Gun Control Discussion 2

[ants]

Well, to be clear, I'm totally for gun control.  I think it will be pointless in the USA, but I'd still be for it.  I'm Australian and was totally for gun control before Port Arthur, and its one of the few nice things I have to say about Howard's rule that he did it. 

The problem is, its not as simple as you're saying.  For example, you keep saying "death by firearms". That's a ridiculous basis.  It assumes that guns are the problem, and not culture.  Plenty of places have the access to guns that the USA does, few have the rate of mass shootings that the USA does though.  My understanding from previous (many turns ago) threads on this topic is that non-firearm homicide in the USA is also high.  Focusing on gun deaths ignores that it may be a symptom, not the cause. 

Many of the countries you want to use as a comparison also have the problem they were never like the USA to begin with.  Using Australia as an example again, our rate of mass shootings and firearm deaths (and violet deaths in general) were way below the USA before any restrictions.  Similar with other Western countries.  

As I said at the start, I do think you should implement many restrictions or regulations in the USA.  However, like it or not it is currently viewed as a right under the constitution.  I kind of can see the point of those proponents who for guns who argue that burden of proof is on the people who want to remove that right.  I also think that there are other ways of managing the guns, more sneakily, that would be more effective.  Such as legalising many drugs and prostitution, sneaking in gun restrictions around tougher domestic violence cases, stronger laws about threatening people which add more risks to gun ownership, giving higher penalties for accidents with guns.  So increasing the risk to owners of having guns if they stuff up, or use them in any kind of negligent way.  Its playing around the edges, but I think it requires a lower burden of proof and has more chance of getting through than the current snowflake in hell idea of restrictions via congress.  

[Rippounet]

10 minutes ago, ants said:

Well, to be clear, I'm totally for gun control.  I think it will be pointless in the USA, but I'd still be for it.  I'm Australian and was totally for gun control before Port Arthur, and its one of the few nice things I have to say about Howard's rule that he did it. 

The problem is, its not as simple as you're saying.  For example, you keep saying "death by firearms". That's a ridiculous basis.  It assumes that guns are the problem, and not culture.  Plenty of places have the access to guns that the USA does, few have the rate of mass shootings that the USA does though.  My understanding from previous (many turns ago) threads on this topic is that non-firearm homicide in the USA is also high.  Focusing on gun deaths ignores that it may be a symptom, not the cause.

Oh, I totally agree. I personally think the US is a violent society, and that it has a lot to do with economic inequalities, among other things.
It's just a twist of fate that such an immensely wealthy country with so many societal problems also has a constitutional right to bear arms, which magnifies the original problems and leads to so much violence.
I'm not so sure that they are that many places in the West with the access to guns that the USA does though.

The reason I think the US should be moving in the direction of gun control is twofold. First, precisely because gun violence is a symptom of deeper issues that are even harder imo to resolve in the short-run ; ideally, in the decades that it will take to sort out the underlying societal problems, government has a duty to guarantee the safety of its citizens. Second, because the right to bear arms gives people the illusion of political power, when in reality, by objective standards, the US is now an oligarchy ; perhaps if the people who are so adamant about protecting that particular individual right were forced to set it aside for a bit they would realize that their country's democracy is in crisis (not that they're alone on this last bit, but it's painfully obvious in the US even from the outside). They might even realize that the politicians who are so vocal about protecting that right are also intent upon making them poorer and weaker.

But as you say, there may be other strategies. If the 2nd amendment truly cannot be repealed (because it has become too much of a central issue for conservatives), then perhaps tackling economic inequalities and the ideology that fuels them might be a better option. It's even conceivable that a politician campaigning for a fairer society while being careful to guarantee the preservation of all constitutional rights (guns, but also religion or speech) might manage to be elected and have an opportunity to address the roots of the problem rather than the symptom.

As a non-American, I see repealing the 2nd amendment as more straightforward. I may be wrong in this. It could be that Americans will be more inclined to address deeper societal problems first. That's a question for them to answer.

[ants]

16 hours ago, Rippounet said:

As a non-American, I see repealing the 2nd amendment as more straightforward. I may be wrong in this. It could be that Americans will be more inclined to address deeper societal problems first. That's a question for them to answer.

Changing the constitution in the USA (as in many other places with federalised systems) is incredibly difficult.  Even where the population is generally in agreement on the issue.  Which is far from the case here.  Anyone realistically suggesting amending the 2nd amendment within the next decade (at least) is not really suggesting a realistic option (IMO).  

[Darth Richard II]

42 minutes ago, ants said:

Changing the constitution in the USA (as in many other places with federalised systems) is incredibly difficult.  Even where the population is generally in agreement on the issue.  Which is far from the case here.  Anyone realistically suggesting amending the 2nd amendment within the next decade (at least) is not really suggesting a realistic option (IMO).  

Yeah, the news cycle seems to completely forgotten about the entire Vegas thing.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

3 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said:

Yeah, the news cycle seems to completely forgotten about the entire Vegas thing.

Yeah, the shooter must have truly been a blank slate. At the very least I would expect to be seeing in depth reporting on his background and the like. This story has died an early death it seems.

[Darth Richard II]

2 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Yeah, the shooter must have truly been a blank slate. At the very least I would expect to be seeing in depth reporting on his background and the like. This story has died an early death it seems.

It's amazing to me how quick these things disappear from the news cycle. Columbine was headlines for months.

[Erik of Hazelfield]

Re Ripponuet and ants: No other country in the world comes close to the U.S. when it comes to gun ownership. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

I agree that there are underlying social issues too and a glorification of violence that also contribute to the high number of gun related deaths, but it’s more than reasonable to assume the gun prevalence is significant in itself. It turns suicide attempts into suicides, it turns meaningless road rage incidents into manslaughter, hell it even turns toddlers into killers. The lack of regulation makes it super easy for anyone to acquire guns - the law-abiding citizens as well as the criminals, the clueless and the mentally unstable. 

I don’t buy that the burden of proof should be with the gun control advocates when the facts are so plain and obvious. The country with the most guns and most deregulated gun laws has by far the highest number of mass shootings and a relatively high murder rate compared to similarly developed countries. Saying that the guns in themselves are not the problem seems to me disingenuous. No, they may not be the only problem, but they sure as hell is one of the problems.

 

[Mother Cocanuts]

14 hours ago, Erik of Hazelfield said:

I don’t buy that the burden of proof should be with the gun control advocates when the facts are so plain and obvious.

The burden of proof rests with the one who makes an affirmative argument, i.e. a positive statement that would undermine an established right. Gun-control advocates have argued that stringent regulations or bans would result in a reduction of violence/death. Thus far, there hasn't been sufficient evidence that suggests stringent regulations/bans = fewer acts of violence. Whether you "buy it" is irrelevant.

15 hours ago, Erik of Hazelfield said:

The country with the most guns and most deregulated gun laws has by far the highest number of mass shootings and a relatively high murder rate compared to similarly developed countries.

Like I've asked before: why does this matter? The United States is far larger than any other developed country, has cultures that vary from state to state, and bears a population of about 320 million people. Be weary of conclusions you draw merely from disparate statistics. Case in point, nearly half of all murders in the United States are committed by black perpetrators. Would it make sense to set up a police detail outside of the house of a black family living in the suburbs? Shall we place restrictions on black people? And would that work? Avoid simple inferences and the non sequitur.

[Darth Richard II]

Anyone else read that in the voice of the giant turtle from the neverending story?

[DanteGabriel]

5 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said:

Anyone else read that in the voice of the giant turtle from the neverending story?

I read all Coca's posts in the voice of Vizzini from Princess Bride.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

17 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

I read all Coca's posts in the voice of Vizzini from Princess Bride.

I don't read them, my eyes just hide...

http://www.aveleyman.com/Gallery/ActorsA/397.gif

[Lordsteve666]

As a total outsider here from the UK i'm interested in the following:

What sort of scenario do you think "could" be the tipping point for gun control to be taken seriously enough for actual changes to start happening? How big a death toll, or how bad a scenario(s) do you think would be truly needed for people to realise things need sorting out?

Here in the UK we had one mass shooting in school in one town and it got the law changed on handguns within a very small time period. Australia had a mass shooting too that caused a rapid change in gun rules.

Just how bad does the situation have to be before people really take note? I guess a lot of the world just cannot get its head around the US in this regard, kids shot in school - no change, people shot in nightclub - no change, people shot in church - no change, 50+ people killed at a concert - no change. It boggles the mind for the rest of the world, it really does.

[lessthanluke]

13 minutes ago, Lordsteve666 said:

As a total outsider here from the UK i'm interested in the following:

What sort of scenario do you think "could" be the tipping point for gun control to be taken seriously enough for actual changes to start happening? How big a death toll, or how bad a scenario(s) do you think would be truly needed for people to realise things need sorting out?

Here in the UK we had one mass shooting in school in one town and it got the law changed on handguns within a very small time period. Australia had a mass shooting too that caused a rapid change in gun rules.

Just how bad does the situation have to be before people really take note? I guess a lot of the world just cannot get its head around the US in this regard, kids shot in school - no change, people shot in nightclub - no change, people shot in church - no change, 50+ people killed at a concert - no change. It boggles the mind for the rest of the world, it really does.

If what has already happened hasn't changed it I very much doubt anything else will.

[DanteGabriel]

A couple of dozen dead white five year olds didn't change this psychotic nation.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

17 hours ago, DanteGabriel said:

I read all Coca's posts in the voice of Vizzini from Princess Bride.

I think I may do this for everyone's posts.  They are much more entertaining that way.

[Relic]

2 hours ago, Lordsteve666 said:

It boggles the mind for the rest of the world, it really does.

Yup, everywhere I've gone in the last 2 years I've been asked the same question  "Man, what the hell is wrong with your country?" The only answer i have is to launch into a diatribe against how broken American society is, and how an obsession with material wealth and a dismantling of traditional extended family units has driven half of the American population mad. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Lordsteve666 said:

What sort of scenario do you think "could" be the tipping point for gun control to be taken seriously enough for actual changes to start happening? How big a death toll, or how bad a scenario(s) do you think would be truly needed for people to realise things need sorting out?

In a word: nothing. If 20 slaughtered children won’t do it, nothing will. In the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre, 90% of Americas said they wanted Congress to take some kind of action when it comes to gun control. And they did nothing. The only way to get Congress to act on gun control would be to have the Democrats control the House, have a 60 seat super majority in the Senate (which likely won’t happen any time soon) and have control of the White House. And even if they can achieve all of that, the courts would likely strike down any legislation that’s passed because conservatives control the Supreme Court, and they’ll likely have control it for decades to come. So yeah, nothing on the federal level is going to change. What I find most upsetting is that an estimated 3% of Americans own the majority of firearms in this country, and their opinions seem to matter more than, again, 90% of the country. Talk about tyranny of the ultra-minority.

[Mother Cocanuts]

3 hours ago, Lordsteve666 said:

As a total outsider here from the UK i'm interested in the following:

What sort of scenario do you think "could" be the tipping point for gun control to be taken seriously enough for actual changes to start happening? How big a death toll, or how bad a scenario(s) do you think would be truly needed for people to realise things need sorting out?

When guns start acting on their own accord.

3 hours ago, Lordsteve666 said:

Here in the UK we had one mass shooting in school in one town and it got the law changed on handguns within a very small time period. Australia had a mass shooting too that caused a rapid change in gun rules.

Yes, and violent crimes spiked a year after in 1997, and again in 1999, and I believe in 2007-2009, the U.K. was known as the violent-crime capital of Europe, bearing stricter gun regulations than any other location in Europe.

3 hours ago, Lordsteve666 said:

Just how bad does the situation have to be before people really take note?

Of what exactly should we take note? That certain individuals decided to act violently, and that this is in no way a reflection of gun owners and their prospects given that an overwhelming majority of them do not commit violent crimes with said gun?

3 hours ago, Lordsteve666 said:

I guess a lot of the world just cannot get its head around the US in this regard, kids shot in school - no change, people shot in nightclub - no change, people shot in church - no change, 50+ people killed at a concert - no change. It boggles the mind for the rest of the world, it really does.

Then let their minds be boggled.

[Guy Kilmore]

3 minutes ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

Yes, and violent crimes spiked a year after in 1997, and again in 1999, and I believe in 2007-2009, the U.K. was known as the violent-crime capital of Europe, bearing stricter gun regulations than any other location in Europe.

What does this fact have to do with deaths related to guns?

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

14 minutes ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

When guns start acting on their own accord.

/It can't be bargained with, it can't be reasoned with, it doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear and it absolutely will not stop...EVER, until you are dead!