Gun Control, RE: Charleston Massacre

[-Cynthia-]

>that moment when called it

Questioning the credibility of your sources is not an ad hominem attack. Saying you're an idiot who's never written an academic paper in his life would be an ad hominem attack (seriously dude, opinion pieces and CliffNotes? I wouldn't have quoted those back in middle school).

This is true. There are also many differences between the United States and other developed countries: geography, a deeply-rooted gun culture, proximity to unstable nations, and the aftereffects of institutional racism to name a few.

Linear comparisons between America and Europe wrt the effectiveness of gun control legislation are unwise. What works for Britain and Australia cannot be assumed to work for America.

I'm curious about your thoughts on the "moral argument" for gun rights. Grant that widespread gun access leads to more crime; what about those who say we are entitled to buy guns? That it should be a protected activity even if it's not always best for society?

I agree with your overall point- though my arguments were not so much that the United States should instantly ban all weapons, rather than the presence of guns has not reduced homicides or mass murders(obviously) and has not reduced other violent crime. My proposal would be to have a stricter background check/psychological test/no gun show loop and slowly reduce the frequency of guns in order to become more like other developed nations. I would agree that we cannot simply ban guns due to the factors you said.

As for the moral argument...no I don't think anyone has a right to a gun as much as they do not have a right to a nuclear missle. Guns are a big part of American culture, but being the standard is insufficient reason to keep it that way.

Edited June 20, 2015 by -Cynthia-

[Baldrick]

Poor comparison. Vaccinations have somewhere around a 99.7% success rate in killing off the virus (Or more specifically, in preventing the virus from infecting). When gun control has that same percentage of success in ending all crime, we can talk.

Wait, you're not an anti-vaccer, are you? Because... that's just silly.

Gun control would prevent a significant percentage of gun-related crimes. It doesn't have that success rate for all crimes, but neither does vaccinations for all diseases.

Please read my post properly before responding next time.

Edited June 20, 2015 by Baldrick

[Klokinator]

Ohhh, so you're saying all diseases aren't prevented by vaccines yet? As in, because we haven't figured out the cure yet? But once we do... the disease in question (Say, cancer) will be nearly entirely eliminated. Still not a plausible comparison. Eventually all disease will be eradicated by vaccines once we've figured them out. And no, gun crimes don't plummet even remotely close to 99.7% when a gun ban is in effect. Koff koff. Right in broad daylight.

[-Cynthia-]

Ohhh, so you're saying all diseases aren't prevented by vaccines yet? As in, because we haven't figured out the cure yet? But once we do... the disease in question (Say, cancer) will be nearly entirely eliminated. Still not a plausible comparison. Eventually all disease will be eradicated by vaccines once we've figured them out. And no, gun crimes don't plummet even remotely close to 99.7% when a gun ban is in effect. Koff koff. Right in broad daylight.

Oh joy, Youtube videos as a source. Are you going to quote your dad or something next?

[feplus]

The Young Turks channel is commercial demagoguery. Cenk's a smart and very well-educated guy, but he's also a harlot. He and his comrades intentionally distort and simplify conservative beliefs and actions to cash checks from the views of their liberal audience. I don't think the conversation will improve by talking about them.

My proposal would be to have a stricter background check/psychological test/no gun show loop and slowly reduce the frequency of guns in order to become more like other developed nations. I would agree that we cannot simply ban guns due to the factors you said.

Eminently reasonable. Many committed gun nuts (myself included) agree with your proposals. Actually, I struggle to come up with good reasons we shouldn't implement those policies.

Edited June 20, 2015 by feplus

[Esau of Isaac]

How are 'gun crimes' and 'mass murders' not 'actual crimes'? I can't believe I'm saying this, but homicide is actually a big deal.

He is saying that while gun crime will obviously be curtailed, overall violent crime will remain generally high. Notorious "gun-free" zones such as DC tend to maintain a very high level of crime. If it's not an effective means of curtailing crime, then why sign away freedoms? The simple answer is that you don't care much for that freedom. That's cool and all but a majority of Americans reacted towards offensively poor gun control legislation in the nineties about as well as anyone could expect. Anti-gun legislators tend to be about as informed on proper gun safety and legislation enforcement as the average poster in this topic; abysmally.

Legislation that disarms the populace entirely can never and will never happen. Opining about such a pipe dream is a waste of time. Gun control legislators need to smarten up and find the best of both worlds, because there is no future where the government wastes time on the logistical nightmare that is disarming the American people.

Eminently reasonable. Many committed gun nuts (myself included) agree with your proposals. Actually, I struggle to come up with good reasons we shouldn't implement those policies.

The most common counter-argument is with regard to evaluation of what constitutes mental health, and the expense that they come at. While I would suppose I'm generally for stringent background checks to root out such bad apples, I'm also skeptical of their effectiveness. It's worth asking whether these tests could reliably weed them out.

Edited June 20, 2015 by Esau of Isaac

[Nobody]

Never mind I totally misunderstood the video

Still, what happened in Brazil and what would happen in the US aren't really comparable.

Edited June 20, 2015 by Nobody

[-Cynthia-]

I think people like guns because it makes them 'feel' safer, rather than the possession of guns actually making them safer. I'm not sure how much this peace of mind is actually worth in terms of legislation.

Yeah, I don't consider Brazil to be on the same level of development as the U.S. or Western Europe so the difference in socioeconomics makes the comparison even more difficult than the U.S. with Western European countries.

Edited June 20, 2015 by -Cynthia-

[Klokinator]

Unlike you, I used to be very anti-gun and then changed my views when strong evidence presented itself. Either you're still on the way towards a similar deduction, or you're closed minded and ignoring the facts staring you right in the face. See, I can see stats for felons saying "Yeah actually when I think about the homeowner having a gun who might kill me, I decided to rob a different house" and I will say "Yep. That makes complete sense! If I were a criminal this is exactly how I would think" rather than blindly spouting "LESS GUNS MEANS LESS GUN VIOLENCE AND A DECREASE IN PEOPLE GETTING SHOT AND KILLED!"

Sure, less people get shot and killed, but more people still get stabbed, bludgeoned, raped, robbed, and even blown up. I know it was probably a hoax perpetuated by the CIA or whatever, but has the Boston Bombing really faded in your mind that much? Bombs are illegal. It's illegal to kill people with bombs. Let me repeat, bombs are completely outlawed in all 50 USA states except military use, yet a bomb was still detonated on that day. Bombs are outlawed from the citizenry. Assuming the event wasn't a hoax, then a criminal created a bomb and killed some folks. Heck, maybe they were just smarter than the average citizen, since a bombing would kill more people than a mass shooting (If in a crowded area) and survivors won't be able to tell your face's details to cops so you have a slightly better chance of evading capture.

Of course, if bombs were legal, we might see a lot more bomb crimes, yet the outlawing of bombs hasn't eliminated their damage completely, and there are still plenty of other ways people suffer and die via another human being. It's also not an exact parallel with guns, since you xcan't protect yourself with a bomb, therefore a citizen holding a bomb is not protected from others holding bombs. I am however able to see logic in that banning guns will only make the average citizen easier to harm by the average criminal. Criminals will still get guns illegally whereas citizens will have only secret guns, if that. And likely most would fear jail so they would dutifully turn in their weapons, smart southern states excluded.

But welcome to the topic merry go round. Right back to square one.

[feplus]

The most common counter-argument is with regard to evaluation of what constitutes mental health, and the expense that they come at. While I would suppose I'm generally for stringent background checks to root out such bad apples, I'm also skeptical of their effectiveness. It's worth asking whether these tests could reliably weed them out.

That's an issue of how to best structure and implement background checks rather than a criticism of background checks themselves. If even one life is saved as a result of these checks, it's a worthwhile policy.

The only "expenses" that come to mind are slight inconvenience for gun owners, and [ii] the possibility that background checks become politicized. Neither are insurmountable objections.

Let me repeat, bombs are completely outlawed in all 50 USA states except military use, yet a bomb was still detonated on that day.

And how many more lives would've been lost if the Boston bombers had legal access to industrial-grade explosives rather than a piddling pressure cooker makeshift?

Edited June 20, 2015 by feplus

[-Cynthia-]

Unlike you, I used to be very anti-gun and then changed my views when strong evidence presented itself. Either you're still on the way towards a similar deduction, or you're closed minded and ignoring the facts staring you right in the face. See, I can see stats for felons saying "Yeah actually when I think about the homeowner having a gun who might kill me, I decided to rob a different house" and I will say "Yep. That makes complete sense! If I were a criminal this is exactly how I would think" rather than blindly spouting "LESS GUNS MEANS LESS GUN VIOLENCE AND A DECREASE IN PEOPLE GETTING SHOT AND KILLED!"

Sure, less people get shot and killed, but more people still get stabbed, bludgeoned, raped, robbed, and even blown up. I know it was probably a hoax perpetuated by the CIA or whatever, but has the Boston Bombing really faded in your mind that much? Bombs are illegal. It's illegal to kill people with bombs. Let me repeat, bombs are completely outlawed in all 50 USA states except military use, yet a bomb was still detonated on that day. Bombs are outlawed from the citizenry. Assuming the event wasn't a hoax, then a criminal created a bomb and killed some folks. Heck, maybe they were just smarter than the average citizen, since a bombing would kill more people than a mass shooting (If in a crowded area) and survivors won't be able to tell your face's details to cops so you have a slightly better chance of evading capture.

Of course, if bombs were legal, we might see a lot more bomb crimes, yet the outlawing of bombs hasn't eliminated their damage completely, and there are still plenty of other ways people suffer and die via another human being. It's also not an exact parallel with guns, since you xcan't protect yourself with a bomb, therefore a citizen holding a bomb is not protected from others holding bombs. I am however able to see logic in that banning guns will only make the average citizen easier to harm by the average criminal. Criminals will still get guns illegally whereas citizens will have only secret guns, if that. And likely most would fear jail so they would dutifully turn in their weapons, smart southern states excluded.

But welcome to the topic merry go round. Right back to square one.

More people don't actually get raped or stabbed or killed though- an article you quoted had the US as one of the top rapist countries- and the number of homicides in other developed countries by stabbing, bombs etc. don't come close to the overall number of homicides in the US. If you have this 'strong evidence', feel free to share it- although I suspect your standards for strong evidence are far different from mine.

Psychological tests like the MMPI can be pretty expensive to administer and extensive background checks could also be expensive, so that's not a moot point. I think the safety increase is worth the cost to the American taxpayer however.

[Tryhard]

When did this become another m-muh guns topic? So damn pointless.

I would remind you of the topic at hand, but I suppose nobody actually cares about that. How disgusting and vile.

[Klokinator]

It's not even about muh guns. I don't own a gun. Never have, probably won't for a few more years if that. I'm about protecting my right to protect myself, but in the meantime it's about the defenseless people out there being able to defend themselves. If it's 'pointless' debating whether the people in that church should have been able to protect themselves from an armed assailant, then yeah sure, I'm making a pointless argument. In the meantime, I have a grandmother, sisters, etc who all own a gun. I'm not about to let someone take away their most effective defense over politics without putting up a fight on their behalf.

[Tryhard]

It's not even about muh guns. I don't own a gun. Never have, probably won't for a few more years if that. I'm about protecting my right to protect myself, but in the meantime it's about the defenseless people out there being able to defend themselves. If it's 'pointless' debating whether the people in that church should have been able to protect themselves from an armed assailant, then yeah sure, I'm making a pointless argument. In the meantime, I have a grandmother, sisters, etc who all own a gun. I'm not about to let someone take away their most effective defense over politics without putting up a fight on their behalf.

I couldn't care less about this argument of gun control vs your supposed protection, I was done with this argument ages ago. I may be anti-gun, but I agree with Esau when he says that disarm legislation is an impossibility for the United States, and even minor gun control laws are improbable. You also happen to be the smuggest person in this thread (for no real reason), so I can't help but automatically find you insufferable.

But yes, let's arm the people who go to church. They should expect this.

There's not much to discuss, nobody in their right mind would defend this horrific act.

I never want to wake up to news of any more of these massacres ever again. Does that make me "disgusting and vile"?

I find using such an incident to propel political leverage of any kind quite disgusting, yes, when the attack is clearly linked to racism. Edited June 20, 2015 by Tryhard

[Klokinator]

I find using such an incident to propel political leverage of any kind quite disgusting, yes,

Y-you mean like anti-gun laws?

[Tryhard]

Y-you mean like anti-gun laws?

Yes. You haven't seemed to pick up on the fact that I find both sides ridiculous on this yet. Edited June 20, 2015 by Tryhard

[blah the Prussian]

That's a terrible argument. Guns are a force equalizer. If you're a woman and a big buff dude is trying to rape you, which will stop him: A gun or your fists? Here's a hint, it's not your fists. Now, if he has a gun, he obviously has the advantage, but he already had it to begin with.

Here's the really weird thing, 'liberals' (I actually think it's a dumb term that demonizes people for thinking a certain way but let's use it for the sake of simplicity) believe in this idea of equality, right? And yet we all know women are weaker than men in the physical strength department. We all know a certain percentage of men are stronger than their own gender anyway. The strongest woman is still not as strong as the strongest man. So if hypothetically we banned guns, then any big strong guy would be able to have his way with someone else. Robbery, rape, etc is all now well within his reach, and while the police still exist, when he's going to murder you in a second, the police are a long number of minutes away.

Guns are the power equalizer. If you're a common criminal, say a burglar, are you going to rob a neighborhood where you think people have guns in their homes, or one where they don't? Put yourself in that person's shoes. The answer is pretty obvious, you go for the lower value but lower risk target. Why rob Donald Trump when he has armed guards, attack dogs, defensive turrets, etc when this beat up shack down the street likely has an unarmed person either away from the house or there defenseless?

Guns are not just an equalizer of force for the citizenry. They're an equalizer of force against the government. If you've been paying attention, there's kind of a police state brewing in the USA. I know, the 1,200 people killed by cops last year in the USA is barely even noticeable [sarc/off], but it's the truth. Now, obviously Nazi Germany is the example I have to use since that's the clearest cut example of what happens when a dictator takes charge, disarms the citizenry, and commits genocide, but it is not the only one. There's also Mao Tze Tung, Josef Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, etc. They all have the same pattern: Create violence hysteria, demand to disarm the citizenry, they take control, and then genocides happen on an incredible scale.

Of course, compared to the weapons and armor the USA military possesses today, the average pea shooter/rifle any citizen has is pretty useless, but at least you can take a couple invaders out with you, and if everyone can do this, they can mount a heck of a resistance, maybe even garner support from the international community, decrying your government for committing crimes against humanity, etc.

Finally though, there is one last reason gun controls don't work. So what if you manage to completely eliminate all guns? Okay, granted mass shootings won't happen, and this is assuming you manage to get rid of 100% of them. (Spoiler: You won't even come lose). However, killers and violent people are still going to kill and be violent. Not just because that's the way they are, but because this is an epidemic unique to the USA. Maybe that deranged kid will "only" target some girl jogging by herself in a park and knife her to death, rather than shoot up a church, but in the end someone will still die. And even if guns are removed, do you know how easy it is to make home-made bombs? Killers will just have to get more creative. Bows and arrows can still skewer a person pretty efficiently. A slingshot can kill. Even a club can still be used. And worst of all, none of those weapons are a real equalizer of force. If I have a club and a guy twice my size has a club, I'm going to get the shit beat out of me, if not killed.

No, this is not gun violence, it is violence with a gun. Take away the guns, and instead it will be violence with a bomb, or with a baseball bat, or some other gruesome weapon.

Now, at this point, I think of other countries that have banned guns 'successfully'. You know, Britain, Sweden, Australia, Germany, etc. Now, ignoring the HUGE cultural differences (We're a competitive country that literally glorifies violence, compared to their mostly pacifistic ways) and why it works for them, they are not a peachy perfect symbol of peace. Many stats show that when guns are banned, gun violence goes down. Okay, duh, that's a given. But they ignore that other types of violence often increase. Britain is plagued by awful rape problems, and there are so many articles talking about Sweden being 'the rape capital of the world' it's not even funny. Here, have a google search. (It's worth pointing out that four other countries qualify too and there's some debate, but when Sweden's rape stats are being compared with the goddamn Congo, that really says something)

Don't these women (and men) deserve the right to fight back? If a woman has a gun, bam, the rapist is dead. Hell, you don't even have to shoot, pull it out and they usually flee like hell. Most rapists aren't interested in a target that fights back, they want to either have power and domination, or they want to pretend the target is willing and 'likes it'. Guns save rape victims. (P.S. Lol MSNBC, so typical of you.) I'm gonna ignore that bullshit 1-in-4 rape statistic, but for the sake of argument, she's right in that a gun would have likely saved her life. Nothing is worse than feeling completely powerless.

Now, back to the original topic. Guns provide a safety blanket for anyone in the area. Let's say the deranged kid who murdered the people in this church had faced resistance. Would he have perhaps killed less than 8 people? Would it have only been one or two? The statistics say yes. Even if YOU don't personally carry a gun and don't feel comfortable, what if you end up like the guy in this video, saved by someone else who does? Sure, it was an undercover cop who killed him, but it could have been someone else. Cops get the training, but there's no reason you can't too. You wear a seatbelt to protect yourself in case of a car accident, and you call a taxi when you drink to protect yourself (and others) from not drinking and driving, this is the same thing.

Finally, I conclude with an article directly related to that video of the police officer, laws on gun control. Note that Brazil has much higher control rates than the USA, yet the motorcycle thief still had a gun. Gun controls prevent good citizens from defending themselves, while criminals will always find a way around them. http://www.latitudenews.com/story/what-the-u-s-obama-can-learn-from-brazils-epidemic-of-gun-violence-newtown/

Well, someone may have already responded to this and kicked your ass. It really wouldn't be hard to do. I wouldn't know, as my internet has been down for a time. However, I can't ignore the massive amount of cliches you use in this. Lets break it down. First, the issue of rape. So fine, you're a woman walking home late at night, you see a guy behind you, you get paranoid. You pull out your gun, and shoot him. Now, lets just go out on a limb and say the guy was not going to rape you. You just killed an innocent man, all out of paranoia, and it was made possible by guns. Plus, your "if we ban guns knives will just be used" goes both ways; a knife would be just as effective at stopping a rapist; just stab him and you're done. Plus, if a rapist is in knife range you can be pretty sure he's a rapist. Now, on to the point of tyrannical governments. The interesting thing with Hitler, and Stalin, and Kim Il Sung is that they faced no resistance. Let me tell you why. All of them set up massive cults of personality. If the German people had guns when Hitler came to power, do you think they'd use them to try to overthrow the Nazi party? No, they'd use them to kill as many Jews as possible, and all because the glorious Fuhrer said so. Dictators historically have made their people worship them before taking power, so they don't want to resist. When Mao gave a bunch of Chinese kids guns you know what happened? They went on a rampage and murdered those who opposed them. One can assume that, if tyranny rises in the US (almost impossible, but I'll humor you) then it will come to power in the same manner. These are the main two points I wanted to counter. Right now I'm too tired to say anything anyway. I'll continue this later.

[feplus]

Hitler faced a ton of opposition and armed guerrilla resistance to Nazi efforts saved many lives.

[blah the Prussian]

Hitler faced a ton of opposition and armed guerrilla resistance to Nazi efforts saved many lives.

Source? How many lives? Was it in Germany itself, or in occupied territories like Poland and France? Specifics, please.

[Klokinator]

So fine, you're a woman walking home late at night, you see a guy behind you, you get paranoid. You pull out your gun, and shoot him.

Yeah... a woman who just shoots a guy out of paranoia is a criminal... go on... But meanwhile if he's dashing at her/creeping up behind her and making a strange movement towards her, she'd be well within her rights to pull out a gun and tell him to back away from her. If she shoots him, she's a murderer. If he charges at her and she discharges her weapon, a crime scene analyst would be able to see this based on blood spatter, the way the body is lying, etc.

Plus, your "if we ban guns knives will just be used" goes both ways; a knife would be just as effective at stopping a rapist; just stab him and you're done.

No... men are stronger than women physically. Maybe she could stab him, or maybe his superior strength would easily allow him to wrestle it right out of her hands or punch her, knocking her unconscious, etc. And unless you're actually implying women are men's physical equal (Which is a pretty ballsy statement even for the most diehard of progressives), surely you realize in a physical confrontation men win against women pretty much all the time, unless there's extenuating factors. (For example, white knight syndrome where another man rushes to her aid, she screams which alerts nearby people, maybe she's particularly skilled in a martial art of some sort, maybe he's a weakling, etc). The gender differences don't just vanish, in fact they become more pronounced in a close fighting situation. However, a man or a woman with a gun is equally as powerful as each other.

The interesting thing with Hitler, and Stalin, and Kim Il Sung is that they faced no resistance.

Lol. Wrong. Actually, double wrong.

[feplus]

Source? How many lives? Was it in Germany itself, or in occupied territories like Poland and France? Specifics, please.

Here's a starting point.

[Pixelman]

I seriously don't get why people ask for souces

Like, seriously, you have google, bing, yahoo for a fucking reason

As for the gun debate, I think we should move the debate to another topic, instead of clogging this one up

[-Cynthia-]

Well I ask for sources, because hypothetical situations where a woman shoots her potential rapist or whatever are statistically meaningless. Note that some research indicates that gun laws increase crime overall http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/november/donohue-guns-study-111414.html

[Pixelman]

Well I ask for sources, because hypothetical situations where a woman shoots her potential rapist or whatever are statistically meaningless. Note that some research indicates that gun laws increase crime overall http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/november/donohue-guns-study-111414.html

Fair point, but when someone (aka blah) asks for sources for resistance against Nazis, it's kind of laziness on their part, no?

[Klokinator]

Well if Stanford is a good enough source for you, then this study shows what I've been saying all along. Bad parenting, allowing your kids to go with the wrong crowd, watch violent TV shows and play violent games will likely make them more violent. The problem isn't guns, it's shitty parenting. It's a morally corrupt, lazy society. It's rampant poverty. It's a host of issues that lead to violence, with guns simply being the most convenient choice.

https://web.stanford.edu/class/e297c/poverty_prejudice/ganginterv/causesofcrime.htm