Concerning America's mass shootings epidemic

[Mánagarmr]

Both Misery and Managarmr described their position as based on elitism and statistics, with Misery supplying further details as to how that came about. Cinth and I are both taking the, flippantly speaking,  "Muh freedums, muh principuls" route. Cyborg sees it mostly as a matter of party politics.

I'd say we're doing fairly good right now. Pages of this stuff, and practically no insults of any sort. 

I kinda liked that sum-up And as I've previously stated: on a pure theoretical "moral" level I'm with you. Everyone should have the right to what they can own and not. But it's like that teenage daughter that keeps breaking her curfew every friday. Eventually you're just going to ground her for not following the rules. It's the same with me and guns. When people stop being absolute idiots they can have their damn guns back.

[Misery]

Both Misery and Managarmr described their position as based on elitism and statistics, with Misery supplying further details as to how that came about. Cinth and I are both taking the, flippantly speaking,  "Muh freedums, muh principuls" route. Cyborg sees it mostly as a matter of party politics.

I'd say we're doing fairly good right now. Pages of this stuff, and practically no insults of any sort. 

I kinda liked that sum-up And as I've previously stated: on a pure theoretical "moral" level I'm with you. Everyone should have the right to what they can own and not. But it's like that teenage daughter that keeps breaking her curfew every friday. Eventually you're just going to ground her for not following the rules. It's the same with me and guns. When people stop being absolute idiots they can have their damn guns back.

So they'll never get their guns back, then.

[Cinth]

When people stop being absolute idiots they can have their damn guns back.

Except in a nation of about 320 million, there will always be idiots.  Usually they are rather good people, but have a bad day and(or) make a poor choice. 
And then there is the problem that once something is passed into law, they usually don't repeal it later (look how many laws are on the books that make no sense in today's society).

The best way is to tackle the problem at its source.

[Cyborg]

God damn it....  I was going to withdraw from this discussion, and now I'm writing essays.  Either way, I don't hold anything against anyone here other than Cyborg whom needs to apologize for insulting an entire region of peoples, of which I am a part of (and am proud of my heritage).

I guess your memory is just that short.

You are so proud of whatever it is you're referring to, that you can't say what it is?

Comparing a burning mattress to the violence inflicted by automatic weapons is a straw man argument. It is a fact and undeniable that gunpowder changed the way human beings commit violence on each other. The Colorado theater shootings occurred with a gun, not a blade. The reason it was so deadly is because automatic weapons allowed this individual to kill massive numbers of people with little to no effort, in the hands of someone receiving mental health treatment. Where did he get his guns, 4 of them? At the local gun shops. Legally.

Is it possible that violence can be inflicted by things besides guns? Of course. But it doesn't negate that guns are part of this societal problem, and there's something we can do about it. The reason we can't do anything about it is because of the massive amount of money being spent on convincing people like you.

The handwringing over who decides mental illness, and every other silly rebuttal you have come up with so far are illegitimate, disingenuous arguments that have zero logic and are literally right out of the gun lobby handbook. You are parroting those pamphlets. You are talking about thinking for yourself, but these are not original arguments, and there are no facts or statistics to back it up.

As to me being a party politics person, I'm an independent. It just so happens that our country is a two-party system, and the right wing is crazy. So the only choice is to vote Democrat, although I would like a lot more choices of people to vote for. Kind of amusing to me that you all here are armchair yapping about stopping gun violence, but some of you can't be bothered to actually do something about it. Like voting. Massive amounts of elitism about how smart you are, blah blah blah, but you don't understand that the way the world works is through the very system you despise. If you don't participate, others will, and that means everything from women's health, voting rights, gun control, healthcare, taxes, roads and infrastructure, and how we interact with other countries. The way you vote (or not vote) directly impacts war inflicted on other people. That means people actually die by the choices we make as a country. It's incredibly serious, and waving your hands around saying that politics suck or whatever, it's just incredibly shortsighted and has severe consequences, not to mention the hypocrisy of sitting here complaining about something and not doing anything about it.

I, too, am incredibly smart, but I'm also driven. I'm a good person, and I would rather try to make the world a more peaceful place by peaceful process at the ballot box than act like it's not my problem.

[Cinth]

Comparing a burning mattress to the violence inflicted by automatic weapons is a straw man argument. It is a fact and undeniable that gunpowder changed the way human beings commit violence on each other. The Colorado theater shootings occurred with a gun, not a blade. The reason it was so deadly is because automatic weapons allowed this individual to kill massive numbers of people with little to no effort, in the hands of someone receiving mental health treatment. Where did he get his guns, 4 of them? At the local gun shops. Legally.

 

I gave a handful of examples of violent crimes committed with and without firearms.  Look them up or ignore them, I don't care.  You take away one tool, they will use another.  You keep bringing up Colorado, have you even looked into the why?  Don't fixate on the how.  It's another case of domestic terrorism, another Timothy McVeigh.  People like them just want to kill a bunch of people and they will use whatever is handy to do it.

Is it possible that violence can be inflicted by things besides guns? Of course. But it doesn't negate that guns are part of this societal problem, and there's something we can do about it.

Yes, it's a societal problem.  I don't think it's one that will go away even if you banned guns.  Take one tool away, a new one takes it's place and there are far more deadly things than guns.

The reason we can't do anything about it is because of the massive amount of money being spent on convincing people like you.

Maybe they should spend that money addressing the real issues rather than attempting bandaid fixes.

You like to sit there and parrot numbers and speak from a supposedly morally superior position, but you still haven't given one thought that was purely your own.  I've lived through gun violence.  I had a good friend and his wife stabbed to death.  I deal with the aftermath on a damn near daily basis.  I don't need a pamphlet to read lines from.

As to me being a party politics person, I'm an independent. It just so happens that our country is a two-party system, and the right wing is crazy. So the only choice is to vote Democrat, although I would like a lot more choices of people to vote for. Kind of amusing to me that you all here are armchair yapping about stopping gun violence, but some of you can't be bothered to actually do something about it. Like voting. Massive amounts of elitism about how smart you are, blah blah blah, but you don't understand that the way the world works is through the very system you despise. If you don't participate, others will, and that means everything from women's health, voting rights, gun control, healthcare, taxes, roads and infrastructure, and how we interact with other countries. The way you vote (or not vote) directly impacts war inflicted on other people. That means people actually die by the choices we make as a country. It's incredibly serious, and waving your hands around saying that politics suck or whatever, it's just incredibly shortsighted and has severe consequences, not to mention the hypocrisy of sitting here complaining about something and not doing anything about it.

The two party system is incredibly broken.  It doesn't matter who you vote for, they tow party lines.  They are more concerned with keeping their jobs than actually doing their jobs.  When politicians start putting their job (aka the people) first, them maybe something will change.

[KingIsaacLinksr]

The best way is to tackle the problem at its source.

And that would be...what exactly? There's been a suggestion to cure the problem on one side. I'm not particularly hearing another argument. But it could be that the suggestion you gave was buried pages ago and I missed it.

[Cinth]

The best way is to tackle the problem at its source.

And that would be...what exactly? There's been a suggestion to cure the problem on one side. I'm not particularly hearing another argument. But it could be that the suggestion you gave was buried pages ago and I missed it.

I didn't give anything concrete because it's not a concrete problem.  There are different aspects to violence that need to be addressed.

 How do you tackle any other social issues?  You start with the people.  There was a rather massive uptick with the economic crisis that still hasn't righted itself.  It's a complex set of problems overall though, and there doesn't seem to be much focus on it.  And then there are those who want to do harm no matter what.  Columbine is a rather good example of how far some would go.  That shooting could have been a lot worse than it turned out to be.  Being able to recognize what can be prevented and what can't be is something some here don't want to or can't see.

[KingIsaacLinksr]

The best way is to tackle the problem at its source.

And that would be...what exactly? There's been a suggestion to cure the problem on one side. I'm not particularly hearing another argument. But it could be that the suggestion you gave was buried pages ago and I missed it.

I didn't give anything concrete because it's not a concrete problem.  There are different aspects to violence that need to be addressed.

 How do you tackle any other social issues?  You start with the people.  There was a rather massive uptick with the economic crisis that still hasn't righted itself.  It's a complex set of problems overall though, and there doesn't seem to be much focus on it.  And then there are those who want to do harm no matter what.  Columbine is a rather good example of how far some would go.  That shooting could have been a lot worse than it turned out to be.  Being able to recognize what can be prevented and what can't be is something some here don't want to or can't see.

I'm not going to dispute any of that. (Though we shouldn't breathe a sigh of relief that an incident wasn't worse. We should consider ourselves damned lucky). You're right that it's not just a single concrete problem and that there are different aspects to violence and that it is so prevalent in American society. But I'm going to point out that there have been very reasonable to very extreme suggestions given in this thread and you have discounted each and every one of them. Giving various excuses ranging from it won't work to the government can't be trusted to statistics shouldn't matter. Maybe you're right that the government can't be trusted or that they won't work. But on the same hand, we're not really trying, are we. We're just making excuses and passing this off without even trying something. And if we can't even try potential solutions, then nothing is going to get done to solving this issue. Hell, just making the suggestion that people should be required to have a little more training was thrown out because of trust issues. Well, guess what? The gun control side of the argument doesn't trust the people wielding the guns. But if they get even a little bit more training, you might start increasing the trust in the gun-control people. 

So really, we have an extreme lack of trust over this issue. We have the Anti-Governments and the Anti-People. So much lack of trust you could cut a chainsaw right through it. And maybe this is why our politics have become so divided. Because when one side looks at the other, all they can see is the worst of them, even when they're trying to do what they think is right for the country. We're really all on the same side. For the most part. I think. Maybe that's optimistic of me. I will agree with Cyborg that I'm sick to death of the apathy towards being involved in government. We can't even get 50% of the nation to do a simple thing as voting every 4 years because "it won't matter". The bemusing part is that this next election could very well be decided by just a few people. Because of how divided we are. I'm rambling, aren't I?

What I would like to see us (as a Nation) do is perhaps identify the areas of our society that are causing this. This need to shoot everyone didn't come from nothing. And it probably didn't come from one source or one event. But if we at least try to peel back the layers, maybe we can solve it. And trying even the smallest of ideas to curb it are at least worth exploring.

[Cinth]

Not many in here that I have talked with actually give their own opinions either.  It's either numbers or some party line bs.  Stats serve a purpose but take them with a grain of salt, there was an agenda behind pursuing them.  Sometimes I'm just arguing with someone to argue a point.  Sometimes I want them to see beyond that and what the reality is.  It just depends on who I am responding to.

[Wingflier]

The best way is to tackle the problem at its source.

And that would be...what exactly? There's been a suggestion to cure the problem on one side. I'm not particularly hearing another argument. But it could be that the suggestion you gave was buried pages ago and I missed it.

I didn't give anything concrete because it's not a concrete problem.  There are different aspects to violence that need to be addressed.

Though I agree with you in sentiment (Cinth), that guns aren't the real problem, nobody seems to know what the actual problem is, and how to address it.

You have various groups of people that claim to know what the problem is. For the Christians it's sin. We live in such a sinful nation and a sinful time, and God is punishing us and blah blah blah (as if the Christian societies before guns were any more peaceful - looking at you, Dark Ages).

For the NRA lobbyists, it's that enough people aren't armed, and that if there were no "gun free zones", we'd all be safer because no "terrorist" would have the cajones to attack a well-armed school. This is of course, complete and utter nonsense, and has been disproven again and again (as one small example Columbine had armed guards and it didn't make one iota of difference).

For the extreme liberals it's a problem of Capitalism, of a culture which values greed, material wealth, and shiny things (such as guns) far, far more than human life. I'm more inclined to accept this third option, but even if I did, what does it matter? Nobody can just wave a magic stick and make Capitalism go away, and even if we could, who's to say that the system that replaced it wouldn't be even worse.

There are dozens, hundreds, or thousands of opinions on what is wrong with the culture, we all have them, but even you have admitted: It's not a concrete problem. Nobody has all the answers.

So all the talk in the world of "attacking the problem at its source" is essentially meaningless. In the mean time, just as in a surgical procedure, you stop the bleeding first. Sometimes you have to address all the symptoms before you can finally uncover the actual disease.

[Cinth]

Though I agree with you in sentiment (Cinth), that guns aren't the real problem, nobody seems to know what the actual problem is, and how to address it.

You have various groups of people that claim to know what the problem is. For the Christians it's sin. We live in such a sinful nation and a sinful time, and God is punishing us and blah blah blah (as if the Christian societies before guns were any more peaceful - looking at you, Dark Ages).

For the NRA lobbyists, it's that enough people aren't armed, and that if there were no "gun free zones", we'd all be safer because no "terrorist" would have the cajones to attack a well-armed school. This is of course, complete and utter nonsense, and has been disproven again and again (as one small example Columbine had armed guards and it didn't make one iota of difference).

For the extreme liberals it's a problem of Capitalism, of a culture which values greed, material wealth, and shiny things (such as guns) far, far more than human life. I'm more inclined to accept this third option, but even if I did, what does it matter? Nobody can just wave a magic stick and make Capitalism go away, and even if we could, who's to say that the system that replaced it wouldn't be even worse.

There are dozens, hundreds, or thousands of opinions on what is wrong with the culture, we all have them, but even you have admitted: It's not a concrete problem. Nobody has all the answers.

So all the talk in the world of "attacking the problem at its source" is essentially meaningless. In the mean time, just as in a surgical procedure, you stop the bleeding first. Sometimes you have to address all the symptoms before you can finally uncover the actual disease.

That's a start.  Yeah, it's not concrete, but it doesn't mean you can't start triaging.  First step is admitting that all these cases of gun violence can be subdivided.  Domestic terrorism or gang violence or whatever.  Not every case of gun violence (or cases of violent crime in general) is the same thing.  That's where you start.

[Shrugging Khan]

Comparing a burning mattress to the violence inflicted by automatic weapons is a straw man argument. It is a fact and undeniable that gunpowder changed the way human beings commit violence on each other.

I recently had a chat with an Australian acquaintance, and we got to the topic of the Port Arthur massacre and the resulting gun laws.

-"We banned guns, so gun violence went down."
-"What about overall violence?"
-"Knife and screwdriver murders went up proportionally."
-"Is that any better?"
-"Oh yes, much less gun crime."

There's a bit of a gun scare quite beyond reasonable prudence going on, generally.

Is it possible that violence can be inflicted by things besides guns? Of course. But it doesn't negate that guns are part of this societal problem, and there's something we can do about it. The reason we can't do anything about it is because of the massive amount of money being spent on convincing people like you.

Stop trying to convince people then and try to solve the problem in ways that don't infringe on others' rights; or start with people who'll put up less resistance. Maybe the mental health angle will cause fewer hurt feelings?

The handwringing over who decides mental illness, and every other silly rebuttal you have come up with so far are illegitimate, disingenuous arguments that have zero logic and are literally right out of the gun lobby handbook. You are parroting those pamphlets. You are talking about thinking for yourself, but these are not original arguments, and there are no facts or statistics to back it up.

It's only illegitimate, disingenuous, illogical parroting when it disagrees.

Different people have different priorities. Quite frankly, I don't see the mass shootings as nearly the epidemic it's made out to be. They do happen, people die, it's horrible - but more die in traffic accidents, through second-hand smoke, or from causes related to mental and physical workplace stress.
And in those cases everyone agrees: Cars are too important, smoking is within the individual's rights, stressful work is too difficult to prevent. It's similar with guns, the difference being that YOU don't care for the right to own them.
I'd personally feel alright with a global ban on tobacco to the point of weeding the entire species of plants out of existence, but it's pointless to suggest that because it would interfere with billions of peoples' lives, and they have their reasons for not wanting that.

So all the talk in the world of "attacking the problem at its source" is essentially meaningless. In the mean time, just as in a surgical procedure, you stop the bleeding first. Sometimes you have to address all the symptoms before you can finally uncover the actual disease.

This addressing of the symptoms would unfortunately deprive millions of people of their rights and items of importance; and it's not much of a successful surgical procedure if the patient wakes up with an entirely new set of problems, the old ones potentially unresolved, and a grave mistrust regarding his attending physicians.

[Misery]

And in those cases everyone agrees: Cars are too important, smoking is within the individual's rights, stressful work is too difficult to prevent. It's similar with guns, the difference being that YOU don't care for the right to own them.

It's not entirely similar though.

Cars for instance:  They're important because transportation is an absolute necessity.  Distances are usually too long to walk; you need to be able to move at a higher speed.  Smoking is within someone's rights, sure, but it's an absolutely braindead act (since it's literally poisoning yourself) and the core reason why most people dont stop is simple addiction, which is a physical symptom that is very difficult for anyone to beat; once it's there, it takes control of the individual suffering from it.  Guns do neither of these things.  They're not important as they have no true function outside of military/law enforcement/hunting (the fact that they're also so dangerous that people without training are super likely to hurt themselves or their friends INSTEAD of any villain at hand just makes that aspect even weaker), and they dont cause any physical effects that control the user; it's PURELY in the mind of the individual, and it's usually driven by that idiotic desire to feel stronger/better than their peers.  Or to simply do it because society says it's cool.  Which may or may not be even dumber.  Or of course, to have "self defense" even despite the person having an absolute lack of skill or knowledge on how to use it (which takes "self defense" and causes it to actually mean "even more risk").

Were it up to me, all of the stupid things would simply be erased without a trace. People are just too dumb/nasty to be allowed them. Yes, people could still use knives or bombs, for instance, but knives dont hit with the ridiculous speed of a bullet when thrown; there's time to react and get out of the way even once it's already in the air.  And usually, they must actually be used at melee range.  You cant hit someone from range without actually THROWING the thing (thus causing it to be a one-use attack at a distance, which the other guy can then simply pick up and use against the one that threw it).  And with bombs, well... most people being bloody stupid as they are, if THOSE were to become super common, you'd just have idiots blowing themselves up most of the time rather than hurting others with intent. People often cant even screw in a damn lightbulb without hurting themselves, let alone actually MAKE something, even something simple.  They also require a more involved process and are slower to use (whereas guns, it's point, shoot, blam, over).  Bombs may be perhaps easy to make in concept, but the rarity of their use compared to other types of weapons speaks for the difficulty and problems posed by them.  They'd also be totally worthless in a close confrontation (you'd just blow yourself up along with the other guy).  You must set them up in advance to do anything with them, whereas with a gun, just whip the damn thing out and start firing.

It may be impossible to remove ALL weapons from people (eventually people would just resort to throwing simple rocks, after all), but at the very least, removing the most ridiculous of those weapons is a start.

Though at the end of the day... the real trick is to just get people to act responsibly, be smart, and not do evil stuff, regardless of wether they do it with guns or rocks or, I dunno, by throwing enraged snakes at people.  And good luck with THAT one...

[Cinth]

You left off sport and recreation.  There are Olympic shooting events you know.

[chemical_art]

I don't possess anything but a heirloom hunting rifle that I will probably never fire due to lack of need.

However, I do not mind the passive deterrents that are present from a culture that allows me to, in theory, shoot invaders.