Sociopath Community

Billy said: 

37200 people died in gun related events in 2016,

37461 people died in automobile related events in 2016. why are we focused on guns?

the best answer so far is fear of guns and media hype

we dont seem to have fear of drunk drivers or fear of automobiles and i see zero media hype bandwagoning about automobiles.

 

We are focused on guns because we've made the decision that the benefit of having cars outweigh the danger they pose. I'd argue the benefit of guns do not outweigh the damage they cause.

There is also a lot of restrictions and forced safety measures for cars that you don't seem willing to apply to guns. Such as a driver's license.

Turncoat said: 

Is a nuke really a fair comparison? This is teetering a bit towards Slippery Slope.

It's not a comparison. I used it to point out how the argument that most gun users are law-abiding citizens are not actually that relevant.

If we just start throwing away the core tenants that helped this country develop into what it is today, it could stand to become anything in this current social climate.

What core tenants would be thrown away? Amendments are a core tenant, no? Using one to amend a former amendment after decades of discussion would be in line with that.

Everyone here's too splintered now to agree on much of anything, and I'd argue that they need to be herded under some banner of consistency that's "bigger than them" if it's going to show any sense of stability. People of the US use the constitution as a means of backing up their arguments against anyone, including the government, and without that as a backbone of justification it'd just be the government and it's people plainly.

Why is it the government against its people? This should just be about the people and what they collectively want. The constitution is there to give the political system stability but the idea that anything could be changed in that document shouldn't be heresy.

Inquirer said: 

Billy said: 

Inq has a little sneaky word in there. "you guys failed to really answer why taking guns out of circulation wouldn't have a positive effect on gun violence."

You read that sneakiness into it since you seem to believe that a reduction in gun violence will lead to an equal increase in some other kind of violence. I think that is very unlikely.

I actually do think that it would lead to an increase in other kinds of violence... but I also think that's irrelevant. 

It's about how easily these weapons harm people. An increase in knife violence is a symptom of an overall improvement, not a sign of why to worry about de-escalation, Billy's argument makes little sense. 

the real question is, would taking guns out of circulation have a positive effect on violence in general? there is no doubt by removing all guns, gun violence will be zero. just look at London and Southern Sweden for evidence here ;)

Yes, I'd say taking guns out of circulation would have a positive effect on violence in general.

Casualties, that's what would be lowered, and that's why any of this "disarming America" pipedream matters. If we had the same rate of violence from everyone swapping over to melee weapons, we'd still reflect a lower overall loss of life. 

It's a nice idea, but the weapons situation isn't something we can just make disappear. Unless we got rid of all firearms from... I dunno, djinni magic, we're stuck with solutions that have to work within the hard fact that guns are something we can't just get rid of. 

Inquirer said: 

If we just start throwing away the core tenants that helped this country develop into what it is today, it could stand to become anything in this current social climate.

What core tenants would be thrown away? Amendments are a core tenant, no? Using one to amend a former amendment after decades of discussion would be in line with that.

Changing an amendment is one of the most sacrilegious things in American superstition. Once we show that one can be changed, it'd snowball into trying to change more of it.

As long as none are changed, people assume it's unbreakable, and that's surprisingly important for how this country functions. 

Everyone here's too splintered now to agree on much of anything, and I'd argue that they need to be herded under some banner of consistency that's "bigger than them" if it's going to show any sense of stability. People of the US use the constitution as a means of backing up their arguments against anyone, including the government, and without that as a backbone of justification it'd just be the government and it's people plainly.

Why is it the government against it's people? This should just be about the people and what they collectively want. The constitution is there to give the political system stability but the idea that anything could be changed in that document shouldn't be heresy.

Have you looked at "The People" lately? 

They are all busy fighting each other. 

you guys are giving me some good things to think about.

Inquirer said: 

Billy said: 

37200 people died in gun related events in 2016,

37461 people died in automobile related events in 2016. why are we focused on guns?

the best answer so far is fear of guns and media hype

we dont seem to have fear of drunk drivers or fear of automobiles and i see zero media hype bandwagoning about automobiles.

 

We are focused on guns because we've made the decision that the benefit of having cars outweigh the danger they pose. I'd argue the benefit of guns do not outweigh the damage they cause.

There is also a lot of restrictions and forced safety measures for cars that you don't seem willing to apply to guns. Such as a driver's license.

 ya this is where we ended up before, it really is about tolerance for risk and how people view guns. some people view guns as freedom and protection. some people fear them in the hands of criminals.

only in America :) coming soon to Sweden near you.

Inquirer said: 

Kestrel said: 

Comparing guns to nukes, you euro. Let's take your trade off idea, you're looking to overwrite the entire country to fix less than 1% of a problem that wouldn't contribute towards any other part of the issue.

I'm not equalizing guns and nukes. It was just a way to highlight how I think focusing on the law-abiding gun owners is a bit of a fallacy.

The example you provided is so off it isn't congruent

What exactly is "fixing less than 1% of a problem" here? Removing guns?

Putting regulations and restrictions on the purchase of weaponry will lower gun violence at the most by 1-2%. Placing regulations and restrictions require the criminals to actually obtain the weapons legally to be effective. This is not the case.

Why wouldn't restrictions and/or buybacks have an effect?

We discussed this the last time we had this talk. Guns are obtained illegally, imported, smuggled and stolen. For the guns that are stolen from stores, no restrictions would stop that.

We did talk about this last time and you guys failed to really answer why taking guns out of circulation (from people, from stores, from manufacturers, from criminals etc.) wouldn't have a positive effect on gun violence. I fully get that it's almost impossible to actually implement it politically at a large enough level but that's not the same thing as it not working.

Not only did I answer it in the past, I've already provided an explanation for it in my posts here. It isn't worth jeopardizing the integrity of the constitution to fix less than 1% of a problem. Put the effort into the bulk of the problem and not just the clickbait minority portion of it.

Shall not be infringed, doesn't allow room for change like the other amendments do and as I mentioned before it'd be an inevitable domino effect of changing core amendments to a drastic degree

Isn't that phrasing just there to make the amendment itself very clear? It shouldn't affect the difficulty in changing or replacing it.

No. Those words were chosen intentionally, this isn't some dated language issue. It's very clear by its priority in amendments and its wording it isn't to be touched.

Why would it lead to a domino effect? Amendments have been passed before but only after A LOT of work. I don't see why changing the 2nd amendment would suddenly be any different.

There's a certain paradigm a lot of Americans have that is unique to our country the more I speak to foreigners. It's that you aren't to trust your government and assume they are doing whatever they can to diminish your rights for their benefit. We worship revolution and it is the most American thing you can do in my opinion to hold a constant skepticism of your government at all times. 

I very much believe it was envisioned for it to be ideal for the populace to hold the government at gunpoint when the amendment was made. 

 One thanks is fetishizing now, nice. The founding fathers understood a very rational fear of the tryannical government they just toppled rising in place of the one they just created. This law stands as a means for their future counterparts to follow suit.

Don't take it so personally lol. People in favor of not changing the constitution often make a point of how great the founding fathers were or how great the original constitution was, as some kind of appeal to authority. My comment was directed more towards that general argument than what you said specifically because I often come across it. I could've been more clear though.

Nothing was taken personally, it was a basic mock at an assumption you made. 

I think a lot has changed since the late 18th century in terms of weapon technology, militias, politics and the possibility of the people to militarily hold their own against their own government. An actual tyrannical government wouldn't think twice about subjugating its own people with tanks or whatnot.

 America is in a better place to hold their own against a tyrannical government than before. It'd be a miracle for the government to win an insurgency in the first place(it's never been done), let alone against histories most armed populace who just happen to be zealous on their rights not being infringed

Inquirer said: 

Isn't the justification obvious? That the freedom to not be a victim of gun violence should be prioritized over the freedom to own guns.

You need to also explain how taking them out of circulation will significantly reduce violence and how the tyrannical government argument is bogus. People aren't going to be happy with re-writing the foundational laws just because brainwashed leftists "feel" it might have a positive effect. They want something more concrete. Hence Kestrel's rant.

ok back to the reasons for hate on guns, so far i have two i think.

1. fear of gun violence

2. media hype

how do people die in the US? from the 2017 CDC data

Heart disease: 647,457

Cancer: 599,108

Accidents (unintentional injuries): 169,936

Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 160,201

Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 146,383

Alzheimer’s disease: 121,404

Diabetes: 83,564

Influenza and pneumonia: 55,672

Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 50,633

Intentional self-harm (suicide): 47,173

Motor vehicle traffic deaths: 40,231

AND homicides by firearms Number of deaths: 14,542, 80% gang related

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm

the numbers kinda speak for themselves. the hate on guns looks like media hype in my humble opnion.

i think i will worry more about my diet/heart disease and the idiot driver next to me than homicide by guns.

if i lived near large gangs like tryp, i might think of things differently

for me, the minimal risk of guns is worth the freedom and right to protect yourself from tyranny