Gun bans prevent mass shootings

[LordKiran]

What a crock. Please provide a quote from ANYBODY on here saying that 'gun bans prevent mass shootings'.

Gun restrictions and tight regulation of gun ownership massively reduces mass shootings.

That makes restricting gun ownership and regulating it tightly a very good idea.

That we should not be "making perfect the enemy of good" is something of a mantra of at least one poster on here:

You're letting perfect be the enemy of good.

... what you are doing it going for perfect--which is as usual the enemy of good.

Guns are NOT banned in Australia nor in England. But they are tightly regulated.

The main benefit of this with regards to illegal guns is that it means that a gun seen by a cop in public is grounds for an arrest; and it means that severe penalties can be imposed on people found with guns in public - even in the absence of any other offence.

When you don't need to prove that the guy with the gun was planning to rob a bank, in order to arrest and charge him, criminals quickly find that carrying (or even owning) a gun is not worth the risk. An English petty criminal doesn't want the risk that a gun will be found if police search his home. A US petty criminal needn't worry - merely finding a gun in his nightstand is not sufficient for the police to drag him off to jail.

In England (and more recently in Australia), this has meant a much smaller number of guns used by criminals, compared with the USA. That's a GOOD THING, even if the decline has not been to zero.

Australian and English hunters and target shooters still have the means available to participate in their chosen sports. What they can't do is go around armed in public. So when road rage strikes, they have to resort to punches, rather than bullets (or blades - knives are also restricted in both jurisdictions).

What a dreadful OP:

Straw Man + Confirmation Bias =/= Logic.

The problem here is that the 'right to bear arms' or rather the romanticist view of it is (Like it or not) an integral part of the American national identity, and is furthermore protected by a legal document who's legal primacy is deeply ingrained in our culture. It's not something that can just be circumvented without consequence, especially now when stability is beginning to deteriorate. The simple truth is that in the US this kind of law would be completely unprecedented and wholely unacceptable for reasons outside of anyone person's control.

- - - Updated - - -

You're the one who's misinterpreting me. -_- Are you trolling me right now?

no I asked you to clarify, maybe not formally
here:
do you think more injuries and death is caused by legal guns or by illegal guns?

Are we including accidental deaths and injuries in this inquiry? If so it'd be difficult to say as I am not versed in any hard numbers or figures in that regard. If not then I'd say my previous entries here speak for themselves, the issue is that you've simply not understood them. When I say 'Most gun-related crime in America is committed with illegally owned firearms' that's pretty self-explanatory.

 

[bilby]

What a crock. Please provide a quote from ANYBODY on here saying that 'gun bans prevent mass shootings'.

Gun restrictions and tight regulation of gun ownership massively reduces mass shootings.

That makes restricting gun ownership and regulating it tightly a very good idea.

That we should not be "making perfect the enemy of good" is something of a mantra of at least one poster on here:

... what you are doing it going for perfect--which is as usual the enemy of good.

Guns are NOT banned in Australia nor in England. But they are tightly regulated.

The main benefit of this with regards to illegal guns is that it means that a gun seen by a cop in public is grounds for an arrest; and it means that severe penalties can be imposed on people found with guns in public - even in the absence of any other offence.

When you don't need to prove that the guy with the gun was planning to rob a bank, in order to arrest and charge him, criminals quickly find that carrying (or even owning) a gun is not worth the risk. An English petty criminal doesn't want the risk that a gun will be found if police search his home. A US petty criminal needn't worry - merely finding a gun in his nightstand is not sufficient for the police to drag him off to jail.

In England (and more recently in Australia), this has meant a much smaller number of guns used by criminals, compared with the USA. That's a GOOD THING, even if the decline has not been to zero.

Australian and English hunters and target shooters still have the means available to participate in their chosen sports. What they can't do is go around armed in public. So when road rage strikes, they have to resort to punches, rather than bullets (or blades - knives are also restricted in both jurisdictions).

What a dreadful OP:

Straw Man + Confirmation Bias =/= Logic.

The problem here is that the 'right to bear arms' or rather the romanticist view of it is (Like it or not) an integral part of the American national identity, and is furthermore protected by a legal document who's legal primacy is deeply ingrained in our culture. It's not something that can just be circumvented without consequence, especially now when stability is beginning to deteriorate. The simple truth is that in the US this kind of law would be completely unprecedented and wholely unacceptable for reasons outside of anyone person's control.

Meh. Your constitution has been amended 27 times; it can be amended again.

"We know it's the right thing to do, but we don't WANT to do it" is a poor argument.

 

[LordKiran]

What a crock. Please provide a quote from ANYBODY on here saying that 'gun bans prevent mass shootings'.

Gun restrictions and tight regulation of gun ownership massively reduces mass shootings.

That makes restricting gun ownership and regulating it tightly a very good idea.

That we should not be "making perfect the enemy of good" is something of a mantra of at least one poster on here:

... what you are doing it going for perfect--which is as usual the enemy of good.

Guns are NOT banned in Australia nor in England. But they are tightly regulated.

The main benefit of this with regards to illegal guns is that it means that a gun seen by a cop in public is grounds for an arrest; and it means that severe penalties can be imposed on people found with guns in public - even in the absence of any other offence.

When you don't need to prove that the guy with the gun was planning to rob a bank, in order to arrest and charge him, criminals quickly find that carrying (or even owning) a gun is not worth the risk. An English petty criminal doesn't want the risk that a gun will be found if police search his home. A US petty criminal needn't worry - merely finding a gun in his nightstand is not sufficient for the police to drag him off to jail.

In England (and more recently in Australia), this has meant a much smaller number of guns used by criminals, compared with the USA. That's a GOOD THING, even if the decline has not been to zero.

Australian and English hunters and target shooters still have the means available to participate in their chosen sports. What they can't do is go around armed in public. So when road rage strikes, they have to resort to punches, rather than bullets (or blades - knives are also restricted in both jurisdictions).

What a dreadful OP:

Straw Man + Confirmation Bias =/= Logic.

The problem here is that the 'right to bear arms' or rather the romanticist view of it is (Like it or not) an integral part of the American national identity, and is furthermore protected by a legal document who's legal primacy is deeply ingrained in our culture. It's not something that can just be circumvented without consequence, especially now when stability is beginning to deteriorate. The simple truth is that in the US this kind of law would be completely unprecedented and wholely unacceptable for reasons outside of anyone person's control.

Meh. Your constitution has been amended 27 times; it can be amended again.

"We know it's the right thing to do, but we don't WANT to do it" is a poor argument.

I'm not saying it can't happen, but given the political landscape of the nation, is simply not an option in any practical terms. So poor argument or not, it's the one you're getting.

 

[none]

Are we including accidental deaths and injuries in this inquiry? If so it'd be difficult to say as I am not versed in any hard numbers or figures in that regard.

yeah I don't know the figures off hand at all
hard to say

 

[Elixir]

What a crock. Please provide a quote from ANYBODY on here saying that 'gun bans prevent mass shootings'.

Gun restrictions and tight regulation of gun ownership massively reduces mass shootings.

That makes restricting gun ownership and regulating it tightly a very good idea.

That we should not be "making perfect the enemy of good" is something of a mantra of at least one poster on here:

You're letting perfect be the enemy of good.

... what you are doing it going for perfect--which is as usual the enemy of good.

Guns are NOT banned in Australia nor in England. But they are tightly regulated.

The main benefit of this with regards to illegal guns is that it means that a gun seen by a cop in public is grounds for an arrest; and it means that severe penalties can be imposed on people found with guns in public - even in the absence of any other offence.

When you don't need to prove that the guy with the gun was planning to rob a bank, in order to arrest and charge him, criminals quickly find that carrying (or even owning) a gun is not worth the risk. An English petty criminal doesn't want the risk that a gun will be found if police search his home. A US petty criminal needn't worry - merely finding a gun in his nightstand is not sufficient for the police to drag him off to jail.

In England (and more recently in Australia), this has meant a much smaller number of guns used by criminals, compared with the USA. That's a GOOD THING, even if the decline has not been to zero.

Australian and English hunters and target shooters still have the means available to participate in their chosen sports. What they can't do is go around armed in public. So when road rage strikes, they have to resort to punches, rather than bullets (or blades - knives are also restricted in both jurisdictions).

What a dreadful OP:

Straw Man + Confirmation Bias =/= Logic.

Correct on all counts AFAICS.

 

[laughing dog]

It's been a mantra of the gun-banners on here.

Oops:

Australia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Hectorville_siege

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Sydney_hostage_crisis

England:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbria_shootings

Yet another example of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's been a mantra of the gun-banners on here.

Oops:

Australia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Hectorville_siege

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Sydney_hostage_crisis

England:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbria_shootings

You do know neither of those countries ban ALL firearms right?

Personally I don't support firearm bans or gun-free-zones as I find them either pointless or impractical solutions for where I live, but if you're going to contest the efficacy of fire-arm bans or restrictions as a universal concept, you're going to need to do better than three Wikipedia links.

The gun-banners point to the supposed lack of mass shootings after the gun "bans" as evidence they work. Those three links pop the crown jewels of their evidence.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Well, the first thing that you should do is limit, regulate and track the supply of legal guns. Illegal guns don't just turn up out of the blue. Somebody bought them and then they were stolen or resold illegally. Every step you take to help dry up the main supply source for illegal guns helps to limit the number of illegal guns.

You're correct that mass shootings are a trivial problem next to regular old shootings. You're incorrect that the high rate of legal gun ownership isn't the heart of the problem.

However, until you eliminate the vast majority of legal guns you will do almost nothing about illegal ones. Currently illegal guns are much cheaper than legal ones (which is why straw buyers aren't a big deal, they generally can't compete with stolen guns.) The guys that are actually going to shoot those guns will still have guns.

 

[bilby]

You do know neither of those countries ban ALL firearms right?

Personally I don't support firearm bans or gun-free-zones as I find them either pointless or impractical solutions for where I live, but if you're going to contest the efficacy of fire-arm bans or restrictions as a universal concept, you're going to need to do better than three Wikipedia links.

The gun-banners point to the supposed lack of mass shootings after the gun "bans" as evidence they work. Those three links pop the crown jewels of their evidence.

There are no 'gun-banners', they are a figment of your fevered imagination.

The people who advocate sensible gun controls point to the much reduced incidence of mass shootings after regulation is tightened as evidence that regulation works. And they do that BECAUSE IT IS EVIDENCE OF WHAT THEY CLAIM.

Only by going full retard and inventing a straw-man of perfection can you claim that they are wrong. That is both dishonest and illogical, and you need to take this guy's advice:

You're letting perfect be the enemy of good.

... what you are doing it going for perfect--which is as usual the enemy of good.

 

[Bronzeage]

Well, the first thing that you should do is limit, regulate and track the supply of legal guns. Illegal guns don't just turn up out of the blue. Somebody bought them and then they were stolen or resold illegally. Every step you take to help dry up the main supply source for illegal guns helps to limit the number of illegal guns.

You're correct that mass shootings are a trivial problem next to regular old shootings. You're incorrect that the high rate of legal gun ownership isn't the heart of the problem.

However, until you eliminate the vast majority of legal guns you will do almost nothing about illegal ones. Currently illegal guns are much cheaper than legal ones (which is why straw buyers aren't a big deal, they generally can't compete with stolen guns.) The guys that are actually going to shoot those guns will still have guns.

This is a strange circle. People buy guns in order to protect themselves and their property, but we can't reduce the number of illegal guns, because guns are too easy to steal. How is it that a gun owner can't even protect his gun?

 

[Juma]

Access to weapons is just part of the problem. The adoring of violence, feeling of not living in a caring society, poverty and strong race identities are the problem. Shooting is just a symptom.

What is THE most striking feature of american culture? (Movies, music, books and computer games)

The enormous amont of violence.

That is the sole most important contribution of american culture.

 

[DBT]

Gun ownership was not banned in Australia. Semi auto firearms were partly banned, that is, made very difficult to obtain a permit to purchase unless you are a farmer and can show a need own a semi auto.

The most effective aspect of the gun laws being a thorough background check, including mental health, a mandatory safety course and storage requirements. And of course, attitude toward guns, safety first.

 

[marc]

Well, the first thing that you should do is limit, regulate and track the supply of legal guns.

But we already do this.

Not really. There are regulations on gun sales, but not enough agents to actually keep up to make sure the gun stores are following those regulations. And gun shows are pretty much free from oversight. A NY City study into where guns used in crimes come from found that a lot of them come from gun shows in other states.

Illegal guns don't just turn up out of the blue.

No they're smuggled into the country over the border. It's more common than you might think.

Smuggled into the country??!!?? The country is flooded with guns of our own making. Mexican drug gangs come to the US to get guns to smuggle into their country.

 

[iolo]

Access to weapons is just part of the problem. The adoring of violence, feeling of not living in a caring society, poverty and strong race identities are the problem. Shooting is just a symptom.

What is THE most striking feature of american culture? (Movies, music, books and computer games)

The enormous amont of violence.

That is the sole most important contribution of american culture.

Well, that is certainly true, but if they used their fists like men the results would be enormously less disastrous - the bang-bangs are far more than a symptom: you have to add in cowardice too.

 

[ronburgundy]

IF anyone had every said that guns bans would completely eliminate shootings with multiple victims, you would have a point. No one ever has, so you do not.

What people have said, is that gun restrictions can reduce the frequency of shootings, and the evidence strongly supports this.

Since your fond of Australia, how about the fact that in the 17 years prior to Australia's major gun restrictions in 1997 there were 13 mass shootings involving 5 or more victims. In the 17 years after the ban there were ZERO such mass shootings.

Your two linked events don't qualify, because the 2014 incident only had 1 person shot by the shooter and all the other people harmed were accidentally harmed by the police during the raid. The 2011 incident only involved 3 victim deaths and one wounded, so it fell below the 5 or more threshold. Plus, that incident was highly atypical of the kind of random mass shootings in question on this topic. The shooter lived next door and broke into the families home and targeted them specifically for poisoning his dog. They had prior conflicts about his dog and then his dog winds up dead and poisoned, so he presumed they were responsible. That is quite different than the kind of random killing of strangers in public spaces that is typical of the mass shootings in question. Those differences all matter to the impact of bans on things like assault weapons. A guy who pre-plans an attack on specific people and enters their private home while they are sleeping could easily stab 3 to death before they knew what was happening.

But even if those incidents are counted, the drop-off was dramatic immediately following the greatly increased gun restrictions.

The was also an extreme drop in gun death more generally, even controlling for the pre-existing decline. The rate of decline in gun deaths in the 17 years prior was 3% drop per year, which jumped 66% to a 5% per year drop in the 17 years following.

Other analysis show that when "mass shootings" is more meaningfully defined to refer to largely indiscriminate public shootings of multiple people where the main objective is shooting people (rather than people shot during another crime like home invasion or robbery).

This linked study looked at 171 countries during the 45 years prior to 2013 and found that gun ownership rates were a strong predictor of such mass shootings, even when the US which is extreme on both variables) was not included, and regardless of whether the general homicide or suicide rates in the countries were high or low.

IOW, "Ooops" is about right.

 

[Malintent]

Gun bans prevent mass shootings

It's been a mantra of the gun-banners on here.

Oops:

Australia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Hectorville_siege

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Sydney_hostage_crisis

England:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbria_shootings

OK about 100 million people had four mass shootings in six years.

The following is not an indictment of Obama since if one cares to look mass shootings in the US have taken place regularly since the eighties. I just use it to put scale on the number os shootings in the US with 300 million people. Between 2010 and now there have been at least 16 mass shootings in the US.

15 Other Times President Obama Had to Address Mass Shootings During His Presidency http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...had_to_address_mass_shootings_during_his.html

What one probably should conclude is that in western English speaking democracies the rate of shootings in the US is about 3 per year and in GB and AU about 1/2 per year. Corrected for population differences that would be about a two to one rate between guns non banned and banned countries in mass shootings.

I think a that a halving of mass shooting is important. So I agree that banning guns, especially weapons used for war, from being possessed is a good thing.

IOW Loren Pechtel,"Oops" isn't appropriate. but, it should be changed to significantly reduced.

According to that logic, buckets should be banned. They are so dangerous to the population, they even have "baby drowning in a bucket" pictures on the sides of them. If buckets were to be banned, then we could HALVE the amount of baby deaths due to bucket drowning in the US

How can you argue against halving the number of baby bucket deaths?????

 

[ronburgundy]

Gun bans prevent mass shootings



OK about 100 million people had four mass shootings in six years.

The following is not an indictment of Obama since if one cares to look mass shootings in the US have taken place regularly since the eighties. I just use it to put scale on the number os shootings in the US with 300 million people. Between 2010 and now there have been at least 16 mass shootings in the US.

15 Other Times President Obama Had to Address Mass Shootings During His Presidency http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...had_to_address_mass_shootings_during_his.html

What one probably should conclude is that in western English speaking democracies the rate of shootings in the US is about 3 per year and in GB and AU about 1/2 per year. Corrected for population differences that would be about a two to one rate between guns non banned and banned countries in mass shootings.

I think a that a halving of mass shooting is important. So I agree that banning guns, especially weapons used for war, from being possessed is a good thing.

IOW Loren Pechtel,"Oops" isn't appropriate. but, it should be changed to significantly reduced.

According to that logic, buckets should be banned. They are so dangerous to the population, they even have "baby drowning in a bucket" pictures on the sides of them. If buckets were to be banned, then we could HALVE the amount of baby deaths due to bucket drowning in the US

How can you argue against halving the number of baby bucket deaths?????

No, you're not applying any "logic", only a fallacious equivalence between an object designed specifically and only to engage in the almost always criminal act of lethal assault (thus the name) against many people at once versus an object designed for an infinite number of other legal uses and not well designed for lethal use but will occasionally be involved in lethal accidents.

It isn't just that such guns happen to have a massive causal influence in increasing homicides, and especially mass murder. It that that the causal impact is a result of the guns being specifically designed to cause as many human deaths in an assault situation as efficiently as possible.

 

[Malintent]

According to that logic, buckets should be banned. They are so dangerous to the population, they even have "baby drowning in a bucket" pictures on the sides of them. If buckets were to be banned, then we could HALVE the amount of baby deaths due to bucket drowning in the US

How can you argue against halving the number of baby bucket deaths?????

No, you're not applying any "logic", only a fallacious equivalence between an object designed specifically and only to engage in the almost always criminal act of lethal assault (thus the name) against many people at once versus an object designed for an infinite number of other legal uses and not well designed for lethal use but will occasionally be involved in lethal accidents.

It isn't just that such guns happen to have a massive causal influence in increasing homicides, and especially mass murder. It that that the causal impact is a result of the guns being specifically designed to cause as many human deaths in an assault situation as efficiently as possible.

The logic I am applying is a mirror of your own. the idea that ANY decrease in an adverse event justifies the means by which it is decreased.
Also, you only just now introduced the notion of assault weapons designed solely for the highest number of deaths... as opposed to 'guns' in general ('gun control', not 'assault weapon control'). so, you are the one making an invalid equivocation.

To address your new point, I simply pivot from buckets to saw blades and from drownings to dismemberments... since saw blades are designed specifically for use in separating something from which it is attached... be it wooden or flesh.

 

[laughing dog]

No, you're not applying any "logic", only a fallacious equivalence between an object designed specifically and only to engage in the almost always criminal act of lethal assault (thus the name) against many people at once versus an object designed for an infinite number of other legal uses and not well designed for lethal use but will occasionally be involved in lethal accidents.

It isn't just that such guns happen to have a massive causal influence in increasing homicides, and especially mass murder. It that that the causal impact is a result of the guns being specifically designed to cause as many human deaths in an assault situation as efficiently as possible.

The logic I am applying is a mirror of your own. the idea that ANY decrease in an adverse event justifies the means by which it is decreased.

On basis did you derive that straw man conclusion?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Access to weapons is just part of the problem. The adoring of violence, feeling of not living in a caring society, poverty and strong race identities are the problem. Shooting is just a symptom.

What is THE most striking feature of american culture? (Movies, music, books and computer games)

The enormous amont of violence.

That is the sole most important contribution of american culture.

Well, other countries watch the same movies, listen to the same music, read the same books and play the same video games and yet don't have the same violence problems one sees in America. The easy access to guns in America is what makes it so damn easy to ramp any potentially violent situation from a 3 to a 10 and that's why the violence gets ramped up so quickly and easily there.

And also because of Hillary Clinton. I'm pretty sure that she's at least 70% responsible.