That's because Wookie was being a piece of ****. He literally said the mass majority of shootings are "deranged left wingers", and that it's out fault for "chasing morals out of society". You think I'm calling him out because of his "contradictory information"? I'm calling him out for saying dumb**** divisive stuff.

I'll be nicer to conservatives once any of them say anything that falls in line with serious sociological and criminological studies. I actually don't think guns should be banned, but the conservative bull**** of "it's just fringe mental health cases", without ever actually doing anything to help people with issues, is a tired and ****ing done trope that needs to be called out for the bull**** it is.

How about I make this clearer: Please stop outright insulting people here.

Okay. Sure. Now instead of whining, if you have a different take on gun control, you're welcome to explain it. I can't guarantee I'll find it convincing, though.

That goes without saying. I think it's this kind of smugness that Brian is saying makes it not worth his time to get involved (though I think things are a bit different w/ Wookie).

I don't think we'll find much common ground. Even if you back up to the very premise of the discussion, "reducing gun violence" sounds like a great ideal, until you look into the "statistics" and "studies" that are telling us that "gun violence" is such a problem, and you realize that this nebulous "gun violence" term somehow includes suicides, accidents, and guns fired in self-defense. If someone breaks into your house and your life or the lives of those you love are in danger, I believe you have the right to shoot them. Including these types of shootings in the term "gun violence" is disingenuous and pollutes the entire discussion. And we all know why they do it. Using the term "gun violence" makes people think of murders, committed in cold blood or in anger, but including suicides, accidents, and cases of self-defense inflates the statistics to make the problem seem bigger than it is.

(And there's no point in using "what abouts" with me -- I know both sides of this issue and every other issue do the same thing and they should all stop; they're using branding/marketing strategies for every political issue to "rally supporters" and it's just a nightmare.)

I think there's a lot of spit, venom, and foaming at the mouth on both sides of this issue, and I think the American political system is in a very unfortunate state. I've mentioned this previously (and been told I was wrong) that there are many issues I agree with the democrats on (and I know a lot of other people like me) but we're constantly forced into this stupid position of having to support ******* republicans because of their support of a very few key issues.

Oh? And this isn't insulting?



"people who care about mass shootings are hysterical"



"you are a bad person for proposing gun control after a mass shooting"



"you (Jon`C specifically) are a bad person for proposing gun control after a mass shooting"



"progressives are amoral radicals"


Or is it only an insult if it sounds like "**** you" and comes from a progressive?


By the way, that's every single post Wookie06 made in this thread. He started with insults. He clearly had no interest in a good-faith discussion based on facts.

I confess I'd have probably been banned by now in a forum if this forum could afford to lose any more members.

In the end, though, all I've learned from trying to corner people in order to "fix" their mistake, well, this just makes them angrier and more likely to lash out and blow you off.

In a way, I think because natural language is inherently cooperative, it probably makes sense to follow some kind of protocol, so that people agree to have some amount of symmetry in the amount of time spent talking about the topics that each of them care to continue. This can certainly help avoid talking past one another and simply using the opportunity to flagellate the other in public view.

In the case of Wookie, he's been so nasty in response to the (admittedly scathing, and mostly done in his absence) criticisms of his (in my opinion, ridiculous and frankly trolling) comments here, that in some ways I think he deserves some of the scorn (although maybe it's not polite to do it in his absence).

That said, he's not exactly absent here. He's been an active participant, and for whatever reason decided to stop posting, but in his last response he was still engaging with us. In a very nasty and crazy way, I might add.

Hmm actually I can see now that I was somewhat goading him. Hard not to imagine why he'd respond emotionally I guess.

And yes, Wookie definitely came into this thread with his mind made up. From the first post he was angry about this issue. So in his case, it probably would have been better if he had refrained from participating to start with.

Of course we're angry too! But I will make a point of it not to direct that anger toward other members just because I see them as representing the conservative side I oppose.

That said, nobody mentioned Wookie until he came into this thread, in what was quite frankly a tasteless manner. But the thing is, the tastelessness of his position was pretty much identical to that of conservative's point of view on gun violence in general: that we shouldn't make a big deal about a shooting. I have a hard time letting that kind of thing slide, so it's clear to see why this topic is fundamentally toxic.

Uh... so after all that, I admit that Jon`C is right about Wookie here. It's really his own fault.

Thank you for making a good-faith attempt to join this discussion, Brian. This is something Wookie06 never did.

Yes, I think you will:

I'm not aware of anybody including self-defense in gun violence statistics. It certainly isn't included in the Government of Canada research data I mentioned before, although accidental deaths and suicides are.

The reason I think suicides and accidents are appropriately part of this discussion is because gun control, particularly firearm education and licensing, is a proven way to reduce those events. It might not reduce propensity to commit suicide, or the irresponsible and risk-taking behavior that generally leads to firearm accidents, but guns are powerful tools. A gun suicide is permanent, while other forms of suicide often give the person an opportunity to change their mind. It's one of the main reasons why men die from suicide more often than women, despite women attempting suicide more often: men use guns for suicide, women don't. There are also very few things in a household that can so easily cause instant death if operated by an unaware child.

I don't personally think it's unreasonable to ask people to take a firearm safety course before they're allowed to own a firearm. I've taken the Canadian course. It was 6 hours, at a gun range, and covered only basic safety information that everybody should understand before using a gun. And yes, some of the people in my class failed. One person automatically failed for aiming a gun at the instructor. I am glad someone stepped in and corrected those people, because it very likely saved someone's life.



I agree.



I agree.

Yes, of course. Is it really any different from why you want to exclude suicides and accidental deaths, though? Everybody is trying to massage the data to suit their agenda. That's a good reason to discuss the data, not a good reason to insist something along the lines of "these methods never work and never will, and you are liars if you say otherwise". I'm not accusing you of doing that, but I am accusing certain others.



Brian, the discussion we had wasn't just about you. I don't doubt you disagree with the Republicans on a number of issues. The point was, I don't think asking the Democrats to adopt portions of the Republican platform is going to convince anybody to change sides. Electoral statistics have borne this out: US voters are more polarized than ever before, and single issue voters have virtually disappeared. The Democrats wouldn't be able to shift an election by adopting the Republicans' liberal gun control platform, they'd also have to become pro-life, anti-immigration, anti-tax, anti-regulation, and so on. By the time they finished there wouldn't be any difference between the parties. Keep in mind, back in the early 80s and 90s the Democrats shifted neoliberal in a major way, as a concession to former Reagan supporters. Now we're having this discussion again... if only they gave up x, y, and z, more people would vote for them. They wouldn't. The shift to neoliberalism has alienated (and continues to alienate) many Democratic supporters who would jump ship the instant there was a credible progressive third party. Moving the Democrats further right wouldn't help them or you.

If you want a centrist party, you'll have to start one.

I'm not going to go back and pick apart the thread as you have done but I believe it was Reid who started calling conservatives radical extremists among other things. I don't think these kinds of posts are useful so let me make it clear to Wookie as well: please stop with the direct insults.

Yeah, I tried to tell him that wasn't the most tactful way to go about this.





That said, he wasn't directing this toward any conservative on this board personally: I think that discussion was rather abstract and based on the idea put forth that people should be less extreme in their views, whether they be progressive or conservative. And I can't necessarily say he's wrong on a purely factual basis.

Jon the other reason they include suicides and accidents is because they know if they do end up banning or restricting guns, the numbers will drop. It doesn't mean suicides will go down (maybe they will in the short term due to the reasons you cited), but they will come out cheering about how much "gun violence" they stopped, but it's not stopping murders because those are generally committed by people with guns that they didn't legally buy in the first place (and so didn't pass a background check and there's no record of the transaction). I think a discussion about how to stop suicides and gun accidents should be separate from a discussion about how to stop murders/violence. The other thing we need to track and report in order to have a valid discussion is how many crimes or criminals were stopped with the help of weapons (with or without actual discharge of the firearm). Further, if you're serious about getting rid of guns, how about starting to legalize non-lethal means of self-defense? Practically every other means of self defense gets outlawed almost immediately upon invention because it's not constitutionally protected, so the only choice people have is to carry a gun.

I can tell you one thing: those 139 kids aged 10-14 years would most likely NOT find another way to go through with it. At that age, the question of how easy it is to actually pull the trigger is absolutely a deciding factor.

That said, if you are going to have guns around the house, even with responsible parents in most cases, there are bound to be instances of oversight where a gun is left unlocked, and I guess the only way to reduce this number is to reduce the number of households with guns in them. Which is probably an entirely different political idea than merely increasing safety. Although there may be some amount of training that can help here.

Also, I'm not sure if people here are arguing for getting rid of guns! I don't think anybody thinks that is a viable solution.

Okay, fair enough. I have no problem with you, or any conservative on here except for Wookie really, so it's not fair for me to be insulting to conservatives like that.

And with Wookie: I have tried in good faith to hold rational dialogues with him. He has never responded to any attempt, and as far as I know hasn't even read them. Yet, he still drops in from time to time insulting people. Which for me isn't the problem, I can handle a bit of banter in a serious discussion, but with Wookie there's no substance, it's just Facebook-tier posts.

To be fair, it would be hard not for a conservative to be immediately angry with Reid about anything political simply by reading what he takes to be statements of fact.

Sometimes being tactful means moderating what you take to be fact if you believe you are in the presence of the people on the wrong side of your strong conception of the facts. Yes, this means dumbing down the conversation. They call it dumb for a reason.

I'm guessing in most of those cases it wasn't an inadvertent "I forgot to put the gun away" and the kid found it that one time and shot himself. It's likely a household that doesn't secure the guns properly and the kids know where they are. I know there are some cases reported every year where kids do come across them and accidentally kill themselves but I don't think those are considered suicides.

This was visibly futile to begin with for those who have had enough experience with Wookie.

Well, I wouldn't presume to read into where those numbers come from in the statistics, but, where exactly does a 14 year old get a firearm, if not from an irresponsible parent (edit: I guess this is what you said here actually)? Should 14 year old kids be using firearms in the first place? I guess I did, but I didn't own one, and certainly didn't possess one long enough to want to use it on myself.

I guess my only point is, that if you have a gun, you might use it on yourself, and that this is usually a mistake. Though I'm not sure where this leaves us in this debate, and although it may sound crass, those 100 something deaths are not the biggest problem in these stats.

I don't see how gun violence is a poor term. "Gun violence" seems like the only term possible that's neutral and covers the categories at hand. If it was labeled "gun slaughter" I'd think this argument would have a leg to stand on.

What term would you rather substitute for all sorts of injuries people sustain do to gunshot wounds?



Accusing your opponents of being in bad faith is not a constructive way to have a discussion. In this vein, anyone could easily accuse all Republicans of accepting NRA money in order to promote their agenda, and that the reaction against gun control is just branding/marketing strategies to rally purchasers. And it's just a nightmare.

But we're not doing that now, right?



Maybe I should make my own policy clear: the problem with many of these shootings is, people are aware of how dangerous these people were beforehand, and many people reported them to the police, et. al. The problem is that American health care and laws are so poor, such intervention isn't done or isn't possible, so it's ineffective.

If Republicans want to point the finger at mental health, that has to be backed up by some real steps to actually reach out to potential mass murderers. And not just bills that pass ineffective measures, real measures. And this is a majority position I'm in, things like background checks that aren't just nominal, etc.

But that will require lawmakers to actually do their job. Which I don't have faith that Republicans in congress care enough to make that. And I'm not trying to be insulting by saying that, I honestly think they don't want to respond to the demands of most Americans.



In regards to this: how do conservatives think crime is reduced?

Earnest question. Because I believe the preponderance of evidence is generally against conservatives on this topic, but maybe you have a good argument.

Yeah. If you build your house next to an abandoned mineshaft, you increase the odds dramatically that you or someone you love will die by falling into an abandoned mineshaft. That doesn't mean closing up abandoned mineshafts is a bad idea just because it's a natural consequence of having them around, even if it's just "your dumb child" who will fall in.

There is a racial angle to this.

There is a greater prevalence of advocates for stricter gun laws in areas where they are most adversely affected by gun violence. Whereas, the areas that typically favor gun rights don't suffer this kind of brutal violence. Now I'm not sure how much gun regulation will actually help reduce violence in cities, but it seems to me that they, and not the NRA, should have the last word on this.

Right, which is why I don't feel bad insulting him. I reached out the olive branch, he didn't care, so now I don't care. I feel that's a reasonable position to hold.

This is cynical and counterproductive. I agree that people are willing to massage data in order to strengthen the argument for doing something, but there's nothing as toxic or insulting as claiming the other side isn't sincere. They include suicides and accidents because they want to reduce gun suicides and gun accidents. Doing that would be a victory, whether it also improves violent gun crime or not.

This was a problem with the Canadian data I mentioned before. The CFSC/PAL program has had a proven effect on gun suicides, but it's not known whether it's had any overall effect on the suicide rate. It has also been proven to reduce violent gun crime, by the way, but similarly it's not known whether it had an effect on violent crime overall.

Another problem with CFSC/PAL is that it doesn't prevent people from buying guns and giving them away for the purposes of crime. This is one of the main sources of firearms for organized crime in Canada: a person obtains a license to purchase firearms, legally purchases those firearms and then illegally transfers them to other gang members. Thanks to Canadian gun laws these suppliers are tracked down eventually - sellers make sure the local PD is aware that you're transporting a restricted firearm before you can take it home, like pistols which are predominately used for crime. However, the fact that it's still relatively easy to launder legally purchased guns in Canada, despite our gun laws, makes me question this claim:



Surely in the US, where there is no acquisition license, where there is no safety course, where there is no restricted firearm registry or authorizations to transport, it would be much easier to launder legally purchased firearms from a clean buyer than to smuggle or steal them? If Canadians can figure it out, surely American criminals can, too?

I'm not. Maybe some other people want to ban firearms, but I don't.

Here's what I'm serious about.

Every time there's any kind of natural disaster in this country, a flood or a fire that forces people to evacuate, the RCMP has to break into peoples houses to take their guns. Because they aren't stored safely. Because they're loaded and left on the kitchen counter, in clear view through a window. Because they left a loaded pistol with no trigger lock in a shoebox. This kind of **** keeps happening here, and we actually have a government-mandated training program that tells people not to do this ****. How are people handling their guns in the US?

People are stupid and irresponsible. You can't fix it. You can't expect differently. Our societies need to be robust against human error, and that means trust needs to be earned. Not given away freely.

Background checks only turn up anything if you've done something to deserve to be put on the list. If you're planning to commit your first crime, you won't show up on any list. And as we've seen in other countries that don't have access to guns like the USA does, if someone is crazypissed enough, they'll just use something else. Like a truck or a knife or poison or something explosive

Not because of your comments here, but I'm coming around on universal health care. I'm to the point where I don't care how much it costs (me in taxes). I guess having kids and having good health care and watching my family (like, brothers and sisters) have not-so-good (or not-at-all) health care has had an impact. Obamacare wasn't it, though. I think I've brought this up before, but forcing people who aren't sick and aren't doing that well financially to pay ~$1000 month for crappy, high-deductible health care that they will never use was never going to work (especially when the penalty was a $500 bill at tax time, once per year).

Jon`C: it seems what like you're talking about is wiping the 2nd amendment off of the bill of rights.

Might be a good idea.

Just to be clear, we could always grandfather in existing owners. It's not like anybody is going to come and collect all the guns without starting a revolution. But if the second amendment is getting in the way of sensible regulations of new firearm owners, then that's a sign of paralyzing inflexibility.

Of course, not that this is what anybody is seriously talking about doing. Nobody would actually try to repeal the second amendment instead of trying to simply reinterpret it.

I'm pretty sure that Obamacare was a Republican idea, and its crappiness in this regard had to do with the fact that it was basically a handout to the insurance companies.

This isn’t true. Criminal records checks aren’t the only kind of background governments can or should check. The Canadian PAL requires a criminal record check, and further requires two character references and a photo guarantor. The US could do a much better job than Canada because there are so many private vendors selling information about you.

If the government can enjoin people with a criminal record from purchasing firearms, it’s not obvious to me that mandatory training is much different. Maybe it is, though?

So much for the President's idea that we just need more armed guards.

[quote=The New York Times]
FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. — The only armed security guard on campus during a deadly mass shooting at a Florida high school last week “never went in” to a building to try to take down the shooting suspect, Sheriff Scott Israel of Broward County said at a news conference on Thursday.

Scot Peterson, a sheriff’s deputy, resigned on Thursday after Mr. Israel placed him under an internal affairs investigation for failing to meet the standards of the sheriff’s office. Two other deputies, Edward Eason and Guntis Treijs, have been placed on restricted duty while the department investigates their handling of reports about the gunman well before last week’s rampage.

Police protocol requires confronting shooting suspects as quickly as possible. Mr. Peterson should have “went in, addressed the killer, killed the killer,” Sheriff Israel said at a news conference in Fort Lauderdale.

Instead, the deputy remained outside the freshman building at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., on Feb. 14 for “upwards of four minutes” while the shooting suspect, Nikolas Cruz, was inside. Mr. Cruz is accused of killing 17 people in less than six minutes.

Surveillance video showed Mr. Peterson was doing “nothing,” Mr. Israel said.

Mr. Israel described himself as “devastated, sick to my stomach.”

“There are no words,” he said.

Sheriff Israel, flanked by two of his top aides, appeared emotional during the news conference where he described Mr. Peterson’s conduct. His eyes appeared to glisten, and his speech was sometimes halting.
Continue reading the main story
Related Coverage

Florida’s Marco Rubio Finds Himself at Center of Gun Debate, Again FEB. 22, 2018
In School Shooting’s Painful Aftermath, Sheriff Faces Questions Over Police Response FEB. 21, 2018
Florida Republicans Face Mounting Pressure to Act on Gun Control FEB. 21, 2018

The New York Times reported on Wednesday that an officer from the Coral Springs police department who responded to the shooting had seen Deputy Peterson in a Stoneman Douglas High parking lot. The deputy “was seeking cover behind a concrete column leading to a stairwell,” Officer Tim Burton said.
[/quote]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/22/us/nikolas-cruz-florida-shooting.html

How long before we all admit that it's incredibly irresponsible to think that heroes can just go in with guns blazing and save the day, rather than putting in place effective regulation that might stop the situation from happening in the first place?

These ideas just. don't. work.

Hell nah, this isn't about safety, it's about creating new ways for private security firms to grift the taxpayer.

You really think some security guard earning $13/hour with a squirt gun and baton is gonna take on a kid with an AR? lol

Maybe we just need to hire more of them. Like 100. Then they can overcome their cowardice by forming a herd and insert themselves physically between the students and the bullets.

Or better yet, maybe just lock down the whole school and implement military grade security checkpoints. Hell, the country might as well be a warzone when it comes to gun regulations, so why not?

Pick two:

1. Unregulated gun rights
2. Free and open campuses (for dangerous cities, replace campuses with any public place) that aren't locked down with military grade security
3. The right to grow up in the USA without getting shot

I can see conservatives shifting from their choice of {1,2} to {1,3}, but will probably just pick a convex combination of these two subset choices, and wiggle back and forth just enough to avoid honest and comprehensive scrutiny.