The Glamorization of Murder

[SaffronBurke]

want a computer or mobile based background check software, that I can use for little to no cost, 24 hours a day 365.25 days a year

In this day and age, there's no good reason why this doesn't exist. The authority making the decision on the background checks could EASILY develop a website for sellers to use. Other government resources have extremely helpful websites that we can do any matter of things on.

For example:
I can take an online safety course on hunting, gun safety, bow hunting, etc, on my local DNR website, then go into an office, show proof I've completed the course, and be well on my way to receiving a hunting license. I don't recall if there are additional steps, I started one of the courses over three years ago and never got around to finishing it.

 

[LuckySmiles]

Guys, I live in Canada. We have strict gun control laws. Gun violence still happens but to a MUCH LESS extent. Our most busiest cities are so safe. And we're not the only country where this is the case.

Here's some interesting information pulled from this site
Fact: In Canada around 1920, before there was any form of gun control, their homicide rate was 7% of the U.S rate. By 1986, and after significant gun control legislation, Canada’s homicide rate was 35% of the U.S. rate – a significant increase. 10 In 2003, Canada had a violent crime rate more than double that of the U.S. (963 vs. 475 per 100,000). 11

Fact: One study of Canadian firearm law and homicide rates spanning 34 years “failed to demonstrate a beneficial association between legislation and firearm homicide rates” for three major gun control bills. 12

Fact: Many of the countries with the strictest gun control have the highest rates of violent crime. Australia and England, which have virtually banned gun ownership, have the highest rates of robbery, sexual assault, and assault with force of the top 17 industrialized countries. 13

Fact: The crime rate is 66% higher in four Canadian Prairie Provinces than in the northern US states across the border. 14

Check out this so-called expert...

Hard to believe these people are being paid to spew this kind of garbage as fact.

here's a different pretty lady they have on sometimes who knows what she's talking about.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

This is sort of a bunk argument, because it basically amounts to 'because gun owners haven't risen up en masse, they should give up more rights.

It flatly is a defense against tyranny, in potentiality, and the fact is that this is not some zero sum game. The point is that it is a check, and if they did push too far, or broke down, it would all roll back, and part of that is precisely because folks have guns.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. The particular observation I was making was that many gun owners are only concerned with gun ownership. Indeed, it seems many of the gun owners who concern themselves with tyranny on other fronts are exactly the sort of lunatics who have no business owning a gun.

Decades of pondering this subject have led me to the conclusion that the anti-gun and the pro-gun positions are deeply flawed, both beset with the same reliance on skewed statistics and hot-air fluff that you trucked in here behind you on your little wagon.

Let's work another ancedote in. This took place shortly before Bill Clinton outlawed all firearms. A co-worker and myself were discussing our separate plans to deal with the impending confiscation of our guns. I pictured myself patrolling the forest in a combat crouch; you can imagine my dismay when he confided that he planned to oil his guns, seal them up in pvc, and bury them in his backyard. Not sure whose idea was sillier.

Except that, even if we include pretty much all the militarized law enforcement, you're still not breaking 2 or 3 million troops in the US, and not all of those are combat troops. And even if we assume every one of those people would go along with the state, that still leaves a problem: there are more guns in the US than there are people, and 1 in 3 people have a gun. Meaning that 1% of the US population would have enough arms AND outnumber the entire armed state apparatus. Any every action the state took to suppress any group would only turn more folks into insurgents.

The state not merely cannot stop an armed insurgency, it literally will inevitable fall to one if it came to that.

The ultimate force in any armed engagement is boots on the ground. You need POLICE to enforce a POLICE STATE. Tanks are of minimal use, and are logistical nightmares, jets even more so. All of these also suffer from the fact that any conflict on our soil would instantly put the very infrastructure necessary to keep this high-tech force going in danger. To say nothing of the fact that drone operators, fighter pilots, and so on? They need to sleep, they need to be on the ground, just as much as the equipment they use does.

Looniest thing I have ever read in my life. Someone points out that you are vastly outgunned, and that is your response?

This 1% that will outnumber the USA military/police lacks two crucial things. Intel and organization.

And "They need to sleep"??? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA. If they determine that you are a threat worthy of elimination, I am sure they won't mind staying up past their bedtime.

You seem like the sort of person that really loves the taste of boots, seeing as you lick the state's so much.

I am the state.

 

[Ms_Diane]

Ok, first off, that's because gun ownership is a human right. There seems to be this response to just note that folks 'believe it is,' and never address the arguments of why folks believe it is.

Incidentally, Canada's safety has not as much to do with the lack of guns, and blaming the guns is illogical. And further, again citing these 'not the only country where this is the case' misses the point that countries with strict gun control can be more violent than those without it, because the presence of guns is not at all a factor in violence, and narrowing it to 'gun violence' is, at best, silly and at worst intentionally misleading.

Furthermore, this constantly claim that it is somehow these 'pro gun lobbyists lining the pockets of politicians' is, frankly, pure ignorance. The supposed gun lobby isn't even in the top 100 of political spenders, and anti-gun groups are MASSIVELY more funded, and spend significantly more than groups like the NRA does. Further, our country IS safe. The US has less violent crime than the UK and many other countries, and the vast majority of our violent crime is, as I've said before, linked to the War on Drugs and all that goes along with that failed state program. As usual, whenever the state seems to want to declare war on something, they have the exact opposite effect of their supposed intentions. It's almost as if the state doesn't actually want to end the problem at all, like they are just using it to grow state power or something...

You say that gun ownership is a human right, but you do not explain why. I see it as a privilege.

But, my point is not so much whether or not it is a human right. I just thought it is interesting to compare the differences in these two places because in Canada guns are not such a hotly debated issue as in the States, and I am curious about why that may be.

So I wonder about how we have gun control laws that are generally accepted as good laws and how we do not have people fighting for their right to own a gun. I think there is a difference in the culture here and the States. For us, it is not important in our culture to have to defend ourselves because we feel safe and if we don't feel safe, we do not think that owning a gun will make us safer. While in the States there are so many people who are so passionate about having their rights taken away if there were to be stricter laws and I thought this might be about wanting to feel safe, but you say the States IS SAFE. I kind of understand the passion if it is about safety, but I don't get really understand it if safety is not the issue. But then, I also don't feel like I'm having my human rights violated by living in a country that has strict gun control laws.

As far as pro and anti gun lobbyists go, it is my impression that this is a real thing that has a big impact politically. It makes me ask, why then are not the anti-gun lobbyists making more changes happen around this issue if they are spending more money? Wouldn't that make them more powerful than the pro-side? Isn't it possible or even likely that in the top 100 of political spenders, there would be people who have interests in keeping fire-arms accessible and easy to purchase and preventing stricter gun control laws? I have to ask these questions because it seems logical, but to be honest, I am not sure this is an argument I feel the need to debate. I get it if you think this not happening, then ok I am not going to try and change your mind. This is just why I think what I think.

Yeah, except for all those arms sales to Saudi Arabia and all those other countries that literally murder LGBT people as state policy. Pretending Justin Trudeau is anything but more of the same is exceptionally misguided.

I am not pretending anything about Justin Trudeau. I did not saying anything about his policies - many of which I take issue with. Hell, I didn't even vote for the guy. The Saudi arms trades is a major issue here, which is why I did say Canada has some major issues too. But he is a welcome change from the Harper govt and that is a common sentiment in these parts. When have you seen the leader of a country frolicking in a pink shirt down the road in a Pride parade? I see it as a much needed moment of optimism.

 

[Ms_Diane]

Here's some interesting information pulled from this site
Fact: In Canada around 1920, before there was any form of gun control, their homicide rate was 7% of the U.S rate. By 1986, and after significant gun control legislation, Canada’s homicide rate was 35% of the U.S. rate – a significant increase. 10 In 2003, Canada had a violent crime rate more than double that of the U.S. (963 vs. 475 per 100,000). 11

Fact: One study of Canadian firearm law and homicide rates spanning 34 years “failed to demonstrate a beneficial association between legislation and firearm homicide rates” for three major gun control bills. 12

Fact: Many of the countries with the strictest gun control have the highest rates of violent crime. Australia and England, which have virtually banned gun ownership, have the highest rates of robbery, sexual assault, and assault with force of the top 17 industrialized countries. 13

Fact: The crime rate is 66% higher in four Canadian Prairie Provinces than in the northern US states across the border. 14

Decades of pondering this subject have led me to the conclusion that the anti-gun and the pro-gun positions are deeply flawed, both beset with the same reliance on skewed statistics and hot-air fluff that you trucked in here behind you on your little wagon.

Most of these facts above do not differentiate "violent crime" from gun-related crimes. That seems problematic. In any case, it is true there are so many statistics out there that contradict each other. Data is often flawed or difficult to compare and it is easy to skew stats to fit one argument over the other. And so I have looked at stats and read articles that quote studies that do seem to support that Americans are much more likely to be the victims of gun violence than in many other countries.

This research study, for example, published by the American Journal of Medicine (pretty strong source!) compared "high-income countries" and found that gun-related death was 10 times higher in the States. That is staggering! I recommend this article if you are interested in comparing facts from different sources. Still, I'm sure there are other studies that will be used to refute these findings.

As for Fox, I just can't. Sorry I know that's not very productive.

 

[LuckySmiles]

As for Fox, I just can't. Sorry I know that's not very productive.

lol. I don't have a gun passion, just a journalism background. I'm not a "fox news watcher" or television news watcher very much in general. This interview was to show a different one to Bocefish than he posted, but covers a lot of what is being discussed in this thread.

Dana Loesch for example, is a former democrat/super feminist, who changed her political views towards conservative. She has an extensive background in gun research, and her past perspectives makes her very good at arguing points.

 

[Behemoth]

Perhaps I wasn't clear. The particular observation I was making was that many gun owners are only concerned with gun ownership. Indeed, it seems many of the gun owners who concern themselves with tyranny on other fronts are exactly the sort of lunatics who have no business owning a gun.

Decades of pondering this subject have led me to the conclusion that the anti-gun and the pro-gun positions are deeply flawed, both beset with the same reliance on skewed statistics and hot-air fluff that you trucked in here behind you on your little wagon.

Let's work another ancedote in. This took place shortly before Bill Clinton outlawed all firearms. A co-worker and myself were discussing our separate plans to deal with the impending confiscation of our guns. I pictured myself patrolling the forest in a combat crouch; you can imagine my dismay when he confided that he planned to oil his guns, seal them up in pvc, and bury them in his backyard. Not sure whose idea was sillier.

Looniest thing I have ever read in my life. Someone points out that you are vastly outgunned, and that is your response?

This 1% that will outnumber the USA military/police lacks two crucial things. Intel and organization.

And "They need to sleep"??? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA. If they determine that you are a threat worthy of elimination, I am sure they won't mind staying up past their bedtime.

I am the state.

Well that would explain why you're toxic to human freedom.

The point is that they don't have us outgunned, you silly goose. And you seem not to understand insurgencies. At all.

You seem to throw around a lot of smug superiority, but not much substance.

You say that gun ownership is a human right, but you do not explain why. I see it as a privilege.

Well, you should look earlier in the thread. But, for the sake of it: because both property and self defense are human rights. You cannot make an argument that dictates ownership of arms is a privilege that won't fundimentally deny those rights. IE: you either have a right to property and to self defense, that cannot be infringed, or you don't.

The point, too, is that folks arguing it is a right don't have the burden of proof. That lies on folks saying its not a right, yet that argument is rarely, if ever, made.

But, my point is not so much whether or not it is a human right. I just thought it is interesting to compare the differences in these two places because in Canada guns are not such a hotly debated issue as in the States, and I am curious about why that may be.

So I wonder about how we have gun control laws that are generally accepted as good laws and how we do not have people fighting for their right to own a gun. I think there is a difference in the culture here and the States. For us, it is not important in our culture to have to defend ourselves because we feel safe and if we don't feel safe, we do not think that owning a gun will make us safer. While in the States there are so many people who are so passionate about having their rights taken away if there were to be stricter laws and I thought this might be about wanting to feel safe, but you say the States IS SAFE. I kind of understand the passion if it is about safety, but I don't get really understand it if safety is not the issue. But then, I also don't feel like I'm having my human rights violated by living in a country that has strict gun control laws.

A man born in a cave may not feel deprived because they don't have light, and indeed are likely to fight it and fear it because it stings their unused eyes.

You 'feel safe,' yet the fact is for most Americans, they are no more likely to face violent crime than a Candian. Feelings are not facts, after all.

Arguably, its because the US has a fundimental difference from most other countries in being a philosophically designed nation, and though that has eroded over time, some core concepts remain.

As far as pro and anti gun lobbyists go, it is my impression that this is a real thing that has a big impact politically. It makes me ask, why then are not the anti-gun lobbyists making more changes happen around this issue if they are spending more money? Wouldn't that make them more powerful than the pro-side? Isn't it possible or even likely that in the top 100 of political spenders, there would be people who have interests in keeping fire-arms accessible and easy to purchase and preventing stricter gun control laws? I have to ask these questions because it seems logical, but to be honest, I am not sure this is an argument I feel the need to debate. I get it if you think this not happening, then ok I am not going to try and change your mind. This is just why I think what I think.

Because money isn't everything, basically. The rich elites want gun control, the people don't.

The entire argument that its some dastardly plot to prevent gun control seems to make no sense, because its not like they can manufacture demand. They have to sell to someone. The people are buying guns, much to the chagrin of the few rich folks bankrolling anti-gun lobbying.

I am not pretending anything about Justin Trudeau. I did not saying anything about his policies - many of which I take issue with. Hell, I didn't even vote for the guy. The Saudi arms trades is a major issue here, which is why I did say Canada has some major issues too. But he is a welcome change from the Harper govt and that is a common sentiment in these parts. When have you seen the leader of a country frolicking in a pink shirt down the road in a Pride parade? I see it as a much needed moment of optimism.

I think its just a distraction. Its not really optimistic, because his actions show he's either an idiot who doesn't understand his double standard or he's intentionally using the Pride parade stuff to distract from his other policies.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

The point is that they don't have us outgunned, you silly goose. And you seem not to understand insurgencies. At all.

Yes, the military/police does have you outgunned (by an undeniably large margin). And if they begin to suspect otherwise, they will probably pay you an unannounced visit. Hehe.

The state not merely cannot stop an armed insurgency, it literally will inevitable fall to one if it came to that.

Lets go back to this less than brilliant remark.

1. Are you aware that it is not unheard of for insurgencies to fail?
2. Are you aware that the US govt. has spent a little time studying up on how to make them fail?

So then, how did this "the state would inevitably fall" creep in to your broad and sweeping understanding of the topic?

god you are great

 

[JoleneBrody]

Most of these facts above do not differentiate "violent crime" from gun-related crimes. That seems problematic. In any case, it is true there are so many statistics out there that contradict each other. Data is often flawed or difficult to compare and it is easy to skew stats to fit one argument over the other. And so I have looked at stats and read articles that quote studies that do seem to support that Americans are much more likely to be the victims of gun violence than in many other countries.

This research study, for example, published by the American Journal of Medicine (pretty strong source!) compared "high-income countries" and found that gun-related death was 10 times higher in the States. That is staggering! I recommend this article if you are interested in comparing facts from different sources. Still, I'm sure there are other studies that will be used to refute these findings.

As for Fox, I just can't. Sorry I know that's not very productive.

The U.K. Considers a much wider range of actions to be covered under the violent crimes blanket than the US, so it's hard to compare unless you get into the individual crimes and then do a side by side. Many things not considered violet crimes in the US are in the UK... So I'm sure most can understand what the problem with this comparison is.

I'll take a black eye over being dead anyway tho, and the U.S does have a higher intentional homicide rate than the UK by far, the majority of which are in fact conducted using a firearm.

So maybe the uk is more violent? They still have MUCH fewer dead people are a result of that violence than us.

 

[Bocefish]

Without first-hand knowledge, I suspect Canada and the UK have far better records treating the mentally ill. The vast majority of mass shootings in the states were done by the mentally ill or brainwashed terrorists. HRC can't wait to reinstate the AWB if elected, despite facts proving the previous one failed miserably. Gun sales will no doubt soar once again if she somehow wins the election. Oh ya, and her solution to fight terrorism is to implement an intelligence surge. WTF!? She's the one that needs an intelligence surge!

ETA: I'd absolutely love to see HRC debate Dana Loesch. If Trump is smart, he'll bone up on the facts and slay HRC when it comes to the gun control topic.

 

[Behemoth]

Yes, the military/police does have you outgunned (by an undeniably large margin). And if they begin to suspect otherwise, they will probably pay you an unannounced visit. Hehe.
Lets go back to this less than brilliant remark.

1. Are you aware that it is not unheard of for insurgencies to fail?
2. Are you aware that the US govt. has spent a little time studying up on how to make them fail?

So then, how did this "the state would inevitably fall" creep in to your broad and sweeping understanding of the topic?

god you are great

You apparently will continue to posture, pretend you've made a point when giving no examples, and general bring down the level of discourse you're involved in. You are not nearly as clever as you think you are. You dodge points you don't want to deal with, seemingly have next to no basis for your argument in terms of principles or the like.

An insurgency in the US could not fail without doubling down on policies that would have created one in the first place, and wrecking the infrastructure in the process OR by resolving the thing that caused it in the first place.

The U.K. Considers a much wider range of actions to be covered under the violent crimes blanket than the US, so it's hard to compare unless you get into the individual crimes and then do a side by side. Many things not considered violet crimes in the US are in the UK... So I'm sure most can understand what the problem with this comparison is.

I'll take a black eye over being dead anyway tho, and the U.S does have a higher intentional homicide rate than the UK by far, the majority of which are in fact conducted using a firearm.

So maybe the uk is more violent? They still have MUCH fewer dead people are a result of that violence than us.

True, but they also don't have the gang violence linked, itself linked to the War on Drugs, from which the majority of violence stems.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

Without first-hand knowledge, I suspect Canada and the UK have far better records treating the mentally ill. The vast majority of mass shootings in the states were done by the mentally ill or brainwashed terrorists. HRC can't wait to reinstate the AWB if elected, despite facts proving the previous one failed miserably. Gun sales will no doubt soar once again if she somehow wins the election. Oh ya, and her solution to fight terrorism is to implement an intelligence surge. WTF!? She's the one that needs an intelligence surge!

Mass shootings, though they get the most attention, are but a small sliver of the overall gun violence problem.

That said, NO mass shootings were conducted by the mentally ill. Did you mean conducted by mentally ill people who had guns?

The vast majority of the mentally ill are not violent. 100% of gun crimes are committed with guns.

You apparently will continue to posture, pretend you've made a point when giving no examples, and general bring down the level of discourse you're involved in. You are not nearly as clever as you think you are. You dodge points you don't want to deal with, seemingly have next to no basis for your argument in terms of principles or the like.

An insurgency in the US could not fail without doubling down on policies that would have created one in the first place, and wrecking the infrastructure in the process OR by resolving the thing that caused it in the first place.

My point was that your remark about an insurgency most certainly causing the state to fall was almost as absurd as your ridiculous statistics-backed notion that the US military/police are not better armed than the gun-totin' Murican public. Hilarious concepts.

An insurgency in the US could fail; or, it could succeed. I cannot say definitively which, since I lack the crystal ball you are peering into (or perhaps smoking out of).

 

[Bocefish]

NO mass shootings were conducted by the mentally ill. Did you mean conducted by mentally ill people who had guns?

No, they just pointed their fingers and said bang.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

No, they just pointed their fingers and said bang.

I hear you. The whole mental illness thing is barking up the wrong tree, and let me tell you why I think that.

• Only furthers stigmatization of mental illness.
• Does absolutely nothing about the much higher percentage of gun crimes by non mentally ill.
• Many times mental illness goes undiagnosed until the first major episode, sometimes not even then.

I'm all about compromise though. What if every person who wishes to possess a gun in the US is first forced to endure a battery of psychological tests?

 

[Behemoth]

My point was that your remark about an insurgency most certainly causing the state to fall was almost as absurd as your ridiculous statistics-backed notion that the US military/police are not better armed than the gun-totin' Murican public. Hilarious concepts.

An insurgency in the US could fail; or, it could succeed. I cannot say definitively which, since I lack the crystal ball you are peering into (or perhaps smoking out of).

Allow me to reiterate then, and clarify: an insurgency of any note in the US will succeed essentially without a doubt, because actually, yes, the population is largely armed comparably to the police and substantively the armed forces in the ways that matter for fighting an insurgency.

Tell me, what does the govermment so have that so outguns them in that regard?

I hear you. The whole mental illness thing is barking up the wrong tree, and let me tell you why I think that.

• Only furthers stigmatization of mental illness.
• Does absolutely nothing about the much higher percentage of gun crimes by non mentally ill.
• Many times mental illness goes undiagnosed until the first major episode, sometimes not even then.

I'm all about compromise though. What if every person who wishes to possess a gun in the US is first forced to endure a battery of psychological tests?

Funny thing is, I agree with you for once... until you get to giving the state yet more power to control people.

 

[Bocefish]

The whole mental illness thing is barking up the wrong tree, and let me tell you why I think that.

• Only furthers stigmatization of mental illness.
• Does absolutely nothing about the much higher percentage of gun crimes by non mentally ill.
• Many times mental illness goes undiagnosed until the first major episode, sometimes not even then.

I'm all about compromise though. What if every person who wishes to possess a gun in the US is first forced to endure a battery of psychological tests?

The mental illness/mass shootings correlation is well documented.

Instead of blaming shootings on inanimate objects and the NRA, a desperately needed improvement in the mental health care system would greatly benefit everyone.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

Allow me to reiterate then, and clarify: an insurgency of any note in the US will succeed essentially without a doubt, because actually, yes, the population is largely armed comparably to the police and substantively the armed forces in the ways that matter for fighting an insurgency.

Tell me, what does the govermment so have that so outguns them in that regard?

Intel. Organization. Training. Air support. Bigger calibers lol.

I also find it a little farfetched to believe that the entire armed populace would be of one mind about the matter, and work towards the same strategic goals. Sure, it's possible. Far from inevitable, which is how you described the scenario.

Funny thing is, I agree with you for once... until you get to giving the state yet more power to control people.

Well if mental illness is the problem (as many on the gun side seem to believe), screening potential gun owners for it only makes sense. We don't give people drivers licenses without checking their eyes, do we?

The mental illness/mass shootings correlation is well documented.

Instead of blaming shootings on inanimate objects and the NRA, a desperately needed improvement in the mental health care system would greatly benefit everyone.

And again, mass shootings are a very small part of the problem. And they are not 100% carried out by mentally ill people.

I agree that the mental health care system is a wreck. Yes it needs serious improvement. But the NRA's only interest in the mentally ill is to use them as a scapegoat. They want "mental illness" to be the problem, not "possession of a gun".

 

[Bocefish]

Well if mental illness is the problem (as many on the gun side seem to believe), screening potential gun owners for it only makes sense. We don't give people drivers licenses without checking their eyes, do we?
And again, mass shootings are a very small part of the problem. And they are not 100% carried out by mentally ill people.

I agree that the mental health care system is a wreck. Yes it needs serious improvement. But the NRA's only interest in the mentally ill is to use them as a scapegoat. They want "mental illness" to be the problem, not "possession of a gun".

I can tell you're somewhat passionate about this issue and a half ass troll to boot. Emotions and what you "think" are irrelevant when compared to the facts. Whatever your beef is with the NRA, I view them as a somewhat necessary evil to fight for our rights, and I sure as hell don't need them or anyone else to form my own viewpoint on a subject.

As far as the non-mass shootings go, look up what some of the sentences are for gun related crimes in Chicago... you might be amazed.

"Possession of a gun" may be a problem in your world, but for many millions it is not.

 

[Behemoth]

Intel. Organization. Training. Air support. Bigger calibers lol.

You're right. An insurgency won't have intel in their own cities and neighborhoods. They won't know the place they live in at all.

Organizations are totally the key to cell-based insurgencies, yep. Totally. And organization is REALLY HARD.

Training. Maybe the only thing, and even thats a bit iffy. Most folks I know who shoot do more than even the military.

Air support. What, you're expecting them to bomb American cities? You really miss the point of this... or what fuels insurgencies.

Bigger calibers? Not really.

And the key here is none of these things are what matters. Most don't even count for 'outgunned.'

I also find it a little farfetched to believe that the entire armed populace would be of one mind about the matter, and work towards the same strategic goals. Sure, it's possible. Far from inevitable, which is how you described the scenario.

They don't have to. Broad ideological directions matter.

Well if mental illness is the problem (as many on the gun side seem to believe), screening potential gun owners for it only makes sense. We don't give people drivers licenses without checking their eyes, do we?

And again, mass shootings are a very small part of the problem. And they are not 100% carried out by mentally ill people.

I agree that the mental health care system is a wreck. Yes it needs serious improvement. But the NRA's only interest in the mentally ill is to use them as a scapegoat. They want "mental illness" to be the problem, not "possession of a gun".

First, poor comparison. Because a drivers license is not needed to buy a car. Thats like a Concealed Carry license.

Second, you're right generally.

Third, while I agree there is a shift, "possession of a gun" isn't the problem either.

 

[LuckySmiles]

Yes there are lots of studies. But the one's used in favor of American gun control are often intentionally misleading, and blindly repeated until accepted as truth.

And so I have looked at stats and read articles that quote studies that do seem to support that Americans are much more likely to be the victims of gun violence than in many other countries.

This is maybe only true in inner cities, as 80% of gun homicides in America are drug related gang violence(also illegal guns). There's a much greater relation between poverty and your chance of dying by a gun, than to the percentage of legal gun ownership in your state.

The only legislation that would seem to impact the rate of gun deaths, and make any rational sense in America is legalization of narcotics across the board. Or maybe effectively dealing with the economy.

While mass shootings make headlines more often, crime has been steadily declining in America overall since the early 2000's despite ever increasing gun sales.

An overwhelming percentage of police officers advocate unrestricted concealed carry for law abiding citizens as it's been repeatedly shown to help prevent more problems than cause. (weird they'd be in favor of that since the news is trying to convince you how much they intentionally want to kill everybody lately)
If the average response time is 20 minutes when you call 911, it doesn't hurt to be self reliant.

Most of the gun control debate makes no sense when fully broken down, and forces you to question alternative agendas by those intentionally misrepresenting the information. Maybe they're the same ones profiting off of illegal drugs, gun violence, and prisons in the first place?
Personally I think it's a combination of reasons that have nothing to do with mass shootings. Mass shootings are just being manipulated as a catalyst, the same way government always tends to push restrictive laws when people are emotional over national tragedy.

 

[Behemoth]

Most of the gun control debate makes no sense when fully broken down, and forces you to question alternative agendas by those intentionally misrepresenting the information. Maybe they're the same ones profiting off of illegal drugs, gun violence, and prisons in the first place?

Personally I think it's a combination of reasons that have nothing to do with mass shootings. Mass shootings are just being manipulated as a catalyst, the same way government always tends to push restrictive laws when people are emotional over national tragedy.

To add onto this, consider the following: who is the primary beneficiary of expanded state power, because gun control is more than just 'you can't own guns,' it inherently comes with a lot of other trappings that expand the power of the government, and keep in mind no government program stays either limited or small. Growth is simply a reality of the state. Any power given to the government will eventually be repurposed and abused because if power doesn't corrupt those who already aren't, it attracts those who are already corrupt.

Secondly, consider that the government is terrible at solving problems. The War on Drugs has led to MORE DRUG USE. The War on Poverty has lead to greater wealth inequalities. The War on Terrorism has created manyfold more terrorists and eroded far more freedoms than those the terrorists supposedly hated. This is because the government, by its nature, is both ineffective and inefficient and solving issues because it lacks effective ways to measure value and breeds corruption.

Further still, the simple fact is that the last people who want to solve problems is the government, because if you solve a problem, suddenly not merely do you lack power in an abstract or even real sense, you often are eliminating "jobs." Legalizing drugs means suddenly, the DEA has no reason to be it's size, if exist at all. In a broader sense, the interests of the population and those of government officials are, by their nature, at odds, because it is in the interest of the population to have the smallest, most efficient state (which I happen to think is no state at all, but that's for another time,) while the officials, if pursuing this course, would at the very least limit their power and resources, and at worst put themselves out of a job.

And when you think of it that way, it makes perfect sense for the government to constantly get it "wrong," because it is in the government's best interests to do so, or at least certain sorts of people in the government.

 

[fandango]

Most of the gun control debate makes no sense when fully broken down, and forces you to question alternative agendas by those intentionally misrepresenting the information. Maybe they're the same ones profiting off of illegal drugs, gun violence, and prisons in the first place?

On the other hand it could be that the ones pushing for more guns are backed by the gun maufacturers with the same $$ grabbing agenda and profiting every time theres a mass shooting or someone threatens more gun control and gun sales surge. Maybe they are also guilty of misrepresenting information?

I just read an interesting article about something called cognitive dissonance which made me think of this thread, (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-36744911) the summary is basically that when confronted with evidence that disputes your strongly held beliefs you end up further entrenching your own viewpoint and almost ignoring it. The spoiler has the relevant part of the article.

Spoiler: Cognitive Dissonance

We like to think that we apportion our beliefs to the evidence. After all, isn't this the hallmark of rationality? When information comes along which reveals we should change our minds, we do.

Or do we?

Consider an experiment, where two groups were recruited. One group was adamantly in favour of capital punishment. They had strong feelings on the issue, and had publicly backed the policy. The other group were adamantly against, horrified by "state-sanctioned murder".

These groups were then shown two dossiers. Each of these dossiers were impressive. They marshalled well-researched evidence. But here's the thing. The first dossier collated all the evidence in favour of capital punishment. The second collated all the evidence against.

Now you might suppose that, confronted by this contradictory evidence, the two groups would have concluded that capital punishment is a complex subject with arguments on both sides. You might have expected them to have moved a little closer in their views. In fact, the opposite happened - they became more polarised.

When asked about their attitudes afterwards, those in favour of capital punishment said they were impressed with the dossier citing evidence in line with their views. The data was rigorous, they said. It was extensive. It was robust. As for the other dossier - well, it was full of holes, shoddy, weak points everywhere.

The opposite conclusions were drawn by those against capital punishment. It was not just that they disagreed with the conclusions. They also found the (neutral) statistics unimpressive. From reading precisely the same material, they became even more entrenched in their positions.

What this (and dozens of other experiments) reveal is the way we filter new information when it challenges our strongly-held beliefs or judgements. We use a series of post hoc manoeuvres to reframe anything inconvenient to our original position. We question the probity of the evidence, or the credentials of the people who discovered it, or their motives, or whatever. The more information that emerges to challenge our perspective, the more creatively we search for new justifications, and the more entrenched we become in our prior view.

This tendency is called "cognitive dissonance".

I think if eveyone in this thread is honest with themselves they'll be able to admit, whichever side of the debate you happen to sit on, that we have all been doing this and ultimately gaining nothing from the process.

 

[Behemoth]

Technically, cognitive dissonance is actually the mental stress when you have two conflicting sets of views or information. The RESULT of cognitive dissonance is that folks tend to become more entrenched, technically. It's a concept I'm well familiar with, as it was a cornerstone of something my Dad taught for years as a part of his job, and I got to sit there many of his classes and read his materials. Fascinating stuff.

However, no, the flat truth is: no, I don't think we CAN all agree that. This sort of reminds me of argument to moderation informal fallacy, as if somehow the middle ground where EVERYONE is just twisting things is wrong. It only works if folks are being presented with contradictory data to their expectations.

On the other hand it could be that the ones pushing for more guns are backed by the gun maufacturers with the same $$ grabbing agenda and profiting every time theres a mass shooting or someone threatens more gun control and gun sales surge. Maybe they are also guilty of misrepresenting information?

This would only work if you could draw correlation between gun ownership and mass shootings, which you can't. You can't even show correlation between gun ownership and gun crime. Further harming this concept is the fact that gun manufacturers don't spend nearly that much, they don't rank in the top numbers of lobbying groups, and the numbers don't come from them, the information comes from official government statistics. In short, it doesn't add up.

I agree, there is cognitive dissonance going on, not in some sort of golden mean fallacy sort of way.

 

[Osmia]

@Behemoth , I agree with much of what you've argued, especially regarding ideological misanthropy. However, you seem to overstate the degree to which small arms and armed insurgencies can keep state power in check, or push back against overreach. The state doesn't need to respond in physical kind (attempting a counterinsurgency, deploying heavy arms, aircraft, bombs, missiles, etc.). That would necessarily lead to destruction of innocent ("non-combatant") lives and property, which would further inflame the insurgency. The best outcome of this strategy would be an uneasy stalemate; the worst would be a prolonged war of attrition.

What the state could do (if it came to this) is freeze your credit, bank accounts, revoke your passport and driver's license, invalidate your birth certificate, take away your social security and other benefits, and track your activities with electronic and physical surveillance (e.g., drones)--in short, make you a non-person in the civilized world. You (or others with similar proclivities) might be prepared for this, or respond to it, by living off the grid. But that further weakens your ability to fight the state in any organized effective fashion.

I'm probably inviting ridicule by invoking a TV show, but the example of Samaritan in "Person of Interest" isn't all that far fetched. It's just a matter of time before it's feasible.

Of all the arguments supporting the right of ordinary citizens to own guns (many of which I agree with), the defense of political liberty seems the weakest. The power of the modern state can be controlled only through political means. If you reject politics because it's seen as rigged/compromised/ineffectual, then the war is already lost.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

"Possession of a gun" may be a problem in your world, but for many millions it is not.

Gun crimes are a problem in society, and unless you are way off the grid somewhere, I assume it's a world you and I share.

I don't care about Chicago sentencing records, or how comfortable you are with the evils of the NRA. This is a fact, and this is a problem: gun crimes are committed by people in possession of guns. All else is secondary.

Send all the mentally ill to institutions, and society will still have a gun crime problem. If you want to stigmatize don't settle for a slice of the pie as small as the mentally ill. Think big.

You're right. An insurgency won't have intel in their own cities and neighborhoods. They won't know the place they live in at all.

Organizations are totally the key to cell-based insurgencies, yep. Totally. And organization is REALLY HARD.

Training. Maybe the only thing, and even thats a bit iffy. Most folks I know who shoot do more than even the military.

Air support. What, you're expecting them to bomb American cities? You really miss the point of this... or what fuels insurgencies.

Bigger calibers? Not really.

And the key here is none of these things are what matters. Most don't even count for 'outgunned.'

Convenient that you get to decide what counts as "outgunned", based on nothing more than your certainty of how an insurgency would play out. Allows you to completely rule out being targeted from the air, the superior firepower the Mil/Police has access to, their advanced intelligence capabilities, etc., and also allows you to count every .22 repeater that somebody's Paw-paw left 'em when he died towards the "defense against tyranny" justification of gun vending machines.

This is the truth of the matter. An real insurgency would be a bloody, ugly mess. It would drag on and on and on. The outcome would depend on a number of factors, and it is not something you can ascertain by calculating the number of guns in America. Your simplistic assessment is garbage.

Organization totally is the key.

First, poor comparison. Because a drivers license is not needed to buy a car. Thats like a Concealed Carry license.

What I am saying is this: much like you are required to be licensed and registered before you are legally allowed to drive, I believe you should be be required to be licensed and registered before you possess a gun in any part of society, including on your own private property.

The statement I was responding to there was regarding mental illness. I was saying if mental illness is the problem, let's screen for that before you are licensed to own a gun in America.

This would only work if you could draw correlation between gun ownership and mass shootings, which you can't. You can't even show correlation between gun ownership and gun crime.

Is there a correlation between gun crime and the possession of a gun?

On the other hand it could be that the ones pushing for more guns are backed by the gun maufacturers with the same $$ grabbing agenda and profiting every time theres a mass shooting or someone threatens more gun control and gun sales surge. Maybe they are also guilty of misrepresenting information?

I think if eveyone in this thread is honest with themselves they'll be able to admit, whichever side of the debate you happen to sit on, that we have all been doing this and ultimately gaining nothing from the process.

A voice of reason. Particularly interesting to me, since I sway back and forth on the death penalty.

The only legislation that would seem to impact the rate of gun deaths, and make any rational sense in America is legalization of narcotics across the board.

I have wondered a lot about what America would look like if we legalized and diverted our anti-drug efforts towards removing illegal guns (even though the thought of legalized meth just feels so wrong).

Also pondered a disarmed police force, but that is a completely insane idea at this point.

 

[Ms_Diane]

Yes there are lots of studies. But the one's used in favor of American gun control are often intentionally misleading, and blindly repeated until accepted as truth.

This is maybe only true in inner cities, as 80% of gun homicides in America are drug related gang violence(also illegal guns). There's a much greater relation between poverty and your chance of dying by a gun, than to the percentage of legal gun ownership in your state.

The study I referred to was looking at national averages, so they are comparing differences between countries not cities. Anyway, my point is that stats can be used in misleading ways on either side of the argument. So while it's tempting to get into a debate using stats, I'm not invested enough to dig up data that isn't biased, or if I think it's not biased I'm sure someone else will.

I only joined the conversation because I thought it might be interesting to think about how there is not the same volatile argument about guns in Canada. At first I thought it was because of our gun control laws, but now I think it is because there is a different attitude towards guns. In the States gun control is a very divisive topic while generally Canadians accept and agree with the laws here. Seems like there is a cultural difference, which I think is really interesting.

But I don't get the feeling that this is not where the conversation wants to go. So I'm gonna bow out.

 

[LuckySmiles]

On the other hand it could be that the ones pushing for more guns are backed by the gun maufacturers with the same $$ grabbing agenda and profiting every time theres a mass shooting or someone threatens more gun control and gun sales surge. Maybe they are also guilty of misrepresenting information?


I think if eveyone in this thread is honest with themselves they'll be able to admit, whichever side of the debate you happen to sit on, that we have all been doing this and ultimately gaining nothing from the process.

You're kind of assuming I'm not of aware of this possibility and incapable of objectivity, but I'll bite. I try to approach most news topics objectively without my own opinions. I've been lazier at times and got swept into whatever bs of the moment, because it's a lot of effing work to dig through it all for every single thing. But accuracy and objectivity in reporting is a genuine passion of mine when I'm in the mood. (Or not getting laid that day.)

I can safely say from personal knowledge without the google machine, the NRA and gun manufacturers produce far less money in private American citizen sales to push their politics, than say... drugs.

Gun manufacturers don't need to manipulate mass shootings to increase sales, every time Obama makes a speech after a shooting people run to the store. Unless they're paying off Obama! Plot twist.

In my own research just for personal knowledge, often times, you don't even need to find alternative studies to see pro gun control arguments completely contradict themselves. Just using critical thinking and analysis of their own facts often causes them to fall apart. Most people don't spend the time to pick it apart and accept whatever's presented to them, so it goes unquestioned.

It's a reoccurring theme in many political topics that's forced me to question my own beliefs repeatedly. I have no agenda or stone set beliefs. If anything I'm just a bit of an honesty nerd and rather than seeking out confirmation bias just like to find out what the truth is.

If I wanted to put my own life experiences and bias in there I'd say yes, I'm more afraid of being in certain parts of the violent American cities I know and love at the wrong hour than going to a movie theatre or public event. I don't need the studies to prove it, but they do. They way I see it is if people are as concerned with gun violence as they claim, that should be the priority. The fact that it isn't is enough to prove to me that it's not what it's really about.

 

[Ms_Diane]

But I don't get the feeling that this is not where the conversation wants to go. So I'm gonna bow out.

Oops! Typo with too many negatives.

Meant to say, I get the feeling that this is not where the conversation wants to go.

You know what I mean, right?

 

[LuckySmiles]

The study I referred to was looking at national averages, so they are comparing differences between countries not cities. Anyway, my point is that stats can be used in misleading ways on either side of the argument. So while it's tempting to get into a debate using stats, I'm not invested enough to dig up data that isn't biased, or if I think it's not biased I'm sure someone else will.

My point was just that the gun violence is concentrated in gang violence of major cities and that is what is factoring into american averages. It's easier in America to compare state to state the rate of gun ownership and gun violence because it differs, and when you do that, it's more clear that legal gun ownership is less relevant.

Your perception that the average American is more likely to be shot,is really only true for impoverished americans in major cities. If that's how you view the average American, than possibly. But since you mentioned the wealthy country thing, I was just trying to show that really has nothing to do with it. Since at it's core it's more of a socio-economic issue, than "gun obsessed Americans."

 

[Ms_Diane]

I didn't mention "the wealthy country thing". High-income countries were compared in the study I mentioned.

As for my "perception that the average American is more likely to be shot", when I read stuff it certainly seems that way. And like I said before, the things I have read will likely be seen as biased by someone else anyway.

I don't doubt that SES and a lot of other complicated factors play into who has guns and why.

I also never said "gun obsessed americans."

I think you are trying to debate with me, and I am not really wanting to debate.