Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 161: Elephants On Parade

(+) Yeah! (+)

Regaro posted...

Frankly, the problem isn't civilian gun ownership. It's the fucking fetishizing guns/violence and complete and utter lack of safety culture in the US that cause most of the problems.

But jackasses will continue trying to paint a false picture and claim nothing can be done

http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.3633177.1510703861!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_750/article-newton-1114.jpg
---

VintageGin posted...

foolm0r0n posted...

The fundamental question is this: after we successfully ban all civilian gun ownership, when shootings still happen, what will you do?

Say "welp, we tried!" and just accept it? Add more regulations? Become Batman?

If you haven't even thought about this question, you are absolutely unqualified to say another word on this topic.

So is your solution just to maintain the status quo?

Why spend energy to come up with a difficult solution for a problem that is naturally declining as is?
---

Regaro posted...

Frankly, the problem isn't civilian gun ownership. It's the f***ing fetis***ing guns/violence and complete and utter lack of safety culture in the US that cause most of the problems.

Thank you for properly blaming beta males for these cultural issues
---

Sure doesn't feel like the problem is declining.

Though I feel foolmo is using the Perfect Solution fallacy.
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Why spend energy to come up with a difficult solution for a problem that is naturally declining as is?

this is some "slavery would have gone away anyway!" kind of logic.
---

Umbreon posted...

Sure doesn't feel like the problem is declining.

Good news doesn't get clicks
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Why spend energy to come up with a difficult solution for a problem that is naturally declining as is?

this is some "slavery would have gone away anyway!" kind of logic.

totally
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Umbreon posted...

Sure doesn't feel like the problem is declining.

Good news doesn't get clicks

This has been true for decades. I don't see how that's totally relevant. Mass shootings such as these appear to be increasing. Unless your argument is "Across the country, less people are being shot overall". In which case... there are still far too many of these instances happening for us to just shurg off.
---

Umbreon posted...

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Umbreon posted...

Sure doesn't feel like the problem is declining.

Good news doesn't get clicks

This has been true for decades. I don't see how that's totally relevant. Mass shootings such as these appear to be increasing. Unless your argument is "Across the country, less people are being shot overall". In which case... there are still far too many of these instances happening for us to just shurg off.

What difference is there between "regular" shootings and mass shootings if the number of homicides is decreasing every year? I know it's hard to remove emotion from it, but people (and politicians) need to look at the statistics objectively if anything is to be done.
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Gun violence in the US has been significantly dropping over the past several decades, and it's not because of laws passed.

Source?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/03/weve-had-a-massive-decline-in-gun-violence-in-the-united-states-heres-why/

So there's a bit of a problem with this. Mainly that it's using data that's three years old. Those rates have been rising since 2015.
---

Does that turn it into a numbers game though?

"Homicides decreasing" is nice, but is the same true for the amount of people dying?

To put it simply, imagine if there was one homicide a day for the year of 2002. One person died each time for a total of 356 deaths. Now imagine if "only" 100 homicides happened in 2016. But 10 people died each time. There were technically less homicides, but more people still died.

Or maybe I'm getting the legal definition of Homicide wrong? If killing multiple people in one instance all count as their own separate homicide and the end result is technically less people dying....

Though in the end, statistics only help so much. If there was a 1% chance of your child being killed, all the statistics in the world wouldn't matter to you if you were the one who got a knock on your door, being told your child passed away.

Removing emotion to an extent I'd important, but it cannot be removed entirely. Doing so goes against the very thing that makes us human.
---

HashtagSEP posted...

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Gun violence in the US has been significantly dropping over the past several decades, and it's not because of laws passed.

Source?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/03/weve-had-a-massive-decline-in-gun-violence-in-the-united-states-heres-why/

So there's a bit of a problem with this. Mainly that it's using data that's three years old. Those rates have been rising since 2015. So saying that it's "naturally declining" is dishonest, since it's going back up.

But being dishonest tends to be your thing so

Do you even math? Assuming a two year increase in 2016 and 2017, that does not signify the end of a clear trend.
---

"Homicides decreasing" is only true if you stop counting at 2014.

2015 was higher than 2014
2016 was higher than 2015
2017 was higher than 2016

Guess what 2018 is on pace for
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

HashtagSEP posted...

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Gun violence in the US has been significantly dropping over the past several decades, and it's not because of laws passed.

Source?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/03/weve-had-a-massive-decline-in-gun-violence-in-the-united-states-heres-why/

So there's a bit of a problem with this. Mainly that it's using data that's three years old. Those rates have been rising since 2015. So saying that it's "naturally declining" is dishonest, since it's going back up.

But being dishonest tends to be your thing so

Do you even math? Assuming a two year increase in 2016 and 2017, that does not signify the end of a clear trend.

Three year increase, actually, since 2015 was an increase over 2014.

And 2018 is on pace for another increase

Also, your "trend" was stability, not decrease. It decreased about 10-15 years ago and then was stable since.
---

HashtagSEP posted...

"Homicides decreasing" is only true if you stop counting at 2014.

2015 was higher than 2014
2016 was higher than 2015
2017 was higher than 2016

Guess what 2018 is on pace for

Did we change any gun laws in 2014?
---

Didnt we have a ban on assault weapons for 10 years awhile back?

Somehow that didnt require Constitutional meddling
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Didnt we have a ban on assault weapons for 10 years awhile back?

Somehow that didnt require Constitutional meddling

It also had no tangible impact on gun violence per numerous studies

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

HashtagSEP posted...

"Homicides decreasing" is only true if you stop counting at 2014.

2015 was higher than 2014
2016 was higher than 2015
2017 was higher than 2016

Guess what 2018 is on pace for

Did we change any gun laws in 2014?

2014 was a big year for right-to-carry changes


---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

There is something to be said about superficial solutions that have a psychological benefit for a large number of people in society (as long as the solutions do not infringe on anyone's rights).

Of course, they are very valuable to people who just want to get on in their lives

But it's counterproductive to the actual problem of dead kids
---

Ashethan posted...

Much like we do with cars to prevent drunk drivers, and reduce fatalities. Or how we increased airport security after 9/11 to prevent hijackings.

So you're okay with the fact that these regulations don't help at all?

You just want to sleep better at night?
---

Umbreon posted...

Though I feel foolmo is using the Perfect Solution fallacy.

There's a difference between an imperfect solution and something that literally has no effect at best and actually correlates with worse results at worse. Are you saying that you DO care about a solution that actually helps? Not just one that makes you feel better?
---

foolm0r0n posted...

So you're okay with the fact that these regulations don't help at all?

We don't have the right regulations at the moment. I'd like to know how you became omniscient and suddenly know new regulations wouldn't help. Please give me your secret.
---

foolm0r0n posted...

Ashethan posted...

Much like we do with cars to prevent drunk drivers, and reduce fatalities. Or how we increased airport security after 9/11 to prevent hijackings.

So you're okay with the fact that these regulations don't help at all?

You just want to sleep better at night?

The liberal mindset in gun control debates is typically to close their eyes, plug their ears with their fingers, and cry as loudly as possible about the NRA while ignoring evidence-based counterarguments to their emotionally driven solutions. There is a reason why next-to-nothing has been done legislatively on this issue for several decades.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Didnt we have a ban on assault weapons for 10 years awhile back?

Somehow that didnt require Constitutional meddling

Wasn't that before the Supreme Court ruled the 2nd Amendment says individuals have the right to bear arms? The 2nd Amendment being as powerful as it is today is a relatively recent development, though that doesn't matter much now that pro-gun judges are going to have the majority on the Supreme Court for (at least) the next 30 years or so.
---

VintageGin posted...

So is your solution just to maintain the status quo?

Not sure why you quoted my post and didn't answer anything in it.

But I posted a big topic about my solution a few months ago though: tl;dr disarm the cops and make the military reserve-only. Is that status quo?

Remember, you're not some radical brave activist for crying about gun regulations. You're just some stooge who thinks taking off our shoes at the airport actually stops terrorism.
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

foolm0r0n posted...

Ashethan posted...

Much like we do with cars to prevent drunk drivers, and reduce fatalities. Or how we increased airport security after 9/11 to prevent hijackings.

So you're okay with the fact that these regulations don't help at all?

You just want to sleep better at night?

The liberal mindset in gun control debates is typically to close their eyes, plug their ears with their fingers, and cry as loudly as possible about the NRA while ignoring evidence-based counterarguments to their emotionally driven solutions. There is a reason why next-to-nothing has been done legislatively on this issue for several decades.

That reason being money?
---

Ashethan posted...

foolm0r0n posted...

So you're okay with the fact that these regulations don't help at all?

We don't have the right regulations at the moment. I'd like to know how you became omniscient and suddenly know new regulations wouldn't help. Please give me your secret.

There have been countless regulatory trial runs on the state and local levels that have objectively failed at reducing gun violence. There have literally been no unique solutions offered on the federal level in decades.
---

lordloki12 posted...

Nelson_Mandela posted...

foolm0r0n posted...

Ashethan posted...

Much like we do with cars to prevent drunk drivers, and reduce fatalities. Or how we increased airport security after 9/11 to prevent hijackings.

So you're okay with the fact that these regulations don't help at all?

You just want to sleep better at night?

The liberal mindset in gun control debates is typically to close their eyes, plug their ears with their fingers, and cry as loudly as possible about the NRA while ignoring evidence-based counterarguments to their emotionally driven solutions. There is a reason why next-to-nothing has been done legislatively on this issue for several decades.

That reason being money?

Literally proving the bolded true in the next post
---

Ashethan posted...

I'd like to know how you became omniscient and suddenly know new regulations wouldn't help

I don't

But you literally listed 2 regulations that don't help at all for their problems, as examples of what we need to do with gun regulations. Explain how your gun regulations will be less useless (and in fact harmful) to the original problem than your examples, and then we can talk.
---

The only thing I have to say to people who insist we can't do anything about gun violence is why are we the only first-world country that has this problem?
---

I mean I don't really think there's a question that Congress/States has the ability/authority to enact regulations. As a case study, look at Republican efforts to restrict abortion. Given that SCOTUS has deemed that there is a right to abortion (and whether it is explicitly named in the Constitution or not should simply be an emotional distinction as far as the law is concerned due to that, I think.) Granted, much of what they've done has been ruled unconstitutional by courts, but not all of it.
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

lordloki12 posted...

Nelson_Mandela posted...

foolm0r0n posted...

Ashethan posted...

Much like we do with cars to prevent drunk drivers, and reduce fatalities. Or how we increased airport security after 9/11 to prevent hijackings.

So you're okay with the fact that these regulations don't help at all?

You just want to sleep better at night?

The liberal mindset in gun control debates is typically to close their eyes, plug their ears with their fingers, and cry as loudly as possible about the NRA while ignoring evidence-based counterarguments to their emotionally driven solutions. There is a reason why next-to-nothing has been done legislatively on this issue for several decades.

That reason being money?

Literally proving the bolded true in the next post

Trying to paint the truth as some kind of childish reaction doesnt make it less true. But if you have some "evidence-based counterarguments" to it then by all means go ahead.
---

My Immortal posted...

The only thing I have to say to people who insist we can't do anything about gun violence is why are we the only first-world country that has this problem?

American Gun Culture. It's genuinely in our blood.
---

Ashethan posted...

Most people don't want to outright ban guns. They want to regulate them. Much like we do with cars to prevent drunk drivers, and reduce fatalities. Or how we increased airport security after 9/11 to prevent hijackings.

I always find it weird how most of the same people who are pro-gun because "TYRANY!" are also often the same people who want to fund our military to the point where any resistance would be futile anyway.

I agree those people are common, but I dunno if its already been pointed out or not, but Foolmo is definitely not one of those people.

foolm0r0n posted...

The fundamental question is this: after we successfully ban all civilian gun ownership, when shootings still happen, what will you do?

Say "welp, we tried!" and just accept it? Add more regulations? Become Batman?

If you haven't even thought about this question, you are absolutely unqualified to say another word on this topic.

Back to this, what's your reasoning behind this? To be clear, I'm NOT for a total gun ban, I own guns, I think they're fun, and if I ever need to hunt I'd like to have one.

But every country that's reduced the number of guns has reduced the number of gun deaths.
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Ashethan posted...

foolm0r0n posted...

So you're okay with the fact that these regulations don't help at all?

We don't have the right regulations at the moment. I'd like to know how you became omniscient and suddenly know new regulations wouldn't help. Please give me your secret.

There have been countless regulatory trial runs on the state and local levels that have objectively failed at reducing gun violence. There have literally been no unique solutions offered on the federal level in decades.

Why did it work in other countries? Or are they presenting misleading stats?

Im not being snarky here; I honestly want your opinion because I dont have any real answers and as mentioned before, Im not even hardcore about gun control
---

Oh you already answered it and you agree with me. Cool
---

My Immortal posted...

The only thing I have to say to people who insist we can't do anything about gun violence is why are we the only first-world country that has this problem?

i mean, the breivik killings happened in norway. to say no other first world country has problems with gun violence is a bit disingenuous.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Oh you already answered it and you agree with me. Cool

For mass shootings, it's American Gun Culture. For "regular" gun homicides, it's a mix between gun culture and an answer that you won't like to hear and will probably get me banned.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

My Immortal posted...

The only thing I have to say to people who insist we can't do anything about gun violence is why are we the only first-world country that has this problem?

i mean, the breivik killings happened in norway. to say no other first world country has problems with gun violence is a bit disingenuous.

Is it as disingenuous as comparing one instance of gun violence from 7 years ago to a thing that happens multiple times a year in the US?
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Nelson_Mandela posted...

We are never going to have a constructive debate about gun control until the Left acknowledges that Congress has to take this to an amendment vote

Why? We dont do this for most things that circumvent the letter of the Constitution

I can't think of a single other hot button issue that is directly spelled out in the Constitution, but debate rages anyway.

I am actually not sure where I stand on gun control, to be 100% honest. Part of me is against it (I've grown up with guns and I think my dad was taking me to the firing range by the time I was ten), but I at least understand the argument for it.

BUT

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

We have laws limiting almost all of those thing.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/95-815.pdf

We already have laws in place regarding the right to bear arms (I can't own weaponized flu strains because I want them). You can't even buy automatic weapons legally. So I am confused why, if the left wants to push it to "slightly more restricted" people on the right suddenly go "whoa what about the constitution buddy" as if we don't ALREADY have laws limiting the vast majority of the amendments in the constitution.

Is the ban on automatic weapons tyranny? I see very few on the right arguing in favor of reversing the ban on this sort of thing (which, honestly, good, I'm not criticizing them and think this is a sensible approach). But then when the left tries to do anything and the right goes "but muh constitution says..." it feels disingenuous. A better argument would be "I think the restrictions we have in place are now enough and do not want to go any further for x,y,z reasons".
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Is it as disingenuous as comparing one instance of gun violence from 7 years ago to a thing that happens multiple times a year in the US?

the US is a gazillion times bigger than norway so that isn't a great comparison.

it would be good to compare the US to europe. wouldn't be surprised at all if there's way more gun violence in the US for reasons stated in this topic, but i'm fairly certain "europe has no problems with gun violence at all" is not correct.
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Oh you already answered it and you agree with me. Cool

For mass shootings, it's American Gun Culture. For "regular" gun homicides, it's a mix between gun culture and an answer that you won't like to hear and will probably get me banned.

Ill ask this then: why do you think [REDACTED] culture developed the way it did?
---

At least I hope youre talking about a culture and not the biological [REDACTED] people being to blame inherently
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Is it as disingenuous as comparing one instance of gun violence from 7 years ago to a thing that happens multiple times a year in the US?

the US is a gazillion times bigger than norway so that isn't a great comparison.

it would be good to compare the US to europe. wouldn't be surprised at all if there's way more gun violence in the US for reasons stated in this topic, but i'm fairly certain "europe has no problems with gun violence at all" is not correct.

The size of the US is irrelevant when the US has 4 gun deaths for every 10,000 people and Norway has .1.

Lasa people aren't literally saying 0 people die to guns in Europe.
---

The Second Amendment to the US Constitution says...

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Don't appreciate the utter dishonesty of trying to pretend the Constitution calls for zero gun control

But then, Seph's the one that said that, and when has he ever had anything honest and of value to say?
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Is it as disingenuous as comparing one instance of gun violence from 7 years ago to a thing that happens multiple times a year in the US?

the US is a gazillion times bigger than norway so that isn't a great comparison.

it would be good to compare the US to europe. wouldn't be surprised at all if there's way more gun violence in the US for reasons stated in this topic, but i'm fairly certain "europe has no problems with gun violence at all" is not correct.

For what it's worth, we absolutely destroy the UK and Germany. We had 3.85 violent gun deaths per 100,000 people in 2016 compared to them having 0.07 and 0.12 respectively.

There's also:

"One more way to consider this data: The IHME also estimates what it would expect a country's rate of gun violence deaths to be based solely on its socioeconomic status. By that measure, the U.S. should only be seeing .79 deaths per 100,000 people almost five times less than its actual rate of 3.85 deaths per 100,000."
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Lasa people aren't literally saying 0 people die to guns in Europe.

what ARE they saying, then? i can tell you the number is a great deal bigger than 0.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

what ARE they saying, then?

that when you look at it per capita the problem is significantly worse in the US
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Oh you already answered it and you agree with me. Cool

For mass shootings, it's American Gun Culture. For "regular" gun homicides, it's a mix between gun culture and an answer that you won't like to hear and will probably get me banned.

Ill ask this then: why do you think [REDACTED] culture developed the way it did?

I'm in no position to be able to answer this. But it is interesting that other former slave-holding nations and Africa itself also happen to be riddled with wanton gun violence.

I'd venture to guess that colonialism is *the* cause and a lack of education has made it even worse. It's kind of annoying that Europeans act all high and mighty on the issue of gun violence when they have probably caused these parts of the world to be this way.
---

A more mature answer than I expected
---