Well hell, I missed the National Day of Prayer (May 6)

Debate Room
41

Considering the things about which they kill each other, that thought had crossed my mind. I was thinking of things such as parking spots and road rage.

I don’t include mass shootings caused by teen angst and the odd psychotic episode. There is no doubt in my mind that such shootings would not occur if such people did not have access to guns.

Also interested in the number of suicides involving firearms in the US***.

I’d be fascinated for some one to demonstrate that all or most of those people would have still killed themselves if they couldn’t get hold of a gun. Especially the children and teens

“Claiming the lives of more than 23,000 Americans every year, including 1,200 children and teens,[1](javascript:void(0)) firearm suicide is a significant public health crisis in the US.[2](javascript:void(0)) Nearly two-thirds of all gun deaths in the US are suicides, resulting in an average of 64 deaths a day.[3](javascript:void(0)) And the problem is getting worse: Over the past decade, the US firearm suicide rate has increased by 13 percent.[4](javascript:void(0)) This trend has been of particular concern for children and teens, whose firearm suicide rate has increased by 59 percent over the past 10 years;[5](javascript:void(0)) and for veterans, who have a firearm suicide rate 1.5 times higher than non-veteran adults.[6](javascript:void(0))”

1 Like
42

You do love to make absolute statements. I imagine changing the cultural attitudes would be a gradual process, but a watershed. Then the US will be able to deal with the greed of the manufacturers.

It would be a complex and challenging problem all right, and might take years, but I’m dubious that a nation that put a man on the moon can’t stop flooding it’s country with cheap guns. Especially since so many other western democracies achieve this already.

Again this is a rather facile observation, since drastically reducing the availability of guns axiomatically would make that incressingly more difficult. It’s also been pointed out that the kind of mass shootings that we are suggesting these laws will stop are not usually illegally obtained guns obtained for the purpose of profitable crime.

Another somewhat facile claim, and of course the very definition of a false dichotomy fallacy. I’m also dubious about this claim, but since it’s a sweeping unevidenced straw man I can’t really say, and I don’t see what it has this to do with the best way to reduce gun deaths, and particularly mass shootings in the US. Also if this unevidenced assertion is true why is crime, and gun related crimes and gun deaths in particular, so much higher in the US, than in other western democracies with strict laws on gun ownership? America has one of the highest number of incarcerated citizens per capita in the world.

[quote=“mr.macabre, post:40,
topic:1741”]
the police can’t be everywhere all at once, so citizens with carry-permits are your next best option.
[/quote]

Many other countries seem to show this is a red herring.

They are also involved in mass shootings, and gun deaths in the US are exponentially larger per capita than other western democracies. So I’d like to see some objective evidence for that sweeping claim, beyond merely asserting it. Though it still wouldn’t necessarily make a desirable trade off for accepting the massive number of gun deaths in the US.

That just sounds like unevidenced paranoia to me. Can you demonstrate any objective evidence for that claim?

What is it / are they? What is happening, how are implying they are contributing to it, and…

What objective evidence can you demonstrate to support your claims?

Also what has this to do with gun deaths being massively disproportionate in the US, and them having unusually liberal gun laws?

Straw man, I never claimed it would happen. I do however imagine it is not impossible for a nation that can put people on the moon, to change cultural attitudes towards gun ownership and reduce the amount of guns available.

3 Likes
43

Then by definition they would not be law abiding would they, since passing a law severely restricting gun ownership would be obeyed, like all other laws, by any law abiding citizen.

Or are you suggesting they’re law abiding only when they get their own way, like those idiots who attacked the Capitol?

4 Likes
44

Now, now, Shelley, don’t be unkind to idiots. Even if they DO deserve it.

1 Like
45

It was a cheap shot, and beneath me.

Ok, it was just a cheap shot then…

:sunglasses::wink::+1:

46

This form of thinking is self-defeating and perpetuates a cycle of negativity.

If KKK and Proud Boys replaced;
OR Commies and Socialists; OR
Incels and Men’s Right Movements; OR
Feminists, Environmentalists OR (any number of extreme subsets within a group, you get the idea…)

Unless there is a direct physical threat (where a gun is used as an equal defence), it is ONLY thinking and perceptions that are contributing to the gun culture. BTW the perpetual fear from various sources that are placed on the American public only places
$$$ in the pockets of the gun manufacturers. They need a market to sell their product.

3 Likes
47

If mr.macabre’s claim (‘the best way to stop a “bad” guy with a gun is a “good” guy with a gun’) is true, then I would suggest that the applicable US laws are insufficient and/or dysfunctional, the US law enforcement system is fundamentally broken, and that there is an aspect of anarchy involved. “Wild West” scenarios spring into mind.

There are a number of problems with this whole idea of stopping crime by arming the population to their teeth, and in particular with the stand-your-ground laws. First and foremost that these laws do not seem to reduce crime or homicide rates, but rather to have the opposite effect:

A 2018 RAND Corporation review of existing research concluded that “there is moderate evidence that stand-your-ground laws may increase homicide rates and limited evidence that the laws increase firearm homicides in particular.”[3] In 2019, RAND authors published an update, writing "Since publication of RAND’s report, at least four additional studies meeting RAND’s standards of rigor have reinforced the finding that “stand your ground” laws increase homicides. None of them found that “stand your ground” laws deter violent crime. No rigorous study has yet determined whether “stand your ground” laws promote legitimate acts of self-defense.[4]

A 2017 study in the Journal of Human Resources found that Stand Your Ground laws led to an increase in homicides and hospitalizations related to firearm-inflicted injuries. The study estimated that at least 30 people died per month due to the laws.[38] A 2013 study in the Journal of Human Resources found that Stand Your Ground laws in states across the U.S. “do not deter burglary, robbery, or aggravated assault. In contrast, they lead to a statistically significant 8 percent net increase in the number of reported murders.”

Further, stopping a “bad guy with a gun” is not something anyone any random person would be able to do – it actually requires special training (of the law enforcement kind) to do so. Putting a random untrained person suffering from a gun-related version of Dunning-Kruger in such a situation will increase the risk of collateral damage.

1 Like
48

Why would you describe a movement trying to champion equal rights as bullshit, that alone speaks volumes.

Gun crimes require guns, the harder they are to get hold of the less those crimes are likely to occur. The idea that everyone should be armed because you can’t guarantee no criminal will ever get hold of a gun is nonsensical. Especially as other countries provide ample evidence that restricting the availability and ownership of firearms works to more effectively. As they have less gun deaths and gun crime.

2 Likes
49

I have yet to meet anyone who describes themselves as a “bad guy”. We are all the heroes of our internal story.

…ain’t that the truth. Most are superstitious/myth believers who require the smallest/lowest standard for evidence to make life decisions.

2 Likes
50

There is another aspect to this. Namely what the laws of self defense allow, and what makes sense. Where I live, you are only allowed to employ self defense (or defense of a third party) strategies that are proportional to the threat you are facing. Thus, if someone bad mouths or insult you, your best option is to just retreat and walk away. If the aggressor threatens to beat you up in a fist fight, then using a weapon such as a knife or a gun will probably not be judged proportional, but it all depends on the situation and what other options are at your disposal. As the opponent’s threat level increase, you are allowed more freedom in how you defend yourself, but you are only allowed to use the strictly required amount of force to get out of the situation. This can go even up to the point of using deadly force, if required (but those are quite exceptional situations, and lead to a practically mandatory round in the court system). If the attacker is somehow disarmed and you have a chance to escape, the situation is resolved. To continue attacking the aggressor after he/she can no longer harm you or is incapacitated is right out, as the tables are now turned and YOU are now the aggressor. It is my understanding that this is also approximately the situation in the UK, or what, @Sheldon?

51

That is the purpose of those laws; to raise the homicide rate.

52

Likewise.

This is a true experience I had in my mid-twenties.

I was sitting in my car waiting for my husband after work. Half daydreaming I didn’t notice the young man that approached me car. It was running and unlocked as it was “spring” (still cold). I was in a parking lot. The store sold furniture and there were a few empty cars in the lot.

My door opened and the young man “rushed” me inside the car. Physically pushed me towards the passenger side. In those moments the look in his eyes are something I will never forget. I’ve never seen that “look” since.

I remember the anger and the blows I inflicted which at first didn’t “bother” him, until I landed one on the bridge of his nose. At that moment the “look” changed and I remember feeling empowered. He lifted himself enough that I managed to get one leg curled up and thrust him to to still open door.

A few more “kicks/shoves” and he was out and I was up. I started honking and screaming but no one came near. He was getting up, and I could tell from the “look” that was returning that this wasn’t “done” so I got out of the car and started kicking blow to his mid shaft. He somewhat crumpled and started to roll. As he was doing this I noticed him reaching towards his backside, under his shirt, and I just knew. I sore at him “If you’re grabbing a fucking knife :hocho: lm going to take that fucker and use it on you, you piece of shit…”. He must have believed me. He stopped reaching, got to his feet, stumbling, and started to leave. I hopped in my car and started to follow him, but he lost me…

No one came or witnessed the whole incident.

He was caught about 3 weeks later.

At that time, there were two women from Edmonton attacked in a similar manner, who had unfortunately different outcomes.

I didn’t have to be a witness, I had already given my statement and “artist” drawing. He could not be charged with anything in my case. Intent could not be established. What does that mean? He claimed we had a conversation. That I opened the door. That there was something in my hair and he was removing it…that I over-reacted. Since I disrupted the “intent” (a crime did not take place).

Lol. I remember the officer telling me and the look on his face. I understood. The officer said - “…if it’s any consolation he still has a good many bruises…”

The idea of “gun use” for self-defence. Yah :roll_eyes:. Stand over a body and explain it. Personal testimony of an event… what you’ll be facing is a criminal charge. Hope you have money saved for a good defence lawyer.

3 Likes
53

If only the profits from the gun companies could be funneled into social programs so that many with financial or mental health problems do not end up committing violent crimes.

1 Like
54

You are the second woman I know, in the biblical sense, who fought off a man with a knife. My last girlfriend had a similar situation in the Philippines.

Coming home from work in one of those little trikes, Tuk-tuks, a man jumped into the trike with her and pulled a knife. She grabbed the blade of the knife and she was tiny so she shifted around in the seat, brought up her legs and began kicking the asshole. Kicked him right out of the small compartment and onto the street. She did end up having to go to the hospital for stitches in her hand. Lucky for the guy, in all the time I was with her, 5 years, we never saw him again. It would have been really unlucky for him. The Philippines is not America, and I’ve got friends in low places.

3 Likes
55

I think it’s fucking hysterical that bleeding heart liberals who don’t even live in this country are the ones who claim to have all the answers for gun violence in the US. The prevailing attitude that the problem is with the police and not the criminals who commit crimes like looting and rioting in the streets in Portland, OR. is a fucking joke. BLM and ANTIFA(a bunch of cowards) rioted and set fires in that city for over 100 straight nights last year, and the police officers on hand were told to not engage with them unless they were attacked. The few who were arrested were immediately released and all charges against the majority of these losers were dismissed.
Is this justice, or is it pandering to the “woke” mob? This kind of shit has put everyone in this country on edge and the US media has done nothing to help our country. The politicians who are running our country into the ground all talk big when they say that we need “common sense” gun control, but they know it’ll never happen. The 2ND amendment gives us the right to keep and bear arms against a tyrannical government from impeding on our god given rights. They can have the “god” part , but I agree with the rest.
I’m not a gun owner, but I have gone shooting with my son and my brother-in-law a few times. There is an old abandoned quarry about 20 miles up HWY 20 that allows target practice there. I’ve fired my son’s .45 caliber handgun and my brother-in-laws 9mm and his .22 caliber rifle, it’s fun, but it’s also a big responsibility when you handle a firearm. My wife and I agreed not to have a gun in the house as long as we had the kids living with us.
In our current situation, we don’t have a firearm in the house because of my problem with clinical depression over the past 5 years or so. It’s not safe for me to have access to a loaded weapon because I know that I would probably use it to blow my brains out. Thoughts about suicide never really go away completely, especially when your quality of life never gets any better.
I will/would do anything to protect my family if threatened and I have 2 strategically placed baseball bats in our home in case I ever need to use them.
So keep on preaching about how you know better than we do about gun violence in a country that several of you don’t even live in. Worry about what’s happening in your own back yards first.

1 Like
56

Sounds like the fantastic (fictional) rantings of a political hack.

1 Like
57

Never is a very long time. Is it that you don’t believe societies change?

Without exception so far, every system/empire invented by people in recorded history, has eventually fallen. America has been in decline for some years imo, probably from the1950’s. At that time we the people stupidly ignored Dwight Eisenhower’s warning about the Military Industrial complex.

It’s not all that difficult to get people to give up their guns. All that is needed is the right motivation.

Here in Australia, after the new gun laws were passed, there was an amnesty and government buy back of firearms. That met with some success.

After the carrot comes the stick. A government makes possession of any fire arm a capital offence, and enforces the law. No appeals. People can be self destructively bloody minded, so it might take a generation or two. Eventually though there would be very few guns in private hands.

58

Ohhh :astonished: straight from the mouth of the Christian right… lol :stuck_out_tongue_closed_eyes: btw the platform that you’re beholden to, views “law and order” different than secular “law and order”.

That’s sensible. Hope your neighbor views things the same way… last year some Canadian dipshit blew out his neighbors brains before the suicide by cop. Our largest mass shooting to date. He had his issues and conspiraturd beliefs… and delusions and anger management issues…

Do you live in Portland? Are you aware the mayor there had a conflict as acting Police Chief? A boundary of “separate powers” that did not exist there?

I’ve talked to “patriots” and to hear them speak BLM and Antifa are camped out in their fucking back porches (lol). They’re about as big a threat as the patriot militia groups (in my opinion BLM less so).

I assume this same standard for outrage is also directed at the dipshits who stormed the capital and committed insurgency based on a big lie (easily debunked) and a “taking back our country” mentality from fellow Americas.
Extremists on either side deserve derision.

2 Likes
59

A straw man fallacy, and an ad hominem fallacy in one sentence.

The US has a disproportionate number of gun deaths per capita, and liberal gun laws, and a culturally belligerent attitude towards introducing laws to control ownership and availability of firearms. Those are facts, try playing the ball, and not the man.

Also do try and understand that using the term bleeding heart liberal as a pejorative, everytime someone expresses a view you don’t like is simply bigotry.

Oh dear, do you not think racial equality is a laudible aim? I have no idea what ANTIFA is, or what it has to do with gun control.

It’s not preaching, and you need to learn to address facts, and stop dealing in emotive rhetoric.

Sorry but that’s a particularly pointless, and stupid comment.

It has already been pointed out to you that many western democracies, some reacting to mass shootings, introduced strict laws controlling owning firearms, and that this has had a demonstrable effect on gun deaths and crime.

2 Likes
60

Yes, in the UK the same principle is held, but of course it’s easier to be objective about minimum force required to defend oneself, when you examine the facts in the safety of a courtroom.

Though in the context of this thread, I’m not sure that violent burglary is any lower in the US than in countries with strict gun laws. Though it seems obvious that criminals across the board will find it easier to obtain firearms in any country, where they are more plentiful, and easy to obtain.

Broadly speaking yes, and within one’s own home courts tend to extend a lot of latitude, justifiably so IMHO, since one cannot be expected to measure the nefarious intent of a burglar caught in the act.

Personally I’d worry about the legal ramifications afterward, if they’re in my home uninvited it would be unwise not to assume the worst possible intent, and act accordingly.

Luckily violent burglaries are rare, and burglars bearing firearms even more so. Laws allowing me to own a firearm would be a poor trade off, if those same laws made it much easier for those criminals to arm themselves.

It’s unusual to see police officers carrying guns, but less so these days, a sign of the times.