Oregon shooting

[Crazedclerkthe2nd]

I feel like I've just gone numb to these things. Like I don't give a shit anymore because I feel like nothing is ever going to change.

Will the body count ever get high enough for someone to do something?

[Kheldarson]

.

Will the body count ever get high enough for someone to do something?

Nope.

I work at a major outdoor retailer that sells guns and NRA merch. I fully expect to start hearing more rants about how we have to make sure the government can't take our guns as these folks make a run on our ammo supplies.

[BlaqueKatt]

Will the body count ever get high enough for someone to do something?

It's not the body count, it's the fact that the two opposite sides(ban everything/free-for-all)are the only ones heard. It's the excluded middle which is stuck fighting both extreme sides with zero progress because no one listens. , and both sides just lump you into the other side(seriously, in one conversation on FB I was labeled both a "gun nut" and a "gun grabber" *)

There's also the "instant gratification" aspect, anything that is sensible(sorry, ban things or MOAR guns are not sensible, they're reactionary) is going to take time for results, but americans tend to be wanting visible results NAOW! And knee-jerk emotional responses, while they feel good, usually don't accomplish much, which then the other side can use that against them later(AWB anyone?).

The other problem is: short attention spans/apathy. There's a huge outcry from everyone in the immediate aftermath, but it dies down and no one follows up really until the next cycle. I make it a point to contact my representatives when time has passed and people are less emotional on the subject, but I usually don't even get a courtesy auto response. Since last september when California enacted the GVTRO act, I've written my rep in congress seven times about introducing it on a federal level. Pretty sure I'm the only one. And that makes me very sad.

*when I hold a stance, I'm usually somewhere in the middle, and look at the arguments from both sides and as a thought exercise, since I'm not *extreme* enough to be heard, I come up with things that would appease *gasp* both sides. So that I'm not just saying "that won't work", I'm saying "that won't work, but this or something similar might." I refuse to be a part of the problem, but as a reasonable, rational person, I'm not allowed to be part of the solution either because I don't yell loud enough.

[Canarr]

An overview of shootings in the US this year.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CQQKNi2WsAApBEd.png:large

[TheHuckster]

BlaqueKatt's post pretty much sums it up for me, albeit on a more general level than just guns. I feel like a lot of the problem with discussing issues like this in a public internet setting like comments on news articles and FB posts is there's just too many trolls* who disrupt a serious discussion. The vast majority of people may lean to one side or another on issues like these, but are overall moderate and at least understanding of the other side, even if they don't agree with it, but then you have hammy idiots who know how to push buttons that steal the show.

*I am aware there are those who hold an extreme opinion who are genuinely passionate about their ideas that should not be labeled as "trolls" but nevertheless, I think there are people who don't really believe everything they're spewing, but are only doing it to rile up a reaction for their own masturbatory entertainment. And, even among those who believe what they say, there are those who resort to ad hominem attacks and name calling to make their point, whom I also consider to be trolls.

[Gravekeeper]

It's not the body count, it's the fact that the two opposite sides(ban everything/free-for-all)are the only ones heard. It's the excluded middle which is stuck fighting both extreme sides with zero progress because no one listens.

Ehh, that's a bit of a false equivalency. The "ban everything" side is no where near the size, volume, power or lunacy of the free for all side. Whilst even the most basic, common sense proposals are killed off by the free for all side. The ban everything side doesn't tend to get elected that often.

As for the shooting, I'm with Obama on this one. He was pretty damn blunt about how he felt about the state of things.

[mjr]

It's not the body count, it's the fact that the two opposite sides(ban everything/free-for-all)are the only ones heard. It's the excluded middle which is stuck fighting both extreme sides with zero progress because no one listens. , and both sides just lump you into the other side(seriously, in one conversation on FB I was labeled both a "gun nut" and a "gun grabber" *)

Another issue that I see is that there are those who are for "gun control" who act high and mighty. Like they're better than everyone else.

Additionally, there are those who talk about "sensible gun laws". That's well and good...but that leads to the question: "Sensible to whom?" What is "sensible" to one person or group may not be sensible to another. Couldn't one consider the "conceal carry license" law to be "sensible"?

[Greenday]

There's just no winning. There's no middle ground where people are free to defend themselves but keeping guns out of people's hands who shouldn't have them. Half the time they get stolen or purchased illegally or a background check won't bring anything up since they have no prior history. And we can talk about getting people the mental help they need, but these people don't believe anything is wrong with THEM and the problem is everyone else. And until the shooting, it's not really easy to know who is insane and who isn't. The world won't revolve around them and it'll continue to drive them crazy.

Sure banning guns completely will reduce the number of guns out there, but criminals will still get them and you'll pretty much have no safe option to protect yourself with.

[Sleepwalker]

Criminals get them now by either buying them legally, or stealing them from legal gun owners(or buying them froms aid thieves/legal buyers). The issue is gun saturation. Guns are unsafe, period. If the 'free for allers' want a gun saturated environment, said environment is going to be dangerous. People will attack other people, and having a gun on hand will make said attacks hugely lethal. Adding more guns just adds more opportunities for the use of guns- that will never mean less gun violence. Accidental shootings, suicides, domestic violence, workplace shootings, crime related shootings, and these school shootings too.

As long as a large segment of the population thinks that the ability to effortlessly kill other people at all times is one of their most basic civil rights, we'll have this problem. Sandy Hook didn't change it, certainly this won't. We've already decided that being able to kill at will is more important than massacred elementary schoolers.

[Greenday]

As long as a large segment of the population thinks that the ability to effortlessly kill other people at all times is one of their most basic civil rights, we'll have this problem. Sandy Hook didn't change it, certainly this won't. We've already decided that being able to kill at will is more important than massacred elementary schoolers.

See, this is the problem with the "ban all guns" side. It's ridiculous to say we want to kill other people or kill at will. It makes us seem like blood thirsty monsters which just pisses us off and makes us fight for our rights even more. Yes, killing the other person tends to be the result of shooting someone, but at the core of it, it's our right to protect ourselves. We should have to just stand there and take it because it'll make other people feel better about themselves.

[Rageaholic]

BlaqueKatt's post pretty much sums it up for me, albeit on a more general level than just guns. I feel like a lot of the problem with discussing issues like this in a public internet setting like comments on news articles and FB posts is there's just too many trolls* who disrupt a serious discussion. The vast majority of people may lean to one side or another on issues like these, but are overall moderate and at least understanding of the other side, even if they don't agree with it, but then you have hammy idiots who know how to push buttons that steal the show.

*I am aware there are those who hold an extreme opinion who are genuinely passionate about their ideas that should not be labeled as "trolls" but nevertheless, I think there are people who don't really believe everything they're spewing, but are only doing it to rile up a reaction for their own masturbatory entertainment. And, even among those who believe what they say, there are those who resort to ad hominem attacks and name calling to make their point, whom I also consider to be trolls.

Or you'll get accused of the Balance Fallacy just for saying you think both extremes are idiots. (rationalwiki does this a lot)

But yeah, I'm becoming numb to this too. Every month, there's at least one massacre and some psycho ends up making a name for himself. until another one takes his place.

[Sleepwalker]

See, this is the problem with the "ban all guns" side. It's ridiculous to say we want to kill other people or kill at will. It makes us seem like blood thirsty monsters which just pisses us off and makes us fight for our rights even more. Yes, killing the other person tends to be the result of shooting someone, but at the core of it, it's our right to protect ourselves. We should have to just stand there and take it because it'll make other people feel better about themselves.

A: What is it you think guns do? They kill people. Owning a gun means having the ability to kill other people. Therefore, the right to bear arms is the right to be able to kill other people effortlessly. Ignoring what guns do in favor of their value as symbols of freedom and security is bloody dangerous. Guns are highly effective tools for killing. Full stop. A functioning gun does not become less lethal because of the personal philosophy of one of its owners.

B: You are interpreting that as ban all guns. That is your interpretation.

C: A gun saturated society is not a safe society. It is a dangerous one. You 'feel' safer by being able to effortlessly kill another person(that is what guns DO. A knife cuts, a wheel turns, a gun shoots bullets). That does not make it safer for you OR other people. Some people feel safer going without seatbelts so they'd be able to swim free of a submerged car without having to disengage the latch. That is not a valid argument for the safety of going seatbelt free, or against seatbelt regulations.

D: That you feel threatened and become angry because someone wants to take your gun away isn't an argument in and of itself, either. Noone likes being forced to do something. Becoming angry and saying STOP BEING FRIGHTENED OF ME AND MY GUNS, IT PISSES ME OFF is not an effective way for people to stop thinking regulation is necessary.

C: Standing there and taking what? You are interpretation gun regulations as a physical blow on your body. it's not to make people feel better by attacking you, it's to make people better by lessening the ability of Joe Schmoe to do violence.

[s_stabeler]

there's also the fact that, frankly, if you think that you can either shoot someone, or let them attack you, then you probably SHOULDN'T be allowed a gun. (there are two reasons. 1. if you are in a situation where someone is threatening you with a lethal weapon, depending on the calibre of the gun, you are just as likely to either miss the guy you are trying to kill, hitting an innocent bystander ( and by the way, if you kill an innocent bystander while trying to defend yourself, that is legally murder) or over penetrate ( aka, the bullet goes clean through them) and hit someone behind them, potentially injuring/killing them too. ( this, admittedly, tends to be more of a issue with rifles than handguns) Oh, and before you talk about how you're good at aiming- that's on a range. In an actual firefight, it'll be lower.

not to mention, I can think of several alternatives- either running away (if you aren't at home, then yes, running away IS a valid option.) or, if you are in your own home, you mean to tell me you can't figure out some other way of overpowering an attacker? or a least delaying them until help can arrive?

Also, remember that the UK only band handguns in the 1970s. While we can debate if that is what caused the drop in crime we've seen since, notice what has happened since? criminals have used other weapons, rather than hang onto their guns. And it's happened fairly quickly. ( they tend to use knives instead- and while it's true that it is still tragic, a knife-wielding madman is not quite as dangerous as a gun-wielding one. (for one thing, it's easier to escape)

[Hyena Dandy]

Guns serve two practical purposes (Shooting food, and shooting people,) and one recreational purpose (shooting ranges, clay pigeons, etc.)

But they are dangerous. There's not really any option that has no downsides, so let's not pretend that there is.

Guns help get food, and are a quick and convenient method of self-defense. They are easier by far to use for hunting than anything else, and simple and effective at defending yourself. Some people find using them for recreation to be a relaxing act, and not having guns at all would severely decrease their quality of life. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with having a firearm because you find that enjoyable.

That does need to be weighed against the fact that, when guns are commonplace, they will commonly be stolen and sold illicitly. When there are no gun registries, it is far more difficult to track down a weapon that was stolen. It cuts out a lead on murder/robbery/etc cases. And it makes those crimes easier to commit. Mass murder is easier to enact. It is a lot simpler for one person who is determined to make a name for themselves to do that. It's not easy to make a bomb. Harder still to make one without anyone noticing. It's much easier to kill a lot of people with a gun.

The same thing that makes a gun so effective for self-defense in the hands of the right people, makes it much more dangerous in the hands of the wrong ones, be they the untrained, or the malicious. When we have a society where gun ownership is common, you're going to get more people getting shot. When you have somehting like a gun, where accidents can so easily be deadly, you'll have a lot more people dying in accidents, because the 99.9% of the time that everything goes right, will land on that 0.1 way more often.

[BlaqueKatt]

not to mention, I can think of several alternatives- either running away (if you aren't at home, then yes, running away IS a valid option.) or, if you are in your own home, you mean to tell me you can't figure out some other way of overpowering an attacker? or a least delaying them until help can arrive?

I'll leave this here, and remind you I am a 5'5" 140 pound female, my stalker at that time was a 6'4" 250 pound male, how exactly should I "overpower" or delay someone until the police decide to respond? When I was 20 and my first husband tried to break down my door in that city the police responded after 2 HOURS! Where I live now, yeah city of 10k, police department is 30 officers total(where I work is 14). :/