It was posted in sadness and frustration. I agree that it's serious. I wasn't trying to make light of the issue - but indeed to draw attention to how silly so much of the rhetoric around the issue is. The arguments (I'd prefer discussions) around the issue do matter a great deal. The senseless shouting doesn't. I'll agree that my original comment could have (and perhaps should have) been more thoughtful. I'll stand by my apology for offense, as none was intended. I hope that we as a culture, country, and people can move past the shouting and get to the discussion.It's a serious issue and I think that making light of it in the way you did is inappropriate.
You are making Steve responsible for your own emotional reaction, which isn't cool. You're effectively arguing that satire, frustration or sarcasm are inappropriate responses to the discussion of tragedy or politically-charged events, which is a great way to ensure that nobody engages you in discussion. Your entire response is couched in "I think that" and "I feel like" without acknowledging that your interpretation of Steve's response is one of many possible justifications. In other words, it's clear that this is a fight you want to have and Steve is just the unfortunate bystander whose time has come up.
this is the part where i eat shit for a couple responses then i apologize, so i'm just going to skip right to the end and delete both comments steve: sorry about the antagonism. there's no point in it.
we're tripping over ourselves to apologize. No sweat Q. It's a tough and nuanced issue. It's still fresh and I think that we're all pretty sensitive right now. I could/should have been more sensitive (or at least more thoughtful) in my original post. PEACE. I mean it.
I am too. Lots of people aren't apparently. Even if those ends require means that you don't like?I'm tired of the news cycle and the people who start shouting after these events.
I'd like to try to find solutions instead of yelling from some position of supposed righteousness.
the more I think about it - I think that issue I'm wrestling with is gun violence in general. Either of the two examples you listed... or the other examples from the article. Do we melt all the guns? maybe. Do we arm a bunch of other people? probably not. Is there some solution that can bring about solid change? Hopefully.
The more I study the problem, the more I'm convinced it's a symptom of "The American Dream." Ours is a country where children grow up being told they can be anything they want, then hot-dropping into an economy where an English degree is required to make coffee. They're told it's the land of opportunity but 1% of the population controls 99% of the wealth and always has, always will. It's a country where a boy's life can be ruined forever for receiving a naked text of his age-appropriate girlfriend, where white males are demonstrably on top of the food chain but young, middle-American lower-middle-class white males are bereft of the promises and opportunities that they've had for generations. Can't get a job, can't get a date, can't get a break, but fuckin' A AR-15s are cheap. Throw minority membership into the mix. Young black men? More likely to go to prison than to college. Muslim? Can't even bring a clock to school without the Sheriff staring you down for an hour. Yet ours is a society that respects money and fame above all else. Don't got money? Don't got fame? At least you can get even. Inequality breeds violence and the disconnect between what young men are promised and what young men receive has been growing for 40 years. This drives almost none of them into homicidal rage... but for that tiny asymptotic percentage, we've got discussions such as these. There has never been a socially-fulfilled, economically-stable mass shooter. The people who pick up guns and shoot at strangers are the ones with nothing to lose.
Nope. People who are committed to causing violence will do so. Getting rid of guns will produce a quantitative but not qualitative change in interpersonal violence. How much scarier would a series of well placed mustard gas bombs be than a kid with a handgun, or even an AR-15? Imagine entire schools filled with blinded, dead and dying kids rather than a few dozen at most. We can't agree in this country on the proper role of police, so I won't touch that one.Do we melt all the guns? maybe.
Do we arm a bunch of other people? probably not.
I'm totally down with quantitative change, thanks. Your argument presupposes that there's no spectrum of violence and no gradient of difficulty. Gas attacks are extremely rare, despite the methodology for committing one being easily-learned and the materials necessary being simple to acquire. Fertilizer bombs aren't difficult to make yet the Columbine killers failed. Any kid that has ever leafed through The Anarchist Cookbook has fantasized about mass destruction via innovative materials but none- zero, zilch, nada - have succeeded. On the other hand, any chucklehead with a pulse can pick up a gun somewhere in these United States and ammo is the simplest thing to procure. Somehow, this always becomes a "yes guns/no guns" discussion without recognizing that neither the problem nor the solution is likely to be binary.
Many a successful campaign against mailboxes has been and will be waged. Also tin cans and junk cars. We made thermite in one of my middle school science classes, though I'm betting the whole common core thing has stopped that. Many DIY explosives get made, they just got deployed for mischief rather than murder.Any kid that has ever leafed through The Anarchist Cookbook has fantasized about mass destruction via innovative materials but none- zero, zilch, nada - have succeeded
I agree that people who are committed to causing violence will still do so, but then the question is - why do we not see levels of this recurring violence in other comparable developed countries? Many countries have strict gun laws and, I suspect, do not succumb to mustard gas bombs on a regular basis. Maybe you can argue that the US has a unique problem with citizens and violence but I'm not sure. If we can prevent people from killing people easily, perhaps we should. Or maybe you are right and they will turn to bomb-making and etc. If that is the case (and I dunno how convincing that argument is), what fundamental changes can we make to our education or healthcare systems that could prevent such outcomes?
Evidence suggests limiting gun availability helps - from the article: As for the bomb example, bombs are difficult to make and often require testing, which means these people usually break the law before the attacks and police have a chance to find them. Columbine, for example, was primarily supposed to be a bombing, but most of the homemade bombs failed. It seems people who wanted to cause damage on that scale would use bombs regardless of gun laws, all evidence points to restricting gun access as helping.More than 60 percent of the attackers were not prohibited from possessing guns because of prior felonies or other reasons. But the organization still found there was less likelihood of mass killings in states that require background checks for all handgun sales than in states that do not — and even less chance of shootings by people who were prohibited by law from possessing firearms.
It's harder to make a bomb than pull a trigger, but it isn't hard to make a bomb. Bombs and other methods of mass attack aren't used because they aren't as viscerally satisfying as gunplay is. How many first person shooters are there? How many "unibomber simulators?" The use of explosives in killing is largely perpetrated by assassins that wish their actions to be ambiguous, while the use of guns in killing is largely perpetrated by amateurs that wish their actions to be legendary. It's not like Harris and Kleibold planted a bunch of bombs and waited; they planted a bunch of bombs and waded in with trenchcoats full of assault weapons. The bombs were icing on the cake, really, an impetus to launch screaming victims into their line of fire. James Holmes could easily have walked into the theater with pressure cooker full of nails and fertilizer and then walked out again but he didn't - he waded in with a shit-ton of guns and started shooting. Bombs? That's the Tsarniev brothers and they wanted to get away with it. They didn't intend to martyr themselves. Our fascination with guns and shooting is related to personal experience and personal powerlessness. A bomber doesn't have his ego on the line. A mass shooter does. Somewhere in there lies the solution.
If bombs are too impersonal, that seems to support my point, that guns are not correlated to bombs. If we restrict one, I don't believe we will just have equal amounts using the other. They are different tools and appeal to very different people. This is an untruth perpetuated by the media after Columbine, largely because it took time to discover all the bombs and for the public to have access to the boys diaries. They planned it as a bombing, they wanted to beat the record of the Oklahoma City bomber. The guns were the icing, not the bombs. My source on this is David Cullen, who wrote an in depth history called "Columbine" after 10 years of research.The bombs were icing on the cake, really
Your broader point on correlation, yes. I read Columbine. Yes, they had grandiose ideas. They also had a shitload of guns. Tim McVeigh had none. Kleibold and Harris, like every school crazy before and like every school crazy after, wanted to go down in a blaze of glory with their fingers on the trigger. They singled people out. They were very much down with individual killing. Tim McVeigh blew up a building full of people because of what it represented and because that's what he was supposed to do. Tim McVeigh tested his explosives. Klebold & Harris?
They tested them remember? That was the whole issue, they'd been caught with pipe bombs before Columbine but the cops lost the paperwork and never followed up. I'm not even anti-gun, and some of this gun control stuff that comes up is incredibly insulting to anyone with mental health issues. I'm not pretending I have a solution for this kind of violence in my back pocket (ban guns! arm everyone with rocket launchers! ). Besides we are getting to a point where the determined will just 3D print them. Books like Columbine help though, going back and taking a fact-based look at how these things happen, then trying to use that real data to make changes.
They didn't really, though. Every chucklefuck with chemistry curiosity has built pipe bombs. Ain't no thang. Problem is, the way you build pipe bombs precludes going bigger than pipe bombs. Bomb squads hate pipe bombs because you can get grains of smokeless in the threads and opening them up makes them go bang. You're never going to commit mass murder with a pipe bomb. It's basically a grenade that sucks. The leap from a pipe bomb to their propane adventure was fantastical. They may have flirted with explosives and mass destruction, but they were about the guns. Which is something I didn't like about Columbine - there's an agenda to these things. See, I was those kids. The Trenchcoat Mafia was my posse. Different school, but only a couple hundred miles away. We listened to the same bands. We shot the same guns. We wanted the same mass-destruction to befall our fellow students. Difference was, I didn't want to give the bastards the satisfaction of writing my story. I could have walked into my social studies class and fired a clip of 5.56 into the ceiling. Woulda been impressive. Woulda ended my academic career, though, and I cared. Was I going to kill a bunch of people? No. But I know I could have. And it kept me warm inside. So you read a book. But you don't know. You've never done the calcs on what it would take to knock over a mason block wall. You don't know what 5 20-round clips in a bag feels like. You don't know what 30 quick rounds of chinese steelcore feels like under your index finger. You've never blown the harmonic balancer off a small block chevy with an assault rifle; "spall" is a triple word score to you, not a bullet going sideways through meat. You think that guns can be 3d printed, without understanding that a nail, a rubber band and a piece of brass tubing from the hobby store is more than enough while the cheez whiz available for 3d printing is really only useful for the grips and other shit that doesn't matter. People that kill people with guns want their victims to know. They want to feel the effortless volley under their fingers, like Counterstrike but louder and with more recoil. They want to see blood and surprise and know that in that moment, they are godlike, life and death over the mere mortals assembled around them like so many Non Player Characters. The "whole issue" with school shooters is they're willing to trade their futures for a few minutes of godhood. The reason they're willing to do that is they feel powerless and trapped and if they lose enough perspective, it's fuckin' over. If you can't relate to your fellow human being, and if you hold your fellow human being responsible for your lack of opportunity, you, a gun and a persistent slip of perspective can add up to tragedy. There but for the grace of god go I. I know you appreciate that book, but appreciate that you may not have gained a conclusive understanding of the issues simply by reading it.
Mass shootings occur once a day in the US? I know a lot of you guys are smarter than that, and everyone should work to be a lot less biased in how easily they accept these kinds of articles. It's these kinds of statistics that make it look like you don't actually want to work with the other side and find a solution to mass shootings that is amenable to the 2nd Amendment. And to be fair, some of you want full repeal of the 2nd (which is a valid political opinion). But it's never going to play in most of the country and you need a huge majority to ratify an amendment to the US Constitution. I asked "How would you stop mass shootings?" a while ago and that was the big solution: Outlaw firearms. I get it, that would work to the extent of stopping mass shootings for the most part. It doesn't always work surely, we can look at Paris to see that, but they do have fewer shootings than we do. It's not a question of whether or not that would work, it's a question of how well you can convince the other side that it's worth it and you refuse to see the value of firearms in any case. That's ludicrous. Articles like this are BS and are equivalent to the NRA telling me that, "Jesus had an AR-15 and so should you!" It's political propaganda but you are choosing to buy into it because it verifies what you're talking about. Here's another NYT article which discusses why this article is terrible. A quick quote from that article: "Almost all of the gun crimes behind the much larger statistic are less lethal and bear little relevance to the type of public mass murder we have just witnessed again. Including them in the same breath suggests that a 1 a.m. gang fight in a Sacramento restaurant, in which two were killed and two injured, is the same kind of event as a deranged man walking into a community college classroom and massacring nine and injuring nine others." Don't get me wrong, all gun violence is tragic, and these lives count just as much as someone else, but you can clearly see that's not the same thing. This is media bias 101. This makes me doubt that you credibly want to work with me toward an actually viable solution. You are the deadlock that you hate to see in Congress where one side digs in deep and refuses to move. Is that really who you want to be politically? An idealistic zealot who won't concede an inch? I could guess that you'll say, "I'm only like that on guns. Guns are the one issue I won't compromise on." But I kind of doubt that once you're dug in on one issue that you don't mirror that in others. Entrenched ideas look like burial to everyone else.
Hyperbole will always be a part of any discussion, no matter how much one might try to keep it away. There are other statistics, too. One is as likely to die (statistically) from a gun homicide as from a car crash (NYT quotes CDC and the Graduate Institute of Geneva) in the United States of America. Additionally, it's about the kind of argument one makes about global events and the hypocrisy of people's statements. You see all these politicians in America (mostly Republicans, incidentally) praying and mourning the losses of gun-based terrorism in our and other countries (see: Paris, Planned Parenthood, San Bernandino), stating we need to deal with terrorism more effectively and find ways to deal with this. Yes, we have terrorist watch lists, and many people who have done acts of extreme violence (some in Paris, those at the Boston Marathon, those in San Bernandino) have either had contact with people on these lists or are on these lists, yet there are those in the Senate (again incidentally Republicans) who vote against bills to limit gun sales to, say, people who are on terrorist watch lists or have had contact with known extremists... It is a painful wound, being from California, to realize that the people who shot up a workplace in San Bernandino were able to purchase those guns legally despite their known communications with extremists. It just doesn't make sense. I welcome a counter-argument to this, as long as you... ... let me remind you of two things: 1) Because I post an article, does not necessarily mean I agree with all of it. No shit that this was an overblown statistic, but it generates conversation. For example, without this headline, you may not have chosen to add your points to this discussion. 2) This: is ad hominem, whether you meant it or not. Not cool.This makes me doubt that you credibly want to work with me toward an actually viable solution. You are the deadlock that you hate to see in Congress where one side digs in deep and refuses to move. Is that really who you want to be politically? An idealistic zealot who won't concede an inch?
But I kind of doubt that once you're dug in on one issue that you don't mirror that in others. Entrenched ideas look like burial to everyone else.
That Republican prayer vote mongering nonsense is part of the problem. They don't actually want to stop gun violence. They want to stop talking about it by calling it terrorism, which in some cases it is (Dylan Roof obviously). But they never actually do anything about it because each side is so polarized. There's no room for compromise because Republicans are set up to defend gun rights and they have great success painting Democrats as wanting to take them away (even if they were only trying to enact better background checks for example). It's all political theater and nothing changes. Statistics like the ones from this article make it very easy for both sides to stay entrenched is my point. The anti-gun crowd gets to say that a shooting happens every day, and the pro-gun crowd gets to say look how ridiculous our opponents are. Nobody wins. For shit's sake, the article even points out that this a statistic made up by a Reddit anti-gun group called GunsAreCool. It's not a tool of discussion, it's a tool of polarization. This response wasn't written to you in particular, but to people who would carry this article under the banner of gun-control. I didn't mean for you to take it personally and I'm sorry if it made you feel as if I don't respect you. That was not my intent. In the tone of the paragraph there is no 'you' in reality, but a caricature of a lot of entrenched people, both left and right who refuse to work with each other.
I don't understand if you are willing to concede that the solution presented will fix the problem what is there to discuss?I asked "How would you stop mass shootings?" a while ago and that was the big solution: Outlaw firearms. I get it, that would work to the extent of stopping mass shootings for the most part.
Because there are considerations other than how to solve the problem in the debate. For one, that solution is completely in opposition to the 2nd Amendment which is not going anywhere making it a moot point. I would like to see solutions which greatly contribute to the overall safety of citizens without infringing upon the Constitutional rights beyond what is included in a wholesale ban. For example, it has been reported that the husband and wife who committed the crimes in San Bernardino were on the no-fly list. Why is someone who is not allowed to fly because they are suspected of being a terrorist still allowed to purchase a firearm? Closing that loophole seems prudent. Dylan Roof was allowed to buy a firearm despite having been arrested within a few days of the shooting incident. He was allowed to purchase the gun because the FBI didn't get back to the retailer within 3 days of the background check being completed. Making sure that the FBI is equipped to handle purchase applications in a timely manner seems very prudent. The Virginia Tech shooter used 10 round magazines that were compliant with the California Assault Weapons reforms as did the shooters in the Columbine shootings. They just brought more of them. This therefore seems a silly ban which only infringes on legal users for no actual purpose. Closing straw purchase loopholes seems like an obvious step. Closing individual sales being exempt from federal background checks seems like an obvious step. There are many things which could greatly contribute to the safety and peace of a majority of citizens which do not infringe on the Constitutional rights of legal gun owners. These are the kinds of things which we should be discussing.
Opposition to an amendment doesn't make the point moot. The constitution was designed with change in mind. A change to the amendment is well within the the power of the government. I also do not agree that owning a gun should be right by any mean, but that is more of my own opinion on the matter which I've mentioned a few time before. In most cases a lot of the countries that practice strict gun laws do not outright ban them in every circumstance. The law simply stipulates that there are just very few situations where owning a gun is warranted. Most of the discussion you are referring to has already been discussed and proposed in Congress. Its just the gun lobby would choose not to discuss anything that takes away their "right." I would say that because of that extremist point of view much in the words of tacocat in your previous thread on this topic. Since they don't seem to want to take any middle ground then what choice does anyone have, but to oppose them entirely? I think our points differ in our views on the second amendment, and its constitutionality in modern day society.
My point is not that changing an amendment is impossible theoretically, it's that the path a repeal of the 2nd amendment of the US Constitution is so far from the realm of possibility in the current political climate (and will be for the foreseeable future) that acting as if supporting a repeal is actually contributing to gun reform is more of an argument in how the constitution works rather than gun reform.
I can never get over how disgustingly rude all of the "lol silly stupid liberals" memes and replies are on social media. The "no, stay focused, you are distracted, stop countering my insulting statement" is so insulting because they don't what an actual dialogue, they just want to mock and belittle the person they are talking to. Twitter seems to be overflowing with these kinds of gross interactions. Seeing such childish bullying with the face of a grown adult next to it is discomforting.
That's a question that people have been asking for a long time. Below is a video of a legendary Michigan newsman, Bill Bonds. His bit at the end is poignant.
This Fred Rogera moment is pretty amazing too. Worth watching these days. He also mentions Lennon and others.
I have a song on the first New Green album titled, "Impeccable Woman," that has a lyric inspired by Bill Bonds: Im a retired anchor man, selling furniture tied to balloons and you're a sunrise come too soon. Bonds was the best.
I'm an American that has lived abroad for about 10 years now (so, half my life). I still identify heavily with the States and I'm quite proud and etc, but...I will never understand gun culture. I just don't get it. I understand the 2nd Amendment etc., but I just do not see why people are so eager to own such destructive, horrifying instruments. I really just don't understand! Yes we need better mental healthcare but I cannot wrap my head around why anyone absolutely needs to have one gun, let alone several....It's just one cultural element that I can't comprehend or identify with.
Guns laws are the stated assumption that every citizen in a nation is a criminal in waiting, that any person shouldn't be allowed to own a weapon simply because every citizen has some potential to go out and shoot people. "Gun culture" is the same as any other material-culture-community. They buy fancy toys and tools that do cool things and go out to shoot them. No different from the lockpicking community, or the science-hobbyist community. Secondly, guns are an icon of independence. A gun held on your person is a powerful tool and a security against incidents like this. Perhaps not literally, as I know of few times that terrorists or similar are stopped by guns, but figuratively, in that the people with the guns feel safer, the control is in their hands. The US is all about power, it's all about capability. People here are prideful when we say that no nation in the world could invade, and hold, the US, because every last citizen is able to take up arms and defend ourselves. That's why gun culture is such a big deal, it's an icon, a way of life, a meaning. These shootings, they are becoming a bigger issue, but guns have been around for ages. Something is wrong, and it's not guns, it's media, it's culture, perhaps it's the attitude around guns, who knows. That's what needs fixed, not the freedom to have weapons.
Other countries have some element of 'gun culture' - shooting/hunting clubs etc. It's not something I'm interested in but I can understand the allure, sure. I think what bothers me about home is the widespread nature of it. A substantial portion of the population owns guns and I guess I just don't quite understand that. Perhaps you are right in that there needs to be a change in attitude around guns, sure, but I really do think that it should at least be some more regulation. But I admit my opinion might be different if I grew up around guns and had respect for them as an outlet/hobby - I guess I don't. Thanks for the context though, definitely something to think on.
One thing that is important to remember, as well, is that almost everyone will reasonably agree to guns not being able to be resold, or needing to have ID and criminal background checks before buying a gun. The problem is that the debate constantly gets phrased as TAKING THE GUNS AWAY! by the people who really are disrupting progress for little reason but political support. Not necessarily that existing US gun culture opposes any restriction. That's my experience though.
It's about power, and the lack thereof. Even proponents of firearms will acknowledge that their function is to equalize the playing field between asymmetrical combatants. If you feel powerless, a gun will make you feel powerful. Fundamentally, firearm ownership is about empowerment. For the overwhelming majority of gun owners, this does not end in tragedy. For a tiny percentage, it does.
New York Times also did a write up on where the guns came from. I'd post it separately but don't want to spam hubski with the shooting media blitz. The data is interesting, and the way its written is almost more interesting. Feels like the author isn't even trying to be unbiased. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/03/us/how-mass-shooters-got-their-guns.html
TIghten the grip around gun ownership like they did in Australia and the UK. You can tell me that knife violence is up, and people will find new ways to commit violence. That is true people will always find new ways to commit acts of violence, but that is not the goal of legislation like that. The goal is to decrease the number of mass shootings which legislation like that has proven time and time again to actually do.