Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.

Gun control in the USA

1…910121415…34

Comments

  • #332
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Got there? When where we not there? Has anyone on this thread, who advocates gun control, ever said that guns cause rampages?

    Oh please, go back and read the OP's Gopnik quote. It is emotive to the point of calling the gun lobby "the child-killing lobby" and very clealy uses this tragedy as a jump off for attacking the so-called myths about such rampages, with the intent of making the case for tighter gun control.

    You thanked this post ffs. Stop being disingenuous.
    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Mental health issues exist in every country - is this why every country has these kind of mass murders on a regular basis? Oh wait...they don't.

    High powered, military grade, automatic and semi-automatic pistols and rifles are ridiculously easy to get in many parts of the U.S..
    These weapons have one purpose and one purpose only - to quickly and efficiently kill many people from a distance. To say that severely restricting the availability of these weapons will not tackle the problem of people using guns to commit mass murder is, imho, a singularly stupid statement.

    10,728 deaths due to handguns alone in the US last year -Coincidence? I don't think so....


  • #333
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Yes, assuming the figures you gave in this post are accurate.

    So answer the questions I posed please.

    Do you think there is a direct causal relationship between rates of gun ownership and the numbers of rampage incidents? If so what you expect that number of incidents to be in the US based on the European numbers?


  • #334
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,856 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    MadsL wrote: »
    Oh please, go back and read the OP's Gopnik quote. It is emotive to the point of calling the gun lobby "the child-killing lobby" and very clealy uses this tragedy as a jump off for attacking the so-called myths about such rampages, with the intent of making the case for tighter gun control.

    You thanked this post ffs. Stop being disingenuous.

    Me disingenuous? How many times have I said that the argument is that more guns mean more fatal rampages? I thanked these posts because they explained how having lax gun control results in rampagers killing more people. Rampagers without guns don't kill as many (or even any) as those who do have guns.

    For the last time: me showing the US has more rampages was just to show you were wrong in saying it didn't (when you first claimed Asia had more, and then Europe). I didn't make any inferences to the causes of those rampages.


  • #335
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,856 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    MadsL wrote: »
    Do you think there is a direct causal relationship between rates of gun ownership and the numbers of rampage incidents?

    I've answered this several times now. See my previous post for the most recent example.


  • #336
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Me disingenuous? How many times have I said that the argument is that more guns mean more fatal rampages? I thanked these posts because they explained how having lax gun control results in rampagers killing more people. Rampagers without guns don't kill as many (or even any) as those who do have guns.

    For the last time: me showing the US has more rampages was just to show you were wrong in saying it didn't (when you first claimed Asia had more, and then Europe). I didn't make any inferences to the causes of those rampages.

    So is gun control a useful tool in preventing deaths rampages or not in your view?

    According to your figures adjusted for population
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    US: 645 incidents , 4332 deaths
    EU: 235 incidents , 1461 deaths

    This means, overall, the US has 2.74 times as many incidents as Europe, with 2.97 times as many deaths.

    So you would not expect to see six times the rate of deaths? (based on 6 times the rate of ownership - we are not accounting for illegally held weapons either in Europe or the US) - you could also factor in that we are including countries with less gun control.

    What would you say is the limiting factor in the number of deaths?


  • Advertisement
  • #337
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    I've answered this several times now. See my previous post for the most recent example.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    I didn't make any inferences to the causes of those rampages.

    Have you considered a career in politics. Could we try a Yes/No response?


  • #338
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,856 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    MadsL wrote: »
    So is gun control a useful tool in preventing deaths rampages or not in your view?

    Yes, gun control reduces the amount of deaths in rampages, because it makes it harder for rampagers to get guns.
    MadsL wrote: »
    According to your figures adjusted for population

    So you would not expect to see six times the rate of deaths? (based on 6 times the rate of ownership - we are not accounting for illegally held weapons either in Europe or the US) - you could also factor in that we are including countries with less gun control.

    What would you say is the limiting factor in the number of deaths?

    I explained this already.
    Firstly, you don't have to have an equal increase in the number of deaths vs number of guns to say that guns increase the number of deaths (ie tripling the number of guns and seeing double the number of deaths still indicates an increase in death as a result of an increase in guns). More people having multiple guns (in the US vs Europe) can be a possible cause of the rate of increase not being equal.
    Secondly, I did not included the relative number of deaths from intentional homicide, as they are separate in wikipedia and you disagreed with including them with the rampage data, earlier in the thread, so the number of deaths quoted are missing a lot of data (if you want to talk about the lethality of guns in general, instead of just in terms of rampages).
    MadsL wrote: »
    Have you considered a career in politics. Could we try a Yes/No response?

    Stop taking the piss, I've made myself clear in several posts now: guns do not cause rampages.


  • #339
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Yes, gun control reduces the amount of deaths in rampages, because it makes it harder for rampagers to get guns.

    I explained this already.
    Firstly, you don't have to have an equal increase in the number of deaths vs number of guns to say that guns increase the number of deaths (ie tripling the number of guns and seeing double the number of deaths still indicates an increase in death as a result of an increase in guns). More people having multiple guns (in the US vs Europe) can be a possible cause of the rate of increase not being equal.

    So there is a tailoff in this factor according to your figures which means that ultimately increasing the number of guns does not directly increase the number of deaths. What would you say that this factor is? Because clearly Europe mostly does not restrict you to one gun per person. Perhaps we need a third statistic to account for relative levels of multiple gun ownership.

    Wow, this accounting for random events through statistics is tough!

    Stop taking the piss, I've made myself clear in several posts now: guns do not cause rampages.

    Well, we agree on one thing then.


  • #340
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,856 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    MadsL wrote: »
    So there is a tailoff in this factor according to your figures which means that ultimately increasing the number of guns does not directly increase the number of deaths. What would you say that this factor is?

    This factor is you not understanding statistics and inserting details that aren't there. My figures show increasing guns increases deaths, just not at a 1:1 ratio. There is no "tail off".


  • #341
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    This factor is you not understanding statistics and inserting details that aren't there. My figures show increasing guns increases deaths, just not at a 1:1 ratio. There is no "tail off".

    So there is no tail off.

    OK.

    Then US deaths should be 6 times higher not 3 times higher, correct? So rampage deaths do not increase in line with increases in gunownership rates. Correct?


  • Advertisement
  • #342
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,856 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    MadsL wrote: »
    So there is no tail off.

    OK.

    Then US deaths should be 6 times higher not 3 times higher, correct? So rampage deaths do not increase in line with increases in gunownership rates. Correct?

    double-facepalm1.jpg
    No, on both accounts. I've explained this on nearly every post on this page. Don't bother responding, you clearly can't read.


  • #343
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    No, on both accounts. I've explained this on nearly every post on this page. Don't bother responding, you clearly can't read.

    Absolutely no need for that. I'm trying to draw out something about the nature of the figures you have provided. Stop trying to be a dick about it.

    You say there is some factor at work in the figures and that is that weak gun control means more deaths in rampages.

    You say that at the present rates of gun ownership that factor is increasing deaths threefold.

    I'm asking why it isn't a 1:1 relationship and the factor not sixfold and you responded 'multiple ownership'. Now I disputed that as I don't think we have the evidence for wide divergence in numbers owned. Maybe I am wrong, but you don't want to have that conversation and instead resort to dickish insults and facepalms.

    So for the last time - can we discuss that or not?


  • #344
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,856 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    MadsL wrote: »
    Absolutely no need for that. I'm trying to draw out something about the nature of the figures you have provided. Stop trying to be a dick about it.

    You say there is some factor at work in the figures and that is that weak gun control means more deaths in rampages.

    You say that at the present rates of gun ownership that factor is increasing deaths threefold.

    I'm asking why it isn't a 1:1 relationship and the factor not sixfold and you responded 'multiple ownership'. Now I disputed that as I don't think we have the evidence for wide divergence in numbers owned. Maybe I am wrong, but you don't want to have that conversation and instead resort to dickish insults and facepalms.

    So for the last time - can we discuss that or not?

    Stop pretending like you want a real discussion. For the last page I've been explaining this point to you and you've been ignoring it or misrepresenting it. If you disagree with the idea that individuals in the US are likely to own more guns than individuals in Europe, then present some evidence, otherwise what is there to discuss.


  • #345
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Stop pretending like you want a real discussion.
    Well, you don't make it easy when every time I make a point you question my literacy or post childish images.
    For the last page I've been explaining this point to you and you've been ignoring it or misrepresenting it.

    I'm actually trying to understand the factors behind why it happens like that. I think I've been very patient with your condescension though.
    If you disagree with the idea that individuals in the US are likely to own more guns than individuals in Europe, then present some evidence, otherwise what is there to discuss.

    Is that the only possible factor do you think? I'll try and find a percentage of people who possess guns in each country and isolate the multiple gun factor.


  • #346
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
    http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-kingdom

    42% of households (48 million) in US own a gun and the number of licensed gun owners in the United Kingdom is reported to be 861,958 or 3.3% of households.

    US: 272 incidents , 1828 deaths (1 death per 26,252 households with guns)
    UK: 51 deaths (1 death per 16,901 households with guns)

    I'm obviously a thick when it comes to statistics so show me how this is wrong. I'm sure it is. Do we have to account for population when talking about household numbers?


  • #347
    Belfast
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,355 ✭✭✭Belfast


    nagirrac wrote: »
    America is awash with guns, so of course easy access to them is an issue and needs to be better regulated. Ironic that his mother felt the need to have 3 or more high power guns in the house, for protection I assume (in one of the the safest suburbs of a relatively crime free state), and had her face blown off by her son.

    Outside of the gun issue, the larger issue here is mental health and how it is treated. I live in surburban America and the number of kids here who are "troubled" and on meds is frightening. There is a pattern that has emerged for the past 20 years, kid has a problem, parents are clueless (or divorced, another factor in why the kid is fcuked up) and take him to the psychiaterist where he gets loaded up with anti-depressants. In truth parents just want their kids to be "normal" and like everyone else, another part of the problem. This is a massive "experiment" as nobody knows what the long term impact is on the developing brains of teenagers after years of drug use. Ritalin and anti-depressants are handed out like candy here. A lot of the same kids self medicate with illegal drugs so they are on a cocktail of legal and illegal substances. I have seen some of the results of these experiments and they are like walking zombies, but never mind the shrink got his $150 per visit and the drug companies get to sell bucketloads of their "legal" medicine. All to make the kid "better".

    There is no doubt anti-depressants help a lot of people but I genuinely worry about what they are doing to the developing brains of teenagers. There is a culture in American society that pills take care of everything, that thinking may be coming back to bite us in the ass.

    good point about the meds.
    Could the higher rate of mass killings in America compared to other countries be link to amount of drugs being given to those diagnose with mental illnesses in America compared to other counties.


  • #348
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,139 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Why is there a fourth thread on this subject in Aetheism, of all places?
    rockonollie wrote: »
    Even miscategorizing rifles like the AR-15, meaning any rifle with rapid fire capabilities.....it's still an inaccurate statement ot say that most owners of firearms in the US have them.

    Most households I know that have firearms have regular hunting rifles, shotguns or handguns......I only know 1 person that owns an "assault" style rifle.

    I don't know what the breakdown on current ownership is, but in terms of sales, the AR-15 platform is the most commonly sold rifle in the US today and has been for a number of years. It's sortof the Toyota Camry of the rifle world, will do most anything you want reliably and cheaply. Add in other "Evil Black Rifles" such as the SIG or AK series, and you're looking at a serious majority of the market.

    http://www2.wkrg.com/news/2012/jul/26/ar-15-number-one-selling-rifle-u-s-ar-4215646/

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/17/us/lanza-used-a-popular-ar-15-style-rifle-in-newtown.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

    As a response to the suggestion that the media be clamped down on in order to prevent the fame that these individuals may seek, one poster responded 'oh, you want to clamp down on the 1st Amendment, but not the 2nd'. Then we had this post:
    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    and this is a Charleville musket - the most common gun when the 2nd Amendment was enacted

    french%20napoleonic%20musket%201777_1.jpg

    This is what they meant.

    By that argument clamping down on the mass media is fine. After all, there was no TV, Radio or Internet in 1791 when the 1st Amendment was written, so they're not covered, right?

    Let's just say that argument has been tried and failed.
    robindch wrote: »
    Since the USA now has a standing army and the National Defense Act of 1933 which sharply divides the SDF's and the regular military, the USA no longer has the state-sponsored militias envisioned by the Second Amendment. Hence, the Second Amendment does not apply.

    I'm not sure I see the argument here.

    As quoted by MaDSL, there are:
    Title 10 military forces: Regular Army.
    Title 32 military forces: National Guard
    Title 10 Reserve Forces: National Guard (when mobilised) and The Federal Militia (Basically every male aged 17-45)
    State Forces: Eg California State Military Reserve, Texas State Guard etc.
    State Reseve Militias: Varies by State, but in Texas, for example, consists of ever able-bodied resident (male and female) aged 18 to 60.

    As a result, most citizens of the US appear to be members of a state/State militia, whether they like it or not. Either Federal or State, or both. Interestingly, Texas law (TX government code Chapter 431) defines its military as follows:
    the Texas State Guard exists as part of the state militia under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and a defense force under 32 U.S.C. Section 109.

    Not sure quite how that fits in with your post, but I bring it up for clarification.
    And do the SDF's ensure that their members use their weapons only for the SDF, in line with the spirit of the Second Amendment. Or is weapon use completely unregulated?

    I would presume, though I can't say I've ever looked into the regulations, that SDF weapons would be used for SDF purposes only, and personal weapons owned by SDF members would be used for any legal personal use that the State allows. Would be similar to National Guard or even Regular Army.
    No man or woman bar police or military needs to have access to high powered assault pistols or rifles...why would you?

    The criminals that police face are the same ones that the citizenry face as well. The police face them more often, and indeed, actively seek them out, but that doesn't negate the fact that in case of conflict, the practical needs of both private citizen and police are identical.
    It will come to a stage where teachers and the like will need to be armed to protect the children / staff and themselves

    A number of places of education, mainly universities, but including some school districts allow it already but it doesn't get much coverage. There have been instances in the past where teachers or students have confronted gunmen in their schools. Two come particularly to mind. Pearl High School, MS, 1997 saw a student kill his mother, then set about shooting students at his school. After he had killed two students and wounded seven, the assistant principal had retrieved his sidearm from his car and detained the shooter. The other is the Appalachian School of Law, in Virginia. A former student killed three and wounded three before two other students with their own firearms (Who happend to be cops taking law classes) detained him.

    It may be unfortunate that it has gotten to this level, but allowing (not mandating) teachers and students to be armed has not caused any trouble in the places it has been permitted, and seems to have a reasonable success rate in the few times that it's ever been relevant.

    NTM


  • #349
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,466 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    MadsL wrote: »
    Oh please, go back and read the OP's Gopnik quote. It is emotive to the point of calling the gun lobby "the child-killing lobby"
    Gobnik actually said:
    Adam Gopnik wrote:
    I did a few debates with advocates for the child-killing lobby—sorry, the gun lobby—and, without exception and with a mad vehemence, they told the same old lies.
    And in the context of twenty children who died in their school from multiple bullet wounds at the hands of a nutter with a military-grade weapon, I think it's fine to be emotive, very emotive indeed. In fact, the lack of such a reaction suggests to me an inability to sympathise that borders on the pathological.
    MadsL wrote: »
    [...] very clearly uses this tragedy as a jump off for attacking the so-called myths about such rampages, with the intent of making the case for tighter gun control.
    Again, that's not really what he says. He does say that the gun-lobbyists that he's debated are liars and that they are morally complicit in the murder of those twenty children.
    Adam Gopnik wrote:
    The people who fight and lobby and legislate to make guns regularly available are complicit in the murder of those children. [...] the comfort and emotional reassurance they take from the possession of guns, placed in the balance even against the routine murder of innocent children, is of supreme value. Whatever satisfaction gun owners take from their guns [...] is more important than children’s lives. Give them credit: life is making moral choices, and that’s a moral choice, clearly made.
    The fact that the NRA, the richest and most politically powerful gun-lobby in the USA, took down its facebook page immediately following the massacre and has yet to comment publicly on it beyond saying they were "shocked, saddened and heartbroken" suggests, with crystal clarity, that the NRA is feeling morally complicit too.

    I look forward to the NRA's news event tomorrow and the nature of their contribution intended to "help make sure this never happens again".


  • #350
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,466 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    It may be unfortunate that it has gotten to this level, but allowing (not mandating) teachers and students to be armed has not caused any trouble in the places it has been permitted, and seems to have a reasonable success rate in the few times that it's ever been relevant.
    How many gun-related school massacres have happened in countries where guns are heavily restricted or banned?


  • #351
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,173 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    MadsL wrote: »
    http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
    http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-kingdom

    42% of households (48 million) in US own a gun and the number of licensed gun owners in the United Kingdom is reported to be 861,958 or 3.3% of households.

    US: 272 incidents , 1828 deaths (1 death per 26,252 households with guns)
    UK: 51 deaths (1 death per 16,901 households with guns)

    I'm obviously a thick when it comes to statistics so show me how this is wrong. I'm sure it is. Do we have to account for population when talking about household numbers?
    There are a number of ways of looking at the statistics of course. The figures you quote above presume that only households where a gun is held, are affected. It's also a rather weird way of looking at it, as it tells us very little except that owning a gun is not the only causal factor in gun deaths. Which I don't think anyone would dispute.

    If you take the actual figure of gun deaths per household overall, then it works out as below:

    UK: 1 death per 512,155 households
    US: 1 death per 62,520 households

    So you could equally use those figures to say that having a gun does not make you safer, as despite there being 12 times more gun-owning households in the US than the UK, each household is 8 times more likely to be the victim of a gun-related murder.
    How many gun-related school massacres have happened in countries where guns are heavily restricted or banned?
    On top of that, what are the typical body counts for any such massacres (not necessarily schools) in other countries?


  • Advertisement
  • #352
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,856 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    MadsL wrote: »
    http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
    http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-kingdom

    42% of households (48 million) in US own a gun and the number of licensed gun owners in the United Kingdom is reported to be 861,958 or 3.3% of households.

    US: 272 incidents , 1828 deaths (1 death per 26,252 households with guns)
    UK: 51 deaths (1 death per 16,901 households with guns)

    I'm obviously a thick when it comes to statistics so show me how this is wrong. I'm sure it is. Do we have to account for population when talking about household numbers?

    Why go by households? Those two websites might be assuming a different number of people in each household. I think its simpler to just use the Wiki on gun ownership and compare to the wiki on gun related deaths:
    US: 88 guns per 100. 10.2 deaths per 100,000
    UK: 11.2* guns per 100. 0.25 deaths per 100,000.

    So, we see with 8 times the guns we get 40 times the deaths. Therefore, the US is five times more likely to have a gun related death as the UK.


    *add the guns in England/Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland and divide by 3.


  • #353
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    robindch wrote: »
    How many gun-related school massacres have happened in countries where guns are heavily restricted or banned?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers

    Why don't you tell us.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Why go by households? Those two websites might be assuming a different number of people in each household. I think its simpler to just use the Wiki on gun ownership and compare to the wiki on gun related deaths:
    US: 88 guns per 100. 10.2 deaths per 100,000
    UK: 11.2* guns per 100. 0.25 deaths per 100,000.

    So, we see with 8 times the guns we get 40 times the deaths. Therefore, the US is five times more likely to have a gun related death as the UK.


    *add the guns in England/Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland and divide by 3.

    I went by household to eliminate to multiple gun ownership rates as previously it was an X factor. And I see that again we do not have a 1:1 correlation between gun ownership and the death rate. Having eliminated multiple ownership by using household what is your theory for that X factor?

    Please no Simon Cowell jokes...


  • #354
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,466 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    MadsL wrote: »
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers

    Why don't you tell us.
    Because you're the one making the peculiar claim that guns have nothing to do with massacres carried out using guns.


  • #355
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    robindch wrote: »
    Because you're the one making the peculiar claim that guns have nothing to do with massacres carried out using guns.

    When did I make that absurd claim?

    You just made a link between strong gun control and reduced rates of massacres. What is your evidence for that?


  • #356
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,139 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    robindch wrote: »
    How many gun-related school massacres have happened in countries where guns are heavily restricted or banned?

    That's a slightly misleading question. In pretty much every significant (i.e. high-casualty) mass-shooting incident in the US, firearms were heavily restricted or banned either by law (eg schools) or the private property owner (malls, cinemas).

    You want to either look at massacres in total, or massacres in places where guns were prohibited, but can't confine yourself to just schools as it's not an even playing field.


  • #357
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,466 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    MadsL wrote: »
    You just made a link between strong gun control and reduced rates of massacres. What is your evidence for that?
    By my earlier question, I implied that that if a country bans or heavily restricts access to guns, that the number of gun-related massacres is likely to decrease. As happened in Scotland, Australia and the UK after their various massacres and which evidence oldrnwisr has produced earlier in this thread.

    You are the person claiming that massacres happen regardless of any gun control, and therefore presumably, that guns should not be controlled.

    Alternatively, if you are rejecting or not making that claim, then we agree in principle that restricting access to guns reduces the number and severity of instances of massacres of teachers, school children and the like.


  • #358
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    robindch wrote: »
    As happened in Scotland, Australia and the UK after their various massacres and which evidence oldrnwisr has produced earlier in this thread.
    I'm not sure you can stand over that claim, especially in regard to the UK, where the root causes of the shootings in Hungerford were ignored in favour of a simplistic gun ban; which led to Dunblane. After Dunblane, the root causes of the shootings were ignored in favour of a simplistic gun ban; which led to Cumbria.

    There's a nasty pattern there of seizing on the policy most easily expressed in soundbite form and then ignoring any other possible contributory or causative factors; and it's a pattern with a heavy price so far.
    You are the person claiming that massacres happen regardless of any gun control, and therefore presumably, that guns should not be controlled.
    One does not lead to the other.

    Alternatively, if you are rejecting or not making that claim, then we agree in principle that restricting access to guns reduces the number and severity of instances of massacres of teachers, school children and the like.
    That's simply not logical - it's entirely possible to not make that claim and not agree in principle that restricting access to guns will make teachers or schoolchildren safer.

    There have been too many school massacres that didn't use firearms to say that it's a simple binary logic of guns or safe children.


  • #359
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,466 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    That's a slightly misleading question.
    It's not really. It's quite straightforward.
    Manic Moran wrote: »
    In pretty much every significant (i.e. high-casualty) mass-shooting incident in the US, firearms were heavily restricted or banned either by law (eg schools) or the private property owner (malls, cinemas).
    Do I understand you correctly that you believe that somebody who has planned a massacre in a school or a cinema -- to take two massacres just from this year -- will drive up to the school or cinema concerned, remember that the law bans them from carrying assault weapons there, curse the foresightful lawmakers, then turn around and go back home again?


  • #360
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    robindch wrote: »
    By my earlier question, I implied that that if a country bans or heavily restricts access to guns, that the number of gun-related massacres is likely to decrease. As happened in Scotland, Australia and the UK after their various massacres and which evidence oldrnwisr has produced earlier in this thread.

    You are the person claiming that massacres happen regardless of any gun control, and therefore presumably, that guns should not be controlled.

    Alternatively, if you are rejecting or not making that claim, then we agree in principle that restricting access to guns reduces the number and severity of instances of massacres of teachers, school children and the like.

    I'm not making that claim, what I have been trying to show is that weaker gun control is by no means the only factor. Much of the debate that surrounds such events makes the direct correlation between gun control and rampages, I believe there may be some effect of gun control but it is by no means the only factor nor the simple solution.

    The UK experienced a spike in the number of guns used in crimes following its handgun legislation. The Austrialian campaign was coupled with a buyback programme that destroyed 650,000 guns. I simply cannot see such a buyback programme working in the US with 44 States having 2A wording is their constitutions.

    To really run the numbers as MM has suggested, you would have to examine each incident to ensure no gun law was broken (as it was in CT, the shooter was underage) in order to prove that legal gun possession is a factor in rampages.


  • Advertisement
  • #361
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    MadsL wrote: »
    I'm not making that claim, what I have been trying to show is that weaker gun control is by no means the only factor. Much of the debate that surrounds such events makes the direct correlation between gun control and rampages, I believe there may be some effect of gun control but it is by no means the only factor nor the simple solution..

    No one, not one person, is saying it's the only factor.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement