7 ms·

I really doubt you will leave, at least for this particular reason. Maybe you'll find a job elsewhere, or find another good reason, but I think you understand i

• GuiA 9y ago
  When I was living in Oakland, I had a European friend stay over while he was interviewing with tech companies. Around 3am, 2 guys coming out of a club and arguing about drugs or something shot at each other, resulting in one of them dying literally on my front step, and the other being apprehended by the police a few blocks away. This was in downtown Oakland btw, not in one of the risky neighborhoods. We had come back from a smoke break shortly before. My friend, pretty traumatized, did not accept any job offers. This is obviously a personal anecdote, and a pretty extreme one, but just to show you that these things do have an impact.
  • GiorgioG 9y ago
    It’s interesting that the focus is on the gun and not the situation: club, drugs, (alcohol?) In most states it’s illegal to carry a gun and drink, etc. Chances are the gun was acquired illegally, possessed illegally,etc. How do more gun control laws help here? Maybe your European friend forgot what happened in Paris a couple of years ago in a country with strict gun control laws. Gun control laws provide a false sense of security. Since you can’t put the genie back in the bottle, no gun control laws will achieve “gun safety” that people seek.
    • yongjik 9y ago
      > Chances are the gun was acquired illegally, possessed illegally,etc. How do more gun control laws help here? You can't illegally acquire guns when there are no guns to acquire. There's a reason why muggers in Paris or Tokyo don't shoot people, and the reason is not because they are nice muggers. And "you can't put the genie back in the bottle" is kind of the opposite of "gun control laws are slippery slope toward total dictatorship" (which a lot of people seem to believe). You cannot claim both at the same time.
      • GiorgioG 9y ago
        You cannot possibly believe that you can confiscate all the guns in the US. So what magic wand do you have to make them disappear?
        • yongjik 9y ago
          Why do malls have security cameras when they cannot catch all thieves? Why have a border control when you cannot catch everyone crossing it? If America gets rid of one million guns, that's one million less guns criminals can illegally obtain. This is not an all-or-nothing game. I'm sure even Japan has a few illegal guns hidden somewhere.
          • GiorgioG 9y ago
            How’s that working out for cities that have ineffective (but hey they feel good ‘cause we gotta do something!) gun buyback programs like Chicago (with super-strict gun control laws to boot)?
            • GiorgioG 9y ago
              Stop being lazy and post some logical reasons for the downvotes
          • gw 9y ago
            Your comments belie a pretty strong ignorance of American gun culture. This isn't a numbers game; there is a large portion of the population that would not comply with a confiscation program, and would resist using (you guessed it) firearms. Many of the strongest supporters of the second amendment are in the military and police. It boggles my mind that the same people who denounce involving our military in middle eastern quagmires, would propose igniting such a civil war domestically.
            • yongjik 9y ago
              This is a numbers game, and a long-term game. I'm sure there are Americans who would rather shoot a police officer than give up their guns, but I believe their numbers are dwindling. Societies change. After all, gay marriage or a black president was unthinkable only a few decades ago. Personally, I kinda see the point of having guns if you live in the middle of nowhere eighty miles from the nearest police station. So I'd say, let them keep their guns. No reason to give them more political ammunition. For the majority of Americans (by population, not area), guns make much less sense. If American cities are infested with shootings, it's not because gun control doesn't work. It's because the American government is bought out by NRA lobbyists so they don't try hard enough. It has proven be a tough battle for Americans to coerce the government into action. But, hey, nobody said fighting your government would be easy, did they?
    • jdietrich 9y ago
      In the UK, handguns are so difficult to get hold of that organised criminals often resort to using modified flare guns or antique duelling pistols. Suffice it so say that these are not particularly deadly or reliable weapons. There are about 50 firearm murders per year in the UK. We haven't had a single mass shooting incident since 2010. When taken seriously, gun control works. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/after-shooting-tragedies-britain-went-after-guns/2013/01/31/b94d20c0-6a15-11e2-9a0b-db931670f35d_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/after-shooting-t...
      • refurb 9y ago
        The U.K. never had a serious firearms problem, at least not on the scale the US does. I think there are a lot more factors at play then gun control. For example, single shot rifles and shotguns are legal in the UK. Yet rarely used. Why is that?
        • GiorgioG 9y ago
          I think one of the problems here is how the issue is framed to begin with. Do we have a serious firearms problem or do we have a suicide problem? Two of my cousins have committed suicide by self-inflicted gunshot wound (one was an extremely successful doctor and the other an auto-factory worker.) Two-thirds of gun deaths in the US are from suicide. Bet you most of you gun-fearing folks didn't know that. "In terms of race and ethnicity, Kaplan said that 77 percent of white gun deaths in the U.S. are suicides, while less than 1 in 5 (19 percent) is a homicide. The figures are nearly opposite for African Americans, for which only 14 percent are suicides." http://luskin.ucla.edu/connection-poverty-inequality-firearm-violence/ http://luskin.ucla.edu/connection-poverty-inequality-firearm... Instead of a firearms problem, maybe we have a suicide (mental health?) problem and a poverty/inequality problem. Or maybe we have a media problem - neither the left, nor the right's propaganda machines seem interested in the real issues.
          • jdietrich 9y ago
            Suicide attempts are predominantly impulsive acts that are rarely repeated, so controlling the means of suicide is an essential component in suicide prevention. Most people who attempt suicide go from intent to action within a matter of hours, with no significant forward planning. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165032714005333 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165032714... Women are far more likely to attempt suicide, but men are far more likely to die by suicide. This disparity is explained predominantly by the choice of means - women tend to choose less effective means like poisoning and wrist-cutting, whereas men tend to choose more effective means like hanging and shooting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_differences_in_suicide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_differences_in_suicide Here in the UK, acetaminophen poisoning is one of the primary means of suicide. We restricted the sale of acetaminophen to a maximum of 32 tablets in pharmacies and 16 tablets in general retailers. This led to a 43% reduction in deaths due to acetaminophen poisoning, with no commensurate increase in suicide attempts due to other means. http://www.bmj.com/CONTENT/346/BMJ.F403 http://www.bmj.com/CONTENT/346/BMJ.F403 If you're serious about suicide prevention then gun control is a vital part of the response, alongside other measures to restrict access to means of suicide and improve access to crisis care.
    • Broken_Hippo 9y ago
      "It’s interesting that the focus is on the gun and not the situation: club, drugs, (alcohol?)" And a gun. A gun is really an important part of this, and the bit that we can have some control over, and a gun is the thing that makes this situation different in the US rather than UK or Australia. It isn't like we are going to get rid of drinking locations. If they weren't happening in public, they'd happen at people's houses. Same with alcohol - we've tried it. I won't speculate on possible drugs since we aren't quite sure about that bit, but it is unlikely we'll get rid of these things either. Without the gun, the weapons likely wouldn't have been so deadly especially if the person doesn't have proper training and control. Most likely, the weapons would be things like knives or broken bottles. Not saying they aren't deadly, just that they take a bit more work and might have more chance to live. Now I'll assume the weapon was illegal. Hey, it happens even in place with tough laws. If they are put in place correctly (see Australia, who had a similar gun culture to the US for an example), fewer people have guns. Illegal guns are harder to come by because of that. Between scarcity and increased risk in selling, prices will likely go up and the end result is that fewer criminals actually have guns because fewer criminals can afford them. Especially possible low-level drug dealers.
      • dewyatt 9y ago
        Personally I'd rather be shot and killed than be stabbed in the face repeatedly with a broken bottle (and potentially live). To each his own, though.
  • junkscience2017 9y ago
    dude...Oakland at 3am. despite all of the press Oakland is getting as this new Bohemian paradise for SF exiles, it is still...Oakland...and will remain so for years to come if not forever
• evgen 9y ago
  I am not sure which NRA pamphlet you have been getting your history lessons from, but the 2A was not about state tyranny but the poverty of the state governments post-revolution.
  • PoliteOutcast 9y ago
    I’m not sure which Shareblue pamphlet you have been getting your history lessons from, but the 2A was absolutely about state tyranny.
    • evgen 9y ago
      Sorry random throwaway account, but you are incorrect. After the revolution, during the Articles of the Confederation era (1780s), the national defense devolved to various state militias and this was continued into the early 19th century. Thus we see all of the various references in section 8 enumerated powers to calling up, paying, and directing the state militias when necessary but a key point was that training of the militias was a reserved state power. Unfortunately, the states were poor. Very, very poor. Providing a few cannon was within their power but not providing each and every rifle of these militias. The states argued, successfully, that if the militia members had the right to maintain their arms at home the burden of providing such would fall to the militia members and not the states. Training and practices of such militias was the 'well regulated' part of that amendment, btw. It was not a rhetorical flourish that existed nowhere else in the document but was in fact a key part of the amendment as understood at the time. The 2A is a way to enable the states to push the burden of providing a rifle (a useful tool most of them would have already) onto the citizens and avoid the creation of an expensive mandate for the states that they were ill-equipped to provide at the end of the 18th century. One can argue that interpretations and opinions regarding the meaning have changed, but the history is both well-documented and quite clear. If you actually studied US constitutional history rather than getting your arguments from the side of whatever box your latest gun purchase arrived in you might know these things.
      • vitno 9y ago
        This is all true, but there is historical basis, explicit and implicit, from the writings at the time supporting the idea that at least one factor for the second amendment was the ability to defend against state oppression. "It is a natural right which the people have reserved to themselves, confirmed by the Bill of Rights, to keep arms for their own defence; and as Mr. Blackstone observes, it is to be made use of when the sanctions of society and law are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression." - 1769 newspaper editorial.