Can we have a rational discussion about guns and why the typical arguments for gun control and its implementation won't work?

Mikado463

Mikado463

Audioholic Ninja
Including the gun makers, their stocks spiked... which always happens after shootings.
*shakes head
#misplaced priorities
they are always up when a Dem is in office, in case you hadn't noticed .....
 
highfigh

highfigh

Audioholic Slumlord
Just such a typical sideways comment....just because some folk are just plain stupid and/or crazy about such means what?
Maybe you haven't seen who the most recent first-time gun buyers are. They're not who you might expect.
 
highfigh

highfigh

Audioholic Slumlord
Study after study has found that the overwhelming majority of mentally ill people are more of a danger to themselves, or be victims of harm from others, than to be a danger to anyone else. I never claimed that all countries share the same mental health problems. You can list as many individual incidents as you want, but that won't change the overall reality. That's why blaming mental illness is a red herring.

Mental Health Myths and Facts | MentalHealth.gov



Some people point out Switzerland's high rate of firearm ownership and relatively low gun crime rates. However, firearm ownership in Switzerland is 1/4 that of America, per capita. And, gun crime there is the highest in Europe - it just looks low compared to the US. They may also have a more community-minded attitude rather than the individualistic outlook prevailing in the US. And, there are probably better social supports - but that's just conjecture on my part.

Again, the single biggest factor in gun crime is the quantity of weaponry in America. There's no getting around that.

If you want better/more mental health care, the public will have to pay for that. What are the chances of that happening?
People in Switzerland aren't living in an urban environment that's in any way similar to a US inner city- why would they act in a similar way?

I guess my comment about mental health comes from not being able to understand how a well-adjusted person could do what has now become common. Here's an example that occurred twice this week- If they're not mentally ill, were they drunk or using some other drug? Is it because of stupidity?


The only way the public will pay for it is if Congress and state governments yank their heads out of their asses and write sensible legislation that creates an environment without the social stigma about mental illness.

I watch a fair amount of British TV and they use words that would make people in the US cringe, at the very least and cry, because people have become little children when it comes to hearing words. They feel triggered, sad and angry, just because of words. When I was a child, we were taught a rhyme about this- ever hear 'Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me"? People here need to develop a thicker skin but instead, everything is about feelings. People feel when they should think. It's pathetic.
 
jinjuku

jinjuku

Moderator
Remember that backpack nukes don't kill people, people kill people. That's how I like to extend the line of overzealous gun ownership.

BTW I'm not anti-gun. I occasionally go to the range and rent.
 
Trell

Trell

Audioholic Ninja
People in Switzerland aren't living in an urban environment that's in any way similar to a US inner city- why would they act in a similar way?
There are countries as well with similar number of civilian ownership of firearms as Switzerland that also have large cities, and I believe that Switzerland still allows military weapons kept at home for home guard.

In any case, US has a real gun problem that even caused problems for their neighbor countries like @GO-NAD! wrote earlier.

A wiki link over civilian owned firearms in various countries and USA is an eye popping outlier.

 
highfigh

highfigh

Audioholic Slumlord
Remember that backpack nukes don't kill people, people kill people. That's how I like to extend the line of overzealous gun ownership.

BTW I'm not anti-gun. I occasionally go to the range and rent.
The purpose of a nuke, especially in a backpack, is to terrorize a group of people, either small or large. The purpose of a one on one gun incident is to intimidate in order to get something. If someone is in a group and they shoot at others who are alone or in a group, that shows an incredible level of stupidity. They're really not the same.


I was genuinely surprised to see that a Milwaukee official echoed this idea.
 
highfigh

highfigh

Audioholic Slumlord
There are countries as well with similar number of civilian ownership of firearms as Switzerland that also have large cities, and I believe that Switzerland still allows military weapons kept at home for home guard.

In any case, US has a real gun problem that even caused problems for their neighbor countries like @GO-NAD! wrote earlier.

A wiki link over civilian owned firearms in various countries and USA is an eye popping outlier.

The large cities in other countries aren't the same as the blighted slums in the US and you need to remember that. Look into the homeless encampments around the US and what is being done about them if you want a real eye-opener.

If you want, I'll drive through some of the areas where these events occur, so I can get some photos- your ideas about cities and the reality that is in some US cities vary greatly.

The city government here has done virtually nothing to solve these problems and I'll post the first photos of places that aren't even in the inner city- they'll be places that had been outlying areas until relatively recently.

Also, you need to realize that there's a difference between 'guns owned' and 'guns possessed'. The guns owned by responsible people aren't the ones used in crimes unless they were stolen. 'Sold without caring who buys" or stolen from an unsecured place' don't meet my definition of 'responsible gun ownership'.
 
jinjuku

jinjuku

Moderator
The purpose of a nuke, especially in a backpack, is to terrorize a group of people, either small or large. The purpose of a one on one gun incident is to intimidate in order to get something. If someone is in a group and they shoot at others who are alone or in a group, that shows an incredible level of stupidity. They're really not the same.


I was genuinely surprised to see that a Milwaukee official echoed this idea.
You're response needs to be picked apart:

1. I don't know the intent of a person when they have a weapon and are using it. If I'm in the cross hairs of a gun, a homicidal driver, a van packed with explosives, or a nuke, it's all moot from my POV. I'm not stopping to hand out a questionnaire.

2. "These are one on one gun incidents". They are one on none. And even if the random stranger in this is armed they are still at 2nd mover disadvantage and have almost zero initiative in this situation. I shouldn't have to go around armed because other assholes are allowed too.

I think we are at the point that weapons need to be restricted to those that serve a pure recreational use. And I don't mean putting 30 rounds on target in 20 seconds.

Guns need to be highly regulated and obviously our background checks and other statutes and laws are failing miserably.

And for those that want to argue that the populace needs guns to protect against Tyranny: Have you seen what the military rolls with these days? You're fucked.
 
GO-NAD!

GO-NAD!

Audioholic Spartan
People in Switzerland aren't living in an urban environment that's in any way similar to a US inner city- why would they act in a similar way?

I guess my comment about mental health comes from not being able to understand how a well-adjusted person could do what has now become common. Here's an example that occurred twice this week- If they're not mentally ill, were they drunk or using some other drug? Is it because of stupidity?


The only way the public will pay for it is if Congress and state governments yank their heads out of their asses and write sensible legislation that creates an environment without the social stigma about mental illness.

I watch a fair amount of British TV and they use words that would make people in the US cringe, at the very least and cry, because people have become little children when it comes to hearing words. They feel triggered, sad and angry, just because of words. When I was a child, we were taught a rhyme about this- ever hear 'Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me"? People here need to develop a thicker skin but instead, everything is about feelings. People feel when they should think. It's pathetic.
If social conditions in the US are the prime cause of high gun crime rates, maybe Americans should do something constructive to improve those social conditions. And, dollars to donuts, if other developed countries were saturated with firearms to a similar level as the US, you would see increased gun crime.
 
Trell

Trell

Audioholic Ninja
The purpose of a nuke, especially in a backpack, is to terrorize a group of people, either small or large. The purpose of a one on one gun incident is to intimidate in order to get something. If someone is in a group and they shoot at others who are alone or in a group, that shows an incredible level of stupidity. They're really not the same.
Really?

What about armed Neo-Nazis marching in Black neighbourhoods?
 
GO-NAD!

GO-NAD!

Audioholic Spartan
The large cities in other countries aren't the same as the blighted slums in the US and you need to remember that. Look into the homeless encampments around the US and what is being done about them if you want a real eye-opener.

If you want, I'll drive through some of the areas where these events occur, so I can get some photos- your ideas about cities and the reality that is in some US cities vary greatly.

The city government here has done virtually nothing to solve these problems and I'll post the first photos of places that aren't even in the inner city- they'll be places that had been outlying areas until relatively recently.

Also, you need to realize that there's a difference between 'guns owned' and 'guns possessed'. The guns owned by responsible people aren't the ones used in crimes unless they were stolen. 'Sold without caring who buys" or stolen from an unsecured place' don't meet my definition of 'responsible gun ownership'.
To what extent is the city responsible? How about the federal and state governments? And, most of all, society at large.

Apparently, the Buffalo shooter was a responsible person - according to the law - right up until he wasn't.
 
highfigh

highfigh

Audioholic Slumlord
To what extent is the city responsible? How about the federal and state governments? And, most of all, society at large.

Apparently, the Buffalo shooter was a responsible person - according to the law - right up until he wasn't.
When the City makes it impossible for people to get what they need or move to a better area, those people become desperate and hopeless. When some lose hope of any improvement, they react. Some react in a positive way, many don't.

Some city governments, like Milwaukee's, have whittled away at the areas where they 'let' minorities live by condemning decrepit buildings, zoning changes, creating districts where they want people to go in a way to 'revitalize the city'. That causes the inner city's boundaries to shrink and the number of options is small- either live in more cramped conditions or leave. Many can't afford to leave, so they live in fewer houses/apartments or live on the streets. Milwaukee has done this since the 1960s. If their goal was to make it harder to integrate the city and allow it to be more 'white' (this is what I believe they were attempting), they failed, miserably. The total population has dropped drastically since 1960 and many houses & apartment blocks have been removed, replaced by luxury apartment/condo buildings (mostly since about 2004, when Tom Barrett became Mayor).

The Buffalo shooter didn't live in poverty, he just seems to have been influenced by people who were able to influence his thinking. Maybe his parents contributed to this- I guess we'll see.

A responsible person wouldn't have made the threats that SHOULD HAVE prevented him buying guns.
 
Last edited:
highfigh

highfigh

Audioholic Slumlord
If social conditions in the US are the prime cause of high gun crime rates, maybe Americans should do something constructive to improve those social conditions. And, dollars to donuts, if other developed countries were saturated with firearms to a similar level as the US, you would see increased gun crime.
That may be, but in the US, the local/state/Federal governments are too busy making a statement about how well they're handling problems and bickering across party lines to do what's needed. When members of government hold what have become career positions, they're far too isolated form real life to see how bad things have become. Oh, they see photos but that isn't an effective way to get them to understand. IMO, they should be driven into depressed areas and dropped off, so they can find their own way out. That will force them to talk to people unless they just walk the whole way and if they ignore someone who might try to help (yes, that WOULD actually happen. Well, maybe not if they knew who was trying to leave the area), I think the people who might be ignored would say something about it (and they SHOULD- nobody should be ignored).

By 'Americans', do you mean people, or 'the government'? If you mean 'people', sure. How would that happen when so much needs to be improved? California alone has more than 151K homeless people.
 
Trell

Trell

Audioholic Ninja
Those neo-Nazis don't live in Black neighborhoods.
Now you are just arguing for the sake of it. Showing that you have firearms can be, and is, used to terrorize in many cases.

In any case, USA has a serious firearm problem that it needs to deal with, but so far that is woefully inadequate. On the other hand the are many excuses and rationalizations as to why USA is so "exceptional" that nothing can be done.
 
highfigh

highfigh

Audioholic Slumlord
You're response needs to be picked apart:

1. I don't know the intent of a person when they have a weapon and are using it. If I'm in the cross hairs of a gun, a homicidal driver, a van packed with explosives, or a nuke, it's all moot from my POV. I'm not stopping to hand out a questionnaire.

2. "These are one on one gun incidents". They are one on none. And even if the random stranger in this is armed they are still at 2nd mover disadvantage and have almost zero initiative in this situation. I shouldn't have to go around armed because other assholes are allowed too.

I think we are at the point that weapons need to be restricted to those that serve a pure recreational use. And I don't mean putting 30 rounds on target in 20 seconds.

Guns need to be highly regulated and obviously our background checks and other statutes and laws are failing miserably.

And for those that want to argue that the populace needs guns to protect against Tyranny: Have you seen what the military rolls with these days? You're fucked.
You mentioned nukes, I didn't. The chance of this happening is slim, at best. The only ones doing that are deranged by some belief that the ones they want to kill are evil and need to be eradicated. That's not sane.

WRT your "one on none', I was referring to people, not weapons.

In Racine, WI, a 14 year old was arrested with a pistol and a 40 round magazine. In MKE, someone shot & killed a 'friend' over a $20 debt. How would you regulate these? How would you find the illegally possessed guns and remove them from the general population?

The chance of the government coming to town to take everything is nil, but the chance of a home invasion is increasing, as well as a carjacking. However, the best advice for the latter is "Just walk away". A home invasion is more likely to become a deadly situation but in most of these, the invaders know the intended victims.Domestic violence incidents kill more people and cops than almost any other because they escalate incredibly quickly.

The US military has a lot that we could never defend against, but I don't think one of their assets is a large number of soldiers who would actually follow the order to kill citizens who were posing no threat to the country as a whole.
 
highfigh

highfigh

Audioholic Slumlord
Now you are just arguing for the sake of it. Showing that you have firearms can be, and is, used to terrorize in many cases.

In any case, USA has a serious firearm problem that it needs to deal with, but so far that is woefully inadequate. On the other hand the are many excuses and rationalizations as to why USA is so "exceptional" that nothing can be done.
OK, I agree with you on that- I haven't seen armed groups going through local neighborhoods, so it wasn't my first thought. I was thinking about neo-Nazis with flags, bull horns and empty heads, trying to recruit new members. That kind of thing HAS happened in Wisconsin, but I don't remember the mast time it happened in the Milwaukee area.

The US absolutely has a gun problem.

Oh, yeah- American exceptionalism. We're 'special', but not in a good way.
 
GO-NAD!

GO-NAD!

Audioholic Spartan
That may be, but in the US, the local/state/Federal governments are too busy making a statement about how well they're handling problems and bickering across party lines to do what's needed. When members of government hold what have become career positions, they're far too isolated form real life to see how bad things have become. Oh, they see photos but that isn't an effective way to get them to understand. IMO, they should be driven into depressed areas and dropped off, so they can find their own way out. That will force them to talk to people unless they just walk the whole way and if they ignore someone who might try to help (yes, that WOULD actually happen. Well, maybe not if they knew who was trying to leave the area), I think the people who might be ignored would say something about it (and they SHOULD- nobody should be ignored).

By 'Americans', do you mean people, or 'the government'? If you mean 'people', sure. How would that happen when so much needs to be improved? California alone has more than 151K homeless people.
I mean government and "the people" together. Admittedly, that's a pretty empty statement, but it would take a book to expand on it.
 

Latest posts

newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top