|
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 23 2018 00:08 superstartran wrote:
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?
1) No, it isn't. Also, stop deflecting.
2) Irrelevant. Preventing crime from happening is one goal. Making crimes that do happen less deadly is another. Both are good goals. Both don't conflict, and trying to achieve one goal has very little to do with trying to achieve the other.
3) People in your position usually align with the whole US rightwing spectrum. It might be the case that you don't, but it also might be the case that you only take this position when talking about guns, or that you have some very weird ideas about improving healthcare. Still, if you actually want to talk about improving healthcare, how about doing that in the US Pol thread instead of in the guns thread?
|
Mental illness is an overused term in theses cases as well. Committing violent acts alone does not automatically make someone meet the requirements of what the medial world would consider treatable mental illness.
|
On May 23 2018 01:25 Plansix wrote:
Mental illness is an overused term in theses cases as well. Committing violent acts alone does not automatically make someone meet the requirements of what the medial world would consider treatable mental illness.
Anyone can have a mental health crisis at any time. You don't need to have been diagnosed with a mental illness. That's why easy, quick availability of guns for whoever wants to buy one is a recipe for disaster in a society where we are becoming more aware of how ubiquitous mental health issues are.
X could lose it tomorrow and decide he wants to go and kill a bunch of people. X could try and knife people but its far riskier and less effective. X could try and build a bomb but its difficult and probably wouldn't work.
If x can walk into a store and have a gun in *however much time it takes to get a gun in America* and walk straight out and shoot away that's obviously what he would go for.
3 days later he might have got help and no longer want to kill anyone. This is the nature of mental health crises.
There's an easy way to prevent this. I might have mentioned it one or two times on the previous page.
|
On May 23 2018 01:03 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2018 00:26 Danglars wrote: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'll look at the easy stuff: Jockmcplop raises good points and debatable points. Then Jockmcplop says stuff like "Guns are bad" and trolls like "America is a warzone because of guns." So maybe others will spend less time trying to convince you or spend time examining options he/she hasn't fully researched. Maybe they are just like you, wondering why you suddenly disappear into trolly responses whenever the arguments get a little difficult.
|
On May 23 2018 01:37 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2018 01:03 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 23 2018 00:26 Danglars wrote: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'll look at the easy stuff: Jockmcplop raises good points and debatable points. Then Jockmcplop says stuff like "Guns are bad" and trolls like "America is a warzone because of guns." So maybe others will spend less time trying to convince you or spend time examining options he/she hasn't fully researched. Maybe they are just like you, wondering why you suddenly disappear into trolly responses whenever the arguments get a little difficult.
I explained the America is a warzone comment. It was taking the piss out of Trump and his 'London is a warzone' speech to the NRA.
And yeah, guns are bad. Sorry, but they are. Of course its just my own opinion, but their primary purpose is to kill stuff (unless you count practicing killing stuff as a purpose).
In the end it depends what people want out of the discussion. If they want to 'win' some imaginary debate in their own heads then sure they can focus on the easy stuff. I don't really get the purpose of that though. I think its about proving that gun rights advocates are the smartest people and 'leftist liberal assholes' (direct quote) are the stupidest ones.
Otherwise we would be able to see where we agree and focus on that. We could go into details about how it would be implemented. It could be interesting, useful and educational. Imagine if people did that, and worked to multiply it across the political system.
Things might get done!
Unfortunately everyone wants to prove that their side is smart and the other side is stupid, ignoring what a ridiculous idea that is.
|
On May 23 2018 01:43 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2018 01:37 Danglars wrote:On May 23 2018 01:03 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 23 2018 00:26 Danglars wrote: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'll look at the easy stuff: Jockmcplop raises good points and debatable points. Then Jockmcplop says stuff like "Guns are bad" and trolls like "America is a warzone because of guns." So maybe others will spend less time trying to convince you or spend time examining options he/she hasn't fully researched. Maybe they are just like you, wondering why you suddenly disappear into trolly responses whenever the arguments get a little difficult. I explained the America is a warzone comment. It was taking the piss out of Trump and his 'London is a warzone' speech to the NRA. And yeah, guns are bad. Sorry, but they are. Of course its just my own opinion, but their primary purpose is to kill stuff (unless you count practicing killing stuff as a purpose). In the end it depends what people want out of the discussion. If they want to 'win' some imaginary debate in their own heads then sure they can focus on the easy stuff. I don't really get the purpose of that though. I think its about proving that gun rights advocates are the smartest people and 'leftist liberal assholes' (direct quote) are the stupidest ones. Otherwise we would be able to see where we agree and focus on that. We could go into details about how it would be implemented. It could be interesting, useful and educational. Imagine if people did that, and worked to multiply it across the political system. Things might get done! Unfortunately everyone wants to prove that their side is smart and the other side is stupid, ignoring what a ridiculous idea that is.
it's no tthat everyone is like that; it's just that everyone who posts is like that, the sensible ones stay out of the conversation entirely.
and it takes a lot of very difficult curation to get a group of only sensible people, or even close to it.
also, my side is smart and the other side is stupid 
|
On May 23 2018 01:34 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2018 01:25 Plansix wrote:
Mental illness is an overused term in theses cases as well. Committing violent acts alone does not automatically make someone meet the requirements of what the medial world would consider treatable mental illness. Anyone can have a mental health crisis at any time. You don't need to have been diagnosed with a mental illness. That's why easy, quick availability of guns for whoever wants to buy one is a recipe for disaster in a society where we are becoming more aware of how ubiquitous mental health issues are. X could lose it tomorrow and decide he wants to go and kill a bunch of people. X could try and knife people but its far riskier and less effective. X could try and build a bomb but its difficult and probably wouldn't work. If x can walk into a store and have a gun in *however much time it takes to get a gun in America* and walk straight out and shoot away that's obviously what he would go for. 3 days later he might have got help and no longer want to kill anyone. This is the nature of mental health crises. There's an easy way to prevent this. I might have mentioned it one or two times on the previous page.
Although I agree with you in most of this, I was attempting to point out that mental illness is not the cause of these shootings in every case. Or most gun violence. Mental illness is often used as a short hand to attempt to explain an explainable part of human behavior, like a mass shooting. It is also used as an excuse to avoid tightening up background checks or other loopholes. That somehow, if enough mental health services were available, the shooter might have gone to one of those services rather than shoot a whole lot of people.
But I am with you that effective gun laws that prevent instant access to guns are a good idea. There is proven data that just closing the gaps in background checks has a noticeable impact on all gun violence in a state.
|
On May 23 2018 01:43 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2018 01:37 Danglars wrote:On May 23 2018 01:03 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 23 2018 00:26 Danglars wrote: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'll look at the easy stuff: Jockmcplop raises good points and debatable points. Then Jockmcplop says stuff like "Guns are bad" and trolls like "America is a warzone because of guns." So maybe others will spend less time trying to convince you or spend time examining options he/she hasn't fully researched. Maybe they are just like you, wondering why you suddenly disappear into trolly responses whenever the arguments get a little difficult. I explained the America is a warzone comment. It was taking the piss out of Trump and his 'London is a warzone' speech to the NRA. And yeah, guns are bad. Sorry, but they are. Of course its just my own opinion, but their primary purpose is to kill stuff (unless you count practicing killing stuff as a purpose). In the end it depends what people want out of the discussion. If they want to 'win' some imaginary debate in their own heads then sure they can focus on the easy stuff. I don't really get the purpose of that though. I think its about proving that gun rights advocates are the smartest people and 'leftist liberal assholes' (direct quote) are the stupidest ones. Otherwise we would be able to see where we agree and focus on that. We could go into details about how it would be implemented. It could be interesting, useful and educational. Imagine if people did that, and worked to multiply it across the political system. Things might get done! Unfortunately everyone wants to prove that their side is smart and the other side is stupid, ignoring what a ridiculous idea that is.
And, likewise, maybe lost in your apprehensions on how gun rights activists argue, is little attempt to look past what you don't like and into what he/she is responding to. On it's surface, you're playing an insensitive and bombastic gun control activist, but you want (expect) people to read a second point to realize that you're letting Trump color your commentary. You won't make similar allowances for others.
In the end, you get out what you put in. If "guns are bad," is an opinion you want to share, you won't get many enlightened responses on your less provocative commentary from people that think guns are good--they also let weaker people level the playing field against the strong. They see all these attacks on the second amendment, real and in jest, as having an ultimate result in disarming them against violent individuals that mean them harm. You might not like it, and it might be sad from a neutral point of view, but that's how it will play out. The only way any of this works out helpfully is when gun owners have reason to believe their constitutional rights are safe and recognized, and they can yield on waiting periods and whatnot.
And frankly, I'm not seeing much of the "imaginary debate" and "smart/stupid ridiculous idea" below the surface.
|
On February 20 2012 03:28 Yongwang wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 03:26 farvacola wrote:On February 20 2012 03:21 Romantic wrote:
Having lots of guns is not why the US has so much crime.
The US has lots of crime because it has lots of people statistically likely to commit crime. You say that as though gun prevalence clearly plays an insignificant role in the genesis of crime, when that could not be farther from the case. More guns = Less crime AND more open government AND more freedom Less guns = More crime AND more authoritarian government AND less freedom
I suppose that is why the authoritarian country Australia has such a huge problem with crime, after they introduced the draconian laws on illegal guns and heavily increased the gun control.
|
On May 23 2018 01:57 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2018 01:34 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 23 2018 01:25 Plansix wrote:
Mental illness is an overused term in theses cases as well. Committing violent acts alone does not automatically make someone meet the requirements of what the medial world would consider treatable mental illness. Anyone can have a mental health crisis at any time. You don't need to have been diagnosed with a mental illness. That's why easy, quick availability of guns for whoever wants to buy one is a recipe for disaster in a society where we are becoming more aware of how ubiquitous mental health issues are. X could lose it tomorrow and decide he wants to go and kill a bunch of people. X could try and knife people but its far riskier and less effective. X could try and build a bomb but its difficult and probably wouldn't work. If x can walk into a store and have a gun in *however much time it takes to get a gun in America* and walk straight out and shoot away that's obviously what he would go for. 3 days later he might have got help and no longer want to kill anyone. This is the nature of mental health crises. There's an easy way to prevent this. I might have mentioned it one or two times on the previous page. Although I agree with you in most of this, I was attempting to point out that mental illness is not the cause of these shootings in every case. Or most gun violence. Mental illness is often used as a short hand to attempt to explain an explainable part of human behavior, like a mass shooting. It is also used as an excuse to avoid tightening up background checks or other loopholes. That somehow, if enough mental health services were available, the shooter might have gone to one of those services rather than shoot a whole lot of people. But I am with you that effective gun laws that prevent instant access to guns are a good idea. There is proven data that just closing the gaps in background checks has a noticeable impact on all gun violence in a state.
And there's proven data that shows that reducing poverty has a much bigger impact on reducing gun violence in general more than anything else. I don't see the media clamoring for the reduction of poverty every time a mass shooting occurs though, nor does the media ever talk about how the vast majority of gun violence comes from inter city gang violence.
Until there are assurances that the 2nd Amendment won't be taken away, most gun owners are not going to budge on things like registration, expanded background checks, waiting periods, etc; The biggest issue is that most people here are masquerading 'gun control' as an extra step towards eventually a society without guns.
On May 23 2018 02:41 Neneu wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 03:28 Yongwang wrote:On February 20 2012 03:26 farvacola wrote:On February 20 2012 03:21 Romantic wrote:
Having lots of guns is not why the US has so much crime.
The US has lots of crime because it has lots of people statistically likely to commit crime. You say that as though gun prevalence clearly plays an insignificant role in the genesis of crime, when that could not be farther from the case. More guns = Less crime AND more open government AND more freedom Less guns = More crime AND more authoritarian government AND less freedom I suppose that is why the authoritarian country Australia has such a huge problem with crime, after they introduced the draconian laws on illegal guns and heavily increased the gun control.
Australia already had low crime in the first place. The gun laws had no discernible effect on gun violence in the country in general.
|
On May 23 2018 03:23 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2018 01:57 Plansix wrote:On May 23 2018 01:34 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 23 2018 01:25 Plansix wrote:
Mental illness is an overused term in theses cases as well. Committing violent acts alone does not automatically make someone meet the requirements of what the medial world would consider treatable mental illness. Anyone can have a mental health crisis at any time. You don't need to have been diagnosed with a mental illness. That's why easy, quick availability of guns for whoever wants to buy one is a recipe for disaster in a society where we are becoming more aware of how ubiquitous mental health issues are. X could lose it tomorrow and decide he wants to go and kill a bunch of people. X could try and knife people but its far riskier and less effective. X could try and build a bomb but its difficult and probably wouldn't work. If x can walk into a store and have a gun in *however much time it takes to get a gun in America* and walk straight out and shoot away that's obviously what he would go for. 3 days later he might have got help and no longer want to kill anyone. This is the nature of mental health crises. There's an easy way to prevent this. I might have mentioned it one or two times on the previous page. Although I agree with you in most of this, I was attempting to point out that mental illness is not the cause of these shootings in every case. Or most gun violence. Mental illness is often used as a short hand to attempt to explain an explainable part of human behavior, like a mass shooting. It is also used as an excuse to avoid tightening up background checks or other loopholes. That somehow, if enough mental health services were available, the shooter might have gone to one of those services rather than shoot a whole lot of people. But I am with you that effective gun laws that prevent instant access to guns are a good idea. There is proven data that just closing the gaps in background checks has a noticeable impact on all gun violence in a state. And there's proven data that shows that reducing poverty has a much bigger impact on reducing gun violence in general more than anything else. I don't see the media clamoring for the reduction of poverty every time a mass shooting occurs though, nor does the media ever talk about how the vast majority of gun violence comes from inter city gang violence. Until there are assurances that the 2nd Amendment won't be taken away, most gun owners are not going to budge on things like registration, expanded background checks, waiting periods, etc; The biggest issue is that most people here are masquerading 'gun control' as an extra step towards eventually a society without guns.
That's the dreaded/feared ratchet effect. A ratcheting tool only increases the torque/pressure in one direction and won't relax it. What if your gun law fails in it's desired effect and has no impact whatsoever? It won't be repealed. It will still possess psychological power in the minds of gun control advocates. "At least we did something!" "The writers couldn't know it would fail in its aims, and it was written with the best intentions on an issue that still needs resolving." And that's only if they actually engage in conversation on results-testing. Most of the time, the conversation remains at more, more, more to prevent gun violence and mass shootings.
I really think this is recognized deep within debaters. They're remarkably honest on trading liberty for security. If tomorrow, the right to buy a gun in the US was revoked, and the only outcome was just one less school shooting a year (of course they hope for more), they'd still count it an overall success and progress.
|
On May 23 2018 03:23 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2018 01:57 Plansix wrote:On May 23 2018 01:34 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 23 2018 01:25 Plansix wrote:
Mental illness is an overused term in theses cases as well. Committing violent acts alone does not automatically make someone meet the requirements of what the medial world would consider treatable mental illness. Anyone can have a mental health crisis at any time. You don't need to have been diagnosed with a mental illness. That's why easy, quick availability of guns for whoever wants to buy one is a recipe for disaster in a society where we are becoming more aware of how ubiquitous mental health issues are. X could lose it tomorrow and decide he wants to go and kill a bunch of people. X could try and knife people but its far riskier and less effective. X could try and build a bomb but its difficult and probably wouldn't work. If x can walk into a store and have a gun in *however much time it takes to get a gun in America* and walk straight out and shoot away that's obviously what he would go for. 3 days later he might have got help and no longer want to kill anyone. This is the nature of mental health crises. There's an easy way to prevent this. I might have mentioned it one or two times on the previous page. Although I agree with you in most of this, I was attempting to point out that mental illness is not the cause of these shootings in every case. Or most gun violence. Mental illness is often used as a short hand to attempt to explain an explainable part of human behavior, like a mass shooting. It is also used as an excuse to avoid tightening up background checks or other loopholes. That somehow, if enough mental health services were available, the shooter might have gone to one of those services rather than shoot a whole lot of people. But I am with you that effective gun laws that prevent instant access to guns are a good idea. There is proven data that just closing the gaps in background checks has a noticeable impact on all gun violence in a state. And there's proven data that shows that reducing poverty has a much bigger impact on reducing gun violence in general more than anything else. I don't see the media clamoring for the reduction of poverty every time a mass shooting occurs though, nor does the media ever talk about how the vast majority of gun violence comes from inter city gang violence. Until there are assurances that the 2nd Amendment won't be taken away, most gun owners are not going to budge on things like registration, expanded background checks, waiting periods, etc; The biggest issue is that most people here are masquerading 'gun control' as an extra step towards eventually a society without guns. Show nested quote +On May 23 2018 02:41 Neneu wrote:On February 20 2012 03:28 Yongwang wrote:On February 20 2012 03:26 farvacola wrote:On February 20 2012 03:21 Romantic wrote:
Having lots of guns is not why the US has so much crime.
The US has lots of crime because it has lots of people statistically likely to commit crime. You say that as though gun prevalence clearly plays an insignificant role in the genesis of crime, when that could not be farther from the case. More guns = Less crime AND more open government AND more freedom Less guns = More crime AND more authoritarian government AND less freedom I suppose that is why the authoritarian country Australia has such a huge problem with crime, after they introduced the draconian laws on illegal guns and heavily increased the gun control. Australia already had low crime in the first place. The gun laws had no discernible effect on gun violence in the country in general.
But the U.S. already solved all drug related violence by making them illegal. Are you not aware of this? 
|
On May 23 2018 03:23 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2018 01:57 Plansix wrote:On May 23 2018 01:34 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 23 2018 01:25 Plansix wrote:
Mental illness is an overused term in theses cases as well. Committing violent acts alone does not automatically make someone meet the requirements of what the medial world would consider treatable mental illness. Anyone can have a mental health crisis at any time. You don't need to have been diagnosed with a mental illness. That's why easy, quick availability of guns for whoever wants to buy one is a recipe for disaster in a society where we are becoming more aware of how ubiquitous mental health issues are. X could lose it tomorrow and decide he wants to go and kill a bunch of people. X could try and knife people but its far riskier and less effective. X could try and build a bomb but its difficult and probably wouldn't work. If x can walk into a store and have a gun in *however much time it takes to get a gun in America* and walk straight out and shoot away that's obviously what he would go for. 3 days later he might have got help and no longer want to kill anyone. This is the nature of mental health crises. There's an easy way to prevent this. I might have mentioned it one or two times on the previous page. Although I agree with you in most of this, I was attempting to point out that mental illness is not the cause of these shootings in every case. Or most gun violence. Mental illness is often used as a short hand to attempt to explain an explainable part of human behavior, like a mass shooting. It is also used as an excuse to avoid tightening up background checks or other loopholes. That somehow, if enough mental health services were available, the shooter might have gone to one of those services rather than shoot a whole lot of people. But I am with you that effective gun laws that prevent instant access to guns are a good idea. There is proven data that just closing the gaps in background checks has a noticeable impact on all gun violence in a state. And there's proven data that shows that reducing poverty has a much bigger impact on reducing gun violence in general more than anything else. I don't see the media clamoring for the reduction of poverty every time a mass shooting occurs though, nor does the media ever talk about how the vast majority of gun violence comes from inter city gang violence. Until there are assurances that the 2nd Amendment won't be taken away, most gun owners are not going to budge on things like registration, expanded background checks, waiting periods, etc; The biggest issue is that most people here are masquerading 'gun control' as an extra step towards eventually a society without guns.
Gun owners represent an extremely small and shrinking section of the US population, so folks looking for gun control don’t really need them to budge. We can pass the reasonable gun laws without them and not have to worry about the hysterical cries that guns are going to be taken away.
|
On May 23 2018 03:49 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2018 03:23 superstartran wrote:On May 23 2018 01:57 Plansix wrote:On May 23 2018 01:34 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 23 2018 01:25 Plansix wrote:
Mental illness is an overused term in theses cases as well. Committing violent acts alone does not automatically make someone meet the requirements of what the medial world would consider treatable mental illness. Anyone can have a mental health crisis at any time. You don't need to have been diagnosed with a mental illness. That's why easy, quick availability of guns for whoever wants to buy one is a recipe for disaster in a society where we are becoming more aware of how ubiquitous mental health issues are. X could lose it tomorrow and decide he wants to go and kill a bunch of people. X could try and knife people but its far riskier and less effective. X could try and build a bomb but its difficult and probably wouldn't work. If x can walk into a store and have a gun in *however much time it takes to get a gun in America* and walk straight out and shoot away that's obviously what he would go for. 3 days later he might have got help and no longer want to kill anyone. This is the nature of mental health crises. There's an easy way to prevent this. I might have mentioned it one or two times on the previous page. Although I agree with you in most of this, I was attempting to point out that mental illness is not the cause of these shootings in every case. Or most gun violence. Mental illness is often used as a short hand to attempt to explain an explainable part of human behavior, like a mass shooting. It is also used as an excuse to avoid tightening up background checks or other loopholes. That somehow, if enough mental health services were available, the shooter might have gone to one of those services rather than shoot a whole lot of people. But I am with you that effective gun laws that prevent instant access to guns are a good idea. There is proven data that just closing the gaps in background checks has a noticeable impact on all gun violence in a state. And there's proven data that shows that reducing poverty has a much bigger impact on reducing gun violence in general more than anything else. I don't see the media clamoring for the reduction of poverty every time a mass shooting occurs though, nor does the media ever talk about how the vast majority of gun violence comes from inter city gang violence. Until there are assurances that the 2nd Amendment won't be taken away, most gun owners are not going to budge on things like registration, expanded background checks, waiting periods, etc; The biggest issue is that most people here are masquerading 'gun control' as an extra step towards eventually a society without guns. Gun owners represent an extremely small and shrinking section of the US population, so folks looking for gun control don’t really need them to budge. We can pass the reasonable gun laws without them and not have to worry about the hysterical cries that guns are going to be taken away.
Gun owners represent about 1/4 of the U.S. population, far more than any other ethnic minority. Categorically false. Depending on the polls it can be 25% to 41% depending on how things are measured. This idea that gun owners are an extremely 'small' subset of the population is exactly why you guys keep losing year after year on almost every major gun issue, mostly because you piss them off by deeming them non-important.
|
On May 23 2018 03:44 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2018 03:23 superstartran wrote:On May 23 2018 01:57 Plansix wrote:On May 23 2018 01:34 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 23 2018 01:25 Plansix wrote:
Mental illness is an overused term in theses cases as well. Committing violent acts alone does not automatically make someone meet the requirements of what the medial world would consider treatable mental illness. Anyone can have a mental health crisis at any time. You don't need to have been diagnosed with a mental illness. That's why easy, quick availability of guns for whoever wants to buy one is a recipe for disaster in a society where we are becoming more aware of how ubiquitous mental health issues are. X could lose it tomorrow and decide he wants to go and kill a bunch of people. X could try and knife people but its far riskier and less effective. X could try and build a bomb but its difficult and probably wouldn't work. If x can walk into a store and have a gun in *however much time it takes to get a gun in America* and walk straight out and shoot away that's obviously what he would go for. 3 days later he might have got help and no longer want to kill anyone. This is the nature of mental health crises. There's an easy way to prevent this. I might have mentioned it one or two times on the previous page. Although I agree with you in most of this, I was attempting to point out that mental illness is not the cause of these shootings in every case. Or most gun violence. Mental illness is often used as a short hand to attempt to explain an explainable part of human behavior, like a mass shooting. It is also used as an excuse to avoid tightening up background checks or other loopholes. That somehow, if enough mental health services were available, the shooter might have gone to one of those services rather than shoot a whole lot of people. But I am with you that effective gun laws that prevent instant access to guns are a good idea. There is proven data that just closing the gaps in background checks has a noticeable impact on all gun violence in a state. And there's proven data that shows that reducing poverty has a much bigger impact on reducing gun violence in general more than anything else. I don't see the media clamoring for the reduction of poverty every time a mass shooting occurs though, nor does the media ever talk about how the vast majority of gun violence comes from inter city gang violence. Until there are assurances that the 2nd Amendment won't be taken away, most gun owners are not going to budge on things like registration, expanded background checks, waiting periods, etc; The biggest issue is that most people here are masquerading 'gun control' as an extra step towards eventually a society without guns. That's the dreaded/feared ratchet effect. A ratcheting tool only increases the torque/pressure in one direction and won't relax it. What if your gun law fails in it's desired effect and has no impact whatsoever? It won't be repealed. It will still possess psychological power in the minds of gun control advocates. "At least we did something!" "The writers couldn't know it would fail in its aims, and it was written with the best intentions on an issue that still needs resolving." And that's only if they actually engage in conversation on results-testing. Most of the time, the conversation remains at more, more, more to prevent gun violence and mass shootings. I really think this is recognized deep within debaters. They're remarkably honest on trading liberty for security. If tomorrow, the right to buy a gun in the US was revoked, and the only outcome was just one less school shooting a year (of course they hope for more), they'd still count it an overall success and progress.
I would absolutely class that as a success. It shocks me that anyone would think its worth the lives of kids for them to be able to buy more guns (or in the case of the NRA, sell more guns), which is the implication here.
Trade-offs between liberty and security have always happened. You aren't free to go around murdering people, and we are more secure because of it. There is nothing inherent in the right to own a gun which connects it to liberty any more than the right to kill someone. I live a life that is as free as I will ever need it to be and I don't own a gun.
The right to own a gun is redundant liberty.
ps I'm not intending to compare gun owners to murderers its just an example.
|
On May 23 2018 04:39 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2018 03:44 Danglars wrote:On May 23 2018 03:23 superstartran wrote:On May 23 2018 01:57 Plansix wrote:On May 23 2018 01:34 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 23 2018 01:25 Plansix wrote:
Mental illness is an overused term in theses cases as well. Committing violent acts alone does not automatically make someone meet the requirements of what the medial world would consider treatable mental illness. Anyone can have a mental health crisis at any time. You don't need to have been diagnosed with a mental illness. That's why easy, quick availability of guns for whoever wants to buy one is a recipe for disaster in a society where we are becoming more aware of how ubiquitous mental health issues are. X could lose it tomorrow and decide he wants to go and kill a bunch of people. X could try and knife people but its far riskier and less effective. X could try and build a bomb but its difficult and probably wouldn't work. If x can walk into a store and have a gun in *however much time it takes to get a gun in America* and walk straight out and shoot away that's obviously what he would go for. 3 days later he might have got help and no longer want to kill anyone. This is the nature of mental health crises. There's an easy way to prevent this. I might have mentioned it one or two times on the previous page. Although I agree with you in most of this, I was attempting to point out that mental illness is not the cause of these shootings in every case. Or most gun violence. Mental illness is often used as a short hand to attempt to explain an explainable part of human behavior, like a mass shooting. It is also used as an excuse to avoid tightening up background checks or other loopholes. That somehow, if enough mental health services were available, the shooter might have gone to one of those services rather than shoot a whole lot of people. But I am with you that effective gun laws that prevent instant access to guns are a good idea. There is proven data that just closing the gaps in background checks has a noticeable impact on all gun violence in a state. And there's proven data that shows that reducing poverty has a much bigger impact on reducing gun violence in general more than anything else. I don't see the media clamoring for the reduction of poverty every time a mass shooting occurs though, nor does the media ever talk about how the vast majority of gun violence comes from inter city gang violence. Until there are assurances that the 2nd Amendment won't be taken away, most gun owners are not going to budge on things like registration, expanded background checks, waiting periods, etc; The biggest issue is that most people here are masquerading 'gun control' as an extra step towards eventually a society without guns. That's the dreaded/feared ratchet effect. A ratcheting tool only increases the torque/pressure in one direction and won't relax it. What if your gun law fails in it's desired effect and has no impact whatsoever? It won't be repealed. It will still possess psychological power in the minds of gun control advocates. "At least we did something!" "The writers couldn't know it would fail in its aims, and it was written with the best intentions on an issue that still needs resolving." And that's only if they actually engage in conversation on results-testing. Most of the time, the conversation remains at more, more, more to prevent gun violence and mass shootings. I really think this is recognized deep within debaters. They're remarkably honest on trading liberty for security. If tomorrow, the right to buy a gun in the US was revoked, and the only outcome was just one less school shooting a year (of course they hope for more), they'd still count it an overall success and progress. I would absolutely class that as a success. It shocks me that anyone would think its worth the lives of kids for them to be able to buy more guns (or in the case of the NRA, sell more guns), which is the implication here. Trade-offs between liberty and security have always happened. You aren't free to go around murdering people, and we are more secure because of it. There is nothing inherent in the right to own a gun which connects it to liberty any more than the right to kill someone. I live a life that is as free as I will ever need it to be and I don't own a gun. The right to own a gun is redundant liberty. ps I'm not intending to compare gun owners to murderers its just an example.
I'm not troubled by your shock, this is after all a very emotional topic. I am a little troubled that you think "you aren't free to go around murdering people, and we are more secure because of it." (the behavior, not whether or not it's against the law and makes you subject to arrest). You aren't free to stop them yourself, because security makes you disarmed, so they are in fact free to go around murdering people, because you're waiting for a police response, or him to run out of bullets or desire. But you're willing to allow that to happen in the hopes that greater security means it occurs on a diminished basis. Your right to own a gun inherently means you're more at liberty to stop crimes on your person and act in your self defense. Your hopes in a high-security frame is that you're less likely to be subject to the need to defend yourself, and that's to your safety.
I'd rather have a society possessing the rights (with few restrictions) to buy a gun for their own self defense, or other lawful actions like dissuading armed robbery. To pay for one less school shooting a year with a disarmed population down the line is absolutely a bad trade-off. School children gain a little temporary safety at the cost of great insecurity and oppression as they become adults. I'm with you if all violent crime by citizens or noncitizens stopped, and a deity guaranteed the government would not become tyrannical, would administer justice fairly, and would protect it against armed invasion. Everything short of that is not worth a surrender on the second amendment. Not even close. I would not want to tell the hundreds or thousands of victims of violent crime that they deserved to die so that another 18 kids might live each year. That's my perspective.
|
On May 23 2018 04:19 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2018 03:49 Plansix wrote:On May 23 2018 03:23 superstartran wrote:On May 23 2018 01:57 Plansix wrote:On May 23 2018 01:34 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 23 2018 01:25 Plansix wrote:
Mental illness is an overused term in theses cases as well. Committing violent acts alone does not automatically make someone meet the requirements of what the medial world would consider treatable mental illness. Anyone can have a mental health crisis at any time. You don't need to have been diagnosed with a mental illness. That's why easy, quick availability of guns for whoever wants to buy one is a recipe for disaster in a society where we are becoming more aware of how ubiquitous mental health issues are. X could lose it tomorrow and decide he wants to go and kill a bunch of people. X could try and knife people but its far riskier and less effective. X could try and build a bomb but its difficult and probably wouldn't work. If x can walk into a store and have a gun in *however much time it takes to get a gun in America* and walk straight out and shoot away that's obviously what he would go for. 3 days later he might have got help and no longer want to kill anyone. This is the nature of mental health crises. There's an easy way to prevent this. I might have mentioned it one or two times on the previous page. Although I agree with you in most of this, I was attempting to point out that mental illness is not the cause of these shootings in every case. Or most gun violence. Mental illness is often used as a short hand to attempt to explain an explainable part of human behavior, like a mass shooting. It is also used as an excuse to avoid tightening up background checks or other loopholes. That somehow, if enough mental health services were available, the shooter might have gone to one of those services rather than shoot a whole lot of people. But I am with you that effective gun laws that prevent instant access to guns are a good idea. There is proven data that just closing the gaps in background checks has a noticeable impact on all gun violence in a state. And there's proven data that shows that reducing poverty has a much bigger impact on reducing gun violence in general more than anything else. I don't see the media clamoring for the reduction of poverty every time a mass shooting occurs though, nor does the media ever talk about how the vast majority of gun violence comes from inter city gang violence. Until there are assurances that the 2nd Amendment won't be taken away, most gun owners are not going to budge on things like registration, expanded background checks, waiting periods, etc; The biggest issue is that most people here are masquerading 'gun control' as an extra step towards eventually a society without guns. Gun owners represent an extremely small and shrinking section of the US population, so folks looking for gun control don’t really need them to budge. We can pass the reasonable gun laws without them and not have to worry about the hysterical cries that guns are going to be taken away. Gun owners represent about 1/4 of the U.S. population, far more than any other ethnic minority. Categorically false. Depending on the polls it can be 25% to 41% depending on how things are measured. This idea that gun owners are an extremely 'small' subset of the population is exactly why you guys keep losing year after year on almost every major gun issue, mostly because you piss them off by deeming them non-important.
Greatly enjoying the implication of this post that gun owners are an ethnic minority hahaha
|
On May 22 2018 20:48 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2018 08:20 Sermokala wrote: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?
Yes It matters that they have automatic fire or even semi automatic fire. It makes them completely different guns able to do completely different things. You can't kill masses of people if you have to put in a new bullet every time you fire or work a bolt action every time you fire.
Again your ignorance of the topic you think is a strength for you for some reason rears its head again and again. Barrels need to be rifled for any accuracy. They need to be chrome molybdenum or they can't fire for long without getting hot or rusting easy. They kill lots more people if they can fire faster and more accurately. The machine tools we have today are roughly the same ones we had 100 years ago just more accurate and faster. You wouldn't care about that because again you think ignorance is your strength on this issue. 8mm pistol bullets are not as deady as a 0.223 rifle round but again you think ignorance is your strength on this issue. It is hard to manufacture a fully automatic gun or a semi automatic gun. Assembly is still a difficult craft if you don't have training. You're not remotely only discussing in particular just the manufacture of small arms (which illegal foreign copies are found regularly already in LA) but I guess ignorance of your own argument is what you think a strength in this issue.
I mean you could give a shit about the people you're arguing with and learn simple topics like technology develops over time but I guess its easier for you to shout that ignorance is strength?
|
On May 23 2018 05:18 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2018 04:39 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 23 2018 03:44 Danglars wrote:On May 23 2018 03:23 superstartran wrote:On May 23 2018 01:57 Plansix wrote:On May 23 2018 01:34 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 23 2018 01:25 Plansix wrote:
Mental illness is an overused term in theses cases as well. Committing violent acts alone does not automatically make someone meet the requirements of what the medial world would consider treatable mental illness. Anyone can have a mental health crisis at any time. You don't need to have been diagnosed with a mental illness. That's why easy, quick availability of guns for whoever wants to buy one is a recipe for disaster in a society where we are becoming more aware of how ubiquitous mental health issues are. X could lose it tomorrow and decide he wants to go and kill a bunch of people. X could try and knife people but its far riskier and less effective. X could try and build a bomb but its difficult and probably wouldn't work. If x can walk into a store and have a gun in *however much time it takes to get a gun in America* and walk straight out and shoot away that's obviously what he would go for. 3 days later he might have got help and no longer want to kill anyone. This is the nature of mental health crises. There's an easy way to prevent this. I might have mentioned it one or two times on the previous page. Although I agree with you in most of this, I was attempting to point out that mental illness is not the cause of these shootings in every case. Or most gun violence. Mental illness is often used as a short hand to attempt to explain an explainable part of human behavior, like a mass shooting. It is also used as an excuse to avoid tightening up background checks or other loopholes. That somehow, if enough mental health services were available, the shooter might have gone to one of those services rather than shoot a whole lot of people. But I am with you that effective gun laws that prevent instant access to guns are a good idea. There is proven data that just closing the gaps in background checks has a noticeable impact on all gun violence in a state. And there's proven data that shows that reducing poverty has a much bigger impact on reducing gun violence in general more than anything else. I don't see the media clamoring for the reduction of poverty every time a mass shooting occurs though, nor does the media ever talk about how the vast majority of gun violence comes from inter city gang violence. Until there are assurances that the 2nd Amendment won't be taken away, most gun owners are not going to budge on things like registration, expanded background checks, waiting periods, etc; The biggest issue is that most people here are masquerading 'gun control' as an extra step towards eventually a society without guns. That's the dreaded/feared ratchet effect. A ratcheting tool only increases the torque/pressure in one direction and won't relax it. What if your gun law fails in it's desired effect and has no impact whatsoever? It won't be repealed. It will still possess psychological power in the minds of gun control advocates. "At least we did something!" "The writers couldn't know it would fail in its aims, and it was written with the best intentions on an issue that still needs resolving." And that's only if they actually engage in conversation on results-testing. Most of the time, the conversation remains at more, more, more to prevent gun violence and mass shootings. I really think this is recognized deep within debaters. They're remarkably honest on trading liberty for security. If tomorrow, the right to buy a gun in the US was revoked, and the only outcome was just one less school shooting a year (of course they hope for more), they'd still count it an overall success and progress. I would absolutely class that as a success. It shocks me that anyone would think its worth the lives of kids for them to be able to buy more guns (or in the case of the NRA, sell more guns), which is the implication here. Trade-offs between liberty and security have always happened. You aren't free to go around murdering people, and we are more secure because of it. There is nothing inherent in the right to own a gun which connects it to liberty any more than the right to kill someone. I live a life that is as free as I will ever need it to be and I don't own a gun. The right to own a gun is redundant liberty. ps I'm not intending to compare gun owners to murderers its just an example. I'm not troubled by your shock, this is after all a very emotional topic. I am a little troubled that you think "you aren't free to go around murdering people, and we are more secure because of it." (the behavior, not whether or not it's against the law and makes you subject to arrest). You aren't free to stop them yourself, because security makes you disarmed, so they are in fact free to go around murdering people, because you're waiting for a police response, or him to run out of bullets or desire. But you're willing to allow that to happen in the hopes that greater security means it occurs on a diminished basis. Your right to own a gun inherently means you're more at liberty to stop crimes on your person and act in your self defense. Your hopes in a high-security frame is that you're less likely to be subject to the need to defend yourself, and that's to your safety. I'd rather have a society possessing the rights (with few restrictions) to buy a gun for their own self defense, or other lawful actions like dissuading armed robbery. To pay for one less school shooting a year with a disarmed population down the line is absolutely a bad trade-off. School children gain a little temporary safety at the cost of great insecurity and oppression as they become adults. I'm with you if all violent crime by citizens or noncitizens stopped, and a deity guaranteed the government would not become tyrannical, would administer justice fairly, and would protect it against armed invasion. Everything short of that is not worth a surrender on the second amendment. Not even close. I would not want to tell the hundreds or thousands of victims of violent crime that they deserved to die so that another 18 kids might live each year. That's my perspective.
I understand your perspective, I genuinely do (I'm still shocked). I don't think we can go too much further on this except to say that we have different perspectives on liberty and when it is necessary to sacrifice that.
Absolute liberty is a very American ideal, with all the pros and cons that come with that. I'm glad I grew up safe in a country with no guns. That said, I never had the choice to have a gun so its completely redundant for me to even think about whether or not I would be more secure or less oppressed if i was armed. I certainly don't feel more oppressed or less secure, but I don't live in America.
I think its a problem of value systems more than any tangible oppression or security to be honest.
|
This argument is as circular as they come. Why you fight the good fight Jock, I'll never know. You will not reach these people in any way with reason.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
