It's Not Too Soon to Debate Gun Control

[wing2000]

From the article:
But there is one quirk that consistently puzzles America’s fans and critics alike. Why, they ask, does it experience so many mass shootings?

The same reason a country with more cars experiences more auto accidents. And the number of mass shootings is not all that high when you consider two things: The specifics of each "mass shooting" included in the stats and the fact that they occur in a nation of over 330 million people.

i.e. the odds of a citizen getting even shot, much less killed, in a mass shooting are ludicrously low and many "mass shootings" are simply the results of someone committing a crime that, without guns, would have simply used a different weapon.

This means that, in reality, they must be examined on a case by case basis. A shooting during the commission of a robbery is not the same as a murder/suicide of a destitute family is not the same as a shooter with a sniper rifle in a college bell tower is not the same as a whacked nutjob shooting up a church. They all have different causal factors and even use significantly different weapons. And it ignores the guy in a truck mowing down pedestrians.

I agree that from a purely statistical perspective, the risks from mass shootings (and terrorist attacks) are extremely low. And each case needs to be evaluated based on the facts and then ask ourselves, what actions, if any, can any of us (or our government) take to either prevent the event or lesson the carnage when such events occur.

The problem I have is people on both sides of the discussion immediately retreat their corners....and we can't even have a logical conversation of the facts much less take action that would mitigate some of the risks....

 

[Almost there]

I'm actually really fine with that idea so long as we're also willing to apply that to a terrorist attack and realize that the chances of being caught in one of those is likewise ludicrously low. When I bring that up, however, people who seem to be very pro-gun say I'm disrespecting victims or a terrorist sympathizer (or worse). I'd prefer not to have draconian laws regarding terrorism or guns.

I generally agree, but keep in mind that terrorists and guns are not the same chemical on the periodical table. (thats a joke, son. )

Guns are inanimate objects. Terrorists are what actually pulls the trigger, sets off the bomb, drives the truck. The common denominator in all of these acts is, in fact, the actor. That is where the potential solutions should be focused, not their tool of choice.

This is why I believe Islam should be treated as the German/American bund was treated in the US during WWII. It targets the thought process behind the act and the motivator of the actor rather than the gun/knife/bomb/truck/plane and access to those things by everyday citizens.

 

[LoAmmi]

I generally agree, but keep in mind that terrorists and guns are not the same chemical on the periodical table. (thats a joke, son. )

Guns are inanimate objects. Terrorists are what actually pulls the trigger, sets off the bomb, drives the truck. The common denominator in all of these acts is, in fact, the actor. That is where the potential solutions should be focused, not their tool of choice.

This is why I believe Islam should be treated as the German/American bund was treated in the US during WWII. It targets the thought process behind the act and the motivator of the actor rather than the gun/knife/bomb/truck/plane and access to those things by everyday citizens.

Sorry, I have issues with targeting people for their religious beliefs and making them almost criminal to have.

I have about 6 million reasons why. For people like me alive back then, it was 1/3 killed.

 

[expos4ever]

There is a logical disconnect. Who is saying that everyone should have the right to a gun. Or "the" bomb.

i.e. strawman alert.

No. Simply no.

See post 84 where a poster suggests that all males over 12 should have a gun.

The "it's an inanimate object" is, frankly, stupid.

 

[Almost there]

Thank you so much for posting this interview. This man is representative of the gun owners that I know. They do not idolize guns but see them as a tool to be used in a responsible way.

I saw that video last night and it hit me that that is on of the biggest facets of this story. It is HUGE.

I got the feeling that, based on the way he parked his truck and what was in it, that this was not the only church he planned on hitting. And the presence of mind this guy had regarding the bulletproof vest was truly shocking. This will be a movie. It will probably be like most disaster movies, where you get to get emotionally involved with all the deceased and their families, with ominous cuts away to the perp, followed by 45 minutes spent on the actual shooting and eventual takedown.

The detail in this guys recollection makes this one of the clearest and understandable news stories of my lifetime. Very few questions remain unanswered regarding the time between when the perp walked out of the church and the time his truck stopped.

 

[Almost there]

No. Simply no.

See post 84 where a poster suggests that all males over 12 should have a gun.

The "it's an inanimate object" is, frankly, stupid.

Yes. Simply yes. You were responding to my post. And I was accurately calling it out as a strawman attack on my post. If you were responding to post 84 I would have no opinion on your post (until I read post 84, of course).

 

[Almost there]

Sorry, I have issues with targeting people for their religious beliefs and making them almost criminal to have.

I have about 6 million reasons why. For people like me alive back then, it was 1/3 killed.

Having read the Quran and other "stuff" from Muhammad, I do not see islam as a religion. It is a political system with a thin coating of religion giving the political side more power. It is a theocracy that is utterly incompatible with the constitution of the U.S. and, apparently, not all that compatible with European culture.

Frankly, I believe the US should declare war on that particular "government" and proceed accordingly and should have done so on 9/12/2001. But not to worry. Europe is our canary in the coal mine. We'll be fine in the end.

 

[LoAmmi]

Having read the Quran and other "stuff" from Muhammad, I do not see islam as a religion. It is a political system with a thin coating of religion giving the political side more power. It is a theocracy that is utterly incompatible with the constitution of the U.S. and, apparently, not all that compatible with European culture.

Frankly, I believe the US should declare war on that particular "government" and proceed accordingly and should have done so on 9/12/2001. But not to worry. Europe is our canary in the coal mine. We'll be fine in the end.

Yeah, bet I can go back to the 1920s and people would talk about reading things that Jews wrote and how Judaism isn't a religion but an attempt to take over the world. Also false things like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. You aren't on a good path here. You start there, slowly you find out that you can dehumanize the people, and before long locking them up in camps so that you are "protected" makes sense.

 

[Almost there]

Yeah, bet I can go back to the 1920s and people would talk about reading things that Jews wrote and how Judaism isn't a religion but an attempt to take over the world. Also false things like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. You aren't on a good path here. You start there, slowly you find out that you can dehumanize the people, and before long locking them up in camps so that you are "protected" makes sense.

No, not really.

You see, Judaeism is theocratic/political, but not evangelistic. Meanwhile, Christianity is evangelistic, but not theocratic/political.

Islam, at its core, is both. They want to control your life and they want EVERYBODY to be under their control.

There is no more comparison between Jews and Muslims and their teaching than there is comparison between being black and being gay. It is a Faulty Comparison.

A nice clarification, btw:

 

[Fantine]

I believe that gun ownership brings with it a completely different philosophy of life. The World Is A Dangerous Place. We need to take protection into our own hands. The world is so dangerous that we need to carry this protection around with us at all times. People who want gun control want to take away our ability to protect ourselves. I on the other hand feel no need to own weapons. I am not a combative person. I tried to deal with disagreements proactively through positive discussion. In order to have a safe for society I think that we need to deal with this atmosphere of fear and almost paranoia that makes so many people believe they need to carry guns.

 

[expos4ever]

Yes. Simply yes. You were responding to my post. And I was accurately calling it out as a strawman attack on my post. If you were responding to post 84 I would have no opinion on your post (until I read post 84, of course).

No.

 

[LoAmmi]

No, not really.

You see, Judaeism is theocratic/political, but not evangelistic. Meanwhile, Christianity is evangelistic, but not theocratic/political.

Islam, at its core, is both. They want to control your life and they want EVERYBODY to be under their control.

There is no more comparison between Jews and Muslims and their teaching than there is comparison between being black and being gay. It is a Faulty Comparison.

A nice clarification, btw:

So what if it is both? If they don't push for it through violent means, I don't much care. You are allowed to hold those kinds of views and it is that freedom that makes America great.

 

[Almost there]

I believe that gun ownership brings with it a completely different philosophy of life. The World Is A Dangerous Place. We need to take protection into our own hands. The world is so dangerous that we need to carry this protection around with us at all times. People who want gun control want to take away our ability to protect ourselves. I on the other hand feel no need to own weapons. I am not a combative person. I tried to deal with disagreements proactively through positive discussion. In order to have a safe for society I think that we need to deal with this atmosphere of fear and almost paranoia that makes so many people believe they need to carry guns.

I think it is a trust issue. You've probably heard these two phrases:
1. A liberal is a conservative that's been arrested.
2. A conservative is a liberal who has been mugged.

Fact is, there are all sorts of reasons people are "gun nuts" and all sorts of reasons they are "gun grabbers" and everything in between. Each case is unique, but there can be common factors and "subgroups" within the groups.

In my case, I do not enjoy guns, but I own several. They are boring. But so are hammers.

I see guns as tools, each for its own purpose. Which is why I own a pistol, an SKS, a 30-06 and a .22 rifle. The pistol is in my car. The .22 is for chasing away varmints we have chickens).

 

[Almost there]

So what if it is both? If they don't push for it through violent means, I don't much care. You are allowed to hold those kinds of views and it is that freedom that makes America great.

Thing is, there is the "four phases of islam" thing.

And like I said in another post, since Europe is our canary in the coal mine, I'm not all that concerned here in the US.

 

[LoAmmi]

Thing is, there is the "four phases of islam" thing.

And like I said in another post, since Europe is our canary in the coal mine, I'm not all that concerned here in the US.

Muslims represent less than 1% of the US population. Less than one in a hundred.

 

[TLK Valentine]

No, not all. America is based on a majority rules system by vote. Only the majority would get to decide what is or isn't overreaching.

So let's let all the people -- not just you -- voice their opinions and let the majority -- again, not just you -- decide what is or isn't overreaching.

 

[Almost there]

Muslims represent less than 1% of the US population. Less than one in a hundred.

Yep. We're in "phase one". I'd like to keep it that way. And since Europe is our canary in the coal mine, I expect it will stay that way.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Yep. We're in "phase one". I'd like to keep it that way. And since Europe is our canary in the coal mine, I expect it will stay that way.

Suppose it doesn't? What would you propose to do to prevent advancing to, say, phase two?

 

[SummerMadness]

Yep. We're in "phase one". I'd like to keep it that way. And since Europe is our canary in the coal mine, I expect it will stay that way.

Just replace with Muslim with Jew and you pretty much have Europe in the mid-20th century. Bigotry is never a logical argument.

 

[Almost there]

Suppose it doesn't? What would you propose to do to prevent advancing to, say, phase two?

Simple stuff. A travel ban involving countries that have a high muslim content will be a start.

And as Europe passes through the phases and reaps the results of allowing a large population of Muslims into their culture, clear protections in our country will have the popularity they need. This is the great thing about change happening outside your sphere of influence. It is sort of like "bench testing" a scenario before you implement it. Europe is our "bench test", but "canary in the coal mine" sums it up better. Solutions will become (are becoming) obvious.