US Politics Mass Shootings and Gun Debate 2021

[JessFR]

@JessFR

Okay, perhaps I'm less familiar with gun terminology than you are. It's been a long time since I last went hunting... but I still don't follow the logic of why mag capacity is basically irrelevant. Let's say maximum magazine capacity is 3 and you can only own five magazines. Most mass shooters fire numerous bullets per kill. How many seconds does it take to swap magazines? How many magazines would you need to have on you to do shoot 50 people?

Surely it would slow them down a bit?

Swapping a magazine in most firearms would probably take about.... 2-3 seconds?

It would slow them down a tiny bit but I don't see it having any effect unless you reduce the magazine capacity so low that you might as well just ban semi-automatics completely.

Why do people need high capacity magazines for self defence or hunting? I understand the self defence argument and people should be allowed to hunt, but what is the social benefit of high capacity magazines?

Well they aren't needed for hunting, they probably are needed for self defense, but I think framing this as a 'why do you need' isn't the right way to look at it.

The presumption should be in favor of freedom, regardless of if people need it or not. The question is if that freedom so harmful to society as to need to be curtailed.

As you know it's my belief that a type of gun control can be enacted that is at least as effective if not more so than most of the more popular methods, yet largely preserves those freedoms.

In this case, magazine capacities shouldn't be limited unless it can be shown that A. that actually provides a positive benefit to society and B. that benefit can't be obtained any other way but to curtail that freedom.

Basic political/legal philosophy, things shouldn't be illegal unless people need them, they should be legal unless they put people at greater risk than can society is prepared to tolerate.

 

[birdup.snaildown]

I think framing this as a 'why do you need' isn't the right way to look at it.

The presumption should be in favor of freedom, regardless of if people need it or not.

Didn't you frame your response to my grenade / nuclear warhead question the same way?

You said we don't need grenades for self-defence and you are happy to restrict our freedom to own them.

I don't see the difference.

 

[JessFR]

Didn't you frame your response to my grenade / nuclear warhead question the same way?

You said we don't need grenades for self-defence and you are happy to restrict our freedom to own them.

I don't see the difference.

No. That is not what I said.

I said people can't realistically use grenades for self defense which means their availability won't save any lives. And that combined with the fact that their availability will certainly cost lives, their legality can tbe justified.

If I believed grenades being legal wouldn't result in any notable increase in deaths I'd argue that they should be legal too. For the same reason. If their legality isn't going to cost lives, how much people "need" them is irrelevant.

I mean... We don't ban stamp collecting. Noone needs to be a stamp collector but we don't ban it on that account. Something has to pose a threat that can't otherwise be dealt with to justify banning it.

 

[birdup.snaildown]

You'd make a terrific lawyer.

 

[JessFR]

You'd make a terrific lawyer.

Surely this is just being sensible. Why ban something if it isn't costing lives?

People are diverse and people have all sorts of weird interests in all sorts of things. Just because I don't understand why anyone would want to collect live grenades doesn't mean they should be prevented from doing so if there's no risk to anyone.

But of course there IS a risk to people, which is why we don't.

This reminds me a bit of the argument I've seen made a few times that guns should be banned because they are "machines designed to kill".

When people say that. I honestly struggle to know how to respond. What... Does it actually mean when you say they're designed to kill?

Just because something was designed for x purpose.. So what? Lots of things that have been designed for one purpose have wound up being used for another. Some extremely deadly poisons have ended up finding medical uses and helping people.

What something is designed for just seems like an appeal to emotion.

 

[JessFR]

Thing is. I care about people too. I don't want people to die who could have been saved. And I do agree that people's lives are worth a lot more than someone's gun hobby. It seems hard to believe that any sensible caring person wouldn't agree with that.

But at the same time, I don't fear guns. I don't hate guns. And I think people should have a right to do whatever they find enjoyable provided they aren't hurting anyone.

I get the feeling a lot of antigun types couldn't give a shit about the recreational activities of law abiding people they're destroying. That if they could choose between saving more lives but having people still own ar15's or taking away their ar15's but saving fewer lives, they'd actually choose the later.

I want to see lives saved. And if the only way to do that was to get rid of guns, I'd support that. But if it can be done without just taking away peoples guns or certain types of guns, and I believe it can, that's the option I'll feel compelled to support.

 

[birdup.snaildown]

@JessFR

I meant it as a compliment. Sincerely.

Let me ask you this: what is the core of the problem? Let's say you're the president of the United States and you don't believe in increasing gun control... What is your solution?

We hit a wall with our Australian discussion, because Australia never had a big gun problem to begin with. The numbers were so low prior to the amnesty, it's practically impossible to say whether or not the buyback program was beneficial.

Last year, I got into a long FB discussion with a far-right friend of mine about gun control. He is a lawyer, incidentally, but not nearly as good a debater as you... At some point, during that discussion, I broke down homicide rates by race and determined that the white homicide rate in the US was actually relatively low.

Do you think this is a cultural problem... or a socio-economic problem?

What is the solution.

 

[birdup.snaildown]

I get the feeling a lot of antigun types couldn't give a shit about the recreational activities of law abiding people they're destroying. That if they could choose between saving more lives but having people still own ar15's or taking away their ar15's but saving fewer lives, they'd actually choose the later.

I'm in two minds about the issue. I like guns, but I will admit that I value a single innocent human life more than I value the freedom to carry firearms. I haven't yet been able to prove to your satisfaction that gun control saves any lives... but (hypothetically) let's assume that it saves one life a year. Is that one life more or less important than impeding upon your freedom?

 

[Pickledlemons]

You both make such good arguments. This is why I have flip flopped on this issue so many times. But I will say that anybody who thinks there is an easy solution hasn't thought very hard hard about the problem.

 

[JessFR]

@JessFR

I meant it as a compliment. Sincerely.

Let me ask you this: what is the core of the problem? Let's say you're the president of the United States and you don't believe in increasing gun control... What is your solution?

We hit a wall with our Australian discussion, because Australia never had a big gun problem to begin with. The numbers were so low prior to the amnesty, it's practically impossible to say whether or not the buyback program was beneficial.

Last year, I got into a long FB discussion with a far-right friend of mine about gun control. He is a lawyer, incidentally, but not nearly as good a debater as you... At some point, during that discussion, I broke down homicide rates by race and determined that the white homicide rate in the US was actually relatively low.

Do you think this is a cultural problem... or a socio-economic problem?

What is the solution.

What is? Gun crime? I think it's probably both.

If I were president.. I strongly suspect I'd find myself just as unable to make real changes as previous presidents have been. Gun control, in reality, in America has been completely deadlocked. There's plenty of blame to go around for that, but it is what it is.

Which is no doubt why they're going for an assault weapon ban, Ineffective as it may be, it's one of the few things they actually can do.

My preferred solution isn't something I'd be able to implement, because both sides would hate it. The gun rights types would feel I was destroying the right to bear arms, and the anti-gun types would feel I'm not going nearly far enough.

I don't see that there is a way to make serious headway in the US until there's a cultural change. Until then, it's virtually impossible.

Since I can't realistically implement serious gun control, I actually probably would start looking at trying to make changes to improve mental health, provide better health care and support. Try and see if we can reduce the number of people who want to commit shootings.

I'm in two minds about the issue. I like guns, but I will admit that I value a single innocent human life more than I value the freedom to carry firearms. I haven't yet been able to prove to your satisfaction that gun control saves any lives... but (hypothetically) let's assume that it saves one life a year. Is that one life more or less important than impeding upon your freedom?

What type of gun control? Assault weapon bans? If it conclusively saved 1 innocent life a year, and didn't have side effects that costed any lives, and that was the only way to achieve it. I would proooobably support it.

It's a big impact to save a single person... but a single person is still a person who's life's value is immeasurable.

But, this is a very specific hypothetical. We can't establish that it saves 1 or more people per year and that it doesn't cost any lives, and most significantly that there is no other way to achieve the same gain without curtailing those freedoms. But yes, while I struggle with affecting so many peoples previously lawful activities to save a single person, In the end I feel like that persons life has to have more value.

 

[birdup.snaildown]

I actually probably would start looking at trying to make changes to improve mental health, provide better health care and support. Try and see if we can reduce the number of people who want to commit shootings.

A couple of people have mentioned mental health in this thread as an alternative to gun control. Let's say in my hypothetical (for the sake of argument) that the US president has dictatorial power. Can you be more specific about what you'd do re: mental health?

It's not an easy question, but it is one you are inviting upon yourself.

This is an even more difficult question: why is the gun homicide rate so much higher within African American communities? Are there significantly higher rates of mental health problems in these communities? If so, I would then be tempted to ask why and what can be done about it.

Making serious foundational changes in the United States is probably going to take decades. It's certainly not going to happen overnight... So, what do we do in the meantime?

If it conclusively saved 1 innocent life a year, and didn't have side effects that costed any lives

Yes, I mean saving one net life.

and that was the only way to achieve it

I'm yet to hear any specifics.

 

[JessFR]

A couple of people have mentioned mental health in this thread as an alternative to gun control. Let's say in my hypothetical (for the sake of argument) that the US president has dictatorial power. Can you be more specific about what you'd do re: mental health?

In most cases when people mention mental health as an alternative to gun control, it's because they don't believe in gun control pretty much at all and it's just a political diversion. In my case I do believe in gun control, well, my gun control. It's just since I don't think I'd be able to implement it I'd have little choice but to try and find other ways to save lives.

Even with dictatorial powers, it's hard to see what I could do. I still can't do gun confiscation, for one it might well wind up killing more people than it saves from how right wing gun owners would respond. And in the end it would be of probably limited effectiveness when all those guns that were lost in 'boating accidents' start showing up. There's simply too many guns untracked in circulation now. If you really wanted to fix that, you'd essentially need to ban all new gun sales, then institute a voluntary buyback. Once the guns in circulation drop low enough you could start to see about a licensing system or something.

A buyback without banning the sale of new guns however is a terrible idea. It's another bit of political theater. Pro-gun types just provide old, barely functioning guns to the buyback then use the money to buy newer better guns.

As far as mental health, well I'd want to encourage congress to provide better healthcare all around. But we all saw what happened when obama tried it. Again, these problems are deeply ingrained into American culture. A large minority of Americans will continue to obstruct most of these kinds of ideas.

I'm yet to hear any specifics.

I've given specifics about my preferred kind of gun control if I could somehow reshape society to my liking. My ideal.

What exactly are you asking for, specifically how I'd want gun control to work in my ideal society hypothetically. Or what I'd specifically like to see a president and political party do when in power today? I think I've already given specifics about the former, but I can go into more detail about the later if that's what you're asking for.

 

[birdup.snaildown]

 

[JessFR]

@birdup.snaildown

It feels like there's some problem we have communicating with each other. It's been the case as long as I can remember having debates with you. Kinda like you aren't perceiving what I'm saying the way I intend it to be perceived.

I'm not sure why, but I can assure you I'm not being deliberately obtuse.

 

[birdup.snaildown]

I don't know what you mean? The Inspector Gadget thing was a joke. I don't have time to go back and forth all day on this topic. We have a tendency to go round and round forever until one of us (usually me) breaks the cycle. You're over thinking it.

 

[JessFR]

Maybe it's only me that's noticed this then.

 

[LordOfThisWorld]

Your belief is wrong. There will be no executive order banning guns. It's not even something you can do under an executive order. And there certainly wrong be any confiscation. Even if Biden actually submitted such an order, and he won't, it'd be thrown out by scotus in a heartbeat.

And as I said earlier, I don't care about "well if everyone had guns". Everyone doesn't have guns. Everyone doesn't want guns. Unless you have a civilization where literally everyone is culturally pressured to train with guns and carry them at all times, it's not gonna happen so it's a completely pointless and unhelpful thing to mention. You might as well say "well if people didn't decide to commit mass shootings there wouldn't be mass shootings". Even if it's technically true, it's unhelpful as far as productive solutions.

Also while calling then Muslim names may not be racist it still strikes me as a pretty ignorant thing to say.

The shooter had a Muslim name, is what I was saying, what's ignorant about that Jess?

 

[JessFR]

The shooter had a Muslim name, is what I was saying, what's ignorant about that Jess?

What's ignorant about it is that it.. Doesn't mean anything.

Like, first of all, calling it a Muslim name is silly. As silly as saying I have a Christian name (which frustratingly we also used to do but that's another issue).

I have the name I do because of the culture I come from. Someone from another culture with a poor understanding of mine might call it in their language a Christian name and by extension insinuate that I'm a Christian.

But that would be a silly assumption. I'm not a Christian and you can't assume from my name that I am one. Neither can you assume someone without one is not.

What I have in reality is a name typical of an english speaking society, it's an English name. Indeed many predominantly Christian cultures which aren't English speaking cultures with English names.

The shooter in this case had an Arabic name, typical of an Arabic speaking society. Statistically speaking that means guessing that he's Muslim based on that is a somewhat decent bet, but one that can still easily be wrong. And in calling it a Muslim name it suggests a lack of understanding of what names signify. Which is pretty much the definition of ignorance.

That's what I meant.

 

[LordOfThisWorld]

What's ignorant about it is that it.. Doesn't mean anything.

Like, first of all, calling it a Muslim name is silly. As silly as saying I have a Christian name (which frustratingly we also used to do but that's another issue).

I have the name I do because of the culture I come from. Someone from another culture with a poor understanding of mine might call it in their language a Christian name and by extension insinuate that I'm a Christian.

But that would be a silly assumption. I'm not a Christian and you can't assume from my name that I am one. Neither can you assume someone without one is not.

What I have in reality is a name typical of an english speaking society, it's an English name. Indeed many predominantly Christian cultures which aren't English speaking cultures with English names.

The shooter in this case had an Arabic name, typical of an Arabic speaking society. Statistically speaking that means guessing that he's Muslim based on that is a somewhat decent bet, but one that can still easily be wrong. And in calling it a Muslim name it suggests a lack of understanding of what names signify. Which is pretty much the definition of ignorance.

That's what I meant.

I'm sorry I'm ignorant Jess and that I'm not as smart as you, I like the term Christian name, and yes my name is Christian as it is from the Bible, both my first and middle name are Christian names, and I LOVE THAT TERM.


Peace be with you Jess, I'm not looking to get on your bad side, I consider you a friend, just different thoughts and views from you.

 

[JessFR]

I'm sorry I'm ignorant Jess and that I'm not as smart as you, I like the term Christian name, and yes my name is Christian as it is from the Bible, both my first and middle name are Christian names, and I LOVE THAT TERM.


Peace be with you Jess, I'm not looking to get on your bad side, I consider you a friend, just different thoughts and views from you.

Actually you make a really good point. While these names are ultimately cultural in origin and religion can't be inferred from them, there's no denying a huge religious influence in both largely Christian western culture and with Islam in Arabic cultures.

Ultimately I'm getting really close to nit picking territory because I didn't like how "Muslim name" sounded. Because of the seeming negative inferences it makes.

If it makes you feel better "Christian name" is a real term. It used to be a very common term used the way we use the term "first name".

I dunno if Arabic has a similar term but Arabic is generally considered to be even more influenced by religion than English is so it wouldn't surprise me.