School shooting Florida

[LTC8K6]

Well gun you can't load is kinda useless.

Lawyer Goudy: Was your revolver loaded and cocked?
Rooster Cogburn: Well, a gun that's unloaded and cocked ain't good for nothin'.

 

[Belz...]

I got bad news for you dude. We are already living in a dystopian nightmare.

Sure thing Tony. Indistinguishable from Mad Max.

 

[Belz...]

The conclusion is telling...

This suggests that the guns themselves cause the violence

That's poorly worded, perhaps deliberately so. Gun ownership correlates with gun violence.

 

[Dr.Sid]

Just about everything possible is wrong with the thinking/"logic" of the above post. Firstly - the sort of mass murder school shooting that just occurred in Florida, and which has happened so many times previously in the US, is afaik rarely if even "a hot headed action" ... on the contrary, afaik in such cases the killers typically planned their attacks for months before they carried it out ... quite often it seems they had told other people (inc. making posts on the net) months before the killing itself. So these are not normally just a spur of the moment piece of what you just called "hot headed action".

I never said Florida shooting was hot headed action. I meant that if you have gun at hand, it can help to transform bad mood into murder. That's the case, where not having the gun at hand might help. And I opposed, that in planed action, the fact you don't have gun EASILY available, might not help. You might be willing to get over obstacles, and get the gun, or find some other means.

Second - in other countries like the UK (which is what you were just replying about), we are not confident that more spree killing like Hungerford or Dunblane could never again happen in the future ... it could happen, and we all know that. But since the UK gun laws (and also EU gun laws?) are now so much more robust, it is least very much harder for anyone who intends to do anything like that … it's now very much more of a deterrent.

Yes, there is very few legal and thus illegal guns in UK. But UK regulated guns heavily even before WW2, and it worked on regulation since then. It has decades of strict regulation. That's why it's so hard to get illegal gun in UK. It would be different in US.
Btw. there is nothing like EU gun law, not yet, though there are calls for one.

Third – guns are not “just tools”, they are specifically designed and now highly developed to be lethal weapons for the purpose of killing as many people as quickly as possible. That's a very big difference between an AR15 or a high-power advanced-tech handgun compared to things like a kitchen knife!

Sure, there are tools for killing, but tools none the less. They are not the reason for killing. I never compared them to knives, much less kitchen knives.

You really are arguing with your own interpretation of what I was trying to say. Sure, I'm not native speaker, but is it really so bad ?

It would not take decades. The effect would be almost immediate if the US introduced laws like we have in the UK or the rest of Europe (afaik) with a ban on private citizens keeping loaded guns in their homes. But even if it did take some years before it resulted in a big reduction in the number of public shooting cases, that would be a fantastic change for the better for the lives of everyone in the US.

Ban on 'keeping loaded guns in their homes' is 100% unrealistic in US. It's not in effect in any EU country. How did that even occur to you ?

More than third of US citizens have guns. Most of them have more then one. Some have tens, or even hundred. Estimated guns per capita in US is 101 guns per 100 citizens (wiki).

There is no centralized registry of the guns. In case of the ban, many of them, if not most, would end up being held illegally, and large number will end up on black market, sooner or later, or they could be stolen. For decades it will be easy to get gun on black market. Such huge amount of guns just wont vanish overnight, especially since people won't want to give them up. Many gun owner share the 'from my cold, dead hand' sentiment.
You can't say 'it works in UK, it will work in US'. The situation is completely different.

 

[Belz...]

Their power is only limited relative to how it would be if guns were restricted. Restricting guns gives them more legal latitude to further harass and intimidate the public.

You know, you keep saying that but don't support the claim.

 

[Max_mang]

I am going to give Dr.Sid a legitimate target. I would like to ban guns completely! All guns! Everywhere! Including military and police guns of all sizes. And Bombs. And landmines. And missiles, nuclear and otherwise. Any weapon that is initialized by, or results in, an explosion. The world would be a much better and safer place.

How do we do it? What are the steps? Where do we start? What do we do next?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

... It would not take decades. The effect would be almost immediate if the US introduced laws like we have in the UK or the rest of Europe (afaik) with a ban on private citizens keeping loaded guns in their homes...

I hate to be the pessimist but do you think that could happen without a significant-sized section of current gun owners considering it their patriotic duty to oppose it with a campaign of civil disobedience? I imagine they might even come up with some kind of snappy slogan about cold, dead hands.

 

[Steve]

Let's have a test case.

Let's remove all the guns from all the residents of Chicago.

Ban firearms in Chicago, with serious jail time for possession, have a one year amnesty, and then start confiscating.

See how it goes.

I would think at least one city, or even state, will be willing to be the test case.

This has absolutely nothing to do with my post. See hilites below to refresh your memory.

I am going to give Dr.Sid a legitimate target. I would like to ban guns completely! All guns! Everywhere! Including military and police guns of all sizes. And Bombs. And landmines. And missiles, nuclear and otherwise. Any weapon that is initialized by, or results in, an explosion. The world would be a much better and safer place.

Chicago is an insignificant part of "Everywhere".

 

[Steve]

How do we do it? What are the steps? Where do we start? What do we do next?

We don't. There are none. There is no starting point. So there will be no "next".

None of this changes what I would like to see happen.

 

[Belz...]

I am going to give Dr.Sid a legitimate target. I would like to ban guns completely! All guns! Everywhere! Including military and police guns of all sizes. And Bombs. And landmines. And missiles, nuclear and otherwise. Any weapon that is initialized by, or results in, an explosion. The world would be a much better and safer place.

Good, we can go back to swords and shields and bows and keep killing each other face-to-face.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Sure thing Tony. Indistinguishable from Mad Max.

Agreed.

This debate would go a lot better if hyperbole like didn't get dropped into it so much.

The odds of dying by murder by gun are still... pretty low on the list of things Americans need to individually worry about happening to them on a statistical level. American's murder rate is high, way, way too high no arguments but it's not like its really the thing most of us worry about on a day to day level. This idea that modern America is some country sized Laser Tag arena with live ammo is just silly.

If this is an average year 15,000 to 16,000 Americans are gonna die by murder, roughly 1/2-2/3s of those by gun violence. Yes that's way too high, stupid high, way past the point of solving the problem high.

But over, again if this year is average, 1.3 million are gonna die in traffic accidents (incidentally our rate of 13 deaths per 100,000 cars on the road yearly is below Europe's rate of 19 deaths per 100,00 cars on the road yearly) and 250,000 are gonna die due to medical mistakes.

Hell our actual overall mortality rate (8.10 deaths per 1,000 people a year) is lower than Spain, Norway, France, the United Kingdom, and even the glorious wonderful post-singularity socialist utopia of Sweden were all the hyper evolved space people have transcended their primitive mortal coils and are now one with cosmos which despite being a flawless place to live with zero problems that every country in the world needs to emulate manages to have a morality right higher than North Korea's, along with Italy, Japan, Germany and a bunch of other places I keep getting assured are safer and better places to live.

Like a lot of discussions I don't think people really care about the violence so much as see it as another go to have a jab at the backwater Americans.

I mean crap what do you European Master Race people care if a bunch of dumb Americans shoot each other? Isn't it pretty well established that we're not worth saving?

 

[DragonLady]

How do we do it? What are the steps? Where do we start? What do we do next?

First step would be to amend the constitution by rewording -or completely striking- the 2nd amendment.

Second, the federal gov would have to make a law banning all guns.

Third, the individual states would all have to make concurrent laws, also banning all guns. If even one state refuses, that state's gun friendly environment will see guns continue to proliferate there.

The existing guns would then have to rounded up, and disposed of. As this would be a chance to make $$$, lots of them would just disappear from the confiscation racks and make their way on to the black market.

The existing gun factories would all have to be shut down, or retooled to do something else. I don't know how many guns are manufactured in the USA or how many people will be unemployed, but that's another issue we would have to deal with.

The importation laws will all have to be changed, too, both federally and in each state. It would be necessary to figure out what parts & pieces we would allow in, too.

Finally, we'd have to disarm our police and our military, thus leaving ourselves open for attack from every other country in the world. A handful of enemy combatants with a single truckload of guns will be able to take an entire city hostage, because no one will be able to stop them.

Easy peasy!

 

[Steve]

Good, we can go back to swords and shields and bows and keep killing each other face-to-face.

IMO that would indeed be preferable.

 

[Dread Pirate Roberts]

Agreed.

This debate would go a lot better if hyperbole like didn't get dropped into it so much.

The odds of dying by murder by gun are still... pretty low on the list of things Americans need to individually worry about happening to them on a statistical level. American's murder rate is high, way, way too high no arguments but it's not like its really the thing most of us worry about on a day to day level.

If this is an average year 15,000 to 16,000 Americans are gonna die by murder, roughly 1/2-2/3s of those by gun violence. Yes that's way too high, stupid high, way past the point of solving the problem high.

But over, again if this year is average, 1.3 million are gonna die in traffic accidents (incidentally our rate of 13 deaths per 100,000 cars on the road yearly is below Europe's rate of 19 deaths per 100,00 cars on the road yearly) and 250,000 are gonna die due to medical mistakes.

This idea that modern America is some country sized Laser Tag arena with live ammo is just silly.

Like a lot of discussions I don't think people really care about the violence so much as see it as another go to have a jab at the backwater Americans.

I mean crap what do you European Master Race people care if a bunch of dumb Americans shoot each other? Isn't it pretty well established that we're not worth saving?

You need to check your numbers. There were ~37,000 traffic fatalities in 2016, not 1.3 million. There were 38,000 gun deaths, split 1/3 and 2/3 between homicide and suicide.

 

[Max_mang]

First step would be to amend the constitution by rewording -or completely striking- the 2nd amendment.

Second, the federal gov would have to make a law banning all guns.

Third, the individual states would all have to make concurrent laws, also banning all guns. If even one state refuses, that state's gun friendly environment will see guns continue to proliferate there.

The existing guns would then have to rounded up, and disposed of. As this would be a chance to make $$$, lots of them would just disappear from the confiscation racks and make their way on to the black market.

The existing gun factories would all have to be shut down, or retooled to do something else. I don't know how many guns are manufactured in the USA or how many people will be unemployed, but that's another issue we would have to deal with.

The importation laws will all have to be changed, too, both federally and in each state. It would be necessary to figure out what parts & pieces we would allow in, too.

Finally, we'd have to disarm our police and our military, thus leaving ourselves open for attack from every other country in the world. A handful of enemy combatants with a single truckload of guns will be able to take an entire city hostage, because no one will be able to stop them.

Easy peasy!

I'm guessing this is another joke post, but it brings up an important part of the "we need to ban guns" standpoint. For the hi-lighted part, what would be those steps? House to house and car searches? Metal detectors everywhere? Pat downs on the street?

 

[Belz...]

But over, again if this year is average, 1.3 million are gonna die in traffic accidents

I'm pretty sure it's around 30,000. 1.3 million means a third of a percent of all Americans die every year in a car accident. That can't be right. I'm not even sure that many die, period.

IMO that would indeed be preferable.

 

[Steve]

First step would be to amend the constitution by rewording -or completely striking- the 2nd amendment.

Second, the federal gov would have to make a law banning all guns.

Third, the individual states would all have to make concurrent laws, also banning all guns. If even one state refuses, that state's gun friendly environment will see guns continue to proliferate there.

The existing guns would then have to rounded up, and disposed of. As this would be a chance to make $$$, lots of them would just disappear from the confiscation racks and make their way on to the black market.

The existing gun factories would all have to be shut down, or retooled to do something else. I don't know how many guns are manufactured in the USA or how many people will be unemployed, but that's another issue we would have to deal with.

The importation laws will all have to be changed, too, both federally and in each state. It would be necessary to figure out what parts & pieces we would allow in, too.

Finally, we'd have to disarm our police and our military, thus leaving ourselves open for attack from every other country in the world. A handful of enemy combatants with a single truckload of guns will be able to take an entire city hostage, because no one will be able to stop them.

Easy peasy!

In my post that Max_mang responded to I did not intend "Everywhere" to apply solely to the USA. I know there are a lot of very US-centric egos here, bit there really is a whole world out there.

 

[JoeMorgue]

You need to check your numbers. There were ~37,000 traffic fatalities in 2016, not 1.3 million. There were 38,000 gun deaths, split 1/3 and 2/3 between homicide and suicide.

I'm pretty sure it's around 30,000. 1.3 million means a third of a percent of all Americans die every year in a car accident. That can't be right. I'm not even sure that many die, period.

Yeah for some reason I brain farted and my brain copied the global number over instead of the US.

Point still stands.

 

[Steve]

Would make it a lot more difficult for one dude to shoot up a high school, or one guy with a car bomb to kill hundreds. The only thing that the invention of guns and explosives has accomplished is to make killing more efficient and less personal. WW1 and WW2, for example, would never have resulted in deaths counted in the tens of millions if all fighting had been hand to hand.

I cannot see a reason why you would find guns and bombs to be a preferable way of killing people to swords and axes.

 

[DragonLady]

I'm guessing this is another joke post, but it brings up an important part of the "we need to ban guns" standpoint. For the hi-lighted part, what would be those steps? House to house and car searches? Metal detectors everywhere? Pat downs on the street?

I don't know. What steps were taken when prohibition went into effect? We know search personal property was a large component of the war on drugs, and we know the asset forfeiture laws and many of our banking regulations were changed to try to prevent drug sales.

I suspect all of those things you've mentioned would be part of it; as well as more thorough searches of mail, and stricter customs procedures.

As some small caliber pistols are very easy to hide, I can imagine dogs being trained to sniff for gunpowder on one side of the law, and tailors making $$$ putting hidden pockets into clothing on the other side.

Either way, no matter which side you're on, the fastest way to get what you want is to make sure it ahs a profit margin of about .3% or higher per year. If there's money in it, someone will find a way to make it happen -post haste. If "no guns, period" is more profitable then "guns here and guns there", you'll see the hardware disappear before your very eyes -and that's not a joke.