School shooting Florida

[DragonLady]

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.

Okay. I've outlined the steps to be taken here. Someone else can tell me what needs to be done in other parts of the world.

 

[arthwollipot]

I'm with Steve. It's considerably harder to kill someone with a sword or a knife than it is to kill them with a gun. For a start, you have to actually walk up to them.

 

[DragonLady]

I'm with Steve. It's considerably harder to kill someone with a sword or a knife than it is to kill them with a gun. For a start, you have to actually walk up to them.

Agreed. The people who were forced to use them in the days of lore thought so, too. They fixed the problem by inventing guns.

If we go back to those days, with a full world-wide ban on guns, people forced into combat will invent something else.

If you really want to stop people murdering each other, you have to change PEOPLE.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Guns... aren't exactly high tech. Anyone with a hobbyist level workbench can fashion together a crude gun.

Hell inmates have been known to make crude guns in prison out of bed frames and match heads.

 

[arthwollipot]

Agreed. The people who were forced to use them in the days of lore thought so, too. They fixed the problem by inventing guns.

If we go back to those days, with a full world-wide ban on guns, people forced into combat will invent something else.

If you really want to stop people murdering each other, you have to change PEOPLE.

This is true. But until that happens, you can make a great start by making it a lot harder for a single person to kill a lot of people in a short amount of time.

Semiautomatic firearms make that really easy.

 

[Cain]

That would be like hiding all the forks because you eat too much cake. Instead of, you know, actually dealing with the cake.

This "blame the guns" stuff is a nonsensical knee jerk reaction by people who have no clue exactly how these tragic situations play out.

One of the problems with gun advocates is that they rely on intuitively plausible arguments while shunning empiricism (so it's a smart move to prevent the CDC from investigating).

Take suicide for instance. When I discuss firearms with students, someone often brings up suicide prevention on the control side, so I'll ask them collectively, "Would gun restrictions really reduce the suicide rate?" You can almost see memes (in the Dawkins sense, not lolcats) ripple through the group as a tentative consensus emerges: No, people will just kill themselves in other ways. "Blaming" guns for suicide is like blaming spoons for obesity, or pencils for spelling errors.

Except here's the thing: Suicide is a surprisingly impulsive act. Women attempt it more frequently, but men pull it off more often, probably because the latter is less squeamish when it comes to gruesome methods. With guns the act can be done privately and without much thought -- you literally pull a trigger.

If you want to jump off a building, then you need to venture out into public. Ugh, that sounds like work. "I hafta get dressed... I'll do it after it stops raining." People are lazy. You might also appear distraught, so someone could ask if everything is all right, and then you lose your nerve and chicken out.

The best example that drives the point home came from a student in the back of a lecture hall last year. As it happens, he was a former libertarian. He pointed out that suicide-by-pill can be reduced with a change in packaging. The suicide rate declines when you take pills out of a bottle (which are easy to dump) and put them in a blister-pack. You pop out six or seven of those ****ers and probably figure "that's enough."

One side of the gun debate routinely refuses to allow human nature to inform their arguments. "Gun regulations won't work because if someone REALLY wanted to kill you they would just do... X, Y, Z." Except that's not how people behave in the real world. Criminals (especially) tend to be stupid, and people in general follow the path of least resistance. Also, technology alters behavior. Most obviously, a lot of people say things on the Internet that they would never say face-to-face. Remove the guns, how does this 120lb kid murder 17 people? He builds a bomb? He can barely work a microwave.

And would anyone be shocked if people using smaller spoons ate slightly less?

 

[DragonLady]

This is true. But until that happens, you can make a great start by making it a lot harder for a single person to kill a lot of people in a short amount of time.

Semiautomatic firearms make that really easy.

Yes; I agree. I think the days of semiautos are numbered.

I think we're all sick of these kid-sized clowns, and while I don't blame the guns, I do fully agree the carnage has to end, so making guns harder to get will help a lot.

But, even if they go by the wayside, a single shot firearm can still kill people, and a person determined to kill a bunch of people can still find ways to do so, even one shot-at-a-time. It just won't happen as often.

 

[Belz...]

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.

Those mass killings are impressive, for sure, but they're a drop in the ocean in terms of preventable deaths. Let's say that back in the days before guns were possible, a lot more people died, proportionally, due to wars and other violent crimes.

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

See above. They didn't come in a vaccuum, and overall we live longer, happier, healthier lives.

 

[Border Reiver]

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

While the complete elimination of firearms is about as realistic or reasonable as the complete elimination of blunt objects (I still have my wit), bringing the number of firearms down and changing firearms culture in the US is a somewhat more reasonable goal.

First stage requires that the US Federal government pass a law requiring that all firearm owners be licensed (as part of being part of a "well-regulated militia"). The requirements for the license could be:

a. No felony convictions;
b. Be of sound mental health;
c. Theoretical knowledge of applicable laws; and
d. Theoretical knowledge of firearms safety.

Second stage requires that the federal government pass laws concerning the improper storage or use of firearms (it is archaic that there is no unified system of criminal laws in the US), with strong penalties for the improper use of firearms;

Third stage would require the limitation of the types of firearms that are allowed for civilian use - likely combined with a program to "buy back" the now illegal firearms/accessories. Periodic amnesties will likely be necessary.

Destruction of weapons and components declared to be illegal, or found to have been used for crimes will work to reduce the number of firearms in circulation.

Changing the culture is going to be more of a challenge - and I'll need to look at that after I get home.

 

[jimbob]

One of the problems with gun advocates is that they rely on intuitively plausible arguments while shunning empiricism (so it's a smart move to prevent the CDC from investigating).

Take suicide for instance. When I discuss firearms with students, someone often brings up suicide prevention on the control side, so I'll ask them collectively, "Would gun restrictions really reduce the suicide rate?" You can almost see memes (in the Dawkins sense, not lolcats) ripple through the group as a tentative consensus emerges: No, people will just kill themselves in other ways. "Blaming" guns for suicide is like blaming spoons for obesity, or pencils for spelling errors.
Except here's the thing: Suicide is a surprisingly impulsive act. Women attempt it more frequently, but men pull it off more often, probably because the latter is less squeamish when it comes to gruesome methods. With guns the act can be done privately and without much thought -- you literally pull a trigger.
If you want to jump off a building, then you need to venture out into public. Ugh, that sounds like work. "I hafta get dressed... I'll do it after it stops raining." People are lazy. You might also appear distraught, so someone could ask if everything is all right, and then you lose your nerve and chicken out.

The best example that drives the point home came from a student in the back of a lecture hall last year. As it happens, he was a former libertarian. He pointed out that suicide-by-pill can be reduced with a change in packaging. The suicide rate declines when you take pills out of a bottle (which are easy to dump) and put them in a blister-pack. You pop out six or seven of those ****ers and probably figure "that's enough."

One side of the gun debate routinely refuses to allow human nature to inform their arguments. "Gun regulations won't work because if someone REALLY wanted to kill you they would just do... X, Y, Z." Except that's not how people behave in the real world. Criminals (especially) tend to be stupid, and people in general follow the path of least resistance. Also, technology alters behavior. Most obviously, a lot of people say things on the Internet that they would never say face-to-face. Remove the guns, how does this 120lb kid murder 17 people? He builds a bomb? He can barely work a microwave.

And would anyone be shocked if people using smaller spoons ate slightly less?

another example is the decline in British suicides, with the switch from toxic "town gas" or "coal gas" (rich in carbon monoxide) to natural gas

Look at figure 4 in this paper from 1976

http://jech.bmj.com/content/jech/30/2/86.full.pdf

Yes, there was a slight compensation increase in other suicide methods, but not sufficient to remove it.

 

[IanS]

You see ? And some say nobody wants to ban guns completely. Well there is one guy right here.

Both crowds have to achieve compromise. This is not the right path to it. Like putting all gun owner into bag labeled 'people who have a hobby interest in playing with loaded guns'.

Something should be done for sure. But so far only I see is two crowds who just wont listen.

Well, firstly that did not address any of the points I made. But as far as a total ban on guns ... what I think the US should ideally do, is to ban private individuals from keeping guns and ammunition in private homes where the people in the house can decide at any moment to use those guns to kill people (and I only say "ideally", because it looks as if the government and law enforcement authorities would have to be prepared for a violent backlash from gun enthusiasts and groups like the NRA ... so they would need an effective procedure to deal with that).

There's no good honest reason why ordinary members of the US pubic need to have loaded guns in their homes, or indeed any need to carry them out on to the streets.

US gun enthusiasts should find some other hobby to pass their time. Because that would save a hell of a lot of innocent lives every year.

If you want to shoot guns (but why do you want to do that anyway ... you want to learn how to kill things?), then do it at a private gun range with guns held securely on club premises. But don't don't turn lethal weapons into a home hobby.

 

[DragonLady]

(it is archaic that there is no unified system of criminal laws in the US)

???

There never will be. The states are not able to enforce federal laws -which is why we have the FBI.

 

[jimbob]

Well, firstly that did not address any of the points I made. But as far as a total ban on guns ... what I think the US should ideally do, is to ban private individuals from keeping guns and ammunition in private homes where the people in the house can decide at any moment to use those guns to kill people (and I only say "ideally", because it looks as if the government and law enforcement authorities would have to be prepared for a violent backlash from gun enthusiasts and groups like the NRA ... so they would need an effective procedure to deal with that).

There's no good honest reason why ordinary members of the US pubic need to have loaded guns in their homes, or indeed any need to carry them out on to the streets.

US gun enthusiasts should find some other hobby to pass their time. Because that would save a hell of a lot of innocent lives every year.

If you want to shoot guns (but why do you want to do that anyway ... you want to learn how to kill things?), then do it at a private gun range with guns held securely on club premises. But don't don't turn lethal weapons into a home hobby.

That wouldn't work in all parts of the US. There are places where bears are a real threat to people.

 

[William Parcher]

CNN: Cruz purchased 10 rifles in the past year or so.

 

[Steve]

Those mass killings are impressive, for sure, but they're a drop in the ocean in terms of preventable deaths. Let's say that back in the days before guns were possible, a lot more people died, proportionally, due to wars and other violent crimes.

Proportionally, you may be right. I will concede the point. But demographics have changed. Remove guns and related weapons from today and there is no doubt that number of violent deaths will decrease significantly

See above. They didn't come in a vaccuum, and overall we live longer, happier, healthier lives.

Proportionally to the current population I am not convinced that is true.

 

[smartcooky]

13th June 2012 was a Wednesday, which shows the level of research which goes into gun control advocates' arguments, and thereby invalidates any and every other argument raised by them.

...and this just shows the level of tedious, irrelevant nitpicking that gun nuts go to to defend their right to play with their shiny penis substitutes toys. The intent of Darat's remarks was obvious to anyone with a brain; they were a bit of sarcastic and humorous exaggeration, a bit of fun at the expense of gun nuts, but you actually went and fact checked the date... un ******* believable!

Tell me, did you check to see if Bob Smith is a genuine gun maker, and if so, does he manufacture a "Mk 3 version 12 series 8a". If you haven't, you'd better run off like a good little gun nut and fact check that as well, because we can't be having inaccurate information, even in jest.

 

[Belz...]

Proportionally, you may be right.

That's the only measure that makes sense.

Remove guns and related weapons from today and there is no doubt that number of violent deaths will decrease significantly

Possibly. But you can't wish guns away unless you're talking about going back to the iron age, where war was very common, but with a vastly superior number of people involved.

Proportionally to the current population I am not convinced that is true.

What does that even mean?

 

[jimbob]

...and this just shows the level of tedious, irrelevant nitpicking that gun nuts go to to defend their right to play with their shiny penis substitutes toys. The intent of Darat's remarks was obvious to anyone with a brain; they were a bit of sarcastic and humorous exaggeration, a bit of fun at the expense of gun nuts, but you actually went and fact checked the date... un ******* believable!

Tell me, did you check to see if Bob Smith is a genuine gun maker, and if so, does he manufacture a "Mk 3 version 12 series 8a". If you haven't, you'd better run off like a good little gun nut and fact check that as well, because we can't be having inaccurate information, even in jest.

IanS was echoing Darat's point - and deliberately demonstrating it he's no more of a gun nut than you or Darat.

 

[Steve]

What does that even mean?

That a higher percentage of people in the world today are living longer, happier, healthier lives, than was the case back in the days before guns were possible.

 

[Shalamar]

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

Why is it that people can strap a pistol to their belt, and that's fine. But if I do the same with a sword, people get nervous? Are they not both 'arms'?