Current Affairs The " another shooting in America " thread

[BlueTX]

Yep. For the government (ie elected officials and political appointees) to be a threat the military would have to accept likely illegal/unconstitutional orders.

So you are assuming the military are corrupt (the majority - not just the top brass), willing to commit treason and to kill fellow citizens.

If you argue that the orders could be constitutional, you are then assuming mostly untrained folks with rifles (even AR-15) and hand guns can defeat the fully engaged US military with trillions (quadrillions?) of dollars of advanced weaponry.

Both of the above are very non-GOP positions to take...as evidenced by my dad's (ex-military) sputtering when we had such a discussion.

Virtually everything accepted as truth by "defenders of the Second Amendment" is a lie. But they are not going to be convinced otherwise. Unless big business (insurance, health, etc.) gets on board with holding gun owners responsible (financially, legally) for the damage caused by firearms in this country - nothing is going to change. We as a culture in America are accepting of 40,000 people a year dying via firearms.

I simply do not understand why.

 

[BlueTX]

About time that second ammendment was amended.

Or simply correctly interpreted. Not even Antonin Scalia believed the amendment allowed for unfettered access to firearms.

The GOP and their mouthpieces, tho...

 

[Chewbacca]

Because the saying goes; people would rather take the risk of living in a free democratic but potentially dangerous society rather than a safe but oppressive society. Everything comes with a cost.

Guns do have a use in society. Guns are for self-defence purposes of course and it is a huge deterrent to any crime. But to speak, guns are there to empower the society and to give the public the power over a potential "tyrannical" government.

Absolute horse

 

[tsubaki]

Virtually everything accepted as truth by "defenders of the Second Amendment" is a lie. But they are not going to be convinced otherwise. Unless big business (insurance, health, etc.) gets on board with holding gun owners responsible (financially, legally) for the damage caused by firearms in this country - nothing is going to change. We as a culture in America are accepting of 40,000 people a year dying via firearms.

I simply do not understand why.

Viewing from the outside, I think this seems (like abortion is, in some respects) an issue that has mainly become about raising money for either pro- or anti-causes, rather than dealing with an issue that has sense on both sides and which is far too complex to deal with by normal political means.

By that I mean that gun rights people have to accept and understand that there really are a hugely excessive number of gun deaths (and especially spree-killing gun deaths), and the damage this causes to hundreds of thousands of people a year. They are complicit in all manner of unacceptable things - from the death of women and children to even something as absurd as the ruinous medical bills imposed on the bereaved and the wounded because of someone elses' criminal acts. They've got to accept that these costs are down to them, and that they have to do something about it.

On the other hand, the anti-gun movements have to understand the scale of the problem (hundreds of millions of guns in private hands), and that measures to restrict gun ownership really will (if not done properly) strip decent people of their guns whilst leaving the loons heavily armed. There is also a lot of evidence to suggest that the US Government really would behave outrageously to an unarmed community - lets face it they've already done that numerous times to poor, POC and native communities down the years and 100% would again.

Tinkering with closing down "gun show loopholes", mandatory waiting periods and the like isn't going to work, and neither side is going to get to the stage where they can change the second amendment or defend it absolutely. I think someone - and this is probably going to have to come from the anti-gun side - is going to have to come up with a new understanding of what the 2A means, not (as was seen in the 90s and early 00s) as an obsolete concept but one that recognizes the right to bear arms but frames it in a safer way.

Personally, I think going down the well-regulated militia (ie: that people can have firearms but of a small number of common types and with training) route is going to be the only way that would ever work.

 

[Noisy noise annoys]

Guns are the simple rights of civilians, something that has its purpose yet it can be abused in a negative way. It's like saying motor vehicles aren't fine, because they can be used to ram people over or something which can be responsible for someone's death.

This is actually embarrassing

 

[verreauxi]

Because the saying goes; people would rather take the risk of living in a free democratic but potentially dangerous society rather than a safe but oppressive society. Everything comes with a cost.

Guns do have a use in society. Guns are for self-defence purposes of course and it is a huge deterrent to any crime. But to speak, guns are there to empower the society and to give the public the power over a potential "tyrannical" government.

NO: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-crimes-evidence-shows/

Far more guns are used to commit crimes than to deter them.

 

[verreauxi]

This is actually embarrassing

Indeed, electrical outlets have also killed children, but exactly what was a gun versus a car or electrical outlet designed for?...gee, real head-scratcher there.

 

[BlueTX]

Viewing from the outside, I think this seems (like abortion is, in some respects) an issue that has mainly become about raising money for either pro- or anti-causes, rather than dealing with an issue that has sense on both sides and which is far too complex to deal with by normal political means.

By that I mean that gun rights people have to accept and understand that there really are a hugely excessive number of gun deaths (and especially spree-killing gun deaths), and the damage this causes to hundreds of thousands of people a year. They are complicit in all manner of unacceptable things - from the death of women and children to even something as absurd as the ruinous medical bills imposed on the bereaved and the wounded because of someone elses' criminal acts. They've got to accept that these costs are down to them, and that they have to do something about it.

On the other hand, the anti-gun movements have to understand the scale of the problem (hundreds of millions of guns in private hands), and that measures to restrict gun ownership really will (if not done properly) strip decent people of their guns whilst leaving the loons heavily armed. There is also a lot of evidence to suggest that the US Government really would behave outrageously to an unarmed community - lets face it they've already done that numerous times to poor, POC and native communities down the years and 100% would again.

Tinkering with closing down "gun show loopholes", mandatory waiting periods and the like isn't going to work, and neither side is going to get to the stage where they can change the second amendment or defend it absolutely. I think someone - and this is probably going to have to come from the anti-gun side - is going to have to come up with a new understanding of what the 2A means, not (as was seen in the 90s and early 00s) as an obsolete concept but one that recognizes the right to bear arms but frames it in a safer way.

Personally, I think going down the well-regulated militia (ie: that people can have firearms but of a small number of common types and with training) route is going to be the only way that would ever work.

All truly excellent points and for those who do not know, the NRA's original primary purpose was to promote gun safety - not lobby on behalf of the gun manufacturers. It's why my whole family canceled membership decades ago.

I own several guns - rifles/shotguns, no handguns. All safely stored. All used rarely for hunting or shooting targets. Other than an original registration upon purchase, there's no update with state or federal authorities. Guns I inherited have no requirement for registration. I'm supposed to purchase a license for hunting from the state (and do) but how is compliance with this law measured? I'd guess compliance is, maybe, 50%.

I cannot buy fertilizer in ag quantities as easily as I can rifle or shotgun shells. Cars, boats, ATVs are all more heavily regulated by the state. Citizens accept these responsibilities nearly universally but why not similar with guns? Because, IMO, there's never really been an effort that is led by business/industry rather than government. We wear seatbelts today because the insurance companies figured out people living after a car crash was better for profits than people being grievously injured or dying and they forced the government to mandate auto safety laws.

So, as you suggest, the citizen has a right to own a firearm but only after proving themselves responsible enough to register the firearm with the state, attend safety courses on a continuing basis, maintain insurance on the weapon and remain mentally fit. The insurance companies and hospitals can frame ALL of this as cost-saving measures for responsible people. Those who do not wish to comply would then face significant legal jeopardy for their callous indifference to the rest of the responsible gun owners and citizens who do not wish to own firearms. Or they can opt to surrender their guns or sell them, legally, to those who will comply.

 

[emir]

Virtually everything accepted as truth by "defenders of the Second Amendment" is a lie. But they are not going to be convinced otherwise. Unless big business (insurance, health, etc.) gets on board with holding gun owners responsible (financially, legally) for the damage caused by firearms in this country - nothing is going to change. We as a culture in America are accepting of 40,000 people a year dying via firearms.

I simply do not understand why.

Without actually mentioning that majority of those deaths are gang related, that's a bad argument to bring to the table. 20,000 people die from motor vehicle crashes each year. More than 3,000 people die from Aspirin. Over 45,000 die each year from opioids. The list goes on. What life teaches us, is that everything comes with a cost.

Instead of debating on repealing the 2nd amendment, we need to actually ensure that the firearms are actually ending up reaching the hands of good citizens, rather than the mentally deranged or criminals.

 

[Tin-Tin]

Without actually mentioning that majority of those deaths are gang related, that's a bad argument to bring to the table. 20,000 people die from motor vehicle crashes each year. More than 3,000 people die from Aspirin. Over 45,000 die each year from opioids. The list goes on. What life teaches us, is that everything comes with a cost.

Instead of debating on repealing the 2nd amendment, we need to actually ensure that the firearms are actually ending up reaching the hands of good citizens, rather than the mentally deranged or criminals.

Cars are licensed, people pass tests to qualify to drive. If you are medically unfit to drive you dont get a license. Once you get your car you have to resgister it and then get insurance. If you dont qualify for insurance then you cant legally drive.

Silly example. How many murders are caused by Asprin? How many by opiods?

 

[BlueTX]

Without actually mentioning that majority of those deaths are gang related, that's a bad argument to bring to the table. 20,000 people die from motor vehicle crashes each year. More than 3,000 people die from Aspirin. Over 45,000 die each year from opioids. The list goes on. What life teaches us, is that everything comes with a cost.

Instead of debating on repealing the 2nd amendment, we need to actually ensure that the firearms are actually ending up reaching the hands of good citizens, rather than the mentally deranged or criminals.

Gang-related? Oh, I'm quite interested in seeing your source for that bit of news.

Rather than a bad argument, it's the truly salient one. If you are OK with 40,000 people dying at the hands of firearms, that's your prerogative. There are more than 30,000 deaths in car crashes per year in the US. In the 1970s that number was in excess of 50,000 per year despite a rather large percentage fewer cars on the road. Seatbelts and better design save lives.

No one is making the argument people won't die from car crashes or adverse reactions to pharmaceuticals. Further, I didn't say anything about repealing the Second Amendment. It is, IMO, outmoded but correct interpretation can lead to legal restrictions that make us all safer.

 

[LinekersLegs]

Without actually mentioning that majority of those deaths are gang related, that's a bad argument to bring to the table. 20,000 people die from motor vehicle crashes each year. More than 3,000 people die from Aspirin. Over 45,000 die each year from opioids. The list goes on. What life teaches us, is that everything comes with a cost.

Instead of debating on repealing the 2nd amendment, we need to actually ensure that the firearms are actually ending up reaching the hands of good citizens, rather than the mentally deranged or criminals.

The majority of those 40,000 deaths are not gang related - 60% of deaths are suicides with 37% homicides and the remainder in “other “ categories including mass shootings.

What the data says about gun deaths in the U.S.

In 2020, the U.S. experienced a record number of gun murders, as well as a near-record number of gun suicides.

www.pewresearch.org

How many of the homicides are gang related is very hard to determine as DOJ no longer compiles data and even when they did try it was hard to collect accurately

Are most murders 'gangbangers killing gangbangers,' as Van Cleave says?

A leading gun rights activist says Democratic lawmakers are trying to penalize law-abiding firearm owners for violence c

www.politifact.com

Our search for national statistics kept sending us to discontinued data once compiled by the National Gang Center under the Department of Justice. Based on annual surveys of local law enforcement agencies, the Center tallied 11,934 "gang-related" homicides in the U.S. from 2007 through 2012. The FBI reported 93,253 total murders during the span. Comparing the numbers, the Center estimated that "gang-related homicides typically accounted for around 13% of all homicides annually." That’s far below Van Cleave’s claim that most murders are gang-related.
But the Center had concerns about the reliability of its gang-related homicide numbers and stopped collecting them after 2012. It put an asterisk on top of its chart with the note urging "caution" in interpreting the results. In footnotes, the Center explained that localities had different ways of defining the term "gang-related."

There is also a significant domestic violence angle that gun supporters regularly underplay.

Gun Ownership Rates Tied to Domestic Homicides, but Not Other Killings, Study Finds (Published 2019)

“It is women, in particular, who are bearing the burden of this increased gun ownership,” the lead author of the study said.

www.nytimes.com

The study reaffirms a well-known connection between access to guns and abusive relationships turning deadly, at a time when intimate partner homicides are on the rise. Research has shown that women killed by their partners are more likely to be murdered with a firearm than by all other means combined, and the presence of a gun in domestic violence situations can increase the risk of homicide for women by as much as 500 percent, according to the National Domestic Violence Hotline.

Both men and women were at increased risk for domestic homicide when firearm ownership increased, the study found. “But the important caveat to that is, whereas men are victims in about three out of four typical homicides that occur, it fully reverses when we are talking about intimate partner homicide,” Dr. Kivisto said. “Women are three in four victims of intimate partner homicide.”

 

[emir]

Gang-related? Oh, I'm quite interested in seeing your source for that bit of news.

Rather than a bad argument, it's the truly salient one. If you are OK with 40,000 people dying at the hands of firearms, that's your prerogative. There are more than 30,000 deaths in car crashes per year in the US. In the 1970s that number was in excess of 50,000 per year despite a rather large percentage fewer cars on the road. Seatbelts and better design save lives.

No one is making the argument people won't die from car crashes or adverse reactions to pharmaceuticals. Further, I didn't say anything about repealing the Second Amendment. It is, IMO, outmoded but correct interpretation can lead to legal restrictions that make us all safer.

It's not about being OK with the deaths but rather it's about accepting the consequences of its mere existence for the greater good. You can't give me a single entity on this planet, that doesn't come with some form of consequence.

Banning Assault Rifles doesn't make much sense, when it comes to gun control. Assault rifles literally only make up 2-3% of the total gun-related deaths in America. Plus, there's not much evidence that "gun control" works. Illinois/Chicago has very strict gun-control yet Chicago has one of the highest rates of gun homicides.

 

[emir]

The majority of those 40,000 deaths are not gang related - 60% of deaths are suicides with 37% homicides and the remainder in “other “ categories including mass shootings.

What the data says about gun deaths in the U.S.

In 2020, the U.S. experienced a record number of gun murders, as well as a near-record number of gun suicides.

www.pewresearch.org

How many of the homicides are gang related is very hard to determine as DOJ no longer compiles data and even when they did try it was hard to collect accurately

There is also a significant domestic violence angle that gun supporters regularly underplay.

Gun Ownership Rates Tied to Domestic Homicides, but Not Other Killings, Study Finds (Published 2019)

“It is women, in particular, who are bearing the burden of this increased gun ownership,” the lead author of the study said.

www.nytimes.com

The study reaffirms a well-known connection between access to guns and abusive relationships turning deadly, at a time when intimate partner homicides are on the rise. Research has shown that women killed by their partners are more likely to be murdered with a firearm than by all other means combined, and the presence of a gun in domestic violence situations can increase the risk of homicide for women by as much as 500 percent, according to the National Domestic Violence Hotline.

Both men and women were at increased risk for domestic homicide when firearm ownership increased, the study found. “But the important caveat to that is, whereas men are victims in about three out of four typical homicides that occur, it fully reverses when we are talking about intimate partner homicide,” Dr. Kivisto said. “Women are three in four victims of intimate partner homicide.”

Using firearms in domestic violence is probably the easiest or efficient way to murder, but let's not pretend that guns are the reason why domestic homicides are happening. If someone wanted to murder, there are at least 10 other viable methods to do so.

 

[BlueTX]

It's not about being OK with the deaths but rather it's about accepting the consequences of its mere existence for the greater good. You can't give me a single entity on this planet, that doesn't come with some form of consequence.

Banning Assault Rifles doesn't make much sense, when it comes to gun control. Assault rifles literally only make up 2-3% of the total gun-related deaths in America. Plus, there's not much evidence that "gun control" works. Illinois/Chicago has very strict gun-control yet Chicago has one of the highest rates of gun homicides.

If you are accepting of 40,000 firearm deaths, then what's your hesitation to say you are OK with the number? It's for the greater good, right?

I've acknowledged life comes with consequences.