Will the NRA's grip on the GOP diminish in your lifetime? (Y/N)

sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearChemist said:

B.A. Bearacus said:

Lets see if there's more follow-through on this than the transgender in the military ban.


After the Las Vegas shooting it looked like at least bump stock would be banned. Sorry, that didn't happen. Not sure what would make this shooting different. Mid-term year?
There are tearful high school students on every newscast demanding that something be done to prevent further killings, and more than that they are organizing protests and marches and actively refuting the usual NRA talking points. This time might actually be different.
AunBear89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oh - didn't you hear? George Soros and all those Libtards are paying these kids to cry in order to further their anti-Trump, anti-gun, anti-Murica agenda.

It's true! Faux and Friends told me so!
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -- Benjamin Disraeli, popularized by Mark Twain
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
And so we go down the path of tribal mentality. Not only do guns come before children but so do political one-liners.
iwantwinners
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

bearister said:

Just 3% of American adults own half the country's guns. Most gun owners have just one or two, but a tiny group of super-owners, who have an average of 17 each, collectively own half of the country's 256m guns. The Guardian
Yes, and the number of households with guns has been shrinking.

We really are talking about an extremely passionate minority propping up an industry and carrying outsized political power, preventing all attempts at legislative reform. This state of affairs is not sustainable.
What political reform are you suggesting? Surely it will be rejected by the Republican party because they are shills for the NRA, who are a huge portion of their base, and will not alienate their base.

But then again, they can't say no to something that isn't proposed. Then we can talk about how said proposal will actually help/hurt the aim in a society where gun violence is down as gun ownership has increased, that the highest rates of gun violence occur mostly in cities with the most strict gun laws, and that most mass shootings are done without the use of a semi automatic firearm.

A sound additional policy to me would be to require registering ALL firearms, making it a felony to not do so. But then again that seems to be a state issue, not a federal issue.
iwantwinners
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

bearister said:

Just 3% of American adults own half the country's guns. Most gun owners have just one or two, but a tiny group of super-owners, who have an average of 17 each, collectively own half of the country's 256m guns. The Guardian
Yes, and the number of households with guns has been shrinking.

We really are talking about an extremely passionate minority propping up an industry and carrying outsized political power, preventing all attempts at legislative reform. This state of affairs is not sustainable.
The best way to win this argument is to avoid talking about taking away all guns or saying that guns are the only reason for the massacres.

There are legitimate reasons for having hunting guns. There are no legitimate reason for having any semi-automatic weapons. No one would argue that the benefits of being able to be unsportsmanlike in using semi-automatic weapons to shoot unarmed innocent animals is worth adding even an iota of the reason (not the only reason) our kids are getting massacred.
Semi automatic firearms will not prevent mass shootings, nor would it curb it, as people would both access the 500,000 illegal firearms and choose other firearms means to commit mass or singular murder. It's a huge policy that doesn't address the problem. This is not to say it isn't without merit, but it doesn't accomplish it's goal. You can fire a pump action shot gun just about as fast as a semi automatic shotgun. Similar with a revolver and a semi auto glock.
iwantwinners
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

going4roses said:

I read the article and I don't believe it at all not according to what I see and hear. Gun shops that my family frequent have had a boom in sales in the last 24 mos

It may appear that way based on that data but in the real time/world what I see and hear with my own eyes is quite the contrary.

Same as unemployment numbers are nowhere near accurate for many reasons.
You'll excuse me if I don't take "going4roses' anecdotal evidence" as a reasonable counter to broad-based polling and statistical analysis.

Besides, the article I posted addresses the increase in gun sales. It says that the increase in sales is largely happening with the same people who already own guns. My point is that there are fewer NEW gun owners than before.
Are you suggesting this more or less "justifies" congress moving forward with stricter gun laws on the assumption, based on this evidence, a higher proportion of people are "gunless"? Is this the line of reasoning you follow with other public policy issues? Whether a majority of the citizenry support it or not?
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
iwantwinners said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

bearister said:

Just 3% of American adults own half the country's guns. Most gun owners have just one or two, but a tiny group of super-owners, who have an average of 17 each, collectively own half of the country's 256m guns. The Guardian
Yes, and the number of households with guns has been shrinking.

We really are talking about an extremely passionate minority propping up an industry and carrying outsized political power, preventing all attempts at legislative reform. This state of affairs is not sustainable.
The best way to win this argument is to avoid talking about taking away all guns or saying that guns are the only reason for the massacres.

There are legitimate reasons for having hunting guns. There are no legitimate reason for having any semi-automatic weapons. No one would argue that the benefits of being able to be unsportsmanlike in using semi-automatic weapons to shoot unarmed innocent animals is worth adding even an iota of the reason (not the only reason) our kids are getting massacred.
Semi automatic firearms will not prevent mass shootings, nor would it curb it, as people would both access the 500,000 illegal firearms and choose other firearms means to commit mass or singular murder. It's a huge policy that doesn't address the problem. This is not to say it isn't without merit, but it doesn't accomplish it's goal. You can fire a pump action shot gun just about as fast as a semi automatic shotgun. Similar with a revolver and a semi auto glock.
I agree that eliminating semi-automatic guns will not eliminate mass shootings. The people here are not shooting up schools because they can't get access to guns. And there will be illegal access to firearms.

However, based on my limited perspective (I have never owned a gun, so I am speaking honestly from a place on inexperience), I just can't understand the societal value of having semi-automatic guns in general public. Law enforcement and military but not average citizen. And considering that I see no value to semi-automatic weapons (maybe someone can explain the value) in the hands of the general public, even if getting rid of semi-automatic weapons could avoid one mass shooting, it would seem to be worth it in my opinion.

However, arguing that guns are the only cause of mass murder is political nonsense. There seems to be no discussion on what is driving these people to want to kill, whether using semi-automatic weapons or a shank, and what is causing these teens to be so disengaged, . They dare not place any blame of the left-leaning Hollywood or social media companies. I am not promoting any specific type of regulation, but these discussions, as noted above, quickly become another waiving of political flags.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?

You slip pretty effortlessly between blaming the "left-leaning Hollywood [and] social media companies" and talking about not wanting to waive "political flags". The reason people aren't looking to Hollywood and Facebook to solve mass shootings is probably because the first amendment is quite strong and there doesn't appear to be a strong correlation between these things and murder.

Perhaps if the CDC were permitted to conduct research, such a connection may be established but right now there doesn't appear to be much reason to believe there is one. You could just as easily argue that violence in Hollywood movies is a reaction to the violence inherent in our society, although that would make it difficult to explain why violent movies are so popular in other countries that suffer from far less gun violence than the US.

I'm sure this isn't intentional on your part but it feels like what you are arguing in favor of a tit for tat. I thought that most conservatives are in favor of strong first amendment protections and thought that censorship was the sort of thing that progressives like Tipper Gore were in favor of (albeit that was quite a few years ago). Of course the NRA likes to point the finger at Hollywood, Opioids and basically anywhere else they can so avoid being in the spotlight, but that hardly seems to be a justification.

Maybe conservatives give up their guns and progressives give up their avocado toast, and we call it a day?
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

However, arguing that guns are the only cause of mass murder is political nonsense. There seems to be no discussion on what is driving these people to want to kill, whether using semi-automatic weapons or a shank, and what is causing these teens to be so disengaged, . They dare not place any blame of the left-leaning Hollywood or social media companies. I am not promoting any specific type of regulation, but these discussions, as noted above, quickly become another waiving of political flags.
I don't think guns are the only cause, but it seems pretty clear that they are the main differentiator between the United States and other countries when it comes to mass murder. Most of those other countries have access to the same movies and social media we do, but far fewer mass killings. The big difference is guns.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/world/americas/mass-shootings-us-international.html
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:


You slip pretty effortlessly between blaming the "left-leaning Hollywood [and] social media companies" and talking about not wanting to waive "political flags". The reason people aren't looking to Hollywood and Facebook to solve mass shootings is probably because the first amendment is quite strong and there doesn't appear to be a strong correlation between these things and murder.

Perhaps if the CDC were permitted to conduct research, such a connection may be established but right now there doesn't appear to be much reason to believe there is one. You could just as easily argue that violence in Hollywood movies is a reaction to the violence inherent in our society, although that would make it difficult to explain why violent movies are so popular in other countries that suffer from far less gun violence than the US.

I'm sure this isn't intentional on your part but it feels like what you are arguing in favor of a tit for tat. I thought that most conservatives are in favor of strong first amendment protections and thought that censorship was the sort of thing that progressives like Tipper Gore were in favor of (albeit that was quite a few years ago). Of course the NRA likes to point the finger at Hollywood, Opioids and basically anywhere else they can so avoid being in the spotlight, but that hardly seems to be a justification.

Maybe conservatives give up their guns and progressives give up their avocado toast, and we call it a day?
I see. Your first amendment argument and lack of correlation argument seem eerily similar to the second amendment and the lack of correlation argument from the NRA.

I am not arguing for tit for tat. Maybe you think the only thing stopping you from shooting people is your inability to get a gun. If only you are absolutely prevented from getting a gun, we can feel comfortable that you will never shoot up your work. Is that it? Nothing else is stopping you from becoming a mass murderer? Oh, wait, avocado toast. Got it.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

However, arguing that guns are the only cause of mass murder is political nonsense. There seems to be no discussion on what is driving these people to want to kill, whether using semi-automatic weapons or a shank, and what is causing these teens to be so disengaged, . They dare not place any blame of the left-leaning Hollywood or social media companies. I am not promoting any specific type of regulation, but these discussions, as noted above, quickly become another waiving of political flags.
I don't think guns are the only cause, but it seems pretty clear that they are the main differentiator between the United States and other countries when it comes to mass murder. Most of those other countries have access to the same movies and social media we do, but far fewer mass killings. The big difference is guns.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/world/americas/mass-shootings-us-international.html
So, guns are the only thing separating US culture and Japan's? If only we took away guns, our culture would mirror Japan's? Maybe all we need to do is go with our gut feeling to determine the root cause of this. No need to ask deeper questions on why some feel compelled to commit these horrendous crimes? They have guns so they will use it?
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

However, arguing that guns are the only cause of mass murder is political nonsense. There seems to be no discussion on what is driving these people to want to kill, whether using semi-automatic weapons or a shank, and what is causing these teens to be so disengaged, . They dare not place any blame of the left-leaning Hollywood or social media companies. I am not promoting any specific type of regulation, but these discussions, as noted above, quickly become another waiving of political flags.
I don't think guns are the only cause, but it seems pretty clear that they are the main differentiator between the United States and other countries when it comes to mass murder. Most of those other countries have access to the same movies and social media we do, but far fewer mass killings. The big difference is guns.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/world/americas/mass-shootings-us-international.html
So, guns are the only thing separating US culture and Japan's? If only we took away guns, our culture would mirror Japan's? Maybe all we need to do is go with our gut feeling to determine the root cause of this. No need to ask deeper questions on why some feel compelled to commit these horrendous crimes? They have guns so they will use it?
I'm totally fine to ask deeper questions. I also think we (as a society) have a lot of issues with how young men are socialized to view violence and anger as the only way they can express their personal woes. I don't think it's an accident that a lot of these mass shooters also have a history of domestic violence.

If we're talking about the #1 thing our lawmakers can address right now, though, it's guns. The U.S. and Japan have NUMEROUS cultural differences. But it seems pretty clear that the biggest reason we have regular mass killings and they don't is because we have too many guns.

(I mean, have you SEEN Japanese media? If anything, it's got way more violence and perversion than ours. Somehow, despite that, they don't kill their fellow citizens like we do.)
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

I see. Your first amendment argument and lack of correlation argument seem eerily similar to the second amendment and the lack of correlation argument from the NRA.

I am not arguing for tit for tat. Maybe you think the only thing stopping you from shooting people is your inability to get a gun. If only you are absolutely prevented from getting a gun, we can feel comfortable that you will never shoot up your work. Is that it? Nothing else is stopping you from becoming a mass murderer? Oh, wait, avocado toast. Got it.


You are purposefully ignoring my argument that the CDC should conduct more research.

The tone of your argument is ridiculous. Of course I'm not worried about becoming a mass murderer. I'm worried about people who can't control their anger becoming mass murderers because guns are so easily obtained.

As for the media, do you think eliminating comic book movies will prevent you from becoming the next mass shooter? I ask in jest because of course you don't. I had to add that last sentence because you are so easily triggered.

I mentioned avocado toast because I truly believe the attacks on Hollywood and social media in light of mass shootings are being orchestrated by the NRA and their devotees and those they have paid off. It used to be video games that they tried to blame. Next it will be avocado toast or something else. What I can assure you will not be driving the attacks is peer-reviewed research.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

calbear93 said:

I see. Your first amendment argument and lack of correlation argument seem eerily similar to the second amendment and the lack of correlation argument from the NRA.

I am not arguing for tit for tat. Maybe you think the only thing stopping you from shooting people is your inability to get a gun. If only you are absolutely prevented from getting a gun, we can feel comfortable that you will never shoot up your work. Is that it? Nothing else is stopping you from becoming a mass murderer? Oh, wait, avocado toast. Got it.


You are purposefully ignoring my argument that the CDC should conduct more research.

The tone of your argument is ridiculous. Of course I'm not worried about becoming a mass murderer. I'm worried about people who can't control their anger becoming mass murderers because guns are so easily obtained.

As for the media, do you think eliminating comic book movies will prevent you from becoming the next mass shooter? I ask in jest because of course you don't. I had to add that last sentence because you are so easily triggered.

I mentioned avocado toast because I truly believe the attacks on Hollywood and social media in light of mass shootings are being orchestrated by the NRA and their devotees and those they have paid off. It used to be video games that they tried to blame. Next it will be avocado toast or something else. What I can assure you will not be driving the attacks is peer-reviewed research.
Dude, don't be so triggered. I was just asking a question.

You're quite good at making huge assumptions and stating those as truth. You say guns are not the sole reason people kill (and you ask us to believe that you wouldn't kill even if you had access to guns). So it is not a one to one correlation. You don't know what is causing these people to lose their anger (meaning, it's not just guns that kill, it's also people who kill - but inability to control anger seems pretty common - you can't seem to control your anger and are easily triggered, but I assume it is a deeper issue than anger management causing people to become mass murderers with or without guns). You say we need more studies. But in your typical manner, you dismiss Hollywood and social media as a reason without any study or reason. Glad you are such an expert.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

calbear93 said:

I see. Your first amendment argument and lack of correlation argument seem eerily similar to the second amendment and the lack of correlation argument from the NRA.

I am not arguing for tit for tat. Maybe you think the only thing stopping you from shooting people is your inability to get a gun. If only you are absolutely prevented from getting a gun, we can feel comfortable that you will never shoot up your work. Is that it? Nothing else is stopping you from becoming a mass murderer? Oh, wait, avocado toast. Got it.


You are purposefully ignoring my argument that the CDC should conduct more research.

The tone of your argument is ridiculous. Of course I'm not worried about becoming a mass murderer. I'm worried about people who can't control their anger becoming mass murderers because guns are so easily obtained.

As for the media, do you think eliminating comic book movies will prevent you from becoming the next mass shooter? I ask in jest because of course you don't. I had to add that last sentence because you are so easily triggered.

I mentioned avocado toast because I truly believe the attacks on Hollywood and social media in light of mass shootings are being orchestrated by the NRA and their devotees and those they have paid off. It used to be video games that they tried to blame. Next it will be avocado toast or something else. What I can assure you will not be driving the attacks is peer-reviewed research.
Dude, don't be so triggered. I was just asking a question.

You're quite good at making huge assumptions and stating those as truth. You say guns are not the sole reason people kill (and you ask us to believe that you wouldn't kill even if you had access to guns). So it is not a one to one correlation. You don't know what is causing these people to control their anger (meaning, it's not just guns that kill, it's also people who kill). You say we need more studies. But in your typical manner, you dismiss Hollywood and social media as a reason without any study or reason. Glad you are such an expert.


Let's get down to brass tacks. I provided statistical evidence that guns are the big problem in the United States, at least as compared to other countries. What is your evidence that Hollywood and social media are equivalent causes of mass murder? Any studies you can cite? If you have some, I would be willing to engage with this idea as equally valid.

If you don't have it, I don't want to hear about this false equivalency anymore.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

However, arguing that guns are the only cause of mass murder is political nonsense. There seems to be no discussion on what is driving these people to want to kill, whether using semi-automatic weapons or a shank, and what is causing these teens to be so disengaged, . They dare not place any blame of the left-leaning Hollywood or social media companies. I am not promoting any specific type of regulation, but these discussions, as noted above, quickly become another waiving of political flags.
I don't think guns are the only cause, but it seems pretty clear that they are the main differentiator between the United States and other countries when it comes to mass murder. Most of those other countries have access to the same movies and social media we do, but far fewer mass killings. The big difference is guns.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/world/americas/mass-shootings-us-international.html
So, guns are the only thing separating US culture and Japan's? If only we took away guns, our culture would mirror Japan's? Maybe all we need to do is go with our gut feeling to determine the root cause of this. No need to ask deeper questions on why some feel compelled to commit these horrendous crimes? They have guns so they will use it?
I'm totally fine to ask deeper questions. I also think we (as a society) have a lot of issues with how young men are socialized to view violence and anger as the only way they can express their personal woes. I don't think it's an accident that a lot of these mass shooters also have a history of domestic violence.

If we're talking about the #1 thing our lawmakers can address right now, though, it's guns. The U.S. and Japan have NUMEROUS cultural differences. But it seems pretty clear that the biggest reason we have regular mass killings and they don't is because we have too many guns.

(I mean, have you SEEN Japanese media? If anything, it's got way more violence and perversion than ours. Somehow, despite that, they don't kill their fellow citizens like we do.)
Clearly I have stated that we need to address gun control as soon as possible. What I take issues with is the simpleton mentality that gun control is the end all, be all panacea to the societal issues causing people to commit mass murder. You take away guns, they may come up with bombs. We need to think beyond party lines to seek deeper solution than NRA bad, Hollywood good.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

calbear93 said:

I see. Your first amendment argument and lack of correlation argument seem eerily similar to the second amendment and the lack of correlation argument from the NRA.

I am not arguing for tit for tat. Maybe you think the only thing stopping you from shooting people is your inability to get a gun. If only you are absolutely prevented from getting a gun, we can feel comfortable that you will never shoot up your work. Is that it? Nothing else is stopping you from becoming a mass murderer? Oh, wait, avocado toast. Got it.


You are purposefully ignoring my argument that the CDC should conduct more research.

The tone of your argument is ridiculous. Of course I'm not worried about becoming a mass murderer. I'm worried about people who can't control their anger becoming mass murderers because guns are so easily obtained.

As for the media, do you think eliminating comic book movies will prevent you from becoming the next mass shooter? I ask in jest because of course you don't. I had to add that last sentence because you are so easily triggered.

I mentioned avocado toast because I truly believe the attacks on Hollywood and social media in light of mass shootings are being orchestrated by the NRA and their devotees and those they have paid off. It used to be video games that they tried to blame. Next it will be avocado toast or something else. What I can assure you will not be driving the attacks is peer-reviewed research.
Dude, don't be so triggered. I was just asking a question.

You're quite good at making huge assumptions and stating those as truth. You say guns are not the sole reason people kill (and you ask us to believe that you wouldn't kill even if you had access to guns). So it is not a one to one correlation. You don't know what is causing these people to control their anger (meaning, it's not just guns that kill, it's also people who kill). You say we need more studies. But in your typical manner, you dismiss Hollywood and social media as a reason without any study or reason. Glad you are such an expert.


Let's get down to brass tacks. I provided statistical evidence that guns are the big problem in the United States, at least as compared to other countries. What is your evidence that Hollywood and social media are equivalent causes of mass murder? Any studies you can cite? If you have some, I would be willing to engage with this idea as equally valid.
Again, gun control is an important part of the solution. However, what has changed in our society that is causing us to become so dehumanized and disengaged from others? Having access to guns (which we always had before)? Why the sharp increase in mass murders? NRA?
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
CB93 out of control tilting at windmills. You can set your clock to it. You ever thought about running for president?
BearsWiin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

CB93 out of control tilting at windmills. You can set your clock to it. You ever thought about running for president?
He really does ruin every thread that he touches. Sad!
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearsWiin said:

Unit2Sucks said:

CB93 out of control tilting at windmills. You can set your clock to it. You ever thought about running for president?
He really does ruin every thread that he touches. Sad!
If the threads are about how pathetic losers like you are progressive, then great. Let's blow that **** up. Not sad at all.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

CB93 out of control tilting at windmills. You can set your clock to it. You ever thought about running for president?
Great substantive rejoinder.
BearsWiin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

BearsWiin said:

Unit2Sucks said:

CB93 out of control tilting at windmills. You can set your clock to it. You ever thought about running for president?
He really does ruin every thread that he touches. Sad!
If the threads are how pathetic losers like you are progressive, then great. Let's blow that **** up. Not sad at all.
You seem to be so humorless that you don't even get the POTUS tweet reference.

I suspect that you're an absolute hoot at parties.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearsWiin said:

calbear93 said:

BearsWiin said:

Unit2Sucks said:

CB93 out of control tilting at windmills. You can set your clock to it. You ever thought about running for president?
He really does ruin every thread that he touches. Sad!
If the threads are how pathetic losers like you are progressive, then great. Let's blow that **** up. Not sad at all.
You seem to be so humorless that you don't even get the POTUS tweet reference.

I suspect that you're an absolute hoot at parties.
The problem is that you are so much like Trump, it wasn't even parody.

I suspect you don't get invited to parties and therefore exchange sexual innuendos with Yogi Bear on a Saturday night. Why else are you so conscious of whether people approve of you on these board? Why is approval here so important to you? Never mind. We all know the reason.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

CB93 out of control tilting at windmills. You can set your clock to it. You ever thought about running for president?
Great substantive rejoinder.


What would be the point in a substantive response to your irrelevant straw men? No one argues that gun control (that fits within the construct of second amendment and our historic level of existing guns) will completely eliminate mass shootings. Yet you continue to use that as a punching bag. Similarly you continue to talk about Hollywood and social media without any justification. Why aren't you pointing to a lack of pre-k education? Maybe nutrition? Lead in our water? Could be any number of things. We are all waiting for you to make a substantive claim. Sycasey has asked multiple times.

Instead as you always do here you brought your feelings to a fact fight and everyone loses.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

calbear93 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

CB93 out of control tilting at windmills. You can set your clock to it. You ever thought about running for president?
Great substantive rejoinder.


What would be the point in a substantive response to your irrelevant straw men? No one argues that gun control (that fits within the construct of second amendment and our historic level of existing guns) will completely eliminate mass shootings. Yet you continue to use that as a punching bag. Similarly you continue to talk about Hollywood and social media without any justification. Why aren't you pointing to a lack of pre-k education? Maybe nutrition? Lead in our water? Could be any number of things. We are all waiting for you to make a substantive claim. Sycasey has asked multiple times.

Instead as you always do here you brought your feelings to a fact fight and everyone loses.
Hmm. I see. Nutrition is so much worse now than it was 10 years ago. We have so much more lead in our waters than we did 10 years ago. What has really changed? Could it be the disengagement from social media? Was that a new thing that didn't exist 10 years ago?

Why is it a straw man to say it is not JUST guns, while acknowledging that guns are also a problem, that is causing people to want to kill others in mass quantity. Did I say that I knew for certain that that violent movies and social media are actual causes? I asked why no one questions whether they are? For those with a political agenda, it only starts and ends with the NRA. I started my post with my opinion that we need to get rid of semi-automatic weapons. But I also questioned what is causing such disengagement, including questioning what Hollywood and social media companies are doing to our kids. It is you who found such a broader questioning objectionable.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

calbear93 said:

I see. Your first amendment argument and lack of correlation argument seem eerily similar to the second amendment and the lack of correlation argument from the NRA.

I am not arguing for tit for tat. Maybe you think the only thing stopping you from shooting people is your inability to get a gun. If only you are absolutely prevented from getting a gun, we can feel comfortable that you will never shoot up your work. Is that it? Nothing else is stopping you from becoming a mass murderer? Oh, wait, avocado toast. Got it.


You are purposefully ignoring my argument that the CDC should conduct more research.

The tone of your argument is ridiculous. Of course I'm not worried about becoming a mass murderer. I'm worried about people who can't control their anger becoming mass murderers because guns are so easily obtained.

As for the media, do you think eliminating comic book movies will prevent you from becoming the next mass shooter? I ask in jest because of course you don't. I had to add that last sentence because you are so easily triggered.

I mentioned avocado toast because I truly believe the attacks on Hollywood and social media in light of mass shootings are being orchestrated by the NRA and their devotees and those they have paid off. It used to be video games that they tried to blame. Next it will be avocado toast or something else. What I can assure you will not be driving the attacks is peer-reviewed research.
Dude, don't be so triggered. I was just asking a question.

You're quite good at making huge assumptions and stating those as truth. You say guns are not the sole reason people kill (and you ask us to believe that you wouldn't kill even if you had access to guns). So it is not a one to one correlation. You don't know what is causing these people to control their anger (meaning, it's not just guns that kill, it's also people who kill). You say we need more studies. But in your typical manner, you dismiss Hollywood and social media as a reason without any study or reason. Glad you are such an expert.


Let's get down to brass tacks. I provided statistical evidence that guns are the big problem in the United States, at least as compared to other countries. What is your evidence that Hollywood and social media are equivalent causes of mass murder? Any studies you can cite? If you have some, I would be willing to engage with this idea as equally valid.
Again, gun control is an important part of the solution. However, what has changed in our society that is causing us to become so dehumanized and disengaged from others? Having access to guns (which we always had before)? Why the sharp increase in mass murders? NRA?
The killing machines have gotten more powerful, prevalent, and efficient. I suspect there has always been a similar % of the population that is dehumanized and disengaged. They just weren't as able to quickly build an arsenal of semiautomatic weapons.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/opinion/get-out-of-facebook-and-into-the-nras-face.html?referer=
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
B.A. Bearacus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/opinion/get-out-of-facebook-and-into-the-nras-face.html?referer=

I liked the fierce clarity from TF here.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
If Japan ever gets the moving pictures they will see a huge rise in mass murders. Same with Australia. And England. And Canada. And on and on and on. Better keep the moving pictures out of all those countries.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

If Japan ever gets the moving pictures they will see a huge rise in mass murders. Same with Australia. And England. And Canada. And on and on and on. Better keep the moving pictures out of all those countries.


You kind of missed the point there, champ. You fell on your ass trying to land a simple double axel of clever response. Sycasey stated that Japan, which also has a penchant for violent movies, has a lower crime rate because they don't have guns. My question to him was whether lack of guns defined Japan's culture or whether there are other differences between the two countries. In that light (or any other light), your post made no sense and wasn't nearly as clever as you had imagined in your simple mind.
Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
CB93 is right, there are some specific aspects to American culture and society that most other industrialized countries don't share. Here are some of the main ones relating to the issue of homicides:

-Extremely high incarceration rate:.

High incarceration rates are at first glance more of a symptom of violent society than a factor, but there is also a feedback loop as prison culture reinforces that culture of violence.

-Militarized society. With the exception of the 1980s, major wars in every decade, typically involving brutal occupations halfway around the world (Vietnam, Iraq etc). While these wars were removed from the average citizen, they do shape the lives of the veterans, and some of that violence will spill over.

- very high rates of single parenthood and fatherlessness, especially among minorities. There is a very high correlation rate between fatherlessness and violent crime:

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1993/04/dan-quayle-was-right/307015/

Key quote:
Quote:

The relationship [between single-parent families and crime] is so strong that controlling for family configuration erases the relationship between race and crime and between low income and crime. This conclusion shows up time and again in the literature. The nation's mayors, as well as police officers, social workers, probation officers, and court officials, consistently point to family break up as the most important source of rising rates of crime.

-Mass media culture of violence. Yes other countries do get the same films, music and TV series, but Americans in general are more exposed to it, and are more malleable as a culture than say Japan or France, which have much older cultures and more cultural inertia.

-Neoliberal, capitalist ethos pervades the culture, a more cutthroat culture with high inequalities, not much of a social net. Individualistic culture with devalued family values and rootlessness. Anti-collaborative "survivor" mindset, corporate mindset, low-trust society. Contrast with Canada, which has essentially the same mass media but a different social structure.

-Pervarsive mental health issues. Overmedicated culture, big pharma has a lot more sway than elsewhere, starting from early childhood



Many of these factors are inter-related, for instance the media promotes a less collaborative culture (Survivor, Hunger Games etc), and the unbridled corporatism feeds the MIC and prison industrial complex.

The US combines many of the worst elements from other countries with high crime rates: inequalities of Mexico or Brazil (the US now has the same Gini index as Mexico), incarceration rate close to Russia's, gang culture of Central America,...

Bottom line, it's a bit more complex an issue than just gun ownership rates, and the sectarian approach blaming the NRA obscures those factors above.
iwantwinners
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Anybody in Canada can own a gun. But they don't, and their crime and gun violence rate are low. It has everything to do with gun culture, mass culture, societal conditions, and values. We are a wealthy country, but also have high levels of RELATIVE poverty, which correlates with gun violence IIRC.
okaydo
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal88 makes sense. 62% of gun deaths are suicides; 35% are homicides. The former is skewed older, white and male (and I would guess rural); the latter black, young and male and inner city. Both represent a society in despair and decline at the margins without social ties that bind, economic insecurity, depression, drug addiction and hopelessness, largely the result of decades of failed leadership and the debris of a dog eat dog ethos.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

dajo9 said:

If Japan ever gets the moving pictures they will see a huge rise in mass murders. Same with Australia. And England. And Canada. And on and on and on. Better keep the moving pictures out of all those countries.


You kind of missed the point there, champ. You fell on your ass trying to land a simple double axel of clever response. Sycasey stated that Japan, which also has a penchant for violent movies, has a lower crime rate because they don't have guns. My question to him was whether lack of guns defined Japan's culture or whether there are other differences between the two countries. In that light (or any other light), your post made no sense and wasn't nearly as clever as you had imagined in your simple mind.
Just because you missed my point. "Same with Australia. And England. And Canada. And on and on and on" The difference is gun laws.

But thanks for the ad hominem attacks - par for the course
×
Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.