|
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 July 09 2016 20:32 Jockmcplop wrote:
Of course I don't understand what life is like for people living in America, I have never lived there.
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."
You're camping on your position and just repeating the same thing over and over again. You're also refusing to even try to understand the points other people are trying to make.
It's not a cultural difference which makes this discussion pointless, it's your inability to see another point of view rather than your own.
|
United States24581 Posts
On July 09 2016 20:32 Jockmcplop wrote:
Of course I don't understand what life is like for people living in America, I have never lived there. Indeed. Further, you seem to have no interest in trying to understand why many Americans are supporters of individual gun ownership and some related rights.
Similarly, you don't understand what life is like living in a country with virtually no guns. I've never lived in another country, but I really don't think my 'lack of understanding' is comparable to yours. You seem to have absolutely no idea what it's like to live in the USA from a perspective of gun-related safety, where as I can reasonably understand what it's like for people aside from military/police to have access to firearms (with rare exceptions).
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. What's your point? That our cultures are completely different? No shit. I'd much rather live in my country than yours, and that's my prerogative. However, it seems to me like you think I walk around all day getting shot at. I know you'll deny it, but read what you just wrote. If you walk around one of the most dangerous neighborhoods in the entire United States, I'm sure you'll have cause to be concerned, but even then it is not literally a war zone with people consistently shooting guns. For perspective, I have never seen a gun fired illegally in the USA other than in videos on the News and the like. I have also never had a gun pointed at me. Amazingly, despite our gun laws (screwy as they may be) I don't feel the need to fear guns.
Its a cultural difference that makes this whole discussion pretty pointless. No, you make this discussion pointless. I'm willing to understand both sides of this issue. I don't even own any guns or think the current gun laws should remain as they are (they can be improved). However, you are being unreasonable and as a result nothing can get accomplished here. It is possible to have your position without coming across like you don't care what people with other views have to say because they are going to be wrong by default and you will be right. In your defense, there are many people like you in this thread, including a few who are avid supporters of current gun laws in the USA.
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. Actually, this 'disagreement' started because your first post in this chain was unclear. I was simply using an example to show why your first post made no sense, but it was rendered obsolete when you clarified your position in the second post.
Otherwise your attitude seems to be "Yeah its dangerous in some areas but who cares about that, i like my hobby" As I mentioned earlier in this post, that is not actually my attitude. You are too quick to jump to assumptions and as a result, are wrong. Also, for people who do have that attitude, it's not actually that unreasonable. Obviously, everyone should be willing to give a little up to make the world better for everyone, but there comes a point where you can simply say "don't punish me when I did nothing wrong." It's easy to push back against them by claiming their reason for wanting their current rights unchanged are very minor and the benefit of stripping rights is very major, but it's actually very subjective which is why it's so important to understand where everyone is coming from.
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."
I get the feeling you entered into this conversation with the assumption that the opposition had such an argument, and it was 100% guaranteed you would leave the discussion with exactly that same perception.
|
United States15275 Posts
On July 09 2016 18:04 Mandalor28 wrote:
So if you think the label of "suffering from a mental disorder" does not apply, you ARE implying the attackers were sane.
First, the label cannot apply by definition since mental disorder requires a diagnosis. It is a symptom-based paradigm, not a disease-based one (even though psychiatry has been trying very hard to switch to the latter). In most of these shootings, people don't bother to distinguish a possible mental disorder from a personality construct.
Second, just because the attackers could be sane doesn't mean they couldn't also have mental disorders. Mental disorders can be completely incidental, not a primary cause, to a shooting.
On July 09 2016 18:04 Mandalor28 wrote:
That then implies that they knew what they were doing and were racist, homophobic, etc.
Racist, homophobic, etc.? Sure. But I doubt it was the primary motivation behind their actions; racism and homophobia usually don't supersede personal safety. They could also be manifestations of defense mechanisms like splitting. That certainly seems to be true for the Dallas shootings.
On July 09 2016 18:04 Mandalor28 wrote:
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).
Swing and a miss. Induction has failed you.
The problem is that the media has framed mass shootings in a way that ideological opposition or mental impairment are considered the relevant motivating factors. This leads to outcries over systemic issues (hand-wringing over "toxic masculinity", gun control, institutional racism) or pushing the attacker into the realm of Otherness (he was a radical Muslim, he was weird unlike us, he was incapable of clearly understanding his actions).
On July 09 2016 18:04 Mandalor28 wrote:
So that either puts you in the boat of agreeing with the attacker
About what?
On July 09 2016 18:04 Mandalor28 wrote:
OR in the boat that such thinking that hate based on difference to one's self is insane.
No. "Hate based on difference to one's self" is not a sign of mental instability. It is immature and usually a indicator of narcissism. But usually it works by dissipating any impetus towards violence in exchange for pleasure gained from moral superiority. Clearly, something different is happening with these people.
|
Micronesia
Actually I entered into this conversation with one single sentence simply saying i'm glad i'm not able to own a gun and was instantly showered with hostility, which isn't a particularly good way of getting a conversation going, and doesn't particularly prompt me into feeling particularly understanding about the aggressor's views.
Screw it, i've done this a bunch of times in this thread, why not start again, and lets be a bit less unfriendly about this.
Your post is hard to quote and answer so i'll just number the sections.
1: Why don't you tell me exactly why you are in favour of gun rights and owership? I've a fairly good idea about some of the reasons most people talk about, you appear to be approaching this from the side of hobbyist.
2: It depends what you mean. Obviously I don't think the US is a warzone, but there is about one mass killing (admittedly this term has a very arbitrary definition) per day. That is much less safe than I would be comfortable with if I lived there. In the UK we don't really have mass killings very often. I know this view is totally ignoring the positive aspects of gun ownership and just honing in the negatives, but I do this because I strongly believe that the negatives are far more important in this particular case. Feel free to explain to me why they aren't.
3. I was being hyperbolic. Of course people don't walk around all day getting shot at. You say you don't fear guns, is that because you own a gun? Personally I feel like guns should be feared. They are scary.
4. See my bit at the top of this post. I was being unreasonable because I immediately faced hostility from a single sentence. Yes I admit i was being unreasonable.
5.
6. I don't see how that is subjective. I suppose if you see a hobby as more important than some people's lives then yes. To me, as far as we can really call any moral argument objective, avoiding suffering is a good thing. Avoiding death is even better, and creating conditions where death is more likely to be avoided is more important than someone's hobby. Again feel free to tell me if you think i'm wrong, i'm not trying to be unreasonable any more I just don't get how this can be dismissed as just subjective.
7. Its not 100% guaranteed, again tell me why i'm wrong.
|
United States24581 Posts
On July 10 2016 02:48 Jockmcplop wrote:
Micronesia
Actually I entered into this conversation with one single sentence simply saying i'm glad i'm not able to own a gun and was instantly showered with hostility, which isn't a particularly good way of getting a conversation going, and doesn't particularly prompt me into feeling particularly understanding about the aggressor's views.
Well,
In your first post in this thread you actually said that a person who wants to own guns is a "sadist, and a psychopath." Then, after painting yourself as some innocent snowflake you argue that you were met with hostility... by the people you called a psychopath.
Perhaps you forgot all about your early posts and are just referring to last month when you said "Just admit it, you like having a nice shiny new gun," "So you like having a nice new murder weapon," "618 pages of 'No really, i promise its not just that i really like having a gun,'" etc. Of course anyone who isn't completely in alignment with you on this topic is going to be aggressive. You are doing everything in your power to paint the people who disagree with you as terrible people.
This specific sub-conversation started when you said "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" which also didn't make sense and therefore drew some aggro so to speak.
Screw it, i've done this a bunch of times in this thread, why not start again, and lets be a bit less unfriendly about this. See above.
Your post is hard to quote and answer so i'll just number the sections.
1: Why don't you tell me exactly why you are in favour of gun rights and owership? I've a fairly good idea about some of the reasons most people talk about, you appear to be approaching this from the side of hobbyist. This has actually been discussed many times in this thread.
2: It depends what you mean. Obviously I don't think the US is a warzone, but there is about one mass killing (admittedly this term has a very arbitrary definition) per day. That is much less safe than I would be comfortable with if I lived there. In the UK we don't really have mass killings very often. I know this view is totally ignoring the positive aspects of gun ownership and just honing in the negatives, but I do this because I strongly believe that the negatives are far more important in this particular case. Feel free to explain to me why they aren't. Why are you focusing on mass killings? They make up a small portion of killings (with or without guns). I'm honestly much more afraid of driving my car on public roads than of a freak shooting affecting me. That's right... I'm much more in danger of getting hurt/killed by a car than a bullet. I'm not saying we should ban cars if we should ban guns, just that I should give things the actual attention they deserve in my personal daily life when it comes to what I worry about.
3. I was being hyperbolic. Of course people don't walk around all day getting shot at. You say you don't fear guns, is that because you own a gun? Personally I feel like guns should be feared. They are scary. I don't fear getting shot because it's so unlikely to happen. Of course, I don't spend my days walking around the worst few neighborhoods in the country by myself at night while wearing gang colors.
4. See my bit at the top of this post. I was being unreasonable because I immediately faced hostility from a single sentence. Yes I admit i was being unreasonable. Honestly I don't even know which innocent sentence you are attempting to reference. See the top of this post.
6. I don't see how that is subjective. I suppose if you see a hobby as more important than some people's lives then yes. It's extremely disingenuous for you to phrase the question "what's more important, your gun hobby or the lives of innocents?" You can take away almost any right with that approach. Obviously, it's more nuanced than that. If we knew that banning all guns in the USA would save one life every 50 years, it would be hard to get that law passed. If we knew that banning guns tomorrow would prevent thousands of deaths a day with no other downsides, we'd do it. Ultimately, it comes down to subjective judgments, and it isn't an issue that can be fully understood so we are forced to operate with limited information by studying history, psychology, criminology, etc.
To me, as far as we can really call any moral argument objective, avoiding suffering is a good thing. Avoiding death is even better, and creating conditions where death is more likely to be avoided is more important than someone's hobby. See directly above, but you can't simply weigh a hobby against deaths when there is a connection between that hobby and death because it depends on how strong the connection is and what numbers we actually expect to see. We don't ban general aviation even though some pilots crash their plane and die because the issue is more complicated than "what's more important, your right to fly a small plane or the life of innocent people?"
Again feel free to tell me if you think i'm wrong, i'm not trying to be unreasonable any more I just don't get how this can be dismissed as just subjective.
7. Its not 100% guaranteed, again tell me why i'm wrong. Perhaps start by acknowledging the crap at the top of my post first. Also, you should look through what was discussed in this thread with an attempt to remain unbiased. Of course, I don't expect you to reread the entire thread, but most of the explanations you are currently seeking would simply be restating things that have been said before.
|
So you want me to try and understand your position, and when i ask you about your position, you say "no thanks".
I'm the unreasonable one.
I'm out, this is ridiculous.
Bye
|
United States24581 Posts
Were you looking for an excuse to say "I'm out, this is ridiculous" or were you actually trying not to be unreasonable? I mean, you completely ignore most of my post, such as how I pointed out you came into this thread guns blazing despite your attempts to paint yourself in a different light.
I'm willing to move past that when people legitimately want to better understand an issue in order to discuss it intelligently, but let's be honest, it takes more than an apparent "ok I'll actually hear what you have to say this time so go ahead, convince me I'm not 100% right and you're not 100% wrong here" to earn having the entire thread summed up for you again.
|
On July 10 2016 03:30 Jockmcplop wrote:
So you want me to try and understand your position, and when i ask you about your position, you say "no thanks".
I'm the unreasonable one.
I'm out, this is ridiculous.
Bye
0/10
User was warned for this post
|
On July 09 2016 20:32 Jockmcplop wrote:
Of course I don't understand what life is like for people living in America, I have never lived there.
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."
Here's an easier way to think of it. Guns in US is a bit like Running of the Bulls in Spain; it's simply a cultural thing. Sure, it has no practical positive purpose, and it might cost a few lives annually, but ultimately the resulting casualty numbers are too small for them to overpower the sheer weight of the cultural identity guns carry. It's a trade off that Americans have accepted, leave them be.
|
On July 11 2016 02:36 Hier wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2016 20:32 Jockmcplop wrote:
Of course I don't understand what life is like for people living in America, I have never lived there.
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." Here's an easier way to think of it. Guns in US is a bit like Running of the Bulls in Spain; it's simply a cultural thing. Sure, it has no practical positive purpose, and it might cost a few lives annually, but ultimately the resulting casualty numbers are too small for them to overpower the sheer weight of the cultural identity guns carry. It's a trade off that Americans have accepted, leave them be.
Actually you would be suprised to see how many people here in spain dislike bullfights. I dont think ive even met anybody who even outright supported them. They are cruel and barbaric to animals and several people are killed. You cant compare that to guns in america, where the overwhelming majority approve of their legal status. Guns are not just a cultural thing, they can also be used for self defense, hunting or hobby.
|
|
|
I'm surprised that this thread hasn't been bumped in light of recent events. Have the police figured out whether the grenades and rifle brought by the French guy were fake or not?
On July 11 2016 02:36 Hier wrote:
Here's an easier way to think of it. Guns in US is a bit like Running of the Bulls in Spain; it's simply a cultural thing. Sure, it has no practical positive purpose, and it might cost a few lives annually, but ultimately the resulting casualty numbers are too small for them to overpower the sheer weight of the cultural identity guns carry. It's a trade off that Americans have accepted, leave them be.
Gun politics in America has enormous cultural, historical, and demographic divisions. They're all linked.
Wall of text below.
+ Show Spoiler +http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gun-deaths/Demographics is probably the most straightforward topic and the most complicated topic. The homicide rate for white young males is ~1.8/100,000 (Finland levels). The homicide rate for black young males is ~50/100,000 (off the scale; literally worse than third world warzones).It turns out that centuries of slavery, oppression, and ongoing discrimination may take some time to resolve. Unfortunately, this tends to color basically everything people hear about the gun control debate depending on where they live and who they live next to. For people who live in rural areas that are ethnically homogenous, homicide is virtually nonexistent. Everyone trusts each other because they live next to each other for decades. Guns are extremely useful for hunting, livestock protection, and protection from dangerous animals in rural communities. In the rare cases when serious crime occurs, the police could be hours (even days) away; whatever firearms someone owns are often the only protection possible. This is basically why firearms are so popular in Southern and Midwestern states. This is also why the few rural Northern and Western states (Vermont, Alaska, Washington, Oregon) also like guns despite more-liberal-than-average views. For people who live in urban areas that are ethically heterogenous, homicide is depressingly regular and popular. People move frequently and do not trust each other. Use of firearms is essentially restricted to self-defense and crime. Law enforcement is typically minutes away for wealthier neighborhoods, maybe half an hour away for poorer ones. This is basically why firearms are so unpopular in Northeastern and Western states. This is also why large cities in otherwise-conservative states tend to support gun control. In contrast to the above American stuff, most other first world countries are ridiculously homogeneous, have cultural ties going back centuries, and live packed next to each other like sardines. I can't comment on what this means overall. However, I do believe that the slightest influx of Brown Others appears to have cracked Europe in half overnight and sent the UK screaming from the Continent. In America, this would be called "Tuesday". Unfortunately, nobody has come up with a good tally of defensive gun use in the United States (ranges from 40,000-4 million/year, depending on source). Nobody has broken down defensive gun use by demographics, either. So I can't say anything about defensive gun use statistics. Suicides are, ironically, higher in rural areas than urban areas (whole separate issue).
|
|
|
Its getting out of control. Now we seem to have revenge killings for what the police allegedly did wrong in the previous shooting of a black person (and that is still controversial). I feel like the media has some role to play in this after basically blasting the view that the police officers were at fault.
Be that as it may, with respect to this debate I don't think you need to ban guns. The all or nothing approach is not necessary or feasible. All you really need to do is require training and certification, and especially new rules preventing mentally unfit people from carrying a firearm (which is the cause of many of these events). What was it, in Orlando, the shooter went to a store and openly asked for body armor, tons of ammunition, and a rifle...I mean if he ends up getting these weapons in spite of such brutal honesty I think there is something wrong with the system.
Norway and Sweden are 9th and 10th in terms of the number of guns per 100 people in the world (sitting at ~31), while the US sits at 112.6 per 100 people. Even with 1/4 of the number of guns that the US has, you don't have any mass shootings. This is including the fact that you can buy a fully automatic machine gun in Sweden - in Norway there is a ban on fully automatic weapons, but you can buy semi-automatic weapons like the AR15.
So I find the whole debate about guns kind of misleading when you look at the broader picture. The question is not to ban or not ban guns, especially in the United States, it should be what regulations to apply like Obama himself has stated on numerous occasions.
People have a right to protect themselves; police response times are not immediate, in particular if you work in a convenience store or you're at home in a dangerous neighbourhood. Of course it could have also been invaluable in a club like Orlando, if you have a concealed carry license. Why assault rifles? Its simply a better guarantee that you will hit your target than with a handgun. Regardless it should be perfectly safe if the training is good enough.
|
The problem goes deeper than firearms to be honest.
Look at Nice. You don't even need a firearm, at this point it's a mental health problem. So many people just doing these massacres (since you don't need a firearm to kill lots of people) because of X or X.
Now, I really think that the media should start calming the fuck down when this happens. Really in my eyes I'm starting to see them as quite guilty, what with over-reporting / overblowing the situation. I mean, they make more money off of it, of course they aren't going to tone it down and report things neutrally.
|
I think you're right about Nice - in that case I feel like there could have been better security for such a major event, and many opposition members in the government seem to feel the same (some are quite angry about it). But you have to tackle one thing at a time. It is a multi-headed problem, and as far as this 'head' is concerned I think there are reasonable gun control measures which will allow gun enthusiasts to keep their guns.
The only problem (in the US) is that the NRA is convinced that any and all regulations are just a smokescreen, a precursor to banning all guns, as Obama has pointed out repeatedly. It is this insanity that is the cause of so many problems in my view (in addition to the media's reckless reporting).
|
I don't trust a congressman who believes that the body shuts down pregnancy after "legitimate rape" happens to pass useful abortion legislation. Why would any gun owner trust a politician who doesn't even know what an "assault rifle" is to pass meaningful firearms legislation?
It would be easier to trust the intentions of people who want to enact "reasonable restrictions" on guns if said people showed any interest whatsoever in learning about firearms.
On July 18 2016 02:30 radscorpion9 wrote:
The only problem (in the US) is that the NRA is convinced that any and all regulations are just a smokescreen, a precursor to banning all guns, as Obama has pointed out repeatedly.
The NRA has less than five million members. There are only 100 million Americans who are willing to admit they own a gun (30-40% of the population). Yet, as of October 2015, the NRA is viewed favorably by 58% of the American population (>170 million).
Some people seem to believe that the NRA is comprised of nine mortal men and Sauron who control firearms legislation by turning politicians into Ringwraiths. A lot of people seem to ignore that the NRA has a membership over six times larger than that of the ACLU, enjoys majority support from Americans, and makes up a majority voting block.
If the problem is that a huge chunk of the populace thinks that gun legislation is a slippery slope to confiscation, America has larger issues than guns. Like basic faith in the government or the ability to trust other Americans.
It doesn't help that there's an enormous gulf between ideas that everyone supports (universal background checks) and how those ideas are actually implemented (once again, universal background checks). And a big part of this disconnect is that the people who are doing the legislation simply do not understand how said legislation impacts guns and gun owners. Turns out that that's really difficult for people who do not want to learn about guns, let alone the history and culture surrounding guns.
TL DR: Gun owners assume bad intentions from non gun owners.
|
there seems to be a bit of a separation of thruth levels between the biological processes of human procreation and definitions of terms in a language.
|
On July 18 2016 05:46 puerk wrote:
there seems to be a bit of a separation of thruth levels between the biological processes of human procreation and definitions of terms in a language.
I agree; definitions are much, much easier to get right and learn correctly. They're also more crucial for drafting legislation. Politicians that don't bother to learn firearm definitions are even more ignorant on guns than our anti abortion politicians are on pregnancy, and it shows in proposed laws.
Even the most rabid pro-life politicians know that holes are called vaginas and rods are called penises. Quite a few gun control proponents haven't even reached a similar state of knowledge concerning firearms. Most politicians don't seem to know the definitions of "assault rifle", "muzzle brake", and other such simple terminology; I don't know if so much as a fifth of gun control proponents in Congress could even begin to describe the mechanical processes of firearm operation...let alone firearm history and culture.
This basic lack of knowledge appears to cause debates that can't even create consistent legislation, let alone create good laws.
+ Show Spoiler +A: I don't want to take away dog owners' rights. But we need to do something about Rottweilers. B: So what do you propose? A: I just think that there should be some sort of training or restrictions on owning an attack dog. B: Wait. What's an "attack dog?" A: You know what I mean. Like military dogs. B: Huh? Rottweilers aren't military dogs. In fact "military dogs" isn't a thing. You mean like German Shepherds? A: Don't be ridiculous. Nobody's trying to take away your German Shepherds. But civilians shouldn't own fighting dogs. B: I have no idea what dogs you're talking about now. A: You're being both picky and obtuse. You know I mean hounds. B: What the fuck. A: OK, maybe not actually "hounds." Maybe I have the terminology wrong. I'm not obsessed with vicious dogs like you. But we can identify kinds of dogs that civilians just don't need to own. B: Can we?
|
Beagles are hounds and one of the most friendly beings on this planet (unless you're game, I guess).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
