Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by fps, Dec 14, 2012.
I think there's been exponentially more shootings, since the CO shooting.
Sorry mate, but playing this stuff down as if it's just a simple commonality is ridiculous.
To an extent this is true, but mostly because the numbers of murders by firearm in the US are extremely high:
In 2010 there were 358 murders involving rifles. Murders involving the use of handguns in the US that same year totaled 6,009, with another 1,939 murders with the firearm type unreported (stat found on Wikipedia, originally published by the FBI).
Yes, 24 hour news media and the proliferation of extremely powerful and portable media technology means that any story can be covered by any quasi-journalist anywhere in the world, and so we're seeing an increase in the amount of cases that are deemed 'newsworthy'. Thankfully for news organisations, there's no shortage of material in the US. Still, the stats on that FBI page show a year-by-year decrease in murders from 2006-2010, with 2000 less people murdered at the end of that period than in the beginning. So, if it seems like gun crime is increasing, media coverage has a lot to do with that.
For example, this is I think the third or fourth case I've seen this year of a child in the US accidentally killing a family member because a gun wasn't secured properly. These stories are 'click-bait': when a headline says that a four year old child accidentally killed his father, people read that shit, and then have a huge argument about it in the comments section (yeah, I spend more time reading Huffington Post than I should). The same happens when there is a murder or massacre, and websites want lots of traffic so that people see the other 'click-bait' embedded throughout their stories and the ads all over every page. We'll see most of these stories now because, being the vicarious types of people that we are, we think a big, dramatic, violent story is more interesting than anything else the news can produce.
I could go on a larger rant about how this is kind of democratising the news, giving readers more power over content than they've had in modern media history. Unfortunately, this just means that cute puppies, boobs, celebrities and shitty knock-off memes wind up passing for news, because this is the internet, and apparently this is the shit we want to see.
In terms of gun violence being all over the world, here's the link I usually post, with my usual suggestion to sort that list by rate of murders per 100,000 people (because I think it paints a more accurate picture than sorting by murder count, which places the US #8, between South Africa and Colombia, and China #13 with one of the world's lowest murder rates per 100,000 people). So yes, it's all over the world. It's just not really all over the First World, of which the US is apparently a part.
I apologize. I wasn't trying to downplay it at all. I think it's incredibly sad,and happens FAR too often. My main point was,it isn't just in the U.S. It's everywhere.
Since our government, police, and media only know how to solve problems with violence; how can they expect anything different from us.
Every movie, game, international conflict, story we tell our kids, interaction with news outlets, and dealings with authority figures revolves around violence. We have been this way for a long time, but in the modern era there doesn't seem to be any social cohesion, unless you count Facebook lol, so people just don't give a .... about how others feel.
This is just who we have become. Violence will always exist, it's just harder to kill when you have a conscience. We have been desensitizing ourselves with media and isolating ourselves from physical community.
Solution: go talk to your neighbors, take your kids to the park, get the teenagers off the computer and Xbox. In others words, be a part of your community.
Unfortunately, your avatar is The Shredder, so I can't help feeling like you'd appendix your post with a comment like "Be a part of the community: Join the Foot Clan!"
I think you're right to an extent, and I'd like to see social integration go beyond the home. I recently went to a local high school as part of my university teaching placement, and they have a program where their year 7 students regularly visit a nearby retirement home and spend some school time chilling with the seniors. Social policies and social interaction are becoming important aspects of secondary schooling in Australia, and I'd like to see it continue. And if schools aren't keen, I think the best way is for parents to lead by example, not just kick their kids out of the house for a bit. My mother used to volunteer with the Red Cross as a first aid officer at public events, and my siblings and I would sometimes go along out of interest. I think the best way to be a part of the community is to give something to it - that way if you hit a tough spot in life the community will usually be happy to give something back.
It's unfortunate to see another tragedy like this... However, violence actually IS on the decline in the US and has been for years, so there is something to the notion that we just hear about it more often because everything is reported immediately.
FBI — Table 1
It doesn't account for the last 2 years though. I'm sure it is declining still, but we can't definitively say so based on past statistics alone.
You know the problem with mass shootings in America isn't the guns, but actually the lack of guns. If you are w/o a gun, you're a victim/corpse. If you have a gun, you at least have the chance to fight back.
Look at Sandy Hook and Aurora shootings, places specifically chosen so there'd be as little resistance as possible (the theater in Aurora had a no firearms policy and was farther away from the shooters home than other theaters).
You're never in so dire a need as the moment you need a gun to save your life, or even worse you've run your gun dry.
Oh geez. *sigh*
You know how there's a rule against posting any threads about the Westboro Baptists? That's awesome, and I wish we could have the same rule for American shooting massacres.
Not trying to cause offence or anything, but that sounds like something a cowboy in the old wild west would say.
But yeah you probably need a gun to protect you from other nuts with guns.
I don't think you'll ever be able to take the guns away from America..
Which is why I'll probably live my life in countries that don't have lots of guns.
Peace and love y'all
Except that is antithetical to the truth in just about every way imaginable. The potential for gun violence goes up with a higher firearm density, not down. Your post is just another in a long line of cowboy fantasists who secretly yearn for a fight. In reality, carrying or not carrying a gun has very little impact on the state of your livelihood, ignoring any changes in mannerisms due to a changed psychological state of carrying a firearm. You are NOT likely to ever be mugged, have to fight off home invaders or defend your own life. In the rare situations where these do happen it is often questionable in whether using a firearm to protect yourself is even an intelligent idea.
Mugging/robbery? The safest action is almost always to give up your property. Money is replaceable. If they have a gun pulled on you it is pure fantasy to think that you can quick-draw them and come out on top. It may happen, but the odds are against it.
Home invasion/robbery? Again, items are replaceable. It is statistically more likely that a gun will injure a family member than it will a robber, and a gun used for home protection is only doing that when you are actually home, while most robberies will take place when you aren't leaving your gun as just another thing to be stolen.
Defending your life? Sure, guns are useful. But if you are in a situation where you are actually likely to need a gun to protect yourself you would do far better to move/work in a better area.
Too often gun-advocates ignore the reality of statistics, and most never learned the first rules of self-defense: The best fight is one that never took place, and when faced with conflict know when it is worth lives on the line.
Totally what I'd consider trolling.
Not that I don't believe what this guy is saying are his genuine feelings but it's so tone deaf, not just of the debate in general, but especially in the context of the discussions we've had on this forum. Considering the intelligent "pro-gun" points that have been floated in previous threads, this one is totally "I'm going to stick my fingers in my ears and repeat something I read on a conservative website verbatim" obnoxious.
Well, it's not EXACTLY against the rules... just that the only thing that happens in those threads is "pitchforks and torches! YAR!" and they go nowhere.
Gun discussion is probably a little moot at this point but some interesting points come up from time-to-time and I prefer leaving the discussion open. HOWEVER, I don't think we need a million different threads on the matter, so this one is getting merged.
You are unlikely to have a home fire, but you have a fire extinguisher & smoke detector right?
How likely are you to fall off your bike, do you wear a helmet when riding?
What are your chances of a car accident, do you use your seat belt?
You all prolly said yes to those questions, right? Why is it smart to do those things, protecting yourself from injury and harm but dumb to own/carry/use a firearm?
Having a lifetime of firearms use - from small arms on up (another conversation), I know full well the best fight is the fight avoided.
From a verbal to a fist to a knife to a gun fight, none are something that a sane person seeks out. Anyone who has ever deal with incoming fire will happily attest to that fact of a gun fight, but your ability to avoid the fight isn't always the case. Risk avoidance is great, but if you're unable to move or you're suddenly that victim, the "just move" doesn't work.
Home invasions hurting family members? Uhm there's that chance, but who does have a call/response progam known to make sure that doesn't happen? Unsure of the person, use the call/response. An interloper won't know that correct response and a family member will. Crisis avoided.
Aurora and Sandy Hook involved long arms used, and an armed civilian will typically have a sidearm on them if they have a CCW. That is some tough sledding, using a sidearm to fight a longarm. The only time you "use" your sidearm is when it is the only option you have and you only use it to fight with until you get back to your long arm or you get ammo for your long arm. Trust me on that, want to be on the wrong end of a fight face any rifle caliber at a distance beyond 8 yd with only sidearm.
The personal attacks, your community college psych 101 diagnosis w/o knowing the extent of my firearms experience/use & another calling me a troll because the truth I stated doesn't change despite the passage of time, does sort take the steel out of any arguments.
Is believing that the bill of rights guarantees our liberty, conservative or liberal? Not sure about you all, but we all have the right to run our yaps, to own our guns, to not have the military quarter with us, to have the pigs need a warrant to search us, not testify against ourselves... you know the entire bill of rights is important.
Thinking someone is conservative because they value the 2nd amendment and liberal because they value the 1st/4th/5th amendment isn't very enlightened. Oddly each party has put their stake in the ground in parts of the bill of rights and not all the bill of rights.
It is unfortunate that the real problem is avoided. Anthropomorphizing never solves the real problem.
The fire extinguisher, bike helmet, seatbelt thing is such a poor argument, I can't even believe it was made. I'd type up something longer but I'm on my phone at work. Just know that they're silly arguments.
Edit: let me just say that if the way people drive, the fact that they're willing to cut you off and put so many people in danger to shave a second or two off their commute, the same people who are 90% about personal gain, the majority of the people who shop where I work/live is any indication of how they'd act with a gun, I'm glad as few people have guns as their is. My friend got beat the .... up for wearing a hat of an opposing baseball team. I mean hospitalized beaten. If everyone had guns, scuffles, bar fights, random beatings and certainly the random whim decisions would end much more poorly.
There is an indirect proportionality between the % of fire detectors used and the number of deaths caused by fire.
There is an indirect proportionality between the % of people wearing helmets and people getting head injuries in bike accidents.
There is an indirect proportionality between the % of people wearing seatbelts and the severity of injuries sustained in a car accident.
There is a DIRECT proportionality in the number of guns and the amount of gun violence.
I don't care about your hypotheticals, I don't care about your anecdotals. The facts speak for themselves. While YOU may feel safer by having firearms the math shows that YOUR method of safety is detrimental to SOCIETAL safety.
The argument that "Everybody is safer if everybody has guns" is outright debunked by the fact that gang violence exists.
A seatbelt won't accidentally kill someone in the next car over when you get in an accident .
And I don't know about the US but in Canada it's the law that I have a fire detector (I don't own a fire extinguisher, despite having been trained in how to properly use them multiple times), wear a bike helmet (until your 18 anyways, and then you see lots of people not wearing them) and wear your seat belt.
And not doing that carries a rather hefty fine.
To compare people doing those things to gun ownership, on a safety thing, is ludicrous in every possible way.