"f86sabre" (f86sabre)
08/31/2019 at 22:45 • Filed to: None
0
33|
"f86sabre" (f86sabre)
08/31/2019 at 22:45 • Filed to: None | 0
| 33 |
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
Sunday edit: keep it civil folks and most of you have been. We are friends here.
CB
> f86sabre
08/31/2019 at 22:59 |
|
Just a sad day. Condolences to the families.
America, what the actual hell is your problem?
Dusty Ventures
> f86sabre
08/31/2019 at 23:06 |
|
|
f86sabre
> CB
08/31/2019 at 23:09 |
|
Guns
wafflesnfalafel
> f86sabre
08/31/2019 at 23:22 |
|
It is pretty clear at this point that the voting public is ok with this this type of thing regularly happening, for better or worse. At this point the prudent action is to make sure you are mentally ready to deal with it when it happens, make sure you are absolutely going down swinging. Honestly, it’s not that different than bears in the woods two hundred years ago... you just gotta keep your eyes open and commit to acting smartly and promptly if the situation should arise.
Tristan
> Dusty Ventures
08/31/2019 at 23:28 |
|
|
CB
> Tristan
08/31/2019 at 23:39 |
|
Ratios are fair, but consider the number of events that occurred in each of those countries versus the number in the US. And what mass shootings did in those countries in terms of policy reform.
facw
> Tristan
08/31/2019 at 23:40 |
|
Mass shootings are not the only (or most important) gun problem the US faces:
Also note that while I don’t have a source for your graphic (mine is from wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate ), I’ve looked into similar ones and they are filled with messy data (counting terrorist attacks (which may or may not make sense), counting deaths by explosives, knives, etc., all while greatly under-counting US deaths), and of course something like Norway is just huge outlier, caused by a single very deadly attack in small country. Also take notes that those are 2019 population, but not 2019 mass shootings, again in the things I looked at before the actual date range was oddly cherry picked (though mass shootings are so common in the US that it’s hard to pick a date range where that excludes them, which presumably is why they just left a bunch out instead).
Tekamul
> Tristan
08/31/2019 at 23:56 |
|
It wasn’t too hard to find where you got that chart. Holy tinfoil hat and data manipulation, Batman.
But it was educational. I never realized forcing companies to pay a minimum wage was actually racist! And Jesus would hate public assistance programs!
MKULTRA1982(ConCrustyBrick)
> Tristan
09/01/2019 at 00:09 |
|
Boooooooo, poor argument
BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast.
> f86sabre
09/01/2019 at 00:10 |
|
No. Otherwise it would be blades, bombs, running people over with cars, or any other object turned tool at hand for someone in a murderous state of mind.
Murderers (I refuse to call them gunmen, shooters, or any other tool-defined term, they have defined themselves by intent and action, not by the tools they used.)
Murderers choose soft targets, because they are soft targets.
So what makes more sense?
Banning self-defensive legal weapons to make all targets soft targets to people who BREAK THE LAW ANYWAY.
Encouraging, or at least NOT VILIFYING, self-defensive legal weapons and their readiness through training and responsibility for those who choose to accept that, to make targets less soft.
Tearing down and banning legal defensive capability has never prevented attacks from law-flouting attackers in any period of human history. That is not how it works, and it is absolutely insanely illogical.
Prevention happens with other things:
- dealing with issues before they become impetus for murder, like mental health response,
- dissuasion from attacking for fear of meeting a strong response, not easy.
- not promoting attention-seekers with negative attention, which is still attention.
-not programming and de-sensitizing people to dissociate morality and sancity of life through simulation of consequence-free computer-generated murder... the same way military warfare is taught through simulation.
-not villifying people in popular culture. Differing opinion seems to cast people asunder as worthless if they happen to disagree with this narrative or that one... comments out of context can RUIN people as if they aren’t even human or worth consideration... Someone who doesn’t value life can more easily turn that worthlessness into an impetus to lethal force toward random people, or directed at people who are at odds with the murderer.
There is more vilification of political incorrectness in this culture than there is villification of these murderers. That is much more significant a problem than what tool the murderer chooses to carry it out with.
|
MKULTRA1982(ConCrustyBrick)
> Tekamul
09/01/2019 at 00:10 |
|
I’ve come to find Jesus conveniently hates all the things I hate
|
Tekamul
> MKULTRA1982(ConCrustyBrick)
09/01/2019 at 00:18 |
|
The newest of testaments.
|
CB
> BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast.
09/01/2019 at 00:24 |
|
I’m going to argue against your point as a Canadian. Here, our self-defense laws are pretty weak. And yet, we don’t see the level of mass shootings that the US does. We’ve had a spike this year (especially in Toronto) of shootings, but historically, mass casualty events are rare here.
I don’t know what the solution is, but I don’t think more weapons will improve the situation.
Daily Drives a Dragon - One Last Lap
> BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast.
09/01/2019 at 00:34 |
|
I’m just going to counter your bit about legally carrying for self defense. This was in Texas. Doesn’t everyone carry in Texas?
Supreme Chancellor and Glorious Leader SaveTheIntegras
> f86sabre
09/01/2019 at 00:34 |
|
god dammit America..
|
BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast.
> wafflesnfalafel
09/01/2019 at 00:35 |
|
Even if the voting public isn’t OK with this, what are they supposed to do about it in the voting booth? Vote for people on a single issue? vote for someone they entirely disagree with on every other issue? vote for anti-gun candidates who also tend to want to take other rights and freedoms away in favor of more central governmental control also?
The people who don’t vote for gun control don’t usally agree with the rest of the platform of gun-control candidates. The people who do vote for gun control already tend to vote for people on that platform, and either way the right to keep an d bear arms by choice, is a protected right. Those who disagree can choose not to bear arms. Banning it becomes non-voluntary, and mandatory.
More laws that harm the law abiding don’t affect the people intent on breaking the law, anyway.
Criminals and mentally ill people ALREADY can’t legally buy weapons, yet many of these murderers already have criminal records, or a history of mental illness and warning signs. What will MORE laws do for them?
Murder is already a universally accepted crime, with the strictest punishments that the laws allow. Killing someone is already a law that a pre-meditating murderer is choosing to break. What more will a gun law do for someone intent on killing people?
All it does is make the voting public MORE vulnerable an defenseless mandatorily, where being prepared to defend one’s self is currently legal, ensured by the bill of rights, and ENTIRELY OPTIONAL. People are not mandated to carry a gun if they don’t agree to.
Why would the voting public have self interest in making themselves even more legally defenseless against lawless attackers?
Do you hear how illogical that is?
|
BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast.
> Daily Drives a Dragon - One Last Lap
09/01/2019 at 00:40 |
|
If they did, how was this murderer successful, and not stopped?
Legally armed people tend to respect the wishes of others, and disarm themselves in venues that ban weapons in places where posted.
The venues tend to make the people soft targets, and the murderers know where the venues ban weapons.
Even Fort Hood, a MILITARY base had an active murderer several years ago that killed regular military personnel that were prevented by policy from carrying sidearms on the base outside of weapons ranges and designated areas.
Those p olicies apply only to the victims they create, not to the criminals that break them.
|
BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast.
> CB
09/01/2019 at 00:48 |
|
That is an inch-deep analysis that doesn’t bear up to reality.
No guns = no crime is a utopian fallacy, and dangerously naïve wishful thinking.
Toronto is an urban area, but there is probably a much higher ratio of rural areas in Canada, than the US... and mass casualty events, as well as violent crime is much less prevalent in rural areas in the US as well... where arguably legal gun ownership per capita is likely higher.
Arguably the calmer, more polite, and less vilification-prone Canadian culture is probably as much a credit for less violent crime in Canada than anything to do with laws. Laws are a response after a crime has been committed, and only apply to those who already choose to live according to the societal rules. Laws are broken by criminals, by definition.
How people treat each other and interact with each other in a civil and valued manner is a precursor.
|
CB
> BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast.
09/01/2019 at 00:53 |
|
I’m not saying no guns = no crime. I work in the justice system, I know that’s not the case at all.
In any case, your point of “well, the culture is different” kind of shoots down the argument that more guns will solve the problem. A culture shift will change things . How we see each other. How we view a difference in opinion. How we respond to our problems. That is what ultimately we should be looking at, not adding more guns.
MrSnrub
> wafflesnfalafel
09/01/2019 at 01:23 |
|
The voting public is strongly in favor of more gun control.
The problem is the American political system is not responsive to the preferences of the electorate
|
MrSnrub
> f86sabre
09/01/2019 at 01:41 |
|
I am dismayed by the people whose response to something like this is to argue against doing anything about it. They’re in the comments here too. It’s depraved behavior
RPM esq.
> facw
09/01/2019 at 01:54 |
|
What you have articulated better than I would have is that it’s manipulative, obfuscatory bullshit that doesn’t withstand even the most cursory examination. Norway has had one mass shooting ever, an admittedly horrific right-wing terrorist attack. It’s a small country and that is an awfully big outlier during the selected period (a period of 2009-2015, compared to 2019 population for some reason? I assume to conveniently cut out the Las Vegas shooting) . I would feel 100 % safer in a mall in Norway than one in the US and by every rational measure I’d be right.
DipodomysDeserti
> Tekamul
09/01/2019 at 04:46 |
|
Of course a gay dude with no job who just travelled around talking about how wealth was evil and we should just love each other would hate public assistance programs. Duh!
Christians are the modern day Pharisees. Most of them anyways.
Rust and Dust - Oppositelock Forever
> Tristan
09/01/2019 at 04:58 |
|
How many of those nation’s proceeded to do fuck all about gun control after their mass shooting (s)?
|
f86sabre
> BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast.
09/01/2019 at 06:41 |
|
I appreciate your stance, but then what is your solution to this problem that is much worse here than many other developed nations?
Jayhawk Jake
> BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast.
09/01/2019 at 07:26 |
|
The “criminals will do crime” argument completely falls apart when you compare the mass murder rate of the US to other similar developed countries. Sure, people will commit crimes and there will still be violence. I don’t think anyone believes reducing the number of guns in the country would completely eliminate gun violence. But given the experience of other nations that have stricter regulations around guns, it sure seems like it has a decent chance of reducing gun violence.
Doing something is almost always better than doing nothing. And arming more people sure as shit isn’t going to help.
OmerCarrothers333
> f86sabre
09/01/2019 at 11:57 |
|
I’ve hung out with some fairly nefarious types in my life, and not one of them said “we can’t do that, it’s against the law”.
|
f86sabre
> OmerCarrothers333
09/01/2019 at 14:11 |
|
And your solution is?
|
BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast.
> f86sabre
09/01/2019 at 15:32 |
|
A: I’ve already proposed the aspects in another post, that need to be addressed to help alleviate issues that may push people to become murderous.
B: other posts in these comments show that the issue is not worse per capita than other developed nations, some with much stricter gun laws.
Most violent crime in US urban areas, with more perpetrators, and fewer victims per incident, kill more people with illegally obtained weapons... gun laws and murder laws do virtually NOTHING to stem that violence.
C : what is worse in the US is the media coverage and cultural narrative vilifying not the perpetrators, but rather the tool that the perpetrators use, and by extension, LEGAL users of those tools other than the perpetrator. Then the media tends to treat the actual victims as political fodder or merely footnotes, and the perpetrator as a social victim .
It over-inflates the anti-gun
narrative for political purposes, and does very little to nothing to protect or defend current or future potential
victims. Instead it
rather proposes to create more propensity for people to be unable to effectively defend themselves if they choose to
, and more likely to become victims of further murderers who see themselves as social victims.
|
BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast.
> Jayhawk Jake
09/01/2019 at 15:47 |
|
It is amazing. Everything you just said is wrong.
Other posters here have posted the stats that show per capita, that violent crime in the US is not higher, and generally is lower, despite the media narrative.
Gun Violence is not the only kind of violence. Would you rather have rampant bombings instead (UK) ? Riots and arson (Paris) ? Assaults (various) ? Other countries with strict gun control, and disarmed populace have had those issues throughout the second half of the 20th, and the early 21st centuries.
A murderer doesn’t murder because a gun is sitting their asking to be used. A gun doesn’t pull it’s own trigger by it’s own volition.
A murderer, especially a mass casualty killer, has a reason, and serious emotional issues that defeat civilized behavior and morality, and they go FIND the tool to use. If it isn’t a gun, it WILL be something else. A pressure cooker (Boston), a truck/car (multiple incidents), pipe bombs, knives or other blades... poisoning public food or water supplies... or other terroristic behavior... make no mistake, mass murderers are not differentiated from terrorist behavior.
It has been shown, other than the mainstream media, that when police aren’t already on site, (and what mass murderer targets a policed venue?) the most reliable resolution without loss of innocent life, has been armed and responsible legal gun-owners, who responsibly carry, and are trained to use their weapon both properly, and as a last defensive resort.
Arming MORE people who choose to accept that training and responsibility, is one of the only effective means of defense against a present danger, when prevention is no longer on the table.
No one suggests arming people against their will.
Gun control DOES suggest dis-arming people against their will.
|
BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast.
> CB
09/01/2019 at 15:58 |
|
I didn’t say more guns will solve the problem, and no one rational who supports the 2nd amendment suggests putting weaponry in the hands of unwilling or untrained people that don’t solemnly choose the responsibility of arming themselves.
I said that banning guns, taking the rights of the law abiding will make it worse, in the face of lawless violent criminals.
Addressing the cultural aspects, if that prevents people from becoming murderous, is a much better goal , and makes self defense thankfully less frequent, but it doesn’t mean that people should be required to be defenseless.
|
OmerCarrothers333
> f86sabre
09/01/2019 at 18:45 |
|
I've been ok with people owning a gun for hunting, home protection, or sport shooting, but since every slap-dick jabroni with a pulse and a banana clip seems like they have to play soldier, and open carry at the grocery store (which is hilarious, because most of these toolbags would wash out basic training in the first week), I say ban the fuck out of guns because for a vast group of our American population, those are accessories and not tools.
|
Dusty Ventures
> Tristan
09/01/2019 at 20:47 |
|
So
I know where that chart’s from,
and frankly it’s rather dubious. For starters, the text above the chart
says that they’re using mass shootings from 2009 to 2015 to get their fatality rate, but the table shows the 2019 populations. Which means they either took the number of deaths and then factored it against the 2019 population of each country to get the rate (which would give a faulty result and weigh in favor of countries the grew at the fastest rate since 2015), or they used the correct population (populations from a point within the 2009-2015 window) and then just threw in the 2019 population on the table for reasons unknown. Neither instills confidence in the data. Also, that death rate isn’t per million, it’s per 100,000. So the category header is wrong there as well.
Moving on from that, the death rate on the chart is as much a result of those other countries having dramatically smaller population as it is mass shooting frequency. Most of those countries only had one mass shooting in the span from 2009-2015, and none of them had more than two. Norway’s chart-topping death rate for example comes from a
single attack in 2011
that killed 77. Macedonia ranks fourth on the chart and Albania fifth, but those two countries only had nine mass shooting deaths in that span
combined
. (Not nine shootings, nine deaths.
) All of which is to basically say comparing incidents in one country against other countries 1/5
0th the size is a questionable practice and unlikely to yield decent data.