Gun Control/Gun Violence in the US

[CassinoChips]

Right, let's just forget the fact that the tools aren't the real problem; the people are.

What is the definition of a tool? "Anything used as a means of accomplishing a task or purpose." What is the task or purpose of a gun? To kill. Guns enable people to kill more easily and in greater numbers than any other tool. Firearm murders make up 60% of all murders. Guns are the real problem.

Think about the mentality of the age group you are thinking of. You are immediately assuming that high schoolers - the group that already assume they know everything there is to know about life, the universe, and everything simply because they are fast approaching adulthood - are the group to teach about what a gun does to a life, regardless if it's human or not.

So you're advocating guns on an elementary school campus?

Are guns required to be involved in such a lesson? Outside of the tool/toy lesson, perhaps not.

Or are you just saying that teachers should be the ones to raise kids, instead of their parents? If so, I've got about 65 dependents I should be able to claim on my taxes in a couple weeks.

 

[Shenorai]

What is the definition of a tool? "Anything used as a means of accomplishing a task or purpose." What is the task or purpose of a gun? To kill. Guns enable people to kill more easily and in greater numbers than any other tool. Firearm murders make up 60% of all murders. Guns are the real problem.

Each gun is a different tool serving a different purpose. Hunters use rifles to take the lives of their prey, but only to sustain the lives of themselves and their families. Soldiers use rifles and other weaponry to protect the lives of their fellow countrymen at the expense of the lives of those who wish to destroy the lives of that country. Police use pistols, shotguns, etc. to protect citizens from dangerous criminals who care not for the lives of the innocent.

The core lesson here is SACRIFICE. You may go back to my post and re-read the bit where I suggest teaching Chain Reactions on a human scale.

So you're advocating guns on an elementary school campus?

No, you are simply jumping to that conclusion.

Or are you just saying that teachers should be the ones to raise kids, instead of their parents? If so, I've got about 65 dependents I should be able to claim on my taxes in a couple weeks.

Where in my post did I specifically state that it is solely the responsibilities of school teachers to teach these lessons to children? I merely stated the bit of parents assuming everyone else takes their role because let's face it; today's parents don't know what they've gotten themselves into. It's half the reason they're doing such a shit job at raising their own kids. They don't know what they're doing, but they're too proud to admit they need the help.

EVERYONE who handles children on a regular basis should be teaching the value of life. Parents, daycare caretakers, teachers, nurses, councilors... the list goes on, man. But since you want to take this on a personal level, since you mentioned being a teacher yourself, let me ask you this. Think long and hard on it, don't just jump to the reply box.

How do you impact the lives of your students?​

If you are able to see results beyond the grades, then you have helped to shape who these young people will become. You are not merely an instructor set up in a role to teach these teenagers what they need to know for college. You are their mentor, their role-model, their leader for that session. Guiding them on an educational level is simply your job description. But if you can help to shape how they think of life itself and how their actions affect the lives of everyone else, perhaps you may save a life or two in the process.

Life lessons are not the job of one or two people alone. It's everyone's job.

 

[CassinoChips]

Each gun is a different tool serving a different purpose. Hunters use rifles to take the lives of their prey, but only to sustain the lives of themselves and their families. Soldiers use rifles and other weaponry to protect the lives of their fellow countrymen at the expense of the lives of those who wish to destroy the lives of that country. Police use pistols, shotguns, etc. to protect citizens from dangerous criminals who care not for the lives of the innocent.

The core lesson here is SACRIFICE. You may go back to my post and re-read the bit where I suggest teaching Chain Reactions on a human scale.

And the argument that escalates into a shooting? The armed robbery that goes wrong? The suicide? The mass shootings? How is a gun sustaining life in those cases? Guns exacerbate situations.

No, you are simply jumping to that conclusion.

You're leading me to that conclusion, implying gun safety classes in schools.

Where in my post did I specifically state that it is solely the responsibilities of school teachers to teach these lessons to children? I merely stated the bit of parents assuming everyone else takes their role because let's face it; today's parents don't know what they've gotten themselves into. It's half the reason they're doing such a shit job at raising their own kids. They don't know what they're doing, but they're too proud to admit they need the help.

You don't really specifically state anything in your posts. And I'm glad you can speak for all/most parents.

EVERYONE who handles children on a regular basis should be teaching the value of life. Parents, daycare caretakers, teachers, nurses, councilors... the list goes on, man. But since you want to take this on a personal level, since you mentioned being a teacher yourself, let me ask you this. Think long and hard on it, don't just jump to the reply box.

How do you impact the lives of your students?
​

If you are able to see results beyond the grades, then you have helped to shape who these young people will become. You are not merely an instructor set up in a role to teach these teenagers what they need to know for college. You are their mentor, their role-model, their leader for that session. Guiding them on an educational level is simply your job description. But if you can help to shape how they think of life itself and how their actions affect the lives of everyone else, perhaps you may save a life or two in the process.

Life lessons are not the job of one or two people alone. It's everyone's job.

But some things are not the job of educators. I have enough to do just trying to make World History interesting enough for these kids that they don't fall asleep. When the opportunity arises, I make connections to present day issues and inject social awareness. But the reality is that these kids are shaped by their parents/family/community (good or bad) much more than I'll ever be able to do. I see these kids for 90 minutes a day. I can only do so much. Moreover, I have no desire to be specifically asked to teach social skills/values/whatever, because those are malleable. What I consider important values is wildly different from what people in this area of the country feel are important, this particular topic being a prime example of that. In turn, I wouldn't want some hardline conservative bible-thumper shoving Jesus down my hypothetical kid's throat. Just teach my kid math or English or Spanish or whatever, and leave the values to me and my wife.

 

[Shenorai]

Hold on a minute.

You're a World History teacher. World. History.

You're in the perfect position to teach Cause and Effect. The Human Chain Reaction. To show the chaos of what happens when this person/group does something to harm their neighbors and others around them. Perhaps teaching the wrong group to truly leave behind a seed to grow as they age, but regardless, the perfect spot for it.

I only implied such lessons because those who know and respect what a gun is capable of doing are less inclined to use it for ill will. Keeping such lessons away from the younger generations will only lead to these kids becoming curious about these tools. Or they will find other examples flaunting and over exaggerating the uses of such tools in an unfortunately incorrect manner and assume that it's something they're capable of handling. Same goes for abstinence in sex really (and we know how well that has worked), but that leads to another issue altogether.

Now say that guns are removed from the system and outright destroyed. You can try to advocate banning guns all you want, but the fact of the matter is, the ones you are concerned about - the criminal party - don't give a rat's ass about laws. Banning a gun does not stop those who do not obey the law from using them anyway. They will find ways around the system. They will either learn to create their own guns or turn to other weaponry to defend themselves and attack those who dare tread upon their domain and their beliefs.

Why?

Because the current generation of adults are a lost cause. Far too many people focus on what cannot be fixed in the end.

But we can still alter the behavior at an early age. Given society as a whole can be arsed to do it.

 

[CassinoChips]

Hold on a minute.

You're a World History teacher. World. History.

You're in the perfect position to teach Cause and Effect. The Human Chain Reaction. To show the chaos of what happens when this person/group does something to harm their neighbors and others around them. Perhaps teaching the wrong group to truly leave behind a seed to grow as they age, but regardless, the perfect spot for it.

I do teach those things. Implicitly. That's a far cry from teaching social norms and values. And please, you can play the ethereal philosophy teaching card, but until you've been in the classroom as a teacher, you have no idea. And it's frankly patronizing.

I only implied such lessons because those who know and respect what a gun is capable of doing are less inclined to use it for ill will. Keeping such lessons away from the younger generations will only lead to these kids becoming curious about these tools. Or they will find other examples flaunting and over exaggerating the uses of such tools in an unfortunately incorrect manner and assume that it's something they're capable of handling. Same goes for abstinence in sex really (and we know how well that has worked), but that leads to another issue altogether.

That's a gross hypergeneralization.

Now say that guns are removed from the system and outright destroyed. You can try to advocate banning guns all you want, but the fact of the matter is, the ones you are concerned about - the criminal party - don't give a rat's ass about laws. Banning a gun does not stop those who do not obey the law from using them anyway. They will find ways around the system. They will either learn to create their own guns or turn to other weaponry to defend themselves and attack those who dare tread upon their domain and their beliefs.

That's such a BS, cop-out, weak-willed argument. Having laws against malpractice doesn't stop doctors from committing malpractice. Having laws against embezzlement doesn't stop employees from embezzling. Having laws against illegal campaign contributions doesn't stop high rollers from illegally contributing to campaigns. So we should never legislate against those things, right? Why even have laws at all, since the only reason you have laws is to punish those who break them?

And in fact, the case studies (Australia, UK, Japan) show that banning guns DOES keep guns out of the hands of criminals, because criminals tend to acquire guns from legal outlets, i.e. stealing them from gun stores, or stealing them from homeowners who own guns, or purchasing them from gun shows through the thousands of loopholes that exist therein.

And it's common sense. Less guns on the street means less access to guns for criminals.

For the record, I don't advocate the outright banning of all guns ever.

Because the current generation of adults are a lost cause. Far too many people focus on what cannot be fixed in the end.

As a member of the current generation of adults, that's rather insulting.

 

[Shenorai]

It would appear we have not seen the same sides of the world then, Chips.

Very well. Since you feel insulted enough by simple observations to claim that my argument - and by extension, myself - is simply weak-willed, full of bullshit, and naught but a cop-out, it would appear that there is no point in continuing my end of this debate any further.

With this, I shall step out. But no real solution to this issue will be founded by our generation. The violence will continue until future generations see the futility of it all. Whether or not they learn this depends upon us. For as I said; we cannot be fixed.

 

[Donald Trump]

It's impossible to teach people to be good as people are rational. The only way to eliminate crime is to kill everyone or have no laws.
The only way to reduce crime is to reduce inequality, and the only way to reduce inequality is through Socialism. Since most of the world seems to be wedded to Capitalism, we cannot reduce crime. Therefore we are only left with one course of action, which is to reduce the amount of damage that each criminal action can have. The most obvious way to do that is to get rid of guns.
But you're all too paranoid about your government trying to enslave you to do that.

 

[Ultimaja]

One does not simply take guns from Americans.

One does not simply keep guns out of America.

One does not simply think the UK is like America.

One does not simply be from from the UK and accept the fact that people get raped, mugged, or murdered everyday without a gun being present.

One does simply be simple, though, if one simply thinks one simply takes guns away from the world.

 

[CassinoChips]

One does not simply take guns from Americans.

One does not simply keep guns out of America.

One does not simply think the UK is like America.

One does not simply be from from the UK and accept the fact that people get raped, mugged, or murdered everyday without a gun being present.

One does simply be simple, though, if one simply thinks one simply takes guns away from the world.

Meaningless drivel.

I don't own a gun, yet I've never been mugged, murdered, or raped. Also, this denies the impact that guns have in committing those crimes. The murder rate would be significantly lower were it not for the ease of acess to handguns.

 

[Ultimaja]

Meaningless drivel.

I don't own a gun, yet I've never been mugged, murdered, or raped. Also, this denies the impact that guns have in committing those crimes. The murder rate would be significantly lower were it not for the ease of acess to handguns.

It's not 'meaningless drivel'.

It is the actual point. I don't care about whether you've experienced criminal victimization, because it is utterly irrelevant. Good for you. Now, for those that do get victimized..

Your government going to reimburse them? They gonna roll up like Batman and definitively save their ass?
No?

Then you ultimately play at people's lives to make things better for you. Your nation doesn't believe in personal liberty, and never really did. It's why we even exist in the first place. In America, a person comes before a population.

 

[CassinoChips]

It's not 'meaningless drivel'.

Sure it is. It's a handful of trite sayings that have no basis in fact and are simple opinions.

It is the actual point. I don't care about whether you've experienced criminal victimization, because it is utterly irrelevant. Good for you. Now, for those that do get victimized..

It's completely relevant. If your argument is that a person is going to get raped, robbed, or murdered if they don't carry a firearm, my experiences as a data point in that subset of people is the crux of the discussion. But of course, it doesn't mesh with your beliefs, so it gets dismissed out of hand.

Your government going to reimburse them? They gonna roll up like Batman and definitively save their ass?
No?

Is your government going to reimburse those who get murdered by legally owned firearms? How about reimbursing the families of suicide victims who shoot themselves with guns that were kept loaded in the home? No?

Then you ultimately play at people's lives to make things better for you. Your nation doesn't believe in personal liberty, and never really did. It's why we even exist in the first place. In America, a person comes before a population.

... You..... You don't think I'm British... do you?



Ignoring that, the concepts of personal liberty actually started in England with the Magna Carta, followed (eventually) by the English Bill of Rights, which is on what a lot of the Constitution is based. But, once again, rely on bad (really, really astoundingly bad) history to make your argument.

However, in the US, a person does not come before the population. That's completely antithetical to the concept of representative democracy, which is essentially majority rule. We do, however, take steps to ensure the minority is not subjugated simply because they are the minority.

 

[Ultimaja]

It's completely relevant. If your argument is that a person is going to get raped, robbed, or murdered if they don't carry a firearm, my experiences as a data point in that subset of people is the crux of the discussion. But of course, it doesn't mesh with your beliefs, so it gets dismissed out of hand.

You are one of billions of people. You argument is fantastically stupid, being based on you haven't ever been a victim of a criminal.

And so my argument stands pretty solidly, and yours can basically just be dismissed as a non-argument altogether.

 

[CassinoChips]

You are one of billions of people. You argument is fantastically stupid, being based on you haven't ever been a victim of a criminal.

And so my argument stands pretty solidly, and yours can basically just be dismissed as a non-argument altogether.

You can't dismiss my argument as statistically irrelevant and then not provide any data to back up your own argument. Otherwise you're just making an unverified claim and there's no standing for your argument.

 

[Ultimaja]

You can't dismiss my argument as statistically irrelevant and then not provide any data to back up your own argument. Otherwise you're just making an unverified claim and there's no standing for your argument.

I don't verify the self-evident. I leave petty arguing to petty arguing, and the blind to the blind.
If a person is bent on having no sense or accountability then I don't really care about doing something as vain as trying to make them.

You saying you've never been victimized is not an argument. Period. I don't need to provide data to tell the obvious.

 

[CassinoChips]

I don't verify the self-evident. I leave petty arguing to petty arguing, and the blind to the blind.

You saying you've never been victimized is not an argument. Period. I don't need to provide data to tell the obvious.

So it's true because you say it's true? That's circular logic and you're begging the question.

Self-evident, and also backed up by data: Murder rates in the US are higher than in any other developed nation. Gun ownership rates are higher in the US than in any other developed nation. It is therefore self-evident that more guns = more murder. Because guns are designed to kill.

 

[Ultimaja]

So it's true because you say it's true? That's circular logic and you're begging the question.

No, it's called me not wasting my time proving something that doesn't need to be proven because it is self-evidently true. What would be using false logic is me thinking I'm going to get somewhere doing that even when I know you're just in a ridiculous state of denial.

You never being a victim of a criminal is not an argument. Disagree?
Then fine, I should not and could not give a damn.

The fact that others on here actually thumb up such an argument is just sad. Really goes to show how people in the UK have basically no regard for their own intelligence when it comes to bandwagons.

 

[CassinoChips]

No, it's called me not wasting my time proving something that doesn't need to be proven because it is self-evidently true. What would be using false logic is me thinking I'm going to get somewhere doing that even when I know you're just in a ridiculous state of denial.

Clearly it does need to be proven, since what you say is not backed up by any data. You're making a claim. Prove that it's valid and verifiable. That is the essence of debate.

You never being a victim of a criminal is not an argument. Disagree?
Then fine, I should not and could not give a damn.

The only reason it's not an argument is because it doesn't jive with your beliefs. You're dismissing it because of confirmation bias.

The fact that others on here actually thumb up such an argument is just sad. Really goes to show how people in the UK have basically no regard for their own intelligence when it comes to bandwagons.

The fallacies continue! Ad hominem arguments are fun, but are logically unsound. And not all who are liking my posts are British.

I know you're resorting to calling your own arguments self-evident because you have no real way to back them up. You really should just admit it.

 

[Ultimaja]

Clearly it does need to be proven, since what you say is not backed up by any data. You're making a claim. Prove that it's valid and verifiable. That is the essence of debate.

I am not going to 'prove' that your argument is wrong when it's "I have not been a victim of criminals, so nobody needs a gun".

Yes, it is a claim without data. Should I provide 'data' to prove what color the sky is as well?

The only reason it's not an argument is because it doesn't jive with your beliefs. You're dismissing it because of confirmation bias.

The only reason it's not an argument is because it is not an argument.

The fallacies continue! Ad hominem arguments are fun, but are logically unsound. And not all who are liking my posts are British.

I know you're resorting to calling your own arguments self-evident because you have no real way to back them up. You really should just admit it.

I'm not sure if you're trolling or if you actually believe the idiocy you are continuing to spout.
Either way, ad hominems are hard to avoid when somebody is attempting to insult one's intelligence with rank bullshit.

 

[CassinoChips]

I am not going to 'prove' that your argument is wrong when it's "I have not been a victim of criminals, so nobody needs a gun".

Yes, it is a claim without data. Should I provide 'data' to prove what color the sky is as well?

Is anybody refuting what color the sky is?

Your claim that guns prevent violent crimes is not backed up by statistical evidence. In fact, statistical evidence states otherwise. So unless you can provide evidence that backs up your assertion, you are patently wrong.

The only reason it's not an argument is because it is not an argument.

I say it is an argument.

I'm not sure if you're trolling or if you actually believe the idiocy you are continuing to spout.
Either way, ad hominems are hard to avoid when somebody is attempting to insult one's intelligence with rank bullshit.

It's ok, I don't feel insulted.

 

[Ultimaja]

Is anybody refuting what color the sky is?

Your claim that guns prevent violent crimes is not backed up by statistical evidence. In fact, statistical evidence states otherwise. So unless you can provide evidence that backs up your assertion, you are patently wrong.

I claimed that your argument "I have never been a victim of crime, so nobody needs guns" is wrong.

Because it is, and it doesn't take divine sight to see that it is either.


So you can just drop the misdirection you've been trying to orchestrate. I should be the one talking about fallacies.