The Guns thread

[The Endless]

No country in the world has free health care.

I do. If I break my leg at work I'll go hospital and they fix it. Simple as. I don't get a 10 grand bill at the end of it.

 

[regwec]

But someone pays for it - I expect that was ADollarDay's point.

 

[DeadPresident]

Subsidized =\= Free.

 

[regwec]

Stolen goods =/= free.

 

[Motown Marvel]

Yes, but I don't want to do that because the result will inevitably be a bad tempered debate about why ethnic group x is more likely to commit mass shootings and, as I said, the whole racial angle seems to be an irrelevance. The latter is my over-arching point.

But just because the implications of the race issue make you uncomfortable, doesn't make it irrelevant. And while your reticence to broach that debate may be problematic, I do totally get it. A lot of people aren't prepared for any discussions about race, but that is a problem which continues to enable the issue. But I do hope you take the opportunity to recognize your discomfort with it, and look into it, and better prepare yourself to have that discussion when it is relevant. Much like how white people in general need to be having a serious discussion. And to be honest, it's not even where I was looking to take this discussion in this thread. But seeing the denial of race being an issue is unsettling.

I don't think people are lumping non white men into one category. The article in question only cites White and black males who together make up 80% of the country. Question is how does the other 30% divide up amongst the other 20% of the groups

Problem with the newsweek article is much like most articles on gun use from both sides it seemed to want to cherry pick statistics which would tell the story they want to tell

As an ardent defender of "Chicago" gun statistics and why Chicago is not as bad as Fox wants you to believe, I can't stand when statistics are manipulated

I mean...people ARE lumping non-whites together into one category in this thread, which is the problem I'm taking issue with when discussing these statistics because it distorts the topic. Also, white and black males do not make up 80% of the country. White and black people, both men and women, probably. But not just men. I believe white men are about 31% and black men are about 6%. I'm sure that was an innocent oversight in your post, but I do want to be clear about that...since we're talking about numbers and all, ha.

And I totally agree about statistics being distorted for an agenda. It's a problem. I don't know the statistics for Chicago's gun problem and how factually they are represented. But I understand whatever problems are going on in Chicago is a microcosm and not representative of the country as a whole. And its no surprise that Fox News and other conservatives parade it around as a not so subtle way to continue our society's criminalization of black bodies.

But the statistics finding white men disproportionately responsible for not only mass shooting violence, but violent crimes in general including serial killing and sexual assault crimes are hardly exclusive to the Newsweek article. It is a pretty common finding of many studies which I could easily point to. If you are a victim of a violent or sexual crime, it is most likely being perpetrated by a middle aged white male. The Las Vegas shooter was actually an anomaly in that he was in his sixties.

 

[SV Fan]

I mean...people ARE lumping non-whites together into one category in this thread, which is the problem I'm taking issue with when discussing these statistics because it distorts the topic. Also, white and black males do not make up 80% of the country. White and black people, both men and women, probably. But not just men. I believe white men are about 31% and black men are about 6%. I'm sure that was an innocent oversight in your post, but I do want to be clear about that...since we're talking about numbers and all, ha.

Yeah you basically got my point since women for the most part are a non issue in this discussion

And I totally agree about statistics being distorted for an agenda. It's a problem. I don't know the statistics for Chicago's gun problem and how factually they are represented. But I understand whatever problems are going on in Chicago is a microcosm and not representative of the country as a whole. And its no surprise that Fox News and other conservatives parade it around as a not so subtle way to continue our society's criminalization of black bodies.

The problem with Chicago is they are comparing Chicago to other cities that might be 5-10 times smaller, so when they use raw numbers sure Chicago looks like it is the "worst" city in America but when yo go by per capita Chicago generally doesn't make the top 20 worst cities and I have seen it fall out of the worst 25 as well. The main attack on Chicago is because the fact it's a city that overwhelmingly votes Democrat and Chicago enacted tougher gun laws in the 90s so they are using that as an excuse against tougher gun laws(completely ignoring in the early 90s like 900 people were getting killed in Chicago, while for the past 10 years that number has been under 500, with the exception of the past 2 years that spiked a bit). It is completely biased readings of the numbers not putting them in proper perspective

 

[mclay18]

It was published two months ago on Mother Jones, about the mother of one of the victims of the Aurora movie theater shooting who sued the gun dealer James Holmes bought from.

The comments section is really toxic, mainly idiots from Brietbart/InfoWars/Drudge Report who blame the mother for filing "a frivolous lawsuit" and that "guns don't kill people, people kill people." And they just miss and/or ignore the point of the mother's essay.

 

[Krystal]

Explained 10 different ways and still doesn't WANT to get it.

 

[regwec]

But just because the implications of the race issue make you uncomfortable, doesn't make it irrelevant. And while your reticence to broach that debate may be problematic, I do totally get it. A lot of people aren't prepared for any discussions about race, but that is a problem which continues to enable the issue. But I do hope you take the opportunity to recognize your discomfort with it, and look into it, and better prepare yourself to have that discussion when it is relevant.

What value would there be in having a "debate" about why men of a certain non-white ethnicity are more likely to go on a gun rampage? What would be the practical actions that such a debate would recommend? That black men shouldn't be allowed guns? That Asian men should be put under surveillance? Such deeply illiberal measures could only possibly be justified if the case for them was utterly compelling (e.g. 99% of mass shootings carried out by black men at an increasing frequency and with increasingly fatal results). The data does not merit any such debate. They show that white men are less likely than men in general to commit mass shootings. They do not even hint at any compelling correlation between race and these massacres.

Much like how white people in general need to be having a serious discussion. And to be honest, it's not even where I was looking to take this discussion in this thread. But seeing the denial of race being an issue is unsettling.

Please explain, clearly, what you mean. Are you suggesting that "white people" need to discuss amongst themselves what to do about their more violent non-white neighbours? Because, read against the data, this is about the only logical inference that can be drawn from your comments.

I mean...people ARE lumping non-whites together into one category in this thread, which is the problem I'm taking issue with when discussing these statistics because it distorts the topic.

This is because the implication of the article that was originally linked, based on a complete misreading of the data, was that white people were more likely to commit these atrocities than non-white people. That implication was, based on the data, completely wrong, and I and others have demonstrated that over and over again. If you are particularly interested in finding out which particular ethnic group is the one that is skewing the data and making up the additional proportion of massacres for which, based on an average per capita of the population, we would expect white men to be committing, then you can do so easily enough. But in my opinion, it's a sideshow, and won't inform any useful discussion.

But the statistics finding white men disproportionately responsible for not only mass shooting violence, but violent crimes in general including serial killing and sexual assault crimes are hardly exclusive to the Newsweek article.

For the last time, the statistics show that white men are "disproportionately responsible" for this because they are men. The statistics also indicate that, as men, white men are disproportionately not responsible for this.

The only possibly utility in you continually implying that "white men" are disproportionately responsible for this as opposed to "men" is that you desperately want to force this into being a race issue. Why would you want to do that?

It is a pretty common finding of many studies which I could easily point to. If you are a victim of a violent or sexual crime, it is most likely being perpetrated by a middle aged white male.

And if you are the victim of a crime in sub-Saharan Africa it is overwhelmingly likely to be committed by a black man, in China by an Asian man, and in Columbia by a Hispanic man. Anything to the contrary would be extraordinary.

Explained 10 different ways and still doesn't WANT to get it.

I despair. I don't know what people these days have done to their brains. It's as if racial politics is a kind of tumor that swells and eats the life out of cognitive function.

 

[Hotwire]

I had a friend show me a comparison of murder rates between Honduras, where civilians are banned from owning guns, and Switzerland, where your practically issued one at birth. I tried to explain that Honduras is over 62% poverty and Switzerland is under 8%. He didn't think that was a factor at all. Weird.

 

[Motown Marvel]

Well, I'm glad we can agree that it's a male problem (obviously), but we've disagreed on everything else for the last two pages and I don't anticipate that changing for either of us in the next two pages.

 

[regwec]

Unless you have a reason for doubting the data (and I reserve a view on whether it is accurate - frankly I have no idea), then it isn't really a matter of opinion. It says what it says.

 

[SV Fan]

I had a friend show me a comparison of murder rates between Honduras, where civilians are banned from owning guns, and Switzerland, where your practically issued one at birth. I tried to explain that Honduras is over 62% poverty and Switzerland is under 8%. He didn't think that was a factor at all. Weird.

Anybody who thinks poverty doesn't have an effect on gun murders is fool. If both sides truly wanted to cut down gun violence they would go after poverty rates, but I can't see Republicans backing the social programs it would take to change that

 

[regwec]

I don't know if there is a correlation between mass shootings and poverty (I am not doubting that there may be, but haven't seen the evidence) but, if there is, I wonder if that correlates with the gender disparity to some degree. I have heard it argued that the men who carry out these massacres are those who feel socially and/or economically marginalized, and if so then it would follow that a rich banker or lawyer would be less likely to lash out in this way. I suppose it might be one of the negative effects of the retreat of religion - in a time where poverty was widely perceived as something virtuous or at least dignified, it presumably wouldn't carry the same pang of humiliation.

 

[squeekness]

Anybody who thinks poverty doesn't have an effect on gun murders is fool. If both sides truly wanted to cut down gun violence they would go after poverty rates, but I can't see Republicans backing the social programs it would take to change that

I don't see it either. Seems like being a Republican means you've stopped caring about everyone besides yourself.

 

[SV Fan]

I don't know if there is a correlation between mass shootings and poverty (I am not doubting that there may be, but haven't seen the evidence) but, if there is, I wonder if that correlates with the gender disparity to some degree. I have heard it argued that the men who carry out these massacres are those who feel socially and/or economically marginalized, and if so then it would follow that a rich banker or lawyer would be less likely to lash out in this way. I suppose it might be one of the negative effects of the retreat of religion - in a time where poverty was widely perceived as something virtuous or at least dignified, it presumably wouldn't carry the same pang of humiliation.

South America has some of the toughest gun laws and also many of the worst murder rates. They also have bad poverty rates.

Now you can find bad poverty rates in Africa and the Middle East as well but one things those countries have that South America doesn't is strong dictators controlling the country that have very strict laws(and I think we can agree this probably isn't the best solution)

 

[regwec]

New York this week, gun fans!

"Only" six dead so far, though.

 

[squeekness]

New York this week, gun fans!

"Only" six dead so far, though.

Does it count if he used a vehicle as well?

 

[chaseter]

I do. If I break my leg at work I'll go hospital and they fix it. Simple as. I don't get a 10 grand bill at the end of it.

You don’t pay taxes? No one else pays taxes? They do it for free?

 

[squeekness]

Pretty sad you need a metal detector to go inside your house of worship.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Guys I am sick and tired of Republican BS too, but maybe not make jokes about a church shooting?

 

[C. Lee]

The next person that thinks it is funny to joke about 25 innocent people being murdered gets 6 months probation.

 

[regwec]

Edit

 

[regwec]

For avoidance of doubt (and I'm utterly astonished if there is any) the snark is directed not at the victims of this madness but at those who cynically insist on respectful silence while the bodies are still warm, in the full knowledge and expectation that America's lunatic gun laws will guarantee a regular supply of fresh warm bodies.

Thanks for the infraction, C Lee: I'm going to remember number six as the one I earned from speaking on principle and trying to do some good.

 

[C. Lee]

Thanks for the infraction, C Lee: I'm going to remember number six as the one I earned from speaking on principle and trying to do some good.

You're welcome.

Two of your posts were deleted and both were infractionable over their content....but I only infracted one. Should I have infracted instead the post where you said - Yee haw 27 people killed including a 2 year old - was that made on principle trying to do some good too?