Gun control, which side wins?

[dimreepr]

Guns don't kill people, but people with guns...

[Raider5678]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Guns don't kill people, but people with guns...

Ultimately this statement is true.

Now keeping the guns out of the hands of people who do is the key.

Also known as gun control.

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Raider5678 said:

Ultimately this statement is true.

Now keeping the guns out of the hands of people who do is the key.

Also known as gun control.

Who knew?

[Raider5678]

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

Who knew?

Exactly.

[StringJunky]

 

Just now, dimreepr said:

Who knew?

Given his previous position, his maturing realisation is to be applauded.

[MigL]

the assertion made by OldChemE that 'entertainment' violence leads to more aggressive behavior is certainly true.
America has a gun culture, and this aggressive behavior is manifested through the use of guns for violent actions, simply because of the numbers of available guns.
The argument put forth by iNow concerning Japan is not a valid one as they do not have a gun culture, or vast numbers of available guns.

However if you Google 'Deaths by Samurai Sword in Japan', you will get multiple hits of attacks, murder, suicide and even mass stabbings/murders.

The 'fault' for America seems to lie with that old, wild, wild west, cowboy culture.

[iNow]

6 minutes ago, MigL said:

The argument put forth by iNow concerning Japan is not a valid one as they do not have a gun culture, or vast numbers of available guns.

Which, ipso facto, supports the actual argument I made. Namely that gun availability is the relevant variable in question, not entertainment. 

[Area54]

22 minutes ago, iNow said:

Which, ipso facto, supports the actual argument I made. Namely that gun availability is the relevant variable in question, not entertainment. 

Agreed. Your argument appears sound to me. I'm not sure why MigL is missing its essence.

[StringJunky]

44 minutes ago, iNow said:

Which, ipso facto, supports the actual argument I made. Namely that gun availability is the relevant variable in question, not entertainment. 

If video games significantly caused more killings in Japan,  potential killers will still  find a way, even  without guns. It has its moments but Japan seems pretty placid on the whole WRT violence statistics vs the US.

[MigL]

I'm making the argument that culture is also a factor in how we express our aggressive tendencies.
And since America has a gun culture, AND plenty of guns, that is the usual way aggression is expressed.

[iNow]

We certainly have a problem with guns, but I think it’s a mistake to suggest aggression is usually expressed through them in the US. Culture is relevant, but still extraneous IMO.

Were there a general problem with aggressiveness, we’d also see higher rates of fighting, knifing, and all manner of other tactics relative to other nations, but we don’t. See also: Australia.

There’s no need to invent reasons here. The issue is firearm abundance and ease of acquisition. 

[StringJunky]

51 minutes ago, iNow said:

There’s no need to invent reasons here. The issue is firearm abundance and ease of acquisition. 

I'd put it down to inadequate/non-existent screening policies and lack of enforcement of those that are screened. A stable person with a large, secure collection  is safer than a nutter with  a single gun, so I don't think absolute numbers of weapons matters too much. I think the type of guns people keep matters  and the type of people that have any gun matters.

Edited March 25, 2018 by StringJunky

[iNow]

Suspect you’re right, but also acknowledge that our ability to mentally screen folks in the way you suggest is rather lacking

[StringJunky]

46 minutes ago, iNow said:

Suspect you’re right, but also acknowledge that our ability to mentally screen folks in the way you suggest is rather lacking

Yes, the mental health services need sorting and that's not going to happen in a private payer system. Nice to see all the noise being created at the moment by the younger generation. As we noted earlier, the great majority of Americans don't own weapons, so they can potentially  shout louder than the NRA, and their other unreasonable supporters, if they put their collective mind to  it. America, in reality, is not as gun-happy a nation, as first appears. It's the vocal minority that are making up for the silent majority. Hopefully that will change.

 

Edited March 25, 2018 by StringJunky

[John Cuthber]

7 hours ago, StringJunky said:

A stable person with a large, secure collection  is safer than a nutter with  a single gun,

Unless he stops being "stable".

There seems to be a big argument about whether the disgraceful number of gun attacks on schools in the US is due to the availability of guns, or to some cultural factor.

It's a valid topic for debate, but I don't think anyone denies that both are causative factors.

However, you can legislate for better gun control, and you can't legislate for "better culture", so there's only one course of action for the government to take.

Recent governments, (particularly, recent Right wing governments) have  opposed doing the only thing that can do which would help.

Perhaps these marches will convince them that there are votes to be gained from changing that position

[Raider5678]

3 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

Unless he stops being "stable".

 

You can only shoot one gun at a time.

 

[dimreepr]

12 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

You can only shoot one gun at a time.

 

16 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Given his previous position, his maturing realisation is to be applauded.

1

Indeed, I keep forgetting to add an emoji. 

P.S. that ones for me, not Raider.

Edited March 25, 2018 by dimreepr

[John Cuthber]

5 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

 

He looks "balanced".

 

[dimreepr]

P.S. that ones for me, not Raider.

Xposted

Edited March 25, 2018 by dimreepr

[iNow]

24 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

He looks "balanced".

Only left to right, not front to back

[Area54]

8 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

However, you can legislate for better gun control, and you can't legislate for "better culture", so there's only one course of action for the government to take.

I thought about this and reached the conclusion you can legislate for better culture. To avoid off-topic discussion I've opened a new thread on the subject.

[MonDie]

Somehow it never occurred to me to give defendants the choice to waiver their gun rights.  It would be double-blinded: The defendant chooses as he awaits the verdict, and the jury separately decides the 2+ competing punishments.  After that, we're left wondering how the cost of random gun-checks would compare to the cost of imprisonment.

Why can the gun lobby force otherwise eligible offenders to instead rot in jail?

Yee-haw!

[StringJunky]

 I brought up this idea earlier but I suggested a billionaire buying and destroying the gun manufacturer. This one suggests modifying its purpose.

Quote

Breakingviews - Cox: A beneficent billionaire should buy Remington

With banks, private equity and rivals on the sidelines, Remington offers a prime opportunity for a billionaire to make what could be a high-profile impact investment. A new owner could lead the way in reforming industry practices to comport with the shifting views about guns in society, and do so without alienating sporting, hunting, law-enforcement and military customers.

<snip>....Now, consider a Remington purchase as part of the portfolio of a plutocrat who wants to make a difference. Former New York City Mayor Bloomberg, for instance, has long campaigned for stronger laws, and is the principal backer of Everytown for Gun Safety, one of the leading groups in the gun-violence prevention movement. Swallowing up all of Remington’s debt and equity would cost just 1 percent of his $50 billion fortune.

<snip>....The key would be to modify Remington’s business in line with a new socially driven purpose. First up would be to stop producing high-capacity magazines and military-style assault weapons for civilians, an area where Remington arguably over-invested during the firearms boom under President Barack Obama. But since sales of these products have been plunging, it may not be a hard financial call.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-remington-bankruptcy-breakingviews/breakingviews-cox-a-beneficent-billionaire-should-buy-remington-idUSKBN1H32GM

 

[MonDie]

On 3/5/2018 at 5:51 AM, Strange said:

This seems self-reinforcing. In popular entertainment, the first thing the hero does  is reach for a gun (because it is easy to get one) so people expect it to easy to do and so, in fiction it is plausible for the hero to have a gun and so ...

I guess a lot of this goes back to the “frontier spirit” that is idealised by westerns and hunting stories, and embedded deep in American culture. 

Any effects will probably be discovered by affective (neuro)scientists.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion_classification  Credit to Paul Ekman's recent book:

One could associate a gun with any emotion or any evolved emotion trigger.  Anger stimulates confrontational or even violent behavior, but sadness, which looks similar to boredom or tiredness, brings a loss of muscle tone.  I imagine that most people associate a gun, either their own or someone else's, with fear, but another person might learn that he can overcome angering frustrations by displaying his weapon.  Anger and fear frequently alternate, which might be related to "fight or flight."  Furthermore, a target-shooter, hunter, action-film addict, or sadist might experience anger mixed with any of various "positive emotions", all of which produce the same facial expression, the smile, unfortunately.

[tmx3]

Going on a tangent, but I sometimes see gun reform as an undercover plot to remove guns from the public so the government has more say as to what happens to the people. 

I was never really one to call myself a conspiracy theorist, and as devastating as these mass murders via shootings are, I have to take a step back and question what’s really going on. 

One only needs to look at Trump and what he’s done during his totalitarianistic reign—I can’t even call it a time of “presidency”—to understand what I mean. 

To answer your question, I’m thinking, nothing will change. I’m hopeful that it will, but with the NRA having the power that it does, with Trump being as unstable as he is, and now with the idea of arming teachers with guns in schools to help appease angry family members and friends still mourning the loss of their loved ones...I don’t see change coming as much as I or anyone else have wished it would.