Athos
Well-Known Member
Do you understand the concept of causation v correlation? And the possibility of other factors being in play?
Yet another US college gun slaughter - "at least 10" killed in Oregan shooting
- Thread starter TomUS
- Start date
Do you understand the concept of causation v correlation? And the possibility of other factors being in play?
8den
No I'm pretty sure that was 8ball...
Fire arm shootings are not mass shootings.
And just because they weren't happening daily doesn't mean they weren't an issues.
Is your argument really going to be "mass shootings happen too frequently in the US therefore they should try and enact gun control?
Because even from you that's incredibly stupid.
No I'm saying that if the US became a fascist state tomorrow the kind of weapons and technology at their disposal means small firearms would be ineffective
Athos
Well-Known Member
Which doesn't address the issue of the other possible negative consequences of such laws. Equally, they don't go away by you ignoring them.
Athos
Well-Known Member
No. Absolutely not. Never has been. If you think otherwise, please show me what I've said that you've misinterpreted to mean that, and I'll correct you.
Is that your understanding of how fascism comes about, then - overnight, from nowhere?
8den
No I'm pretty sure that was 8ball...
Australia the UK and Canada
And it's not a knee jerk reaction oh and who fucking cares if it is. The only right reaction to something like sandy hook should be an immediate rethink of us gun control
On and Australia took three months to institute radical gun control so spare me the "it's impossible" it took six years to put a man on the moon. With public support and political will radical us gun control could happen in months
Athos
Well-Known Member
This is bullshit. I hate guns. Not sure I'd own one if I lived in the US. Certainly harbour no desires to engage in armed struggle.
More importantly, this comment doesn;t really address any of the issues.
8den
No I'm pretty sure that was 8ball...
Well according to you it is yes. Because the only thing preventing the us sliding into tyranny is gun ownership
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
it's interesting that the people calling shrillest for the americans to implement gun control have no evident link with the united states.
8ball
Decolonise colons!
I'm not convinced that this would be true for all circumstances. Lots of people in America, big distances to be covered, big areas over which you need to round people up...
8ball
Decolonise colons!
Where was this said?
8den
No I'm pretty sure that was 8ball...
I'm Irish I've an extended close family in the US and I've both lived and worked there
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
yeh i know you're irish.
we've all got family in the united states but you don't see all of us saying 'we know best for the united states'. i've certainly never heard my relatives there saying either 'after all these awful things we really need strict gun control' or 'we need people on your side of the pond to raise this issue on interwebnet forums'.
Athos
Well-Known Member
We can agree to disagree over how easy it would be to impliment in the US. But it still doesn't address the issue of whether a state should be disarming its citizens, and what the consequences of that could be.
But we're just going around in circles, now. Suffice to say, we disagree - it doesn't look like you will ever be persuaded, and you've certainly said nothing persuavive to me. So maybe I'll leave it there, especially since you seem keen to mischaracterise my position to make cheap 'points'.
Idris2002
canadian girlfriend
I'm not calling for Americans to do anything, and I doubt they could even enforce gun control if they wanted to. I just find the nonsense about "I need my guns to protect against tyranny" . . . irritating.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
that's why i didn't quote you, i know your position.
Athos
Well-Known Member
Apart from anything else, it's the widely-held belief in the latter that makes the former true.
Idris2002
canadian girlfriend
gimesumtruf
pedant fodder
They haven't tried compulsory gun ownership yet. You would have to worry though because of the age limit option.
Athos
Well-Known Member
A town in Georgia tried to impliment madatory owership of guns and ammunition, but the ordinance was struck down by the court, which heald that there is a right not to bear arms!
But I think it's technically still on the books elsewhere, albeit not enforced.
8den
No I'm pretty sure that was 8ball...
yeh i know you're irish.
This is a discussion forum pick mans. Are you suggesting I'm not allowed express an opinion?
8ball
Decolonise colons!
The mad thing (to me) about the States is just how easy it is to get a firearm, though. Often something ludicrously high-powered, too. We've all seen those programmes with Louis Theroux and stuff.
I was chatting with an American colleague about what kinds of weapons should be allowed to be sold pretty much on demand - I actually got to nukes before he became unsure.
I'd feel bad for all those people who like shooting perfectly legally if there was some massive ban, but there are heaps of measures that don't go anywhere near that far.
I was chatting with an American colleague about what kinds of weapons should be allowed to be sold pretty much on demand - I actually got to nukes before he became unsure.
I'd feel bad for all those people who like shooting perfectly legally if there was some massive ban, but there are heaps of measures that don't go anywhere near that far.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
sadly no.
hot air baboon
Well-Known Member
.....any indication of the use of psychiatric drugs in this case...their indiscriminate use is usually flagged up as a significant ingredient in alot of these school shootings...
Vintage Paw
dead stare and computer glare
It seems pretty obvious that it's not just about gun ownership, and about a whole raft of other cultural, economic and political problems. If there is a solution to be had, it must tackle everything, which of course includes what regulations should be on the ownership of firearms and the types of firearms in the first place. But that means little if you don't also address the ingrained belief in the right to bear arms and the ideological position that stems from. Which in turn means a pretty hefty and heartfelt look at the whole Founding Fathers bullshit as well. That in itself is a momentous task that I can't see being broached any time soon. It's so intrinsically tied to narratives around freedom, self-determination, the place Americans* view themselves as holding in the world, as well as the constant politicking back and forth by the Dems and GOP. That's before we get to the power the NRA holds, and how you begin to tackle that in a society that has such a strong libertarian bent and views unregulated capitalism as an expression of their inherent freedom.
It's not at all surprising anyone would jump straight to "regulate guns" because it's the easiest thing to point to. And indeed, it is something that needs to be a part of the solution. But how on earth do you start having the bigger debates? It's unheard of for a President to come out and say what Obama has on mass shootings, and yet can you imagine a President talking about whether Americans should rethink their slavish obedience to 'what the Founding Fathers wanted' or trying to have a discussion about what role capitalism plays in the way Americans are taught to fear to such an extent that they need several weapons at their disposal, or about the power being wielded by the NRA and various religious types and others who have an interest in this kind of society continuing? It wouldn't happen, not least because even the fluffiest Dem has their own interest in the status quo, and an honest discussion of this problem would uncover too much.
*#notallamericans
It's not at all surprising anyone would jump straight to "regulate guns" because it's the easiest thing to point to. And indeed, it is something that needs to be a part of the solution. But how on earth do you start having the bigger debates? It's unheard of for a President to come out and say what Obama has on mass shootings, and yet can you imagine a President talking about whether Americans should rethink their slavish obedience to 'what the Founding Fathers wanted' or trying to have a discussion about what role capitalism plays in the way Americans are taught to fear to such an extent that they need several weapons at their disposal, or about the power being wielded by the NRA and various religious types and others who have an interest in this kind of society continuing? It wouldn't happen, not least because even the fluffiest Dem has their own interest in the status quo, and an honest discussion of this problem would uncover too much.
*#notallamericans
8ball
Decolonise colons!
Athos
Well-Known Member
Exactly. It's a very complex and nuanced issue. The well-meaning by childishly simplistic arguments that the US should ban all guns overnight, and that it'd take six months to collect them all in, and that thereafter there'd necessarily be no mass shootings, and that there are no US-specific components to the equation such that other countries' experiences can be read accross directly, and that there are no wider consequences of adopting that course, and that anyone who disagrees with that notion is an Alex Jones-style gun nut, is as ridiculous as it is unhelpful.
Of course, gun control will have to be considered as a part of the solution, but given that most of these incidents involve legally owned guns, and given that people in other countries are able to hold guns without the same consequnces, I supect that unless you can effectively remove all guns (which of course you can't, even if you wanted to/would be the right thing to do), tinkering with the laws will be a relatively small part of the jigsaw.
Last edited:
Vintage Paw
dead stare and computer glare
Yes, but it's understandable why that's the default position. Slagging people off for thinking that isn't helping either. The reason they think that and don't move it on further is part of the same problem as the one they're trying to solve. It's an almost impossible situation.
MrsDoyle
ahh, go on...
This is a quote from the final link I shared earlier, the Washington Post article, it echoes the very simple premise that is constant throughout any meaningful dialogue about gun control; fewer guns and ammunition in circulation gives fewer opportunities for them to be used nefariously:
"Of course, we know one thing that could be done: We could admit that there are too many guns and get serious about reducing their number. These child-deaths are a uniquely American problem; in other countries, simply accepting such an endless string of accidental killings would be unthinkable. And as the child accident statistics have poured in, so have those on the efficacy of gun control: It’s becoming harder and harder to deny that more guns equals more violence. We also know that massive restrictions can have major positive effects. The word “Australia” is verboten among the gun rights crowd now that Australia has succeeded in cutting its firearm death rate by 59 percent after passing sweeping prohibitions on gun ownership. In fact, the Australian case offers such rock solid evidence of the life-saving potential of gun control that the pro-gun side has struggled to offer any response, except to yelp, “But you’re talking about confiscation!” (To which one might reply: “And?”) So there is a way to avoid having our preschools look like a Peckinpah film. It just involves some tough measures."
"Of course, we know one thing that could be done: We could admit that there are too many guns and get serious about reducing their number. These child-deaths are a uniquely American problem; in other countries, simply accepting such an endless string of accidental killings would be unthinkable. And as the child accident statistics have poured in, so have those on the efficacy of gun control: It’s becoming harder and harder to deny that more guns equals more violence. We also know that massive restrictions can have major positive effects. The word “Australia” is verboten among the gun rights crowd now that Australia has succeeded in cutting its firearm death rate by 59 percent after passing sweeping prohibitions on gun ownership. In fact, the Australian case offers such rock solid evidence of the life-saving potential of gun control that the pro-gun side has struggled to offer any response, except to yelp, “But you’re talking about confiscation!” (To which one might reply: “And?”) So there is a way to avoid having our preschools look like a Peckinpah film. It just involves some tough measures."
Athos
Well-Known Member
I agree that ad hominem stuff directed against those in favour of a ban is unhelpful. But, all too often, the debate is quickly dragged down to that level by those (from either side) whose opinions are informed more by emotion than anything else e.g. on this thread I've been called an idiot and illiierate, told I'm held in contempt by everyone, told I'm taking bullshit and don't know what I'm talking about, accused of machismo etc., by people who were better able to call names than present coherent arguments.
Last edited:
Similar threads
