It's not just the gun lobby. Close to half of Americans regard the freedom to own a guy as an essential safeguard of their property and their autonomy, and they fear the prospect of government depriving them of property and autonomy more than they fear random acts of violence. It sounds strange to us, but it really is a different culture down there.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
The Following User Says Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
r/news is deleting any post that references religion in relation to this event.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
It's not just the gun lobby. Close to half of Americans regard the freedom to own a guy as an essential safeguard of their property and their autonomy, and they fear the prospect of government depriving them of property and autonomy more than they fear random acts of violence. It sounds strange to us, but it really is a different culture down there.
Yeah, it's culturally ingrained.
There was a time when the America's were being settled, that firearms were a logical necessity. Especially in the West where it wasn't unheard of for someone to purchase land and then they had to protect it from other settlers. Now it's a vestigial trait with some really unwanted results.
You see similar things in other cultures, but the results aren't usually this deadly.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
The mental gymnastics required by the pro gun lobby required to actually believe they are safer by having everyone armed is quite astounding. Critical thought, you are not welcome here.
Really? If it was harder for this guy to acquire firearms, that wouldn't have reduced his ability to commit this mass shooting? Sure, maybe he'd use a knife or another weapon instead if he was truly hell-bent on killing gay people, but there certainly wouldn't be 50+ fatalities in that scenario.
So you agree that stricter gun control would reduce gun violence in the US. Why are you still arguing with everyone else in this thread then?
1. Logically an assault rifle costs thousands of dollars. A pressure cooker or box cutters are exponentially cheaper so no I do not think gum restrictions will make it efficaciously more difficult to perform acts of violence.
2. I'm not arguing. I see a radically complex problem that requires extremely high level of analysis. With the way things are unfolding with ISIS, Islam and the entire shifting geopolitical landscape I see multiple potential aggravating factors none of which are guns. Restrict guns, go nuts. I don't care.
I'm not arguing against that. If the purpose of the discussion is to understand the source of terrorism and the ways in which it can be reduced isolating guns as the root source of causation identifies less than 10% of the variables in my estimate.
Gun restrictions seem reactionary where we really need a more pragmatic objective viewpoint.
Majority are also in favor of some restrictions but those restrictions will never happen with the gun lobby around calling shots.
This. It has been shown time and time again that the majority of the American people are completely in favor of better gun control and more restrictions. The only reason nothing is done is because the NRA and the gun industry has bought and paid for the US government.
This is why big money and special interests need to be removed.
There was a time when the America's were being settled, that firearms were a logical necessity. Especially in the West where it wasn't unheard of for someone to purchase land and then they had to protect it from other settlers. Now it's a vestigial trait with some really unwanted results.
You see similar things in other cultures, but the results aren't usually this deadly.
This is actually more to do with America's divide between socio-economic classes and races.
In 1959, more than 50% of American households owned a gun (today it's somewhere around 35-45%) and 60% of Americans favoured an outright ban on civilian ownership of handguns.
The 1960s civil rights movement scared the bejesus of a certain segment of America's population. Even though less American households have a gun than they did 50 years ago, the amount of guns per household that has them has increased dramatically.
We're obviously not talking about black market guns here but the legal and quais-legal firearm ownership.
Quote:
Support for the president crossed party lines, with Democrats (85%), independents (65%) and Republicans (51%) in favor of the measures. Some 57% of gun owners are also in favor.
While support is strong, skepticism about the effectiveness of the president’s executive actions is high—nearly 6 in 10 said the measures will not effectively curb gun-related deaths. This is especially true among gun owners, 75% of which say they didn’t think the changes would be effective.
Obama’s approval rating on his handling of gun policy went up following the announcement on Tuesday. He is up 8 points since a late-December CNN/ORC poll, with 43% approval on the issue.
The president’s executive actions on gun control target policy elements – background checks and mental health access – that have received broad public backing. Gun control more generally, though, has seen declining support recently.
In a Pew Research poll in July, 85 percent of Americans favored background checks on all private gun sales and gun show sales – a step further than the president is set to propose. We had a very similar result in an ABC News/Washington Post poll in April 2013, with 86 percent support for background checks on gun sales at shows or online.
Under current law, background checks are required in sales by federally licensed gun dealers, but the checks are not required for gun sales by private sellers.
National polls conducted in 2015 consistently show that around 90 percent of Americans support some sort of expanded background checks for gun purchases. Here are a few examples:
Quinnipiac University poll, conducted Dec. 16-20: "Would you support or oppose a law requiring background checks on people buying guns at gun shows or online?" Support: 89 percent. Oppose: 9 percent. Unsure/No answer: 1 percent.
CBS/New York Times poll, conducted Oct. 21-25: "Do you favor or oppose a federal law requiring background checks on all potential gun buyers?" Favor: 92 percent. Oppose: 7 percent. Unsure/No answer: 1 percent.
Gallup poll, conducted Oct. 7-11: "Would you favor or oppose a law which would require universal background checks for all gun purchases in the U.S. using a centralized database across all 50 states?" Favor: 86 percent. Oppose: 12 percent. Unsure: 2 percent.
Quinnipiac University poll, conducted Sept. 17-21: "Do you support or oppose requiring background checks for all gun buyers?" Support: 93 percent. Oppose: 6 percent. Unsure/No answer: 1 percent.
Pew Research Center poll, conducted July 14-20: Do you favor or oppose "making private gun sales and sales at gun shows subject to background checks"? Favor: 85 percent. Oppose: 13 percent. Unsure/Refused: 2 percent.
Pew found that support for background checks spans all partisan and demographic groups, and it is also favored by a majority of households that own guns and those that do not.
When President Obama announces today — a little over a month after 14 people died in a mass shooting in San Bernardino, California — that he is bypassing Congress with executive actions to tighten access to guns, he will lead with a measure that strengthens an astonishingly, consistently, overwhelmingly popular government policy: background checks for would-be gun buyers.
In dozens of polls over the past two decades, Americans have been asked if they support expanding background checks for the purchase of firearms. Background checks are run to prevent sales to people who have been convicted of certain crimes, who are running from the law or who otherwise have been banned from buying guns for a variety of other reasons. The specifics of the question have varied — sometimes asking about the Brady Bill, the 1993 law that required background checks for purchases from licensed dealers; sometimes about circumstances for which federal law doesn’t currently require checks, such as sales from unlicensed sellers or of ammunition. Consistently, at least 70 percent of Americans said they favor background checks. Often, far more do. In October, a CBS News/New York Times poll found that 92 percent of Americans — including 87 percent of Republicans — favor background checks for all gun buyers.1
While support for gun rights surpassed that of gun control in December of last year, reaching a two-decade high, it has since fallen five percentage points. Now 50% say it is more important to control gun ownership, just slightly more than the 47% who say it is more important to protect the right of Americans to own guns.
1. Logically an assault rifle costs thousands of dollars. A pressure cooker or box cutters are exponentially cheaper so no I do not think gum restrictions will make it efficaciously more difficult to perform acts of violence.
2. I'm not arguing. I see a radically complex problem that requires extremely high level of analysis. With the way things are unfolding with ISIS, Islam and the entire shifting geopolitical landscape I see multiple potential aggravating factors none of which are guns. Restrict guns, go nuts. I don't care.
I'm not arguing against that. If the purpose of the discussion is to understand the source of terrorism and the ways in which it can be reduced isolating guns as the root source of causation identifies less than 10% of the variables in my estimate.
Gun restrictions seem reactionary where we really need a more pragmatic objective viewpoint.
Do you not understand that an assault rifle can kill way more lives way faster than a pair of box cutters.
I don't know if you are being contrary for the sake of it, or what, but it is this desire to continue to analyze and discuss, and not be reactionary, that prevents steps being made that are perfectly sensible ways to at least mitigate some of the lives being lost.
The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to JiriHrdina For This Useful Post:
And on top of that, Trump is going to have a field day with this. Fuel the fires for a Muslim ban.
I mean, this guy was born in New York, unless Trump is going to suggest deporting citizens over their religious beliefs, he can't do much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_only_turek_fan
I believe everyone is entitled to own a gun, but magazine clips and assault rifles should be banned.
Each event like this makes me more and more in favor of very strict gun control laws. I'm so tired of innocent people dying, every day, because the NRA has people convinced that the second amendment trumps all else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AcGold
Oh I get it. The point is I don't agree with your argument. I disagree that it will make it harder.
School shooting absolutely would be more difficult to achieve. Act of terrorism with massive casualties not so much when historically the existence of terrorism is not dependent on guns.
Gun control laws aren't just about stopping terrorists and school shooters. They're about preventing kids from getting their parents' gun and accidentally shooting themselves or a sibling or friend. It's about keeping weapons out of the hands of men who have already been arrested for domestic abuse, so that they don't murder their wives/girlfriends. It's about lowering the total number of guns available so fewer are around for gang members and drug dealers to easily obtain, etc.
Mass shootings draw attention to the problem, but hundreds of people are injured or murdered by firearms every single day. We panic over terrorists, but guns kill thousands more than terrorists annually, yet nothing is done to stop it.
The Following 19 Users Say Thank You to wittynickname For This Useful Post:
A pro-gun friend suggested you could kill hundreds of people in minutes with an SUV, so why do guns get vilified?
Is this really how divorced from reality people become around this issue?
Pretty much. The pro gun rhetoric ranges anywhere from "stop talking about guns, they're not the problem" to ridiculous analogies. Their responses remind me of stubborn donkey from family guy.
Last edited by jayswin; 06-12-2016 at 04:01 PM.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to jayswin For This Useful Post:
In catching up on the Orlando shooting as I'm getting ready to head off to work, something that sticks out for me is the reports that the shooter called 911 before he did it. I, sadly, CAN imagine taking a call like that. I add my thoughts for that operator to those for the families, friends and first responders involved in this tragedy.
Oh I get it. The point is I don't agree with your argument. I disagree that it will make it harder.
School shooting absolutely would be more difficult to achieve. Act of terrorism with massive casualties not so much when historically the existence of terrorism is not dependent on guns.
Although terrorism still accounts for a negligible share of all gun deaths in the U.S. — since 1970, fewer than five deaths most years — from 2002 to 2014, 85 percent of people killed by terrorists in the U.S. were killed using guns, according to our analysis.1 Every terrorist attack in the U.S. last year in which someone other than the perpetrator was killed involved guns, according to a preliminary list provided by Erin Miller, who manages the Global Terrorism Database. Since the Sept. 11 attacks, the number of people killed by guns in terror attacks in the U.S. has risen, as has the number of terror attacks involving guns.
The Following User Says Thank You to Resolute 14 For This Useful Post:
