I totally agree that when a quick Google search does not yield any results, one can safely conclude that the thing one searched for must never have existed.
Yes. Like your quick Google search that led you to list incidents as arson that were not determined to be arson.
I knew that a scholar and logician of the high caliber that you clearly are would not want to have the rock solid proof of a compelling theory undone by the asterisk of a suspected but not confirmed arson, nor of an arson that failed to result in mass murder only because everyone escaped in time.
I mean, I’m totally sold on your would-be firearms murderers switching over to arson theory as confirmed by a cursory Google search. I just didn’t want some prick forcing you to print a correction to your ultimate publication of this based just on a technicality. You know, like the technicality that it actually did happen several times and probably did in others and came damn close in still others.
I think many people would consider the arson thing a red herring, a sidetrack away from the real question. Screw the mass murderers who plan their attacks–they are outliers. Have the less-newsworthy, day-to-day gun crimes gone up or down since 1996? How would “Stupid Australian Gun News” look today compared with 20 years ago?
http://www.ssaa.org.au/capital-news/2008/2008-09-04_melbourne-uni-paper-Aust-gun-buyback.pdf
Abstract:
The 1996-97 National Firearms Agreement (NFA) in Australia introduced strict gun laws, primarily as a reaction to the mass shooting in Port Arthur, Tasmania in 1996, where 35 people were killed. Despite the fact that several researchers using the same data have examined the impact of the NFA on firearm deaths, a consensus does not appear to have been reached. In this paper, we re-analyze the same data on firearm deaths used in previous research, using tests for unknown structural breaks as a means to identifying impacts of the NFA. The results of these tests suggest that the NFA did not have any large effects on reducing firearm homicide or suicide rates.
A spat led to a mass shooting? Sounds like more of a tiff.
Thank you. I will look into it further. The law itself seems a fairly reasonable compromise, though the restrictions on air guns, especially my cheap-ass BB pistol, are (what’s the phrase I’m looking for?) completely insane. I have to belong to a target club for a year and compete regularly to get and keep a license? Have they ever tried to hit a target with a Marksman BB pistol? And they are classifying it the same as a Glock?
http://thepoliticalfreakshow.us/post/61125107162/largest-ever-study-of-guns-and-gun-violence-in-the
For what it’s worth.
I always have a problem with this sort of thing, as according to our friends over at the FBI, **all **violent crimes have been falling like a leaf since our high in 1993.
Gun deaths have been mirroringthis trend, despite an uptick in ownership over those same 20 years.
If we take the 2011number of homicides (11,101) and then assume:
A) That the number of gun-deaths is 3x the number (suicides and mob hits and fudge factor)
B) The number of guns in America is 270 million (Based on the Geneva Small Arms Survey)
C) then assume that one gun is used for each killing (obviously the ratio is not 1:1, but this makes the math easy)
D) assume that each law-abiding person who owns a gun owns three guns
E) Assume that each crime is committed by a unique person (no crime sprees or mass shootings), presumably through the PreCrimes unit solving the case every time.
-That means that 33,303 weapons (0.013%) are used in homicides each year and there are 269,966,697 (99.987%) guns that do NOT commit a crime each year.
-That means that 33,303 (0.038%) people commit fatal violence each year and 89,966,697 (99.962%) people handle their firearms responsibly.
For me, this is the best case scenario. A very low number of people owning guns (90 M) and a very high rate of violence (which is almost double the rate of the 1993 violence spike of 18,253 fatal gun violence incidents) and it assumes that you don’t have ANY Sandy Hook or Aurora affairs (one person taking out multiple people at once) so that inflates the number of people actually committing crimes, somewhat.
But, you know what? That number doesn’t look good enough. Let’s add the 2011 figures for non-fatal victimizations and incidents. You now have 915,203 incidents. Lets use all of the same assumptions except we aren’t multiplying the victimized and “incident” rate by 3 (but we are still leaving the homicides at 33,303).
-That means for the 915,203 (0.339%) guns involved in incidents, there are 269,084,797 (99.661%) guns NOT involved in incidents.
-That means for the 915,203 (1.017%) people that commit gun-related incidents, 89,084,797 (98.983%) people with guns don’t.
So, the super-majority of both people and guns do not commit crimes each year. And, I believe, that I stretched this as far as I can go to make the gun confiscation argument seem like a good response to a bad situation, but really, why would we punish 90 million+ people for the indiscretions of an extreme minority?
Don’t get me wrong, each and every gun death is a certifiable tragedy for the family and friends of those that died. But at the end of the day, we must make sound policy. And I cannot see why this policy should be “Take away all the guns!” instead of letting the majority that is law abiding keep them.
Similarly, do you know how many millions of people in the US do not get cancer every year?
Why bother trying to do anything about the small number who do?
Active versus passive situations.
Change the scenario: You have a cure for all cancers, but anyone who drinks it that doesn’t have cancer of any kind get Syphilis. Do you pour it into the water supply?
No, no. Don’t back pedal on your argument based on negative cases. You said that because “a supermajority” does not have a poor outcome that is the best case scenario.
There will be about 1.6 million new cases of cancer this year. That means that about 99.5% of Americans will not get cancer. That’s clearly a supermajority. Only about one third of that number will die from cancer. Don’t get me wrong - each cancer death is tragic, but we have to set policy based on the best outcomes for us all, and the vast amounts that are spent on cancer research and treatment could be better used elsewhere. Plus, what right do we have to limit others’ right to smoke wherever they like, just to placate the small proportion who will get cancer?
There was no backpedal. You created a metaphor to attribute your meaning to my statements. I attempted to correct that metaphor.
I never said anything shouldn’t be done, i asked why we as a society should confiscate firearms of the responsible supermajority based on the poor handling of the minority.
How about instead of this subset of the population having to have their guns get entirely removed, a solution is thought up to the underlying problems of violent crime? We’d probably get a better society out of it, to boot, and you wouldn’t need to disarm those that own guns and who are responsible with them.
Sort of like your now-strained metaphor for cancer: We are attacking the underlying causes of cancer where and how we can, instead of taking everyone’s life and leaving a note behind going “At least we cured cancer!”
I’m using no metaphors.
I’m illustrating the inherent problem with your argument. That is to say, if you choose to argue that poor outcomes that do not occur for the “supermajority” of Americans are not problems worth addressing, you will rule out pretty much every concern that we might otherwise think worthy of addressing.
Your suggestion that we should work to solve crime rather than address our.gun problem is facile and childish.
Again, you are attributing an argument in place of the actual argument I was making to make refuting it easier.
Since gun confiscation is the only way to fix guns, we also need to remove all motor vehicles from the United States. There are 255 million vehicles on the road in the US and there were 10.8 million accidents and 35,900 deaths in 2009 alone. We shouldn’t worry about the drivers’ skill or distractions while driving, we should worry about the cars. It’s the only way to solve the problem. Any other solution is childish and facile.
One thing which probably needs clarification: Guns as a whole are not banned in Australia.
Certain types of gun are (anything capable of full-auto fire, for example) prohibited and some are so heavily restricted as to be effectively banned (semi-automatic centrefire rifles), but it is entirely possible for the average person to legally own a bolt or lever action centrefire rifle or a double-barrelled shotgun or even a handgun, provided they obtain a gun licence etc.
As long as you’re not advancing the same flawed logic as before. You don’t seem to get what the problem was, so I’ll try once more and be done.
Look at what you wrote about automobiles. Using your previous argument, you would have pointed to all the non-accidents and non-deaths to conclude that we need not concern ourselves with automobile safety.
Do you get it yet?
Once again, you miss the point of the argument I was making: For the purposes of confiscation it is a punishment to the law abiding for the actions of the minority. Else, please indicate where I mention anything other than the topic of confiscation.
Please allow me to help you see the point of my post:
Emphasis added.
I did not indicate either my support for certain gun control regulations, nor was I saying that all regulation was bad, but was specifically commenting on the fact that people are attempting to punish almost everyone who owns a gun via taking away their property for no other reason than someone else is a criminal.
I respect your obvious passion for your position, but please do not infer your own meaning to my statements by attributing a strawman to me and saying that I support some position I have not stated.
Nothing about my response to you has anything to do with firearms or firearms policy. Do you understand that? I pointed out a fundamental flaw in your original argument that is independent of the specific issue. Do you understand that?
Even then if the police can avoid the trouble of filling out a report, they will.
They have an incentive to keep reported crime low.