Results 1 to 26 of 26

Thread: Does American gun culture contribute to police shootings?

  1. #1
    xerxe xerxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ministry of Love
    Posts
    6,586
    Mentioned
    123 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Does American gun culture contribute to police shootings?

    Gun ownership is widespread in the United States, and I think it's fair to say—from what I've seen of American TV and in talking to Americans—that the lifestyle is hyped up and encouraged in popular culture. Do you think that police officers overreact in part because of the anxiety associated with confronting a potentially armed detainee? Discuss.

  2. #2
    Jesus is the cruel sausage consentingadult's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,740
    Mentioned
    104 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The main reason is that the US are an aggressive culture to begin with. A country with the descendants of religious fanatic immigrants, convicted thieves, murderers, pimp, hookers and other criminals sent to a penal colony, other people that in their societies of origin where at the bottom of the ladder and had nothing to lose and everything to gain by migrating to the US. That's how you end up with a society that considers a certain amount of violent behavior as acceptable, a certain level of selfishness and entitlement as acceptable, and this cultural position is innate to a lot of people, including police officers.

    “I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking

  3. #3
    Adam Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    TIM
    ENTJ-1Te 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    9,037
    Mentioned
    990 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    My guess is that police officers overreact because they are not well-trained and they can expect to escape prosecution for acting violently.

    Consider the military, where guns are ubiquitous. If a soldier harms a civilian outside the rules of war, he is prosecuted. Police officers are almost never prosecuted for their crimes.

    The difference can be found in the different roles that the two groups have.

    The military’s role is to selectively apply force to the enemy in order to bring them to the negotiating table, where they can then be incorporated into the society of collaborative nations. This means that the people they are shooting at will one day be friends, and so no more force is applied than is necessary to get the enemy to stop fighting and start negotiating.

    The role of the police in the United States is entirely different.

    The civilian police did not exist as they are today until the era of the Civil War, when they were formed as a terror organization to be used against newly enfranchised blacks and immigrants. This role, of enforcing the status quo by shooting and killing people without legal consequences, has not changed today.

    Imagine a military made up of blacks and immigrants behaving exactly as the military does today. Now imagine a police force made up of blacks and Muslim immigrants behaving exactly as the police do today. Stopping you in your car for what they say are traffic violations. An armed group smashing down your door in the middle of the night to “serve you a warrant” that you were unaware of.

    When soldiers go rogue, the military relentlessly prosecutes them. When police officers commit acts of violence, the police close ranks and protect the perpetrators.

    Police violence is not really a consequence of genetic selection, but is rather a cultural problem.

  4. #4
    Itsme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    TIM
    LIE
    Posts
    290
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The main Problem is not gun culture but black people culture.
    There is close to no correlation between gun laws and voilence, but a high correlation between having ethnic minoryties around and voilence.

    Despide being only about 13 percent of the population of the US, black people are the cause of over 50 percent of the violent crime there.
    Countries like switzerland that are ethnically relatively homogenious can afford lax gun laws, without facing the problems that the US faces.
    So yes, guns don`t kill people, people kill people, my advice would be having tighter laws on the accessibility of ethnic minorities.
    And maybe a special program to withdraw the ones already circulating through society.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    12,305
    Mentioned
    1125 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Armed forces as police may kill more often due to consequences of individualistic culture, which reduces good feelings to other people.
    Common people kill more often because of same + many people in USA have weapons.
    Types examples: video bloggers, actors

  6. #6
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    SLE
    Posts
    4,639
    Mentioned
    321 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Hm... does a culture of normalizing guns and shooting people contribute to a culture of normalizing guns and shooting people? STUMPED

  7. #7
    peteronfireee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,176
    Mentioned
    83 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Do you wear a seat belt when u drive a car? Do u have an airbag installed as well? What about locking your door at night?

    Of course u do.

    And no, u don't necessarily use the seatbelt/airbag/door lock to its full potential every time u drive but it's there in case u need it.

    Similarly,

    If someone broke into your house and intends to harm your children/family, you should be allowed to at least protect yourself if needed.

    It's not about normalizing shooting people, it's about protection.

    Guns themselves don't kill people. People with intent to kill do

    As mentioned, there is no correlation between gun laws and violence.

    As a matter of fact, as gun ownership increases, homicide actually decreases.

    Furthermore, if guns were taken away/banned - there will always be a black market for them/there will always be a way for criminals to access them.

    When the heart is evil, and there is evil intent, it doesn't matter what the law says

    Last edited by peteronfireee; 10-08-2020 at 07:57 PM.

  8. #8
    Queen of the Damned Aylen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Spiritus Mundi
    TIM
    psyche 4w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    11,351
    Mentioned
    980 Post(s)
    Tagged
    42 Thread(s)

    Default

    The unfortunate result of inbreeding:



    Thirteen men are arrested including 7 members of right-wing Michigan militia Wolverine Watchmen over foiled plots to kidnap Democratic Governor Gretchen Whitmer and 'incite a civil war'


    • Six people were arrested in a raid on Thursday morning over the alleged plot
    • They are Adam Fox, Barry Croft, Kaleb Franks, Daniel Harris, Brandon Caserta and 24-year-old Ty Garbin
    • Another seven men were charged by the AG's office over a plot to 'incite a civil war'
    • They are part of a known militia group called Wolverine Watchmen
    • They also planned to storm the Michigan State Capitol Building in Lansing
    • They plotted to kidnap Whitmer at her family's vacation home in Michigan
    • The men practiced shooting, combat drills and even made their own explosives
    • They carried out surveillance at Whitmer's vacation home in Michigan
    • Their plan was foiled by an FBI informant who they had tried to recruit to help


    I grew up in a home where my stepdad owned several guns. It was not a big deal from what I remember. He just told us to ask if we wanted to see them. I wasn't into them so I left them alone for the most part. I don't own a gun but my ex did. I prefer knives.

    “My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.”​ —C.G. Jung
     
    YWIMW

  9. #9
    Adam Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    TIM
    ENTJ-1Te 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    9,037
    Mentioned
    990 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aylen View Post
    The unfortunate result of inbreeding:







    I grew up in a home where my stepdad owned several guns. It was not a big deal from what I remember. He just told us to ask if we wanted to see them. I wasn't into them so I left them alone for the most part. I don't own a gun but my ex did. I prefer knives.
    Once again, citing the threat of Tyranny and wanting to protect the Constitution, they plan on violating the Constitution and implementing Tyranny.

    Now it's the Wolverine Watchmen. Twenty five years ago it was the Michigan Militia, whose member, Timothy McVeigh, set off 7000 lbs of explosive in front of a federal building in Oklahoma City and killed 168 people, including 19 children in a day-care center, and inured 800 more. While they were dying, McVeigh was driving away, fast. I'd call that the act of a cowardly terrorist.

    I don't know what to say about adult males (I see only white males in the above picture) who do this stuff, but I have come to believe that about 35-42% of every population on earth is not comfortable living in a liberal democracy and would genuinely prefer to live in a tyranny. This is the group that supported the Nazis in Germany and supports Trump in the US. They don't support Trump in spite of his sexism or his arrogance or his narcissism or his racism. They support Trump BECAUSE of these things. Because that's the way they are, too. They completely see eye-to-eye with him.

    The Germans solved their Nazi problem after WWII by completely taking away their voice. Full censorship of Nazi terms became the norm, and Germany today is a prosperous, democratic country. There are a lot of Germans who don't like the German government because it is not punitive enough towards people of other races and religions, but they don't get much air time.

    Personally, if I were in the government, I'd give everyone who wanted one a ticket to some totalitarian regime. There are lots of them in the world, and they could take all their worldly goods with them. The regimes would be accepting, I believe. But it would be a one-way ticket. No coming back.

    And then these guys could live in their own version of paradise.
    Last edited by Adam Strange; 10-08-2020 at 08:15 PM.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    TIM
    LIE-Nisx/so1,3,6,or7
    Posts
    1,655
    Mentioned
    78 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I grew up shooting and with several guns in my home.
    Wanted to be a sniper.
    I survived domestic violence several times.
    I've been in fights.
    Was scouted by police.
    I've been locked up inside a max security prison for work with no guard and no bars separating me.
    I'm not talking without experience here.
    I've also researched it . . extensively. I'm not forming my opinion anecdotally




    Quote Originally Posted by fireee View Post
    Guns themselves don't kill people. People with intent to kill do
    The reason we find this line, "I will kill you with my teacup," scintillating is that it's the exception that otherwise proves the rule. we know it's fundamentally easier to kill someone in virtually all cases with more technologically advanced tools than it is with less technologically advanced tools. knives? not as easy. see Britain's ridiculously low number of deaths for their violent enormous national capital. And it's not for lack of trying. It's down to the guns versus knives.


    Quote Originally Posted by fireee View Post
    As mentioned, there is no correlation between gun laws and violence.
    au contraire.
    "It’s a common claim among gun advocates that firearm ownership makes people safer. Research into gun violence, however, points in the opposite direction. " KQED

    You are TOLD you will be safer, and you WONDER if it's true and are willing to GO FOR it, all while making yourself on average MUCH LESS SAFE.

    Do you want to sort of feel safer or ...be safer (no gun) and realize you're safer?

    Quote Originally Posted by fireee View Post

    Furthermore, if guns were taken away/banned - there will always be a black market for them/there will always be a way for criminals to access them.
    "What surprised us the most was that in states that enacted a combination of universal background-check laws, laws prohibiting the sale of guns to people with violent misdemeanors, and concealed carry permit laws, the homicide rates were 35 percent lower than in states with none of those three kinds of laws."www.bu.edu/articles/2019/state-gun-laws-that-reduce-gun-deaths/
    [/QUOTE]

    Quote Originally Posted by fireee View Post
    Do you wear a seat belt when u drive a car? Do u have an airbag installed as well? What about locking your door at night?

    Of course u do.

    And no, u don't necessarily use the seatbelt/airbag/door lock to its full potential every time u drive but it's there in case u need it.

    Similarly,

    If someone broke into your house and intends to harm your children/family, you should be allowed to at least protect yourself if needed.

    It's not about normalizing shooting people, it's about protection.

    Guns. Do. Not. Make. You. Safer.
    They greatly increase your odds of dying. They increase your odds of offing someone you don't want to kill. They increase the odds a kid finds your gun and offs someone, including themselves.
    "Over the last two decades, suicide rates have risen dramatically across the country. And while firearms are used in less than 10 percent of all suicide attempts, they account for more than half of all suicide deaths. Gun violence and mass shootings make frequent headlines, but nearly two-thirds of firearm deaths are the result of suicide, not homicide.

    Restricting access to lethal means, at least temporarily, during a time of crisis can prevent suicide. Even if one wishing to attempt suicide were to substitute a different method, he or she is far more likely to survive that attempt because firearms are the most lethal means available. And the vast majority of individuals who survive a suicide attempt do not go on to die from suicide in the future." Johns Hopkins

    "If a person is determined to kill him/herself, nothing is going to stop them
     FALSE-Even the most severely depressed person has mixed feelings about
    death, wavering until the very last moment between wanting to live and
    wanting to die. Most people contemplating suicide do not want death;
    they want their pain to stop. The impulse to end it all, however
    overpowering, does not last forever."
    https://www.nassaucountyny.gov/Docum...elmyths?bidId=
    "Of every three deaths involving guns, only one is a homicide—the other two are suicides.

    And according to new research from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, in rural areas of Maryland, suicide rates are 35 percent higher than in urban settings—a disparity that can be attributed to greater use of firearms in rural settings.

    In a new study published online today in the American Journal of Public Health, study leader Paul Sasha Nestadt, a post-doctoral fellow in the Bloomberg School's Psychiatric Epidemiology Training Program, suggests that more robust rural firearm safety and control initiatives could help policymakers who are grappling with rising suicide rates, which rose to 13.3 deaths per 100,000 people in 2015, the highest rate in 30 years."

    https://hub.jhu.edu/2017/08/17/high-...l-communities/
    Last edited by nanashi; 10-08-2020 at 09:28 PM.
    ENTj-Ni sx/so

  11. #11
    peteronfireee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,176
    Mentioned
    83 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nanashi View Post
    "It’s a common claim among gun advocates that firearm ownership makes people safer. Research into gun violence, however, points in the opposite direction. " KQED

    You are TOLD you will be safer, and you WONDER if it's true and are willing to GO FOR it, all while making yourself on average MUCH LESS SAFE.
    How?

    The reason we find this line scintillating is that it's the exception that otherwise proves the rule. we know it's fundamentally easier to kill someone in virtually all cases with more technologically advanced tools than it is with less technologically advanced tools. knives? not as easy. see Britain's ridiculously low number of deaths for their violent enormous national capital. And it's not for lack of trying. It's down to the guns versus knives.
    So when the criminal illegally gets his firearms and goes on a killing spree...?

    Do you want to sort of feel safer or ...be safer (no gun) and realize you're safer?
    I want to be assured that I'm able to protect myself if the need calls for it

    I grew up shooting and with several guns in my home. Wanted to be a sniper. I survived domestic violence several times. I've been in fights. Was scouted by police. I've been locked up inside a max security prison for work with no guard and no bars separating me. I'm not talking without experience here.
    That's fine. How does it contribute towards what we're talking about though. Did it make u feel less safe being trained with guns? Did it make you more violent as an individual?

    What surprised us the most was that in states that enacted a combination of universal background-check laws, laws prohibiting the sale of guns to people with violent misdemeanors, and concealed carry permit laws, the homicide rates were 35 percent lower than in states with none of those three kinds of laws."www.bu.edu/articles/2019/state-gun-laws-that-reduce-gun-deaths/
    Hm, nobody said background checks shouldn't be implemented in the screening process of getting a gun.

    Universal background check laws, however, make it a hassle to obtain a gun in ALL SITUATIONS (especially stupid situations like transferring a non-working gun your grandfather gave u)

    I've also researched it . . extensively. I'm not forming my opinion anecdotally
    Cool. And the research says?

    Guns. Do. Not. Make. You. Safer.
    They greatly increase your odds of dying. They increase your odds of offing someone you don't want to kill. They increase the odds a kid finds your gun and offs someone, including themselves.
    "Over the last two decades, suicide rates have risen dramatically across the country. And while firearms are used in less than 10 percent of all suicide attempts, they account for more than half of all suicide deaths. Gun violence and mass shootings make frequent headlines, but nearly two-thirds of firearm deaths are the result of suicide, not homicide.

    Restricting access to lethal means, at least temporarily, during a time of crisis can prevent suicide. Even if one wishing to attempt suicide were to substitute a different method, he or she is far more likely to survive that attempt because firearms are the most lethal means available. And the vast majority of individuals who survive a suicide attempt do not go on to die from suicide in the future." Johns Hopkins

    "If a person is determined to kill him/herself, nothing is going to stop them
     FALSE-Even the most severely depressed person has mixed feelings about
    death, wavering until the very last moment between wanting to live and
    wanting to die. Most people contemplating suicide do not want death;
    they want their pain to stop. The impulse to end it all, however
    overpowering, does not last forever."
    https://www.nassaucountyny.gov/Docum...elmyths?bidId=
    "Of every three deaths involving guns, only one is a homicide—the other two are suicides.

    And according to new research from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, in rural areas of Maryland, suicide rates are 35 percent higher than in urban settings—a disparity that can be attributed to greater use of firearms in rural settings.

    In a new study published online today in the American Journal of Public Health, study leader Paul Sasha Nestadt, a post-doctoral fellow in the Bloomberg School's Psychiatric Epidemiology Training Program, suggests that more robust rural firearm safety and control initiatives could help policymakers who are grappling with rising suicide rates, which rose to 13.3 deaths per 100,000 people in 2015, the highest rate in 30 years."
    https://hub.jhu.edu/2017/08/17/high-...l-communities/
    Your’re sneaking suicide in with the data, and then obfuscating that inclusion with rhetoric (which isn't to say suicide isn't a problem)

    "Researchers have spent 50 years studying the way crowds of protesters and crowds of police behave

    — and what happens when the two interact. One thing they will tell you is that when the police respond

    by escalating force — wearing riot gear from the start, or using tear gas on protesters — it doesn’t work.

    In fact, disproportionate police force is one of the things that can make a peaceful protest not so peaceful.

    But if we know that (and have known that for decades), why are police still doing it? “There’s this

    failed mindset of ‘if we show force, immediately we will deter criminal activity or unruly activity’ and

    show me where that has worked,” said Scott Thomson, the former chief of police in Camden, New Jersey.

    “That’s the primal response,” he said. “The adrenaline starts to pump, the temperature in the room is rising,

    and you want to go one step higher. But what we need to know as professionals is that there are times,

    if we go one step higher, we are forcing them to go one step higher.”"

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...vEUUL7bzN5Hj7g

    That's the crux.
    This is between rioters and police
    Last edited by peteronfireee; 10-08-2020 at 10:05 PM.

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    TIM
    LIE-Nisx/so1,3,6,or7
    Posts
    1,655
    Mentioned
    78 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    THIS OP IS ABOUT POLICE VIOLENCE, fireeeeeee.



    "Researchers have spent 50 years studying the way crowds of protesters and crowds of police behave

    — and what happens when the two interact. One thing they will tell you is that when the police respond

    by escalating force — wearing riot gear from the start, or using tear gas on protesters — it doesn’t work.

    In fact, disproportionate police force is one of the things that can make a peaceful protest not so peaceful.

    But if we know that (and have known that for decades), why are police still doing it? “There’s this

    failed mindset of ‘if we show force, immediately we will deter criminal activity or unruly activity’ and

    show me where that has worked,” said Scott Thomson, the former chief of police in Camden, New Jersey.

    “That’s the primal response,” he said. “The adrenaline starts to pump, the temperature in the room is rising,

    and you want to go one step higher. But what we need to know as professionals is that there are times,

    if we go one step higher, we are forcing them to go one step higher.”"

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...vEUUL7bzN5Hj7g

    That's the crux.
    Last edited by nanashi; 10-08-2020 at 10:36 PM.
    ENTj-Ni sx/so

  13. #13

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    TIM
    LIE-Nisx/so1,3,6,or7
    Posts
    1,655
    Mentioned
    78 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Some interesting examples of de-escalation in film and in television

    https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comm...ion_in_movies/
    ENTj-Ni sx/so

  14. #14

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    TIM
    LIE-Nisx/so1,3,6,or7
    Posts
    1,655
    Mentioned
    78 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fireee View Post
    How?


    So when the criminal illegally gets his firearms and goes on a killing spree...?



    I want to be assured that I'm able to protect myself if the need calls for it



    That's fine. How does it contribute towards what we're talking about though. Did it make u feel less safe being trained with guns? Did it make you more violent as an individual?



    Hm, nobody said background checks shouldn't be implemented in the screening process of getting a gun.

    Universal background check laws, however, make it a hassle to obtain a gun in ALL SITUATIONS (especially stupid situations like transferring a non-working gun your grandfather gave u)



    Cool. And the research says?



    Your’re sneaking suicide in with the data, and then obfuscating that inclusion with rhetoric.



    This is between rioters and police



    A) the research shows you're more likely to die if you have a gun.

    B) the research shows people living in your home are more likely to die if there's a gun in your home.

    C) you're protecting yourself by not having a gun.

    D) I don't know if you have had many experiencing de-escalating an incredibly violent situation. It works. It's one of the greatest displays of strength and of intelligence I've ever seen. Using a gun is easy and less optimizing.

    E) Yes, when one mistakenly says there is no correlation between laws on guns and on a decrease in violence (there is a correlation between gun laws and decrease in violence, as I shared above), that is indicating 'background checks shouldn't be implemented in the screening process of getting a gun' (your quote). You do seem to advocate for and see the use of gun laws.

    You don't like the hassle of Universal Background Checks, including familiar transfers...but that's how Dylan Roof was armed. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-to-get-a-gun/

    AND research shows, AS I SHARED ABOVE, "What surprised us the most was that in states that enacted a combination of universal background-check laws, laws prohibiting the sale of guns to people with violent misdemeanors, and concealed carry permit laws, the homicide rates were 35 percent lower than in states with none of those three kinds of laws."www.bu.edu/articles/2019/state-gun-laws-that-reduce-gun-deaths/

    I forgot F.

    F) You are a person. You dying at your own hand when you're depressed and just want your mental pain to go away not to actually die is one of THE GREATEST THREATS to your life. Which I made pretty clear above. It's not 'sneaking in data' like you suggested for me to COUNT YOU as a person when you're talking about making yourself safer.
    Last edited by nanashi; 10-09-2020 at 12:34 AM.
    ENTj-Ni sx/so

  15. #15
    ⛧Satan-Cat is Queen⛧ Nobody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Posts
    222
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I've been thinking about buying some guns, but I know the safety factor is kind of sucky. Some people put them in safes, but then they aren't easily ready in case of home invasion or something similar. I've been wondering if they make "smart" guns that could be activated by biometrics and would send an alert if someone tried to activate it that wasn't you. It could be like an alarm system and the cops could even come out to your house and intervene or something. Maybe they could have built in GPS trackers too (that only the owner could remove).

    I think that would help alleviate accidental gun shootings or deterring people from killing themselves or other people in a shooting spree. But the owner of the gun could still do all of those things, of course.

    But I don't think suicide by gun is necessarily a bad thing though, as it depends on the circumstances. When I was in North Dakota I heard about older people sometimes committing suicide with guns because they were sickly and dying; usually they had alzheimers or malignant cancer or something along those lines. I think that can be kind of a blessing in disguise to avoid losing your mind or greatly suffering and then dying anyway. Without a gun, it would be much harder for these kinds of people to end their lives, if they so choose.

    Sent by my iDick using TapAss.
    The beatings will continue, whether morale improves or not.

  16. #16
    peteronfireee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,176
    Mentioned
    83 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nanashi View Post
    A) the research shows you're more likely to die if you have a gun.

    B) the research shows people living in your home are more likely to die if there's a gun in your home.
    Gun Control and Crime

    A. Violent crimes

    For England and Wales: 775 violent crimes per 100,000
    For the United States: 383 violent crimes per 100,000

    England and Wales have DOUBLE the violent crime in their society as the United States…And they virtually have no guns

    B. Other nations



    Norway is near the bottom of list in terms of homicide rate, but France is near triple the rate of homicide rate….

    What does all this suggest?

    Maybe this has little to do with guns and more to do with the population that is in your country.

    This can be illustrated further by looking at

    C. Individual States of the United States,

    When looking at particular states, there is no correlation between high gun ownership rate and crime rate.

    States with lowest homicide rates include New Hampshire, Vermont, Iowa, MA, Utah, Minnesota, Maine, Idaho, Wyoming.

    If u visit any of these states there will be virtually no gun violence even though everyone has a gun.

    Why?

    Because the people in places like Iowa, Idaho aren’t shooting each other. This isn’t that hard to understand

    However,

    If you go to places like Washington DC and Chicago, places with higher gun control laws…

    C) you're protecting yourself by not having a gun.
    Not if its an (a)social violent situation (see below)

    D) I don't know if you have had many experiencing de-escalating an incredibly violent situation. It works. It's one of the greatest displays of strength and of intelligence I've ever seen. Using a gun is easy and less optimizing.
    I agree using a gun isn’t 100% the correct response when dealing with social violence, where the goal is more about dominance than intent to kill (ex: armed burglary), in many cases, it’s better to simply comply with the criminal.

    However, when violence becomes (a)social, no amount of de-escalation will help the situation:

    --The scariest person at the bar isn’t the crazy buffed out loud alpha male. Rather, It’s the quiet killer sitting in the corner of the room in silence that doesn’t give AF about what u or the bouncer tells him who decides to pull a knife out. No negotiations

    --The guy in the hoody who walks towards u. His hands are in his pockets and u tell him to stop. He keeps walking towards u despite that. Little do u know he has a knife and gun.
    ^^^
    Those are real life examples
    E) Yes, when one mistakenly says there is no correlation between laws on guns and on a decrease in violence (there is a correlation between gun laws and decrease in violence, as I shared above), that is indicating 'background checks shouldn't be implemented in the screening process of getting a gun' (your quote). You do seem to advocate for and see the use of gun laws.

    You don't like the hassle of Universal Background Checks, including familiar transfers...but that's how Dylan Roof was armed. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-to-get-a-gun/
    F) You are a person. You dying at your own hand when you're depressed and just want your pain to go away not to actually die is one of THE GREATEST THREATS to your life. Which I made pretty clear above. It's not 'sneaking in data' like you suggested for me to COUNT YOU as a person when you're talking about making yourself safer.
    --Background checks are fine. I think u should screen hard for mental illness and things like being suicidal and make it illegal for those people to obtain guns. Guns should also be locked away from such people or those vulnerable.

    --I think we can both agree suicide is horrible though, and measures should be taken to prevent this

    AND research shows, AS I SHARED ABOVE, "What surprised us the most was that in states that enacted a combination of universal background-check laws, laws prohibiting the sale of guns to people with violent misdemeanors, and concealed carry permit laws, the homicide rates were 35 percent lower than in states with none of those three kinds of laws."www.bu.edu/articles/2019/state-gun-laws-that-reduce-gun-deaths/
    --90% of criminals obtained their weapons illegally, all this won’t deter criminals from breaking the law to obtain the weapons thru whatever means necessary.
    Last edited by peteronfireee; 10-09-2020 at 01:00 AM.

  17. #17

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    TIM
    LIE-Nisx/so1,3,6,or7
    Posts
    1,655
    Mentioned
    78 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fireee View Post
    Gun Control and Crime

    A. Violent crimes

    For England and Wales: 775 violent crimes per 100,000
    For the United States: 383 violent crimes per 100,000

    England and Wales have DOUBLE the violent crime in their society as the United States…And they virtually have no guns

    B. Other nations
    Sure. I said die.
    more guns = you more likely to die
    I also said the international destination of London is enormous and packed---and they dont die there from their murderous violence anything like we die from our violence here. We're dropping like flies
    ENTj-Ni sx/so

  18. #18
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    SLE
    Posts
    4,639
    Mentioned
    321 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fireee View Post
    Guns themselves don't kill people. People with intent to kill do
    Where do you think this intent comes from?

    When the heart is evil, and there is evil intent, it doesn't matter what the law says
    Why are there so many evil people in the US then?

  19. #19
    xerxe xerxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ministry of Love
    Posts
    6,586
    Mentioned
    123 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fireee View Post
    Interesting... I didn't know that all Arctic countries were so closely bunched up. It may be related to all the hunting and/or protection from bears that goes on.

  20. #20
    xerxe xerxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ministry of Love
    Posts
    6,586
    Mentioned
    123 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I've been following this story (https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ce-bark-gaggle) about the rise of digital surveillance in schools. Young people are being raised in extremely controlled environments where they're constantly monitored by CCTV cameras, email and telephone scanning, and constant police presence.

    School shootings are unquestionably the target of the effort, but the practice has predictably achieved overrun into more private areas of life, by monitoring students for bullying, suicidal thoughts and even failing grades. The article goes on to ask whether children raised under surveillance are more likely to self-moderate and less likely to explore their individuality.

    It's not to audacious to suggest that we're raising people, most of whom will reach voting age, that are normalized to (even pleased with) constant surveillance and censorship. Some of them will no doubt grow up to write editorials for the New York Times. The social psychologist Jonathan Haidt argues that SJW and Cancel cultures were largely caused by parental over-supervision.

    People, esp. Americans, don't always reckon with the fact that freedoms have massive trade-offs. Whatever the actual causes of school shootings (they could be related to gun culture and the fetishization of violence; or to mental illnesses caused by drugs; or to unconcern over social alienation; or to a weakened social contract caused in part by unaccountability for actions and speech), it's clear, at least to me, that absolute freedom is an irrational concept that accompanies someone else's loss of freedom.

    It's probably too late to reverse this anytime soon. The surveillance industry has become a big business with lobbying power. Schools are afraid of getting sued or developing a reputation. Anxious middle class parents aren't going to send their kids to a kill zone because they saw a George Carlin video on Facebook.
    Last edited by xerxe; 10-18-2020 at 07:23 PM.

  21. #21
    Adam Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    TIM
    ENTJ-1Te 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    9,037
    Mentioned
    990 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerxe View Post
    I've been following this story (https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ce-bark-gaggle) about the rise of digital surveillance in schools. Young people are being raised in extremely controlled environments where they're constantly monitored by CCTV cameras, email and telephone scanning, and constant police presence.

    School shootings are unquestionably the target of the effort, but the practice has predictably achieved overrun into more private areas of life, by monitoring students for bullying, suicidal thoughts and even failing grades. The article goes on to ask whether children raised under surveillance are more likely to self-moderate and less likely to explore their individuality.

    It's not to audacious to suggest that we're raising people, most of whom will reach voting age, that are normalized to (even pleased with) constant surveillance and censorship. Some of them will no doubt grow up to write editorials for the New York Times. The social psychologist Jonathan Haidt argues that SJW and Cancel cultures were largely caused by parental over-supervision.

    People, esp. Americans, don't always reckon with the fact that freedoms have massive trade-offs. Whatever the actual causes of school shootings (they could be related to gun culture and the fetishization of violence; or to mental illnesses caused by drugs; or to unconcern over social alienation; or to something else caused by a weak social contract and consequent unaccountability for actions and speech), it's clear, at least to me, that absolute freedom is an irrational concept that accompanies someone else's loss of freedom.

    It's probably too late to reverse this anytime soon. The surveillance industry has become a big business with lobbying power. Schools are afraid of getting sued or developing a reputation. Anxious middle class parents aren't going to send their kids to a kill zone because they saw a George Carlin video on Facebook.
    Freedom is the opposite of Security.

  22. #22
    xerxe xerxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ministry of Love
    Posts
    6,586
    Mentioned
    123 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Strange View Post
    Freedom is the opposite of Security.
    Please elaborate.

  23. #23
    Adam Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    TIM
    ENTJ-1Te 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    9,037
    Mentioned
    990 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerxe View Post
    Please elaborate.
    When you are in a jail in a fortress, you are secure but have no freedom. When you are running naked through the jungle, you have a lot of freedom but almost no security.

    I'm surprised that you didn't know that these two things are direct trade-offs.

    Even in a supposedly secure society like Germany or Canada, you do not have the Freedom to own any weapon that you want. These societies are more secure because they limit the freedom of their citizens.

    Likewise, those societies are more free because they don't have certain laws which incarcerate a large part of their populations. In some countries, those laws make many people feel more secure.

  24. #24
    xerxe xerxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ministry of Love
    Posts
    6,586
    Mentioned
    123 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Strange View Post
    When you are in a jail in a fortress, you are secure but have no freedom. When you are running naked through the jungle, you have a lot of freedom but almost no security.

    I'm surprised that you didn't know that these two things are direct trade-offs.

    Even in a supposedly secure society like Germany or Canada, you do not have the Freedom to own any weapon that you want. These societies are more secure because they limit the freedom of their citizens.

    Likewise, those societies are more free because they don't have certain laws which incarcerate a large part of their populations. In some countries, those laws make many people feel more secure.
    It's likely that I misunderstood your point, but I *think* what you're getting at is Heinlein's dictum: "You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having both at once."

    I don't agree. I think the freedom vs. security dichotomy is too simplistic. Freedom and security are often indistinguishable from each other, with any differences being purely semantic. "Insecurity" is often another way to say lack of freedom. A student's freedom to own a firearm means another student's non-freedom to walk into a school.

    I'd also argue that positive liberty is a necessary precondition of negative liberty; that's always been my main issue with libertarians. Knowledge-security — the positive liberty to receive an education, payed for by violating taxpayers' negative freedoms — is necessary in order to understand what your negative liberties even are. Job-security — the positive liberty to have stable employment — is a necessary precondition of the ability to hire lawyers to defend your negative liberties.

  25. #25

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    MI
    TIM
    IEI-Ni
    Posts
    11,364
    Mentioned
    332 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    The police overreact about that and pretty much everything else. Much about the police is about bullying and putting the poor/middle class in their "place" and not offering the same kind of scrutiny to the rich unless there's a big enough Karen or Normie support for the thing. Ie they will listen if it's the 'popular' thing to do or the most socially acceptable or if enough spoiled rich brats on Twitter are crying about it. They probably won't listen much if me and you have a genuine complaint because we're the easy target sheep and cattle they get off on abusing and feeling justified in their power.

    Even Richier >>> The Rich >>> Gub'ment >>> Middle/Poor Class >>> A shitty ant with 1 HP.

    Much of the people in the "Law" know that it isn't about fighting for justice or safety like it's claimed in a Manipulative-ish way that dumb naive people buy into, but all about making people into scapegoats to keep the cycle of narcissism and sociopathy going.

    Just heard about that woman that got mauled to death by dogs cuz she had a shitty neighbor. She asked the police and the system (both civil & criminal) for help multiple times and they did nothing until it was too late. The shitty, truly abusive neighbor even was able to manipulate a judge from not getting her a restraining order, I think maybe because the perpetrator happened to be black and it was about SJW politics over the true 'right' thing in the situation and that is an example of how liberal politics also fuck people over when taken too extremely. Or also likely, the judge was a cruel cunt herself who wanted to do shitty things herself and get away with it and use 'the law' to cover it up. You get all sorts of immunities and protections when you're in those positions. It's like a big campy red neon sign for bad guys to pick up and say 'Here, here here. this is what you want!' How to be an asshole while pretending you're a 'good guy' in 12 easy steps.

    The wrong-wing/many Republicunts would argue that this policing of the poor is necessary because they feel the poor are weak, not as 'moral', and more likely to commit crimes and secretly afraid of them uprising against them, so they are more likely to green light even more things that bully and harass the poor. "Law for thee, not for me." And they're pretty cruel and heartless to the situations and social atmospheres that lead minorities and other people into doing things that are truly immoral- instead it's much easier for them to label the person themselves as 'immoral' to begin with and call it a day.
    Last edited by BandD; 10-18-2020 at 10:35 PM.

  26. #26
    Head chef on the SS Diarrhea Grendel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    Far away, beyond the gates of space and time
    TIM
    B I T C H
    Posts
    1,982
    Mentioned
    141 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Strange View Post
    Freedom is the opposite of Security.
    Based.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •