*sighs, turns over "DAYS SINCE LAST MASS SHOOTING IN AMERICA" sign to 0*
- Thread starter Charlie Don't Surf
- Start date
GasBandit
Staff member
I quite agree. But people who advocate for stricter gun control (and even moreso those who want a full ban on private firearm ownership) sure seem to think it is.
GasBandit
Staff member
You misinterpret my point. My point was that this is yet another situation that indicates that those who are most likely to commit gun crimes are also the least likely to comply with new gun legislation intended to disarm them (especially a full ban on private ownership, which is naturally the endgame goal of the grabbers) - not that we should decriminalize murder.Of course. We should get rid of all laws since people who are going to commit crimes will just ignore them.
I don't have enoughor
for this attitude.
The pragmatic end result of more confiscatory gun laws will simply be a higher ratio of armed criminals to law abiding unarmed victims.
No one that wants stricter gun laws imagines the world is going to become a utopia in which no one ever uses a gun anymore and we all hold hands.
It's called a deterrent. People can be lazy, most people will only commit a crime if the avenue to carry out the crime is easier. This Kansas shooting above is a good example, because while we don't know the exact reason for it yet, the going theory seems to be a escalating confrontation that ended with the suspect opening fire and an armed security guard firing back, killing him and the woman he was with.
If the guy didn't have a gun on his persons while deciding to visit a club, it's less likely the event would have escalated to the degree it did. This is the same reason houses with no guns are way less likely to have a depressed person commit suicide, as ease of access to the tools needed to carry out the act make you more likely to follow through with it in a moment of passion.
We will always have shootings, this is just a sad fact of life, but creating a better deterent will weed out all those but the most committed to carrying out the act. I don't know about you, but if I had the chance to go from 6 mass shootings a month back to even 1-2, I would prefer that outcome then just throwing my hands up and saying "Well it couldn't be helped."
It's called a deterrent. People can be lazy, most people will only commit a crime if the avenue to carry out the crime is easier. This Kansas shooting above is a good example, because while we don't know the exact reason for it yet, the going theory seems to be a escalating confrontation that ended with the suspect opening fire and an armed security guard firing back, killing him and the woman he was with.
If the guy didn't have a gun on his persons while deciding to visit a club, it's less likely the event would have escalated to the degree it did. This is the same reason houses with no guns are way less likely to have a depressed person commit suicide, as ease of access to the tools needed to carry out the act make you more likely to follow through with it in a moment of passion.
We will always have shootings, this is just a sad fact of life, but creating a better deterent will weed out all those but the most committed to carrying out the act. I don't know about you, but if I had the chance to go from 6 mass shootings a month back to even 1-2, I would prefer that outcome then just throwing my hands up and saying "Well it couldn't be helped."
Last edited:
As an addition, the idea that "To stop a bad guy with a gun we need a good guy with a gun" is ludicrous. Not only does two or more people crossing fire with each other possibly hurt more people in the long run, but the amount of mass shootings in which an armed civilian actually killed a shooter and stopped an attack is super low. In fact, by drawing your own gun and / or opening fire, you are more likely to get shot by the cops trying to attend to the scene then actually help.
Dave
Staff member
A couple years ago we had an active shooter drill here at my school. The drill included police from several jurisdictions and was planned out completely, including hostages and snipers. When the police stormed the building, they shot with rubber bullets one of the hostages. Shot her 7 times. None of the hostage TAKERS were shot.
The police knew how many bad guys and good guys there were and what their locations were, and they STILL SHOT THE HOSTAGE 7 FUCKING TIMES!
So...yeah. I know it's not scientific, but I so get your last point.
By the way, that girl has had to go through trauma therapy.
The police knew how many bad guys and good guys there were and what their locations were, and they STILL SHOT THE HOSTAGE 7 FUCKING TIMES!
So...yeah. I know it's not scientific, but I so get your last point.
By the way, that girl has had to go through trauma therapy.
"Gun legislation is too hard to solve, so we shouldn't bother"
"Guns give me power over the government"
"I can't be controlled as long as I have a gun"
These are all lies that the gun lobbies and the politicians that profit off them want you to believe. People are easier to control if they think they have a say in that control, and that is what you see in these gun rights marches. People doing super soldier cosplay because they believe they are in control.
"Guns give me power over the government"
"I can't be controlled as long as I have a gun"
These are all lies that the gun lobbies and the politicians that profit off them want you to believe. People are easier to control if they think they have a say in that control, and that is what you see in these gun rights marches. People doing super soldier cosplay because they believe they are in control.
If a guy is carrying in a location where he is not supposed to be carrying, then he is already breaking the law, even if he is the only one who knows about its existence. This demonstrates the individual in question went into this knowing he was about to break a law but decided to do it anyway, and also that existing law(s] did not create enough “threat” to deter him.
I do not believe that the amount/severity of the penalty for disobedience promised by a law is what ultimately generates deterrence. The penalty for unauthorized carry could be set to instant, on-the-spot execution and people like this would still carry. Why? Because like everything else, it is not because the penalties aren’t stiff enough, it is because these people did not expect they would get caught. I am at a loss on how to intensify the threat of being caught in someone’s mind without stomping all over other civil rights, though.
—Patrick
Stricter gun laws do not stop a criminal from carrying a gun, this is true. Just like theft being illegal doesn't stop thieves from stealing. But it is the first step in lowering the amount of crime, and the overall availability of guns in the country.
"You can't put the cat/genie/toothpaste back in the bag/bottle/tube" is usually the immediate response to this. And it's true, restricting gun access or even outright banning gun ownership is not going to magically make the number of guns already in the country go down. It will, however, slow the rate in which that amount increases, and over time begin to reduce the overall number. It's not a magic fix, nothing is, it's a long and arduous process that would be difficult but overall worth it if your goal is to reduce gun crime. Fewer guns = fewer gun crimes, but even though that sounds obvious I'm not about to ask you to take my word on it, instead let's look at Australia.
https://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/gun-control-australia-updated/
Starting in 1996, Australia began enacting stricter gun laws in response to the Port Arthur Massacre. It also began a gun buyback program where citizens could sell their now restricted firearms back to the government, as well as surrender any other firearms they chose to. The homicide and gun death rate has continued to fall, and overall it is estimated that they reduced the account of guns in the country by 20%.
Australia still has problems with gun violence, it hasn't gone away, but it's getting better, and will continue to get better. This isn't an easily fixed problem, but it -is- fixable, no matter how much the gun lobbies tell you it isn't.
GasBandit
Staff member
Thing is, correlation does not mean causation.
Gun crime went down in the US by even more after 1996, too. And we didn't even have to enact "security blanket" legislation that feels warm and fuzzy but doesn't actually make you safer.
You mean homicides. Suicides are a different matter. Not only are they the primary reduction effected of Australia's gun law but they should be the primary focus for our conversation about guns.
For the record, I have no doubts that our problem with gun violence is fixable. My problem is with the people/groups who insist that the only workable solution is to remove guns from circulation (preferably as many as possible), and they will entertain no other. First of all, this is patently untrue. Secondly, the fanatical zeal with which these folks insist GUNS BAD NO GUNS DESTROY ALL GUNS makes me powerful suspicious, to say the least.
—Patrick
figmentPez
Staff member
Are there any stastistics that show that gun laws reduce suicides? Because last time this came up I tried to find some, and could not. The only info I could find showed that there is no correlation between suicide rates and gun availability.
Yes, according to the studies on the Australian gun laws. There are some references in the wikipedia article.
I know you have a preference for security blanket firearms that make you feel warm and fuzzy without actually making you safer, but you are correct. We don't know if this legislation was the cause of the decline in homicides in Australia, and we don't know if similar legislation would have an effect here in America. To find out we'd need to be willing to try it, and more importantly try it in good faith. But as long as the gun lobbies remain in power and their money remains in politics that is unlikely. They will continue to drive the narrative in the direction they want, and their supporters will chant their talking points.
GasBandit
Staff member
The founding fathers kinda found those "security blanket firearms" to actually be kind of important. Let's not abdicate constitutional rights that have historically been shown to be part and parcel with liberty because those who crave security over freedom have sexy talking points.
So no problems with the people who insist that the only answer is to have easy access to guns everywhere you go?
GasBandit
Staff member
That's not the "only" answer, but it is the part of the answer that is mandated and protected by the constitution.
When a person says, “I don’t agree with A,” this is never an automatic endorsement of B, just like saying “I love Rock-‘n’-Roll music” does not automatically imply “I hate Classical music.”
Ultimately, my problem is with people who think that gun violence is a gun problem. It is not. It is a violence problem. The presence of a firearm may lower the barrier to entry, but the fact that a gun happens to be nearby does not actually cause violence. If this were the case, gun shops would be the most violent places on Earth. A gun is amoral and incapable of independent action, it requires a wielder and will never question that wielder’s motives nor actions. This is the source of my belief that everything a gun does is 100 percent attributable to its wielder*, and not the gun itself.
Personally, you could give me carte blanche to carry whatever I wanted, wherever I wanted and without limitation, to report in at the nearest police station and pick up a gun and ammunition of my choosing for free in every precinct in every corner of the world, to allow me the absolute easiest possible access to firearms no matter where I went, but none of this would suddenly make me a violent person.
In most weapons training, they teach that all weapons should be treated “...as an extension of your person,” and so far as I’m concerned, that direction should apply to liability as much as it does to their use.
—Patrick
*notice I say “wielder,” not “owner.”
Last edited:
False it's not an answer at all.
It's an answer. It's a wrong answer, but it is an answer.
GasBandit
Staff member
Now you'll just always sound like Dwight Schrute in my mind.
Eight dead, 5 wounded, and the suspects still at large after multiple suspects shot up two separate hookah bars in...huh? This was in Hanau, Germany, and not the United States?
...Is this the start of something?
--Patrick
...Is this the start of something?
--Patrick
That's kind of what I was alluding to, yes.
Either that, or America is exporting some kind of coronavirus-esque tendency to solve problems by shooting up establishments. The Nazi angle sounds more plausible.
--Patrick
Either that, or America is exporting some kind of coronavirus-esque tendency to solve problems by shooting up establishments. The Nazi angle sounds more plausible.
--Patrick
Yes, Fascist ideology is making a comeback in Eastern Germany. It's an issue.
Yeah, what Blots says. The Germans don't exactly think "oh, hey, a right-wing nutter. Ahh, it'll be fine". Extreme right is gaining some traction in Germany again, and there's a LOT of worrying and hand wringing going on over it.
figmentPez
Staff member
Even during a pandemic, Texas still manages to have a mass shooting.
Police: 5 People Injured, 2 Critically, After Shooting At Southeast Fort Worth Park
"Fort Worth Police Department spokesman Buddy Calzada said there were about 600 people at Village Creek Park when the shooting happened."
Police: 5 People Injured, 2 Critically, After Shooting At Southeast Fort Worth Park
"Fort Worth Police Department spokesman Buddy Calzada said there were about 600 people at Village Creek Park when the shooting happened."