http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/19/video-games-sandy-hook_n_2330741.html Well this didn't take long.
I offered suggestions on closing the gun show loophole and strengthening the FBI database with peoples mental health records pages ago. In turn I've endured pages and pages of the same circular arguments and being called a boner stroker repeatedly, intelligent discourse indeed. Honestly, it is taking a very lot not just to tell you to get fucked. Limits or prohibitive taxes on ammo wouldn't work simply because it would unduly burden the citizens to exercise their rights. It would amount to a poll tax situation where the hardest hit would be the poor. As much as socioeconomics plays in the crime problem in America, law abiding poor citizens deserve to be able to protect themselves, more so than Whitey Honkington in Suburbia. Same issue would go for an automobile license style program for guns. Fuck you couldn't even float a voter ID law without being called a racist pole taxing nigger hater this past election. I'd expect any laws to be challenged on civil rights grounds in courts with an outcome you might not like. But somehow, like alcohol in these arguments, no one will cry foul because guns are robot killing machines. It's a crying shame too as I hear Republicans wanting all entertainment on the table which seems like they are desperately lashing out in the face of all of this.
Well said. And it seems like, as a country, you've made your choice. So what about a ban on carrying in public? Is that off the table/too much of a sacrifice? Do you feel your rights would be violated if you could only have a gun in your home, while hunting, or at the gun range? And I know I get snarky, but believe me, as an outsider who loves America, I regularly find myself defending the mostly misguided American stereotype of all of you guys being rude, ignorant yokels that cling to your guns, because I know first hand it's not true. Except for that last part. Now I'm sure you don't care, but your reputation around the world is, for the most part, not favourable. And that sucks (because it's wrong, generally). But holy shit, your denial of an EXTREMELY obvious problem (multiple self-inflicted 9/11's each year) is at religious levels, and it's frustrating as hell for someone who believes strongly in pretty much every other tenet of your country.
Fail to see the point since the school this guy shot up was a no gun zone. Plenty of states and localities have these bans on carrying in public for concealed and open carry. They do next to nothing stoping it this type of crime, or any type of crime (see Chicago). This isn't some defeatist argument either, banning carrying in public, has shown, not to work. Stopping gun crimes in general they could harshen the sentences of criminals that use gun or have guns on them during a crime, they are already pretty stiff as is but more could be done.
Do you realize that open carry is illegal in most states unless the gun owner has a carry permit- something that requires a pretty extensive FBI background check? Did you know that businesses can deny concealed carry? Did you know that most parks are off limits? Bars? Restaurants? Airports? Did you know that you cannot carry in a school? Did you know that many malls post no-carry? Do you know any of this? Did you know that getting caught carrying a firearm in a posted no-carry zone is a felony and you are no longer protected under your concealed-carry permit? It would be the same as if you never had one at all? Do you know any of this? Further, if I walk down the street while brandishing a firearm, someone WILL call the cops.
If it's not an intractable problem, tell us the solution. The citizens/soldiers comparison is irrelevant in this discussion. The number of soldiers in war zones is a tiny fraction of the U.S. population. It's perfect for its shock value, but comparing those two numbers doesn't tell us anything about how great the problem is or what to do about it without calucalting the associated risk for each situation. It's similar to saying that more people are killed in cars going to the grocery store than in racing, even though racing is far more dangerous. You've been to the U.S. Would you rather walk through a U.S. shopping mall or accompany U.S. Marines in Afghanistan? Which hypothetical solutions have you presented before this post? I asked you before very pointedly which guns you would allow and which you would ban, but you ignored me. If we're going to construct a solution, these are the details we have to discuss in order to arrive at it. Great, let's do that. Now what? Would that have prevented what happened Friday? How many existing laws did that shooter break before he even got to the school? Passing more laws for a criminal or a psycho to ignore won't change anything. That's one of the major points that proponents of gun control keep missing. Murder is already illegal, yet they propose more regulations on guns thinking they will have some magical effect. A law is only useful if the potential punishment is a deterrent to someone who might choose to break it. If guns were banned in public, I would not carry a gun in public because the punishment for getting caught would affect me too much. If I went crazy and decided to commit some heinous crime, would I care how many other laws I broke along the way? At least you're thinking and offering a specific solution here. Unfortunately, it wouldn't have much, if any, effect. The guns used Friday were purchased legally under much stricter controls than what you saw in Houston, yet it still happened. I understand your surprise at the ease of obatining a weapon legally in Texas. I live in Georgia where the laws are very similar. What controls do you think need to be in place in order to improve the situation? What are the criteria you think would be helpful to apply? It's easy to say that guns should be harder to obtain. The problem is that we must then define the criteria under which everyone will be judged. What should those be? Convicted felons and the mentally unstable are already prohibited. We then added anyone who has been convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence. What other limits should there be? At least you understand that the U.S. has a miserable track record in banning things from its citizens, as shown during Prohibition and the War on Drugs. I think you are grossly underestimating the number of cartridges sold in the U.S. every year and the size of the black market that would develop overnight if ammuntion were ever restricted. Again, you've fallen for the fallacy that laws reduce crime. Gun control is an emotional issue because guns are scary to those who are uneducated about them, but is it our biggest problem? We "9/11 ourselves" (your term) every month through accidental poisonings. About three times as many people die each year in the U.S. from accidental drug overdose than from firearms homicides. Most of those are from legal prescription drugs. Why aren't you upset about that? Because pills aren't nearly as scary as guns.
Honestly, we as Americans generally don't give a shit about this. Other nations can beat their chests about how great they are and look down their noses at America, but we know where we stand. Other countries spend a ton of time worrying about what America is doing. You know how much time we spend worrying about them? None.
Go to a map. Pick a Western world country that isn't America. Look at their gun laws, consider adopting a few, then repeat. That'd be a start, anyways. My point about the soldiers/war zones is that, as a country, you guys rightly freaked the fuck out when you were attacked, changing laws (mostly airplane-related, it seems) in a hurry. No attacks since (or hopefully ever). Meanwhile, you murder the same number of your own each fiscal quarter, yet the freak out only happens when it's a mass shooting on children, and even then, I wouldn't count on any real change. And why is it the pro gun side sitting back asking everyone else for solutions? You guys have all the knowledge, it's your reputation as responsible gun owners that's getting tarnished each time a gun murder (mass or otherwise) takes place. Yet, aside from saying there needs to be more work on the mental health side of things, which obviously no one disagrees with, you won't offer a single gun-related sacrifice you'd be willing to make for the good of your country. No matter what hypothetical solution is offered, you have a bullet-quick (eh?) response as to why it won't work, even though every other Western country has come up with some kind of solution. Well, that tells me that you're happy with the status quo, and part of that status quo is 30+ dead Americans every single day (and the occasional school shooting). I don't mean to condescend, but you can at least agree that you have a problem the rest of the Western world doesn't, right? Like, can you at least admit that, as a country, you are clearly doing something wrong when it comes to your relationship with guns? This is probably the most depressing line of reasoning brought up by the pro gun side. You really don't see the distinct differences between those examples, do you? You even mentioned one of them, right there in your quote. Key word: accidental. Generally, people who fire guns at other people, mean to (then there are the accidental shootings, which last time I checked is also way higher in the U.S.). Another difference is that overdosing, intentional or not, harms no one (physically) but the person themself. And like the ridiculous car analogy, I'll ask again, what's your point? So the thing you're arguing in favour of is in the same ball park as OD's -- and this doesn't make you want to change/improve the thing you're arguing for? Trust me bud, we are well aware (as I said in the post you just quoted). No, see the thing is, for the most part, other nations don't do that. That's more of an American thing, to be honest. We see tragedies like Newtown, we see your absurdly hight gun murder rate, and we wonder why, in a country that is so much more free than many others, do you keep shooting each other? And more importantly, why don't you seem to want to stop? Again, you don't need to advertise your arrogance --we're well aware. But how would you honestly say that's turning out for you? Is there a single positive measurement (life expectancy, education, health care, etc.) that America is even in the top ten anymore?
Unaware if you are expressing your thoughts or echoing, so I will ignore specific reference. But the above is another reason why this country is now fucked. Sure, not fucked fucked but we are at the start of a decade long decline from the absolute leader of the pack, to another guy at the cool table. This isn't an opinion, it is a raw fact. Our existing military strength will prolong perceived strength; however eventually the raw economic facts will catch-up. We are slowly being caught by the pack.
You're answering a lot of your own questions in your post. You asked why we have so many freedoms yet we kill each other? The answer is because we have so many freedoms. I'm not saying that elementary school children should pay the price, nor should we stand for it and not examine the laws, but that's the reason why. We let people have guns, this kind of thing happens sometimes and it'd incredibly unfortunate. Now that's not saying the status quo is acceptable and it shouldn't be addressed, but that's why. And I know a lot of people would like us to adopt policies, laws, etc of "other western countries" (i.e. Europe), but we exist because we don't want to be like Europe, at least originally. Things like strict gun laws, free healthcare, school, etc sounds great. For 300 million people that's a nightmare and mathematically and economically impossible. America formed from a very violent revolution, that in and of itself is where our culture gets its roots. And honestly, I don't how much of a single culture America has. There's quite a diverse populace. It's pretty apparent from your posts that you do.
Here's the thing that makes the US different than all of the other first world western nations: We're defined by our freedoms; it's literally what makes us Americans. We don't have a common creed, culture, or ancestry that unites us. We are a country whose sole commonality among its citizens is that, for each American, (with the exception of american indians) somewhere in her/his family history an ancestor said to themselves, "My country sucks. I'm going to go to America, Land of the Free, to make a better life for myself." I'm not saying this because I think it makes my country better than other countries, but to help put this massacre in perspective: By defining our national identity with abstract concepts such as freedom and liberty, we are inherently valuing those things more than individual people. For an American to forsake a freedom - even if it's a freedom an individual does not choose to exercise - means to forsake what it means to be an American citizen. This is why we implicity accept shootings like this without making a real, substantaitive effort to put a stop to them. Edit: What IWantSomeJuice said as well, since he posted while I was writing mine.
Fair enough, and props for the honesty, but why the figurative shoulder shrugs? You're certainly not the only country founded on violence, but you bring it up like it's a handicap you can't shake -- why? That was hundreds of year ago, why do you still feel so stuck to it when you've gotten past other not-so-nice things that hurt a lot of your people (slavery)? For a stereotypically confident/arrogant people, you seem to have little enthusiasm to fix this problem. We're a pretty diverse people in Canada, and I don't know of any freedoms you have that we don't (I'll be forever jealous of your cheap booze, but that's not a difference in freedoms, just awesomeness). Except the gun laws. Yours are the slackest in the Western world, and your gun murder rates are obscene. But you refuse to acknowledge the obvious connection. It's stubborness to the religious degree, and it honestly depresses me that my second favourite country can't, or won't, get past this.
I mean, yes you are. Guns. You don't have our gun freedoms. You also don't have the same level of speech freedom that we do. Or the same level of economic freedom, especially at the corporate level. Or an equivalent level of medical choice. To use a specific example, we have much more extensive freedom with regards to hate speech laws. This is a decision you, as a people, have made about the relative values of competing ideals. Americans have, in some areas, gone the other way. I don't mean this as a criticism per se. I'm not taking a normative stance at the moment, and I think saying something like "I'm pro-freedom" is an asininely empty and boring statement. But the fact is that in almost every area related to civil and economic rights, the range of freedoms in Canada is lower, largely as a trade-off for greater protection of human rights and fairness. It's painful to put it like this, but the fact of the matter is that Americans, on average, just care more about this freedom than they do about the preventing these events, at least given that (1) you can't stop murder altogether, and (2) these events are very rare. My posts in this thread indicate that obviously I do not share this sentiment, but the history of the United States reveals it to be a dominant strain of thought.
Enough. Fucking all of you. The Bill of Rights has been held to have the highest level of Constitutional protections available for a very long time. You cannot, therefore, carve out the second one without doing damage to the First Amendment (speech, religion, press, assembly, and petition) and all of the ones following. That's it. Period. Nothing else matters. If you want the full and complete protections of the first, you have to suffer the negative aspects of the second.
They see the connection. It's in statistical facts. You have to also accept that although we look and sound alike, we are very different as a society, despite similar laws and our aversion towards soccer, which both countries were quick to realize was bullshit. Their country was built on a foundation of blood and didn't have any law for a century. Ours was built by "not making a big deal out of it". Gun culture is something that is hard-wired into the DNA of AMericans. They have 315 million people and 316 million firearms in (known) circulation. They have ALWAYS lived with guns, around guns, or at least in the midst of them. Gun deaths are practically collateral damage because it's a hugely popular interest. I mentioned before cars kill 50,000 poeple a year. Collateral damage, because we're NOT getting rid of them. I have never even seen a handgun in person except in a cop's holster. In my life, I swear on my daughter. Seriously. Because that's how it is here. My city has half a million people and has one gun shop. It had two, but one closed down from lack of business. Our country had less murders last year than Washington D.C. It's not because we're less crazy, it's because he were brought up in different 'hoods. Wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada Look, this is not a matter of debate. There are objectively restrictions on speech under Canadian law that have no analogous law under the US legal system. Whether that is good or bad is not the point; this is like suggesting that the sky is not blue. Unless you want to get into a discussion of the concepts of positive and negative liberties, but that's a whole new ball game. If so, merely replace the word "freedom" in my post with "positive liberty."
Well that was inevitable, and i expect when the research is done and once again proves that video games don't cause violence these people will stick their fingers in their ears and scream 'nah nah nah i'm not listening' and produce their own study which says what they want to hear. One of these things is not like the other. Starcraft... really? For fucks sake.