The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)

[TheGlyphstone]

Or he would have attacked the place with a knife since mass stabbings are also a thing as well. As well as people attacking places with hatchets, machetes, axes. *shrug* :/



That does not arouse me in any way.....>3>........ <3<....yyeaahhhh

They are vanishingly rare in comparison, though. An entirely unscientific Google search turns up one confirmed public 'mass stabbing' - at a Franklin High school in 2014, where 22 were injured and no one died. Plus an incident in China that killed 29, but that was a multi-attacker, organized terrorist attack of some kind rather than the 'lone gunknifeman' situation we're discussing. One page I found from 2013 claims the FBI has logged 7 'mass stabbing incidents' involving 4+ fatalities since 1901.

[Lustful Bride]

They are vanishingly rare in comparison, though. An entirely unscientific Google search turns up one confirmed public 'mass stabbing' - at a Franklin High school in 2014, where 22 were injured and no one died. Plus an incident in China that killed 29, but that was a multi-attacker, organized terrorist attack of some kind rather than the 'lone gunknifeman' situation we're discussing. One page I found from 2013 claims the FBI has logged 7 'mass stabbing incidents' involving 4+ fatalities since 1901.

eh but then they would possibly increase. With no guns to use to kill then they will use other means. If someone really wants to kill people the means aren't important, just the death.

[Vergil Tanner]

Or he would have attacked the place with a knife since mass stabbings are also a thing as well.

And here is really where there's kind of a false equivalence....see, yes. Mass stabbings are a thing. But if you pull out a gun and fire into a crowd, how many people can you kill as they're running away compared to how many people you can stab? Plus, with a knife, you have to get close, giving your target an opportunity to fight you off. You don't get that chance with a bullet.
Taking away firearms is just making it harder for people to hurt each other, since I don't doubt most people would say that it's easier to kill somebody with a handgun than with a knife. And if he had attacked the place with a knife? The same guy likely would have just rugby tackled him through the concessions stand.
You can kill a lot more people a lot more quickly with a gun.

The highest death toll I can find on a mass stabbing is a Chinese one where 28 people were killed by a guy with a knife, which was big news partly because the figure was surprisingly high for a knife.

The highest death toll I can find for a gunmans killing spree was in Norway at a kids camp where a guy posed as a police officer and gunned down 80 people. Or that time in South Korea where a drunken police officer picked up an automatic weapon and killed 57 people and wounded 38 more. Or in Australia in 1996 when some kid shot and killed 35 people at Port Arthur.

There's a reason the military uses guns over knives; they are far, far more effective instruments of death.


EDIT:

PLUS, I can give you another US/UK example.

Since guns were banned in the UK, do you know how much knife crime increased?
Not much.

You are 58 times more likely to be shot in America than you are in the UK.
You're only 1.2 times more likely to be stabbed in the UK than in America.

That kind of debunks that line of argument right there. I mean, it isn't perfect evidence, but analogy is really all we have in this matter.


EDIT 2:

It was 8 people in the attack in China, not 1, as somebody has helpfully pointed out. My mistake!

Hell if a madman is really dead set on killing he might just make a homemade bomb. Killers don't care how its done, they just want the death and chaos.

True, but making a bomb is a little more difficult and complex than picking up a handgun and squeezing the trigger. If your argument against taking away certain guns is "they'll just find a different way of doing it," then why bother putting locks on your doors? Determined burglars will just find a different way into your house. It's all about making it as difficult for them as possible.

[Lustful Bride]

It's all about making it as difficult for them as possible.

And that's why I want a gun to protect myself. If someone wants to rape me or kill me I will not make it easy for them in the slightest.

[TheGlyphstone]

eh but then they would possibly increase. With no guns to use to kill then they will use other means. If someone really wants to kill people the means aren't important, just the death.

The casualties would be much lower, though - it's frankly far harder to kill multiple people with a melee weapon - both because it will take multiple hits to seriously injure or kill someone unless you are very lucky, and because on top of that your victim and other potential victims can run away while you are attacking your first target. They might want to kill people, and the number of attempted incidents would certainly go up to some degree, but the total overall would be almost guaranteed to drop noticeably....knives simply aren't as lethal as guns. If they were, guns wouldn't have replaced them as the go-to method of war/murder.

The highest death toll I can find on a mass stabbing is a Chinese one where 28 people were killed by a guy with a knife, which was big news partly because the figure was surprisingly high for a knife.

There were also 8 attackers in that incident, not 1. And four of them apparently died during the incident itself.

[Vergil Tanner]

But making guns more available makes it easier for them to hurt you. The whole "more guns makes you safer" thing is a myth. The statistics don't bear that out...if a guy comes up from behind and points a gun at your head, he's in control. Doesn't matter if you have a gun or not. There's also something non-lethal and very effective called "mace."

Again, after the UK banned guns and said "you're not allowed to carry weapons on you any more," violent crime didn't increase (due to that, anyway). It stayed relatively stable (it increased, true, but only in line with worldwide statistics and projected growth averages) and somehow we in the UK have gotten by just fine without firearms everywhere. And if they're close enough to pose a threat to you without a gun, they're close enough for a swift kick in the bollocks to be much more effective than a firearm.



Ah, fair enough, my mistake. I remembered hearing about it, but I couldn't find the exact story on google, just some basic mentions of it. That explains why the death toll was so high, heh. Also, see my above Edit. :P

[TheGlyphstone]

To be fair, your edited data isn't a very good comparison - you would need to contrast gun vs. knife crimes in the UK before and after the Dunblane Massacre and equivocate over to equivalent US statistics, rather than a cross-national comparison.

[Vergil Tanner]

Actually, it kinda is:
The point I was trying to make was that even though defining "knife crime" is difficult at the best of times, the fact that knife crime didn't increase noticeably after the banning of firearms DOES go some way to refute the point that "less guns equals more knife crime." Further, the cross-national comparison was more to illustrate that the US has almost as many stabbings proportionally speaking as the UK, but WAY higher gun crime, suggesting that the availability of guns has little impact on knife crime.

Although, apparently I was wrong before: Since the mid-90's up until the late 00's, I think, violent crime in the UK actually decreased. Go figure, eh? I think banning firearms contributed to it, but was probably not even a main factor save for the decrease in gun crime.


Also, it's 2am and I don't like maths. Soooooo statistics aren't exactly what I call an interesting evening. Heh. XD

[Lustful Bride]

Eh you boith have a point, but that's why I want intelligent negotiation and compromise on this. But with the idiots in both political parties up in DC I might as well be asking for a magic unicorn.  ::)

And I can say that because dad works Capitol Police and has sooo many depressing stories. Like a congressman (who will go unnamed) who pulled rank on my dad's guys when they were inspecting a suspicious package and all because he wanted to take his precious purebred outside. And they were telling him to stay in his office.

I would swear on this upon a stack of bibles but I don't want the IRS to somehow end up giving me an audit X3

[TheGlyphstone]

I'm pretty sure politicians being idiots is something we can all agree on regardless of nationality.

[Tairis]

Yea, because I want to live in a country that has reached this level of absurdity:



The simple fact of the matter is that, like every time this argument comes up, we're comparing apples to oranges. People need to stop pretending anything the UK or any European does has any correlation of the United States.

The UK is nothing like the US. Your country is smaller than a few of our states. You have a demographic that is 92% white with a relatively homogeneous culture while the US is still trying and frankly failing to pull of the whole 'melting pot' idea we've been touting for decades. You have a country that was effectively 'civilized' centuries ago while the United States culturally is less than century and a half removed from a time period wherein a massive portion of the country's access to law enforcement was measured in days not minutes, and even now has large areas of the country where it would take an hour or more for any kind of assistance to arrive. Where we also have a firearm ownership rate that eclipses the UK even before strict laws were put in place.

Not to mention the fact that murder rates in various countries that have enacted widespread gun bans? Funnily enough they didn't decrease in proportion. England's murder rate went up for a few years afterwards and then decreased in the mid 2000s pretty much on trend with the rest of the civilized world. The United State's murder rate has also been on a decline since its peak in the 80s.

Want to stop mass shootings? Sure, take away all the guns. I won't argue that no access to guns means no mass shootings. But if you want to argue that taking away firearms in general makes a country safer? The facts don't seem to bear that out. Less people do seem to get shot but seems like roughly the same

The United States as a grab bag of cultural problems that are going to take a long time to resolve, if they ever are. Because while everyone wants to talk about how Europe did this or that they ignore the fact that the United States isn't really one country. We're 50 small countries that work together and each State can very wildly. The District of Columbia (which ironically had THE strictest gun control of any place in the country prior to the Supreme Court decision) had a higher per capita murder rate than most of Africa for years and only now is down to a murder rate that isn't in the 20s.

So in the end if my choice is trust the government to protect me or keep my guns and rely on myself? I'm going to go with Lustful Bride's approach. I'm going to take responsibility for protecting myself and my person.

[Lustful Bride]

The District of Columbia (which ironically had THE strictest gun control of any place in the country prior to the Supreme Court decision) had a higher per capita murder rate than most of Africa for years and only now is down to a murder rate that isn't in the 20s.

There's people in downtown DC that don't give as shit that handguns are banned or that its the nations capitol. No officer will go alone there at night, fuck some wont even go alone in the day.

Its honestly not pretty which is such a shame.

I will keep my guns but I will still obey the law until the day they break down my door and try and snatch them from my hands. In that case il just bury them in the backyard in a metal box wrapped in plastic. :P

[Ironwolf85]

agreed with you two, I think it's more the lessons about such weapons people are being taught, combined with the abhorant state of mental health and the proliferation of conspiracy crazyness in recent years such as that hullabloo texas made about Operation Jade Helm.
it seems like people are buying into to crazy bullshit more than they used to.

[Lustful Bride]

agreed with you two, I think it's more the lessons about such weapons people are being taught, combined with the abhorant state of mental health and the proliferation of conspiracy crazyness in recent years such as that hullabloo texas made about Operation Jade Helm.
it seems like people are buying into to crazy bullshit more than they used to.

I kind of blame the Internet and the Media for that.

[Ironwolf85]

I kind of blame the Internet and the Media for that.

right, I think this is bigger than simply "OMG too many GUNS" or "OMG BUY MOAR GUNS FOR FREEDOM!" there's a much more serious problem going on.

[TheGlyphstone]

I think Texans are just insane.

[Vergil Tanner]

Tairis, I think you're ignoring the simple fact that everywhere that has enacted stricter gun control has had gun crime decrease exponentially. If you want to stop the mass shootings - and I'm assuming you do - it's just a fact that tightening gun control will reduce the amount. The UK and the USA are actually fairly similar in a lot of ways and, whilst I agree that the UK socially is somewhat more "advanced" than the USA - for example, homosexuality isn't a big issue over here in most areas, the country is rather more secular and Creationism is largely a dead duck over here (though we do have a depressing number of people who think Homeopathy actually does something >.<) - they're not as different as you make out. There's a reason that a lot of American stuff gets imported to the UK and vice-versa, after all; the cultures are relatively similar. The fact that it's a "grab bag" of cultures is utterly irrelevant to the question of whether gun control will work, and I think is largely a deflection on your part. If you reduce the access to firearms, you reduce firearm related crimes. It isn't just the UK that has that. EVERY country that has increased gun legislation has seen a reduction in gun related crime. There are other factors, true, but the big one IS the availability of guns, which has NOTHING to do with all the different cultures in America. Hell, you kind of just made another argument FOR me; if America is SO unstable where all these different cultures are clashing and having trouble working together, do we REALLY want to add firearms to the mix? Because you know what always calms everything right down? A gun.

Plus, that picture is a complete and utter strawman. Did anybody ever say to legislate knife sales? No. So THAT is completely irrelevant as well. Yes, there are also knife laws here as well...do I agree with them? Not really. I mean, it depends on the type of knife...butterfly and switch knives and larger blades? Yeah, I can see that. A knife and fork set? Well....I bought one when I was sixteen, and nobody IDed me, so I'm not too certain that law is actually actively enforced. But either way, I don't support it. So why is it relevant to this discussion? Did I ever advocate banning knives as well? No. So why does that matter? It's just a tactic on your part to try and elicit an emotional response of "OH, we don't want THAT! We better not legislate guns at all!" Legislating guns more heavily will not lead directly to banning knives as well.

I personally am in favour of banning handguns, since it seemed to work for everywhere else, but I know it's not gonna happen because there are a lot of people who think it's their "right" to own a deadly weapon. So at the very least, enforce some basic gun regulation laws; you need a specific licence, you need a universal background check, cap the size of the magazine, limit access to certain types of weapons, etc etc. Or are you in favour of no gun law reform whatsoever? As I said above. The simple fact of the matter, Tairis, is that if America DOESN'T tighten their gun laws, these massacres are going to keep happening. And I don't care whether you "don't like the idea of not being allowed your gun." I don't like the idea of schoolkids being gunned down on a bi-monthly basis. Their right not to be shot by a madman trumps your right to have a cool, shiny toy, and if tighter gun control can save their lives - which it can - I don't see a good reason not to tighten gun laws.

As for your statistics, there was a brief spike in murder rates, yes, but not much of one and it soon curtailed and dropped...as touched on below.

And if you don't trust your government to protect you....well, I'm sorry. At least in the UK, murder rates are at their lowest since 1978, and gun crime accounts for only 6% of those murders, whereas 61% of homicides in the USA are committed with a firearm. I think there was a chart on a previous page that showed that "other" violent crime in the USA was at a similar rate to every other country, but firearm crime was massively increased. The only thing common across all those countries with lower gun crime? Lower gun availability and tighter regulation. So to say that tighter gun control is "pointless" is false.
It seems that your primary argument is "It's mah right!" Well, as I said....I don't care what your constitution says. If it keeps people safe and happy and does more good than harm, I don't see why we shouldn't try and push for tighter gun control in the USA. Unless you like the fact that you have the highest gun crime rate in the "civilised" world, or that you have mass shootings every month or so....which I highly doubt.
You don't want to have your guns banned. Whilst I think that's probably the best way to curtail gun violence, I know you Americans will never give up your guns. So instead, why exactly are you opposed to greater gun control? Besides the fact that it's your "right" to own and carry around a deadly weapon, of course.



Although, I would very much like to see your data on how the murder rate spiked; I'm looking, and I can't find a reliable graph or statistics sheet that shows that data all in one place. If you have a link, I would very much like to see it please. :-)

[Zakharra]

You don't want to have your guns banned. Whilst I think that's probably the best way to curtail gun violence, I know you Americans will never give up your guns. So instead, why exactly are you opposed to greater gun control? Besides the fact that it's your "right" to own and carry around a deadly weapon, of course.

I can answer that somewhat. The reason many gun owners do oppose greater gun control is that a lot of anti-gun people do want to remove all guns. They would be more than happy to confiscate any and all firearms from the citizens, even the ones who use them responsibly (which is the vast majority). As some have noted, some of the cities in the US that had the most restrictive gun laws have had the highest murder rate with firearms (or murder rate period), such as Washington DC, Detroit, Chicago and so on. It''s also not helped when the anti-gun people use the laws that get enacted to confiscate firearms. That happened in NYC. There was a law enacted that required all firearms to be registered. So many people did do just that. Then NYC used that list to confiscate a bunch of them.

Simply put, most of the gun owners don't trust the anti-gun people any farther than they can throw them because the trend is, give them an inch and they will take that mile. Whether than is implied or intended, it's clear that many gun control people do want to remove all firearms from legal citizens. That leaves little room for negotiations.

[eBadger]

whilst I agree that the UK socially is somewhat more "advanced" than the USA - for example, homosexuality isn't a big issue over here in most areas, the country is rather more secular and Creationism is largely a dead duck over here

On the other hand, recording spanking, fisting or female ejaculation is illegal, so I'm underwhelmed by your advanced morality and personal freedom.   

I should also point out that homosexuality is downright trendy in the US. 

Plus, that picture is a complete and utter strawman.

Slippery slope fallacy, but yeah.  Our butter knives aren't being threatened. 

there are a lot of people who think it's their "right" to own a deadly weapon.

Just to clarify for you, because your constant use of quotes makes you look a bit "silly": it is not thought to be a right, it very specifically is one, as expressed in the 2nd Amendment, one of the ten that form the Bill of Rights.  Whether it should remain a right, and to what extent, is a valid question.  But talking about the "right" to own a gun sounds as ridiculous as talking about "mass shootings" instead of mass shootings. 

Their right not to be shot by a madman trumps your right to have a cool, shiny toy, and if tighter gun control can save their lives - which it can - I don't see a good reason not to tighten gun laws.

...It seems that your primary argument is "It's mah right!"

This is the point where you're going to lose every gun supporter, because you very obviously don't see the other side of the argument.  It is not a right to a toy; it is a right to self defense.  You will have a much better conversation about the issue if you start using that line instead.  I do not own a toy: a own a way to defend myself and my family from someone else with a gun (or a knife, or a stick).  Does your fear incited by the media frenzy over a few isolated incidents trump their right to protection?

And if you don't trust your government to protect you....well, I'm sorry.

Thanks?

Well, as I said....I don't care what your constitution says.

We sure do. 

At least in the UK, murder rates are at their lowest since 1978

Super!  We're doing great over here, too.  The violent crime rate has halved in the last twenty years.  In schools, too: I never feared being shot in high school, but as it turns out my chances were twice what they are today. 

Of course, now it's middle class white kids. 

If it keeps people safe and happy and does more good than harm, I don't see why we shouldn't try and push for tighter gun control in the USA.
...
limit access to certain types of weapons, etc etc.

Well, for instance, banning 'certain types of weapons' is the most common call for legislation, primarily aimed at automatic weapons (or firearms that people can't distinguish from them).  Automatic weapons are available to the public, but are highly regulated; there are about 240,000 licensed.  Since 1938 (when restrictions began) legal ones have killed two people in the US.  That's not per-year: that's total.  I mentioned before that vending machines are more dangerous. 

So basically, automatic weapons are a shining example that regulation WORKS.  We can do it, and we can make it safe.  The response to that success is not, however, the promised 'nobody wants to take away your gun': it's very much the opposite. 

A similar situation arises with assault weapons, which are not particularly favored by criminals nor widely used in killings or violent crime. 

I'm very pro-regulation.  But I'm also pro-gun ownership, and it's very hard to claim that any attempts at regulation in the last 30 years have been focused on reducing violent crime while ensuring responsible citizens maintain a right to self defense. 

[Vergil Tanner]

On the other hand, recording spanking, fisting or female ejaculation is illegal, so I'm underwhelmed by your advanced morality and personal freedom.

Oh, I agree completely. I'm not some nationalistic asshole who thinks that the UK can never do anything wrong; there are LOADS of things that are laws over here that I disagree with strongly, so I'm not trying to suggest that we're just outright superior to everybody else. There are areas we're better at and certain areas we're worse at...I was more talking in terms of attitudes towards certain things. But then, that might just be my immediate area. *shrug*

I should also point out that homosexuality is downright trendy in the US.

In some areas. In other areas, homosexuals have to fear for their lives. The UK - mostly, since there are outlying areas where things are still a bit backwards - people don't really give a shit. At least in my area. Again, I can only talk from direct experience for the places that I've actually been.

Slippery slope fallacy, but yeah.  Our butter knives aren't being threatened.

See, I originally typed that, and then thought that the SMF fitted better. Shoulda gone with my gut there.

Just to clarify for you, because your constant use of quotes makes you look a bit "silly": it is not thought to be a right, it very specifically is one, as expressed in the 2nd Amendment, one of the ten that form the Bill of Rights.  Whether it should remain a right, and to what extent, is a valid question.  But talking about the "right" to own a gun sounds as ridiculous as talking about "mass shootings" instead of mass shootings.

I would argue that writing it down on a bit of paper doesn't automatically make it a Right, but point taken and conceded. I don't necessarily think the owning of a deadly weapon should be considered a Right - I think it should be considered a privilege that only people who have show than they can be trusted get granted, rather than something that everybody is entitled to - but at the moment in the USA, it is a right, so, point conceded.

This is the point where you're going to lose every gun supporter, because you very obviously don't see the other side of the argument.  It is not a right to a toy; it is a right to self defense.

Saying that you're not allowed a firearm - for example - isn't taking away your right to self defence. I don't own a firearm, and if somebody broke into my house I am perfectly capable of defending myself. Ok, English laws are a bit squiffy in that regards in that under certain circumstances the burglar could sue you if you hit them (which is bullshit), but the point still stands that if you're not allowed a handgun, nobody is saying you're not allowed to defend yourself...they're just saying that you're not allowed a dangerous, easily used, often fatal weapon. Nobody is going to suggest that a baseball bat, for example, is as dangerous as an automatic machine pistol.

You will have a much better conversation about the issue if you start using that line instead.  I do not own a toy: a own a way to defend myself and my family from someone else with a gun (or a knife, or a stick).

And if guns were banned, the attacker wouldn't have a gun either, most likely. Just saying. There are ways of protecting yourself that don't necessarily involve lethal force. This person broke into your house to steal something...I think it's a bit extreme to shoot and kill him. Sometimes it will happen, of course, but there ways to incapacitate somebody without shooting them down.

Does your fear incited by the media frenzy over a few isolated incidents trump their right to protection?

First, anger and disgust, not fear.
Second, shootings are hardly isolated incidents in the USA. Every year in the USA, about 30 - 35,000 people die from gun violence. That's about 2,708 per month. America has a mass shooting at least once every couple of months...it's hardly an isolated incident.

We sure do.

Well....I'm sorry, but when trying to justify something to me, saying "It's in the constitution" as your main argument won't win me over, since you have to convince me that the Constitution is right to include it.

Super!  We're doing great over here, too.  The violent crime rate has halved in the last twenty years.  In schools, too: I never feared being shot in high school, but as it turns out my chances were twice what they are today.

I never said you weren't; that was in response to the claim that violent crime increased immediately following the gun ban. Crime rates in the Western World are dropping, I'm just saying that gun violence is much higher in the States than most other 1st World Countries.

Well, for instance, banning 'certain types of weapons' is the most common call for legislation, primarily aimed at automatic weapons (or firearms that people can't distinguish from them).  Automatic weapons are available to the public, but are highly regulated; there are about 240,000 licensed.  Since 1938 (when restrictions began) legal ones have killed two people in the US.  That's not per-year: that's total.  I mentioned before that vending machines are more dangerous. 

So basically, automatic weapons are a shining example that regulation WORKS.  We can do it, and we can make it safe.  The response to that success is not, however, the promised 'nobody wants to take away your gun': it's very much the opposite.

Well, this is true. The problem is, the guns should be taken away from certain people, and certain types definitely need to be regulated or outright banned. I mean, UK citizens are allowed shotguns and hunting rifles and whatnot if they have a licence, we're just not allowed handguns and we're not allowed to carry loaded weapons out in the streets. And lo and behold, gun crime is almost non-existent in the UK. However, I doubt people would accept handguns being taken away from them and only being allowed rifles and shotguns in The States, alas.

I'm very pro-regulation.  But I'm also pro-gun ownership, and it's very hard to claim that any attempts at regulation in the last 30 years have been focused on reducing violent crime while ensuring responsible citizens maintain a right to self defense. 

Well, it's a sticky subject to be sure, but I'm more than willing to say "look, I think guns should be mostly banned outright, but that isn't gonna happen, so how do we meet halfway?" The problem is that a lot of people seem to be unwilling to budge from their "The government isn't gonna take my guns away from me!" stance, and a lot of people seem to hold the opinion that any attempt at regulation is infringing on their rights, which makes the discussion instantly a lot more difficult. I mean....apologies if I'm misrepresenting or misunderstanding your position, Tairis, and I mean that with the utmost sincerity, but you seem to be opposed to ANY kind of regulation regardless of what is suggested. And that's - to me, at least - the equivalent of sticking your head in the sand and declaring that there's no problem and no reason to tighten gun laws. Again, sorry if that isn't your position, but that's what I've inferred from what you've said to me thus far. *shrug*

[eBadger]

And if guns were banned, the attacker wouldn't have a gun either, most likely.

This is one of the key "the US isn't the UK" moments.  England has centuries of precedent of limiting access to weaponry.  When firearms were invented, England was well regulated and thoroughly governed by a continuing government.  It's a small area with the ability to quickly obtain access to legal support: it's been centuries since anyone in England lived more than a day's walk from the law. 

Enter the history of the US.  We're a nation whose government is based on distrust of government.  I won't justify all the conflicts and methods of our expansion, but the threat of violence was frequent and self protection was a clear need.  Settlements and homesteads spread across vast areas and a heavy emphasis on self reliance until, realistically, about 70 years ago.  This attitude therefore remains ingrained; we are not a nation of people willing to just trust that our government will protect us. 

It also means that, from the start, we have been a heavily armed nation.  There has been a vast national stockpile for hundreds of years, and that remains true today.  Unlike the UK, banning firearms will not get rid of them for a very long time: it will, instead, mean that only the criminals have them.  With the numbers available, that is a much more serious issue here than it ever was in Europe, where bans started with crossbows. 

First, anger and disgust, not fear.

Your anger and disgust definitely aren't worth more than my family's protection. 

Second, shootings are hardly isolated incidents in the USA. Every year in the USA, about 30 - 35,000 people die from gun violence. That's about 2,708 per month. America has a mass shooting at least once every couple of months...it's hardly an isolated incident.

I don't have any direct experience or know anyone involved in a shooting, nor does anyone I know.  In a nation as large as the US, the numbers you cite are, in fact, rather isolated.  Still too many, of course; but scale has to be taken into account. 

Crime rates in the Western World are dropping, I'm just saying that gun violence is much higher in the States than most other 1st World Countries.

And that's a valid issue.  But the fact that violent crime rates have dropped dramatically and in line with countries that ban guns, despite reduced national regulation, has a lot of implications as well. 

Well, it's a sticky subject to be sure, but I'm more than willing to say "look, I think guns should be mostly banned outright, but that isn't gonna happen, so how do we meet halfway?" The problem is that a lot of people seem to be unwilling to budge from their "The government isn't gonna take my guns away from me!" stance, and a lot of people seem to hold the opinion that any attempt at regulation is infringing on their rights, which makes the discussion instantly a lot more difficult.

IMHO there hasn't been much in that halfway stance to budge toward.  However, surveys I've seen indicate that the majority of gun owners DO favor some type of increased regulation. 

[Tairis]

If you read my previous posts in the thread I'm very much in favor of regulation, but the kind that makes sense. Universal background checks, reasonable waiting periods, certifications.

Not the kind inspired by fear which is exactly the point I was making with the image of the knife. It doesn't matter whether its being enforced. That regulation actually exists. Your government has decided that they are so governed by fear of anything bad ever happening that you can be carded for buying a kitchen knife. You have hyper-regulated the first tool ever constructed by humanity.

UK Murder Rates from 1990 to 2011 per Capita (taken from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate_by_decade
1.09 1.22 1.13 1.10 1.22 1.28 1.12 1.24 1.43 1.45 1.71 1.79 2.1 1.75 1.60 1.38    1.42    1.46    1.26    1.17 1.23    1.00

That bold one is 1996. Note every year after that? 2011 is the first time the homicide rate actually dropped to or below the level it was the same year the UK banned guns.

So first the UK banned guns. And when that didn't work, now you've banned knives. How, exactly, is it a slippery slope argument if your country actually barreled headlong down the slope where I'm seeing articles like this?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm

Now how about the US for the same time period?

9.4  9.8  9.3  9.5  9.0  8.22  7.41  6.80  6.3  5.7  5.5  5.6  5.6  5.7  5.5  5.6    5.7    5.6    5.4    5.0  4.8  4.7  5.0    

Certainly nothing to be proud of, yet it's steadily decreased.

[Vergil Tanner]

This is one of the key "the US isn't the UK" moments.  England has centuries of precedent of limiting access to weaponry.  When firearms were invented, England was well regulated and thoroughly governed by a continuing government.  It's a small area with the ability to quickly obtain access to legal support: it's been centuries since anyone in England lived more than a day's walk from the law. 

Enter the history of the US.  We're a nation whose government is based on distrust of government.  I won't justify all the conflicts and methods of our expansion, but the threat of violence was frequent and self protection was a clear need.  Settlements and homesteads spread across vast areas and a heavy emphasis on self reliance until, realistically, about 70 years ago.  This attitude therefore remains ingrained; we are not a nation of people willing to just trust that our government will protect us. 

It also means that, from the start, we have been a heavily armed nation.  There has been a vast national stockpile for hundreds of years, and that remains true today.  Unlike the UK, banning firearms will not get rid of them for a very long time: it will, instead, mean that only the criminals have them.  With the numbers available, that is a much more serious issue here than it ever was in Europe, where bans started with crossbows.

Honestly, though, I doubt many people in the USA live that far from law enforcement these days, especially with advances in communication and transportation technology. Back even fifty years ago, I could see it. Nowadays? Not so much. Even the small villages have some rudimentary law enforcement, and a small town with a small police force is likewise unlikely to have the head of the Mob living there. Just saying. I agree that the USA isn't the UK, but that doesn't mean that gun control wouldn't work. Again, at this point I doubt that removing the guns would actually happen, so I just want to see tighter gun control and regulation.

Your anger and disgust definitely aren't worth more than my family's protection.

Is your families protection worth the lives of hundreds, perhaps thousands of innocent schoolkids?

I don't have any direct experience or know anyone involved in a shooting, nor does anyone I know.  In a nation as large as the US, the numbers you cite are, in fact, rather isolated.  Still too many, of course; but scale has to be taken into account.

Actually....they're not. I did the statistics earlier, but the most relevant one is that a common way of controlling for population size difference is using the whole "per 100,000 people," which shows relative crime rates. The average death per 100,000 people for the UK is 0.5 - 1, which is where most European and Asian countries sit (some have as high as two or three). America, on the other hand, has 10 - 13. Now, 10 people per 100,000 doesn't sound like much, but bare in mind that that is ten times more than most other "First World Countries."

And that's a valid issue.  But the fact that violent crime rates have dropped dramatically and in line with countries that ban guns, despite reduced national regulation, has a lot of implications as well.

Well not really, since the rate of gun crime is still massively higher than everywhere else. If you curtailed gun crime, your crime rate would drop even faster.

IMHO there hasn't been much in that halfway stance to budge toward.  However, surveys I've seen indicate that the majority of gun owners DO favor some type of increased regulation. 

Yes, but I don't think that JUST implementing universal background checks is enough. It's a half measure that would go some way to reducing mass shootings, but wouldn't really stop them, which should be the end goal here. The goal should be to make everybody as safe as possible.



Tairis:

Not the kind inspired by fear which is exactly the point I was making with the image of the knife. It doesn't matter whether its being enforced. That regulation actually exists. Your government has decided that they are so governed by fear of anything bad ever happening that you can be carded for buying a kitchen knife. You have hyper-regulated the first tool ever constructed by humanity.

Actually, to be fair to the government, they didn't push for that: There were a few high profile stabbings, and there was a general backlash in the populace that pushed for it via petitions and whatnot. Parliament only pushed through the bill when it became apparent that the voting populace of the day wanted those measures put in place. It isn't like Parliament went "you can't be trusted with knives, so we're taking them away." Plus, I can kinda see the logic of reducing the accessibility of certain sharp objects to minors. Why would a 16 year old be buying a switchknife anyway?

1.09 1.22 1.13 1.10 1.22 1.28 1.12 1.24 1.43 1.45 1.71 1.79 2.1 1.75 1.60 1.38    1.42    1.46    1.26    1.17 1.23    1.00

That bold one is 1996. Note every year after that? 2011 is the first time the homicide rate actually dropped to or below the level it was the same year the UK banned guns.

But at the same time, gun crime decreased, so how do you go about deciding that it was the banning of guns that increased the murder rate? That seems to be a bit of a leap, considering that at that time, the UK was also hit by a pretty heavy recession and a fair amount of social grumbling. I won't say unrest, but people definitely weren't happy for a variety of reasons.

So first the UK banned guns. And when that didn't work, now you've banned knives. How, exactly, is it a slippery slope argument if your country actually barreled headlong down the slope where I'm seeing articles like this?

Because you're arguing that one necessarily leads to another when it doesn't. The USA - hypothetically - banning guns wouldn't lead to banning knives since, as has been stated, the US and the UK are different in very many ways despite their similarities. It's a fallacy because you're attempting to suggest that any attempt to ban guns would lead to the USA taking away knives, when that just wouldn't happen due to the differences in cultures and societal reactions to certain things. For example, Americans take their right to weaponry far more seriously than the English do. I don't think anybody here would argue that point, right?

Certainly nothing to be proud of, yet it's steadily decreased.

And I never said it didn't. I just said that gun crime is way too high in the US compared to other "civilised" countries.

[Tairis]

Honestly, though, I doubt many people in the USA live that far from law enforcement these days, especially with advances in communication and transportation technology. Back even fifty years ago, I could see it. Nowadays? Not so much. Even the small villages have some rudimentary law enforcement, and a small town with a small police force is likewise unlikely to have the head of the Mob living there. Just saying. I agree that the USA isn't the UK, but that doesn't mean that gun control wouldn't work. Again, at this point I doubt that removing the guns would actually happen, so I just want to see tighter gun control and regulation.

I spent the first 19 years of my life living in a house that was 28 miles from the nearest city. That means that if I called the cops the absolute quickest I could ever expect help would be 20 to 30 minutes.

Yes, but I don't think that JUST implementing universal background checks is enough. It's a half measure that would go some way to reducing mass shootings, but wouldn't really stop them, which should be the end goal here. The goal should be to make everybody as safe as possible.

No, no it shouldn't. The goal should be to make people as safe as possible without turning people into drones only capable of looking to their government for help. You cannot wrap the world in bubble wrap. Life is dangerous.

Actually, to be fair to the government, they didn't push for that: There were a few high profile stabbings, and there was a general backlash in the populace that pushed for it via petitions and whatnot. Parliament only pushed through the bill when it became apparent that the voting populace of the day wanted those measures put in place. It isn't like Parliament went "you can't be trusted with knives, so we're taking them away." Plus, I can kinda see the logic of reducing the accessibility of certain sharp objects to minors. Why would a 16 year old be buying a switchknife anyway?

And this is why we have a Constitution so that a public outcry and panic doesn't get to override law and common sense.  I'm not saying that you should be selling katanas to 12 year olds, that isn't anymore legal in the US than it is in the UK. But the fact that its illegal to sell a katana to freaking anyone is ridiculous.

But at the same time, gun crime decreased, so how do you go about deciding that it was the banning of guns that increased the murder rate? That seems to be a bit of a leap, considering that at that time, the UK was also hit by a pretty heavy recession and a fair amount of social grumbling. I won't say unrest, but people definitely weren't happy for a variety of reasons.

Great, your gun crime went down. What didn't? Your murder rate. Why does it matter how the fuck someone gets killed? Is it somehow more noble to get beaten to death with a baseball bat than shot with a gun? Your country banned guns and it did nothing. Just as many people died, year after year, because people that want to take another human life don't give a crap if you ban things. If they can't get a gun, they'll get a knife. If they can't get a knife they'll get a rock.

If gun control actually lowered crime the statistics would bear it out. They don't. All gun control lowers is gun crime. So if I'm just as likely to be murdered one year to the next, how exactly am I safer because you took away my gun?

Because you're arguing that one necessarily leads to another when it doesn't. The USA - hypothetically - banning guns wouldn't lead to banning knives since, as has been stated, the US and the UK are different in very many ways despite their similarities. It's a fallacy because you're attempting to suggest that any attempt to ban guns would lead to the USA taking away knives, when that just wouldn't happen due to the differences in cultures and societal reactions to certain things. For example, Americans take their right to weaponry far more seriously than the English do. I don't think anybody here would argue that point, right?

We'll never ban guns either in the same way. My point was that why would we even want to follow the example of a country that has become so terrified of the real world that they're scrambling to ban anything and everything harmful to their citizens? What comes next 10 years down the line when the murder rate is still in that same 1.0 to 1.3 range even after everyone in the UK has now given up their guns, their knives. What is the next thing to 'ban' going to be that's somehow going to change the crime rate even though the last two didn't?

And I never said it didn't. I just said that gun crime is way too high in the US compared to other "civilised" countries.

We have more gun crime... because we have more crime. Our crime rate in general is simply higher than most of western europe (which is what I'm assuming you're using as the example of civilized countries). Sweden, Switzerland? Both have high rates of gun ownership yet have none of the same problems.

Crime isn't about people owning guns. Crime is about poverty and culture.

[Vergil Tanner]

I spent the first 19 years of my life living in a house that was 28 miles from the nearest city. That means that if I called the cops the absolute quickest I could ever expect help would be 20 to 30 minutes.

Still, that isn't quite on the level of being several days away from law enforcement.

No, no it shouldn't. The goal should be to make people as safe as possible without turning people into drones only capable of looking to their government for help. You cannot wrap the world in bubble wrap. Life is dangerous.

And what exactly is your definition of a "drone?" You seem to be pretty staunchly anti-government...what kinds of things do you not want people turning to the government for help with, when the governments (ideal) primary purpose is the safeguarding and...well...governing of the people it represents?

And this is why we have a Constitution so that a public outcry and panic doesn't get to override law and common sense.  I'm not saying that you should be selling katanas to 12 year olds, that isn't anymore legal in the US than it is in the UK. But the fact that its illegal to sell a katana to freaking anyone is ridiculous.

Actually, that's a misrepresentation of the law in the UK. You can easily buy a Katana, as long as it's dulled and sold by a licensed seller, which I think is perfectly reasonable. I could order a replica Katana for display on my wall right now from several locations and have a low chance of there being any issues with it. I personally collect replica weaponry, and I currently have a shield, two (blunted) swords and a (blunted) double-headed axe.

Great, your gun crime went down. What didn't? Your murder rate. Why does it matter how the fuck someone gets killed? Is it somehow more noble to get beaten to death with a baseball bat than shot with a gun?

No, but it's harder to kill several people with a baseball bat than with a gun. Remember, as far as I'm aware homicides only take into account one crime. You're creating a kind of...I don't know. It's not a misrepresentation, but it's certainly not the whole picture. Remember, homicide is ONE victim. What about serial killers and mass murderers? The rates of MASS killings went down. The rate of SEVERAL victims by the same person in one "sitting" went down. What was the gap between a mass shooting in the UK again? Oh yeah, 14 years.

Your country banned guns and it did nothing.

See above. It certainly led to a sharp drop in one killer killing several people, since it didn't happen again until 2010.

Just as many people died, year after year, because people that want to take another human life don't give a crap if you ban things. If they can't get a gun, they'll get a knife. If they can't get a knife they'll get a rock.

Again with this fallacy; yes, if somebody wants to kill somebody, they'll do it somehow. It's all about making it harder for them to do it, and remember, guns aren't just used in homicides and robberies, they're also used in suicides...in terms of suicides, a gun is a momentary decision of "pull the trigger, bang you're dead." At least by making it harder for people to kill themselves, it gives them a chance to back out before they do it.
Besides. If you lock your doors, burglars are just going to smash the windows and go in that way. Does that mean you don't lock your doors?
And again: 58 times more likely to be shot in the USA and only 1.2 times more likely to be stabbed in the UK. Gun control doesn't increase other types of crime, generally speaking. There are other factors to consider, of course, but suggesting that it does is erroneous.

If gun control actually lowered crime the statistics would bear it out. They don't. All gun control lowers is gun crime.

And mass murder. Don't forget mass shootings. We don't like them, remember?

So if I'm just as likely to be murdered one year to the next, how exactly am I safer because you took away my gun?

You're no safer WITH your gun, since how often do you take it, loaded, out and about around town?

We'll never ban guns either in the same way. My point was that why would we even want to follow the example of a country that has become so terrified of the real world that they're scrambling to ban anything and everything harmful to their citizens?

Well THAT'S an exaggeration. The government is going a tad overboard ATM, it's true, but I don't see how restricting minors access to dangerous weapons is being "terrified of the real world." If what you say is true, we wouldn't be allowed cars or cigarettes or alcohol or any kind of pointy object AT ALL....you're acting like the government took away the knives, when that is patently untrue. All they did was say "you're not allowed to sell knives of a certain minimum length and sharpness to people under 18." That's all. You're playing the sensationalist a little here.

What comes next 10 years down the line when the murder rate is still in that same 1.0 to 1.3 range even after everyone in the UK has now given up their guns, their knives. What is the next thing to 'ban' going to be that's somehow going to change the crime rate even though the last two didn't?

Again, slippery slope fallacy. They didn't BAN knives, as I just explained, and they didn't ban ALL guns...and I highly doubt they're going to try and ban rocks. This particular argument is off topic and utterly ridiculous.

We have more gun crime... because we have more crime. Our crime rate in general is simply higher than most of western europe (which is what I'm assuming you're using as the example of civilized countries). Sweden, Switzerland? Both have high rates of gun ownership yet have none of the same problems.

Yeah, but Sweden and Switzerland are just so fucking chilled out all the time. It's the drugs. People are too busy getting high and eating chocolate to kill people. Legalise weed, that will mellow people out a little.

Seriously, though, they have higher gun ownership BUT they have more checks and balances to gun ownership. High gun ownership isn't necessarily the issue...it's just the ease with which loonies can get them.

Crime isn't about people owning guns. Crime is about poverty and culture.

And how easily accessible certain tools are.