It will not. They are insane.

Yes, it's a desperate situation. Though, there is some hope.

It was pretty clear since Sandy that nothing will change for many years

The issue is heavily politicized, so not for a long time. We Americans are like...



And easily lead to slaughter.

Whilst the delusion that guns = freedom persists there is no hope of change.

The general impression I have - as an outsider - is that people in the US live with a greater sense of paranoia than elsewhere. I’m not just saying this as a floating thought, but in respect to how people from the US have commented on living in other countries and from comments from my father who visits the US every year and is asked “How can you feel safe in the UK walking around without a gun?”

Admittedly the later is from a guy who is a member of a church which told him he needed a bigger hand gun in order to remain a member of the parish ... I think there seems to be enough of this paranoia instill in US culture that it inevitably bubbles over as social stress presses home.

There is certainly a dark culture of one-up-manship that is becoming more prevalent in societies where social media has gripped us by the throat - that said I am still for social media and it is likely a case of a generation gap leading to conflict. I imagine the younger generations coming through will understand firsthand the power of mass communication and be in a better position to cope with it.

“How can you feel safe in the UK walking around without a gun?” — I like sushi

I've been asked this in Australia by an American as well. I found it an insane question.

Why are you acting like this is an American problem when it's clearly global?

No other comparable country is even in the ballpark of murderousness as the US when it comes to firearms; it is a distinctly, disgustingly American problem:


source


source

Firearms are irrelevant. Everyday on the news I hear someone killed his wife or kid or both.
Everyday 10 people die from famine, another 10 from car 'accidents', another 5 get their house burned down, another 5 middle schoolers die in a fight and so on.

Proportionally violence is much more rampant where I live than in the US, but I'm still worried about the elderly Japanese who commit crime to get shelter.
It's not a US problem, guns or no guns.

Ok buddy.

Ok buddy. — StreetlightX

America has already stopped. :grin:

The overwhelming majority of gun violence comes from the very same place it has for over half a century - the hood. So let's stop pretending (extemporaneously speaking, of course) that these few and far between gun assaults in non-impoverished inner city venues are the real issue. Prior to Columbine H.S., there was zero general concern for gun control (particularly on the political scene). How very coincidental.

Ooh its just black people. Whole bunch of poor people too. That's OK then.

Ooh its just black people. Whole bunch of poor people too. That's OK then. — StreetlightX

Lol, with all due respect.

But in communities dominated by illegal commerce, I dont see how the ""blacks"" and ""poors"" benefit. It's a funny paradox.

:lol: :cry:

The American Military far outnumbers any other military in the world let alone the pathetic efforts of rural, illiterate, and dogmatic Americans that largely makeup the pro-gun demographic, therefore, the concept of "protecting" oneself and one's property from government tyranny with firearms is eh...useless. — Grre

Oh, the irony. Do you watch the news at all?

"protecting" oneself — Grre

That would make nice thread.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HjdK6w6KLXA

Not that I'm saying this as a way to telegraph a position on gun availability (see the end of the post for my position on that), but it seems to me that it's a much broader, more complicated socio-cultural issue (or rather complex of issues) in the U.S.

What we need to figure out is why the people who are snapping are snapping and tackle those issues. My suspicion is that the core of it is often a combo of survival pressures and relative isolation or marginalization, when those are felt by someone who has the "right" combo of mental issues. As was the case here, many of these shootings have been precipitated by loss, and often, as in this case, a lost job.

In the U.S., there's not a feeling of a "social safety net." Especially as folks get older, they worry about how they're going to find another job--as there seems to be a lot of age discrimination (combined with wanting to hire younger employees because you can pay them less), and in conjunction with that, people worry about a loss of health care, an inability to keep paying rent/a mortgage/car payments, etc., and so on.

On top of this, a lot of people feel relatively isolated or marginalized, which is due to a number of both cultural and geophysical factors.

And because of the health care issues we have, a lot of people with mental problems do not get help (or even get diagnosed). You have to worry about insurance covering it, it's expensive otherwise, and of course there's a cultural stigma associated with it.

None of these sorts of things are easy to change.




So finally re gun availability, my stance is that we should try any and every approach, from a complete gun ban on one extreme to mandatorily arming and training everyone on the other extreme, and then any and everything in between--to see if any different approach would lessen gun violence, or in other words, my stance is "We should do whatever would work to lessen gun violence"--I don't actually care about what the gun laws would happen to be. I care about what, if anything, would work to decrease gun violence. We'd need to experiment to see what might work in our particular culture.

If the issue is primarily cultural instead of just hinging on the availability of guns, then probably no gun availability stance will have much effect. It's much easier to focus on guns than it is to focus on the more complex socio-cultural (and political) issues, such as fixing our health care system, our approach to employment, cultural norms that make it easy to be isolated or marginalized, etc. I do think that tackling the gun issue is worthwhile--because who knows, maybe it would have some effect, but my suspicion is that that's not going to really be the problem.

Why are you acting like this is an American problem when it's clearly global? — Shamshir

Because, with one or two exceptions, this is an American problem. Other countries don't allow guns. Still other countries do allow guns, but their citizens rarely shoot each other. As you Americans say: go figure.

Other countries don't allow guns. Still other countries do allow guns, but their citizens rarely shoot each other. — Pattern-chaser

Because offenders are quickly disarmed. Go figure.

Because, with one or two exceptions, this is an American problem. — Pattern-chaser

The tools change, but war lives on. Are mass stabbings and being run over by a car better? :roll:

Because offenders are quickly disarmed. — Shamshir

No, it's just that, in general, they don't shoot each other. I believe Switzerland and Canada are good examples of countries that allow guns, but whose citizens manage to resist the temptation to kill one another. :chin:

Are mass stabbings and being run over by a car better? — Shamshir

So you will allow guns because there are other causes of death? That's logical....

Give Serbia guns and watch another Balkan War.
It's not that people resist the urge, PC, it's that any such attempt leads to a civil and consequently world war.

The recently attemped coup at Turkey illustrated that quite well. The governments far east are holding down the floodgates to a civil war and you're unlikely to hear about it, because it's not reported. :smile:

America being so public about anything irrelevant leaves the impression that the problem is exclusive only to it.
And yeah, I do find America's failure in homeland security irrelevant, when governments have started arming themselves with nuclear arms again.

Give Serbia guns and watch another Balkan War. — Shamshir

So you agree that free access to guns is a Bad Idea?

It's not that people resist the urge, PC, it's that any such attempt leads to a civil and consequently world war. — Shamshir

Wait! Are you saying here that removing guns from general circulation would CAUSE civil and world war? :gasp:

So you agree that free access to guns is a Bad Idea? — Pattern-chaser

No, free access to guns is not a bad idea. Desensitizing the public to violence through entertainment is a bad idea.

If you ban guns, please ban cars as anyone can simply get in his car and run over a dozen people at will. :smile:
Any kid could stab another kid with a pencil in the neck, but they mostly don't; sometimes they do however, and it's not because of the pencil, is it? :roll:

Wait! Are you saying here that removing guns from general circulation would CAUSE civil and world war? :gasp: — Pattern-chaser

Didn't it already happen with the French Revolution? :chin:
I distinctly remember a bunch of french peasants with makeshift weaponry committing regicide.

If you ban guns, please ban cars as anyone can simply get in his car and run over a dozen people at will. :smile: — Shamshir

On a purely practical basis, cars have a use: transport. Guns are just for killing people. Even knives have other uses than stabbing people, although the case for them is nowhere near as clear as it is for cars.

Are you saying here that removing guns from general circulation would CAUSE civil and world war? :gasp: — Pattern-chaser

Didn't it already happen with the French Revolution? — Shamshir

Did it? Did the removal of guns from French society cause the French Revolution? I'm not a history buff, but I'm not convinced that happened. Yes, there was a revolution, but it wasn't caused by the removal of guns from citizens. It was caused by the rich, who took everything and left the poor to starve. The poor had other ideas, eventually.

Guns are just for killing people. — Pattern-chaser

Except they're not. They're for hunting wildlife and firearms displays and shooting competitions too. :grin:
I'm sure you're well aware gunpowder's main and intended use was for fireworks displays at festivals; but much like atomic energy, it got quickly militarized, due to warmongering.

Did it? Did the removal of guns from French society cause the French Revolution? I'm not a history buff, but I'm not convinced that happened. Yes, there was a revolution, but it wasn't caused by the removal of guns from citizens. — Pattern-chaser

It was caused by a populace left to rot. That was unarmed, unless you count turning farming implements in to makeshift pikes and using their alcohol rations as molotov cocktails; in which case they would be highly armed - despite under severe famine.

The populace of the Balkans is also rotting away, and would cause a bloody revolt to start another World War if the government decided to forcibly seize people's armaments, due to the number of home invasions on the rise. The Balkans are already revolting, mind you, but the guise of 'democracy' is what's withholding a full blown civil war. Even rats grow furious when backed in to a corner. :smile:

Here, I'll give you another example as a freebie.
When the Ottoman Turks took over Bulgaria, they confiscated all armaments and culled the populace far and wide, whilst also enlisting Bulgarian children in to their ranks - commanding them to kill their own parents. This suppression of the local populace did not stop it from revolting, it only served to fuel their hatred for the Turks and lead to many revolts.

The main use of vehicles and knives is obviously not to kill, and guns are flexible in ways that cars are not, and deadlier in ways that knives are not, so the comparison is absurd. As the NYT pointed out, the singular explanation for US mass shooting are the abundance of available guns. Hand-waving deaths caused by guns whether homicide, mass shootings, suicide, etc. because there are alternative tools that can kill, are displays a nihilistic callousness; buffoonery dressed as intelligence.

and guns are flexible in ways that cars are not, and deadlier in ways that knives are not, so the comparison is absurd. — Maw

And cars are flexible in ways guns are not.
Also, how is a bullet to the brain deadlier than being beheaded or disemboweled?
Do you think guns are deadlier because they've got range and rapid fire? Just load some fireworks with shrapnel, like you know... frag grenades?

As the NYT pointed out, the singular explanation for US mass shooting are the abundance of available guns. — Maw

It's not the abundance or availability of guns, it's an education rooted in violence.
A pacifist with a hundred tommy guns won't shoot you, but a homicidal maniac will kill you with a fork, without a second thought.
Go ahead, remove the guns and watch people go back to swinging pipes and bats and knives; they'll die just as often.

Hand-waving deaths caused by guns whether homicide, mass shootings, suicide, etc. because there are alternative tools that can kill, are displays a nihilistic callousness; buffoonery dressed as intelligence. — Maw

It's not waving deaths caused by guns, it's waving the presumption that deaths are caused by guns and not by people and positing that the same stones that were used to build walls, meaning to defend, were used to stone people to death, meaning to kill.