modern gun rights arguments (i.e. any restriction from the state is unconstitutional, citizens may be armed at all times) originated in the pre-civil war southern states both as part of their stupid "honor" culture of duels and manliness and as a means to preserve order among slaves
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Can someone explain the anti gun control argument?
- Thread starter Vault Dweller 111
- Start date
- Status
ALSO, fuck this shit where we demonize what is essentially free food for poor people.
gutter_trash
Banned
Who makes the guns?
Who sells the guns at gunshows with that loop-hole?
The tabaco industry has been heavily regulated over the years, fewer people smoke in America today.
Regulate the gun manufacturers to the same level as the tabaco industry
You're right, it should be illegal to drink and use a gun.
LookAtMeGo
Member
Save us from the Babushka Lady!
SuperBanana
Banned
Even Australia which has heavy gun control/bans allows hunting and farming rifles. It's a tool to them and will always be allowed.
gutter_trash
Banned
Vincent Grayson
Member
While I don't have the numbers, I dare say a lot of gun accidents involve non-sober people.
NoblesseOblige
Banned
Apparently 'mass shootings' doesn't have a strict definition in criminology like 'mass murder' does. I took it to assume mass murder, but with a gun. In order for something to be a mass murder it requires 4 deaths. Under that definition there have not been 300+ mass shootings. However if you view a mass shooting as having 4 victims (injury+death), then yes, there have been in fact 300+ mass shootings. I don't really know what my point is other than a semantic one. I guess it's that it's easy to use a number to support opposite arguments if you're relying on loose definitions. Maybe this is why some people fear being a victim of a shooting because they hear such a large number. But then people like me think they're being paranoid and feel plenty safe because to us that number isn't accurate.
It is, but the city council where I live is full of vegan hippies. I hate Fox News as much as anyone here, but they recently did a story on it and their mockery of us was well placed.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/45843704...ng-residents-ruining-property/?#sp=show-clips
I was teasing him. Those are all things that I as a gun owner support.
Yeah. I know it's stupid, but even I don't think "that's a mass shooting" when I see a news story about 4 people being shot in a robbery or something,
Ninja Scooter
Member
Why is it a loose definition. If a "mass murder" is when 4 or more people are killed, why wouldn't a "mass shooting" be when 4 or more people are shot? Why would you assume everyone has to die for a shooting to be a "mass" one?
Vincent Grayson
Member
It makes sense. "Mass" is 4+, but murder necessarily involves death, and shooting covers both death and injury.
NoblesseOblige
Banned
It's a loose definition because it's not academic. I cannot find a definition used by criminologists. So while you consider 4 people being shot a mass shooting, someone else doesn't unless it includes 4 deaths. It's as simple as that.
I get the reason, I just don't find it an academic one. I wouldn't call it a mass stabbing if someone stabbed 4 people. I'd call it a singular stabbing incident. If 4 people died I'd call it a mass murder that involved stabbing.
I hate to say it but I think its pretty much a lost cause.
Most of those attempts are small scale in a nature and were done only on the local level, and saw enough opposition from hunters that they did not reach the scale they need to reach if it were serious about reducing deer numbers. We know from historical examples that we can nearly eliminate an entire species if the will for it exists: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/the-...americas-campaign-to-eradicate-the-wolf/4312/
SuperBanana
Banned
There have been over 1,347 deaths from Mass shootings since 2013, not including these last few and over 3,817 wounded. You're right, those numbers are just easy to use and pushing an agenda. That's ONLY from Mass Shootings, not all gun violence. I mean, What's a few thousand dead or wounded in a couple years anyway?
Ninja Scooter
Member
it matches the definition that you were using for "mass murder" though. You were just confusing the two. Why is your definition of mass murder not also loose?
Er, yeah. There's a huge difference (one being that Obama is an elected official, so he DOES represent the American, even if you don't like him or vote for him. Tough luck. The majority of Americans DID).
But also, do you know how many terrorist attacks on American soil there's been in the 10 years since 9/11 compared to normal gun-related deaths?
You really, truly don't see how one is a bigger issue than the other?
Atomic Playboy
Member
It seems patently absurd to focus on the semantic argument when you're admitting that we're talking about hundreds of incidents this year of multiple innocent people being shot at one time. "Oh, well they didn't all die, so I guess it's fine." What kind of attitude is that?
I was originally born in New York state, but currently live in Florida. The extreme in gun policies is something that has to be seen first-hand. I continually travel between both states, so we have an incredibly cumbersome policy of gun ownership in New York to having a somewhat disturbing hands-off gun ownership policy in Florida. I would also be lying if I didn't partially believe some of the voices and advocates pushing for "smart gun control" just to have their foot in the door for more restrictions. That level of distrust isn't at all alleviated by a lot of the voices from liberal spheres, including NeoGAF.
As for Snowden, I knew a lot of people who were pissed with both his release of information and what we eventually found out. As for national sentiment, I would think it was more mixed, no?
MisterAnderson
Member
Unfortunately for those who don't abuse their "rights", yes it absolutely does. Or at the very least, it means conforming to new rules that helps mitigate those who abuse them.
Let's say that a local road near your residence has a speed limit of 65 mph, but over a two year period there are statistically many car wrecks on that road (none of which have been caused by you directly), so the speed limit is then revised to be 45 mph. You are now legally obligated to follow that revised speed limit due to the actions/negligence of others.
These types of revisions happen all the time across MANY forms of legislation and government, but for some insane reason, many Americans can't see past this logic when it comes to guns.
DontBeThatGuy
Member
Hell, you need a photo ID to use a food stamp card in Maine, and yet you basically need fuck all to buy and carry a gun. It's asinine, both of those things.
gutter_trash
Banned
war on the poor
Norris1020
Member
I'm not a gun owner not have any interest in one, but most of my and my wife's friends started carrying over the past five years or so. Every time the issue comes up most everyone agrees "gun control will be as futile as the war in drugs (in the 1980's)" and "if they were banned, people will always have a way to acquire guns, as easy as scoring a bag of pot."
I don't necessarily disagree with those statements, there are so many guns in this country and I'm sure they could be easily trafficked into this country otherwise.
It's such a monumental task trying to take on this issue.
I don't necessarily disagree with those statements, there are so many guns in this country and I'm sure they could be easily trafficked into this country otherwise.
It's such a monumental task trying to take on this issue.
Well you can't exactly hunt in city limits without being part of special "deer kill" event designed to cull the population. The city wouldn't allow a deer kill, so they've been trying other measures that, again, experts have said don't work. I'm not sure why you're afraid of hunters to begin with. They're the type of people that lock their $1000 Ruger .270 bolt action in a safe for most of the year and only use it while hunting out the middle of nowhere.
Garrett 2U
Member
Last night, my two buddies were trying to convince me that introducing more guns would solve the issue.
They argued that if either of them had a gun, they'd shoot the mass murderer then promptly surrender their weapon to the floor with their hands above their head, happily accepting the title of "hero".
They then told me about how a couple days ago they got into a fist fight with each other over their favorite sports teams, one broke a nose and the other lost a tooth.
I mentioned how much of a shame it was that they weren't armed with a handgun.
Quip aside, they honestly believed that arming the student body would stop school shootings.
They argued that if either of them had a gun, they'd shoot the mass murderer then promptly surrender their weapon to the floor with their hands above their head, happily accepting the title of "hero".
They then told me about how a couple days ago they got into a fist fight with each other over their favorite sports teams, one broke a nose and the other lost a tooth.
I mentioned how much of a shame it was that they weren't armed with a handgun.
Quip aside, they honestly believed that arming the student body would stop school shootings.
I've seen that site pop up in a lot of articles on Vox and The Washington Post in the past 24 hours but I can't really get behind it's logic. Yeah, it fits the media narrative of "the sky is falling and mass shootings are everywhere!" but it's a crowd-sourced site and extremely loose with how it defines a mass shooting.
Because "mass murder vs mass shootings" is being brought up, I think it's more level-headed to look at "mass-killings" statistics because of the emotional attachment to these stories. The FBI hasn't put out statistics on 2015 yet, but here's their analysis of 2014's mass killing incidents.
It’s horrific when the innocent are injured or killed. It tugs at the heartstrings and causes people to consider their own mortality or the mortality of their loved ones. When we hear headlines like, “more mass shootings than days,” it makes us recoil in terror. It does us no good to be thinking in terms of panic like that. It's better to keep all these mass killings in perspective along with the fact that gun violence is actually down 30% over the past 20 years.
SlickShoesRUCrazy
Member
Sure, but, you have a whole segment of society in the US that believes the simple anti-gun control argument I posted.
"Bad guy" can also mean "government," the "black guy" the damn "muslims" etc etc etc.
That's the simplest argument that I think most people believe that are anti-gun control.
Seems to have been extremely effective thus far. It's definitely far more complicated, but it's the simplest argument used by majority.
To me the biggest hurdle to gun control, is the American population seems to have simple accepted the country is a lost cause. Every thread on gun control the loudest message is that it's simply pointless to try. Every police shooting, the loudest voice is the guy had it coming. People just seem to accept the country is full of "criminals and thugs" and the only solution is more guns and more dead "bad guys". If you can't label a mass shooter as a terrorist or a thug then they are mentally ill. Also mental illness seems to be defined as someone that needs to be shot. I don't understand the American culture that it's the greatest country on earth and in the next breath it's war zone ruled by a police state and impossible to change.
It was the counterargument to the notion that you need firearms to control deer population. If the deer cull had been expanded to the surround regions or done with better research of deer migration/breeding patterns, it would have been far more effective.
Thats the problem with numbers its easy to make them work for you. What i would like to see from that shooting number is how many of those are gang/drug related. I grew up in Baltimore, so shootings where a normal occurrence, but most where gang related.
This is interesting, because I have met very few, ever, who are in the former. I think the vast majority would have no issues with gun ownership if there were certain controls to it.
I think the quiet minority of "no guns" is probably equal to the very loud "no restrictions" group and then there's a giant amount of silent people in the middle who really should determine policy.
NoblesseOblige
Banned
My point is that "mass shooting" inspires images of people storming a crowd with the intent to do harm to as many people as possible. That's not what is actually occurring though. Two idiots getting into an argument at the bar and one pulling his gun out to let out two rounds could be classified as a "mass shooting" because one bullet passed through its target, hitting another, while the second grazed two third parties. Is that terrible? Of freaking course it is. Does it mean guns need to be restricted? Hell yes it does. So why rely on attaching emotional language like "mass shooting" to it? It just reeks of inspiring fear and goading people to feel more concerned. I hear people all the time here saying how they fear going to public places because of the amount of 'mass shootings' that occur. Well your chances of being a victim of it is still so infinitesimal that I find that to be extremely paranoid. America has a gun problem, that's a fact. So I let that fact stand on its own without spurring fear.
Ninja Scooter
Member
so if they are gang/drug related they don't count? I think the point of that statistic is to prove how prevalent it is for something to take a gun and wound/kill multiple people. Yes in some instances it's going to be guns that were illegally obtained and not registered, which is why I brought it up. I'd like to see how many of those 355 instances were legally owned and obtained guns, to compare that to the "but the bad guys get the guns illegally anyway!" narrative.
The numbers in western Europe are close to those of Japan, despite being much closer to american culture than the japanese.
It's still ten time higher than in any west european country...
There's a fundamental issue at play of whether or not you think a government should have enough power to prevent citizens from owning firearms. Where you land regarding that is going to determine if you ever are sincerely able to empathize with people who agree with the 2nd amendment.
As far "common sense" gun control laws go, I think the argument is that that sentiment is as trite and ineffectual as "#thoughtsandprayers" when it comes to criminals determined to commit violence. And unfortunately the facts seem back it up. More gun laws in addition to the ones that were already in place in California and Paris wouldn't have prevented these attacks. The desire to DO SOMETHING is commendable, but often there are no easy answers when it comes to certain violent acts.
As far "common sense" gun control laws go, I think the argument is that that sentiment is as trite and ineffectual as "#thoughtsandprayers" when it comes to criminals determined to commit violence. And unfortunately the facts seem back it up. More gun laws in addition to the ones that were already in place in California and Paris wouldn't have prevented these attacks. The desire to DO SOMETHING is commendable, but often there are no easy answers when it comes to certain violent acts.
I think it reflects a different issue. If say 300 out of the 355 shootings are gang related that shows a far different problem vs if 55 out of the 355 are gang related.
Maybe. It's all anecdotal and I don't know numbers. I just saw a LOT of people who were convinced he was a bad guy and the government needed to do that shit to protect us from terror. After 9/11 I have been exceedingly surprised how many people are fine with losing their rights to protect us from something that is realistically slimmer than most daily dangers.
Even people who don't like it aren't "that" mad. There wasn't a lot of political punishment for it from my view.
Ninja Scooter
Member
But that would also represent a gun problem. Gangs or criminals having seemingly easy access to guns, even illegally, is also a problem.
Thats true but how you fix illegal gun violence vs crazy people shooting up a place is different
NoblesseOblige
Banned
It is still a problem. So why label them "mass shootings", a term associated firstly with imagery of gunman who storm schools, or malls, or theatres. That's not an accurate representation of the majority of those 355 incidents. If it's a problem then you should be able to accurately address it without conflation and the injection of fear.
Ninja Scooter
Member
I don't think they are that different. I think they both have their roots in this country's gun obsessed culture. I mean, do other countries that have much more strict legal gun laws and regulation have mass shootings involving illegal weapons at the same rate we do?
With arguably different solutions though.
...and if that is how we're approaching it what the fuck makes mass shootings special at all. Why not just talk about "shootings"
Kid Kamikaze10
Member
Hunting
In an area without as much police protection
Sport
And Protecting Farms
These are the only anti-gun control stuff that's valid, and all of those can be heavily regulated if we gave a damn to do it.
In an area without as much police protection
Sport
And Protecting Farms
These are the only anti-gun control stuff that's valid, and all of those can be heavily regulated if we gave a damn to do it.
I say the following as someone who has shot recreationally (Target and clays), been trained by the military in the use of rifles from breach-loading WW1 style rifles to modern day (Okay, modern-ish) LSW styled rifles.
There is no anti gun-control arguement.
What there is is an arguement over proportionality, enforcability, and usefulness.
Saying in the US tomorrow "All guns are banned" is patently ridiculous, and yet something must be done. The first part would be to define what SHOULD be allowed and then enforce that. Personally I'm of the view that if you are not a member of the police force, armed forces, or in livelihood/mortal danger from wild animals then you should not EVER have a (personal) firearm (That you can store at home and transport with you)...and to an extent that's what we have in the UK (except that our police force is not routinely armed and has actively campaigned AGAINST being armed)...but this is something that has to suit the US and I can't pretend to know the ins and outs of all of it.
It's a long road ahead for the US. A lot more people are going to die at the hands of your own populace. Your politicians have already admitted they don't want to do anything when nothing came of Sandy Hook. Personally I hope that things turn around for you soon. It took one school shooting in the UK to turn around our gun legislation...I pray it doesn't take another for the US to fix its own.
There is no anti gun-control arguement.
What there is is an arguement over proportionality, enforcability, and usefulness.
Saying in the US tomorrow "All guns are banned" is patently ridiculous, and yet something must be done. The first part would be to define what SHOULD be allowed and then enforce that. Personally I'm of the view that if you are not a member of the police force, armed forces, or in livelihood/mortal danger from wild animals then you should not EVER have a (personal) firearm (That you can store at home and transport with you)...and to an extent that's what we have in the UK (except that our police force is not routinely armed and has actively campaigned AGAINST being armed)...but this is something that has to suit the US and I can't pretend to know the ins and outs of all of it.
It's a long road ahead for the US. A lot more people are going to die at the hands of your own populace. Your politicians have already admitted they don't want to do anything when nothing came of Sandy Hook. Personally I hope that things turn around for you soon. It took one school shooting in the UK to turn around our gun legislation...I pray it doesn't take another for the US to fix its own.
You can't compare the US to other country though. How a small country in Europe can govern isn't the same as a country 10 times the size can. Along with the fact we have far different culture and social issues.
You have to deal with them differently. If its gang/drug violence, gun regulations isn't going to fix it. Police seize tens of thousands of guns from gangs but that doesn't stop them.
Croatoan
They/Them A-10 Warthog
My argument? I purchased these weapons legally and don't like the idea of the government taking my property from me without compensation. And believe me, they would not compensate gun owners at all.
It would be tantamount to steeling $4,000 dollars from me.
Plus i think they are fun.
I do argue for really strict laws though just not outright banning/gathering them up.
It would be tantamount to steeling $4,000 dollars from me.
Plus i think they are fun.
I do argue for really strict laws though just not outright banning/gathering them up.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked