|
Cease to Hope posted:It's American politics in general. It's hardly limited to guns. If you find discussing American politics futile, I'm not sure what this discussion has for you. Where did they say the discussion is futile? It really seems like y'all just keep twisting new ways to tell Mulva that they should stop posting here
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 19:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 15:10 |
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:It's American politics in general. It's hardly limited to guns. If you find discussing American politics futile, I'm not sure what this discussion has for you. It's not futile, there were a ton of things that could have happened along the way to ensure this situation never happened. It never had to be this way. And at some point things will probably change again. Possible not in my lifetime, but neither this situation nor this country are eternal. Conversely it is what it is, and pretending it isn't isn't actually talking about the issue. Guns in America aren't just "There are a lot of guns and there's a lot of gun violence and we should have less guns to have less gun violence. Maybe no guns!". Because even if you say "Even if we can't just get all the guns in one move we can pass common sense legislation to mitigate the harm they cause." we are right back to "The Supreme Court just struck down legislation like that with loving nothing.". Like it's the most vague and meaningless precedent that is now legally important because it came from 6 random assholes, and it's vagueness will be used to challenge a bunch of other poo poo that will in turn be decided by these assholes. So other than just arbitrarily not talking about reality at certain point it's going to be a bit of a downer conversation, because we aren't in a good place as a country. Like I said it was less than 2 weeks from "Oh a tiny bit of good news!" to "Open season on a lot of existing laws.". There was an entire week and change of a nice thing happening before we were back to kick to ribs. That is what we are dealing with, and pretending isn't going to make it go away.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 19:27
|
|
|
This could very well be my fault, but I'm finding it a bit hard to understand what points are being made here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 20:42
|
|
|
I have a hard time seeing how arguing that Americans are uniquely lovely in their relationship with guns isn't also an argument for much stricter gun control than the rest of the world.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2022 06:42
|
|
|
Xarn posted:I have a hard time seeing how arguing that Americans are uniquely lovely in their relationship with guns isn't also an argument for much stricter gun control than the rest of the world. It sounds like Mulva is trying to make the case for something along the lines of "unless you ban all guns, no gun control works because Americans are uniquely horrible"? But even though I've read and re-read all of the recent posts, the points being made seem very obfuscated. So I could be completely wrong about that. And if I am, Mulva/others, please correct me on that. But, if nothing else, this is the correct take Koos Group posted:I'm finding it a bit hard to understand what points are being made here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2022 06:51
|
|
|
It's really very simple to everyone who isn't an American. Ban Americans from owning guns Problem solved bing bong!
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2022 11:18
|
|
|
Communist Thoughts posted:It's really very simple to everyone who isn't an American. You could probably limit that to white men.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2022 11:24
|
|
|
Xarn posted:I have a hard time seeing how arguing that Americans are uniquely lovely in their relationship with guns isn't also an argument for much stricter gun control than the rest of the world. It is an argument. Now you only have to......convince Americans and their state to do it. Which is the argument. Maybe keeping it short will make that clearer.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2022 13:10
|
|
|
Mulva posted:It is an argument. Now you only have to......convince Americans and their state to do it. I'm still confused. If this is your argument, why have you stated multiple times, or at least inferred, that passing gun control legislation doesn't matter because of SCOTUS (bolded parts mine)? Mulva posted:Why are you asking me like you didn't do it yourself? If you think it's a bad idea you also could have...not done it. I've said why I did it, it's part of the post you didn't respond to. I think policy itself is irrelevant if it doesn't talk about how it's going to enact change, and that the most important part of that process is the people and systems that would have to enact that change. Their character is the point. On the 12th I was mildly shocked that it seemed like the smallest bit of positive gun control would happen with that boyfriend loophole. I was quickly reminded of why I had the views I had when less than 2 weeks later the Supreme Court just went "lol naw" to some entirely straightforward gun legislation from New York, and did so in a way that can challenge a whole lot of state laws across the entire country. Mulva posted:It's not futile, there were a ton of things that could have happened along the way to ensure this situation never happened. It never had to be this way. And at some point things will probably change again. Possible not in my lifetime, but neither this situation nor this country are eternal. Conversely it is what it is, and pretending it isn't isn't actually talking about the issue. Guns in America aren't just "There are a lot of guns and there's a lot of gun violence and we should have less guns to have less gun violence. Maybe no guns!". Because even if you say "Even if we can't just get all the guns in one move we can pass common sense legislation to mitigate the harm they cause." we are right back to "The Supreme Court just struck down legislation like that with loving nothing.". Like it's the most vague and meaningless precedent that is now legally important because it came from 6 random assholes, and it's vagueness will be used to challenge a bunch of other poo poo that will in turn be decided by these assholes. Kalit fucked around with this message at 13:58 on Jul 1, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2022 13:52
|
|
|
Kalit posted:I'm still confused. If this is your argument, why have you stated, or at least inferred, multiple times that passing gun control legislation doesn't matter because of SCOTUS (bolded parts mine)? What's confusing about this? In addition to getting laws passed we have to deal with a corrupted system and unaccountable wizards. These are not contradictory arguments, these are barriers that exist. Edit- were you actually confused by the rhetorical use of "you only have to"? I think that was meant not so much as a statement that there was only one barrier but a rhetorical statement on the unlikelihood of overcoming that barrier and reaching the next. Edit- on for further reflection the unaccountable wizards are included in the "and their state". Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 14:05 on Jul 1, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2022 13:57
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:What's confusing about this? In addition to getting laws passed we have to deal with a corrupted system and unaccountable wizards. These are not contradictory arguments, these are barriers that exist. While they might not be 100% contradictory things, if that's Mulva's position, then the order these two things occur absolutely matters*. So why bother stating passing laws is the issue in that summarized statement I responded to? Especially when they were handwaving away gun legislation that was passed! *Just to explicitly spell it out, if SCOTUS is the issue, those laws will just get struck down again. Then, if these "unaccountable wizards" ever change to whatever criteria you (and/or Mulva, if they agree with your response here) deem necessary, those laws will still need to be passed again. Kalit fucked around with this message at 14:28 on Jul 1, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2022 14:11
|
|
|
Kalit posted:I'm still confused. If this is your argument, why have you stated multiple times, or at least inferred, that passing gun control legislation doesn't matter because of SCOTUS (bolded parts mine)? ....and their state didn't cover it for you?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2022 14:49
|
|
|
Mulva posted:....and their state didn't cover it for you? See my above posted response to Harold Fjord. Why bother bringing up citizens' views (who 100% do not impact SCOTUS rulings) and the legislative/executive branches?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2022 14:52
|
|
|
Kalit posted:See my above posted response Harold Fjord. Why bother bringing up citizens' views (who 100% do not impact SCOTUS rulings) and congress/the executive branch? Because everything matters. It's not a one part problem. People need to support gun control, their representatives need to support gun control, the courts need to support gun control. If any part of that process fails, you get nothing. The people and their representatives can support gun control, but if the courts say "Lol nah" it's done. Now you need their representatives to support gun control and holding the courts to task. The representatives of the people and the courts can support gun control, and if the people don't? They elect representatives that don't and will pack the courts. The people and the courts could support it, but if their representatives don't they can make it impossible to do anything. e: Why is that throwing you? Mulva fucked around with this message at 16:02 on Jul 1, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2022 14:55
|
|
|
And of course we also have federal and state layers. Important because you can align everything up at the state level and then get shut down by scotus. Lots of different places agents of capital can step in and shut it all down. I guess if we're already just talking about the federal layer is covered. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 15:06 on Jul 1, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2022 15:03
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:You could probably limit that to white men. Tell me you've never opened a history book or stepped outside the US without telling me you've never opened a history book or stepped outside the US.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2022 21:13
|
|
|
Serious posts please, gentlemen.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2022 21:44
|
|
|
Ok. I'm reading the Columbine book that I think was recommended in another thread. It's shocking how little changed. Eric was clearly not ok, he's been reported to the cops who knew about his vandalism and theft and hate lists on the www and pipe bombs and did nothing. They got the guns by getting an 18 year old friend get them into a gun show and buying another from some guy. Something that as far as I can tell anyone could still do. The cops stood outside and took three hours to clear the school (though apparently that was the SOP at the time). And then they covered up knowing about Eric and Dylan before the shooting. I haven't finished the book but as far as I can tell so far, it seems that their concern wasn't the lack of UHC or their 401k. So I think if teenagers everywhere had easy access to guns, there would be a lot more school shootings everywhere, because teenage depression and believing everyone is beneath you is hardly an exceptional thing. Of course school shootings are statistically not a significant risk, but if it's enough to do active shooter drills, it's enough to address in a more direct way. Other gun murders have different causes obviously but fewer guns everywhere would help regardless. E: just got to the part where the NRA held its convention in Denver 10 days after the shooting 
mobby_6kl fucked around with this message at 23:29 on Jul 1, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2022 22:18
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qsYcXEoIyo Saw an interesting take that tries to analyze masse shootings through a social and Freudian lens. The TLDR is that while gun control is an important component, it's only half the equation. The other half is the way our society raises children in an atomized society, especially boys. The one assertion which IMO she got wrong is that this violence is a result of bullied children lashing out, but other than that I think there's a lot of interesting stuff for discussion. Cpt_Obvious fucked around with this message at 23:44 on Jul 1, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2022 23:35
|
|
|
Bullying is the norm among conservatives, who believe everyone else exists to the detriment of themselves. So while they themselves are likely bullies, they are often learning it at home. Hurt people hurt people and all that jazz
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2022 23:44
|
|
|
The thing is, though, that while there are many many factors, none of them are unique to the US except ease of access to firearms. I guess you could argue that the specific combination and ratio of factors is unique to the US but it's just a cop-out. Of course we should also address all the factors that contribute to this, but downplaying the role our gun culture plays is just appeasement.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2022 01:49
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:You could probably limit that to white men. You Americans and seeing everything through race. No children, the sickness is within all of you
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2022 15:21
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Bullying is the norm among conservatives, who believe everyone else exists to the detriment of themselves. So while they themselves are likely bullies, they are often learning it at home. Hurt people hurt people and all that jazz Funny how when you teach boys the only acceptable emotional outlet is anger and violence, that's how they act out when dealing with emotional problems endemic to being a teenager.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2022 16:02
|
|
|
Tuxedo Gin posted:The thing is, though, that while there are many many factors, none of them are unique to the US except ease of access to firearms. I guess you could argue that the specific combination and ratio of factors is unique to the US but it's just a cop-out. Of course we should also address all the factors that contribute to this, but downplaying the role our gun culture plays is just appeasement. The problem is that there are other countries with plenty of access to firearms, and yet America remains basically the only one with a mass shooting problem. Sure, getting rid of the guns would solve the problem purely because it destroys the medium by which the violence is expressed, but the violence remains under the surface and finds other ways to come out. Even if the civilian population were to have those guns taken away, lot of those would-be psychos will simply seek positions of power where they can be violent assholes without fear of reprisal.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2022 16:15
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Funny how when you teach boys the only acceptable emotional outlet is anger and violence, that's how they act out when dealing with emotional problems endemic to being a teenager. If you're suggesting that addressing toxic masculinity is a good way to address gun violence (since we are in the gun control thread), it doesn't seem like a feasible/optimal way to go about that to me. Toxic masculinity/bullying is still a massive problem in .... probably every country? Mass shootings are not. This makes it seem like one issue is much easier to solve than the other to me..... E: Cpt_Obvious posted:The problem is that there are other countries with plenty of access to firearms, and yet America remains basically the only one with a mass shooting problem. Sure, getting rid of the guns would solve the problem purely because it destroys the medium by which the violence is expressed, but the violence remains under the surface and finds other ways to come out. Even if the civilian population were to have those guns taken away, lot of those would-be psychos will simply seek positions of power where they can be violent assholes without fear of reprisal. I suggest you look at https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2015/12/4/9850572/gun-control-us-japan-switzerland-uk-canada to look at the difference of our gun control laws vs other countries. Even though Switzerland is one of the less restrictive countries for guns outside of the US, they still have requirements such as (for handguns): quote:Private gun ownership generally requires a license, for which an applicant "must be at least 18 years of age, may not have been placed under guardianship, may not give cause for suspicion that he would endanger himself or others with the weapon, and may not have a criminal record with a conviction for a violent crime or of several convictions for nonviolent crimes," according to the Library of Congress's review of Swiss gun laws. The license is valid for six to nine months, and it's usually valid only for one weapon. Kalit fucked around with this message at 16:55 on Jul 2, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2022 16:47
|
|
|
It's not a matter of easier it's that they are inextricably entangled
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2022 16:54
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:It's not a matter of easier it's that they are inextricably entangled But you can [mostly] mitigate one threat even if you haven't solved the other. So why wouldn't you want to focus on the concrete solution for one that's been solved by other countries in the mean time while you try to find the unknown solution to the other one? Kalit fucked around with this message at 17:00 on Jul 2, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2022 16:57
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:The problem is that there are other countries with plenty of access to firearms no, there really isn't anything that comes even close to the US. setting aside tiny countries and countries that are an active warzone, the US has 3-4 times the guns per capita as the next closest countries: serbia, canada, uruguay, and finland, which have ~32-40 guns per 100 people. even if literally every gun in those countries is held in private ownership by a different individual household, the US still comes out way ahead, as 44% of american households have a gun. on top of that, those countries all have fairly restrictive gun laws, limiting what kinds of guns may be owned, and requiring licensing, tracking, and safe storage. they do not have nonsense like legal open carry. sure, it would also be good to address the underlying causes of crime and suicide. but the US has a unique gun problem on top of that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2022 17:43
|
|
|
Communist Thoughts posted:You Americans and seeing everything through race. Absolutely, and yet I'm still willing to bet if you disarmed and pacified the white male population most of these problems would go away. Yes, the problem is not exclusive to white people or to men... but as the source of most of our specific problems I feel like the country would be better off if we were defanged.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2022 17:43
|
|
|
Kalit posted:I suggest you look at https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2015/12/4/9850572/gun-control-us-japan-switzerland-uk-canada to look at the difference of our gun control laws vs other countries. Even though Switzerland is one of the less restrictive countries for guns outside of the US, they still have requirements such as (for handguns): IMO none of these regulations would have prevented Uvalde. He didnt use a handgun, and if the restrictions were similar for rifles then the kid would have just grabbed his fathers guns and done the same thing. Which raises the important question of "why isn't any other country having a similar epidemic?" which i think that video does a good job trying to explain.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2022 17:46
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:the kid would have just grabbed his fathers guns and done the same thing. he did not live with his father and his grandmother did not own guns. additionally, the gun he killed those people with is illegal is canada, uruguay, and all of europe. canada and the EU ban large magazines, while uruguay bans semi-automatic rifles with a caliber larger than .22LR as well as large magazines. additionally, those countries require you to go and get licensed to buy a gun.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2022 17:58
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:IMO none of these regulations would have prevented Uvalde. He didnt use a handgun, and if the restrictions were similar for rifles then the kid would have just grabbed his fathers guns and done the same thing. You still need a license for semiautomatic rifles in Switzerland: https://www.ch.ch/en/safety-and-justice/owning-a-weapon-in-switzerland/ (that's giving the benefit of the doubt these rifles do not count as "large magazines", which I'm unsure of). And in Canada. The UK has banned them completely. The Uvalde shooter bought an AR rifle days after his 18th birthday. So, no, it's far from a fact to claim that it would have still happened And why are you trying to make an incredibly false claim, such as "would have just grabbed his fathers guns"? His father hadn't even seen him for at least a month before this occurred. The shooter lived with his grandparents, who didn't have any guns in their house. Stop trying to make wild claims that directly contradict what happened. E: Beaten, but yea, what Cease to Hope said Kalit fucked around with this message at 18:41 on Jul 2, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2022 18:22
|
|
|
Shooting in a mall in Copenhagen today, 3 people killed. https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-europe-62031793 BBC posted:We are expecting an update from Copenhagen police in the next hour but before then let's take a look at what we know so far:
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2022 01:55
|
|
|
Shooting at Fourth of July parade in Highland Park, Illinois, leaves at least 5 dead, 16 wounded, city saysquote:One parade attendee, Miles Zaremski, said he heard what he believed to be about 20 to 30 gunshots, in two consecutive spurts of gunfire, at about 10:20 a.m. CT, 20 minutes after the start of the parade. The hail of gunfire caused a stampede of people to flee, he said. He told CNN he saw a number of people bloodied and on the ground and described the scene as chaotic. https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/04/us/highland-park-illinois-shooting-july-4-parade/index.html
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2022 18:53
|
|
|
On the live feed on CNN reporter said neighboring towns of Highland Park still want to do their 4th of July celebrations.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2022 19:18
|
|
|
Jiro posted:On the live feed on CNN reporter said neighboring towns of Highland Park still want to do their 4th of July celebrations. As the Protagonist of Reality this will not happen to me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2022 19:20
|
|
|
What was that about Denmark again? At least 60 shots were fired, 6 dead and 24-30 injured. I think the main difference with Denmark is that they are going to find out why he was allowed to own a (bolt-action) rifle and fix the issue or loophole so that it doesn't happen.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2022 22:02
|
|
|
The main difference with Denmark is that was the most people killed in a shooting there since the Nazis occupied the country.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2022 22:05
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:What was that about Denmark again? I did a quick lookup on Denmark gun laws in Wikipedia. Apparently it's not the hardest thing in the world to legally own a bolt action rifle there. I mean it's light-years more difficult than in the US but that's not saying much. Semi auto rifles on the other hand, that's nearly impossible and handguns are difficult but not impossible to legally own.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2022 22:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 15:10 |
|
|
Charliegrs posted:I did a quick lookup on Denmark gun laws in Wikipedia. Apparently it's not the hardest thing in the world to legally own a bolt action rifle there. I mean it's light-years more difficult than in the US but that's not saying much. Semi auto rifles on the other hand, that's nearly impossible and handguns are difficult but not impossible to legally own. Yes, I didn't write it in the post but there were early rumors that he's had some violent mental breakdowns which should've prevented him from having a gun. But it's very early on so there's no clear picture wtf happened.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2022 23:14
|
|