[Politics]The Right to Arm Bears in a Crowded Theater

hyzmarca · Post by **hyzmarca** » Sun Dec 16, 2012 9:36 pm

Perhaps I'm a bit cynical, but it seems that having police beat up and/or kill poor people and the mentally ill is a more popular solution to violent crime than social programs to reduce poverty and treat mental illness are.

Korgan0 · Post by **Korgan0** » Sun Dec 16, 2012 10:01 pm

hyzmarca wrote:Perhaps I'm a bit cynical, but it seems that having police beat up and/or kill poor people and the mentally ill is a more popular solution to violent crime than social programs to reduce poverty and treat mental illness are.

The only conclusion that I can draw from your repeated non sequiturs and frankly abhorrent propositions is that you are literally on illegal mind-altering drugs. Probably PCP. Firstly, what the fuck does that have to do with children being shot in the head by a crazed gunman? For that matter, what does it have to do with the banning of firearms?

In any case, it seems that expanding mental health programs and reducing poverty, while both laudable goals in of themselves, wouldn't be anywhere near the panacea for mass murder that a lot of "moderates" think they would be. If you look at the perpetrators of these acts, they often end up being found remarkably neurotypical, in the few circumstances where they end up alive. Anders Behring Breivik was ruled sane, let us remember. This sums it up rather well.

Parthenon · Post by **Parthenon** » Sun Dec 16, 2012 11:33 pm

hyzmarca almost has a point. As in the current American view of dealing with crime is all about punishing the criminal, whereas other countries have the radical idea that punishing adults doesn't actually change their behaviour and if you instead rehabilitate criminals, teaching them better ways to earn a living and deal with bad situations, they are less likely to commit crimes and criminals are more likely to submit to police and be arrested rather than try and fight to the death.

So, at the moment American prisons are known for being overfilled, teaching inmates how to commit crimes better, with the inmates used as work gangs at a level similar to 3rd world forced labour, and filled with organised gangs and rape from both inmates and guards. Then once they get out it is nearly impossible for them to get a job so the only thing they can do is more crime.

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 12:25 am

I would not call that almost having a point, in the same way that "ducks quack" is not almost having a point. There are lots of true statements that can be made, but very few of them are relevant to gun control. That hyzmarca's irrelevant statements happen to be true does not bring them any closer to having a point (again, "ducks quack").

Shrapnel · Post by **Shrapnel** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 2:49 am

I watched the president give his speech about the latest shooting in Newtown. He seemed pretty sincere. I don't think Mittens woulda been able to pull it off.

Darth Rabbitt · Post by **Darth Rabbitt** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 2:54 am

Has the NRA put out anything crazy regarding the shooting yet?

Shrapnel · Post by **Shrapnel** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 2:57 am

Not that I've seen, but I wouldn't be surpri-- no, wait, I do remember something they said. Something along the line that if the people in the school had guns, such as the teachers, kids, potted plants, etc, then the tragedy could've been averted.

Because, you know, the only way to stop gun violence is with more, bigger guns.

Whatever · Post by **Whatever** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 4:10 am

Korgan0 wrote:Anders Behring Breivik was ruled sane, let us remember.

Legal sanity is entirely distinct from mental illness. To be legally sane, you have to understand your actions and their consequences, and you have to be acting volitionally (this standard varies across countries and jurisdictions, but that's the basic principle). That way, the court can hold you responsible for whatever crime you've committed. But crazy people can meet that standard, and some sane people can't (if they have diminished mental capacity, for example).

In Breivik's case, the first report diagnosed him as insane, but the second concluded that he "merely" had personality disorders. Based on the second report, the court ruled that he was sane enough to be sentenced to prison.

Libertad · Post by **Libertad** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 6:43 am

I originally had a response, but I deleted my post as I originally felt like not getting involved. But I was quoted, so I'll clarify.

Hyzmarca's responses, to me, were arguing in favor of treating and diagnosing mental illness among people to prevent gun-related deaths instead of stricter gun control laws. He didn't come off as somebody intentionally saying that such deaths are acceptable.

Personally, I do think we need stricter gun control laws, as they will prevent tragedies like this from happening.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 6:51 am

Libertad wrote:I originally had a response, but I deleted my post as I originally felt like not getting involved. But I was quoted, so I'll clarify.

Hyzmarca's response, to me, was arguing in favor of treating and diagnosing mental illness among people to prevent gun-related deaths instead of stricter gun control laws. He did not come off as saying that these deaths are acceptable.

But that's exactly why it's bullshit. Why "instead"? If you do something instead of X, you're not doing X. You could do something in addition to X and still do X. If you're arguing to do something instead of X rather than in addition to X, you are making an argument to not do X.

So hyzmarca's argument is to not have stricter gun control. His argument in favor of that position is literally "Don't do that, all that will do is save lives". That's insane. Saving lives is the entire point. Saving lives is the reason to do any of these things.

-Username17

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 9:47 am

So. Political calculus on having effective gun control legislation?

It seems to me that at the very least we need to replace much of the judiciary. Which can be done.

My big problem however is the United States Senate. Getting effective gun control legislation through Appalachia, the South, AND the Midwest is going to be pretty much impossible unless it's done in a 1964-ish 'let's just take the hit' way.

Korgan0 · Post by **Korgan0** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 10:38 am

In addition, it's not the case that you have a fringe group that's strangling discourse via some method. Discrediting the NRA or survivalists or whatever won't do jack shit, since your opposition is gonna come from Bob and Jane Schmo down the road who like feeling safe from oppressed minorities. I mean, in all fairness, disappearing the NRA would remove a lot of the political money and organization, but it wouldn't do much in terms of winning votes.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 2:09 pm

Lago PARANOIA wrote:So. Political calculus on having effective gun control legislation?

It seems to me that at the very least we need to replace much of the judiciary. Which can be done.

My big problem however is the United States Senate. Getting effective gun control legislation through Appalachia, the South, AND the Midwest is going to be pretty much impossible unless it's done in a 1964-ish 'let's just take the hit' way.

Now that is a reasonable discussion to have. The Left had mostly given up on gun control the last few years on the grounds that the gun lobby was simply too powerful and well funded and there were other fights to have that were either more important (healthcare reform) or easier to win (marriage equality), or both (energy independence). But it's important to understand that Realpolitik is not the same as wisdom and moderation. The fact that you're giving up on a fight on issue X to focus on issues Y and Z doesn't mean that the other side is right on issue X or even that some sort of middle ground on issue X is anything but an atrocity. It only means that you had some tactical reason to work on issues Y and Z to the exclusion of working on issue X.

The thinking wasn't that "maybe the NRA are halfway right", the NRA are still fucking crazy. Their "moms with guns" thing is literally exactly why and how the Connecticut shooting happened. Ending the assault weapons ban specifically and demonstrably led to the deaths of innocent people, including children. The thinking was that the NRA was dangerous enough politically that it just wasn't worth fighting them. But a funny thing happened: Obama basically gave them what they said they wanted and they fought him anyway. The NRA spent big on this election and did very poorly. Less than 1% of the NRA's money this cycle went to candidates that actually won.

What this means is that the NRA is actually a paper tiger. First of all, it's not negotiating in good faith, because even when Obama doesn't do a god damn thing to them they throw over nine million dollars to Mitt Romney. But secondly, who gives a crap? Yes, the gun lobby gives millions of dollars to Republicans, but if those Republicans don't win, then what exactly are we afraid of? Even though the Democrats didn't say shit about gun control, the NRA went ahead and claimed that the 2012 election was a referendum on gun control anyway. And guess what? The NRA lost almost every election they stuck their dick in on, so where's my fucking gun control?

The truth is that there is only any reason to negotiate with someone if they are willing to negotiate in turn. The reality is that the gun activists will continue to rant about how the negro president is getting the United nations to take their guns away no matter what he does. Letting them have their precious murder sticks gets you nothing. Their rhetoric, their spending, and ultimately their marginalization don't change if you give them the things they say they want.

For a long time, the Left has resigned itself to moping about as gun deaths rack up by the dozens every single day and tragedy after tragedy is punctuated by shrill conservatives shouting that each time is not the time to talk about gun control. But this time, when Meet The Press sent out invitations to all 31 "pro gun" senators to participate in their talking head roundup, every single one of them refused the invitation. Not one sentaor was willing to go on Meet The Press to reiterate the old tired talking points about how dead children was no reason to restrict access to the weapons used to kill children. This time it really seems to be different. And I think it's different because of Bob Costas. Not because he managed to get a national conversation about guns started, but because he was shouted down not very long ago. It's simply too fresh in peoples' minds that he was shouted down about how it was "not the right time" to talk about gun violence this month. And now that shrill demand for an endless tabling of the issue rings hollow. Hollower than it normally does even.

-Username17

sabs · Post by **sabs** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 3:15 pm

We need to go more towards a Canadian style gun ownership.
People own guns they can go hunting with (mostly hunting rifles, single action shotguns).
Semi autos, and major handguns are stored at gun ranges, and can only be used at gun ranges.
Carry Permits are only for people in security fields. (Cops, Private Security) etc. And We make using a gun in a crime automatically double what ever the penalty would have been in the first place.

I'd really like to just ban all guns entirely, but I do like me some venisson. If there was a way to allow people to hunt, and still restrict the use of rifles in other cases, that would be nice.

It's not just the right time to talk about gun violence. We need to talk about how we treat Mental Illness. Reagan defunded all of the national mental health facilities. All those people didn't go away, then ended up on the streets. There are children growing up today who need serious mental help, so that they can not become the next Adam Lanza. But without proper national healthcare for everyone, we're fucked.

http://thebluereview.org/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother/

Is a good read. I have a son who is Autistic, and was very violent when he was young. Luckily we managed to get him help he needed and he responded well to the support he received. But he still loses his temper in impressively terrifying ways sometimes.

nockermensch · Post by **nockermensch** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 3:35 pm

sabs wrote:We need to go more towards a Canadian style gun ownership.
People own guns they can go hunting with (mostly hunting rifles, single action shotguns).
Semi autos, and major handguns are stored at gun ranges, and can only be used at gun ranges.
Carry Permits are only for people in security fields. (Cops, Private Security) etc. And We make using a gun in a crime automatically double what ever the penalty would have been in the first place.

I'd really like to just ban all guns entirely, but I do like me some venisson. If there was a way to allow people to hunt, and still restrict the use of rifles in other cases, that would be nice.

How about a total ban of firearms and you can hunt with bows and spears? I can even support crossbows too, if the buyer gets registered and passes a psychiatric evaluation.

People who really love guns can join the armed forces or the police and play with them there. And when criminals act with guns, they get to be ultrakilled by the guys in uniform that were just itching for an excuse to shoot to kill. This will still be thousands less killings for year than you guys currently have.

tussock · Post by **tussock** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 3:42 pm

FrankTrollman wrote:The idea that gun ownership isn't harmful is just really weird. There is no basis in statistics to back that claim up. The gun deaths per hundred thousand people in the US are 10.1.

That's not a bad argument. But ...

El Salvador owns 5.8 guns per 100 people. They have 50.8 gun deaths per 100k. El Salvadorian guns are Eighty Times as deadly as US guns. Oh, wait, nearly 2/3 the US gun deaths are suicides, whereas El Salvador only counts murder, so it's really 200 times as dangerous to other people.

Wait, try a first world country. NZ has 0.17 homicide gun deaths per 100k, with a gun ownership rate of 22 guns per 100 people. That's less than 1/4 as deadly as US guns!

Holy crap, Norway! 31.3 guns per 100 people, 0.04 homicide gun deaths per 100k. !!! That's 200 times less deadly than US guns! There's probably better, but point made.

Wait. What's 200x200? It's 40,000 times. That's your margin of error on how dangerous guns are, relative to countries. One might almost consider the US is just a rather dangerous country in terms of suicidal mass murderers, rather than guns, eh.

/souce = Wikipedia.

Shrapnel · Post by **Shrapnel** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 3:43 pm

sabs wrote:It's not just the right time to talk about gun violence.

No? Then when is? A major problem is that during and after these tragedies, we all say, "Yeah, things should change, but now's not the time." Well, when is the time?

We keep sweeping the issue under the rug. There have been eight school shootings alone this year. And after each one, almost nothing has changed. Oh, sure, they increase things like security at schools and such. But that only goes so far, and isn't all that effective in the long run. So, again, when is the time to talk about it?

sabs · Post by **sabs** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 3:54 pm

Shrapnel wrote:
sabs wrote:It's not just the right time to talk about gun violence.
No? Then when is? A major problem is that during and after these tragedies, we all say, "Yeah, things should change, but now's not the time." Well, when is the time?

We keep sweeping the issue under the rug. There have been eight school shootings alone this year. And after each one, almost nothing has changed. Oh, sure, they increase things like security at schools and such. But that only goes so far, and isn't all that effective in the long run. So, again, when is the time to talk about it?

Are you FUCKING RETARDED? or is english just NOT your first language.
DO you understand what "It's not JUST the time to talk about gun control, but also about Mental Illness" MEANS? Do you actually speak fucking English you illiterate asshole?

It's totally the time to talk about gun control.
It's ALSO the time to deal with how we treat Mental Illness in this country.

Holy Fuck you're an idiot.

Ancient History · Post by **Ancient History** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 3:59 pm

Maybe he's a tad dyslexic and read it as "just not."

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 4:10 pm

sabs wrote:It's not just the right time to talk about gun violence. We need to talk about how we treat Mental Illness.

I thought this just a couple of days ago, but now I'm starting to realize that 'talk about Mental Illness/income inequality/etc.' is just a standard sop more savvy gun-advocates throw out in the hopes that people will stop thinking about taking away their exploding dildos for a couple of weeks.

Fuck that. Let's talk about gun control and only gun control. I'm still willing to do something about mental health, but the deceit and callousness by gun advocates has been the last fucking straw.

...You Lost Me · Post by **...You Lost Me** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 4:15 pm

Ancient History wrote:Maybe he's a tad dyslexic and read it as "just not."

I actually did the exact same thing, and was wondering why sabs got all hissy about it.

I'm still wondering that, but it makes more sense now.

Josh_Kablack · Post by **Josh_Kablack** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 6:23 pm

The big problem with getting any sort of gun control passed is not the NRA at the national level - it's the NRA at the State and Local level.

Pittsburgh is "The Paris of Appalachia" and Pennsylvania is the ancestral home of the pro-gun Democrat due largely to how ingrained hunting is into Pennsylvania culture. And yet there are enough votes on Pittsburgh City Council right now to pass all sorts of "common sense" (trigger locks, waiting periods, psych evaluations, mandatory safety courses, periodic retesting, increased gun crime penalties, "assault" weapon restrictions, higher standards for permits, etc.) and maybe even a couple of "extreme" (total handgun ban) gun control measures with at least a two-thirds majority. There are probably enough votes on Allegheny County Council to at least pass the most of the "common sense" ones with a simple majority.

However the reality is that when Pittsburgh enacted a law making it a crime to fail to report the loss or theft of a firearm promptly, the NRA funded a legal challenge to the law as unconstitutional and in violation of the 2nd amendment. Now I'm not anything like a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure the 2nd Amendment only defines a right to "keep and bear arms" and offers no protections for the right to "lose and misplace arms". This didn't matter, because the already cash-strapped City was faced with the choice of "fund a legal defense for the measure in court or fund the police, fixing potholes and clearing snow". Fortunately the Brady Campaign showed up to fund a challenge to the NRAs challenge.

Furthermore, the State of Pennsylvania is horribly gerrymandered so that the State Legislature will always have a Republican majority. Basically Pittsburgh and Philly are high population density Democratic Party strongholds, but all the farms counties and most of the small towns in-between are chock full of rural Republicans. Thus by total popular vote, PA is overall slightly Democratic (at least for the last couple presidential elections), but there are far more Counties that reliably vote Republican than Counties which vote Democratic in the State.

Thus when Pittsburgh passes a law that draws enough Republican aggro, the State legislature can be counted on to try to pass a law that removes control of that issue from local governments. See: Hydrofracking.

So even if the 2nd Amendment were repealed, and even in a city where there are enough votes on Council to pass gun control laws, actually enacting them means the city has to find funding to survive court challenges from a major national lobbying organization and has to fight State laws against a stacked deck.

Thus the requirements for my city, which has the popular and legislative votes for it to pass effective gun control measures are, in order of likeliness:

1. Repeal 2nd Amendment
2. Secede from Pennsylvania
3. Run a budget surplus from local taxation

None of those are happening in my lifetime. Not even if every single kid in the Pittsburgh Public Schools gets shot to death by madmen.

Whipstitch · Post by **Whipstitch** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 6:26 pm

tussock wrote: El Salvador owns 5.8 guns per 100 people. They have 50.8 gun deaths per 100k. El Salvadorian guns are Eighty Times as deadly as US guns. Oh, wait, nearly 2/3 the US gun deaths are suicides, whereas El Salvador only counts murder, so it's really 200 times as dangerous to other people

Do you know anything else about El Salvador other than what can be picked from a rankings table? Because the tale of El Salvador is both super tragic and very explicable.

Fuchs · Post by **Fuchs** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 7:24 pm

In Switzerland, any soldier can opt to keep his assault rifle (which he stores at home during his time in the army or the reserves) after he is discharged, it'll just be converted to semi-automatic. Also, (in theory) every male citizen has to serve, if able to. That adds up to a shitload of military weapons in private hands, most of them trained to use them too. You can also rather easily buy a handgun, permits require a good record and a visit to the police, but that's it.

Yet Switzerland isn't exactly known for gun violence. I work at court and I don't remember many crimes where an assault rifle was used. Only one, actually, and that was a crazy soldier. And that's after over 10 years at court. Most of the crimes I remember where firearms were actually used were committed by people who had illegal guns.

K · Post by K » Mon Dec 17, 2012 8:02 pm

People hold up Switzerland and Israel as places with high amounts of guns and low gun deaths, but the fact that both are smaller than just the city of New York (not state) means that citing either is just cherry-picking. They aren't relevant to the discussion.

Norway is even smaller (5 mil people).

Seriously guys, running a country of 315 million people is not like running a micro-country of less than ten million. It just fucking isn't.