Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Gun Control

651 replies to this topic
Saggy
  • Saggy

    Captain tl;dr

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 21 Jun 2003
  • None
  • Ban Roulette Winner 2016

#451

Posted 07 November 2017 - 12:10 PM

 

I think the main reason why Americans are so addicted to their guns is the constant fear mongering in the country. The fear of getting robbed or hurt. The fear of becoming a violent crime victim. Cause then you can only protect yourself with a gun. Doesn't matter how safe your surroundings and your neigbourhood are. This combined with the "it's my right to own guns" mentality. But also the fear of not being able to pay for hospital/med bills. The fear of foreign people. The fear of terror. The fear of other races. Combined with a lot of ignorance, an often really weird world view and a media that spreads fear 24/7. Not only an American problem of course but it's on a whole different level in the United States.
 
Rockstar is actually doing a good job of portraying America in GTA. While exaggerated of course, the portrayal of NPCs on the streets and the TV shows and especially the commercials are not far from reality. I was amazed when I visited New York for the first time a few years ago and watched TV in my hotel room. The commercials are full of fear mongering Insurance companies, debt settlement companies and pharma marketers. This, combined with a lot of often very stupid and dangerous patriotism. A fear cocktail par excellence. And with guns it's no different. The ratio between fear and patriotism is a bit different here tho.

I think your overstating fear being the main reason why the United States has the gun culture that it does. If most people really bought guns out of pure fear, they'd go for the cheapest and practical choices which is the case for some. For others it is also a hobby of collecting.

There's all sorts of gimmicky or antiquated guns that are realistically outclassed with just about everything else available. But at the end of the day, people will still buy them. Not because of fear or out of percieved necessity, but because they can.

Of course there are those overly patriotic types who view guns as the only way to protect themselves from the government or have doomsday fantasies but they do not represent the mentality of all gun owners.

 

 

Yeah I see a lot of gun owners try to distance themselves from this type of ideology, but in the end they're still kind of benefiting from it any time they go to WalMart and pickup a long-gun with zero registration and simply a call to the ATF. I mean, any time you start talking about gun control, it doesn't really need to be an "overly patriotic" type to bring up their "right" to bear arms.  There's too many gun owners that acknowledge the dangers of unrestricted access to firearms, but then when it comes down to limiting THEIR person level of access, it all becomes about their "right to bear arms" again.  They want to have their cake and eat it too.

 

I mean I think one great example is any time someone likens it to getting a driver's license and operating a motor vehicle, gun owners immediately jump to the idea of "Well I have a right to defend myself," or, "I have a right to own this," and start trumpeting the 2nd Amendment.  However, just moments before that, they will probably have admitted to taking a gun safety course of their own fruition because they recognize the dangers of just willy-nilly going and buying a firearm with zero training or research.  So it's like while they will simultaneously acknowledge that guns are dangerous and that it's prudent to have training and be qualified to handle them, they will then also advocate for the ability for any dumbass to go to Walmart and buy one the same day he gets his Budweiser.  'Cause that's his right as an American!

 

I mean I don't intend to cast all 2A supporters in that light, but I think there are some gun owners who just stand behind the 2A as way to defend a position they know is stupid and foolish.  They KNOW people shouldn't just go buy a firearm, get drunk, go out to the woods and shoot it for the first time without even setting up a proper backstop or whatever else kind of dumbassery leads to 20,000 odd self-inflicted gunshot wounds a year ( hard to tell how many of those are intentional though ).  Meanwhile, they'll sit there and defend until they're out of breath the exact lack of sensible restrictions that allows that type of dumbassery to continue, but usually just shouting catchy buzzwords and quips they read in a NRA newsletter.  'Guns don't kill people, people kill people!'  Kind of funny though how whenever someone dies in a drunk driving accident they don't say, "Cars and alcohol don't kill people, people kill people," but instead enact sensible legislation that limits how often people kill people with cars and alcohol.


jpm1
  • jpm1

    Vice city citizen

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Sep 2005
  • European-Union

#452

Posted 07 November 2017 - 04:47 PM

the 2 arguments that come often, not to say every time are, we need guns in case our government has gone mad, and becomes tyrannic, and mass shootings happen rarely. first argument nearly convinced me once. because i checked, and i noticed that during their history the CIA has made really, really bad things there. these dumbs even made experiments on the American population without their consentment. but we are in 2017, and these things just can't happen anymore. concerning the second argument. well one has to be blind not to see that these things happen regularly like a fatality in the US.

once i saw an article of a guy that was in a supermarket in the US. the guy was wearing a handgun at the hip. just like the police does. the gun was visible by all. a child behind the guy asked his mom, what was that thing about. and the mom answered, well if a bad guy comes around, the gun holder will be able to stop him and save innocent lives. i was really blown away by such mentality. i mean i find this very, very insane. this is cops job. only them should be allowed to use firearms in public places. plus seriously do they really think, it will reduce criminality. i mean that mentality is nearly sy-fy for me. if you want less weapons in public areas, you just need not to buy them. in France where firearms are stricly regulated, we almost never hear of shootings. when it happens it's only about narco conflicts for the most, and it happens once every 6 months. most often more. and it's not mass shooting, it's about one dead max. there's only one difference between France/Europe and the USA, the gun control policy


Caysle
  • Caysle

    The Stroke

  • Members
  • Joined: 16 May 2011
  • None

#453

Posted 07 November 2017 - 05:24 PM

in France where firearms are stricly regulated, we almost never hear of shootings. 

 

Seriously?

  • _47_ and Fight for freedom like this

jpm1
  • jpm1

    Vice city citizen

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Sep 2005
  • European-Union

#454

Posted 07 November 2017 - 06:49 PM Edited by jpm1, 07 November 2017 - 06:52 PM.

yeah. it's extremelly rare here. only people that can wear war weapons are the police, the gendarmerie (rural police), and the military. if you carry a hunting weapon in your vehicle it has to be or locked or dismantled. when you hear about gun shooting somewhere, it's narco traffic related most of the time. but it's very rare. i think this is the same thing for most of European countries like Germany, England, Switzerland..

  • Tchuck and Caysle like this

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Ännu en dag, ännu ett slag, i betongens krävande skugga

  • Sheriff
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Best Poster in Debates 2017
    Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#455

Posted 07 November 2017 - 07:45 PM

in France where firearms are stricly regulated, we almost never hear of shootings. 

 
Seriously?
Firearm death rate per 100,000 citizens in France- 2.83
Firearm death rate per 100,000 citizens in the US- 10.54.

That said, by European standards the firearm death rate in France is quite high. In the UK it's 0.23, in Germany 1.01. Even in Finland, where there's more guns per capita that pretty much anywhere in the world bar the US, it's 3.25.
  • Tchuck and Caysle like this

_47_
  • _47_

    Foot Soldier

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Jun 2015
  • United-States

#456

Posted 07 November 2017 - 08:23 PM Edited by _47_, 07 November 2017 - 08:23 PM.

I'm all for Gun Control in the U.S. as long as it does not interfere with or diminish the Second Amendment to the Constitution.


jpm1
  • jpm1

    Vice city citizen

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Sep 2005
  • European-Union

#457

Posted 07 November 2017 - 09:05 PM

 

 

in France where firearms are stricly regulated, we almost never hear of shootings. 

 
Seriously?
Firearm death rate per 100,000 citizens in France- 2.83
Firearm death rate per 100,000 citizens in the US- 10.54.

That said, by European standards the firearm death rate in France is quite high. In the UK it's 0.23, in Germany 1.01. Even in Finland, where there's more guns per capita that pretty much anywhere in the world bar the US, it's 3.25.

 

 

i think your numbers include suicides. i don't spend my time watching news channels. but i do it regularly, and it's very rare when they talk about homicides. according to french wiki. for the year 1999. the deaths by firearms in France were ~2600. categorized as follows: 78% suicide, 6% homicides, 4% accidents, and 12% could not be categorized. and if you ask me about last mass murder i heard about in France. if you put beside psycho pseudo-religious acts honestly i can't even remember i ever witnessed one event during my whole life. or yeah, i remember one. it was a psychotic teenager. he bought his ak-47 piece by piece on the net and mounted the whole thing from scratch. it was a psychotic guy, that was a war stuff fanatic

I'm all for Gun Control in the U.S. as long as it does not interfere with or diminish the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

i have a simple question. what is exactly that 2nd amendment about, i mean in 2017. during the war against the British, and the country birth, that amendment was fully justified. but seriously which civilian in 2017 needs a M-16 or an Ak in his lockout


_47_
  • _47_

    Foot Soldier

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Jun 2015
  • United-States

#458

Posted 07 November 2017 - 09:40 PM Edited by _47_, 07 November 2017 - 09:43 PM.

i have a simple question. what is exactly that 2nd amendment about, i mean in 2017. during the war against the British, and the country birth, that amendment was fully justified. but seriously which civilian in 2017 needs a M-16 or an Ak in his lockout

 

 

The answer is simple.

 

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads

 

 

 "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bearArms, shall not be infringed.

 

The people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in thetime of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military     should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

 

In summary - Right to bear arms in defense of life- limb / property/ a tyrannical government

 

That is just the basic description. Laws have since been made to ban full-auto rifles and military grade explosives and crew serve machine guns.

 

Just because someone has a AK-47/ AR-15 (M-4) 9 times out of 10 that rifle will be limited in how it fires rounds. 

 

Any person that has weapons greater than what I listed above have paid a lot of money to get a Class 3 license to operate or maintain those restricted weapons and VERY few people have that license to carry lethal weapons besides the military and state/government agencies.


jpm1
  • jpm1

    Vice city citizen

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Sep 2005
  • European-Union

#459

Posted 07 November 2017 - 10:37 PM

do you seriously think your country is under such treat. tyrannical governement in the us -> no way, foreign army invasion of the us -> no way. do you think people do not think of invading your country because it has well structured milicias, or because it has intercontinental nuclear missiles, B2s and B1s ;). i mean is it milicians that operate these toys. milicias are a suvivalists thing maybe, but they do not fit in actual modern world. even in actual dark financial crisis period, even it someday the SHTF (like they say) western countries structures won't fall totally. there will still be a minimal military and political structure remaining. but that era is not to happen anytime soon imo. and meanwhile you have psychos doing shootings like Las vegas one


_47_
  • _47_

    Foot Soldier

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Jun 2015
  • United-States

#460

Posted 07 November 2017 - 11:05 PM

do you seriously think your country is under such treat. tyrannical governement in the us -> no way, foreign army invasion of the us -> no way. do you think people do not think of invading your country because it has well structured milicias, or because it has intercontinental nuclear missiles, B2s and B1s ;). i mean is it milicians that operate these toys. milicias are a suvivalists thing maybe, but they do not fit in actual modern world. even in actual dark financial crisis period, even it someday the SHTF (like they say) western countries structures won't fall totally. there will still be a minimal military and political structure remaining. but that era is not to happen anytime soon imo. and meanwhile you have psychos doing shootings like Las vegas one

Either way the Rill of Rights/Constitution are the founding principles that made the USA what it is today. I am a responsible gun owner myself, I'm not going to all of a sudden change my mind about it because a few nut jobs slip through the cracks or people aren't smart about using a firearm.

 

They need to make background checks more intrusive so the police know who the person behind the firearm is.

  • jpm1 likes this

Tchuck
  • Tchuck

    Grey Gaming

  • Feroci
  • Joined: 20 Dec 2002
  • Japan

#461

Posted 08 November 2017 - 12:14 AM

Is it ok to cherrypick what you want out of the constitution? Because clearly America is infringing on this:

 

 

and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up 

 

America has what, the second/third standing army in the world, plus the one of the largest spending in military...

 

 

They need to make background checks more intrusive so the police know who the person behind the firearm is.

 

This is largely what gun control is about. No-one is going around asking for guns to be banned, because we know that that is a stupid thing to do that will fix nothing. All we are wanting is stricter regulations on purchases, private or otherwise. The fact that you can just go into a gunshow and buy pretty much whatever you want with zero control is mindboggling. 

  • _47_ likes this

El Dildo
  • El Dildo

    "The Dildo" ™

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#462

Posted 08 November 2017 - 11:19 PM Edited by El Diablo, 08 November 2017 - 11:19 PM.

I'm all for Gun Control in the U.S. as long as it does not interfere with or diminish the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

this doesn't make any sense.

we already have regulations on the books which diminish and interfere with the 2nd Amendment... the same way we have regulations which place restrictions on every single other Amendment in the Constitution. when you have a problem you address the laws. the 2nd Amendment is not any more special than those that came after it.


Saggy
  • Saggy

    Captain tl;dr

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 21 Jun 2003
  • None
  • Ban Roulette Winner 2016

#463

Posted 09 November 2017 - 07:44 AM

 

I'm all for Gun Control in the U.S. as long as it does not interfere with or diminish the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

this doesn't make any sense.

we already have regulations on the books which diminish and interfere with the 2nd Amendment... the same way we have regulations which place restrictions on every single other Amendment in the Constitution. when you have a problem you address the laws. the 2nd Amendment is not any more special than those that came after it.

 

 

Pretty sure what he's saying is that he doesn't oppose restrictions so long as the intention of the 2nd Amendment is not impeded, and in this context the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is for the american populace to form a deterrent against tyrannical government actions and operate as another check-and-balance against government.

 

So, for example...  Taking his criteria extremely literally, you could impose a law tomorrow that said all Americans can have 1 unregistered firearm without special training or dispensation, but every subsequent firearm after that must be registered and the permission to own it dispensed after qualification to own more than 1 firearm was proven.

 

You'd maintain an armed populace that the evil tyrannical boogeymen don't want to f*ck with, but also more sensible restrictions to stem the proliferation of firearms through the U.S.

 

Of course there's glaring flaws with that model, but it wouldn't impede on the intent of the 2nd Amendment and would impose extremely strict restrictions.   So it can be done, it's just not exactly prudent, and there would have to be a more sophisticated model for it to really work.

 

But good luck discussing that elusive model when the conversation always devolves into, "From my cold dead hands," and rhetoric like that.  The very moment you start discussing things like how many firearms, or what type of firearms we can have, that's when people start talking about "slippery slopes" and disarmament.


Vanzant
  • Vanzant

    おっぱい 23V

  • Sheriff
  • Joined: 11 Feb 2005
  • United-States
  • GAME MASTER - 1984
    GAME MASTER - 1987
    GAME MASTER - 1990 CHAMPIONSHIP
    GAME MASTER - 1998
    GAME MASTER - 2008
    GAME MASTER - 2012
    GAME MASTER - 2017 WORLD CHAMPIONS

#464

Posted 12 November 2017 - 06:01 AM

Just a reminder the D&D section requires replies related to the discussion without posting cartoons and memes.

 

Thanks for understanding! :)

  • p∞ntang likes this

Darth Yokel
  • Darth Yokel

    A Sith now, aparently.

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 30 Mar 2007
  • Jamaica

#465

Posted 15 February 2018 - 08:32 AM

No one bothered to even touch the latest one, huh?

  • Tchuck, Flachbau and UshaB like this

Tchuck
  • Tchuck

    Grey Gaming

  • Feroci
  • Joined: 20 Dec 2002
  • Japan

#466

Posted 15 February 2018 - 12:34 PM

No point, really. It's a common occurrence in America. This is the 18th school shooting in 2018. Double the amount of the entirety of last year. We all know that both parties won't compromise or budge on their issues. We all know that better gun control would likely reduce the occurrences. But it won't be done. sh*t, if dozens of kindergartners being shot in cold blood won't get people to do action, this sure as hell won't.

  • Flachbau likes this

Argonaut
  • Argonaut

    what did he mean by this

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 10 Nov 2013
  • United-Kingdom
  • Mark of Eloquence [The Pit™]

#467

Posted 15 February 2018 - 02:22 PM Edited by Argonaut, 15 February 2018 - 02:22 PM.

No comment needed:
 

John Crescitelli, a family doctor and 15 year-old Sarah Crescitelli’s father, was shaking as he was reunited with his daughter. He feared she had been killed.
 
“These school shootings have to stop. This is crazy. My son’s football coach died. It’s horrible,” he said. “It’s like Columbine across the street from my house.”
 
Asked by the Guardian if the tragedy should lead to stricter gun control for people with mental health issues, he replied: “I don’t want to get into a gun debate. I really don’t. What are you going to do? Confiscate everybody’s guns? We have millions and millions of weapons … I’m a gun owner. I don’t want the government taking my gun.”


Darth Yokel
  • Darth Yokel

    A Sith now, aparently.

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 30 Mar 2007
  • Jamaica

#468

Posted 15 February 2018 - 02:41 PM

How the f*ck did Republicans manage to convince so many people that gun control = taking away guns from everyone? One answer, and it's a pretty obvious one, is that all of those people are simply stupid. Find me another logical explanation or this is what I'm going with.


FukNRekd
  • FukNRekd

    Rekd Um

  • Victim of The Pit™
  • Joined: 16 Nov 2017
  • Ireland

#469

Posted 15 February 2018 - 06:51 PM

Saying guns are responsible for killing people is as stupid as saying a spoon made Rose O'Donnell fat. Those of you making that claim are idiots, morons and downright ignorant.

The fat slob did it to herself and would do it with a fork or her grubby, fat fingers if she didn't have a spoon.

Same goes for psycho killers. They don't need a gun but it makes it easy. This last guy had signs all over and we let them go. We could have prevented this.

Want to reduce the shootings?

Look where all the shootings happen and what laws are in place in those areas regarding firearm.

You'll quickly realize that the cowards that do this would NOT do it if there were people there who were equally armed and ready to defend themselves.

Quit providing these folks with fish in a barrel and the problem literally goes away overnight.

For those of you outside the US trying to tell me how to live... GFY. I will not be a victim.

My rights come from God, not man. A man will not tell me when, where nor how I can protect my family. I don't expect many Euro's to understand this, as your rights have been suppressed for centuries.

Raavi
  • Raavi

    To the letter of the law, fella

  • Marshal
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2012
  • European-Union
  • Best Moderator 2016
    Best Moderator 2015
    Best Moderator 2014
    Winner of World Cup 2014 Prediction League
    Best Forum Ledby 2013
    Most Improved 2013

#470

Posted 15 February 2018 - 07:05 PM

No point, really. It's a common occurrence in America. This is the 18th school shooting in 2018. Double the amount of the entirety of last year.

 

This is a bit of a misleading statistic. Yes there have been 18 incidents involving the discharging of a firearm on school property this year, but if we break those down by simply using the data available on the source of origin: 8 out of 18 were the 'mere' discharging of a firearm on school property without injury, 2 were (attempted) suicides without injury to third parties, 1 was a case of unintentional (negligent) discharge of a firearm resulting in injury. Of the remaining 7 incidents, all involving injury and/or death to  third parties, only 2 could be qualified as mass-casualty events, with a further 2 may be classified as attempts. 

 

This may seem like nitpicking but it's important we qualify mass shootings as they are: statistical anomalies. The vast majority (2/3) of incidents involving firearms are suicides or attempted suicides. Now you may rightfully make the argument that any incident involving a firearm is one too many, but it is vital we use correct and objective statistics.

  • Tchuck, Eutyphro and ARTHUR. like this

Blaze
  • Blaze

    conspiracy clunge is useless clunge

  • Super Sleuth Deadass
  • Joined: 04 Feb 2010
  • United-Kingdom
  • Super Sleuth Deadass 2018
    Crew Poster Winner 2017
    Super Special Gold Star 2006
    Draw Contest Booby Prize 2016
    Campaign Poster Booby Prize 2016
    Doggo-Chop Winner 2016
    14K Doggo/Catto-Chop Winner 2017

#471

Posted 15 February 2018 - 07:19 PM

Saying guns are responsible for killing people is as stupid as saying a spoon made Rose O'Donnell fat. Those of you making that claim are idiots, morons and downright ignorant.

The fat slob did it to herself and would do it with a fork or her grubby, fat fingers if she didn't have a spoon.

Same goes for psycho killers. They don't need a gun but it makes it easy. This last guy had signs all over and we let them go. We could have prevented this.

Want to reduce the shootings?

Look where all the shootings happen and what laws are in place in those areas regarding firearm.

You'll quickly realize that the cowards that do this would NOT do it if there were people there who were equally armed and ready to defend themselves.

Quit providing these folks with fish in a barrel and the problem literally goes away overnight.

For those of you outside the US trying to tell me how to live... GFY. I will not be a victim.

My rights come from God, not man. A man will not tell me when, where nor how I can protect my family. I don't expect many Euro's to understand this, as your rights have been suppressed for centuries.

 

 

I'm going to bite the bullet and respond to this but as a euro whos rights have been surpressed for centuries I hope you can make sense of it. The argument at hand is this sh*t wouldn't happen if people were equally armed and ready to defend themselves, what about Chris Kyle? SEAL veteran, four tours, numerous accolades and arguably one of the best marksmen of all time. Guys riding in a truck with a guy he openly described as "straight up nuts" that later goes on to kill Kyle and the other passenger without either of them unholstering their guns. 2009 Fort Hood shooting, soldier kills 13 and injures 30 on an army base where people are armed to the teeth. If these are people with undoubtedly years of firearms experience and yet the "equally armed" concept is not helping them, how is the average joe teacher going to fair? Is firearms training going to be mandatory for all teachers? You're probably right, as a euro I don't really understand your viewpoint but atleast I've never had to worry about someone mistaking my school for a shooting range :^)


Cebra
  • Cebra

    Eh.

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 06 Jan 2013
  • Canada
  • Best Concept 2017 [Bohemians & Blackjack]

#472

Posted 15 February 2018 - 07:34 PM Edited by Cebra, 15 February 2018 - 08:29 PM.

Look, we all retread the same ground every single time something like this comes up, and it's coming up more and more often. Nobody will ever agree on what needs to be done because I truly don't think there is a solution to this uniquely American problem. More guns are certainly not the answer, and the guns already out there aren't going anywhere either. No buyback problem will ever work. Guns in the US are a cultural problem, period. We go in circles about fixing mental health issues to prevent massacres like this happening but that's not the issue at hand either. Guns are something so ingrained in the collective mindset of Americans that there is absolutely no chance of fixing it. I saw a comment on Reddit earlier that put my exact take into words better than I can.

What if the reason we have a culture of violence is not because people cant see a therapist, but because from the moment they enter school, Lesson One in U.S. History is:

Okay, kids, here's what you gotta know about America. Number one: You're free to say and believe what you want. Number two: Someone, someday, will be out to get you, and you and all your buddies will need guns to kill them. And the people you will need to shoot might be in this very room or in the house next door.

I'm sure everyone is rushing to bring up mental health, but you know what is really disturbing about our conversations about mental health?

Not only are the conversations themselves opportunist (we only talk about it after a shooting), we also bend over backwards to talk about it in the method that most cleanly absolves us of our own responsibility in crafting the uniquely American culture of violence.

We act like mental illness is just this disease that you can "catch" for no reason at all. Like there are just Mental Illness Spores floating around out there and one day you just breathe it in and whoop, you're crazy! You've been cursed and there's nothing we can do except hope you don't find a gun before you get a chance to see the Therapy Wizard!

Sure, depression can be totally arbitrary sometimes. Sometimes it's just senseless and pervasive, and people become depressed even without any good reasons, or sometimes your brain gets twisted because some enzyme made it somewhere it shouldn't have been.

But you know what? A lot of time time, mental health problems happen as a direct response to the values and pressures placed upon people by the society that surrounds them.

When waves of overworked Japanese salarymen commit suicide, we don't just say to ourselves "Oh man, if only Japan had more therapists! If only they had access to better mental health care!" No, we recognize the presence of certain kinds of toxicity in foreign cultures when we see it. We say dude, that culture needs to start rethinking their whole sh*t.

If a woman forced to stay in the home and wear a burka against her will, suddenly committed suicide, I wouldn't just blame the vague specter of mental illness and wish shed gotten to talk to someone about her mother.

It should be the same thing here at home. When we hear about the mental health crisis in poor urban black communities, it's not because they're short on ink blot tests and reclining couches, it's because they need grocery stores, and decent jobs, and cops who don't act like they're enforcing martial law.

When we hear about Puerto Rico having a sudden epidemic in mental health problems after a hurricane, I don't think "Gosh, I really hope those folks get their Xanax shipment soon!" I think "f*ck, of course. They're losing their loved ones to preventable diseases, they don't have power or clean food or medical care, or even the comforting illusion that the rest of the nation considers them full citizens."

No, when a society suffers a mental health crisis, they've usually earned it, and the nature of the crisis usually reflects the values of the society that brought it about. Systems and processes and care facilities can help you identify, quarantine, or heal the crazy. But culture is what synthesizes the crazy in the first place.

And the United States has earned every bit of the epidemic we suffer now. Whether it's radical white terrorism, disaffected schoolkids, or just nutsos with guns, we've earned every one of these shootings, and it can't just be because these people didn't make it to a therapist on time.

It's our values, stupid. It's because we indoctrinate our citizens into thinking that they are deficient if they can't scrape together a successful life out of this crucible of capitalist indifference. We fill the minds of the have-nots with shame and guilt beyond anyone's ability to fully cope with, and we fill the minds of the haves with supremacist fantasies that convince them that it's okay to treat others like dirt, or they deserve to get away with anything if they're rich. We tell foreign children studying their asses off that they haven't earned the right to live in the one place they've known as home, and we tell native-born Americans that their entire way of life is under attack.

By kids.

But most of all, we worship the fantasy of the gun. Not just the guns. It's the narrative that guns represent.

We've all heard the saying, right? To a man who has a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. Well, what happens to a nation founded upon the idea that one day, there will necessarily arise a problem that can only be solved if everyone has guns?

If you enshrine that idea into your country's constitution, what will you get, except a society that's always looking for the fabled nail that justifies the ownership of this horrifically dangerous hammer that they've just got sitting there?

I mean, if that royal tyrant that our founding fathers told us to fear just...never appears, we're all kinda just left with our dicks in our hands, right?

Come on, we didn't need the 2nd amendment so we could own a shotgun and protect ourselves from thieves in the night. We could've found some way to allow people to protect themselves without an amendment. No, we have an amendment because our founding fathers, for better or worse, believed in the secular version of an apocalypse prophecy.

And a political apocalypse prophecy needs an enemy, but a functioning nation can't just allow people to freely plan violence against the state, so we gotta make up the enemies, because in order for this to work, the imaginary enemy still has to be domestic and covert (otherwise, the military or police should be able to handle it). So what do you get instead?

There could be Muslims in your community, I say! Muslims! Or it'll probably be those thieving blacks! Mexican rapists! Or the Deep State G-men in the suits! Or Hillary Clinton and the Pizza-Pedos! Or maybe it's just my shifty neighbors! I don't know who yet, but dammit, there's gotta be someone out there that I bought this gun to protect myself from! Or else why would I have it? Why would George Washington warn me that I'd need a gun, if there weren't dangerous people lurking out there?

You can't escape the filter of paranoia that re-colors our political discourse. How could you? It's built into our constitution, and placed pretty high up on the priority list, right behind free speech. But beyond that, there are people who stand to benefit a lot, financially and politically, if they can get into your head and tell you who to be scared of. Is it so crazy so suggest that that paranoid perspective has integrated itself into our conversations about poverty? About race? About labor? About war? About justice?

I'm not saying all our problems would go away if we get rid of guns.

We probably couldn't even if we tried. They're like a native species by now, it'd be like trying to get rid of all the kangaroos in Australia. There'll always be so damn many that we're probably stuck figuring out how to live with them. It's probably baked in. But is it so crazy to say that we may need to have a major reflection about how many guns we need in a household, or how deadly they really need to be, and how we go about acquiring them, or how we talk about what it should mean to own one?

All I'm saying is that we might be suffering from the same issue that you would see in a suicidal Japanese salaryman. The words "Why not just go home after 8 hours?" don't make sense when you're living in the problem. When you're steeped in the cultural norms that push people to the brink, it's hard to step back and see that there are options, that there are entirely different and valid ways for a civilization to be organized. Because somehow, other good countries manage to not be this way. Like I'm pretty sure we're not the only country with bears.

But America seems like it's suffering from a similar kind of myopia.

It's like we've simply never posited the question: What if there isn't as much to fear as we thought? And even if there is that much to fear, what if the sources of those fears are only strengthened when we tell a society that they need to be ready to kill what they're afraid of?

We're all psychologically (if not literally) locked and loaded but with nowhere to go. We've built a cultural identity around being ready for that big threat that never comes.

But we still have to have faith that the threat is out there! Because otherwise, well...that would mean that this whole time...we kinda just allowed our kids to murder each other for no good reason.

So now we're more afraid of that question than we would've been afraid of the imaginary threat.

And we're more dangerous to ourselves than that threat ever could've been.

  • Saggy, Rockstar Vienna and Constant K like this

FukNRekd
  • FukNRekd

    Rekd Um

  • Victim of The Pit™
  • Joined: 16 Nov 2017
  • Ireland

#473

Posted 15 February 2018 - 07:34 PM Edited by FukNRekd, 15 February 2018 - 07:36 PM.

^^I aint reading all that. You need a publisher. LOL.

I'm not familiar with Chris Kyle.

Ft. Hood is gun free as well, in that people not actively on patrol are not to be armed. Period. No wonder it got shot up.

Do try to keep up.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Ännu en dag, ännu ett slag, i betongens krävande skugga

  • Sheriff
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Best Poster in Debates 2017
    Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#474

Posted 15 February 2018 - 08:04 PM

^^I aint reading all that.


Then quite frankly you can f*ck off out of D&D, because someone who is frankly unwilling to read the contributions of others much less interact with them in a meaningful way is not welcome.
  • Tchuck, RedDagger, Cebra and 4 others like this

Darth Yokel
  • Darth Yokel

    A Sith now, aparently.

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 30 Mar 2007
  • Jamaica

#475

Posted 15 February 2018 - 08:05 PM Edited by Darth Yokel, 15 February 2018 - 08:08 PM.

They don't need a gun

I'm sure you need a gun if you want to shoot people. But what the hell do I know.

 

Oh look, this Cruz guy is associated with a white supremacy group Republic of Florida, and as a cherry on top he is a MAGA moron. So now you have two cases of Trump supporter extremists murdering people.

  • Tchuck and Flachbau like this

Rockstar Vienna
  • Rockstar Vienna

    Sir Love-A-Lot

  • Members
  • Joined: 24 May 2013
  • None

#476

Posted 15 February 2018 - 08:18 PM

^^I aint reading all that. You need a publisher. LOL.

Do try to keep up.

So others should try to "keep up" but a 5-minute read is already too much for you? I suggest you do try to read more than 3 sentences for once! It's actually a well written piece that goes beyond the gun control debate!

  • Cebra likes this

RedDagger
  • RedDagger

    Crash test dummy

  • Sheriff
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Best Ledby 2017
    Best Poster in Gaming 2017
    Best Topic 2017 [Microtransactions]
    Most Helpful Member 2017
    Most Helpful GTA Member 2017
    Campaign Poster Winner 2017
    Best Certified Crew 2017 [The Daily Globe]
    Next DLC Thread Page 4000 Winner
    Next DLC Thread Page 3000 Winner
    Best Ledby 2016
    Most Helpful 2016
    Quotable Notable Post of the Year 2016 ["sup"]
    Best Crew 2016 [The Daily Globe]
    Most Desperate Campaign Poster 2016
    Draw Contest Grand Prize 2016
    Most Desperate Campaign Poster 2015
    April Fools Winner 2015
    Best General Topic 2015 [GTAForums Newbie Guide 2.0]
    Helpfulness Award

#477

Posted 15 February 2018 - 09:04 PM

How would one go about fixing a general culture problem? I can appreciate that such an undertaking would be no easy single-faceted solution, but we're talking about something with is core to the American identity for many people. The rather insane level of guns per capita could be chipped down, a general education/training push would probably be rather effective, but something so entrenched seems rather unwieldy and would require a fair amount of planning for the future.

FukNRekd
  • FukNRekd

    Rekd Um

  • Victim of The Pit™
  • Joined: 16 Nov 2017
  • Ireland

#478

Posted 15 February 2018 - 09:20 PM Edited by FukNRekd, 15 February 2018 - 09:27 PM.

^^I aint reading all that. You need a publisher. LOL.

Do try to keep up.

So others should try to "keep up" but a 5-minute read is already too much for you? I suggest you do try to read more than 3 sentences for once! It's actually a well written piece that goes beyond the gun control debate!
No, of course not. The "keep up" was in direct reference to the failed Ft. Hood argument, as it is a gun free zone.

I will go back and read it when I take my morning dump tomorrow. My guess is he could have made his point with less.

Yes, it is a culture thing for US. Always will be. But we dont see it as a problem. And the more you try to convince us otherwise the more of them we will acquire.

Many will not just give up their guns if they suddenly made them illegal tomorrow.. Dare I say most? Yes, I'll say most...

Most will not just give them up. Short of shooting those who would take them they will do anything to preserve their security and safety.

A few will fiercely fight anyone who tries to take them.

Those few are the 3%'ers that you need to worry about if you are on the wrong side of this battle. They are crazy patriotic and are more than willing to die for this great country. But the way they're armed, they'll likely make the other poor sap die for HIS country. :)

Darth Yokel
  • Darth Yokel

    A Sith now, aparently.

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 30 Mar 2007
  • Jamaica

#479

Posted 15 February 2018 - 09:53 PM Edited by Darth Yokel, 15 February 2018 - 09:54 PM.

Many will not just give up their guns if they suddenly made them illegal tomorrow.. Dare I say most? Yes, I'll say most...


Most will not just give them up. Short of shooting those who would take them they will do anything to preserve their security and safety.

A few will fiercely fight anyone who tries to take them.

And here it is. Another gun-nut extremist who can't differentiate between gun control and gun ban.

  • Tchuck and Flachbau like this

Input
  • Input

    Pineapple

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 May 2009

#480

Posted 15 February 2018 - 11:08 PM Edited by Input, 15 February 2018 - 11:08 PM.

As a gun lover myself, my problem is with all this assault weapon BS. I'm 100% on board for concealed carry and self/home defense, but you don't need a god damn AR15 with a double size magazine, AP rounds, and f*ck only knows what else to defend ANYTHING.

 

So personally I feel they need to get rid of all this assault grade weaponry, there is absolutely no argument as to why you need that kind of fire power. Defending the home? Get a shotgun. Defending yourself? Get a handgun. Hunting? Get a hunting rifle. You don't need assault rifles to do any of that.

  • Tchuck, Darth Yokel and Flachbau like this




2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users