If you're seeing this topic then another mass shooting hap…

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.

There were 11,178 households out of which 33.2% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 21.9% were married couples living together, 40.6% had a female householder with no husband present, and 31.4% were non-families. 27.8% of all households were made up of individuals and 10.4% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 3.80 and the average family size was 4.02.

On July 18 2016 01:19 radscorpion9 wrote:
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.

On July 18 2016 21:10 Reivax wrote:
Well, we have had one "mass-shooting" in the style of what America experiences regularly in the last 25 years

On July 10 2016 02:48 Jockmcplop wrote:
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.

On July 18 2016 21:43 DucK- wrote:


I'm with you on this.

I don't quite understand the whole concept of 'freedom' that US or the West embraces. Freedom of speech, freedom to hold guns etc. Ideally everyone is a rational and sensible person and these 'freedom' will not cause social problems. The reality however is that not everyone is responsible, and such 'freedom' may be used to advance their causes. For example, the right to draw cartoons mocking certain religion or races which very likely creates unhappiness and resentment. The right for pilots/train drivers etc to protest and strike which brings disruption, loss and inconvenience to commuters.

I am in the opinion of having such restrictions for the greater good. If it means less social problems, then I am for it. If it means being very much safer at the expense of a hobby like owning guns, then why not? Everyone gives up a little 'freedom', and society as a whole benefits.

Then there's the whole check and balance, democracy thingy which Americans I believe dislike their government to be wielding too much power. Who is the government to determine that this issue is for the greater good etc.

On July 18 2016 22:38 ahswtini wrote:
ah yes, the old give up rights for the greater good of social harmony

On July 18 2016 23:21 DucK- wrote:
"If some Swede wants to draw Mohammed having sex with a pig, then it's fine. It's really, totally fine."

You said it's fine as long as you don't bother others. Problem is that drawing alone bothers/insults muslims, no matter how you try frame it as satire etc. These groups of people dislike it, and that's where using 'freedom' as such becomes irresponsible and insensitive.

On July 19 2016 00:10 Incognoto wrote:
[...]
That doesn't mean we need to blanket ban firearms. That's what they did in countries like Australia and the UK; you can be damn sure that they aren't examples to follow.
[...]

On July 18 2016 23:26 Blargh wrote:
Of course, it's rather rude. But most people like having the freedom to insult each other. I mean, I don't know if you will ever be able to remove THAT from people. I'd also say that there is a very big difference between insulting a religion, and insulting a race. One you have a choice in (or at least, one thinks they do), and the other you have no control over.
But not being a dick to people is usually a pretty nice thing to do.

On July 19 2016 02:59 DucK- wrote:


If you insult privately, it's alright usually. But to draw, publish and sell/distribute the work, you're insulting publicly. You're inciting anger from a particular group of people. Many supporters would brush it off and remark that muslims can't take jokes. But clearly muslims are getting offended by it, and see no hilarity from the comics. And of course don't kid yourself. As much as some may want to frame it as a joke, it is blatant that the intention of the artists/publishers were to mock the religion.

And it's not very hard to implement this. All you need is to implement a sedition law to make publicly speaking, drawing, gesturing etc anything with the deliberate intention to insult the religious or racial feelings punishable by imprisonment etc. Although your 'freedom' to do such stuff is removed, majority of people wouldn't be affected at all anyway because they don't even say such stuff. And those that are affected? Clearly they are not nice people aren't they.

I don't see what one is losing out with this simple sedition law, whereas there's so much more to gain.

Guns is a whole another issue that is more complex admittedly.

Uttering words, etc., with deliberate intent to wound the religious or racial feelings of any person
298. Whoever, with deliberate intention of wounding the religious or racial feelings of any person, utters any word or makes any sound in the hearing of that person, or makes any gesture in the sight of that person, or places any object in the sight of that person, or causes any matter however represented to be seen or heard by that person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 years, or with fine, or with both.