Debating mental illness and gun violence

[sandy whitelinger]

1) I don't wear panties, but I guess I'd still be capable of rational thought if I did.
2) I must have missed the definition of massacre, so I apologise. Rest assured it was oversight, not deliveberate. Can you link/repeat?
3) Murders dropped. Suicides dropped. People still die.

Point 3 seems important.

3. Murder death toll only dropped a small amount. I guess you missed or ignored that post as well. Try and keep up.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

You think people should have unregulated access to shoulder fired missiles?
Gun control worked here. You guys can do whatever you like, I jumped into this thread because of an assertion made (not by you) that gun control overseas had not worked.
That's not true in our case.

Gun control didn't work. You must have ignored that post as well.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

How so?
Murders dropped. Not just gun murders.
Suicides dropped. Not just gun suicides.

Pretty simple, no redefinition required.

Um, arson is murder around here. Plus people died. Murdered. Knives, cars, all the dead were murdered. I gave you the numbers. Did you miss it or ignore it. Did you also ignore the post about where there was no significant change in the number of murder victims. Come on, try and keep here.

 

[Curious George]

Gun control increased, death's by both murder and suicide dropped.

They were already dropping though, we're they not?

People still have guns.
People still murder.
People still suicide.

And I think this is the point of contention. People who advocate stricter gun control or even a complete ban, seem to ignore this. It is good to see it acknowledged.

For the same reason you want to control hand-held surface to air missiles.

This is disingenuous. If you think there is not a distinction, then there is a philosophical problem that will not be resolved over rf.

How so?
Murders dropped. Not just gun murders.
Suicides dropped. Not just gun suicides.

They were already dropping. But that said I would agree that gun control or a ban would likely decrease the actual murder and suicide rate. To what degree is where we probably disagree. Then beyond that we probably disagree with whether this same decrease or an even more significant increase can be achieved by other means.

These two facts combined creates an obstacle to me understanding why people are so adamant that stricter gun regulation is needed.

That said, the focus on massacres or mass killings is not where the emphasis of the discussion should be. These are extremely rare instances that are emotional rollercoasters. People who want to engage in mass killing will always have a way to do so. If we limit the discussion to mass killings, there is very little reason to consider gun control as an option.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I'm not. By all means, point out what I've ignored and I'll address it. I don't play those sort of games.

Go back and read them. I don't feel like leading you by the hand.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

It sounds like the shooter just couldn't shoot straight. I still counted it in the death toll you wrongly assumed I ignored.

I didn't assume any such thing. I just assumed you viewed 2 dead and 5 wounded as a massacre.

And the 'couldnt shoot straight' aspect is kinda the point. He used handguns as that was what we could access. If he toting a semi-auto rifle or a combat shotgun, the death toll would likely have been higher.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I didn't assume any such thing. I just assumed you viewed 2 dead and 5 wounded as a massacre.

And the 'couldnt shoot straight' aspect is kinda the point. He used handguns as that was what we could access. If he toting a semi-auto rifle or a combat shotgun, the death toll would likely have been higher.

Speculate all you want. I looked at the numbers. You should too.

By the way, give me some credible evidence that someone who wants to off themselves doesn't because they have no gun. Since you wanted to bring it up.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Go back and read them. I don't feel like leading you by the hand.

Closest I found was you referring to the Hunt family murders, and the Monash shootings. You didn't reply to me on that, or refer to me, it was a standalone post (looked like the quote didn't work right).

Monash, 2 dead.
Hunt family you claimed 5 dead, which is interesting (the last was the shooter who suicides), but sure. Call it 1 massacre, since 4 seems a reasonable baseline.

Still no idea what you consider a massacre. Whatever is listed on Wikipedia?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Speculate all you want. I looked at the numbers. You should too.

By the way, give me some credible evidence that someone who wants to off themselves doesn't because they have no gun. Since you wanted to bring it up.

Just look up mortality rates on people who attempt suicide.
Switching a gun for almost any other method reduces mortality, even if it didn't reduce incidents.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Closest I found was you referring to the Hunt family murders, and the Monash shootings. You didn't reply to me on that, or refer to me, it was a standalone post (looked like the quote didn't work right).

Monash, 2 dead.
Hunt family you claimed 5 dead, which is interesting (the last was the shooter who suicides), but sure. Call it 1 massacre, since 4 seems a reasonable baseline.

Still no idea what you consider a massacre. Whatever is listed on Wikipedia?

I used a dictionary. It's where one gets definitions from. It's in another post you ignored. I'm tired of your singleminded erroneous view. G'day.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

3. Murder death toll only dropped a small amount. I guess you missed or ignored that post as well. Try and keep up.

Oh...so it would have to drop a large amount to be worthwhile?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I used a dictionary. It's where one gets definitions from. It's in another post you ignored. I tired of your singleminded erroneous view. G'day.

Show me the link?
I'm calling bullcrap.
And I'm not single-minded on this, interestingly.

 

[Curious George]

Show me the link?
I'm calling bullcrap.
And I'm not single-minded on this, interestingly.

Massacre: noun 1. an indiscriminate and brutal slaughter of people.

Now, you can get hung up on the title or you can grasp that gun control didn't stop the slaughter of people.

It is the noun definition if you Google massacre definition. Although arguing over whether these brutal killings of people qualify as massacres seems very pointless.

It is almost like people are trying to keep language skewed in order to favor their argument. It is a simple discussion if we just use homicide and suicide. We should not qualify these words with gun-deaths and massacres. It is murder and suicide that we are trying to reduce.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

They were already dropping though, we're they not?

Yep. It's a tricky thing to be both fair and definitive on. The link below is worth viewing, as it gives further links to credible studies, and doesn't present the issue in a one-sided manner, imho.

Gun Control in Australia, Updated - FactCheck.org

And I think this is the point of contention. People who advocate stricter gun control or even a complete ban, seem to ignore this. It is good to see it acknowledged.

Extremists exist, and they tend to be blind, whatever side of a 'fence' they're on.
I'm kinda over arguing about US laws, but was drawn in when mention was made of overseas experience is all.
I was in my last year of uni when gun controls were tightened here.

This is disingenuous. If you think there is not a distinction, then there is a philosophical problem that will not be resolved over rf.

Nothing disingenuous was intended. I'm merely making the point that the right to bare arms is not unfettered. It appears the person I was directing that to either just wants to be contrary, or honestly believes a free trade market on arms is a good thing.

Feel free to read over our exchange. Whilst they didn't want to go deep on anything, I know you well enough to see your questions and arguments as worth investing effort on.

They were already dropping. But that said I would agree that gun control or a ban would likely decrease the actual murder and suicide rate. To what degree is where we probably disagree. Then beyond that we probably disagree with whether this same decrease or an even more significant increase can be achieved by other means.

I think the 'other means' argument is massively important, actually.
The binary arguments on this are insanely simplistic.

These two facts combined creates an obstacle to me understanding why people are so adamant that stricter gun regulation is needed.

There's a cultural element to it all you need to factor in, though.
I lived overseas and carried a knife, since it was dangerous, and everyone else had one.
But I would find that irresponsible in Australia, to be honest.

Cultural acceptance of weapons could actually be impacted over time.

That said, the focus on massacres or mass killings is not where the emphasis of the discussion should be. These are extremely rare instances that are emotional rollercoasters. People who want to engage in mass killing will always have a way to do so. If we limit the discussion to mass killings, there is very little reason to consider gun control as an option.

Compare Port Arthur to Monash though.
Lone shooter intent on murder, low level of weapons skill. Access to weapons, unstable, etc.

Totally different outcome.

I grew up around guns, but a .22 to shoot rabbits is different to an AR-15.
There's no slam dunk on this, to my mind, since I could be around any weapon, and I'm still not going to kill, so clearly the tool is only one part of the story.

But in summary;
I can kill wild animals, target shoot, and hold up a liquor store with a handgun.
If I go on a murder spree, that semi-auto is more effective than a handgun, especially if modified.
Hence the focus on massacres, plus the emotive aspects, of course.

Gun control already happens in the US. It's just widely variant and ineffective.

What is more important is more effective identification and response to troubled youths (in particular). But it's not an either-or proposition.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

It is the noun definition if you Google massacre definition. Although arguing over whether these brutal killings of people qualify as massacres seems very pointless.

It is almost like people are trying to keep language skewed in order to favor their argument. It is a simple discussion if we just use homicide and suicide. We should not qualify these words with gun-deaths and massacres. It is murder and suicide that we are trying to reduce.

I simplified it to dead people. They don't care what you call the method.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

It is the noun definition if you Google massacre definition. Although arguing over whether these brutal killings of people qualify as massacres seems very pointless.

It is almost like people are trying to keep language skewed in order to favor their argument. It is a simple discussion if we just use homicide and suicide. We should not qualify these words with gun-deaths and massacres. It is murder and suicide that we are trying to reduce.

massacre
ˈmasəkə/
noun

1. 1.
   an indiscriminate and brutal slaughter of many people.
   "reports of massacres by government troops"
   synonyms: slaughter, wholesale slaughter, mass slaughter, wholesale killing, indiscriminate killing; More
   

verb

1. 1.
   deliberately and brutally kill (many people).
   "thousands were brutally massacred by soldiers"
   synonyms: slaughter, butcher, murder, kill, annihilate, exterminate, execute, liquidate, eliminate, destroy, decimate, kill off, wipe out, mow down, cut down, cut to pieces, put to the sword, put to death, send to the gas chambers;
   literaryslay

I don't have a 'side'. I gave up arguing for gun control in the US. I'm only here to ensure representations of the impact of gun control in my country are fair.

 

[Curious George]

Yep. It's a tricky thing to be both fair and definitive on. The link below is worth viewing, as it gives further links to credible studies, and doesn't present the issue in a one-sided manner, imho.

Gun Control in Australia, Updated - FactCheck.org

I have looked at plenty of studies and have yet to find any honest study that claims causation.

Extremists exist, and they tend to be blind, whatever side of a 'fence' they're on.
I'm kinda over arguing about US laws, but was drawn in when mention was made of overseas experience is all.
I was in my last year of uni when gun controls were tightened here.

I can understand the feeling of being over the discussion of gun control in the U.S. it is very hard to discuss things with people who seem to only want to view the issue from their narrow perspective, whatever that perspective may be.

Nothing disingenuous was intended. I'm merely making the point that the right to bare arms is not unfettered. It appears the person I was directing that to either just wants to be contrary, or honestly believes a free trade market on arms is a good thing.

Feel free to read over our exchange. Whilst they didn't want to go deep on anything, I know you well enough to see your questions and arguments as worth investing effort on.

For what it is worth, I think that the other poster was specifically addressing claims about massacres. As an onlooker it appeared that the depth you are discussing is a want to delve into semantics and rationalization. While I agree that the nuances are very important the poster made clear he was discussing the overarching premises surrounding massacres.

I think the 'other means' argument is massively important, actually.
The binary arguments on this are insanely simplistic.

The other means argument is just a counterpoint to a simplistic assertion that blames guns instead of acknowledging the topic is more complex, IMO.

There's a cultural element to it all you need to factor in, though.
I lived overseas and carried a knife, since it was dangerous, and everyone else had one.
But I would find that irresponsible in Australia, to be honest.

Cultural acceptance of weapons could actually be impacted over time.

How should they be influenced is a different discussion though.

Compare Port Arthur to Monash though.
Lone shooter intent on murder, low level of weapons skill. Access to weapons, unstable, etc.

Totally different outcome.

Totally different instances as well. While I acknowledge there is a difference, engaging that difference is an invitation to speculation.

I grew up around guns, but a .22 to shoot rabbits is different to an AR-15.
There's no slam dunk on this, to my mind, since I could be around any weapon, and I'm still not going to kill, so clearly the tool is only one part of the story.

But in summary;
I can kill wild animals, target shoot, and hold up a liquor store with a handgun.
If I go on a murder spree, that semi-auto is more effective than a handgun, especially if modified.
Hence the focus on massacres, plus the emotive aspects, of course.

Gun control already happens in the US. It's just widely variant and ineffective.

What is more important is more effective identification and response to troubled youths (in particular). But it's not an either-or proposition.

How unfortunate when we are arguing about the effectiveness of instruments used for killing. This is one of the reasons that these discussion get so exasperating. The stack of assumptions that one need make in order to put forth such arguments is exhausting in itself. What do we want to reduce. Why do we want to reduce it. What is the most effective way to do that. What are the consequences of following that path?

These are the areas discussion should focus. Using instances of massacres is not helpful. Speculating on death tolls is not helpful. And Speculating on what could have happened if.. is not helpful. I see this as true regardless of the side on which one is.

 

[Curious George]

I don't have a 'side'. I gave up arguing for gun control in the US. I'm only here to ensure representations of the impact of gun control in my country are fair.

massacre definition - Google Search


Mine doesn't show "many" in the noun definition.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

massacre definition - Google Search


Mine doesn't show "many" in the noun definition.

That's the one Google blessed me with as well. But again why are you getting hung up on the quality of the mass murder? The source I used seemed to count more than one death in their statistics. I counted the number of instances and deaths and found not much difference in the 20 years before gun control in Australia and 20 years after.

 

[Curious George]

That's the one Google blessed me with as well. But again why are you getting hung up on the quality of the mass murder? The source I used seemed to count more than one death in their statistics. I counted the number of instances and deaths and found not much difference in the 20 years before gun control in Australia and 20 years after.

I am not hung up on it at all. I am noting the differences in definitions from what was posted to what I viewed.

I think you were clear in what you were saying. I personally believe deciding public policy based on highly publicized incidents. That said, I also acknowledge that the issue is more nuanced than guns or not guns.