What Explains U.S. Mass Shootings?

[PureX]

Well...duh...! So how do you propose reducing the number of guns?

Not that long ago, a huge number of adults in America smoked cigarettes. And many of them were dying from it, as a result. But back then, smoking cigarettes was seen as sophisticated, and elegant, and worldly. And no one was aware of the correlation between smoking and cancer, so it was not viewed as a dangerous behavior. And certainly not a threat to other people!

But over the years the government embraced and sponsored a long campaign against cigarette smoking involving the banning of adds promoting smoking on TV, and forcing cigarette manufacturers to print warning labels on their products, and forcing businesses to offer protection to non-smokers from second-hand smoke. And although we have not eradicated cigarette smoking all together, we have minimized it to an enormous degree, compared to 50 years ago.

The idea that society cannot change it's mind about it's obsession with guns is false. Smoking is FAR more addictive then the idea of owning a gun, and still we've managed to greatly minimize smoking. So there is no reason we could not change the cultural obsession with gun ownership. But as with all such cultural obsessions, we have to be able to admit that we have a problem before we can begin to change our thoughts and behaviors regarding it. And we're going to have to kick our politicians in the *** to get them to forgo the bribe money from the NRA and gun manufacturer's lobbyists and act on their social responsibility. But it can be done. As it has been done, before.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Good point. I think they should treat guns exactly like cars. Licenses to use them, insure them, keep them locked up. The government should safety test them and if something comes along that could make them safer, mandate it.... just like we do with cars.

I can see gun Insurance becoming mandatory just like car insurance for injury and loss of life

 

[metis]

So essentially it's perfectly acceptable for people to be continually killed by the use of cars, and it's conversely not acceptable for those who are killed using guns.

How in the world did you deduce this from what I wrote, especially since so much effort has been made over the decades to try and make cars safer? To say that I accept that "it's perfectly acceptable for people to be continually killed by the use of cars" is patently absurd.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So the argument in consideration of each used for different purposes is that one form of killing or being killed is somehow made more acceptable than the other form, regardless of how many lives are taken respectively wither on purpose, or through accident.

So essentially it's perfectly acceptable for people to be continually killed by the use of cars, and it's conversely not acceptable for those who are killed using guns.

Strawman fallacy. They weren't saying it's "acceptable" for people to be killed by cars, just that the comparison between the two isn't apt because cars are designed for a specific, non-killing function that they fulfill regularly for millions of people on a daily basis with relatively minimal loss of life resulting. Guns are specifically designed and purchased with the intent of killing, and their use in private hands rarely ends in much else other than the killing or injury of others. What's more, cars are heavily regulated, requiring rigorous testing before you can even get onto the road with one.

Of course, guns can be used for sport, but then those sports tend to be very heavily regulated and restrictive on the kinds of guns used.

The point I'm trying to make is it's not the tools but the people using them. Gun control seems continually focused on the mechanisms themselves and ignoring the person by which those mechanisms are being used. The argument centers on loss of life as its key issue, yet what I don't get is why is one form of loss of life that's continually going on is somehow less deadly then the other. Essentially one is being vilified and one isn't.

So you think the solution to gun violence is not to keep guns out of the hands of people who intend to use them for harm, but to fix everyone everywhere so that nobody will ever use guns or any other means to cause harm to others.

Good luck with that.

I can at least agree by which safety standards are implemented in cars, should also be implemented in firearms.

I'm okay with reduced clip size, and bolt action firearms as opposed to semi automatics and various firearms that can be modified into automatic. Conditional licensing would be appropriate I think such as trainer safety courses, that a person would not be denied the right to carry a firearm, but must first pass a competency and safety test. Similar with a hunter safety course that people must go through before purchasing a hunting license.

That I think will help with the hardware, but you still need to look at the systemic reasons as to why people are going off like that because if guns aren't accessible you know full well that they will look at other things. Cars trucks knives bombs Etc.

Except mortality rates from guns are higher than those things (except perhaps bombs, but I'm unaware of exactly how pervasive - or legal - their use is in comparison), and statistics show that the availability of guns increases the likelihood of people carrying out acts of mass murder. If you want to kill a bunch of people, chances are you'll be less inclined to carry it out if you only have access to a knife, whereas the prospect becomes much more possible if you have access to tools specifically designed for the purpose of killing lots of people. If what you're saying is true, then we would see just as high a mass-murder rate across the board regardless of gun availability - but this is simply not what we see.

 

[BSM1]

Using that "logic", then we should never even try to stop terrorists because there's always going to be some, and they always will find ways to kill people, and if they didn't have a nuclear device they'd use stones.

Now you're getting the picture.

 

[Underhill]

So the argument in consideration of each used for different purposes is that one form of killing or being killed is somehow made more acceptable than the other form, regardless of how many lives are taken respectively wither on purpose, or through accident.

So essentially it's perfectly acceptable for people to be continually killed by the use of cars, and it's conversely not acceptable for those who are killed using guns.

The point I'm trying to make is it's not the tools but the people using them. Gun control seems continually focused on the mechanisms themselves and ignoring the person by which those mechanisms are being used. The argument centers on loss of life as its key issue, yet what I don't get is why is one form of loss of life that's continually going on is somehow less deadly then the other. Essentially one is being vilified and one isn't.

I can at least agree by which safety standards are implemented in cars, should also be implemented in firearms.

I'm okay with reduced clip size, and bolt action firearms as opposed to semi automatics and various firearms that can be modified into automatic. Conditional licensing would be appropriate I think such as trainer safety courses, that a person would not be denied the right to carry a firearm, but must first pass a competency and safety test. Similar with a hunter safety course that people must go through before purchasing a hunting license.

That I think will help with the hardware, but you still need to look at the systemic reasons as to why people are going off like that because if guns aren't accessible you know full well that they will look at other things. Cars trucks knives bombs Etc.

The problem with your comparison is that everything else on your list, other than knives, is strictly regulated.

And the whole "get rid of guns, they will just use knives" argument is a fallacy in and of itself. Even if they do, killing with a knife is much harder than a gun. Guns make killing a decision requiring less than a second of decisive action. Even if gun violence were to be replaced with knife violence, the fatality rate would fall off dramatically.

 

[BSM1]

Not that long ago, a huge number of adults in America smoked cigarettes. And many of them were dying from it, as a result. But back then, smoking cigarettes was seen as sophisticated, and elegant, and worldly. And no one was aware of the correlation between smoking and cancer, so it was not viewed as a dangerous behavior. And certainly not a threat to other people!

But over the years the government embraced and sponsored a long campaign against cigarette smoking involving the banning of adds promoting smoking on TV, and forcing cigarette manufacturers to print warning labels on their products, and forcing businesses to offer protection to non-smokers from second-hand smoke. And although we have not eradicated cigarette smoking all together, we have minimized it to an enormous degree, compared to 50 years ago.

The idea that society cannot change it's mind about it's obsession with guns is false. Smoking is FAR more addictive then the idea of owning a gun, and still we've managed to greatly minimize smoking. So there is no reason we could not change the cultural obsession with gun ownership. But as with all such cultural obsessions, we have to be able to admit that we have a problem before we can begin to change our thoughts and behaviors regarding it. And we're going to have to kick our politicians in the *** to get them to forgo the bribe money from the NRA and gun manufacturer's lobbyists and act on their social responsibility. But it can be done. As it has been done, before.

Smoking is not a right, as determined by the Constitution and the Supreme Court. So you advocate the curtailment of a Constitutional right by the government without benefit of a change in the Constitution?

 

[metis]

There is no Constitutional right to own an AR15 nor any other specific weapon.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Maybe you aren't ok with people having semi-automatic firearms, like the AR-15 style, there are those of us that enjoy using them for sporting events, and other activities.

At last a minimally reasonable - or at least not obviously factually wrong - argument against gun control: "I enjoy doing X with my guns, and gun control measure Y would make doing X more difficult or impossible."

I like that we can actually agree on the facts on arguments like this. Our differences can be entirely about value judgements: are the lives that could be saved by a given gun control measure more or less important than denying people the enjoyment of the activities they won't be able to do any more if the measure passes? We can hold opposite views, and both can be right, since our positions are based on our own subjective values.

There's also room for compromise: if the thing you care about is sporting uses and the thing I care about is shootings in public or in private homes, then there's an option that can satisfy both of us: if you're allowed to have a semi-auto rifle, but you have to keep it at the range. Then the public shooting concern is addressed, but you still get to continue with your sporting use: a win-win.

 

[Stanyon]

I want them off the streets

By off the streets I assume you mean out of the hands of criminals, this is where I and probably most people (except criminals obviously) can agree with you and where you agree with the NRA and virtually every single gun rights groups out there, they have been saying this for years and have always pushed for better enforcement of existing gun laws.

and prohibited for private ownership, period. You're not going to change my mind about this so don't even bother. If I had my way, I'd get rid of the 2nd Amendment, too

This is where we differ, if the people in the pictures below are not convicted felons and are otherwise law abiding citizens, then there is absolutely no reason to deny them the right to have a firearm. Should they have their legal property taken away from them because someone might break into their house, steal them, and then commit other crimes with them?- I know you didn't state this but it is an argument that has been repeated many times by anti-gun advocates and is about the most ridiculous one I know of.

Other countries ban or severely restrict handguns and semiautos and don't have this problem of thugs getting ahold of them.

Aren't you stretching the truth there just a little bit?

A part of the problem is when one area has restrictions on those kind of weapons but other areas don't and are smuggled across state lines. You need uniformity in the law for it to work.

You mean people that intentionally break state firearms laws?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

This is where we differ, if the people in the pictures below are not convicted felons and are otherwise law abiding citizens, then there is absolutely no reason to deny them the right to have a firearm.

Aside from the fact that they are statistically far more likely to use those guns accidentally on a member of their own family than they ever are to use them for self-defense, and the fact that their ownership of guns makes them statistically less safe than they would be otherwise. If they're only using them for sport, they tend to be heavily regulated anyway.

Should they have their legal property taken away from them because someone might break into their house, steal them, and then commit other crimes with them?- I know you didn't state this but it is an argument that has been repeated many times by anti-gun advocates and is about the most ridiculous one I know of.

Do you think you should have the right to own weapons grade plutonium?

 

[BSM1]

There is no Constitutional right to own an AR15 nor any other specific weapon.

According to the Supreme Court we have a personal right to own firearms. The AR15 is a legal firearm thus we have the right to own it. Contrast this with there is no right to health care.

 

[PureX]

Smoking is not a right, as determined by the Constitution and the Supreme Court. So you advocate the curtailment of a Constitutional right by the government without benefit of a change in the Constitution?

Sorry, but that's an insane response.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

According to the Supreme Court we have a personal right to own firearms. The AR15 is a legal firearm thus we have the right to own it. Contrast this with there is no right to health care.

So you're saying that if there was an amendment added to the constitution that entitled all people to universal health care, you would be in favour of it?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

By off the streets I assume you mean out of the hands of criminals, this is where I and probably most people (except criminals obviously) can agree with you and where you agree with the NRA and virtually every single gun rights groups out there, they have been saying this for years and have always pushed for better enforcement of existing gun laws.


This is where we differ, if the people in the pictures below are not convicted felons and are otherwise law abiding citizens, then there is absolutely no reason to deny them the right to have a firearm. Should they have their legal property taken away from them because someone might break into their house, steal them, and then commit other crimes with them?- I know you didn't state this but it is an argument that has been repeated many times by anti-gun advocates and is about the most ridiculous one I know of.

Aren't you stretching the truth there just a little bit?



You mean people that intentionally break state firearms laws?

I support completely banning handguns and semiautos, period. Or maybe make it like Canada where you're allowed to use them at ranges but that's it. I think hunting rifles and certain types of shotguns should be allowed for sporting purposes.

 

[tytlyf]

Mass killings are done by evil and crazy people. Some people can just snap. The types of people that want to kill as many people as possible will look to tools to accomplish that. With the massive quantity of weapons purchased over the decades, it's fairly easy for anyone to get a gun. It's a quantity thing and irresponsible gun owner problem.
Some people will sell their weapons to people privately. The money is more important for paying rent, etc than being responsible.
So, you have people who want to kill and easy access to firearms due to the quantity available. Pretty simple. In countries that have lower quantities of guns, it's more difficult for someone to obtain one due to less availability. So they'll choose a different killing tool like vehicles, knives, IED's, etc.

 

[Stanyon]

Aside from the fact that they are statistically far more likely to use those guns accidentally on a member of their own family than they ever are to use them for self-defense, and the fact that their ownership of guns makes them statistically less safe than they would be otherwise.

Benjamin Franklin once stated that with every ounce of freedom comes a pound of responsibility, accidents with firearms (or most anything else) are preventable because they don't just happen, they are always preceded by bad decisions. Gun safety and responsible ownership are other points the NRA and virtually every gun rights organization have made for years.
NRA Explore | Student Courses
Responsibility to the responsible I say, we do not need a nanny state to hold our hands to keep us safe from ourselves nor should those less responsible be allowed to deny us what we ourselves can responsibly handle.

Statistically speaking I am less safe than people without two pound roasts in their freezer because mine is in a position that it could slip out and hit my foot, if I take steps to move it to a position where it wouldn't slip out and hit my foot then my risk is diminished yet still it would be a concern.

 

[metis]

According to the Supreme Court we have a personal right to own firearms. The AR15 is a legal firearm thus we have the right to own it.

The 2nd Amendment mentions no specific weapons, and what we have seen for over two centuries now is that specific weapons, such as sawed-off shotguns and fully automatic guns, can be and have been banned, and many such bans have been upheld by the SCOTUS to be constitutional. The AR15 simply is a weapon that could possibly be banned.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

maybe if we treated guns like cars -- licensed, registered and insured.

IMO, we need to be more strict about driving privileges. I tend to agree with Japan that drunken driving should be punished with fines, jail time, and a suspension of license. If it were up to me, just one DUI charge would be a suspension of at least a few years, mandatory and minimum.

Really? So why Prohibition?

That didn't come until well after a century after the Temperance movement began. The Salvation Army even come out of this movement, and began, in part, with a message of abstinence from alcohol.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Smoking is not a right, as determined by the Constitution and the Supreme Court. So you advocate the curtailment of a Constitutional right by the government without benefit of a change in the Constitution?

Does the Second Amendment not refer to a "well regulated militia?"