|
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 June 13 2016 05:07 micronesia wrote:
I agree that this is a situation where the thread is likely to get bumped, and that is okay. Also, thank you for bringing the discussion here. However, your post is also pretty dumb, let's be honest.
Yeah you're right, I was frustrated because there is not a single fiber in my body that understands how a country can have a gun policy like the US has. "It's a constitutional right" seems to me like an argument to change that constitution, not an argument for anyone to own a gun. I live in EU, I have never held a gun nor felt the need/curiosity to do so. I think any gun in the hands of a civilian is a bad idea, always. But I know I won't convince people here (or this thread would not exist  ) so that's why I posted a "dumb statement". I stand corrected
This particular guy would have gotten hold of his guns anyways. But it would have been harder/more conspicuous, and maybe he would have been stopped earlier. So this incident in itself is not the pivot point for the gun discussion, it's (like you say) a reason to start up the discussion once again.
|
I don't know if all guns need to be banned or not, but I sure in hell would have been more frightened for my safety if a dozen people were shooting in the dark, amidst all the chaos and pushing and screaming, rather than just one. (Not to mention, when the police arrive, how do they know which shooters are good and which are bad?) Too many civilians think they're some crackshot vigilante or Yosemite Sam who can save the day and shoot up the bad guys during a mass panic.
"According to a study by the Federal Bureau of Investigation that examined 104 active-shooter events from 2000 to 2012, less than 3 percent of mass shootings were stopped by armed civilians."
~ https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/01/08/few-examples-exist-armed-civilians-preventing-mass-shootings-campuses#
|
United States24747 Posts
On June 13 2016 05:15 _fool wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2016 05:07 micronesia wrote:
I agree that this is a situation where the thread is likely to get bumped, and that is okay. Also, thank you for bringing the discussion here. However, your post is also pretty dumb, let's be honest. Yeah you're right, I was frustrated because there is not a single fiber in my body that understands how a country can have a gun policy like the US has Yeah I understand how people will be very emotional today.
"It's a constitutional right" seems to me like an argument to change that constitution, not an argument for anyone to own a gun. I'll half agree and say we shouldn't automatically treat something in the U.S. Constitution as infallible, although changing it should not be taken lightly. I live in EU, I have never held a gun nor felt the need/curiosity to do so. I think what you and many others need to do is pause here (appreciate the honesty) and try to put yourself into the shoes of many of the Americans that you don't understand. You've never held or used a gun. You never felt the need/curiosity to. You don't know what it's like for guns to be a big part of your culture. You don't understand the value people place in that part of their lives, so you should be hesitant to simply decide that value, whatever it is, must be too small to justify current laws and social norms in the U.S. It's very easy to declare something should be illegal when it won't be in any way inconvenient for you (in your mind, assuming you were to live in the U.S. for example). Imagine if some other part of your life was going to be taken away even though you personally did nothing wrong... that wouldn't go over so well.
That's not to say there really is no room for improvement in the law or gun culture in the U.S. I can definitely understand arguments including many made in this thread about how the U.S. is going about it all wrong, even if I don't necessarily agree with all of them. Still, I want to see someone who actually understands the 'problem' analyze it, break it down, and then discuss what actions the nation should take which is really in everyone's best interest (except for terrorists and would-be criminals, at least). The problem with discussions in this thread is usually the people arguing for much more strong restrictions on gun use and ownership in the U.S. don't understand the perspective of the people arguing from the other side, and vice versa. That's why I think about 0 has been accomplished in the thousands of posts in this thread. However, I'd still rather keep it in one place on TL so it doesn't permeate all aspects of discussions about events like today's mass shooting.
I think all guns in the hands of civilians is a bad idea, always. But I know I won't convince people here (or this thread would not exist ) so that's why I posted a "dumb statement".
This particular guy would have gotten hold of his guns anyways. But it would have been harder/more conspicuous, and maybe he would have been stopped earlier. So this incident in itself is not the pivot point for the gun discussion, it's (like you say) a reason to start up the discussion once again.
Getting back to my original point, how much would his likelihood of pulling off today's atrocity gone down if we implemented some changes to the law and/or constitution as you suggested? There are some people who would say "if it could have reduced the chances by 1%, I say destroy every civilian gun in the country and ban them" and those people usually believe they have nothing to personally lose if that were to happen. This disconnect between those people and the ones saying things like "we should make some modifications to our laws to help prevent tragedies while still maintaining civilian gun ownership rights" is currently paralyzing to the point that we don't even fix problems with gun laws that both sides agree should be fixed (granted, there aren't too many).
edit: DarkPlasmaBall you are definitely right that civilians with guns don't necessarily make a shooting situation better. However, your statistic about how civilians with guns rarely stop shootings isn't really that significant since shooters often target places where they are less likely to encounter resistance. How many concealed carry permits would you expect in a gay bar in Orlando?
|
On June 13 2016 05:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:I don't know if all guns need to be banned or not, but I sure in hell would have been more frightened for my safety if a dozen people were shooting in the dark, amidst all the chaos and pushing and screaming, rather than just one. (Not to mention, when the police arrive, how do they know which shooters are good and which are bad?) Too many civilians think they're some crackshot vigilante or Yosemite Sam who can save the day and shoot up the bad guys during a mass panic. "According to a study by the Federal Bureau of Investigation that examined 104 active-shooter events from 2000 to 2012, less than 3 percent of mass shootings were stopped by armed civilians." ~ https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/01/08/few-examples-exist-armed-civilians-preventing-mass-shootings-campuses#
Yeah I think you nailed it man. I'm not sure if a ban on guns is the way to go, but I think amending the constitution, making it illegal to sell guns, and offering incentives to cell guns back to the government would be a good start.
|
As long as Americans keep wanting to shoot cans on the weekend and like the idea of having a cool gun in their possession like Clint Eastwood in the movies nothing will change. The argument really has nothing to do with actual purpose of the Second Amendment or the repercussions of gun ubiquity. It really is a unique culture on the entire planet.
|
On June 13 2016 05:31 micronesia wrote:
edit: DarkPlasmaBall you are definitely right that civilians with guns don't necessarily make a shooting situation better. However, your statistic about how civilians with guns rarely stop shootings isn't really that significant since shooters often target places where they are less likely to encounter resistance. How many concealed carry permits would you expect in a gay bar in Orlando?
Unfortunately, I'd imagine it'd be tough to get a count of how many people are carrying concealed guns regardless of the scene. It seems like the easiest way to access that kind of information is whether or not an innocent bystander whipped out a gun and tried to help take down the civilian, which makes it obvious and no longer hidden.
|
United States24747 Posts
On June 13 2016 05:52 Hier wrote:
As long as Americans keep wanting to shoot cans on the weekend and like the idea of having a cool gun in their possession like Clint Eastwood in the movies nothing will change. The argument really has nothing to do with actual purpose of the Second Amendment or the repercussions of gun ubiquity. It really is a unique culture on the entire planet.
This is exactly what I'm talking about actually. Hier doesn't seem to understand where many American gun owners are coming from and characterizes them as "wanting to shoot cans on the weekend and like the idea of having a cool gun in their possession." I'm sure that fairly depicts a few people, but it's not really the American gun culture.
|
On June 13 2016 05:31 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2016 05:15 _fool wrote:On June 13 2016 05:07 micronesia wrote:
I agree that this is a situation where the thread is likely to get bumped, and that is okay. Also, thank you for bringing the discussion here. However, your post is also pretty dumb, let's be honest. Yeah you're right, I was frustrated because there is not a single fiber in my body that understands how a country can have a gun policy like the US has Yeah I understand how people will be very emotional today. Show nested quote +"It's a constitutional right" seems to me like an argument to change that constitution, not an argument for anyone to own a gun. I'll half agree and say we shouldn't automatically treat something in the U.S. Constitution as infallible, although changing it should not be taken lightly. Show nested quote + I live in EU, I have never held a gun nor felt the need/curiosity to do so. I think what you and many others need to do is pause here (appreciate the honesty) and try to put yourself into the shoes of many of the Americans that you don't understand. You've never held or used a gun. You never felt the need/curiosity to. You don't know what it's like for guns to be a big part of your culture. You don't understand the value people place in that part of their lives, so you should be hesitant to simply decide that value, whatever it is, must be too small to justify current laws and social norms in the U.S. It's very easy to declare something should be illegal when it won't be in any way inconvenient for you (in your mind, assuming you were to live in the U.S. for example). Imagine if some other part of your life was going to be taken away even though you personally did nothing wrong... that wouldn't go over so well.
Solid point. I'm fully aware I'm proposing to strip US citizens from a right that I myself never had, and like you say I cannot value the role that guns play in US culture.
However.
I do think that there is a correlation (be it not a simple 1-to-1 relation, there are several factors weighing in) between mass shootings and the right to bear arms. I'm wondering if a) US citizens in general don't see that correlation, or b) they see it, yet they rather hold on to the right to bear arms rather then reduce those mass shootings. If it's the former, and US citizens don't see the correlation, then I'm done talking I guess, because they're not seeing the problem I'm addressing. If it's the latter, then US citizens value their guns far higher then I could have possibly imagined. I can't help but interpreting that latter point as them saying "mass shootings are awful, but it's the price I'm willing to pay for having a gun in my house". I just cannot grasp that.
|
On June 13 2016 05:55 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2016 05:52 Hier wrote:
As long as Americans keep wanting to shoot cans on the weekend and like the idea of having a cool gun in their possession like Clint Eastwood in the movies nothing will change. The argument really has nothing to do with actual purpose of the Second Amendment or the repercussions of gun ubiquity. It really is a unique culture on the entire planet. This is exactly what I'm talking about actually. Hier doesn't seem to understand where many American gun owners are coming from and characterizes them as "wanting to shoot cans on the weekend and like the idea of having a cool gun in their possession." I'm sure that fairly depicts a few people, but it's not really the American gun culture.
Then what is?
|
Well, american gun culture is just utterly alien to me, and a lot of other europeans. Feel free to explain it better. So far i have heard "It is really not like your impression of it".
So i will write my impression now, and you can feel free to correct it:
I am ignoring the obvious reason ones here (Hunting, defense against animals in wilderness) that are not really something most people object and which are also quite common in europe.
Reasons to own guns are usually named as one of the two:
(1) Recreational
(2) Self-Defense
(3) Protection against the evil government
Recreational means shooting stuff for fun and possibly roasting bacon on rifles.
Self-Defense does not actually appear to work as far as i know, as you are far more likely to be in danger if you own a gun than if you don't.
Protection against the government is just silly.
The big cons are:
(a) A lot of guys get intentionally shot.
(b) a lot of people get accidentally shot.
The reason for (a) is that if there are more guns around, more crimes involve guns, and a crime involving guns has a much higher chance of getting people shot. The reason for (b) is similar. If there are more guns around, it is much more likely that a five-year old will shoot his sister.
To me, the cons just outweigh the pros massively. Everyone is more safe with fewer guns around, and i don't see what is gained if you have more guns around. Please explain this american gun culture in terms a european can understand, because to me it just seems that a bunch of people are incredibly irrational in a way that makes no sense whatsoever to me and that i simply can not comprehend. (Though to be honest you do have Donald Trump as a presidential candidate, so maybe that is indeed that reason)
|
Netherlands45349 Posts
The perpetrator used an Assault rifle, aren't those banned or heavily restricted already?
|
On June 13 2016 06:22 Kipsate wrote:
The perpetrator used an Assault rifle, aren't those banned or heavily restricted already?
well they were but I think the assault rifle ban got repealed/expired and didn't get renewed a few years ago.
|
United States24747 Posts
On June 13 2016 06:02 Hier wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2016 05:55 micronesia wrote:On June 13 2016 05:52 Hier wrote:
As long as Americans keep wanting to shoot cans on the weekend and like the idea of having a cool gun in their possession like Clint Eastwood in the movies nothing will change. The argument really has nothing to do with actual purpose of the Second Amendment or the repercussions of gun ubiquity. It really is a unique culture on the entire planet. This is exactly what I'm talking about actually. Hier doesn't seem to understand where many American gun owners are coming from and characterizes them as "wanting to shoot cans on the weekend and like the idea of having a cool gun in their possession." I'm sure that fairly depicts a few people, but it's not really the American gun culture. Then what is?
Keep in mind there isn't a simple answer to your question. First of all, many Americans don't own or use guns. Your generalization that all Americans are the way you described is clearly wrong, but I think you're ready to move past that.
I myself am not a gun owner which makes me perhaps not the best person to answer your question either (I'll give you my perspective, but don't expect it to be complete). Further, different people (civilians) have or use guns for different reasons. Some people collect old guns as amateur historians. It's extremely rare for a gun collector's gun to get used in a crime, to my knowledge. I suppose if particularly strict new gun laws were put into place to prevent civilians from having guns (as many have proposed in this thread) those guns would have to be collected by government licensed museums only and otherwise destroyed or severely modified.
A family member of mine is a member of a competitive pistol shooting club, and has been for many decades. The group shoots at paper targets only, has inter-club competitions, etc. He's also entered competitions against police forces and other officials for fun. While that hobby may not seem particularly valuable to some readers of this thread, to him taking it away would be way worse than taking away starcraft from most of us (how many decades have you been playing starcraft for?)
Hunting is not something I personally have any interest in, but I know in many places hunting is used as an effective means of controlling the population of various animals. Some hunters don't take it seriously enough, but the majority take it very seriously, are very professional even though it's just a hobby, and respect the animals they are killing by never pulling the trigger unless they have an instant kill, and never wasting the remains. Unlike target shooting, this hobby even has positive ecological impacts (in many places, at least).
Self defense is a tricky one because you get into a chicken vs egg argument very quickly. I think it's undeniable that many people own guns and practice their proficiency in order to be able to defend themselves from a threat. There do exist people who seem to actually want to be put into a situation where they have to use their gun to defend themselves (horrifyingly), but they are probably very rare. Some people argue obtaining and training with a gun makes you into something other than defenseless sheep. Others argue if you get guns out of the equation you will be able to defend yourself without needing a gun yourself. This difference of opinion has driven much of this thread, of course.
Related to self defense, some people like to keep arms in their home, and train with them, in anticipation of near-apocalyptic events. I'm not referring to zombies or anything surreal like that (although there are some nutcases...) but real events do happen that results in looters, mobs, etc, as can be seen in even very recent history. Not wanting to be defenseless when a group of people acting crazy is trying to break into your house for whatever reason I can understand. Hopefully in such a situation your firearms could be a deterrent and no lives would actually be taken. I should point out that I've never lived in a 'bad' neighborhood (the U.S. has its fair share) where you have to worry about your life being taken on a regular basis, so I don't even have that perspective to offer.
Of course there are people who like to go out into the country, shoot at tin cans, and do stuff like that (as you already identified). Some people just want to get a gun because it's cool, but let's not pretend that idea is limited to Americans. The same thing is seen in car markets around the world. Of course, you don't see it with guns in most other countries, or nowhere near as much.
I feel like I gave a good 50% answer to your question, but I definitely didn't do an excellent job of explaining why it's counterproductive to sum up American gun culture with some blanket statement that trivializes the role of guns in the country. Just keep in mind many Americans would say it's a false dichotomy that we can ban guns or have mass shootings (and other related crimes that are over-represented in this country). It's complex.
On June 13 2016 06:22 Kipsate wrote:
The perpetrator used an Assault rifle, aren't those banned or heavily restricted already?
He used an assault weapon which was capable of semi-automatic firing mode. For some reason the media likes to call guns like that an assault rifle even though an assault rifle is a more specific type of firearm which is not typically used in events like these.
|
On June 13 2016 06:09 Simberto wrote:
Well, american gun culture is just utterly alien to me, and a lot of other europeans.
Don't worry, it's alien to a lot of us that live in the USA as well.
|
On June 13 2016 06:22 Kipsate wrote:
The perpetrator used an Assault rifle, aren't those banned or heavily restricted already?
No, he legally purchased the AR-15 during the last month in Florida. Even though he was on an FBI watchlist.
Also just look back through this thread, and you will have a ton of people explaining you, how the AR-15 is not a real assault rifle and really nothing more then a toy.
|
United States24747 Posts
On June 13 2016 06:26 mahrgell wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2016 06:22 Kipsate wrote:
The perpetrator used an Assault rifle, aren't those banned or heavily restricted already? No, he legally purchased the AR-15 during the last month in Florida. Even though he was on an FBI watchlist. Also just look back through this thread, and you will have a ton of people explaining you, how the AR-15 is not a real assault rifle and really nothing more then a toy.
Well it is not an assault rifle, but it also is not a toy. I'm not sure who you are misquoting there, but it's just moving this thread further from the direction of any actual progress.
|
On June 13 2016 06:09 Simberto wrote:
Well, american gun culture is just utterly alien to me, and a lot of other europeans. Feel free to explain it better. So far i have heard "It is really not like your impression of it".
So i will write my impression now, and you can feel free to correct it:
I am ignoring the obvious reason ones here (Hunting, defense against animals in wilderness) that are not really something most people object and which are also quite common in europe.
Reasons to own guns are usually named as one of the two:
(1) Recreational
(2) Self-Defense
(3) Protection against the evil government
Recreational means shooting stuff for fun and possibly roasting bacon on rifles.
Self-Defense does not actually appear to work as far as i know, as you are far more likely to be in danger if you own a gun than if you don't.
Protection against the government is just silly.
The big cons are:
(a) A lot of guys get intentionally shot.
(b) a lot of people get accidentally shot.
The reason for (a) is that if there are more guns around, more crimes involve guns, and a crime involving guns has a much higher chance of getting people shot. The reason for (b) is similar. If there are more guns around, it is much more likely that a five-year old will shoot his sister.
To me, the cons just outweigh the pros massively. Everyone is more safe with fewer guns around, and i don't see what is gained if you have more guns around. Please explain this american gun culture in terms a european can understand, because to me it just seems that a bunch of people are incredibly irrational in a way that makes no sense whatsoever to me and that i simply can not comprehend. (Though to be honest you do have Donald Trump as a presidential candidate, so maybe that is indeed that reason)
I think of it more like a hobby. When the world goes to shit (rest assured it will one day, maybe sooner than later) it will be families who kept the traditions of owning, using, and understanding firearms that the people who advocated their ban will be seeking out for protection (in all fairness they'll probably be the ones ushering in the crapdom as well).
In that scenario I see it being foreign invaders capitalizing on a paralyzed US government more than a US gov turned against it's citizens. Being a well armed and trained country does increase a foreign nations case that nuking us is their only option though so I suppose there's that.
I'm a middle of the road gun owner on the topic at large though. I support universal background checks, reasonable magazine restrictions, broader use of Class licenses for firearms, stronger gun-education minimums, liability being more closely tied to irresponsible gun owners, and several other restrictions/changes.
Banning guns is just lazy and in effect not even a real option. Even countries who have "banned" them still allow some people to keep them.
|
Zurich15357 Posts
On June 13 2016 06:26 mahrgell wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2016 06:22 Kipsate wrote:
The perpetrator used an Assault rifle, aren't those banned or heavily restricted already? No, he legally purchased the AR-15 during the last month in Florida. Even though he was on an FBI watchlist. Also just look back through this thread, and you will have a ton of people explaining you, how the AR-15 is not a real assault rifle and really nothing more then a toy.
You can legally purchase the same gun in Germany, and many other European countries as well.
|
On June 13 2016 06:09 Simberto wrote:
To me, the cons just outweigh the pros massively. Everyone is more safe with fewer guns around, and i don't see what is gained if you have more guns around. Please explain this american gun culture in terms a european can understand, because to me it just seems that a bunch of people are incredibly irrational in a way that makes no sense whatsoever to me and that i simply can not comprehend. (Though to be honest you do have Donald Trump as a presidential candidate, so maybe that is indeed that reason)
Europe went through the most horrific violence in human history two times in two generations. In a significant portion of the European populace this produced a very strong aversion to all things that can easily be used to cause violent death. Europe also has a history of non-individualism being dominant in culture just as long as its history of individualism being dominant in culture. For the last hundred years, individualism has been less dominant in Europe than it has been in American culture. American cultural history is individualistic from the start and is still very strongly individualistic. This individualism is a key part of American attitudes towards guns. It is most likely that there simply is no way to explain America and guns to you in a way you do not see as irrational. The American view on individual humans and society and the European view cause wide divergences on certain issues and guns is one of them. Societies have been trying to reconcile the tension between individualism and collectivism or whatever you want to call it since the creation of societies. That reconciliation isn't likely to happen any time soon. An American would say, even if the threat of lethal violence against me is statistically almost nil (an American, in general, has like a 0.000005% chance every year of being murdered), I as an individual have the right to effective self-defense and effective self-defense for the last 150+ years means guns. The idea that they, a law-abiding citizen, cannot have guns while criminals will still have them is unacceptable to their sense of individualism. Look at Australia. Australia instituted its gun laws that outlawed possession of almost every gun coupled with a forced gun buyback program, and the Australian government estimates that it managed to round up about 20% of the guns in the country that, under the terms of the laws, should have been taken out of private hands. An American who believes in private gun ownership looks at that and says I'd be a fool to go along with such a thing, the majority of guns would simply be hidden from the government and criminals would still have and use them but I'd be a criminal just for having them. That's an unacceptable situation for most Americans.
An American would also say, look at the mass murdering dictatorships of the 20th century. Fewer privately owned guns around didn't make everyone safer then. Dismissing the possibility of such dictatorships ruling or threatening Western countries again or saying that America never had such a dictatorship is not a persuasive counter argument to Americans who view private gun ownership as a bulwark against tyranny. Better having effective means to fight back than sorry is the attitude, an attitude many Europeans can't comprehend because they think it can't happen in Europe ever again, or in America for the first time. We in America and those in Western Europe have been very lucky the last 70 years (for America longer), government not being a bunch of murderous pricks towards the people it has power over has been the exception to human history, not the rule. There's no guarantee that that luck is set in stone for the rest of the future.
|
On June 13 2016 06:09 Simberto wrote:Please explain this american gun culture in terms a european can understand, because to me it just seems that a bunch of people are incredibly irrational in a way that makes no sense whatsoever to me and that i simply can not comprehend.
On June 13 2016 06:34 GreenHorizons wrote:
I think of it more like a hobby. When the world goes to shit (rest assured it will one day, maybe sooner than later) it will be families who kept the traditions of owning, using, and understanding firearms that the people who advocated their ban will be seeking out for protection (in all fairness they'll probably be the ones ushering in the crapdom as well).
In that scenario I see it being foreign invaders capitalizing on a paralyzed US government more than a US gov turned against it's citizens. Being a well armed and trained country does increase a foreign nations case that nuking us is their only option though so I suppose there's that.
What? Is this what trying to explain American gun culture in a way that is not incredibly irrational look like? Amazing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
