Sorry gun advocates, you'll just have to suck it up

[Hotdog]

Dude this is a terrible argument.

What is it with people trying to act like any single part of this exists in a vacuum?

Am I the only one that thinks that is absurd?

One can absolutely use that very graph against you. If gun control was the solution then that trend would be the opposite.

Jesus man! c'mon! /Sebastian

I agree.

Repped Stoked

 

[Stoked]

it's a response to those who think that music, video games, or movies are leading to increased gun violence. This graph deconstructs that notion.

It also argues against a gun ban then. Violent crime is going down and America doesn't have a gun ban. If a gun ban was needed then violent crime would be increasing. Deconstructed.

 

[Deleted member 848]

Glamorization of violence is a meaningless argument. Have you ever seen a Korean movie? An average of 200 people are savagely slaughtered every 5 minutes. And yet, they have a very low rate of violence in real life. Same with Anime.

But media coverage of mass shootings is almost certainly a contributor to increased mass shootings. After all, mass shooting is a form of terrorism. The whole point is getting attention.

100%-- i mentioned this earlier as well.

 

[moevillini]

well at least nobody is blaming gay marriage - the recurring blame that's given to single-parent households in this thread is sad...

Not to disparage the arguments that we need to combat poverty and have more employment opportunities, improved educational opportunities, family stability, better mental health services etc. etc. etc. because we do - but I'm not sure how much different we are in those factors than many other developed countries.

Other factors are at play that make this a bigger problem in our country than in other countries. Some have to do with our gun laws, some with aspects of our national culture and all sorts of other issues.

 

[Deleted member 848]

well at least nobody is blaming gay marriage - the recurring blame that's given to single-parent households in this thread is sad...

Not to disparage the arguments that we need to combat poverty and have more employment opportunities, improved educational opportunities, family stability, better mental health services etc. etc. etc. because we do - but I'm not sure how much different we are in those factors than many other developed countries.

Other factors are at play that make this a bigger problem in our country than in other countries. Some have to do with our gun laws, some with aspects of our national culture and all sorts of other issues.

while the rates of single parenthood may be comparable, it's the support-systems instituted by governments to support single-parent families that differs between nations, and therefore can act as a social determinant of everything from illness to delinquency. I figure that's what people are getting at.

 

[Hotdog]

Sick burn, bro. Sick burn.

LAWL

But seriously... Franklin was good once upon a time. I legitimately enjoyed his opinion, even though it contradicted mine most of the time. But then either he got lazy, or played all his cards out... maybe his husband is leaving him, who knows. All I know is now he's just a shadow of his former self, cowering amongst old ideas and making sure there's not enough light(at least in his field of vision) for any other possible way to look at something than what he wants to exist.

Dalamong's ideas are ultra liberal in Utah terms, likely just common liberal outside of Utah. But the fact that he's willing to debate other possibilities instead of immediately closing the book when his arguments are countered with fact make him a far better poster; likely a far better person too.

I don't agree. When he's proven wrong with facts, he just needs stfu. Nah mean?

Facts are facts. You can't beat facts.

I know that for a fact!!

 

[Deleted member 848]

100%-- i mentioned this earlier as well.

which is a massive factor to what I think is a positive feedback-loop of mass murders. 2015 is a watershed moment. I'm predicting that 2016 will be worse if the status-quo is maintained.

 

[RJF]

I think it bears repeating again here that very few, if any, 'Liberals' are advocating for banning or outlawing guns (at least handguns, types of assault rifles, or other high powered weapons are a different story), but more advocating for reasonable precautions, such as background checks, waiting periods, etc., none of which interfered with the rights of law abiding citizens to own guns, but which only impose a minor inconvenience when purchasing them. By the way, a majority of NRA members also support such reasonable laws--the NRA itself is badly out of touch with its rank and file members in its policy advocacy, which drives home the point that the NRA doesn't care all that much about its members, it cares about the gun manufacturers that it represents. Their interests, and their interests alone, drive the NRA's extreme positions--extreme by its own members standards.
So, unless you want to call rank and file NRA members all "liberals', this is not a liberal conservative issue, but, in my view, more of a reasonable person vs. fanatic issue, and the fanatics are winning.

Already exist.

 

[Deleted member 848]

It also argues against a gun ban then. Violent crime is going down and America doesn't have a gun ban. If a gun ban was needed then violent crime would be increasing. Deconstructed.

No it doesnt-- because while it is still decreasing (and this should be applauded), the rates in comparison to other nations with tighter regulations is, well, not exactly a comparison. America is stratospheres behind other developed countries, mine included.

So if you're complacent and happy with where y'all are at, then keep on.

Also, there is evidence of nation-wide gun bans reducing homicide rates. Which you know. You're just purposefully being obtuse, and conflating two arguments that are dissimilar.

 

[moevillini]

while the rates of single parenthood may be comparable, it's the support-systems instituted by governments to support single-parent families that differs between nations, and therefore can act as a social determinant of everything from illness to delinquency. I figure that's what people are getting at.

while I may agree with this, at least to a point - - it's just my guess, but I think at least a few of the folks around here would be very much against strengthening the government's safety net and support systems

 

[Deleted member 848]

Already exist.

if they exist, then they are clearly complete **** and were devised by morons.

 

[ONE LOVE]

anyone want to take a stab at explaining this?

Kiwis (me included) are peace loving people.

 

[Deleted member 848]

not sure - - just my guess, but I think at least a few of the folks around here would be very much against strengthening the government's safety net and support systems

well that would be hilarious, seeing as the argument to maintain gun access is always grouped with the notion of "we need to address systemic factors leading to gun violence!!"-- so this either means bigger government, or scapegoating black people.

 

[Harambe]

I don't agree. When he's proven wrong with facts, he just needs stfu. Nah mean?

Facts are facts. You can't beat facts.

I know that for a fact!!

I'm barely a fact.

When he's proven wrong, yes, he should just stfu. But when he's proven wrong with arguments that were previously proven wrong, or at best inconclusive(which is F-Toop's trump card), the book shouldn't be closed... more should be read/written.

 

[Harambe]

if they exist, then they are clearly complete **** and were devised by morons.

This needs clarification - there's way too many loop holes. Buying at gun shows, background checks don't look at mental illness, etc.

 

[Deleted member 848]

This needs clarification - there's way too many loop holes. Buying at gun shows, background checks don't look at mental illness, etc.

which is its own problem, because this would lead to a further stigmatization of mental illness-- which is essentially the leading factor of why people don't seek medical help even when they know that they suffer from a mental illness. Maybe instituting this would have negligible impacts-- maybe it would worsen it. You'd have to look at other nations with this sort of infrastructure to look at its consequences.

The better solution is better infrastructure for mental illness prevention and facilitation, as opposed for punishing those who have the courage to seek help.

All very nuanced, of course. But ya no Hack is right Dala is Daladumb.

 

[[size/HUGE] boobs [/size]]

The problem is not guns the larger problem is USAs anti-police situation. What we need is to triple the police force and allow random stop and frisks. Like in secure public buildings you should be subject to search at any time anywhere in public. It is not a right to walk around being a potential risk. Just like airports and New York subways. I guarantee three times as many police with more authority will do same for USA as in other develop nations.

 

[moevillini]

I suppose if we consider anger and jealousy to be mental illnesses, then yeah, it's a factor in a many violent attacks

 

[Siro]

I suppose if we consider anger and jealousy to be mental illnesses, then yeah, it's a factor in a many violent attacks

That's funny because in many ways, countries like Japan and Germany have pretty much SOLVED the homicide problem. I mean, they solved it as it is possible to solve anything in human communities. But the rate will never drop to zero, because you'll always have the occasional stabbing in a moment of anger or jealousy. Best we can do is reduce the rate to 1 in 100k, and call it a day.

 

[Harambe]

I suppose if we consider anger and jealousy to be mental illnesses, then yeah, it's a factor in a many violent attacks

There has to be some level of mental illness that decides whether you're a killer or not. Most people get mad/angry/jealous and don't go off half cocked. Mental Illness is just a generic term that fits many, many disorders.

Once upon a time there was discussion about this, and we came up with a scoring idea, like physicians use to gauge different health issues(mEWS, Braden, etc). Perhaps during your mental health evaluation, you get a score from a trained professional, and that dictates if, what kind, and how many guns you can have.

X has trouble understanding how his/her actions effects others, and has some serious anger management issues; perhaps fewer if any guns would be best.
Y has a firm grasp on reality and how your actions will effect the lives of others; go hog wild.