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.
On December 19 2012 23:14 ninini wrote: One of the most well respected swedish criminologists, Leif GW Persson was asked about the school shooting yesterday on a TV show, and I thought it would be great to share some insight from a person who have studied these things for years, and who have reached a level of respect that everybody here could only dream about. He is a person who is well known for his detached way to look at crime, and how he always uses statistics to form his views.
Here's a direct translation: Q: What is required in order to prevent new massacres? A: Well, to prevent is one thing, and to decrease them, that's something else. You can find very strong and direct links between access to weapons, especially certain types of weapons, like half-automatic weapons that tend to be used in these situations, and how often these events occur. When the amounts of weapons increases, this type of crime increases.
He also said that it's possible that something similar would happen in Sweden, but because of our major restrictions, it would require very special circumstances, such as having a parent who likes to hunt game as a hobby, but typically it's very hard for them to get weapons as deadly as this.
So basically his point was that if you restrict the access to weapons, there will be less opportunities. It's pretty simple math really. I don't expect everybody to accept his views as the truth, but I would value his opinion over all the posts in this thread.
Sorry, but coming from Swedish "authority", I don't find it very meaningful. There is absolutely NO correlation between the number or type of weapons to crime or mass shootings, absolutely no correlation.
In fact there was just an event that proves this where a man in China slaughtered over 20 children in a school with a knife. What is next, ban knifes?
But just for the sake of it, you do got more chance of dying from bee sting, lightning strike, accidental strangulation and even allergies from flowers than you have from mass shooting. This is true in the USA, as well as most other countries as well.
he slashed 22 children and 1 adult with the knife. none of them died.
In Australia we got our shit together after the Port Arthur massacre which killed 35. semi-automatics and pump-action shotguns were banned and a gun buy-back scheme was instituted.
Can't see anything of the sort happening in the States because Republicans think they need high power weaponry to fight the armed forces should the government and the military turn on them. lulz.
On December 19 2012 23:14 ninini wrote: One of the most well respected swedish criminologists, Leif GW Persson was asked about the school shooting yesterday on a TV show, and I thought it would be great to share some insight from a person who have studied these things for years, and who have reached a level of respect that everybody here could only dream about. He is a person who is well known for his detached way to look at crime, and how he always uses statistics to form his views.
Here's a direct translation: Q: What is required in order to prevent new massacres? A: Well, to prevent is one thing, and to decrease them, that's something else. You can find very strong and direct links between access to weapons, especially certain types of weapons, like half-automatic weapons that tend to be used in these situations, and how often these events occur. When the amounts of weapons increases, this type of crime increases.
He also said that it's possible that something similar would happen in Sweden, but because of our major restrictions, it would require very special circumstances, such as having a parent who likes to hunt game as a hobby, but typically it's very hard for them to get weapons as deadly as this.
So basically his point was that if you restrict the access to weapons, there will be less opportunities. It's pretty simple math really. I don't expect everybody to accept his views as the truth, but I would value his opinion over all the posts in this thread.
Sorry, but coming from Swedish "authority", I don't find it very meaningful. There is absolutely NO correlation between the number or type of weapons to crime or mass shootings, absolutely no correlation.
In fact there was just an event that proves this where a man in China slaughtered over 20 children in a school with a knife. What is next, ban knifes?
But just for the sake of it, you do got more chance of dying from bee sting, lightning strike, accidental strangulation and even allergies from flowers than you have from mass shooting. This is true in the USA, as well as most other countries as well.
1. You are wrong. The correlation is very strong. In Australia there were more than 10 mass shootings in a decade before 1995 (gun buyback started) and zero in a decade after 1995. Murders by gun dropped by more than half, while other types of murder or other violent crimes either decreased or remained the same.
3. Next ban knifes, paper sprays and all other weapons. Based on past experience overall crime rate will not increase (likely will remain the same), but injures and fatalities will drop.
I understand that in US banning all weapons completely or even just guns can't be implemented suddenly because of how many guns are there and because of the attitudes. The process might require at least a generation or two and the success will depend on media and politics.
On December 19 2012 23:45 ShadeR wrote: In Australia we got our shit together after the Port Arthur massacre which killed 35. semi-automatics and pump-action shotguns were banned and a gun buy-back scheme was instituted.
Can't see anything of the sort happening in the States because Republicans think they need high power weaponry to fight the armed forces should the government and the military turn on them. lulz.
This. Australia improved as a country 10 fold after restrictions were placed on aforementioned weapons.
As long as Americans continue to harbor gun-toting barbarian racists in the south (basically the Republicans), nothing much will change and more sadly: many more children, parents and grandparents will die at the hands of delinquents with weaponry, thanks primarily to their accessibility.
Also, if the US imposed more strict gun laws, it would leave the economy in even more tatters than it already is. Not gonna happen.
On December 19 2012 23:14 ninini wrote: One of the most well respected swedish criminologists, Leif GW Persson was asked about the school shooting yesterday on a TV show, and I thought it would be great to share some insight from a person who have studied these things for years, and who have reached a level of respect that everybody here could only dream about. He is a person who is well known for his detached way to look at crime, and how he always uses statistics to form his views.
Here's a direct translation: Q: What is required in order to prevent new massacres? A: Well, to prevent is one thing, and to decrease them, that's something else. You can find very strong and direct links between access to weapons, especially certain types of weapons, like half-automatic weapons that tend to be used in these situations, and how often these events occur. When the amounts of weapons increases, this type of crime increases.
He also said that it's possible that something similar would happen in Sweden, but because of our major restrictions, it would require very special circumstances, such as having a parent who likes to hunt game as a hobby, but typically it's very hard for them to get weapons as deadly as this.
So basically his point was that if you restrict the access to weapons, there will be less opportunities. It's pretty simple math really. I don't expect everybody to accept his views as the truth, but I would value his opinion over all the posts in this thread.
Sorry, but coming from Swedish "authority", I don't find it very meaningful. There is absolutely NO correlation between the number or type of weapons to crime or mass shootings, absolutely no correlation.
In fact there was just an event that proves this where a man in China slaughtered over 20 children in a school with a knife. What is next, ban knifes?
But just for the sake of it, you do got more chance of dying from bee sting, lightning strike, accidental strangulation and even allergies from flowers than you have from mass shooting. This is true in the USA, as well as most other countries as well.
he slashed 22 children and 1 adult with the knife. none of them died.
Which also makes this a perfect case to advocate strict gun control. In China, where the man can not get a gun easily, or probably at all, he uses a knife, and injures 23 people. Sure, that is bad, and not a nice thing to happen. In the USA, where people can easily get a gun, he would have used an assault rifle instead. I doubt that that would have resulted in no deaths.
It is hard for me to understand how people can take something that clearly shows the problems associated with easily available weaponry, and say that it shows that you need even more available weapons. People get shot in a school and apparently the problem is not that the shooter can easily get an assault rifle, the problem is that the teachers do not carry assault rifles themselves. How can one sanely come to that conclusion? It is simply incomprehensible to me.
A similar thing happens in a country where the attacker can not gain access to a gun, and it results in 0 deaths. And somehow this means that if you want to ban guns, you also need to ban knifes, because apparently "the same thing happens with knifes, too"
Someone shows a video of a gun enthusiast making no sense whatsoever in a debate, and say that it actually shows a "liberal ignoring all arguments". It is like there are two different worlds out there, and some people live in a completely different one.
On December 19 2012 23:14 ninini wrote: One of the most well respected swedish criminologists, Leif GW Persson was asked about the school shooting yesterday on a TV show, and I thought it would be great to share some insight from a person who have studied these things for years, and who have reached a level of respect that everybody here could only dream about. He is a person who is well known for his detached way to look at crime, and how he always uses statistics to form his views.
Here's a direct translation: Q: What is required in order to prevent new massacres? A: Well, to prevent is one thing, and to decrease them, that's something else. You can find very strong and direct links between access to weapons, especially certain types of weapons, like half-automatic weapons that tend to be used in these situations, and how often these events occur. When the amounts of weapons increases, this type of crime increases.
He also said that it's possible that something similar would happen in Sweden, but because of our major restrictions, it would require very special circumstances, such as having a parent who likes to hunt game as a hobby, but typically it's very hard for them to get weapons as deadly as this.
So basically his point was that if you restrict the access to weapons, there will be less opportunities. It's pretty simple math really. I don't expect everybody to accept his views as the truth, but I would value his opinion over all the posts in this thread.
Sorry, but coming from Swedish "authority", I don't find it very meaningful. There is absolutely NO correlation between the number or type of weapons to crime or mass shootings, absolutely no correlation.
In fact there was just an event that proves this where a man in China slaughtered over 20 children in a school with a knife. What is next, ban knifes?
But just for the sake of it, you do got more chance of dying from bee sting, lightning strike, accidental strangulation and even allergies from flowers than you have from mass shooting. This is true in the USA, as well as most other countries as well.
he slashed 22 children and 1 adult with the knife. none of them died.
Which also makes this a perfect case to advocate strict gun control. In China, where the man can not get a gun easily, or probably at all, he uses a knife, and injures 23 people. Sure, that is bad, and not a nice thing to happen. In the USA, where people can easily get a gun, he would have used an assault rifle instead. I doubt that that would have resulted in no deaths.
It is hard for me to understand how people can take something that clearly shows the problems associated with easily available weaponry, and say that it shows that you need even more available weapons. People get shot in a school and apparently the problem is not that the shooter can easily get an assault rifle, the problem is that the teachers do not carry assault rifles themselves. How can one sanely come to that conclusion? It is simply incomprehensible to me.
A similar thing happens in a country where the attacker can not gain access to a gun, and it results in 0 deaths. And somehow this means that if you want to ban guns, you also need to ban knifes, because apparently "the same thing happens with knifes, too"
Someone shows a video of a gun enthusiast making no sense whatsoever in a debate, and say that it actually shows a "liberal ignoring all arguments". It is like there are two different worlds out there, and some people live in a completely different one.
I agree. Banning knifes (and other weapons) actually is a good idea as well. Seems to be working fine in Australia. There are quite a few fights there happening every day, but since most people don't carry knifes (it's illegal as well as guns), there are few cases of serious injures, let alone deaths.
On December 19 2012 23:14 ninini wrote: One of the most well respected swedish criminologists, Leif GW Persson was asked about the school shooting yesterday on a TV show, and I thought it would be great to share some insight from a person who have studied these things for years, and who have reached a level of respect that everybody here could only dream about. He is a person who is well known for his detached way to look at crime, and how he always uses statistics to form his views.
Here's a direct translation: Q: What is required in order to prevent new massacres? A: Well, to prevent is one thing, and to decrease them, that's something else. You can find very strong and direct links between access to weapons, especially certain types of weapons, like half-automatic weapons that tend to be used in these situations, and how often these events occur. When the amounts of weapons increases, this type of crime increases.
He also said that it's possible that something similar would happen in Sweden, but because of our major restrictions, it would require very special circumstances, such as having a parent who likes to hunt game as a hobby, but typically it's very hard for them to get weapons as deadly as this.
So basically his point was that if you restrict the access to weapons, there will be less opportunities. It's pretty simple math really. I don't expect everybody to accept his views as the truth, but I would value his opinion over all the posts in this thread.
Sorry, but coming from Swedish "authority", I don't find it very meaningful. There is absolutely NO correlation between the number or type of weapons to crime or mass shootings, absolutely no correlation.
In fact there was just an event that proves this where a man in China slaughtered over 20 children in a school with a knife. What is next, ban knifes?
But just for the sake of it, you do got more chance of dying from bee sting, lightning strike, accidental strangulation and even allergies from flowers than you have from mass shooting. This is true in the USA, as well as most other countries as well.
he slashed 22 children and 1 adult with the knife. none of them died.
Which also makes this a perfect case to advocate strict gun control. In China, where the man can not get a gun easily, or probably at all, he uses a knife, and injures 23 people. Sure, that is bad, and not a nice thing to happen. In the USA, where people can easily get a gun, he would have used an assault rifle instead. I doubt that that would have resulted in no deaths.
It is hard for me to understand how people can take something that clearly shows the problems associated with easily available weaponry, and say that it shows that you need even more available weapons. People get shot in a school and apparently the problem is not that the shooter can easily get an assault rifle, the problem is that the teachers do not carry assault rifles themselves. How can one sanely come to that conclusion? It is simply incomprehensible to me.
A similar thing happens in a country where the attacker can not gain access to a gun, and it results in 0 deaths. And somehow this means that if you want to ban guns, you also need to ban knifes, because apparently "the same thing happens with knifes, too"
Someone shows a video of a gun enthusiast making no sense whatsoever in a debate, and say that it actually shows a "liberal ignoring all arguments". It is like there are two different worlds out there, and some people live in a completely different one.
You make it sounds like the problem causing these mass shootings is gun availability. That is incorrect. The mass shootings are a symptom of several very large problems. If no guns were available that would reduce/eliminate the mass shootings, yes. But nobody wants to bring up the (mental) healthcare side of this, the economy side of this, nor the cultural side of this. The urge to do something is driving most people to focus on just one of the things that we should work on, with a disproportionate amount of attention.
Some might say "but if we eliminate gun availability, we eliminate these horrible mass shootings, even if the other problems (healthcare, etc) are not solved." The problem is, no matter how much anyone in this thread may want it to be true, eliminating gun availability is not as simple as passing stricter gun laws. Reducing gun availability somewhat is viable but that has separate negative effects, which is why this issue needs to be addressed carefully and in a less absolute manner.
In my opinion, those people who are essentially saying "people on both sides of the issue have good points" are the ones that are right, and the polarized opinions are wrong (or as wrong as opinions can be).
On December 19 2012 23:14 ninini wrote: One of the most well respected swedish criminologists, Leif GW Persson was asked about the school shooting yesterday on a TV show, and I thought it would be great to share some insight from a person who have studied these things for years, and who have reached a level of respect that everybody here could only dream about. He is a person who is well known for his detached way to look at crime, and how he always uses statistics to form his views.
Here's a direct translation: Q: What is required in order to prevent new massacres? A: Well, to prevent is one thing, and to decrease them, that's something else. You can find very strong and direct links between access to weapons, especially certain types of weapons, like half-automatic weapons that tend to be used in these situations, and how often these events occur. When the amounts of weapons increases, this type of crime increases.
He also said that it's possible that something similar would happen in Sweden, but because of our major restrictions, it would require very special circumstances, such as having a parent who likes to hunt game as a hobby, but typically it's very hard for them to get weapons as deadly as this.
So basically his point was that if you restrict the access to weapons, there will be less opportunities. It's pretty simple math really. I don't expect everybody to accept his views as the truth, but I would value his opinion over all the posts in this thread.
Sorry, but coming from Swedish "authority", I don't find it very meaningful. There is absolutely NO correlation between the number or type of weapons to crime or mass shootings, absolutely no correlation.
In fact there was just an event that proves this where a man in China slaughtered over 20 children in a school with a knife. What is next, ban knifes?
But just for the sake of it, you do got more chance of dying from bee sting, lightning strike, accidental strangulation and even allergies from flowers than you have from mass shooting. This is true in the USA, as well as most other countries as well.
he slashed 22 children and 1 adult with the knife. none of them died.
Which also makes this a perfect case to advocate strict gun control. In China, where the man can not get a gun easily, or probably at all, he uses a knife, and injures 23 people. Sure, that is bad, and not a nice thing to happen. In the USA, where people can easily get a gun, he would have used an assault rifle instead. I doubt that that would have resulted in no deaths.
It is hard for me to understand how people can take something that clearly shows the problems associated with easily available weaponry, and say that it shows that you need even more available weapons. People get shot in a school and apparently the problem is not that the shooter can easily get an assault rifle, the problem is that the teachers do not carry assault rifles themselves. How can one sanely come to that conclusion? It is simply incomprehensible to me.
A similar thing happens in a country where the attacker can not gain access to a gun, and it results in 0 deaths. And somehow this means that if you want to ban guns, you also need to ban knifes, because apparently "the same thing happens with knifes, too"
Someone shows a video of a gun enthusiast making no sense whatsoever in a debate, and say that it actually shows a "liberal ignoring all arguments". It is like there are two different worlds out there, and some people live in a completely different one.
Well, see, if the teachers all had guns, and the guy came in and tried to whip out a gun and start shooting people, they could just whip out their gun and stop him dead in his tracks.
It doesnt stand up to a moments scrutiny, for various reasons, one such would be that the whole situation wouldn't have to happen in the first place if you know, the killer wasn't armed in the first place, then there's no shootout at all.
But you know people want to be the hero and they fantasize about an event like that happening and them whipping out their gun and valiantly saving the day...
It seems incomprehensible, but I can certainly understand their misguided viewpoints. Heck if you asked me about this subject 6 months ago, I would have been on their side... Thankfully I've learned a lot since then.
On December 19 2012 23:14 ninini wrote: One of the most well respected swedish criminologists, Leif GW Persson was asked about the school shooting yesterday on a TV show, and I thought it would be great to share some insight from a person who have studied these things for years, and who have reached a level of respect that everybody here could only dream about. He is a person who is well known for his detached way to look at crime, and how he always uses statistics to form his views.
Here's a direct translation: Q: What is required in order to prevent new massacres? A: Well, to prevent is one thing, and to decrease them, that's something else. You can find very strong and direct links between access to weapons, especially certain types of weapons, like half-automatic weapons that tend to be used in these situations, and how often these events occur. When the amounts of weapons increases, this type of crime increases.
He also said that it's possible that something similar would happen in Sweden, but because of our major restrictions, it would require very special circumstances, such as having a parent who likes to hunt game as a hobby, but typically it's very hard for them to get weapons as deadly as this.
So basically his point was that if you restrict the access to weapons, there will be less opportunities. It's pretty simple math really. I don't expect everybody to accept his views as the truth, but I would value his opinion over all the posts in this thread.
Sorry, but coming from Swedish "authority", I don't find it very meaningful. There is absolutely NO correlation between the number or type of weapons to crime or mass shootings, absolutely no correlation.
In fact there was just an event that proves this where a man in China slaughtered over 20 children in a school with a knife. What is next, ban knifes?
But just for the sake of it, you do got more chance of dying from bee sting, lightning strike, accidental strangulation and even allergies from flowers than you have from mass shooting. This is true in the USA, as well as most other countries as well.
he slashed 22 children and 1 adult with the knife. none of them died.
Which also makes this a perfect case to advocate strict gun control. In China, where the man can not get a gun easily, or probably at all, he uses a knife, and injures 23 people. Sure, that is bad, and not a nice thing to happen. In the USA, where people can easily get a gun, he would have used an assault rifle instead. I doubt that that would have resulted in no deaths.
It is hard for me to understand how people can take something that clearly shows the problems associated with easily available weaponry, and say that it shows that you need even more available weapons. People get shot in a school and apparently the problem is not that the shooter can easily get an assault rifle, the problem is that the teachers do not carry assault rifles themselves. How can one sanely come to that conclusion? It is simply incomprehensible to me.
A similar thing happens in a country where the attacker can not gain access to a gun, and it results in 0 deaths. And somehow this means that if you want to ban guns, you also need to ban knifes, because apparently "the same thing happens with knifes, too"
Someone shows a video of a gun enthusiast making no sense whatsoever in a debate, and say that it actually shows a "liberal ignoring all arguments". It is like there are two different worlds out there, and some people live in a completely different one.
I agree. Banning knifes (and other weapons) actually is a good idea as well. Seems to be working fine in Australia. There are quite a few fights there, but since most people don't carry knifes (it's illegal as well as guns), there are few cases of very serious injures.
Well, it depends. You obviously can't completely ban knifes, or preparing food would become absurdly complicated. But knifes whose sole purpose is to be a weapon, sure. Now you have to work to find out which knifes fit that definition and which don't, but in general, i agree with that idea. Of course you can always use tools as weapons, and banning those is absurdly impractical, but if somethings only purpose is to be a weapon, there is no reason for it to be easily obtained.
On December 19 2012 23:14 ninini wrote: One of the most well respected swedish criminologists, Leif GW Persson was asked about the school shooting yesterday on a TV show, and I thought it would be great to share some insight from a person who have studied these things for years, and who have reached a level of respect that everybody here could only dream about. He is a person who is well known for his detached way to look at crime, and how he always uses statistics to form his views.
Here's a direct translation: Q: What is required in order to prevent new massacres? A: Well, to prevent is one thing, and to decrease them, that's something else. You can find very strong and direct links between access to weapons, especially certain types of weapons, like half-automatic weapons that tend to be used in these situations, and how often these events occur. When the amounts of weapons increases, this type of crime increases.
He also said that it's possible that something similar would happen in Sweden, but because of our major restrictions, it would require very special circumstances, such as having a parent who likes to hunt game as a hobby, but typically it's very hard for them to get weapons as deadly as this.
So basically his point was that if you restrict the access to weapons, there will be less opportunities. It's pretty simple math really. I don't expect everybody to accept his views as the truth, but I would value his opinion over all the posts in this thread.
Sorry, but coming from Swedish "authority", I don't find it very meaningful. There is absolutely NO correlation between the number or type of weapons to crime or mass shootings, absolutely no correlation.
In fact there was just an event that proves this where a man in China slaughtered over 20 children in a school with a knife. What is next, ban knifes?
But just for the sake of it, you do got more chance of dying from bee sting, lightning strike, accidental strangulation and even allergies from flowers than you have from mass shooting. This is true in the USA, as well as most other countries as well.
he slashed 22 children and 1 adult with the knife. none of them died.
Which also makes this a perfect case to advocate strict gun control. In China, where the man can not get a gun easily, or probably at all, he uses a knife, and injures 23 people. Sure, that is bad, and not a nice thing to happen. In the USA, where people can easily get a gun, he would have used an assault rifle instead. I doubt that that would have resulted in no deaths.
It is hard for me to understand how people can take something that clearly shows the problems associated with easily available weaponry, and say that it shows that you need even more available weapons. People get shot in a school and apparently the problem is not that the shooter can easily get an assault rifle, the problem is that the teachers do not carry assault rifles themselves. How can one sanely come to that conclusion? It is simply incomprehensible to me.
A similar thing happens in a country where the attacker can not gain access to a gun, and it results in 0 deaths. And somehow this means that if you want to ban guns, you also need to ban knifes, because apparently "the same thing happens with knifes, too"
Someone shows a video of a gun enthusiast making no sense whatsoever in a debate, and say that it actually shows a "liberal ignoring all arguments". It is like there are two different worlds out there, and some people live in a completely different one.
You make it sounds like the problem causing these mass shootings is gun availability. That is incorrect. The mass shootings are a symptom of several very large problems. If no guns were available that would reduce/eliminate the mass shootings, yes. But nobody wants to bring up the (mental) healthcare side of this, the economy side of this, nor the cultural side of this. The urge to do something is driving most people to focus on just one of the things that we should work on, with a disproportionate amount of attention.
Some might say "but if we eliminate gun availability, we eliminate these horrible mass shootings, even if the other problems (healthcare, etc) are not solved." The problem is, no matter how much anyone in this thread may want it to be true, eliminating gun availability is not as simple as passing stricter gun laws. Reducing gun availability somewhat is viable but that has separate negative effects, which is why this issue needs to be addressed carefully and in a less absolute manner.
In my opinion, those people who are essentially saying "people on both sides of the issue have good points" are the ones that are right, and the polarized opinions are wrong (or as wrong as opinions can be).
No, i was just ignoring those points because this is a thread about gun control, not about preventing crimes. Of course if you want to combat a specific crime, the best way to do that is to try to get rid of the desire to commit that crime.
But if your talking point is not "what can be done to prevent crimes" but "should guns be regulated", the argument that a reduced availability of guns also reduces the consequences of violent crimes is a valid one.
Of course the implementation is not as easy when you have millions of unregistered guns everywhere all around the country. But that is also a different point. The question of the implementation should only be relevant after you have solved the question of the intention. If you don't want to reduce the availability of guns, there is no reason to discuss how to do it. And if you want to do it, THEN you need to find a good way of doing it. But as i see it, that stage is not yet reached. At the moment, the discussion is based around whether or not guns should be regulated, not how you would regulate them.
On December 19 2012 23:14 ninini wrote: One of the most well respected swedish criminologists, Leif GW Persson was asked about the school shooting yesterday on a TV show, and I thought it would be great to share some insight from a person who have studied these things for years, and who have reached a level of respect that everybody here could only dream about. He is a person who is well known for his detached way to look at crime, and how he always uses statistics to form his views.
Here's a direct translation: Q: What is required in order to prevent new massacres? A: Well, to prevent is one thing, and to decrease them, that's something else. You can find very strong and direct links between access to weapons, especially certain types of weapons, like half-automatic weapons that tend to be used in these situations, and how often these events occur. When the amounts of weapons increases, this type of crime increases.
He also said that it's possible that something similar would happen in Sweden, but because of our major restrictions, it would require very special circumstances, such as having a parent who likes to hunt game as a hobby, but typically it's very hard for them to get weapons as deadly as this.
So basically his point was that if you restrict the access to weapons, there will be less opportunities. It's pretty simple math really. I don't expect everybody to accept his views as the truth, but I would value his opinion over all the posts in this thread.
Sorry, but coming from Swedish "authority", I don't find it very meaningful. There is absolutely NO correlation between the number or type of weapons to crime or mass shootings, absolutely no correlation.
In fact there was just an event that proves this where a man in China slaughtered over 20 children in a school with a knife. What is next, ban knifes?
But just for the sake of it, you do got more chance of dying from bee sting, lightning strike, accidental strangulation and even allergies from flowers than you have from mass shooting. This is true in the USA, as well as most other countries as well.
he slashed 22 children and 1 adult with the knife. none of them died.
Which also makes this a perfect case to advocate strict gun control. In China, where the man can not get a gun easily, or probably at all, he uses a knife, and injures 23 people. Sure, that is bad, and not a nice thing to happen. In the USA, where people can easily get a gun, he would have used an assault rifle instead. I doubt that that would have resulted in no deaths.
It is hard for me to understand how people can take something that clearly shows the problems associated with easily available weaponry, and say that it shows that you need even more available weapons. People get shot in a school and apparently the problem is not that the shooter can easily get an assault rifle, the problem is that the teachers do not carry assault rifles themselves. How can one sanely come to that conclusion? It is simply incomprehensible to me.
A similar thing happens in a country where the attacker can not gain access to a gun, and it results in 0 deaths. And somehow this means that if you want to ban guns, you also need to ban knifes, because apparently "the same thing happens with knifes, too"
Someone shows a video of a gun enthusiast making no sense whatsoever in a debate, and say that it actually shows a "liberal ignoring all arguments". It is like there are two different worlds out there, and some people live in a completely different one.
Well, see, if the teachers all had guns, and the guy came in and tried to whip out a gun and start shooting people, they could just whip out their gun and stop him dead in his tracks.
It doesnt stand up to a moments scrutiny, for various reasons, one such would be that the whole situation wouldn't have to happen in the first place if you know, the killer wasn't armed in the first place, then there's no shootout at all.
But you know people want to be the hero and they fantasize about an event like that happening and them whipping out their gun and valiantly saving the day...
It seems incomprehensible, but I can certainly understand their misguided viewpoints. Heck if you asked me about this subject 6 months ago, I would have been on their side... Thankfully I've learned a lot since then.
There's a good chance the shooter wouldn't go into the school if it was armed. He might go somewhere else that is less likely to have armed defenders. I'm not advocating arming our schools, but it's not necessarily as simple as "fight fire with fire."
On December 19 2012 23:14 ninini wrote: One of the most well respected swedish criminologists, Leif GW Persson was asked about the school shooting yesterday on a TV show, and I thought it would be great to share some insight from a person who have studied these things for years, and who have reached a level of respect that everybody here could only dream about. He is a person who is well known for his detached way to look at crime, and how he always uses statistics to form his views.
Here's a direct translation: Q: What is required in order to prevent new massacres? A: Well, to prevent is one thing, and to decrease them, that's something else. You can find very strong and direct links between access to weapons, especially certain types of weapons, like half-automatic weapons that tend to be used in these situations, and how often these events occur. When the amounts of weapons increases, this type of crime increases.
He also said that it's possible that something similar would happen in Sweden, but because of our major restrictions, it would require very special circumstances, such as having a parent who likes to hunt game as a hobby, but typically it's very hard for them to get weapons as deadly as this.
So basically his point was that if you restrict the access to weapons, there will be less opportunities. It's pretty simple math really. I don't expect everybody to accept his views as the truth, but I would value his opinion over all the posts in this thread.
Sorry, but coming from Swedish "authority", I don't find it very meaningful. There is absolutely NO correlation between the number or type of weapons to crime or mass shootings, absolutely no correlation.
In fact there was just an event that proves this where a man in China slaughtered over 20 children in a school with a knife. What is next, ban knifes?
But just for the sake of it, you do got more chance of dying from bee sting, lightning strike, accidental strangulation and even allergies from flowers than you have from mass shooting. This is true in the USA, as well as most other countries as well.
he slashed 22 children and 1 adult with the knife. none of them died.
Which also makes this a perfect case to advocate strict gun control. In China, where the man can not get a gun easily, or probably at all, he uses a knife, and injures 23 people. Sure, that is bad, and not a nice thing to happen. In the USA, where people can easily get a gun, he would have used an assault rifle instead. I doubt that that would have resulted in no deaths.
It is hard for me to understand how people can take something that clearly shows the problems associated with easily available weaponry, and say that it shows that you need even more available weapons. People get shot in a school and apparently the problem is not that the shooter can easily get an assault rifle, the problem is that the teachers do not carry assault rifles themselves. How can one sanely come to that conclusion? It is simply incomprehensible to me.
A similar thing happens in a country where the attacker can not gain access to a gun, and it results in 0 deaths. And somehow this means that if you want to ban guns, you also need to ban knifes, because apparently "the same thing happens with knifes, too"
Someone shows a video of a gun enthusiast making no sense whatsoever in a debate, and say that it actually shows a "liberal ignoring all arguments". It is like there are two different worlds out there, and some people live in a completely different one.
You make it sounds like the problem causing these mass shootings is gun availability. That is incorrect. The mass shootings are a symptom of several very large problems. If no guns were available that would reduce/eliminate the mass shootings, yes. But nobody wants to bring up the (mental) healthcare side of this, the economy side of this, nor the cultural side of this. The urge to do something is driving most people to focus on just one of the things that we should work on, with a disproportionate amount of attention.
Some might say "but if we eliminate gun availability, we eliminate these horrible mass shootings, even if the other problems (healthcare, etc) are not solved." The problem is, no matter how much anyone in this thread may want it to be true, eliminating gun availability is not as simple as passing stricter gun laws. Reducing gun availability somewhat is viable but that has separate negative effects, which is why this issue needs to be addressed carefully and in a less absolute manner.
In my opinion, those people who are essentially saying "people on both sides of the issue have good points" are the ones that are right, and the polarized opinions are wrong (or as wrong as opinions can be).
Mental healthcare, and the way we treat mentally ill people in my country is a definite problem. I personally have aspergers, among a few other things that contribute to my own disability. Until just now, my disorder wasn't even seen as a valid one. People literally tell me the entire disorder is made up. Now suddenly people say this killer had it, now suddenly everyones treating it like a serious issue. Sad that it takes something like this to get people to give some legitimacy to the issue, and he was very probably treated the same way. It is something that seriously socially handicaps you.
But now I wonder if people that know are going to start treating me like a leper, or an invalid because it's a "mental illness" they seem to treat you like you are stupid or something, when a disorder like that, the people that have it tend to be very intelligent, they just can't cope with the social side of life, which can lead to isolation issues among other things.
I'm going to not go on about it but yeah I wanted to say for sure that the way mental illness is perceived and dealt with in my country is a real problem.
On December 19 2012 23:14 ninini wrote: One of the most well respected swedish criminologists, Leif GW Persson was asked about the school shooting yesterday on a TV show, and I thought it would be great to share some insight from a person who have studied these things for years, and who have reached a level of respect that everybody here could only dream about. He is a person who is well known for his detached way to look at crime, and how he always uses statistics to form his views.
Here's a direct translation: Q: What is required in order to prevent new massacres? A: Well, to prevent is one thing, and to decrease them, that's something else. You can find very strong and direct links between access to weapons, especially certain types of weapons, like half-automatic weapons that tend to be used in these situations, and how often these events occur. When the amounts of weapons increases, this type of crime increases.
He also said that it's possible that something similar would happen in Sweden, but because of our major restrictions, it would require very special circumstances, such as having a parent who likes to hunt game as a hobby, but typically it's very hard for them to get weapons as deadly as this.
So basically his point was that if you restrict the access to weapons, there will be less opportunities. It's pretty simple math really. I don't expect everybody to accept his views as the truth, but I would value his opinion over all the posts in this thread.
Sorry, but coming from Swedish "authority", I don't find it very meaningful. There is absolutely NO correlation between the number or type of weapons to crime or mass shootings, absolutely no correlation.
In fact there was just an event that proves this where a man in China slaughtered over 20 children in a school with a knife. What is next, ban knifes?
But just for the sake of it, you do got more chance of dying from bee sting, lightning strike, accidental strangulation and even allergies from flowers than you have from mass shooting. This is true in the USA, as well as most other countries as well.
he slashed 22 children and 1 adult with the knife. none of them died.
Which also makes this a perfect case to advocate strict gun control. In China, where the man can not get a gun easily, or probably at all, he uses a knife, and injures 23 people. Sure, that is bad, and not a nice thing to happen. In the USA, where people can easily get a gun, he would have used an assault rifle instead. I doubt that that would have resulted in no deaths.
It is hard for me to understand how people can take something that clearly shows the problems associated with easily available weaponry, and say that it shows that you need even more available weapons. People get shot in a school and apparently the problem is not that the shooter can easily get an assault rifle, the problem is that the teachers do not carry assault rifles themselves. How can one sanely come to that conclusion? It is simply incomprehensible to me.
A similar thing happens in a country where the attacker can not gain access to a gun, and it results in 0 deaths. And somehow this means that if you want to ban guns, you also need to ban knifes, because apparently "the same thing happens with knifes, too"
Someone shows a video of a gun enthusiast making no sense whatsoever in a debate, and say that it actually shows a "liberal ignoring all arguments". It is like there are two different worlds out there, and some people live in a completely different one.
You make it sounds like the problem causing these mass shootings is gun availability. That is incorrect. The mass shootings are a symptom of several very large problems. If no guns were available that would reduce/eliminate the mass shootings, yes. But nobody wants to bring up the (mental) healthcare side of this, the economy side of this, nor the cultural side of this. The urge to do something is driving most people to focus on just one of the things that we should work on, with a disproportionate amount of attention.
Some might say "but if we eliminate gun availability, we eliminate these horrible mass shootings, even if the other problems (healthcare, etc) are not solved." The problem is, no matter how much anyone in this thread may want it to be true, eliminating gun availability is not as simple as passing stricter gun laws. Reducing gun availability somewhat is viable but that has separate negative effects, which is why this issue needs to be addressed carefully and in a less absolute manner.
In my opinion, those people who are essentially saying "people on both sides of the issue have good points" are the ones that are right, and the polarized opinions are wrong (or as wrong as opinions can be).
I filly agree with you. In many places banning guns (or even knifes) is quite straight-forward. But in US too many people own guns and/or want to own them. Even if the majority in US agreed to ban guns, the proper implementation would take quite some time.
On December 19 2012 23:14 ninini wrote: One of the most well respected swedish criminologists, Leif GW Persson was asked about the school shooting yesterday on a TV show, and I thought it would be great to share some insight from a person who have studied these things for years, and who have reached a level of respect that everybody here could only dream about. He is a person who is well known for his detached way to look at crime, and how he always uses statistics to form his views.
Here's a direct translation: Q: What is required in order to prevent new massacres? A: Well, to prevent is one thing, and to decrease them, that's something else. You can find very strong and direct links between access to weapons, especially certain types of weapons, like half-automatic weapons that tend to be used in these situations, and how often these events occur. When the amounts of weapons increases, this type of crime increases.
He also said that it's possible that something similar would happen in Sweden, but because of our major restrictions, it would require very special circumstances, such as having a parent who likes to hunt game as a hobby, but typically it's very hard for them to get weapons as deadly as this.
So basically his point was that if you restrict the access to weapons, there will be less opportunities. It's pretty simple math really. I don't expect everybody to accept his views as the truth, but I would value his opinion over all the posts in this thread.
Sorry, but coming from Swedish "authority", I don't find it very meaningful. There is absolutely NO correlation between the number or type of weapons to crime or mass shootings, absolutely no correlation.
In fact there was just an event that proves this where a man in China slaughtered over 20 children in a school with a knife. What is next, ban knifes?
But just for the sake of it, you do got more chance of dying from bee sting, lightning strike, accidental strangulation and even allergies from flowers than you have from mass shooting. This is true in the USA, as well as most other countries as well.
he slashed 22 children and 1 adult with the knife. none of them died.
Which also makes this a perfect case to advocate strict gun control. In China, where the man can not get a gun easily, or probably at all, he uses a knife, and injures 23 people. Sure, that is bad, and not a nice thing to happen. In the USA, where people can easily get a gun, he would have used an assault rifle instead. I doubt that that would have resulted in no deaths.
It is hard for me to understand how people can take something that clearly shows the problems associated with easily available weaponry, and say that it shows that you need even more available weapons. People get shot in a school and apparently the problem is not that the shooter can easily get an assault rifle, the problem is that the teachers do not carry assault rifles themselves. How can one sanely come to that conclusion? It is simply incomprehensible to me.
A similar thing happens in a country where the attacker can not gain access to a gun, and it results in 0 deaths. And somehow this means that if you want to ban guns, you also need to ban knifes, because apparently "the same thing happens with knifes, too"
Someone shows a video of a gun enthusiast making no sense whatsoever in a debate, and say that it actually shows a "liberal ignoring all arguments". It is like there are two different worlds out there, and some people live in a completely different one.
Well, see, if the teachers all had guns, and the guy came in and tried to whip out a gun and start shooting people, they could just whip out their gun and stop him dead in his tracks.
It doesnt stand up to a moments scrutiny, for various reasons, one such would be that the whole situation wouldn't have to happen in the first place if you know, the killer wasn't armed in the first place, then there's no shootout at all.
But you know people want to be the hero and they fantasize about an event like that happening and them whipping out their gun and valiantly saving the day...
It seems incomprehensible, but I can certainly understand their misguided viewpoints. Heck if you asked me about this subject 6 months ago, I would have been on their side... Thankfully I've learned a lot since then.
all typical arguments are made from both sides in this video. the typical liberal who does not recognize any arguments and simply goes for the emotional train. it obviously ends in shouting match, as expected.
I am sorry but I see it anyway around. An assault rifle for self defense? 6 guns in the house?
Sure it's needed if you live in a country where criminals can also have so many guns, you obviously need a bigger, better, more powerful, MORE guns, right?
Let's take a look at a mass murder case that occurred a few times in Japan, a knifing cases. Would a gun be useful at all? The murderer just walk around and suddenly started stabbing and ran away. Even if you had a gun, you would probably dead by then.
Let's take a look at other countries where gun ownership ain't allowed for normal citizens like Hong Kong. Sure there are illegal guns, but only obtained by organized criminals. We know and most of everyone who lives in Hong Kong know, but we feel SAFE. Why? Those aren't gonna shoot normal citizens. There are no mentally unstable person to be able to get a gun and just gun down everyone. In fact, the relatively recent case of shooting was an ex police and that was how he got the gun
I am just as pissed as Piers honestly, what makes your countries so dangerous that a normal household need so many guns?
I am not doubting a normal responsible American probably really need the extra guns to be safe, but when guns are easier to get, it is easier for some people who aren't so responsible and start using it to kill others.
I would bring the argument of would lessening the amount of guns in a house mean less crime? No. Most of us DO keep the guns locked up in a safe. The ones that are not in the safe are in our trunk - unloaded and in a separate case than the ammo - on our way to go hunting. And if they are not in either of those, then they are in my holster for concealment.
You want gun control laws? Talk about making laws to have the guns either 1) locked up in a safe, 2) in transport unloaded (hunting purposes) or 3) on your person at all times. Make it so if someone uses your weapon to commit a crime and if it is found that it was not in one of those three places - you are going to face criminal charges up to the crime that was committed.
The only places that a mass murder would occur uninterrupted while I'm around are the places that I can not bring my gun with me.
It sounds very wild west and barbaric when put onto paper, but if events like this occur and a normal citizen is able to prevent numerous deaths because of his or her right to bear arms, that is a truly humane act. Most of us carry guns to protect human life, not to take it. There is so much more good than evil in this country than people like to believe. Make guns legal in 100% of the country (its *places/cities/parks/schools*, i am not talking about 100% of the citizens), it would not create wild west shoot outs, the good will outnumber the bad ten fold.
all typical arguments are made from both sides in this video. the typical liberal who does not recognize any arguments and simply goes for the emotional train. it obviously ends in shouting match, as expected.
Wow, this video is amazing. A perfect microcosm of the entire gun control debate.
People who advocate disarmament are so incredibly irrational. Trying to explain to them why they are wrong is like trying to teach a dog long division.
Yes because every other developed nation that has less guns and less homicides is doing it wrong. It's a shame the interviewer lost his cool but any rational person would have trouble staying calm with the bullshit Pratt was spouting.
As pointed out in the video, areas of the USA without gun restrictions have far lower murder rates and rates of violent crime than completely disarmed European countries.
The problem in America happens in places like cities or schools where law abiding citizens have been disarmed.
That's because crime in general occurs in the big cities, regardless of what country it is.
Anyway, I don't see the logic in liberal -> gun restriction, but it's a USA thing I guess, to call left wings liberals. The absolute left, communism is as far from liberalism as you can get. Liberalism is about freedom, about letting the ppl do what they want without inteference from the government, so the 2nd ammendment is very liberal, too liberal imo for this day and age.
all typical arguments are made from both sides in this video. the typical liberal who does not recognize any arguments and simply goes for the emotional train. it obviously ends in shouting match, as expected.
Wow, this video is amazing. A perfect microcosm of the entire gun control debate.
People who advocate disarmament are so incredibly irrational. Trying to explain to them why they are wrong is like trying to teach a dog long division.
Yes because every other developed nation that has less guns and less homicides is doing it wrong. It's a shame the interviewer lost his cool but any rational person would have trouble staying calm with the bullshit Pratt was spouting.
As pointed out in the video, areas of the USA without gun restrictions have far lower murder rates and rates of violent crime than completely disarmed European countries.
The problem in America happens in places like cities or schools where law abiding citizens have been disarmed.
I have a feeling that this kind of comparison is simply looking at the rural parts of the US matched against a whole contry/zone without also excluding the bigger cities in europe. At least thats the impression I've gotten from how it sounded in the video and what people in this thread have posted. The fact that crimes of more or less any kind is higher in cities than they are on the countryside is something very important to take note of, especially when presenting things as "proof".
That being said I would like to congratulate the few brave posters that have actually made unbiased and interesting posts in here, cause to be honest, most of it has just been the standard pro/anti-gun nonsense. I dont think anyone should be able to carry or own a gun/assault weapon and to me thats a pretty obvious thing. Weapons being easily obtainable does increase the risk of someone getting shot but perhaps this thread should be asking a different question: 'would a ban on weapons have any major impact on the amount of shootings done in america?' (to be fair, in many ways this is mainly americans arguing with the rest of the world, with some exceptions on both sides).
First of all there have been many references to switzerland, many of which I have found incorrect. While they do have one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world, they also have several restrictions and extensive weapons training during their conscription period. Carrying weapons outdoors is also generally forbidden and they are no longer allowed have the ammunition for their assault rifles, they just get to keep the rifles themselves.
Coming from a country with very little gun violence in general along with highly restricted access (and yes the correlation is clear) its very easy for me to say that guns are bad. The problem america is facing is instead the fact that a lot of people already have access to guns and that they're so widespread that most restrictions would probably have very little effect. People also dont seem to trust their government and police force to protect them, which is most likely quite uncommon for a civilised country. Does that however mean that, in this specific case, equipping teachers with weapons would have helped? Is it really better to give more people the option of possibly preventing a crime rather than reducing the chance of said crime happening? While you might be able to defend yourself with a gun and go to the practice yard every now and then to keep the skills up to date, can you actually expect that of everyone else around you? This is really a case to case issue and impossible to tell in the grand scale of things, there's certainly no easily applied statistics that match the rather unique situation that is USA.
It is naturally really hard to argue against a persons right to defend themselves and once a country has reached a certain level of fear, ironically mainly because of the amount of weapons circulating, going back might not be possible. Some people have touched the interesting subject of ammunition. If you for example feel the need to carry a gun to defend yourself, you most likely wont need to reload that much. Only selling new ammunition at the shooting range as you hand in your old shells (or something similar) would be a rather effective way of regulating access. Sadly, the problem is still that there's already so much circulating, it wont matter.
So while all this might be a complicated matter due to many various circumstances, there is still no excuse for leaving assault rifles and fitting ammunition easily accessible to a broad population. And that alone is at least a good start.
Unfortunately, no one side is right on this issue. The only way I believe that this works is if you bring in the Republican approach while simultaneously implementing Democrat policies on gun control. What you would have to do is allow conceal-carry while the gun population in the US is as high as it is to stop things like this from happening. At the same time, you impose strict background check, waiting period, psychology tests, etc. in order to be able to purchase a gun as well as set up a database of purchasers so no one person can shop around and buy too many guns without it being flagged. Then, through gun buyback programs, sting operations, you methodically wipe out dealers and guns that belong to people who shouldn't have them. This process will take time, especially for a country as gun-ridden as the US.
The issue is not as easy as "Everyone carry guns so we can have wild west-style shootouts!" or "Ban all guns and repeal the second amendment!" Steps will have to be taken.
EPT
