News:

Look, I haven't mentioned Zeus, Buddah, or some religion.

Main Menu

Another Mass Shooting

Started by Recusant, October 02, 2017, 06:58:25 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Ecurb Noselrub

Americans, as a whole, DO love guns.  That's a fact. It's part of our history and DNA. For that reason, a certain number of deaths is deemed acceptable.  We also love American football, so much that a certain number of concussions and traumatic brain injuries are acceptable.  We are a wild bunch, on the whole.  No reason to sugarcoat it.  Still a frontier mentality in many places here.  Another reason we probably won't be invaded.

Tank

Canada won't invade America they are too polite.
Mexico already has successfully invaded America and will continue to do so forever.
The Pacific and Atlantic make any other attempt unlikely.
You don't need a military let alone guns.

:grin:
If religions were TV channels atheism is turning the TV off.
"Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt." ― Richard P. Feynman
'It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.' - Terry Pratchett
Remember, your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.

Bad Penny II

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 10, 2017, 02:15:29 AM
Americans, as a whole, DO love guns.  That's a fact.

Is it? I wouldn't categorise it as such.
There could be some fancy named, self serving logical fallacy involved.


Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 10, 2017, 02:15:29 AM
Americans, as a whole, DO love guns.  That's a fact. It's part of our history and DNA. For that reason, a certain number of deaths is deemed acceptable.  We also love American football, so much that a certain number of concussions and traumatic brain injuries are acceptable.  We are a wild bunch, on the whole.  No reason to sugarcoat it.  Still a frontier mentality in many places here.  Another reason we probably won't be invaded.


Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 10, 2017, 02:15:29 AM
It's part of our history and DNA. For that reason, a certain number of deaths is deemed acceptable.  We also love American football, so much that a certain number of concussions and traumatic brain injuries are acceptable.  We are a wild bunch, on the whole.  No reason to sugarcoat it.  Still a frontier mentality in many places here.  Another reason we probably won't be invaded.

"our" "we" "we on the whole" "we"

Guns seem to be an extremely divisive issue, I don't see any sign of a national compact, where a level of death is acceptable.  I gather the US has become quite a divided society and guns are a major point of contention.
Take my advice, don't listen to me.

Ecurb Noselrub

Quote from: Bad Penny II on October 11, 2017, 09:45:04 AM

Guns seem to be an extremely divisive issue, I don't see any sign of a national compact, where a level of death is acceptable.  I gather the US has become quite a divided society and guns are a major point of contention.

The national compact is the Second Amendment of the Constitution, plus the democratic process.  Majority rules here.  If the majority wants to eliminate guns, they can do it.  They don't. 

It's not as divided as you may think.  Looks like we might pass some restrictions on bump stocks.  But ownership of guns will continue, at least for the foreseeable future.  If shooting 500 people is not enough to reverse that, I don't think it will be reversed, at least in my lifetime.

Davin

The majority don't want to eliminate guns, but the majority does want some gun regulations. There are not only two sides to the debate, even though most media and loud mouths keep presenting it as either "no gun regulations" or "no guns."
Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

Dave

Quote from: Davin on October 11, 2017, 04:49:37 PM
The majority don't want to eliminate guns, but the majority does want some gun regulations. There are not only two sides to the debate, even though most media and loud mouths keep presenting it as either "no gun regulations" or "no guns."

So you have the white fringe and the black fringe and a lot of gray between?

Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Passed Monday 10th Dec 2018 age 74

Davin

The NRA and their bribed congress folk, and their spokes people always drive the discussion towards their side being the freedom to own guns, and represent any criticism, counter point... pretty much anything not in lock step with them, as calling for the outright banning of guns. They keep the discussion restrained to that false dilemma. And they do it intentionally.

There are some fringe "no guns at all" people, but they are so small a minority that it's ridiculously dishonest to even bring them up as "the other side" of the gun debate. They are hardly even heard.

On the other hand, the "fringe" for "no gun regulations at all" people are much more numerous (not the majority, but still a big chunk), have a ton of money from selling guns or getting paid by the people that manufacture guns, lobby bribe congress people with millions a year, speak out to millions of people on several different platforms and mediums... so many more things.

Giving out numbers, the anti-gun regulation lobbyists are a significant minority with money, influence, and power behind them, like 5% of the "debate".  Anti-gun people are less than 0.1% of the "debate". Meanwhile, over 65% of the "debate" (NRA members included) support gun regulations, including background checks.

Those are rough inaccurate numbers, but they are a more accurate representation of "the debate" than calling it two fringes with a lot of grey area.
Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

Dave

Quote from: Davin on October 11, 2017, 06:48:11 PM
The NRA and their bribed congress folk, and their spokes people always drive the discussion towards their side being the freedom to own guns, and represent any criticism, counter point... pretty much anything not in lock step with them, as calling for the outright banning of guns. They keep the discussion restrained to that false dilemma. And they do it intentionally.

There are some fringe "no guns at all" people, but they are so small a minority that it's ridiculously dishonest to even bring them up as "the other side" of the gun debate. They are hardly even heard.

On the other hand, the "fringe" for "no gun regulations at all" people are much more numerous (not the majority, but still a big chunk), have a ton of money from selling guns or getting paid by the people that manufacture guns, lobby bribe congress people with millions a year, speak out to millions of people on several different platforms and mediums... so many more things.

Giving out numbers, the anti-gun regulation lobbyists are a significant minority with money, influence, and power behind them, like 5% of the "debate".  Anti-gun people are less than 0.1% of the "debate". Meanwhile, over 65% of the "debate" (NRA members included) support gun regulations, including background checks.

Those are rough inaccurate numbers, but they are a more accurate representation of "the debate" than calling it two fringes with a lot of grey area.

So the right to own and guns is more important than the right go to school and be safe, enjoy a concert without fear of losing ypur life - or that of a loved one.

Well, Britaiin may be small, boring, old fashioned and have a bunch of idiots for a parliament (but which nation does not?) but I think I will stick with it.
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Passed Monday 10th Dec 2018 age 74

Davin

Quote from: Dave on October 11, 2017, 08:39:27 PMSo the right to own and guns is more important than the right go to school and be safe, enjoy a concert without fear of losing ypur life - or that of a loved one.
People can have the right to own a gun and schools, public places, and people can be much safer as well. It's not one or the other. We need more and better gun regulations, but we don't need to take all the guns away.

Not even Britain or Australia have taken all the guns away.
Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

Dave

Quote from: Davin on October 11, 2017, 08:43:01 PM
Quote from: Dave on October 11, 2017, 08:39:27 PMSo the right to own and guns is more important than the right go to school and be safe, enjoy a concert without fear of losing ypur life - or that of a loved one.
People can have the right to own a gun and schools, public places, and people can be much safer as well. It's not one or the other. We need more and better gun regulations, but we don't need to take all the guns away.

Not even Britain or Australia have taken all the guns away.

Good pont, I was arguing for tighter rules and regs  - enforced responsibility as far as than can work - previously. As fsr as the UK goes the iwnership and use of even a shotgunnor mstch rifke is very tightly rrgulated. I ssid before, I got my furstblucence dimply by shoeingnotoof of idrntity andnpaying about the equivalent of £5 (in the local post office) now. I was in the RAF so had to keep it and the ammunition in a locker in the armoury. Currently you have to provide evidence of a 'need' (which can be game shooting) or membership of a club or whatever. I would guess that there are similar rules on safe storage of both guns snd ammunition that your have to demonstrate knowledge of over there as well.

There have been three "major" incidents in the UK in "recent" years:
1987 Hungerford, 16 killed, 15 injured
"A report was commissioned by Home Secretary Douglas Hurd. The Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 was passed in the wake of the massacre, which bans the ownership of semi-automatic centre-fire rifles and restricts the use of shotguns with a capacity of more than three cartridges. The shootings remain one of the deadliest firearms incidents in British history."

1996 Dunblane, 18 killed, 15 injured
"Public debate about the killings centred on gun control laws, including public petitions calling for a ban on private ownership of handguns and an official inquiry, which produced the 1996 Cullen Reports.[2] In response to this debate, two new Firearms Acts were passed, which greatly restricted private ownership of firearms in Great Britain."


2010, Cumbria, 13 killed, 11 injured
"Bird had been a licensed firearms holder, and the incident sparked debate about further gun control in the United Kingdom; the previous Dunblane school massacre and Hungerford shootings had led to increased firearms controls."

All quotations from Wikipedia.

In all cases the perpetrator committed suicide so the chances are, as in most non-terrorist shootings, mental health was a big factor. But, without anything like your constitution (though at one time local militias were  encouraged and expected to be trained and armed, but we grew out of that) the government can change the rules quite easily (though I seem to remember mutterings from the huntin' and shootin' lobbies and it was a pity it extended to match shooting with handguns.)
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Passed Monday 10th Dec 2018 age 74

solidsquid

Quote from: Dave on October 09, 2017, 05:17:47 PMAre you allowed to wear a sword in public?

As of September 1st, here in Texas we can.  Much to my disappointment I haven't witnessed a bunch of people running after each other with swords drawn yelling, "There can be only one!"

solidsquid

Quote from: Tank on October 09, 2017, 08:02:58 PM
Quote from: solidsquid on October 09, 2017, 03:50:36 PM
Quote from: Tank on October 09, 2017, 06:47:06 AM
I agree with all you have said. But I feel there is more to the issue. Guns facilitate violence both practically and psychologically in a way only a weapon can. It becomes a focus of intent in a way a pressure cooker can't. A gun is a device that is violence incarnate. To achieve justification for its existence it must do violence or threaten to do violence.

I understand your perspective but I would have to disagree.  I think such a view is akin to stating that people are driven to violence simply because the opportunity exists. From my perspective, a gun is a device - on that we agree.  However, my view of a gun being a threat is largely dependent upon the human wielding it and their intentions.  The same would go for a machete, a baseball bat, or even a screw driver.  I think that it is not a gun problem America has but an social integrity problem and an inability to deal effectively with mental health.

I would be curious to let you elaborate on why you view firearms and a manifestation of violence.
You appear a sane and thoughtful individual  thus you see a gun as a device. The issue that concerns me is the immediacy and level of violence (and thus perceived power) of a gun lowers the threshold of temptation to use a gun. Nobody to my knowledge has ever sat stroking a pressure cooker because it was aspirational to own one or gave them a sense of power.

So if you have a toxic mix of mental health issues and guns why not simply remove the guns? There will still be murders but as many? I strongly doubt that. How many deaths is America willing to pay to keep guns on the streets? Thousands and thousands and thousands by the look of it.

In answer to your question about violence I find it impossible not to associates guns with violence. When has there ever been a scene in a TV show or movie when a gun was portrayed in anything other than in the context of violence? I can't think of one and even if I could it would be one in 1,000, one in 10,000, one in a million? The perception of guns is that they are violence and power incarnate. The TV and movie industry thrive and amplify that perception 24/7/365.

You raise a valid point about Timothy McVeigh, but it's not the whole story. He put a huge amount of thought, effort and most importantly time into what he did. It wasn't an off the cuff action so in terms of day-to-day gun violence it was atypical.

America is soaked with guns. It has poor mental health care. And that combination is killing you by the thousands and will continue as long as owning guns is considered aspirational, glamorous and a significant part of the economy. Many Americans love guns. Think about that, they love guns. It's not just the individuals that are deranged it's pretty much the whole of American society. Apologies if that sounds rude and brutal. :(

I so wish I had more time right now Tank but work and homework drain my time.  I'll try to respond soon.  Just wanted to let you know I wasn't ignoring you.

Ecurb Noselrub

Quote from: Davin on October 11, 2017, 08:43:01 PM
Quote from: Dave on October 11, 2017, 08:39:27 PMSo the right to own and guns is more important than the right go to school and be safe, enjoy a concert without fear of losing ypur life - or that of a loved one.
People can have the right to own a gun and schools, public places, and people can be much safer as well. It's not one or the other. We need more and better gun regulations, but we don't need to take all the guns away.

Not even Britain or Australia have taken all the guns away.

Agree. There is middle ground.

Ecurb Noselrub

Quote from: solidsquid on October 12, 2017, 01:25:59 AM
Quote from: Dave on October 09, 2017, 05:17:47 PMAre you allowed to wear a sword in public?

As of September 1st, here in Texas we can.  Much to my disappointment I haven't witnessed a bunch of people running after each other with swords drawn yelling, "There can be only one!"

Yeah, I forgot about the new law.  Now I can justify buying a sword at the Texas Renaissance Festival.

Dave

#59
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 12, 2017, 01:47:05 AM
Quote from: solidsquid on October 12, 2017, 01:25:59 AM
Quote from: Dave on October 09, 2017, 05:17:47 PMAre you allowed to wear a sword in public?

As of September 1st, here in Texas we can.  Much to my disappointment I haven't witnessed a bunch of people running after each other with swords drawn yelling, "There can be only one!"

Yeah, I forgot about the new law.  Now I can justify buying a sword at the Texas Renaissance Festival.

Cutlass, sabre, broad or epee?  A gladius might be more convenient in the car or bus!

Guessing it would have to be a sabre in Texas, was that not the standard Civil War officer's, especially cavalry, weapon?
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Passed Monday 10th Dec 2018 age 74