An issue of gun rights culture and aggression-getting-you-heard in America

Author: RationalMadman
RM
America
Rittenhouse
gun rights
thug culture

Posts

Total: 34
Topic's author
#1
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 567
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
Something that occurred to me is whether or not one supports Kyle Rittenhouse or the 2 dead men in terms of morality, one must definitely be horrified at guns and America's easy-access culture regarding them.

In any other highly developed nation, it would horrify everybody in the society that somebody as young as Kyle Rittenhouse could just so easily grab an AR-15 and, on the other end of the spectrum, that the rioters could all be possessing pistols fully able and ready to hurt people (Rosenbaum couldn't get one because he's mentally unwell and I guess didn't want to risk getting one illegally).

The fact that guns themselves are so easy to access, as well as the fact that the possession of an AR-15 via cross-state methodology for Rittenhouse to end up possessing it doesn't warrant any legal penalty, makes me wonder what exactly Americans consider 'too far'.

At what stage, after how many incidents of either mass shootings or back-and-forth killing scenarios between criminals (Rittenhouse wasn't a criminal before and perhaps after this but the back-and-forth element was there, no matter who we support it was about to happen possibly with Huber and the guys, I'm not denying that)?

I am not making this thread to talk bad about Rittenhouse, something deeper that's an issue is how gun-happy American culture in general is. There is something deeply disturbing about the fact that events like this don't make people hate guns but instead be fervently proud of how they were wielded instead.
Topic's author
#2
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 567
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
On a separate note, the fact looters go to the lengths they go to, in order to feel like their cause is heard is asinine. Nobody should be needing to use graffiti and burning mattresses or smashing bottles or any of that kind of thing just to feel heard, it implies they think that's the only way to get attention and express emotions of a severe kind.

I don't know precisely if that's an American thing as that kind of stuff did happen in other protests elsewhere even before Floyd, years before, in London and such but what was fairly unique was the extent of raw aggression among the protesters, which Rittenhouse came face-to-face with. This rage-gets-me-heard ethos is also, in reverse, what Trump believed he had to show towards the protesters in order to tame them.

This all solves very little because if neither side feels remotely heard, animosity will grow. I'm not sitting on a high horse here, I am just noticing. If I were in such an environment, I'm sure I'd become aggressive too, it's why one should avoid attending events that are so brutally aggressive. It's not going to truly fix any of BLM's agenda-issues.
#3
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,118
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
Hmmm… where to begin? I was really into guns in my younger years, but I’m not a “molon labe” (pry it from my cold dead hands) type either. I don’t really agree with any single group about guns, so I inhabit an odd, middle of the road territory on the issue. You might say both extremes disagree with me vehemently.

While guns are very much a part of US history, they didn’t really start getting collected and idolized (or whatever you want to call it) until the 1970’s. Why is that? No one seems to know! Since then, they have become a uniquely American phenomenon, and a uniquely American controversy.

Imo, both sides have major flaws. (Warning: large, sweeping generalizations soon to follow out of the need to for brevity! Not writing a book here, and if I did, no one would be bothered to read it) Pro-gun people want open access to all manner of weaponry and act as though that has no bearing at all on weapons ending up in the wrong hands. They fear gun bans via incrementalism, so they resist even “common sense,” effective gun measures. They also misunderstand the Constitution on the issue to an alarming degree. Anti-gun people fear guns excessively while tending towards being soft on crime and tough on police. The effects of that are on open display in many cities. They are entirely ignorant about guns, but that doesn’t stop them from preaching against them. They can’t understand why anyone would want a gun in the first place. They don’t believe that normal citizens can be trusted with firearms. They also come up with too many ineffective, largely symbolic gun control policies, such as “assault weapons” bans and bump stock bans.

There are, of course, effective ways to keep more firearms out of the wrong hands, but they are always opposed by pro-gunners. I think the Brady Campaign (named after James Brady who was shot by Hinckley in 1981) has the right idea for the most part. The key is to reduce the illegal trafficking of guns AND to properly enforce the laws that already exist! Thing is, pro-gunners might also be right to fear incrementalism, too.

It’s a very deep issue, but that’s enough for now…


#4
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
Anyone who's into guns and has children and does not teach those children gun safety is a POS. I learned basic gun safety at age 4. That included not touching the guns without an adult, never pointing a gun at someone cuz you never know if it's loaded and making sure guns on safety. I was shooting a 22 at 6 and a shotgun at 10. And I have managed to go 51 years without killing anybody. So this gun rights culture thing is basically people who believe if you're not a criminal and you own guns that should be perfectly legal because you're not doing anything wrong. And if it wasn't specifically mentioned in the Constitution maybe I'd be a little more iffy  on it.
#5
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 1,025
3
2
6
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
3
2
6
-->
@RationalMadman
In a hyper-individualist country, a person is not responsible for what other people do. (Unless maybe it's your child or something but whatever.)

If we think of ownership as a right, misuse only calls into question the ownership rights of those personally guilty of misuse. In that sense, 10,000 Rittenhouse-style shootings will not affect the ownership rights of somebody who's never shot someone else. It's not a question of numbers or statistics. An innocent individual is the only number and the only statistic that matters here.

This is also a country whose strongest tradition is self-advocacy.
In other countries, for example, there is a single judge who hears evidence from a state-appointed prosecutor, and then makes a verdict. You might have somebody appointed by the state who defends you, but if the case looks bad then they might concede or actively work with the prosecution against you. In the US, you can hire a lawyer who will unconditionally represent you short of perjuring himself. He will pull all stops on your behalf even if the judge or jury personally thinks it's distasteful. There may be an objectively "wrong side" but that wrong side still has the right to do everything it can to win.

A gun is an extension of self-advocacy. In other countries, if you're being beaten up or raped and you can't fight back, the state would advise you to flee and seek justice later. If you can't flee, then you pretty much have to lie there and take it, and wait either for somebody to come along and help or for your assailant to later be taken to court after they've had their way with you.

In the US, you can decide that your right to bodily integrity is unconditional. That means killing someone else in self-defense, even if only to save yourself from one punch to the face that you didn't deserve to receive.

The question is whether that obligates you to take reasonable steps to flee first before resorting to violence. Some states have so-called "stand your ground laws", which say you don't have to. In other states, you could be charged with manslaughter or homicide.
#6
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,208
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Swagnarok
In a hyper-individualist country,

A lot of Americans have decided to allow the state to handle individual responsibilities. Especially in Democrat states.
#7
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
The consensus within science is that more gun control areas have less murder and there's an overwhelming amount of consensus in science that says the presence of guns increases the murder rate. It's actually common sense that that's true but the science is there too for skeptics even tho radicals can't be convinced of anything
#8
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,208
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@n8nrgmi
The consensus within science is that more gun control areas have less murder.

provably false. Let's see your evidence. In fact, most of the mass shootings are in "gun-free" zones like schools.
#9
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
i've been posting this evidence for years, ya'll gun nuts never believe it, even though it's the scientific consensus. 

guneducationalinformation.weebly.com
#10
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,208
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@n8nrgmi
That's an international study. That doesn't apply to America since the 2nd Amendment will never be repealed.
#11
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@Greyparrot
There was also a poll included of scientists from america that showed the consensus is that gun control is effective, and the correlation of murder with gun presence is also american studies/consensus
#12
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
Also that international study of gun control laws also looked at the USA specifically and reached the same conclusion
#13
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,208
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@n8nrgmi
There was also a poll included of scientists from america that showed the consensus is that gun control is effective, and the correlation of murder with gun presence is also american studies/consensus
I mean you can cite opinion polls from international scientists all you want, but almost every urban murder capital in America is in fact a "gun free" city.

need I remind you for the thousandth time that consensus does not equal science?

Here ya go:
#14
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,208
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@n8nrgmi

One of the top ten states with the most restrictive gun laws in the country is Illinois, where last year there were 650 murders in Chicago alone, according to a USA Today's compilation of crime data.

In Maryland, another state with some of the strictest gun laws in the country, Baltimore had 343 murders last year and has highest per capita murder rate in the nation. The city was also just named the most dangerous city in America by USA Today.




Mind you, California has the toughest gun laws in the world.

We have also seen a huge rise in gun  murders in select states with the recent defund the police bullshit as police stopped responding to calls due to low morale or low manpower.

The correlation between gun laws and murder isn't NEARLY as strong as the correlation between the high number of murders in a city and the low level of law enforcement in that city.

#15
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Swagnarok
An innocent individual is the only number and the only statistic that matters here.
Well-stated. A fact to which the hoplophobic left-leaning tirade against gun-ownership is oblivious. It doesn't matter how many "mass-shootings" there are--which are staged by the way--one individual is neither beholden nor culpable for the crimes of another. Owning and possessing a firearm in and of itself DOES NOT MAKE ONE A VIOLENT CRIMINAL. Vehicular deaths are more prevalent, and yet one doesn't see the aforementioned tirade protesting that a 15 year-old can take a 10 minute wash of a test to operate a vehicle.

And lastly, as Greyparrot demonstrated, until it can be substantiated that more stringent law = fewer deaths, the "culture" surrounding gun-ownership is not going to change.
Topic's author
#16
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 567
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Swagnarok
In other countries, if you're being beaten up or raped and you can't fight back, the state would advise you to flee and seek justice later. If you can't flee, then you pretty much have to lie there and take it, and wait either for somebody to come along and help or for your assailant to later be taken to court after they've had their way with you.
utter propaganda bullshit
Topic's author
#17
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 567
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Swagnarok
In the US, you can decide that your right to bodily integrity is unconditional. That means killing someone else in self-defense, even if only to save yourself from one punch to the face that you didn't deserve to receive.
psychopathy
Topic's author
#18
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 567
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Swagnarok
 In the US, you can hire a lawyer who will unconditionally represent you short of perjuring himself. 
As opposed to... Which country? 
#19
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,328
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
@RM

In any other highly developed nation, it would horrify everybody in the society that somebody as young as Kyle Rittenhouse could just so easily grab an AR-15 and, on the other end of the spectrum, that the rioters could all be possessing pistols fully able and ready to hurt people
In those highly developed nations, they value freedom less and safety more.  It's why they have UHC.  It's why they have gun control.  It's why they have really restrictive immigration policies (because they are as scared about terror attacks as they are about mass shootings)

America cares about freedom way more than these beta European nations.  We don't lock down our country because 10 old people died of covid today.  We don't restrict immigration based on one murder done by one undocumented immigrant.  We don't restrict gun rights based on very rare mass shootings when gun control doesn't significantly reduce homicide ANYWHERE it is enacted.  Americans are a freedom loving people.  We are therefore much more relaxed about extremely rare incidents, we worry less about mass shootings than we do about heart disease (makes sense because heart disease kills more people).  Europe doesn't have this mentality.  Europeans are upset by what the news says, not what is based in actual reality.  Americans on the other hand, are a consistent people.  They know that if one isn't upset by the 600,000 heart disease deaths that happen a year, it makes to sense to be upset with Sandy Hook or Parkland, combined killed only around 50 people.

Americans are alphas.  Europeans are betas.

20 days later

Topic's author
#20
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 567
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@TheUnderdog
I actually just read this properly now and realised how utterly cringe and nonsensical that all was to read.

It was basically hate speech against Europeans mixed with some urge to feel big and bad yourself.

Aren't you Italian-descended? What were your ancestors then? Betas who transformed into Alpha further down the line by American magic?
#21
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 3,216
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
Something that occurred to me is whether or not one supports Kyle Rittenhouse or the 2 dead men in terms of morality, one must definitely be horrified at guns and America's easy-access culture regarding them. - RationalMadman, Post #1

Your thought is incorrect,
Though 'some people may be horrified by America's gun culture, others are not.
I am not horrified of America's gun culture.
Topic's author
#22
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 567
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Lemming
I know that, it's what's perplexing me, you should have seen the flaw of it by now.
#23
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,328
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10

@RM

It was basically hate speech against Europeans mixed with some urge to feel big and bad yourself.
It's hate speech against their governments to a large degree because of all the left wing policies in Europe that the European conservative politicians don't have the guts to challenge the European radical left on.  In conservative run UK, they give free money to undocumented immigrants to come here:


Keep in mind that the UK is run by consrevatives right now:


My ancestors fled authoritarian British run Malta to move to a land where the government left them alone and didn't tax them as much and didn't spend their money on the poor as much.

Britain is for subjects.  America is for citizens.  We have guns.  We have guts.  We distrust our government.  Americans are a free people, and it's why we attract the rugged individualistic people from all over the world.  All the UK attracts for the most part is welfare bums.
Topic's author
#24
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 567
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@TheUnderdog
Not radical, norm. It's the norm in Europe who is what you call radical.
Topic's author
#25
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 567
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@TheUnderdog
government left them alone
Yes, also to suffer.
Topic's author
#26
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 567
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@TheUnderdog
We have guns.  We have guts.  We distrust our government.  
Good luck vs the American military with your semi-automatic whatevers that you barely know how to use in a real-life war.
#27
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,328
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
@RM

Suffering is minimized when the government leaves us alone.

There are 100 million gun owners in America and roughly 2 million soliders.  The soliders won't nuke us because it does nothing for them.  They would have to enslave us, and our guns prevent that from happening.

Moreover, in any free society, the burden of proof as to why anything ought to be banned rests on the authoritarian.

Topic's author
#28
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 567
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@TheUnderdog
Just link to a YT vid and your point is infinitely proven.
#29
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,208
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
Good luck vs the American military with your semi-automatic whatevers that you barely know how to use in a real-life war.

Said no Afghani or Vietnamese or North Korean EVER.

Of all the elite establishment things you regularly rage on behalf of, I never would think you would stoop as low as to support the military industrial machine and rage on their behalf.
Topic's author
#30
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 567
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
Amusing that you brought up 2 places (North Korea and Vietnam) that have utterly lost despite being armed (against tyrants).

In fact Afghanistan only held of the Taliban ruthless tyrants due to US military helping them.

Vietnam defeated the US largely by media warfare backfiring on US's own soil (they made the US people hate their own government for abusing the Vietnamese and committing war crimes).