PigLick on 13/6/2016 at 04:20
VA, that is really a pretty dumb argument you presented in your first paragraph. However, as I live in Australia, and I have never held or fired a gun, and the only gun I have ever seen was my uncles 22 rifle(he was a farmer and used it to put down animals and for pest control) i can only speak from a position of ignorance regarding types and classification of guns, but you have to admit they do make it easier to kill more people.
I dont think there actually is a root cause for mass shootings, there is too much diversity to point at one thing. Keep in mind also that I reckon if went to a shooting range I would find it pretty fun, just like you do, no different to going to an archery range or such.
Volitions Advocate on 13/6/2016 at 04:25
I think you're right about root causes, What I mean is I think each individual shooting like this probably has one.
Starker on 13/6/2016 at 05:08
Quote Posted by Volitions Advocate
And I honestly don't think a ban will stop things like this from happening. All it will do is stop people like me from safely enjoying a pastime that has nothing to do with hate. Of the 50 various firearms I saw being fired today, not a single one of them has ever been fired at a person, and I doubt they ever will be.
I don't think anything can stop mass shootings. Even in a totalitarian dystopia where everyone is monitored 24/7 you can bet there will be people who will find loopholes. And even if they can't get their hands on a gun, they will make a bomb or something like that. But you have to wonder whether there would be both less gun violence and less mass shootings if guns weren't so readily available as they are in the US.
And gun control does not have to mean that shooting ranges should be banned. Quite the opposite, in fact. It actually makes a lot of sense to keep guns at a place where they can be shot safely and where there are instructors available to teach gun safety.
catbarf on 13/6/2016 at 11:30
Quote Posted by Starker
I don't think anything can stop mass shootings. Even in a totalitarian dystopia where everyone is monitored 24/7 you can bet there will be people who will find loopholes. And even if they can't get their hands on a gun, they will make a bomb or something like that. But you have to wonder whether there would be both less gun violence and less mass shootings if guns weren't so readily available as they are in the US.
To be honest, one thing that drives me completely up the wall is hearing gun advocates say 'criminals don't obey laws and will always find a way'. Sure, criminals find ways around laws- even in Australia there are biker gangs producing crude homemade zip guns. That doesn't mean they're just as effective and easy to procure as professionally designed and produced firearms. The Columbine shooters had a bunch of homemade bombs in addition to their guns, and the bombs simply didn't work. There's no way around it, kids in Chicago and DC kill each at epidemic levels because they have access to dirt cheap mass-produced handguns through unscrupulous sellers, private sale, family, theft, and straw purchase.
Which is why I'm all for cracking down on FFLs whose books show odd discrepancies, opening the NICS to normal people so normal people can run background checks before they sell, holding people partially liable for crimes committed with a gun carelessly given or privately sold, stipulating some penalties for failing to properly secure a firearm and having it get stolen, giving the DoJ the resources to actually prosecute straw purchases, and adding further restrictions to handgun ownership (in my ideal world, requiring a federal-level 'must-issue' carry permit for purchase). But none of that is as simple as 'ban x', and none of that will completely eliminate gun violence as long as we continue to suffer from urban decay, the mental health crisis, and Islamic terrorism, all of which as root causes are much harder to treat.
faetal on 13/6/2016 at 11:50
Sorry Catbarf for the hip-shot, I was at peak exasperation when I typed that.
This is one of those discussions which is difficult to have because the gun culture in the US is so powerful that it seems to prevent full discussion of the topic.
What I find really difficult to get my head round is how these debates always seem to carry one proviso - the freedom to own guns is of top importance - even if it was determined that banning all guns would fix the violence problem, that would be rejected. It's like a perpetual blind spot - you want the problem fixed, but only if it doesn't impinge on the freedom to own guns. Like, 50 people recently got killed, which is tragic, but at least I still get to keep my gun.
Now the above is a purposely exaggerated argument for calibration purposes. I don't think it would be even slightly practicable to ban guns in the US overnight - it's something which could only ever take place over a long time period. But how about making it more difficult to obtain guns and ammo? Why is it that a guy who was on an FBI watch list was able to purchase a gun and enough ammo to kill 50 people? That's nuts. The right to get guns readily is being put before safety of other people. What is the huge benefit of easy access to a lot of guns with a lot of variety and a lot of ammo? What's the big positive of that freedom which has become so important to defend? You want ammo for the shooting range? Cool, we'll ship it to them and they can keep it under lock up for you sign out. You're going hunting? Cool, show us the permit etc... You're buying a large amount of ammo without any clear stated intent? Get this formed signed by someone from your local police department after discussing how it will be used.
I don't see how any of the above might ruin the lives or stamp on the rights of responsible gun owners. Sure it will inconvenience them, but if it also made it more difficult for ammo to end up in the wrong hands, wouldn't that be something which could be tolerated?
Instead, so much as a whisper of any increases in gun control and the nation becomes slick with Ted Nugent's foamy saliva. It's a bizarre spectacle when you're on the outside looking in.
Vivian on 13/6/2016 at 12:08
Yeah man, it always seems to be a case of someone who shouldn't be able to get a gun getting a gun, and then everyone who has any sense of perspective saying maybe we should stop that happening, and then everyone else who can't imagine their lovely, shiny guns doing anything so mean crying about it. You look like a nation of psychos and weird babies. Congrats.
catbarf on 13/6/2016 at 12:22
Quote Posted by faetal
Sorry Catbarf for the hip-shot, I was at peak exasperation when I typed that.
No worries. I thought it seemed uncharacteristic of you since you've been pretty level-headed in this discussion. I apologize if my reaction seemed harsh.
Quote Posted by faetal
This is one of those discussions which is difficult to have because the gun culture in the US is so powerful that it seems to prevent full discussion of the topic.
What I find really difficult to get my head round is how these debates always seem to carry one proviso - the freedom to own guns is of top importance - even if it was determined that banning all guns would fix the violence problem, that would be rejected. It's like a perpetual blind spot - you want the problem fixed, but only if it doesn't impinge on the freedom to own guns. Like, 50 people recently got killed, which is tragic, but at least I still get to keep my gun.
In my last post on the previous page I gave a few examples of things I'd like to see done, some of which could be interpreted as impinging on freedoms, but you're right, there is resistance. One factor is that yeah, we'd like to keep a hobby and sport that is very close to our national identity in a number of ways, optimistically thinking we can be like New Zealand where gun ownership is widespread and mass shootings aren't. Another factor, more practically I think, is that with so many guns already in circulation and frequently used for self-defense (over one million times per year according to Kleck, a well-known criminologist), there are legitimate uses that an outright ban would infringe upon. A ban that disempowers legitimate owners with minimal effect on the criminal population (which now includes all the enthusiasts who will never comply with an outright ban) is the worst of both worlds.
I posted a couple pages back a set of stats showing violent crime in England and Australia, and how both rose following their bans. I can only imagine what those stats would look like in the US. Like it or not, we have a lot of guns and a lot of people who have very personal reasons for favoring gun ownership, and we have to work with that in mind.
Quote Posted by faetal
Now the above is a purposely exaggerated argument for calibration purposes. I don't think it would be even slightly practicable to ban guns in the US overnight - it's something which could only ever take place over a long time period. But how about making it more difficult to obtain guns and ammo? Why is it that a guy who was on an FBI watch list was able to purchase a gun and enough ammo to kill 50 people? That's nuts. The right to get guns readily is being put before safety of other people. What is the huge benefit of easy access to a lot of guns with a lot of variety and a lot of ammo? What's the big positive of that freedom which has become so important to defend? You want ammo for the shooting range? Cool, we'll ship it to them and they can keep it under lock up for you sign out. You're going hunting? Cool, show us the permit etc... You're buying a large amount of ammo without any clear stated intent? Get this formed signed by someone from your local police department after discussing how it will be used.
I don't see how any of the above might ruin the lives or stamp on the rights of responsible gun owners. Sure it will inconvenience them, but if it also made it more difficult for ammo to end up in the wrong hands, wouldn't that be something which could be tolerated?
Ammo control has been suggested, but the amount of ammo needed to kill fifty people is pretty much just the ammo needed for a short trip to the range, so I don't see how you can distinguish between the two. The people who stockpile large amounts of ammo are recreational shooters and competitors, not mass killers. Not to mention reloading equipment is cheap and easy to get. To be honest, I think restricting guns would be a lot more effective than restricting ammunition. Of the two, the latter is far easier to produce with minimal setup and infrastructure.
Quote Posted by faetal
Instead, so much as a whisper of any increases in gun control and the nation becomes slick with Ted Nugent's foamy saliva. It's a bizarre spectacle when you're on the outside looking in.
Yeah, it's really polarizing and it's the Ted Nugent types that drown out any reasonable gun owners. I'm not a fan of the NRA by any means.
faetal on 13/6/2016 at 13:45
If the US treated guns as a hobby or a sport, there probably wouldn't be anywhere near the same level of problem. For me, it's this idea that gun ownership turns each individual into a sovereign nation by bestowing the capability to destroy anyone who goes near your freedoms*. The problem of course being that society doesn't work like that - freedoms of individuals within society are necessarily consensus-based (or should be, if governments weren't bought) so one person deciding that their ability to trade shots with someone they disagree with strongly enough equates to their freedom doesn't fit. The problem is nothing to do with people who enjoy going to shooting ranges or hunting. But having so many guns in so many hands in a country which grew from a frontier mentality and is full of aggressive notions about rights and shows of force and you're bound to end up with a problem.
The other issue is supply. If you send teams of police out into the streets on a weekly basis to confiscate guns from drug dealers etc, the vast amount of guns in the US means they can re-stock easily. Illegal guns don't just wink into existence, they start out somewhere as legal guns and there are a lot of them. If guns did disappear from the US overnight, gun crime would fall year on year because after a lag period, the illegal gun pool would begin to dry up too.
Do you have some data on the spike in violent crime after firearm bans? That sounds like something I'll need to look at for a bit before I comment.
* for example, check out the sheer amount of "Just you fucking try to vaccinate my kids" memes with gun-wielding "mama bears" on google images, the attitude is interchangeable in many ways, there seems to be any number "just you fucking try it" attitudes towards any number of "x is MY RIGHT" backed up with pictures of big guns memes floating around out there.
PigLick on 13/6/2016 at 13:46
i have a fucking data spike, and its made of flesh
scumble on 13/6/2016 at 13:47
Was that drunk posting Piglet?
