Question for the anti-gunners

[ethan-s]

How long has murder been outlawed?

[Vlerchan]

Why is the rate of murder higher in some countries, than others?

What is a statistical regression?

[Sailor Mars]

Is a gun a weapon?
Yes.
Are weapons designed and used to kill?
Yes.
Why try to enforce a law (I.E Manslaughter, homocide, assault with a weapon, assault, etc.) when there's weapons that can do that and aren't against the law or at least not controlled?
Idk.

[ethan-s]

please just answer the question. also, how long has cocain been outlawed?


Why try to enforce a law (I.E Manslaughter, homicide, assault with a weapon, assault, etc.) when there's weapons that can do that and aren't against the law or at least not controlled?

why is the law broken in the first place? why do we have a black market? you just proved that Its the peoples fault, not the guns.

[Sailor Mars]

why is the law broken in the first place? why do we have a black market? you just proved that Its the peoples fault, not the guns.
Guns are weapons and tools of destruction made and used by people. Guns do not have consciouses and trigger fingers. They can't go to theatres or clubs and shoot people by themselves. You act as if restricting guns and or outlawing them entirely is a bad thing that will increase mass murders and violence (which they won't, as both common sense and studies have shown).

[ethan-s]

Guns are weapons and tools of destruction made and used by people. Guns do not have consciouses and trigger fingers. They can't go to theatres or clubs and shoot people by themselves.


exactly my point. people control the gun, the gun can't get up and shoot someone by itself. A person has to go and shoot someone. so tell me, if we ban guns, and a gangbanger still wants to kill people, is it the guns fault?

[Sailor Mars]

exactly my point. people control the gun, the gun can't get up and shoot someone by itself. A person has to go and shoot someone. so tell me, if we ban guns, and a gangbanger still wants to kill people, is it the guns fault?

Did I ever say it was the guns fault?... Of course it's the persons fault. But why would we make it easier for people to kill people if it's against the law to kill? Makes no sense

[ethan-s]

why not get rid of the people who want to kill or block their access to guns? why take away the candy from the good kids when just one is being a brat?

[dxcxdzv]

why not get rid of the people who want to kill or block their access to guns? why take away the candy from the good kids when just one is being a brat?
It is not that simple actually.

Wait, are you comparing kids and candies to adults and guns?
This reveals a dangerously sick state of mind of the American population if I may say.

[StoppingTom]

wow i can't find any logical fallacies in this argument

[Flapjack]

why is the law broken in the first place? why do we have a black market? you just proved that Its the peoples fault, not the guns.
Guns make killing people a lot easier. Of course it also causes accidental deaths but I assume you're excluding that. It is like after 9/11 opposing the no fly list because terrorist is already illegal.

look at data from brazil
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/Y0uk6i1iVAVP5gBE3FCx_srBNoHv3EybJI-khYXnI15ADMqiw0OpY-kYoWqWO4i0jKP9LtmUqVG9ojToexBAsZD5r2oA9XUbIe70iAIK6Xb0p4jD_mdquqpaThe fact that gun control will not wipe out all gun violence is not a reason to not have any progress.

http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/134DB/production/_85876097_homicides_guns_624_v3.png

[Sailor Mars]

why not get rid of the people who want to kill or block their access to guns? why take away the candy from the good kids when just one is being a brat?

Guns are not sweet treats that kids get after a doctors office visit. Guns are deadly tools that are used to harm and hurt. Like Reise said, it's not as simple as just "getting rid of the people who want to kill", because why else would anyone get a gun? You may argue "self defense" but even still, by using a gun you are causing harm to a person. If you look at studies done and the data shown in Australia since gun laws were put in place, not a single mass murder has happened in the thirteen years. And how many have happened here in America within the last few months?

[StoppingTom]

Guns are not sweet treats that kids get after a doctors office visit. Guns are deadly tools that are used to harm and hurt. Like Reise said, it's not as simple as just "getting rid of the people who want to kill", because why else would anyone get a gun? You may argue "self defense" but even still, by using a gun you are causing harm to a person. If you look at studies done and the data shown in Australia since gun laws were put in place, not a single mass murder has happened in the thirteen years. And how many have happened here in America within the last few months?

As of June 12, according to the Mass Shooting Tracker, there have been 176 mass shootings in America in 2016.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/04/22/how-many-mass-shootings-have-there-been-far/Njdb2kV2BRa6dYjh3Ii9GJ/story.html

[Microcosm]

exactly my point. people control the gun, the gun can't get up and shoot someone by itself. A person has to go and shoot someone. so tell me, if we ban guns, and a gangbanger still wants to kill people, is it the guns fault?

Isn't it just as bad that the gun allows people to efficiently kill?

If you didn't have the gun, it'd be harder to kill, yes?

Having little regulation on guns, considering that they are tools commonly used to kill, seems pretty unwise, don't you think? This is especially true in a society that values civility as a means of reaching towards a safer and more prosperous union.

This reveals a dangerously sick state of mind of the American population if I may say.

That moment when you generalize almost 400 million people. ( ͡ᵔ ͜ʖ ͡ᵔ )

[Leprous]

exactly my point. people control the gun, the gun can't get up and shoot someone by itself. A person has to go and shoot someone. so tell me, if we ban guns, and a gangbanger still wants to kill people, is it the guns fault?

But all these people who are sick in the head do have acces to all these guns, which is what should be prevented by gun control. The thing is, there are more benefits in preventing everyone from having guns than to wait for a guy to kill people and then shoot him.

And if people use the arguement : but if we have guns we can defend ourselves from. Well you won't have to do that if not everyone had guns in the first place.

If you ban guns, atleast not everyone has the abilty to get one and all those small time 'gangsters' will think twice about getting the gun.

[Uranus]

Lets ban guns!
That way the only people who have guns is terrorists and thugs! (And police but they take forever getting to a scene because they stopped for doughnuts and the criminals are long gone!) Great idea!

[lyhom]

Lets ban guns!
That way the only people who have guns is terrorists and thugs! (And police but they take forever getting to a scene because they stopped for doughnuts and the criminals are long gone!) Great idea!

http://www.artsjournal.com/engage/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/StrawMan.jpg

[Porpoise101]

Lets ban guns!
That way the only people who have guns is terrorists and thugs! (And police but they take forever getting to a scene because they stopped for doughnuts and the criminals are long gone!) Great idea!
Back this up with facts, not assumptions. Most studies seem to show more weapon proliferation results in more violence. I guess that, not surprisingly, scared people with guns are not mentally prepared to defend themselves from assailants. Who would've thought that people in shock can't think or act straight.

[Kahn]

http://www.conduitforaction.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/the_second_amendment_by_personofinterests-d7iadgw.png

"[T]he obvious import [of the constitutional guarantee to carry arms] is to promote a state of preparedness for self-defense even against the invasions of government, because only governments have ever disarmed any considerable class of people as a means toward their enslavement." - Theodore Schroeder

"Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it." - James Madison

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power by rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them." - Joseph Story

Back this up with facts, not assumptions. Most studies seem to show more weapon proliferation results in more violence.

More Guns, Less Violence- Two Decades of Research (December 2015) (https://www.aei.org/publication/chart-of-the-day-more-guns-less-gun-violence-between-1993-and-2013/)

Gun Violence Has Declined Since the 90's (October 2015) (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/10/21/gun-homicides-steady-after-decline-in-90s-suicide-rate-edges-up/)

"Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware" (May 2013) (http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/)

FBI: US Homocide Rate At 51 Year Low (June 2016) (https://mises.org/blog/fbi-us-homicide-rate-51-year-low)

Question for "anti-gunners": Do you like cheese on a ham sandwich?

[Flapjack]

Lets ban guns!
That way the only people who have guns is terrorists and thugs! (And police but they take forever getting to a scene because they stopped for doughnuts and the criminals are long gone!) Great idea!
Another person who has not researched the facts.
look at data from brazil
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/Y0uk6i1iVAVP5gBE3FCx_srBNoHv3EybJI-khYXnI15ADMqiw0OpY-kYoWqWO4i0jKP9LtmUqVG9ojToexBAsZD5r2oA9XUbIe70iAIK6Xb0p4jD_mdquqpaThe fact that gun control will not wipe out all gun violence is not a reason to not have any progress.

http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/134DB/production/_85876097_homicides_guns_624_v3.png

[Kahn]

Another person who has not researched the facts.
look at data from brazil
image (https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/Y0uk6i1iVAVP5gBE3FCx_srBNoHv3EybJI-khYXnI15ADMqiw0OpY-kYoWqWO4i0jKP9LtmUqVG9ojToexBAsZD5r2oA9XUbIe70iAIK6Xb0p4jD_mdquqpa)The fact that gun control will not wipe out all gun violence is not a reason to not have any progress.

>using 10 year old data from Brazil in a discussion about US gun policy

You should check out the four articles I linked in my last post.

[Flapjack]

If the populations of Australia, Canada, and the UK were as large as the population of the United States, and the homicide rate stayed the same for each nation, they'd have the around the same amount of homicides as we do. The only difference between US homicides and the other nations in question being they'd have less gun homicides than we do. You take away one method of perpetrating a crime, people will always find alternatives.
http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/134DB/production/_85876097_homicides_guns_624_v3.png

Nooo the USA has about 4.7 homicides per 100 000 whereas the UK has 1. It is compared per 100 000 to remove the bias of population difference.

Why don't you think guns should be banned? No it will not stop every murder but should we also scrap the no fly list because it cannot stop every terrorist attack?

Your maths look wrong buddy let me check it hang on.

[Kahn]

Why don't you think guns should be banned? No it will not stop every murder but should we also scrap the no fly list because it cannot stop every terrorist attack?

Because our right to bear arms is paramount in the defense against tyranny, foreign invasion, and domestic terrorism. At least in my opinion.

No, we shouldn't get rid of the No Fly list.
Your maths look wrong buddy let me check it hang on.

It's totally wrong because I read the chart wrong like a shithead.

EDIT:

image (http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/134DB/production/_85876097_homicides_guns_624_v3.png)

Nooo the USA has about 4.7 homicides per 100 000 whereas the UK has 1. It is compared per 100 000 to remove the bias of population difference.

Well, fuck me. Read the chart wrong, so, my math is wrong. I concede that you've got me there.

[lliam]

why take away the candy from the good kids when just one is being a brat?

why give candy to kids anyway? candy isn't real healthy stuff.

also, everyone can turn into a brat. so it would be a preventive thing to ban the production of candy for personal use completely. :D

[Flapjack]

It's not wrong, buddy. Check all you want.
Just did. I only checked Australia.

If Australia had a population of 318.9 million it would have 3507.642 total homicides per year.

If you don't believe me, do it yourself but just think... If the USA has a higher rate how could Australia have more if they had the same population?
Because our right to bear arms is paramount in the defense against tyranny, foreign invasion, and domestic terrorism. At least in my opinion.


The USA has by far the worlds most powerful military. How would you fight against their tyranny? Can they not protect you from foreign invasion and terrorism? I get owning guns is fun but it's not worth that fun when so many people are dying for it. Children should have the right to go to school in peace. Not being taught how to hide from a school shooter.


It's totally wrong because I read the chart wrong like a shithead.
Aha story of my lifeXD It's cool buddy:)

[Leprous]

Because our right to bear arms is paramount in the defense against tyranny, foreign invasion, and domestic terrorism. At least in my opinion.


I read foreign invasion and laughed. You know, if not everyone has guns, then domestic terrorism won't be a massive problem in the first place.

[Kahn]

The USA has by far the worlds most powerful military. How would you fight against their tyranny?

An armed populace can at the very least take a stand against the world's most powerful military (which the domestic civilian force would ultimately outnumber the federal military force). At least an armed populace has a choice, and the means to stand up for themselves and their liberties, rather than simply rolling over and getting shafted.

In 1776, a small coalition of thirteen colonies went up against the most powerful military in the world, and succeeded against all odds. Call it luck. Call it providence. Call it a fluke. It doesn't matter- it's been done before (God forbid it ever has to happen again).

Can they not protect you from foreign invasion and terrorism?

Can you guarantee me that there will always and forever be a federal army to protect and defend the United States from now until the end of time? Can you guarantee me that this army will never be used to oppress/coerce the population when our arms are taken/restricted and we're left to the whims of the most powerful government the world has ever seen?

I get owning guns is fun but it's not worth that fun when so many people are dying for it.

I don't own a gun yet. I'm not talking about the recreational ownership of a gun. I am wholeheartedly of the belief that, with proper training and gun education, the vast majority of healthy, able bodied citizens should own their own arms.

Children should have the right to go to school in peace. Not being taught how to hide from a school shooter.

Refer to my first post in this thread. Gun violence is declining, despite gun ownership increasing.

---

I read foreign invasion and laughed.

What did you find so funny, O' Special One?

Whether or not you want to admit it, a hundred million registered gun owners is a deterrent to foreign powers invading, and while it's not likely at all that such a thing will happen any time soon, we don't know what the future holds, and this nation can fall from grace at any point in time. Just because it hasn't happened before, doesn't mean it won't ever happen. I'm sure Romans scoffed at the idea of Barbarians sacking their grand cities and bringing about the downfall of their empire.

You know, if not everyone has guns, then domestic terrorism won't be a massive problem in the first place.

You know, domestic terrorism isn't only perpetrated by gun owners.

[Leprous]

What did you find so funny, O' Special One?


You know, domestic terrorism isn't only perpetrated by gun owners.

You must be incredibly ignorant if you don't know what I was referring to.

Well, you can atleast prevent it partially by banning the guns? Like it or not but most people with some brains (pretty much every sane Western European) will tell you that the US is incredibly stupid for having uns available to everyone.

[Kahn]

You must be incredibly ignorant if you don't know what I was referring to.

Heh, isn't that the pot calling the kettle black?

How about instead of being a pompous ass, you explain what you found so funny? :)

Well, you can atleast prevent it partially by banning the guns? Like it or not but most people with some brains (pretty much every sane Western European) will tell you that the US is incredibly stupid for having uns available to everyone.

Sure, I'm for more thorough background checks and the mentally ill/convicted criminals of violent/sex crimes being denied access to the purchase of arms.

And guns aren't "available to everyone." For instance, I live in Illinois, and I have to be 21, and apply for a FOID card which goes through the State police before I can be approved to purchase a gun.

I don't care for foreign opinions on how we conduct our matters of State. But, for what its worth, a lot of the Europeans that I've spoken with would like the right to own guns. Call them insane, I guess. (Really, they just have a different opinion than you)

[Flapjack]

An armed populace can at the very least take a stand against the world's most powerful military (which the domestic civilian force would ultimately outnumber the federal military force). At least an armed populace has a choice, and the means to stand up for themselves and their liberties, rather than simply rolling over and getting shafted.

In 1776, a small coalition of thirteen colonies went up against the most powerful military in the world, and succeeded against all odds. Call it luck. Call it providence. Call it a fluke. It doesn't matter- it's been done before (God forbid it ever has to happen again).
Reading your first post I was think that 150 years ago that could work but today it couldn't and the example you gave was in 1776XD

When it was fighting with swords and guns then yeah the population has a tiny chance but have fun destroying a tank and shooting down a tank with that 9mm you have to keep your government in check.



Can you guarantee me that there will always and forever be a federal army to protect and defend the United States from now until the end of time? Can you guarantee me that this army will never be used to oppress/coerce the population when our arms are taken/restricted and we're left to the whims of the most powerful government the world has ever seen?


Nope, can you guarantee that another kinder garden will not be shot up? You know that on average the USA has more than one mass shooting a day.


I don't own a gun yet. I'm not talking about the recreational ownership of a gun. I am wholeheartedly of the belief that, with proper training and gun education, the vast majority of healthy, able bodied citizens should own their own arms.


So when they have a breakdown they can shoot their kids? Shoot up a high school? Have their kids find the gun and blow their brains out.

[Kahn]

Reading your first post I was think that 150 years ago that could work but today it couldn't and the example you gave was in 1776XD

xD

When it was fighting with swords and guns then yeah the population has a tiny chance but have fun destroying a tank and shooting down a tank with that 9mm you have to keep your government in check.

Oh, did I say that's how it'd be done? Citizens just lining up in the street and firing their pistols at tanks?

No, it's not that simple, and never will be. Mock me all you want.

Nope, can you guarantee that another kinder garden will not be shot up? You know that on average the USA has more than one mass shooting a day.

Absolutely not, and I'm not going to pretend like I gave the solution to that problem. But I think an incredibly powerful government that has no armed population to keep it in check, especially a government as corrupt as ours, is much more daunting.

Please provide a source for that statistic.

So when they have a breakdown they can shoot their kids? Shoot up a high school? Have their kids find the gun and blow their brains out.

No. I think with proper vetting, training, and education, that wouldn't be a problem. That's actually the point of all three of those things. To lessen the likelihood of such occurences. The current state of both gun training and education is abysmal and the vetting of prospective gun owners isn't much better, either.

[Leprous]

Oakheart You know I don't like to debate with people who insult me because they don't think but here goes:

I was referring to the fact you guys aren't even native to your own country and that complaining about illegals is incredibly stupid and ignorant of your own history.

Also, doesn't the age at which you can get a gun differ from state to state?

[DriveAlive]

Just a comment on fighting a tyrannical government: tiny groups of armed fighters in the Middle East have been able to hold off both the Russian and U.S. armies for nearly 40 years.

[Vlerchan]

The weight of the available evidence points in the direction of more guns, more homicides. Gun prevalence has a more or less neutral effect on other common crimes, including assault and robbery; as a result, it appears that guns do not affect the overall volume of violence, but do affect its intensity. The effect of gun prevalence on suicide rates is less clear.

http://home.uchicago.edu/ludwigj/papers/JPAM_aiming_for_evidence_gun_policy_2006.pdf

Written in 2006, famous for other reasons, but worth noting that there consensus hasn't shifted from what's described here. It's also worth reading for the digestible discussion of the statistical analysis highlighted below.

[List of studies]
Chart of the day: More guns, less gun violence between 1993 and 2013

This doesn't demonstrate a thing about the relationship between guns and gun violence. It's a simple plot that doesn't account at all for the possible control variables.

Like, pretty importantly, the considerable decline in organised drug crime, since the 1990s (re., Clinton's anti-crime legislation.)

Gun homicides steady after decline in ’90s; suicide rate edges up

This also doesn't demonstrate a relationship between guns and gun-crime, for the same reasons as stated above.

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

See above.

FBI: US Homicide Rate at 51-Year Low

I feel bad for giving the Mises institution advertisement-revenue.

Naturally, these facts are steadfastly ignored by people who can't do basic arithmetic[.]

https://mises.org/blog/fbi-us-homicide-rate-51-year-low

Or, misinterpreted by people that never took Stats101.

Gun control advocates like to point to Canada as a model for more restrictive gun laws, but what we find is that as states become more like Canada in terms of demographics and climate, they have more similar homicide rates. So, many states that border Canada have gun laws far more permissive than anything found in Canada — but have similar homicide rates.

ibid.

This, is an example of the use of control variables. But the manner in which the analysis is segregated, so that we can selectively look at helpful parts of the picture, undermines the entire analysis.

The same occurs with his pointer to Mexico, which demonstrates that gun control doesn't solve the issue of murder, but that's no reason to presume it is inconsequential. The reason that comparing developed countries is also misleading, on issues such as gun control, is that developing countries tend to have a much lower strength of the rule of law, which is quite important when it comes to issues of the law.

[...] defense against tyranny [...]
With regards to this, I have argued in the past that it follows from this that U.S. citizens should have access to the same degree of firepower as the U.S. armed-forces (anti-tank missile launchers, rocket-propelled grenades, automatic weapons).

I can repeat this argument as required, but before I begin, do you agree this should be the case?

I also then raise the point of the hundred thousand-plus Asian-Americans interned in the 1930s, who were wholly incapable of defending themselves from a tyrannical government. This argument seems an empty formula, when placed in historical perspective. Tyranny rarely arises without popular ascent.

[...] foreign invasion [...]
I am quite certain this is more a romantic notion that a permissible reality.

Whatever force is capable of making a landing on U.S. soil, is unlikely to be beaten by a rag-tag group with semi-automatics.

In 1776, a small coalition of thirteen colonies went up against the most powerful military in the world, and succeeded against all odds. Call it luck. Call it providence. Call it a fluke.
Call it a conveniently forgotten Spanish and French contribution?

[...] a hundred million registered gun owners is a deterrent to foreign powers invading [...]
No number of small-arms fighters are going to be a deterrent to a state that can gain the naval and ariel superiority over the U.S. that would be required to launch a ground invasion.

Your choice, is to die patriots.

[...] domestic terrorism [...]
It seems to contribute more to this, than it has ever detracted from it.

Please provide a source for that statistic.
There is no definition of mass-shooting so all claims surrounding this are going to be loaded, is probably worth noting at this stage.

I don't care for foreign opinions on how we conduct our matters of State.
Well, at least it's made clear I wasted my time.

Another person who has not researched the facts.
look at data from brazil
The same issue I highlighted above about Oakheart's studies applies to the Brazil graph.

The treatment period is also a year, which makes it worst than useless.

---

These are actual statistical analysis.

Recent reductions in the fraction of households owning a gun can
explain one-third of the differential decline in gun homicides relative
to nongun homicides since 1993.

https://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/dranove/htm/dranove/coursepages/Mgmt%20469/guns.pdf

Here's the famous Duggan (2003) paper which discusses the decline experienced since the 1990s.

Using county- and state-level panels for 20 years, we estimate the elasticity of homicide with respect to gun prevalence as between +0.1 and + 0.3. All of the effect of gun prevalence is on gun homicide rates.

http://www18.georgetown.edu/data/people/ludwigj/publication-18264.pdf

Here's a more sophisticated analysis than the one Duggan engaged in, which returns the same results.

On the contrary, evidence shows that states with higher levels of firearm ownership have an increased risk for violent crimes perpetrated with a firearm. Public health stakeholders should consider the outcomes associated with private firearm ownership.

http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Firearm-Ownership-and-Violent-Crime.pdf

This is a more recent one that is notable because it is brave enough to control for race, though not intra-racial differences (like Scotch-Irish densities being a notable determinant.)

[ethan-s]

Guns are not sweet treats that kids get after a doctors office visit. Guns are deadly tools that are used to harm and hurt. Like Reise said, it's not as simple as just "getting rid of the people who want to kill", because why else would anyone get a gun? You may argue "self defense" but even still, by using a gun you are causing harm to a person. If you look at studies done and the data shown in Australia since gun laws were put in place, not a single mass murder has happened in the thirteen years. And how many have happened here in America within the last few months?

again, totally missing the point. why restrict access to guns for people who are lawfull people?

Lets ban guns!
That way the only people who have guns is terrorists and thugs! (And police but they take forever getting to a scene because they stopped for doughnuts and the criminals are long gone!) Great idea!

this^^^

Back this up with facts, not assumptions.

OK. Chicago banned most guns, but they just had 24 people get shot this weekend. what gives? france has ultra-strict gun control, but some nut was able to shoot up a concert.

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/chicago-shootings-liberals-ignore/#ixzz4DMNLEE95



You must be incredibly ignorant if you don't know what I was referring to.

Well, you can atleast prevent it partially by banning the guns? Like it or not but most people with some brains (pretty much every sane Western European) will tell you that the US is incredibly stupid for having uns available to everyone.
but, as hsown above baddies don't give a rip about laws.

[Vlerchan]

what gives?
Perhaps a complete misunderstanding of the claims gun-control advocates make.

[dxcxdzv]

france has ultra-strict gun control, but some nut was able to shoot up a concert.

Second, the origins of the AK-47s used during November 13th are quite obscure, what is sure is that they didn't come from France.
Third, it was an operation organized at a large scale, internationally as claimed by ISIL.
Post edited. Please do not insult other members. ~Mars

[mattsmith48]

How long has murder been outlawed?

How is that relevant with people wanting stick gun control or ban guns?

[Sailor Mars]

I think what pro-gun activists don't realise when they try to defend guns with the "we should be able to protect ourselves" and "oh, so terrorists and thugs can have guns but law abiding citizens can't?" Is that no one should have guns in the first place... We are not justifying gun related crime and terrorism. We are saying that putting more guns in place to try to "protect"ourselves, is bad and going to lead to MORE crime in the long run.

[Kahn]

I'm enjoying how y'all conveniently avoid addressing points in my posts that you don't have an answer for.

Oakheart You know I don't like to debate with people who insult me because they don't think but here goes:

You should follow your own advice. Don't forget, you were the one who started the conversation on a rude and arrogant note, Mr. Laughsalot.

I think. I just have a different opinion than you. Must be hard to come to terms with, I know.

I was referring to the fact you guys aren't even native to your own country and that complaining about illegals is incredibly stupid and ignorant of your own history.

Oh, this tired, useless point again. Sad to say, I was expecting more. But you're just another teenage liberal spewing the same worn out rhetoric. I digress. I honestly don't know why I keep coming back to this website, if all i'm going to get is drones repeating themselves.

I'm native to this country. I'm native to this land. I have zero ties to Europe or any other land besides by blood. My family has lived here for generations, fought, and died for this Union, spanning back to the early 19th century.

I refuse to feel bad about the way history has played out. I can't change the fact that conquest and disease destroyed a people. That is beyond any of our control. I won't judge my ancestors on the standards imposed on the nation by "progressives," either.

I think its funny that you think that because our distant ancestors conquered this land through war, you believe current citizens of the United States should give up their arms, making the prospect of invasion by a foreign entity/the development of complete and utter tyranny remarkably easier.

What sense is there in that? Because our ancestors are from elsewhere (primarily Europe), and because they conquered a primitive society, we should deprive ourselves of arms, because...? Foreign invasion is foreign invasion, regardless of the fact that we started colonizing this land five hundred years ago.

Also, doesn't the age at which you can get a gun differ from state to state?

It varies state to state, yes. There is also more strict/lenient gun laws state to state. Which goes back to your statement "like it or not but most people with some brains (pretty much every sane Western European) will tell you that the US is incredibly stupid for having (g)uns available to everyone."

Most people with brains realize that guns aren't available to everyone because law varies state to state and wouldn't make such a generalized statement.

Vlerchan I just woke up a little bit ago so I'll read your post whilst I make breakfast and responded to it in a little while.

[Flapjack]

france has ultra-strict gun control, but some nut was able to shoot up a concert.

Nobody is claiming that banning guns will stop every shooting ever. But it will drastically reduce the numbers. Children in France aren't taught how to hide from a mass shooter.

[Vlerchan]

@Vlerchan I just woke up a little bit ago so I'll read your post whilst I make breakfast and responded to it in a little while.
Take whatever time you need. Please do highlight if you feel I missed any of your points though, as mentioned in the opening.

I honestly don't know why I keep coming back to this website, if all i'm going to get is drones repeating themselves.
:D

But it will drastically reduce the numbers
I'm sure it will reduce the numbers, but that the reduction will be drastic is quite dubious. The largest driver of gun-violence seems to be cultural.

[Flapjack]

I'm sure it will reduce the numbers, but that the reduction will be drastic is quite dubious. The largest driver of gun-violence seems to be cultural.
I don't think it is in the American culture to shoot up school etc etc. I can see culture being a driver for accidental deaths however as so many gun nut insists they're safe with their guns and then get shot by their kids.

[Vlerchan]

I don't think it is in the American culture to shoot up school[.]
It is in American culture to create an environment of comfort when it comes to arms, which ultimately facilities the fantasies of student-shooters.

Though, deaths from school shootings are a negligible portion of all gun deaths, so it's not relevant to the broader (actual) point I made, regardless.

[Kahn]

The weight of the available evidence points in the direction of more guns, more homicides. Gun prevalence has a more or less neutral effect on other common crimes, including assault and robbery; as a result, it appears that guns do not affect the overall volume of violence, but do affect its intensity. The effect of gun prevalence on suicide rates is less clear.

http://home.uchicago.edu/ludwigj/papers/JPAM_aiming_for_evidence_gun_policy_2006.pdf

Written in 2006, famous for other reasons, but worth noting that there consensus hasn't shifted from what's described here. It's also worth reading for the digestible discussion of the statistical analysis highlighted below.

So, simply put, guns don't have an effect on the rate at which criminal activity occurs, but only the intesity of criminal activity?


Chart of the day: More guns, less gun violence between 1993 and 2013

This doesn't demonstrate a thing about the relationship between guns and gun violence. It's a simple plot that doesn't account at all for the possible control variables.

Like, pretty importantly, the considerable decline in organised drug crime, since the 1990s (re., Clinton's anti-crime legislation.)

Gun homicides steady after decline in ’90s; suicide rate edges up[/b]

This also doesn't demonstrate a relationship between guns and gun-crime, for the same reasons as stated above.

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

I'm not sure what you mean by "control variable" and it'd make responding to this point a hell of a lot easier were I to know what it meant. Explain, please?

FBI: US Homicide Rate at 51-Year Low

I feel bad for giving the Mises institution advertisement-revenue.

Naturally, these facts are steadfastly ignored by people who can't do basic arithmetic[.]

https://mises.org/blog/fbi-us-homicide-rate-51-year-low

Or, misinterpreted by people that never took Stats101.

Gun control advocates like to point to Canada as a model for more restrictive gun laws, but what we find is that as states become more like Canada in terms of demographics and climate, they have more similar homicide rates[/b]. So, many states that border Canada have gun laws far more permissive than anything found in Canada — but have similar homicide rates.

ibid.

This, is an example of the use of control variables. But the manner in which the analysis is segregated, so that we can selectively look at helpful parts of the picture, undermines the entire analysis.

The same occurs with his pointer to Mexico, which demonstrates that gun control doesn't solve the issue of murder, but that's no reason to presume it is inconsequential. The reason that comparing developed countries is also misleading, on issues such as gun control, is that developing countries tend to have a much lower strength of the rule of law, which is quite important when it comes to issues of the law.

I can concede that you're correct in this analysis.

(I've never taken Stats101 for what it's worth. Starting college next semester.)

With regards to this, I have argued in the past that it follows from this that U.S. citizens should have access to the same degree of firepower as the U.S. armed-forces (anti-tank missile launchers, rocket-propelled grenades, automatic weapons).

I'm pretty sure you and I have had this back and forth already. No. I don't think citizens should be armed with anti-tank middle launchers, rocket-propelled grenades, or even automatic weapons, unless circumstances arose in which it was necessary for the survival of the Union.

I also then raise the point of the hundred thousand-plus Asian-Americans interned in the 1930s, who were wholly incapable of defending themselves from a tyrannical government. This argument seems an empty formula, when placed in historical perspective. Tyranny rarely arises without popular ascent.

Considering the wealth and status of those hundreds of thousands of Asian-Americans, they likely didn't have the means to access arms. I wonder how many actually owned guns, and if the vast majority of them had been gun owners, if they'd have been rounded up like cattle so easily.

Not to say they'd have much of a chance of succeeding considering how they'd be outnumbered by millions of for-internment citizens. But I guess that goes back to your point, "tyranny rarely arises without popular ascent."

I am quite certain this is more a romantic notion that a permissible reality.

Whatever force is capable of making a landing on U.S. soil, is unlikely to be beaten by a rag-tag group with semi-automatics.

A rag-tag group of tens of millions.

Whatever force is capable of making a landing on U.S. soil will have to go through an organized army first. I can't imagine, were they to defeat the federal force, they'd be unscathed and at their full strength. And at that point, we'd likely have access to the arms we require to make a sufficient stand.

But all of this is moot because it's hypothetical and we just don't know how it'd play out were such a thing to happen.

Call it a conveniently forgotten Spanish and French contribution?

Nope, I haven't forgotten that France and Spain played large roles in our independence.

No number of small-arms fighters are going to be a deterrent to a state that can gain the naval and ariel superiority over the U.S. that would be required to launch a ground invasion.

Your choice, is to die patriots.

As romanticized a notion as it may sound. I'd rather die a patriot than live under the yolk of a foreign power.

Well, at least it's made clear I wasted my time.

Well informed, respectful opinions will always have my ear. I shouldn't have generalized.

Take whatever time you need. Please do highlight if you feel I missed any of your points though, as mentioned in the opening.

Oh, you're not like the rest of them. You don't miss a beat.

[Vlerchan]

So, simply put, guns don't have an effect on the rate at which criminal activity occurs, but only the intesity of criminal activity?
Being able to access guns doesn't embolden people to commit crimes such as robbery or burglary but it does result in a larger number of homicides occurring both relating to these activities, and from other studies, what seems to be otherwise.

I'm not sure what you mean by "control variable" and it'd make responding to this point a hell of a lot easier were I to know what it meant. Explain, please?
In statistics, when someone attempts to determine something about a relationship between two variables (a dependent and independent: in this case, gun violence and gun prevalence), one must control for confounding factors (variables that might otherwise drive the results) or risk gathering a misleading result.

Take the example of the impact of free school lunches on academic performance. If we map just these two variables, we will find that where students received free school lunches, their academic performances were worse relative to the academic performance of the students that didn't receive school lunches. That would seem bizarre, though, and the reason it occurs, is because there is no control for poverty in that analysis, which ultimately drives that result. When one controls for poverty, they find that free school lunches do improve academic performance.

In this case, failing to control for organised crime prevalence, amongst a host of other confounding factors, leads to the analysis being naive, and the likelihood is quite misleading (Duggan (2003) confirms it is misleading).

(I've never taken Stats101 for what it's worth. Starting college next semester.)
Good luck with that, by the way, since I haven't said it so far.

I will also say that, aside from Criminal Law, Statistics might have been the most influential class I took in college; it's well worth pursuing, if there's the option.

(Do you actually have an idea what you're doing [pre-Law?])

I don't think citizens should be armed with anti-tank middle launchers, rocket-propelled grenades, or even automatic weapons, unless circumstances arose in which it was necessary for the survival of the Union.
In that case, I presume you believe there is some sort of trade-off between the strength of a defence against a hypothetical turn-to-tyranny and current domestic policy as it relates to present-security and law-enforcement?

If that's true, we can probably hold a reasonable argument about what current gun policy should be, without that turn-to-tyranny proving an unassailable horizon.

Considering the wealth and status of those hundreds of thousands of Asian-Americans, they likely didn't have the means to access arms.
This is probably more than true. Though, I was more-so hoping for an illustration of the broader point that if a government, possessing the same number of checks-and-balances that the US possesses, is capable of getting away with tyranny, the likelihood is that the public deems it correct.

Consider the PATRIOT Act too.

A rag-tag group of tens of millions.
Without central organisation, it won't matter what the absolute number is.

But all of this is moot because it's hypothetical and we just don't know how it'd play out were such a thing to happen.
I do agree. But, then, it is your argument that is wagered upon this incalculable hypothetical, and not mine.

I'd rather die a patriot than live under the yolk of a foreign power.
Is this wish worth the lives of the present citizenry, though?

Well informed, respectful opinions will always have my ear. I shouldn't have generalized.

Oh, you're not like the rest of them. You don't miss a beat.
Thank you. I'm actually quite happy you responded to this too, since it's nice to have a reasonable opponent in these sort of debates.

[dxcxdzv]

In statistics, when someone attempts to determine something about a relationship between two variables (a dependent and independent: in this case, gun violence and gun prevalence), one must control for confounding factors (variables that might otherwise drive the results) or risk gathering a misleading result.

Take the example of the impact of free school lunches on academic performance. If we map just these two variables, we will find that where students received free school lunches, their academic performances were worse relative to the academic performance of the students that didn't receive school lunches. That would seem bizarre, though, and the reason it occurs, is because there is no control for poverty in that analysis, which ultimately drives that result. When one controls for poverty, they find that free school lunches do improve academic performance.
Well, just a quick precision.
In your example are you talking families' poverty (hence on specified individuals within a perfectly average income population) or about schools in a low-income area within a greater population of schools in a perfectly average income area?
Because one does not constitute a Simpson's paradox.

[Vlerchan]

In your example are you talking families' poverty (hence on specified individuals within a perfectly average income population) or about schools in a low-income area within a greater population of schools in a perfectly average income area?
Because one does not constitute a Simpson's paradox.
Family's poverty.

I'm also not attempting to demonstrate the Simpson's paradox (which I had never heard of until I read your post).

[dxcxdzv]

Family's poverty.

I'm also not attempting to demonstrate the Simpson's paradox (which I had never heard of until I read your post).
It's just the paradox coming out from the misunderstanding of statistical data you enounced above.
Though it is more general that the correlation case.

Anyway, confounding factors affect - in the simplest case possible - the both studied variables.
If in your case free lunches were made in function of families' income (or, to be clearer, if there were a correlation between those two) I'd have agreed that there is a confounding factor.

I know I'm damn pernickety sometimes, sorry.

[Vlerchan]

I'd have agreed that there is a confounding factor.
I actually misremembered the definition of confounding factor and forgot that it must correlate with both the dependent and independent variable.

Omitted variable bias, is what I'm actually referring to, which should clear things up.

[Leprous]

but, as hsown above baddies don't give a rip about laws.

What it does cause is for those small time gas station robbers to think twice about it because they can't get the gun and it's not as easy for them. No they don't care about the law but it does work.
Oakheart I don't care if people have other opinions, what I do care about it the fact that they can't even properly state why guns are a good thing. Also, just so you know you're 19 which also makes you a teenagers.

I never said that because your ancestors were from Europe that they aren't allowed to use guns.

I did say complaining about the 'foreign invasion' is stupid because well, Europe has way bigger problems with this, you should be able to handle. You guys are foreign too, so don't complain about others.

[Porpoise101]

More Guns, Less Violence- Two Decades of Research (December 2015) (https://www.aei.org/publication/chart-of-the-day-more-guns-less-gun-violence-between-1993-and-2013/)

Gun Violence Has Declined Since the 90's (October 2015) (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/10/21/gun-homicides-steady-after-decline-in-90s-suicide-rate-edges-up/)

"Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware" (May 2013) (http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/)

FBI: US Homocide Rate At 51 Year Low (June 2016) (https://mises.org/blog/fbi-us-homicide-rate-51-year-low)
Correlation does not imply causation. Significant changes in law enforcement occurred in the 90s, which shows a decrease in crime in general. If this was the result of guns, you would probably see a decline with violent crime only.

Just because more guns are floating around in the public, that doesn't mean more people actually own them. In fact, it seems to show that less families own guns percentage wise, but the amount of guns has increased.

[ClaraWho]

How long has murder been outlawed?

In one form or another from the beginning of the human species as we know it.

The important point to note is that whilst people have killed others whilst murder has been illegal, an individual has never managed to kill on the scale we now see.

The reason for this change? Guns and bombs.

Why is owning C4 not as easy as owning a gun? (Answer: Because right to ownership is not in an outdated document).

'We need guns for self-defence'.

Name me a gun rampage in the US that has been ended by a civilian with a gun.

It's armed, trained police that end mass shootings.

Because decent, innocent people don't carry assault rifles to a club to dance. They don't bring them to school and keep them beside their lunchbox. They don't bring them to watch a movie.

These scum target 'soft-targets', not places where people are on guard or afraid of being attacked. And what sort of 3rd world would we live if that were the case.

The same people you won't let sit on a plane, you are happy to give an assault rifle. And then you can't understand why you have insanely high gun violence.

---

Now some of the posts here have become highly uncivil, I will not be stooping to respond if that is your attitude. Please disagree respectfully, regardless of emotional conviction. Thank you.

~ Clara

[DriveAlive]

In one form or another from the beginning of the human species as we know it.

The important point to note is that whilst people have killed others whilst murder has been illegal, an individual has never managed to kill on the scale we now see.

The reason for this change? Guns and bombs.

Why is owning C4 not as easy as owning a gun? (Answer: Because right to ownership is not in an outdated document).

'We need guns for self-defence'.

Name me a gun rampage in the US that has been ended by a civilian with a gun.

It's armed, trained police that end mass shootings.

Because decent, innocent people don't carry assault rifles to a club to dance. They don't bring them to school and keep them beside their lunchbox. They don't bring them to watch a movie.

These scum target 'soft-targets', not places where people are on guard or afraid of being attacked. And what sort of 3rd world would we live if that were the case.

The same people you won't let sit on a plane, you are happy to give an assault rifle. And then you can't understand why you have insanely high gun violence.

---

Now some of the posts here have become highly uncivil, I will not be stooping to respond if that is your attitude. Please disagree respectfully, regardless of emotional conviction. Thank you.

~ Clara
The AR15 platform has been on the market since the vietnam war, yet these mass shootings seem to have accelerated after the radical defunding of mental healthcare in this country coupled with rising medical costs. Even before the AR15, civilians had access to all sorts of powerful rifles, yet mass shootings were relatively rare. It seems to me that the specific firearm is not the lead cause of mass shootings, but rather mental illness, or namely, lack of help for people with mental illness.

I disagree with banning people from purchasing a gun because they are on the no-fly list for the simple reason that there is little transparency into what qualifies a person to be put on the list, as well as no due process for taking away someone's rights. It is a slippery slope to allow the government to just put people on a list and then take away their rights. I would be especially weary if I was a minority of Middle Eastern.

[ClaraWho]

The AR15 platform has been on the market since the vietnam war, yet these mass shootings seem to have accelerated after the radical defunding of mental healthcare in this country coupled with rising medical costs. Even before the AR15, civilians had access to all sorts of powerful rifles, yet mass shootings were relatively rare. It seems to me that the specific firearm is not the lead cause of mass shootings, but rather mental illness, or namely, lack of help for people with mental illness.

I disagree with banning people from purchasing a gun because they are on the no-fly list for the simple reason that there is little transparency into what qualifies a person to be put on the list, as well as no due process for taking away someone's rights. It is a slippery slope to allow the government to just put people on a list and then take away their rights. I would be especially weary if I was a minority of Middle Eastern.


If you are that paranoid your government is corrupt or out to get you, why not move to a different country you feel safe in?

As for the digression about A15's, that misses the point entirely. Regardless of mental illness being the cause or not, identifying mentally ill individuals prior to shootings isn't realistic. Mental health funding will never be that high or intrusive, nor I doubt would you support it if it was.

My point was how guns make killing on scale easily achievable.

If you could also take the challenge and name a mass shooting stopped by a civilian rather than police...

---

My last reply didn't appear to post?

~ Clara

[DriveAlive]

If you are that paranoid your government is corrupt or out to get you, why not move to a different country you feel safe in?

As for the digression about A15's, that misses the point entirely. Regardless of mental illness being the cause or not, identifying mentally ill individuals prior to shootings isn't realistic. Mental health funding will never be that high or intrusive, nor I doubt would you support it if it was.

My point was how guns make killing on scale easily achievable.

If you could also take the challenge and name a mass shooting stopped by a civilian rather than police...

---

My last reply didn't appear to post?

~ Clara

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/03/do-civilians-with-guns-ever-stop-mass-shootings/

http://controversialtimes.com/issues/constitutional-rights/12-times-mass-shootings-were-stopped-by-good-guys-with-guns/

These are just two results that I found.

[Flapjack]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/03/do-civilians-with-guns-ever-stop-mass-shootings/

http://controversialtimes.com/issues/constitutional-rights/12-times-mass-shootings-were-stopped-by-good-guys-with-guns/

These are just two results that I found.
You notice that they all open fire and then get killed? Well if there was no guns they wouldn't have opened fire in the first place.

What happens when the mass shooter isn't stopped? Orlando nightclub?

What happens when a women tries to stop a car driving off after a theft, shoots at the car and misses all shots? In a crowded shopping mall wannabe heroes will make it worse.

[ClaraWho]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/03/do-civilians-with-guns-ever-stop-mass-shootings/

http://controversialtimes.com/issues/constitutional-rights/12-times-mass-shootings-were-stopped-by-good-guys-with-guns/

These are just two results that I found.

Your posts don't work as examples for 2 reasons.

1) None of them were 'mass shootings'
2) The first post echoes almost word for word my post on how mass shootings occur on 'soft-targets', places nobody brings a weapon or were weapons are banned (primary schools for example).

You even openly concede how rare an occurance these events are. Now look at the statistics for mass shootings in the US. Hundreds. Ended by police or the shooter killing themselves.

~ Clara

[DriveAlive]

Your posts don't work as examples for 2 reasons.

1) None of them were 'mass shootings'
2) The first post echoes almost word for word my post on how mass shootings occur on 'soft-targets', places nobody brings a weapon or were weapons are banned (primary schools for example).

You even openly concede how rare an occurance these events are. Now look at the statistics for mass shootings in the US. Hundreds. Ended by police or the shooter killing themselves.

~ Clara

Mass shooting is not a legal term. In fact, many statistics that you read use their own definition (usually >2 victims). In this sense, many gang shootings are classified as "mass shootings." The reason why many of the examples I gave did not result in huge body counts is becuase the shooter was stopped before they could continue.

Also, you mention gun free zones as targets for shooters. This is why many argue for concealed carry and the ability to carry everywhere, so as to eliminate soft target zones.

[ClaraWho]

Mass shooting is not a legal term. In fact, many statistics that you read use their own definition (usually >2 victims). In this sense, many gang shootings are classified as "mass shootings." The reason why many of the examples I gave did not result in huge body counts is becuase the shooter was stopped before they could continue.

Also, you mention gun free zones as targets for shooters. This is why many argue for concealed carry and the ability to carry everywhere, so as to eliminate soft target zones.

Isn't the problem here that people like yourself refuse to acknowledge anything?

I mean here you are trying to argue semantics over a definition, whilst unable to respond satisfactorily to the flaws in your argument. You prohibit the discussion from going anywhere as you try to tie it up in a knot, going in circles.

For example, you're trying to talk about 'gun-free zones', without acknowledging that there are areas nobody sane would carry a weapon. Are we really going to give children semi-automatic rifles to take to school? Are we going to try to teach Betty, the 50 year old English teacher, weapon retention and handling skills to rival the police? Look at the wannabe assassin recently who grabbed a cops gun from its holster at a trump rally. If you introduce a gun into an environment, and the individual isn't constantly on guard against it being taken from them, then you are simply enabling.

Are you telling me you'd bring an assault rifle to go dancing? To swim at a pool or the beach? You'd bring it with you to school and be happy that the school bully was strutting about with one?

~ Clara

[DriveAlive]

Isn't the problem here that people like yourself refuse to acknowledge anything?

I mean here you are trying to argue semantics over a definition, whilst unable to respond satisfactorily to the flaws in your argument. You prohibit the discussion from going anywhere as you try to tie it up in a knot, going in circles.

For example, you're trying to talk about 'gun-free zones', without acknowledging that there are areas nobody sane would carry a weapon. Are we really going to give children semi-automatic rifles to take to school? Are we going to try to teach Betty, the 50 year old English teacher, weapon retention and handling skills to rival the police? Look at the wannabe assassin recently who grabbed a cops gun from its holster at a trump rally. If you introduce a gun into an environment, and the individual isn't constantly on guard against it being taken from them, then you are simply enabling.

Are you telling me you'd bring an assault rifle to go dancing? To swim at a pool or the beach? You'd bring it with you to school and be happy that the school bully was strutting about with one?

~ Clara
I thought we were having a civilized discussion based on facts. You asked for examples, I gave them. You disputed the examples based on phrasing, I responded that there is a lack of a proper definition. You mentioned gun free zones, I argued against them. You claimed that I want school bullies armed with assault rifles, I stopped arguing.

[Barbara.]

My only conclusion of the whole gun situation is only my opion and not necessarily right. But just feel that we are going back in time to the wild wild west days. Days when anyone and everyone carried guns for one reason or another. Again just my opinion.

[Vlerchan]

If you are that paranoid your government is corrupt or out to get you, why not move to a different country you feel safe in?
Because this argument doesn't relate to a specific government, but to the very idea of government.

Government is defined by it's ability to define, and engage in, legitimate violence, against a populace. Liberal-democratic tradition understands that we, as human-beings, are fallible and open to engaging in abuses. That's the reason that power within government is checked-and-balanced against others: That the Presidency requires the ascent of the Congress to act, and vice-versa, for example. Liberal-democratic governance places procedure that mitigates against concentrations of power at its core.

The argument that gun-advocates outline, is based on the same logic that underpins he tripartite division of modern liberal-democratic governance. It persists so that a populace might be able to check-and-balance a government - any government - and enable the diffusion of power among a broader range of political actors. That's not to claim that there isn't a trade-off between present welfare, and the long-run path of the state [I have argued there is], but that just directing someone to move, isn't an option.

---

Otherwise.,

I agree that curtailing the rights of those on the no-fly list undermines their right to the due process of the law.

Mass-shootings - regardless of definition, and I will add I consider the task of deciding on a definition an important one - make up an almost-negligible proportional of gun (~3.5%) deaths as a whole. If people are serious about combating gun-violence, then I don't figure the popular concentration on what is the most emotive part of the debate, for seemingly this reason alone, is too helpful.

[sqishy]

ethan-s

If we have tools that cause excessive harm to some people because others use the tools excessively/incorrectly, then the reasonable route is to cut down the use of that tool.

In the case of firearms, lessening their use has no negative side-effect; the good aspects of guns come even in tiny numbers, and the US has a number that is much higher than that.

[mutantboy]

How long has murder been outlawed?

So you want to declare homicide legal?
Or do you think weapons are used to shot at Coca cola cans?

[ethan-s]

My point is that murder is still legal, but it still happens.

[dxcxdzv]

My point is that murder is still legal, but it still happens.
Everybody, and by that I mean EVERYBODY figured that out since the very beginning of this thread.
Ans since the very beginning of this thread you received appropriate answers on this point.