USA Politics

Because it is a country with a lot of people, some areas are incredibly shitty/gang infested that is where most of this crap happens, and despite what you with think, the homicide rate by guns has been decreased substantially since the early 1990s in the US

SDT-2013-05-gun-crime-1-2.png
 
Yes, but declining. I mainly point this out because the narrative from some is that this is something that is on the increase when the opposite is true
 
If the availability of guns is not a significant factor, what are the underlying reasons and what needs to done to change them?
 
Seems he purchased it legally, the FBI investigated the guy and determined he was not a threat. Also was investigated when applying for a permit twice.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...e-victims-after-shooting-at-orlando-nightclub

Over the past few days, Mateen legally purchased a long gun and a handgun, the ATF says. During the attack the shooter was armed with an AR-15-style rifle and a handgun.

........................

According to a search of public records, Mateen is listed as living in Florida's St. Lucie County. The search shows that Mateen had a firearm license and he received a security officer license in both 2011 and 2013. The search did not turn up any criminal record.
 
mckindog said:
If the availability of guns is not a significant factor, what are the underlying reasons and what needs to done to change them?
Click to expand...

If we are talking about things like mass shootings, I am honestly not sure. I do not think you can do anything to eliminate guns either legally or practically. If this guy was on some mission, then have to wonder if the mass shootings become mass bombings. You certainly saw that in the UK in Northern Ireland and you see it in other countries. There are some really small percentage of horrible people who want to do stuff like this. We seem to be arguing about the method of how they are carrying this out versus the fact that people have the desire to carry out stuff like this. How you stop that, who the hell knows

If you are talking about gun violence in certain areas of the country, there are many reasons for that and those are problems that can actually be solved. Solutions ranging from legalizing certain things (drugs, prostitution, gambling, etc), look at areas that have been revitalized though private and public/private investments, not incarcerating large portions of the population for small crimes and giving them a record, better schools to give people there options to actually lead productive lives versus aligning with gangs/mobs/crime in general.
 
bearfan said:
Yes, but declining. I mainly point this out because the narrative from some is that this is something that is on the increase when the opposite is true
Click to expand...
I never said this was on the increase, assuming you're talking about me.

Why are you defending gun ownership? And what is the purpose in owning a gun?
 
I did not say you, I said some.

People have different purposes for owning guns ... protection, hunting, some people just like shooting stuff (note stuff, not people).

I have no problem with any of that, why are you so anxious to take things away from people who are doing nothing wrong?
 
bearfan said:
If we are talking about things like mass shootings, I am honestly not sure. I do not think you can do anything to eliminate guns either legally or practically.
Click to expand...
I think it's a pretty difficult ask (given the US history of gun ownership), but I don't see any point in defending gun ownership.
bearfan said:
People have different purposes for owning guns ... protection, hunting, some people just like shooting stuff (note stuff, not people).
Click to expand...
That doesn't explain the need for people having multiple guns & for automatic weapons.
bearfan said:
If this guy was on some mission, then have to wonder if the mass shootings become mass bombings. You certainly saw that in the UK in Northern Ireland and you see it in other countries.
Click to expand...
We're talking about gun violence in the US, generally; the UK doesn't having anything like this.
bearfan said:
There are some really small percentage of horrible people who want to do stuff like this.
Click to expand...
Sure, but the consequences for many others (the victims & their families) is the death of someone they know.
bearfan said:
We seem to be arguing about the method of how they are carrying this out versus the fact that people have the desire to carry out stuff like this. How you stop that, who the hell knows
Click to expand...
Indeed, people across the world have the desire to carry out acts of violence. These are surely facilitated by making lethal weapons readily available though? There's a reason people were running around Glasgow stabbing & not shooting each other in the 80's & 90's; knives were easily procurable, guns weren't. When laws were passed to control this & try & tackle this, nobody starting shouting about how they had a right to have knives in their kitchen. This is about balance. Pass sensible laws.
bearfan said:
If you are talking about gun violence in certain areas of the country, there are many reasons for that and those are problems that can actually be solved. Solutions ranging from legalizing certain things (drugs, prostitution, gambling, etc), look at areas that have been revitalized though private and public/private investments, not incarcerating large portions of the population for small crimes and giving them a record, better schools to give people there options to actually lead productive lives versus aligning with gangs/mobs/crime in general.
Click to expand...
All well & good, but reducing access to guns would seem to be a simpler solution.
 
Again, how do you propose limiting access to guns .. the existing guns. Say the US never let anyone buy a gun again, how do you get rid of those already in existence. The inner city violence is mostly one on one kind of stuff. You would feel better if they stabbed each other instead of shooting each other? Of course there is plenty of stabbing going on as well.

Again, it is horrible this happened, but the fact people were killed is more important than the method. Some (not you) seem like they would be far less upset if this were a bomb instead, I just do not get that and people would be arguing about calling Islamic Terror versus not calling it Islamic Terror

The bigger issue here isn't ethnicity or guns. For me, it's the mentality that someone's religious beliefs somehow trump the rights of other human beings to exist. We should be taking (legal) aim at religious institutions of all faiths that preach this kinda shit. It's just a continuation of the mentality that has allowed mankind to slaughter each other for centuries and feel justified in doing it. As long as your God hates the same people you do too, it's open season for fundamentalist pieces of shit.
 
bearfan said:
I just do not get that and people would be arguing about calling Islamic Terror versus not calling it Islamic Terror
Click to expand...

One of the stupidest debates of all time. It's Islamic terror. This whole "let's not offend the Muslims" nonsense has gone too far. Pretending all Muslims are extremists is dumb, of course, but so is trying to differentiate the extremists from the beliefs they're doing their acts for. It takes its values from Islam and tries to influence everyone else with Islam. The better question is "Which Islam?"

I think one of the biggest obstacles in recognizing the Islamic extremism issue is the West's lack of knowledge regarding Islamic sects and schools of thought. Just like Christianity, Islam also isn't practiced in one way. A better way to get into the core of the problem would be targeting Salafism and Wahhabism instead of Islam in general. I mean, you have the secterian differences like Sunni and Shia, but you also have a massive gap in thought between doctrines in Sunni Islam in itself. Quite the difference between Hanafis, Malikis, Shafis, Maturidis and Salafists.

For the popularization of Salafism and Wahhabism Saudi Arabia is the country to blame the most and the interventionist policies of Western countries that benefited the Wahhabi tendencies of Saudi Arabia is the second place to point fingers to. You could argue that it's all history now but knowing the history behind the extremist philosophy can help solve it, too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RTC
bearfan said:
To summarize, I do not think the US has an unhealthy relationship with guns...
Click to expand...
So you're saying the relationship the US has with guns is healthy?
bearfan said:
... a small percentage of people are whack jobs and do shit like this.
Click to expand...
Let's make this point again. Other countries have people like this. In other countries they don't have free access to lethal weapons like guns. In other countries gun killings are lower. Can you explain why you believe this not to be true?
bearfan said:
Why are you so willing to tell everyone who has a gun (and for the record I do not now nor ever have owned a gun, I do not see the need or appeal of them) they cannot have one for whatever reason they own one.
Click to expand...
Because weapons that are designed to kill people have no place in normal society. Since you advocate gun ownership, you're presumably opposed to these weapons being banned in other countries, yes? Do you support gun ownership in the UK? Or does gun ownership only apply to the US? If it does, what's special about protection, hunting, and shooting stuff in the US, which doesn't apply elsewhere in the world?
bearfan said:
As to the police state comment, there are tons of guns in the US now, it is not like they go bad. So even if we stopped selling new ones, how exactly are the old ones to be collected? Add to that, you can make one now with a 3-D printer, a very crude one, but it is only a matter of time before you can make better ones that way.
Click to expand...
I've already stated very clearly that I don't have an answer to this & don't expect you to either:
CriedWhenBrucieLeft said:
I don't expect you, or any other individual, to solve this or come up with all the answers. I do, however, find it almost incomprehensible that you can't simply say (without saying what you would do about it) that the US has an unhealthy relationship with guns. You have the amount of mass shootings you have, because guns are easily available in your country. It's not any more complicated than this.
Click to expand...

mckindog asked some pretty reasonable questions, as I have.
mckindog said:
Why do so many people get killed by guns in the US?
Click to expand...
You say it's because the US is a big country.
mckindog said:
But compared to other countries it remains high.
Click to expand...
You agree, since you reply "yes". So what do you think is the answer to the first question then?
mckindog said:
If the availability of guns is not a significant factor, what are the underlying reasons and what needs to done to change them?
Click to expand...
Well?

This guy carried out this atrocity with lethal weapons he acquired legally. How is this not part of the problem here? His motivation (IS involvement, etc) is interesting enough, but everything up until the point where he started shooting people was perfectly legal. Criminal record? The reports, that you (bearfan) cite, say search did not "turn up any criminal record"; presumably because the guy wasn't a criminal. Did he have a firearms license for those guns? Yes.

Are you seriously suggesting that mass shootings would still happen in the US if people had no access to legal firearms?
 
I know it's impossible to ban guns altogether in America (at the moment), but I think banning automatic rifles is doable. I can kinda understand people wanting to own some weapons, but I doubt anyone has a valid reason to own an AK-47. For those who already own them: just stop selling ammo.
 
Forostar said:
Let's add: ... in the same numbers.
Click to expand...
bearfan has contested the figures before. The US is a big country, this isn't a problem is the response.
Forostar said:
Any decrease in mass shootings would be a win, wouldn't it?
Click to expand...
As has been made crystal clear, the right of US citizens to own guns for "protection, hunting" and "shooting stuff" appears to trump public safety.
Night Prowler said:
I know it's impossible to ban guns altogether in America (at the moment), but I think banning automatic rifles is doable. I can kinda understand people wanting to own some weapons, but I doubt anyone has a valid reason to own an AK-47. For those who already own them: just stop selling ammo.
Click to expand...
You've got to start somewhere.

I've cited what happened in Dunblane before, but nobody seems to comment on this. Too many people in the US just don't seem to be willing to accept that part of the problem is access to guns in the US. By not accepting/admitting this you are implicitly accepting that innocent people will continue dying for the sake of old laws & old rights; laws that other Western countries don't have, & rights that other citizens of Western countries don't possess. Rather than looking at the ideological motivation of the perpetrator, we should be focusing afresh on the ideological opposition to tighter gun controls in the US.
 
^ again it's not that simple because there's an AKS version which is semi-automatic and legal throughout Europe (hunting, for instance). It's chambered for same rounds as AK versions (5.54 or 7.62).
I'm pretty sure that given expertise and some $ you can convert AKS to full auto. Like you can de-cap a gas pistol and use it as a full fledged weapon. Or like you increase the compression ratio / pressure on an air rifle in such extent that it can become lethal.

As soon as you have a legal weapons market, you will have different craft shops/business handling that market that will have technical capacity to mod weapons out of their legal bounds.
Bearfan is correct about not being able to revert the situation right now. I also have certain affinities for rifles (sharpshooting), I don't own a marksman rifle because of all the hassle with Cro laws, but if I was in the States, I would own one and I wouldn't be glad if the state wanted to take it away.

Simply put, people over there have been doing legal business for years and state has profited immensely from those taxes. You can't just outlaw the whole shebang.
 
Zare said:
^ again it's not that simple because there's an AKS version which is semi-automatic and legal throughout Europe (hunting, for instance).
Click to expand...
Not in the UK.
Zare said:
Bearfan is correct about not being able to revert the situation right now. I also have certain affinities for rifles (sharpshooting), I don't own a marksman rifle because of all the hassle with Cro laws, but if I was in the States, I would own one and I wouldn't be glad if the state wanted to take it away.
Click to expand...
But you'd accept it for the greater public good, yes?
Zare said:
Simply put, people over there have been doing legal business for years and state has profited immensely from those taxes.
Click to expand...
So it's about money? This isn't reading very well...
Zare said:
You can't just outlaw the whole shebang.
Click to expand...
I accept that's not practical, but have we not already covered this? It's going to be difficult.
 
It's about priorities. The main question is caring about mass shootings or not. To care about (future) victims or not. I know there's a lot of hassle to change it, or to change anything, but only when people start to find the current situation not acceptable (enough), their eyes can be opened.

And when do people care enough? When it hurts, when people feel the hurt of someone else. When empathy comes into play. More empathy would help a lot.
It would increase understanding, it would increase the fucking will to try to do something.

I realize I am giving some "ammo" to shoot on, but why not answer these vital questions, in order to know where we all stand in this discussion:

The "consequence" question:
Do you think the same amount of mass shootings would still happen in the US if the availability to firearms would be restricted?

The "will" question:
Do you care that much about mass shootings, that you are willing to have anything changed in fire arm access?

I'm not ruling them out other factors in this discussion, but let's address this.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top