The Great ILX Gun Control Debate

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (3246 of them)

The former's a lot healthier than the latter, but normal people feel both.

I guess I'm glad I'm not normal then.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 19 April 2007 19:00 (seventeen years ago) link

and cyclopean hair-snakes feed off the wood chips and the tire rubber in the mop water

― TOMBOT, Thursday, 19 April 2007 19:00 (seventeen years ago) link

what I meant by "came out of nowhere" was that he didn't refer to racial hate crime or rape being involved in the encounter as he first described it. no one else said anything about how such a revenge fantasy would be "okay" if he were defending a rape victim/racial minority; he just put that out there in this defensive way and the fact that defending victims of rape came up several times made it seem like there was a vicarious charge to invoking rape.

― horseshoe, Thursday, 19 April 2007 19:01 (seventeen years ago) link

ahhhhh the wiley woodchip hairsnake

― Mr. Que, Thursday, 19 April 2007 19:01 (seventeen years ago) link

Why are people so against revenge??! Do not get. I want to karate chop creepy/hateful men all the time, altho disclaimer, I have never been the target of ACTUAL violence, only the suggested kind.

― Laurel, Thursday, 19 April 2007 19:02 (seventeen years ago) link

cuz its pointless and just spreads the grief around in a never-ending cycle of recrimination...?

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 19 April 2007 19:03 (seventeen years ago) link

Horseshoe, I'm sorry, I think we're just reading it in a completely different way.

Once again on ILX, empathizing with human weakness wins me enemies.

― jaymc, Thursday, 19 April 2007 19:04 (seventeen years ago) link

there is a big, fat, mile-wide line (in my mind) between wanting to kick don rumsfeld in the nuts once and wanting don rumsfled to call me "sir" and beg for mercy

that's really not the case with a lot of people here which doesn't make me want to kick them in the nuts so much as it makes me just a little more fundamentally depressed about the human race and our greatest invention "language"

― TOMBOT, Thursday, 19 April 2007 19:05 (seventeen years ago) link

I understand that the hypothetical situations were grotesque, but I did not read his initial posts as anything other than an attempt to justify his position. Unfortunately, a lot of people pull a nazi to support an argument. I'm not defending the dude on every point.

waaay xpost

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Thursday, 19 April 2007 19:05 (seventeen years ago) link

human weakness has nothing to do with a propensity for degrading other people and a desire to share that with everybody on the goddamn internet in a discussion of GUN KONTROL

― TOMBOT, Thursday, 19 April 2007 19:06 (seventeen years ago) link

sex_machine.jpg x10000000000000000 cut it out

― river wolf, Thursday, 19 April 2007 19:07 (seventeen years ago) link

Horseshoe, I'm sorry my post came off that way. It wasn't meant to. I was -- as I said before, and will say again -- trying to find some scenario under which everyone would acknowledge that elaborate fantasies of revenge are justified, or at least human. Even if carrying them out would be a Very Bad Idea that would, as Shakey Mo said, would "spread the grief around in a never-ending cycle of recrimination".

(xpost)

― lurker #2421, Thursday, 19 April 2007 19:08 (seventeen years ago) link

Once again on ILX, empathizing with human weakness wins me enemies.

-- jaymc, Thursday, April 19, 2007 3:04 PM (3 minutes ago)

you mean like the human weakness of people being threatened and pistol-whipped by lurker #2421??

― and what, Thursday, 19 April 2007 19:09 (seventeen years ago) link

trying to find some scenario under which everyone would acknowledge that elaborate fantasies of revenge are justified, or at least human

and you failed miserably, managing to infuriate and nauseate a lot of "humans"

― TOMBOT, Thursday, 19 April 2007 19:09 (seventeen years ago) link

Tombot, guns are used to degrade people. That's what they do: they turn a person into a piece of meat, a thing. If you've ever wanted to shoot someone, even for a split second, then you've wanted to degrade them.

― lurker #2421, Thursday, 19 April 2007 19:10 (seventeen years ago) link

I have no clue why the fuck I'm talking to you.

and what 8080 thank you gbye

― TOMBOT, Thursday, 19 April 2007 19:10 (seventeen years ago) link

interesting gun violence statistic on the BBC yesterday

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42811000/gif/_42811311_firearms_deaths3_203gr.gif

― moonship journey to baja, Thursday, 19 April 2007 19:10 (seventeen years ago) link

man the killfile

― Catsupppppppppppppp dude ‫茄蕃‪, Thursday, 19 April 2007 19:11 (seventeen years ago) link

s africa has the highest murder rate in the world, i believe?

― river wolf, Thursday, 19 April 2007 19:11 (seventeen years ago) link

anyone find a description of south africa's gun laws?

― deej, Thursday, 19 April 2007 19:12 (seventeen years ago) link

it takes skill to ruin a thread not even Roger could kill

― milo z, Thursday, 19 April 2007 19:12 (seventeen years ago) link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_South_Africa

― milo z, Thursday, 19 April 2007 19:13 (seventeen years ago) link

our rate is 30x that of the UK, but by our own admission, only 6x that of germany or SWITZERLAND. does the britishes spend a lot of time discussing "the culture of violence" in germany?

― moonship journey to baja, Thursday, 19 April 2007 19:13 (seventeen years ago) link

did you know finland has the 2nd highest rate of firearm homicide in people aged 15-26 in a survey of 25 industrialized nations including the US? (.5 in 100000, compared to ~1.5 in 100000 for the US)

― moonship journey to baja, Thursday, 19 April 2007 19:17 (seventeen years ago) link

Gun-related deaths per 100,000 people:

U.S.A. 14.24
Brazil 12.95
Mexico 12.69
Argentina 8.93
Finland 6.46
Switzerland 5.31
France 5.15
Canada 4.31
Israel 2.91
Australia 2.65
Greece 1.29
Germany 1.24
England and Wales 0.41
Japan 0.05

our gun-related death rate is only 3x as high as finland, whereas by anyone's admission, there are at least like 100x more guns floating around ... is it really down to a "culture of violence"?

or is it just down to high-risk behavior due to the fact that at the end of the day, the levels of income disparity and the decay / nonexistence of the social fabric here make america more of a 3rd world nation than a 1st world nation?

― moonship journey to baja, Thursday, 19 April 2007 19:20 (seventeen years ago) link

http://www.guardian.co.uk/gun/Story/0,,2061247,00.html

― admrl, Thursday, 19 April 2007 19:38 (seventeen years ago) link

AFAIK In Switzerland nearly everyone has guns! and bomb shelters! And although a lot of people just use their bomb shelters as storage cellars there's apparently a large number of survivalist types who still keep them stocked & in readiness. I'm pretty sure that gun use is taught as part of mandatory national service, too. So I suppose the question is whether the gun-death rate in CH is surprisingly high given that people are actually taught to use guns (also the fact that it is chocolate-box switzerland), or surprisingly low given the number of guns there are.

I'm really surprised by how low the england-wales number is! I don't think of gun crime as being some rare thing, maybe that's from constant exposure to scaremonger news stories. Perhaps our knife crime stats more than make up for it though.

― c sharp major, Thursday, 19 April 2007 19:53 (seventeen years ago) link

As I've said elsewhere, despite figures like these I feel exponentially safer out at night in SF, LA, NYC or Chicago than I ever did in London. We may not have as many guns but there is a serious feeling of tension and aggro in many places in and around Central London. I admit to sometimes enjoying that "edginess", it's part of what makes it such a great city, but on the occasion where myself or a friend has fallen victim to violence it is predictably unsettling.

― admrl, Thursday, 19 April 2007 20:00 (seventeen years ago) link

^^^^^ I agree with adam (though my exposure to LDN is somewhat limited). I felt a little edgier walking around C1itheroe, Lanc, than I did in some of the rougher parts of Chi, simply because, if my cousin is any indication, casual violence is a bit more common in England (ie - bar fights, muggings, being in the wrong neighborhood, whatever)

― river wolf, Thursday, 19 April 2007 20:02 (seventeen years ago) link

Absolutely, never rock up in Clitheroe without a glock on your waistline.

― admrl, Thursday, 19 April 2007 20:03 (seventeen years ago) link

haha, srsly, though, i get more "long hard looks" in Clitheroe from the local dudes than i've ever gotten anywhere in my life

― river wolf, Thursday, 19 April 2007 20:05 (seventeen years ago) link

also vahid is pretty otm up and down here, guys

― river wolf, Thursday, 19 April 2007 20:06 (seventeen years ago) link

Perhaps you have the look of a Accringtonian about you. That's like a red rag to a bull.

xp

― admrl, Thursday, 19 April 2007 20:07 (seventeen years ago) link

Who is vahid?

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Thursday, 19 April 2007 20:10 (seventeen years ago) link

I don't know anymore.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 19 April 2007 20:11 (seventeen years ago) link

vahid = moonship journey to baja

― jaymc, Thursday, 19 April 2007 20:15 (seventeen years ago) link

I realize that this is maybe a stupid question and a stupid place for such a question, but does anyone else who was anticipating seeing Hot Fuzz this week feel queasy about going to see a film where so much humour is derived from the display of guns and firepower? I don't know, maybe I'm just a "sensitive" type.

― admrl, Thursday, 19 April 2007 20:21 (seventeen years ago) link

i think undercutting the machismo associated with gunz is a lot better than the usual week in, week out sincere reinforcement/celebration of gunz=awesomeness

― félix pié, Thursday, 19 April 2007 20:23 (seventeen years ago) link

I am totally gonna rock Hot Fuzz.

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Thursday, 19 April 2007 20:23 (seventeen years ago) link

I guess, I just feel like a need a break from the fetishization of firearms in any context. I literally do not feel like looking at them right now.

xp

― admrl, Thursday, 19 April 2007 20:25 (seventeen years ago) link

I watched (and enjoyed) Grindhouse two days ago, so the day after, I think, and I only felt kinda guilty about it after the fact when I remembered. Just let the escapism do its magic. You're not going to glorify guns, you're going because Simon Pegg is funny as shit.

― Will M., Thursday, 19 April 2007 20:30 (seventeen years ago) link

as much as i hate to sound like some kind of batty sort, i think the portrayal of guns in the media and in video games does have an ill effect on many people. guns are mostly depicted as thrilling rather than terrifying.

― félix pié, Thursday, 19 April 2007 20:33 (seventeen years ago) link

but thrills and terror are inextricably intertwined

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 19 April 2007 20:34 (seventeen years ago) link

I can't disagree with that. I'm sure if you replaced every gun in every film with a penis, twenty years from nowe there'd be way fewer gun crimes (and many more public masturbation crimes)

― Will M., Thursday, 19 April 2007 20:36 (seventeen years ago) link

i watched "the departed" yesterday, made me feel mega-sick, but then again scorsese does that to me in general (see also: wahlberg dropping the n-word)

― moonship journey to baja, Thursday, 19 April 2007 20:36 (seventeen years ago) link

well, thrills as in "damn that looks cool" are different than thrills as in "damn that is fucked up", i.e. the difference between robert mitchum jogging across the beach at normandy with a pistol and a smirk and everyone in tom hanks' boat getting cut to pieces. bad example, maybe : \

― félix pié, Thursday, 19 April 2007 20:36 (seventeen years ago) link

okay this post is a bit late now but w/evr i spent too much time typing to not post it.

One reason why I was surprised at the UK's low gun death stat was because I think a lot of the things Vahid says about growing income disparity and decaying social fabric hold increasingly true in the UK as well, and it seems only logical to connect those social problems to that palpable aggression you get in a lot of UK cities. So I suppose it is a proof that stringent gun control means low gun crime - but it hasn't solved the problem of casual violence, it's just restricted one particularly deadly method of expressing that violence. And UK gun crime is increasing, it just involves mostly illegal firearms. The 'gun wound' stats are a deal higher, idk but to me that kinda suggests people having guns but no expertise in actually shooting them? They seem to be guns bought as something you can, at the very least, use to threaten others with (whether in offence or defence), not for any other reason (like e.g. sport, historical interest). It doesn't seem likely to me that, if someone buys a gun only because it's this threatening thing, only because of the promise of violent power they see in it, they're going to be open to having a more uh reasoned attitude towards it (frinstance not enacting yr mad brainblip of a revenge fantasy even though having a gun means you 'can').

― c sharp major, Thursday, 19 April 2007 20:50 (seventeen years ago) link

I enjoy violent films, and I love gun-play in movies, but I do not enjoy real life violence, and I am sickened by not just physical violence but cruelty in general.

I suspect that I am the in norm and not the exception.

xpost

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Thursday, 19 April 2007 20:51 (seventeen years ago) link

I suppose it is a proof that stringent gun control means low gun crime

not necessarily, this might be due to the "non-graininess" of a lot of the gun figures, which is something NOBODY ever talks about when the statistics come out (except jon wlms upthread) ... yes, there are 80 million guns in america, but that doesn't mean 1 in 4 peopel on the street are packing.

there are places where gun ownership is near 0% and handgun crime is extremely low (the very wealthy CA neighborhood i grew up in), just as there are places where i am sure gun ownership is near 100% and handgun crime is extremely low (homogenous neighborhoods in the south and rural west).

now if you look at areas where gun violence is extremely high (black neighborhoods in philadelphia and chicago, where the murder rates is ~10x the nat'l average) gun ownership is actually *LOWER* than the nationwide average (~15-25%, i think), and there is clearly some externality that isn't gun availability driving the murder rate up up up.

― moonship journey to baja, Thursday, 19 April 2007 20:54 (seventeen years ago) link

i think a similarly meaningful approach to UK gun control statistics would be to split off places like public housing in cities like london + bristol from a heterogeneous smaller city like manchester (which IIRC was the place that reminded me the most of the US when i visited great britain) and then compare our slums and your slums and see what's going on.

― moonship journey to baja, Thursday, 19 April 2007 20:57 (seventeen years ago) link

Skipping 3146 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.