The US War on Blacks!

[Ben Kenobi]

What we need to is to figure out how to reduce the hate and lack of empathy.

Ok. So what do you make of Islamic terrorists operating in America? How should America deal with this to prevent further shootings?

People don't shoot other people because they have a gun and thus feel compelled to shoot people, they do it because they think the other people are evil

People shoot other people for a variety of reasons. Some just want their stuff. Sometimes it's hate. Sometimes they are psychotics, and yes, some feel compelled to shoot people. See, Newtown.

I blame poor education (and I am a teacher myself).

Education isn't the answer. Some people are just crazy. The solution is not to give them easy targets, and to let people exercise their constitutional rights to bear arms.

No properly educated person would listen to the likes of Glenn Beck with anything but contempt. And yet, guys like him are making tens of millions of dollars a year because poorly-educated people eat his **** up with a spoon.

Ah. You're one of those who equate education with indoctrination. Do you believe that it's possible for well-educated people to disagree?

So long as we have powerful voices promoting hatred and paranoia, we are going to have people who take these voices as calls for violent and paranoid action.

Oh. Like Islam?

[-Jrabbit]

Statistically, there is literally no evidence for causation forwards or backwards. Correlation is not causation, and correlation is symmetric. Furthermore, there is no testable causal hypothesis ("bayes net") in this instance, since there is no way to perform repeated trials.

I think it's fair to say that there is no (statistical) evidence for the efficacy of gun control. Conversely, there is also no (again, statistical) evidence for the ineffectiveness of gun control.


You'd need a constitutional amendment for that. No chance that'll happen. Frankly I think confiscation would just end with law-abiders lacking guns and law-breakers having guns. If this were a country that didn't have a gun culture and never had many private firearms it might work, but at this point it's just not possible.

I love being lectured on logic and philosophy by children. But it's OK; I'm old and forgetful. And I like HC despite his immediate attempt to discredit my post by arguing against things I have not stated, then leaping to constitutional amendments, gun culture/political practicality, etc. Nice deflection from the actual post, but not my point.

In fact, all I stated was some basic steps I can support. And the fact that it would politically difficult, constitutionally questionable, etc. was not a point I addressed. I'm 61 freaking years old, and a former gun owner. You think I don't know this sh1t?

I was not using correlation to suggest causality. I was using common sense. More guns = more gun violence. It's not really a controversial thought. And looking at gun deaths vs. gun density/availability globally (much like the presence of a gun in the house), I don't think there's any question regarding the statistical consequences.

I specified felons and assault weapons. You responded with the achingly tired "only criminals will have guns" bromide, apparently suggesting that you're fine with big weapons in the hands of the criminally insane. Or is that not your meaning? And do you really think that having an assault rifle in your gun cabinet is going to protect you from a similarly armed home invader? Yeah, that's going to end well.

I also enjoy the NRA-sponsored "it's just not possible, so don't even try" mantra. Since you're falling back on that, I will take it to mean that, on some level, you admit that I'm right.

[Ben Kenobi]

I love being lectured on logic and philosophy by children.

Compelling argument, JR.

More guns = more gun violence.

But, that's not what we see. Texans have more guns but less violence than Chicago.

And looking at gun deaths vs. gun density/availability globally (much like the presence of a gun in the house), I don't think there's any question regarding the statistical consequences.

Looking at it statewise, we don't see the same correlation. Why is this? Should we not expect the same principles to apply within the US?

do you really think that having an assault rifle in your gun cabinet is going to protect you from a similarly armed home invader? Yeah, that's going to end well.

Interesting. I'm willing to wager that anti-gun crusader JR actually does have a gun in his house. And I'm willing to be that neither HC or I have one. Perhaps we should listen to what our senior elder does rather than what he says.

[Hauldren Collider]

I also enjoy the NRA-sponsored "it's just not possible, so don't even try" mantra. Since you're falling back on that, I will take it to mean that, on some level, you admit that I'm right.

No. I don't agree that gun control is a good idea, or that you're right, and I believe that we ought to have a right to keep firearms but I'm also not really interested in arguing the pros and cons of gun rights. I'm more interested in discussing the concrete issue of whether the various gun law proposals are politically possible, which I think is also an easier discussion to keep civil and reach agreement on. I doubt I'll be able to convince anyone of my position (or that anyone will be able to dissuade me of mine), which makes discussing it rather boring in my opinion.

I apologize if I misinterpreted your post. It was not my intention to pull some sort of rhetorical dodge.

[C0ckney]

good posts JR and grumbler.

although i'm not really interested in US domestic politics, it seems to me that there's another thing at work in this whole gun debate. many of the founding myth(s) of the US are tied up with guns, from the armed colonists throwing off the british yoke, the expulsion of the natives americans from their lands, the colonists pushing west, the wild west etc.; and all this must have a powerful effect on people's views. one can see it in the ridiculous positions they take, such as denying the obvious truth that more guns equals more potential for gun violence, or claiming that being armed somehow protects them from government interference, or pretending that something some national hero said in the late 18th century about guns is relevant to the world today. that level of self-deception requires some powerful force behind it.

the objections based on seemingly sober practicality are especially strange. the US government can put a man on the moon, it can split the atom, it can occupy countries at the far concerns of the earth almost indefinitely, but it cannot enact some reasonable gun control! it's not a question of practicality; it's a question of will; and that will doesn't exist in large measure because american identity and guns are so intertwined.

[Ben Kenobi]

can put a man on the moon, it can split the atom, it can occupy countries at the far concerns of the earth almost indefinitely, but it cannot enact some reasonable gun control!

Maybe these things are connected, Cockney. Perhaps if you had individual liberty you'd be able to land a man on the moon.

[Imran Siddiqui]

To be honest, though, I really don't think that preventing felons from having guns and banning "assault weapons" would violate the Constitution (banning ownership of them and providing fair market value, prior to the ban, in return for the guns would be basic confiscation and legally fine). In fact the Heller decision did make clear that restrictions can be applied to gun ownership.

[Guynemer]

I also enjoy the NRA-sponsored "it's just not possible, so don't even try" mantra. Since you're falling back on that, I will take it to mean that, on some level, you admit that I'm right.

You ARE right. But so is the NRA--it ISN'T possible. This is full-on Catch-22 madness, but that's the reality of the situation. We need to focus on things that are possible. I honestly haven't the faintest idea of what that could be.

[Hauldren Collider]

Maybe consider the fact that virtually all gun crime involves urban black and latino gangs, and find a way of eradicating those? Solving multigenerational urban poverty would alleviate an almost limitless host of social problems.

[DinoDoc]

Solving multigenerational urban poverty would alleviate an almost limitless host of social problems.

The government can't even do that right.

[Hauldren Collider]

That's because the government believes that simply throwing money at a problem will fix it. But that's a good point.

[grumbler]

good posts JR and grumbler.

although i'm not really interested in US domestic politics, it seems to me that there's another thing at work in this whole gun debate. many of the founding myth(s) of the US are tied up with guns, from the armed colonists throwing off the british yoke, the expulsion of the natives americans from their lands, the colonists pushing west, the wild west etc.; and all this must have a powerful effect on people's views. one can see it in the ridiculous positions they take, such as denying the obvious truth that more guns equals more potential for gun violence, or claiming that being armed somehow protects them from government interference, or pretending that something some national hero said in the late 18th century about guns is relevant to the world today. that level of self-deception requires some powerful force behind it.

the objections based on seemingly sober practicality are especially strange. the US government can put a man on the moon, it can split the atom, it can occupy countries at the far concerns of the earth almost indefinitely, but it cannot enact some reasonable gun control! it's not a question of practicality; it's a question of will; and that will doesn't exist in large measure because american identity and guns are so intertwined.

I think that the gun issue is just a manifestation of the real fear, which is fear of unbridled government. America as a nation-state is too recent to have developed the kinds of social conventions that allows Britain, for example, to go without a written constitution, trusting that everyone who counts believes the same as they do on what the unwritten constitution says. American society is constantly being re-invented (well, all societies are, but in the US that is more celebrated than feared), and individualistic, and government is widely seen as something to be tolerated at best. Some people fetishize this distaste for government into gun ownership and "my cold, dead hands."

Underneath it all, though, is the huge, gaping wound of racism and exclusivism, and to the huge and growing percentage of the population, government is feared less than their fellow-citizens are feared. Ironically, the biggest bigots are those lowest on the existing "white" social totem-pole, but the good news is that it is those people that can be changed with the right kind of education.

Some gun control can certainly be undertaken (much stricter rules on gun sales and qualifications to possess firearms), but bigger rewards and more certain success will come when Americans as a whole decide that every American child, even in the South, deserves a decent education, and the nation as a whole moves to fund that (and eliminate obstructive bureaucracies both on the government side and the teacher side). Look at what Finland has done. There's nothing more American than that!

[grumbler]

That's because the government believes that simply throwing money at a problem will fix it. But that's a good point.

Throwing money and bureaucrats at it! Gotta have more bureaucrats in my organization if I am going to spend more money!

[DaShi]

Maybe consider the fact that virtually all gun crime involves urban black and latino gangs, and find a way of eradicating those? Solving multigenerational urban poverty would alleviate an almost limitless host of social problems.

No one cares if gangs are killing eachother. People care when white and asian kids go around shooting up schools and churches.

[Kidlicious]

It's much more likely that I will die in a car accident than in one of these shootings. Close this troll thread.