USA Gun Rights/Gun Control Discussion Thread

[Johann]

6 hours ago, Tryhard said:

I suppose it depends on your definition of 'mass shooting'. Most official sources classify it as four victims or more being injured, fatally or otherwise, including the shooter.

The video he posted seemed to think this was an unreasonable metric for a claim of a mass shooting. I don't really see the problem with it being defined as four or more to be honest.

Yeah, it's a bit complicated since there's no universally agreed definition, even by the US government:

Quote

Congressional Research Service: Public Mass Shootings in the United States: Selected Implications for Federal Public Health and Safety Policy

There is no broadly agreed-to, specific conceptualization of this issue, so this report uses its own definition for public mass shootings. These are incidents occurring in relatively public places, involving four or more deaths—not including the shooter(s)—and gunmen who select victims somewhat indiscriminately. The violence in these cases is not a means to an end—the gunmen do not pursue criminal profit or kill in the name of terrorist ideologies, for example.

US government does legally defines a "mass killing" as follows (note that this does not exclude violence from other means):

Quote

Public Law 112-265

"(M)(i) At the request of an appropriate law enforcement official of a State or political subdivision, the Attorney General may assist in the investigation of violent acts and shootings occurring in a place of public use and in the investigation of mass killings and attempted mass killings. Any assistance provided under this subparagraph shall be presumed to be within the scope of Federal office or employment.

• "(i) For purposes of this subparagraph—
  • "(I) the term ‘mass killings’ means 3 or more killings in a single incident; and
  • "(II) the term ‘place of public use’ has the meaning given that term under section 2332f(e)(6) of title 18, United States Code."

By either definition, there's still plenty of data to contradict @Jason-SilverStarApple's claim that there's only one every few years. In 2018, there were 27 instances that the FBI deemed "active shooter" incidents, with 85 people directly killed and 128 were wounded (these numbers exclude the shooters themselves).

[Integrity]

i dunno if this will surprise any of you but it has turned out that op is a prolific guns troll and is banned, so don't waste energy responding tbh

 

[XRay]

1 hour ago, Integrity said:

i dunno if this will surprise any of you but it has turned out that op is a prolific guns troll and is banned, so don't waste energy responding tbh

Good to know. I wanted to believe that it was just sheer ignorance, but it felt kind of off that he was criticizing my citing of Wikipedia, but then he never cites anything and it just seems like he is making shit up.

[Jotari]

I did feel the user was a troll, especially with the whole "More Rights is always good, less rights is always bad" logic they were trying to pull in the global politics thread.

Now, with that being said, having a dedicated thread on this subject doesn't seem the worst thing in the world, as it is, sadly, an on going issue. I was waiting to voice my opinion on this matter after the thread got locked. Which is while I'm fully supportive of stricter gun right laws, I don't think that would immediately solve the problem. It's a much more deeply ingrained problem than simply having or not having the laws. One of escalation. It's actually put pretty well with the ending of Batman Begins. Criminals in the USA feel they need to have a gun. Police believe they need to have guns to deal with criminals. People believe they need to have guns to protect themselves because of the criminals too. Even if gun access becomes much more legally stricter, there's still going to be more guns than people. The guns themselves need to be reduced in the system. Likely with a costly buy back program. But above all else I think things need to be viewed long term and the market for gun production must be severely hindered, otherwise the number of guns will just keep on increasing. Additionally the police should put more focus on tasers over guns. So criminals (and ordinary black people) won't feel like their actual life is under threat whenever the police show up.

[Johann]

5 hours ago, Jotari said:

I did feel the user was a troll, especially with the whole "More Rights is always good, less rights is always bad" logic they were trying to pull in the global politics thread.

Now, with that being said, having a dedicated thread on this subject doesn't seem the worst thing in the world, as it is, sadly, an on going issue. I was waiting to voice my opinion on this matter after the thread got locked. Which is while I'm fully supportive of stricter gun right laws, I don't think that would immediately solve the problem. It's a much more deeply ingrained problem than simply having or not having the laws. One of escalation. It's actually put pretty well with the ending of Batman Begins. Criminals in the USA feel they need to have a gun. Police believe they need to have guns to deal with criminals. People believe they need to have guns to protect themselves because of the criminals too. Even if gun access becomes much more legally stricter, there's still going to be more guns than people. The guns themselves need to be reduced in the system. Likely with a costly buy back program. But above all else I think things need to be viewed long term and the market for gun production must be severely hindered, otherwise the number of guns will just keep on increasing. Additionally the police should put more focus on tasers over guns. So criminals (and ordinary black people) won't feel like their actual life is under threat whenever the police show up.

There's definitely a few things to think about:

• Why do people think/feel they're safer with a gun around? It's certainly not necessary and there are plenty of instances of people accidentally shooting family members.
• If criminals desire guns, then doesn't it make sense to look at what factors increase levels of crime? The most significant factor I've seen is economic hardship/poverty, and so by looking at what causes and perpetuates poverty, we can address it, and subsequently reduce crime.
• Do police need guns, and if so, at what point should they be used? Police are trained to use lethal force as a last resort, but many instances (notably situations with unarmed black people) show it's often completely uncalled for. Among other issues with police, it seems it's not only a matter of capacity for violence, but willingness.

[eclipse]

19 hours ago, Johann said:

There's definitely a few things to think about:

• Why do people think/feel they're safer with a gun around? It's certainly not necessary and there are plenty of instances of people accidentally shooting family members.
• If criminals desire guns, then doesn't it make sense to look at what factors increase levels of crime? The most significant factor I've seen is economic hardship/poverty, and so by looking at what causes and perpetuates poverty, we can address it, and subsequently reduce crime.
• Do police need guns, and if so, at what point should they be used? Police are trained to use lethal force as a last resort, but many instances (notably situations with unarmed black people) show it's often completely uncalled for. Among other issues with police, it seems it's not only a matter of capacity for violence, but willingness.

Hmmm. . .

1. Some people are that insecure.  But in a very small number of cases, it's warranted. . .except said cases wouldn't be posting here.

2. But that would mean social reform!  Which would be for the best IMO, but first we'd have to do things like universal healthcare in the US.  Never mind the fact that we have a slight racism problem, which leads to. . .

3. I don't think the issue with police and black people will be solved any year soon.  There's a lot of behaviors that need to be unlearned on both sides.  As for guns, I think it would be best if beat cops were restricted to means that are a little less lethal (like tasers).  Guns would be on a per-case basis.

[Johann]

23 hours ago, eclipse said:

3. I don't think the issue with police and black people will be solved any year soon.  There's a lot of behaviors that need to be unlearned on both sides.  As for guns, I think it would be best if beat cops were restricted to means that are a little less lethal (like tasers).  Guns would be on a per-case basis.

You'll have to elaborate, especially when police regularly target black people for doing perfectly normal everyday things. The problem is squarely on police behavior/mentality.

[Integrity]

On 3/21/2020 at 1:06 AM, Johann said:

Why do people think/feel they're safer with a gun around? It's certainly not necessary and there are plenty of instances of people accidentally shooting family members.

i can weigh in on this from a (relatively) unique perspective

 

i live on a farm in relatively rural ohio, and varmint are a genuine problem - coons, coyotes, foxes, hawks, you name it. i do not need assault rifles to do my job, but access to single-shot or semi-automatic .22 rifles or 12-gauge shotguns is a massive comfort for me because i'm able to respond to immediate threats to my livestock in a way even the commonly-cited combat crossbow cannot give. i have killed with these, and will kill again, because that's the reality here. i would be at a significant bodily risk attacking a raccoon with a spear or some other melee weapon, and a distinctly lowered ability to kill with a bow or a crossbow, if i found one attacking my birds.

 

this is only to note that there is more nuance than 'guns' to the problem - there is literally no reason for a civilian to own a fully automatic 5.56 assault rifle, but that doesn't meant there is literally no reason for a civilian to own a gun.

Edited March 23, 2020 by Integrity

[Johann]

1 hour ago, Integrity said:

i can weigh in on this from a (relatively) unique perspective

 

i live on a farm in relatively rural ohio, and varmint are a genuine problem - coons, coyotes, foxes, hawks, you name it. i do not need assault rifles to do my job, but access to single-shot or semi-automatic .22 rifles or 12-gauge shotguns is a massive comfort for me because i'm able to respond to immediate threats to my livestock in a way even the commonly-cited combat crossbow cannot give. i have killed with these, and will kill again, because that's the reality here. i would be at a significant bodily risk attacking a raccoon with a spear or some other melee weapon, and a distinctly lowered ability to kill with a bow or a crossbow, if i found one attacking my birds.

 

this is only to note that there is more nuance than 'guns' to the problem - there is literally no reason for a civilian to own a fully automatic 5.56 assault rifle, but that doesn't meant there is literally no reason for a civilian to own a gun.

Right on, this is what proper gun use looks like-- you know how to use it safely, and you don't have wild fantasies of using it to save people in Nakatomi Tower.

A lot of gun rights proponents get it in their head that gun control is about taking away every single gun ever, which is not really the case and generally muddles the discussion. I don't begrudge anyone for feeling so uncomfortable around guns that they'd prefer a world where they didn't exist though.

[eclipse]

17 hours ago, Johann said:

You'll have to elaborate, especially when police regularly target black people for doing perfectly normal everyday things. The problem is squarely on police behavior/mentality.

To say "it's only the police's fault" is an extremely shallow way of framing the problem.  Because it's not like someone becomes a police officer and suddenly thinks that every black person is a criminal.

The first place it'll start is at home, while everyone's still a kid.  Racism is a bitch to undo, but if you're looking for truly effective change, this is a must.  Most people are nice, some people are jerks, and none of this has anything to do with skin color - something that should be logically obvious.  Which means if that one black kid you see in school is a troublemaker, you met a troublemaker who happens to be black (as opposed to black people naturally being troublemakers).  Likewise, if a white kid is bullying another kid, that's just a bully, not that all white people will act like that.  But if it were that easy to adopt that sort of thinking, racism would be a thing of the past.  It also means that the stereotypes surrounding the police in general need to be treated as such - a misbehaving police officer doesn't mean that the entire police force is full of pigs.

This is completely ignoring the actual mentality that happens in any given situation, as well as the fact that police screw-ups will be shouted loud and clear.  Meanwhile, those who can do things like properly handle a situation involving a black person aren't going to make their local paper. . .so it also means the public needs to get THAT through their heads.

The police force itself needs to be better at, er, policing themselves.  But this is an issue inherent in any group that gets big and powerful enough (see: your favorite government to rag on).

[Johann]

19 minutes ago, eclipse said:

To say "it's only the police's fault" is an extremely shallow way of framing the problem.  Because it's not like someone becomes a police officer and suddenly thinks that every black person is a criminal.

It really is the fault of the police, 100%. Many people become police knowing they will have special power they can abuse with impunity (white supremacist groups encourage their members to become police as well). Meanwhile, black people know full well that they can and will be stopped, questioned, detained, and/or shot at for doing literally anything. Both sides also know the criminal justice system is weighed heavily against black people and heavily in favor of police.

The problem with the idea that "police need to get better at policing themselves" is that they don't want to. There's no incentive to do so, no impetus at any level. Yet black people are constantly told to watch their behavior, whether by authorities wanting to keep them in line, or by their parents and friends who are pleading with them to not become another "_____ while black" headline. Saying there are behavior problems on both sides is an extremely thoughtless thing to say.

[eclipse]

Just now, Johann said:

It really is the fault of the police, 100%. Many people become police knowing they will have special power they can abuse with impunity (white supremacist groups encourage their members to become police as well). Meanwhile, black people know full well that they can and will be stopped, questioned, detained, and/or shot at for doing literally anything. Both sides also know the criminal justice system is weighed heavily against black people and heavily in favor of police.

The problem with the idea that "police need to get better at policing themselves" is that they don't want to. There's no incentive to do so, no impetus at any level. Yet black people are constantly told to watch their behavior, whether by authorities wanting to keep them in line, or by their parents and friends who are pleading with them to not become another "_____ while black" headline. Saying there are behavior problems on both sides is an extremely thoughtless thing to say.

I don't think you get the scope of the issue.  But if you want to continue to mindlessly hate a group as an entity, then discussing this with you is pointless.

[Johann]

1 minute ago, eclipse said:

I don't think you get the scope of the issue.  But if you want to continue to mindlessly hate a group as an entity, then discussing this with you is pointless.

Explain the scope to me, then. I see the problem being systemic from the federal to the local level, including quotas, the war on drugs, deep-seeded long-term impacts of Jim Crow laws and slavery, stereotyping, racial profiling, intimidation (particularly during plea bargaining), evidence being planted or tampered with, bad/false testimonies, prison sentencing, the myriad of problems with the prison system itself, and so on.

[eclipse]

Just now, Johann said:

Explain the scope to me, then. I see the problem being systemic from the federal to the local level, including quotas, the war on drugs, deep-seeded long-term impacts of Jim Crow laws and slavery, stereotyping, racial profiling, intimidation (particularly during plea bargaining), evidence being planted or tampered with, bad/false testimonies, prison sentencing, the myriad of problems with the prison system itself, and so on.

I already did?  You're hyper-focusing on only the policing part of being a police officer, and completely ignoring that the human part is what fuels everything.  Which means that if all you can see is a faceless group, then there's no way you'll be able to truly understand why it's an issue.

[Johann]

Just now, eclipse said:

I already did?  You're hyper-focusing on only the policing part of being a police officer, and completely ignoring that the human part is what fuels everything.  Which means that if all you can see is a faceless group, then there's no way you'll be able to truly understand why it's an issue.

You reduced systemic racism to an issue of people not being nice to each other. I'm saying the entire system is hard-coded to weigh heavily against black people and minorities, including through laws and how easily exploitable it is, and that the solution requires a complete restructuring of the system. Bad cops and bad policing in general are symptoms of a failing system, and there's not enough oversight addressing it.

[eclipse]

4 minutes ago, Johann said:

You reduced systemic racism to an issue of people not being nice to each other. I'm saying the entire system is hard-coded to weigh heavily against black people and minorities, including through laws and how easily exploitable it is, and that the solution requires a complete restructuring of the system. Bad cops and bad policing in general are symptoms of a failing system, and there's not enough oversight addressing it.

Who makes the system?  Humans.  Who has the power to change the system?  Also humans.  Which means it's humans that need to change, so the system changes.  Which also means that you need to see police for what they truly are - people with more power than you.  Emphasis on people.

[Johann]

2 minutes ago, eclipse said:

Who makes the system?  Humans.  Who has the power to change the system?  Also humans.  Which means it's humans that need to change, so the system changes.  Which also means that you need to see police for what they truly are - people with more power than you.  Emphasis on people.

The systemic problems aren't being caused by people not liking the police. Even if everyone gave absolute, unbending love to every last police officer, we'd still have the same problems.

[eclipse]

Just now, Johann said:

The systemic problems aren't being caused by people not liking the police. Even if everyone gave absolute, unbending love to every last police officer, we'd still have the same problems.

I'm going to seriously ask this question to you:

Do you see police officers as people?

[Johann]

Just now, eclipse said:

I'm going to seriously ask this question to you:

Do you see police officers as people?

Yes. But it's trivial compared to whether they, and all members of law enforcement and the judicial system, see everyone else as people.

[eclipse]

1 minute ago, Johann said:

Yes. But it's trivial compared to whether they, and all members of law enforcement and the judicial system, see everyone else as people.

Your answer is "no", then, because if this is how you see things, you're not willing to change your stance.  Which means that I'm wasting my time.

[Johann]

8 minutes ago, eclipse said:

Your answer is "no", then, because if this is how you see things, you're not willing to change your stance.  Which means that I'm wasting my time.

This is ridiculous, especially coming from a mod. What the hell do you think my stance is? I straight up told you I see them as people. The addendum that it's critical to their job that they also see everyone else as people, since they wield tremendous power over most people, doesn't contradict that, and shouldn't be a controversial thought to anybody on the whole fucking planet. What's the matter with you?

[eclipse]

1 minute ago, Johann said:

This is ridiculous, especially coming from a mod. What the hell do you think my stance is? I straight up told you I see them as people. The addendum that it's critical to their job that they also see everyone else as people, since they wield tremendous power over most people, doesn't contradict that, and shouldn't be a controversial thought to anybody on the whole fucking planet. What's the matter with you?

Because you've missed the point, repeatedly, and I don't think it's due to what I've explained.  Nor do I think that you're trolling, which leaves the final possibility - that you truly believe your stance, to the point where thinking that far outside of it isn't possible yet.  It's not something I can fault you for, since stereotypes and whatnot are convenient.  But when tackling a problem such as this, you must well and truly be able to see the "why" behind the issues, which boils down to the human side.  Things like Jim Crow laws and whatnot?  Those are symptoms.

[Johann]

1 minute ago, eclipse said:

Because you've missed the point, repeatedly, and I don't think it's due to what I've explained.  Nor do I think that you're trolling, which leaves the final possibility - that you truly believe your stance, to the point where thinking that far outside of it isn't possible yet.  It's not something I can fault you for, since stereotypes and whatnot are convenient.  But when tackling a problem such as this, you must well and truly be able to see the "why" behind the issues, which boils down to the human side.  Things like Jim Crow laws and whatnot?  Those are symptoms.

I'm well aware what created the systemic problems. I'm saying that addressing the human side of things directly with police doesn't resolve the systemic issues, and that even the most sincere police officers with the best intentions do things that, unfortunately, have racist impacts. Part of the issue is that when confronted with the possibility that something has racist impacts, there may be resistance, such as in the form of denial.

It's not that I'm saying you're wrong, it's that it's more than just a matter of compassion vs hatred. That's what systemic racism is; systems don't hate or love, they just function, and no matter what you feel, they'll keep happening until enough people understand the system and have the power to change it.

[Shoblongoo]

Yeah I gotta ageee with @Johann here. I’m not saying you should go out of your way to disrespect the police. But if a police officer is in a situation where a suspect is spitting and cursing and being the biggest belligerent asshole on the planet—the officer in that situation still has a duty in that situation to behave as an upstanding law enforcement professional and resolve the situation with minimal use of force + no unnecessary infliction of bodily harm, and not to let his own biases or prejudices override his public duty or his training. The problem isn’t people disrespecting police. It’s a fundamental lack of professional accountability and standards  within the profession of policing.

Edited March 24, 2020 by Shoblongoo

[Jotari]

1 hour ago, Shoblongoo said:

Yeah I gotta ageee with @Johann here. I’m not saying you should go out of your way to disrespect the police. But if a police officer is in a situation where a suspect is spitting and cursing and being the biggest belligerent asshole on the planet—the officer in that situation still has a duty in that situation to behave as an upstanding law enforcement professional and resolve the situation with minimal use of force + no unnecessary infliction of bodily harm, and not to let his own biases or prejudices override his public duty or his training. The problem isn’t people disrespecting police. It’s a fundamental lack of professional accountability and standards  within the profession of policing.

I think the "behavior to unlearn on both sides" is something along the lines of this

but Shob here has the right of it. The people with the power are the ones with more of the responsibility to enact change since they're the ones that actually can.