Yet another needless mass shooting

[thamrick]

It's not really whataboutism since that's more about political behavior. It's an argument to absurdity. As Octavious said, it's about logical consistency. Logic is universal, and if we took the logic people used to discuss guns and applied it to other parts of life it clearly falls apart. The argument "it kills people therefore it should be banned" is incomplete and requires further argumentation and nuance, because the argument in that form can be applied to basically anything. What makes guns *distinct* from these examples?

There are absolutely good arguments in favor of banning guns. They do not exist in the popular discourse because the popular discourse just stops at "waaah guns kill people!"

That's a reasonable statement. The nuance is that guns are designed with the specific purpose to kill things. They are intrinsically a weapon, unlike the other mentioned things. I think that's a pretty clear "nuance" that most people recognize without it needing to be pointed out.

What frustrates me is that these arguments don't, for the most part, seem to be brought up for the purpose of clarifying the argument, but rather obfuscating it by drawing attention elsewhere.

The point is that *something* needs to be done to quell the pandemic of gun violence in the US.

If you also want to discuss the diabetes pandemic, or the absurd hypocrisy of drunk driving regulations, that's fine. One doesn't preclude the other.

[Condescension]

It's not really whataboutism since that's more about political behavior. It's an argument to absurdity. As Octavious said, it's about logical consistency. Logic is universal, and if we took the logic people used to discuss guns and applied it to other parts of life it clearly falls apart. The argument "it kills people therefore it should be banned" is incomplete and requires further argumentation and nuance, because the argument in that form can be applied to basically anything. What makes guns *distinct* from these examples?

There are absolutely good arguments in favor of banning guns. They do not exist in the popular discourse because the popular discourse just stops at "waaah guns kill people!"

That's a reasonable statement. The nuance is that guns are designed with the specific purpose to kill things. They are intrinsically a weapon, unlike the other mentioned things. I think that's a pretty clear "nuance" that most people recognize without it needing to be pointed out.

What frustrates me is that these arguments don't, for the most part, seem to be brought up for the purpose of clarifying the argument, but rather obfuscating it by drawing attention elsewhere.

The point is that *something* needs to be done to quell the pandemic of gun violence in the US.

If you also want to discuss the diabetes pandemic, or the absurd hypocrisy of drunk driving regulations, that's fine. One doesn't preclude the other.

yeah, something needs to be done. That something is probably not an assault weapons ban. This has been my position on this thread for a while.

[Octavious]

That's a reasonable statement. The nuance is that guns are designed with the specific purpose to kill things. They are intrinsically a weapon, unlike the other mentioned things. I think that's a pretty clear "nuance" that most people recognize without it needing to be pointed out.

That's not actually true. Even military assault rifles, strangely enough, aren't designed to kill things. The ammunition favoured by NATO is designed to wound, the logic being that once wounded a soldier is out of the fight, as are a couple of his comrades who stop to treat him. Many guns are designed for target practice, or primarily to act as a deterrent. Most of those designed to kill were designed to kill animals. Very few guns were actually designed to kill people, and very few guns actually do.

The comparison with cars, drugs etc seems a fair one. If your primary goal is to reduce the numbers of innocent deaths, then surely it is useful to know the severity of causes of these deaths. Be that because of traffic or guns or air quality or drugs or whatever. It seems that there are quick wins to be made in US gun control, in terms of restricting ownership to clear undesirables etc, but it seems fair to argue that there are other avenues where political will should be focused first.

[thamrick]

That's a reasonable statement. The nuance is that guns are designed with the specific purpose to kill things. They are intrinsically a weapon, unlike the other mentioned things. I think that's a pretty clear "nuance" that most people recognize without it needing to be pointed out.

That's not actually true. Even military assault rifles, strangely enough, aren't designed to kill things. The ammunition favoured by NATO is designed to wound, the logic being that once wounded a soldier is out of the fight, as are a couple of his comrades who stop to treat him. Many guns are designed for target practice, or primarily to act as a deterrent. Most of those designed to kill were designed to kill animals. Very few guns were actually designed to kill people, and very few guns actually do.

The comparison with cars, drugs etc seems a fair one. If your primary goal is to reduce the numbers of innocent deaths, then surely it is useful to know the severity of causes of these deaths. Be that because of traffic or guns or air quality or drugs or whatever. It seems that there are quick wins to be made in US gun control, in terms of restricting ownership to clear undesirables etc, but it seems fair to argue that there are other avenues where political will should be focused first.

Regardless of the kill/wound design, they are still created with the intention to inflict harm.

You're still not responding to my actual point. I am fine with discussing legislation to regulate things that are deadly (traffic, drugs, air quality, etc). The issue I have is that they are brought up to detract from the gun control debate, when they aren't at odds.

[thamrick]

yeah, something needs to be done. That something is probably not an assault weapons ban. This has been my position on this thread for a while.

And that's fine. While I disagree, I can understand your point of view.

You've stated you think perception of mass murder is the issue. How do you go about changing that? Also, why do you feel like an assault weapon ban, though not addressing the issue you see, is still not a reasonable action to take?

[Octavious]

It depends on your goal, I guess. Let's not pretend that anything discussed here will achieve anything other than provide entertainment to those debating. In order to actually make a difference you have to engage in hard campaigning, which takes dedication, commitment and effort. That means you do indeed have to pick your battles, and dedicating your time to guns means you're not dedicating your time to air quality.

[Condescension]

yeah, something needs to be done. That something is probably not an assault weapons ban. This has been my position on this thread for a while.

And that's fine. While I disagree, I can understand your point of view.

You've stated you think perception of mass murder is the issue. How do you go about changing that? Also, why do you feel like an assault weapon ban, though not addressing the issue you see, is still not a reasonable action to take?

Semi-automatic weapons are part of many rural community's cultural heritages. There isn't a lot to do in these communities and going shooting is one of the few luxuries available to them. Banning rifles further disenfranchises them. The disenfranchisement of rural communities is how you get Ergodans and Trumps.

Not to mention the fact that actually seizing all of these weapons (if we went for a complete ban) would be a bloodbath.

If you actually want to reduce gun deaths, restrict pistols in cities. Pistols are way, way more dangerous both to the user and the community.

I think the media needs to completely overhaul the way they report on mass murders, the same way they overhauled the way they reported on suicides after research in the 80's made it clear that that kind of reporting led to suicides. I don't know if the industry can regulate itself or if the government needs to step in.

[Jamiet99uk]

I think you're failing to recognize the assumptions of the pro-gun debate, Jamie. At its heart it's based in the philosophy of Plato, so about as fundamental as Western civilization gets. Plato discusses, in Republic, the transition of states from Aristocracy through Democracy and on to Tyranny as the natural order of things. Whereas you and I may see the natural flow being towards increasingly inclusive democracy, many of the pro-gun people believe that tyranny is inevitable unless actively resisted. If you start from such an assumption, the belief that the people must be given the tools to resist such a progression makes a lot more sense.

Other than owning guns, what are they doing to actively resist it? Should they also aspire to own tanks? Attack helicopters? The goverment has nuclear weapons. Should ordinary citizens attempt to obtain these as well? If not, how will they resist tyranny?

I do not believe most NRA members have read Plato.

I think we should make cars illegal, cars accidents kill thousands. And sugar too, sugar is very dangerous, way more dangerous than cars or guns, it kills tens of thousands to diabetes, heart disease. And don't forget bathrooms, lots of people fall and die in their own bathrooms, we should make bathrooms illegal too.

Were bathrooms designed to kill? No. You're a fucking idiot. Keep tugging yourself and piss off with your whataboutism.

When was it that the non-word of "whataboutism" was introduced to attack precedent and logical consistency? I don't recall hearing it before a year or two ago.

You strongly support "Tugster"'s position, I assume? Don't be silly.

Whataboutism is a real thing. It's a form of straw-man argument where you try to de-rail the debate by bringing up another issue of little relevance to the debate, and demand that is addressed instead of the actual issue at hand. This isn't a debate about bathroom injuries, and to try to divert it onto that topic is facetious nonsense which you know better than to support, Oct.

It's like if I contacted my MP to say "I am concerned about pollution in the River Tees", and they replied "What about nuclear weapons? If a nuclear attack hit Teesside, that would pollute the river with huge amounts of radiation! I'm not going to address water pollution until YOU achieve unilateral nuclear disarmament, Jamie!!" You seem to think that response would be "logical" and reasonable. I don't.

[worcej]

I think the media needs to completely overhaul the way they report on mass murders, the same way they overhauled the way they reported on suicides after research in the 80's made it clear that that kind of reporting led to suicides. I don't know if the industry can regulate itself or if the government needs to step in.

I wish I could give this statement a +20 or something.

The massive hysteria, the non-stop coverage, pretty much all the attention that these incidents get fuel individuals who are seeking attention to carry out these acts. This, in my opinion, is the major issue with the USA and mass shootings.

Now granted I am not European and have zero knowledge of the situation, but how were the attacks in London/Paris covered in the news? Was it on every news channel (we have ~6 national ones covering it regularly over here in the states) in some way or shape for weeks? Were the victims propped up on news channels constantly?

I think the biggest difference, besides guns themselves, is the cultures between Americans and other areas of the world. The American culture and entertainment is driven by these sensational tragedies and the people who carry them out are focused on extremely heavily.

[worcej]

And it is almost sad that I have to say this, but by me pointing out the media in what I just posted, I am not trying to 'detract' from the gun-banning discussion. I am commenting on what I feel perpetuates the mass shooting violence in America that gets everyone riled up.

[Jamiet99uk]

Now granted I am not European and have zero knowledge of the situation, but how were the attacks in London/Paris covered in the news? Was it on every news channel (we have ~6 national ones covering it regularly over here in the states) in some way or shape for weeks? Were the victims propped up on news channels constantly?

I live in the UK, and yes, they were the main news item on all news channels for over 24 hours, and continued to be heavily reported on for well over a week.

[flash2015]

And it is almost sad that I have to say this, but by me pointing out the media in what I just posted, I am not trying to 'detract' from the gun-banning discussion. I am commenting on what I feel perpetuates the mass shooting violence in America that gets everyone riled up.

The assumption that you and Condescension are making though is that this media frenzy is somehow unique to the USA. At least from my experience it happens everywhere.

[Octavious]

Jamie, I think you've been watching too much sci-fi, mate. In what way do you envision any regime maintaining order over its population with nukes?

I think you have a rather prejudiced view against gun owners. Still, even if they have not read Plato it will have had influence over them, as it has over everyone in Western culture. The ideas of Plato have simply found more fertile ground with some groups of people than others.

[CroakandDagger]

No, Jamiet, I don't oppose the notion of a state.

[flash2015]

Jamie, I think you've been watching too much sci-fi, mate. In what way do you envision any regime maintaining order over its population with nukes?

I think you have a rather prejudiced view against gun owners. Still, even if they have not read Plato it will have had influence over them, as it has over everyone in Western culture. The ideas of Plato have simply found more fertile ground with some groups of people than others.

As in a lot of things, everyone reads into Plato what they want to see. A lot of right leaning sites twist Plato to be an argument for guns. I see a lot of left leaning sites suggesting that Trump is the start of our slide into tyranny. I seriously doubt many people have actually read it at all...apart from other people's interpretations of it.

[Jamiet99uk]

Jamie, I think you've been watching too much sci-fi, mate. In what way do you envision any regime maintaining order over its population with nukes?

Tanks? Rocket-propelled-grenades? Howitzers? Attack helicopters? Should citizens be entitled to own these, to defend themselves from would-be tyrants who have them, or not? If not, why not?

[Octavious]

Jamie, I think you've been watching too much sci-fi, mate. In what way do you envision any regime maintaining order over its population with nukes?

Tanks? Rocket-propelled-grenades? Howitzers? Attack helicopters? Should citizens be entitled to own these, to defend themselves from would-be tyrants who have them, or not? If not, why not?

Is that a serious question?

[Jamiet99uk]

Yes.

[Jamiet99uk]

Just to be clear - you are saying that a reasonable pro-gun argument, derived from Plato, is that the populace needs to be armed to resist tyrannical government. I am responding my pointing out that the government isn't just armed with guns.

So a logical follow-on question from that is the one I've posed. If it is reasonable for a citizen have weapons, to resist a tyrannical government, must it not also be reasonable to permit them to arm themselves with the same weapons that the government has?

If not, why not?

[MattyofG]

Most people who are pro gun control do not own guns. Part of that is that most of America does not own guns.

There are two main sticking points that have me disagree with the gun-rights people.

1. This idea that an AR-15 is going to allow you to resist tyranny from the federal government. This is asinine, we would be better off if the people who honestly believed that tripe were deported to Syria so they could learn what that is actually like.

If you truly believe this, it causes me to doubt your grip on reality as you're obviously deep in some sort of power fantasy. What protects us from the US government is the same thing that protects other countries, the army's unwillingness to attack its own people, because they feel it is not appropriate. They are not frightened of some assault weapons. ISIS had way more than some assault rifles and the army wasn't scared of them, you think they'd be frightened of your gun cabinet? If the army was determined to come get you, there is no amount of assault weaponry that will protect you. You gonna get got. You'd need way more then some automatic rifles.

2. The weird and creepy stuff done by a minority of people, like that gun blessing ceremony.

I'm on board with a lot of the freedom based arguments and the truth is the most likely person you are to kill with a firearm is yourself, so the majority of the risk is carried by the gun owner themselves. I am pretty okay with people risking their own lives. We do need better ways of keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. Likewise, people who commit domestic assault shouldn't be allowed to carry unless they jump through some serious hoops. They've already demonstrated that the public can't trust them.