Concerning America's mass shootings epidemic

[Wingflier]

I think it's a slippery slope towards even more restrictive laws - "There still are shootings, we must tighten the law!"

Once again, no offense intended, but this seems like the most surreal form of projection of the side of the gun lobby, who is continually using the slipperly slope fallacy to promote fear and paranoia in the American populace, in the most insidious of ways. "Today it's harsher background checks, tomorrow SWAT teams raiding our houses for guns!"

I've seen no evidence and no reason to think that increasing restrictions in logical ways will somehow lead to government takeover of our civil liberties and a dystopian future. That just seems tinfoil hat level nuts to me, and I don't even believe the official story of what happened on 9/11.

I don't think the state ought to decide who is or is not too unstable to go armed.

The state (and the federal government) is supposed to be a representation of the people, hence why the leaders who have political power are elected by the people. If the people are unsatisfied with how the state and federal leaders are handling the gun situation, they vote them out and hire new representatives to handle that. Once again, I don't exactly see the problem here.

[Cinth]

The state (and the federal government) is supposed to be a representation of the people, hence why the leaders who have political power are elected by the people. If the people are unsatisfied with how the state and federal leaders are handling the gun situation, they vote them out and hire new representatives to handle that. Once again, I don't exactly see the problem here.

Except when they don't represent the people.  How many times do we get to watch them tow party lines or personal agendas versus actually listening to what the people who they represent?  I don't trust any of them to actually do anything other than what is in the best interest for their respective political careers.

On topic:  We had bans on specific weapons before and it doesn't deter the criminal element from obtaining and using those weapons.  Stricter gun control laws will only hinder the people that regularly follow the law (this isn't to say I'm for or against anything, it's just something that is true in a broad sense). 

[Wingflier]

If the elected leaders don't represent the people, then they get voted out of office in the next term because they weren't representing the people who elected them. There are a lot of corrupt politicians, but there a lot of honest people as well who really just want to make a difference.

The biggest problem right now with our political system is not that there aren't good people out there trying to get elected, it's just that the people who get all the exposure are in the pockets of big money.

Sure, it's not a perfect system, but well, Communism hasn't worked, and Libertarianism is so hilariously problematic that I won't even go into that discussion.

On topic:  We had bans on specific weapons before and it doesn't deter the criminal element from obtaining and using those weapons.  Stricter gun control laws will only hinder the people that regularly follow the law (this isn't to say I'm for or against anything, it's just something that is true in a broad sense).

Gun control is not the same as weapon bans, there are many forms of gun control, stricter background checks for violent offenders and mentally unstable individuals is one that I've mentioned.

What's your source that gun control does not reduce violent crimes?

A recent study seems to have found the opposite:

The study, by researchers at Boston Children's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, and Harvard School of Public Health, uses a measure of state-by-state "legislative strength" of gun control policies tracked by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, including measures to: (1) curb firearm trafficking; (2) strengthen background checks on purchasers of firearms beyond those required by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act; (3) ensure child safety; (4) ban military style assault weapons; and (5) restrict guns in public places. It conducted a detailed statistical analysis (via a clustered Poisson regression) to examine the effect gun control laws on firearms fatalities.

The study found that states with the strictest gun control laws had lower rates of gun-related homicides and suicides, though it notes that these findings are limited to associations and could not determine precise cause-and-effect. Gun-related deaths were measured per 100,000 people for both homicides and suicides based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, controlling for other factors thought to be associated with gun deaths including age, sex, race and ethnicity, poverty, unemployment, college education, population density, other violence-related deaths, and firearm ownership.

[Cyborg]

I'm interested in the reasoning behind why we shouldn't have laws because criminals will ignore them. I am also interested in why Second Amendment fanatics are interested in protecting the rights of the violent and mentally unstable to own weapons. I'm interested in the reasoning behind why someone like Adam Lanza should have a gun in his house.

Freedom is all well and good until someone's freedom is trampling on someone else's.

[Shrugging Khan]

The biggest problem right now with our political system is not that there aren't good people out there trying to get elected, it's just that the people who get all the exposure are in the pockets of big money.

So the problem isn't that it can't work, but that it doesn't?

I find it slightly hard to believe that it is even remotely possible for country the size of a continent and containing 300 million people to find democratic representation in political institutions consisting of a few hundred people, with one single leader making executive decisions. I do believe in the value of democracy, but at that scale it just looks like the most ridiculous scam.

Once again, no offense intended, but this seems like the most surreal form of projection of the side of the gun lobby, who is continually using the slipperly slope fallacy to promote fear and paranoia in the American populace, in the most insidious of ways. "Today it's harsher background checks, tomorrow SWAT teams raiding our houses for guns!"

Well, over the last 100 years the laws have become stricter while gun violence or gun crime supposedly became ever more prevalent. It seems to me that there really is a political will to reduce civilian firearm ownership, that it has little to nothing to do with mass shootings, and that those who pursue this will use any supposed justification to push their agenda

I'm interested in the reasoning behind why we shouldn't have laws because criminals will ignore them. I am also interested in why Second Amendment fanatics are interested in protecting the rights of the violent and mentally unstable to own weapons. I'm interested in the reasoning behind why someone like Adam Lanza should have a gun in his house.

See:

("state" referring to federal or actual state institutions where applicable)

    I don't think the state ought to decide who is or is not too unstable to go armed.
    I think it's a slippery slope towards even more restrictive laws - "There still are shootings, we must tighten the law!"
    I think there generally should be a massive reduction of state responsibilities, while giving lower levels of communal organisation the power to decide these matters.

These reasons, to me, make country-wide legislation further limiting access to arms undesirable.

Freedom is all well and good until someone's freedom is trampling on someone else's.

This cuts both ways.
I'd argue that in such a subejctive-freedom-against-other-subejctive-freedom situation, the one that requires fewer laws and institutions is inherently more free, but somehow I don't expect us to agree on that.

[Cinth]

On topic:  We had bans on specific weapons before and it doesn't deter the criminal element from obtaining and using those weapons.  Stricter gun control laws will only hinder the people that regularly follow the law (this isn't to say I'm for or against anything, it's just something that is true in a broad sense).

Gun control is not the same as weapon bans, there are many forms of gun control, stricter background checks for violent offenders and mentally unstable individuals is one that I've mentioned.

I'm not getting into our fucked up system of government. 

I am all for closing the loopholes that existed.  I don't oppose better controls (not to be confused with stricter). 

What's your source that gun control does not reduce violent crimes?

Don't attribute something I did not say here to me. 

Hypothetically speaking, if we had no guns in the civilian populace, do you think that violent crime rates would be lower? 

[Cinth]

I'm interested in the reasoning behind why we shouldn't have laws because criminals will ignore them. I am also interested in why Second Amendment fanatics are interested in protecting the rights of the violent and mentally unstable to own weapons. I'm interested in the reasoning behind why someone like Adam Lanza should have a gun in his house.

Because inevitably those laws and regulations impact those whom it wasn't targeted at negatively.

If Adam Lanza couldn't get a firearm legally then I'm pretty sure he could get one illegally.  It's no different than someone who wants a rock or a nickel bag.  If you want it, there is usually a way to get it, legal or not.

Case in point, I know of a specific person who by all legal rights is not allowed to own a firearm of any sort.  Yet I know for fact that this person does.  This person found a way to sidestep ALL the gun control laws.


Edit: Broken quote boxes are fun. 

[Wingflier]

Hypothetically speaking, if we had no guns in the civilian populace, do you think that violent crime rates would be lower? 

Casualties would most likely be lower.

If you give a homicidal maniac a 12-gauge Remington 870 Express Tactical shotgun and a Smith & Wesson M&P15 semi-automatic rifle with a 100-round drum magazine (this is what the shooter had in Aurora, Colorado) he's going to do far more damage than with a screwdriver. There are some rebuttals to this like, "He could build a bomb" or "He could chainsaw a bunch of people instead."

Let's be honest, most people just don't have the technical know-how to build an explosive weapon without blowing themselves up in the process, or probably the desire. I think of homicide as a combination of desire mixed with opportunity. The will to kill is there, and so is the opportunity. Weapons that have no recreational use increase that opportunity significantly, especially for people that never should have had them in the first place.

In spite of that, what we've heard again and again from gun lobbyists is that guns make people safer by virtue of 'mutually assured destruction'. You shoot my wife and I shoot you back, and all that.

However, once again, would you really feel safe going to Wal Mart in a situation where every shopper was armed? Suddenly every small scuffle over who gets the last box of Cheerios turns into a firefight. Anybody who thinks it would be a good idea to arm every person in the country really has no imagination, or doesn't know what American people are actually like.

But don't take my word for it, you can look at the same study I posted earlier conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice. Which concluded (quoting Newsweek) "Only the tiniest fraction of victims of violent crime are able to use a gun in their defense. Over the period from 2007-2011, when roughly six million nonfatal violent crimes occurred each year, data from the National Crime Victimization Survey show that the victim did not defend with a gun in 99.2% of these incidents—this in a country with 300 million guns in civilian hands."

Another study actually investigating illegal home entries in Atlanta found that the robber was twice as likely to steal the gun and use it against the unsuspecting family than for it to be used in their defense.

Another study found that arming women makes them 500% more likely to be victims of a homicidal fatality, with their own weapon being used against them, instead of protecting them.

All the gun lobby has going for it are anecdotal stories and fear tactics. The idea that arming every citizen in the country would make the country safer is quite frankly, delusional, and we need to start being honest about that.

[Misery]

Hypothetically speaking, if we had no guns in the civilian populace, do you think that violent crime rates would be lower? 

Casualties would most likely be lower.

If you give a homicidal maniac a 12-gauge Remington 870 Express Tactical shotgun and a Smith & Wesson M&P15 semi-automatic rifle with a 100-round drum magazine (this is what the shooter had in Aurora, Colorado) he's going to do far more damage than with a screwdriver. There are some rebuttals to this like, "He could build a bomb" or "He could chainsaw a bunch of people instead."

Let's be honest, most people just don't have the technical know-how to build an explosive weapon without blowing themselves up in the process, or probably the desire. I think of homicide as a combination of desire mixed with opportunity. The will to kill is there, and so is the opportunity. Weapons that have no recreational use increase that opportunity significantly, especially for people that never should have had them in the first place.

In spite of that, what we've heard again and again from gun lobbyists is that guns make people safer by virtue of 'mutually assured destruction'. You shoot my wife and I shoot you back, and all that.

However, once again, would you really feel safe going to Wal Mart in a situation where every shopper was armed? Suddenly every small scuffle over who gets the last box of Cheerios turns into a firefight. Anybody who thinks it would be a good idea to arm every person in the country really has no imagination, or doesn't know what American people are actually like.

But don't take my word for it, you can look at the same study I posted earlier conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice. Which concluded (quoting Newsweek) "Only the tiniest fraction of victims of violent crime are able to use a gun in their defense. Over the period from 2007-2011, when roughly six million nonfatal violent crimes occurred each year, data from the National Crime Victimization Survey show that the victim did not defend with a gun in 99.2% of these incidents—this in a country with 300 million guns in civilian hands."

Another study actually investigating illegal home entries in Atlanta found that the robber was twice as likely to steal the gun and use it against the unsuspecting family than for it to be used in their defense.

Another study found that arming women makes them 500% more likely to be victims of a homicidal fatality, with their own weapon being used against them, instead of protecting them.

All the gun lobby has going for it are anecdotal stories and fear tactics. The idea that arming every citizen in the country would make the country safer is quite frankly, delusional, and we need to start being honest about that.

I can believe the stuff about people's own guns being most likely to just be used against them.  And I dont mean just because of the studies, it's just what I tend to figure would happen.

I know I sound negative and generally unpleasant saying something like this, but most people are, frankly, dumber than a sack of hammers, and with the reflexes of a dead frog in sludge.  You need basically the absolute direct opposite of BOTH of those things, and then additional coordination as well, AND real, proper training, to be able to make use of a gun properly in self-defense.  And even then it can STILL go horribly wrong for a huge pile of reasons.  Simply escalating things by bringing out your stupid gun can be the reason WHY it ends up going bad, instead of you just getting a bunch of stuff stolen.  But people think gun=UNSTOPPABLE MIGHTY DEFENSE, so nobody thinks of that.  Any of that. And then they wonder how they accidentally just shot a family member instead of the bad guy.

And then of course you have your idiots that REALLY dont know what to use the things for when they DO have them, and end up using them in all the sorts of ways they shouldnt be.  I remember one story recently... forget where I saw it... about this woman that witnessed some guy at a gas station pump that had this other guy attempting to rob him.  And they're punching at each other with the robber trying to yank something away, and this woman thinks "TIME TO SAVE THE DAY!!!!!111" and... whips out the gun and starts firing at the bad guy.  Who is RIGHT NEXT TO the other guy.  At a public gas station pump.  With other people around.  From long distance.

And then after all of that, of course she got in trouble (and was very, very lucky NOT to have actually hit anyone at all), and what was her response?  It sure wasnt to LEARN something.  Her response was "Well I guess I'm not even gonna bother trying to help anyone ever again, if that's all the thanks I get!".   And this type of braindead idiocy aint exactly rare here (anyone that's ever worked customer service in absolutely any place ever can tell ya that, hah).  Yet people think the general populace should be armed.  I cant facepalm hard enough for that one without making a shockwave that blows out a wall.

Arming everyone in the country isnt just a bad idea, it'd be a bloody horrid one.   The amount of morons with guns is already more than awful enough as it is.

[Cinth]

You can't legislate stupidity and you can't legislate away the criminal element.  You can't prevent Columbine from happening.

Statement I can't back up but might be proofed somewhat by those studies:  Most people who buy a firearm for self defense don't have what it takes to actually kill someone.  Could you? Honestly.  I doubt it.  Even those trained to do so fail to do it regularly.  It takes a certain kind of someone to do it.
Most people who own firearms don't need them for any reasons (if you can't use it when you need it, then you don't need to have it).


Wing, you dismiss so much on the basis of a study that you miss the practical answers staring back at you.  Think for yourself and make you own judgments based on what you think.  Think long and you'll see that legislation doesn't stop anything.  Every law on the books right now is being broken somewhere and the only people bearing the burden are the law abiding.  So take your statistical analysis (numbers say what they want them to say anyway, I took stats too)  and stuff it where the sun don't shine, cause that's all its good for.

[Captain Jack]

I think that was a supermarket. Walmart or something. Unless it's two separate stories, which is entirely possible.

[Wingflier]

Wing, you dismiss so much on the basis of a study that you miss the practical answers staring back at you.  Think for yourself and make you own judgments based on what you think.  Think long and you'll see that legislation doesn't stop anything.  Every law on the books right now is being broken somewhere and the only people bearing the burden are the law abiding.  So take your statistical analysis (numbers say what they want them to say anyway, I took stats too)  and stuff it where the sun don't shine, cause that's all its good for.

You'll have to forgive me, I generally take these discussions from an academic approach, citing studies and providing evidence for my claims. I know that doesn't work for everybody.

Statement I can't back up but might be proofed somewhat by those studies:  Most people who buy a firearm for self defense don't have what it takes to actually kill someone.  Could you? Honestly.  I doubt it.  Even those trained to do so fail to do it regularly.  It takes a certain kind of someone to do it.
Most people who own firearms don't need them for any reasons (if you can't use it when you need it, then you don't need to have it).

I agree with you. That's why arming everyone doesn't work. That's why women are statistically at such a higher risk of dying even by their own weapons.

Good people don't want to shoot others, even when it's necessary or deserved and they have the weapon to do it. Homicidal and psychotic people have less of a problem doing this, so by arming everybody you create a culture where the bad guys basically win.

[Cinth]

I prefer to come to my own conclusions and have my own opinions.  I generally try to take reality as it is.  The academic approach works for some things, but I don't think it applies everywhere (and at least part of this isn't academic).  I'd listen to your opinion, as honest as you can make it. 


I feel like I'm a reasonably good person.  I'm sane (I have issues like everyone else) but I have no problems ending the life of others.  In person, I'm callous and cold to everyone I don't care about (internet persona aside here).  But that's what the world has made of me.  Already dead people don't need my compassion, right?


I do agree, not everyone should have access to firearms.  I'm rather happy that some of the loopholes in acquiring firearms were recently closed (I think that's what Obama did anyway).  But I'm smart enough to realize that you can't legislate away all these problems.  There are so many social and economic issues still causing strife that you will never get away from. 

There is a correlation between high ethnic diversity and homicide rates.  Africa has an extremely high ethnic diversity rate and it's nations have some of the highest homicide rates in the world (I saw that in a wiki somewhere).  Among 1st world nations, the US ranks 2nd (Russia is 1st).  Someone brought up Germany as a shining beacon of hope. I laughed.  Germany has one of the most ethnically homogeneous nations, and one that is sorely embarrassed about its past (to the point where it banned anything Nazi related. Grow up Germany). 

Guns are tools.  Guns aren't the issue.  It's the people that feel the need to pull the trigger that are the issue.  You can take away all the guns in the world and people will still kill people.  People have been killing other peoples since peoples where actually peoples.  Our tools for doing so have just gotten better.  So instead of blaming the tools, find a way to actually solve the issue of people wanting to kill other people.

God damn it....  I was going to withdraw from this discussion, and now I'm writing essays.  Either way, I don't hold anything against anyone here other than Cyborg whom needs to apologize for insulting an entire region of peoples, of which I am a part of (and am proud of my heritage). 

[Mánagarmr]

Guns are tools.  Guns aren't the issue.  It's the people that feel the need to pull the trigger that are the issue.  You can take away all the guns in the world and people will still kill people.  People have been killing other peoples since peoples where actually peoples.  Our tools for doing so have just gotten better.  So instead of blaming the tools, find a way to actually solve the issue of people wanting to kill other people.

In an ideal world this would be so. I'm a liberal. I ABSOLUTELY believe that people should have the right to self-determination and the government shouldn't poke their nose in things that is none of its business. IN THEORY.

However, having seen just how utterly stupid people are and how badly guns are handled, I see no reason whatsoever to allow guns in the civilian populace. At least not without, at the very least, regular testing every 6 months to see if the person even knows how to handle the gun safely and can fire it with even remote accuracy. You know like Police officers (at least here in Sweden) are forced to do. Fail the test and your guns get impounded until you pass.

My problem isn't with liberties or whatever, it's the fact that people prove, multiple times per day, that guns in civilian hands are an utter disaster. It brings very little positive and a mountain of problems to the table.

[Shrugging Khan]

let me just get some NRA-flavored humor in here:

40 Reasons To Ban Guns - Arguments Made By Liberal Lawmakers

Germany has one of the most ethnically homogeneous nations, and one that is sorely embarrassed about its past (to the point where it banned anything Nazi related. Grow up Germany). 

Please don't mention Germany. We have so many mental and cultural issues it's not even remotely comparable to anywhere else.

You'll have to forgive me, I generally take these discussions from an academic approach, citing studies and providing evidence for my claims. I know that doesn't work for everybody.

One of your studies used data supplied by the Brady Center, the other one is from the DoJ and I've seen that one interpreted in any number of ways, at least half of them implying the opposite of what you saw in it.
There's statistics out there to prove any given point, and I honestly can't bring myself to put overly much trust in them. Especially when the government is pushing all available levers to get stricter gun laws on track, or when the statistics really do use data supplied by a vehement anti-gun group.
Factor in the hundreds of different ways to read and present any single study, and it's pretty damn hard to trust any information coming from those.

People are dumb and not to be trusted.

Sure, I too am all for taking away the rights and liberties of those dumber than me, and making them reliant on public institutions for basic necessities like protection.

Anecdotal evidence of guns used in self-defence is invalid.

Anecdotal evidence proves that people can't be trusted with guns.

Biased or biasedly-interpreted studies and anecdotal evidence both are unlikely to lastingly convince anyone to change their views.

I'd like to take a stance base on principle here and state that it's alright for idiots to try and use tools and/or weapons and end up injuring themselves - as Cinth put it, you can't legislate away stupidity. And people harming themselves are people who, in doing so, may learn a valuable lesson or may become a valuable lesson to others. Handling dangerous tools is dangerous, proper preparation and training are important, but anyone who wants to carelessly endanger themselves are, in my word, welcome to do so.

People who carelessly endanger others and end up causing them harm are, even in a libertarian's fantasy society, guilty of criminal negligence if not even homicide, and ought to be punished according to the laws of the society in which they made such a mistake. Thus people are discouraged from macing careless use of dangerous tools by the example set by those who came before them.

And yes, some people are too dumb to get that. Again, you can't legislate away stupidity, and you shouldn't cut everyone's liberties just because a few people are dumb enough to abuse them.

At least not without, at the very least, regular testing every 6 months to see if the person even knows how to handle the gun safely and can fire it with even remote accuracy.

This is an interesting point. Practically speaking I would be perfectly fine with that, since that would not effectively put any limits on me. But politically and morally we come back to the issue of putting a basic right - self-protection - at the mercy of state institutions.

Granted, for Germany I'd take a system like that with tears in my eyes and my heart bursting of unexpected joy.
But for (pro-gun) Americans, it'd probably be a bad deal.