EPTIf you're seeing this topic then another mass shooting hap…
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
|
Paperplane
Netherlands1823 Posts
| ||
|
Cuce
Turkey1127 Posts
in a society where firearms can easly be obtained and used, even in some cases blessed as protectors agains tyranical regimes, this events are not really that strange. | ||
|
MrKn4rz
Germany2153 Posts
On December 15 2012 20:52 bOneSeven wrote: By an FBI study, 67% of murders in the US are caused by guns. This tells me that guns make it easier for you to kill, however they are not the problem, if it were, the ratio would be at about ~98%. Sure, in other countries there are not many murderers caused by gun usage, but that didn't stop some crazy guy kill a friend of a friend with a gun here, where guns are illegal. I don't understand the issue you are debating... Guns or no guns ?..... Guns are irrelevant, they just make killing easier, but it still occurs anyways, you should be concern about education, and people who get born in very poor neighbourhoods that have no perspective in life. Those school shooting should probably not be completely stopped if you have tight gun regulation, a crazy guy can easily engineer bombs powerful enough to kill a lot of people. Also, people will kill people, that's why they are called psychopaths...It's an actual disease... Also the argument is ridiculuos. In one simple sentence, you can debunk this debate: People with no bad intention should not have the right to carry a defense weapon, in a country where there are tons of guns, and where crazy people can most likely get a gun. Should we live in a world with no guns, I would vote yes...But since they are here and people make good money of it and it won't stop.... Also one more thing I don't understand; why people blame the NRA ? Why don't people blame the people who gave weapon to a random guy ? I don't know much about gun control, but I would figure, a gun would be given to a guy with proper psychological testing. As far as I would think of it, the ones who sold the weapon to the lunatic should at least loose his right with guns or even get in jail. Why does it always have to be so black&white with some people. Seriously, just because someone speaks out for gun control doesnt mean he doesnt concern himself for any of the other issues that usually lead to these kind of tragedys. Obviously the social aspects are equally or probably even more important but bear in mind that this thread is about "if people should be allowed to own and carry Guns?". Also the fact, as some people allready mentioned, that the severity of such incidents can possibly be reduced by not allowing guns, is something that in my opinion just cant be denied. Not to mention that in this particular case it would have been very unlikely for the "killer" to obtain a gun in the first place considering the circumstances. One might also argue that maybe the mere presence of said gun could have played an important role in his decision to do such a thing. | ||
|
Timmsh
Netherlands201 Posts
On December 15 2012 20:52 bOneSeven wrote: By an FBI study, 67% of murders in the US are caused by guns. This tells me that guns make it easier for you to kill, however they are not the problem, if it were, the ratio would be at about ~98%. Sure, in other countries there are not many murderers caused by gun usage, but that didn't stop some crazy guy kill a friend of a friend with a gun here, where guns are illegal. I don't understand the issue you are debating... Guns or no guns ?..... Guns are irrelevant, they just make killing easier, but it still occurs anyways, you should be concern about education, and people who get born in very poor neighbourhoods that have no perspective in life. Those school shooting should probably not be completely stopped if you have tight gun regulation, a crazy guy can easily engineer bombs powerful enough to kill a lot of people. Also, people will kill people, that's why they are called psychopaths...It's an actual disease... Also the argument is ridiculuos. In one simple sentence, you can debunk this debate: People with no bad intention should not have the right to carry a defense weapon, in a country where there are tons of guns, and where crazy people can most likely get a gun. Should we live in a world with no guns, I would vote yes...But since they are here and people make good money of it and it won't stop.... Also one more thing I don't understand; why people blame the NRA ? Why don't people blame the people who gave weapon to a random guy ? I don't know much about gun control, but I would figure, a gun would be given to a guy with proper psychological testing. As far as I would think of it, the ones who sold the weapon to the lunatic should at least loose his right with guns or even get in jail. I think you really have a good point, about education could help in this case. And of course the fact that when people want to kill, they will. But i believe you are missing an important aspect. We are not talking about sane people here. You know people with the intention to kill as many persons he sees. (like you said, the people who create bombs and such, like a classical terrorist, who are not crazy btw, only morally wrong) I think the people who get shot in the US are people who are in the wrong place at the wrong time. In a burglary, or when somebody breaks into their house, or when a person steals your car etc. In the case of the US, people who burglar carry guns. And thus people who get robbed have the feeling they should also carry guns. People get affraid, people get shot. (also innocent people) Don't you see this just increases the whole tension between people? Now we talk about the NON-sane people, you know, the people you build psychiatry institutions for. Do you know why we build psychiatry institutions? because those people are not in control, but still, the American idea about gun ownership implicitly requires everybody to be in control of themselves and their guns. It's just an idea not made for humans.. Thats why a person when freaks out, can do massive damage instantly and thats the result we also see in Connecticut this week. | ||
|
IMoperator
4476 Posts
| ||
|
tomatriedes
New Zealand5356 Posts
On December 15 2012 20:52 bOneSeven wrote: By an FBI study, 67% of murders in the US are caused by guns. This tells me that guns make it easier for you to kill, however they are not the problem, if it were, the ratio would be at about ~98%. Sure, in other countries there are not many murderers caused by gun usage, but that didn't stop some crazy guy kill a friend of a friend with a gun here, where guns are illegal. I don't understand the issue you are debating... Guns or no guns ?..... Guns are irrelevant, they just make killing easier, but it still occurs anyways, you should be concern about education, and people who get born in very poor neighbourhoods that have no perspective in life. Those school shooting should probably not be completely stopped if you have tight gun regulation, a crazy guy can easily engineer bombs powerful enough to kill a lot of people. Also, people will kill people, that's why they are called psychopaths...It's an actual disease... Also the argument is ridiculuos. In one simple sentence, you can debunk this debate: People with no bad intention should not have the right to carry a defense weapon, in a country where there are tons of guns, and where crazy people can most likely get a gun. Should we live in a world with no guns, I would vote yes...But since they are here and people make good money of it and it won't stop.... Also one more thing I don't understand; why people blame the NRA ? Why don't people blame the people who gave weapon to a random guy ? I don't know much about gun control, but I would figure, a gun would be given to a guy with proper psychological testing. As far as I would think of it, the ones who sold the weapon to the lunatic should at least loose his right with guns or even get in jail. People complain about the NRA because the NRA actively campaigns against having any kind of gun control at all and in several states of the US guns can be obtained at gun shows without any kind of background checks let alone 'proper pyschological testing'- you can literally walk in and buy a gun no questions asked no matter what kind of mental health issues or criminal background you may have. It's pretty mind-boggling and disgusting really: Buying a gun has required a background check since the Brady Act took effect in 1994. (James Brady was badly wounded during the assassination attempt on President Reagan; he was Reagan’s press secretary.) Under the law, federally licensed dealers must verify that a buyer has not been convicted of a serious crime or declared mentally incompetent or is blocked for any of about 10 reasons. Typically this is done online and takes less than a day. But only licensed dealers must do this. The law doesn’t apply to private sellers at gun shows, flea markets, or people who post firearms for sale on the Internet. If a private seller suspects that a buyer would be disqualified under federal rules, then they can’t go through with the sale. But there is no background check, and no one needs to file any paperwork. Bloomberg’s office pointed us to a 1997 study by the National Institute of Justice on who owns guns and how they use them.The researchers estimated that about 40 percent of all firearm sales took place through people other than licensed dealers. They based their conclusion on a random survey of more than 2,500 households. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jul/25/michael-bloomberg/mayor-michael-bloomberg-says-40-percent-guns-are-s/ | ||
|
Taguchi
Greece1575 Posts
If it was decided that gun ownership is a bad thing the actual process would involve outright outlawing of some of the more advanced weapons like assault rifles, then gradual (as in several years long increments) banning of the rest, along with proper education about the issue so that newer generations wouldnt think of gun ownership as something natural. Thing is, pro gun people dont even want to start this process. Also @bOneSeven, http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=388186 might make u see why its not just a 'crazy people will be crazy, bad people will be bad' issue. | ||
|
Fenris420
Sweden213 Posts
On December 15 2012 11:18 Nagano wrote: I'm borrowing this from beammeupscotty on shotgunworld with regards to your statements about high capacity magazines. You will see it just isn't worth it. I'll take a stab at giving you some reasons why. First, although I cannot back it up with any facts, I think we can probably agree that the vast majority of people who purchase high capacity magazines for their firearms do NOT commit mass murder with them. Can we agree on that assumption? I am also going to operate on the assumption that if only one or two people were murdered, that high cap vs. low cap magazines are not an issue. Only large numbers of murders at one time by a single individual seem to prompt calls for more regulation, so I am only going to deal with those sorts of crimes when discussing such regulation. Does that seem fair to you as well? (March 2005 - a man opened fire at a church service in Brookfield, Wisconsin, killing seven people.) In that same year there were a reported 11346 murders in total (based on info from this link: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/tables/weaponstab.cfm). That means that about .05% of all murders for that year were possibly committed with a weapon using a high cap magazine (though I don't know for certain that such a weapon was used in that instance). Sometimes government statistics don't match up too well. For that same year the FBI (which is a part of the DOJ, same as the BJA http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm) lists 16,740, making the possible high cap murders in that year only .035% of all murders that year. Looking at an especially bad year, 2007 and the Virginia Tech shootings, the total murders for that year were 11,493 and 32 people were killed. That means that in 2007 .27% of the murders were committed with weapons using high cap magazines, or in which high cap magazines may have been an issue. Just about 1/4 of 1% You can go through the statistics year by year and find the same thing. Always less than 1% of the murders committed in any given year where high capacity magazines might have been an issue. In most years that figure is less than a half percent and in many it is less than .05%. That is 5 100ths of a percent of all murders in a year. And for that 5-100ths of a percent, you are proposing to restrict the access to high capacity magazine for the literally tens of millions of people who would like to purchase them. I'd also like to point out that while these high profile mass shootings make it seem like gun crime is on the rise, aided by the media constantly putting people on the air who assert that "there is an epidemic of gun crime in the U.S.", the actual statistics show exactly the opposite. From the FBI statistics (which are HIGHER than those from the BJA statistics), the number to total murders is actually dropping, not increasing. (I just realized that the FBI statistics I am referencing are for ALL murders, not just gun murders, which may explain the discrepancy between the two sources). Anyway, the point is that the number of murders where high capacity magazines are a factor is actually very small and in addition to that, the actual total number of murders overall is falling. So why, in light of those facts, would you propose to restrict the rights of your fellow shooters to high capacity magazines, when that would make no appreciable difference in the total number of murders committed in any given year? Here is another point. In the same year that the Virginia Tech shooting took place, when there were a total of 16,929 murders, and according to the CDC, 11,493 gun homicides, there were also 41,059 deaths in automobiles. That is slightly under 4 times more deaths. It seems to me that if we were to restrict cars to 50 horse power, and the speed limit to 45 mph, that we would save many more lives than restricting high capacity magazines would. Why are you not proposing those sorts of measures? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year) From the CDC web site: http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/tobacco_related_mortality/ Quote: More deaths are caused each year by tobacco use than by all deaths from human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), illegal drug use, alcohol use, motor vehicle injuries, suicides, and murders combined.1,2 Are you proposing to make smoking illegal? I doubt it. The point is, that while I often am dismayed when my conservative friends react in irrational ways to things that don't actually exist or "facts" that are false, my liberal friends are often guilty of exactly the same sort of errors of judgement. Gun control and the even more silly magazine control issue, are examples of the these sorts of errors by the latter group. If you really want to save lives, make driving drunk a capital crime or better yet, make it a capital crime to drive with ANY amount of alcohol in your system, with mandatory jail time. Make cars less powerful and and speed limits ridiculously low. Make smoking a felony. Of course, I don't expect you to do so. Certainly the odds are that you have driven when you have had more to drink than you should have. Most people, myself included, have. Proposing a law that would make ANY amount of alcohol in your system would seriously affect me and a huge number of other people, probably yourself included and because it will actually affect you, I would not expect you to support it. Likewise, restricting cars to 50 h.p. and 45 m.p.h. would also affect you, so even though it would probably save thousands of lives a year, I doubt that you would support it. One big problem with proposing legislation like high cap magazine restriction (apart from second amendment issues) is that the people who always propose such things are NOT the people who will be affected by it. The same thing with other forms of gun control. Just listening to the proponents on the news makes it quite clear that virtually NONE of those who support restricting gun rights are actually gun owners or know anything about the habits of gun owners. Clearly, unless you are a troll (which I am not suggesting) you too are a gun owner, but I doubt you have or use any high capacity magazines. If you did, I seriously doubt you would be proposing restrictions on ownership of such magazines. Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong. So these are some of the reasons that I personally don't support restricting ownership of high capacity magazines. I do in fact own some, though never actually use them. Restricting them would really not affect me personally, but I still would not support such legislation because of all the other law abiding gun owners who DO use them, and because implementing such legislation would do virtually NOTHING to limit the number of people killed with guns each year. Feel free to rebut any of these points that you do not feel are valid. I think in regards to the assult rifle debate we just argue for the sake of arguing. I agree assault rifles are not an issue for serial killings, I just think it is stupid to even allow people to own such a thing as an assault rifle. The only use that kind of weapon has is for killing people, and lots of them. While there may not be any issues with people actually doing that, it is just a pointless liberty to have. It is like saying the right to own a flamethrower is important. You can never use it, but you want one anyway. I will borrow a quote from the Men in Black movie. "A person is smart, people are just dumb panicky animals". In short, I don't trust people to do the right thing, as such I am probably just a very cynical person. The difference between assault rifles and regular rifles is that it is harder for someone to accidentally kill you if they have a single bullet. Preferably they shouldnt have bullets at all. Drinking and driving in Sweden is a lot different from the US. Over here that kind of thing is considered a crime, nobody would admit to doing it if they have. It illustrates a point though. I think that the culture is the biggest reason why people do and don't do things. Not saying Sweden doesn't have drunk drivers, but it much less so a thing than in the US (this might vary from state to state obviously, I have only visited a few). If you could have the same culture around firearms, that people used them only with the greatest degree of care, I would probably be all for it. Thing is, we know they dont. Smoking is only going to hurt the smokers, I don't care about that. On a fundamental level I am for legalisation of all drugs as long as you don't do things like drive around while under the influence. Difference being that drugs again only really hurts yourself. Guns are designed to hurt others, it is their only purpose. Do not get me started on cars  Let me reiterate, I actually like guns. I used to be in the military and I've been brought up doing target shooting and hunting. Still, two people were shot by mistake this year alone during the hunting season in Sweden and I cannot for the life of me understand how that would happen. It is not like we depend on deer to make it through the winter season either. So in short, I am not against guns because I think it might reduce crime. You are very correct in the sense that criminals don't care if gun ownership is illegal and hence it won't matter much. I am against guns because I think that even without crime, people are going to get guns and accidentally kill themselves or others for no practical use. I don't care about drugs because I am not really into them, nor do I feel like they pose any threat to me and the other things you mentioned has practical uses to make up for the risks. | ||
|
Scarecrow
Korea (South)9172 Posts
On December 15 2012 20:42 foxmeep wrote: Australia brought in new gun laws in the 90s, here's some interesting data/statistics relating to it. Interpret as you please  http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html Looks legit. 4 references total and written in 2009 by an unnamed author. It also conveniently uses a homicide graph over a short period from '93 -> '00 when there's far more complete information available showing a general downward trend in gun-related homocides and homocides in general leading up to '06/'07 (http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html). | ||
|
Manimal_pro
Romania991 Posts
On December 15 2012 15:00 sCCrooked wrote: lol what sort of reasoning is this? So we need a massive Civil War to get guns out of peoples' hands huh? the reasoning people's existing rights are not intangible, just as the right to own slaves has been abolished, the right to own guns can be abolished in order for society to progress | ||
|
Fenris420
Sweden213 Posts
I for one believe that crime is changing and the quantity is going down because of cameras and other surveillance getting better. Police also does a lot more forensic work in the last few decades. There can be all sorts of causes for crime rates you know. I wouldn't be surprised if the recent economical situation has increased it for example. The types of crimes are also somewhat different. Prior to 2000 or so, high school shootings didn't exist. Statistically, those kinds of crimes are not so relevant, but it is a frightening development that they even take place if you ask me. Something drives someone to mindlessly kill others and then commit suicide. That kind of thing does not show up in your graphs. Long story short, I don't think you can "prove" any argument purely with statistical interpretation, especially since you only have the cold data,you know nothing of the surrounding factors at all. Arguing over the reliability of sources makes no sense in that regard. | ||
|
shell
Portugal2722 Posts
It's more about why would a civilian be allowed to have a AK47 or a m16 automatic assault rifle, that's not protection, that's a war gun. People having a normal shotgun/revolver/rifle for hunting is normal but having a AK47 or 10 guns in your home is too much. Anyways I can understand that it's a cultural thing in the USA and violence was always more accepted there then in other western countrys. But you should open your eyes, to much murder, to much gun related violence, to many people in jail and that creates a culture of hate and violence that will continue for the next generations! It's time to try something else? Maybe more airsoft and less real guns would be a good change for american youth | ||
|
Reason
United Kingdom2770 Posts
On December 15 2012 21:40 tomatriedes wrote: People complain about the NRA because the NRA actively campaigns against having any kind of gun control at all and in several states of the US guns can be obtained at gun shows without any kind of background checks let alone 'proper pyschological testing'- you can literally walk in and buy a gun no questions asked no matter what kind of mental health issues or criminal background you may have. It's pretty mind-boggling and disgusting really: What I think is disgusting is that these sorts of people are walking the streets anyway. If you are worried that a known violent or insane person is capable of buying a gun with no questions asked, doesn't it bother you that they are wandering around free in the first place? | ||
|
Franthier
China64 Posts
On December 15 2012 21:31 IMoperator wrote: I'm curious, I'm for strict gun control but how are we supposed to start it now with so many people owning guns? Especially if we decided to completely ban them, how is the government going to know who has them and how are they going to take them away? If we were talking about countries like Japan and Korea, it can be easily done because the public actually follows rules. However, this is America we are talking about. People don't follow rules and you can't tell them what to do. As soon as you start confiscating guns from people, especially those deemed unfit to carry firearms, people will rebel not because it is against the second amendment but because you can't tell them to do things they don't want to do. We live in a different time now, the constituion needs to be changed to fit the modern America. However, there is just too much profit at stake and government won't be able to do shit because corporates can make multi-billions by selling arms and a few people die here and there is irelevant to them. | ||
|
dragoonier
Germany154 Posts
| ||
|
hzflank
United Kingdom2991 Posts
On December 15 2012 21:31 IMoperator wrote: I'm curious, I'm for strict gun control but how are we supposed to start it now with so many people owning guns? Especially if we decided to completely ban them, how is the government going to know who has them and how are they going to take them away? Draconian sentencing for possession of illegal firearms. Make is so that if a robbery gets you 2 months in prison, and armed robbery gets you 10 years. Merely having a illegal gun in your home gets you 2 years. Then offer to buy back guns from civilians, so they get a little cash back from turning them over. The vast majority of guns will be turned in. | ||
|
hzflank
United Kingdom2991 Posts
On December 15 2012 22:28 shell wrote: It's not just about having guns or not having guns. It's more about why would a civilian be allowed to have a AK47 or a m16 automatic assault rifle, that's not protection, that's a war gun. People having a normal shotgun/revolver/rifle for hunting is normal but having a AK47 or 10 guns in your home is too much. Anyways I can understand that it's a cultural thing in the USA and violence was always more accepted there then in other western countrys. But you should open your eyes, to much murder, to much gun related violence, to many people in jail and that creates a culture of hate and violence that will continue for the next generations! It's time to try something else? Maybe more airsoft and less real guns would be a good change for american youth There are two main things here: Hunting weapons are generally single shot. It is much harder to go on a killing spree when you have to reload after every shot. If the US, I believe you can legally own a weapon that can fire 30 rounds before being reloaded. Hunting weapons are too large to easily conceal. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On December 15 2012 22:27 Fenris420 wrote: No matter what side of the argument you are on, looking at guns vs. crime is a poor interpretation of statistics. It makes the claim that the only thing that can affect crime rate is the accessibility of guns. I for one believe that crime is changing and the quantity is going down because of cameras and other surveillance getting better. Police also does a lot more forensic work in the last few decades. There can be all sorts of causes for crime rates you know. I wouldn't be surprised if the recent economical situation has increased it for example. The types of crimes are also somewhat different. Prior to 2000 or so, high school shootings didn't exist. Statistically, those kinds of crimes are not so relevant, but it is a frightening development that they even take place if you ask me. Something drives someone to mindlessly kill others and then commit suicide. That kind of thing does not show up in your graphs. Long story short, I don't think you can "prove" any argument purely with statistical interpretation, especially since you only have the cold data,you know nothing of the surrounding factors at all. Arguing over the reliability of sources makes no sense in that regard. http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/14/us/timeline-school-violence/index.html?hpt=hp_t1 | ||
|
negon
212 Posts
I live in a European country where I am allowed to legally own a pistol (after completing a set of exams, and of course only with a clean criminal record) and I believe that is the best way. While it prevents most people from owning possibly extremely dangerous and unnecessary weapons (SMGs, assault rifles), it still leaves us able to defend ourselves. I'd also like to say that if you're an adult person with a possibility to own a firearm, yet you don't, you're either incredibly naive or just downright irresponsible. The world we live in is a dangerous place. | ||
|
negon
212 Posts
| ||
| ||
