Why blaming violence on guns is a subtle deflection away from the human condition.

MonacoMonkey's picture
Rank: Neanderthal | banana points 2,217

Humans, it seems, are extremely uncomfortable to admit that a member of their own can commit such vile and egregious acts against another of the same species. We try to attach blame to something, anything, as long as it's doesn't question the very sanctity of our species, and more importantly, our own self centered ego of what it means to be human.

You see it all the time, whether the blame is put on an ideology, religion, guns (as we are seeing in Vegas), lover betrayal, debts, or even a mental illness. Yes, all of these are "cop outs", a way for the average person to distance him or herself ideologically from the perpetrator, since physically, we are inescapably identical.

Why can't we come to terms with the truth and reality of human tendencies? The fact that we are all capable of such acts if we were put in certain circumstances (unknown to ourselves or others). And that any weapon used is not a separate entity with its own intentions, but merely an extension of our psyche. Most importantly, why can't we concede that there is absolutely nothing we can do to prevent attacks on humans by humans?

Take away the shock, awe, anger, blame, and grievances, and understand "it's just another day at the office [of human evolution]".

We are highly flawed. Wishing [otherwise] won't make it untrue.

additional thoughts Would like to add. A lot of respect for the police and first responders. Running into fully automatic gunfire isn't trivial. I wouldn't do that for a Bill Ackman salary. They deserve to be paid much more.

Resume Review Service

  • Match with one of WSO's financial experts to get your resume reviewed.
  • We ensure that the most critical documents in your job search are ready.
  • Rigorous, iterative process with over 2,300 clients over 10 years.

Comments (173)

Nov 14, 2017

.

    • 3
Nov 14, 2017

.

    • 1
Nov 14, 2017

.

Nov 14, 2017

.

    • 2
    • 1
Nov 14, 2017

.

    • 1
Learn More

Side-by-side comparison of top modeling training courses + exclusive discount through WSO here.

Nov 14, 2017

.

    • 2
Oct 2, 2017

Choose VEGANISM, not MASS MURDER!

    • 3
    • 1
Oct 4, 2017

hilarious because mass murder is also what we do to animals.

Oct 2, 2017

Imagine you're in a castle and there's a thousand men storming up the hill. You know for certainty they will breach the wall and have full intention of killing you. You have a dozen machine guns lying around, and lots of ammo.

I wouldn't be so certain that never means never.

    • 1
    • 2
Oct 2, 2017

so it goes from never to "idk". when they start running up your stairs, it'll likely be a resounding yes.

my point is, everyone is trapped in their own "castle" of sorts. luckily for most of us, it looks like Downton Abbey. for some, however, it's impending apocalypse.

never assume you know what someone else's castle looks like.

    • 2
    • 2
Oct 3, 2017
Roy-Ray:

I am not capable of such an act....period.

Yeah you're not capable until .... your brain breaks

Then when your brain breaks and you lose touch with reality and are delusional (possible hallucinations), you very well may be playing a videogame in your head or think an invading army is coming upon you from beneath that you must defend or die.

"If you always put limits on everything you do, physical or anything else, it will spread into your work and into your life. There are no limits. There are only plateaus, and you must not stay there, you must go beyond them." - Bruce Lee

    • 2
Oct 2, 2017

Mass shootings are a very minuscule part of gun violence. Most gun violence in the US is gang or otherwise criminally related, and it is mostly committed by certain subsections of the urban poor population.

If you factored out this population from gun crime statistics, the US gun crime rate would be comparable to that of Canada and the UK.

"Work ethic, work ethic" - Vince Vaughn
    • 1
    • 1
Oct 2, 2017

Only a sith deals in absolutes.

    • 3
    • 1
Oct 3, 2017

I am sure the murderer in Vegas would've probably never murder 50 people either. He went 63 years without doing so (unless he had a pile of bodies stashed somewhere) and then one day pulled it off. No idea what would cause someone to switch, but it does seem to happen.

Oct 2, 2017

OP what if perp had 7 rifles instead of 10?

What if he did not have the ability to buy automatic assault rifles that have extra cartridge storage for additional ammo for shorter re-load times?

How many lives would have been saved? Not all. But isn't 1 justification for change?

We should stop hiding behind human philosophy to deflect away from tangible change- limiting the damage of real life actions.

    • 7
    • 4
Oct 2, 2017

What if perp had 13 rifles instead of 10? What if next year, they invented a machine gun that magically reloads by itself?

Obviously it wouldn't make a different to you, since "1 is [enough] justification for change."

Guns are out there. people with vastly different "castles" are out there. debating whether he had 7 or 13 guns won't matter, as we both know and you've just admitted.

I'm sick and tired of idealists and their fairy tale ideology.

If I could snap my fingers and all guns disappeared instantly, you bet i'd do it. I hate guns. Unfortunately, we don't live in make believe.

    • 4
    • 5
Oct 2, 2017

What is your course of action? Accepting mass shootings are the new normal?

We should embrace them and accept it's just humans being humans?

    • 2
Oct 2, 2017

Yes. Because we have a 2nd amendment and horrible things happen.

Truck attacks are now common in Europe. Natural disasters kill people. Bad shit happens.

Gun violence is statistically very rare. Banning guns will not stop gun deaths. And while it might reduce them, this country enshrined the right to own guns. So we live with it .

And maybe we should wait to find out the facts of this. As in were the guns legal. What kind. Was terrorism involved. Etc.

Oct 3, 2017

Where have gun bans reduced gun violence in the U.S.? Some of the places w/ the most shootings happen where full bans are in effect (Chicago, Newark, D.C.)

On balance given the sheer number of legally owned guns in the U.S (300 million), the stats on gun deaths are miniscule. 33,000. Someone do the math on that. And from those, the vast majority come from suicides and black market arms purchases.

So what are we debating again?

Oct 3, 2017

I agree. What is funny is if we ban guns we will definitely need a wall to prevent them, along with drugs, from coming in.

This is a sad event, but I've seen this playbook too frequently. Politicians use shit like this to reduce freedom and expand government.

Oct 3, 2017

Ah good old prohibition. That's always worked in the U.S.

What could go wrong?

Oct 2, 2017
REPE8:

How many lives would have been saved? Not all. But isn't 1 justification for change?

1) I'm fairly certain automatic weapons purchases are illegal and have been since the 1980s; 2) even if the guns used were legal, semi-automatic weapons, stripping the U.S. citizen of his or her freedom to preserve a tiny few lives is not a solution. Mass shootings constitute a statistically insignificant number of murders in a given year in the U.S.

A close friend of mine was murdered in the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre--I'm no stranger to these types of killings, believe me. But I came to an important realization a decade ago when I looked around the world--the natural, common relationship between the government and mankind is tyranny, and that my friend, Brian, may be alive today if guns had been banned, but he may be living a life not worth living.

Oct 2, 2017

actually, you're friend "may be alive today" if that nutjob Virginia Tech shooter was never born.

let's not confuse causality here, or try to deflect. you're indirectly supporting my original argument, which is unfortunate.

sad to hear about your friend Brian though. condolences.

    • 2
Oct 3, 2017

To your first point, you can own a fully automatic weapon so long as it was made before 1986. However, in order to purchase one you have to do an additional background check that is not normal for an AOW (similar for rifle barrels under 16" and suppressors). The only other way is to go through the process of getting your FFL, basically the Series 7 for guns. This is an incredibly difficult process and requires a very thorough background check and I believe an interview with the BATF. At that point you can purchase and own fully auto weapons.

Semi auto weapons can be modified to become truly full auto, however, that would be illegal. There are ways to make it like full auto, however, they are mechanisms that enable the trigger to be fired faster or allow the gun to fire with the squeeze and release of the trigger. These are allowed as the gun is not truly fully automatic.

Sorry to hear about your friend. It is a horrible thing when these events happen. However, there is no telling what the murderer may have done rather than shoot.

    • 2
Oct 3, 2017

If he didn't have guns, he would've had a car bomb or other IED's. This was a well planned attack, plane and simple. If you take away method A, method B will soon follow. Also, they have strict gun laws in France. This didn't stop the shootings there. If someone wants to go on a killing spree, they will go on a killing spree. Not too much is known about this asshole except that he was 64.

If you think banning a particular weapon or how many someone can own will work, you are high. Think of how many are on the streets and how many are already in the hands of responsible owners. Anyone who is uncomfortable with someone owning firearms is free to move out of the states.

    • 2
Oct 3, 2017

What if its just 1 nuke? This what if game is stupid.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

Oct 4, 2017

What the hell are you talking about? These guns were illegal.

But you're right...mass shooters are extremely worried about owning illegal guns, that'll stop them...

"When you stop striving for perfection, you might as well be dead."

Oct 2, 2017

this is what happens when you have a culture where johnny starts a gun obsession right from middle school .

I don't get Americans and guns but my white friends in school were amazed by machine guns, Call of Duty, etcetera.

I don't think there is a more gun crazy nation than the US.

Best Response
Oct 2, 2017
papertiger:

this is what happens when you have a culture where johnny starts a gun obsession right from middle school .

I don't get Americans and guns but my white friends in school were amazed by machine guns, Call of Duty, etcetera.

I don't think there is a more gun crazy nation than the US.

And yet if you remove inner city African American crime from the books, violent crime in the U.S. is essentially on par with the rest of the developed world. As I've said repeatedly on WSO, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. This is yet another area where the statistics indicate one thing if you fail to look at the context of the statistics themselves.

Oct 2, 2017

find a source. saying there are damn lies and statistics doesn't make whatever you say automatically a statistic.

Oct 2, 2017
papertiger:

find a source. saying there are damn lies and statistics doesn't make whatever you say automatically a statistic.

You can google this in 2 seconds. African Americans make up 13% of the population but perpetrate about half (52%) of homicides (and black people are the primary victim, btw).

Oct 2, 2017

You're correct. It's in the FBI stats. They are also misleading because they combine white hispanic.

Inner city gun violence makes up the vast majority of gun violence and deaths.

Oct 3, 2017

Middle school? You mean kindergarten.

Oct 2, 2017

Can we at least wait until the victims' blood has dried before we start trotting our arguments on motivations, policy changes and the like? Let's show some respect for the dead.

    • 1
    • 2
Oct 2, 2017

Yeah right. I have much respect for Barry O, but the president at the time stood on the stage immediately after Sandy Hook to tote liberal positions for stronger gun laws.

    • 2
Oct 2, 2017

my point precisely is there should be NO policy change, NO grieving, NO search for motivation, and NO media coverage whatsoever.

like i said before and will say again, "it's just another day at the office [of human evolution]". let it be, sort of like a social laissez faire.

    • 2
Oct 2, 2017

Not sure why everything is always so black and white, in every. single. debate? It is totally possible, and likely, that both guns and people are the problem. The proliferation of guns and easy access to them + batsh!t crazy Americans running around shooting people can coexist simultaneously as two discrete problems. Not sure why people struggle with this.

    • 3
Oct 2, 2017

This is probably true. But I think OP has a point. While gun nuts probably need to allow some restrictions (NRA) the problem is deflected if libs decide they'll just wipe their hands clean by signing legislation away at guns. I think that's a poor strategy. There's leverage on both ends to get something comprehensive on the table.

Oct 2, 2017

so you're into eugenics and generally exterminating certain people. got it.
i mean. gun control is a pre req for people control, according to you.
ideal, but unrealistic and somewhat immoral.

    • 2
Oct 2, 2017

yeah totally agree. you can remove guns but the malicious intent is something at the very element of human-like behavior.

animals kill for food or safety. humans are the only species that kill for a third reason.
if not guns, it would be something else.

D.I.

Oct 2, 2017

It's unfortunate that 50+ people are dead and, without condolences, the first thread related to the tragedy are on the merits (or lack thereof) of gun control. Of course, the usual suspects will bandy about their usual viewpoint that is derived from their usual political stances. This thread is going to go nowhere and is basically the definition of Polarization and Anger: A WSO Story. It'd be great if this thread just gets shut down, it's going to end up pointless at best and callous/ straight up offensive at worst.

    • 4
    • 6
Oct 3, 2017

Bob is right on this. It's just become tiresome and dispiriting watching people filter all these events through their political lens and then championing the same tired tropes.

MonacoMonkey initiates the thread with perhaps his most unintelligible, pseudo intellectual babble to date on the human condition and its susceptibility to pretend castle scenarios.

TNA discharging his typical misanthropy and nihilism.

Dachshunds using it as a platform to peddle his antipathy for urban America, with, no surprise, an overt emphasis on race.

I would have thought that the human element in a massacre of this magnitude would warrant a degree of reflection or solemnity. Instead, it's the typical hyper politicized bullshit steeped in MonacoMonkey's unbearable and incoherent moralizing.

The conviction and absolutes these arguments are framed in are galling. Gun control is a matter of individual liberties being at odds with a collective safety. The safety argument, if you rely on the actual data, is incontrovertible. But, depending on how you weight the two ends and where you fall on the continuum, a legitimate argument can still be made for ceding degrees of safety for some additional breadth in liberty.

It would be refreshing to have a thoughtful discussion on the dynamic above, but not if it involves wading through the bullshit that's already occupied this thread.

    • 7
    • 3
Oct 3, 2017

1) the right to bear arms is enshrined in our bill of rights. It isn't nihilism. These freedoms have consequences.

2) all guns were purchased legally. Guy went through appropriate background checks, all guns were semi automatic.

3) individual apparently has no history of mental illness.

So all this posturing is simply using a national tragedy to advance freedom restricting policies.

Oct 3, 2017

There are reports out that the guy was also a federal employee at both the IRS and Post office.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

Oct 3, 2017
Schreckstoff:

Dachshunds using it as a platform to peddle his antipathy for urban America, with, no surprise, an overt emphasis on race.

Are you mental? I didn't bring up anything. I was directly responding to a poster saying that white America's obsession with guns was bizarre and is what's leading to gun violence. If you can dispute the facts that I put forward then I challenge you to do so--go ahead and defeat the argument.

Oct 3, 2017

Your post was correct to highlight the fact that gun stats are skewed.

Shreck pulls out the race baiting card, when in reality, gun violence could be drastically reduced by simply helping the inner city community.

Alas, restricting American rights is easier than helping the democrats voting base. Just like ID laws. Only give a shit when your old faithful voting base can't pull the lever for a Democrat.

Oct 3, 2017
TNA:

Your post was correct to highlight the fact that gun stats are skewed.

Shreck pulls out the race baiting card, when in reality, gun violence could be drastically reduced by simply helping the inner city community.

Alas, restricting American rights is easier than helping the democrats voting base. Just like ID laws. Only give a shit when your old faithful voting base can't pull the lever for a Democrat.

Exactly. The left hates guns because of what they represent--a check against the authority/power of government--and they use gun violence statistics as an argument for shutting down the right to keep and bear arms. The facts presented in their proper context dispute the argument that gun control is needed to stop gun violence, since what is really needed is inner city reform, help, new leadership, etc.

Oct 3, 2017

Here's another one you you'll like.

Illegal immigrants kill numerous Americans. The left always says that it isnt that frequent to trump the rights of humans to not be sent back to their country.

Interesting how they flip flop on events whenever it suits them.

This is sad, we should do more for mental illness and inner city poverty, but we should not restrict fundamental rights of Americans.

And if people don't like these rights, move to Europe so you can be run over instead of shot.

Oct 3, 2017

There is not a topic where more strategic and deliberate distortion is sewn into the discussion than gun control. It's not even a polarizing issue amongst the general public--93% of Americans believe that common sense measures, like background checks should be required for all purchases. Personally, I think there are other obvious restrictions that should fall under this umbrella, silencers, extended mags, semi-automatics, armor piercing rounds, etc. The following feels like a simple and obvious rule of thumb, if it was specifically designed to maximize the amount of casualties then I'd prefer regular citizens not to have access to it.

We regulate substances and restrict freedoms in other areas applying a very similar heuristic to the one outlined above. As a citizen, I'm not allowed to own plutonium because of the inherent threat my possession poses to others, regardless of my intent or enshrined principles of freedom. Once 9/11 made it painfully clear that planes could be used as an instrument to carry out massacres, we put heavy restrictions on who was and wasn't allowed to fly on them. It's completely and utterly asinine that people who cannot board an aircraft for fear that they may weaponize it can still buy a semi-automatic weapon. These measures are not draconian infringements on individual liberties. They're a necessary barrier to safeguard against a civilian being able to kill 50+ people and injure another 500 in a matter of minutes.

These are the sorts of policies that people want to see passed. Not an annulment of the second amendment. That always has and always will be a straw-man propagated by the NRA to prevent people from seeing the common ground. They have distorted the Overton window on gun control so severely that any form of regulation is tantamount to a defilement of the second amendment.

No these precautions and measures will not prevent mass shootings but they would have a material impact on the amount of senseless carnage inflicted each time. This is not a universal problem nor is it insignificant as you keep implying. There needs to be a sense of agency in regards to reducing mass shootings and not this infuriating passive acceptance that continues to be propagated.

    • 5
    • 1
Oct 3, 2017

So many straw man arguments that I don't even know where to begin. Jesus Christ.

Schreckstoff:

There is not a topic where more strategic and deliberate distortion is sewn into the discussion than gun control. It's not even a polarizing issue amongst the general public--93% of Americans believe that common sense measures, like background checks should be required for all purchases.

In most states, this is already a law, and universal background checks (e.g. private sales) is the law in 9 states.

Schreckstoff:

Personally, I think there are other obvious restrictions that should fall under this umbrella, silencers, extended mags, semi-automatics, armor piercing rounds, etc. The following feels like a simple and obvious rule of thumb, if it was specifically designed to maximize the amount of casualties then I'd prefer regular citizens not to have access to it.

Silencers: already banned
Extended magazines: regulated in about half the U.S. population
Semi-automatics: do you even know what you're talking about? A semi-automatic weapon is just a weapon that is not automatic and performs automatic discharges. It still requires you to actually pull the trigger to shoot 1 bullet. This is 150-year-old technology that you could never get off the streets.

Schreckstoff:

We regulate substances and restrict freedoms in other areas applying a very similar heuristic to the one outlined above. As a citizen, I'm not allowed to own plutonium because of the inherent threat my possession poses to others, regardless of my intent or enshrined principles of freedom. Once 9/11 made it painfully clear that planes could be used as an instrument to carry out massacres, we put heavy restrictions on who was and wasn't allowed to fly on them. It's completely and utterly asinine that people who cannot board an aircraft for fear that they may weaponize it can still buy a semi-automatic weapon. These measures are not draconian infringements on individual liberties. There're a necessary barrier to safeguard against a civilian being able to kill 50+ people and injure another 500 in a matter of minutes.

These are the sorts of policies that people want to see passed. Not an annulment of the second amendment. That always has and always will be a straw-man propagated by the NRA to prevent people from seeing the common ground. They have distorted the Overton window on gun control so severely that any form of regulation is tantamount to a defilement of the second amendment.

No these precautions and measures will not prevent mass shootings but they would have a material impact on the amount of senseless carnage inflicted each time. This is not a universal problem nor is it insignificant as you keep implying. There needs to be a sense of agency in regards to reducing mass shootings and not this infuriating passive acceptance that continues to be propagated.

The rest of this garbage is just pure straw man bullshit. Nobody is arguing for zero regulation. Guns are already regulated in the U.S. What we're saying is that every time there is a mass shooting the left tries to use it as a pretense for more regulation, even though the proposed regulations almost never actually have anything to do with the shooting in question.

Oct 3, 2017

With people like this in the country I guess I'll have to keep writing checks to the NRA and GOA.

Oct 3, 2017

The left is trying to align policy with public opinion on these issues. Look at public opinion polling on everything I just outlined. Its readily available. The reason we have to relitigate common sense gun control after every mass shooting is because its the only time there is a remote possibility of the GOP officials yielding to the will of the public and not their financial-backers.

If you disagree, fine. Make a case for why the majority of people are wrong. If its our inner cities, explain why other OECD nations, all of which have inner cities don't share our problems. Or, keep implying that the needless lives lost each year to indiscriminate gun violence is insignificant.

Either way, I'm out of this conversation. You've made your intransigence clear.

Oct 3, 2017
Schreckstoff:

The left is trying to align policy with public opinion on these issues. Look at public opinion polling on everything I just outlined. Its readily available. The reason we have to relitigate common sense gun control after every mass shooting is because its the only time there is a remote possibility of the GOP officials yielding to the will of the public and not their financial-backers.

If you disagree, fine. Make a case for why the majority of people are wrong. If its our inner cities, explain why other OECD nations, all of which have inner cities don't share our problems. Or, keep implying that the needless lives lost each year to indiscriminate gun violence is insignificant.

Either way, I'm out of this conversation. You've made your intransigence clear.

You obviously didn't read my response at all. We already have commonsense gun control in most of the U.S. If you can name a mass shooting and then label the specific gun control measure that would have prevented it, then I would be at least open-minded to it. Responding to the Las Vegas mass shooting with a call to ban "armor-piercing bullets" is to use the shooting as a pretense to regulate and nothing more.

Oct 3, 2017

I'd like to see the wording of the questions since we already have background checks, waiting periods, restrictions on silencers and fully automatic weapons.

As for other countries with ghettos, maybe it's a combo of drug legalization and more social programs. Or maybe the absence of Democrat politicians.

Either way, we live in a Republic and the will of the bleating and braying masses can be listened to as long as they do not run afoul of the Constitution. I'm sure down south the will of the people want religion in school. Doesn't make it so.

Oct 4, 2017

Again, the reason this will be debated after every mass shooting is because the majority of Americans want to see these laws enacted at the federal level. The general populace of voters on both sides is tired of watching elected officials cower to the NRA, even if you're not.

This is not a normative argument about whether or not the constituents are right, but that right or wrong there is a united, bi-partisan desire for these policies.

Oct 4, 2017

You keep making the same straw man arguments. Jesus!

There are already laws in place to address the mentally ill obtaining weapons. Both parties support preventing people on the no-fly list from getting guns, but the Democrats want to remove due process (kind of like how they want to remove due process for those accused of rape on campus), which is why the 2 sides can't agree. Assault weapons ban was tried and proved little to no value in preventing gun crimes.

Reality--handguns are the most commonly used weapon in gun crimes, yet most of the Democrats' ideas to stop gun violence center on high capacity magazines, assault weapons bans, and background checks, which have little to do with the gun crime problem in America. All these proposals are worth is virtue signaling.

Oct 4, 2017

Dude, you need to either learn or refresh your memory on what constitutes a straw man. Between your incessant cries of straw man and "lies, damn lies, and statistics" I'm not sure you have a concrete grasp on basic logical fallacies or statistics.

A strong man is intentionally misrepresenting, distorting, or exaggerating to extremum an opposing argument in order to defeat it. I'm not refuting anything in the above post, I'm simply positing why there are calls for increased gun regulation after every mass shooting.

You are the one that keeps implying its because people just erroneously assume it would have prevented the preceding mass shooting. This is you creating a straw man. The reason you see straw mans everywhere is because you keep creating them. You are like a Far Right Don Quixote running around fighting your own straw man windmills convinced your civilizing the forum.

I have repeatedly said that the outcry for regulation is the direct consequence of a large disconnect between the policies supported by the public and what is currently enacted. Every mass shooting serves as a lightning rod that shines a light on this divide and creates a publicized opportunity to close it.

    • 2
Oct 4, 2017
Schreckstoff:

Dude, you need to either learn or refresh your memory on what constitutes a straw man. Between your incessant cries of straw man and "lies, damn lies, and statistics" I'm not sure you have a concrete grasp on basic logical fallacies or statistics.

A strong man is intentionally misrepresenting, distorting, or exaggerating to extremum an opposing argument in order to defeat it.

You're INTENTIONALLY misrepresenting the issue by stating that you're in favor of "reasonable" gun control measures. It's misrepresenting the facts because in many cases, the ideas you're putting forth ALREADY exist or they've already failed in the past.

Schreckstoff:

You are the one that keeps implying its because people just erroneously assume it would have prevented the preceding mass shooting.

This is a provable lie! In most instances in this thread I've talked about gun violence at large, not mass shootings. You're literally lying.

Schreckstoff:

This is you creating a straw man. The reason you see straw mans everywhere is because you keep creating them.

Name one. I challenge you to name one.

Your issue is the same as the other leftists in this thread--1) you know nothing about guns; 2) you keep calling for gun control measures that already exist; 3) you propose gun control measures that have almost nothing to do with gun violence in America.

Oct 4, 2017

Hillary Clinton just railed against "silencers".

Oct 4, 2017
TheGrind:

Hillary Clinton just railed against "silencers".

LOL. That's because the typical Democrats knows literally nothing about guns.

Oct 3, 2017

There's nothing more to say in this thread honestly. It's just becoming the same shit over and over. Zero appreciation for evidence or perspective, total absolutes, misdirection, and regurgitation of talking points. Truly unfortunate that this is what "debate" has become, even on a forum full of educated users like WSO.

    • 4
    • 1
Oct 3, 2017

What exactly is political?

1) the right to bear arms has been affirmed by SCOTUS.

2) gun violence stats are skewed disproportionately by inner city violence.

3) there are pros and cons to Constiutional rights - hate speech, gun violence, etc.

4) reducing gun violence can be done without infringing on any rights.

5) the guns used in this horrible crime were

A) legal
B) semi automatic C) went through all required background checks.

The shooter has no apparent history of mental illness. He was apparently not poor with no criminal history.

Short of seizing guns and wholesale banning, what is the political argument.

And outside of discussing the actual issue, should we have a thread with 100 posts where everyone cries and posts platitudes?

People are having a discussion on politics, philosophy,weighing rights vs security, and your posts amount to sour grapes this isn't a sob fest.

Oct 3, 2017

plenty of evidence.

Legally bought guns. Background check. No mental health issues. No criminal record. Semi auto rifles. All legal.

That's the facts you can't seem to find. Why comment if you don't even care about what is really going on?

Oct 3, 2017

I care plenty and was preparing a response but now understand that it is guaranteed to fall on deaf ears. I regret commenting altogether, so you're right about that.

    • 4
Oct 3, 2017

We all regret your comments.

What facts do you want to debate?

If your stance is repeal the 2nd, fine. An all out gun ban would probably have stopped thisbguy. It won't stop inner city violence, the main reason the US stats are so high.

Unless you support repealing the 4th amendment. And building a wall. And giving police more powers.

But then you'd need to repeal the first amendment to silence people who don't want this security. Might as well trash the whole thing at that point.

Oct 3, 2017

Lately I regret coming to this website entirely

Oct 3, 2017

sorry to hear...I actually learn from reading people who disagree. Even though both sides use straw men, ad hominems, etc...

Incredibly tragic shooting. Some of the videos were horrifying and easily could have been my friends or family out there. My thoughts and prayers go out to all the families impacted.

Sad, sad day.

    • 1
Oct 3, 2017

Society instantly went into the gun control debate after this event unfolded. Politicians and public personalities immediately pointed their finger and said "look at what has happened we must act." The debate is very real and very much at the very core of the the US identity as a nation. Saying that any discussion should not be allowed is simply putting your head in the sand.

Oct 3, 2017
Ehmerica:

Society instantly went into the gun control debate after this event unfolded. Politicians and public personalities immediately pointed their finger and said "look at what has happened we must act." The debate is very real and very much at the very core of the the US identity as a nation. Saying that any discussion should not be allowed is simply putting your head in the sand.

Exactly. The left started the debate around 3 am yesterday.

Learn More

Side-by-side comparison of top modeling training courses + exclusive discount through WSO here.

Oct 2, 2017
MonacoMonkey:

You see it all the time, whether the blame is put on an ideology, religion, guns (as we are seeing in Vegas), lover betrayal, debts, or even a mental illness. Yes, all of these are "cop outs", a way for the average person to distance him or herself ideologically from the perpetrator, since physically, we are inescapably identical.

When Johnny's foot knocks over a plant pot, Johnny is to blame. There is no cop out. Johnny is at fault, his foot is the reason the plant pot fell and broke.

On the same note, there is an underlying reason for this man's behavior. There was a chain of events that happened to this person likely involving increases in stress causing a reaction in his mind to take place likely leading to psychosis and irrational behavior. Mental illness is likely the core reason.

I don't know how you think we are 'inescapably identical'. If our bodies look different from one another, our brains are vastly more complex and different from each other. This has to be one of the worst assumptions of humans I have ever heard. Did you even study science?

MonacoMonkey:

Why can't we come to terms with the truth and reality of human tendencies? The fact that we are all capable of such acts if we were put in certain circumstances (unknown to ourselves or others). And that any weapon used is not a separate entity with its own intentions, but merely an extension of our psyche. Most importantly, why can't we concede that there is absolutely nothing we can do to prevent attacks on humans by humans?

Nothing we can do to prevent attacks? Are you daft, man? This statement is lacking significant logic.

"If you always put limits on everything you do, physical or anything else, it will spread into your work and into your life. There are no limits. There are only plateaus, and you must not stay there, you must go beyond them." - Bruce Lee

    • 1
Oct 2, 2017

I sure didn't study science, but I'm sure the folks over at the National Human Genome Research Institute did.

And according to them, the similarity between the human genome (DNA) share:
80% similarity with a cow
90% similarity with a cat
96% similarity with chimpanzees
and yes, unfortunately for your thesis,
99.9% similarity with another random human.

humans are remarkably identical. the next time someone tells you how special you are, remember to smack them.

and to your last bit of nonsense. well, I have no words. it's so foolish I don't know what to say. the day humans stop harming/killing other humans is the way we're extinct. i didn't study science (that's not my job), but did you "even study life"?

    • 2
Oct 2, 2017
MonacoMonkey:

And according to them, the similarity between the human genome (DNA) share:
80% similarity with a cow
90% similarity with a cat
96% similarity with chimpanzees
and yes, unfortunately for your thesis,
99.9% similarity with another random human.

You said 'we are inescapably identical'

Now you're all talking 'similar' 'percentages'. and DNA, when I'm referring to human behavior.

Nice try, good stats,

but, thank you come again.

"If you always put limits on everything you do, physical or anything else, it will spread into your work and into your life. There are no limits. There are only plateaus, and you must not stay there, you must go beyond them." - Bruce Lee

    • 1
Oct 2, 2017

maybe you're not proficient at English, or something else. but "similarity" means amount of a certain object that is alike with another.

so for example. 100% similarity = identical.
i'd say $99.90 on the Benjamin isn't too far off.

here's the scientific source, if you're interested - http://read.bi/2wuKjGe

    • 2
Oct 2, 2017
MonacoMonkey:

maybe you're not proficient at English, or something else. but "similarity" means amount of a certain object that is alike with another.

so for example. 100% similarity = identical.
i'd say $99.90 on the Benjamin isn't too far off.

Maybe you're not proficient in English, but "identical" and "similar" are different words with different meanings.

You're arguing about DNA. I'm talking about behavior.

You say a chimp is similar. Lets compare two monozygotic twins.

" So, at some point during cell division (before 14 days post-conception), identical twin embryos share virtually all of their DNA. During early fetal development, however, identical twins undergo more than 300 genetic mutations, or copy errors, on average. As human cells divide trillions of times during their lifespan, a few hundred genetic mutations could lead to millions or trillions of genetic differences in the DNA of identical twins over the years. Chemical factors can furthermore activate or suppress gene expression, which means that the same subset of genetic material can lead to the formation of different proteins."

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-superhuma...
Do you understand what i'm getting at? The developmental differences after near identical DNA (much higher than 99.9% chimp) still have such a vast amount of variables after that point which makes them in no way identical.

After all of that, decades after brain development and years of exposure to stimuli, we are all behaviorally very different beings.

"If you always put limits on everything you do, physical or anything else, it will spread into your work and into your life. There are no limits. There are only plateaus, and you must not stay there, you must go beyond them." - Bruce Lee

    • 3
Oct 3, 2017

sorry but if you cannot understand that "100% similar" is THE SAME AS being identical, then we're not on speaking/debating terms. best of luck.

    • 3
Oct 3, 2017
  • MonacoMonkey:

    sorry but if you cannot understand that "100% similar" is THE SAME AS being identical, then we're not on speaking/debating terms. best of luck.

I didn't say 100% similar / I said identical. No one says 100% similar. Apparently you can't read and you're just digging a hole. Hooked on phonics didn't work for you.

"If you always put limits on everything you do, physical or anything else, it will spread into your work and into your life. There are no limits. There are only plateaus, and you must not stay there, you must go beyond them." - Bruce Lee

Oct 3, 2017
MonacoMonkey:

I sure didn't study science, but I'm sure the folks over at the National Human Genome Research Institute did.

And according to them, the similarity between the human genome (DNA) share:
80% similarity with a cow
90% similarity with a cat
96% similarity with chimpanzees
and yes, unfortunately for your thesis,
99.9% similarity with another random human.

humans are remarkably identical. the next time someone tells you how special you are, remember to smack them.

and to your last bit of nonsense. well, I have no words. it's so foolish I don't know what to say. the day humans stop harming/killing other humans is the way we're extinct. i didn't study science (that's not my job), but did you "even study life"?

Did you consider that if the 4% difference is distinct enough to render something an entirely different animal, that a .1% difference is still extremely vast? Obviously we're all similar, however the value in articulating our existence is found in understanding the nuance of the differences.

To be honest though, I'm just impressed you were able to say something dumber than your original post.

    • 1
Oct 4, 2017
Bonds.Aye:

To be honest though, I'm just impressed you were able to say something dumber than your original post.

lol right?

"If you always put limits on everything you do, physical or anything else, it will spread into your work and into your life. There are no limits. There are only plateaus, and you must not stay there, you must go beyond them." - Bruce Lee

Oct 3, 2017

Lets not forget how many people Timothy McVeigh killed (168) people and injured (over 600) without pulling a single trigger.

So many just want to look around the real root cause which is most often mental illness.

Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.

    • 1
Oct 3, 2017

Idk if I believe in this mental illness theory anymore. I mean, if a person doesn't think there is a god, what kind of peace do they need once they're dead. These shooters almost always take their own life and probably always planned to do so. People used to think it was inappropriate to act out this way, given their belief in forever being cursed in the afterlife. But isn't that the whole theory in the 'other' religions. No afterlife, no god, no peace, no limits in the universe. I think people are scared to admit that this is probably the likely cause of these insanely scary acts. I read a line today that police were searching for a cause after they found this guy was a penchant retiree in his mid-sixties with no links to terrorism and no history of mental issues. Let's be real here.

    • 2
    • 1
Oct 3, 2017

Wait, you honestly believe a lack of belief in a god/afterlife is why these nut jobs kill all these people? What the actual fuck?

Oct 3, 2017

You don't think it's plausible? I get that religious people do some fucked up stuff in the name of religion, so I can see where your doubts come from. But, yes, I think that level stupidity can go both ways and in the opposite direction. Some lunatic wants to test the limits of their limitless world. In reality, it's probably more to do with economics and societal factors. Culturally, we're going down a bad path with all of these idealistic expectations. This guy and a lot of other people think they have to take action to correct something they view as a wrong in society. The question is where does this come from and exactly what do think they're fixing? Mental disorder is a quick and fast way of writing them off, as well as stricter gun laws. Only the former makes an attempt, although a bit of a half-hearted one.

    • 1
Oct 3, 2017

It's plausible in the literal sense that, yes, someone might rationalize abhorrent behavior on the bases you describe. I disagree with your generalization of this being the likely cause of multiple or even all similar attacks.

To your point about mental illness, I guess it depends to some extent on whether crazed acts in the name of religion/atheism/prejudice/whatever stem from the coherent thoughts of rational individuals acting in accordance with their beliefs or whether, in itself, a willingness to grossly violate commonly held norms around murder demonstrates a form of mental illness. If the latter, then whether someone is religious or an atheist doesn't matter, barring the presence of a mechanism in one or the other that fundamentally increases the propensity of this mental instability. Even then, generalizing to the extent that all religious people or all atheists or even all racists will be equally subject to such a mechanism is not correct.

I realize this last bit might edge into the realm of philosophizing, but I'm basically trying to point out that it's unproductive to make sweeping judgements about motives.

    • 3
Oct 3, 2017
Cov:

It's plausible in the literal sense that, yes, someone might rationalize abhorrent behavior on the bases you describe. I disagree with your generalization of this being the likely cause of multiple or even all similar attacks.

To your point about mental illness, I guess it depends to some extent on whether crazed acts in the name of religion/atheism/prejudice/whatever stem from the coherent thoughts of rational individuals acting in accordance with their beliefs or whether, in itself, a willingness to grossly violate commonly held norms around murder demonstrates a form of mental illness. Hopefully that makes sense.

In this case, the guy either snapped randomly, which seems like a low probability after his 66 years of living, or he always had mental illnesses that weren't recorded in the past. If the latter is the case, then why now? Why not become another columbine shooter? So, I think it still points to the first case--this guy snapped out of nowhere? But what is the cause?

So yes he's violating some norms, but is it from a lack of understanding or from extremists contradicting his beliefs and pushing him to the edge out of frustration and exhaustion? Extreme whatever is less flexible and breaks easily. That's how I would describe commies, fascists, ISIS, etc.

    • 2
Oct 3, 2017
iBankedUp:
Cov:

It's plausible in the literal sense that, yes, someone might rationalize abhorrent behavior on the bases you describe. I disagree with your generalization of this being the likely cause of multiple or even all similar attacks.

To your point about mental illness, I guess it depends to some extent on whether crazed acts in the name of religion/atheism/prejudice/whatever stem from the coherent thoughts of rational individuals acting in accordance with their beliefs or whether, in itself, a willingness to grossly violate commonly held norms around murder demonstrates a form of mental illness. Hopefully that makes sense.

In this case, the guy either snapped randomly, which seems like a low probability after his 66 years of living, or he always had mental illnesses that weren't recorded in the past. If the latter is the case, then why now? Why not become another columbine shooter? So, I think it still points to the first case--this guy snapped out of nowhere? But what is the cause?

So yes he's violating some norms, but is it from a lack of understanding or from extremists contradicting his beliefs and pushing him to the edge out of frustration and exhaustion? Extreme whatever is less flexible and breaks easily. That's how I would describe commies, fascists, ISIS, etc.

I'll admit,speaking about the onset of mental illness takes me out of my depth. But for the sake of argument, it's not completely unusual to hear about old people starting to lose it or go crazy. Have they done an autopsy yet? I'd be curious to know if that could reveal anything interesting.

Anyway, say this guy snapped. I wasn't implying he violated norms unknowingly but rather positing that perhaps this willingness to violate them should, itself, be considered indicative of mental illness. It doesn't matter what was driving him, be it frustration, exhaustion, or what have you. His willingness to shoot up a concert implies that he snapped. Healthy people simply don't do that kind of thing.

    • 3
Oct 4, 2017
iBankedUp:

Idk if I believe in this mental illness theory anymore. I mean, if a person doesn't think there is a god, what kind of peace do they need once they're dead.

So if a person doesn't believe in God, one day they might decide to shoot people up innocently standing there for shits and giggles? Yeah that sounds like a neurological issue to me.

"If you always put limits on everything you do, physical or anything else, it will spread into your work and into your life. There are no limits. There are only plateaus, and you must not stay there, you must go beyond them." - Bruce Lee

Oct 3, 2017

Obviously, anyone that wants to kill a large amount of people is mentally ill. However, the danger in using that as the only logic is it opens a lot of doors. People who are experiencing mental illness for the first time may avoid treatment because they are afraid of losing their rights (i know for a fact that this happens). This then leaves someone who is not seeking help and now has access to a weapon. The other side of the coin is bringing up with your doctor that you have been down, they then mark it as depression, boom you are now mentally ill and may have sacrificed your rights.

    • 1
Oct 3, 2017
Ehmerica:

Obviously, anyone that wants to kill a large amount of people is mentally ill. However, the danger in using that as the only logic is it opens a lot of doors. People who are experiencing mental illness for the first time may avoid treatment because they are afraid of losing their rights (i know for a fact that this happens). This then leaves someone who is not seeking help and now has access to a weapon. The other side of the coin is bringing up with your doctor that you have been down, they then mark it as depression, boom you are now mentally ill and may have sacrificed your rights.

There are two issues I have this position:

  1. No one is capabable of self-diagnosing a mental disorder. Even if they tried, you're right Pandora's box is opened. And what if they took it to that place and then found out later that it wasn't actually the true case.
  2. If someone is mentally ill, what control will kick in so that they actually seek help? It won't happen in the real world. Some 2nd person would need to speak up and step in, which again is dangerous.
    • 2
Oct 3, 2017

My issue was not that people who are mentally ill cause issues, rather, it is with the stigma associated. Using mental illness as a paint brush to try and prevent future atrocities will prevent people from seeking help - which yes people do. They may not go "oh Shit, I'm a paranoid schizophrenic" but they may go "oh weird the couch is talking to me." And yes, not every person is going to seek help, that is a fact of life. However, legislating them from a right is not going to help solve the problem.

    • 2
Oct 3, 2017
Ehmerica:

My issue was not that people who are mentally ill cause issues, rather, it is with the stigma associated. Using mental illness as a paint brush to try and prevent future atrocities will prevent people from seeking help - which yes people do. They may not go "oh Shit, I'm a paranoid schizophrenic" but they may go "oh weird the couch is talking to me." And yes, not every person is going to seek help, that is a fact of life. However, legislating them from a right is not going to help solve the problem.

Ok. I agree that we shouldn't stigmatize mental disorders and that any time someone kills a large number of non-combatant people, they're mentally ill. But I guess what I'm saying is, how do you diagnose it before that person commits the act? It would seemingly be hard to do it. If we say not stigmatizing it will lead to more people getting help, ok. But culturally, it's hard to stop people from feeling, or joking, that anyone crazy enough to go bizerk on hundreds of innocent people is not normal. It is a joke to think otherwise. People aren't that good or smart. But I'm all for it if it happens in real life.

    • 3
Oct 3, 2017

To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson:
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of innocents."

Americans need to be honest with themselves. It's just the price you have to pay for your principles, nothing more and nothing less.

    • 2
    • 1
Oct 3, 2017
Martinghoul:

To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson:
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of innocents."

What?

"If you always put limits on everything you do, physical or anything else, it will spread into your work and into your life. There are no limits. There are only plateaus, and you must not stay there, you must go beyond them." - Bruce Lee

Oct 3, 2017

What what?

    • 1
Oct 3, 2017

Go away troll
1) your quote isn't even accurate
2) this is not remotely what he was referring to

Oct 3, 2017
FrkWhite:

Go away troll
1) your quote isn't even accurate
2) this is not remotely what he was referring to

1) I said I was paraphrasing, rather than quoting. Hopefully, you're familiar with the term.
2) My comment echoes what other people have said in this thread. I am agreeing with the sentiment expressed.

    • 1
Oct 3, 2017

Your comment doesn't echo anything, its nonsense. Its not even clear what point you were trying to make by paraphrasing and distorting the meaning of that quote. Look.... I can do it too, "give me liberty or give me bananas"

Oct 3, 2017

If you say so...

Oct 3, 2017

Clearly, I was being misunderstood here...

The statement I made paraphrasing Jefferson was not to convey some sort of a judgement. I was agreeing with comments posted by, among others, TNA earlier in this thread. The death of innocent people from time to time is simply the price to pay for the freedom enshrined in the Constitution. Whether the price is too high or too low is for the American people collectively to decide.

    • 1
Oct 3, 2017

Vox has an interesting series of charts showing basically that more guns no matter what country /state = more homicides.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/2/...
Which isn't hard to understand, give people the best tool to kill others and it will inevitably happen.

Oct 3, 2017

We have been through this time and again. The issue of gun violence is largely an issue in the inner city poor communities. You're presenting these statistics where the purpose is to 1) show the problem and then 2) suggest the solution. The obvious inference is that to reduce gun violence the U.S. needs to continue to regulate gun ownership more. The actual conclusion should be that in order to reduce gun violence, the inner city communities need to remove the Democratic party from power. And yes, even then, the U.S. will have more gun violence per capita, but that's the price of freedom.

Oct 3, 2017

@Dances with Dachshunds

Obviously missed the chart where it shows per capita homicide rate by state and % gun ownership of households. Wyoming, Alaska, Montana.. lot's of inner city violence there right?

Also explain Switzerland and others..

Oct 3, 2017
dlrulz:

@Dances with Dachshunds

Obviously missed the chart where it shows per capita homicide rate by state and % gun ownership of households. Wyoming, Alaska, Montana.. lot's of inner city violence there right?

Also explain Switzerland and others..

You obviously missed where I acknowledged that we would still have more gun crime per capita, even if you eliminated all inner city homicides, but it would drastically reduce the differences between countries.

Oct 3, 2017
Dances with Dachshunds:
dlrulz:

@Dances with Dachshunds

Obviously missed the chart where it shows per capita homicide rate by state and % gun ownership of households. Wyoming, Alaska, Montana.. lot's of inner city violence there right?

Also explain Switzerland and others..

You obviously missed where I acknowledged that we would still have more gun crime per capita, even if you eliminated all inner city homicides, but it would drastically reduce the differences between countries.

That's all great and good.. how does one go about that? Changing from Democratic to republican will do none of the sort. Perhaps it has something to do with easy access to guns? Tougher policing, or community policing, ie NYC and LA? Probably it's all of those things combined. But just regurgitating the old it's the our freedom and etc, is BS.

    • 1
Oct 3, 2017
dlrulz:
Dances with Dachshunds:
dlrulz:

@Dances with Dachshunds

Obviously missed the chart where it shows per capita homicide rate by state and % gun ownership of households. Wyoming, Alaska, Montana.. lot's of inner city violence there right?

Also explain Switzerland and others..

You obviously missed where I acknowledged that we would still have more gun crime per capita, even if you eliminated all inner city homicides, but it would drastically reduce the differences between countries.

That's all great and good.. how does one go about that? Changing from Democratic to republican will do none of the sort. Perhaps it has something to do with easy access to guns? Tougher policing, or community policing, ie NYC and LA? Probably it's all of those things combined. But just regurgitating the old it's the our freedom and etc, is BS.

How do you go about kicking out the Democrats? It starts with exercising another right--the right to vote.

Oct 3, 2017

Having a republican mayor will not suddenly bring down gang violence in Chicago and other cities, nor will it stop the flow of guns coming into the city from Indiana or suburbs.

Oct 3, 2017

I didn't want to continue posting in this thread but, alas, I can't help myself from engaging in the hopeless.

1.) So you agree that our abundance of guns leads to more gun deaths than the rest of the developed world, even adjusting for inner city violence, just not "too many more" - got it. It would be great if you would explain why this is acceptable to you.
2.) You keep referring to inner city gun violence as if our gun culture and the ease of getting guns in this country (legally or otherwise) isn't a contributing factor on that issue, I find that to be extremely misleading.
3.) Can you please post hard numbers/ or a study on gun crime that removes gang violence? I have yet to see a single quantitative piece of evidence from you, just a narrative, as usual.

    • 2
Oct 3, 2017
BobTheBaker:

1.) So you agree that our abundance of guns leads to more gun deaths than the rest of the developed world, even adjusting for inner city violence, just not "too many more" - got it.

Yes, and the right to speak increases the level of discord in a society. Freedom comes with a price.

BobTheBaker:

2.) You keep referring to inner city gun violence as if our gun culture and the ease of getting guns in this country (legally or otherwise) isn't a contributing factor on that issue, I find that to be extremely misleading.

It certainly may be a contributing factor, but because the inner city black community commits a disproportionate amount of homicides and abuses American freedoms doesn't mean the public policy response should be to strip me of my rights.

BobTheBaker:

3.) Can you please post hard numbers/ or a study on gun crime that removes gang violence? I have yet to see not a single quantitative piece of evidence from you, just a narrative, as usual.

African Americans commit 52% of homicides in the U.S. I don't think these murderers are hanging out in rural Kentucky. Put 2 and 2 together.

Oct 3, 2017
Dances with Dachshunds:
BobTheBaker:

1.) So you agree that our abundance of guns leads to more gun deaths than the rest of the developed world, even adjusting for inner city violence, just not "too many more" - got it.

Yes, and the right to speak increases the level of discord in a society. Freedom comes with a price.

BobTheBaker:

2.) You keep referring to inner city gun violence as if our gun culture and the ease of getting guns in this country (legally or otherwise) isn't a contributing factor on that issue, I find that to be extremely misleading.

It certainly may be a contributing factor, but because the inner city black community commits a disproportionate amount of homicides and abuses American freedoms doesn't mean the public policy response should be to strip me of my rights.

BobTheBaker:

3.) Can you please post hard numbers/ or a study on gun crime that removes gang violence? I have yet to see not a single quantitative piece of evidence from you, just a narrative, as usual.

African Americans commit 52% of homicides in the U.S. I don't think these murderers are hanging out in rural Kentucky. Put 2 and 2 together.

Yet you're statistically more likely to get killed by a gun in Kentucky than IL, or majority of other states that have high inner city violence and black population.

    • 1
Oct 3, 2017
dlrulz:
Dances with Dachshunds:
BobTheBaker:

1.) So you agree that our abundance of guns leads to more gun deaths than the rest of the developed world, even adjusting for inner city violence, just not "too many more" - got it.

Yes, and the right to speak increases the level of discord in a society. Freedom comes with a price.

BobTheBaker:

2.) You keep referring to inner city gun violence as if our gun culture and the ease of getting guns in this country (legally or otherwise) isn't a contributing factor on that issue, I find that to be extremely misleading.

It certainly may be a contributing factor, but because the inner city black community commits a disproportionate amount of homicides and abuses American freedoms doesn't mean the public policy response should be to strip me of my rights.

BobTheBaker:

3.) Can you please post hard numbers/ or a study on gun crime that removes gang violence? I have yet to see not a single quantitative piece of evidence from you, just a narrative, as usual.

African Americans commit 52% of homicides in the U.S. I don't think these murderers are hanging out in rural Kentucky. Put 2 and 2 together.

Yet you're statistically more likely to get killed by a gun in Kentucky than IL, or majority of other states that have high inner city violence and black population.

But that constitutes a small percentage of U.S. homicides. That's the point. When inner city blacks are committing 40-50% of murders that has a huge impact on the stats as a whole throughout the nation. Slade, KY's stats barely register on the books compared to Chicago's, even if more people per capita are murdered in Slade.

Oct 3, 2017

We're talking about gun ownership and homicide rates...these two are obviously correlated. Can we agree on that?

I just dont understand what you're arguing for besides that there is nothing we can do because it's the 2nd amendment.

Oct 3, 2017
dlrulz:

We're talking about gun ownership and homicide rates...these two are obviously correlated. Can we agree on that?

I just dont understand what you're arguing for besides that there is nothing we can do because it's the 2nd amendment.

What don't you understand? If you isolated the 87% non-African American population, the homicide rate would be more than cut in half in the U.S., which would vastly reduce the difference in gun violence measured between the U.S. and other developed countries. It wouldn't eliminate all of the difference, but it would be enough information for the public to have an informed debate between freedom and safety.

Oct 3, 2017

You keep parroting this, but it doesn't address the issue. More guns= more homicides no matter what racial group commits them. And this whole discussion was brought up in the context of mass shootings. The average person in US doesn't really care what happens in inner cities with black on black crime as it has almost no impact on them. What people do care about is the proliferation of guns and easy access to them. Do we see mass shootings in Australia or Japan? Are those countries less free?

    • 3
Oct 3, 2017
dlrulz:

You keep parroting this, but it doesn't address the issue. More guns= more homicides no matter what racial group commits them. And this whole discussion was brought up in the context of mass shootings. The average person in US doesn't really care what happens in inner cities with black on black crime as it has almost no impact on them. What people do care about is the proliferation of guns and easy access to them. Do we see mass shootings in Australia or Japan? Are those countries less free?

The statistics that YOU brought up (suggesting that YOU care) suggest that America has a gun violence problem, which it does. I'm pointing out that America has much less of a gun violence problem than what the stats show at first blush. The primary issue in America that has caused horrible gun violence statistics is poverty, policing, broken homes, and gang violence in the inner city black communities. Changing gun laws will only help gun violence on the margins and will not fix the primary rot.

Oct 3, 2017

This is almost unbelievable:

1..) You have been presented evidence that per capita gun violence is higher in states with lax gun laws, regardless of gang violence
2.) You agree that our gun culture contributes to the inner city gun violence you refer to which is the main driver of overall homicides in this country, and apparently one of your reasons for disregarding the statistics (although you can't explain away the state level stats with your bullshit narrative).

My take is that if we relaxed gun laws in the cities with inner city gang violence overall homicides and per capita deaths in the U.S. would go up even more. My take is that if we increased gun control in those lax gun law sates then per capita gun deaths in the U.S. would go down. Given these two takes part of the solution is obvious: better gun control.

Your conclusion: better gun control laws are unnecessary.

    • 4
Oct 3, 2017
BobTheBaker:

This is almost unbelievable:

1..) You have been presented evidence that per capita gun violence is higher in states with lax gun laws, regardless of gang violence
2.) You agree that our gun culture contributes to the inner city gun violence you refer to which is the main driver of overall homicides in this country, and apparently one of your reasons for disregarding the statistics (although you can't explain away the state level stats with your bullshit narrative).

My take is that if we relaxed gun laws in the cities with inner city gang violence overall homicides and per capita deaths in the U.S. would go up even more. My take is that if we increased gun control in those lax gun law sates then per capita gun deaths in the U.S. would go down. Given these two takes part of the solution is obvious: better gun control.

Your conclusion: better gun control laws are unnecessary.

I'm going to copy and paste my prevous response to dlrulz:

"If you isolated the 87% non-African American population, the homicide rate would be more than cut in half in the U.S., which would vastly reduce the difference in gun violence measured between the U.S. and other developed countries. It wouldn't eliminate all of the difference, but it would be enough information for the public to have an informed debate between freedom and safety."

The issue in the U.S. with out-of-control gun violence starts in the black community. The rest of us have to have an informed debate about how MUCH gun control we are willing to endure to save lives.

Oct 3, 2017

Gang gun violence is partly a symptom of our lax gun culture dude. The two are inter-connected and inseparable. You have yet to present any numbers by the way, just your usual flavor of racial narratives and politics. Alaska has the highest rate of gun violence in this country, are black people also driving their figures? Should Alaska not seriously look at better gun control laws? This is hopeless.

    • 1
Oct 3, 2017
BobTheBaker:

Gang gun violence is partly a symptom of our lax gun culture dude. The two are inter-connected and inseparable. You have yet to present any numbers by the way, just your usual flavor of racial narratives and politics. Alaska has the highest rate of gun violence in this country, are black people also driving their figures? Should Alaska not seriously look at better gun control laws? This is hopeless.

If gang violence is a symptom of our gun culture then why is my neighborhood not overrun by gun violence? We all have equal access to guns. There's literally a gun shop a mile from my condo.

Oct 3, 2017

Or why are gangs in cities that have the strongest gun control and restrictions.

It's not worth arguing with someone who can't pull up FBI stats and do simple math. I've had this argument probably twice a year.

Never seen so many people beg to have their rights taken from them.

Oct 3, 2017
TNA:

Or why are gangs in cities that have the strongest gun control and restrictions.

It's not worth arguing with someone who can't pull up FBI stats and do simple math. I've had this argument probably twice a year.

Here's some simple math, correlation =/= causation. That correlation equally suggests that areas with more violence thereby require more restrictions in the first place. Those restrictions don't fix everything because of other variables influencing crime (guns then act as an enabler, magnifying the damage from criminal activity), but is it possible that without those restrictions the violence in those cities could be even worse? That's what Baker Bob is arguing.

But you know what, we probably both agree that the gun restrictions have little impact in a place like, say, Chicago. My reasoning though, and something that I'm still surprised is so little touched upon, is the question of how can you expect gun restrictions to work in Chicago when Indiana sells them like candy just 20 miles down the highway?

Look up "the iron pipeline". At the end of the day, most illegal weapons (including what the guy had in vegas) were initially purchased legally. They could be given by a friend or family member with access, bought in a state with lax restrictions and then transferred across state lines (e.g. Indiana -> Chicago, or VA -> NY), stolen from legal owners (I know someone who had an entire garage full of rifles stolen while they were on vacation), or illegally modified (what the guy in Vegas did). On the other hand, I see this pervasive argument that 'people having illegal weapons shows restrictions won't work', which is absurd logic because as long as there is a legal market to supply the initial product somewhere, it's just a question of distribution or modification. Local level restrictions can only do so much provided the influence from other states with lax restrictions, hence why this needs to be tackled on a federal level. And I'd even go so far as to say that when it comes to violence in cities or states attempting to crack down on guns, some of the blood is on the hands of states that refuse to try.

I know this got a little off topic from the initial point, but I had to say it.

    • 1
Oct 3, 2017

And until guns are universally illegal and impossible to make with relatively simple machining tools, we will always have gun smuggling.

Obviously illegal guns will come locally as they are cheapest to transport. But what proves locally will also prove nationally. You ban guns in the states and they will come from mexico. Or they will come elsewhere. Banned substances create a black market.

So we will have some level of gun violence . My suggestion is to improve the lives of those who cause the majority of gun violence and allow law abiding Americans to enjoy their constitutional freedom.

Sadly, this is ignored. And the slippery slope has been proven. We have background checks, full auto ban, clip restrictions, on and on. And every event like this is just the camel trying to get further in the tent.

You cannot negotiate with terrorists or those who use crisis to limit American freedom. This is why the NRA and ACLU are so important. I bet a majority of the idiots inhabiting this country want "hate speech" restricted. Thank got the SCOTUS won't let that slippery slope start either.

Oct 3, 2017
TNA:

And until guns are universally illegal and impossible to make with relatively simple machining tools, we will always have gun smuggling.

Obviously illegal guns will come locally as they are cheapest to transport. But what proves locally will also prove nationally. You ban guns in the states and they will come from mexico. Or they will come elsewhere. Banned substances create a black market.

Mexico gets a lot of their weapons from the united states as is (that's exactly what happened with fast and furious if I remember correctly), so the shift in supply and prices would have to be really big, which would only be compounded by the fact that mexico's supply would also be reduced if the US was cut off as a source.

But let's say Mexico did become a source for arms. Comparing transport across national versus state lines is a completely different scenario (be it mexico or any other country). It would result in far fewer guns traveling into the country, huge markups in prices, and you're more likely to get caught with it once in the country if most are already illegal. Plus, if you're in the business of smuggling things from latin america to the USA, would you rather be transporting really heavy, oddly shaped firearms, or a brick of our favorite nose candy? The markup would have to be huge for guns to make that competitive. Some would try and probably get away with it, and some would probably still be able to afford them, but at the end of the equation it all adds up to much much less.

Oct 3, 2017

Sure, it would be reduced. And so would our fundamental freedoms. Because remember, you're going to have to take expensive, private property from Americans, seize with force if needed, and once that's done, the other 9 rights will fall as well.

I

Oct 3, 2017

You are correct bro. Drugs flow from Mexico to the U.S. and guns go the other way. Plus there is the reality that in the drug game guns are a cost center not a revenue driver. If they start to become prohibitively expensive + we have ridiculous costs of holding them in the form of jail-time (like Japan), gangs will find a different way to protect their revenue source.

Oct 3, 2017

Drugs and child porn are illegal and carry sentences on par with illegal gun ownership. Both still occur.

Europe has draconian gun restrictions and some of the worst mass murders have occurred with guns in Europe.

Logic isn't strong with the anti gun crowd.

Oct 3, 2017

"Gang gun violence is PARTLY a symptom of our lax gun culture". You respond as if I stated "gang gun violence is ENTIRELY a symptom of our lax gun culture". This type of shit should be below a college educated individual, but is the usual for you.

Oct 3, 2017
BobTheBaker:

"Gang gun violence is PARTLY a symptom of our lax gun culture". You respond as if I stated "gang gun violence is ENTIRELY a symptom of our lax gun culture". This type of shit should be below a college educated individual, but is the usual for you.

But that's the point. It's not fair to the American public to make national gun laws that punish everyone (or limit the freedoms of everyone) because a small sub-sector of the population is abusing that freedom. What would be better policy is to target the underlying disease (poverty, broken homes, etc.), not symptoms.

Oct 3, 2017

Trumps a fascist, but all the liberals in the thread want to restrict a fundamental American right.

So rich the hypocrisy.

Oct 3, 2017
Dances with Dachshunds:

If gang violence is a symptom of our gun culture then why is my neighborhood not overrun by gun violence? We all have equal access to guns. There's literally a gun shop a mile from my condo.

Speaking to everyday gun violence and not these mass shootings, you have to have an environment that is conducive to crime and violence to begin with. Guns only serve as an enabler, but a very significant enabler that has a magnifying effect on the damage from any criminal activity to begin with. So yes, dealing with poverty etc. is an important part of the solution, but cracking down on guns specifically would have significant marginal benefits to reducing violence, and is fairly easy to do in comparison to eliminating poverty (LBJ initiated the war on poverty over 50 years ago).

Oct 4, 2017
MiserlyGrandpa:
Dances with Dachshunds:

If gang violence is a symptom of our gun culture then why is my neighborhood not overrun by gun violence? We all have equal access to guns. There's literally a gun shop a mile from my condo.

Speaking to everyday gun violence and not these mass shootings, you have to have an environment that is conducive to crime and violence to begin with. Guns only serve as an enabler, but a very significant enabler that has a magnifying effect on the damage from any criminal activity to begin with. So yes, dealing with poverty etc. is an important part of the solution, but cracking down on guns specifically would have significant marginal benefits to reducing violence, and is fairly easy to do in comparison to eliminating poverty (LBJ initiated the war on poverty over 50 years ago).

Really? It's easy to crackdown on guns? Tell that to the District of Columbia or to the city of Chicago.

Oct 4, 2017

See my other post regarding influence of neighboring states. But regardless, you can pass more direct legislation to address it (bans, prison sentences etc.) which you can't place on something like poverty, and considering the lack of effort throughout history nation wide, there is a lot more low hanging fruit than something we've already been working on for half a century.

Oct 4, 2017
MiserlyGrandpa:

See my other post regarding influence of neighboring states. But regardless, you can pass more direct legislation to address it (bans, prison sentences etc.) which you can't place on something like poverty, and considering the lack of effort throughout history nation wide, there is a lot more low hanging fruit than something we've already been working on for half a century.

What specific gun law would you pass that is "low-hanging fruit" that would clean up gun violence in America? And for the record, the murder rate and gun murders have been falling since 1980. It's not like there is some new epidemic in gun violence that needs to be addressed--we HAVE addressed gun violence in America.

Oct 4, 2017
  • Ban assault rifles, and pretty much anything besides hunting rifles, shot guns, and hand guns.
  • For hand guns, require permits, registration, reporting if lost or stolen (all of which we do for cars already). And strictly limit the amount any individual can own and purchase over a period of time.

Under the notion that most criminals prefer illegal weapons, and most illegal weapons are initially purchased legally, this should slow the flow of guns made available for criminal purposes. And of course, per my previous statements, all of this would have to be nationwide at the federal level.

Oct 4, 2017
MiserlyGrandpa:

- Ban assault rifles, and pretty much anything besides hunting rifles, shot guns, and hand guns.
- For hand guns, require permits, registration, reporting if lost or stolen (all of which we do for cars already). And strictly limit the amount any individual can own and purchase over a period of time.

Under the notion that most criminals prefer illegal weapons, and most illegal weapons are initially purchased legally, this should slow the flow of guns made available for criminal purposes. And of course, per my previous statements, all of this would have to be nationwide at the federal level.

So, you realize that the vast, vast majority of gun homicides are with handguns, not rifles, right? There is, at best, mixed evidence that an "assault weapons" ban from the 1990's was effective in reducing gun crime (in other words, it's highly disputable). Leftists, in their small-minded ignorance, continue to propose recycled, failed ideas, ranging from assault weapons bans to Medicare for all. It would be amusing if it weren't so dangerous to freedom.

Permits, registration, etc. are already required in many states and for varying types of guns. Why would a national law requiring handgun registration be effective in reducing gun crime? There are ~300 million guns in the United States right now that could easily get passed around without anyone knowing. The same principle applies to why "universal background checks" is asinine--any private seller could easily sell a weapon for cash without producing a background check.

Oct 4, 2017

I don't think civilians should be allowed assault rifles or hand guns. Hunting rifle, cool go hunt. Shot gun, alright. Handguns, assault rifles, and automatic weapons do not belong in the hands of civilians. If we want to organize militias that are allowed assault rifles, with the proper vetting of members and strict instructions to keep those guns on militia grounds, with the militias held accountable if they are found elsewhere, fine. Let's keep the spirit of revolution and the 2nd amendment alive. Leave healthcare out of this. We need a national law because of the discrepancy involved between the states, which is the reason Chicago gangs just go to Indiana for weapons. We need a massive gun buy-back programs with punitive legal repercussions involved to reduce those ~300 million guns on the streets (specifically assault rifles and hand guns). We are in a state of accepting mass murder and gang gun violence because freedom, I think we can do better.

Oct 4, 2017

How do you intend to initiate a buyback program without curtailing the 2nd Amendment? I imagine if people wanted to get rid of their guns they would, so am I to believe that your buyback would be mandatory? In other words a national confiscation program?

You would need 5 SC Justices to the left of Ginsberg for that to fly.

Oct 4, 2017

And you just proved the point of conservatives. The Left is not interested in "sensible gun control" that the vast majority of people agree with. The Left really wants banning and confiscation of almost all firearms. At least you're being honest about it. How many times in this thread alone have we heard the lie about "reasonable" gun control measures?

Oct 4, 2017
TheGrind:

How do you intend to initiate a buyback program without curtailing the 2nd Amendment? I imagine if people wanted to get rid of their guns they would, so am I to believe that your buyback would be mandatory? In other words a national confiscation program?

You would need 5 SC Justices to the left of Ginsberg for that to fly.

Exactly. Their utopian gun control measures would lead to a constitutional crisis in the U.S. and perhaps legitimate talks of secession.

Oct 4, 2017

The 2nd amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

My solution preserves the spirit of the 2nd amendment completely, a well regulated militia would be allowed to carry assault weapons etc. The right of other civilians would be preserved in their right to keep and bear a shotgun or hunting rifle. I don't speak for "the left" or "the right", I speak for myself. Can you post without referring to political party or left vs. right? I wonder if that's possible with you sometimes.

Oct 4, 2017

The "spirit" of the 2nd Amendment, as I've maintained, is to be a check on the federal government's power (and the federal government's standing army)--that was the original purpose of the 2nd Amendment. So for one, a "militia" is supposed to be regulated at the state level, not the federal level. In other words, some states can have formal militias and others can consider militias to be well-armed citizens with military grade weaponry. That is the real spirit of the 2nd Amendment--the right to keep and bear arms has literally nothing to do with hunting and everything to do with states checking the power of the federal government with an armed citizenry.

Here is a nice rundown on that:

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm
Quoting George Mason: "Who are the Militia? They consist now of the whole people."

Oct 4, 2017

A well-armed citizenry with military grade weapon being a "militia" is ridiculous, that is not a militia. No issue with states forming and licensing formal militias, in fact if they want to in order to check the federal government I advocate that, that is what the 2nd amendment is about. Not some fucking cowboy craving to carry his handgun on a college campus or some dude that needs to feel like a man by firing off an assault rifle at soda cans. That's my point here. If you want to "fight the power" join a federal militia and fire off your handguns and assault rifles on their grounds, if you want to hunt then keep your rifle, protect your home with a shotgun, which shouldn't be allowed to leave your home. Everything else should be banned. That's my personal opinion.

Oct 4, 2017
BobTheBaker:

A well-armed citizenry with military grade weapon being a "militia" is ridiculous, that is not a militia.

Citizens are already not allowed to have military-grade weapons, but the principle is asinine. How do you check the power of a standing army with vastly inferior weapons? Fortunately, the U.S. terrain (with vast forests and landscapes) and the disparate power centers would still make a war winnable by the militias, but the idea that the 2nd Amendment didn't envision militias having military grade weaponry is absurd on its face. They obviously did.

BobTheBaker:

Not some fucking cowboy craving to carry his handgun on a college campus or some dude that needs to feel like a man by firing off an assault rifle at soda cans.

I mean, I'm not sure what to say other than your position on what the framer's definition of militia is is demonstrably wrong. The reality is, you disagree with them, which is fine--they gave us the 1st Amendment, too.

BobTheBaker:

That's my point here. If you want to "fight the power" join a federal militia and fire off your handguns and assault rifles on their grounds, if you want to hunt then keep your rifle, protect your home with a shotgun, which shouldn't be allowed to leave your home. Everything else should be banned. That's my personal opinion.

Not sure what a federal militia is. The U.S. military?

Oct 4, 2017

Sorry, I mispoke on federal militia, I meant state militia. I have no problem with formal state militias having military-grade weaponry. I am for formal state sanctioned militias to check federal power. I do not agree with the idea that every disparate person who owns an AK-47 is now part of an overall state militia, the founding fathers gave us a lot and should be appreciated but they were not omnipotent so we shouldn't behave as if their legislation is infallible. I think keeping the spirit of the 2nd amendment is fine in the form of formal state militias.

Oct 4, 2017

Play it out..... say we pass very strict laws with harsh punishments for those illegally owning, who will be most negatively affected? The guy living in the country with a safe or the guy carrying it through the city in his jeans? Seems to me the results would look similar to the war on drugs. Is that what the left wants?

    • 1
Oct 3, 2017

Alaska has outrageous levels of drug crime.

You cry about racism all the time. So boring. Instead of reducing rights we could simply help inner city residents and reduce gun violence.

As usual, you'd rather just restrict freedoms and leave the ghetto as it is.

Oct 3, 2017

This is why you can't be taken seriously and why I generally ignore you: Your statement on drugs and child porn have zero to do with this thread, it's just a distraction. Europe having mass murders says nothing about their rate of mass murder compared to the US, so this comment means nothing. Why are gangs in cities that have the strongest gun control and restrictions? Ik in Chicago, they get their guns from lax gun control state Indiana, which is on their border. Additionally, we are not talking about the existence of gangs, we are talking specifically about gang gun violence.

On to your next garbage troll post: you state that I "cry racism" despite not even mentioning the word in this entire thread or calling anyone racist in this entire thread, this is just a distraction and a personal attack. You make it a binary proposal of a.) better gun control laws or b.) helping inner city residents when we can easily do both, I'm sure there is a logical fallacy for this type of argument, I don't feel like remembering it I am eating. Then you come to the conclusion that I'd "rather just restrict freedoms and leave the ghetto as it is" - which has no basis in fact.

This is the pattern most of your "debate" posts take. a.) Attack b.)distract c.) engage in absolutes d.) ignore fair counter points by some combination of a.), b.), & c.). rinse and repeat. This is ridiculous.

    • 6
Oct 3, 2017

1) are illegal guns, drugs and child porn both illegal and carry stiff sentences?

Do all three still occur, despite being restricted?

Do you really think gangs and drug dealers won't get guns to protect themselves in their illicit trade?

2)You cry about racial undertones when no one is blaming blacks. They are simply pointing out that certain groups commit the bulk of violent crime. We don't need to ban guns to reduce gun violence. We could bring better paying jobs back, we could improve inner city schools, we could legalize drugs, etc.

This would improve lives and maintain freedom.

3) the fact will stands that guns are heavily restricted in these cities. Law abiding citizens don't have them and criminals get them.

Are you going to ban guns in Mexico and Centeal America? If not, they will come just as guns from Indiana. Come to Chicago.

And as long as crime pays, criminals will need protection.

4) you endlessly cry racism or demand proof instead of refuting a point yourself.

Oct 3, 2017

Interestingly enough a good % of guns in Mexico and central America come from US. Funny how that happens.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/counting-mexicos-...

    • 2
Oct 3, 2017

All Mexico has to do to prevent Americans from running guns into their country is build a fence.

Oct 4, 2017
dlrulz:

Interestingly enough a good % of guns in Mexico and central America come from US. Funny how that happens.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/counting-mexicos-...

Ironic that in order to enforce the gun ban you want in America you'd have to build fences.

Oct 3, 2017

Hey, if you bought an illegal gun from Mexico it may have been sold to them via the US government.

Oct 3, 2017

Why would you buy a gun from Mexico when anyone can easily buy one in US?

Oct 3, 2017

Hypothetically speaking, if we outlawed them. Or if you want something that is illegal or requires significant background checks.

Oct 3, 2017
Roy-Ray:

And yes, even then, the U.S. will have more gun violence per capita, but that's the price of freedom.

You do know that US is not the only "free" country in this world

The right to keep and bear arms has been enshrined in the American colonies and eventually the U.S. for 400 years. It is an American right, an American freedom.

Oct 3, 2017

He's being purposely obtuse.

Freedom as enshrined in the Bill of a Rights. Not European "freedom" that restricts freedom of speech, religion and self protection.

Oct 3, 2017
Dances with Dachshunds:

The actual conclusion should be that in order to reduce gun violence, the inner city communities need to remove the Democratic party from power. And yes, even then, the U.S. will have more gun violence per capita, but that's the price of freedom.

You are a smart enough guy, but this is the kind of vapid, incendiary posturing that undermines your credibility on anything with a political undercurrent. Gun violence in the inner city has to do with population density, the primacy of poverty, and a tenuous relationship with law enforcement in many of the communities in need. I'm sure you recognize this but would rather firebrand at the expense of your credibility than engage in actual discussion.

The obvious inference is obvious because the data is self evident. Guns beget gun violence. Your inability to accept this point without incessant hedging, modifying, and minimizing clearly demonstrates your own personal dissonance on the issue.

There is an obvious price to pay for additional liberties. In the instance of guns that includes higher rates of mass shootings, homicides, and suicides. As I've maintained, a cogent argument can still be made that individual liberty and the principles that under-gird it must supersede these costs. But an outright refusal to acknowledge and entirely own the price we pay as a society is just craven dishonesty for the sake of less personal dissonance.

    • 7
Oct 4, 2017
Schreckstoff:
Dances with Dachshunds:

The actual conclusion should be that in order to reduce gun violence, the inner city communities need to remove the Democratic party from power. And yes, even then, the U.S. will have more gun violence per capita, but that's the price of freedom.

You are a smart enough guy, but this is the kind of vapid, incendiary posturing that undermines your credibility on anything with a political undercurrent. Gun violence in the inner city has to do with population density, the primacy of poverty, and a tenuous relationship with law enforcement in many of the communities in need. I'm sure you recognize this but would rather firebrand at the expense of your credibility than engage in actual discussion.

The obvious inference is obvious because the data is self evident. Guns beget gun violence. Your inability to accept this point without incessant hedging, modifying, and minimizing clearly demonstrates your own personal dissonance on the issue.

There is an obvious price to pay for additional liberties. In the instance of guns that includes higher rates of mass shootings, homicides, and suicides. As I've maintained, a cogent argument can still be made that individual liberty and the principles that under-gird it must supersede these costs. But an outright refusal to acknowledge and entirely own the price we pay as a society is just craven dishonesty for the sake of less personal dissonance.

Yours is a truly amazing response because it literally contradicts everything I've said in this thread. It actually demonstrates how you actually choose not to read what people are saying who disagree with you.

You literally cannot find a post in this thread where I remotely say anything that you just said I said. It's truly unbelievable.

In fact, my very specific point in this thread was that inner city poverty, lack of policing, culture, etc. in the black community was the primary cause of gun violence in America. That was literally my specific point that you refused to read. This point was made at least twice--if not more than twice--in this thread alone.

Oct 4, 2017
dlrulz:

Vox has an interesting series of charts showing basically that more guns no matter what country /state = more homicides.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/2/...
Which isn't hard to understand, give people the best tool to kill others and it will inevitably happen.

I actually think this is important. I wanted to return to this topic because I conceded something earlier that I shouldn't have conceded based on the bad data you presented. If you remove suicides, there is essentially no mathematical correlation between gun deaths and gun ownership in a U.S. state. What these cherry-picked charts do is conflate gun deaths and gun murders.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/no-states-with-h...

Oct 3, 2017

so this got out of hand real fast.

the funny part is, it was NEVER intended to be a gun debate, but rather, one which questioned the underbelly, gritty nature of the human condition. one which we are all inescapably a part of.

again, we all live in our own "castles". fortunately for us, it looks idyllic. for a small group of people, it's impending apocalypse. imposing your perspective/speculation is ignorant and quite dangerous.

humans will always harm and/or kill other humans. it's been happening since the beginning of time. quite honestly, as an economics major, im quite shocked there aren't 10x or 20x the amount of homicides in the US.

    • 3
Oct 3, 2017

More guns, more homicide? Not exactly

Oct 3, 2017

Sad that so many died for feeedoms so many desperately want to give away.

Oct 3, 2017

I agree that you can't blame guns, and that the problem America faces with gun violence is much more complex than a quick fix, however, even if it only provided a small benefit, isn't it worth it?

I Just don't understand what value American's derive from gun ownership. I could understand not wanting to give up your car, as many of you have pointed out, that's an equally capable weapon, but what benefit does gun ownership provide you?

Genuine question from someone that lives in a country with low/no gun culture.

    • 1
Oct 4, 2017

I'm an American and completely agree. There's no point to owning weapons in the 21st century. I, along with the vast majority of people, dont hunt for daily sustenance. If I were to be the victim of a crime or were to have a dispute with somebody, I would call the police or go to court.

I'm not in favor of draconian gun bans, I just wish Americans would wake up and realize we don't need to be such a gun obsessed nation.

    • 1
    • 1
Oct 4, 2017
Bonds.Aye:

I agree that you can't blame guns, and that the problem America faces with gun violence is much more complex than a quick fix, however, even if it only provided a small benefit, isn't it worth it?

I Just don't understand what value American's derive from gun ownership. I could understand not wanting to give up your car, as many of you have pointed out, that's an equally capable weapon, but what benefit does gun ownership provide you?

Genuine question from someone that lives in a country with low/no gun culture.

Look around the world. Tell me what you see. What I see is that the common relationship between mankind and government is tyranny. There are literally no active tyrannies on Earth where the citizenry is armed. And that is the entire point of the 2nd Amendment. It has nothing to do with the right to kill intruders in your home or to hunt for food. The 2nd Amendment that enshrines the right to keep and bear arms is for one purpose alone--to be the ultimate check against a tyrannical government.

If the gun-free country you live in isn't a tyranny today, you just wait long enough and it will be. I'd also argue that the "freedom" that you believe you have would be considered foreign to Americans. The British, for example, think they are free yet they can't publicly criticize Islam without coming under government scrutiny. Australians think they are free and yet if the government ever turns on its people the citizenry literally has no recourse to violently retaliate. What you really have is a dictatorship in the making, veiled under a false sense of freedom that was won with American blood and treasure.

Oct 4, 2017

I appreciate the response.

I'm sure we won't come to agreement, but to me that seems like an insurance policy on a tail risk event, where the 'premium' is a very real and present cost (which I suppose is normal for insurance). Obviously neither of us can measure reliably the probability of said tail event, or the true cost of this premium, but from my comfortable, white middle class, racially homogeneous Australia suburb, this idea seems far-fetched. I see our politics as too superficial divisive to sustain such a stranglehold to facilitate this event, yet at the same time, the underlying values we share seem too common to encourage such an internal conflict (both major parties are actually centered politically, when you look past the facade). I look at other regimes you describe, shocked at the state of the world, but the differences between them and us seems far more vast than gun ownership. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I'd opt to not insure here.

As you pointed out though, if you take out inner-city black communities, the premium you are paying doesn't seem so bad, so maybe it works for you guys. You have someone else footing the bulk of the bill.

Oct 4, 2017
Oct 4, 2017
Oct 4, 2017

"When you stop striving for perfection, you might as well be dead."

Oct 4, 2017
Oct 4, 2017

"When you stop striving for perfection, you might as well be dead."

Oct 4, 2017

"When you stop striving for perfection, you might as well be dead."

Oct 4, 2017