Jump to content

Oh by the way, someone shot and killed an 8 year old (of course it's USA)


TerraPrime

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Frankly I don't give a hairy rat's ass about efficacy when scaled against the lives of 20 5-6 year olds. Something substantial had to be done on the back of that. I think it's shameful that nothing substantial was done.

I'm not sure what you mean.

Why is doing something that does not save the lives of those kids anyway need to be done?

Are you just looking for symbolic gestures?

Efficacy is the ONLY thing that matters when scaled against the lives of innocents. Otherwise it's just pandering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

I'm not sure what you mean.

Why is doing something that does not save the lives of those kids anyway need to be done?

Are you just looking for symbolic gestures?

Efficacy is the ONLY thing that matters when scaled against the lives of innocents. Otherwise it's just pandering.

We didn't even get pandering. The Gun Lobby and its' pets shutdown any meaningful conversation before it even occurred. Remember those videos/PSA's from the NRA when the story (Sandy Hook) was at its' peak? They had a game plan in place as to how they were going to react to this sort of event before it had ever occurred. 

"You can't politicize this horrific event to forward your own political goals! You are exploiting the deaths of these poor children!" 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

Now, I'm not saying that American gun laws didn't contribute to this tragedy. I really don't know. Outside of this thread, I haven't read much about the case yet. But what we are discussing is the mentality of the gun owner. And most of them view the right to bear arms as a right to protect themselves or others, not as right to go out and murder someone.

This, I think, is the heart of the problem. No one in their right mind should think they need guns to protect themselves. I was quite astonished when I traveled to the U.S. and spoke to people having arguments like "how am I supposed to defend myself without guns?" No one here in Sweden would ever even think along those lines. It's like, "What do you mean defend? Defend from what?"

We have the same violent TV shows and movies that the U.S. does. What we don't have is this idea that the world is a dangerous place full of people trying to harm you, and that as a strong and independent citizen you must be able to defend yourself. Instead we think most people are good people and that the police deal with the bad guys. Sure, many people are worried about crime and there are calls for stronger police forces, people buy home alarms and so on, but that fear just never turns into pro-gun arguments because we don't have that culture.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Erik of Hazelfield said:

This, I think, is the heart of the problem. No one in their right mind should think they need guns to protect themselves. I was quite astonished when I traveled to the U.S. and spoke to people having arguments like "how am I supposed to defend myself without guns?" No one here in Sweden would ever even think along those lines. It's like, "What do you mean defend? Defend from what?"

We have the same violent TV shows and movies that the U.S. does. What we don't have is this idea that the world is a dangerous place full of people trying to harm you, and that as a strong and independent citizen you must be able to defend yourself. Instead we think most people are good people and that the police deal with the bad guys. Sure, many people are worried about crime and there are calls for stronger police forces, people buy home alarms and so on, but that fear just never turns into pro-gun arguments because we don't have that culture.

 

 

Yeah, it's astonishing. Met these two girls from L.A. in Croatia a couple years back, really nice, warm teachers on vacation. My Australian mate and I went out to eat with them one evening and while one of them was away from the table, can't remember how, the topic turned to guns. And what she said, and her friend when she rejoined us, was just unreal.

Both had guns at home, both felt they needed guns in case of invasion/break-in. The one girl, if walking alone at night, openly carried a big hunting knife so attackers would stay away. These two nice people, and they lived in a world where they feel personally endangered all the time. Just insane. And neither of them had ever been attacked, neither had ever been broken into, neither knew any victims of home invasion, but in their minds it was this ever present imminent danger. 

We were so amazed and were asking so many questions I'm afraid we ended up kind of ganging up and lecturing them, 'do you know that having a gun in your home significantly raises the odds of gun violence there? Had it occurred to you that walking around at night with a big knife might make other people feel threatened, which could get really dangerous? Do you know anyone who means you harm? No? Who are you scared of then?' etc...felt bad afterwards and they were really sweet, brought us goodbye gifts, etc.

But the stuff they told us sounded like paranoid fantasists. Like only freakish luck had kept it from happening until now, but when it did they were ready, etc. Ordinary girls, very nice, not crazy, but they honestly felt the need to own guns because Someone Out There was coming to get them. Our ill-advised lecturing was totally just sheer disbelief at what they were saying, and how...ordinary they felt saying it, like we couldn't understand because it's different in the States than Canada or Australia.

And I mean it is different, mainly because everyone's walking around feeling endangeredo and carrying a shitload of guns. And these girls, it was total active confirmation bias. Attacks/crimes/shootings confirm the need for guns, no attacks etc. prove guns are working as a deterrent, and I've known many other Americans on that same loop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Erik, James,

I appreciate your illustrations of the cultural differences on this issue. I've never owned a firearm or believed I "had" to own one for self defense.  Neither have my parents or grandparents (both sets).  What you describe isn't universal.

Nevertheless, give that it does exist and that those who buy into it are armed how do you propose a "drastic" measure to remove firearms from people person possession and homes without changing their minds and attitudes without the potential for (given the numbers) significant violence?  How many kids would be killed in the crossfire if firearms were taken involuntarily?  

This is why I believe we need to work to change the culture you decry from the ground up before going after the few "hardcases".  It will reduce the violence such a "dramatic" action could presage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Erik, James,

I appreciate your illustrations of the cultural differences on this issue. I've never owned a firearm of believed I "had" to own one for self defense.  Neither have my parents or grandparents (both sets).  What you describe isn't universal.

Nevertheless, give that it does exist and that those who buy into it are armed how do you propose a "drastic" measure to remove firearms from people person possession and homes without changing their minds and attitudes without the potential for (given the numbers) significant violence?  How many kids would be killed in the crossfire if firearms were taken involuntarily?  

This is why I believe we need to work to change the culture you decry from the ground up before going after the few "hardcases".  It will reduce the violence such a "dramatic" action could presage.

You really think higher gun regulations equals getting into people's homes and forcefully take away their guns? I agree that the American culture would make that end bloodily, but it would be unfeasable under any culture when there are that many guns and gun-owners involved.

I believe the bone anyone fighting for more regulations is trying to achieve is only that: More regulations for acquiring and storing your guns. That's it. The major difference would be that it takes longer to acquire a gun license due to the checking of your background and mental state. For anyone who is already a licensed gun-owner who doesn't tend to store his guns in the back of his pants like an utter idiot, barely anything at all would change. Sure, you get your guns taken away when you are declared mentally unstable or have committed a crime, but I thought gun-owners see themselves as harmless Average Joe's who only want to have some harmless fun at the range. Speeking of which: There ARE rules on a range so that you don't end up shooting Marvin in the face, right? Those regulations would be just like that: Enforcing of common sense to ensure that hazardous morons won't get a chance at spoiling your fun.

I believe the moment that more regulations are in place and people realize that their gun-crazy hobby is barely affected at all by them, a cultural change to accept them as normal will set in quite swiftly. I also believe that this is the main reason why the gun-lobby is putting such a ridiculous effort into suffocating every discussion about gun regulations: Because they don't actually care whether you get your guns taken away or not. They only care about your ability to buy them willy-nilly. After they have your money, you can go shoot yourself for all they care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

We didn't even get pandering. The Gun Lobby and its' pets shutdown any meaningful conversation before it even occurred. Remember those videos/PSA's from the NRA when the story (Sandy Hook) was at its' peak? They had a game plan in place as to how they were going to react to this sort of event before it had ever occurred. 

"You can't politicize this horrific event to forward your own political goals! You are exploiting the deaths of these poor children!" 

We got plenty of pandering. 

As for conversation,there's plenty of shutting down on both sides of the issue.  See also this thread where the implication is that anyone who is even remotely concerned about gun regulation is basically a baby killer.

Either way, my point remains.  It is right and reasonable to expect regulation of guns(or anything else) to have a reasonable level of effectiveness. If it doesn't then it is reasonable to resist it. This should be self evident.

I think the example that prompted this thread is a particularly interesting example.  You have a guy who is already prohibited by law from possessing a firearm, who lives in a state with some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country, who breaks a whole slew of existing laws on his way to committing this crime, and who uses a low capacity revolver to commit the murders.

How anyone thinks this is the poster child for 'reasonable gun regulation' is beyond me.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

We got plenty of pandering. 

As for conversation,there's plenty of shutting down on both sides of the issue.  See also this thread where the implication is that anyone who is even remotely concerned about gun regulation is basically a baby killer.

Either way, my point remains.  It is right and reasonable to expect regulation of guns(or anything else) to have a reasonable level of effectiveness. If it doesn't then it is reasonable to resist it. This should be self evident.

I think the example that prompted this thread is a particularly interesting example.  You have a guy who is already prohibited by law from possessing a firearm, who lives in a state with some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country, who breaks a whole slew of existing laws on his way to committing this crime, and who uses a low capacity revolver to commit the murders.

How anyone thinks this is the poster child for 'reasonable gun regulation' is beyond me.

For how long? A week? Maybe? Your side slammed the door shut on that conversation before it even got started.

 

11 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

How anyone thinks this is the poster child for 'reasonable gun regulation' is beyond me.

 Yet another dead 8 year old child would like a word. He's not available for comment though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

For how long? A week? Maybe? Your side slammed the door shut on that conversation before it even got started.

 

 Yet another dead 8 year old child would like a word. He's not available for comment though.

This is a prime example of exactly what I'm talking about.  When you take this route you are clearly not interested in reasonable conversation about the actual issues at hand. This is comepletely disingenuous, and frankly,you're better than this.

If you don't see how this is shutting down the conversation (just like those on 'my side')....  Then i don't know what to tell you.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I came across another Dan Carlin Common Sense podcast last night that really got me thinking about this issue. It is titled Pandering for Liberty...

 

So he begins with an obvious premise and statement. Money is the way and means in which our political system now operates. The Supreme Court decided that this isn't just how the system is operating legally, it's how the system was designed to operate. Essentially, if you don't have money behind your cause, your cause has zero chance of succeeding. So how do you play by these rules in order to get what you want? You buy politicians the same way the Gun Lobby does. I think the Gun Control side of things is at an inherent disadvantage here, as I don't see an obvious way to monetize Gun Control in the same way that the Pro Gun folks can monetize Gun rights. That said, Carlin's main point seems to point to crowd funding. If you can get 5 million people to donate $5.00 to the cause, now you have enough capital to get some movement on your issue. Seems to me that this is what the Pro Gun Control side needs. Some sort of equivalent to the NRA. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Toth said:

You really think higher gun regulations equals getting into people's homes and forcefully take away their guns? I agree that the American culture would make that end bloodily, but it would be unfeasable under any culture when there are that many guns and gun-owners involved.

I believe the bone anyone fighting for more regulations is trying to achieve is only that: More regulations for acquiring and storing your guns. That's it. The major difference would be that it takes longer to acquire a gun license due to the checking of your background and mental state. For anyone who is already a licensed gun-owner who doesn't tend to store his guns in the back of his pants like an utter idiot, barely anything at all would change. Sure, you get your guns taken away when you are declared mentally unstable or have committed a crime, but I thought gun-owners see themselves as harmless Average Joe's who only want to have some harmless fun at the range. Speeking of which: There ARE rules on a range so that you don't end up shooting Marvin in the face, right? Those regulations would be just like that: Enforcing of common sense to ensure that hazardous morons won't get a chance at spoiling your fun.

I believe the moment that more regulations are in place and people realize that their gun-crazy hobby is barely affected at all by them, a cultural change to accept them as normal will set in quite swiftly. I also believe that this is the main reason why the gun-lobby is putting such a ridiculous effort into suffocating every discussion about gun regulations: Because they don't actually care whether you get your guns taken away or not. They only care about your ability to buy them willy-nilly. After they have your money, you can go shoot yourself for all they care.

Toth,

When people talk about "dramatic" action regarding firearms regulation I assume they mean more than trigger lock requirements.  I assume a "dramatic" action will cause "drama".  Hence my statement.

Further, those sorts of regulations can be enacted locally.  You don't need a national push for regulations of that nature.  I agree your method is a good one I just don't see that as "dramatic".  I see those as "reasonable" and "effective".  Those are exactly what I mean when I talk about gound up regulation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

This is a prime example of exactly what I'm talking about.  When you take this route you are clearly not interested in reasonable conversation about the actual issues at hand. This is comepletely disingenuous, and frankly,you're better than this.

If you don't see how this is shutting down the conversation (just like those on 'my side')....  Then i don't know what to tell you.

But that's what they did when Sandy Hook reached a boiling point, Swordfish. This is not disingenuous, it's fact. 

If you talk about this tragedy in an attempt to exert Gun Control, you are exploiting the death of 5-6 year olds. Shame on you. The obvious answer as to how we protect our children is more guns. Guns in schools. Oh yeah, and violent videogames are more complicit in this tragedy than guns are. Thank you.

Their pets in Congress and the Senate killed any discussion that was attempted on the floor. Your side isn't interested in having a meaningful conversation about Gun Control. They don't have to as they can simply throttle that conversation before it's allowed to take place. So you'll excuse me if I don't take your appeal to efficacy sincerely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

But that's what they did when Sandy Hook reached a boiling point, Swordfish. This is not disingenuous, it's fact. 

If you talk about this tragedy in an attempt to exert Gun Control, you are exploiting the death of 5-6 year olds. Shame on you. The obvious answer as to how we protect our children is more guns. Guns in schools. Oh yeah, and violent videogames are more complicit in this tragedy than guns are. Thank you.

Their pets in Congress and the Senate killed any discussion that was attempted on the floor. Your side isn't interested in having a meaningful conversation about Gun Control. They don't have to as they can simply throttle that conversation before it's allowed to take place. So you'll excuse me if I don't take your appeal to efficacy sincerely.

 

I don't know who you think'my side' is here. I've demonstrated many times that I'm completely willing and able to have a conversation about gun control. I've done so in this very thread.  THe problem is, often people will construe as meaningful conversation only those viewpoints that do not disagree with them.

True story here, I don't work for the NRA.

The fact is, there are many people on both sides of this who throttle the conversation.  You're doing it now. 

So you'll excuse me if I don't take your appeal to a desire for reasonable conversation seriously.

Frankly, if you guys really gave a shit about that eight year old, we'd be talking about domestic violence here, and less so about guns, for reasons I've already outlined.  This simply is not a good case for gun control advocates unless you're advocating total ban and seizure. That's why you're reduced to 'But won't you please, please think about the CHILDREN!!!!' type arguments.  

At any rate, I'm happy to discuss gun control, if that's what you're really after, but I'm done talking about which side of this holds the high ground on stifling the conversation.(hint: the answer is 'neither')

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Mentioning the dead 8 year old was a retort to your statement that "I don't see how this case can be held up as an example for pro gun control". 8 year old killed by a firearm is how it can be held up as an example for gun control. That throttles the conversation how? You make some good counterpoints as to how this story is not a good example, I'll give you that. If you want to tell me that a dead 8 year old killed by a firearm isn't an appropriate counter, then you can go join Wayne La Pierre in the kindly fuck off box.

 

/The "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" counter is offensive when dead children are an actual, factual part of the story. You might want to consider that for a second before using it again. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Toth,

When people talk about "dramatic" action regarding firearms regulation I assume they mean more than trigger lock requirements.  I assume a "dramatic" action will cause "drama".  Hence my statement.

Further, those sorts of regulations can be enacted locally.  You don't need a national push for regulations of that nature.  I agree your method is a good one I just don't see that as "dramatic".  I see those as "reasonable" and "effective".  Those are exactly what I mean when I talk about gound up regulation.

Mmh... sorry, point for you. I wasn't paying enough attention to the thread and was therefore under the impression that those 'dramatic actions' which were mentioned were about the events leading up to a regulation reform.

I actually can't see what else besides stricter licence and storage regulations you can aim for. Confiscations will come afterwards, when blatant violations surface and then those will only affect individual nutjobs who can be dismissed as just that by reasonable gun owners.

The problem I see is that the Gun lobby will inevitably call even that a 'dramatic' crackdown by evil communist-nazis who are out for your children, so that gullible mid-westerners will go out on the streets against it.

I also don't see why this has to be a federal issue. You would never get it implemented in red states if you don't make it a national law. Never. That's why even such a tiny push needs to come from above. Especially due to this it will end up looking dramatic, so to speak, completely unrelated to how dramatic it actually is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Toth said:

Mmh... sorry, point for you. I wasn't paying enough attention to the thread and was therefore under the impression that those 'dramatic actions' which were mentioned were about the events leading up to a regulation reform.

I actually can't see what else besides stricter licence and storage regulations you can aim for. Confiscations will come afterwards, when blatant violations surface and then those will only affect individual nutjobs who can be dismissed as just that by reasonable gun owners.

The problem I see is that the Gun lobby will inevitably call even that a 'dramatic' crackdown by evil communist-nazis who are out for your children, so that gullible mid-westerners will go out on the streets against it.

I also don't see why this has to be a federal issue. You would never get it implemented in red states if you don't make it a national law. Never. That's why even such a tiny push needs to come from above. Especially due to this it will end up looking dramatic, so to speak, completely unrelated to how dramatic it actually is.

The crazies on the Gun Rights side will attempt to claim any regulation of firearm ownership is a violation of the 2nd amendment.  The statement by Justice Scalia (flaming leftist that he was) in the Keller case that the regulations they invalidated were "unreasonable" implies that "reasonable" regulations are possible.  

The people on the flip side of this argument who will accept nothing less than "dramatic" action are hurting their cause in my opinion.

My problem with going federal is that it makes the regulations that much easier to invalidate.  Moving locally allows multiple regualtions to be attempted giving a basis for national regulation when we know what will withstand SCOTUS review.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

The people on the flip side of this argument who will accept nothing less than "dramatic" action are hurting their cause in my opinion.

Yeah, I agree that incremental change is the only way to go. Near as I can tell, we haven't managed to move the needle on that though. That's when people start to get dramatic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...