• 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.

Why doesn't the US do something about mass shootings?

Dr.Sid said:
Doesn't matter how it feels. If you get shot at, would you rather had a gun yourself, or not ? If your family was under fire, would you rather had a gun, or not ?
Click to expand...

The answer to these questions depends on the context. And that's part of the problem - people imagining a certain set of circumstances favorable to the course of action they already want to take. Battling hypotheticals.
 
marplots said:
The answer to these questions depends on the context. And that's part of the problem - people imagining a certain set of circumstances favorable to the course of action they already want to take. Battling hypotheticals.
Click to expand...
This. This is why I refuse to play hypothetical games.
 
marplots said:
The answer to these questions depends on the context. And that's part of the problem - people imagining a certain set of circumstances favorable to the course of action they already want to take. Battling hypotheticals.
Click to expand...
Which is pointless in the real world
 
Craig B said:
If my family was under fire, of course. But with fewer guns in circulation fewer families come under fire. Here, not even the police carry guns in the course of their normal duties.
Click to expand...

Problem is how to achieve 'fewer guns in circulation'. And note, that must include illegal guns. At current state it would be right out immoral to ask legal gun owners to give up their guns.
There is a lot room for registration, exams and so on, and even limitations, I too think nobody really needs AR. But to ban weapons for self defense purpose, as is for example in UK, is just impossible in US at the moment.
 
It's puzzling to me, as a Kiwi, that there have been so many mass shootings in in the US and it doesn't appear that the US has decided to do any sort of reaction to the problem.
Click to expand...

No desire. As asinine as it is, that's it in a nutshell.

No desire.
 
Dr.Sid said:
Problem is how to achieve 'fewer guns in circulation'. And note, that must include illegal guns. At current state it would be right out immoral to ask legal gun owners to give up their guns.
There is a lot room for registration, exams and so on, and even limitations, I too think nobody really needs AR. But to ban weapons for self defense purpose, as is for example in UK, is just impossible in US at the moment.
Click to expand...
No one is asking anyone to give up their guns
 
Yes, it's clear that better gun control prevents disturbed individuals from carrying out mass murder. That's why such things never happen in France, for instance.

Oh wait.
 
smartcooky said:
First, for starters, you need to have a firearms licence. In order to get one, you need to pass the firearms safety exams, and pass the "fit and proper person test". If you have ever been subject to a protection order, broken any firearms laws, committed any criminal offence, or any offence involving drugs or violence, or are connected with a criminal gang or any members of a criminal gang, or committed any act of domestic violence, then you will fail the fit and proper person test.
Click to expand...
Those things will not allow legal ownership of a firearm in the USA either; except for I'm not sure how affiliation with a gang would affect me if I was so involved.

Now the gun. In NZ, a "type A licence is for "sporting configuration" firearms.....

Basically, anything that looks or acts like an assault weapon is out, so AR15, M16, L1A1 all out.
Click to expand...
That is why I suggested an SKS. With the fixed mag blocked to seven rounds or less, it should be good to go. Like these sold here; http://www.guncity.com/762x39-norinco-sks-16-carbine-a-cat-5-shot-semi-auto-227383

The point I was trying to make is that the guns are available; perhaps the human factor is more important.
 
AdamSK said:
Yes, it's clear that better gun control prevents disturbed individuals from carrying out mass murder. That's why such things never happen in France, for instance.

Oh wait.
Click to expand...

It's not a question of either a perfect solution or nothing at all.
Also, looking at the Wiki article gun homicide kills 3.43 people per 100000 in the US, and .21 in France, that's about one sixteenth. So perhaps, even though France is not a pacifist paradise devoid of violence, there is something to be said for gun control.

And yes, I realize that many other social and economic factors come into play, and the huge discrepancy can't be completely explained by gun control measures. But that argument cuts both ways, and also undermines your own comparison...

I never quite get why some people try to frame these arguments as a contest between countries anyway...
So what if horrible things happen in other places as well? That's no reason to ignore your own problems.
And so what if one's own country happens to have less of a particular terrible something than another country? That's neither an argument, nor a reason to feel personally superior to a random citizen of the other place.
 
Porpoise of Life said:
It's not a question of either a perfect solution or nothing at all.
Also, looking at the Wiki article gun homicide kills 3.43 people per 100000 in the US, and .21 in France, that's about one sixteenth. So perhaps, even though France is not a pacifist paradise devoid of violence, there is something to be said for gun control.
Click to expand...
I thought the problem was mass killings, not violent crime rate. Mass killings are not a statistically relevant cause of death in either country.
And why is "gun homicide" the relevant statistic? Can we agree that if a country prohibited green cars, there would be fewer accidents due to green cars in that country? We should be comparing homicide rates, not homicide rates specifically due to the thing we're talking about restricting.

I never quite get why some people try to frame these arguments as a contest between countries anyway...
Click to expand...
People are saying that US lack of gun control is the cause of mass killings. Pointing out that other countries with gun control still have mass killings is evidence against the argument.

If you want to know which laws/structures are better, comparing the outcomes of different countries with those different laws/structures is a very reasonable thing to do.
 
Last edited:
Porpoise of Life said:
It's not a question of either a perfect solution or nothing at all.
Also, looking at the Wiki article gun homicide kills 3.43 people per 100000 in the US, and .21 in France, that's about one sixteenth. So perhaps, even though France is not a pacifist paradise devoid of violence, there is something to be said for gun control.

And yes, I realize that many other social and economic factors come into play, and the huge discrepancy can't be completely explained by gun control measures. But that argument cuts both ways, and also undermines your own comparison...

I never quite get why some people try to frame these arguments as a contest between countries anyway...
So what if horrible things happen in other places as well? That's no reason to ignore your own problems.
And so what if one's own country happens to have less of a particular terrible something than another country? That's neither an argument, nor a reason to feel personally superior to a random citizen of the other place.
Click to expand...

Music to my own ears!!! :D:thumbsup::D:thumbsup::D
 
AdamSK said:
Yes, it's clear that better gun control prevents disturbed individuals from carrying out mass murder. That's why such things never happen in France, for instance.

Oh wait.
Click to expand...


Who said anything about preventing? How about mitigating?

If we can't totally eliminate it, we should do nothing? Is that your stance?
 
NoahFence said:
Who said anything about preventing? How about mitigating?

If we can't totally eliminate it, we should do nothing? Is that your stance?
Click to expand...

My stance is that mass shootings are media sensations but are statistically irrelevant, and if there's any change in policy due to them, it should be in the field of mental health. Violent crime generally is the appropriate evidential basis for discussing gun control.
 
AdamSK said:
I thought the problem was mass killings, not violent crime rate. Mass killings are not a statistically relevant cause of death in either country.
And why is "gun homicide" the relevant statistic? Can we agree that if a country prohibited green cars, there would be fewer accidents due to green cars in that country? We should be comparing homicide rates, not homicide rates specifically due to the thing we're talking about restricting.


People are saying that US lack of gun control is the cause of mass killings. Pointing out that other countries with gun control still have mass killings is evidence against the argument.

If you want to know which laws/structures are better, comparing the outcomes of different countries with those different laws/structures is a very reasonable thing to do.
Click to expand...

I chose gun homicide because mass killings are relatively rare anywhere, so it might not be the greatest basis fo far-reaching legislation. Bus since it's the topic of the thread:

If you insist: Rampage killings in the US: 86. In France: 11. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers
The population of France is roughly a quarter of that of the USA, so that's still double when corrected for population.

Every country with any kind of laws still has those laws broken. Your argument that no law will prevent all crime is a fallacy.
No one is claiming that better gun control is going to prevent all mass shootings.

The question isn't what legislation can prevent every tragedy, but what legislation would be needed to significantly diminish gun deaths, and do the benefits outweigh the costs (rights/taxes/privacy versus lives saved)
That's a more productive avenue of discussion than fingerpointing.
 
Porpoise of Life said:
I chose gun homicide because mass killings are relatively rare anywhere, so it might not be the greatest basis fo far-reaching legislation.
Click to expand...
I agree.


Every country with any kind of laws still has those laws broken. Your argument that no law will prevent all crime is a fallacy.
Click to expand...
Right, which is why it's also a fallacy to assume we need to fix these laws based on the existence of more than zero mass killings.
 
AdamSK said:
My stance is that mass shootings are media sensations but are statistically irrelevant, and if there's any change in policy due to them, it should be in the field of mental health. Violent crime generally is the appropriate evidential basis for discussing gun control.
Click to expand...

A dude jumping out of a plane without a parachute is a media sensation.
Mass shootings are real. And they're a problem.
 
Here's an interesting article exploring "how bad things are" that really gave me pause about my own assumptions on the issue.

I do agree we are seeing more mass shootings (not killings) shootings and that's cause for concern. Obviously someone could take a truck and drive it into a parade here as well. But we can't just ignore the frequency with which they are occurring.

Yet the writer does make some good points.


https://markmanson.net/crazy-world
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom