Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MaxTheFox]

Jiminy Christmas it’s like arguing with a child.

Doesn't realize I was talking about one thing, changes the subject to another, calls me childish when called out on it. OK.

But we can't have that. If you ban guns in America, there will be an insurrection that will kill more people than the bill would save.

That's not even a remotely a given, actually. A gun regulation schema that actually brought US gun deaths down to the level of other relevant countries would save multiple tens of thousands of lives, per year. An insurrection would have to kill a whole hell of a lot of people (which itself is questionable, given the nature and amount of folks actually willing to start murdering people if someone tried to disarm them) for an actual effective gun ban to not pay for itself in blood pretty rapidly.

This would be correct, but:
1. Murder can be done without guns, sure there would be less, but not a 100% reduction. And your high murder rate stems from other social factors IIRC.
2. Murderers could acquire guns illegally, and I guarantee that there would be a huge black market.
3. The bill wouldn't pass in the first place.

I agree that in an ideal world, gun regulation would be the right course of action. But an effective policy has to be pragmatic. I'd rather push for better mental health care and further crackdowns on bullying in schools. That, at the very least, has a slim chance of succeeding.

[Frumple]

This would be correct, but:
1. Murder can be done without guns, sure there would be less, but not a 100% reduction. And your high murder rate stems from other social factors IIRC.
2. Murderers could acquire guns illegally, and I guarantee that there would be a huge black market.
3. The bill wouldn't pass in the first place.

The reduction only needs to be a bit under half to meet the plural tens of thousands used -- as far as I'm aware, a reduction that brought the violent death rate into line with most other developed countries would be more than that, even if the attempts at violence didn't change in pace.

The huge black market thing doesn't seem to show up anywhere else of relevant note. Stateside gun nuts swear that would happen, but they also have been swearing UN death corps are coming to steal their guns any day now for decades.

It's got just as much chance of succeeding any time soon as solid improvements to mental health care, though, really. 0 until something happens to the GOP and its ilk.

But an effective policy has to be pragmatic. I'd rather push for better mental health care and further crackdowns on bullying in schools. That, at the very least, has a slim chance of succeeding.

It both has no more chance of success, and startlingly little efficacy in stopping gun violence in countries where it's seen practice. The mental health stuff that's being thrown around is no more pragmatic than a full throated gun ban would be, thanks to how fucked up the state of things are in the US at the moment, and in the hypothetical it actually happened, almost certainly would be far less effective at stopping gun violence.

Remember every time you, or anyone else, brings up the possibility of mental health improvements: You're talking the country where, within this year, the major conservative bloc of its political sphere was actively targeting suicide prevention in schools and seeking to dismantle and prevent its inclusion in educational practices. Improved mental health services on K-12 grounds isn't going to happen to any extent worth noticing in regards to gun violence. Talking about it is just as pure a hypothetical as talking reducing firearm proliferation, unfortunately, and one of them would actually work if implemented.

[MaxTheFox]

This would be correct, but:
1. Murder can be done without guns, sure there would be less, but not a 100% reduction. And your high murder rate stems from other social factors IIRC.
2. Murderers could acquire guns illegally, and I guarantee that there would be a huge black market.
3. The bill wouldn't pass in the first place.

The reduction only needs to be a bit under half to meet the plural tens of thousands used -- as far as I'm aware, a reduction that brought the violent death rate into line with most other developed countries would be more than that, even if the attempts at violence didn't change in pace.

The huge black market thing doesn't seem to show up anywhere else of relevant note. Stateside gun nuts swear that would happen, but they also have been swearing UN death corps are coming to steal their guns any day now for decades.

It's got just as much chance of succeeding any time soon as solid improvements to mental health care, though, really. 0 until something happens to the GOP and its ilk.

But an effective policy has to be pragmatic. I'd rather push for better mental health care and further crackdowns on bullying in schools. That, at the very least, has a slim chance of succeeding.

It both has no more chance of success, and startlingly little efficacy in stopping gun violence in countries where it's seen practice. The mental health stuff that's being thrown around is no more pragmatic than a full throated gun ban would be, thanks to how fucked up the state of things are in the US at the moment, and in the hypothetical it actually happened, almost certainly would be far less effective at stopping gun violence.

Remember every time you, or anyone else, brings up the possibility of mental health improvements: You're talking the country where, within this year, the major conservative bloc of its political sphere was actively targeting suicide prevention in schools and seeking to dismantle and prevent its inclusion in educational practices. Improved mental health services on K-12 grounds isn't going to happen to any extent worth noticing in regards to gun violence. Talking about it is just as pure a hypothetical as talking reducing firearm proliferation, unfortunately, and one of them would actually work if implemented.

1. Fair enough.
2. Well I just think that's what would happen. A lot of those guns would leak into the black market. It's just common sense.
3. See, even if the GOP softens or collapses, the culture of America is such that massive regulation of guns would, most likely, not pass. Maybe some regulations. Better than nothing.
4. I concede that point, as long as your conservatives are rabid enough, neither will happen.

Sorry if I got a bit heated. It's just that something about this just doesn't sit right with me. You understand?

[EuchreJack]

One thing that I don't think has been mentioned, is fiscal cost.
Nothing is free. So where does the money go? Where does it come from? Where does it stop going?

As for mental health services, this is Enemy Number One.

[hector13]

Jiminy Christmas it’s like arguing with a child.

Doesn't realize I was talking about one thing, changes the subject to another, calls me childish when called out on it. OK.

Truth hurts, does it?

You suggested that anyone shooting up a school has mental health problems which I countered with humans as emotional creatures which makes them irrational. You are further informed by various members of the forum that people with mental health issues tend to be the victims of crime, not the perpetrators.

You then respond that this is not the topic at hand, but school shootings, illuminating your childish naïveté, because apparently you seem to think that school shootings are the only mass shootings that occur and there are plenty of news stories of people doing very unpleasant things when they get angry, made worse by easy access to lethal weaponry.

I repeat the point on humans being emotional creatures that only need to lose control for a moment in order to commit atrocities if they have ready access to guns, but you double down on that not being a worthy topic of discussion, as well as reiterating that only the mentally unsound would shoot up a school, as though that’s the only problem the US has with guns.

So yes, you are a pedantic, petulant, naive child that insists only they are right (mentally ill people are the problem); the things they want to talk about are the only things worth talking about (emotions make “normal” humans irrational and capable of horrific things, but only the truly mad are worthy of consideration); and that their worldview is the only sensible one (that mental health care being “better” will somehow stop people with no history of problems, like the Uvalde shooter, with easy access to guns from shooting up a school, as though that’s the only bad thing they could do with a gun, even though the mentally ill are more likely to be victims of crimes than the perpetrators.)

In short if it looks like a duck, talks like a du- oh sorry, I’m changing the topic again, I was talking about you being childish, not a duck

[MaxTheFox]

Jiminy Christmas it’s like arguing with a child.

Doesn't realize I was talking about one thing, changes the subject to another, calls me childish when called out on it. OK.

Truth hurts, does it?

You suggested that anyone shooting up a school has mental health problems which I countered with humans as emotional creatures which makes them irrational. You are further informed by various members of the forum that people with mental health issues tend to be the victims of crime, not the perpetrators.

You then respond that this is not the topic at hand, but school shootings, illuminating your childish naïveté, because apparently you seem to think that school shootings are the only mass shootings that occur and there are plenty of news stories of people doing very unpleasant things when they get angry, made worse by easy access to lethal weaponry.

I repeat the point on humans being emotional creatures that only need to lose control for a moment in order to commit atrocities if they have ready access to guns, but you double down on that not being a worthy topic of discussion, as well as reiterating that only the mentally unsound would shoot up a school, as though that’s the only problem the US has with guns.

So yes, you are a pedantic, petulant, naive child that insists only they are right (mentally ill people are the problem); the things they want to talk about are the only things worth talking about (emotions make “normal” humans irrational and capable of horrific things, but only the truly mad are worthy of consideration); and that their worldview is the only sensible one (that mental health care being “better” will somehow stop people with no history of problems, like the Uvalde shooter, with easy access to guns from shooting up a school, as though that’s the only bad thing they could do with a gun, even though the mentally ill are more likely to be victims of crimes than the perpetrators.)

In short if it looks like a duck, talks like a du- oh sorry, I’m changing the topic again, I was talking about you being childish, not a duck

Jesus Christ, the strawmen.

1. I know they are likely to be victims, I never said they are the problem.
2. The conversation was indeed about school shootings. Other mass shootings were brought up later, and I agree that better mental health would help less with them.
3. School shootings don't happen because someone loses control for a moment. That is not the only problem you have with guns, but it was the only one I was arguing against.
4. First of all, fuck off with the insults. Second of all, quote me where I said emotions are inherently bad. Also, the fact that he was not found to have anger issues or the like shows how bad your mental health system is.

You keep misinterpreting my points and insulting me.

[EuchreJack]

I repeat the point on humans being emotional creatures that only need to lose control for a moment in order to commit atrocities if they have ready access to guns

Only a moment?
But then why are the gun owners still alive?
Does it not take time for a purchaser of a firearm to take their murderous weapon to their chosen point of massacre?

Since you in fact are the child whom I would not trust to answer these questions correctly, I shall do so, for your benefit.
Only a moment? Clearly NOT.  These atrocities take minutes, hours, days, weeks before they occur.
But then why are the gun owners still alive? Hm, I'm actually interested to your answer here.
Does it not take time for a purchaser of a firearm to take their murderous weapon to their chosen point of massacre? It certainly does!
In fact, I am reasonably sure that no gun store can be within 1000 feet of a School in any State!
But is 1000 feet really significant? Hey, an article on that topic! Short answer: Quite significant.

Now, for a bit of theory on my part.  I imagine anyone that commits a true atrocity does not think about it just once, but rather several times.

[hector13]

Mental healthcare won’t help with shootings, school or otherwise, because the problems usually don’t come to light until there’s a shooting. If you’re not saying the mentally unstable are the problem, what are you saying when you suggest mentally unstable people are the only ones capable of school shootings and the best response is better mental healthcare? ‘Cause it sure sounds like you’re saying they’re a problem when you say the issue is the mentally unstable and the solution is to treat that with better mental healthcare.

School shootings absolutely do happen when someone loses control for a moment. That’s all it takes for someone to decide the best solution is a gun, regardless of whether they do the shooting then or months later. That little seed of “I could legit get a gun and shoot everyone” in one moment of rage is prepared in the next moment and performed in the one after. A major issue I haven’t brought up yet is puberty, during which time there are major emotional changes and the part of the brain governing decision-making isn’t fully developed until the mid-twenties, but a high-school senior can legally buy a gun. All takes is for them to buy a gun, leave it in their car, and have a bad day for shit to hit the fan.

I calls ‘em as I sees ‘em. Nor did I say you said emotions are inherently bad, because you don’t seem willing to discuss them in favour of what you want to argue. I’m not sure where you got that from.

I repeat the point on humans being emotional creatures that only need to lose control for a moment in order to commit atrocities if they have ready access to guns

Only a moment?
But then why are the gun owners still alive?
Does it not take time for a purchaser of a firearm to take their murderous weapon to their chosen point of massacre?

Since you in fact are the child whom I would not trust to answer these questions correctly, I shall do so, for your benefit.
Only a moment? Clearly NOT.  These atrocities take minutes, hours, days, weeks before they occur.
But then why are the gun owners still alive? Hm, I'm actually interested to your answer here.
Does it not take time for a purchaser of a firearm to take their murderous weapon to their chosen point of massacre? It certainly does!
In fact, I am reasonably sure that no gun store can be within 1000 feet of a School in any State!
But is 1000 feet really significant? Hey, an article on that topic! Short answer: Quite significant.

Now, for a bit of theory on my part.  I imagine anyone that commits a true atrocity does not think about it just once, but rather several times.

Wtf are you even talking about?

What does gun owners being alive have to do with… anything?

Does someone preparing to murder others not mean they’ve snapped at some point in the past?

Why are you limiting it to schools?

Can schoolkids legally buy guns? Depends on the state, but sure!

Can someone visit a school with a gun in their car? You got it!

Can a kid steal a gun from a family member or friend and bring it to school? You betcha!

Can a kid bring a gun to school, sell it to a fellow student, then get shot when they realize they’ve been paid with fake money? Fuck yeah!

I could continue illustrating how much of a problem access to guns is, but then I’m probably arguing the wrong thing again, silly me…

[hector13]

But nah, the best solution to what could politely be described an epidemic of violence is not to demand more respect of guns by making them take regular safety classes on how to properly use and store guns and punish them if they don’t do that, or make it harder for kids to get their hands on guns by raising the age limit for purchases.

It’s to expect overworked and underpaid teachers to spot the difference between mood swings and actual mental health issues, inform the relevant authorities and be able to trust that they are funded, staffed, and trained well enough to diagnose something as nebulous as the human mind correctly and treat it effectively before they go ape, or for the relevant authorities to be clairvoyant enough to treat these people before it’s brought to their attention they might be bananas.

Also hope that someone doesn’t have a bad day and calms down by the next time they come to school, because school, as we all know, is full of sensible, sensitive people who wouldn’t dream of picking on someone because of the most trivial differences for days, weeks, months, or years at a time.

[Loud Whispers]

But nah, the best solution to what could politely be described an epidemic of violence is not to demand more respect of guns by making them take regular safety classes on how to properly use and store guns and punish them if they don’t do that, or make it harder for kids to get their hands on guns by raising the age limit for purchases.

It’s to expect overworked and underpaid teachers to spot the difference between mood swings and actual mental health issues, inform the relevant authorities and be able to trust that they are funded, staffed, and trained well enough to diagnose something as nebulous as the human mind correctly and treat it effectively before they go ape, or for the relevant authorities to be clairvoyant enough to treat these people before it’s brought to their attention they might be bananas.

Also hope that someone doesn’t have a bad day and calms down by the next time they come to school, because school, as we all know, is full of sensible, sensitive people who wouldn’t dream of picking on someone because of the most trivial differences for days, weeks, months, or years at a time.

That opens up a whole new can of worms where teachers are trained to view their students as potential mass murderers, and there's been a whole load of school shooter profiling based on heresay and mythology which would make the school experience a whole ton worse. For example there's the whole mass shooters are bullied kids theory based on Columbine, but then the Columbine shooters had two different motives (one depressive, doing it for their friend, the other sadistic, known to bully other kids). I wouldn't be surprised then that this mythology would result in loads of bullied kids being taken out of the education system in case they became a mass murderer despite the risk of them doing so being <0%

On top of that it also doesn't do much for those cases where the shooter didn't even belong to the school, like the Uvalde one. Then there was that mass stabbing in China where some dude just walked into the school and started stabbing. Sometimes the murderer has no connection to the school and is just picking it because it's a soft target

[MaxTheFox]

I'm in the middle of an emotional breakdown, so I respond slowly. Not directly because of this argument, but the insults don't help.

Mental healthcare won’t help with shootings, school or otherwise, because the problems usually don’t come to light until there’s a shooting. If you’re not saying the mentally unstable are the problem, what are you saying when you suggest mentally unstable people are the only ones capable of school shootings and the best response is better mental healthcare? ‘Cause it sure sounds like you’re saying they’re a problem when you say the issue is the mentally unstable and the solution is to treat that with better mental healthcare.
Current mental healthcare is bad precisely because it can't spot those problematic people before they do a school shooting. Fuck, I probably shouldn't have a gun either.


School shootings absolutely do happen when someone loses control for a moment. That’s all it takes for someone to decide the best solution is a gun, regardless of whether they do the shooting then or months later. That little seed of “I could legit get a gun and shoot everyone” in one moment of rage is prepared in the next moment and performed in the one after. A major issue I haven’t brought up yet is puberty, during which time there are major emotional changes and the part of the brain governing decision-making isn’t fully developed until the mid-twenties, but a high-school senior can legally buy a gun. All takes is for them to buy a gun, leave it in their car, and have a bad day for shit to hit the fan.
The time it takes to walk to a school to shoot it up is NOT "a moment". If you lose your cool enough to want to kill people for that long and not reconsider, you are mentally ill. Also, kids shouldn't be able to buy guns in the first place. It should be limited to 21 and up.

I calls ‘em as I sees ‘em. Nor did I say you said emotions are inherently bad, because you don’t seem willing to discuss them in favour of what you want to argue. I’m not sure where you got that from.
I thought that is what you implied.

But nah, the best solution to what could politely be described an epidemic of violence is not to demand more respect of guns by making them take regular safety classes on how to properly use and store guns and punish them if they don’t do that, or make it harder for kids to get their hands on guns by raising the age limit for purchases.

But... that is what I support... Christ.

[hector13]

I have no interest in causing you grief.

I’m sorry if I have contributed to your current state.

[MaxTheFox]

I have no interest in causing you grief.

I’m sorry if I have contributed to your current state.

It's fine, not your fault.

[Frumple]

Sorry if I got a bit heated. It's just that something about this just doesn't sit right with me. You understand?

The only people it does sit right with are the fucking ghouls that run for office on a republican ticket, the rightwing media apparatus, and the literally goddamned firearm industry. Of course it doesn't sit right with you, there's basically no one worth even a little shit that it does.

It's worth noting with the teacher thing, there's actually places in the US where it's legal for one to carry on campus at this point. Teachers that actually do so are incredibly rare, for a pile of reasons, among which is -- as I noted upthread -- that the sacks of shit that pushed that insanity through the state legislatures gave exactly fuck and all support for it. No assistance (not fiscal, not practical, not in terms of scheduling for work, nothing) with training, no assistance with acquisition or maintenance, fucking nothing. Their (displayed, anyway, they probably neither expected nor wanted it to nor cared if it would work out) idea of doing it right was to make the possibility legal and then expect everything else to magically work itself out and the already underpaid and overworked school staff to take on extra duties, for free, on their own dime and time, that would easily take up a chunk of a bloody cop's weekly schedule. Unsurprisingly, shit didn't happen.

It's one of several reasons I've been saying that not a single sodden goddamned thing is going to happen to improve things on the issue of gun violence until something breaks the back of the US right wing. Even the shit they say they want, they will not support, especially beyond shitstirring legislation that's more intended to piss off people that aren't fucking scumshit than do anything useful.

This is why fiscal costs isn't actually Enemy Number One to the improved healthcare that wouldn't likely do much on the issue -- Enemy Number One to anything that's claimed by any side of the US political spectrum to help is not anything logistical, it's the GOP and those aligned with and around it. Even their own shit they sabotage.

[dragdeler]

. Murderers could acquire guns illegally, and I guarantee that there would be a huge black market.

The thing is, if manufacturer have no legal market, they will produce less, and long term there will be less appearing on the black market through second and third hand.


I could have bought illegal firearms in my lifetime, it's not something unachievable, but it makes a hell of a lot of a differnce if there is a constant flood of fresh weapons right out of the factory into the pool.




Like, expect the 40billion that has been flown to ukraine (i saw like 50 giant military planes this week likely heading. to rammstein given their orientation) to be in the hands of bad guys 20 years from now, it's not the exception it's the norm.