View Full Version : Another School Shooting in America, is there an answer?
Citizen Rules
10-02-15, 12:56 PM
Yesterday October 2nd, at Oregon's Umpqua Community College a 26 year old male shooter went into the school and killed 11 people. What was in his twisted mind as he stood there wearing body armor and heavily armed...
"The gunman, while reloading his handgun, ordered the students to stand up if they were Christians, Boylan told her family. "And they would stand up and he said, 'Good, because you're a Christian, you're going to see God in just about one second,'" Boylan's father, Stacy, told CNN, relaying her account.
"And then he shot and killed them."
Full News Story:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/01/us/oregon-college-shooting/
School shootings have become a common occurrence in America, why?
The Sci-Fi Slob
10-02-15, 01:03 PM
I think the answer is to give teachers rocket launchers and laser designators to call in airstrikes.
Thursday Next
10-02-15, 01:15 PM
There's a very simple answer, which is to ban guns.
The Gunslinger45
10-02-15, 01:17 PM
They seem common. But in actuality they are not. Mass shootings in America in pure numbers don't come close to the body count of those killed in auto accidents, accidental deaths, drug overdoses or even people killed with hands and feet. But yet they seem common. The reason is they make headlines.
There are evil people in our society. Sick twisted f***s who have no remorse with regards to murder. And with the advent of the 24 hour news cycle and the internet, monstrous people from all walks of life find a pseudo celebrity in these forms if the feel it will get them notoriety. And we have a media that loves a headline with blood. As the flick Nightcrawler said, "If it bleeds, it leads." And thanks to said 24 hour news cycle it will be the lead story for days if not weeks. Creating a perfect storm of murderous ***** stains and the unscrupulous people willing to give them their 15 minutes of fame.
There's a very simple answer, which is to ban guns.
I'm guessing the group of people who would respect gun bans, but not laws against murder, is pretty small.
The Gunslinger45
10-02-15, 01:19 PM
There's a very simple answer, which is to ban guns.
That will solve nothing. Only thing that will do is prevent those who legally own guns from having them. Thus only the criminals who already break the law will own guns and so will cops.
Banning something does not stop it. Drugs are illegal, but America still has a hell of a drug problem.
Thursday Next
10-02-15, 01:25 PM
They seem common. But in actuality they are not. Mass shootings in America in pure numbers don't come close to the body count of those killed in auto accidents, accidental deaths, drug overdoses or even people killed with hands and feet.
That may be true. But mass shootings in America are far higher than mass shootings in Europe.
I'm guessing the group of people who would respect gun bans, but not laws against murder, is pretty small.
People who are determined to murder will still murder. But if they don't have a gun it will be harder for them to do it.
That will solve nothing. Only thing that will do is prevent those who legally own guns from having them. Thus only the criminals who already break the law will own guns and so will cops.
Banning something does not stop it. Drugs are illegal, but America still has a hell of a drug problem.
Banning guns would not solve all gun crime. Of course not. But making it harder for people to get guns and legally own them would reduce the number of disgruntled teenagers who decide a solution to feeling angry or isolated is to grab a gun and shoot their classmates.
Laws against carrying guns would also make it easier to stop people before they kill a lot of people with the gun they're carrying.
False Writer
10-02-15, 01:32 PM
Was hearing all about this yesterday on the news. Unfortunately it's becoming so common to hear about this stuff that it's really not surprising anymore.
I really hate saying this—and often I try to find reasons not to say it—but the US is going downhill so fast that it's making my head spin. All you hear about anymore are mass shootings and race riots.
I mean think about it, 15 years ago, the worst incidents we recently had were the Rodney King Riots and Columbine, horrible incidents yes, but still very few compared to now.
In only a span of less than 5 years we've had:
- Ferguson riots
- Baltimore riots
- Aurora Colorado theater shooting
- Naval Base shooting
- Sandy Hook Elementary shooting
- Charleston Church shooting
- Oregon College shooting
and more I'm probably forgetting, not to mention all the smaller-scaled shootings plus the Virginia Tech and Fort Hood shootings in the late 2000s. I seriously think society is slowly deteriorating, and something really does need to change before it gets any worse.
Stricter gun laws I don't believe is the answer. There are hundreds of thousands of illegal and unregistered guns in the US. If one of these maniacs really want to get their hands on one, they're gonna get one. Taking away law-abiding peoples' guns and making them even more defenseless is definitely not the answer.
People who are determined to murder will still murder. But if they don't have a gun it will be harder for them to do it.
I'm not saying they'll find other ways to murder (though they will): I'm saying you won't keep the guns out of their hands because criminals won't abide by the ban in the first place.
Banning guns would not solve all gun crime. Of course not. But making it harder for people to get guns and legally own them would reduce the number of disgruntled teenagers who decide a solution to feeling angry or isolated is to grab a gun and shoot their classmates.
Trying to ban guns will probably reduce the number of people shot, but there's little reason to think it will reduce the number of people hurt or killed. Are we really going to say that mentally unstable people who want to hurt others are going to be deterred by having to use a pipe bomb instead of a gun?
Laws against carrying guns would also make it easier to stop people before they kill a lot of people with the gun they're carrying.
Seems to me the vast majority of these recent shootings are planned out far in advance, and in great detail. In other words, the problem isn't that a bunch of people are carrying guns, so that when they lose their temper they do unforgivable things.
The Gunslinger45
10-02-15, 01:36 PM
There are plenty of guns in Switzerland. Not a whole lot of mass shootings there. I think the real issue does not lie in the gun culture, but in another part of society.
And Columbine, the school shooting that had set this sick standard happened in the middle of the Clinton Assault Weapons ban which lasted from 1994, to 2004. Gun control does not work.
AdamUpBxtch
10-02-15, 01:41 PM
Banning guns is a useless thing to do, Criminals will still have guns either way, you'll just be making innocent people defenseless.
False Writer
10-02-15, 01:47 PM
]
Trying to ban guns will probably reduce the number of people shot, but there's little reason to think it will reduce the number of people hurt or killed. Are we really going to say that mentally unstable people who want to hurt others are going to be deterred by having to use a pipe bomb instead of a gun?
Reading this reminded me of the Oklahoma City Bombing in '96, which was very bad also. That was more of a terrorist attack though, and shootings are the main subject here. Just think though, if they try to take away guns, then they'll feel more compelled to use bombs, which would probably be worse. Also reminds me of the Boston Marathon bombing in 2013.
gbgoodies
10-02-15, 01:53 PM
Guns aren't the problem. People missing the warning signs is the problem. We need to find a way to recognize the warning signs. After people are killed is too late for people to see those signs, and say they're not surprised that guy snapped.
Parents should know what their kids are doing. They should know if their kids have a house full of guns and ammunition, and they should be able to see that their kids are angry or depressed.
They seem common. But in actuality they are not. Mass shootings in America in pure numbers don't come close to the body count of those killed in auto accidents, accidental deaths, drug overdoses or even people killed with hands and feet. But yet they seem common. The reason is they make headlines.
There are evil people in our society. Sick twisted f***s who have no remorse with regards to murder. And with the advent of the 24 hour news cycle and the internet, monstrous people from all walks of life find a pseudo celebrity in these forms if the feel it will get them notoriety. And we have a media that loves a headline with blood. As the flick Nightcrawler said, "If it bleeds, it leads." And thanks to said 24 hour news cycle it will be the lead story for days if not weeks. Creating a perfect storm of murderous ***** stains and the unscrupulous people willing to give them their 15 minutes of fame.
Ugh, yeah. One of the biggest problems with this stuff, IMO a contributing cause, is the media attention these people get. We should be ignoring them.
The Gunslinger45
10-02-15, 01:58 PM
Ugh, yeah. One of the biggest problems with this stuff, IMO a contributing cause, is the media attention these people get. We should be ignoring them.
Post the names of the people killed and mourn the dead. But make no mention of the name or post a picture of the killer. That would be one thing I would change about the media.
Speaking of which:
https://twitter.com/redsteeze/status/649985335225659392
Awful stuff, RIP :(
Not to anyone here but i hate how these tragedies always bring out the pro and anti gun people with agendas in the media. Especially with Sandy Hook, after about a day or two i heard next to nothing about the victims and only seen both sides parroting on, i suppose that was just the media i was being exposed to though.
False Writer
10-02-15, 02:02 PM
I completely agree with the media unintentionally (at least I think they are) glorifying these shootings. It makes these psychotic people think what they do will go down in history and they will become famous or something.
I have to agree with Thursday here, the USA have ridiculous gun laws and there needs to be far more regulations and restrictions, of course it wouldn't immediately wipe out mass shootings, but look at the UK, Canada and Australia for example, their gun laws are extremely tight and look at how many mass shootings they have.
It's also frustrating from an outsider's perspective because how many more lives is it going to take before they go ahead and change their gun laws? I might be wrong but it always looks as though officials acknowledge how ridiculous the situation is getting but then don't do anything about it really, and the situation just seems to keep on repeating itself.
And yes people may go ahead and use other weapons, but I'd certainly much prefer my chances with someone with a knife than a gun. Either way, something needs to be done imminently otherwise the US will continue to have their Virginia Techs, Columbines, Charlestons, Louisvilles and now Oregon too, because these seem to be happening all of the time now.
The Gunslinger45
10-02-15, 02:21 PM
There are plenty of guns in Switzerland. Not a whole lot of mass shootings there. I think the real issue does not lie in the gun culture, but in another part of society.
And Columbine, the school shooting that had set this sick standard happened in the middle of the Clinton Assault Weapons ban which lasted from 1994, to 2004. Gun control does not work.
I point to this again.
I have to agree with Thursday here, the USA have ridiculous gun laws and there needs to be far more regulations and restrictions
Let's try an experiment. Without Googling what the laws actually currently are, please describe what kinds of regulations and restrictions you think are reasonable.
Let's try an experiment. Without Googling what the laws actually currently are, please describe what kinds of regulations and restrictions you think are reasonable.
Well to start with buying one from Walmart is particularly odd. I wouldn't even know where to buy one from over here, and if I did, I'd bet I'd have to travel quite a way because you really don't hear about them at all, so to begin don't make them available in shops such as that. So since I can't look, I'd say adopt a similar or identical policy currently being used by Britain, Canada and/or Australia.
Also, I really did not mean to offend either of you in any way whatsoever, but I do believe that if a lot proportion of the world can cope without guns, then surely the USA can too.
Pussy Galore
10-02-15, 02:54 PM
Honestly, I already had this discussion with Yoda and I remember not being able to answer to some of his arguments so I am not bringing forward a philosophical argument for or agains't the legitimity of a state to ban guns. What I'm saying (or deploring) is the culture of the United States regarding guns, violence, threat in other people that is not present at all where I live (Montreal Quebec, 2 hour at the north of Vermont). Here it's almost a consensus (at least in the city, maybe in the countryside it's different) that guns shouldn't be legal not because it represses the right of people owning it, but because it would be of no use. I am not saying that there is no criminality here, but that I don't know anyone who feels sufficiently in danger so that he will ask himself ''well let's go buy a gun'' and take the risk of accidents, etc.
Also, if I might point out it's the christian right (obviously not just christians, but I think it would be hard to deny that except for Ron Paul and the libertarians right wing men are christians) who is mostly in favor of the use of gun, who says that we should all have them so that we can protect ourselves from criminals, they seeother as a threat, etc. And I wonder why they don't listen to Jesus? And I quote ''You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[a] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.'' Jesus was wrong :O, the almighty Jesus, the son of god THE MESSSSSSSSIAH. And further (and I'm maybe getting off topic). But look at this other quotatiojn from the bible “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” Yet the christian right defends neo liberalism and capitalism at its purest form, either they say that Jesus was wrong, or they change their political doctrine.
The Gunslinger45
10-02-15, 02:57 PM
Ironic since the shooter in this regard targeted Christians in his mass killing spree and had a very anti-religion view point.
Sadly these situations will be used for political points and nothing more. It's not about the gun, people obviously have problems, all kinds of them, some are just pushed to the wall and it explodes into something like this, some just have mental problems... There is really no definite answer to this, you can't watch everyone at every moment. Interaction would be the only thing to do here, I'm not from USA, but from what I gather from internet, your teacher's (correct me if I'm wrong) don't care that much. I mean USA is not only country with the guns, so it's not about that. Bullying can be part of the problem (maybe not in this exact case), that's also ignored lot's of times(?). So to putt it simply, I don't think you can say "let's do this" and stop the problem.
How come the police didn't stop this shooting?!?!
It's like they won't protect you from murderers.. it's almost like.. you have to protect yourself.
Oh damn it's an official ruling too - police have NO DUTY to protect you. you are responsible for your own families safety.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect-someone.html?_r=0
The Gunslinger45
10-02-15, 03:05 PM
http://static.lakana.com/media.fox10phoenix.com/photo/2015/10/02/Mintz_1443790349747_302280_ver1.0.jpg
Enough about the ***** stain who committed this horrible crime. Let us talk about the US Army vet who tried to prevent the f***er from killing more people. Shot 5 times and still kicking. HOOAH!
Chris Mintz: American Badass (http://www.fox4news.com/home/28206938-story)
http://static.lakana.com/media.fox10phoenix.com/photo/2015/10/02/Mintz_1443790349747_302280_ver1.0.jpg
Enough about the ***** stain who committed this horrible crime. Let us talk about the US Army vet who tried to prevent the f***er from killing more people. Shot 5 times and still kicking. HOOAH!
Chris Mintz: American Badass (http://www.fox4news.com/home/28206938-story)
I saw someone on another site with that pic as an avatar had no idea who it was til now, awesome. One thousand :up: to Chris Mintz.
Thursday Next
10-02-15, 03:44 PM
I'm not saying they'll find other ways to murder (though they will): I'm saying you won't keep the guns out of their hands because criminals won't abide by the ban in the first place.
But we don't just rely on people to abide by bans, that's where the police come in. If people are going to get 5 years in jail just for carrying a gun, that's 5 years they can't shoot anybody. Nobody's saying this would eliminate all gun crime, but it would do a lot to cut it down.
Thursday Next
10-02-15, 03:45 PM
Honestly, I already had this discussion with Yoda and I remember not being able to answer to some of his arguments...
Oh, nobody can argue with Yoda about anything. He's wrong about so many things, but he has a phd in arguing, so nobody can ever beat him ;)
Well to start with buying one from Walmart is particularly odd.
I don't know if it's odd, but the question was which restrictions or regulations you think are reasonable to reduce shootings. And I assume we can agree that disallowing sales at Wal-mart probably wouldn't have much of an effect.
So since I can't look, I'd say adopt a similar or identical policy currently being used by Britain, Canada and/or Australia.
This is kind of my point: how many gun control advocates even know what the laws are? How many can articulate why they may or may not work? It's not enough to just say you like the results in one place versus another, especially when those places have wildly different sizes, populations, and cultures.
Also, I really did not mean to offend either of you in any way whatsoever, but I do believe that if a lot proportion of the world can cope without guns, then surely the USA can too.
Maybe. Or maybe the kind of individualism Americans are known for has a corresponding dark side, and certain aggressive or risky behaviors are inseparable from all sorts of things we like about ourselves, too. Or maybe this is much easier in smaller, more homogeneous populations with fewer guns to begin with than in physically large, culturally diverse ones with lots of guns already in circulation. We don't really know.
Also, if I might point out it's the christian right (obviously not just christians, but I think it would be hard to deny that except for Ron Paul and the libertarians right wing men are christians) who is mostly in favor of the use of gun, who says that we should all have them so that we can protect ourselves from criminals, they seeother as a threat, etc. And I wonder why they don't listen to Jesus? And I quote ''You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[a] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.'' Jesus was wrong :O, the almighty Jesus, the son of god THE MESSSSSSSSIAH. And further (and I'm maybe getting off topic). But look at this other quotatiojn from the bible “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” Yet the christian right defends neo liberalism and capitalism at its purest form, either they say that Jesus was wrong, or they change their political doctrine.
Nah, they can take the third option: that these things are good and should be done voluntarily, but would make bad law. All sorts of things are good to do, but not to force people to do.
The Gunslinger45
10-02-15, 03:54 PM
We had an Assault Weapons Ban under Clinton for ten years. It did not change the murder rate. At all. In fact more people die from the use of hands and feet then by AKs and AR-15's every year. And these stats are pretty damn accurate because we almost always find the bodies. And cities like Oakland and Chicago have very strict gun laws and are among the most violent cities in America.
From my years of studying criminology in college, crime is a very complex part of human nature. Hell human nature is complex enough as it is. Trying simple "ban x because x causes crime" explanations have been done for decades, general theories of crime don't hold that much water, and the only people who use this "ban x" ideology are generally running for some kind of public office.
Oh, nobody can argue with Yoda about anything. He's wrong about so many things, but he has a phd in arguing, so nobody can ever beat him ;)
:laugh: so true, not necessarily about Yoda but i know the type. I have a friend who will never stop arguing no matter how much is presented showing he's wrong. Sort of guy that could convince you Scotland won the last World Cup.
But we don't just rely on people to abide by bans, that's where the police come in. If people are going to get 5 years in jail just for carrying a gun, that's 5 years they can't shoot anybody. Nobody's saying this would eliminate all gun crime, but it would do a lot to cut it down.
Let's play this out, though. You can break the people affected by this into two groups:
Group A is willing to kill people with guns. Killing people carries a much greater penalty than 5 years. Thus, the penalty would not deter them.
Group B is not willing to kill people with guns, and thus will abide by this ban. But these aren't the people we're trying to deter in the first place.
Oh, nobody can argue with Yoda about anything. He's wrong about so many things, but he has a phd in arguing, so nobody can ever beat him ;)
It's pretty easy to beat me; just make good arguments. ;)
I've always thought it was odd to say someone was wrong but still wins arguments. If they're wrong, then it should be a simple enough matter to explain why their argument fails. If someone finds themselves in a situation where they can't explain why an argument fails, the rational thing to do is consider the possibility that it's, ya' know, not wrong.
Unless, as Camo suggested, that it's really a commentary about just exhausting the other person. :laugh:
Everybody is wrong about everything. :)
Citizen Rules
10-02-15, 04:05 PM
There have been many factors that have been cited as a cause of mass school shootings, some seem plausible. We always hear about guns but what else could be the cause or causes of this?
I did a quick search for gun ownership graphs in America over the years. These were the first few that I seen, there were more.
Very interesting.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/07/gun-ownership-declining1.png
http://www.factandmyth.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/gun-ownership-united-states.jpg
https://highheelsandhandguns.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/69d5c-gunownershipviolentcrimeeng.gif?w=640
The Gunslinger45
10-02-15, 04:06 PM
Everybody is wrong about everything. :)
I am so tempted to post a Weird Al song right now...
:laugh: By this point now Yoda it's way past exhaustion, i've accepted "alternate facts" about the most mundane things :p
No aliens or high up political conspiracies, just stuff about fruit and sports and :laugh:
Pussy Galore
10-02-15, 04:16 PM
But there are things that are strictly pollitical such as the rules for immigration, the number of migrants from Syria you are willing to accept, etc. And if you are a man of Jesus who says you should help the poor, accept evil and instead of punishing evil to turn the other cheek you shouldn't want to build a massive wall between the United States and Mexico, you shouldn't ask yourself can we integrate a huge amount of immigrants in our country, you should say yeah it'll be hard economically, but we should do good, I really don't understand how can a man of god be for these policies which pretty much every republicans are.
Sexy Celebrity
10-02-15, 04:20 PM
There have been many factors that have been cited as a cause of mass school shootings, some seem plausible. We always hear about guns but what else could be the cause or causes of this?
Moral decay.
The collapsing of our culture.
The toxic environment we've created for ourselves.
The problem has nothing to do with guns. It has nothing to do with making sure the mentally ill are treated. It has everything to do with how people in America are living their everyday lives, unfulfilled, unsatisfied, miserable, pissed off, sick of everything, devaluing everything.
matt72582
10-02-15, 04:43 PM
Switzerland has military service as a requirement for ALL males. When they are done, they are given an empty pistol (no ammunition) as a gift, which they have to return back.
The median income is also $90,000 a year, and they don't pay billions for things we do like health care, etc... They don't slave their citizens to drop bombs on countries either. Forget the financial loss, what about the moral loss? Besides the fact the US has more guns than ever, we've been in perpetual war, a total lack of education and virtue. I've been to Switzerland, I have Swiss friends. It's a very peaceful, happy place just like many of the countries I've visited in Europe, not to mention Australia, which after their first mass shooting, they put in laws, hasn't been any since. ALL of England had 12 murders by handguns last year, and London by itself has 18 million people.
The key question is with changing times, will some insist to defend their group after spending so much time defending it.
Do you want the truth, or the ego massaged?
But there are things that are strictly pollitical such as the rules for immigration, the number of migrants from Syria you are willing to accept, etc. And if you are a man of Jesus who says you should help the poor, accept evil and instead of punishing evil to turn the other cheek you shouldn't want to build a massive wall between the United States and Mexico, you shouldn't ask yourself can we integrate a huge amount of immigrants in our country, you should say yeah it'll be hard economically, but we should do good, I really don't understand how can a man of god be for these policies which pretty much every republicans are.
Perhaps it is what a 21st century western, religious, mentality means, i think youve shown that regardless of the Extreme Religious Rights intentions their deport all immigrants approach will never happen, just like the Far Hippy Lefts let everyone in lets create an Utopia approach will never happen. Whenever anyone tries to place a full party at either far side (imo the average dem and rep are closer to each other than the far side of their own party and imo both far sides are equally as dangerous) i instantly zone out, also to use something you clearly don't believe in like the Bible makes me distance myself further since you are clearly using selected quotes without reading and understanding the full thing yourself.
The Sci-Fi Slob
10-02-15, 04:53 PM
Moral decay.
The collapsing of our culture.
The toxic environment we've created for ourselves.
I didn't realise you felt that way about the forums.:p
matt72582
10-02-15, 04:55 PM
Perhaps it is what a 21st century western, religious, mentality means, i think youve shown that regardless of the Extreme Religious Rights intentions their deport all immigrants approach will never happen, just like the Far Hippy Lefts let everyone in lets create an Utopia approach will never happen. Whenever anyone tries to place a full party at either far side (imo the average dem and rep are closer to each other than the far side of their own party and imo both far sides are equally as dangerous) i instantly zone out, also to use something you clearly don't believe in like the Bible makes me distance myself further since you are clearly using selected quotes without reading and understanding the full thing yourself.
Let's get to the nomenclature. There is no Left in this country. Well, maybe in the 30's, and even later, half of them were FBI agents.
You can say Democrats are right-wing social democrats for context, but "LEFT" is anarchic, communist, socialist... Bernie Sanders is center-left. Hillary Clinton is on the left-wing of the right-wing. And as you said, there isn't THAT much difference with the large issues that separated the Democrat and Republican politicians. It's also easier for ones in power to inverse because their own party won't argue with them, and the opposing party won't say a thing because it's close to their ideology.
The Sci-Fi Slob
10-02-15, 04:59 PM
Let's get to the nomenclature. There is no Left in this country. Well, maybe in the 30's, and even later, half of them were FBI agents.
I wish that were the case in this hopelessly bastardized rotten little island. Most of our politicians make Trotsky look like a Nazi.
Pussy Galore
10-02-15, 05:00 PM
Perhaps it is what a 21st century western, religious, mentality means, i think youve shown that regardless of the Extreme Religious Rights intentions their deport all immigrants approach will never happen, just like the Far Hippy Lefts let everyone in lets create an Utopia approach will never happen. Whenever anyone tries to place a full party at either far side (imo the average dem and rep are closer to each other than the far side of their own party and imo both far sides are equally as dangerous) i instantly zone out, also to use something you clearly don't believe in like the Bible makes me distance myself further since you are clearly using selected quotes without reading and understanding the full thing yourself.
I wouldn't mind reading the bible, but there are so much good books that have been written that I don't think I'll lose my time with this one, but you can't blame me for quoting it, it is a beautiful message I think, I don't hate these kind of message I am just saying that christians aren't coherent to their dogmatic book.
honeykid
10-02-15, 05:05 PM
:laugh: so true, not necessarily about Yoda but i know the type. I have a friend who will never stop arguing no matter how much is presented showing he's wrong. Sort of guy that could convince you Scotland won the last World Cup.
Which world cup? Curling? Cos even Yoda's not convincing anyone that Scotland won the world cup, let alone last year. Even Ally MacLeod could only convince you you'd won it before you kicked a ball. :D
Which world cup? Curling? Cos even Yoda's not convincing anyone that Scotland won the world cup, let alone last year. Even Ally MacLeod could only convince you you'd won it before you kicked a ball. :D
Fictional or otherwise Yoda hasn't convinced me of anything. I'm still not sure yet but some are saying Germany won that last one, sounds plausible, yet there are still some weirdos out there saying Scotland didn't even qualify :rolleyes:
Also i never said last year, not sure why you imagined that :D
honeykid
10-02-15, 05:26 PM
But the last world cup was last year? :confused:
But the last world cup was last year? :confused:
So Curling and Synchronised Swimming don't count?
Yeah whatever :p
honeykid
10-02-15, 05:34 PM
I'm more confused now than I was when I was trying to work out why Americans kill each other in mass shootings. :(
I'm more confused now than I was when I was trying to work out why Americans kill each other in mass shootings. :(
I was just joking around with you there, whatever though.
honeykid
10-02-15, 05:43 PM
And Columbine, the school shooting that had set this sick standard happened in the middle of the Clinton Assault Weapons ban which lasted from 1994, to 2004. Gun control does not work.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Kobdb37Cwc
This song was inspired by a real life incident on Jan 29, 1979 which a 16 year old girl living across from an elementary school in San Diego Cal sniped the school yard killing 3 adults and wounding 8 defenseless children. The reason she gave was "I don't like Mondays". The girl, Brenda Ann Spencer, is still in prison because of it.
That's the first time I became aware of this. I was 6.
The Gunslinger45
10-02-15, 05:49 PM
I can't listen to the song. But I get the point.
My point is though mass shooting have been around forever, it was Columbine where those two A-holes became heroes to many of the mass shooters who came next and when people think school shootings in modern times, Columbine is generally the first thing they think of.
Sexy Celebrity
10-02-15, 06:12 PM
My point is though mass shooting have been around forever, it was Columbine where those two A-holes became heroes to many of the mass shooters who came next and when people think school shootings in modern times, Columbine is generally the first thing they think of.
It feels like it's become unbelievably worse in just the past year! At least from 1979 to 1999, there was a big break. Even just a few years ago, it seemed like there might be one major shooting maybe once a year, if that. NOW, I swear to God, it's like there's a new shooting EVERY WEEK.
EVERY WEEK!
I am not surprised at all anymore when this happens. It's no longer shocking.
To me, it seems like it started with the shooting that happened at that theater when The Dark Knight Rises came out in 2012. It's become worse ever since then. But really, it didn't start then, either.
And how DARE they not even give that theater shooter the death penalty. All because of that one stupid, idiotic juror woman, whoever she was. That woman in Georgia who got executed the other night -- she can die, but the movie theater murderer can't? F**ked up.
Anyway....
BUT THIS YEAR!
This year it's happening just about EVERY WEEK.
And this latest one was really, really bad. A lot more people dead, a lot more wounded, and the killer sounds just absolutely even more evil than most -- if "more evil" can really apply to different killers.
Sexy Celebrity
10-02-15, 06:17 PM
And I don't feel safe out there anymore, to tell you the truth.
When I go out, I worry someone's gonna shoot and kill me.
Last time I went to the movies, I was on the lookout for someone walking in with a gun.
honeykid
10-02-15, 06:22 PM
My point is though mass shooting have been around forever, it was Columbine where those two A-holes became heroes to many of the mass shooters who came next and when people think school shootings in modern times, Columbine is generally the first thing they think of.
I see. :) I don't know, but I have no trouble believing that's the case.45 mass shootings this year in the US so far apparently. I told you a few weeks ago that I was going to start that thread a few years back. I wonder how many posts I'd be up to now. :( That was one of the reasons I didn't do it. One of many, tbh.
I agree with what SC was saying there. Think he helps desensitise everything since he is so straightforward and great :up:, he also shows his controversial hand allowing whoever to moan and whatever at him.
Fabulous
10-02-15, 06:25 PM
I see. :) I don't know, but I have no trouble believing that's the case.45 mass shootings this year in the US so far apparently. I told you a few weeks ago that I was going to start that thread a few years back. I wonder how many posts I'd be up to now. :( That was one of the reasons I didn't do it. One of many, tbh.
I thought 45 was just the amount that have happened at a school?
honeykid
10-02-15, 06:27 PM
I thought 45 was just the amount that have happened at a school?
Sorry, that's what I meant. Mass shootings at schools.
Fabulous
10-02-15, 06:27 PM
Sorry, that's what I meant. Mass shootings at schools.
Which is even more frightening.
There was 45 mass shooting at schools in the US this year? Link?
Sexy Celebrity
10-02-15, 06:30 PM
I see. :) I don't know, but I have no trouble believing that's the case.45 mass shootings this year in the US so far apparently. I told you a few weeks ago that I was going to start that thread a few years back. I wonder how many posts I'd be up to now. :( That was one of the reasons I didn't do it. One of many, tbh.
Call it "The Countdown till Everybody in America is Dead Thread."
What would we be on now? #55?
The last survivors killed can be #1.
I hope I'm in the Top 10.
Fabulous
10-02-15, 06:33 PM
There was 45 mass shooting at schools in the US this year? Link?
In this article they point it out in the second last paragraph.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/01/oregon-umpqua-community-college-shooting
In this article they point it out in the second last paragraph.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/01/oregon-umpqua-community-college-shooting
By the FBI’s definition – four or more killed rather than four or more shot, a “mass murder” event rather than a “mass shooting” – there have been 45 such incidents this year, and 142 since Sandy Hook.
Fabulous
10-02-15, 06:40 PM
By the FBI’s definition – four or more killed rather than four or more shot, a “mass murder” event rather than a “mass shooting” – there have been 45 such incidents this year, and 142 since Sandy Hook.
45 falling under which one? Either way it's quite frightening.
christine
10-02-15, 06:40 PM
I wish that were the case in this hopelessly bastardized rotten little island. Most of our politicians make Trotsky look like a Nazi.
I don't recognise your description of our country.
Sexy Celebrity
10-02-15, 06:41 PM
If guns are all that's wrong, then why the Hell have things been getting so bad in just the past couple of years?
Where was all this in the '80s, '90s and even a lot of the '00's? We had guns then, too.
honeykid
10-02-15, 06:43 PM
It's not guns though, is it? I mean, if it was, then it really would be that easy. I still don't know that you'd do anything about it, but it'd be an easy fix. I think it's fairly obvious that restricting gun ownership would reduce the number of shootings/death/injuries from firearms, but how many of these type of attacks it'd stop I don't know.
45 falling under which one? Either way it's quite frightening.
Never said something either way, i just knew that figure was bs.
honeykid
10-02-15, 06:48 PM
Never said something either way, i just knew that figure was bs.
How's the figure bs?
Fabulous
10-02-15, 06:51 PM
Never said something either way, i just knew that figure was bs.
Your previous post confirms it though?
Your first comment HK
I see. I don't know, but I have no trouble believing that's the case.45 mass shootings this year in the US so far apparently. I told you a few weeks ago that I was going to start that thread a few years back. I wonder how many posts I'd be up to now. That was one of the reasons I didn't do it. One of many, tbh.
Fabulous - I thought 45 was just the amount that have happened at a school?
Sorry, that's what I meant. Mass shootings at schools.
After asking for clarification, it turned out by the FBI's definition there has been 45 mass shootings in the US in the last year. Which means the 45 school shootings figure is bs. Unless your "mass shootings at schools" comment means something else now?
It's not guns though, is it? I mean, if it was, then it really would be that easy. I still don't know that you'd do anything about it, but it'd be an easy fix. I think it's fairly obvious that restricting gun ownership would reduce the number of shootings/death/injuries from firearms, but how many of these type of attacks it'd stop I don't know.
It certainly wouldn't prevent them entirely, but at the same time I just don't understand why they're not at least trying to implement restrictions or pretty much anything to prevent these from occurring, I fail to understand how a government that is meant to protect and serve the best interests of their citizens can just sit back and watch all of these massacres happening. I'll admit I could be wrong though, but that's how it feels.
Your previous post confirms it though?
That was taking from the link you posted.
Frightened Inmate No. 2
10-02-15, 07:08 PM
do any of you people saying we shouldn't touch gun control have any ideas on how to stop these mass shootings or are we just gonna let these keep happening until they stop all by themselves?
Fabulous
10-02-15, 07:11 PM
Your first comment HK
I see. I don't know, but I have no trouble believing that's the case.45 mass shootings this year in the US so far apparently. I told you a few weeks ago that I was going to start that thread a few years back. I wonder how many posts I'd be up to now. That was one of the reasons I didn't do it. One of many, tbh.
Fabulous - I thought 45 was just the amount that have happened at a school?
Sorry, that's what I meant. Mass shootings at schools.
After asking for clarification, it turned out by the FBI's definition there has been 45 mass shootings in the US in the last year. Which means the 45 school shootings figure is bs. Unless your "mass shootings at schools" comment means something else now?
Sorry, 45 school shootings this year, not all were "mass shootings".
honeykid
10-02-15, 07:13 PM
Your first comment HK
I see. I don't know, but I have no trouble believing that's the case.45 mass shootings this year in the US so far apparently. I told you a few weeks ago that I was going to start that thread a few years back. I wonder how many posts I'd be up to now. That was one of the reasons I didn't do it. One of many, tbh.
Fabulous - I thought 45 was just the amount that have happened at a school?
Sorry, that's what I meant. Mass shootings at schools.
After asking for clarification, it turned out by the FBI's definition there has been 45 mass shootings in the US in the last year. Which means the 45 school shootings figure is bs. Unless your "mass shootings at schools" comment means something else now?
Oh, I see. :) Yes, it's me who misunderstood that.
It certainly wouldn't prevent them entirely, but at the same time I just don't understand why they're not at least trying to implement restrictions or pretty much anything to prevent these from occurring, I fail to understand how a government that is meant to protect and serve the best interests of their citizens can just sit back and watch all of these massacres happening. I'll admit I could be wrong though, but that's how it feels.
We don't understand it because, frankly, I don't think we can. It's such a cultural difference that I don't think we'll ever really "get it."
Sorry, 45 school shootings this year, not all were "mass shootings".
Where are you getting the 45 school shootings, mass or not? Link?
My dad told me he was watching the news and this guy was saying the typical "guns don't kill people, people with mental illness do" so the news anchor asked something like "so why aren't we putting more money into helping those with mental illness" and the guy just avoided the question.
F*ck you, guy!
christine
10-02-15, 07:20 PM
We don't understand it because, frankly, I don't think we can. It's such a cultural difference that I don't think we'll ever really "get it."
Yes I think it's this. I don't get it and nothing I have ever read in a half century has made me understand
honeykid
10-02-15, 07:23 PM
Of course he did. That's an even bigger can of worms than mass shootings.
Of course he did. That's an even bigger can of worms than mass shootings.
Well, maybe we need to get into it if it's related.
honeykid
10-02-15, 07:29 PM
Well, maybe we need to get into it if it's related.
TBF, I don't know who the person was so he probably wasn't brought on tv to talk about that. While he might've addressed it while acknowledging that he didn't know about it, that's not the sort of thing that people do. Especially on confrontational tv interviews.
I think it's related, in the grand scheme of things, but it's one of many arms to this and each individual case will have varying degrees of each of the problems.
TBF, I don't know who the person was so he probably wasn't brought on tv to talk about that. While he might've addressed it while acknowledging that he didn't know about it, that's not the sort of thing that people do. Especially on confrontational tv interviews.
I think it's related, in the grand scheme of things, but it's one of many arms to this and each individual case will have varying degrees of each of the problems.
True. I didn't see the segment myself.
Sexy Celebrity
10-02-15, 07:44 PM
Get ready for pictures and videos, everyone. Nostromo87 is replying to this thread.
Citizen Rules
10-02-15, 08:11 PM
Moral decay.
The collapsing of our culture.
Do we really have moral decay and collapse of our culture in America? Civil & human rights are much better now than they were in the past. So what actually is moral decay?
... I think the real issue does not lie in the gun culture, but in another part of society.
That's what SC is saying too, so same question to you: what about society has changed in the last 20 or so years that could explain the rise in mass school shootings by young males?
Personally I think the solution is to stop selling guns to anyone, but I don't see that becoming an actual law anytime soon so the least they can do is have an increased on gun restriction laws. Why the hell does this guy have tons of ammunition and even body armor? Bring it down to one gun per person and have it illegal to bring it outside.
The Sci-Fi Slob
10-02-15, 08:17 PM
http://www.alan.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/original.jpg
Pussy Galore
10-02-15, 08:18 PM
Someone who wants a gun will ind a gun whether it's legal or not unfortunately, I agree with Christine and hk when they say that there is some sort of cultural difference between the states and the rest of the world and I also can't understand it, here guns is just not an issue because nobody would really want to own one. I don't know how to solve it, but it is very sad.
Citizen Rules
10-02-15, 08:24 PM
Pussy Galore I agree that it's an American cultural thing.
Compare American TV to European TV, especially TV from the 1970s on up. In Europe they can show bare breast but have restrictions on violence. In America we think bare breast are evil, but we love to see people die for entertainment. For whatever the reasons Americans have been in the past up tight about sex but enthusiastic about violence.
Pussy Galore I agree that it's an American cultural thing.
Compare American TV to European TV, especially TV from the 1970s on up. In Europe they can show bare breast but have restrictions on violence. In America we think bare breast are evil, but we love to see people die for entertainment. For whatever the reasons Americans have been in the past up tight about sex but enthusiastic about violence.
That reminds me of the Marlene Dietrich quote :lol:
"In America, sex is an obsession, in other parts of the world it's a fact."
Very few of the people who have guns are wiling to part with them, while very few people who live without them (including me) want anything to do with them. I have a brother-in-law who claims to have guns "all throughout" his house, and he's a grandfather a dozen times over. He also claims that they're all safe, but he's beginning to show signs of Alzheimer's. I just hope that they're all accounted for if and when he feels the need to verify that, and that the children aren't hurt by any possible accident.
Nostromo87
10-02-15, 08:35 PM
My dad told me he was watching the news and this guy was saying the typical "guns don't kill people, people with mental illness do" so the news anchor asked something like "so why aren't we putting more money into helping those with mental illness" and the guy just avoided the question.
F*ck you, guy!
picture video picture video picture
video picture video picture video
picture video picture video picture
video picture video picture video
picture video picture video picture
video picture video picture video
Get ready for pictures and videos, everyone. Nostromo87 is replying to this thread.
oh wait :shifty:
i actually had a wordy response typed up, but it was a jumbled mess
matt72582
10-02-15, 09:02 PM
What about a voluntary gun buyback program? People could turn them in for cash, no questions asked, and then we can sell them to Syria...
Sexy Celebrity
10-02-15, 09:05 PM
Do we really have moral decay and collapse of our culture in America? Civil & human rights are much better now than they were in the past. So what actually is moral decay?
Civil and human rights and progress don't solve all the problems in this country. Like with gay marriage -- now we have that, but we still get someone pissed off about it, like that Kim Davis woman, and it's these kinds of pissed off people who take radical action against things. People who are very religious can have a very strong motivation towards things -- no matter what, government is not above God. The government trying to take away guns is not stronger than the force of God who says, "Protect your family, protect the traditions." That Kim Davis woman got an insane amount of respect for refusing to marry gays -- SHE MET THE DAMN POPE! People compared her to Rosa Parks! Despite the progress, there's still a lot of people who don't subscribe to all that's going on. I think that probably one of the biggest conflicts is between those who think the country is only getting better... and those who think it's only going to Hell. And the more things change, the angrier they get. This is the moral decay to them.
what about society has changed in the last 20 or so years that could explain the rise in mass school shootings by young males?I think that probably one of the biggest problems is that life has basically become too cookie cutter, too assembly line, and people are reacting to that and getting pissed off. The reason, I think, schools are always being targeted, is because school is a place where all this madness begins. School is like a prison for the young. Then they go off to college and then work, marriage, etc. etc. It's all an assembly line. Study, study, study. Work, work, work. Get married. Live a quaint little monogamous life with your wife. Then drop dead and never live again.
These guys are looking to live -- and live to the fullest. So many of these punks turn to violent video games to get pent up aggression out. So many of these guys have all kinds of psychological issues stemming from how they were raised, how they grew up, experiences with their peers, etc. etc. Life isn't really satisfying them with any answers. And now when you look at culture and entertainment ... everything's so sh*tty and chaotic. Religion is in tatters -- we collectively get more and more atheist everyday. Everyone's going gay or transgendered right in front of our faces, giving us messages about how our ideas of gender and sexuality are all wrong. The Internet has caused chaos because we're dealing with a new realm of existence that can be very different from real life, and it cuts off communication and face-to-face interaction, even voice-to-voice interaction. We're turning robotic. The progress going on is really a scary new platform, an evolution into the unknown. The school thing is probably because a lot of people are really fed up with the idea of school, the idea of having to attend these institutions by force for many years, where the bullies roam -- everyone is still all obsessed about bullying in schools.
Something's not right. The idea that things are getting better -- it's not true. I personally don't even think things are really progressing and getting better myself. We have a black president now, yet we're far from racial harmony. And then there's people everywhere trying to mask all of these problems with slogans about how "everyone's just gotta be happy!" "Love is all you need!" "IT GETS BETTER." None of that works. We live in a psychologically toxic, crazy, neurotic system where only the talented survive. People are turning to nihilism and darkness everyday because they don't have the right tools to cope with all that's being thrown at them. Life is simply getting very complex, in all kinds of directions, when the truth is -- it really doesn't need to be. But so many systems, I think, are in place now, that frustrates people and complicates their lives. These killers are people who don't know how to handle the complexity in a rational, sane outlet. And perhaps worst of all -- we may not be listening to what they have to say, what they feel.
I think that probably one of the biggest problems is that life has basically become too cookie cutter, too assembly line, and people are reacting to that and getting pissed off. The reason, I think, schools are always being targeted, is because school is a place where all this madness begins. School is like a prison for the young. Then they go off to college and then work, marriage, etc. etc. It's all an assembly line. Study, study, study. Work, work, work. Get married. Live a quaint little monogamous life with your wife. Then drop dead and never live again.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGoTmNU_5A0
Fabulous
10-02-15, 09:30 PM
Where are you getting the 45 school shootings, mass or not? Link?
Everytown for Gun Safety foundation has been quoted in many newspaper articles with this figure.
Newsweek:
And now the shooting at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon. It's the 45th school shooting in the United States in the 274 days so far in 2015, a spokesperson for Everytown for Gun Safety tells Newsweek.
Huffington Post:
According to Everytown for Gun Safety, a group pushing for reforms to reduce gun violence, it was the 45th shooting at a school in 2015.
Time:
The shooting at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Ore., which killed at least 10 and injured seven, is the 45th shooting on school grounds this year and the 17th on a college campus, according to a group that advocates for gun reform.
There are many other examples. All you have to do is check a major news site and they are most likely running that figure.
Link?
You've produced no links, three isolated quotes whatever?
Fabulous
10-02-15, 09:49 PM
Link?
You've produced no links, three isolated quotes whatever?http://everytown.org/article/schoolshootings/?utm_content=buffer1cb87&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
False Writer
10-02-15, 11:29 PM
These guys are looking to live -- and live to the fullest. So many of these punks turn to violent video games to get pent up aggression out. So many of these guys have all kinds of psychological issues stemming from how they were raised, how they grew up, experiences with their peers, etc. etc. Life isn't really satisfying them with any answers. And now when you look at culture and entertainment ... everything's so sh*tty and chaotic. Religion is in tatters -- we collectively get more and more atheist everyday. Everyone's going gay or transgendered right in front of our faces, giving us messages about how our ideas of gender and sexuality are all wrong. The Internet has caused chaos because we're dealing with a new realm of existence that can be very different from real life, and it cuts off communication and face-to-face interaction, even voice-to-voice interaction. We're turning robotic. The progress going on is really a scary new platform, an evolution into the unknown. The school thing is probably because a lot of people are really fed up with the idea of school, the idea of having to attend these institutions by force for many years, where the bullies roam -- everyone is still all obsessed about bullying in schools.
Something's not right. The idea that things are getting better -- it's not true. I personally don't even think things are really progressing and getting better myself. We have a black president now, yet we're far from racial harmony. And then there's people everywhere trying to mask all of these problems with slogans about how "everyone's just gotta be happy!" "Love is all you need!" "IT GETS BETTER." None of that works. We live in a psychologically toxic, crazy, neurotic system where only the talented survive. People are turning to nihilism and darkness everyday because they don't have the right tools to cope with all that's being thrown at them. Life is simply getting very complex, in all kinds of directions, when the truth is -- it really doesn't need to be. But so many systems, I think, are in place now, that frustrates people and complicates their lives. These killers are people who don't know how to handle the complexity in a rational, sane outlet. And perhaps worst of all -- we may not be listening to what they have to say, what they feel.
You're hitting it right on the head SC. I don't consider "two steps forward, three steps back" progress. Yeah, we have had a black president for almost 8 years, yet racial tensions in this country have been worse than they have been in a long time. I thought all that was suppose to END racism and the like. Heck, most of the time the people that supposedly say they want to end racism are the ones that help keep it alive by constantly pulling the race card whenever something doesn't go their way (and many times it's very obvious that race had nothing to do with whatever the problem is) or trying way too hard to find racism in something when it isn't there. For example, in the Jungle Book how they were trying to say that the song "I wanna be like you" was racist...MOWGLI ISN'T EVEN WHITE YOU IDIOTS!!! :mad:
Also I agree with the fact that some people that were use to "the old ways" have trouble dealing with today's world. If they don't completely agree with today's ways, then they are automatically labelled a racist-homophobic-transphobic-misogynistic bigot. When that happens of course they're gonna be miserable and unhappy, and it'll be all downhill for them psychologically.
And yeah.. many other things. How they try to create a "don't say anything that's offensive" movement yet the internet is an uncensored platform where people say the most offensive things known to man. How the media shines the spotlight on these mass shootings yet completely ignore other horrible things that happen. I'm not too far away from Baltimore, and when I turn on the news—murder, rape, robbery—every single day. It's actually gotten even worse since the riots ended.
Sexy Celebrity
10-03-15, 12:00 AM
How they try to create a "don't say anything that's offensive" movement yet the internet is an uncensored platform where people say the most offensive things known to man.
Mmmhmm. The Internet shows off a very savage side to human life. It can be like neanderthal/caveman times here. In a cyber sense, that's where we may be at.
How the media shines the spotlight on these mass shootings yet completely ignore other horrible things that happen.And of course, if you're a shooter or something, you can become famous. Everyone's trying to be famous now. You can go online and turn yourself into a celebrity if you try hard enough. I did it! Before Twitter, before Facebook, before Instagram, before all of that, there was Sexy Celebrity.
But there are things that are strictly pollitical such as the rules for immigration, the number of migrants from Syria you are willing to accept, etc. And if you are a man of Jesus who says you should help the poor, accept evil and instead of punishing evil to turn the other cheek you shouldn't want to build a massive wall between the United States and Mexico, you shouldn't ask yourself can we integrate a huge amount of immigrants in our country, you should say yeah it'll be hard economically, but we should do good, I really don't understand how can a man of god be for these policies which pretty much every republicans are.
Well, first off, it's not remotely true that "pretty much every" Republican is hostile to immigration. The last Republican President wasn't, and the nominee after that wasn't, and the nominee after that was in-between. The party is fairly divided on immigration and most of the disputes are about how to balance legal precedent with a failed system. And the Trump version of "build a giant wall to keep them all out" is in the clear (but loud) minority.
Second, I think I already gave you a perfectly good reason that encompasses these issues as well: good personal behavior is not synonymous with good law. In fact, in some ways it's mutually exclusive. Charitable behavior, for example, is only positive in a moral sense when it's optional. If you force someone to be charitable, it's no longer charity by definition.
And it's sort of a disingenuous argument anyway, isn't it? Surely you'd have major problems with Christians trying to make the tenets of their faith law in virtually any other area. We don't advocate legislating these ideals for the same reason we don't want to mandate church attendance or ban all sinful behavior.
I graduated from Roseburg High School in 1983. Attended Umpqua Community College in 1988.
Pussy Galore
10-03-15, 03:02 PM
Well, first off, it's not remotely true that "pretty much every" Republican is hostile to immigration. The last Republican President wasn't, and the nominee after that wasn't, and the nominee after that was in-between. The party is fairly divided on immigration and most of the disputes are about how to balance legal precedent with a failed system. And the Trump version of "build a giant wall to keep them all out" is in the clear (but loud) minority.
Second, I think I already gave you a perfectly good reason that encompasses these issues as well: good personal behavior is not synonymous with good law. In fact, in some ways it's mutually exclusive. Charitable behavior, for example, is only positive in a moral sense when it's optional. If you force someone to be charitable, it's no longer charity by definition.
And it's sort of a disingenuous argument anyway, isn't it? Surely you'd have major problems with Christians trying to make the tenets of their faith law in virtually any other area. We don't advocate legislating these ideals for the same reason we don't want to mandate church attendance or ban all sinful behavior.
What I'm saying is more that my impression (that might be wrong) of things like fox news, right wing america is often intolerant toward immegration, pointing out the differences (I'm thinking about Bill O'Reilly who constantly talks about how the blacks aren't integrated, etc.). My point was that there seems to be a large distance between what the christian doctrine, the teachings of Jesus seem to be (based on the new testament) and how the mostly christian pollitical group in your country is diametrically the opposite of that.
Sexy Celebrity
10-03-15, 03:09 PM
I graduated from Roseburg High School in 1983. Attended Umpqua Community College in 1988.
Uh oh -- better watch out with him -- he's a loner.
honeykid
10-03-15, 03:15 PM
I graduated from Roseburg High School in 1983. Attended Umpqua Community College in 1988.
Wow. Close call. ;)
Yesterday October 2nd, at Oregon's Umpqua Community College a 26 year old male shooter went into the school and killed 11 people. What was in his twisted mind as he stood there wearing body armor and heavily armed...
"The gunman, while reloading his handgun, ordered the students to stand up if they were Christians, Boylan told her family. "And they would stand up and he said, 'Good, because you're a Christian, you're going to see God in just about one second,'" Boylan's father, Stacy, told CNN, relaying her account.
"And then he shot and killed them."
Full News Story:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/01/us/oregon-college-shooting/
School shootings have become a common occurrence in America, why?
First off they occur because the deranged shooters know that schools are gun-free - so training staff to be armed is a step in the right-direction.
Second they occur due to the negative affects of industrialization and lack of cultural unity on societies. People today don't exercise, eat well, and over-indulge in pleasures such as video games, internet usage, TV, etc - this lack of healthy social and physical activity leads to repressed rage and mental illness.
And since modern America has less of a common sense of cultural unity, with people becoming overly materialistic, nihilistic and distanced from one another - it leads to tension especially in higher population dense and diverse areas (which is why shootings happen most often in areas like Chicago, versus say Plano, TX despite Chicago's higher gun control laws).
The modern media is also to blame in many ways - for one it publicizes exploitative stories like this just as "outrage porn" for the sake of ratings, leading to people who indulge in the news being more paranoid and misanthropic - and it also gives deranged killers an outlet to "become famous" knowing they'll get in the news for committing their crimes.
Guns themselves are the least of the problem - more people die in auto accidents and from alcohol-related incidents than guns each year, but the extremists on the anti-gun side aren't advocating for reinstating the Prohibition, which would be the logical course of action if "preventing death" was their real agenda (but it isn't - it's just sating their emotional whim rather than actually coming up with a pragmatic solution the the problem).
Powdered Water
10-04-15, 03:54 AM
The answer is simple. Close all the schools. America obviously doesn't need them judging by the way we are dropping down the leader boards in education rates. And I'm not even kidding.
Frightened Inmate No. 2
10-04-15, 04:23 AM
Guns themselves are the least of the problem - more people die in auto accidents and from alcohol-related incidents than guns each year, but the extremists on the anti-gun side aren't advocating for reinstating the Prohibition, which would be the logical course of action if "preventing death" was their real agenda (but it isn't - it's just sating their emotional whim rather than actually coming up with a pragmatic solution the the problem).
except cars and alcohol serve a purpose beyond shooting things. if you kill someone with one of those things, you are doing something completely contrary to its intended use, but guns are designed with the idea that you will have to shoot someone or something. and besides, society has been working on making those things safer. being drunk while driving is illegal because you have the potential to kill someone, but carrying a gun is legal even though it's even easier to kill someone with it. if you want to buy a car, you have to take drivers' ed, it has to be registered, and if you break a law you have your licensed revoked. even ignoring the cost, it's much harder to buy a car than it is to buy a gun. i also believe that america really needs to work on getting a better mass transit system, which would cut down on a lot of those auto-related deaths.
this jim jeffries bit is pretty great (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=89d_1411198955)
The_Coon
10-04-15, 06:06 AM
It's hard to tighten gun laws bc of the second amendment
Powdered Water
10-04-15, 03:37 PM
Did you really just say "piffle"? I like it.
except cars and alcohol serve a purpose beyond shooting things. if you kill someone with one of those things, you are doing something completely contrary to its intended use, but guns are designed with the idea that you will have to shoot someone or something.
But we're not trying to stop people from shooting "things." We're trying to stop people from shooting innocent people. That's supposed to be the rationale behind gun control, and if it is, then you can't bait-and-switch "innocent people" for "things" in the middle of the argument.
The argument ought to be: will it save lives? Will it protect people? If it would, then you at least have a difficult argument about what kinds of rights we're willing to trade away in the name of safety, and what kinds of costs various freedoms are supposed to have (and I'd really love to hear a gun control advocate at least admit there's some nuance to that question).
But we never even get to that point, because gun control advocates merely assume their proposals would lead to fewer deaths. Why? On what evidence? Look at homicide rates across the country:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CQVc2YEWIAAKOKV.jpg:large
(source (https://m.twitter.com/freddoso/status/650028152580739072))
There's nothing here to support the idea that more gun ownership means more murders, and plenty to the contrary. That massive outlier on the right, Washington DC? It has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. South Dakota, 3rd-lowest homicide rate? 4th-highest gun ownership rate.
The options are not "guns" vs. "no guns." The options are a world where only criminals have guns, or a world where law-abiding citizens can have them, too.
What I'm saying is more that my impression (that might be wrong) of things like fox news, right wing america is often intolerant toward immegration, pointing out the differences
What you actually said is that "pretty much all" Republicans think this way, which simply isn't the case. But it would certainly be fair to say that Republicans are more likely to want to restrict immigration. Though they would tell you (fairly) that what they oppose is illegal immigration. I love immigration and support pretty lenient immigration laws, personally, but the party as a whole is pretty divided on this.
(I'm thinking about Bill O'Reilly who constantly talks about how the blacks aren't integrated, etc.).
I have no idea what this is in reference to, but Bill O'Reilly is not the head of the Republican party.
My point was that there seems to be a large distance between what the christian doctrine, the teachings of Jesus seem to be (based on the new testament) and how the mostly christian pollitical group in your country is diametrically the opposite of that.
And again, my counterpoint is that they're not opposed to it: they're opposed to making it law.
Not all good things should be mandated and not all bad things should be banned.
Something else to consider, re: "why won't they do anything?" Leaving aside the unstated assumption that any problem is something the government should be actively trying to fix, it might be because the problem's getting better, not worse:
https://twitter.com/ChuckLane1/status/649763969306087425
Even mass shootings are about the same as they were at almost every point over the last few decades (http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/10/02/umpqua-community-college-shooting-oregon-mass-shooting-fbi-statistics-column/73199052/). What we have more of is media coverage.
Does this mean we can't debate gun control? Absolutely not: those deaths matter. But those arguments have to account for the fact that firearm homicides have dropped without the apparently crucial gun control measures they support, which sure seems to lend a lot more weight to the arguments about this being primarily a cultural (and not legal) issue, with corresponding cultural (and not legal) solutions.
Interesting graph. In my crime thriller the character goes to new hampshire to buy his gun because they have such lax gun laws. But they're on the lower end of that chart.
Anyway I have the solution to stop these school shootings!!
All we need on school grounds is to employ some enforcement droids - series 209
https://wiki.base22.com/download/attachments/56397167/ed209.jpg
Captain Steel
10-04-15, 04:42 PM
But what if there's a "glitch"?
honeykid
10-04-15, 04:47 PM
The answer is simple. Close all the schools. America obviously doesn't need them judging by the way we are dropping down the leader boards in education rates. And I'm not even kidding.
If it's anything like over here you need the schools open because they're basically creches, allowing the parents to go to work because a single income isn't usually enough anymore.
But what if there's a "glitch"?
load them with rubber bullets
Fun ideological exercise for my left-leaning friends: take any argument about gun control and replace "guns" with "drugs." Still like the sound of it?
"the right of the people to keep and bear Drugs, shall not be infringed"
I like the sound of that! :D
honeykid
10-04-15, 05:29 PM
Fun ideological exercise for my left-leaning friends: take any argument about gun control and replace "guns" with "drugs." Still like the sound of it?
Not sure if I'm in the group you're talking about, but on the face of it, I'd be fine with that.
Captain Steel
10-04-15, 05:31 PM
load them with rubber bullets
I'll buy that for a dollar!
Or, as I like to say, "Good business is where you find it."
matt72582
10-04-15, 05:43 PM
Both sides can find a statistic to support what they want to find. If I was pro-guns, and was doing research, I'd simply leave out any information that makes my argument look bad. Bad information (like using Switzerland half-truths) contribute to reinforcing a prejudice. If one city has strict gun laws, one goes next door to get them. Even if the entire state has one, anyone can go state to state without being searched. I think the entire country has to have a law, but then again, geographies and population matter. I'm in favor of a voluntary buyback program. I'm worried about the new gun carriers, doing it out of fear and/or paranoia. Even for those who hate guns, they might think "Well, everyone else has one, maybe I should, because of course I'm normal." Regardless of the law or external forces out of my control, I have no interest in ever having a gun, even after I had a loaded gun pointed at me a week ago just going for a walk.
The next time there's a shooting, compare all the major news networks.
except cars and alcohol serve a purpose beyond shooting things.
What legitimate purpose does alcoholic drink have? Its only purpose is to intoxicate people.
As far as cars go, most people in large cities like NYC get along without one just fine. Plus they contaminate the environment.
The "intended" purpose argument seems poor when the actual functional and common usage purposes seem more valid. Since a person killed by a drunk driver instead of a gun isn't "less dead". And self-defense against armed attackers is certainly a valid purpose, especially in the case of women who aren't physically capable of fighting off a 250 lb rapist with a taser or pepper spray, let alone one carrying a weapon himself.
if you kill someone with one of those things, you are doing something completely contrary to its intended use, but guns are designed with the idea that you will have to shoot someone or something. and besides, society has been working on making those things safer. being drunk while driving is illegal because you have the potential to kill someone, but carrying a gun is legal even though it's even easier to kill someone with it. if you want to buy a car, you have to take drivers' ed, it has to be registered, and if you break a law you have your licensed revoked. even ignoring the cost, it's much harder to buy a car than it is to buy a gun. i also believe that america really needs to work on getting a better mass transit system, which would cut down on a lot of those auto-related deaths.
If you mean tougher laws against gun access, I'm not against that. I don't believe the 2nd Amendment means a person has a God-given right to carry a machine gun into a grocery store. But eliminating firearm usage entirely? No.
If staff on campus was armed and trained in defensive firearm usage, it would deter attacks like this as well. You don't see these shooters targeting police stations or military bases, just places like churches and schools where they don't expect anyone to be armed.
What legitimate purpose does alcoholic drink have? Its only purpose is to intoxicate people.
Oh idk how about SAVING THE WORLD
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1832368/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1
Slappydavis
10-06-15, 04:18 AM
Why? On what evidence? Look at homicide rates across the country:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CQVc2YEWIAAKOKV.jpg:large
(source (https://m.twitter.com/freddoso/status/650028152580739072))
While I'm sure @freddoso is a good and reputable man, that graph is sinfully uninformative (I honestly stay out of gun control stuff in general, but data I can't let slip by). Without looking up the laws of individual states, it's a bit difficult to know any effects. It didn't even label its vertical axis! Shame on you David! SHAME!
Here's a chart that I think is more compelling, and more fleshed out with an ability to look at how laws differ across the country.
https://img.njdc.com/media/media/2015/09/01/wholechart.png
There's not a 1:1 relationship, but it does raise some questions, I believe.
It doesn't include D.C., which is an outlier as Yoda mentions, but indeed it is an de facto outlier based upon the fact that it's a metropolitan area rather than a state; most of the time when we consider state level data we don't include D.C. because it'd throw off a lot of calculations. Much more fair to compare it to metropolitan areas (which I'd be interested in seeing, I'm not actually sure how city level data bears out).
Though if you compare it to metropolitan areas, remember your lessons on causation; if we look at a city with a high crime rate, and a large police force, we should be careful not to assume it's the large police form that's causing the crime.
Though even if you added D.C. to the bottom, I find the direction the data is pointing to be an interesting thought. (Possibly get rid of Hawaii and Alaska also, I would have kept it to contiguous states probably)
The argument ought to be: will it save lives? Will it protect people? If it would, then you at least have a difficult argument about what kinds of rights we're willing to trade away in the name of safety, and what kinds of costs various freedoms are supposed to have (and I'd really love to hear a gun control advocate at least admit there's some nuance to that question).
I've had the chance to work personally with the Brady Campaign (http://www.bradycampaign.org/), and I can undoubtedly say that they have an incredibly nuanced view on the problem of gun violence, and are honestly a wonderful (and even pragmatic) bunch. Obviously, there are probably some people who have reductive views towards the issue, but I think you might be painting with too broad a brush.
I will also say that I've had the chance to work with the CA chapter of the NRA, and found their lobbyists similarly kind and straight forward (They are also a bit more nuanced than they seem, we even got to work together for funding on the dealer record of sale backlog). Sometimes that actions of the group itself have been a little...iffy..however. But I never had to interact with that aspect beyond their organized efforts to keep our phone's busy non-stop during the last gun control push around Sandy Hook.
Fun ideological exercise for my left-leaning friends: take any argument about gun control and replace "guns" with "drugs." Still like the sound of it?
Don't find this a particularly compelling thought experiment, I think it's a bit of equivocation. I could similarly say, replace "guns" with "grenade launchers". What we're talking about is a spectrum, and how far down that spectrum gun control should go, I usually don't hear all or nothing stances.
While I'm sure @freddoso is a good and reputable man, that graph is sinfully uninformative (I honestly stay out of gun control stuff in general, but data I can't let slip by). Without looking up the laws of individual states, it's a bit difficult to know any effects. It didn't even label its vertical axis! Shame on you David! SHAME!
I think you're way ahead of the rest of the debate here. Your chart is infinitely better in a situation where people have eschewed extreme positions and declared a cease fire on straw men, but that's not the state of the discussion in this thread. We're not even at the point where gun control advocates have questioned the idea that more guns lead to more homicides. So, simplistic arguments get a simplistic chart. If people want to make arguments that don't involve, ya' know, posting stand-up comedy, they'll get correspondingly detailed responses.
It doesn't include D.C., which is an outlier as Yoda mentions, but indeed it is an de facto outlier based upon the fact that it's a metropolitan area rather than a state; most of the time when we consider state level data we don't include D.C. because it'd throw off a lot of calculations. Much more fair to compare it to metropolitan areas (which I'd be interested in seeing, I'm not actually sure how city level data bears out).
Though if you compare it to metropolitan areas, remember your lessons on causation; if we look at a city with a high crime rate, and a large police force, we should be careful not to assume it's the large police form that's causing the crime.
Though even if you added D.C. to the bottom, I find the direction the data is pointing to be an interesting thought. (Possibly get rid of Hawaii and Alaska also, I would have kept it to contiguous states probably)
Agree on all counts.
I've had the chance to work personally with the Brady Campaign (http://www.bradycampaign.org/), and I can undoubtedly say that they have an incredibly nuanced view on the problem of gun violence, and are honestly a wonderful (and even pragmatic) bunch. Obviously, there are probably some people who have reductive views towards the issue, but I think you might be painting with too broad a brush.
If I were referring to all gun control advocates, absolutely, but I was just talking about this thread in particular.
Don't find this a particularly compelling thought experiment, I think it's a bit of equivocation.
You mean false equivalence? Or do you actually think the thought experiment is deliberately deceptive?
Either way, let's flesh it out a bit: my friends on the left tell me the war on drugs is a failure because being illegal only forces them underground, and because restricting drugs is treating the symptom and not the disease. On these issues they have an intuitive understanding of how unrealistic and ineffective these kinds of restrictions are. But this understanding vanishes when we start talking about guns.
JohnLeon
10-06-15, 10:55 AM
The answer is very simple. we have to spread love among the people belonging from different religions. there is a need to eliminate the concept of hate and brutality from our society.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
This segment is so ace.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGY6DqB1HX8
The_Coon
10-06-15, 11:00 AM
Just to be clear I agree that gun violence needs to be addressed just in ways that don't discard the constitution I read something yesterday about Hilary' s plan and I think it could work
Before I watch a John Oliver clip I need to know what he DESTROYED or EVISCERATED in it.
Before I watch a John Oliver clip I need to know what he DESTROYED or EVISCERATED in it.
It's really arguing against the stigma surrounding mental illness, and the problems with the industry/services meant to help the mentally ill. I didn't find it particularly combative towards anyone except against the type of people who believe mentally ill are all psychopathic killers, who are definitely incorrect.
Sorry, I was kidding; every week there's a viral video of someone like Oliver with a headline about how they "destroyed" such-and-such (usually any political position the person sharing it already thought little of).
Serious response: it's a good clip and I'm glad you shared it.
Gabrielle947
10-06-15, 06:18 PM
I don't want to get too involved in the arguments but just some thoughts I have in regards to the shootings in America, I'm not really following them too much:
- People are saying not to ban guns as people need them for their safety. How come then I don't feel the need to have a gun? And so does the majority of the world?
- What about putting some extra security in schools?
- What about trying to find a reason behind the shootings? Was it a political reason? Religious? People are just losing their minds? After Dark Knight shooting and maybe even Breivik incident (that's outside US though) I was thinking that these shooting are a result of some sort of psychological disorder, police should investigate that, offer some new approaches to the problem maybe?
- As for gun ban... Does anyone know if the killers owned guns legally? If yes, then, I think yeah, it's pretty obvious that gun ban might help.
- People are saying not to ban guns as people need them for their safety. How come then I don't feel the need to have a gun?
I think a better question is why you'd think your feelings are the barometer by which everyone else's are judged. Maybe you've never lived in a dangerous area. Maybe you've never lived in a country that had many guns to begin with. Whatever the reasons, that feeling doesn't have universal applicability. I don't feel the need to do or own a lot of things, but that doesn't mean I feel comfortable saying nobody else should have them.
And so does the majority of the world?
Probably because the majority of the world lives in a completely different country with a completely different culture.
You live in Lithuania, right? According to Wikipedia, Lithuania has "the most homogenous population in the Baltic States." America is much larger, and much more varied. I like this about us, but it's not without its cultural tensions as a result.
And while it's fair to wonder why America has so many guns in the first place, the fact remains that it does. So comparing it to countries where there have never been many to begin with doesn't make much sense. It's kind of like someone in California asking someone in Russia why they waste so much money on snow shoes.
- As for gun ban... Does anyone know if the killers owned guns legally? If yes, then, I think yeah, it's pretty obvious that gun ban might help.
I don't see how that logically follows at all. We know a gun ban wouldn't be a behavioral deterrent, because anyone unconcerned with punishment for murder sure isn't going to be scared off by punishment for gun ownership.
You could make the case that a gun ban could be a logistical deterrent, but I don't see what evidence we have for that; nothing else we ban ends up being particularly hard to get for someone who actually wants it, and in many of these cases we see a fair bit of planning and forethought.
The_Coon
10-07-15, 03:25 PM
Genetically engineer an army of vampire unicorns to guard the schools
Citizen Rules
10-07-15, 03:49 PM
Genetically engineer an army of vampire unicorns to guard the schools
Genetic engineering as a means to eliminate murderous violent tendencies...might be more plausible in the future, than one thinks.
Gabrielle947
10-07-15, 05:01 PM
America is much larger, and much more varied. I like this about us, but it's not without its cultural tensions as a result.
I live in the UK now which has extremely varied culture yet gun laws are very strict and people don't seem to be protesting against that.
And again, UK doesn't seem to have that many mass shootings... Coincidence?
And while it's fair to wonder why America has so many guns in the first place
Did you ever wonder this?
I don't see how that logically follows at all. We know a gun ban wouldn't be a behavioral deterrent, because anyone unconcerned with punishment for murder sure isn't going to be scared off by punishment for gun ownership.
You could make the case that a gun ban could be a logistical deterrent, but I don't see what evidence we have for that; nothing else we ban ends up being particularly hard to get for someone who actually wants it, and in many of these cases we see a fair bit of planning and forethought.
Just look at it in the simple way.. If you have sweets at home, you are more likely to eat it as it's easily reached. If you don't have any and you are hungry, you'll have to go outside and get it. It's not a hard thing to do it and you will go an etra mile if you're really craving that chocolate but it is a hassle and some people would rather not eat any.
Same with guns... If you really want to shoot someone, neither the law nor the strict gun laws will stop you. I think most of these mass shooters were just plain crazy and easy access to guns is one of the reasons why their plans came true.
Even if one shooting could've been avoided with strict gun laws put in practice, it's a win. And how can owning a gun in order to protect yourself can be justified is beyond me.
I live in the UK now which has extremely varied culture yet gun laws are very strict and people don't seem to be protesting against that. And again, UK doesn't seem to have that many mass shootings... Coincidence?
Nobody's arguing that it's a "coincidence." The argument is that the entire society is less diverse and has less interest in guns to begin with, and has higher incidences of other things as a result (stabbings, for example). By some measures they may even have more violent crime overall (it's hard to compare because it's measured differently, among other things, but there are several major areas where it's worse).
Did you ever wonder this?
I discussed it earlier in the thread, in fact.
Just look at it in the simple way.. If you have sweets at home, you are more likely to eat it as it's easily reached. If you don't have any and you are hungry, you'll have to go outside and get it. It's not a hard thing to do it and you will go an etra mile if you're really craving that chocolate but it is a hassle and some people would rather not eat any.
Same with guns... If you really want to shoot someone, neither the law nor the strict gun laws will stop you.
Exactly. The only people a gun ban would stop are people who aren't particularly committed to the idea, and it's hard to conjure up a person extreme enough to want to kill lots of people but NOT extreme enough to violate a gun ban to do it.
I think most of these mass shooters were just plain crazy and easy access to guns is one of the reasons why their plans came true.
Why do you think that, though? Do you have any knowledge of the shooters or how easy it was for each of them to obtain their guns?
Even if one shooting could've been avoided with strict gun laws put in practice, it's a win.
The "if it saves just one life..." logic is wildly untenable. If applied consistently it would lead to the banning of virtually everything. It would also self-contradict, because guns have been used in self-defense to stop tragedies.
And how can owning a gun in order to protect yourself can be justified is beyond me.
Aye, you mentioned that. And my questions in response were why it's beyond you, and why you think that sentiment should be universally applicable. Have you lived in a dangerous neighborhood, for example?
Citizen Rules
10-07-15, 05:26 PM
Gabrielle, did you see the charts I posted of declining gun ownership in America? Less homes have guns today than in the past and yet we have an increase in mass shootings. Obviously we need to look elsewhere for the causes.
Our love of violence in America is a big part of these mass shootings. Vornography is out of control....movies, TV and video games sell the idea that killing is fun! It used to be that killing in films was done by the bad guys and NOT shown as justified revenge and made to look cool. Sometime in the last quarter century, many movies started adopting the fantasy revenge killing as a main theme. The idea of going ballistic, getting even and ending in a blaze of gun fire has become part of the national psyche. Add to that, this:
In a nation of 318 million people there's going to be a tiny, tiny number of individuals who have family and or psychological problems and end up retreating from the real world, replacing human contact with technology and escaping into a world of media and video, hyper violence. Locked inside their own heads, visions of glorious revenge killings can take root. These mostly young males often are taking prescribed psychiatric drugs which can increase violent tendencies. With the pharmaceutical companies doping our children in droves, is it any wonder a miniscule number snap and go on a shooting rampage?
http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=22791&stc=1&d=1444249166
I definitely see where you're coming from Citizen, but that obsession with violence and the media is applicable to the majority of Western civilization, and there is always going be that minority like you said, yet if that were strictly true, then those trends would apply to countries like the UK, Australia, New Zealand etc. Yet they don't experience mass shootings so although I think it's probably a combination of factors, and the media is probably one of them, I think one of the most major issues is, like Gabrielle said, accessibility to guns.
Gabrielle, a couple of us said earlier in the thread that we on this side of the pond can't rationalise it because our cultures have such vastly differing attitudes towards this that it's just something we'll probably never be able to comprehend or agree upon :lol:
The_Coon
10-07-15, 05:53 PM
The only way the us us ever getting tighter gun laws is if the 2nd amendment were to somehow be repealed
Japan has a very violent history, violent video games and the most violent movies (watch a Takashi Miike film some time) but their gun homicide rate per 100,000 people is 0.00 (2008). In the US it's 3.55 (2013). What's the difference?
Gabrielle947
10-07-15, 06:11 PM
The argument is that the entire society is less diverse and has less interest in guns to begin with, and has higher incidences of other things as a result (stabbings, for example). By some measures they may even have more violent crime overall (it's hard to compare because it's measured differently, among other things, but there are several major areas where it's worse).
yeah, but the fact that one diverse country has mass shootings and lenient gun laws and another diverse country doesn't suggest that diversity and gun ownership aren't really related. Being diverse doesn't justify having a gun in your home.
I discussed it earlier in the thread, in fact.
I'll check it out later, as I am interesting in this
The only people a gun ban would stop are people who aren't particularly committed to the idea, and it's hard to conjure up a person extreme enough to want to kill lots of people but NOT extreme enough to violate a gun ban to do it.
So that's the point! Even if one person is stopped, how is strick gun laws a bad thing?
Why do you think that, though? Do you have any knowledge of the shooters or how easy it was for each of them to obtain their guns?
No, I don't actually. I asked that earlier. Dark Knight shooter was crazy though, he didn't really have any political/religious agenda, did he? The way I see it, if you shot someone just for the sake of shooting, it is crazy. It's out of the norm.
The "if it saves just one life..." logic is wildly untenable. If applied consistently it would lead to the banning of virtually everything. It would also self-contradict, because guns have been used in self-defense to stop tragedies.
Gun as a self-defence tool, in my opinion is a wrong idea in general. I'm agaisnt death penalty as well, I believe that America's way of dealing with crime and violence is wrong in general but that's another discussion.
As for banning everything.. Yes, it wouldn't work as banning certain things would have bad consequences..Well, and banning guns has no bad side. Of course, based on your opinion, you could say that gun ban would mean that people can't defend themselves but then again, maybe you wouldn't have to defend yourself that much as the criminal is less likely to have a gun on him to use against you.
And my questions in response were why it's beyond you, and why you think that sentiment should be universally applicable. Have you lived in a dangerous neighborhood, for example?
Dangerous is not equal to dangerous. I bet there are tons of friendly neighborhoods in US where people own guns justifying it by the same ''I live in dangerous neighborhood'' and in general, does this mean that your circumstances give you the right to use a deadly weapon which could result in murder?
Gabrielle, did you see the charts I posted of declining gun ownership in America? Less homes have guns today than in the past and yet we have an increase in mass shootings. Obviously we need to look elsewhere for the causes.
Well, yeah, I do think that guns are not the main reason and solution to this phenomenon.
In a nation of 318 million people there's going to be a tiny, tiny number of individuals who have family and or psychological problems and end up retreating from the real world, replacing human contact with technology and escaping into a world of media and video, hyper violence. Locked inside their own heads, visions of glorious revenge killings can take root. These mostly young males often are taking prescribed psychiatric drugs which can increase violent tendencies. With the pharmaceutical companies doping our children in droves, is it any wonder a miniscule number snap and go on a shooting rampage?
Our love of violence in America is a big part of these mass shootings. Vornography is out of control....movies, TV and video games sell the idea that killing is fun! It used to be that killing in films was done by the bad guys and NOT shown as justified revenge and made to look cool. Sometime in the last quarter century, many movies started adopting the fantasy revenge killing as a main theme. The idea of going ballistic, getting even and ending in a blaze of gun fire has become part of the national psyche. Add to that, this:
I do agree with this but don't you think that this proves that this love of violence is kind of part of the American culture now? That would mean that mass shootings are not going away really.
That would mean that mass shootings are not going away really.
Based on the past, there's absolutely no reason to think so. Unless we undergo a nationwide shock treatment to the problem because doing nothing to just a little bit doesn't work obviously.
Citizen Rules
10-07-15, 07:49 PM
I don't know if those of you who live in other countries know why we have gun rights granted to U.S. citizens in the 2nd Amendment of our Constitution. Our Constitution doesn't grant us the right to bear arms for self defense or for sport...Our founding fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment so that an arm population could, if necessary rise up and over through a tyrannical government.
American cultural is very different than other countries.
We've always been violent in America. Our country was born out of violent revolution. We chose to stand up and fight for are independence. We had a bloody civil war that at the heart was about whether or not the government had control over the states rights. We had lawlessness and gun violence in the old west. Even in the mean streets of Chiago and New York we had mass killings between rival gangs. We still have bloody gang warfare and drive by shootings. We love guns and we're violent. That's the way it is.
Oh idk how about SAVING THE WORLD
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1832368/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1
If it's about saving lives then just outlaw alcohol for recreational use and make it available by prescription only.
Plus by the same logic then guns "save the world too" since if... eh the allied soliders didn't have guns then they'd have lost WWII?
Even if one shooting could've been avoided with strict gun laws put in practice, it's a win.
By the same logic then if even one rape or murder is prevented via gun ownership, then it's a win right?
And how can owning a gun in order to protect yourself can be justified is beyond me.
I hope that's not even serious.
http://gunowner.tv/why-defend-yourself/videos-about-guns-used-for-self-defense/woman-shoots-rapist/
Vornography[/I] is out of control....movies, TV and video games sell the idea that killing is fun! It used to be that killing in films was done by the bad guys and NOT shown as justified revenge and made to look cool. Sometime in the last quarter century, many movies started adopting the fantasy revenge killing as a main theme.
http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=22791&stc=1&d=1444249166
Man, come on now, blaming a TV show for someone going an kill bunch of people is insane. Killing might be fun, in a video game , person that shoots someone in GTA and then goes on to shoot people in real life is obviously mentally challenged, not a games problem. Same goes for movies. If things worked this way we would have increase in Devil hunting, superhero activity, dragon hunters and so on... Look ,look, example, who with the sane mind would read A Song of Ice and Fire (or watch Game of Thrones) and then go on to skin someone? Killing in a video game/movie/comic/book/tv or any other media dose not equal real life! Whenever I play Witcher or Fallout I play as a neutral (look is there something in for me) kinda of character, dose that mean I'll go around with 2 swords and hunt monsters, being the bastard who is in for the money? Nop. People get offended by everything these days, where is your imagination? Also, do we really need to tell adults "look man, throwing the bomb because you saw it in Counter-Strike is not ok" ? And when it comes to children it depends from child to child, and its also a parent problem, developers/directors say its not for kids.
We've always been violent in America. Our country was born out of violent revolution. We chose to stand up and fight for are independence. We had a bloody civil war that at the heart was about whether or not the government had control over the states rights. We had lawlessness and gun violence in the old west. Even in the mean streets of Chiago and New York we had mass killings between rival gangs. We still have bloody gang warfare and drive by shootings. We love guns and we're violent. That's the way it is.
Mate, sorry to disappoint, you are in term of history still a young country, this is not much compared to others, trust me, I know my history. :)
Citizen Rules
10-07-15, 08:44 PM
Man, come on now, blaming a TV show for someone going an kill bunch of people is insane. I didn't say that. You're taking what I said out of context and turning it into a straw man argument.
I qualified my statement by saying a tiny, tiny portion of American males with family problems and or physiological problems, who are also under a doctors care, can be influenced by overtly violent movies and video games. Please go back and read my post, slowly.
I didn't say that. You're taking what I said out of context and turning it into a straw man argument.
I qualified my statement by saying a tiny, tiny portion of American males with family problems and or physiological problems, who are also under a doctors care, can be influenced by overtly violent movies and video games. Please go back and read my post, slowly.
So your post is just telling us that there are people with mental problems? Cool.
matt72582
10-07-15, 08:57 PM
Japan has a very violent history, violent video games and the most violent movies (watch a Takashi Miike film some time) but their gun homicide rate per 100,000 people is 0.00 (2008). In the US it's 3.55 (2013). What's the difference?
They only have a few guns in Japan.
Someone will say "What if he had a knife" - go over all these mass shootings. Maybe one or two would have been killed, but you have to get very close to someone's personal space, and even then, most gun violence don't end up in deaths, and most of those are when someone is asleep (usually a spouse or other family member).
So your post is just telling us that there are people with mental problems? Cool.
Its pretty clear that Citizens post wasn't saying anything you said it did. So own up to it, and don't respond to YOU jumping to hasty conclusions being exposed with snarky responses, it really doesn't work on anyone.
Citizen Rules
10-07-15, 09:00 PM
So your post is just telling us that there are people with mental problems? Cool.
You're not being constructive, you're being dismissive with statements like that. That's a posting tactic when someone doesn't have much to say. I'm willing to discuss this but only if it's kept above board.
Its pretty clear that Citizens post wasn't saying anything you said it did. So own up to it, and don't respond to YOU jumping to hasty conclusions being exposed with snarky responses, it really doesn't work on anyone.
I deeply apologize if I offended you in any way. It's crystal clear now. :rolleyes:
You're not being constructive, you're being dismissive with statements like that. That's a posting tactic when someone doesn't have much to say. I'm willing to discuss this but only if it's kept above board.
Ok, let's step on the ball as we say. There are plenty of people out there who have problems and need help with them, but anything can trigger them, say something bad and bam, you are dead. My point is, it can be anything and it can't be fixed by removing a game ,movie etc (not saying you suggested we should do so). So if anything, health care should be better.
I don't know if those of you who live in other countries know why we have gun rights granted to U.S. citizens in the 2nd Amendment of our Constitution. Our Constitution doesn't grant us the right to bear arms for self defense or for sport...Our founding fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment so that an arm population could, if necessary rise up and over through a tyrannical government.
American cultural is very different than other countries.
We've always been violent in America. Our country was born out of violent revolution. We chose to stand up and fight for are independence. We had a bloody civil war that at the heart was about whether or not the government had control over the states rights. We had lawlessness and gun violence in the old west. Even in the mean streets of Chiago and New York we had mass killings between rival gangs. We still have bloody gang warfare and drive by shootings. We love guns and we're violent. That's the way it is.
Surely if you have a serious problem, whether it be personally or as a society, you try to find a solution rather than just saying it's the way it is?
Citizen Rules
10-07-15, 09:29 PM
Khan, one point I was making in my post is that:
The vast majority of Americans don't go on shooting sprees. That includes people who have mental difficulties.
It's the media that makes it seem like every school in America is a war zone, it's not.
If there are 3 highly publicized school shootings in a year that equals 1 out of every 100 million Americans doing it. That's such a tiny number that you can almost say it's not really a problem...Except of course to the families and communities that suffer such a horror. I'm not trying to diminish it, but without the media circus, school shootings weren't be perceived as common place.
yeah, but the fact that one diverse country has mass shootings and lenient gun laws and another diverse country doesn't suggest that diversity and gun ownership aren't really related. Being diverse doesn't justify having a gun in your home.
It's not "one diverse country" and "another diverse country," that's the point: America is a melting pot of cultures. The UK may be more diverse than Lithuania, but it's not as diverse as the United States. And it's not about justification, it's an explanation: different cultures clash. It's not a very pretty truth, but it's something we see again and again. Homogeneous populations have different cultures, sometimes for better, sometimes for worse.
No, I don't actually. I asked that earlier.
That means you're just guessing. I'm not sure why you'd advance a guess as if it were an argument.
Guess might be too generous, too, because what anecdotal evidence we have about the shooters cuts against this guess: these events are usually planned. They seem to pretty much never be a case of someone who loses it and just happens to have guns nearby.
Dark Knight shooter was crazy though, he didn't really have any political/religious agenda, did he? The way I see it, if you shot someone just for the sake of shooting, it is crazy. It's out of the norm.
Agreed. And are those the kinds of people you'd expect to make rational, weighted decisions about the risks of violating gun regulations?
As for banning everything.. Yes, it wouldn't work as banning certain things would have bad consequences..Well, and banning guns has no bad side.
Yes, it does: people defend themselves with guns all the time. By your logic, if "even one person" is saved by defending themselves with guns (and it's a lot more than one), they should be legal, which makes the "even one person" logic self-contradictory, as I pointed out in the last post.
Of course, based on your opinion, you could say that gun ban would mean that people can't defend themselves but then again, maybe you wouldn't have to defend yourself that much as the criminal is less likely to have a gun on him to use against you.
And if there were a good way to make sure lots of criminals gave up their guns, that might be an interesting point, but there isn't.
Dangerous is not equal to dangerous.
What?
I bet there are tons of friendly neighborhoods in US where people own guns justifying it by the same ''I live in dangerous neighborhood''
Unless you're only proposing banning guns in certain neighborhoods, this doesn't really address the issue at all.
I've asked a couple of times if you've ever lived in a dangerous area. Can I safely assume the answer is "no"?
and in general, does this mean that your circumstances give you the right to use a deadly weapon which could result in murder?
Killing in self-defense is not murder, by definition. And I hope that pretty much everybody has some circumstances under which they would use force to protect someone else, yeah.
honeykid
10-08-15, 11:03 AM
And I hope that pretty much everybody has some circumstances under which they would use force to protect someone else, yeah.
Absolutely. I'm British and if you cut in a queue, I will publically shame you. I'll be openly disapproving, shake my head and I will tut you. I will tut you TO YOUR FACE!!!! :mad:
Now, if you're a tourist, you may not notice, but if you're a Brit you will die inside. :D
Slappydavis
10-08-15, 04:23 PM
You mean false equivalence? Or do you actually think the thought experiment is deliberately deceptive?
You could say it’s false equivalence (which I think of as a type of equivocation). There are some parallels between drugs and guns (I also think there should be a spectrum approach on drugs) but interchanging them in the argument creates more confusion than clarity.
Here’s what I mean by spectrum: it seems reasonable to have some restrictions on both weapons and drugs, and also that neither one should be outright banned. On the far extreme, I think there’s not a right for a citizen to own a nuke. I also think that if there was a drug that gives an incredible high for 5 minutes, but then the person’s arms and legs fall off, that drug should be banned. On the other side, caffeine (by all means a drug) seems to act as a mild stimulant that many are able to use responsibly (though there certainly are some health and addiction risks that seem to go unnoticed), and many are able to use knives for practical and non-violent purposes.
Somewhere in between knives and nukes is a spot where I’d say, okay, beyond this line I don’t think we should allow these weapons to be sold. Somewhere between coffee and super-high limbs-fall-off drug is a line where I’d say, okay, beyond this I don’t think we should allow these drugs to be sold. In the area before these lines are shades of regulation, where yes, this should be allowed in principle, but it should be heavily regulated (only in lab settings/only for specially permitted cases), and before that a shade of medium regulation (Doctor’s prescription only/licenses), and so on.
The reason I find it to be more confusing than helpful is that the line on the spectrum is already difficult enough on one issue, comparing it to another issue magnifies those disputes. I might think pot is analogous to a crossbow, you might think it’s analogous to an assault rifle. It’s trying to have both those conversations simultaneously, when I don’t think the translation works (at least, not until there’s agreement on at least one spectrum).
Now, all of that is a bit moot because the scenario you brought up next works much better for me because it limits the scope of what we’re talking about, but I wanted to clarify.
Either way, let's flesh it out a bit: my friends on the left tell me the war on drugs is a failure because being illegal only forces them underground, and because restricting drugs is treating the symptom and not the disease. On these issues they have an intuitive understanding of how unrealistic and ineffective these kinds of restrictions are. But this understanding vanishes when we start talking about guns.
I know very little about weapons trafficking, but on the face of it I think you have a point that if we were to ban guns, it’s not as if we could realistically expect them to disappear. Off the top of my head, some differences are that:
I imagine manufacturing weapons is more difficult than manufacturing drugs (so restrictions cutting into the supply are not as easily replaced by home-brewed operations in the case of guns).
The illegality of drugs create a situation where addicts are less likely to pursue treatment. I don’t see a clean analogy in guns for that scenario.
Guns (at least the ones that would be banned) seem more difficult to traffic, the amount of buyers would ostensibly be lower, the product is larger, and I’d imagine between the two scenarios of seeing a drug deal go down and a gun deal go down, one is more likely to immediately contact the police in the case of the second.
But you are right that we couldn’t expect guns to disappear in the aftermath of a ban.
That said, the US is so lax on gun restrictions that the black market is supplied via purchases at legal locations (often gun shows). Guns are actively trafficked out of the US and into Mexico.
Again, I’m not advocating a total ban on guns. But I think that doesn’t mean we can’t put some sensible restrictions in place.
This segment is so ace.
The John Oliver video is indeed pretty good. I’m always a bit upset that the jokes are a bit formulaic (the non-sequitur “saying *topic* is like *simplification* is like saying *good thing* is like *bad thing*. I’m not even saying that joke form is bad, they just lean on it a bit too hard) because they are suspiciously evenly spaced out. It feels less like using humor to condense a complicated subject, and more like reward to keep my attention. All in all though, I think the show picks typically excellent topics in that they are usually unnoticed or ignored problems that just a little exposure can get people riled up about.
Our founding fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment so that an arm population could, if necessary rise up and over through a tyrannical government.
Just an observation. I’ve heard the argument about keeping the gap between civilian arms and government arms as narrow as possible, but it seems like if the gap was the main concern we’d also hear calls for demilitarization and reducing the firepower that government agents (e.g. police) have. But I typically hear the opposite from those very same people, which seems counter intuitive, no?
We love guns and we're violent. That's the way it is.
Can’t say I’m satisfied by your line of argument here.
Partially because it seems to imply that the nation is wholly set against gun control because of a violent history. And to be frank, the gun control “brand” isn’t doing the best right now(partially because of extreme positions taken by advocates, but also partially because of misinformation). But I saying we’re just violent and we love guns is a mischaracterization.
Take, for example, some of the actual gun control issues up for debate. Just recently (but before this shooting) there was some Preventive Medicine (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0091743515001668) research on where public opinion is at 2 years after the Newtown shootings. The findings on specific issues are what interest me the most:
http://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0091743515001668-gr1.jpg
Edit: That image cut off the caption explaining what the bottom axis represents: the horizontal axis is %support for the position
The first 3 policies strike me as particularly sensible (I’m for the last 2, but I’m not sure how we go about performing temporary removals, I’d have to know more). And support seems to cut across the divide between gun owners and not. Public opinion is not the end-all be-all metric for what law should be, but I’d like to reframe what a gun control agenda actually means.
We’re not going to get a ban on handguns, we probably aren’t even going to get a ban on assault weapons. But having to go through those discussions when that’s not what’s on the table is tiresome.
If there are 3 highly publicized school shootings in a year that equals 1 out of every 100 million Americans doing it. That's such a tiny number that you can almost say it's not really a problem...Except of course to the families and communities that suffer such a horror. I'm not trying to diminish it, but without the media circus, school shootings weren't be perceived as common place.
I find your thoughts a little hard to follow in this section. You start with saying that there are a small amount of highly publicized school shootings, and if the media didn’t highly publicize them, there would be none (by definition, right?). Surely we’d want to talk about number of school shootings (or just shootings), publicized or not?
I also find the last sentence odd because in the very first post of this thread, you say:
School shootings have become a common occurrence in America, why?
If you’re playing devil’s advocate that’s totally alright (it’s a good thing to have in these conversations really), but your position seems to shift a lot. I don’t think you’re a bad person, and from what I’ve seen you post elsewhere on films, I know you’re not a dumb person. Forgive me if it seems I’m implying either.
Regardless, I think a parallel argument that the effect of the media’s widespread coverage of shootings exaggerates the actual danger that one is in of dying by gun violence (which is relatively small, even where the rates are highest) is a fair one. But I also think it’s fair to say that if one’s primary concern was media worrying the populace about things that are actually not likely to harm them, there are more salient misrepresentations:
https://localtvkfor.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/terrorismdeathsgundeaths.png
Note: There's a version of this graph that includes 2001 (and 9/11), which had a death total of 2,990 for the year. But I can't upload from here and I couldn't find a hosted version of that graph in my quick search.
I’d be lying if I said I wouldn’t “trade” gun control for other issues (health care, prisoner rehabilitation, education, to name a few) because it’s true, progress on those issues would likely net a greater, and clearer, benefit. But that sort of trade doesn’t seem to be on the table.
Citizen Rules
10-08-15, 04:49 PM
Slappy, I will try to answer all of your points, but I can't do that right now as I'm busy. I'll address one for now.
You and Sane asked roughly the same question or statements:
Slappydavis wrote....Can’t say I’m satisfied by your line of argument here. and
Sane wrote....Surely if you have a serious problem, whether it be personally or as a society, you try to find a solution rather than just saying it's the way it is? To explain... first I had seen this post by CiCi...
....a couple of us said earlier in the thread that we on this side of the pond can't rationalise it because our cultures have such vastly differing attitudes towards this that it's just something we'll probably never be able to comprehend or agree upon :lol: After reading that I decided to write a brief expose on the history of violence in America for the benefit of those who weren't familiar with America's past, as we have a multi national board. So I wrote this
I don't know if those of you who live in other countries know why we have gun rights granted to U.S. citizens in the 2nd Amendment of our Constitution. Our Constitution doesn't grant us the right to bear arms for self defense or for sport...Our founding fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment so that an arm population could, if necessary rise up and over through a tyrannical government.
American cultural is very different than other countries.
We've always been violent in America. Our country was born out of violent revolution. We chose to stand up and fight for are independence. We had a bloody civil war that at the heart was about whether or not the government had control over the states rights. We had lawlessness and gun violence in the old west. Even in the mean streets of Chicago and New York we had mass killings between rival gangs. We still have bloody gang warfare and drive by shootings. We love guns and we're violent. That's the way it is. That last line that I italics was meant to be an epilog to my expose. It works from a writer's perspective as it sums up the rest of my expose. Literally I'm saying what others have said, that American culture has a history of guns, violence and crime which is unique to us. Not all of us of course. That post wasn't meant as a solution.
Now, all of that is a bit moot because the scenario you brought up next works much better for me because it limits the scope of what we’re talking about, but I wanted to clarify.
No problem; clarification is good.
I know very little about weapons trafficking, but on the face of it I think you have a point that if we were to ban guns, it’s not as if we could realistically expect them to disappear. Off the top of my head, some differences are that:
I imagine manufacturing weapons is more difficult than manufacturing drugs (so restrictions cutting into the supply are not as easily replaced by home-brewed operations in the case of guns).
The illegality of drugs create a situation where addicts are less likely to pursue treatment. I don’t see a clean analogy in guns for that scenario.
Guns (at least the ones that would be banned) seem more difficult to traffic, the amount of buyers would ostensibly be lower, the product is larger, and I’d imagine between the two scenarios of seeing a drug deal go down and a gun deal go down, one is more likely to immediately contact the police in the case of the second.
There's at least one major counterbalance, though, which is that drugs are consumable, and guns are not. Guns can last a really long time.
But yes, there are many differences and it's fair to point them out. Some things are harder or easier to ban for many different reasons. But almost everything shares the distinction that banning it isn't generally effective and has lots of unintended consequences, especially if there's a huge demand for them and hundreds of millions of them already around.
Again, I’m not advocating a total ban on guns. But I think that doesn’t mean we can’t put some sensible restrictions in place.
This goes back to the "state of the debate in this thread" thing I mentioned, though: several people here are calling for a total ban on guns. And that kind of needs to be addressed and rebutted before we can get into the sensible restrictions you're talking about.
I also noted, earlier in the thread, that a lot of gun control advocates have no idea of what current gun control laws are. Sometimes you'll ask them what a sensible restriction would be, and they'll list something that's already law. Combine this with the general ignorance about what gun terms even mean (having no idea what an "automatic" or "assault" weapon is seems to be the biggest issue), and one doesn't always get the sense that people are making a good faith effort to understand the thing they want to ban.
Getting past these problems is a prerequisite for any serious discussion about guns.
The John Oliver video is indeed pretty good. I’m always a bit upset that the jokes are a bit formulaic (the non-sequitur “saying *topic* is like *simplification* is like saying *good thing* is like *bad thing*. I’m not even saying that joke form is bad, they just lean on it a bit too hard) because they are suspiciously evenly spaced out. It feels less like using humor to condense a complicated subject, and more like reward to keep my attention.
This is largely unrelated, but I wanted to say that I had the same thought and that this is very well put.
RobertaDhardy
10-09-15, 04:35 PM
I heard that people on 4chan were egging the shooter on.....disgusted with humanity
Fabulous
10-09-15, 07:20 PM
2 more college shootings in the US today.
honeykid
10-09-15, 07:39 PM
Did they shoot enough people? You know it doesn't count if the numbers aren't big enough.
Fabulous
10-09-15, 07:42 PM
1 dead and some injuries at both. Not sure if your post is serious or not, though.
honeykid
10-09-15, 07:51 PM
It was kind of serious in as much as there is a limit after which it is deemed a mass shooting. If we start taking shootings into account regardless of number or injuries/fatalities, I wonder how high the numbers would be?
Sexy Celebrity
10-09-15, 08:04 PM
2 more college shootings in the US today.
What?! I didn't hear anything... lemme see....
Sexy Celebrity
10-09-15, 08:05 PM
Oh, it was just a fight in a college campus parking lot that escalated to gun violence. Happens every day.
in my country ( india ) guns are not officially allowed to be possessed by people except those who have licences .
on the other hand in my neighbouring country ( pakistan ) there has been a proliferation of kalashnikovs ( AK 47 , AK 56 etc ) ever since the days when the soviet union invaded afghanistan and pakistan decided to wage holy war against it .
this has led to less violence in india than in pakistan , where the streets are unsafe at night and the major highways are full of gangs armed with automatic rifles .
Captain Steel
10-10-15, 01:45 AM
in my country ( india ) guns are not officially allowed to be possessed by people except those who have licences .
on the other hand in my neighbouring country ( pakistan ) there has been a proliferation of kalashnikovs ( AK 47 , AK 56 etc ) ever since the days when the soviet union invaded afghanistan and pakistan decided to wage holy war against it .
this has led to less violence in india than in pakistan , where the streets are unsafe at night and the major highways are full of gangs armed with automatic rifles .
In the U.S. guns are not officially allowed to be possessed by people except those who have licences (here they're called permits).
Unfortunately, criminals ignore permits the same way they ignore "gun free zones."
Japan has a very violent history, violent video games and the most violent movies (watch a Takashi Miike film some time) but their gun homicide rate per 100,000 people is 0.00 (2008). In the US it's 3.55 (2013). What's the difference?
Cultural homogeny - 99% of Japanese citizens are native Japanese.
I believe that much of the violence in general in the states including gun violence relates to racial tensions and a lack of strong shared cultural values - which is why it's so high in "diverse" areas such as Chicago.
I heard that people on 4chan were egging the shooter on.....disgusted with humanity
Why are no politicians suggesting banning 4chan?
Again, I’m not advocating a total ban on guns. But I think that doesn’t mean we can’t put some sensible restrictions in place.
.
Me too.
Captain Steel
10-10-15, 03:15 AM
Cultural homogeny - 99% of Japanese citizens are native Japanese.
I believe that much of the violence in general in the states including gun violence relates to racial tensions and a lack of strong shared cultural values - which is why it's so high in "diverse" areas such as Chicago.
Interestingly, that's the same reason they say there was no looting in Japan after the 2011 Earthquake / Tsunami.
Cultural homogeny - 99% of Japanese citizens are native Japanese.
I believe that much of the violence in general in the states including gun violence relates to racial tensions and a lack of strong shared cultural values - which is why it's so high in "diverse" areas such as Chicago.
Yoda said earlier that Lithuania was one of the most homogenous countries in the world and yet their murder rate is higher than the US - just not with guns.
Australia is one of the most multi-cultural countries in the world. Our firearm homicide rate is about 0.20 from memory - the US is 3.55.
Many European countries are very culturally diverse but their firearm homicide rates are much closer to Japan's than America's.
Yoda said earlier that Lithuania was one of the most homogenous countries in the world and yet their murder rate is higher than the US - just not with guns.
This is primarily due to organized crime - just as Honduras is the murder capital of the world due to being controlled by cartels.
Australia is one of the most multi-cultural countries in the world. Our firearm homicide rate is about 0.20 from memory - the US is 3.55.
Culturally Australia is very homogeneous - race does not have direct bearing on culture. Australians have a good sense of pride in their country and community, much as many Europeans such as Germans do from my experience.
Just as in the fact that the majority of Iraqis are Arab Muslims, yet culturally there is much division and strife.
Most non-white immigrants to Australia were not taken there as slaves against their will and later segregated.
Americans however are too materialistic - which leads to a breakdown in cultural unity.
Many European countries are very culturally diverse but their firearm homicide rates are much closer to Japan's than America's.
You're equating culture with race and ethnicity, which is not the same.
Areas with lack of cultural unity and high population density tend to have higher rates of violence - this is why places with strong gun control like Chicago and Washington DC have higher rates of violence than places like Plano, TX.
Gabrielle947
12-04-15, 04:13 PM
Sorry,forgot about this thread.
The UK may be more diverse than Lithuania, but it's not as diverse as the United States.
How can you say it and how can you prove it?
these events are usually planned. They seem to pretty much never be a case of someone who loses it and just happens to have guns nearby.
Ok but there's a thing called deterrent. Banned guns - less gun crime. It doesn't mean no gun crime.
You're basically saying '' there's no point to ban guns because it's very easy to obtain them anyway''. How does that make sense?
And are those the kinds of people you'd expect to make rational, weighted decisions about the risks of violating gun regulations?
It's not about them fearing to break the law. It is about them putting the extra effort to obtain the gun illegally.
Yes, it does: people defend themselves with guns all the time. By your logic, if "even one person" is saved by defending themselves with guns (and it's a lot more than one), they should be legal, which makes the "even one person" logic self-contradictory, as I pointed out in the last post.
This is just word play you're trying to use against me. First of all, most people who have a gun are not skilled gunmen which would mean that they could kill someone when 'defending' themselves. In most of these cases, you would go to prison and get done for manslaughter.
So how gun is an effective protection, I don't know. Saying one person is saved by defending themselves is actually saying the offender is killed. However you look at it, it results in someone losing a life. Of course, there may be cases where the offender only gets injured or disarmed but I would believe these are the rare cases.
There was actually a case in UK when some boys used to break in this farmer's house frequently and one day, the farmer shot one of the boys. Is that a good example on how guns serve the purpose of protection?
And if there were a good way to make sure lots of criminals gave up their guns, that might be an interesting point, but there isn't
It takes forever for certain laws to be enforced. Some of them can never be enforced (prohibition is a good example). It's not like you ban cigarettes on Monday, and Tuesday no one is smoking in public places.
Same with guns. Obviously, innocent people would lose their guns quicker than potential criminals but with strict rules, the latter would have less guns or less opportunities to obtain one.
What?
Haha, it's an expression, sorry. :D It means that what is dangerous for one person, might not be dangerous for another. I may think having a glass of vodka is dangerous whereas someone doesn't see danger in robbing banks.
I've asked a couple of times if you've ever lived in a dangerous area. Can I safely assume the answer is "no"?
Well, I lived in a neighborhood where someone was sliced with a machete literally 10 meters from my house. Shop assistant was shot there as well a couple of years ago. I was told by people that the area is dangerous and I did use to see some suspicious looking people around the area. Nothing ever happened to me. I wasn't safe but I was feeling safe.
Killing in self-defense is not murder, by definition. And I hope that pretty much everybody has some circumstances under which they would use force to protect someone else, yeah.
It's normally classes as manslaughter which would give you prison time.
How can you say it and how can you prove it?
General demographics are tracked by some form of census in every developed country.
Ok but there's a thing called deterrent. Banned guns - less gun crime. It doesn't mean no gun crime ... It's not about them fearing to break the law. It is about them putting the extra effort to obtain the gun illegally.
Deterrent against what? Not mass shootings, which are (ostensibly) the topic. The overwhelming majority of these incidents involve weeks or months of planning, and a shooter (or shooters) who plan to die as a result. The "extra effort to obtain the gun illegally" is trivial in comparison.
You're basically saying '' there's no point to ban guns because it's very easy to obtain them anyway''. How does that make sense?
What part of it doesn't make sense? Laws are bad if they restrict people's freedoms without meaningfully preventing or reducing the thing they're trying to prevent.
This is just word play you're trying to use against me.
It's not wordplay, it's just logic. You say we should do something if it saves "even one person." Legal gun ownership has saved at least one person. You're free to make other arguments about gun control, but that particular argument (which is clearly employed because it's simple and morally dramatic, and not because it's intellectually defensible) doesn't make sense.
So how gun is an effective protection, I don't know.
What part of the idea is confusing? If you're attacked, and you have a weapon, that increases your chances of defending yourself.
There are related downsides (the possibility of accidents, as you mention later), but I'm not sure what part of "a gun can be effective protection" is hard to understand.
Saying one person is saved by defending themselves is actually saying the offender is killed. However you look at it, it results in someone losing a life.
Except in one instance the lost life is an innocent person and in the other it's a criminal who forced an innocent person to defend themselves. So unless you want to take the ridiculous position that all actions which result in a loss of life should be seen as morally and legally identical, it's not clear what point you're trying to make.
Of course, there may be cases where the offender only gets injured or disarmed but I would believe these are the rare cases.
This sounds like another argument based on a guess, but okay, let's say this is true: rare compared to what? And are you suggesting that if it were common enough, you'd find the argument persuasive?
Related question: why do you think banning guns will deter criminals (who by definition are already willing to break laws), but the increased likelihood of an armed victim won't? You're simultaneously arguing that criminals will find gun laws to be a deterrent, but won't be deterred by an increased chance of their victims being armed. How does that make sense?
It takes forever for certain laws to be enforced. Some of them can never be enforced (prohibition is a good example).
Out of curiosity: why do you think prohibition can't be enforced, but gun laws can? What would your response be if I started quoting alcohol-related death totals?
It's not like you ban cigarettes on Monday, and Tuesday no one is smoking in public places.
Same with guns. Obviously, innocent people would lose their guns quicker than potential criminals but with strict rules, the latter would have less guns or less opportunities to obtain one.
That might stop petty muggers, but it wouldn't stop mass shooters, terrorists, or anyone particularly determined. Which means the most high-profile attacks (again, the ones that almost invariably spark discussions like this) would continue.
Also, if you admit that innocent people would "lose their guns quicker," doesn't that mean there'll be a prolonged period of time where lots of criminals still have guns, and no law-abiding citizens do? During this time, won't things be even more dangerous for law-abiding citizens than they are now?
Haha, it's an expression, sorry. :D It means that what is dangerous for one person, might not be dangerous for another. I may think having a glass of vodka is dangerous whereas someone doesn't see danger in robbing banks.
Thanks for the explanation, but what does that expression have to do with what we were talking about? You said you couldn't imagine why someone would need a gun, and I told you that some people live in dangerous places. IE: places where they feel they may be attacked or robbed. I'm pretty sure any reasonable definition of "dangerous" has to include violent attack.
Well, I lived in a neighborhood where someone was sliced with a machete literally 10 meters from my house. Shop assistant was shot there as well a couple of years ago. I was told by people that the area is dangerous and I did use to see some suspicious looking people around the area. Nothing ever happened to me. I wasn't safe but I was feeling safe.
I'm glad you felt safe (though one incident doesn't really tell us if you've lived in dangerous places or not), but why's that an argument for anything? You may or may not have been safe, however you felt, and even if you were, that has nothing to do with people in completely different places and situations.You live half a world away from the people you're talking about: why would you feeling safe in a random neighborhood in Lithuania years ago be an argument that somebody in Detroit or Chicago should, too?
It's normally classes as manslaughter which would give you prison time.
This is simply incorrect; killing in self-defense is not inherently a crime, let alone one that results in prison time.
It's possible to engage in "voluntary manslaughter" with what's called "imperfect self-defense," where someone is recognized as having an unreasonable (but honestly held) belief that they had to kill to protect themselves, however. But even that is nowhere near "murder."
matt72582
12-04-15, 10:41 PM
I don't think you can legislate understanding. I don't think there's a way to stop the violence. Too many are busy with semantics, thinking that the problem is solved once you call it terrorism, and the media feeds into the garbage because everyone gets a slice of the pie by exploiting and trivializing everything.
honeykid
12-05-15, 10:51 AM
Plus, for at least the last 15 years psychologists have been saying that stopping the constant attention on these people, the coverage, 24 hours news, photos, delving into their personal history, etc is the best way of preventing more attacks.
matt72582
12-05-15, 06:03 PM
Plus, for at least the last 15 years psychologists have been saying that stopping the constant attention on these people, the coverage, 24 hours news, photos, delving into their personal history, etc is the best way of preventing more attacks.
It's their cash cow... They are trolls who exploit every situation. Everyone wants 10% of the corruption too.
honeykid
12-05-15, 06:04 PM
Of course. That goes without saying.
Citizen Rules
12-05-15, 06:10 PM
Plus, for at least the last 15 years psychologists have been saying that stopping the constant attention on these people, the coverage, 24 hours news, photos, delving into their personal history, etc is the best way of preventing more attacks. Totally agreed...and I've thought that for several years now.
It's their cash cow... They are trolls who exploit every situation. Everyone wants 10% of the corruption too. Totally agree here too. The media causes more of the mass shootings, than the the gun manufactures do.
LYRICS "Dirty Laundry"...DON HENLEY
I make my living off the evening news
Just give me something
Something I can use
People love it when you lose
They love dirty laundry
Well, I coulda been an actor
But I wound up here
I just have to look good
I don't have to be clear
Come and whisper in my ear
Give us dirty laundry
Kick 'em when they're up
Kick 'em when they're down...
We got the bubble headed
Bleached blonde
Comes on at five
She can tell you 'bout the plane crash
With a gleam in her eye
It's interesting when people die
Give us dirty laundry
Can we film the operation
Is the head dead yet
You know the boys in the newsroom
Got a running bet
Get the widow on the set
We need dirty laundry
You don't really need to find out
What's going on
You don't really want to know
Just how far it's gone
Just leave well enough alone
Eat your dirty laundry
Kick 'em when they're up
Kick 'em when they're down...
Dirty little secrets, Dirty little lies
We got our dirty little fingers
In everybody's pie
We love to cut you down to size
We love dirty laundry
We can do the Innuendo
We can dance and sing
When it's said and done
We haven't told you a thing
We all know that Crap is King
Give us dirty laundry
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.