Gun Control discussion

[Michael Seswatha Jordan]

On 10/10/2017 at 2:14 PM, Kalbear said:

t should be clear that the reason I jumped down your throat is the reason everyone else did - because you said something that was wrong. If you don't want to have your opinion challenged, I'd recommend not stating it.

If you read my post literally before the one I answered you I brought up all of this. I'm interested in changing your mind about suicide and links to gun regulation, because there is a causal link between successful suicide and gun ownership/availability. 

Maybe so, but, even though quickerand more effecient, which I agree that it is. I'd someone is desperate enough to want to kill themselves they will, gun or no. Ive shown examples from my life, I could show you a million more throughout the internet. 

Look, I will say this, that having a gun in home, not properly locked and contained is a huge safety concern. Its why I don't own guns. I don't want any risk of a accident. I can see that yes, in terms if suicide it more efficient. But, it takes a lot of guts to commit suicide. Life has to be pretty bad and that person at the end of their strings mentally. I just feel, gun or no gun, they'll find a way to do it. Just like if we ban all guns in America there will still be mass shootings, homicides and so forth. And, if you guys are jumping down my throat about the numbers on guns used in suicide, your ignoring the fact that where gun bans have been placed, there is virtually no difference in gun related homicides. I know you guys will have a argument for it, but I find it perfectly sensible. Drugs are illegal, and we are experiencing the highest overdose rates ever. People are dropping left and right. So, just because there is a ban, doesn't mean the problem is solved, in fact in may get worse.

ETA: and I will not own it. I've never committed murder, never thought of it. Want tighter regulations to try and make gun use and ownership safer. As I said, I won't have that guilt trip put on me. Again, I ask you and all the rest that say this, if a ban was implemented, would all the murders following that now be placed on your hands?

[The guy from the Vale]

45 minutes ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

I am all about facts. But, I don't think suicide should be considered in the gun debate. Sorry, my opinion. Its also my opinion and proven that stats will be skewed to the agendas of those carrying them out, thats a fact. You guys seem to not what to admit to that piece of evidence. Do you need me to Google all the articles on the subject? Well, I won't your perfectly capable. Its funny, even with being for very tight (in a lot of people's eyes) gun control, this place just had to find something wrong with the post. You had to disagree if everyone doesn't think like 90% of the forum. Its hilarious.

Speaking as someone who has experienced it, suicidality is, most of the time, an impulsive thing. When I considered suicide, I had no avenue towards it readily available - and just leaving the house to get something to achieve my goal made me reconsider. If my parents had had a gun at home, I'd have died before turning 18. This was over a decade ago, I'm still alive, and quite happy about that fact. Excessive guns lying around is something that makes suicides far more likely to succeed. Now I know the suicides around you didn't involve guns - but about half of all suicides in the US do. Just reducing the number of households owning guns would do a lot to make suicide in the US far less common. Your refusal to consider the effects of US gun culture and your own participation in it is costing the lives of depressed eople every day. I ask you to reconsider your stance on this.

[DanteGabriel]

Came to say almost exactly what theguyfromtheVale said. I've also read a couple of pieces from writers who say the same -- that they would have committed suicide if they'd had access to a gun.

Also MSJ, if facts are as important to you as you claim, it seems pretty lazy to also say you're going to ignore all statistics because they can be manipulated. At least try to engage with a citation and ask questions instead of just refusing to consider anything that might challenge your ideas.

[Michael Seswatha Jordan]

7 minutes ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

Speaking as someone who has experienced it, suicidality is, most of the time, an impulsive thing. When I considered suicide, I had no avenue towards it readily available - and just leaving the house to get something to achieve my goal made me reconsider. If my parents had had a gun at home, I'd have died before turning 18. This was over a decade ago, I'm still alive, and quite happy about that fact. Excessive guns lying around is something that makes suicides far more likely to succeed. Now I know the suicides around you didn't involve guns - but about half of all suicides in the US do. Just reducing the number of households owning guns would do a lot to make suicide in the US far less common. Your refusal to consider the effects of US gun culture and your own participation in it is costing the lives of depressed eople every day. I ask you to reconsider your stance on this.

But, I don't want a ban on guns. Period. I wanted tighter regulations. There will still be guns in households. The problem lies in not there being a gun in the household, but ways to make getting that gun hard for anyone young or with depression or mental illnesses. I'm sorry to hear your story, I truly am. But, I find it ludicrous and a piece of anti-gun propaganda, that wants to lie blame on those who support the right to bear arms. I'll ask again. If there was a ban on guns, and the murders by gun follow g that ban that will inevitably occur, will place the blood of those victims on your hands? Not one single person has answered this. Very convenient.

[Michael Seswatha Jordan]

Just now, DanteGabriel said:

Came to say almost exactly what theguyfromtheVale said. I've also read a couple of pieces from writers who say the same -- that they would have committed suicide if they'd had access to a gun.

Also MSJ, if facts are as important to you as you claim, it seems pretty lazy to also say you're going to ignore all statistics because they can be manipulated. At least try to engage with a citation and ask questions instead of just refusing to consider anything that might challenge your ideas.

I don't ignore all statistics. I just know that they are skewed to the agenda of those conducting them. Which no one has yet to contradict. I've had my views change and am always willing to. In fact you are the one who got me to understand that a ban has never been proposed as a piece of legislation. I'm open to changing my mind. I won't be lulled into a guilt trip, though.

[DanteGabriel]

1 minute ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

I'll ask again. If there was a ban on guns, and the murders by gun follow g that ban that will inevitably occur, will place the blood of those victims on your hands? Not one single person has answered this. Very convenient.

Huh? This doesn't make sense. Stepping around the massively unlikely hypothetical that a "ban on guns" is somehow enacted in our casually vicious and irresponsible culture, why would gun-banning advocates feel bad about a gun murder? That they didn't personally assure the destruction of every gun? 

Or is there supposed to be, in your fervid imagination that cooked up this exotic hypothetical, a perfect knowledge that some victim would have been able to defend him or herself if those darned gun banners hadn't taken away their guns?

[The guy from the Vale]

1 minute ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

But, I don't want a ban on guns. Period. I wanted tighter regulations. There will still be guns in households. The problem lies in not there being a gun in the household, but ways to make getting that gun hard for anyone young or with depression or mental illnesses. I'm sorry to hear your story, I truly am. But, I find it ludicrous and a piece of anti-gun propaganda, that wants to lie blame on those who support the right to bear arms. I'll ask again. If there was a ban on guns, and the murders by gun follow g that ban that will inevitably occur, will place the blood of those victims on your hands? Not one single person has answered this. Very convenient.

I'm not necessarily advocating a full-out ban. I'm advocating a change in culture where people stop getting guns to protect themselves from intruders, only to introduce a high risk of successful suicide for anyone in that family who becomes depressed - something that, statistically, happens to around 30% of the population, far higher than the percentage of the population killed during home invasions. Most burglars want to just get in, grab the valuables and get out. The fact that so many people in the US have guns is what makes them gun up too, to protect themselves during their crime; home invasions would actually be less scary with less guns around! Also consider that guns are valuable - and so themselves a target for burglars. If you own a gun to hunt, or for sports, you can actually put it somewhere safe if you don't use it; if you have it to protect yourself from burglars, you need it readily available at all times - and so it becomes readily available for depressed family members or the very burglars you want to use it against.

Once guns are less prevalent, it will also be harder for criminals to get their hands on them. Yes, there will be a time period where they will still have them, but once there are less guns around, both the need for criminals to be armed during their crimes as well as the availability of those very firearms makes even crime far less dangerous for the victims of said crimes. And those people who will die to criminals in that period? They would have died without a change in that culture, too - and many more like them would continue to do so.

[The guy from the Vale]

@Michael Seswatha Jordan Also, I do not want your pity. I am fine. Pity those children and young adults in your country who are not as fortunate as I was and who manage to kill themselves because their parents thought their guns would protect them and their offspring. I went on to live, they die, totally unnecessarily.

[Michael Seswatha Jordan]

2 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

Huh? This doesn't make sense. Stepping around the massively unlikely hypothetical that a "ban on guns" is somehow enacted in our casually vicious and irresponsible culture, why would gun-banning advocates feel bad about a gun murder? That they didn't personally assure the destruction of every gun? 

Or is there supposed to be, in your fervid imagination that cooked up this exotic hypothetical, a perfect knowledge that some victim would have been able to defend him or herself if those darned gun banners hadn't taken away their guns?

I don't have a gun. Why is a guilt trip being placed on me? No, this isn't cooked up in my cervix imagination, but I'll as you the same. Why is blood being placed on my hands when I'm for gun regulations? Guns will exist after a ban, same as drugs exist while being illegal. What changes? Blood on my hands still? It makes no sense at all to say that the blood of innocence are on my hands. Are the victims of mass shootings capable of defending themselves from those darn guys pushing for tighter regulations? You see the hypocrisy? If not, then its purely a piece of ludicrous propaganda. It's a huge guilt trip and nothing else and coming from people whom I know are unwilling to change their minds under any instances at all. Anyhow, we're at an impasse. You guys are begging and basically calling me close minded to switch my views. Just because I don't conform to the ideology of the majority of this forum, doesn't make that the case. And, I'm officially finished with a conversation were those charges are being levelled. You can't see in your mind, that if a gun ban was implemented, nothing would change. That's as close-minded as it gets. Alas, I'm finished with this conversation. I appreciate all of your views and responses.

[Michael Seswatha Jordan]

13 minutes ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

'm not necessarily advocating a full-out ban. I'm advocating a change in culture where people stop getting guns to protect themselves from intruders, only to introduce a high risk of successful suicide for anyone in that family who becomes depressed - something that, statistically, happens to around 30% of the population, far higher than the percentage of the population killed during home invasions. Most burglars want to just get in, grab the valuables and get out. The fact that so many people in the US have guns is what makes them gun up too, to protect themselves during their crime; home invasions would actually be less scary with less guns around! Also consider that guns are valuable - and so themselves a target for burglars. If you own a gun to hunt, or for sports, you can actually put it somewhere safe if you don't use it; if you have it to protect yourself from burglars, you need it readily available at all times - and so it becomes readily available for depressed family members or the very burglars you want to use it against.

I agree 100% with this. 

 

14 minutes ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

Once guns are less prevalent, it will also be harder for criminals to get their hands on them. Yes, there will be a time period where they will still have them, but once there are less guns around, both the need for criminals to be armed during their crimes as well as the availability of those very firearms makes even crime far less dangerous for the victims of said crimes. And those people who will die to criminals in that period? They would have died without a change in that culture, too - and many more like them would continue to do so.

There will always be a market for guns So long as LE has them also. It blows my mind that people that a reduction of legal guns will therefore reduce the amount of illegal guns. That's nonsensical, and a pipe dream. Sorry. I felt obliged to answer you. I'm bowing out now.

[DanteGabriel]

I didn't say anything about blood on your hands, MSJ. Your last post responds to absolutely nothing I said. I asked you to clarify what seemed like an illogical hypothetical and now you're acting like I've personally doused you in blood. Try harder to tell the difference between posters, because you are using my posts to rail against other people.

TgftV and I argued with your stance on considering suicide as part of the gun fatalities total and you're ranting about people trying to make you feel guilty. Lord, there's nothing more dangerous in the world than a white American bro with bruised feelings. 

[The guy from the Vale]

@Michael Seswatha Jordan Again, I'm not calling for a gun ban. I am calling for a change in gun culture. This is, in many ways, even harder. But it's the only way to make this work: The idea that people should own guns to kill other people (instead of animals, or target boards) needs to die. Quickly. If a ban accomplishes that, fine, but I don't think that's necessary, or even the best possible way to do it.

And what I am saying is that this is not about whether you personnally own a gun or not. It's about whether you think owning a gun to kill other human beings is a socially and morally acceptable position.

[Michael Seswatha Jordan]

3 minutes ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

And what I am saying is that this is not about whether you personnally own a gun or not. It's about whether you think owning a gun to kill other human beings is a socially and morally acceptable position.

Of course I don't think that. I said that that in my original OP. Guns should be used for hunting and and other recreational purposes. That's it. Why would I think it morally acceptable to kill another human being?

[The guy from the Vale]

7 minutes ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

I agree 100% with this. 

 

There will always be a market for guns So long as LE has them also. It blows my mind that people that a reduction of legal guns will therefore reduce the amount of illegal guns. That's nonsensical, and a pipe dream. Sorry. I felt obliged to answer you. I'm bowing out now.

A market with low supply will also lead to lower demand, as the goods will be more expensive. Less guns lying around in homes means criminals have less access to guns. At the same time, less guns also makes guns less attractive to burglars. Yes, Law enforcement has guns, too, but they only very rarely catch burglars red-handed. So, burglars don't need guns to protect against Law Enforcement; their best protection against the police is speed, not arms. On the other hand, guns are very valuable for them to protect themselves against armed home owners trying to catch them in a shootout. Once guns are only found in very few homes, the burglars' need for guns evaporates.

[The guy from the Vale]

Just now, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

Of course I don't think that. I said that that in my original OP. Guns should be used for hunting and and other recreational purposes. That's it. Why would I think it morally acceptable to kill another human being?

Because far too many people in your country do own guns for "protection" (i.e., killing other humans in case they intrude). Which raises the stakes for criminals - but that only means they need to be armed, too. Which makes home invasions far scarier for all involved, far more scary than they need to be. People who say they own a gun for protection is what I'm mainly arguing against; those are the largest danger, as their gun ownership is simultaneously unnecessary and dangerous to them and their families.

[Darth Richard II]

18 minutes ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

 

 

There will always be a market for guns So long as LE has them also. It blows my mind that people that a reduction of legal guns will therefore reduce the amount of illegal guns. That's nonsensical, and a pipe dream. Sorry. I felt obliged to answer you. I'm bowing out now.

Eh, it seemed to work fine in Australia.

[DanteGabriel]

UpI agree with TgftV's take on American culture being part of the problem, which is why I said something about our "casually vicious and irresponsible" culture.

The editor of Talking Points Memo recently resurfaced a reader comment from 2012 (just after Sandy Hook) that illuminated the gun culture problem. A person who had grown up shooting observed the dark turn of motivations for owning guns, and what kind of guns people were buying:

Quote

The gun culture that we have today in the U.S. is not the gun culture, so to speak, that I remember from my youth. It’s too simple to say that it’s “sick;” it’s more accurately an absurd fetishization. I suppose that the American Gunfighter, in all of his avatars, is inescapably fetishistic, but (to my point) somewhere along the way – maybe in, uh, 1994? – we crossed over into Something Else: let’s call it Gonzo Fetishization. The American Gunfighter as caricature.

The guns that I grew up with (in the late-1970’s and 1980’s) were bolt-action rifles: non-automatic weapons, with organic fixtures – i.e., stocks – and limited magazine capacities.

...

And that’s my point: I can’t remember seeing a semi-automatic weapon of any kind at a shooting range until the mid-1980’s. Even through the early-1990’s, I don’t remember the idea of “personal defense” being a decisive factor in gun ownership. The reverse is true today: I have college-educated friends – all of whom, interestingly, came to guns in their adult lives – for whom gun ownership is unquestionably (and irreducibly) an issue of personal defense. For whom the semi-automatic rifle or pistol – with its matte-black finish, laser site, flashlight mount, and other “tactical” accoutrements – effectively circumscribe what’s meant by the word “gun.” At least one of these friends has what some folks – e.g., my fiancee, along with most of my non-gun-owning friends – might regard as an obsessive fixation on guns; a kind of paraphilia that (in its appetite for all things tactical) seems not a little bit creepy. Not “creepy” in the sense that he’s a ticking time bomb; “creepy” in the sense of…alternate reality. Let’s call it “tactical reality.”

The “tactical” turn is what I want to flag here. It has what I take to be a very specific use-case, but it’s used – liberally – by gun owners outside of the military, outside of law enforcement, outside (if you’ll indulge me) of any conceivable reality-based community: these folks talk in terms of “tactical” weapons, “tactical” scenarios, “tactical applications,” and so on. It’s the lingua franca of gun shops, gun ranges, gun forums, and gun-oriented Youtube videos. (My god, you should see what’s out there on You Tube!) Which begs my question: in precisely which “tactical” scenarios do all of these lunatics imagine that they’re going to use their matte-black, suppressor-fitted, flashlight-ready tactical weapons? They tend to speak of the “tactical” as if it were a fait accompli; as a kind of apodeictic fact: as something that everyone – their customers, interlocutors, fellow forum members, or YouTube viewers – experiences on a regular basis, in everyday life. They tend to speak of the tactical as reality.

And I think there’s a sense in which they’ve constructured their own (batshit insane) reality.
One in which we have to live.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/tactical-reality

[Darth Richard II]

Yeah I agree our current gun culture is definitely a large part of the problem.

[aceluby]

16 hours ago, Darth Richard II said:

Ha, a friend of mine said something similar. How if all the Blacks bought guns they'd be banned within a day.

It's how the gun control act of 1968 was passed and supported by the GOP and NRA.

[DanteGabriel]

25 minutes ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

You can't see in your mind, that if a gun ban was implemented, nothing would change.

If you think "nothing would change" if guns were somehow banned, you need to support that assertion somehow. Australia did enact a wide ban on guns, and things changed. (Note that my citation of this fact is not an endorsement of a "gun ban" nor a suggestion that such a ban could happen in our diseased and cartoonishly violent culture).