The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[JPetroski]

I assure you that I get pretty much equally worked up by all gun violence

Oh I don't and I'll admit it. You're a better person than me I guess--you mention that a lot--but it's going to color our perspectives. I'd break the data set down and ask what people were doing when they got shot and I'd feel worse about certain incidents than others. I don't think I'm anywhere near alone in this mindset, either, but props to you if you're big enough to look past whatever a person happened to be doing when they were shot.

If you're upset about every act of gun violence then it makes sense for you to blow the absolute worst ones totally out of proportion to sway as many people as you can. I'm just one of the folks who bothers to ask what the proportion really is and weighs if it's an acceptable trade for what I view as liberty. Apparently 1 life lost isn't an acceptable trade for you. I mean, I can't fault you for that. I just don't agree with you. I draw the line further down.

 

[Lexicus]

--you mention that a lot--

In fact, i have never once mentioned this. Did you just make this up?

Apparently 1 life lost isn't an acceptable trade for you. I mean, I can't fault you for that. I just don't agree with you. I draw the line further down.

You said you will never change your mind on this topic, implying that it doesn't matter how many deaths there are. So it isn't that we draw the line in different places - you don't draw a line at all.

and this is leaving aside what Ziggy said about there being gun control policy options short of taking em all away, in an instant or w.e the strawman there is.

 

[Hygro]

I'm curious as to why people thinks it matters how many guns a person owns. I've never heard of any mass murderer carrying more than maybe three firearms at most, and surely it'd be better to carry more mags for a couple guns than more guns in any case.

Disclaimer: I have just under a dozen, I'm not sure if that puts me into 'crazy catgun lady' territory or not.

Once I start buying them I’m sure I’ll end up with a few…

They’re just cool. Different ones for different shooting experiences.

 

[Arwon]

and you would be correct

1. the stats show gun deaths caused by black American males exceed those of other races
2. gun control, as this topic's posters consider it, would be to limit if not ban personal possession of firearms (edit: I'm assuming that when people decree such-and-such should not have guns, that the police will seize the guns)
3. said black Americans would be disproportionately affected by such limits
4. this would not be a good thing if we're concerned about equality
5. if we're not, then this is an irrelevant point

"Jokes on you, the unadulterated flood of unregulated small arms into the civilian populace disproportionately hurts marginalised groups, did you ever think of that, genius"

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Don't you ever get tired?

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/worl...31&cvid=7a524b97da0e4891894c0287bfecac27&ei=9

Shooter had purchased 7 guns legally. Why does anybody need 7 guns?

shooter explicitly targeted place w/o guns, like most mass shooters (something like 90% of actual mass shootings are in "gun free" zones, unless you want to count ridiculous stuff like homicides in peoples' houses)

how many of those 7 guns were used? it's a distraction point. quantity of guns purchased that weren't present in crime aren't relevant. what matters is that a crazy person did a mass shooting and killed innocent people. there are more of them lately than decades ago, and the reason for that being access to weapons doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

I would be nervous around anyone carrying a handgun, if I didn't immediately understand why they have it

self defense in most cases. in some cases, to commit crimes.

Just buying an "assault-style" rifle

that's a fake term in the vast majority of cases it's used though. not as in "fake news" (though that too), but also factually inaccurate.

Given that most Americans support at least some form of increased gun control that seems a failing of your political system.

mostly evidence that propaganda is effective. the drive for it is not consistent with evidence. we do not observe less mass shootings from those policies, nor should we have anticipated that based on prior evidence

 

[choxorn]

self defense in most cases. in some cases, to commit crimes.

This just makes me still nervous that you're that worried about needing it for self defense, what are are you intending to defend yourself from, and how do I know you're not in the second group and intending to commit some crime against me?

mostly evidence that propaganda is effective. the drive for it is not consistent with evidence. we do not observe less mass shootings from those policies, nor should we have anticipated that based on prior evidence

Why do other countries not have the level of mass shootings that we do then

 

[Edmund Ironside]

shooter explicitly targeted place w/o guns, like most mass shooters (something like 90% of actual mass shootings are in "gun free" zones, unless you want to count ridiculous stuff like homicides in peoples' houses)

So those mass shootings where someone goes to a house and shoots everyone like what happened in Goshen California doesn't count? That's very convenient for your argument!

there are more of them lately than decades ago, and the reason for that being access to weapons doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

Are they studies that support this? It is not hard to find studies which go against this (at least in relation to access to assault weapons) such as the 2014 study by researchers at Quinnipiac University in Connecticut which found that both state and federal bans on assault weapons showed “statistically significant” effects in reducing deaths from mass shootings.

If access to guns is not the issue, then what is the reason for countries such as Australia and the UK where access to guns is much stricter then the USA for having much fewer mass shootings then the USA (even allowing for population differences)?

 

[Lexicus]

Are they studies that support this?

No. One of the reasons TMIT can declare there is not strong evidence about the effects of gun policies is that, thanks to the NRA, it has literally been illegal for the federal government to fund research on a bunch of topics related to guns for like three decades.

But of course, what evidence we have indicates that of course the availability and prevalence of weapons in a social setting increases the amount of gun violence. I actually agree that it's quite clear there is more to mass shootings, specifically, than simply the availability of guns (though obviously, whatever else is causing mass shootings, taking the guns out of the equation would make it much harder to do a mass shooting and not some other kind of murderous act of self-annihilation).

Anyway, what we need in the US is disarmament...and, imo at least, it should start with the police. I would respect police officers so much more if they were unarmed in the normal course of their duties.

 

[9gkj548hkm20vk79dj689bnj4]

"Jokes on you, the unadulterated flood of unregulated small arms into the civilian populace disproportionately hurts marginalised groups, did you ever think of that, genius"

how would you propose to get them back?

 

[Lexicus]

how would you propose to get them back?

Black helicopters that say "UNITED NATIONS TAKE YOUR GUNS SQUAD" on them

 

[Kaitzilla]

Despite all the weapons and warnings, Bernstein says no one has ever been killed or even injured on his property. With one profound exception.

In 2012, his wife, Terry Flanell, 51, was accidentally killed by a smoke bomb on the property while filming a reality-TV pilot for the Discovery Channel.

“One of the smoke containers turned into a rocket and went right past me and through her and killed her,” Bernstein said


Now, his home -- decorated with jukeboxes, vintage Cola-Cola memorabilia and model cars -- reminds him of a bygone era.

Bernstein also keeps four female mannequins at the home. “I need someone to talk to, to tell them my problems,” Bernstein said.

The most American story ever.

He must feel really safe on his property with so much firepower.

RIP Terry.

 

[IglooDame]

Anyway, what we need in the US is disarmament...and, imo at least, it should start with the police. I would respect police officers so much more if they were unarmed in the normal course of their duties.

That's actually my own standard. If the police adopt (in a substantial way) microstamping, or "smart gun technology", or similar sorts of new features, then I will too. If they go to 10rd mag capacity limits, I will too. Hell, if they go disarmed as a standard, then I will too. But that last one is particularly easy for me to promise because it'll be a cold day in hell before it happens.

And as to why I carry a gun for self-defense... you've read the news lately. In some folks' minds, I'm a pedophile grooming their children and transifying them, or just bringing down Western Civilization with my crazy gender ideology and general wokeness. And I am not remotely passable, pretty much everyone that isn't legally blind (or deaf) within eyesight or earshot of me knows I'm trans. Plus it turns out I'm sort of an activist; for all I know there are some Tucker Carlson regulars looking for me. So, cold dead hands and all that.

 

[Lexicus]

Oh and to continue the point I made above about mass shootings: like our right-wing friends keep pointing out, mass shootings are a tiny subset of all gun violence. It's clear that a substantial proportion of gun homicides and suicides could be prevented by drastically reducing the number of guns in society. Imo it's worth doing for the reduction in suicides alone.

 

[Angst]

Unlike you fellers, who react to the suggestion of gun control as if gun control is a complete ban on guns. The term itself has become a dog whistle where you dig a trench and state "from my cold dead hands".

But sure, it's the libruls who lost their minds.

i mean yea. for most of crazy gun-hating europe, guns are perfectly legal, just highly regulated. my dad has considered going hunting with his dog for like 10 years and would be perfectly able to get a hunting rifle for it.

i, however, would probably not be able to get a firearm, because i'm insane. and thank god for that. regardless of my danger to society (i'm not dangerous), suicide by gun is not something to overlook in the statistics. the sheer ease of being able to pull the trigger over eg overdosing is incomparable, and dangerously depending on whims. overdosing takes time, and is inefficient. guns are far "better" at it.

 

[Aiken_Drumn]

Sure thing...oh, see above, obvious racism

New England journal of medicine showing racist stats

Excuse me? Your post doesn't make any sense.

 

[Aiken_Drumn]

Apparently 1 life lost isn't an acceptable trade for you. I mean, I can't fault you for that. I just don't agree with you. I draw the line further down.

How many need to die?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

So those mass shootings where someone goes to a house and shoots everyone like what happened in Goshen California doesn't count? That's very convenient for your argument!

not familiar with this one, but the overwhelming majority of "mass shootings" at house are domestic violence incidents or very much non-random targets. it is only used to skew the reality of why mass shooting target locations are selected in most cases

Are they studies that support this? It is not hard to find studies which go against this (at least in relation to access to assault weapons) such as the 2014 study by researchers at Quinnipiac University in Connecticut which found that both state and federal bans on assault weapons showed “statistically significant” effects in reducing deaths from mass shootings.

can you find something legit? this is taking the "averages" of < 60 incidents over the course of decades. A single person who's a good shot in a "ban" state could flip this (even disregarding selective variable choices). this article also unironically has the phrase "assault pistol" in it lol, and indeed i wonder what actual difference in lethality there is with "assault ban" vs not active...usually you have semi-auto rifles available in both cases, and full auto is illegal in both cases.

usa has had semi-auto rifles capable of mass shooting since before anyone here was born. unless you were alive before ww2, the capability gap isn't even that large. maybe the uptick in mass shootings of this nature is just a base rate thing; more people means more of every good/bad event happening.

 

[Edmund Ironside]

can you find something legit?

Can you find anything legit to support your position? So far you have provided zero evidence for any of your claims, and avoided answering all 3 of the questions I previously posed. Are you a politician!?

Edit - I guess you indirectly answered the first question about the Goshen 2023 shooting, though without directly addressing it. Though your reason for the exclusion of mass shootings at houses at least partly due to them not being random target does ask the question what should be considered a random target? For example most school shootings are not truly random, but are done by active or former students.

 

[Farm Boy]

unlike @Farm Boy who seems to think gun suicides shouldn't be part of the conversation.

You have a really fantastically interesting take on me bringing a point about something, already in the conversation, into further conversation, myself. Just because I didn't then follow up with some prefab argument flowchart that you expected, this is then where you then flow? I think you're just Fing with me.

 

[Arwon]

Unlike you fellers, who react to the suggestion of gun control as if gun control is a complete ban on guns. The term itself has become a dog whistle where you dig a trench and state "from my cold dead hands".

But sure, it's the libruls who lost their minds.

You wouldn't know from the absolute nonsense talked about Australian gun regulation by American pro gun campaigners but there's several million firearms in civilian possession here. There's just like, actual laws about the types, licensing, storage and handling.