School shooting Florida

[ServiceSoon]

*raises an eyebrow* The color of a car has effectively no effect on the inherent lethality of the car. On the other hand, a gun tend to be dramatically more inherently lethal than a knife. Semi-auto guns are inherently more lethal than similar bolt-action guns. Your analogy isn't quite as meaningful as you're trying to portray it.

You are implementing the 'guns kill people' argument. Do you see the error of celebrating the success that banning guns results in a decrease of homicides committed with guns, while ignoring how the homicide rate regardless of instrument changed?

Given certain rather restrictive versions about what counts as evidence, sure. Irrefutable evidence is scarce about just about any of the much larger and more complex issue that you're invoking. Reasonably strong evidence that links the two isn't especially scarce, on the other hand.

The argument that banning guns reduces homicides commit ed by guns is well establish. The hypothesis that banning guns reduces the homicide rate regardless of instrument is inconclusive.

Shall I assume that you're also opposed to even keeping track of much of gun violence/misuse-related data in the first place, too?

I am not opposed to keeping track of statistical data. I am a proponent of the Nations of the world establishing a standard for the format of that information. As an example, the US's homicide rate includes manslaughter (which makes our rates look higher than they actually are), other nations do not include manslaughter.

 

[Parsman]

Or maybe it does. Perhaps people who buy red cars are more likely to drive faster and thus cause more deaths. Banning red cars could actually result in fewer road deaths. We'd have to run the experiment to find out.

But even in America you have serious restrictions on who can legally own and operate a car. You have to pass a test to prove capability and you have to insure the car and you have to hold an identity paper (license) to drive the car. You have to wear seatbelts to try and save a few lives. If your health is seriously impaired, mental or physical, you could lose your right to drive. If you want to drive a truck rather than a car you need to hold a different licence. To be honest if there was good science to show red cars caused more deaths they probably would be banned! Plenty of other colours of car out there. Why does your sacred second ammendment mean you can't put sensible restrictions on who owns and operates those instruments of death known as guns?

 

[MikeG]

.......The hypothesis that banning guns reduces the homicide rate regardless of instrument is inconclusive........

[nitpick] A hypothesis is neutral. It cannot be inconclusive, because it is the question, not the answer [/nitpick].

Asserted without evidence, as is your habit. Link to some statistics, or a published paper, or something. At least make some sort of token effort, which would be better than just asserting the same thing, endlessly, with no support.

 

[ServiceSoon]

Got any evidence to back up that assertion? I'd suggest that the wishful thinking is going on in your own head.

Lets look at multiple homicides. A killer with guns can kill more people in a shorter amount of time than a killer without guns.

In the UK and in Australia there were mass killings with guns. Then access to guns was restricted, and now there are almost no mass killings.

The mass killers didn't switch to crossbows or knives or catapults. They just stopped. We haven't seen a wave of "criminals" using guns to commit mass killings, they might not care about the gun charges, but that doesn't make them magically able to acquire firearms somehow.

If guns were more restricted in the USA such that, unsuitable people were unable to acquire them at all, and that some types of higher <powered/capacity/rate of fire> delete as appropriate guns were removed from sale then you'd see less mass shootings too.

the whole gun argument is highly politicised and overly partisan and instead of talking about sensible gun regulations both sides fight over extreme points of view that almost noone actually holds. So the argument goes round in circles and nothing much changes.

I really hope that this time around things are different and some changes happen. I certainly can't recall marches and suchlike happening on this scale before.

If gun bans save lives then the UK & Wales is doing something wrong. Spike in Homicides 6 years after handgun ban.

There have been 13 mass killings in Australia since 1996, of which half-ish of them can be more accurately classified as mass shootings. Im sorry that the media hasn't been forthcoming with this fact.

I agree to common-sense laws. The issue is that common-sense is subjective. My significant other believes that not owning a gun is common-sense. Common-sense laws to me include restricting access to firearms to risky individuals, require safe storage, and training standards. I'm not opposed to requiring mental evaluations for certain firearms or accessories.

 

[Craig4]

But what are their overall homicide rates compared to ours in the US?

 

[GlennB]

In recent history, the US has had a higher rate of homicides than other developed nations. There are many reasons for that higher rate, and the vast majority of them are unrelated to firearms.

Whoa there buddy.

Name some of these 'many reasons'.

 

[Darat]

Or like most kid fads in a couple years they will move onto something else.

You think being upset when your school mates are massacred is a passing fad?

 

[Craig4]

But what are their overall homicide rates compared to ours in the US?

 

[Parsman]

He could have created a bomb, he could have drove a car into the crowd, he could have searched for semi-autos on the black market (Which interestingly enough, Australia's firearms black market is booming).

This is the argument I find most difficult to understand. Especially right now. You had a crazed bomber in Austin, Texas and he managed to kill 3 people (including himself) and wound 5 more over the course of a month, almost 30 days. The Las Vegas shooter killed more than 50 and injured more than 100 about 30 minutes! A series of terrorist attacks, 5 in total, using vehicles and bomds through the whole of 2017 in the UK killed 35 people and injured about 100. 5 seperate terrorist attacks. But one ordinary US citizen killed more and injured more in one evening. That is why the people committing these killings in the USA use guns. They kill more people more quickly. It is your country and I am not advocating a total ban on guns though the universe only knows why anyone wants to own one. But the evidence is clear that used with intent they can kill and maim on a grand scale. And they are so easy to get hold of why bother trying to make a bomb or hit more than a handful of pedestrians with a vehicle when you can pick up a gun at Wallmart Surely any person of sanity and compassion would want to try to address the serious issue of gun violence 18th Century law or not. "Whataboutery" with bombs, vehicles or swimming pools is just arrant nonsense

 

[MikeG]

If gun bans save lives then the UK & Wales is doing something wrong. Spike in Homicides 6 years after handgun ban..........

Entirely due to one person: Dr Harold Shipman.

If you are going to base your argument on figures skewed by a GP who killed his patients by the hundred, then you've got no argument.

 

[Parsman]

If gun bans save lives then the UK & Wales is doing something wrong. Spike in Homicides 6 years after handgun ban.

You should have known there was some reason for that sudden spike. We in the UK had a Dcotor active at that time called Harold Shipman. He overdosed lots of his elderly patients and murdered them. 172 of the murders were dealt with by a Coroner's Court reporting in 2003. Thus they are included in the figures for that year but they were deaths spread out over 30 odd years of medical practice. So, nice try but no cigar

 

[jimbob]

You are implementing the 'guns kill people' argument. Do you see the error of celebrating the success that banning guns results in a decrease of homicides committed with guns, while ignoring how the homicide rate regardless of instrument changed?

The argument that banning guns reduces homicides commit ed by guns is well establish. The hypothesis that banning guns reduces the homicide rate regardless of instrument is inconclusive.

I am not opposed to keeping track of statistical data. I am a proponent of the Nations of the world establishing a standard for the format of that information. As an example, the US's homicide rate includes manslaughter (which makes our rates look higher than they actually are), other nations do not include manslaughter.

The US is an obvious outlier regardless of whether you include manslaughter (do you have a link for that?)

 

[Aridas]

Or maybe it does. Perhaps people who buy red cars are more likely to drive faster and thus cause more deaths. Banning red cars could actually result in fewer road deaths. We'd have to run the experiment to find out.

You do realize the difference between how effective a tool is for a purpose compared to another tool and differences in how likely it is to be used for that purpose based on superficial changes? Red may affect the latter, but I was pretty clearly dealing with the former as a very clear way that ServiceSoon's argument is much weaker than he seems to think. The latter is a bit murkier, after all, so it would be a weaker way to point out that his argument is notably flawed.

You are implementing the 'guns kill people' argument.

No, I'm not, as should have been easy to see. Going past how nonsensical it is to try to use that as a takeaway from what I actually said there, guns are tools, after all. One can certainly and validly point out that having tools to accomplish some desired task makes it more likely that a person will actually do it when they're in a mood to do so (and that having better tools increases the likelihood further), but it's still the person doing it.

Do you have a good explanation for your rather nonsensical mistake?

Do you see the error of celebrating the success that banning guns results in a decrease of homicides committed with guns, while ignoring how the homicide rate regardless of instrument changed?

Of course. You've also given no good reason to think that the overall homicide rate wouldn't be affected. After all, having tools that just aren't as good to do something means that the barriers preventing one from doing something are that much greater. On large scales, that means that it will happen less. Of course it wouldn't provide a magical end to everyone's attempts to do so, but worse tools will separately also lower overall success rates.

In other words, the premise of your argument is half-assed. There's some truth to it, but it is just as guilty of ignoring important things as you're trying to claim that those other people are guilty of ignoring, but with rather limited amount of reason to believe that you're accurately depicting their position in aggregate.

The argument that banning guns reduces homicides commit ed by guns is well establish. The hypothesis that banning guns reduces the homicide rate regardless of instrument is inconclusive.

I addressed this a bit above. The principle for the latter is actually fairly well established when it comes to just about every other reasonably comparable human behavior in aggregate. You've given no reason at all to think that it's an exception to the general rule.

I am not opposed to keeping track of statistical data. I am a proponent of the Nations of the world establishing a standard for the format of that information. As an example, the US's homicide rate includes manslaughter (which makes our rates look higher than they actually are), other nations do not include manslaughter.

That, or having tools available that would be able to directly compare the relevant numbers in different nation's statistics (which... we actually do, though not as easily as it potentially could be). That position, I'll agree with, as a general matter. However, that makes your support of the NRA's pushes to outright prevent as much research into gun violence as they can after they encountered research that directly contradicted their cherished narratives, including some of the basic statistics, somewhat strange.

 

[ServiceSoon]

[nitpick] A hypothesis is neutral. It cannot be inconclusive, because it is the question, not the answer [/nitpick].

Asserted without evidence, as is your habit. Link to some statistics, or a published paper, or something. At least make some sort of token effort, which would be better than just asserting the same thing, endlessly, with no support.

I appreciate your honesty about nitpicking. The definition of nitpicking is excessively concerned with or critical of inconsequential details. Inconsequential details...You are concerned that I didn't use the proper terminology. The fact remains that there is division among the profession.

I'm making things up. I'm not pulling statistics out of the air. I search the web before posting. You have access to the same data that I do.

 

[ServiceSoon]

This is the argument I find most difficult to understand. Especially right now. You had a crazed bomber in Austin, Texas and he managed to kill 3 people (including himself) and wound 5 more over the course of a month, almost 30 days. The Las Vegas shooter killed more than 50 and injured more than 100 about 30 minutes! A series of terrorist attacks, 5 in total, using vehicles and bomds through the whole of 2017 in the UK killed 35 people and injured about 100. 5 seperate terrorist attacks. But one ordinary US citizen killed more and injured more in one evening. That is why the people committing these killings in the USA use guns. They kill more people more quickly. It is your country and I am not advocating a total ban on guns though the universe only knows why anyone wants to own one. But the evidence is clear that used with intent they can kill and maim on a grand scale. And they are so easy to get hold of why bother trying to make a bomb or hit more than a handful of pedestrians with a vehicle when you can pick up a gun at Wallmart Surely any person of sanity and compassion would want to try to address the serious issue of gun violence 18th Century law or not. "Whataboutery" with bombs, vehicles or swimming pools is just arrant nonsense

Like any gun-owning person, I want to implement methods that will reduce the rate of homicides. Based on the information that I have seen, I am not convinced that some of measures being discussed will produce the results that are promised.

The perpetrator in Nice France killed 80 something people with a vehicle. Even with the restrictive firearm laws in Paris, terrorist were able to kill over 100 people. I don't believe that there is an easy, cut-and-dry solution.

 

[ServiceSoon]

Entirely due to one person: Dr Harold Shipman.

If you are going to base your argument on figures skewed by a GP who killed his patients by the hundred, then you've got no argument.

Entirely due to one person you say. Have you seen the homicide rate chart revised if Harold Shipman's murders were removed?

You should have known there was some reason for that sudden spike. We in the UK had a Dcotor active at that time called Harold Shipman. He overdosed lots of his elderly patients and murdered them. 172 of the murders were dealt with by a Coroner's Court reporting in 2003. Thus they are included in the figures for that year but they were deaths spread out over 30 odd years of medical practice. So, nice try but no cigar

Do you know if all of Harold Shipman's victims deaths were tabulated in 2003? Because the years before and after 2003 weren't too rosy either.

If we remove serial killers from the UK's data then it is only fair to remove serial killers from other countries data before making any comparisons. Wouldn't this methodology eventually start to dilute the data?

 

[smartcooky]

There have been 13 mass killings in Australia since 1996, of which half-ish of them can be more accurately classified as mass shootings. Im sorry that the media hasn't been forthcoming with this fact.

This is a gross misrepresentation of the truth

There have been NO spree killings in Australia since Martin Bryant went whacko at Port Arthur and killed 35 people in 1996.

The 13 mass killings you refer to were...


June 1997 - The murder/suicide by Peter Shoobridge. He killed his daughters with a knife and then killed himself with .22 cal rifle (4 victims + the killer)

October 1999 - A bikie gang feud between Rebels and Hell Angels using Shotguns (3 dead)

June 2000 - An arson attack at a backpackers carried out by Robert Paul Long (15 dead).

October 2002 - A mass shooting attack by Huan Yun Xiang. He used handguns (2 dead)

February 2009 - An arson attack at Monash University by Brendan Sokaluk (10 dead)

July 2009 - the Lin family murders, all killed by a blunt instrument attack (5 dead)

April 2011 - the Hectorville siege carried out by Anthony Carbo using a shotgun (3 dead)

November 2011 - An arson attack by Roger Kingsley Dean, a nurse at the Quaker Hill nursing home (11 dead)

September 2014 - An arson attack by Adeel Khan. (3 dead)

September 2014 - A Mass shooting and Familicide by Geoff Hunt who killed his wife and three children before turning the gun on himself (4 dead plus the killer)

December 2014 - Terrorist action by lone gunman, Man Haron Monis, held hostage twenty customers and eight employees of a Lindt chocolate café located at Martin Place in Sydney, Australia. (2 dead, including one by freindly fire + the killer)

December 2014 - Knife attack and Familicide. 8 children aged 18 months to 15 years killed. Thirty-seven-year-old woman also found injured. The woman, Raina Mersane Ina Thaiday, was later charged with the murder of the children, 7 of whom were hers, plus her niece. (8 dead)

January 2017 - Vehicular attack. Dimitrous Gargasoulas drove a Holden Commodore into Bourke St Mall, resulting in the deaths of 6 people and injuring 30+ others. (6 dead)

Of the 13 incidents you refer to, two were knife attacks one was a vehicle attack, one was a blunt instrument attack, four were arsons and five used firearms (shotguns or handguns)

These were not spree shootings with semi-automatic assault weapons such as those used at Las vegas, Port Arthur, Sandy Hook or Parkland, and to claim they are relevant to this discussion is not only disingenuous, its frankly rude.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

If gun bans save lives then the UK & Wales is doing something wrong. Spike in Homicides 6 years after handgun ban.

I believe that if you examine that spike in homicides more closely it is due to Dame Janet Smith's report into the serial killer Harold Shipman being finalised. UK homicide figures reflect the time that the homicide is discovered, not the time it was committed (if the two are different), Shipman was believed to have been responsible for around 250 deaths over a forty year period, more than 200 were included in a single year's government crime figures (and around 20 each in the preceding and following years) but they didn't occur in a single year, more especially not that year as it was a couple of years after Shipman's conviction. Most, if not all of those 200+ deaths occurred prior to the handgun ban.

250 murders discovered (not committed) in this period was sufficient to massively influence the figures.

Eta: Should have read on further, I see this has already been addressed.

 

[thaiboxerken]

These were not spree shootings with semi-automatic assault weapons such as those used at Las vegas, Port Arthur, Sandy Hook or Parkland, and to claim they are relevant to this discussion is not only disingenuous, its frankly rude.

To be fair, evidence and reality doesn't support his position so he has to resort to fabrication and misrepresentation.

 

[CaptainHowdy]

Knowing why a conspiracy theorist would wear a tinfoil hat is definitely more in your wheelhouse than mine, but the suggestion that you wear them to protect yourself from conspiracy theories doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.

Also, is “conspiratard theory” the term that conspiracy theorists like yourself use as the “I’m rubber, you’re glue” defense when you get mocked for believing in conspiracy theories? Because it’s hilarious... but mostly for the irony.

Here's an example of a conspiratard: New York Times publishing a story trying to convince us that this anti-gun youth movement didn't organically spring up after the Parkland shooting. They say, get this, that there were adults and organizations with money behind these students. How gullible do they think we are?

And how offensive can the NYT be? These kids survived a massacre! They were ballsy enough to stand up to their bullying we-know-best elders and organize one of the bigger national events in years while still studying in school all by themselves!! How dare the media dismiss their accomplishments with their lame conspiratard theory!!