Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Sinful Hero wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
How often do you see "Students killed in mass school knifing"?

Guns, quite bluntly, are a very real enabling factor in these kinds of situations.

It's happened a couple times in China I believe.

One of which was mentioned in this very thread.

24 non-fatal injuries, 0 deaths.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
What's more?
Police are actually allowed to proactively set up checkpoints in potential/known problem areas in an attempt to catch drunk drivers and the justice system is empowered to restrict people's usage of things they own in the name of public safety by revoking driver's licenses.

Are you trying to imply the same (restrictions on ownership and usage) is not already true of gun ownership?

If it were actually true, we wouldn't keep having all these shootings now would we?

 Kanluwen wrote:
If it were actually true, we wouldn't keep having all these shootings now would we?

Nice example of why inductive argument is unreliable.

 Sinful Hero wrote:

angelofvengeance wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
You seem under the delusion that in order for me to own a weapon, someone is going to walk into a school and shoot children. Thats just grade A bullgak from an ignorant foreigner.

Sorry but that's bull. The UK brought strict firearms controls into effect in the 1960s and it's done very well here. The number of firearms massacres here are tiny when compared to the USA's track record.

Look how often this kinda stuff goes on over in the US. It's ridiculous.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers

What's the difference in population size between the UK and the US?

The UK population is about a fifth of the US, gun related injuries, suicides, crime, shootings and rampages are not proportionally a fifth of those in the US, and a significant factor is that access to firearms are heavily restricted, that causal relationship is just common sense.

The pie chart way above showing causes of deaths in the US shows a small proportion of deaths caused by fire arms, but that doesn't logically mean something shouldn't be done. The majority of people will die in bed of some health condition or another. But years ago, far more people died in industrial accidents and in traffic accidents. These were never that high in the grand scheme of things, but people didn't deem them acceptable because far more died of cancer. Action was taken and work places are safer and road deaths are much lower. You are far less likely to die at work or on the road than your parents, and I think that is something we should be pleased with even if it does mean that you have inconveniences like wearing seat belts.

 Manchu wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
If it were actually true, we wouldn't keep having all these shootings now would we?

Nice example of why inductive argument is unreliable.

Nah, it's a good example of how you cannot really compare two wildly different circumstances to another--and why Relapse's continual garbageposting about drunk driving in threads about gun violence should be considered trolling at this point.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
If it were actually true, we wouldn't keep having all these shootings now would we?

Nice example of why inductive argument is unreliable.

Nah, it's a good example

No stop, pause for a minute -- YES it is an example of why inductive argument is unreliable. You argued that all these shootings demonstrate we don't have restrictions on gun ownership. But actually we do in fact have restrictions on gun ownership. This literally shows that the structure of your argument is unreliable. A similar argument would be, there must be no law against murder given that all the murders keep happening.

Now, you will probably tell me what you really meant was that all these shootings mean that the restrictions already in place are inadequate. The same problem crops up. This kind of argument can produce nonsensical conclusions. Go back to our example: all these murders keep happening because our existing laws against murder are inadequate. The trouble with this kind of argument is that it can seem convincing in an evidentiary sense, leading us to mistake it as proof. But it does not in fact render proof.

 angelofvengeance wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
You seem under the delusion that in order for me to own a weapon, someone is going to walk into a school and shoot children. Thats just grade A bullgak from an ignorant foreigner.

Sorry but that's bull. The UK brought strict firearms controls into effect in the 1960s and it's done very well here. The number of firearms massacres here are tiny when compared to the USA's track record.

Legal questions and issues of fundamental rights aside, the UK introduced strict firearms controls much earlier than the 1960's, they began licensing in the 1870's and active restrictions in 1903, and declared that self defense was not a legal reason to own a firearm in the 1930's. Likewise the firearms ownership per capita was never what it was in the US, while both the population and area of the UK are significantly smaller than the US. Cultural attitudes towards firearms are also different. This made control of firearms an infinitely more simple proposition than in the US. Different circumstances, different outcomes.

Even setting gun crimes aside, the US have a violence problem the UK doesn't.

 Manchu wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
If it were actually true, we wouldn't keep having all these shootings now would we?

Nice example of why inductive argument is unreliable.

Nah, it's a good example

No stop, pause for a minute -- YES it is an example of why inductive argument is unreliable. You argued that all these shootings demonstrate we don't have restrictions on gun ownership. But actually we do in fact have restrictions on gun ownership. This literally shows that the structure of your argument is unreliable. A similar argument would be, there must be no law against murder given that all the murders keep happening.

Now, you will probably tell me what you really meant was that all these shootings mean that the restrictions already in place are inadequate. The same problem crops up. This kind of argument can produce nonsensical conclusions. Go back to our example: all these murders keep happening because our existing laws against murder are inadequate. The trouble with this kind of argument is that it can seem convincing in an evidentiary sense, leading us to mistake it as proof. But it does not in fact render proof.

You understand what "throwaway statements" are, right?

If I were to seriously have argued that stance, I would have done so. I wouldn't have made a snarky comment about how these shootings keep happening.

If you want me to realistically argue that stance based on the statement I made about how police can proactively set up checkpoints in potential/known problem areas to attempt to catch drunk drivers and that the justice system is empowered to restrict people's usage of things they own in the name of public safety by revoking driver's licenses?

Then I would post this statement:
How often have we seen people that realistically should not have been able to acquire firearms via legal means(mental health issues that should have been reported by a psychologist, criminal charges that should have been reported, etc) have legally owned firearms?

 Kanluwen wrote:
You understand what "throwaway statements" are, right?

Kan if you want me to agree that all your arguments ITT have been throwaway statements, I will gladly do so.

 Manchu wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
You understand what "throwaway statements" are, right?

Kan if you want me to agree that all your arguments ITT have been throwaway statements, I will gladly do so.

Sure, that's what I'm saying.

Just keep pretending that's what I was saying, and not that the kinds of measures which could potentially reduce gun violence aren't ridiculously opposed by a lobby which pours an obscene amount of money into making people believe that without their guns, violent criminals are going to murderrape them in their sleep!

 Kanluwen wrote:
Just keep pretending that's what I was saying

So you think I am misrepresenting your argument and you object to that. But then you immediately deploy this strawman:

 Kanluwen wrote:
making people believe that without their guns, violent criminals are going to murderrape them in their sleep!

Mediocre.

As to your claim that I am misrepresenting your argument, here is your argument (by implication):

 Kanluwen wrote:
How often have we seen people that realistically should not have been able to acquire firearms via legal means(mental health issues that should have been reported by a psychologist, criminal charges that should have been reported, etc) have legally owned firearms?

which I anticipated here:

 Manchu wrote:
Now, you will probably tell me what you really meant was that all these shootings mean that the restrictions already in place are inadequate.

And then explained why it was just as unreliable as what you yourself called a "throwaway statement":

 Manchu wrote:
The same problem crops up. This kind of argument can produce nonsensical conclusions. Go back to our example: all these murders keep happening because our existing laws against murder are inadequate.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
You understand what "throwaway statements" are, right?

Kan if you want me to agree that all your arguments ITT have been throwaway statements, I will gladly do so.

Sure, that's what I'm saying.

Just keep pretending that's what I was saying, and not that the kinds of measures which could potentially reduce gun violence aren't ridiculously opposed by a lobby which pours an obscene amount of money into making people believe that without their guns, violent criminals are going to murderrape them in their sleep!

This is obscene?
https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000000082


For reference:
https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?showYear=2014&indexType=s
Chamber of Commerce spent about 37x as much as the NRA.

Comcast & Google spent 5x as much.

Regardless...

What new laws do you propose that would've stopped Flanagan from killing those reports?

Just keep telling yourself that drunk driving and shootings are parallel situations.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Just keep telling yourself that drunk driving and shootings are parallel situations.

Man you are looking in the wrong place for sense. Figured that out a few pages ago. You have a Mod that will complain about meaningless responses as he makes them himself.

 Manchu wrote:
Go back to our example: all these murders keep happening because our existing laws against murder are inadequate. The trouble with this kind of argument is that it can seem convincing in an evidentiary sense, leading us to mistake it as proof. But it does not in fact render proof.

Aye. But one thing seems quite certain. Heavy prison sentences and the death penalty doesn't seem to help in reducing crime. People that would be let off with a fine in Europe (possession of drugs for personal use, for example) are instead put in prison with real career criminals where they can learn things from professionals. Sure, we have soft-ass sentences for crimes - but the rate of repeat offenders is also way lower here where prison is partly about making you a good citizen again rather than punishing the bad guys. And it also costs a lot of dollars that private prison companies shave off from the tax payers.

Who wants to take my fire arms away? I'm a law abiding citizen. I own weapons of multiple calibers and weapon makes. I've been up range and down range when no warning was giving. Except the one time the idiot stepped out and shot a RPG at us with a wall behind him....

 Vash108 wrote:
You have a Mod that will complain about meaningless responses as he makes them himself.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him read for comprehension.

Spetulhu wrote:
But one thing seems quite certain. Heavy prison sentences and the death penalty doesn't seem to help in reducing crime.

I'm not sure how this connects to the topic at hand but sure I have no problem with sentencing reforms, I think it's a great idea and urgently needed.

Forgot to leave this here
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/01/americas-top-killing-machine/384440/

 Grey Templar wrote:
Darn, I guess we need to justify freedom of religion, speech, press, and all our other rights too.

Sure, why not? Nothing should ever be above criticism. If you aren't able to justify those rights then it would imply that you don't understand why they exist, and if that is the case then how can you be sure they are still serving society.

It's always good to question things. I would think free speech and freedom of religion should be relatively easy to justify. However, in the future when culture and technology moves on, those things might stop making sense too.

You seem seem to be hoping that by lumping gun rights in with other easier to defend rights, that they will somehow be justified by association, but gun rights are actually quite different. Free speech, for example, is in the international declaration of human rights, it's a right in almost every developed country, and it stands up pretty well on its own. Gun rights are a really American thing. A lot of similar countries don't consider them and right at all, and life goes on (arguably with less gun violence).

So yeah, stop trying to deflect the conversation to other rights.

And while we are at it, why don't you Brits justify your rights as well?

Stop trying to make it about Britain versus America. My opinions are in no way affiliated with Britain as a political entity. Aside from being born in the geographical area (which wasn't my choice) I've really had very little to do with Britain, historically or governmentally.

There are lots of full blooded American citizens, who feel the same way I do. My opinion is not any more or less valid because of where I happen to be from.

 Grey Templar wrote:
You seem under the delusion that in order for me to own a weapon, someone is going to walk into a school and shoot children. Thats just grade A bullgak from an ignorant foreigner.

You have advocated gun ownership being a human right. Which would imply that even people such as convicted fellons should have the right to own a gun (as they do the right to a fair trial). The more people like you insist on owning guns, and body-blocking sensible precautions, such as background checks, because they "infringe your rights" the more the chance of a massacre approaches 1.

I don't hold you personally responsible, as I think your personal contribution is probably negligible. But collectively the gun rights lobby is a significant contributing factor, in people (such as Vester Lee Flanagan or Roger Elliott) having almost unrestricted access to guns.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
In 2012, there were an estimated 2,103,787 burglaries, a decrease of 3.7 percent when compared with 2011 data ... Burglaries in themselves are significant enough to warrant having a "preventative measure" on hand. "Burglary homicide" is some gak you just made up to justify your rage against guns.

I don't have rage against guns. On the contrary, being an "foreigner" I have very little emotional investment, and can afford to be much more objective. Unlike people who own guns and want to keep them, who have a clear conflict of interest when it comes to analysing data.

As it happens we've looked at those figures before. In a lot of those cases the person wasn't even at home. So owning a gun is not a "preventative measure". If you are worried about being the victim of a burglary then there are about 100 ways to secure your home and your possessions. Having a gun to shoot burglars would put you on quite shaky ground legally. A review of so called "self defence" cases involving guns, found that many were actually illegal when scrutinized.

 Sinful Hero wrote:
So do you think that if Americans were not allowed to own guns, school shootings wouldn't happen?

I wouldn't say it's quite that simple, but essentially, yes. If you had tighter gun controls and worked to remove easy access to firearms, then eventually you would see a reduction in gun violence.

 Vash108 wrote:
Forgot to leave this here
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/01/americas-top-killing-machine/384440/

Seems the link is bad or something going on with The Altlantic
so......

For the better part of a century, the machine most likely to kill an American has been the automobile.

Car crashes killed 33,561 people in 2012, the most recent year for which data is available, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Firearms killed 32,251 people in the United States in 2011, the most recent year for which the Centers for Disease Control has data.

But this year gun deaths are expected to surpass car deaths. That's according to a Center for American Progress report, which cites CDC data that shows guns will kill more Americans under 25 than cars in 2015. Already more than a quarter the teenagers—15 years old and up—who die of injuries in the United States are killed in gun-related incidents, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics.

number of car-related deaths = X

number of gun-related deaths = Y

Generally, X > Y

But what if X = Y or X < Y?

Uh, I don't see the point ...




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Smacks wrote:
being an "foreigner" I have very little emotional investment, and can afford to be much more objective

That's a rather old-fashioned notion, very British Empire. Being an outsider also means you misunderstand or simply cannot perceive a lot of things about other people's culture and experience.

 Jihadin wrote:
Who wants to take my fire arms away? I'm a law abiding citizen. I own weapons of multiple calibers and weapon makes. I've been up range and down range when no warning was giving. Except the one time the idiot stepped out and shot a RPG at us with a wall behind him....

Vester Lee Flanagan was also a law abiding citizen, right up until he blew a news reporter away on live TV.

Personally, I don't want to take your guns away. In fact, I'd like you to have more guns (especially rifles). But if you had to go maybe jump through a few extra bureaucratic hoops to get the guns, in the hope that it would stop guns falling into the wrong hands more often, would that be so disagreeable to you?

Under 25? No idea if X, Y, Z, ABC, 1234, or EMCsquaretoroot69whatever is related.
But they predict(?) that more are killed who are under the age of 25 are by fire arms then by vehicle......
wait
Those who are to be killed will exceed those who are killed by vehicle
wait
Those under 25 are expected to be killed by fire arms
Those over 25 are expected to be killed by vehicle
So
Question is.....how old are you and how it is expected you die?
So
My reading comprehension is off or something....I'm over 40.....does that mean I die of old age?

 Smacks wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Who wants to take my fire arms away? I'm a law abiding citizen. I own weapons of multiple calibers and weapon makes. I've been up range and down range when no warning was giving. Except the one time the idiot stepped out and shot a RPG at us with a wall behind him....

Vester Lee Flanagan was also a law abiding citizen, right up until he blew a news reporter away on live TV.

Personally, I don't want to take your guns away. In fact, I'd like you to have more guns (especially rifles). But if you had to go maybe jump through a few extra bureaucratic hoops to get the guns, in the hope that it would stop guns falling into the wrong hands more often, would that be so disagreeable to you?

Depends on the bureaucratic hoops.

In this Flanagan case, what specifically are you proposing that would prevent him from legally buy his handgun?

Keep in mind... these background check systems is NOT designed to be A FAILSAFE.

 Jihadin wrote:
Under 25? No idea if X, Y, Z, ABC, 1234, or EMCsquaretoroot69whatever is related.
But they predict(?) that more are killed who are under the age of 25 are by fire arms then by vehicle......
wait
Those who are to be killed will exceed those who are killed by vehicle
wait
Those under 25 are expected to be killed by fire arms
Those over 25 are expected to be killed by vehicle
So
Question is.....how old are you and how it is expected you die?
So
My reading comprehension is off or something....I'm over 40.....does that mean I die of old age?

Dude you are using the old math, you need to switch to the new one.

 Smacks wrote:

There are lots of full blooded American citizens, who feel the same way I do. My opinion is not any more or less valid because of where I happen to be from.

Umm, yes. The fact you are British does indeed say your opinion is not valid in this instance. You have no more say in this than you have any right to vote in a US election. You can have an opinion about a US candidate, but its not a valid one as you are not able to vote in the election.

No Americans are going around saying how rights in other countries are dumb and should be changed. Why do foreigners feel the need to do that to the US?

And yes, I can damn well lump the 2nd amendment in with all the rest of the Bill of Rights. They're all equally important rights. If I don't need to justify Freedom of Speech I don't need to justify the Right to bear Arms.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Umm, yes. The fact you are British does indeed say your opinion is not valid in this instance. You have no more say in this than you have any right to vote in a US election. You can have an opinion about a US candidate, but its not a valid one as you are not able to vote in the election.

Being able to vote, has no baring on whether or not I am correct. It is my opinion that the US boarders the Pacific ocean,it also a fact. The fact that I am not able to vote on it doesn't make it any less true. It also my opinion that gun control measures would be a good first step in reducing gun violence in the US, my being able to vote in the US does not change the truth of that statement.

No Americans are going around saying how rights in other countries are dumb and should be changed.

Are you sure?

And yes, I can damn well lump the 2nd amendment in with all the rest of the Bill of Rights. They're all equally important rights. If I don't need to justify Freedom of Speech I don't need to justify the Right to bear Arms.

Well you can if you want to have a flaccid wang of an argument. As I said before, nothing should ever be held dogmatically above criticism. The whole idea of free speech is that it entitles people to question stuff, even free speech, and free speech is easy to defend.

If you are only able to defend gun rights by firstly equivocating it with free speech, and then boldly stating "I don't need to defend it"... Well, don't worry... It happens to all guys sometimes...

Smacks, do you think there is some kind of hierarchy or priority of rights in the Bill of Rights? I am curious why you think it is a bad argument to say that private gun ownership rights are not legally equivalent to free speech rights.

 Grey Templar wrote:

No Americans are going around saying how rights in other countries are dumb and should be changed. Why do foreigners feel the need to do that to the US?

Uhhh, what is all this crap I hear about Sharia Law around the Bible Belt?

 Manchu wrote:
Smacks, do you think there is some kind of hierarchy or priority of rights in the Bill of Rights? I am curious why you think it is a bad argument to say that private gun ownership rights are not legally equivalent to free speech rights.

I did not say "legally" equivalent, now you are twisting my words.

There is a difference between something being legal or illegal and something being right or wrong. When discussing whether a law is right or wrong, it's actually completely farcical to try and define right and wrong along legal boundaries, but gun rights people often seem to do this. Gun rights are in the constitution = good, good = should be in the constitution. It's completely circular.

If you want to compare gun right to free speech. Free speech is in the international declaration of human rights, gun rights are not. Free speech is also considered a human right in most EU countries and Australia... Gun rights are not. We have seen what happens when freedom of speech is taken away, it's really bad. Gun rights don't exist in EU countries or in Australia and no ones "freedom" was affected. Also about ~50% of Americans are in favour of gun rights being limited, I don't have the figures for people wanting to limit free speech, but I bet it's a lot lower than 50%

So to say that these two "rights" are equally legitimate and equally good for society is just not true.

Smacks... your opinion is duly noted.

It's just that most Americans would disagree with you and don't need that self-affirmation that other countries does things differently.