This time at a movie theater in Lafayette, Louisiana. 2 or 3 dead, at least 8 injured.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/two-killed-least-six-injured-louisiana-theater-shooting-n397586
By golly if everyone in the theatre had a gun this might not have been so few killed. . Makes sense huh? A bunch of people in a dark building shooting at anything that moves. . Nothing says safety like a hundred people shooting in the dark!
I've never understood how advocates for both open and concealed carry imagine that firearms and rifles would effectively neutralize a threat in a crowded population. When one guy with a gun starts shooting and dozens of people draw their weapons to fire at the initial shooter, positive target identification becomes very difficult. Any 13 year old who has ever been paint balling knows that. Military and police teams train hundreds of hours on dedicated teams to work as a cohesive unit. A bunch of gun nuts who hunt deer and go to the range to shoot beer bottles off of fences isn't even remotely close to the same thing.
The important thing to remember is that Bobby Jindal is offering prayers. Ok, he's actually a Hindu, but he's a Christian Hindu which means that if he gets killed he'll be reincarnated into Santa Claus. .
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on July 23, 2015, 10:56:50 PMThe important thing to remember is that Bobby Jindal is offering prayers. Ok, he's actually a Hindu, but he's a Christian Hindu which means that if he gets killed he'll be reincarnated into Santa Claus. .
Bobby Jindal is not a Hindu. He converted.
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on July 23, 2015, 10:16:23 PMThis time at a movie theater in Lafayette, Louisiana. 2 or 3 dead, at least 8 injured.
Why should that be a surprise?
Bobby Jindal converted like "Uncle Ben's Rice" ... he is a politician!
Open/Concealed carry folks aren't going to be defending the innocent, they want to be "do it yourself cops" like Zimmerman. I know some, so I know. Why should rogue cops have all the fun?
Ban knives ... 5 members of a family in Oklahoma killed by two knife wielding teens.
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on July 23, 2015, 10:16:23 PM
By golly if everyone in the theatre had a gun this might not have been so few killed. .
Who is saying that? Besides you, I mean.
This is a tragic event no doubt and I don't want to belittle that. This trend of suicidal people deciding to massacre others before taking their own lives is truly baffling and disturbing.
But once again at the risk of being shunned or flamed or whatever, I have to ask why this tragic news story warrants its own thread here on an athiest forum while these other stories do not. Are the lives of these other people not just as important? Where is the outcry from the athiest community for them? These were all in the news in the last 48 hours and took about 30 seconds to find via google search. Why no threads here for any of them? Not one? I guess we don't give a fuck about people who are killed by mixing booze and cars.
http://www.katc.com/story/29611152/duson-man-charged-in-fatal-car-wreck-in-myrtle-beach (http://www.katc.com/story/29611152/duson-man-charged-in-fatal-car-wreck-in-myrtle-beach)
http://www.dailyprogress.com/alcohol-possible-factor-in-fatal-crash-on-u-s-tuesday/article_47d430f6-305f-11e5-8242-2bb0b2b12b12.html (http://www.dailyprogress.com/alcohol-possible-factor-in-fatal-crash-on-u-s-tuesday/article_47d430f6-305f-11e5-8242-2bb0b2b12b12.html)
http://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/4236888-181/st-helena-police-alcohol-main (http://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/4236888-181/st-helena-police-alcohol-main)
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-23/double-fatal-crash-in-nakara-darwin/6641448 (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-23/double-fatal-crash-in-nakara-darwin/6641448)
http://www.thechronicle.com.au/news/westbrook-man-dies-fatal-crash-gore-highway/2715722/ (http://www.thechronicle.com.au/news/westbrook-man-dies-fatal-crash-gore-highway/2715722/)
http://wncn.com/2015/07/23/1-million-bond-set-for-unc-student-charged-in-triple-fatal-crash/ (http://wncn.com/2015/07/23/1-million-bond-set-for-unc-student-charged-in-triple-fatal-crash/)
Quote from: Johan on July 24, 2015, 07:34:36 AM
Who is saying that? Besides you, I mean.
It's poking fun at the NRAs doubling down after one of those school shootings. Many people cried, "Outlaw guns." Of course the media, fair and balanced as it is, wants a response from the opposition, so they call the NRA, which comes out with the stupidest solution anyone could possibly imagine, "Arm more people!"
APA's type of response is not going away, because the NRA's position, even if they ever retract it, is burned into the brain of everyone, whether they are fanatical anti-gun, or just reasonably thoughtful people. You can't promote a position that absurd, and expect people to forget that it was ever said. Some things are just too priceless to ignore.
As to why someone hasn't posted a thread about someone dying in a car accident, I suppose it's irrelevant to the gun issue, and it doesn't parallel the debate. When someone dies in a drunk driving accident, there is no organized group that says, "The solution is for more people to drive drunk." There's no one to point to, make fun of, or to paint as some sort of deranged nut job.
Killing people with a gun and killing by a drunk driver. Yeah, that is a great parallel. Yes, that was sarcasm. But it will be okay, for everybodies 'thoughts and prayers' are with those in that tragedy. BFD! Shall we simply record that statement? That way we can just hit the button and replay it again, and again. But let's not do anything. It is just natural. After all, guns do not kill people, people do. Oh......hey.........then we can just ban people! That's the ticket! After all the guns and ammo corporations just need to make a living too. The answers are so obvious--corporate America is not yet willing to lose the money it makes yet, so, suck it up America, and just live (die) with it.
Ban knifes? I had a switchblade puled on me when I was 14 after running away from home and I never flinched. I had another one pulled on me while working a job with another man and three guys trashed a bar across from us and kept staring at me and I told him to take picture it last longer. The guy I was working with went inside the building and never came back. When I went inside the one jerk pulled a bowie knife on me and came toward me. He didn't know I had a Stanley knife in my nail apron. He lunged with the knife and I moved to the side and cut him from the ear to his chin while his cheek fell down exposing his teeth. One other time when I was older I had a knife put to my face and I took it away and held it at the guys throat. Try doing that with a gun pointed at you.
I had an attempted robbery in South Chicago with a gun put to my head, and I coward into a fetal position on the ground terrified he was going to shoot me unable to do nothing, even though I knew how to take the gun away. How many mass killings have you heard by knives? It's too fucking easy to kill with a gun, even accidently. That's not the point either, it's the fact that with every Tom Dick and Harriet running around scared with a loaded gun does not make us safer. Just who is this that is trying to take our guns away? :wall:
Quote from: Johan on July 24, 2015, 07:34:36 AMBut once again at the risk of being shunned or flamed or whatever, I have to ask why this tragic news story warrants its own thread here on an athiest forum while these other stories do not.
Because someone posted about the former and not the latter. You're free to change that if you want.
But yeah, murders tend to get a disproportionate amount of attention, though it's not much of a mystery as to why that is.
Solitary ... yes a gun makes mayhem easier ... but seriously, you need to live in a better neighborhood/work in a better job ... if you haven't changed your situation already. Either that or you are ready to join ISIS! I shouldn't speak, because I choose to live in a bad neighborhood myself ... how come these are so often found near police stations and city halls? ... maybe the "positive" influence from the "good citizens" is working wonders?
Killing cops, soldiers, and innocent people are working wonders? Are you serious?
I see you got the sociopathic satire. If they were an actual good influence, there would be less crime near the police station and city hall. Killing is the universal "warning to others". It won't help the person killed by the cops, foreign nation or random civilian ... but it does lessen the chance you will mouth off! I am not sure I should stand up for my rights anywhere ... not even in the bedroom with my spouse. Cowardly? Perhaps. But definitely still alive to fight another day.
There is nothing cowardly about being wise! Does your wife have a gun? :eek:
Quote from: Solitary on July 24, 2015, 11:19:55 AM
It's too fucking easy to kill with a gun, even accidently. That's not the point either, it's the fact that with every Tom Dick and Harriet running around scared with a loaded gun does not make us safer.
Not only is it too fucking easy to kill with a gun, it does a lot of damage in a fraction of the time at further ranges than almost anything else. Oh, not to mention the intended function of a gun is to kill and maim things. And for people that say "I would never kill or maim something with my gun, I only like it for target shooting!" well, why do people go target shooting? To hone a skill focused on killing and maiming things. Knives, baseball bats, scissors, piano wire, cars, etc. all have different intended purposes.
Good point, that is not usually pointed out.
My wife had something better than a gun ... she had a lawyer ;-) Lawyers are like neutron bombs, they destroy all wealth without completing the job of killing you.
Quote from: Mike Cl on July 24, 2015, 10:58:07 AM
Killing people with a gun and killing by a drunk driver. Yeah, that is a great parallel. Yes, that was sarcasm.
Yes, it is a great parallel. And no, that was not sarcasm. Excluding suicides, just as many die from drunks on the road every year as die from bullets. So I ask you, is a life a life or is it not? Do those lost to drunks not matter as much? And if not, then why no outcry for them? Why no round the clock CNN coverage of who knew the drunk and what the drunks medical records revealed and what the drunk's former coworkers had to say? Why none of that for the victims of the drunk?
Don't bother to answer, its a redundant question. The answer is because we are hypocrites every one of us. We are hypocrites and we are easily manipulated by a profit driven news media that could give a fuck less about how newsworthy anything is so long as it grabs headlines and secures market share.
So another whacko freaked out and killed a bunch of people? Well god dammit something must be done!!!!! Oh, but a drunk also killed a bunch of people? Well... I drive a car... and I don't really want to give that up... and I have drink now and then so.... I really don't want to give that up either.... so... let's just keep that on the down low shall we.... Yeah lets not talk too much about the hard cold facts, lets just steer the conversation back to the fact that guns have no real purpose and no one who isn't absolutely insane would ever own one. Hypocrites every one of us.
Quote from: Johan on July 24, 2015, 08:53:46 PM
Yes, it is a great parallel. And no, that was not sarcasm. Excluding suicides, just as many die from drunks on the road every year as die from bullets.
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that most people who drive drunk don't do it with the conscious intention of slaughtering as many people as they can.
Quote from: TomFoolery on July 24, 2015, 09:32:00 PM
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that most people who drive drunk don't do it with the conscious intention of slaughtering as many people as they can.
Ok so intent is the separating factor then. The drunks don't
intend to hurt anyone therefore the deaths they cause don't matter as much and/or aren't as newsworthy.
Sidebar: I know my statements on the subject make it sound as though I have an answer that I'm hoping to lead everyone else to. But that's not the case. I don't have an answer. I do have some strong beliefs when it comes to the media and their proclivities toward manipulation of general public for market share and profit. But the reality is I'm struggling to understand the true facts of all this just as much as anyone else.
So intent then. Gunman have it and drunks don't. Its certainly food for thought. But I find myself being drawn back to the same question. Is a life a life or is it not? Does it matter to Abraham Lincoln that he was the victim of an assassin instead of say, an inept engineer who unknowingly allowed a flaw into the design of Ford's theater which might have caused the roof to collapse and kill those inside?
Dead is still dead isn't it? Are all human lives equally precious or are they not? Looking at the world we live in today and the news coverage we get, it would seem very apparent that all human lives are not equally precious. Far from it in fact. And that's the problem I think I have with all of this.
Tragic? Yes. Unacceptable? Absolutely. But not one iota more so than any other senseless death that we as a society could give a fuck less about.
Maybe its because I always tend to be a strong advocate of solving the actual problem instead of just putting a bandaid on the effect of the problem, I dunno. But for my money the core problem here is the relatively recent phenomena of more and more suicidal individuals opting to take innocent lives in the course of their own suicides than it is any kind of gun issue. And I assume its because guns are such a hot topic and headline grabber that no one really seems to be least bit concerned about that core issue. Everyone wants to focus on the guns instead of the core problem.
I am an individual who was at one point completely real fucking deal suicidal. And the last thing in my mind was hurting anyone else. I have since learned that a common question on the subject among mental healthcare providers is whether or not you had a plan. 'Oh so you were suicidal? Well we'll see about that. Did you have a plan?' Yes I most definitely had a plan. And most of the deciding factors in that plan revolved around insuring that the loved ones in my life would not see me nor find me because I did not want to inflict that pain on them. So it just baffles me why so many who are suicidal seem to want to hurt others in the course of their suicides these days.
History has already established that when it comes to homicide taking away the guns does not solve the core problem. Reduce it? Sure. But solve it? Nope. Not even close. So when we float around our little platitudes and our catch phrases like 'if only everyone else had guns' and the like, and it just screams to me that you're a individual who has absolutely no interest in identifying and solving the actual problem. Why do that when a bandaid is so much easier? In fact why do that when spouting platitudes and catch phrases on the internet (but otherwise doing absolutely fucking nothing) is so much easier? Hypocrites every one of us. But we're only human after all. So I suppose I should expect nothing more and nothing less. And I don't.
Quote from: Johan on July 24, 2015, 08:53:46 PM
Oh, but a drunk also killed a bunch of people? Well... I drive a car... and I don't really want to give that up..
I am with you. For nearly 30 years I have told people that we operate on the "law of convenience", it does not matter how many die in car or vehicle accidents or pool drowning or hell electrocution, we are not about to give up our conveniences just because a dozen or thousand die because of it. Hell, years ago stores were allowed to have dented can specials, then one person or two died and voila! No more dented can specials even though 99.9999 percent are safe, we can't risk the chance of saving a couple dozen lives from starvation if maybe one could get sick. Yeah, we are a special kind of animal..33,000 die in auto accidents and we shrug…132 die in a plane crash and …shrug…..a random whacko job kills 5 and katie bar the door...
Quote from: aitm on July 24, 2015, 10:48:48 PM
I am with you. For nearly 30 years I have told people that we operate on the "law of convenience", it does not matter how many die in car or vehicle accidents or pool drowning or hell electrocution, we are not about to give up our conveniences just because a dozen or thousand die because of it. Hell, years ago stores were allowed to have dented can specials, then one person or two died and voila! No more dented can specials even though 99.9999 percent are safe, we can't risk the chance of saving a couple dozen lives from starvation if maybe one could get sick. Yeah, we are a special kind of animal..33,000 die in auto accidents and we shrug…132 die in a plane crash and …shrug…..a random whacko job kills 5 and katie bar the door...
Yes. This. This is what I struggle with when it comes to these sorts of things.
We are, at our core, loving and compassionate individuals on the whole. The vast and overwhelming majority of us are fundamentally very very good people. Take a $100,000 Lamborghini and pull up to any Starbucks in this country, walk in and toss the keys and a cell phone to the very first stranger you meet saying my wife in pregnant and giving birth and I have to go to the hospital so could you please park and keep an eye on my car and I'll call you on this phone later to get it back... And chances are your car will be absolutely fine and you will get it back no problem and the individual in question will be happy to have helped.
But I think we are also at our core very shallow and stupid people. Good intentions? Absolutely, nothing but. But we are also a people who can effortlessly rationalize away just about anything if it means saving ourselves from the least bit of inconvenience. As I often say, the problem with our species is that we're animals. At our core? Savages really. And none of our many intellectual advances or social developments have gotten us more than a few scant millimeters away from that. If the electric power went off for good, or even seemingly for good, it would take us micro seconds to start killing one another. Most of us wouldn't make it past the first night.
Quote from: Johan on July 24, 2015, 07:34:36 AM
Who is saying that? Besides you, I mean.
This is a tragic event no doubt and I don't want to belittle that. This trend of suicidal people deciding to massacre others before taking their own lives is truly baffling and disturbing.
But once again at the risk of being shunned or flamed or whatever, I have to ask why this tragic news story warrants its own thread here on an athiest forum while these other stories do not. Are the lives of these other people not just as important? Where is the outcry from the athiest community for them? These were all in the news in the last 48 hours and took about 30 seconds to find via google search. Why no threads here for any of them? Not one? I guess we don't give a fuck about people who are killed by mixing booze and cars.
http://www.katc.com/story/29611152/duson-man-charged-in-fatal-car-wreck-in-myrtle-beach (http://www.katc.com/story/29611152/duson-man-charged-in-fatal-car-wreck-in-myrtle-beach)
http://www.dailyprogress.com/alcohol-possible-factor-in-fatal-crash-on-u-s-tuesday/article_47d430f6-305f-11e5-8242-2bb0b2b12b12.html (http://www.dailyprogress.com/alcohol-possible-factor-in-fatal-crash-on-u-s-tuesday/article_47d430f6-305f-11e5-8242-2bb0b2b12b12.html)
http://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/4236888-181/st-helena-police-alcohol-main (http://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/4236888-181/st-helena-police-alcohol-main)
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-23/double-fatal-crash-in-nakara-darwin/6641448 (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-23/double-fatal-crash-in-nakara-darwin/6641448)
http://www.thechronicle.com.au/news/westbrook-man-dies-fatal-crash-gore-highway/2715722/ (http://www.thechronicle.com.au/news/westbrook-man-dies-fatal-crash-gore-highway/2715722/)
http://wncn.com/2015/07/23/1-million-bond-set-for-unc-student-charged-in-triple-fatal-crash/ (http://wncn.com/2015/07/23/1-million-bond-set-for-unc-student-charged-in-triple-fatal-crash/)
Partly it is a lacking of understanding the mindset of someone that decides to kill. This lack of understanding leads to curiosity, of wondering which of those amongst us today is capable of losing the plot. There are guesses. There is debatable reasoning. But in the end, if we knew, we'd stop them.
Not many drivers set out on an evening of drinking with plans to kill. I'm no friend of drivers that will do this, and they get far to little jail time for their killing. But for the most part, except knowing it COULD happen, it was never their intent. But yeah, fuck them too!
TomFoolery makes an excellent point about identifying the initial shooter in a crowd of shooters that draw in response to gunfire. Good luck with that! That sounds nightmarish!
tl;dr -- victims of drunk drivers are dead too without outrage (a blatant lie if I ever heard one), therefor you should never take action against guns because if you don't take action to fix one problem you should never take actions to fix any other problem.
QuoteMaybe its because I always tend to be a strong advocate of solving the actual problem instead of just putting a bandaid on the effect of the problem...
Oh, I must have misread your post then. Here I was thinking you were saying we shouldn't use outrage over the disgusting gun culture we have in the United States to try and make changes for the better by taking actions that other civilized countries have... and have seen their gun violence, intentional or otherwise, drastically reduced.
"Yeah, it sure sucks about Rosa Parks... but we cant use this situation to address social equality, because people are driving drunk and you aren't upset about that! You are just a hypocrite!"
You guys upset about Rosa Parks are hypocrites. Lots of people die from malaria, dirty drinking water, and inadequate access to basic medical care in third world countries. Obviously, we can't address civil rights until every person on the planet has their basic medical needs taken care of first. Also, if you're outraged about one, it indicates that you're not outraged about the other somehow.
There have been 204 mass shootings â€" and 204 days â€" in 2015 so farhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/07/24/there-have-been-204-mass-shootings-and-204-days-in-2015-so-far/?tid=sm_tw
Quote"Those who live in America, or visit it, might do best to regard [mass shootings] the way one regards air pollution in China: an endemic local health hazard which, for deep-rooted cultural, social, economic and political reasons, the country is incapable of addressing," The Economist wrote in response to the Charleston massacre. "This may, however, be a bit unfair. China seems to be making progress on pollution."
Quote from: Shiranu on July 25, 2015, 02:44:10 AM
tl;dr -- victims of drunk drivers are dead too without outrage (a blatant lie if I ever heard one), therefor you should never take action against guns because if you don't take action to fix one problem you should never take actions to fix any other problem.
Oh, I must have misread your post then. Here I was thinking you were saying we shouldn't use outrage over the disgusting gun culture we have in the United States to try and make changes for the better by taking actions that other civilized countries have... and have seen their gun violence, intentional or otherwise, drastically reduced.
Right, do absolutely nothing. That's EXACTLY what I said. I bet you got little gold starts and your little forehead every day in Mrs Rottencroch's reading class.
But you did get one thing correct although I don't think you intended to. You're right that other countries have taken actions and those actions have drastically reduced their gun violence. Gun violence. Hmmm.... why doesn't that say simply violence? Why is the word gun needed to qualify it? Oh right, because the actions those other countries didn't really stop people from killing one another in any great numbers. It just stopped them from using guns to do it.
And that's one of the things I struggle with when it comes to this problem. I want this problem fixed. I want the killing to stop. So the natural knee jerk is lets look at the guns and gun culture. Makes a lot of sense. Until you look at the numbers and you find that in places where the guns were taken away, the killing didn't stop. When your roof is leaking, you go and you fix the roof. You don't ignore the roof problem and try to get everyone to outlaw rain.
Guns are far too easy to get here. And we should fix that. I've said that many times and I'll keep saying it. And because they're easy to get, they're almost always the tool of choice when someone makes the decision to carry out one of these acts. But fixing the gun accessibility issue does NOTHING to address the actual problem. So once again I will ask the same question I always ask. Which problem do you want to fix? Do you want people to stop killing others in the course of taking their own lives or is it good enough in your book if we just make it so they can't use guns to do it? The internet is a big place. Go look around and you will quickly find there is no shortage of people committing mass murder without guns throughout history. If you think taking away the guns is what even begins to solve this problem, you're a fool.
Quote from: hrdlr110 on July 25, 2015, 02:31:49 AM
Partly it is a lacking of understanding the mindset of someone that decides to kill. This lack of understanding leads to curiosity, of wondering which of those amongst us today is capable of losing the plot. There are guesses. There is debatable reasoning. But in the end, if we knew, we'd stop them.
I had the same reaction when reading about the investigation, yesterday. The perp had been identified, and was in custody, albeit in the morgue. It seems like the case could be considered closed, but the concentration of the police remained focused, although now on the cause of his actions, with the police chief making a public statement that they "owed finding the cause to the relatives of the victims."
I'm as curious about the cause as anyone else, but at the same time, I don't know that it does much to help. It seems like just quenching the thirst of the public's morbid curiosity. People want an explanation for murder. Why? Even if we do determine that he was bullied, depressed, crazy, so what? We understand the consequences of bullying, depression, and insanity, and we even have ways to help deal with them.
Even if we achieved a greater understanding of high risk persons, we still hear the police say, "We can't arrest him until he commits a crime", and if you require a psych evaluation before selling someone a gun, the NRA cries foul. I'm not adverse to further investigation if it satisfies people's curiosity, but I'm doubtful that understanding does much to solve the problem. Steps would have to be taken to do prevent such actions by murderers, and it involves the world of politics, which is one of mankind's most irrational institutions.
Ongoing investigation into causes? Is this only because the perp was White, and we need to give him an excuse for what he did, like we do with every cop on citizen killing? Do we do complete investigations when the perp is Black ... or do we just dismiss it as ... bad seed? And DAs like to do fake investigations and fake grand juries. Color me skeptical ... that is my race ;-) What I have seen in the last few years is ... if the perp is Black, we find every possible reason why he/she was an asshole who deserved what they got. You can't un-racist America.
Quote from: Hydra009 on July 25, 2015, 02:59:39 AM
You guys upset about Rosa Parks are hypocrites. Lots of people die from malaria, dirty drinking water, and inadequate access to basic medical care in third world countries. Obviously, we can't address civil rights until every person on the planet has their basic medical needs taken care of first. Also, if you're outraged about one, it indicates that you're not outraged about the other somehow.
I'm with you on this, Hydra. To a point. I am outraged that the people's basic medical needs are not being addressed--nor are their basic civil rights, either. Yes, I'm outraged that Coca Cola is stealing water from people around the world. And that Big Oil is stealing the environment from other countries. And several other things outrage me, as well. This is clearly a world in which corporations rule. which is why gun control simply is just another issue to be outraged about (including drunk drives). One does not preclude the others. But the issue is, for this thread, gun control, so I'll limit my outrage to just that for this thread. Gun control is such an easy fix--except it's not because the corporations are in control.
Quote from: Hydra009 on July 25, 2015, 02:59:39 AM
Lots of people die from malaria, dirty drinking water, and inadequate access to basic medical care in third world countries.
You know what I learned in the Army? There's no perfectly humane way to die. People get angry when they talk about chemical weapons use and about how horrible it is, but it's also pretty horrible to die from having your body ripped apart from a bomb or slowly bleed to death from a bullet too. We try to come up with "nice" ways to die and if the world were a better place, we'd all be doing it peacefully in our sleep at an old age. The fact that we have people dying of these things is shameful, but it doesn't make dying from gun violence "just a thing." They are unrelated.
Quote from: Hydra009 on July 25, 2015, 02:59:39 AMObviously, we can't address civil rights until every person on the planet has their basic medical needs taken care of first.
Civil rights and the right to safe drinking water, food and medicine aren't as different as you think. Civil rights gives people the opportunity to be economically independent, and in the modern world, money is right up there with oxygen. I'm going to say we can't fix one without simultaneously fixing the other since without civil rights, we can give everyone medicine and then tell people of certain groups to get to the back of the line to get it. What good is that?
Quote from: Hydra009 on July 25, 2015, 02:59:39 AMAlso, if you're outraged about one, it indicates that you're not outraged about the other somehow.
(http://i60.tinypic.com/2gxl62v.jpg) False. People can care about more than one topic at a time. I would say caring about ONLY one topic is part of what got us into this mess when we have partisan groups all screaming that only the social issue THEY support is relevant when in fact they all are. Racism vs. hungry people sets up a competition in which no one wins.
Quote from: Mike Cl on July 25, 2015, 09:16:41 AM
Gun control is such an easy fix--except it's not because the corporations are in control.
Wait, are you saying the corporations
aren't in control? The NRA is probably the best example of a lobbying group practically owned by corporations that you will ever find.
Mike CL missed a comma ... "except its not, because corporations are in control". The lack of a single character, destroyed the early Pioneer mission to Mars in the 1960s. Computers are unforgiving of bad punctuation. In this case, it made his statement the opposite of what "I think" he meant.
Corporations are made possible by governments. This is good cop/bad cop ... public vs private corporations, government vs capitalism ... is a false dichotomy. They have been symbiotic from the start. But the overall political economy, that gets beyond the he said/she said ... shows that our society has many ills that are becoming necrotic.
Keeping it general and non-partisan ... from my POV ... the US political theory is just as bogus as that of any other society. You have no rights ... never did. It was all a con, from George Washington onward. My cynicism matches Dogbert on this. The Enlightenment was all powdered wigs and shit.
Ed "guns" hockily, really? This fight is finished, if Ed is in, I'm out.
Quote from: TomFoolery on July 25, 2015, 09:33:27 AM
Wait, are you saying the corporations aren't in control? The NRA is probably the best example of a lobbying group practically owned by corporations that you will ever find.
Not quite sure how you got that. I thought I was totally clear--creating a fair and consistent gun control policy is an easy thing to do. Except----Except!, the corporations that make money from the selling of arms and ammo will not allow it. Congress is in the hip pocket of the NRA corporate shills!
Quote from: Mike Cl on July 25, 2015, 10:37:36 AM
Not quite sure how you got that. I thought I was totally clear--creating a fair and consistent gun control policy is an easy thing to do. Except----Except!, the corporations that make money from the selling of arms and ammo will not allow it. Congress is in the hip pocket of the NRA corporate shills!
I think Baruch is right. A comma completely changes this sentence:
QuoteGun control is such an easy fix--except it's not because the corporations are in control.
Gun control is such an easy fix--except it's not, because the corporations are in control.
I had kind of figured that wasn't what you meant, and after Baruch pointed out the comma, it makes more sense and I can say it aloud and see what you mean.
Quote from: Mike Cl on July 25, 2015, 09:16:41 AM
I'm with you on this, Hydra. To a point.
Quote from: TomFoolery on July 25, 2015, 09:33:27 AM
(http://i60.tinypic.com/2gxl62v.jpg)
False. People can care about more than one topic at a time.
Guys, guys. I was being sarcastic. I thought that would be fairly obvious. Apparently, I need to tag this stuff or something.
I was imitating Johan's drunk driving diversion (the accusation that the gun control people aren't similarly outraged by ongoing drunk driving deaths as the latest mass shooting, implying that they ought to be talking about that and not the mass shooting) by sarcastically claiming that we shouldn't be addressing civil rights when there are worse problems out there.
Quote from: Baruch on July 25, 2015, 10:07:38 AM
Mike CL missed a comma ... "except its not, because corporations are in control". The lack of a single character, destroyed the early Pioneer mission to Mars in the 1960s. Computers are unforgiving of bad punctuation. In this case, it made his statement the opposite of what "I think" he meant.
Ah---Yes, that pesky comma. That does give it a totally different meaning. TomFoolery, if you see me posting stuff in support of corporations then you will know that I have drank of the hemlock. In other words, the corp people gave me a bunch of money. :)))
QuoteRight, do absolutely nothing. That's EXACTLY what I said. I bet you got little gold starts and your little forehead every day in Mrs Rottencroch's reading class.
QuoteSo another whacko freaked out and killed a bunch of people? Well god dammit something must be done!!!!! Oh, but a drunk also killed a bunch of people? Well... I drive a car... and I don't really want to give that up... and I have drink now and then so.... I really don't want to give that up either.... so... let's just keep that on the down low shall we.... Yeah lets not talk too much about the hard cold facts, lets just steer the conversation back to the fact that guns have no real purpose and no one who isn't absolutely insane would ever own one. Hypocrites every one of us.
"You are upset about factor A and want to take action about it, but you are not upset about factor B and don't want to take action against it. Therefor you are a hypocrite, and either must take action against factor B or not take action against factor A... elsewise you are wrong."
Besides just being heavily logically flawed, and since people ARE upset over factor B "drunk driving", then the only logical conclusion is that you don't want people to be upset over factor A, "gun violence". Therefor the only way to answer your equation is to not do anything about factor A.
QuoteI want this problem fixed. I want the killing to stop.
Good luck with that.
There are always going to be psychos out there who will do shit like this; look at Brevik, who lives in a "liberal haven" country and still got his hands on weapons.
The thing is we don't have to make it so damn easy. And we don't have any reason to have the number of accidental deaths we have. You are acting like all gun violence has to do with mass shooters and maniacs; it doesn't. The overwhelming, vast majority of deaths by guns come from accidents, crimes of bursts of passion and criminals. Reducing the number of the guns reduces the first two... that is a fact that simply cannot be argued argued against. If you don't have a gun, you cant accidentally kill someone with it.
As for criminals, it drives the prices up when you reduce the supply... basic economics. The more criminals you can price lock out of having a gun, the better. Will they still be violent? Of fucking course. But it is still far harder to kill someone with a knife than a gun, and bombs are only used by "intelligent" (high IQ anyways) criminals (for the most part).
You don't want people to be killed in mass shootings and believe that is an issue of our culture or education or whatever; that's great, and I agree with you. But gun violence is overwhelming not a matter of mass shooting but negligence, stupidity, quick bursts of passion and just bad luck. These are all issues that gun reductions WOULD fix, and that is why so many people are in favour of heavy gun regulations.
Edit: IIRC, and it's been awhile since I have looked at the charts, suicides are the number one cause of gun related deaths...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/08/02/did-gun-control-work-in-australia/
Quote from: Shiranu on July 25, 2015, 06:37:00 PM
"You are upset about factor A and want to take action about it, but you are not upset about factor B and don't want to take action against it. Therefor you are a hypocrite, and either must take action against factor B or not take action against factor A... elsewise you are wrong."
Besides just being heavily logically flawed, and since people ARE upset over factor B "drunk driving", then the only logical conclusion is that you don't want people to be upset over factor A, "gun violence". Therefor the only way to answer your equation is to not do anything about factor A.
You seem to have misunderstood what I wrote.
Progressives always believe that there are "problems" .. that something must be "done" ... and that they know what that "something" is. This is not a claim that regressives are any fun either. They love that hidden hand of Adam Smith up their crotches.
Quote from: Shiranu on July 25, 2015, 06:37:00 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/08/02/did-gun-control-work-in-australia/
In 1996 the government bought back 640,000 guns, by mid 2012 we had imported over 1 million guns to replace the 640,000 that were bought back.
We only had around 50-60 firearm homicides a year before out gun laws were introduced,firearm homicides were trending down long before our 96 laws as was gun suicides.
Hanging is the most common method for suicide in Australia,gun suicides went down while hanging suicides increased,there is evidence of substitution of method.
We still have serious problems with gun crimes in Australia, drive by shootings were unheard of before 1996 now they are fairly common.
google.com.au/?gsw_rd=ssl#q=drive+by+shooting+sydney (http://google.com.au/?gsw_rd=ssl#q=drive+by+shooting+sydney)
There was even a call to have another buy back for illegal AK47 clones recently,does anyone think the criminals will hand them in?
The world is full of hypocrisy. This is nothing new. Walk sick and close to deaths door into any hospital and tell them you have no insurance and no money and you'll likely be shown the door to the parking lot. On the other hand if you tell them you're sick and close to deaths door and you're going to kill yourself because you can't deal with it any longer and the same hospital will likely sell a wing off to make sure you receive enough care to not die right off.
The hospital doesn't care if you die, but they DO care if you tell them you're the one who is going to do the killing.
Quote from: Hydra009 on July 25, 2015, 11:59:50 AM
Guys, guys. I was being sarcastic. I thought that would be fairly obvious. Apparently, I need to tag this stuff or something.
I was imitating Johan's drunk driving diversion (the accusation that the gun control people aren't similarly outraged by ongoing drunk driving deaths as the latest mass shooting, implying that they ought to be talking about that and not the mass shooting) by sarcastically claiming that we shouldn't be addressing civil rights when there are worse problems out there.
I read over the text of what you originally wrote and I didn't pick up a whole lot of sarcasm, but if that is really how you intended it, I apologize. I'm usually pretty good at picking up irony, satire and sarcasm. :/
Quote from: Johan on July 24, 2015, 07:34:36 AM
Who is saying that? Besides you, I mean.
Oh, and Rick Perry is...
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/26/politics/rick-perry-gun-free-zones-movie-theaters/
Quote from: TomFoolery link=tc=8110.msg1084242#msg1084242 date=1437942717
I read over the text of what you originally wrote and I didn't pick up a whole lot of sarcasm, but if that is really how you intended it, I apologize. I'm usually pretty good at picking up irony, satire and sarcasm. :/
Oh, and Rick Perry is...
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/26/politics/rick-perry-gun-free-zones-movie-theaters/
As I said, we need more people with loaded weapons in dark buildings and lots of noise so they're all focused on killing (the bad guys) and yes, in case you're immune to it that is sarcasm.
Quote from: baronvonrort on July 25, 2015, 08:44:59 PM
In 1996 the government bought back 640,000 guns, by mid 2012 we had imported over 1 million guns to replace the 640,000 that were bought back.
We only had around 50-60 firearm homicides a year before out gun laws were introduced,firearm homicides were trending down long before our 96 laws as was gun suicides.
Hanging is the most common method for suicide in Australia,gun suicides went down while hanging suicides increased,there is evidence of substitution of method.
We still have serious problems with gun crimes in Australia, drive by shootings were unheard of before 1996 now they are fairly common.
google.com.au/?gsw_rd=ssl#q=drive+by+shooting+sydney (http://google.com.au/?gsw_rd=ssl#q=drive+by+shooting+sydney)
There was even a call to have another buy back for illegal AK47 clones recently,does anyone think the criminals will hand them in?
But very few of the shootings here in Australia target innocents. Most are bikey gangs and drugs wars. At least they are shooting each other, and not school kids, or those trying to enjoy a movie. There's not much workplace violence either, compared to America. Maybe it's the 38 hour work week?
Quote from: hrdlr110 on July 26, 2015, 05:22:45 PM
But very few of the shootings here in Australia target innocents. Most are bikey gangs and drugs wars. At least they are shooting each other, and not school kids, or those trying to enjoy a movie. There's not much workplace violence either, compared to America. Maybe it's the 38 hour work week?
That's good to know. And good for Australia. And I bet you don't get many of the incidents where a 3 yr. old gets a gun from mommy's purse and then kills her or a sibling, either. Or of the 6 yr old who gets daddy's rifle and blows away a friend. We get this stuff all the time. I did not look this up, but I seem to remember that most of the killings with guns in the US is of family members of the gun owners. And if not the most, then it is still a big chunk of it--that has to be tragic in the extreme.
Moreover, in the U.S., more guns has consistently been linked to higher rates of suicide:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-ownership-and-use/
Many people assume that suicidal people will kill themselves no matter what and that method availability is of no consequence, that is, if they didn't have a gun in the home they would just take a bunch of pills or jump off a bridge. Method choice is unique to individuals for a variety of reasons, and firearms are often chosen (particularly by males) as a means of ensuring a quick and relatively painless death. Unfortunately, firearms cause such immediate, massive injury that most cases don't make it to the hospital for treatment (as we would see with other methods of suicide attempts) but rather go straight to the morgue.
Quote from: TomFoolery on July 26, 2015, 06:00:53 PM
Moreover, in the U.S., more guns has consistently been linked to higher rates of suicide:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-ownership-and-use/
Many people assume that suicidal people will kill themselves no matter what and that method availability is of no consequence, that is, if they didn't have a gun in the home they would just take a bunch of pills or jump off a bridge. Method choice is unique to individuals for a variety of reasons, and firearms are often chosen (particularly by males) as a means of ensuring a quick and relatively painless death. Unfortunately, firearms cause such immediate, massive injury that most cases don't make it to the hospital for treatment (as we would see with other methods of suicide attempts) but rather go straight to the morgue.
I think that is true. If I were at a stage of wanting to commit suicide, I'd opt for the most painless and easiest method I can avail myself of. A gun would be first choice. But I cannot rely on a gun always being available for me. My father was an example of this. He was in the last stages of emphysema, had to wear oxygen mask at all times and could hardly move. Reading got him through the ordeal to a certain point, but he could no longer hold a book and turn the pages. And we have never owned guns, so there were none in the house. While my mother was napping one day, he taped a vacuum cleaner hose to the exhaust of the car in the garage, started the car and taped the hose through the window as well. And taped the window shut. He died in that manner. If a person is determined enough, they will suicide by whatever means they have at their disposal--guns or not.
Quote from: Mike Cl on July 26, 2015, 06:27:54 PM
If a person is determined enough, they will suicide by whatever means they have at their disposal--guns or not.
For some people, that is true, but suicide is undoubtable a complex issue. Someone suffering from emphysema choosing to end their life is emotionally in a different place than a middle-aged man who has just lost his job or a teen being bullied. Generally, people opting for suicide in response to life situations tend to be more impulsive in that moment than someone seeking to end their suffering. When guns aren't available, they may possibly turn to other methods like pills or cutting their wrists or self-asphyxiation, but by these methods many people suffering from situational depression have a way out and often take it, or have someone else intervene on their behalf. You can slit your wrists or take an entire bottle of pain killers and still seek help if you regret your choice, which statistically often happens. That often isn't a choice after you've shot yourself in the head.
If you check out the link I posted, it explains how method barriers are actually far more effective in preventing suicide than most people are really aware of and sort of dispels the myth that suicidal people will
ALWAYS find a way.
Quote from: TomFoolery on July 26, 2015, 06:44:19 PM
For some people, that is true, but suicide is undoubtable a complex issue. Someone suffering from emphysema choosing to end their life is emotionally in a different place than a middle-aged man who has just lost his job or a teen being bullied. Generally, people opting for suicide in response to life situations tend to be more impulsive in that moment than someone seeking to end their suffering. When guns aren't available, they may possibly turn to other methods like pills or cutting their wrists or self-asphyxiation, but by these methods many people suffering from situational depression have a way out and often take it, or have someone else intervene on their behalf. You can slit your wrists or take an entire bottle of pain killers and still seek help if you regret your choice, which statistically often happens. That often isn't a choice after you've shot yourself in the head.
If you check out the link I posted, it explains how method barriers are actually far more effective in preventing suicide than most people are really aware of and sort of dispels the myth that suicidal people will ALWAYS find a way.
I agree with what you say. Many times suicide is an impulse. Hell, at times, I have thought of it--no planning, but thinking of how best to do it. A gun that is in the house can make that impulse a reality very quickly.
Early intervention is the best way to survive suicidal thoughts. You could have euthanasia ... but the problem is, the political system would start to make it ... the preferred choice for seniors etc ... anyone who isn't part of the master race/ideal health. The Nazis snuffed the mental health patients first.
Quote from: hrdlr110 on July 26, 2015, 05:22:45 PM
But very few of the shootings here in Australia target innocents. Most are bikey gangs and drugs wars. At least they are shooting each other, and not school kids, or those trying to enjoy a movie. There's not much workplace violence either, compared to America. Maybe it's the 38 hour work week?
We had 67 firearm homicides in 1995 which was the year before our gun laws were imposed, we had over 400 people killed crossing the road in the same year.
www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/australia (http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/australia)
New Zealand has not had a mass shooting since the early 1990's they allow recreational hunters to have semi auto rifles with sound moderators,perhaps regulating who can have guns instead of what type they can have is the answer.
New Zealand has those Kea parrots that drink the blood of sheep ... there are hazards everywhere. Australia has salt water crocks and many venomous snakes. Not all hazards are human.
Quote from: Johan on July 24, 2015, 07:34:36 AM
Who is saying that? Besides you, I mean.
This is a tragic event no doubt and I don't want to belittle that. This trend of suicidal people deciding to massacre others before taking their own lives is truly baffling and disturbing.
But once again at the risk of being shunned or flamed or whatever, I have to ask why this tragic news story warrants its own thread here on an athiest forum while these other stories do not. Are the lives of these other people not just as important? Where is the outcry from the athiest community for them? These were all in the news in the last 48 hours and took about 30 seconds to find via google search. Why no threads here for any of them? Not one? I guess we don't give a fuck about people who are killed by mixing booze and cars.
http://www.katc.com/story/29611152/duson-man-charged-in-fatal-car-wreck-in-myrtle-beach (http://www.katc.com/story/29611152/duson-man-charged-in-fatal-car-wreck-in-myrtle-beach)
http://www.dailyprogress.com/alcohol-possible-factor-in-fatal-crash-on-u-s-tuesday/article_47d430f6-305f-11e5-8242-2bb0b2b12b12.html (http://www.dailyprogress.com/alcohol-possible-factor-in-fatal-crash-on-u-s-tuesday/article_47d430f6-305f-11e5-8242-2bb0b2b12b12.html)
http://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/4236888-181/st-helena-police-alcohol-main (http://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/4236888-181/st-helena-police-alcohol-main)
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-23/double-fatal-crash-in-nakara-darwin/6641448 (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-23/double-fatal-crash-in-nakara-darwin/6641448)
http://www.thechronicle.com.au/news/westbrook-man-dies-fatal-crash-gore-highway/2715722/ (http://www.thechronicle.com.au/news/westbrook-man-dies-fatal-crash-gore-highway/2715722/)
http://wncn.com/2015/07/23/1-million-bond-set-for-unc-student-charged-in-triple-fatal-crash/ (http://wncn.com/2015/07/23/1-million-bond-set-for-unc-student-charged-in-triple-fatal-crash/)
I'm sorry, I dont see how your rhetoric has any traction.
As drunk driving is already illegal, and a sizable portion of gun deaths are unintentional, if anything this might serve better as a case to outlaw firearm possession rather then legitimize it.
It is because I've been suicidal a large part of my life that I've never owned a gun. There are other reasons, but that's the main reason by far. I realized long ago that if I bought a gun I'd be dead already and so as a result I've endured several very painful suicide attempts, but none with a gun. Lucky for me the vast majority of my attempts came at times when I had little to no money to even buy a gun. What most people don't realize is that killing yourself isn't as easy as it seems especially if you're relatively healthy to begin with. Jumping takes a lot of thought and there's always the chance that you'll either survive, chicken out or be caught before actually jumping. I always chickened out from fear of heights.
Pills are notoriously unreliable because just finding a lethal dose is difficult and often you'll puke it up anyway. I tried an overdose of heroin and just slept it off and was broke after wasting $150 on dope. Poison is tough to find and is typically quite painful if you don't succeed. I have a lot of scars from suicide attempts and just don't recommend it to anyone without a fool proof plan and even then just to many things can go wrong.
Finally a few years ago, well more than a few I realized I'm much closer to dying of plain old age than ever and that every time I ever became suicidal if I could just hold out things always got better.
Now, after years of trying to kill myself I'm in the best place I've been emotionally and financially for many years and have much more to live for.
That doesn't mean that I never think about it, but now I'm much better at waiting bad situations out than ever.
The one thing I'll never do is to buy a gun unless I'm absolutely going to use it,but for the price of a gun I can always buy one hell of a shot of heroin and I know more about heroin than I know about guns.
APA,
Glad you're still here.
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on July 28, 2015, 07:07:55 PM
It is because I've been suicidal a large part of my life that I've never owned a gun. There are other reasons, but that's the main reason by far. I realized long ago that if I bought a gun I'd be dead already and so as a result I've endured several very painful suicide attempts, but none with a gun. Lucky for me the vast majority of my attempts came at times when I had little to no money to even buy a gun. What most people don't realize is that killing yourself isn't as easy as it seems especially if you're relatively healthy to begin with. Jumping takes a lot of thought and there's always the chance that you'll either survive, chicken out or be caught before actually jumping. I always chickened out from fear of heights.
Pills are notoriously unreliable because just finding a lethal dose is difficult and often you'll puke it up anyway. I tried an overdose of heroin and just slept it off and was broke after wasting $150 on dope. Poison is tough to find and is typically quite painful if you don't succeed. I have a lot of scars from suicide attempts and just don't recommend it to anyone without a fool proof plan and even then just to many things can go wrong.
Finally a few years ago, well more than a few I realized I'm much closer to dying of plain old age than ever and that every time I ever became suicidal if I could just hold out things always got better.
Now, after years of trying to kill myself I'm in the best place I've been emotionally and financially for many years and have much more to live for.
That doesn't mean that I never think about it, but now I'm much better at waiting bad situations out than ever.
The one thing I'll never do is to buy a gun unless I'm absolutely going to use it,but for the price of a gun I can always buy one hell of a shot of heroin and I know more about heroin than I know about guns.
I'm rather glad you are such a failure. :)
I've thought about how to suicide myself, especially when my dad was sick and then later my mom. My mother had the perfect out. She was an insulin taking diabetic. She lived in Oregon and perused the right to die law. When recovering from her ovarian cancer surgery, she talked to her surgeon about it. He was willing to be one of the signers (have to have two MD's sign), but suggested without suggesting it--if you know what I mean--that these forms and the procedure for the right to die process can be complicated. She was taking insulin. Sometimes one can make a mistake and take too much, and that was dangerous and could even be fatal. So, she looked at the surgeon--looked at me--then said she would stop the process. From then on she always had quite a bit of insulin at all times. I have evolved into an insulin taking diabetic now, myself. So, committing suicide no longer is much of a concern for me.
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on July 28, 2015, 07:07:55 PM
It is because I've been suicidal a large part of my life that I've never owned a gun. There are other reasons, but that's the main reason by far. I realized long ago that if I bought a gun I'd be dead already and so as a result I've endured several very painful suicide attempts, but none with a gun. Lucky for me the vast majority of my attempts came at times when I had little to no money to even buy a gun. What most people don't realize is that killing yourself isn't as easy as it seems especially if you're relatively healthy to begin with. Jumping takes a lot of thought and there's always the chance that you'll either survive, chicken out or be caught before actually jumping.
Guns were the most common method of suicide in Australia before 1996, today hanging is the most common method at over 50%.
Taking guns away was supposed to give them more time to reconsider,it takes a lot more effort to hang yourself yet this does not stop people from doing it.
Suicide is a complex issue,we started spending heaps on mental health in the 1990's to reduce our suicide rate which gets absolutely no credit as people insist our gun laws alone were responsible for this reduction.
Japan has a high suicide rate and very few guns,they send the families cleanup bills when people jump in front of trains.
QuoteGuns were the most common method of suicide in Australia before 1996, today hanging is the most common method at over 50%.
Um... okay? You cant just throw out random statistics and expect that to be a stand-alone argument...
50% of what total? And the total of suicides is what's relevant, not the percentage of how they are killing themselves.
QuoteTaking guns away was supposed to give them more time to reconsider,it takes a lot more effort to hang yourself yet this does not stop people from doing it.
Please cite where anyone, anywhere, ever said taking away guns would stop all suicide. I'll wait.
QuoteSuicide is a complex issue,we started spending heaps on mental health in the 1990's to reduce our suicide rates...
And I completely agree that is a brilliant step to take, and one that most gun regulation advocates and I would argue needs to be done.
QuoteJapan has a high suicide rate and very few guns,they send the families cleanup bills when people jump in front of trains.
You just got done saying it's a multi-faceted issue, then imply that guns are not at all a factor.
Please, if you are going to have this argument, at least learn some basics of how to structure an argument.
Quote from: Shiranu on July 28, 2015, 10:14:50 PM
Um... okay? You cant just throw out random statistics and expect that to be a stand-alone argument...
50% of what total? And the total of suicides is what's relevant, not the percentage of how they are killing themselves.
Hanging accounts for around 56.2% of all suicides, in 2010 we had 2,478 suicides,before our gun laws we had around 2200-2300 suicides a year.
www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Products/94BBA3060FC0657BCA2579C6001B676E (http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Products/94BBA3060FC0657BCA2579C6001B676E)
www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/australia (http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/australia)- has suicide totals.
Please cite where anyone, anywhere, ever said taking away guns would stop all suicide. I'll wait.
Lots of hoplophobes claim our gun laws reduced suicides saving hundreds of lives,there is no reduction in dead bodies to justify their absurd claims
And I completely agree that is a brilliant step to take, and one that most gun regulation advocates and I would argue needs to be done.
You just got done saying it's a multi-faceted issue, then imply that guns are not at all a factor.
There are studies that show substitution of method,peer reviewd, try reading Dr Samara McPhedran
Please, if you are going to have this argument, at least learn some basics of how to structure an argument.
Why should I bother with a pissant apologist like you?
I'm glad to still be around and I too tired hanging myself till I managed to pull myself up and hang on and get the rope off. I almost succeeded. Geeez. .I could make a list of failed attempts, but I don't see much use in it other than to warn people to not try it, but no matter if guns are outlawed, rope is outlawed, knives, poison, etc., if someone is bent on destroying themselves enough they'll find a way.
Personally for me I try to avoid pain and failed suicide is usually very painful in more ways than one. Waking up alive when you feel that the only alternative is to die is no picnic. I'd venture to guess that many suicides are people who regret it seconds before it's too late. Of course I have no way to prove that, but I've certainly been on the edge more than once full of regrets about even having to go to those extremes and before anyone thinks that I was seeking attention very few people ever knew about any of my attempts. They started when I was about 7 years old. Nobody knew about that until many years later when I actually remembered it.
I still have to say the one common theme to my survival has been my lack of owning a gun.
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on July 28, 2015, 11:21:19 PM
I'm glad to still be around and I too tired hanging myself till I managed to pull myself up and hang on and get the rope off. I almost succeeded. Geeez. .I could make a list of failed attempts, but I don't see much use in it other than to warn people to not try it, but no matter if guns are outlawed, rope is outlawed, knives, poison, etc., if someone is bent on destroying themselves enough they'll find a way.
I still have to say the one common theme to my survival has been my lack of owning a gun.
If you ban one method suicidal people will try another,there are studies here that show substitution of method in Australia,fireams were the most common method which has been replaced by hanging.
You would be denied a firearm licence in Australia due to previous attempts at suicide,you would fail the mental health background check.
Quote11.General restrictions on issue of licence
(4) Without limiting the generality of subsection 3,a licence must not be issued if-
(b) any previous attempt by the applicant to commit suicide or cause a self inflicted injury...
legislation.nsw.gov.au/maintop/view/inforce/act+46+1996+cd+0+N (http://legislation.nsw.gov.au/maintop/view/inforce/act+46+1996+cd+0+N)
In Australia a doctor-nurse or even a social worker can fill this form in if someone threatens suicide or harming others, the Police will then come around and confiscate any guns,firearms licence will be revoked.
www.police.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/131155/S79_Notification_FACT_Sheet_-_March_2013.pdf (http://www.police.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/131155/S79_Notification_FACT_Sheet_-_March_2013.pdf)
Cute.
Quote from: baronvonrort on July 28, 2015, 11:02:21 PM
Hanging accounts for around 56.2% of all suicides, in 2010 we had 2,478 suicides,before our gun laws we had around 2200-2300 suicides a year.
Again, you are not using statistics and percentages properly.
Australia's population before gun laws (using 1995, right as the laws were coming into play) was 18.07 million.
Australia's population "today" (2010, when you quoted) is 22.03 million.
The number of suicides in Australia, using your numbers, was 2250 (averaging). That comes out to 0.01245 of the population.
The number of suicides in Australia in 2010 were roughly 2,472 which is 0.01124.
So, even though the population is going up... the number of suicides are decreasing. And the number of people who shot themselves? Much, much lower.
----
Before moving on, lets pull out some peer-reviewed articles of our own, shall we?
http://web.a.ebscohost.com.libproxy.txstate.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=49eee9d1-bd6a-4d20-a342-13c5d92b9036%40sessionmgr4004&vid=9&hid=4201
QuoteThe most comprehensive study into the effects of the reforms,81 conducted by Leigh and
Neill in 2010, found a 65% decline in the firearm homicide rate and a 59% decline in the
firearm suicide rate in the decade following the implementation of the NFA, with no parallel
increase in rates of non-firearm related homicides or suicides. 82 These authors also
demonstrated a strong causal relationship between the NFA and these declines. 83 Their
research showed that the NFA was responsible for a 36% decline in the firearm homicide rate
and a 74% decline in the firearm suicide rate.
In regards to separate articles "debunking" the gun laws...
QuoteIn 2008, Lee and Suardi re-analysed the same data, using an alternative time-series approach
testing for unknown structural breaks as a means of identifying the impact of the NFA.91 The
authors found no evidence of a structural break around the time of the NFA and concluded,
therefore, that the reforms had not had any significant effects on firearm homicides or
suicides.92
Since their publication, both of these studies have been heavily criticised and shown to be
deeply methodologically flawed. 93 In an article entitled ‘How to Find Nothing’, David
Hemenway of the Harvard School of Public Health explained how limitations in the research
design of these studies made it impossible for the authors to reject the hypothesis that the
NFA had no effect.94 Therefore, on balance, it seems reasonable to reject the findings of these
studies in favour of those that demonstrated a clear correlation between the NFA and
subsequent declines in gun violence in Australia.
-HIRSH, LAUREN, Macquarie Law Journal. 2013, Vol. 12, p81-108. 28p.
Just thought I would throw that out there. There are also peer-reviewed articles about how global warming is a myth or how Jesus was, infact, the son of God. Putting peer-reviewed before it doesn't impress me when the vast majority of peer-reviewed work shows that article to be wrong.
QuoteLots of hoplophobes claim our gun laws reduced suicides saving hundreds of lives,there is no reduction in dead bodies to justify their absurd claims
Again, lack of understanding of percentages. The percentage of suicides has gone down, when dealing with numbers these small, quite significantly. If I am doing my math correctly, it's an 11% decrease, and that is with unemployment rising (which increases the rate of suicides).
And hoplophobes? Really? I am a gun owner. I am not irrationally (or rationally) afraid of my guns, nor are the majority of people I know who are in favour of gun regulation.
If you are going to use appeals to pathos, have the numbers to warrant it. When you logically wrong, making emotional stabs only makes your position look that much shakier.
QuoteWhy should I bother with a pissant apologist like you?
I wouldn't bother, honestly. Not until you actually have the numbers to back you up or edit your position to be factually based.
And apologist... again with the loaded language meant to stab at the emotion. Desperate.
We reduced gun crimes in Australia while increasing legal ownership of firearms, in Australia more guns has resulted in less firearm crimes.
There were 640,000 guns bought back in 1996,in Victoria which had gun registration every semi auto centrefire had to be handed in they made a total of 3.2% of guns surrendered while rimfires accounted for 47% of all guns surrendered.
Quote
By mid 2012,following a steady 10 year upward trend in gun buying,Australians had restocked the national stockpile of private guns to pre pr Arthur levels,they did this by importing 1,055,082 firearms.
sydney.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=10824 (http://sydney.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=10824)
It's a myth we reduced guns in Australia, we currently have over 1 million firearm licences issued which is the highest number we have ever had.
Australia reduced gun crime while increasing gun ownership to it's highest ever levels.
Dr McPedran has cited numerous articles in this piece,even pointing out flaws in your cherry picked nonsense-
thebigsmoke.com.au/2014/10/20/Australia-firearms-evidence-really-tells-us (http://thebigsmoke.com.au/2014/10/20/Australia-firearms-evidence-really-tells-us)
Suicides are increasing with women in Australia,an increase of 10% for each of the past 3 years,i thought our gun laws were supposed to reduce this,these women are not using guns so the hoplophobes will ignore this increase and cite studies from 10 years ago in blatant cherry picking to push their irrational fear of guns.
abc.net.au/news/2015-07-27/female-suicide-increasing--suicide-prevention-australia-reports/6650982 (http://abc.net.au/news/2015-07-27/female-suicide-increasing--suicide-prevention-australia-reports/6650982)
If I ever did decide to take my life, a gun would be my method of choice. This is not intended to be taken for or against the ownership issue. It's simply the easiest way I could think of to dispatch myself.
The pill route is too difficult. Everyone thinks, "Hey what could be easier than taking an overdose?" How does one get enough to make a massive dose of barbiturates from the doctor? It's not that easy. A gun, you just go and buy one, and no one has the slightest suspicion about why you are getting it. You pull the trigger and it's over. You don't have to tell lies to your doctor, and make up some strange insomnia problem for why you need pills. No having to wait around for the pills to take effect while you sit on the pity pot, and think about how life dealt you a shitty hand.
It's easy to get a rope as it is to get a gun, but hanging? No thanks! I wouldn't be trying to punish myself and make myself suffer. I'd just want to die. Jumping off a building might be a thrill, and you also get to do it front of a bunch of on lookers, but I always thought jumpers were more like entertainers that wanted to give others a morbid thrill.
The absolute best way would be to have a competent medical team put you out of your misery in a setting of your choice. But that's against the law, and requires a lot of paperwork, and I'm sure way too many personal questions about why I should receive that kind of treatment: Have you talked to a "shrink?" Have you talked to your minister? Have you talked to your family? Fuck that. Those assholes might be the reason I'd be killing myself to begin with.
Just go down to the gun shop, buy a gun, and take it home. No muss, no fuss, no questions asked. And much less planning than the other methods. It's especially well suited for a spur of the moment impulse.
Logic ... don't do things you can't take back. Suicide tops the list of things you can't take back. I don't blame anyone for suiciding, but it isn't logical ... particularly if it is a way to get back at society ... they don't care about you anyway. But get out, make a few friends ... then someone will care even if you don't.
Quote from: SGOS on July 29, 2015, 06:21:53 AM
If I ever did decide to take my life, a gun would be my method of choice. This is not intended to be taken for or against the ownership issue. It's simply the easiest way I could think of to dispatch myself.
The gun grabbers like to claim suicides as gun violence-deaths to push their irrational fear of guns, the amusing thing is many of them are for voluntary euthanasia as long as you don't use a gun.
Phil Bolger took his own life because he didn't want to end up like previous generations in his family,i think it despicable people will use cases like his to push their agenda.
www.duckworksmagazine.com/09/reports/bolger/index.htm (http://www.duckworksmagazine.com/09/reports/bolger/index.htm)
I don't think I can support the stance that there should be less guns around so less people would off themselves. That seems to be an anti-freedom stance to me.
Yeah, suicide help lines and family stepping in and helping is perfectly fine, but I would never say that I wished there were less guns around so people had less of a chance to exercise their freedom. I don't see how that is my place. Their body, their choice. Some of these people are doing the world a favour by checking out anyways.
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on July 30, 2015, 06:19:15 PM
I don't think I can support the stance that there should be less guns around so less people would off themselves. That seems to be an anti-freedom stance to me.
Yeah, suicide help lines and family stepping in and helping is perfectly fine, but I would never say that I wished there were less guns around so people had less of a chance to exercise their freedom. I don't see how that is my place. Their body, their choice. Some of these people are doing the world a favour by checking out anyways.
So, are you also against seat belt laws? How about smoking laws? Would you be in favor of any laws that curtail any individual freedoms at all?
I would get into an argument about how non-terminal illness suicide isn't about control of your body, and effects yourself, your family, your friends, your employer, anyone who witnesses it/finds your body, is an economic drain, and so on, but really not in the mood.
If you have a reason to commit suicide, okay. If it's because your depressed, fuck your "right" to commit suicide, you are mentally ill.
Quote from: Mike Cl on July 30, 2015, 08:01:52 PM
So, are you also against seat belt laws? How about smoking laws? Would you be in favor of any laws that curtail any individual freedoms at all?
What does any of that have to do with suicide? People not wearing a seat belt usually don't not wear it because they want to die badly. Seat belt laws need to be there to protect people that are nearby the person that chooses not to wear a belt. Seat belt laws are not only to protect the person wearing the belt, and this is not a person looking to kill themselves, so I don't see why you brought this up in the first place.
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on July 30, 2015, 11:19:40 PM
What does any of that have to do with suicide? People not wearing a seat belt usually don't not wear it because they want to die badly. Seat belt laws need to be there to protect people that are nearby the person that chooses not to wear a belt. Seat belt laws are not only to protect the person wearing the belt, and this is not a person looking to kill themselves, so I don't see why you brought this up in the first place.
You said--I don't think I can support the stance that there should be less guns around so less people would off themselves. That seems to be an anti-freedom stance to me.
If this is a 'freedom' stance for you, would not wearing a seat belt be the same--a freedom stance? Don't we have any number of laws that violate our freedoms for the safety of society in general? So, for you gun ownership is a 'freedom' stance thing?
Shiranu - sympathy with your reticence ... assisted termination of life of terminal patients ... is a rather difficult subject. I think we can keep this to ... don't do something permanent over temporary depression or temporary illness.
Movie theaters are target rich gun free zones (most are posted).
Quote from: Mike Cl on July 31, 2015, 12:10:10 AM
You said--I don't think I can support the stance that there should be less guns around so less people would off themselves. That seems to be an anti-freedom stance to me.
If this is a 'freedom' stance for you, would not wearing a seat belt be the same--a freedom stance? Don't we have any number of laws that violate our freedoms for the safety of society in general? So, for you gun ownership is a 'freedom' stance thing?
No, wearing a seat belt is not the same. It's an extremely small inconvenience and should not be compared to gun laws or the Patriot Act or whatever.
If someone without a criminal record and who is not documented to be crazy buys a gun, and later kills themselves, I'm not going to say "Damned guns!". I'd rather this person have that option than be forced to go with a more painful option. If people are killing themselves in less painful ways, I really don't care that more of them are killing themselves. I'm not willing to say "I wish these people would have to use a more painful method, so a few of them would change their minds and not go through with it."
Yeah, lots of suicide attempts are regretted, but people regret lots of things. Women regret getting abortions. That's not a good argument against freedom for me. Families are devastated. Sure. Your family doesn't get to decide what you do with your freedom. Parents are devastated when they find out their kid is atheist. When they find out their kid has changed from Catholic to Protestant. When they find out their kid is gay. When they find out their kid is having an abortion. When they find out their kid has killed themself in an extremely painful manner, and can't at least be comforted by "at least it was quick and painless".
When it comes to guns, I don't want crazy people having them, but I don't support the banning of any types of assault rifles or anything like that either.
QuoteIt's an extremely small inconvenience...
So is not having a gun, unless you make up the 0.002% (to be fair, this number is probably closer to 2%, sorry for the earlier hyperbole) of the population that uses it for self-sustaining or killing varmint.
You want to go target shooting? Go to a range that rents out guns, that's what I do. The amount that inconveniences me or anyone else does not out-weigh the "inconvenience" of people being killed left and right because of incompetence. Want to sustain yourself or protect your life-stock? I know very few places that don't allow farmers bolt-action rifles or shotguns.
Quote...but I don't support the banning of any types of assault rifles...
If we are going to use convenience as criteria for not supporting, then this becomes even more ridiculous. There is zero reason to own an assault rifle other than, "I WANT ITTTTT!!!!". Pistols you MIGHT have an argument for, bolt action rifles certainly, pump-action shotguns, certainly... but magazine-fed rifles? No, that is strictly a matter of wanting.
This is coming from someone who REALLLLY wants to buy a IWI Tavor Sar 18'.
That said, pistols are the biggest culprit of suicides, accidental deaths and murder. I think the assault rifle issue is blown out of proportion, but at the same time... it is just not a necessary weapon to own.
One is taking something away from people, or banning them from owning it, while the other is fastening a small strap around your shoulder/waist. You are not banned from owning something when you have to use a seat belt. I don't see these as similar at all, but I respect that you do.
I have never owned a gun or even fired one. To me, the mass shootings that happen are too rare to warrant any kind of gun ban.
Another, in Nashville. Seem to be a lot of copycats. More to come, I bet.