|
Liquid Communism posted:One point that I will continually credit the founders of America for accidentally putting into place is making it drastically hard for manufactured moral panic and disdain to let the few restrict the rights of the many. We failed to heed that once, and as has been noted, we're still fighting the results of Prohibition on the nature of criminal enterprise in the US. Why are guns important to you, personally, Liquid Communism? As a dickless cuckold you'll have to do me the favour, as I'm too dickless to understand these things without help.
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 21:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 18:02 |
|
|
I'm just kiddin y'all crime is actually super well understood and totally explicable. The thing where a sad and lonely white dude kills as many people for no gain is less well understood. It certainly can't be boiled down into a pithy image macro, or even a self satisfied thinkpiece. Life is crazy complicated y'all. Crazy complicated.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 21:58
|
|
|
wiffle ball bat posted:You can still legally buy guns in Australia tho. Restrictions are much harsher in Mexico, which currently enjoys the lowest murder rate in the world. I'm British. Nobody has guns except farmers (and farmers' mums)
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 22:01
|
|
|
Jeza posted:Why are guns important to you, personally, Liquid Communism? As a dickless cuckold you'll have to do me the favour, as I'm too dickless to understand these things without help. They're not, really. I mean, I like my target shooting and hunting, but I'd do fine without them. The right to own them, on the other hand, is very important to me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 22:18
|
|
|
sebzilla posted:I'm British. Nobody has guns except farmers (and farmers' mums) And that's why the streets of London are littered with the shattered bodies of gunshot victims while a nation with sensible gun laws, Mexico, has one of the lowest crime rates in the world.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:They're not, really. I mean, I like my target shooting and hunting, but I'd do fine without them. OK, so you can take or leave guns, but the right is important? There are lots of things proscribed in society, but I guess you don't lobby on behalf of most of them. So you think the right to bear arms is in some way special and deserves protecting despite the consequences. Is it so you could theoretically rise up against an unjust government? Or something else?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 22:43
|
|
|
Jeza posted:OK, so you can take or leave guns, but the right is important? There are lots of things proscribed in society, but I guess you don't lobby on behalf of most of them. So you think the right to bear arms is in some way special and deserves protecting despite the consequences. Is it so you could theoretically rise up against an unjust government? Or something else? I think the right to bear arms is in no way more or less special than the rest of the Bill of Rights, it is simply the one most often attacked by those frightened of the actions of evil men, and with flimsy logic and emotional appeals. I'm just as grumpy about the post-9/11 inroads against the 4th through 9th amendments in the name of 'Homeland Security' that has amounted to security theatre and widespread violation of the rights of the public; it's just that there's little need to argue that here because it seems to be a generally held opinion. There are a lot of rights protected under the Constitution that I do not personally make use of often. I rarely have need to demand a jury trial, risk having my home taken to quarter soldiers, nor do I practice a religion that would be otherwise persecuted. But as an American, I value those rights nonetheless.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 23:04
|
|
|
 equally as worthy of discussion in the mass shooting thread as the second amendment and comparing "shooting" stats between countries in wildly different socioeconomic situations using wildly different methods of crime analysis.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 23:35
|
|
|
wiffle ball bat posted:
The only sensible news coverage of this inexplicable tragedy
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 23:51
|
|
|
thrakkorzog posted:According to Mother Jones, once you exclude the noise of gang bangers doing a drive by, and look for crazy assholes shooting up the place there has been a grand total of 4 mass shootings in the U.S in the past year. I don't really get this argument. Why would we exclude that? Do gangbangers killing each other not count, and we don't think it's a bad thing that society should work to alleviate?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 02:37
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:I think the right to bear arms is in no way more or less special than the rest of the Bill of Rights, it is simply the one most often attacked by those frightened of the actions of evil men, and with flimsy logic and emotional appeals. I'm just as grumpy about the post-9/11 inroads against the 4th through 9th amendments in the name of 'Homeland Security' that has amounted to security theatre and widespread violation of the rights of the public; it's just that there's little need to argue that here because it seems to be a generally held opinion. So if I understand you, you really don't care too much about guns or gun control, but care instead about the sanctity of the constitution? Don't you think that the original intention behind the amendment has been completely lost? The "right to bear arms" is just an addendum to the importance of having a Militia, back when something like that could feasibly have overthrown a corrupt government. Not to mention the sheer technological constraints of single shot, muzzle loaded weapons means that they were legislating effectively for a completely different thing. I just fail to see the upside of the 2nd Amendment. Thousands die directly because of it. I don't see finding that problematic as 'flimsy' logic. What good is the 2nd Amendment doing the US? How does it help? How has it helped in the last century?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 03:23
|
|
|
It "helps" because people have a right to defend themselves and guns are the best way to do it. Strip everything else away and that is why it is important. Now, if you don't believe in a right to individual self defense, then there is little reason to want guns around.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 03:31
|
|
|
ashgromnies posted:I don't really get this argument. Why would we exclude that? Do gangbangers killing each other not count, and we don't think it's a bad thing that society should work to alleviate? They count, but they also aren't going to be stopped by gun control alone; any more than London, Tokyo, or Sydney are free of street crime now. The factors behind street crime and gang warfare are well understood, we simply aren't doing anything about them sufficient to curb them because that would be expensive, and primarily serve to help impoverished black and hispanic people. Jeza posted:So if I understand you, you really don't care too much about guns or gun control, but care instead about the sanctity of the constitution? Don't you think that the original intention behind the amendment has been completely lost? The "right to bear arms" is just an addendum to the importance of having a Militia, back when something like that could feasibly have overthrown a corrupt government. Not to mention the sheer technological constraints of single shot, muzzle loaded weapons means that they were legislating effectively for a completely different thing. I think the original intention of the amendment has been upheld quite well, actually. The intent, as I read it, is that the populace have ready access to arms with which to defend themselves, their families, and their nation at need. I am fully in agreement with constitutional scholars and the SCOTUS that the militia clause does not refer to the national armed forces, nor to the National Guard as is often claimed; given that organization did not exist on a national scale until 1903, and is effectively a reserve for the active Army since being put under state and federal dual control in the 1930's, it bears little to nothing in common to the local ad-hoc 'militias' of the Revolutionary War, which were simply the local able-bodied citizens, mostly armed with their own personal weapons. To put your other question in context : The feasibility of overthrowing any government is not a factor that matters, beyond the chilling effect of any governing body understanding that the populace is well armed, and any tyranny or outside invasion will be met with violent protest. As we have had ample demonstration in the last few decades, a opposition force does not need to win military victories. It simply needs to be difficult enough to root out that an area cannot return to business as usual, and must be maintained on a wartime front, requiring investments of manpower and materiel be tied up defending it. In the case of the US, the military is very small relative to the land mass and total population. It cannot hold the country at gunpoint and expect to not be beset at every turn by sabotage and both civil and armed disobedience. It would win any open battle, but it could not govern. This is the reality that needs to be, and is intended to be, in the back of the mind of every elected official. They work for the populace at the end of the day, and trying to set themselves up as a new English aristocracy by feudal might must never cross their minds. As far as what good the 2nd Amendment does in the US, even setting aside how much of the country's conservation budget comes from hunters and shooting sports enthusiasts, you can look no farther than the Black Panthers, or the armed shopkeepers scaring off looters in the LA Riots, or any of the thousands of defensive firearms usages a year that happen today. So that's the long version, but bongwizzard's got it in the simplest and most easily applicable form.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 04:21
|
|
|
wiffle ball bat posted:
all you traumatized white girls look the same to me Jeza posted:So if I understand you, you really don't care too much about guns or gun control, but care instead about the sanctity of the constitution? Don't you think that the original intention behind the amendment has been completely lost? The "right to bear arms" is just an addendum to the importance of having a Militia, back when something like that could feasibly have overthrown a corrupt government. Not to mention the sheer technological constraints of single shot, muzzle loaded weapons means that they were legislating effectively for a completely different thing. Is 'lol your rights have been thoroughly undermined so we might as well just take them away' supposed to persuade anyone of anything except that you're kind of a cock? if the rights of the people have been corrupted or vitiated, that's an imperative to restore them to a point where they're able to serve some good. ashgromnies posted:I don't really get this argument. Why would we exclude that? Do gangbangers killing each other not count, and we don't think it's a bad thing that society should work to alleviate? The causes of spree killings are not well understood; the sample sizes are tiny, they're spread pretty evenly across the country, and there's no detectable trends between killers that they don't equally share with huge numbers of non-killers, so this is one problem where 'keep all men with less than three good friends away from anything potentially dangerous' is about as viable a solution as any. The causes of gang slayings are incredibly well understood and have a pretty much 1:1 correlation with endemic poverty and density within the country, with no other variables significantly affecting regional rates. Those just aren't problems that "society" cares to alleviate, so you change the subject. A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 05:30 on Dec 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 05:12
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:it is simply the one most often attacked by those frightened of the actions of evil men It's not evil men that's the problem, they'll get hold of guns no matter what. The problem is emotionally (even for a second) and mentally unstable people who can do much more damage to themselves and others with a gun than they can do with a kitchen knife. You appear to feel that the right to have an incredibly dangerous object in your house is equally valuable as the right to free speech. I have no objection to protecting the right of anti-abortion-fanatics to make their point with words. I very much object to protecting their right to make their point with bullets.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 13:02
|
|
|
bongwizzard posted:It "helps" because people have a right to defend themselves and guns are the best way to do it. Strip everything else away and that is why it is important. Well, strictly speaking the amendment is unrelated to self-defense. The US still uses English Common Law as the basis for its self-defense law, albeit many states have their own modification (like Florida and "Stand your ground".) The real question here is about guns. Yes, a gun is theoretically the best way to defend yourself against another gun. But if tomorrow you could wish away every firearm in the USA, would you have a problem with that? Guns simultaneously provide self-defense and the very thing that needs to be defended from. Developed countries with extremely low levels of gun ownership have greater levels of personal safety. To suggest the benefit of the 2nd Amendment is self-defense is paradoxical, because clearly it simply increases risk. I've sort of answered you above, so I'll just throw something different in here. Defensive gun usage is essentially a fallacy. Just by putting a gun into the equation, the chances of somebody dying, either perpetrator or victim increases dramatically. If both parties are armed, it goes without saying that it becomes even worse. I don't believe that the chances of being robbed in the UK are significantly different than in the USA. Of course, bank robberies and robbing shops probably have a lower incidence, but that probably finds expression somewhere else. However, the chance of getting hurt or dying during a robbery is extremely low, and that goes for the robber too. What I'm going to suggest may be perverse to any red-blooded American, but the safest way to deal with robberies is to let them happen. Insurance covers businesses, and some people, but being robbed on the street will probably cost you as much as the cash in your wallet and your phone. However people caught in the moment and scared, but armed, are very likely to do something stupid. It also puts people, and the police, in a shoot or get shot mentality. I watch US cops gun down unarmed people, or schizophrenic people, or a man with a pen in a wheelchair, because this is the kind of culture arming everybody breeds. You would hardly believe what happened in London the other day. A terrorist entered a metro station and stabbed somebody, nearly fatally. Local cops arrived, i.e. community officers, who then confronted the man and tasered him as he waved a knife around. And the first time it failed, which is when I assume even the coolest headed cop in the US would have turned him into a colander. And let's not forget that if that man had lived in the US, he probably would have gunned down multiple people with a weapon where running away doesn't render it ineffective. I'm sure a good guy with a gun scaring off a non-armed bad guy happens occasionally, and is a good outcome. But it pales in comparison to good guys getting themselves shot, or shooting unarmed bad guys, or both getting shot, or bystanders getting shot. It's a tiny mitigating factor. A Wizard of Goatse posted:Is 'lol your rights have been thoroughly undermined so we might as well just take them away' supposed to persuade anyone of anything except that you're kind of a cock? The right has become outmoded. I fail to see how it has been undermined in anyway, on the contrary it has and is being fulfilled beyond the wildest dreams of its creators. More arms than people, and each one probably several times more deadly than a flintlock pistol. But the right was designed to allow citizenry to overthrow government, not for the citizenry to arm themselves to the teeth. Guns are part of the clause to stop a tyrannical government legislating against arms, then monopolising the use of force. The entire clause is probably derived from a 17th piece of English legislation where the Protestant majority were given permission to be armed, while Catholics were disbarred. By establishing a right to arms, nobody can be disenfranchised in this way. People are blind to associate this Amendment with self-defense, because guns in the 18th century were not shot without planning. A gun in your house was not loaded or primed with powder at all times, let alone the concealed carry laws that now come part and parcel with America and guns. If you wanted to restore the right to a point where it serves some good, you could just as well give every of-age citizen an unloaded weapon then establish citizen run ammo stores, where they can go to become armed Militia when the US government needs overthrowing. Obviously possessing ammo for unlicensed purposes, i.e. hunting or sport purposes would then be a crime.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 14:27
|
|
|
bongwizzard posted:It "helps" because people have a right to defend themselves and guns are the best way to do it. Strip everything else away and that is why it is important. Guns are not the only way to protect yourself. Things like pepper sprays and tazers are widely available and cheap. Of course they have their drawbacks, but so do guns.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 14:40
|
|
|
But again, you are taking about the offensive use of arms, the the defensive use. My grandmother lived alone on a rural farm from age 83 to 90. She was maybe three miles from her nearest neighbor and didn't drive. Did she not have a right to posses the tools to defend herself? Same question, but now she lives in an apartment in Detroit where the police response time is measured in tens of minuets.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 14:55
|
|
|
waitwhatno posted:Guns are not the only way to protect yourself. Things like pepper sprays and tazers are widely available and cheap. Of course they have their drawbacks, but so do guns. Pepper spray and tazers don't really do poo poo to a lot of people and are mostly one shot deals, so they hinge on your ability to run the gently caress away after use. My grandmother with a fused hip would be poorly served by either of those options. In any case, it is pointless to argue this stuff because it is both a practical issue and a philosophical one. Even if I could snap my fingers and make all guns world wide disappear I wouldn't do it because I am philosophically opposed to the idea that people should be deprived of the means of self defense and almost any ills caused by guns can be solved by addressing the root causes of crime and interpersonal violence.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 15:02
|
|
|
bongwizzard posted:Pepper spray and tazers don't really do poo poo to a lot of people and are mostly one shot deals, so they hinge on your ability to run the gently caress away after use. My grandmother with a fused hip would be poorly served by either of those options. You have one hell of a grandma, if she can still handle a shotgun with a fused hip. Anyway, the endgame of any type of self defense situation is always going to be the arrival of authorities. A pepper spray gives you more than enough time to call for help. (As someone who gets chilli in his eyes on a regular basis, I can't imagine how a concentrated dose of that stuff will gently caress you up. Bleeding eyes ahoi!) IMO it's not a philosophical issue, because there is no unconditional right to self-defense. Such a thing would endanger the safety of other people around you and could never be tolerated. For a extreme example, you are absolutely not allowed to build and maintain your own nuclear weapons to protect yourself against North Korea, instead you just have to trust the authorities with that matter. A more grounded examples would be stuff like machine guns, explosives and sentry guns not being allowed for personal house protection. Regulating the use of guns is just another entry in a long list of forbidden self-defense methods, not a fundamental change in how we handle things currently.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 15:48
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:The causes of spree killings are not well understood; the sample sizes are tiny, they're spread pretty evenly across the country, and there's no detectable trends between killers that they don't equally share with huge numbers of non-killers, so this is one problem where 'keep all men with less than three good friends away from anything potentially dangerous' is about as viable a solution as any. Why don't you care to alleviate it? Why are goons changing the subject in this very thread and saying, "well, those dont really count"? Because the real source of the majority of gun violence in the US is gang violence. Gun control can help, but we also need to fix our wealth inequality -- and that message is being ignored over the flashiness of guns. Intelligent people need to commandeer the narrative and refocus on what actually matters, but what I see in this thread is the tacit acceptance of the status quo's myopic focus on arguing solely about gun control.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 15:48
|
|
|
I think this thread itself has gone a long way to answer the original question. We've seen relatively articulate and sane people deny that gun violence is even an issue in America, deny that meaningful gun control is possible, express a feeling of persecution at the notion that anyone would question their right to own an AR-15, and, repeatedly and I think most insightfully, gone on long diatribes attacking gun control advocates personally. On this internet comedy website I've been called the worst names ever in my life, honestly, just for vaguely supporting gun control. To the gun fandom, "anti-gunners" are weak, pathetic, stupid, incapable of logic, unlovable, unemployable, impotent, etc. I've been called all of those things on this site, (most) only ever in the context of random hate in a gun control debate. And I don't even talk about gun control much, on this site or elsewhere. Even articulate people will go on at length about how illogical, naive, emotional, and ignorant gun-control advocates are. As someone from outside the toxic American gun culture you can judge that sort of broad opprobrium yourself. And ironically my family owns five guns, although I personally don't, and I enjoy shooting. What I'm saying is that American gun culture is insane.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 15:57
|
|
|
ashgromnies posted:Why don't you care to alleviate it? Why are goons changing the subject in this very thread and saying, "well, those dont really count"? He didn't claim he didn't care to alleviate it, he claimed "society" didn't care to alleviate it. Ask for clarification on that. As for why they may not count, a number of people have pointed out that gang violence is mostly a result of poverty and wealth inequality. Attempting to fix that would probably go a long way towards reducing gun violence in general. What people freak out over is stuff like Elliot Rodger. He seems to be a privileged white male MRA personified from a wealthy background, and he still went on a spree. Fixing poverty won't alleviate whatever it is that causes middle-class white people to freak out. If anything, that might make things worse because "MAH PRIVILEGEL"  . Yes, I'm generalizing for comedic value. Deal with it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 16:15
|
|
|
waitwhatno posted:You have one hell of a grandma, if she can still handle a shotgun with a fused hip. Anyway, the endgame of any type of self defense situation is always going to be the arrival of authorities. A pepper spray gives you more than enough time to call for help. (As someone who gets chilli in his eyes on a regular basis, I can't imagine how a concentrated dose of that stuff will gently caress you up. Bleeding eyes ahoi!) Grandma handled a pistol just fine, but couldn't move faster then a slow walk. I also suspect you have never lived in a rural or underserved area if you think that universally the police response time will be a few minuets. This is a big, unfair country and other then people living in dense, well off areas, you are more or less on your own. And finally, talking about nukes in a discussion about individual self defense kinda tells me that you are out of actual arguments.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
Is solving all sources of interpersonal violence somehow a more feasible goal than severely limiting access to portable tools designed to kill other people or animals? The only reason given so far for proliferating guns is self-defense, and the reason people need guns for self-defense is...other people with guns. The only exceptions are extremely rare outlier cases where some axe-murderer breaks into your home for no reason other than to murder everybody inside. Is the solution to that arming every man and woman? How many people die in comparison during school shootings, bungled robberies and the rest? If you want to solve wealth inequality instead of the simpler way, I'd suggest you crack open those gun cabinets and get started on those militias, because wealth inequality is only getting worse.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 17:00
|
|
|
bongwizzard posted:Grandma handled a pistol just fine, but couldn't move faster then a slow walk. Nobody is arguing against guns in rural areas and even the countries with the strictest gun laws have no problems with people using them for hunting. It's a legitimate, necessary and sane use of firearms. No problem here. Most people live in cities thought, and have totally different concern in life. The nuke part was a joke, read the next sentence. You are not allowed to use machine guns, mines/explosives and sentry guns for home defense.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 17:00
|
|
|
Not more feasible, but a lot more desirable. I would rather have grandma have a gun in a violent world full of guns then grandma have nothing in a violent world full of people stronger and quicker then her. Also this is dumb to talk about on a practical level as americans will always have access to at the very least handguns until 2/3 of the country can agree on it, which I will take any odds on never happening. So what we are left with is the slightly less impossible and in the end far more desirable course of action that is fixing the root causes of violent beheavour. The reason I waded into this thread was to try to explain to the OP the mindset of americans who believe in individual self defense. Nothing anyone has posted has addressed this so its hard to see the point in continuing to try and discuss thing with people who don't seem interested in actual discussion.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 17:09
|
|
|
waitwhatno posted:Nobody is arguing against guns in rural areas and even the countries with the strictest gun laws have no problems with people using them for hunting. It's a legitimate, necessary and sane use of firearms. No problem here. Most people live in cities thought, and have totally different concern in life. Hunting isn't at all important at all and again, what do you think police response times are in the stereotypical under serviced american ghetto? Your "joke" is impossible to address without going into an incredibly pandenic and lengthy discussion on individual arms vs ordinance that I am sure that someone from tfr would be happy to have with you. If you really care to learn more about what the 2nd amendment means and the general idea of the right to self defense, the arguments from the Supreme Court case a few years ago that confirmed that right would be good reading as both sides laid out their cases pretty clearly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 17:17
|
|
|
bongwizzard posted:Not more feasible, but a lot more desirable. I would rather have grandma have a gun in a violent world full of guns then grandma have nothing in a violent world full of people stronger and quicker then her. I think several people have posted both practical and philosophical discussion points on why proliferating guns is a very poor way of ensuring safety, and by proxy self-defense, so I don't see why you're denying discussion is taking place. If somebody armed with a gun broke into your grandma's house, at 90 she'd probably be nowhere near able to get her gun to defend herself anyway. And if she did grab a gun, it's more likely to cause any armed person to kill her in their own "self-defence". And I'm sure there's a fair slice of demented, racist, half-blind old people out there just waiting to execute some black kid on their lawn. Because obviously, you can have your driving license taken away for being incompetent, but you won't take away granny's .45 Magnum, no sir.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 17:20
|
|
|
Jeza posted:I think several people have posted both practical and philosophical discussion points on why proliferating guns is a very poor way of ensuring safety, and by proxy self-defense, so I don't see why you're denying discussion is taking place. If somebody armed with a gun broke into your grandma's house, at 90 she'd probably be nowhere near able to get her gun to defend herself anyway. And if she did grab a gun, it's more likely to cause any armed person to kill her in their own "self-defence". And I'm sure there's a fair slice of demented, racist, half-blind old people out there just waiting to execute some black kid on their lawn. Because obviously, you can have your driving license taken away for being incompetent, but you won't take away granny's .45 Magnum, no sir. Oh, c'mon, Jeza, that's just crazy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 17:36
|
|
|
Making guns of all kinds more difficult to acquire would reduce all varieties of gun related violence/injury. I don't see why this is confusing. Even counting gang violence and self defense, if gangs are not able to acquire as many guns ( or have to pay significantly more to acquire illegally), that is a good thing. If criminals struggle acquiring guns, then the need to carry in the name of self defense is reduced. Those who supports gun ownership to "defend against the government" are deluding themselves. That ship has long sailed in the age of drones, tanks, and tactical strikes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 17:39
|
|
|
Jeza posted:I think several people have posted both practical and philosophical discussion points on why proliferating guns is a very poor way of ensuring safety, and by proxy self-defense, so I don't see why you're denying discussion is taking place. If somebody armed with a gun broke into your grandma's house, at 90 she'd probably be nowhere near able to get her gun to defend herself anyway. And if she did grab a gun, it's more likely to cause any armed person to kill her in their own "self-defence". And I'm sure there's a fair slice of demented, racist, half-blind old people out there just waiting to execute some black kid on their lawn. Because obviously, you can have your driving license taken away for being incompetent, but you won't take away granny's .45 Magnum, no sir. That is a big pile of assumptions there buddy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 17:41
|
|
|
Not sure if it's been posted but this article implies some rather alarming connections between gun ownership/proximity and suicide/homicide/injury.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 17:50
|
|
|
Crazyeyes posted:Not sure if it's been posted but this article implies some rather alarming connections between gun ownership/proximity and suicide/homicide/injury. Yeah, no poo poo, having a weapon around makes injury by that weapon more likely, thanks for that brilliant insight. Removing the tool isn't the solution. Instead of mass shootings you'd hear of mass bombings instead. The only way to prevent these tragedies from happening is addressing the mental state of these individuals. Anyone in a bad enough mental state that feels they have to harm other people at random will find a way to do it even if guns didn't exist anymore.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
Shoren posted:Yeah, no poo poo, having a weapon around makes injury by that weapon more likely, thanks for that brilliant insight. Removing the tool isn't the solution. Instead of mass shootings you'd hear of mass bombings instead. The only way to prevent these tragedies from happening is addressing the mental state of these individuals. Anyone in a bad enough mental state that feels they have to harm other people at random will find a way to do it even if guns didn't exist anymore. Most of the mentally ill shooters had an extensive history with doctors and therapists. There is not much to be done about people like the Aurora cinema shooter, until there is some fundamental breakthrough in neuroscience or medicine. My guess is that lot of the people wouldn't even accept any kind of help, due to the effects of their illness. Also, again, the US is the only developed country on the planet where this stuff happens on a regular basis.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 18:38
|
|
|
Shoren posted:Yeah, no poo poo, having a weapon around makes injury by that weapon more likely, thanks for that brilliant insight. Removing the tool isn't the solution. Instead of mass shootings you'd hear of mass bombings instead. The only way to prevent these tragedies from happening is addressing the mental state of these individuals. Anyone in a bad enough mental state that feels they have to harm other people at random will find a way to do it even if guns didn't exist anymore. No need too be rude. And yes. I agree with you. Proximity to dangerous things increases risk. That's why many dangerous things are regulated. It's a good thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 19:05
|
|
|
Shoren posted:Yeah, no poo poo, having a weapon around makes injury by that weapon more likely, thanks for that brilliant insight. Removing the tool isn't the solution. Instead of mass shootings you'd hear of mass bombings instead. The only way to prevent these tragedies from happening is addressing the mental state of these individuals. Anyone in a bad enough mental state that feels they have to harm other people at random will find a way to do it even if guns didn't exist anymore.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
bongwizzard posted:That is a big pile of assumptions there buddy. The 90 year olds I know are frail and have difficulty enough living without help. Maybe your grandmother carries her loaded pistol in her knickers even when she sleeps, and is a crack shot, I just have a hard time believing your average 90 year old could wake up to a home invasion, whip out their trusty firearm and put them down like dogs. Maybe in another world, granny gets scared and hides in bed while thieves make off with her several thousand dollars worth of porcelain figurines. She suffers emotional trauma, and claims on her home insurance. And in your world, she totters out and confronts whoever is in her home either to a) get hurt or die, b) hurt or kill someone else, c) successfully scare off the invader. Even the fact that a and b are possibilities casts doubt on the usefulness of arming people. I feel it is you who won't enter into discussion. I concede that pragmatically there is an argument for possessing a gun in today's America. But in the theoretical America of tomorrow, I see guns as a harmful thing. I don't think your claim that they benefit self-defense holds water. Can you prove that having millions of guns makes anyone safer, or that owning one enhances your own personal safety? Or is your belief just irrational?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 20:48
|
|
|
Shoren posted:Yeah, no poo poo, having a weapon around makes injury by that weapon more likely, thanks for that brilliant insight. Removing the tool isn't the solution. Instead of mass shootings you'd hear of mass bombings instead. The only way to prevent these tragedies from happening is addressing the mental state of these individuals. Anyone in a bad enough mental state that feels they have to harm other people at random will find a way to do it even if guns didn't exist anymore. poo poo, imagine if the Aurora theater attacker had just locked the doors and set the place on fire.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 18:02 |
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:poo poo, imagine if the Aurora theater attacker had just locked the doors and set the place on fire. You can't, that's the joke. As soon as you try to nail the emergency exits shut or drench the cinema in gasoline, the police would be on your rear end in minutes. You also couldn't have done what he did with knives. And he would have never bought all his guns from an illegal gun dealer in some ghetto either. The only way for the Aurora massacre to happen is easy and legal access to lots of guns for the mentally ill.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 21:43
|
|