|
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 May 22 2018 12:32 KwarK wrote:
Again, stop trying to change the subject. You attempted to argue that the policies enacted in response to an issue cause the issue. It was dumb. Take it back and stop digging. Chicago does not prove that gun bans cause gun violence.
He actually said that "gun bans have no discernable effect on gun violence". Which I don't know that those stats prove either, but it's not nearly as ridiculous a statement.
|
On May 22 2018 12:40 Plansix wrote:No, its mostly you railing against any discussion about the effectiveness of gun control. Let us not forget the amazing math challenge of February, 2018, in which you tapped into TL second love beyond BW: Statistics. https://www.liquiddota.com/forum/general/313472-if-youre-seeing-this-topic-then-another-mass-shooting-happened-and-people-disagree-on-what-to-do?page=689#13761In which people pointed out that you are dead set on forcing the burden of proof onto gun control advocates at all times. Including claiming that England "gathering of fire arm statistics are vastly different" without providing any evidence or information to back up that claim. It is a weird claim because the US doesn't really collect fire arms statistics nationally in any meaningful way. People are just tired of doing all the work in this relationship. Edit: and now the argument boils down to "His argument is dumb" vs "no its not".
U.K's statistics are based off of convictions not reports of dead bodies/crimes committed. Reported by the Home Office in the UK. Not to mention their definition of 'violent crime' is vastly different from the definition of 'violent crime' by the FBI.
On May 22 2018 12:47 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2018 12:32 KwarK wrote:
Again, stop trying to change the subject. You attempted to argue that the policies enacted in response to an issue cause the issue. It was dumb. Take it back and stop digging. Chicago does not prove that gun bans cause gun violence. He actually said that "gun bans have no discernable effect on gun violence". Which I don't know that those stats prove either, but it's not nearly as ridiculous a statement.
Of which would be my opinion based on the statistics, but all statistics really point that it's really inconclusive at best.
|
|
|
If those statistics are from the Home Office they follow the same methodology. Crime is based off of convictions not 'did it happen or not.' Thus why the U.K.'s crime in general looks way better than the U.S. number wise.
|
Is anyone interested in a debate about the validity of arguing for gun control in the first place? As it would save more lives if the attention given to it was instead diverted in any number of other campaigns?
I don't want to get in a shit fit about it but I'm interested in exploring Kwarks philosophy that the status quo in america is that the people killed by gun violence is the price to pay for the people having the constitutional right to guns.
|
On May 22 2018 13:11 Sermokala wrote:
Is anyone interested in a debate about the validity of arguing for gun control in the first place? As it would save more lives if the attention given to it was instead diverted in any number of other campaigns?
I don't want to get in a shit fit about it but I'm interested in exploring Kwarks philosophy that the status quo in america is that the people killed by gun violence is the price to pay for the people having the constitutional right to guns.
My starting point on that conversation would be "we would save a lot more lives by diverting a relatively modest amount of money towards foreign aid to undeveloped countries, but that doesn't seem to be happening, so I don't know how useful this line of argument is".
I also doubt there are many people who want gun control who are opposed to greater support for mental health issue prevention and treatment, et cetera.
|
On May 22 2018 13:18 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2018 13:11 Sermokala wrote:
Is anyone interested in a debate about the validity of arguing for gun control in the first place? As it would save more lives if the attention given to it was instead diverted in any number of other campaigns?
I don't want to get in a shit fit about it but I'm interested in exploring Kwarks philosophy that the status quo in america is that the people killed by gun violence is the price to pay for the people having the constitutional right to guns. My starting point on that conversation would be "we would save a lot more lives by diverting a relatively modest amount of money towards foreign aid to undeveloped countries, but that doesn't seem to be happening, so I don't know how useful this line of argument is". I also doubt there are many people who want gun control who are opposed to greater support for mental health issue prevention and treatment, et cetera.
I think the first thing is that do we truly believe gun control would curb school shootings? Because school shootings are clearly unique to the United States alone. Is it because of the plethora of guns? Or is there something else going on?
Article on CNN that was posted was quite interesting, especially when you start comparing the United States to countries with typically high crime/high violent firearm crimes.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/21/us/school-shooting-us-versus-world-trnd/index.html
Mexico/Russia/Brazil/Greece, countries that typically rank fairly high on the firearm homicide rate have way less school shooting incidents then the United States. This would likely lead to the belief that the issue is far more complex and harder to solve then simply "delete all guns in the countries and it'll go away." Like I said, it's a uniquely American problem. I think easy access of firearms is only one small part of the problem, and that major issues like mental health, cultural expectations of males in the United States, etc. play a much bigger role.
|
On May 22 2018 14:17 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2018 13:18 Aquanim wrote:On May 22 2018 13:11 Sermokala wrote:
Is anyone interested in a debate about the validity of arguing for gun control in the first place? As it would save more lives if the attention given to it was instead diverted in any number of other campaigns?
I don't want to get in a shit fit about it but I'm interested in exploring Kwarks philosophy that the status quo in america is that the people killed by gun violence is the price to pay for the people having the constitutional right to guns. My starting point on that conversation would be "we would save a lot more lives by diverting a relatively modest amount of money towards foreign aid to undeveloped countries, but that doesn't seem to be happening, so I don't know how useful this line of argument is". I also doubt there are many people who want gun control who are opposed to greater support for mental health issue prevention and treatment, et cetera. I think the first thing is that do we truly believe gun control would curb school shootings? Because school shootings are clearly unique to the United States alone. Is it because of the plethora of guns? Or is there something else going on? Article on CNN that was posted was quite interesting, especially when you start comparing the United States to countries with typically high crime/high violent firearm crimes. https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/21/us/school-shooting-us-versus-world-trnd/index.htmlMexico/Russia/Brazil/Greece, countries that typically rank fairly high on the firearm homicide rate have way less school shooting incidents then the United States. This would likely lead to the belief that the issue is far more complex and harder to solve then simply "delete all guns in the countries and it'll go away." Like I said, it's a uniquely American problem. I think easy access of firearms is only one small part of the problem, and that major issues like mental health, cultural expectations of males in the United States, etc. play a much bigger role.
I agree that the problems of the US go way further than the widespread availability of firearms and that gun legislation on its own is unlikely to solve the problem of the US.
However, that does not mean that gun legislation is not a necessary component of an effective solution for the US, nor that people who are specifically talking about it are wrong to do so.
(EDIT: I would also point out that besides legislation directly related to access to firearms, the attitudes and culture surrounding guns is likely very different in the US as opposed to other countries. I don't have any data and I wouldn't know where to look but it would not surprise me to find that more children are taught to shoot and/or exposed to guns as an integral part of their identity in the US as opposed to other parts of the world.)
|
On May 22 2018 14:47 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2018 14:17 superstartran wrote:On May 22 2018 13:18 Aquanim wrote:On May 22 2018 13:11 Sermokala wrote:
Is anyone interested in a debate about the validity of arguing for gun control in the first place? As it would save more lives if the attention given to it was instead diverted in any number of other campaigns?
I don't want to get in a shit fit about it but I'm interested in exploring Kwarks philosophy that the status quo in america is that the people killed by gun violence is the price to pay for the people having the constitutional right to guns. My starting point on that conversation would be "we would save a lot more lives by diverting a relatively modest amount of money towards foreign aid to undeveloped countries, but that doesn't seem to be happening, so I don't know how useful this line of argument is". I also doubt there are many people who want gun control who are opposed to greater support for mental health issue prevention and treatment, et cetera. I think the first thing is that do we truly believe gun control would curb school shootings? Because school shootings are clearly unique to the United States alone. Is it because of the plethora of guns? Or is there something else going on? Article on CNN that was posted was quite interesting, especially when you start comparing the United States to countries with typically high crime/high violent firearm crimes. https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/21/us/school-shooting-us-versus-world-trnd/index.htmlMexico/Russia/Brazil/Greece, countries that typically rank fairly high on the firearm homicide rate have way less school shooting incidents then the United States. This would likely lead to the belief that the issue is far more complex and harder to solve then simply "delete all guns in the countries and it'll go away." Like I said, it's a uniquely American problem. I think easy access of firearms is only one small part of the problem, and that major issues like mental health, cultural expectations of males in the United States, etc. play a much bigger role. I agree that the problems of the US go way further than the widespread availability of firearms and that gun legislation on its own is unlikely to solve the problem of the US. However, that does not mean that gun legislation is not a necessary component of an effective solution for the US, nor that people who are specifically talking about it are wrong to do so. (EDIT: I would also point out that besides legislation directly related to access to firearms, the attitudes and culture surrounding guns is likely very different in the US as opposed to other countries. I don't have any data and I wouldn't know where to look but it would not surprise me to find that more children are taught to shoot and/or exposed to guns as an integral part of their identity in the US as opposed to other parts of the world.)
Talking about gun legislation isn't an issue; talking about gun legislation while being completely uninformed is what really pisses off most law abiding gun owners. I'd be happy to have actual dialogue if someone actually wanted to have a real conversation about what can reasonably done, but most people here (and at large) truly believe some ignorant things like outright banning firearms would solve all of our issues.
|
On May 22 2018 14:59 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2018 14:47 Aquanim wrote:On May 22 2018 14:17 superstartran wrote:On May 22 2018 13:18 Aquanim wrote:On May 22 2018 13:11 Sermokala wrote:
Is anyone interested in a debate about the validity of arguing for gun control in the first place? As it would save more lives if the attention given to it was instead diverted in any number of other campaigns?
I don't want to get in a shit fit about it but I'm interested in exploring Kwarks philosophy that the status quo in america is that the people killed by gun violence is the price to pay for the people having the constitutional right to guns. My starting point on that conversation would be "we would save a lot more lives by diverting a relatively modest amount of money towards foreign aid to undeveloped countries, but that doesn't seem to be happening, so I don't know how useful this line of argument is". I also doubt there are many people who want gun control who are opposed to greater support for mental health issue prevention and treatment, et cetera. I think the first thing is that do we truly believe gun control would curb school shootings? Because school shootings are clearly unique to the United States alone. Is it because of the plethora of guns? Or is there something else going on? Article on CNN that was posted was quite interesting, especially when you start comparing the United States to countries with typically high crime/high violent firearm crimes. https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/21/us/school-shooting-us-versus-world-trnd/index.htmlMexico/Russia/Brazil/Greece, countries that typically rank fairly high on the firearm homicide rate have way less school shooting incidents then the United States. This would likely lead to the belief that the issue is far more complex and harder to solve then simply "delete all guns in the countries and it'll go away." Like I said, it's a uniquely American problem. I think easy access of firearms is only one small part of the problem, and that major issues like mental health, cultural expectations of males in the United States, etc. play a much bigger role. I agree that the problems of the US go way further than the widespread availability of firearms and that gun legislation on its own is unlikely to solve the problem of the US. However, that does not mean that gun legislation is not a necessary component of an effective solution for the US, nor that people who are specifically talking about it are wrong to do so. (EDIT: I would also point out that besides legislation directly related to access to firearms, the attitudes and culture surrounding guns is likely very different in the US as opposed to other countries. I don't have any data and I wouldn't know where to look but it would not surprise me to find that more children are taught to shoot and/or exposed to guns as an integral part of their identity in the US as opposed to other parts of the world.) Talking about gun legislation isn't an issue; talking about gun legislation while being completely uninformed is what really pisses off most law abiding gun owners. I'd be happy to have actual dialogue if someone actually wanted to have a real conversation about what can reasonably done, but most people here (and at large) truly believe some ignorant things like outright banning firearms would solve all of our issues.
It would not solve all your problems but over a few decades it would change mentality of guns being an integral part of life to being something one should not do or have. It would also take decades to decrease the amount of guns in circulation by a meaningful level.
The Chicago graph at the top of the page seems to indicate that as well. They had an upward trend in gun crime and it continued after the ban. To slowly start dropping off after more guns came out of circulation and people's mentality slowly changed since it was a bother to get a gun and have one. I would expect any general ban to take 10+ years to have a big impact.
The problem the US has with local bans is that you can leave Chicago, drive for 2h and get a gun much easier. So organised crime has no issue getting a gun. While it does reduce suicides and other accidental or unplanned activities.
|
On May 22 2018 15:16 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2018 14:59 superstartran wrote:On May 22 2018 14:47 Aquanim wrote:On May 22 2018 14:17 superstartran wrote:On May 22 2018 13:18 Aquanim wrote:On May 22 2018 13:11 Sermokala wrote:
Is anyone interested in a debate about the validity of arguing for gun control in the first place? As it would save more lives if the attention given to it was instead diverted in any number of other campaigns?
I don't want to get in a shit fit about it but I'm interested in exploring Kwarks philosophy that the status quo in america is that the people killed by gun violence is the price to pay for the people having the constitutional right to guns. My starting point on that conversation would be "we would save a lot more lives by diverting a relatively modest amount of money towards foreign aid to undeveloped countries, but that doesn't seem to be happening, so I don't know how useful this line of argument is". I also doubt there are many people who want gun control who are opposed to greater support for mental health issue prevention and treatment, et cetera. I think the first thing is that do we truly believe gun control would curb school shootings? Because school shootings are clearly unique to the United States alone. Is it because of the plethora of guns? Or is there something else going on? Article on CNN that was posted was quite interesting, especially when you start comparing the United States to countries with typically high crime/high violent firearm crimes. https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/21/us/school-shooting-us-versus-world-trnd/index.htmlMexico/Russia/Brazil/Greece, countries that typically rank fairly high on the firearm homicide rate have way less school shooting incidents then the United States. This would likely lead to the belief that the issue is far more complex and harder to solve then simply "delete all guns in the countries and it'll go away." Like I said, it's a uniquely American problem. I think easy access of firearms is only one small part of the problem, and that major issues like mental health, cultural expectations of males in the United States, etc. play a much bigger role. I agree that the problems of the US go way further than the widespread availability of firearms and that gun legislation on its own is unlikely to solve the problem of the US. However, that does not mean that gun legislation is not a necessary component of an effective solution for the US, nor that people who are specifically talking about it are wrong to do so. (EDIT: I would also point out that besides legislation directly related to access to firearms, the attitudes and culture surrounding guns is likely very different in the US as opposed to other countries. I don't have any data and I wouldn't know where to look but it would not surprise me to find that more children are taught to shoot and/or exposed to guns as an integral part of their identity in the US as opposed to other parts of the world.) Talking about gun legislation isn't an issue; talking about gun legislation while being completely uninformed is what really pisses off most law abiding gun owners. I'd be happy to have actual dialogue if someone actually wanted to have a real conversation about what can reasonably done, but most people here (and at large) truly believe some ignorant things like outright banning firearms would solve all of our issues. It would not solve all your problems but over a few decades it would change mentality of guns being an integral part of life to being something one should not do or have. It would also take decades to decrease the amount of guns in circulation by a meaningful level. The Chicago graph at the top of the page seems to indicate that as well. They had an upward trend in gun crime and it continued after the ban. To slowly start dropping off after more guns came out of circulation and people's mentality slowly changed since it was a bother to get a gun and have one. I would expect any general ban to take 10+ years to have a big impact. The problem the US has with local bans is that you can leave Chicago, drive for 2h and get a gun much easier. So organised crime has no issue getting a gun. While it does reduce suicides and other accidental or unplanned activities.
That's not what happened. What happened was that poverty got cleaned up abit as well as drugs/organized crime/etc.
Look at the graph below it, the Chicago graph mirrors the U.S. average almost perfectly.
|
On May 22 2018 14:47 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2018 14:17 superstartran wrote:On May 22 2018 13:18 Aquanim wrote:On May 22 2018 13:11 Sermokala wrote:
Is anyone interested in a debate about the validity of arguing for gun control in the first place? As it would save more lives if the attention given to it was instead diverted in any number of other campaigns?
I don't want to get in a shit fit about it but I'm interested in exploring Kwarks philosophy that the status quo in america is that the people killed by gun violence is the price to pay for the people having the constitutional right to guns. My starting point on that conversation would be "we would save a lot more lives by diverting a relatively modest amount of money towards foreign aid to undeveloped countries, but that doesn't seem to be happening, so I don't know how useful this line of argument is". I also doubt there are many people who want gun control who are opposed to greater support for mental health issue prevention and treatment, et cetera. I think the first thing is that do we truly believe gun control would curb school shootings? Because school shootings are clearly unique to the United States alone. Is it because of the plethora of guns? Or is there something else going on? Article on CNN that was posted was quite interesting, especially when you start comparing the United States to countries with typically high crime/high violent firearm crimes. https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/21/us/school-shooting-us-versus-world-trnd/index.htmlMexico/Russia/Brazil/Greece, countries that typically rank fairly high on the firearm homicide rate have way less school shooting incidents then the United States. This would likely lead to the belief that the issue is far more complex and harder to solve then simply "delete all guns in the countries and it'll go away." Like I said, it's a uniquely American problem. I think easy access of firearms is only one small part of the problem, and that major issues like mental health, cultural expectations of males in the United States, etc. play a much bigger role. I agree that the problems of the US go way further than the widespread availability of firearms and that gun legislation on its own is unlikely to solve the problem of the US. However, that does not mean that gun legislation is not a necessary component of an effective solution for the US, nor that people who are specifically talking about it are wrong to do so. (EDIT: I would also point out that besides legislation directly related to access to firearms, the attitudes and culture surrounding guns is likely very different in the US as opposed to other countries. I don't have any data and I wouldn't know where to look but it would not surprise me to find that more children are taught to shoot and/or exposed to guns as an integral part of their identity in the US as opposed to other parts of the world.)
But in the current culture we have to rehash the same arguments over and over in a debate exquisitely designed to blunt any change. This thread is a microcosm of that larger debate, where we will be dragged to the familiar battle field of gun ban and the fight will stay there until we all get tired.
|
On May 22 2018 13:11 Sermokala wrote:
Is anyone interested in a debate about the validity of arguing for gun control in the first place? As it would save more lives if the attention given to it was instead diverted in any number of other campaigns?
I don't want to get in a shit fit about it but I'm interested in exploring Kwarks philosophy that the status quo in america is that the people killed by gun violence is the price to pay for the people having the constitutional right to guns.
attention in general is cheap; so it doesn't seem like diverting attention would significantly affect lives saved. Having some amount of attention on all topics is in general good, as the worst things and easiest to prevent outcomes tend to happen when noone is paying attention. even if not much gets done directly, just the pressure of people looking can provide some benefit.
I can't speak to kwark's position, or if that is kwark's actual position. but as a thesis it doesn't seem strongly true, as there's a lot of room for more regulations that would be entirely constitutional, and would help some vs gun deaths. it might still be weakly true, or true at some minimum level.
|
On May 22 2018 19:44 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2018 14:47 Aquanim wrote:On May 22 2018 14:17 superstartran wrote:On May 22 2018 13:18 Aquanim wrote:On May 22 2018 13:11 Sermokala wrote:
Is anyone interested in a debate about the validity of arguing for gun control in the first place? As it would save more lives if the attention given to it was instead diverted in any number of other campaigns?
I don't want to get in a shit fit about it but I'm interested in exploring Kwarks philosophy that the status quo in america is that the people killed by gun violence is the price to pay for the people having the constitutional right to guns. My starting point on that conversation would be "we would save a lot more lives by diverting a relatively modest amount of money towards foreign aid to undeveloped countries, but that doesn't seem to be happening, so I don't know how useful this line of argument is". I also doubt there are many people who want gun control who are opposed to greater support for mental health issue prevention and treatment, et cetera. I think the first thing is that do we truly believe gun control would curb school shootings? Because school shootings are clearly unique to the United States alone. Is it because of the plethora of guns? Or is there something else going on? Article on CNN that was posted was quite interesting, especially when you start comparing the United States to countries with typically high crime/high violent firearm crimes. https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/21/us/school-shooting-us-versus-world-trnd/index.htmlMexico/Russia/Brazil/Greece, countries that typically rank fairly high on the firearm homicide rate have way less school shooting incidents then the United States. This would likely lead to the belief that the issue is far more complex and harder to solve then simply "delete all guns in the countries and it'll go away." Like I said, it's a uniquely American problem. I think easy access of firearms is only one small part of the problem, and that major issues like mental health, cultural expectations of males in the United States, etc. play a much bigger role. I agree that the problems of the US go way further than the widespread availability of firearms and that gun legislation on its own is unlikely to solve the problem of the US. However, that does not mean that gun legislation is not a necessary component of an effective solution for the US, nor that people who are specifically talking about it are wrong to do so. (EDIT: I would also point out that besides legislation directly related to access to firearms, the attitudes and culture surrounding guns is likely very different in the US as opposed to other countries. I don't have any data and I wouldn't know where to look but it would not surprise me to find that more children are taught to shoot and/or exposed to guns as an integral part of their identity in the US as opposed to other parts of the world.) But in the current culture we have to rehash the same arguments over and over in a debate exquisitely designed to blunt any change. This thread is a microcosm of that larger debate, where we will be dragged to the familiar battle field of gun ban and the fight will stay there until we all get tired.
This is another good argument to not try convince people firmly of the opposing opinion. Not only is it a waste of time, it is a waste of political capital in a super-local sense. If there was a record-breaking school shooting every day for the next three weeks, many people who currently fight pretty much any gun-control still would. A discussion or political debate or whatever isn't going to change their minds if school-children being in a position where they are expecting to get shot at eventually doesn't.
|
On May 22 2018 14:59 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2018 14:47 Aquanim wrote:On May 22 2018 14:17 superstartran wrote:On May 22 2018 13:18 Aquanim wrote:On May 22 2018 13:11 Sermokala wrote:
Is anyone interested in a debate about the validity of arguing for gun control in the first place? As it would save more lives if the attention given to it was instead diverted in any number of other campaigns?
I don't want to get in a shit fit about it but I'm interested in exploring Kwarks philosophy that the status quo in america is that the people killed by gun violence is the price to pay for the people having the constitutional right to guns. My starting point on that conversation would be "we would save a lot more lives by diverting a relatively modest amount of money towards foreign aid to undeveloped countries, but that doesn't seem to be happening, so I don't know how useful this line of argument is". I also doubt there are many people who want gun control who are opposed to greater support for mental health issue prevention and treatment, et cetera. I think the first thing is that do we truly believe gun control would curb school shootings? Because school shootings are clearly unique to the United States alone. Is it because of the plethora of guns? Or is there something else going on? Article on CNN that was posted was quite interesting, especially when you start comparing the United States to countries with typically high crime/high violent firearm crimes. https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/21/us/school-shooting-us-versus-world-trnd/index.htmlMexico/Russia/Brazil/Greece, countries that typically rank fairly high on the firearm homicide rate have way less school shooting incidents then the United States. This would likely lead to the belief that the issue is far more complex and harder to solve then simply "delete all guns in the countries and it'll go away." Like I said, it's a uniquely American problem. I think easy access of firearms is only one small part of the problem, and that major issues like mental health, cultural expectations of males in the United States, etc. play a much bigger role. I agree that the problems of the US go way further than the widespread availability of firearms and that gun legislation on its own is unlikely to solve the problem of the US. However, that does not mean that gun legislation is not a necessary component of an effective solution for the US, nor that people who are specifically talking about it are wrong to do so. (EDIT: I would also point out that besides legislation directly related to access to firearms, the attitudes and culture surrounding guns is likely very different in the US as opposed to other countries. I don't have any data and I wouldn't know where to look but it would not surprise me to find that more children are taught to shoot and/or exposed to guns as an integral part of their identity in the US as opposed to other parts of the world.) Talking about gun legislation isn't an issue; talking about gun legislation while being completely uninformed is what really pisses off most law abiding gun owners. I'd be happy to have actual dialogue if someone actually wanted to have a real conversation about what can reasonably done, but most people here (and at large) truly believe some ignorant things like outright banning firearms would solve all of our issues.
Its not that people think that outright banning firearms would solve all of your issues. Its that working towards a ban over a long period of time would have incremental positive effects. If you could magically get rid of all guns overnight it would have a positive effect on murder statistics for sure.
Knowing that this is completely impossible, there has to be a way that you can aim for that while trying to mitigate any negative effects by legislating carefully. Unfortunately at this point the 2nd amendment gets brought up, so there's never even an agreement on the starting point for progress.
Because of this, people should be focussing on areas that allow people to have their guns, but have a system of safeguards in place. Mandatory 28 day waiting periods with no loopholes would be a good place to start. A gun registry would also be helpful, because in my mind gun owners should be legally responsible for any accident or crime that their gun is involved in. Legally enforcing proper safe practice for gun owners would cut down on accidental deaths.
|
On May 22 2018 08:20 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2018 06:35 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On May 22 2018 04:26 Sermokala wrote:
And there goes Dangermouse again not knowing anything about guns or technology and thinking weapons from 600 years ago is no different then guns today. We get it you don't like america and don't think theres anything to do about the issue. Now go away if you arn't doing anything but spitting on people. We were talking about 3d printing the guns you aren't even reading the thread. Come on, you know as well as I do that if 150 year old guns are perfectly servicable militarily then how servicable do you think modern self manufactured guns are to kill unarmed schoolchildren? WW1 was over 100 years ago, and their smallarms are just as lethal today to kill unarmed people. I'm not even proposing anything in particular, only discussing gun parts availability and manufacture, but for some reason it is important to you to propagate the falsehood that guns are particularily hard to manufacture. I don't know where you get the impression that I don't like USA considering that I beleive that it is an overall positive force in the world, but I guess, like supertranstan and his wild "liberals are out to get our guns", you are only capable of groupthink messages instead of discussing with the person at hand. You're just being ignorant and trying to entrench your ignorance of the topic as much as possible. Those guns from 150 years ago don't fire as fast as a 1911 handgun. They're in a different conversation completely on how much they've able to kill people. You have shown you have no idea how firearms work and have no comprehension on how technological development can effect the conversation. You expect people to be okay with this ignorance and to agree with your ignorance. You don't even viel your ignorance on the topic. The conversation was about 3D printed guns. I made the comment that the Barrel would be the hardest part. You made the comment that guns hadn't changed in the last 600 years so whats the difference? One of us has made gun parts and the other doesn't know the difference between a gun made 150 years ago and a gun made today. We get it that you don't care to understand the topic please go away and leave people who want to understand the topic to debate the topic. Does it matter whether modern guns have automatic fire or not? A bolt action rifle is plenty fast enough to those who have lost loved ones to a multiple shooting. Why would you even manufacture a barrel, when you can freely buy it is beside the point, smallarms barrels made 100 years ago, hand made without the machine tools today, can safely handle multiple 8mm calibre bullets, and they are just as deadly today as they were in the past. There are differences, but the main point is that it isn't that hard to manufacture a gun, which for some reason you are determined to propagate even though it isn't true. I'm not even discussing anything in particular except the manufacture of small arms, but to you it's really really important that people must not acknowledge how easy it is to access and maufacture small arms.
But I suppose it's easier for you to just shout that your opponents hate America eh?
|
Oh and by the way, the argument why we stupid Europeans are allowed to participate in this discussion is pretty simple. School shootings are not an entirely US-american thing. Our kids watched your kids shoot up Columbine and decided to do that as well. Funnily enough, the guy that did in Germany had access to his fathers guns who was legally hunting. It's almost as if it was easy access to guns that made him think, "hey, i could do that too". If your mentally ill children keep shooting your children, it will enable our mentally ill children to do the same. The world is connected. So, if you could please tidy up that mess now?
Oh right, you can't because the liberals keep you from making sane gun legislation. Apparently, democrats supporting a bill with less then 50% of the house means they are stopping any progress while rebublicans with more then 50% of the house not pushing legislature through is just because the other side is uninformed and emotional 
|
On May 22 2018 21:44 Broetchenholer wrote:Oh and by the way, the argument why we stupid Europeans are allowed to participate in this discussion is pretty simple. School shootings are not an entirely US-american thing. Our kids watched your kids shoot up Columbine and decided to do that as well. Funnily enough, the guy that did in Germany had access to his fathers guns who was legally hunting. It's almost as if it was easy access to guns that made him think, "hey, i could do that too". If your mentally ill children keep shooting your children, it will enable our mentally ill children to do the same. The world is connected. So, if you could please tidy up that mess now? Oh right, you can't because the liberals keep you from making sane gun legislation. Apparently, democrats supporting a bill with less then 50% of the house means they are stopping any progress while rebublicans with more then 50% of the house not pushing legislature through is just because the other side is uninformed and emotional
I don't really think we are entitled to this kind of request - at the very least it's a hypocritical way to shift blame to someone who is in no way responsible for our internal affairs. If we don't wanna have shootings in Europe, we should work on it ourselves. Not being the US for example makes it reasonable to talk about outright banning all guns on the continent.
|
On May 22 2018 20:46 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2018 14:59 superstartran wrote:On May 22 2018 14:47 Aquanim wrote:On May 22 2018 14:17 superstartran wrote:On May 22 2018 13:18 Aquanim wrote:On May 22 2018 13:11 Sermokala wrote:
Is anyone interested in a debate about the validity of arguing for gun control in the first place? As it would save more lives if the attention given to it was instead diverted in any number of other campaigns?
I don't want to get in a shit fit about it but I'm interested in exploring Kwarks philosophy that the status quo in america is that the people killed by gun violence is the price to pay for the people having the constitutional right to guns. My starting point on that conversation would be "we would save a lot more lives by diverting a relatively modest amount of money towards foreign aid to undeveloped countries, but that doesn't seem to be happening, so I don't know how useful this line of argument is". I also doubt there are many people who want gun control who are opposed to greater support for mental health issue prevention and treatment, et cetera. I think the first thing is that do we truly believe gun control would curb school shootings? Because school shootings are clearly unique to the United States alone. Is it because of the plethora of guns? Or is there something else going on? Article on CNN that was posted was quite interesting, especially when you start comparing the United States to countries with typically high crime/high violent firearm crimes. https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/21/us/school-shooting-us-versus-world-trnd/index.htmlMexico/Russia/Brazil/Greece, countries that typically rank fairly high on the firearm homicide rate have way less school shooting incidents then the United States. This would likely lead to the belief that the issue is far more complex and harder to solve then simply "delete all guns in the countries and it'll go away." Like I said, it's a uniquely American problem. I think easy access of firearms is only one small part of the problem, and that major issues like mental health, cultural expectations of males in the United States, etc. play a much bigger role. I agree that the problems of the US go way further than the widespread availability of firearms and that gun legislation on its own is unlikely to solve the problem of the US. However, that does not mean that gun legislation is not a necessary component of an effective solution for the US, nor that people who are specifically talking about it are wrong to do so. (EDIT: I would also point out that besides legislation directly related to access to firearms, the attitudes and culture surrounding guns is likely very different in the US as opposed to other countries. I don't have any data and I wouldn't know where to look but it would not surprise me to find that more children are taught to shoot and/or exposed to guns as an integral part of their identity in the US as opposed to other parts of the world.) Talking about gun legislation isn't an issue; talking about gun legislation while being completely uninformed is what really pisses off most law abiding gun owners. I'd be happy to have actual dialogue if someone actually wanted to have a real conversation about what can reasonably done, but most people here (and at large) truly believe some ignorant things like outright banning firearms would solve all of our issues. Its not that people think that outright banning firearms would solve all of your issues. Its that working towards a ban over a long period of time would have incremental positive effects. If you could magically get rid of all guns overnight it would have a positive effect on murder statistics for sure.Knowing that this is completely impossible, there has to be a way that you can aim for that while trying to mitigate any negative effects by legislating carefully. Unfortunately at this point the 2nd amendment gets brought up, so there's never even an agreement on the starting point for progress. Because of this, people should be focussing on areas that allow people to have their guns, but have a system of safeguards in place. Mandatory 28 day waiting periods with no loopholes would be a good place to start. A gun registry would also be helpful, because in my mind gun owners should be legally responsible for any accident or crime that their gun is involved in. Legally enforcing proper safe practice for gun owners would cut down on accidental deaths.
Not true at all; I can point out to multiple examples of how this is a factually incorrect statement. Like I said, people always want to point out guns as the primary factor in the shootings when mental health clearly plays a much bigger role.
On May 22 2018 21:44 Broetchenholer wrote:Oh and by the way, the argument why we stupid Europeans are allowed to participate in this discussion is pretty simple. School shootings are not an entirely US-american thing. Our kids watched your kids shoot up Columbine and decided to do that as well. Funnily enough, the guy that did in Germany had access to his fathers guns who was legally hunting. It's almost as if it was easy access to guns that made him think, "hey, i could do that too". If your mentally ill children keep shooting your children, it will enable our mentally ill children to do the same. The world is connected. So, if you could please tidy up that mess now? Oh right, you can't because the liberals keep you from making sane gun legislation. Apparently, democrats supporting a bill with less then 50% of the house means they are stopping any progress while rebublicans with more then 50% of the house not pushing legislature through is just because the other side is uninformed and emotional
But your countries are oh so superior and so much better in every way right? Shouldn't you be able to prevent mass shootings with your superior laws / culture? Shouldn't be an issue right? Why do you need to comment or interfere on a topic that you have no real vested interest in?
|
On May 22 2018 22:53 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2018 20:46 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 22 2018 14:59 superstartran wrote:On May 22 2018 14:47 Aquanim wrote:On May 22 2018 14:17 superstartran wrote:On May 22 2018 13:18 Aquanim wrote:On May 22 2018 13:11 Sermokala wrote:
Is anyone interested in a debate about the validity of arguing for gun control in the first place? As it would save more lives if the attention given to it was instead diverted in any number of other campaigns?
I don't want to get in a shit fit about it but I'm interested in exploring Kwarks philosophy that the status quo in america is that the people killed by gun violence is the price to pay for the people having the constitutional right to guns. My starting point on that conversation would be "we would save a lot more lives by diverting a relatively modest amount of money towards foreign aid to undeveloped countries, but that doesn't seem to be happening, so I don't know how useful this line of argument is". I also doubt there are many people who want gun control who are opposed to greater support for mental health issue prevention and treatment, et cetera. I think the first thing is that do we truly believe gun control would curb school shootings? Because school shootings are clearly unique to the United States alone. Is it because of the plethora of guns? Or is there something else going on? Article on CNN that was posted was quite interesting, especially when you start comparing the United States to countries with typically high crime/high violent firearm crimes. https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/21/us/school-shooting-us-versus-world-trnd/index.htmlMexico/Russia/Brazil/Greece, countries that typically rank fairly high on the firearm homicide rate have way less school shooting incidents then the United States. This would likely lead to the belief that the issue is far more complex and harder to solve then simply "delete all guns in the countries and it'll go away." Like I said, it's a uniquely American problem. I think easy access of firearms is only one small part of the problem, and that major issues like mental health, cultural expectations of males in the United States, etc. play a much bigger role. I agree that the problems of the US go way further than the widespread availability of firearms and that gun legislation on its own is unlikely to solve the problem of the US. However, that does not mean that gun legislation is not a necessary component of an effective solution for the US, nor that people who are specifically talking about it are wrong to do so. (EDIT: I would also point out that besides legislation directly related to access to firearms, the attitudes and culture surrounding guns is likely very different in the US as opposed to other countries. I don't have any data and I wouldn't know where to look but it would not surprise me to find that more children are taught to shoot and/or exposed to guns as an integral part of their identity in the US as opposed to other parts of the world.) Talking about gun legislation isn't an issue; talking about gun legislation while being completely uninformed is what really pisses off most law abiding gun owners. I'd be happy to have actual dialogue if someone actually wanted to have a real conversation about what can reasonably done, but most people here (and at large) truly believe some ignorant things like outright banning firearms would solve all of our issues. Its not that people think that outright banning firearms would solve all of your issues. Its that working towards a ban over a long period of time would have incremental positive effects. If you could magically get rid of all guns overnight it would have a positive effect on murder statistics for sure.Knowing that this is completely impossible, there has to be a way that you can aim for that while trying to mitigate any negative effects by legislating carefully. Unfortunately at this point the 2nd amendment gets brought up, so there's never even an agreement on the starting point for progress. Because of this, people should be focussing on areas that allow people to have their guns, but have a system of safeguards in place. Mandatory 28 day waiting periods with no loopholes would be a good place to start. A gun registry would also be helpful, because in my mind gun owners should be legally responsible for any accident or crime that their gun is involved in. Legally enforcing proper safe practice for gun owners would cut down on accidental deaths. Not true at all; I can point out to multiple examples of how this is a factually incorrect statement. Like I said, people always want to point out guns as the primary factor in the shootings when mental health clearly plays a much bigger role.
Really? Please do.
On May 22 2018 22:06 opisska wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2018 21:44 Broetchenholer wrote:Oh and by the way, the argument why we stupid Europeans are allowed to participate in this discussion is pretty simple. School shootings are not an entirely US-american thing. Our kids watched your kids shoot up Columbine and decided to do that as well. Funnily enough, the guy that did in Germany had access to his fathers guns who was legally hunting. It's almost as if it was easy access to guns that made him think, "hey, i could do that too". If your mentally ill children keep shooting your children, it will enable our mentally ill children to do the same. The world is connected. So, if you could please tidy up that mess now? Oh right, you can't because the liberals keep you from making sane gun legislation. Apparently, democrats supporting a bill with less then 50% of the house means they are stopping any progress while rebublicans with more then 50% of the house not pushing legislature through is just because the other side is uninformed and emotional I don't really think we are entitled to this kind of request - at the very least it's a hypocritical way to shift blame to someone who is in no way responsible for our internal affairs. If we don't wanna have shootings in Europe, we should work on it ourselves. Not being the US for example makes it reasonable to talk about outright banning all guns on the continent.
Should we cut all communications with the US then to not have their society influence ours? Societal norms are connected, if we see dangerous behaviour in other countries that we don't want in our own, we can combat that in our countries but we can also address them to maybe not be such a bad example? If your neighbours smoke crack in their yard and then tell your children that this is fine, you would be well advised to educate your children and tell your neighbours to stop being a bad influence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
