The Big and Senseless Mass Shooting Thread

[JessFR]

I dont see people arguing for 'changing how a murder is committed'. .

When you consider success of gun control to be lowering gun crime when other form of crimes compensate, and support that result, you are arguing against HOW a murders is committed. I have already gone over this at length.

I'm really fucking sick of having to reexplain concepts that I put a lot of effort into making sure were explained clearly and unambiguously the first and second and probably third time around. I'm sick of wasting my time on people who are not interested in debating the whole of an argument and only a twisted cherry picked version of it.

I should never have even read this thread, I've been trying to stick to a personal commitment to giving up on political discussion all together. It's kinda like facebook pages, lots of people talking, but nobody being heard.

 

[JessFR]

Something just came to me. Many times in the past, where I have had discussions with Australians, I have been told the following...

"Australia is not America, and we don't want to be America"

At the time it annoyed me since it didn't address anything I was saying, but I think I understand now.

America is not Australia, and I won't be so arrogant as to pretend to speak for everyone, but *I* sure as hell don't want it to become Australia.

 

[psychedelicsoul]

It is also interesting to note that the few gun incidents in Australia are usually criminals shooting other criminals. It is extremely rare for innocent victims to be involved. The only ones carrying hand guns are gangster who in turn shoot other gangsters. You don't see people at the cinemas or kids at school being shot for no reason. America tolerates their psychos making a scene by killing random strangers.

I like the freedom of having no metal detectors in my schools

23.13 million (2013) Australia
318.9 million (2014). US
Of couse you have less crime and it's not as bad. More people=more problems. And it's not just crime. India has tons of problems involving religious violence that isn't really seen on national crime statistics. There's more going on in certain nations than what's shown. China is only able to keep crime rates low due to having a much stronger government that most in the western world would not wanna live under.
Bottom line, it's hard to compare two countries for crime and other issues when one has a disproportionate amount of people

 

[StoneHappyMonday]

When you consider success of gun control to be lowering gun crime when other form of crimes compensate, and support that result, you are arguing against HOW a murders is committed. I have already gone over this at length.

I'm really fucking sick of having to reexplain concepts that I put a lot of effort into making sure were explained clearly and unambiguously the first and second and probably third time around. I'm sick of wasting my time on people who are not interested in debating the whole of an argument and only a twisted cherry picked version of it.

I should never have even read this thread, I've been trying to stick to a personal commitment to giving up on political discussion all together. It's kinda like facebook pages, lots of people talking, but nobody being heard.

I've followed most of your arguments. I've noted how easily you rage or swear at someone who disagrees with you. About 180 posts later, you'll apologise while admitting you have no comprehension of the counter-argument.

I don't think I deserve your ire for the three brief lines I posted. Feel free to give up on 'political discussion' if the best you can offer is a short temper and profanity.

 

[JessFR]

I don't think I sword 'at' you, I swore yes, but whatever, technicalities. I'm just sick of it man, I'm sick of it.

If you followed my argument, why would you say "nobody is arguing for changing how a murder is committed". My point was never that people are knowingly and directly arguing for that. My point was that arguing that Australian gun control was successful by only noting gun crime ignoring all other stats is tantamount to only caring how a murder is committed. I would prefer it if someone could somehow explain to me why lowering gun crime if it doesn't result in an overall lowered crime rate is something to be considered a success.

Or how it can be ethically justified to reduce a freedom that fails to result in an overall benefit to society.

And without bringing up a bunch of side-subjects to discuss instead, or separate hypotheticals. Personally I'm a believer that debate must remain on one subject at a time, and new aspects brought up generally after old ones have finished.

 

[psychedelicsoul]

I would prefer it if someone could somehow explain to me why lowering gun crime if it doesn't result in an overall lowered crime rate is something to be considered a success.

How would lowering one form of violence not lower violence in general? Keep in mind, outside of background checks, I'm anti-gun control. But I'm not sure how lowering the level of gun violence could possibly not result in lowering the amount of violence in an area period.
It's not like there's some cause and effect thing where lowering gun violence will raise knife or explosive violence. I doubt that more violence will just appear to take the place of gun violence

 

[JessFR]

I know I don't handle these sorts of discussions very well, I've already explained why. And I know it's my fault because I can't seem to stop myself from continuing to subject myself to them. It's idiotic, not your idiocy my idiocy.

 

[JessFR]

How would lowering one form of violence not lower violence in general? Keep in mind, outside of background checks, I'm anti-gun control. But I'm not sure how lowering the level of gun violence could possibly not result in lowering the amount of violence in an area period.

Well, it might or it might not. That's what data is for. The data might hypothetically say gun crime has gone down, and as a result, overall crime is down by that amount, in which case, woohoo, success.

Or, the data might hypothetically say that gun crime is down but overall crime has remained the same, from that we can draw a hypothesis as to why, such as that with lower availability of guns, people have turned to other weapons, and as a result there has been no overall change. This is what all the evidence I've seen outside the small exceptions I've mentioned has indicated was the result of Australian gun control.

Or, hypothetically, the data may say that the gun crime is down but overall crime is up even further than it started. That may be as simple as increased discontent as society, which would need to be accounted for in the data, or it might mean that without guns, people have turned knives, and because guns are inaccurate but knives are not, attempted murders are more likely to succeed. Now fortunately I've seen no evidence that that has happened anywhere. Fortunately the data does not seem to bare out the pro-gun side assertion that fewer guns = more crime and deaths. But this is hypothetical.

That's how.

 

[psychedelicsoul]

Well, it might or it might not. That's what data is for. The data might hypothetically say gun crime has gone down, and as a result, overall crime is down by that amount, in which case, woohoo, success.

Or, the data might hypothetically say that gun crime is down but overall crime has remained the same, from that we can draw a hypothesis as to why, such as that with lower availability of guns, people have turned to other weapons, and as a result there has been no overall change. This is what all the evidence I've seen outside the small exceptions I've mentioned has indicated was the result of Australian gun control.

Or, hypothetically, the data may say that the gun crime is down but overall crime is up even further than it started. That may be as simple as increased discontent as society, which would need to be accounted for in the data, or it might mean that without guns, people have turned knives, and because guns are inaccurate but knives are not, attempted murders are more likely to succeed. Now fortunately I've seen no evidence that that has happened anywhere. Fortunately the data does not seem to bare out the pro-gun side assertion that fewer guns = more crime and deaths. But this is hypothetical.

That's how.

You do have a good point. This is evident by the number of states and countries with low crime, and completely different gun policies... It's almost as if gun control laws aren't the single solitary factor in gun violence... huh...

 

[JessFR]

My belief from the data I've seen is that the kind of gun control being commonly used probably doesn't make a whole lot of difference one way or the other. The gun crime is the symptom, not the cause. This also follows in with the observations that some of the highest crime areas of the united states have the strictest gun control.

 

[ArCi]

It is also interesting to note that the few gun incidents in Australia are usually criminals shooting other criminals. It is extremely rare for innocent victims to be involved. The only ones carrying hand guns are gangster who in turn shoot other gangsters. You don't see people at the cinemas or kids at school being shot for no reason. America tolerates their psychos making a scene by killing random strangers.

I like the freedom of having no metal detectors in my schools

Dumb.

 

[JessFR]

I'm not sure having no metal detectors in schools even counts as a freedom? What is the freedom you have as a result of this? The freedom to not walk through metal detectors I guess.

Don't get me wrong, I hate that shit too, but I think I hate the concept of school uniforms a little more. Stupid concept used to suppress individuality and creativity, completely unbacked by evidence (some evidence suggest they even have a mild negative effect on school academic achievement), and just fkin ugly, lol. I see kids walkin home all the time here in their uniforms, I feel kinda bad for them. Now that's something I love about america. The drastically lower prevalence of uniforms. Now that's a freedom. Sorry I just find Aussie and British style schools kinda dorky. I'll give you you're much less likely to be shot in one though.

 

[psychedelicsoul]

I'm not sure having no metal detectors in schools even counts as a freedom? What is the freedom you have as a result of this? The freedom to not walk through metal detectors I guess.

Don't get me wrong, I hate that shit too, but I think I hate the concept of school uniforms a little more. Stupid concept used to suppress individuality and creativity, completely unbacked by evidence (some evidence suggest they even have a mild negative effect on school academic achievement), and just fkin ugly, lol. I see kids walkin home all the time here in their uniforms, I feel kinda bad for them. Now that's something I love about america. The drastically lower prevalence of uniforms. Now that's a freedom. Sorry I just find Aussie and British style schools kinda dorky. I'll give you you're much less likely to be shot in one though.

I beg to differ... I think school uniforms can be pretty stylish if done right... Japan knows what it's doing

Especially when it comes to PE uniforms

 

[JessFR]

Yea no. Actually not no but fuck no. And coming from you in particular, not fuck no but REALLY FUCK NO, lol.

Fortunately I didn't have to experience much of the Australian school experience, I dropped out at 16. And pretty much didn't go for a whole lot of it before then either. Me and schools don't go together, Me and authority generally don't go together really.

 

[psychedelicsoul]

Yea no. Actually not no but fuck no. And coming from you in particular, not fuck no but REALLY FUCK NO, lol.

Fortunately I didn't have to experience much of the Australian school experience, I dropped out at 16. And pretty much didn't go for a whole lot of it before then either. Me and schools don't go together, Me and authority generally don't go together really.

At my high school (a christian school), we dressed like thugs (half the school were thugs), there was plenty of weed, guns, sex, pills, and other shit for sale. Homeless people broke inside he school, the teacher let us say "faggot", and said it herself on many occasions. In fact, we really only got up to a 9th grade education level... and that's if you were lucky.
She drug tested us, but those tests were random and didn't always test all of us. Plus, they were easy to dodge and she offered more second changes than she claimed. They were crap drug tests too, so it was easy to cheat, use other peoples urine, and if it's just THC she usually gives us another chance. Half the time, they malfunctioned and all results were thrown out. ADHD meds would come us a cocaine...
Some people graduated without ever touching calculus, trigonometry or high school level algebra. We were so dumb that it tooks MONTHS to get the rules for adding, subtracting, multiplying and dividing in algebra down.
She spent more time hating on gay people, making up spiritual claims about herself, and spouting right wing conspiracy theories than she did teaching us. According to my mom, the gay kid was outside crying one day... I never saw that, but hey... I was one of the kids who constantly made gay jokes and was popular for making people laugh.
(by the way, this was in the same city as pastor Sean Harris, who told parents to crack the wrists of gay kids and punch tomboyish girls. He also had a church school)
^not my school though.

However, we had some freedoms that you didn' get in public schools. No dress code, recess, access to drugs, lots of breaks and free time... but most of all... when people got in fights, the teacher punished the person responsible for starting the fight, not everyone involved. The classroom size was small so bullying was much harder than it is in a public school. We also learned a lot of concepts better there than we did in public schools. We had indivdualized attention.
So even though we learned less, a lot of what we did learn was better. She had a decent idea about education... Teach at the students grade level, not their grade. You had some kids in 10th grade, being taught 5th grade work. But you also had 6th graders being taught well above their education level... As a result, some students graduated with a relatively good education, despite denying evolution, while others were dumb as dirt. Her idea is that a student shouldn't be taught more than what they can do, or you'll set them up for failure...
But best of all... she gave us candy when we got answers right.

 

[ArCi]

Fail

 

[Bardeaux]

Arci, contribute or gtfo

lol you have the freedom to not be shot.. just move out of the ghetto areas and if you decide to go to college or a theater carry a gun

You know there was a "good guy with a gun" present during the shooting, right?

An ex marine. He decided not to get involved for several smart reasons, which included his ignorance of where SWAT was and didn't want to be considered the shooter. There are so many variables in the mass shooting phenomena that you can't pin it on one or two causes. You can't pin it on open access to firearms alone, but you can't discount it either.

 

[One Thousand Words]

23.13 million (2013) Australia
318.9 million (2014). US
Of couse you have less crime and it's not as bad. More people=more problems. And it's not just crime. India has tons of problems involving religious violence that isn't really seen on national crime statistics. There's more going on in certain nations than what's shown. China is only able to keep crime rates low due to having a much stronger government that most in the western world would not wanna live under.
Bottom line, it's hard to compare two countries for crime and other issues when one has a disproportionate amount of people

Please explain Japan's low crime rate

 

[Bardeaux]

Let's use the state of New York, then. It has a few million LESS people than the country of Australia.

NY state gun homicide rate: 2.7
Australia gun homicide rate: .11

This discounts suicides and accidental deaths.

 

[JessFR]

Just to be clear, I've never said that gun control won't reduce the levels of gun related crime. in fact all my research has indicated it probably does. so I don't deny that. I just don't consider it relevant because it's not the whole picture. The whole picture is all over the place and doesn't seem to correlate very well to gun control much at all. My method of analyzing the statistics was to go through various countries and states, and attempt to correlate their own individual gun control changes to the overall crime statistics. That way you don't have the increased variables of comparing one location to another which could have all sorts of other factors going on. And that way you can eliminate most variables except the effect of the gun control on that area. You also need to explore other possible changes in policy that could influence the data.

That's how I did it in determining the stuff I've been saying. So for example, I wouldn't generally compare Australia today vs the US today, I'd compare Australias timeline over the course of the introduction of harsh gun control. Or for example, go through the American statistics over the clinton assault weapon ban era. Going on total murder, suicide,and assault statistics. Stuff like that.