Here's a great American: — Banno

Did you hear the part where she clearly says that they knew the kid and that he had mental health problems?
Did you hear where she clearly stated that he would have not have killed as many with a knife?
But he would have killed, because he was the problem.

I have never said that I agree with people killing others with guns, but people who are going to kill, will kill.

https://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/01/world/asia/china-railway-attack/index.html

I don't really know what the difference is between those who support gun control and those who oppose it. Is it that they disagree over whether or not gun control will make the country safer, or is it that opponents of gun control believe that the right to own a gun is more important than a safer country? — Michael

Your questions/observations are as close to the core beliefs of the need to own a firearm than you realize.

I haven't even gotten an answer to the last moral bite to chew on and you hit me with another. It feels like your nearing the core of the issue for me anyway.

That video is so 60's early 70's.

Ban the bomb and look after the world replicas.

So full of good intentions.

How many old hippies turned into car, gun and fertilizer salespeople? I know a couple that specialize in old car repairs and one that produces and sells plastic products.

Back then we had good intentions and these kids still do.

Don't get me wrong, I am against violence of all kinds, not just gun violence. I was there shouting make love not war as well. But it really does take more than that to make a difference, how many countries have actually banned atomic bombs?

I wish them all the luck in the world and seriously hope they manage to do something about the problem. But, how many of the people in the audience had guns and how many are prepared to give them up? How far would the young lady go to defend her point of view?

Whether or not the constitution actually says that the people can or should own guns is not something that I can really say, but i do believe that the people believe this to be true. They really believe in the right to do so and that whatever infringement upon that right is the beginning of of the decline of their rights. If one right is taken away then the others will eventually follow.

It is true that some countries have had success banning the right to bear arms and own guns, but none of them has the situation that the USA has as a starting point. And none of them has had a total success, only reductions in the crime rate.

What is the relevance of statements like this

I have never said that I agree with people killing others with guns, but people who are going to kill, will kill. — Sir2U

and this

And none of them has had a total success, only reductions in the crime rate.

It looks like an undiluted use of the Nirvana Fallacy. If that's not what you're doing, what possible relevance can those observations have?

What is the relevance of statements like this — andrewk

A lot of people posting here think that banning guns will solve the problem of people killing other people, I am just pointing out that it is not true. They are the ones that use the fallacy.

It is maybe true that the Florida nut might have killed fewer people, but he would have killed using any method he could. What would have happened if he had taken a nail bomb instead of a gun?

It looks like an undiluted use of the Nirvana Fallacy — andrewk

There is no such thing as Nirvana. At least not for the living.

It is maybe true that the Florida nut might have killed fewer people, but he would have killed using any method he could.

'maybe'?!? Come on, be serious. That 'maybe' is nonsense. Unless he were a ninja, it is inconceivable that he would have killed anywhere near as many people without a gun. That is the whole point.

What would have happened if he had taken a nail bomb instead of a gun?

It will be sensible to discuss things like that if mentally ill students taking nail bombs to their own school ever becomes a problem. As you know, currently it is not, neither in the US, nor in countries that have gun controls. Until then, we might as well discuss what would have happened if he'd paid a Mafia hit man to do the job for him.

A lot of people posting here think that banning guns will solve the problem of people killing other people, I am just pointing out that it is not true. They are the ones that use the fallacy.

It is maybe true that the Florida nut might have killed fewer people, but he would have killed using any method he could. What would have happened if he had taken a nail bomb instead of a gun? — Sir2u

Ironically, these few statements are loaded with fallacies. Irrespective of whether some users have claimed that removing guns will remove violent psychopathy (although I haven't seen that claim made here), it's nevertheless a common strawman argument. The objective of gun control is to reduce gun violence. This won't reduce the desire to commit crimes, but it will likely reduce lethal crimes.

It's also reasonable to assume that those who favor gun control also favor increased spending on mental health (myself included), part of which would be to help people exhibiting violent mental illnesses (thereby reducing crime and violence), but there is a perverse, and clearly deleterious, reticence when discussing mental health and illness in this country.

What would have happened had he taken a nail bomb instead of a gun? Well, that's speculative, of course, but the fact is is that the perpetrator did use a gun, and I imagine he chose a gun due to the ease of access, training, and device control (among other factors). England has similar crime rates as America, and yet there isn't a "nail gun epidemic".

Unfortunately, these arguments, facts, and exposed fallacies have been discussed for well over a decade now. And yet, some remain obstinate. As two new books on cognitive psychology point out, there is a limit in facts can change minds. One would have hoped that Sandy Hook, from a purely emotional level, would have been the final straw, but it wasn't. Failing this, one would have hoped that the 58 killed and nearly 900 injured in Vegas would have sufficed, but it didn't. One would think the regularity of shootings and abundance of gun homicides would drive change, but it hasn't. Sadly, this will undoubtedly continue. I would like to hold on to an iota of optimism, that something can change, but I simply don't see that plausibly happening anytime soon.

I've come to the same conclusion - for the short to medium term at least. The massacres just don't bother enough Americans enough relative to how much they love their guns. Arguing the point becomes almost an exercise in masochism.

Yes, I am. Thorongil chooses to ignore the facts. As, from what you have said, do you, in claiming that guns as not the cause of the deaths in your country's mass killings. Do you think the culture of Australia or Europe hasn't also changed? — Banno

You speak as if guns have legs and can go around shooting people all by themselves. People are the problem - people with issues that shouldn't have access to guns in the first place. There were many instances where people knew that this guy had a problem and reported it to the FBI, but the FBI failed to follow through. There needs to be more efficient information sharing.

Australian and Europe have changed, but not in the same way as the U.S.

When a person drives drunk and kills someone, we don't blame the booze or the cars. When a terrorist uses a bomb or vehicle to kill, we don't blame the bomb or the vehicle. So why is it guns when some nut shoots up a school? Blaming guns doesn't get at the root of the problem which is people with a political or religious agenda, or mentally unstable people that want to make a name for themselves and the media is there to provide them the medium to do it.

SO your claim is that the people of the USA are an order of magnitude more likely to kill than any other comparable nation.

When a person drives drunk and kills someone, we don't blame the booze or the cars. — Harry Hindu

No, but we require somebody to have a licence to drive a car, and we take it away if they are caught driving while intoxicated, or if they are judged mentally unfit to drive. Why then does the US set a lower standard of care for controlling who can use a gun than for who can use a car?

We also register ALL cars and restrict what types of cars may be driven on public roads. For instance racing cars and monster trucks are not allowed, and even cars that are considered ordinary are denied registration if they fail a safety inspection. But no such controls for guns in the US, eh?

If the US regulated the ownership and use of guns similarly to how it regulates that of cars, I doubt it would have had the terrible succession of shootings that it has had.

It will be interesting to see how big an impact this protest movement growing out the Parklands atrocity will have. These students are really, really angry, extremely impassioned, and also right. It will be interesting to watch the GOP blather about guns and freedom in their faces.

Oh, and Trump is using the event as part of his polemics against the FBI - like 'the FBI were too busy trying to find evidence of Russian collusion to do their jobs properly.' What an outstanding statesman and fine leader he's turning out to be.

Not.

Some of the tweets by the students:

'"17 of my classmates are gone. That's 17 futures, 17 children, and 17 friends stolen. But you're right, it always has to be about you. How silly of me to forget."

"17 innocent people were brutally murdered at my school, a place where they should have felt safe. Their lives were gone in an instant. You are the President of the United States and you have the audacity to put this on Russia as an excuse. I guess I should expect that from you."

""...my friends were brutally murdered and you have the nerve to make this about Russia. I can not believe this"

""Oh my god. 17 OF MY CLASSMATES AND FRIENDS ARE GONE AND YOU HAVE THE AUDACITY TO MAKE THIS ABOUT RUSSIA???!! HAVE A DAMN HEART. You can keep all of your fake and meaningless 'thoughts and prayers'."

Cue Republican rationalisations why we shouldn't take the opinion of these students seriously. :vomit:

In fact I have. On this very subject. — Thorongil

I have felt a shifting of the sands that I stand on in regards to this topic, so I am very interested in what you change you have found.

It takes a lot to change something fundamental about who we are, what we believe in and what we want our future to look like. It is very hard for me to let someone else's logic weigh something so ingrained in me.

It is almost like someone trying to convince me that there is a God when I was raised an Atheist.
(Just as an example as I was raised Catholic)

SO your claim is that the people of the USA are an order of magnitude more likely to kill than any other comparable nation. — Banno

Isn't that your claim too? We just disagree on the cause. You think it's guns. I think it's the culture.

In looking at the deaths by gun violence around the world, you will find that gun control isn't the common denominator as there are countries with greater control over guns that have a higher rate of deaths by guns than the U.S. The common denominator is the culture of the nation, which can also include the country's wealth. The countries that have a higher rate of gun violence than the U.S. are all S. American and Carribean countries - drug trafficking countries.

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2017/10/06/555861898/gun-violence-how-the-u-s-compares-to-other-countries

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_of_gun_laws_by_nation

No, but we require somebody to have a licence to drive a car, and we take it away if they are caught driving while intoxicated, or if they are judged mentally unfit to drive. Why then does the US set a lower standard of care for controlling who can use a gun than for who can use a car?

We also register ALL cars and restrict what types of cars may be driven on public roads. For instance racing cars and monster trucks are not allowed, and even cars that are considered ordinary are denied registration if they fail a safety inspection. But no such controls for guns in the US, eh?

If the US regulated the ownership and use of guns similarly to how it regulates that of cars, I doubt it would have had the terrible succession of shootings that it has had. — andrewk

Cherry-picking. In the rest of that post I also said...

People are the problem -people with issues that shouldn't have access to guns in the first place. There were many instances where people knew that this guy had a problem and reported it to the FBI, but the FBI failed to follow through. There needs to be more efficient information sharing. — Harry Hindu

In other words, we don't let certain people who have exhibited violent tendencies to own a firearm and the FBI needs to do a better job.

We don't take away EVERYONE's car when one person uses it to kill others either by terrorism or drunk driving. We only punish the guilty person, not punish everyone because of the actions of a select few.

Registration doesn't stop gun violence. Just look at the South American countries that require registration and their rate of deaths by gun violence is much higher than the U.S.

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2017/10/06/555861898/gun-violence-how-the-u-s-compares-to-other-countries

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_of_gun_laws_by_nation

There are nations with strict gun laws that have a higher rate of gun violence than nations without. There are also nations with strict gun laws that have a lower rate of gun violence than nations without.

Logically, it can't be the control of guns that influences the rate of deaths by gun violence. That is what seems obvious to me, yet Banno seems to think it is okay to berate others for not noticing the "facts".

The higher rate of gun violence occurs in South American and Carribean countries - countries known for their drug problem. Maybe we should look at the relationship between gun violence and drug laws. I would argue that most gun death in the U.S. are drug-related.

So, if we were to legalize drugs, or make stricter laws, does that have an effect on gun violence?

There are nations with strict gun laws that have a higher rate of gun violence than nations without. There are also nations with strict gun laws that have a lower rate of gun violence than nations without.

Logically, it can't be the control of guns that influences the rate of deaths by gun violence. That is what seems obvious to me, yet Banno seems to think it is okay to berate others for not noticing the "facts". — Harry Hindu

Research has been shared in this thread that an increase of 1% in guns results in an increase of .9% in gun related deaths. The number of guns has a clear effect. So I'm not sure which logic you're using or which facts.

You cite the NPR article where the researcher at IHME clearly states

If you compare us [the USA] to other well-off countries, we really stand out. — Ali Mokdad

but conclude the opposite. That's a bit weird when you don't get into why the context he provided is irrelevant. Why do you think a comparison between Iraq (for instance) and the USA is a sensible one?

This I find interesting. Here's a graph comparing the United States to other countries with a high gun-related homicide rate:



And here's another graph comparing the United States to developed countries:

https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2012/12/firearm-OECD-UN-data3.jpg&w=480

What is it about the United States that makes it closer to non-developed countries than to developed countries when it comes to gun-related homicides?

The question is gun control, not gun "takeaway." To those opposed to gun control: are you opposed to any and all gun control? Why waste time on rhetoric. Of course everyone wants some gun control, unless you're crazy. (No gun control whatsoever? Really?) That leaves the questions, how much control, to what purposes, under what circumstances.

Any person who cannot work within this framework is essentially unreasonable. Gentle reader, which are you?

When enough people are reasonable, then shall the discussion progress.

The question is gun control, not gun "takeaway." — tim wood

Call it what you will but it feels like a thinly veiled road into the confiscation of legally owned firearms by the government we have elected.

There are circumstances in which the phrase "grandfather clause" is used to describe someone or something that is not going to have to change it's current stance but everyone or everything that comes after that point in time will be subjected to the change.

I have been on both sides of the "grandfather clause" and what I have found is that if there is anyway possible to preserve my current position, I am better off as a consumer, from electric company programs to rights to water on a private property, change is rarely in favor of the consumer.

So I am very hesitant to change my mindset that "gun control" is not gun take way but let me entertain the idea of enacting "gun control" in today's reality.

1) There would be a need to "grandfather in" the firearms that are already in the publics hands.
2) An armed guard at every school until we solve the 6 minute time frame needed for an armed officer to get to the school with an active shooter.
3) A person under the age of 21 may purchase and possess a hunting rifle after successfully completing a marksman course in safety.
4) A person who can pass a background check must also be 21 to purchase a fire arm.

Maybe
5) Having identifying numbers on ammo purchased for high capacity fire arms

1) There would be a need to "grandfather in" the firearms that are already in the public's hands. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Probably necessary as a practical matter. That or three to five years to register guns, confiscation, forfeiture of right, and substantial penalties thereafter.

2) An armed guard at every school until we solve the 6 minute time frame needed for an armed officer to get to the school with an active shooter.

Isn't this proof of the existence of the problem? Each occurrence can be dismissed as aberration, but it's not aberration if you have to anticipate and plan for it.

3) A person under the age of 21 may purchase and possess a hunting rifle after successfully completing a marksman course in safety.

A very few people may need to hunt; I'm sure they can be accommodated. Rather let us say for sport, like target shooting. And while I am no fan of the NRA, I am under the impression that they're very good at gun safety training. So by all means, training in safety - for everyone, not just minors.

4) A person who can pass a background check must also be 21 to purchase a fire arm.

Certification/licensing could cover this. I'm not a strict minimum age advocate, nor am I strict about who should/shouldn't be able to buy a gun.

Maybe
5) Having identifying numbers on ammo purchased for high capacity fire arms

Maybe instead, every gun must have an owner who is responsible for it. I shoot someone, I have a problem. I shoot them with your gun, we both have a problem. Even as it's true that the bullet never misses, so it must be true that the gun's owner is always responsible.

Corollary: unauthorized possession of a gun should be in itself a serious offense.

Research has been shared in this thread that an increase of 1% in guns results in an increase of .9% in gun related deaths. The number of guns has a clear effect. So I'm not sure which logic you're using or which facts. — Benkei

Is the increase of .9% true for all countries? If so, then why not compare all countries instead of making exceptions for developed ones?

The facts I am using that contradict the research shared earlier in the thread are the ones I posted in the links I provided. The fact is that there are countries with more control over guns that have higher rates of gun violence than the U.S. I said that already.

I also mentioned that most gun related deaths are drug and gang related. Maybe we should be looking at our drug laws as the culprit for the amount of deaths that occur by people using guns. What are the drug laws in the developed countries?

What is it about the United States that makes it closer to non-developed countries than to developed countries when it comes to gun-related homicides? — Michael

Most of the deaths are the result of drugs and gangs. Maybe that is what we should be looking at. What are the drug laws of other developed countries?

The question is gun control, not gun "takeaway." To those opposed to gun control: are you opposed to any and all gun control? Why waste time on rhetoric. Of course everyone wants some gun control, unless you're crazy. (No gun control whatsoever? Really?) That leaves the questions, how much control, to what purposes, under what circumstances.

Any person who cannot work within this framework is essentially unreasonable. Gentle reader, which are you?

When enough people are reasonable, then shall the discussion progress. — tim wood

Well said. I agree.

Most of the deaths are the result of drugs and gangs. — Harry Hindu

Please cite. I see different statistics. (Either you have a source or you're making it up: now's the time to put up or....)

wHAT i DON'T SEE IS WHY YOU THINK THAT aMERICANS PROMOTE GUNS. mOST OF THE PEOPLE SIMPLY PROMOTE THE RIGHT TO OWN THEM. — Sir2u

promoting the right to own guns is promoting guns in general. you haven't given any real contribution to this argument. only outdated articles that are just pure propaganda to the British conservative party, designed to make people turn their heads away from the labour party. id suggest you read the article before posting here. mass shootings are a regular occurrence in america. if you cant see that the accessibility of guns is the problem here than you're just being stupid.

The question is gun control, not gun "takeaway." To those opposed to gun control: are you opposed to any and all gun control? Why waste time on rhetoric. Of course everyone wants some gun control, unless you're crazy. — tim wood

nobody is saying that all guns must be removed, if you are you're being irrational. that just wouldn't be possible, it would take years and years and years to banish all guns at this point. If you think about what it would take to "MAKE GUNS ILLEGAL" it just isn't as possible as people would like. If you ask everyone in the country to hand over all fire arms, do you really think that 100% of guns would be returned? Of course not, probably not even 60%. But what needs to happen is more control and they need to be made less easily accessible. You cant just give a gun to anyone whIch is basically what happens in this country. On the terrorist watch list? Doesn't matter. This is what is wrong with the gun laws.

And as much as most people don't want to hear it, the reason you need to protect yourself with a gun is because of the law that says you can have guns anyway but like i said it isn't very possible to reverse that now but there certainly needs to be some new laws tightening the accessibility of guns, with more security and safety, that isn't much to ask.

We don't take away EVERYONE's car when one person uses it to kill others either by terrorism or drunk driving. — Harry Hindu

I already covered this above. We DO outlaw the use of certain types of cars on the road that are particularly dangerous and for which there is no persuasive reason to allow people to drive them. And they are outlawed FOR EVERYONE. The examples given were racing cars and monster trucks.

So where is the consistency in your opposing the outlawing of private ownership of the gun equivalents of these - military-style assault rifles, of the kind used in this massacre and the last few before that?

1) There would be a need to "grandfather in" the firearms that are already in the publics hands. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

In general, evidence has shown there is not such a need. Governments introduce buyback programs where there is a limited time frame in which owners of weapons made illegal can sell them to the government, who then destroys them. Here's a wiki page on it.

They work in other countries, albeit with a fair bit of grumbling from the owners.

Whether they would work in a country like the US where a gun has the status of a religious icon is a matter about which I have no idea.