|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On January 17 2013 12:48 KnT wrote:
It's impractical.
Imagine being a farmer, needing to do a little pest control and needing to reload every single time. You'd hit one, the rest scatter and you spend the next hour hunting them down again to repeat the process.
That's worth the saving of human lives.
Imagine having 2 people invade your house with the intention of hurting you. You threaten one, they call the bluff, you shoot, best case scenario, you've got one scared/pissed off person trying to hurt you but worst case is you miss.
So not content with the incredibly low chance of a malicious home invasion by one person, you now stretch the odds by providing the hypothetical scenario of two people invading your home with malicious intent? Again, you can still hold the gun up and threaten them. If they are completely insane, you're screwed, but you would only slightly increase your chances of killing both of them before they get you if you had an assault weapon surely. And you can't be seriously telling me that these are two people who are willing to die from a single shot weapon but who will be scared of an automatic? This argument is just not persuasive.
He doesn't have an automatic weapon. He as the semi-auto civilian variant of the M4 as he stated on the last page (albeit typo? AR-14 or 15?)
Well then even LESS reason to act like his armament is a protection against a dystopian future.
|
On January 17 2013 12:48 KnT wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 12:37 sc4k wrote:
What would be wrong with only allowing guns that require a bullet to be placed in the chamber each time? Would be fine for hunting, and you could point it in someone's face if they invaded your house. On the topic of massacres/murders: The one's where the shooter had guns that held fewer rounds just positioned themselves back a bit while firing or they brought more guns.
You are clearly talking out of your ass here and I'm not even sure what you're trying to say. That it doesn't matter what type of guns people in massacres use because the shooter can just "bring more guns or position themselves back"?
I'm sorry but if that is really your argument then it is terrible.
|
I'd be more inclined to say my argument is that it doesn't matter what type of weapon people use because if someone is going to rampage, they're going to rampage with the tools available to them. I go back to my analogy of driving a car down the street killing all the pedestrians a page or 2 back and getting a car is far, far easier than getting a firearm.
Does it matter what kind of gun they use in reality? Not really. Massacres and the like still happened back in the musket/blunderbuss days when it took a good 10-20 seconds to reload a single shot right?
|
On January 17 2013 12:37 sc4k wrote:What would be wrong with only allowing guns that require a bullet to be placed in the chamber each time? Would be fine for hunting, and you could point it in someone's face if they invaded your house. Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 12:36 StarStrider wrote:
Because modern society is not guaranteed permanent. Because we stand on the knife edge of the dollar collapsing. Whether you think the possibility of that dystopic world materializing is high or infintesimile is not relevant to whether being prepared for it is a good thing or not. And that is just one of many reasons why people own these rifles.
You're saying the risk 'cost' of 52 lives per year isn't worth any or all of those reasons. I heartlessly say, yes, it most certainly is.
I just can't understand you. I can't believe you allow the possibility of society collapsing to be a factor in this discussion. It literally boggles my mind. Do you have loads of contingencies prepared for this eventuality because you probably will be completely fucked if it does, seeing as if the police and army are dissolved (for example) then you'll be dealing with gangs running around and you on your own with your fortress of automatic weapons probably aren't going to do much when they come in force and sell you into the dystopic slave trade. In such a situation most people who type in forums on computers and play starcraft are going to be, for want of a better phrase, royally ass raped.
I do have very many contingencies prepared in such a scenario. However, because the vast majority of civilized, peaceful people will do their damndest to restore order and get an orderly system back in place, and the kind of techologies and infrastructure that is in place, I don't foresee it lasting a long time. I have contingencies in place for a few months of self sustainment. Not all my options involve barricading myself on my property. And don't be silly, I don't have a fortress or anything of the sort. And I definitely don't own automatic weapons, and if you knew anything about firearms at all you'd know using a fully automatic spray in any situation except to provide covering fire on the battlefield is just ludicrous. Semi-automatic mode of fire is preferred on the ground for accuracy and efficiency. You assume alot. It's hard to have a reasonable discussion with you.
|
On January 17 2013 11:07 KnT wrote:
Out of curiosity, what constitutes a "high powered rifle" or "assault rifle" in people's eyes? Is it muzzle velocity, projectile diameter, penetration power, amount of rounds put downrange over x amount of seconds, amount of rounds in a magazine ??
Most of the weapons people are most afraid of (AR-15s get mentioned a lot so let's go with that) fire a .223 or 5.56mm round right?
The term "High Powered Rifle" is a term used to classify weapons used in competition shooting. Despite what StarStrider, and indeed the term itself might lead you to believe it has very little to do with muzzle velocity, rate of fire, or caliber of rounds. There are .22 rifles that are used in "High Powered Rifle" events, as well as .30/30, .30/06, and .308. The competition itself generally has to do with long range shooting of 200+ yards and often has a timed aspect to it. In this way the term is a lot like "Ivy League" schools, which have nothing to do with academic excellence, but is instead a college sports league consisting of the oldest universities in the United States.
On January 17 2013 11:09 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 10:10 StarStrider wrote:
They already do. The thugs already have them. Okay, there's some double-sided rhetoric here that I'd like clarification on. On one hand, you have people saying they want semi-automatic rifles because criminals already own them. On the other hand, you have people saying that ownership of semi-automatic rifles is not an issue for killings because they are almost a non-issue when it comes to crimes and killings. So which is actually true?
The truth is that this thread is being derailed by someones post-apocalyptic fantasy which I would expect is brought on by an exorbitant amount of time engrossed in media. In past events where governments and economies have collapsed into virtual anarchy, the amount of guns available does nothing to prevent the misery that ensues. Maybe someone with a machine gun can mow down a crowd of people to get the last can of food, but what happens then? The problem caused by economic collapse is the lack of production and transportation, and has very little do with the right to keep and bear arms as those will be fought over even more than basic human necessities. Which quite surprisingly will actually last longer than complex firearms without proper maintenance materials. Ask anyone who's been in the military and they'll gladly tell you that constant use of a weapon in "real life" scenarios without maintaining cleanliness and lubrication will result in you carrying a very effective weapon for bludgeoning. Fired or not, the elements wear on those precision parts very quickly.
To answer your question however, the "thugs" in America don't have assault rifles. The culture values what can be easily carried and concealed, as well as the expectation of being disposable. Above that the weapons are generally stolen from someone close to the criminal who uses them for personal protection in the home, and handguns are much more common for that in urban areas due to them being more easily stored in discrete places where children are expected to not find them.
On January 17 2013 12:19 mynameisgreat11 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 12:13 Millitron wrote:On January 17 2013 11:58 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On January 17 2013 11:03 StarStrider wrote:On January 17 2013 10:56 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On January 17 2013 10:10 StarStrider wrote:On January 17 2013 09:57 Jormundr wrote:On January 17 2013 09:10 StarStrider wrote:
I have been discussing this issue with a multitude of people. I wanted to bring up a scenario here to see what TL thinks about it.
So, the standard question about assault rifles, 'semi-auto' 'military' style weapons, is "Why does the average citizen need something with that capacity and that killing power? Even people who are for having semi auto pistols as home and self defense ask this question.
The standard answer is "Those types of guns are for if the people ever have to rise up and defend themselves from tyranny"
Now, I want to answer the same question with a different answer. I don't think I will ever need my AR-14 for defending myself against the government. I think that if there is ever an overthrow of tyranny here, it will be bloodless because our military will stand with the people, and even if we come to a situation of tyranny where SS-type militia go door to door in people's homes, confiscating and arresting, I don't think AR's will be able to stop that type of power.
No, the reason I own my AR and want to fight to keep high cap high powered rifles and large magazines absolutely legal is not to protect myself from the government, but to protect myself from NO government.
What I mean by that is, should our financial system and infrastructure collapse, and police, national guard, and militia become unavailable or stretched too thin, I want to know that I can protect myself from multiple assailants from a distance. If you suddenly imagine our infrastructure collapsing, and the just-in-time system we live in grinding to a halt, your house and your possessions, specifically food and potable water, will be at the mercy of whoever has the biggest guns. Martial law, anarchy, the wild west... that is why I want one. Look at the lawlessness during the LA riots. Not enough law enforcement to go around, and people's inner thug comes out, roving gangs loot and plunder, take what they will. The only way you're going to stop them is if you can out shoot them. Imagine the LA riots on a national scale, now imagine no power, no food on the shelves of your local grocer. I'm not saying your nice neighbors will turn on you, I'm considering the gangs that will form and then roam far and wide, even through your little peaceful suburban neighborhood. And in that situation, a pistol just won't cut it.
I'm interested to hear responses on this different perspective. Do you write it off as just as ludicrous as the 'defense against tyrrannical gov't' argument? Do you at least understand how real these problems could be if we're ever facing this situation, regardless of how likely you think that situation occurring is?
EDIT: grammar. Bolded is where your argument fails. You assume that they don't have ar-15s (or fully automatics). You want everyone to be able to purchase AR-15s. You're on an even playing field. Thus, according to you, there is no way to stop them because you can't out shoot them. This doesn't even begin to address the problem that the biggest gangs in a lawless dystopia would probably be former military/police who have far superior equipment anyway. Well since you are willing to discuss the hypothetical details, let's go for it. They already do. The thugs already have them. It already is an even playing field for cops. According to your logic, our police in current status are dealing with the same troubles I would be. And yet, they are able to handle these type of situations. How? Through training, superior numbers and superior technology. I can educate myself relatively easily. My neighbors who have also properly prepared assault weapons caches provide the numbers. Under the current law, we have access to the same technology police have. I can arm myself up to the same point as a SWAT team member. Legally. Just like Holmes did in Aurora. After that, it is logistics. Home neighborhood advantage. Positioning. Choke points of the front and back doors. and windows. Vantage points of upstairs windows. As to your assertion that former police would have the advantage, that would be true, if I didn't have access to the same training and equipment they do. There are only a select amount of items they might have as an advantage. And that assertion relies on the assumption that even a marginal number of those type of people would turn militant thug instead of vigilante, which I cannot agree with. Somebody give this guy more guns, stat. Yes, paint the guy with the orderly plan to deal with chaos as a lunatic. Again, I'm not asking how likely you think this all is, I'm asking if, we assume that this hypothetical becomes reality, owning a high powered rifle would be justified? And if this situation demands the ownership of one much moreso than the tyrannical regime scenario? I didn't read the whole discussion, but I'm assuming you were planning on your course of action when the apocalypse takes place and anarchy rules. And, as reasonable as your answer may be in that situation, that apocalyptic world being described doesn't exist, while vast amounts of gun violence does. I also don't like the tyrannical regime argument. It's a sweeping statement that justifies you using your guns whenever you see fit. What you view as a tyrannical government I might well view as sane and well meaning. Which is why violence is a last resort. I would never escalate to violence, but if a tyrant decides to make that leap, I would prefer to be able to do something about it. The defense against tyranny argument does not justify escalating to violence, only striking back when struck. Your fear of being violently struck by the US government has a very, very, very low probability of being a reality in your lifetime. However, thousands do die every year due to gun violence. Fear of tyranny > lives currently being lost?
To democratic society, yes. Those of us who believe in that argument, ironically, tend to value the ideals of our society over the individual. If there were evidence that allowing an unrivaled supremacy of power to be wielded by a centralized government was good for democratic values of a society made up of unarmed citizens most of us would gladly give up the right to own weapons. Unfortunately, history has provided plenty of evidence to the contrary. Much of which has been recently supplied by the United States government and it's foreign policy during the Cold War. The Soviet Union probably provided more, but the United States has done a lot to show what happens to democracy when the citizens of a nation are (virtually) unarmed through our involvement in stopping (often democratic) communist uprisings in South and Central America.
None of us are looking to get people killed. The majority of people that believe in civilian gun ownership don't want to use them against anyone, but we see it as necessary for the security of the democratic process. Historically violent force is equated with power and when the majority of violent force is in the hands of a minority of people, majority rules no longer refers to opinion but rather force.
|
On January 17 2013 13:08 StarStrider wrote:
It's hard to have a reasonable discussion with you.
Says the guy who is basing his opinions about firearms on his personal need to feel he can fend off looters in a dystopian aftermath of the collapse of US society.
|
On January 17 2013 13:28 sc4k wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 13:08 StarStrider wrote:
It's hard to have a reasonable discussion with you. Says the guy who is basing his opinions about firearms on his personal need to feel he can fend off looters in a dystopian aftermath of the collapse of US society.
Stepping back out of a hypothetical situation to get back to the reality of present day is hard for some people I see.
Dystopian aftermath of collapse sounds really ludicrous when you put it like that. Let's talk about it very simply.
Do you know about inflation and how little economic distance our debt laden economy is from the collapse of the dollar?
Do you know what it means when your money becomes worthless?
It's not some delusional far-off fantasy. Follow the logical outworkings. I try to be as rational about it as possible, I don't pander with far fetched 'what ifs'.
What will happen in your version of the story of the dollar's collapse?
EDIT: This http://useconomy.about.com/od/criticalssues/p/US-Economy-Collapse.htm will give you a broad overview of the situation I am talking about. Fiscal experts are warning that in the 2008 recession and subsequent bailouts, that not only did we delay inevitable 'facing the music' with our Federal Reserve and unsustainable banking system, but that we made it worse by dumping new money that we didn't have, causing more inflation and exacerbating the issue. It seems unlikely that we will correct from the collision course based on the current apathetic political process toward the finance and debt, because correcting is going to hurt, really badly, and it's going to be political suicide. So you tell me if I'm really paranoid and delusional about this impending disaster. We have yet to face the problems that we delayed in 2008-2009,
Sorry to derail a bit, that's all the clarifying on background I'll do on this subject.
|
I'd like to start with a quote: ""Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."~ George Washington"
I think that if you believe that governments can not collapse then you do not understand history. History is a story of the rise and fall of civilizations. It's a story of wars and turmoil. Our ability to defend ourselves in that time of turmoil is every bit as important as our ability to defend our lives from someone who wishes to invade our homes. I believe that gun ownership is a part of our civic duty as Americans and my Glock and I stand ready to defend that duty and right.
|
What inflation? The USD is no where near Zimbabwe style collapse. In fact having a lower valued currency can actually be good for your economy, making exporting and import competing industries more efficient.
|
On January 17 2013 14:31 ControlMonkey wrote:
What inflation? The USD is no where near Zimbabwe style collapse. In fact having a lower valued currency can actually be good for your economy, making exporting and import competing industries more efficient.
If you're interested: http://seekingalpha.com/article/1114901-inflation-propaganda-exposed
|
On January 17 2013 14:17 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 13:28 sc4k wrote:On January 17 2013 13:08 StarStrider wrote:
It's hard to have a reasonable discussion with you. Says the guy who is basing his opinions about firearms on his personal need to feel he can fend off looters in a dystopian aftermath of the collapse of US society. Stepping back out of a hypothetical situation to get back to the reality of present day is hard for some people I see. Dystopian aftermath of collapse sounds really ludicrous when you put it like that. Let's talk about it very simply. Do you know about inflation and how little economic distance our debt laden economy is from the collapse of the dollar? Do you know what it means when your money becomes worthless? It's not some delusional far-off fantasy. Follow the logical outworkings. I try to be as rational about it as possible, I don't pander with far fetched 'what ifs'. What will happen in your version of the story of the dollar's collapse?
The situation is not actually as likely, or threatening as you and a lot of US media would make it seem. The United States is actually a very self sufficient country, without much dependence on foreign sources. We produce more food than we consume, we will once again soon produce more oil than we consume, and we don't depend on foreign nations for other sources of power or fresh water like some smaller nations do.
Now to the value of currency. The value of currency these days is not dependent on gold or silver, and is not really tied to the production capabilities of the nation issuing it. It's tied to faith in it's value. While the US dollar has been the standard in world markets for close to a century now, this is changing as the rest of the world loses faith in our currency. This doesn't really have a lot to do with failings in the United States as much as it does with success in certain Asian and European countries, and success in the EU markets specifically. The European empires are long past collapse and have settled well into modern economic markets. Which makes them less dependent on the stability of American currency for international trade.
So our currency standing in world markets is falling, but like I said earlier the US doesn't depend on foreign markets all that much. In fact, as our international influence diminishes it's likely we will see production jobs becoming more stable in the United States than their recent closings seem to suggest. The value of the dollar inside the United States will probably not be very affected by all of this, and the only effects of this shift that will seem like economic collapse will likely be the shedding of government jobs, probably primarily in the military-industrial complex, which will most likely balance out with the production jobs we will be gaining due to the rising costs of imported products and the availability of American labor. This is especially true if state governments continue the trend in de-unionizing their labor forces, which will present issues that many will compare to dystopian post-apocalyptic societies. I'm not saying there won't be tough times for people, but it's very unlikely that the American economic markets will collapse.
This is all from my understanding of global economics which comes from my hobby of reading a lot of things that other people consider boring, so it's probably way over simplified and fairly incorrect. Even with my knowing that, it's still way reliable than the fear-mongering of prophesying that the US dollar is about to become totally worthless, gas will be nowhere to be found, and society will turn into roving gangs with a fetish for skimpy leather outfits, motorcycles, and cannibalism. Which is only slightly exaggerating your claims.
This is a discussion about the politics, morality and motivation of gun control, or lack thereof. Not a place to discuss the likelihood of any version of a dystopic future. The possibility of it being a motivation for your gun ownership is enough to add to the conversation and you should not feel the need to justify your fears, and others shouldn't feel the need to attack them, only to weigh them against other options. Is there a situation where you would consider giving up your right to gun ownership? If so what do you imagine it would take? Civilization is about citizens giving up certain rights for the stability of society as a whole. So giving up a right should not be completely out of the question, although maybe you don't see the cost of losing that right as justifiable for what is gained. That is what is being explored here, and clearly many people think attempting to remove a reality they fear is worth having to live with the possibility you fear.
|
If you want to disagree with the way that CPI is being calculated, go ahead, but I don't agree.
Supply-siders like to lambast keynesians saying that they think everything can be fixed by monetary policy. And some keynesians do think that. But they are wrong.
It's really neither here nor there in a thread about gun control.
|
What America is looking for on Google:
![[image loading]](http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/2013/01/20130116_ammo1.jpg)
The first spike is after Obama's 2008 election. The second spike is after Aurora and Sandy Hook.
|
On February 20 2012 03:09 Rainofpain wrote:
I think about it like this: If I want to get a gun to use it for a murder or something, do I really care if I am allowed to use it or not? Gun controls make it harder for the average citizen to obtain a defensive weapon that is effective and not too hard to use/take time to learn.
Don't you realise that these large killing were perpetrated by an "average citizen" ?
It's not the people who are capable of finding arms illegally (robbers, gangs, drugs dealers) who killed all those people in schools and theaters!
I never understood why in the US there is the right to carry weapons without a permit. But i am not from the US so i admit that is why i might not understand.
Anyway, after seeing all these killings, you should at least realise that assault weapons should be banned. Why in the hell an assault rifle is considered as a self defense weapon????
Do you prefer killing someone or beeing killed than being robbed? That is something i cannot understand. Nobody should.
|
On January 17 2013 18:41 Teykila wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 03:09 Rainofpain wrote:
I think about it like this: If I want to get a gun to use it for a murder or something, do I really care if I am allowed to use it or not? Gun controls make it harder for the average citizen to obtain a defensive weapon that is effective and not too hard to use/take time to learn. Don't you realise that these large killing were perpetrated by an "average citizen" ? It's not the people who are capable of finding arms illegally (robbers, gangs, drugs dealers) who killed all those people in schools and theaters! I never understood why in the US there is the right to carry weapons without a permit. But i am not from the US so i admit that is why i might not understand. Anyway, after seeing all these killings, you should at least realise that assault weapons should be banned. Why in the hell an assault rifle is considered as a self defense weapon???? Do you prefer killing someone or beeing killed than being robbed? That is something i cannot understand. Nobody should.
There is a huge lobby, the NRA, and phenomenal financial interest behind. Without any control over what can be said or not and how much money you can pour into lobbying and electoral support, you can make people believe that 2+2=5, that automatic weapons in free circulation is the solution and not the problem in those killing or that the least taxes for millionaire, the better for the average joe.
Since in America, any control over public speech or any attempt to limitate the power of money over the public sphere is seen as a terrible attack on """""freedom""""", we can safely say that not only it is the most structurally corrupt and disfunctionnal of all democracies but also that public opinion doesn't mean much more anymore, and is just the reflection of financial interests.
I mean, come on, some people here are talking of the need to have their weapon for when society will have collapsed. You know, zombie apocalypse is also on the table and you might realize that at this point of paranoia and irrationality by the average voter, your democracy is screwed up.
My two cents.
|
I would like to recommend this talk to everyone.
http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html
The greater the inequality in income within a country the greater the social problems it has, crime included. Everything is connected. If you look into crime statistics in some of those other countries. In England and Wales although it is at the higher end in inequality has stricter gun laws and also much fewer gun related homicides of less than 0.1 per 100000 people. Interestingly Knife crime is almost 4 times higher however I can not recall in recent history anyone going on a killing spree with a knife or for that matter something like a baseball bat.
In America the rate is around 3.6 per 100000 people. There are 88.8 guns per 100 residents in America and the firearm murder rate is among the highest in the world.
If you look at Japan, one of the countries with the least economic inequality and the least social problems, it has extremely strict gun laws 0.6 guns per 100 and has almost no gun crime with 0.02 gun deaths per year. However referring back to that video I linked, gun ownership is not the only thing that needs looked at, if you look at Scandinavian countries or somewhere like Switzerland (somewhere in the middle of the graphs in that video) which has 45.7 guns per 100 and has few gun related deaths of around 0.5 per 100000.
So It seems that high crime and mass killings come from more widespread social problems and that social conditions are fundamental in deterring crime. However failing fundamental widespread changes to American society in narrowing the gap between rich and poor (which seems extremely unlikely), there simply have to be stricter gun laws unless you do nothing about any of it and just accept a high rate of gun related crime and the occasional mass murders in public places.
Here is an interesting interactive map of gun deaths and ownership.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/interactive/2012/jul/22/gun-ownership-homicides-map
|
On January 17 2013 18:41 Teykila wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 03:09 Rainofpain wrote:
I think about it like this: If I want to get a gun to use it for a murder or something, do I really care if I am allowed to use it or not? Gun controls make it harder for the average citizen to obtain a defensive weapon that is effective and not too hard to use/take time to learn. Don't you realise that these large killing were perpetrated by an "average citizen" ? It's not the people who are capable of finding arms illegally (robbers, gangs, drugs dealers) who killed all those people in schools and theaters!
I never understood why in the US there is the right to carry weapons without a permit. But i am not from the US so i admit that is why i might not understand.Anyway, after seeing all these killings, you should at least realise that assault weapons should be banned. Why in the hell an assault rifle is considered as a self defense weapon???? Do you prefer killing someone or beeing killed than being robbed? That is something i cannot understand. Nobody should.
Most states (Maybe all?) require a permit to carry weapons though. It's owning them that often doesn't require a permit.
Did assault weapons kill these people, or did people holding assault weapons kill people? Are you really going to blame the gun, not the gunman?
On January 17 2013 21:44 Startyr wrote:I would like to recommend this talk to everyone. http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.htmlThe greater the inequality in income within a country the greater the social problems it has, crime included. Everything is connected. If you look into crime statistics in some of those other countries. In England and Wales although it is at the higher end in inequality has stricter gun laws and also much fewer gun related homicides of less than 0.1 per 100000 people. Interestingly Knife crime is almost 4 times higher however I can not recall in recent history anyone going on a killing spree with a knife or for that matter something like a baseball bat.In America the rate is around 3.6 per 100000 people. There are 88.8 guns per 100 residents in America and the firearm murder rate is among the highest in the world. If you look at Japan, one of the countries with the least economic inequality and the least social problems, it has extremely strict gun laws 0.6 guns per 100 and has almost no gun crime with 0.02 gun deaths per year. However referring back to that video I linked, gun ownership is not the only thing that needs looked at, if you look at Scandinavian countries or somewhere like Switzerland (somewhere in the middle of the graphs in that video) which has 45.7 guns per 100 and has few gun related deaths of around 0.5 per 100000. So It seems that high crime and mass killings come from more widespread social problems and that social conditions are fundamental in deterring crime. However failing fundamental widespread changes to American society in narrowing the gap between rich and poor (which seems extremely unlikely), there simply have to be stricter gun laws unless you do nothing about any of it and just accept a high rate of gun related crime and the occasional mass murders in public places. Here is an interesting interactive map of gun deaths and ownership. http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/interactive/2012/jul/22/gun-ownership-homicides-map
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre
7 dead, 10 injured. Attacker used a knife and a truck.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre
8 dead, 15 injured. Attacker used a knife.
|
|
|
On January 17 2013 19:32 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 18:41 Teykila wrote:On February 20 2012 03:09 Rainofpain wrote:
I think about it like this: If I want to get a gun to use it for a murder or something, do I really care if I am allowed to use it or not? Gun controls make it harder for the average citizen to obtain a defensive weapon that is effective and not too hard to use/take time to learn. Don't you realise that these large killing were perpetrated by an "average citizen" ? It's not the people who are capable of finding arms illegally (robbers, gangs, drugs dealers) who killed all those people in schools and theaters! I never understood why in the US there is the right to carry weapons without a permit. But i am not from the US so i admit that is why i might not understand. Anyway, after seeing all these killings, you should at least realise that assault weapons should be banned. Why in the hell an assault rifle is considered as a self defense weapon???? Do you prefer killing someone or beeing killed than being robbed? That is something i cannot understand. Nobody should. There is a huge lobby, the NRA, and phenomenal financial interest behind. Without any control over what can be said or not and how much money you can pour into lobbying and electoral support, you can make people believe that 2+2=5, that automatic weapons in free circulation is the solution and not the problem in those killing or that the least taxes for millionaire, the better for the average joe. Since in America, any control over public speech or any attempt to limitate the power of money over the public sphere is seen as a terrible attack on """""freedom""""", we can safely say that not only it is the most structurally corrupt and disfunctionnal of all democracies but also that public opinion doesn't mean much more anymore, and is just the reflection of financial interests. I mean, come on, some people here are talking of the need to have their weapon for when society will have collapsed. You know, zombie apocalypse is also on the table and you might realize that at this point of paranoia and irrationality by the average voter, your democracy is screwed up. My two cents.
Because the huge lobbying doesn't go both ways.....last time I checked this country is pretty split in half on most big issues, gun control being one of them (although I've also read that it's skewed to appear that more people believe in gun control than actually do). Either way, it blows my mind everytime someone says some shit like we need more restrictions on speech! We need more restrictions on guns! As if that has ever been proven to work. You think limiting the power of money over the public sphere (restricting free speech) is going to make the public opinion heard more? I don't buy it.
|
On January 18 2013 02:30 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 19:32 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 17 2013 18:41 Teykila wrote:On February 20 2012 03:09 Rainofpain wrote:
I think about it like this: If I want to get a gun to use it for a murder or something, do I really care if I am allowed to use it or not? Gun controls make it harder for the average citizen to obtain a defensive weapon that is effective and not too hard to use/take time to learn. Don't you realise that these large killing were perpetrated by an "average citizen" ? It's not the people who are capable of finding arms illegally (robbers, gangs, drugs dealers) who killed all those people in schools and theaters! I never understood why in the US there is the right to carry weapons without a permit. But i am not from the US so i admit that is why i might not understand. Anyway, after seeing all these killings, you should at least realise that assault weapons should be banned. Why in the hell an assault rifle is considered as a self defense weapon???? Do you prefer killing someone or beeing killed than being robbed? That is something i cannot understand. Nobody should. There is a huge lobby, the NRA, and phenomenal financial interest behind. Without any control over what can be said or not and how much money you can pour into lobbying and electoral support, you can make people believe that 2+2=5, that automatic weapons in free circulation is the solution and not the problem in those killing or that the least taxes for millionaire, the better for the average joe. Since in America, any control over public speech or any attempt to limitate the power of money over the public sphere is seen as a terrible attack on """""freedom""""", we can safely say that not only it is the most structurally corrupt and disfunctionnal of all democracies but also that public opinion doesn't mean much more anymore, and is just the reflection of financial interests. I mean, come on, some people here are talking of the need to have their weapon for when society will have collapsed. You know, zombie apocalypse is also on the table and you might realize that at this point of paranoia and irrationality by the average voter, your democracy is screwed up. My two cents. Because the huge lobbying doesn't go both ways.....last time I checked this country is pretty split in half on most big issues, gun control being one of them (although I've also read that it's skewed to appear that more people believe in gun control than actually do). Either way, it blows my mind everytime someone says some shit like we need more restrictions on speech! We need more restrictions on guns! As if that has ever been proven to work. You think limiting the power of money over the public sphere (restricting free speech) is going to make the public opinion heard more? I don't buy it.
Simple as that: there are people who have financial interests into selling guns and are just flooding the political stage with money, and the mediatic stage with propaganda that they only can afford.
Nobody in the private sector will spend hundreds of million convincing people guns are bad because nobody has financial interests to do so.
As for "freedom", the "freedom" to spend as much money as you want to support a candidate or a party is called freedom to corrupt in my book. If we consider corruption as the collusion between politics and private interest which is the basic definition. And freedom to use a huge propaganda machine lying day after day after day after day in the most obvious way to serve your corporate interest (hi Fox News) is the freedom for the most uneducated people in the country to be brainwashed every day of their live.
See, imo the problem is that with money you can buy anything in the States. You can buy public opinion, even if what you are claiming is just as fucking stupid as 2+2=5 (or that more guns will solve the problem of those killings), and you can buy politicians since their campaign is financed by private money anyway and that there are no restriction on lobbying.
In most democracies, Fox News would be basically closed after a week of airing. And no billionaire and corporation could basically buy an election or an amendment in the senate. For me it's the basis of a functional democracy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
