Yay, GUNS!

[Moontanman]

In NC you can take a gun into a bar... what could go wrong?

[CharonY]

Wouldn't have happened if he wasn't using his mobile phone. Mobile phones aren't protected by the constitution. I think the solution here is obvious. Outlaw mobile devices and give everyone a gun. That's just logic, yo.

 

What if you add cell phone capabilities to a gun?

 

Edited January 14, 2014 by CharonY

[swansont]

 

What if you add cell phone capabilities to a gun?

 

 

You'll go around shooting your mouth off.

[Moontanman]

If others can carry around their hand guns, why can't i carry my 12 gauge around with me? The 12 gauge pump is obviously safer than a hand gun, easier to aim accurately, much less likely to go off by accident and it sends a message of don't trifle with me...

[Marshalscienceguy]

There have been photos recently spreading on facebook about the recent shooting during the Batman premier. These people are suggesting that it wouldn't have been nearly as bad if someone in the crowd had a gun. Not only do I disagree with this premise, but I think it is insanely ridiculous. Discharging a firearm into a crowded room is extremely dangerous even when trained professionals in ideal conditions. To think that untrained civilians could have safely stopped the tragedy while under a cloud of teargas is insane and dangerously so.

 

Now, moving from the specific to the general case, I found this article citing studies showing the obvious conclusions that more guns means more gun violence and more strict gun laws mean fewer shooting deaths.

 

Thoughts?

This argument is ludicrous. Honestly who the hell is going to bring a gun to the theater? Second I really doubt a theater is going to allow guns and the man who brought it most likely snuck it in. Third guns for self defense is one thing but I doubt everyone is going to be carrying guns holstered to them at all times of the day. fourth not just adults go to theaters. Little kids, family's and teens go and I don't think anyone could have predicted some idiot was going to come in and shoot up the place. Just like I don't think anyone could have predicted some crazy man with a machete would try to chop up a bunch of kinder-gardeners. Also I am sure they probably tightened security after this incident to assure nothing like this ever happens in the future. Generally people predict for accidents, and motives. People who commit these sort of crimes don't have logical motives. Anyone could have done this but I don't think anyone expected anyone was stupid enough to try. If a man leaves his dog outside while he goes in the grocery store I doubt he is going to believe "Oh well he what if some maniac comes and beats my dog too death". Since normal people do not do this type of stuff pointlessly like the maniac in the theater. He killed people in the theater because he was angry at the characters. It makes no sense to go after the people if he truly believed that. Since killing the people in the theater does nothing to the people in the film.

Edited January 15, 2014 by Marshalscienceguy

[Acme]

Damn why don't the quote button work? Not to mention I can't paste a copy of his post. :rant: No matter. Replying to Moontanman asking about carrying his shotgun.

 

In my state of Washington you can "open carry" any legal firearm down the street. Some restrictions apply to schools and such and private businesses set their own rules. Starbucks made a point of allowing openly carried guns until gun toters started making a regular habit of showing up en masse up to show they gunnage. What could possibly go wrong? (To be sure I'm not aware of anything actually going wrong.) I suspect all the swaggerin' is on account of havin' a little dink. Good luck with all that.

 

 

[Moontanman]

This argument is ludicrous. Honestly who the hell is going to bring a gun to the theater? Second I really doubt a theater is going to allow guns and the man who brought it most likely snuck it in. Third guns for self defense is one thing but I doubt everyone is going to be carrying guns holstered to them at all times of the day. fourth not just adults go to theaters. Little kids, family's and teens go and I don't think anyone could have predicted some idiot was going to come in and shoot up the place. Just like I don't think anyone could have predicted some crazy man with a machete would try to chop up a bunch of kinder-gardeners. Also I am sure they probably tightened security after this incident to assure nothing like this ever happens in the future. Generally people predict for accidents, and motives. People who commit these sort of crimes don't have logical motives. Anyone could have done this but I don't think anyone expected anyone was stupid enough to try. If a man leaves his dog outside while he goes in the grocery store I doubt he is going to believe "Oh well he what if some maniac comes and beats my dog too death". Since normal people do not do this type of stuff pointlessly like the maniac in the theater. He killed people in the theater because he was angry at the characters. It makes no sense to go after the people if he truly believed that. Since killing the people in the theater does nothing to the people in the film.

 

 

In Florida the other day a guy killed another guy for texting while watching the movie...

[ydoaPs]

There was a shooting at my uni today. Fyi, I'm alive.

[iNow]

FFS... We seem to be averaging 3 per week now. Glad you are well. Sorry it was so close to home.

[ydoaPs]

And apparently two shootings in the state capital today too.

[John Cuthber]

 

What if you add cell phone capabilities to a gun?

 

What happens is that the guy in this story goes to the morgue, rather than the emergency room.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/poland/9739414/Man-burns-his-head-after-mistaking-iron-for-phone.html

 

In the meantime, I guess the gun advocates will continue to say that the US needs more guns.

I understand that rather a lot of guns have been sold since, for example, Mr Obama took office.

Can I just ask how many guns the US will need, before they stop shooting eachother?

[overtone]

 

 

Can I just ask how many guns the US will need, before they stop shooting eachother?

The key variable would be the percentage of people with guns, rather than the sheer number of guns - it's not practical to fire more than two at a time, and one is the normal maximum for lethal accuracy.

 

So maybe the US will bcome as peaceful as Canada when its gun ownership percentage has risen to Canadian levels. But three factors argue against that: US gun ownership is in general declining long term, the regions in the US with lower rates of gun ownership are as often higher in gun violence as lower, and the US standard nutcase loves him some guns. Canada is the other direction.

[Greg H.]

What's interesting is that while the US has the highest number of guns per capita than any other nation in the world, we're actually pretty far down the list on number of gun related homicides per capita, as well as percent of total homicides by guns.¹

---

1 - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/nation/gun-homicides-ownership/table/

[CharonY]

I would not say that it is fairly down the list. As the list states, it is on top of all developed countries and in the vicinity of Costa Rica, Zimbabwe, Argentina, Barbados and Gaza (though for the low population countries the numbers may be skewed a bit, the reason why Liechtenstein actually pops up, for example).

 

Omitting Liechtenstein (for said reasons) the next developed country would be Switzerland with 0.77 homicides per 100,000 (3.2 US).

[Greg H.]

Fair point. Though the whole thing brings to mind the Mark Twain quote about lies, damned lies, and statistics.

[overtone]

 

 

Though the whole thing brings to mind the Mark Twain quote about lies, damned lies, and statistics

The major problem visible in that chart is the confusion of gun ownership rate with guns per capita. That is particularly questionable with regard to the US, because it is so wealthy and militarized (gun owners in the US tend to own several guns, with many possessing what amount to small arsenals) and because it is so large and varied ( rates of gun ownerhip vary between different regions by almost an order of magnitude - with eight or nine times the percentage of residents owning a firearm in Wyoming as in, say, Hawaii - and independently of almost every other stat, such as firearm homicide rate, one would attempt to correlate).

 

Stats are fine, but they require attention and care.

 

 

Omitting Liechtenstein (for said reasons) the next developed country would be Switzerland with 0.77 homicides per 100,000 (3.2 US).

Switzerland (like Canada, and a couple of other places) probably has a higher rate of gun ownership than the US overall, and a lower rate of gun homicide. Brazil has lower rate of gun prevalence and ownership than the US, and a higher rate of gun homicide.

 

The standout correlation with gun homicide is drug wars, not gun anything. There are almost always enough guns around to provision the murderous who want one.

[ydoaPs]

Apparently my uni just gives people the urge to kill. A professor was shot by her husband and then he killed himself. She, however, is still alive.

[iNow]

So, that's two in two weeks... just at your one university? FFS...

[John Cuthber]

Apparently my uni just gives people the urge to kill. A professor was shot by her husband and then he killed himself. She, however, is still alive.

And the gun lobby makes sure they have the means to follow that urge, easily, cheaply effectively and with little or no risk to their own health and safety.

[imatfaal]

There have been photos recently spreading on facebook about the recent shooting during the Batman premier. These people are suggesting that it wouldn't have been nearly as bad if someone in the crowd had a gun. Not only do I disagree with this premise, but I think it is insanely ridiculous. Discharging a firearm into a crowded room is extremely dangerous even when trained professionals in ideal conditions. To think that untrained civilians could have safely stopped the tragedy while under a cloud of teargas is insane and dangerously so.

 

Now, moving from the specific to the general case, I found this article citing studies showing the obvious conclusions that more guns means more gun violence and more strict gun laws mean fewer shooting deaths.

 

Thoughts?

 

 

"Thoughts?"

 

That there has been precious little change in the 1200 odd days since you started this thread - there has been on average around 1 mass shooting per day for the last three and a bit years. The tragedy in California this week was the largest since Newtown which made my look back for this thread thinking that it was prompted by that horrific event - but no, it was yet another piece of savagery which lead to you opening the debate in July 2012.

 

The various threads on this forum show in miniature the debate in America as a whole - and lead me to the depressing conclusion that a majority of people see mass shootings and the deaths of innocents as a valid and proportionate price to pay in order to protect their constitutional right to bear arms. As a European pacifist I cannot square this with my personal interactions on a daily basis with honest, friendly, peaceful and thoughtful Americans - but I cannot see how it can be anything but the case; everyday someone plays out their mental health issues with death and guns - but nothing is done, there is not even an agreement that something needs to be done.

[Ten oz]

"Thoughts?"

 

That there has been precious little change in the 1200 odd days since you started this thread - there has been on average around 1 mass shooting per day for the last three and a bit years. The tragedy in California this week was the largest since Newtown which made my look back for this thread thinking that it was prompted by that horrific event - but no, it was yet another piece of savagery which lead to you opening the debate in July 2012.

 

The various threads on this forum show in miniature the debate in America as a whole - and lead me to the depressing conclusion that a majority of people see mass shootings and the deaths of innocents as a valid and proportionate price to pay in order to protect their constitutional right to bear arms. As a European pacifist I cannot square this with my personal interactions on a daily basis with honest, friendly, peaceful and thoughtful Americans - but I cannot see how it can be anything but the case; everyday someone plays out their mental health issues with death and guns - but nothing is done, there is not even an agreement that something needs to be done.

 

Gun control is a huge politically partisan issue. Many align their support for either side of it as a matter of sport. Losing the gun control debate has larger party and cultural implications. People do not easily admit to be on the wrong team. Rather they just hustle harder to ensure their team wins. A major political party can not afford to lose on established wedge issues. People rather keep fighting than to lose. Than to be wrong. The Gun Control debate in the United States is not actually about guns for the majority of those who pretend guns are a symbol of freedom. It is about not losing, not being wrong, not acknowledging that the other side is right. We see the samething with Climate change. People are just stubborn and proud.

[waitforufo]

Here is how well gun control works

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/san-bernardino-shooting/mystery-gun-buyer-eyed-san-bernardino-massacre-n474416

 

Straw purchases, high capacity magazines, attempts to full automatic conversion. All illegal under California law.

[iNow]

Here is how well gun control works

Your argument is basically this: "See!! California has gun control laws and they still faced a mass shooting, so there!! Gun control obviously doesn't work!!!"

 

I've been seeing various permutations of that thinking on my Facebook for a few days now, and all suffer the same core fault / miss the same rather basic point (yet still manage to convince so many people... how strange). What point is being missed, you ask?

 

The point is that it's not like shootings are some binary either/or situation. It's not all or nothing and we'll likely never have zero shootings. Instead, the goal (a goal I feel we all probably share regardless of where we each land on the gun issue) is to have fewer shootings and not as many daily murders.

 

Sure, zero would be great, but it's a false choice to suggest (as comments like yours and those I keep seeing by otherwise rational people on FB implicitly do) that our options are to "achieve zero shootings or do nothing."

 

Can we not at the very least agree that some of those regulations implemented in California (and elsewhere) help to at least a small degree to minimize the number of avoidable deaths we encounter daily / make it harder for those who wish to do harm to successfully do so? I'm pretty sure even a 3-year old would recognize the basic truth of this position, but do understand that many who feel strongest on this issue seem to struggle to live up to that level of maturity.

[waitforufo]

But firearm fatalities are down even as gun purchases are way up.

 

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/12/04/washington-post-gun-violence-declining-except-gun-free-zones/

Edited December 4, 2015 by waitforufo

[iNow]

You haven't bothered to control for who's doing the purchasing. If one person buys a million guns and doesn't kill anyone, then your metric in that link still holds, but doesn't tell us anything about what's happening in the world. In other words, the measurement you suggest (yet again) has no bearing on the actual issue under discussion.