|
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 27 2018 03:55 Broetchenholer wrote:
So, what you are saying is, you are okay that of every 300 people, one dies by gunshot and therefore, nothing needs to be done? 1 of 300 people dying from gunshots is the price you are willing to pay for the right to bear arms?
Gun control doesn't do anything to address the cause of those deaths. Even though it may prevent some portion of them, most of them just transform into something else (with likelihood seeming high that the "something else" may just be death through another form).
If guns literally had some kind of ability to mentally influence people to shoot other people, I would be all for banning them. But they do not, and I believe in addressing the real cause of problems rather than controlling other people because of the potential for misuse.
It seems to me that people who obsess about gun control after say, a school shooting, obviously care much more about the safety of their selves and their inner circle than the actual well being of the country. There are obvious questions and issues that need to be addressed that are being mostly ignored, and why is that.
|
Guns don't persuade people to do anything. They make it much easier to execute, and inflict lethal damage. The idea behind the argument for gun control is not that guns are the only reason murders happen, but rather that every shooting has in common the fact that someone who shouldn't have been able to get a gun got one. Maybe they would've found something else if they couldn't get access to a gun, but that's rather the point. If you compare attacks with a van or a knife to a shooting, the death counts are always much higher with a gun, and it's much harder to stop them.
|
You're making claims that certain things are always true, which clearly are not always true.... Mass murders by say, vans or trucks, actually are generally higher than with gun. So that's kind of the opposite of what you are saying. And clearly some of the people who commit murders with guns were people were not "people who shouldn't be able to get a gun". Unless we are living in some sort of minority report universe and I am not aware of it.
But that is all irrelevant to what I was saying. If you are advocating for stiffer (but still reasonable) requirements to purchase and own a gun, then I am all for that. Still doesn't address the cause of these shootings, though.
Edit: I take back what I said about mass killings by vehicles. It's actually too hard to try to judge which is a more impactful killer. But I can confident say that mass murders by large vehicle are *often* more deadly than those by gun.
|
On May 27 2018 05:19 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2018 03:55 Broetchenholer wrote:
So, what you are saying is, you are okay that of every 300 people, one dies by gunshot and therefore, nothing needs to be done? 1 of 300 people dying from gunshots is the price you are willing to pay for the right to bear arms? Gun control doesn't do anything to address the cause of those deaths. Even though it may prevent some portion of them, most of them just transform into something else (with likelihood seeming high that the "something else" may just be death through another form). If guns literally had some kind of ability to mentally influence people to shoot other people, I would be all for banning them. But they do not, and I believe in addressing the real cause of problems rather than controlling other people because of the potential for misuse. It seems to me that people who obsess about gun control after say, a school shooting, obviously care much more about the safety of their selves and their inner circle than the actual well being of the country. There are obvious questions and issues that need to be addressed that are being mostly ignored, and why is that.
if gun control would prevent some of those deaths, then it wouldn't be entirely unreasonable to call guns a "cause" of those deaths.
the well being of the country is affected by the safety of the people in it. also, nearly all people in general care more about their family and close friends than about the well being of the country, regardless of timing/recent shootings.
please state the issues that need to be addressed and are being ignored.
|
On May 27 2018 06:13 zlefin wrote:
if gun control would prevent some of those deaths, then it wouldn't be entirely unreasonable to call guns a "cause" of those deaths.
I guess I would prefer not to engage in a semantical debate. I'll just say that if the invidual was asked, or if a psychologist analyzed them, or a historian recorded what happened in history - they would not say that the individual committed the act because of "guns".
the well being of the country is affected by the safety of the people in it. also, nearly all people in general care more about their family and close friends than about the well being of the country, regardless of timing/recent shootings.
my point is that the lack of interest in what is motivating these events, and the lack of interest in doing anything about it, shows how little the average person cares about the marginalized, opressed, and sick. which can lead me into my next answer.
please state the issues that need to be addressed and are being ignored.
well I think that's kind of a hierarchy of issues in this society where one thing leads to many others. but obviously our society has sicknesses to be addressed. the worst sickness of all may be the worship of money and the greed that revolves around it, to the point where we somehow can't afford to take care of our sick despite an overflow of goods and money. and I am not just talking about general healthcare, but mental healthcare too, the state of which is absolute deplorable. and beyond that there is just a general plethora of problems that need to be addressed but won't be because they involve spending tax dollars to help society(even though we waste trillions on other bullshit).
|
On May 27 2018 07:06 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2018 06:13 zlefin wrote:
if gun control would prevent some of those deaths, then it wouldn't be entirely unreasonable to call guns a "cause" of those deaths. I guess I would prefer not to engage in a semantical debate. I'll just say that if the invidual was asked, or if a psychologist analyzed them, or a historian recorded what happened in history - they would not say that the individual committed the act because of "guns". Show nested quote +
the well being of the country is affected by the safety of the people in it. also, nearly all people in general care more about their family and close friends than about the well being of the country, regardless of timing/recent shootings.
my point is that the lack of interest in what is motivating these events, and the lack of interest in doing anything about it, shows how little the average person cares about the marginalized, opressed, and sick. which can lead me into my next answer. well I think that's kind of a hierarchy of issues in this society where one thing leads to many others. but obviously our society has sicknesses to be addressed. the worst sickness of all may be the worship of money and the greed that revolves around it, to the point where we somehow can't afford to take care of our sick despite an overflow of goods and money. and I am not just talking about general healthcare, but mental healthcare too, the state of which is absolute deplorable. and beyond that there is just a general plethora of problems that need to be addressed but won't be because they involve spending tax dollars to help society(even though we waste trillions on other bullshit).
just because the individual didn't psychologically commit the act "because of guns" doesn't mean guns can't reasonably be considered a cause. causation is a very complicated topic, and there's many layers/degrees to it, and there are very reasonable interpretations which would classify guns as a cause of the death.
I don't see that lack of interest at looking at the motivations of these events; every time it happens I hear people talking about addressing the underlying issues that lead to the problems. You must be listening to different media.
Many agree with you that there are such issues being inadequately addressed. Clearly there's room and support enough there to do something; sadly the republicans seem to be against those things, and have convinced many people to go along with that.
|
On May 27 2018 05:19 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2018 03:55 Broetchenholer wrote:
So, what you are saying is, you are okay that of every 300 people, one dies by gunshot and therefore, nothing needs to be done? 1 of 300 people dying from gunshots is the price you are willing to pay for the right to bear arms? Gun control doesn't do anything to address the cause of those deaths. Even though it may prevent some portion of them, most of them just transform into something else (with likelihood seeming high that the "something else" may just be death through another form). If guns literally had some kind of ability to mentally influence people to shoot other people, I would be all for banning them. But they do not, and I believe in addressing the real cause of problems rather than controlling other people because of the potential for misuse. It seems to me that people who obsess about gun control after say, a school shooting, obviously care much more about the safety of their selves and their inner circle than the actual well being of the country. There are obvious questions and issues that need to be addressed that are being mostly ignored, and why is that.
There are some very interesting studies out there, suggesting that giving people power over others will very quickly escalate into violence or amoral behavior. If you have a gun and someone else does not, this gives you power over that person, so why not use it. I have not done any research on that and i don't know any studies about the direct impact of guns on human behavior in this regard but i would not be surprised at all if a study found out, that a person with a guns was much more willing to inflict harm on someone else compared to an unarmed person. So, i think guns do influence people to kill, not just passively by enabling them, but actively by changing their behavior.
Regarding your last paragraph, i find the opposite to be the case. One of the better arguments here from gun proponents is, that a society with guns trades the cost of higher violent crime, suicide rates, police shootings and so on for a reward of perceived higher safety for the individual. Say, a woman can now fight back against a male attacker. Allowing the victim of an assault to fight back and maybe come off unscathed. I would say this makes them selfish because they prioritize their personal felt safety over everybody safety.
|
On May 25 2018 18:07 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2018 17:28 ShambhalaWar wrote:On May 25 2018 16:59 PoulsenB wrote:On May 25 2018 12:58 Orome wrote:
The military rifles are taken home without ammunition, so that's a pretty misleading statement in the first place.
For all the befuddling American right-wing insistence that any type of gun control is the mother of all evil though, I'm almost equally annoyed by the lazy 'gun control would fix all problems' approach. Appears to me that the problematic culture the US has built around guns runs much deeper than just accessability. I'm all for better forms of gun control, but I can't help feel that the endless and superficial discussions around it prevent questions that are just as important. Why so many Americans on this forum (over the years) have seriously and proudly proclaimed their need and right to shoot any robbers or burglars for example (should said burglars ever appear). While I'm all for responsible and properly regulated gun ownership, this burglar thing has been boggling my mind as well. Even in Poland we have people advocating widespread access to guns on the basis of "I need to defend my home against burglars", but you basically never hear of cases where burglars entered a home when the owner was inside - usually the criminals strike when people are away on vacation or sth like that. For me it reeks of a kinda wild-west power fantasy (and maybe even insecurity - as Professor Farsworth once said, "who needs courage when you have a gun?"). Cool story in the US, another shooting just happened, and there was a guy outside with a gun... who drew his gun and confronted the shooter... then the shooter shot and killed him. End of story. Interesting contrast to the waffle house shooting, where someone without a gun stopped a shooter... My country is too stupid and bought out at the highest levels of power to actually do anything, even when children are getting shot and killed over and over and over again. It's truly fucking pathetic. Here's my suggestion, you remove the republican shills who are bought and payed for from congress, then change the laws... remove the payed for dems as well... but at least they aren't the ones defending all this gun bullshit. You'll have to remove the United States citizens that have darn good reasons to question the motives and scopes of the gun control activists and lobby. There's enough of them to unite behind new candidates and activist groups, should somehow the current shills get replaced in mass. I gather that some of these citizens are included in your opener of "My country is too stupid." I cheer and salute the American that stopped a bad guy with a gun by being a good guy with a gun. This NRA video is making the rounds. I think it makes a valuable point as it wraps up towards the end. I hope both sides can move towards mutual understanding and empathy and meet somewhere in the gap. I'm pretty pessimistic at this happening in the short term.
I do not have to exclude those people, they are stupid people. Stupidity isn't a character trait, it's the inability or unwillingness to develop awareness of our reality. Nothing is being done about children getting murdered... that's American reality... children for fuck sake... we have lost more children this year to murder by mass shooting than service members in war zones... that's just mass shooting, children... that is a statistical fact.
For all the guns being stocked up for when the horrrrrible government turns on us all... and we need them to defend ourselves argument... When that moment comes, you won't even see it happen, one minute your there and the next a drone missile lands next to you, and your AR15 won't do shit. You should be much more worried about your civil rights eroding to the point at which everyone is forced to salute the flag and you're marching around the world like hitler's army in the name of patriotism.
You miss read my post or I wasn't clear enough. The "good guy with a gun" is now a dead guy with a gun. When he pulled his gun to try and stop the shooter, the shooter just killed him. I guess I needed to tag my post with (sarcasm), for some reason I thought the news we better known. My fault for not being articulate.
Try reading about the "waffle house shooting" were a good guy with no gun, stopped a man armed with and AR. Yet the great leader of democracy never bothered to call or congratulate or pin a medal of honor on a man who saved many lives that day. I can think of another example of 3 men with no gun stopping a man with a gun.
I can also think of the santa fe shooting where armed officers were at the school and still one officer was killed. I can think of no story where a random man with a gun stopped anything from happening.
The NRA, doesn't care about you or anyone else past how much money you will spend on guns. The NRA is a lobbying firm for the gun industry, it's "making rounds" for PR, not because any of them would give a shit about you or your kids if one of them went to the santa fe highschool or sandy hook.
The only legitimate reasons in our culture to own a gun are 1) I want to shoot paper. 2) I want to hunt.
Neither of those reasons is worth the life of any one child killed in a mass shooting. And you can only afford to talk like this about guns because you're not a 16 years old and have to deal with doing active shooter drills or have had seen your friends murdered.
|
What he's saying is, it doesn't matter if the people is more prone (or not) to kill another one when they can own a weapon. Sure, you may be able to kill more citizens with a deadly weapon, but it doesn't change the fact that the person that want to do harm IS the root of the problem. That person would've killed wether or not he had a gun.
You may have the best universities, the best doctors, but that doesn't represent (AT ALL) the majority of the US people. And that's exactly what is wrong with this country. The fact that education cost a ton of money, and hospital bills are extremely high, it doesn't help to have the average joe to be able to understand the morality or the responsibility to own a gun (or anything dangerous for that matter, be it car, knife, or anything really).
What exactly went through their shooting student's brains ? Do you really think if they had no weapons, they wouldn't be killing innocent people ? No, I highly doubt it. They had to do that because they either felt the need to show that their country is doing something wrong, or because they couldn't be checked by their doctors more thoroughly.
So yes, banning weapon would probably help to reduce the deaths count, but the problem would still remains.
|
On May 27 2018 16:10 RaiZ wrote:
What he's saying is, it doesn't matter if the people is more prone (or not) to kill another one when they can own a weapon. Sure, you may be able to kill more citizens with a deadly weapon, but it doesn't change the fact that the person that want to do harm IS the root of the problem. That person would've killed wether or not he had a gun.
You may have the best universities, the best doctors, but that doesn't represent (AT ALL) the majority of the US people. And that's exactly what is wrong with this country. The fact that education cost a ton of money, and hospital bills are extremely high, it doesn't help to have the average joe to be able to understand the morality or the responsibility to own a gun (or anything dangerous for that matter, be it car, knife, or anything really).
What exactly went through their shooting student's brains ? Do you really think if they had no weapons, they wouldn't be killing innocent people ? No, I highly doubt it. They had to do that because they either felt the need to show that their country is doing something wrong, or because they couldn't be checked by their doctors more thoroughly.
So yes, banning weapon would probably help to reduce the deaths count, but the problem would still remains.
this is exactly what gun control aims for. reducing the death toll, not curing the world of evil.
gun control advocates want peoples' attempts to kill people to be more difficult. you can argue that without guns people will resort to another weapon like knives, but that alone is still a victory for society when knives do far less damage and requires more time than guns.
every time a person who argues against gun control their argument has always been "criminals will find another way" or "there arent enough deaths to warrant action". essentially youre all saying you cbf trying to reduce deaths even marginally and not enough people are dying for you to want to give up your hobbies. (and i deliberately say hobby because self defense is a pretty pathetic reason to have firearms).
|
On May 27 2018 06:00 travis wrote:
You're making claims that certain things are always true, which clearly are not always true.... Mass murders by say, vans or trucks, actually are generally higher than with gun. So that's kind of the opposite of what you are saying. And clearly some of the people who commit murders with guns were people were not "people who shouldn't be able to get a gun". Unless we are living in some sort of minority report universe and I am not aware of it.
But that is all irrelevant to what I was saying. If you are advocating for stiffer (but still reasonable) requirements to purchase and own a gun, then I am all for that. Still doesn't address the cause of these shootings, though.
Edit: I take back what I said about mass killings by vehicles. It's actually too hard to try to judge which is a more impactful killer. But I can confident say that mass murders by large vehicle are *often* more deadly than those by gun.
Your posts literally hurt my brain to read... Las Vegas was infinitely more deadly than any vehicular homicide... what was it 60+ people murdered and 250 injured or mangled? Their lives changed forever. Find me any story of more than 20 dead from being run over, pls link it here. As far as guns go, there is Vegas, the theater shootings in France, the night club in florida all massive causalities.
Do you just think something up and then it becomes your reality?
As far as gun control goes... Australia had a mass shooting once back in 1990 or something like that, after the shooting... They put gun control laws into effect and I believe they did a massive buy back of all guns for their full value. You want to guess how many mass shootings they've had since 1990? ? ? You get it right? ... 0 mass shootings.
We've had like 20 this year ... 1/2 a fucking year, and 20.
Guess what the difference between our country and most other countries is? Not the amount of cars... Not the amount of mentally ill people... Not the amount of children in school...
It's the amount of guns on the streets and lack of actual gun control. The fact a complete dipshit can walk into a gun show and some asshole there will sell him an AR without thinking twice about what he will do with it, is beyond stupidity.
If you were 16 in high school right now watching your friends getting gunned down and doing active shooter drills you would be singing a different tune. That's called privilege.
You want to make a mental health argument, yes, all these people needed therapy... but in that respect no country is different from each other. Statistically all countries have mentally ill people, but in the other countries these mentally ill people can't walk into a gun show and buy a weapon of war. Sensible gun laws in America are ANY gun laws.
If you drive a car you have to go through a hell of a lot more work than you ever will to buy a gun, what is sensible about that?
If you really are for sensible gun laws (which by your posts I'm doubting you are) then be for real and lobby your bros at the NRA for laws that make sense, they will laugh at you until they are blue in the face.
|
On May 27 2018 16:36 ShambhalaWar wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2018 06:00 travis wrote:
You're making claims that certain things are always true, which clearly are not always true.... Mass murders by say, vans or trucks, actually are generally higher than with gun. So that's kind of the opposite of what you are saying. And clearly some of the people who commit murders with guns were people were not "people who shouldn't be able to get a gun". Unless we are living in some sort of minority report universe and I am not aware of it.
But that is all irrelevant to what I was saying. If you are advocating for stiffer (but still reasonable) requirements to purchase and own a gun, then I am all for that. Still doesn't address the cause of these shootings, though.
Edit: I take back what I said about mass killings by vehicles. It's actually too hard to try to judge which is a more impactful killer. But I can confident say that mass murders by large vehicle are *often* more deadly than those by gun. Your posts literally hurt my brain to read... Las Vegas was infinitely more deadly than any vehicular homicide... what was it 60+ people murdered and 250 injured or mangled? Their lives changed forever. Find me any story of more than 20 dead from being run over, pls link it here. As far as guns go, there is Vegas, the theater shootings in France, the night club in florida all massive causalities.Do you just think something up and then it becomes your reality? As far as gun control goes... Australia had a mass shooting once back in 1990 or something like that, after the shooting... They put gun control laws into effect and I believe they did a massive buy back of all guns for their full value. You want to guess how many mass shootings they've had since 1990? ? ? You get it right? ... 0 mass shootings. We've had like 20 this year ... 1/2 a fucking year, and 20. Guess what the difference between our country and most other countries is? Not the amount of cars... Not the amount of mentally ill people... Not the amount of children in school... It's the amount of guns on the streets and lack of actual gun control. The fact a complete dipshit can walk into a gun show and some asshole there will sell him an AR without thinking twice about what he will do with it, is beyond stupidity. If you were 16 in high school right now watching your friends getting gunned down and doing active shooter drills you would be singing a different tune. That's called privilege. You want to make a mental health argument, yes, all these people needed therapy... but in that respect no country is different from each other. Statistically all countries have mentally ill people, but in the other countries these mentally ill people can't walk into a gun show and buy a weapon of war. Sensible gun laws in America are ANY gun laws. If you drive a car you have to go through a hell of a lot more work than you ever will to buy a gun, what is sensible about that? If you really are for sensible gun laws (which by your posts I'm doubting you are) then be for real and lobby your bros at the NRA for laws that make sense, they will laugh at you until they are blue in the face.
technically youve had far more than 20 mass shootings already. the US have hit over 100 mass shootings this year, according to the 4+ definition. absolutely ludicrous
as an australian im really thankful to john howard for deciding without much deliberation that guns should be totally banned in the country. the logistics of how it will be done should not even be part of the consideration. sometimes the government has to step up and enforce shit with the safety of its citizens in mind and thats what australia did. sadly americans will look at these laws that are designed to protect their kids and would choose to sacrifice their kids for their individual rights.
|
Can someone who respects the NRA at this point in modern history explain to me why they do it?
Someone who doesn't have an ulterior motive...
|
On May 27 2018 17:58 garden_toolshed wrote:
Can someone who respects the NRA at this point in modern history explain to me why they do it?
Someone who doesn't have an ulterior motive...
Eh. Even I can do that and I hate the bastards. ,
The NRA is standing up for people's constitutional right to bear arms. It's fairly likely if the NRA wasn't there that by now there'd have been several different bits of gun control legislation put into place. They're so powerful in so many states in America they can have a nice chat with the President and make him change his tune.
Were I a guy who owned guns, and was worried the government was taking them from me one day, I'd definitely like the NRA. Plus, they do social stuff, too. A nice happy community of gun-nuts.
If they weren't obviously evil they'd be lovely.
|
On May 27 2018 07:06 travis wrote:
well I think that's kind of a hierarchy of issues in this society where one thing leads to many others. but obviously our society has sicknesses to be addressed. the worst sickness of all may be the worship of money and the greed that revolves around it, to the point where we somehow can't afford to take care of our sick despite an overflow of goods and money. and I am not just talking about general healthcare, but mental healthcare too, the state of which is absolute deplorable. and beyond that there is just a general plethora of problems that need to be addressed but won't be because they involve spending tax dollars to help society(even though we waste trillions on other bullshit).
Plenty of countries where mass shootings don't happen have worse/nearly non-existent mental healthcare compared to the US. While I'm all for improvements to mental healthcare, if access to guns by those with a history of violence or psychiatric institutionalization is not a strong enough correlation for you to explain any part of this discrepancy between countries, then surely the correlation between quality of mental healthcare and mass shootings is even weaker.
To tackle this issue you have to also look at why it doesn't happen in so many developing countries, not just why it doesn't happen in Switzerland.
|
|
|
On May 27 2018 17:58 garden_toolshed wrote:
Can someone who respects the NRA at this point in modern history explain to me why they do it?
Someone who doesn't have an ulterior motive...
I can't speak to whether I have an ulterior motive or not, but the most simple answer is that the pictures make money. Pro NRA articles get millions of clicks and someone is going to get them. Makes sense for the NRA to pay the writer $40k a year to write a few of them and everyone ends up better off.
|
On May 27 2018 01:35 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2018 17:24 r.Evo wrote:On May 26 2018 13:29 superstartran wrote:On May 26 2018 09:59 r.Evo wrote:On May 26 2018 07:43 superstartran wrote:On May 26 2018 07:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 26 2018 07:36 superstartran wrote:On May 26 2018 07:33 Plansix wrote:
The problem with the his argument is that he assumes I have specific stances on what guns should or should not be available. Or that I am for or against some types of guns laws over others.
The reality is I will take ANY update to the US gun laws, state or federal. Any change would be preferable to the stale mate. The Swiss gun laws sound awesome. If people can get automatic weapons, but all those other changes get put in place, bring it on. People can have browning machine guns if I get a background check system like the Swiss.
No, I'm saying the vast majority of your side is arguing under false pretenses because you wanted to ban bump stocks before, but suddenly are ok with fully automatic weapons being much more available. I think this might be one of those times we shouldn't attribute to malice what can easily be explained by ignorance (and desperation). That pisses me off big time though. They are absolutely hypocritical, want to ban bumpstocks (which I actually agree with, there's 0 reason to have a fully automatic weapon), but then suddenly want to say it's ok to have relatively easy access to fully automatics? What? Neither Plansix (nor anyone else for that matter that I noticed) argued: "Bring on fully automatic weapons!" like you keep claiming. What multiple people argued is fully automatic weapons would be totally fine, if combined with a similar approach to guns in general like for example Switzerland. You can't just take the first portion of that sentence and pretend the stance of the other side is hypocritical because they would be massively against fully automatic weapons for civilians under the current laws and approaches the US has. Well, you can. But that sounds quite a bit like this selective reading and cherry picking you seem to be strongly against. The current approach for fully automatic weapons in the U.S. is much more strict than in Switzerland. Also, you cannot with a straight bold face tell me you want to ban assault weapons/ban bump stocks/high capacity magazines, etc. but suddenly be ok with laws that are arguably more laxed in some ways then even the U.S. laws. Silencers for example are almost practically impossible to get in the U.S. Not saying you, I'm saying everyone else here who is suddenly pro-Swiss gun laws which wouldn't have prevented most of the mass shootings in the first place. And he did say "bring on fully automatic weapons the police can deal with them." "You can't tell me with a straight bold face that you want to ban cars driving faster than 60mph but then tell me you would be okay with cars being able to go 120mph if we introduced regulations that would result in them being able to cause less deaths than what we have right now." That's exactly how it works. The goal of people arguing like this isn't to take your weapons away. The goal is to have policies that reduce gun violence, less armed people on the streets, more restrictions on when and where they can be firedand push a toxic gun culture into one that respects deadly weapons as precisely that. The goal is less people being shot to death. The goal is less kids considering school shootings something that just happens. You just said "regulations such as this wouldn't work with how we interpret our constitution" - maybe, if you yourself consider the Swiss approach a better one than the one in the US to achieve the above goals, this is where you should start arguing that Americans should ask themselves why they don't want what the Swiss have de facto: A well-regulated militia with the goal to have a civilian population that can defend itself when needed.Requiring a 6 week mandatory course before getting a gun would probably be the first step into accomplishing that goal. Great idea, how are you or other pro-gun advocates in the US like the NRA trying to lobby for such a change? Because people are insincere about how they are approaching it. The cover is "Swiss gun laws" when in fact they just want to ban all guns. Jack, and many other posters have gone on record in this very thread saying they would rather just ban all guns. If the goal is less school shootings/mass shootings, those laws aren't going to prevent that from happening. Nor is it going to prevent regular gang violence because gang violence is going to occur with or without guns in the first place (and the vast majority of the U.S. firearm homicide is gang related). It would be akin to trying to stop gangs by waging a war on drugs, that's not going to work because the U.S. has kind of already tried that, and by most objective metrics it has failed. All those laws will do is literally make people 'feel' better like something has been accomplished. Most mass shooters will qualify, considering the vast majority do not have prior criminal or mental history issues. So to say that it would work is pretty funny considering someone like Stephen Paddock would qualify, as well as many of the other previous mass shooters in U.S. history.
"Everyone who argues for e.g. Swiss-style gun laws actually is a liar and wants to ban all guns, it's all just a cover up."
Want to know why nothing changes? Because people like you are projecting their fears onto anyone who disagrees with them.
It also seems you accidentally missed my previous question at the end so I'll just repeat it:
Show nested quote +Requiring a 6 week mandatory course before getting a gun would probably be the first step into accomplishing that goal. Great idea, how are you or other pro-gun advocates in the US like the NRA trying to lobby for such a change?
|
Yeah, this is an element the pro gun guys miss, or intentionally ignore.
It's true that if you made guns illegal then people could still get them illegally, but it becomes much harder to do it without getting caught, and if 'getting caught' means the police are instantly going to arrest you and investigate a) how you got it and b) why you wanted it, pretty much by definition the number of violent incidents goes down.
I know I could get a gun in the UK. I have no idea how. I'd need to put in some actual legwork to figure it out, and then jump through some hoops to actually acquire said firearm. That right there cuts out impulse violence with firearms.
And despite what some people say, there's an enormous difference between stabbing someone with a knife and shooting them with a gun. One requires a great deal more effort, and being in close proximity to people who are often bigger and scarier than the knife wielder.
|
On May 27 2018 16:36 ShambhalaWar wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2018 06:00 travis wrote:
You're making claims that certain things are always true, which clearly are not always true.... Mass murders by say, vans or trucks, actually are generally higher than with gun. So that's kind of the opposite of what you are saying. And clearly some of the people who commit murders with guns were people were not "people who shouldn't be able to get a gun". Unless we are living in some sort of minority report universe and I am not aware of it.
But that is all irrelevant to what I was saying. If you are advocating for stiffer (but still reasonable) requirements to purchase and own a gun, then I am all for that. Still doesn't address the cause of these shootings, though.
Edit: I take back what I said about mass killings by vehicles. It's actually too hard to try to judge which is a more impactful killer. But I can confident say that mass murders by large vehicle are *often* more deadly than those by gun. Your posts literally hurt my brain to read... Las Vegas was infinitely more deadly than any vehicular homicide... what was it 60+ people murdered and 250 injured or mangled? Their lives changed forever. Find me any story of more than 20 dead from being run over, pls link it here. As far as guns go, there is Vegas, the theater shootings in France, the night club in florida all massive causalities.Do you just think something up and then it becomes your reality? As far as gun control goes... Australia had a mass shooting once back in 1990 or something like that, after the shooting... They put gun control laws into effect and I believe they did a massive buy back of all guns for their full value. You want to guess how many mass shootings they've had since 1990? ? ? You get it right? ... 0 mass shootings. We've had like 20 this year ... 1/2 a fucking year, and 20. Guess what the difference between our country and most other countries is? Not the amount of cars... Not the amount of mentally ill people... Not the amount of children in school... It's the amount of guns on the streets and lack of actual gun control. The fact a complete dipshit can walk into a gun show and some asshole there will sell him an AR without thinking twice about what he will do with it, is beyond stupidity. If you were 16 in high school right now watching your friends getting gunned down and doing active shooter drills you would be singing a different tune. That's called privilege. You want to make a mental health argument, yes, all these people needed therapy... but in that respect no country is different from each other. Statistically all countries have mentally ill people, but in the other countries these mentally ill people can't walk into a gun show and buy a weapon of war. Sensible gun laws in America are ANY gun laws. If you drive a car you have to go through a hell of a lot more work than you ever will to buy a gun, what is sensible about that? If you really are for sensible gun laws (which by your posts I'm doubting you are) then be for real and lobby your bros at the NRA for laws that make sense, they will laugh at you until they are blue in the face.
since you asked for such a vehicular incident:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_attack
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
