Oregon College shooting

Number of guns have no correlation with violent crime. However, banning of guns has always caused an increase in violent crime.

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.

Appeal to emotion. Discarded.

Look at u mr. i no my fallacies

 

[Xier0]

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.

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:

Look at u mr. i no my fallacies

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:

1. In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves against their ethnic-cleansing government, were arrested and exterminated.

2. In 1929, the former Soviet Union established gun control as a means of controlling the “more difficult” of their citizens. From 1929 to the death of Stalin, 40 million Soviets met an untimely end at the hand of various governmental agencies as they were arrested and exterminated.

3. After the rise of the Nazi’s, Germany established their version of gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves against the “Brown Shirts”, were arrested and exterminated. Interestingly, the Brown Shirts were eventually targeted for extermination themselves following their blind acts of allegiance to Hitler. Any American military and police would be wise to grasp the historical significance of the Brown Shirts’ fate.

4. After Communist China established gun control in 1935, an estimated 50 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves against their fascist leaders, were arrested and exterminated.

5. Closer to home, Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayans, unable to defend themselves against their ruthless dictatorship, were arrested and exterminated.

6. Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves from their dictatorial government, were arrested and exterminated.

7. Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million of the “educated” people, unable to defend themselves against their fascist government, were arrested and exterminated.

8. In 1994, Rwanda disarmed the Tutsi people and being unable to defend themselves from their totalitarian government, nearly one million were summarily executed.

The total numbers of victims who lost their lives because of gun control is approximately 70 million people in the 20th century. The historical voices from 70 million corpses speak loudly and clearly to those Americans who are advocating for a de facto gun ban. Governments murdered four times as many civilians as were killed in all the international and domestic wars combined. Governments murdered millions more people than were killed by common criminals and it all followed gun control.

 

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

Historically, Australia has had relatively low levels of violent crime. Overall levels of homicide and suicide have been in decline for several decades, while the proportion of these crimes that involved firearms has consistently declined since the early 1980s. Between 1991 and 2001, the number of firearm-related deaths in Australia declined 47%.[35] According to a 2011 report from the Australian government, "...the number of victims of homicide has been in decline since 1996". There were 354 victims in 1996, but only 260 victims in 2010, a decrease of 27 percent. Also, "The proportion of homicide victims killed by offenders using firearms in 2009–10 represented a decrease of 18 percentage points from the peak of 31 percent in 1995–96 (the year in which the Port Arthur massacre occurred with the death of 35 people, which subsequently led to the introduction of stringent firearms legislation)."

Firearm suicides have fallen from about 22% of all suicides in 1992[36] to 7% of all suicides in 2005.[37] Immediately following the Buyback there was a fall in firearm suicides which was more than offset by a 10% increase in total suicides in 1997 and 1998. [38] There were concerted efforts in suicide prevention from this time and in subsequent years the total suicide rate resumed its decline.[39]

The number of guns stolen has fallen from an average 4,195 per year from 1994 to 2000 to 1,526 in 2006–2007. Long guns are more often stolen opportunistically in home burglaries, but few homes have handguns and a substantial proportion of stolen handguns are taken from security firms and other businesses; only a tiny proportion, 0.06% of licensed firearms, are stolen in a given year. Only a small proportion of those firearms are recovered. Approximately 3% of these stolen weapons are later connected to an actual crime or found in the possession of a person charged with a serious offence.[40]

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

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...

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.

 

[SmokeHut]

Bet you'd love to change your mind if this happened to a loved one of yours.

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.

 

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

After we banned guns in 1997, people murdered by guns decreased by 10%. On the other hand, people murdered by knives increased by 10%. Well, at least you weren't shot to death and thank goodness no criminals were hurt in the commission of their murders.

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

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.
Read more at http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp#VuYs0PSiOzK6Ktv7.99

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

Both New York and Connecticut imposed strict new rules on the possession and sale of guns after Sandy Hook. Among these were requirements for the registration of so-called assault rifles in both states and in New York a ban on “high-capacity” magazines regardless of when they were manufactured or purchased. Compliance with the registration requirement has been modest at best, as hundreds of thousands of gun owners in both states refused to register their weapons. So far, then, the laws have been most successful in creating hundreds of thousands of lawbreakers who feel obligated to break the law.

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.

 

[SmokeHut]

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

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.

 

[Xier0]

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.

 

[SmokeHut]

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?

 

[Xier0]

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.

 

[12 def TANK]

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.

 

[Andre8Johnson0]

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.

 

[Andre8Johnson0]

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.

 

[C I R O C]

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

 

[Xier0]

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.

Natural selection on all sides taking place here.

 

[SuF]

If it's opportunistic is means they've not considered the potential risks involved, it means they've been given an opportunity ( i,e a window left open, door unlocked ) and taken it. So if the people inside sleep with a revolver, then they'll find out the hard way, not something they've prepared for, so therefore not really reducing the crime. However, ending the crime prematurely. That is of course, if they're not armed themselves, because if they are, then you have a shootout in your house where it's very likely casualties are guaranteed, and not in your favor, likely.

However, this isn't my argument, my argument is the ease in which a person can attain a weapon for this purpose, or any other purpose.

I watched the video, and it's obvious I cannot disagree that the homeowners were able to control the situation because they had guns and the perpetrators didn't. However, would that video of ended so happily if both parties were armed? In the US, I imagine that would be a more likely scenario.

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.

 

[SmokeHut]

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.