Author Topic: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days  (Read 126035 times)

shenlong55

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 486
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1500 on: February 15, 2019, 01:11:27 PM »
Why don't you do something about the drug war, or parents who don't strap in their kids when driving, or LITERALLY any number of things that would have a much greater positive impact on society than attempting to control what I can and can't buy.

Not that I don't want to address those things as well, but I think that I addressed the reason why some people are more concerned about guns a few posts back...

You have to consider the frequency and the severity.

So the war on drugs hasn't been severe?...  Because I don't see either party or basically any resources going into that fight and it kills thousands more kids and young adults than guns.

s/
But sure, make my 30-round mag cabable guns illegal.  That'll help. /s

Um, whut?

Senator introduces a bill to legalize marijuana and itís called S.420
Quote
A new bill introduced in the Senate today would legalize weed, and itís not just the text of the bill thatís a nod to marijuana culture. The bill, introduced by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), is labeled with a conspicuous number: S.420.

TexasRunner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 926
  • Age: 27
  • Location: Somewhere in Tejas
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1501 on: February 15, 2019, 01:23:42 PM »
Can you do everyone a favor and let this discussion go for a page or so before you ruin it with nonsense? Pretty please?

Well I'm not on page 26, only had one post on 27, only one post on 29, and nothing on 30 until #1493...

But go ahead shut me out, it just goes to show how you can't stand a differing opinion.

TexasRunner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 926
  • Age: 27
  • Location: Somewhere in Tejas
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1502 on: February 15, 2019, 01:29:07 PM »
Um, whut?

Senator introduces a bill to legalize marijuana and itís called S.420
Quote
A new bill introduced in the Senate today would legalize weed, and itís not just the text of the bill thatís a nod to marijuana culture. The bill, introduced by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), is labeled with a conspicuous number: S.420.

And it will (unfortunately) get destroyed by the right AND the left, or let die in committee.

Or are you forgetting that BOTH Bush and Obama raided medical marijuana facilities in states that dared to legalize them, and the left has yet to actually abandon the War on Drugs wholesale.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/obamas-war-on-pot-231820/
https://www.thirdway.org/memo/the-past-and-future-of-federal-marijuana-enforcement

Dabnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1496
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1503 on: February 15, 2019, 01:37:29 PM »
In the twelve months since Parkland, 1200 children have been killed by gun violence in America. Teen journalists researched and wrote about each of them at the following website.

https://sinceparkland.org

Thanks for the link Poundwise. I haven't had a chance to read much but I'll try to later.

That said, I'm not a huge fan of using emotion and telling the stories of people who have been through tragedy to make a point. I'm also not trying to be critical of the project. I appreciate it for what it is, but I don't think it has a place in a debate of logic. I'll agree that the number, 1200, is meaningful. Their individual stories, less so. I know that sounds cold-hearted but that's not my intent.

What I'm trying to get at is that everyone has a story. When someone's story ends too soon, it's terrible, but I could use anyone's tragic story who died in a non gun related incident to elicit the same emotions. I hope I'm explaining my feelings on this clearly because I know it's a sensitive topic and I don't mean to minimize anyone's personal experience.

And despite the opinion I'm trying to express here I also acknowledge that the majority of people don't put nearly this much thought into the issue so, the hell with it, maybe we do need to pull on some heart strings to get anything done. I don't really know anymore.

Dabnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1496
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1504 on: February 15, 2019, 01:45:20 PM »
Can you do everyone a favor and let this discussion go for a page or so before you ruin it with nonsense? Pretty please?

Well I'm not on page 26, only had one post on 27, only one post on 29, and nothing on 30 until #1493...

But go ahead shut me out, it just goes to show how you can't stand a differing opinion.

I love differing opinions, there would be no discussion without them. There's a number of posters who keep their cool on the gun topic and argue rationally. I enjoy talking to them.

You, however tend to use lots of erroneous numbers like comparing 2016 homicides of 10-24 year olds with gun homicides between 2/15/18-2/14/19 of 0-18 year olds. Why would you compare these things?

Then you said no resources are going towards the drug law debate? Do you stand by that statement?
« Last Edit: February 15, 2019, 01:55:49 PM by Dabnasty »

shenlong55

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 486
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1505 on: February 15, 2019, 01:53:47 PM »
And it will (unfortunately) get destroyed by the right AND the left, or let die in committee.

Or are you forgetting that BOTH Bush and Obama raided medical marijuana facilities in states that dared to legalize them, and the left has yet to actually abandon the War on Drugs wholesale.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/obamas-war-on-pot-231820/
https://www.thirdway.org/memo/the-past-and-future-of-federal-marijuana-enforcement

Well, that's a bit different from what you said in your previous post isn't it...

So the war on drugs hasn't been severe?...  Because I don't see either party or basically any resources going into that fight and it kills thousands more kids and young adults than guns.

s/
But sure, make my 30-round mag cabable guns illegal.  That'll help. /s

And personally, I'll take "yet to actually abandon the War on Drugs wholesale" over the alternative any day...

What Jeff Sessions Has Said About Marijuana
Quote
"I think one of [Obama's] great failures, it's obvious to me, is his lax treatment in comments on marijuana... It reverses 20 years almost of hostility to drugs that began really when Nancy Reagan started 'Just Say No.'"

ETA:  And all of this is beside the point that I think your focusing on frequency again.  We don't see mass drug overdoses being reported constantly like we do with mass shootings.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2019, 02:01:05 PM by shenlong55 »

zolotiyeruki

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2992
  • Location: State: Denial
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1506 on: February 15, 2019, 03:01:02 PM »
That said, I'm not a huge fan of using emotion and telling the stories of people who have been through tragedy to make a point. I'm also not trying to be critical of the project. I appreciate it for what it is, but I don't think it has a place in a debate of logic. I'll agree that the number, 1200, is meaningful. Their individual stories, less so. I know that sounds cold-hearted but that's not my intent.

What I'm trying to get at is that everyone has a story. When someone's story ends too soon, it's terrible, but I could use anyone's tragic story who died in a non gun related incident to elicit the same emotions. I hope I'm explaining my feelings on this clearly because I know it's a sensitive topic and I don't mean to minimize anyone's personal experience.
Wow, that was very well put.

I love differing opinions, there would be no discussion without them. There's a number of posters who keep their cool on the gun topic and argue rationally. I enjoy talking to them.

You, however tend to use lots of erroneous numbers like comparing 2016 homicides of 10-24 year olds with gun homicides between 2/15/18-2/14/19 of 0-18 year olds. Why would you compare these things?

Then you said no resources are going towards the drug law debate? Do you stand by that statement?
I think he was being sarcastic on that second point.

As for the first point, yes, it's a clumsy application of statistics.  At the same time, however, the age distribution of those who are murdered is very significant.  The website Poundwise linked uses the term "children," and while technically correct, it is also a bit misleading. For most people, that term conjures up images of younger kids, but a very large percentage of those killed are teenagers.  This is important because an overwhelming percentage of murders in that demographic are committed in connection with gang activity.

Speaking of which, it is telling to me that in the stories of the deceased, they never seem to mention the word "gang."  I didn't read all 1200 stories, but I did read through 15-20, and not a single story mentioned gang activity.  One mentioned a drug deal, one mentioned trouble with the law (without any specifics), and one mentioned a social media feud.

I feel it's also important when discussing public policy to keep a sense of perspective and scale.  There are 74 million kids in the US in that age range, which means that those 1,200 gun deaths account for 0.0016% of all children.  I don't wish to minimize the personal tragedy each story represents, but when discussing public policy, it's important to quantify the size of the problem and the expected effect of any proposal, and define how any proposal will be evaluated for efficacy.

shenlong55

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 486
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1507 on: February 15, 2019, 03:39:50 PM »
I feel it's also important when discussing public policy to keep a sense of perspective and scale.  There are 74 million kids in the US in that age range, which means that those 1,200 gun deaths account for 0.0016% of all children.  I don't wish to minimize the personal tragedy each story represents, but when discussing public policy, it's important to quantify the size of the problem and the expected effect of any proposal, and define how any proposal will be evaluated for efficacy.

Seriously, I think this argument misses the point entirely and yet it keeps coming up...

You have to consider the frequency and the severity.

Yes, it's a occurs infrequently, but when it does it results in death or serious injury to one or often many people.  How often do terrorists fly planes into buildings?  How many precautionary measures do we take (and how invasive are they) to prevent that one possibility?  Do you think those measures are justified because terrorists are frequently hijacking airplanes or because the consequences when they do are so severe?
« Last Edit: February 15, 2019, 03:42:57 PM by shenlong55 »

TexasRunner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 926
  • Age: 27
  • Location: Somewhere in Tejas
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1508 on: February 15, 2019, 03:44:24 PM »
I feel it's also important when discussing public policy to keep a sense of perspective and scale.  There are 74 million kids in the US in that age range, which means that those 1,200 gun deaths account for 0.0016% of all children.  I don't wish to minimize the personal tragedy each story represents, but when discussing public policy, it's important to quantify the size of the problem and the expected effect of any proposal, and define how any proposal will be evaluated for efficacy.

That was the net statement of my post that I was intending.  The current gun control laws are useless when you start discussing kids (as was presented in that website).  Effectively an efficacy rate of zero...

Well, that's a bit different from what you said in your previous post isn't it...
...
And personally, I'll take "yet to actually abandon the War on Drugs wholesale" over the alternative any day...

ETA:  And all of this is beside the point that I think your focusing on frequency again.  We don't see mass drug overdoses being reported constantly like we do with mass shootings.

My previous post was pointing out the War on Drugs is a massive failure and the deadly results of such claim WAY more lives than gun control proposes to correct.

What alternative to abandoning the War on Drugs would you like to see?  Personally, I would prefer de-decriminalization (but mandatory rehabilitation) of 'hard' drug usage (with the same current levels of "criminalization" of dealing hard drugs) and complete legalization of weed, at the very least. (Edit:  Which is what I would consider 'abandoning' the war on drugs).

And overdoses kill 70,237 annually, going up (source) each year while rifles only killed 374 in 2016 (source) and yet rifles are the target of legislation, and very little is being done on the drug-usage front...  You're telling me that 'frequency' is the issue that pushes the gun-control narrative?
« Last Edit: February 15, 2019, 03:46:23 PM by TexasRunner »

Poundwise

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1369
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1509 on: February 15, 2019, 04:02:18 PM »
In the twelve months since Parkland, 1200 children have been killed by gun violence in America. Teen journalists researched and wrote about each of them at the following website.

https://sinceparkland.org

Out of (about) 120 MILLION gun owners...

So that's 1 child per 100,000 gun owners.
The point of the website is to show how that one child who died mattered.

Quote
But that number includes gang violence (committed generally by illegal gun owners, not legal gun owners) and homicides (again generally committed by illegal gun owners, not legal gun owners). 
And those kids matter too.

Legal, illegal, the more guns in the system, the more deaths there will be.


shenlong55

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 486
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1510 on: February 15, 2019, 04:05:46 PM »
My previous post was pointing out the War on Drugs is a massive failure and the deadly results of such claim WAY more lives than gun control proposes to correct.

What alternative to abandoning the War on Drugs would you like to see?  Personally, I would prefer de-decriminalization (but mandatory rehabilitation) of 'hard' drug usage (with the same current levels of "criminalization" of dealing hard drugs) and complete legalization of weed, at the very least. (Edit:  Which is what I would consider 'abandoning' the war on drugs).

And overdoses kill 70,237 annually, going up (source) each year while rifles only killed 374 in 2016 (source) and yet rifles are the target of legislation, and very little is being done on the drug-usage front...  You're telling me that 'frequency' is the issue that pushes the gun-control narrative?

No, I'm saying it's the severity of the individual events.  The vast majority of those overdose deaths were probably individuals overdosing in private, not 30-50 people overdosing in one dramatic incident that also terrorizes the entire town that it occurs in (especially since overdoses are generally 'self-inflicted').

As to the drug war, I'd say I'm mostly in agreement with what you just described.  I just disagree that neither party is doing anything to move us towards those goals.  I think one party is definitely taking steps to move us towards ending the drug war while the other is trying to drag us back into it.

I also believe that the same party that is trying to adress gun control is also the one trying to address the drug war and that we can and should address both.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2019, 04:43:05 PM by shenlong55 »

Poundwise

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1369
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1511 on: February 15, 2019, 04:07:25 PM »
In the twelve months since Parkland, 1200 children have been killed by gun violence in America. Teen journalists researched and wrote about each of them at the following website.

https://sinceparkland.org

Thanks for the link Poundwise. I haven't had a chance to read much but I'll try to later.

That said, I'm not a huge fan of using emotion and telling the stories of people who have been through tragedy to make a point. I'm also not trying to be critical of the project. I appreciate it for what it is, but I don't think it has a place in a debate of logic. I'll agree that the number, 1200, is meaningful. Their individual stories, less so. I know that sounds cold-hearted but that's not my intent.

What I'm trying to get at is that everyone has a story. When someone's story ends too soon, it's terrible, but I could use anyone's tragic story who died in a non gun related incident to elicit the same emotions. I hope I'm explaining my feelings on this clearly because I know it's a sensitive topic and I don't mean to minimize anyone's personal experience.

And despite the opinion I'm trying to express here I also acknowledge that the majority of people don't put nearly this much thought into the issue so, the hell with it, maybe we do need to pull on some heart strings to get anything done. I don't really know anymore.

The site is relevant to this thread, which to my knowledge was not limited to a debate of logic. In fact the OP was simply reporting something sad. Caring about other people's lives, and other people's children's lives, is not necessarily logical. But in order for us to stop talking past one another, it would help if it were the starting assumption for all.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2019, 04:09:03 PM by Poundwise »

shenlong55

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 486
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1512 on: February 15, 2019, 04:09:20 PM »
The site is relevant to this thread, which to my knowledge was not limited to a debate of logic.  Caring about other people's lives, and other people's children's lives, is not necessarily logical. But in order to to stop talking past one another, it would help if it were the starting assumption for all.

For the record, I think it is entirely logical.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3804
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1513 on: February 15, 2019, 04:21:11 PM »
It is not *logical*, per se.

But I personally think it's quite good that those kids are doing it. I'm hoping they can spark a new generation of activists who actually care to try to change things in the world. Caring that people are dying from gun violence, and actually wanting to do something about it, is not a bad thing. As is saying that those lives mattered, and pointing out that they were lost senselessly. And that maybe we should care more about that than we do.


Poundwise

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1369
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1514 on: February 15, 2019, 04:32:10 PM »
  At the same time, however, the age distribution of those who are murdered is very significant.  The website Poundwise linked uses the term "children," and while technically correct, it is also a bit misleading. For most people, that term conjures up images of younger kids, but a very large percentage of those killed are teenagers.  This is important because an overwhelming percentage of murders in that demographic are committed in connection with gang activity.

Speaking of which, it is telling to me that in the stories of the deceased, they never seem to mention the word "gang."  I didn't read all 1200 stories, but I did read through 15-20, and not a single story mentioned gang activity.  One mentioned a drug deal, one mentioned trouble with the law (without any specifics), and one mentioned a social media feud.

I continue to use the word "children" because as a parent of a teen, I see these young people as children and feel for them.

I thought https://sinceparkland.org is striking because it follows the story of all these children, cute or not cute, gang members or not. Perhaps many more of these young people would be alive today if guns weren't so readily available, even if they were in gangs.  The problem with a powerful weapon like a gun is that it turns a child's impulse or mistake, into forever.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 110
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1515 on: February 15, 2019, 06:24:58 PM »
The problem is not that it's not logical to care about children. I feel that it's logical, and I think most would as well.

The problem is when people use stories like these as trump cards. These stories are important. They should inform our decisions like stories from all different perspectives on the issue. The fact that it's kids getting hurt, though, shouldn't mean that it gets to trump everything else, though. Tragedies abound every day. Stories about them are important and should inform our decisions. They should work together with statistics when looking at the overall issue and policy decisions.

I make it a point to listen to stories like these. I realize that by being against many gun control positions, there are consequences. I listened to a story where a CNN reporter could barely make it through reading a note a mom wrote to her daughter a year after she was killed. Was it moving? Of course. Would it have also been moving if it were the story of someone who lost her son to any number of other things? Absolutely.

The problem is when these stories are used to perpetuate things like "even one death is too many." Is one death too many? Philosophically, absolutely. Practically? In general (not in all situations) no, because there's almost always a trade off. In this case, the trade off is freedom of people who want to be able to defend themselves/just like to shoot or whatnot. A balance has to be struck between the two, and it is a poor argument, imo, that uses anecdotal stories as a trump card to insinuate that no measure is too great for it. I'm not saying anyone here is/has done that, but that's why people tend to be wary of these things.

The site is relevant to this thread, which to my knowledge was not limited to a debate of logic.  Caring about other people's lives, and other people's children's lives, is not necessarily logical. But in order to to stop talking past one another, it would help if it were the starting assumption for all.

For the record, I think it is entirely logical.

tyort1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2196
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1516 on: February 15, 2019, 09:54:51 PM »
The problem is not that it's not logical to care about children. I feel that it's logical, and I think most would as well.

The problem is when people use stories like these as trump cards. These stories are important. They should inform our decisions like stories from all different perspectives on the issue. The fact that it's kids getting hurt, though, shouldn't mean that it gets to trump everything else, though. Tragedies abound every day. Stories about them are important and should inform our decisions. They should work together with statistics when looking at the overall issue and policy decisions.

I make it a point to listen to stories like these. I realize that by being against many gun control positions, there are consequences. I listened to a story where a CNN reporter could barely make it through reading a note a mom wrote to her daughter a year after she was killed. Was it moving? Of course. Would it have also been moving if it were the story of someone who lost her son to any number of other things? Absolutely.

The problem is when these stories are used to perpetuate things like "even one death is too many." Is one death too many? Philosophically, absolutely. Practically? In general (not in all situations) no, because there's almost always a trade off. In this case, the trade off is freedom of people who want to be able to defend themselves/just like to shoot or whatnot. A balance has to be struck between the two, and it is a poor argument, imo, that uses anecdotal stories as a trump card to insinuate that no measure is too great for it. I'm not saying anyone here is/has done that, but that's why people tend to be wary of these things.

The site is relevant to this thread, which to my knowledge was not limited to a debate of logic.  Caring about other people's lives, and other people's children's lives, is not necessarily logical. But in order to to stop talking past one another, it would help if it were the starting assumption for all.

For the record, I think it is entirely logical.

The problem is that "I just like to shoot" is not a very good tradeoff for "My kid is dead".

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 110
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1517 on: February 16, 2019, 05:08:26 AM »
Thanks for highlighting half of what I said... two things: one, if it were only "I just like to shoot", and there were no aspects of defense of you or your family(which you ignored), it would be different and two, "I just like to drink" seems be a pretty well agreed upon trade-off for kids and wives dead of domestic violence or families impoverished for generations.

The problem is not that it's not logical to care about children. I feel that it's logical, and I think most would as well.

The problem is when people use stories like these as trump cards. These stories are important. They should inform our decisions like stories from all different perspectives on the issue. The fact that it's kids getting hurt, though, shouldn't mean that it gets to trump everything else, though. Tragedies abound every day. Stories about them are important and should inform our decisions. They should work together with statistics when looking at the overall issue and policy decisions.

I make it a point to listen to stories like these. I realize that by being against many gun control positions, there are consequences. I listened to a story where a CNN reporter could barely make it through reading a note a mom wrote to her daughter a year after she was killed. Was it moving? Of course. Would it have also been moving if it were the story of someone who lost her son to any number of other things? Absolutely.

The problem is when these stories are used to perpetuate things like "even one death is too many." Is one death too many? Philosophically, absolutely. Practically? In general (not in all situations) no, because there's almost always a trade off. In this case, the trade off is freedom of people who want to be able to defend themselves/just like to shoot or whatnot. A balance has to be struck between the two, and it is a poor argument, imo, that uses anecdotal stories as a trump card to insinuate that no measure is too great for it. I'm not saying anyone here is/has done that, but that's why people tend to be wary of these things.

The site is relevant to this thread, which to my knowledge was not limited to a debate of logic.  Caring about other people's lives, and other people's children's lives, is not necessarily logical. But in order to to stop talking past one another, it would help if it were the starting assumption for all.

For the record, I think it is entirely logical.

The problem is that "I just like to shoot" is not a very good tradeoff for "My kid is dead".

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12883
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1518 on: February 16, 2019, 07:50:31 AM »
If the police force in your country is unable to provide sufficient protection for its citizens (you and your family), that's a serious problem.  Arguing that the solution is more guns doesn't make any kind of sense though.  The problem is not a lack deadly weapons, it's a matter of policing.

Trying to link shootings/easy gun availability with domestic assault/easy access to liquor is also nonsensical.  I need a gun to shoot someone.  I don't need a drink to hit someone (or to be impoverished).  They're fundamentally different.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 110
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1519 on: February 16, 2019, 08:23:43 AM »
If the police force in your country is unable to provide sufficient protection for its citizens (you and your family), that's a serious problem.  Arguing that the solution is more guns doesn't make any kind of sense though.  The problem is not a lack deadly weapons, it's a matter of policing.

Talk about making no sense - the belief that the police can truly protect you in a way that makes self-defense completely unnecessary is a ridiculous proposition. No police force in any country can guarantee protection. The more rural the area, the less possible it is. It's not a knock on them, it's just the reality.

Any situation could come in to play where a person was confronted by a superior force weapons or no weapons. Weapons can allow you to be able to defend yourself better. Of course it's a trade-off, as they would be more able to have a gun as well, but that's just what it is, a trade off. To take the stance as if it's completely illogical to have a gun to defend yourself because the police can somehow protect you at all times in the black and white formula you presented is to undermine self-defense altogether (which you, of course, can do if you're a total pacifist, but I choose not to).

Trying to link shootings/easy gun availability with domestic assault/easy access to liquor is also nonsensical.  I need a gun to shoot someone.  I don't need a drink to hit someone (or to be impoverished).  They're fundamentally different.

Linking shootings/easy gun availability with lives lost for domestic violence and generational poverty and deaths due to DUI etc. is not only not nonsensical, it's one of the best arguments I've ever heard on the issue. You say need a gun to shoot people. Of course you do, but what I care about is crime overall not just crime with a gun (a tact many gun rights advocates use when talking statistics - conflating gun crimes going down ignoring overall crime of the same type that may stay the same or go up). Your attempt to say I don't need a drink to hit someone (or to be impoverished) is the nonsensical argument, and I don't see how you don't see it. I can kill someone without a gun. I can hit someone or be impoverished or hit someone with a car and hurt them without alcohol. Both are important because both exacerbate the situation. Alcohol affects more lives than guns and you (collective not you particular) have for it is the argument that it's fun (like it's fun to shoot). You don't even have the practical use of self-defense for it that you have for guns.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12883
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1520 on: February 16, 2019, 10:37:03 AM »
The role of a police force is to protect citizens of a country.  Somehow, in Canada and Australia (both of which have sensible gun control laws) the police are able to do this.  Citizens do not live in fear of regularly being victimized by criminals.

If the police in the US are unable to provide the same level of protection, then let's discuss how to fix the problem.  If the police are able to provide similar levels of protection, then there exists no need for personal firearms for defence.  Either way, guns aren't necessary.

I think that you're overlooking a fact related to guns when comparing gun usage to alcohol.  Whether for hunting or personal offence, guns are tools designed for a single purpose . . . to kill efficiently.  This is fundamentally different than alchohol.

Violence is a part of human society, agreed.  Some gun deaths would likely be replaced with deaths by other means were gun controls to be enacted.  If you're going to argue that the numbers would be equal however, you're effectively saying that guns provide no utility over a knife or a baseball bat.

tyort1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2196
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1521 on: February 16, 2019, 11:43:35 AM »
The role of a police force is to protect citizens of a country.  Somehow, in Canada and Australia (both of which have sensible gun control laws) the police are able to do this.  Citizens do not live in fear of regularly being victimized by criminals.

If the police in the US are unable to provide the same level of protection, then let's discuss how to fix the problem.  If the police are able to provide similar levels of protection, then there exists no need for personal firearms for defence.  Either way, guns aren't necessary.

I think that you're overlooking a fact related to guns when comparing gun usage to alcohol.  Whether for hunting or personal offence, guns are tools designed for a single purpose . . . to kill efficiently.  This is fundamentally different than alchohol.

Violence is a part of human society, agreed.  Some gun deaths would likely be replaced with deaths by other means were gun controls to be enacted.  If you're going to argue that the numbers would be equal however, you're effectively saying that guns provide no utility over a knife or a baseball bat.

The problem is you're making a logical argument and it'll never work.  That's because the real reason behind wanting a gun 'for protection' is intensely emotional.  The desire to protect "me and mine" runs very deep in a large percentage of people.  To remove guns from their ownership makes them feel incredibly vulnerable. 

Thus you see that when presented with certain facts (ie, guns are death machines, or that other countries manage just fine without them, etc...) they just double down.  You'll never change their minds because this touches on an area that's very primal and simply isn't open to reason. 

Unfortunately it seems that this is biologically programmed in some people more strongly than others.  In the US we just happen to have a lot of them.  The only real way to change things is not via discussion, but simply outvote them. 

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 110
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1522 on: February 16, 2019, 01:15:43 PM »
The role of a police force is to protect citizens of a country.  Somehow, in Canada and Australia (both of which have sensible gun control laws) the police are able to do this.  Citizens do not live in fear of regularly being victimized by criminals.

If the police in the US are unable to provide the same level of protection, then let's discuss how to fix the problem.  If the police are able to provide similar levels of protection, then there exists no need for personal firearms for defence.  Either way, guns aren't necessary.

The role of the police is to protect citizens of a country. OK, so we agree there. (I won't even bring up for argument the supreme court ruling saying police don't have to protect us because I'm sure you would say, let's change that then, but either way, it's the current law of the land).

Citizens in Canada and Australia don't live in regular fear of being victimized by criminals. Great. I don't live in regular fear of it here either. The police can do things up to a certain point. Unless you want a thought crime totalitarian regime, they will not be able to prevent all violent crime (and probably not even then). There's another thread on here about universal healthcare where some progressive posters (and maybe you too, I can't remember) lay into people who are arguing philosophically against universal healthcare, telling them, let's look at what practically works. Well, practically speaking, police in the known history of the earth (that I'm aware of) have never eliminated crime. It's just not practical. There will always be a risk of getting victimized. So to act like police is the argument to end any arguments that you might need to defend yourself is simply impractical. It would need to be a foolproof argument to totally dismiss the self defense argument like you seem to want to, and it's just not. There is risk of you or your family getting hurt. There always well be. A by definition less than perfect means of preventing it means that people are going to have rational arguments that they should be able to have the tools that can help to defend themselves.


I think that you're overlooking a fact related to guns when comparing gun usage to alcohol.  Whether for hunting or personal offence, guns are tools designed for a single purpose . . . to kill efficiently.  This is fundamentally different than alcohol.

Violence is a part of human society, agreed.  Some gun deaths would likely be replaced with deaths by other means were gun controls to be enacted.  If you're going to argue that the numbers would be equal however, you're effectively saying that guns provide no utility over a knife or a baseball bat.


I'm not overlooking the fact of intent. I will give you that it's the only argument that remotely has merit since the statistics of more alcohol related deaths than guns is pretty clear, and I'm glad you aren't arguing it from a what's actually causing the most harm standpoint because one is certainly worse than the other.

I'll address your two points. First, the intent. The point of a gun is for the most part to shoot a bullet. Some guns now are designed with the fun of target shooting as the primary objective, so this is not a universal point like you keep trying to make. So yes, designed to shoot a bullet. Kill efficiently...no, otherwise they're pretty terrible at it because most gun shots don't end in death. Guns have a variety of aspects of them. One that is used a lot in gun circles is stopping power. This is highlighted because most people who have guns and want to use them in self defense wouldn't try to kill efficiently They would try to stop who was coming at them. Lethality wouldn't be the primary goal. I can hear the arguments now - you're being pedantic, or whatnot. This is important. You ascribe the intent of all guns to kill efficiently thereby ascribing the intent of people using guns to kill efficiently. This just isn't so in all instances as proven by my sports shooting example and example of what a rational person wants to do in defense, which is why it needs to be argued.

Let's set all this aside (of course you can argue against it if you'd like). Let's just say the intent of guns is violence to keep it simple. This is another reason why the alcohol argument is also so applicable. Alcohol has an intent too! The intent of alcohol is to inebriate, plain and simple. You can call it loosening up or whatever you'd like, but alcohol works by loosening inhibitions, period. In a world where, as you just stated, violence is a part of human society, loosening up inhibitions includes loosening up restrictions people place on themselves to stop violent tendencies. When it happens, a very much non-zero percentage of the population ends up violent (or making any other number of poor life choices), and you get what we have with society and alcohol. Alcohol doesn't have some angelic intent. So yes, let's talk about intent, because it's just another aspect that ties guns to alcohol.

Now the "Violence is a part of human society, agreed.  Some gun deaths would likely be replaced with deaths by other means were gun controls to be enacted.  If you're going to argue that the numbers would be equal however, you're effectively saying that guns provide no utility over a knife or a baseball bat."

Gun deaths being replaced by other deaths means there's no utility of guns. There's tons of examples why this isn't a good 1:1 argument. First of all, I didn't say gun deaths compared to other deaths. I commented about crime. Gun deaths could go down but rapes, assaults, etc. could skyrocket. Then would the utility of guns which prevented those not outweigh the deaths that reduce? I don't know, we'd have to look at the whole picture. If guns were banned and shootings went down but deaths went up, why would that mean guns provide no utility over a baseball bat? People who rob or assault or rape could be more physically imposing and be able to exert their will over people who could only have defended themselves with a gun. There's a million permutations of what could happen that make that argument not a straightforward proposition.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 110
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1523 on: February 16, 2019, 01:23:15 PM »

The problem is you're making a logical argument and it'll never work.  That's because the real reason behind wanting a gun 'for protection' is intensely emotional.  The desire to protect "me and mine" runs very deep in a large percentage of people.  To remove guns from their ownership makes them feel incredibly vulnerable. 

Thus you see that when presented with certain facts (ie, guns are death machines, or that other countries manage just fine without them, etc...) they just double down.  You'll never change their minds because this touches on an area that's very primal and simply isn't open to reason. 

Unfortunately it seems that this is biologically programmed in some people more strongly than others.  In the US we just happen to have a lot of them.  The only real way to change things is not via discussion, but simply outvote them.

I have never once accused someone of this on this on this board, but seriously, dude, are you trolling? You blanket ignore a discussion being had in good faith and claim that the only possible reason someone arguing against gun control could be emotional? I reiterate....seriously?

On an argument where, as I mentioned before, CNN anchors are reading intentionally tear-jerk letters about one specific person who had a tragedy to bring out the emotion. On an argument where gun control proponents highlight school shootings as if you should be afraid every waking moment your kids are in school for their lives? On a thread that was freaking revived for an article that highlighted every death of a child by shootings, which in isolation is, of course, there to make us feel emotional about an issue (not saying this is an unfair play of emotion, just that it's certainly emotional). I've had discussions with you before, and you tend to not actually respond to my comments, as I remember, so I doubt you'll respond to this. If you do though, please by all means explain why the gun control side has the moral high ground on not being emotional. I can't wait.

Boofinator

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 766
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1524 on: February 16, 2019, 02:06:40 PM »
The statistics hit close to home this week: There was a school shooting at 1 of the 2 public high schools in the city I live in on the one-year anniversary of Parkland. Valentine's Day is apparently a popular time to pop a cap.

http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/police-teen-planned-to-shoot-ex-girlfriend-at-rio-rancho/article_11e6bbf0-77a9-5154-8135-0e8a3a37d6f0.html

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12883
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1525 on: February 16, 2019, 02:59:24 PM »
Citizens in Canada and Australia don't live in regular fear of being victimized by criminals. Great. I don't live in regular fear of it here either

If there's no real fear of being victimized by criminals, then there's no real need to walk around armed all the time.



The police can do things up to a certain point. Unless you want a thought crime totalitarian regime, they will not be able to prevent all violent crime (and probably not even then). There's another thread on here about universal healthcare where some progressive posters (and maybe you too, I can't remember) lay into people who are arguing philosophically against universal healthcare, telling them, let's look at what practically works. Well, practically speaking, police in the known history of the earth (that I'm aware of) have never eliminated crime. It's just not practical. There will always be a risk of getting victimized. So to act like police is the argument to end any arguments that you might need to defend yourself is simply impractical. It would need to be a foolproof argument to totally dismiss the self defense argument like you seem to want to, and it's just not. There is risk of you or your family getting hurt. There always well be. A by definition less than perfect means of preventing it means that people are going to have rational arguments that they should be able to have the tools that can help to defend themselves.

Of course all crime will not be eliminated.  Nobody has argued that it will be.  There is always risk.  There's a risk of a previously unknown virus could wipe you out.  It it sensible then, to never leave your home without wearing a HAZMAT suit?  It's important to quantify these risks to make sensible decisions.




I think that you're overlooking a fact related to guns when comparing gun usage to alcohol.  Whether for hunting or personal offence, guns are tools designed for a single purpose . . . to kill efficiently.  This is fundamentally different than alcohol.

Violence is a part of human society, agreed.  Some gun deaths would likely be replaced with deaths by other means were gun controls to be enacted.  If you're going to argue that the numbers would be equal however, you're effectively saying that guns provide no utility over a knife or a baseball bat.


I'm not overlooking the fact of intent. I will give you that it's the only argument that remotely has merit since the statistics of more alcohol related deaths than guns is pretty clear, and I'm glad you aren't arguing it from a what's actually causing the most harm standpoint because one is certainly worse than the other.

I'll address your two points. First, the intent. The point of a gun is for the most part to shoot a bullet. Some guns now are designed with the fun of target shooting as the primary objective, so this is not a universal point like you keep trying to make. So yes, designed to shoot a bullet. Kill efficiently...no, otherwise they're pretty terrible at it because most gun shots don't end in death. Guns have a variety of aspects of them. One that is used a lot in gun circles is stopping power. This is highlighted because most people who have guns and want to use them in self defense wouldn't try to kill efficiently They would try to stop who was coming at them. Lethality wouldn't be the primary goal. I can hear the arguments now - you're being pedantic, or whatnot. This is important. You ascribe the intent of all guns to kill efficiently thereby ascribing the intent of people using guns to kill efficiently. This just isn't so in all instances as proven by my sports shooting example and example of what a rational person wants to do in defense, which is why it needs to be argued.

This is the most ridiculous Hollywood movie inspired bullshit answer I've ever heard on the topic of guns, and honestly it's surprising to hear coming from you.  I had thought that you were experienced with and had knowledge of firearms.

A gun is absolutely designed to kill.  Why do police always shoot with lethal intent?  Because it's not really possible to shoot to wound.  (https://www.policeone.com/patrol-issues/articles/2071009-Why-shooting-to-wound-doesnt-make-sense-scientifically-legally-or-tactically/)  Yes, I do believe that anyone who points a gun at another person and fires intends to kill them.  That's how the law sees it as well.

I don't ascribe any intent to guns.  Guns are a tool.  They don't have an intent.  They do have a design purpose though, and that has always been to enable someone to kill something more efficiently via lethal projectile*.  I would never have got my gun permit if owning a gun didn't make it an awful lot easier to kill moose than with my pocket knife.  A gun that doesn't make it a lot easier to kill someone else is not going to be effective for personal defense.

I do ascribe intent to kill to any person who points a gun at someone else and pulls the trigger.  Again, the law is in agreement with me 100% on this.  If someone shoots at you, they are attempting murder.


*If a gun is designed to make killing things inefficient . . . say, it fires bean bags then I doubt there would be much call to regulate it.  Certainly, I wouldn't be having this conversation with you about it.




Let's set all this aside (of course you can argue against it if you'd like). Let's just say the intent of guns is violence to keep it simple. This is another reason why the alcohol argument is also so applicable. Alcohol has an intent too! The intent of alcohol is to inebriate, plain and simple. You can call it loosening up or whatever you'd like, but alcohol works by loosening inhibitions, period. In a world where, as you just stated, violence is a part of human society, loosening up inhibitions includes loosening up restrictions people place on themselves to stop violent tendencies. When it happens, a very much non-zero percentage of the population ends up violent (or making any other number of poor life choices), and you get what we have with society and alcohol. Alcohol doesn't have some angelic intent. So yes, let's talk about intent, because it's just another aspect that ties guns to alcohol.

Sure, I guess you could argue that the intent of alcohol is to inebriate.  Is it easier or more difficult to perform any given task while inebriated?  My experience has been that it is more difficult.  You have reduced motor functions, reduced reaction time, dizziness, are prone to blacking out and vomiting.  Would you say that this makes it easier or harder to kill someone?



Now the "Violence is a part of human society, agreed.  Some gun deaths would likely be replaced with deaths by other means were gun controls to be enacted.  If you're going to argue that the numbers would be equal however, you're effectively saying that guns provide no utility over a knife or a baseball bat."

Gun deaths being replaced by other deaths means there's no utility of guns. There's tons of examples why this isn't a good 1:1 argument. First of all, I didn't say gun deaths compared to other deaths. I commented about crime. Gun deaths could go down but rapes, assaults, etc. could skyrocket. Then would the utility of guns which prevented those not outweigh the deaths that reduce? I don't know, we'd have to look at the whole picture. If guns were banned and shootings went down but deaths went up, why would that mean guns provide no utility over a baseball bat? People who rob or assault or rape could be more physically imposing and be able to exert their will over people who could only have defended themselves with a gun. There's a million permutations of what could happen that make that argument not a straightforward proposition.

Fortunately we don't have to guess or hypothesize.  Rapes, assaults, etc. haven't skyrocketed in countries like Canada or Australia that have enacted gun control legislation.  Your fears on that front therefore are unfounded.  If American police are unable to keep reasonable order in the country, then again, that is a valid problem . . . but it is a problem of law enforcement.  Not a call for free access to firearms.

Guns are designed to make it easier to kill.  It's likely that people would turn to knives and bats when they can't get a hold of guns . . . but given that these weapons are not designed to kill, I think it's reasonable to expect the death toll, severity of damage, and number of wounded in such incidents to go down.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2019, 03:03:21 PM by GuitarStv »

tyort1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2196
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1526 on: February 16, 2019, 03:47:41 PM »

The problem is you're making a logical argument and it'll never work.  That's because the real reason behind wanting a gun 'for protection' is intensely emotional.  The desire to protect "me and mine" runs very deep in a large percentage of people.  To remove guns from their ownership makes them feel incredibly vulnerable. 

Thus you see that when presented with certain facts (ie, guns are death machines, or that other countries manage just fine without them, etc...) they just double down.  You'll never change their minds because this touches on an area that's very primal and simply isn't open to reason. 

Unfortunately it seems that this is biologically programmed in some people more strongly than others.  In the US we just happen to have a lot of them.  The only real way to change things is not via discussion, but simply outvote them.

I have never once accused someone of this on this on this board, but seriously, dude, are you trolling? You blanket ignore a discussion being had in good faith and claim that the only possible reason someone arguing against gun control could be emotional? I reiterate....seriously?

On an argument where, as I mentioned before, CNN anchors are reading intentionally tear-jerk letters about one specific person who had a tragedy to bring out the emotion. On an argument where gun control proponents highlight school shootings as if you should be afraid every waking moment your kids are in school for their lives? On a thread that was freaking revived for an article that highlighted every death of a child by shootings, which in isolation is, of course, there to make us feel emotional about an issue (not saying this is an unfair play of emotion, just that it's certainly emotional). I've had discussions with you before, and you tend to not actually respond to my comments, as I remember, so I doubt you'll respond to this. If you do though, please by all means explain why the gun control side has the moral high ground on not being emotional. I can't wait.

I'm not trolling at all.  I'm from Texas, my parents still live there, on a farm in the middle of nowhere, that they inherited from their parents, who in turn inherited from their parents, etc... I have deeeeep roots in the conservative, gun toting, bible thumping part of this nation.  I am speaking from long, personal, direct experience with lots of people with your mindset. 

Here, let me show you what I mean.  You point out that policing is not perfect.  That there is a chance that because of that, someone in your family "might" get hurt if you didn't have guns.  That's a true statement.  It's possible.  But when other people point out that other people's kids are definitely getting hurt by the presence of guns, which is an actuality, not a "possibility".  Then the fingers go in the ears and blah blah blah. 

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 110
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1527 on: February 16, 2019, 05:40:06 PM »

If there's no real fear of being victimized by criminals, then there's no real need to walk around armed all the time.


C'mon, GuitarStv, you're better than this argument. I'm not really afraid of a house fire, and yet I have insurance. Preparation for a situation does not require fear.


Of course all crime will not be eliminated.  Nobody has argued that it will be.  There is always risk.  There's a risk of a previously unknown virus could wipe you out.  It it sensible then, to never leave your home without wearing a HAZMAT suit?  It's important to quantify these risks to make sensible decisions.


You are essentially arguing that it will be for all intents and purposes. You're decrying the need for a tool for self defense not by arguing about guns and risks vs. rewards but by arguing police should make the need for guns to protect you obsolete. The only way that need is obsolete in a completely, open and closed case situation is if they could prevent crime period. Otherwise, people will want to defend themselves, and you can't say, well, the police will protect them. They might not. You admit it. The chances of them getting hurt are slim, but as I mention every every every time, the chances this random joe blow who wants to have a gun to protect him/herself and their family will use it to hurt someone is also very small.




This is the most ridiculous Hollywood movie inspired bullshit answer I've ever heard on the topic of guns, and honestly it's surprising to hear coming from you.  I had thought that you were experienced with and had knowledge of firearms.

A gun is absolutely designed to kill.  Why do police always shoot with lethal intent?  Because it's not really possible to shoot to wound.  (https://www.policeone.com/patrol-issues/articles/2071009-Why-shooting-to-wound-doesnt-make-sense-scientifically-legally-or-tactically/)  Yes, I do believe that anyone who points a gun at another person and fires intends to kill them.  That's how the law sees it as well.

I don't ascribe any intent to guns.  Guns are a tool.  They don't have an intent.  They do have a design purpose though, and that has always been to enable someone to kill something more efficiently via lethal projectile*.  I would never have got my gun permit if owning a gun didn't make it an awful lot easier to kill moose than with my pocket knife.  A gun that doesn't make it a lot easier to kill someone else is not going to be effective for personal defense.

I do ascribe intent to kill to any person who points a gun at someone else and pulls the trigger.  Again, the law is in agreement with me 100% on this.  If someone shoots at you, they are attempting murder.


*If a gun is designed to make killing things inefficient . . . say, it fires bean bags then I doubt there would be much call to regulate it.  Certainly, I wouldn't be having this conversation with you about it.


Sorry to disappoint, you lol, and sorry you have to incorrectly assign the argument as "Hollywood movie inspired bullshit". I'd say that's more in line with what many gun control advocates think (silencers make guns silenced...yea...).  I do understand guns at least somewhat. I don't declare myself an expert. What I am frustrated with is your continued penchant so far in this topic of ascribing blanket statements, black and white, etc. I have attempted multiple times to simply combat blanket statements from anyone and keep saying, this is why there's trade-offs. You say police do or should completely render self defense arguments unnecessary. That's a ridiculous blanket statement. You say that the comparison to alcohol and guns is nonsensical when there are in fact tons of parallels (both are optional, public health crisis ( alcohol actually more so because it actually does affect your health by its very use), tied to many deaths, etc.).

You then made the statement "Whether for hunting or personal offence, guns are tools designed for a single purpose . . . to kill efficiently." If you had said harm I would probably have left it alone, even though, as I mentioned, there are guns designed for all kinds of purposes. My sport shooting rifle example alone shows that your statement isn't true. I would never declare that shooting someone shooting someone shouldn't be assumed with intent to kill, because there's no way to know intent. Police of course always shoot with lethal intent. The first article you mentioned talks about how shooting to wing is a bad idea because it's hard or in the legs it's still dangerous and could leave someone open to shooting. I don't disagree with any of that and would never council someone to try to shoot them in the leg to whatever to avoid killing them. That's not what I'm saying. I just don't like blanket statements. Some guns are made with the ultimate goal of killing. There's ways to tweak and optimize guns and ammo to make them more likely to kill. If all guns designed with "the single purpose to kill efficiently" then there would be no need for a .22 pistol among others. Of course guns aren't designed to make killing inefficient. It still doesn't mean that's the sole purpose or even primary purpose of every gun's design. That's why I argued the point and really the overall reason why I've wanted to continue this discussion - I don't like the blanket statements that tend to come out of gun control arguments from gun control advocates.




Sure, I guess you could argue that the intent of alcohol is to inebriate.  Is it easier or more difficult to perform any given task while inebriated?  My experience has been that it is more difficult.  You have reduced motor functions, reduced reaction time, dizziness, are prone to blacking out and vomiting.  Would you say that this makes it easier or harder to kill someone?


I don't guess I could argue that the intent of alcohol is to inebriate. It is. If it was to be tasty you would make things tasty without them being alcoholic. You're arguing hypotheticals of it making it more difficult for you to do things. I'm arguing from reality and statistical standpoint that people who are drunk do bad things - kill people when driving, beat spouses, etc.


Fortunately we don't have to guess or hypothesize.  Rapes, assaults, etc. haven't skyrocketed in countries like Canada or Australia that have enacted gun control legislation.  Your fears on that front therefore are unfounded.  If American police are unable to keep reasonable order in the country, then again, that is a valid problem . . . but it is a problem of law enforcement.  Not a call for free access to firearms.

Guns are designed to make it easier to kill.  It's likely that people would turn to knives and bats when they can't get a hold of guns . . . but given that these weapons are not designed to kill, I think it's reasonable to expect the death toll, severity of damage, and number of wounded in such incidents to go down.

That's the beauty of statistics in gun control debates, there's statistics to prove or disprove any point. I could just as easily say, fortunately, we don't have to hypothesize or even use other countries which have different situations/gang violence/drugs/whatever. Gun numbers have increased dramatically over the past couple of decades and crime has gone down.

Guns are (mostly) designed to cause harm. In the hands of people who would defend themselves, they can prevent crimes. Gun owners will take the risk of random gun violence for the knowledge of having something more than hands or a baseball bat for defense of family. It's not like most of the people I know that have guns have ever used them in a crime. In fact, none have (admittedly that I'm aware of). Some, however, have used them to prevent injuries or theft from themselves and *shocker* they didn't even have to shoot anyone to do it.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 110
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1528 on: February 16, 2019, 07:00:43 PM »

I'm not trolling at all.  I'm from Texas, my parents still live there, on a farm in the middle of nowhere, that they inherited from their parents, who in turn inherited from their parents, etc... I have deeeeep roots in the conservative, gun toting, bible thumping part of this nation.  I am speaking from long, personal, direct experience with lots of people with your mindset. 

Here, let me show you what I mean.  You point out that policing is not perfect.  That there is a chance that because of that, someone in your family "might" get hurt if you didn't have guns.  That's a true statement.  It's possible.  But when other people point out that other people's kids are definitely getting hurt by the presence of guns, which is an actuality, not a "possibility".  Then the fingers go in the ears and blah blah blah.

Glad you're not trolling. You're still pretty condescending, though, saying you know my mindset. You're familiar with people who support guns and assume that I think the same way. I might. I might not.

I'll be glad to discuss your statement if you'll continue the conversation.

You're analogy could be used for any number of situation where one's rights are being taken away. Rights are almost always removed because there's something bad that could happen, and they're usually removed when an example of that bad thing has happened recently. It doesn't make it an open and shut case that the right should be taken away. There are literally tens of millions of gun owners that taking guns away if done in full force would deprive of a tool they could use to help protect themselves or their families without them actually doing anything wrong with the gun. This is an actuality - depriving of a right without the person doing anything criminal first. It has a societal cost, and to pretend it doesn't just because someone, somewhere will misuse a gun this or month or whatever is not intellectually honest.

Arguing against your point is not sticking my fingers in my ears and saying blah blah. It's a discussion that despite how gun control people simplify the story(and how gun rights people do to, to be honest), it's a complex and nuanced issue. It's quite frustrating for you to act like gun control advocates are perfectly logical, and I'm being totally dictated by emotions when I'm using rational arguments that you're not (at least as of yet) defeating. I mentioned from the beginning that I intentionally look at the human cost of things. It saddens me when guns are used to hurt innocent people. I just understand that rarely in political discussions is there a simple fix without repercussions and without someone having a legitimate argument that their rights are being infringed. Please by all means continue the discussion.

Again, I don't know if you'll continue this conversation, because it seems you've assigned motivation to me due to assumptions based on past experiences, and it's hard to overcome preconceived notions. That being said, I welcome you to prove based off of my arguments (not what you heard from John Smith in Texas, so you know how I think) how I'm being emotionally driven but gun control advocates aren't.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12883
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1529 on: February 16, 2019, 07:05:37 PM »
If there's no real fear of being victimized by criminals, then there's no real need to walk around armed all the time.

C'mon, GuitarStv, you're better than this argument. I'm not really afraid of a house fire, and yet I have insurance. Preparation for a situation does not require fear.

A gun isn't insurance.  It doesn't replace anything if you're mugged.  It offers no guarantee.  Maybe it gives you a chance to fight back in a crime scenario, maybe it doesn't.  What we know for sure is that it does increase the risk of accidental discharge to non-zero.  It also increases the risk of theft of that gun (or of having the gun taken and used against you to non-zero.

It adds certain (although small) risks to your life, for a potential risk mitigation.  This is quite unlike insurance which adds certain risk mitigation without increasing risk.




Of course all crime will not be eliminated.  Nobody has argued that it will be.  There is always risk.  There's a risk of a previously unknown virus could wipe you out.  It it sensible then, to never leave your home without wearing a HAZMAT suit?  It's important to quantify these risks to make sensible decisions.


You are essentially arguing that it will be for all intents and purposes. You're decrying the need for a tool for self defense not by arguing about guns and risks vs. rewards but by arguing police should make the need for guns to protect you obsolete. The only way that need is obsolete in a completely, open and closed case situation is if they could prevent crime period. Otherwise, people will want to defend themselves, and you can't say, well, the police will protect them. They might not. You admit it. The chances of them getting hurt are slim, but as I mention every every every time, the chances this random joe blow who wants to have a gun to protect him/herself and their family will use it to hurt someone is also very small.

No, I'm not arguing that all crime will be eliminated.  (You can tell by the fact that it has been explicitly stated in my comments three times now.)  My argument is that in a country where the police do an effective job, the risk of being victimized in a way the requires you to carry a gun around for "protection" is negligible.

So, given that you yourself are not concerned about being a victim of crime, and the chances of someone getting hurt in a crime are "slim", I'm asking what exactly is the burning need for a firearm for self defense*?  Why does this need exist in America, but not in Canada?

(A side note about defense - a gun isn't the only way one can defend ones self.  Implementing gun control does not suddenly make every person in a country defenseless.)



I would never declare that shooting someone shooting someone shouldn't be assumed with intent to kill, because there's no way to know intent. Police of course always shoot with lethal intent.

It's not possible to know what's in someone else's mind.  Firing a gun at someone is legally assumed to be with lethal intent because a firearm is a lethal weapon.  Note that this is different than using a non-lethal weapon such as a taser, or mace.  These weapons are not designed to kill, so lethal intent is not assumed.

That gets to the crux of my whole point.  A gun is designed to kill, not to harm.  A taser or mace will harm without killing.



If all guns designed with "the single purpose to kill efficiently" then there would be no need for a .22 pistol among others.

The most important factor in killing with a gun is hitting your target.  The caliber and "stopping power" is irrelevant if you don't hit what you were aiming for.  If you do hit your target, a .22 will kill quite efficiently.  That's why one of the first things you're told when you do a gun safety course is that you don't point the gun at anything you don't want dead.



Guns are (mostly) designed to cause harm. In the hands of people who would defend themselves, they can prevent crimes. Gun owners will take the risk of random gun violence for the knowledge of having something more than hands or a baseball bat for defense of family.

I agree.  The thing is, the risk of random gun violence is not just to them.  It's to everyone in the country.



It's not like most of the people I know that have guns have ever used them in a crime. In fact, none have (admittedly that I'm aware of). Some, however, have used them to prevent injuries or theft from themselves and *shocker* they didn't even have to shoot anyone to do it.

Can you think of a reason why someone might be more inclined to discuss using their gun to prevent a crime rather than commit one?

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 110
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1530 on: February 16, 2019, 07:40:33 PM »

A gun isn't insurance.  It doesn't replace anything if you're mugged.  It offers no guarantee.  Maybe it gives you a chance to fight back in a crime scenario, maybe it doesn't.  What we know for sure is that it does increase the risk of accidental discharge to non-zero.  It also increases the risk of theft of that gun (or of having the gun taken and used against you to non-zero.

It adds certain (although small) risks to your life, for a potential risk mitigation.  This is quite unlike insurance which adds certain risk mitigation without increasing risk.


Fair enough, insurance is not the same as a gun. I shouldn't have brought it up. The house fire analogy is still not completely off base. I take steps to prevent it not because it's likely or because I'm scared but because it's something I can do to try to prevent a possibility. Buying insurance is one step. Fire extinguisher, alarm system with smoke detectors, etc. are other steps. The point is, you made the statement that if there's no fear, why do you want to do something. My point is, I do something on plenty of things I'm not living in fear of to work towards prevention of a bad outcome. There's usually at least cost based analysis if not always risk basked analysis in the decisions to do this one. Your comment of no fear = why do it is disproven by tons of decisions we all make. That's my point.


No, I'm not arguing that all crime will be eliminated.  (You can tell by the fact that it has been explicitly stated in my comments three times now.)  My argument is that in a country where the police do an effective job, the risk of being victimized in a way the requires you to carry a gun around for "protection" is negligible.

So, given that you yourself are not concerned about being a victim of crime, and the chances of someone getting hurt in a crime are "slim", I'm asking what exactly is the burning need for a firearm for self defense*?  Why does this need exist in America, but not in Canada?


Fine, you have explicitly stated that you don't think all crime would go away, great. I acknowledge that. Your definition of negligible is the problem. It just doesn't align with everyone else. That's all well and good for general things. However, if you want to argue people should just be quiet about self defense, you need a more robust argument than you consider it negligible. People consider the risks of not vaccinating negligible, doesn't mean they're right. For you to have an argument that would truly eliminate the self-defense option, it would need to be all crime eliminated. Otherwise, there's a rational argument against it. That's why I keep going back to all crime not being eliminated.


It's not possible to know what's in someone else's mind.  Firing a gun at someone is legally assumed to be with lethal intent because a firearm is a lethal weapon.  Note that this is different than using a non-lethal weapon such as a taser, or mace.  These weapons are not designed to kill, so lethal intent is not assumed.

That gets to the crux of my whole point.  A gun is designed to kill, not to harm.  A taser or mace will harm without killing.

The most important factor in killing with a gun is hitting your target.  The caliber and "stopping power" is irrelevant if you don't hit what you were aiming for.  If you do hit your target, a .22 will kill quite efficiently.  That's why one of the first things you're told when you do a gun safety course is that you don't point the gun at anything you don't want dead.


We agree on intent, that's what I said - we can never know, so of course it's always assumed intent to kill. I'm very familiar with gun safety and not to point a gun at someone else because of the risk.

I guess I have to state it again, because you are talking over it. You stated guns are designed "for a single purpose...to kill efficiently." A .22 pistol is not designed to kill efficiently. It would be freaking hard to kill someone with a .22 pistol. It's not this magical most efficient killing machine. A higher caliber - .38, .44, .45, whatever could in the same size gun be a lot more efficient in killing. This just illustrates my point. All guns are not designed with killing as the primary focus. Some are designed to learn how to shoot on, some to fit more compactly and be able to deter (i.e. a small .22 pistol that would probably hurt if you hit someone but very likely not kill them), etc. Just because some weapons are totally non-lethal (i.e. mace) doesn't by definition mean that all guns are, again, designed for a single purpose...to kill efficiently.


I agree.  The thing is, the risk of random gun violence is not just to them.  It's to everyone in the country.


Of which, these people are part of the country. You act like they're making these decision for America while living on the moon. They're making the decisions and taking the risks. You don't like their decisions, that's fine. Don't act like gun owners don't send their children to schools, though. They're right there in it with you and have just analyzed the situation differently than you have.


Can you think of a reason why someone might be more inclined to discuss using their gun to prevent a crime rather than commit one?

Of course they're more likely to talk about preventing a crime than committing one. What I do know is I'm in a small town area. I would know from news and a variety of things if someone I knew was arrested for committing a crime with a gun. It hasn't happened. Anecdotal, sure, but it is what it is.

Finally, you still have not answered my alcohol analogy, and I believe the reason why is the answer doesn't paint gun control people in a good light. The fact of the matter is, people are always more willing to restrict rights for things they don't care about. You seem to not care about self-defense with a gun, so you don't care to restrict it. Too many people like to drink, and they don't care that alcohol causes more deaths than guns. They're more than happy to regulate guns because they don't care about them but wouldn't even think to organize a march to restrict alcohol in the same way they want to restrict guns. Alcohol is an optional thing that could be restricted in the same way as people want to for guns, and yet from the Democrats.....crickets. Let's end the hypocrisy and make it part of the Democrat platform if they're really concerned with holistically saving innocent lives. Or is it easier to pick on the bogey man that a good portion of America is terrified of where the ones rabidly supporting gun control know very little about them and would never use them. The second one is easier and obviously the route chosen by people who are more than willing to restrict gun rights without addressing alcohol.

tyort1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2196
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1531 on: February 16, 2019, 09:23:28 PM »

I'm not trolling at all.  I'm from Texas, my parents still live there, on a farm in the middle of nowhere, that they inherited from their parents, who in turn inherited from their parents, etc... I have deeeeep roots in the conservative, gun toting, bible thumping part of this nation.  I am speaking from long, personal, direct experience with lots of people with your mindset. 

Here, let me show you what I mean.  You point out that policing is not perfect.  That there is a chance that because of that, someone in your family "might" get hurt if you didn't have guns.  That's a true statement.  It's possible.  But when other people point out that other people's kids are definitely getting hurt by the presence of guns, which is an actuality, not a "possibility".  Then the fingers go in the ears and blah blah blah.

Glad you're not trolling. You're still pretty condescending, though, saying you know my mindset. You're familiar with people who support guns and assume that I think the same way. I might. I might not.

I'll be glad to discuss your statement if you'll continue the conversation.

You're analogy could be used for any number of situation where one's rights are being taken away. Rights are almost always removed because there's something bad that could happen, and they're usually removed when an example of that bad thing has happened recently. It doesn't make it an open and shut case that the right should be taken away. There are literally tens of millions of gun owners that taking guns away if done in full force would deprive of a tool they could use to help protect themselves or their families without them actually doing anything wrong with the gun. This is an actuality - depriving of a right without the person doing anything criminal first. It has a societal cost, and to pretend it doesn't just because someone, somewhere will misuse a gun this or month or whatever is not intellectually honest.

Arguing against your point is not sticking my fingers in my ears and saying blah blah. It's a discussion that despite how gun control people simplify the story(and how gun rights people do to, to be honest), it's a complex and nuanced issue. It's quite frustrating for you to act like gun control advocates are perfectly logical, and I'm being totally dictated by emotions when I'm using rational arguments that you're not (at least as of yet) defeating. I mentioned from the beginning that I intentionally look at the human cost of things. It saddens me when guns are used to hurt innocent people. I just understand that rarely in political discussions is there a simple fix without repercussions and without someone having a legitimate argument that their rights are being infringed. Please by all means continue the discussion.

Again, I don't know if you'll continue this conversation, because it seems you've assigned motivation to me due to assumptions based on past experiences, and it's hard to overcome preconceived notions. That being said, I welcome you to prove based off of my arguments (not what you heard from John Smith in Texas, so you know how I think) how I'm being emotionally driven but gun control advocates aren't.

Sure, I'll continue the discussion.  My point is not really about gun control per se, but rather that people make have these views based on deeply personal, highly emotional reasons.  And those are impervious to logic. 

I'll prove it to you.  If your beliefs were based on logic/reason, then there would be an argument, piece of data, or some logic that I could present that would make you change your mind.  But in truth, I know there is nothing I can say on this matter that would make you change your mind.  And that's fine, that just makes you exactly like most of the rest of the people in the world (both pro gun and anti gun). 

Now, if you're going to retort that "of course I'm open to changing my opinion", then my next response will be "Prove it.  What in the world could possibly ever convince you to give up your guns"? 

If nothing can convince you, if nothing can change your mind, then your opinion is not based on logic or evidence.  It's based on emotion, which is impervious to facts or logic. 

EscapeVelocity2020

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1968
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Houston
    • EscapeVelocity2020
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1532 on: February 17, 2019, 02:11:31 AM »
Pretty much every other country than the US opens its newspaper without reading about the latest shooting and hoping it is not their town.  I never even think about shootings here in France, but I do worry about my family back in Houston.  There are plenty of problems in the world, but an individual shooting other people located close to them is just sick.

The gun problem is uniquely American.   

Kyle Schuant

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 613
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1533 on: February 17, 2019, 04:13:01 AM »
US total homicide rate = 4.9 per 100,000
US firearms homicide rate = 3.2
US non-firearms homicide rate = 1.7

Australia total homicide rate = 0.94
NZ total homicide rate = 0.99
Germany total homicide rate = 1.18
France total homicide rate = 1.35
Greece total homicide rate = 0.75
Israel total homicide rate = 1.35
Norway total homicide rate = 0.51
Portugal total homicide rate = 0.64
United Kingdom total homicide rate = 1.2
etc

Even if you waved a magic wand and all America's bangsticks disappeared, and if none of those now killing with firearms killed with something else, the US would still have 50-100% more homicides than other Western countries. Even without firearms, the US is at the level of Malawi, Kosovo or Cambodia - poor countries with a history of civil conflict and genocide.

The US also has 10.9 road traffic fatalities per 100,000 people, compared to Australia with 5.4, France with 5.1, New Zealand with 8.5, and so on. The US is on par with the Philippines, Uzbekistan or Jamaica.


And despite being a First World country, there are places where the people cannot get clean, unpolluted drinking and washing water.

It's not the firearms. Americans are quite simply a more jumpy, aggressive and careless people than most of the Western world. Your firearms laws are a complete mess, of course, with so many different jurisdictions and so on; but it's culture. If you want less dead people then you must change your culture.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2019, 04:17:57 AM by Kyle Schuant »

EscapeVelocity2020

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1968
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Houston
    • EscapeVelocity2020
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1534 on: February 17, 2019, 05:49:36 AM »
And you didn't even mention the statistics on US siblings -  that shot their brother or sister in the home.  Not well documented, anecdotal stories, but it seems to happen quite a lot....  IMHO just one is too many for any modern country that is not fighting off some natural predator...

RetiredAt63

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10141
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1535 on: February 17, 2019, 06:29:32 AM »
Hey Kyle  - could you post your source for the homicide rates?  Not that I dispute them, but one source I found had an even higher number for the US.  And  you didn't list Canada.  It's not that I feel left out, it is that  I think in these comparisons it is always important to list us, because we are right next door to the US and get more of their cultural exports than anyplace else.  So we often end up with numbers between the US and everyone else.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12883
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1536 on: February 17, 2019, 08:12:07 AM »

A gun isn't insurance.  It doesn't replace anything if you're mugged.  It offers no guarantee.  Maybe it gives you a chance to fight back in a crime scenario, maybe it doesn't.  What we know for sure is that it does increase the risk of accidental discharge to non-zero.  It also increases the risk of theft of that gun (or of having the gun taken and used against you to non-zero.

It adds certain (although small) risks to your life, for a potential risk mitigation.  This is quite unlike insurance which adds certain risk mitigation without increasing risk.


Fair enough, insurance is not the same as a gun. I shouldn't have brought it up. The house fire analogy is still not completely off base. I take steps to prevent it not because it's likely or because I'm scared but because it's something I can do to try to prevent a possibility. Buying insurance is one step. Fire extinguisher, alarm system with smoke detectors, etc. are other steps. The point is, you made the statement that if there's no fear, why do you want to do something. My point is, I do something on plenty of things I'm not living in fear of to work towards prevention of a bad outcome. There's usually at least cost based analysis if not always risk basked analysis in the decisions to do this one. Your comment of no fear = why do it is disproven by tons of decisions we all make. That's my point.

Carrying a gun all the time provides possible mitigation of a bad outcome in the case of violent crime while also increasing the chance of a bad outcome (related to the fact that you're now carrying a gun, and accident/theft/mis-fire/missed shots are all now possible).  That again makes it quite different than a fire alarm, fire extinguisher, smoke detector, etc. where there is mitigation with no increased chance of bad outcome.  A gun is not insurance, nor is it like a safety device.



No, I'm not arguing that all crime will be eliminated.  (You can tell by the fact that it has been explicitly stated in my comments three times now.)  My argument is that in a country where the police do an effective job, the risk of being victimized in a way the requires you to carry a gun around for "protection" is negligible.

So, given that you yourself are not concerned about being a victim of crime, and the chances of someone getting hurt in a crime are "slim", I'm asking what exactly is the burning need for a firearm for self defense*?  Why does this need exist in America, but not in Canada?

Fine, you have explicitly stated that you don't think all crime would go away, great. I acknowledge that. Your definition of negligible is the problem. It just doesn't align with everyone else. That's all well and good for general things. However, if you want to argue people should just be quiet about self defense, you need a more robust argument than you consider it negligible. People consider the risks of not vaccinating negligible, doesn't mean they're right. For you to have an argument that would truly eliminate the self-defense option, it would need to be all crime eliminated. Otherwise, there's a rational argument against it. That's why I keep going back to all crime not being eliminated.

I don't agree.  There is a chance of being struck by lightning every time you walk outdoors, yet you probably don't carry a lighting rod with you all the time.  (I've been known to step outdoors without a lightning rod even when it's raining.)  Why?  Because the chance is negligible.  It still exists of course (just as crime will always exist for the foreseeable future), but you don't need to eliminate lightning to step outdoors without a lightning rod.



It's not possible to know what's in someone else's mind.  Firing a gun at someone is legally assumed to be with lethal intent because a firearm is a lethal weapon.  Note that this is different than using a non-lethal weapon such as a taser, or mace.  These weapons are not designed to kill, so lethal intent is not assumed.

That gets to the crux of my whole point.  A gun is designed to kill, not to harm.  A taser or mace will harm without killing.

The most important factor in killing with a gun is hitting your target.  The caliber and "stopping power" is irrelevant if you don't hit what you were aiming for.  If you do hit your target, a .22 will kill quite efficiently.  That's why one of the first things you're told when you do a gun safety course is that you don't point the gun at anything you don't want dead.

We agree on intent, that's what I said - we can never know, so of course it's always assumed intent to kill. I'm very familiar with gun safety and not to point a gun at someone else because of the risk.

I guess I have to state it again, because you are talking over it. You stated guns are designed "for a single purpose...to kill efficiently." A .22 pistol is not designed to kill efficiently. It would be freaking hard to kill someone with a .22 pistol. It's not this magical most efficient killing machine. A higher caliber - .38, .44, .45, whatever could in the same size gun be a lot more efficient in killing. This just illustrates my point. All guns are not designed with killing as the primary focus. Some are designed to learn how to shoot on, some to fit more compactly and be able to deter (i.e. a small .22 pistol that would probably hurt if you hit someone but very likely not kill them), etc. Just because some weapons are totally non-lethal (i.e. mace) doesn't by definition mean that all guns are, again, designed for a single purpose...to kill efficiently.

There is absolutely a difference in the penetrating power and damage done by different rounds - I'm not arguing this.  That's why I hunted partridge with a .22 and moose with a 30-06.

I will reiterate though, because we appear to be getting stuck here and this is probably my fault for not being clear enough.  Hand guns are designed to kill other people efficiently.  That's their only utility as a tool.  A .22 hand gun is designed to kill.  A 9 mm hand gun is designed to kill.  A .45 hand gun is designed to kill.  Now, all of them are less efficient at killing at range than a rifle.  That doesn't mean that they weren't designed to kill efficiently by other metrics!  They are designed to kill efficiently by being concealable, by minimizing recoil, by being light weight, etc.

If you want to debate the best possible caliber of hand gun to kill another human being given a particular situation, feel free to do so.  While I will not join in that discussion I tend to think that President Kennedy might disagree with your analysis of the .22, given that he was assassinated by a .22 caliber revolver.  You can cerfainly argue that some guns are more efficient at killing in particular scenarios than others . . . but don't argue that a gun is not designed to be efficient at killing.  That is their raison d'Ítre.



I agree.  The thing is, the risk of random gun violence is not just to them.  It's to everyone in the country.

Of which, these people are part of the country. You act like they're making these decision for America while living on the moon. They're making the decisions and taking the risks. You don't like their decisions, that's fine. Don't act like gun owners don't send their children to schools, though. They're right there in it with you and have just analyzed the situation differently than you have.

Agreed that they are making decisions.  But the risk that they're taking is not only to themselves as you imply with your use of 'the' prior to 'risks' above.  The risk extends to others.  This is why we're having this discussion at all, if there was no risk to anyone else from the choice then there would be no reason to restrict it.

An analogy . . . driving a tank down the highway would make my family safer.  We would have inches of heavy armor between us and the vehicles around us, and several tons of mass would mean that other vehicles would just bounce off were there to be a collision.  This reduces risk for me and my family.  Tanks don't have very good visibility though.  This increases risks to every other person on the road.

In a similar way, when guns are freely available to all the risk to everyone in a country is increased.  There is greater risk of criminals or terrorists getting weapons either by buying them in a private sale, from straw purchasers, or by theft.  It also becomes easier for someone who is mentally unstable to get a hold of weapons, and more likely for an elderly person who is developing dementia to already have weapons in the home.  There is greater risk of a gun "accident" - children getting a hold of guns and killing themselves or others, misuse of the firearm by the owner through negligence or mistake.  There is heightened risk when dealing with police forces, as officers are much more likely to assume that every person encountered is armed and a threat to their own person.



Can you think of a reason why someone might be more inclined to discuss using their gun to prevent a crime rather than commit one?

Of course they're more likely to talk about preventing a crime than committing one. What I do know is I'm in a small town area. I would know from news and a variety of things if someone I knew was arrested for committing a crime with a gun. It hasn't happened. Anecdotal, sure, but it is what it is.

Is it possible to commit a crime without being both caught and then reported on in the local news?



Finally, you still have not answered my alcohol analogy, and I believe the reason why is the answer doesn't paint gun control people in a good light. The fact of the matter is, people are always more willing to restrict rights for things they don't care about. You seem to not care about self-defense with a gun, so you don't care to restrict it. Too many people like to drink, and they don't care that alcohol causes more deaths than guns. They're more than happy to regulate guns because they don't care about them but wouldn't even think to organize a march to restrict alcohol in the same way they want to restrict guns. Alcohol is an optional thing that could be restricted in the same way as people want to for guns, and yet from the Democrats.....crickets. Let's end the hypocrisy and make it part of the Democrat platform if they're really concerned with holistically saving innocent lives. Or is it easier to pick on the bogey man that a good portion of America is terrified of where the ones rabidly supporting gun control know very little about them and would never use them. The second one is easier and obviously the route chosen by people who are more than willing to restrict gun rights without addressing alcohol.

I figured the discussion about alcohol was over when you refused to answer my question:
Quote
Is it easier or more difficult to perform any given task while inebriated?  My experience has been that it is more difficult.  You have reduced motor functions, reduced reaction time, dizziness, are prone to blacking out and vomiting.  Would you say that this makes it easier or harder to kill someone?

But yes, we can keep discussing it if you think it's important.

With drunk driving, it's usually the automobile that causes the death.  With violence it's usually guns, fists, knives, and blunt weapons that cause deaths.  Alchohol might be involved in some of these, but I don't ever recall seeing it reported as the cause.  Can you please provide some news articles that show what you're talking about where alcohol itself caused the deaths of people (other than the person consuming the alcohol)?

zolotiyeruki

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2992
  • Location: State: Denial
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1537 on: February 17, 2019, 01:24:58 PM »
Pretty much every other country than the US opens its newspaper without reading about the latest shooting and hoping it is not their town.  I never even think about shootings here in France, but I do worry about my family back in Houston.  There are plenty of problems in the world, but an individual shooting other people located close to them is just sick.

The gun problem is uniquely American.
That's a rather broad brush you're painting with.  There are plenty of countries with stricter gun laws than the US that somehow have a higher murder rate, and a number of countries that have similar gun ownership rates and yet have very low crime rates.  Any comparison along these lines is pointless, however, because as Wolfpack Mustachian has stated (and nobody is acknowledging), it's not a simple "Number of guns vs murder" graph, as much as the gun control or the more-guns-less-crime crowd would like to claim.

And you didn't even mention the statistics on US siblings -  that shot their brother or sister in the home.  Not well documented, anecdotal stories, but it seems to happen quite a lot....  IMHO just one is too many for any modern country that is not fighting off some natural predator...
Two problems with this:
1) we have a media that on the whole is quite strongly biased against gun ownership, and thus take any opportunity to highlight bad things that can happen because of guns.  So such tragedies get publicized far more than, say, a child dying from a disease.
2) it's true that we really don't have to worry much about natural predators.  Some people do :)  Most people in the US who own guns for self-defense are more concerned about...ah, bipedal predators.


A gun isn't insurance.  It doesn't replace anything if you're mugged.  It offers no guarantee.  Maybe it gives you a chance to fight back in a crime scenario, maybe it doesn't.  What we know for sure is that it does increase the risk of accidental discharge to non-zero.  It also increases the risk of theft of that gun (or of having the gun taken and used against you to non-zero.

It adds certain (although small) risks to your life, for a potential risk mitigation.  This is quite unlike insurance which adds certain risk mitigation without increasing risk.


Carrying a gun all the time provides possible mitigation of a bad outcome in the case of violent crime while also increasing the chance of a bad outcome (related to the fact that you're now carrying a gun, and accident/theft/mis-fire/missed shots are all now possible).  That again makes it quite different than a fire alarm, fire extinguisher, smoke detector, etc. where there is mitigation with no increased chance of bad outcome.  A gun is not insurance, nor is it like a safety device.
You are correct that carrying a gun increases a particular type of risk, but invoking that argument without quantifying it is mere speculation.  There are plenty of statistics about crimes thwarted by armed citizens.  The estimates vary widely, because such incidents tend to be severely underreported, but they range from about 500,000 to 3,000,000 per year (often correlated with the position of the group making the estimate).  The number of incidents where an armed citizen made things worse?  Something several orders of magnitude less.
Quote
In a similar way, when guns are freely available to all the risk to everyone in a country is increased.  There is greater risk of criminals or terrorists getting weapons either by buying them in a private sale, from straw purchasers, or by theft.  It also becomes easier for someone who is mentally unstable to get a hold of weapons, and more likely for an elderly person who is developing dementia to already have weapons in the home.  There is greater risk of a gun "accident" - children getting a hold of guns and killing themselves or others, misuse of the firearm by the owner through negligence or mistake.  There is heightened risk when dealing with police forces, as officers are much more likely to assume that every person encountered is armed and a threat to their own person.
You're stating an absolute there, without considering the whole picture.  You could make that same argument about lots and lots of other things, but we don't because we recognize the positive effects (or mitigation of negative effects) these things have.  I would expect you to do the same here.  Yes, if private firearm ownership were eliminated (ignoring the impracticality thereof), we would eliminate a lot of suicide, accidents, crimes of passion, etc.  But such a move would eliminate all the bad things that are prevented by private gun ownership.

Quote
With drunk driving, it's usually the automobile that causes the death.  With violence it's usually guns, fists, knives, and blunt weapons that cause deaths.  Alcohol might be involved in some of these, but I don't ever recall seeing it reported as the cause.  Can you please provide some news articles that show what you're talking about where alcohol itself caused the deaths of people (other than the person consuming the alcohol)?
You're drawing a distinction without a difference here.  It's also worth pointing out that how something is reported does not make for a logical argument.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 110
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1538 on: February 17, 2019, 05:06:36 PM »

Sure, I'll continue the discussion.  My point is not really about gun control per se, but rather that people make have these views based on deeply personal, highly emotional reasons.  And those are impervious to logic. 

I'll prove it to you.  If your beliefs were based on logic/reason, then there would be an argument, piece of data, or some logic that I could present that would make you change your mind.  But in truth, I know there is nothing I can say on this matter that would make you change your mind.  And that's fine, that just makes you exactly like most of the rest of the people in the world (both pro gun and anti gun). 

Now, if you're going to retort that "of course I'm open to changing my opinion", then my next response will be "Prove it.  What in the world could possibly ever convince you to give up your guns"? 

If nothing can convince you, if nothing can change your mind, then your opinion is not based on logic or evidence.  It's based on emotion, which is impervious to facts or logic.

Thanks for the excellent question/thought experiment! This is why I really enjoy these conversations overall, for nuggets like this that help me to clarify what I really think and believe about things. I thought about it and came up with the following:

I believe that self-defense is a right. It would be really hard to sway me from this, and it's a philosophical point of something that's right or wrong. You can say that it's emotional because the core principle wouldn't likely change with argument, but if you do, I'd say the same reasoning would then indict beliefs of rape is always wrong or whatnot as emotional.

I believe that self-defense is a right with tools that make it easier but can actually be effectively used as such. The whole thing about you can't have nuclear weapons thing that comes up - nuclear weapons can't be used effectively as self-defense. A pistol can. This is, of course, where the argument becomes more subjective about what I feel is an effective tool for self-defense and you might not, but that doesn't mean it's an emotional argument.

Now, finally, to your point. What could actually change my viewpoint. Holding with my philosophical view of self-defense, if self-defense was truly not required, then I would be OK with guns going away. This would probably not be agreed upon by hunters, but I feel that hunting is not in the same level of necessity as self-defense. Same for shooting for fun. So, yes, if crime was completely eliminated (or it could somehow be proven that making guns disappear would mean crime was totally eliminated - since we're in a thought experiment), then I would cede the argument. That's of course not going to happen, which is why I keep describing it as a trade-off where I emphasize my philosophical stance of self-defense and others emphasize their philosophical stance that one person getting killed by a gun is too many (or whatever the case may be per person). For me, though, it's always going to hinge on the ability for someone to defend themselves against the possibility of getting hurt by people doing bad things. If there was no possibility, that would be different. So as I see your challenge, I believe I meet it. That situation would change my viewpoint on the need for guns.

middo

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 550
  • Location: Country Western Australia
  • Learning.
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1539 on: February 17, 2019, 06:56:24 PM »

Sure, I'll continue the discussion.  My point is not really about gun control per se, but rather that people make have these views based on deeply personal, highly emotional reasons.  And those are impervious to logic. 

I'll prove it to you.  If your beliefs were based on logic/reason, then there would be an argument, piece of data, or some logic that I could present that would make you change your mind.  But in truth, I know there is nothing I can say on this matter that would make you change your mind.  And that's fine, that just makes you exactly like most of the rest of the people in the world (both pro gun and anti gun). 

Now, if you're going to retort that "of course I'm open to changing my opinion", then my next response will be "Prove it.  What in the world could possibly ever convince you to give up your guns"? 

If nothing can convince you, if nothing can change your mind, then your opinion is not based on logic or evidence.  It's based on emotion, which is impervious to facts or logic.

Thanks for the excellent question/thought experiment! This is why I really enjoy these conversations overall, for nuggets like this that help me to clarify what I really think and believe about things. I thought about it and came up with the following:

I believe that self-defense is a right. It would be really hard to sway me from this, and it's a philosophical point of something that's right or wrong. You can say that it's emotional because the core principle wouldn't likely change with argument, but if you do, I'd say the same reasoning would then indict beliefs of rape is always wrong or whatnot as emotional.

I believe that self-defense is a right with tools that make it easier but can actually be effectively used as such. The whole thing about you can't have nuclear weapons thing that comes up - nuclear weapons can't be used effectively as self-defense. A pistol can. This is, of course, where the argument becomes more subjective about what I feel is an effective tool for self-defense and you might not, but that doesn't mean it's an emotional argument.

Now, finally, to your point. What could actually change my viewpoint. Holding with my philosophical view of self-defense, if self-defense was truly not required, then I would be OK with guns going away. This would probably not be agreed upon by hunters, but I feel that hunting is not in the same level of necessity as self-defense. Same for shooting for fun. So, yes, if crime was completely eliminated (or it could somehow be proven that making guns disappear would mean crime was totally eliminated - since we're in a thought experiment), then I would cede the argument. That's of course not going to happen, which is why I keep describing it as a trade-off where I emphasize my philosophical stance of self-defense and others emphasize their philosophical stance that one person getting killed by a gun is too many (or whatever the case may be per person). For me, though, it's always going to hinge on the ability for someone to defend themselves against the possibility of getting hurt by people doing bad things. If there was no possibility, that would be different. So as I see your challenge, I believe I meet it. That situation would change my viewpoint on the need for guns.

I find it interesting that you see the need for a gun for self defense.  Would a society that doesn't lead to violence also suffice?  I am sugnificantly more likely to die in a car accident, or from a medical mistake than from violence in Austalia.  Do I need a gun for self defense in your opinion then?

tyort1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2196
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1540 on: February 17, 2019, 07:53:03 PM »

Sure, I'll continue the discussion.  My point is not really about gun control per se, but rather that people make have these views based on deeply personal, highly emotional reasons.  And those are impervious to logic. 

I'll prove it to you.  If your beliefs were based on logic/reason, then there would be an argument, piece of data, or some logic that I could present that would make you change your mind.  But in truth, I know there is nothing I can say on this matter that would make you change your mind.  And that's fine, that just makes you exactly like most of the rest of the people in the world (both pro gun and anti gun). 

Now, if you're going to retort that "of course I'm open to changing my opinion", then my next response will be "Prove it.  What in the world could possibly ever convince you to give up your guns"? 

If nothing can convince you, if nothing can change your mind, then your opinion is not based on logic or evidence.  It's based on emotion, which is impervious to facts or logic.

Thanks for the excellent question/thought experiment! This is why I really enjoy these conversations overall, for nuggets like this that help me to clarify what I really think and believe about things. I thought about it and came up with the following:

I believe that self-defense is a right. It would be really hard to sway me from this, and it's a philosophical point of something that's right or wrong. You can say that it's emotional because the core principle wouldn't likely change with argument, but if you do, I'd say the same reasoning would then indict beliefs of rape is always wrong or whatnot as emotional.

I believe that self-defense is a right with tools that make it easier but can actually be effectively used as such. The whole thing about you can't have nuclear weapons thing that comes up - nuclear weapons can't be used effectively as self-defense. A pistol can. This is, of course, where the argument becomes more subjective about what I feel is an effective tool for self-defense and you might not, but that doesn't mean it's an emotional argument.

Now, finally, to your point. What could actually change my viewpoint. Holding with my philosophical view of self-defense, if self-defense was truly not required, then I would be OK with guns going away. This would probably not be agreed upon by hunters, but I feel that hunting is not in the same level of necessity as self-defense. Same for shooting for fun. So, yes, if crime was completely eliminated (or it could somehow be proven that making guns disappear would mean crime was totally eliminated - since we're in a thought experiment), then I would cede the argument. That's of course not going to happen, which is why I keep describing it as a trade-off where I emphasize my philosophical stance of self-defense and others emphasize their philosophical stance that one person getting killed by a gun is too many (or whatever the case may be per person). For me, though, it's always going to hinge on the ability for someone to defend themselves against the possibility of getting hurt by people doing bad things. If there was no possibility, that would be different. So as I see your challenge, I believe I meet it. That situation would change my viewpoint on the need for guns.

Thanks man, I'm glad we can have a good discussion about this without heading into heated arguments. 

OK, so your response was pretty much as I expected.  In your view, owning a gun is a right and it's needed because there are bad people in the world.  And it also seems that a reduction of violence or even violence being statistically unlikely is not enough to change your mind.  As you say, the only thing that might change your mind is if violence (and the potential for violence) is eliminated.   

And, since we both know that will never happen, then my original assertion, that there is nothing I could say, and there is no evidence I could present, that would change your mind on this topic, is correct.

So, to talk about "nuance" and "arguments and counter arguments" etc etc etc is disingenuous because there's no real chance for your opinion to be changed via dialog.  [I'm sort of singling you out here, but in fact this is true of most people on BOTH sides of this issue.]  In fact, IME this type of intransigent belief in certain ideas is pretty much baked into our DNA.  It's how we function. 

Now, with this additional context, I'll restate my original (intentionally provocative) thesis - that there's nothing the gun control people can say or do that will ever convince the gun rights people to change their opinions on this topic.  So if there's going to be change, it will only happen if/when the GC people can simply out-vote the GRA people.  Till then, we'll just keep going round and round in circles.

Of course I have my own solution, but no one wants to hear it because whenever I bring it up it seems to piss off the GC people and the GRA people equally.  Hahaha.

« Last Edit: February 17, 2019, 08:06:11 PM by tyort1 »

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 110
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1541 on: February 17, 2019, 08:31:31 PM »

Carrying a gun all the time provides possible mitigation of a bad outcome in the case of violent crime while also increasing the chance of a bad outcome (related to the fact that you're now carrying a gun, and accident/theft/mis-fire/missed shots are all now possible).  That again makes it quite different than a fire alarm, fire extinguisher, smoke detector, etc. where there is mitigation with no increased chance of bad outcome.  A gun is not insurance, nor is it like a safety device.


At this point on this topic, we're delving quite down the rabbit hole here. I don't disagree with your points of comparison that a gun is different from those things. The house fire analogy was meant to show one point, I do things to prevent things that I'm not afraid of in a fear standpoint but see as a possible outcome. Just because there's legitimate differences between fire alarms and guns doesn't mean that my point of the analogy is not proven. We all do things with the goal of improving a situation or preventing something bad without fear being the actual motivation. None of your arguments against my analogy refute this point.


I don't agree.  There is a chance of being struck by lightning every time you walk outdoors, yet you probably don't carry a lighting rod with you all the time.  (I've been known to step outdoors without a lightning rod even when it's raining.)  Why?  Because the chance is negligible.  It still exists of course (just as crime will always exist for the foreseeable future), but you don't need to eliminate lightning to step outdoors without a lightning rod.


I doubt we'll find any common ground on this one. Again, it goes back to your determination of something being negligible. There's an extremely small chance that I'll get attacked when I go outside, so you could say that's negligible. There's an extremely small chance anything bad would happen walking out in public with a gun on you (especially if you're a concealed carry holder, one of the lowest percentages of people committing crimes of most any demographic). You say the chance you'll get attacked is negligible, so why do it. I say the chance anything bad will happen because you're carrying a gun is negligible, so what's the big deal against carrying one. Negligiblity is in the eye of the beholder :).


There is absolutely a difference in the penetrating power and damage done by different rounds - I'm not arguing this.  That's why I hunted partridge with a .22 and moose with a 30-06.

I will reiterate though, because we appear to be getting stuck here and this is probably my fault for not being clear enough.  Hand guns are designed to kill other people efficiently.  That's their only utility as a tool.  A .22 hand gun is designed to kill.  A 9 mm hand gun is designed to kill.  A .45 hand gun is designed to kill.  Now, all of them are less efficient at killing at range than a rifle.  That doesn't mean that they weren't designed to kill efficiently by other metrics!  They are designed to kill efficiently by being concealable, by minimizing recoil, by being light weight, etc.

If you want to debate the best possible caliber of hand gun to kill another human being given a particular situation, feel free to do so.  While I will not join in that discussion I tend to think that President Kennedy might disagree with your analysis of the .22, given that he was assassinated by a .22 caliber revolver.  You can cerfainly argue that some guns are more efficient at killing in particular scenarios than others . . . but don't argue that a gun is not designed to be efficient at killing.  That is their raison d'Ítre.


We're not going to agree on this either, and that's fine. My whole point is that you seem to imply that all guns were designed with only the intent to kill in mind and nothing else. My point is, if that were the case, then there's a crap-ton more of designed guns out there than necessary. I believe there are other intents in the design, and those can be more prevalent in the design intent of a gun than this blanket "every gun is designed to kill in the most efficient possible way period" view. At this point, though, even I can recognize I'm being a bit pedantic :), and this is not advancing the conversation, so I'm dropping this. Feel free to have the last word on this part if you'd like.



Agreed that they are making decisions.  But the risk that they're taking is not only to themselves as you imply with your use of 'the' prior to 'risks' above.  The risk extends to others.  This is why we're having this discussion at all, if there was no risk to anyone else from the choice then there would be no reason to restrict it.

An analogy . . . driving a tank down the highway would make my family safer.  We would have inches of heavy armor between us and the vehicles around us, and several tons of mass would mean that other vehicles would just bounce off were there to be a collision.  This reduces risk for me and my family.  Tanks don't have very good visibility though.  This increases risks to every other person on the road.

In a similar way, when guns are freely available to all the risk to everyone in a country is increased.  There is greater risk of criminals or terrorists getting weapons either by buying them in a private sale, from straw purchasers, or by theft.  It also becomes easier for someone who is mentally unstable to get a hold of weapons, and more likely for an elderly person who is developing dementia to already have weapons in the home.  There is greater risk of a gun "accident" - children getting a hold of guns and killing themselves or others, misuse of the firearm by the owner through negligence or mistake.  There is heightened risk when dealing with police forces, as officers are much more likely to assume that every person encountered is armed and a threat to their own person.


I re-read your statement, and I read context into it that wasn't there. I will only say that yes, gun owners must rationalize living in a world where the risk of guns is increased because of guns. However, they live with the same risks themselves, so they are, so to speak, putting their money where their mouth is.


Is it possible to commit a crime without being both caught and then reported on in the local news?


It's certainly possible. I could have missed someone. Statistically speaking, the point remains. Literally millions of people have guns without actually using their gun in a crime. The anecdote is not really helpful anyways, so I'll stick with that.



I figured the discussion about alcohol was over when you refused to answer my question:
Quote
Is it easier or more difficult to perform any given task while inebriated?  My experience has been that it is more difficult.  You have reduced motor functions, reduced reaction time, dizziness, are prone to blacking out and vomiting.  Would you say that this makes it easier or harder to kill someone?


You thought your anecdotal very hypothetical question refuted the entire point...seriously? I'll address your question directly instead of peripherally (which I did by commenting on practicality versus your anecdotal question - the point is moot because there are thousands of alcohol related deaths regardless of the answer). I don't know. We'd have to do a study on it to really know. Does it make it more difficult? Does it do it by only a tiny fraction (say 5%) in some people whereas it makes them 95% more likely to attack someone? It certainly does make it easier to kill someone on a highway if you don't have intent to hurt someone (like 99.999999999999% of people who drive) as seen by drunk driving statistics.


But yes, we can keep discussing it if you think it's important.

With drunk driving, it's usually the automobile that causes the death.  With violence it's usually guns, fists, knives, and blunt weapons that cause deaths.  Alchohol might be involved in some of these, but I don't ever recall seeing it reported as the cause.  Can you please provide some news articles that show what you're talking about where alcohol itself caused the deaths of people (other than the person consuming the alcohol)?


Great, let's keep discussing it. I think it's very important because it illustrates the hypocrisy.

First, now who's being pedantic. It's the automobile that causes the death....um, ok, sure, and if the person wasn't driving it drunk, it wouldn't happen.

Second, glad you put in the caveat of causing the deaths of other people. I hate to put words in your mouth, but an extremely high proportion of gun control advocates lump in suicides with all other gun deaths to make it look higher. Glad I can avoid using those numbers in future conversations with you :). Also on this topic, again, I want to point out that it's kind of interesting to me that people keep calling guns a "public health crisis" when they are a peripheral injury thing whereas alcohol is a clearer public health crisis because it's ingesting something that slowly deteriorates the body's functions. Just more evidence that people give alcohol a free pass.

Ok, so I should have posted this to begin with. My bad:

https://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-use.htm

Statistics - 88,000 alcohol related deaths per year 2006-2010
32,000 gun deaths in 2013 per - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
of which 21,175 were suicides, so 10,825 non-suicide related deaths due to guns. (Sorry for the wiki, it's hard to find older years of gun deaths, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong or if a direct date to date comparison changes it dramatically, but I doubt it will).

Gun deaths are less than half of the overall 88,000 alcohol related deaths when you look at whole deaths on both sides.

Of this, drunk drivers alone were 9,967, almost equivalent to all non-suicide related gun deaths by themselves - https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/overview-alcohol-consumption/alcohol-facts-and-statistics

The WHO attributes 8% of alcohol related deaths to violence, so that's another approximate 7,000 deaths. https://www.who.int/substance_abuse/publications/global_alcohol_report/msbgsruprofiles.pdf

Now we're already at 60% more alcohol deaths other than the person drinking compared to guns (non-suicide), and again, of course, when you factor in all deaths caused by alcohol, it's over twice as much as well.

What we have is a clear cut case of alcohol causing at least as much and in reality more societal problems than guns. Yet the issues I listed above remain. The problem is there, and it's clear. Yet it's not addressed. Because it's easier to take away rights for something you don't care at all about or think of as other. That's the problem I'm addressing.

 

yakamashii

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 105
  • Location: Japan
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1542 on: February 17, 2019, 08:41:54 PM »

Of course I have my own solution, but no one wants to hear it because whenever I bring it up it seems to piss off the GC people and the GRA people equally.  Hahaha.

Let's hear it. I'm in the middle on this issue (I don't like guns and feel like society would be safer overall without them, and believe that the status quo is problematic, but recognize that their utility and the existing right to have them makes arguing for a total ban a real swing for the fences), so my mind changes incrementally all the time when these arguments and ideas are thrown about.

Can't be any worse than my idea: Restrict gun use (and storage) to shooting ranges and designated hunting areas, so if you want to shoot or even hold a gun, you have to go to a controlled area to do it.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 110
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1543 on: February 17, 2019, 08:47:13 PM »

Thanks man, I'm glad we can have a good discussion about this without heading into heated arguments. 

OK, so your response was pretty much as I expected.  In your view, owning a gun is a right and it's needed because there are bad people in the world.  And it also seems that a reduction of violence or even violence being statistically unlikely is not enough to change your mind.  As you say, the only thing that might change your mind is if violence (and the potential for violence) is eliminated.   

And, since we both know that will never happen, then my original assertion, that there is nothing I could say, and there is no evidence I could present, that would change your mind on this topic, is correct.

So, to talk about "nuance" and "arguments and counter arguments" etc etc etc is disingenuous because there's no real chance for your opinion to be changed via dialog.  [I'm sort of singling you out here, but in fact this is true of most people on BOTH sides of this issue.]  In fact, IME this type of intransigent belief in certain ideas is pretty much baked into our DNA.  It's how we function. 

Now, with this additional context, I'll restate my original (intentionally provocative) thesis - that there's nothing the gun control people can say or do that will ever convince the gun rights people to change their opinions on this topic.  So if there's going to be change, it will only happen if/when the GC people can simply out-vote the GRA people.  Till then, we'll just keep going round and round in circles.

Of course I have my own solution, but no one wants to hear it because whenever I bring it up it seems to piss off the GC people and the GRA people equally.  Hahaha.

Indeed, this is a really interesting conversation, and I, too, am glad it's not getting heated.

I feel like you're changing things slightly from how I read your  original statement/experiment. I feel like I've justified that it's not a truly emotional response but one dictated by a logical chain based on a core belief not everyone  shares (since I did point out something that could change my opinion even if it's an impractical thing to happen). Since you didn't specifically call out emotions, I'm guessing you agree with this?

Now to your response, I have to disagree as well. Well, let me say, you are right that opinions on this subject rarely change, but it is not disingenuous for me to talk nuance and arguments for one significant reason, my opinions have changed. Not the core ones. No one is ever going to convince me full gun confiscation is the best bet. However, arguments  that discuss how self defense can be preserved with new gun legislation actually have changed my opinion. I've mellowed out some and went from, no more gun legislation, period, to actually being able to discuss the issues and think about how I would or wouldn't support an aspect of a law for gun control (better back ground checks as a quick example). Before discussions, I would have argued against it on principle of don't give an inch. Now, I'm actually open to something. So, you have a case in point of someone who has actually had opinion changed via dialogue :).

You've definitely piqued my interest about something that would make GC and GRA people both mad equally! For some reason I thought you had previously said full gun confiscation was your position, so my bad on that. Please elaborate if you don't mind on your idea!

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 110
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1544 on: February 17, 2019, 08:52:58 PM »

I find it interesting that you see the need for a gun for self defense.  Would a society that doesn't lead to violence also suffice?  I am sugnificantly more likely to die in a car accident, or from a medical mistake than from violence in Austalia.  Do I need a gun for self defense in your opinion then?

If by a society that doesn't lead to violence, you mean a society that doesn't have violence, then yes, I would agree. That would fit under my "no reason for self defense".

Do you need a gun for self defense? I would say no, you don't need one. It's not a primary need, and yes, you are much more likely to die from a car accident than from violence. Even in America where everyone abroad is apparently scared for their relatives dying in gun violence because the media reports on it, slanted, ad nauseam, you're also very unlikely to get hurt by gun violence. It's all minuscule possibilities, including the risk you have to yourself by having a gun. That's why it seems to me to be a very personal choice of weighing risks, all of which are very insignificant. Gun owners don't need guns for self defense, but if they're well trained, the guns could help them if they get in a dangerous situation.

tyort1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2196
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1545 on: February 17, 2019, 09:04:17 PM »

Thanks man, I'm glad we can have a good discussion about this without heading into heated arguments. 

OK, so your response was pretty much as I expected.  In your view, owning a gun is a right and it's needed because there are bad people in the world.  And it also seems that a reduction of violence or even violence being statistically unlikely is not enough to change your mind.  As you say, the only thing that might change your mind is if violence (and the potential for violence) is eliminated.   

And, since we both know that will never happen, then my original assertion, that there is nothing I could say, and there is no evidence I could present, that would change your mind on this topic, is correct.

So, to talk about "nuance" and "arguments and counter arguments" etc etc etc is disingenuous because there's no real chance for your opinion to be changed via dialog.  [I'm sort of singling you out here, but in fact this is true of most people on BOTH sides of this issue.]  In fact, IME this type of intransigent belief in certain ideas is pretty much baked into our DNA.  It's how we function. 

Now, with this additional context, I'll restate my original (intentionally provocative) thesis - that there's nothing the gun control people can say or do that will ever convince the gun rights people to change their opinions on this topic.  So if there's going to be change, it will only happen if/when the GC people can simply out-vote the GRA people.  Till then, we'll just keep going round and round in circles.

Of course I have my own solution, but no one wants to hear it because whenever I bring it up it seems to piss off the GC people and the GRA people equally.  Hahaha.

Indeed, this is a really interesting conversation, and I, too, am glad it's not getting heated.

I feel like you're changing things slightly from how I read your  original statement/experiment. I feel like I've justified that it's not a truly emotional response but one dictated by a logical chain based on a core belief not everyone  shares (since I did point out something that could change my opinion even if it's an impractical thing to happen). Since you didn't specifically call out emotions, I'm guessing you agree with this?

Now to your response, I have to disagree as well. Well, let me say, you are right that opinions on this subject rarely change, but it is not disingenuous for me to talk nuance and arguments for one significant reason, my opinions have changed. Not the core ones. No one is ever going to convince me full gun confiscation is the best bet. However, arguments  that discuss how self defense can be preserved with new gun legislation actually have changed my opinion. I've mellowed out some and went from, no more gun legislation, period, to actually being able to discuss the issues and think about how I would or wouldn't support an aspect of a law for gun control (better back ground checks as a quick example). Before discussions, I would have argued against it on principle of don't give an inch. Now, I'm actually open to something. So, you have a case in point of someone who has actually had opinion changed via dialogue :).

You've definitely piqued my interest about something that would make GC and GRA people both mad equally! For some reason I thought you had previously said full gun confiscation was your position, so my bad on that. Please elaborate if you don't mind on your idea!

You're right, changing opinions via dialogue is pretty rare so kudos for that.  Then maybe we keep talking :) 

OK, so my solution that pisses everyone off equally.  It's really just focusing on where changes could do the most good without expecting human nature to change.  TLDR version, 3 main steps:  1. Make handguns illegal  2. Allow rifle ownership (as many as you want) but not in cities  3. Legalize pot, cocaine and hallucinogenics. 

See, it's going to make everyone mad!  It's not enough for the GC people and it's way too much for the GRA people.  But, I've put a lot of thought behind these specific ideas and I'll expand on them a bit if you don't mind.

1.  Make Handguns Illegal - purely based on statistics, handguns cause the most death.  So just eliminate them.  And they aren't really needed. 

2.  Allow rifle ownership in rural areas (and small towns) but make it illegal in cities.  Mostly because I've lived on a farm in BFE (that's bum-fuck-egypt for you non country folk) and when you're in the middle of nowhere, being isolated is a real problem.  If someone comes there to do you harm, you'd better have a weapon or you're screwed.  Rifles fill this function fine, and I find shotguns work particularly well with intruders. 

3. Legalize most illicit drugs.  As has been pointed out, a large percentage of the gun violence in this country is driven by the drug trade, ie gang related violence.  Don't try to fix it by removing the weapons (which will never work).  Fix it by removing the true cause, the black market and profit created by making drugs illegal in the first place.  Legalize it and watch the violence disappear overnight.  Actually, #3 works synergistically with #1.  When you combine them, we won't be throwing people in jail for having or dealing drugs.  We WILL be throwing them in jail for possessing firearms. 

There, I think those 3 points will manage to piss off just about everybody, LOL!
« Last Edit: February 17, 2019, 09:06:34 PM by tyort1 »

RetiredAt63

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10141
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1546 on: February 18, 2019, 07:24:37 AM »


1.  Make Handguns Illegal - purely based on statistics, handguns cause the most death.  So just eliminate them.  And they aren't really needed. 

2.  Allow rifle ownership in rural areas (and small towns) but make it illegal in cities.  Mostly because I've lived on a farm in BFE (that's bum-fuck-egypt for you non country folk) and when you're in the middle of nowhere, being isolated is a real problem.  If someone comes there to do you harm, you'd better have a weapon or you're screwed.  Rifles fill this function fine, and I find shotguns work particularly well with intruders. 

3. Legalize most illicit drugs.  As has been pointed out, a large percentage of the gun violence in this country is driven by the drug trade, ie gang related violence.  Don't try to fix it by removing the weapons (which will never work).  Fix it by removing the true cause, the black market and profit created by making drugs illegal in the first place.  Legalize it and watch the violence disappear overnight.  Actually, #3 works synergistically with #1.  When you combine them, we won't be throwing people in jail for having or dealing drugs.  We WILL be throwing them in jail for possessing firearms. 

There, I think those 3 points will manage to piss off just about everybody, LOL!

I've stayed out of this because these discussions always seem to go downhill, but . . . . . . .

1.  This is Canada - handguns are illegal, since handguns are designed to shoot people, not game.  Also easily concealed, therefore good for crime.  Therefore banned.  Works just fine.  No arguments from me.

2.  I live in the boonies (is that the equivalent of BFE?) and don't have a long gun.  But lots of people around here do have long guns, for coyotes and other predators on livestock.  And hunting.  Anyone owning a long gun has taken a gun course and passed a basic security check.  Doesn't solve all the problems but sure helps.  Not sure about your city point, there must be hunters living in cities?

3.  Depends on which drugs.  Pot, sure.  We are seeing enough addiction issues with legal prescription drugs being misused that  I am not sure (from the health side, not the crime side) if we should be giving a social carte blanche to drugs in general.  If a lot of drugs that are presently illegal are legalized, what does that do to having equally dangerous medically indicated drugs only available by prescription?  I know too many people whose children are addicts and it is tragic.  To me, if a drug is dangerous enough that if it would be a prescription drug if it had medical use, it should not be freely available.   Historically, laudanum, a commonly used sedative, created a lot of heroin addicts in the Victorian period.  https://19thct.com/2008/03/02/laudanum/

johnmcafee

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 4
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1547 on: February 18, 2019, 08:21:55 AM »
It's been almost a year since this picture was posted in this thread. Unfortunately, the situation with shootings has not improved. Maybe it gets even worse. I think that many people support the right to own a gun. If not, this right would have been banned if not across all the US, but in some states.


zolotiyeruki

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2992
  • Location: State: Denial
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1548 on: February 18, 2019, 03:44:44 PM »
OK, so my solution that pisses everyone off equally.
...
1.  Make Handguns Illegal... 
2.  Allow rifle ownership in rural areas (and small towns) but make it illegal in cities... 
3. Legalize most illicit drugs.  ... 
(I've abbreviated your quote above in a (probably vain) attempt at brevity...)

Wolfpack and tyort1 are covering the philosophical side of the discussion pretty well, so I'll tackle the practical side, and (attempt to respectfully) explain why I at least two of those three proposals are a bad idea.  This, of course, ignores any constitutional questions, and only looks at the practical side of it.

As a preamble, I think it's critical to point out what specific problem you're trying to solve, whether it be murder, suicide, accidents, overall crime, etc.  Without a specific goal, it's impossible to judge whether a particular policy proposal has been or will be effective.

1) Something like 2/3 of gun deaths are due to suicide, and I'm sure such a law would have a measurable impact here (although it would be limited to the number of gun owners who are suicidal but not suicidal enough to use another method).  But for the 75-80% of gun murders that are associated with gang violence, this won't have any effect.  Banning handguns is the easy part.  Removing them all from circulation is impossible, and the ones you remove from circulation will be from law-abiding citizens who aren't the ones you're worried about in the first place.  As for "aren't really needed," the statistics  would tend to disagree--depending on who's talking, there are somewhere between 500k to 3M defensive handgun uses per year.

2) I don't understand what problem is being addressed here.  Long guns are *very* seldom involved in crime or suicide or accidents, even though they get disproportionate media coverage when they *are* involved.  In addition, the "you'd better have a weapon or you're screwed" applies just as well to someone in an urban or suburban situation as it does to someone in the country.

3) My concern here is that there's three parts to this problem: 1) the customers, 2) the drug traffickers, and 3) the violence that accompanies the drug trade.  If all these drugs are readily available on the open market, then yes, it takes away a great deal of profit from the illicit drug industry.  I wonder, however, how much that would impact gang-related murders.  In other words, yes, the drug trade is closely correlated to gang activity, but is not inseparable.  How much would the (hypothetical) elimination of the illegal drug trade impact gang violence?  How many of those murders are tied to the drug trade vs other motivation? 

My concern is that reduced barriers to access will lead to more widespread use and therefore abuse.  As with anything that can be abused, there has to be *some* level of barrier, otherwise we have preteens buying drugs at the candy store.  Given the addictive nature of so many of the drugs, a line must be drawn somewhere.  Do we make it prescription-only?  The opioid crisis shows that barrier to be imperfect. A Cannabis card, a la Colorado?  It's a joke.  Given the rates of drunk driving deaths (>10,000 per year), I'm concerned with the real-world impact of making mind-altering drugs more freely available.  And, just to pile on, a lot of burglaries and violent crimes are committed by people who are trying to get enough cash for their next hit, and legalizing a lot of drugs doesn't address that.  So would it reduce the murder rate?  Probably, but we don't know by how much.  And that only solves one problem by creating (or exacerbating) another.



As an aside, I find it somewhat amusing to see an argument advocating for legalizing drugs in the hopes of reducing drug-related crime, while ignoring the same effect in the case of guns. :)  Australia and the UK both have a thriving black market in arms.

There are plenty of states that are trying, in spite of the Macdonald and Heller rulings.

There is so much wrong with that comic, I don't know where to start.  Let's start from the beginning:
Panel 1) Nobody carries like this.  Under-the-shirt Armpit Carry isn't a thing.  Shoulder holsters go across the back, not the chest, and the barrel is pointed to the rear in a shoulder holster.  And yes, there are lots of cases where armed civilians have stopped mass shootings. Those stories never get much publicity, though.
Panel 2) There are plenty of reasons not to Open Carry, which is why very few people do it outside of law enforcement.  Deterrent is only a secondary effect of carrying.  And what sort of brain-dead holster is that!?
Panel 3) Reductio ad absurdum.  (That panel violates at least three of the four main points of gun safety.)
Panel 4) ...um...yeah...ok, I've run out of energy to care on this one...

middo

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 550
  • Location: Country Western Australia
  • Learning.
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1549 on: February 18, 2019, 06:07:27 PM »

Thanks man, I'm glad we can have a good discussion about this without heading into heated arguments. 

OK, so your response was pretty much as I expected.  In your view, owning a gun is a right and it's needed because there are bad people in the world.  And it also seems that a reduction of violence or even violence being statistically unlikely is not enough to change your mind.  As you say, the only thing that might change your mind is if violence (and the potential for violence) is eliminated.   

And, since we both know that will never happen, then my original assertion, that there is nothing I could say, and there is no evidence I could present, that would change your mind on this topic, is correct.

So, to talk about "nuance" and "arguments and counter arguments" etc etc etc is disingenuous because there's no real chance for your opinion to be changed via dialog.  [I'm sort of singling you out here, but in fact this is true of most people on BOTH sides of this issue.]  In fact, IME this type of intransigent belief in certain ideas is pretty much baked into our DNA.  It's how we function. 

Now, with this additional context, I'll restate my original (intentionally provocative) thesis - that there's nothing the gun control people can say or do that will ever convince the gun rights people to change their opinions on this topic.  So if there's going to be change, it will only happen if/when the GC people can simply out-vote the GRA people.  Till then, we'll just keep going round and round in circles.

Of course I have my own solution, but no one wants to hear it because whenever I bring it up it seems to piss off the GC people and the GRA people equally.  Hahaha.

Indeed, this is a really interesting conversation, and I, too, am glad it's not getting heated.

I feel like you're changing things slightly from how I read your  original statement/experiment. I feel like I've justified that it's not a truly emotional response but one dictated by a logical chain based on a core belief not everyone  shares (since I did point out something that could change my opinion even if it's an impractical thing to happen). Since you didn't specifically call out emotions, I'm guessing you agree with this?

Now to your response, I have to disagree as well. Well, let me say, you are right that opinions on this subject rarely change, but it is not disingenuous for me to talk nuance and arguments for one significant reason, my opinions have changed. Not the core ones. No one is ever going to convince me full gun confiscation is the best bet. However, arguments  that discuss how self defense can be preserved with new gun legislation actually have changed my opinion. I've mellowed out some and went from, no more gun legislation, period, to actually being able to discuss the issues and think about how I would or wouldn't support an aspect of a law for gun control (better back ground checks as a quick example). Before discussions, I would have argued against it on principle of don't give an inch. Now, I'm actually open to something. So, you have a case in point of someone who has actually had opinion changed via dialogue :).

You've definitely piqued my interest about something that would make GC and GRA people both mad equally! For some reason I thought you had previously said full gun confiscation was your position, so my bad on that. Please elaborate if you don't mind on your idea!

You're right, changing opinions via dialogue is pretty rare so kudos for that.  Then maybe we keep talking :) 

OK, so my solution that pisses everyone off equally.  It's really just focusing on where changes could do the most good without expecting human nature to change.  TLDR version, 3 main steps:  1. Make handguns illegal  2. Allow rifle ownership (as many as you want) but not in cities  3. Legalize pot, cocaine and hallucinogenics. 

See, it's going to make everyone mad!  It's not enough for the GC people and it's way too much for the GRA people.  But, I've put a lot of thought behind these specific ideas and I'll expand on them a bit if you don't mind.

1.  Make Handguns Illegal - purely based on statistics, handguns cause the most death.  So just eliminate them.  And they aren't really needed. 

2.  Allow rifle ownership in rural areas (and small towns) but make it illegal in cities.  Mostly because I've lived on a farm in BFE (that's bum-fuck-egypt for you non country folk) and when you're in the middle of nowhere, being isolated is a real problem.  If someone comes there to do you harm, you'd better have a weapon or you're screwed.  Rifles fill this function fine, and I find shotguns work particularly well with intruders. 

3. Legalize most illicit drugs.  As has been pointed out, a large percentage of the gun violence in this country is driven by the drug trade, ie gang related violence.  Don't try to fix it by removing the weapons (which will never work).  Fix it by removing the true cause, the black market and profit created by making drugs illegal in the first place.  Legalize it and watch the violence disappear overnight.  Actually, #3 works synergistically with #1.  When you combine them, we won't be throwing people in jail for having or dealing drugs.  We WILL be throwing them in jail for possessing firearms. 

There, I think those 3 points will manage to piss off just about everybody, LOL!

I'm fundamentally on the same page as you on these points.  I have a few minor extra considerations, but mostly agree.

For reference, I'm from Australia.

1.  Make Handguns Illegal - in Australia they are.  They are also uncommon.  Very uncommon.  But removing them from society isn't as hard as others make out.  Everytime someone is pulled over, their car searched, their self searched or their house searched, the gun found gets removed.  Some will hide them, sure, but a hidden gun is not being actively used, either for crime or suicide.

2.  Allow rifle ownership in rural areas (and small towns) but make it illegal in cities. - In Australia you have no "right" to own a gun.  You need to show a need to own a gun.  As a person who owns a farm, I can purchase a gun for vermin control.  However, there are types of guns that are restricted to me.  We cannot own semi-automatics in any form, and higher powered guns require a higher need.

3. Legalize most illicit drugs. - yes.  Legalise, regulate and tax. 
  • LEGALIZE to: Put the lawyers out of work.  Put the jailors out of work.  Let the Police follow up on the reduced number of crimes that will be committed. 
  • REGULATE to: allow for users to get a known "hit" of their drug of choice.  I get to know how strong my alcohol or caffeine hit is going to be.  Why shouldn't the ecstasy user, or marijuana user, or heroin user get a known dose too?  I feel that this would reduce the number of unexpected overdoses.  Some will still try to commit suicide, or just take too much, but that happens with alcohol anyway.
  • TAX to: increase government funding for mental health programs, health education about drugs (real health education), and rehab for all that want it.  There will be corresponding drops in incarceration numbers for drug related crimes and this will also be a benefit to government coffers.

To my mind, drug policy has been a total failure over many generations.  I am a user of alcohol, occasionally for recreational purposes (I like to get drunk occasionally).  Would I try other drugs if they were legal and regulated?  Yes.  I would try ecstasy, and maybe marijuana (but not smoked).

Another factor raised in one of the earlier posts was about gang culture.  If drugs are legalised, gangs will need to find other sources of funds.  They will morph into stand over protection rackets, stealing or other slightly more problematic methods of raising funds.  They will continue.  But a Police force that is not checking every third person for recreational drug use would have more resources to fight these type of crimes.

Just my opinion.