EPTso really, the discussion now is about how to regulate the firearms themselves to make them less effective without trampling on peoples' second amendment rights which is a really weird road to go down because it is PURELY subjective.
If you're seeing this topic then another mass shooting hap…
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. | ||
|
dontforgetosmile
87 Posts
so really, the discussion now is about how to regulate the firearms themselves to make them less effective without trampling on peoples' second amendment rights which is a really weird road to go down because it is PURELY subjective. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24121 Posts
On July 09 2016 10:26 dontforgetosmile wrote: also, i wanted to point out that we are no longer talking about background checks if the catalyst for the current discussion is based on the dallas shooter. so far as i have heard, he had no mental health issues, was ex-military, and obtained his firearm legally (these are all assumptions on my part). so really, the discussion now is about how to regulate the firearms themselves to make them less effective without trampling on peoples' second amendment rights which is a really weird road to go down because it is PURELY subjective. I'm sure I said this pages ago but the sensible solution is give everyone (with universal background checks) access to basic simple arms, then make people get licenses to get more powerful arms like it is now with CWP's and Automatics, tanks and whatever. If it takes an amendment, then get it done. But a reasonable solution to guns only solves part of the problem, there's still poverty, mental health, etc... | ||
micronesia
United States24780 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24121 Posts
On July 09 2016 10:39 micronesia wrote: It's difficult to come up with sensible laws for categorizing guns. What is a 'basic, simple' firearm? There are many examples of laws attempting to make this distinction, failing pretty horribly, and resulting in nonsensical bannings of one firearm over another due to cosmetics or features like bayonets. I won't say it can't be done but everyone should acknowledge it's very nontrivial. Also, the people creating and pushing the laws forward probably are completely ignorant about guns, which doesn't help. I mean 6 shot revolvers, shotguns with 4 or less rounds, and bolt action/small mag (like 10ish) .22's rimfires. People could make some other cases for novelties that fall in there but that's basically it. The rest would be tougher but you could let the NRA/Gun owners have some say in how they would be categorized as well. Probably should have mentioned remotely competent representatives would go a long way but people on both sides of this argument are largely clueless when it comes to DC. | ||
|
dontforgetosmile
87 Posts
On July 09 2016 10:39 micronesia wrote: It's difficult to come up with sensible laws for categorizing guns. What is a 'basic, simple' firearm? There are many examples of laws attempting to make this distinction, failing pretty horribly, and resulting in nonsensical bannings of one firearm over another due to cosmetics or features like bayonets. I won't say it can't be done but everyone should acknowledge it's very nontrivial. Also, the people creating and pushing the laws forward probably are completely ignorant about guns, which doesn't help. your last point is also where (mostly due to firearms ignorance amongst the public), the "gun grabbing" actually happens. see: requirements to be on the california handgun roster. | ||
CosmicSpiral
United States15275 Posts
On July 09 2016 10:35 GreenHorizons wrote: If it takes an amendment, then get it done. But a reasonable solution to guns only solves part of the problem, there's still poverty, mental health, etc... I've always been curious about this particular facet of the public discussion. I haven't seen a convincing argument that the instigators of U.S. mass shootings over the last 10, hell 20 years are connected through mental illness. Frustration, isolation, various levels of narcissism sure, but no consistent proof or diagnoses showing they suffered from cognitive impairment. There seems to be a bizarre assumption that these men must suffer from mental disorders in order to carry out these acts. | ||
|
micronesia
United States24780 Posts
| ||
|
CosmicSpiral
United States15275 Posts
| ||
|
micronesia
United States24780 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24121 Posts
I'm aware people with mental health issues are far more likely to be victims of gun violence self-inflicted or otherwise, including police. | ||
|
CosmicSpiral
United States15275 Posts
On July 09 2016 11:28 micronesia wrote: It's not that vague to be honest... a bullet, a slug, or shot left a barrel, hit a person and they died. I mean, I'll discount the fringe case where a bullet hits a rope which causes a piano to fall on a person. Your final sentence I believe is really what you meant from the beginning, though. I meant something completely different. Specificity matters quite a bit when it comes to connecting mental illness and gun violence, since intention + agency + competence are inevitably questioned. That's what I meant what I said the phrase is too vague to be useful in the discussion. Not to mention it goes to the heart of whether psychiatry should have any influence in public policy (I believe it shouldn't because psychiatry is seriously flawed as a discipline). On July 09 2016 11:36 GreenHorizons wrote: Yeah I was talking about if we want to reduce gun related deaths beyond dealing with selling terrorists guns or whatever with "mental illness". I'm aware people with mental health issues are far more likely to be victims of gun violence self-inflicted or otherwise, including police. I wasn't specifically citing your argument, but the tendency in media to assume mass shooters were of unsound mind until proven otherwise. | ||
|
oBlade
United States6290 Posts
On July 09 2016 08:00 Dan HH wrote: The context is a discussion on the previous page about how 'it's proven that bans do absolutely nothing'. I don't personally think that a ban is realistic option for the US. Oh, okay. I admit I didn't peruse everything, that makes sense. The substitution effect definitely isn't 100% but there can also be other consequences. For example, bad gunmen could end up more than making up for the difference (like what's happening in Brazil), it's hard to predict things with certainty. On July 09 2016 08:38 Djzapz wrote: There's hardly any need for alarmism ever, I mean we should only get alarmed when an issue threatens to wipe out humankind of end live as we know it, and there's only 2-3 issues that do that. Gun ownership in the US does that. I don't think my position is an alarmist one. I happen to believe that some gun control can be worthwhile. The US has gun control already, we're not at sea level right now in 2016. I suggested that a priority should be finding a way to close the private sale loophole, meaning private sales go through the same instant background check as everyone else, without burdening the buyer and seller with undue taxes. Do you have any other substantive ideas you've collected to link me to? I filtered your posts some and it basically seemed like you want to introduce bureaucratic and other obstacles arbitrarily so long as they contribute to the end you've already decided, which is fewer guns, weaker guns, guns being broadly harder to get. On July 09 2016 08:38 Djzapz wrote: Your firearm related death rate is 5.2x that of Canada, your immediate neighbor. The countries at the top of that list really are countries with problems. There are no Euros anywhere near the top. It's not the end of the world, I agree. It's not trivial either. The US is #107 in the world in homicide and #50 in suicide. The rate is like 3-4 homicides per 100k and falling. If you don't quantify things in absolute rates, you could get tricked by factoids like Canada's gun-related death rate being 65 times Hong Kong's. On July 09 2016 04:41 oBlade wrote: You shouldn't need a singular excuse to address poverty, it's bad for all kinds of reasons. I'm well aware, and yet the US doesn't address it very well at all. And now we have all kinds of poor people feeling like they have the short end of the stick so they act out, extremely predictably.[/QUOTE] Who are you referencing and in what way are they acting out? | ||
|
Mandalor28
United States52 Posts
On July 09 2016 11:11 CosmicSpiral wrote: I've always been curious about this particular facet of the public discussion. I haven't seen a convincing argument that the instigators of U.S. mass shootings over the last 10, hell 20 years are connected through mental illness. Frustration, isolation, various levels of narcissism sure, but no consistent proof or diagnoses showing they suffered from cognitive impairment. There seems to be a bizarre assumption that these men must suffer from mental disorders in order to carry out these acts. So if you think the label of "suffering from a mental disorder" does not apply, you ARE implying the attackers were sane. That then implies that they knew what they were doing and were racist, homophobic, etc. And that YOU believe the issue is an issue of an individual opinion or bias against something the attacker deems is wrong (most likely not deemed wrong by the majority). So that either puts you in the boat of agreeing with the attacker, OR in the boat that such thinking that hate based on difference to one's self is insane. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9912 Posts
On July 09 2016 10:08 micronesia wrote: This doesn't even make sense. If I live in a neighborhood with very low risk of any type of random gun violence, legally own a gun that I properly take care of, and my hobby is to use it safely, then it wouldn't really be a blessing to me for you to ban my ability to possess and use the gun. You may have no interest in the hobby but to say it would be a blessing for the hobby to be taken away from others just is nonsensical. If you are trying to say the act of banning the gun reduced the homicide rate in other neighborhoods and it's a blessing to those folks then I could at least understand that but that's not really what you said. I'm okay with a ban on recreational athletic leagues because I don't think being unable to participate in recreational athletic activities is a punishment or a penalty but a blessing. Nope. I'm glad my neighbours can't own guns. I feel safer knowing that no-one on my street has a potential murder weapon in their house. Sure a gun *can* be used for a hobby. If shooting nukes into space could be designated a 'hobby', would you be arguing that you should be able to buy nukes? Just because some people think having a murder weapon in their house is good for a hobby, doesn't make it sensible or smart, Frankly, regional athletic leagues aren't going to make people start killing each other so your argument is disingenuous at best, and you know it. What I said is very simple in its meaning really. The fact that no-one around where I live can legally own a gun makes me safer (ie less likely to die) every day of my life. I don't think any enthusiast or hobbyist being a bit sad about not being able to have one should change that situation. Edit: Qualifying your entire statement with "If I live in a neighbourhood with very low risk of random gun violence" is completely nonsensical unless you can tell me a country that devolves power over gun laws on a street by street basis. | ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
On July 09 2016 06:47 Jockmcplop wrote: I fundamentally disagree with your position because I don't believe that being unable to own a firearm is a punishment or a penalty but a blessing. What you believe in is different than what other believe in. So keep your beliefs to yourself really. That kind of mentality belongs in the stone age, or communist regimes. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9912 Posts
On July 09 2016 19:45 Incognoto wrote: What you believe in is different than what other believe in. So keep your beliefs to yourself really. That kind of mentality belongs in the stone age, or communist regimes. EDIT: deleted comment because its better not to lower myself to your level. | ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
On July 09 2016 19:47 Jockmcplop wrote: Yeah I should just post them on some sort of 'forum' for sharing stuff instead. Oh, wait. Haha stone age. Nice. I assume your arguing FOR the ability to have murder weapons, right? That's very evolved of you. Yes, because the freedom to do whatever I fucking want as long as I don't bother other people is something that I hold dear to. Even as a person who does not own (or even used) a firearm in their life. If you can't understand that, then I will call you a caveman, rightfully so. Micronesia makes good posts regarding this matter, but you just don't want to consider another position other than your own, which is precisely what I dislike about people like you. In the same vein that I do not smoke weed, nor do I ever intend to, I have no problem whatsoever with its legalization. Even if it's a gateway drug. Drugs, tobacco and alcohol end many more lives each year than they do firearms. We don't outlaw them (well drugs aside, but the trend is changing) because we don't live in the stone age. EVEN THOUGH these substances present many risks, both to the users and the other people surrounding them (drunk driving, domestic violence, etc.). If you can't understand that position, then you aren't going to have a good time in this thread. We're discussing proper gun regulation ITT, not fascist blanket bans. Believe me, you might feel safe in a neighborhood with firearms, but I sure as well wouldn't feel safe living around people who would murder me if only they could. Edit: "lowering yourself to my level" ? grow up, rofl | ||
|
micronesia
United States24780 Posts
On July 09 2016 19:01 Jockmcplop wrote: So you think them not being able to own weapons is a blessing, to you. Okay, I can understand that, although your previous post was unclear. I did establish that you might have a meaning to this effect, so I'm not sure what you mean by 'nope.' Perhaps you say 'nope' in response to posts from people who disagree with you on things. As ridiculous as that sounds, consider your use of the term 'murder weapon' instead of gun which kind of gives away how reasonable you are going to be in a discussion on this topic. Guns can be murder weapons, but most are not and will not ever commit murder. Murder weapons can be guns, or they can be many other things.Nope. I'm glad my neighbours can't own guns. I feel safer knowing that no-one on my street has a potential murder weapon in their house. Sure a gun *can* be used for a hobby. That's actually how most are used. It's odd you act like it's some type of rare exception If shooting nukes into space could be designated a 'hobby', would you be arguing that you should be able to buy nukes? Pretty much anything could be a hobby, in theory, so obviously we can't consider things allowable solely because people consider them hobbies. The difference is that shooting a nuke into space, even if done with the best of intentions, has crazy negative side effects. Shooting a gun at a range by itself does not have crazy negative side effects.Just because some people think having a murder weapon in their house is good for a hobby, doesn't make it sensible or smart, It isn't necessary for both regional athletic leagues and shooting sports to have similar levels of 'people start killing each other' in order for my point to be valid. My point was that your statement didn't make sense without qualification, although you've since clarified your position.Frankly, regional athletic leagues aren't going to make people start killing each other so your argument is disingenuous at best, and you know it. What I said is very simple in its meaning really. The fact that no-one around where I live can legally own a gun makes me safer (ie less likely to die) every day of my life. Now that you actually explained this in your more recent post, it's a more logical position, whether I agree with your stance or not.I don't think any enthusiast or hobbyist being a bit sad about not being able to have one should change that situation. Yeah to you, a gun ban would seem like some hobbyists might be a bit said. That's a matter of perspective, though, and clearly you don't understand the perspective of those who support individual gun ownership in the USA, nor are you willing to try to.Edit: Qualifying your entire statement with "If I live in a neighbourhood with very low risk of random gun violence" is completely nonsensical unless you can tell me a country that devolves power over gun laws on a street by street basis. Actually, there are many neighborhoods in the USA like that where the odds of ending up a victim of gun violence are very low, as opposed to certain inner cities with significant active gang violence. Once again, it seems like you don't really understand what life is like for Americans at all. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9912 Posts
Similarly, you don't understand what life is like living in a country with virtually no guns. It feels safe, and good. No-one has ever complained to me about not being able to own a gun, literally not a single person. Everyone just walks around not getting shot all day. Its a cultural difference that makes this whole discussion pretty pointless. As to your last sentence, you haven't understood what i'm saying. I understand that there is a difference between the relative safety of certain neighbourhoods, but unless you can legislate for that by banning guns in certain neighbourhoods the point is moot. Otherwise your attitude seems to be "Yeah its dangerous in some areas but who cares about that, i like my hobby" Anyway this whole conversation has confirmed to me that although people like to dress the argument up as being something about freedom or the ability to resist oppression or protect yourself, it basically boils down to "I like guns, I want a gun, screw the consequences." | ||
|
Nakama
Germany584 Posts
Someone even brought up about 20 studies that "show" that it has nothing to do with each other... when u try to fight the most basic logic with "statistics" every discussion becomes pointless i guess...i feel sad =( | ||
| ||
