• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

The Big and Senseless Mass Shooting Thread

So overall, it is the loss of yet another right or freedom. I don't care if it makes us safer or not. I would rather have more rights and live a little more dangerously. I hate car seatbelts. Why don't motorcyles have seatbelts? I often avoid using crosswalks if there is no traffic. I hate wearing a helmet on a motorcycle when I am in places that require that. I ride a bicyle through heavy traffic and in redneck parts of the USA where they throw beer bottles at cyclists. And I shoot speedballs sometimes . All are serious risks that make dangers from guns minimal in comparison.
These are personal risks you choose to take, are they not?
Society has other rules that require caution, not just for ourselves, but for others.
I mean, it feels good to drive at 90 miles an hour when you're drunk - but would you feel the same way if you did this and killed a young family going in the opposite direction? Shooting speedballs may be playing with death, but in most cases, only generally your own. It doesn't - generally - have the power to kill everyone in your proximity, unless you are a commercial pilot or a bus driver bangin' speedballs on the job, i guess.
Again, it's not a perfect analogy - and this is a complex issue - but i like the way you are able to speak your mind (and disagree).
. without turning the discussion into a shit-slinging argument, socko. You hear opposing voices out, no matter how much you may oppose them - something i greatly respect.
 
I think that is oversimplifying what "freedom" truly is.

Should i be free to call a policeman in the street a 'cunt'?
Should i be free to spit on businessmen in the street?
Should i be free to catch the train and go to work nude?
Should i be free to own anthrax spores?
Should i be free to give methamphetamine to people with dementia?

Denying me any of those rights means i have 'less rights'. But i am happy to live in a society where all of those thinga are prohibited by law (although i do have a terrible habit of calling policemen "cuntstable". Damned speech impediment).

I am arguing that you gain more freedom by removing another because it does - demonstrably - work.
But we can certainly agree to disagree.

And droppers, you complain about grieving families being "partisan", claim yourself to be "objective" - but always stick your nose into every discussion that is attempting to get past that.
You're either trolling, stupid, or both.
Why criticise people in this subforum for "politics", why do you comment on every thread? I might be interested in what you had to say if it was consistet or relevant even a small fraction of the time.
Those speech examples and spitting are examples of harrassment and abuse. It is legal to say those things, but doing it in a way that is abusive is often not. It violates the rights of others. I'm on the fence about public nudity at work because you are stuck there with the nudist.

Edit: To summarize, I'm in favor of personal liberties as long as they don't harm others. The fear of harming others is why we're debating access to guns. It's a real risk and needs to be dealt with.
 
Last edited:
Oh wow socko you are on team freedom/ logic! Welcome brother idk why I would of put you in the other camp, but welcome.

Spacejunk why does your side always denegrade and name call when losing an argument or addressing opposition in your opinion?


This is exactly the kind of us/them left/right nonsense i was talking about, droppers.
Intelligent political discussions take place amongst mature adults without having to allocate sides, to be competetive or comative.
People with the self awareness to realise this don't need to resort to the childish taunts you are engaging in, and for some reason accuse me of.
Read my posts alongside yours and see who does this the most. You might even learn something - if you actually read them, that is.

I would go as far as to say the more enlightened posters here (and elsewhere in human interaction) are fully aware that by offering an alternate viewpoint, they are not likely to change anyone's mind. It is the nature of political discourse.
Perhaps that's just my nanny-state, ultra-PC, feminist, greenie education talking. 8)
 
I think that is oversimplifying what "freedom" truly is.

Should i be free to call a policeman in the street a 'cunt'?
Should i be free to spit on businessmen in the street?
Should i be free to catch the train and go to work nude?
Should i be free to own anthrax spores?
Should i be free to give methamphetamine to people with dementia?

Denying me any of those rights means i have 'less rights'. But i am happy to live in a society where all of those thinga are prohibited by law (although i do have a terrible habit of calling policemen "cuntstable". Damned speech impediment).

I am arguing that you gain more freedom by removing another because it does - demonstrably - work.
But we can certainly agree to disagree.

And droppers, you complain about grieving families being "partisan", claim yourself to be "objective" - but always stick your nose into every discussion that is attempting to get past that.
You're either trolling, stupid, or both.
Why criticise people in this subforum for "politics", why do you comment on every thread? I might be interested in what you had to say if it was consistet or relevant even a small fraction of the time.

In order of your questions and my opinion..

Maybe, so long as it's not threatening violence.
No, that's assault.
If only people weren't so insecure and moralistic, why not?
No, that is far too high and unquestionably dangerous a risk to warrant that freedom.
No, unable to give consent.

You don't have a right to infringe other's rights.
Yes, those are losses of freedoms, the ones that don't directly infringe other peoples rights with violence anyway, but there is a definitive reason to remove those freedoms. And doing so has been shown to work much better than gun control.

I used the word freedoms instead of rights for a reason. Why remove a freedom if there's no tangible benefit. And if there is a tangible benefit to Australian gun control, what is it? Emotional feelings are not tangible.

How does Australian gun control demonstrably work? You seem to have largely ignored my argument. This is more about freedoms than rights. And the principle that a freedom should not be removed unless it has a tangible benefit, regardless of your own interest in what that freedom provides. I believe in it, do you? That is my number one question, do you believe that freedoms should not be removed unless there is tangible benefit or not? If so, then how was the 96 gun control successful tangibly. If not, we are too different philosophically and have nothing further to discuss.

Please stop changing the question to avoid a direct answer, continue to do so and I will have to assume you don't have one.
 
Last edited:
Those speech examples and spitting are examples of harrassment and abuse. It is legal to say those things, but doing it in a way that is abusive is often not. It violates the rights of others. I'm on the fence about public nudity at work because you are stuck there with the nudist.

Edit: To summarize, I'm in favor of personal liberties as long as they don't harm others. The fear of harming others is why we're debating access to guns. It's a real risk and needs to be dealt with.
To me, that is the crux of this issue - I'm not a scientist by any official definition, and were i have something as dangerous as a biological weapon around my house just for...i don't know - amusement - few could justify it, because historically and culturally it is seen as a risk not worth accepting.
The reason i have related my country's perspectives on firearm restrictions is not to advocate them to America/ns, but merely to demonstrate how some things are equally seen as risks not worth accepting, in particular circumstances.

Never did i say the US should follow Australia's lead - simply that it is interesting to talk about, and to share perspectives. Thanks for doing that, socko.
And frankly, for me the response has ultimately become as interesting to me as the topic. It is just a shame that sometimes it takes a tragedy for people to articulate their true feelings.
 
These are personal risks you choose to take, are they not?
Society has other rules that require caution, not just for ourselves, but for others.
I mean, it feels good to drive at 90 miles an hour when you're drunk - but would you feel the same way if you did this and killed a young family going in the opposite direction? Shooting speedballs may be playing with death, but in most cases, only generally your own. It doesn't - generally - have the power to kill everyone in your proximity, unless you are a commercial pilot or a bus driver bangin' speedballs on the job, i guess.
Again, it's not a perfect analogy - and this is a complex issue - but i like the way you are able to speak your mind (and disagree).
. without turning the discussion into a shit-slinging argument, socko. You hear opposing voices out, no matter how much you may oppose them - something i greatly respect.
Thanks, I appreciate the complement. As long as nobody harms others or their property, I'm generally in favor of personal liberties. Guns are obviously a danger to others when they fall into the wrong hands and need to be dealt with. I just don't know how to deal with it in a way other than a massive confiscation. I believe there are better ways than that. I like hearing how other cultures view and deal with this.

Dropper: you'd probably be surprised how many things we agree on. As for guns, I have had firearms training since the age of 10. As a child, I participated in markmanship competitions. It was even taught at my school starting in 5th grade.
 
Last edited:
Spacejunk, please answer my question, I truly want to know.

Do you believe that it is acceptable to remove a freedom for no tangible benefit. For clarification, by tangible I mean less people dead, less people seriously injured, lower rates of crime, things like that. On a statistical level. And if not, how can you justify that?
 
JessFR;13269709 said:
I used the word freedoms instead of rights for a reason. Why remove a freedom if there's no tangible benefit. And if there is a tangible benefit to Australian gun control, what is it? Emotional feelings are not tangible.

How does Australian gun control demonstrably work? You seem to have largely ignored my argument. This is more about freedoms than rights. And the principle that a freedom should not be removed unless it has a tangible benefit, regardless of your own interest in what that freedom provides. I believe in it, do you? That is my number one question, do you believe that freedoms should not be removed unless there is tangible benefit or not? If so, then how was the 96 gun control successful tangibly. If not, we are too different philosophically and have nothing further to discuss.
as i said, i am happy to agree to disagree.
The tangible benefits, and reasons I see Australia's gun laws being a success, is the relatively low level of gun crime in most of the country.
The fact that people rarely use guns or the threat of guns to settle disputes is something arguably achieved by taking a large amount of firearms out of the community.
The drop in self inflicted gunshots in suicides is a pretty positive thing as well.

And, most topically, Australia does not have a recent history of gun massacres.

Note that i am using no manipulated figures, no disparaging remarks about other countries, no suggestions for Americans to be disarmed or anything besides observations of a country i lived in before and after 1996.
You're right to say our philosophy on guns is different. I am a product of my environment, my upbringing and my experience - as are you.
I don't need to get into abstract discussion of the meaning of 'rights' to know that's what i believe - i am happy for governments to restrict deadly weapons. You're welcome to disagree.
I don't think people 'need' deadly weapons that kill from afar, so i'm not bothered by that 'right' being enshrined in my country's law.
However, i am heartened that difficult issues can be overcome here, debated passionately - sometimes resulting in positive change.
For example, Australia was one of the first nations to define its drug policy as a "harm reduction" strategy.
For all of our draconian drug laws, this was a really positice and progressive thing in its time. Who on bluelight could disagree with that?
Obviously it did not end the so-called war on drugs; but it was a step in the right direction, long since eclipsed by many, many other countries. But i digress.
Australia, like the USA, is a young nation. We will keep moving foward, i hope.
 
Last edited:
This is a bit off topic but I was thinking about when self driving cars become more mainstream. I'm seeing this argument get rehashed in a way. Countries like Australia and England will be the first to ban self driving cars I'm calling it right now. They will use similar arguments and Americans being Americans will have to make another amendment lol
 
as i said, i am happy to agree to disagree.
The tangible benefit I see in Australia's gun laws has been a success is the relatively low level of gun crime in most of the country.
The fact that people rarely use guns or the threat of guns to settle disputes is something arguably achieved by taking a large amount of firearms out of the community.
The drop in self inflicted gunshots in suicides is a pretty positive thing as well.

And, most topically, Australia does not have a recent history of gun massacres.

Note that i am using no manipulated figures, no disparaging remarks about other countries, no suggestions for Americans to be disarmed or anything besides observations of a country i lived in before and after 1996.
You're right to say out philosophy on guns is different. I am a product of my environment, my upbringing and my experience - as are you.
I don't need to get into abstract discussion of the meaning of 'rights' to know that's what i believe - i am happy for governments to restrict deadly weapons. You're welcome to disagree.
I don't think people 'need' deadly weapons that kill from afar, so i'm not bothered by that 'right' being enshrined in my country's law.
However, i am heartened that difficult issues can be overcome here, debated passionately - sometimes resulting in positive change.
For example, Australia was one of the first nations to define its drug policy as a "harm reduction" strategy.
For all of our draconian drug laws, this was a really positice and progressive thing in its time. Who on bluelight could disagree with that?
Obviously it did not end the so-called war on drugs; but it was a step in the right direction, long since eclipsed by many, many other countries. But i digress.
Australia, like the USA, is a young nation. We will keep moving foward, i hope.

Well, I thank you for your answer. Regarding harm reduction, I entirely agree with you. It is an area where Australia has done very well, better than we have.

As I've said before, I don't think changing how people are killed is a success, the only success is reducing the number of people killed.

It is true my evaluation of the stats does suggest that suicide is perhaps the only tangible positive outcome of Australian gun control, modest as it may be. Is that good enough to consider it worth the lost freedom? I don't know for sure.
I don't consider ending shooting massacres to be a success. As tempting as it is given how disturbing and disgusting a mass shooting is, I believe in going on the data. And mass stabbings still happen in Australia. Hell, that guy shot his whole family just recently in NSW. And a 15 year old just shot that police accountant a short drive from where I live. But even if events like that added up in one year to be more than the year of port author. It wouldn't resonate with people the same way, purely for reasons of media attention.

Indeed our philosophy is different, and cultural upbringing has a lot to do with it. I still can't understand how you might consider reducing gun crime only to replace it with other kinds of crime to be a success. I will never understand how changing how a murder is committed instead of the fact that it is is worth celebrating. Or how a freedom can be justified being removed because "you don't need it". Nobody should need to need something to be free to have it, the onus should be on the one seeking to deny a freedom to explain themselves, not for the person seeking it to explain their need. But I can't see me changing your mind about it either. And I feel I would be wasting my time trying to pressure you for explanations in those respects. I figure if that argument could convince you it would have when I raised it before. Regardless, thank you again for your answer. I can't say I understand it, but I suspect you may not understand my way of thinking either.
 
Last edited:
This is a bit off topic but I was thinking about when self driving cars become more mainstream. I'm seeing this argument get rehashed in a way. Countries like Australia and England will be the first to ban self driving cars I'm calling it right now. They will use similar arguments and Americans being Americans will have to make another amendment lol
Well, Australia and the UK have stronger labour movements from the US.
Organisations of workers that influence public policy in favour of workers are a large part of the political landscape here.
Though, not as big or powerful as corporate lobbyists.
So you might be right, albeit unintentionally.
 
I'd also like to apologize to you spacejunk for my earlier attacks towards you, while I don't agree and in many respects can't understand your beliefs. My attacks were more about me than you. It's just hard for me, all the time I feel like an outsider living in Australia, people think nothing of attacking the united states or Americans without provocation in front of me, and even if I agree with their opinions, it bothers me that they don't seem to for a moment either realize or care that I might disapprove of it. And that for all their animosity, Americans on the whole don't really have any negative opinions towards them. And that it seems in their eyes my dual citizenship is just a legal technicality, and I will never really be allowed to express an opinion on Australian politics that defies them without incurring their xenophobic wrath. Technicalities like citizenship mean nothing compared to having an American accent.

It's very easy to come to be very resentful. And wind up taking it out on everyone who seems to be part of the same group. I can't imagine how much worse it must be for immigrants of the more truly foreign countries here. Especially with today's culture.
 
IMO the nanny state will do it in the name of public safety in conjunction with the corporate interests.

Well, I thank you for your answer. Regarding harm reduction, I entirely agree with you. It is an area where Australia has done very well, better than we have.

As I've said before, I don't think changing how people are killed is a success, the only success is reducing the number of people killed.

It is true my evaluation of the stats does suggest that suicide is perhaps the only tangible positive outcome of Australian gun control, modest as it may be. Is that good enough to consider it worth the lost freedom? I don't know for sure.
I don't consider ending shooting massacres to be a success. As tempting as it is given how disturbing and disgusting a mass shooting is, I believe in going on the data. And mass stabbings still happen in Australia. Hell, that guy shot his whole family just recently in NSW. And a 15 year old just shot that police accountant a short drive from where I live. But even if events like that added up in one year to be more than the year of port author. It wouldn't resonate with people the same way, purely for reasons of media attention.

Indeed our philosophy is different, and cultural upbringing has a lot to do with it. I still can't understand how you might consider reducing gun crime only to replace it with other kinds of crime to be a success. I will never understand how changing how a murder is committed instead of the fact that it is is worth celebrating. Or how a freedom can be justified being removed because "you don't need it". Nobody should need to need something to be free to have it, the onus should be on the one seeking to deny a freedom to explain themselves, not for the person seeking it to explain their need. But I can't see me changing your mind about it either. And I feel I would be wasting my time trying to pressure you for explanations in those respects. I figure if that argument could convince you it would have when I raised it before. Regardless, thank you again for your answer. I can't say I understand it, but I suspect you may not understand my way of thinking either.
So very on point. A refreshing change for ce&p tbh. At the end of the day I would so much rather shot than be stabbed or bludgeoned. I have had guns pulled on me but never shot though so I can't say for sure. Being stabbed really really hurts and so does being manually beaten with a blunt object. It is only a matter of time before one of these sick bastards calls a bomb threat and drives through the crowd with a large truck, or commits arson, poisons the drinking water, blows up compressed cans of flammable gas, etc, etc
 
I'd also like to apologize to you spacejunk for my earlier attacks towards you, while I don't agree and in many respects can't understand your beliefs. My attacks were more about me than you. It's just hard for me, all the time I feel like an outsider living in Australia, people think nothing of attacking the united states or Americans without provocation in front of me, and even if I agree with their opinions, it bothers me that they don't seem to for a moment either realize or care that I might disapprove of it. And that for all their animosity, Americans on the whole don't really have any negative opinions towards them. And that it seems in their eyes my dual citizenship is just a legal technicality, and I will never really be allowed to express an opinion on Australian politics that defies them without incurring their xenophobic wrath. Technicalities like citizenship mean nothing compared to having an American accent.

It's very easy to come to be very resentful. And wind up taking it out on everyone who seems to be part of the same group. I can't imagine how much worse it must be for immigrants of the more truly foreign countries here. Especially with today's culture.
Hey, no worries.
I know how racist some australians can be. They are stupid and loud and like to give the impression that they speak for all of us - but they don't, and they never will. Our increasingly crass fox-lite tabloid news outlets fuel this bullshit more than anything.

Thank you for the apology - it was not my intention to wind you up; i find these gun massacre stories anything but "routine" - i worry about the potential violence everywhere my family and my friends happen to be living. And while US gun policy is not something i'm interested in discussing here normally, this one hit home for a couple of reasons i'd rather not elaborate on.
I'm perplexed by the way some people have become so blasé about these events, which in some ways is what i find most disturbing of all. It's the 24hr news cycle/celebrity culture and a horror movie all rolled into one (if there was ever much of a distinction between them to start with).
It's never easy living as a 'foreigner' - though i'm sure (thanks to films and tv) australians understand your accent - i have to deliberately "hybridise" mine just to order a fucking coffee in the states.
 
I think gun control measures would be a little bit short sighted honestly. I don't see guns as being the issue really. I think mental health issues are becoming more widespread and our US society breeds this type of behavior. Guns are protected by the bill of rights. Most gun owners are pretty responsible for the most part. I really don't see gun control doing much good for the country as a whole. Maybe some common sense applications would be a good start, maybe some wait times so people don't do things impulsively, but as a whole a think the things that are happening are part of a deeper sickness. I don't know what the answers are but limiting freedom usually doesn't do much good.

Similar to drugs in a way, I would rather not see more liberties fall to the wayside. I hate to see people get killed but I really don't see guns as the problem. We need to fix our society and our mental health issues. There is a whole more to mental health than just taking pharms. It would be nice if that were the case but its not that simple. People will all find different things that work for them along the way. So long as society and politicians keep stigmatizing mental illness, this issue will keep repeating itself. Services need to be available to people and help should be provided for a minimal charge. People need to wake up to mental health and realize that mental health affects everybody. With 50 million americans being medicated for mental illness, there seems to be a much deeper problem than gun control.

This whole good people vs bad people makes me sick. Categorizing people that struggle with depression, bipolar, schizophrenia, or any other mental illness as part of the 'bad person argument' makes me sicker. Maybe some can't be helped, but plenty of people can. Our mental health system is broken and we need to fix it.
 
I'm not sure how much it matters how much improving America's mental health system will benefit crimes like mass shootings. It should be done regardless.
 
There are plenty of reasons why most Western societies should do more for their people, and plenty of ways to go about it.
It is tragic that it takes events like for people to start talking about it; but if there is a problem - such as inadequate mental health funding, unaffordable health care - now is the time for leaders to act and offer something positive.

No wealthy society in this day and age should make mental health services prohibitively expensive.
The same goes for healthcare and education.

The knee-jerk reactions of political leaders (from Clinton's unconvincing show of 'sincerity' to Trump's vigilante chest-thumping, saying that more guns is the answer) are meaningless spectacles in the soundbyte circus, but meanwhile, all this focus on "how can we stop this?" could surely be put to some better use; rather than blaming "madness" or mental illness.

Perhaps it is naïvely optimistic to hope for a better future, but this whole scene is too cynical to even fathom. Has it really come to this?

I get the impression that a serious, all inclusive discussion needs to take place, in regards to what the fuck is so wrong with people that this has become a form of expression?
But i suppose even that would be too hard in this climate. Scary.
 
I dont see people arguing for 'changing how a murder is committed'.

I see a bastardisation of what the word 'freedom' really means.

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

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