@xscrapzx: so if you can't reduce something to zero then there's no point in doing anything?
Not directed toward you burner, but anyone with that attitude should recognize they have no reason to be involved in discussions like this.
We have real world problems to fix and nothing is never completely solved.... stop hindering mankind.
Las Vegas Shooting - Synchronized Videos - First 10 Minutes
Warning, not for the faint of heart.
source: https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8e5_1507160150
@LJS9502_basic: Has nothing to do with anyone getting brainwashed. Its has to do with the fact that every time something happens people just want SOMETHING to happen. Whether it is logical or not. There are many many many guns in the United States, they aren't going anywhere. On top of that it is part of the second amendment of the constitution, I don't want to argue the differences between 1787 and the present and get into semantics, its in there and interpreted as what we currently have in place. With that being said instead of always having a knee jerk reaction just so we feel better at night for the sake of doing something, we are all missing the point. This guy went into a hotel room and had everything planned out from how he was going to do it and how he was prepared to accomplish it. Someone with this mindset who went through all this effort and risk was going to kill people whether he had guns or not. For me to think he went to this extent with guns, my thinking is if he didn't have access to them he would have planned accordingly. At this time their is no motive, that I know of, and looking at the situation there were some issues here but they went unnoticed. Whether you ban guns or not you will not prevent someone who is fucking crazy and wants to kill people. This idea that, "Oh if we banned guns he would have probably only kid 10 instead of 50." Like 10 people is acceptable and we would just be smiling and patting ourselves on the back because only 10 people died. Banning a type of gun doesn't help what happened in Vegas and anyone thinking it does is being completely illogical.
No brainwashed is the correct term. Every time some kind of check is attempted the NRA spouts rhetoric and hyperbole to it's base telling them the Democrats want to take their guns. And they believe it absolutely. The NRA also pays a ton of money to Republicans to push their agenda. And their agenda is extreme. Even if we believe the founding fathers wanted the entire population to be armed............even though well regulated militia is right there for you to see...........they did not envision that guns would have developed as they have.....making them more dangerous.
It is not gun culture, but culture. Chicago has more gun deaths per month that just occurred in Las Vegas.
No it's gun culture. The US has a gun culture which is nonexistent elsewhere.
I am not quite sure what gun culture means. How is it different from culture that does not respect life.
I'd rather not get into that discussion. However the prevailing view of those that favor abortion do so on the grounds they don't believe life has started......you cannot say an individual shooting people is doing so with that thought process. Also just an FYI the Republicans who taught sanctity of life are also for the death penalty in large numbers which makes them hypocrites. Aren't you a proponent of the death penalty?
Yes, I am, to give value to the life that the person who's life was taken by the person who took it that is to executed.
Abortion is the taking of a totally innocent human life who can not protect themselves.
Our culture no longer considers the value of life and no new gun laws will stop the taking of life.
I'd rather not get into that discussion. However the prevailing view of those that favor abortion do so on the grounds they don't believe life has started......you cannot say an individual shooting people is doing so with that thought process. Also just an FYI the Republicans who taught sanctity of life are also for the death penalty in large numbers which makes them hypocrites. Aren't you a proponent of the death penalty?
Yes, I am, to give value to the life that the person who's life was taken by the person who took it that is to executed.
Abortion is the taking of a totally innocent human life who can not protect themselves.
Our culture no longer considers the value of life and no new gun laws will stop the taking of life.
Anyone can be redeemed. The death penalty was legal way before abortion and that is NOT valuing life. It's hypocritical but not surprising from the Republicans. Also if we want to take your stance about innocence........you cannot know which babies will be psychopaths or sociopaths and will kill in the future. Not all babies will be the same.
Nothing is going to change. Sandy Hook was a psycho walking into a school and literally murdering babies, and nothing happened. Republicans are cowards and whores for the gun lobby. If Sandy Hook couldn't compel them to be decent human beings, nothing will.
thought experiment:
if the US were to pass a constitutional amendment which repealed the second and made personal ownership of firearms illegal. in accordance with the constitution, the government sought to collect and destroy personally-owned weapons.
how would those owning firearms react? would they actually use their weapons to resist the seizure of their property or comply with what is now constitutional law? essentially what is being asked is, does the individual hold their right to own a firearm above the constitution?
i'm not calling for the repeal of the amendment, just curious how people would react.
Nothing is going to change. Sandy Hook was a psycho walking into a school and literally murdering babies, and nothing happened. Republicans are cowards and whores for the gun lobby. If Sandy Hook couldn't compel them to be decent human beings, nothing will.
It´s not just republicans, democrats are also in the pockets of NRA.
.
thought experiment:
if the US were to pass a constitutional amendment which repealed the second and made personal ownership of firearms illegal. in accordance with the constitution, the government sought to collect and destroy personally-owned weapons.
how would those owning firearms react? would they actually use their weapons to resist the seizure of their property or comply with what is now constitutional law? essentially what is being asked is, does the individual hold their right to own a firearm above the constitution?
i'm not calling for the repeal of the amendment, just curious how people would react.
Remember Waco. Imagine that across the country. That would be the answer from some of the most nutty gun owners.
But nothing like that will ever happen, it would be political suicide for any politician to begin that talk.
thought experiment:
if the US were to pass a constitutional amendment which repealed the second and made personal ownership of firearms illegal. in accordance with the constitution, the government sought to collect and destroy personally-owned weapons.
how would those owning firearms react? would they actually use their weapons to resist the seizure of their property or comply with what is now constitutional law? essentially what is being asked is, does the individual hold their right to own a firearm above the constitution?
i'm not calling for the repeal of the amendment, just curious how people would react.
Remember Waco. Imagine that across the country. That would be the answer from some of the most nutty gun owners.
But nothing like that will ever happen, it would be political suicide for any politician to begin that talk.
And yet the majority of the country does, in fact, want gun control.
thought experiment:
if the US were to pass a constitutional amendment which repealed the second and made personal ownership of firearms illegal. in accordance with the constitution, the government sought to collect and destroy personally-owned weapons.
how would those owning firearms react? would they actually use their weapons to resist the seizure of their property or comply with what is now constitutional law? essentially what is being asked is, does the individual hold their right to own a firearm above the constitution?
i'm not calling for the repeal of the amendment, just curious how people would react.
Remember Waco. Imagine that across the country. That would be the answer from some of the most nutty gun owners.
But nothing like that will ever happen, it would be political suicide for any politician to begin that talk.
And yet the majority of the country does, in fact, want gun control.
And yet it´s still political suicide for a politician to talk about it.
A shame that NRA have the power it does and that people when it comes to voting don't always care about their own opinions.
And yet the majority of the country does, in fact, want gun control.
And yet it´s still political suicide for a politician to talk about it.
A shame that NRA have the power it does and that people when it comes to voting don't always care about their own opinions.
The NRA has money but if people that are for gun control would do some work against it....it would pass. The NRA is actually not that big of base but they do put out fake news and their base does spend time calling congress.
All that needs to happen is a group pro gun laws to get active members and it will change.
And yet the majority of the country does, in fact, want gun control.
And yet it´s still political suicide for a politician to talk about it.
A shame that NRA have the power it does and that people when it comes to voting don't always care about their own opinions.
The NRA has money but if people that are for gun control would do some work against it....it would pass. The NRA is actually not that big of base but they do put out fake news and their base does spend time calling congress.
All that needs to happen is a group pro gun laws to get active members and it will change.
You would think that.
But when Sandy Hook and not even a senator who herself got shot could get a change through , i am not sure anything will.
thought experiment:
if the US were to pass a constitutional amendment which repealed the second and made personal ownership of firearms illegal. in accordance with the constitution, the government sought to collect and destroy personally-owned weapons.
how would those owning firearms react? would they actually use their weapons to resist the seizure of their property or comply with what is now constitutional law? essentially what is being asked is, does the individual hold their right to own a firearm above the constitution?
i'm not calling for the repeal of the amendment, just curious how people would react.
Remember Waco. Imagine that across the country. That would be the answer from some of the most nutty gun owners.
But nothing like that will ever happen, it would be political suicide for any politician to begin that talk.
yup. i'm not interested in the mechanics of getting something like that passed. just that if it were passed how would things go down.
thought experiment:
if the US were to pass a constitutional amendment which repealed the second and made personal ownership of firearms illegal. in accordance with the constitution, the government sought to collect and destroy personally-owned weapons.
how would those owning firearms react? would they actually use their weapons to resist the seizure of their property or comply with what is now constitutional law? essentially what is being asked is, does the individual hold their right to own a firearm above the constitution?
i'm not calling for the repeal of the amendment, just curious how people would react.
Remember Waco. Imagine that across the country. That would be the answer from some of the most nutty gun owners.
But nothing like that will ever happen, it would be political suicide for any politician to begin that talk.
yup. i'm not interested in the mechanic of getting something like that passed. just that if it were passed how would things go down.
Ok. well it would be Waco possibly 10 times worse.
After all has Heston said on the NRA podium "you will take this gun from my cold dead hands"
thought experiment:
if the US were to pass a constitutional amendment which repealed the second and made personal ownership of firearms illegal. in accordance with the constitution, the government sought to collect and destroy personally-owned weapons.
how would those owning firearms react? would they actually use their weapons to resist the seizure of their property or comply with what is now constitutional law? essentially what is being asked is, does the individual hold their right to own a firearm above the constitution?
i'm not calling for the repeal of the amendment, just curious how people would react.
Remember Waco. Imagine that across the country. That would be the answer from some of the most nutty gun owners.
But nothing like that will ever happen, it would be political suicide for any politician to begin that talk.
yup. i'm not interested in the mechanic of getting something like that passed. just that if it were passed how would things go down.
Ok. well it would be Waco possibly 10 times worse.
After all has Heston said on the NRA podium "you will take this gun from my cold dead hands"
If said firearm owners had half the balls they try to portray themselves as having, we'd already be seeing far more Bundy like situations. Waco btw, was far more of a **** up by ATF then it was a real stand off.
The truth is when it comes down to giving up a firearm or possibly dying, most talkers wont walk that talk. As with the Kim Jong Un situation, you can talk whatever big game you want but self preservation tends to win. As the still free and alive Ted Nugent said "If Obama is elected to a second term ill be dead or in prison". Id also like to point out that Charlton Heston lived through hundreds of gun law changes, many that even restricted the types of guns one could own. But as always he didnt go out guns-a-blazin did he? No, he went out with tubes in his body, laying in a bed, probably watching Fox News.
thought experiment:
if the US were to pass a constitutional amendment which repealed the second and made personal ownership of firearms illegal. in accordance with the constitution, the government sought to collect and destroy personally-owned weapons.
how would those owning firearms react? would they actually use their weapons to resist the seizure of their property or comply with what is now constitutional law? essentially what is being asked is, does the individual hold their right to own a firearm above the constitution?
i'm not calling for the repeal of the amendment, just curious how people would react.
Remember Waco. Imagine that across the country. That would be the answer from some of the most nutty gun owners.
But nothing like that will ever happen, it would be political suicide for any politician to begin that talk.
yup. i'm not interested in the mechanic of getting something like that passed. just that if it were passed how would things go down.
Ok. well it would be Waco possibly 10 times worse.
After all has Heston said on the NRA podium "you will take this gun from my cold dead hands"
but that act would be in direct conflict with what the constitution states.
is this a "i respect the constitution only insofar as i agree with it" type situation then?
Ok. well it would be Waco possibly 10 times worse.
After all has Heston said on the NRA podium "you will take this gun from my cold dead hands"
but that act would be in direct conflict with what the constitution states.
is this a "i respect the constitution only insofar as i agree with it" type situation then?
Yes
And yet it´s still political suicide for a politician to talk about it.
A shame that NRA have the power it does and that people when it comes to voting don't always care about their own opinions.
The NRA aren't even in the top 10 national donors, or in the top 15 lobbying. ActBlue, Unions, and Finance have way more power than pro-2nd amendment groups could dream of.
Hell, pick almost any single issue: Pro-choice/life, environment, pro-Isreal, leadership PACs, individual candidate PACs etc. You'll most likely find they either throw more money at our government, or are given more money from our government, than gun rights groups.
And yet it´s still political suicide for a politician to talk about it.
A shame that NRA have the power it does and that people when it comes to voting don't always care about their own opinions.
The NRA aren't even in the top 10 national donors, or in the top 15 lobbying. ActBlue, Unions, and Finance have way more power than pro-2nd amendment groups could dream of.
Hell, pick almost any single issue group: Pro-choice/life, environment, pro-Isreal, leadership PACs, individual candidate PACs. You'll most likely find they either throw more money at our government, or are given more money from our government, than gun rights groups.
Its a mix of politicians being bought + insane/loud supporters +a rather dishonest reading of the second amendment.... we also have to consider all the arms dealers and manufactures that buy our political as they are reliant on this mentality and chaos as well.
thought experiment:
if the US were to pass a constitutional amendment which repealed the second and made personal ownership of firearms illegal. in accordance with the constitution, the government sought to collect and destroy personally-owned weapons.
how would those owning firearms react? would they actually use their weapons to resist the seizure of their property or comply with what is now constitutional law? essentially what is being asked is, does the individual hold their right to own a firearm above the constitution?
i'm not calling for the repeal of the amendment, just curious how people would react.
As Thomas Jefferson put it, "I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude."
Truthfully, you would be hard pressed to find many peace officers (be it city, county, state, or federal) who would be willing to act as agents of collection. In fact, I would surmise many county sheriff's/police chiefs would support outright rebellion.
Not a huge fan of Vox but they do some solid work every now and again and they did a solid job with this video. They used accurate numbers, accurate studies, cited and sourced them appropriately and did a good job of leaving any opinions at the door.
As Thomas Jefferson put it, "I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude."
As well as i know much of Jefferson's work i think its safe to say he would realize the era we live in, the situation we live in and would probably be in favor of rewriting the second amendment. Jefferson was not a dumb man, he wrote what he did because he understood what was needed at that time to promote life liberty and the pursuit of happiness and not simply a series of individual things you can or cannot do by right.
Truthfully, you would be hard pressed to find many peace officers (be it city, county, state, or federal) who would be willing to act as agents of collection. In fact, I would surmise many county sheriff's/police chiefs would support outright rebellion.
Highlighting a massive problem, also a massive misunderstanding of how these things are done. Instead of going to the most likely scenario that we've seen in practice before, we go right to the ridiculous idea of Guestopo. It really just shows us how insane people are.
And going back to my comment to Jacanuk:
The truth is when it comes down to giving up a firearm or possibly dying, most talkers wont walk that talk. As with the Kim Jong Un situation, you can talk whatever big game you want but self preservation tends to win. As the still free and alive Ted Nugent said "If Obama is elected to a second term ill be dead or in prison". Id also like to point out that Charlton Heston lived through hundreds of gun law changes, many that even restricted the types of guns one could own. But as always he didnt go out guns-a-blazin did he? No, he went out with tubes in his body, laying in a bed, probably watching Fox News.
.... and police are no exception here. Self preservation of one's self and family and staying out of prison for decades tends to detour most people.
As a bit of a side note, i'd also like to point out that this seems to be the same mentality i mentioned about Christians and the right wing not understanding the difference between oppression and not being able to do whatever you want to someone else or not getting your way every single time and having to live in a society..... that last bit really seems to confuse a lot of people.
Defensive gun use is more common then most people think. The estimates can range from 55,000 into the millions every year depending on the source. The claim that firearms are not a valid form of self defense is wrong.
What can we do to reduce "gun deaths"? Well we can start by focusing on reducing violent crime, addressing mental health issues that can lead to suicide, and stressing firearm safety through public information campaigns.
What won't get anything accomplished? Blaming the NRA, demonizing people who do not agree with your point of view, and politicizing a tragedy.
Will removing guns reduce "gun" violence and "gun" crime? Yes, just as removing baseball bats will reduce "bat" crime. However that is a poor solution when the issue is violence and crime. Do we honestly think that removing a tool used by criminals to commit a crime will stop a criminal from committing a crime? Since crime and violence were around long before guns, I don't think that removing guns is going to reduce crime and violence, and that is what we should focus on. If we can reduce violent crime we will reduce both "gun" and "bat" crime.
Not a huge fan of Vox but they do some solid work every now and again and they did a solid job with this video. They used accurate numbers, accurate studies, cited and sourced them appropriately and did a good job of leaving any opinions at the door.
I always thought Vox's editorials were pretty good. Easily the strongest part of them, if not the only real good part of them.
@xscrapzx: so if you can't reduce something to zero then there's no point in doing anything?
Not directed toward you burner, but anyone with that attitude should recognize they have no reason to be involved in discussions like this.
We have real world problems to fix and nothing is never completely solved.... stop hindering mankind.
Hindering mankind? Talk about going overboard here. My point was is every time something like this happens we have knee jerk reactions that completely take the attention off what the issue is. I hate when everyone's response is BAN ALL GUNS, BAN ALL GUNS. They are weapons of mass destruction, no one needs any guns etc etc. But lets forget the fact that the guy stayed in a hotel for week planning on killing people, lets forget that he was able to setup cameras and NO ONE saw him?
I have no reason to be in the conversation? Neither do you.
@LJS9502_basic: Has nothing to do with anyone getting brainwashed. Its has to do with the fact that every time something happens people just want SOMETHING to happen. Whether it is logical or not. There are many many many guns in the United States, they aren't going anywhere. On top of that it is part of the second amendment of the constitution, I don't want to argue the differences between 1787 and the present and get into semantics, its in there and interpreted as what we currently have in place. With that being said instead of always having a knee jerk reaction just so we feel better at night for the sake of doing something, we are all missing the point. This guy went into a hotel room and had everything planned out from how he was going to do it and how he was prepared to accomplish it. Someone with this mindset who went through all this effort and risk was going to kill people whether he had guns or not. For me to think he went to this extent with guns, my thinking is if he didn't have access to them he would have planned accordingly. At this time their is no motive, that I know of, and looking at the situation there were some issues here but they went unnoticed. Whether you ban guns or not you will not prevent someone who is fucking crazy and wants to kill people. This idea that, "Oh if we banned guns he would have probably only kid 10 instead of 50." Like 10 people is acceptable and we would just be smiling and patting ourselves on the back because only 10 people died. Banning a type of gun doesn't help what happened in Vegas and anyone thinking it does is being completely illogical.
No brainwashed is the correct term. Every time some kind of check is attempted the NRA spouts rhetoric and hyperbole to it's base telling them the Democrats want to take their guns. And they believe it absolutely. The NRA also pays a ton of money to Republicans to push their agenda. And their agenda is extreme. Even if we believe the founding fathers wanted the entire population to be armed............even though well regulated militia is right there for you to see...........they did not envision that guns would have developed as they have.....making them more dangerous.
You don't really believe that do you? Sure, they might think we would be sitting here with some of the tech we have now, but pretty sure guns and military tech improved over their lives to know what the possibilities were. Regardless, NRA is doing what they are supposed to do. They aren't there to brainwash people, they are strictly fighting for what their organization and members believe in. I'm fine with what they did today with stating that the bump stock needs to be regulated and they were favor way back in the day to ban automatic weapons. They go to the extreme in cases like this because everyone else who wants them to be banned are just as illogical. To fight nonsense you have to be nonsensical. Otherwise, you will lose, They are no different then every other lobbying org out there. Lets not make them out to be this out of line lobbyist group that go above and beyond what anyone else does.
I always thought Vox's editorials were pretty good. Easily the strongest part of them, if not the only real good part of them.
They're hit or miss with me. A lot like TYT, where sometimes i feel they inject too much opinion but still do a good job conveying facts without leaving much out.
I always thought Vox's editorials were pretty good. Easily the strongest part of them, if not the only real good part of them.
They're hit or miss with me. A lot like TYT, where sometimes i feel they inject too much opinion but still do a good job conveying facts without leaving much out.
Ahh yeah, injecting their own opinion does drag down the quality somewhat. But I can usually just filter out what is clearly opinion and what isnt. They try to make a case, and often do a better job than most youtube pundits people like to link me. Granted, youtube pundits is a really low bar.
Not a huge fan of Vox but they do some solid work every now and again and they did a solid job with this video. They used accurate numbers, accurate studies, cited and sourced them appropriately and did a good job of leaving any opinions at the door.
These are fun.
Just like all gun control videos, this one muddies language and pivots from point to point and it becomes confusing. One easy way to debunk gun control videos is to actually look at their sources to see how they've skewed it.
The definition of 'mass shooting' is vague and undefined. Her first source actually debunks claims of violence in other countries being lower than the US.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/22/barack-obama/barack-obama-correct-mass-killings-dont-happen-oth/
She specifically uses number of 'mass shootings', not death toll. Despite the fact Norway and Finland hardly have any mass shootings, the death toll is way higher than almost every American mass shooting on an individual basis.
http://ijr.com/2015/12/348197-paris-attack-claim-mass-shootings/
The video then shows Obama talking about the San Beranardino shooting in order to misdirect. That shooting was an act of terrorism, but was still included in the data because Obama listed it as gun violence.
http://us.halfstaff.org/ (no direct link, you'll have to scroll down a bit to the incident to see it listed as "gun violence")
One more salient fact, before she makes her first pivot, almost all American mass shooting occur in "gun-free zones"
PThen we get into suicide. She uses only countries ranked in the human development index, in order to obfuscate the fact that the countries with the highest suicide ratings are largely unfree countries with highly strict gun control
http://www.suicide.org/international-suicide-statistics.html
But most people attempt! People who use guns don't get a second chance! Well, there is no data to show banning guns will reduce suicide. Canada and Australia have had much more lax gun laws in the past. Their suicide rates haven't changed to any significant degree.
Then we pivot again from suicide, back to homicide, but include all homicide to make a racial point. About 80% of all firearm-related homicides in the US are also gang or drug related. Only about 20% of firearms used were purchased through a retailer
https://www.thoughtco.com/gun-death-stats-in-perspective-3303385
https://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf
Still with us? Good, because now we're going to talk about other forms of crime. She shows that the US has a much lower burglary and assault rate than other developed countries. Gee, I wonder what could be deterring people from breaking onto private property or assaulting people?
http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/crime-and-guns/
Onto gun deaths compared to other deaths. First off, the cause of deaths she uses is weird. I can understand war and terrorism because they're violent and often involve guns, but AIDS and drug O.D.'s? Those are nonsense comparisons.
Also, note the language before her next pivot "this level of gun violence", only we're not just talking about homicides anymore, but all gun deaths. The majority of which are non-homicide related. That's important because when comparing gun homicides in the world, the US isn't even in the top 25, despite 35-50% legal civilian owned guns are in America.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list
Of course, her next pivot targets legal gun owners, as all these videos do. For some reason, she notes the amount of background checks and how many guns were purchased, while ignoring the decline in firearm homicide.
"The more guns, the more gun deaths" no shit. Next she'll be telling me America has more deaths involving Harley Davidson's?
State outliers like Idaho exist because of the correlation between gun deaths and densely populated areas (described in the BJS pdf) as well as gang violence, which she has constantly pivoted back and forth to, and poverty is still the biggest indicator of violent crime.
http://www.mintpressnews.com/the-facts-that-neither-side-wants-to-admit-about-gun-control/207152/
TL;DR
- 80% of gun homicide is gang/drug related
-Biggest indicators of gun crimes are densely populated areas and poverty
-US is not even in the top 25 of firearm related deaths
-US does not have an abnormally high suicide rating
-Gun crime has decreased as gun ownership has risen.
Hindering mankind? Talk about going overboard here.
Is it?
We have a very solvable situation here, or at the very worst a situation that every piece of information says we can significantly reduce the negative effects of. And instead of being honest, problem solving a as a nation, we see people who are willing to lie their way to "i like guns, dont take them away" and this very flawed and impotent thought process is being passed on to children.
So we end up with this situation where a high number of people die every year many with no good reason, over half being peoples under 25 (imagine the impact they could have on society if educated and alive at 30), we end up with this degraded and insane thought destructive thought process that tells people its okay to allow your imagination to run wild and its okay to base your ideas in fiction and then promote that in the real world. And worse yet, promote it as response to fact based and proven arguments and ideas as well as promoting a complete lack of reading comprehension of our constitution. This list of negative impacts to society just goes on and on and as a result we've reached a point where this ignorance mixed with corruption..........that apparently gun people are supposed to be against as corporations influencing elections and legislation.... man... that is easily one of the biggest removals of American citizens rights. Hell, we could remove the second half of our amendments and this corruption we face does more damage to our rights than that would.
We live in a country that has more gun deaths in 15 years than most war zones do. If that is not calling for a solution, for a problem solver, i don't know what is. I don't want to see anyone complaining about anything else in America if they are not willing to recognize how big of a problem this is. And whats worse is that a small group of loud people and bought politicians are the thing that makes it so we cannot even attempt to solve the problem.... now let that sink in. Because that is really all you should be paying attention to. We have a problem, we have a world evidence that includes evidence within our own nation, on how to potentially solve this problem and we cannot even take the smallest of baby steps to attempt this. That is poison. Its destructive. Its ignorance. and it is absolutely hindering mankind... actually, ill concede on this, its not hindering mankind as the rest of mankind in first world nations has solved this problem. Its hindering Americans, a country that continues to fall in every single category and in almost every single category we have reasonable solutions to attempt, but because of this process of ignorant thought and paid for politicians, we are the most impotent country in the world right now. Personally i want America to solve its problems, im not sure about you and to not go in that direction is absolutely to hinder us.
My point was is every time something like this happens we have knee jerk reactions that completely take the attention off what the issue is.
Im going to pretend that this issue is not an issue that is brought up all the goddamn with or without mass shootings, just to grant you this idea even though its 10,000% untrue. Proper firearms regulation has been a regular topic of discussion with anyone in any politisphere... since i can remember..... so going back to the 80s.
Okay... lets grant you that absurd idea.... when you say that something is a "knee jerk reaction", you're saying that its an unreasonable response to an event with the suggestion that reality does not side with this "knee jerk reaction" and that its an inflation of the problem. But of course as we know, as every bit of data says, every study, every country, this could not be further from the truth. You might actually have a more fact based argument if you said its aliens coming down and doing this mass shootings. But even this aspect aside, there is no "knee jerk reactions" to situations where 50 people are murdered.,,, you cant inflate the severity of needing to address this and if you do have such a disregard for human life, for your fellow citizens, family, neighbors, than there is no reason for you to take part in discussions on legislation. If you cannot connect to humans when discussing issues that require you to be able to do so, you're not needed.
I will say that i find it a bit funny that you consider me saying this is hindering mankind (which i should have said "America" or "our society"), while also saying that its some how irrational for us to address this ongoing problem........ not single event.... ongoing problem. And i actually think this is one of the biggest problems and poisons of this position you take, many of you seem to refuse to acknowledge that this is an ongoing problem.
.
hate when everyone's response is BAN ALL GUNS, BAN ALL GUNS.
This is the most perfect example of you guys living in this delusional world and how your rhetoric that is, at this point a lie, is hindering America.
I don't know what else to call this except for a lie. No one proposing legislation, no politician, no political group has said this. No one is saying this... i dont know how many times this has to be repeated for you guys to understand this... how do you come up with this in the first place? Because its not said... what is it in your brain that creates this lie? The most extreme proposed legislation is removing gun show loopholes, ensuring better background checks and the removal of extra parts that turn semi-autos into near full autos. How do you create this? This is so absurd to come up with and then you embarrassingly repeat it to other people. Do you not mind lying to people? Do you not mind that youre getting information THIS wrong? I mean... id be so embarrassed and more disappointed in myself if i got information that wrong, so much so i might need a gun to end it all because shit... ive utterly failed at basic comprehension, whats left when that goes?
But lets forget the fact that the guy stayed in a hotel for week planning on killing people, lets forget that he was able to setup cameras and NO ONE saw him?
........what? I almost feel like im high reading your stuff....
I dont know if i should highlight the absurdity of you failing to understand he was in a room by himself on the 32nd floor or if i should highlight the absurdity of suggesting that him setting up a camera should have alarmed people or how other people would know that the was planning on this shooting if he did not say anything to them.... you know telepathy is not real right? I don't even know how to respond to this nonsense, i just hope you're joking or trolling, for your sake.
I dont expect much of a reply but if you do id really appreciate it if you detailed these ideas a bit more.
If you want to know what scares me, its that. That is terrifying to me, seeing a population of potential voters deciding that there is some kind of reasoning and rationale behind something like what you just said. And/or that it makes sense.... does that make sense to you? Please tell me this is a troll.
I have no reason to be in the conversation? Neither do you.
As a tax paying citizen who is interested in solving the problems we face so my children and grandchildren live in a better country than we live in now, i do.
That last part you don't seem too concerned with and its actually the most important part. You seem to not even want to recognize a problem, so why bother yourself? If you don't see it as a problem, wtf does it matter? And if you do see it as a problem, why do you put more value in your imagination than the real world? No one cares about your imagination, we care about the real world and real world results.
These are fun.
Just like all gun control videos, this one muddies language and pivots from point to point and it becomes confusing. One easy way to debunk gun control videos is to actually look at their sources to see how they've skewed it.
To be honest with you i think it would be very hard to find a more simplistic, yet direct, summary of the situation. They gave the topic, explained the measurements, summarized the current data as effectively and efficiently as one can and provided a citation to their written article which provides sources. Also, they didnt skew any data.
The definition of 'mass shooting' is vague and undefined. Her first source actually debunks claims of violence in other countries being lower than the US.
She specifically uses number of 'mass shootings', not death toll. Despite the fact Norway and Finland hardly have any mass shootings, the death toll is way higher than almost every American mass shooting on an individual basis.
Yah, in a general conversation i could see how this would be an issue. Even if you're going by data points, some measure by 4, some by 5. Some people use different temenolgy.
But the problem you're facing here is that within these data sets used and the article sourced, these parameters are defined and stuck to with said mentioned data. If you do this (as anyone and everyone does, if doing a peer review, which many of the citations are) then its not an issue with that paper. Even if you want to have a different definition, that is you simply changing definitions and dismissing the information, that does not make it wrong or "skewed". Its arbitrary simply to be dismissive of whats put forward as youre not actually countering anything of value that was given to you.
The video then shows Obama talking about the San Beranardino shooting in order to misdirect. That shooting was an act of terrorism, but was still included in the data because Obama listed it as gun violence.
Im not quite sure why you want to say this is a "misdirect". The topic is "mass shootings", not reasons behind an individuals mass shooting, if that was the case everyone would get their own special category. This is like me giving you car crash numbers and then you saying that this one does not count or is a "misdirect" (odd) because the guy intentionally swerved to dodge a cat.
This is a measurement of the number of events, not the reasoning behind said events.
A "terrorist attack" describes intent and reason. But a terrorist attack with a bomb, when looking at methods, would still be a bomb attack. A terrorist attack with a gun, when looking at methods, would still be a gun attack.
So at this point ive noticed that you keep thinking you're pointing out some kind of flaw or "skewing" in this data collection, but hopefully you now understand why you're incredibly wrong on all of it so far. Most of these things are basic measurements man. I would also like to point out that you seem to not recognize that they are very clearly (and very clearly stated) using different data sets to show common trends. Communication and listening is key. If someone says they are giving you data on mass shootings and then gives you the definition they are using for mass shootings, thats what the data set says. It does not say more, it should not say more. If someone says simply "all american shootings", this will encompass less specific data sets. None of this is hard or confusing to follow if you're listening or reading.
PThen we get into suicide. She uses only countries ranked in the human development index, in order to obfuscate the fact that the countries with the highest suicide ratings are largely unfree countries with highly strict gun control
Okay... wow.... i forgot about this one, and im going to be done after this because you're just kind of pulling things out of your ass at this point. I mean, its pretty hard for me to believe that you're this confused on how data is collected and then presented but now you've gotten into this weird "point" and hopefully you've noticed a trend of your own lack of understanding.
The nations being used in these comparisons are nations that we are economically and scientifically comparable to. This is why you don't see us being compared to the goddamn Congo or North Korea or Nigeria and why you'd expect this and worse yet, not understand why we compare like to like, has to be intentional on your end. I refuse to believe that you honestly think she should be comparing America's living and economic standards with say, Berma.
If you care to be honest about this topic or even just your post and you think "skewing" and "misdirects" are a bad thing, i highly encourage you to read what you just said about every point you think you countered or i dont know... "exposed".
TL;DR
- 80% of gun homicide is gang/drug related
-Biggest indicators of gun crimes are densely populated areas and poverty
-US is not even in the top 25 of firearm related deaths
-US does not have an abnormally high suicide rating
-Gun crime has decreased as gun ownership has risen.
Some more facts,
-90% of Americans support background checks for all gun sales.
-The states with the most gun laws see the fewest gun-related deaths. (Avg)
-After Australia's gun laws, general homicides have fallen by 23% even though population has increased. Robbery rates have also dropped.
-Between 1983 to 2013, 119 mass shootings took place around the world. 60% were in the U.S.
-Gun homicide rates are 25 times higher in USA than other high-income countries. USA has the most guns per capita.
I don't see why anyone would be against practical gun laws. No, we aren't trying to "take your guns". The NRA really has people by the balls, it's sad. Like zombies or something.
Just read up on the Dickey Amendment, NRA is straight up saturday morning cartoon villian evil:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/10/04/gun-violence-research-has-been-shut-down-for-20-years/
Named after its writer, Republican Rep. Jay Dickey, the Dickey Amendment has a pretty depraved origin story. After a 1993 study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC) found that keeping guns in the home made people less safeand strongly correlated with higher rates of homicide in the home, the National Rifle Association (NRA) pulled out all the stops to squash the NCIPC altogether. While the NRA was unsuccessful in its campaign to fully eliminate the NCIPC, it was able to heavily influence Congress with the help of a boatload of money. According to the American Psychological Association, after much campaigning from the NRA, Congress included a directive in its 1997 appropriations bill banning the CDC from using funds for research "used to advocate or promote gun control." Congress also moved to strip the amount of money the CDC had used to research gun risk the previous year from its budget and dedicate it to the research of traumatic brain injury instead.
thought experiment:
if the US were to pass a constitutional amendment which repealed the second and made personal ownership of firearms illegal. in accordance with the constitution, the government sought to collect and destroy personally-owned weapons.
how would those owning firearms react? would they actually use their weapons to resist the seizure of their property or comply with what is now constitutional law? essentially what is being asked is, does the individual hold their right to own a firearm above the constitution?
i'm not calling for the repeal of the amendment, just curious how people would react.
As Thomas Jefferson put it, "I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude."
Truthfully, you would be hard pressed to find many peace officers (be it city, county, state, or federal) who would be willing to act as agents of collection. In fact, I would surmise many county sheriff's/police chiefs would support outright rebellion.
that's interesting. despite a constitutional ban?
also from TJ
And yet it´s still political suicide for a politician to talk about it.
A shame that NRA have the power it does and that people when it comes to voting don't always care about their own opinions.
The NRA aren't even in the top 10 national donors, or in the top 15 lobbying. ActBlue, Unions, and Finance have way more power than pro-2nd amendment groups could dream of.
Hell, pick almost any single issue: Pro-choice/life, environment, pro-Isreal, leadership PACs, individual candidate PACs etc. You'll most likely find they either throw more money at our government, or are given more money from our government, than gun rights groups.
Nice try but NRA does not need to give more, they have a support that is loud , proud and hit among every class of society , even hollywood "elite" support the NRA , So sit down and look the evidence and you will find it that the NRA is probably the most powerful lobby org in America.
And money means jack when you are talking about the NRA and the 2nd amendment.
As well as i know much of Jefferson's work i think its safe to say he would realize the era we live in, the situation we live in and would probably be in favor of rewriting the second amendment. Jefferson was not a dumb man, he wrote what he did because he understood what was needed at that time to promote life liberty and the pursuit of happiness and not simply a series of individual things you can or cannot do by right.
Highlighting a massive problem, also a massive misunderstanding of how these things are done. Instead of going to the most likely scenario that we've seen in practice before, we go right to the ridiculous idea of Guestopo. It really just shows us how insane people are.
And going back to my comment to Jacanuk:
The truth is when it comes down to giving up a firearm or possibly dying, most talkers wont walk that talk. As with the Kim Jong Un situation, you can talk whatever big game you want but self preservation tends to win. As the still free and alive Ted Nugent said "If Obama is elected to a second term ill be dead or in prison". Id also like to point out that Charlton Heston lived through hundreds of gun law changes, many that even restricted the types of guns one could own. But as always he didnt go out guns-a-blazin did he? No, he went out with tubes in his body, laying in a bed, probably watching Fox News.
.... and police are no exception here. Self preservation of one's self and family and staying out of prison for decades tends to detour most people.
As a bit of a side note, i'd also like to point out that this seems to be the same mentality i mentioned about Christians and the right wing not understanding the difference between oppression and not being able to do whatever you want to someone else or not getting your way every single time and having to live in a society..... that last bit really seems to confuse a lot of people.
I would surmise there are a lot of avenues he would probably partake in giving thoughts on, but as for the public, to be able to safeguard against tyranny would still be an utmost treasure, a la the "sacred deposit of the rights and liberties of their fellow citizens." We live in an age where information is so readily available on the common citizen that the government has the power to peer into the myopic lives of each and every citizen - literally, and contextually. Of course, that rarely strikes a cord with the right but it highlights privacy concerns galore - here, in this fantasy, we have a (leftist) government that wishes to deprive the rights of innocent, based on the actions of the criminal, to safeguard "security" of the innocent. Perhaps it's because of the naivete, or simply egalitarian idealists, but the goal remains obvious. The end justifies the means. We are privileged that the document from the 1700s still holds so much weight today - so pipe dreams of sweeping "gun bans" will never become reality, and not just because of the amendment, but as ex post facto as well.
Threatening prison for decades after removing a sacred right, that is the very nature of tyranny. Self preservation, or appeasement, allows the wolf control the direction of the herd. There will always be sheepdogs to prevent such.
@xscrapzx: so if you can't reduce something to zero then there's no point in doing anything?
So let me ask you this: what body count will you find acceptable? Or will you keep pursuing gun control agenda until legislation solutions are exhausted (i.e. guns are banned)?
Why don't other countries have this problem? Perhaps it's the gun culture to start with that creates that problem.
It is not gun culture, but culture. Chicago has more gun deaths per month that just occurred in Las Vegas.
No it's gun culture. The US has a gun culture which is nonexistent elsewhere.
You think that's strictly due to access to firearms? Or is access to firearms result of the unique gun culture we have here?
I think it's the latter. Take prohibition for example, the culture of alcohol consumption as an acceptable pass time didn't change when access to alcohol was cut off. Sure, on the surface alcohol consumption dropped fairly significantly but there were many other unintended consequences attributed to the ban, such as drastic rise in crimes, growth of criminal industry, marked increased sympathy toward and idolization of criminals and criminal behaviors and increased hostility toward LE.
@bmanva: I am fine with that logic applied to the topic. However, the same logic applies to drugs as well, right? Should we not end the drug war in that case?
Actually I DO think so; I'm 100% for legalization. At this point, war on drug is a proven failure. The amount resources being dumped in it is simply not producing the result we want. The success of limited legalization in certain state/region has demonstrated that this is a problem that's much more effectively address by understanding and accepting the place of these substances in our society instead outright resistance to what is something that's unavoidable by the nature of our environment.
Along the same line, I also believe that drinking age should be lower to 17/18 as well because again that's something that is already accepted culturally but in conflict of the letter of the law.
@bmanva: the lower the better, it's really that simple.
If you can chose between 10 people dying or 60, why on earth would anyone pick 60?
thought experiment:
if the US were to pass a constitutional amendment which repealed the second and made personal ownership of firearms illegal. in accordance with the constitution, the government sought to collect and destroy personally-owned weapons.
how would those owning firearms react? would they actually use their weapons to resist the seizure of their property or comply with what is now constitutional law? essentially what is being asked is, does the individual hold their right to own a firearm above the constitution?
i'm not calling for the repeal of the amendment, just curious how people would react.
If the scenario is simply a passing of constitutional amendment but everything else remain accurate to reality, then I believe there will be a huge challenge to the actual enforcement of such legislation. Considering the majority (bigly?) conservative bias among LE and military personnel (I think you will find that currently most if not all polls among LE and mil show an overwhelming support for gun rights), it's difficult to imagine an arms confiscation on a national level would go off smoothly.
And remember that laws are ineffective unless you have consent of the governed. In the risk of sounding like a broken record, prohibition is a perfect case study if you are dealing with banning something that is ingrained in the cultural identity.
Why don't other countries have this problem? Perhaps it's the gun culture to start with that creates that problem.
It is not gun culture, but culture. Chicago has more gun deaths per month that just occurred in Las Vegas.
No it's gun culture. The US has a gun culture which is nonexistent elsewhere.
You think that's strictly due to access to firearms? Or is access to firearms result of the unique gun culture we have here?
I think it's the latter. Take prohibition for example, the culture of alcohol consumption as an acceptable pass time didn't change when access to alcohol was cut off. Sure, on the surface alcohol consumption dropped fairly significantly but there were many other unintended consequences attributed to the ban, such as drastic rise in crimes, growth of criminal industry, marked increased sympathy toward and idolization of criminals and criminal behaviors and increased hostility toward LE.
Australia doesn't have that problem.
@bmanva: the lower the better, it's really that simple.
If you can chose between 10 people dying or 60, why on earth would anyone pick 60?
That's the heart of matter. It's not that simple. Your assumption is 1 gun control legislation = xx amount of lives saved. But the impact of policies on society isn't quantifiable in such simple terms. If it were, we would just have computers do our law making for us for the sake of first and foremost preserving lives.
And if that is the ultimate purpose of the government, why not restrict EVERYTHING? No alcohol/cigarette, no unhealthy food, no recreational vehicles or sports, monitoring inside homes because all of those policies would save lives a lot more effectively than any gun control laws.
@bmanva: Thats what I was hoping for. I think this country is close to building a majority consensus on this issue, and it would be nice to move forward on it in the next several years
With a Trump white house and maybe GOP retaining control of senate, I doubt it.
@bmanva: read what I was responding to. The guy did say that he thinks with gun control the deaths would decrease by 4/5, yet still for an unstated reason opposes it.
Why don't other countries have this problem? Perhaps it's the gun culture to start with that creates that problem.
It is not gun culture, but culture. Chicago has more gun deaths per month that just occurred in Las Vegas.
No it's gun culture. The US has a gun culture which is nonexistent elsewhere.
You think that's strictly due to access to firearms? Or is access to firearms result of the unique gun culture we have here?
I think it's the latter. Take prohibition for example, the culture of alcohol consumption as an acceptable pass time didn't change when access to alcohol was cut off. Sure, on the surface alcohol consumption dropped fairly significantly but there were many other unintended consequences attributed to the ban, such as drastic rise in crimes, growth of criminal industry, marked increased sympathy toward and idolization of criminals and criminal behaviors and increased hostility toward LE.
Australia doesn't have that problem.
Australia isn't America. Honestly seeing how well they are taking gradual and steady march toward a nanny state in stride, I think prohibition could really work there.
http://www.gq.com.au/success/opinions/nanny+state+australia+is+out+of+control+and+it+is+getting+worse,48545
http://www.traveller.com.au/australia-the-land-of-the-idiot-gi36oy
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment