The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
It Has Been 10 days....Scratch That: 0 Days Since America's Last Shooting
SyphonBlue
The studying beaverThat beaver sure loves studying!Registered User regular
The studying beaverThat beaver sure loves studying!Registered User regular
America has a Gun Problem. It is happening again live, right now. Yet another mass shooting:
Reports are now coming in saying the shooter has been killed.
Allow me to sum up the next day or two's news coverage: Horrible tragedy, too early to talk about gun control, if more Americans had guns this never would have happened
http://www.katu.com/news/live
http://www.katu.com/news/local/Shooting-Clackamas-Town-Center-183077691.html
CLACKAMAS, Ore. – At least one person was killed after a shooting inside Clackamas Town Center mall on Tuesday afternoon, according deputies.
Clackamas County Sheriff's spokesman Lt. James Rhodes said as of 4:50 p.m., the shooter had been "neutralized." He did not specify if deputies shot the suspect or if the suspect was dead.
He said deputies didn't believe there were any other shooters involved, although they are still searching the mall to ensure that is the case.
At least four and as many as seven more people were reportedly injured.
"We believe there's at least one deceased and maybe more," said Rhodes.
Officers first received reports of a shooter with a mask wearing a vest.
Reports are now coming in saying the shooter has been killed.
Allow me to sum up the next day or two's news coverage: Horrible tragedy, too early to talk about gun control, if more Americans had guns this never would have happened
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
0
This discussion has been closed.
Posts
TV Talking Head Counterpoint:
If fewer Americans had guns, this never would have happened!
Therefore, Americans must currently have the appropriate amount of guns??
I have 549 Rock Band Drum and 305 Pro Drum FC's
REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS
Not cool.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
What the fuck.
More seriously, as a person whose roommate is obsessed with gun laws, and never answers the door to our house without his pistol, his solution would absolutely have been for everyone in the mall to also have a gun. He tends to ramble a lot on the subject, but I'm pretty sure that at one point, he even made the argument that the Founding Fathers *had* in fact intended every man, woman, and child in the USA to have access to automatic weapons. Sort of like One Laptop per Child, but with death.
This is one of the most disgusting things I've ever seen anyone say on here.
Let me check with the NRA
Until further evidence, I think we can generously assume this is meant to be facetious, since it's actually true that gun sales have spiked under Obama. Weird things effect the gun market, but they almost always have a pretty direct correlation with any national event that's good for conspiracy-theorizing and fear-mongering. Gun sales rocketed after 9/11, too.
cold dead hands
If more/less guns would have prevented this, we actually have the exact wrong number of guns
But don't you know that crossfires are a liberal myth, man!?
Correct. Since every single time this thread shows up like clockwork we spend about 3 pages correcting every stupid ass thing the media says. Then we have end up explaining the actual statistics on firearm usage in crimes and why exactly guns have nothing to do with the problems we face.
Forget facts. if we are going to argue more guns magically means more shootings completely ignoring issues like gang violence, poverty, which guns are used in crimes, *lackluster mental health care opportunities and just freak the fuck out about more guns = bad then look to the man who has sold more guns this year than anyone else.
*EDIT-Forgot lackluster mental health care opportunities.
But I would not be opposed to prohibiting the sale of guns to dangerously crazy people or people with a history of violent crime.
I assume they already do that though.
They do, but people with a history of violent crime tend to just steal them or have someone else buy them (illegal, but there's not really a good way to enforce that at the moment).
Seriously though (and I say this all the time this comes up): I don't believe America has a gun problem. I believe America has a violence problem, which is unfortunately even harder to address. Our violent crime (and rape and other unpleasantries) are through the roof. Part of that is that a lot of the countries we're compared to don't have the same problems as we do, but a lot of it is just that we glorify violence to an absurd degree.
I hate gun rights issues because I largely agree with the conservative side of the coin
There's no realistic way I can see to reach the desired goal (less gun violence) by simply restricting guns. We can regulate party to party gun sales, we can trace guns better with databases, and we can better record ammunition sales, but none of that would actually prevent a spree shooting would it? Those are all laudable goals and I fully support them by the way, I'm just under no illusions that it would suddenly turn America's gun violence rates into Canada's gun violence rates.
The country getting out of its century old viewpoint on mental illness would be a start, also not using the prisons as asylums (thanks reagan), also fighting poverty
Edit: although the conservatives even here, where they had lots of firm ground to argue, had to abandon sanity because Obama pretty much agrees with most mainstream conservatives on gun laws
The New York Post (piece of garbage that it is) actually ran a front page a few weeks ago to the effect of:
"It's a miracle! There we no reports of anyone being shot, stabbed, or otherwise violently assaulted or killed yesterday (in NYC)!"
With the obvious implication that this happens every other day, and thus is newsworthy when it doesn't.
The purchase of guns has been higher during the past few Democratic presidencies than the last few Republican presidencies.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
The implication is true. People are stabbed and shot and murdered every day in NYC. That was a rare 36 hour period.
I was probably being too subtle, I meant to point out the incongruity between the reality and what the NRA is saying. When the gun lobby is going on about FEMA camps and the government stealing everyone's guns and the ostensibly anti-gun party is fine with the status quo, we have issues.
I am not sure whatever gave you that idea. Obama has been pretty consistent on favoring more gun control.
Sadly almost nothing we do will prevent a shooting spree. There is not a damn thing you can effectively do to stop someone who does not expect to leave there alive.
Personally while it sounds terrible I am glad the crazies are sticking to "shooting sprees" that get a couple people before they either off themself or get taken down by the cops. What worries me is the first crazy that is interested in walking away. Put a couple pipe bombs in a briefcase with a crude detonator, set it down somewhere with heavy foot traffic and just walk away.
Obama has legislatively been as good a friend to the gun lobby as george W but they talk like he's going to take everyone's guns, it's a fantasy
That doesn't describe the average voter
That said I don't see why it wouldn't also be a tool to use to reach that goal, the attitude that you need to have a gun to defend yourself (outside of areas with dangerous animals) is very closely entwined with the issues that you've identified as also being part of the problem. It's putting you in a mindset where you're under a vastly exaggerated level of threat, which is just going to make you start seeing more and more evidence of this threat when none really exists - and when a potential threat may genuinely appear it's going to be responded to with more violence than necessary (more brutal and punitive prisons, less lenient sentencing and an overwhelming need to punish and lock away someone to keep them away from you rather than doing something to help them).
At the same time, you're making it harder for people to get help rather than to help themselves through crime and making it easier to 'other' their victims. Fact it is also making crime potentially more lethal for those involved (or even just nearby) is an almost an afterthought. If you're looking to change attitudes, which is something you're going to need for a large part of your prison and mental health reforms, then this is a mindset that you need to tackle and one that can be changed via tighter gun control.
There may be legitimate uses for gun ownership, but I don't think the 2nd Amendment and self defence are among them.
It's a little bit old (2007), but this video touches on this point - the more an individual relies on themselves in order to protect themselves and their property (or thinks they need to), the more inclined to violence they'll be and the more violence they'll accept in society.
http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence.html
I was assuming that it was a sarcastic jibe at the wingnuts who were all "Obama not doing anything to take our guns away in his first term proves that he's going to put all gun-owners in FEMA murder-camps in his second term", and buying 37 new guns and 8 million rounds of ammo each.
Yeah anyway, shootings. In a society which accepts private gun ownership, they are as a matter of fact going to happen occasionally. Indeed, they still happen in societies which don't accept private gun ownership, but at a lower rate.
Is the incremental rate acceptable?
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
I dont get the arguement that somehow guns being illegal would of kept this man from hurting others. America has a violence problem, not a gun problem.
Given the information in the articles you linked, what policy would you want in place that would have stopped them man?
I am so tired of even having this argument. Yes if there were no guns at all people can and will still kill each other, however non-gun murders are much less frequent so yes 100% yes guns are the problem. If giving up owning a gun could save one life it is worth it as they are in no way a necessary thing in anyway shape or form, the argument for self defense from animals is not one we even need to bring up here simple because if it can be shown that people live in areas were having a gun is needed to prevent animals from killing them then I think we would be fine with those people being allowed to own a firearm.
If a person wants to kill someone and they have a gun, guess what they are going to use to kill that person with? If guns were illegal tomorrow how many people reading this really think they could and would know where to go to get a gun?
The idea that the conversation has to stop at anywhere near making guns illegal because hey people will still find a way is insane. If something is illegal less people will do/posses that thing, it really is that simple as every country in the world that has real gun control is proof of.
I grew up shooting guns, and hunting. I fully enjoy target shooting, but I would gladly give it all up to have guns illegal tomorrow in a heartbeat. I feel pity and sadness for the people that think they need a gun to be safe, I can't imagine living in such irrational fear.
Except this isn't true at all. Rapes have been dropping since the late 80's. Crime across the board is at lower rates now than it was in the 70's. The 2011 murder rate was at its lowest level since 1963. This isn't to say we get to sit back and rest on our laurels, but the actual statistics do not support the media fearmongering.
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
I don't buy the argument that they're completely unrelated though, the UK shares a lot of the problems the US does far as violent crime and punitive sentencing goes - yet has a much lower homicide (especially youth homicide) and suicide rate, and this sort of mass-violence is almost unheard of.
America has a violence problem, which is sustained, enabled and encouraged by widespread gun ownership and a lot of the culture that goes with it.
The man killed 2 people and injured another before offing himself. If this was not a targeted attack and a case of random violence, would you say any tool he used in the act should be banned and was 100% the problem?
What if he used a hammer, or a common kitchen knife(legal sized blade even that is under average state regulation)? Would you ban hammers and kitchen knives because they are the problem? This man wanted to go out and cause violence, not having access to a gun would not have stopped him.
Edit: The point is that guns are not the problem, because if they didnt exist(not just banned/illegal), he would of used something else. Guns aren't a magical entity that contain evil and make people do their bidding. It's sillier to assume you are safer because guns are banned/illegal.
Is there a name for this arguement? I feel like you are using some sort of inverse pascal's wager.
Context, my brother.
Plus, the analogies are silly. Hammers and kitchen knives have other functions than to kill or destroy things. The only function of a gun is destruction.
Oh hey, I can throw around statistics and make stuff up too.
310 million guns in the US, 31,224 gun deaths (intentional and accidental) in the US. This means for every 9,928 guns, one person is killed.
254 million cars in the US, 32,367 vehicle deaths (intentional and accidental) in the US. This means for every 7,847 cars, one person is killed.
Time to ban cars, they're more dangerous than guns are.
I think you know that you're simplifying the argument. Maybe a guy with a hammer can pull off killing two people before....I guess hammering himself to death. Possibly 3, in all of the confusion. 4 if someone stumbles into traffic in the middle of it. That's pushing it.
It's far, far easier to kill 4 people and then yourself with most firearms.
I'd be pretty willing to take a society that has killing sprees which almost necessarily top at about 4 people in exchange for giving up public access to semi-automatic weapons. Doesn't that sound like a pretty fair trade for most people? The fact that people need hammers for practical reasons notwithstanding, though this is a point that more or less needs to withstand, since the record suggests that we put guns to far less good use.
Yes. People will go on killing people without guns. No one has ever, ever argued otherwise, but we're making it a lot easier for people to kill people without getting much back out of that deal.