91–100 of 178 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you not start this discussion while the blood is still wet on the ground? What is wrong with you?
To be fair, it wasn't dry from the last shooting (Parkland) yet before it got wet from this one. If you have to wait until it's dry to discuss solutions, at this rate you'd be waiting forever!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Coming from a country where people don't have guns, I don't really see the problem with no guns. They're an awful public health risk. They have basically no advantages. Even for their use in suicide alone, they would be just as reasonable to ban as any commodity you could name - for instance, heroin, or dynamite, or crystal meth.
They absolutely have the advantage of putting a check on government power. The US is a very heterogeneous country (probably much more so than the country you’re referencing). Not all groups have a great relationship with the government and very sensibly feel that giving the government a monopoly on firearms is not in their best interest.
The check on violent government overreach are the moral compasses of individual soldiers, peaceful protests and a free media. If we get past all of these things, no "well regulated Militia" is going to stop the U.S. Army. The best chance would be state national guards. My point here is that fully automatic fire, tanks, artillery and air support make any resistance useless. Perhaps a guerrilla war could be fought, but to someone seeking complete control fighting guerrillas is an annoyance, not an obstacle.
This is mostly because the FDA tightly restricts ownership of 'destructive devices', which are the weapons needed to fight an effective war.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then we need to figure out which numbers are correct. That shouldn't be rocket science. But either way, hysteria still isn't the way forward...it never is. I won't attempt to debate any of the points made in your article, as I'm not authority on the subject myself, but thanks for linking it. However, you might find this article written by a former member of the FiveThirtyEight team interesting: https://www.washington…
Is there some minimal number of school shootings that's acceptable? My position is that we clearly have shown that this country cannot be trusted with personal possession of firearms, so let's all calmly proceed towards no longer having them around.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They absolutely have the advantage of putting a check on government power. The US is a very heterogeneous country (probably much more so than the country you’re referencing). Not all groups have a great relationship with the government and very sensibly feel that giving the government a monopoly on firearms is not in their best interest.
I personally think this part of the second amendment is outdated. The check on violent government overreach are the moral compasses of individual soldiers, peaceful protests and a free media. If we get past all of these things, no "well regulated Militia" is going to stop the U.S. Army. The best chance would be state national guards. My point here is that fully automatic fire, tanks, artillery and air support make an…
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2018/03/3...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Coming from a country where people don't have guns, I don't really see the problem with no guns. They're an awful public health risk. They have basically no advantages. Even for their use in suicide alone, they would be just as reasonable to ban as any commodity you could name - for instance, heroin, or dynamite, or crystal meth.
I also come from a near gun-less country, and think a similar system in America would work. However, there are some arguments in favor of guns that are not trivially ignored. - Simply, guns are fun. Marksmanship is a serious sport of discipline and self-control. - Hunting is also great recreation, is sometimes good for population control, and hunting is another reason for preserving and protecting nature. - Self-defe…
On a purely technical level, I think the problem with the arguments you've mentioned are they don't generally stand on an even footing with the arguments against gun-ownership, except perhaps the one about self defense. Gun violence is a problem that costs lives, tears apart communities, and destroys families. For gun ownership to make sense, it needs to serve a similarly grave purpose. In that vein, only self-defense would fit the bill.
At which point, we break out the statistics - and it turns out that guns are kind of terrible for self defense. I think Americans would be better off just paying more taxes (with the money they would have spent on guns), and spending the money on police or social programs.
That said, many iconic possessions of western society are pretty horrible from a cost-benefit perspective. So I guess guns are just the most egregious.
Folks, the number of shooting crimes (including school shootings) in the United States is going down. I know times like this are the worst times to mention this fact, but it's true [0]. The media frenzy makes this look like some kind of out-of-control epidemic, but that's just not the case. This does not mean we should do nothing about them...any shooting is an event that should not happen. But it's important to real…
Any rationale behind media sensationalize shootings? Just purely for the stun/shock factor? or perhaps borderline propaganda towards certain agenda?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"The media frenzy makes this look like some kind of out-of-control epidemic, but that's just not the case." That's exactly the case. Just because numbers are going down doesn't make it any less of an epidemic. "people are approaching the topic emotionally rather than rationally and proposing extreme reactions" Suggesting people don't own assault rifles is not an "extreme reaction".
First off, the term assault rifle probably isn’t what you think you’re referring to. Second, the reason effective conversations can’t be had on gun control is because of how emotional and out of touch the anti-gun crowd gets. A lot of this is due to activists and the media riling people up. Gun owners are all about safety and personal responsibility, and many do support sensible gun control laws. The problem is, as s…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"The media frenzy makes this look like some kind of out-of-control epidemic, but that's just not the case." That's exactly the case. Just because numbers are going down doesn't make it any less of an epidemic. "people are approaching the topic emotionally rather than rationally and proposing extreme reactions" Suggesting people don't own assault rifles is not an "extreme reaction".
First off, the term assault rifle probably isn’t what you think you’re referring to. Second, the reason effective conversations can’t be had on gun control is because of how emotional and out of touch the anti-gun crowd gets. A lot of this is due to activists and the media riling people up. Gun owners are all about safety and personal responsibility, and many do support sensible gun control laws. The problem is, as s…
If that were universally true, we wouldn't have so many gun deaths in the US. I absolutely believe that some (perhaps even many) gun owners handle their guns safely and responsibly, but the laws ensuring such safety and responsibility are few and far between and lack teeth.
> Nothing can be done unless people start taking a rational, sober approach to these issues. Not with tear-fueled rage.
You're attacking a straw man here. The majority of the pro gun control crowd pushes sensible restrictions and limits on firearm ownership: universal background checks, stricter controls on what can disqualify some people from owning a gun, mandatory training and licensing, restrictions on ammo purchases and magazine size (notice how I'm not even mentioning "assault weapons" here). Sure, there are some (unfortunately loud) people who scream "ban all guns", which isn't productive to the discussion, but those people are in the minority. In the end, we can't even get these sensible regulations in place due to rabid groups like the NRA that spread FUD and whip their constituents into a frenzy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> First off, the term assault rifle probably isn’t what you think you’re referring to. It probably doesn't mean what I think, either, yet we're all still perfectly capable of understanding GP's point. > Second, the reason effective conversations can’t be had on gun control is because of how emotional and out of touch the anti-gun crowd gets. A lot of this is due to activists and the media riling people up. I don't th…
> if so many gun owners really do support sensible gun control laws Would you be willing to outline what you count as sensible gun control laws and what you hope to accomplish with these gun laws?