|
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 07 2015 23:23 Incognoto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2015 16:34 evilfatsh1t wrote:
you keep going back to the point that the freedom of law abiding citizens is being revoked. what im trying to say is each and everyone one of those 'law abiding citizens' who had the freedom to buy their own gun are potential shootings just waiting to happen. Stopped reading here, screw this. If you're going to argue on the basis that people are fucking stupid and irresponsible, then we can't have this debate at all. Unlike communist sheep, I like to think that citizens of any country are grown up and responsible enough to take care of themselves. People aren't sheep, they're people. They do things and make decisions on their own. They don't need Big Brother to tell them what color knickers they should be wearing. Until you come to realize that people should be independent (and CAN be) without the government micro-managing their every day lives, we really can't have this discussion. I encourage you to review your outlook on the world if you really place such little faith in human beings.
and yet your country has the highest amount of gun related deaths than any other developed country in the world
your country is the only country with near monthly mass shootings
and your country is still the only country that does literally nothing to fix this problem
again, how many more people have to die before you get your head out of the clouds and realise that a lot of people arent grown up and responsible enough to take care of themselves, let alone others. thats just a fact of life. youre deluded if you think we live in a world where everything is rainbows and all bad people will get their shit together and come to their senses.
ps. i say 'your country' because i assume youre american. apologies if youre not, but the point stands
|
On October 08 2015 08:40 evilfatsh1t wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2015 23:23 Incognoto wrote:On October 07 2015 16:34 evilfatsh1t wrote:
you keep going back to the point that the freedom of law abiding citizens is being revoked. what im trying to say is each and everyone one of those 'law abiding citizens' who had the freedom to buy their own gun are potential shootings just waiting to happen. Stopped reading here, screw this. If you're going to argue on the basis that people are fucking stupid and irresponsible, then we can't have this debate at all. Unlike communist sheep, I like to think that citizens of any country are grown up and responsible enough to take care of themselves. People aren't sheep, they're people. They do things and make decisions on their own. They don't need Big Brother to tell them what color knickers they should be wearing. Until you come to realize that people should be independent (and CAN be) without the government micro-managing their every day lives, we really can't have this discussion. I encourage you to review your outlook on the world if you really place such little faith in human beings. and yet your country has the highest amount of gun related deaths than any other developed country in the world your country is the only country with near monthly mass shootingsand your country is still the only country that does literally nothing to fix this problem again, how many more people have to die before you get your head out of the clouds and realise that a lot of people arent grown up and responsible enough to take care of themselves, let alone others. thats just a fact of life. youre deluded if you think we live in a world where everything is rainbows and all bad people will get their shit together and come to their senses. ps. i say 'your country' because i assume youre american. apologies if youre not, but the point stands
The United States has, on average, a mass shooting every day.
I wish we had a mass shooting only every month lol.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/6bVffuu.png)
It's chart #4 found here: http://www.vox.com/2015/8/24/9183525/gun-violence-statistics
|
On October 08 2015 02:59 Incognoto wrote:Show nested quote +Uhm, except that the right for self defense in the USA impedes on the right of the intruder to live. What happens when the intruder (aka the criminal) decides to impede on YOUR right to live? With a knife, which is arguably the most dangerous close quarter weapon out there due to the fact that is so easy to obtain, conceal and use lethally? I suppose that you are not allowed to defend your own life, or the life of those close to you. Indeed, you're stating that the intruder's life deserves more protection than the victim's. You aren't running away from a knife in your home, there's such a thing as legitimate defense, even in Europe: + Show Spoiler +
I am not saying you are not allowed to defend your life. I am saying the gun laws described by members of this forum in Louisiana for example are not defending your life. If by being allowed to shoot anyone that steps on your property and giving you the idea he is trying to break in, you get an absolution to kill that person, you are not defending your life. You are defending your property with mortal force. And that is punishable in every european country but not in Louisiana  Other states may be not as ridiculous, but as long as you don't shoot your own daughter, you are still fine, cause who could know if you were in fear for your life.
Whereas if you would not have a weapon and would just hide in your room, lock the door, call the cops and wait it out, the life or death situation might never even build up.
And then you have the studies that say, owning a weapon actually increases your chances to get shot in your own home. So no, owning a gun for self defense is not a good thing. It increases your chances of getting killed.
|
On October 08 2015 08:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 08 2015 08:40 evilfatsh1t wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2015 23:23 Incognoto wrote:On October 07 2015 16:34 evilfatsh1t wrote:
you keep going back to the point that the freedom of law abiding citizens is being revoked. what im trying to say is each and everyone one of those 'law abiding citizens' who had the freedom to buy their own gun are potential shootings just waiting to happen. Stopped reading here, screw this. If you're going to argue on the basis that people are fucking stupid and irresponsible, then we can't have this debate at all. Unlike communist sheep, I like to think that citizens of any country are grown up and responsible enough to take care of themselves. People aren't sheep, they're people. They do things and make decisions on their own. They don't need Big Brother to tell them what color knickers they should be wearing. Until you come to realize that people should be independent (and CAN be) without the government micro-managing their every day lives, we really can't have this discussion. I encourage you to review your outlook on the world if you really place such little faith in human beings. and yet your country has the highest amount of gun related deaths than any other developed country in the world your country is the only country with near monthly mass shootingsand your country is still the only country that does literally nothing to fix this problem again, how many more people have to die before you get your head out of the clouds and realise that a lot of people arent grown up and responsible enough to take care of themselves, let alone others. thats just a fact of life. youre deluded if you think we live in a world where everything is rainbows and all bad people will get their shit together and come to their senses. ps. i say 'your country' because i assume youre american. apologies if youre not, but the point stands The United States has, on average, a mass shooting every day. I wish we had a mass shooting only every month lol. It's chart #4 found here: http://www.vox.com/2015/8/24/9183525/gun-violence-statistics
holy shit. although they classified 'mass shooting' as 4+, which is still a lot but a bit different to what id consider a 'mass' shooting. i was thinking 10+ kind of figures
|
I'm so sick of gun nuts playing the mental health card. If you think mental health is the problem, then PROVIDE SOME ACTUAL IMPLEMENTABLE POLICIES. Otherwise, shut the fuck up and stop obstructing people from passing laws that you know will save lives.
|
On October 08 2015 09:17 writer22816 wrote:
I'm so sick of gun nuts playing the mental health card. If you think mental health is the problem, then PROVIDE SOME ACTUAL IMPLEMENTABLE POLICIES. Otherwise, shut the fuck up and stop obstructing people from passing laws that you know will save lives.
Or they insist that no context actually matters because of the Second Amendment, despite that amendment specifically being used to protect Americans who are intending to be part of a well-regulated militia.
I'd honestly like to know the percentage of Americans who buy a gun for the reason outlined in the Constitution, as opposed to buying guns to hunt or for home "defense" or to kill/ threaten someone or because gunz r kewl. I'd set the over-under at around 2%.
|
Know what would help the mental health angle if people actually believe that is the main issue here? Single payer healthcare. It would also be more fiscally responsible and a million other things. But if everyone was actually able to go to the doctor, get checked out, take therapy, get medication, just get help without being monetarily barred from doing so. You know, actually trying to take steps to fix the "mental health problem" instead of just using it to justify every single shooting then not doing a god damn thing.
The party that supposedly wants to save money and direct attention away from guns and towards mental health should probably do something. Make it possible for people to get diagnosed and helped. On top of that working on changing the social stigma associated with mental illness. Not going to hold my breath on any of this shit though.
|
United States24723 Posts
Hm, isn't there a push to make it harder for people with mental health problems to get guns? How do we make mental treatments more available to people without at the same time discouraging people who enjoy gun sports from seeking treatment because they could suddenly end up blacklisted?
|
|
|
On October 08 2015 08:44 Broetchenholer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2015 02:59 Incognoto wrote:Uhm, except that the right for self defense in the USA impedes on the right of the intruder to live. What happens when the intruder (aka the criminal) decides to impede on YOUR right to live? With a knife, which is arguably the most dangerous close quarter weapon out there due to the fact that is so easy to obtain, conceal and use lethally? I suppose that you are not allowed to defend your own life, or the life of those close to you. Indeed, you're stating that the intruder's life deserves more protection than the victim's. You aren't running away from a knife in your home, there's such a thing as legitimate defense, even in Europe: + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqCFuEJHHLg Whereas if you would not have a weapon and would just hide in your room, lock the door, call the cops and wait it out, the life or death situation might never even build up.
The thing is real life isn't like GTA - police don't just spawn and show up immediately when a crime happens. How would you honestly feel locked in your room waiting for somebody to respond? It's probably not smart to leave your life, or your loved ones', in the hands of a home invader. You can hide in your room and still have a weapon, right?
On October 08 2015 08:44 Broetchenholer wrote:
And then you have the studies that say, owning a weapon actually increases your chances to get shot in your own home. So no, owning a gun for self defense is not a good thing. It increases your chances of getting killed.
This is mainly because there are 2-3 gun suicides for every gun homicide (in the USA).
On October 08 2015 09:17 writer22816 wrote:
I'm so sick of gun nuts playing the mental health card. If you think mental health is the problem, then PROVIDE SOME ACTUAL IMPLEMENTABLE POLICIES. Otherwise, shut the fuck up and stop obstructing people from passing laws that you know will save lives.
I think looking at gun violence as something that can be easily legislated against isn't a realistic approach. There really are 2-3 times as many gun suicides. Isn't mental health a huge issue with that, with homelessness, and with spree and serial killers? Doesn't stopping child abuse stop people from growing up psychopaths? Doesn't fighting poverty fight crime? How do you move forward looking at gang violence: mainly as a poverty issue, a war on drugs issue, or a gun control issue given that the country already has more guns than people?
I can't imagine anything more fundamental to all our problems than the culture and sanity of the people in our society... Cicero said "the good of the people is the chief law."
Like earlier on this page, mass shootings look like the biggest face of the problem when they're the bad news the media. And when you count 4+ victims as "mass shootings," to be able to say there's an average of more than 1 mass shooting per day, I suspect there's an intention there to distort what's actually happening. Because a statistic with 4+ victims (incl. shooter) would reach wider than the picture that the words "mass shooting" paints, which is the psycho/terrorist who goes on a spree killing in a public place. If you count as low as 4+ victims, you're also catching, for example, people who kill themselves and their whole family, in that statistic. While terrible, that's not exactly the same thing, right? That's not exactly what "mass shooting" is supposed to describe, is it?
I'm not saying this last part because I want a statistic to "look" smaller because I'm a gun nut or something, but because I sincerely believe the way to find solutions to our problems is to start from having good information about exactly what all the problems are.
|
What works is what basically every other developed nation in the world does.
What doesn't work is what the US insists on keeping.
If there was remotely any kind of nuance to the stats or numbers, then there might be some argument to be had. But when it's one country as a gigantic outlier, and then everyone else, there really is no statistic worth looking into.
|
The guns already exist, though. You have to accept the starting conditions of reality. It's all well and good to say "Japan is safer than the USA" but "Be more like Japan" isn't really a plan that we can use right now to make the USA a better place. And while the majority of gun deaths in the USA are suicide, there are countries with fewer to no guns that have (significantly) higher suicide rates, including Japan and Korea, also India, even Iceland's rate is a little bit higher, could you imagine a more peaceful country than that?
|
On October 08 2015 11:11 oBlade wrote:
The guns already exist, though. You have to accept the starting conditions of reality. It's all well and good to say "Japan is safer than the USA" but "Be more like Japan" isn't really a plan that we can use right now to make the USA a better place. And while the majority of gun deaths in the USA are suicide, there are countries with fewer to no guns that have (significantly) higher suicide rates, including Japan and Korea, also India, even Iceland's rate is a little bit higher, could you imagine a more peaceful country than that?
What do you think would be the most realistic way to phase out guns?
|
On October 08 2015 11:11 oBlade wrote:
The guns already exist, though. You have to accept the starting conditions of reality. It's all well and good to say "Japan is safer than the USA" but "Be more like Japan" isn't really a plan that we can use right now to make the USA a better place. And while the majority of gun deaths in the USA are suicide, there are countries with fewer to no guns that have (significantly) higher suicide rates, including Japan and Korea, also India, even Iceland's rate is a little bit higher, could you imagine a more peaceful country than that?
obviously in regards to suicide rates banning guns inst the end all. But im pretty sure that countries that have banned guns have seen a pretty solid (or at least significant enough to make note of) drop in their suicide rates.
and some countries like south korea have really high suicide rates because of pressure and the hyper competitive nature of the country.
here's the an old cnn article in the opinion section about suicides and guns. If I remember the it does cite data
http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/24/opinions/yonkers-guns-suicide-rate/index.html
In 1996, in response to a mass shooting in Tasmania in which 35 people were killed, the Australian government responded by banning rapid-fire long guns, engineering gun buy-backs, tightening licensing policies, and enhancing restrictions to gun ownership. Gun-related homicide and suicide rates have declined sharply. Suicide by a firearm decreased to nearly half the 1996 rate by 2003. However, the rate of nonfirearm suicides did not increase during this interval, in this case debunking the idea that there would be a simple substitution of one suicide method with another.
|
On October 08 2015 11:11 oBlade wrote:
The guns already exist, though. You have to accept the starting conditions of reality. It's all well and good to say "Japan is safer than the USA" but "Be more like Japan" isn't really a plan that we can use right now to make the USA a better place. And while the majority of gun deaths in the USA are suicide, there are countries with fewer to no guns that have (significantly) higher suicide rates, including Japan and Korea, also India, even Iceland's rate is a little bit higher, could you imagine a more peaceful country than that?
I don't see why you're bringing up general suicide rates at all. Sure, gun numbers don't correlate to suicide rates. But reducing suicides and reducing gun violence are entirely separate things.
Unless you're focusing on "reducing gun related suicides", which is an overly narrow and useless target group.
And yes, Japan is an extreme that is hard to replicate due to their isolationist and xenophobic outlook. So maybe look at more comparable nations, like Australia, UK, Canada, Germany, etc. All of which have less guns, less gun violence, and lower suicide rates...and some of which have had much longer histories of war obsession and militarism than the United States.
|
yeah i dont see reason to bring up suicide numbers in general. reducing suicide and reducing gun violence are totally different
and no, 4+ gun related deaths including a guy who kills his family and himself isnt a whole other thing. its still 3 murders and 1 suicide.
|
I don't know why we should stop at guns, why not make grenades legal for everyone? Everyone should be able to have 3 grenades on their belt, in my view. That's a much more reliable way of stopping a maniac. Besides even if grenades were illegal, psychos would still find a way to get their hands on them.
|
On October 08 2015 11:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2015 11:11 oBlade wrote:
The guns already exist, though. You have to accept the starting conditions of reality. It's all well and good to say "Japan is safer than the USA" but "Be more like Japan" isn't really a plan that we can use right now to make the USA a better place. And while the majority of gun deaths in the USA are suicide, there are countries with fewer to no guns that have (significantly) higher suicide rates, including Japan and Korea, also India, even Iceland's rate is a little bit higher, could you imagine a more peaceful country than that? What do you think would be the most realistic way to phase out guns?
I don't think we will "phase out" guns in any of our lifetimes. What I think we can do, is start with universal background checks. It's not a magic wand that will fix everything, but it's something 90%+ of Americans agree on.
Then perhaps we do increased training and licensing for varied ownership. Maybe to counter the paranoia of having some sort of "registry" we could compromise and let the NRA/Some other gun orgs handle it (after being certified by the government).
But I do think there's a point to the idea that better mental health care (suicides) and more effective poverty measures (street shootings) would likely decrease gun violence more rapidly.
|
On October 08 2015 14:14 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2015 11:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 08 2015 11:11 oBlade wrote:
The guns already exist, though. You have to accept the starting conditions of reality. It's all well and good to say "Japan is safer than the USA" but "Be more like Japan" isn't really a plan that we can use right now to make the USA a better place. And while the majority of gun deaths in the USA are suicide, there are countries with fewer to no guns that have (significantly) higher suicide rates, including Japan and Korea, also India, even Iceland's rate is a little bit higher, could you imagine a more peaceful country than that? What do you think would be the most realistic way to phase out guns? I don't think we will "phase out" guns in any of our lifetimes. What I think we can do, is start with universal background checks. It's not a magic wand that will fix everything, but it's something 90%+ of Americans agree on. Then perhaps we do increased training and licensing for varied ownership. Maybe to counter the paranoia of having some sort of "registry" we could compromise and let the NRA/Some other gun orgs handle it (after being certified by the government). But I do think there's a point to the idea that better mental health care (suicides) and more effective poverty measures (street shootings) would likely decrease gun violence more rapidly.
I definitely agree with you there!
|
On October 06 2015 23:17 duckk wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2015 23:08 Furikawari wrote:On October 06 2015 23:02 duckk wrote:On October 06 2015 22:54 OuchyDathurts wrote:On October 06 2015 22:35 Velr wrote:On October 06 2015 22:26 Kaethis wrote:
....
Most criminals are not planning on killing someone when they commit whatever crime makes them one, but they are desperate for something. This is why the standard response to getting robbed here is to just give them what they want, because your money isn't worth getting beat up over. A gun in this scenario on either side doesn't actually do anything usefull because they're not after your life. Or are you planning on killing someone over your tv?
...
Some time ago, in this very tread. after bringing up your argument I actually was told that killing someone for robbing your TV is completly legitimate and "not defending your home" is cowardly because the burglar could also be a serial, pyscho, rapist, killer (that for some reason rather breaks into a house than just kindap someone on the street)... Absolutely, TONS of people, including people on TL, have argued its worth it to kill someone if they steal your TV or mug you. Insurance will replace it, your bank will cancel your cards. But people think shooting the person dead is somehow justified. The last thing the guy stealing your wallet or blender wants is to get slapped with a murder charge. There's a reason they didn't just shoot you and take your wallet, they have zero intention of killing you, let alone hurting you. But shoot to kill! Generally speaking its the same people that justify police killing people needlessly. "If he didn't run he wouldn't get shot in the back", "Yeah he was unarmed and the cops shot him....but if he didn't steal that thing...", "If he didn't resist the cops wouldn't have choked him to death". In their minds any infraction, no matter how completely trivial, warrants murder. They will bend over backwards to absolve people of ending lives. Unarmed, vaguely resisted under only the weakest definition of the word, got upset at some bullshit, doesn't matter. Fuck the justice system, why bother when you can be judge jury and executioner with some 9mm justice? You can't know the intentions of somebody who breaks into someone's house. Maybe 95% of the time they just want to rob the place, but what about the other 5%? The person has already shown a lack of care for the law, are people supposed to risk waiting and getting shot themselves? Yeah, so shoot and kill in 100% of the case, like this u r right 5% of the time. You're just stupid here, you know? Every single person who lives in my neighborhood has a major beneficial impact on society, and life is worth far more than any thug who wants to break in and do whatever. In my opinion they assume the risk of lethal confrontation when they forcefully break into my house. The fact you defend such lowlifes is pathetic, maybe if you spent some time in baltimore or detroit USA you would understand. If you are willing to risk the lives of everyone in your house on the guy just wanting to rob you, then I would say you are the idiot. The person does not deserve to live plain and simple.
So this shit is some goddamn video game logic. The guards, they must be crazy ya know.
In the Netherlands, as in most civilised countries, something exists called 'excessive force'. It essentially means that you use more violence than the situation warrants. It's a big deal because if the court rules you are in violation of these laws you are 100% legally responsible and as such punishable for whatever actions you took against, say, a home invader.
Because guns are relatively hard to come by in the Netherlands, and concealed carry being straight-out illegal (havn't seen a gun on anyone else than a police officer in my life and I've lived in some ghetto neighbourhoods) you can assume that most people are either unarmed or at most armed with some kind of bladed weapon. Because actually killing someone with a knife is a lot harder than people seem to make it out to be you are not actually at all that much risk against the average burglar even if he's planning on hurting you to get your wallet (which is a extreme minority, I might add).
This follows from the logic that even criminals are mostly rational human beings. Breaking into somone's house and being seen means you have a decent chance of getting caught and convicted. Breaking into someone's house and pulling a weapon on them means you're going to get fucked. Actually killing them means your life's essentially over the same way theirs might because you're going to land in jail for most of the rest of your life.
This system works pretty well because lethal weapons are not commonplace. As I said earlier, the presence of a lethal weapon in a risky situation merely amplifies the risk because nervous people have to not only consider the fact that they might be going to jail but the possibility that they're going to get killed. While some might say that reduces the risk of getting your house broken into, conventional logic generally says that crime is mainly an economic phenomenon. People are desperate and unsupported (something which'll be more common in the U.S. because of your horrendous welfare and healthcare systems) so they feel they have no choice but to turn to stealing.
The argument 'they break into my house so I'm allowed to shoot them' is the most terrible of slippery slope fallacies. It only works if think your enviroment approaches the hobbesian nature state in that everyone is 100% looking out for number 1 with no laws to govern them. If that is true, then you are living in a failed state and you need U.N. help and not internet discussions, lol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
