You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: Elementary School Shooting in US
buzzsaw wrote:If guns were banned today, everybody agrees that in 100 years or so, there might be an impact on gun violence in the US. I'm not sure we want to go through everything else that would happen in those 100 years to get there though.
This is actually the first post where I have seen one of you guys actually acknowledge that! This has been my point all along, something could be done but it would take generations to make a difference.
I posted something to this effect before, but it's not worth going back to find it...it probably got lost in the shuffle.
The last part of my statement is why I don't think it will ever happen. The results of only the bad guys having the guns would be very bad for a long time given the number of guns in circulation. We're not going to allow that to happen so maybe 100 years in the future things can be better.
- monkeychow
- Rep: 661
Re: Elementary School Shooting in US
The results of only the bad guys having the guns would be very bad for a long time given the number of guns in circulation. We're not going to allow that to happen so maybe 100 years in the future things can be better.
But how many incidents are there where good guys who aren't the police (who would still have weapons) storm in with their guns an save the day? It's pretty rare. And how many of the real bad guys would be deterred from crime because the other side *might* have a gun.
Although the "outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns" argument makes logical sense on paper....I don't think it's actually how things would happen in real life - as most of the gun-superhero moments seem to be by the police not civilians.
Re: Elementary School Shooting in US
Bono wrote:No what's been lost is you feel there is no solution while others have offered beginner steps to begin making changes. You don't wanna hear it though because first of all you have a "can't" attitude and secondly you feel you are so unique and we could never grasp what Americans are all about or what you have to deal with. Such nonsense on your part.
It's amazing, you've totally ignored our solutions, and we've never said things can't be done except for the things that literally can't be done, like banning guns. It's like we never even spent the time to actually type out the solutions to have a civil discussion, even in the post directly above yours. When you actually read a post then maybe you can be taken seriously. I tried to take you seriously, respond to you, but this is the result. Have fun with your "won't read" attitude.
Monkey - Thanks for taking one sentence out of that entire post and spinning it. I know you have aboslutely nothing to add to this discussion outside your own opinion and your disrespectful barbs here and there about my country. Thanks.
It's amazing Buzz, we type the solutions out, no one reads it... or wants to. We talk about the guns in circulation, it's ignored. REPEATEDLY. Not one "American expert" in this thread has answered it one time. Not once. Like this problem doesn't even exist.
I guess we know nothing about our own country. We're taking the "expert" opinions of people who have no answers but a whole lot of opinions. I'm so glad I'm surrounded by experts on America -- because some happen to live right above us, but still have no idea about our political, judicial and regional differences. Not to mention, egads, our cultural differences. This all about them being right, us being wrong. Even when we're not disagreeing.
Thread dropped. Have at it. When I'm trying to find common ground and give facts ABOUT MY OWN COUNTRY THAT I FUCKING KNOW with "REAL" solutions to help solve it and not only is it ignored but I'm disrespected in the process... Have fun.
You're not trying to find common ground. You simply want to be right and dismiss everything everyone else on the planet has figured out. You have such an arrogance it's unbelievable. Disrespected? Gimme a break. You go on and on about people not reading your posts because you think your solutions have been ignored. Nobody has disregarded the "solutions" you have suggested. We've simply stated a fact that gun control needs to be looked at as well as mental illness. You go on and on about how we just don't get it, we have no clue what's going on in America. All this conversation has done is open my eyes to how in the dark you are when it comes to Canada's day to day bombardment of Americana. Seriously dude Canada is on your fucking doorstep. You need to go through us to get to Alaska. So really we're like the 2nd floor in the same apartment building. We are not blind or ignorant to your situation or the problems or hurdles you face. Far from it. To suggest we are shows your ignorance on our proximity to one and other. 90% of Canadians live within a few hours drive of the US/Canada border so this idea that we couldn't begin to understand is flat out asinine.
Then when Buzz finally acknowledges the FACT that gun control can help long term he says "I'm not sure we want to go through everything else that would happen in those 100 years to get there though." As though the United States is gonna turn into some scene from the Dark Knight Rises. Seriously?
If you begin to make changes now eventually the culture will change. It's common sense. You could never begin to make changes though because it's in your constitution to defend yourselves. Such bullshit. If Americans as whole demanded a whole sale change when it comes to gun control you'd begin to see change. But nope can't do that cause you, unlike the rest of the world, have the right to defend yourself and you just have too many guns and we can't let the bad guys take over. Ummm... all the more reason to make change! Your situation is serious and you guys need to take a hard stand but you do the exact opposite. You become more relaxed, more careless and more ignorant to you own problem. Anyways. Nothing will ever change in America and it's because of too many people who share this attitude that it's hopeless. You feel disrespected ID? You actually disrespect yourself by burying your head in the sand.
Anyways... I've had enough of this as well.
Re: Elementary School Shooting in US
I never meant to offend apologies if I have...
I.do agree with u guys its a tough situation, its not for Canada to decide what the solution is its for the US citizens and gov't
I was just offering my 2cents on the matter....I'll shut up about it now
Neemo, I don't think anyone meant to offend - at least not to begin with. I just think people didn't want to acknowledge how difficult the issue really is here because for whatever reason they just can't relate. I get it, I really do.
Re: Elementary School Shooting in US
buzzsaw wrote:The results of only the bad guys having the guns would be very bad for a long time given the number of guns in circulation. We're not going to allow that to happen so maybe 100 years in the future things can be better.
But how many incidents are there where good guys who aren't the police (who would still have weapons) storm in with their guns an save the day? It's pretty rare. And how many of the real bad guys would be deterred from crime because the other side *might* have a gun.
Although the "outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns" argument makes logical sense on paper....I don't think it's actually how things would happen in real life - as most of the gun-superhero moments seem to be by the police not civilians.
It's more often the good guys protect their home and family from an intruder. I know you don't believe it, but people having guns does prevent criminals from running wild. I can't explain it if you don't understand it, but it's real. They usually aren't interested in dying, so going somewhere where they know guns are present when there are other targets where they are not present creates an easy choice.
- monkeychow
- Rep: 661
Re: Elementary School Shooting in US
It's more often the good guys protect their home and family from an intruder. I know you don't believe it, but people having guns does prevent criminals from running wild. I can't explain it if you don't understand it, but it's real. They usually aren't interested in dying, so going somewhere where they know guns are present when there are other targets where they are not present creates an easy choice.
I'm actually really curious about this aspect Buzz.
I think it would depend on the nature of the crime, I suspect if you are psycho enough to storm into people's homes with weapons you may be operating either on desperation, or mental illness or plane nastiness to an extent that the logical deterrent of "they may be armed too" - is no longer relevant to your choice. If anything then having guns too just makes it more likely for you to pull your trigger on sight. It's a bit like how it's been shown that the death penalty doesn't really deter a lot of murders - as most murders are crimes of passion where logic has already long since gone out the window. People just don't stop and make these rational calculations about the consequences.
I see this thread has got a little argumentative so don't take this the wrong way....but I seriously wonder if what you are saying is actually the case or just what we all assume to be the case because it SOUNDS logical.
How sure are you that it's real?
If that was the case:
* USA should have the lowest incidence of home-invasion attacks - as if criminals fear attacking houses with guns and you're nation has the most guns.
* Why do so many shooters turn the gun on themselves last if they're against dying?
* Gang gun violence does not seem deterred by the arsenal the rival gang carries.
* While these mass killing often involve easy targets, there's also crimes where people storm banks and other heavily fortified places.
That's what I see as strange about this - is that everyone thinks they're protecting their home with a gun - but stats show adding a gun to your home increases the chances of horrible things happening to you - and everyone worries that the bad guys will still have guns - as if regular people are often called upon to save the day with their guns - but the number of people who've ever done that is almost certainly less than the amount of people who accidentally die cleaning their weapons each year....it all makes logical sense on paper...but I don't think there's any actual evidence that it's the case in real life.
Re: Elementary School Shooting in US
buzzsaw wrote:If guns were banned today, everybody agrees that in 100 years or so, there might be an impact on gun violence in the US. I'm not sure we want to go through everything else that would happen in those 100 years to get there though.
This is actually the first post where I have seen one of you guys actually acknowledge that! This has been my point all along, something could be done but it would take generations to make a difference.
I know that's my view and I have said it in both my other posts in this thread is that the US is different in that they have more guns in circulation than other examples around the world. But Mr ID still posts this:
We talk about the guns in circulation, it's ignored. REPEATEDLY. Not one "American expert" in this thread has answered it one time. Not once. Like this problem doesn't even exist.
I don't know if I was included in his post since I certainly don't think Im an expert on the US but I acknowledged this fact in both my previous posts but it was ignored. The mantra just went on that it won't work because there are more guns in circulation and all these non US posters aren't listening. Whose not listening?
Aussie, I did not see your post and that was defintely not directed at you.
I've talked about sensible gun laws and Bono has been ignoring that... yet again. 
I've posted links to stories where people have protected their homes from armed intruders. Including a 14 year-old boy who saved his siblings... DCK pointed out that the boy will probably grow up to be a mental case... You know, totally disregarding the fact of what would have happened to the boy had he not had a gun, either the ass rapings and murders would be worse than the actual outcome.
- monkeychow
- Rep: 661
Re: Elementary School Shooting in US
I've posted links to stories where people have protected their homes from armed intruders. Including a 14 year-old boy who saved his siblings... DCK pointed out that the boy will probably grow up to be a mental case... You know, totally disregarding the fact of what would have happened to the boy had he not had a gun, either the ass rapings and murders would be worse than the actual outcome.
I hear that.
But it's the exception to the rule.
For example in the year 2000 there were 23,237 people shot ACCIDENTALLY with guns and 52,447 deliberate shootings - and that's just non-fatal numbers.
The instance of people saving the day with their guns doesn't even begin to compare to the harm they cause.
Re: Elementary School Shooting in US
I think we're tyalking about different things...let me try to address point by point.
buzzsaw wrote:It's more often the good guys protect their home and family from an intruder. I know you don't believe it, but people having guns does prevent criminals from running wild. I can't explain it if you don't understand it, but it's real. They usually aren't interested in dying, so going somewhere where they know guns are present when there are other targets where they are not present creates an easy choice.
I'm actually really curious about this aspect Buzz.
I think it would depend on the nature of the crime, I suspect if you are psycho enough to storm into people's homes with weapons you may be operating either on desperation, or mental illness or plane nastiness to an extent that the logical deterrent of "they may be armed too" - is no longer relevant to your choice. If anything then having guns too just makes it more likely for you to pull your trigger on sight. It's a bit like how it's been shown that the death penalty doesn't really deter a lot of murders - as most murders are crimes of passion where logic has already long since gone out the window. People just don't stop and make these rational calculations about the consequences.
I agree if you're talking about the psycho that is just out to kill or crimes of passion as you called them, but those people are going to kill with an illegally obtained gun or some other method. I'm referring to crime such as burglary where the criminal is armed. Killing someone isn't their goal; the goal is to steal without getting killed or caught. They will pick on the weak. Sometimes things go bad and they kill people, but that isn't the purpose going in. They are not going to go somewhere where they know there will be a battle they may lose.
I see this thread has got a little argumentative so don't take this the wrong way....but I seriously wonder if what you are saying is actually the case or just what we all assume to be the case because it SOUNDS logical.
How sure are you that it's real?
If that was the case:
* USA should have the lowest incidence of home-invasion attacks - as if criminals fear attacking houses with guns and you're nation has the most guns.
As I said, it's usually selective targeting, but not always. Sometimes the criminal loses. I think home invasion is fairly rare, but I can't prove it...it's just a suspicion.
* Why do so many shooters turn the gun on themselves last if they're against dying?
Now you're on the crazy mass shooters or the domestic violence cases. This does not happen in gang vs gang or other criminal situations. It is unique to these instances.
* Gang gun violence does not seem deterred by the arsenal the rival gang carries.
I've never been in a gang, so I don't understand the thinking. I probably think this is as insane as you guys think everything we do is insane. It's just a different culture I cannot relate to.
* While these mass killing often involve easy targets, there's also crimes where people storm banks and other heavily fortified places.
Banks are hardly heavily fortified, and bank robberies where people storm the bank only happen on tv. Most bank robberies are actually pretty low key with a note.
That's what I see as strange about this - is that everyone thinks they're protecting their home with a gun - but stats show adding a gun to your home increases the chances of horrible things happening to you - and everyone worries that the bad guys will still have guns - as if regular people are often called upon to save the day with their guns - but the number of people who've ever done that is almost certainly less than the amount of people who accidentally die cleaning their weapons each year....it all makes logical sense on paper...but I don't think there's any actual evidence that it's the case in real life.
I don't think the stats show this at all. Even if they do, it's going from something like .5% to a .7% chance of happening. Almost all gun crimes are gang related or done in the process of committing another crime. This is what I meant about a misconception of how things are in the US. It's nowhere near as common as it's made out to be to the general population; only to the population that engages in risky gang/criminal activities or are unfortunate enough to live in areas with those issues. Gun crime everywhere else is so incredibly rare it's not funny.
