The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[Lexicus]

The reason the Americas have such high murder rates is the US has been flooding the rest of the continent(s) with weapons and "security assistance" which basically just translates into more heavily armed, more militarily-trained drug trafficking organizations. That's my theory anyway.

And of course the American gun industry has flooded the US itself with guns as well, with ghastly consequences.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I'll ask you the same question... What are the odds that my kids are going to be killed in a mass shooting at school?

When I saw this it made me think that your position was essentially that because this particular event, ie a mass school shooting had very low odds happening to your own kids, that you felt it was reasonable to dismiss the issue/concern as being of low importance.

As a parent you likely won't be worried until a shooting happens at your kid's school or your kid is killed by a gun. That is often how things work. If you don't see the increasing mass shootings in schools as a serious problem, then I think you are an uncaring person. Shame on you for your lack of empathy for those who lose their children senselessly.

For me this raised another point/perspective. While it is often true, that people are less concerned about things until they affect them personally, or their loved ones/friends... it is also often true that people care very deeply about an issue, even when it has very little impact on them or anyone they know. The reason they care, is often the most telling, and/or critical component of the debate/issue. Which leads me to...

How is my saying that something happens so rarely that I'm not going to worry about it happening to me, mean I don't have empathy for parents who lost their kids?

What are the odds? Is it actually a serious problem or a very, very, very random (and tragic) event?

I'd say its less about claiming empathy, which understandably can get categorized as "thoughts and prayers", and more about whether folks want/advocate some Congressional action on the matter. Your position seems to be that since there is a low chance of the issue happening to you or your kids, your interest in advocating/supporting legislative action in this regard is low. Your position makes sense, taken on its own, but it makes me think of issues/statements like this:

QUOTE=JPetroski: I think the best way for you to answer this for yourself is for you to instead explain to me why it's OK for high school girls to have unfair competition. And, since you stick up for the oppressed so much, consider it in the lens of a high school biological girl who's only chance at escaping poverty via a college scholarship are her track victories./QUOTE https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/general-politics-thread.665419/post-16047976

So then my obvious rhetorical question is... what are the odds that you or your kids are going to lose an athletic event... or even their ability to get a college scholarship due to a trans woman athlete? If the odds are low, then why do folks care so much about the subject?

I guess my point is to wonder what your thoughts are on the notion that people can and do care about issues that may not impact them directly and why they care nonetheless. I'm also interested to hear you reconcile why you seem more vested/interested in the nature/"integrity" of competition in womens sports but less concerned in the school shooting issue, based on the low odds that it would affect your kids.

 

[AmazonQueen]

In so much as anyone needs "any" gun, the experience of shooting is totally different from gun to gun. Even something like a short barreled ar-15 has completely different characteristics from a longer one. And if you handload, you can go even further down the hobbyist rabbit hole. It's hard to put in words, but variety is nice.
.22 for cheap shooting
big bore hunting rifle
semi-auto carry pistol
semi-auto intermediate
semi-auto in full size caliber
shotgun for skeet or bird hunting
single action revolver
military surplus for collecting.
Etc etc etc,

I know 1 person who used to own guns, a shotgun for his work (pest control for an agricultural business), a pistol for target shooting.
Thats 1 more than he needed.

 

[JPetroski]

When I saw this it made me think that your position was essentially that because this particular event, ie a mass school shooting had very low odds happening to your own kids, that you felt it was reasonable to dismiss the issue/concern as being of low importance.

It's the odds of it happening to anyone's kids, not just my own. To put it plainly (and on topic) it's something that is being used by others to try and take away my liberty and rights. I understand many of you will think that's an absurd statement but it isn't an absurd statement to me (or many, many others). If "you" are going to use something as evidence to try and convince "me" that I should give up something I consider sacrosanct, I think it's very proper for "me" to ask "you" to bring receipts.

People don't tend to want to bring these receipts on this topic because once you start making distinctions like "Columbine/Parkland/Uvalde/etc. school shooting" and "shooting that happened to take place at a school," the odds as well as average deaths are so absurdly minimal that using them as an argument for policy change is clearly just a heartstring tactic, which is where you get people reverting to the, "any death is too many deaths" argument, which tends to bring a lot of applause, and is used to shut down any objective look at the topic.

From what I've seen, if we're talking about a "Columbine style" school shooting, we're talking about something that kills less kids a year than hot cars, and you might remember what my take is on that topic since it's also come up in threads from years ago we've both participated in. This is not the kind of event or data that is going to convince me to give up my liberties (and again, I get you might think that's an absurd statement - but it's not absurd to me).

Frankly, the data available on all gun deaths doesn't convince me (or many, many others) that it's worth giving up this liberty "to stop" (if it even would), so what I flat out accuse the media and many Democrats of doing is taking a highly emotional but exceptionally unlikely event like a Columbine school shooting and using it to basically vilify anyone who disagrees with them and is against gun control. It's annoying, because "you" might as well vilify me for not wanting to close beaches due to shark attacks, or not wanting to force every car manufacture to install sensors because of hot car deaths.

It's also very interesting to me that if you advocate bulking up school countermeasures or defenses, you're "paranoid" but this is still a topic so important that one should give up their liberty for a little bit of safety. Which one is it?

 

[AmazonQueen]

It's the odds of it happening to anyone's kids, not just my own. To put it plainly (and on topic) it's something that is being used by others to try and take away my liberty and rights. I understand many of you will think that's an absurd statement but it isn't an absurd statement to me (or many, many others). If "you" are going to use something as evidence to try and convince "me" that I should give up something I consider sacrosanct, I think it's very proper for "me" to ask "you" to bring receipts.

People don't tend to want to bring these receipts on this topic because once you start making distinctions like "Columbine/Parkland/Uvalde/etc. school shooting" and "shooting that happened to take place at a school," the odds as well as average deaths are so absurdly minimal that using them as an argument for policy change is clearly just a heartstring tactic, which is where you get people reverting to the, "any death is too many deaths" argument, which tends to bring a lot of applause, and is used to shut down any objective look at the topic.

From what I've seen, if we're talking about a "Columbine style" school shooting, we're talking about something that kills less kids a year than hot cars, and you might remember what my take is on that topic since it's also come up in threads from years ago we've both participated in. This is not the kind of event or data that is going to convince me to give up my liberties (and again, I get you might think that's an absurd statement - but it's not absurd to me).

Frankly, the data available on all gun deaths doesn't convince me (or many, many others) that it's worth giving up this liberty "to stop" (if it even would), so what I flat out accuse the media and many Democrats of doing is taking a highly emotional but exceptionally unlikely event like a Columbine school shooting and using it to basically vilify anyone who disagrees with them and is against gun control. It's annoying, because "you" might as well vilify me for not wanting to close beaches due to shark attacks, or not wanting to force every car manufacture to install sensors because of hot car deaths.

It's also very interesting to me that if you advocate bulking up school countermeasures or defenses, you're "paranoid" but this is still a topic so important that one should give up their liberty for a little bit of safety. Which one is it?

Funny you should mention car manufacture. There are many laws concerning car manufacture, ownership and use although guns now cause more childrens deaths in the US than cars do.
Is unrestricted gun ownership so important an issue that its worth refusing to give up a tiny bit of liberty so that your children can be safer?

 

[JPetroski]

Is unrestricted gun ownership so important an issue that its worth refusing to give up a tiny bit of liberty so that your children can be safer?

Yes

 

[EgonSpengler]

The New England Journal of Medicine, 19 May 2022 - "Current Causes of Death in Children and Adolescents in the United States"

The previous analysis, which examined data through 2016, showed that firearm-related injuries were second only to motor vehicle crashes (both traffic-related and nontraffic-related) as the leading cause of death among children and adolescents, defined as persons 1 to 19 years of age.4 Since 2016, that gap has narrowed, and in 2020, firearm-related injuries became the leading cause of death in that age group (Figure 1). From 2019 to 2020, the relative increase in the rate of firearm-related deaths of all types (suicide, homicide, unintentional, and undetermined) among children and adolescents was 29.5% — more than twice as high as the relative increase in the general population. The increase was seen across most demographic characteristics and types of firearm-related death.

Note that, as is so often the case with these studies and with the discussion of firearms generally, this article only looks at deaths. The costs of injuries and of the threat of violence faced by children are not a part of this study. On the plus side, it's not obsessed with "mass shootings" or with "assault-style" guns, both of which are hardly more than a drop in the bucket of the overall problem. I'm not sure those other effects of guns have even been looked at very hard, yet. It's well-known by now that the U.S. gun lobby successfully blocked research into the effects of guns on our society for years. They didn't want anyone digging up any 'receipts', I think because they had the same intuitive sense the rest of us did what they would show.

Funny you should mention car manufacture. There are many laws concerning car manufacture, ownership and use although guns now cause more childrens deaths in the US than cars do.
Is unrestricted gun ownership so important an issue that its worth refusing to give up a tiny bit of liberty so that your children can be safer?

fwiw, I reject the premise that more sensible gun laws would, in fact, be a reduction in our liberty. I don't know whether Americans do indeed enjoy more liberty than citizens of other democracies, but even if we do, I would want to see the 'receipts' that it's because of all these guns.

 

[Akka]

Yes

Why ?
It's probably something very American that I'm too European to understand, but why is gun ownership worth... well, anything in fact ?

 

[Aiken_Drumn]

Yes

What do you gain from unrestricted gun ownership? The UK isn't going to invade any time soon. Needing protection from other guns doesn't count either btw...

 

[JPetroski]

Why ?
It's probably something very American that I'm too European to understand, but why is gun ownership worth... well, anything in fact ?

Is it even worth getting into? You've been on these forums since 2001. You know what I'm going to say, and you probably disagree with it and think it's silly

 

[Aiken_Drumn]

Why ?
It's probably something very American that I'm too European to understand, but why is gun ownership worth... well, anything in fact ?

How else can I be a rootin' tootin' mass child merdering Merican?!

 

[Aiken_Drumn]

Is it even worth getting into? You've been on these forums since 2001. You know what I'm going to say, and you probably disagree with it and think it's silly

If its not worth getting into, why are you still posting. You seem happy to declare your position, but have nothing to back it up.

I consider debating with pro-gun people worth the hassel in the off chance I might convince someone to have one less gun. My effort takes very little for a potential massive win.

 

[AmazonQueen]

fwiw, I reject the premise that more sensible gun laws would, in fact, be a reduction in our liberty. I don't know whether Americans do indeed enjoy more liberty than citizens of other democracies, but even if we do, I would want to see the 'receipts' that it's because of all these guns.

I certainly haven't seen any convincing arguments that it helps preserve other liberties.

 

[Arwon]

I don't know whether Americans do indeed enjoy more liberty than citizens of other democracies

Between the shoddy electoral system and problems with vote suppression and disenfranchisement, comparatively restricted labour rights, healthcare access problems, world leading imprisonment rate, abortion prohibitions and access restrictions, prohibitions of sex work and euthanasia, carceral drug policies, racist police brutality, conservative states censorship of schools and academia, conservative states targeting the freedom and safety of queer people, the technical continued existence of conscription... I don't think there's much chance of it being the case.

Maybe more guns would help.

 

[Angst]

Is it even worth getting into? You've been on these forums since 2001. You know what I'm going to say, and you probably disagree with it and think it's silly

you're in a thread about gun control

 

[Lexicus]

People don't tend to want to bring these receipts on this topic because once you start making distinctions like "Columbine/Parkland/Uvalde/etc. school shooting" and "shooting that happened to take place at a school," the odds as well as average deaths are so absurdly minimal that using them as an argument for policy change is clearly just a heartstring tactic, which is where you get people reverting to the, "any death is too many deaths" argument, which tends to bring a lot of applause, and is used to shut down any objective look at the topic.

Let's look objectively at the topic. Firearm deaths have surpassed automobile accident deaths for a few years now.

What measurable benefit do guns bring to society that justifies a single one of these deaths?

 

[Cloud_Strife]

What measurable benefit do guns bring to society that justifies a single one of these deaths?

None

 

[Lexicus]

None

"Objectively," a word that JPetroski seems fond of, they are like a particularly dangerous security blankie

 

[E.man]

Between the shoddy electoral system and problems with vote suppression and disenfranchisement, comparatively restricted labour rights, healthcare access problems, world leading imprisonment rate, abortion prohibitions and access restrictions, prohibitions of sex work and euthanasia, carceral drug policies, racist police brutality, conservative states censorship of schools and academia, conservative states targeting the freedom and safety of queer people, the technical continued existence of conscription... I don't think there's much chance of it being the case.

Maybe more guns would help.

Oh brother... can I get a witness...?

(What's a carceral tho?)

 

[Lexicus]

(What's a carceral tho?)

In this case it means we try to solve drug problems by throwing people in jail