Like us on Facebook, follow us on Twitter! Celebrate another year with MH and read our yearbook.
Manga News: Check out this week's new manga (8/11/14 - 8/17/14).
Forum News: Visit new sections for Nisekoi and Kingdom!
It's disturbing that people are capable of these things and there seems to be so many of them. And I have no strong conviction either way, get rid of guns or guns' for us. Being American and growing up here, it's almost like I'm too biased to be subjective. I've had violence as entertainment my entire life. Never touched a gun. But lately, I almost want to. People are losing their marbles.
The worst part of the entire situation, is we can't even have a discussion about it. The entire system seems to have malfunctioned. So somewhere between the people, the lawmakers and the capitalistic nature of our democracy, there needs to be a decent discussion about mental health and an increasingly violent, or apparently violent, populace...and it won't happen. That conversation will not happen. Too much money and power involved. Lawmakers want to keep their jobs and people in business are in the business of making money. The only hope we have, is an entire population of civilians too busy keeping up with the Kardashians.
Well, the mental health issue is perhaps the hardest to deal with. From a psychological point of view you would need a properly conducted study which links violence (in particular gun violence) to violent video games or movies. As far as I know, no study on the subject has ever proven such a link to begin with. In this regard, saying controlling movies or video games would have the overall effect of making society less violent in a sense which would be relevant to shootings like the ones mentioned earlier has just about 0 scientific validity. Its not about them being wrong or right, its just that no statistic or study done suggests that is actually true so at large the whole thing is a wild guess.
Now, as far as movies and videogames making society more violent, how can someone even argue that? The US is not the only place in the world which has video games by a longshot. Every example of peaceful nation mentioned here is as far as I know very prone to playing violent video games (unless it is a extremely poor nation) and just about everyone in the world sees just about the same movies made in the US (except for a few very specific locations, china still censors stuff and I have no idea of what the deal with india is in regards to US movies seeing they have their own studios). Take Japan, they play (perhaps make) the very violent video games in question and they have been specifically said in this thread to be virtually rid of gun crime (unless they don't play call of duty, halo or a number of other very popular games and their urge to bathe in blood is limited by the fact that world destroying kamehamehas, pokemon and rapist squids don't exist). Europeans like those very same violent games just about as much as the rest of people (unless I got my facts on the matter wrong) and they are overall less violent than people at the US.
Maybe I got too specific on the video game and movie aspect of the discussion though.
Anyways, at least gun control in regards to the issue makes sense. Guns becoming less available for everyone in the US would indeed be an issue for people who commit gun related crimes. Of course things going that far is not easy in the least, the weapon's industry is huge and there are thousands of jobs and billions of dollars on the line.
Recently with shootings that have become or garnered some publicity, you hear politicians come out with some grand OVER THE TOP scheme for gun control.
I'm all for tight or stricter regulations for getting or selling guns. Background checks and all that...
However, some of these rushed or brazen measure really go over the top....
I'm not one for saying we cant own guns or have certain type of guns, whether its automatic / semi automatic, etc. I realize guns in this case garner much more attention for their potential damage capability for wide spread damage or destruction within a short amount of time.
While probably not the best or ideal cause to use for comparisons,
suppose you envision a scenario or scenarios where there were a mass killing or several mass killings of people with Tupperware, spoons or forks?
Will the politicians come out of the wood-works asking for 'safety checks' or backgrounds checks and or restrictions buying spoons, knives and plates...?
Granted that they become the quid pro weapon of choice, statistically or piratically used for mass murders?
Also haven't read much of the convos here so if some of the points been discussed or is a repeat just ignore.
I just wanted to share my thoughts.
Last edited by Charlie; February 06, 2013 at 11:08 PM.
Char, it's not politicians crawling out of the wood work. It's the speed of our political process in reacting to tragedies that inflame the people. This is just the time where you see the politicians finally showing they're doing something in response to the American people's passions.
Sure, I agree we should enforce the current gun laws before making new ones.
But I'm always thinking we'd be better off banning 'em. I don't care if you're a hobbyist. Find a new hobby. Violent community? Instead of living in fear, work to change the local government to get the police force in order.
I think it's delusional to think that simply having a gun will assure protection. For unpredictable tragedies like home invasions: they really are uncontrollable. That's why they're so scary and the threat is deeply embedded in the American subconsciousness. It's just like the American fear of terrorist attacks. You'll be in the wrong place at the wrong time and have no way to defend yourself. Not all the guns and body scanners in the world can save you from someone determined to take people with him.
But that is how things are.
It's easier to prepare against things you can predict. Specifically, your own mental health. Not just people who have disorders. Everyone has limits and deficiencies. Someone pushed too far is likely to take it out on the closest people. Would you rather have a gun around to end it all quickly? We like to think we could never be capable of it. But we are.
While claiming some nonsense about the 'greater good' or 'preventing this sort tragedy' from re-occurring. I noticed that these are generally fueled by some politician for his 15 minutes and to look good for his constituents, while infringing on civil liberties. The proposals or ordinances however are never read by the public or we don't bother taking a look at whats actually being proposed and gets some note or mention in the media by a hot keyword or phrase. This is also a fault of our society. We've always been this way for most instances, have we not? Having some tragic incident that happens to occur, albeit not always limited to gun control, you'd see some drastic move for change.
Should not the focus of rules, polices, fire arm education and closure of loopholes be the focus here? In most cases, from what I recall in recent times, the events that get big publicity in media, wind up with the killers being some crazy or lunatic that go on mass rampage or killing spree. These kind of people should never have been able to get guns in the first place.
Let me ask you this, in a gun less society, with murderers still being committed, with or aroundQuote:
the same rate as now, what would you propose?
I suppose the notion of guns being available for protection, whether it is self or for defense, will not sway you. I see guns are tools essentially, granted like you said, whether its modern or not it's true they can be used for 'efficient killings' but so can so many other tools, just not as efficiently or perhaps to the same effect as the gun of course.
Isn’t this a bit too much of idealism or wanting it?Quote:
I mean, I for one, would love too see a world where us humans, no longer hat each-other or kill each-other and so forth.
Unfortunately, until our species reach a point where we genuinely trust each-other, or can live in some sort of harmonious way. I don’t see this happening...
Events where you have someone go on a shooting spree or use weapons are are scary.Quote:
It’s also true, that with all the regulations or rules in the world, we can’t stop someone that is determined to commit an attack but how is it delusional to think that that having a gun will assure protection?
Isn’t that one of the exact reasons why some-people precisely carry guns?
Someone pushed too far is also likely to take it out on others not necessarily involved., or themselves. I suppose you can correlate the two depending on circumstances, liken it to a ‘means to end’ of sorts.Quote:
Would this not be also a failure of our current society or systems that are in place and not necessarily gun issue per-se? The measures in place that are existing, failure to foresee troublesome or problematic signs of these individuals. Therefor, no help is sought nor given resulting in tragic or preventable events.
Having guns would assure no protection for the population... How does that work? I already made the point earlier that owning a gun is not about to turn the owner into rambo or make him capable of defending himself from a shooter. The odds of a regular armed person being at the right spot at the right time to get a clear shot at a regular shooter are astronomically low to begin with. Even if there are arguments for people to be able to own any type of gun, the possibility of them being rambo is not one of them. Worst case scenario you turn into a shooting into a shootout. Not to mention that more people having guns has the direct implication of there being more gun relate accidents at large... would the supposed extra protection a gun gives offset the extra amount of accidents (honest question, I have no clue on the matter)?
Another thing, a mass killing with Tupperware, spoons or forks is simply not possible to begin with. I mean, if they could really be used as weapons to that extent then there should indeed be a debate about changing how we eat(how disturbing would it be if we were eating with potential weapons that dangerous) however there is no scenario in which that is possible. Even knifes don't really fall into the same category... A maniac running amock in a shopping mall with a knife is never going to get as many people as the same maniac with a riffle. Heck, people can survive for DAYS after being stabbed in the gut (most deaths related to that are due to doctor negligence). Worst case scenario you have a maniac trying to cut important arteries or something however there is no way a maniac can start an actual mass murder without people running the hell away or ganging up on him after the first couple victims. Even if we were talking about a full blown nailgun it would still never approach to the damage an actual gun can cause.
Just as a shoot out is possible, the opposite is also true. Having someone there with a gun at the 'right time' could be the one resort that saves the day. I would say that each incident is a case by cause issue.
What I believe should be done is, enforcement of existing laws and rules to make sure that criminals or wack-jobs don't end up with them.
Yet a small group of terrorist seized planes with box cutters... and look how much damage that they were able to cause. Where was the national outcry against this? What steps were taken to ban or restrict purchase one of these items. I do not believe that anyone would argue against the potential of a gun being deadly or its implications. However, lets not jump the gun (no pun intented), when a serious incident and use it as means for personal or political vendettas /gains.Quote:
Which is what seemingly happens all the time.
Why cant the measures be on gun awareness, education and closing systematic loopholes that end up leaving guns in the hand of these would be criminals or lunatics?
Last edited by Charlie; February 08, 2013 at 07:41 PM.
My thoughts on any issue vary as I talk to new people and hear new arguments, but what I'm left with now is what follows.
America has a Second Amendment Right, a law of the land, that says we have the "the right to bear arms." From my understanding, this was a necessary protection at the time to allow the people to not be taken over by the government. History has proven that one of the first steps toward oppression is to disarm the people. Can't protect themselves, can't fight back. So far I have no problems and no disagreements.
To this day many Americans, perhaps rightly so, perhaps not, feel that this very protection is necessary to maintain their personal safety and that of the country. That without it we would have no personal protection against domestic intruders, a foreign invasion and the government itself.
However, and I think it's a pretty large however, the kinds of weapons being used today, are not the weapons of yesteryear. I don't believe that any civilian has the right to own guns that can kill 30 people within minutes any more than I believe civilians should have access to nuclear weapons and bombs. Clearly, these are not meant for sport or self defense, but mass killings, which we've all kind of agreed is not acceptable.
I'm not arguing that any certain law would prevent people from obtaining these weapons if they really wanted to, or do damage is they really wanted to. But it does stand to reason that it would make it more difficult and that is a step in the right direction.
Some people have talked about banning all guns, but those people have such a small shot of actually trying to implement such a law, it's almost laughable. From what I know, which isn't everything by any means, no one is seriously discussing a ban on all guns in America.
That's not to say there isn't room for the discussion. But it's not what's happening right now, and I think too many people get angry and scared about things that aren't happening. Thank you American media. (full disclosure, I work for the media, the shame...)
To ban all guns, at this point, would only have an adverse effect in making a lot of people more frightened than they already are and frightened people are not generally known for thoughtful rationale.
For the first time in America we have a non-white male as president, and literally everything he does makes a large part of the population think they have to "take their country back." We can't even have a discussion about banning all guns right now, because too many people feel they need them more than ever.
I don't know if any of that is even relevant, but it's what came to mind.
Do I think all guns should be banned? No, I think we need to work on other parts of society that cultivate fear and hatred. I think we need to pay more care to those who need mental help and I think we should always, always, be striving to be the fairest and best country we can be. If we want other countries to respect us and our western democracy, then we need to earn it by striving to be more moral and less superior.
Do I wish we were a more tolerant and reasonable society where it wouldn't matter, I do.
Domestic intruders are the only semi-realistic case for having guns.
These happen to be the same people against state-subsidized medical care because they think that if you get sick or ill, it's "your fucking fault in this fucking wonderful country and fuck you for ever hoping to accomplish your dreams you fucking loser".Quote:
Which is why I'm beginning to support denying medical care to these people. Because they deny it for everyone else until they need it. If people can spend their lives wrecking others, then they can suffer a little.
We will remain a fear country until our citizens drop the persecution complex.Quote:
The people asked for Sandy Hook to be fixed. In their outrage they demanded a solution. Because by all rights, Sandy Hook never should've happened.
So the politicians responded. But it's now not good enough. Public consciousness has now decided that railing about the deaths of over 30 kids is too high a price for taking away a fundamental Constitutional right.
People wanted change. Now they don't. It's as simple as that. Don't blame the politicians for doing their job. Blame them for getting policy-influencing contributions from unions and corporations.
And if you want to access medical records, forget it. You'd have to go through mountains of privacy laws. Even if you get the information, mental illness is often misdiagnosed or not diagnosed at all. To fix that, you'd have to redo the system. But this means paying for the treatment of people who can't afford it.
Americans have shown they don't want to do that. So this will happen again. And again. And again.
But assume we still had crime. What would I propose? Dealing directly with police corruption in less affluent areas. Organized crime thrives in areas where the watchers are not patrolling or are easily bribed. For mental illness, a healthcare system that treats all mental cases, from the most affluent to the poorest.
But this all relies on a mature society that will work together without overreaction. Fat chance of that happening.
All we can do is minimize fatal consequences..
These people are infuriating, and I support this idea 100%. I knew we were going to have problems when the majority of people protesting health care reform, we receiving their own government-subsidized health care.Quote:
We won't. Our culture has a superiority complex that could make Nietzsche proud.Quote:
Maybe that's the solution in a nutshell. It's harder than passing laws and way more complicated, but unless we address the causes, the effects will remain the same. I don't mean to go all family values and what not, but people need to make time for their children and raise them with a high respect for living things. The planet, people, animals...
Teach them they're not always going to be right, and teach them how to lose. Teach them they're not always going to be liked and teach them how to handle it.
Keep them away from harmful images, because let's face it, a nation brought up with Honey Boo Boo and Jersey Shore, aren't as likely to be deep moral thinkers as ones brought up with books and thoughtful dialogue. Garbage in, garbage out...
It's so out of my culture, it's just.. I mean I didn't know that there are companies which sell and can sell real gun designed for little children. I know there are a lot of families with gun tradition in many part of the US, it never crossed my mind that such possibility would be even legal even in the US : selling real gun to a 5 years old child (maybe less than that if it's not a recent gift)... Really ?
Last edited by Gats; May 02, 2013 at 01:57 PM.
People are stupid like that. What's new?
I didn't know that either, but it makes sense with American's attitude on guns. Many are like NRA, wanting to own guns. I think the gun companies who also sell to kids or try to appeal to them are quite ingenious because they know that guns are still popular, and that people will want to give their kids guns in a way of saying "fuck you" to anti-gun people. Sadly, we have shitty, idiotic parents like that.
And guess what will be blamed? Video games, movies, TV shows, whatnot. Everything but parents. At least, parents themselves will shift the blame onto something else.
Honestly, yeah it's completely nuts. I'm all for gun-ownership, maybe because I'm American who knows, but that is a case of people refusing to admit any faults with the ideology they were raised with. I doubt most people will buy guns for their tiny children but they'll public ally condone it. Because god forbid conservatives only eat some of the pie, no, they have to have all or nothing.