Gun violence rant

Your chance to pontificate on the subject of your choice. (Please keep it PG-rated.)
User avatar
Cognoscente
Posts: 597
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2007 4:50 pm
Location: Salt Lake Sizzle
Contact:

Gun violence rant

Post by Cognoscente »

I wrote something on social media and it's been shared/liked more than almost anything I've ever written before. I figured I'd share it here:

I haven't posted anything controversial or political in a while. This is the only thing I'll say about the recent shooting.

I'm pro-2nd Amendment. At least, I thought I was.

I'm pro-gun ownership. At least, I thought I was.

One of the things I respect most about the scientific method is the ability to correct past misconceptions. You observe, you experiment, and you reevaluate previous beliefs. Well, if current gun laws are a social experiment, they have been catastrophic.

I can no longer defend unfettered gun ownership in good conscience. Not when mass shootings are so goddamn common in this country that we're not even surprised to hear of a new one. Not when we're the only developed country in the entire world with this level of violence: http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/

There is a lobby in this country that is organized ostensibly to protect and promote the rights of firearm owners. (The victims of firearm violence don't seem to share that privilege.) They are well funded and well connected. They've steered the national conversation to the point that ANY mention of gun control, in ANY degree, for ANY reason, is tantamount to the destruction of the 2nd Amendment. Most people, endowed with reason, can see that this line of thinking simply isn't true. And yet, if those people can witness Newtown and Sandy Hook and still think these are simply unavoidable, acceptable consequences of the values of our society, reason has ceased to be a factor in this equation.

This is not an emotional philosophical response. This is absolutely objective. Gun laws as they stand in this country are indisputably responsible for tens of thousands of innocent lives a year. Gun control laws have the potential to save those lives.

If you are a responsible private gun owner who uses their firearm for hunting, sport, or self-defense–you should ABSOLUTELY support gun control initiatives. Mandatory training, stricter licensing, and a culture of reverence for safety do nothing but strengthen your reasons for owning a gun.

If you are a 2nd Amendment absolutist who sees any reasonable restriction as an affront to your civil rights, pull your head out of your fucking ass and look at the social cost of your ideology. Spare me your tired fallacies about slippery slopes and potential dictators and only criminals owning guns. They're nonsense. You're placing the sanctity of a specious ideology over the lives and futures of countless innocent slain men, women, and children. Look at yourself in the mirror and ask yourself if that's the kind of person you want to be. If that's the kind of society you want for yourself and your community.

And if you are a lobbyist or a legislator who is responsible for stonewalling gun control in the face of these frequent killings, you have blood on your hands, and I hope God forgives you. Because I fucking won't.
Early to bed and early to rise
Precludes you from seeing the most brilliant starry nights
User avatar
Shrinky Dink
Posts: 301
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 11:21 pm

Re: Gun violence rant

Post by Shrinky Dink »

In response to part of your second to last paragraph, I don't know of anyone who is a supporter of the second amendment who thinks or argues that only criminals own guns. I may have misread it, but after going over it two or three times, that's what I'm getting. Feel free to correct me.
*Insert Evil Laughter Here*
User avatar
Cognoscente
Posts: 597
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2007 4:50 pm
Location: Salt Lake Sizzle
Contact:

Re: Gun violence rant

Post by Cognoscente »

Shrinky Dink wrote:In response to part of your second to last paragraph, I don't know of anyone who is a supporter of the second amendment who thinks or argues that only criminals own guns. I may have misread it, but after going over it two or three times, that's what I'm getting. Feel free to correct me.
I meant the old argument that "if we make guns illegal, only criminals will have guns." That a reduction of gun ownership wouldn't reduce gun-related incidents.
Early to bed and early to rise
Precludes you from seeing the most brilliant starry nights
User avatar
Shrinky Dink
Posts: 301
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 11:21 pm

Re: Gun violence rant

Post by Shrinky Dink »

Technically, if guns were illegal, and you owned a gun, you would be considered a criminal.
*Insert Evil Laughter Here*
User avatar
Marduk
Most Attractive Mod
Posts: 2995
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 4:15 pm
Location: Orem, UT
Contact:

Re: Gun violence rant

Post by Marduk »

Shrinky Dink wrote:Technically, if guns were illegal, and you owned a gun, you would be considered a criminal.
Yep, but the fact that it is a tautology doesn't stop people from using the argument. (And assuming it means something else)
Deus ab veritas
User avatar
Shrinky Dink
Posts: 301
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 11:21 pm

Re: Gun violence rant

Post by Shrinky Dink »

I think the hard part with promoting general gun control measures, is that people tend to immediately promote banning guns before other safety measures.

This article shows how background checks could be improved drastically, including requiring mental health facilities to report the mentally ill to the database. The article also shows what percentage of people support different additional measures. Gun owners tend to support the expanded measures at a comparable rate to the general population. Surprisingly, many states fail to report many of their mentally ill to the database, leading to potentially dangerous gun purchases.

As for mandatory training, I'm not against this, but I think the mandatory training won't do much to actually reduce gun violence, but it would likely reduce gun accidents. Freakonomics Chapter 5 shows that people are generally safe with their guns already. They are actually safer around their guns than their swimming pools. However, there are still plenty of fools who leave their guns in their purse in the shopping cart next to their 4 year old. Again, I'm not against safety training, I just don't think it'll do much to affect intentional gun violence.

The Utah concealed carry permit has been one of the most coveted because it is recognized in more states than most other permits. Interestingly enough, the Utah permit doesn't have mandatory shooting practice or a longer class than other states (the class was about 3 hours long). You don't even have to have experience handling a gun at all. What does make the Utah concealed carry permit so widely recognized is who they DON'T allow to get a permit. In addition to the federal laws, you cannot obtain a permit if you have been convicted of a felony, a crime of violence, and much more (The Federal laws are summarized in the first link.) The Weapon Familiarity Certification was met by going through a simple power point.

Unfortunately, most people don't understand what measures are and aren't already in place for obtaining a weapon. Rather than improving these measures, like background checks and actually reporting the mentally ill, people jump to "Let's take away all the guns!" I've posted this before, but this article by Larry Correia quite easily demonstrates how buying back all the guns would be an impossible feat in America, not including the fact that our gun density is around four times Australia's gun density was before their buyback.

If you wish to propose a solution of better background checks and better mental health care and reporting for the citizens of our country, you share the beliefs of thousands of gun owners. However, if you wish to increase the ban on some or all weapons (the Larry Correia article already goes over fully automatic weapons and 'assault' weapons), you're a fool to think it would be successful and you'd have much better luck to move to Canada or Australia. Yes, something needs to be done, I just rarely hear a rational argument from either side, which is probably why the government seems to be in a stalemate in their ability to do anything about it.
*Insert Evil Laughter Here*
Zedability
Posts: 987
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2012 6:17 pm

Re: Gun violence rant

Post by Zedability »

I agree that better background checks are probably the most useful idea. People get all up in arms about taking guns away from the "good guys," but simply preventing people with criminal records from legally buying guns would make a big difference. (Yes, people can still get guns illegally, but it's more difficult.) Similarly, mental health restrictions would help, I think. I think there are some situations where people shouldn't be able to get guns, or should only be able to get guns with a letter of approval from a psychologist who had been working with them for a certain amount of time. In other cases, I think even requiring them to wait 30 days or something could be helpful.
User avatar
Portia
Posts: 5186
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 11:06 am
Location: Zion

Re: Gun violence rant

Post by Portia »

Most people with mental illness aren't violent; most mass shooters aren't mentally ill, but rather, socially isolated white dudes.

All that one of sites is further stigmatize mental illness while doing nothing to stop the killings.

Also, Mr. Correira definitely has a created interest in the status quo. His various movements frankly disgust me.
Violet
Posts: 296
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 2:09 am

Re: Gun violence rant

Post by Violet »

There's an interest in keeping guns difficult to access for people who are suicidal. It's not just mass shootings.
User avatar
TheBlackSheep
The Best
Posts: 819
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 12:42 pm
Location: Salt Lake County

Re: Gun violence rant

Post by TheBlackSheep »

It's true that many, many of the gun-related deaths in the US are suicides and that, obviously, we'd like to prevent suicide wherever possible. I'm giving myself a pass on considering the whole gun control question right now because of complicated emotions related to recent life events. The specific issue of gun-related suicides, however... Maybe I'm bats but I just don't get that one. Yes, most people who succeed in committing suicide in the US use guns. A lot, however, jump from heights and hang themselves. There is a growing trend with exit bags used with legal gas (helium, nitrogen, etc.). The highest rates of suicide in the world are not where guns are the most available. Not by a long shot. I want to prevent suicides, but reducing the availability of guns to achieve this aim just seems pointless to me. It seems like a Band Aid and a backdoor justification for (perhaps very worthwhile) points of view on gun control. It makes me growl-y to see suicide used in this way. Suicide is bad! People use guns to kill themselves! Take the guns! Yeah, well. Maybe provide more accessible services, stop stigmatizing the hell out of suicide and mental illness, provide programs to prevent mental illness in vulnerable populations, provide better awareness campaigns and screenings, or any one of a hundred other things that would be more helpful in preventing suicides.

I'm not saying guns should be as available as they are now (or that they shouldn't... again, free pass), but I am saying that the highest suicide rates in the developed world (2nd overall) are in South Korea at 28.9 per 100,000 people per year. South Korea has very restrictive gun laws and the most common method of suicide there is pesticide poisoning. The US is tied for 50th overall (with quite a few developed nations with restrictive gun laws ahead of us) with a rate of 12.1 per 100,000 people per year. I just don't see the two as especially correlated. They are available here, and if executed right it is a quick, relatively painless way to die. That's why people do it. It would appear that since lax gun control laws are not correlated with higher suicide rates the causation goes from choosing suicide to guns, not from having guns available to choosing suicide. That's why it annoys me to see suicide cropping up in this discussion. It seems like a token argument made by people who have already made up their minds instead of being treated as its own valid issue that people care about.
Last edited by TheBlackSheep on Sat Oct 03, 2015 6:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
TheBlackSheep
The Best
Posts: 819
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 12:42 pm
Location: Salt Lake County

Re: Gun violence rant

Post by TheBlackSheep »

Also, even the current, non-suicidal, doing-pretty-well version of me thinks that if I can pass a background check and that I haven't proven myself to be a risk to others, I should be able to acquire a firearm without having to jump through hoops that people without diagnosed mental disorders wouldn't have to jump through. Then again, I have interesting views on suicide.
User avatar
Digit
Posts: 1321
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2011 2:16 pm
Contact:

Re: Gun violence rant

Post by Digit »

Interesting thought.
Image
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
User avatar
mic0
Posts: 1470
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 8:14 pm

Re: Gun violence rant

Post by mic0 »

Where is that quote from? Just curious, I like it.
User avatar
Digit
Posts: 1321
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2011 2:16 pm
Contact:

Re: Gun violence rant

Post by Digit »

Possibly this guy wrote it himself. If not, he tweeted it without attribution.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
User avatar
mic0
Posts: 1470
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 8:14 pm

Re: Gun violence rant

Post by mic0 »

Thanks. I guess it isn't a particularly revolutionary thing to say, but I find the comparison interesting.
User avatar
Shrinky Dink
Posts: 301
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 11:21 pm

Re: Gun violence rant

Post by Shrinky Dink »

Digit, that is a very interesting comparison, but since when have men in congress wanted to grant women the same rights and freedoms as a man?
Portia wrote:Most people with mental illness aren't violent; most mass shooters aren't mentally ill, but rather, socially isolated white dudes.

All that one of sites is further stigmatize mental illness while doing nothing to stop the killings.
I agree with the sentiments that not all mentally ill are violent. A quick google search shows unfortunate stories of some people who acquired a weapon, even though they were shown to be mentally ill with violent tendencies. The "with violent tendencies" is the important distinction. This includes the Virginia Tech shooter who was declared mentally ill by a judge a year before the shooting, yet he was still able to acquire weapons because his name was unfortunately never submitted to the database.

Although, I can admit that I disagree with the sentiment that "most mass shooters aren't mentally ill, but rather, socially isolated white dudes." I think you definitely have something mentally wrong with you if you have such a disregard for the lives of those around you. Yes, not all mentally ill are mass shooters or violent, but I do think pretty much all mass shooters are mentally ill. (Also, the V-tech shooter wasn't white, but Korean)
*Insert Evil Laughter Here*
Imogen
Picky Interloper
Posts: 1320
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 6:51 am
Location: Texas

Re: Gun violence rant

Post by Imogen »

As someone who has been touched by gun violence in a very personal way (my stepdad was shot in the back of the head while he was asleep in the house alone. Still haven't found the person who did it, and probably never will), I can say one thing I want is for every gun to be easier to track somehow if it's discharged. I don't know how that would feasibly work, but maybe if people knew a bullet would lead back to them it could help prevent some crimes like what happened to my stepdad.

I do think we need to have better and more rigorous standards for getting a gun. If I have to take X amount of hours driving and learning about road safety before I can drive, why shouldn't it be the same to buy something that is LITERALLY only for killing?
beautiful, dirty, rich
Zedability
Posts: 987
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2012 6:17 pm

Re: Gun violence rant

Post by Zedability »

Right? Like, can we make guns at LEAST as difficult to procure as drivers licenses/cars?

For me personally, with depression, I would be totally fine with at least a waiting period for people with mental illnesses. Although that is partly influenced by the fact that I am TERRIBLE at anything recreational with guns (pop cans, clay pigeons, etc.) and I'm not sure why I would want a gun in less than 30 days other than suicide. Like, if I eventually wanted one for hunting or home protection or whatever, I think that would be a decision I'd think about and plan ahead for anyways and so I would be able to factor a waiting period into that planning.
User avatar
Shrinky Dink
Posts: 301
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 11:21 pm

Re: Gun violence rant

Post by Shrinky Dink »

Imogen wrote:As someone who has been touched by gun violence in a very personal way (my stepdad was shot in the back of the head while he was asleep in the house alone. Still haven't found the person who did it, and probably never will), I can say one thing I want is for every gun to be easier to track somehow if it's discharged. I don't know how that would feasibly work, but maybe if people knew a bullet would lead back to them it could help prevent some crimes like what happened to my stepdad.

I do think we need to have better and more rigorous standards for getting a gun. If I have to take X amount of hours driving and learning about road safety before I can drive, why shouldn't it be the same to buy something that is LITERALLY only for killing?
I'm sorry about what happened to your stepdad. I really am. But I don't know any gun owner who has only shot bullets in an effort to kill something. Shooting clay pigeons is actually quite fun. I've shot a gun a bit (not nearly as much as my husband) and I have yet to kill anything. My husband, an avid hunter, also has not killed something every time he has fired a gun. And any time he has killed something, it has been through legal means of a license and shooting in the proper season. In fact, the last time he killed something, was a during a goose hunt that was opened specifically to reduce the number of geese that are destroying local crops such as wheat and potatoes.

As far as what you're suggesting, it sounds like you'd be in favor of some type of gun registry. Unfortunately, other than basic information like caliber, actually acquiring a gun's "fingerprint" and keeping it in a database with the current owner would be difficult, time consuming, expensive, and pretty much impossible. With all the guns already out there in the hands of citizens, plus guns that are brought in from other countries, tracking down all of them would be impossible. Sure, some gun owners would be willing to submit their gun to "fingerprinting" but it's unlikely that said gun owner would actually use their gun in a violent crime. While your reasoning and wish is more than justified, I have a feeling that such a gun registry will be met with as much resistance as a gun buyback and if it ever passed, would probably have the same level of success as a gun buyback. By that, the success would be in documenting the law abiding citizens, and hardly (if at all) making a dent in documenting guns that have been sold through private transactions and guns used in violent crimes.
*Insert Evil Laughter Here*
Imogen
Picky Interloper
Posts: 1320
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 6:51 am
Location: Texas

Re: Gun violence rant

Post by Imogen »

I know what I want is impossible, but a girl can dream, can't she?

Also, I really think bringing up that you, personally, haven't killed anything is kind of a type of deflection. And a lot of people who are against any kind of stricter gun control use it was some sort of justification for why the U.S. just CAN'T do ANYTHING so why bother.

Let's all be honest and recognize that the PURPOSE for which a gun was invented was not to shoot clay pigeons or targets. That the shooting of clay pigeons was to help people practice shooting actual pigeons, and it has now become a sport separate from hunting. But guns were not invented for sport. They were invented to kill. Period. Full stop. Whether it's to legally kill an animal is kind of a moot point. A thing that was invented to kill another living being needs stricter laws applied to its ownership and use. Part of the reason a buyback wouldn't work in our country is that we have ignored the problem of violence, particularly gun violence, in our culture and how we can alleviate that problem. There is no excuse for this head in the sand mentality pushed by the NRA and politicians.

At least a deer has a chance to run. My stepdad was asleep, and he was shot in the back of the head by a coward like he was a dog. If that person couldn't get that gun maybe my stepdad would have had a chance to live. And maybe not. But the gun made it easier for whoever did that to him to kill him and get away it.

I'm not against gun ownership. In fact, the only reason I don't own one is because I'd rather spend that money on shoes or a nice purse or a vacation, but I'll probably buy one eventually. And not because I'm paranoid and think I need to protect my home. I know that owning a gun actually makes it more likely that my own gun could kill me one day. I like shooting at targets. It's fun. But stricter gun laws won't keep a gun out of my hands. But maybe it will keep a gun out of the hands of someone who shouldn't have one. My solution may not be feasible, but there are many feasible options out there that are ignored because most people who have guns use them like you and your husband do. But that is no longer an acceptable argument against better gun control in 2015. Not to me.

I hope you don't feel attacked, Shrinky Dink. I feel like this board is the only place I can be honest about my feelings on this issue because Facebook is just too public, and not all of my Facebook friends know how my stepdad died. I don't want that scrutiny on my mother again, and I don't want it on me again, either. So I just have A LOT of pent up feeling about guns and gun violence that I mostly keep hidden because I don't want a debate or a "Well, you've never had someone in your family killed, so why do you care?" situation, you know?
beautiful, dirty, rich
Post Reply