[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Flags  
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

[Return][Go to bottom]

 No.11175

File: 1654039501586.png (8.34 KB, 315x277, 315:277, Screenshot from 2022-05-31….png) ImgOps Google

I've been going through some books on rampage violence in America.  It's a subject on people's minds on social media, and is generally one of the top 5 or so common debate topics in the USA.

Different ideas about the shape of the curve in the graph [image] account for much disagreement.  You first have to ask what sources may be admitting in filling out the graph, potentially including feelings as a source.

Another element of the debate is over natural rights.  I personally don't see a lot of room for rigor in theories of natural law and natural rights.  But in theory, all the particulars to a God-given right to private arms are self-evident and only tyrants have anything to add.

You are free to share your opinions.  I think I'm in a discovery phase on this issue.

 No.11176

>>11175
I think I made an error.  Change "Capital" in the graph to "Capita" or "Person".  While I think the meaning will still come through, usually I am wrong about these kinds of assumptions.  The intent is a measure of firearms per person on the independent axis.

 No.11177

>>11176

No, that's a good clarification.  I thought it was "Guns and/or Capital".

If the question is about how the presence of guns affects safety, I think it's pretty variable.  There's as many situations where more guns would've solved the situation as less.  Situations where we'd really rather the rampager didn't have guns and situations where a potential killer was stopped out the gate by an armed vigilante.

In the recent high profile Uvalde case, we'd probably be better off if the angsty teenager didn't have an assault rifle.  But there were plenty of other points in that situation where we had solutions aside from somehow preventing him from having a gun.  He couldn't even have entered the school if he hadn't crashed his car nearby right as a teacher happened to prop the door open.  The school's security guard wasn't actually in the building at the time and was unable to respond.  The police were (if I'm being charitable and not assuming bad intentions) too afraid to breach the classroom he barricaded himself in without more gear.  I have no idea where the town's SWAT team was, the group specifically trained and equipped to deal with this kind of thing.

It's a very complex issue with a lot of failure points.  To my knowledge we haven't even figured out the shooters motives.  Solving the rampage violence in America has a lot of potential answers and only limited examples of anything working in the past.  Examples that may not actually apply to America.

 No.11178

File: 1654079108973.jpeg (40.47 KB, 1080x1080, 1:1, FSjO084XoAEiZA6.jpeg) ImgOps Google

>>11175
Scott has a good blog post on this topic:
https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/01/06/guns-and-states/

 No.11179

The recent events to me create this weird kind paradox.
Like, on one side, having a Police force being useless while a massacre is going on, only strengthens the resolve to have armed guards, reinforced classrooms maybe even armed teachers and students on the premise.
At the same time, looking at it from the viewpoint of a European where I can basically walk into any school and be told to leave or be escorted outside if needed, but without all of these heavy protective  measures applied and knowing that so far there hasn't been any instance of any sort of big massacre to date, it is kind of extremely silly.

I find debates on gun control and the right to arm bears is a bit tricky to walk in from the outside and I don't want to claim that more gun control or less gun control has any positive impact on the issue.

>>11175
> all the particulars to a God-given right to private arms are self-evident
Maybe the issue I could take a stab at could be the Gun culture itself?
Like, so many people going around believing that they are cowboys and God Himself willed them to bear guns and anyone who stands in their way can fuck off.
Maybe if culturally owning a gun was like owning a spatula, people won't be having any ideas of actually going out and making their stand.

 No.11180

>>11175
I don't consider guns and safety to be linked much to begin with.
Not in terms of overall societies, anyway.

 No.11181

File: 1654085779208.png (54.58 KB, 587x504, 587:504, Screenshot from 2022-06-01….png) ImgOps Google

>>11177
>we'd probably be better off if the angsty teenager didn't have an assault rifle
Very true.  I haven't read about the recent cases in detail to know how the person got the gun.

>a lot of failure points
Sounds like it.

>no known motives
I see.

-

Perhaps I should have added these charts as well, but this is my thinking on the Republican point of view.  Roughly, bad people will find a way to get guns (and I guess we assume the proportion of people who are 'bad' is relatively constant).  Good people will obey the laws and cultural norms.  Making gun ownership legal, convenient, and socially rewarding for good people makes society safer.

 No.11182

Not hard to do. Guns per Capita is readily available so you just need an equally measurable way to measure *safety* and jurisdictions that are otherwise statistically comparable. If it doesn't say the right thing try changing x to guns per homeowner. Guns per mile may also work.

 No.11183

>>11178
I read your post.  It sounds like guns/person is a factor in gun murders, but not the most important or high gun areas like Wyoming would have much higher murder rates.

>As the old saying goes, guns don’t kill people; guns controlled for robbery rate, alcoholism, income, a dummy variable for Southernness, and a combined measure of social deprivation kill people.

Sounds complicated, but OK.  Testing the Republican model would require separating good guys and bad guys in the analysis.  I doubt that's very feasible with large data sets.

 No.11184

>>11179
>only strengthens the resolve to have armed guards, reinforced classrooms maybe even armed teachers and students on the premise.
Oh yes.  There's always a call to station more guards at schools and arm teachers.

>God Himself willed them to bear guns and anyone who stands in their way can fuck off.
Basically.  And as Cheerful Bat's post referenced, guns per household is not a great deal higher in the US than Canada, but at least some of the households with guns have a lot of guns.  There are certainly people who look at guns as simple utility pieces, like spatulas and they do not have arsenals.  Mass shooting is most newsworthy when the shooter is using an arsenal.  I gather arsenals are not as popular in Europe.

 No.11185

File: 1654129000206.jpg (211.57 KB, 1080x841, 1080:841, EYqRsRqVAAAxzGn.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>11183
Something else to keep in mind is that gun murders are no worse than any other type of murder.
Murder is murder, regardless. You can kill with more than just a gun.
Frankly, i find this a rather strangely ignored thing in the debate. At least by one side, anyway. Like, sure, of course places without guns have less gun homicides. Doesn't mean they have less homicides overall.

>>11184
You can look at a gun as any other object, and still have a fair few of them.
I've got, if memory serves, eight. 2 bolt actions, 2 shotguns, 2 pistols, and 2 what would be labeled by some as "assault weapons".
I certainly don't consider myself some "John Wick" character, nor do I consider these firearms to be a gift from god.
I think they're neat. I think they serve a vital purpose. I think they're a good investment. And I think they're fun.

 No.11186

>>11185
>rather strangely ignored thing in the debate. At least by one side, anyway.
Is it correct to say the other side of the gun debate from your context is the liberal side?  How would you describe their argument?

One of the axis on the graph is safety.  And you can operationalize that as a lower probability of becoming injured or killed due to gunshot wounds (or perhaps  substitution weapons such as knives).  But you could also imagine diffusing gun violence in a way that causes fewer newsworthy incidents of mass shooting, while actually having the same number dead.  The issue is a bit like terrorism (or maybe these attacks are terrorism), in that it's hard to know how much this is a numbers game and how much optics, I guess.

>some as "assault weapons".
The first sentence of wikipedia seems to be a fairly precise definition for assault rifle (granted you said weapon -- are some assault weapons not rifled?)  "An assault rifle is a selective fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine."  

I don't consider that I know much about guns (although I was in the military and technically am trained to maintain a 25mm machine gun).

Glad they are something you are good at.

 No.11187

>>11186
>The first sentence of wikipedia seems to be a fairly precise definition for assault rifle
Assault weapon and assault rifle are two different things.
As you say; An assault rifle is a select fire rifle chambered in an intermediate cartridge.
I've got no NFA pre- 86 firearms, nor do I have any dealer sample rifles, as I lack an FFL license.
So I lack any assault rifles.

>Is it correct to say the other side of the gun debate from your context is the liberal side?
In regards to that comment, yes. There's a focus on purely gun-related violence, as opposed to violence more generally.

As I said; You can kill with anything, and they're just as dead as they are with a gun. Lacking guns may well mean you're less likely of getting killed by guns, but that doesn't inherently mean you're less likely to get killed, at all.

> But you could also imagine diffusing gun violence in a way that causes fewer newsworthy incidents of mass shooting, while actually having the same number dead.
Perhaps. The question there basically comes down to, how committed are these people?
Would they simply not hurt anyone if they didn't have a firearm?
Or would they use another method, say a large motor vehicle, fire, or improvised explosives? Or potentially, as we see in foreign countries, would they attempt such things with a knife?

Ultimately, despite their media attention, however, these events are rare. Much as terrorism, I do not consider it to be a justification for heavy-handed government overreach, as we see with the TSA. Especially as, near as I can tell, all that truly occurs is targets change, in respects to their involvement. If that.

 No.11191

>>11177
> I have no idea where the town's SWAT team was, the group specifically trained and equipped to deal with this kind of thing.
Uvalde has a population of 16,000.  They don't have a SWAT team.  Border Patrol SWAT is the group that came in 40-60 minutes later.

 No.11192

>>11191
I can't say for specific times but at least as far as I understood, they were there well before the shooter was ultimately killed, told to stand by by local law enforcement despite being on scene and equipped.

 No.11193

>>11191

Border Patrol is who came in to solve the situation finally, but as best as I can tell Uvalde does have their own SWAT team.  Or at least claimed to a couple years ago.  I can't find any definitive proof.

 No.11194

>>11193
That does seem to be an issue of contention.

 No.11208

America is generally a more hateful and violent country with a worse people who believe in worse moral values values compared to other modern First World nations.

We have more child molestation and spousal abuse than others for the essential same reason as why we have more mass shootings as well as gang related deaths. Ethical rot. America is a "culture of hatred" and "culture of violence" in which people attacking, killing, and raping each other is tolerated socially more than other places if not actively celebrated in popular culture. That's that.

Having said what needs to be said, I generally agree that we need more strict laws to prevent serial rapists, illegal immigrant traffickers, drug dealers, and so on from getting firearms since it's beyond easy right now. But that will be difficult because U.S. law enforcement is a total joke all over. We already have laws against, say, adults having sex with children. They're not enforced. A law being enacted preventing somebody from using a gun on a child during said rape wouldn't really change things. However, I'd still want the legal changes made, for the sake of morality.

 No.11209

In short, America has more bad guys with guns and more dead good guys with or without guns because we have more bad guys and less good guys on general. Per capita in all cases.

 No.11212

>>11209
According to what? I don't think the statistics bear that out.
While we certainly have issues in some areas, I certainly wouldn't agree we have "per capita in all cases" less good guys and more bad guys.

 No.11216

>>11212
I mean, well, the fact that crime rates for all kinds of terrible criminal things are abnormally high in the U.S. compared to normal countries kinds of speaks for itself.

I'm not really an average American per se, but I can tell you in my own case that I rather hate the constant fear of being a victim that I must live with day by day, knowing that law enforcement in this corrupt place wouldn't actually help me if I was needing help.

 No.11219

>>11216
Are they? I'm not convinced that's true, having seen various crime statistics myself.
Perhaps there's data I've not seen. Or perhaps it's down to definitions of "normal" countries.

I don't disagree that our law enforcement is quite useless and corrupted, but that seems to me to be the case across the world. With many places far worse than us, due to their lack of a codified rights in their nations' foundings.

 No.11273

Personally, i think gun deaths, tragic as they are, are not the *point* of gun ownership or gun rights. The *point*, in my eyes, is that an armed populace is the backbone of a legitimate democracy. If the state has more military might than it's people, then democracy is a pathetic suggestion, a play the state puts on to make fun of it's subjects while letting internal state politics pick who does what.

As far as mass shootings go, problem to me seems that police don't respond to these things like they should, choosing time and time again to hide like craven cowards while innocent people get gunned down. Hell, i could see why would-be mass shooters would feel empowered based on basically every level of response from law enforcement. From feds who "knew about" the shooter before he shot, yet did nothing, to pathetic cowardly excuses for police officers waiting outside a school while the children inside get gunned down. Maybe if law enforcement and feds did their fucking job instead of bullying poor black people and harassing their political opponents, maybe it wouldn't be such an issue. I'm not necessarily against arming teachers as a broad concept. I think if i teacher feels safer with a firearm to protect their students and themselves, they should be allowed to do so, but maybe police officers should be an earlier line of defense than school teachers, yes?


[]
[Return] [Go to top]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]