There’s not 300+ mass shootings to start with and only about 10000 people murdered by guns a year. So, it could not, would not result in that many less 'gun deaths" (which i guess are so much more horrible than “bomb deaths”)
About 10000 Americans are murdered with guns each year.
Indeed, Citizens of Rome had quite a few rights.
If the premise is correct, that’s an excellent argument. But is the premise correct?
An existing system of laws doesn’t necessarily reflect a rational evaluation of utility or a full understanding of consequences. If it did, one might be puzzled by the fact that the system of laws in this country once endorsed widespread slavery, enacted prohibition, and enacted anti-gay laws and even anti-gay state constitutional amendments. One might point out that every other industrialized country in the world has taken a different view of gun laws, and has seen the need for much stronger gun control, and has far lower rates of gun violence.
Another case in point here is the Texas band that had the misfortune of finding itself on stage at the concert when the Vegas carnage began. As one might guess from their cultural roots, they were strong gun supporters and many of the road crew had concealed carry licenses, and the tour bus was well stocked with legal firearms. None of it did any good. The “utility” here was directly counterproductive, as it usually is: not defensive but in the vast arsenal that it enabled the killer to easily acquire. After the shooting was over their lead guitarist, Caleb Keeter, had this to say: “I’ve been a proponent of the 2nd Amendment my entire life. Until the events of last night. I cannot express how wrong I was.”
As of the latest polls taken last summer (and not a reaction to the Vegas shooting) a majority of respondents favored stronger gun control. That’s probably even stronger after the recent events. The assumption that legislative action reflects a rational assessment of utility is even less valid in circumstances when legislative actions, or lack thereof, are a reflection of lobbying pressures rather than public opinion.
Indeed, in light of everything we know today about its consequences and modern irrelevance, it’s highly doubtful that with that knowledge any framer of the constitution would ever have enshrined an anachronism like the Second Amendment. The militias which it sought to enable have long faded into anachronistic irrelevance, and all that we’re left with is a nation awash in a level of gun violence not seen anywhere else in the first world. And a discreditable divided Supreme Court opinion in which the conservative side dominated in a bizarre interpretation asserting that the amendment was never really about militias at all, and that its preamble should be ignored.
I do agree with you on one point, though. Good luck indeed trying to change anything. The NRA, and specifically its Institute for Legislative Action and Political Victory Fund (a huge spender in federal elections) will make sure of that.
As far as the risk to me or you is concerned, sure it is. At least so long as you aren’t mentally ill or a criminal. I’m not. But if you’re still feeling anxiety, the solution is to talk with a doctor about it, not to press for legislation.
This right here is the only good excuse I’ve heard for owning guns. If every gun advocate simply admitted, “Because I like it and it’s legal. So fuck off!”, then at least (and finally, at most) they would be honest.
The problem is that the Las Vegas shooting couldn’t have been prevented even with any reasonable gun control laws. The guy was a millionaire with no criminal record, a meticulous planner and looked for every opportunity available. We still don’t know what the motivation was. Shit happens like an even bigger shooting spree in Norway.
I hate to admit this but I understand his thought process quite well even though I don’t know the motivation. I instinctively look at all things things and try to figure out what it would take to destroy them. I would never do that but it is part of my job. It isn’t that hard to take out hundreds or thousands of people if you plan very well and I don’t know of a good way around that. Security theater just inconveniences millions of innocent people.
I am all for gun safety classes but you can’t get rid of them even in theory. They are necessary tools even if that just means maintaining herds of deer that spread Lyme disease plus coyotes and many other practical applications. The unfortunate fact is that hunting rifles work just as well on people as they do on deer. They are usually even better at it that so-called “assault rifles”.
Here’s a new reason: shooting down the drone that’s perving on your sunbathing daughter.
To use a common gun rights argument, there’s no point in banning bump stocks because a determined killer will find one on the black market, like he would with banned weapons and high capacity clips. What is it about bump stocks that banning them will work when other bans won’t?
That might be true, but we can do something about spree killings by reducing the destructive capability of the shooters. You apparently agree with that by supporting a ban on bump stocks.
Something else that would definitely reduce a spree killer’s carnage is a ban on high capacity clips and magazines, a favourite of theirs for obvious reasons. Norway recognized that and banned rifle clips that hold more than three rounds. It actually prevented Anders Breivik from getting his high capacity clips in his own country. If that’s where the story ended, he would very likely have caused far fewer deaths. If you’re serious about reducing a spree killer’s ability to inflict harm, that looks like a good place to start.
And if you’re just going to say they’ll get them one way or the other, then again, explain why a ban on bump stocks would work but not on high capacity clips.
Because that destroys the value. Collectible reproductions aren’t worth much. High-grade artisinal shotguns can cost as much as a new car. Who is going to pay for that if there is a confiscation program? $300 isn’t going to even make a dent in how much some of them are worth.
My father was kidnapped at the age of 17 in a case of mistaken identity. He was supposed to be executed with his supposed lover (who he had never met) but eventually fought his way out of it after a long night of driving and death promises. The person in question was convicted and sent to life in prison but he promised to kill my father as soon as he got out of prison.
As far as I know, the person in question in still in prison but my father is always armed because of that threat.
He is also relentless about gun safety and the best marksman that I have ever known (300 out of 300 skeet targets on our home range was common). We used to get free turkeys every year for Thanksgiving because he always won the local shooting contest.
I think you need to learn more about guns, the different types and applications to American culture and why people have them. Go to a shooting range at least once to broaden your mind. You will see that gun owners aren’t just a bunch of chewing tobacco rednecks.
I don’t think you can stop a determined spree killer so that is a red herring. They will find a way but it is just an unfortunate statistical blip. I know lots of ways to disrupt the entire U.S. right now. Fortunately, I am on the good side but all it takes is one bad actor.
I don’t favor bump stocks because they are just a design hack that was never intended. If you look at actual data rather than emotions, the best place to start is accidental gun deaths. Those are preventable. Most of the others are intentional. I feel the need to point out the obvious here. Broad gun control simply doesn’t work. Chicago and Washington D.C. have some of the most strict gun control measures in the U.S. but are still among the places with the highest rates of gun violence.
This problem is a whole lot more complicated than most people are willing to believe. I don’t think most gun owners are irrational. I do believe that most of the anti-gun lobby has no idea what they are talking about and that is why they always lose. There is some room for compromise but the anti-gun reactionary pulpit has to get their facts straight and step up with an actual detailed plan that still allows for law-abiding citizens with a need for firearms to get them without undo inconvenience.
Inflated sense of security
Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
No, the red herring is trying to argue that because gun laws won’t stop every single imaginable possibility, there’s no point in having gun laws.
Whatever other arguments one wants to bring to bear here, I don’t think these cliched fallacies are useful or persuasive. Chicago and Washington introduced gun control in response to existing high rates of gun violence. That these rates are still high is a reflection of the ready availability of guns throughout the rest of the US, which even affects cross-border gun smuggling into both Canada and Mexico. But to say that gun control doesn’t work is absurd, since it works in every first-world country on earth. Canada has a society and culture similar to that of the US except for the gun culture, yet despite the illegal guns pouring in across the border, the gun homicide among males in the US is almost 8 times what it is in Canada, and five times the rate in Canada among females. Cite.
Giving into this sort of irrationality gives us features like TSA security theater and parents getting arrested for letting their kids play at the park unattended. It should be similarly discouraged and mocked. Otherwise I don’t care much about this topic, as I don’t own firearms and don’t find them terribly interesting.
Of course you are fogetting Mexico, also just as close but:
But it has 1/6th the guns of the USA, but with four times as much gun crime, 3 times as much murder, a murder rate five times higher, etc.
And the term “first world country” has been outdated since the end of the Cold war, it has nothing whatsoever to do with how developed, just whether it is :
*1 - The bloc of democratic-industrial countries within the American influence sphere, the “First World”.
2 - The Eastern bloc of the communist-socialist states, the “Second World”.
3 - The remaining three-quarters of the world’s population, states not aligned with either bloc were regarded as the “Third World.”
*
Mexico is a industrialized Western Democracy. So is the USA and Canada.
This is always the excuse when it is pointed out that Gun Control doesn’t work. Even if the whole USA was under Gun control, and* it still wouldn’t work*, it would be the guns coming from Mexico. Always an excuse why taking away the liberties of law abiding citizens doesnt reduce violent crime.
Who gets to decide that, you? Thankfully, you have no power.
I’m not going to get into quibbling about what “first world” means, but maybe a good working definition is what it isn’t – it isn’t a country suffering from such abject poverty and such a chronic source of illegal immigration to the US that American politicians get elected on the basis of promises to build a giant impenetrable wall with that country! Mexico is also a country suffering from chronic lawlessness and corruption and the rampant proliferation of seemingly unstoppable drug cartels. With that goes a tremendous degree of violent crime.
So go ahead and quibble about terminology like “first world” and try to present Mexico as just an ordinary advanced democracy like the US, Canada, or the countries of western Europe, but don’t expect anyone to take you seriously, or to take seriously your argument that there’s no connection between gun policy and gun violence just because Mexico has a lot of gun violence. To have a rational discussion one needs to compare like with like. And when we do, we find that US gun policy results in the highest death rates by far – by many multiples – in the comparable civilized world.
You really are very confused on this issue. The gun traffic between Mexico and the US is unsurprisingly FROM the US – the gun epicenter of the world – TO Mexico:
Mexico tightly restricts gun sales but the flow south of US weapons helped fuel battles between drug gangs and security forces that have killed more than 100,000 people since 2007.
American guns are also a scourge in Canada, where they’re a major source of guns used by criminals. Gun laws in Canada still keep gun abuses substantially in check, but the statistics would be even better if guns were not flooding across the border from endless supplies in the US.
Again- the term "First world nation " is worthless since the Cold war. If you then compare "Western Industrialized Democracies’ you have to include Mexico. In fact the only reason nOT to include Mexico is that it makes your argument bogus.
While indeed, guns do travel from the USA to Mexico, I am sure the gun grabbers would quickly say they are going from Mexico to the USa. There’s always an excuse of why gun control doesn’t work in the USA. Maybe it’s because- gun control doesn’t work in the USA.
Do you have a cite for that? Since even cites for % of Guns from USA to Mexico are very weak and have been debunked right here in this forum recently.
Yes. Do you think it’s not?
And that’s why we can change laws, repeal them, or make new ones. If your view were a more rational evaluation of the fact pattern, how would that manifest itself? Surely the system of laws that the people choose would eventually come around to be closer to your way of thinking. Could it be that the people who make these choices have decided for themselves that the positive utility outweighs the negative? If they make that choice, are they wrong for doing so?
You may say, as you imply, that they are not actually making this choice for various reasons - being uninformed, irrational, beholden to the NRA, 5-4 SCOTUS, etc. Seems like a Scotsman to me. At some point, the US as a people may decide that the positive utility no longer outweighs the negative utility. But that day is not today.
You keep talking as if ‘gun control’ has already been implemented and the results are inarguable. At best, your premise is based on the belief that certain predictions regarding ‘gun control’ might come true.
And? There’s a reason why the term ‘unintended consequences’ came into being. For every claim that you make regarding the current status quo, any one of us can point out the truckloads of booze which were smuggled into the USA from Canada during prohibition. History shows time and time again, around the globe, if the demand is there, the criminals find a way to smuggle stuff in to meet that demand.
The myth that gun control advocates cling to, without articulating it, is the myth that demand for new guns will disappear if greater gun control is enacted. The other myth that gun control advocates cling to is all future mass shootings will ONLY take place if performed by a new, recent purchase. In reality there are millions of semi automatic rifles already in US circulation easily capable of doing what happened at Las Vegas.
Apologies Dr Deth, I read your comments incorrectly as being those of a gun control advocate. Please attribute my previous reply towards those persons and not you…