Today's shooting in America thread

super_city_si said:
Very well positioned and I agree. However, the horse has bolted and wouldn't a two pronged attack be better? Make the legislation to address the social and mental issues whilst at the same time remove the completely unnecessary weapons from market.

I dont know enough about weapons so I might be talking shit, but do the 'assault' type rifles have a different caliber bullet than hunting rifles? could it be a ban on ammunition in conjunction with any magazine over 10 rounds for instance?
Click to expand...

As ever, my loyalty lies with any legislation that is actually passable. Because we can talk about banning this or that or the other on moral or philosophical ground but if it can't get through the Houses of Parliament (or Congress as it were), then we're essentially mentally masturbating.

Gun reform legislation is such a political grenade that it will be endlessly tied up in the Houses and committees for years before anything resembling change occurs and even then it will be a jack of all trades master of none type middle ground solution which won't particularly solve the problem. Don't get me wrong, the US should do it but it's not the basket to put the eggs.

Mental health legislation and funding for training for Child/Young People's Services in the US seems a damn sight more passable to me in the short term and will address the problem head on.

Remember - the goal here isn't to ban guns, the goal here is to stop school shootings and other domestic terrorism. Focusing on the right goal is important.
 
Damocles said:
I'm fairly sure that quite a lot of hunters, farmers, shooting enthusiasts and rebels against the Crown might argue with your ideal that guns have no societal good. The logic behind your statement is that violence can never be used as a force for good, and I think we've seen plenty of examples in history where that isn't really true.

The problem with America isn't the guns, it's that you're all nuts. If you'd stop being nuts then it doesn't matter if you have a flamethrower and a F45 hidden in your garage. You can give me access to the entire world's nuclear arsenal if you want and I still wouldn't use it because I'm not a total psycho.

This issue is a bit mental in itself. Tons of people are shooting each other and instead of thinking "wow, we have a serious problem with people willing to kill other people and we need to collectively examine our society for mental health access and early intervention", a bunch of you say "ReMOVe teH wEaPonS!".

It's like solving drunk driving by banning cars. Maybe concentrating on the reasons why a person would pick up a gun and start 360noscoping their classmates for a bit of a laugh, how they became radicalised to that point, and what signs were missed by various teachers, social workers and other community workers would be a more fruitful endeavour for you?
Click to expand...
Ban video games.
 
Damocles said:
As ever, my loyalty lies with any legislation that is actually passable. Because we can talk about banning this or that or the other on moral or philosophical ground but if it can't get through the Houses of Parliament (or Congress as it were), then we're essentially mentally masturbating.

Gun reform legislation is such a political grenade that it will be endlessly tied up in the Houses and committees for years before anything resembling change occurs and even then it will be a jack of all trades master of none type middle ground solution which won't particularly solve the problem. Don't get me wrong, the US should do it but it's not the basket to put the eggs.

Mental health legislation and funding for training for Child/Young People's Services in the US seems a damn sight more passable to me in the short term and will address the problem head on.

Remember - the goal here isn't to ban guns, the goal here is to stop school shootings and other domestic terrorism. Focusing on the right goal is important.
Click to expand...

Getting back to Trump on this, he is pushing the mental issue, someone needs to ask him why he removed an Obama ruling on Mental checks for gun buyers/owners. Also, why have the republicans held up legislation to provide backround checks and red flag laws.
 
Damocles said:
Don't know about you but last time I spent a few hours playing Football Manager 2019, I nipped out to the shop and accidentally committed genocide. Don't know what came over me.
Click to expand...
Last time i played that it was called championship manager and I was close to committing atrocities on Franz Carr. had to lock it away in my game safe.
 
super_city_si said:
I favour the move to ban rock music. Or is it rap? Nah, i like rap.
Click to expand...

Ban:

Video games
Violent movies
Horror movies
Heavy Metal
Rap
Dancehall music
Pornography
Books that contain un-PC language
Books that contain challenging concepts
In fact fuck it, just books generally
Comic books
Movies in which the protagonist is a white male superhero
Movies in which the protagonist is not a white male superhero
Instant coffee
Swearing
Softcore nudity on TV
Gambling
Drinking
Smoking
Twitter
Facebook
Instagram
LGBTQ+
Cisgendered hetronormative people
Anybody who understood what that just meant
4Chan
8Chan
16Chan
32Chan
64Chan
128Chan
256Chan
512Chan
TheIOnlyRememberPowersOfTwoThanksToRAMSizesChan
Bluemoon
Redmoon
Beigemoon
Me
You
Them
Muslims
Jews
Atheists
Christians who are Christian but not the same type of Christian as me
Christians who are Christian and are the same type of Christian as me but look vaguely different to me
Christians who are Christian and are the same type of Christian as me and look like me but go to the Church across the road instead of mine
Buddhists
The Chinese
Voldemort
Any product with the word "Xtreme" in it
Sharia Law
Noachidean Law
International Law
Nations
That twat who works for the Ordnance Survey and makes up places to ensure people don't nick their maps
Ships
Boats
People who don't know the difference between ships and boats
People who do know the difference between ships and boats and feel quite smug about it
Julian Clary
The concept of division
Sierra Leone
Toilet cubicles with insufficient privacy doors
Red grapefruit
The Sun, both the newspaper and the nuclear fusion based space explosion
Flamingos
Peacocks
Any other animal I deem to be an insufferable show off twat
Whales
Wales
Jimmy Wales
Wikipedia
Conservapedia
All of the other pedias
and
Wayne Rooney.

That way we'll finally be safe to live our lives, though there won't actually be much left to live for.
 
Damocles said:
I'm fairly sure that quite a lot of hunters, farmers, shooting enthusiasts and rebels against the Crown might argue with your ideal that guns have no societal good. The logic behind your statement is that violence can never be used as a force for good, and I think we've seen plenty of examples in history where that isn't really true.

The problem with America isn't the guns, it's that you're all nuts. If you'd stop being nuts then it doesn't matter if you have a flamethrower and a F45 hidden in your garage. You can give me access to the entire world's nuclear arsenal if you want and I still wouldn't use it because I'm not a total psycho.

This issue is a bit mental in itself. Tons of people are shooting each other and instead of thinking "wow, we have a serious problem with people willing to kill other people and we need to collectively examine our society for mental health access and early intervention", a bunch of you say "ReMOVe teH wEaPonS!".

It's like solving drunk driving by banning cars. Maybe concentrating on the reasons why a person would pick up a gun and start 360noscoping their classmates for a bit of a laugh, how they became radicalised to that point, and what signs were missed by various teachers, social workers and other community workers would be a more fruitful endeavour for you?
Click to expand...

You operate under the assumption that one's psychological state is consistent and that "non-psychos" will always act rationally whereas psychopaths "become radicalized" . . . so, what, that means they were rational and normal at some point, and at that point they could buy a gun?

You own flamethrower, let's say. Prove to me you aren't ever going to use it to harm me. Prove to me you'll never go crazy. You can't of course, no one can. But you can't buy one anyhow. Why? Because the risk to others of you owning one is so high if society is wrong about the consistency of your sanity.

We don't ban cars because cars are a benefit. Misused, they aren't. They mostly aren't misused.

And of course you could make the same argument about guns . . . but the difference is that when used or misused, whether for "good" or "ill", their point is to destroy. A car's point, when used properly, isn't.

Guns are a societal good if/when they threaten, destroy or injure their target, their target is either willing (doubtful), inanimate or evil . . . and the definition of "evil" is in the eye of the shooter. Which brings us back to the psychology. If we can just all agree on what the definition of evil is, we'll solve this problem, because we'll be in agreement on what is and isn't worth shooting.

That won't happen. It CAN'T happen. But if the guy who thinks a classroom full of 6-year-old kids are evil, or something else whack is evil and he's going to kill six-year old kids to eliminate that evil, but can't get his hands on something that allows him to do it in 30 seconds, I'm all for preventing him from getting it.
 
Damocles said:
As ever, my loyalty lies with any legislation that is actually passable. Because we can talk about banning this or that or the other on moral or philosophical ground but if it can't get through the Houses of Parliament (or Congress as it were), then we're essentially mentally masturbating.

Gun reform legislation is such a political grenade that it will be endlessly tied up in the Houses and committees for years before anything resembling change occurs and even then it will be a jack of all trades master of none type middle ground solution which won't particularly solve the problem. Don't get me wrong, the US should do it but it's not the basket to put the eggs.

Mental health legislation and funding for training for Child/Young People's Services in the US seems a damn sight more passable to me in the short term and will address the problem head on.

Remember - the goal here isn't to ban guns, the goal here is to stop school shootings and other domestic terrorism. Focusing on the right goal is important.
Click to expand...

You might be right, but the US had an assault weapons ban that sunsetted in 2004. Dianne Feinstein -- she who became mayor of my city when George Moscone was assassinated -- has been trying to get it reinstated for years. Passable gun legislation is a function of the elected representative base doing what the people want, and Americans favor stricter gun control by 2 to 1. My guess is at some point gun control becomes a litmus test the way abortion rights and gay marriage have been, but it will take far more and more horrifying massacres to move this issue to that level.

Edit -- meant to add -- I agree they aren't mutually exclusive and I see where you're coming from.
 
Damocles said:
Ban:

Video games
Violent movies
Horror movies
Heavy Metal
Rap
Dancehall music
Pornography
Books that contain un-PC language
Books that contain challenging concepts
In fact fuck it, just books generally
Comic books
Movies in which the protagonist is a white male superhero
Movies in which the protagonist is not a white male superhero
Instant coffee
Swearing
Softcore nudity on TV
Gambling
Drinking
Smoking
Twitter
Facebook
Instagram
LGBTQ+
Cisgendered hetronormative people
Anybody who understood what that just meant
4Chan
8Chan
16Chan
32Chan
64Chan
128Chan
256Chan
512Chan
TheIOnlyRememberPowersOfTwoThanksToRAMSizesChan
Bluemoon
Redmoon
Beigemoon
Me
You
Them
Muslims
Jews
Atheists
Christians who are Christian but not the same type of Christian as me
Christians who are Christian and are the same type of Christian as me but look vaguely different to me
Christians who are Christian and are the same type of Christian as me and look like me but go to the Church across the road instead of mine
Buddhists
The Chinese
Voldemort
Any product with the word "Xtreme" in it
Sharia Law
Noachidean Law
International Law
Nations
That twat who works for the Ordnance Survey and makes up places to ensure people don't nick their maps
Ships
Boats
People who don't know the difference between ships and boats
People who do know the difference between ships and boats and feel quite smug about it
Julian Clary
The concept of division
Sierra Leone
Toilet cubicles with insufficient privacy doors
Red grapefruit
The Sun, both the newspaper and the nuclear fusion based space explosion
Flamingos
Peacocks
Any other animal I deem to be an insufferable show off twat
Whales
Wales
Jimmy Wales
Wikipedia
Conservapedia
All of the other pedias
and
Wayne Rooney.

That way we'll finally be safe to live our lives, though there won't actually be much left to live for.
Click to expand...

That's a pretty comprehensive list. How the fuck did you miss off Sterling?
 
FogBlueInSanFran said:
You operate under the assumption that one's psychological state is consistent and that "non-psychos" will always act rationally whereas psychopaths "become radicalized" . . . so, what, that means they were rational and normal at some point, and at that point they could buy a gun?

You own flamethrower, let's say. Prove to me you aren't ever going to use it to harm me. Prove to me you'll never go crazy. You can't of course, no one can. But you can't buy one anyhow. Why? Because the risk to others of you owning one is so high if society is wrong about the consistency of your sanity.

We don't ban cars because cars are a benefit. Misused, they aren't. They mostly aren't misused.

And of course you could make the same argument about guns . . . but the difference is that when used or misused, whether for "good" or "ill", their point is to destroy. A car's point, when used properly, isn't.

Guns are a societal good if/when they threaten, destroy or injure their target, their target is either willing (doubtful), inanimate or evil . . . and the definition of "evil" is in the eye of the shooter. Which brings us back to the psychology. If we can just all agree on what the definition of evil is, we'll solve this problem, because we'll be in agreement on what is and isn't worth shooting.

That won't happen. It CAN'T happen. But if the guy who thinks a classroom full of 6-year-old kids are evil, or something else whack is evil and he's going to kill six-year old kids to eliminate that evil, but can't get his hands on something that allows him to do it in 30 seconds, I'm all for preventing him from getting it.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that if your solution involves us solving the philosophical problem of evil then it might take us a while to get that through Congress!

I operate under the assumption that terrorists become radicalised and it's possible to stop their radicalisation before they commit terror offences. I also operate under the idea that anybody who goes on a shooting spree is mentally ill because sane people don't tend to murder children with assault rifles. So it follows from that that the way to stop these solutions is early intervention from mental health services trained in deradicalisation and able to signpost the youngster to potential services to help with any other latent and undiagnosed mental health issues. The exact way we treat any other terrorists who aren't young white males.

One of the problems with your mindset on this is that it's authoritarian by its nature. It relies on the idea of an objective good and an objective bad in society and that it's the Government's job to shape society to only have access to the objectively good. That's pretty much the logical basis of every dictatorship in history. Just because something is "bad" in society (and I don't agree that guns are objectively bad) doesn't mean that we should legislate it away.

The point of bleach and vaccines is technically to destroy. Something being based entirely in destruction of living things is a trait rather than a moral judgement. We have to get past this idea that usage determines morality because that's where the logic falls apart. Usage doesn't determine morality of inanimate objects because usage is in itself a basis of thought and decision making by the human attached to it, which is where the urge or illness to commit murder comes from. The tool is just a tool, a means to an end. If it's not guns then it will be homemade pipe bombs or knives or a hammer of whatever else is lying around and can be used in a destructive pattern. You see, because something can be used or even if it is solely used in a destructive manner doesn't make the object destructive because objects cannot be humanised. Objects are from a philosophical point of view almost entirely pure conceptually. They don't have any traits. A stone has no property of stoneness in which it scores 100 whereas a tree scores 0. A stone is just a stone and any usage or values we attach to it such as "heavy" or "beauty" or "dangerous" are entirely of our own making.

The problem isn't the object, it is the people wielding it. Stop the people wielding it from using it in a dangerous way then the object ceases to become dangerous.
 
Damocles said:
I'm pretty sure that if your solution involves us solving the philosophical problem of evil then it might take us a while to get that through Congress!

I operate under the assumption that terrorists become radicalised and it's possible to stop their radicalisation before they commit terror offences. I also operate under the idea that anybody who goes on a shooting spree is mentally ill because sane people don't tend to murder children with assault rifles. So it follows from that that the way to stop these solutions is early intervention from mental health services trained in deradicalisation and able to signpost the youngster to potential services to help with any other latent and undiagnosed mental health issues. The exact way we treat any other terrorists who aren't young white males.

One of the problems with your mindset on this is that it's authoritarian by its nature. It relies on the idea of an objective good and an objective bad in society and that it's the Government's job to shape society to only have access to the objectively good. That's pretty much the logical basis of every dictatorship in history. Just because something is "bad" in society (and I don't agree that guns are objectively bad) doesn't mean that we should legislate it away.

The point of bleach and vaccines is technically to destroy. Something being based entirely in destruction of living things is a trait rather than a moral judgement. We have to get past this idea that usage determines morality because that's where the logic falls apart. Usage doesn't determine morality of inanimate objects because usage is in itself a basis of thought and decision making by the human attached to it, which is where the urge or illness to commit murder comes from. The tool is just a tool, a means to an end. If it's not guns then it will be homemade pipe bombs or knives or a hammer of whatever else is lying around and can be used in a destructive pattern. You see, because something can be used or even if it is solely used in a destructive manner doesn't make the object destructive because objects cannot be humanised. Objects are from a philosophical point of view almost entirely pure conceptually. They don't have any traits. A stone has no property of stoneness in which it scores 100 whereas a tree scores 0. A stone is just a stone and any usage or values we attach to it such as "heavy" or "beauty" or "dangerous" are entirely of our own making.

The problem isn't the object, it is the people wielding it. Stop the people wielding it from using it in a dangerous way then the object ceases to become dangerous.
Click to expand...

I appreciate the spirit, but it follows that in this universe, thermonuclear weaponry would be with any individual citizen's grasp, or a Howitzer. But they aren't. Why? Should they be?

What is the un-dangerous way to use an AK-47? And is that societal benefit worth the societal risk of its misuse?

What's the difference in the mental state between a person who shoots his kid on purpose and the guy who forgets to lock the gun case one day and his kid gets into it and accidentally shoots himself? What's the difference in the outcome for the kid?

I can tell you -- and scientifically and statistically measure -- the benefits of the societal use of bleach and a vaccine. Are they worth the negative outcomes of misuse?
 
Last edited:
FogBlueInSanFran said:
Your life insurance policy doesn't kill someone else when it's used, does it?

Guns need to be THE most highly-regulated, difficult to obtain, stringently-monitored, egregiously-taxed consumer good one can buy because they are designed, specifically and exclusively, to destroy when used. They serve no other purpose. They are not a societal good. They can only protect by destroying or threatening to destroy life and limb, efficiently and accurately, and unless you own a single-shot weapon, multiple times over.

Until responsible gunowners figure this out, non-gunowners are likely going to assume all gunowners are irresponsible gunowners. And I can't say I blame them.
Click to expand...
That’s a little hyperbolic. Let’s leave it there before you go full on anti-2A, shall we.
 
FogBlueInSanFran said:
I appreciate the spirit, but it follows that in this universe, thermonuclear weaponry would be with any individual citizen's grasp, or a Howitzer. But they aren't. Why? Should they be?

What is the un-dangerous way to use an AK-47? And is that societal benefit worth the societal risk of its misuse?

What's the difference in the mental state between a person who shoots his kid on purpose and the guy who forgets to lock the gun case one day and his kid gets into it and accidentally shoots himself? What's the difference in the outcome for the kid?

I can tell you -- and scientifically and statistically measure -- the benefits of the societal use of bleach and a vaccine. Are they worth the negative outcomes of misuse?
Click to expand...

Want your opinion on something I've read.

It was an argument about the Constitution which made a differential between privileges and rights. Essentially the angle was that guns couldn't be removed because due to the Cons they were an inalienable human right to iwn rather than a privilege to be legislated around.

Thoughts?
 
Damocles said:
Want your opinion on something I've read.

It was an argument about the Constitution which made a differential between privileges and rights. Essentially the angle was that guns couldn't be removed because due to the Cons they were an inalienable human right to iwn rather than a privilege to be legislated around.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

I'd say a right. But those rights aren't 100% unfettered, just as speech isn't in a variety of contexts. I guess I see the Constitution as a living document. Beyond the Articles we have Amendments so we can redefine and clarify and specify and reshape (and expand and contract) the definition of rights. And define terms. Like "free". And "arms." And "speedy and public trial." And "cruel and unusual punishment." All of which are terms I'd say are subject to wide-ranging interpretation.

I don't want to outlaw citizenry owning weapons. 2A does give one a right as constituted as I read it. I just want the definition of "arms" that can and cannot be in the average citizen's hands expanded. Significantly.

The Constitution also provides the rationale for the right to bear arms: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State . . ." One might say that opens up a whole new can of worms, defining that, and what limitations or lack thereof the inclusion of such a phrase places on the right to bear arms.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top