Author Topic: Guns are Icky  (Read 27571 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 25654
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Guns are Icky
« Reply #105 on: February 28, 2019, 10:14:23 AM »
Quote
The legislation mandates background checks be performed on all gun sales, including firearm purchases made privately, whether it be online or at gun shows. Under current law, only licensed gun dealers are required to conduct a background check for someone seeking to obtain a gun.

There are exceptions.

The background check does not apply to transfers between close relatives. A firearm could also be loaned to someone using it at a shooting range or for the purposes of hunting and trapping, unless there's a reason to suspect the gun will be used in a crime or the person receiving the gun is prohibited from possessing the gun under state or federal law.

A temporary transfer of a gun can also take place in situations where it's "necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm."

Sounds pretty reasonable to me. I don't object. Bosk? VT? GMD?

Don't misunderstand, I have no beef with this generally (even if I find it woefully irrelevant to solve the problem of school and workplace violence in our society) but this attempt to close the gunshow loophole... seems to create as many loopholes as it closes.   Does this stop Sandy Hook?   Parkland?

Drunk driving laws don't stop all instances of drunk driving and deaths related them, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't have them.

Except that many of the gun control measures aren't "good not great" fixes to "reduce harm not eliminate it".  Drunk driving is not a good analogy, because there aren't other drunks thinking "oh, there are less people out there driving drunk, therefore my drunkenness will be more effective".     There are legitimate studies (including one conducted by Harvard) that have shown that in some instances, gun control measures have INCREASED the harm.  In Australia, for example (the best the Harvard study could do is to say that the impact on improved metrics was "inconclusive" at best, and likely attributable to other measures taken in the wake of an initial erosion of metrics following the passing of the ban.)

Look, I've no beef with background checks - assuming they cover the right metrics - as I think there will ultimately be a benefit to society independent of the gun issue.   I also think that creating a database in the event that there is a catastrophe is ultimately a good thing.  But if anyone thinks that school shootings are going to decrease because if this, well, I have a long lost Hendrix album I want to sell you.  No seriously, he gave it to me when I met him in '69. 
That's just it. Plenty of us aren't looking at it from the school shootings side. As much as you hate it, I look at managing who can and cannot buy guns as common fucking sense. This isn't rocket surgery. Taking reasonable steps to try and prevent bad actors from purchasing guns should be pretty obvious. Just because it won't cure all of the nation's ills doesn't make it any less reasonable.

And while I find the "gun control reduces safety" argument specious, it's not really relevant here anyway. This proposal doesn't stop anymore good people from buying guns than the existing laws.

And lastly, if we can't even agree to make everybody submit to a background check, how could we possibly agree to fix the problem of background check failures? What we're seeing aren't instances of good people being denied purchase. We're seeing bad actors being allowed purchase. Another problem ~90% of people agree we need to resolve. Do you really think that shitbags like Steve Scalise want to solve that problem if they don't even want background checks in the first place? Again, my point in posting this wasn't to argue that we need better background checks. We all know that already and nobody seems to disagree. My point was to highlight one particular piece of shit who's proud to obstruct obvious and benign measures to do so.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 25654
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Guns are Icky
« Reply #106 on: February 28, 2019, 10:19:58 AM »
Along with these seemingly common sense laws I firmly believe that there should be a National Conceal Carry license available to obtain to allow 'me' permissions to carry anywhere.... Strict background check(s)....large enough fee to where only the 'serious' people would consider it.....whatever it takes. I don't even care if I had to 'register' or whatever. I just want the ability to carry my weapon into any establishment, amusement park, Sporting event....wherever.
This is where you and I part ways. If a state doesn't want concealed carry then that's their right. The federal government stepping in and insisting to the contrary flies against everything republicans are supposed to stand for, and in this case me too. Just because Alabama will allow a blind ninety year old felon to carry a weapon doesn't mean that New Jersey has to let him.

Also, this is the very reason I started this thread, as seen in the very first post.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline gmillerdrake

  • Proud Father.....Blessed Husband
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 15804
  • Gender: Male
  • 1 Timothy 2:5
Re: Guns are Icky
« Reply #107 on: February 28, 2019, 10:38:39 AM »
Yeah. Just re read those first few pages. Havenít really changed my opinion on what I stated then.....
Without Faith.....Without Hope.....There can be No Peace of Mind

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28089
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Guns are Icky
« Reply #108 on: February 28, 2019, 10:56:29 AM »
That's just it. Plenty of us aren't looking at it from the school shootings side. As much as you hate it, I look at managing who can and cannot buy guns as common fucking sense. This isn't rocket surgery. Taking reasonable steps to try and prevent bad actors from purchasing guns should be pretty obvious. Just because it won't cure all of the nation's ills doesn't make it any less reasonable.

And while I find the "gun control reduces safety" argument specious, it's not really relevant here anyway. This proposal doesn't stop anymore good people from buying guns than the existing laws.

And lastly, if we can't even agree to make everybody submit to a background check, how could we possibly agree to fix the problem of background check failures? What we're seeing aren't instances of good people being denied purchase. We're seeing bad actors being allowed purchase. Another problem ~90% of people agree we need to resolve. Do you really think that shitbags like Steve Scalise want to solve that problem if they don't even want background checks in the first place? Again, my point in posting this wasn't to argue that we need better background checks. We all know that already and nobody seems to disagree. My point was to highlight one particular piece of shit who's proud to obstruct obvious and benign measures to do so.

But that's not the way it's playing out on the ground.  First, with the reminder of what I think about "common sense" (it's a euphemism for "I want this and I can't really articulate a good reason why beyond that I want this"), and second, I regret using "school shootings", and should have used "mass killings" or something more broad.   But with that, what's the point here?   Why limit that access if it's not keeping people alive/safe?   Honest question:  are you assuming that Mr. Las Vegas would have been screened out because of this? If not, who would and what is the gain? 

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 25654
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Guns are Icky
« Reply #109 on: February 28, 2019, 11:11:21 AM »
That's just it. Plenty of us aren't looking at it from the school shootings side. As much as you hate it, I look at managing who can and cannot buy guns as common fucking sense. This isn't rocket surgery. Taking reasonable steps to try and prevent bad actors from purchasing guns should be pretty obvious. Just because it won't cure all of the nation's ills doesn't make it any less reasonable.

And while I find the "gun control reduces safety" argument specious, it's not really relevant here anyway. This proposal doesn't stop anymore good people from buying guns than the existing laws.

And lastly, if we can't even agree to make everybody submit to a background check, how could we possibly agree to fix the problem of background check failures? What we're seeing aren't instances of good people being denied purchase. We're seeing bad actors being allowed purchase. Another problem ~90% of people agree we need to resolve. Do you really think that shitbags like Steve Scalise want to solve that problem if they don't even want background checks in the first place? Again, my point in posting this wasn't to argue that we need better background checks. We all know that already and nobody seems to disagree. My point was to highlight one particular piece of shit who's proud to obstruct obvious and benign measures to do so.

But that's not the way it's playing out on the ground.  First, with the reminder of what I think about "common sense" (it's a euphemism for "I want this and I can't really articulate a good reason why beyond that I want this"), and second, I regret using "school shootings", and should have used "mass killings" or something more broad.   But with that, what's the point here?   Why limit that access if it's not keeping people alive/safe?   Honest question:  are you assuming that Mr. Las Vegas would have been screened out because of this? If not, who would and what is the gain?
I don't get it. Are you actually trying to say there's no reason to prohibit wife beaters, violent felons, and crazy fucks from buying guns? That seems to be the logic of your question. In any case, something that gets overlooked here is that what we're looking for isn't inherently quantifiable. We have no means of calculating how many shootings haven't happened in California because of their overtly fascist gun control laws. It creates an obstacle to a class of bad actors to overcome. That's what actually matters.

As to Vegas Shooter, wasn't he a FFL holder? In any case, no, it most likely wouldn't have stopped him. There's a possibility he gets nicked for something gun related before he goes off, but that's admittedly a crapshoot. However, my stance on people like him has always been shit happens. We're never going to prevent people like him. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to discourage or hinder him in some way.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28089
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Guns are Icky
« Reply #110 on: February 28, 2019, 11:44:08 AM »
That's just it. Plenty of us aren't looking at it from the school shootings side. As much as you hate it, I look at managing who can and cannot buy guns as common fucking sense. This isn't rocket surgery. Taking reasonable steps to try and prevent bad actors from purchasing guns should be pretty obvious. Just because it won't cure all of the nation's ills doesn't make it any less reasonable.

And while I find the "gun control reduces safety" argument specious, it's not really relevant here anyway. This proposal doesn't stop anymore good people from buying guns than the existing laws.

And lastly, if we can't even agree to make everybody submit to a background check, how could we possibly agree to fix the problem of background check failures? What we're seeing aren't instances of good people being denied purchase. We're seeing bad actors being allowed purchase. Another problem ~90% of people agree we need to resolve. Do you really think that shitbags like Steve Scalise want to solve that problem if they don't even want background checks in the first place? Again, my point in posting this wasn't to argue that we need better background checks. We all know that already and nobody seems to disagree. My point was to highlight one particular piece of shit who's proud to obstruct obvious and benign measures to do so.

But that's not the way it's playing out on the ground.  First, with the reminder of what I think about "common sense" (it's a euphemism for "I want this and I can't really articulate a good reason why beyond that I want this"), and second, I regret using "school shootings", and should have used "mass killings" or something more broad.   But with that, what's the point here?   Why limit that access if it's not keeping people alive/safe?   Honest question:  are you assuming that Mr. Las Vegas would have been screened out because of this? If not, who would and what is the gain?
I don't get it. Are you actually trying to say there's no reason to prohibit wife beaters, violent felons, and crazy fucks from buying guns? That seems to be the logic of your question. In any case, something that gets overlooked here is that what we're looking for isn't inherently quantifiable. We have no means of calculating how many shootings haven't happened in California because of their overtly fascist gun control laws. It creates an obstacle to a class of bad actors to overcome. That's what actually matters.

Well, no, that's not what I'm saying, but I don't think the Parkland kids are on the cover of Time Magazine (I'm assuming they were on the cover; I don't read it) for protecting abused spouses.   (And I need not say, because I think you agree with this, that there shouldn't be too many absolute deal breakers; it ought to be a totality of the evidence).   

I don't disagree with you if you're taking the "Secret Service" approach from above; but in this instance, the "slippery slope" argument DOES apply to a degree.  If this law passes and there's a school shooting two weeks later, you know full well the call will be "we didn't do enough!" and the Parkland kids will be back at it. 

Quote
As to Vegas Shooter, wasn't he a FFL holder? In any case, no, it most likely wouldn't have stopped him. There's a possibility he gets nicked for something gun related before he goes off, but that's admittedly a crapshoot. However, my stance on people like him has always been shit happens. We're never going to prevent people like him. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to discourage or hinder him in some way.

Don't disagree.

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 25654
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Guns are Icky
« Reply #111 on: February 28, 2019, 12:20:15 PM »
That's just it. Plenty of us aren't looking at it from the school shootings side. As much as you hate it, I look at managing who can and cannot buy guns as common fucking sense. This isn't rocket surgery. Taking reasonable steps to try and prevent bad actors from purchasing guns should be pretty obvious. Just because it won't cure all of the nation's ills doesn't make it any less reasonable.

And while I find the "gun control reduces safety" argument specious, it's not really relevant here anyway. This proposal doesn't stop anymore good people from buying guns than the existing laws.

And lastly, if we can't even agree to make everybody submit to a background check, how could we possibly agree to fix the problem of background check failures? What we're seeing aren't instances of good people being denied purchase. We're seeing bad actors being allowed purchase. Another problem ~90% of people agree we need to resolve. Do you really think that shitbags like Steve Scalise want to solve that problem if they don't even want background checks in the first place? Again, my point in posting this wasn't to argue that we need better background checks. We all know that already and nobody seems to disagree. My point was to highlight one particular piece of shit who's proud to obstruct obvious and benign measures to do so.

But that's not the way it's playing out on the ground.  First, with the reminder of what I think about "common sense" (it's a euphemism for "I want this and I can't really articulate a good reason why beyond that I want this"), and second, I regret using "school shootings", and should have used "mass killings" or something more broad.   But with that, what's the point here?   Why limit that access if it's not keeping people alive/safe?   Honest question:  are you assuming that Mr. Las Vegas would have been screened out because of this? If not, who would and what is the gain?
I don't get it. Are you actually trying to say there's no reason to prohibit wife beaters, violent felons, and crazy fucks from buying guns? That seems to be the logic of your question. In any case, something that gets overlooked here is that what we're looking for isn't inherently quantifiable. We have no means of calculating how many shootings haven't happened in California because of their overtly fascist gun control laws. It creates an obstacle to a class of bad actors to overcome. That's what actually matters.

Well, no, that's not what I'm saying, but I don't think the Parkland kids are on the cover of Time Magazine (I'm assuming they were on the cover; I don't read it) for protecting abused spouses.   (And I need not say, because I think you agree with this, that there shouldn't be too many absolute deal breakers; it ought to be a totality of the evidence).   

I don't disagree with you if you're taking the "Secret Service" approach from above; but in this instance, the "slippery slope" argument DOES apply to a degree.  If this law passes and there's a school shooting two weeks later, you know full well the call will be "we didn't do enough!" and the Parkland kids will be back at it. 

Quote
As to Vegas Shooter, wasn't he a FFL holder? In any case, no, it most likely wouldn't have stopped him. There's a possibility he gets nicked for something gun related before he goes off, but that's admittedly a crapshoot. However, my stance on people like him has always been shit happens. We're never going to prevent people like him. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to discourage or hinder him in some way.

Don't disagree.
So what? If they do and they foster another proposal then we'll evaluate it on its own merits, just like we should be doing with this proposal. I haven't seen any discussion on merits here. I've seen "it wouldn't have prevented Sandy Hook" and I've seen "because the NRA said so, that's why!" I've seen one guy point out that it'll make criminals out of law abiding gun owners but with no explanation for how or why. If he's got the stones to actually stand behind that statement I'll try and find it. I'm genuinely curious.

And flip the tables around. If this happened and there were another school shooting next week, what would Scalise say? "It was pointless and didn't do what it was supposed to." I would consider that a specious argument, far more so than the Parkland kids', and I certainly wouldn't consider it anything with any bearing whatsoever on this particular law.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28089
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Guns are Icky
« Reply #112 on: February 28, 2019, 03:50:11 PM »
I won't argue with you on Scalise; though you have to give him credit of a sort.  He's LITERALLY taken a bullet for the NRA on this one.  I don't support his inflexibility, but I do admire his not claiming the moral high ground while making his specious arguments. 

I'm more than willing to discuss merits.  On this particular subject, though, it goes nowhere.   I've posted the Harvard article that showed that increased law enforcement and other social programs helped curb crime and (begin to) reduce gun deaths, and it went nowhere.   It's the same sort of argument "well, even if there's a chance it would help, why not do it?"  Well, because it's a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, that's why.  If Trump argued "well, free speech is cool and all, but we could stop all the bickering if we just stopped some people from saying shit. Even if there's a chance, why not do it?"    I've posted the correlation between the large scale mass violence events and the states with the harshest gun laws, and it went nowhere.  "ALL states have to have them the same strength if you want it to work", which is partly true, except, it's not really.   Adam Lanza was not capable of going to the next town to get his guns, let alone to a state halfway across the union.   Stephen what's his name actually brought the guns from a STRICTER jurisdiction into the more LAX jurisdiction.  Florida is, well, Florida, so there's that.

The only statistic consistently shown to actually improve - with a high correlation - to banning or more strictly controlling access to guns is suicide.   For whatever reason, people who get the bright idea to blow their heads off aren't keen on hanging, pills or other means.   If they don't have a gun they tend to not bother. 

EDIT: I wrote this quickly and while dinner is cooking/burning; any short-temperedness or snarkiness is certainly not intended.   

Offline bosk1

  • King of Misdirection
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9640
  • Bow down to Boskaryus
Re: Guns are Icky
« Reply #113 on: February 28, 2019, 04:11:02 PM »
Quote
The legislation mandates background checks be performed on all gun sales, including firearm purchases made privately, whether it be online or at gun shows. Under current law, only licensed gun dealers are required to conduct a background check for someone seeking to obtain a gun.

There are exceptions.

The background check does not apply to transfers between close relatives. A firearm could also be loaned to someone using it at a shooting range or for the purposes of hunting and trapping, unless there's a reason to suspect the gun will be used in a crime or the person receiving the gun is prohibited from possessing the gun under state or federal law.

A temporary transfer of a gun can also take place in situations where it's "necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm."

Sounds pretty reasonable to me. I don't object. Bosk? VT? GMD?

Sorry, didn't check the thread. 

No problem with any of that.  My state still goes farther than any of that, which I think is nonsense.  But I have no problem with those restrictions.  Those seem perfectly reasonable to me.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 25654
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Guns are Icky
« Reply #114 on: February 28, 2019, 04:30:37 PM »
I won't argue with you on Scalise; though you have to give him credit of a sort.  He's LITERALLY taken a bullet for the NRA on this one.  I don't support his inflexibility, but I do admire his not claiming the moral high ground while making his specious arguments. 

I'm more than willing to discuss merits.  On this particular subject, though, it goes nowhere.   I've posted the Harvard article that showed that increased law enforcement and other social programs helped curb crime and (begin to) reduce gun deaths, and it went nowhere.   It's the same sort of argument "well, even if there's a chance it would help, why not do it?"  Well, because it's a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, that's why.  If Trump argued "well, free speech is cool and all, but we could stop all the bickering if we just stopped some people from saying shit. Even if there's a chance, why not do it?"    I've posted the correlation between the large scale mass violence events and the states with the harshest gun laws, and it went nowhere.  "ALL states have to have them the same strength if you want it to work", which is partly true, except, it's not really.   Adam Lanza was not capable of going to the next town to get his guns, let alone to a state halfway across the union.   Stephen what's his name actually brought the guns from a STRICTER jurisdiction into the more LAX jurisdiction.  Florida is, well, Florida, so there's that.

The only statistic consistently shown to actually improve - with a high correlation - to banning or more strictly controlling access to guns is suicide.   For whatever reason, people who get the bright idea to blow their heads off aren't keen on hanging, pills or other means.   If they don't have a gun they tend to not bother. 

EDIT: I wrote this quickly and while dinner is cooking/burning; any short-temperedness or snarkiness is certainly not intended.
The merits discussion I was referring to, or in this case lack thereof, was from our representatives. We can discuss these things. From what I've seen they're forbidden from discussing them.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline XeRocks81

  • Posts: 1020
  • Gender: Male
Re: Guns are Icky
« Reply #115 on: March 16, 2019, 05:19:32 PM »
I guess everybody is so sick of this discussion to even talk about NZ, eh?   Can't say I disagree,  it's just so horrible what else there is there to say really, other than as these events keep happening the focus seems to be shifting more and more around radicalisation (through youtube, social media etc.) than guns themselves.   Progress?

Offline Adami

  • Moderator of awesomeness
  • *
  • Posts: 32125
Re: Guns are Icky
« Reply #116 on: March 16, 2019, 06:20:38 PM »
I guess everybody is so sick of this discussion to even talk about NZ, eh?   Can't say I disagree,  it's just so horrible what else there is there to say really, other than as these events keep happening the focus seems to be shifting more and more around radicalisation (through youtube, social media etc.) than guns themselves.   Progress?

Well Trump recently said he doesn't think White Nationalists are a problem. While a lawmaker in Australia said that, while violence is bad, this is mostly because New Zealand has so many Muslims.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline MirrorMask

  • Posts: 11093
  • Gender: Male
Re: Guns are Icky
« Reply #117 on: March 17, 2019, 03:52:23 AM »
I guess everybody is so sick of this discussion to even talk about NZ, eh?   Can't say I disagree,  it's just so horrible what else there is there to say really, other than as these events keep happening the focus seems to be shifting more and more around radicalisation (through youtube, social media etc.) than guns themselves.   Progress?

I admit I'm ignorant about the gun laws in New Zeleand, but I assume that not each and everyone can have them even before they're allowed to drink or drive. So there's a difference between a white supremacist and bigot racist making for the first time in a country history a terrorist attack of this magnitude, and the fifth random kid of the month and 40th since the beginning of the year that shoot his classmates.

Guns are criticized when they're easily avalaible for the random persons. No one blames guns in Italy when organized crime such as the mafia or the camorra do their killing, because the point is that they're criminals. They would be criticized if they were avalaible for any random person and, for example, the rate of school shootings would be way higher than what it is today, which is 0.
I use my sig to pimp some bands from Italy! Check out Elvenking (Power / Folk metal), Folkstone (Rock / Medieval metal), Arcana Opera (Gothic/Noir/Heavy metal) and the beautiful voice of Elisa!

Offline TAC

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 49033
  • Gender: Male
  • Kip Rolled
would have thought the same thing but seeing the OP was TAC i immediately thought Maiden or DT related
Winger Theater Forums................or WTF.  ;D

Offline gmillerdrake

  • Proud Father.....Blessed Husband
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 15804
  • Gender: Male
  • 1 Timothy 2:5
Re: Guns are Icky
« Reply #119 on: March 17, 2019, 09:02:24 AM »
The fuck?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/missouri-lawmaker-files-bills-requiring-some-residents-to-own-ar-15s-handguns/ar-BBURzRk?li=BBnbfcL
Sweet. Been wanting to get one but canít convince my wife to let me spend the cash on it. Now Iíd just have to say Iíd be breaking the law if I didnít get one.  :lol

Without Faith.....Without Hope.....There can be No Peace of Mind

Offline TAC

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 49033
  • Gender: Male
  • Kip Rolled
Re: Guns are Icky
« Reply #120 on: March 17, 2019, 09:48:11 AM »
 :lol
would have thought the same thing but seeing the OP was TAC i immediately thought Maiden or DT related
Winger Theater Forums................or WTF.  ;D

Offline lonestar

  • DTF Executive Chef
  • Official DTF Tour Guide
  • ****
  • Posts: 19956
  • Gender: Male
  • Silly Hatted Knife Chucker
    • Lady Obscure Music Magazine
Re: Guns are Icky
« Reply #121 on: March 18, 2019, 08:32:10 AM »
:lolpalm:


Just curious, say that law actually passed, would the 2nd protect in an opposite way? Could it be used to defend the freedom not to bear arms?

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28089
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Guns are Icky
« Reply #122 on: March 18, 2019, 09:38:25 AM »
I guess everybody is so sick of this discussion to even talk about NZ, eh?   Can't say I disagree,  it's just so horrible what else there is there to say really, other than as these events keep happening the focus seems to be shifting more and more around radicalisation (through youtube, social media etc.) than guns themselves.   Progress?

I admit I'm ignorant about the gun laws in New Zeleand, but I assume that not each and everyone can have them even before they're allowed to drink or drive. So there's a difference between a white supremacist and bigot racist making for the first time in a country history a terrorist attack of this magnitude, and the fifth random kid of the month and 40th since the beginning of the year that shoot his classmates.

Guns are criticized when they're easily avalaible for the random persons. No one blames guns in Italy when organized crime such as the mafia or the camorra do their killing, because the point is that they're criminals. They would be criticized if they were avalaible for any random person and, for example, the rate of school shootings would be way higher than what it is today, which is 0.

But that's incomplete.  You have to be more clear about what "available" means.  If I legally, and with a license to carry, own a firearm, and my seven year old gets it and shoots someone, that's ON ME, that's not a "legal issue" of "availability", unlike, say, someone who is 35, has a history of domestic violence, mental instability, and a felony prison record.   

I would be remiss if I didn't point out YET AGAIN that since no gun on record has ever unilaterally fired itself into a mass of people, there is also an element to which the WILL TO KILL is necessary here.   Our intentional homicide rate here in the States - independent of method or weapon - is about 5.5 out of 100,000 inhabitants, whereas New Zealand is less than 1 out of 100,000 inhabitants.

Also, suicide rate here is almost 25% higher (depending on what numbers you use) than New Zealand. 

There is an urge to kill - we can call this what you want; apathy, callousness, desperation - here that is disturbing, independent of "guns".  If we're REALLY interested in keeping people alive, we would be far more interested in why so many people want to see so many other people dead.  Sure, that's an exponentially harder question, but it at least would be honest. 

Offline Adami

  • Moderator of awesomeness
  • *
  • Posts: 32125
Re: Guns are Icky
« Reply #123 on: March 18, 2019, 09:42:53 AM »
I could really use a gun right now, cause I agree with Stadler.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline MirrorMask

  • Posts: 11093
  • Gender: Male
Re: Guns are Icky
« Reply #124 on: March 18, 2019, 12:55:22 PM »
Sorry not sorry.

I use my sig to pimp some bands from Italy! Check out Elvenking (Power / Folk metal), Folkstone (Rock / Medieval metal), Arcana Opera (Gothic/Noir/Heavy metal) and the beautiful voice of Elisa!

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28089
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Guns are Icky
« Reply #125 on: March 18, 2019, 01:17:12 PM »
And that's the level of debate in our country in a nutshell.   Snark and quip. 

God forbid if rights are compromised, god forbid if the actually statistics don't match up with either the behavior or the reaction, and god forbid if lives are ACTUALLY saved.  At least we acted!   

Sorry, not sorry. 

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 25654
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Guns are Icky
« Reply #126 on: March 18, 2019, 01:28:25 PM »
And that's the level of debate in our country in a nutshell.   Snark and quip. 

God forbid if rights are compromised, god forbid if the actually statistics don't match up with either the behavior or the reaction, and god forbid if lives are ACTUALLY saved.  At least we acted tried something!   

Sorry, not sorry.

Something's actually happening, reg!
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline MirrorMask

  • Posts: 11093
  • Gender: Male
Re: Guns are Icky
« Reply #127 on: March 18, 2019, 01:32:13 PM »
Well, as sarcastic and simplicistic that image is, that's what basically thinks every country in the world which isn't named USA about the guns issue. I see it as a problem with a easy solution, and a very difficult implementation.

I mean, to make an example: what should we do with the basically non existent rights for women in Saudi Arabia? it's quite simple, stop oppressing them and let them be free. Well, D'UH. Where to even begin with that? you can' t change a country overnight.

Same with the guns in USA issue. Give or take, right or wrong, with all the superficial approach that you want, it's the opinion of every country in the world except the USA that the root problem is that it's too easy over there for anyone to have a gun. But the solving of the issue it's more difficult because you have to take into account the culture of it all, the way it's always been, even the geography and the way the cities are built - those lonely houses which are easier to reach when you do trick or treat on Halloween night (something that would look silly over here in Europe with children having to climb the stairs to reach all the apartments of high buildings, or even houses with three floors like mine), are also easier prey for burglars hence the need to be prepared for the worst, and so on.

So I won't pretend to have the road to the solution, 'cause I wouldn't know where to start. But the solution itself, it's painfully obvious to anyone else in the world. To the point that it can get summarized in a simplified and sarcastic comment.
I use my sig to pimp some bands from Italy! Check out Elvenking (Power / Folk metal), Folkstone (Rock / Medieval metal), Arcana Opera (Gothic/Noir/Heavy metal) and the beautiful voice of Elisa!

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 27759
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Guns are Icky
« Reply #128 on: March 18, 2019, 01:41:06 PM »
Same with the guns in USA issue. Give or take, right or wrong, with all the superficial approach that you want, it's the opinion of every country in the world except the USA that the root problem is that it's too easy over there for anyone to have a gun. But the solving of the issue it's more difficult because you have to take into account the culture of it all, the way it's always been, even the geography and the way the cities are built - those lonely houses which are easier to reach when you do trick or treat on Halloween night (something that would look silly over here in Europe with children having to climb the stairs to reach all the apartments of high buildings, or even houses with three floors like mine), are also easier prey for burglars hence the need to be prepared for the worst, and so on.

So I won't pretend to have the road to the solution, 'cause I wouldn't know where to start. But the solution itself, it's painfully obvious to anyone else in the world. To the point that it can get summarized in a simplified and sarcastic comment.

I think you kind of hit it with the culture of America but then you kind of miss when you say it's painfully obvious to everyone outside of America which kind of goes against the idea that the culture is the problem.

Offline MirrorMask

  • Posts: 11093
  • Gender: Male
Re: Guns are Icky
« Reply #129 on: March 18, 2019, 01:46:06 PM »
I didn't really think of the culture as the problem per se, it was more a concession on the terms of "I know that you just can't stop using guns overnight and that it would be silly to overlook the fact that, if you americans have guns, it's because of historical and also practical reasons " (See the "you have way more isolated houses than people in Europe, hence the major risk of being singled out for an home invasion" example).
I use my sig to pimp some bands from Italy! Check out Elvenking (Power / Folk metal), Folkstone (Rock / Medieval metal), Arcana Opera (Gothic/Noir/Heavy metal) and the beautiful voice of Elisa!

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28089
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Guns are Icky
« Reply #130 on: March 18, 2019, 02:05:27 PM »
Well, as sarcastic and simplicistic that image is, that's what basically thinks every country in the world which isn't named USA about the guns issue. I see it as a problem with a easy solution, and a very difficult implementation.

I mean, to make an example: what should we do with the basically non existent rights for women in Saudi Arabia? it's quite simple, stop oppressing them and let them be free. Well, D'UH. Where to even begin with that? you can' t change a country overnight.

Same with the guns in USA issue. Give or take, right or wrong, with all the superficial approach that you want, it's the opinion of every country in the world except the USA that the root problem is that it's too easy over there for anyone to have a gun. But the solving of the issue it's more difficult because you have to take into account the culture of it all, the way it's always been, even the geography and the way the cities are built - those lonely houses which are easier to reach when you do trick or treat on Halloween night (something that would look silly over here in Europe with children having to climb the stairs to reach all the apartments of high buildings, or even houses with three floors like mine), are also easier prey for burglars hence the need to be prepared for the worst, and so on.

So I won't pretend to have the road to the solution, 'cause I wouldn't know where to start. But the solution itself, it's painfully obvious to anyone else in the world. To the point that it can get summarized in a simplified and sarcastic comment.

But I work for a French company, and before that, I did a significant amount of work for a large American conglomerate in Europe.  If I've had the conversation once, I've had it a thousand times "Well, no, that's not how it really is when you live there."   It's NOT that easy to have a gun, at least not as easy as it's been presumed.  I've had a gun license.  I have no felonies, no convictions, no psychological events that might catch me up, and yet, it's not a given that I can get my (lapsed) license renewed.   Do you want to talk about "illegal guns"?   I might be able to get one.  Not sure, I've never tried.  But ZERO of the propositions that are regularly put forth by our politicians (my local state Senator, Chris Murphy, has made this issue his national topic) address that. 

The statistics are not what people think they are.   Sure there are a plethora of guns, but the NUMBER OF OWNERS (though each owner owns many more guns than in other countries) is consistent with Canada and many other countries.  Switzerland is a far more "gun-ready" country than America, and yet... none of the problems.

Why do we associate "mass killings" with guns, right out the gate, but ignore the extremely high rates of depression, of anti-depressant use (among women), of illegal drug use, of high suicide rates, of high television watching, porn production, etc. etc. (there are other potentially "negative" indicators that I'm just not remembering right now)?  Because "common sense"?   "Common sense" is the buzzword, the fail-safe, that we use when we can't be bothered to articulate a real argument.    The fact is, the strenuous laws in Australia did NOT lead to the intended results, and almost every study has confirmed that including the landmark Harvard study.   

We've ALWAYS had guns. We've not always wanted to kill each other (and ourselves) with such abandon.    Funny enough, one of the best possible correlators is almost universally ignored.  Look up when social media really took a foothold in America.  (I'll tell you:  '97, '98).  When was Columbine, widely recognized as the start of the "epidemic" of mass shootings, even if there were events prior to that?  (I'll tell you that too:  '98)   

Am I right?  I don't know, no idea. But it's a worthy point of discussion, and the point is, that discussion ISN'T happening, because "common sense" and "every other country says..."     

Offline Adami

  • Moderator of awesomeness
  • *
  • Posts: 32125
Re: Guns are Icky
« Reply #131 on: March 18, 2019, 02:13:13 PM »
I'm still not convinced our desire to inflict pain and suffering on others is significantly greater now than in history.

It might look different, but we've always really liked the idea of other people suffering. It just is manifested in different ways in different times in history.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 27759
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Guns are Icky
« Reply #132 on: March 18, 2019, 02:25:09 PM »
I didn't really think of the culture as the problem per se, it was more a concession on the terms of "I know that you just can't stop using guns overnight and that it would be silly to overlook the fact that, if you americans have guns, it's because of historical and also practical reasons " (See the "you have way more isolated houses than people in Europe, hence the major risk of being singled out for an home invasion" example).

I know you used the culture as part of a different direction you were going, but I kind of feel our culture is the problem.  Removing guns completely might help stopping a 50 person murder, but it's not going to stop mass killings.  Such a killer will find a way to do lots of damage, such as driving a truck through times square.

I'm still not convinced our desire to inflict pain and suffering on others is significantly greater now than in history.

It might look different, but we've always really liked the idea of other people suffering. It just is manifested in different ways in different times in history.

I'm not sure if we are worse or not compared to the past in terms of being blood hungry, but I do think it's possible we are a bit more dull to it.  Not just seeing it in the news, but I shoot people in videos games most nights of the week.  We watch TVs and movies that show some really gory stuff.  The idea that 50 people were shot up, just doesn't even shock me anymore.  This recent guy live streamed the whole thing, my friend got the video and was sharing it in our group chat.  I couldn't comprehend why.  Why do people WANT to watch this?  I didn't watch and that link got taken down, my friend later said he felt pretty wrong about watching it and sharing.  Like how fucked up have we become?

Offline Adami

  • Moderator of awesomeness
  • *
  • Posts: 32125
Re: Guns are Icky
« Reply #133 on: March 18, 2019, 02:54:05 PM »
Again, I don't we're any more screwed up than we have been. We're a people (universally speaking) that have spent much of history in one war or another, and that (among a ton of other examples) used to gather in masses and cheer as people were publicly executed. It's not gotten really worse, just different in how we express it. We're not at war as much as we were. We can't just go around killing people and get away with it like we used to back in the day. So it comes out as it does now.

Actually, in thinking about this, maybe one thing that HAS changed is that we're aware of how messed up it is. That might be a good sign, believe it or not.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 25654
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Guns are Icky
« Reply #134 on: March 18, 2019, 03:21:24 PM »
Again, I don't we're any more screwed up than we have been. We're a people (universally speaking) that have spent much of history in one war or another, and that (among a ton of other examples) used to gather in masses and cheer as people were publicly executed. It's not gotten really worse, just different in how we express it. We're not at war as much as we were. We can't just go around killing people and get away with it like we used to back in the day. So it comes out as it does now.

Actually, in thinking about this, maybe one thing that HAS changed is that we're aware of how messed up it is. That might be a good sign, believe it or not.
That's an intriguing point.

One thing that seems different, though, is that we're content to kill each other without the pretext. While killing has always been a point of interest, it was usually prefaced on some strange sense of justice, territorial needs, fear, profit, or some other perceived need. Now it's pretty much just something someone does when they don't have a better idea. Seems to me it might be that lack of a socially agreeable pretext which is the reason people are upset about the modern disregard for life.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Adami

  • Moderator of awesomeness
  • *
  • Posts: 32125
Re: Guns are Icky
« Reply #135 on: March 18, 2019, 03:28:03 PM »
And that might be a good sign as well. We're moving away, (slowly) as a society (Western Society at least) from a culture that uses violence whenever, putting the natural urges onto the individual. So it's becoming more individualistic and less group based.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline XeRocks81

  • Posts: 1020
  • Gender: Male
Re: Guns are Icky
« Reply #136 on: March 18, 2019, 03:35:00 PM »
Again, I don't we're any more screwed up than we have been. We're a people (universally speaking) that have spent much of history in one war or another, and that (among a ton of other examples) used to gather in masses and cheer as people were publicly executed. It's not gotten really worse, just different in how we express it. We're not at war as much as we were. We can't just go around killing people and get away with it like we used to back in the day. So it comes out as it does now.

Actually, in thinking about this, maybe one thing that HAS changed is that we're aware of how messed up it is. That might be a good sign, believe it or not.

The public executions thing is a real head scratcher.  Hell even less than a 100 years ago we have pictures of people attending lynchings. 

Offline MirrorMask

  • Posts: 11093
  • Gender: Male
Re: Guns are Icky
« Reply #137 on: March 19, 2019, 02:46:39 AM »
Lots of interesting points in the latest posts.

I would also take into consideration the emulation issue, the bad idea that someone gets and then it gets used.

I mean, you know what shocked me the most about 9/11? using planes as weapons. I totally didn't think of it, I couldn't even imagine it was an option. But then it happened, and other people would have done it if drastic security measures would have not been implemented. Then some assholes tried to use vans to mow down people, and once the idea got out, you had many copycats attacks with vans, 'cause you can lock all the doors on a plane but you can't just deny the renting on a van to anyone who has a darker shade of skin.

Same with other acts of violence - once a single asshole at Columbine shoots his school companions, the idea is out there, and it sticks in the mind of someone who eventually down the line thinks it's a good idea.

In Italy we don't have kids doing shooting at school, but we have a lot of domestic abuse, it seems that month does not go by without hearing in the news that someone killed his ex wife or something like that. Same basic idea, once you read in the news that one, five, ten, fifty people killed their ex, the idea sticks in someone who eventually considers it as a "valid" option when the strain of marital problem breaks their lucid thinking.
I use my sig to pimp some bands from Italy! Check out Elvenking (Power / Folk metal), Folkstone (Rock / Medieval metal), Arcana Opera (Gothic/Noir/Heavy metal) and the beautiful voice of Elisa!

Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 34526
  • Gender: Male
Re: Guns are Icky
« Reply #138 on: June 26, 2019, 07:50:31 PM »
Interesting new video by Madonna (link below).  It is about gun control, and FYI, it is not subtle.  I like it. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zv-sdTOw5cs

Offline lonestar

  • DTF Executive Chef
  • Official DTF Tour Guide
  • ****
  • Posts: 19956
  • Gender: Male
  • Silly Hatted Knife Chucker
    • Lady Obscure Music Magazine
Re: Guns are Icky
« Reply #139 on: July 28, 2019, 09:40:21 PM »
And another shooting, at the Gilroy Garlic Festival. This one hits way too close to home as I had two very close friends there yesterday, one with her four kids, the other a fellow DTFer. I was going to go as well but was too tired from the last few weeks so took a rest weekend. Seconds and inches and this could be a very, very different post.

Reports are a white guy, with what sounds like an AR15, indiscriminately shooting people. The story is getting old in its predictability and format. I don't have anything else to say, just getting really tired of this shit.