Weekly sober thread: Gun control.

Talking to people from other countries who "don't get" the US's "obsession" with guns, here are a couple of things I was struck by:

1. One thing that people from other countries don't get is that guns are already everywhere in this country. It isn't like the UK, where they can get away with a gun ban because the level of gun ownership is so low. We have 270 million registered firearms. That's 9 guns for every 10 people. And people think a ban (even a targeted one) is going to stop criminals from getting their hands on them? There's a reason they say: "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns." Short of throwing them all into the ocean, we're stuck with them.

2. People confused about why the US "needs guns". Well, Second Amendment "well regulated militia" shitfest aside, we don't need guns. We also don't need: hamburgers, steaks, cars that can drive faster than the speed limit, fireworks, bungee jumping, roller coasters, etc, etc. It's a stupid and juvenile argument, and if the Constitution can be said to be solidly against any one thing, it's about granting freedoms on the basis of "need".

3. It's striking how little people who want more gun control generally know about firearms. They're scared of the AR-15 because it's big and black and scary looking - except it's locked on semi-auto. People think things like pistol grips somehow increase a weapon's ability to kill people. People think magazine size is a function of the weapon, not realizing you can buy whatever size magazine you want. People don't know what the fuck they're talking about. For the same reason, they seem to have a poor grasp on what the procedure actually looks like for obtaining weapons. (Although this thread has been very informative in that regard.)

4. Hand in hand with the above: people from other countries tend to be really fucking patronizing about this whole issue. Look at Superfantastic's post, which boils down to "I'm curious why you guys are so stupid as to not notice this obvious data." And for some homegrown delusion, here's a knee-jerk essay by Jason Alexander, wherein he does everything but say "Hey guys, I analyzed your Constitution for you," while betraying that he doesn't know the slightest bit about firearms (thinking that assault rifles are more accurate and more powerful than hunting rifles, thinking magazine size is dependent on the weapon, and a host of other inaccuracies). Like my daddy always told me, if you don't know what you're talking about, you shouldn't post.

I'd say we don't need knee-jerk legislation; we should be looking at the holes in the existing process and making sure that it's broadly the same level of safety across states. This would mean curbing things like MoreCowbell's "unregistered arsenal" point.

 

I don't really see what is so scary about the AR-15. My wife, who used to hate guns, now loves my AR.

Spoiler

 

The biggest difference in reality is that the Swiss, and really all western Europeans, are okay with their government telling them what they can and can't do. Can you Americans imagine living where a grocery store's hours are dictated by law? A German friend of a friend once summed up the differences between Germany and the U.S.: "In the U.S., everything is permitted, until it is forbidden. In Germany, everything is forbidden, until it is permitted." Obviously, not all of Europe is the same, but they are much more similar to each other in their view of government's purpose than any of them are to the U.S. I work for a Swiss company, and while I was in Zurich I was captured speeding on camera. My speed was 53 km/h in a 50 km/h zone. For you 'murricans, that's roughly 32 in a 30 zone. It's not even legal for an officer to stop me for that in Georgia, much less use an automatic camera to mail the registered owner a ticket.

The Swiss can be trusted with guns because they are trained from birth to follow the rules. It's just a different way of thinking about personal freedom.

 

I have a tough time believing people are serious when they use this argument as if it's legit. You really think access to cars and food and roller coasters is in any way comparable to owning weapons that are designed to pierce armor? You don't see the primary uses of these things as being distinctly different?

Well I didn't make up the statistics, but please, when you get a chance, show me where I'm wrong, as I very well could be. Maybe you shoot and kill each other at a way higher rate than everyone else for some reason other than you have more guns than people -- anything's possible, I guess. But the fact is you do shoot and kill each other at a way higher rate, and watching/reading gun advocates/you guys coming up with any possible reason EXCEPT the number of and ease of access to guns is...kind of entertaining, at this point.

 

Yeah, duh. It's because we also have more bullets than everyone else. Sheesh.

It's like Jake Johanssen said, "It's not guns that kill people. It's those darn bullets. I mean, the guns make them go really fast, because you rarely see anyone walk into a liquor store and say, 'Hey, give me all your money, or I'm going to push these bullets into your head.' "

 

I think Bloomberg has the best idea yet. Police should go on strike until gun control laws are improved.

I hear his upcoming "Insert Fireworks Into Anus, Squat Over Fire" initiative is going to be just as successful.

 

#1. You're going to have a tough time with this discussion unless you put aside your obvious hatred of guns.

#2. In order to understand the issue of guns in the U.S., you have to consider how this country was formed and for what reasons. Our Constitution was written with the events immediately preceding the country's founding in mind. The entire theme of the Constitution is placing personal freedom above government control. Governments are made of people, and the premise is that no person should rule over another. Ben Franklin wrote: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." The reason we have so many guns is that we believe we are responsible for our own safety, through personal liberty.

#3. The main reason we have so much gun crime is that there is not enough deterrent to prevent it. I offer some anecdotal evidence. My wife's sister shot a man in the back of the head and left him dead in a ditch because she had reached the paranoia stage of her meth addiction and believed he had molested her sons, even though the boys denied it. She pleaded it down to voluntary manslaughter, and as long as she doesn't fuck up in her transition phase, she'll be out next year - less than 10 years served. Does that seems adequate for what she did?

#4. As you correctly pointed out, the U.S. has almost as many guns as people. That is a situation that is not going to change because the vast majority of gun owners are responsible citizens who use their firearms safely. They, like me, are not going to give up their own guns until we can ensure that no criminals have guns. When you have a solution to that conundrum, let us know.

#5. A citizen of the U.S. is almost three times more likely to die of accidental poisoning than by homicide by firearm. Why has the U.S.'s love affair with dangerous chemicals not stirred you up?

 

Here's the bare truth, as I see it: People don't like having their rights taken away. Doesn't really matter what the right is, people are going to resist having it taken from them. Remember the recent thread about the proposed NYC ordinance regarding soda size limits? We as US citizens are willing to put up with the negative consequences of the freedoms we have in order to keep them. We put up with the obesity epidemic so that we can continue to enjoy quadruple bacon-cheeseburgers and 64oz sodas. We put up with soaring gas prices so that we can continue to drive gas-guzzlers. And in this case, we put up with the occasional spree shooting so that we can continue to purchase whatever firearms we want.

 

We probably also lead the world in attempted murder with a toilet bowl lid. Where's the outrage?

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.mynews3.com/mostpopular/story/Police-Man-hit-homeowner-with-toilet-bowl-lid/KOQv_uMadkCFqAu0R8vvDQ.cspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.mynews3.com/mostpopular/stor ... 8vvDQ.cspx</a>

And this would be why many of us have guns. If the dude had come into my house he would've brought a toilet lid to a gun fight...and that's just a really stupid thing to do.

 

1. When did I say I hate guns? Pretty sure at some point I said I support hand guns for in-home protection, and rifles for hunting. My main beef has been with the lunatics (not on here) who actually spend mental energy pushing for something as stupid as armor piercing bullets since, in my (limited) and my family's (extensive) hunting experience, I've never heard of someone coming across a deer wearing armor. I appreciate your reasonable tone, but please read what I wrote if you're going to reply.

2. Thanks partially to my education, but mostly because of this debate, I'm reasonably familiar with America's founding, its constitution, and this ammendment in particular. And I get it. Of course your violent founding is going to have a significant impact on the generations that follow. And again, I haven't been against people having guns to protect themselves/their homes/families. But if you legit believe you need easy access to guns that fire 100 rounds per minute, then your country, or at least your neighbourhood, has bigger problems.

3. I honestly don't know what to make of your third point, and can't see how it in any backs up your position at all. All I can say is: wouldn't it have been better if she didn't have a gun?

4. Like I said in my first post, I personally think y'all are fucked on this issue no matter what, since it's gone on for too long, there are just too many guns everywhere, and even many of the repsonsible gun owners take this issue to a religious level. Definitely don't think I have a solution, I just find it, at different times, sad and amusing how you can look around at the other western countries, see a fraction of the gun violence, and not even be honest enough to admit you have a problem.

5. You guys really have to stop bringing up these spurious arguments. Random car/household/roller coaster/choking accidents are decidedly not the same as a gun being used in the only way it's designed to. If 10,000+ of you died each year from guns going off completely by themselves, you wouldn't hear a peep from me. But they don't. Someone has to pull the trigger.

 

DCC Edit: We've all been warned not to start the back-and-forth bullshit, by shegirl and myself. So let's not, mmkay? Last warning.

 

I like this guy





In Canada we can't get the same level of fire arms, and at least they are not ceasing the practice of making people who hunt feel like criminals. The long gun registry did very little for prevention of crime and a high percentage of crimes that did occur were with non registered weapons anyways.

What would have been nice is if they took the 2 billion (over the life of the registry costs) and hired a set of police to only investigate and track gun crime whether it be smuggling/robberies/shootings etc. I think 2 billion in police over 20 years might have made a real difference.

Unfortunately no matter what there will always be someone that will do something entirely crazy that makes something that isn't bad look horrendous.

 

FOCUS Any point along the gun control spectrum of opinion, as it relates to this tragedy, can be reduced to: "Could this have been prevented?" and "How can we prevent it from happening again?" Of course, no one is asking those questions without framing it around guns. That is because framing it any other way becomes entirely abstract (how about society man?) and there are no obvious solutions that route.

I don't think legislation can prevent this from happening again. The question I have asked myself, that I think everyone should ask of themeselves, is can we live with this type of risk? Can we live comfortably understanding the risks we live with rather than pretending they don't exist? Everyone is pining for a solution that would prevent this from ever happening again, and that won't happen. Even if there is some form of gun control that would be "optimal" the risk persists.

ALT FOCUS It doesn't seem like the media has discussed the the motives of the shooter beyond "he was some crazy guy working on a Phd." Yet the question of why Mr. Holmes did what he did is much more important than anything related to gun control. If it is better understood why people behave this way then that is potentially more usefull than legislation. In addition, the implicit message conveyed by focusing on gun control is "Well, there are crazies out there how can we keep them contained." I'm a big believer in the cognitive approach to psychology, so I don't think it gets us anywhere by being on one of two different extremes, thinking of all behavior as being self-controlled or thinking that we people are helpless clockworks who need to be locked up or murdered by the state. A middle ground needs to be found and some compassion and thoughtfull analysis are needed for that end.

If you think of Holmes behavior as the result of neurological disfunction, then it seems ironic that neuroscience was his field of study. As I see it, it's likely that he initially majored in neuroscience to understand himself. He could have felt different or "crazy" most of his life. So I don't think it was a dramatic psychological shift in Holmes that led to this shooting.

I don't know what kind of mental illness he has, but I imagine he had shown signs of it all along (unless he rapidly developed a tumor or something like that). He probably felt like he could not speak to anyone about how he felt, as though he had an internalized world that he had to keep to himself. Moreover, it could be that as an intelligent guy with weak interpersonal skills, he felt that the only way he could validate himself to others, his family, was to earn a graduate degree or to do something prestigious. From there you could debate ad nauseam how that relates to society and whether there is anything that can actually be done about I'm interested to hear what more people think about this.

I understand that my assumptions here could be totally wrong. If yuo disagree please let me know what you think.

 

Out of curiosity, why?
Is it your unfamiliarity with them? Or perhaps the idea that it's a weapon? I'm not mocking or being disrespectful, I'm just curious, because anyone who's ever said that to me has, when asked, been unable to identify exactly WHAT makes them uncomfortable...beyond it being a weapon.

 

But so is a road grader, or a back hoe...they're destroying earth as they push it along. They're used to destroy something (the earth/ground/trees/buildings in the way/whatever) before building. Do you view them the same way?

 

From a rep that requested statistics:

<a class="postlink" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Kellermann#Kellermann.27s_published_studies_on_gun_ownership" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Ke ... _ownership</a>