|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted February 19, 2018 04:43 PM |
|
Edited by fred79 at 16:43, 19 Feb 2018.
|
|
i already carried it over and replied, artu. see above your last post. *facepalm*
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted February 19, 2018 04:59 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 17:00, 19 Feb 2018.
|
So, basically your version of putting two plus two is claiming that even though more people die of gun violence in U.S. compared to all other developed countries, more guns is still the answer. My two plus two is this, because of this gun culture, you have, say, 20 mass shootings a year. Now, let's assume one or two of those were stopped by an armed civillian who neutralized the shooter, I dont remember this ever happening but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the media doesnt cover it, it is still around 18 mass shootings more than the rest of the world.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
PandaTar
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Celestial Heavens Mascot
|
|
posted February 19, 2018 05:01 PM |
|
|
Around here, the gun control/prohibition is a very delicate matter. I'm particularly torn between them.
On one hand, population nowadays feels like sheeps. Sometimes, bandits, robbers and the hell, have advanced weapons even the army shouldn't have. But most common criminals have common weapons, mostly stolen from police or brought in through illegal importation, weapon trafficking. So, the argument of having means to defend themselves revolves on that: shooting these common criminals when threatened. As stated above, it would all be based on the element of surprise, and the few times that happens, the criminal usually is killed. However, our laws around that sort of auto-defense action is so ... bizarre, that even when you in your home, defending your life and your family, you could end up in jail or having a really bothersome time trying to get through legal procedures, even if you have authorization upon handling a fire weapon.
On the other hand, population is not properly educated nor mentally stable. If there was ever a law of gun control that would allow people to have fire weapons, it is possible that there would be a great first wave of people killing each other, and trying to sort out the rights and the wrongs in that mess would take a whole generation. It could be that in the long term, it would make a cultura with less common criminals, but that's just speculative, because it could also make common people more prone to use guns in spite of regular discrepancies, turning them into debacles on their daily activities, as it already happens. Then, it would also fall on the situation that criminals would, then, consider the element of surprise or else, consider using lethal force more often than not to subdue a victim, which would now have access to fire weapons.
Most of the problems in my country would be solved by proper education, better use of public money on things that really matter. Weapons and violence will always the be last resort of when everything else fails and shouldn't be priority nor easy to achieve/buy. The problem with guns is that one side will always be the failing side of the same system.
____________
"Okay. Look. We both said a lot of things that you're going to regret. But I think we can put our differences behind us. For science. You monster."
GlaDOS – Portal 2
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted February 19, 2018 06:01 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 18:01, 19 Feb 2018.
|
fred79 said:
whatever. you don't live here, so you don't know. ask corribus if he thinks law-abiding citizens shouldn't have guns. protip: he lives in chicago. 
I don't think guns should be outlawed. But I am in favor of strong laws that regulate what you can get and how you can get it. The problem is that we can't even seem to have a rational conversation about gun control in this country. This thread is case in point.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 19, 2018 06:29 PM |
|
|
we can't seem to have any rational conversations about any important subjects. it's ridiculous. 
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted February 19, 2018 07:28 PM |
|
|
What Explains U.S. Mass Shootings?
When the world looks at the United States, it sees a land of exceptions: a time-tested if noisy democracy, a crusader in foreign policy, an exporter of beloved music and film.
But there is one quirk that consistently puzzles America’s fans and critics alike. Why, they ask, does it experience so many mass shootings?
Perhaps, some speculate, it is because American society is unusually violent. Or its racial divisions have frayed the bonds of society. Or its citizens lack proper mental care under a health care system that draws frequent derision abroad.
These explanations share one thing in common: Though seemingly sensible, all have been debunked by research on shootings elsewhere in the world. Instead, an ever-growing body of research consistently reaches the same conclusion.
The only variable that can explain the high rate of mass shootings in America is its astronomical number of guns.
More gun ownership corresponds with more gun murders across virtually every axis: among developed countries, among American states, among American towns and cities and when controlling for crime rates. And gun control legislation tends to reduce gun murders, according to a recent analysis of 130 studies from 10 countries.
This suggests that the guns themselves cause the violence.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted February 19, 2018 07:39 PM |
|
|
|
not a single word on family, on education or on culture, as the majority of USA movies are ornamented with the most gruesome fire-arms related violence. Ah, forgot, that brings big bucks, then decomposed families on welfare bring voters...
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted February 19, 2018 07:47 PM |
|
|
Most Americans are very big on family actually, compared to a lot of countries in Europe, their family ties are much stronger. Cultural factors including movies (btw, rest of the world also watch those) are not ignored but are said to fail to explain the phenomenon.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted February 19, 2018 07:58 PM |
|
|
|
yes we watch too, but as we can't get guns (or culturally not fit wishing such) it leaves a different feeling, more impersonated. When you are surrounded by a particularly violent culture and you have also access to deadly weapons, there may be more than one single factor to consider, as your article suggests.
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 19, 2018 09:34 PM |
|
|
|
artu, the nytimes are controlled news(as are nearly all the media here, if not ALL of them). they pushed goverment propaganda that sold the iraq invasion(and, if i'm not mistaken, the iraq war before that, and most likely every government agenda even before THAT). relying on them, you might as well rely on white soccer moms from the suburbs who have their heads in the sand and believe everything the media tells them without question, for your news. that rag is human waste pushed down the tubes. you might as well believe fox news and cnn.
|
|
revolut1oN
Famous Hero
|
|
posted February 20, 2018 12:38 AM |
|
|
artu said:
artu said:
Tell me what part of this is too hard to understand, since it had been repeated like 6 times already:
Personal weapons are not an efficient way of protecting yourself from such attacks, never have they been seen to stop such attacks, and there will always be soft spots of opportunity if an attacker decides to mass-kill anyway.
Arming everyone to teeth, not only fails to prevent such attacks but in the long run, it escalates the gun violence, it gives the opposite result becuse it triggers a gun culture where such attacks become much more common. You had 29 mass shootings already in 2018. We had none yet. In such shootings, no civilian was able to Bruce Willis his way out of the shooting with his gun. It doesnt work that way.
Well, that's simply not true. Please check this out, its the first result of my google serach, can find thousands more.
http://www.wykop.pl/ramka/2859229/12-sytuacji-w-ktorych-posiadacze-broni-powstrzymali-masakry-eng/
Now think about the recent killings in Norway, on the Utoya island Breivik killed 69 people. If only 1 person out of them had a gun he would be dead in a matter of seconds. But since everybody (including policemen lol) were unarmed, he was hunting people like ducks for a couple of minutes until help arrived and disarmed him. People could only run and hide. Actually stats say that victims in the USA basically only buy guns from legal sources, while killers mostly use illegal weapons. Its like prohibition of the alcohol in the past, if u ban something mafia and gangs are basically going to monopolise sales. If you ban guns, bad people still will be able to buy them without problems while normal people will be forced to become defenceless.
Whats more, according to the statistics, shootings in the USA are not correlated with the gun laws, but rather with certain people. Black people actually make only 13% of the society yet they commit 53% of murders with guns (actually mostly being gang fights) The real reason for errupting violence is mixed society with many groups which are somehow on the outer reaches of the society, have poor education and social care.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted February 20, 2018 01:57 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 02:50, 20 Feb 2018.
|
@fred
The article directly links to scientific research and not just a few, if you are going to cross any data that refutes you by calling it "controlled news" you shouldnt be talking about "facing facts" all the time.
@revolution
Breivik shot students from meters away with a sniper rifle, they wouldnt be able to do anything even if they were armed. And when I say there will always be soft spots of opportunity if someone decides to mass-shoot, that's what I mean, he shot students on a field trip. In what kind of a scenario, students on a field trip could have been armed? You can not be ready to shoot back all the time, no matter how many people you arm, there will always be more than enough social context where enough number of people will be unarmed sitting ducks, that is inevitable. But with so many guns, you will have 10 Breiviks instead of only one.
Also, there is an article right above you that looks into those suggestions about lack of education and social care, I'd say reading it would be a good idea.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 20, 2018 04:52 AM |
|
Edited by fred79 at 04:56, 20 Feb 2018.
|
you're flailing, artu. you're doing the equivalent of throwing drunken haymakers, especially at this point. sure, the content you're using has weight(emotional weight, and ONLY that), but you're missing with every swing. what you're missing, is the entire target of the subject matter. you aren't seeing the reality that has been presented before you by all of the attacks THEMSELVES, and you aren't seeing the reality that i, sal, and now revolut1on are trying to tell you.
and yet, you still drunkenly flail. why? because you think your emotional opinion will change the environment here in the states, or ANYWHERE, for that matter?
you think you see the intricacies of the subject, but you only see the intracacies of the anti-gun argument. you aren't even looking at the issue itself. it's a black and white issue at it's core, whether you understand that or not. i have tried explaining it to you, sal's tried explaining it to you, and now revolution has tried explaining it to you, and you refuse to learn even the BASICS. you SHOULD have learned the core of the issue, with the attacks THEMSELVES.
your argument is that i see this issue in simple terms. it IS simple; you either have the ability to protect yourself from violence, or you can't/don't. what you propose is, CAN'T/DON'T.
THAT'S NOT GOING TO SOLVE THE ATTACK ISSUE.
until the ATTACK ISSUE is solved, you AREN'T SAFE unless you are armed AGAINST armed attackers, yourself. and obviously, children don't need to be carrying weapons. but the teachers of ALL schools across the globe, should be.
obviously, a gun isn't going to work against a bomb. but we're not talking about bombs, are we? and come to think of it, we're not even really talking about mass shootings anymore(and haven't been for a while now).
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted February 20, 2018 05:32 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 05:50, 20 Feb 2018.
|
Fred, copy pasting arguments and reversing them is never a good idea nor a mature thing to do, you are the emotional one on this subject, not me. I have nothing to be emotional about, it's happening all over the Atlantic. And we are still talking about mass shootings, which is also the thread subject:
You imagine a position where a mass-shooter chooses to attack an armed crowd which is very unlikely to begin with, the attacker is the one who picks when and where and no matter how many people buy guns, there will always be more than enough opportunity to catch people off-guard and unarmed in many many situations. Not to mention, we are talking about regulating heavy machinery, those guns have enough range and fire power for a massacre even if the crowd has some guns on them, once the attacker takes the higher ground and starts shooting from a distance using the element of surprise, dozens will die before they can even blink.
So, no, guns usually DON'T protect you against guns and they simply escalate the chances of an attack drastically. These are all supported with research results, what you do is call any research that contrardicts you "anti-gun propaganda." Needless to say, if you label everything you disagree with propaganda, you will always believe you are right. You have no concrete arguments against what has been said, you just stick labels to everything. Every statistical research, including ones that compare only American states or towns with each other, shows more guns result in more homicides: This is the simple outcome, not propaganda. Had guns been an effective way of protection against such attacks, the results would be the opposite. So your logic of "it IS simple; you either have the ability to protect yourself from violence, or you can't/don't. what you propose is, CAN'T/DON'T" is moot, the third option is to prevent such violence from occuring in the first place, as much as possible (you'll never stop all of it), and strict gun regulations are working when it comes to that, this is not some wishful thinking, they had been proven to work.
P.S. Btw, Sal is not exactly on the same page with you either, from what he wrote on this subject in the past, I recall he thinks that when it comes to guns, it is too late for the U.S. and it is a lost cause because the situation is irreversabilly snowed up.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 20, 2018 06:12 AM |
|
|
|
artu, because you obviously don't understand the basics of simple survival, i'm not going to bother reading(or responding) to anything you post about this issue anymore(including whatever you just posted). i should have just stopped trying to reach you as soon as you started arguing against reality. that you are so continually adamant about your horribly out-of-touch views on this, is just plain baffling to me.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted February 20, 2018 06:29 AM |
|
|
Suit yourself. But it would have been healthier for you, had you realized that you mistake being short-sighted and shallow for being realistic.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 20, 2018 09:10 AM |
|
|
It's getting ridiculous now. If you people are ignoring the simple statistical facts, suit yourself. Artu's NY Times article is pretty spot-on with everything. Yes, the US are one of only 3 countries in the worls where carrying a gun is considered a basic right; yes, that is changing the whole idea of how a society works, in so many ways.
No, it does NOT help against mass-shooters - if you have handgun, you will still be shot like a dead duck by the guy who lies on some rooftop with a sniper rifle. And, no, you won't see schools where kids and youths and teachers all pack in order to be able to shoot down an offender.
But it does one thing - it ups the ante for the "criminal" element AND for the paranoid non-criminal element alike, being ready to use the gun, before someone else uses it on you. It's also a stress moment for the regfular police - with everyone actually having a RIGHT to pack, the borderline between law-abiding good guy and criminal killer is pretty fine, coming with a very high degree of physical danger for themselves.
And the so-called "purpose" of that whole law is utter nonsense. It HAD a purpose two and a quarter centuries ago, with a very low population density and firearms being a pretty primitive and slow thing, while the idea of civilians becomeing soldiers to fight for their rights was quite new as well. Now? Idiocy. People wouldn't do anything, even with a semi-automatic. Life has become way too complex and luxurious and most city population would be utterly helpless without the amenities of plumbing, supermarkets, electrics and nowadays the internet.
Lastly, there is this discrepancy within a society who declares it a right for everyone to pack - but comes from a deeply religious background forbidding/prohibiting everything that's fun, described so aptly with the "vices". If everything fun is prohibited, except having a gun, you don't need to be a genius to figure out the results.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted February 20, 2018 09:26 AM |
|
|
artu said:
Btw, Sal is not exactly on the same page with you either, from what he wrote on this subject in the past, I recall he thinks that when it comes to guns, it is too late for the U.S. and it is a lost cause because the situation is irreversabilly snowed up.
Exactly, while I am not entirely sure what's fred's point, and whats yours neither. It doesn't look to me fred is against a better control and it doesn't look to me you are for banning all guns neither, which would be simply impossible in USA. Personally I have no gun fetish and I would prefer a society where they are not available, even illegally. But society is changing, we are importing violent people from all around the world, hardly but inevitably proper criminal statistic start to come out, we also have to pay for errors from the past, then Breivik or Paris Bataclan examples are not bad examples to look at.
It is highly possible that - individually speaking, we will have to defend ourselves in a close future. As I said, we now practice every 2 weeks an exercise where we have to find good spots to hide, and everyone is proud when they found a "good" one. THIS is what is ridiculous, because when you snow your pants because someone is using an automatic gun at couple of meters, the only option you have to stay alive is to be able to replicate, physically or else. Analyzing our societies through the lens of past time only, without seeing where it inevitably goes, is not going to help. America is no exception I think.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted February 20, 2018 09:37 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 09:39, 20 Feb 2018.
|
As I already mentioned Breivik is not a good example at all, you wouldnt be able to do anything even if you were armed, and in that specific case, students on a field trip would have been the ones to carry weapons and that level of "packing" would be considered weird even in Texas. So easier access to semi-automatics would only mean more Brieviks, not protection from them.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted February 20, 2018 09:45 AM |
|
|
Is enough good because it shows that our system (currently in UK police has no weapons for instance and same thing is being discussed in France) is flawed and needs to be redone. A guy who is able to run half hour killing ducks around and no one (no police at all on campus because "safe space"?) has anything to replicate is good example.
Of course, you are right, allowing everyone to carry a weapon would be catastrophic and thats why is so hard for Americans to find a consensus between real situations, constitutional rights and mental illnesses reality, imo.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
