Mass shootings in El Paso, Texas and Dayton, Ohio

[Joey D]

Yet the problem has yet to be resolved when other similar, first world nations quickly come to some sort of resolution (usually gun control).
I also asked earlier about the state of Americans mental health system, yet no one replied.

While it seems (I’m assuming) kind of insane to you and me that people would value access to a object or hobby over the lives of hundreds (or thousands) of people a year, it seems to be the case with guns and Americans. It’s just that no one actually wants to say it.

Do those other nations have a founding document that guarantees its citizens the right to bear arms? I don't know enough about other counties' founding documents, so I can't really comment. But in the US, we do have that which is why most forms of gun control would end up being unconstitutional. Yes, the Constitution can be changed, but that's a long and difficult process. The last Amendment was ratified in 1992 and was on the books for over 200 years before being added to the Constitution.

Also, given that the right to bear arms is part of the Bill of Rights, I suspect it'd never be able to be changed.

And because it is part of the Bill of Rights, it's not about placing value on an object or a hobby that's greater than human life. It's about protecting the rights of the citizens. You have the right to protect yourself, your family, and your property.

I'm not sure what your question was about mental health care in the US, but it's pretty terrible all things considered. It's expensive, some insurance plans won't cover it, and the wait to see someone can be months.

 

[baldgye]

It's right there. It's the light blue line. That's the same total as firearms with firearm suicides and lawful interventions by police included.

The KSI rate is even similar (although not depicted on that chart).

It should be. We should be able to understand what the issues are with firearms and address them so that more and more people (as per that chart) can enjoy them safely and legally and there's an even greater proliferation of them. It's a good goal.

But it seems that, unlike private car ownership, people want to blame the guns instead of addressing the issues...

Why is the total number relevant? It's a problem that is being effectively addressed. Mass shootings are a problem that aren't.

Do those other nations have a founding document that guarantees its citizens the right to bear arms? I don't know enough about other counties' founding documents, so I can't really comment. But in the US, we do have that which is why most forms of gun control would end up being unconstitutional. Yes, the Constitution can be changed, but that's a long and difficult process. The last Amendment was ratified in 1992 and was on the books for over 200 years before being added to the Constitution.

Also, given that the right to bear arms is part of the Bill of Rights, I suspect it'd never be able to be changed.

And because it is part of the Bill of Rights, it's not about placing value on an object or a hobby that's greater than human life. It's about protecting the rights of the citizens. You have the right to protect yourself, your family, and your property.

Isn't it an amendment?
Seems like a flawed system if you can't alter or make further amendments on a document that's hundreds of years old.

I'm not sure what your question was about mental health care in the US, but it's pretty terrible all things considered. It's expensive, some insurance plans won't cover it, and the wait to see someone can be months.

So, I guess if America has so many mass shootings (and they seem to have been increasing since the 70s) and that because the problem is so obviously mental health, then that must mean that the US has the best metal health support network in the world?

The general, sometimes confused consensus among gun owners or people pro gun online is that it's a mental health problem. So if this is the general consensus, why is one of the worlds most powerful and wealthy nations doing almost nothing about it? America, remember is the country that went to the moon 50 years ago, yet can't stop people going into public areas and massacring people on its own soil.

So I guess I'll re-frame my original question, for American's are the hundreds or thousands of deaths, every year from mass shootings, simply the cost of "the right to protect yourself, your family, and your property"/a hobby and thus, acceptable?

Because, as an outsider it kinda seems like it is.

 

[Touring Mars]

Do those other nations have a founding document that guarantees its citizens the right to bear arms?

The Constitution states that a US citizens' right to 'keep and bear arms' shall not be infringed, but it does not determine whether a person has that right in the first place. Rights are reciprocal, but clearly not all people have the capacity to reciprocate/observe the rights of others, hence those individuals do not possess the same rights as others. Hence, those who cannot* observe the rights of others do not have a right to possess firearms, and thus any law that restricts them from possessing a firearm does not infringe their rights, and thus is not unconstitutional.

The argument is not that gun laws should not exist, and clearly they can exist without being unconstitutional, but where the line gets drawn between those deemed to be able and willing to observe the rights of others, and those who cannot or will not.

* (as well as those with a proven track record of choosing not to or wilfully diminishing their own ability to observe the rights of others)

 

[Famine]

Why is the total number relevant?

It's the number of dead people.

It's a problem that is being effectively addressed.

Yet the number of dead people is broadly the same as 60 years ago. Improvements in safety, training and education means that the tool can be used more often by more people, but it's still in exchange for 35,000 dead people each year.

While it seems (I’m assuming) kind of insane to you and me that people would value access to an object or hobby over the lives of hundreds (or thousands) of people a year, it seems to be the case with cars.

Mass shootings are a problem that aren't.

Mass shootings are a very rare cause of preventable death. In fact they're about 2% of all non-user deaths from firearms in the USA, and about 1% of all deaths from cars in the USA.

Do you care about the number of people killed by a specific kind of tool in a specific type of incident, or do you care about preventable deaths? If it's the latter, spree shootings should barely twitch the needle. Regular shootings killed as many people on Saturday as the spree shootings put together. They weren't all in two places, they were spread out around the country's inner cities and they weren't quite as international newsworthy and outrageous (because the victims and perpetrators were mainly black, perhaps). Stabbings will kill as many by next Saturday. Cars got as many people by midday on that same Saturday.

I don't know how I can get this across any more than I have. On average ONE person dies each day in the USA in a spree shooting. Six die in stabbings, 30 die in other shootings and 100 die on the roads (and 120 choose to end their own lives). If you care about preventing preventable deaths, you should be - aside from health issues - looking at cars and speed culture, handguns and gang culture, poverty, division, racism, isolation, untreated and undiagnosed mental health, violence in society, the glamorisation of violence and a whole range of very complex and hard to solve cultural and societal issues before you start looking at spree shooting (and you might actually reduce the incidence of spree shootings on the way through). That doesn't mean spree shooting is acceptable (it's not) or a price for private gun ownership (it's not) or that it shouldn't be looked at (it should) or it's not a problem (it is), but that it is a very, very long way down the list of causes of preventable death - just ahead of being bitten by your own dog (0.6 deaths per day), and hanging yourself while rubbing one out (0.4 deaths per day) - despite the number of column inches, television hours and forum threads devoted to it.


Focussing all your ire and outrage and sarcasm at knobheads with long guns and manifestos spraying a supermarket or a picnic doesn't show concern for human life, it shows an obsession with guns (absent of facts) and the news cycle.

 

[Danoff]

As to why incidents like the Dayton shooting are happening, my theory is that it has a lot to do with entitlement... not so much that these individuals feel entitled to do what they do, but more that they are experiencing the result of a removal of entitlement(s) that young, white males may have previously assumed (esp. in the USA) that they are increasingly no longer able to. While this is a good thing in general, there is inevitably going to be a backlash from a small number of individuals who either just don't 'get it' or who refuse to accept the reality of their lack of entitlement.

When the person is particularly young, there is no such thing as the presumption of a race-based entitlement provided by society up until now. There is just... having lived as a child. I think it stems directly from the same dehumanization that plagues all of political discussion today. We do not look at the other side and see our neighbor, we see our enemy, someone who wants to destroy our lives. That's true all across the political spectrum, and people all across that spectrum are turning to violence to answer it.

 

[baldgye]

Yet the number of dead people is broadly the same as 60 years ago. Improvements in safety, training and education means that the tool can be used more often by more people, but it's still in exchange for 35,000 dead people each year.

So in the last 60 years in the US, roughly 35,000 have died every single year due to car related incidents, is that what you are saying?

 

[MatskiMonk]

Generally speaking, making cars less lethal isn't at odds with anyone's interests, so when people identify risks, stuff gets done - or at least is attempted, and it's generally by the car industry or the government. The same can't really be said for guns, their intended purpose, or the arms industry. I don't see the two things as being particularly analogous, frankly.

 

[Danoff]

Generally speaking, making cars less lethal isn't at odds with anyone's interests, so when people identify risks, stuff gets done - or at least is attempted, and it's generally by the car industry or the government. The same can't really be said for guns, their intended purpose, or the arms industry. I don't see the two things as being particularly analogous, frankly.

I'm not happy with a requirement for backup cameras.

 

[Famine]

So in the last 60 years in the US, roughly 35,000 have died every single year due to car related incidents, is that what you are saying?

I don't recall saying that anywhere.

However, the graph you posted shows an average death rate on the USA's roads of just under 43,000 a year over the period of 1955-2018 (2.7 million deaths ), with only the period of 2009-2014 below 35,000 deaths - seems to bottom out at 32.7k or thereabouts.

Improving safety, education and technology has meant that the vehicle parc has increased by 25% and the number of vehicle miles by 600% over that time, so the rate of deaths has plummeted, but there's still more than 35,000 deaths a year on the roads - 36,750 in 2018. That's about one per 7,000 cars. I can't say how many are murders or suicides though, as the numbers are either not there or really, really hard to find

I do recall working out a while back that you are half as likely to die per mile in the UK than the USA, even despite our cars being crammed together into such small spaces (we get about 5% of the USA's road deaths, despite having 15% of the vehicle parc), so the US still has a few issues to iron out on that front, but by improving driver training, education on vehicle safety, and the adoption of safety aids, deaths have fallen from their highs of nearly 55k in the 1970s to the level they're at today.

That said, they've stagnated a bit since the mid-00s and even kicked back up. It's similar here in the UK - I've worked with Thatcham a lot in the UK, and they're of the opinion that we've reached the point where vehicle protection is about as good as it's going to get (marginal gains) in a crash, and we're looking at preventing crashes altogether by advanced driver aids and, over time, L2 and L4 autonomy. But the big one is getting people out of cars altogether.

Generally speaking, making cars less lethal isn't at odds with anyone's interests, so when people identify risks, stuff gets done - or at least is attempted, and it's generally by the car industry or the government. The same can't really be said for guns, their intended purpose, or the arms industry. I don't see the two things as being particularly analogous, frankly.

They're both highly dangerous tools when misused that have valuable uses - both practical and aesthetic - when not misused. I don't see how it's not in the arms industry's interest to prevent the negative publicity of criminals killing 30 people a day with their product. Or other people killing one person a day but in clumps that make headlines.

Those of us who don't "get" guns (or who do not live in a culture that grew in parallel with them) accept cars because we need and like them, but do not accept guns because we don't. Yet even in the spree-shooting capital of the world, cars are the deadlier tool.

 

[Joey D]

Isn't it an amendment?
Seems like a flawed system if you can't alter or make further amendments on a document that's hundreds of years old.

Yes, it's an Amendment. And it can be changed and there is a system to do so. The Amendment that allows prohibition was eventually overturned. It's just highly unlikely that it would be changed.

The general, sometimes confused consensus among gun owners or people pro gun online is that it's a mental health problem. So if this is the general consensus, why is one of the worlds most powerful and wealthy nations doing almost nothing about it? America, remember is the country that went to the moon 50 years ago, yet can't stop people going into public areas and massacring people on its own soil.

Nevermind that rocket science is in no way related to mental healthcare. And I'm not sure why, as a nation, mental healthcare is lacking. I can only comment on the places I've worked, and it typically boils down to it's complicated to treat and there are not enough providers for the number of people that need care.

So I guess I'll re-frame my original question, for American's are the hundreds or thousands of deaths, every year from mass shootings, simply the cost of "the right to protect yourself, your family, and your property"/a hobby and thus, acceptable?

Because, as an outsider it kinda seems like it is.

The cost of protecting myself, family, and property? I'm willing to accept many things to ensure that I continue to have that right. I'm not sure if you've ever had someone try to break into your home while you were in there, but it's not a pleasant situation. If that were to happen now, the intruder would end up with a 9mm clip in them, especially since I have a young son to protect as well. There are bad people in the world, I don't want those people to harm me or my family.

Taking away the right to protect yourself would be an absolute tragedy.

The argument is not that gun laws should not exist, and clearly they can exist without being unconstitutional, but where the line gets drawn between those deemed to be able and willing to observe the rights of others, and those who cannot or will not.

The problem is there's rarely common ground. One side shouts "ban all guns and gun accessories" while the other side shouts "guns for everyone, including babies, criminals, lunatics, and your dog". There's also a ton of gray area too on who or who should not own a firearm. There's also the issue of how you define certain firearms if you want to ban a specific category.

But what sort of gun control measures would end up Constitutional? I can't think of many aside from things like greater background checks and increased training. Banning the physical object would ultimately end up going against the Constitution.

And not observing the rights of others is already illegal. If I take a weapon and murder someone with it, I've violated their right to life, thus I'm already breaking the law.

 

[baldgye]

Nevermind that rocket science is in no way related to mental healthcare. And I'm not sure why, as a nation, mental healthcare is lacking. I can only comment on the places I've worked, and it typically boils down to it's complicated to treat and there are not enough providers for the number of people that need care.

....that was me highlighting that when America actually wants to do something that seems INCREDIBLY difficult, it can and has a track record of doing so...

The cost of protecting myself, family, and property? I'm willing to accept many things to ensure that I continue to have that right. I'm not sure if you've ever had someone try to break into your home while you were in there, but it's not a pleasant situation. If that were to happen now, the intruder would end up with a 9mm clip in them, especially since I have a young son to protect as well. There are bad people in the world, I don't want those people to harm me or my family.

Taking away the right to protect yourself would be an absolute tragedy.

But hundred/thousands of people dying a year due to mass shootings isn't?
I've not had my house broken into, but I know that if someone did, the chances of them being armed are remote, to say the least.

I mean, I think you've basically answered my original question? In that; you do feel that these deaths are acceptable. Is that fair?

I don't recall saying that anywhere.

Spoiler

that's why it was a question asking for more clarification

Sorry I'm not dealing with anymore of your well worn, silly comparisons of cars to guns.
It does nothing but derail a thread you earlier criticised for being derailed by people who are pro-gun-control.

 

[MaxAttack]

Ban guns, legalise swords

Then you still have the right to bear arms

I am a genius(?)

 

[Joey D]

I mean, I think you've basically answered my original question? In that; you do feel that these deaths are acceptable. Is that fair?

Nope. Why would you think I find deaths acceptable? That's asinine.

So no, I don't find them acceptable but taking away my right to protect myself, my family, and my property isn't going to suddenly make it so those deaths don't happen.

 

[Famine]

Sorry I'm not dealing with anymore of your well worn, silly comparisons of cars to guns.

It'd be nice if you read them. I make a nice effort to put together a post with patient, rational, sensible explanations, and you get about two sentences in, quote that bit and ignore the rest.

It seems that you're having an emotional response to guns and spree shootings (despite spree shootings being a vanishingly small percentage of gun deaths, and an even smaller percentage of preventable deaths) and can't regard them rationally. If you could you'd see that 15,000 people die a year in the USA from someone else shooting them (mainly handgun deaths, mainly black male victims and perpetrators), but 35,000 people die a year in the USA from car accidents - but that you "value access to a object or hobby over the lives of hundreds (or thousands) of people a year" (sic) because you have a use for that object.

It does nothing but derail a thread you earlier criticised for being derailed by people who are pro-gun-control.

Criticised? Where? I asked why we weren't talking about the 60 gun suicides the same day as the 34 murders, in response to a post with a Tweet asking what we'd be doing if it was three ISIS attacks. You said it's because it's a spree shooting thread, and I pointed out that it had evolved into a gun control thread. Look:

More people deliberately killed themselves yesterday alone with their own guns than died at the hands of two knobheads on Saturday. Why aren't we talking about that?

Because this is a thread about a mass shooting, that quickly grew into a thread about two mass shootings.

And even quicklier grew into a thread about gun control. Which is pretty normal. And apparently comparisons to ISIS, which isn't.

And that was in the first sentence of a long, long post, so I'm pretty sure you got that far in.


Again, I don't know how to get across to you that spree shootings kill one person a day in the USA on average across a year, while stabbings kill six, other shootings that aren't quite as newsworthy kill 30 and cars kill 100 (and suicide kills 120, half with guns). I don't know how to get across to you that obsessing over idiots with long guns who try to get into the news by killing a few people while completely ignoring the hundreds who die in other murders suggests that you don't care about unnecessary loss of human life unless it's in the news and with a gun - and that this is a positive feedback loop.

 

[baldgye]

Nope. Why would you think I find deaths acceptable? That's asinine.

So no, I don't find them acceptable but taking away my right to protect myself, my family, and my property isn't going to suddenly make it so those deaths don't happen.

I'm simply trying to find out why so little is done. Why would not having a gun, remove any rights you have to protect yourself?

If mental health is to blame, why isn't it one of America's focal points and why aren't people up in arms about it? If anything, given the recent election of Trump it seems as though Americans actually want less affordable health... which (again assuming the problem is mental health) would make the issue even worse.

Edit: Again, to clarify, I'm not telling you that removing guns solves the problem (regardless of how that has worked in other wealthy first world nations, my own included), I'm trying to follow the logical train that the problem is mental health and that the problem is something Americans care enough about, to actually try and solve.
If you(Americans) don't care and it's just one of those things that mass shootings happen, then it's your country so I've little say in the matter.

 

[Joey D]

I'm simply trying to find out why so little is done. Why would not having a gun, remove any rights you have to protect yourself?

How do you propose I protect myself? A strongly worded letter?

A firearm is the best form of protection in terms of effectiveness, speed, and range. I mean I could use a bat, but I'd have to run towards the person trying to cause me harm and hope I hit them hard enough to knock them out. A gun, I just point it and pull the trigger from virtually anywhere in my house. Assuming I hit center mass or the head, the person attempting to harm me will be stopped.

If mental health is to blame, why isn't it one of America's focal points and why aren't people up in arms about it? If anything, given the recent election of Trump it seems as though Americans actually want less affordable health... which (again assuming the problem is mental health) would make the issue even worse

I don't know. You'd have to ask the general population.

 

[MatskiMonk]

I'm not happy with a requirement for backup cameras.

Go on then, why not?

I don't see how it's not in the arms industry's interest to prevent the negative publicity of criminals killing 30 people a day with their product. Or other people killing one person a day but in clumps that make headlines.

Because a lethal weapon sold with lethal rounds needs to be able to kill people, or it isn't very good and people won't want to buy it, and the manufacturer would lose money... and it would be very, very easy for them to make guns and ammunition that was less effective... but they don't, they make them to be effective, and people buy them, because people want to be able to kill people. Money gets made, people die, the government supports the practice and nothing changes... I mean sure, three of those things happen in the car industry too, but at least they collaborate to evolve in an attempt to cause less deaths.

Those of us who don't "get" guns (or who do not live in a culture that grew in parallel with them) accept cars because we need and like them, but do not accept guns because we don't.

I agree that acceptance tends to go with prevalence, however, I maintain that it doesn't make the value to a society of the two different things equivalent just because they're both prevalent.

 

[Northstar]

yes mr andy that lied about cement milkshakes and gave addresses of people to rightwing extremists so the neo nazis could direct violence towards them . you might as well have posted a pic of hitler or stalin .

heres what mr ngo gets up to

few days later, while at work, Alexander received the DM on Twitter from a journalist friend who was not mentioned in the video or Lenihan article: “Wow,” it read, “I just saw that crazy death threat against you and the other journalists and activists Quillette has been targeting. Are you doing OK?” Indeed, his name showed up on a hitlist called “Sunset the Media” amid images of Nazi violence. The video, posted to YouTube by a fan of the neo-Nazi terror organisation Atomwaffen Division, featured the images of several journalists, suggesting we should be murdered. The video ended with a quote from Atomwaffen's neo-Nazi guru, James Mason, regarding lone wolf attacks: “I do not urge anyone to do anything like that, but when it gets done, I won’t disown them.”


https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/alt-right-antifa-death-threats-doxxing-quillette-a8966176.html


it also worth noting the anti defamation league which is run by jews who would know few things about extremists do not consider antifa a hate group .


it is important to reject attempts to claim equivalence between the antifa and the white supremacist groups they oppose. The antifa reject racism but use unacceptable tactics. White supremacists use even more extreme violence to spread their ideologies of hate, to intimidate ethnic minorities, and undermine democratic norms. Right-wing extremists have been one of the largest and most consistent sources of domestic terror incidents in the United States for many years; they have murdered hundreds of people in this country over the last ten years alone. To date, there have not been any known antifa-related murders.

https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounders/who-are-the-antifa

I was not aware of that info about Ngo, thanks for the info.

 

[baldgye]

How do you propose I protect myself? A strongly worded letter?

A firearm is the best form of protection in terms of effectiveness, speed, and range. I mean I could use a bat, but I'd have to run towards the person trying to cause me harm and hope I hit them hard enough to knock them out. A gun, I just point it and pull the trigger from virtually anywhere in my house. Assuming I hit center mass or the head, the person attempting to harm me will be stopped.

Why is the person trying to attack you, if they broke into your home, wouldn't they be after things to sell rather than a fight in the dark? Why do you need to render them unconscious or worse?

I don't understand the premise.
If someone broke into my flat/house I would defend myself and my partner foremost then my expensive/sentimental items. If someone wants my TV enough to break into my flat and they're willing to risk my own and their health then they can have it... that's what insurance is for...

I don't know. You'd have to ask the general population.

I can't, so I'm asking the people here. Thus far all American's here seem to be saying (that are pro-gun), is that gun control wont and cant work and that it's probably mental health. Ok, so why isn't it being addressed? The fact you don't know why mental health isn't something America is working towards, again, goes towards addressing my original question.

 

[Touring Mars]

Taking away the right to protect yourself would be an absolute tragedy.

It would be, but only in the case where one has a demonstrable ability to observe the rights of others.

But one cannot take away a right from someone who never possessed it in the first place.

Now, one could argue that everyone, esp. those who cannot defend themselves, have a right to be protected. Maybe they do, but perhaps more accurately, we can only really say that people have a right to life, and thus anyone who unlawfully kills a defenseless person is violating that right. But such a right could be described as being passive insomuch as it does not, in itself, require the holder of that right to be able to observe their own or anyone else's rights for it to be valid/possessed... one's right to life is an example of an arbitrary (or 'natural') right that is not based on the principle of reciprocity.

The right to possess or bear a firearm is not conferred by the Constitution, it merely confers the protection of that right - but whether you possess that right is determined by one's ability to observe the rights of others - in other words, it is not an arbitrary right.

The problem is there's rarely common ground. One side shouts "ban all guns and gun accessories" while the other side shouts "guns for everyone, including babies, criminals, lunatics, and your dog". There's also a ton of gray area too on who or who should not own a firearm. There's also the issue of how you define certain firearms if you want to ban a specific category.

But what sort of gun control measures would end up Constitutional? I can't think of many aside from things like greater background checks and increased training. Banning the physical object would ultimately end up going against the Constitution.

And not observing the rights of others is already illegal. If I take a weapon and murder someone with it, I've violated their right to life, thus I'm already breaking the law.

All of these questions can (and should) be answered in relation to one's ability to observe the rights of others. I think a large part of the problem is the (incorrect) assumption that US citizens have a God-given/arbitrary right to own a gun irrespective of all other considerations, when in reality most of one's rights are not so arbitrary.

 

[Joey D]

Why is the person trying to attack you, if they broke into your home, wouldn't they be after things to sell rather than a fight in the dark? Why do you need to render them unconscious or worse?

I don't know what their plan is. They could be after things to steal, or they could be interested in rape, kidnapping, or just straight-up murder.

And I want to render them unconscious, or preferably dead, so they don't act on whatever their intent is.

When my house had an attempted break-in my wife was home alone, sleeping on the couch, in the middle of the day. I don't know what their intent was but if I'd been home I wouldn't have waited around to find out. Thankfully, my wife grabbed my hunting rifle and scared the person away.

I can't, so I'm asking the people here. Thus far all American's here seem to be saying (that are pro-gun), is that gun control wont and cant work and that it's probably mental health. Ok, so why isn't it being addressed? The fact you don't know why mental health isn't something America is working towards, again, goes towards addressing my original question.

Just because I personally don't know, doesn't mean that it answers your question. I'm one of 300 million Americans.

The right to possess or bear a firearm is not defined in the Constitution, merely the protection of that right - but whether you possess that right is determined by one's ability to observe the rights of others - in other words, it is not an arbitrary right.

I'll admit, I'm having a hard time following what you're saying because it comes across very legalese to me.

And it is defined in the Constitution:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

You have the right to keep and bear arms and it can't be infringed on.

 

[Touring Mars]

And it is defined in the Constitution:

You have the right to keep and bear arms and it can't be infringed on.

Technically it only says that one's right to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed upon - but this assumes that one has the right in the first place.

My point is, however, that federal and state laws (as well as common sense and a proper consideration of the nature of rights themselves) place limits on who has that right, and clearly not everyone has. The Constitution, therefore, only protects gun ownership for those who have a right to possess and bear arms, but does not define who has that right, or under what circumstances one's right to own a gun may be forfeited.

 

[baldgye]

Your example of breaking into a house I’m struggling to quote due to Mobile Safari issues. But it’s deepy troubling to me that the first port of call is you want them unconscious or ‘preferably’ dead....

Just because I personally don't know, doesn't mean that it answers your question. I'm one of 300 million Americans.

It does and it doesn't.
By not knowing why your country does so little to prevent these people from dying, it kinda highlights that it’s not important to you enough to find out. Or is that not a fair assessment?

 

[Wolfe]

what left wing terrorist ? antifa fights nazis . nazis are not nice we saw in ww2 . who would stand up for nazis ?

the women that went to school with him said he had a hit list to rape and kill women. that is not a antifa ideology . rightwingers are trying to conflate it because they know their boy in el paso makes them look bad as it should .

Antifa are uncontrolled and indiscriminate with their targets, destroying property and assaulting innocent people -- literally just innocent people in attendance (you and I have no idea what they believe), in addition to any known personality. They disguise themselves, wear masks and armor, and bring weapons to lawful protests. They intimidate anyone who isn't with them, including clashing with law enforcement, they aggressively assert a non-existent "legal right" to not be filmed in public, and have at times claimed control of public property by force. They use strength in numbers to exert their influence, and use duplicitous language to organize and recruit in the open while disguising their intentions to commit crime.

Being right-wing is not a prerequisite to call antifa what it is. Whether you agree or disagree with their politics, and even if they are outnumbered by nazis, they are terrorists by any definition I know. Not acceptable.

I was not aware of that info about Ngo, thanks for the info.

This is a counterpoint on the subject from a third party, who has published on Quillette but has also criticized Quillette for its editorial choices. Any sort of scuffle between the media, antifa, and Quillette is ripe for bias. So is anything alleging "nazis", as you already know.

For one, Quillette is not far-right, which calls into question the bias of a writer who would say so. The viewpoints they publish are not even exclusively right-wing.

 

[Famine]

If mental health is to blame

It's not. It's a factor.

Like I said, it's a very complicated matter that few seem willing to address in favour of shouting about how bad guns are.

Because a lethal weapon sold with lethal rounds needs to be able to kill people

Going to have to stop you on that one, because not only are you conflating two things - the weapon and the projectile - you're also smashing together the perceived end result with the design purpose.

You could almost certainly have a case for saying that military firearms are designed to kill people. I'd not contest the point, even though I would point out that the threat of being able to do so is a solid chunk of the purpose, rather than actually carrying out that threat.

With civilian firearms it's immeasurably less clear. For the most part, civilian firearms are never fired. Of those that are, the majority are used for target shooting. Of the majority that are required for the task of killing, the thing it's killing is not human. The guns that are left are those that are fired with the intent to kill or wound (which is the intent to kill; you cannot discharge a firearm at something you are not willing to destroy) people - and that's a minority of a minority, of a minority, of a tiny minority. Of the 300m guns in circulation in the USA (eh... give or take; 292m or so), only 15,000 kill people - and, although not relevant at this point of the discussion, some of those are lawful kills.

I don't think you can describe a civilian gun as something that's designed or intended to kill people. Even someone who buys a gun for defence - open to the possibility of killing people if need be - is buying it as the threat and to shoot inanimate objects on a range. If we're saying a gun is designed to kill people, we've got 99.995% of guns not being properly used...


However, we're still at the point of the overwhelming negative publicity of a product used in crimes. Why would a manufacturer of civilian firearms want that publicity? Why is it not in their interests to avoid it?

As you say, carmakers like people not dying in their cars. Some trade an entire reputation on it. I don't think that arms manufacturers are that much different - there's a huge negative stigma attached to the AR-15 because of its role in so many spree shootings (despite hand guns accounting for pretty much 80% of all firearm murders, because spree shootings are a tiny drop in the gun death ocean, as I've mentioned) and it wouldn't surprise me if sales were down overall (but up in places due to the threat of a ban; stock up while you can) because of it. That loses turnover and profits for the manufacturer. What you want is to make the gun used to kill the spree shooter - the gun you can defend yourself with, not a gun used to attack others.

I do wonder what the gun equivalent of the seatbelt, SRS or AEB will be though.



*And in any case it can't without the correct ammunition to do so; the bullet is the tip of the spear, the face of the hammer, the edge of the knifeblade and the gun is just the handle.

 

[baldgye]

It's not. It's a factor.

Like I said, it's a very complicated matter that few seem willing to address in favour of shouting about how bad guns are.

A factor that isn’t being addressed.
And it’s easy to point the finger at gun ownership because literally no other first world nation has this issue... And if you don’t have a gun, you can’t shoot someone. It’s pretty basic but pretty sound logic and is working well in many other first world nations.

As I also pointed out, Americans seem to have solving complex issues as something they take pride in. They went to the moon, a massive achievement for our species, yet they can’t stop mass shootings in their own country?

I don’t think you can answer my question as you are not American (I’m assuming due to your profile).
I’m not proposing solutions (I’ve done that in vane before), I’m asking why so little has been done. Because as an outsider it just seems like these dead people, are just acceptable losses.

 

[BobK]

And if you don’t have a gun, you can’t shoot someone. It’s pretty basic but pretty sound logic

If you don't have a car, you can't run someone over. It's pretty basic but pretty sound logic

 

[Danoff]

Go on then, why not?

Sorry, I thought that was painfully obvious. It comes at the cost of increased cost of transportation, increased weight, which translates to worse performance, and worse fuel economy. I like backup cameras, I think they make sense on lots of vehicles. But I don't like them being required on every vehicle.

 

[Exorcet]

I can't, so I'm asking the people here. Thus far all American's here seem to be saying (that are pro-gun), is that gun control wont and cant work and that it's probably mental health. Ok, so why isn't it being addressed? The fact you don't know why mental health isn't something America is working towards, again, goes towards addressing my original question.

I can't give you a precise answer as to why mental health isn't being addressed. However I've actually been thinking over a similar question to yours. I've suggested the idea of using technology to make guns themselves less abusable by criminals or people that might be making rash decisions while still making them available for the purposes of sport, defense, and hobby. I don't see this brought up anywhere else though and I'm starting to wonder why. Is it an idea without merit? Or are people just more probe to consider previously proposed, or more common, solutions. I'm not surprised at all that limiting gun access is the most commonly called for change, but it also seems to be the only one that gets any real attention.

 

[baldgye]

If you don't have a car, you can't run someone over. It's pretty basic but pretty sound logic

And that’s fine, but my argument would be that the cost of people dying as a result of hit and runs, is outweighed by the mobility, economic growth and prosperity cars have brought to the world.

Is the cost of mass shootings out weighed by the enjoyment and personal protection a gun affords you?