We’re going about this the wrong way.
Instead of restricting guns, have people stop massing together.
If we’d just spread out more, we could greatly reduce mass shootings.
And yet, over the past thirty years, the number of guns in the US has more than doubled, while violent crime has halved.
And restricting your study to “high income nations” is special pleading. They’re just picking the biased sample which gives them the answer they set out to find in the first place. If the pattern was more than a statistical artifact, it would hold for all nations.
I’m not claiming more guns = less crime, but I am refuting that fewer guns = less crime. That’s simply not the case:
Maybe we should reduce income.
Regards,
Shodan
The GOP & it’s supporters have been working on that for the majority of Americans for decades now.
Let’s look at the numbers, shall we?:
- USA: 120guns/100 persons
- Falklands: 62/100
- Yemen: 52/100
- New Caledonia: 42/100
… - Canada: 34/100
… - Finland: 32/100
… - Iceland: 31/100
… - Austria: 30/100
… - Norway: 28/100
… - Switzerland: 27/100
Even putting aside the types of guns permitted in all the above countries, making America not #1 with respect to gun ownership, would probably go a long way in reducing gun violence.
Or just continue to send thoughts and prayers to victims.
So what? What relevance does that have to mass shooters? 25% of Canadian households own a gun compared to 45% of American households. Yet Canada’s mass shooting rate isn’t 60% as high as America’s mass shooting rate. Who cares about number of guns? It’s about access. If someone wanted to go on a shooting spree with a shotgun in Canada it would be very achievable.
Are you trying to make some sort of nonsensical argument that 1 gun per person leads to a lot of mass shootings, but less than 1 gun per person leads to practically zero?
There are so many nonsensical arguments about this sort of thing. When comparing to Switzerland, people note that military aged males have a real-deal assault rifle, not some looks-like-a-military-weapon-but-doesn’t-function-like-one “assault weapon” - when asked why they aren’t committing mass shootings, someone honestly said “well because their ammo is sealed and they have to account for it” - uh, what? Someone deciding to go on a big spree killing feels bound not to break the plastic seal on his ammunition?
Just nonsensical special pleading. Civilian gun ownership is not a uniquely American thing. Glorifying and giving incredible amounts of media attention to spree killers is. It correlates much more highly to the specific scenarios we’re talking about than does gun ownership in general.
I hate to say “Americans are just a more violent people in general” but I can’t see any other explanation for it. You can filter out things like gun ownership rate, violent entertainment, etc. and the USA is still significantly ahead of other Westernized nations in mass shootings. There is simply no explanation other than that Americans are more prone to having mass shooters in their midst. Sure, the prevalence of guns helps enable it, but filtering even that out, Americans are just more violent.
And what makes us more violent?
Wait, I know. It’s having those annoying Canadians just north of us. Would make anybody cranky.
I can assure you, having spent half my live living in Canada, that availability of guns, ability to get a gun of the type commonly available in the US, lack of gun lobby influencing gun laws in Canada, lack of gun industry influencing marketing and sales of guns in Canada, general attitude of Canadians with respect to guns, all play a huge roll in public attitudes about guns and their utility/acceptability with respect to settling personal problems and social grievances.
I’m not looking to convince you of these factors and considerations. You don’t strike me as someone that can be convinced of anything you don’t already ‘know’.
I agree that guns are overblown as a cause but as Velocity says, US culture may be more prone to violence. The US ranks 90th in the world in homicide rate*, near countries like Ecuador and Zambia. I remember some documents from StatCan showing that even the non-gun homicide rate is higher in the US than in Canada. Ordinary homicides aren’t done for publicity yet they’re notably higher in the US than in Canada. US media amplifies that.
This is a weak insult you can throw against anyone. You have absolutely no reason to make this statement. I am, in fact, one of the most intellectually flexible person on these boards. I’ve changed my mind about significant issues since I came here.
You’re not actually making an argument. You’re just saying “well it’s different, and I can’t change your mind anyway so it’s really your fault I can’t make an argument”
Wait, did you just say that everybody but you on these message boards is absurdly inflexible? How dare you!
When dealing with ad hominems from anonymous people on the internet, it’s best not to attempt to refute them. It doesn’t help. So just do what I do and internalize your rage and hate them forever.
Thank you (wiping tears of laughter), that was the funniest thing I have read on the internet in days!
You have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. When I joined the board, I was libertarian-ish and was described by a lot of people as “conservative”, and now I’m fairly close to pulling out the guillotines and singing The Internationale. I’m one of the worst targets of a “oh it doesn’t matter that I can’t put forth an argument, you’d never listen anyway!” people to target.
Edit: And if you’re curious why DrDeth thinks I’m somehow inflexible (which he has no reason to think other than his repeated attempts over and over to get his way didn’t work and often backfired) - you can see this hilariously pathetic attempt at a pit thread for some context. It has nothing to do with inflexibility specifically, but explains his general antagonistic behavior towards me that would explain how me saying something positive about myself is “the funniest thing I have read on the internet in days”
I am sorry, I honestly thought you meant that to be funny. Since, “no one here ever changes their mind from arguments” is a standard SDMB meme.
It’d be like saying “We are winning the fight against ignorance!”
You do a lot of sarcasm, so i thought that was a funny. Apologies.
In fact, we are mostly in agreement here in this thread, so that wasnt meant as a dig.
I guess i did that, I had no idea that you were the same person.
Not sure why I should care if you’ve embraced Marxism by now. Your position on guns hasn’t changed since as far back as, well, not at all AFAICT. That’s what we’re discussing. Not your self-described intellectual flexibilities. And if you have to tell people…
So if I’ve changed my opinion on dozens of topics, but haven’t changed on one on which you disagree with me, then I’m clearly intellectually inflexible? That’s just pure narcissism. You have difficulty with the idea that someone who disagrees with you may be right, so instead you make non-arguments, and then make excuses for your non-arguments (“you wouldn’t have changed your mind anyway!”) - this behavior is unworthy of any sort of debate, great or otherwise.
Edit: In case I have to spell it out for you, saying “you’re not capable of changing your mind so I’m not going to bother to make an argument” is absolutely disproven if I’ve changed my mind about anything through argument.
Unlike your super-defensive assertions about your own awesomeness, which are super-debateworthy. And on-topic!
He chose to make my inflexibility on-topic. He essentially said “I could make an argument, but I could never change your mind anyway”
So it’s completely relevant to point out that I have changed my mind, and I could prove it with posts on this very board if someone wants to try to make me do homework for some reason. Instead, it points out that his unwillingness to make an argument stems likely from his inability to use an argument. He tried, instead, to place the blame for his inability to make an argument for my asserted inability to evaluate an argument anyway.
His whole line of non-argument is a veiled ad-hominem and unworthy of debate. He meant it generically - I doubt he even knows anything about my opinions - because I’m sure he uses “I’d make an argument but you wouldn’t listen anyway, but my argument would’ve been totally awesome!” as a normal course of debate when he has nothing of value to say. But it’s especially bogus when he uses it on a person who has dramatically changed his world view based on arguments.
You both will stop personalizing things right now.
I hope that’s clear.