More shooting in schools

Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by timojin, Oct 2, 2015.

  1. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,302
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,092
    Unnecessary. And dangerous. And time consuming.
    But maybe the eventual approach.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,302
    Are there going to protests in the streets "America needs more guns!"

    Build a wall along the borders. Put border guard towers up and make sure they have very very big guns.

    :EDIT:

    Ooh! http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/03/us/gun-deaths-united-states/index.html

    ""There is a gun for roughly every man, woman and child in America. So how can you, with a straight face, make the argument that more guns will make us safer?"".
     
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2015
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,875
    Agreed, I don't think meaningful gun control will become reality any time soon in the US.

    In the American system not all voters are equal. Rural states like their guns and that ain't changing.
     
  8. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,056
    Why does society need to have weapons at all?

    I know, I know, armed intruders and authoritarian government means you have to remain well stocked, just in case.

    But from our end, it makes no sense that people actually need guns at all. Do you live in a rural area, such as on a farm with livestock that requires you to have a firearm? Do you hunt or participate in shooting for sport? Outside of that, why do you actually need firearms in your home? What benefit do they bring you? We know they increase your risk of getting shot and I am hard pressed to find anyone who would view that as a benefit. So why do you think people need to have firearms inside their homes or on their persons at all times?

    A society that is afraid of its own shadow should not be armed. There is a reason why gun deaths are so high in America.

    Do what other societies have done. Gun buyback schemes is one example. Require that all gun owners are required to undergo strenuous checks, from background checks to psychiatric checks which include speaking to spouses and former spouses, doctors, employers and family and neighbours to make sure that you are not some kind of fruitcake. Ensure that if there is someone mentally disturbed in the house, that guns are not to be kept in the house. Require that guns and bullets are stored behind secure locks or in secure cabinets, separately. Or adopt laws and rules like Switzerland has, where the ability to acquire guns and bullets require stringent checks and regulations. Stricter educational requirements on gun safety for everyone who purchases a gun.

    I could ask you the same question.

    What, exactly, is it in those statistics do you find so alarming? Are you suggesting organisations like the CDC is lying or ramping up the figures? How about the Harvard School of Public Health? What do they get out of it? How, exactly, are they dishonest? Do you have more "honest" figures? How about the University of Utah?

    A study of 626 shootings in or around a residence in three U.S. cities revealed that, for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides (Kellermann et al, 1998). Over 50% of all households in the U.S. admit to having firearms (Nelson et al, 1987). In another study, regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and suicide in the home (Dahlberg, Ikeda and Kresnow, 2004). Persons who own a gun and who engage in abuse of intimate partners such as a spouse are more likely to use a gun to threaten their intimate partner. (Rothman et al, 2005). Individuals in possession of a gun at the time of an assault are 4.46 times more likely to be shot in the assault than persons not in possession (Branas et al, 2009).

    How utterly irresponsible of them to even consider such studies!

    Do you think the fact that the US has 15 times more gun homicides than Germany, is exaggerated? The scary thing is that it is not exaggerated. Or meaningless or dishonest.

    More guns will mean more gun homicides. That isn't dishonest, meaningless, exaggerated or abused.

    Sticking your fingers in your ears because the words and the numbers are awful, is part of the problem.

    You misunderstand. The whole debate on this issue is fucked up.

    And you haven't provided any statistical comparisons. You just complained about how they are dishonest and misused and invalid. I beg to differ.

    Do you believe comparing AMERICA with other developed nations is invalid? Would you have preferred I compare you to Afghanistan? I suppose it might make the need for military weapons in the home more valid.

    Things are bad in your country, Iceaura. Very bad. Mass shootings should not be a common occurrence. But they are. People should not be allowed to access guns, military style guns at that, so easily and freely. And if nothing is done, it will just keep happening again and again.

    And America will continue to drown in gun blood and gun violence because of this irrational fear of 'they took our guuunnss'.. Other countries have been able to get past it without the world ending or the Government taking over and becoming tyrannical.

    I think the issue is that you view the very notion of disarming some people and restricting access to militarised weapons and having regulations and laws put in place that would limit access to certain types of firearms to be irrational. The rest of the developed world has gone through such processes and have such laws and regulations in place. It takes a big step but it is a necessary step. Because if such steps are not taken, then it will just continue. More guns = more death. We learnt that the hard way and countless of people died until it got to the point where as a population, we recognised that to fix the problem would require everyone to participate. Reasonable debate comes with recognising and accepting that such steps must be taken.
     
  9. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,092
    Your presumptions are as arrogant as they are wrong.
    So?
    Nothing. I have no complaint about the statistics themselves.
    Arrogant, presumptuous, and wrong. Again. This is why you find so many in America unpersuaded - it's because you are lacking in comprehension, and saying stupid things that create mistrust.
    Not in theory.
    It's a perfectly decent statistic. But some people seem to think it means that ordinary Americans are at great risk of being murdered by gunfire, which is not the case, or at much greater risk of being murdered overall because of the presence of guns, which is also not the case. The whole "drowning in gun blood" schtick.
    Yeah, we're "drowning in blood" and "armed to the teeth" and so forth. You keep talking like that, and I'll keep walking across town from the bar in the middle of the night, unarmed and unthreatened, through bunches of other unarmed and unthreatened people, trying to figure out why the Twins spent a fortune on Ricky Nolasco and had everybody in the lineup bunt guys over except Joe Mauer, who was the one guy they should have.
    Yeah, you guys are sensible realists, you bet.

    Y'know, maybe America should have bent the Free Speech amendment a bit, and forced Hollywood to run a disclaimer on all those movies we sold overseas. "Guns in America may not be as ubiquitous and normal dispute resolution means as they appear in this film" or something like that.
    Some of them. So far, anyway. Others - others not so much. I don't think there have ever been very many countries in the weird situation the US is in right now, so I'm not sure which makes the best historical comparison.
    Well, I don't. I favor all that, and so do most Americans. So - informed by that, for the umpteenth time on this forum btw, are you going to revise your thinking in this matter?
    No other society has disarmed its citizens on the scale and to the extent that would be required in the US, without serious coercion and confiscation from the unwilling. Millions of them. Almost none of them a bigger threat to me and mine than the government agents doing the disarming would have to be.

    That would be very dangerous, and disproportionately so - the problem isn't that big, and far more reasonable measures are available against the worst of it.
     
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2015
  10. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,056
    You're telling me this is not the stock standard response to the mere mention of the dreaded words "gun control"?

    Then what is the issue? You don't like it when people use them in the face of such tragedies or to remind others of what is going on?

    So the figures aren't wrong, but citing them is wrong.

    I'm not lacking in comprehension. I think the issues your country faces with guns are there for all to see.

    There mere hint of gun control or calls for gun control in some way, shape or form results in accusations of others being lacking in comprehension and being arrogant and presumptuous.

    What would you have people say instead? Carry on? Because that's going on so well, isn't it?


    Barack Obama put words to the desperation of millions of Americans – and the despair of the rest of the world – after another mass shooting at a school in Oregon on Thursday, the latest of nearly 1,000 since his re-election in 2012.

    “Somehow,” the president said, “this has become routine.

    “The reporting is routine. My response here at this podium ends up being routine. The conversation in the aftermath of it,” Obama trailed off, at once frustrated and spirited at the White House. “We’ve become numb to this … We talked about this after Columbine and Blacksburg; after Tucson, after Newtown; after Aurora, after Charleston.”

    Since Obama’s re-election to a second term in November 2012 – which itself was followed by the shooting of 26 people including 20 children at Sandy Hook elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, just a few weeks later – there had been 993 mass shooting events in the United States . Thursday’s attack, at Umpqua community college in the town of Roseburg, was No 994. Almost 300 of them have occurred in 2015.

    Oh wait, no. Pointing this out is arrogant and presumptuous, not to mention that I am apparently lacking in comprehension.

    Are Americans waiting for it to reach 2,000 before they recognise that gun control is necessary? Is there a magical point where people will recognise this?

    Then why do so many Americans feel the need to own so many guns?

    The statistics are there. It shows a pattern that having a gun in the home poses more risk to those living in that home. You can look at it however you want to. But countless of studies have found the same thing. And yes, it is the ordinary Americans who are dying. Pretending this is not the case won't get you anywhere.

    Well, you are collectively armed to the teeth.


    America has 4.4 percent of the world's population, but almost half of the civilian-owned guns around the world

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    Would you prefer we just not discuss such figures? Why do you all need so many guns? What for?

    Are you suggesting that I am going off movies? I am referring to studies. If you believe those studies are wrong, then please, provide something to counter it.

    No, there are very few countries in the same situation as you are right now because most countries moved past it a long time ago and do not see guns as being a right, nor do we feel the need to own them.

    Naw, why don't you tell me how ignorant I am some more. Because that's always pleasant and fun.

    Then ban the sale of bullets. Regulate them like the Swiss have done. People want to keep their guns? Fine. They just won't have the ability to purchase the bullets as freely. Offer tax incentives for those who turn in their guns. Tax those who own guns more to cover for the ridiculous costs gun violence presents to the State and its victims. Raise insurance premiums of gun owners, to help cover for the health costs of people who are victims of gun violence. You'll be surprised just how much of an incentive cold hard cash can be.
     
  11. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,635
  12. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,366
    Stephen Colbert opened his show the other night by making a good point.

    He simply noted that if, once again, Americans choose to do nothing about their guns, they can only pretend that there will be any changes to the pattern of mass shootings and other gun deaths that are now a regular part of the American landscape. You can't have it both ways - doing nothing and expecting things to change.
     
  13. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,092
    Yep. Not only that, but you directed the response to me, in response to my posting, as if you were making that arrogant and ignorant presumption about my posting - again. You had already made it once before.
    Same one I posted several times before - like this:
    And right on cue:
    The stat is fine. Your abuse of it is a symptom, a mental disorder of some kind. Americans are not armed to the teeth, regardless of whether other people own any guns at all -( the comparison means little, and tracks working class income circa 1965). Most of us own no firearms. Of those who do, most own one or two, for specific roles - hunting and varmints, in the glove box of the semi for "protection" over the road, somewhere near the bed for the paranoid, inherited from grandpa and leaning in the closet, that kind of thing.
    The studies are fine, as far as they go. Anyone who extrapolates from them to a country drowning in gun blood has been getting their fantasy life from somewhere - movies would be a reasonable guess.
    They haven't moved past it; they were never in it. America has always been uniquely involved with firearms - the peasant's rifle and the US itself were invented simultaneously, and by the same people.
    None of that is possible without tyranny, in the US. Little of it is reasonable, even in concept - the IRS is going to track gun ownership? the US government is going to raise people's insurance premiums? What in the world - - - ? Good luck getting anywhere with that on the table.

    Here's a question: what would it take to get people to stop trying to deny the Constitution, proposing mass confiscation of firearms, telling Americans they live in society drowning in gun blood, and recommending the Federal government do stuff that almost no American wants it to be able to do? Just take that stuff away, siddown and talk sense, how about.
    My pleasure.

    The more I listen to gun control promotors talk, the more I realize the wingnuts on the other side actually have a good bead on their opponents (if not reality), and the less hope I have for this mess. Fortunately, it's not very high on the list of US problems - getting some sanity in the drug laws and prison situation, for example, would probably have more benefit on the murder rate just as a side effect.
     
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2015
  14. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,056
    Well iceaura, you always become very... defensive at any mere mention of gun control.

    In short, the word 'sensitive' comes to mind.

    I see. I take it you think the stat should simply not be stated.

    As I said, fingers in ears and eyes closed. There is a problem, but if it is just ignored, not looked at or discussed, it cannot really be that big of a problem.

    The statistics beg to differ.

    The civilian population has more guns than elsewhere. Are you suggesting this is incorrect? Or is it just because it is applying generally over the population as a whole? Do you think there are less guns in circulation among citizens?

    Or is it simply a case of just not wanting to entertain the prospect that there are more guns in the civilian population as a whole?

    Okay..

    Those that do tend to own more than one. The figure is what? 37% of households have one or more guns in the household as per a survey of a small group of people. And it was self reported. Gallup had higher results from their survey. Do you think they are telling the truth? Either way, it ends up being around a third, especially families, who have at least one gun in the house or on their property. I would say that is a fairly substantial figure, given the size of your population. And the rate of ownership in that they own more than one, is a terrifying prospect. Does this not bother you?

    I see..

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    So, you disagree with Gallup?

    Does that mean that 60% of gun owners are paranoid in some way, shape or form? 60% identified as being for personal safety and protection, while only 36% identified owning guns for "hunting" and apparently varmints.

    I find it interesting that you keep focusing on that one part of the quote from that article. You don't think so many mass shooting events is indicative or would qualify as applying to such a saying or quote?

    The United States accounts for nearly 75 percent of all children murdered in the developed world. Children between the ages of 5 and 14 in the United States are 17 times more likely to be murdered by firearms than children in other industrialized nations.

    Children from states where firearms are prevalent suffer from significantly higher rates of homicide, even after accounting for poverty, education, and urbanization. A study focusing on youth in North Carolina found that most of these deaths were caused by legally purchased handguns. A recent meta-analysis revealed that easy access to firearms doubled the risk of homicide and tripled the risk for suicide among all household members. Family violence is also much more likely to be lethal in homes where a firearm is present, placing children especially in danger. Murder-suicides are another major risk to children and are most likely to be committed with a gun.

    Crucially, these deaths are not offset by defensive gun use. As one study found, for every time a gun is used legally in self-defense at home, there are “four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.” A study of adolescents in California found that there were 13 times as many threatening as self-defensive uses of guns. Of the defensive encounters, many arose in confrontations that became hostilebecause of the presence of a firearm.

    [...]

    In terms of accidental fatalities, American children younger than 15 are nine times more likely to die by a gun accident than those in the rest of the developed world. Children living in states with higher levels of firearm availability also suffer from significantly higher rates of unintentional gun deaths. Studies indicate the vast majority of these shootings involve either family or friends. These statistics indicate that parents’ ownership of a weapon is a significant risk not only to their own children but also to their children’s friends. As a report from the New York Times revealed, accidental killings are significantly underreported in the official data, often being classified as homicides or suicides rather than accidents. In several states there were twice as many accidental gun deaths than the official record indicated.

    I would say the quote "drowning in gun blood" was kind and polite.

    Guns were entrenched in many other societies and in developing countries that are now developed nations in the West.

    We moved past it when we recognised they were dangerous and that access to the public should be strictly limited and yes, that disarming people was key, not to mention making it much much harder to obtain guns to begin with and put in restrictions against assault type rifles and reduced the capacity of magazines. In short, we put public safety first and foremost instead of 'the constitution says we can so we must' kind of attitude.

    No. It's actually quite simple to restrict what bullets and arms people have access to. It would require people to recognise that it is for the benefit of the whole. You cannot even imagine such a thing without bringing tyranny to the table. The rest of the developed world managed fine with such rules.

    Unless of course people need armour piercing bullets for "hunting and varmints"?
     
  15. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,056
    Well something drastic needs to be done.

    Or would you prefer more hand wringing with nothing being done lest gun owners delicate sensibilities be offended?

    And why isn't the US Government able to track who owns what guns? Why are there no records of this? You track cars through registration. You can track who is allowed to drive. But there is no reliable way to track who owns what guns?

    Well what do you propose to reduce the number of guns in the populace and restricting access to guns in general? No one is trying to deny the Constitution. But I am fairly certain that it is a pretty safe bet that the founding father's did not envisage what is currently happening in the US when it comes to guns when that that "right" was coined. The US does not have a well armed militia. It has a populace that is paranoid and afraid and armed. It should also be noted that your Constitution does not afford you or any other American the right to buy whichever kind of "arms" they so choose. The Constitution affords the populace some rights, but not without restrictions.

    With that, only the independent clause—“the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”—was deemed important. Gun controllers wailed and gun enthusiasts cheered. But that was largely because few of them seemed to have read all of Scalia’s opinion. As every first-year law school student knows, constitutional rights are not absolute. Newspapers stay in business thanks to the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech, but they cannot lawfully print child pornography. And citizens have no right to incite imminent violence. Similar restrictions apply to other constitutional rights—most have parameters designed to protect society.

    Scalia clearly stated in Heller that the right to bear arms had boundaries. “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited,” he wrote. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” For example, he cited laws that prohibit the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or that forbid them in places such as schools and government buildings, or impose conditions on their sale. He also wrote that his decision did not overrule the holding in the 1939 Miller ruling that the sorts of weapons protected are those in common use at the time, and that the “historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons” was still permissible.


    Was Scalia trying to "deny the Constitution", in your opinion?

    And yes, heaven forbid Americans are made to wake up to the realisation of what kind of society they are living in that has had hundreds of mass shooting events in a matter of a few years and not a single thing has been done to try to rectify or amend gun laws to prevent them from happening, not to mention the fact that the Government is not even allowed to keep track of how many guns there are and who owns guns and what type or prevent the mentally ill from accessing such weapons.

    Until you have bans on being able to access certain types of weapons and magazines that can shoot 100 rounds without having to reload, then it is simply a case of nothing is being done to rectify the situation.

    Why would any gun enthusiast need 100 rounds? James Holmes can tell you. Until July 20, 2012, Holmes was what the NRA would describe as a responsible gun owner. He legally owned a couple of Glock 22 pistols, a Smith & Wesson M&P15 semi-automatic rifle with a 100-round drum magazine, a Remington 870 Express Tactical shotgun, 350 shotgun shells and 6,000 rounds of ammunition. Given all those purchases, his local gun club invited him to join.

    Then, on that night in July, Holmes walked into an Aurora, Colorado, movie theater and started firing. He killed 12 people and injured 70 more. He got off 76 shots—65 from the semi-automatic rifle with the 100-round drum; he could have shot more if the drum hadn’t jammed. In fact, Holmes told a court psychiatrist that he chose his weaponry in hopes that he would kill all 400 people in the theater.

    High-capacity magazines have been the accessory of choice for most mass killers in the U.S. Adam Lanza, the shooter at Sandy Hook Elementary School who killed 20 children and six adults in 2012, used 30-round magazines. The accessory was also used in mass shootings at Columbine High School in 1999 and the military base at Fort Hood, Texas, in 2011.

    Nah.. These weapons shouldn't be removed from the populace. Just as the magazines that can shoot that many bullets without being reloaded are fine. We'll just ignore it all and sit down and try to talk sense without actually tackling the issue that is the giant pink elephant in the room. Certainly, talk about providing better mental health care and education, because that is essential. But the mere mention or the thought of disarming mentally ill people or denying people access to such rounds of ammunition? Apparently it's a denial of the constitution while refusing to acknowledge that within the scope of the constitution, restrictions can and should exist for reasons of public safety and for the benefit of society.


    Not high on the list of US problems. Wow.. That's as bad as Bush's "stuff happens" comments..

    I'd suggest earplugs in case the fingers in your ears get tired.
     
  16. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Thanks for this link.

    Unfortunately few will read it. Instead of getting the facts, they prefer telling their NRA influenced opinions. So after reviewing about a dozen studies, the article concludes with:

    " The tired old rationalization that guns protect people is frankly contradicted by the evidence. The inescapable conclusion is that gun ownership makes everyone less safe. The logic the NRA espouses is perverse and transparently self-serving – the solution to gun crimes is not more guns, and no amount of rhetorical dexterity can surmount this fact. "

    Actually there was no need for the studies* - one only needs to note that the US has 10 to 25 times more gun deaths per capita than other "advanced" nations and also has 10 to 25 times more guns per person - Then strongly suspect a cause and effect relationship between these facts.

    * Here is one of the many studies conclusions:
    " The John Hopkins center for gun policy research has some sobering facts on this; women living in a home with one or more guns were three times more likely to be murdered; for women who had been abused by their partner, their risk of being murdered rose fivefold if the partner owned a gun."

    I did not read the study, but my reading of "rose fivefold" tells me 3x5 = 15 times more likely to be murdered by husband with a gun than if there was no gun in the house.
     
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2015
  17. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,635
    That article was a real eye-opener for me. I mean I'm already pro-gun control. I don't own one and never will, primarily for the reason that I just don't want that sort of death power over myself or others. Now I see that the whole mentality of needing a gun and carrying it with you is part of the problem. It takes training and a special kind of self-control to use a weapon like that. And I'm pretty sure most people don't have that. Heck, even police officers have a hard time not using their guns impulsively. That's why when I see a guy having a road rage fit, I assume he has a gun to back up all that rage. A man who carried a hammer around all day would eventually be looking for things to pound. A man who carried a sword would eventually be looking for things to hack. And a man with a gun will eventually be looking for things to shoot at. Most people aren't mature enough to handle that sort of power over others. Which is why: guns don't kill people. People who own and carry guns kill people.
     
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2015
  18. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,092
    Bullshit. Own it. This behavior of yours is the exact problem I have been posting about in every gun control thread on this forum for years now - the gun control extremists are fully as irrational, fully as divorced from physical reality, fully as dependent on emotional blathering, fully as prone to twisting people's arguments and slandering their motives and "misreading" their posts and attacking their persons and in general making themselves completely untrustworthy, as the gun nuts. It's the only genuine "both sides" issue I know of in American politics, but it's a big one.

    The adults have to step in. But it's hard to get a word in edgewise - and the extremist gun control advocates around here have no shame.

    Example(s):
    Every single one of those quotes from that post above is an ascription of a view to - and let's emphasize this, because it highlights the problem: a gun control advocate - that they do not hold, explicitly do not hold, and have stated the contrary of right here several times. The post as a whole is purposeful misrepresentation, dishonest slander, bs innuendo, flatly contradicted by multiple posts of gun control advocacy right here,

    and completely typical of the extremists on "that side" in this forum.

    Here's another:
    The actual quote would have been "Not very high on the list etc - - - . And of course it is easily supported: Water shortage, health care dysfunction, military ventures, incarceration explosion, drug wars, racial conflict, economic crash aftermath, the implosion of one of the major political Parties, the degradation of the news media, immigration dysfunction - even if the only measure is how many people are outright killed, lack of what is achievable in sane gun control in the US is no higher than fourth. It might not even be in the top three of the factors boosting gunshot deaths alone.

    So how do we get this kind of garbage out of this discussion? For an advocate of gun control in the US, somebody who has watched for years as this common sense and widely supported political need crashes and burn and takes good careers with it under the onslaught of this kind of sludge, what are the options?

    Returning to the matters of direct fiction, as opposed to rhetorical pooflinging:
    Not like the US.
    No. Something ordinary and very much in the line of common sense needs to be done.
    The implication is that I haven't already done that. Also, it clearly implies that I need to, to support my arguments here. Both of those implications are false.
    Yes, some are. You and several others are attempting to misrepresent the term "militia" and deny the clear meaning of "the people", for example.
    Most certainly. The existence of a standing Federal army, National Guard, Federal police, and Border Patrol, for example, would have been very disturbing to them. Mass killings were of course occasional occurrences - America has always been a fairly violent place - but the repeating rifle even, let alone the handgun (the real game changer), was not imagined. And so forth.
    I could raise one in 48 hours from my county, at need - exactly the intention of the Founders.
    Also dealing drugs under pressure, alcoholic, without mental health care, racially subject to systematic abuse by the police, and in economic decline.
    You never quote that kind of stuff from my posts. Why not?

    That is a stat blunder - you are assuming independence, a mistake, when all the evidence indicates dependence, a blunder. I don't think you would make that kind of elementary error in normal circumstances, nor read invalid inferences from those studies you reference - this gun issue is poisonous, somehow.

    This is not only your opinion, but has research support - carrying a gun changes people's perceptions of all kinds of things, measurably.
     
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2015
  19. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,302
    Isn't "The Right to Bear Arms" over a 200 year of amendment in the constitution?


    Get with the program. Unless Canadians, Mexicans and Space Invaders are threatening you.
     
  20. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,056
    Own what? That each time the subject of gun control comes up on this forum, you become exceptionally defensive and any measure proposed is viewed as being slanderous, irrational and panic driven?

    You keep asking for more to be done, but poo poo every single suggestion of what should be done. You want gun control, without the very notion of disarming a portion of the population of certain types of weapons. Because what? It's too dangerous to? That it is denying the constitution? Oh noes! Restrictions put in place on a Constitution that allows restrictions for the sake of public and society's safety, of which at present, there is none. You have made comments about how most people want and use their guns for "hunting and varmints", and then stated that for the paranoid, for self protection. The reality is that the majority want them for self protection. Does that mean that majority is paranoid? When I asked, why do they need a firearm for self protection, you are yet to answer sufficiently without personal insults and abuse. When I suggest that semi-automatics and automatics and rounds of ammunition that can fire, oooh say 100 rounds without reloading, should not be in the population for the obvious risk they cause, which is backed up by countless of studies which were linked, you become even more condescending at the mere thought that these might be removed from the populace by way of a gun buyback scheme. You seem to hold your country at a certain level by which it cannot compare to other countries. We know America is different when it comes to guns not only because your civilian population owns so bloody much of them, but because so many seem to believe that they cannot live or survive without it, out of fear of the people around them and fear of the Government. Now, that large number of people are either paranoid and frankly, should not own a firearm because of said paranoia, or you are so bogged down in the belief that people should not be disarmed that you are willing to overlook it. Which is it?

    As I pointed out, other countries went through this sort of thing from recently to years ago. And we came out of it without a bloodbath. Are you suggesting that providing tax incentives to hand in weapons is a bad idea? That buying back certain types of weapons and requiring people to register and go through stricter back ground checks, training and re-evaluation every few years and requiring that guns be stored behind lock and key is a bad idea? Because the mere mention of that and you get all uppity and offensive. In short, you want gun control without actually doing anything to impose said gun control. Gun control will mean disarming some in the population, iceaura and to do that, there needs to be a financial benefit. You cannot have gun control without applying it to those who already have guns.

    I see, so you want gun control, but not from a gun control advocate. Would you rather the NRA formulate the gun control so that it is more palatable? You have yet to contradict any of the posts or studies in this thread that highlight the dangers of owning a gun in the home. Not once. All you've done is be personally offensive and insulting and accused me of misrepresenting and slandering.

    You clearly said that the majority want guns for "hunting and varmints" and that apparently a paranoid sum want them for self protection. The gallup poll shows that the majority surveyed wanted them for self protection first and foremost. 60% of gun owners cited self protection. You advised that it is the paranoid who want them for that reason and that most want them for hunting. Do you agree with the gallup poll or not? Do you think they are misrepresenting the data because it does not fit into your personal beliefs of why Americans own guns? Perhaps it's time you owned your own bullshit.

    And as I asked, why do people in America need to own militarised style weapons? Why do people need such forms of rounds or armour piercing bullets? No, really, why? And you complain that these questions are being asked because a) AMERICA and mumbling something about the Constitution always follows or b) you complain about "gun control advocates". The questions are valid. Why do Americans need this sort of weaponry on hand? Do they live in a war zone? Because from outsiders looking in, it makes absolutely no sense. It makes even less sense to take such weapons shopping to supermarkets and going about one's daily life. If you cannot recognise that such weapons will need to be taken out of circulation by legal and non-violent means and doing so would entail providing financial benefit to those who own them, then you are kidding yourself. If you really want gun control, then you need to recognise that there will need to be "gun" "control".
     
  21. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,056
    Unbelievable..

    And that right there is the problem. And it is why nothing will ever be done about it.

    Around 13 people died due to a fault in their car and millions of other cars affected the US went after the manufacturer. Around 270+ million guns owned by Americans and thousands die and thousands more injured due to gun violence and it does not rank high enough on the list of what is wrong in the US to warrant active action to curb said violence through gun control. Gee, priorities much?

    No, really, how bad does it have to get before it makes a look into the top 5? How many more mass shooting events will it take?

    Well apparently you are the only sane gun control advocate on this site. What do you suggest? You know, since everyone else who has gone through this was wrong and irrational.. What are the answers, iceaura?

    Perhaps not. The Swiss would come close since the populace is the militia and the military and they dealt with it quite effectively. When I suggested similar measures for the US, you complained and called it irrational.

    Such as? What?

    You are not for disarming people who own guns that should be illegal and restricted and which such restriction would pass muster under the constitution because of public safety, you are not for the control or regulation of ammunition that is just as dangerous, you are not for gun buyback schemes or tax incentives to help promote the very notion of disarming some from guns that are too dangerous to remain in circulation. For everyone else, such schemes were rational and expected and worked. I know, AMERICA is different to everyone else and cannot be compared to anyone else at all, because AMERICA... This is tantamount what your argument has been like in this thread. So what common sense and ordinary things do you suggest or recommend?

    All you have done in this thread is to complain about gun control advocates and make personally offensive remarks and just complain about everything. You have a problem with studies being cited, but not a problem with the studies themselves. Is the issue for you the fact that I am Australian? Would it sound better for you from an American? Is that it? You haven't supported any of your arguments. You've just complained.

    So, what is to be done? You poo poo'ed someone's suggestion of amending the constitution.

    Well for most people, militia means a group of people who act like a militia. But even with it being now redefined to apply to the general population's right to bear arms, what then?

    How comforting.

    And many of whom are armed. Again, how comforting.

    Because all you do is whine about "gun control advocates".
     
  22. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,635
    I agree. We have cellphones now that can contact 911 and the police within minutes. Why does anyone need a militia anymore? Unless they're some paranoid rightwing freak worried the government is going to come in and haul them off to prison for threatening their neighbors. I don't want a bunch of raving trigger-happy gun nuts as MY militia. I'm content with a well-trained police force and a well-trained army national guard. Seems to have worked well so far.
     
    Last edited: Oct 5, 2015
  23. milkweed Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,654
    1. for a very long time guns were not registered. A gun owner kept their own records of serial numbers for insurance purposes. There are millions and millions of guns which were perfectly legal then (and now) that were sold legitimately and to this day have never been used in a crime.

    2. There are thousands and thousands of cars/trucks that are not registered. On our farm we had trucks with no license and a title in a box in the house that had not been transferred. They were not used on the public roads and were not required to be licensed.

    3. And all of us kids could (and did) drive them without a license and there is no law broken. Lots of people have dirt bikes (most are mechanically legal to drive on the roadways) but many are not licensed. We have atv trails all over the place and those vehicles require a seperate permit/license to use those public trails, including those licensed to drive on the public roads.

    And I would venture to guess Australia has similar situations where a land owner has unlicensed/unregistered vehicles. You just are unaware and assume this does not exist in your own back yard.

    http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/g...s-in-melbournes-red-zone-20150618-ghrak9.html
    My guess? Australia never kept lists of gun owners.

    Personally, I dont propose we reduce the number of guns in the populace nor restricting access to guns in general. We have plenty of laws restricting when/where/how you can carry/use a firearm.

    estimated # of households with guns varies between 32 and 42%. I believe it is higher because, I know for sure people lie about such things. But lets play with these numbers anyways.

    42% of households is 51.660.000 million households with guns.
    36000 deaths (includes suicide). That is 0.07 %

    But a household is more than one person with access to guns. So lets assume 3 persons have access to the guns in these 51.7 million households.
    36000 deaths = 0.02%

    But, we are talking about a school shooting. So using your number 42 (without verifying I will assume it includes suicides and shots fired without a hit or shots fired without a death. Checking wiki for info lists 20 school shootings and includes suicide, domestic violence (ex-wife killed professor husband).

    42 shootings at 98817 public schools is 0.04%.
    20 (wiki number) at 98817 public schools is 0.02%

    But thats not really an accurate picture is is? For each shooting at a school, there are 98816 schools that did not experience a shooting. And 231 days without a shooting x's 98817 schools sooo
    273 days this year (so far) x's 98817 schools means there was 26,977,041 potential school shooting incidents. We have 42.

    42 is 0.00015% of 26,977,041.
    1 of 98,817 is 0.0001% of schools. 1/1000ths.
    No I am not particularily alarmed at these odds, in a country with lots of gun access. At LEAST 50 million daily opportunities to cause great harm to unsuspecting and innocent people.

    I would be much more worried about harm in Brazil for example:

     

Share This Page