Mass Shootings and Gun Debate 2018 Thread

[cduggles]

This is an anecdote, but I had a close friend at the Maryland Rite-Aid Center shootings. He was casual about it, but he's from the Deep South.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/multiple-victims-maryland-shooting-sheriff/story?id=57959254

I'm a gun enthusiast and owner, but something has to change imo. I'm familiar with the mass shooting statistics, how and why gun control proposals are mostly highly flawed, and I don't like the thought of giving up my own guns.

This shift in thinking started at Mandalay Bay for me (most Americans don't know the math behind 2-D projectiles, but still).

I wonder if anything could shift the pro-gun culture of the US, of which I am a part. I don't think so at this point.

 

[JessFR]

I think the argument about government tyranny is weak too. If the government becomes tyrannical, the 2nd amendment isn't going to help you overthrow it, and neither is not having the 2nd amendment going to prevent armed rebellion. It's all bs.

I do think the self defense argument and is legitimate, but really, I think the best argument is the "I want it" argument.

You shouldn't be required to justify why you want something in a free country. Like the presumption of innocence, you have a presumption of freedom. There shouldn't need be any argument about why you need a gun. I consider such arguments irrelevant. The question is why should society prevent you having a gun. And I do think there are some legitimate arguments for that position too. But I consider any position that puts the onus on the gun owner to justify why they need or want a gun to be illegitimate positions in free societies.

 

[cduggles]

But people shouldn't be free to shoot anyone.
Legal gun ownership is a separate issue.
Yeah, I know.

 

[Captain.Heroin]

But people shouldn't be free to shoot anyone.

It is arguable that we are not.

 

[JessFR]

But people shouldn't be free to shoot anyone.
Legal gun ownership is a separate issue.
Yeah, I know.

You don't have the assumed freedom to shoot someone but you do have the assumed freedom to own a gun. You have to pass a law to remove or amend that freedom, and laws ideally should be based on good evidence and reasoning (they usually aren't, but I'm saying they should be).

By extension, Noone should have to justify why they want a gun, the people who want to take that freedom away are the ones that should have to make a good case for it.

 

[invegauser]

I wonder if all the guns in your community embolden people to commit all these attempted home invasions

this is the core of what is going on imo. replace the word "guns" with "freedoms" and insert the words "that are taken too liberally". lack of self control and moderation is the key. i could have 300 guns sitting in my cramped, tiny apartment and it wouldn't be doing anything other than taking up space. put them in someone elses place and it's a huge opportunity for disaster, most likely. could the same be said for you and spacejunk or anyone else from another country? specifically i think you and spacejunk would throw them out or sell them cause they're ugly paper weights and door holder opener thingies.

to the room: it's really simple. take away the second amendment (or any of the core ones that didn't open up a ton of loopholes) and you take away the whole idea of the paperwork framing this country. arguing for or against the 2nd amendment wont do a lick of good. it simply is there. it's like trying to take out parts of the cells of your skin but leave the whole cell in tact and functioning, the government, the people and this country would simply fail. with the exception of spacejunks comments on justifying civil rights. now there's a thought process that might produce some actual results.

@spacejunk: i'm going to re-read your posts as you bring up some good points. there is one thing i'm not sure if it is a government thing, a personal view of yours or what but who cares how muslims, women and immigrants get treated. i think that people should be treated as people not labels. if you see yourself as a label your just as bad as those doing wrong to you. if you see yourself as a muslim above being a woman or a man first that still aint right. person to sex to religious (or other) choice; not backwards. the constitution doesn't say we the muslims or we the corporations or we the men. it says we the people. simply written with very distinct and thought out understandings. sure they messed up back then (can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs, but that's in the past) but gave us the keys to do something even better and greater.

that's the whole point of the rights, they protect the freedoms of the people. when someone gets treated unfairly even when they have rights it's a real bummer. no system is perfect though and those people committing the wrongs should be handled appropriately. don't let a few bad apples spoil the whole bunch less you throw the baby out with the bath water.

then comes what you said about respecting other peoples rights. the mentality needs to be clear before it's how we see something that affects who we are and our decisions. again, that's why the paperwork was worded the way it was.

 

[JessFR]

Something I find ironic, if you ask most Australians, they'll tell you that gun control in Australia was a massive success. Yet ironically it's Australia more than anything else that has left me believing conventional gun control models don't work.

Even completely putting aside that from a statistical point of view, the gun controls of 96 and the early 00s didn't improve things in any objectively measurable way, like, let's just totally forget that.

I've had a lot of friends whom might not be considered entirely upstanding law abiding member of the community. And I have seen guns, like, serious guns, semiautomatic handguns, EVVVVVEEERYWHERE in criminal hands. Guns were so stupid easy to obtain if you wanted one and knew the right people. How am I supposed to see that and then go "yes! Australian gun control worked!"? It just makes it look like a sad joke played on the gullible public.

Australians in general want strong gun laws, OK, that's fine, I've made my peace with that, I don't really consider Australia my home, it's not my business, you're allowed to want that even if it doesn't work, and I can support that.

But don't expect me to remain silent after what I've seen when Australians start talking like america, the country I do think of as home, should follow their example, cause everything I've seen of their example is that it's a bad joke.

And you know what, I can accept, and do in fact believe, that the 96 gun controls had a noticeably positive impact on mass shootings. Since mass shootings are statistically insignificant, it doesn't show up in the data, but it's still something, even if it's something so insignificant that random statistical fluctuation sees many times more or less deaths in the data each year.

But mark my words, there WILL be another mass shooting. It is inevitable. The 96 and early 00s reforms have probably reduced the likelyhood, but it's still only a matter of time. And in all likelyhood, because most mass shooters don't have the connections to get a gun on the black market, it will likely come to be used through the flaws in the existing laws. In other words from the legal gun sector. There are holes in the great Australian gun control system that mean that almost any Australian with the inclination, and knowledge of said holes, can go on a spree killing today, without the benefit of any black market connections. So it's inevitable that eventually the right combination of events will cause it to happen.

And when it happens, there will be another huge overhaul of the laws. Another substantial crackdown. Because people are hysterical, and 20 Australians dying by gunshot on the news is worth a million people dying in avoidable accidents. Laws are passed, freedoms sacrificed, all for perception, not reality.

And sorry but I just don't think the "freedom" to wrongly imagine you're safer based on a lie is worth more than even a single gun nuts freedom to own a gun.

 

[zephyr]

Something I find ironic, if you ask most Australians, they'll tell you that gun control in Australia was a massive success. Yet ironically it's Australia more than anything else that has left me believing conventional gun control models don't work.

I think you and I will always butt heads when it comes to gun control and I very much enjoy the discussions about it and anything else with you.

It's not as if there has been a death be ause of a parking bay scuffle , it didnt seem like any charges were going to be laid at the time but dunno if they were since then.

Gloeek lives there and her perspective was interesting, she is all for guns.

 

[swilow]

But mark my words, there WILL be another mass shooting. It is inevitable.

I really do not want to debate you on this matter in general, but I don't think it is inevitable at all. Guns are really really difficult to obtain in Australia- I don't really care about your own anecdotes, for the general punter they are virtually out of reach (and it really isn't career criminals committing the massacres that we have been discussing anyway). To my own thinking, the factors that make a massacre inevitable is the ease of obtaining high powered weapons and ammunition by mentally ill people.

I shouldn't need to add this as a postscript, but of course the 1996 gun amnesty/repeal was more successful in a country like Australia which had a pretty inconsequential and trivial gun culture and no major weapon manufacturing industry to exert control over the government in comparison to the US. Those sort of factors made it possible in Australia but probably mean the US is fated to continue shooting itself for the forseeable future. Its going to take a mammoth cultural shift to get to the point where you find the actuality of a gun intimidating in and of itself, to the extent you would no more have one in your house than you would have a trained tiger in your bedroom closet.

 

[JessFR]

I really do not want to debate you on this matter in general, but I don't think it is inevitable at all. Guns are really really difficult to obtain in Australia- I don't really care about your own anecdotes, for the general punter they are virtually out of reach (and it really isn't career criminals committing the massacres that we have been discussing anyway). To my own thinking, the factors that make a massacre inevitable is the ease of obtaining high powered weapons and ammunition by mentally ill people.

I shouldn't need to add this as a postscript, but of course the 1996 gun amnesty/repeal was more successful in a country like Australia which had a pretty inconsequential and trivial gun culture and no major weapon manufacturing industry to exert control over the government in comparison to the US. Those sort of factors made it possible in Australia but probably mean the US is fated to continue shooting itself for the forseeable future. Its going to take a mammoth cultural shift to get to the point where you find the actuality of a gun intimidating in and of itself, to the extent you would no more have one in your house than you would have a trained tiger in your bedroom closet.

So don't believe me, and let's not debate it. Just try not to forget it when it happens. Chances are we will both be alive when it does. I give it maybe another couple of decades. Maybe longer with a little luck.

But the flaws in the system are there. All itll take is someone with both the desire to go on a shooting spree, and an awareness of the vulnerabilities in the system, and it'll happen.

You're simply wrong, as I said, you're right that it's generally not career criminals who commit these kinds of spree shootings. The problem isn't that it can still happen through the black market, the problem is it can still happen through the legal market as well. It's just the vast majority of people don't realize it. Living in blissful ignorance of the threat.

And then when it happens, people will be like "why didn't we do something sooner?. As they always do. Before 96, people largely didn't think something that bad could happen in Australia, then it happened again on a smaller scale in the early 00s at Monash. Again they thought they were safe. And it's still the same today. It's always "fixed permanently" from the last time it happened up till the next. Because politicians are idiots and don't know what they're doing when they design these laws.

But, you don't care about what I've seen and I doubt you care about what I know either, so you'll have to forgive me if I'm a little blunt over this, but I'm kinda fed up with it too.

It could happen tomorrow, or it could be many years away. But provided you live another 30 years or so I'd say you've got excellent odds of seeing it happen again.

 

[Mel22]

Guns are really really difficult to obtain in Australia- I don't really care about your own anecdotes, for the general punter they are virtually out of reach

What makes you say that they are virtually out of reach for the general punter? That is definitely not the case ime. It's not at all hard to find a guy, or a guy who knows a guy, or a guy who knows a guy who knows a guy. You'll prob raise a few eyebrows if you're not careful when asking around, but either way, it won't take long for someone to put you on to someone.

Blackmarket guns are expensive as fuck here, but really not hard to get hold of if you've got the cash.

 

[swilow]

^With all due respect, asking a guy to ask a guy to ask a guy is NOT what I consider easy to obtain. The more people involved in getting you something illegal, the more vulnerable you are, the higher the risk, the greater the difficulty. It only takes one guy in the chain to tell the pigs or to simply opt out, and you're either under arrest for a serious crime or (best case) starting all over again. If you think that sort of process means guns are easy to get, what do you think of the American system (the model that I reference when I make relative statements about Australia's situation)? I do not doubt that you, or Jess, or myself or probably anyone on Bluelight who obtains drugs from criminals presumedly could obtain a gun with relative ease, but I sure as fuck wouldn't consider any of us the 'general punter'.

So don't believe me, and let's not debate it.

When I said 'in general', I was talking about the gun issue in general. I've read your thoughts already, you've read mine, there isn't much to really gain on that front.

That said, I'm not convinced we can have a productive argument about the inevitability of a massacre. 'No, no, my assumptions about the future are more correct than yours'. See, it doesn't really work.

But- I concede that it is incredibly likely that there will be another massacre, I just think there are steps that can be taken to lower the statistical probability. Like restricting the sale of guns to people that seem likely to massacre people with them, that sort of thing.

You're simply wrong, as I said, you're right that it's generally not career criminals who commit these kinds of spree shootings. The problem isn't that it can still happen through the black market, the problem is it can still happen through the legal market as well. It's just the vast majority of people don't realize it. Living in blissful ignorance of the threat.

I'm simply wrong about what?

The fact of a threat from legal firearms is, of course, real and proven out by the fact that most of the recent mass shootings in Australia have been perpetrated with legal weapons.

But, you don't care about what I've seen and I doubt you care about what I know either, so you'll have to forgive me if I'm a little blunt over this, but I'm kinda fed up with it too.

Right, I'm not sure why you are getting offended by this- I simply said I didn't want to debate you on the general gun issue, not that you were wrong. I think you just assume that most people that are 'anti-gun' for emotive reasons and this seems to frustrate you. I dunno, its kinda annoying the way you overreact to people continually on this issue.

Eh, I never really enjoy this debate so my parting shot is

 

[spacejunk]

It definitely an annoying debate, and one i tend to stay out of.

it interesting that when you call bullshit on the excuses for lax gun laws, people say "we don't need an excuse - we just like guns" - but to me, that's why it's an irritating discussion to engage in.

 

[Mel22]

^With all due respect, asking a guy to ask a guy to ask a guy is NOT what I consider easy to obtain.

That's fair. I just think asking a guy to ask a guy is easier than "really really difficult" and "virtually out of reach," kwim?

The more people involved in getting you something illegal, the more vulnerable you are, the higher the risk, the greater the difficulty. It only takes one guy in the chain to tell the pigs or to simply opt out, and you're either under arrest for a serious crime or (best case) starting all over again.

Of course.

If you think that sort of process means guns are easy to get, what do you think of the American system (the model that I reference when I make relative statements about Australia's situation)?

I think it is unbelievably easy in America - scarily so. I didn't realise your statement was in comparison to this, as your post was a direct response to JESS talking about access in Aus.

I do not doubt that you, or Jess, or myself or probably anyone on Bluelight who obtains drugs from criminals presumedly could obtain a gun with relative ease, but I sure as fuck wouldn't consider any of us the 'general punter'.

Right, I wasn't really clear on what you meant by "general punter." I still wouldn't consider getting hold of an illegal gun "virtually out of reach" for those general punters though - if someone wants a gun here, they can probably get one without too much effort as long as they've got the money for it.

 

[JessFR]

It definitely an annoying debate, and one i tend to stay out of.

it interesting that when you call bullshit on the excuses for lax gun laws, people say "we don't need an excuse - we just like guns" - but to me, that's why it's an irritating discussion to engage in.

There are irritating bullshit arguments on both sides of the debate. People just generally tend to engage in bullshit arguments and strawmans and the like.

But in regards to not needing excuses, I do think that the fundamental onus should be on the people who want to ban guns to explain both why it's needed for society and why it can't be accomplished any other way than by reducing freedoms to the extent they desire.

^With all due respect, asking a guy to ask a guy to ask a guy is NOT what I consider easy to obtain. The more people involved in getting you something illegal, the more vulnerable you are, the higher the risk, the greater the difficulty. It only takes one guy in the chain to tell the pigs or to simply opt out, and you're either under arrest for a serious crime or (best case) starting all over again. If you think that sort of process means guns are easy to get, what do you think of the American system (the model that I reference when I make relative statements about Australia's situation)? I do not doubt that you, or Jess, or myself or probably anyone on Bluelight who obtains drugs from criminals presumedly could obtain a gun with relative ease, but I sure as fuck wouldn't consider any of us the 'general punter'.



When I said 'in general', I was talking about the gun issue in general. I've read your thoughts already, you've read mine, there isn't much to really gain on that front.

That said, I'm not convinced we can have a productive argument about the inevitability of a massacre. 'No, no, my assumptions about the future are more correct than yours'. See, it doesn't really work.

But- I concede that it is incredibly likely that there will be another massacre, I just think there are steps that can be taken to lower the statistical probability. Like restricting the sale of guns to people that seem likely to massacre people with them, that sort of thing.



I'm simply wrong about what?

The fact of a threat from legal firearms is, of course, real and proven out by the fact that most of the recent mass shootings in Australia have been perpetrated with legal weapons.



Right, I'm not sure why you are getting offended by this- I simply said I didn't want to debate you on the general gun issue, not that you were wrong. I think you just assume that most people that are 'anti-gun' for emotive reasons and this seems to frustrate you. I dunno, its kinda annoying the way you overreact to people continually on this issue.

Eh, I never really enjoy this debate so my parting shot is

"simply wrong" as in, if you think it's not shocking easy for someone to undertake a mass shooting by exploiting vulnerabilities in the existing gun laws, then that's simply wrong. By and large it hasn't happened yet because most people don't realize just how easy it is.

Yes, there are steps that can lower the probability, such steps have already been taken. But my point is there are still significant flaws in the system that could be changed in future, and likely will be when they're inevitably exploited.

Ultimately I don't want to see them change, because I don't believe mass shootings are significant enough to warrant the loss of freedoms. If the impacts were more wide reaching, if they were significant enough to show up on the general statistics, it'd be very different. But it simply doesn't save nearly enough people to be justified in my opinion. If I did I'd also have to agree with many other significant impacts on freedom all to solve problems more imagined than real. I believe policy and law needs to have objective positive results to be justified. Just making people believe they're safer isn't good enough for me.

I'll concede this, I probably do overreact. Both out of general long term frustration over this issue, and in this case because I think I may have misinterpreted what you were saying. For that I'm sorry, but hey, I'm human too.

 

[HeadphonesandLSD]

It definitely an annoying debate, and one i tend to stay out of.

it interesting that when you call bullshit on the excuses for lax gun laws, people say "we don't need an excuse - we just like guns" - but to me, that's why it's an irritating discussion to engage in.

Consider the fact that you're arguing with people that consider the current laws to be too much. I for one think I should be allowed to own surface to air missiles. Sounds nuts until you realize my own Government flys armed drones over my house all of the time to practice for combat. If they have the ability to blow me away at any time it's only fair that I have the ability to target and take down whatever type of aircraft they're using.

Most of the founding fathers owned cannons which were the equivalent back in their day.

 

[treezy z]

You want to stop shootings? Shut down the CIA and prosecute any Mossad operators in the US.

 

[invegauser]

@treezy: i'm neither cia or mossad and both have not had me on their perspective or collective radar for a very long time. why would i want to ruin a good thing?

@HeadphonesandLSD: that is the funniest and most truthful thing i have read on here in a long time. i would give you those STA missiles if i could on that post alone.

 

[treezy z]

Consider the fact that you're arguing with people that consider the current laws to be too much. I for one think I should be allowed to own surface to air missiles. Sounds nuts until you realize my own Government flys armed drones over my house all of the time to practice for combat. If they have the ability to blow me away at any time it's only fair that I have the ability to target and take down whatever type of aircraft they're using.

Most of the founding fathers owned cannons which were the equivalent back in their day.

I'm exactly the same make anything but WMDs legal. You might be joking, I'm not.

 

[invegauser]

^ not the same.

you got people who couldn't tell the difference between a door you push in and one you pull out. you want one of these wankers walking around with a fully automatic weapon or able to push a button and launch germs into your living room?!

think on it for a second big guy.