Gun Control (and here, we, go......)

[Trar]

I go away for two days and this is what happens.

(05-23-2014 09:10 AM)brainiac3397 Wrote:  Trar, human history is covered with debauchery, slaughter and outright massacre of innocent folk. Disregarding reality for an idealistic world doesn't add any weight to any argument as there is no substance.

This is easily the worst thing I've read in a while, or at least it feels like it.

(05-23-2014 09:10 AM)brainiac3397 Wrote:  Not to mention the balance between everything. One thing builds up, reaches a peak, collapses and other side begins to build. Chaos is followed by order, and vice-versa. Time vs money. Efficiency vs speed. Energy vs matter. Freedom vs Safety.

You're making it sound like there's a black and white dichotomy not only here, but with all these other issues. You're also making yourself sound like an ignorant nerd. I'd count the freedom to not be shot important enough to at least try not to ignore.

(05-23-2014 09:10 AM)brainiac3397 Wrote:  You can't just bash one entire side of the spectrum and not realize the mutual balance between them. Nothing is perfect, yet why do we strive to create rigid and "perfect" ideas? You can't just say "guns are evil and that's final!". Nor can you say "We'll reach a period where we will not need weapons". Maybe you'll say "Well, we should start now then". Then I will ask "Why should we follow your dream of the future?".

I'm not claiming my side is perfect, nor did I state the other side is totally shit. Don't mistake this for the fact that one side can be more thought-out and just than the other. (To that end, if anyone in this thread starts going on about how I'm wrong because 'morals are not absolute', I will probably lose my shit.) I already said[/i] I believe in the right to self-defense, and I never said guns are evil, period.

(05-24-2014 09:43 AM)DeadorAlive Wrote:  Look at Switzerland and its gun laws. Every male citizen is required to own a gun and it has one of the top lowest homicide rates in the world.

The national culture of Switzerland, if you haven't noticed, is different than America's. National culture has an effect on gun violence. There's also the military training and drilling, as Brainiac pointed out.

The question isn't what happens in other countries, but what happens in the US. And what happens in the US is that guns are very easy to get and very easy to fall into the wrong hands. America is not Switzerland; comparing it to Switzerland is useless here.

(05-23-2014 12:41 PM)Absentinsomniac Wrote:  As shown here, based on some research/graphing performed by wes a while back.

Why in the holy Hell should I trust any research done by Wes? Old research, at that! Is there a reason we're not using more professionally researched statistics? I do agree poverty is a related and serious issue, though.

(05-23-2014 12:41 PM)Absentinsomniac Wrote:  This is an appeal to emotion.

Are all of you middle-class nerds or something? How the fuck does that negate my points? Please spare me further copy-pasting from yourlogicalfallacyis.com, because it's evident to me that nerds cannot use it properly. How do your statistics invalidate my point? What about the adults being shot, as well?

(05-23-2014 12:41 PM)Absentinsomniac Wrote:  People are going to get killed anyway. Even innocent people.

Did you even read my post? I [b]already stated this. That does not mean we shouldn't try and curtail it.

Quote:If you really need it than by definition it's not for delusional reasons. Anyway, having an assault rifle doesn't necessitate having it for delusional or malicious reasons at all.

Why would you really need it? I can understand gun collectors and aficionados, but those are distinct from gun hoarders. And people who for some reason don't feel safe enough with handguns, shotguns or assault rifles with less than 15 bullets per magazine.

[/quote]The real position based on the idea of revolt isn't the eventuality of one occurring, it's the principle of it.[/quote]

[/quote]a huge amount would probably switch sides / refuse to fight, blah blah blah. [/quote]

This leads me to believe any sort of scenario that would conceivably support a citizen revolt would be more likely handled in a non-violent way, or without significant action on part of the rebels. Think foreign intervention/velvet revolution. I'm no stranger to the Vietnam War, so I don't discount guerrilla warfare, but we didn't have drones back in the late '60s. Or...a lot of shit we have now. They'd likely crank up NSA monitoring and analyze more of the data, if the theoretical rebels were using telecommunication at all. I'm reasonably sure the government could track amateur radio, as well.

(05-23-2014 12:41 PM)Absentinsomniac Wrote:  We already have common sense regulation that isn't even enforced / we don't have the resources. There are better ways to reduce crime.

I must question your knowledge of the common-sense gun regulation that was recently discussed. That's not to say allocation of more resources or improvement of existing laws is out of the picture, either. I do think action should be taken at the roots of the problem, as I assume you do, but focusing only on that would be an incomplete solution.

(05-26-2014 09:09 AM)brainiac3397 Wrote:  Those currently in government are not likely to be of any use. In fact, the current system of 2-party domination over congress has pretty much eroded the usefulness of the legislature. The effects of the erosion continue to trickle down to state and local municipal governments as well. People enter politics to "win" for their party, not so they can benefit those they represent(and not just their constituents). It's become a game for them, with experts who help "keep a clean image" for politicians and professional campaigners who show candidates how to fuck the American people over and still get their votes.

Some of this is unfortunately true enough, but I'm going to ignore your irritating cynicism and respond with one word: progressives.

(05-26-2014 03:08 AM)Hansgrohe Wrote:  Personally I don't think more gun control is going to do that much. It's the basic assumption that "guns are what cause, or at least are the weapon used, in all this senseless street violence!". I think it's kinda like saying social networking caused political revolutions, when in reality it was the tool used, but not the root cause. Take note that countries like Switzerland and Iceland have an extremely high gun ownership rate. Also take note that people in said countries are very nice (especially Iceland). We've already seen in China where there are practically no guns yet Uyghur militants are managing to commit terrorist actions.

I'm going to state this again: comparing the situation in America, with its differences in national culture and availability of firearms - especially to those who should not have them - to pretty much any other country in the world is not worth anything. Guns are more deadly; you can do a lot more killing with one.

(05-26-2014 03:08 AM)Hansgrohe Wrote:  I think there are far better ways to tackle gun violence than just "ban guns!". I think helping people develop empathy and other mind tools in life (such as metacognition) will actually teach the human being to think. "Why am I wearing these colors, why am I about to commit a massacre, why am I doing these drugs?". The "tough love" approach is tried too much and isn't working. We need to completely re-think the way we see the box.

This is noble enough, even if it's long-term, vague and more difficult to implement than regulation. I'm not sure this is something that should be left to the federal government, either.

(05-25-2014 05:45 PM)Vatman Wrote:  According to medhelp.com more people die every year from "unintentional falling" than firearms in the US. Falling out of bed while asleep, off a building accidentally... We should really add more safety bars to things I suppose. I imagine it could be controversial though.

Maybe we should, but this is irrelevant.

(05-26-2014 03:31 AM)Absentinsomniac Wrote:  I don't think a mass-population mind-retooling is really possible at all. I think what we need to do is get our fucking countries (the U.S anyway) priorities straight. Do we want to be spending this much money on "defense" or offensive millitary actions, tax cuts to the wealthiest, and giving away corporate welfare to corporations at the expense of public infastructure, or do we want to reduce crime, innovate, build a world class infastructure, fix the school's we have and ensure they aren't places that can be described as hell, etc.

I can agree with this, although perhaps doing the latter may lead to the former. Works for most of Europe.

(05-26-2014 03:31 AM)Absentinsomniac Wrote:  I'm not concerned about these "massacres" or whatever. They're great for big publicity and media frenzies, but they make up a TINY percentage of shootings. [...] These massacres are pretty far and inbetween and rare. Statistically they almost never happen.

They still happen, and they've been on the rise. I'm being quite charitable responding like this.

(05-26-2014 03:31 AM)Absentinsomniac Wrote:  I'm much more concerned with general violence in the inner cities, revenge killings, whatever. Still, the solution to both problems imo is going to be the same: Better investment in our future. We cannot move forward if we're just fucking off allowing the government to spend all of our money on shit we don't want or need.

I can agree it's a good thing to do, but it's only part of the picture. I should think the common-sense gun regulation would cover the other crimes you mentioned.

[thewake]

(05-26-2014 01:52 PM)Trar Wrote:  Why in the holy Hell should I trust any research done by Wes? Old research, at that! Is there a reason we're not using more professionally researched statistics?

It's like a year old and a half old. The original post is here. And you can run the numbers yourself, it's not that hard.

There are professionally researched statistics. In fact, the stats I used to make that plot that are professionally researched.

[Trar]

I'm assuming you mean the sources of your data, right?

[thewake]

Yeah. They're cited from Wikipedia, but Wikipedia cites rather reputable sources they're from.

[James Comey]

I think it's always worth looking into other cultures like Switzerland and Iceland and see why it is so with them, and see how we can change our attitudes.

[Trar]

(05-26-2014 04:28 PM)W Kuts Wrote:  Yeah. They're cited from Wikipedia, but Wikipedia cites rather reputable sources they're from.

I'm going to say that merely using data does not make it infallible.

(05-26-2014 06:00 PM)Hansgrohe Wrote:  I think it's always worth looking into other cultures like Switzerland and Iceland and see why it is so with them, and see how we can change our attitudes.

Eh. Policy is one thing, but policy in relation to culture is another. Taking laws in one country and just pasting them into another isn't the greatest of ideas. And the issue still lies with America's unique situation.

[KFC Nyan Cat]

Gun Regulation is really what it is. They just call it control for god knows effin' why.

[Evan92]

A bit of outside perspective here. I'm Canadian here contrary to belief it is not impossible to own a handgun. My friend owns a glock 17, S&W 1911 .45, and a .38 revolver. All of which he has obtained legally. The max clip capacity of any handgun here is 10 bullets. You must hold a PAL restricted class permit for any handgun. You cannot conceal carry like in the US and if god forbid you shoot an intruder the average costs are about 10 grand in legal fees. Fuck you can't even own pepper spray here. According to the laws the only purpose for owning a handgun is for visiting the shooting range.

I travel to the US extensively and believe me after visiting Miami last winter I can totally understand the need for having a gun in reach. In Calgary a month ago 5 college students were killed tragically in a house party. All stabbed to death. The perp has not gone to trial yet and is being held in psych. The issue at hand is not an inanimate object but the increasing mental illness throughout society. Yes sandy hook and this latest killing in California are tragic, but no one is dealing with the issue at hand.

[thewake]

Apparently there's also no correlation between gun ownership and homicide rates among U.S. states either.

[Absnt]

Quote: Wow, this thread is shit.

Thanks for being such a self-centered, shitty poster. Made it easier to get Soul to ban you.

I go away for two days and this is what happens.

This is easily the worst thing I've read in a while, or at least it feels like it.

You're also making yourself sound like an ignorant nerd.

because 'morals are not absolute', I will probably lose my shit.

Are all of you middle-class nerds or something?

Please spare me further copy-pasting from yourlogicalfallacyis.com, because it's evident to me that nerds cannot use it properly.

I'm being quite charitable responding like this.

I seldom run into folks who are this full of themselves. This is an internet forum, I'd advise against letting ego play into the equation... Nobody is using "yourlogicalfallacyis.com" or whatever the shit, either. You can't try to curtail an argument by ignoring fallacies and just saying people don't know how they are used. Maybe you yourself should study up on them. For a forum who is a self-proclaimed hugbox some of you, especially those who claim to be in control, seem like pretty self-centered people who are quick to insult anyone who they don't agree with.

Quote:Why in the holy Hell should I trust any research done by Wes? Old research, at that! Is there a reason we're not using more professionally researched statistics? I do agree poverty is a related and serious issue, though.

You can plug the numbers into a graph yourself if you like, and I linked a secondary source. He also re-ran the numbers for different states and came up with the same result recently.

Quote: Are all of you middle-class nerds or something? How the fuck does that negate my points? Please spare me further copy-pasting from yourlogicalfallacyis.com, because it's evident to me that nerds cannot use it properly. How do your statistics invalidate my point? What about the adults being shot, as well?

What are you even talking about "middle class nerds". What is that even supposed to mean? It in and of itself doesn't negate your points, but the argument following it does. You are arguing from a place of emotion, and you're ignoring the actual numbers and implications. I'm saying people going on about "zomg what about the children" isn't a valid argument. Very, very few kids are actually killed with guns. It's negligable.

What about the adults? The same amount will be killed, gun control doesn't curtail the violence.

Quote: Did you even read my post? I [b]already stated this. That does not mean we shouldn't try and curtail it.

I clearly read your post... I never said we shouldn't try to curtail gun violence, but doing it by banning certain guns and shit isn't giong to be effective.

Quote:This leads me to believe any sort of scenario that would conceivably support a citizen revolt would be more likely handled in a non-violent way, or without significant action on part of the rebels. Think foreign intervention/velvet revolution. I'm no stranger to the Vietnam War, so I don't discount guerrilla warfare, but we didn't have drones back in the late '60s. Or...a lot of shit we have now. They'd likely crank up NSA monitoring and analyze more of the data, if the theoretical rebels were using telecommunication at all. I'm reasonably sure the government could track amateur radio, as well.

I meant a good deal of U.S soldiers would refuse to actually fight U.S citizens. The increased technology is different, sure, but there are modern day examples of the U.S military fighting groups like Al-Queda and other guerilla groups and having a pretty difficult time actually succeeding. These groups are pretty small. If the U.S became an environment that necessitated a violent citizen response, the rebels would have a shitton of people willing to step up. Lots more than what we've been up against in the mid-east. I believe it's definitely a viable fight. That'ss the last thing I want to see, and I don't think it's likely, but discounting it as an impossible fight anyway isn't a good argument.

Quote: I must question your knowledge of the common-sense gun regulation that was recently discussed. That's not to say allocation of more resources or improvement of existing laws is out of the picture, either. I do think action should be taken at the roots of the problem, as I assume you do, but focusing only on that would be an incomplete solution.

There are inherent limitations on what we can realistically do with gun control. We could create a ban on every single gun, but we literally could not even hope to confiscate all the guns. Similarly, baning certain types of guns isn't really going to do much good. It would be impossible. Look at NYC, where we have a handgun ban. There are actually a lot more people who own handguns for defensive purposes in New York than there are in areas where it's legal. If people want guns, they're going to get guns. I can literally just buy any type of illegal firearm I want right now. (I'm broke so not really, but give me a few grand and I could get you what you want.) Enforcing certain forms of gun bans is just not plausible.

It's actually becoming less and less plausible to ban guns as technology moves forward. Any machineist (sp?) can build a basic gun out of pot-metal that would be good for a few hundred rounds. We now have 3d printers that can similarly create magazines, or entire assault rifles out of plaster. They work, no skill required.

The problem is, 1 in 300 people or so are inclined towards violent crime. I don't think banning any sort of gun is going to keep weapons out of these peoples hands. I think the number of people inclined toward violence needs to be reduced, and I don't think more gun control is going to effect that at all. These people are going to get guns, or alternatively they are going to use other weapons and statistically continue to kill the same amount of people. That is, until the underlying issues are fixed.

Quote: Why would you really need it? I can understand gun collectors and aficionados, but those are distinct from gun hoarders. And people who for some reason don't feel safe enough with handguns, shotguns or assault rifles with less than 15 bullets per magazine.

Why not? You're trying to paint a picture that everyone who owns these sorts of guns are violent. If they're not violent, I don't really see a big problem with hoarding guns. If that's what they're into, and they aren't causing problems, I don't see any real issue here. The vast majority of these people do not use them against other people. I think there's a fear among these people that the Government is going to come after them, the FED and the IRS and the big gubmint and all those go into it. It's a misguided fear that the government is coming after them or will eventually. I don't agree with these fears, but I also don't think they're doing any harm unless they're using these guns for nefarious reasons, which they aren't.

Quote: I can agree with this, although perhaps doing the latter may lead to the former. Works for most of Europe.

Yeah, that's what I'm hoping.

Quote: They still happen, and they've been on the rise. I'm being quite charitable responding like this.

They're negligable when talking about national firearm legislation. In this context, individual shootings are so much more prevalent and destructive they take way more precedence in the discussion.

Quote: I can agree it's a good thing to do, but it's only part of the picture. I should think the common-sense gun regulation would cover the other crimes you mentioned.

I'm pretty sure it won't have much of an effect.

[brainiac3397]

Afghans kicked ass and they were just a bunch of ragtag militias.

Don't underestimate the human ability to kill with skill(that's what skill has the word kill in it cause we all know we're best skilled at killing each other! )

Did I ever mention I'm a firearm aficionado who would rather not have all them bans on firearms(except for obvious things like RPGs and .50cal machineguns). I also design my own firearms(though I don't have the tools to build them and test them). But that's another story