School shooting: but don't mention guns!

[jimbob]

You appear to have made a couple of mistakes here. The quote was "significant interest in guns", not owning a gun. We're not talking about people who simply own guns, and that was explicitly made clear in a post to which you directly responded. Secondly, neither Jimbob nor Zooterkin seemed to me to be talking about what gun enthusiasts are like, but how they are viewed by others. In that, I would say, they are right.

Indeed, and there does seem to be a rural-urban split. I work in a capital-intensive industry in a city, although live more in the countryside. I was describing what I consider the general perception.

In fact, I would actually feel slightly uncomfortable admitting to my colleagues that I know the difference between semi-automatic and fully-automatic weapons, and would probably feel the need to give a reason for this.

 

[GeeMack]

This poll shows that the majority of non NRA gun owners are closer to the NRA members in terms of most forms of gun control than they are to others. No guns for the mentally ill and a five day waiting period are all they in the majority for.

It is clearly true that gun owners in general, whether NRA members or not, support gun control. It is true as shown by the responses offered by gun owners in this and other threads on this forum, and your own references show it to be true. So you were lying when you wrote...

But the non NRA gun owners are still a force which is anti-gun control.

It is also clearly true that you have no desire, or perhaps some irrational fear prevents you from engaging in an honest discussion on the issue.

ETA: Moving further along the thread, it appears there may be a cultural reason for folks from the UK being unable to discuss the issue with any honesty.

 

[GeeMack]

In fact, I would actually feel slightly uncomfortable admitting to my colleagues that I know the difference between semi-automatic and fully-automatic weapons, and would probably feel the need to give a reason for this.

I'd have to say I find that a pretty bizarre sentiment. It makes me wonder if it's an individual thing, or maybe the result of some cultural artifact where people in the UK are embarrassed to be knowledgeable on certain issues. That would explain much of the dishonesty and misunderstanding expressed by some folks from the UK who are participating here.

 

[Information Analyst]

I think you could, potentially reduce the pool of firearms over time. It depends, of course, on how permeable the US border is. My understanding, based on findings post 9/11, is that US border protection is appalling. I think a notable thing about many of these other countries that have low levels of gun use in crime is that they have quite robust border protection. This highlights the fact that "gun control" is about something vastly more complex than "bad assault weapons" or something reactionary like that. Ultimately, the issue with gun crime is people having access to weapons to use them illegally. So the principal question is how you can limit access by these people to said guns with minimal restriction in access to guns by non-criminal users. Gun control measures that don't limit access to guns by these groups are pointless. If they limit access by legitimate users as well, they're doubly pointless, or have negative "point" if you will.

A notable thing about many countries with stringent gun control laws is that these strict laws came in after gun crime reached a high state, and society decided to address it. High numbers of guns were already in circulation when these controls were brought in, and while new control laws cut the inflow, that in itself doesn't do a whole lot.

What all of these countries also did was really work hard on seizing guns too. In a country like New Zealand, if a firearm is discovered in the context of any sort of offending, there is no warning. The weapon is seized, period, and a firearm license revoked (if you have one).

Even though firearms are used in a tiny fraction of crimes in this country, thousands of firearms are seized by police every year. If police seize more than criminals are able to get their hands on, you reduce the pool of firearms. It's very much a two-pronged assault - you have to reduce access to firearms by people who will use them criminally (and gun control laws are really only part of that approach), but you also have to take guns off the street at the other end too.

Exactly. The same is true in the UK, and when it turns out that criminals are having to rely in a major way on converted replica, starting, tear gas, or air pistols, then it's clear that such controls can eventually have an effect.

I get the impression that gun enthusiasts in the States are shooting themselves in the foot (pun very much intended) by protesting that new controls will be no good because of the capability and number of existing weapons and component parts already in circulation. The logical answer to that is simply to ban all types retrospectively, as has been done in many other countries. No "grandfathering" of existing items, but rather a peiord of amnesty in which they can be handed in officially and with immunity, and then they're illegal.

I would say that realistically it's either a choice between banning semi-automatic long-arms, or restricting magazine capacities. The former can be complied with by permanent modifications, in the same way as in the UK one can own even an L1A1/FN FAL, if one wants, it just has to have the gas piston welded and inoperable. Choosing to outlaw specific comestic features is pointless, without addressing either rate of fire or capacity.

In terms of compliance, simply make it beholden on range operators and their users to be report any patrons using prohibited items, and the same for landowners who allow others to shoot on their land. Sure, that would still leave people shooting on their own land, but sooner or later they'd give themselves away one way or another.

 

[Information Analyst]

Actually the UK has about five times as much violent crime as the US. The difference is that guns are involved in far less incidents, so "assault" or "armed robbery" doesn't get upgraded to "homicide" as often.

Although it's also as much to do with the UK classifying incidents as "violent crime" that wouldn't be in the States. The rates for the more serious types of non-firearms assaults are more comparable; it's the lower end of the scale where there is a huge disparity due the UK law including non-contact disputes as "assault."

 

[Nessie]

It is clearly true that gun owners in general, whether NRA members or not, support gun control. It is true as shown by the responses offered by gun owners in this and other threads on this forum, and your own references show it to be true. So you were lying when you wrote...

​

Have you got any evidence to support your claim? I was hardly lying considering I quoted a survey which shows that the majority of non NRA gun owners support the majority of anti gun control measures. The few gun owners who contribute here at least realise something needs to be done, but that is not a sufficient number to base any certain conclusions on.

I know you don't do evidence, but here is another survey

http://www.people-press.org/2012/12/20/after-newtown-modest-change-in-opinion-about-gun-control/

There is a small majority who say gun control is more important than rights,

"Currently, 49% say it is more important to control gun ownership, while 42% say it is more important to protect the right of Americans to own guns."

Other results include a majority to ban assault guns and a majority to not ban handguns. Only 22% think the problem is down to the actual number of guns and gun laws, whereas 46% think it is a reflection of wider society and 30% think it is a mental health issue.

As to guns being good for protection, 46% said yes and 37% it makes society more risky.

On four gun control issues there was a majority for banning explosive rounds and high capacity magazines and a majority against banning semi-autos and a big majority against banning handguns.

The big splits are gun owners vs non gun owners

"About two-thirds (65%) of gun owners say it is more important to protect gun rights than to control ownership (27%). The balance of opinion is reversed among those who do not have a gun in the household (64% control ownership, 26% protect gun rights)."

That is a survey of 1219 people. Which makes you claims laughable as they are not backed by any evidence. Why don't you do evidence? This is a sceptics forum, people check others claims.

It is also clearly true that you have no desire, or perhaps some irrational fear prevents you from engaging in an honest discussion on the issue.

I am engaged in honest discussion backed up by evidence. Your fear claim is again nonsense. Why should I fear what Americans get up to with their guns?

ETA: Moving further along the thread, it appears there may be a cultural reason for folks from the UK being unable to discuss the issue with any honesty.

More rhetoric without evidence.

 

[Information Analyst]

Well, what I meant was that I understand that gun crime plummetted after the introduction of gun control laws, but I'd have to look it up again to be sure.

More the case that a pre-existing upwards trend continued for a few years, but overall gun crime has been falling consistently for the last five or six years. These sort of measures don't work overnight, but in the long-term.

 

[Information Analyst]

What is ironic, is that people (maybe not you specifically) want to ban guns like they do in France, or the UK, or wherever, because it's too violent, or because guns cause death, or similar moral objections. But yet, they will have no problem calling the police, whom have guns, to come and possibly use their guns to defend that person's life.

A couple of points:
1) French firearms laws are much less restrictive than the UK.
2) The vast majority of UK police are not armed, and neither are the vast majority of UK criminals. Armed officers will only be deployed to deal with an armed theat, not just any mugging, robbery, break-in, etc.

 

[GeeMack]

Have you got any evidence to support your claim?

Yes. Read the thread. Your comment was untrue. And it is, of course, more support for the notion that people from the UK simply do not have the ability to be honest when discussing gun issues.

I am engaged in honest discussion backed up by evidence.

No, you are not. You are writing things that are not true, definitively lies. You are making up crap to justify your fear. It's a despicable and juvenile way to engage in a discussion.

 

[Nessie]

Yes. Read the thread. Your comment was untrue. And it is, of course, more support for the notion that people from the UK simply do not have the ability to be honest when discussing gun issues.

I have linked to two surveys which show it is true that gun owners are similar to the NRA in being broadly anti-gun control. They are not as extreme as the NRA, but they still comprise a force to be reckoned with when politicians are looking for votes and are considering their stance on gun control.

You lack the ability to engage in proper debate. You just proclaim the other side to be dishonest and lacking in ability ad nauseam

No, you are not. You are writing things that are not true, definitively lies. You are making up crap to justify your fear. It's a despicable and juvenile way to engage in a discussion.

The surveys back me up. Your rant is further evidence of your inability to engage proper debate.

 

[brenn]

Certainly the gun culture that exists is well organised, and has a long tradition. The fact remains that it is very much a minority pastime, which most people view with suspicion.

Actually, the statistics I've seen say that somewhere between slightly over half to slightly under half of all Americans own a gun. I would not use the phrase "very much a minority pastime" to describe that. I'm not sure I even understand how owning a gun is a pastime - I own a car, but I don't consider it a pastime.

Anyhow, I'm not fond enough of the JREF to read through an entire thread here, but I just stopped in to point out that Newtown is the first time America has toppped Britain and Germany for numbers killed in a school shooting. I wonder if we will ever top Norway for numbers killed in a mass shooting? Europe sure is dangerous, even with all that gun control.

 

[GeeMack]

I have linked to two surveys which show it is true that gun owners are similar to the NRA in being broadly anti-gun control. They are not as extreme as the NRA, but they still comprise a force to be reckoned with when politicians are looking for votes and are considering their stance on gun control.

Your alleged evidence does not back your claim.

You lack the ability to engage in proper debate. You just proclaim the other side to be dishonest and lacking in ability ad nauseam

When arguments are not honest, as yours aren't, then to note that they are dishonest is quite appropriate. Make an honest argument if you want to avoid getting called out for dishonesty.

The surveys back me up. Your rant is further evidence of your inability to engage proper debate.

You have misunderstood the surveys, perhaps because of some difficulty understanding the English language properly, and perhaps because the articles you link to are also applying the language in a way that is so, uh, flexible as to be nearly meaningless. Your misunderstanding does not constitute evidence for your claim.

 

[Nessie]

Your alleged evidence does not back your claim.

Show me how.

When arguments are not honest, as yours aren't, then to note that they are dishonest is quite appropriate. Make an honest argument if you want to avoid getting called out for dishonesty.

My arguments are my honestly held views based on what I have found looking into this topic. Rather than continued proclamations they are dishonest, which are not true, if you think I am wrong, show me with evidence where you think I have gone wrong.

You have misunderstood the surveys, perhaps because of some difficulty understanding the English language properly, and perhaps because the articles you link to are also applying the language in a way that is so, uh, flexible as to be nearly meaningless. Your misunderstanding does not constitute evidence for your claim.

That you spend all your time attacking me rather than the argument I am putting means I believe you are unable to dispute what I have said.

 

[Rat]

Actually, the statistics I've seen say that somewhere between slightly over half to slightly under half of all Americans own a gun. I would not use the phrase "very much a minority pastime" to describe that. I'm not sure I even understand how owning a gun is a pastime - I own a car, but I don't consider it a pastime.

It's good that you admit after this that you don't take the trouble to read threads; if you had, you would know why this makes no sense whatsoever. Perhaps next time it might help if you actually did read the thread, rather than making a monumentally pointless post.

 

[Information Analyst]

Certainly the gun culture that exists is well organised, and has a long tradition. The fact remains that it is very much a minority pastime, which most people view with suspicion.

Yeah, most people who know I even have one of these think it's "odd," to say the least.

 

[GeeMack]

Your alleged evidence does not back your claim.

Show me how.

You made this assertion...

But the non NRA gun owners are still a force which is anti-gun control.

... and have been wholly unable to support it. You have been unable to objectively demonstrate that gun owners, in general, are anti-gun control, opposing regulations on the purchase, sale, ownership, and use of guns.

My arguments are my honestly held views based on what I have found looking into this topic. Rather than continued proclamations they are dishonest, which are not true, if you think I am wrong, show me with evidence where you think I have gone wrong.

It is dishonest to make this claim...

But the non NRA gun owners are still a force which is anti-gun control.

... then declare that you have provided support for it when in fact you have failed to support it.

That you spend all your time attacking me rather than the argument I am putting means I believe you are unable to dispute what I have said.

You have failed to meet your burden of proof. And your persistent effort to pass your burden of proof onto other people is dishonest.

Provide objective support showing that your claim...

But the non NRA gun owners are still a force which is anti-gun control.

... is true. Show that gun owners, in general, are a force which is anti-gun control. Objectively demonstrate that gun owners, in general, are against regulations on the purchase, sale, ownership, and use of guns. You have not yet shown that to be true.

Hint: Gun control exists, and virtually every gun owner considers gun control to be acceptable.

 

[Nessie]

You made this assertion...

.......

All you do is say that is not true and then make claims of dishonesty, fear, lying and not understanding English.

Come back when you are able to link to the surveys I have used as evidence whereby you can show how may claims are incorrect based on that evidence.

 

[Light23]

I think it's slightly weird that any time people are killed with a gun, a certain portion of the population decides that we now need to ban guns.

When a nice young family is splattered around a telephone pole, nobody calls for a ban on cars. The logic with guns is that it wouldn't have happened without it, so we need to ban it. Yet the car crash wouldn't have happened either without the car, and we don't feel the need to ban motor vehicles.

1,900 people die on the roads each year in the UK, and I don't think this includes pedestrians hit by cars. I'd imagine the number of children killed in the UK alone this year either while on the road, or from being hit as pedestrians is >20.

The only difference I can see is that a lot of people are anti-gun and inevitably blame it for the death, whereas most people have a car and view any car death as a simple tragedy.

Even when the gun is clearly not at fault, a lot of people still feel the need to blame it. For example, when that NFL linebacker shot his girlfriend - he used a gun, so clearly this wouldn't have happened without a gun, right? This ignores the fact that he's a very large, trained, professional athlete who would have no problem killing me, let alone a small woman.

Even when someone is murdered with a knife, nobody again blames the availability of a knife. When someone goes on a killing spree with a knife or an axe and kills ten people in China, it's a footnote in the paper. When someone goes on a killing spree with a gun, it's sensationalized and is always front page news.




I could understand seeking more gun control, although I'm not sure how much good it would do in preventing freak, rare incidents like Newton, especially when the primary factor is the assailant's mental health and desire to murder.

Are you telling me that people owning a six shot revolver really poses that much of a risk? You can easily grab a kitchen knife and stab six people, or drive your car into six pedestrians. But for self-defence some projectile based weapon is required, and a gun is the only one I can think of that would be effective.

 

[Nessie]

I think the reason why some call for a total ban on guns* as opposed to vehicles is because ban guns and society would continue to function, ban vehicles and it would grind to a halt.

*I presume total ban means a ban on civilian held guns with some exclusions for pest control, the police etc. Any call no guns full stop would cause its own problems.

 

[Rat]

The only difference I can see is that a lot of people are anti-gun and inevitably blame it for the death, whereas most people have a car and view any car death as a simple tragedy.

You are not the first to say some form of this, and you won't be the last. A gun is a weapon; a car is not. How is this difficult to understand? A car makes many things in life much easier, and some things possible that otherwise would not be. A gun is for shooting things. On the basis that it's useful for, say, gamekeepers to shoot things, few people are campaigning to make guns completely illegal. It is just the case that a cost-benefit analysis of making guns widely available to the public appears to some people to show it not to be worth it.

Simply saying that cars kill more people and no one wants to ban them is a supremely facile argument.