When 60% of US gun related deaths - 60% of an already ludicrously disproportionate rate of gun related deaths - are suicides, the polarization of the gun debate into 'good guys' vs 'bad guys' is insulting even to stupid people.

Government's ability to regulate or control suicide is limited. Some, like Nietzsche, and the Stoics, would consider such regulation unwarranted; suicide being within the reasonable discretion of a person according to the Stoics, or allowable if it isn't possible to live nobly according to Nietzsche if I recall correctly. Government's ability to insure the mental health of its citizens is likewise limited and many would also consider the imposition of its power to that purpose unwarranted, and dangerous, for good reason, I think. Gun control generally refers to regulations intended to limit the use of guns to cause harm to others, and that I think is a subject that government is better equipped to address and is more appropriately one of its functions. That, I believe, is why you have people referring to good guys and bad guys.

Regulation addressed to acquisition of firearms by the mentally ill is a proper subject for consideration in gun control efforts, again as a means to prevent harm to others by a shooter. I think a law prohibiting someone from owning a gun (or any other potentially dangerous object) solely because someone else might use it to commit suicide raises all kinds of issues regarding the proper extent of government authority, and I don't think it could realistically be considered a topic involved in the gun control debate in America. It would be what people these days would probably call "a nonstarter."

Government's ability to regulate or control suicide is limited. — Ciceronianus the White

This, as we like to say these days, is fake news. As the NYT article I linked to notes, one of the easiest ways to change the suicide rate is to alter the conditions of access to easy means of suicide - as with Isreal's decision in 2006 to prevent soldiers from taking their service weapons home on weekends, leading to a 40% drop in the suicide rate. Or the dramatic drop in the English suicide rate when ovens were altered so that you couldn't gas yourself to death quite so easily. Still, I agree that this kind of reasoning, which would demonstrably and effectively save thousands of lives when translated into policy, would be a 'nonstarter' in the US - this, on account of the fact that the US is a society of Neanderthals for whom the imagery of 'good guys' and 'bad guys' plays a larger role in its reality-divorced self-image than the necropolis of dead guys which far better marks America's celebratory culture of death and social decay.

Enough talk. The facts are there before you. Time to act.

The only delusion here, I'm afraid, is the idea that there is a genuine historical parallelism between the actors within the Revolutionary War, and modern day US citizenry and US military.

Enough talk. The facts are there before you. Time to act. — Banno

OK, so the majority has stated that the US of A needs to bring in stricter gun laws. Let's do the planning.
Who wants to write up the laws?
Who wants to work out how much it is all going to cost and where to get the money?

Who wants to be the one to implement the plan? You know, like going out there and start taking the guns off the people?

So you are saying you really are all fucked?

That no one has any balls, that leadership is dead?

Perhaps you are right.

So you are saying you really are all fucked? — Banno

Not "you", "them"

That no one has any balls, that leadership is dead?

Perhaps you are right. — Banno

Banno, how could you possible read all of that from my post?

All I did was try to see if anyone was available to do a job that is well worth doing.

Let's wait and see how many volunteers there are.

Ah. Sorry, but I had in mind that which causes the impulse to commit suicide, not the means chosen. If the goal is to reduce suicides it would seem best to limit that which causes people to choose to kill themselves rather than that which they use to kill themselves. No doubt eliminating firearms, ropes or other things used for hanging, razors, sleeping pills, etc., would make suicide more difficult.

It's unfortunate, but we'll probably never know the rate of suicide among the Neanderthals or what they could have been deprived of in order to reduce that rate.

Who wants to write up the laws? — Sir2u

Congress.

Who wants to work out how much it is all going to cost and where to get the money?

The Congressional Budget Office and The Department of the Treasury.

Who wants to be the one to implement the plan? You know, like going out there and start taking the guns off the people?

The Department of Justice.

It's unfortunate, but we'll probably never know the rate of suicide among the Neanderthals or what they could have been deprived of in order to reduce that rate. — Ciceronianus the White

Their God given right to die at extraordinarily disproportionate rates despite clear life saving-solutions, no doubt.

Both require relatively close distance. — Lone Wolf

The officer was at relatively close distance. Look at the footage. You'd have to be insane to support that officer's actions.

If a taser was used, you would have to again be relatively close (15-20 feet)... — Lone Wolf

The security guard would have been relatively close, as they always are. They're typically close to an entrance. Why would anyone position a security guard far away?

OK, so the majority has stated that the US of A needs to bring in stricter gun laws. Let's do the planning.
Who wants to write up the laws?
Who wants to work out how much it is all going to cost and where to get the money?

Who wants to be the one to implement the plan? You know, like going out there and start taking the guns off the people? — Sir2u

You do realise that there are professionals for that, right? And that this is just a philosophy forum?

Such a shame that only one person understood. :-*

Hello.

My view is that this is primarily a safety issue. Why are seat belts required by law? Because statistics show that there is a correlation between the use of seat belts and the severity of injuries in car accidents. Similarly, we should look for the correlation between gun ownership and injuries, regardless if these are intentional or accidental. By collecting data points on these two parameters in as many states as possible throughout the world, we can determine the statistical correlation between the two; and one of three possible results would follow:

(1) There is a correlation, with an upward slope where more gun ownership increases the probability of injuries. As such, gun ownership should not be legal.

(2) There is a correlation, with a downward slope were more gun ownership decreases the probability of injuries. As such, gun ownership should be legal, and perhaps even required.

(3) There is no correlation. As such, gun ownership is not a significant factor in the safety of the citizens, and so its legalization is a matter of personal preference.

Now I am not a hard-working scientist but a lazy philosopher; and so I don’t know the final answer; but I think this is the best way to end the debate.

I use shotguns with some frequency, but have only fired one kind of handgun, a .357 Magnum, and I was shocked at how often I missed the target--the stationary target. Of course, with scatter guns your chances of hitting a target are much greater, but when you shoot trap or sporting clays your target is moving at a pretty good speed. The difference between a moving target and a stationary one is profound, and people have a tendency to move.

I suspect that most of the law abiding citizens carrying firearms for protection haven't spent much time being trained in their use. — Ciceronianus the White

This is a problem that the NRA is well aware of, and it motivates one of the very few gun regulations that they would approve of. They have thus endorsed a new regulation proposal that would make it illegal for people who are being shot at to move.

The officer was at relatively close distance. Look at the footage. You'd have to be insane to support that officer's actions. — Sapientia

I have seen the footage of the Schultz incident. You would be insane and heartless to not protect those around you by allowing a crazy kid to threaten the entire campus. It would be crazy to try to get closer to have a sure aim with pepper spray or a taser.

The security guard would have been relatively close, as they always are. They're typically close to an entrance. Why would anyone position a security guard far away? — Sapientia

:s From the way I understood it, the security guard would have had some distance from the murderer because he was near the entrance of the room. A distance across a room can easily span more than 15 feet from the entrance. As for positioning the guard, he was not expecting a murderer to be lurking in that room, so obviously he would not have been positioned to engage such a person. The only response would have had to have been immediate and fatal. Pepper spray would have been completely worthless in this situation, and a taser would have likely proved useless also due to the precision necessary to effectively aim it; perhaps even getting the guard shot more times, and killed himself. Again, if the guard had a firearm, there may have been a chance he could have spared the many victims.

a well-regulated one at that. It isn't clear to me — Ciceronianus the White

It is clear to me a well-regulated militia is just not any Joe Schmo.

It’s happened again, as it always will in today’s America. (Remember Obama lamenting after Sandy Hook, how the speech he had to give never ought to be allowed to become ‘a matter of routine’?)

Now the only question is: is it a ‘thoughts and prayers’ massacre, or a ‘tighten the immigration laws’ massacre. This depends on whether the shooter claims allegiance to a foreign terrorist organisation or whether he is the (now typical) deranged loner with a pointless grudge and military-grade weapons. If the latter, then all that can be done is to send ‘thoughts and prayers’ (apart from reminding everyone how insensitive it is to “politicise such tragedies” by talking about gun laws). It seems they’re the only kinds of categorisations that the US body politic will consider; the question as to how these appalling incidents can be prevented, is more or less off the table.

So this one, so far, looks like a ‘thoughts and prayers’; not that they will do a lot of good.

I am disgusted with myself. I cannot keep myself from thinking that in Texas they really love their guns. Maybe someday the gun nuts will make the connection between guns as toys for everyone and a lot of shootings. Meanwhile, the statistics are there for anyone who cares to look them up.

There is no hope for gun control, at this point. It's sort of like us being worried about North Korea's measly handful of atomic bombs -- what with there being... maybe 50,000 atomic weapons among the atomic weapons wielders. There are 100 million guns of one kind or another. That's enough to meet the needs and desires of every actual and potential lunatic that might go off the deep end in the years to come.

Maybe it would be helpful to consider why it is there are so many berserkers running around.

Well, it's become a pattern of behaviour, it's a kind of recognised form of action - 'get gun, kill as many people as possible, then self.' It gets a lot of publicity, and the deranged minds that are susceptible to such behaviours then go out and enact them - as I said in the thread I started on this topic, the 'mass murder meme'. Of course I don't have any answers either, although I do have an infant grand-daughter being brought up in the USA, so I'm not quite the detached observer I might otherwise have been.

I am disgusted with myself. I cannot keep myself from thinking that in Texas they really love their guns — tim wood

In this Church shooting AND it is still early in the investigation but first reports are a good guy with a gun shot and chased this killer by car, while reporting to the local police while in pursuit. They don't yet know if the bullet the regular citizen fired led to this man's death but I think it is safe to say, the regular citizen with a gun, used it responsibly and ended what could have been a continuing killing spree.

In this Church shooting AND it is still early in the investigation but first reports are a good guy with a gun shot and chased this killer by car, while reporting to the local police while in pursuit. They don't yet know if the bullet the regular citizen fired led to this man's death but I think it is safe to say, the regular citizen with a gun, used it responsibly and ended what could have been a continuing killing spree. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Perhaps we should do a cost benefit analysis. Does the availability of guns in the U.S. protect more than it harms or vice versa? How many people would have been killed if the killer hadn't had access to a gun?

Perhaps we should do a cost benefit analysis. Does the availability of guns in the U.S. protect more than it harms or vice versa? — Michael

I am simply stating that there are times when a good guy with a gun, a regular armed citizen, actually does happen and this might be an example of that very argument. Time and investigation will prove that to be true or false.

I think the availability of firearms can be a double edged sword but I am not sure how to quantify your question. Are you asking if the 300 million privately owned firearms, owned by responsible firearm owners in the USA, are responsible for the damage that terror inspired or the mentally ill carry out?

I am simply stating that there are times when a good guy with a gun, a regular armed citizen, actually does happen and this might be an example of that very argument. Time and investigation will prove that to be true or false.

I think the availability of firearms can be a double edged sword but I am not sure how to quantify your question. Are you asking if the 300 million privately owned firearms, owned by responsible firearm owners in the USA, are responsible for the damage that terror inspired or the mentally ill carry out? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I'm saying that if bad people with guns kill 1,000 people and if good guys with guns save 100 people then it probably isn't worth having guns.

The point is that you're suggesting that if the good guy didn't have a gun then more people would have died, whereas I'm pointing out that if the bad guy didn't have a gun then fewer people would have died.

I'm saying that if bad people with guns kill 1,000 people and if good guys with guns save 100 people then it probably isn't worth having guns — Michael

Thank you for helping me understand your question. Your idea would be apply if we had to have a reason to own a firearm but we don't because owning a firearm is a right.
What is being brought to light is that this killer was "Devin P. Kelley was court-martialed on one count of assault on his spouse and another count of assault on their child. He received a bad conduct discharge, 12 months' confinement and a reduction in rank"

That is a HUGE communication gap between our military and our private citizens list of people not allowed to buy firearms. I am not sure he would have been allowed a firearm with domestic battery IF the two systems were walking and talking together.

The point is that you're suggesting that if the good guy didn't have a gun then more people would have died, whereas I'm pointing out that if the bad guy didn't have a gun then fewer people would have died. — Michael

I understand your logic but the bad guy will always find a way to get a gun, legally or illegally.

I understand your logic but the bad guy will always find a way to get a gun, legally or illegally. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Always? I doubt that. Some certainly will, but I reckon a lot of would-be-killers wouldn't know how to get one (or afford to get one) if they weren't so readily available.

Besides, you seem to only be thinking about those who plan on committing mass murder. As far as I know, most gun violence is a spur of the moment decision in anger (or drunkenness, probably).

Thank you for helping me understand your question. Your idea would be apply if we had to have a reason to own a firearm but we don't because owning a firearm is a right. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I know that it's a right. I'm suggesting that it shouldn't be a right if it causes more harm than good.

The cost benefit analysis is a good approach. If early reports are accurate, two good-guy shooters participated in bringing down the bad guy killer. The first one lived across the street from the church, heard shots, got his gun, and went to the door and started firing. This action apparently sent the killer to his car and he drove off, pursued by the second good guy, who may or may not have shot the bad guy.

This supports the argument that most good-citizens should be armed, (what the hell, at all times), so that bad guys can be taken out right away, before much damage is done.

Oh, I suppose that might work out well -- at least some of the time.

But if we all need to be armed to gun down the occasional bad guy before mass murder ensues, then we might as well throw in the towel. If that is where we are at, then as a civilized society we are finished, totally screwed, all over but the shouting--and the gun fire.

As it happens, there are alternatives. Nothing as quick and easy as putting a gun in every pocket and purse. See here, in Wayfarer's Mass Murder Meme discussion for a lengthier suggestion of what we might want to think about.