School shooting: but don't mention guns!

[shuttlt]

No I am saying religion is the problem. Get rid of it!

You seem to be incapable of understanding the working of Insane Troll Logic.

Ah! Hard to tell on this thread. I find my own logic on the issue difficult to distinguish from troll logic at times.

 

[zeggman]

Aha, that old one. Still wrong, but often repeated.

What's wrong about it?

 

[shuttlt]

By the way Gumboot, gun control/popularity as you describe it sounds like a classic game theory equilibrium to me.

 

[StankApe]

Er... there aren't even 200 million firearms in the US. Current gun ownership is at about 25% of the adult population, or less than 50 million people. Less than 40% of US homes have a firearm in them, and the rate of gun ownership is decreasing.

Seriously, when you offered up a figure like 200 million registered gun owners (which is virtually the entire adult population) did you apply any critical thinking?

The way it was written messed me up, though your information is incorrect also.

34% of Americans report personally owning a gun yet 51% of households report having at least 1 gun. and the info I saw said 270 million firearms privately owned in the USA.

 

[zeggman]

Seems like this is an example from just 3 months ago:

http://www.ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=12879

How's that different to the examples you linked to in the UK (that you said couldn't happen in the US)?

Not different enough.

It looks to me like New Orleans wants to keep its tourist destination free from politicking. I suspect the ordinance would be struck down as unconstitutional if the preachers choose to fight it, but I guess I was wrong. Such things CAN happen here.

 

[StankApe]

But then I just now read something that said 40% of households.....so who bloody knows.

I keep seeing a number of 55 million people say they have a gun in their home. How many total people live in those homes (counting children...etc) i have no idea

 

[shuttlt]

What's wrong about it?

Would cases of "Intentional infliction of emotional distress" cover this? It seems the nearest thing to the British guy going to prison for a couple of months for posting nasty stuff on facebook mentioned before. There are differences of course, but it's still you not being covered by freedom of speech if you say hateful things to people in a way that satisfies a bunch of conditions.

 

[gumboot]

But then I just now read something that said 40% of households.....so who bloody knows.

I keep seeing a number of 55 million people say they have a gun in their home. How many total people live in those homes (counting children...etc) i have no idea

I gather the main source of these sorts of figures is a survey, which might explain why it jumps around a bit from year to year. I most recent figure I saw for household ownership was just under 40% but it seems to generally sit around 40-50%.

I think we can probably be confident that around half or a little under half of all US households have at least one firearm, that around 1/4 of adults own a firearm, and that firearm owners on average own several weapons.

 

[joesixpack]

I gather the main source of these sorts of figures is a survey, which might explain why it jumps around a bit from year to year. I most recent figure I saw for household ownership was just under 40% but it seems to generally sit around 40-50%.

I think we can probably be confident that around half or a little under half of all US households have at least one firearm, that around 1/4 of adults own a firearm, and that firearm owners on average own several weapons.

I thought I saw on this thread (but now I can't find it) something like 45% of households, and households with guns average 3.5 guns. I know it varies from region to region. When I lived in Southern CA I think most people I knew didn't (or didn't admit to) owning any firearms, but here in rural Washington state it's probably close to 90%

 

[Rat]

This is the root of the issue. This is really the fulcrum on which the entire US gun debate rests. Why is it that citizens of the USA feel they need a firearm for protection, and not the citizens of every single other western country?

Do you remember this to-do that happened a few months ago? I think it's kind of understandable in that carrying a gun will make most people feel safer, because they think that if they are faced with any danger, they can just pull out the gun and problem solved. The obvious problem with this is twofold: if you can carry a gun, so can everyone else, meaning you're back to where you started if neither attacker nor defender has a gun, only guns are now involved; and the statistics don't seem anyway to bear out the assumption of making you safer anyway. Nonetheless, if you're used to carrying a gun and having it always with you, you will feel impotent if it's not there.

 

[lionking]

I repeat my claim that it isn't the weapon but the person. Every person posting in this thread could be given the four weapons the murderer had, and I'd be willing to bet big money that not one school child would be killed by them.

I posted this in another thread:

The Harvard Injury Control Research Centre assessed the literature on guns and homicide and found there's substantial evidence that indicates more guns means more murders.

There is a correlation between gun ownership and the murder rate. You can deny it all you want.

 

[joesixpack]

I posted this in another thread:



There is a correlation between gun ownership and the murder rate. You can deny it all you want.

Is that the same as "causality"? Perhaps in more violence prone areas people are more likely to own firearms?

There's also a correlation between poverty and murder rate. I think that may be the bigger cause, not access to firearms. As has been pointed out, the non-gun homicide rate in the US is far higher than in the UK or any Western European nations.

 

[Autolite]

The total elimination of private firearms ownership would be silly. So this "ultimate goal" is almost certainly a boogyman of your own invention.

Boogyman?

There are comments on this thread alone from those who would like to see a complete ban on private firearm ownership...

 

[lionking]

Boogyman?

There are comments on this thread alone from those who would like to see a complete ban on private firearm ownership...

People (like me) would like to see it, just like world peace and the elimination of poverty, but all (or neary all) can see the impracticality of this, and call for restrictions.

 

[shuttlt]

Show of hands... anyone who thinks that some small subset of the population farmers, etc... anyone who actually has a practical need for a gun shouldn't be allowed to have them with a what ever restrictions and safeguards? I know little enough about farming, but I can perfectly well imagine that a gun is the only practical method of pest control in some settings.

 

[shuttlt]

I repeat my claim that it isn't the weapon but the person. Every person posting in this thread could be given the four weapons the murderer had, and I'd be willing to bet big money that not one school child would be killed by them.

If you picked 10 random poor folks, I bet they wouldn't kill any school kids either, so poverty can't be a factor. Pick 10 random people who had a bad childhood and I bet they wouldn't kill any school kids, so it's not upbringing. Pick 10 random men and we've ruled out gender as a factor... We can play this game and prove that nothing caused it, so there's nothing anybody can do to stop this or any other bad thing happening.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Lionking, the correlation you cited is indeed irrelevant.

I own multiple firearms, as do all of my male relatives, except my father. He sticks to an air pistol for small varmints. FFS, my uncle owns over 30, including some historically significant pieces. (his great grandfather's civil war rifle for one ...)

We have killed nobody.

One criminal near where I live, two years ago, with one illegal pistol killed three people in the space of an hour.

The numbers of guns owned tells you nothing.
Quit fooling yourself.
The restrictions for him owning said weapon protected nobody.

Rules we have, and more rules are not going to magically create more enforcement.

Magical thinking is not something you usually do, so maybe in this case eschew it as well.

 

[Ziggurat]

if you can carry a gun, so can everyone else, meaning you're back to where you started if neither attacker nor defender has a gun, only guns are now involved

Well, no. If you are physically weak (ie, a woman or an old person), then when neither you nor your potential attacker have weapons, you are at a very large disadvantage. Guns level the field. Same is true if your potential attackers outnumber you: numerical superiority makes an unarmed fight pretty risk-free for the side with more people, but the risks are enormous even with numerical advantage once people are armed. So the idea that arming people is a zero-sum game isn't really true.

and the statistics don't seem anyway to bear out the assumption of making you safer anyway.

None of the statistics I've seen presented can separate correlation from causation, meaning they do not, in fact, indicate whether a given person will be safer or not if they get a gun.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Show of hands... anyone who thinks that some small subset of the population farmers, etc... anyone who actually has a practical need for a gun shouldn't be allowed to have them with a what ever restrictions and safeguards? I know little enough about farming, but I can perfectly well imagine that a gun is the only practical method of pest control in some settings.

My guess is that either Autolite's just making up a straw man, or people were speaking imprecisely but actually don't particularly want to disarm farmers. (Or they compartmentalise private gun ownership and commercial gun ownership, and so they don't tend to think of guns used for farming, vermin control and so forth when they think of "private" guns).

I stand by the view that total gun banning is a boogyman of the pro-gun movement not any remotely realistic threat. As has already been pointed out no First World nation has banned guns completely and none seem likely to.

 

[Cain]

Well, no. If you are physically weak (ie, a woman or an old person), then when neither you nor your potential attacker have weapons, you are at a very large disadvantage. Guns level the field. Same is true if your potential attackers outnumber you: numerical superiority makes an unarmed fight pretty risk-free for the side with more people, but the risks are enormous even with numerical advantage once people are armed. So the idea that arming people is a zero-sum game isn't really true.

Yep, which is exactly why women and the elderly fit the profile of the gun owners. Incidentally, people in their late teens and early twenties fit the profile of those who needed marijuana for medicinal purposes. Strange world...

None of the statistics I've seen presented can separate correlation from causation, meaning they do not, in fact, indicate whether a given person will be safer or not if they get a gun.

Yep, it's impossible to know! It's like how people who use sunscreen get sunburns, and then thinking sunscreen causes burns. Everybody ditch the sunscreen and get your guns.