Oregon College shooting

In which countries? Tell me which other countries in the developed world are as far gone as the US and have experimented with a national ban on firearms and decided to go back to how fucked up things were. Oh right, there are no other countries like that. Number of guns has everything to do with it. When you have firearms in the millions in circulation without regulation, without restriction, then you have a problem.

The US is so far into its own asshole that the only solution is to sink billions into new infrastructure to place extreme regulations on firearms and to confiscate unlicensed/illegal arms. But again, by all means, dump more shit in a country that is already up to the brim with shit to solve your "everything smells like shit" problem.

Look at u mr. i no my fallacies

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

Number of guns is not correlated with gun violence at all, as I already mentioned, yet you continue to ignore.

Also, as mentioned before, gun bans always lead to an increase in violent crime. Here is what happened in Australia:

Why post if you are going to post a fallacy? Unless you were just deliberately pushing an incorrect agenda instead of trying to educate yourself or others...

By the way:

 

Your facts are all out of whack:
http://mic.com/articles/123049/19-y...ontrol-laws-here-s-what-happened-in-australia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_l...social_problems_related_to_firearms_over_time

Check your sources, your image is all wrong:
http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/q...-in-australia-after-the-1996-gun-control-laws

@Your wikipedia link, the entire thing is irrelevant since if a neighbouring state has strict laws and another neighbouring state does not, you're in for some pretty good trafficking opportunities. As demonstrated by Australia (info in my links I provided), they managed to institute sweeping legislature that affected the country all at once instead of chunk by chunk.

Number of illegal weapons isn't a problem?
Let's say I want to kill someone. Hell, let's add a time limit. I want to kill someone 4 hours from now.
http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-to-get-ak-47-black-market-welcome-to-america

Some more good info, though a lot of the comments lack source (the main answer is well-sourced,pertaining primarily to statistical bias in pro-gun debating): http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/976/is-gun-control-effective/14104#14104

Who cares? The kid I was talking to didn't even have a valid contribution to the discussion and neither did my reply. What do you gain from pointing out the non-validity of my statement in the context of critical thinking? There was no substance there.

 

This is my way of thinking.

Those who are for it, would regret their decision if it were to affect them. If their kids we're executed in a school because of some lunatic and his easily attained assault rifle. They'd be the first to complain. However, they sit there in their own little world and throw numbers around.

When the constitution was created or amended you should be limited to the weapons of that era, and not future advancements of said weapons.

What is the difference between me setting up clay mores in my front yard, to owning an assault rifle per say? One would be considered OK, and the other wouldn't yet their purpose is exactly the same.

 

I honestly don't know if that'd even happen, they'd probably call for more people to be armed to be able to defend against future attacks like that. It's all just a loop, the only solution pro-gun people see is to add more guns to an already dismal situation.

I have no idea what you're trying to say with your last two paragraphs btw

 

Im just curious how many of these shootings actually happen in the southern part of the USA. I know for a fact that the southern states have the vast majority of fire arms. It just seems like this happens in our Northern States. If someone could post any info regarding this i'd be appreciative. I live in florida and we really dont see school shootings here. We have the stand your ground law. Now it doesnt stop shootings but it does make you think twice in my opinion before trying something stupid. Our society is built around guns and violence unfortunately.

 

Statistics can be manipulated to "prove" anything. Depending on how you word things, any event can look good or bad. While Blupig found evidence for gun control in Australia, I have found evidence against gun control in Australia.

Here are some links against the Australia's Gun Control

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2974487/posts

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/25/the-australia-gun-control-fallacy/

Here are some links stating why Gun Control doesn't work.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/02/21/disarming-the-myths-promoted-by-the-gun-control-lobby/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-h-bailey/does-gun-control-encourage-crime_b_7917684.html

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-10-09/heres-what-happened-when-venezuela-imposed-gun-control-laws

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/08/28/harvard-gun-study-concludes-gun-bans-dont-reduce-the-murder-rate/


Obviously there are going to be conflicting opinions on the Gun Control issue. I don't believe one is more right than the other.

Many people choose to come to the United States because of the freedom it allows its citizens. With freedom comes consequences that most of us are willing to accept. Personally, if I wanted a strict gun control policy, I would move to a country where I would feel safer. I know that's easier said than done, but one of the things that makes America, America, is the amount of guns the population has.

 

I was saying that when their constitution was created i.e the 17th century, you should be limited to the bearing of arms from that era, not future advancements. When written, I'm sure they had no knowledge of magazine fed rifles that can cause so much chaos in the hands of a single person. Let's jump forward a few hundred years and people will be arguing over why these new laser weapons should be banned from the public.

The second paragraph was a comparison between two tools that serve the same purpose; to kill, injure. So I guess I was asking where the line is between what you can have and why it's any different from the ones you're allowed. When they both serve the same purpose.

Them points weren't aimed at you by any means, as I know your stance.

 

The idea behind a gun is the same -- is is a weapon. It was a weapon in the 1700s, and it's a weapon now. It has the same purpose. Human rights don't somehow "expire" because of technological advancements.

 

Whilst that is the case, if the development of these tools could be exponential, where would a line be drawn?

 

Well, the development of weapons was exponential. World governments have nuclear weapons aimed right now to vaporize hundreds of millions of innocent people in their homes. And we know from experience they will have no issue dropping as many of these things as they want to achieve their goals.

Considering you can count on other people being willing to kill you at any moment by any monstrous means, I don't think that anyone's personal defense weapons rival that.

 

Good people will listen to the law. Bad people will not. If gun laws become stricter, bad people will be armed (due to black market trading). While good people will be unarmed. This is why tightening gun laws makes no sense.

 

This is only speculation, but I think (some of) the people that commit these acts enjoy the constant media coverage, and enjoy the notoriety, especially in today's narcissistic society. Think of the Colorado shooter. He's been getting coverage for what, 3 and a half years now? In addition, it's so easy for one to plea insane, and drag the legal system through a multi year process, where your only punishment for such an act is simply being detained. Once you're finally punished and convicted, you get a painless lethal injection? That just doesn't seem like it's very deterring for someone who is content with death/ready to die anyways.

This may sound awful (but I don't care); drastic times call for drastic measures, and I think we, as a nation, are above and beyond that point. Maybe, instead of holding these terrorists' hands after they mass shoot, they should be sentenced to a life of extreme HARD labor, torture... etc. The fear of this kind of life might deter individuals from committing these types of violence. However, it's also likely that it could just end in more suicides by the shooters, immediately after the shooting, or while jailed. This is only a possible example, but I don't believe the current system to be even remotely frightening to someone thinking about doing this.

So, as a result of this regularly happening, the question is, how strictly should guns be regulated. Personally, I don't know. I'm not sure how guns can even be regulated at this point. But I'll look at the facts. Sure, new laws could possibly keep a potential psycho killer from legally acquiring the necessary weapons to go through with this. However, as we all know, when there is a want/need for a market/ service, and it is restricted by laws, a blackmarket forms (think of the website you're on). There will always be a way for criminals to access the necessary firepower to commit this type of act.

This would, in the end, lead to the psycho killer having access to a mass murder weapon, and nobody else being able to contest him. NOTICE HOW THIS IS ALREADY THE CASE ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES.

If I wanted to go around killing people, I would do it, whether or not I had a gun. However, I don't wan't to go around killing people. Even if there were someone I absolutely hated, and wanted dead, I wouldn't kill them, as it would in return ruin my own life. Most of the people in the country have a similar mindset: they simply aren't driven by mass murder.

So, it would only make sense that you would want to arm MORE people to be able to protect their selves. Imaging a shooter trying to open fire on 30 people, and they are all armed and ready to retaliate; casualties cut down by 90 percent, if there are any casualties at all.

COLLEGE CAMPUSES ARE GUN FREE ZONES. MANY OF THESE SHOOTINGS HAPPEN ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES. That is, in itself, a heavy restriction on guns, and it clearly isn't working.

I'm not going into detail on this country vs. that country and their results, because it's just repetitive, but look at those facts as well.

Anyways, my point may have been a little out of order, sorry if that's the case. But to conclude: More gun restrictions = bad.

 

On a side note, we need to quit using mental health problems as a scapegoat for this. Is the US the only country with mental health issues? Nah. But it sure as hell seems to be the only country where people regularly are shot up by random civilians (aside from certain terrorist groups, different debate, different time).

 

I fell out with this debate for a bit but this is interesting: http://time.com/4074648/toddler-gun-violence/

inb4 "not my fault parents don't lock up their guns"
The US has a population of 321 million. You can't honestly expect each and every person to be smart, especially not with lethal weapons and even more so if they're pro-gun and feel like they need to brandish that shit all the time.

 

What people don't understand is that with stricter gun laws, you're handicapping law abiding citizens from protecting themselves. If someone has it set that there going to execute a mass shooting, there going to find a way to get there weapons legal or not. On the other hand, if law abiding citizens are armed as well, there less inclined to go through with a shooting. There's a reason states with less strict gun laws have less crime

 

Natural selection on all sides taking place here.

 

I won't keep arguing the point because neither of us have a source. It's a real shame that the NRA basically killed all studies involving guns by banning any federal funding for them, more or less. It would allow people to have much better discussions and understand the issue much better.

 

I agree, we're using hypotheticals and hand picked scenarios. Not really something we're going to convince each other with.

I guess my point is that seeing kids die in schools, I put the ease on which a weapon can be attained as the main culprit. I'm trying to back that up, which only statistics can prove. If the weapons were harder to get a hold of, it would be very unlikely that there would be any "kids" getting a hold of weapons to commit atrocities like this. I'm sure if we did a risk assessment properly we could reduce the current risk of HIGH to MEDIUM/LOW with good measures in place.

I also agree with the gun free zones being a joke. It is quite obvious that a gun free zone will be a likely target for someone not wanting to be stopped before they finish what they intended to do. However, it's massive incompetence to create a gun free zone, then not protect that zone's entry requirements. Metal detectors and random searches should be mandatory.