Ways to prevent mass shootings?

[Doktor Avalanche]

I can understand that it could be mind-boggling to you but the question you should ask yourself is whether it will also be mind-boggling to your kids (if you have them) and the generations after you.

Considering two of my daughters are competition trap shooters it probably would be mind-boggling to them too.

 

Edit- Sorry for posting twice in a row, moderators. I will add this to my previous post next time.

Edited October 10, 2015 by VasiliusKonstantinos

[vonnorman]

My fellow vasilious hit the nail on the head. These shooters are sissies targetting ONLY people they KNOW cant resist. If even a few of these law abiding people were allowed to have guns in these gun free zones even if they are only the educators, most potential shooters would remain scared in their basements crying about how someone else ruined their life. #pettingmygunasitype

Edited October 10, 2015 by vonnorman

[Robert Ap Ioan]

Our rights come from God. If our rights do not come from God, the government is free to do as it pleases, because then everything is subjective.

 

I am willing to live in danger if it means that I am free. If that means I must accept a minuscule chance of being shot wherever I go, so be it. I will not give up any essential liberty to secure some temporary safety. 

 

To the topic at hand though, to help prevent mass shootings, get rid of gun free zones. For some reason mass murderers seem to prefer to take their weapons to where they are prohibited, to do things that are illegal, to kill those who cannot protect themselves.  

 

Presumably you mean the Christian God who said "Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword."

I know quoting oneself is bad form but I have already answered that first sentence. The god-given right arguement is ridiculous and worthy of scorn.

 

I find it laughable that you do give so much trust to your own government. When you finally realize someday that no government actually gives a shit about its own citizens, remember this conversation, please. The biggest lie I have ever heard is "we are the government and we are here to help you."

And yes, I will fully admit I do not trust my government. I have a hard time trusting those that do trust their own, no offense. To me the government is just another religion of the masses and used to control and be worshiped.

 

Um, I have lost two family members and two friends to firearms.

To note, one friend was killed by a cop. He was unarmed and underage at the time.

I lost a cousin to sexual assault then a shot to the head afterwards. She was not armed but was someone who was in favor of carry/conceal, so your argument is kind of pissy to me to begin with by stating my argument is invalid by 200 years when in fact it factors in to possibly being a variable that could have saved her life.

 

Maybe when you lose a friend or a loved one to a thug or a belligerent public servant, you might have wished you could reverse time and wonder why you were so quick to give up your own personal liberties. I pray that time does not come, but meh.

I am sorry that you have lost loved ones to guns.

 

I trust the government to be untrustworthy although I know there are a few members in the commons who will always stand up for my rights, the Beast of Bolsover, Jeremy Corbyn, a few Labour MPs and Plaid Cymru. The rest are self serving bastards. However they are also the elected representative of the people and are paid to do their best for the people they serve.

Americans always use the government as an excuse for holding on to their firearms but what can you achieve against a government with much greater firepower than the people? The Arab Spring would not have worked in Libya if foreign forces were not involved and Egypt would not have had a successful revolution if the army hadn't couped Mubarak. If the people try and overthrow a government the government usually bring in the air force and heavy artillery. Good luck convincing me that firearms will prevent this.

 

It seems to me from what I have seen that Americans don't have a particularly high view of life, especially when it comes to law enforcement and that your police are rather gung-ho in their practice. This is a matter of concern to me and I can see why you wouldn't trust such policing. I have to ask though what would have happened if your friend was carrying a firearm?

[Wayne]

The only thing to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun!

 

 Ya know, that 55 year old overweight accountant with his Walmart AR15 could easily hold back the government forces that are trying to take his freedoms!

[Robert Ap Ioan]

LMAO

[Peter Quill]

Also your argument is very biased. I think most people would actually rather not shoot into the dark because of the fear that it is their family member.

They would rather wait until they could see the target instead of the chance of killing someone that is their friend or family.

Have you ever read Malcolm Gladwell's book, "Blink"? If you haven't, read it. Or if you don't have time, just grab a copy and skip to chapter 6.

Then you'll realize you're wrong.

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

I find it hilarious how the same people are deeply involved in another debate.

 

LOL, do you really care about this subject or do you just want to blow hot air as usual?

 

Whatever the case, enjoy yourselves. 

[Lu Xun]

On this point of view, mass shootings as a cause of death is so trivial in the United States that while it receives plenty of media publicity, you are not that much less likely to get killed by an asteroid than to get shot up by a mass shooting. Of course it's a tragedy when it happens, but so are fatal car accidents, and these are far more common than mass shootings.

 

That said, in general, an armed society is much more violent and deadly than an unarmed society. It's one of the interesting differences between America and Europe; here, we blanch when Janet Jackson's nipple slips from her costume during the Superbowl, but we're happy to have kids play violent video games (which do reduce inhibitions against violence and encourage aggression) and indulge in violent fantasies in media. There, it's the opposite; sex is free, violence is proscribed, tons of games are banned in Germany for child-killing (DRAKENGAARD!!! although the fact that one of the main characters is a pedophile is less of an issue there, I suppose).

 

Most people, in general, do not have a legitimate reason to possess guns. Guns may give you the sensation of being in control, but small arms, despite what the hobbyist community might want you to think, have minimal military value, pistols even less so, due to the abundance of armor and the lethality of fire support.

 

For home defense, is it really that bad to get burglarized as opposed to killing a burglar, who usually has a mother and father, perhaps kids in support? If you get burglarized, if your local law enforcement is good, you stand a chance of recovering your goods and the burglar can be put behind bars. If you kill the burglar, of course, you won't get your stuff back but the guy will be dead. He will never be able to make back his debt to society and people will be out of a son (perhaps daughter, but that's rarer in women) or father. And here's the thing, homeowners do get killed by armed burglars. You are fantasizing that the homeowner wins out in a majority of cases, that might be true, but not in all cases. If he were unarmed, on the other hand, the burglar would not have a threat to life and it would simply be a matter of theft, not murder.

 

That said, there are people who have legitimate uses for guns. Hunting is one of them; it could be the case that hunters are individually licensed for firearms, alongside their hunting license, and with long-guns, as opposed to handguns, lethality against civilians is much reduced due to the cumbersome nature of hunting rifles. Home defense in more scarcely populated regions is more reasonable than home defense in suburbia, because law enforcement is more spotty, as well as the fact that you will have to deal with threats that are inherently lethal, i.e, wolves and jackals that threaten both humans and wildlife. Sporting use, if the weapon is registered and stored by the range, instead of by individuals, is also a legitimate use of firearms; marksmanship is a useful skill which can build discipline and is a lot of fun.

 

While in an ideal situation, the people who want guns as penis surrogates or penis extenders should be barred from owning guns, a safe and useful compromise would be this; to ban individual ownership of guns. As per the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms as part of the need for a well-regulated militia should not be infringed, and we should have the functional equivalent of militia. In most situations, guns are problematic because their owners are irresponsible, and if you have a ton of guns floating around, some individuals, despite passing state certifications, will be irresponsible and let guns float into the black market or into the hand of spree shooters. By doing group licensing, groups will be incentivized to do good background checks on its owners; your Church group, for instance, should know you well and know whether you're responsible enough to have a gun for home defense purposes, and if something goes wrong, they can be sued, whereas, for instance, the mother of the Watertown shooter is difficult as a liability target for not keeping the gun safely stored.

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

TL;DR (even your conclusion).

[Apeman]

If every citizen was armed from the school teacher to the granny walking down the street, you would put an end to a lot of crimes and loose half of the scum of the earth all in one day.

 

Grannyshootouts2015

 

A gun laying on the table will never fire. Alcohol should have the same restrictions. It is way more dangerous

[Doktor Avalanche]

We are missing out on one big proponent to this discussion. The factors and if the factors correlate to one another.
Do mass shootings and gun ownership correlate? In other words do people owning firearms instantly create mass shootings? Is there any correlation between the homicide rate and gun laws themselves?

 

I researched out some data using several articles and websites and by crunching out from rates from 2012 up to last week came to the figures which point to no correlation whatsoever to any of the questions I posed, literally within factors of 0.006 to 0.1 including data  from homicides to simple injuries like minor shotgun spray. The other factor is one I posted previously that the majority of firearms used in violence in the United States is actually self inflicted, also known as suicide, and out of the suicides in the United States only about half of those are committed using a firearm.

 

The ratio between murder rates and gun ownership coefficient was 0.1 which is negligible, even nonexistent. This is using the data from each State contributed to the Department of Justice and the Ownership value from injuryprevention.bmj.org. The ratio for mass shootings and gun ownership coefficient was -0.006 and non-existing, also the data for the Mass shootings came from Mass Shooting Tracker.

Now the rates for Homicide and Gun Laws falls to each individual State, and the article I found says it best: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/06/zero-correlation-between-state-homicide-rate-and-state-gun-laws/

 

I wish I knew how to do a spoiler, but this information is something I would like to share:

 

Nowadays, 88,000 deaths per year are attributed to alcohol abuse, and thirty people per day in the United States die in alcohol-related auto accidents. Heavy drinkers are more prone to violence, suicide, and risky sexual behavior.

In fact, if we compare these statistics, we find that alcohol abuse is significantly more deadly and problematic than misuse of guns. There were 36,000 gun-related deaths (including suicides and accidents) in the US in 2013, and as a percentage of all causes of death, alcohol-related deaths are more than twice as common as gun deaths.

What’s more, one-third of gun deaths are alcohol related. Thus, according to prohibitionist logic, we could eliminate one-third of gun-related deaths overnight by prohibiting alcohol consumption. So why aren’t we doing it? If it could save one life, wouldn’t it be worth it?

Most have concluded that saving one life is not, in fact, worth it. In practice, alcohol-related deaths (including those inflicted against third-party victims) are treated very differently than gun-related deaths.

For example, it is clear that alcohol is a central component in the more than 10,000 drunk-driving deaths that occur each year. So, is the response to restrict certain types of alcohol or populations that can buy it? Are background checks instituted to prevent sales to incorrigible drunk drivers? No, the response is to ban how alcohol is used in certain cases.

On the other hand, in response to the 11,000 gun-related murders per year, the prescribed response is to restrict the guns themselves. But, if we were to apply the same logic behind drunk driving bans to gun violence, the only legislation we would be considering would be something along the lines of special penalties for carrying firearms when mentally impaired, on psychotropic drugs, when sight impaired, or in crowded areas where accidents are more likely to affect bystanders. The mere purchase or ownership of guns would not be restricted, just as the purchase or ownership of alcohol is not restricted in response to drunk driving.

Indeed, if we add to drunk driving all the cases of spousal abuse and child abuse and public cases of assault, bar fights, and more, it becomes clear that alcohol is in fact far more damaging to the social fabric than guns have ever been. Once we factor in the harm that alcohol does to the user himself, in terms of health problems, riskier sex, and suicides, the numbers look even worse for alcohol.

https://mises.org/blog/theres-no-correlation-between-gun-ownership-mass-shootings-and-murder-rates

https://mises.org/library/gun-control-fashionable-prohibition-modern-lawmakers

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/06/zero-correlation-between-state-homicide-rate-and-state-gun-laws/

https://www.fbi.gov/fbi-search#output=xml_no_dtd&client=google-csbe&cx=005240866907727249433%3Afryflkwxx8u&cof=FORID%3A9%3BNB%3A1&ie=UTF-8&siteurl=www.fbi.gov%2F&q=gun+statistics++AND+more%3Aviolent_crime_and_major_thefts

http://find.cato.org/search?q=Guns&op=Search&client=default_frontend&output=xml_no_dtd&proxystylesheet=default_frontend&sort=date%3AD%3AL%3Ad1&entsp=a__cato_policy_drew0115&wc=200&wc_mc=1&oe=UTF-8&ie=UTF-8&ud=1&exclude_apps=1&site=web_collection

http://www.politifact.com/subjects/guns/

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/early/2015/06/09/injuryprev-2015-041586.full.pdf?keytype=ref&ijkey=doj6vx0laFZMsQ2

 

There are a lot of factors to consider before blaming gun ownership for mass shootings.

[Caecus]

Guns are unique, in the sense that they are ranged ballistic weapons capable of rapid fire rates, and a person with no skill whatsoever could operate it. You want to prevent mass deaths, it's quite simple. Ban guns. The reason why you don't see mass stabbings is because it actually takes skill to use a melee weapon and kill a lot of people with it. Using a gun and pointing it at someone does not take any skill whatsoever. 

 

The entire point of the second amendment right was to physically give the power of revolution to the people. Since the US was founded on the ideology that revolution was a right of the people, the second amendment stands to be the physical embodiment of that right. What the Founding Fathers did not expect was that within the period of only 300 years, science has advanced to the point where we can fly in the air and drop exploding shells, or ride in a self-propelled carriage made of the strongest material in the world. Fact is, if the government wanted to institute a regime of oppression, it's quite easy to roll in a division of MBTs and overrun any place they wanted. Sure, you might say that having guns allows us to resist the government (should that ever happen), but the blatant fact is, the expectations of 300 year old dead men do not apply to modern warfare and police action.

 

I do, however, feel slightly conflicted, since I own 2 ARs, a .45, a 9mm, a .22LR, a .308, two .357s, three .22s, and enough ammo to start a war. I come from a very heavy "gun rights" state, and I know people who would hole up in a fortress with their guns and tell the government to "come and get sum." But the beauty of modern American politics is that nobody in congress knows how to make deals anymore, which ultimately stalls the entire process and we do nothing. That's partially the point of a bicameral house, but you would think that public outrage would at least run the process faster. 

 

It's so simple though. At least in this game, just click down the arrow on the policy page and change it. Perhaps it's for the best that real life isn't like that. 

[Bored now Leafing]

(1)Guns are unique, in the sense that they are ranged ballistic weapons capable of rapid fire rates, and a person with no skill whatsoever could operate it. You want to prevent mass deaths, it's quite simple. Ban guns. The reason why you don't see mass stabbings is because it actually takes skill to use a melee weapon and kill a lot of people with it. Using a gun and pointing it at someone does not take any skill whatsoever. 

 

(2)The entire point of the second amendment right was to physically give the power of revolution to the people. Since the US was founded on the ideology that revolution was a right of the people, the second amendment stands to be the physical embodiment of that right. What the Founding Fathers did not expect was that within the period of only 300 years, science has advanced to the point where we can fly in the air and drop exploding shells, or ride in a self-propelled carriage made of the strongest material in the world. Fact is, if the government wanted to institute a regime of oppression, it's quite easy to roll in a division of MBTs and overrun any place they wanted. Sure, you might say that having guns allows us to resist the government (should that ever happen), but the blatant fact is, the expectations of 300 year old dead men do not apply to modern warfare and police action.

 

(3)I do, however, feel slightly conflicted, since I own 2 ARs, a .45, a 9mm, a .22LR, a .308, two .357s, three .22s, and enough ammo to start a war. I come from a very heavy "gun rights" state, and I know people who would hole up in a fortress with their guns and tell the government to "come and get sum." But the beauty of modern American politics is that nobody in congress knows how to make deals anymore, which ultimately stalls the entire process and we do nothing. That's partially the point of a bicameral house, but you would think that public outrage would at least run the process faster. 

 

It's so simple though. At least in this game, just click down the arrow on the policy page and change it. Perhaps it's for the best that real life isn't like that. 

 

(1) Nuclear missiles are unique, in the sense that they are ranged ballistic explosive weapons capable of MIRV, and a person with no skill whatsoever could operate it. You want to prevent mass genocide, it's quite simple. Ban Nuclear missiles. The reason why you don't see mass Bombings is because it actually takes skill to use a Predator drone and kill a lot of people with it. Using a Nuclear missile and Targeting it at some nation does not take any skill whatsoever.

 

(2) Psst hey bud why with all this modern tech do so many nations still have issues with gorilla warfare? simple, effective warfare has countless little parts that have to all work out or else things turn upside down in a hurry, and do you somehow imagine that 100% of the military is going to just abuse/stand by while other units abuse there own friends and families on the order of a wacko in the government even if that wacko is El Presidenta?

Now lets thicken this mix thous armies have to get supplies for the men and there machines the more advanced the army the more it becomes dependent on solid supply lines and if everyone in the area refuses to supply your army then you have to bring everything you need in from other places and that leaves thous troops vulnerable and all it takes is one decent win to start capturing military equipment.

The most important aspect to winning a siege is to get comfortable and it's hard to get comfortable with a population that hates your guts and is looking and waiting for any chance to slit your throat, so unless you plan to burn the whole place down get ready for countless very long nights.

 

(3) As you seem to not be paying attention i will let you in on a secret the man that presently lays claim to the US throne is threatening to bypass congress (AKA act like a dictator) and use an executive order to ban guns, and that insane asylum escapee isn't the only one squawking as such, but thous i will let you try and find out about.

Edited October 10, 2015 by Quew

[Solomon]

We are missing out on one big proponent to this discussion. The factors and if the factors correlate to one another.

Do mass shootings and gun ownership correlate? In other words do people owning firearms instantly create mass shootings? Is there any correlation between the homicide rate and gun laws themselves?

The chart below shows the 2012 OECD data for annual murder deaths per 100,000 of population in developed countries.

I think it's self-explanatory but please ask if you have questions.

[Robert Ap Ioan]

I never realised Finland was so dangerous!

[Caecus]

(1) Nuclear missiles are unique, in the sense that they are ranged ballistic explosive weapons capable of MIRV, and a person with no skill whatsoever could operate it. You want to prevent mass genocide, it's quite simple. Ban Nuclear missiles. The reason why you don't see mass Bombings is because it actually takes skill to use a Predator drone and kill a lot of people with it. Using a Nuclear missile and Targeting it at some nation does not take any skill whatsoever.

 

(2) Psst hey bud why with all this modern tech do so many nations still have issues with gorilla warfare? simple, effective warfare has countless little parts that have to all work out or else things turn upside down in a hurry, and do you somehow imagine that 100% of the military is going to just abuse/stand by while other units abuse there own friends and families on the order of a wacko in the government even if that wacko is El Presidenta?

Now lets thicken this mix thous armies have to get supplies for the men and there machines the more advanced the army the more it becomes dependent on solid supply lines and if everyone in the area refuses to supply your army then you have to bring everything you need in from other places and that leaves thous troops vulnerable and all it takes is one decent win to start capturing military equipment.

The most important aspect to winning a siege is to get comfortable and it's hard to get comfortable with a population that hates your guts and is looking and waiting for any chance to slit your throat, so unless you plan to burn the whole place down get ready for countless very long nights.

 

(3) As you seem to not be paying attention i will let you in on a secret the man that presently lays claim to the US throne is threatening to bypass congress (AKA act like a dictator) and use an executive order to ban guns, and that insane asylum escapee isn't the only one squawking as such, but thous i will let you try and find out about.

 

Lol, you troll. 

 

1. If the average person had a concealable nuclear weapon that could be used to suicide themselves and 3 million people with them, we wouldn't have cities, and god forbid, no football in a crowded stadium. Tell me, do you have a conceal carry permit for a tactical nuclear weapon? Or is it just so far up your ass that people can't tell you are carrying it?

 

2. It's entirely unfeasible for the government to declare a war against the people for every single reason you just gave. It would tear the country apart, destroy millions in commercial infrastructure and leave the country so weakened that Mexico might actually consider taking back Cali. An election process which gives the power of who gets into the oval office into (more or less) the hands of the people, and with popular opinion, take them out for things like having a Jewish girl suck you off or, god-forbid, you bugged the campaign headquarters of your opponent, it's very unlikely that we will ever have someone that would be entirely willing to plunge the nation into anarchy. 

 

3. A genuine lack of understand of how American politics works, combined with living under a rock of ignorance all your life would give you that impression. I honestly don't know how to respond to this, except try studying history or taking a poly-sci class instead of watching Fox News all day. 

[Doktor Avalanche]

The chart below shows the 2012 OECD data for annual murder deaths per 100,000 of population in developed countries.

I think it's self-explanatory but please ask if you have questions.

• In 2012, an estimated 14,827 persons were murdered in the United States. This was a 1.1 percent increase from the 2011 estimate, but a 9.9 percent decrease from the 2008 figure, and a 10.3 percent drop from the number in 2003.
• There were 4.7 murders per 100,000 people. The murder rate rose 0.4 percent in 2012 compared with the 2011 rate. The murder rate was down from the rates in 2008 (12.8 percent decline) and 2003 (16.9 percent drop).
• Of the estimated murders in the United States, 43.6 percent were reported in the South, 21.1 percent were reported in the Midwest, 21.0 percent were reported in the West, and 14.2 percent were reported in the Northeast.

   

  Your chart makes it look like, by 100,000 according to your numeric, in 2012 we had over 300,000 deaths in the US caused by firearms which is wrong.

  69.3% of the total of murders committed were done with firearms.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/violent-crime/murder

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_7_murder_types_of_weapons_used_percent_distribution_by_region_2012.xls

Edited October 10, 2015 by VasiliusKonstantinos

[Solomon]

If you prefer a more wordy (but still easily readable) explanation of the correlation, I recommend this article from the American Journal of Medicine.

 

This is the abstract:

 

Abstract Background

A variety of claims about possible associations between gun ownership rates, mental illness burden, and the risk of firearm-related deaths have been put forward. However, systematic data on this issue among various countries remain scant. Our objective was to assess whether the popular notion “guns make a nation safer†has any merits.

Methods

Data on gun ownership were obtained from the Small Arms Survey, and for firearm-related deaths from a European detailed mortality database (World Health Organization), the National Center for Health Statistics, and others. Crime rate was used as an indicator of safety of the nation and was obtained from the United Nations Surveys of Crime Trends. Age-standardized disability-adjusted life-year rates due to major depressive disorder per 100,000 inhabitants with data obtained from the World Health Organization database were used as a putative indicator for mental illness burden in a given country.

Results

Among the 27 developed countries, there was a significant positive correlation between guns per capita per country and the rate of firearm-related deaths (r = 0.80; P <.0001). In addition, there was a positive correlation (r = 0.52; P = .005) between mental illness burden in a country and firearm-related deaths. However, there was no significant correlation (P = .10) between guns per capita per country and crime rate (r = .33), or between mental illness and crime rate (r = 0.32; P = .11). In a linear regression model with firearm-related deaths as the dependent variable with gun ownership and mental illness as independent covariates, gun ownership was a significant predictor (P <.0001) of firearm-related deaths, whereas mental illness was of borderline significance (P = .05) only.

Conclusion

The number of guns per capita per country was a strong and independent predictor of firearm-related death in a given country, whereas the predictive power of the mental illness burden was of borderline significance in a multivariable model. Regardless of exact cause and effect, however, the current study debunks the widely quoted hypothesis that guns make a nation safer.

Keywords:

Firearm deaths, Gun ownership, Mental illness

 

 

This is a pdf link to the paper: http://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(13)00444-0/pdf

 

[Bored now Leafing]

Lol, you troll. 

 

1. If the average person had a concealable nuclear weapon that could be used to suicide themselves and 3 million people with them, we wouldn't have cities, and god forbid, no football in a crowded stadium. Tell me, do you have a conceal carry permit for a tactical nuclear weapon? Or is it just so far up your ass that people can't tell you are carrying it?

 

2. It's entirely unfeasible for the government to declare a war against the people for every single reason you just gave. It would tear the country apart, destroy millions in commercial infrastructure and leave the country so weakened that Mexico might actually consider taking back Cali. An election process which gives the power of who gets into the oval office into (more or less) the hands of the people, and with popular opinion, take them out for things like having a Jewish girl suck you off or, god-forbid, you bugged the campaign headquarters of your opponent, it's very unlikely that we will ever have someone that would be entirely willing to plunge the nation into anarchy. 

 

3. A genuine lack of understand of how American politics works, combined with living under a rock of ignorance all your life would give you that impression. I honestly don't know how to respond to this, except try studying history or taking a poly-sci class instead of watching Fox News all day. 

 

(1) Absurdity meets Absurdity

(2) says the guy who suggested it would be easy to occupy a place with just a handful of tanks.

(3) No counter argument? goody a freebie.

[Caecus]

Does anyone have stats for the percentage of mass shooters and whether or not they bought guns within the previous month before the incident? If I remember correctly, the stats say that those who previously owned guns are less likely to go on a shooting spree. 

 

 

 

(1) Absurdity meets Absurdity

(2) says the guy who suggested it would be easy to occupy a place with just a handful of tanks.

(3) No counter argument? goody a freebie.

You are still a troll. I've learned my lesson. Giving a sound counter argument to a troll is like putting gas on a fire. I suppose the question is whether or not you are really a dumbshiza, or you just like picking on poor old me. 

 

Edit: Or both? Never heard of an ignorant sadist, though on some level, I suppose all sadists are ignorant. 

Edited October 10, 2015 by Caecus

[Bored now Leafing]

Your calling me a troll yet the only thing you have managed to do is spew insults HMMMMMMMMMMM...

[Lu Xun]

@Caecus:

 

As mentioned before, if you change the licensing to group licensing instead of individual licensing, it'll be a lot harder for unbalanced individuals to get their "revenge" by opening fire.

 

Another thing to mention is that unbalanced individuals don't care whether they live or die, they might actually get off by attacking a group of armed citizens and with the right tactics they could make the casualties obtained by friendly fire greater than the casualties actually inflicted by the attackers. I'm wondering when someone is going to attack an NRA convention and make the point that the defensive firearm option doesn't work.

 

Lastly, when it comes to second-amendment, gun control in the United States is neither sufficient nor does it go far enough. For example, with the gun lobby, one thing I do support is legalizing easy access to suppressors. If you've ever hobby-shot, you'll know exactly how annoying it is to lose your hearing from the report of high-energy rounds. Yet at the same time, we have lunatics getting their hands on high-powered rifles shooting through civilians.

 

One point I'd like to make is that guns are mainly good for shooting at children and bambi; i.e, against unarmored targets and wild animals, guns are really effective. Against actual soldiers, however, body armor means that most shots only transmit momentum, and the availability of heavy armor (I would so be a Javelin or RPG hobbyist if it were legal; ATGMs are awesome, MANPADs are awesome, grenade launchers like the XM-25 and the ZH-05 are awesome) and aircraft mean that a citizenry with small arms is essentially defenseless against real troops.

 

I support the hobby, of course (hunting, target shooting), I just don't support the notion of an armed citizenry shooting at each other over stupid things.

[Doktor Avalanche]

If you prefer a more wordy (but still easily readable) explanation of the correlation, I recommend this article from the American Journal of Medicine.

 

This is a pdf link to the paper: http://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(13)00444-0/pdf

Huh. Everything I found countered what the agenda driven WHO tried to prove.

Nice to know that four pages was not funded which is a good thing, actually. There are a lot more factors to look into, especially causation. Mass shootings in the United States is not countered by mass disarmament.

[Caecus]

Your calling me a troll yet the only thing you have managed to do is spew insults HMMMMMMMMMMM...

Ok, I'll entertain you a bit then. 

 

(1) Absurdity meets Absurdity

 

"Guns are unique, in the sense that they are ranged ballistic weapons capable of rapid fire rates, and a person with no skill whatsoever could operate it."

 

1. What part of my statement is absurd? Do you disagree that they are ranged ballistic weapons? Or do you disagree with how they can be fired at rapid rates? Or do you disagree that a person with no skill could operate it? The only thing that you disagree with that statement is the fact that I said guns should be banned. 

 

(2) says the guy who suggested it would be easy to occupy a place with just a handful of tanks.

 

2. Irrelevant. I was trying to make the point that the second amendment rights were there for the Right of Revolution, and I'm saying that the new way of changing government policy isn't getting a bunch of rednecks with ARs to run up the white house lawn and shooting the "dictator." 

 

 

(3) No counter argument? goody a freebie.

 

3. If you honestly expect me to give you a lesson on American politics on the PnW forum without any pay, I genuinely wish you the best of luck in life. You made a wildly outrageous statement and expected me to respond. Keep taking it as "no counter argument," and then go look for your high school diploma. Don't know what state you are from, but I'm pretty sure every high school in the country requires you to take American Government. 

 

Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order

 

 

@Caecus:

 

As mentioned before, if you change the licensing to group licensing instead of individual licensing, it'll be a lot harder for unbalanced individuals to get their "revenge" by opening fire.

 

Another thing to mention is that unbalanced individuals don't care whether they live or die, they might actually get off by attacking a group of armed citizens and with the right tactics they could make the casualties obtained by friendly fire greater than the casualties actually inflicted by the attackers. I'm wondering when someone is going to attack an NRA convention and make the point that the defensive firearm option doesn't work.

 

Lastly, when it comes to second-amendment, gun control in the United States is neither sufficient nor does it go far enough. For example, with the gun lobby, one thing I do support is legalizing easy access to suppressors. If you've ever hobby-shot, you'll know exactly how annoying it is to lose your hearing from the report of high-energy rounds. Yet at the same time, we have lunatics getting their hands on high-powered rifles shooting through civilians.

 

Well, if I remember the stats right, it's rare that long term gun owners go on shooting sprees. That being said, banning firearms completely from a culture that thrives off of it is irrational and unfeasible. My personal opinion is having a wait period for purchasing a weapon, especially handguns. Having Congress going about this will likely end in deadlock, so reform has to come from the state level. If people get outraged enough, people will go and picket at the state government to do something about it. Right now, the social tension is only causing more radicalization, which tends to be the problem with societies with a historical background of revolution. Time to get the pickets out and scream at the local senators. 

Edited October 10, 2015 by Caecus

[Lu Xun]

The actual social problem with guns tends to occur more with the culture of violence and incidental killings; i.e, people shoot each other by accident, because they're scared, or because they shoot themselves. As I mentioned before, spree shootings are trivial as a cause of death in America, very rarely do people end up being deranged enough to pick up a gun and kill innocent people. The gun control lobby is using this as an issue to force gun control laws when it is a bad issue, once closely examined.

 

The general idea is that we increase licensing requirements by getting groups, which are more easily-managed than individuals, to handle guns, complete with fines for losing track of guns, having guns be used for crimes, accidents, and so on. Once we have such groups for management available, if it still doesn't work and murder rates continue to be obscenely high, we can consider taking self-defense handguns out of the hands of individuals, or implement strict licensing.

 

Ironically, red-states tend to be more collectivist in that they trend towards religion and community affiliation. This is the very basis on which we can implement group-based licensing, because at the outset it'll simply be having your gun be registered to your name, to your gun being registered to a trust based out of your hunting club or your church. As lawsuits come in, these collectives will understand the importances of gun safety, as well as making sure you know and can trust who's going to be handling your lethal weapons, so all gun owners will end up being more responsible and less likely to get guns into the hands of criminals and madmen.