Guns, mass shootings, and related. - Progressive Rock Music Forum

Author

Message

Topic Search

Topic Options

Dean

Special Collaborator

Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575

Posted: December 20 2012 at 06:50

Epignosis wrote:

Dean wrote:

Give it a try and found out?

Dean wrote:

It took 100 years to reduce gun ownership in the UK

This seems like an unreasonable approach. "Enact sweeping legislation and give it a hundred years to see if it benefits the nation."

Deep seated problems do not have easy solutions, each journey starts with a single step (blah blah blah). There is nothing unreasonable about long term solutions, what is unreasonable is expecting a quick-fix. You seem happy to stand by 200 year old legislation that grants the right to own offensive weapons so we can all pick and chose examples that support or oppose any view, how effective those approaches are is not determined by how reasonable they are. Killing is not reasonable.

Epignosis wrote:

Then again, we are nearing the centennial of the federal income tax and the federal reserve. Lamp

I don't see this as being particularily relevant or germane - there is a 4000 year old law that says you should not kill and that's not relevant either. The question was does gun control work, the example given suggests it does. Reducing the supply and circulation of weapons reduces their availability over time, citing short term localised results is meaningless if they are long term solutions.

Edited by Dean - December 20 2012 at 06:51

What?

npjnpj

Forum Senior Member

Joined: December 05 2007
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 2720

Posted: December 20 2012 at 06:53

Any statistics and statistic-based reports, as bandied about here, should be summarily discarded. For both sides of the discussion.

Don't we all know how statistics-based propaganda works by now? Why is anyone here bothering with them at all?

Who is funding them? No, I mean REALLY funding them? We'll never find out.

If anyone really is convinced that there is no correlation between guns and violence, then I find them seriously misguided.

If you carry on believing in such statistics and their interpretation, you are being manipulated.

Perhaps you choose to be manipulated because it just makes thinking unnecessary?

Or it relieves you of the strain of having to consider things you might find uncomfortable?

Or it might not fit in with your convictions?

Or it goes against your upbringing, things you were told growing up?

Or you just like guns and don't like the thought of being without them?

Or perhaps you're afraid you might just not be THE MAN and your weenie might fall off.

Anyway, we're talking USA here, why should any other countries or societies have any bearing on the matter at all? It's just not relevant because different societies can't be compared in this way. Seems like a senseless academic waste of time while kids are dying.

Concerning the anti gun-control argument: If I believed in such a thing I would say this is the prime example of the Devil's work on earth.

But as I don't, I'll just see this as gun-control propaganda. Pretty much the same thing.

dtguitarfan View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: June 24 2011
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Status: Offline
Points: 1708

Posted: December 20 2012 at 06:56

Dean wrote:

CCVP wrote:

Brazil has one of the strictest gun policies in the Americas and we still have alarming rates of gunfire crimes/murder. Just some kilometers north of where I live there are over 60 homicides per 100,000 inhabitants and where I live the figures are around 40 homicides per 100,000 inhabitants, way above the US medium.

Are any of those crimes committed with legally acquired guns and ammunition? A mere fraction. Still, I do believe that selling some types of firearms to civilians a bit too much, like rifles and such.

That is a perfectly valid observation - treating the symptom does not cure the disease, it is necessary to do both to effect the desired result

This is a very good point, Dean. In my opinion, I think the disease happens to be the social paranoia running rampant in the USA right now - as evidenced by the fact that the ones who sell and profit off of pro-gun philosophy are quite possibly the most paranoid, schizophrenic, delusional organization in America. Yeah, let's get people all riled up and scared sh**less over delusional fantasies and then give them powerful weapons!

My 2012 List

npjnpj

Forum Senior Member

Joined: December 05 2007
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 2720

Posted: December 20 2012 at 07:03

dtguitarfan: I completely agree. Additionally it is in the best interest of the gun lobby to keep the paranoia level up. Those guns are being sold on a mass market, regardless of the fact that somewhere along the line they get stolen.

Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784

Posted: December 20 2012 at 07:06

Tapfret wrote:

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Guldbamsen wrote:

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Guldbamsen wrote:

The native American's.

Oh yeah because tribes didn't go to war over hunting grounds and water sources.

I am not saying that the Europeans invented war here. Of course native Americans went to war with each other before the arrival of the freakin Mayflower. They just didn't have guns, and yes I know it's possible to kill without them - but it's much easier and they bring a certain convenience into the picture - yet that isn't my point. I don't think they would have snuffed off the entire population of natives had they been left alone by the settlers, but that is just guessing.

So basically you're just speculating. As I said, all land ownership if you trace it back far enough came by force. We just happen to be a young country.

According to THIS there are a whole 17 countries whose current sovereignty predates the US. So, no, not so much. I have not researched in depth, but I am positive that 235 years is on the extremely high end of time for countries to exist. The exception being the empires.

Yeah and in which of those countries was there no blood shed to obtain the land rights? Did you even read what we were talking about or did you decide I said "young country" and only latch onto that?

"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

dtguitarfan View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: June 24 2011
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Status: Offline
Points: 1708

Posted: December 20 2012 at 07:14

npjnpj wrote:

dtguitarfan: I completely agree. Additionally it is in the best interest of the gun lobby to keep the paranoia level up. Those guns are being sold on a mass market, regardless of the fact that somewhere along the line they get stolen.

Exactly - after every mass shooting, the sale of guns has skyrocketed, and what's their answer to the problem? "More guns! That will make you safer!" To illustrate the insanity:
Nuclear weapons are dangerous. Iran is bad, and is working on nuclear weapons. But the answer is not to stop them - we should give EVERYONE a nuclear weapon! That will make us safe, right?

My 2012 List

Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784

Posted: December 20 2012 at 07:16

Dean wrote:

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

That "on" was supposed to an "only" Rob.

and I didn't say "only" - if money is an obstacle (and not the only obstacle) then there is little for me to discuss as I do not know how anyone can evaluate the cost-benefits.

I guess there isn't. I don't know how money can't be considered an obstacle. Only so many things can be funded so a choice has to be made between alternatives at some point. Ignoring this is fact is just a tacit choice of one alternative over another itself.

Of course though, I agree with the difficulty in measuring such things which is why I disagree with the notion of government in general.

Dean wrote:

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Where is my libertarian idealism exactly? The only thing I find idealistic is the notion than governmental policy is going to change a prevailing social issue for the first time in history.

Have I misunderstood the libertarian "no regulation" stance? If libertarianism isn't for deregulation and non-regulation then what is it for?

When you have an unregulated self-perpetuating closed loop system the way of changing that system is to change the conditions that will result in breaking the loop. You can change any point in that loop and produce the desired result, but to date no one has proposed a method for doing that other than by some form regulation. If regulation is unpalatable then what are the alternatives - where in the loop do you make a change that results in fewer gun related killings?

I didn't realize that me holding a belief that a libertarian also would hold causes me to drip with libertarian idealism.

I have suggested the elimination of gun free zones which create the ideal tactical situation for spree killers to operate. I propose boycotts of news sources which glorify the killers. I propose a change in an educational system which glorifies mass murderers as great leaders and war heroes while portraying the peaceful and soft-spoken as impotent and ineffective. I would see a change in a prison system which teaches us to arbitrarily punish others for behavior we disagree with rather than one which hopes to reimburse victims and prevent future wrongdoing.

"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784

Posted: December 20 2012 at 07:18

npjnpj wrote:

Any statistics and statistic-based reports, as bandied about here, should be summarily discarded. For both sides of the discussion.

Don't we all know how statistics-based propaganda works by now? Why is anyone here bothering with them at all?

Who is funding them? No, I mean REALLY funding them? We'll never find out.

If anyone really is convinced that there is no correlation between guns and violence, then I find them seriously misguided.

If you carry on believing in such statistics and their interpretation, you are being manipulated.

Perhaps you choose to be manipulated because it just makes thinking unnecessary?

Or it relieves you of the strain of having to consider things you might find uncomfortable?

Or it might not fit in with your convictions?

Or it goes against your upbringing, things you were told growing up?

Or you just like guns and don't like the thought of being without them?

Or perhaps you're afraid you might just not be THE MAN and your weenie might fall off.

Concerning the anti gun-control argument: If I believed in such a thing I would say this is the prime example of the Devil's work on earth.

But as I don't, I'll just see this as gun-control propaganda. Pretty much the same thing.

Makes sense. Statistics are flawed so discard the idea of them completely.

"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

npjnpj

Forum Senior Member

Joined: December 05 2007
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 2720

Posted: December 20 2012 at 07:43

Cheers, I'm glad you agree.

Norbert

Forum Senior Member

Joined: October 20 2005
Location: Hungary
Status: Offline
Points: 2506

Posted: December 20 2012 at 08:27

I don't think that banning guns would help a lot.
Schwizerland has probably more widespread gun ownership, and less shhoting.
Other countries have strict bans on guns, but crimes related to guns are on the rise.
Lawberakers tend no to bother with the law.
There were shotings when the murderer used a stolen gun.
So ban stealing! Oh, wait...

Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784

Posted: December 20 2012 at 08:31

It's definitely not more widespread in Switzerland, but they do have a lot of guns for its population.

"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

dtguitarfan View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: June 24 2011
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Status: Offline
Points: 1708

Posted: December 20 2012 at 08:37

Norbert wrote:

I don't think that banning guns would help a lot.
Schwizerland has probably more widespread gun ownership, and less shhoting.

Switzerland is not America. Switzerland does not have an army, but opted for a people's militia. Lots of people there have guns because they are the country's defense.

My 2012 List

dtguitarfan View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: June 24 2011
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Status: Offline
Points: 1708

Posted: December 20 2012 at 08:38

And now it's time to play "Fear and Paranoia"! Let's remind our contestants how to play: just blame some random person or group you don't like for all the problems in our world! For example, you might use the following structure: I blame (group or person you hate here) because they (action you don't like) so we should (your political goal here)! The political action part is really just for bonus points, though - you don't even need to provide a solution, just get people scared. Today's subject is the Newtown Shootings. Ok, who's first? National Review? Ok, go.
http://www.salon.com/2012/12/19/national_review_writer_shooting_was_result_of_a_feminized_setting/
Oooooh! Good one! 1,000 points! Who's next? Rosenberg?
http://www.salon.com/2012/12/19/right_wing_author_jon_stewart_part_of_the_culture_that_led_to_shootings/
Oh my, this is complete genius - Stewart has made fun of the mythical war on Christmas we made up in one of our earilier rounds, so what did Rosenberg do? He blamed Stewart for the Newtown shootings because he's waging a war on Christmas! Bonus points for tying in a previous myth! 5,000 points on the board for Rosenberg! Next up? Oh, we have a teamup of the Daily Caller, Fox News, Breitbart, and Glenn Beck. This is going to be good. What's your play?
http://www.salon.com/2012/12/17/would_the_u_s_government_profile_white_men/
OH MY GOODNESS!!!! WE HAVE A WINNER!!!! They have ingeniously turned around a statement that pointed out the imbalance and ineffectiveness of racial profiling into racism against white people! 10,000 points!!!!!
Thank you for tuning in this week for "Fear and Paranoia", and remember - be afraid! Be very, very afraid!

My 2012 List

dtguitarfan View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: June 24 2011
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Status: Offline
Points: 1708

Posted: December 20 2012 at 08:41

^ Anyone object to me reposting that in the Political discussion thread?

My 2012 List

Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784

Posted: December 20 2012 at 08:46

dtguitarfan wrote:

Norbert wrote:

I don't think that banning guns would help a lot.
Schwizerland has probably more widespread gun ownership, and less shhoting.

Switzerland is not America. Switzerland does not have an army, but opted for a people's militia. Lots of people there have guns because they are the country's defense.

Is that really relevant?

"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

dtguitarfan View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: June 24 2011
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Status: Offline
Points: 1708

Posted: December 20 2012 at 08:48

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

dtguitarfan wrote:

Norbert wrote:

I don't think that banning guns would help a lot.Schwizerland has probably more widespread gun ownership, and less shhoting.

Switzerland is not America. Switzerland does not have an army, but opted for a people's militia. Lots of people there have guns because they are the country's defense.

Is that really relevant?

Really? Do I really need to answer that?

My 2012 List

Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784

Posted: December 20 2012 at 08:49

You do not. However, I would prefer if you did so I can see how it is relevant.

"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

The T

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493

Posted: December 20 2012 at 09:00

Dean wrote:

That is a perfectly valid observation - treating the symptom does not cure the disease, it is necessary to do both to effect the desired result - regulation of the means of killing without addressing cause of killing is not a cure. If a kid is hitting other kids with a baseball bat the first course of action is to take away the bat, then you look to why he wants to hurt others - you don't enter that discourse while he is sat next to a pile of baseball bats. At some point in time all those illegally owned guns were legally produced and sold.

The question is, which club do you want to be a member of: one with >40 killings, >10 killings or <0.25 killings per 100,000 of population?

Just as an example, my country of origin, peaceful and calm about 20 years ago, is now violent as hell and the main cities are full of crime. Guns aren't legal. But lots of citizens are requesting some right to own arms for self-defense at home.

Dean

Special Collaborator

Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575

Posted: December 20 2012 at 09:05

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Dean wrote:

Have I misunderstood the libertarian "no regulation" stance? If libertarianism isn't for deregulation and non-regulation then what is it for?

I didn't realize that me holding a belief that a libertarian also would hold causes me to drip with libertarian idealism.

drip? Okay, perhaps you've stated your libertarian views so resolutely that I've misinterpreted them. Maybe we just haven't broached a subject where your view would run counter to libertarianism, but if there ever was one I would have hoped that this was it. It's not, so you've answered my question and it's time to move on.

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

I have suggested the elimination of gun free zones which create the ideal tactical situation for spree killers to operate. I propose boycotts of news sources which glorify the killers. I propose a change in an educational system which glorifies mass murderers as great leaders and war heroes while portraying the peaceful and soft-spoken as impotent and ineffective. I would see a change in a prison system which teaches us to arbitrarily punish others for behavior we disagree with rather than one which hopes to reimburse victims and prevent future wrongdoing.

Some of those proposals would indeed have an effect though I do not know that the abolishion of gun-free zones will prevent killing sprees, then killing sprees account for a small fraction of all the gun-killings in the USA proposals to prevent those are not going to make a huge difference, whether they occured in gun-free zones or not.

Since I do not live in the USA I do not know by what criteria you designate an area as being a gun-free zone - our company's Austin, TX premises is a gun-free zone, yet during one of my visits I was a little surprised to discover that a significant number (ie most) of the people I spoke to who worked there kept guns in their cars and trucks parked in the work's carpark. If you're going to have exclusion zones then you need to pay a little more than lip-service to the idea before deciding that it is flawed. However, if you are going to have zoning, then it should be the other way around - designated gun-happy zones (shooting ranges, hunting areas, theme parks for drive-bys and gangland slayings etc.).

Sure you need to change perceptions and mindsets, that is ultimately the cure, but you still need to treat the symptoms because the mindset will not change while the symptoms persist.

What?

dtguitarfan View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: June 24 2011
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Status: Offline
Points: 1708

Posted: December 20 2012 at 09:06

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

You do not. However, I would prefer if you did so I can see how it is relevant.

I'll keep it simple: using Switzerland as an example for why we actually need more guns is an over-simplified example used to "prove" the validity of a naive and simplistic solution to a complex problem.

My 2012 List