Yet another needless mass shooting

[Condescension]

Guns being fun is the best reason to own one and the best argument for their legality. I wish the right would be honest about it instead of all this "but muh liberty shit".

Same reason the massive overblown reaction to 9/11 sucks. I don't care about the TSA because "muh liberty", I care about the TSA because the security theater is fucking *annoying* and anti-fun.

[flash2015]

To be honest, there is virtually never a good answer given to why we should have guns. Anything that kills 35,000 people a year better have a damned better justification than "because it's fun...."

First Post, Best Post.

Seriously though, I hear your point, but explain to me why we allow alcohol in the country then? Alcohol related deaths are higher than murders/suicides via guns.

Why are we not more aggressive on drugs? Drug related deaths are significantly more higher than gun related deaths.

And let's go further - why do we allow people to drive a car so early in their lives? We let 16 year olds drive by themselves. Did you know the most likely way for a teenager to die is an automotive accident?

Blatant statements around the numbers, like the one you said from the start, doesn't help the conversation to improving the problem.

I am not a fan of the term, but this is pretty much a textbook case of "whataboutism". All the deaths by guns are OK because "what about X"...

At least with all these other issues, we can actually have an intelligent discussion about regulation and the tradeoffs between regulation and freedom. For alcohol and drugs at least, many countries have found that complete prohibition won't work (the US went through this in the 20's with alcohol).

But we can't seem to have the same intelligent discussion about guns. Every discussion about any change to regulation at all, no matter how minor, is fought against like it is a life and death struggle. We can't even have an honest discussion about the cost of guns and gun violence - instead we are treated to a fevered fantasy about how there is actually no cost to having so many guns in society, or even that more guns saves lives. Following that logic, I assume the way to stop a guerilla or civil war is not to promote disarmament but to give everyone more weapons...

[Condescension]

Worcej wasn't saying that there should be no regulations on guns. He was saying that guns being fun is a good reason not to ban them. You are not responding in good faith to his point.

[Condescension]

Ogion said, basically, that there's no reason to have guns. That's the claim Worcej was responding to.

[worcej]

Worcej wasn't saying that there should be no regulations on guns. He was saying that guns being fun is a good reason not to ban them. You are not responding in good faith to his point.

Kind of, and it isn't wrong that I am somewhat trying to "whataboutism" - I didn't exactly meet the definition with my comment. The statement that I wanted to grab and comment on was, granted I am paraphrasing, that 'Something that kills 35,000 people a year is a problem and we shouldn't have that'. Don't get me wrong, none of these deaths are okay. But to think we'll always stop all the loss of human life by making an action is ignorant at best.

Important note to make: I definitely agree gun regulations should be kicked up, but I disagree with the concept of we should just ban guns because they kill people. Enforce the current regulations better and add some new ones, like increased background checks and longer wait times to purchase weapons, before simply banning the AR-15. I consider myself a responsible gun owner, I own shotguns and rifles for sport but no handguns, so that is where my opinion comes from.

I personally don't like it when people use the number of deaths to guns as a primary reason to say that we shouldn't have them - when this is thrown in our face it is wrong to label it as a 'pandemic' when there are other issues that don't even move the needle for some people. The reason I specifically responded here is because, granted this is me assuming, the original poster doesn't realize that the number of deaths from guns, while terrible, is not the major contributor to human life lost in the USA. Alcohol being a prime example that usually gets people stuck on that - and it is a good counter point to the example from the original posters comment.

The only purpose of alcohol is fun and feeling good, yet it is socially (as a greater view of society, not individuals themselves - I am sure plenty of people here do not like alcohol) acceptable whereas guns are perceived as 'evil' - I credit this to be an issue with how the media in general portrays guns as bad. There was a recent comparison on CNN about rifles vs pistols and the whole point was rifles shoot bullets faster, therefor they are more deadly. The reality though is handgun deaths are the largest, by far, when looking at weapon types.

[President Eden]

@PE: Okay, I apologise for the sexual reference. It was cheap and dismissive.

Do you really agree with Trump, and with your compatriot ND's statements in this thread, that the problem of school shootings can be simply solved by ensuring that all schoolteachers are armed? If you do, I will be willing to attempt to sensibly debate with you about why that's a stupid, awful idea.

I don't care to debate it, the day the British get to determine whether or not Americans are allowed to own guns is the day I go full 1776 and actually join a militia to do something about it.
I told you that for your own benefit. I'm frankly not actually convinced you do want anything out of this thread beyond showing off how enlightened you are by your own righteousness. If I'm wrong, though, then I owe it to you to tell you how you look to the people you're trying to convince.

To be honest, there is virtually never a good answer given to why we should have guns. Anything that kills 35,000 people a year better have a damned better justification than "because it's fun and I want to engage in target practice." Cars at least are useful. Guns are basically toys.Given the silliness of the answers given, it really seems like a cover for sexual insecurity. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, maybe it's a duck? Because got knows there's no rational justification for US gun policy whatsoever.

You're a fucking idiot and the second you forget your password and never post again is the second the quality of posting on this site increases 500%.

But we can't seem to have the same intelligent discussion about guns. Every discussion about any change to regulation at all, no matter how minor, is fought against like it is a life and death struggle. We can't even have an honest discussion about the cost of guns and gun violence - instead we are treated to a fevered fantasy about how there is actually no cost to having so many guns in society, or even that more guns saves lives. Following that logic, I assume the way to stop a guerilla or civil war is not to promote disarmament but to give everyone more weapons...

μολὼν λαβέ

[Jamiet99uk]

@PE: "I don't care to debate it"

So, you criticize me for not engaging with the serious arguments in favour of arming everyone to the teeth, which you feel exist, and then when I do sincerely offer to debate with you, you don't want to?

Ok. Whatever.

[Octavious]

@PE: "I don't care to debate it"

So, you criticize me for not engaging with the serious arguments in favour of arming everyone to the teeth, which you feel exist, and then when I do sincerely offer to debate with you, you don't want to?

Ok. Whatever.

Be fair, Jamie. PE has been one of the few people who have consistently made reasoned points without descending to the usual ranting. I cannot conceive of a scenario in which you bring any new points to the table, nor indeed one in which PE says anything to change your mind, so not wanting to engage in further debate is understandable. Especially as US gun laws impact our lives even less than our star sign.

[CroakandDagger]

"The usual ranting." Lovely. I can't think why anyone would suspect the progressive types of being dismissive and disingenuous. I really can't.

[Octavious]

Are you suggesting that webDip gun debates aren't usually dominated by ranting, Croak?

[CroakandDagger]

The rants i've seen have not been from the pro-gun crowd.

[Condescension]

This is one of the few things where the right is more correct than the left. People are terrified of ARs because of media hype, when the reality is that they are much much less dangerous for the public than handguns. The notion that bullet velocity or stopping power is what makes a weapon dangerous is silly to the extreme. One of the things I'm looking forward to about living in the US is owning some dank rifles.

[Jamiet99uk]

This is one of the few things where the right is more correct than the left. People are terrified of ARs because of media hype, when the reality is that they are much much less dangerous for the public than handguns. The notion that bullet velocity or stopping power is what makes a weapon dangerous is silly to the extreme. One of the things I'm looking forward to about living in the US is owning some dank rifles.

It would seem to me that an Assault Rifle is an effective way to kill about 17 innocent young people.

[Jamiet99uk]

Although I must say I can't imagine why you would be particularly keen on owning a cold, soggy gun.

[Condescension]

Three responses:
a, handguns are responsible for much more gun violence.
b, you can restrict and monitor the sale of ARs without restricting the rights of current gun owners to use their weapons. An outright assault weapons ban is a massive overreaction.
c, guns aren't the reason these guys are killing people. I would prefer to live in a society where these people don't feel the need to massacre children (like Canada or Israel) than one where the only thing preventing them from doing so is inconvenience. It's a bandaid solution to a problem that goes a lot deeper than 'but guns tho'.

[Condescension]

Policy that is purely a reaction to a terrorist attack is usually a bad idea. The massive overblown airport security was an overreaction from the right, the assault weapons bans proposed by the left are a similar overreaction. Making society less convenient and pleasant in order to stop a very small number of people from dying (supposedly) is a bad idea. This is just more security theater.

[Condescension]

Guns are fun. Restricting the rights of all Americans to have fun because some tiny fraction (maybe 100 people out of 300 million americans) abuse that right to commit mass murders is fucking stupid.

[Jamiet99uk]

Guns are fun. Restricting the rights of all Americans to have fun because some tiny fraction (maybe 100 people out of 300 million americans) abuse that right to commit mass murders is fucking stupid.

Okay, you think your right to have "fun" is more important than the right of children and young people not to be shot dead. Got it.

[Jamiet99uk]

What a selfish fuck you are.

[thamrick]

Okay then Condescension.

My one question would be - do you think mass murders are a) problematic and b) preventable?