|
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 October 03 2015 03:09 Nebuchad wrote:
I don't think this debate is held on sane ground. Like, what was it, 90% of Americans wanted a better background check, but nothing can happen because of NRA pressure?
If you want change in America, don't target the people who like guns, target the people who ignore democracy
the problem with getting better background checks was trying to create a system that works but at the same time doesn't create a nation quasi "gun registry". You can gin up democrats wanting to take your guns easier then imigrants coming to terk yer jerbs.
|
To carry arms in this day in age, when the threat of a government overtake is absurd, just means that we haven't progressed past the differences. In the countries in the above mentioned graphs and tables, those nations don't have the culturally diverse makeup as the US (save parts of Europe).
Europe in its entirety is about as big as the USA and is a lot more heterogeneous than the USA. Even in some countries that heterogeneity is very pronounced so I don't even understand on what you base that assumption.
Ethnically and culturally? I find it hard to believe that Europe has more diversity than the USA, especially in the minority department. I've never been there, so I can't give firsthand accounts. Soon though.
Politicians play off of the fears of the ignorant to gain power. The problem is having the 2nd Amendment period. That allows dunces something to fall back on when someone proposes a bit of regulation to save lives. Other countries probably don't have something that explicitly states that an individual has the right to bear arms whenever and wherever they choose, because reasons.
The only solution is a more invasive monitoring/surveillance program that tracks the owner and weapon.
|
United States44271 Posts
On October 03 2015 03:31 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +
To carry arms in this day in age, when the threat of a government overtake is absurd, just means that we haven't progressed past the differences. In the countries in the above mentioned graphs and tables, those nations don't have the culturally diverse makeup as the US (save parts of Europe).
Show nested quote +Europe in its entirety is about as big as the USA and is a lot more heterogeneous than the USA. Even in some countries that heterogeneity is very pronounced so I don't even understand on what you base that assumption. Ethnically and culturally? I find it hard to believe that Europe has more diversity than the USA, especially in the minority department. I've never been there, so I can't give firsthand accounts. Soon though.
It does. Why would you be surprised that multiple different countries, all with their own distinct culture, history, language and people have more diversity than one country?
|
Russian Federation421 Posts
On October 03 2015 03:00 Uldridge wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2015 02:43 Ingvar wrote:On October 03 2015 02:24 hfglgg wrote:
americas gun culture will prevent any form of strict gun controls like we have in europe, period. thats just how it is
"Christian culture will prevent any form of tolerance of homosexual relationships, period. thats just how it is" No, it is not. That's not how social engineering works. But Christian culture does prevent tolerance. If you think that USA has a Christian culture, that's only a veil they use to get those juicy conservative votes. I'm completely convinced Obama is an atheist, but that's not even the point. You easily go on youtube and watch all the butthurt indoctrinated Christians whining about the same sex marriage decision by the supreme court. People are even sentenced to jail or getting fines because they're refusing homosexuals into their church.
I think USA and Europe had Christian culture some time ago. In some aspects it is still there but overall culture has changed - to the extent that people are even sentenced to jail or getting fines because they're refusing homosexuals into their church. (with quite a lot pressure from state btw). Gun culture is no different.
|
On October 03 2015 03:31 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +
To carry arms in this day in age, when the threat of a government overtake is absurd, just means that we haven't progressed past the differences. In the countries in the above mentioned graphs and tables, those nations don't have the culturally diverse makeup as the US (save parts of Europe).
Show nested quote +Europe in its entirety is about as big as the USA and is a lot more heterogeneous than the USA. Even in some countries that heterogeneity is very pronounced so I don't even understand on what you base that assumption. Ethnically and culturally? I find it hard to believe that Europe has more diversity than the USA, especially in the minority department. I've never been there, so I can't give firsthand accounts. Soon though.
You find it hard to believe that a continent with 51 (partially transcontinental) countries, ranging from Azerbaijan to Russia, Sweden, Albania, Germany, Iceland, Turkey and dozens others with each their own minorities has more cultural diversity than the USA?
Are you for real? Oo
|
On October 03 2015 03:33 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2015 03:31 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
To carry arms in this day in age, when the threat of a government overtake is absurd, just means that we haven't progressed past the differences. In the countries in the above mentioned graphs and tables, those nations don't have the culturally diverse makeup as the US (save parts of Europe).
Europe in its entirety is about as big as the USA and is a lot more heterogeneous than the USA. Even in some countries that heterogeneity is very pronounced so I don't even understand on what you base that assumption. Ethnically and culturally? I find it hard to believe that Europe has more diversity than the USA, especially in the minority department. I've never been there, so I can't give firsthand accounts. Soon though. It does. Why would you be surprised that multiple different countries, all with their own distinct culture, history, language and people have more diversity than one country?
I'm not surprised really. I guess I'm looking at borders and individualizing instead of collectively grouping them together. If I think about it collectively, then yes, Europe as a whole is as diverse as the USA. But nation by nation, I don't think so and that was the source of my confusion.
EDIT: You find it hard to believe that a continent with 51 (partially transcontinental) countries, ranging from Azerbaijan to Russia, Sweden, Albania, Germany, Iceland, Turkey and dozens others with each their own minorities has more cultural diversity than the USA?
Are you for real? Oo
I caught this after I posted. But I cleared up my misunderstanding. :p
|
My bad then 
Then i might even agree, partially. Although you might wanna check germany, which basically was rebuilt by women and immigrants from all over europe - so cultural diversity is something they're not lacking.
|
But even then, the UK is ethnically diverse. So are the Netherlands, Belgium, France, Germany, etc. The EU has a system of free borders so you can be born Italian but work and live in Ireland for example (he'll still need some papers for living there I guess, but I think he can vote for Italian parties and even do his taxes there, but I'm not sure about that)
Anyway, what I'm saying is, it's trivial because not only are we a very open continent internally, we're also relatively open externally in relation to immigration. One of the problems arising then is huge floods of refugees coming from Syria for example. Chances are a big portion of them is going to try to integrete in various European societies, diversifying it once more.
Other problems are reluctances of nationalists and other anti-immigration minded people that are scared of multiculturalism etc.
Anyway, derailing too much.
Gun control is needed 
|
a country like Belgium with its 10M citizen has more diversity both culturally and ethnitically than the US.
|
On October 03 2015 03:49 m4ini wrote:My bad then Then i might even agree, partially. Although you might wanna check germany, which basically was rebuilt by women and immigrants from all over europe - so cultural diversity is something they're not lacking.
I agree. If you look at LA or New York, you get pretty much the whole world in two states. I'm a fan of German culture and I try to keep my ear and eye to world current events, so I don't doubt that for an instant.
On another topic but still semi-related, to use my own misunderstanding as an example, I think most American's don't have a good knowledge or world view. That they can't see or want to understand how other nations make things work without the need for guns is beyond me. I've lived in Japan for a while and was amazed at the docile nature of the people (not to confused with weak, helpless, or any negative connotation). They were all friendly, avoided a lot of confrontation, and lived generally happy lives (from the ones I interacted with and observed). Whereas you can't drive or walk down an American street without hearing the full gamut of obscenities. I like the cultural difference, but the air of superiority we collectively share is misplaced. If giving my family a piece of mind meant giving up guns, then why not? Wouldn't the betterment and happiness of the whole outweigh the "freedom" of owning a Beretta or Glock pistol just to feel safe?
|
On October 03 2015 03:58 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2015 03:49 m4ini wrote:My bad then Then i might even agree, partially. Although you might wanna check germany, which basically was rebuilt by women and immigrants from all over europe - so cultural diversity is something they're not lacking. I agree. If you look at LA or New York, you get pretty much the whole world in two states. I'm a fan of German culture and I try to keep my ear and eye to world current events, so I don't doubt that for an instant. On another topic but still semi-related, to use my own misunderstanding as an example, I think most American's don't have a good knowledge or world view. That they can't see or want to understand how other nations make things work without the need for guns is beyond me. I've lived in Japan for a while and was amazed at the docile nature of the people (not to confused with weak, helpless, or any negative connotation). They were all friendly, avoided a lot of confrontation, and lived generally happy lives (from the ones I interacted with and observed). Whereas you can't drive or walk down an American street without hearing the full gamut of obscenities. I like the cultural difference, but the air of superiority we collectively share is misplaced. If giving my family a piece of mind meant giving up guns, then why not? Wouldn't the betterment and happiness of the whole outweigh the "freedom" of owning a Beretta or Glock pistol just to feel safe?
I think this goes vise versa:
For a japanese it might be very hard to understand why people in the USA own guns and what it does mean to them.
From a outstanding point of view (even if we have some troubles with legal guns in germany too, but on a much lower scale due to much stronger gun control politics) i cant understand how this discussion pops up after every shooting and then dies out in 1 week. I cant judge from here (even tho I visit parts of the US more often) the things behind the pros and cons (mostly cons from my point of view), the cultural background of the right to own weapons.
But what happens after heavier gun control? People will still own their millions of guns, illegal guns dont disapear and stuff. Isnt the society at some point, where they cant turn back because weapons are allready allmost everywhere?
|
|
|
That's pretty interesting! And pretty much shoots down (pun intended) the whole "Pulling out a gun to defend myself is my best course of action" idea.
TL;DR version: If you're being threatened by someone with a gun, and you draw a gun to defend yourself, you're 4-5 times MORE LIKELY TO BE SHOT. In other words, attackers will generally threaten you with their gun as an attempt to scare you (e.g., into mugging you successfully), but they're not as likely to actually use their gun unless they see you have one too.
"Objectives. We investigated the possible relationship between being shot in an assault and possession of a gun at the time.
Methods. We enrolled 677 case participants that had been shot in an assault and 684 population-based control participants within Philadelphia, PA, from 2003 to 2006. We adjusted odds ratios for confounding variables.
Results. After adjustment, individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 (P < .05) times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, this adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.45 (P < .05).
Conclusions. On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. Although successful defensive gun uses occur each year, the probability of success may be low for civilian gun users in urban areas. Such users should reconsider their possession of guns or, at least, understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures."
|
Can we please change the title of this thread to: "What (if any) limitations should be placed on firearm ownership?"
Guns being in circulation or not is not a serious question. Mass confiscation and melting is not on the table in the USA (where the debate is at its most relevant). The question is what (if any) limitations, restrictions, and/or additional responsibilities should be placed on firearm ownership. The headline on this thread is just troll designed to pretend like there isn't a giant range of middle ground options (which most countries follow some flavor of, including the USA).
|
TL;DR version: If you're being threatened by someone with a gun, and you draw a gun to defend yourself, you're 4-5 times MORE LIKELY TO BE SHOT. In other words, attackers will generally threaten you with their gun as an attempt to scare you (e.g., into mugging you successfully), but they're not as likely to actually use their gun unless they see you have one too.
That's kinda common sense though. If he wants to kill you, he pulls the trigger without threatening you beforehand, and then takes your stuff. The fact that he threatens already means you will live if you comply. As you said - if you now force a decision by pulling/reaching for your gun, you most likely will die/get shot.
It's a bit like a reverse-police (mostly anyway, but that's a different topic). Usually(!), policemen draw their guns to enhance their position and be ready to use them. They won't use them if you comply (again, usually).
It's quite simply really and shouldn't come as a surprise.
|
On October 03 2015 07:22 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +TL;DR version: If you're being threatened by someone with a gun, and you draw a gun to defend yourself, you're 4-5 times MORE LIKELY TO BE SHOT. In other words, attackers will generally threaten you with their gun as an attempt to scare you (e.g., into mugging you successfully), but they're not as likely to actually use their gun unless they see you have one too.
That's kinda common sense though. If he wants to kill you, he pulls the trigger without threatening you beforehand, and then takes your stuff. The fact that he threatens already means you will live if you comply. As you said - if you now force a decision by pulling/reaching for your gun, you most likely will die/get shot. It's a bit like a reverse-police (mostly anyway, but that's a different topic). Usually(!), policemen draw their guns to enhance their position and be ready to use them. They won't use them if you comply (again, usually). It's quite simply really and shouldn't come as a surprise.
Agreed, but plenty of open-carry/ concealed-carry users fancy themselves a hero and would like to shoot down whoever they think is a bad guy, and start a shoot-out.
|
United States44271 Posts
On October 03 2015 07:18 CannonsNCarriers wrote:
Can we please change the title of this thread to: "What (if any) limitations should be placed on firearm ownership?"
Guns being in circulation or not is not a serious question. Mass confiscation and melting is not on the table in the USA (where the debate is at its most relevant). The question is what (if any) limitations, restrictions, and/or additional responsibilities should be placed on firearm ownership. The headline on this thread is just troll designed to pretend like there isn't a giant range of middle ground options (which most countries follow some flavor of, including the USA).
Renamed
|
"If you're seeing this topic then another mass shooting hap…"
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/90SsNYM.png)
LOLOLOL wp KwarK.
|
On October 03 2015 07:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:"If you're seeing this topic then another mass shooting hap…" LOLOLOL wp KwarK.
I don't get what's funny.
|
Thanks for the title change, WP btw.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
