|
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 November 10 2018 05:36 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2018 05:23 Excludos wrote:On November 10 2018 05:18 superstartran wrote:On November 10 2018 05:08 Excludos wrote:On November 10 2018 04:46 JimmiC wrote:On November 10 2018 04:39 superstartran wrote:On November 10 2018 03:34 Excludos wrote:On November 10 2018 03:12 superstartran wrote:On November 10 2018 02:40 Excludos wrote:On November 10 2018 02:22 superstartran wrote:
[quote]
It went perfectly how I wanted it to. Using someone else's laws and superficially applying it across the board isn't going to just magically work.
Despite all the evidence to the contrary, you mean? Every first world country who have adopted these laws have seen massive decrease in gun violence (for obvious reasons. Difficult to have gun violence without guns). The reason people like to bring up Australia is because, despite what some people like to think, they were exactly like America is now. They had a problem with gun violence and mass murders, and conservatives kept yelling that they shouldn't do anything because "Their country has a different culture, it just won't work". Politicians bet their careers pushing these legislations through..and guess what? It did work. Gun violence reduced drastically, murder rate reduced quite a bit, and mass shootings are now basically non existent. Can people still buy guns for hunting and/or self protection in case you live in a rural area with 2 hour ride to the nearest police office? You bet. The problem isn't culture. You're not as different as you'd like to think. The problem is willpower. As long as people (and especially politicians who by now are largely ignoring the majority of the people's will on this subject) don't want to do anything because <insert excuse here>, nothing will happen. 1) Australia already had low homicide rates and were on a 25 year downward trend. Just because a law was passed during that time period doesn't mean it is responsible for the homicide rates. Number of firearms have gone up in the U.S. and homicide rates overall have gone down. Does that mean I'm right and you're wrong? No; just means correlation doesn't mean it's the main cause. 2) Mass shootings can be reduced or prevented without taking guns away. Switzerland is a prime example of this. 3) Most European nations are not like the United States. Just because we're classified as 1st world countries doesn't mean we deal with the same issues. 1. Well let's just stick to mass shootings then. Surely a drop from "a lot" to "nothing" can't be just a coincidence, right? 2. What are you on about Switzerland has much much harsher gun laws than America. In fact they too recently added stricter gun laws to be in line with EU, and they've also seen a drop in gun violence and general homicides. You can attribute that to "well everyone are seeing lower homicide rates these days" if you want to, but if you're looking for a scapegoat to say "look, no regulations works for them!" then Switzerland ain't it. 3. Now you're just wilfully ignoring everything I just stated about how it's not a culture problem and how this line of thinking has been proven wrong multiple times, including countries where people have provided the exact same excuses before their own regulations were implemented, and saw immediate results. 1. If you're going to argue mass shootings then argue about mass shootings, not about gun violence in general. Mass shootings occur regardless of gun laws (California is a perfect example of this). 2. That's actually false to an extent, in Switzerland it's technically legal to obtain fully automatic weapons that are dated past 1975, and much easier to obtain things such as suppressors and laser sights. In some ways Switzerland is a little bit more lax then certain states in the U.S. 3. No where did I say it's a cultural problem. I said the United States is not Europe. You are being willfully ignorant of the issues of cross comparing countries without accounting for various different geographic and socioeconomic factors. Why don't you just get off your high horse and just straight up say you'd rather have all guns banned? Stop pretending that you're about gun control and that you'd rather just get rid of guns. Cali is not a great example of it, they don't have what people in this thread are looking for. If it is not a "cultural problem" are you saying the mass shootings and violence are good? He might want all guns banned, but he is willing to COMPROMISE a word you write but don't seem to understand. That being said to me it seams more like he wants what he has stated he wants. It is so weird to me that A) so many americans think there is this clandestine group of liberals wandering around just waiting to snatch up all there guns. B) why there are guns are so precious to begin with. I go to ridiculous lengths to keep my kids safe with baby proofing and so on, kinda crazy but I mean it is my kid. Having a gun, especially a hand gun makes it so much less safe. And before you say, but I keep mine in a locked safe with ammo separate and blah blah. Exactly how are you going to use it for self defense then? On November 10 2018 04:39 superstartran wrote:Why don't you just get off your high horse and just straight up say you'd rather have all guns banned? Stop pretending that you're about gun control and that you'd rather just get rid of guns.
let me quickly jump back onto that High horse and reassure you I do NOT want all guns banned (something I have repeatedly claimed before). I own several, and plan to buy more. I think weapons for hunting and sporting is excellent, provided you're qualified. For instance, I just joined a gun club. I am allowed to train there with the pistols they provide, but I am not allowed to buy my own until I've practiced regularly for 6 months and finished a competition without being disqualified (as DQs are generally due to safety). For rifles it's 2 years (Largely thanks to Breivik). These are good rules and makes me not have to worry about a disgruntled college showing up to work to deliver acute led poisoning to everyone. Likewise I have a shotgun for hunting. I had to go through mandatory theoretical and practical hunting training before I was allowed to buy it, and they are very restricted in what they can do. Again, these are all good rules. I don't want to ban guns by any means, I want them to be restricted. I don't understand why this is a difficult concept to understand. Some people immediately take the stance of "You don't agree with me so you want to ban all guns!". No, keep your guns. We want to ban crazy Ivan from picking them up at the local Walmart and shooting up a school the next day. Which should have occurred because the Red Flag law in California DID flag the shooter. This was not the case of poor laws; this was a case of bad education on how identifying someone that is suffering from a mental illness. You can enact all the laws you want, laws don't solve the underlying issue. I was being hyperbolic there. I was not aware of crazy Ivan shooting up a school with a Walmart gun. But seeing as my hyperbolic was immediately met with an example of this happening, I'm pretty sure I proved my point. Next time the shooter won't have a history of mental illness. What's stopping him then? Nothing. Because someone intent on harming others is going to cause harm regardless. We can minimize damage of such events though without infringing on the rights of others. This has been absolutely proven to be true in some places.
Yeah. There's absolutely nothing you can do. Every other first world country in the world has figured out a solution to this problem, but that won't work in America cause you're spechial. Might as well do nothing then really and just let people die so you can have your proclaimed Freedom™. Am I getting this right or am I misunderstanding your intentions here?
|
On November 10 2018 05:36 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2018 05:23 Excludos wrote:On November 10 2018 05:18 superstartran wrote:On November 10 2018 05:08 Excludos wrote:On November 10 2018 04:46 JimmiC wrote:On November 10 2018 04:39 superstartran wrote:On November 10 2018 03:34 Excludos wrote:On November 10 2018 03:12 superstartran wrote:On November 10 2018 02:40 Excludos wrote:On November 10 2018 02:22 superstartran wrote:
[quote]
It went perfectly how I wanted it to. Using someone else's laws and superficially applying it across the board isn't going to just magically work.
Despite all the evidence to the contrary, you mean? Every first world country who have adopted these laws have seen massive decrease in gun violence (for obvious reasons. Difficult to have gun violence without guns). The reason people like to bring up Australia is because, despite what some people like to think, they were exactly like America is now. They had a problem with gun violence and mass murders, and conservatives kept yelling that they shouldn't do anything because "Their country has a different culture, it just won't work". Politicians bet their careers pushing these legislations through..and guess what? It did work. Gun violence reduced drastically, murder rate reduced quite a bit, and mass shootings are now basically non existent. Can people still buy guns for hunting and/or self protection in case you live in a rural area with 2 hour ride to the nearest police office? You bet. The problem isn't culture. You're not as different as you'd like to think. The problem is willpower. As long as people (and especially politicians who by now are largely ignoring the majority of the people's will on this subject) don't want to do anything because <insert excuse here>, nothing will happen. 1) Australia already had low homicide rates and were on a 25 year downward trend. Just because a law was passed during that time period doesn't mean it is responsible for the homicide rates. Number of firearms have gone up in the U.S. and homicide rates overall have gone down. Does that mean I'm right and you're wrong? No; just means correlation doesn't mean it's the main cause. 2) Mass shootings can be reduced or prevented without taking guns away. Switzerland is a prime example of this. 3) Most European nations are not like the United States. Just because we're classified as 1st world countries doesn't mean we deal with the same issues. 1. Well let's just stick to mass shootings then. Surely a drop from "a lot" to "nothing" can't be just a coincidence, right? 2. What are you on about Switzerland has much much harsher gun laws than America. In fact they too recently added stricter gun laws to be in line with EU, and they've also seen a drop in gun violence and general homicides. You can attribute that to "well everyone are seeing lower homicide rates these days" if you want to, but if you're looking for a scapegoat to say "look, no regulations works for them!" then Switzerland ain't it. 3. Now you're just wilfully ignoring everything I just stated about how it's not a culture problem and how this line of thinking has been proven wrong multiple times, including countries where people have provided the exact same excuses before their own regulations were implemented, and saw immediate results. 1. If you're going to argue mass shootings then argue about mass shootings, not about gun violence in general. Mass shootings occur regardless of gun laws (California is a perfect example of this). 2. That's actually false to an extent, in Switzerland it's technically legal to obtain fully automatic weapons that are dated past 1975, and much easier to obtain things such as suppressors and laser sights. In some ways Switzerland is a little bit more lax then certain states in the U.S. 3. No where did I say it's a cultural problem. I said the United States is not Europe. You are being willfully ignorant of the issues of cross comparing countries without accounting for various different geographic and socioeconomic factors. Why don't you just get off your high horse and just straight up say you'd rather have all guns banned? Stop pretending that you're about gun control and that you'd rather just get rid of guns. Cali is not a great example of it, they don't have what people in this thread are looking for. If it is not a "cultural problem" are you saying the mass shootings and violence are good? He might want all guns banned, but he is willing to COMPROMISE a word you write but don't seem to understand. That being said to me it seams more like he wants what he has stated he wants. It is so weird to me that A) so many americans think there is this clandestine group of liberals wandering around just waiting to snatch up all there guns. B) why there are guns are so precious to begin with. I go to ridiculous lengths to keep my kids safe with baby proofing and so on, kinda crazy but I mean it is my kid. Having a gun, especially a hand gun makes it so much less safe. And before you say, but I keep mine in a locked safe with ammo separate and blah blah. Exactly how are you going to use it for self defense then? On November 10 2018 04:39 superstartran wrote:Why don't you just get off your high horse and just straight up say you'd rather have all guns banned? Stop pretending that you're about gun control and that you'd rather just get rid of guns.
let me quickly jump back onto that High horse and reassure you I do NOT want all guns banned (something I have repeatedly claimed before). I own several, and plan to buy more. I think weapons for hunting and sporting is excellent, provided you're qualified. For instance, I just joined a gun club. I am allowed to train there with the pistols they provide, but I am not allowed to buy my own until I've practiced regularly for 6 months and finished a competition without being disqualified (as DQs are generally due to safety). For rifles it's 2 years (Largely thanks to Breivik). These are good rules and makes me not have to worry about a disgruntled college showing up to work to deliver acute led poisoning to everyone. Likewise I have a shotgun for hunting. I had to go through mandatory theoretical and practical hunting training before I was allowed to buy it, and they are very restricted in what they can do. Again, these are all good rules. I don't want to ban guns by any means, I want them to be restricted. I don't understand why this is a difficult concept to understand. Some people immediately take the stance of "You don't agree with me so you want to ban all guns!". No, keep your guns. We want to ban crazy Ivan from picking them up at the local Walmart and shooting up a school the next day. Which should have occurred because the Red Flag law in California DID flag the shooter. This was not the case of poor laws; this was a case of bad education on how identifying someone that is suffering from a mental illness. You can enact all the laws you want, laws don't solve the underlying issue. I was being hyperbolic there. I was not aware of crazy Ivan shooting up a school with a Walmart gun. But seeing as my hyperbolic was immediately met with an example of this happening, I'm pretty sure I proved my point. Next time the shooter won't have a history of mental illness. What's stopping him then? Nothing. Because someone intent on harming others is going to cause harm regardless. We can minimize damage of such events though without infringing on the rights of others. This has been absolutely proven to be true in some places.
I second this. At least give the law abiding the absolute right to purchase and field a gun, knowing that criminals will still get their hands on an offensive weapon of some kind even if all are banned by statute.
|
And still, criminals in other first world countries are far less well armed than US criminals. Probably less well armed than the average US citizen. So your theoretic point that you so love does not really fit reality.
|
These mass shootings are ridiculous. I don’t support a country where people can’t go places due to threat of physical violence being acted on them/ their families? Ridiculus
|
On November 10 2018 08:18 Yanokabo wrote:
These mass shootings are ridiculous. I don’t support a country where people can’t go places due to threat of physical violence being acted on them/ their families? Ridiculus
Most of us here dont support the shooters, but are okay with the country.
What does your post mean?
|
On November 10 2018 08:18 Yanokabo wrote:
These mass shootings are ridiculous. I don’t support a country where people can’t go places due to threat of physical violence being acted on them/ their families? Ridiculus
Pick your country. Paris? 130 killed by gun violence and bombs. Don't go to Nice, France, either. Violence by truck killed over eighty, injured hundreds.
London? Don't go to the bridge, you might die there. Also don't go to concerts in Manchester. Or the subway.
You can pick your threat and decide on what countries have and haven't done to respond. Just don't level it at the country level and where you can't go based on threats unless you're willing to qualify which threats you pay attention to.
|
On November 10 2018 08:09 Simberto wrote:
And still, criminals in other first world countries are far less well armed than US criminals. Probably less well armed than the average US citizen. So your theoretic point that you so love does not really fit reality.
I like how it's simply 'first world countries' because other countries with extremely strict gun laws still have serious homicide issues.
It's like gun control laws simply aren't the determining factor, or even a major factor in what causes homicide. Gasp.
Riddle me this.
California has arguably the toughest gun control laws in the entire United States. Firearm registry, red flag laws, magazine limitations, assault weapon bans, restrictions on ammunition type, highly restricted concealed carry (must be approved by local law enforcement and can be denied for any reason), NFA restrictions (suppressors, etc), waiting periods, background checks on private sells, permits, etc.
And yet a mass shooting still took place there. Despite every single fucking gun control law under the sun short of banning firearms. The recent incident alone proves that gun control alone cannot be the only solution. But obviously, it's gotta be guns right? Can't possibly be the fact that sometimes, it's just the fact that people make bad choices sometimes. Remember, personal responsibility doesn't matter anymore!
|
Blazinghand
United States25555 Posts
On November 10 2018 14:22 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2018 08:09 Simberto wrote:
And still, criminals in other first world countries are far less well armed than US criminals. Probably less well armed than the average US citizen. So your theoretic point that you so love does not really fit reality. I like how it's simply 'first world countries' because other countries with extremely strict gun laws still have serious homicide issues. It's like gun control laws simply aren't the determining factor, or even a major factor in what causes homicide. Gasp. Riddle me this. California has arguably the toughest gun control laws in the entire United States. Firearm registry, red flag laws, magazine limitations, assault weapon bans, restrictions on ammunition type, highly restricted concealed carry (must be approved by local law enforcement and can be denied for any reason), NFA restrictions (suppressors, etc), waiting periods, background checks on private sells, permits, etc. And yet a mass shooting still took place there. Despite every single fucking gun control law under the sun short of banning firearms. The recent incident alone proves that gun control alone cannot be the only solution. But obviously, it's gotta be guns right? Can't possibly be the fact that sometimes, it's just the fact that people make bad choices sometimes. Remember, personal responsibility doesn't matter anymore!
California actually has far laxer laws than certain states like Massachusetts, where the application process to own a firearm takes months and is subject to approval and various training courses.
Generally speaking, though, if your goal is to prevent firearm deaths in general, most of the polices you adopt will not have a big impact on mass shootings. This is because mass shootings are pretty unusual and account for a tiny fraction of firearm deaths: most gun deaths are suicides. For gun crime, most gun crime is committed with illegal guns. California's aggressive stance on black market guns and illicit ownership of firearms has helped deal with this, but won't stop someone who has not yet committed any crimes and wants to go on a mass shooting.
In practice, even a well-run state with good gun control laws won't stop mass shootings. But this is because stopping mass shootings is just a tiny, relatively small portion of gun deaths, a small stream of blood compared to the sea of blood that is gun suicide and regular gun homicide. If a state chooses to aim its policies mostly at stopping the vast majority of gun deaths rather than stopping mass shootings, this is actually very reasonable - but few on either side of the gun control debate really stop to think about this.
|
On November 10 2018 09:55 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2018 08:18 Yanokabo wrote:
These mass shootings are ridiculous. I don’t support a country where people can’t go places due to threat of physical violence being acted on them/ their families? Ridiculus Pick your country. Paris? 130 killed by gun violence and bombs. Don't go to Nice, France, either. Violence by truck killed over eighty, injured hundreds. London? Don't go to the bridge, you might die there. Also don't go to concerts in Manchester. Or the subway. You can pick your threat and decide on what countries have and haven't done to respond. Just don't level it at the country level and where you can't go based on threats unless you're willing to qualify which threats you pay attention to.
The difference being that in the case of those other incidents you mention, your side actually wants to do something about it.
|
On November 10 2018 20:17 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2018 14:22 superstartran wrote:On November 10 2018 08:09 Simberto wrote:
And still, criminals in other first world countries are far less well armed than US criminals. Probably less well armed than the average US citizen. So your theoretic point that you so love does not really fit reality. I like how it's simply 'first world countries' because other countries with extremely strict gun laws still have serious homicide issues. It's like gun control laws simply aren't the determining factor, or even a major factor in what causes homicide. Gasp. Riddle me this. California has arguably the toughest gun control laws in the entire United States. Firearm registry, red flag laws, magazine limitations, assault weapon bans, restrictions on ammunition type, highly restricted concealed carry (must be approved by local law enforcement and can be denied for any reason), NFA restrictions (suppressors, etc), waiting periods, background checks on private sells, permits, etc. And yet a mass shooting still took place there. Despite every single fucking gun control law under the sun short of banning firearms. The recent incident alone proves that gun control alone cannot be the only solution. But obviously, it's gotta be guns right? Can't possibly be the fact that sometimes, it's just the fact that people make bad choices sometimes. Remember, personal responsibility doesn't matter anymore! California actually has far laxer laws than certain states like Massachusetts, where the application process to own a firearm takes months and is subject to approval and various training courses. Generally speaking, though, if your goal is to prevent firearm deaths in general, most of the polices you adopt will not have a big impact on mass shootings. This is because mass shootings are pretty unusual and account for a tiny fraction of firearm deaths: most gun deaths are suicides. For gun crime, most gun crime is committed with illegal guns. California's aggressive stance on black market guns and illicit ownership of firearms has helped deal with this, but won't stop someone who has not yet committed any crimes and wants to go on a mass shooting. In practice, even a well-run state with good gun control laws won't stop mass shootings. But this is because stopping mass shootings is just a tiny, relatively small portion of gun deaths, a small stream of blood compared to the sea of blood that is gun suicide and regular gun homicide. If a state chooses to aim its policies mostly at stopping the vast majority of gun deaths rather than stopping mass shootings, this is actually very reasonable - but few on either side of the gun control debate really stop to think about this.
Also, state laws are kind of pointless if you can just drive for an hour, get into another state, and ignore the laws of your previous state.
With regards to your first point, i was under the assumption that the US would prefer to be on the level of european countries, rather than being judged on the level of a developing country like brazil.
|
On November 10 2018 20:17 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2018 14:22 superstartran wrote:On November 10 2018 08:09 Simberto wrote:
And still, criminals in other first world countries are far less well armed than US criminals. Probably less well armed than the average US citizen. So your theoretic point that you so love does not really fit reality. I like how it's simply 'first world countries' because other countries with extremely strict gun laws still have serious homicide issues. It's like gun control laws simply aren't the determining factor, or even a major factor in what causes homicide. Gasp. Riddle me this. California has arguably the toughest gun control laws in the entire United States. Firearm registry, red flag laws, magazine limitations, assault weapon bans, restrictions on ammunition type, highly restricted concealed carry (must be approved by local law enforcement and can be denied for any reason), NFA restrictions (suppressors, etc), waiting periods, background checks on private sells, permits, etc. And yet a mass shooting still took place there. Despite every single fucking gun control law under the sun short of banning firearms. The recent incident alone proves that gun control alone cannot be the only solution. But obviously, it's gotta be guns right? Can't possibly be the fact that sometimes, it's just the fact that people make bad choices sometimes. Remember, personal responsibility doesn't matter anymore! California actually has far laxer laws than certain states like Massachusetts, where the application process to own a firearm takes months and is subject to approval and various training courses. Generally speaking, though, if your goal is to prevent firearm deaths in general, most of the polices you adopt will not have a big impact on mass shootings. This is because mass shootings are pretty unusual and account for a tiny fraction of firearm deaths: most gun deaths are suicides. For gun crime, most gun crime is committed with illegal guns. California's aggressive stance on black market guns and illicit ownership of firearms has helped deal with this, but won't stop someone who has not yet committed any crimes and wants to go on a mass shooting. In practice, even a well-run state with good gun control laws won't stop mass shootings. But this is because stopping mass shootings is just a tiny, relatively small portion of gun deaths, a small stream of blood compared to the sea of blood that is gun suicide and regular gun homicide. If a state chooses to aim its policies mostly at stopping the vast majority of gun deaths rather than stopping mass shootings, this is actually very reasonable - but few on either side of the gun control debate really stop to think about this.
Not to mention (i understand this an appeal to relative privation logical fallacy) that gun crimes and deaths are literally one of the least concerns of problems regarding deaths in this country.
If we really care about people living or dying, we should be talking about the opiate and drug epidemic. Or maybe even the fact that cars literally kill people in much greater numbers than guns. And you can argue that both of these are choices and random or whatever in relation to who dies or who kills.
Seriously, who the fuck cares about the minuscule percent of deaths each year from guns when we have majority of deaths coming from a couple of other things that could easily be halved or reduced to minimal numbers? I mean yea it sucks, but lets prioritize here. News is perpetuating this kinda thing with their overhyping, same shit happened with high speed pursuits. They tried the shit with terrorism alerts and color chart every day, but that wasn't as scary. This is just manipulation by the media to get eyeballs to get ad $$$ and should be regulated in some way. Its also politicians pandering to this bullshit to the most gullible, uninformed, or non fact based/more feelings based populace. Kinda like how everyone lives in dire fear of 'stranger danger' when in reality we know that statistically its someone you know that will fuck with a kid. Or how Anti Vaxxers will say 0.000007 percent of kids will have seizure or develop autoimmune disease or whatever from a vaccine yet they will let their kid play in the ocean where they have a much greater chance of dying from a whole host of shit that is random in there, shit you have a greater chance of being struck by lightning or bitten by a shark.
The actual problem is drug addicts are stigmatized and they are not sensational enough for the news or politicians. And guns and random acts of violence are hip. Fuck you.
There are EPIDEMICS KILLING people by the HUNDREDS AND DOZENS OF THOUSANDS EVERY YEAR.
Most guns deaths are: handguns, suicides, men, middle aged. Which is still a small number compared to other causes of death.
TL;DR statistically speaking, we shouldn't even be talking about guns. Much bigger problems to deal with.
PS- We've had an ever growing homeless population growing in so cal, to which most of these news and politicians claim is due to jobs, cost of living etc. Which is entirely bullshit. Its a statistical majority because of lack of care for addiction and mental health. There are diseases brewing off their trash and feces and rats multiplying in ridiculous rates that we are already seeing diseases that civilized and sanitized cities have not seen in decades, and they probably won't even get serious about it until we start seeing actual brutal shit we haven't seen since the civil war when the media starts sensationalizing it when they decide to use the word 'plague'. Meanwhile, people are dying and living poorly and painfully by the 100s of thousands. And let's talk about some guns and a few deaths every couple of months between the constant stream of Trump said/did nonsense. homeless shit
|
I wish there was some way to convince the Republicans and Democrats to work together. They can't see that their indecisiveness, bickering, and inaction is causing more harm than good. Whatever the solution is, there's no way we're going to get there unless the federal government steps in, which is something that is highly unlikely to happen until both sides can start to make concessions. The bipartisan divide and special interest money is ruining any chance of real progress being made.
|
Blazinghand
United States25555 Posts
On November 10 2018 20:57 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2018 20:17 Blazinghand wrote:On November 10 2018 14:22 superstartran wrote:On November 10 2018 08:09 Simberto wrote:
And still, criminals in other first world countries are far less well armed than US criminals. Probably less well armed than the average US citizen. So your theoretic point that you so love does not really fit reality. I like how it's simply 'first world countries' because other countries with extremely strict gun laws still have serious homicide issues. It's like gun control laws simply aren't the determining factor, or even a major factor in what causes homicide. Gasp. Riddle me this. California has arguably the toughest gun control laws in the entire United States. Firearm registry, red flag laws, magazine limitations, assault weapon bans, restrictions on ammunition type, highly restricted concealed carry (must be approved by local law enforcement and can be denied for any reason), NFA restrictions (suppressors, etc), waiting periods, background checks on private sells, permits, etc. And yet a mass shooting still took place there. Despite every single fucking gun control law under the sun short of banning firearms. The recent incident alone proves that gun control alone cannot be the only solution. But obviously, it's gotta be guns right? Can't possibly be the fact that sometimes, it's just the fact that people make bad choices sometimes. Remember, personal responsibility doesn't matter anymore! California actually has far laxer laws than certain states like Massachusetts, where the application process to own a firearm takes months and is subject to approval and various training courses. Generally speaking, though, if your goal is to prevent firearm deaths in general, most of the polices you adopt will not have a big impact on mass shootings. This is because mass shootings are pretty unusual and account for a tiny fraction of firearm deaths: most gun deaths are suicides. For gun crime, most gun crime is committed with illegal guns. California's aggressive stance on black market guns and illicit ownership of firearms has helped deal with this, but won't stop someone who has not yet committed any crimes and wants to go on a mass shooting. In practice, even a well-run state with good gun control laws won't stop mass shootings. But this is because stopping mass shootings is just a tiny, relatively small portion of gun deaths, a small stream of blood compared to the sea of blood that is gun suicide and regular gun homicide. If a state chooses to aim its policies mostly at stopping the vast majority of gun deaths rather than stopping mass shootings, this is actually very reasonable - but few on either side of the gun control debate really stop to think about this. Also, state laws are kind of pointless if you can just drive for an hour, get into another state, and ignore the laws of your previous state. With regards to your first point, i was under the assumption that the US would prefer to be on the level of european countries, rather than being judged on the level of a developing country like brazil.
The State of California is actually pretty huge and we do a decent job of things. Of course, not every state in USA is as large as California, and the Federal government likely won't do anything to address this any time soon.
In terms of my first point, I don't mean to compare USA to Brazil. I'm sorry if I inadvertently did so. I'm just pointing out that California law, despite what people say, actually does a lot of good. Can we and should we do better? Of course. But the idea that, because a mass shooting happens, all the laws we passed to prevent regular gun crime are somehow useless, is basically false.
|
On November 10 2018 21:13 MarlieChurphy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2018 20:17 Blazinghand wrote:On November 10 2018 14:22 superstartran wrote:On November 10 2018 08:09 Simberto wrote:
And still, criminals in other first world countries are far less well armed than US criminals. Probably less well armed than the average US citizen. So your theoretic point that you so love does not really fit reality. I like how it's simply 'first world countries' because other countries with extremely strict gun laws still have serious homicide issues. It's like gun control laws simply aren't the determining factor, or even a major factor in what causes homicide. Gasp. Riddle me this. California has arguably the toughest gun control laws in the entire United States. Firearm registry, red flag laws, magazine limitations, assault weapon bans, restrictions on ammunition type, highly restricted concealed carry (must be approved by local law enforcement and can be denied for any reason), NFA restrictions (suppressors, etc), waiting periods, background checks on private sells, permits, etc. And yet a mass shooting still took place there. Despite every single fucking gun control law under the sun short of banning firearms. The recent incident alone proves that gun control alone cannot be the only solution. But obviously, it's gotta be guns right? Can't possibly be the fact that sometimes, it's just the fact that people make bad choices sometimes. Remember, personal responsibility doesn't matter anymore! California actually has far laxer laws than certain states like Massachusetts, where the application process to own a firearm takes months and is subject to approval and various training courses. Generally speaking, though, if your goal is to prevent firearm deaths in general, most of the polices you adopt will not have a big impact on mass shootings. This is because mass shootings are pretty unusual and account for a tiny fraction of firearm deaths: most gun deaths are suicides. For gun crime, most gun crime is committed with illegal guns. California's aggressive stance on black market guns and illicit ownership of firearms has helped deal with this, but won't stop someone who has not yet committed any crimes and wants to go on a mass shooting. In practice, even a well-run state with good gun control laws won't stop mass shootings. But this is because stopping mass shootings is just a tiny, relatively small portion of gun deaths, a small stream of blood compared to the sea of blood that is gun suicide and regular gun homicide. If a state chooses to aim its policies mostly at stopping the vast majority of gun deaths rather than stopping mass shootings, this is actually very reasonable - but few on either side of the gun control debate really stop to think about this. Not to mention (i understand this an appeal to relative privation logical fallacy) that gun crimes and deaths are literally one of the least concerns of problems regarding deaths in this country. If we really care about people living or dying, we should be talking about the opiate and drug epidemic. Or maybe even the fact that cars literally kill people in much greater numbers than guns. And you can argue that both of these are choices and random or whatever in relation to who dies or who kills. Seriously, who the fuck cares about the minuscule percent of deaths each year from guns when we have majority of deaths coming from a couple of other things that could easily be halved or reduced to minimal numbers? I mean yea it sucks, but lets prioritize here. News is perpetuating this kinda thing with their overhyping, same shit happened with high speed pursuits. They tried the shit with terrorism alerts and color chart every day, but that wasn't as scary. This is just manipulation by the media to get eyeballs to get ad $$$ and should be regulated in some way. Its also politicians pandering to this bullshit to the most gullible, uninformed, or non fact based/more feelings based populace. Kinda like how everyone lives in dire fear of 'stranger danger' when in reality we know that statistically its someone you know that will fuck with a kid. Or how Anti Vaxxers will say 0.000007 percent of kids will have seizure or develop autoimmune disease or whatever from a vaccine yet they will let their kid play in the ocean where they have a much greater chance of dying from a whole host of shit that is random in there, shit you have a greater chance of being struck by lightning or bitten by a shark. The actual problem is drug addicts are stigmatized and they are not sensational enough for the news or politicians. And guns and random acts of violence are hip. Fuck you. There are EPIDEMICS KILLING people by the HUNDREDS AND DOZENS OF THOUSANDS EVERY YEAR. Most guns deaths are: handguns, suicides, men, middle aged. Which is still a small number compared to other causes of death. TL;DR statistically speaking, we shouldn't even be talking about guns. Much bigger problems to deal with. PS- We've had an ever growing homeless population growing in so cal, to which most of these news and politicians claim is due to jobs, cost of living etc. Which is entirely bullshit. Its a statistical majority because of lack of care for addiction and mental health. There are diseases brewing off their trash and feces and rats multiplying in ridiculous rates that we are already seeing diseases that civilized and sanitized cities have not seen in decades, and they probably won't even get serious about it until we start seeing actual brutal shit we haven't seen since the civil war when the media starts sensationalizing it when they decide to use the word 'plague'. Meanwhile, people are dying and living poorly and painfully by the 100s of thousands. And let's talk about some guns and a few deaths every couple of months between the constant stream of Trump said/did nonsense. homeless shit
Great idea, as long as we haven't solved heart diseases, which are the leading cause of death in america, there is absolutely no reason to deal with any other type of death.
|
On November 10 2018 20:17 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2018 14:22 superstartran wrote:On November 10 2018 08:09 Simberto wrote:
And still, criminals in other first world countries are far less well armed than US criminals. Probably less well armed than the average US citizen. So your theoretic point that you so love does not really fit reality. I like how it's simply 'first world countries' because other countries with extremely strict gun laws still have serious homicide issues. It's like gun control laws simply aren't the determining factor, or even a major factor in what causes homicide. Gasp. Riddle me this. California has arguably the toughest gun control laws in the entire United States. Firearm registry, red flag laws, magazine limitations, assault weapon bans, restrictions on ammunition type, highly restricted concealed carry (must be approved by local law enforcement and can be denied for any reason), NFA restrictions (suppressors, etc), waiting periods, background checks on private sells, permits, etc. And yet a mass shooting still took place there. Despite every single fucking gun control law under the sun short of banning firearms. The recent incident alone proves that gun control alone cannot be the only solution. But obviously, it's gotta be guns right? Can't possibly be the fact that sometimes, it's just the fact that people make bad choices sometimes. Remember, personal responsibility doesn't matter anymore! California actually has far laxer laws than certain states like Massachusetts, where the application process to own a firearm takes months and is subject to approval and various training courses. Generally speaking, though, if your goal is to prevent firearm deaths in general, most of the polices you adopt will not have a big impact on mass shootings. This is because mass shootings are pretty unusual and account for a tiny fraction of firearm deaths: most gun deaths are suicides. For gun crime, most gun crime is committed with illegal guns. California's aggressive stance on black market guns and illicit ownership of firearms has helped deal with this, but won't stop someone who has not yet committed any crimes and wants to go on a mass shooting. In practice, even a well-run state with good gun control laws won't stop mass shootings. But this is because stopping mass shootings is just a tiny, relatively small portion of gun deaths, a small stream of blood compared to the sea of blood that is gun suicide and regular gun homicide. I f a state chooses to aim its policies mostly at stopping the vast majority of gun deaths rather than stopping mass shootings, this is actually very reasonable - but few on either side of the gun control debate really stop to think about this.
That's really where the crux of my debate is. All these people come in here and talk specifically only about mass shootings, and only bring up other homicide rates when it is convenient to them. That's a really big red flag that these people simply don't actually care, rather they just want some blanket solution to make themselves feel better. Notice how almost all of the gun debates only start when a mass shooting occurs, but not when urban gang member A kills urban gang member B?
Essentially, they are reacting emotionally and not thinking straight. Like I said, I'm not against reasonable gun control measures. What I'm against is A. People who want guns abolished but pretend to be 'gun activists' and B. People who react emotionally without thinking about how we should reasonably implement solutions.
On November 10 2018 20:57 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2018 20:17 Blazinghand wrote:On November 10 2018 14:22 superstartran wrote:On November 10 2018 08:09 Simberto wrote:
And still, criminals in other first world countries are far less well armed than US criminals. Probably less well armed than the average US citizen. So your theoretic point that you so love does not really fit reality. I like how it's simply 'first world countries' because other countries with extremely strict gun laws still have serious homicide issues. It's like gun control laws simply aren't the determining factor, or even a major factor in what causes homicide. Gasp. Riddle me this. California has arguably the toughest gun control laws in the entire United States. Firearm registry, red flag laws, magazine limitations, assault weapon bans, restrictions on ammunition type, highly restricted concealed carry (must be approved by local law enforcement and can be denied for any reason), NFA restrictions (suppressors, etc), waiting periods, background checks on private sells, permits, etc. And yet a mass shooting still took place there. Despite every single fucking gun control law under the sun short of banning firearms. The recent incident alone proves that gun control alone cannot be the only solution. But obviously, it's gotta be guns right? Can't possibly be the fact that sometimes, it's just the fact that people make bad choices sometimes. Remember, personal responsibility doesn't matter anymore! California actually has far laxer laws than certain states like Massachusetts, where the application process to own a firearm takes months and is subject to approval and various training courses. Generally speaking, though, if your goal is to prevent firearm deaths in general, most of the polices you adopt will not have a big impact on mass shootings. This is because mass shootings are pretty unusual and account for a tiny fraction of firearm deaths: most gun deaths are suicides. For gun crime, most gun crime is committed with illegal guns. California's aggressive stance on black market guns and illicit ownership of firearms has helped deal with this, but won't stop someone who has not yet committed any crimes and wants to go on a mass shooting. In practice, even a well-run state with good gun control laws won't stop mass shootings. But this is because stopping mass shootings is just a tiny, relatively small portion of gun deaths, a small stream of blood compared to the sea of blood that is gun suicide and regular gun homicide. If a state chooses to aim its policies mostly at stopping the vast majority of gun deaths rather than stopping mass shootings, this is actually very reasonable - but few on either side of the gun control debate really stop to think about this. Also, state laws are kind of pointless if you can just drive for an hour, get into another state, and ignore the laws of your previous state. With regards to your first point, i was under the assumption that the US would prefer to be on the level of european countries, rather than being judged on the level of a developing country like brazil.
I would think Europe would be on the level of the United States in regards to safety versus radical Islamic terrorism, but you don't see me going into the EU thread shitting on them relentlessly (you know, considering for the past 14ish years Europe has seen more wide scale radical Islamic terrorist attacks as a whole) with my own 'agenda'.
It's clear you have an agenda here, you just want to just shit on the U.S. as some terrible country. This really isn't even about a gun debate. If you're here to do that, get out of the thread.
|
On November 10 2018 20:34 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2018 09:55 Danglars wrote:On November 10 2018 08:18 Yanokabo wrote:
These mass shootings are ridiculous. I don’t support a country where people can’t go places due to threat of physical violence being acted on them/ their families? Ridiculus Pick your country. Paris? 130 killed by gun violence and bombs. Don't go to Nice, France, either. Violence by truck killed over eighty, injured hundreds. London? Don't go to the bridge, you might die there. Also don't go to concerts in Manchester. Or the subway. You can pick your threat and decide on what countries have and haven't done to respond. Just don't level it at the country level and where you can't go based on threats unless you're willing to qualify which threats you pay attention to. The difference being that in the case of those other incidents you mention, your side actually wants to do something about it.
Well, they’re already surrendered sane rights of self defense with a gun, so there’s nothing left worth fighting for. They could take away the right to vote, and you’d say at least one side is compromising on restricting political speech.
|
On November 11 2018 00:40 superstartran wrote:
I would think Europe would be on the level of the United States in regards to safety versus radical Islamic terrorism, but you don't see me going into the EU thread shitting on them relentlessly (you know, considering for the past 14ish years Europe has seen more wide scale radical Islamic terrorist attacks as a whole) with my own 'agenda'. If only USA had the same level of safety from "Islamic" terrorism as Europe does then the level of violent gun safety as USA does, would USA be a lot safer.
Also this is literally a gun thread. If you want to go discuss heart attack go make a thread on it.
|
On November 11 2018 04:29 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2018 00:40 superstartran wrote:
I would think Europe would be on the level of the United States in regards to safety versus radical Islamic terrorism, but you don't see me going into the EU thread shitting on them relentlessly (you know, considering for the past 14ish years Europe has seen more wide scale radical Islamic terrorist attacks as a whole) with my own 'agenda'. If only USA had the same level of safety from "Islamic" terrorism as Europe does then the level of violent gun safety as USA does, would USA be a lot safer. Also this is literally a gun thread. If you want to go discuss heart attack go make a thread on it.
I hope you realize that in some years more people die from radical Islamic terrorist attacks in Europe than people die of mass shootings in the United States. But why argue with facts when you can just moral grand stand and say guns are bad?
My point was that just because a country has an issue, doesn't mean you can't debate it in a calm manner. I could moral grand stand on the issue of how European countries would rather see their own citizens die in radical terrorist attacks due to their lax immigration policies. But I don't do that. Why is it ok for your side to come in here and try to hold the moral high ground against gun rights activists and say they are complicit in the murders of innocent people? That's not even arguing with facts, that's just going to piss people off and justifiably so.
If your goal is to have a reasonable debate on what the United States can realistically do in terms of gun control, then we can have that debate. If your goal is to come in here and shit on the United States and say it's a terrible place due to its gun culture, etc. then why are you even here in the first place.
|
On November 11 2018 00:13 Broetchenholer wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2018 21:13 MarlieChurphy wrote:On November 10 2018 20:17 Blazinghand wrote:On November 10 2018 14:22 superstartran wrote:On November 10 2018 08:09 Simberto wrote:
And still, criminals in other first world countries are far less well armed than US criminals. Probably less well armed than the average US citizen. So your theoretic point that you so love does not really fit reality. I like how it's simply 'first world countries' because other countries with extremely strict gun laws still have serious homicide issues. It's like gun control laws simply aren't the determining factor, or even a major factor in what causes homicide. Gasp. Riddle me this. California has arguably the toughest gun control laws in the entire United States. Firearm registry, red flag laws, magazine limitations, assault weapon bans, restrictions on ammunition type, highly restricted concealed carry (must be approved by local law enforcement and can be denied for any reason), NFA restrictions (suppressors, etc), waiting periods, background checks on private sells, permits, etc. And yet a mass shooting still took place there. Despite every single fucking gun control law under the sun short of banning firearms. The recent incident alone proves that gun control alone cannot be the only solution. But obviously, it's gotta be guns right? Can't possibly be the fact that sometimes, it's just the fact that people make bad choices sometimes. Remember, personal responsibility doesn't matter anymore! California actually has far laxer laws than certain states like Massachusetts, where the application process to own a firearm takes months and is subject to approval and various training courses. Generally speaking, though, if your goal is to prevent firearm deaths in general, most of the polices you adopt will not have a big impact on mass shootings. This is because mass shootings are pretty unusual and account for a tiny fraction of firearm deaths: most gun deaths are suicides. For gun crime, most gun crime is committed with illegal guns. California's aggressive stance on black market guns and illicit ownership of firearms has helped deal with this, but won't stop someone who has not yet committed any crimes and wants to go on a mass shooting. In practice, even a well-run state with good gun control laws won't stop mass shootings. But this is because stopping mass shootings is just a tiny, relatively small portion of gun deaths, a small stream of blood compared to the sea of blood that is gun suicide and regular gun homicide. If a state chooses to aim its policies mostly at stopping the vast majority of gun deaths rather than stopping mass shootings, this is actually very reasonable - but few on either side of the gun control debate really stop to think about this. Not to mention (i understand this an appeal to relative privation logical fallacy) that gun crimes and deaths are literally one of the least concerns of problems regarding deaths in this country. If we really care about people living or dying, we should be talking about the opiate and drug epidemic. Or maybe even the fact that cars literally kill people in much greater numbers than guns. And you can argue that both of these are choices and random or whatever in relation to who dies or who kills. Seriously, who the fuck cares about the minuscule percent of deaths each year from guns when we have majority of deaths coming from a couple of other things that could easily be halved or reduced to minimal numbers? I mean yea it sucks, but lets prioritize here. News is perpetuating this kinda thing with their overhyping, same shit happened with high speed pursuits. They tried the shit with terrorism alerts and color chart every day, but that wasn't as scary. This is just manipulation by the media to get eyeballs to get ad $$$ and should be regulated in some way. Its also politicians pandering to this bullshit to the most gullible, uninformed, or non fact based/more feelings based populace. Kinda like how everyone lives in dire fear of 'stranger danger' when in reality we know that statistically its someone you know that will fuck with a kid. Or how Anti Vaxxers will say 0.000007 percent of kids will have seizure or develop autoimmune disease or whatever from a vaccine yet they will let their kid play in the ocean where they have a much greater chance of dying from a whole host of shit that is random in there, shit you have a greater chance of being struck by lightning or bitten by a shark. The actual problem is drug addicts are stigmatized and they are not sensational enough for the news or politicians. And guns and random acts of violence are hip. Fuck you. There are EPIDEMICS KILLING people by the HUNDREDS AND DOZENS OF THOUSANDS EVERY YEAR. Most guns deaths are: handguns, suicides, men, middle aged. Which is still a small number compared to other causes of death. TL;DR statistically speaking, we shouldn't even be talking about guns. Much bigger problems to deal with. PS- We've had an ever growing homeless population growing in so cal, to which most of these news and politicians claim is due to jobs, cost of living etc. Which is entirely bullshit. Its a statistical majority because of lack of care for addiction and mental health. There are diseases brewing off their trash and feces and rats multiplying in ridiculous rates that we are already seeing diseases that civilized and sanitized cities have not seen in decades, and they probably won't even get serious about it until we start seeing actual brutal shit we haven't seen since the civil war when the media starts sensationalizing it when they decide to use the word 'plague'. Meanwhile, people are dying and living poorly and painfully by the 100s of thousands. And let's talk about some guns and a few deaths every couple of months between the constant stream of Trump said/did nonsense. homeless shit Great idea, as long as we haven't solved heart diseases, which are the leading cause of death in america, there is absolutely no reason to deal with any other type of death.
You say this facetiously but there's some truth to it. It would be near impossible to solve heart disease without dealing with much of the problems at the root of gun violence. Comprehensive healthcare that included mental health would be necessary as well as regulations and penalties for industries involved. Two concepts that could be built on the premises established in a quest of eradicating heart disease, then applied to gun legislation.
You could very well reduce more gun related deaths by attacking heart disease than by perpetuating this endless debate with guns and rights at the center. I'm not saying that's desirable, but it is a preferable outcome to both heart disease and gun violence continuing to go largely unaddressed.
As a matter of manipulation and results the best bet is to take something the opposition to gun regulation already doesn't like and craft the legislation around reining that in and then simply argue it makes as much or more sense to expand the thinking to guns. This is why things like age limits, store restrictions, and volume tracking are things that have been accepted regarding limiting access to guns and more recently cannabis.
|
On November 11 2018 05:33 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2018 04:29 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On November 11 2018 00:40 superstartran wrote:
I would think Europe would be on the level of the United States in regards to safety versus radical Islamic terrorism, but you don't see me going into the EU thread shitting on them relentlessly (you know, considering for the past 14ish years Europe has seen more wide scale radical Islamic terrorist attacks as a whole) with my own 'agenda'. If only USA had the same level of safety from "Islamic" terrorism as Europe does then the level of violent gun safety as USA does, would USA be a lot safer. Also this is literally a gun thread. If you want to go discuss heart attack go make a thread on it. I hope you realize that in some years more people die from radical Islamic terrorist attacks in Europe than people die of mass shootings in the United States. But why argue with facts when you can just moral grand stand and say guns are bad? My point was that just because a country has an issue, doesn't mean you can't debate it in a calm manner. I could moral grand stand on the issue of how European countries would rather see their own citizens die in radical terrorist attacks due to their lax immigration policies. But I don't do that. Why is it ok for your side to come in here and try to hold the moral high ground against gun rights activists and say they are complicit in the murders of innocent people? That's not even arguing with facts, that's just going to piss people off and justifiably so. If your goal is to have a reasonable debate on what the United States can realistically do in terms of gun control, then we can have that debate. If your goal is to come in here and shit on the United States and say it's a terrible place due to its gun culture, etc. then why are you even here in the first place.
Replying to each individual point:
You know that you are factually wrong? Proportionally speaking, more people in USA die in mass shooting in USA than the whole of Europe? Maybe that's a problem? You don't get to pretend that your facts are more correct than others, when they are wrong.
The tone I am using is clearly calm, since is is severly tongue in cheek, but it appears that you are using your favourite tactic of claiming that people who are arguing against you are being emotional. Again. Usually you claim they are being hysterical, so that's a small improvement. Don't you get tired of this?
If you don't like my country's immigration policy, you are welcome to go to this thread: https://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/419575-uk-politics-mega-thread, so you can now stop your attempts to derail off topic, now you can stop deliberately bringing it over and over again.
I've never shit on the United States, that's just you. As for myself, I love to criticise my country. I want the best laws and culture that my Great country can have. That's because I want my country and the people living in it to be the best it can be.
Well, I am here, discussing mass shootings, because this is the mass shootings thread. I don't know why you are tryingto shush everyone up from discussing the topic. If you want to go discuss UK immigration and terrorism, I already pointed out a thread for you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
