News reporter and photographer shot and killed on live broadcast this morning

[jokesonm3]

Perhaps stricter gun controls?

 

[Pink Ranger]

Maybe we should split the US up into 5 separate countries. Each section gets 10 states. So there are 5 presidents, 5 federal governments. It's obviously too disorganized and confusing for our leaders to control 400 million people. Split that **** up. And hell, it's not even a matter of segregation or "competing"... Let each section determine their healthcare and marriage and gun laws.

Cool, eventually the Pacific Northwest and Northeast will join Canada, and we'll have the best country in the history of the world.

 

[regwec]

One thing many people forget to take into account is the size of the United States. I always see someone from another country say things along the lines of - our country doesn't have near the amount of shooting as the US does - well.....they don't have near the amount of population either. The USA is approximately the size of Europe, with many countries the size of one of our states. This is no excuse for the number of shootings we have, but it should put things in another perspective.

But the US has a population of 319m, while Europe has a population of 743m, and the number of gun homicides per capita in Europe is infinitely lower.

Look at the chart of gun murders among developed countries, on the right:

Unless you are saying that Americans shoot each other because they have too much space, the perspective slants the other way.

Perhaps stricter gun controls?

Interesting idea, but it would never wash.

 

[Teelie]

You know what's funny (completely off-topic), is every time Michael Moore makes a documentary about anything, everyone hates him, and then 10 years later everyone jumps on the bandwagon and agrees, but still ignores him. Maybe listen to what the dude has to say, whether he's annoying or not. He's breaking down every problem you need to know in pretty cinematic little packages, and we're constantly writing him off.

No, no, I still hate that smug, lying bastard. He does not make documentaries. Documentaries have to be based on fact and it's been shown time and again he either exaggerates, misrepresents or outright lies to make them fit into his perspective.

So even if I were to accept everything he said, it would still be misleading and inaccurate at best.

 

[jokesonm3]

I just had this crazy idea, now before you consider it pointless and/or stupid hear me out.

What if we install some sort of GPS or a tracking device on every registered firearm in the united states that can locate exactly where a gun is, so if someone is carrying a firearm in a place that shouldn't be like a busy public area or a school etc. then the authorities can track them and deal with the situation.

Because tracking a gun can make things alot easier for various concerned parties.

 

[Teelie]

But the US has a population of 319m, while Europe has a population of 743m, and the number of gun homicides per capita in Europe is infinitely lower.

Look at the chart of gun murders among developed countries, on the right:

Spoiler

Unless you are saying that Americans shoot each other because they have too much space, the perspective slants the other way.



Interesting idea, but it would never wash.

It's too simplistic though. There are a lot more variables than the size of a country and its population. The major problems in America are cultural whereas most European countries are more homogeneous in each one. And Europe has had a much firmer grip on civilians ever being armed for self defense compared to the United States.

None of it is an excuse nor a complete explanation for the gun violence but citing one thing or even two or three things is way too simple an answer.

 

[regwec]

Are you saying Americans shoot each other as a result of cultural diversity?

 

[Teelie]

No more than football fans (hooligans as you call them) try to beat their rivals to death at the very sight of them.

 

[regwec]

What? You just said that America had "cultural" problems that were not shared by individual European countries because they were relatively "homogenous". What did you mean by this? I don't see what it has to do with the football hooliganism of the 1980s, to which I presume you were alluding.

 

[Teelie]

I said it was part of the larger issue and went on to say citing a few examples was not enough to explain the larger picture. It's no more accurate to pin it on cultural issues than it is to say that seeing one corner of a painting tells you what the entire picture is about.

addendum: To explain that aspect though I will say this. The country has a very violent history, almost from the start. There are many cultures from all over Europe and other parts of the world that had no national borders, no estabilished government and had to adapt to living here, away from their homeland. Then add in slavery, xenophobia, mistrust and all the things that Europeans came to this country for and you don't get the established history that European countries have. We don't have the centuries of history Europe does. There is still a lot of violence in Europe, you just don't use guns for it. You still have racism, you still have territorial disputes, distrust, there is still a lot of problems there, they just aren't the same ones as here. Right now the United Kingdom is the undisputed king of survellience on its own people, second only to maybe North Korea but you accept that, at least in contrast to how well gun ownership is in the United States.

Despite what the rest of the world thinks, we are not okay with the gun violence here but there is no easy answer to address it. Simple is banning guns. But simple does not mean easy.

 

[regwec]

That's fine, but we may as well talk about the painting in detail, since we are discussing it. I don't think merely saying "it's complex" is, in itself, very instructive.

 

[TheBat812]

'There is only one argument for guns: '**** off, I like guns.' It's no a very good one, but it's all you've got.' - jim Jeffries

I don't think I can post the link becuase there's swearing, but just youtube 'gun control jim Jeffries' and you can hear how he backs up his statement. And he's right. All the excuses Americans have for guns are nonsense, we just like guns.

 

[Teelie]

That's fine, but we may as well talk about the painting in detail, since we are discussing it. I don't think merely saying "it's complex" is, in itself, very instructive.

I edited a large explanation for what I meant. Obviously I was adding that while you were responding. The solution is really complicated even if the answer is easy.

 

[chamber-music]

Europe has had a much firmer grip on civilians ever being armed for self defense compared to the United States.

None of it is an excuse nor a complete explanation for the gun violence but citing one thing or even two or three things is way too simple an answer.

Civilian gun ownership for self defence generally isn't encouraged in Europe. This is part of the big ideological difference on guns between Europe and the U.S.

You can't even get a gun licence for self defence in many European countries.

Guns are a bigger part of Americans way of life than they are for Europeans. The average European civilian who isn't a hunter, collector, sporting shooter or in need of firearms for protection from wildlife feels they can live their lives without the need for firearms.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Maybe we should split the US up into 5 separate countries. Each section gets 10 states. So there are 5 presidents, 5 federal governments. It's obviously too disorganized and confusing for our leaders to control 400 million people. Split that **** up. And hell, it's not even a matter of segregation or "competing"... Let each section determine their healthcare and marriage and gun laws.

I agree.

Half the country agrees with people like Donald Trump and Ted Cruz and the other half agree with Bernie Sanders.

No one can get their way without ticking off half the country so why not split the country up into different ideoloigical zones: Libertarian, Green, Independent, Moderate Democrat, Moderate Republican, and Christain Right.

This way all these different ideologies are free to pursue their ideal society instead of holding each other back.

The only problem is this would be a logistical nightmare.

 

[Rocketman]

I agree.

Half the country agrees with people like Donald Trump and Ted Cruz and the other half agree with Bernie Sanders.

No one can get their way without ticking off half the country so why not split the country up into different ideoloigical zones: Libertarian, Green, Independent, Moderate Democrat, Moderate Republican, and Christain Right.

This way all these different ideologies are free to pursue their ideal society instead of holding each other back.

The only problem is this would be a logistical nightmare.

I don't think it would be a nightmare. If you don't like where you are, move. We need tough love here. We're soft. People are so against segregation and think it would set us back 200 years, but you know what? **** it. We obviously can't get along as a society. Split us up, see who prospers. The areas with unlimited guns with no registration, or the areas where all people and genders can love one another.

 

[DeadPresident]

Are you saying Americans shoot each other as a result of cultural diversity?

Cultural homogeneity is a hallmark of some of the most prosperous and peaceful countries in the world. As an aside, social psychology studies tend to indicate the same thing. A popular set of theories in social psychology related to economics (particularly in regard to comparison between social groups) is Frustration-Aggression theory and the concept of Relative Deprivation.

How big the contribution of cultural homogeneity is and how one would measure it isn't that mysterious, as income disparity can be used as a fairly good indicator. How big a role it plays in general may be more difficult to track, but that it is a factor is undeniable.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953698004006

One of the more prominent studies done on the topic.

 

[regwec]

Okay, but London is commonly said to be the most cosmopolitan city in Europe, if not the world. Here is one assessment of its demographic split:

And yet it doesn't have anywhere near the number of gun murders as comparable American cities.

You can make the argument that Londoners are more patient, tolerant and easygoing than New Yorkers, or you can make the argument that they don't shoot each other because they don't have anything to shoot with. But the argument that they are homogenous is clearly wrong.

 

[DeadPresident]

Okay, but London is commonly said to be the most cosmopolitan city in Europe, if not the world. Here is one assessment of its demographic split:

And yet it doesn't have anywhere near the number of gun murders as comparable American cities.

You can make the argument that Londoners are more patient, tolerant and easygoing than New Yorkers, or you can make the argument that they don't shoot each other because they don't have anything to shoot with. But the argument that they are homogenous is clearly wrong.

Fair point, and I agree without the tools to use there would be exponentially fewer deaths, for the record, I support much stricter gun control in terms of what is available and how one acquires firearms in the US. The reason why London isn't a good comparison though is because of its relative economic prosperity across the board, there isn't income disparity of a comparable magnitude. One could also argue that comparing a single city to a whole country is remiss, as there are probably culturally diverse cities in England that have higher incidences of violence in terms of stabbings, muggings or assault. New York City is probably quite diverse but may have less gun deaths than another city in a poorer state, for argument's sake.

My main point would be cultural diversity combined with other variables, like income disparity and the slew of social issues affecting the US at the moment, combined with the availability of guns, is likely to have only one outcome. Now, people can talk about removing all guns (never happen), or they can try and address the social and economic ills that exist (on aggregate, nobody gives a **** about anyone else's wellbeing, clearly) or they can try a balanced approach of both.

All in all though, I agree that deaths would be a near non-existent symptom of social and economic inequality, and for most citizens that's all they care about. They don't care if a problem exists, they just don't want to see it. Case in point, the homeless or disabled.

 

[DeadPresident]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP

So the theory postulated by social psychologists is that Relative Deprivation is a source of Frustration (blocking of goal directed behaviour) and leads to increased aggression. If I had to hazard a guess I'd say the states that make more money would have a more noticeable income disparity between races, classes, etc, right?

So interestingly enough, California, Texas, Florida, New York and Illinois have the top GDP's by state in the USA. Coincidentally, California (1st) and Texas (2nd) are two of the states with the highest gun deaths, while New York, Illinois and Florida are also in the top 10. Vermont, the state with the lowest GDP, again coincidentally, has the lowest number of gun deaths in 2010 at 7, compared to California's 1200+. Again, this is just interpreting correlations, I'm not stating causality. But there seems to be a link between the amount of economic wellbeing (GDP) that residents believe they're not benefitting from, and an increase in aggression...which could lead to gun violence.

One could obviously argue that they have greater populations so more gun deaths would be expected, but to compare the two extremes, California has 178 times more gun deaths than Vermont does, but its population is only 63 times the size. If all other social variables were equal there wouldn't be 3 times the difference between those numbers.

Just a theory though, not like laymen think any of this crap is related anyways

 

[chamber-music]

New York and London have nearly the same population size.

The borough of Tower Hamlets in London is one of the poorest places in the entire country. Between July 2014 and July 2015 there was only 10 incidents of reported gun crime in the borough.

 

[DeadPresident]

New York and London have nearly the same population size.

The borough of Tower Hamlets in London is one of the poorest places in the entire country. Between July 2014 and July 2015 there was only 10 incidents of reported gun crime in the borough.

Again, I'm not disputing access to guns increases gun deaths - I vehemently agree with that. What I'm saying is there's a high likelihood that a combination of variables, namely: access to guns, income disparity and cultural diversity all correlate to and influence violence and murder in the USA. It's an overused example, but Switzerland has a massive number of guns around (not ammo, though, so it may be a separate thing to consider) but no gun deaths. Do they have income disparity? No, not really. Do they have cultural diversity? Almost none at all.

Interestingly, the UK doesn't have as entrenched a legacy of slavery, racism and exclusion...does it?

The point I'm making is, take cultural diversity, access to firearms, broadening income gaps, a history of unresolved racial schisms and throw them into a pot and what do you get?

Take away a couple of those variables and the picture becomes different. But the question is, which ones can and will the US government act on? None of them.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

Well by the time their bodies have "cooled off"...america will have pretty much "forgotten" about them and the country will go its way

Just like those online chattering away about "gun control" like it's some magical band aid that will solve all our problems. Except no one ever bothers to offer any actual solutions. They just drop into a thread, toss around a couple of buzzwords they heard on CNN and then call it a day and run off to look at Youtube or lolcats.

If everyone here preaching about how evil guns are actually tried to do something about it things might be different but we all know that isn't going to happen. Just "discussing" it, on a superhero forum no less, accomplishes nothing. Pointing the finger at "America" doesn't either, assuming one lives here. Inaction makes one part of the problem.

This thread should be moved to the politics subforum if that's what people insist on turning it into.

 

[Teelie]

It really is a bunch of nothing. People think they know the answer to something, give a really vague solution and then expect it to work. If any of these "easy answers" were really it, don't you think they would have been enacted by now?

Gun control is a part of the solution, not the whole one. Banning guns will never happen. People should just give that up. People who equate the words "control" and "regulation" with "ban" need to learn what a dictionary is and read up the definitions.

 

[Webfoot Hero]

It really is a bunch of nothing. People think they know the answer to something, give a really vague solution and then expect it to work. If any of these "easy answers" were really it, don't you think they would have been enacted by now?

Gun control is a part of the solution, not the whole one. Banning guns will never happen. People should just give that up. People who equate the words "control" and "regulation" with "ban" need to learn what a dictionary is and read up the definitions.

The problem with gun control in the US is that those calling for it always end up using ban in some way and that makes the other side dig in more because they know over reach will happen if they give an inch.