|
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. |
I just told you why we have a real vested interest in it. I also never said that our countries are better or superior. I will stop discussing american society when you stop influencing ours.
|
Just so it's clear to our friends across the pond, not everyone here thinks Europe should have no say or that it has no stake in our culture of violence. The only folks who do clearly have a specific agenda that has very little to do with the substance of Americanism.
|
I am all about using the data and experience gained from other nation’s efforts to address problems that the US also faces. Even if there are differences, that information is still of value. And its saves us the trial and error.
|
On May 22 2018 23:16 Broetchenholer wrote:
I just told you why we have a real vested interest in it. I also never said that our countries are better or superior. I will stop discussing american society when you stop influencing ours.
America doesn't influence your country in terms of culture. This is a uniquely cultural problem in America, as evidenced to the fact that even countries like Mexico, Brazil, Russia, and others that have high firearm homicide rates don't have anywhere near the same level of school shootings as the United States does. Your country doesn't have the same culture as ours, so why you think suddenly this idea of school shootings is going to start spreading like wildfire all over the world is absolutely preposterous.
This would be like the equivalent of me commenting on whether your country should accept Syrian refugees or not. "OMG BUT THOSE PEOPLE COULD BE TERRORISTS AND MAKE THEIR WAY TO THE UNITED STATES"
|
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.
The two aren't mutually exclusive in terms of factors in gun crime though. You could equally say that cars aren't the main factor in car crashes. Without the cars you wouldn't have the crashes. I don't know why I'm explaining this though because you clearly already know it. That's why its useless to try and bang my head against this wall again. Its deliberate ignorance of basic common sense.
This is why America needs to work on closing loopholes, making sure the mentally ill can't go get a gun on a whim and have to wait 28 days (until their mental health crisis has had a chance to subside). Its why laws need to be in place to make sure that people are responsible for any gun that they've purchased. If people are going to close their eyes and put their fingers in their ears at the most basic of logic then you need to work on regulating guns to the point where the same people who claim guns are nothing to do with shootings don't have easy access to them, because that kind of obvious neglect of common sense doesn't go well with owning a deadly weapon.
|
On May 22 2018 23:43 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2018 22:53 superstartran wrote: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. The two aren't mutually exclusive in terms of factors in gun crime though. You could equally say that cars aren't the main factor in car crashes. Without the cars you wouldn't have the crashes. I don't know why I'm explaining this though because you clearly already know it. That's why its useless to try and bang my head against this wall again. Its deliberate ignorance of basic common sense. This is why America needs to work on closing loopholes, making sure the mentally ill can't go get a gun on a whim and have to wait 28 days (until their mental health crisis has had a chance to subside). Its why laws need to be in place to make sure that people are responsible for any gun that they've purchased. If people are going to close their eyes and put their fingers in their ears at the most basic of logic then you need to work on regulating guns to the point where the same people who claim guns are nothing to do with shootings don't have easy access to them.
Without cars you'd have people moving towards a different type of vehicle or mode of transportation which would thus cause other issues. You'd have issues still; you're just trading one set of issues for another set, which means you haven't solved any problems at all. Banning guns does absolutely nothing, there are already 300 million plus firearms in the United States, you'd have to literally get rid of all these guns, then have border security to prevent illegal firearm trading with both Mexico and Canada. Not only that, but would it actually reduce violent crimes? Based off the statistics we've seen, that's inconclusive at best, even stated by the CDC themselves who all gun control advocates love to harp on about.
Look at the UK, firearms get banned, overtime there's a huge surge in knife related crimes. Have you really solved anything with the firearm ban? Not really.
|
On May 22 2018 23:46 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2018 23:43 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 22 2018 22:53 superstartran wrote: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. The two aren't mutually exclusive in terms of factors in gun crime though. You could equally say that cars aren't the main factor in car crashes. Without the cars you wouldn't have the crashes. I don't know why I'm explaining this though because you clearly already know it. That's why its useless to try and bang my head against this wall again. Its deliberate ignorance of basic common sense. This is why America needs to work on closing loopholes, making sure the mentally ill can't go get a gun on a whim and have to wait 28 days (until their mental health crisis has had a chance to subside). Its why laws need to be in place to make sure that people are responsible for any gun that they've purchased. If people are going to close their eyes and put their fingers in their ears at the most basic of logic then you need to work on regulating guns to the point where the same people who claim guns are nothing to do with shootings don't have easy access to them. Without cars you'd have people moving towards a different type of vehicle or mode of transportation which would thus cause other issues. You'd have issues still; you're just trading one set of issues for another set, which means you haven't solved any problems at all. Banning guns does absolutely nothing, there are already 300 million plus firearms in the United States, you'd have to literally get rid of all these guns, then have border security to prevent illegal firearm trading with both Mexico and Canada.
I agree with this to a point. If you re-read my original post, I said that if you could magically get rid of all guns overnight it would have a positive effect. I also pointed out that this couldn't happen. It shouldn't stop the idea of working towards that in some way though.
That's why for now its important to put measures in place to stop people getting a gun on a whim and failing to treat it with the care it deserves.
|
On May 22 2018 23:48 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2018 23:46 superstartran wrote:On May 22 2018 23:43 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 22 2018 22:53 superstartran wrote: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. The two aren't mutually exclusive in terms of factors in gun crime though. You could equally say that cars aren't the main factor in car crashes. Without the cars you wouldn't have the crashes. I don't know why I'm explaining this though because you clearly already know it. That's why its useless to try and bang my head against this wall again. Its deliberate ignorance of basic common sense. This is why America needs to work on closing loopholes, making sure the mentally ill can't go get a gun on a whim and have to wait 28 days (until their mental health crisis has had a chance to subside). Its why laws need to be in place to make sure that people are responsible for any gun that they've purchased. If people are going to close their eyes and put their fingers in their ears at the most basic of logic then you need to work on regulating guns to the point where the same people who claim guns are nothing to do with shootings don't have easy access to them. Without cars you'd have people moving towards a different type of vehicle or mode of transportation which would thus cause other issues. You'd have issues still; you're just trading one set of issues for another set, which means you haven't solved any problems at all. Banning guns does absolutely nothing, there are already 300 million plus firearms in the United States, you'd have to literally get rid of all these guns, then have border security to prevent illegal firearm trading with both Mexico and Canada. I agree with this to a point. If you re-read my original post, I said that if you could magically get rid of all guns overnight it would have a positive effect. I also pointed out that this couldn't happen. It shouldn't stop the idea of working towards that in some way though. That's why for now its important to put measures in place to stop people getting a gun on a whim and failing to treat it with the care it deserves.
Why should we work towards it when all data is inconclusive or it supports the idea that gun control laws do not actually curb violent crime? The biggest single correlating factor when it comes to curbing violent crime is reducing poverty. People always talk about mass shootings, and never actually realize mass shootings only make up like 1% of firearm related deaths.
|
On May 22 2018 23:51 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2018 23:48 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 22 2018 23:46 superstartran wrote:On May 22 2018 23:43 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 22 2018 22:53 superstartran wrote: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:
[quote]
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. The two aren't mutually exclusive in terms of factors in gun crime though. You could equally say that cars aren't the main factor in car crashes. Without the cars you wouldn't have the crashes. I don't know why I'm explaining this though because you clearly already know it. That's why its useless to try and bang my head against this wall again. Its deliberate ignorance of basic common sense. This is why America needs to work on closing loopholes, making sure the mentally ill can't go get a gun on a whim and have to wait 28 days (until their mental health crisis has had a chance to subside). Its why laws need to be in place to make sure that people are responsible for any gun that they've purchased. If people are going to close their eyes and put their fingers in their ears at the most basic of logic then you need to work on regulating guns to the point where the same people who claim guns are nothing to do with shootings don't have easy access to them. Without cars you'd have people moving towards a different type of vehicle or mode of transportation which would thus cause other issues. You'd have issues still; you're just trading one set of issues for another set, which means you haven't solved any problems at all. Banning guns does absolutely nothing, there are already 300 million plus firearms in the United States, you'd have to literally get rid of all these guns, then have border security to prevent illegal firearm trading with both Mexico and Canada. I agree with this to a point. If you re-read my original post, I said that if you could magically get rid of all guns overnight it would have a positive effect. I also pointed out that this couldn't happen. It shouldn't stop the idea of working towards that in some way though. That's why for now its important to put measures in place to stop people getting a gun on a whim and failing to treat it with the care it deserves. Why should we work towards it when all data is inconclusive or it supports the idea that gun control laws do not actually curb violent crime? The biggest single correlating factor when it comes to curbing violent crime is reducing poverty. People always talk about mass shootings, and never actually realize mass shootings only make up like 1% of firearm related deaths.
Because guns are bad.
I don't really know what to say other than this. You can disagree, but I've seen the statistics you have on this, you posted them last time we argued about it and they were collected by a pro gun lobby. Instant turn off for me. We are too far apart on this to ever agree so there's no point arguing.
Again, that's why imho America needs to focus on regulating gun safety instead of gun control.
|
On May 22 2018 23:55 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2018 23:51 superstartran wrote:On May 22 2018 23:48 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 22 2018 23:46 superstartran wrote:On May 22 2018 23:43 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 22 2018 22:53 superstartran wrote: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:[quote] 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. The two aren't mutually exclusive in terms of factors in gun crime though. You could equally say that cars aren't the main factor in car crashes. Without the cars you wouldn't have the crashes. I don't know why I'm explaining this though because you clearly already know it. That's why its useless to try and bang my head against this wall again. Its deliberate ignorance of basic common sense. This is why America needs to work on closing loopholes, making sure the mentally ill can't go get a gun on a whim and have to wait 28 days (until their mental health crisis has had a chance to subside). Its why laws need to be in place to make sure that people are responsible for any gun that they've purchased. If people are going to close their eyes and put their fingers in their ears at the most basic of logic then you need to work on regulating guns to the point where the same people who claim guns are nothing to do with shootings don't have easy access to them. Without cars you'd have people moving towards a different type of vehicle or mode of transportation which would thus cause other issues. You'd have issues still; you're just trading one set of issues for another set, which means you haven't solved any problems at all. Banning guns does absolutely nothing, there are already 300 million plus firearms in the United States, you'd have to literally get rid of all these guns, then have border security to prevent illegal firearm trading with both Mexico and Canada. I agree with this to a point. If you re-read my original post, I said that if you could magically get rid of all guns overnight it would have a positive effect. I also pointed out that this couldn't happen. It shouldn't stop the idea of working towards that in some way though. That's why for now its important to put measures in place to stop people getting a gun on a whim and failing to treat it with the care it deserves. Why should we work towards it when all data is inconclusive or it supports the idea that gun control laws do not actually curb violent crime? The biggest single correlating factor when it comes to curbing violent crime is reducing poverty. People always talk about mass shootings, and never actually realize mass shootings only make up like 1% of firearm related deaths. Because guns are bad.I don't really know what to say other than this. You can disagree, but I've seen the statistics you have on this, you posted them last time we argued about it and they were collected by a pro gun lobby. Instant turn off for me. We are too far apart on this to ever agree so there's no point arguing. Again, that's why imho America needs to focus on regulating gun safety instead of gun control.
And then you wonder why the modern NRA exists.
Because of people like you who refuse to see the other side's value.
|
On May 22 2018 23:46 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2018 23:43 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 22 2018 22:53 superstartran wrote: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. The two aren't mutually exclusive in terms of factors in gun crime though. You could equally say that cars aren't the main factor in car crashes. Without the cars you wouldn't have the crashes. I don't know why I'm explaining this though because you clearly already know it. That's why its useless to try and bang my head against this wall again. Its deliberate ignorance of basic common sense. This is why America needs to work on closing loopholes, making sure the mentally ill can't go get a gun on a whim and have to wait 28 days (until their mental health crisis has had a chance to subside). Its why laws need to be in place to make sure that people are responsible for any gun that they've purchased. If people are going to close their eyes and put their fingers in their ears at the most basic of logic then you need to work on regulating guns to the point where the same people who claim guns are nothing to do with shootings don't have easy access to them. Without cars you'd have people moving towards a different type of vehicle or mode of transportation which would thus cause other issues. You'd have issues still; you're just trading one set of issues for another set, which means you haven't solved any problems at all. Banning guns does absolutely nothing, there are already 300 million plus firearms in the United States, you'd have to literally get rid of all these guns, then have border security to prevent illegal firearm trading with both Mexico and Canada. Not only that, but would it actually reduce violent crimes? Based off the statistics we've seen, that's inconclusive at best, even stated by the CDC themselves who all gun control advocates love to harp on about. Look at the UK, firearms get banned, overtime there's a huge surge in knife related crimes. Have you really solved anything with the firearm ban? Not really.
1) Yes, it takes a bit of time. Currently, guns are going from the US to Mexico and Canada, not the other way around. If you got rid of your guns and stopped exporting them to your neighbours, there would be less guns around.
2) Knife crimes are way better than gun crimes, because knifes are way worse at killing people than guns are. So if everyone who would do a crime with a gun now did the exact same crime with knifes instead, that is a major victory. And they won't, because doing crimes with knifes is harder than doing crimes with guns.
3) The discussion always follows the same pattern:
Guns ---> no, mental health is the problem
Ok, mental health, lets have a reasonable healthcare system ---> SOCIALISM!!!
The constant deflection to mental health would be far more believable if the same people who always deflect to mental health when talking about guns would not also be against doing anything to improve healthcare. It is a constant circle of deflection, where one can never talk about any topic, because the problems are always based in the next problem. The strategy is very obvious once you notice that the people who employ it don't actually want to change anything or solve any problems. They are perfectly fine with the status quo, but are too cowardly to say so. So instead they do this chain deflection style of discussion until everyone else gets tired of talking and nothing happens. Which is why we have had this exact same discussion with the exact same people the last few times someone shot a bunch of people up in the US.
Edit: Oh, now it is "reducing poverty". Once again, the same people who are for guns are also against any sort of social security, because that would be evil socialism. How can you be for reducing poverty when talking about guns, but against reducing poverty when talking about poverty?
|
On May 23 2018 00:02 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2018 23:55 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 22 2018 23:51 superstartran wrote:On May 22 2018 23:48 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 22 2018 23:46 superstartran wrote:On May 22 2018 23:43 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 22 2018 22:53 superstartran wrote:On May 22 2018 20:46 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 22 2018 14:59 superstartran wrote:On May 22 2018 14:47 Aquanim wrote:
[quote]
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. The two aren't mutually exclusive in terms of factors in gun crime though. You could equally say that cars aren't the main factor in car crashes. Without the cars you wouldn't have the crashes. I don't know why I'm explaining this though because you clearly already know it. That's why its useless to try and bang my head against this wall again. Its deliberate ignorance of basic common sense. This is why America needs to work on closing loopholes, making sure the mentally ill can't go get a gun on a whim and have to wait 28 days (until their mental health crisis has had a chance to subside). Its why laws need to be in place to make sure that people are responsible for any gun that they've purchased. If people are going to close their eyes and put their fingers in their ears at the most basic of logic then you need to work on regulating guns to the point where the same people who claim guns are nothing to do with shootings don't have easy access to them. Without cars you'd have people moving towards a different type of vehicle or mode of transportation which would thus cause other issues. You'd have issues still; you're just trading one set of issues for another set, which means you haven't solved any problems at all. Banning guns does absolutely nothing, there are already 300 million plus firearms in the United States, you'd have to literally get rid of all these guns, then have border security to prevent illegal firearm trading with both Mexico and Canada. I agree with this to a point. If you re-read my original post, I said that if you could magically get rid of all guns overnight it would have a positive effect. I also pointed out that this couldn't happen. It shouldn't stop the idea of working towards that in some way though. That's why for now its important to put measures in place to stop people getting a gun on a whim and failing to treat it with the care it deserves. Why should we work towards it when all data is inconclusive or it supports the idea that gun control laws do not actually curb violent crime? The biggest single correlating factor when it comes to curbing violent crime is reducing poverty. People always talk about mass shootings, and never actually realize mass shootings only make up like 1% of firearm related deaths. Because guns are bad.I don't really know what to say other than this. You can disagree, but I've seen the statistics you have on this, you posted them last time we argued about it and they were collected by a pro gun lobby. Instant turn off for me. We are too far apart on this to ever agree so there's no point arguing. Again, that's why imho America needs to focus on regulating gun safety instead of gun control. And then you wonder why the modern NRA exists. Because of people like you who refuse to see the other side's value.
I'm not biting on this. Nice try though.
Still no answer to my point that if mental health is the biggest factor in the shootings, a mandatory 28 day wait with no loopholes is the way to stop some mass killings from happening.
I get the feeling that wouldn't get through the NRA though, cos why should they have to wait a month for their shiny new weapon just so some people don't die, right?
|
1) Doing crimes with a car is way easier than guns and can kill far more people in a quicker amount of time. That doesn't mean we outlaw all cars.
2) Knives are also silent and that means good chance someone dies when someone is knifed versus someone getting shot. Most criminals don't even discharge their weapon anyways when committing a crime, a knife is the same ordeal 95% of the time. In the instance where a firearm is discharged, I'd agree that a firearm is obviously more deadly then a knife. That doesn't dispute the idea that crime in general is caused by poverty and not guns.
3) When have I ever stated I'm against improving health care?
|
On May 22 2018 23:35 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2018 23:16 Broetchenholer wrote:
I just told you why we have a real vested interest in it. I also never said that our countries are better or superior. I will stop discussing american society when you stop influencing ours. America doesn't influence your country in terms of culture. This is a uniquely cultural problem in America, as evidenced to the fact that even countries like Mexico, Brazil, Russia, and others that have high firearm homicide rates don't have anywhere near the same level of school shootings as the United States does. Your country doesn't have the same culture as ours, so why you think suddenly this idea of school shootings is going to start spreading like wildfire all over the world is absolutely preposterous. This would be like the equivalent of me commenting on whether your country should accept Syrian refugees or not. "OMG BUT THOSE PEOPLE COULD BE TERRORISTS AND MAKE THEIR WAY TO THE UNITED STATES"
He might think that "suddenly" because we had school shooters make the connection for us in our country.
Emsdetten, Germany, 2006:
On the other hand, the 18-year-old was really enthusiastic about weapons, school shootings and above all about Eric Harris, one of the two assassins of the 1999 Columbine massacre: "ERIC HARRIS IS GOD", it says in his notes at the end of September. A month before: "Imagine you're in your old school, imagine the trench coat hiding all your tools of justice, and then you throw the first Molotov cocktail, the first bomb." Harris, had been part of the so-called Trenchcoat Mafia in Littleton and had bombs with him during his rampage, but they didn't explode. A "mistake" B. didn't want to make. According to his own "inventory list", the 18-year-old had eight pipe bombs with him.
(Translated via deepL)
Source
Other countries had similar cases such as in Jokela, Finland in 2007, where the perpetrator showed major interest in Columbine.
Also in 2007 in Sweden two kids ended up arrested because they glorified the Finnish school shooting and, again, Columbine while planning an attack.
And before you accuse me of cherrypicking, all I did was pick a German wikipedia entry that has one paragraph on the influence of Columbine on other shooters and verified the sources. This is most likely a pretty deep rabbit hole but as you might imagine these details only pop up when you actually familiarize yourself with a specific event.
The issue starts with people in the US only counting dead and injured as victims of school shootings. You ignore the likely thousands if not hundreds of thousands of students who ended up traumatized, maybe even for life. You ignore both your own copycats and those in other countries (nice pictures in that article by the way).
We live in a connected society and for you to suggest that various ideas, events and inspirations don't spread across the globe is what is preposterous.
The difference is that "German culture" doesn't plaster the faces of these perpetrators and their names all across the globe for everyone to see because our society believes that spreading this type of information is not without negative consequences which results in norms that keep us from doing so. For most of our school shooters most of us don't know their names or faces. Most of us know more about American school shootings than they do about ours, even if we had multiple ones that went worse than e.g. Columbine. We don't celebrate the perpetrators with constant news coverage or even wikipedia entries and those who have entries aren't advertised like their cool American counterparts.
Surprise, a society that celebrates guns for the sake of celebrating guns and which celebrates perpetrators and their shootings for the sake of ratings inspires people who celebrate guns and shooters all across the globe.
e:
Beginning with Columbine in 1999, more than 187,000 students attending at least 193 primary or secondary schools have experienced a shooting on campus during school hours, according to a year-long Washington Post analysis. This means that the number of children who have been shaken by gunfire in the places they go to learn exceeds the population of Eugene, Ore., or Fort Lauderdale, Fla.
Source.
|
On May 22 2018 23:35 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2018 23:16 Broetchenholer wrote:
I just told you why we have a real vested interest in it. I also never said that our countries are better or superior. I will stop discussing american society when you stop influencing ours. America doesn't influence your country in terms of culture. This is a uniquely cultural problem in America, as evidenced to the fact that even countries like Mexico, Brazil, Russia, and others that have high firearm homicide rates don't have anywhere near the same level of school shootings as the United States does. Your country doesn't have the same culture as ours, so why you think suddenly this idea of school shootings is going to start spreading like wildfire all over the world is absolutely preposterous. This would be like the equivalent of me commenting on whether your country should accept Syrian refugees or not. "OMG BUT THOSE PEOPLE COULD BE TERRORISTS AND MAKE THEIR WAY TO THE UNITED STATES"
Have you just said, that the US does not influece our culture? I just told you, one of our school shootings was literally based on Columbine. The guy was obsessed with it. I can't tell if he had done it without the precedent but it had influence on the guy. And you are welcome to share your views on the refugee crisis as well. Because it does impact you in a way.
|
On May 23 2018 00:10 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2018 23:35 superstartran wrote:On May 22 2018 23:16 Broetchenholer wrote:
I just told you why we have a real vested interest in it. I also never said that our countries are better or superior. I will stop discussing american society when you stop influencing ours. America doesn't influence your country in terms of culture. This is a uniquely cultural problem in America, as evidenced to the fact that even countries like Mexico, Brazil, Russia, and others that have high firearm homicide rates don't have anywhere near the same level of school shootings as the United States does. Your country doesn't have the same culture as ours, so why you think suddenly this idea of school shootings is going to start spreading like wildfire all over the world is absolutely preposterous. This would be like the equivalent of me commenting on whether your country should accept Syrian refugees or not. "OMG BUT THOSE PEOPLE COULD BE TERRORISTS AND MAKE THEIR WAY TO THE UNITED STATES" He might think that "suddenly" because we had school shooters make the connection for us in our country. Emsdetten, Germany, 2006: Show nested quote +On the other hand, the 18-year-old was really enthusiastic about weapons, school shootings and above all about Eric Harris, one of the two assassins of the 1999 Columbine massacre: "ERIC HARRIS IS GOD", it says in his notes at the end of September. A month before: "Imagine you're in your old school, imagine the trench coat hiding all your tools of justice, and then you throw the first Molotov cocktail, the first bomb." Harris, had been part of the so-called Trenchcoat Mafia in Littleton and had bombs with him during his rampage, but they didn't explode. A "mistake" B. didn't want to make. According to his own "inventory list", the 18-year-old had eight pipe bombs with him.
(Translated via deepL) SourceOther countries had similar cases such as in Jokela, Finland in 2007, where the perpetrator showed major interest in Columbine. Also in 2007 in Sweden two kids ended up arrested because they glorified the Finnish school shooting and, again, Columbine while planning an attack. And before you accuse me of cherrypicking, all I did was pick a German wikipedia entry that has one paragraph on the influence of Columbine on other shooters and verified the sources. This is most likely a pretty deep rabbit hole but as you might imagine these details only pop up when you actually familiarize yourself with a specific event. The issue starts with people in the US only counting dead and injured as victims of school shootings. You ignore the likely thousands if not hundreds of thousands of students who ended up traumatized, maybe even for life. You ignore both your own copycats and those in other countries (nice pictures in that article by the way). We live in a connected society and for you to suggest that various ideas, events and inspirations don't spread across the globe is what is preposterous. The difference is that "German culture" doesn't plaster the faces of these perpetrators and their names all across the globe for everyone to see because our society believes that spreading this type of information is not without negative consequences which results in norms that keep us from doing so. For most of our school shooters most of us don't know their names or faces. Most of us know more about American school shootings than they do about ours, even if we had multiple ones that went worse than e.g. Columbine. We don't celebrate the perpetrators with constant news coverage or even wikipedia entries and those who have entries aren't advertised like their cool American counterparts. Surprise, a society that celebrates guns for the sake of celebrating guns and which celebrates perpetrators and their shootings for the sake of ratings inspires people who celebrate guns and shooters all across the globe. e: Show nested quote +Beginning with Columbine in 1999, more than 187,000 students attending at least 193 primary or secondary schools have experienced a shooting on campus during school hours, according to a year-long Washington Post analysis. This means that the number of children who have been shaken by gunfire in the places they go to learn exceeds the population of Eugene, Ore., or Fort Lauderdale, Fla. Source.
That's a symptom of our media culture that is heavily driven by capitalism. Unfortunately we have a severely fucked up society where people are so numb to violence in general that that's what is entertaining news wise to them. I'm not saying that one guy can't be influenced by something across the world, but the idea that suddenly you'll have mass shootings everywhere in your country is absolutely preposterous. School shootings in Germany, Europe, and other areas of the world will never reach the level in the United States for a multitude of reasons. Hell, Mexico for all it's terrible gang violence, poverty, etc. doesn't even has as many school shootings as the U.S.; Like you said, it's partially because none of these countries 'celebrate' the shooter.
|
I don’t even know where to start with the claim that the US doesn’t have any cultural influence on other nations. It is flat earther levels of absurd.
|
On May 23 2018 00:10 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2018 23:35 superstartran wrote:On May 22 2018 23:16 Broetchenholer wrote:
I just told you why we have a real vested interest in it. I also never said that our countries are better or superior. I will stop discussing american society when you stop influencing ours. America doesn't influence your country in terms of culture. This is a uniquely cultural problem in America, as evidenced to the fact that even countries like Mexico, Brazil, Russia, and others that have high firearm homicide rates don't have anywhere near the same level of school shootings as the United States does. Your country doesn't have the same culture as ours, so why you think suddenly this idea of school shootings is going to start spreading like wildfire all over the world is absolutely preposterous. This would be like the equivalent of me commenting on whether your country should accept Syrian refugees or not. "OMG BUT THOSE PEOPLE COULD BE TERRORISTS AND MAKE THEIR WAY TO THE UNITED STATES" He might think that "suddenly" because we had school shooters make the connection for us in our country. Emsdetten, Germany, 2006: Show nested quote +On the other hand, the 18-year-old was really enthusiastic about weapons, school shootings and above all about Eric Harris, one of the two assassins of the 1999 Columbine massacre: "ERIC HARRIS IS GOD", it says in his notes at the end of September. A month before: "Imagine you're in your old school, imagine the trench coat hiding all your tools of justice, and then you throw the first Molotov cocktail, the first bomb." Harris, had been part of the so-called Trenchcoat Mafia in Littleton and had bombs with him during his rampage, but they didn't explode. A "mistake" B. didn't want to make. According to his own "inventory list", the 18-year-old had eight pipe bombs with him.
(Translated via deepL) SourceOther countries had similar cases such as in Jokela, Finland in 2007, where the perpetrator showed major interest in Columbine. Also in 2007 in Sweden two kids ended up arrested because they glorified the Finnish school shooting and, again, Columbine while planning an attack. And before you accuse me of cherrypicking, all I did was pick a German wikipedia entry that has one paragraph on the influence of Columbine on other shooters and verified the sources. This is most likely a pretty deep rabbit hole but as you might imagine these details only pop up when you actually familiarize yourself with a specific event. The issue starts with people in the US only counting dead and injured as victims of school shootings. You ignore the likely thousands if not hundreds of thousands of students who ended up traumatized, maybe even for life. You ignore both your own copycats and those in other countries (nice pictures in that article by the way). We live in a connected society and for you to suggest that various ideas, events and inspirations don't spread across the globe is what is preposterous. The difference is that "German culture" doesn't plaster the faces of these perpetrators and their names all across the globe for everyone to see because our society believes that spreading this type of information is not without negative consequences which results in norms that keep us from doing so. For most of our school shooters most of us don't know their names or faces. Most of us know more about American school shootings than they do about ours, even if we had multiple ones that went worse than e.g. Columbine. We don't celebrate the perpetrators with constant news coverage or even wikipedia entries and those who have entries aren't advertised like their cool American counterparts. Surprise, a society that celebrates guns for the sake of celebrating guns and which celebrates perpetrators and their shootings for the sake of ratings inspires people who celebrate guns and shooters all across the globe. e: Show nested quote +Beginning with Columbine in 1999, more than 187,000 students attending at least 193 primary or secondary schools have experienced a shooting on campus during school hours, according to a year-long Washington Post analysis. This means that the number of children who have been shaken by gunfire in the places they go to learn exceeds the population of Eugene, Ore., or Fort Lauderdale, Fla. Source.
You'll find quite a few gun rights proponents that also decry "[plastering] the faces of these perpetrators and their names all across the globe for everyone to see." The same applies to mental health for young adults and teens. The focus on taking away guns from everybody (because "guns are bad") to keep youth intent on destruction from stealing them really hides the other angles of this that are exported to other communities and countries.
|
On May 23 2018 00:26 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2018 00:10 r.Evo wrote:On May 22 2018 23:35 superstartran wrote:On May 22 2018 23:16 Broetchenholer wrote:
I just told you why we have a real vested interest in it. I also never said that our countries are better or superior. I will stop discussing american society when you stop influencing ours. America doesn't influence your country in terms of culture. This is a uniquely cultural problem in America, as evidenced to the fact that even countries like Mexico, Brazil, Russia, and others that have high firearm homicide rates don't have anywhere near the same level of school shootings as the United States does. Your country doesn't have the same culture as ours, so why you think suddenly this idea of school shootings is going to start spreading like wildfire all over the world is absolutely preposterous. This would be like the equivalent of me commenting on whether your country should accept Syrian refugees or not. "OMG BUT THOSE PEOPLE COULD BE TERRORISTS AND MAKE THEIR WAY TO THE UNITED STATES" He might think that "suddenly" because we had school shooters make the connection for us in our country. Emsdetten, Germany, 2006: On the other hand, the 18-year-old was really enthusiastic about weapons, school shootings and above all about Eric Harris, one of the two assassins of the 1999 Columbine massacre: "ERIC HARRIS IS GOD", it says in his notes at the end of September. A month before: "Imagine you're in your old school, imagine the trench coat hiding all your tools of justice, and then you throw the first Molotov cocktail, the first bomb." Harris, had been part of the so-called Trenchcoat Mafia in Littleton and had bombs with him during his rampage, but they didn't explode. A "mistake" B. didn't want to make. According to his own "inventory list", the 18-year-old had eight pipe bombs with him.
(Translated via deepL) SourceOther countries had similar cases such as in Jokela, Finland in 2007, where the perpetrator showed major interest in Columbine. Also in 2007 in Sweden two kids ended up arrested because they glorified the Finnish school shooting and, again, Columbine while planning an attack. And before you accuse me of cherrypicking, all I did was pick a German wikipedia entry that has one paragraph on the influence of Columbine on other shooters and verified the sources. This is most likely a pretty deep rabbit hole but as you might imagine these details only pop up when you actually familiarize yourself with a specific event. The issue starts with people in the US only counting dead and injured as victims of school shootings. You ignore the likely thousands if not hundreds of thousands of students who ended up traumatized, maybe even for life. You ignore both your own copycats and those in other countries (nice pictures in that article by the way). We live in a connected society and for you to suggest that various ideas, events and inspirations don't spread across the globe is what is preposterous. The difference is that "German culture" doesn't plaster the faces of these perpetrators and their names all across the globe for everyone to see because our society believes that spreading this type of information is not without negative consequences which results in norms that keep us from doing so. For most of our school shooters most of us don't know their names or faces. Most of us know more about American school shootings than they do about ours, even if we had multiple ones that went worse than e.g. Columbine. We don't celebrate the perpetrators with constant news coverage or even wikipedia entries and those who have entries aren't advertised like their cool American counterparts. Surprise, a society that celebrates guns for the sake of celebrating guns and which celebrates perpetrators and their shootings for the sake of ratings inspires people who celebrate guns and shooters all across the globe. e: Beginning with Columbine in 1999, more than 187,000 students attending at least 193 primary or secondary schools have experienced a shooting on campus during school hours, according to a year-long Washington Post analysis. This means that the number of children who have been shaken by gunfire in the places they go to learn exceeds the population of Eugene, Ore., or Fort Lauderdale, Fla. Source. You'll find quite a few gun rights proponents that also decry "[plastering] the faces of these perpetrators and their names all across the globe for everyone to see." The same applies to mental health for young adults and teens. The focus on taking away guns from everybody (because "guns are bad") to keep youth intent on destruction from stealing them really hides the other angles of this that are exported to other communities and countries.
And yet when I try to argue that a mandatory 28 day waiting period with no loopholes would successfully mitigate alot of the damage that would be done by people in mental health crises all the gun rights proponents either pretend I never said it or mysteriously disappear. This is because although they do see mental health as a big problem when it comes to shootings, they don't want to solve it if it makes getting a gun more difficult.
|
They also don't want to solve it because well funded support for the mentally ill conflicts with the other bedmates of the pro gun political movement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
