of "respect" for this awful tragedy. What horse-crap.
We can talk about gun-control, and argue about it. But people like you would rather just dismiss the discussion from atop your imaginary high-horse, and I find that very telling.
|
I dont think anyone sane can argue that gun control can work in America in this day and age. There is too many guns in cirucaltion and Americans love their guns. Unless there is some cultural shift like on the isuue of samesex marraiges there is no way gun ban can work. And gun ban/restricion doesnt stop every gun crime. It works by simple virtue of statistics, it does prevent some crime of passion - as someone might not have time to aquire a gun or might rethink some things in process of getting one. But for someone with dedication of Breivik obtaing a gun is only minor obstacle. There is no way to know how many gun related deaths have been avoided due to gun restrictions.
One has also to take into account society. As everyone knows gun availibility isnt the only factor affecting gun related deaths. But i would argue ( based only on intuition) that US is the country that would benefit the most from super strict gun control. It is impossible to implament though.
Edit: As anegdotal evidence. I just read in Polish news that 51 year old women armed with a gun replica and gas bootle stormed kindergarten and tried to take hostages. Nobody was hurt. She has probably psychiatric problems. Most likely she used toy gun because she couldnt gain acess to real one. Imagine how it might have ended if she had real gun. Of course there is no way to know what would happen if guns were freely available in Poland, we can only guess.
|
On June 19 2015 18:37 Silvanel wrote:
I dont think anyone sane can argue that gun control can work in America in this day and age. There is too many guns in cirucaltion and Americans love their guns. Unless there is some cultural shift like on the isuue of samesex marraiges there is no way gun ban can work. And gun ban/restricion doesnt stop every gun crime. It works by simple virtue of statistics, it does prevent some crime of passion - as someone might not have time to aquire a gun or might rethink some things in process of getting one. But for someone with dedication of Breivik obtaing a gun is only minor obstacle. There is no way to know how many gun related deaths have been avoided due to gun restrictions.
One has also to take into account society. As everyone knows gun availibility isnt the only factor affecting gun related deaths. But i would argue ( based only on intuition) that US is the country that would benefit the most from super strict gun control. It is impossible to implament though.
Edit: As anegdotal evidence. I just read in Polish news that 51 year old women armed with a gun replica and gas bootle stormed kindergarten and tried to take hostages. Nobody was hurt. She has probably psychiatric problems. Most likely she used toy gun because she couldnt gain acess to real one. Imagine how it might have ended if she had real gun. Of course there is no way to know what would happen if guns were freely available in Poland, we can only guess.
Besides the fact this asshole's dad probably gave him the gun he used and knew he was a dumbass racist trying to start a race war.
For all the times we have to speculate at why someone would do something like this because they are dead at the end of it, this guy is alive and intentionally left a witness to tell the story. He was clearly a racist with racist intent, the biggest part of this story is the utter blindness to how obvious it was that this was/is an issue.
|
I think that crimes like this church shooting arent very likely to be prevented by gun control. Alas emotional arguments work better than rational ones. So it is of no surprise to me that anti-gun people use every shooting that gets publicity to propel their agenda. Its smart, if numbers dont work try to use emotions. They are destined to fail though.
|
On June 19 2015 19:41 Silvanel wrote:
I think that crimes like this church shooting arent very likely to be prevented by gun control. Alas emotional arguments work better than rational ones. So it is of no surprise to me that anti-gun people use every shooting that gets publicity to propel their agenda. Its smart, if numbers dont work try to use emotions. They are destined to fail though.
If the emotional argument worked, Newtown would of done it. There's common sense reforms like background checks that most people support but still can't get passed which means whenever something finally does get done on guns it will be overkill because people fought the reasonable stuff for so long.
But yeah, it not being so casually acceptable to be so racist probably would of been more helpful than any gun law, maybe if his father had some liability for basically aiding in a terrorist attack? (provided the uncle is telling the truth and the gun used was given to him by his father).
|
|
|
On June 19 2015 18:16 Danglars wrote:
Obama's on about America's mass murders, after Hebdo. Marketplace favoring Jews assaulted, 11 dead 11 injured. But France is an advanced country, as Obama says? Breivik anyone? School shootings, I think Germany's leading on that one .. Erfut & Winniden. But when you qualify frequency and depending on how you define advanced, I suppose Obama's got some technical basis.
Topic prompts all this discussion on gun control (Never let a good crisis go to waste!), and unluckily SC is one of the strictest in the nation, up there with my state of California. Open carry banned, permits required with simple passage of background check, state-approved course, fingerprints, live fire, and a written test. Bad luck, gun control advocates.
Yes, good of you to name 2 shootings in Europe in the span of 5 years. Care to guess how many the US had in that time frame?
Germany leading in school shootings?
I'm sorry but what are you smoking exactly?
You can argue about why the US is the leading advanced nation with these issues (by several orders of magnitude) but you cannot deny that you are the #1.
Gun control could work in theory but as others have said it is impossible in practice. Gun culture is to deeply engrained to make any possible headway on the issue.
Until the vast majority of Americans think the 2nd amendment is a terrible thing (unlikely to ever happen) your stuck being the nation with the highest amount of mass shooting incidents.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://cdn.geekwire.com/wp-content/uploads/Screen-Shot-2012-12-19-at-3.19.22-PM.png)
![[image loading]](http://blog.thomsonreuters.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/school-shootings.jpg)
