Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
I refuse to accept any statement that starts with, "The only solution to X is Y, since we can't do Y, we can't solve X." That's a cop-out. The U.S. has the highest rate of gun violence among first world nations. Why? That's a question that has a concrete answer (or maybe more than one). Now, how do we address each of these causes? This is a process that can have a logical outcome.
However, taking options off the table because we don't like them sabotages the process. "They'll never take our guns!" is not an answer; it's a knee-jerk response that, when made part of an argument, turns it into a Begging the Question situation where any offered solution involving restricting firearms will be automatically rejected as impossible.
It may be (although I doubt it) that the ultimate solution to gun violence is to arm every citizen in this country as soon as they're old enough to hold a weapon, and thereby turn every crime and indeed every heated argument into some sort of protracted Mexican Standoff. Think how much easier it might be, for example, for every beaten housewife to resist her husband's brutality by getting overpowered and shot with her own gun. Or for schoolchildren to fire their Glocks randomly every time some stranger walks by the classroom door.
It's worth considering that there might be alternate solutions.
edited 23rd Jan '13 9:43:13 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Instead of "The only solution to X is Y", they should be saying "The only solution that we know right now to X is Y". Really, how many times has history proved wrong the usage of the former statement? More often than not, from what I've seen.
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.![]()
Neither are we Algeria, Albania, American Samoa, Belgium, Brazil, Russia, Guinea-Bissau, the Netherlands, China, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, France, Spain, Germany, Sudan, Guatemala, Portugal, or the freaking Magical Kingdom of Oz. But people are people, and solutions to problems involving people are not magically different because they live across a line on a map.
This notion that "We're America, therefore stuff that works other places doesn't work here" is yet another one of those inquiry stoppers, a Begging the Question fallacy that defines away a vast chunk of the solution space. Cut it the hell out.
Edit: In response to your ninja edit, that does seem to be the trend of the right-wing arguments you appear to be channeling. The solution to any problem involving violence is "Give people more guns so we can all be safer."
edited 23rd Jan '13 9:49:28 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"The reason there's so much gun violence is due to how easy it is to get guns.
You can't stop gun creation or distribution (even though I think we should incarcerate all those who do). You can't ban a type of weapon, because that's a call back to Prohibition. You can't limit bullets in a magazine because they can get more magazines. Background checks do nothing to curb gun violence, because you never know when someone will just snap.
Ultimately, I think the onus falls on us to find a way to reduce the power of the gun manufacturers.
edited 23rd Jan '13 9:52:54 AM by Sledgesaul
It doesn't all have to be about taking guns away. We can require all firearms to be registered at point of sale or transfer. We can require gun dealers to take and report inventories, and maintain a national database such that the use of a gun in a crime can be tracked to the dealer that sold it, thus letting us find and stop those dealers who knowingly sell to mules and other criminals.
We can look into requiring licensing and/or safety certification for all gun owners, just as we do drivers of cars. We can set up hunting and shooting clubs such that they rent the weapons that people use there, and therefore people don't need to bring their own guns and can't take them home with them.
We can work on social causes of violence, too. We can reverse the devastating defunding of the country's mental health system. We can address wealth inequality, which breeds poverty and therefore crime. We can stop sending people to jail for smoking weed. Deprivatizing the prison system is a crucial part of this. Get our citizens out of jail and into jobs. Even address things at a community level, with church and school-based anti-violence programs, TV ad blitzes, whatever works.
Standing around and calling the problem unsolvable because we can't get rid of the guns is defeatist and useless.
edited 23rd Jan '13 10:00:34 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
![]()
yes but it's one that you will never get made into law. Standing around talking only talking about perfect solution isn't going to get anything done. You have to accept practicality and work towards what can actually be done.
edited 23rd Jan '13 10:02:53 AM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranHonestly, I think the best way of handling guns would be around the memes concerning them. Find a way to push out the TAKE MUH GUNZ, EBIL GUBMINT and "I'll be famous if I'm a shooter!" memes. Either that or make guns socially unacceptable.
Those strike me as the best way. Change the culture around guns, and the rest should ultimately follow. Though a better handling of mental health in this country would also have a lot of benefits.
Probably a bit of fallacy probably, but I've always been taught "It's not what a tool can do, it's how you use it."
The big stumbling block is incidents like Waco, which prove that there is such a thing as an underarmed populace. I mean, I don't buy into a word of it, but it's a compelling argument in the states. Swedes don't sweat over cops bursting in, killing them and planting drugs in their bullet-riddled colon.
I'm a skeptical squirrel![]()
Well that's obviously a problem. So the logical idea is to lay that idea bare and make people realize The Emperor Has No Clothes, so to speak. Admittedly that's harder to solve than just saying it, but I doubt it's invincible. Everything has a weak point.
Then the "Guns should be treated as an extremely dangerous but potentially useful tool" meme is the smarter choice.
edited 23rd Jan '13 10:20:09 AM by PotatoesRock
Switzerland was brought up, and as I lived there for a few years, I'll point out their problem with guns. Every Swiss household ends up with a gun because every Swiss citizen needs to be part of the Swiss military. Gun related violence is rather low, still present but low, but gun assisted suicide is worryingly high. The Swiss don't spread around any bad news because Switzerland is seriously the most patriotic place I've ever been.
From October 2007, Swiss reserve conscripts keep their weapons at home but not ammunition.
It's a little difficult to shoot people without bullets.
edited 23rd Jan '13 10:49:29 AM by pagad
With cannon shot and gun blast smash the alien. With laser beam and searing plasma scatter the alien to the stars.So many of our action movie heroes are lone wolves who use guns to beat the bad guys when the authorities are either evil, incompetent, or conspicuously absent. But ironically, isn't that the inverse of popular perception? Police and soldiers tend to be viewed very highly in our national mindset.
Then you also have the renegade soldier or cop who singlehandedly wins the day, like Rambo or John McClane. In their cases it's not the actual men and women who are the problem, it's the "organization" or the "rules" or some such. It's like "warriors are good, armies are bad".
It's easy to fear "The Government" or "The Cops" or "The Enemy" when it's an abstract, faceless, boogeyman. A single soldier, officer or bureaucrat is just one part in a machine, who has a family, and a home, and a job to do. But "The Government" has no face.
What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.The military is considered a separate entity, somewhat shackled by politicians, which would be more effective if government would get out of its hair.
Which is nonsense. If anyone is playing politics, it's generals who are on the make. Even the left believes, for instance, that the CIA is some rogue elephant, off doing things with no Presidential oversight.
I'm a skeptical squirrel

The only way to curb gun violence would be to remove guns from stores entirely.
That won't/can't happen. Unless, you know, we develop microchips designed to shock people to death once they touch a loaded gun.
edited 23rd Jan '13 9:28:17 AM by Sledgesaul