|
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 16:08 ShambhalaWar wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2018 18:07 Danglars wrote: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.
I don't see any of my points addressed in this rambling response. I don't really care that you want to call a big group of people "stupid people." I pointed out that junking "Republican shills" doesn't address the fact that it's the citizens putting gun rights politicians into office. Are you depriving them a vote based on calling them stupid? If they call you stupid, do you get less political voice and lobbying groups?
The NRA's strength is in its members. It's also currently being buoyed by its most vocal opponents, who think guns are bad, don't read or care about civilians owning guns stopping crime, and want to repeal the second amendment. Voters, even nonmembers, check its endorsements on politicians to make sure they're not voting in the person that will take away their gun rights. Their ability to mobilize opposition is laudatory. Some of their more interesting arguments and personalities, much less so.
"The only legitimate reasons in our culture to own a gun are 1) I want to shoot paper. 2) I want to hunt." Lawful self defense is absolutely part of American culture. You really are missing the ball here. Don't call out other people for stupidity if you're intentionally or unintentionally misrepresenting the other side for your benefit. Put in your terms, gun owners have to defend their rights against stupid people in every election.
I brought up the video in part to deal with the "reasons is worth the life of any one child killed in a mass shooting." This logic applies to first amendment rights. And if you think your emotional plea about having to be a 16 year old to understand surrendering rights to an emotional "do-something" mob, then I suggest arguing like you've learned things since 16 years old yourself.
|
As someone born and raised in the US, when Danglars talks about America and American culture it always feels like he's describing a foreign country. I suppose that's why when I go to red states they tell me I'm not a real American.
|
On May 27 2018 22:32 ThaddeusK wrote:
As someone born and raised in the US, when Danglars talks about America and American culture it always feels like he's describing a foreign country. I suppose that's why when I go to red states they tell me I'm not a real American.
You don’t have to embrace all aspects of the culture. Just respect the rights of those that do. The nightstand drawer with a gun is one aspect, ready to defend the family and home. The tradition from the founding of making a tyranny pay in blood is another. It’s not just rednecks that want large guns that make big noises. That’s people that get their culture from Hollywood, or people that grew up in those gun control success stories with near-impossible to obtain carry permits.
Sometimes, I think some people only absorb the parts of the culture that make them feel that they’re mainstream (and better than others for rejecting the bad parts of culture). I’m prepared to be wrong on this, it’s just my thoughts.
|
SO, what would you do if suddenly your Congress would put another amendment onto the constitution, that would nullify the second one? You need what, 2/3 of both chambers for it? Suddenly, you don't have the right to bear arms anymore. They wouldn't change actual law, but they stop the constitution from guaranteeing you a gun anytime anywhere. Right now you are arguing, that you are a minority that demands to be heard because it is enshrined by the constitution and therefore the rest of America has no right to make your life harder. How would that argument go, if you din't have that right, like in every other country you would want to compare yourself to.
|
On May 27 2018 23:28 Broetchenholer wrote:
SO, what would you do if suddenly your Congress would put another amendment onto the constitution, that would nullify the second one? You need what, 2/3 of both chambers for it? Suddenly, you don't have the right to bear arms anymore. They wouldn't change actual law, but they stop the constitution from guaranteeing you a gun anytime anywhere. Right now you are arguing, that you are a minority that demands to be heard because it is enshrined by the constitution and therefore the rest of America has no right to make your life harder. How would that argument go, if you din't have that right, like in every other country you would want to compare yourself to.
The minority favor outright repeal of the second amendment and confiscation. Majorities favor some aspects of compromise gun control, but sometimes that doesn’t bear out in specific legislation, like things that sound like good ideas, but would require registries.
The opponents know they are weak and powerless. That’s why they want to speak on “military-style weapons” and “high capacity magazines.” They get floored and end up with egg on their face if they propose repeal of the second amendment. The other thing you’re missing is that 3/4 of states must ratify, and there’s more than enough red states that won’t ratify.
The argument was why some people might not recognize aspects of lawful citizen gun culture, not that voters against repeal are an absolute minority of the voting public.
|
On May 27 2018 23:28 Broetchenholer wrote:
SO, what would you do if suddenly your Congress would put another amendment onto the constitution, that would nullify the second one? You need what, 2/3 of both chambers for it? Suddenly, you don't have the right to bear arms anymore. They wouldn't change actual law, but they stop the constitution from guaranteeing you a gun anytime anywhere. Right now you are arguing, that you are a minority that demands to be heard because it is enshrined by the constitution and therefore the rest of America has no right to make your life harder. How would that argument go, if you din't have that right, like in every other country you would want to compare yourself to.
congress can propose the form/wording of amendments with a two thirds vote, but that's not enough to make one happen.
it takes 3/4 of the states (via state legislature or referendum) to agree for it be an amendment.
as a technical note, there's a MASSIVE amount of room for gun regulation to occur without amending the constitution. Also the supreme court could easily revert its more recent rulings about the 2nd amendment being an individual right to own guns rather than being focused on owning them as part of the militia.
|
On May 27 2018 22:55 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2018 22:32 ThaddeusK wrote:
As someone born and raised in the US, when Danglars talks about America and American culture it always feels like he's describing a foreign country. I suppose that's why when I go to red states they tell me I'm not a real American. You don’t have to embrace all aspects of the culture. Just respect the rights of those that do. The nightstand drawer with a gun is one aspect, ready to defend the family and home. The tradition from the founding of making a tyranny pay in blood is another. It’s not just rednecks that want large guns that make big noises. That’s people that get their culture from Hollywood, or people that grew up in those gun control success stories with near-impossible to obtain carry permits. Sometimes, I think some people only absorb the parts of the culture that make them feel that they’re mainstream (and better than others for rejecting the bad parts of culture). I’m prepared to be wrong on this, it’s just my thoughts.
My point wasn't that i disagree with or do not embrace the aspects of American culture that you talk about, It's that it actually isnt part of the culture of anyplace that I've lived, which makes me think that it's not a part of American culture, but part of the culture of parts of America. Whether I should respect it or not boils down to whether or not it's of value, but that wasn't really part of the point I was making.
|
On May 27 2018 18:20 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Access to guns has nothing to do with the number of mass shootings. Canada, Switzerland, and other countries that have a numerous amount of firearms (not as much as the U.S.) do not have comparatively the same ratio of mass shootings as the U.S.
On May 27 2018 08:09 Broetchenholer wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2018 05:19 travis wrote: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.
There are also some interesting studies that say video games cause people to have more aggressive/violent behavior and that it gets people to choose anti-social choices (as in choices where you don't help other people). I guess we should go ahead and ban all violent video games then.
On May 27 2018 20:29 iamthedave wrote: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.
The chances of you doing in a mass shooting is astronomically low. You're more likely to die from drowning or riding a bike. The reason why gun homicide statistics in the U.S. look so high is because a vast majority of that is gang related violence from African Americans in urban cities (which is reflected in the U.S. FBI statistics, like 15% of the population commits over 50% of the homicides in the U.S.)
On May 27 2018 19:47 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2018 01:35 superstartran wrote: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?
Plainsix has changed the point of his argument a multitude of times. He was not ok with AR-15s, high capacity magazines, fully automatics, bump stocks, etc. but then suddenly changes his tune with Swiss style gun laws? Good one. Same with Jack, Dangerousmouse, and a variety of other posters. But I'm the problem here. I haven't shifted my argument one bit; I oppose pretty much all gun control legislation or proposals because it's really just a cover 99% of the time to push towards a society without the 2nd Amendment.
Not to mention the parts of the Swiss Laws they agree with would be declared unconstitutional (the registration/permit part) due to Haynes vs the U.S., so that system of law wouldn't work.
And the NRA provides a multitude of gun safety classes across the United States. Contrary to popular opinion, NRA instructors emphasize safety over everything else. Pretty sure the NRA already proposed said legislation of requiring you to attend gun safety courses at some point, but gun control advocates thought it was a 'money making scheme.'
https://firearmtraining.nra.org/
|
On May 27 2018 22:55 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2018 22:32 ThaddeusK wrote:
As someone born and raised in the US, when Danglars talks about America and American culture it always feels like he's describing a foreign country. I suppose that's why when I go to red states they tell me I'm not a real American. You don’t have to embrace all aspects of the culture. Just respect the rights of those that do. The nightstand drawer with a gun is one aspect, ready to defend the family and home. The tradition from the founding of making a tyranny pay in blood is another. It’s not just rednecks that want large guns that make big noises. That’s people that get their culture from Hollywood, or people that grew up in those gun control success stories with near-impossible to obtain carry permits. Sometimes, I think some people only absorb the parts of the culture that make them feel that they’re mainstream (and better than others for rejecting the bad parts of culture). I’m prepared to be wrong on this, it’s just my thoughts.
How is the nightstand drawer with the gun based on a right that aims to ensure the security of a free state?
If there is a perceived need for the people to be able to overthrow their own government should the need arise (which I personally think is idiotic based on historic examples but I don't mind rolling with it for the sake of it), why are most guns in the US handguns in the first place? Why is training with the actually useful weapons for such a scenario not mandatory so that people can actually use them responsibly should the need arise? Analogue a militia with a massive technological disadvantage is already a massive issue if that is really your prime concern. Why does this right suddenly stop with firearms?
Or maybe, just maybe, does the perceived need for the ability to have a gun in the nightstand drawer for specifically self-defense simply stem from everyone else being able to easily obtain a gun as well? Sounds like an amazing scheme to make money by selling firearms.
I guess one can argue that once guns are everywhere having a gun in the nightstand drawer is a genuinely great idea but all that does is recognize the complete failure of the policies that lead to this situation in the first place.
We can again look back at Switzerland here, a country where owning a gun used to be mandatory to be allowed to marry in some cantons, a country where a sword is a valid entry ticket to elections in some cases.
They somehow managed to combine wanting a population that can collectively use effective weapons while also not feeling the need for laws that guarantee arms in arms reach at any point in time.
|
On May 28 2018 00:02 superstartran wrote:Plainsix has changed the point of his argument a multitude of times. He was not ok with AR-15s, high capacity magazines, fully automatics, bump stocks, etc. but then suddenly changes his tune with Swiss style gun laws? Good one. Same with Jack, Dangerousmouse, and a variety of other posters. But I'm the problem here. I haven't shifted my argument one bit; I oppose pretty much all gun control legislation or proposals because it's really just a cover 99% of the time to push towards a society without the 2nd Amendment. Not to mention the parts of the Swiss Laws they agree with would be declared unconstitutional (the registration/permit part) due to Haynes vs the U.S., so that system of law wouldn't work. And the NRA provides a multitude of gun safety classes across the United States. Contrary to popular opinion, NRA instructors emphasize safety over everything else. Pretty sure the NRA already proposed said legislation of requiring you to attend gun safety courses at some point, but gun control advocates thought it was a 'money making scheme.' https://firearmtraining.nra.org/
Again, you suggested this:Requiring a 6 week mandatory course before getting a gun would probably be the first step into accomplishing that goal. I told you that I believe that's a great idea to start with. Please refer me how a group such as the NRA advocates for such a proposal: A mandatory course before getting a gun - obviously this would have to be standardized, carried out by independent instructors and you would need a test at the end that decides whether you actually can get a gun.
Otherwise we'd be talking about an irrelevant course with no actual purpose apart from actually being a 'money making scheme' and wasting people's time. I'm sure you had something in mind that has an actual impact on American gun culture and not some inefficient thing just for the sake seeming like at least something gets done.
|
On May 28 2018 00:02 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2018 18:20 Dan HH wrote: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. Access to guns has nothing to do with the number of mass shootings. Canada, Switzerland, and other countries that have a numerous amount of firearms (not as much as the U.S.) do not have comparatively the same ratio of mass shootings as the U.S.
Why are you arguing against half a sentence? I specifically said access to guns by those with a history of violence or psychiatric institutionalization. 'Amount of firearms' is an absurd strawman of that.
I'd like a real answer from you or travis or both, about what does have something to do with this difference in mass shootings between countries, since you neither acknowledge that access to guns by those categories i've mentioned have anything to do with it, nor do you propose any other factor that holds up any better. And please don't say mental healthcare again, the state of it in EE for example is atrocious.
On May 28 2018 00:02 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2018 20:29 iamthedave wrote: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. The chances of you doing in a mass shooting is astronomically low. You're more likely to die from drowning or riding a bike. The reason why gun homicide statistics in the U.S. look so high is because a vast majority of that is gang related violence from African Americans in urban cities (which is reflected in the U.S. FBI statistics, like 15% of the population commits over 50% of the homicides in the U.S.)
Your chances of dying in an islamic terrorist attack are even lower in the US, yet authorities have taken steps to address it, probably without you ridiculing the idea of trying to do something about it. The terror part comes from it's arbitrariness, not from its likeliness, just like mass shootings. Also, I'll never understand the 'oh it's just gang violence' excuse, like they're some irrelevant background noise you can just ignore relative to the gun discussion.
|
On May 27 2018 23:57 ThaddeusK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2018 22:55 Danglars wrote:On May 27 2018 22:32 ThaddeusK wrote:
As someone born and raised in the US, when Danglars talks about America and American culture it always feels like he's describing a foreign country. I suppose that's why when I go to red states they tell me I'm not a real American. You don’t have to embrace all aspects of the culture. Just respect the rights of those that do. The nightstand drawer with a gun is one aspect, ready to defend the family and home. The tradition from the founding of making a tyranny pay in blood is another. It’s not just rednecks that want large guns that make big noises. That’s people that get their culture from Hollywood, or people that grew up in those gun control success stories with near-impossible to obtain carry permits. Sometimes, I think some people only absorb the parts of the culture that make them feel that they’re mainstream (and better than others for rejecting the bad parts of culture). I’m prepared to be wrong on this, it’s just my thoughts. My point wasn't that i disagree with or do not embrace the aspects of American culture that you talk about, It's that it actually isnt part of the culture of anyplace that I've lived, which makes me think that it's not a part of American culture, but part of the culture of parts of America. Whether I should respect it or not boils down to whether or not it's of value, but that wasn't really part of the point I was making.
I don’t think I made the background point well. I’m surprised that it sounds like I’m describing a foreign country to you. I don’t really have a full theory on why anybody past their teen years wouldn’t know about it or recognize it as something domestically grown (or imported hundreds of years ago). The two planks I’ve been thinking on lately is the sub societies that never have seen or experienced open/concealed carry by civilians, and how little attention in media that shootings in self defense or simply drawing a gun ending a crime in progress gets.
But it’s a smaller point. I only introduced it after a divisive poster suggested guns + America is only reflected in hunting and sports shooting.
|
"I would prefer if there were no guns in the US. But since a lot of people disagree, as a compromise, i would be fine with swiss-style gun laws". SST paints this as some incredibly sinister thing to say, and claims it involves hypocrisy to the highest degree. But it clearly does not. I am not quite certain how this is so hard to understand. But i guess it isn't about understanding, it is about defeating the evil liberals that want to take all your guns!
|
On May 28 2018 00:35 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2018 22:55 Danglars wrote:On May 27 2018 22:32 ThaddeusK wrote:
As someone born and raised in the US, when Danglars talks about America and American culture it always feels like he's describing a foreign country. I suppose that's why when I go to red states they tell me I'm not a real American. You don’t have to embrace all aspects of the culture. Just respect the rights of those that do. The nightstand drawer with a gun is one aspect, ready to defend the family and home. The tradition from the founding of making a tyranny pay in blood is another. It’s not just rednecks that want large guns that make big noises. That’s people that get their culture from Hollywood, or people that grew up in those gun control success stories with near-impossible to obtain carry permits. Sometimes, I think some people only absorb the parts of the culture that make them feel that they’re mainstream (and better than others for rejecting the bad parts of culture). I’m prepared to be wrong on this, it’s just my thoughts. How is the nightstand drawer with the gun based on a right that aims to ensure the security of a free state? If there is a perceived need for the people to be able to overthrow their own government should the need arise (which I personally think is idiotic based on historic examples but I don't mind rolling with it for the sake of it), why are most guns in the US handguns in the first place? Why is training with the actually useful weapons for such a scenario not mandatory so that people can actually use them responsibly should the need arise? Analogue a militia with a massive technological disadvantage is already a massive issue if that is really your prime concern. Why does this right suddenly stop with firearms? Or maybe, just maybe, does the perceived need for the ability to have a gun in the nightstand drawer for specifically self-defense simply stem from everyone else being able to easily obtain a gun as well? Sounds like an amazing scheme to make money by selling firearms. I guess one can argue that once guns are everywhere having a gun in the nightstand drawer is a genuinely great idea but all that does is recognize the complete failure of the policies that lead to this situation in the first place. We can again look back at Switzerland here, a country where owning a gun used to be mandatory to be allowed to marry in some cantons, a country where a sword is a valid entry ticket to elections in some cases. They somehow managed to combine wanting a population that can collectively use effective weapons while also not feeling the need for laws that guarantee arms in arms reach at any point in time.
I addressed a cultural point with a cultural answer. Or, perhaps enough to start someones thinking on aspects of culture that are present but not much talked about.
You’re going off all half-cocked on a point of culture that isn’t my developed argument for why the right should exist and be defended, so I’ll be brief. The right of self-defense goes back centuries in law. Guns are a great tool to prevent a stronger foe or group from invading your home and inflicting bodily harm on you and your family or robbing you of your possessions. And to flip it on you for a second, depending on a police response for your safety from anyone armed with knife to gun is idiotic and quizzical. Unless you think the illegal arms trade can be totally legislated out of existence too.
The grander point about the dissuading future tyranny was well laid out by Travis. I don’t really want to hash it out again with you.
|
United States42009 Posts
On May 28 2018 03:23 Simberto wrote:
"I would prefer if there were no guns in the US. But since a lot of people disagree, as a compromise, i would be fine with swiss-style gun laws". SST paints this as some incredibly sinister thing to say, and claims it involves hypocrisy to the highest degree. But it clearly does not. I am not quite certain how this is so hard to understand. But i guess it isn't about understanding, it is about defeating the evil liberals that want to take all your guns!
This. I think the US would be a better place if it didn't have guns. I was born and raised in the UK but have lived in the US for almost five years now and while both are pretty good places to live I certainly prefer the UK gun situation.
To give one example, there have been situations where I have decided against calling the police in the US because my city's police forced has been investigated by the DoJ and found to have a significant issue with unnecessary use of force. Before I call the police I have to consider the potential risk of a racist gunman with a hero complex showing up. Obviously a good cop could also show up but I can't pretend that my city doesn't have bad cops who execute homeless veterans because the DoJ looked into it and we do. That's a fucking weird situation to be in. In many situations, such as individuals having a mental health crisis, it would be irresponsible to call the police for help. The UK obviously has its own issues with policing but at least I could call them with reasonable confidence that I wouldn't be starting a chain of events that would lead to an innocent person getting shot.
That doesn't mean that I'm trying to remove all guns from the US. It's not a wedge issue for me, I won't pick between two candidates based solely on their stance on guns. But having experienced both I can definitely say that I have a preference.
Having a stated preference does not force me to be part of a sinister conspiracy trying to take away all guns.
|
On May 28 2018 00:46 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2018 00:02 superstartran wrote:Plainsix has changed the point of his argument a multitude of times. He was not ok with AR-15s, high capacity magazines, fully automatics, bump stocks, etc. but then suddenly changes his tune with Swiss style gun laws? Good one. Same with Jack, Dangerousmouse, and a variety of other posters. But I'm the problem here. I haven't shifted my argument one bit; I oppose pretty much all gun control legislation or proposals because it's really just a cover 99% of the time to push towards a society without the 2nd Amendment. Not to mention the parts of the Swiss Laws they agree with would be declared unconstitutional (the registration/permit part) due to Haynes vs the U.S., so that system of law wouldn't work. And the NRA provides a multitude of gun safety classes across the United States. Contrary to popular opinion, NRA instructors emphasize safety over everything else. Pretty sure the NRA already proposed said legislation of requiring you to attend gun safety courses at some point, but gun control advocates thought it was a 'money making scheme.' https://firearmtraining.nra.org/ Again, you suggested this: Show nested quote +Requiring a 6 week mandatory course before getting a gun would probably be the first step into accomplishing that goal. I told you that I believe that's a great idea to start with. Please refer me how a group such as the NRA advocates for such a proposal: A mandatory course before getting a gun - obviously this would have to be standardized, carried out by independent instructors and you would need a test at the end that decides whether you actually can get a gun. Otherwise we'd be talking about an irrelevant course with no actual purpose apart from actually being a 'money making scheme' and wasting people's time. I'm sure you had something in mind that has an actual impact on American gun culture and not some inefficient thing just for the sake seeming like at least something gets done.
What you could do is get the NRA on board by stating that NRA instructors would be the go to people on how to handle gun safety. NRA instructors are very vocal about gun safety in general, and forcing a course on people in order to obtain a firearm long term would definitely change how most people view them. Similar to how in order to drive a car, you need to attend driver's ed courses.
This accomplishes a multitude of things
1) You get the NRA on board because you are recognizing their organization as important to the cause, and that they are not outsiders, but are in fact experts (particularly the NRA firearm safety instructors)
2) You begin to change how people view gun safety and guns in general. If you've ever talked to a NRA instructor, they will tell you first hand how seriously they take gun safety. Ask anyone here who has attended a class and they will attest to this. Despite what people think, the average NRA instructor/member does take gun safety very seriously.
3) You begin to bridge the gap between both sides without really infringing on anyone's rights. It's a smaller solution, and it will take awhile to see the effects, but it attacks the cause at the root, which is that some people do view guns as tools for killing, which a stance the NRA has never believed in. The NRA's stance is that firearms are for lawful defense of your home whether from an intruder or the government.
4) You come from a standpoint that is basically impossible to argue against; it's a minor inconvenience at best. All you're doing is ensuring that people have the basic fundamentals and safety precautions before touching a firearm. Something completely different from full on gun registration.
It's actually very interesting to note, that NY which has some of the strictest gun laws in the country does allow concealed carry after months of paperwork, interviews, etc. but does not force you to take a gun safety course. Texas which has lax laws, requires you to do so in order to get a concealed carry permit. Go figure.
On May 28 2018 00:54 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2018 00:02 superstartran wrote:On May 27 2018 18:20 Dan HH wrote: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. Access to guns has nothing to do with the number of mass shootings. Canada, Switzerland, and other countries that have a numerous amount of firearms (not as much as the U.S.) do not have comparatively the same ratio of mass shootings as the U.S. Why are you arguing against half a sentence? I specifically said access to guns by those with a history of violence or psychiatric institutionalization. 'Amount of firearms' is an absurd strawman of that. I'd like a real answer from you or travis or both, about what does have something to do with this difference in mass shootings between countries, since you neither acknowledge that access to guns by those categories i've mentioned have anything to do with it, nor do you propose any other factor that holds up any better. And please don't say mental healthcare again, the state of it in EE for example is atrocious. Show nested quote +On May 28 2018 00:02 superstartran wrote:On May 27 2018 20:29 iamthedave wrote: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. The chances of you doing in a mass shooting is astronomically low. You're more likely to die from drowning or riding a bike. The reason why gun homicide statistics in the U.S. look so high is because a vast majority of that is gang related violence from African Americans in urban cities (which is reflected in the U.S. FBI statistics, like 15% of the population commits over 50% of the homicides in the U.S.) Your chances of dying in an islamic terrorist attack are even lower in the US, yet authorities have taken steps to address it, probably without you ridiculing the idea of trying to do something about it. The terror part comes from it's arbitrariness, not from its likeliness, just like mass shootings. Also, I'll never understand the 'oh it's just gang violence' excuse, like they're some irrelevant background noise you can just ignore relative to the gun discussion.
1) I already addressed the main issue; there's no direct correlation between mass shootings and number of firearms.
2) I honestly think the amount of money spent on anti-terror is ridiculous to be honest.
3) The reason why you excuse gang violence is because they are pretty likely to kill each other regardless of whether firearms are involved or not, and likely to try and obtain firearms illegally in the first place. Not to mention, when you consider that the largest group of gun owners are white males, and yet the white male homicide rate is actually in line with what the UK, Switzerland, and other EU countries is, should probably tell you guns really aren't the issue here.
|
On May 28 2018 04:28 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2018 00:54 Dan HH wrote:On May 28 2018 00:02 superstartran wrote:On May 27 2018 18:20 Dan HH wrote: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. Access to guns has nothing to do with the number of mass shootings. Canada, Switzerland, and other countries that have a numerous amount of firearms (not as much as the U.S.) do not have comparatively the same ratio of mass shootings as the U.S. Why are you arguing against half a sentence? I specifically said access to guns by those with a history of violence or psychiatric institutionalization. 'Amount of firearms' is an absurd strawman of that. I'd like a real answer from you or travis or both, about what does have something to do with this difference in mass shootings between countries, since you neither acknowledge that access to guns by those categories i've mentioned have anything to do with it, nor do you propose any other factor that holds up any better. And please don't say mental healthcare again, the state of it in EE for example is atrocious. On May 28 2018 00:02 superstartran wrote:On May 27 2018 20:29 iamthedave wrote: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. The chances of you doing in a mass shooting is astronomically low. You're more likely to die from drowning or riding a bike. The reason why gun homicide statistics in the U.S. look so high is because a vast majority of that is gang related violence from African Americans in urban cities (which is reflected in the U.S. FBI statistics, like 15% of the population commits over 50% of the homicides in the U.S.) Your chances of dying in an islamic terrorist attack are even lower in the US, yet authorities have taken steps to address it, probably without you ridiculing the idea of trying to do something about it. The terror part comes from it's arbitrariness, not from its likeliness, just like mass shootings. Also, I'll never understand the 'oh it's just gang violence' excuse, like they're some irrelevant background noise you can just ignore relative to the gun discussion. 1) I already addressed the main issue; there's no direct correlation between mass shootings and number of firearms. 2) I honestly think the amount of money spent on anti-terror is ridiculous to be honest. 3) The reason why you excuse gang violence is because they are pretty likely to kill each other regardless of whether firearms are involved or not, and likely to try and obtain firearms illegally in the first place. Not to mention, when you consider that the largest group of gun owners are white males, and yet the white male homicide rate is actually in line with what the UK, Switzerland, and other EU countries is, should probably tell you guns really aren't the issue here.
If you are under the impression that these deflections are subtle and people don't see right through them, you are mistaken.
You didn't address the issue presented, you've simply decided to substitute it for a different one that is easier to address. I'm unimpressed by your pretense to not understand the difference between 'access to guns by those with a history of violence or psychiatric institutionalization' and 'number of firearms', i have no interest in the latter and made that clear by italicizing the former after the first time you've done this. I'm aware that gun hobbyists and hunters are not the reason for mass shootings, that's why your examples of other countries with a decent amount of gun hobbyists and hunters have been as effective as a massage to a wooden leg in explaining the difference in mass shootings.
It's perfectly reasonable to think that the amount of money spent on anti-terror is ridiculous, however you've again avoided the crux of the argument in there. Which was that something not being a leading cause of death does not justify not doing anything about it. That people are more concerned about arbitrary sprees than about your example of drowning has to do with the amount of control they have over being in those situations.
As for gang violence, 'pretty likely' is not good enough, we've seen mass stabbings in China and Europe that resulted in entirely non-fatal injuries. Knives are simply not as efficient at killing, and you'll have hard time convincing yourself that they are, let alone me.
Your last sentence there is just out of this world in terms of bias, you do not see any problem with comparing only a certain type of homicides in the US with all of the homicides in the UK? The UK also has gangs and ostracized minorities. Even in this most unfair selection you have made, your claim that "white male homicide rate is actually in line with what the UK, Switzerland, and other EU countries is" is not true.
I'll use wikipedia out of laziness:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States#Homicide
This tells us that non-Hispanic White Americans account for 33.5% of homicides in the US
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
This tells us that the US homicide rate is 4.88/100k while the UK is 0.92/100k and Switzerland is 0.69/100k.
33.5% of 4.88 is 1.63. That's more than 50% higher than each of the example countries you gave. And don't think that me showing you this makes it a fair comparison to only remove the most unprivileged groups from the US and not from the other two.
And finally, you dodged providing a factor that accounts for the difference in mass shootings, if you so adamantly reject the simplest explanation then something else must be responsible. What is it?
|
On May 28 2018 05:40 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2018 04:28 superstartran wrote:On May 28 2018 00:54 Dan HH wrote:On May 28 2018 00:02 superstartran wrote:On May 27 2018 18:20 Dan HH wrote: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. Access to guns has nothing to do with the number of mass shootings. Canada, Switzerland, and other countries that have a numerous amount of firearms (not as much as the U.S.) do not have comparatively the same ratio of mass shootings as the U.S. Why are you arguing against half a sentence? I specifically said access to guns by those with a history of violence or psychiatric institutionalization. 'Amount of firearms' is an absurd strawman of that. I'd like a real answer from you or travis or both, about what does have something to do with this difference in mass shootings between countries, since you neither acknowledge that access to guns by those categories i've mentioned have anything to do with it, nor do you propose any other factor that holds up any better. And please don't say mental healthcare again, the state of it in EE for example is atrocious. On May 28 2018 00:02 superstartran wrote:On May 27 2018 20:29 iamthedave wrote: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. The chances of you doing in a mass shooting is astronomically low. You're more likely to die from drowning or riding a bike. The reason why gun homicide statistics in the U.S. look so high is because a vast majority of that is gang related violence from African Americans in urban cities (which is reflected in the U.S. FBI statistics, like 15% of the population commits over 50% of the homicides in the U.S.) Your chances of dying in an islamic terrorist attack are even lower in the US, yet authorities have taken steps to address it, probably without you ridiculing the idea of trying to do something about it. The terror part comes from it's arbitrariness, not from its likeliness, just like mass shootings. Also, I'll never understand the 'oh it's just gang violence' excuse, like they're some irrelevant background noise you can just ignore relative to the gun discussion. 1) I already addressed the main issue; there's no direct correlation between mass shootings and number of firearms. 2) I honestly think the amount of money spent on anti-terror is ridiculous to be honest. 3) The reason why you excuse gang violence is because they are pretty likely to kill each other regardless of whether firearms are involved or not, and likely to try and obtain firearms illegally in the first place. Not to mention, when you consider that the largest group of gun owners are white males, and yet the white male homicide rate is actually in line with what the UK, Switzerland, and other EU countries is, should probably tell you guns really aren't the issue here. If you are under the impression that these deflections are subtle and people don't see right through them, you are mistaken. You didn't address the issue presented, you've simply decided to substitute it for a different one that is easier to address. I'm unimpressed by your pretense to not understand the difference between 'access to guns by those with a history of violence or psychiatric institutionalization' and 'number of firearms', i have no interest in the latter and made that clear by italicizing the former after the first time you've done this. I'm aware that gun hobbyists and hunters are not the reason for mass shootings, that's why your examples of other countries with a decent amount of gun hobbyists and hunters have been as effective as a massage to a wooden leg in explaining the difference in mass shootings. It's perfectly reasonable to think that the amount of money spent on anti-terror is ridiculous, however you've again avoided the crux of the argument in there. Which was that something not being a leading cause of death does not justify not doing anything about it. That people are more concerned about arbitrary sprees than about your example of drowning has to do with the amount of control they have over being in those situations. As for gang violence, 'pretty likely' is not good enough, we've seen mass stabbings in China and Europe that resulted in entirely non-fatal injuries. Knives are simply not as efficient at killing, and you'll have hard time convincing yourself that they are, let alone me. Your last sentence there is just out of this world in terms of bias, you do not see any problem with comparing only a certain type of homicides in the US with all of the homicides in the UK? The UK also has gangs and ostracized minorities. Even in this most unfair selection you have made, your claim that "white male homicide rate is actually in line with what the UK, Switzerland, and other EU countries is" is not true. I'll use wikipedia out of laziness: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States#HomicideThis tells us that non-Hispanic White Americans account for 33.5% of homicides in the US https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rateThis tells us that the US homicide rate is 4.88/100k while the UK is 0.92/100k and Switzerland is 0.69/100k. 33.5% of 4.88 is 1.63. That's more than 50% higher than each of the example countries you gave. And don't think that me showing you this makes it a fair comparison to only remove the most unprivileged groups from the US and not from the other two. And finally, you dodged providing a factor that accounts for the difference in mass shootings, if you so adamantly reject the simplest explanation then something else must be responsible. What is it?
1) Keep up dodging the fact that number of firearms has no correlation to mass shootings.
2) 1.63 per 100k is pretty much nothing; like I said, it's in line with most other EU countries.
The UK also has like no minority, the country is 87% white.
|
United States42009 Posts
On May 28 2018 05:50 superstartran wrote:
The UK also has like no minority, the country is 87% white.
Go to London sometime buddy.
|
On May 28 2018 05:50 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2018 05:40 Dan HH wrote:On May 28 2018 04:28 superstartran wrote:On May 28 2018 00:54 Dan HH wrote:On May 28 2018 00:02 superstartran wrote:On May 27 2018 18:20 Dan HH wrote: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. Access to guns has nothing to do with the number of mass shootings. Canada, Switzerland, and other countries that have a numerous amount of firearms (not as much as the U.S.) do not have comparatively the same ratio of mass shootings as the U.S. Why are you arguing against half a sentence? I specifically said access to guns by those with a history of violence or psychiatric institutionalization. 'Amount of firearms' is an absurd strawman of that. I'd like a real answer from you or travis or both, about what does have something to do with this difference in mass shootings between countries, since you neither acknowledge that access to guns by those categories i've mentioned have anything to do with it, nor do you propose any other factor that holds up any better. And please don't say mental healthcare again, the state of it in EE for example is atrocious. On May 28 2018 00:02 superstartran wrote:On May 27 2018 20:29 iamthedave wrote: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. The chances of you doing in a mass shooting is astronomically low. You're more likely to die from drowning or riding a bike. The reason why gun homicide statistics in the U.S. look so high is because a vast majority of that is gang related violence from African Americans in urban cities (which is reflected in the U.S. FBI statistics, like 15% of the population commits over 50% of the homicides in the U.S.) Your chances of dying in an islamic terrorist attack are even lower in the US, yet authorities have taken steps to address it, probably without you ridiculing the idea of trying to do something about it. The terror part comes from it's arbitrariness, not from its likeliness, just like mass shootings. Also, I'll never understand the 'oh it's just gang violence' excuse, like they're some irrelevant background noise you can just ignore relative to the gun discussion. 1) I already addressed the main issue; there's no direct correlation between mass shootings and number of firearms. 2) I honestly think the amount of money spent on anti-terror is ridiculous to be honest. 3) The reason why you excuse gang violence is because they are pretty likely to kill each other regardless of whether firearms are involved or not, and likely to try and obtain firearms illegally in the first place. Not to mention, when you consider that the largest group of gun owners are white males, and yet the white male homicide rate is actually in line with what the UK, Switzerland, and other EU countries is, should probably tell you guns really aren't the issue here. If you are under the impression that these deflections are subtle and people don't see right through them, you are mistaken. You didn't address the issue presented, you've simply decided to substitute it for a different one that is easier to address. I'm unimpressed by your pretense to not understand the difference between 'access to guns by those with a history of violence or psychiatric institutionalization' and 'number of firearms', i have no interest in the latter and made that clear by italicizing the former after the first time you've done this. I'm aware that gun hobbyists and hunters are not the reason for mass shootings, that's why your examples of other countries with a decent amount of gun hobbyists and hunters have been as effective as a massage to a wooden leg in explaining the difference in mass shootings. It's perfectly reasonable to think that the amount of money spent on anti-terror is ridiculous, however you've again avoided the crux of the argument in there. Which was that something not being a leading cause of death does not justify not doing anything about it. That people are more concerned about arbitrary sprees than about your example of drowning has to do with the amount of control they have over being in those situations. As for gang violence, 'pretty likely' is not good enough, we've seen mass stabbings in China and Europe that resulted in entirely non-fatal injuries. Knives are simply not as efficient at killing, and you'll have hard time convincing yourself that they are, let alone me. Your last sentence there is just out of this world in terms of bias, you do not see any problem with comparing only a certain type of homicides in the US with all of the homicides in the UK? The UK also has gangs and ostracized minorities. Even in this most unfair selection you have made, your claim that "white male homicide rate is actually in line with what the UK, Switzerland, and other EU countries is" is not true. I'll use wikipedia out of laziness: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States#HomicideThis tells us that non-Hispanic White Americans account for 33.5% of homicides in the US https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rateThis tells us that the US homicide rate is 4.88/100k while the UK is 0.92/100k and Switzerland is 0.69/100k. 33.5% of 4.88 is 1.63. That's more than 50% higher than each of the example countries you gave. And don't think that me showing you this makes it a fair comparison to only remove the most unprivileged groups from the US and not from the other two. And finally, you dodged providing a factor that accounts for the difference in mass shootings, if you so adamantly reject the simplest explanation then something else must be responsible. What is it? 1) Keep up dodging the fact that number of firearms has no correlation to mass shootings. 2) 1.63 per 100k is pretty much nothing; like I said, it's in line with most other EU countries. The UK also has like no minority, the country is 87% white.
I did not claim that there is. This is either gaslighting or you are beyond help in terms of following an argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
