By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Shooting at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas (19 Students, 2 Teachers Dead)

ConservagameR on 09 June 2022
Cobretti2 said:
ConservagameR said:

"After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Ukraine held about one third of the Soviet nuclear arsenal, the third largest in the world at the time, as well as significant means of its design and production.[2] 130 UR-100N intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) with six warheads each, 46 RT-23 Molodets ICBMs with ten warheads apiece, as well as 33 heavy bombers, totaling approximately 1,700 warheads remained on Ukrainian territory.[3] Formally, these weapons were controlled by the Commonwealth of Independent States.[4] In 1994, Ukraine agreed to destroy the weapons, and to join the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)."

Ukraine and weapons of mass destruction - Wikipedia

So the country who's made a terrible decision, who shouldn't have all the weapons because they're unnecessary, should give a bunch to Ukraine to help, but the country who had the means to defend themselves, gave up those means, which made them virtuous and civilized and was the right decision?

If Ukraine had nuclear weapons still, Russia would have sent a bigger force. Those nukes would have been in Russia's hands by now as Ukraine would never of used them t begin with. Dropping a nuke would have world level implications and they not insane enough to do it. So i the end it was the right decision.

That's not the point. Why does Russia and the USA have nukes then? Would they use them? The media seems to think people like Putin are crazy enough to do anything, yet even he never does anything that crazy. The nukes are mostly a deterrent and a push for negotiation. 

The bigger picture is the military and citizenry capability. When your nation doesn't see defense as a priority, this is the kind of thing that can happen. It's part of the reason why no nation would dare try to make landfall on American soil. Even if you gave the American military a run for it's money, you'd have tens to a hundred million armed Americans to deal with. It's just not worth the attempt. Yet if you wanted to invade Ukraine, what's stopping you really?



Around the Network
Pemalite on 09 June 2022
ConservagameR said:
Pemalite said:



Good way to reduce gun numbers too?

"After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Ukraine held about one third of the Soviet nuclear arsenal, the third largest in the world at the time, as well as significant means of its design and production.[2] 130 UR-100N intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) with six warheads each, 46 RT-23 Molodets ICBMs with ten warheads apiece, as well as 33 heavy bombers, totaling approximately 1,700 warheads remained on Ukrainian territory.[3] Formally, these weapons were controlled by the Commonwealth of Independent States.[4] In 1994, Ukraine agreed to destroy the weapons, and to join the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)."

Ukraine and weapons of mass destruction - Wikipedia

So the country who's made a terrible decision, who shouldn't have all the weapons because they're unnecessary, should give a bunch to Ukraine to help, but the country who had the means to defend themselves, gave up those means, which made them virtuous and civilized and was the right decision?

Having a lack of Nuclear Weapons doesn't mean you will be invaded.
Australia has never been invaded since it federated in 1901.
There are probably dozens of countries without Nuclear weapons that have never been invaded.

And on the flip-side, having Nuclear weapons doesn't mean you won't be invaded... The invasion of Iraq was based on the idea that the nation had weapons of mass destruction.

Argentina attacked Britain in the Falklands war.

Israel is another... India, Pakistan and China engage in various skirmishes.

So essentially... Having a big stick means absolutely nothing.




--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Cobretti2 on 09 June 2022
ConservagameR said:
Cobretti2 said:

If Ukraine had nuclear weapons still, Russia would have sent a bigger force. Those nukes would have been in Russia's hands by now as Ukraine would never of used them t begin with. Dropping a nuke would have world level implications and they not insane enough to do it. So i the end it was the right decision.

That's not the point. Why does Russia and the USA have nukes then? Would they use them? The media seems to think people like Putin are crazy enough to do anything, yet even he never does anything that crazy. The nukes are mostly a deterrent and a push for negotiation. 

The bigger picture is the military and citizenry capability. When your nation doesn't see defense as a priority, this is the kind of thing that can happen. It's part of the reason why no nation would dare try to make landfall on American soil. Even if you gave the American military a run for it's money, you'd have tens to a hundred million armed Americans to deal with. It's just not worth the attempt. Yet if you wanted to invade Ukraine, what's stopping you really?

Paranoia and ego. They should follow the rest of the world and get rid of them. There isno need for weapons that can destroy the whole world in minutes.



 

 

ConservagameR on 09 June 2022
Pemalite said:
ConservagameR said:

"After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Ukraine held about one third of the Soviet nuclear arsenal, the third largest in the world at the time, as well as significant means of its design and production.[2] 130 UR-100N intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) with six warheads each, 46 RT-23 Molodets ICBMs with ten warheads apiece, as well as 33 heavy bombers, totaling approximately 1,700 warheads remained on Ukrainian territory.[3] Formally, these weapons were controlled by the Commonwealth of Independent States.[4] In 1994, Ukraine agreed to destroy the weapons, and to join the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)."

Ukraine and weapons of mass destruction - Wikipedia

So the country who's made a terrible decision, who shouldn't have all the weapons because they're unnecessary, should give a bunch to Ukraine to help, but the country who had the means to defend themselves, gave up those means, which made them virtuous and civilized and was the right decision?

Having a lack of Nuclear Weapons doesn't mean you will be invaded.
Australia has never been invaded since it federated in 1901.
There are probably dozens of countries without Nuclear weapons that have never been invaded.

And on the flip-side, having Nuclear weapons doesn't mean you won't be invaded... The invasion of Iraq was based on the idea that the nation had weapons of mass destruction.

Argentina attacked Britain in the Falklands war.

Israel is another... India, Pakistan and China engage in various skirmishes.

So essentially... Having a big stick means absolutely nothing.

Having a lack of guns doesn't mean you won't have school shootings, mass killings, or reduced crime.

Many hadn't been invaded, until they were. How many nations have been chomping at the bit to take a shot at Australia?

Canada hasn't had nukes since the 1980's, but that doesn't mean jack because the US is right next door.

In which case, oddly enough, Iraq didn't have any nukes, at all. None. Not a trace.

I wonder if Iraq really did have WMD's, would Bush have pulled the trigger and invaded? Why isn't Ukraine flooded with US soldiers right now?

School shootings never used to happen, and now they do.

Canada also has a fair amount of guns, yet school shootings isn't a problem.

So owning guns means absolutely nothing I guess.

I also pointed out to Cobretti prior, that the point isn't nukes. It's the mindset of not caring enough about defense.

It's not like the USA goes a little overboard, while Ukraine, right next to Russia, clearly doesn't do enough to protect itself.

Everyone has to make their decisions and live with the inevitable downsides. The hope is that the upside far far outweighs those downsides, whatever they may be.



ConservagameR on 09 June 2022
Cobretti2 said:
ConservagameR said:

That's not the point. Why does Russia and the USA have nukes then? Would they use them? The media seems to think people like Putin are crazy enough to do anything, yet even he never does anything that crazy. The nukes are mostly a deterrent and a push for negotiation. 

The bigger picture is the military and citizenry capability. When your nation doesn't see defense as a priority, this is the kind of thing that can happen. It's part of the reason why no nation would dare try to make landfall on American soil. Even if you gave the American military a run for it's money, you'd have tens to a hundred million armed Americans to deal with. It's just not worth the attempt. Yet if you wanted to invade Ukraine, what's stopping you really?

Paranoia and ego. They should follow the rest of the world and get rid of them. There isno need for weapons that can destroy the whole world in minutes.

Well it's not like they're exactly cheap to make or maintain, so why wouldn't they all have tossed them in this world of efficiency?

Maybe they're not that useless. Isn't Iran and NK still doing their damnedest to make themselves a nuclear arsenal? Why?



Around the Network
sundin13 on 09 June 2022

What the hell does this nuke talk have to do with school shootings? What argument is actually being made here about guns/shootings?



Cobretti2 on 09 June 2022
sundin13 said:

What the hell does this nuke talk have to do with school shootings? What argument is actually being made here about guns/shootings?

i think he is trying to say people who have the bigger guns don't get fucked with, people who have no guns get fucked. Which I think connects to his earlier posts, he wants more guns in schools to deter people from doing school shootings.



 

 

Barozi on 10 June 2022
Hiku said:

sc94597 said:

There is estimated to be about 400-600 million guns in the U.S. The majority of them are probably semi-automatic weapons at this point. That is a gun to person ratio of between 1.2 and 1.8. 

Controlling the supply of guns is just not logistically possible at this point. 

It would be easier to: 

  1. Work on reducing wealth-inequality and eliminate homelessness and poverty. 
  2. Pay to have a school psychiatrist evaluate every student and have free-at-the-point of use mental healthcare for everyone in primary and secondary school (at least, ideally for everyone.) 
  3. Reconstruct social clubs that allow people to form physical connections beyond their family and in which a person is more likely to be de-radicalized or re-adjusted to society. Historically local churches did this, but the U.S population is secularizing. Right now the problem is that young people in the U.S experience what Durkheim called Anomie. This is either because rules are too rigid and alienate them or because there is no normative structure at all. 
  4. Reconstruct the education systems so that students don't feel alienated. See: Ferrer movement and Francisco Ferrer as an ideal model. 
  5. Decriminalize all drugs and other non-violent "crimes." 
  6. Aggressively dox and put maximal social pressure on fascists and other hyper-nationalists. 
  7. #6 but for Incels and other radical misogynists. 

Introducing every point on this list would be easier (and likely have a greater effect on shootings) than reducing the supply of guns in the U.S. Solving these problems would also solve many other social problems in the U.S as well. 

I just want to point out that this is very unlikely to be inherently tied to just the amount of guns in USA.
Because if we compare USA's 1.2 gun ratio to any other developed nation, let's say England's 0.46 ratio, you'll quickly see that this isn't even comparable by statistics. It's just not a frequent problem elsewhere.

(FYI, the image is showing school shootings between 2009 - 2018)
School shootings in the US compared with the rest of the world - CNN

There is obviously a correlation between more guns and more gun deaths.
But the main difference between USA and many other developed nations on this list to me is gun accessibility and gun culture.

It's not just a coincidence that so many Americans decide to take to guns when they want to hurt people. Or that so few do that in countries where there are many guns in circulation, but the guns are also primarily out of sight, out of mind.

In USA, guns are very normalized. They're brought into the mainstream, and people consider them a right. They're taught how important they were hundreds of years ago when the 2nd amendment was written, but the most powerful guns at the time were muskets that required 20 seconds to reload each bullet.

The 2nd amendment did not foresee the kind of powerful weapons we have today. But I digress.

As an outsider, I was stunned at seeing literal war/army commercials during Superbowl, looking like Call of Duty trailers.

Because I've lived in countries where I've never even seen a gun, they not only don't come to mind when I get pissed, but I wouldn't even know how or where to get one.
The gun used in the Sandy Hook massacre costs 32 000 on the Australian black market. It costs a measly 200 USD with home delivery shipping straight to your door in the US.

The difference here is already apparent.
If they don't have 32K, that can deter a would-be shooter. And even if they do have that amount of money, they risk getting set up by a cop pretending to be a black market arms dealer, etc. Because that is part of the process of getting rid of guns, which I'll get into below.

Other countries have figured out gun accessibility.

I don't imagine this shooter would have been able to obtain the two AR-15's he purchased legally from Daniel Defense, if they used Japan's system for example.
(And not to go off on a tangent, but no one needs an AR-15 for defense.)

"Friends and relatives have said that Ramos was bullied, cut his own face, fired a BB gun at random people and egged cars in the years leading up to the deadly attack."


Regarding getting rid of guns in the country, it would be a long process, and no country is fully free from them. But the first step would be sensible gun laws.
Which politicians constantly refuse to enact, because gun lobbyists pay them millions.

Ban the more dangerous weapons (unless you need them for hunting or something and can prove it, etc), which will relegate them to the black market, which absolutely can deter would-be shooters.


Now when it comes to cars/knives etc, I'll take my chances against a car or a knife any day over a gun, outside of some very specific scenarios.
And if you want to murder a specific group of people, such as classmates, it's all the more difficult to accomplish the same results with a car or a knife.

I know it's kind of an old post and might have been addressed already (I'm just scrolling through the thread and haven't read all the posts) but you got the gun ratio wrong.

US is 1.2 according to your source, while England is 0.046 instead of 0.46. That's quite a difference.

However you could just use Canada to demonstrate your point.



Chrkeller on 10 June 2022

Another mass shooting last night. I think that is the 7th since this thread started.. and people think we don't have an gun access problem.



Pemalite on 10 June 2022
ConservagameR said:

Having a lack of guns doesn't mean you won't have school shootings, mass killings, or reduced crime.

No one claims it will stop any of it. But it will reduce it, that is the evidence we have thus far.
Reducing all crime is obviously a rubbish argument. That would be like saying... Unless we can get rid of -all- drugs, we shouldn't have drug laws at all.. Lets just flood the market with more crack/cocaine.. Lets push them into schools too while we are at it.

Japan for example, has strict gun control and have very minimal gun violence.
https://www.nippon.com/en/features/h00178/

Australia is the shining example of where strict gun control had a very positive effect, we haven't had a school shooting since we enacted it.
https://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9212725/australia-buyback

ConservagameR said:

Many hadn't been invaded, until they were. How many nations have been chomping at the bit to take a shot at Australia?

Australia logistically cannot be invaded, it's why the Japanese never managed to do it... And then the USA eventually entered the war.

The continent is just far too inhospitable and vast.

ConservagameR said:

Canada hasn't had nukes since the 1980's, but that doesn't mean jack because the US is right next door.

Pakistan and India both have nuclear weapons and often engage in skirmishes with each other.

Having the biggest stick means stuff all.
But if you removed those sticks, then the damage they can do to each other gets lessened.

ConservagameR said:

I wonder if Iraq really did have WMD's, would Bush have pulled the trigger and invaded? Why isn't Ukraine flooded with US soldiers right now?

You can question it all you want, but the public campaign for that war was based around weapons of mass destruction.

Why isn't Ukraine flooded with US soldiers? It's getting allot of financial and material support from the entire planet, people (Americans included) are also heading over there to volunteer in the war effort, my name was put down in order to assist in fire and rescue as I am one of a handful of USAR technicians in Australia if the need arose.

I guess the general consensus is to prepare and support the NATO countries in the region first and then judge the sentiment of the people, I don't think people really wish to invest in another war if they can avoid it.

Russia is essentially a rogue state on the world stage now, they could use a Nuke for any number of reasons, just the sanctions would be enough if they felt the need.

ConservagameR said:

I also pointed out to Cobretti prior, that the point isn't nukes. It's the mindset of not caring enough about defense.

It's not like the USA goes a little overboard, while Ukraine, right next to Russia, clearly doesn't do enough to protect itself.

Ukraine most certainly did care about defense, they had conscription... And they proposed to increase their military force massively.
They even set-up volunteer units at one point, but later absorbed them into the military itself.

The fact is, Ukraine anticipated an incursion by Russia for decades, Russia has multiples larger population and military force.
But what Ukraine was doing was building "ties" to European and International countries and organizations, to build those bilateral relationships... And eventually join the EU or NATO or both, mutual defense.
But before that, they were selling Enriched Uranium to the USA.


ConservagameR said:

Everyone has to make their decisions and live with the inevitable downsides. The hope is that the upside far far outweighs those downsides, whatever they may be.

Life comes first. Everything else is absolutely secondary to that goal.

Cobretti2 said:

i think he is trying to say people who have the bigger guns don't get fucked with, people who have no guns get fucked. Which I think connects to his earlier posts, he wants more guns in schools to deter people from doing school shootings.

How many times in the USA has a child managed to get a hold of a gun from their parents because it wasn't secured appropriately or just hidden under a pillow and killed themselves?
According to this, that's almost 1,300 children under the age of 18 that have accidentally killed themselves or another kid.

https://www.nationwidechildrens.org/research/areas-of-research/center-for-injury-research-and-policy/injury-topics/general/gun-safety

The answer shouldn't be to push more guns around Children for more of these accidents to occur, we should have less guns around children, less guns in society.

Ideally you would like to reach a point where a kid never has to see violence, death or guns... Like in Australia.

Because I am intimately familiar on what dealing with dead people can do to people, even to kids, they shouldn't be exposed to any of it, period.

Chrkeller said:

Another mass shooting last night. I think that is the 7th since this thread started.. and people think we don't have an gun access problem.

It's also a large cultural issue, the right to bear arms seems to be more important than the lives of children, absolutely backwards.

Last edited by Pemalite - on 10 June 2022

--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--