Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 161: Elephants On Parade

(+) Yeah! (+)

Jakyl25 posted...

My issue is with firearms designed for the battlefield. I see no discernible reason for them to be widely available to civilians

So you don't see much value in them being useful against a tyrannical government, then?
---

No, I do not. At least in America, I have faith in our checks and balances to prevent such a thing before it gets to the level of civilians need to fight the Army.

The Trump administration is proving to me that even in a worst case scenario, our checks and balances can bear the pressure. Barely.
---

For what it's worth, in comparing two recent events...

The Boston Marathon bombing had 3 casualties and 264 injuries.

The Las Vegas shooting had 58 casualties and 851 injuries.
---

pjbasis posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

My issue is with firearms designed for the battlefield. I see no discernible reason for them to be widely available to civilians

So you don't see much value in them being useful against a tyrannical government, then?

Not when the tyrannical government has access to more and better weapons than your average person, yes.
---

Also, from what I understand, to the far right-wingers, Obamas administration was the worst-case scenario, and that didnt lead to anything violently tyrannical either
---

https://thinkprogress.org/a-new-study-on-mass-shootings-has-some-stunning-results-36be27565ee3/
https://phys.org/news/2015-08-percent-world-population-mass-shooters.html
Abstract: My study provides empirical evidence, based on my quantitative assessment of 171 countries, that a nations civilian firearm ownership rate is the strongest predictor of its number of public mass shooters, he concluded.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-u-s-gun-deaths-compare-to-other-countries/
Abstract: Americans are 10 times more likely to be killed by guns than people in other developed countries, a new study finds.

Compared to 22 other high-income nations, the United States' gun-related murder rate is 25 times higher. And, even though the United States' suicide rate is similar to other countries, the nation's gun-related suicide rate is eight times higher than other high-income countries, researchers said.

https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/styles/story_medium/public/indy100/bkAvfB5lwx/27549-1pykz2g.png

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country
Countries with most guns:
1 United States
2 Serbia
3 Yemen
4 Cyprus
5 Saudi Arabia

http://www.news.com.au/world/middle-east/the-only-country-with-more-mass-shootings-per-capita-than-the-us/news-story/ba8e12b6db0c65ac18ca69c53d97c9c4
Abstract: Yemen, followed by the USA, have the most mass shootings in the world.
"31 per cent of the gunmen in mass shootings worldwide were American."
---

Jakyl25 posted...

The Trump administration is proving to me that even in a worst case scenario, our checks and balances can bear the pressure. Barely.

We are not even close to the worst case scenario. That will probably start when Mueller eventually start making big moves.
---

Inviso posted...

pjbasis posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

My issue is with firearms designed for the battlefield. I see no discernible reason for them to be widely available to civilians

So you don't see much value in them being useful against a tyrannical government, then?

Not when the tyrannical government has access to more and better weapons than your average person, yes.

@foolm0r0n

I'm not sure exactly where I stand on this issue, but foolmo brings up a good point I'm too lazy to reiterate
---

I meant the worst case scenario regarding who is in office/the makeup of Congress
---

The problem is that what I was really asking was "Would mass killings of other means decrease if guns were banned?"

I do already agree that more guns means more death by guns. That's common sense.
---

The thing is that bombs just aren't practical for your regular run of the mill mass killing. They involve much more planning, much more access, much more intelligence and supplies, and so on. As somebody already pointed out... You can just walk into Walmart and buy a gun. You can't just walk into Walmart and buy a bomb, and making a decent one isn't easy, nor is it something the common killer is going to plan out.

Take today, for instance. Guy just walked in and started shooting. That's much easier than planning where people are going to be and planting bombs ahead of time, even if you had actually been able to make some. Bombs also have a very specific area of effect. If you miss with a bomb, you can't re-aim with the bomb and try again.
---

Then I'm not sure what you're asking. I don't really care if mass murder by other means would decrease if guns were more harshly regulated. Gun-related deaths would decrease, and considering that guns make up the vast majority of deaths, the total deaths would end up decreasing by a lot.

Unless you think that everyone who would have shot people with a gun would then immediately make a bomb or start driving a truck, in which case I point you to literally every other country in the world with strong gun control, where the number of mass murder incidents in general are way lower than ours.
---

There are still problems with calling that decisive, but I'll accept it for now. It's reasonable.

I still think it's a little besides the point to care about mass shootings. The amount of people that die due to guns is far larger than the victims of mass shootings. My original criticism is how I find it nonsensical that this is when people start talking. Finding a few abnormal leaks when your main water line is busted, etc.
---

The other wrinkle in the whole bomb argument is that common bomb making materials are controlled for how much you can buy and what other products they are bought with. The fact that they take planning and time to construct means a greater chance of getting caught by the FBI and DHS.
---

The thing is, pj...no one gives a shit when one person kills another person with a gun. Hell, there's tons of gun violence and gang violence in Chicago, if you listen to Republican lawmakers...but guns are never the focus. It's always "these people are criminals". Mass shootings are the only time when we can actively say "Hey, THIS is a problem with our current gun situation...maybe we should do something about it."
---

https://twitter.com/bessbell/status/963892565215883264
---

https://twitter.com/marcorubio/status/963927867196428288

Just finished update from fed authorities on #FloridaSchoolShooting. It is clear attack was designed & executed to maximize loss of life

That sounds like the kind of thing that would be harder to do without a heavy firearm
---

Inviso posted...

The thing is, pj...no one gives a shit when one person kills another person with a gun. Hell, there's tons of gun violence and gang violence in Chicago, if you listen to Republican lawmakers...but guns are never the focus. It's always "these people are criminals". Mass shootings are the only time when we can actively say "Hey, THIS is a problem with our current gun situation...maybe we should do something about it."

I get the psychological difference, I'm talking about something deeper here. I wish people would be more rational and consistent overall.
---

Also



Not a new image but it's summed up the situation so far, far too long and will continue to be relevant for the foreseeable future
---

NFUN posted...

@foolm0r0n

I'm not sure exactly where I stand on this issue, but foolmo brings up a good point I'm too lazy to reiterate

don't @ me bro

Anyways the tl;dr point is that any day the US military could turn its tanks and bombers and nukes on the US people and kill everyone, sure. But that's such a massive genocidal leap from just having cops infringe on the rights of innocent people on the streets, that it can't really happen while maintaining domestic and global support. The only socially viable subjugation strategy is a very slow gradient of increasing violence and military control over the people.

An armed populace interrupts this gradient by forcing the government to make that giant genocidal leap from simply violating some of your rights, to calling in the army and murdering you. Of course, the government does make that choice disturbingly often nowadays, but it always comes with a heavy political cost and it's not sustainable at all, unlike the slow smooth method.
---

pjbasis posted...

Inviso posted...

The thing is, pj...no one gives a shit when one person kills another person with a gun. Hell, there's tons of gun violence and gang violence in Chicago, if you listen to Republican lawmakers...but guns are never the focus. It's always "these people are criminals". Mass shootings are the only time when we can actively say "Hey, THIS is a problem with our current gun situation...maybe we should do something about it."

I get the psychological difference, I'm talking about something deeper here. I wish people would be more rational and consistent overall.

This isn't really a fair argument. It's not that people don't care unless it's a mass shooting or only talk then. It's that nobody even pretends to listen the rest of the time, and so situations like this obviously cause people to get even louder.
---

foolm0r0n posted...

it always comes with a heavy political cost and it's not sustainable at all, unlike the slow smooth method.

I would dispute this.

Has there been any political cost to Republicans for ignoring and/or demonizing BLM?
---

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/marco-rubio-now-not-the-time-to-talk-gun-control-because-people-dont-know-how-this-happened/

Oh nevermind guys, my bad. I'll stop talking.
---

Its funny because conservatives sometimes pitch a fit if someone merely even advises them to not talk about something in a certain way
---

https://twitter.com/marcorubio/status/963889141149822976

Just spoke to Broward School Superintendent. Today is that terrible day you pray never comes.

I feel like hes inadvertently pwning his own religion since he keeps praying and these days keep coming
---

StealThisSheen posted...

This isn't really a fair argument. It's not that people don't care unless it's a mass shooting or only talk then. It's that nobody even pretends to listen the rest of the time, and so situations like this obviously cause people to get even louder.

They shouldn't pretend to listen now either. The only thing I'm illustrating is that people act differently when they shouldn't be.
---

KamikazePotato posted...

Abstract: Yemen, followed by the USA, have the most mass shootings in the world.
"31 per cent of the gunmen in mass shootings worldwide were American."

It should be noted that Yemen is in the midst of a protracted civil war and that those mass shootings are more akin to "guerilla warfare" than whatever the hell it is our problem is.
---

pjbasis posted...

StealThisSheen posted...

This isn't really a fair argument. It's not that people don't care unless it's a mass shooting or only talk then. It's that nobody even pretends to listen the rest of the time, and so situations like this obviously cause people to get even louder.

They shouldn't pretend to listen now either. The only thing I'm illustrating is that people act differently when they shouldn't be.

So is your argument that if gun laws aren't a discussion all the time, they shouldn't be a discussion following a tragedy, either?
---

I think hes just pointing out that its very reactionary? Like when ISIS strikes, right-wingers start getting riled up wanting discrimination against Muslims

Obviously those are nowhere near the same level of depravity but the core emotion is the same
---

Fair enough
---

pjbasis posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

My issue is with firearms designed for the battlefield. I see no discernible reason for them to be widely available to civilians

So you don't see much value in them being useful against a tyrannical government, then?

This isn't the primary purpose of the second amendment. The second amendment was designed to avoid tyranny by way of the people relying on government for personal security.
---

pjbasis posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

My issue is with firearms designed for the battlefield. I see no discernible reason for them to be widely available to civilians

So you don't see much value in them being useful against a tyrannical government, then?

In the days when the best weapons available to anyone were muzzle-loading muskets and rifles, sure it made sense to have guns as a check against a tyrannical government. Today, when the government can roll up with tanks and drones your M-16 ain't gonna do shit.
---

pjbasis posted...

So you don't see much value in them being useful against a tyrannical government, then?

as a non-American this question baffles me to no end
---

I have no respect for people who own a large amount of guns for entertainment or collection. Self defense, sure, 1 gun. You should not have an assault rifle in your home. It should also be much more difficult to obtain them, I think an officer should be required to be present at the time of purchase.

My roommate has guns for a military collection and he knows full well that I don't want to ever see them out of his damn room.
---

GuessMyUserName posted...

pjbasis posted...

So you don't see much value in them being useful against a tyrannical government, then?

as a non-American this question baffles me to no end

When the core of your government is a revolutionary war, it makes more sense. Still silly, but at least understandable historically.

Anyway, The Onion gets the dubious honor of posting this story yet again:

https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-r-1823016659
---

GuessMyUserName posted...

pjbasis posted...

So you don't see much value in them being useful against a tyrannical government, then?

as a non-American this question baffles me to no end

You kinda had to be there
---

You know, I kinda feel like our government today is more tyrannical to its people than the 1776 UK one was to the colonies <_<

But hey at least that third Amendment has really stuck without much controversy.
---

GuessMyUserName posted...

as a white person this question baffles me to no end

makes sense
---

foolm0r0n posted...

GuessMyUserName posted...

as a white person this question baffles me to no end

makes sense

lmfao thinking the 2nd amendment applies to people of colour
---

The anti-gun movement has been specifically designed to be anti-minority for that reason
---

foolm0r0n posted...

The anti-gun movement has been specifically designed to be anti-minority for that reason

Can you explain this? I don't see it.
---

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DWC-NhiU0AIVsOa?format=jpg&name=medium

Man, really, this is some disgusting shit from the NRA

If a Muslim posted this, hed be on a watch list
---

Yeah, if you sent that image to a person, they would consider that a threat.
---

We can talk about gun control all day and night but I would remove all gun control if we could universally stop the promotion of firearms as some sort of masculine power fantasy fulfillment toy
---

Jakyl25 posted...

We can talk about gun control all day and night but I would remove all gun control if we could universally stop the promotion of firearms as some sort of masculine power fantasy fulfillment toy

100%. There's little more infuriating than reading another dude post "I WISH someone could try to rob me so I could blow their head off" as he fantasizes about the possibility.
---

The only guns I need are these 24 inch pythons, brother!
---

Take this with a grain of salt since its stuff Internet Detectives(tm) of places like Reddit have dug up, but it seems like todays mass murderer was not well liked at school, had been expelled, and turned to guns as his method of revenge
---

A few of the other students were quoted as saying that, I believe.
---

he sure proved them wrong about being an unlikable person deserving of expulsion
---

The interviews with students are such a contrast to the stereotype of We never would have guessed he was capable of this.
---