(June 13, 2016 at 7:12 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Who likes to accept the pointing finger? Gun-owners reject it because they feel such makes them complicit.

I'd love to have a system like they have in Japan where people are able to own guns, so long as they can prove they're responsible enough to be entrusted with a deadly weapon. The problem we're having is that irresponsible people don't want regulations that will prevent them from owning guns, and there are too damn many irresponsible people.

I've mentioned here before how my own country (New Zealand) is awash in privately owned firearms, but has a miniscule incidence of gun violence. I don't think the problem in the US is so much guns as it is gun culture - the notion that nearly anyone who wants a gun should not be obstructed from getting one, and that this is somehow a 'right'. NZ views gun ownership as a privilege, one that can be taken away for various infractions of the rules.

Boru

Yes, and that should be coupled with smart guns programmed at a dealership, which can only fire after the owner shows sufficient presence of mind by submitting to psych evals.

I'm honestly just done. My well of sympathy has run dry. Yet another fucking shooting and people weep and wring their hands asking "What do we do?" This is bullshit. I give up. You fuckers win.

(June 13, 2016 at 7:16 pm)Gemini Wrote:

(June 13, 2016 at 7:12 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Who likes to accept the pointing finger? Gun-owners reject it because they feel such makes them complicit.

I'd love to have a system like they have in Japan where people are able to own guns, so long as they can prove they're responsible enough to be entrusted with a deadly weapon. The problem we're having is that irresponsible people don't want regulations that will prevent them from owning guns, and there are too damn many irresponsible people.

From an interview with a Japanese detective

Quote:“You have to bring your rifle in every year for inspection. You have to pass a drug test. You can’t have a criminal record. A doctor has to certify you’re mentally and physically healthy. You have to actually go to the firing range and show that you can use the weapon. If you have any sort of issue, we’re going to take away your firearms,” Detective X said.

Fairly similar to our system.

(June 13, 2016 at 7:16 pm)Gemini Wrote:

(June 13, 2016 at 7:12 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Who likes to accept the pointing finger? Gun-owners reject it because they feel such makes them complicit.

I'd love to have a system like they have in Japan where people are able to own guns, so long as they can prove they're responsible enough to be entrusted with a deadly weapon. The problem we're having is that irresponsible people don't want regulations that will prevent them from owning guns, and there are too damn many irresponsible people.

The Japanese, it should be noted, also seem to have a healthy respect for guns and what they represent, too. They don't treat them as toys, or rhetorical chest-thumping devices, like Americans do. They aren't something you buy on a whim to carry around to feel big, they are what they are: deadly weapons that shouldn't just be flaunted because you feel like it.

I was watching a Japanese show once which illustrates the difference quite aptly. As opposed to American media, where it's almost trivial to possess a gun, and procuring one is only a tooling-up montage away, in this show, just finding a gun for a particular character was treated like a big deal. It was a scavenged gun from a crime scene too, and when it was given to the guy, it was super clear that it had to be that specific gun because it just wasn't possible to roll into a Walmart and get him one that day. The damn thing was a murder weapon and yet it was all they had while inside Japan, so they wiped it for prints and made sure it was untraceable, before handing it over.

As a guy used to Western media, it was quite shocking to see.

I don't think quoting statistics or the constitution can help the discussion very much. Just because you have the right to do something, it doesn't mean you *should* or you should *want to*. The problem is about attitudes and the general illness of a society in which so many people want to (or feel the need to) spend so much effort and money trying to justify why every citizen should be able to have a deadly weapon on their person or in their homes. Do all these people really feel that their lives or property is in so much danger? Do all these people really feel that this property is worth potentially killing someone (including themselves / kids / relatives) over? Are these people really so fearful? If so, why? Is this linked to inextricably to other societal problems around drugs / crime / poverty / education which need to be addressed first?

I get that guns are part of American culture. I get it's a citizen's right under their constitution (as currently interpreted) to possess one. The question is, is a population saturated with lethal weapons for whatever purpose, the mark of a healthy, civilised society in today's world?

(June 13, 2016 at 7:16 pm)Gemini Wrote:

(June 13, 2016 at 7:12 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Who likes to accept the pointing finger? Gun-owners reject it because they feel such makes them complicit.

I'd love to have a system like they have in Japan where people are able to own guns, so long as they can prove they're responsible enough to be entrusted with a deadly weapon. The problem we're having is that irresponsible people don't want regulations that will prevent them from owning guns, and there are too damn many irresponsible people.

No argument here. The American system overlooks responsibility until the court docket, and too many of us agree to that prioritization.

Now, the fact is that not many Japanese are permitted firearms ownership, and not for proven irresponsibility, but simply for lack of "need". That criterion is not Constitutionally sanctioned here.

I favor a combination of smart guns and stronger backgrounds checks backing that up. It would conserve the right while at the same time do more to protect society at large.

(June 13, 2016 at 3:52 am)Huggy74 Wrote:

(June 13, 2016 at 3:16 am)Homeless Nutter Wrote: Hey, genius - you seem to be comparing the numbers of all the car-related fatalities, with ONLY the gun-related homicides. Don't people die from firearms in other ways? Say - suicides and accidents? I guess that little detail escaped your attention... Or you're just dishonest. Or dumb. All of the above?...

So you want to start with ad hominem attacks? I can do it better I assure you.

Would it make you feel better if I only included auto deaths that involved driving under the influence?

Oh, and I did address suicide btw.
Guns aren't a determining factor in whether or not someone commits suicide.

Zero autos would mean zero auto deaths.
Zero guns would mean zero gun deaths but not zero murders.
Zero guns would mean zero gun related suicides, not zero suicide.

See the pattern?

Sorry Huggy, Harvard would disagree.

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magazi...d-suicide/

(June 13, 2016 at 3:10 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: The portion of Huggy's post you quoted and disputed reads, "Guns aren't a determining factor in whether or not someone commits suicide." I read that to mean "the presence of a gun doesn't enter into the decision to commit suicide" -- and I don't think it does. [...]

I see. Well - I read it as "availability of guns has no influence on whether or not someone ends up as a suicide-related fatality". If it was to mean otherwise, I'd expect the words "decision", or "attempt" to be used. After all - having attempted suicide is not the same as having committed one, in my understanding, just as someone, who committed any act is not the same as someone who merely attempted it.

But whatever, fine - I wasn't arguing, that guns make people want to kill themselves - not in any statistically significant numbers, anyway. They only facilitate a speedy solution. Which at the end of the day - influences statistics, like suicide rates.