Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
SealHammer
Jul 4, 2010
Click to understand my bad faith posting.

Khizan posted:

You see, we need guns because the solution to mass shootings is a bunch of untrained people with minimal range time and dreams of heroism engaging in unaimed panic fire.

Am I the only one who thinks this would be really interesting to see, even once? It would sure break up the loathsome monotony of "Guy walks into place and point-blank executes a whole bunch of people in comically unhurried manner."

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

SealHammer
Jul 4, 2010
Click to understand my bad faith posting.

Miranda posted:

Thanks, I appreciate your input. So when we have all these shootings, what do these people say is the answer?

There are primarily two schools of thought on this as far as I've seen:

On one hand, you have the people who want to go ham with a weaponry-based approach -- put firearms in the hands of more people, abolish gun-free zones, and cultivate a kind of social self-defense mindset. The idea is that the kinds of people who carry out mass shootings tend to be looking for large groups of helpless people who are unable to retaliate. So, by putting guns in the hands of the intended victims, it's supposed to ward off those who are just looking for an easy power fantasy, or at least mitigate their ability to do harm.

On the other hand, you have the people who want to focus down with a people-based approach. Not necessarily neutering the availability of weapons or their capabilities, but introducing a system that tracks at-risk individuals and (this is a point of contention for many) potentially stops them from buying firearms in the first place. Basically Minority Report but for gun owners. There are also suggestions of mandatory mental health screenings and that kind of thing but, as you can imagine, it's hard to get people to all completely agree on something like that!

SealHammer
Jul 4, 2010
Click to understand my bad faith posting.

Sockmuppet posted:

Well, yeah. And not get involved with organized crime. It helps that there are fewer people around with guns that we need to defend ourselves from. It's just not a big thing people go around worrying about, other than the usual common sense measures you take to stay safe in a big city. The possibility of a home invasion has never occured to me. It's probably because I don't own large amounts of valuables, I'm sure paranoid pensioners who keep their money under their beds worry more about it than I do, possibly gun ownership is more common among them.

Last year (I think) there was an above average number of rapes here, and there was much in the media about how women should and could protect themselves - aquiring guns was not even mentioned as a possibility, or brought up at all. The entire culture is just so completely different, which is why the "MAH GUNS!"-reaction a lot of people in this thread are having, is incredibly strange to watch. The current big media debate is whether or not the police should be allowed to carry weapons at all times (which they've been doing for a while as an "emergency measure" against terrorism - but it's not an emergency measure when it's been going on for close to a year, so people are asking if they should make it official or just go back to the old ways.)

There are actually 1.3 million registered guns owned by the civilian population of Norway (there are slightly over 5 million people living here in total), and 1 in 10 people own one or more, but guns are for hunting and sport, we just have a lot of hunters (over 200 000, apparently!) and people shooting for sport. Owning a gun for self defence is a completely foreign thought for everyone exept lunatics and criminals who feel they have to defend themselves against other criminals with guns.

I'm glad you live in a place where people don't break into your home or attack you (especially in groups) with the immediate intent to cause you serious physical injury or death. That doesn't negate the many, many experiences of people living in places like the US where they have, through no fault of their own, been beset by circumstances where they needed the force afforded by firearms to rightfully protect themselves or others.

SealHammer
Jul 4, 2010
Click to understand my bad faith posting.

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?

You never hear of anything like that here in Australia. It's usually people breaking into houses to steal stuff, getting surprised by the person living there and then they might freak out and throw a punch or two before legging it, but just wanting to hurt someone is far from the reason they broke in.

The only time I ever hear about people breaking in specifically just to hurt someone is when the people involved know each other already.

I don't know the exact statistics on "Home invasion/invasion of property with intent to inflict aggravated bodily harm or murder" because that doesn't sound like a thing, but I see stories like these:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheshire,_Connecticut,_home_invasion_murders
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaBMV2BfwBc
http://www.wndu.com/home/headlines/Elkhart-pastors-daughter-dies-in-brutal-home-invasion-346013192.html
http://www.wthr.com/story/4978809/police-seek-suspect-in-indianapolis-murders
http://atlanta.suntimes.com/atl-news/7/78/207183/home-invasion-scripture/

often enough that I don't blame people if they've resolved to fortify themselves against the potential of becoming a victim. A not-insignificant number of people in this world are violent, unpredictable sociopaths. It's not outside the realm of possibility that your regular Joe Schmo could live long enough to be the opportune target of such a person's wanton aggression even just once. Awareness and preparation could mean the difference between life and death for these morally innocent people.

SealHammer
Jul 4, 2010
Click to understand my bad faith posting.

hey now aren't you supposed to just be shitposting?

  • Locked thread