Gun bans prevent mass shootings

[Treedbear]

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.

Actually that last point has some merit. In my opinion the extraordinarily high gun violence in the US is due to politicians like Clinton thinking we can solve the world's problems with more weapons. That's the main thing I worry about under a Clinton administration. We see ourselves as entitled to exert force to defend "our" interests. It's practically un-American to think otherwise. So of course it becomes part of our culture. The people I know who have guns just love them. Every four years there's a patriotic spike in gun sales. It's simply the all-American thing to do. I believe if we adopted a policy of non-hegemonic non-intervention you would see the environment change to where you could pass reasonable gun control measures simply because people would care less about owning guns. And the 2nd amendment could quite easily be re-interpreted so that we had a system more like Great Britain. The well-regulated militia clause means guns should be well regulated as well. It just takes a different Supreme Court which is a matter of getting public opinion to change. So the guns themselves and the lack of regulation, as well as the fascination with violence in the media are not the problem. They're the symptom. Bernie had the right idea despite the heat he took on his willingness to compromise with the gun industry. That battle just can't be won without first changing US policy overseas.

 

[ronburgundy]

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.

That isn't my logic at all. It's when the that decease due to the restriction is tied to the fact that the object or some action being restricted is specially designed to increase those adverse events. That specialized human-killing purpose of assault rifles and handguns is closely tied to the fact that they serve little other general purposes that would be unduly hindered by restricted them, unlike buckets that are used for countless neccessary daily activities, and because of the general utility feature nothing can replace them for these infinite other functions that wouldn't pose a similar accidental danger.

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

I am not just now adding the issue of assault weapons. Banning assault weapons is a key part of what most gun control advocates call for, was central to Australia's 1997 policy, and is often the focus in relation to mass shootings where such weapons are increasingly the weapon of choice, due to being designed to quickly kill many people and murderous mass killings being the only plausible motive for doing that outside of war.
But similar issue applies to all handguns, which while less efficient in killing many people indiscriminately are also designed for killing people rather than hunting, and for easy carrying so you can ever-ready to kill people. Since the prevalence of such guns is the primary thing that creates one of the only circumstances that using such guns is legal (when someone else also has a gun and is using on you), restrictions on them limit their illegal use far more than any legal use to kill.

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.

Saw blades are not designed to and can't be used to efficiently kill humans, whereas assault rifles and handguns are. That is why the ratio of use of saws to guns among those seeking to kill people is a many millions to 1.

 

[ronburgundy]

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.

Actually that last point has some merit. In my opinion the extraordinarily high gun violence in the US is due to politicians like Clinton thinking we can solve the world's problems with more weapons. That's the main thing I worry about under a Clinton administration. We see ourselves as entitled to exert force to defend "our" interests. It's practically un-American to think otherwise. So of course it becomes part of our culture. The people I know who have guns just love them. Every four years there's a patriotic spike in gun sales. It's simply the all-American thing to do. I believe if we adopted a policy of non-hegemonic non-intervention you would see the environment change to where you could pass reasonable gun control measures simply because people would care less about owning guns. And the 2nd amendment could quite easily be re-interpreted so that we had a system more like Great Britain. The well-regulated militia clause means guns should be well regulated as well. It just takes a different Supreme Court which is a matter of getting public opinion to change. So the guns themselves and the lack of regulation, as well as the fascination with violence in the media are not the problem. They're the symptom. Bernie had the right idea despite the heat he took on his willingness to compromise with the gun industry. That battle just can't be won without first changing US policy overseas.

Gun ownership in the US is tied to national identity because of our frontier and revolutionary history far moreso than b/c of our governments foreign policy over the last half century.

Also, Finland and Switzerland are the two modern democracies in Western Europe with the next highest gun ownership rates and not coincidentally the next highest gun homicide rates in Western Europe. Switzerland has 10 times the gun homicide rate than England because it ranks 3rd in gun ownership compared to England's rank of 88th.
Yet Switzerland is incomparably less aggressive than England in its foreign policy, and by most measures a more stable, well-off, sociologically and psychologically healthy nation than England. The only plausible explanation for why Switzerland ranks a the top in gun homicides in Western Europe is that they rank 3rd in the world in gun ownership which has zero to do with their government being violent aggressors on the world stage.

Give a man gun and he is far more likely to kill a person. Teach a man to shoot, and he's even more likely to kill a person rather than just wound them.

 

[LordKiran]

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.

That isn't my logic at all. It's when the that decease due to the restriction is tied to the fact that the object or some action being restricted is specially designed to increase those adverse events. That specialized human-killing purpose of assault rifles and handguns is closely tied to the fact that they serve little other general purposes that would be unduly hindered by restricted them, unlike buckets that are used for countless neccessary daily activities, and because of the general utility feature nothing can replace them for these infinite other functions that wouldn't pose a similar accidental danger.

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

I am not just now adding the issue of assault weapons. Banning assault weapons is a key part of what most gun control advocates call for, was central to Australia's 1997 policy, and is often the focus in relation to mass shootings where such weapons are increasingly the weapon of choice, due to being designed to quickly kill many people and murderous mass killings being the only plausible motive for doing that outside of war.
But similar issue applies to all handguns, which while less efficient in killing many people indiscriminately are also designed for killing people rather than hunting, and for easy carrying so you can ever-ready to kill people. Since the prevalence of such guns is the primary thing that creates one of the only circumstances that using such guns is legal (when someone else also has a gun and is using on you), restrictions on them limit their illegal use far more than any legal use to kill.

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.

Saw blades are not designed to and can't be used to efficiently kill humans, whereas assault rifles and handguns are. That is why the ratio of use of saws to guns among those seeking to kill people is a many millions to 1.

I don't know why you bother treating this position as if it's a legitimate argument rather than a last ditch effort to avoid having to capitulate. Malintent knows good and god damn well that guns and buckets aren't the same.

 

[bilby]

That isn't my logic at all. It's when the that decease due to the restriction is tied to the fact that the object or some action being restricted is specially designed to increase those adverse events. That specialized human-killing purpose of assault rifles and handguns is closely tied to the fact that they serve little other general purposes that would be unduly hindered by restricted them, unlike buckets that are used for countless neccessary daily activities, and because of the general utility feature nothing can replace them for these infinite other functions that wouldn't pose a similar accidental danger.

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

I am not just now adding the issue of assault weapons. Banning assault weapons is a key part of what most gun control advocates call for, was central to Australia's 1997 policy, and is often the focus in relation to mass shootings where such weapons are increasingly the weapon of choice, due to being designed to quickly kill many people and murderous mass killings being the only plausible motive for doing that outside of war.
But similar issue applies to all handguns, which while less efficient in killing many people indiscriminately are also designed for killing people rather than hunting, and for easy carrying so you can ever-ready to kill people. Since the prevalence of such guns is the primary thing that creates one of the only circumstances that using such guns is legal (when someone else also has a gun and is using on you), restrictions on them limit their illegal use far more than any legal use to kill.

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.

Saw blades are not designed to and can't be used to efficiently kill humans, whereas assault rifles and handguns are. That is why the ratio of use of saws to guns among those seeking to kill people is a many millions to 1.

I don't know why you bother treating this position as if it's a legitimate argument rather than a last ditch effort to avoid having to capitulate. Malintent knows good and god damn well that guns and buckets aren't the same.

Do you mean to tell me that I have stockpiled all those buckets in my apocalypse shelter for NOTHING???

 

[LordKiran]

That isn't my logic at all. It's when the that decease due to the restriction is tied to the fact that the object or some action being restricted is specially designed to increase those adverse events. That specialized human-killing purpose of assault rifles and handguns is closely tied to the fact that they serve little other general purposes that would be unduly hindered by restricted them, unlike buckets that are used for countless neccessary daily activities, and because of the general utility feature nothing can replace them for these infinite other functions that wouldn't pose a similar accidental danger.

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

I am not just now adding the issue of assault weapons. Banning assault weapons is a key part of what most gun control advocates call for, was central to Australia's 1997 policy, and is often the focus in relation to mass shootings where such weapons are increasingly the weapon of choice, due to being designed to quickly kill many people and murderous mass killings being the only plausible motive for doing that outside of war.
But similar issue applies to all handguns, which while less efficient in killing many people indiscriminately are also designed for killing people rather than hunting, and for easy carrying so you can ever-ready to kill people. Since the prevalence of such guns is the primary thing that creates one of the only circumstances that using such guns is legal (when someone else also has a gun and is using on you), restrictions on them limit their illegal use far more than any legal use to kill.

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.

Saw blades are not designed to and can't be used to efficiently kill humans, whereas assault rifles and handguns are. That is why the ratio of use of saws to guns among those seeking to kill people is a many millions to 1.

I don't know why you bother treating this position as if it's a legitimate argument rather than a last ditch effort to avoid having to capitulate. Malintent knows good and god damn well that guns and buckets aren't the same.

Do you mean to tell me that I have stockpiled all those buckets in my apocalypse shelter for NOTHING???

Well it could be worse, at least you won't have to contend with the dems and their pesky laws regarding restrictions on volume size.

 

[Archimedes]

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

Fail. The guns used in the Cumbria shootings were legally owned by the perpetrator who held a valid licence for them.

 

[laughing dog]

Give a man gun and he is far more likely to kill a person. Teach a man to shoot, and he's even more likely to kill a person rather than just wound them.

Give a man a bucket, he is far more likely to pee into it.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Give a man gun and he is far more likely to kill a person. Teach a man to shoot, and he's even more likely to kill a person rather than just wound them.

Give a man a bucket, he is far more likely to pee into it.

That makes no sense. Why pee into a bucket when the kitchen has a perfectly good sink?

 

[Malintent]

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?

Yes, the conclusion was made "on basis".

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

There will always be basically uncontrolled ownership of firearms in the U.S. That will never change. I'm not saying it's good or bad, only that it is a fact.

 

[laughing dog]

On basis did you derive that straw man conclusion?

Yes, the conclusion was made "on basis".

Thank you for confirming there was no foundation for that conclusion.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Stone bans promote mass stonings.

 

[Malintent]

Yes, the conclusion was made "on basis".

Thank you for confirming there was no foundation for that conclusion.

So what are you talking about now? do you even know? what did you mean by "on basis" that implies "no foundation"... I think you may be intentionally trying to not make sense... are you just trolling or something?

 

[laughing dog]

Thank you for confirming there was no foundation for that conclusion.

So what are you talking about now? do you even know? what did you mean by "on basis" that implies "no foundation"... I think you may be intentionally trying to not make sense... are you just trolling or something?

No need to continue to try and convince anyone that you hadno basis for your straw man.