nuttynutskin
Bluelighter
- Joined
- May 15, 2011
- Messages
- 10,732
And yet did that stop him from killing 168 people.
The Big and Senseless Mass Shooting Thread
- Thread starter P.o.T.u.S
- Start date
And yet did that stop him from killing 168 people.
Bagseed
Bluelighter
source please
JessFR
Bluelight Crew
I've gone over this again and again and I'm sick of it. The usefulness of guns being legal is not relevant to me, only the evidence to support that prohibitions against them are the best course of action.
As s for who decides what is relevant evidence. Well that's a question for any subject. I would claim scientific standards are the test for good evidence vs bad evidence. Is the evidence impartially collected, repeated, etc. Go off the evidence to point you to the right course of action.
On top of that. No chosen course of action, regardless of what it is. Should be continued once the evidence points to it having failed the intended purpose of the action. In other words, for example, an assault weapon ban should be repealed once there's evidence it has failed at its purpose. And the purpose of gun control should be a tangible improvement in your statistical chance of dying in crime. And similar metrics.
As s for who decides what is relevant evidence. Well that's a question for any subject. I would claim scientific standards are the test for good evidence vs bad evidence. Is the evidence impartially collected, repeated, etc. Go off the evidence to point you to the right course of action.
On top of that. No chosen course of action, regardless of what it is. Should be continued once the evidence points to it having failed the intended purpose of the action. In other words, for example, an assault weapon ban should be repealed once there's evidence it has failed at its purpose. And the purpose of gun control should be a tangible improvement in your statistical chance of dying in crime. And similar metrics.
Ok, let's start with some evidence that i ever said guns should be illegal and go from there.
I've said from the outset that this is a touchy subject for some; that it brings up all manner of defensiveness - and i think there is ample empirical evidence of that here.
Of course, the constant rebuttal is that 'all figures are subject to manipulation', right?
I would have thought evidence of "mass shootings" as defined by the FBI (those liberal pinkos) would be worthy of (at least some) consideration?
As for the repeal on gun regulation (let's not get ahead of ourselves - many people own guns legally here, it just isn't a cultural obbsession or overtly symbolic) in Australia, there is a small but vocal push to chip away at the legislation.
I don't agree with that, and shall oppose it, as is my prerogative in a democracy.
I've said from the outset that this is a touchy subject for some; that it brings up all manner of defensiveness - and i think there is ample empirical evidence of that here.
Of course, the constant rebuttal is that 'all figures are subject to manipulation', right?
I would have thought evidence of "mass shootings" as defined by the FBI (those liberal pinkos) would be worthy of (at least some) consideration?
As for the repeal on gun regulation (let's not get ahead of ourselves - many people own guns legally here, it just isn't a cultural obbsession or overtly symbolic) in Australia, there is a small but vocal push to chip away at the legislation.
I don't agree with that, and shall oppose it, as is my prerogative in a democracy.
Last edited:
StoneHappyMonday
Bluelighter
- Joined
- May 10, 2001
- Messages
- 18,084
And I'm tired of your cultural relativism. Women's rights and beheadings in S Arabia? All culturally relative bruv. I'm sick of you people bringing up arguments about the civilised west.
JessFR
Bluelight Crew
My problem with it is not that I think it's not reliable, it's that it's insufficient. Explain what you think should be done about guns, put up evidence that strongly suggests it will make people safer in a tangible way, and ill be all on board that it and other plans like it should be trialed, and and the most successful implemented.
Ever notice how if a drug is trialed and found to be ineffective, it's not supposed to go to market. But political plans are just assumed to work out of hand, and rarely trialed, and rarely repealed if found to be ineffective.
Well, i'm the last person to deny this is a complex problem. Obviously it is as complex as they come.
Ingrained cultural belief systems re-inforced by interpretations of consitutional law aren't easily shifted.
First and foremost i believe that the American health system could do a lot to prevent people getting to this point.
So often i hear people on bluelight say they would seek treatment for their serious/life threatening illnesses, addictions or psychological/drug problems because their insurance (or lack thereof) doesn't allow it.
Mental health is a vital preventative measure to any number of antisocial behaviours, and how they are becoming perpetuated.
I am not gloating about Australia having some remnants of an egalitarian approach to health and education - simply telling my stateside friends my experiences and those of my american family and friends.
Likewise, i am not gloating about australia not having gun massacres in the last 20 years; it is simply a stark contrast - not one i can specifically account for and explain, beyond saying that i, for one, think responsibilties and rights are as important as one another.
Why let ones "rights" get so out of kilter from their "responsibilities" that people shrug their shoulders and presidential candidates say things like "it happens", when over a dozen kids get shot in a classroom.
Not here, it don't, Jeb. And that's all i've ever been trying to say here.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it?
What will it take for these people to stop pretending something isn't wrong?
Perhaps when such politicians and pundits stop being bankrolled by corporate and big budget advocacy groups.
Which seems pretty unlikely in a system so ideiogically driven by laissez-faire capitalism.
But, y'know, i actually have an interest in this rather than some desire to slag off america, as many people seem to read it as.
Ingrained cultural belief systems re-inforced by interpretations of consitutional law aren't easily shifted.
First and foremost i believe that the American health system could do a lot to prevent people getting to this point.
So often i hear people on bluelight say they would seek treatment for their serious/life threatening illnesses, addictions or psychological/drug problems because their insurance (or lack thereof) doesn't allow it.
Mental health is a vital preventative measure to any number of antisocial behaviours, and how they are becoming perpetuated.
I am not gloating about Australia having some remnants of an egalitarian approach to health and education - simply telling my stateside friends my experiences and those of my american family and friends.
Likewise, i am not gloating about australia not having gun massacres in the last 20 years; it is simply a stark contrast - not one i can specifically account for and explain, beyond saying that i, for one, think responsibilties and rights are as important as one another.
Why let ones "rights" get so out of kilter from their "responsibilities" that people shrug their shoulders and presidential candidates say things like "it happens", when over a dozen kids get shot in a classroom.
Not here, it don't, Jeb. And that's all i've ever been trying to say here.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it?
What will it take for these people to stop pretending something isn't wrong?
Perhaps when such politicians and pundits stop being bankrolled by corporate and big budget advocacy groups.
Which seems pretty unlikely in a system so ideiogically driven by laissez-faire capitalism.
But, y'know, i actually have an interest in this rather than some desire to slag off america, as many people seem to read it as.
Last edited:
JessFR
Bluelight Crew
I actually agree with you in a lot of that, in my opinion the American health system is in desperate need of change, i can't condone the way it supposedly 'works' now. Having lived in both countries, it is my opinion that the Australian health system is superior in many respects to the American.
As for rights and responsibilities. You have to understand there are differences between American and Australian cultural beliefs on the subject and they are more different than they are right or wrong.
It has been my experience that Australian ideas of rights are slightly different to American ideas.
Australians don't consider rights to be as absolute. They can't, because they believe more in contradicting rights. Free speech vs freedom from hate speech for example. Its a contradiction between what's known in philosophy as a negative right, a right that requires inaction, vs a positive right, that requires action. A positive right Americans believe in and enshrined in the constitution is the right to vote. Freedom of speech is negative, requiring the government prevent action rather than do action.
American culture imo prioritizes negative rights over positive rights. And assuming we don't get into the interpretation of the 9th amendment, the bill of rights doesn't have many rights that contradict.
Australian culture has more contradicting rights, solving the contradiction by slight restricting both. I'm not saying one side is right and one is wrong. But there is a difference.
And so, responsibilities can't legally exist that contradict rights.
The president does not have it within his constitutional power to interpret the constitution to his liking. They do it anyway. But they're not supposed to. It's a judicial branch responsibility. Neither does congress have it in their sole authority to change or interpret the constitution. Australia is very different, Australia follows the philosophy of parliamentary sovereignty for the most part. It says that parliament can do almost anything of their sole accord.
As for rights and responsibilities. You have to understand there are differences between American and Australian cultural beliefs on the subject and they are more different than they are right or wrong.
It has been my experience that Australian ideas of rights are slightly different to American ideas.
Australians don't consider rights to be as absolute. They can't, because they believe more in contradicting rights. Free speech vs freedom from hate speech for example. Its a contradiction between what's known in philosophy as a negative right, a right that requires inaction, vs a positive right, that requires action. A positive right Americans believe in and enshrined in the constitution is the right to vote. Freedom of speech is negative, requiring the government prevent action rather than do action.
American culture imo prioritizes negative rights over positive rights. And assuming we don't get into the interpretation of the 9th amendment, the bill of rights doesn't have many rights that contradict.
Australian culture has more contradicting rights, solving the contradiction by slight restricting both. I'm not saying one side is right and one is wrong. But there is a difference.
And so, responsibilities can't legally exist that contradict rights.
The president does not have it within his constitutional power to interpret the constitution to his liking. They do it anyway. But they're not supposed to. It's a judicial branch responsibility. Neither does congress have it in their sole authority to change or interpret the constitution. Australia is very different, Australia follows the philosophy of parliamentary sovereignty for the most part. It says that parliament can do almost anything of their sole accord.
Droppersneck
Bluelighter
Oh wow Kentucky gets a 100% freedom score, nice
alasdair
Exactly
I agree with a lot of that, and could tell you a great many more things with Australia's constitution if this were the place for it - but it isn't.
Believe it or not i'm not interested in taking sides or getting ideological debates for the sake of being combative.
But when i see people justify themselves with the kind of arguments that regularly get thrown around by certain groups - in this case, the gun lobby after yet another horrific shooting - it is difficult not to call bullshit from time to time.
I don't care about left/right, us/them. They are all just labels and stereotypes that stifle what could potentially be an interesting discussion.
Guns are so plentiful, so ingrained in american society that it seems there is no easy answer in preventing them falling into the wrong hands.
How can anyone even know what constitutes "the wrong hands" in such a scenario?
It's difficult. When people's justification for owning a gun is "protection from people with guns", you reach a stalemate.
All i'm saying is that "the right to bear arms" has become a tyranny all of its own.
Very difficult. But is it defeatist to say "it's too difficult - let's not even talk about it"?
Believe it or not i'm not interested in taking sides or getting ideological debates for the sake of being combative.
But when i see people justify themselves with the kind of arguments that regularly get thrown around by certain groups - in this case, the gun lobby after yet another horrific shooting - it is difficult not to call bullshit from time to time.
I don't care about left/right, us/them. They are all just labels and stereotypes that stifle what could potentially be an interesting discussion.
Guns are so plentiful, so ingrained in american society that it seems there is no easy answer in preventing them falling into the wrong hands.
How can anyone even know what constitutes "the wrong hands" in such a scenario?
It's difficult. When people's justification for owning a gun is "protection from people with guns", you reach a stalemate.
All i'm saying is that "the right to bear arms" has become a tyranny all of its own.
Very difficult. But is it defeatist to say "it's too difficult - let's not even talk about it"?
Droppersneck
Bluelighter
Spacejunk you have a good heart and a lot of faith in the ruling class/ your government and I can respect that. This issue is just too complex and uniquely American for an outsider to comprehend.
JessFR
Bluelight Crew
Well no matter what we say here, the right to bare arms isn't going anywhere for the foreseeable future. And I'm yet to be convinced that removing it outright is the best call.
I'm no fan of political labels either, just as I am no fan of restricting freedoms for ideological reasons alone. There must be tangible benefit. And dress it up how you will. Banning guns is a loss of freedom. That in and of itself is not reason enough for me to be opposed to banning guns, but there must be a worthy outcome for having done so. And just the mere psychological comfort for some of having banned guns, irrespective of truth, is not a worthy outcome in my eyes.
I'm no fan of political labels either, just as I am no fan of restricting freedoms for ideological reasons alone. There must be tangible benefit. And dress it up how you will. Banning guns is a loss of freedom. That in and of itself is not reason enough for me to be opposed to banning guns, but there must be a worthy outcome for having done so. And just the mere psychological comfort for some of having banned guns, irrespective of truth, is not a worthy outcome in my eyes.
JessFR
Bluelight Crew
We all want the blood shed to end, its a shame we can't be more civilized in discussion a mutual goal. Noone here likes that this shit keeps happening, but it will for so long as people are more interesting in defending their view than they are continuing to refine and change it according to the evidence. And both of the major sides are as guilty of that as eachother.
I'm not an outsider in the sense that you perceive, droppers.
I am not interested in discussing how long i have spent in the United States or the sorts of people i know there, except to say that some are very close family members with school aged children, and all are from very different geographical regions and cultures.
So needless to say, i do get concerned with the high incidence of schoolyard shootings.
I felt similarly uneasy when one of my sister's families lived in Johannesburg.
You can try to patronise me all you like, but i have already pointed out that this is a complex issue, more than once.
Difference is, i can speak my mind with those with whom i fervently disagree, and agree to disagree - like an adult.
I don't pretend that all Americans are the same - or have the pomposity to claim that all Australians agree with me.
You might have picked up on that if you did more than skim read my posts to bang out a combative troll reply.
I am not interested in discussing how long i have spent in the United States or the sorts of people i know there, except to say that some are very close family members with school aged children, and all are from very different geographical regions and cultures.
So needless to say, i do get concerned with the high incidence of schoolyard shootings.
I felt similarly uneasy when one of my sister's families lived in Johannesburg.
You can try to patronise me all you like, but i have already pointed out that this is a complex issue, more than once.
Difference is, i can speak my mind with those with whom i fervently disagree, and agree to disagree - like an adult.
I don't pretend that all Americans are the same - or have the pomposity to claim that all Australians agree with me.
You might have picked up on that if you did more than skim read my posts to bang out a combative troll reply.
JessFR
Bluelight Crew
I read your posts, I took from them that you don't care a whole lot about if Australian gun control actually worked or not, and I can't ever get on board with that. Yes you said a lot of other things, much I agreed with, but it's clear to me that in some respects I don't think we will ever agree. So like you said, agree to disagree I guess.
Apathy doesn't really come into it, from my point of view.
Ambivalence to shooters' "rights" does, because I'm one of those ever-unpopular "animal rights" people.
They're not as easily confused when guns aren't a significant part of the political landscape.
If less people are getting indiscriminately shot, gun-inflicted suicides have dropped, and less people are shooting native wildlife; it does seem to be working (on those fronts) - so i'm happy.
I don't take it personally when people disagree with me, nor am i offended when people criticise my homeland in an attenpt to do so; they have more in common with me than they realise
Ambivalence to shooters' "rights" does, because I'm one of those ever-unpopular "animal rights" people.
They're not as easily confused when guns aren't a significant part of the political landscape.
If less people are getting indiscriminately shot, gun-inflicted suicides have dropped, and less people are shooting native wildlife; it does seem to be working (on those fronts) - so i'm happy.
I don't take it personally when people disagree with me, nor am i offended when people criticise my homeland in an attenpt to do so; they have more in common with me than they realise
JessFR
Bluelight Crew
I support animal rights too.
And I'm still not sure you understand the nature of my disagreement.
People being able to own guns, then being not allowed to, is a reduction in what you are free to do. Now it's totally fine if you feel it's better to not have that freedom than endure the cost of having it. I get that.
What I don't get is how you can not care if reducing freedom, any freedom, regardless of your interest in it, is ok when it doesn't make anyone safer. Again, that the subject is guns is immaterial, I don't understand your apathy about reducing freedom by any amount for no payoff.
And it is a freedom, if you can do something than can't, you are less free than before. You could make the argument that you gain more freedom by removing another because of an increase in your right to safety. But that requires that it work.
That's what I don't understand.
And I'm still not sure you understand the nature of my disagreement.
People being able to own guns, then being not allowed to, is a reduction in what you are free to do. Now it's totally fine if you feel it's better to not have that freedom than endure the cost of having it. I get that.
What I don't get is how you can not care if reducing freedom, any freedom, regardless of your interest in it, is ok when it doesn't make anyone safer. Again, that the subject is guns is immaterial, I don't understand your apathy about reducing freedom by any amount for no payoff.
And it is a freedom, if you can do something than can't, you are less free than before. You could make the argument that you gain more freedom by removing another because of an increase in your right to safety. But that requires that it work.
That's what I don't understand.
Droppersneck
Bluelighter
Jess that is what baffles me. I would say the answer is politics in his case. Not to say that we do not all have partisan takes on one subject or another. Jess you truly have the best take on this seeing as you have lived in both countries. Too bad we can't get you back ?
socko
Bluelighter
So overall, it is the loss of yet another right or freedom. I don't care if it makes us safer or not. We got TSA, full body scanners, and NSA surveillance out of this freakish concern for minimal increases in safety. I would rather have more rights and live a little more dangerously. We now live in a world where car seatbelts are mandatory. Why don't motorcyles have seatbelts? Avoiding using crosswalks even if there is no traffic is a crime. Wearing a helmet on a motorcycle is often required by law. I ride a bicyle through heavy traffic and in redneck parts of the USA where they throw beer bottles at cyclists or run us off the road. Where is the law to protect me from that? The highway commissioner of the state of Texas recommends cyclists carry guns in the open to minimize threats from hostile locals. All are serious risks that make dangers from guns minimal in comparison, yet many would rather not have those laws because they are suffocating and nanny-state-ish.
Last edited:
I think that is oversimplifying what "freedom" truly is.
Should i be free to call a policeman in the street a 'cunt'?
Should i be free to spit on businessmen in the street?
Should i be free to catch the train and go to work nude?
Should i be free to own anthrax spores?
Should i be free to give methamphetamine to people with dementia?
Denying me any of those rights means i have 'less rights'. But i am happy to live in a society where all of those thinga are prohibited by law (although i do have a terrible habit of calling policemen "cuntstable". Damned speech impediment).
I am arguing that you gain more freedom by removing another because it does - demonstrably - work.
But we can certainly agree to disagree.
And droppers, you complain about grieving families being "partisan", claim yourself to be "objective" - but always stick your nose into every discussion that is attempting to get past that.
You're either trolling, stupid, or both.
Why criticise people in this subforum for "politics", why do you comment on every thread? I might be interested in what you had to say if it was consistet or relevant even a small fraction of the time.
Should i be free to call a policeman in the street a 'cunt'?
Should i be free to spit on businessmen in the street?
Should i be free to catch the train and go to work nude?
Should i be free to own anthrax spores?
Should i be free to give methamphetamine to people with dementia?
Denying me any of those rights means i have 'less rights'. But i am happy to live in a society where all of those thinga are prohibited by law (although i do have a terrible habit of calling policemen "cuntstable". Damned speech impediment).
I am arguing that you gain more freedom by removing another because it does - demonstrably - work.
But we can certainly agree to disagree.
And droppers, you complain about grieving families being "partisan", claim yourself to be "objective" - but always stick your nose into every discussion that is attempting to get past that.
You're either trolling, stupid, or both.
Why criticise people in this subforum for "politics", why do you comment on every thread? I might be interested in what you had to say if it was consistet or relevant even a small fraction of the time.
Last edited: