America's Gun Culture - What can we do?

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Yes, a gun can faciliate violence depending on how it's used. I've stated that before. It isn't semantics, it's logic. There is a difference between declaring in what capacity an item can be used, and what it does. A pillow can facilitate a violent act, but the mere use of pillow does not. What "guns are for," again, is to be determined by the possessor. I, as well as my brothers, possess firearms. While they have used their guns in violence, I have not. This notion of facilitated violence ascribed to the mere use of guns is not an argument you can substantiate.

And yet, fucking bizarrely, there have been zero mass murders committed with pillows in my memory and several mass murders committed with guns. It's weird because your unimpeachable logic has proven that guns don't facilitate violence so I just don't know what's going on. Must just be freak chance that there have been only gun mass murders so far and the pillow mass murders are just around the corner.

[Athias]

And yet, fucking bizarrely, there have been zero mass murders committed with pillows in my memory and several mass murders committed with guns. It's weird because your unimpeachable logic has proven that guns don't facilitate violence so I just don't know what's going on. Must just be freak chance that there have been only gun mass murders so far and the pillow mass murders are just around the corner.

You are arguing a strawman. When have I mentioned mass murders? I did not know that mentioning violent acts was restricted to a particular quantity.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

You are arguing a strawman. When have I mentioned mass murders? I did not know that mentioning violent acts was restricted to a particular quantity.

Clearly a device which kills in larger quantities should be said to more easily facilitate violence, which is what you're ridiculously insisting is not the case for guns.

[Athias]

Clearly a device which kills in larger quantities should be said to more easily facilitate violence, which is what you're ridiculously insisting is not the case for guns.

Reread what I stated.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Reread what I stated.

I've reread it.

It's still stupid.

[Galactus]

Reread what I stated.

Read what we are saying. A gun facilitates violence. This statement presupposes two things A) a gun and B) an act of violence. Guns make violence easier. (which means, all other things being equal, it will be more common, which is true of pretty much everything, make something easier and more people will do it)

[all swedes are racist]

You are arguing a strawman. When have I mentioned mass murders? I did not know that mentioning violent acts was restricted to a particular quantity.

Well, the topic being discussed is America's "culture" of gun use and violence, so I'd say the whole "well I can use a gun to crack walnuts" argument is a strawman...

[sologdin]

How is the attempt to dissociate firearms from violence frivolous? Are you suggesting that violence is inseparable from firearms?

come now. firearms have no purpose other than the use or threat of force. it is intrinsic to their a posteriori history, their a priori design. the pillow hypothetical is distinguishable insofar as violent usage of pillows is incidental to their history, and extrinsic to their design.

On another note, rights are not creatures of law. They are creatures of self and its preservation. Public deliberation is meaningless because the public does not have a will. The concept of "public authority" is a means to mitigate the coercion of minorities by majorities--or those who'd presume to act on behalf of a majority.

you can posit any 'right' you want, but no one need abide it. we can speak of ethical obligations all day, but a right is something that can be enforced by a judiciary. i suspect that the contempt for democratic deliberation here is objectivist-oriented, and i doubt that mitigation of majoritarian coercion is the only, or even primary, effect of the state.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

I love how America believes that if guns go away then what's to stop police and military from hurting us? Well, let me let you in on a little secret--if the military or police want you, then they'd have you, whether or not you look like this: http://localtvwtvr.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/chipotle-collage.jpg?w=770&h=388

Cynical that this country thinks guns are the only thing keeping people from hurting each other.

[Athias]

Read what we are saying. A gun facilitates violence. This statement presupposes two things A) a gun and B) an act of violence. Guns make violence easier. (which means, all other things being equal, it will be more common, which is true of pretty much everything, make something easier and more people will do it)

I have read what you've said--numerous times. And you're arguing a substance to your conjecture that is not present. Again there's a difference between a capacity and an action. For example, I can kill people; that does not mean that I do kill people. A gun can facilitate violence; that does not mean that a gun does facilitate violence. Suggesting as much is just a disregard towards what a gun actually does. You, however, are insistent in maintaining the notion--that is, guns facilitate violence--because without it, you cannot restrict a gun's use to that of violent acts. And therfore, you cannot define it as a weapon. As long as you continue to argue premises that suggest a cause-and-effect, I will continue to ask for proof.

How is the attempt to dissociate firearms from violence frivolous? Are you suggesting that violence is inseparable from firearms?

come now. firearms have no purpose other than the use or threat of force. it is intrinsic to their a posteriori history, their a priori design. the pillow hypothetical is distinguishable insofar as violent usage of pillows is incidental to their history, and extrinsic to their design.

Force is vague. And what is the a priori history of guns? The design of a gun was originally to expunge a projectile at high speed. That was the design. The intent and its common use hirstorically may inform a trend--it may even inform one's purpose for possessing a gun--but it does not inform intrinsicality. How one uses a gun does not define all use of guns. History is irrelevant. And I'm still waiting for this a posteriori analysis of gun use.

you can posit any 'right' you want, but no one need abide it. we can speak of ethical obligations all day, but a right is something that can be enforced by a judiciary. i suspect that the contempt for democratic deliberation here is objectivist-oriented, and i doubt that mitigation of majoritarian coercion is the only, or even primary, effect of the state.

I did not suggest that a right needs abiding by others. If one wishes to have that right recognized and enforced by a collective, however, a social arrangement is necessary--that much I have not denied. However, the existence of said right is not dependent on such cooperatives. It's an indicator of one's place, in and of him or herself, in nature. But we can agree to disagree. And you can label my responses as "objectivist-oriented," it doesn't change a thing. It neither strengthens your premise nor undermines my own.

[armidil0]

Your definition of facilitate makes no sense. You talk about intrinsic realities, but that's a logical fallacy. Guns are built, and meant, 100% to hurt and kill things. Whether it is in the name of protection or not does not matter. Just like bow and arrows are meant to hurt and kill things, in sport or not, does not matter. Your argument is basically, nothing can facilitate anything.

If you strip everything down to bare bones, all you have left is matter. A gun is just a bunch of atoms. Yes, that facilitates nothing. But you can say that about anything and everything that is physical. but, here is a definition;

fa·cil·i·tate

fəˈsiliˌtāt/

verb

1. 
   
   
   

   
   

   
   

   make (an action or process) easy or easier.

   
   

   "schools were located on the same campus to facilitate the sharing of resources"

   
   

   synonyms:
   

   make easy/easier, ease, make possible, make smooth/smoother, smooth the way for; More

   
   

   
   

   
   

   
   

   
   

   
   
   
   
   

now tell me that guns don't facilitate violence. You are distinguishing and breaking things down to a point where it does not matter anymore. Until all you are left with is nondescript matter.

Can guns facilitate violence? Yes. Do Guns facilitate violence? I say yes. But the problem is that you draw a line that is not really there. Guns can facilitate violence, so they do, because that is what they are meant to do.

SO Here: Do guns make violence easier? Yes.

Thus, given the definition above, guns facilitate violence.

Now, Do guns necessitate violence? Do guns make violence necessary? No because if you have a gun it does not mean you have to use it.

EDit: "Do guns make violence easier," and "Can guns make violence easier," are the same question.

I'll also include a wiki link to the history of fire arms. And another on the history if fire arms. Because for some reason the history came up once or twice. Guns were invented for murder. The way they do it does not matter. That was the intent. That was the design.

[fuseprime]

As a gun owner, I can confidently say that they do make violence, killing, and mass-killing, easier than anything else accessible to the general public.

That being said, every mass-killing in recent years has been in a gun-free zone. Why wouldn't you want a CCW? In NJ (where I live) there is a de-facto ban on CCWs. So, the only people who carry firearms around the gen-pop are police, criminals, and whackos who could, at any moment, go on a shooting spree. It almost happened at the mall near my house, but thankfully the guy, for whatever reason, backed out and only killed himself.

I have to get an Firearms ID card in order to buy guns and ammo. I have to get a separate Permit to Purchase a Pistol for every occasion that I want to get a handgun. I'm only allowed to get one of those per month. I also have to get fingerprinted and go through a background and mental health check in order to get either of those cards. This is a process that took me almost seven months to go through the last time I did.

I'd be okay with all that, if it was implemented federally, but I doubt that would happen.

[awesome possum]

Look at that, the NRA shows some common sense and tells some of its more rabid supporters to stop being assholes.

The NRA on Friday called the Texas group's open carry displays in restaurants “weird,” “scary,” “counter-productive” and “downright foolishness” in a blog post on the NRA's Legislative Action website.

“Using guns merely to draw attention to yourself in public not only defies common sense, it shows a lack of consideration and manners,” the NRA's lobbying arm wrote. “That's not the Texas way. And that's certainly not the NRA way.”

Anyone who walks around carrying semi-automatics into public places to try to prove a point is only actually proving one point: how big of an idiot they are.

[Lady Woodland]

It can facilitate violence depending on the nature of its use. However, the mere ownership, possession, and use of a firearm does not facilitate violence--which was more my point. We can speculate as to what the motives are behind shootings. You cannot, however, establish cause--that is, the gun is what motivated the act of violence. If you feel that you can establish this, I would love to see some research and/or logical rationalizations.

As for what is more "likely," if I stab you in the heart or shoot in the arm, which wound is more likely to cause you to succumb?

How is the attempt to dissociate firearms from violence frivolous? Are you suggesting that violence is inseparable from firearms?

On another note, rights are not creatures of law. They are creatures of self and its preservation. Public deliberation is meaningless because the public does not have a will. The concept of "public authority" is a means to mitigate the coercion of minorities by majorities--or those who'd presume to act on behalf of a majority.

Your presumption that my advocacy for the uninhibited ownership of guns being based on the 2nd Amendment is false. I couldn't care less about a piece of parchment. And your assumption that the Gun Ban in Australia--with which I'm already familiar--having a noticeable impact on reducing violence is also false. Here, I took the time to perouse old arguments and gather some information for you:

http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide/weapon.html

(snipped for content & space) .

Firstly regarding your bolded response, please do not presume to put words in my mouth that I did not use - here is my quote - "Yes people who are determined to do harm will still get hold of a weapon but it sure as hell isn't easy nor should it be".

Secondly here is the missing line quoted directly from underneath one of your helpful links on Australian crime statistics (thank you for going to the trouble by the way)

"There has been a pronounced change in the type of weapons used in homicide since monitoring began. Firearm use has declined by more than half since 1989-90 as a proportion of homicide methods, and there has been an upward trend in the use of knives and sharp instruments, which in 2006-07 accounted for nearly half of all homicide victims."

Again if you look at the bolded part of this comment it does in fact point out a relevant detail that totally disagrees with your argument. - You pulled this link out, are you going to apologise? I highly doubt it.

I have edited the rest of your reply for space & content. That being said, I absolutely acknowledge that Australian culture is witnessing a growing increase in violent crime we just hold up our liquor stores & bottle shops with Machette's & syringes filled with blood, as I said PEOPLE will always find a way to do harm if that is their intent, but a semi automatic weapon greatly increases your chances of killing on a mass scale. However I do believe that's another topic of discussion.

Incidentally I never mentioned Australia as being a paragon of virtue for all other nations to look to as some shining example....please I'm not a child. It is however quite interesting that in my own estimate approximately 75% of our TV, movies, gaming & other social media come from guess where?. Even though we are a British Commonwealth independent country like Canada. America influences our lives on a daily basis. Not that I'm blaming the US for our own problems & likewise we are equally as immoral at glorifying our notorious criminals in show's like "Underbelly" or "Sons of Anarchy"

I would also like to say to the other poster's especially the American's I truly empathise with those of you who seek to find an answer to this terrible problem, good on you for speaking up, & I encourage you to speak loud & long till your voices are heard & it overwhelms the voices of those who see gun ownership as some God Given right.

.

[Lady Woodland]

BTW,

I also wanted to say that I am a huge fan of Michal Moore's so it was dis heartening to read his comment on the recent tragedy, It appears he has lost the strength of his convictions, which makes me really sad.

I found a really nice link to an intelligent article if anyone is interested in reading further.

http://dandjurdjevic.blogspot.com.au/2012/12/we-need-to-talk-about-whole-gun-thing.html

[Chiki]

The problem is, none of those things stop an Elliot Rodgers. Or Adam Lanza. Or Seung-Hui Cho.

Of course some of them do: proper regulation, that is, banning guns completely and making them unavailable to the public would have stopped them.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Luckily for Australia we don't have a "Constitution" to deal with.

You do, and it has been invoked for purely political ends in court cases (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_New_South_Wales_v_Commonwealth) - it just doesn't extend to gun regulations.

I think the US Second Amendment, as originally drafted in reference to well-regulated militias, is harmless. The real problem is that it has evolved beyond that original justification to become a monster.

[Greywolf2375]

Of course some of them do: proper regulation, that is, banning guns completely and making them unavailable to the public would have stopped them.

Except that the first three people that Elliot Rodgers killed were with a knife. So those three would still be dead even with a full gun ban - which in all reality in the USA will not happen in the next 100 years.

There is a huge difference between proper regulation and a ban. If your stance is going to be "all or nothing", better get used to nothing.

[Chiki]

there are property rights stemmed from a moral and ethical analysis of individual effort and cooperation.

It's very unclear what you mean by "moral and ethical analysis"--does that mean you think morality is invented and not discovered? I have no clue what you mean by "individual effort and cooperation." Why does this give us rights and not something else? What is special about that? You seem to be taking for granted a lot of controversial ethical views and assuming that they're true, when there's not much reason to accept them. This makes your argument a lot weaker.

It doesn't matter whether guns are "necessary" to any given end; its use and value is determined by the one who owns it.

This is only partially true. The mere presence of a gun, regardless of who owns it, will always be a source of risk. For example, even if one is very careful, it's possible that they'll accidentally shoot someone, or their kid will steal their guns (remember Adam Lanza?).

As for what is more "likely," if I stab you in the heart or shoot in the arm, which wound is more likely to cause you to succumb?

Very misleading how you take for granted that the knife will go for the heart while the bullet will go for the arm. You can't take this for granted.

Prove it.

It's actually quite simple. One could make the assumption that an action is harder if it burns more calories. For example, it is very hard to climb stairs but easy to walk a few meters. The reason for that is energy consumption. Now, it's obvious that stabbing someone is much tougher than just shooting someone dead from a range. Here's why:

1. You have to get close to that person. You don't have to chase a person with a gun.

2. You have to be careful with the knife so the person you're attacking doesn't take hold of it and hurt you back, and be careful of it yourself.

3. Stabbing someone in the heart, as you put it earlier, is not easy since you have to deal with the rib cage. It actually takes a decent amount of power to do that.

It's a lot harder to kill someone with a knife than a gun due to these reasons.

The design of a gun was originally to expunge a projectile at high speed. That was the design.

Yes, but that design is almost completely suited for one purpose, and that's violence, either towards people or towards animals. The design doesn't let you use much else with it: just about the only thing I can think of is target practice, to have a bit of fun. People can use knives for a lot of things though: cutting, cooking, making sushi, and so on. You can't cook with a gun.

[Chiki]

Except that the first three people that Elliot Rodgers killed were with a knife.

You're assuming that Elliot Rodgers would have gone out and done the massacre even if guns were banned, with just knives. You need proof for this assumption.