If you're seeing this topic then another mass shooting hap…

On December 18 2012 09:33 frantic.cactus wrote:
I think that change is needed, and I believe that Obama will at least make moves in the direction of greater regulation and checks for gun purchases. The legislation will be what it will be.

However, I don't think that it will be enough. What needs to change is the 'gun culture' in America. When you compare the US to Switzerland and Israel who also have high gun ownership per capita the difference in the number of deaths caused is startling. I believe that this can be traced back to the influence of military life on society in these countries. People are taught to handle and respect their weapon and become professionals with it. In America it seems that the mentality is not one of a 'military society' (sorry for clunky phrasing) but a militant society that lacks systems for training and indoctrinating all gun owners but has relatively easy access to weapons.

Also, this has probably been brought up but the sillyness of the gun vs knife debate is illustrated by events in China just last week. A man walked into a school and attacked 22 children and adults with a knife (hard to get a gun legally in China). There were no fatalities. In the same week a 20 year old with three or four guns walked into a school and slaughtered 27 children and adults. Yes people will kill people, but we don't need to make it easier for the psychos to inflict their inner pain on society at large.

Don't get me started on the media coverage of this tragic event. It was like a pack of hyenas that had caught the scent of blood on the air. Despicable subversion of ethical standards to be the first to break the story and get those ratings up.

On December 18 2012 09:40 Nagano wrote:


Yea, there are definitely some nutjobs with guns. I personally wouldn't be against NOT selling a gun to a guy looking like Larry the Cable Guy hooting and hollering like he should be on Honey Boo Boo. But if he's not mentally unstable (arguable in this case, lol) then what can you do?

Remember half the households in the U.S. have at least 1 firearm. There aren't very many people like this Larry the Cable guy. Most are professionals with families and a career.

On December 18 2012 09:51 frantic.cactus wrote:


As an aside, I find the second amendment a laughable historical oddity in this day and age. Even if the state did become a totalitarian behemoth the power of the American military would absolutely dominate any opposition that the general population could generate. O hai there Abrams tank, ima shoot you with my handgun ^^

On December 18 2012 09:50 Nagano wrote:
I want to quote this story by a redditor:

Here's the biggest mistake people make when they debate guns. They keep debating statistics and numbers. This can be convincing but not all that convincing. The pro reg folks can always hit you with "One accidental death is too many" Then you'll say "cars" or "bathtubs" and by god you'll be right but you'll be unconvincing. People need their goddamn cars and people need not to stink. But guns? I mean, unless you hunt, not so much right?
So, I was getting killed on this in college (back in the days before CCW and so forth) I mean I am getting slaughtered in the gun debate in front of the class. "How many people would you kill to keep your gun rights Poison_Tequila? How many people have to die before you realize that guns are not tools, they are only there for killing?" That was actually pretty close to what the other guy said. I had nothing but then I suddenly had something.
I decided to go with the "you" ploy. I decided to go with audience involvement. "This isn't really about me, this about everyone. Lets have a show of hands of people who think they are responsible enough to own a gun" Every hand went up. Cause these are cocky ass college students. They know every-effing-thing. "I agree, you are all responsible enough to own a gun gun" I really didn't think so, My roommate was in the class and if that fucker owned a gun I'd find a different dorm.
Then I argued (i think) for background checks and waiting periods. This was a while ago (cause I am old and shit) so I think the deal back then was walk in and buy a gun. Walk out. I could be wrong (late eighties for anyone who remembers what the gun laws were then).
If I recall correctly there was no judged winner or loser but I ddid get a nice grade on the debate. The interesting thing was that we were taking positions opposite of our actual positions. So the anti gun guy was really a pro gun guy and I was actually anti gun. Changed my own damn mind.

On December 18 2012 09:51 frantic.cactus wrote:


Why not establish government sanctioned, privately run training centers with mandatory attendance for new gun owners. Increases the chance of the psychos being picked out of the pack before they get a chance to do damage. Could you also limit the amount of non-recreational guns an individual is allowed to own? (I'm thinking concealable hand guns and semi-auto/auto weapons) More oversight would be a good place to start. From the looks of this thread there is alot of conflicting evidence with dubious origins which ultimately inhibits a constructive social discourse on the place of guns in society.

As an aside, I find the second amendment a laughable historical oddity in this day and age. Even if the state did become a totalitarian behemoth the power of the American military would absolutely dominate any opposition that the general population could generate. O hai there Abrams tank, ima shoot you with my handgun ^^

On December 18 2012 09:54 Monsen wrote:



Don't really see how that's a plausible argument at all. He even refutes it himself: "everyone thinks he's responsible enough to own a gun".

On December 18 2012 09:49 tokicheese wrote:

Looking at Israel/Switzerland and comparing them to the US is a bit silly. The racial make up of the US is much more varied often some of these communities are less well off from historical events and they are more likely to commit crime leading to racism etc etc. Look at the gun battles between Korean store owners and Black rioters in the LA riots for an example of the racial tension.

I mean Canada has tons of gun owners and we have a much much lower rate of gun crime than the US. I forget the specifics but there are cities along the Great Lakes one side is American and the other is Canadian and you can see the cities on the other side. They have similar gun ownership rates and the murder rate on the Canadian side that used guns as the murder weapon is drastically lower.

I think it is the tighter gun restrictions in Canada that play a large role but the fact that there are not large ghettos in Canadian cities also plays a major role.

On December 18 2012 09:46 Nagano wrote:


That's why if you don't believe it, it's best to start googling everything you can on gun control efficacy and judge for yourself. I've never met someone who thought banning was a good idea after letting them go off on their own and figuring it out for themselves.

If you need help with where to start, try here:
http://www.reddit.com/r/guns/comments/q5xty/gun_debate_basics/

To quote it:
We live in a time where massive amounts of reliable information is available to us within seconds, if you know what to look for and how to look for it. To me there is no longer any excuse for the continued spread of misinformation, the very wellspring from which bad decisions and terrible suffering has flowed from for all of history.

CONCLUSION: Larger studies are needed to examine more closely possible confounding factors such as the national tendency toward violent solutions, and more information on the type and availability of guns will be helpful in future studies. Nevertheless, the correlations detected in this study suggest that the presence of a gun in the home increases the likelihood of homicide or suicide.

Conclusion

Changes in household firearm ownership over time are associated with significant changes in rates of suicide for men, women, and children. These findings suggest that reducing availability to firearms in the home may save lives, especially among youth.

On December 18 2012 10:01 frantic.cactus wrote:


I agree with you, but those examples fitted my argument the best and I think that they illustrate the overarching themes of military/militant culture and dissonant gun culture.

Yes poverty increases violent crime, and in my studied opinion socio-economic status and social conditioning is the root cause of most crime. Perhaps the lower levels of violent crime in Canada has something to do with social welfare that helps people to better their lives without resorting to crime in desperation.

On December 18 2012 10:04 warshop wrote:


I thank you for that post, but I stand by the fact that his source is unreliable. It only states one side of the debate, which is to advocate guns. A good source would post both sides and be unbiased of such. Isn't that what your source states? To objectively quantity the value of one's source?

You are right though, the number of information available to us these days are outstanding.

I'll cite a few ones for instance :

1993 - International correlations between gun ownership and rates of homicide and suicide.



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1485564/

2006 - The association between changes in household firearm ownership and rates of suicide in the United States, 1981–2002



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2563517/

On December 18 2012 10:07 Nagano wrote:


This is why quoting numbers doesn't work. In firearm related deaths nationwide, nearly half are from suicides.

What else you got..

On December 18 2012 10:10 warshop wrote:


You do understand that, the gunowners source is a huge quote of numbers?

On December 18 2012 09:57 Nagano wrote:


What would be the purpose of limiting the amount of guns a person is able to own? It's not like you're Goro from Mortal Kombat and can hold 2 rifles and 2 shotguns at the same time. If what we're trying to do is fix the problem of mass shooting, is this the way? VA tech shooter used 2 handguns to kill 30+ people. They weren't rifles or "assault weapons". There's really not much conflicting evidence in this thread. Most of the pro-gun rights side cites sources of all kinds from many, many different "non-dubious" origin. Harvard studies, government studies, FBI crime statistics--this doesn't even cover a small fraction of were pro-gun rights sources come from. Look at the past two pages, especially the links, and see for yourself.

I don't find it fair that you're calling the sources dubious at all.

On December 18 2012 10:05 Nagano wrote:


Now you're getting somewhere. The only problem I have with this post is that you seem to clump gun owners as military/militant and having a dissonant gun culture. As if the only two owners of firearms in this country are gang-members and southern Ted Nugent types. I keep saying this but I'll reiterate it again, there are 300 million firearms in this country, and half the households in the entire nation have at least 1 firearm.

It's just not possible that all or even a significant fraction of firearm owners fall under those characterizations. Liberals and conservatives own firearms.

In some aspects, you're absolutely correct. The people are the problem. I don't believe however that they are 100% of the problem. Your example of the knife is a good one in theory, but even with recent examples (the stabbings in china) it's actually pretty difficult to kill someone with a knife if you've never done it before, or if you're in a hurry. It's even harder to kill a lot of people quickly with a knife. The thing about guns that's dangerous is that they allow ANYONE to become EXTREMELY lethal extremely quickly and easily. Another common argument is that criminals will just use bombs or other explosives to kill a large number of people if guns are hard/impossible to get. This is true, there are people who will use bombs and explosives, but it’s nowhere near the number of people capable of using a gun. Obtaining a built bomb is really difficult for the average person, and building one is even harder. Yes, instructions exist on the internet but there’s no way to know form a laymen’s perspective if those instructions are even accurate. There is also the possibility of the person blowing themselves to hell in the process, or constructing a dud. Then there’s the problem of delivery etc., basically a whole slew of issues that just aren’t a problem with a gun. Literally anyone can take a firearm and kill ten people in minutes; perhaps less if it's an automatic weapon. I agree with you that stricter gun control on its own won’t solve anything, but I disagree that its 100% the fault of the perpetrator. Yes, they have free will, so from the standpoint of actions it's 100% there fault,; but from a critical standpoint there’s very few instruments that will allow someone the ability to quickly and easily kill mass amounts of people

I believe the correct approach is multi-pronged. It involves some stricter elements of gun control, as well as a complete re-definition of the second amendment. I believe the verbiage used is simply too vague and hasn’t been updated to take into account all of the advancement in Weaponology over the last two centuries.

Furthermore, and more importantly, I believe that mental health in this county needs a complete and utter over haul. Far too many people are suffering from some form of mental illness and go complete untreated and cared for. Currently, it’s easier to obtain a gun in this country than access to proper mental health care. It’s either prohibitory expensive, or simply no offered. There is a terrible social stigma for people who are treated or prescribed mood altering substances, depressing medication, anxiety medication or anti-psychosis. The word “crazy” is used way too frequently and often incorrectly in dealing with people who have abnormal brain function. Not suggesting that treatment would have stopped specifically the CT killer, but it’s reasonable to hypothesis that some form of psychiatric involvement would have at least illuminated the type of mind/personality that that individual possessed, and possibly prevented him from even gaining access to weapons.

Finally, there needs to be education reform, coupled with sympathy and compassion as a core value installed in young people. There’s noting wrong with organized sports, but I feel there is no emotional opposite to counter-act the hyper aggression that is brought about thru competition. Often times, people will claim bringing religion back into schools will help stop violence from occurring, but there is simply no evidence to support this claim, and moreover most of the world’s violence has been committed by very religious people. In fact, many countries with much much lower violent crime (Japan, Scandinavian countries, Canada) have more self-described Atheists than we do. If being religious was a prerequisite for being non-violent, I simply don’t see the connection. What I believe is the answer could require a complete culture shift away from appearance and superficiality. It’s very easy to get accustomed to dehumanize people who don’t fit into society’s norms due to physical appearance, mental state or other socioeconomic factors. People described as being ugly, fat or poor simply do not have the same advantages as others, and are often times judged for factors out of their control. It’s the new type of racism, more appropriately described as prejudice since race isn’t always a factor. Many children and people from our Generation (Y and X) have been brought up in a 24 hour world, with constant access to information, and more recently, more effective e methods of wide communication. People are constantly on display now more so than any time in history. What you do or say can affect you in a multitude of ways, in an order of magnitude that is magnified tenfold because of the platform it’s broadcasted on. Being bullied is nothing new, and is actually important for proper social development. Cyber bulling is an entirely different manor, and has profound ramifications on your ability to cope, as well as other cognitive functions. People who participate in cyber bullying also become accustomed to committing acts of mental violence, often times with a disturbing zeal. In real life, the emotional toll you inflict on someone is the price you pay. In other words, if you see yourself verbally assaulting someone, you can see their reaction immediately, and have to deal with the emotionally price of that. Most people, even the very cold hearted people, will be affected by another human suffering. This isn’t true via cyberspace. You can literally ridicule someone to the point of tears and mental breakdown without ever seeing their face or hearing their distresses voice. Multiply that by 1000(possibly more depending on the size of the social network you have access to and has access to you) and you see why there is such fervor over the issue of cyber bullying.

There are other factors as well: Hyper nationalism has allowed us to become infallible. We honestly believe (some of us anyway) that the constitution is a perfect document and has no reason to be changed. Our often times blind militarism has influenced an extremely violent culture. Almost all forms of popular media involve violence in some manor, and violence is preferred more so than sexual content, even for minors. Most PG-13 movies have scenes that depict violence, even some PG movies.
I can keep [going but this is a wall of text as it is. The problem with mass murders is so much more complex than guns vs. no guns. Other counties have guns and don’t have this problem. Most civilized nations have something like this happen once a decade, not once a week.

As always please don’t take my word for anything. Investigate and find your own evidence. Don’t believe anything you read unless you can prove it.

On December 18 2012 10:13 frantic.cactus wrote:
So you can't arm people who aren't licensed for the weapons. It will decrease the amount of weapons in the public sector creating a safer society with no discernible effect on responsible gun owners. This is because they aren't Goro and can't wield more than one gun, so whats the point in then owning multiple copies of the same style weapon.

I meant that competing views that seem to have equal amounts of factual backing is unproductive to the discussion at large as both sides feel that their position is unassailable and factually sound. What I think is needed is some Government commission of enquirey into the effects of widespread gun ownership in America society.

On December 18 2012 10:16 frantic.cactus wrote:


I thinks that the fact that the general population doesn't trust the government to uphold their rights and therefore arm themselves instead as enough reason the label it a militant gun culture.