It’s an emotional appeal. One thing has nothing to do with the other, but it makes people’s hearts take over their brains.
-
Friendly reminder: The politics section is a place where a lot of differing opinions are raised. You may not like what you read here but it is someone's opinion. As long as the debate is respectful you are free to debate freely. Also, the views and opinions expressed by forum members may not necessarily reflect those of GBAtemp. Messages that the staff consider offensive or inflammatory may be removed in line with existing forum terms and conditions.
About the Texas massacre and easy access to guns.
- Thread starter Nikokaro
- Start date
- Views 25,434
- Replies 1,005
- Likes 7
What's your point here? Are you suggesting that people need guns so they can shoot their MPs when they make unpopular decisions, and the fear of this happening will keep MPs from making unpopular decisions? Surely you must have a different point than that...
Yes. And I think it is plausible to assume that you can't shape public discourse by reasoning. The game of creating movement is an emotional one. This is a sobering thought, but I believe it is true in a deep sense.
When did I suggest that? What I did say was that a population that is armed is less susceptible to suffer from government tyranny. It’s not a fight the government wants to pick, nor is it one it could feasibly win. It’s far less likely that the rights of an armed populace will be infringed purely by the virtue of the populace having the means to fight back. Ever heard the phrase “better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it?” - it applies here perfectly. Nobody *wants* to be forced into a conflict, which creates a comfortable stalemate. In addition to that, it enables the populace to defend themselves from threats, both internal and external.
Okay, let's try this one last time. As others said please keep language barries in mind but I'll do my best to make my PoV clear now.
This is where we agree: The current situation is a nightmare.
And that's where we disagree. We have black markets with guns here in germany/EU, too. Most of these guns come from america through. So you are the ones feeding these black markets with your guns. Also almost nobody here takes the opporturnity to buy such a gun just because of the hard laws we have.
While this is a big proplem in the US in general it's not the problem with scool shootings. Especially scoolers won't seek for help, even with the best offers. So you know they have issues when it's too late. Please read all the posts in this thread, then you see why I speak from self experience here (and why I didn't do a scool shooting back in the days).
Which means screenings before getting a gun as well as continuous screening while owning one, right? This is exactly how this is handled here in germany! Everyone can be a sports shooter, for example, so why doesn't everyone own a gun with this excuse? Cause 99% fall through this screening. I'm sure a lot of pro-gun people in the US would fall through this, too, cause anxiety IS a mental issue and we won't handle guns to such people.
Don't get me wrong, this is not meaned as a personal attack, I'm not even talking about you but others in this thread but isn't wanting to own a gun to protect yourself from military is going toe to toe with them?
This is a real good question and I tried to give real world example for that. There are even more examples through: As told there is a black market in the EU, too, so people could decide to break the laws in masses at any time. There's no way customs could fish out every single weapon if we would mass-import them on the black market. You see this in other countries with civil-wars, too: People don't have guns before the wars but when they start they are suddendly armed.
Is there one real world example where civil guns made a difference in that regard?
But they aren't trained with gun safety in the slightes way. So what will happen when a scooler manages to steal a teachers weapon?
See it the other way around: All other countries don't have massive massacres every single day, too. In fact the US has more such massacres than any anti-gun law countries on this planet combined. What does that say to you?
That's a hard one to answer, because the idea of taking guns away will never happen, regardless of who's pushing for it. But I will say this: regardless of whether we have guns or not, should the government decide to enforce martial law within its current military state, those who fight back won't get nearly as far as they hope, and anything less than what we have now in terms of civilian weaponry will almost certainly result in mass extermination.
I can't find much of a fault in this, in any regard, but I personally am a strong opponent against the generalized idea of anarchy a lot of people good today. The government is too large to effectively lord over the amount of people we have today, but all anarchy eventually leads to mass societal restructuring, and if the demons of today come into power, they know no better than to repeat the same mistakes their predecessors. History always repeats itself.
The next step then is to foster an environment where people aren't inclined to use firearms against each, but at what cost will people go to support these programs? Will they be happy to comply with routine mental health checks and mandatory psych evaluations if it seems they're needed? Will they be happy with the possibility of a higher gun tax to offset the funding for these programs (because honestly, if these programs were implemented, it's not a hard jump to make)? I think the biggest hurdle to overcome is coming to the understanding that if a civilian wishes to exercise their government given right to bear arms, that they should also bear at least partial responsibility in ensuring that an environment exists where people are less inclined to use these arms to shoot said neighbor.
In the case of america I agree.
Yes. It's not a good idea to be in a position were you can easily get wiped out.
Yes, plenty, but the existence of a right is not contingent on examples. Defensive gun use alone accounts for this question adequately.
Every responsible gun owner should put hundreds of rounds through their weapon every year to ensure an acceptable degree of proficiency, although that’s an ideal scenario - few people actually train with their firearms, but better gun culture can address that. As for the latter point, if you want to steal someone’s firearm from their holster, go for it - that’s your risk to take. You might end up with more ventilation holes than you started with. I’ve already brought up the example of a woman stopping a mass shooting in West Virginia recently - stuff like that happens all the time. I’ll take a responsible gun owner there and then over the police in 45 minutes, thank you very much.
It says nothing at all, besides the fact that some countries chose to sacrifice liberty for a false promise of security. You won’t convince me that their lives are better purely because they chose to relinquish a fundamental right to be adequately armed - the reasons for an increased frequency in mass shootings are numerous and complex.
The right to bear arms is not “government-given”, it’s immutable, inalienable and innate, or “god given”, if you’re religiously inclined. The Constitution is a document that functions as a limitation on the government, not on the people. Any notion of collective responsibility is a tricky one because it implies culpability over what strangers do with their guns. Not only can I not control that, I’m not a 100% sure it’s even my business to say who should or shouldn’t own one. I can have certain feelings on the matter, and personal opinions, but that’s about it. This point of view makes it a little tricky to come up with systemic solutions. What I can say is that the system is perpetuating an environment in which those massacres become frequent - one that leads people to be increasingly hopeless, unhappy and depressed.
The problem with this line of thinking is that there is no such thing as inalienable rights. The very concept of "rights" exists only in the human mind, and it persists because it is a useful tool to foster cooperation between large groups of people. The rights enumerated in the Constitution were neither handed down from god, nor were they necessarily considered valuable in previous civilisations. They are a reflection of the priorities of the people who wrote the Constitution, because they either thought at the time that those rights would be a suitable basis for a new country, or they couldn't get the Constitution ratified without including certain provisions that one or more states were demanding.
Other countries do not have a right to bear arms, they have lower levels of gun ownership, and they have fewer mass shootings. The inability of people to see the link between lax gun policy and the prevalence of gun violence is continually astounding. Mass shootings are the most flashy form of gun violence, but most gun deaths result from suicides and domestic altercations, AFAIK. Those types of gun violence just don't make it onto the front page the way mass shootings do.
I appreciate that. I will try as well.
I wouldn't say America as a whole, though I don't wish to mince words and split hairs. I would say follow the trail. Obviously all guns come from manufacturers, and I whole-heartedly believe these manufacturers have no problem making things easier for these guns to make it to the black market, because
It's not necessarily the responsibility of the child to come forward with mental illness problems. School bullying, unwarranted fear in certain situations, so on and etc, are hard enough for children to come forward with, much less advanced concepts of mental instability. Forgive my bias, but as far as I'm concerned that responsibility lies on the parents, and if they don't notice a difference in their child(ren), then that's the fault of the parents.
I'm ok with the screening, but the problem you point out falls back on gun owners not wanting to foster an environment that supports this behavior. They'd rather just clutch their property and whine everyone else into submission.
Oh I know, and I don't mean to be personal either. Not necessarily. I believe you can own a gun in case of necessity without being overtly aggressive. I would compare it to a pre-nup; in either case you're protecting your "assets" but without that forward moving aggression. However, I can't guarantee elected officials feel the same way.
And I think that's one of the biggest points of contention: the sudden and often inexplicable acquisition of guns, especially after tragedies. It blows people's minds how accessible they are, but no one stops to think how they're being acquired.
I say government because that's the typical argument for guns. "It's my second amendment right!" Now, I'll split hairs on this for a moment. I don't believe the right to own a gun is an immutable given, however I believe everyone has the innate right to bear arms of some form in which to defend themselves. A miniscule difference, yes, but I believe it's important in relative terms. Not everyone should own a tank, for example, because that's absolutely a ludicrous idea in this day and age, but if no guns existed, people should still have the means to defend themselves.
The reason why I feel the distinction is important relates to that same environment that you're referring to: it's not so much the guns that are the problem, it's the lack of moral responsibility and complete lack of understanding for mental health issues. The reason why guns keep getting blamed is because they're not as heavily regulated as they could be and they've become an easy target to relieve oneself of any responsibility of their involvement in whatever scenario came to become a tragedy. But the biggest reason behind blaming guns in particular is how detached one is from the event; close range weaponry causes the perpetrator to be in close proximity to the victim, which puts them at a higher risk of immediate retaliation. Look at the difference in number of "mass" stabbings in relation to mass shootings. I can barely recall one event where someone started randomly stabbing a bunch of people and if I recall correctly he was taken out fairly easily. But what happens when someone starts spraying a crowd and the crowd, at least half of them, start spraying back? You're going to get a lot more innocent casualties than we did with the stabbing.
I forgot to mention the psychological detachment as well. If you can kill someone from far away, you can just turn and walk away and probably be ok. But stabbing someone? Beating them to death? Having that blood on your hands, your clothes, in your hair? It hits a lot harder than what could be considered a live action version of COD.
Last edited by SyphenFreht,
I don't know about that. Wasn't there a news story a few months ago about a drone operator who had a mental breakdown over the guilt he felt from killing people from afar? IIRC there was a manhunt, and he ended up shooting himself in the woods, rather than being taken into custody. It was a tragic example of the toll killing from afar can take on a person. Killing up close may be worse, but killing of any kind has severe ramifications.
I probably could have been a little clearer. The difference in attachment between close range and long distance killing is more often than not very clear, but it's very apparent that long distance killing can and may very well have just as serious an impact on the person, however it does seem that most shooters show more detachment more often than those who kill up close and personal.
Nobody said that there’s no link. If you’re going to have guns, you’re going to have gun violence. The question boils down to a risk/reward and cost/benefit calculation of whether it is right or wrong to deprive people of their means of self-defense and self-determination because guns are occasionally misused. To me, it is wrong.
I disagree with the idea that rights are contingent on the whims of the government. People in countries with no right to bear arms have the same right to self-defense, their government just chose to infringe upon it and the populace hasn’t acted on that infringement, either because it’s complacent or because it doesn’t understand the possible ramifications.
I live in the UK. Stabbings are as common as rain nowadays, I think I’d take my chances (given the option). The default answer to a rise in violence here is increasing restrictions, so we’re in a never-ending cycle of terrible events leading to a reduced capacity for self-defense. It makes no sense and leaves citizens vulnerable.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42749089.amp
I think the notion that higher levels of gun ownership would lead to good guy vs. bad guy shoot outs becoming commonplace is odd. The reason why I say that is because it’s not happening right now in areas with high gun ownership, and there’s no reason to suggest that’d change. We’re not talking about two armed posses clashing, old western movie-style - we’re talking about citizens intervening against one crazy person.
Last edited by Foxi4,
You don't have the means to fight back. All this completely unchecked US gun ownership does is kill kids and allow people to play cowboy.
If a tyrannical government took over the US (which it can't, because soldiers are people too) then you would not stand a chance going up against them anyway.
BAD change is scary, like Brexit or Trump. Progressive change isn't.
You are pretending that you can train everyone to defend themselves against an attacker. The problem is you can't solve the issue that bad guys will also be able to be trained, they will always be better prepared.
Knife and gun crime in the UK are both lower than the US.
There were 34 firearm homicides in the US per million of population in 2016, compared with 0.48 shooting-related murders in the UK.
Knife murders are also higher stateside: there were 4.96 homicides “due to knives or cutting instruments” in the US for every million of population in 2016.
In Britain there were 3.26 homicides involving a sharp instrument per million people in the year from April 2016 to March 2017.
So it seems that inconveniently for you, the UK strategy works. All we need to do now is get rid of this stupid right wing government and see if we can go back to fixing why people end up wanting to commit crimes in the first place.
from the same article:
"Although knife crime is on the increase, it should be seen in context. It's relatively unusual for a violent incident to involve a knife, and rarer still for someone to need hospital treatment.
Most violence is caused by people hitting, kicking, shoving or slapping someone, sometimes during a fight and often when they're drunk; the police figures on violence also include crimes of harassment and stalking.
The Crime Survey for England and Wales, which includes offences that aren't reported to police, indicates that overall levels of violence have fallen by about a quarter since 2013.
However, the police-recorded statistics - which tend to pick up more "high harm" crimes - have indicated that the most serious violent crime is increasing."
Please don't describe the UK as some sort of Mad Max hellhole with violence at every corner. It is in no way a justification to bear guns, let alone to take them around. I also would like to add that this increased violence happened after 10+ years of Conservative rule (you know, your friends), and there is an undeniable link between violence, poverty and austerity.
Similar threads
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
@
Skelletonike:
Just got the notification to pick up a game I had preordered and completely forgot about?+1 -
-
-
-
-
