Another mass shooting in the U.S

wonderfullife wrote: »

You don't have a say in being born and the "right" to pursue happiness is ridiculous. It's a nonsense. Of course everybody wants to be happy in life but saying it's a "right" is no different than saying it's a right to walk and breathe. It's nonsense "right" made even more ridiculous by the fact that it's a "right to be happy" but you can't do A, B, C, D, E ....which makes you happy as they're illegal.

and yet the "right to pursue happiness" comes up so very often in social ethics courses..

Comparing alcohol and cars with gun law is a straw man, and not a good one.

People own cars for a clear, practical reason. The very heart of this debate is that to a great proportion of the World's population owning a gun serves no clear, practical reason.

ahaha that'll learn me to try to multitask.

Beefy78 wrote: »

Comparing alcohol and cars with gun law is a straw man, and not a good one.
People own cars for a clear, practical reason. The very heart of this debate is that to a great proportion of the World's population owning a gun serves no clear, practical reason.

That argument keeps being made, despite being wrong:

(a) Most of the World's population who own a gun do so for a clear and practical reason, whether they be farmers or hunters or target shooters or just people who want them as a means of self-defence (and while we don't do that last one here, it is an accepted reason in most of the rest of the world - we are the exception, not the rule). You may not like their reasons... but that doesn't actually mean anything in the larger scheme of things.

(b) Why would we ignore the death toll caused by cars? Because they're not intended to kill people? We don't accept that argument from cigarettes, narcotics, aircraft, food, half the chemicals we produce industrially, nuclear power plants or pretty much any other product or activity; but despite the fact that these things all kill less people per annum than cars, we regulate them far more than cars. In fact, the only thing we pay less attention to in our country (and, oddly, the US) is mental health - and it's just about the only thing that kills more people than traffic accidents in either country.

And then, to top all of that off, there's the point that people wish to ban firearms (despite the fact that that's just never going to happen in the US and has no reason to happen anywhere else). Sensible regulation of firearms, despite being something that would get far more broad-based support, is only ever mentioned in passing at the start of the conversation, and because of this, is now treated by the other side of the argument in the US as being something that the pro-ban side is not serious about.

And that brings us right back to the problem with the "debate", which is the level of acrimony, emotionalism and general muck-slinging (and even this thread has adaquate examples of that kind of thing, but here is a moderated pristine garden compared to the sheer level of hatred and vitriol that this has degenerated into in some places in the US).

If that kind of thing didn't happen, then maybe the two sides could trust each other enough to listen to each other (and that's not that much trust really). But right now they don't, and so this isn't the last mass shooting we'll see from the US. Hell, it might not be the last one we see in 2012 (we've already had two attempted ones since Sandy Hook).

Remove all the acrimony, emotionalism and muck-slinging as Sparks suggests and it’s a fairly simple problem.

We find cars desirable and exciting, strictly speaking they are not necessary.
We accept they are dangerous and year on year kill more people than we’d like, so we restrict the availability and conditions of use to mitigate this.
As a society we ultimately accept the deaths as a price we are willing to pay for the continued use of our cars - in cost/benefit terms it makes sense.

Can a society make the same decision for guns?

Recidivist wrote: »

Remove all the acrimony, emotionalism and muck-slinging as Sparks suggests and it’s a fairly simple problem.

We find cars desirable and exciting, strictly speaking they are not necessary.
We accept they are dangerous and year on year kill more people than we’d like, so we restrict the availability and conditions of use to mitigate this.
As a society we ultimately accept the deaths as a price we are willing to pay for the continued use of our cars - in cost/benefit terms it makes sense.

Can a society make the same decision for guns?

Cars are designed to transport people. This use of the car analogy is ridiculous. GUNS are designed to KILL people. A very different thing. There is NNO cost/benefit to the ownership of guns across society.

Blay wrote: »

It functions in the same manner as the one above it, the larger magazines were restricted for new sales during the ban but you could still purchase existing ones privately. If Obama signs a new ban, it's likely that the rifle in the bottom picture will still be available for sale from a dealer...that was what made the Clinton ban ridiculous...the only difference in those two rifles is that the stock doesn't collapse, there's no flash hider or bayonet lug...the rifles still functions the same, so if Obama signed a ban which was basically a copy of the Clinton version then s/a rifles like these would still be out there.

What you miss is that it's not only about the technicality of what you correctly point out above ... it is a matter of principle.

The first step in the process is one of principle. If American Society can make that leap away from the glorification of Guns at all cost - to the acceptance that this free for all is insane. It starts with banning certain kinds of weapons whether the ban is what you say above or not. It starts with the principle of banning SOME weapons and stopping MORE people having legal weapons, and restricting ammunition is SOME way.

There is no cure all. That is obvious to anyone. But that does not mean that NOTHING can be done. And claiming to undermine the argument for more restrictions by exposing their flawed nature is NOT an argument against doing SOMETHING.

JupiterKid wrote: »

I'm frankly sick to the pit of my stomach with apologists for the weapons and gun culture in the USA.:mad::( The fact is that mass shooting massacres don't happen anywhere as frequently anywhere else.

Christ on a bike, have we not laid this myth to rest yet. Rampage massacres happen all over the world and not by any means at a massively higher rate in the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers#Religious.2C_political.2C_or_racial_crimes

wonderfullife wrote: »

Interesting lay analysis here but the key gun-apologists on this thread (sorry i of course mean key posters who defend their right to bear arms) are:

Manic Moran
Long Range Shooter
Killer Wench
MadsL
Overkillheal

Nice try, but my user name refers to my campaigning about the lack of broadband nine years ago.

Sparks wrote: »

That argument keeps being made, despite being wrong:

(a) Most of the World's population who own a gun do so for a clear and practical reason, whether they be farmers or hunters or target shooters or just people who want them as a means of self-defence (and while we don't do that last one here, it is an accepted reason in most of the rest of the world - we are the exception, not the rule). You may not like their reasons... but that doesn't actually mean anything in the larger scheme of things.

(b) Why would we ignore the death toll caused by cars? Because they're not intended to kill people? We don't accept that argument from cigarettes, narcotics, aircraft, food, half the chemicals we produce industrially, nuclear power plants or pretty much any other product or activity; but despite the fact that these things all kill less people per annum than cars, we regulate them far more than cars. In fact, the only thing we pay less attention to in our country (and, oddly, the US) is mental health - and it's just about the only thing that kills more people than traffic accidents in either country.

And then, to top all of that off, there's the point that people wish to ban firearms (despite the fact that that's just never going to happen in the US and has no reason to happen anywhere else). Sensible regulation of firearms, despite being something that would get far more broad-based support, is only ever mentioned in passing at the start of the conversation, and because of this, is now treated by the other side of the argument in the US as being something that the pro-ban side is not serious about.

And that brings us right back to the problem with the "debate", which is the level of acrimony, emotionalism and general muck-slinging (and even this thread has adaquate examples of that kind of thing, but here is a moderated pristine garden compared to the sheer level of hatred and vitriol that this has degenerated into in some places in the US).

If that kind of thing didn't happen, then maybe the two sides could trust each other enough to listen to each other (and that's not that much trust really). But right now they don't, and so this isn't the last mass shooting we'll see from the US. Hell, it might not be the last one we see in 2012 (we've already had two attempted ones since Sandy Hook).

Dodgy, dodgy stuff spouted by self-entitlement posters regarding Mental Health.
I hope the only decisions you make in a week concerning other people are the decisions relating to the six forums you are moderator for.

Anybody can make up stuff about this incident:
'The Sandy Hook school shooting is another example of that Organised Education is harmful.'

Manic Moran wrote: »

We all complain about political knee-jerk reactions to things. But in this case, you are actively talking about enacting a law which may or may not prove to be legal (we'll find out in a year or two after the California AWB cases finish working their way through the court systems), and which you accept has limited -practical- effect in terms of your desired endstate, simply because it makes people feel better?

I never said anything about making people feel better.

The issue of the daft levels of airport security checkpoints in the US was mentioned earlier, this is another example of the same. Lots of show and tell, but bugger-all practical effect.
NTM

This is where you are a victim of the rocking horse syndrome.