Did DKR warn us about recent "False Flag" shootings? — Page 6

It isn't ignorance when it's based on the existance of institutions, national policy, and daily encounters with individuals from said countries espousing those views. Again, I'm not saying every American is, for example, obsessed with guns. But as a nation...well, your country is obsessed with guns. That's based on the general cultural views you have as well as the existence--and widespread public support (it is a democracy after all)--of the national and state gun laws, as well institutions like the NRA, and also some really scary statistics. You have the highest gun ownership rate on the whole planet and one of the highest gun crime rate in most if not all of the western world. As a Canadian, the majority of my media is American--newspapers, television, and movies. I travel to the United States on a regular basis and have American family members.

That isn't ignorance. You can write off some of these things as generalizations--and by the way, I am not advocating Canada as some wonderful paradise without it's share of problems; it certainly isn't, although some may claim it is. But stuff like gun laws. Yeah. You guys do have a national obsession with guns. That's why when stuff like this shooting...I mean, it is exceptional. But you hear of public shootings in the US all the time, and you don't hear of that anwhere else--I think you guys have actually become desensitized to it to not realize how bad it is. But it's the result of the bigger picture, which is the incredible, alarming amount of civilians with easy access to, and fondness for, firearms, and the resulting total, unsurprising mess that comes from that. That is expressed in news reports, media, individuals, high profile institutions, state law and federal law.

To take this as an example, I think it's something the United States as a country has been ignoring having a serious, frank discussion about for some time now, because the country chooses to live in a bubble. Because whenever someone points out how stupid and crazy it all seems, it's seen as bigoted. It's not bigoted. It's critical, sure, but don't confuse one with the other. And I think that's another issue the United States sometimes seems to justify or brush off, this "anti-American" sentiment. I put that in quotations because it's really not anti-American, in the sense of hating individual American citizens; when I meet American travellers in real life half the time I end up showing them around and having a drink with them. But why do you think there is "anti-American" sentiment widespread outside the United States(heck, within the United States too)? Is it because most countries, which have healthier and sometimes happier lifestyles anyway, just irrationally dislike an entire half of a continent? Or is it because they don't like the policies and mentalities that are expressed by that half continent? I'm very pro American, in the sense that I like many Americans citizens (and love a few of them), and places and institutions within the United States, and believe it has the power to be better than it is. But it is the widespread expression of certain cultural traits and political ideologies that is offensive.

Why do you think there aren't "anti-Canadian" mentalities widespread across Europe? I mean, overall, such a thing doesn't really exist (although you may find someone that a met a Canadian they didn't like). Yes, everyone hates their neighbours, so the English make fun of the French and the French make fun of the Poles, and they make fun of the Russians. You will never find a country without criticism--but it's usually just their neighbour (or in the case of France, the United States as well...actually maybe France gets picked on by a lot of countries). It's not because people are jealous of the US--especially today, no one really is. It's the cultural and political expressions of huge, huge sums of American citizens--that everyone else has to hear about--that is distasteful, and things like the attitude towards guns is an easy example of why "crazy Americans" memes exist in the world. Obviously, most Americans aren't crazy. That's not a literal statement. It's just that a lot of you express things that sometimes come across as crazy, relatively speaking. And because the country lives in a self-created bubble, that just seems normal, the way it should be, when to most people not in the US (and many within) it actually comes across as backwards. There is a lot of justification that goes on, for example with respect to gun culture.

Because--again, I hate to do this in national terms because I don't believe in nationalism, but it's useful as an example--in Canada, we, as a whole, don't really value guns, and in fact most of us dislike guns. If you live in Canada and you have a gun and aren't in the prarie provinces, you seem weird and scary for having this killing device. We routinely vote for laws against gun ownership. So, how does the United States look to us then? Does that make most of us American bigots? Not really, but the idea of a nation obsessed with guns is offensive and stupid to us. And yet, there is this county--right next to us in fact--that as a whole is culturall obssessed with guns. So, are you saying most of Canada is ethno-centric bigots? You see how the problem is. It's not my fault the United States does the things it does and happens to be right beside me to give me full knowledge of all this stuff. I wish it didn't.

I don't agree with a lot of what zombie said in this thread previously, but that's an excellent post.  We do have an obsession with guns in this country, and it's a very dangerous and stupid obsession.

correction: some of us have an obsession with guns, but many of us do not.   Many of us want to get rid of the guns, but the NRA blocks every attempt at that. 

zombie84 said: If you live in Canada and you have a gun and aren't in the prarie provinces, you seem weird and scary for having this killing device.

If you live in New Jersey and you have a gun, you seem weird and scary  to most people in the state for having this killing device.   I think you really underestimate the number people in the USA that hate guns.  You see Zombie84, there are a lot of different people in the USA.  We aren't all one way or all the other way.   This why generalizations about us all as a whole, are a bad idea.      

I think you are missing the point though. I know that there are many Americans who don't love guns. But the point is that there are enough people who do to make a generalization. New Jersey had over 250 gun homicides in 2011. That's more than the number of gun homicides in the entire country of Canada on almost any single year (whose annual record is usually like 200). All in one state. And you're right--New Jersey is one of the least pro-gun states.

That's a really bad fact. And that's exactly my point. 270 gun homicides in a single state  in a given year is seen as "pretty good", when in many countries that would be the worst homicide tragedy in national history when you consider the relative geographic and population size of that one region. But instead, it gets justified. It's pretty good, don't generalize. I'm not generalizing, but clearly there are more gun lovers in one of the best states than in an entire country bordering. That's a problem that is going entirely unaddressed. It's bigger than just the NRA.

zombie84 said:

 But you hear of public shootings in the US all the time, and you don't hear of that anwhere else--I think you guys have actually become desensitized to it to not realize how bad it is.

I don't know about other Americans,  I am certainly not desensitized to the shootings.   Ever since the shooting in Connecticut, I haven't been able to get the horror of it out of my mind.  I keep thinking, what must have it been like to be six or seven and see this sicko, come in your class room and shoot your classmates.   What must it have been like for the kids that did get shot, as the poor kids breathed their last breaths.  At least some of them, probably knew they were going to die in seconds.  What must it feel like for six or seven year old to know they are going to die in the minute or second, and these were kids that moment before had visions of Christmas morning and opening their new toys from Santa. How do the parents explain to the survivors that most of their classmates are dead?   What must it be for the parents to their very young children, let alone at this time of the year.    Some of them probably already had presents for them ready and wrapped.  What do they do with them?   Can you imagine having to decide that?  Can you imagine the parents having to unwrap them themselves so they can return the toys to the store?  Can imagine what must go through their heads as the do that?  Forever the parents and brothers and sisters of the dead will think of Christmas time as the time their child was murdered.  Can you imagine that?   Can you imagine the physiological effect this is going to have on the rest of the lives of the kids that survived and saw this massacre, or on the lives of the parents and family and friends of the dead?  This is supposed to be a time of celebration, not funerals.   Can you imagine what Christmas morning is going to be like for the families of the dead?   I guess is partly because my niece is six, and what if this had happened at her school?  What if she had been murdered?   As I watched her holiday concert at her school, I couldn't help think, what if twenty of those kids had been butchered?   My mom has cried multiple times while watching the news about this tragedy.  I have almost cried myself.   I think, if this has effected and upset us some much, what is it like for the families of the victims?  This is what has been going on in my mind ever since I heard of the mass shooting.

Zombie84,  read what I just wrote and tell me that I am desensitized to the shooting.

I really, really, want to know what the hell was going on inside of the mind of the sicko that did this.   I have fantasized about getting my hands him and doing all sorts of horrible things to him.    I wonder what the families of the victims would want done with the sicko if they could get their hands on him?

I realize the way you feel Warbler, and I'm not saying you share some the views I am arguing against. You don't have to feel slighted because of a greater national culture issue that doesn't apply to you. But I think it's wrong to write off the greater gun culture of the United States as a generalization. I mean, it is a generalization, I'm not pretending everyone is like that, but as the whole the country has a gun culture problem. It's like saying Canadians love hockey. There are many Canadians who dislike hockey or are indifferent. But as a whole, it's true. We like hockey. At least, way disproportionately to the majority of other countries.

zombie84 said:

That's a really bad fact. And that's exactly my point. 270 gun homicides in a single state  in a given year is seen as "pretty good",

I would never, ever call that "pretty good".    One the reasons our gun homicide count is so high is because our state includes Camden,  just about the worst city to live in America.   Its very dangerous there, the only ones that have any money are the drug dealers and to say the government there is corrupt/incompetent is the understatement of the year. 

zombie84 said:

I'm not generalizing, but clearly there are more gun lovers in one of the best states than in an entire country bordering. That's a problem that is going entirely unaddressed. It's bigger than just the NRA.

Well, all I can do is my part to try to get rid of the guns.   Don't blame all Americans for the gun nuts.

CP3S said:

Warbler said:

FanFiltration said: The way this is playing out in the media smells of mass trauma based mind control tactics. 

you're an idiot and you're nuts.

 

What the hell?! What's with the venom and the name calling?

 

using horrible tragedies to  spread stupid insane conspiracy theories, piss me off.   This is a horrible, horrible event and FanFiltration acts like its a game.    Also I have family problems that have put me in a bad mood.  I found out of my father's cousins pass way.  I found out one was dead by see her somewhat fresh grave, while attending the grave site funeral of the other cousin.   Then my dog almost died.   She seem to be improving now, and hopefully she will live past Christmas, but we all know it won't be long before she is gone.    

If the conspiracy made any sense to it I could see how that would be narrowminded, to call it idiotic or crazy. But it is. It's insultingly stupid. That's what set me off too, which was obviously more judgemental than merited but it's hard not to have that level of frustration for an outsider that watches this closely. There is this great tragedy and this is your reaction?? What the hell?? But it's not like there is even anything to it. There is a building with Aurora on it in DK. So...what does that mean exactly? That Chris Nolan set up the shooting in Aurora on purpose, planning it five years ago, but then also put a reference to it in his film? Wait, what? How does the building named Aurora get you all that? You are actually insinuating that Chris Nolan is a mass murderer? This horrible tragedy and Chris Nolan did it. That's your reaction to kids being gunned down en masse. The guy must wear a tinfoil hat. How someone can read that and not think he was absolutely bonkers is really, really surprising, and in a bad way. I think that stuff like that is not openly ridiculed is not unrelated to these cultural issues I've been talking about, because owning mass amount of guns and believeing Chris Nolan (or the government) set up the shooting both come in large part from places of paranoia. Maybe that is the larger root of all this.

zombie84 said:

I realize the way you feel Warbler, and I'm not saying you share some the views I am arguing against. You don't have to feel slighted because of a greater national culture issue that doesn't apply to you. But I think it's wrong to write off the greater gun culture of the United States as a generalization. I mean, it is a generalization, I'm not pretending everyone is like that, but as the whole the country has a gun culture problem. It's like saying Canadians love hockey. There are many Canadians who dislike hockey or are indifferent. But as a whole, it's true. We like hockey. At least, way disproportionately to the majority of other countries.

zombie, if you've read any of the politics thread, you know Warb takes all of these discussions personally.  Best to just let it go or it will be quotes and quotes without end.

TV's Frink said:

Best to just let it go or it will be quotes and quotes without end.

*sigh*

I'm not sure anyone would buy that that wasn't an American themselves. Do you really think it's "just a coincidence" that the country with the highest gun ownership in the world also has one of the highest gun homicide rates? There are other factors, of course. But to say having fewer people with guns would not affect the gun homicide rate is ridiculous.

In any case, it probably would have prevented the Aurora massacre. I think part of the problem is that the US takes money out of health care and puts money into gun availability. So, you have unstable people that can arm themselves to the teeth. Part of the reasons they go on massacres is because the guns are there, everyone has them and owning a gun is something discussed or thought. Canada has psychos, but many of them don't have guns, so it's hard for them to go on shooting rampages. It happens sometimes, but rarely. If you have guns, everywhere, they will be used. The problems in the US are a mix of laws, health care, and the general culture of having guns. Taking guns out of peoples hands won't end the problem. But if guns aren't in many people's hands...it, well, certainly helps the problem of people shooting each other. One only needs to look to other countries. This study said they did that, but then wrote it off as "there are exceptions and other factors so this isn't the answer." Again, that seems to be justifying having the ability to easily buy guns everywhere you go. There is no one-part answer, but it's either stupidity or willful ignorance to say the massive availability of all forms of firepower in the United States is not a large contributing factor to the massively disproportionate amount of gun violence in that country.

Come on now, we are not a country of gun nuts....

Oops.

I know it wouldn't work well with gangs, because they often use black market hardware anyway. But...do you guys actually know where to get guns on the street? Like, if there wasn't a store to buy a gun, I don't know where to get it. I wouldn't even know where to start. Do you just go up to some guy in a sketchy part of town and ask him if he knows someone who sells illegal weaponry? That seems implausible to me, but then I don't live in the US.

All I know is that--despite pointing out some exceptions--there is more or less a correlation in most countries between the amount of people owning guns and the amount of gun violence. In most countries, few people owns weapons so it's easy to point out exceptions. But when you have the most amount of armed civilians on the planet and ALSO have some of the highest gun homicide rates on the planet...don't you think that there is a link there? You don't have to be a genius to see that one follows the other.

zombie84 said:

It isn't ignorance when it's based on the existance of institutions, national policy, and daily encounters with individuals from said countries espousing those views. Again, I'm not saying every American is, for example, obsessed with guns. But as a nation...well, your country is obsessed with guns. That's based on the general cultural views you have as well as the existence--and widespread public support (it is a democracy after all)--of the national and state gun laws, as well institutions like the NRA, and also some really scary statistics. You have the highest gun ownership rate on the whole planet and one of the highest gun crime rate in most if not all of the western world. As a Canadian, the majority of my media is American--newspapers, television, and movies. I travel to the United States on a regular basis and have American family members.

It is still ethnocentrism. There are many cultural reasons for why Americans are the way they are, it isn't cut and dry, plain and simple, there is a lot of complexity to it. It is ignorance because you don't attempted to understand American thinking or the cultural and historical differences, rather you simply judge the hell out of it based on how unlike you we are.

But you hear of public shootings in the US all the time, and you don't hear of that anwhere else--I think you guys have actually become desensitized to it to not realize how bad it is.

There was a pretty big shooting in Switzerland a few years back, you'll hear of others from time to time. China has this crazy thing where lunatics run into schools with knifes and start slashing at children. America doesn't have a monopoly on senseless public mass target violence done by crazies. But yeah, it is obviously a problem here. However, saying we are desensitized to it is yet more ignorance on your part. You don't know how we feel about it. All you know is what our shitty over the top news media throws at you about it. Every time one of these shootings happen the next several days are usually pretty gut wrenching for us. You can't escape it, people sorrowfully talk about it where ever you go.

 

Why do you think there aren't "anti-Canadian" mentalities widespread across Europe?

Because Canada is a ridiculously low impact country. You guys don't really do anything or get involved in anything or export anything spectacular or noticeable. The important or notable things you do take part in go mostly unnoticed. As far as important players on the figurative Risk board of the world goes, Canada simply doesn't rank very high. During my years living in Europe you never really heard Canada's name mentioned. Once during my travels I mentioned a trip I took to Canada to an acquaintance and they asked me if it was a city or a state.

United State policies effect the world, in good and bad ways. The world gets billions from us in aid annually. Americans branch out all over the world providing benevolence and or stirring up trouble and anything in-between. Our movies, our television, our clothing, our restaurant chains, and our brand names are rammed down the world's throat, and a decent sized percentage of them are thrilled about this. America is extremely high impact. 

I don't have near as many people who hate and can't stand me as Justin Bieber has. I also don't have near as many people who absolutely adore me. I don't have masses of idiots ragging on my every move regardless of what I do, "Damn you Bieber for dating American pop star Salena Gomez!", "Damn you Bieber for dumping American pop star Salena Gomez!". Poor Bieber is doomed to piss people off no matter what he does, regardless of his actions, someone out there who likes him isn't going to like it. I get to dump, be dumped, make horrible or wise decisions with only an extremely small handful of people really caring about it or being impacted by it in any way.

Bieber is high impact, I am practically non-existent impact. No matter what America does, you'll find people who are going to absolutely hate it and others are going to absolutely love it. It'll be this way until America doesn't matter anymore. During my time living in Europe I ran into a lot of anti-America types, I even had a violent encounter with one. But I ran into even more who absolutely loved us. During my time traveling I ran into plenty of girls who were all over me for my accent and wanted to talk about what it was like in America and if things are really like they are on tv and in movies.

So, are you saying most of Canada is ethno-centric bigots? You see how the problem is. It's not my fault the United States does the things it does and happens to be right beside me to give me full knowledge of all this stuff. I wish it didn't.

No, not at all. I'm sure I never once used the word "bigot". And no, I'm sure not all Canadians are as ethnocentric as you. However, most people in most countries see the world through severe ethnocentricity. It is just how it works, it is rare to fine someone who sees the world beyond their own nose, and even then, even if they are really trying to be open minded, they are going to adhere to degree some ethnocentrism. Some are just a little bit better at hiding it than others.

In fact, I think it is impossible to escape ethnocentrism. After all, what standards do we have for seeing if not those we've been given? Green will forever be green to me, because it is the name given to it by my language and culture. Any other words for the same color will forever merely be a translation to me.

zombie84 said:

I know it wouldn't work well with gangs, because they often use black market hardware anyway. But...do you guys actually know where to get guns on the street? Like, if there wasn't a store to buy a gun, I don't know where to get it. I wouldn't even know where to start. Do you just go up to some guy in a sketchy part of town and ask him if he knows someone who sells illegal weaponry? That seems implausible to me, but then I don't live in the US.

Dude, cannabis is illegal in the vast majority of the US. I have no freaking idea where to get it if I wanted some. Would I just walk up to some sketchy guy on the street and ask him if he has or knows anyone with pot for sale? I have no idea! But I do know that the state I live in has really high pot usage. I smell it while out for walks sometimes, I hear co-workers casually talk about it. It is out there, but I personally have no idea how to obtain it. Mostly because I am disinterested in obtaining it. However, if I wanted some, I am pretty sure I'd be able to find some.

Why would it be any different with guns? If I am the type that would commit armed crimes, I likely know others who are the same types, who are likely to know others, and there has to be a hook up in there someplace not too many degrees away.

...don't you think that there is a link there? You don't have to be a genius to see that one follows the other.

Of course there is. Just like a country without cars is going to have a crazy low amount of automobile related deaths.

CP3S said:

zombie84 said:

It isn't ignorance when it's based on the existance of institutions, national policy, and daily encounters with individuals from said countries espousing those views. Again, I'm not saying every American is, for example, obsessed with guns. But as a nation...well, your country is obsessed with guns. That's based on the general cultural views you have as well as the existence--and widespread public support (it is a democracy after all)--of the national and state gun laws, as well institutions like the NRA, and also some really scary statistics. You have the highest gun ownership rate on the whole planet and one of the highest gun crime rate in most if not all of the western world. As a Canadian, the majority of my media is American--newspapers, television, and movies. I travel to the United States on a regular basis and have American family members.

It is still ethnocentrism. There are many cultural reasons for why Americans are the way they are, it isn't cut and dry, plain and simple, there is a lot of complexity to it. It is ignorance because you don't attempted to understand American thinking or the cultural and historical differences, rather you simply judge the hell out of it based on how unlike you we are.

I understand the historical reasons why things developed the way they did, that doesn't mean it has to make sense or justify them though. Especially since most of those reason no longer exist in the contemporary world.

 

But you hear of public shootings in the US all the time, and you don't hear of that anwhere else--I think you guys have actually become desensitized to it to not realize how bad it is.

There was a pretty big shooting in Switzerland a few years back, you'll hear of others from time to time. China has this crazy thing where lunatics run into schools with knifes and start slashing at children. America doesn't have a monopoly on senseless public mass target violence done by crazies. But yeah, it is obviously a problem here. However, saying we are desensitized to it is yet more ignorance on your part. You don't know how we feel about it. All you know is what our shitty over the top news media throws at you about it. Every time one of these shootings happen the next several days are usually pretty gut wrenching for us. You can't escape it, people sorrowfully talk about it where ever you go.

Yes, and in China it's knife attacks. Imagine had that person been in the US, and much guns they would have had? It would have been Aurora but worse. Everyone has crazies and killings. This year, Canada had a psycho that was into mailing body parts to the government. Norway had it's massacre. There are always these things, and Aurora is exceptional even by American standards. But my point is that something like 25 Americans die from gun violence each day. You don't need to have Aurora to see that something is terribly wrong with that. In most western countries the figure is more like 3 or 4, not 25. That's what I meant about desensitization. Mass murders always blow up in the media and people are affected by them--Canadians are very affected by them too. But it's the taken-for-granted everyday gun violence that people don't seem to think about, because it never changes and for most people isn't something on people minds the way Aurora is. There is something terribly, terribly wrong with united states gun crime, and while it's a political issue, unless there is some mass murder thing like Aurora no one is rushing to have conferences and make laws to deal with it. It just kind of goes back and forth and goes no where.

 

 

Why do you think there aren't "anti-Canadian" mentalities widespread across Europe?

Because Canada is a ridiculously low impact country. You guys don't really do anything or get involved in anything or export anything spectacular or noticeable. The important or notable things you do take part in go mostly unnoticed. As far as important players on the figurative Risk board of the world goes, Canada simply doesn't rank very high. During my years living in Europe you never really heard Canada's name mentioned. Once during my travels I mentioned a trip I took to Canada to an acquaintance and they asked me if it was a city or a state.

United State policies effect the world, in good and bad ways. The world gets billions from us in aid annually. Americans branch out all over the world providing benevolence and or stirring up trouble and anything in-between. Our movies, our television, our clothing, our restaurant chains, and our brand names are rammed down the world's throat, and a decent sized percentage of them are thrilled about this. America is extremely high impact. 

I don't have near as many people who hate and can't stand me as Justin Bieber has. I also don't have near as many people who absolutely adore me. I don't have masses of idiots ragging on my every move regardless of what I do, "Damn you Bieber for dating American pop star Salena Gomez!", "Damn you Bieber for dumping American pop star Salena Gomez!". Poor Bieber is doomed to piss people off no matter what he does, regardless of his actions, someone out there who likes him isn't going to like it. I get to dump, be dumped, make horrible or wise decisions with only an extremely small handful of people really caring about it or being impacted by it in any way.

It's not because Bieber is just high impact and the United States is. People are annoyed with Justin Bieber because his music isn't very good and people can tell he's just another manufactured pop star. Plus, he comes across as obnoxious. People have always disliked pop stars and it's basis is because of the music they make, not the fame they have. No one goes around hating on Red Hot Chilli Peppers because for the most part they are respected music makers; not that they don't have critics, but there is no "anti-Chilli Peppers" sentiment anywhere. They aren't quite as in-your-face as Beiber, but they are pretty world famous. The "anti-American" sentiment (again, I use that in quotations) is mainly born out of the policies and mentalities that come from there like gun culture and religious extremism. It's not just irrational, and it's not always unjustified either. You can't say someone is ethno-centric just because they don't like parts of a society, there may be very legitimate reasons to take issue with those parts. Ethno-centricsm would also imply that I am saying this from some official Canadian stand point. I don't like a lot of things about Canada and have some pretty harsh criticisms for it. I don't even believe in nationalism. It's just useful as a contrast. I could easily pick a country in Europe that has some of the same stats and values (most of them, Russia and a few places excepted).

Dude, cannabis is illegal in the vast majority of the US. I have no freaking idea where to get it if I wanted some. Would I just walk up to some sketchy guy on the street and ask him if he has or knows anyone with pot for sale? I have no idea! But I do know that the state I live in has really high pot usage. I smell it while out for walks sometimes, I hear co-workers casually talk about it. It is out there, but I personally have no idea how to obtain it. Mostly because I am disinterested in obtaining it. However, if I wanted some, I am pretty sure I'd be able to find some.

Why would it be any different with guns? If I am the type that would commit armed crimes, I likely know others who are the same types, who are likely to know others, and there has to be a hook up in there someplace not too many degrees away.

Because guns are not cannabis. If I am in a gang, yes, I would know where to get a gun. But a lot of gun violence is not committed by gang members or people who set out to create gun violence, but because they have guns in the first place that violence occurs. If the shooter in Aurora had to go to an arms dealer, would he have? Would he even know where to go? And would he go that out of his way? Or would he have just picked up a knife instead and do what they do in China and cause far less amount of deaths? Cannabis is also tolerated by law enforcement to a certain degree, in fact it will probably be legalized north of the border within the next ten years. You can't compare a college kid smoking a joint to a guy going to an illegal arms dealer, it's two completely different things.

Even though most/many gun violence is caused by gangs and people who set out to cause violence, a lot of gun fatalities are not caused by people in gangs or people who would purchase a weapon on the street (if they even knew how to go about it). If 1 in 4 people own a gun like in the States, you will assuredly get situations where a person is murdered where there wouldn't be a murder had a deadly weapon not been present or accessible. It's just a numbers game.

Of course there is. Just like a country without cars is going to have a crazy low amount of automobile related deaths

I can see you are meaning this sarcastically, but I'm not getting it. That is my point. You don't think gangs in Japan can't get black market guns? They can and they do. But 99% of the population isn't armed, and the gun homicide rate is less than a dozen people in a whole year in some years. In 2007, or some time around then, something like 30 people were murdered by guns in Japan and it became a bit of a national crisis; in the United States there were thousands, I think up to 10,000 that same year. That is what I meant about de-sensitization. That is a crazy, crazy, frightening figure that should be met with a proportional response, but instead it's more or less business as usual. It's not something everything thinks of as a national crisis of apocalyptic proportions, if they think there is a gun problem at all. Even though the United States has a cultural history involving guns (revolution war, etc.) that many countries don't, do you think Japan would have such low gun murder rates if they had the same exact laws in the US, where guns are everywhere and easily accessible? Of course they wouldn't. And that is the point I was making. In Japan it is almost impossible to get a gun, and no one has them, so there is almost no gun crime at all. Gun laws wouldn't solve the problem in the US, but it certainly would save many lives.

This also reminds me why I stay out of politics. The internet is full of Americans and it's perfectly understandable that a lot of them would disagree with me, given the cultural and socio-political norms there. Just trying to provide an outside perspective that a lot of Americans either ignore or don't hear. I don't mean to come off rude, it's just very frustrating to see the health and well-being of people put at risk for reasons that aren't very necessary.

zombie84 said:

I understand the historical reasons why things developed the way they did, that doesn't mean it has to make sense or justify them though. Especially since most of those reason no longer exist in the contemporary world.

You "understand" the historical reasons, but you fail to understand so many other aspects of the "gun culture". bkev touched on a major part of it, they are so saturated in this country, that it would be impossible to remove them all, and now you have an uneven playing field. Those determined to get guns will get them, but what about the rest? There are so many other statistics and variables involved. My whole point was, you are measuring the United State's cultural and our issues with your culture and your issues or lack thereof.

It is easy to say, hey, we don't have guns and we don't have near as many violent gun problems as you do, when you are you and not us. It is not so cut and dry.

I actually agree with much of what you are saying, but you are coming at this from a totally different angle and from a distance.

It's not because Bieber is just high impact and the United States is. People are annoyed with Justin Bieber because his music isn't very good and people can tell he's just another manufactured pop star.

The quality of his music is not the point. You asked why Canada doesn't have near as many haters as America. Canada is the kid on youtube with maybe a hundred views that nobody has heard of (obviously people have heard of Canada, not a perfect analogy, but the fact remains, low impact. Your presence in the world leaves a very miniscule footprint. Don't get me wrong, I love Canada). Maybe Bieber was a bad example, you have plenty of people who hate Elvis, The Beatles, Micheal Jackson, and yes, even the Red Hot Chili Peppers (especially back in the 90's when they were huge and everywhere). They're well known, though not for everybody. High impact. America is massive, loud, and hard to ignore.

Because guns are not cannabis. If I am in a gang, yes, I would know where to get a gun. But a lot of gun violence is not committed by gang members or people who set out to create gun violence, but because they have guns in the first place that violence occurs. If the shooter in Aurora had to go to an arms dealer, would he have? Would he even know where to go? And would he go that out of his way?

With the mass number of guns in this country, I don't think they will ever be very hard to find. At least not for a very, very, very long time. And if someone is sick and determined enough to murder a bunch of children, why wouldn't they go to great lengths to try to find guns? It is all just meaningless speculation, there is no way to know if he would have grabbed a knife and went Chinese psycho on those kids, if he would have gone for any number of other methods, or simply sought out a gun.

You can't compare a college kid smoking a joint to a guy going to an illegal arms dealer, it's two completely different things.

I wasn't comparing a college student smoking a joint to someone buying guns from an illegal arms dealer, and I think you are intelligent enough to realize I wasn't making that comparison. The point was, people sell contraband, and those who want it find out how to get it. 

Of course there is. Just like a country without cars is going to have a crazy low amount of automobile related deaths

I can see you are meaning this sarcastically, but I'm not getting it.

I didn't mean it sarcastically, I was agreeing with you. Introduce anything lethal into a culture, and you'll get deaths from it. The more of it you have, the higher number of deaths you can expect. Cause and effect. So it goes.

The world could do without guns, I'm not disagreeing with you. Too bad it isn't as simple for us as it is in Canada.

This is getting a lot more involved than I have time for. I had a simple point, and I feel like I made it.

TV's Frink said:

I don't agree with a lot of what zombie said in this thread previously, but that's an excellent post.  We do have an obsession with guns in this country, and it's a very dangerous and stupid obsession.

Quoted for truth. 

Too bad no one probably know what that post was anymore.

CP3S said:

With the mass number of guns in this country, I don't think they will ever be very hard to find. At least not for a very, very, very long time.

I agree, I don't want to drag this out, so I'm going to focus on this very specific point, specifically the last part.

You are probably right, because guns are such an ingrained part of US culture, even if they were illegal most people would know where to get them if they were intent on it. Marijuana is illegal in Canada but so many people use it--hell, my 60 year old dad uses it--that if you ask your friends, you will be able to buy it in not a very long time, even if your friends are near-seniors like my dear ol' dad. So, banning guns or being tough on guns wouldn't have a serious effect overnight. But, over time, it would diminish. If it was illegal, there would increasingly be a stigma, because it would be less common. The crime rate would probably go down, because there would be less non-gang-related deaths, but for criminals intent on using guns, and ordinary citizens who just really, really want to have one, it wouldn't affect them much at first. But if gun ownership was harder to get around, I feel that 50% of the current gun-owning population wouldn't be bothered to go through with it. Lots of people would buy illegal, but most wouldn't. And, over time, that would diminish the obsession with guns. People just wouldn't see a need for it. It's not like prohibition or other substance laws, because people often "use" (drink) on a daily or regular basis, but most people use their guns fairly rarely (most, remember), and some almost never. So, they would discover that their lives aren't impacted. It's a baby step towards slowly dissolving the national obsession with guns, and even though crime may spike at first due to proliferation of arms dealers, actual violent, gun-related fatalities would slowly diminish over time. It would gradually normalize the United States to the same usage stats as the rest of the world and the same fatality stats that follow. But slowly, over years and years, because there is a lot of work to do.

I think that is the point I am trying to make. Not only would it save immediate lives from non-criminal fatalities, from everything from accidental discharges which cause hundreds of deaths a year to the jealous husband with a revolver in the bedroom closet, it would slowly create a mentality that doesn't value or see the need for guns, the way most the rest of the western world is, which also drives the crime rate down like it does in most other countries. There will always be guns and crime in every society in our lifetime, but since the United States isn't a nation overrun with criminals it is the widespread ownership and fetishization of weaponry that plays a major, if not central, role in the massive, massive disproportiate gun crime there. Other countries have similar population, but no one has anything close to the same numbers of gun owners and gun victims per capita. When you remove the ease of access to guns from the equation, you will still have both, but over time they will diminish. It's easy to say "you don't know that would happen," but it's not like the US is just a little more of a widespread gun ownership society per capita than everyone else--it's more like a marathon sprinter racing against a guy in crutches, they are that far apart from everyone else in the western world (and many in the non-west). It's no surprise that in almost every single country in the west, almost no one owns guns and almost no one ends up on the receiving end of one. I guess that's my point. Maybe I am wrong, it just seems like too big of a fact to ignore.

^Smart man