Here's a great American: — Banno
Your questions/observations are as close to the core beliefs of the need to own a firearm than you realize.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
and thisI have never said that I agree with people killing others with guns, but people who are going to kill, will kill. — Sir2U
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?And none of them has had a total success, only reductions in the crime rate.
What is the relevance of statements like this — andrewk
It looks like an undiluted use of the Nirvana Fallacy — andrewk
'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.It is maybe true that the Florida nut might have killed fewer people, but he would have killed using any method he could.
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.What would have happened if he had taken a nail bomb instead of a gun?
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
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.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
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?When a person drives drunk and kills someone, we don't blame the booze or the cars. — Harry Hindu
In fact I have. On this very subject. — Thorongil
Isn't that your claim too? We just disagree on the cause. You think it's guns. I think it's the culture.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
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
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
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
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?If you compare us [the USA] to other well-off countries, we really stand out. — Ali Mokdad
The question is gun control, not gun "takeaway." — tim wood
Probably necessary as a practical matter. That or three to five years to register guns, confiscation, forfeiture of right, and substantial penalties thereafter.1) There would be a need to "grandfather in" the firearms that are already in the public's hands. — ArguingWAristotleTiff
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.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.
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.3) A person under the age of 21 may purchase and possess a hunting rifle after successfully completing a marksman course in safety.
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.4) A person who can pass a background check must also be 21 to purchase a fire arm.
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.Maybe
5) Having identifying numbers on ammo purchased for high capacity fire arms
Is the increase of .9% true for all countries? If so, then why not compare all countries instead of making exceptions for developed ones?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
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?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
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
Most of the deaths are the result of drugs and gangs. — Harry Hindu
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
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
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.We don't take away EVERYONE's car when one person uses it to kill others either by terrorism or drunk driving. — Harry Hindu
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.1) There would be a need to "grandfather in" the firearms that are already in the publics hands. — ArguingWAristotleTiff
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.