Australia
*sighs, turns over "DAYS SINCE LAST MASS SHOOTING IN AMERICA" sign to 0*
- Thread starter Charlie Don't Surf
- Start date
figmentPez
Staff member
NOPE. Not at all comparable. Australia is less than a tenth the population of the United States. It's largest city is Sydney, which has a population density of 1,237 persons per square kilometer (if you include just the urban area). New York is nearly twice as populous, and has 10,431 per square kilometer. Manhattan has a population density of 28,154 per km^2. Moreover, it's hemmed in by other cities, while Sydney is surrounded by national parks.
I could go on and on about the differences between how Australia's population is distributed and how the US population is spread out. It's just not the same.
Getting pretty sick of American exceptionalism being the reason why we have to deal with shitty governance.
Why don’t we have universal healthcare? American exceptionalism. Why do our kids routinely do so badly in tests and our schools would be embarrassing in Afghanistan? American exceptionalism. Why do we have more gun homicides than most countries have casualties of war. American exceptionalism. Why does Flint still not have clean drinking water? American exceptionalism. Why do we have a president who recieved 3 million fewer votes than his opponent? Fucking American exceptionalism.
figmentPez
Staff member
WHOAH, you are massively misunderstanding my argument. My point is that what worked in Australia to curb gun violence will not work here to the same degree. That's not an excuse to do nothing, it means we're going to have to do even more, and have a much more difficult time doing it than Australia did. People who think "Well, we'll just do what Australia did, and get the same results" are wrong, because the root cause of the problem is not the same, because the cultures are not the same. (Also, I don't believe for a moment, that Australia's gun control laws were the sole factor in the drop off in gun violence in that country.)
Also, if you've read even my recent posts in this damn thread, you'd know that I'm ashamed of our public education system. You'd know that I think we need sweeping changes in order to change what's going on with gun violence.
However, no matter how much change the United States needs, trying to completely ban guns is as realistic as handing out personal force field belts.
Nope your throw your hands up and say “whelp America is special” is the exact same reasoning simple thinkers give for why American schools are rotten garbage or why other countries spend less on healthcare and get better results or why other countries have more dynamic economies or why other countries don’t have to consider whether or not they should splurge for a bullet proof coat when they send their children off to kindergarten.
We put a man on the moon for gods sake. We could solve the gun problem if people could agree that gun violence is a problem worth fixing. But they fundamentally don’t think it’s worth fixing. Check out GB he doesn’t have any solutions to offer because to him guns are the real good. Preventing gun violence would get in the way of more gun ownership and thus would be a bad thing.
figmentPez
Staff member
The idea that the US has one culture and that it’s similar enough to other cultures around the world that we can apply their solutions to our problems is laughable.
This isn’t to suggest that we are better, or worse, simply that the cultural differences are large enough to require different solutions.
But it doesn’t matter, if you want to change the constitution, you just have to convince 2/3 of the states.
If you can’t do that, then the people aren’t buying your solution, and you need to promote it until they do.
Or turn the US into something other than a semi democracy, or eliminate the constitution altogether. Fortunately the current and last several presidencies and congresses are eagerly working on both of these two options.
And they’re getting better at convincing the citizens to take away more and more rights.
This isn’t to suggest that we are better, or worse, simply that the cultural differences are large enough to require different solutions.
But it doesn’t matter, if you want to change the constitution, you just have to convince 2/3 of the states.
If you can’t do that, then the people aren’t buying your solution, and you need to promote it until they do.
Or turn the US into something other than a semi democracy, or eliminate the constitution altogether. Fortunately the current and last several presidencies and congresses are eagerly working on both of these two options.
And they’re getting better at convincing the citizens to take away more and more rights.
Had a thought earlier, the guns are needed to stop tyranny has some validity. Though I do not believe tnat it is as strong an arguement as it was in ages past. I think that the type of tyranny it opposes is not practical in modern america. There are other simpler, more effective and cheaper ways to achieve tyranny than that which is opposed by force. Also it seems to be quite a viable strategy to achieve political goals is to use the threat of gun control. So I guess what I am saying is that the 2nd ammendment in modern times is actually being used to achieved gne tyranny it was designed to oppose.
I was suggesting something similar a few pages back, but no one responded. The U.S. government does everything it can to listen to and monitor its citizens. No one in the government needs to stage an attack on the American people because there's no need to when they can utterly destroy any individual's life with no consequences.
I actually agree with you that the political problem is the more complicated and unsolvable problem. We can’t even get universal background checks passed because people don’t see why they should be inconvenienced as they purchase a gun. I know the problem isn’t going to be solved and I’ve come to terms with that even as I price out Kevlar for my nephew’s first day of kindergarten even knowing that it’s not going to stop bullets from the most popular weapons for a mass murder. But don’t fucking tell me the problem is just fundamentally unsolvable because other countries have tried and have seen results. American exceptionalism means that we don’t even try to stop them and just keep on suffering massacres.
This statement, from my perspective, is not logically true.
We are working on them, in many fronts,
Just because we haven’t made progress on the front you want to attack doesn’t mean that we aren’t trying to stop them.
Just because we keep having them doesn’t mean that they are acceptable losses.
They are, however, a very effective lever and people will use them to emotionally manipulate others into behaving a certain way. If it wasn’t gun control they’d be using the massacres as leverage for some other goal.
This is why we all talk about it and work on it together, and why we vote. You may have the solution, and if everyone in the US was exactly like you with your needs, experiences, and emotions, then we’d move in your direction.
But we are diverse and we must accept that because you and I have different needs and experiences we may want to attempt different solutions, and sometimes our individual solutions cannot be enacted without taking rights from another, and we must set those solutions aside or compromise.
I’m sure I could find someone who would gladly make abortion Illegal if it also made guns illegal, both by constitutional amendment. But I doubt this could be done because many people wouldn’t be willing to make that trade, and at this point both would have to be done by constitutional amendment.
So we both have to work on other aspects of each - providing better mental health services, locking the schools down a bit more, active shooter training, better women’s healthcare, better adoption options, better sex education, more available birth control, etc.
Getting rid of guns or even controlling their distribution, like getting rid of abortion or controlling the timing, is simply a non starter.
The question is: where are you going to spend your lobbying voice, time, resources, votes? If it’s towards an impossible change, it’s probably wasted.
GasBandit
Staff member
How would it be tracked without firearm registration?
It's already tracked. Citizens would only notice a change in selection and price.
GasBandit
Staff member
... actually, no it isn't, if the sales are between private individuals.
Besides, one day Imma get me a P90 so nyeh
The X, X2, or the X3?one day Imma get me a P90 so nyeh
Has it been long enough since the surgery for you to start these?
--Patrick
I think that would be pretty easy, as I'm sure the government already racks firearms imported into the country. They could just set a quota each year based on how many guns American manufacturers say they've made. Those companies would probably low-ball the figure they give the gov't, too, reducing the number of foreign guns coming in.
This doesn't really control the number of guns sold, but statistically, sales should mirror the availabile product.
But then of course, restricting imports will probably start a trade war with whatever countries are selling y'all guns. Y'all are one hell of a lucrative market.
Dave
Staff member
https://www.theindychannel.com/news...hooter-situation-at-noblesville-middle-school
Nobody killed and the junior high shooter in custody.
Nobody killed and the junior high shooter in custody.
That appeared to say Hooter situation. I was really worried.
Heh... that's literally the opposite of something being done about the problem.
That's like saying you're fighting climate change by building a self sufficient bio-dome far away from any shore lines...
That would make for a cool Fallout clone.
The protagonist emerges from a sealed biodome to search for his father in the wreckage of a climate wracked D.C.
(The sequel, set in Frost Vegas, is far superior)
Depends. Do fewer children die?
Dave
Staff member
No. In the last shooting they had armed guards and had gone through active shooter training. 10 died.
figmentPez
Staff member
If attacks continue to increase, as they have been doing, no.
Teaching first aid for a cut reduces bleeding and infection. It's a good thing. But if the amount of cuts someone is getting keeps increasing, they're going to keep bleeding more, regardless of if they know first aid.
The conclusion doesn't prove the assertion. Are you saying that had there not been training, no more than 10 would have died? The attacker did or would have stopped at the same number of deaths regardless of the preparation and training of the school?
Yes, but you still do the training and have the first aid kits handy while you also try to reduce the number of cuts.
I hope no one is assuming I'm advocating doing no prevention.
We should 1) prevent attacks, 2) prepare for attacks, and 3) stop attacks in progress.
If we can stop the shooter before they've run out of bullets, we've done better than nothing. If we can stop them before they gain access to the school, we've done better than nothing. If we can stop them before they decide they want to shoot people, we've done better than nothing.
We need to work on multiple fronts to reduce such attacks.
Today's shooting was stopped by a teacher, and of the three injured (only two by gunshots) both are currently still alive:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...sville-west-middle-school-20180525-story.html
Dave
Staff member
No, I'm saying active shooter drills do nothing more than foster a sense of protection where there is none. It's the school equivalent of the TSA. Looks great, sounds great, but in practice it just doesn't work. I could really go into why in depth, but let me just say that there's a difference between "Hey, we're going to have an active shooter drill on May 10." and BLAM BLAM BLAM "What the fuck is that? What's happening? What do we do?!?"
Add in the fact that the student took the same training and so he knew what people were going to do and it really defeats the purpose of any training. It's a feel-good show.
Now, I WILL admit that these exercises are good for local law enforcement and first responders so that they know how to coordinate their actions, but by the time they get there, there are already dead kids and teachers.
Add in the fact that the student took the same training and so he knew what people were going to do and it really defeats the purpose of any training. It's a feel-good show.
Now, I WILL admit that these exercises are good for local law enforcement and first responders so that they know how to coordinate their actions, but by the time they get there, there are already dead kids and teachers.
Cajungal
Staff member
At my niece's last drill, she was told that she was the only one strong enough to help her teacher lift the table up against the door. She went home telling her mom that she would probably die first if it ever happened. I get why schools are doing more than the "hunker down" thing, but Jesus, she's twelve years old, and she's having it put on her, by adults, that she should be laying down her life for her classmates.
Next someone will say fire drills do nothing but foster a sense of protection where there is none.
Training people to react quickly and appropriately in an emergency situation does help.
Herding a bunch of panicking people doesn’t work. Training them not to panic, or at least to go through the motions even while panicked, does help.
Just enough training so fewer people freeze, and more people act.
Few schools do it anyway. Speak up if you don’t want your schools doing it, and if they do and you believe it’ll harm your kid you should be able to opt out.
Training people to react quickly and appropriately in an emergency situation does help.
Herding a bunch of panicking people doesn’t work. Training them not to panic, or at least to go through the motions even while panicked, does help.
Just enough training so fewer people freeze, and more people act.
Few schools do it anyway. Speak up if you don’t want your schools doing it, and if they do and you believe it’ll harm your kid you should be able to opt out.
Tangent but relevant, this is also the goal behind combat/martial arts training, or anywhere else where you might hear someone say, “Thinking might get you killed. When the time comes, don’t think. DO.”
Characterized as “Run/Hide/Defend” when we did it.
That would be “Duck & Cover:”
...it was even satirized in The Iron Giant.
—Patrick
I feel like you completely zoned out for the bio-dome part... making sure a fewer more people survive the avoidable, man made catastrophe isn't fighting said catastrophe. It's not fucking rocket surgery, dammit.
And yet, so far, you're only advocating one angle, and rejecting all others as against the 2nd amendment.