Gun Talk - News, Laws, etc. [Archive] - Page 8

allegro

08-26-2015, 02:33 PM

http://abcnews.go.com/US/shooting-alleged-gunman-details-grievances-suicide-notes/story?id=33336339

For fuck's sake! He's piggy backing off of that cro-mag knuckle dragging asswipe Dylan Roof? What a turd.
This guy was nuts. Just nuts. He says it was race-related but it's also because he was gay.

In an often rambling letter to the authorities, and family and friends, he writes of a long list of grievances. In one part of the document, Williams calls it a “Suicide Note for Friends and Family."

* He says has suffered racial discrimination, sexual harassment and bullying at work
* He says he has been attacked by black men and white females
* He talks about how he was attacked for being a gay, black man

I wonder if this guy had a mental history and he was incorrectly allowed to buy this gun.

"Jehovah spoke to him, telling him to act."

I don't usually watch these online videos, but I did watch this one, and each time this guy fired at this poor girl, I jumped and I almost FELT those hollow point bullets hit her, I swear, ugh, just terrible. And she was still running after being hit. Ugh, those poor people. Just terrible.

DigitalChaos

08-26-2015, 02:49 PM

I don't usually watch these online videos, but I did watch this one, and each time this guy fired at this poor girl, I jumped and I almost FELT those hollow point bullets hit her, I swear, ugh, just terrible. And she was still running after being hit. Ugh, those poor people. Just terrible.

The world now has first person footage of an ambush shooting... so there's that! ugh
(not counting cops shooting people, or military videos, or similar acts in other parts of the world)

It was really fucked up though. I hope their families and SO's don't ever see that video. The 10+ seconds of him just sitting there with his gun out and waiting for the right moment... I didn't know I had that area of emotion left to be desensitized.

Archive_Reports

08-26-2015, 03:08 PM

The world now has first person footage of an ambush shooting... so there's that! ugh
(not counting cops shooting people, or military videos, or similar acts in other parts of the world)

It was really fucked up though. I hope their families and SO's don't ever see that video. The 10+ seconds of him just sitting there with his gun out and waiting for the right moment... I didn't know I had that area of emotion left to be desensitized.

The worst part has to be the cameraman yelling "oh my..." and then another series of shots ringing out. I really wish I hadn't watched that.

Swykk

08-26-2015, 04:11 PM

Piggy backing implies support. He is in direct opposition to the Church shooter, most certainly because of race. He DOES like the Asian Virginia Tech shooter.

This guy's motives are very obviously race related, if you read this and the HR complaints he made against others.

If I wrote in "Roof's absurd fucking race war rhetoric" would that make it clearer? He supported a race war.

Deepvoid

08-26-2015, 05:58 PM

There's another active shooting situation in Sunset, Louisiana.
3 people shot including one officer. 8 people are allegedly being held hostage.

DigitalChaos

08-26-2015, 06:19 PM

My line of work has put me in the position of the news crew that was killed. Back when I was, personally, against gun ownership (yup, you read that right) probably the worst fallout happened. A coworker got fired based on the work my 3 person team investigated. This investigation was requested by the company. It was a bad enough situation that it broke his family apart too. My team started seeing the same car following them and showing up at our houses. It ended with the guy attempting to break down one of my teammate's front door and then my teammate greeting the intruder with a gun pointed at his face. I was lucky enough to be out of state for the week that this guy snapped.

There are some lines of work where you expect this kind of thing to be an increased risk. The reporter crew really doesn't seem to be one of them, especially from coworkers.

DigitalChaos

08-28-2015, 12:08 AM

I wonder if this guy had a mental history and he was incorrectly allowed to buy this gun.

Looks like he passed the ATF background check 2 months ago.
http://concealednation.org/2015/08/atf-confirms-that-va-gunman-passed-background-check-and-bought-firearm-legally/

Of course, politicians like are calling for gun control that would have done nothing in this situation... like ALWAYS. Hillary is saying that background checks and cool down periods would have prevented this. looool
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/26/hillary-clinton-vows-be-gun-control-president/

Dra508

08-28-2015, 08:21 AM

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Going_postal]This is a 21st century version of going postal.Ya'll know where that phrase came from right?) This is the 21st century version of "Going Postal". Not a new phenomenon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Going_postal[/url)

I saw a headline that said this dude lived in a "squalid" apartment. Then later, saw a short video of a walk through of said apartment. It wasn't squalid. That term has already been reserved in our time for hoarders. This place had a couple of dirty dishes. Unless the cops came in and took all his shit, which I doubt since the video showed those photos on his frig I keep reading about.

First story was from Fox
Video from MSNBC.

/head desk.

DigitalChaos

08-28-2015, 12:08 PM

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Going_postal]This is a 21st century version of going postal.Ya'll know where that phrase came from right?) This is the 21st century version of "Going Postal". Not a new phenomenon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Going_postal[/url)

Bullshit.
What this guy did was on par with Dylan Roof. It was a race-targeted hate crime by a mentally unstable asshole. But, the guy was black and gay so many on the left refuse to point out the hate crime angle. Meanwhile, the right is ALLLL over it but many on the right refused to call Dylan Roof anything but mentally unstable.

This partisan bullshit is exactly why this will be an endless tug of war.

Dra508

08-28-2015, 01:05 PM

Bullshit.
What this guy did was on par with Dylan Roof. It was a race-targeted hate crime by a mentally unstable asshole. But, the guy was black and gay so many on the left refuse to point out the hate crime angle. Meanwhile, the right is ALLLL over it but many on the right refused to call Dylan Roof anything but mentally unstable.

This partisan bullshit is exactly why this will be an endless tug of war.I agree that this story is being reported in a some sort of partisan way. I don't know how Fox news saying "squalid" when it wasn't is driving some particular agenda. What do you think?

To be fair, the term going postal was in the context of workplace violence perpetrator by someone who felt wronged, often by someone who has been fired. You can not deny this was workplace violence. Clearly, this Flanagan man felt it was racial. Are you saying his bias toward white people makes it a hate crime?

DigitalChaos

08-28-2015, 01:12 PM

I agree that this story is being reported in a some sort of partisan way. I don't know how Fox news saying "squalid" when it wasn't is driving some particular agenda. What do you think?

To be fair, the term going postal was in the context of workplace violence perpetrator by someone who felt wronged, often by someone who has been fired. You can not deny this was workplace violence. Clearly, this Flanagan man felt it was racial. Are you saying his bias toward white people makes it a hate crime?

It was very clearly "black vs white" in his mind based on everything he left behind. The dude talked about contributing to a race war with this act, for fucks sake. There were additional aspects, but race was a huge part.

I don't know about the fox news shit. That's a lot more of a nuance in the large picture. Supposedly he left a bunch of dirty sex toys sitting around, was living by candle light, and had cleaned up a specific room (stripped to the bare mattress) which the contents of were found nearby. The definition of "squalid" could certainly fit. All the pics you saw were AFTER the police went through the apartment and removed what they wanted.

Dra508

08-28-2015, 02:09 PM

All the pics you saw were AFTER the police went through the apartment and removed what they wanted.I would have thought the same, but the video showed his portrait pics on the frig as well as the stripped mattress. Interesting.

So, my understanding is that to qualify as a hate crime, the act is motivated by that bias (race, sex, ethnicity). Flanagan's statement was that he was biased against, because HE was gay and black. That sounds backwards.

DigitalChaos

08-28-2015, 02:13 PM

I would have thought the same, but the video showed his portrait pics on the frig as well as the stripped mattress. Interesting.

So, my understanding is that to qualify as a hate crime, the act is motivated by that bias (race, sex, ethnicity). Flanagan's statement was that he was biased against, because HE was gay and black. That sounds backwards.

Roof claimed he was being wronged by Blacks. Does that make it not a hate crime?

Dra508

08-28-2015, 04:05 PM

Roof claimed he was being wronged by Blacks. Does that make it not a hate crime?What about Flanagan?

DigitalChaos

08-28-2015, 04:32 PM

What about Flanagan?
I think they are both hate crimes.

I get that you are pointing out that Flanagan killed specific individuals that he knew in advance while Roof killed strangers, but the underlying justification provided by the perps was race.

Dra508

08-28-2015, 06:47 PM

I think they are both hate crimes.

I get that you are pointing out that Flanagan killed specific individuals that he knew in advance while Roof killed strangers, but the underlying justification provided by the perps was race.I don't believe Flanagan called out his victims, hating them for them being white. He was glorifying multiple mass murders for the attention they got. Did he say he wanted to start a race war like Roof apparently said. I must have missed that.

To not drift to far from the "gun" topic of the thread, I agree there is serious challenges trying to figure out how to keep guns out of the hands of irrational people. This country's culture is very wrapped in this right, and honestly, I don't think it's ever going to change. If stories of toddlers killing their siblings or their dad with guns hasn't created a sea change, I don't know what would.

allegro

08-28-2015, 07:15 PM

I think they are both hate crimes.

I get that you are pointing out that Flanagan killed specific individuals that he knew in advance while Roof killed strangers, but the underlying justification provided by the perps was race.

No. Not just race. He cited black men harassing him for being gay. He was blaming everybody for everything. He says he was being bullied by everybody, including black men.

DigitalChaos

08-28-2015, 07:24 PM

Did he say he wanted to start a race war like Roof apparently said. I must have missed that.

broaden your news sources :)

This is straight from the 23page manifesto that ABC received from him. Unfortunately, they have only released small clips of it and censored it all. The whole thing would be much more illuminating.

"You want a race war (deleted)? BRING IT THEN YOU WHITE …(deleted)!!!"

allegro

08-28-2015, 07:27 PM

Yes, but he was scattered. He was harassing people at work. People were afraid of him and reported him to HR. The dead cameraman had reported him to HR. He claimed he was bullied, but others said he was in fact the bully.

Saying he was harassed by black men for being a gay black man now clouds that whole "race" thing.

DigitalChaos

08-28-2015, 07:30 PM

No. Not just race. He cited black men harassing him for being gay. He was blaming everybody for everything. He says he was being bullied by everybody, including black men.
absolutely, but race was the dominant theme in what ABC has released. It's also the dominant theme in a lot of the historical records on his behavior.

And from a legal level, the existence of race as ONE of the underlying motivations is sufficient for it to be a hate crime, right?

allegro

08-28-2015, 07:32 PM

allegro

08-28-2015, 07:34 PM

absolutely, but race was the dominant theme in what ABC has released. It's also the dominant theme in a lot of the historical records on his behavior.

And from a legal level, the existence of race as ONE of the underlying motivations is sufficient for it to be a hate crime, right?

Not the stuff they are releasing here in Chicago. Maybe our media isn't purposely slanting it and leaving out all the other info. I've already quoted portions of the manifesto, here, paraphrased, that indicate he is just mentally disturbed and not a racist.

The underlying complaint is that he was the perpetual VICTIM. Nothing he did was ever his fault. No performance review was real, but was due to his being gay or black, etc. He is more similar to the dude who killed all those chicks for not dating him in CA than a race crime.

They had a few experts on TV, here, who did really interesting commentary on this.

DigitalChaos

08-28-2015, 07:46 PM

I guess we will have to wait for them to release the full text without the censorship. However, I still see a lot of parallels between Roof and Flanagan. Dylan Roof was also endlessly talking about being a victim of race. He also cited a prior shooting (Trayvon Martin) as being the launching point of his actions. He was also, apparently, mentally ill.

I don't think being mentally ill precludes you from being motivated by race, even on a legal level.

He is more similar to the dude who killed all those chicks for not dating in CA him than a race crime.
absolutely agree, but that guy was framed as being a misogynist too. He was made to represent a lot of the gender problems, remember?

DigitalChaos

08-28-2015, 07:55 PM

I don't believe Flanagan called out his victims, hating them for them being white. He was glorifying multiple mass murders for the attention they got. Did he say he wanted to start a race war like Roof apparently said. I must have missed that.

To not drift to far from the "gun" topic of the thread, I agree there is serious challenges trying to figure out how to keep guns out of the hands of irrational people. This country's culture is very wrapped in this right, and honestly, I don't think it's ever going to change. If stories of toddlers killing their siblings or their dad with guns hasn't created a sea change, I don't know what would.

We can't totally keep any weapons out of the hands of irrational or insane people. That is an impossible task. Trust no one who claims to want to do this.

Also, Dra508 - the thing I always tell people is to look at the data more objectively. First, factor in the crime numbers for all weapons. If you are concerned about mass killings, look at more than just "mass killings with guns." Second, factor in population. The USA is huge. Statistical anomalies are going to be more common as a whole, even if they may be comparatively lower on a per capita perspective. I think it was mass killings were one of the more surprising things that the USA does not stand out on when you factor in population, and thats without even factoring in other weapons. I think Sweden was #1 and USA was like #15.

This approach is much more honest and you'll find that the "gun problem" in the USA rarely is what it is made out to be.

allegro

08-28-2015, 08:02 PM

absolutely agree, but that guy was framed as being a misogynist too. He was made to represent a lot of the gender problems, remember?
Yes, but also identity problems. This perp had BLAME problems

Racist specifically focuses on one race being superior. This guy didn't do that. He was a VICTIM of racism. But he claimed to be a VICTIM of MANY things: gay bashing, racism, unfair work practices, sexism, all kinds of stuff. He was a disgruntled employee, but he blamed all kinds of other local news events; VA Tech, the SC church shooting.

HOWEVER, he was also an abuser; he had already threatened people at work, telling them that they would "regret" crossing him, far before the SC shooting. He was a bully with a hair trigger.

Dra508

08-28-2015, 08:20 PM

broaden your news]"
What exactly do you think I read to make a comment like that?

I go back to my original statement. Gone postal.

allegro

08-28-2015, 09:06 PM

What exactly do you think I read to make a comment like that?
I go back to my original statement. Gone postal.
Amen, Sister.

DigitalChaos

08-28-2015, 09:55 PM

He definitely had a hair trigger and was a bully. There are other facts about him surfacing. Someone had a video of him from a road rage incident where Flanagan had followed the other driver for a while until a confrontation in the parking lot (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7dd_1440613976). There isn't much to see in that video, but the guy was clearly involved in lots of confrontations. He seemed to be perpetually offended and looking to be a victim at all times.

Dra508 - That comment wasn't supposed to be as serious as you are taking it. I was just pointing to the fact that his quote about "race war" was heavily covered in right-wing sources but had very little coverage in left-wing. A google search for "flanagan race war" returns pages of sources that are all biased to one side.

allegro

08-29-2015, 12:52 AM

See this article (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/26/tv-station-called-911-when-they-fired-vester-flanagan.html).

Dra508

08-29-2015, 09:42 AM

Dra508 - That comment wasn't supposed to be as serious as you are taking it. I was just pointing to the fact that his quote about "race war" was heavily covered in right-wing sources but had very little coverage in left-wing. A google search for "flanagan race war" returns pages of sources that are all biased to one side.

I'm not taking your comment any way, that's why I asked the question.

If right wing media is calling it a hate crime and the left isn't, that says something, but I don't think it's saying that the topic is being ignored. I'm sure there's good reasons for not releasing all 20 some-odd pages for public consumption just now. My name might be in there as supposedly slight Flanagan and I never met the dude. I'd like to think that the police, the FBI, whoever it is that labels these things is looking into it, not just the media.

Enough "witnesses" have been interviewed in the media, especially in the article allegro posted that sat Flanagan had "issues" with a lot of different types of people.

DigitalChaos

08-29-2015, 01:44 PM

See this article (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/26/tv-station-called-911-when-they-fired-vester-flanagan.html).

Jesus, that guy is ridiculous. It's still a huge theme of perceived racism through the article.

Note: Dylan Roof's "life changing realization" was based on "black on white crime." He thought he was the victim of racial problems too.

allegro

08-29-2015, 01:46 PM

Jesus, that guy is ridiculous. It's still a huge theme of perceived racism through the article.
Yes, but he was "playing the race card" as a game, to portray himself as a perpetual victim. There's a difference between that and really being a victim of racism. He was also claiming sexual discrimination. The guy was a constant trouble-maker, he was "warned that he needed medical attention." When he didn't get his way, he'd play the race card -- even when race had absolutely nothing to do with it. He was reprimanded for treating the cameramen like shit, and he said that the station was guilty of racial discrimination for reprimanding him and he filed a racial discrimination suit, which was thrown out of court. He claims in his manifesto that it was "settled."

If I'm a total abusive asshole at work and bully everybody and treat everybody like shit and then when I'm reprimanded or fired I claim sexual discrimination, it doesn't mean sexual discrimination actually existed. It just means I've either in denial or that I'm deliberately gaming the system.

There is also this (http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2013/05/02/180548388/crunch-the-numbers-on-blacks-views-on-gays), which contradicts this as a total anti-white motivated source of anger.

It's all pretty detailed in this article and video (http://abcnews.go.com/US/shooting-alleged-gunman-details-grievances-suicide-notes/story?id=33336339).

He continues: "I can remember one day in particular... leaving the courthouse... feeling overwhelmed... confused... even some fear. But by golly I knew I HAD to fight. ... They truly f----d with my life and caused an awful chain of events." He says he even killed his cats in a forest "because of them."

Flanagan says that, "Hell yeah, I made mistakes," noting that he "should not have been so curt" with photographers in Roanoke. "[B]ut you know why I was? The damn news director was a micromanaging tyrant!!"

"[I] tried to pull myself up by the bootstraps," but, "The damage was already done and when someone gets to this point, there is nothing that can be said or done to change their sadness to happiness. It does not work that way. Meds? Nah. It's too much."

"And then, after the unthinkable happened in Charleston, THAT WAS IT!!!"

"Yeah I'm all f----- up in the head," he concedes.

DigitalChaos

08-29-2015, 02:14 PM

allegro

08-29-2015, 02:17 PM

Again, *perceived* victim of racial problems. I never said either actually was a victim. They are both mentally unstable and it probably helped perpetuate things.

I never said Flanagan was *only* focused on race. Just that race was a huge part for him. Just because sexuality was another aspect doesn't nullify the race aspect.

It's not "gaming the system" if you legitimately think you are a victim. You don't kill people over victimization that you are just pretending exists.

He was also bullied by black men for being gay. He blamed all of society. He had to work as a male escort for a while, to make ends meet. He admitted having severe depression but didn't want to go on meds. HE KILLED HIS CATS IN A FOREST, FOR CHRIST SAKE. His coworkers thought the only reason he even HAD that job was because he was black and gay because he sucked at his job. The people who really knew him, his friends, said deep down he was a really nice guy (don't they all say that?). But when you're a black dude on the downlow, and you hate your job or your career isn't progressing or your mental illness isn't being treated ... Before he killed that woman, he called her a "bitch". That's not racism, right there. That's just plain old misogyny.

The right will play this up solely as race because they love to do that. But this guy was just evil and mentally ill. Period. He had about a dozen different grievances in about a dozen directions, and race was just one of a dozen. Fox News just loves to pounce on the race card because they can't read past the first sentence of an AP report.

Playing the race card (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_card) doesn't mean that he even perceived being the victim of racism; it means that he could have hated his boss for being "a micromanaging tyrant" and used the race card to bring his boss down. Playing the race card using race as an excuse even when it is not a factor. He reportedly likely GOT that job BECAUSE he is black, due to desired diversity. He was reprimanded due to lack of professionalism and for scaring people; when that happened, he said it was BECAUSE HE WAS BLACK. That is playing the race card. Making people afraid to report you because you will file a race grievance is "playing the race card."

You don't kill people over victimization that you are just pretending exists.
When you are mentally ill, OH YES YOU DO.

See this article (http://www.ksla.com/story/29911648/the-challenge-of-predicting-preventing-workplace-violence)

What triggered Vester Flanagan, a disgruntled former employee, to gun down a reporter and cameraman this week in Virginia? Speaking on CBS This Morning, former FBI Deputy Director John Miller called Flanagan an "Injustice Collector."

Miller cited the 23-page manifesto faxed to ABC News after the shooting saying, "This final act of leaving behind this, this long treatise about what everybody did and listing every tiny slight, that is the classic injustice collector."

Miller defined "classic injustice collectors" as people who feel they aren't finding success and blame others whom they believe stood in their way. It happens when a person holds grudge after grudge, until it eventually leads to hopelessness and rage.

LSU-Shreveport Graduate Studies Dean Sanjay Menon describes Vester Flanagan as having a 'persecution complex.' "It's rarely that somebody suddenly snaps," said Menon. "It's more like building, building up, building up 'til you suddenly snap."

DigitalChaos

08-29-2015, 07:16 PM

triggered Vester Flanagan

called Flanagan an "Injustice Collector."

Miller defined "classic injustice collectors" as people who feel they aren't finding success and blame others whom they believe stood in their way.

Sanjay Menon describes Vester Flanagan as having a 'persecution complex.' "It's rarely that somebody suddenly snaps," said Menon. "It's more like building, building up, building up 'til you suddenly snap."

Well fuck, THAT sure sounds familiar.

We are going to start calling out the recent burst of social justice warriors right? The ones who promote this kind of victim mentality. The idea that there is always someone else holding you down and oppressing you. Elliot Rodger's actions prompted a ton of backlash on the idiotic "Mens Rights Activists" and "Pick Up Artists" because they helped prompt the entitlement and shitty views toward women. The internet SJW's are a really similar class of group as the MRA's and PUA's.

I am really curious to read the entire the full text of what he left behind.

allegro

08-29-2015, 08:41 PM

Elliot Rodger's actions prompted a ton of backlash on the idiotic "Mens Rights Activists" and "Pick Up Artists" because they helped prompt the entitlement and shitty views toward women.
Exactly.

And Elliot Rodger had that same persecution complex, a PUA on steroids and a misogynist and probably actually gay.

I've mentioned this before, find it so tragic: Elliot Rodger was the grandson of legendary photojournalist George Rodger (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Rodger), the guy who photographed Bergen-Belsen.

Dra508

08-29-2015, 09:48 PM

I am really curious to read the entire the full text of what he left behind.

Me too.

I suspect it will just further the story that he had a real slanted view of reality and took innocent lives for what?

DigitalChaos

08-30-2015, 12:03 AM

Me too.

I suspect it will just further the story that he had a real slanted view of reality and took innocent lives for what?

I mean, it's probably going to be the same shit as all the other statistical anomalies where someone loses their mind and decides to murder people.

My primary interest is to utilize the same lenses that were used in prior incidents. The lenses that try and lay blame on something and explain why we need to change X to prevent future incidents. Those lenses tend to be very selectively used because of partisan interests. So, it's good to always use them. It demonstrates the stupidity in a lot of them (calls for gun control, calls for putting more guns in public places, etc), but it also demonstrates a few that hold up under the majority of instances (better mental health care).

allegro

09-02-2015, 09:33 PM

I'd be curious in reading the article about gang acquisition of guns if you can find it. That kind of stuff is absolutely fascinating. There is some really interesting stuff surrounding the black market too. Lots of cat & mouse technology related to tracking weapons. There is even an entire line of forensics connected to specific techniques that criminals use to change/remove serial numbers on guns, for instance.

Here's the article that was in the Chicago Sun-Times last week (http://tinyurl.com/nkh9p3g) (thought it was Trib but it was Sun-Times).

Jinsai

09-03-2015, 02:41 AM

aaaaaabsolutely! Sanders seems to present himself as someone above the partisan bullshit though. He also frequently talks about how ideas need to be debated and discussed. So, here I am debating some of his :).

Every time someone talks about political dishonesty, you say something along the lines of:

"Welcome to every politician ever. "

Sanders has actual clout in that regard, and it's not because he's fabricating an image. You take issue with him here with his uninformed take on gun show loopholes...

Pretend you're a politician for a second... someone running for president. What would you suggest would be the best way to change our laws regarding guns to most effectively prevent dangerous psychotic people from getting access to them? And on that point, what would you suggest is the primary reason why the United States has a hugely disproportionate rate of public shootings compared to other "first world" countries?

And no, I'm not bumping the "gun talk" thread. Fuck that noise. Just end the discussion by proposing what you would like politicians to propose. Done.

DigitalChaos

09-03-2015, 11:58 AM

Dra508

09-03-2015, 04:42 PM

Then you should read my last few posts, because the conversation has been ended... according to your requirement.
And I'll be splitting additional gun posts to the gun thread. So, yes, you'll be bumping the gun talk thread.
This topic started from the video posted of Sanders. I think it's still on topic. I'm no mod, but go ahead, I'd love to hear your response here. Otherwise, you'll be proving Jinsai 's theory that until we can have a proper discussion on both sides of this issue as to how to resolve it, nothing is going to change and innocent people are going to continue to die.

DigitalChaos

09-04-2015, 11:02 PM

This topic started from the video posted of Sanders. I think it's still on topic. I'm no mod, but go ahead, I'd love to hear your response here. Otherwise, you'll be proving @Jinsai (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=272) 's theory that until we can have a proper discussion on both sides of this issue as to how to resolve it, nothing is going to change and innocent people are going to continue to die.

done! I'm happy to talk about gun control as much as anyone wants. I just don't want to derail other threads with it. allegro yells at me all the time for derailing :P

DigitalChaos

09-04-2015, 11:32 PM

Just end the discussion by proposing what you would like politicians to propose. Done.
Like I said, if Sanders mentioned a "private sale loophole" I wouldn't have called him out for dishonesty.

I'd love to hear your response here. Otherwise, you'll be proving @Jinsai (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=272) 's theory that until we can have a proper discussion on both sides of this issue as to how to resolve it, nothing is going to change and innocent people are going to continue to die.

Well, that depends and what you are trying to change. What is your goal? Since you are talking about this in relation to @Jinsai (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=272)'s post... let's look at that:

What would you suggest would be the best way to change our laws regarding guns to most effectively prevent dangerous psychotic people from getting access to them? And on that point, what would you suggest is the primary reason why the United States has a hugely disproportionate rate of public shootings compared to other "first world" countries?

So the ultimate goal seems to be stopping public shootings. The reason it needs to happen is because "the US has hugely disproportionate rate of public shootings compared to other first world countries."

As I mentioned earlier, you need to look at per capita rates, not just comparing totals per country. Saying that the USA consumes 5000% more meals per day than Norway means absolutely nothing if you don't factor in the population difference.. But, per capita is exactly what @Jinsai (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=272) is referencing. The problem with Jinsai's statement is that it factually wrong. For instance, USA's rate of rampage shootings is not disproportionate. Norway, Finland, Slovakia, Israel, and Switzerland all have higher rampage shoot rates than the USA. (http://imgur.com/7xQQGEH) But that doesn't help push gun control. That's why they would rather say that the USA has 40x more rampage shootings than any of those countries without ever addressing the population differences.

So my "solution" to public shootings is: Firstly, it's not a statistically important problem that needs solving, and certainly not something that would warrant impeding fundamental citizen rights. Second, if you do want to "solve" it, you need to realize it isn't specific to the USA and the solution lies outside of guns. You'd want to look to things like mental health.

So, this is the point in the conversation where the problem gets rephrased by Jinsai so that there is some other justification for additional gun control. And that's because the goal isn't to fix things like shootings, but to increase gun control.
Dra508, if you have an alternate question than Jinsai was posing, please post!

Deepvoid

09-05-2015, 06:47 AM

As I mentioned earlier, you need to look at per capita rates, not just comparing totals per country. Saying that the USA consumes 5000% more meals per day than Norway means absolutely nothing if you don't factor in the population difference.. But, per capita is exactly what @Jinsai (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=272) is referencing. The problem with Jinsai's statement is that it factually wrong. For instance, USA's rate of rampage shootings is not disproportionate. Norway, Finland, Slovakia, Israel, and Switzerland all have higher rampage shoot rates than the USA. (http://imgur.com/7xQQGEH) But that doesn't help push gun control. That's why they would rather say that the USA has 40x more rampage shootings than any of those countries without ever addressing the population differences.

So you think it's a concidence that out of the 12 countries listed on that biasely selected list, the US the only country with permissive gun policies that has more than 3 occurrences.

Also, it's pretty damn ridiculous to put in Norway with a population of 5M who had 1 event that unfortunately had so many victims and say "see Norway has a higher rate of rampage shootings than us" and make all sorts of correlations.

DigitalChaos

09-05-2015, 12:06 PM

So you think it's a concidence that out of the 12 countries listed on that biasely selected list, the US the only country with permissive gun policies that has more than 3 occurrences.

Also, it's pretty damn ridiculous to put in Norway with a population of 5M who had 1 event that unfortunately had so many victims and say "see Norway has a higher rate of rampage shootings than us" and make all sorts of correlations.

"Biasely" selected? looool. It's fucking sorted by rate. Are you that dense?

Clearly, the concept of per capita vs raw incident rate went WAY over your head if you immediately revert back to pointing to raw rates. Even Jinsai was talking about rates. god damn

DigitalChaos

09-05-2015, 12:11 PM

If you want a reason for why societal problems are so hard to fix, it's this... right here. The complete inability to look at any issue and figure out how much it impacts a set population before prioritizing the problem or creating a solution. A voting population who doesn't have a rudimentary understanding of statistical analysis.

BUT THE USA DRIVES MORE TOTAL CARS THAN ANY OTHER FIRST WORLD COUNTRY!

Deepvoid

09-05-2015, 02:19 PM

"Biasely" selected? looool. It's fucking sorted by rate. Are you that dense?

Clearly, the concept of per capita vs raw incident rate went WAY over your head if you immediately revert back to pointing to raw rates. Even Jinsai was talking about rates. god damn

Using your broken logic, you are saying is that if Norway had 314M pop. like the US then it would have had about 66 occurrences with fatalities totaling 4817 since it's a simple matter of higher population.
This is so fucking weak man. loool

Thanks for reminding me why I stopped posting in this thread.
Maybe if you start using your brain instead of jerking off with a gun in your other hand, you'd become more civilized.

DigitalChaos

09-05-2015, 03:03 PM

^ You sound exactly like a climate change denier.

DigitalChaos

09-05-2015, 03:07 PM

Using statistically trivial data, it's stupid to try and project out like that. Just like it's stupid to try and claim that it's a problem that needs to be solved. I'm sorry you can't handle fundamental statistical analysis.

Dra508

09-05-2015, 03:11 PM

So my "solution" to public shootings is: Firstly, it's not a statistically important problem that needs solving, and certainly not something that would warrant impeding fundamental citizen rights. Second, if you do want to "solve" it, you need to realize it isn't specific to the USA and the solution lies outside of guns. You'd want to look to things like mental health.

You think innocent elementary school kids getting mowed down is not statistically important?

They were important. Important that there needs to be discussion. Waving our arms around saying our rights are going to be impeded so much that nothing gets done, makes us an embarrassment to civilized society. Not proud Americans who value life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Those kids don't get to pursue happiness, do they? But you get to buy a gun, your liberty is preserved.

The 2nd amendment just hurts my head sometime. What happened to bearing arms in a well regulated militia? Define regulated militia of 2015?

http://www.knoe.com/home/headlines/2nd-Amendment-tax-free-weekend-324043481.html

DigitalChaos

09-05-2015, 03:18 PM

Ah, so logic rooted in data fails... So let's appeal to emotion!

You need to understand how important this is. People who fail at risk analysis are the same type who gamble their money as an investment. The large majority of heavy gun control advocates also fit this mentality. So do climate change deniers, anti-vaccine types, proponents of dragnet surveillance as an anti-terrorism tool, people who fear ISIS, etc

I'll address the 2nd Amendment verbage when im back at my laptop. SCOTUS has spelled out the answer in painstaking detail. In short, the 2A applies to everyone, not just a modern day militia.

Dra508

09-05-2015, 07:29 PM

Ah, so logic rooted in data fails... So let's appeal to emotion!

Yes, because we're talking about humanity here.

DigitalChaos

09-05-2015, 07:45 PM

Yes, because we're talking about humanity here.
bullshit.
You are using dead children to try and appear morally superior. I'll go right back to statistics to prove it. The number of children killed in rampage shootings is incredibly small. It's one of the lowest ranking causes of death for children. (this is where most people decide to shift the scope of the problem instead of follow it through to a conclusion) If you actually gave a shit about saving the children, you'd know (without looking it up) how many children die per year in the US (hint: it's measured in tens of thousands) and you'd know the leading causes of death for children.

Instead, you focus on a near-zero risk because you saw something emotional on the media. That will really help all the dying kids! Not only do you pick one of the smallest risks to target, but you pick the one that there is virtually no way for the country to further reduce the risk. I haven't even started on the externalities from any imaginable proposed changes. It's likely that you'd cause MORE damage than you could ever hope to solve due to the externalities (Especially with emotionally constructed solutions). If you were honest, you'd see that you are standing on the graves of children just to promote gun control... the gun control comes first.

If you take time to understand the data, you'll notice that the only places that have statistically important gun-related problems are in very specific locations in the country. Those are also the ones that you can actually help. It's concentrated in areas that have poverty and education problems. Those are "the children!" that you need to focus on if you want to make improvements to humanity.

WorzelG

09-06-2015, 02:04 AM

I don't even understand how people can feel OK about having guns in a house where kids are present. I'm paranoid enough about general garden implements

Deepvoid

09-06-2015, 07:51 AM

Every time someone flaunts some stupid pro-gun rhetoric, a kid dies. Literally.

Friday, 3-year old boy shot under mysterious circumstances in his home (I bet it was accidental, which makes it worst). (http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/20150905/NEWS/150909838)
Saturday, a 9-year old shot and killed, 3 others injured (including another kid)
(http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/police-girl-dead-hurt-north-carolina-shooting-33566269)
Yes, emotions should be involved because kids are dying. I don't know what kind of person you are but I'm a human. Other than evil and bad people, I don't know anyone would sit idle after Sandy Hook and don't admit that you have A SERIOUS FUCKING PROBLEM WITH GUNS.
No matter how you try to spin your stupid numbers in favor of your ridiculous pro-gun circle jerk, the fucking reality is that kids are getting shot in your country almost every fucking day by guns.

You're the one who's ignoring the facts. You are the denier here.
http://www.vox.com/2015/8/24/9183525/gun-violence-statistics

Oh but fuck me, your "per capita" is lower than Slovakia who had one shooting in 5 years, which happened to kill 8 people. Jesus Christ...
You know that you're goddamn wrong about this issue.

I'm outta here.

DigitalChaos

09-06-2015, 11:36 PM

^ and there is the shifted scope definition that I said would happen. It's the perpetual drift you'll always see in a failing position. If there is such an obvious problem, you shouldn't have to constantly shift the definition of it.

Your new data (a vox article with sloppy and shallow data) suffers from the failure of pretending that gun homicides are more important than all other homicides. Deaths are deaths. And once again, If you take time to understand the data, you'll notice that the only places that have statistically important gun-related problems are in very specific locations in the country. It's concentrated in areas that have poverty and education problems.

You'll find that I am not spinning data. You'll find that my approach is pretty damn simple and is extremely consistent. As I mentioned a few pages ago (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/threads/1318-Gun-Talk-News-Laws-etc?p=268861#post268861) you should always look at per capita and in most cases you need to consider all mechanisms behind a death statistic. That shit isn't hard. It's how just about any effective societal issue is solved. It's only hard when the data doesn't match your motives (aka most gun control justifications).

DigitalChaos

09-06-2015, 11:43 PM

I don't even understand how people can feel OK about having guns in a house where kids are present. I'm paranoid enough about general garden implements
Do you feel safe with pools, dogs, cleaning supplies, stairs, plastic bags, electrical appliances, bath tubs, knives, and cars in a house when kids are present? Those things present pretty large risks to children too. The solution is, of course, the same: don't let your kid get into shit that can hurt them. I think more than half of all accidents that kill children happen in the house.

Timinator

09-07-2015, 02:22 AM

Do you feel safe with pools, dogs, cleaning supplies, stairs, plastic bags, electrical appliances, bath tubs, knives, and cars in a house when kids are present? Those things present pretty large risks to children too. The solution is, of course, the same: don't let your kid get into shit that can hurt them. I think more than half of all accidents that kill children happen in the house.Your last several posts have been about this: that statistically the number of kids killed by guns is small in comparison to many other sources of potential danger.

Let's leave aside the obvious, but valid, argument that we don't have to attack dangers serially, and only move on to the next one when the previous most dangerous thing is resolved. We can do things in parallel, and there are actions all the time to mitigate dangers from pools, dogs, cleaning supplies, stairs, plastic bags, electrical appliances, bath tubs, knives, and cars.

What your argument fails to consider, I think, is the balance of utility.

Pools, dogs, cleaning supplies, stairs, plastic bags, electrical appliances, bath tubs, knives and cars are all incredibly useful things. We get efficiency, productivity, joy, and sometimes even increased safety itself from these things. Society is incredibly enriched by them. Without them we'd be far worse off. The fact that they - like most things - can be dangerous is offset (in society's view) by how much utility we get from them.

I would argue that guns provided this same utility once upon a time, when we needed to hunt our food (though even this was only ever true of rural populations). They no longer provide anything like usefulness that can be measured against the suffering they cause. A small, vocal, powerful proportion of Americans judge they get sufficient utility from guns to warrant keeping them around, but the rest of American society - and the rest of the world - disagrees.

allegro

09-07-2015, 07:08 AM

The thing is, there is nothing we can DO about this.

We cannot revise our Constitution. Can't and won't happen. Ever. We have had numerous U.S. Supreme Court decisions to back that up. Plus, there are already an estimated 30 million guns in this country. At least. The task of getting rid of them is something we could not handle. So people have to move on from the fantasy of getting rid of guns in the U.S. It is impossible. Legally and logistically.

As far as the dangers of guns, that is something parents have been taught that they can control. Lock up firearms in homes, just like you would any other dangerous item.

But there is no I.Q. test for gun ownership. Or parenthood.

Sadly, we cannot totally "prevent" the mentally ill from obtaining guns, any more than we can prevent drunks from driving motor vehicles (drunk drivers kill thousands of people per year, 10,076 deaths in the U.S. due to drunk drivers in 2013, compared to 11,208 homicides by gun in 2013). We can try every preventative method possible, but they can still skirt the system (e.g. steal a legally-owned gun, lie on an application form). We can't protect everyone all the time.

Also, the U.S. is just a relatively violent, stupid society.

However, it's peaceful compared to Honduras.

This country is big, sprawling, heavily-populated, and it never lost its Wild Wild West mentality, nor will it ever.

It is just a reality we accept.

Mass shootings might be partially thwarted with the banning of high-volume magazines; the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly stated its opposition to (and refusal to support) same; the Second Amendment, as the U.S. Supreme Court repeatedly points out, contains the words "well regulated."

Which is why we can't legally own grenades, rocket launchers, machine guns, etc.

playwithfire

09-07-2015, 09:02 AM

I've never thought we could get rid of guns (which is not to say that I wouldn't support that, I would). I think gun ownership is like... a part of US culture. Not to say that everyone owns a gun, that that the "right" to own a gun is considered to be a fact. I believe that if we tried to change that there would be a pretty horrible and likely violent outburst from some people. I basically agree with everything allegro just said.

We should have strict, STRICT, gun control laws. I logically don't understand why people oppose this. I get that they get all frothing-at-the-mouth MY FREEDOM about this, but like... ugh. UGH.

allegro

09-07-2015, 09:23 AM

While gun control laws are generally a great idea, gun control laws don't really do anything to totally prevent the scary things that people want to prevent. Handguns were banned in the City of Chicago for over 30 years, yet gun murder rates were some of the highest in the country. Bad guys don't use legal routes / methods to get guns; they can't; most of them have felony convictions, which prevents them from legally buying guns. Our best efforts at a national database is too easy to thwart by palming money to greedy people on the take (including dirty gov't agency reps). Red tape slows down or fucks up the system, as we saw with Dylan Roof.

And crazed NRA reps yell "slippery slope" (e.g. high-volume magazines) even when the SCOTUS itself has ruled that no slippery slope exists, mostly because the NRA exists to bring in CASH to sustain itself; without that Chicken Little Slippery Slope, it can't rake in all that donor cash.

However, that doesn't mean we shouldn't use our very best efforts to TRY to regulate the sale of guns and ammunition (as is allowed per the Second Amendment). IMO, this means banning online sales, nationally. IMO, it also means a national background check database (cross-checking for Orders of Protection, etc.)

Yes, there are flaws in the system; there will always be flaws in the system. But having NO system, or an inconsistent fragmented system, is worse.

DigitalChaos

09-07-2015, 11:12 AM

Your last several posts have been about this: that statistically the number of kids killed by guns is small in comparison to many other sources of potential danger.
....
I would argue that guns provided this same utility once upon a time, when we needed to hunt our food (though even this was only ever true of rural populations). They no longer provide anything like usefulness that can be measured against the suffering they cause. A small, vocal, powerful proportion of Americans judge they get sufficient utility from guns to warrant keeping them around, but the rest of American society - and the rest of the world - disagrees.

That's 1 of the 2 things I've been saying. The other point is that the rate of public shootings (aka the risk for an individual becoming a victim) in the USA is on par with "the rest of the world" ... if not lower. So even though "the rest of the world" doesn't believe there is utility in guns and has increased their gun control... it hasn't reduced the risk of public shootings.

I disagree that utility is diminished enough in guns that you should just start taking them away... but IF you are going to argue for this then you NEED to also prove the utility in the change. If there is no reduction in risk for then there is no point. And phrases like "balance in utility" are completely empty if you don't address the utility in the change. (scope has, thus far, been defined as mass shootings/rampage shootings/school shootings by Jinsa/Dra508/Deepvoid... there are much better places to focus when it comes to guns though, as I've said many times).

DigitalChaos

09-07-2015, 03:50 PM

We cannot revise our Constitution. Can't and won't happen. Ever.

There is a very small chance we could amend the Constitution to at least partially nullify the 2nd amendment. It's low, but I'd say the chances are probably higher that I'd see that in my lifetime than anyone in my family would be involved in a public shooting, for instance :P

Mass shootings might be partially thwarted with the banning of high-volume magazines;
When did this happen? You mean within a few states? Out here in CA, I don't think any of the gun legislation had an impact on mass shootings. They seemed to follow national (and even somewhat global) continual downward trends.

DigitalChaos

09-07-2015, 04:00 PM

Our best efforts at a national database is too easy to thwart by palming money to greedy people on the take (including dirty gov't agency reps). Red tape slows down or fucks up the system, as we saw with Dylan Roof.

It's even worse than this. NICS (national background check system) has been in place for almost 20 years now. The entire time you have been able to circumvent it with a simple fake ID. It's because the system ONLY checks to see if you match a list of bad guys. This could easily be fixed by checking if the ID is valid or simply switching the reference database to a list of people who are OK to purchase guns. It's been known for a very long time and nobody cares to fix it. Every time someone proposing mandatory background checks ontop of NICS I bring this up. Politicians don't seem to give a shit about it. They'd rather pass something more popular than functional. (this is one of my suggestions right here, Dra508)

Yes, there are flaws in the system; there will always be flaws in the system. But having NO system, or an inconsistent fragmented system, is worse.

There is a threshold for a federal system being so shitty that a per-state system is going to allow for something much better. I think our federal system is currently below the bar for it to be made a requirement for all states.

DigitalChaos

09-07-2015, 04:08 PM

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=93767
"All it takes to get around Brady law background checks on gun purchases is a home-made fake I.D., according to a new government report. Their success rate was 100 percent."

allegro

09-07-2015, 04:47 PM

There is a very small chance we could amend the Constitution to at least partially nullify the 2nd amendment.
Bullshit. Total bullshit.

First, do you know what is required? http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/

Second, do you know the all-out shitstorm and probable CIVIL WAR that would create?

I studied Constitutional Law, not gonna waste my time arguing this one.

allegro

09-07-2015, 04:51 PM

is a threshold for a federal system being so shitty that a per-state system is going to allow for something much better. I think our federal system is currently below the bar for it to be made a requirement for all states.
We need a cross-check system that looks for Orders of Protection in other states. Anybody can use a fake ID in any state, but that's why we need FOID cards and additional ID verification; hell, I think we should apply IN PERSON.

No system is perfect. That is no excuse to not have a system. A guy with an Order of Protection against him in Illinois who can't buy a gun or ammo (due to the Order of Protection, because his FOID has been revoked) who drives 30 minutes to Indiana and buys a gun and ammo with nothing but a driver's license because Indiana doesn't know about the Order of Protection against him in Illinois and Indiana doesn't require a FOID and then the guy drives home and shoots his estranged wife in the head; that system needs to be fixed in whatever way we can.

I am not talking about one national system; I'm talking about states with cross-checking abilities and Federal laws in all states (e.g. FOID requirements, firearm owner and safety class requirements, etc,) that are governed by the states. I'm talking about all the states having the same consistent requirements, who cross-report data.

Nobody is going to prevent criminals from getting guns. That's not what "the system" prevents. The only way to try to reduce that mess is stronger gun convictions, and not letting those with gun convictions back out on the streets so fast.

The Brady Act drives me nuts. James Brady was shot by a mentally-ill guy who was trying to kill President Reagan in order to get attention from Jodi Foster, and he used a friggin' revolver (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Röhm_(RG)). Nothing we do short of losing all of our medical privacy can totally prevent insane people from legally obtaining guns, because they are not HONEST on gun applications.

Are you or have you ever been treated for a mental illness?

"Hmmmm .... No!"

The next step would remove health privacy laws by reporting every visit we have to a psychologist or psychiatrist to the Federal Government and include it in a big database, just in case we decide to buy a gun.

Does that sound like info we all want the Government to have about ALL of us?

Timinator

09-07-2015, 06:30 PM

That's 1 of the 2 things I've been saying. The other point is that the rate of public shootings (aka the risk for an individual becoming a victim) in the USA is on par with "the rest of the world" ... if not lower. So even though "the rest of the world" doesn't believe there is utility in guns and has increased their gun control... it hasn't reduced the risk of public shootings.

I disagree that utility is diminished enough in guns that you should just start taking them away.
What utility do guns have in today's society?

Where are your statistical arguments that the rate of public shootings in the US isn't unusually high? The only reference I could find, going back a few pages, was this post (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/threads/1318-Gun-Talk-News-Laws-etc?p=269592#post269592). It links to an unreferenced image (http://imgur.com/7xQQGEH) of rampage shooting rates, so I can't tell if it's genuine or bullshit.

Unfortunately we cannot do scientific trials to verify exactly how much firearms influence deaths in the US: we can't create another US and give them placebo guns. So the best we can do is look at countries of a similar size, or state of development, or culture, or some other criteria, and compare results. I've been to Norway, Israel, and Switzerland, and it's pretty ridiculous to compare them to the US on almost any measure: geography, history, and culture, make them very different. But we can only compare what we've got.

When it comes to these sorts of measures I give weight to neutral bodies like the UN or medical researchers (because guns are, I think, properly thought of as a public health issue). Like this:

- A 2011 UN report (http://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/criminal-justice/un-2011-global-study-homicide) says that while there are some countries (e.g., in Africa and Latin America) where per-capita homicides are higher, the US rates are higher than others of a comparable socio-economic levels (though the rate in the US is dropping).
- A 2003 medical paper (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20571454) that says that firearm homicides in the US are 19.5 times higher than in other high-income countries.
- A 2006 medical paper (http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/12/6/365.full) indicating how gun deaths dropped in Australia when gun laws were tightened here.

We can each cherry-pick stats that appear to support different arguments, but if you pile up all the research for and against the idea that gun deaths in the US are a disproportionate problem, we'll find that the "for" pile is much bigger. That's science.

DigitalChaos

09-07-2015, 08:00 PM

Bullshit. Total bullshit.

First, do you know what is required? http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/

Second, do you know the all-out shitstorm and probable CIVIL WAR that would create?

I studied Constitutional Law, not gonna waste my time arguing this one.

That was kinda the point :P It was more a comment on the chances of being directly involved in a rampage shooting.

DigitalChaos

09-07-2015, 08:32 PM

What utility do guns have in today's society?

Where are your statistical arguments that the rate of public shootings in the US isn't unusually high? The only reference I could find, going back a few pages, was this post (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/threads/1318-Gun-Talk-News-Laws-etc?p=269592#post269592). It links to an unreferenced image (http://imgur.com/7xQQGEH) of rampage shooting rates, so I can't tell if it's genuine or bullshit.

That image is probably the best that exists. It was from a site dedicated to collecting that info. They are now shutdown. I'll try to dig it up. There aren't many groups who think it makes any sense to invest resources to produce statistics on rampage shootings (because they are so rare). The majority of the junk out there tries to avoid per capita analysis because raw per country numbers are much easier to dishonestly shock people with in a very biased way.

These extremely popular gun control adverts are great examples of that. On top of ignoring per capita rates, they also focus on "gun murders" instead of all forms of murder. For all you know, Finland's super low "gun murder rate" could be due to everyone killing each other with ballpoint pens. :
http://i.imgur.com/EGyvEz8.jpghttp://i.imgur.com/nSlmt9j.jpg

Unfortunately we cannot do scientific trials to verify exactly how much firearms influence deaths in the US: we can't create another US and give them placebo guns. So the best we can do is look at countries of a similar size, or state of development, or culture, or some other criteria, and compare results. I've been to Norway, Israel, and Switzerland, and it's pretty ridiculous to compare them to the US on almost any measure: geography, history, and culture, make them very different. But we can only compare what we've got.

When it comes to these sorts of measures I give weight to neutral bodies like the UN or medical researchers (because guns are, I think, properly thought of as a public health issue). Like this:

- A 2011 UN report (http://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/criminal-justice/un-2011-global-study-homicide) says that while there are some countries (e.g., in Africa and Latin America) where per-capita homicides are higher, the US rates are higher than others of a comparable socio-economic levels (though the rate in the US is dropping).
- A 2003 medical paper (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20571454) that says that firearm homicides in the US are 19.5 times higher than in other high-income countries.
- A 2006 medical paper (http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/12/6/365.full) indicating how gun deaths dropped in Australia when gun laws were tightened here.

We can each cherry-pick stats that appear to support different arguments, but if you pile up all the research for and against the idea that gun deaths in the US are a disproportionate problem, we'll find that the "for" pile is much bigger. That's science.

So, the 2006 and 2003 links analyze per capita but they fail the 2nd rule: don't look at just "gun <problem>" and consider it done. (aka cherry picking) Deaths are deaths. Just because "gun deaths" transition to other forms of deaths doesn't give you the right to consider it a win.

Just as an example, i've frequently heard people talk about "gun suicides" dropping in Australia after they enacted the 1996 gun laws.
http://i.imgur.com/fqxfaQV.png

Another demonstration of why the Australia data is cherry picked is the strict scope on timeline. "After X law was implemented, everything got better!" Uhh, yeah but what did the data look like before? Did law X actually have any noticeable impact on the existing trend?
I don't think I even need to explain it when you look at the data:

http://i.imgur.com/rD1Q8BD.jpg

And Australia is usually the best case scenario for any sort of material control scenario. They are surrounded by thousands of miles of water, so it's easier to secure their border. And this shit doesn't even work for them! I'll have to look through the 2011 data set though. I wouldn't be too surprised to learn that the US is statistically more violent. Things I will look for is if they averaged the socio-economic data across the whole country though. When looking at homicides, those absolutely stand out in very concentrated spots in the country: low socio-economic areas (aka fix the poverty and education!)

Timinator

09-07-2015, 09:22 PM

These extremely popular gun control adverts are great examples of that. I think they're still useful. If you compare Canada and the US, for instance, two countries which are the most similar in the world, and you normalise for population (the US is roughly 10 times the population of Canada), those absolute numbers of gun murders in the images you embedded are still proportionately very different between those two countries.

On top of ignoring per capita rates, they also focus on "gun murders" instead of all forms of murder. For all you know, Finland's super low "gun murder rate" could be due to everyone killing each other with ballpoint pens.

So, the 2006 and 2003 links analyze per capita but they fail the 2nd rule: don't look at just "gun <problem>" and consider it done. (aka cherry picking) Deaths are deaths. Just because "gun deaths" transition to other forms of deaths doesn't give you the right to consider it a win. This goes 'round to the circle of the first point: utility. Pens are immensely useful. So even if, in your straw man, people are killing each other with pens in Finland it's worth having pens.

Just as an example, i've frequently heard people talk about "gun suicides" dropping in Australia after they enacted the 1996 gun laws.
Another demonstration of why the Australia data is cherry picked is the strict scope on timeline. "After X law was implemented, everything got better!" Uhh, yeah but what did the data look like before? Did law X actually have any noticeable impact on the existing trend?
I don't think I even need to explain it when you look at the data.Well, yes, you do. Just because there are other trends making overall suicides go up doesn't mean that that firearm-suicide component downward trend isn't a good one. If guns hadn't become harder to get then it's reasonable to surmise that total suicide rates would be even higher today.

And just because gun homicides in Australia have been coming down since the '80s (as they have in the US) doesn't mean that it isn't worth taking steps to increase the rate of decline, or the number of spikes on that graph.

I wouldn't be too surprised to learn that the US is statistically more violent. Things I will look for is if they averaged the socio-economic data across the whole country though. When looking at homicides, those absolutely stand out in very concentrated spots in the country: low socio-economic areas (aka fix the poverty and education!)We can definitely agree that socio-economic leveling is a good step to take, for lots of reasons.

DigitalChaos

09-22-2015, 12:36 PM

Well, yes, you do. Just because there are other trends making overall suicides go up doesn't mean that that firearm-suicide component downward trend isn't a good one. If guns hadn't become harder to get then it's reasonable to surmise that total suicide rates would be even higher today.

you completely missed the data then, because there is nothing that demonstrates "other trends." The only thing demonstrated is that people who want to commit suicide will be undeterred by gun control. This is a pattern that exists in most problems that people try to phrase as a "gun problem."

This goes 'round to the circle of the first point: utility. Pens are immensely useful. So even if, in your straw man, people are killing each other with pens in Finland it's worth having pens.

The existence of rights are not connected to their utility, at least not in a free society. This is an authoritarian mindset. Rights are dangerous and a free society accepts this.

Dra508

09-23-2015, 01:07 PM

http://m.wcvb.com/news/toddler-accidentally-shoots-mother-inside-new-york-apartment/

DigitalChaos

09-23-2015, 03:08 PM

http://m.wcvb.com/news/toddler-accidentally-shoots-mother-inside-new-york-apartment/
link is dead. here is new one: http://www.wmur.com/news/toddler-accidentally-shoots-mother-at-ny-apartment/35425672

"Police have classified the shooting at the Commons Apartments in Lake Placid as an isolated incident. ... Lake Placid police said they believed the shooting was accidental. Officers said they did not believe the public was in danger."
Oh thank god. I thought the 3 year old had started a new rampage shooting and was still at large. Thanks for clearing that up!

But seriously, the kid is lucky to be alive. Kids that age do not have the finger strength to fire a gun the "normal" way. The end up pointing it at themselves in an effort to use their thumbs to push against the trigger.

Timinator

09-23-2015, 06:11 PM

you completely missed the data then, because there is nothing that demonstrates "other trends." The only thing demonstrated is that people who want to commit suicide will be undeterred by gun control. This is a pattern that exists in most problems that people try to phrase as a "gun problem."Read the text. There is lots that suggests other trends: increasing stressors in modern Australian society, for example work and social pressures. An increasing socio-economic divide, especially in the Aboriginal population which experiences higher suicide rates anyway. Are you contending that there are no other factors impacting suicide rates? But it was clear that suicides due to firearms were down. And even if that means that people will be forced to try methods of suicide that are less likely to be fatal, that's an improvement.

The existence of rights are not connected to their utility, at least not in a free society. This is an authoritarian mindset. Rights are dangerous and a free society accepts this.It's not all or nothing, "free" or "authoritarian". Every society - the US included - exists along a spectrum between those two ends. What we're talking about is where along that spectrum, and for which things, that balance should be.

DigitalChaos

09-23-2015, 06:48 PM

Read the text. There is lots that suggests other trends: increasing stressors in modern Australian society, for example work and social pressures. An increasing socio-economic divide, especially in the Aboriginal population which experiences higher suicide rates anyway. Are you contending that there are no other factors impacting suicide rates? But it was clear that suicides due to firearms were down. And even if that means that people will be forced to try methods of suicide that are less likely to be fatal, that's an improvement.

It's not all or nothing, "free" or "authoritarian". Every society - the US included - exists along a spectrum between those two ends. What we're talking about is where along that spectrum, and for which things, that balance should be.

You're still looking at this in the wrong way for how the USA is built. Rights are not granted by the government. Citizens do not have to prove utility in their rights to retain them. What needs to be proven is the utility in additional power given to the governments that will impede on the rights of citizens.

I think the slow movement of gun control is proof in itself that there's an insufficient number of citizens who believe in the utility of additional government power here is an acceptable trade-off for the reduction of rights.

Also the debate on utility is quickly becoming irrelevant. The ability of the government to control this, if they were allowed to, is rapidly diminishing.

allegro

09-23-2015, 08:13 PM

The SCOTUS definition of "utility" has been "home security" and its most recent decisions have denied "assault weapons" or high-volume magazine weapons as "home security" or "utility" weapons. The SCOTUS (government) has approved low volume magazine weapons, revolvers, and shotguns as home security (utility) weapons. It continues to reject cases related to "assault weapons" which it finds NOT "necessary" or "utility." [Heller]

"Utility" according to the 2nd amendment was a well-regulated militia. But it was based on English common law, which meant self-protection, which is why the courts also interpret it as meaning self-protection.

The government can and will legally regulate and deny the defense of assault (high capacity) weapons and will probably pursue stronger gun background checks and acceptable safety regulations and interconnected state background check databases and consistent national gun laws, which it can legally do under SCOTUS decisions and the 2nd Amendment, all without a slippery slope and all while preserving common law and the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment will never be compromised. Ever.

And my prayers will be answered if this bankrupts the NRA. Total scam artists milking hillbilly poor people.

The "slow movement" of gun control is a myth. There has actually been more gun control (state level) than people realize. Lots of it. Tons of it. But it doesn't get any news. And it's fair gun control. Safety class requirements. Waiting and "cool down" periods (most beneficial for women and domestic violence). FOID requirements. Etc.

Timinator

09-23-2015, 11:53 PM

You're still looking at this in the wrong way for how the USA is built. Rights are not granted by the government. Citizens do not have to prove utility in their rights to retain them. What needs to be proven is the utility in additional power given to the governments that will impede on the rights of citizens.

I think the slow movement of gun control is proof in itself that there's an insufficient number of citizens who believe in the utility of additional government power here is an acceptable trade-off for the reduction of rights.Rights may not be granted by the government, but they can be limited or revoked by the government. Commit a crime? Go to jail. Choose to indulge a hobby for blowing things up? Nope, can't do that. Build your own car and drive it, unlicensed and uninsured on the highways? Nope. Assault weapons? Like allegro says, nope. And none of that is balancing utility for an individual versus "power given to governments"; it's balancing utility for individuals versus harm to society.

Even if we agreed on "how the USA is built" it's a whole other discussion about whether that's sensible or not.

I think the slow movement of gun control is proof of the power of lobbying. But I agree with you that there are a lot of American citizens who have drunk the freedom kool-aid; who think that having this particular "right", distorted and dangerous as it is, is a good thing. They're clearly bonkers.

DigitalChaos

09-24-2015, 12:32 AM

Rights may not be granted by the government, but they can be limited or revoked by the government. Commit a crime? Go to jail. Choose to indulge a hobby for blowing things up? Nope, can't do that. Build your own car and drive it, unlicensed and uninsured on the highways? Nope. Assault weapons? Like allegro says, nope. And none of that is balancing utility for an individual versus "power given to governments"; it's balancing utility for individuals versus harm to society.

Even if we agreed on "how the USA is built" it's a whole other discussion about whether that's sensible or not.

I think the slow movement of gun control is proof of the power of lobbying. But I agree with you that there are a lot of American citizens who have drunk the freedom kool-aid; who think that having this particular "right", distorted and dangerous as it is, is a good thing. They're clearly bonkers.

Your first paragraph is exactly what my first paragraph said... so uh.. it sounds like you are disagreeing but we agree. You are just stuck trying to phrase it in the sense of individual utility. What you are describing IS the utility of power given to the government.

as for the "freedom kool aid" bit.. it goes way beyond this. It is now technology that is starting to make the debate on centralized control grow irrelevant. Saying that the government can have any meaningful impact on gun possession/use through prohibitionary tactics will become antiquated. It will be on par with how we now see the reality of the government using prohibition on marijuana. Better get used to freedom :)

DigitalChaos

09-24-2015, 12:41 AM

The SCOTUS definition of "utility" has always been "home security"
Different use of utility here. use vs value, roughly.

2nd amendment explicitly protects a specific USE that must not be impeded.

Timinator was speaking as if any right can just be taken away if it doesn't provide sufficient VALUE to the individual. I'm arguing that it is the inverse of this that is reality. All rights are automatically yours. For the government to impede on any of your rights requires that there is sufficient value in the act of impeding.

You can't justify the removal of my right to write BANANATITS on my front door just because the act presents no value to me. You need to demonstrate value in impeding my right to do this.

Timinator

09-24-2015, 01:52 AM

Your first paragraph is exactly what my first paragraph said... so uh.. it sounds like you are disagreeing but we agree. You are just stuck trying to phrase it in the sense of individual utility. What you are describing IS the utility of power given to the government. I no longer understand what you're trying to say here, then.

as for the "freedom kool aid" bit.. it goes way beyond this. It is now technology that is starting to make the debate on centralized control grow irrelevant. Saying that the government can have any meaningful impact on gun possession/use through prohibitionary tactics will become antiquated. I don't understand what this means, either. It's been done in other countries around the world. You don't think it can be done in the US? I agree there's a culture and lobby that will try to prevent it, but I don't see why it couldn't work mechanically.

Better get used to freedom :)I've got plenty, thanks. And I'm unlikely to want any more, US-style.

While anecdotes are only that, careful observations over time can have empirical meaning. I have spent a lot of time in the US (mostly California, Texas, Georgia, and NYC). I lived a long time in both rural and urban Canada (I grew up using shotguns for pest control). I lived for several years in the UK, mostly London but also visiting rural relatives (who also had shotguns for pest control). I've lived for several years in Australia. I've visited - for periods of at least several days - over 30 countries around the world. It seems very clear to me that the US has an extremely dysfunctional relationship with guns. The vast majority of the rest of the world is not deluding themselves.

allegro

09-24-2015, 06:59 AM

Different use of utility here. use vs value, roughly.

2nd amendment explicitly protects a specific USE that must not be impeded.

Timinator was speaking as if any right can just be taken away if it doesn't provide sufficient VALUE to the individual. I'm arguing that it is the inverse of this that is reality. All rights are automatically yours. For the government to impede on any of your rights requires that there is sufficient value in the act of impeding.

But what I'm saying is that the SCOTUS has already determined that there is no "value" in high capacity (assault) weapons and the Court has, therefore, refused to support or defend high capacity weapons. But the SCOTUS *HAS* however, determined the value (and usefulness) of several other weapons under the 2nd Amendment and therefore continues to defend them under the 2nd Amendment.

The 2nd Amendment has been defined by SCOTUS caselaw, and the weapon must be of some sufficient value and use to the individual and that CANNOT be taken away, just the opposite; see for instance Heller 2008 (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf) (trigger locks or disassembly, and home protection vs. militia).

But then the SCOTUS refused to hear this case (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-08/nra-rejected-by-u-s-supreme-court-on-san-francisco-gun-law).

(The gun is still of value and use if it is locked in a case. Although, in 2008 [Heller], it was not if the gun had a trigger lock. Go figure. Hence Thomas' and Scalia's dissent in the SF case rejection.)

The SCOTUS continues to refuse to hear assault ban cases because other guns (per the SCOTUS: revolvers, low-capacity semi-automatic handguns, shotguns and rifles) provide sufficient value and use for self-protection (and "militia") under 2A.

Otherwise, yeah, according to U.S. laws and its ironclad Constitution and caselaw, this is a pretty useless argument.

The U.S. may have a "dysfunctional" relationship with guns, but considering the fact that over 30 million legal guns are already out there, that horse left the barn over 200 years ago and it ain't coming back and the horse is (justifiably) protected by the United States Supreme Court and the Second Amendment. Other countries may not "get" that, but it is what it is. But, other countries (and people in this country) have a total lack of knowledge as to the massive amount of gun control we have in this country, but how we are unable to completely control our huge amount of "free" citizens. Freedom is wonderful, but it often comes with a price. The opposite is living in a police state; and sometimes we are coming very close to that in these modern times.

DigitalChaos

09-24-2015, 12:27 PM

@allegro (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=76) - I didn't even think about that angle. That's a good addition. I was purely harping on the philosophical difference between where rights (all rights, not just gun rights) come from and how they are impeded. I always find it disturbing and outright dangerous when someone starts talking about the value of a right as the foundation for why it would be fine to impede on that right. It's right next to people interpreting the Constitution's securing of specific rights as a universal truth that all our rights are granted by government.

@Timinator (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=258) - In addition to what I just said to allegro, I'm not really sure how to say it. But as for the second portion, answer this: Do you believe government prohibitionary controls on marijuana are more or less effective than on guns? Now, WHY do you think that?
People usually point toward the centralized manufacture of guns as the strength in the govt control over them. (license the manufacturers and sales points and have them impose the prohibitionary rules) Whereas with marijuana, everyone's grandma can grow it, so it's much harder to control. There is very little difference between the two beyond that.

edit: fucking typos, phrasing, and grammar. shit kills me.

marodi

09-24-2015, 01:30 PM

I'll just drop this here because it's funny as hell and it illustrates some of Timinator 's points about the US vs Rest of the World views on gun and gun control.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ML4iIiRHcJY

Timinator

09-24-2015, 02:45 PM

@Timinator (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=258) - In addition to what I just said to allegro, I'm not really sure how to say it. But as for the second portion, answer this: Do you believe government prohibitionary controls on marijuana are more or less effective than on guns? Now, WHY do you think that?
People usually point toward the centralized manufacture of guns as the strength in the govt control over them. (license the manufacturers and sales points and have them impose the prohibitionary rules) Whereas with marijuana, everyone's grandma can grow it, so it's much harder to control. There is very little difference between the two beyond that.I'm not sure what the point of this straw man is. Are you trying to demonstrate that the futility of prohibiting marijuana correlates to an eventual futility of prohibiting certain types of guns? Because clearly other countries around the world do not have this difficulty. Yes, you can get weed in most countries around the world, even though it's illegal most places. I could only speculate about why that's the case: because of easy production, as you said. Because here's immense profit in producing and distributing it. Because it's very small and easy to conceal in typical amounts. Because law enforcement isn't often interested in pursuing it as a crime in typical amounts. Because no one can easily kill themselves with weed, because you can't kill someone else with weed. Maybe there are more reasons.

Are you saying that widespread use of marijuana in the USA means the government there cannot reduce gun crime?

Thanks marodi. It is a comedy routine, but at the end of the day both philosophical and legal arguments on the topic all feel cold and empty. If you reduce it to actual experiences it seems (to me) to be much more compelling.

DigitalChaos

09-24-2015, 03:38 PM

I'll just drop this here

http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/threads/1318-Gun-Talk-News-Laws-etc?p=249045#post249045

DigitalChaos

09-24-2015, 03:49 PM

clearly other countries around the world do not have this difficulty.
not yet they don't

Are you saying that widespread use of marijuana in the USA means the government there cannot reduce gun crime?

No. I am using it as a comparison point. The functional difference in manufacture & sale between the two is going to continue narrowing. The growing ability for an individual to privately produce a ton of physical goods that used to take an elaborate machine shop. (3D printing, desktop CNC machines, etc) Hell, we are now seeing first amendment challenges connected to the government trying to restrict this. We used to live in a time where it was much easier to control the flow of information due to the centralized nature of the distributors, but that is also long gone for most parts of the world. This is the trend that will continue for just about everything.

Eventually, this gun control discussion will become as futile as debating whether the government should try and prohibit the communications of dissenters, the trade of marijuana, or the possession of forks. This futility will grow faster than the progress of gun control in the US.

And it's not a strawman. I'm not using it to shut down the discussion. I added it as an additional point for what the future will hold. You can't constantly look into the past when trying to change the future.

Timinator

09-24-2015, 05:05 PM

DigitalChaos

09-24-2015, 10:58 PM

OK, so I think I get your point: technology will eclipse any effort to control guns, in the US and eventually elsewhere. So everyone will soon have guns. It's more of a defeatist attitude to gun ownership?

I don't buy that, though. The psychological need to own guns will eventually, slowly in some places, die out, as is the need for organised religion. It's a ludicrous construct based on outdated premises, and it will wither and die. I will continue to live in countries where they've reached that point.

So, if this can be addressed from a psychological/social perspective, then that sure sounds like a much better approach than through force.

And my point about technology eclipsing prohibitionary control is only defeatist if your only approach is forced gun control. I've mentioned before that a focus on fixing poverty and education will do HUGE things for anything typically listed as a "gun problem." And you are now talking about social perspectives. None of these other approaches are defeated by things like 3D printing and desktop CNCs.

DigitalChaos

09-24-2015, 11:03 PM

On the topic of 3D printing and the unique changes it is bringing, there is this really interesting situation where the first amendment is being used to defend the distribution of files needed for printing weapons. Historically, this seems like a first. @allegro (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=76) may correct me though.

http://www.wired.com/2015/05/3-d-printed-gun-lawsuit-starts-war-arms-control-free-speech/

The only thing that almost got to this point was the cryptography battles of the 90's. Crypto was classified as a munition. The government tried to block "international export" over the internet through the ITAR regulations, just like is happening with the 3D print files now. People started trying to circumvent this by printing crypto source code in books, on tshirts, etc. Eventually, Clinton had crypto removed from ITAR regulations... so we never got to see the 1st/2nd amendment hybrid play out. But, it's back again! I fucking love technology.

...
Wilson’s lawsuit, two decades later, is taking another shot at ITAR with that same first amendment argument. Only this time the fight isn’t over code erroneously labeled as a weapon. The code in question actually is a weapon.

...

Phil Zimmermann himself, who was threatened with prosecution for ITAR violations in 1993, says he supports Defense Distributed’s lawsuit and believes the free speech argument he made then should apply just as much to gun code as it did to crypto code. “I see this as very similar to the PGP situation,” he says. “I’m not a gun nut. I don’t own a gun. But publishing a blueprint for a gun should not be illegal.”
...

Khrz

09-24-2015, 11:21 PM

OK, so I think I get your point: technology will eclipse any effort to control guns, in the US and eventually elsewhere.

Oh boy, I'm so looking forward to this.
New shiny homemade guns readily available in cultures that traditionally don't handle those. We're so backwards we're still using old machine guns smuggled from the Balkans. Imagine that !
Given the current climate in Europe, and projecting that situation a dozen years down the line, this is going to make things so much more interesting !

DigitalChaos

09-25-2015, 11:46 AM

Marx always wanted the people to be in control of the means of production. It's like a perfect love-child of socialism and capitalism.

Khrz

09-25-2015, 02:05 PM

oh goody, Scylla and Charybdis had a lovechild, how could that go wrong.

DigitalChaos

09-25-2015, 05:03 PM

Hey, we are just having fun here. This is actually an interesting exchange about guns for once. Normally it's the circular "ban it vs don't ban it" exchange that is never going anywhere.

october_midnight

10-01-2015, 01:54 PM

15 dead in Oregon community college. lol at the garbage united states.

Sarah K

10-01-2015, 02:40 PM

http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2015

GulDukat

10-01-2015, 05:36 PM

Obama's comments on the Oregon shooting are worth watching.

Dra508

10-01-2015, 07:18 PM

http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-07-02/quietly-congress-extends-ban-cdc-research-gun-violence

allegro

10-01-2015, 07:32 PM

As I said in in GH thread:

Meanwhile, nobody outside of Chicago reported this (https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20150930/bronzeville/chicago-shootings-murders-spike-leads-bloodiest-september-years).

Through midday Tuesday (Sept 29), at least 250 shootings resulted in 55 people getting killed and 288 other people getting shot, according to data compiled by DNAinfo

WGN reports there were 60 dead in September (http://wgntv.com/2015/09/30/murders-keep-adding-up-for-the-deadliest-september-in-chicago-since-2002/).

14 shot in 15 hours (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-chicago-shootings-violence-20150928-story.html).

tony.parente

10-01-2015, 09:05 PM

15 dead in Oregon community college. lol at the garbage united states.

Sweet commentary bro

october_midnight

10-01-2015, 09:13 PM

Sweet commentary bro

....Uhh, yep. I know.

tony.parente

10-01-2015, 09:16 PM

....Uhh, yep. I know.
Seriously though, you live in Americas hat. This could happen in your country just as quickly as in America.
http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/canada/british-columbia/shooting-surrey-school-1.3229997

october_midnight

10-01-2015, 09:21 PM

Seriously though, you live in Americas hat. This could happen in your country just as quickly as in America.
http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/canada/british-columbia/shooting-surrey-school-1.3229997

And it does, but there's no way anyone can compare. And I guess we'll just do the internet thing and start posting links to prove points: http://www.humanosphere.org/science/2014/03/visualizing-gun-deaths-comparing-the-u-s-to-rest-of-the-world/

Someone kinda uhh...stands out.

Timinator

10-01-2015, 09:25 PM

@Obama (https://www.whitehouse.gov/live/president-obama-delivers-statement-2): "This is a political choice that we make to allow this to happen every few months in America. We collectively are answerable to those families who lose their loves ones because of our inaction. When Americans are killed in mine disasters, we work to make mines safer. When Americans are killed in floods and hurricanes, we make communities safer. When roads are unsafe, we fix them to reduce auto fatalities. We have seatbelt laws because we know it safes lives. The notion that gun violence is somehow different—that our freedom and our Constitution prohibits any modest regulation of how we use a deadly weapon, when there are law-abiding gun owners all across the country who could hunt, and protect their families, and do everything they do under such regulations—doesn't make sense."

tony.parente

10-01-2015, 09:27 PM

And it does, but there's no way anyone can compare. And I guess we'll just do the internet thing and start posting links to prove points: http://www.humanosphere.org/science/2014/03/visualizing-gun-deaths-comparing-the-u-s-to-rest-of-the-world/

Someone kinda uhh...stands out.
I'm not saying America doesn't have a problem, my issue is with you saying "lots of innocent people died in another country inundated with gun violence lol that country is garbage let's not contribute anything to the conversation"

october_midnight

10-02-2015, 10:24 AM

I'm not saying America doesn't have a problem, my issue is with you saying "lots of innocent people died in another country inundated with gun violence lol that country is garbage let's not contribute anything to the conversation"

I'm sorry you had issue with the random post on the internet forum.

Dra508

10-02-2015, 01:38 PM

Blog post from a friend of my brother.

http://metrodad.typepad.com/index/2015/10/to-the-students-of-umpqua-community-college.html

allegro

10-02-2015, 03:04 PM

Blog post from a friend of my brother.

http://metrodad.typepad.com/index/2015/10/to-the-students-of-umpqua-community-college.html

G and I know the Professor who was shot in this shooting:

http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1714069,00.html

tony.parente

10-02-2015, 04:12 PM

I'm sorry you had issue with the random post on the internet forum.

You were literally laughing at the fact that 10 families have to bury their children and tauting it as some sort of win because you don't like the countries gun laws.

emptydesk

10-02-2015, 04:23 PM

Yes, we US citizens are all laughing at how hard we're "winning" right now.

tony.parente

10-02-2015, 05:18 PM

Yes, we US citizens are all laughing at how hard we're "winning" right now.
Am I really that off base to be ticked off that people are literally laughing at our tragedies and dead children? I'm not passionate enough about guns in either fashion to have to defend either side that much, but laughing at the fact that people were murdered is fucked and shows a sign of mental instability.

emptydesk

10-02-2015, 05:28 PM

I'll say it doesn't take a master of reading the tone of the written word and context to understand that october_midnight was laughing sardonically at the state of things in the US, and not specifically at victims of a violent mass shooting.

tony.parente

10-02-2015, 05:49 PM

This thread is stuck in some bizarro ets universe right now.

emptydesk

10-02-2015, 05:54 PM

To further answer your question, apart from 4chan trolls, of which the shooter may have been himself, I'm really not generally seeing *anyone* laughing at the shooting itself. I think that you are indeed "off based".

The general national conversation, which includes an exasperated Obama at this point, seems to be leaning towards frustration, anger, and abject cynicism.

Jinsai

10-03-2015, 04:35 AM

15 dead in Oregon community college. lol at the garbage united states.

I think the problem is the more the "lol" than anything else. If you lived here, you might be a little more upset. It's a real problem, and people just really died in a horrifying pointless way. It sucks that this discussion is being allocated to this shitty thread.

If you lived here, you'd have to deal with the fact that every time this happens (all the fucking time), all of the discussion turns into smug defensive NRA bullshit smacking down the possibility for any kind of a rational conversation. It's actually really fucking awful. It isn't something to even facetiously "lol" about.

orestes

10-03-2015, 06:26 AM

Just a suggestion: instead of coming here to discuss the sadly latest mass shooting, create an individual thread. I don't care if it fills the entire front page of this sub-forum.

DigitalChaos

10-03-2015, 09:43 AM

As I said in in GH thread:

Meanwhile, nobody outside of Chicago reported this (https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20150930/bronzeville/chicago-shootings-murders-spike-leads-bloodiest-september-years).

WGN reports there were 60 dead in September (http://wgntv.com/2015/09/30/murders-keep-adding-up-for-the-deadliest-september-in-chicago-since-2002/).

14 shot in 15 hours (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-chicago-shootings-violence-20150928-story.html).

"lol black people. call me when white people get shot so I can argue about gun control" - everyone

DigitalChaos

10-03-2015, 10:41 AM

I also like Obama asking that we compare gun deaths against domestic deaths due to terrorist attacks. Sure, only one of those is highly scoped in (making it a shit comparison), but I thought we might talk about the stupidity of the War on Terror instead of using it as a sane reference point.

It's also highly topical being that we just bombed a MSF (doctors without boarders) facility. So far, 16 are dead and 37 injured.

Sallos

10-03-2015, 11:25 AM

"lol black people. call me when white people get shot so I can argue about gun control" - everyone

Yeah like that shooting in a black church in one of the Carolinas?

DigitalChaos

10-03-2015, 11:29 AM

Yeah like that shooting in a black church in one of the Carolinas?

Look. It's the "I have a black friend" response.

Sallos

10-03-2015, 11:33 AM

i didn't get that one

emptydesk

10-05-2015, 07:45 PM

There are over 9,000 firearm deaths in the US this year alone. Maybe we can get some sort of common sense federal gun control done and sort out who is least racist after that. They can get a gold star.

tony.parente

10-05-2015, 07:48 PM

There are over 9,000 firearm deaths in the US this year alone. Maybe we can get some sort of common sense federal gun control done and sort out who is least racist after that.

There is nothing left to say, which is why some folks have resorted to seeing death as a punchline.

DigitalChaos

10-06-2015, 01:29 PM

Maybe we can get some sort of common sense federal gun control

Such as?

Nobody, including the president, has been capable of proposing legislation that would have prevented the vast majority of "mass shootings" that people get all excited about.

but hey, go ahead and talk about "gun deaths" without ever giving a shit about the one area you could truly impact one of the largest portions of that statistic. Just use their dead bodies to promote your unrelated bullshit.

DigitalChaos

10-06-2015, 01:40 PM

Obama's comments on the Oregon shooting are worth watching.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/10/01/watch-president-obamas-statement-shooting-oregon

Yes, absolutely. Notice the completely vacuous commentary he feeds everyone. Completely devoid of any policy suggestions that are remotely specific. Feed on the pure emotion he instructs you to feel, for there is nothing more offered. Enjoy the empty #hope. Long for the non existent #change. What a leader!

Sarah K

10-06-2015, 02:00 PM

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/oct/02/mass-shootings-america-gun-violence

allegro

10-06-2015, 02:27 PM

I was reading an OpEd piece in the Chicago Sun-Times last Sunday where they were pushing a gun bill that denied guns to people with felonies, domestic relations orders of protection, and mental illness; and these people don't realize that this state already has strict laws already on the books with those measures; in order to legally buy guns or ammo in the State of Illinois, you must first have a FOID (Firearms Owner Identification) card, which you obtain through the Illinois Secretary of State, and the process includes a background check that disqualifies people with Orders of Protection against them, or with felony convictions, etc., and they ask you, on the form, if you are mentally ill (you can answer "no" of course, and Federal privacy laws prevent any medical background checks). And if an Order of Protection is entered after you already HAVE a FOID, that FOID is flagged in the state database and no legal vender of ammo and/or guns can legally sell you guns or ammo. So these journalists don't do any research at all.

And the vast majority of these shootings in Chicago (and we are, like, Numero Uno) are done by guys who didn't buy their guns legally, because most of them have felony convictions so any "gun laws" don't apply to these guys, anyway, because they don't follow any laws. And the shootings / deaths are directly attributable to the drug trade, which is HUGE HUGE HUGE and big business. We're talking Al Capone Goodfellas street shit, here. They just don't care who they shoot, it's street war and anybody who gets killed is "collateral damage." That's why Chicago is being called "ChIraq." The shooters' motto is "I'd rather be judged by 12 than be carried by 6."

Here are Cook County Attorney General Anita Alvarez' suggested solutions (http://chicago.suntimes.com/opinion/7/71/1008501/anita-alvarez-target-carry-guns-illegally).

If we were to pass really strict gun laws across the nation right now, ban all assault weapons and high-volume magazines, limit the number of guns allowed per person, ban all Internet sales of guns and ammo (all of which I think are good ideas), background checks to include invasion of privacy and every mental healthcare professional to report every visit by every patient to a central Government Gun Database (which I don't think is a good idea), that would not do anything about the thirty million guns already out there in possession by Americans right now.

The aforementioned Sun-Times article mentioned Sandy Hook and how a guy with mental illness got guns and how that could have been "prevented" with mental health background checks; again, not enough journalism background data, or maybe amnesia? The Sandy Hook shooter (who we don't know had mental illness but was possibly mentally disabled) stole his mother's legally-purchased guns, then he murdered his own mother with her guns, so he bypassed a background check by stealing guns from a licensed gun-owner. The Oregon shooter? No known history of mental illness, the guy was just "weird" according to witnesses, so do we start locking up weird people, just in case? I don't know why we sell thirteen fucking guns to anybody, really. How about just one per person? Keep THAT info in a database. That might be a good start. Even gang members don't have more than one gun. And, people with mental illness are far more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators of violence.

The bottom line, though (one that has made me seriously consider moving to another country) is that the United States is a violent country. It has been a violent country since its inception. If you look at its history, it has actually grown less violent, not more, through increasing civilization. The very first United States Supreme Court decision relating to the right to bear arms related to a slave-owner's ability to use a personally-owned gun to shoot his slave if said slave attempted to leave. See this article (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/the-origins-of-public-carry-jurisprudence-in-the-slave-south/407809/).

Maybe what we really need is to look at and deal with the ROOT of the problem: Violence. Maybe children, from pre-school through high-school, need anger management and "violence is not the answer" training. Maybe we need nationwide meditation classes, free of charge. Maybe we need to slowly change this rage-and-violence-and-revenge-is-acceptable mindset, where dead people are like a video game and aren't "real" mindset, and get people to be more compassionate, more empathetic. There is a root to this problem, and taking away one of the tools of violence is like putting a bandaid on a gaping bleeding wound. Yes, we need to pass limits and measures; but focusing only on mass shootings each time they happen (and ignoring the WEEKLY shootings in, say, Chicago) is just a knee-jerk reaction that gets us nowhere and doesn't fix the overall, or root, problem.

DigitalChaos

10-06-2015, 02:45 PM

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/oct/02/mass-shootings-america-gun-violence
I love all the people buying the "Mass Shooting Tracker" ... including journalists who should know better. That thing includes PELLET (http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2013#cite_note-262) GUN INJURIES (http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2014#cite_note-91) as part of their (http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2014#cite_note-91) dishonest mass (http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2014#cite_note-92) shooting statistic (http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2014#cite_note-93).

The FBI has an accepted definition for "mass shooting" and the tracker site purposely avoids using it to inflate the numbers.

Sarah K

10-06-2015, 02:50 PM

DigitalChaos

10-06-2015, 03:09 PM

Agree with nearly everything, but I wanted to elaborate on this bit:

I was reading an OpEd piece in the Chicago Sun-Times last Sunday where they were pushing a gun bill ... and these people don't realize that this state already has strict laws already on the books with those measures ... So these journalists don't do any research at all.

This seems to be a perpetual problem and one of the foundational issues of why progress will never be made. People can point to the NRA all they want, but without the opposite side understanding wtf they are doing... there is no point.

However, this same problem exists with our own politicians. They actually propose the same stupid crap over and over. However, a few days ago, CA's governor (Jerry Brown) just sent out a veto that is worthy of praise. Sure, there were some gun oriented bills here, but that isn't my point.

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning the following nine bills without my signature:

Assembly Bill 144
Assembly Bill 849
Senate Bill 168
Senate Bill 170
Senate Bill 271
Senate Bill 333
Senate Bill 347
Senate Bill 716
Senate Bill 712

Each of these bills creates a new crime—usually by finding a novel way to characterize and criminalize conduct that is already proscribed. This multiplication and particularization of criminal behavior creates increasing complexity without commensurate benefit.
Over the last several decades, California's criminal code has grown to more than 5,000 provisions covering every almost conceivable form of human misbehavior.

During the same period, our jail and prison populations have exploded.

Before we keep going down this road, I think we should pause and reflect how our system of criminal justice could be made more human, more just and more cost-effective.

Governors everywhere should use that as a template when assessing new bills

DigitalChaos

10-06-2015, 03:19 PM

Injuries are injuries. Doesn't really matter how they were sustained. I know you're always over the tip and super aggro about this topic... I just thought it was interesting to have it laid out in a visual context.
that might be ok if it were called "Injury Tracker" or "Any Type of Injury Kinda Connected to Anything That Is Remotely Gun-Like Tracker"

skinned your knee during a sweet nerf battle? WE HAVE ANOTHER MASS SHOOTING!!! LOG IT!

More honest versions of the data has been laid out in a visual context. It's just not as dramatic so people have a hard time spreading it around to fit their agenda.

halloween

10-06-2015, 07:29 PM

allegro

10-06-2015, 09:14 PM

This is a piece that I really appreciated that goes into the "good guy with a gun" myth that's involved with the argument of using guns for self-defense.

http://www.thenation.com/article/combat-vets-destroy-the-nras-heroic-gunslinger-fantasy/
An interesting counter to that, though: my younger brother actually used his gun in his home as self-defense, and never fired it. He and his wife heard a noise late at night while sleeping, coming from the front enclosed porch. My brother grabbed his loaded handgun and quietly headed toward the front room, just in time to see somebody entering from the front porch. That somebody's face was soon greeted by my brother's loaded gun. The intruder kept telling my brother that he "wasn't allowed" to shoot him (wtf) while my brother's terrified wife called 911. Within seconds, dozens of cops arrived and as soon as it was apparent that all was under control, my panicked brother threw the gun into the bushes. The potential robber was cuffed and arrested but complained about my brother threatening him with a gun (wtf). The cops, meanwhile, told my bro that they had seen him toss the gun and they ran a check and found it legal and asked him why he'd tossed it; he said he thought he'd get into trouble. They said fuck no. Nobody was hurt, he did the right thing: He'd used the gun as self defense but didn't actually shoot anybody. Then they returned his gun to him.

DigitalChaos

10-07-2015, 12:26 AM

DigitalChaos

10-07-2015, 12:52 AM

This is a piece that I really appreciated that goes into the "good guy with a gun" myth that's involved with the argument of using guns for self-defense.

http://www.thenation.com/article/combat-vets-destroy-the-nras-heroic-gunslinger-fantasy/

The first half of this article is absolutely correct. Any decent self defense class focusing on guns will teach you how hard it is to use a gun, let alone accurately hit the target, in a high stress situation. It's something you need to constantly train for and never stop. If you stop, the skill rapidly fades. It doesn't completely diminish the value of a gun for self defense though.

The Secret Service bit is kind of irrelevant considering their very unique position. Off topic, but the SS having to turn themselves into body shields for the president is a much harder thing to teach your body to do. It's amazing that people can be taught to reflexively do things like that. The last half with the statistics... many issues but I've gone over that quite a bit and I don't think you are interested in that.

On the topic of defensive gun use... there is a subreddit dedicated to cataloging every instance of defensive gun use, even the instances where the gun owner fucked up. You may be interested in browsing it:
https://www.reddit.com/r/dgu

allegro

10-07-2015, 04:45 AM

That's a crazy story @allegro (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=76). Sounds like the cops were cool about it. Was that around Chicago? I don't know the particulars of self defense laws there, but if it's like California... I can totally understand the concern.

Out here, brandishing, warning shots, and "shooting to wound" are all things everyone is told to avoid from a legal perspective (plus, warning shots and shooting to wound are just plain dumb and dangerous). You are only allowed to use a gun if you truly feel your life is being threatened. If the situation goes to court, it could be easily argued that brandishing is an explicit admission that you were not sufficiently threatened. Thus, any other use of the gun is considered hostile and criminal.

This all stems from the anti-gun legal structure. "The gun is ONLY a tool for killing. Nothing more." Meanwhile, states like Arizona have laws that explicitly allow for the "defensive display" of a firearm.

No, a Detroit suburb (I'm from the Detroit area). And he was INSIDE my brother's house. My brother only used his gun to hold the guy there until the cops arrived, so I guess they thought that was a good reason (since the guy was IN MY BROTHER'S HOUSE, after he"d forcibly broken in). My brother had no idea if the guy was also armed, or what the guy planned to do, beyond robbing him and his wife, but once he had the guy in what seemed to be a properly subdued position, and my brother's wife was on the phone with 911 dispatchers, shooting the guy seemed like a dumb idea.

Don't know why it would "go to court," unless the robber sued my brother for scaring him, in which case my brother could counter-sue for breaking and entering and attempted robbery and God knows what else.

In Michigan, it is a misdemeanor to point your firearm at another person (statute (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(5fab0js4014fhfqwolxqp3sr))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-750-233)) but Michigan also has the "Castle" doctrine (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(0znmt52klmx4msngdy3jlrr3))/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-780-951) and a "stand your ground" statute, which might override the misdemeanor statute inside the home.

DigitalChaos

10-07-2015, 11:43 AM

allegro

10-07-2015, 12:51 PM

Ah ok. As for the "go to court" bit... I assume it can result from the perp deciding to bring charges against you (by itself or as a counter suit). Also from the police investigating.

California also has SYG and Castle Doctrine laws, but with very specific requirements. You'll basically have to prove that you had reasonable fear for your life. If the perp is retreating, for example, you'd be risking some serious legal problems if you shot the person. Hell, if you even hit them in the back while they are in your house it'll raise serious questions. I've never taken the time to look up some example cases where someone got convicted for brandishing in a defensive situation like that, but the warning against it seems to be just about everywhere. example (http://www.secondcalldefense.org/self-defense-news/why-brandishing-shooting-wound-and-warning-shots-are-bad-ideas) If it turned out to be bullshit and just some near-universal myth in the gun community, that would be hilarious. It would stir up quite a bit of drama. Looking at the wording in the laws that apply to me, it certainly seems reasonable though. Especially with how closely I've seen the verbage of laws picked apart during the high-profile gun trials.

Under the above-cited Michigan Castle statute, no charges could be filed by a perp against a person whose home a perp entered into unlawfully. Also, a perp is barred from filing civil suit in said situation under said statute.

Here is the language from the CA Castle law (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/198.5.html) (also known as the "Home Protection Bill of Rights"):

Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that force is used against another person, not a member of the family or household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.

As used in this section, great bodily injury means a significant or substantial physical injury.

So that doesn't put the burden of proof on the person using force, at all.

Here is interesting caselaw (http://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/3d/226/996.html).

Section 198.5 creates the rebuttable presumption that defendant had a reasonable fear of death or great bodily injury when he used deadly force against the victim. Rebuttable presumptions affect either the burden of producing evidence or the burden of proof. A presumption that operates to facilitate the determination of a particular action affects the burden of producing evidence; a presumption established to implement some public policy is a presumption affecting the burden of proof. The legislative history of section 198.5 indicates the statute was enacted to permit residential occupants to defend themselves from intruders without fear of legal repercussions, to give "the benefit of the doubt in such cases to the resident, establishing a presumption that the very act of forcible entry entails a threat to the life and limb of the homeowner." Thus, the presumption in section 198.5 was implemented to promote a public policy and affects the burden of proof.

The effect of the presumption is to impose upon the People the burden of proof as to the nonexistence of the presumed fact. The burden, therefore, was on the People to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant did not have a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or injury to himself or to Connie when he killed the victim. However, this burden already rested upon the prosecution independently of the presumption created by section l98.5-and the jury was so instructed in the instant case.

emptydesk

10-07-2015, 05:45 PM

Customer shoots at two suspected shoplifters as they leave Auburn Hills Home Depot

AURBURN HILLS, Mich. (WXYZ) - Auburn Hills police are investigating after shots were fired outside the Home Depot on Joslyn Road.
Police say a customer witnessed two suspected shoplifters leaving the store and fired shots at their SUV.

Police say the customer does have a concealed weapons license. Officers say she did shoot out one of the tires on the SUV.
It is not known if she will face charges in the incident.

The shoplifting suspects are described at a white man, between 40 and 50-years-old, wearing a black t-shirt with yellow writing and a black baseball cap, and an African American man, who is about 40-years-old.

We are told a loss prevention officer ran after the first suspect as he left the store. Police say the suspect stole an unknown amount of merchandise. The second suspect was waiting in a small, black SUV.

If you have an information on their current location, you are asked to contact Auburn Hills police.

http://www.wxyz.com/news/region/oakland-county/customer-shoots-at-two-suspected-shoplifters-as-they-leave-auburn-hills-home-depot

emptydesk

10-07-2015, 05:58 PM

Such as?

Speed limits, seatbelt regulations laws and drunk driving laws result in fewer driving deaths. I mean, if you ever want to make the famously reductive "we don't outlaw cars" argument.

It should be harder to get a gun than it is to get and maintain a driver's license.

You should have to apply, wait, background checks, take mandatory training in safety and proper use, pass an exam demonstrating aptitude, be required to buy insurance, and have to keep it in a secure place. You should have to renew your certification every 2-4 years. You should have to go through more challenging processes for more complex weapons. And it should all be federal law. State gun laws don't make much of a difference if you're within spitting distance of a state with lax gun laws.

Outspoken gun activists have conflated "gun control" with "gun abolition" in a very effective goalpost-moving effort to label anyone who wants to regulate firearms more strictly, and on a federal level, as someone who wants to take your guns away-- Just as the NRA intended.

but hey, go ahead and talk about "gun deaths" without ever giving a shit about the one area you could truly impact one of the largest portions of that statistic. Just use their dead bodies to promote your unrelated bullshit.

I'm sorry that you feel that firearm deaths are unrelated to firearms.

allegro

10-07-2015, 07:32 PM

http://www.wxyz.com/news/region/oakland-county/customer-shoots-at-two-suspected-shoplifters-as-they-leave-auburn-hills-home-depot
Wtf, they spelled Auburn Hills wrong.

You should have to apply, wait, background checks, take mandatory training in safety and proper use, pass an exam demonstrating aptitude, be required to buy insurance, and have to keep it in a secure place. You should have to renew your certification every 2-4 years.

It IS that way in most states. (Are you from Michigan? It's that way in Michigan, except the insurance part.) We have a TON of gun laws in most states; only a handful have shitty laws; most do need to catch up with gun safety classes and waiting period requirements. Just like with ANY lobbyist organization, any compromise is seen as "slippery slope" which is bullshit.

But I think his point was that the largest area of the statistics is the drug trade, gang members using guns illegally to defend their drug turf, etc., which GREATLY increases those gun injury and gun death numbers, which would not be changed by our above-referenced gun control suggestions but, instead, have to be controlled via longer sentencing rules, not letting people out early due to overcrowding if they have gun convictions, etc.

emptydesk

10-07-2015, 07:53 PM

It IS that way in most states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state

Registration, background check, permit, license, testing, recertification, and assault weapons ban needs to be a FEDERAL gun control law which pre-empts state laws.

allegro

10-07-2015, 07:57 PM

The Feds don't do much good at keeping central databases. They have already fucked it up a lot (see Dylan Roof). I agree about the renewal of the Fed assault weapon ban (it was already in place, but GW Bush let it expire). But too many conservative Republicans are using it as a lynchpin for the election. Bleh.

Permit, etc. will never happen Federally due to separation of Fed and State (State's rights (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/States'+Rights)).

Deepvoid

10-07-2015, 07:59 PM

http://www.wxyz.com/news/region/oakland-county/customer-shoots-at-two-suspected-shoplifters-as-they-leave-auburn-hills-home-depot

What is this? The wild wild west?
What if it was a cop opening fire on a fleeing shoplifter? People would be going ape shit.

I guess due process is not necessary since you now have a "good customer with a gun" trying to kill shoplifters.

allegro

10-07-2015, 08:02 PM

What is this? The wild wild west?

LOL. Yes, the US is the Wild Wild West. Pretty much.

We have people shooting at people on the fucking expressway.

Deepvoid

10-07-2015, 08:11 PM

LOL. Yes, the US is the Wild Wild West. Pretty much.

We have people shooting at people on the fucking expressway.

This woman should be arrested.
How can a "law abiding citizen" use deadly force to prevent an escape such as this one?

I'm not a specialist of the law but I'm familiar with Tennessee V. Garner.

allegro

10-07-2015, 08:17 PM

This woman should be arrested.
How can a "law abiding citizen" use deadly force to prevent an escape such as this one?

I'm not a specialist of the law but I'm familiar with Tennessee V. Garner.

She WILL be arrested!!! Obviously, we aren't allowed to use guns like that. I just quoted a Michigan statute a few posts ago that said it's a crime to POINT a gun at somebody, let alone SHOOT somebody. Egad!!

COPS aren't even allowed to use deadly force on shoplifters

DigitalChaos

10-08-2015, 12:03 PM

You should have to apply, wait, background checks, take mandatory training in safety and proper use, pass an exam demonstrating aptitude, be required to buy insurance, and have to keep it in a secure place. You should have to renew your certification every 2-4 years. You should have to go through more challenging processes for more complex weapons. And it should all be federal law.
Let's pretend for a second that all of this is actually specific and well thought out instead of extremely vague "yeah that sounds good!" mixture of crap. Do you legitimately think ANY of this would have stopped most, or even a few, mass shootings? Cause I can see just about every one of the recent shootings in memory easily passing through this list.

But I think his point was that the largest area of the statistics is the drug trade, gang members using guns illegally to defend their drug turf, etc., which GREATLY increases those gun injury and gun death numbers, which would not be changed by our above-referenced gun control suggestions but, instead, have to be controlled via longer sentencing rules, not letting people out early due to overcrowding if they have gun convictions, etc.

exactly. emptydesk has no issue propping his position on that giant mountain of dead bodies to scream about fixing things for the incredibly small number of people who are impacted by mass shootings.

DigitalChaos

10-08-2015, 12:11 PM

The Feds don't do much good at keeping central databases.
and I'll use this as my routine reminder of the failure that is our current national background check system (NICS) since that is what any "federally mandated background check" would be built on top of. We are going on TWENTY YEARS of this system being in place and they STILL have not fixed the gaping loophole that allows anyone to pass the check: a simple fake ID, the kind highschool kids can get with little effort. ~15 years ago, the GAO investigated and found a 100% success rate of circumventing NICS with fake IDs. It doesn't even have to belong to another person. In fact, it's better if the ID is for a completely fictitious person so that you don't accidentally match up with someone who might be prohibited from buying a firearm.

Not that we ever hear anything about fixing that from the gun control crowd. They are interested in bullshit that makes them feel good; not things that actually improved the situation.

DigitalChaos

10-08-2015, 12:20 PM

I was reading this article (http://jacobbacharach.com/2015/10/08/rare-arms/) and immediately thought of many of @allegro (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=76)'s posts here while reading the last half.

Here is the portion that really stood out:

Meanwhile, much of the gun violence in the country—not the mass shootings of white people that make the news, but the daily killings of one here, two there in places like Chicago—isn’t a question of mental health, not as the gun debate defines it anyway.

But. There is a kind of moral credulousness on the part of the Nice Liberal critics of our national gun culture, and there’s something intolerably amoral about a politician like Barack Obama assuming a pose of high moral dudgeon to snipe at conservative gun rights advocates while he presides over, among other atrocities, the bombing of a neutral hospital—literally, a war crime. (And the bombing of the MSF hospital is just one war crime among many; we just happen to note it because its victims are Western, professional, media-savvy, and English-fluent.) This isn’t cheap whataboutism; if you ask how we can be such a violent society and exclude sixty years of uninterrupted global warfare from your analysis, then your crass factionalism is showing.

It’s true: blaming domestic gun deaths on America’s violent, aggressive imperialism is a little like blaming it on mental illness; it identifies an approximate rather than a proximate cause and spins its wheels wildly away from a practical mechanism for mitigating the problem here and now. I do, however, wish that those who advocate for stricter gun control in this country would evince a more convincing and universal pacifism, rather than crying out in passionate horror each time some nut shoots up an elementary school but merely regretting each time their president blows one up.

Yet, I've seen no talk on ETS about the US bombing of the MSF (Doctors Without Borders) hospital. Did I miss it? Or is that the "crass factionalism" showing?

emptydesk

10-08-2015, 06:48 PM

allegro

10-08-2015, 07:31 PM

DigitalChaos it's going to be hard to talk to you if you remain innately dismissive and pointlessly snide.
That's really true. DigitalChaos, you don't make a good case for your argument when you are so hostile and ... um ... frankly, immature in your debate style. By acknowledging the other side's point, validating, but then countering with respect, there is a better chance at real discussion. This is an emotional subject, here, involving real fear and dead people. To be so mean to people and hostile and dismissive and treating people as stupid isn't really very respectful.

I think a big difference in our collective debate is that I see the fact that mass shooters tend to somehow get their weapons legally as a problem that needs correcting. The argument against that seems to be "well, they'll find a way" But with stricter gun laws you're going to cut down on the number of guns in hands in the aggregate. Look at gun control in any other industrialized nation.
This is true with regard to mass shooters: most of them have high-capacity weapons and a LOT of weapons. If we were to reinstate the Federal ban on assault weapons and to ban high-capacity magazines, this might help. However, keep in mind that we cannot automatically confiscate the existing weapons that are already legally owned; not without Search Warrants, and this presents a problem as far as logistics and Constitutional rights. When the prior assault ban law was in place, all prior legally-owned assault weapons were grandfathered, and only new sales were illegal.

Also, keep in mind that those gun death numbers on the charts are barely affected by "mass shooters."

Here are the gun stats in the City of Chicago, alone, in 2015 as of 10/8/2015:

Shot & Killed: 353
Shot & Wounded: 2,005
Total Shot: 2,358
Total Homicides: 401

As of 10/8/15, a person is shot in the City of Chicago every 2 hours and 51 minutes. (source (http://heyjackass.com/))

And most of those guys have felony convictions and can't buy their guns "legally" in the State of Illinois (so any "gun control" does nothing) (these guys don't follow laws).

And as I previously linked, here is what Cook County State's Attorney, Anita Alvarez, suggests be done to try to curtail this problem. (http://chicago.suntimes.com/opinion/7/71/1008501/anita-alvarez-target-carry-guns-illegally)

DigitalChaos

10-08-2015, 08:31 PM

DigitalChaos it's going to be hard to talk to you if you remain innately dismissive and pointlessly snide.

I think a big difference in our collective debate is that I see the fact that mass shooters tend to somehow get their weapons legally as a problem that needs correcting. The argument against that seems to be "well, they'll find a way"

But with stricter gun laws you're going to cut down on the number of guns in hands in the aggregate. Look at gun control in any other industrialized nation.

The overwhelming majority of shooters got their guns legally. Your proposals still allow them to get the guns legally. Thus, your proposal is ineffective in fixing the stated problem (mass shootings). "Reducing the amount of aggregate guns" makes no difference if the shooters can still get the guns legally.

Reducing aggregate guns would only have a chance at altering different gun-related issues. But those are issues you have not defined as a target. In fact, those targets are constantly avoided, which is something I've frequently pointed out. allegro is the only one who recognizes this reality.

DigitalChaos

10-08-2015, 09:02 PM

DigitalChaos it's going to be hard to talk to you if you remain innately dismissive and pointlessly snide.

What you've been doing, whether you intend to or not, is racist and classist. Further, it's presenting the racism and classism as some noble effort. That's a step beyond a lot of the blatant racism that comes out of the GOP platform. So yea, i'm going to be snarky.

And when you are presented with evidence of it, you dismiss it with "I'm sorry that you feel that firearm deaths are unrelated to firearms."

1 - If you want to focus on "fixing" mass shootings, go for it! Just don't use the deaths of people who are predominantly poor and predominantly of color to support something that is completely separate.
2 - If you wan't to use their deaths, then focus on actually helping fix their problem instead of ignoring it.
3 - And if you want to debate whether there is a difference between mass shootings and what makes up the majority of "gun deaths" .. go for it, but you've also been dismissive of that (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/threads/1318-Gun-Talk-News-Laws-etc?p=272367#post272367) too.

If you are honestly looking for a thought out debate, I didn't get that impression from your replies. I'm happy to reply to either intent.

Jinsai

10-09-2015, 02:21 PM

Yet, I've seen no talk on ETS about the US bombing of the MSF (Doctors Without Borders) hospital. Did I miss it? Or is that the "crass factionalism" showing?

There's a lot of news stories that don't make a blip on the radar here, for whatever reason, but to infer that it's due to a political leaning with the board is intentionally dishonest. I didn't see people here discussing Boehner's resignation. Russia just accidentally launched cruise missiles into Iran, and nobody on here is talking about it. In fact, I haven't seen anyone on here talking about the "Nuclear Deal" with Iran at all. I think I might have caught a brief mention about the Syrian refugees somewhere on this board. Mexican crime lord El Chapo put out a 100,000,000 dollar bounty on Donald Trump, and we're not even talking about that! We didn't even have a discussion about the financial meltdown in Greece. We didn't even get into the fact that the US and Cuba are talking again for the first time since 1961, or that we're opening up embassies in Havana. In other news, they just revealed that the death toll from the stampede near Mecca is counting nearly 1500 people dead, but there's no discussion on this board about it.

A lot of current issues that everyone is talking about don't get mentioned on this board, and you know that. It's irritating enough when people pull out the hospital bombing as a way to deflect the discussion away from Obama's speech about US gun control, but to bring it up here in this "why aren't you guys on this board talking about!!!!?" bullshit? If there's a political reason for that exclusion, surely that would be counterbalanced by a discussion about the numerous outrageous comments GOP frontrunner Ben Carson has been making about guns and the idea of gun control. Naturally, this board is is overrun by people furious with his recent comments about how private gun ownership would have prevented the holocaust, right? Wait, nobody on this board is even talking about Ben Carson... at all?

If you're trying to drive home a point about hypocrisy, did I miss the time when you brought up the issue of the hospital bombing outside of a discussion about fucking gun control?

To keep this a bit more "on topic" though, we had two more school shootings today.

allegro

10-09-2015, 09:54 PM

There's a lot of news stories that don't make a blip on the radar here, for whatever reason, but to infer that it's due to a political leaning with the board is intentionally dishonest. I didn't see people here discussing Boehner's resignation. Russia just accidentally launched cruise missiles into Iran, and nobody on here is talking about it. In fact, I haven't seen anyone on here talking about the "Nuclear Deal" with Iran at all. I think I might have caught a brief mention about the Syrian refugees somewhere on this board. Mexican crime lord El Chapo put out a 100,000,000 dollar bounty on Donald Trump, and we're not even talking about that! We didn't even have a discussion about the financial meltdown in Greece. We didn't even get into the fact that the US and Cuba are talking again for the first time since 1961, or that we're opening up embassies in Havana. In other news, they just revealed that the death toll from the stampede near Mecca is counting nearly 1500 people dead, but there's no discussion on this board about it.

Actually, all of those things (except Russia and the missiles into Iran) were mentioned, a few were discussed in depth, and a few were poked fun of (El Chapo and Trump, Boehner and the Pope possibly influencing his resignation). Not to pick nits or digress, but it's true. And I think we have barely mentioned Carson in the Presidential race thread because he is so inconsequential and because we are having too much fun talking about Trump. Ben Carson is constantly sticking his foot into his mouth. He's the guy who said prison makes you gay.

Meanwhile, yesterday in Chicago (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-chicago-shooting-violence-20151008-story.html).

DigitalChaos

10-09-2015, 10:59 PM

Plus allegro posted about MSF only moments later. So, the dumb comment is of no value... which is about where it was at when I first posted it. I have no problem admitting that. The primary point is about our culture of violence that goes way beyond guns. Selective pacifism (from the majority of the populace) ignores the root of our violent culture.

Dr Channard

10-10-2015, 02:29 PM

If people want the right to keep and bear arms as per the 2nd amendment, fine. Make it the law that the arms model has to be of a late 1700’s design, around the time the 2nd amendment was adopted, as surly that amendment was written about the arms of its own times (flintlock muskets and such). Arms that, (1) shoot a single shot at a time, (2) have comparatively limited range and accuracy, (3) after the initial shot may take several minutes to reload, (4) and if you are struck by the shot you have as great a chance of dying from infection because the surgeon removing the pellet didn’t properly sterilize his tools first.

There, problem bettered.

DigitalChaos

10-10-2015, 04:02 PM

. Make it the law that the arms model has to be of a late 1700’s design, around the time the 2nd amendment was adopted, as surly that amendment was written about the arms of its own times (flintlock muskets and such).

1- This an unbelievably ignorant view of the constitution. It's like saying the first amendment doesn't apply to any form of communication that didn't exist when the amendment was created. Luckily, we have people in charge of parsing the constitution that understand this.

2- I'd love this because I actually have an understanding of gun history from then. I could invalidate a huge amount of modern gun control by simply pointing to the 1780 era rifle that Jefferson gave to Lewis and Clark. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_Air_Rifle

rapid fire, high capacity, nearly silent, could easily put a hole in a 1" pine board at 100yrds.

20rd rapid load magazine - goodbye magazine capacity laws!

Nearly silent operation - goodbye suppressor bans!

No muzzle flash - good by flash hider bans!

Khrz

10-10-2015, 04:08 PM

The fact that you took this post so seriously says it all to me...

Dr Channard

10-10-2015, 04:35 PM

1- This an unbelievably ignorant view of the constitution. It's like saying the first amendment doesn't apply to any form of communication that didn't exist when the amendment was created. Luckily, we have people in charge of parsing the constitution that understand this.

Whoa... whoa. No need to go all Yosemite Sam on me. I’ll admit, some of my ideas may not be the best...

2- I'd love this because I actually have an understanding of gun history from then. I could invalidate a huge amount of modern gun control by simply pointing to the 1780 era rifle that Jefferson gave to Lewis and Clark.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_Air_Rifle (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_Air_Rifle)

rapid fire, high capacity, nearly silent, could easily put a hole in a 1" pine board at 100yrds.

20rd rapid load magazine - goodbye magazine capacity laws!

Nearly silent operation - goodbye suppressor bans!

No muzzle flash - good by flash hider bans!

In all seriousness, if I had the choice between the two, I’d much rather some nutjob point an air rifle that he has to pump by hand at me, over him taking aim at me with almost any modern rifle. And hey, that pump time might make Ben Carson’s suggestion of mobbing the shooter more within reason.

DigitalChaos

10-10-2015, 05:22 PM

Dr Channard

10-10-2015, 05:34 PM

Good luck with that. The hand pumping is done well in advance. Much like hand loading rounds into a magazine on an AR-15.

Choosing to be shot by a .46cal instead of a .223cal .... lol #JustGunControlThings

Your reasoning is really winning me over. You know, you're helping me to see that guns of any kind, even those from the 1700’s are just bad fucking news.

DigitalChaos

10-10-2015, 05:38 PM

Your reasoning is really winning me over. You know, you're helping me to see that guns of any kind, even those from the 1700’s are just bad fucking news.

#Just2ndAmendmentThings

Hey, at least your commentary is fun! I like you.

Deepvoid

10-11-2015, 10:00 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwEyBItsXkw&feature=youtu.be

Timinator

10-13-2015, 01:02 AM

"Much has been said about gun control in the wake of yet another mass shooting in the US, but the heated and divided nature of the debate means that a fundamental question is often overlooked; why is it people actively want guns in the first place?" (http://www.theguardian.com/science/brain-flapping/2015/oct/07/gun-demanding-control-firearms-psychology)

Deepvoid

10-15-2015, 06:19 AM

allegro

10-15-2015, 08:57 AM

See ... this is what happens in a country where it's harder to get guns.

Suspect dead after Canada hammer attack injures 10 people. (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/15/canada-hammer-attack-injures-suspect-dead)

People get hammers. How many people died? 0. That's none. Zero. Zilch. Zip. Nada.
Now let's rewind that tape and give this idiot a gun. Wonder if the end result would be the same. Damn, that's the tough on. Pretty sure we'd have a couple dead bodies, at the very least.

Back to your regular programming ..

Here is an interesting article about guns in Canada, written shortly after the Vancouver shooting:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2014/10/23/why-canadas-gun-culture-is-different-and-why-its-shootings-shock-america/

The U.S. owns 270 Million guns as of 2011?? Holy shit.

Deepvoid

10-15-2015, 09:43 AM

Here is an interesting article about guns in Canada, written shortly after the Vancouver shooting:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2014/10/23/why-canadas-gun-culture-is-different-and-why-its-shootings-shock-america/

The U.S. owns 270 Million guns as of 2011?? Holy shit.

No one is immune to violence. That's a given. However, I am a firm believer that measures can be taken to curb down numbers of victims.
As all of you pointed in the past, the main difference is this "Canada also has no law or constitutional provision guaranteeing the right to bear arms".
We build our laws and regulations around the fact that you do not have the right to bear arms. Our culture is rooted around this foundation.

allegro

10-15-2015, 09:54 AM

No one is immune to violence. That's a given. However, I am a firm believer that measures can be taken to curb down numbers of victims.
As all of you pointed in the past, the main difference is this "Canada also has no law or constitutional provision guaranteeing the right to bear arms".
We build our laws and regulations around the fact that you do not have the right to bear arms. Our culture is rooted around this foundation.

But, with 251 million guns already owned as of 2011 in the U.S., it's kinda too late. And, like that article pointed out, Canadians trust the government to take care of them, and Americans trust themselves and not the government? Maybe your culture is really rooted around that? We don't trust our government, at all. We don't trust anybody, actually. Our entire culture is still the Wild Wild West, we've never really shed that. Also, we still have to include drug sales, gang wars, etc. into all of the drug deaths in the U.S. which greatly affect the numbers. It's a "war," really.

By the way, that Home Depot woman was charged (http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/oakland-county/2015/10/13/clarkston-woman-charged-firing-gun-home-depot/73862066/).

Khrz

10-15-2015, 10:08 AM

Maybe your culture is really rooted around that? We don't trust our government, at all. We don't trust anybody, actually.

I'd say it's a bit more complicated than this.

The French don't trust their government either, they just consider it like a bunch of employees who'll be overthrown and kicked out if they fuck up too much and try to be smart with them (the regular strikes, for which we're well-known, are a constant reminder of this).
You* (The citizens of the USA, well some of them) seem to have turned that distrust into a power struggle. That's where the Far West mentality comes into play. It's not only that you distrust your government, but that you're ready to shoot them dead if they step on your lawn.

* I use "you" as a very broad generalization tool, subject to all the inaccuracies of my perception as a European, obviously.

Deepvoid

10-15-2015, 10:20 AM

By the way, that Home Depot woman was charged (http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/oakland-county/2015/10/13/clarkston-woman-charged-firing-gun-home-depot/73862066/).

Yes, I saw that yesterday! Misdemeanor subject to a fine or 90 days in jail.
In other words, she'll get a ticket for unloading her gun in public.
I'm assuming she can keep her CC permit? There's no mention of this in the article.

allegro

10-15-2015, 10:28 AM

Yes, I saw that yesterday! Misdemeanor subject to a fine or 90 days in jail.
In other words, she'll get a ticket for unloading her gun in public.
I'm assuming she can keep her CC permit? There's no mention of this in the article.

I don't know that she "unloaded" her gun but she fired a few shots and she didn't actually hit anybody but she gets more than a "ticket." Don't know about the CC permit.

allegro

10-15-2015, 10:30 AM

It's not only that you distrust your government, but that you're ready to shoot them dead if they step on your lawn.
We don't actually shoot our government; we don't trust our government to protect us against bad people. Our government employees (police) shoot us on our lawns, in our houses, in our cars, etc.

Meanwhile, bad people in our government are taking money from bad people for guns, drugs, etc.

We're like a giant version of The Godfather.

Khrz

10-15-2015, 10:33 AM

We don't actually shoot our government; we don't trust our government to protect us against bad people. Our government employees (police) shoot us on our lawns, in our houses, in our cars, etc.

I never said you did, I said you were ready for it.

Which is a huge generalization, I'm aware of that. But I've seen quite a few gun proponents who were defending their right to bear arms to defend themselves against that pesky government, using guns if need be.

allegro

10-15-2015, 10:37 AM

But I've seen quite a few gun proponents who were defending their right to bear arms to defend themselves against that pesky government, using guns if need be.

Well, right, that's from the Civil War (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War) (North vs. South).

This whole idea that the 2nd Amendment contains language that includes "against enemies foreign and domestic" (which is actually contained in the Oath of Allegience (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_Allegiance_(United_States))) is false because lots of Americans haven't bothered reading the 2nd Amendment because they have this weird idea that the 2nd Amendment is huge when, in fact, the 2nd Amendment is one sentence containing only 27 words:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The fact that there are so many Americans out there (particularly in the South) so afraid that Obama (a negro from the North) is gonna come and "TAKE THEIR GUNS" is so fucking stupid, it's alarming. NO, NOBODY CAN COME TAKE YOUR FUCKING GUNS, YOU IDIOTS. Not if you own them LEGALLY, RIGHT NOW. If, later, your assault weapon is banned, YOU STILL OWN IT LEGALLY, because it is grandfathered. NOBODY CAN CONDUCT AN ILLEGAL SEARCH AND SEIZURE. A WARRANT WITH A JUDGE SIGNING IT IS STILL FUCKING REQUIRED, AND NOBODY IS GOING TO ISSUE A FUCKING WARRANT TO TAKE YOUR GUN (UNLESS OF COURSE YOU ARE A TERRORIST OR DID SOMETHING REALLY FUCKING STUPID). AND NOBODY IS GOING TO BREAK DOWN YOUR DOOR AND TAKE YOUR FUCKING GUN, EITHER. SO GET A FUCKING BRAIN.

And, no, Hitler didn't take everybody's guns. That's complete bullshit.

Dra508

10-15-2015, 01:33 PM

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The fact that there are so many Americans out there (particularly in the South) so afraid that Obama (a negro from the North) is gonna come and "TAKE THEIR GUNS" is so fucking stupid, it's alarming. NO, NOBODY CAN COME TAKE YOUR FUCKING GUNS, YOU IDIOTS. Not if you own them LEGALLY, RIGHT NOW. If, later, your assault weapon is banned, YOU STILL OWN IT LEGALLY, because it is grandfathered. NOBODY CAN CONDUCT AN ILLEGAL SEARCH AND SEIZURE. A WARRANT WITH A JUDGE SIGNING IT IS STILL FUCKING REQUIRED, AND NOBODY IS GOING TO ISSUE A FUCKING WARRANT TO TAKE YOUR GUN (UNLESS OF COURSE YOU ARE A TERRORIST OR DID SOMETHING REALLY FUCKING STUPID). AND NOBODY IS GOING TO BREAK DOWN YOUR DOOR AND TAKE YOUR FUCKING GUN, EITHER. SO GET A FUCKING BRAIN.
Yet, plenty of people do believe this. I know I've posted this here before, but the day after Obama was first elected, I was in Tulsa, Oklahoma having lunch with a customer. A couple of men at the table were going on about getting all the ammo they could get their hands on because there was going to be a shortage now that Obama was gonna be president. Oy.

I don't see anything changing, I mean, zero. As long as gun lobby is the gun lobby and The Congress is the way it is - deeply divided. I don't see that changing anytime soon either.

allegro

10-15-2015, 02:11 PM

Yet, plenty of people do believe this. I know I've posted this here before, but the day after Obama was first elected, I was in Tulsa, Oklahoma having lunch with a customer. A couple of men at the table were going on about getting all the ammo they could get their hands on because there was going to be a shortage now that Obama was gonna be president. Oy.

I don't see anything changing, I mean, zero. As long as gun lobby is the gun lobby and The Congress is the way it is - deeply divided. I don't see that changing anytime soon either.
It's also the "North vs. South" thing that just never seems to go away. 150 years later, it's still there. Or the Federal Government is going to be completely TAKEN OVER by Crazy Liberals and Gay People who will start kiling Christians and the South is going to go all Confederate again and we'll have another Civil War.

DigitalChaos

10-15-2015, 02:26 PM

It's also the "North vs. South" thing that just never seems to go away. 150 years later, it's still there. Or the Federal Government is going to be completely TAKEN OVER by Crazy Liberals and Gay People who will start kiling Christians and the South is going to go all Confederate again and we'll have another Civil War.

It's also the "minorities are the most in need of protection from mob rule and guns serve them well." This isn't true in all cases, of course, but it applies to some. Much of the modern gun control platform came from GOP's Personal Jesus, then governor of California, Ronald Reagan. The whites were afraid of the Black Panthers carrying guns as a way to equalize the power inequality between blacks and the racist cops. Thus, they wanted to stop the Black Panthers from doing that.

Many on the left act like this kind of stupid bigotry could never come back. Meanwhile, we have Ferguson. We have Trump.

allegro

10-15-2015, 03:28 PM

It's also the "minorities are the most in need of protection from mob rule and guns serve them well." This isn't true in all cases, of course, but it applies to some. Much of the modern gun control platform came from GOP's Personal Jesus, then governor of California, Ronald Reagan. The whites were afraid of the Black Panthers carrying guns as a way to equalize the power inequality between blacks and the racist cops. Thus, they wanted to stop the Black Panthers from doing that.

Many on the left act like this kind of stupid bigotry could never come back. Meanwhile, we have Ferguson. We have Trump.

The Black Panthers and Reagan? The Black Panthers dissolved in 1982. That's hardly modern.

The modern problem of fear of gun control is conservative white people afraid of a black dude in the White House taking their guns.

When the original Federal assault weapons ban in 1994 was enacted, an Arkansas dude was President and a Texas dude sponsored the Bill (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_Crime_Control_and_Law_Enforcement_Act).

emptydesk

10-15-2015, 05:42 PM

I truly appreciate being called racist and classist on the last page, DigitalChaos.

http://i.imgur.com/d4dBWpM.png?1

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/10/14/people-are-getting-shot-by-toddlers-on-a-weekly-basis-this-year

DigitalChaos

10-16-2015, 12:19 AM

The Black Panthers and Reagan? The Black Panthers dissolved in 1982. That's hardly modern.

The modern problem of fear of gun control is conservative white people afraid of a black dude in the White House taking their guns.

When the original Federal assault weapons ban in 1994 was enacted, an Arkansas dude was President and a Texas dude sponsored the Bill (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_Crime_Control_and_Law_Enforcement_Act).

We've had a steady stream of reactionary gun control since then. The only other time we saw that kind of thing was in the 1920's and 1930's. It was mostly in response to the crime that came out of prohibition. Back then, it was the NRA helping make those laws.

After prohibition was repealed, the heavy desire for reactionary legislation was diminished. It didn't pick back up again until the drug war started coming to life and the civil rights movement was in full swing. Imagine that!

alternet did a really interesting article about some of the extremely surprising gun control that the NRA supported (sales records, waiting periods, carry permits, etc) and then the "paranoid libertarian's hostile takeover" of the NRA. http://www.salon.com/2013/01/14/the_nra_once_supported_gun_control/

Dra508

10-16-2015, 12:15 PM

The modern problem of fear of gun control is conservative white people afraid of a black dude in the White House taking their guns.
.Didn't I just say that? I IS AN EYE WITNESS.

So we have a lot of guns in America. What's the increase since prohibition?

/too lazy to google.

allegro

10-16-2015, 12:53 PM

Didn't I just say that? I IS AN EYE WITNESS.

yes but was that racism or ZOMG THE LIBERALS HAVE TAKEN CONTROL?!?!?!?

Prohibition = Al Capone, Mob activity, underground sale of booze = lots and lots of guns

Dra508

10-16-2015, 04:30 PM

yes but was that racism or ZOMG THE LIBERALS HAVE TAKEN CONTROL?!?!?!?
Good question. Aren't all minorities' liberals? :P

allegro

10-16-2015, 06:15 PM

Good question. Aren't all minorities' liberals? :P

That's like asking "aren't all Jews liberal?" But my Jewish boss is a conservative Republican racist

Dra508

10-16-2015, 09:54 PM

that's like asking "aren't all jews liberal?" but my jewish boss is a conservative republican racist

qotd......

emptydesk

10-17-2015, 07:17 PM

@emptydesk (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=796) has no issue propping his position on that giant mountain of dead bodies to scream about fixing things for the incredibly small number of people who are impacted by mass shootings.

Here's a refreshing lack of bodies for me to "exploit" for my "political" ends. What else was missing from this scenario?

Illinois Army vet, 75, saves 16 kids from knife-wielding teen reportedly plotting mass murder

A former Army vet is recovering from stab wounds after putting himself between 16 terrified children and a knife-wielding teen determined to kill at an Illinois public library this week.

“He actually ran into the room yelling, ‘I’m going to kill some people!’” James Vernon told the Pekin Daily Times Thursday.

Vernon, 75-- a retired Caterpillar technology worker and Army vet—is recovering from surgery at his home in Morton, Illinois. He was leading a chess club meeting with local kids at the Morton library Tuesday afternoon when Dustin Brown, 19, burst into the room holding a knife in each hand and threatening the children.

“I failed my mission to kill everyone,” Brown told police Thursday, according to a prosecutor’s court affidavit that accompanied formal charges, including attempted murder.

Vernon described the two knives as “hunting types” with “fixed blades about 5 inches” long.

The 16 frightened children – ranging in age from 7 to 13-- scurried under tables in the library’s conference room as Vernon stood in front of Brown.

Brown appeared angry as he focused his attention on the children. Vernon kept his cool and distracted Brown to give the kids a chance to escape.

“I tried to talk to him. I tried to settle him down,” Vernon told the Pekin Daily Times. “I didn’t, but I did deflect his attention” from the kids “and calmed him a bit. I asked him if he was from Morton, did he go to high school. I asked what his problem was. He said his life sucks. That’s a quote.”

As Vernon spoke, he inched closer to Brown. “He backed away when I’d get closer.” With a few steps, Vernon put himself between Brown and the conference room door.

“I gave them the cue to get the heck out of there, and, boy, they did that! Quick, like rabbits,” Vernon said.

After all the children fled, the knife-fight training Vernon learned in the Army five decades ago kicked in. Brown slashed from the right towards Vernon, who blocked the blade with his left hand.

“I should have hit his wrist. That’s how you’re trained, but it’s been half a century,” Vernon recalled. “First rule of combat: Be fast and vigorous,” said Vernon, who never served in combat.

The veteran’s medium build was enough to overcome Brown. “I grabbed him and threw... Somehow he wound up on a table” with the knife in his left hand pinned under his body, Vernon said. “I hit him on the (right) collarbone with my closed hand” until Brown dropped that knife.

Vernon said he was “bleeding pretty good,” but managed to hold Brown until a library employee removed the knives and helped to keep Brown pinned until police and paramedics arrived.

At the time of the incident, Brown was free on bond while facing prosecution charges of possessing child pornography. He told police he’d been planning for two weeks to kill people and then himself, according to an affidavit.

Had he brought a gun instead, “It would’ve been a different story,” Vernon said.

Brown was ordered held on $800,000 bond pending a Nov. 5 court appearance. He’s charged with attempted murder, armed violence, aggravated battery to a person over age 60, and burglary for entering the library with intent to commit a crime.

Vernon won his “90 seconds of combat” with Brown, “but I felt like I lost the war,” he chuckled. His injuries include two cut arteries and a tendon on his left hand from blocking Brown’s knife swipe.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/10/17/illinois-army-vet-75-saves-16-kids-from-knife-wielding-teen-plotting-mass/#

DigitalChaos

10-19-2015, 03:54 PM

Like I was saying....
‘Ghost Gun’ Murders and Trafficking Cases Are a Law Enforcement Nightmare Come True
http://www.thetrace.org/2015/10/ghost-gun-lower-receiver-california/

"It is one of the biggest problems in Northern California for our office, if not the biggest problem,"
"The existence of individual ghost guns is usually completely unknown to law enforcement, unless one turns up at a crime scene."
"With a ghost gun, it’s just a piece of metal. There’s no way to track it back."

How long until we admit that no law is going to change the fact that some of the most popular guns today were invented over 100 years ago and there is nothing you can do to stop their uncontrolled production short of regulating access to raw metal? It's already trivial to create a modern gun in your garage. It's only going to get easier.

emptydesk

10-30-2015, 06:13 PM

http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/us/2015/10/29/waco-biker-shooting-surveillance-video-lavandera-pkg.cnn.html

Dra508

10-31-2015, 09:53 AM

Had a co-worker try to convince me that guns were tools "just like a hammer". Is there some website espousing this argument cause I felt like I was in ground hog day when I heard that.

It was an interesting conversation beyond that. He understood the difference in laws from Florida to New York. Another guy explained why he WOULDNT get a conceal carry license in his state, Texas. Wasn't worth it.

Tool, right.

Dr Channard

10-31-2015, 12:00 PM

Yes, guns are tools "just like a hammer” in the same comparative way that missiles are tools just like a measuring tape. What’s wrong with people?

DigitalChaos

10-31-2015, 03:27 PM

uh, "weapon" is a subset of "tool" by most interpretations of the english language.

Definition of TOOL for kids: an instrument (as a saw, file, knife, or wrench) used or worked by hand or machine to perform a task

Synonym Discussion of TOOL

implement, tool, instrument, appliance, utensil mean a relatively simple device for performing work. implement may apply to anything necessary to perform a task <crude stone implements> <farm implements>. tool suggests an implement adapted to facilitate a definite kind or stage of work and suggests the need of skill more strongly than implement <a carpenter's tools>. instrument suggests a device capable of delicate or precise work <the dentist's instruments>. appliance refers to a tool or instrument utilizing a power source and suggests portability or temporary attachment <household appliances>. utensil applies to a device used in domestic work or some routine unskilled activity <kitchen utensils>.

Synonym Discussion of WEAPON
: something (such as a gun, knife, club, or bomb) that is used for fighting or attacking someone or for defending yourself when someone is attacking you
: something (such as a skill, idea, or tool) that is used to win a contest or achieve something

DigitalChaos

10-31-2015, 03:33 PM

but I suppose my fishing pole is totally not a tool /s

allegro

11-01-2015, 12:13 AM

but I suppose my fishing pole is totally not a tool /s

Oxford:

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/tool

Cabellas does not include the fishing rod as a tool:
http://www.cabelas.com/category/Fishing-Tools/104720580.uts

See also: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_(tool)

Dr Channard

11-01-2015, 12:30 AM

DigitalChaos

11-01-2015, 01:03 AM

Oxford:

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/tool

A device or implement,[check]
especially one held in the hand, [check]
used to carry out a particular function. [check]

A tool will also become a weapon based on how it is used or how the owner is intending to use it. Much like a knife.

See also: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_(tool)

And yes, guns also have non-weapon uses. This further demonstrates the "it's a tool" concept to those who think a weapon isn't a subset of tools. Though, you don't need a firearm from that wiki page for it to be a tool. A "standard" firearm is a non-weapon tool in many situations: hunting, many farm situations, etc

The belief that a gun is not a tool is not an issue of semantics, but of mindset. The anti-gun rhetoric has a strong emotional reaction. It has influenced the comprehension of a device that is over 1000 years old. This simple device has is now fear-inducing, complicated, intimidating, and plain evil to the point that the basic comprehension of it has been altered... it now "couldn't possibly qualify as a tool, it has all these bad things"

Dr Channard

11-01-2015, 01:07 AM

The idea that guns are tools just like a hammer is bfs and misleading. Are both tools? In the analytical sense yes they are. Are they tools that are just like each other? No they are not. By design (and definition as kindly posted above) one is primarily a weapon a tool used for fighting…, and by design and definition the other is a hand tool consisting of a shaft with a metal head at right angles to it, used mainly for driving in nails and beating metal.

That is the difference. One is a tool that is by design a weapon, and it may have other uses. The other is a tool that is by design primarily used for building and crafting. Can someone misuse a hammer as a weapon to kill? Yes the hammer can be misused in such a way. Whereas if someone takes a gun and shoots and kills another person, the tool was not misused, it did what it was designed to do as a weapon.

If you are hunting, with a gun, how are you not using it as a weapon? Farming with a gun? What? How?

Old MacDonald had a farm, E-I-E-I-O
And on his farm he had a gun, E-I-E-I-O
With a BANG! BANG! here
And a BANG! BANG! there
Here a BANG!, there a BANG!
Everywhere a BANG! BANG!
Old MacDonald had a farm, E-I-E-I-O
　

But I’m not going to lie here. I live in a neighborhood that’s getting worse by the day, and I’ve considered getting a gun. Problem is I just don’t trust myself with one.

tony.parente

11-01-2015, 03:37 AM

A device or implement,[check]
especially one held in the hand, [check]
used to carry out a particular function. [check]

Today I learned my penis is a tool.

Dr Channard

11-01-2015, 07:13 AM

Today I learned my penis is a tool.

This is my rifle. This is my gun.

http://i67.tinypic.com/2edqi9y.gif

This is for fighting. This is for fun.

DigitalChaos

11-01-2015, 10:23 AM

Can someone misuse a hammer as a weapon to kill? Yes the hammer can be misused in such a way.

If you are hunting, with a gun, how are you not using it as a weapon? Farming with a gun? What? How?

Problem is I just don’t trust myself with one.

This is a perfect example of the mindset vs semantics issue I am talking about. You have this idea that a tool only has allowable uses. Anything else is "misuse." That falls right next to the silly idea that you can control how something gets used.

You also have a pretty detached understanding of basics of living that support your own way of life. Go talk to a farmer and understand their way of life. Putting down animals, predator and pest control... Just some examples.

Why wouldn't you trust yourself? Just like any tool, it can be dangerous if you don't educate yourself on how to safely use it. I'm not going to be too afraid to go out and buy a skill-saw because I could hurt myself/someone with it. I'm going to learn about the safety requirements and general use before using it. I'm going to keep it away from my kid. Etc.

DigitalChaos

11-01-2015, 10:34 AM

Today I learned my penis is a tool.
preeeeeety sure you've failed to match the device requirement. But a dildo? ... sure, just like a gun :)

The idea that guns are tools just like a hammer is bfs and misleading
Same could be said that a power drill is a tool just like a hammer. The uses are completely different so it's not "just like" each other.

Dr Channard

11-01-2015, 01:41 PM

This is a perfect example of the mindset vs semantics issue I am talking about. You have this idea that a tool only has allowable uses. Anything else is "misuse." That falls right next to the silly idea that you can control how something gets used.

Semantics? Engineers will admit a tool is most often best used for the thing it was designed to do.

Gun-designed to be a weapon.

Hammer-designed for building and crafting.

If one makes the choice to reappropriate the purpose of either tool, again, sure it can be done. But as for it not being a misuse of the tool, give Craftsman Tools a call and ask about using their hammer as a weapon. How fast do you think they, the manufacturer would identify that as a gross misuse of their product?

You also have a pretty detached understanding of basics of living that support your own way of life. Go talk to a farmer and understand their way of life. Putting down animals, predator and pest control... Just some examples.

I think my real question was, if you’re hunting, or shooting animals, predators, and pests on the farm, how is any of that considered a non-weapon use of a gun as was stated? Not trying to demonize these uses, but they all still seem to be weapon uses for a gun.

Why wouldn't you trust yourself? Just like any tool, it can be dangerous if you don't educate yourself on how to safely use it. I'm not going to be too afraid to go out and buy a skill-saw because I could hurt myself/someone with it. I'm going to learn about the safety requirements and general use before using it. I'm going to keep it away from my kid. Etc.

The reasons are the difference. I’d be buying a saw or a gun for two very different reasons. The idea of using a saw to build a shed isn’t nearly as disturbing as the idea of pulling a gun and using deadly force, in my opinion.

ziltoid

12-02-2015, 08:29 PM

I'm afraid to post in here for fear that my opinion might anger some people but I can't just be a silent observer anymore.
I'd like to offer my perspective even though no one has asked for it and maybe share or impart some intellectual exchange.

http://usuncut.com/news/there-have-been-more-mass-shootings-than-days-in-2015/

I can't stand by seeing these statics and wonder, how in the hell can there be a solution to such a devastating epidemic?

I want something to be done about it. I know its not simple but there is such an obvious problem that still has not be dealt with.

Every possible new law or solution is blocked by the house of reps and senators or those that hold power in the government that is influenced by lobbyists.
Lobbyists such as NRA have influence that is so massive I honestly don't see any possible solutions in the near future.

I'd like to ask a simple question here to the people that post in this thread, of those that live in the states do any of you feel represented in the government?
I don't. If I was, then there would be a dialog going back and forth about how to curb this violence and how to take preventative measures so mass shootings, suicide by a gun, homicides, etc. would be far less likely to occur.

I can't help but think; what if I or someone I care about is a victim at any one of these shootings, what about the friends and families of all the victims so far. When do they get justice?

Every time I see someone on a social network and/or on the news talk about gun control they are most likely to be shut down by people that are influenced and swayed by the rhetoric that instill fear. They fear that their government is going to take away their second amendment right. These chauvinistic people play right into these rhetoric and lies and in turn reiterate and pass on what they are told. Dangerous ideals and hatred are spewed right out of their mouths when they speak against any form of gun control. No rational chatter between those that are for and those that are against is ever seen. It is subverted and ignored. Those that try to talk about it are seen as an enemy and are branded as unamerican.

It's appalling and depressing.

Every time I see another shooting I keep thinking to myself that the American forefathers feared mob rule. And for a good reason they feared it and now what is happening can be seen as an example of mob rule. or at lest I see as an example. I believe that mob rule is plays a major role in facilitating these tragedies to occur.

Dra508

12-03-2015, 06:16 PM

http://www.betootaadvocate.com/uncategorized/australia-enjoys-another-peaceful-day-under-oppressive-gun-control-regime/

Sarah K

12-03-2015, 09:14 PM

http://nationalreport.net/atheist-extremists-open-fire-at-crowd-in-ny-12315/

Dra508

12-04-2015, 09:38 AM

http://nationalreport.net/atheist-extremists-open-fire-at-crowd-in-ny-12315/WTF. Is that written so people will think they sped read and missed the fact that no guns were involved?

Sheriff for the county my brother lives in makes a call to arms on The Facebook:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sheriff-guns-san-bernardino-shooting_5660c1b9e4b072e9d1c57545

Interesting place in that so many city dwellers live up there now or just on weekends and do not share his views.

Sarah K

12-04-2015, 02:17 PM

The line in it that makes me laugh every time:

, I saw him standing in front of a religious studies class yelling, ‘I demand evidence and peer-reviewed sources’, it was so unnerving. I just had to get out of there

Dra508

12-06-2015, 08:32 AM

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/opinion/end-the-gun-epidemic-in-america.html?smid=nytcore-ipad-share&smprod=nytcore-ipad

onthewall2983

01-02-2016, 09:10 PM

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CXw45iqWMAMr-y8.jpg:large

elevenism

01-04-2016, 01:48 AM

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/video/_log/texas-now-allows-open-carrying-of-handguns/vp-BBo6QF2

Texas now allows handguns to be carried openly.

This terrifies me.

DigitalChaos

01-04-2016, 04:12 PM

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/video/_log/texas-now-allows-open-carrying-of-handguns/vp-BBo6QF2

Texas now allows handguns to be carried openly.

This terrifies me.
because it makes you feel better if you can't see the gun when it's carried.... :confused:

elevenism

01-04-2016, 06:17 PM

because it makes you feel better if you can't see the gun when it's carried.... :confused:
Honestly, yes! :p

and by the way, i have EXTREMELY mixed feelings about the gun issue in general.
i'm a rare hybrid: part socialist, part libertarian.

DigitalChaos

01-04-2016, 06:25 PM

Honestly, yes! :p

and by the way, i have EXTREMELY mixed feelings about the gun issue in general.
i'm a rare hybrid: part socialist, part libertarian.

Neither socialism nor libertarianism promotes restricting the possessions of someone or what they wear because of an illogical fear created in someone else.

PS - libertarian socialism is a thing. There are quite a few notable people who are in that category. Noam Chomsky is one. I follow some aspects, but I'm also partial to some of the post-left views. My views are too situational to dump into a single ideology though. It's more applicable that way. Sticking to an absolute ideology keeps you locked in philosophical arguments.

As for guns... Freedom is dangerous. I like freedom.

elevenism

01-04-2016, 06:37 PM

libertarian socialism is a thing. There are quite a few notable people who are in that category. Noam Chomsky is one.

Well that's fucking awesome! Thanks.

As for the open carry thing, dude, i do not look forward to regularly being in the presence of a bunch of possibly drunk rednecks with pistols on their hips whenever i go out in public around here.

And mark my words, people are going to die over it. It makes it all to easy to grab your gun and shoot someone during an argument.
I don't think that my fear is irrational.

Where i live, "cowboy" is still a common occupation. And trust me, some of these people don't need fucking guns on their hips.

Deepvoid

01-04-2016, 06:51 PM

Something like this. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/police-hunt-suspects-deadly-road-rage-new-year-university-of-north-texas-student/

Mantra

01-05-2016, 01:23 AM

As for guns... Freedom is dangerous. I like freedom.

To me, this seems like a really warped notion of "freedom."

I've lived in some pretty rough areas, both rural and urban, where guns are extremely prevalent, and I didn't feel particularly "free" there. On the contrary, I felt constricted: I couldn't leave my home at certain hours, had to constantly mind my surroundings, etc. But according to the backwards logic of the open-carry ideology, shouldn't those areas have been incredibly safe? How do they explain this? Maybe the answer is that I too should have carried a gun when I lived there, because doing so would have suddenly made the area feel free and open? Why is it that no one seems to feel particularly "free" in, say, Mogadishu, where there are essentially no enforceable gun control laws and guns are easily attainable? If everyone has a gun, and everyone knows that everyone has a gun, why hasn't that brought about some unspoken ceasefire to the region? Aren't limitless guns supposed to be the path to a wonderful, free society?

This theory about a correlation between freedom and an unlimited access to deadly firearms just doesn't seem based on anything real or tangible. I greatly prefer my current circumstances, where I am able to walk to work in peace without having to fear for my well-being. That's actual freedom.

Jinsai

01-05-2016, 04:53 AM

libertarian socialism is a thing. There are quite a few notable people who are in that category. Noam Chomsky is one.ok... I like a lot of things Chomsky has to say, especially this one:

Many people who advocate keeping guns have fear of the government in the back of their minds. But that's a crazy response to a real problem.

If we're advocating for more people listening to what Noam Chomsky has to say, I'm all ears

DigitalChaos

01-05-2016, 11:49 AM

ok... I like a lot of things Chomsky has to say, especially this one:

If we're advocating for more people listening to what Noam Chomsky has to say, I'm all ears

Well, then you'll be waiting for quite a while because Chomsky has said very little on the topic. The fact that he disagrees with armed resistance against the government is about all he offers up.

DigitalChaos

01-05-2016, 11:55 AM

To me, this seems like a really warped notion of "freedom."

I've lived in some pretty rough areas, both rural and urban, where guns are extremely prevalent, and I didn't feel particularly "free" there. On the contrary, I felt constricted: I couldn't leave my home at certain hours, had to constantly mind my surroundings, etc. But according to the backwards logic of the open-carry ideology, shouldn't those areas have been incredibly safe? How do they explain this? Maybe the answer is that I too should have carried a gun when I lived there, because doing so would have suddenly made the area feel free and open? Why is it that no one seems to feel particularly "free" in, say, Mogadishu, where there are essentially no enforceable gun control laws and guns are easily attainable? If everyone has a gun, and everyone knows that everyone has a gun, why hasn't that brought about some unspoken ceasefire to the region? Aren't limitless guns supposed to be the path to a wonderful, free society?

This theory about a correlation between freedom and an unlimited access to deadly firearms just doesn't seem based on anything real or tangible. I greatly prefer my current circumstances, where I am able to walk to work in peace without having to fear for my well-being. That's actual freedom.

Without more info, it's not possible to answer. But there are two likely causes: 1 - You have an irrational fear of guns that keeps you in your house. oooor 2 - You are in a high crime area that is created by factors way beyond the guns in the area. Guns aren't magic. They aren't going to suddenly fix a broken political/economic/social system. Freedom of speech is also an important to a "wonderful free society" yet its presence doesn't automatically create such a society.

Khrz

01-05-2016, 02:31 PM

Guns aren't magic. They aren't going to suddenly fix a broken political/economic/social system.

I've seen that kind of argument recently, the same logic and parameters being applied to ideological violence and terrorism. The point was that religion wasn't the problem currently, but that poverty and disempowerment were the real culprits.
This is a point with which I wholeheartedly agree.
My issue with that reasoning is that it comes down to saying "Faulty gas appliances aren't responsible for fires : oxygen is. If there was no oxygen, there would be no fire."
You can always find a bigger, overarching cause for any problem. Climate change deniers are pretty good at this for instance. The problem with that is that you start to point at issues that can't be addressed immediately. You can blame society for pretty much anything, meanwhile people are still dying and nothing's being done to even slow down the trend.
So, yeah, society's imperfect, and probably will always be. Unless you have a solution to change it radically and make sure everyone's perfectly adapted, content and functioning, that point is completely moot.
Good job here on identifying a serious cause, but everyone's over there looking for serious solutions.

elevenism

01-05-2016, 04:00 PM

Something like this. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/police-hunt-suspects-deadly-road-rage-new-year-university-of-north-texas-student/
Yes @Deepvoid (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=676) , precisely like that.
That's just what we need in texas is drunk 21 year olds, raging with the testosterone of youth, navigating the egomaniacal environment of the social hierarchy of college with fucking LOADED PISTOLS literally easier to reach than their cell phones at ALL TIMES.

That's a GREAT fucking idea, right, guys?

Way to take it back to 1816. Good job, Texas Congress!

Dr Channard

01-05-2016, 04:29 PM

I've lived in some pretty rough areas, both rural and urban, where guns are extremely prevalent, and I didn't feel particularly "free" there.

I’m pretty much in the same situation, having to deal with this shit at home and at work. I don’t know about global terrorism, but The United States is what it is because of the constitution. For better or worse the mass proliferation of guns within these boarders is upheld by the constitution, no need to look any further. The zero-sum of it is that portions of the populace get to eat the tragic consequence in order for others to enjoy their rights.

DigitalChaos

01-05-2016, 04:50 PM

I've seen that kind of argument recently, the same logic and parameters being applied to ideological violence and terrorism. The point was that religion wasn't the problem currently, but that poverty and disempowerment were the real culprits.
This is a point with which I wholeheartedly agree.
My issue with that reasoning is that it comes down to saying "Faulty gas appliances aren't responsible for fires : oxygen is. If there was no oxygen, there would be no fire."
You can always find a bigger, overarching cause for any problem. Climate change deniers are pretty good at this for instance. The problem with that is that you start to point at issues that can't be addressed immediately. You can blame society for pretty much anything, meanwhile people are still dying and nothing's being done to even slow down the trend.
So, yeah, society's imperfect, and probably will always be. Unless you have a solution to change it radically and make sure everyone's perfectly adapted, content and functioning, that point is completely moot.
Good job here on identifying a serious cause, but everyone's over there looking for serious solutions.

You may be LOOKING for serious solutions, but that does not imply that gun control is a serious solution that has an impact worthy of executing on it, especially in the US. Not only has gun control efforts in the US been useless (even when you managed to get beyond the political hurdles)... it may actually be detrimental. Gun sales go through the roof each time gun control comes up and those are guns that are going to be permanently out there... just like the other millions of guns that make future gun control impossible (among other reasons).

So gun control is more of a "do something, anything" solution than a serious solution. Are there other solutions that don't hit on poverty and education that COULD have some sort of impact? Maybe... but I've yet to see us break away from the sisyphean gun control to figure it out.

Khrz

01-05-2016, 05:09 PM

Are there other solutions that don't hit on poverty and education that COULD have some sort of impact? Maybe... but I've yet to see us break away from the sisyphean gun control to figure it out.

So, what ? Quit trying, full stop, and let's have experts try to figure it out ?
What kind of realistic, proactive decision are you waiting for, or are advising ? Alright, gun control is out, the US government has heard you. What now ? What happens right after that, what immediate actions are you promoting to have a meaningful and short-term impact on the death toll ? You can't just let it be until something comes up, you have to take steps, even temporary ones...

Gun control may or may not be a solution. But so far I've heard nothing else (apart from "have EVERYONE buy guns and mount them on EVERYTHING") that doesn't rely on a future so distant and so unlikely that it may as well be a Star Trek episode. Especially when your right wing's so fucked up that it would ban the cure for cancer just to spite the leftist who came up with it.

How do you reduce the death toll ? People are coming up with gun control. Let's make a counter-proposal that doesn't rely on arming every citizen past 12. Where are those ? Which are they ?

ldopa

01-05-2016, 11:02 PM

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/video/_log/texas-now-allows-open-carrying-of-handguns/vp-BBo6QF2

Texas now allows handguns to be carried openly.

This terrifies me.

i actually didn't mean to "like" this post (oops)

wtf? be more scared of concealed weapons! if you're not hiding your gun, you're a responsible owner in my eyes. but i live in a VERY different part of the country than you do...or do i really? in weapon carrying terms of course!

edit: in my parts, if your gun isn't concealed i can breathe easy. i actually feel BETTER if i'm grocery shopping and the dude picking lettuce has a visible gun over me being at a bar, and someone gets shot with a concealed weapon in the parking lot (both things i mentioned i have witnessed.)

double edit: guns don't scare me, dumb people with guns do.

DigitalChaos

01-05-2016, 11:09 PM

So, what ? Quit trying, full stop, and let's have experts try to figure it out ?

If you are actually creating more harm? Yes, you should absolutely stop. And it's not just a massive increase in gun proliferation. There tends to be a lot of negatives. Many of the laws that make it through produce a lot of racist and classist results. Hell, here is a critique from an incredibly liberal person who is very pissed off with the speech Obama gave today on gun control: http://www.autistichoya.com/2016/01/you-want-real-change-to-stop-gun.html

Even in the cases where it is a neutral result, it's still masturbatory self-righteous bullshit that serves to only make people feel better/safer even though it's not real.

What kind of realistic, proactive decision are you waiting for, or are advising ?

Let's make a counter-proposal that doesn't rely on arming every citizen past 12. Where are those ? Which are they ?
So... focusing on poverty and education aren't viable options? Focusing on mental health (if your concern is spree shootings or suicides) isn't viable? Hell, these would have a much more immediate impact than most gun control would (assuming gun control would actually work as it is imagined). And that's not even counting all the huge benefits those things would have outside of gun problems. And turning away from these sources of change "because the right wing" or whatever doesn't make sense because the right wing is even more opposed to gun control.

Jinsai

01-05-2016, 11:23 PM

How do you reduce the death toll ?

That is the question...
Not sure. I agree with the proposals that Obama is suggesting, they seem reasonable and I don't get why people are freaking out about them.
At the same time, these restrictions (if enacted, which seems unlikely) would probably not have prevented any of the high-profile incidents he references. Instead, the real-world result of his proposal is a skyrocketing surge in gun sales.

We're at an impasse here. The solution, if we're going with gun control legislation, would at least require more extreme measures which could have possibly prevented one of these mass shootings, and the suggestion of that would have resulted in even more hyperbolic opposition from gun enthusiasts.... which means even more political bickering and ten times the reactionary gun sales.

The first step would be opening a forum for reasonable public debate, hearing from representatives from both sides of the issue. This is going to be a bit of a problem, because one side of the argument here thinks the issue is settled, and that the only counter argument they need to offer is a glib reference to the second amendment of the constitution.

So yes... that is a good question, but if you ask that question loudly enough, a large portion of the people who hear it will answer by stockpiling more guns and ammo.

Dr Channard

01-05-2016, 11:58 PM

So... focusing on poverty and education aren't viable options? Focusing on mental health (if your concern is spree shootings or suicides) isn't viable? Hell, these would have a much more immediate impact than most gun control would (assuming gun control would actually work as it is imagined). And that's not even counting all the huge benefits those things would have outside of gun problems. And turning away from these sources of change "because the right wing" or whatever doesn't make sense because the right wing is even more opposed to gun control.

I just want to make sure I understand. Poverty, lack of education, mental problems, all issues as old as civilization itself, are the cause of the modern issue of gun violence, and not the modern mass proliferation of… guns?

So, if I fit at least two of your three criteria (poverty and education), does that make me 2/3 responsible for this nation's gun violence?

DigitalChaos

01-06-2016, 12:21 AM

I just want to make sure I understand. Poverty, lack of education, mental problems, all issues as old as civilization itself, are the cause of the modern issue of gun violence, and not the modern mass proliferation of… guns?

So, if I fit at least two of your three criteria (poverty and education), does that make me 2/3 responsible for this nation's gun violence?

You need to be more specific than "gun deaths" and "gun violence" to be able to find causes and solutions. The majority of "gun deaths" in the country are related to other forms of crime (gang related, etc). The geographic distribution of this type of thing is extremely specific: areas with poverty and poor education, usually higher density urban areas. Go look at the non-stop shooting deaths in Chicago. allegro has frequently posted about it here. Of course, nobody gives a shit about THOSE people... they are only useful for bulking up the "gun death" statistic after there is some spree shooting that is in the news... even though spree shootings are an incredibly tiny slice of that statistic.

Jinsai

01-06-2016, 12:29 AM

this is the problem... we're arguing in distanced echo chambers. Dr Channard has a point. The US is not unique in its issues regarding mental health, poverty, hunger, and failing educational systems. We are unique in the way that we fetishize guns, which is a very weirdly American thing.

The US could improve all of those issues which you place the blame on, but even if we didn't we'd still be far ahead of other "first-world" countries in those regards, while they do not experience a similar phenomenon of gun violence and mass shootings. There's an elephant in the room, but the only contribution to the discussion that gun enthusiasts will offer up is "No! The elephant is in a totally different room that has nothing to do with this room!"

DigitalChaos

01-06-2016, 12:42 AM

That is the question...
Not sure. I agree with the proposals that Obama is suggesting, they seem reasonable and I don't get why people are freaking out about them.
At the same time, these restrictions (if enacted, which seems unlikely) would probably not have prevented any of the high-profile incidents he references. Instead, the real-world result of his proposal is a skyrocketing surge in gun sales.

We're at an impasse here. The solution, if we're going with gun control legislation, would at least require more extreme measures which could have possibly prevented one of these mass shootings, and the suggestion of that would have resulted in even more hyperbolic opposition from gun enthusiasts.... which means even more political bickering and ten times the reactionary gun sales.

The first step would be opening a forum for reasonable public debate, hearing from representatives from both sides of the issue. This is going to be a bit of a problem, because one side of the argument here thinks the issue is settled, and that the only counter argument they need to offer is a glib reference to the second amendment of the constitution.

So yes... that is a good question, but if you ask that question loudly enough, a large portion of the people who hear it will answer by stockpiling more guns and ammo.

This may be the first and only post of yours on guns that I have nothing to disagree with! :) All of this is a pretty accurate representation of the situation.

I do want to elaborate on the "hyperbolic opposition from gun enthusiasts" though. Most people have a hard time understanding it, but it's not too hard if you look at a few things. Obama's announcement of executive orders today is another example of it though. One of the things he attacks is the "gun show/internet loophole" (more accurately the private sale exemption) and that's been a common target in a lot of gun control rhetoric lately. This "loophole" exists because it was an exemption intentionally included in a prior round of gun control. It's an exemption that was intentionally placed there as a compromise. But now it's a loophole that must be eliminated. This is representative of basically all types of "compromise" in gun control. There is never a compromise in gun control that produces more gun rights in return for a restriction, it has always been more restriction. Gun control is also extremely prone to the "slippery slope" problem, as exhibited in the private sale exemption. After decades of this pattern, a lot of people are sick of being sold additional restrictions as compromise and it creates some very rigid opposition.

Hopefully that is enough to give some insight. If not, replace "guns" with any other object or right and apply prohibition/restriction to it in the same pattern.

That is the question...
Not sure. I agree with the proposals that Obama is suggesting, they seem reasonable and I don't get why people are freaking out about them.

I haven't dug into them, but tearing holes in HIPPA privacy protections seems very dangerous. There seems to be a lot of concern about this being damaging to mental health care (see the link in my post just above yours).
edit: and it looks like tens of thousands of social security beneficiaries are going to be barred from having a gun too?!? the fuck?! Yeah... that just boosted GOP turnout.

Jinsai

01-06-2016, 02:22 AM

Khrz

01-06-2016, 04:25 AM

So... focusing on poverty and education aren't viable options? Focusing on mental health (if your concern is spree shootings or suicides) isn't viable?

It is, definitely ! Albeit in a world where you have enough money to finance all the infrastructures, hire all the professionals, where everyone can agree on the methods, means and needs, where the population is actually willing to follow suit and agrees with your plan and methodology...
That's a great plan, it only requires an absolute and immediate consensus to be an actual mid-term response. If you can get everyone to agree with a solid and precise plan (which is somewhat a scary, lithium-in-the-water thought), then yeah, you may reduce the amount of gun-related victims in the next 50 years.
For it to be implemented and effective that fast it requires an amount of control over your government and your population that makes fascism look like a hippie community though, in my opinion.

Societal changes are necessary, whatever your problem is it is bound to your environment. But if societal change is always the solution, it is never the proper and only response. I'd even go as far as to say that you can't jumpstart such changes without immediate (if imperfect) restrictions and modifications to the law, because to have a whole society and culture turn course you need to change the people's habits. People may be smart and kind, but populations are as passive and bent on inertia as a flock of sheeps. If you want your whole people to switch gears, you have to make them, whether by encouraging them or by restricting their options so that they are forced to adapt to the new course.

So yeah, I agree with your solution, even though it's the socio-economical equivalent of ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. But that's not a proper response.

DigitalChaos

01-06-2016, 02:34 PM

there is also the irreconcilable issue of targeting people with mental health issues... if we start instituting new laws which would bar people who are unstable from owning guns, you'll almost certainly see a tendency for people to not seek help because they feel their freedoms will be restricted should they be on record for taking a particular medication.

This isn't to say that I don't believe certain mental illnesses should bar you from stockpiling weapons... of course they should. But the reality of the situation is that enforcing that restriction will likely result in people resisting medical treatment for their schizophrenia, all the while stock-piling weapons for fear that they'll be made unavailable to them... and there's a good chance that won't end well.
staaaaahp with these agreeable posts! This feels so wrong!

It is, definitely ! Albeit in a world where you have enough money to finance all the infrastructures, hire all the professionals,
...or don't centralize those solutions on government? There are plenty of options to accomplish this stuff by spending LESS money and using LESS government.
Here is just one example:
Dissolve the govt apparatus behind the drug war. This immediately saves lots of money. You could even find new revenue sources by taxing drug sales. This will quickly remove the crime associated with the drug black market, where most of the killings happen. That, in turn, will reduce the policing costs for current high-crime areas. The lower crime will increase the quality of life for an area and result in the betterment of general life trajectory of children growing up there. It's possible that schooling would see a small bump in quality too (though it would be minimal compared to other efforts) as the area becomes more desirable to live in. Emergency healthcare costs would be reduced for the area with fewer violent crimes and less unpredictability in the drug quality. Prison costs will go way down being that their population is primarily related to crimes connected to drug black market activities.

But that brings us back to:

where everyone can agree on the methods, means and needs, where the population is actually willing to follow suit and agrees with your plan and methodology...
Which is also a more extreme problem with gun control itself... so it's not like gun control transcends that problem to become the "easier short term answer." In the last few years, the US has made significant changes (not necessarily positive movement, but at least changes) in the topics of healthcare, drug enforcement, and even education. There is quite a lot of support for change around our policing structure and a lot more focus on poverty. But on gun control?.... yeah very little has changed. You are slamming into more of a political wall with gun control than any of the other (much more potentially impacting) routes.