Comments by "Cinderball" (@cinderball1135) on "How Can We Actually Reduce Gun Deaths?" video.

In Britain, we don't have widespread gun ownership. We also don't have widespread mass shootings. I may be a simpleton, but I think I see a connection there.
11
You can have a serious discussion about serious social problems which may help reduce the overall levels of violence - yes - but in the meantime, what's so bad about keeping automatic weapons out of the hands of mentally unstable individuals and criminals? And lest we forget, guns are not your garden-variety "inanimate object" like an apple, a twig or a house. These are machines built to kill, designed with efficiency and ease-of-use in mind.
5
And yes, before I'm deluged in angry replies, here's a more in-depth, nuanced and respectful summary of my views: America seems unique in the world in that it has become almost religiously, dogmatically wedded to its guns - the more lethal the better. Other countries have guns too (Switzerland and Sweden for example) and they are even quite well-entrenched in those cultures - but Europeans have a different attitude towards their guns than Americans seem to. For example, in Switzerland, the people who own guns are almost exclusively reservists for the military, have been thoroughly trained, and own them as a part of their national service obligation. They don't own them with a view to personal defence. There are two main driving factors in America that seem different than anywhere else in the world: you have an arms race afoot between local law enforcement and organised crime, and you have the NRA. Both are considerable problems, and require liberal solutions. The arms race between criminals and police will only end when police stop acquiring bulk shipments of military-grade castoffs. There is absolutely no need for neighbourhood police forces to be armed and trained like Seal Team 6, and it leads to them attacking problems with wildly excessive use of force. And because the police are heavily armed goons, criminals feel obligated to match them. And, because there are both criminals and police running around armed to the teeth, homeowners (especially ethnic minorities) are driven to panic, and so they start buying the deadliest gear that they can get their hands on, to protect themselves against the first two groups. Meanwhile, the NRA works its butt off to aggressively market the most lethal weaponry on the market, and to mobilise its not-inconsiderable following against any steps that might deescalate this extremely profitable arms race. After all, who wins in a game where everybody is heavily armed for no clear reason? Why, the people selling the guns, of course. And who does the NRA really work for? The people selling the guns. Sorry for the essay, but this is an important topic, and I know it's going to generate a lot of buzz.
5
@iang7244 [Insert reasonable observation that it's a lot harder to massacre people with knives than it is with guns] [anticipate even greater backlash]
4
It never ceases to amaze me how little humour conservatives bring to these conversations. They point and jeer "hahaha, you stupid liberals", but I never actually see the joke? It's as though you just laugh at.... well... nothing in particular, in the hopes that somebody else might join in? Perhaps I need to be wearing red-tinted goggles to make the comedic subtitles appear. Or perhaps several pints of whisky.
3
@aaliadoesanarchy6277 In what way is that a consistent anti-Russia policy? Most of those actions weren't undertaken by Trump directly, and he didn't have an awful lot of say in them either way. Many are simply continuations of Obama-era policies, in fact. When Trump HAS had a direct say, he's always moved in Russia's favour.
2
@aaliadoesanarchy6277 So even a stalwart defender of Trump is going to have to fall back on the idea that he's untruthful, and that's okay? Riiiiiight. Anyway, your facts are suspect, and David has addressed this issue in the past, back when it first came up. I don't see him wanting to debate somebody like you, because, no offence, this is a Republican talking point that we're all quite familiar with by now, and isn't really pertinent to the conversation at hand.
2
@aaliadoesanarchy6277 In what way does fighting to lift the sanctions Congress placed on the Russians qualify as an "anti-Russia" policy, Mr Rational Voice?
1
@jpoeng ... Are you feeling okay? For the record, I'm not even American, so I don't know what gives you the idea that the mid-term Blue Wave was "mine". I'm not antagonising anybody - I'm stating a fairly moderate position which extremists like yourself seem determined to find fault with. Happily for me, you see, I live far outside America, in a country where average citizens having access to military grade hardware isn't the norm.
1
A tool whose express purpose is... well... killing people, yes? @bravecaucasian
1
I'm fairly sure they don't use LMGs, ARs and sniper rifles at the Olympics. @YodaMan-420
1
@YodaMan-420 I'm not going to play your twisted mind-games. Go ahead, think yourself superior, but your high and mighty conservative attitude isn't going to convert anybody - it's always wise to have a little humility, in case you ever find yourself in the unfortunate position of having to be corrected. If you want people like me to take you seriously, start actually listening to what we say, instead of pasting in what you wish we'd said.
1
The only obvious truth staring me in the face is that talking with you was a complete waste of my time. Good night. :) @YodaMan-420
1
It entertains me to see completely uninformed American gun-rights activists trying to tell me how my own country works. You numpties don't seem to understand that we didn't have widespread gun ownership before gun control laws came into effect because unlike you we never had an NRA to fuel the craze.
1
Who said those periods were the critical part of the conversation, and on what grounds? You haven't in ANY way addressed my fundamental point: we just don't have that crazy amount of guns in the UK. @alexanderwinn2896
1
@alexanderwinn2896 Cherrypicked example. New York was suffering a wave of gang violence at the time. Lower levels of gun ownership is why the UK has lower rates of gun homicides, end of discussion. It really is that simple. Before I sign off, can we just stop and take a moment to recognise the fact that there is a disconnect between having loose gun laws and having a lot of guns? You keep falling back on this "but Britain had looser laws!" talking point, but even assuming it's true, I don't think it actually proves your point at all. Back in the early 1900s, guns just weren't available to most people, so it didn't matter if the laws were loose. Today, due to economies of scale and the progress of modern industrial technology, they're cheap and easy to make, so without laws to prevent it, they could be mass produced and sold to consumers at very affordable prices.
1
The problem you seem to be unable to grapple with, @alexanderwinn2896 , is that merely having looser laws doesn't magically materialise more guns into the equation - and that you can have illegal guns in a tightly regulated system. Conservatives and gun advocates both struggle with this concept: that laws must be enforced in order for them to have meaning. If we ruled that it is illegal for red stop lights to be red, that wouldn't mean that, overnight, all the traffic lights were changed. You'd have to budget it to allow for local authorities to send engineers, collect up the traffic lights, and alter them to meet the new specifications. Merely writing a law doesn't make things happen - and the absence of a law doesn't mean something becomes inevitable. Confused? Let me leave you with a simple, unarguable point: Guns are not widespread in Britain. They are widespread in America. British people are not naturally more or less violent than Americans, but they commit far fewer gun homicides.
1
@alexanderwinn2896 (a) - There is a difference between a long gun and an automatic assault weapon. (b) - You KEEP sticking to this idea that the tightness / looseness of gun laws is the only factor in play. It is not. A law is simply a means to an end - that end, in this case, being to prevent gun violence. With the state of affairs in America as they are, passing a law banning guns would help nobody. Other means would be far more effective - such as a national gun buy-back program, awareness and training programs, background checks into somebody's criminal records and mental health history before allowing purchase of a gun - prosecuting and dismissing sheriffs who refuse to enforce existing gun laws.
1
@alexanderwinn2896 I think your lack of evidence for the actual number of firearms in the UK prior to registration doesn't really help your case, any more than it helps mine - so I'm not sure how it helps you to raise it. I can tell you, as a matter of fact, that guns aren't owned by most British people, and you will be seen as a very particular kind of freakshow if you do (and aren't a farmer).
1
 @galenofpergamon1144 Actually, it seems to me that people like you are the ones we need defending from.
1
@galenofpergamon1144 No, I think I'm going to stick to my reframing. It's people like you who are frighteningly well armed, and always pivot back to talking about how good you are at fighting, and how ready you are to do so. From some of you, I'm sure, that's nothing but windbaggery and hot air - but there's one or two who are for real. And one or two is enough to cause the next daily mass shooting. It's not fearmongering to point out when you are literally threatening to kill us where we stand.
1
@galenofpergamon1144 If you think you'd stand a chance against an authoritarian government because you happen to own a semi-automatic weapon, you're sadly deluded. The best defence against authoritarianism is civil and liberal discourse.
1
I think I already addressed that nugget about Switzerland in one of my prior comments: @alexanderwinn2896 - the people who own guns in Switzerland aren't private owners at all - they're military reservists, and highly trained ones at that. Furthermore, they are required to subject themselves to regular inspections and training programs that gun owners in America would balk at. So no, that talking point doesn't work for you.
1
Again with this "looser laws" talking point. How many times must we go through this? The law being lax doesn't magic guns into existence. @alexanderwinn2896 If you're going to keep dogmatically quoting the same flimsy talking points (and then hastily declaring victory before I can reply), then I'm done with this conversation. You're wasting my time.
1
Yeeeeees, now go back and read my other two posts on why Switzerland is an unusual case, and not reflective of the overall international trend (more guns = more guns used in homicides). @alexanderwinn2896
1
It's not a weasel term. @alexanderwinn2896 It's a highly specific term. The thing is that guns are much easier to kill with than any other weapon, and offer the victim a much lower chance of survival. For the record, a weasel word is when somebody creates the illusion of having a wide range of sources by saying things like "most people think" or "experts believe" without sourcing any identifiable, falsifiable information. Your accusation is groundless and frankly silly in the context. Now, let's make no mistake, America's overall level of homicide is on par with third world countries - it is unmatched anywhere else in the developed world. This is not a hill you want to stake your flag on.
1
Thank you - yes - the war on drugs is a major contributing factor, and yes, America's underdevelopment in various other departments also contributes to the rise of gun violence. @alexanderwinn2896 However, as I said in my second post, I don't solely see the widespread proliferation of guns as the cause of gun homicide, but rather, my position is that it wouldn't hurt to institute stricter background checks and voluntary gun buy-backs, as part of a series of other reforms aimed at bringing down the crime rate - things like relaxing restrictions on certain drugs, treating addicts as a medical problem, ending the schools-to-prison pipeline etc.
1