Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6   Go Down

Author Topic: Portland shooting  (Read 18170 times)

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Portland shooting
« on: June 10, 2014, 11:36:11 pm »

Feeling really sorry for the victims of the recent shootings in the US. As a father I cannot begin to imagine how the parents of those kids must be feeling.

I guess that most people in most develop countries understand and accept the idea that the global good of the society must be prioritized above the selfish desires of individuals.

This is what has driven the creation of our laws and of all the elements that structure our societies.

What I don't understand at all, is why in a country as developed as the US, there is not a large majority of the population realizing that the free availability of weapons is extremely negative for the society at large and should therefore be banned, even though it may result in a possible disadvantage for a small number of individuals (such a being killed by a vilain).

Or... a lot more scary I guess... a large majority of citizens do in fact want weapons to be banned, but the politicians supposed to represent them don't support their electors desires?

Either way, I would think that a free online open source system enabling citizens to express their preference would be a great way to cast light on this puzzling question.

Is such an independent "voting" platform available? Note that I am not speaking about a poll. I am speaking about an online system that would enable anyone to express one's preference in this debate. Politicians would of course not have to take these results into account. ;)

Cheers,
Bernard

john beardsworth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4755
    • My photography site
Re: Portland shooting
« Reply #1 on: June 11, 2014, 08:47:10 am »

If something like Newtown can't shock the federal govt, congress and states into action, what ever will? You just have to see it as normal for the USA - somewhere  every few months bunches of innocent people are going to be gunned down. But it'll never be you or those you care for, will it?
Logged

Robert Roaldi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4769
    • Robert's Photos
Logged
--
Robert

Chairman Bill

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3352
    • flickr page
Re: Portland shooting
« Reply #3 on: June 11, 2014, 09:45:25 am »

Before a load of fascist-commie-atheist-muslim-liberal-pinko-homosexual-evolutionists, start trying to argue for the removal of the God-given right of all True Patriot Americans to own & openly carry machine guns, rocket launchers and the odd nuclear device (for personal protection and to oppose any tyrannical government), let me point out that school shootings happen in other countries too. There was one in the UK in 1996. None prior, nor since, but that's because God hates those fascist-commie-atheist-muslim-liberal-pinko-homosexual-evolutionist-Brits and won't let them have their God-given right to bear arms without proper licensing from the state.

Just saying.

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8914
Re: Portland shooting
« Reply #4 on: June 11, 2014, 10:03:51 am »

I guess that most people in most develop countries understand and accept the idea that the global good of the society must be prioritized above the selfish desires of individuals.

Hi Bernard,

Guess again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying_in_the_United_States combined with the need to raise re-election campaign funds, is a recipe for disaster.

It's a flawed system, excellently characterized by Lawrence Lessig.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Portland shooting
« Reply #5 on: June 11, 2014, 10:08:00 am »

But it'll never be you or those you care for, will it?

That's really not sure as I have many friends in the US and may very well be proposed to work in the US at some point of time, but I am not sure how my selfish well being is relevant?

Just like we all fell compelled to help Iraki citizens a few years ago, many people outside the US feel an urge to help. Is that odd? ;)

Cheers,
Bernard

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Portland shooting
« Reply #6 on: June 11, 2014, 10:09:10 am »

Hi Bernard,

Guess again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying_in_the_United_States combined with the need to raise re-election campaign funds, is a recipe for disaster.

It's a flawed system, excellently characterized by Lawrence Lessig.

Yes, I have read his Ted Lesterbook like most of us.

Cheers,
Bernard

john beardsworth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4755
    • My photography site
Re: Portland shooting
« Reply #7 on: June 11, 2014, 10:30:16 am »

That's really not sure as I have many friends in the US and may very well be proposed to work in the US at some point of time, but I am not sure how my selfish well being is relevant?

Just like we all fell compelled to help Iraki citizens a few years ago, many people outside the US feel an urge to help. Is that odd? ;)

I hope you noticed I was being ironic.

It may not be odd, Bernard, but it's probably as futile as expecting to transform women's rights in Afghanistan. Even if - big if - the US introduced federal and state gun laws as sensible as those in the UK or Japan, you've big problems in enforcement, compliance, and the number of guns in circulation.

John
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Portland shooting
« Reply #8 on: June 11, 2014, 10:44:01 am »

... It's a flawed system...

So flawed in fact, that it made them the most powerful country on Earth, ever ;)

Robert Roaldi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4769
    • Robert's Photos
Re: Portland shooting
« Reply #9 on: June 11, 2014, 10:57:48 am »

The most powerful nations on earth were always the most powerful nations on earth, until they weren't anymore. So what.
Logged
--
Robert

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8914
Re: Portland shooting
« Reply #10 on: June 11, 2014, 12:09:17 pm »

So flawed in fact, that it made them the most powerful country on Earth, ever ;)

Agreed, depending on one's definition of powerful ... ;)

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

john beardsworth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4755
    • My photography site
Re: Portland shooting
« Reply #11 on: June 11, 2014, 12:22:07 pm »

In any case, that power isn't due to every John Doe's right to own guns.
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Portland shooting
« Reply #12 on: June 11, 2014, 12:54:44 pm »

... So what.

So, while they are, they are.

And it IS because of being pro-gun, pro-individualism, pro-cutthroat competition, pro-winner-takes-all, pro-might-makes-right, anti-colectivism, anti-socialized healthcare, etc.

Not that I necessarily condone the above, just stating the fact.

Misirlou

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 711
    • http://
Re: Portland shooting
« Reply #13 on: June 11, 2014, 12:55:17 pm »

This thread will surely be locked at any moment, but until it is...

In these situations, it's easy to look at a particular body of law in isolation and say "Well they have a much more sensible one in country X" without looking at the broader picture, and including a whole host of other factors.

You have to remember that the US was founded by people who had left countries where citizens were generally under a tighter level of social/class/government control. They came to a dangerous place, where they frequently got into violent contact with the natives. We could argue about the morality of colonization all day long, but that's what happened here. And as a result, that was the beginning of a long tradition of people wanting the right to protect themselves.

There are all kinds of opinion polls out there, from any number of agenda-driven takers, but there is no evidence that the majority want an outright ban on guns. There isn’t even consensus on the desirability of banning semi-automatic rifles. I think arguments that the situation is due to a small minority of NRA members controlling politicians are just false.

From the point of view of someone living in a city, you might see no need at all for personal defense. I live in the west, and spend a lot of time in places where law enforcement could not reach hours after being notified, if they could even be called for assistance in the first place. My wife and I have a favorite weekend getaway spot in the mountains about an hour and a half’s drive from our home. A couple of years ago, a man living in that town was killed and mostly eaten by a cougar. Some of you will say that’s because greedy developers keep pushing deeper and deeper into virgin natural territory, but that town has been there for over a hundred years, the population in the area is declining, and there were plenty of Anasazi living there a thousand years ago. There are plenty of bears, rattlesnakes, and other dangers too. At any rate, I carry a gun when I’m hiking there alone, and I will not apologize for that.

To my mind, the issue with all of the recent shootings I’ve looked at (and I haven’t read anything about Portland yet) is that they were perpetrated by dangerously insane people. The mother of the Newtown shooter pleaded with authorities to take control of her son repeatedly, and nothing was done. It’s currently very, very difficult to have someone committed, even with strong evidence that they are likely to act out violently. That’s the problem that needs tackling first.
Logged

john beardsworth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4755
    • My photography site
Re: Portland shooting
« Reply #14 on: June 11, 2014, 01:31:45 pm »

In one country an insane person can probably injure or kill one or two people with knives, while in the US he has the right to arm himself with semi-automatic rifles and it's the authorities' fault when he massacres dozens of infants. After all, he might have to defend himself against red indians or a passing cougar. I appreciate it's too late to do anything about US gun "laws", but which is the more sensible arrangement?
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Portland shooting
« Reply #15 on: June 11, 2014, 01:31:56 pm »

Drugs are illegal. Yet everyone who wants them, gets them. Guns in Chicago were illegal, yet we have one of the highest homicide rates in the states. Just saying that it isn't so simple as it might look from the outside.

Misirlou

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 711
    • http://
Re: Portland shooting
« Reply #16 on: June 11, 2014, 03:43:08 pm »

In one country an insane person can probably injure or kill one or two people with knives, while in the US he has the right to arm himself with semi-automatic rifles and it's the authorities' fault when he massacres dozens of infants. After all, he might have to defend himself against red indians or a passing cougar. I appreciate it's too late to do anything about US gun "laws", but which is the more sensible arrangement?

Sensible to whom? If we were to somehow magically eliminate guns (and I'd love to see someone's implementation plan for rounding up the estimated 400 million of them in this country), people who couldn't get help from law enforcement when they needed it would die. People who become victims of homicidal maniacs die now. If you're on the receiving end in either case, you're going to argue against the "sensibility" of allowing either situation to exist.

The berserker in Santa Barbara a few weeks ago drove into people intentionally with his BMW, in addition to shooting others, and I doubt you'd suggest getting rid of cars. The overwhelming majority of gun owners don't go on murderous rampages with them either. Personally, I'd rather see solutions that keep weapons out of the hands of the insane than I would the complete elimination of weapons. You’re free to disagree, as is your right.

But please don’t straw-man my argument. I didn’t solely blame the authorities for Newtown. It was incredibly foolish for the mother to keep guns in the same house with the shooter, and she paid for that mistake with her life. Still, I believe authorities have to find ways to contain the criminally insane. Have you ever faced down a violent criminal alone? I have. Have you ever struggled with an insane person? I have. It is to our credit that we try to be as understanding with folks like that as we are, but I’m here to tell you that allowing them to move about freely among the rest of us comes at a cost, guns or not.

My original intention was to point out some of the unique circumstances of the US as compared to, say, Japan and the UK. I lived in Japan myself for three years. Their per capita suicide rate was higher than our per capita murder rate at the time. Suicide by train was particularly common. That probably says something about the way Japanese people internalize their problems, whereas too many Americans externalize ours. But it doesn’t argue in favor of both countries having the same laws I think.

We have a curious comparison here in the southwest. El Paso, TX is per capita among the safest cities in the country. But it shares a border with Juarez, Mexico, which is one of the most deadly cities in the world. A couple of years ago, there were more per capita violent deaths in Juarez than in Iraq. Mexico completely prohibits private citizens from owning guns. Texas practically encourages it. I doubt that explains the crime difference, but who knows? Who has the more “sensible” laws? I don’t know.
Logged

john beardsworth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4755
    • My photography site
Re: Portland shooting
« Reply #17 on: June 11, 2014, 04:09:26 pm »

As I say, I appreciate it's too late to do anything about the US gun ownership problem. Clearly strict regulation of gun ownership is the more sensible arrangement for any society, but it's equally clear that it's close to impossible across the US. If Newtown doesn't lead to major progress, shouldn't we just shrug our shoulders and accept that 15000 murders a year and dozens of school shootings is as American as apple pie?
Logged

Isaac

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3123
Re: Portland shooting
« Reply #18 on: June 11, 2014, 05:10:45 pm »

Japan … per capita suicide rate was higher than our per capita murder rate at the time.

afaict The US per capita suicide rate was also probably higher than the US per capita homicide rate, something like:

2009, rate per 100,000 population, Japan
suicide 24.4
homicide 0.4

2009, rate per 100,000 population, USA
suicide 12.4
homicide 5.5


Mexico completely prohibits private citizens from owning guns. Texas practically encourages it.

fwiw

"We find that the reach of U.S. gun laws extends be-
yond its borders. Our analysis shows that the expi-
ration of the U.S. FAWB led to immediate violence
increases within areas of Mexico located close to
American states where sales of assault weapons be-
came legal. The estimated effects are sizable, and un-
related to the idiosyncratic influence of specific bor-
der states, trends in socioeconomic conditions, legal
enforcement patterns, and drug-trafficking along the
border."

pdf Cross-Border Spillover: U.S. Gun Laws and Violence in Mexico
Logged

Misirlou

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 711
    • http://
Re: Portland shooting
« Reply #19 on: June 11, 2014, 06:04:26 pm »

afaict The US per capita suicide rate was also probably higher than the US per capita homicide rate, something like:

fwiw

"We find that the reach of U.S. gun laws extends be-
yond its borders. Our analysis shows that the expi-
ration of the U.S. FAWB led to immediate violence
increases within areas of Mexico located close to
American states where sales of assault weapons be-
came legal. The estimated effects are sizable, and un-
related to the idiosyncratic influence of specific bor-
der states, trends in socioeconomic conditions, legal
enforcement patterns, and drug-trafficking along the
border."

If guns from Texas are responsible for violence in Mexico, than why aren't they responsible for even more violence in Texas?
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6   Go Up