• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

It Has Happened Again...

Also, another point about your study referenced, Claus: The correlation is with gun OWNERSHIP, which is a direct relationship to gun ACCESSIBILITY. But this does NOT automatically say that a person who owns a gun immediately becomes a homicidal maniac who is likely to gun down children. Which is what you are implying.

When I was growing up in country Australia, gun accidents and incidents were legion. That is because most farmers in Australia own one or two rifles for farm use - vermin guns (we have feral rabbits, foxes and dingoes, y'know). So all the expected gun problems happened (and they still do in our rural communities). But the MOST common gun injuries I recall came not from deliberate misuse but from simple avoidable accidents - like tangling in fence-wire carrying a loaded rabbit rifle at night! Really!
 
Katana said:
The kids in Columbine came to school with backpacks full of 30+ pipe bombs only a few of which they had a chance to use. However, early on, they had set up a couple of large propane-tank bombs to go off that would have partially destroyed the cafeteria, collapsed the library above it, and killed most of the 500ish students in there.
Click to expand...

Out of how many school shootings?

You can always find the odd example. I am talking about this as a whole.
 
Zep said:
Also, another point about your study referenced, Claus: The correlation is with gun OWNERSHIP, which is a direct relationship to gun ACCESSIBILITY. But this does NOT automatically say that a person who owns a gun immediately becomes a homicidal maniac who is likely to gun down children. Which is what you are implying.
Click to expand...

Not at all. I am showing - with evidence - that when you have more guns, you have more gun-related deaths.

Zep said:
When I was growing up in country Australia, gun accidents and incidents were legion. That is because most farmers in Australia own one or two rifles for farm use - vermin guns (we have feral rabbits, foxes and dingoes, y'know). So all the expected gun problems happened (and they still do in our rural communities). But the MOST common gun injuries I recall came not from deliberate misuse but from simple avoidable accidents - like tangling in fence-wire carrying a loaded rabbit rifle at night! Really!
Click to expand...

Proves my point exactly. Guns are simply too dangerous.
 
I'm sorry, but I'll stick to this study. If you want to argue anything else but faulty logic, let me know.
Click to expand...

Apparently your definition of "logical fallacy" is "demanding evidence that actually backs up what CFLarsen is claiming."

I will be happy to discuss your study. Point me to the section where it says, "There is no safe use of a gun."

Could you cite that section please?
 
CFLarsen said:
Guns are designed to extend deadly force from the user.
Click to expand...
Correction: Guns are designed to extend force from the user that MAY be deadly to others if they encounter it.

There's a LOT of difference there from what you are implying. Namely that every bullet fired has a deadly intent. It does not - it has deadly ability only. The intent, and thus responsibility, lies with the aimer and firer of the projectile.

CFLarsen said:
Do you want to comment on the study?
Click to expand...
I have. You are reading more into it than you realise.

Incidentally, I happen to agree with your intentions: I do think gun access SHOULD be more restricted than it is. But I also think you are arguing more from passion than logic.
 
CFLarsen said:
Not at all. I am showing - with evidence - that when you have more guns, you have more gun-related deaths.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. You need access to one gun only in order to have a shooting spree. It's to do with ACCESSIBILITY.

By your logic, the keepers of military weapons armouries would be the most dangerous job in the world (because there's LOADS of guns in their vicinity). But this huge cache of lethality is invariably under heavy lock-and-key, so it is actually a fairly safe. The ACCESSIBILITY of those weapons for misuse is very low. So the safety is high.



CFLarsen said:
Proves my point exactly. Guns are simply too dangerous.
Click to expand...
Whoah! Unqualified statement of uncorroborated fact right here! C'mon! You know the drill...
 
Zep said:
Correction: Guns are designed to extend force from the user that MAY be deadly to others if they encounter it.

There's a LOT of difference there from what you are implying. Namely that every bullet fired has a deadly intent. It does not - it has deadly ability only. The intent, and thus responsibility, lies with the aimer and firer of the projectile.
Click to expand...

Nobody is arguing that guns have a mind of their own. But it isn't merely intent: We see accidents as well.

Zep said:
I have. You are reading more into it than you realise.

Incidentally, I happen to agree with your intentions: I do think gun access SHOULD be more restricted than it is. But I also think you are arguing more from passion than logic.
Click to expand...

I am arguing from all three: Passion, logic and evidence.

Zep said:
Incorrect. You need access to one gun only in order to have a shooting spree. It's to do with ACCESSIBILITY.
Click to expand...

That's what I say. The easier you can access guns, the more gun deaths you will have.

Zep said:
By your logic, the keepers of military weapons armouries would be the most dangerous job in the world (because there's LOADS of guns in their vicinity). But this huge cache of lethality is invariably under heavy lock-and-key, so it is actually a fairly safe. The ACCESSIBILITY of those weapons for misuse is very low. So the safety is high.
Click to expand...

Which, again, proves my point: Even the military don't trust its soldiers with guns. Even Friendly Fire is all too common.

Zep said:
Whoah! Unqualified statement of uncorroborated fact right here! C'mon! You know the drill...
Click to expand...

Again, I point to the evidence. Which, mind you, I am the only one providing.
 
Again, I point to the evidence. Which, mind you, I am the only one providing.
Click to expand...

Only you are providing evidence to a claim that you weren't arguing to begin with. You may as well be citing a study about the mating habits of aardvarks. Why don't you address the original point you tried to make, which I have brought up twice now? If you are trying to shift your argument, just say so.
 
qayak said:
Completely disagree. The shooter in Montreal would not have killed/injured all those people were he using a club instead of a gun. It is like saying that there is no use limiting nuclear weapons because if the US had of dropped a claymore on Hiroshima instead of an A-bomb, people would still have died.
Click to expand...

You know what? You just keep your little illusion.

You would stop alcoholism by removing the alcohol. In fact, isn't that how they stop alcoholism, they convince people to stop drinking it?
Click to expand...

No. There is no "they." There is only yourself. No one "convinces" you to quit drinking.

The difference here is that alcoholism is something that affects an individual. If I decide to drink, I hurt only myself.
Click to expand...

Really? Alcoholics don't have families, friends, coworkers, or communities? Drunk drivers always get into wrecks involving only themselves? Only beat themselves up? When they lose their jobs over and over, it doesn't affect their families in any way?

Sonny, I was married to an alcoholic for over 13 years. DO NOT tell me about the disease; I will tell you. And I am telling you that you don't know squat about it. You have a lot to learn.


This was written by Mark Twain so apparently there has been a problem for a long time.
Click to expand...

Apparently so. How about you persist in thinking it's the gun's fault and see where that gets you? You just keep thinking its all because of the weapon and not the person. That'll fix everything.
 
CFLarsen said:
Nobody is arguing that guns have a mind of their own. But it isn't merely intent: We see accidents as well.
Click to expand...
Glad we all agree.



CFLarsen said:
I am arguing from all three: Passion, logic and evidence.
Click to expand...
Don't let the former override the latter.



CFLarsen said:
That's what I say. The easier you can access guns, the more gun deaths you will have.
Click to expand...
No, you were arguing that the NUMBER of guns extant leads that way. That is, you were arguing that NUMBER = AVAILABILITY = PROBLEM SIZE. I showed that the first equation does not hold. However you can keep going with the second if you like.



CFLarsen said:
Which, again, proves my point: Even the military don't trust its soldiers with guns. Even Friendly Fire is all too common.
Click to expand...
Actually, it proves nothing of the sort. The basic reason military guns are locked up is to prevent OTHER militaries or bad people ACCESSING them (to destroy or use). And to ensure that they are not mislaid for whatever nefarious purposes - militaries do like to ensure they are armed, y'know!

However if you want to argue about "friendly fire" then again you are talking accessibility and responsibility. That's a different argument to what you started here.



CFLarsen said:
Again, I point to the evidence. Which, mind you, I am the only one providing.
Click to expand...
Your evidence is not supporting your contention, I'm afraid. It supports something else nearby, but not directly what you wanted.
 
Yes, "it happened again."

And it will happen again.

What you can do is ensure that your kids aren't the problem. If each parent takes on that modest responsibility, the problem starts to reduce in scale.

I'd suggest that a starting point for that is "don't have kids until you are absolutely ready to do so, and to make the sacrifice necessary to raise them and teach them well."

DR
 
Zep said:
Don't let the former override the latter.
Click to expand...

Of course not. I'm the cold skeptic, remember? ;)

Zep said:
No, you were arguing that the NUMBER of guns extant leads that way. That is, you were arguing that NUMBER = AVAILABILITY = PROBLEM SIZE. I showed that the first equation does not hold. However you can keep going with the second if you like.
Click to expand...

When we are talking about ordinary people, then we can indeed talk about NUMBER = AVAILABILITY.

It isn't as if a few gun owners own all the guns, you know.

Zep said:
Actually, it proves nothing of the sort. The basic reason military guns are locked up is to prevent OTHER militaries or bad people ACCESSING them (to destroy or use). And to ensure that they are not mislaid for whatever nefarious purposes - militaries do like to ensure they are armed, y'know!
Click to expand...

They are also locked up to prevent soldiers from going bonkers and start firing away.

Zep said:
However if you want to argue about "friendly fire" then again you are talking accessibility and responsibility. That's a different argument to what you started here.
Click to expand...

That was merely another example of how dangerous guns are, even in the hands of trained people.

Zep said:
Your evidence is not supporting your contention, I'm afraid. It supports something else nearby, but not directly what you wanted.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but the evidence does support my contention. Having guns is a bad idea.
 
As difficult as it would be to gather up all the guns and destroy them, it would still be easier than it would be to correct whatever it is that contributes to kids choosing to kill in this manner.

Claus, if I agree with you that guns are too readily available here, will you agree with me that this has always been so?

If you can agree with this, can you not see that something else, something aside from availability, must also be to blame? Because if guns have always been available here, then why have kids not always shot up their schools?

What could have changed to make this so, and should we not be looking at whatever that is, as well? Should we really say this problem will go away if we just get rid of guns?

See, I don't care if the boy next door only kills one of my children, and does it by strangling him with his bare hands. What is making kids want to kill?

Are you really saying it's okay with you if one of these killer kids "only" kills one or two people each time? That's an acceptable body-count for you?

I have never said guns aren't part of the problem. I have said they are only part of the problem. If you can't agree with that simple statement, then you're part of the problem, too.
 
Darth Rotor said:
Yes, "it happened again."

And it will happen again.

What you can do is ensure that your kids aren't the problem. If each parent takes on that modest responsibility, the problem starts to reduce in scale.

I'd suggest that a starting point for that is "don't have kids until you are absolutely ready to do so, and to make the sacrifice necessary to raise them and teach them well."

DR
Click to expand...

So, you are arguing that American parents are less qualified to raise children than parents in other nations?
 
The difference is that there is no safe use of a gun. There is no moderate use of a gun.
Click to expand...

Still no evidence for this claim?

It's just as well, it is bed time for me. And I can't say I am interested in playing "chase the rabbit" here anymore. If you happen to come up with a study that proves the above claim which we discussed for about a page and a half, feel free to post it.

Or, you could post studies that have absolutely nothing to do with it, and claim those as evidence. You know, whatever works for you! Either way, I'm out.
 
slingblade said:
As difficult as it would be to gather up all the guns and destroy them, it would still be easier than it would be to correct whatever it is that contributes to kids choosing to kill in this manner.

Claus, if I agree with you that guns are too readily available here, will you agree with me that this has always been so?
Click to expand...

Of course. It is incredibly difficult to create a society/culture where social problems are reduced. But by removing guns, you can immediately remove a huge chunk of that.

It's the easy solution - something Americans usually love. But not in this situation - it is very much a religious argumentation we hear: People are even willing to ignore hard data.

slingblade said:
If you can agree with this, can you not see that something else, something aside from availability, must also be to blame? Because if guns have always been available here, then why have kids not always shot up their schools?
Click to expand...

Has there ever been a time in the history of the US where guns have been more plenty?

slingblade said:
What could have changed to make this so, and should we not be looking at whatever that is, as well? Should we really say this problem will go away if we just get rid of guns?
Click to expand...

It will not go away completely, but if you can't get to guns all that easy (nothing is impossible, of course), then you can't do bad things with them.

slingblade said:
See, I don't care if the boy next door only kills one of my children, and does it by strangling him with his bare hands. What is making kids want to kill?
Click to expand...

A culture of violence is certainly a factor, but all humans harbor violent tendencies. It is when they have easy access to guns that it becomes a big problem.

slingblade said:
Are you really saying it's okay with you if one of these killer kids "only" kills one or two people each time? That's an acceptable body-count for you?
Click to expand...

It isn't acceptable, but it is way better than having the kid fire round after round into a group of other kids. With guns, you can kill a lot of people, really quick, at a very early age. You can't do that if you strangle them.

slingblade said:
I have never said guns aren't part of the problem. I have said they are only part of the problem. If you can't agree with that simple statement, then you're part of the problem, too.
Click to expand...

Glad I am not, then.
 
CFLarsen said:
So, you are arguing that American parents are less qualified to raise children than parents in other nations?
Click to expand...
No, but you are by the way to ask that question. Not taking your obvious flame bait. ;)

I am suggesting that an approach one can take is to ensure one's own children are not the root of the problem. A key ingredient to that is how you raise your children.

Slingblade opened a line of thought on how one addresses the behavioral causes of kids acting out violently with guns. My suggestion is that one path to that end begins in the home, with a deeper root cause being the mind set of the adults/parents on where priorities lie once one decides to procreate.

DR
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom