Tubbs
Bluelight Crew
Tbh all one has to do is look at the UK, immediately after they banned guns, guess what. It didn't stop murders, people weren't getting shot anymore, they were getting stabbed to death.
Mass Shootings and Gun Debate 2018 Thread
- Thread starter tathra
- Start date
nuttynutskin
Bluelighter
- Joined
- May 15, 2011
- Messages
- 10,732
If that isn't contradictory I don't know what is.
Wrong.
How exactly do you decide who's a "dedicated gun enthusiast"? lol
The AR-15 is low caliber and actually a great rifle for shooting vermin. If you really believed in the 2nd amendment you wouldn't be saying what you're saying in your post. You need to do some homework. 8(
^ nutty, the response of many to tragedies like this is, effectively, "we send our thoughts and prayers but there's absolutely nothing we can do. these dead kids are the price we pay so gun people can have guns". do you believe that?
just look at the amount of money the nra is giving politicians. it's a disgrace.
alasdair
just look at the amount of money the nra is giving politicians. it's a disgrace.
alasdair
David Wooderson
Bluelighter
^^^
Living in a society as free as ours comes with yuge costs and collateral damage.
Its a testament and a daily reminder that things could , and probably should be much worse, but it's not these are random events and as technology gets better I believe in our lifetime that background checks will take care of the problems we currently face,
I'd say the prescription drug industry is a tad more corrupt and more damaging to our society as a whole than the gun industries.
Living in a society as free as ours comes with yuge costs and collateral damage.
Its a testament and a daily reminder that things could , and probably should be much worse, but it's not these are random events and as technology gets better I believe in our lifetime that background checks will take care of the problems we currently face,
I'd say the prescription drug industry is a tad more corrupt and more damaging to our society as a whole than the gun industries.
nutty said:
i didn't phrase the question well - but i didn't know what the baker act was when i posted that
i guess one point i was trying to make was that yes, it's illegal to make death threats - but if you don't have a specific threat (or timeframe) i'm not sure how it would work. short of detaining someone indefinitely, i mean.
"it's not rocket science" - well, no - but apparently whatever is being done at the moment to enforce laws and whatever isn't working.
i'm not trying to find faults in your suggestion, just trying to understand it better.
as for the comment about the cost - i guess what i'm trying to understand is why there is no focus on treating mental health as a preventative thing.
it seems like the US has these periodic outbursts of extreme violence by ordinary citizens and it's kinda taken as normal.
the vibe i seem to get from people is like a resigned sense of acceptance that there are dangerous, erratic people out there, and we just have to deal with them in any way deemed necessary. but i don't hear anyone taking about trying to improve mental health across the board.
to me that seems pretty depressing - it's like there is no real will to address the causes of any of this sort of stuff - which might be why it keeps happening, over and over again...
i mean - maybe the pro-gun people are right. maybe it's not guns at all that are the problem.
after all, lots of countries have quite relaxed gun ownership restrictions, but none have the same level of gun violence or - specifically - people going on rampages and shooting-sprees, like the recent school shootings, or other massacres.
i don't know what the situation is like with mental health treatment in the USA, but i know the rest of america's health system is pretty different to other developed countries.
i've not researched this a great deal, but i have read claims that americans with profound mental health problems often end up in the 'corrections' system or living on the streets.
i assume that this is because their illnesses make it hard to earn a stable living, and there is no support benefit, so they "fall through the cracks" and end up in rough situations - whether that's in prison, homeless or whatever.
i guess i'm just curious what the shortcomings in the mental health system in the USA are (assuming that there are any) because if people are going to keep blaming "crazy" people, you'd think that mental health would be a good place to start in trying to preventing these tragedies happening.
i guess there is a cynical part of me that i don't really take too seriously that thinks maybe there is not a political will to prevent mass shootings.
they provoke fear and distrust - and presumably the fear of 'a bad guy with a gun' also increases the public support for more relaxed gun control laws.
...which is pretty counter-intuitive, for me - but it does seem like the only solution to the problem of mass shootings is for everyone to be carrying a concealed weapon.
to me that is just utter madness. obviously there are no easy answers - but really don't think "more guns" is any sort of answer, personally.
jess will disagree with me here, and i hate to say it - but i'm really thankful to live in aw country where we don't think about this stuff.
australia's gun laws don't affect me negatively at all, in the sense that i don't think i'd have anything to do with firearms even if they were easy to get over here.
but i do feel like i gain a lot by living in a country where guns are highly regulated, difficult to obtain and very expensive to purchase illegally.
i never fear getting shot - either deliberately, accidentally or indiscriminately.
i feel a lot safer in australian than i do in the US, but that's probably in part because the USA is not my home country - but still, there is always he awareness in the back of my mind that in america i could be gunned down.
it's a meaningless observation, perhaps - but to me, the feeling of being relatively safe from getting shot is something i value and feel thankful for.
australia does a lot of things wrong, but a lot of us are cool with not having easy access to guns, for the sense of peace and safety it gives us in our day-to-day lives.
to me, knowing that i can walk through the city streets at night, safe in the knowledge that nobody is likely to pull a gun on me - is freedom.
Last edited:
JessFR
Bluelight Crew
Yea but most of the NRAs money comes from its members in the form of membership fees and merchandise. And lobbying via its ILA branch is what its members are paying for. Which means a lot of it comes from ordinary voters.
You can argue that maybe people shouldn't be giving money to politicians regardless, but it's bullshit when people act like the NRA is a giant gun company.
And just to bring up assault weapons again, I had to finish my last post quickly cause my phone battery was dying. But I just wanted to add that I find it frustrating how many people suggest we should do this or that about gun laws when they clearly have absolutely no idea what they're talking about.
Assault weapons is a media term with no strict definition beyond its legal definition, and it's legal definition made no sense. It's legal definition doesn't and has never reflected what people imagine to be assault weapons.
Truth is, what people imagine is just that, imaginary. Most hunting rifles are more powerful than what most people or the former legislation for that matter would call an assault weapon. And virtually none of the so called assault weapons are automatic. There is no problem with fully automatic weapons in America. The stats prove it.
But people don't care about stats, they don't care about the truth, they don't know and don't want to know. They just know that there's this idea, a concept, called an assault weapon. It's defined as most truthfully in reality as a weapon that looks like a military assault rifle. But it's not one. It's like banning an air soft rifle because it looks like a real one. Which is actually the reality of Australia's wonderfully thought out gun laws. Australian law codifies it by literally stating that an object that looks sufficiently like a weapon, legally is the same as the weapon it appears to be.
As I was saying, it's not one though. An assault weapon is defined by people as a weapon that looks scary and like a military assault rifle, but isn't. It isn't because those are under different laws with stricter regulation. Now call me crazy, but I don't think we should be banning things because ignorant people are afraid of what they don't understand.
It's e same shit you see all the time with drugs. It happens with EVERY controversial subject. Ignorant people spit out their ignorant fear mongering bullshit born of lack of understanding. Sure, almost all of us here on bluelight can see how stupid it is that alcohols legal but weed isn't. That banning drugs isn't the answer.
But take another subject that we aren't all brought here by our joint interest in, and bluelight becomes just like the people who frustrate us with their bad drug policy ideas. Because sadly, most of us haven't taken it that step further and wondered "hey, if all these people have stupid beliefs cause they don't know anything about drugs, I wonder if anything I believe is stupidity born of ignorance?". So we make the same mistakes. We see the flaws in the subjects we understand, and are frustrated by others that don't because they don't think their ignorance of the subject in any way should keep them from insisting they have the answer. But we still do it with every other subject.
Which I find quite disappointing personally.
I'd love to see real change, good, intelligent change to gun control in America. But assault weapon bans are the gun version of banning needle exchanges. Reactionary bullshit born from ignorance, long discredited by evidence. Yet impossible to extinguish because people truly don't comprehend how little they know and how much it influences their opinions.
You can argue that maybe people shouldn't be giving money to politicians regardless, but it's bullshit when people act like the NRA is a giant gun company.
And just to bring up assault weapons again, I had to finish my last post quickly cause my phone battery was dying. But I just wanted to add that I find it frustrating how many people suggest we should do this or that about gun laws when they clearly have absolutely no idea what they're talking about.
Assault weapons is a media term with no strict definition beyond its legal definition, and it's legal definition made no sense. It's legal definition doesn't and has never reflected what people imagine to be assault weapons.
Truth is, what people imagine is just that, imaginary. Most hunting rifles are more powerful than what most people or the former legislation for that matter would call an assault weapon. And virtually none of the so called assault weapons are automatic. There is no problem with fully automatic weapons in America. The stats prove it.
But people don't care about stats, they don't care about the truth, they don't know and don't want to know. They just know that there's this idea, a concept, called an assault weapon. It's defined as most truthfully in reality as a weapon that looks like a military assault rifle. But it's not one. It's like banning an air soft rifle because it looks like a real one. Which is actually the reality of Australia's wonderfully thought out gun laws. Australian law codifies it by literally stating that an object that looks sufficiently like a weapon, legally is the same as the weapon it appears to be.
As I was saying, it's not one though. An assault weapon is defined by people as a weapon that looks scary and like a military assault rifle, but isn't. It isn't because those are under different laws with stricter regulation. Now call me crazy, but I don't think we should be banning things because ignorant people are afraid of what they don't understand.
It's e same shit you see all the time with drugs. It happens with EVERY controversial subject. Ignorant people spit out their ignorant fear mongering bullshit born of lack of understanding. Sure, almost all of us here on bluelight can see how stupid it is that alcohols legal but weed isn't. That banning drugs isn't the answer.
But take another subject that we aren't all brought here by our joint interest in, and bluelight becomes just like the people who frustrate us with their bad drug policy ideas. Because sadly, most of us haven't taken it that step further and wondered "hey, if all these people have stupid beliefs cause they don't know anything about drugs, I wonder if anything I believe is stupidity born of ignorance?". So we make the same mistakes. We see the flaws in the subjects we understand, and are frustrated by others that don't because they don't think their ignorance of the subject in any way should keep them from insisting they have the answer. But we still do it with every other subject.
Which I find quite disappointing personally.
I'd love to see real change, good, intelligent change to gun control in America. But assault weapon bans are the gun version of banning needle exchanges. Reactionary bullshit born from ignorance, long discredited by evidence. Yet impossible to extinguish because people truly don't comprehend how little they know and how much it influences their opinions.
nuttynutskin
Bluelighter
- Joined
- May 15, 2011
- Messages
- 10,732
I never said that, and in fact suggested that maybe people should start paying attention to the HUGE red flags BEFORE the shooter is able to act.
I do support the NRA tho.
I'm all for it.
Captain.Heroin
Bluelight Crew
We can’t save everyone. It’s ridiculous people are calling for the head of the FBI director.
nuttynutskin
Bluelighter
- Joined
- May 15, 2011
- Messages
- 10,732
No, there have not been 18 school shootings so far in 2018
Hmmm...
No, there have not been 18 school shootings so far in 2018
by Siraj Hashmi | Feb 15, 2018, 11:26 AM
What we saw at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., is no less shocking and horrific than every school shooting we've seen since Columbine in 1999. Seventeen people were killed at the hands of 19-year-old shooting suspect Nikolas Cruz, who was expelled from the school and banned from returning to campus.
It's the type of shooting that makes you sick to your stomach.
You want to get all the facts and gather all the information that you can to ensure that a tragedy such as this never happens again. However, the media has been trying to convince you that these types of shootings where there are mass casualties are happening every day.
It all began on Wednesday when reporting on the developments at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, MSNBC host Brian Williams said that this was the 12th school shooting of 2018.
Ever since then, the talking point was corrected in that there were actually 18 school shootings in 45 days. And many in both the media and politics have used it as a rallying cry to make some legislative push to impose new restrictions on guns.
The problem is that it's not accurate. There haven't been 18 of what we would refer to as "school shootings" in 2018. The media is either sheepishly or deliberately moving the goalposts and widening the definition of what constitutes a school shooting.
Of the 18 school shootings as listed by the pro-gun control group, Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund, here's what actually happened in each of these cases:
1) A man committed suicide using a gun in an elementary school parking lot when the school was closed and there were no children present in Clinton County, Mich., on Jan. 3.
2) Shots were fired at New Start High School near Burien, Wash., on Jan. 4. No one was hurt or injured, and no suspects were apprehended.
*3) A 32-year-old man shot a pellet gun at a school bus, shattering a window, in Forest City, Iowa, on Jan. 6. No injuries were reported, and the suspect was apprehended.
4) A Grayson College student confused a real gun with a training gun and accidentally fired a bullet into a wall on Jan. 10. No injuries were reported.
5) A 14-year-old seventh-grade student shot and killed himself inside the bathroom of Coronado Elementary School in Cochise County, Ariz., on Jan. 10.
6) Gunshots were fired at a campus building at Cal State San Bernardino on Jan. 10. No injuries were reported.
7) Two people in a car exchanged gunfire at a Wiley College dorm parking lot on Jan. 15. No deaths or injuries were reported and no suspects were arrested, however, one bullet was fired into a dorm room with three female students inside.
8 ) A Winston-Salem State University football player was shot and killed at a sorority party following an argument in Winston-Salem, N.C., on Jan. 20.
9) A 16-year-old male student shot a 15-year-old female student in the cafeteria at Italy High School in Italy, Texas, on Jan. 22. While the victim was injured, she was expected to make a full recovery. The shooter was arrested and charged with two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. This one we would probably all refer to as a proper "school shooting."
10) An unknown assailant in a pickup truck drove by the NET Charter High School in Gentilly, La., and shot at a group of students on Jan. 22. A 14-year-old boy was initially thought to have suffered a gunshot graze, but it turned out to be an abrasion.
11) A 15-year-old male student shot and killed two students and wounded 18 others at Marshall County High School in Benton, Ky., on Jan. 23. The shooter was apprehended.
12) A 16-year-old student fired a gun at another 16-year-old student during an altercation at Murphy High School in Mobile, Ala., on Jan. 25. No injuries were reported and the suspect was taken into custody.
13) Shots were fired in the parking lot during an altercation between two nonstudents during a basketball at Dearborn High School in Dearborn, Mich., on Jan. 26. No injuries were reported, and no suspects were arrested.
14) A 32-year-old man was shot and killed in the parking lot outside Lincoln High School in Philadelphia, Penn., on Jan. 31 during what police believed to be an altercation between students from rival schools. No suspects were arrested.
15) A 12-year-old female student accidentally fired a real gun thinking it was a fake gun. Four students were injured, including one who suffered a gunshot wound to the head, at Sal Castro Middle School in Los Angeles on Feb. 1. The 12-year-old girl was taken into custody.
16) A teenage boy was shot in the chest and nearly killed by another student who conspired with the boy's ex-girlfriend in the parking lot of Oxon Hill High School in Oxon Hill, Md., on Feb. 5. The suspect was taken into custody and charged with attempted murder.
17) A third-grade student pulled the trigger of a police officer's holstered weapon at the Harmony Learning Center in Maplewood, Minn., on Feb. 5. No injuries were reported.
18 ) A 17-year-old student was arrested after firing a gun into the floor of a classroom of Metropolitan High School in the Bronx, N.Y., on Feb. 8.
19) The shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., on Wednesday that left 17 dead.
Now, you'll notice that there are 19 shooting incidents listed above, not 18 like the media were trying to make you believe. That's because the third incident on the list involving a pellet gun and a school bus has at least been ruled out as a "school shooting," after it was included in the list of 11 school shootings by the media after the shooting in Benton, Ky., on Jan. 23. But frankly, most of the incidents above ? probably at least 14 of them, don't really qualify as what we think of as "school shootings" at all.
And of all the shootings listed above, only two qualify as mass school shootings ? the one in Benton, Ky., and the shooting in Parkland this week. Everything else was either an isolated incident, non-school-related, or an accident.
Make no mistake, every shooting incident listed above is concerning and indicative of a cultural problem in how people deal with conflict resolution, but, in no way is a mass shooting at a school happening every two-three days in the United States. It's an unfair, dishonest, and disingenuous characterization by the media. Don't let an emotional issue like gun violence prevent you from remembering to report the facts.
Siraj Hashmi is a commentary video editor and writer for the Washington Examiner.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...hool-shootings-so-far-in-2018/article/2649183
Hmmm...
No, there have not been 18 school shootings so far in 2018
by Siraj Hashmi | Feb 15, 2018, 11:26 AM
What we saw at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., is no less shocking and horrific than every school shooting we've seen since Columbine in 1999. Seventeen people were killed at the hands of 19-year-old shooting suspect Nikolas Cruz, who was expelled from the school and banned from returning to campus.
It's the type of shooting that makes you sick to your stomach.
You want to get all the facts and gather all the information that you can to ensure that a tragedy such as this never happens again. However, the media has been trying to convince you that these types of shootings where there are mass casualties are happening every day.
It all began on Wednesday when reporting on the developments at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, MSNBC host Brian Williams said that this was the 12th school shooting of 2018.
Ever since then, the talking point was corrected in that there were actually 18 school shootings in 45 days. And many in both the media and politics have used it as a rallying cry to make some legislative push to impose new restrictions on guns.
The problem is that it's not accurate. There haven't been 18 of what we would refer to as "school shootings" in 2018. The media is either sheepishly or deliberately moving the goalposts and widening the definition of what constitutes a school shooting.
Of the 18 school shootings as listed by the pro-gun control group, Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund, here's what actually happened in each of these cases:
1) A man committed suicide using a gun in an elementary school parking lot when the school was closed and there were no children present in Clinton County, Mich., on Jan. 3.
2) Shots were fired at New Start High School near Burien, Wash., on Jan. 4. No one was hurt or injured, and no suspects were apprehended.
*3) A 32-year-old man shot a pellet gun at a school bus, shattering a window, in Forest City, Iowa, on Jan. 6. No injuries were reported, and the suspect was apprehended.
4) A Grayson College student confused a real gun with a training gun and accidentally fired a bullet into a wall on Jan. 10. No injuries were reported.
5) A 14-year-old seventh-grade student shot and killed himself inside the bathroom of Coronado Elementary School in Cochise County, Ariz., on Jan. 10.
6) Gunshots were fired at a campus building at Cal State San Bernardino on Jan. 10. No injuries were reported.
7) Two people in a car exchanged gunfire at a Wiley College dorm parking lot on Jan. 15. No deaths or injuries were reported and no suspects were arrested, however, one bullet was fired into a dorm room with three female students inside.
8 ) A Winston-Salem State University football player was shot and killed at a sorority party following an argument in Winston-Salem, N.C., on Jan. 20.
9) A 16-year-old male student shot a 15-year-old female student in the cafeteria at Italy High School in Italy, Texas, on Jan. 22. While the victim was injured, she was expected to make a full recovery. The shooter was arrested and charged with two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. This one we would probably all refer to as a proper "school shooting."
10) An unknown assailant in a pickup truck drove by the NET Charter High School in Gentilly, La., and shot at a group of students on Jan. 22. A 14-year-old boy was initially thought to have suffered a gunshot graze, but it turned out to be an abrasion.
11) A 15-year-old male student shot and killed two students and wounded 18 others at Marshall County High School in Benton, Ky., on Jan. 23. The shooter was apprehended.
12) A 16-year-old student fired a gun at another 16-year-old student during an altercation at Murphy High School in Mobile, Ala., on Jan. 25. No injuries were reported and the suspect was taken into custody.
13) Shots were fired in the parking lot during an altercation between two nonstudents during a basketball at Dearborn High School in Dearborn, Mich., on Jan. 26. No injuries were reported, and no suspects were arrested.
14) A 32-year-old man was shot and killed in the parking lot outside Lincoln High School in Philadelphia, Penn., on Jan. 31 during what police believed to be an altercation between students from rival schools. No suspects were arrested.
15) A 12-year-old female student accidentally fired a real gun thinking it was a fake gun. Four students were injured, including one who suffered a gunshot wound to the head, at Sal Castro Middle School in Los Angeles on Feb. 1. The 12-year-old girl was taken into custody.
16) A teenage boy was shot in the chest and nearly killed by another student who conspired with the boy's ex-girlfriend in the parking lot of Oxon Hill High School in Oxon Hill, Md., on Feb. 5. The suspect was taken into custody and charged with attempted murder.
17) A third-grade student pulled the trigger of a police officer's holstered weapon at the Harmony Learning Center in Maplewood, Minn., on Feb. 5. No injuries were reported.
18 ) A 17-year-old student was arrested after firing a gun into the floor of a classroom of Metropolitan High School in the Bronx, N.Y., on Feb. 8.
19) The shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., on Wednesday that left 17 dead.
Now, you'll notice that there are 19 shooting incidents listed above, not 18 like the media were trying to make you believe. That's because the third incident on the list involving a pellet gun and a school bus has at least been ruled out as a "school shooting," after it was included in the list of 11 school shootings by the media after the shooting in Benton, Ky., on Jan. 23. But frankly, most of the incidents above ? probably at least 14 of them, don't really qualify as what we think of as "school shootings" at all.
And of all the shootings listed above, only two qualify as mass school shootings ? the one in Benton, Ky., and the shooting in Parkland this week. Everything else was either an isolated incident, non-school-related, or an accident.
Make no mistake, every shooting incident listed above is concerning and indicative of a cultural problem in how people deal with conflict resolution, but, in no way is a mass shooting at a school happening every two-three days in the United States. It's an unfair, dishonest, and disingenuous characterization by the media. Don't let an emotional issue like gun violence prevent you from remembering to report the facts.
Siraj Hashmi is a commentary video editor and writer for the Washington Examiner.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...hool-shootings-so-far-in-2018/article/2649183
Captain.Heroin
Bluelight Crew
Thank you for the facts nutty.
David Wooderson
Bluelighter
As much as I hate to say this I think there should be a federal standard background check system that is adopted nationwide to make enforcement of resources as consistent as possible.
At least that way failures could be solved in unison versus letting lazy states not comply and having an incident occur that would make the process discreditable.
If mass shootings still happen then the background checks should just be eliminated because no matter how many nightmares this country will face involving firearms in the future, my opinion will never sway on the god given right guaranteed to all citizens to possess firearms, and I don't own and with zero future plans to ever buy any, under any condition.
Had an attempted carjacking and lived, and never felt more faith in that my decisions and higher power are more powerful than any gun will ever be.
If someone's going to go out of their way to shoot me, by all means, shoot me I care less, I live my life free and have no interest in living my everyday life into a potential shootout, life is stressful enough without adding that variable.
Main thing is I don't even kill bugs so killing a person is nothing I could live with (outside of a war scenario) or want to answer for.
When you own a gun the chances of death in your personal life increases.
At least that way failures could be solved in unison versus letting lazy states not comply and having an incident occur that would make the process discreditable.
If mass shootings still happen then the background checks should just be eliminated because no matter how many nightmares this country will face involving firearms in the future, my opinion will never sway on the god given right guaranteed to all citizens to possess firearms, and I don't own and with zero future plans to ever buy any, under any condition.
Had an attempted carjacking and lived, and never felt more faith in that my decisions and higher power are more powerful than any gun will ever be.
If someone's going to go out of their way to shoot me, by all means, shoot me I care less, I live my life free and have no interest in living my everyday life into a potential shootout, life is stressful enough without adding that variable.
Main thing is I don't even kill bugs so killing a person is nothing I could live with (outside of a war scenario) or want to answer for.
When you own a gun the chances of death in your personal life increases.
Last edited:
swilow
Bluelight Crew
Very true, and it doesn't always or even often seem to be the gun-owner.
Nutty/article said:
Okay, so 18 times in 2018 guns have been fired at schools in the US. They weren't all mass shooting, that's one positive that we can glean.
Contrast that with guns fired at schools in Australia in 2018. Even pellet gun shootings. Compare it to New Zealand, or Italy. There is a startling difference in figures. There is only a few major differences here, and probably the starkest is the fact that guns are basically nonexistent in these societies compared to the US.
I don't really care how one bends the terminology or talks about the rates of other crimes, in the US you have guns discharged in schools 18 times this year and there are way too many dischargeable guns in the US. I don't this this is simply correlation here, I think there is true causality. There is simply no way that people are going to massacre that many children that quicky with any other 'commonly' available weapon besides guns, and removing these from society is going to enable this.
JessFr said:
That's a bit of an appeal to authority, and I'm not sure any of us really know the technicalities unless there are constitutional lawyers amongst us.
Xorkoth
Bluelight Crew
Really? Banning assault rifles is analogous to banning needle exchanges? How so?
And why do we need semi-automatic rifles? Not for hunting.
One thing I'll say is, it's the culture that's the root of the problem. But being able to go to a gun show and buy an AK-47 with no background check of any kind doesn't help.
JessFR
Bluelight Crew
It's not an appeal to authority because ANYONE who doesn't have a severe intellectual disability can learn what I'm talking about.
Is suggesting that you shouldn't come up with and try and enforce an opinion on drug policy when you don't even know that more people die from alcohol than illegal drugs? Or that amphetamines keep people awake for long times? Or when you think marijuana causes violence? Or when all your knowledge of drugs comes from propaganda?
It's all stuff anyone could find out. Suggesting that people shouldn't have an opinion about a subject they know nothing about isn't an appeal to authority, it's suggesting people exercise some fucking responsibility.
Virtually everyone in the western world has access to the Internet, the most powerful educational tool to ever exist. Anybody could become the authority I'm appealing too. But they don't. Cause they irresponsibly don't even consider that they might not know what they're talking about without even trying to find out.
It's like needle exchanges for all the reasons I said in the rest of the post that you didn't include in the quote. Not because the two situations are so much alike but because the reasons people think to ban them in the first place are so much alike. They are both based on ignorance. Ignorance that needle exchanges save lives, ignorance that the assault weapon ban failed to save anyone.
Why should ANYTHING be banned unless it's to save or improve people's lives in some tangible way? Not by bullshit like "I feel safer not having guns around and that improves my life", I mean actually affect the numbers of people dying or being seriously injured in a measurable way. Real safety not people's imaginations. Why should we restrict or reduce anyone's freedom unless it's going to help society in that way?
This is why I said this is like drug policy. Why does anyone need marijuana? They don't NEED it, But it shouldn't be a question of what people need. By that logic, no recreational drugs are needed either. The question isn't what people need, it's how can we improve society in a tangible way with the least restriction of freedom possible.
And we already had an assault weapon ban and it didn't improve people's safety, so why do it again?
And I swear if you come back with a statistic that shows the assault weapon ban reducing gun crime and ignoring crimes in general, I'm gonna get mean cause I've explained why that's bullshit twice now on this thread, and I already covered everything I've just now said on this post in my previous one. I really don't think I could have explained it much clearer already.
I already elaborated on what I meant by saying people should know what they're talking about. But I made the mistake of using the word "technicalities" so someone could take it out of context and suggest I'm saying you need to be a constitutional lawyer.
Seriously guys, I'm trying to be patient here, but it's hard not to feel pissed off when it seems like there's no way you couldn't already know the answers to both the questions I've just attempted to answer if you'd properly read the post that prompted them.
Last edited:
zephyr
Ex-Bluelighter
True.
So when guns are available either to purchase themsrlves or steal then they will end up in the hands of youngsters or psychos any time.
Banning guns and taking them away would actually stop the shootings and to hell with "freedom to have guns".
Or have your guns, dont worry about gun control and have this continual tragedy occur.
Simple.
Its bloidy worked here so thats proof enough but Im not stupid enough to expect any other place intent on arming themselves to take responsibility.
Last edited:
Tubbs
Bluelight Crew
Not really, yeah shootings would drop, but if someone is set on committing such an act they'll find a way. Guns aren't the problem.
nuttynutskin
Bluelighter
- Joined
- May 15, 2011
- Messages
- 10,732
Your thinking seem a bit black and white and inherently flawed. I mean you really think the only options are to either take away guns (which will never happen), or keep them and do nothing to prevent tragedies?
zephyr
Ex-Bluelighter
I dont expect anything to actually be done about it. Let me know when something is done and Ill eat my hat.
I don't see guns or needle exchanges as being remotely similar.
Needle exchanges save lives, no matter how unpalatable they are to some people. The whole nimby ('not in my back yard') argument is somewhat negated by the fact that drug related social problems tend to improve when harm reduction programs are introduced in an area. People who complain that needle exchanges will bring drug addicts into their neighbourhood may not realise - or acknowledge - that there are already lots of addicts in the area already (hence the needle exchange).
Besides being controversial, though, i don't see any other comparison.
Exchanges are put there for community health, and to prevent outbreaks of blood-borne disease and other drug related harm. They are a response to a difficult problem that is made even harder with drug prohibition.
Drugs law reform benefits public health.
As much as guns may be a symbol of "liberty" and "rights" to some americans, they remain killing machines. No matter what cultural or political significance you place on them, the fact remains that they are tools for killing.
Which is why i think any analogy with needle exchanges is problematic (at best).
Guns don't further public health, and i can't think of any community-minded reason for their presence in civilian homes.
I think there is a good reason why american gun culture is an anomaly - it doesn't make sense out of an american cultural context.
Guns are controversial for a lot of reasons, and they cause a lot of misery and death - from mass murder to suicide, and the impact guns have on police, who have been criticised a lot recently for shooting unarmed people because they assume that they've got a gun.
It seems that a lot of people want change because they're not happy to live in a country where it is so easy to obtain weapons to kill dozens of people.
But there are other people who seem to judge the value of a society on the "rights" they have as citizens.
I'm certainly not judging that idea - but i don't share it. For me, quality of life in a society can be measured in so many more nuanced ways.
I'd personally rather live in a society with a social welfare safety net and universal healthcare than individualist tokens like guns.
It makes a huge difference to society, and a huge difference to citizens' quality of life, when there is a system in place to help people when they fall on tough times.
Australia was a very young nation when the Great Depression hit, followed by the second world war (and rations etc) so i think there is something of an official acceptance (or, at least there was) that we can all fall on tough times.
To me the Welfare State is a really great thing, and an example of human social development.
I think individualism is a bit of a historical relic. I mean, it suits some people, but the overall social impact can be pretty dire, as the wealth disparity of the USA attests to.
The thing about our current economic system is that poor people are an inevitable element of modern society - so to me the ideology of individualism is quite a brutal one, because if you're not blessed with good fortune, you're basically condemned to a life of hardship.
Is it any wonder that a nation built on such a dog-eat-dog belief system would also have a constitutionally enshrined right to gun ownership?
I think there are a lot of advantages to living in a country where access to firearms is strictly limited.
I don't personally see any reason for people in an otherwise peaceful and highly urbanised country to need weapons of war, and i notice that very few people seem to be using the old "guns protect us from government tyranny" line - which perhaps is for the best (you wouldn't want to actually have to see that idea through, because the state has you throughly outgunned).
Funny how that argument was all the rage when Obama was president -funny that. I remember people spouting it regulary on bluelight. But it is also conspicuous in its absence.
To me gun culture seems like it was established in 'frontier times' - in other words, it is something that developed from a time of colonial domination and attempts to survive in a harsh, unvforgiving landscape. In other words, a time relgated to history.
But for people who enjoy having a machine that can kill someone from across the room with the pull of a trigger, that's their deal.
I think the way people fetishise guns is quite ridiculous, but it's not my problem so i don't really have a issue with; it doesn't really affect me.
I mean, guns don't feed the hungry, they don't pay your medical bills or keep you off the streets.
They do facilitate robberies, which is where they may appeal to people to people who are desperate - but i get the feeling that guns have become a necessary part of the american psyche because of the 'rugged individualist' myth of national identity.
It's expressed quite well in the inherent selfishness of right wing libertarianism - each looks after himself and his own, and doesn't give a passing thought to anyone else in society or the collective responsibility they all share.
The outcome of that kind of attitude is for there to be people that control a lot of resources, and others who have very little - or none. So of course those who have a lot of wealth will feel the need to arm themselves against those who have nothing.
Where i grew up, the national mythology is a little different - here we have the myth of egalitarianism.
It doesn't mean shit in the neo-liberal age of predatory capitalism, but "a fair go" was once considered to be part of the national ethos - the social contract.
and the idea, rather than "every man for himself", but that we all have an equal share - or at least a fair chance at working towards it. It was built in a time when Australia seemed like a land of unlimited potential for wealth and growth.
Guns don't play much of a role in our national myth, so the 1996 reforms to gun laws didn't have the same impact such a move would in the states.
A lot of australians supported the move to restrict gun ownership, because we're happy to sacrifice the "right" to have weapons if it means that there are less guns in the community.
When guns aren't particularly prevalent in society, it negates the whole idea that you need them for self defence, because shooting someone in self defence doesn't constitute reasonable force.
I like the scarcity of firearms here, because i don't see weapons as necessary to existence, safety or security. All things considered, i think it's a positive thing for society. I don't really see any down side, as i wouldn't own a gun - or have anything to do with guns - so to me, it's all good. Gun owners probably feel differently - but i wouldn't know, i don't know anyone who is into guns.
I can't really comment on america, but i am constantly reminded of the downsides of people exercising their "right to bear arms"; high levels of gun violence, shooting rampages, high suicide rates for gun owners and a lot of lethal force used by police - presumably because they think people are about to shoot them.
If the horror of school shootings and other indiscriminate murders in public places are a price people are willing to pay for the privilege of owning a weapon is something people can accept and be happy with, i guess that is their call.
I definitely sympathise with the millions of people in america who favour gun control, but i think they are fighting against a whole lot of historic, social and cultural forces that are stacked in favour of the status quo.
To me, it's madness - but it's the sort of mentality the USA runs on - and well, to each their own.
Violence and murder know no national boundaries, but i think it's fairly obvious that any idiot can commit mass murder in places where they can access the tools to do so legally and easily.
Not having any interest in killing, i'm happy to live somewhere that doesn't make it easy to get weapons, because i never encounter people packing heat. To me, that's good.
Now i understand that nobody wants to hear an australian talking up the merits of restricting gun ownership - but I'm happy to be in a country that hasn't had a massacre for almost 22 years. As far as i'm concerned, that speaks for itself - not just about gun laws, but about society as a whole. I think there are a lot of big-picture issues that are ommitted from this discussion, but are nevertheless quite relevant.
Needle exchanges save lives, no matter how unpalatable they are to some people. The whole nimby ('not in my back yard') argument is somewhat negated by the fact that drug related social problems tend to improve when harm reduction programs are introduced in an area. People who complain that needle exchanges will bring drug addicts into their neighbourhood may not realise - or acknowledge - that there are already lots of addicts in the area already (hence the needle exchange).
Besides being controversial, though, i don't see any other comparison.
Exchanges are put there for community health, and to prevent outbreaks of blood-borne disease and other drug related harm. They are a response to a difficult problem that is made even harder with drug prohibition.
Drugs law reform benefits public health.
As much as guns may be a symbol of "liberty" and "rights" to some americans, they remain killing machines. No matter what cultural or political significance you place on them, the fact remains that they are tools for killing.
Which is why i think any analogy with needle exchanges is problematic (at best).
Guns don't further public health, and i can't think of any community-minded reason for their presence in civilian homes.
I think there is a good reason why american gun culture is an anomaly - it doesn't make sense out of an american cultural context.
Guns are controversial for a lot of reasons, and they cause a lot of misery and death - from mass murder to suicide, and the impact guns have on police, who have been criticised a lot recently for shooting unarmed people because they assume that they've got a gun.
It seems that a lot of people want change because they're not happy to live in a country where it is so easy to obtain weapons to kill dozens of people.
But there are other people who seem to judge the value of a society on the "rights" they have as citizens.
I'm certainly not judging that idea - but i don't share it. For me, quality of life in a society can be measured in so many more nuanced ways.
I'd personally rather live in a society with a social welfare safety net and universal healthcare than individualist tokens like guns.
It makes a huge difference to society, and a huge difference to citizens' quality of life, when there is a system in place to help people when they fall on tough times.
Australia was a very young nation when the Great Depression hit, followed by the second world war (and rations etc) so i think there is something of an official acceptance (or, at least there was) that we can all fall on tough times.
To me the Welfare State is a really great thing, and an example of human social development.
I think individualism is a bit of a historical relic. I mean, it suits some people, but the overall social impact can be pretty dire, as the wealth disparity of the USA attests to.
The thing about our current economic system is that poor people are an inevitable element of modern society - so to me the ideology of individualism is quite a brutal one, because if you're not blessed with good fortune, you're basically condemned to a life of hardship.
Is it any wonder that a nation built on such a dog-eat-dog belief system would also have a constitutionally enshrined right to gun ownership?
I think there are a lot of advantages to living in a country where access to firearms is strictly limited.
I don't personally see any reason for people in an otherwise peaceful and highly urbanised country to need weapons of war, and i notice that very few people seem to be using the old "guns protect us from government tyranny" line - which perhaps is for the best (you wouldn't want to actually have to see that idea through, because the state has you throughly outgunned).
Funny how that argument was all the rage when Obama was president -funny that. I remember people spouting it regulary on bluelight. But it is also conspicuous in its absence.
To me gun culture seems like it was established in 'frontier times' - in other words, it is something that developed from a time of colonial domination and attempts to survive in a harsh, unvforgiving landscape. In other words, a time relgated to history.
But for people who enjoy having a machine that can kill someone from across the room with the pull of a trigger, that's their deal.
I think the way people fetishise guns is quite ridiculous, but it's not my problem so i don't really have a issue with; it doesn't really affect me.
I mean, guns don't feed the hungry, they don't pay your medical bills or keep you off the streets.
They do facilitate robberies, which is where they may appeal to people to people who are desperate - but i get the feeling that guns have become a necessary part of the american psyche because of the 'rugged individualist' myth of national identity.
It's expressed quite well in the inherent selfishness of right wing libertarianism - each looks after himself and his own, and doesn't give a passing thought to anyone else in society or the collective responsibility they all share.
The outcome of that kind of attitude is for there to be people that control a lot of resources, and others who have very little - or none. So of course those who have a lot of wealth will feel the need to arm themselves against those who have nothing.
Where i grew up, the national mythology is a little different - here we have the myth of egalitarianism.
It doesn't mean shit in the neo-liberal age of predatory capitalism, but "a fair go" was once considered to be part of the national ethos - the social contract.
and the idea, rather than "every man for himself", but that we all have an equal share - or at least a fair chance at working towards it. It was built in a time when Australia seemed like a land of unlimited potential for wealth and growth.
Guns don't play much of a role in our national myth, so the 1996 reforms to gun laws didn't have the same impact such a move would in the states.
A lot of australians supported the move to restrict gun ownership, because we're happy to sacrifice the "right" to have weapons if it means that there are less guns in the community.
When guns aren't particularly prevalent in society, it negates the whole idea that you need them for self defence, because shooting someone in self defence doesn't constitute reasonable force.
I like the scarcity of firearms here, because i don't see weapons as necessary to existence, safety or security. All things considered, i think it's a positive thing for society. I don't really see any down side, as i wouldn't own a gun - or have anything to do with guns - so to me, it's all good. Gun owners probably feel differently - but i wouldn't know, i don't know anyone who is into guns.
I can't really comment on america, but i am constantly reminded of the downsides of people exercising their "right to bear arms"; high levels of gun violence, shooting rampages, high suicide rates for gun owners and a lot of lethal force used by police - presumably because they think people are about to shoot them.
If the horror of school shootings and other indiscriminate murders in public places are a price people are willing to pay for the privilege of owning a weapon is something people can accept and be happy with, i guess that is their call.
I definitely sympathise with the millions of people in america who favour gun control, but i think they are fighting against a whole lot of historic, social and cultural forces that are stacked in favour of the status quo.
To me, it's madness - but it's the sort of mentality the USA runs on - and well, to each their own.
Violence and murder know no national boundaries, but i think it's fairly obvious that any idiot can commit mass murder in places where they can access the tools to do so legally and easily.
Not having any interest in killing, i'm happy to live somewhere that doesn't make it easy to get weapons, because i never encounter people packing heat. To me, that's good.
Now i understand that nobody wants to hear an australian talking up the merits of restricting gun ownership - but I'm happy to be in a country that hasn't had a massacre for almost 22 years. As far as i'm concerned, that speaks for itself - not just about gun laws, but about society as a whole. I think there are a lot of big-picture issues that are ommitted from this discussion, but are nevertheless quite relevant.