Reporter, Cameraman Shot While On-Air

[Hydroponic3385]

My point is being lost. Even mandated regulation isn't necessarily a solution. All I am saying is that if someone wants to get their hand on a gun, whether to cause harm or just for protection, there will still be ways to do it, assuming that person is dedicated, regardless of intensified efforts to limit gun ownership.

And all I'm saying to you and @MalTalm is lets not put words in other people's mouths.

I'm NOT for banning guns. I'm for having discussions and conducting research to see how we can best protect rights yet also safe lives. And I don't pretend to know answers. I just want more dialogue on the topic, and not dialogue that completely misses the mark on what people are saying. If you interpret conversation about gun regulation to mean that people are saying "All guns being made illegal would totally solve the problem!", then I don't know what to say.

 

[Otsego Mar]

If those who were victimized unarmed had guns (or those who were in close contact), would it be unwise to suggest that they would conceivably have a greater chance of survival or preventing a gunmen from doing further damage?

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Have you considered that this was not a position paper, nor a legal argument?

Yes. I knew it wasn't a legal argument.

I dislike the "musing" style where someone takes pains not to actually advocate or even clealry state a position, but it is quite apparent from the content that they are taking a side. You just can't pin the down on what they're saying.. I prefer a more direct approach on issues of significance.

I was really interested in the 20th Century history, specifically how we can trace the current understanding of the 2nd Amendment to what could be described as a liberal genesis surrounding black activists in the 1960s. Any comment on that.

Honest to God Nate, I don't know to what you're referring. She kind of jumped/rambled back and forth on a whole bunch of topics, interspersing paragraphs, etc.. And as far as i can recall, rarely took an actual position on anything. Some i'm not sure what you want me to comment on specifically. Can you direct me to a specific page?

The only specific thing that I recall is that the NRA did start focusing more on gun rights in the 70's. That was very much a member-driven change in response to imcreased gun control rhetoric and proposals, especially surrounding so-called "Saturday Night Specials".

I see you re-wrote your comment. What false conclusion did she lead people to believe?

Didn't I address this iny first post?

Anyway, I can't say what conclusions people actually came to believe. But she clearly ignored every single portion of the historical record demonstrating that ownership was understood by many to be an individual right, while selectively citing to thing's like Franklin's sister for the opposite proposition.

That would have a tendency to lead to false conclusions about the historical record and opinions of the Founding Fathers. She indicted the proverbial ham sandwich.

ETA:

In a nutshell, , I believe she was attempting create the false impression that nobody really considered the Second Amendment to apply to individuals until a bunch of right-wingers invented that interpretation in the 70's. Which is ridiculous.

But of course, she doesn't actually come out and say that, because that would destroy her pretense of objectivity that she's just "reporting the facts"

 

[Kyrieville]

One of the major differences between us and Japan for example is just how much they value family and honor. The percentage of single parents is probably single digits. The same could be said with the Chinese to an extreme because they are "Communists". The fact is we are new money, we don't have 1000 years of social system that teaches these values where each child almost always has a father and mother. Where we care about our neighbors because we have lived next to each other for generations.

We had this.

 

[Hurl Bruce]

I seriously believe, in general and compared to the rest of the world, that Americans are bigger assholes than most everywhere else and that's why we have such large murder problems.

Something ticks someone off and the thought quickly goes to, "I'm going to kill that mother fucker."

 

[Otsego Mar]

I seriously believe, in general and compared to the rest of the world, that Americans are bigger assholes than most everywhere else and that's why we have such large murder problems.

Something ticks someone off and the thought quickly goes to, "I'm going to kill that mother fucker."

Precisely...which is why I stay strapped and to myself G.

 

[MalTalm]

I don't follow the gun debate, so I am asking this from sincere ignorance. Can you point me in the direction of research that supports these claims? From my limited understanding, there hasn't been any meaningful regulation of guns in decades. And in fact, the trend has been just the opposite, where regulations have been systematically lessened by both state governments and courts. If you are talking about local regulations such as cities, I am very suspect of anyone claiming that they can control for and isolate a guns variable especially because they are so intertwined with socioeconomic and racial factors. Thanks in advance.

Certainly, now that I'm finally home. Shit day.

I posted this article upthread a page back, but it's very relevant to the discussion.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
This is a Harvard study specifically on the murder and violent crime correlation as it pertains to gun control. The focus of the study was the thesis that stricter gun control would reduce violence, and this was studied by observing the correlation between suicide, homicide, and violent crimes across all countries as they have adjusted their gun control laws. To quote from the conclusion:

This Article has reviewed a significant amount of evidence from a wide variety of international sources. Each individual portion of evidence is subject to cavil—at the very least the general objection that the persuasiveness of social scientific evidence cannot remotely approach the persuasiveness of conclusions in the physical sciences. Nevertheless, the bur‐ den of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, espe‐ cially since they argue public policy ought to be based on that mantra.149 To bear that burden would at the very least require showing that a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that have imposed stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared across the world.

Keep in mind these two researchers actually theorized and intended to prove the opposite, both were in favor of gun control before conducting said study. It's a lengthy read and I have honestly mostly skimmed it for data and citations, but it's still compelling. It's also worth noting that this is hardly the only study out there...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-a-central-thesis-of-the-gun-rights-movement/
Here is poor journalism with quality research at it's finest. Washington Post is traditionally a liberal paper, and I'm a little saddened by their bias in reporting this particular study. Read the article, and the linked study, and you'll find what is a very compelling argument against correlation misrepresented by the writer of the headline. 15 years ago, a study looked back at countries which had implemented gun control, and determined that more guns reduce crime (IE increased regulation led to an increase in crime) The researchers stuck to their principle, and reexamined new data 10 years later, and the new data suggested the opposite: More guns means more crime. So did guns change? Not exactly. As the researchers themselves point out, the data suggests there is no correlation between gun control and the violent crime rate. As such, the results of any such study will be biased towards other societal global trends, not the actual regulation of guns themselves.

https://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
This is a simple data dump without bias or conclusions, but some notable tidbits:

Not counting the above-listed anomalies, the homicide rate in England and Wales has averaged 52% higher since the outset of the 1968 gun control law and 15% higher since the outset of the 1997 handgun ban.

During the years in which the D.C. handgun ban and trigger lock law was in effect, the Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law, while the U.S. murder rate averaged 11% lower.

Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the Chicago murder rate has averaged 17% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 25% lower.

Gun control didn't impact violent crime or murder in any of the above scenarios, rather they were directly correlated by other factors. Which brings us to, what's the real issue here? How do we actually meaningfully reduce violence and mass killing in this country?

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DEC/Resources/What_Causes_Crime.pdf

A study which determines that (unsurprisingly) income disparity and national history are the largest contributors to violent crimes, homicides, and robberies. Children of criminals are more likely to be criminal. Low income households tend to more likely produce criminal activity. There's a plethora of reasons for this, some based on policing practices, illicit drug use, lack of formal education, unemployability, etc. etc. etc. The truth is, changing culture is HARD and isn't solved in a year.

It would take tremendous effort exerted over generations to have an effect, but in a country founded on a 4 to 6 year election cycle, politicians can't run on that. Instead they have to promise immediate actions under the guise of immediate change, but that doesn't really work for deep seated societal issues. The unfortunate thing is, we can fix this, we can help. The easiest first step would simply to try and remove the stigma over mental health so people are more apt to seek help when they see a need, and friends or family can reach out and embrace those in need. As is, we cast out people who have intimacy or social issues, which exacerbates the problem and leads some down a very dark path.

We should also be targeting at risk youth for mental or developmental problems early and make sure they are receiving treatment. We are so far away from that it's not funny.

Diversifying and reforming the police force is another important step that faces it's own unique challenges, but not something I'll get on a soapbox about here. Ideally though, the police force would work with a community and help foster communication.

Taking a more active approach to give low income families a sincere chance to find a way out of the pit is significant as well, but first hand I can say this is the most difficult part of the equation. Those who are most at risk of becoming societal risks tend to come from the worst backgrounds, and as children aren't going to be inherently motivated or even understand how to change their situation. Simply running ads during Spongebob to "Stay in school" isn't swaying anyone. We need to find a way to reach out and improve emotional and scholastic education for young children who have literally no support structure at home. I have no ideas how this could possibly be done in a cost-effective manner, but some system which could do so nationally and be maintained for a couple generations would go a long way.

EDIT

And all I'm saying to you and @MalTalm is lets not put words in other people's mouths.

I'm NOT for banning guns. I'm for having discussions and conducting research to see how we can best protect rights yet also safe lives. And I don't pretend to know answers. I just want more dialogue on the topic, and not dialogue that completely misses the mark on what people are saying. If you interpret conversation about gun regulation to mean that people are saying "All guns being made illegal would totally solve the problem!", then I don't know what to say.

I just saw this. I understand your point, and I thought I addressed it in the last post. My original stance that banning guns wouldn't change anything wasn't really about trying to move the goalposts or argue against a straw man, it was to simply point out that, even in the most substantial and extreme sense of reform, nothing changes.

As a result, even minor "logical" reforms such as background checks will also not move the needle one bit in terms of the real issues at hand. So my question is, why should I, as a voter, be interested in supporting a greater tax burden on the country if the result isn't meaningful? Especially when I, as a voter, believe that money could be spent in other, much more successful ways to combat the issue at hand?

So I'm not trying to belittle your argument and put words in your mouth, I am simply stating that any reform, big or small, will not influence the amount of violent crime in this country. Yes, you will likely not have to wake up and hear that a news anchor and her camera man were shot on live TV on CNN in the morning. But the same number of people will still be dying at the hands of others every day, and the guy who shot these two would likely have plotted a different way to harm others and himself which didn't involve a gun, because he was mentally unstable and pushed well past the point of reason.

Headlines don't influence crime, income inequality and mental health do. Let's combat those with the type of vigor we have over gun control, and actually see the standard of living in this country improve.

 

[NasstyNate]

Certainly, now that I'm finally home. Shit day.

I posted this article upthread a page back, but it's very relevant to the discussion.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
This is a Harvard study specifically on the murder and violent crime correlation as it pertains to gun control. The focus of the study was the thesis that stricter gun control would reduce violence, and this was studied by observing the correlation between suicide, homicide, and violent crimes across all countries as they have adjusted their gun control laws. To quote from the conclusion:



Keep in mind these two researchers actually theorized and intended to prove the opposite, both were in favor of gun control before conducting said study. It's a lengthy read and I have honestly mostly skimmed it for data and citations, but it's still compelling. It's also worth noting that this is hardly the only study out there...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-a-central-thesis-of-the-gun-rights-movement/
Here is poor journalism with quality research at it's finest. Washington Post is traditionally a liberal paper, and I'm a little saddened by their bias in reporting this particular study. Read the article, and the linked study, and you'll find what is a very compelling argument against correlation misrepresented by the writer of the headline. 15 years ago, a study looked back at countries which had implemented gun control, and determined that more guns reduce crime (IE increased regulation led to an increase in crime) The researchers stuck to their principle, and reexamined new data 10 years later, and the new data suggested the opposite: More guns means more crime. So did guns change? Not exactly. As the researchers themselves point out, the data suggests there is no correlation between gun control and the violent crime rate. As such, the results of any such study will be biased towards other societal global trends, not the actual regulation of guns themselves.

https://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
This is a simple data dump without bias or conclusions, but some notable tidbits:







Gun control didn't impact violent crime or murder in any of the above scenarios, rather they were directly correlated by other factors. Which brings us to, what's the real issue here? How do we actually meaningfully reduce violence and mass killing in this country?

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DEC/Resources/What_Causes_Crime.pdf

A study which determines that (unsurprisingly) income disparity and national history are the largest contributors to violent crimes, homicides, and robberies. Children of criminals are more likely to be criminal. Low income households tend to more likely produce criminal activity. There's a plethora of reasons for this, some based on policing practices, illicit drug use, lack of formal education, unemployability, etc. etc. etc. The truth is, changing culture is HARD and isn't solved in a year.

It would take tremendous effort exerted over generations to have an effect, but in a country founded on a 4 to 6 year election cycle, politicians can't run on that. Instead they have to promise immediate actions under the guise of immediate change, but that doesn't really work for deep seated societal issues. The unfortunate thing is, we can fix this, we can help. The easiest first step would simply to try and remove the stigma over mental health so people are more apt to seek help when they see a need, and friends or family can reach out and embrace those in need. As is, we cast out people who have intimacy or social issues, which exacerbates the problem and leads some down a very dark path.

We should also be targeting at risk youth for mental or developmental problems early and make sure they are receiving treatment. We are so far away from that it's not funny.

Diversifying and reforming the police force is another important step that faces it's own unique challenges, but not something I'll get on a soapbox about here. Ideally though, the police force would work with a community and help foster communication.

Taking a more active approach to give low income families a sincere chance to find a way out of the pit is significant as well, but first hand I can say this is the most difficult part of the equation. Those who are most at risk of becoming societal risks tend to come from the worst backgrounds, and as children aren't going to be inherently motivated or even understand how to change their situation. Simply running ads during Spongebob to "Stay in school" isn't swaying anyone. We need to find a way to reach out and improve emotional and scholastic education for young children who have literally no support structure at home. I have no ideas how this could possibly be done in a cost-effective manner, but some system which could do so nationally and be maintained for a couple generations would go a long way.

EDIT


I just saw this. I understand your point, and I thought I addressed it in the last post. My original stance that banning guns wouldn't change anything wasn't really about trying to move the goalposts or argue against a straw man, it was to simply point out that, even in the most substantial and extreme sense of reform, nothing changes.

As a result, even minor "logical" reforms such as background checks will also not move the needle one bit in terms of the real issues at hand. So my question is, why should I, as a voter, be interested in supporting a greater tax burden on the country if the result isn't meaningful? Especially when I, as a voter, believe that money could be spent in other, much more successful ways to combat the issue at hand?

So I'm not trying to belittle your argument and put words in your mouth, I am simply stating that any reform, big or small, will not influence the amount of violent crime in this country. Yes, you will likely not have to wake up and hear that a news anchor and her camera man were shot on live TV on CNN in the morning. But the same number of people will still be dying at the hands of others every day, and the guy who shot these two would likely have plotted a different way to harm others and himself which didn't involve a gun, because he was mentally unstable and pushed well past the point of reason.

Headlines don't influence crime, income inequality and mental health do. Let's combat those with the type of vigor we have over gun control, and actually see the standard of living in this country improve.

Thanks man!

I read through the first twenty pages of the first study you linked and then got an invite for happy hour. I think you'll understand if I reply in the morning?

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

The fact is we are new money, we don't have 1000 years of social system that teaches these values where each child almost always has a father and mother.

And now if you're a bigot if you believe that having both a mother and a father in the house is the preferred environment for a kid.....

Yeah, things have changed.

 

[gourimoko]

And now if you're a bigot if you believe that having both a mother and a father in the house is the preferred environment for a kid.....

Yeah, things have changed.

Yeah, news flash dude: you are a bigot if you believe that gay couples are less preferred environments for children without any evidence whatsoever for believing this.

You are a bigot if you think straight married couples should be in the front of the adoption line ahead of gay married couples for no fucking reason other than your own personal prejudices.

That's the very meaning of bigotry and discrimination.

Your outdated stereotyping and prejudice have no place in this thread.

 

[RonG]

Your right I guess I should have said two person stable home. A single parent can only do so much.

 

[No Regard]

Well, the problem is that you're kind of preaching to the choir. There are plenty of people out there who agree with you, myself included. The problem is that we're not the ones engaging in the kinds of behavior that needs to change. So, the tough question -- and one to which I think nobody has yet found the answer -- is how do we get the people who need to care to look in the mirror?

Changing someone else's culture is an incredibly difficult thing to do.

Psychedelics.

 

[Otsego Mar]

Psychedelics.

We can't have that now.........coffee and nicotine to keep you goin' 9-5 and alcohol to keep you happy/stupid enough not to realize how fucked you are during the weekend. Thanks, Bill.

 

[spydy13]

KI am not singling you out just using you as my starting point.

Its funny to me that people are so dismissive of this stating we are more developed. One would argue other than the upper-middle class and upper class (which is some obscure percentage of our population) that there isn't a whole lot of difference between our lower classes and those countries listed. This goes not only monetarily comparison but other social aspects as well.

One of the major differences between us and Japan for example is just how much they value family and honor. The percentage of single parents is probably single digits. The same could be said with the Chinese to an extreme because they are "Communists". The fact is we are new money, we don't have 1000 years of social system that teaches these values where each child almost always has a father and mother. Where we care about our neighbors because we have lived next to each other for generations.

We are the melting pot of the best of countries and the worst of countries. The people who came here were the winners and losers, no real in between. If you want to solve violence in the States it starts at home. It starts with parents being parents and being responsible for their lives and their children's. You can't legislate morals but that is what we need. We need families, we need love and friendship and accountability. We need to bring back some of those old fashion values that those other countries have that people want to compare us to.

I don't care what god you worship, but I do care how you treat your family and your neighbors. How many young men grow up with out fathers only to repeat and bail on a young pregnant mother. How many lives do we lose to violence because they don't see another way because no one was there to teach them?

So when I say people kill people not guns this is what I mean. People take lives because they don't value life. So rarely do we see someone put community before self, the needs of another before the wants of your own.

We can blame mental illness, we can blame guns, we can blame an out dated constitution we can blame politics. Nothing will change until people can look in the mirror and blame that person and take personal accountability to make a difference everyday. This isn't something you can legislate and police, if it were it would be easy to fix. What makes this problem of violence so hard to solve is the unwillingness to take the harder path.

I know I am not wrong on this, I just don't know how to make people care. It may be to late, that is the sick part of this. It might take a complete crumble of the system and millions of deaths to get real changes. It might take a pandemic, people are just that hard headed and selfish at this point.

I just ask that you stop making dumb snide remarks, have a discussion with out those. Honor the people this thread was started over by doing that one small thing. If you don't have anything to add that isn't snarky then don't post it. I bet that we can't even do that at this point, we are that far gone.

I think it's really misguided to blame our violent behavior as a society on being a new country.

European countries have thousands of years of history and mostly what they did during that time was try to kill each other. Japan, a country you referenced, was happy to suppress and dominate other Asian countries throughout their history.

I'll grant you though that not having a homogenous culture like many other countries makes our lives harder. For instance, people love to point out how we've fallen down the education rankings, which are topped mainly by scandanavian countries who don't have to deal with teaching kids who come from a variety of different backgrounds.

You're also right that having more stable households would help a great deal of people, but that doesn't solve lack of access to affordable education, jobs, etc. that make people fall into the cycle of crime that leads to gun violence. This is just to say that solving the home isn't the answer, neither is gun control. It's going to take a whole host of things changing.

But you're right that snide comments and seeing the worst in people are not helping the conversation on these issues.

 

[The Oi]

I agree 100% with @RonG

All of our problems are traceable to shitty parenting and mental illness. Violence is a symptom of the disease.

We need parent control.