Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Thyroid

Guns and gun control

Recommended Posts

I think a lot of assumptions are being made about what jeremywc meant with that. So allow me to add one of my own! I thought he meant that it's a complicated issue with more sides to it than "ban guns, fix problems".

Is anyone actually saying that, though? I don't know, I guess I think it's pretty sensible to tackle things one things at a time. Perhaps gun control would save a lot of lives, perhaps it wouldn't. Then there's another discussion to be had about other stuff like mental health issues and security and whatever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're extrapolating my argument farther than I stated. I said "I think banning assault rifles would be an effective security control..." Past that, how exactly do you propose we prevent attacks in schools?

EDIT: Also, holding up China as a model for good government has got to be one of the worst arguments ever. :-P

Right, so I wasn't really making a grand point, merely highlighting that restricting the number and type of weapons available to people has a huge impact on the deadliness of attacks when they happen. While I'm a big advocate of gun control, I don't actually believe that's the core issue or solution here, so we probably agree on many points.

Fire with fire. ;-)

But you still didn't answer my question. I'm seriously interested in hearing what suggestions people have for increasing security in schools, especially in light of the measures Obama just announced. I think they were pretty good.

I think you touched on something interesting by using "security in schools" in this post and not "attacks in schools". There are big problems with security in schools, but attacks such as this are rare. The problem is that we have many children in our schools who never get to feel safe. They are either habitually bullied or have to live each day knowing they could be bullied at any time. A lot of kids experience the threat of verbal and physical abuse every day in what should be a safe environment for growth as a human being. Even people who never get bullied see it every day, and see the lack of repercussions for the bullies.

Then there's everything outside schools, of course. Kids who are fine in school can have terrifying problems at home. And even if they don't, we've talked a lot about societal pressures and such that can wreak havoc on people's mental well-being.

I don't have the exact numbers, but something like 200-300 people have died in school shootings in the States since 1927, while the number of school-aged children who kill themselves every year is at least a couple of thousand. So if we want to talk about kids having secure, happy lives, gun safety in schools is a diversion.

The most obvious solution is massive investments in mental healthcare and counseling services, but there's a lot we should be fixing. Teachers need to be highly educated and well trained in actually dealing with kids and the problems they can have. I actually think the role of a teacher has to be rethought -- right now the idea is you fill students' head with trivia and send them packing. Then we need more support staff in schools. I won't go deeper into school reform and talk about how problematic grading is... Bullying is a massive problem and needs to be dealt with. Such behaviour has to be intervened with immediately and both bullies and the bullied need to see that actions have consequences. I don't mean sending kids into institutions, but if a kid makes it impossible for other children to study at a school due to his abusive behaviour, it's the bully who needs to be moved into another school where he can start again. These days it's often the bullied who have to escape.

And then we can come back to the original topic. We have a lot of people who are fucked up to various degrees. This has massive costs seen in crime, suicides and depression. School The economical costs have to be astronomical, but of course difficult to prove.

We need to do more to help them now and more to give people the chance to grow up in secure environments. That's how we stop school shootings, but it requires massive institutional and cultural changes that would take years and years even if people agreed to put in the effort, which they won't. Because of austerity bullshit that's going to have some pretty spectacular costs down the road.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is anyone actually saying that, though? I don't know, I guess I think it's pretty sensible to tackle things one things at a time. Perhaps gun control would save a lot of lives, perhaps it wouldn't. Then there's another discussion to be had about other stuff like mental health issues and security and whatever.

Of course gun control would save lives. Is it the only way to save lives? Probably not, but I don't think anyone is arguing that having less weapons wouldn't lead to less deaths...? How many people have to die before the number who would have been saved is enough to warrant gun control? 20 children would still be alive if the US had a ban on guns... is that not enough?

If you're talking about the realities of enforcing gun control in modern day American, then I completely agree, but it doesn't sound like you are...? :-/

Mental heath issues are completely moot with regards to gun control, as my friend's status quite succinctly points out. He who is sane today, and therefore may have access to a portable killing machine, may not wake up sane tomorrow. In the case of the latest shooting, they were his mother's guns, anyway. How would the NRA's proposed solution of creating an "Insane Database" have helped in that situation?

As for security, Nachimir pointed out that both Columbine and Virginia Tech both had armed guards.

I think a lot of these "other things" have been discussed already. The question is if there's anything new to be said about them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you touched on something interesting by using "security in schools" in this post and not "attacks in schools".

I had a chat with a friend who just got back from studying in France, who marveled at how secure they were. Not in the sense you're talking about of being emotionally safe and positive environments; simply that they were built like fortresses. I have no idea about France as a whole or the world at large, but simply from a security standpoint, it's very easy to walk into a school campus. Heck, sometimes I walk right through a middle school campus when I walk into town, because it's just the fastest way. If you have a safe neighborhood, this is fine, but if you life in a dangerous area, it makes sense to have a campus where you can feel completely secure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course gun control would save lives. Is it the only way to save lives? Probably not, but I don't think anyone is arguing that having less weapons wouldn't lead to less deaths...? How many people have to die before the number who would have been saved is enough to warrant gun control? 20 children would still be alive if the US had a ban on guns... is that not enough?

If you're talking about the realities of enforcing gun control in modern day American, then I completely agree, but it doesn't sound like you are...? :-/

Mental heath issues are completely moot with regards to gun control, as my friend's status quite succinctly points out. He who is sane today, and therefore may have access to a portable killing machine, may not wake up sane tomorrow. In the case of the latest shooting, they were his mother's guns, anyway. How would the NRA's proposed solution of creating an "Insane Database" have helped in that situation?

As for security, Nachimir pointed out that both Columbine and Virginia Tech both had armed guards.

I think a lot of these "other things" have been discussed already. The question is if there's anything new to be said about them.

I think I made my point poorly. That wasn't an argument for or against gun control. I was getting caught up on jeremywc's whole "people will keep killing each other" thing, and trying to illustrate that that doesn't really have much bearing on whether or not gun control is a good idea, which I took to be the purpose of this thread. I personally think that it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have the exact numbers, but something like 200-300 people have died in school shootings in the States since 1927, while the number of school-aged children who kill themselves every year is at least a couple of thousand. So if we want to talk about kids having secure, happy lives, gun safety in schools is a diversion.

The most obvious solution is massive investments in mental healthcare and counseling services, but there's a lot we should be fixing. Teachers need to be highly educated and well trained in actually dealing with kids and the problems they can have. I actually think the role of a teacher has to be rethought -- right now the idea is you fill students' head with trivia and send them packing. Then we need more support staff in schools. I won't go deeper into school reform and talk about how problematic grading is... Bullying is a massive problem and needs to be dealt with. Such behaviour has to be intervened with immediately and both bullies and the bullied need to see that actions have consequences. I don't mean sending kids into institutions, but if a kid makes it impossible for other children to study at a school due to his abusive behaviour, it's the bully who needs to be moved into another school where he can start again. These days it's often the bullied who have to escape.

And then we can come back to the original topic. We have a lot of people who are fucked up to various degrees. This has massive costs seen in crime, suicides and depression. School The economical costs have to be astronomical, but of course difficult to prove.

We need to do more to help them now and more to give people the chance to grow up in secure environments. That's how we stop school shootings, but it requires massive institutional and cultural changes that would take years and years even if people agreed to put in the effort, which they won't. Because of austerity bullshit that's going to have some pretty spectacular costs down the road.

This is a very interesting point! But I think it's a separate point.

Most insane gunmen are in their 20s or older, not their teens. I do believe something could be done to help depression in teenagers, especially since children in the USA are among the least happy in the first world (the UK, too), but it's a separate issue to protecting perfectly happy children from being shot :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I made my point poorly. That wasn't an argument for or against gun control. I was getting caught up on jeremywc's whole "people will keep killing each other" thing, and trying to illustrate that that doesn't really have much bearing on whether or not gun control is a good idea, which I took to be the purpose of this thread. I personally think that it is.

Ah, I see. My bad.

Maybe jeremywc will return and fully explain his point of view :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, it's not really what this thread is about.

I will say that childhood problems can have their most extreme manifestations much later if they are not dealt with. Making it to 21 without killing yourself doesn't mean your OK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will say that childhood problems can have their most extreme manifestations much later if they are not dealt with. Making it to 21 without killing yourself doesn't mean your OK.

I totally agree, but as it's just speculation that all mad gunmen had bad childhoods, it's hard to say if it will help :-/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, I see. My bad.

Maybe jeremywc will return and fully explain his point of view :)

It's kind of hard to explain how I feel, but I'll give it a shot.

I feel that the height of American prosperity peaked somewhere in the 1960's during the Space Race. We got to this point where we doing so well, but all of our prosperity was centered around this power structure that was operated by affluent white males. It provided a lot of economic stability, but not necessarily a ton of equality. And we're kind of unique in that our population is widely diverse AND very large. People are naturally distrustful of others who come from outside what they consider to be their home cultural group. The civil rights and counterculture movements that started in the 60's were so important to breaking down these power structures, but rather than bringing us together, I think it has caused us to turn back into these cultural groups that we identify with. I don't think America at this point in time is a melting pot. It's more like different colored Lego bricks that have been mashed together. We have all these artificial boundaries we build between one another and we don't really try to work together so much as just try push others in the direction we want them to go. It creates *so* much tension and frustration. We're angry with one another all the time. We don't have discussions, we have shouting matches. And I worry that sooner or later we're going to stop trying to find common ground and just break down. That's why, even though I'm a pretty liberally minded person, I also think it's wrong to dehumanize conservatives (citizens, anwyay, not the politicians). They're good people who work hard every day, take care of their families, and do what they believe is right. I think it's destructive to make a blanket characterization of gun owners as mentally unstable.

tl;dr - I think gun violence is a symptom of the anger we've been carrying in this country and I think most of that anger is born out of our completely inability to find common ground as of late. I hope that makes sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for the double post, but I thought an anecdote might shed some additional light on my line of thinking...

A few years ago, someone broke into my house while we were sleeping. He stole some cash and a GPS out of my wife's purse. Nobody was harmed, but it was a very, very scary experience for us. We weren't exactly living in the best part of town. My wife was so un-nerved that she couldn't sleep for three days. I went to talk to my boss, who was in the Marines, because I was seriously considering purchasing a handgun for protection and wanted some advice. His political views can probably best be described as libertarian and he's probably the best boss I've ever had. He takes care of his employees and treats us like an extended family.

His advice to me was to get a big dog and gave his recommendation on some breeds that were good with children. His reasoning was that I was probably just overreacting from a scary experience. Since I didn't have a history of being interested in gun ownership, I would probably quickly lapse on keeping up with the required work for owning a gun (regular target practice, cleaning & maintenance, etc) and it would end up doing me more harm than good if I was in an emergency situation. This was really responsible advice and we ended up finding a rescue dog at our local shelter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

. That's why, even though I'm a pretty liberally minded person, I also think it's wrong to dehumanize conservatives (citizens, anwyay, not the politicians). They're good people who work hard every day, take care of their families, and do what they believe is right. I think it's destructive to make a blanket characterization of gun owners as mentally unstable.

I have been following this post since yesterday, but was reluctant to post as I know I am in the minority. Thanks Jeremy for at least trying to see if from the other side and understand where conservatives are coming from, although many go about defending their views with some pretty poor arguments. I don't believe guns are the problem either, and this is why: At some point in the history of the U.S. preventative measures (gun control) could have been taken but we are long past that point now with our long love affair with guns. I don't have the statistics, but modern day sport rifles or "assault" rifles make up for a ridiculously small percentage of the gun crime in America. Incidents like the one in December are outliers, as are the perpetrators committing these mass shootings. It doesn't make them any less tragic, I just think that this is a attempt to shut up the masses yelling for gun control who don't really understand that legislation like this wont really change anything. I don't have the stats, but the majority of gun violence is attributed to pistols, which are by far the most widely used semi automatic weapons in the country.

So what is a president to do? ban handguns sales also? Well, we are already an armed nation, so I don't think this is the answer... and people who go to a gun store and have 500- 1000 dollars to spend on a gun aren't a large percentage of the people committing violent acts... by the time you are successful enough to have that kind of disposable income for a hobby, then you probably aren't planning to rob a liquor store.

How about mandatory disarmament? If this was a jeopardy answer, the question would be " What is the most likely potential cause for a second civil war? " The problem is that criminals by definition don't care what the law says. Law abiding gun owners do, and removing guns from them doesn't account for the unlawful and stolen guns already in the hands of criminals. Law abiding gun owners own guns to protect the things that they have earned and the people they love from the criminal element. If there was a way to guarantee that a complete disarmament meant there were zero guns in the hands of criminals as well, then most (reasonable) owners would gladly turn them in. But with the amount of firepower that is already out there, this is unrealistic. So where does that leave us besides in a cycle where laws make it easier for guns to fall into the hands of the criminal element as well as the people wishing to defend themselves from said element?

I don't know... And I don't think there is a good answer to this problem at all.

I don't like the fact that I live in a country so wrought with fear that the people that attain the american dream are so worried about it being ripped away from them that it comes to arming themselves, but I completely understand it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why have traffic laws? After all, traffic collisions make up a tremendous number of deaths in the United States but people who drive safely don't kill people on the road, it's the people who ignore the rules. Cars cost anywhere from a few hundred to tens of thousands of dollars, nobody just spends that money just to crash it into someone. We are a driving nation.

You aren't all wrong, of course, but I think you're missing some of the points. Assault weapons are specifically a talking point because they're responsible for the largest mass shootings, and it's a perfectly fair target: They have no practical purpose in civilian life, they do kill people (even if relatively few), and it's a convenient gateway to overall more strict gun legislation. People in general don't want to own guns and don't want guns on the street, but it's a very sensitive topic because some chap decided it was a civil right a few centuries ago (which is like calling a screw a simple machine in my opinion: It's not necessarily the most enlightened idea, but it's been there so long noone's willing to throw it out).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I totally agree, but as it's just speculation that all mad gunmen had bad childhoods, it's hard to say if it will help :-/

Hmm, that's not really what I was going for, though I realize my post probably wasn't very clear on this. I tried to deal with several subjects and wanted to put out the argument that attacks from the outside are a minor factor when it comes to security in schools. I think everyone would be better off if we were able to offer help to people who need it when they need it: before they are desperate. We also have many institutional and cultural processes going on that can hurt people. I would be surprised if gunmen shared any specific traumas that made them that way.

I cannot really put my arguments very eloquently. Practically every facet of our society needs to change -- we need more values than the invisible hand of the market. A cold society churns out cold people. I see the gunmen as outlier cases of a larger problem. Dealing with the larger problem will indirectly reduce the number of gunmen as well, but not in a way that would ever be verifiable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been following this post since yesterday, but was reluctant to post as I know I am in the minority. Thanks Jeremy for at least trying to see if from the other side and understand where conservatives are coming from, although many go about defending their views with some pretty poor arguments. I don't believe guns are the problem either, and this is why: At some point in the history of the U.S. preventative measures (gun control) could have been taken but we are long past that point now with our long love affair with guns. I don't have the statistics, but modern day sport rifles or "assault" rifles make up for a ridiculously small percentage of the gun crime in America. Incidents like the one in December are outliers, as are the perpetrators committing these mass shootings. It doesn't make them any less tragic, I just think that this is a attempt to shut up the masses yelling for gun control who don't really understand that legislation like this wont really change anything. I don't have the stats, but the majority of gun violence is attributed to pistols, which are by far the most widely used semi automatic weapons in the country.

It appears that you're arguing that the requirement for some people to have weapons is more important than a few kids' lives every now and then? (Like my friend's Facebook status pointed out.) Or are you trying to say that it's too late? There's already too many guns around that legislation won't make a difference? (In which case, why are you against it?)

Moving away from my own idealism, I do wonder what will happen if there's another shooting. Will people see the ban on assault weapons as a failure that didn't make any difference, so why bother? Or will they think that the law didn't go far enough?

This video addresses the media's part in tragedies like this, and is often posted during discussions like this, because it's excellent:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Politics is the art of the possible. You have to focus your efforts in what you can actually get done. There are many different ways of tackling the problem, so you try to find the ones where both parties can work together. Otherwise you just play to your own base, but alienate the rest of the country and nothing actually gets done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
we need more values than the invisible hand of the market. A cold society churns out cold people.

Best words I've read this week :tup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It appears that you're arguing that the requirement for some people to have weapons is more important than a few kids' lives every now and then? (Like my friend's Facebook status pointed out.) Or are you trying to say that it's too late? There's already too many guns around that legislation won't make a difference? (In which case, why are you against it?)

I am saying that the singling out assault weapons is merely a tactic for the prez to get us past this as a country, because he knows that any other gun legislation will never get past congress, and chances are neither will an assault weapons ban. He just wants to be able to say "well i tried." and move on. The reason everyone is so scared of AR-15's is because it is meant to be a scary looking weapon, but in reality it is no different than any other semi automatic weapon except that when you see someone with it you automatically think "military specific". I honestly don't mind heightening the requirements for gun ownership, but those requirements are never going to test whether you are a competent parent who can recognize if your child is exhibiting emotional or psychological problems. If parents feel the need to buy a gun to protect their family, I would think they would be able to recognize a child having a tough time in the time period leading up to something like this and get them some help. But that is besides the point that banning a specific type of gun is placing blame on the gun and not on the individuals involved, which A, is way to late to remove from the equation, B wont change the staggering amount of gun violence and C is opening the door to placing blame on other outside factors like Video Games.

Assault weapons are specifically a talking point because they're responsible for the largest mass shootings, and it's a perfectly fair target: They have no practical purpose in civilian life, they do kill people (even if relatively few), and it's a convenient gateway to overall more strict gun legislation.

Assault weapons, just as handguns have one purpose: Defense... Matter of fact, In this state I cannot hunt with anything besides a shotgun. The practical purpose is it is accurate and scary looking, things that attribute to its effectiveness. But as you can see, it is by far and away not the scariest gun/round... (please disregard the fox news, this showed up on my feed and I think the firearm comparison is very effective.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=V2wBiG3LCx0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am saying that the singling out assault weapons is merely a tactic for the prez to get us past this as a country, because he knows that any other gun legislation will never get past congress, and chances are neither will an assault weapons ban. He just wants to be able to say "well i tried." and move on.

So you don't think he really supports gun control...? Even if that's the case, I'm not sure what your point is here.

The reason everyone is so scared of AR-15's is because it is meant to be a scary looking weapon, but in reality it is no different than any other semi automatic weapon except that when you see someone with it you automatically think "military specific".

Again, I don't know what you're saying or why you're saying it...? The proposed ban is for "military style assault weapons" and "high capacity magazines", not just AR-15s. With this in mind, I don't know who or what you're addressing.

I honestly don't mind heightening the requirements for gun ownership, but those requirements are never going to test whether you are a competent parent who can recognize if your child is exhibiting emotional or psychological problems.

Again...? These are two separate things, and I don't think anyone is arguing that children shouldn't get more psychological support. Obama is also pushing for increased access to mental health services, too.

If parents feel the need to buy a gun to protect their family, I would think they would be able to recognize a child having a tough time in the time period leading up to something like this and get them some help.

I don't see how this changes anything. This latest gunman was 20 years old. An adult. He just happened to be living at home. What if he didn't?

But that is besides the point that banning a specific type of gun is placing blame on the gun and not on the individuals involved, which A, is way to late to remove from the equation, B wont change the staggering amount of gun violence and C is opening the door to placing blame on other outside factors like Video Games.

Back to the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument? It's obviously true, but guns sure make it a lot easier!

A - Maybe we can remove it from future equations?

B - Surely less guns will reduce the amount of gun violence?

C - Who would you suggest blaming instead?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assault weapons, just as handguns have one purpose: Defense...

I just think this is an amusing statement :P Well, maybe it's like a crash helmet -- wearing one doesn't suggest you should crash into something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An AR-15 is designed for self-defense in the same way Confederate cannons were designed for civil war reenactments. Difference is, people actually use Confederate cannons for reenactments, instead of stockpiling them in an arsenal, talking loudly about their right to reenact Civil War battles if they wanted to, and then launching a cannonball through a school.

Theoretically you could use an assault weapon to defend yourself, but I reckon it's awful hard to not kill someone when you shoot them with a 5.56mm fragmenting bullet. Personally, "he started it!" is too weak of an excuse for me to knowingly kill someone when I have nonlethal alternatives, and I'd be glad to keep weapons out of the hands of bloodthirsty hicks who still think "Stand Your Ground" was an enlightened policy. Maybe it's easier if you choose to believe in an afterlife or vengeance, but I for one am glad to leave bronze-age ideology where it belongs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Forgive me for being close-minded, but I live in England and I can't even imagine a world where my friends and family are buying guns. I can imagine liking cars, or computers, or aeroplanes, but if it's guns then in my head that's just a maniac.

tumblr_mgp9kjWnFB1r47v6to1_500.jpgtumblr_mgp9kjWnFB1r47v6to2_500.jpg

Cause guns are so kawaii.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I appreciate that we see this from different sides of the fence, and I am just happy that I can have an actual discussion about this. The points I was trying to make was that the gun owning population sees an attempted disarmament as a step towards the government having free reign to infringe on any liberty we have. Being armed with muskets and choosing to stand up against tyranny was how this country was created, and many gun owners feel that the second amendment is the foundation on which the rest of the constitution stands. Without the ability to stand up against the government in the event they try to infringe on liberty, we are no longer a free nation. And i know earlier in this thread the argument was made that the government has tanks and drones etc. but as it stands it is merely another common set of checks and balances that creates fear-based trust between citizen and governing body... not the best trust relationship, but the one the country was created with and therefore one that it continues to have.

Any gun control initiative that helps keep guns in the hands of the responsible and out of the hands of the insidious I am all for. This is what we should be doing, but of course some on the right will ridicule anything Obama does because they are unable to look at it from any other position than their own, which happens on the left as well.

Any gun ban on a type of gun because it is scary and has become a symbol of this type of tragic violence is a convenient solution that will accomplish nothing but creating more of a rift between those who are comfortable with guns being in society and those that are not. I am comfortable with guns being in the hands of the police because I am a law abiding citizen, but I would not be comfortable with the guns being in the hands of the police and government if I wasn't afforded the same rights. That is a level of trust for government and elected officials that I simply don't have, and I know I am not alone.

Maybe we can remove it from future equations?

possibly, but there really seems to be some underlying causes here that should be the main focus. In the fifties there were many gun ranges and gun clubs within schools, and teenagers were taught to use them responsibly while the term school shooting hadn't even become a thing yet.

B - Surely less guns will reduce the amount of gun violence?

I would agree, but as i mentioned less guns means disarmament, and this has the potential to turn into something much worse.

C - Who would you suggest blaming instead? I don't have an answer to this, I just think that blaming and banishing a tool is a step in the wrong direction. If I get a DUI, I do not blame my car for not driving straighter. I know if I were the parent of a child like this I would blame myself, regardless of his age...especially if he used my weapon.

And that picture is scary to me. Not because of the gun, but because of the Buzz Lightyear Mousepad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I recognize it correctly, the character depicted on that handle uses her proficiency with firearms as a metaphor for her ongoing mental breakdown that resulted from a relentless need to protect her loved ones, which failed until it was replaced with a non-violent solution. Nice choice.

(I watch like one anime a year and it happened to be that one in 2011. Cut me some slack)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×