Mass Shootings and Gun Debate 2018 Thread

[swilow]

At times it's pretty evident when someone that doesn't live here tries to come up with some solution. Any idea of removing or taking away people's guns is laughable and not going to happen. Something like 42 percent of U.S. households have at least one gun in possession, so good luck with any of that. It wouldn't even be feasible, but if it was the result would cause way more damage than any school shooting ever could.

I understand that its not feasible, and I don't think the huge volume of guns is the reason- its the symptom. The reason a prohibtion on guns wouldn't work in the US is the unwillingness of the population. I'm not saying that in a critical way but just trying to clarify what you said.

You and Jesse have said a few times that 'non-American's shouldn't comment on the issue' and I really don't agree. It just seems like a means to kill the debate. I mean, we are not actively doing anything about the issue here, we're talking about it on a fucken drug website. In terms of quality discussion, I don't see the harm in varied opinions.

Are you for real? I gotta say I like you but you've honestly lost some of my respect if you have no issue impinging on people's freedom. Yeah it'd be effective. Effective at starting a fucking war. Maybe in some countries people don't have a problem subserviently handing over their guns but that's not quite the sentiment of gun owners in the U.S.

I was going to ignore this but I can't.

You presumably follow some laws, right? These are generally ideas which say that an action is wrong and incurs penalties if committed. These could be minor things; do you just drive through red lights or what? Many laws infringe upon your freedom of action, and yet you follow them for the greater good. Or because of the punishment. Either way, you're changing your behaviour for some reason and everyone does this in some way. I understand that gun laws are not really equivalent to ignoring a red light, but there are many laws we follow and many that we follow to some degree and gun laws sit on that spectrum. In this you are exercising one of the purest forms of freedom, which is the ability to choose what NOT to do. Its therefore a bit hypocritical to accuse me of infringing on freedom, when in fact I am talking about one very specific 'freedom' being curtailed, in the same manner that many, many 'freedom's' are curtailed, and most people (even gunowners!) seem to respect these mild blows to selfhood. There comes a greater benefit.

Its also invalid to talk of subservience to government when it is powerful interests effectively bribing your own leaders with donations or whatever you call it there that prevent even the most minor changes to gun laws. In effect, the main/true reason you still have guns is because of your government, not because the people want this. Getting the people wanting guns has been a really effective marketing technique.

It wouldn't start a war, that is just bluster. What would you seriously do, start fighting the most powerful military in the world, who have nukes/drones/surveilance/Special Ops, with your handguns and AK's?

FWIW, I don't believe a hardline stance would work in the US though I absolutely think it is the way to go. I think the best middle ground is banning large magazine big guns that shoot lots of people really quickly in exactly the manner they were designed to.

Yeah I'm sure the results would be just great. I mean look at how much less crime there is in cities with stricter gun control. 8(

It was really a thought experiment, dude. Relax. It's okay to imagine scenarious, the gun lobbies aren't bribing you.

 

[zephyr]

Just remember, no one here is an actual expert in all the things and it just seems easy to point the finger as there is an increasing number of murders via guns in America and an increase in lack of realising how its linked to the number of guns available to grab.

Guns kill far more people quickly than a knife. Anyone running around with a knife will kill but far less quickly. Theres no comparison tho as noth are heinous.

Its badic.

Why cant Americans see the obvious or if you can just admit it?

Is saving face more important?

 

[nuttynutskin]

You and Jesse have said a few times that 'non-American's shouldn't comment on the issue' and I really don't agree. It just seems like a means to kill the debate. I mean, we are not actively doing anything about the issue here, we're talking about it on a fucken drug website. In terms of quality discussion, I don't see the harm in varied opinions.

I don't know if I outright said that before but it doesn't really matter. People are going to post what they're going to post obviously. It just irritates me when people from other countries comment about the U.S. when they obviously have no idea what's actually going on here. Just like when the people open carrying AR's around made the news, then every foreigner thinks that everywhere in the U.S. people are walking around with ARs because of the some sensationalist news story. Or people that don't know the difference between semi-automatic and automatic but want to comment or debate about guns. It seems like a lot of foreigners just have it out for us anyways. In my whole time in the CEP I don't think I've once criticized another country or told their citizens what to do about an issue because I honestly don't care. I'm sure I could find plenty of shit wrong with Australia but it doesn't affect me so I why would I waste my time?

 

[nuttynutskin]

Why cant Americans see the obvious or if you can just admit it?

What exactly is the obvious? I believe there's a problem, but it's a society problem, not a gun problem if that's what you're getting at.

 

[JessFR]

I must have rocks for brains to still be reading this thread let alone posting in it, but while I'm indulging my masochistic retardation...

Zephyr, while I might disagree with you, you've never stuck me as stupid. Surely you can see how different cultures, even ones relatively similar in a global sense, can still have very different takes of things?

Like, just take a moment and forget the reality here, or your perception of it or whatever you wanna call it.

Surely you can comprehend that some people might feel that gun control won't work and would prefer a more dangerous society in exchange for more freedoms? You don't have to agree with that belief, it doesn't even matter if it's objectively true.

All you need, if your question is to understand how people can't see what to you seems self evident, is to accept that other people evaluate the relative importance of different risks and rewards in society differently and have different beliefs in the effectiveness of various policies to comprehend why other cultures might not see the same things as obvious as yours.

I've said it before, but in a population of 300 million, all the deaths in school shootings really don't add up to much relative to many other causes of death. Some people might well feel the freedom to own guns is worth more than that. You might not agree, hell is not sure even I would agree with that. But again, it's not about if it's actually true. It's about trying to explain how different cultures can have very different perceptions and values and it often is still completely genuine and honest.

 

[spacejunk]

for example. @spacejunk's idea of "I'd personally rather live in a society with a social welfare safety net and universal healthcare..." seems weak to me if every one the world over were to live their lives in this fashion. it would have too many people reliant upon the system to take care of them and no one to take care of the system itself. but isolated to only a few countries it could work and be prosperous.

It's got nothing to do with weakness.
Humans get sick, we get old and we have rough patches.
Americans who have never left the country often don't realise this, but every other developed country pays for their healthcare with their tax dollars.
Likewise, umployment benefits aren't about weakness or being "reliant on the system" - it's about the state helping you out if you lose your job or get sick and can't go to work, and it keeps you from ending up homeless.

To me, "weakness" is a better description of the millions of poor americans who vote against their own interests (against better government funding for health, education and so on) because they get sucked into either the madness of racist scapegoating, or the lie of "meritocracy" (the idea that rich people are rich because they deserve to be, and likewise the poor and destitute).

Weakness is one way you could describe the huge masses of such a rich nation being ruled over by a mega-wealthy minority - and being fed so much bullshit about social welfare and believing it without question.
The poor and working classes do get forced into wars against other poor people in countries they couldn't locate on a map, fighting wars that benefit rich men (such as oil tycoons) - and as i understand it, they often join the armed forces because it's the only way they can afford to get an education.
It's a pretty big price to pay.
Education used to be free here, but by the time i went to university, it had become the system it has now (more or less) where you clock up a debt to the government for the courses you study. When you start earning something approximating a full time wage, you start paying it back.
It's one of many policies which (however imperfect and sabotaged by conservatives) helps to prevent multigenerational poverty.

There is no other developed, western nation with the sort of dire poverty that you see in the USA.
I mean, the third world sort of stuff you see in big cities.
Well - there are some pretty bleak outback communities over here, but that's a whole other story.

I don't have health insurance, and i had to spend 3 weeks in hospital a few years ago - and it didn't cost me a penny. I worry about some of my fellow bluelighters when it comes to stuff like that.

People here don't get bankrupted by medical bills - or in the UK or the rest of western europe. It just doesn't happen, because our taxes pay subsidise it.
To me, that's a fair deal. We all get sick sometimes, we all die. We all pay taxes.

The massive dysfunction in the US health system seems a bit like the gun thing - everyone says "too hard" (or - y'know, they claim to have a perfect solution, but it turns out they're just lying scum with a childlike grudge against his predecessor).

"Urban ghettos" don't exist here. We have areas of poverty, and people who struggle - but the systems in place exist to help people survive if fall on tough times, but it's a positive thing for society.

Now, unfortunately the american 'user pays' way of looking at social services spread like a disease since the 1980s, and a lot of our government-funded services have been whittled-away at by successive right wing governments.
But until fairly recently, homelessness in Australia was not something you saw much of. People who lost their jobs were not only paid unemployment benefits, but also helped to find work by government services.
That whole system has been sabotaged by conservative political forces that govern for the wealthy - for the privileged - not the people.

But having a social "safety net" is not a sign of weakness in a society - it's the exact opposite.

As i was suggesting with the post above that you quoted, is that gun culture may be symptomatic of a deeply insecure society.
A society of "haves" that feel they need firearms to protect them from the "have-nots".
A society deeply defined - and divided - by wealth inequality that whole cultures are defined by fear and distrust of fellow citizens - rather than solidarity and unity.
The election of trump is just the latest in a long history of wealthy, powerful leaders lauding over the working people of the united states - which to me is kind of ironic, considering the history of the america and the rejection of european feudalism and royalty.

Australia has a deeply vile history, but in a way i'm thankful for the fact that federation when it did, because the idea of the welfare state is a profound step forward in human social development.

I think it's sad when people are so hoodwinked by aspiration to material wealth (which don't realistically have much access to) that the working classes vote against their own interests (and interests of their people - working, average people) and instead vote for the interests of the mega wealthy elite - for people who give tax cuts to the wealthy and destroy efforts to implement affordable health care.
To me that's weakness.

"Strength" is not just turning your back on your fellow countrymen (when they're sick, disabled or out of work) - or feeling like you need a gun to protect yourself from them.

 

[Xorkoth]

I don't get why this issue causes so much anger in people. Not everyone is going to agree in any discussion, yet on the gun control debate people seem to lose the ability to remain level-headed and not take a dissenting opinion as a personal attack. Even people I normally find to be respectful and sensible in debate.

Here's my bottom line: I don't get why it's so important that we be allowed to own large magazine semi-automatic assault rifles whose only purpose is to kill lots of people quickly. I think it's absurd to say that people should be able to do absolutely whatever they want. The traffic rules are a great example. One shouldn't run red lights, even when no one is there, because it opens the possibility that some misjudgment will cause harm to others. Yet sometimes, when you're sitting there and no one is coming and you're waiting fruitlessly, it can feel like an infrigement on personal freedom. Nevertheless, the rule is in place for a reason and it behooves society as a whole to be followed, even though for you in the moment it's annoying.

I have no problem with people owning guns, but I do have a problem with people owning guns that can kill lots of people very quickly. Look, we do have a culture problem in this country, absolutely. The reason we have mass shootings isn't because of guns, it's because of other issues. However, if semi-automatic large magazine assault rifles were not available, the lethality of mass shootings would be far lower. To me it seems immensely self-absorbed to argue that we should be allowed to own such destructive weapons "because freedom" when their lack of availability would prevent many deaths (imagine the Las Vegas shooting with a handgun, or the recent school shooting with a handgun, instead of an assault rifle that can spray bullet rapidly). To me it's totally a no-brainer. I mean yeah, we SHOULD be able to own whatever we want and be responsible, in an ideal world, but unfortunately the reality of the situation we're living in is that angry, disgruntled people are regularly doing mass shootings, their frequency is appalling and so far beyond anywhere else. Is it really worth it to keep allowing these people to easily buy weapons that greatly increase the lethality of said mass shootings? To me it seems insane to allow selling of these weapons to civilians at all, let alone with no background checks at gun shows. And yeah, banning them now means there will still be plenty out there... but you have to start somewhere. If we make them unavailable, eventually the incidence of their ownership will reduce. If we don't change anything, it won't change ever. And yeah, we need to address the underlying problem (which is that people are absolutely fed up with the system that is failing them and are being led to believe violence/domestic terrorism is the answer). But in the meantime we have to do something about it to reduce harm, we can't bury our heads in the sand and pretend like the mass availability of these weapons isn't part of the problem. I know that, if I am ever in a situation where someone decides to start firing a gun randomly at people, I sure as hell would prefer them to have a handgun or a hunting rifle or something, rather than an AK-47 or whatever. Wouldn't you?

Removing access to such devastatingly powerful guns is pure harm reduction, given the scenario in this country. It's difficult for me to imagine how someone could disagree with that if they're being intellectually honest.

 

[David Wooderson]

And why do we need semi-automatic rifles? Not for hunting.

Plenty of hunters use semi autos.

Our god given right to own guns was not made to protect us from deer.

I think bazookas and should be legal if it made the owner feel safer and he wasn't a psychopath.

Here's my bottom line: I don't get why it's so important that we be allowed to own large magazine semi-automatic assault rifles whose only purpose is to kill lots of people quickly. I think it's absurd to say that people should be able to do absolutely whatever they want.

I'll agree to a capacity ban on ammo when they do the same for abortions.

 

[swilow]

^In what sense is gun ownership a right that is "god given"?

 

[Xorkoth]

Jesus was a gun owner, didn't you know?

trying to tie this into abortions is silly.

 

[alasdairm]

^ right.

making a change in position on ammunition contingent on a change in abortion law seems odd and suggests to me that you're unable or unwilling to discuss the issue on its own merit.

alasdair

 

[swilow]

And we've got an abortion thread already. Please stay on topic David.

 

[David Wooderson]

My point was far more people are murdered from abortions than gun deaths.

I'm getting the feeling this recent tragedy was staged.
http://www.commonsenseevaluation.co...ehearses-spoonfed-lines/#sthash.DPn44hzC.dpbs

^In what sense is gun ownership a right that is "god given"?

http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/10/how-are-gun-rights-god-given-and-inalienable/

 

[Captain.Heroin]

Abortion isn’t murder and WRONG THREAD. But you know that already...

 

[JessFR]

Jesus was a gun owner, didn't you know?

trying to tie this into abortions is silly.

Deuteronomy 2:2-3

And the LORD spoke to me:
No man shall be deprived of the sword, for it is his right to put to death all who would distort the word of the LORD and cut his children off in traffic!

What? It's not entirely made up.

Seriously though, abortion and gun control are already about as unresolvable as arguments get without trying to combine the two together. Doing that will probably crash the server.

 

[nuttynutskin]

Abortion isn’t murder and WRONG THREAD. But you know that already...

To us pro-lifers abortion is indeed murder.

Seriously though, abortion and gun control are already about as unresolvable as arguments get without trying to combine the two together. Doing that will probably crash the server.

Yeah, I don't see people ever changing their beliefs in either of these honestly.

 

[swilow]

I'm getting the feeling this recent tragedy was staged.
http://www.commonsenseevaluation.co...ehearses-spoonfed-lines/#sthash.DPn44hzC.dpbs

I get the feeling you just don't want to see guns as the weapons they are.

Maybe those kids were a threat? Maybe he felt safer with them dead?

http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/10/how-are-gun-rights-god-given-and-inalienable/

Yeah, that was nonsense. Anyone who believes that the creator of the universe has anything to do with guns is clutching at straws.

 

[nuttynutskin]

Florida Shooter's Former Friend Says She Reported Him To School 'Multiple' Times

HuffPost Hayley Miller,HuffPost 6 hours ago

A former friend of Nikolas Cruz, the 19-year-old who confessed to opening fire on a Florida high school last week, says she told school officials “multiple” times over the last several years that she was concerned about his behavior.

Ariana Lopez is a student at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, where Cruz is suspected of using at assault-style rifle to gun down 17 people on Wednesday. She opened up about her “disturbing” experiences with Cruz during an appearance Tuesday on ABC’s “Good Morning America.”

“He used to sell knives out of his lunchbox, which I thought was like insane because you can’t have knives ... [in] a school,” Lopez said. “He would talk about how he sympathized with Syrian terrorists and how people who opposed them should be killed.”

Lopez, who hid in one of the school’s closets to escape the shooting Wednesday, said Cruz would act violently toward his ex-girlfriend, as well as Lopez and her friends.

“He talked about killing our parents, our friends, boyfriends and girlfriends,” Lopez said. “He would hit [his ex-girlfriend], he would threaten her, he would threaten her family and her friends, for talking to other guys.”

Lopez said she reported Cruz to school officials “multiple” times between 2016 and 2017 after he began following her and her friends after school. A representative for Broward County Schools did not immediately respond to HuffPost’s request for comment.

James and Kimberly Snead, the couple who hosted Cruz in their home since his adopted mother died in November, said Monday they were shocked when they found out about the shooting Wednesday.

“Everything everybody seems to know, we didn’t know,” said James Snead on “Good Morning America.” “We had rules and he followed every rule to the T ... He was very polite. He seemed normal.”

But Lopez said she was far from surprised when police identified Cruz as the shooter.

“Even before they announced that he was the shooter, we all knew it was Nik,” Lopez said about herself and Cruz’s other former classmates. “He was the only person that we could think of that would do something like this because it was obvious that he had the power to do this.”

Cruz was charged Thursday with 17 counts of premeditated murder. He is being held without bail.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/florida-shooter-apos-former-friend-141541134.html

Too bad nobody did anything to prevent this tragedy before it happened.

 

[Xorkoth]

Yeah it's pretty unbelievable.

 

[cduggles]

Let's throw the death penalty in too... (another heavily studied topic studied in constitutional law, incidentally). Death Penalty: Constitutional or not?)

The only reason essentially unrestricted gun ownership is constitutional right now is because the Supreme Court hasn't ruled it to be unconstitutional. That's it. It literally doesn't matter what the Constitution actually says. At all. Nada. Zip. As a matter of fact, the judiciary has power over the executive and legislative branches except that it cannot generate new legislation.

Anyway, nothing changes until things change.
Ask anyone if they weed was going to be legal medically or recreationally in 30 states and D.C. in 2018.
Ask anyone more than 2 years ago if they thought we would have literally the lowest rated American president in history right now. (Pick a metric.)
American norms can change. Easily and rather rapidly.
And not necessarily for the better.

Random points:

1) I'm guessing citywide efforts to crack down on gun sales hurt legitimate gun dealers and have little effect on the illegal gun pipelines that tend to run north along certain interstate highways from the Southeast from what I know, which is limited. I'm sure there are others.

2) I think it's important for people who aren't Americans to weigh in on this debate. The insularity of America is becoming its weakness as opposed to simply its hubris.
We're due for a lecture on how we should live. Overdue, probably.