Welp, another massacre. This one, as you all know, is of a particularly heinous nature because the children are involved. Horrible, horrible stuff.
I think it’s puzzling that so many people on my social networks are advocating “really doing something to make a difference this time” and attempting to whip up the masses in a frenzy to contact their congressmen to “make a real difference”.
I got into a bit of an online tiff. Someone said that their coworker was able to obtain a gun in 15 minutes. I commented, asking “how many people he has killed?” He was incredulous, and insisted that I didn’t understand. He said that 15 minutes simply isn’t enough; we need a weeks or months long process. We need psychological evaluations.
I replied that it did not matter how long it took; it’s not as if the state has some expert team of demigods to predict whether or not the person will ever commit a violent crime. The reality is that the government is inept in the most basic operations and the idea that a lengthier background check will prevent bad people from getting weapons is asinine.
Killers will get weapons. The only thing we can do is enable people to defend themselves.
I know this is very elementary but I wanted to talk about it with some like minded folks. What would be some good reading on the subject?
Also, do you think Obama cried for these children too?
I was about to make a thread about this regarding how to respond to the constant crap I see liberals spewing out on the other forum I go to. The only thing I’ve done so far to respond to it all was just post a Penn and Teller Bullshit episode on YouTube in response explaining how gun control is “bullshit!” I don’t really know how to get started in responding to it all in a thorough manner, however.
We can supply guns to ourselves through the local gun dealer, or the Mexican drug cartels can supply them to us. Either way, there are going to be guns, but the cartels tend to bring an entire set of additional problems along with them.
The real reason we want guns is because history has shown that armed governments have mass murdered unarmed civilians a million times over what armed civilians have done to themselves. What happened today should never be minimized, but it is no comparison to the larger issue at hand.
I think an especially strong argument would be to cite what happens in countries that have the strictest gun controls such as the UK (not to mention the extreme cases of the fascist and communist states), where supposedly they actually saw gun violence increase after implementing the controls. Now, I haven’t studied the details, but I think cases like that at least show that strict gun controls or bans don’t necessarily reduce gun violence.
“What about Chicago? It has shootings all the time and it has “strict” gun control laws.”
Genuine question here. Do people who commit gun violence in areas with strict gun laws generally purchase their weapons from another city or state where it’s a lot easier? That could serve as an argument for a nationwide ban.
I live close to Harlem, known pretty well for being a dangerous place. Whenever someone is advocating gun control, I tell them “imagine you live in the middle of Harlem, and guns get banned. Do you now feel safer?” People almost always say no, because at that point it becomes obvious that gun laws will not stop criminals from owning guns, and those same laws actually encourage them to break into homes they believe are unprotected.
I was enraged watching Obama tear up thinking to myself the deaths of over a thousand children he is personally responsible for in Pakistan alone. But, I would agree what the previous suggestion. Watch the Penn & Teller “Bullshit” series on gun control. It is on Youtube. The problem with wait times is, what about the individual that is being threatened by their ex spouse and need to be able to protect themself? There are many cases where people who previously never needed arms suddenly are put into a position that they need to be able to defend themselves.
When there’s a massacre in a school everybody almost instantly talks about gun control.
But it’s rare to see anyone talking about the real issue: packing a lot of small children in the same virtually defenseless building everyday, where they are all sitting ducks waiting for the next psychopath.
An honest question - are public schools in the US prohibited from hiring an armed guard? Or is this decision at the principal’s discretion? Or do they actually have armed guards?
All of the public schools in my district have unarmed guards. They are mainly there to break up school fights or to catch kids skipping class so they don’t really need guns. However, I’m pretty sure it’s legal almost everywhere and some schools do have armed guards.
I think an especially strong argument would be to cite what happens in countries that have the strictest gun controls such as the UK (not to mention the extreme cases of the fascist and communist states), where supposedly they actually saw gun violence increaseafter implementing the controls. Now, I haven’t studied the details, but I think cases like that at least show that strict gun controls or bans don’t necessarily reduce gun violence.
I’m not sure any definite answer can be found by looking at gun/crime stats. The experience of the UK is shown in the graph below (handguns were banned in 1997 after a school masaccre in scotlant very similar to the one we have just seen), which shows there was an increase in gun crime around the year 2000 which then began to fall again around 2003/4 and is more or less back to where it was.
The problem is that statistics such as this mean nothing because it is only comparing two variables against each other, whilst ignoring all the other factors that influence their change (such as culture, history, how easy it is to acquire guns illegally, etc). There are many examples of places that have strict gun-control and low crime, but also many places that have lax gun-control and low crime. The obvious ones to demonstrate the latter is Switzerland and Canada, both of which have widespread gun-ownership and next to no crime.
It’s a pretty complex issue. If Molyneux is correct, these include being drugged, an oppressive mother, lack of a father, the forced “socialisation” of modern schools etc. Guns don’t really factor in except as the weapon. The guy is pretty intelligent. He could’ve devised another means of inflicting harm on people, e.g. a bomb.
Either the guy was very good at internalising and hiding his problems, or these were ignored. E.g. “suck it up” etc. These shooters would seem to share bad parenting, amongst other things, as a common trait. Of course he probably has psychological traits, inherited or developed in his environment, that were aggravated by all the above.
As for Chicago, I think the point to be understood is that people who want guns will get their hands on them, especially if they have a disregard of the law. Those who suffer are the people who are afraid of breaking it, or for whatever moral reasons, believe the government is in its right to arrogate to itself and no one else the right to defend them. Statistics trying to correlate guns to crime or its reduction miss the point that a gun is simply a tool. Perhaps that isn’t their purpose, but it means that the problem is the mentally disturbed individual. If he devised a bomb using kitchen goods, what difference would it make? Why think he’d resort to a knife or spoon? There’s plenty of ways to harm people, sadly.
A good illustration of the sort of forces that make people snap is the movie Death of a Cheerleader. Naturally, he remains culpable for what he has done. However, rather than ranting about guns, all those people who are displaying faux moral outrage should be focusing on what led him to the killings. Yes, guns are easy to obtain, irrespective of what the law says, provided you’re willing to flout it.
I can’t buy the argument that guns save lives. If so, explain Japan. They have among the lowest gun ownership rate in the world (6 guns per 1000 people), yet a very low murder and violent crime rate. in the most recent year, according to UNODC, Japan recorded just 442 murders - a rate of .3 murders per 100,000 people.
The problem is that statistics such as this mean nothing because it is only comparing two variables against each other, whilst ignoring all the other factors that influence their change (such as culture, history, how easy it is to acquire guns illegally, etc). There are many examples of places that have strict gun-control and low crime, but also many places that have lax gun-control and low crime. The obvious ones to demonstrate the latter is Switzerland and Canada, both of which have widespread gun-ownership and next to no crime.
This. Let’s not forget proper methodology, Austrians.
