Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
"It's always too soon to talk about gun control"
"It's always too soon to talk about gun control"
#1
Opinion piece on Canadian Broadcasting Corporation News: It's always too soon to talk about gun control

I'm reasonably sure that this was written to be purposefully inflammatory:

Quote:In any case, lawmakers cannot allow this tragedy, which was the 273rd of its kind in 275 days, to make Americans lose sight of what is important here: that is, the freedom to amass a stockpile of weapons, ammunition and modifiers that can enable a single person to wound hundreds and kill dozens in a matter of minutes.

Take that freedom away, and the U.S. suddenly devolves into Japan, or Australia, or some other quasi-socialist country where people aren't gunned down in movie theatres, high schools, on live TV, in nightclubs and in kindergarten classrooms. What would be left of America then? You might as well take away apple pie, Sunday afternoon football (I mean the good kind of football, back before those whiners started kneeling during the national anthem) and the right to skin a deer on the side of the interstate. Like a man.

Quote:Indeed, the obvious solution to a man with an arsenal of weapons shooting down from the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino is a sea of 22,000 equally armed concertgoers below, panicked and shooting wildly in the direction of the 43-storey hotel. Perhaps that would have saved some lives.

Quote:The respectful thing to do here is to mourn for the victims and their families, and then preserve everything exactly as it is, so that it may happen again. That's what freedom feels like, friends.
--
Rob Kelk

Sticks and stones can break your bones,
But words can break your heart.
- unknown
Reply
RE: "It's always too soon to talk about gun control"
#2
You got to remember. Something I figgured out a while back when thew whole BLM thing was going.

Black live matter?
All Lives matter?
Really. When you get right down to it. To the people in Office.

No Lives Matter

Think about it for a second. Let that thought settle in your brain. Let it get nice and cozy, sitting there, farting in the corner and blathering on about the holiday in Lanzarote like an unwanted guest - or a cousin you can't kick out of the door but just can't bloody stand. It's an awful idea, but I can't ignorn

If people's lives actually mattered, something would be done. Instead. There's the same predictrable pattern. it's like a bloody wheel of bloody carnage going round and round.

Okay. Let me qualify what I mean when I say No Lives Matter. You might matter to your friends and colleagues, if you have them - that's not what I mean. However, to the people actually in government - on councils, in congress,. in office anywhere, you personally don't matter to them.

You need to remember what matters to people in Office. It's not the people, or their emotional wellbeing or their happiness. It's that little piece of white paper in the people's hands that lets them keep their cushy, overpaid jobs. And, in theory, to keep that gravy train rolling they need to keep you happy so you'll give them your white piece of paper.

That's democracy.

Unfortunately, American democracy is broken to fuck.

How?

I'm asking you to imagine a town. Let's call it Vote-town. It's a perfect circle with a million people in it. And being a very polarised sort of people, theyt live in two seperate communities. You have the Green's, in West Vote-Town, and the Oranges, in East Vote-Town. and now, Vote-Town has a town council. There are three seats on that council - so there can never bee a tie.

So, they draw up a 'fair' constituency map, and it looks like this:

[Image: MzBcyDOl.png]

3, 120 degree arcs. West. East. South. Each with equal populations.

Now. West will always vote for Green politicians. East will always vote for Orange. But South, that could go either way. So you get the Greens and the Oranges concentrating everything in South in order to try and pull it their way so the people in West and East get fuckall, but South gets everything. Now, that's where it starts to break...

Lets assume Orange wins in South the one year - maybe a Greenie went on holiday or didn't bother voting because 'my vote doesnt matter'. Now, Orange knows that none of the Greens in West will vote for them. Orange knows all of the other Oranges in East will vote for him. Orange knows that, to keep the South, they just need to either convince a few Greens to vote for them (Or make it harder for Greens to go vote). So they start making a few compromises to the Greens in South only- Local compromises.
They're getting screwed in the long term, but in the short - the potholes got fixed, crime went down, a contentious march was cancelled - hollow shite that feels like progress and improvement but really isn't. So these Greenies start voting orange thinking Orange gives a fuck about 'em, even as Orange turns the screws on their friends in West. They earn a bloc-name like Green Turkey or Orange Dog. It's a small group of voters who votes against their group's collective interest because a particular politician looks out for their personal interest.. They never realise that to the Oranges - South or West doesn't matter- They're still just 'Fucking Greenies'.

it's a fairly fucking broken scenario - but can come OK if there's a hard swing due to the economy, gentrification or a scandel. Then it locks in the other position. Like a bistable multivibrator.

So. Lets add a Mass shooting to the mix.

We let rip rip on the Greenies in West. Kids go to scoool wearing book-bags and come home wearing bodybags. Some people in West now scream for more gun control. Orange does not give a fuck, because it's just a bunch of Greenies killing each other. Nothing gets done. Those 33% of the population do not matter to the people in charge.

Let's add a second. Because 'murica and nothing got done the first time. More people are going to die.

He let's rip on thje Oranges in East. Students go to college full of hope for the future and come home full of holes. Orange screams for more gun control now. Orange politicans do nothing - because East does not matter to them. The people in East will vote Orange anyway to fix their shit even if Orange never delivers so it's almost in Orange politician's interest to never deliver.

Now we;re in the situation where Two thirds of the population want gun control. But neither of those thirds matter. Meanwhile South is humming along tickety-boo. None of their people are dead yet. They keep their guns. They lkove their guns. Their guns are the only thing keeping them safe from the maniacs in West and East....

Now. Lets go back to the original assetion.

No lives Matter

Why?

Because once Orange has control of the Council. Orange Can change the constuency boundaries. They can rotate everything through 90 degrees - 'To better reflect demographics'. Now, our constituencies are West, North, and South. West is 120 degrees of Greenie. North and South are 30 degrees of Green, and 90 degrees of Orange, each.

[Image: DCHrL5Zl.png]

Real constuency manipulation looks fucking Gonzo compared to this. This is just the most obvious 'hello world' example. It's so obviously broken.

North and South will always vote Orange. West will always vote Green. Orange always leads 2:1. Orange can never be deposed from their majority on the council. As stuff gets worse in West (Because Orange does not give a fuck about 'em) - they keep voting Green because they want Change. Meanwhile - you might think the Orange people are getting everything they want because Orange rules. Yeah - No.

It doesn't work like that at all.

They stopped mattering as soon as it became obvious that neiother North nor South could ever be lost by Orange councilmembers. North and South will always vote Orange. Tell 'em the screaming Greenies are the reason their shit's getting worse and they'll vote Orange to fix it every fucking time. Even as things for them go spiralling down the toilet.

Now, nobody's vote matters. Hence.

No. Lives. Matter.

Which means nobody matters to the politicians who secure themselves in their personal sinecures except the ones best able to feed their pockets and 'campaign funds'. The really wealthy lobbies. The Money. You might aswell have a dictatorship.

When things get to this point, to the people in power, you're not even a number. You're the thing that gets a form response from their computer that makes you think you still matter when you email them. They start making laws, rules and regulations that not only cement their position, but turn it into a personal wealth fund. It's not corruption - it's the end failure state of a broken system. Democracy.exe starts sucking up all the RAM for itself until the whole system hangs itself by the neck, leavig the usders battering at their keyboards in the hope something will happen. But it's stuck and locked hard until someone comes along and cycles the power.

t's not even a political machine. It's a seized machine. Broke and stuck in one permanent position until some outside force comes and frees it.

Oh,. and by the way. Those people funding the politicians of Orange? Well..... You know damn well who they are. They're the people making millions from the blood.

As to how to fix it?

Well. Since Government tends to be mission critical you can't exactly turn it off and on again and reboot it. This is called a revolutioin. Which means it usually ends where it started. In America, you've got to remember who the politicians care about and make it matter to them.

But generally, what happens in civilised countries is that, West South and East dont exist - instead you have one Vote-Town constituency with Three seats, and the election is decided by proportional represenation. Usually you get a non-shit representation of things that fluxes around depending on moods. You get a Green, and Orange, and the odd single-issue crank.

And after one massacre that appalls everyone, guns get banned. Worked in the UK. And Australia. Fuck, we disarmed our police force in the middle of a Civil War as a quid-pro-quo to show the population had nothing to fear from the cops (Unlike the Tans before), then disarmed the population - so only the bad guys had guns.

Then we sent the army after them since they were easy to pick out now. It was a short Civil war after that.

I love the smell of rotaries in the morning. You know one time, I got to work early, before the rush hour. I walked through the empty carpark, I didn't see one bloody Prius or Golf. And that smell, you know that gasoline smell, the whole carpark, smelled like.... ....speed.

One day they're going to ban them.
Reply
RE: "It's always too soon to talk about gun control"
#3
Ouch!

To be honest, I have little hope that anything will change. If a school full of dead children didn't do it, Las Vegas won't. At least until the political power of the modern NRA is broken.

Still, as I read once, "It is not incumbent upon you to finish the task. Yet, you are not free to desist from it."

I have written to my Senators and Representatives with the following suggestions since I know that repealing the second amendment won't fly:

• Reverse current limitations on research by federal agencies, and increase funding for existing programs.
• National Registry of Firearms.
• For a person to obtain a gun, he should attend an all-day class and pass a written test regarding proper operation, maintenance, and safety. This class and test are to be held once a month under qualified firearms instructors. Classes and exams must be re-taken every three years.
• Take and pass a shooting range class.
• File with the local and federal authorities a psychological test and a drug test.
• Pass a rigorous background check for any criminal record or association with criminal or extremist groups.
• Provide local and federal authorities with documentation on the gun, its location within your property, and the type of ammunition. Both must be properly stored and locked.
• Have the police inspect the gun once per year.
• Law must apply to gun shows as well.
• Gun buyback program to get as many off the street as possible.
****************************************************************
“When you choose an action, you choose the consequences of that action. When you desire a consequence you had damned well better take the action that would create it.”
― Lois McMaster Bujold, Memory
——————————————————-
What zombie movies got wrong about the actual apocalypse, part 1,487: they omitted scenes of people on the street demanding the right to be eaten by zombies.
—Kelly Davio, Twitter, 4/19/2020
Reply
RE: "It's always too soon to talk about gun control"
#4
Quote:Fuck, we disarmed our police force in the middle of a Civil War, then disarmed the population - so only the bad guys had guns.

Wait, what?

What mad country did this and made this work?

Quote:I have written to my Senators and Representatives with the following suggestions since I know that repealing the second amendment won't fly:

Unfortunately, writing once won't be enough. Convince other people to write with you, and be convinced and stay convinced you will need to keep writing every month at minimum and every week or day preferably and that expanding the number of people who write will be the only way to make it happen. When phone calls supporting a gun restriction bills get outnumbered 200 to 1 by phone calls shouting them down politicians know which way the wind blows.
Reply
RE: "It's always too soon to talk about gun control"
#5
This sounds like an excellent way to get laws restricting the sale of scary black guns that will have absolutely no impact on the vast majority of gun homicides, which weren't being committed with scary black guns in the first place.

-Morgan.
Some people have Worm SIs with phenomenal cosmic power.
My Worm SI is Emma and Madison's therapist.
Reply
RE: "It's always too soon to talk about gun control"
#6
(10-05-2017, 08:19 PM)hazard Wrote:
Quote:Fuck, we disarmed our police force in the middle of a Civil War, then disarmed the population - so only the bad guys had guns.

Wait, what?

What mad country did this and made this work?

IIRC, Northern Ireland during the Troubles. So within living memory - you can actually go there, talk with people who lived through it, and draw your own conclusions about the issue that are not filtered through anybody else's biases.
--
Rob Kelk

Sticks and stones can break your bones,
But words can break your heart.
- unknown
Reply
RE: "It's always too soon to talk about gun control"
#7
No. You're about fifty years too late.

Irish Civil War. An Garda Siochana were founded as the State Police service, and were originally armed. They were disarmed and it was generally expected that nobody woul;d shoot them because shooting unarmed men was 'bad form'. This was proved correct. It made it clear they were there to protect people, detect crime and deal with actual criminals and not go full Black and Tan on a population who just the year before were having doors kicked in by Shell-Shocked Tans armed with military-surplus rifles.

It was national news for days the last time a Garda was killed in action - it's usually front page news for days when it happens. Subject to the usual sort of financial irregularities and the Traffic corps are called the Traffic Nazis for a reason, but they're generally a bunch of sound lads who'll help you home if you're staggared drunk and harmless.

This is, of course, based on the 'Policed by Consent' model. Rather than the 'Policied by wannabee soldiers with battle-rifles and full body-armour riding in ex-military combat trucks' model.

I love the smell of rotaries in the morning. You know one time, I got to work early, before the rush hour. I walked through the empty carpark, I didn't see one bloody Prius or Golf. And that smell, you know that gasoline smell, the whole carpark, smelled like.... ....speed.

One day they're going to ban them.
Reply
RE: "It's always too soon to talk about gun control"
#8
And look at Ireland now, a lawless region where corporations pay no taxes and collect all of your personal data.  Truly, a dystopia.

OK, those things might not be related to guns.

SilverFang01 Wrote:• For a person to obtain a gun, he should attend an all-day class and pass a written test regarding proper operation, maintenance, and safety. This class and test are to be held once a month under qualified firearms instructors. Classes and exams must be re-taken every three years.
This actually exists in some places.  Those classes, naturally, are taught by the NRA, and part of its charitable education mission.  They make a great place to spread pro-gun propaganda.

Dartz Wrote:Wall of text
Gerrymandering is a problem that is not orthogonal to gun violence, but only because one of the parties allowed itself to be captured by the gun lobby, and that party happened to be the party that was ascendant in the year the lines got redrawn.  It's kind of like blaming Chthulu on the stars deciding to align.  Obviously these realignments are a problem, but not the core cause of the violence.

I talked to a friend of mine last night about guns.  She took us out to a comedy club, because she wanted to get her mind off the fact that her friend (and the friend's husband) had been shot to death in Las Vegas.  Five more of her friends were injured at the concert.  Of course, she's not giving up her handgun sitting in the nightstand at home, because what if someone comes to rape her?  (Also, the assertion that her "girly gun ... couldn't really kill someone" seems like something I should call the Mythbusters about.)  So what the hell do you do with attitudes like this?  I tried suggesting pepper spray, but that didn't work.  Americans would rather be peppered with bullets.

EDIT: Oh, I forgot to mention, I had this conversation with her at a bar, where it just so happened that the bartender's sister was grazed by a bullet in Vegas.

And finally, I'm just going to close by reminding everyone that two-thirds of gun deaths in the U.S. are suicides.  The degree to which the gun is the problem in this case is hard to say -- it might be anything from economic stress to availability of euthanasia to "OMG I had a bad day, and I have a gun, put 2 + 2 together."
"Kitto daijoubu da yo." - Sakura Kinomoto
Reply
RE: "It's always too soon to talk about gun control"
#9
A major factor in gun related deaths seems to be not the guns themselves.

It's simply that Americans are much more likely to kill, to go for lethal violence, than many other nations, to the point that non gun related murders in the US are more numerous per capita than most countries total murder rates. The reasons for that are unclear, but the most important factors appear to be that Americans are more miserable, more stressed, more isolated and more distrusting of others than other people living in other nations. Which isn't something you'd say is a problem in a nation seemingly made of extroverts.
Reply
RE: "It's always too soon to talk about gun control"
#10
Are Americans really more miserable, more stressed, more isolated, and more distrusting of others than Canadians or Japanese, though? (I don't know - I haven't see the relevant statistics.)
--
Rob Kelk

Sticks and stones can break your bones,
But words can break your heart.
- unknown
Reply
RE: "It's always too soon to talk about gun control"
#11
(10-08-2017, 08:49 AM)robkelk Wrote: Are Americans really more miserable, more stressed, more isolated, and more distrusting of others than Canadians or Japanese, though? (I don't know - I haven't see the relevant statistics.)

Good question.

There is also the mythologizing about the old west, how has that influenced the attitudes about guns, and the use of violence in general?
****************************************************************
“When you choose an action, you choose the consequences of that action. When you desire a consequence you had damned well better take the action that would create it.”
― Lois McMaster Bujold, Memory
——————————————————-
What zombie movies got wrong about the actual apocalypse, part 1,487: they omitted scenes of people on the street demanding the right to be eaten by zombies.
—Kelly Davio, Twitter, 4/19/2020
Reply
RE: "It's always too soon to talk about gun control"
#12
I can answer one part of the question from a recent thing I read, on trust.

Slate Star Codex Wrote:There were similar differences between countries. Germany (n = 192) at 2.35, the UK (n = 353) at 2.37, and Canada (n = 2.39) were all significantly more trusting than the US (n = 3124) at 2.53 – but obviously the effect wasn’t too impressive. There were only two non-western countries with remotely usable sample sizes. Brazil (n = 28) was 2.89, and India (n = 27) was 2.81. The non-western/Anglosphere difference was significant even with the low sample size. The most trusting city in the world was Toronto (n = 60), at 2.23.
1 = most trusting, 5 = least trusting

It is a self-selected survey, done by a blogger, but at least this blogger is a psychiatrist who knows the subject area.   He's also a rationalist, and well aware of the p-hacking problems -- he's using p = 0.001.
"Kitto daijoubu da yo." - Sakura Kinomoto
Reply
RE: "It's always too soon to talk about gun control"
#13
(10-07-2017, 10:17 PM)Labster Wrote: This actually exists in some places.  Those classes, naturally, are taught by the NRA, and part of its charitable education mission.  They make a great place to spread pro-gun propaganda.

Er, what? Got any documentation of that happening? Because from what I've seen even most people who aren't a fan of the NRA's political agenda seem to agree that their safety classes are top-notch.

Also, it does not seem much of a stretch to think that most people taking gun safety courses, as a preparatory measure to purchasing a gun or a requirement to continuing to have a gun, are already fairly positive towards gun ownership.

Or to put it another way, they're actually a terrible place for pro-gun propaganda. Preaching to the choir and all.

-Morgan.
Some people have Worm SIs with phenomenal cosmic power.
My Worm SI is Emma and Madison's therapist.
Reply
RE: "It's always too soon to talk about gun control"
#14
(10-07-2017, 10:17 PM)Labster Wrote: And look at Ireland now, a lawless region where corporations pay no taxes and collect all of your personal data.  Truly, a dystopia.

OK, those things might not be related to guns.

Considering Google is based in the USA and engages in the same behaviour, I'd agree that those things might not be related to guns.
--
Rob Kelk

Sticks and stones can break your bones,
But words can break your heart.
- unknown
Reply
RE: "It's always too soon to talk about gun control"
#15
Look at Japan's suicide rates and tell me people over there aren't stressed.

Also, if someone over there is REALLY of a mind to cause harm and mayhem, they typically use rented box vans and box cutter knives.

Dunno about Canada, but I think you folks up North aren't anywhere nearly as stressed out as we are right now.

Please do something about Mental Health Care. Please do something about class inequality. Please for the love of god do something about the issue of racism in our country.

Removing guns from the picture will only make things worse.

It will only add to the stress.

It will only add to the stockpiling and the hoarding.

And we will only see even more massacres as even more people snap and lose it.

And BTW: All signs are currently pointing at this guy being utterly stark raving bonkers. Looking at his methodologies, even if you had removed the option of guns, he would have probably have gone with something worse like pressure cooker bombs or pipe bombs. Or maybe even just driving a truck full of anfo right into the middle of the whole thing and pulling the trigger. Because he was already planning on killing himself.

Please do not make this about guns.

Yasuri Nanami is my number one waifu, if only because she would horribly murder all the others if they didn't shut up and toe the line.
"They did not care about all the other attempts wizards had made on the Lone Power through history; as far as a computer is concerned, there is no program that cannot be debugged, or at worst, rewritten."
-Diane Duane, High Wizardry
"If our friendship depends on things like space and time, we've destroyed our own brotherhood! But overcome space, and all we have left is Here. Overcome time, and all we have left is Now. And in the middle of Here and Now, don't you think that we might see each other once or twice?"
-Richard Bach, Jonathan Livingston Seagull
Reply
RE: "It's always too soon to talk about gun control"
#16
(10-10-2017, 11:12 AM)Black Aeronaut Wrote: ...  Please for the love of god do something about the issue of racism in our country.
...

If only somebody had a solution for that problem. One that doesn't involve mass deportations or genocide, that is.

We did an actual statistical study in Ottawa last year; we had police officers write down the skin colour of every person they pulled over for a few months. (Skin colour was determined by the subjective perception of each officer.) We discovered that you're more likely to be pulled over for driving while black than you are to be pulled over for driving while white. The rates of getting pulled over for driving while aboriginal were also higher than average, but not as bad as driving while black. Driving while Asian was actually less likely to get you pulled over than driving while white.

Yes, we have statistical evidence that the police force of the capital of Canada is not colourblind in this sense.

And even after those numbers were publicized, there are still people in Ottawa who get upset when they hear the phrase "black lives matter"...
--
Rob Kelk

Sticks and stones can break your bones,
But words can break your heart.
- unknown
Reply
RE: "It's always too soon to talk about gun control"
#17
@Blackaeronaut (because the quote system doesn't work properly)

Quote:Look at Japan's suicide rates and tell me people over there aren't stressed.

Also, if someone over there is REALLY of a mind to cause harm and mayhem, they typically use rented box vans and box cutter knives.

Of course they are stressed.

Their murder and mass murder spree rates are also substantially lower than the US' rates.

Quote:Please do something about Mental Health Care. Please do something about class inequality. Please for the love of god do something about the issue of racism in our country.

Then vote and be loud.

Also, the class inequality thing? That impacts the racism and mental health care issue in a major manner. Rich crazy people are either covered up or shoved into an asylum to keep them from causing trouble (and often enough both) while poor crazy people are left on their own with little to no support. The racism has been the cause of lowered opportunities for non-white people for centuries causing class inequality but it's fed right back into by the class inequality because it's difficult for non-whites to get the needed means to fight the racism without getting a pat on the head and told to shut up and get lost.

Quote:Removing guns from the picture will only make things worse.

It will only add to the stress.

It will only add to the stockpiling and the hoarding.

And we will only see even more massacres as even more people snap and lose it.

Why?

No seriously, that's an honest question. Why does removing guns make it all worse? Why will it make people more stressed? Why will it make people more prone to stockpiling and hoarding, and why will it cause more massacres? In a country, I note, that already has 1 mass shooting killing 4 people or more in a single event per day on average.

It won't stop all of it, but it might cut down a lot of it. Just look towards Australia, which greatly tightened gun controls after one massacre in 1996 and saw a sharp fall in gun related crime afterwards (also a decrease in crime in general, so extent of effect is debated).

Quote:And BTW: All signs are currently pointing at this guy being utterly stark raving bonkers. Looking at his methodologies, even if you had removed the option of guns, he would have probably have gone with something worse like pressure cooker bombs or pipe bombs. Or maybe even just driving a truck full of anfo right into the middle of the whole thing and pulling the trigger. Because he was already planning on killing himself.

Would those pressure cooker bombs or pipe bombs have had the same ability to kill 59 people and injure nearly 10 times that number? And if you think unusual ammonium nitrate purchases aren't tracked, especially when the same person or region also has an unusual diesel purchase you must believe the FBI very incompetent indeed. And that he was suicidal or stark raving mad doesn't mean you can just discard what he did, how he did and what tools he used to do it.

Quote:Please do not make this about guns.

Why not? It's the tool he used. Why should one not question how he got them, and if there's something that can be done structurally to limit access to guns for loons?

@Robkelk
Quote:Yes, we have statistical evidence that the police force of the capital of Canada is not colourblind in this sense.

The question then is, what is the police doing with this information? Nothing? Or are they trying to find ways to limit and excise this bias?
Reply
RE: "It's always too soon to talk about gun control"
#18
(10-10-2017, 11:12 AM)Black Aeronaut Wrote: Please do something about Mental Health Care. Please do something about class inequality. Please for the love of god do something about the issue of racism in our country.

We should be doing something about these issues anyway. The main problem lies in that a good chunk of the population:

A) Doesn't care because they believe they are not affected by these issues.
B) Prefer to leave things as they are, just out of spite.
C) Embrace ignorance to such a degree that even after disaster strikes, they still believe they are in the right.

They can be solved, but I am afraid that we will have to drag a lot of people kicking and screaming towards their solution.
****************************************************************
“When you choose an action, you choose the consequences of that action. When you desire a consequence you had damned well better take the action that would create it.”
― Lois McMaster Bujold, Memory
——————————————————-
What zombie movies got wrong about the actual apocalypse, part 1,487: they omitted scenes of people on the street demanding the right to be eaten by zombies.
—Kelly Davio, Twitter, 4/19/2020
Reply
RE: "It's always too soon to talk about gun control"
#19
(10-10-2017, 05:18 PM)hazard Wrote: @Robkelk
Quote:Yes, we have statistical evidence that the police force of the capital of Canada is not colourblind in this sense.

The question then is, what is the police doing with this information? Nothing? Or are they trying to find ways to limit and excise this bias?

They're doing something - what, I don't know, but something. I believe it's something involving cultural awareness training and hiring quotas.

As yet, I'm not aware of any follow-up study being scheduled to determine whether what they're doing has any effect.
--
Rob Kelk

Sticks and stones can break your bones,
But words can break your heart.
- unknown
Reply
RE: "It's always too soon to talk about gun control"
#20
(10-10-2017, 05:18 PM)hazard Wrote: Why?

No seriously, that's an honest question. Why does removing guns make it all worse? Why will it make people more stressed? Why will it make people more prone to stockpiling and hoarding, and why will it cause more massacres? In a country, I note, that already has 1 mass shooting killing 4 people or more in a single event per day on average.

There are multiple answers to the first question, but a lot of it boils down to "You won't actually be able to remove most of the guns. See also: Prohibition".

Given that, and the noted tendency for mass shooters who don't have a specific target to seek out places where it's illegal to be armed, making everywhere fall into that category is at least *enabling*. Not sure that'd actually result in more rather than just moving them around though.

More stockpiling and hoarding seems like a safe bet, since it keeps happening even without new regulation. I'm not sure I can even call it irrational, given how shit like this keeps happening.

Quote:Would those pressure cooker bombs or pipe bombs have had the same ability to kill 59 people and injure nearly 10 times that number?

Bombs (and fire, for that matter) are both very effective at killing people. Which isn't to say that every bomber or arsonist (of murderous intent) will be successful. But as far as I know the Bath School Disaster still hasn't been unseated as the deadliest school massacre in the US, and it used bombs.

Would this *particular* one have been more or less successful with such methods? Impossible to predict. Certain things I've heard argue against his overall competence, but on the other hand he did demonstrate significant industriousness in his preparations, and the "heat of the moment" factor has to be considered too.

There's an idea I find compelling that a lot of really large-scale shooters don't choose guns because they're easier or more effective (both being kind of circumstantial) but because they want to be more directly involved with the killing.

(It should also be said again that if you're serious about reducing gun deaths, you need to stop arguing about mass shootings and look at the grinding mass of individual murders that actually cause the vast majority of gun homicides.)

Quote:Why not? It's the tool he used. Why should one not question how he got them, and if there's something that can be done structurally to limit access to guns for loons?

Because it's the wrong end of the stick.

There are millions of guns in the US, and the vast majority of them are never turned against humans. If there's one thing the non-firearm homicide rate in the US should tell you, people are good at finding ways to kill each other. To make real change you need to stop staring at the tools and start watching the hands.

-Morgan.
Some people have Worm SIs with phenomenal cosmic power.
My Worm SI is Emma and Madison's therapist.
Reply
RE: "It's always too soon to talk about gun control"
#21
So basically, what you are saying Morgan is that the big problem is that American culture creates a populace that's more murderous than the Western average and that the tools have limited to no impact on this? This sounds to me then like the US really needs to reconsider its culture.

Also, I'd happily work on the individual murders thing too, but people just plain don't care about those beyond the most minor of acknowledgements. 30 people shot in a month in the same city doesn't draw as much attention as 30 people shot in the same event, even if you see something like that only once every 3 months or so instead of every month or faster in major US cities.

As for the paperwork snafu resulting in the confiscation of license and guns... You complain about me looking at the tools but not the hands, but in this case it seems to me that the SAFE Act was working very much as intended by removing the weapons from the possession of someone that as far as the authorities knew was a risk to himself or others. That this was a result of a paperwork snafu is of course something that needs to be addressed and if as such there was no reason to invoke the SAFE Act those possessions and rights should be returned to him with all due speed.
Reply
RE: "It's always too soon to talk about gun control"
#22
(10-10-2017, 08:40 PM)Morganite Wrote: (It should also be said again that if you're serious about reducing gun deaths, you need to stop arguing about mass shootings and look at the grinding mass of individual murders that actually cause the vast majority of gun homicides.)

If you do that, then you go from looking at only part of the issue to looking at only part of the issue, but a different part.

If you're serious about reducing gun deaths, you need to look at all gun deaths.
--
Rob Kelk

Sticks and stones can break your bones,
But words can break your heart.
- unknown
Reply
RE: "It's always too soon to talk about gun control"
#23
Now, this is interesting: 9th Circuit Rules There’s No Constitutional Right to Sell Firearms. Will the Supreme Court Care?
****************************************************************
“When you choose an action, you choose the consequences of that action. When you desire a consequence you had damned well better take the action that would create it.”
― Lois McMaster Bujold, Memory
——————————————————-
What zombie movies got wrong about the actual apocalypse, part 1,487: they omitted scenes of people on the street demanding the right to be eaten by zombies.
—Kelly Davio, Twitter, 4/19/2020
Reply
RE: "It's always too soon to talk about gun control"
#24
(10-11-2017, 05:33 AM)hazard Wrote: This sounds to me then like the US really needs to reconsider its culture.

That's such a broad assertion that it's basically impossible to judge. What changes, where? Homicide rates are far from evenly distributed, so just saying "American" is overbroad to start with. (Also, the nationwide numbers are already going down, so maybe we now return you to our cultural changes already in progress?)

But on the other hand, I've seen some reasonably compelling arguments that you could get a huge improvement by ending the war on drugs, and that's not really a cultural change as such, even if it ties into cultural views about crime and punishment.

Quote:As for the paperwork snafu resulting in the confiscation of license and guns... You complain about me looking at the tools but not the hands, but in this case it seems to me that the SAFE Act was working very much as intended by removing the weapons from the possession of someone that as far as the authorities knew was a risk to himself or others. That this was a result of a paperwork snafu is of course something that needs to be addressed and if as such there was no reason to invoke the SAFE Act those possessions and rights should be returned to him with all due speed.

Yeah, that part about returning posessions and rights... it just doesn't sound like they do that unless you go after them with lawyers. While the need for rapid action is sort of understandable, the part where by default there's nothing like "go before a judge and prove that you have a good reason to take someone's property" is pretty suspicious. (One story I read suggests that they by policy don't even tell the person whose property is being run off with *why* they are doing so, which just adds a fine coating of motor oil to the whole production if true.)

(I've also seen it suggested that SAFE is basically one solid mass of HIPPA violations, but I'm not sure how well that plays out in practice.)

(10-11-2017, 07:48 AM)robkelk Wrote: If you're serious about reducing gun deaths, you need to look at all gun deaths.

That sounds about as sensible as grouping together car vs. deer accidents and red light runners when looking at traffic safety. They're different kinds of problem that aren't going to respond to the same remedies.

(10-12-2017, 05:26 PM)SilverFang01 Wrote: Now, this is interesting: 9th Circuit Rules There’s No Constitutional Right to Sell Firearms. Will the Supreme Court Care?

Hmmm. Seems like kind of a funny way of phrasing it to me, even if I'm not sure if I'd call it strictly wrong. It looks to me like the short version would be "This set of regulations does not amount to a de facto ban", which seems fairly reasonable. (Though the "near other gun shops" part seems pointless, protectionistic, and in need of stomping.) But that headline sounds like they want it to mean "Hey gaiz, we can regulate gun sales all we want" even though the part clearly saying if you go too far you'll get stomped* is *right there*.

*I may have been watching too many Super Mario Bros videos lately. What would the powerups be in Super Supreme Court Justices?

-Morgan.
Some people have Worm SIs with phenomenal cosmic power.
My Worm SI is Emma and Madison's therapist.
Reply
RE: "It's always too soon to talk about gun control"
#25
(10-13-2017, 02:23 AM)Morganite Wrote:
(10-11-2017, 07:48 AM)robkelk Wrote: If you're serious about reducing gun deaths, you need to look at all gun deaths.

That sounds about as sensible as grouping together car vs. deer accidents and red light runners when looking at traffic safety. They're different kinds of problem that aren't going to respond to the same remedies.

Oh, you need to look at much more than just those two cases if you're going to seriously look at traffic safety. You have to look at everything.

If you only look at part of an issue, you're never going to find the common causes shared by what you might think are unrelated effects.
--
Rob Kelk

Sticks and stones can break your bones,
But words can break your heart.
- unknown
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)