*sighs, turns over "DAYS SINCE LAST MASS SHOOTING IN AMERICA" sign to 0*
- Thread starter Charlie Don't Surf
- Start date
So why do you think that this is a uniquely American problem among western countries?
figmentPez
Staff member
Well, there are a number of factors. Primary of which is our horribly underfunded public school system. But there's a lot more to it than that. Most of these issues have already been talked about in the thread.
Personally, I think it's because many of y'all think one half of your country is an enemy of the other half, in a way that no other Western country does, and you're teaching yourselves to dehumanize your fellow citizens the way we do with our enemies when we go to war against them.
So in a world where gasbandit m is the prosecutor what charges is the shooter’s father facing down for the Santa Fe shooting since he was the gun owner in this case.
GasBandit
Staff member
Well, unless the father GAVE him the guns and said "go wild" I'm pretty sure none. If I steal my father's car and plow it into a crowd, my father is not going to face charges.
I think you might have misunderstood me, when I said I favor gun owners being held responsible, I meant gun users. Obviously holding the owner of a gun responsible for something done by someone who stole that gun is insanity.
Unless these policies you describe state, “Please kill children,” I fail to see the connection.
Also, if you truly believe that enacting a law which states “All guns are illegal, absolutely nobody is allowed to have one” will have the power to generate the result I assume you want (i.e., the elimination of deaths of minors by firearms), then by that logic you would be able to achieve the exact same result by enacting a law which says “It shall be illegal to murder children.” Even better, this law would protect children against ALL forms of murder, not just firearms.
Well, thing is, such a law already exists. It’s even in the top Ten, in fact. And yet you see how much effect “having that law” has had in the real world, so there is no reason to expect a different law to have 100% success when the first (which, mind you, is more comprehensive) has not.
I’m with you on this. One of the first things they ask you these days when you see a doctor is, “Do you feel safe at home?” because the assumption is that everyone has a home, and that the reasonable expectation is that one would feel content when hanging out there.
And yet, year after year, some yahoo decides to try and introduce legislation that would make the manufacturers of firearms liable for any “unwarranted” deaths their products cause. Insanity, indeed!
—Patrick
GasBandit
Staff member
In before "well if laws don't prevent crime why bother even making murder illegal?"
We really are stuck in a loop.
Heck, we almost elected one of those yahoos.
Because...easy...access...to...guns...makes...it...easier...to...use...guns.
It did seem out of character for you. Cause you did make a huge point about how the kid was not the owner of the gun.
FTFY
I mean, what you do once you do have one is entirely your responsibility, of course.
—Patrick
GasBandit
Staff member
Arguing that since something can be misused means it should be banned is a dangerous frame of mind to get in.
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. - CS Lewis
Your ENTIRE ARGUMENT is predicated on the notion that a gun can ONLY be used IMproperly. In reality, it is startlingly easy to own (and use!) a firearm responsibly if that is indeed your desire.
—Patrick
So, acceptable losses.
GasBandit
Staff member
"Well, we eat cake, and we get fat. Just say being fat is an acceptable loss for eating cake."
"We could start exercising too..."
"JUST SAY ACCEPTABLE LOSSES"
And outrunning your fork works just as well as americas gun laws.
Here's the thing. Even people who want common sense changes can't get things done. People wring their hands and "thoughts and prayers," but the controlling party of Congress is in bed so far with the NRA, who doesn't want any change, that they do nothing. This is going to rebound on them pretty hard once they do lose control, and gun control measures will probably end up going farther than they otherwise would.
I don't know, Dei. I think our country has proven that we have no interest in doing anything about it. Sandy Hook, Orlando, Las Vegas... any one of those would have been shocking enough to warrant some measure of change in a civilized country. But we can't seem to formulate laws that satisfy enough people to even get to one part of Congress. So this is just the way it has to be.
GasBandit
Staff member
That'sNotWhatItMeans.Mp4
...but then I couldn’t build the metaphor.
I don’t think he likes the idea that at any moment another person could arbitrarily end his life and/or the lives of people he cares about AND that we are telling him that there is little or nothing he could do to prevent it except to try and be nicer to one another.
—Patrick
Basically this coupled with the fact that it has been massively prevented by literally every other western country so the arguments are flat-out wrong.
figmentPez
Staff member
There are any number of ways that someone's life can be arbitrarily ended by another human being. Let's take drunk driving for example.
Deaths by drunk driving are down 65% since 1982. Back then you were more likely to be killed by a drunk driver than you were to be the victim of a homicide committed with a gun. Now you're only slightly more likely to have a death by gun homicide. What changed? Well, it certainly wasn't the banning of alcohol. (This nation tried that before, it didn't work.) The solution was not to say "Well, some people are misusing the combination of alcohol and cars, therefore no one can have alcohol." Nor was the solution to get rid of cars. What worked was getting to the reasons that people drive drunk, and making a concerted effort to change society so that people have less reason to drive drunk.
figmentPez
Staff member
"Mr. Elephant, all the other mammals have managed to jump for us. Therefore all your arguments about why you cannot jump are flat-out wrong. We insist that you start jumping as a means of locomotion immediately."
I think both sides of the gun debate feel that if they don't pull All vs Nothing, then the other side will gain ground. And by gun debate, I mean everything approached politically in this country these days. Compromise is dead.
In other news, I'm sure the NRA is screaming "OH THANK GOD, FINALLY!" A shooting in Oklahoma that killed four people ended with an armed bystander shooting and killing the gunman.
To be fair, statistically, it happens 3% of the time (according to FBI studies).
figmentPez
Staff member
"Mr. Panda your digestive system is much better designed for eating meat. Why are you eating bamboo instead?"
"BECAUSE I'M GONNA USE THIS BAMBOO TO OVERTHROW THE US GOVERNMENT!"
figmentPez
Staff member
Well, if you're not going to even try to understand my point....
What is the point you're trying to make with this? Do you have any analogy at all beyond "I'm making irrational strawman arguments"?
I've previously advocated the whole "It's more important to get to the root of the problem" approach, but we (as a board) seemed divided as to whether or not it would actually work.
--Patrick
My point is that regular people in the US don't need guns and shouldn't have them because the widespread availability of them leads to numerous deaths that don't come close to whatever benefits the guns provide. The alleged reasons for why they do are:
1) Easy access to guns have nothing to do with people killing others with guns. (contradicted by literally every other western country on the planet)
2) I need my gun to be able to stop the US military (incredibly stupid for reasons I'm not allowed to say).
3) Well, the founding fathers liked guns (they were wrong on other things so I'm not taking their word for it)
4) Subsitence farmers (such an outlier that even if an exception were made for them, it doesn't justify Joe Surburbia needing an arsenal).
figmentPez
Staff member
We've been over "need" before. Not going down that rabbit hole again.
No, not contradicted, because other countries are not the US. The US is unique in terms of size, population distribution, the dichotomy between extremly rural conditions and extremely urban conditions, our history of being a country whose wilderness was "conquered" by the gun, etc. etc. etc. Which was my point with the elephant thing.
Trying to compare other countries to the US and saying "Well, it worked here" is like trying to compare the murder rates of Chicago and Houston and concluding that it's Chicago's cold weather is the reason for people killing each other there.
EDIT Also, what did ANY of that have to do with pandas? NOTHING. You're just trolling at this point.