|
sebzilla posted:These things would have not happened if there were no guns. Next thing I want to know is how did guns get to be so plentiful in the U.S. versus other countries? When, chronologically, did gun ownership per capita in the U.S. reach into the dozens as opposed to one or two and when did people really start to stockpile guns? Was it during the Wild West period? During the Civil Rights movement of the 60s/70s?
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 16:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 13:47 |
|
|
Buried alive posted: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. But cases like Elliot Rodger are vanishingly rare compared to the whole of gun violence, which is primarily economically driven. If the argument is about "how to stop gun violence", "reducing wealth inequality" seems like a reasonable mitigation with many other positive benefits. Plus it avoids annoying and intractable second amendment debates. It would get us 90% of the way there. We can think about the remainder down the line.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 16:38
|
|
. Yes, I'm generalizing for comedic value. Deal with it.
|
it is posted:Actually, making suicide more inconvenient is a great way to prevent suicide. Suicide isn't like murder; people aren't so determined to kill themselves that they'll use whatever method they have available. They'll psych themselves up to it and if that doesn't pan out and they're forced to reconsider they almost universally regret it. An example: putting nets and fences next to bridges actually reduces the overall suicide rate of the surrounding area. Murder isn't like this either; the unstoppable psychopath home invader is a suburban boogeyman more than a reality. In real life, murder rates go down when its raining. Violent criminals are in fact human beings and subject to the same trivial motivations as the rest of us.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 16:42
|
|
|
Your Dunkle Sans posted:Next thing I want to know is how did guns get to be so plentiful in the U.S. versus other countries? When, chronologically, did gun ownership per capita in the U.S. reach into the dozens as opposed to one or two and when did people really start to stockpile guns? Was it during the Wild West period? During the Civil Rights movement of the 60s/70s? It's to avoid this; 
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 16:47
|
|
|
ashgromnies posted:But cases like Elliot Rodger are vanishingly rare compared to the whole of gun violence, which is primarily economically driven. This is a good point, I'll reduce wealth inequality over lunch and see how that goes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
Mahnarch posted:It's to avoid this; At least this is an argument that could make sense, although if memory serves not all of these dictators seriously disarmed their populace. Most rose to power through an armed civil conflict or even democracy. So armed resistance did occur, but failed. If an American tyranny were to come about, you can be fairly certain it would be backed by a large and armed proportion of the population anyway. The idea that a dictator wouldn't be able to flourish because every morally upright American under God would defend themselves to the death their property when the Ronald McDonald Sturmabteilung stomps up in red, white and blue jackboots is a touch naive, I think.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 17:13
|
|
|
Mahnarch posted:It's to avoid this; ...But that has nothing to do with my question.  I asked when and how, not why.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
Your Dunkle Sans posted:...But that has nothing to do with my question. No one will be able to tell you with any real authority. Manufacturers would probably be in the best source based on units shipped.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 18:28
|
|
|
sebzilla posted:These things would have not happened if there were no guns. Poof all guns in the US disappear. Poof criminals have guns brought in from Mexico.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 18:29
|
|
|
sebzilla posted:These things would have not happened if there were no guns. What life benefits does being a glib idiot afford you?? Why are you trolling me so brutally
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
Tremblay posted:Poof all guns in the US disappear. Poof criminals have guns brought in from Mexico. Cops shoot homeless man with illegal Mexican guns? Non-specific argument people also have shipped in illegal guns for the purpose of shooting people who annoy them in the feet? Ok, fine, your country is hosed, continue shooting each other, it's probably for the best. wiffle ball bat posted:What life benefits does being a glib idiot afford you?? Why are you trolling me so brutally I have all this pent up frustration from not shooting anything with guns.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
Your Dunkle Sans posted:Next thing I want to know is how did guns get to be so plentiful in the U.S. versus other countries? When, chronologically, did gun ownership per capita in the U.S. reach into the dozens as opposed to one or two and when did people really start to stockpile guns? Was it during the Wild West period? During the Civil Rights movement of the 60s/70s? The answer to this is "never" because the per capita rate is still around 1 per citizen. I've seen estimates of 80 million gun owners or so, so assuming 300-350 million firearms in the US, that's around 3-4 firearms per gun owner. I have no idea about actual statistics on this, but the super-hoarders are few and far between. 3-4 firearms is nothing out of the ordinary and makes perfect sense if you think about the various types of weapons. A handgun, rifle, shotgun, and maybe a plinker/varmint gun cover most common sporting and defense uses, as well as target shooting.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
confused by thing---->>>seek to understand thing----->>>learn information about thing---->>>become a person who knows a thing it's a good system, works for a lot of people
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
it is posted:This is a good point, I'll reduce wealth inequality over lunch and see how that goes. Yeah as soon as I reduced wealth inequality there were like 3 mass shootings so I don't know what to think anymore
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 20:48
|
|
|
Governor Malloy (CT) announced his intent today to ban gun sales to all persons on the federal no-fly list. You know, the list that is not regulated in any way whatsoever, doesn't require a criminal conviction, and is nigh impossible to be removed from. You're all one really bad internet comedy forum post from being banned from buying a gun in CT, ever. http://www.courant.com/politics/hc-no-fly-list-connecticut-20151210-story.html https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/until-no-fly-list-fixed-it-shouldnt-be-used-restrict-peoples-freedoms Executive orders seem to be the flavor of the month for forcing through terrible ideas because they would never pass the legislative branch. antiga fucked around with this message at 01:37 on Dec 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 01:09
|
|
|
antiga posted:Governor Malloy (CT) announced his intent today to ban gun sales to all persons on the federal no-fly list. You know, the list that is not regulated in any way whatsoever, doesn't require a criminal conviction, and is nigh impossible to be removed from. You're all one really bad internet comedy forum post from being banned from buying a gun in CT, ever. Well that's one way to burn money.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 02:16
|
|
|
Rudager posted:Is it really that common for people to just break into homes and cause injury or death for the fun of it in America? There's a lot of crazy in America. It's old data since it isn't compiled regularly apparently, but according to the US DOJ, between 2003 and 2007 there were over a million home invasions with a member of the household home. Of those 266,560 cases were reported where the person in the home was a victim of violence.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 02:41
|
|
|
sebzilla posted:Cops shoot homeless man with illegal Mexican guns? Non-specific argument people also have shipped in illegal guns for the purpose of shooting people who annoy them in the feet? Ok, fine, your country is hosed, continue shooting each other, it's probably for the best. I'm sorry, did we pivot topics because you didn't like the rebuttal? P.S. Poverty and the crime surrounding it are a large part of the reason police shootings happen in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 03:04
|
|
|
I for one can't wait for Obama to pass his executive order that the police can't have guns
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 03:32
|
|
|
ashgromnies posted:But cases like Elliot Rodger are vanishingly rare compared to the whole of gun violence, which is primarily economically driven. I agree, but the OP asked about mass shootings, not gun violence in general, so that's what I was responding to. Mass shootings, to me, have a theme of something like "an individual who is not part of an (illegitimate?) group which already pursues violent actions comes to believe that killing a bunch of <target group> is the answer to the world's (or at least his) problems, and then does so in a short time frame with one or more firearms." That belief part might narrow it down a bit too much, but I think that's a fair stab at a definition that includes most of what is generally thought of as a mass shooting while excluding most of what is generally not thought of as a mass shooting. Now maybe it's wrong that some things aren't thought of as mass shootings, like gang drive-by's and such, but if there's disagreement there then that needs to be settled before we can talk about mass shootings at all. Maybe we should have a taxonomy of mass shootings, lone-wolf types vs. those motivated by groups and such. Except of course the thread seems to have moved on to gun violence in general and gun control, so V  V
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 05:42
|
|
|
Your Dunkle Sans posted:Next thing I want to know is how did guns get to be so plentiful in the U.S. versus other countries? When, chronologically, did gun ownership per capita in the U.S. reach into the dozens as opposed to one or two and when did people really start to stockpile guns? Was it during the Wild West period? During the Civil Rights movement of the 60s/70s? Oddly enough, there was a fair amount of gun control in the (not really all that very) Wild West. In a significant number of towns you were required to leave your weapon with the local sheriff as a condition of entry and got it back when you left. Sadly the legend of the gunslinging cowboy duels are more fiction than fact, with a couple of exceptions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 10:32
|
|
|
Geniasis posted:Oddly enough, there was a fair amount of gun control in the (not really all that very) Wild West. In a significant number of towns you were required to leave your weapon with the local sheriff as a condition of entry and got it back when you left. In the Antebullum south they were all about making sure that people wanting a gun had to get permission from the local sheriff to get a gun. Want to make bets over who was allowed to have a gun and who was denied?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 14:03
|
|
|
thrakkorzog posted:In the Antebullum south they were all about making sure that people wanting a gun had to get permission from the local sheriff to get a gun. Want to make bets over who was allowed to have a gun and who was denied? The great-grandparents of the same people that may-issue states allow/deny now you mean
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 14:31
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:The great-grandparents of the same people that may-issue states allow/deny now you mean amusingly inverted in this video
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 14:35
|
|
|
I've spent some time digesting all the thoughts and information in this thread, and have come to the conclusion that America's gun violence crisis could be averted by enforcing all weapons sold in America be designed as horrifyingly realistic penis simulacra. They can still serve the purpose of self-defense, but no longer are fetishised by whackjobs, and the desire to concealed carry falls through the floor. It would be even better if every male gun owner was forced to take a plaster cast of their own junk upon which his own guns would be modelled, but of course, I'm a reasonable guy and that might be practically a little difficult to implement. This method solves almost every gun related ill in America, while preserving the second Amendment. God bless.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 14:57
|
|
|
it is posted:This is a good point, I'll reduce wealth inequality over lunch and see how that goes. It seems easier and more socially beneficial than getting guns off the streets and passing/enforcing more gun control laws, so please do. It's like you have no historical perspective of the widening wealth gap and the actually effective things politicians have been able to do in the past that have unfortunately fallen by the wayside, thanks in no small part to people like you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 15:49
|
|
|
Buried alive posted:I agree, but the OP asked about mass shootings, not gun violence in general, so that's what I was responding to. Mass shootings, to me, have a theme of something like "an individual who is not part of an (illegitimate?) group which already pursues violent actions comes to believe that killing a bunch of <target group> is the answer to the world's (or at least his) problems, and then does so in a short time frame with one or more firearms." That belief part might narrow it down a bit too much, but I think that's a fair stab at a definition that includes most of what is generally thought of as a mass shooting while excluding most of what is generally not thought of as a mass shooting. Now maybe it's wrong that some things aren't thought of as mass shootings, like gang drive-by's and such, but if there's disagreement there then that needs to be settled before we can talk about mass shootings at all. Maybe we should have a taxonomy of mass shootings, lone-wolf types vs. those motivated by groups and such. Indiscriminate mass shootings are pretty rare. Statistically there are many other things you should be worried about first -- the current hysteria is more a product of the media than any legitimate danger. I would also like to point out that many of the indiscriminate mass shooters are socially isolated people without much opportunity. They generally feel ostracized from society, and an anger and elitism towards it. A system that has a focus on involving people, getting them to participate in society, and not letting them fall through the cracks could help those situations as well. BF Skinner was right that humans can be pretty effectively conditioned. We can see it in the social differences of countries with more indiscriminate mass killings versus those without.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 15:58
|
|
|
Jeza posted:I've spent some time digesting all the thoughts and information in this thread, and have come to the conclusion that America's gun violence crisis could be averted by enforcing all weapons sold in America be designed as horrifyingly realistic penis simulacra. They can still serve the purpose of self-defense, but no longer are fetishised by whackjobs, and the desire to concealed carry falls through the floor. I support the Cronenberg Amendment
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 16:18
|
|
|
ashgromnies posted:Indiscriminate mass shootings are pretty rare. Statistically there are many other things you should be worried about first -- the current hysteria is more a product of the media than any legitimate danger. Social alienation had nothing to do with Holmes killing spree quote:According to Holmes, during his childhood, he was frightened of what he called "Nail Ghosts" that would hammer on the walls at night. He would also see shadows and "flickers" at the corners of his eyes, which would fight each other with firearms and other weapons. Holmes saw Margaret Roth once before she sent him to psychiatrist Lynne Fenton.[25] Holmes was depressed and "obsessed with killing for over a decade" That dude was legitimately insane from childhood or birth. You either support some form of gun control or you support his right to have guns. How can there be any middle ground here?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 16:25
|
|
|
ashgromnies posted:It seems easier and more socially beneficial than getting guns off the streets and passing/enforcing more gun control laws, so please do. I was making fun of you for treating "reduce wealth inequality" like an easy problem with a one-step solution.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 16:39
|
|
|
it is posted:I was making fun of you for treating "reduce wealth inequality" like an easy problem with a one-step solution. Except he never said that. He said it was easier and far more beneficial than trying to enact strong gun regulation and eliminate a significant portion of the firearms in the US. That doesn't translate into "one step solution". The point is that nearly everyone can get behind more prosperity, less poverty, and less crime. It's an overwhelmingly positive goal that improves peoples quality of life and doesn't trample on their constitutional and basic rights.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
LogisticEarth posted:Except he never said that. He said it was easier and far more beneficial than trying to enact strong gun regulation and eliminate a significant portion of the firearms in the US. That doesn't translate into "one step solution". The point is that nearly everyone can get behind more prosperity, less poverty, and less crime. It's an overwhelmingly positive goal that improves peoples quality of life and doesn't trample on their constitutional and basic rights. That's commie talk.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 18:22
|
|
|
waitwhatno posted:That dude was legitimately insane from childhood or birth. You either support some form of gun control or you support his right to have guns. How can there be any middle ground here? The challenge is defining criteria that should be used to disqualify a person from purchasing, getting that information into NICS in a timely fashion, doing so without violating that individuals privacy rights, and creating a process that works to get the hold removed after folks are healthy again. None of that is easy, and no one seems to want to tackle it. In general getting records in to NICS in a timely, and correct manner seems to be an issue.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
Tremblay posted:The challenge is defining criteria that should be used to disqualify a person from purchasing, getting that information into NICS in a timely fashion, doing so without violating that individuals privacy rights, and creating a process that works to get the hold removed after folks are healthy again. None of that is easy, and no one seems to want to tackle it. Privacy rights don't mean anything if the psych evaluator believes they are a risk to themselves or others. Situations such as "this person suffers from severe delusions and violent tendencies. If you give them a gun they very well may do something with it" should definitely count into that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
Crazyeyes posted:Privacy rights don't mean anything if the psych evaluator believes they are a risk to themselves or others. Situations such as "this person suffers from severe delusions and violent tendencies. If you give them a gun they very well may do something with it" should definitely count into that. I don't necessarily disagree with you. However working on this kind of minutia no matter how helpful: 1. Doesn't rally the base 2. Doesn't make nice sound bites for politicians
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 22:52
|
|
|
Tremblay posted:I don't necessarily disagree with you. However working on this kind of minutia no matter how helpful: Sadly agreed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
Additional question, spurred on by the budget negotiations. What is the counterargument to CDC funding into gun-related deaths? I know funding has been stripped for a long time, and a tit-for-tat trade has been proposed that would lift the ban in exchange in for removing the ban on US oil exports. The NRA is upset about this possibility, and I read that the guy who originally added the language banning funding for studies has regretted it ever since.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 03:12
|
|
|
There is no ban and never was; the CDC published one methodologically sloppy study by a researcher who'd previously expressed strong anti-gun sentiments that the NRA and conservative politicians interpreted as the CDC using public funding to stump for Clinton's pet policies, and in 96 Congress earmarked the exact portion of their budget that went to that particular study to research brain injury instead. The CDC at the time stopped making definitive gun-related policy recommendations (they continued to track firearm-related fatalities), Democrats started spinning it into some elaborate conspiracy by the gun Elders of Zion to suppress the terrible secret that the Democrats were right all along, the CDC resumed research into gun violence but the results weren't OMG BAN ASSAULT RIFLES NOW so nobody paid attention and Democrats kept on truckin' with the exact same talking point as though nothing had happened. You will, notably, have a pretty hard time finding the specific text or any details about these studies for how high-profile they are, and none of the articles pushing this narrative will either name, link, or clearly describe them, because their actual findings are far less interesting or useful than the myth that the facts aren't on the author's side because of a shadowy plot to suppress The Truth. So here they are Here's the 1993 Kellerman study that pissed everyone off http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506 Here's a 2003 report specifically on the effects of gun laws http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm Here's the one Obama commissioned and then abruptly stopped talking about in 2013 http://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1 Here's a CDC study investigating a particular community in detail, from this year http://dhss.delaware.gov/dhss/dms/files/cdcgunviolencereport10315.pdf A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 05:57 on Dec 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 03:50
|
|
|
I have to say I am impressed on how polite this gun discussion is, compared to the poo poo shows that go on in the so called debate and discussion forum. I have only read a couple of condescending comments from people who hate guns as well as hate the people who own them. raven4267 fucked around with this message at 09:30 on Dec 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 07:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 13:47 |
|
|
it is posted:I was making fun of you for treating "reduce wealth inequality" like an easy problem with a one-step solution. Almost like believing "reduce the number of guns on the street" is an easy/possible thing to do. It's politically impossible. Reducing wealth inequality can at least be spun as protective nationalism and grab some republicans, because there's no ideological consistency to them. I've been suggesting this idea lately and have had plenty of right wingers say it sounds like a great idea because it doesn't touch their guns. That's step one to convincing them to support full socialism without telling them it's what they're supporting.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 15:19
|
|