Dealing with mass shootings

To solve world problems

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 18572
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 146 times
Been thanked: 212 times
Contact:

Dealing with mass shootings

Post #1

Post by otseng »

We've heard about the mass shooting at Sandy Hook elementary today.

What can be done to curb mass shootings in the US?

Dantalion
Guru
Posts: 1588
Joined: Mon May 28, 2012 3:37 pm

Post #41

Post by Dantalion »

Armed Citizen wrote:
Goat wrote:
Do you really think that the guns people have will deter the US military

Image
In general, I be agreein with ya. When it comes down to it there ain't much we can be doin as civilians against the likes of an ole' M1A2, AH-60 or a A-10.

However, how many pilots and tank commanders ya think will remain on the side of the government should a second revolutionary war be findin itself imminent? How much of that equipment might be findin itself in the hands of the private citizen sides new and robust militia?

Should most or all our troops decide the government is right, then we be findin ourselves with a ton of fast paced and short lived skirmishes where the military grade weapons we private citizens now have would be put ta use. We would make several deadly strikes in retaliational defense but obviously wouldn't be able ta withstand the military might of the U.S. Armed Forces.

There would be some (those with tax stamp weapons and Class 3 items in stock) that would be the most affective but also they be the first known targets.

This very fact be at the heart of the 2nd Amendment debate. We civilians should never be without the ability to wage effective war on our own government. That fear always ta be there as an additional constitutionally provided ability ta be keepin Washington in check. When Federal powers no longer have to fear there populace, that’s when we be findin ourselves quickly under the boot of tyranny. Look at history fer all the proof ya might be needin on that lil fact.

This is something too many have turned in to nuttin more than a miniscule an oft times scoffed at unlikelyhood. Well, I sure hope they be right. But what I seen from the last two presidents… tyranny is live an well and it be waitin in the wings. I hope I be wrong.



:2gun:
Ironically, the odds that you'll find mass dissension in the military in favor of the citizens will increase the more unarmed said citizens are. It's a huge difference actively and militarily oppressing one's own countrymen if they are unarmed, whether as that group of people are all armed and trigger happy, you'll find it easier for the military to just view them as random enemies.

Thoughts on this?

User avatar
Armed Citizen
Site Supporter
Posts: 114
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 2:21 pm
Location: Midwest Jupiter

Post #42

Post by Armed Citizen »

Dantalion wrote:

Ironically, the odds that you'll find mass dissension in the military in favor of the citizens will increase the more unarmed said citizens are. It's a huge difference actively and militarily oppressing one's own countrymen if they are unarmed, whether as that group of people are all armed and trigger happy, you'll find it easier for the military to just view them as random enemies.

Thoughts on this?
Maybe I'm still not awake or somethin but that whole paragraph seemed really weird. I had ta re-read it like three times an I still ai't too sure I got it all figured out. But imma run with what I got and feel free ta correct my direction if imma wee bit off.

What i'm readin is ur sayin that the troopsd be more likely ta defect and be assitin unarmed peoples than ta try an ad defend trigger happy folk who be armed.

If this is so, than I would be havin the follwin thoughts bout it:

First, dang good point.
Second, yeah I be thinkin it would have an impact on the defection rate but I don't think we would see a massive difference ta be honest. A few thousand soldier difference, mayhaps. I could be wrong on this but it just an opinion. I doubt anyone has done a poll of U.S. soldiers askin about this very subject, lol.



:2gun:
:2gun: :usa: Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth.
- George Washington :2gun: :usa:
Image

User avatar
Fuzzy Dunlop
Guru
Posts: 1137
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 3:24 am

Post #43

Post by Fuzzy Dunlop »

If the military doesn't defect to the civilian side of a future American revolution, what good is the second amendment? Shouldn't the second amendment be modernized? If the second amendment is meant to provide realistic protection from government, it seems pretty useless if it doesn't also allow the average citizen to own tanks, fighter jets, aircraft carriers, nuclear weapons, etc. A stockpile of guns and ammunition isn't going to do much if the government decides to start nuking you.

Darias
Guru
Posts: 2017
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 10:14 pm

Post #44

Post by Darias »

Fuzzy Dunlop wrote: If the military doesn't defect to the civilian side of a future American revolution, what good is the second amendment? Shouldn't the second amendment be modernized? If the second amendment is meant to provide realistic protection from government, it seems pretty useless if it doesn't also allow the average citizen to own tanks, fighter jets, aircraft carriers, nuclear weapons, etc. A stockpile of guns and ammunition isn't going to do much if the government decides to start nuking you.
Back in the day common folk didn't have cavalry, cannon nor fleets either; neither were their weapons top of the line.

I don't think the Founders ever envisioned a government being capable of the military power that our nation has today, but that's irrelevant. I think that's a call to maybe disarm our government (we don't need thousands of nukes or a military that can invade 4 countries at once) and not the citizens that make that government possible.

Our "war on terror" should make it apparent to us that a segment of a poorly armed nation will always win a war of attrition.

If every home had a handgun and a semi-automatic, I do believe any future superpower that decided to invade ours would have a very difficult time indeed. And it's a fact that responsible gun owners prevent crime every day. The problem is the news doesn't cover that or regular ole shootings as much as it covers the most rarest of all events -- the tragedy we see today. The problem is - he was insane and he wasn't a gun owner. So what kind of laws can we make to prevent that specific tragedy from happening again "You can't qualify for a gun if your offspring are mentally troubled or handicapped?" Even the strictest of gun laws would not eradicate all guns from existence. And so long as there was a maniac and a gun, we'd always have the threat of another school shooting. So, what is the point of making it even harder for sane, good people to defend themselves? We already have to have an FBI background check, and proof of no history of mental illness, and we have to register all our weapons with the police and we can only own a certain kind of gun and a certain kind of bullets and certain kinds of clips. In many places conceal carry or open carry are banned so you can only use it to protect yourself at home... and not during a robbery at a bank or gas station. I mean, really what more do you want? It's not like you can go to Wallmart and buy a gun and ammo and go home.

In the perhaps not-so-distant dystopian future, in the event our own government decides that the Constitution is an old tired document that doesn't really matter... and if martial law is called for "for our own protection from terrorist attacks" or if we elect a despot that decides to use the provision included in the NDAA act of 2012 en masse...

I could imagine that a good segment of our military would defect to the civilian side and we'd actually have a Egypt-like Arab-Spring scenario.

Honestly I hope that never happens. I'm not one to believe in doomsday and all that nonsense. I'm not one that thinks the government is coming to get me. But I never imagined that in my lifetime I could see a law be established that took away the right to trial. To think that Obama, the "progressive" "anti-war," "anti-too much government intrusion" candidate demanded and fought for such a provision -- well that really wasn't expected.

Think of the powers Obama will leave behind to the next president... perhaps from the GOP who might further abuse the powers Obama has pushed for and is using now. Obama doesn't even have any laws to explain the proper use of drone strikes. When the presidency was secured, the urgency to make some rules went by the wayside.

I think the real problem here is not guns or gun-culture. It's sheeple who are so naive as to think a big, strong government is good, that it deserves the monopoly of force, and that our government can do no wrong and always has our best interests at heart. People who put faith in their parties and who support the wars (on freedom here, and on the Middle East) their parties wage.

User avatar
Fuzzy Dunlop
Guru
Posts: 1137
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 3:24 am

Post #45

Post by Fuzzy Dunlop »

Darias wrote:If every home had a handgun and a semi-automatic, I do believe any future superpower that decided to invade ours would have a very difficult time indeed.
What if that superpower decides to use more modern and effective tactics, such as bombing the population into submission? No amount of guns in the homes or militias on the streets of Hiroshima would have made a difference. The idea that a gun in your house can provide meaningful protection against a government seems antiquated.
Darias wrote:Even the strictest of gun laws would not eradicate all guns from existence. And so long as there was a maniac and a gun, we'd always have the threat of another school shooting. So, what is the point of making it even harder for sane, good people to defend themselves?
We cannot eliminate every single potential incident of gun violence through gun control. However, it is fully possible to limit the amount of potential gun violence that can occur in a society through gun control.

Your argument is like saying: as long as people are driving cars there will be some accidents, so there is no point in taking steps through regulation and enforcement to reduce the amount and severity of the accidents that will inevitably occur.

Darias
Guru
Posts: 2017
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 10:14 pm

Post #46

Post by Darias »

Fuzzy Dunlop wrote:
Darias wrote:If every home had a handgun and a semi-automatic, I do believe any future superpower that decided to invade ours would have a very difficult time indeed.
What if that superpower decides to use more modern and effective tactics, such as bombing the population into submission? No amount of guns in the homes or militias on the streets of Hiroshima would have made a difference. The idea that a gun in your house can provide meaningful protection against a government seems antiquated.
Nuclear weapons on civilians have not been used since WWII and most countries that choose to use such weapons face the fallout that comes with that decision. I was talking in terms of an outside invasion, where the foreign military outmatches our own, not a Death Star attack. Occupation of America would be extremely difficult.

One reason the Nazis came to power so easily is due to the lack of gun-culture in the country. Most people did not have weapons to defend themselves because they never saw the need. History would have been different if the Jews had guns.

In any case, a gun is better than a rock. Given the choice, no matter how sad the odds... I'd choose the gun.


Fuzzy Dunlop wrote:
Darias wrote:Even the strictest of gun laws would not eradicate all guns from existence. And so long as there was a maniac and a gun, we'd always have the threat of another school shooting. So, what is the point of making it even harder for sane, good people to defend themselves?
We cannot eliminate every single potential incident of gun violence through gun control. However, it is fully possible to limit the amount of potential gun violence that can occur in a society through gun control.
Actually crime is prevented by gun owners all the time. As I have said before gun laws did not prevent gun crime in the UK -- because gun crime went up 89% from 1999 to 2009. Gun laws only disarm the law abiding, and banning guns from Walmart will not prevent criminals from easily attaining weapons from other sources. Last time I checked drugs weren't available in stores either, but people can get heroin and cocaine and anything else.


Fuzzy Dunlop wrote:Your argument is like saying: as long as people are driving cars there will be some accidents, so there is no point in taking steps through regulation and enforcement to reduce the amount and severity of the accidents that will inevitably occur.
And this is your argument:

Image

User avatar
Fuzzy Dunlop
Guru
Posts: 1137
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 3:24 am

Post #47

Post by Fuzzy Dunlop »

Darias wrote:
Fuzzy Dunlop wrote:
Darias wrote:If every home had a handgun and a semi-automatic, I do believe any future superpower that decided to invade ours would have a very difficult time indeed.
What if that superpower decides to use more modern and effective tactics, such as bombing the population into submission? No amount of guns in the homes or militias on the streets of Hiroshima would have made a difference. The idea that a gun in your house can provide meaningful protection against a government seems antiquated.
Nuclear weapons on civilians have not been used since WWII and most countries that choose to use such weapons face the fallout that comes with that decision. I was talking in terms of an outside invasion, where the foreign military outmatches our own, not a Death Star attack. Occupation of America would be extremely difficult.

One reason the Nazis came to power so easily is due to the lack of gun-culture in the country. Most people did not have weapons to defend themselves because they never saw the need. History would have been different if the Jews had guns.

In any case, a gun is better than a rock. Given the choice, no matter how sad the odds... I'd choose the gun.
Would you then also argue for the right of Americans to own nukes, tanks, etc. under the second amendment? I'm just not clear on where the line is to be drawn if the purpose of the amendment is defense against government. It seems that as it stands the second amendment provides some very minimal protection against government, while still ensuring that the government remains far more powerful than the general populace and capable of bombing it into submission as may be necessary.
Darias wrote:
Fuzzy Dunlop wrote:
Darias wrote:Even the strictest of gun laws would not eradicate all guns from existence. And so long as there was a maniac and a gun, we'd always have the threat of another school shooting. So, what is the point of making it even harder for sane, good people to defend themselves?
We cannot eliminate every single potential incident of gun violence through gun control. However, it is fully possible to limit the amount of potential gun violence that can occur in a society through gun control.
Actually crime is prevented by gun owners all the time. As I have said before gun laws did not prevent gun crime in the UK -- because gun crime went up 89% from 1999 to 2009. Gun laws only disarm the law abiding, and banning guns from Walmart will not prevent criminals from easily attaining weapons from other sources. Last time I checked drugs weren't available in stores either, but people can get heroin and cocaine and anything else.
"Gun laws only disarm the law abiding" - simply not true. Remember the China examples? You can cherry pick examples like the UK to support your point, but this simply doesn't negate the basic logic of gun control. If there are less guns in a country, and if it is harder to get your hands on guns, then fewer people (including criminals) will have access to guns and be easily capable of gun violence.
Darias wrote:
Fuzzy Dunlop wrote:Your argument is like saying: as long as people are driving cars there will be some accidents, so there is no point in taking steps through regulation and enforcement to reduce the amount and severity of the accidents that will inevitably occur.
And this is your argument:

Image
Does this mean that you acknowledge the irrationality of your own argument? There's a pretty basic principle that you seem to not be recognizing: a solution being less than 100% effective is not in and of itself an argument against attempting to apply that solution. Traffic laws being less than 100% effective isn't a good argument against traffic laws. Condoms being less than 100% effective isn't a good argument against using condoms.

Yes, cars are dangerous. Hence we expend quite a bit of effort trying minimize the danger they pose to us through traffic laws, enforcement, safety standards, etc. Cars also provide enormous utility (transportation). We try to maximize the utility they provide while minimizing the danger they pose. We ought to do the same with guns.

My argument is not "we need outright bans of everything dangerous" as your meme suggests.

Darias
Guru
Posts: 2017
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 10:14 pm

Post #48

Post by Darias »

Fuzzy Dunlop wrote:
Darias wrote:
Fuzzy Dunlop wrote:
Darias wrote:If every home had a handgun and a semi-automatic, I do believe any future superpower that decided to invade ours would have a very difficult time indeed.
What if that superpower decides to use more modern and effective tactics, such as bombing the population into submission? No amount of guns in the homes or militias on the streets of Hiroshima would have made a difference. The idea that a gun in your house can provide meaningful protection against a government seems antiquated.
Nuclear weapons on civilians have not been used since WWII and most countries that choose to use such weapons face the fallout that comes with that decision. I was talking in terms of an outside invasion, where the foreign military outmatches our own, not a Death Star attack. Occupation of America would be extremely difficult.

One reason the Nazis came to power so easily is due to the lack of gun-culture in the country. Most people did not have weapons to defend themselves because they never saw the need. History would have been different if the Jews had guns.

In any case, a gun is better than a rock. Given the choice, no matter how sad the odds... I'd choose the gun.
Would you then also argue for the right of Americans to own nukes, tanks, etc. under the second amendment? I'm just not clear on where the line is to be drawn if the purpose of the amendment is defense against government. It seems that as it stands the second amendment provides some very minimal protection against government, while still ensuring that the government remains far more powerful than the general populace and capable of bombing it into submission as may be necessary.
The power our government has is solely based on the collective surrender of liberty for more security over the years since our country was born. There's nothing in the second amendment that ensures, calls for, or demands that the federal government be more powerful than the citizens that give it legitimacy. The second amendment was put into place to avoid that situation altogether. It was to ensure that the people remain citizens rather than subjects.

It is very clear that the original purpose of the second amendment was to prevent tyranny and occupation from a foreign power. Due to the might of our own military, foreign occupation seems highly unlikely. In the event our military is defeated; foreign occupation would be a nightmare for the occupier and they would eventually leave (The failed soviet invasion of Afghanistan is a great example). Further, due to the number of Americans who value the Constitution, the thought that the military would not side with the people in the event a president monopolizes power in an unconstitutional manner is quite improbable.

This doesn't mean the second amendment cannot have other applications as well. Law abiding gun owners prevent crime every day. When laws become so restrictive as to render the second amendment obsolete, then law abiding citizens are completely defenseless. The point you seem to be missing is that gun laws, however strict, have nothing to do with the availability of guns in this country. And unless we all hammer our arms into plows and surrender our weapons en masse, there will always be guns for criminals to steal, buy on the black market, and use.

By the way, it is legal in most states to own a tank, provided you do not have shells or a mounted machine gun on it.

Have you heard of FPS Russia on YouTube? His accent is fake and he's actually from the state of Georgia. He does videos of fully automatic weapons, sniper rifles, flame throwers, mortars, and here's him blowing up a car with a tank.

[youtube][/youtube]

He's never killed anyone, and he loves video games. And all that stuff he's doing is legal. Oh btw, you know he has got all the background checks in the world right?

Here he takes another tank to a burger joint:

[youtube][/youtube]


Me, I just prefer a handgun, not because I think the government is gonna come get me, but because I don't want to wait 30 minutes for the police to arrive after someone breaks into my house, kills my family and steals my things. But to get that handgun, I have to have to pass an FBI background check. I have to pass a training course. I have to register my weapon with the local police and have my fingerprints on file, and I have to pay fees. If I want a conceal carry permit I have to pay a lot more, and some states don't even allow that. The permit is only good for 5 years so I would have to renew it every time. If I have a criminal history or a history of mental illness I lose my rights altogether. How much tougher do you want the laws to be? Maybe we could just better enforce the ones we have rather than going UK on everyone and banning all weapons, knives, and pepper-spray -- as you seem to be advocating.



Fuzzy Dunlop wrote:
Darias wrote:
Fuzzy Dunlop wrote:
Darias wrote:Even the strictest of gun laws would not eradicate all guns from existence. And so long as there was a maniac and a gun, we'd always have the threat of another school shooting. So, what is the point of making it even harder for sane, good people to defend themselves?
We cannot eliminate every single potential incident of gun violence through gun control. However, it is fully possible to limit the amount of potential gun violence that can occur in a society through gun control.
Actually crime is prevented by gun owners all the time. As I have said before gun laws did not prevent gun crime in the UK -- because gun crime went up 89% from 1999 to 2009. Gun laws only disarm the law abiding, and banning guns from Walmart will not prevent criminals from easily attaining weapons from other sources. Last time I checked drugs weren't available in stores either, but people can get heroin and cocaine and anything else.
"Gun laws only disarm the law abiding" - simply not true. Remember the China examples? You can cherry pick examples like the UK to support your point, but this simply doesn't negate the basic logic of gun control. If there are less guns in a country, and if it is harder to get your hands on guns, then fewer people (including criminals) will have access to guns and be easily capable of gun violence.
Well I don't see how you think how people who abide by gun bans are not stripped of their only defense. Criminals who get guns do not care to register their weapons, or get a background check. They obtain them illegally.

And while you have repeated the mantra that "gun control disarms criminals too," you have failed to provide any evidence that shows that gun laws drastically reduce the amount of weapons in a country. You have claimed that gun control and gun bans reduces gun violence, by pointing to China, but you have no demonstrated that those gun bans reduced the number of guns in any significant way. The lack of availability of guns may account for less gun violence, but that is not a testament to the effectiveness of gun laws... especially of gun laws in a country with a strong gun culture like the United States.

The UK case isn't cherry picking. It is a powerful case that is more analogous to the United States than to China. It shows that banning guns has no effect on reducing gun violence because gun crime has actually increased by nearly 90% since the ban. The gun bans have made it impossible for law abiding to own handguns and defend themselves and prevent gun crimes from criminals who have always obtained their arms illegally. The gun bans have neutered their own police forces from having any ability to stop criminals with guns, since they don't carry themselves.

But since you are so insistent on the China case, let's talk about it:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122394012224530655.html

Yeah, gun crime is still a problem there. Criminals are actually making guns. Someone made a pistol and killed his whole family. And everyday people can get them even though it is a crime.

Because China makes a lot of weapons, the biggest cause for this gun crime is theft. Law abiding citizens won't steal so that means the criminals are more likely to be armed and the citizens unarmed. Law abiding citizens don't bother with making their own or buying them illegally. This puts their police at a disadvantage as well because they are also unarmed.

Further, their government run media and courts under-report the amount of actual gun crime, even when crimes involve a gun.

But a lot of people just want guns for sport, and they get them at risk of imprisonment. But they manage to do so illegally.

If this is your best case of gun control reducing gun crime, then try again bob.

And is China really the model we should all be looking to? Do you know why they have such strict gun laws?
Mao Zedong wrote:political power grows out of the barrel of a gun


It is no surprise that countries that tend to employ strict gun control are those governments which maintain a great deal of power over their very dependent, defenseless subjects. In the countries where gun laws are most effective are also the countries who already happen to lack gun culture a preexisting large availability of weapons. The UK is a nanny state and China is a communist country. If handguns and rifles were no match for the military power of a government why do you think countries like China and North Korea care so much about gun control? Don't tell me you think they actually care for the "safety" of their people. They care about control. And an armed revolt is something they wish to avoid.

Chinese and UK gun laws would never work in the United States. Americans like their guns and their freedom and their right to defense far too much to leave a monopoly of force up to their government.


Fuzzy Dunlop wrote:
Darias wrote:
Fuzzy Dunlop wrote:Your argument is like saying: as long as people are driving cars there will be some accidents, so there is no point in taking steps through regulation and enforcement to reduce the amount and severity of the accidents that will inevitably occur.
And this is your argument:

Image
Does this mean that you acknowledge the irrationality of your own argument? There's a pretty basic principle that you seem to not be recognizing: a solution being less than 100% effective is not in and of itself an argument against attempting to apply that solution. Traffic laws being less than 100% effective isn't a good argument against traffic laws. Condoms being less than 100% effective isn't a good argument against using condoms.

Yes, cars are dangerous. Hence we expend quite a bit of effort trying minimize the danger they pose to us through traffic laws, enforcement, safety standards, etc. Cars also provide enormous utility (transportation). We try to maximize the utility they provide while minimizing the danger they pose. We ought to do the same with guns.

My argument is not "we need outright bans of everything dangerous" as your meme suggests.
I'm not suggesting you want to ban all dangerous things. My meme illustrates your special pleading. You do not wish to apply the same standards in the interests of safety and saving lives to all things dangerous... but only to firearms. This is because you like cars and you don't like guns. Because you like cars, you recognize their utility and dismiss their dangers -- such as the millions of irresponsible drivers out there who kill and maim. Because you don't like guns, you fail to recognize their life saving utility in preventing crime and saving families and instead exaggerate the danger of the occasional mass shooting in a country of millions of people.

In both cases, to use cars and guns legally you have to go to class. You don't need a background check to own a vehicle, but you do need one to own a gun.

The fact is more people die from cars than gun violence. So this really isn't an argument about saving lives as you claim, it's an argument about the right to self defense. And a right is only meaningful if you have the ability to back it up. Rights mean nothing if they have no power behind them. This is especially true if you don't believe in any divine authorship of those rights.

User avatar
Fuzzy Dunlop
Guru
Posts: 1137
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 3:24 am

Post #49

Post by Fuzzy Dunlop »

Darias wrote:The power our government has is solely based on the collective surrender of liberty for more security over the years since our country was born. There's nothing in the second amendment that ensures, calls for, or demands that the federal government be more powerful than the citizens that give it legitimacy. The second amendment was put into place to avoid that situation altogether. It was to ensure that the people remain citizens rather than subjects.

It is very clear that the original purpose of the second amendment was to prevent tyranny and occupation from a foreign power. Due to the might of our own military, foreign occupation seems highly unlikely. In the event our military is defeated; foreign occupation would be a nightmare for the occupier and they would eventually leave (The failed soviet invasion of Afghanistan is a great example). Further, due to the number of Americans who value the Constitution, the thought that the military would not side with the people in the event a president monopolizes power in an unconstitutional manner is quite improbable.
To be clear, it sounds as if you are agreeing that the second amendment is obsolete as far as an effective means of defense against foreign powers or the domestic government? I will reiterate that I did not bring this issue up as an argument for disarmament, but was questioning those defending the second amendment citing its purpose in allowing citizens to defend against government.
Darias wrote:When laws become so restrictive as to render the second amendment obsolete, then law abiding citizens are completely defenseless. The point you seem to be missing is that gun laws, however strict, have nothing to do with the availability of guns in this country.
Again, this point is simply false. Strict laws can indeed have an impact on the availability of guns in a country. See China. Gun laws cannot prevent 100% of criminals from getting guns, but they can make it harder for them to get guns.
Darias wrote:How much tougher do you want the laws to be? Maybe we could just better enforce the ones we have rather than going UK on everyone and banning all weapons, knives, and pepper-spray -- as you seem to be advocating.
I'm not sure how effective or necessary an outright gun ban would be. It would be politically impossible in the near future. I think in the (very) long term we should be working towards global disarmament. When it comes to the situation in the USA, I simply get the impression that at least part of the problem with the ongoing rampage murder issue is the fact that there are so many guns laying around. So I don't want to argue for a gun ban, more I want to understand the arguments and mindsets of people who don't view the guns as part of the problem or (even view handing out more guns for everyone as a solution).
Darias wrote:Well I don't see how you think how people who abide by gun bans are not stripped of their only defense. Criminals who get guns do not care to register their weapons, or get a background check. They obtain them illegally.
People who abide by gun laws are still capable of defending themselves by calling the police, using other weapons, locks on doors and bars on windows, running away, cancelling their credit card after being mugged, etc. I know these aren't necessarily ideal solutions and some people would prefer to handle situations with guns.

I admit I don't have the easiest time sympathizing. I've traveled to some pretty colourful places before and experienced mugging first hand, and while it was not a fun experience it never really occurred to me that I would have been better off pulling out a gun. But I don't claim to understand what it's like to live everyday in the more dangerous parts of the USA so I don't mean to question the importance of having one for self-defense. I do think that societies are capable of managing crime in ways other than arming the general populace.
Darias wrote:And while you have repeated the mantra that "gun control disarms criminals too," you have failed to provide any evidence that shows that gun laws drastically reduce the amount of weapons in a country. You have claimed that gun control and gun bans reduces gun violence, by pointing to China, but you have no demonstrated that those gun bans reduced the number of guns in any significant way. The lack of availability of guns may account for less gun violence, but that is not a testament to the effectiveness of gun laws... especially of gun laws in a country with a strong gun culture like the United States.
China has 4.9 guns for every 100 people, the USA has 88.8. China has strict regulations making it very difficult if not impossible for private citizens to own them. When Chinese people snap and go on a rampage, they tend to stab people. When American people snap and go on a rampage, they likely already have a gun in their house or know where they can go to get one.

If you can't easily get a gun as a private citizen, you simply don't have as many guns sitting around available in your country for crimes. If you want a gun you have to steal it or smuggle it in, and stealing a gun is much harder in a place where the average household isn't going to have any in it.

Numbers from here:

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/china
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_ow ... w_in_China
Darias wrote:The UK case isn't cherry picking. It is a powerful case that is more analogous to the United States than to China. It shows that banning guns has no effect on reducing gun violence because gun crime has actually increased by nearly 90% since the ban.
You're taking one example and turning it into a universal principle, that's cherry picking.
Darias wrote:But since you are so insistent on the China case, let's talk about it:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122394012224530655.html

Yeah, gun crime is still a problem there.
"China may be freer from gun crime than many nations, and official statistics show overall crime on a continuous down trend."

My position has never been that gun control is capable of preventing all gun crime. Gun crime will persist. However, if gun control is capable of turning school shootings into school stabbings, that would be a positive impact.
Darias wrote:Criminals are actually making guns. Someone made a pistol and killed his whole family. And everyday people can get them even though it is a crime.
If criminals in the USA had to make their own guns or steal them from police and military arsenals, do you think this would have any impact on the availability of guns whatsoever? Do you not recognize any difference in degree of difficulty between stealing a gun from a police station and stealing a gun from your parent's house?
Darias wrote:If this is your best case of gun control reducing gun crime, then try again bob.
To be clear, are you saying that China is a poor example because it has just as much gun crime as everywhere else and the government just hides it? Or are you saying that China is a poor example because its lower rate of gun violence is not related to its gun control efforts?
Darias wrote:And is China really the model we should all be looking to? Do you know why they have such strict gun laws?
I have absolutely not, at any point, suggested China as a model for anything. I have pointed it out as a counterexample to the idea that gun control has no impact on gun availability and gun violence.
Darias wrote:I'm not suggesting you want to ban all dangerous things. My meme illustrates your special pleading. You do not wish to apply the same standards in the interests of safety and saving lives to all things dangerous... but only to firearms. This is because you like cars and you don't like guns. Because you like cars, you recognize their utility and dismiss their dangers -- such as the millions of irresponsible drivers out there who kill and maim. Because you don't like guns, you fail to recognize their life saving utility in preventing crime and saving families and instead exaggerate the danger of the occasional mass shooting in a country of millions of people.
This is definitely not my position. I endorse applying stringent regulation to both transportation and firearms.

What is their life saving utility, exactly? Is there some measurement you're thinking of that compares people saved/killed by guns in the USA? I mean I can pretty easily understand the utility of cars by realizing that millions of people rely on them for getting to work every single day, and listening to people explaining why they use them over other transportation options. I doubt it's quite so easy to calculate how many crimes are prevented by guns and suppose there might be a bit more imagination involved.

Over time we should be moving towards safer transportation, and it is obvious but probably still worth mentioning that while we try to develop cars that are as unlikely to cause death as possible we are trying to develop guns that kill people as efficiently as possible. Cars will gradually be replaced by safer transportation methods, and in similar fashion in civilized societies we would expect safer means of crime prevention to replace widespread individual gun ownership. Reducing gun culture, ownership and violence in the USA will be a generations-long process. An immediate ban is completely impractical of course, I'm mainly concerned with the mindset (not necessarily put forth by you specifically in this thread) that more access to more guns for more Americans is the right direction to go.

A Troubled Man
Guru
Posts: 2301
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 10:24 am

Post #50

Post by A Troubled Man »

otseng wrote: Here's my thoughts:
- Ban fully automatic and assault weapons.
That won't work because people kill people and will find ways to do it, with or without those weapons. Do we ban cars because of the number of deaths associated with driving?
- Mandatory concealed weapons permit for all gun ownership.
No problem there.
- All schools should have an armed police officer, even in communities where there is no history of violent crimes.
Not a bad idea, but schools already have a difficult time getting funding, who is going to pay for those officers?
- Curb culture of violence in movies, TV, games, entertainment.
Sorry, but there is no evidence whatsoever to support a correlation.
- Stop viewing killing people as a solution to problems.
Who exactly has those views?
- Fundamentally is a moral issue. Only a transformation of the heart can deal with our nature to sin.
Perhaps, but the issue here is mental problems, not heart problems.

The more I read about Lanza, the more I see a very dysfunctional, religious family with a psycho mom rearing a psycho son.

Post Reply