Washington Shooting, 5 Dead

[Johan]

If you say so. I care less about how rare their murders are and more how frequent ours are... and you said it yourself, their mass shootings were rare as well... which was my point that you only confirmed. They flip out over mass murder, we just shrug and say, "It is what it is.".

Sorry, but numbers like this are what interest me. Call me crazy, but I don't believe Americans are genetically predisposed, or culturally so different from every other human being on earth, to believe that it's our people are rampaging violent maniacs, nor that we have an abnormally disproportionate number of mentally ill people.

Genetically no. Culturally? Maybe. Definitely maybe. Culture counts for a lot.

I don't know why the concept of, "Easy access to a gun = easy access to use a gun" seems like such a shocking and earth-shattering proposition to some people. And the statistics don't lie; if you own a gun, you are more likely to be murdered or commit murder. So why is the logical solution of restricting access to guns such a sin to say?

The concept is not shocking. Again, I'm all for it. But at the same time I believe it is VERY disingenuous to suggest that restricting access to gun makes the problem just go away. It absolutely does not. And if the numbers are to be believed, it doesn't even reduce the problem by all that much. So like or not, anytime someone writes if only he didn't have access to guns.... banning/severely restricting access will magically make the problem just go away is EXACTLY what they're suggesting. And I for one believe that is a comment based on ignorance and sue me, I'm not going to be shy about saying so.

[Shiranu]

The concept is not shocking. Again, I'm all for it. But at the same time I believe it is VERY disingenuous to suggest that restricting access to gun makes the problem just go away. It absolutely does not.

And there lies the fundamental problem; you interpret as saying it will make the problem go away when everyone is saying it will reduce the problem.

[Johan]

And there lies the fundamental problem; you interpret as saying it will make the problem go away when everyone is saying it will reduce the problem.

Is that so? Ok enlighten me.

Imagine if he couldn't get his hands on guns.

What exactly is the above suggests it will only reduce the problem? Show your work.

[Shiranu]

Is that so? Ok enlighten me.

What exactly is the above suggests it will only reduce the problem? Show your work.

I could take one quote of yours to make it look like you imply gun regulation would do absolutely no good, but that wouldn't be accurate either would it?

[Johan]

I could take one quote of yours to make it look like you imply gun regulation would do absolutely no good, but that wouldn't be accurate either would it?

Fair enough I suppose. Though I can't justify it or easily prove it, I still believe a magical solution is what most of those posters are implying most of the time. Perhaps that's because you never see any of them commenting on how the problem is larger and ultimately requires a more complex solution. Or maybe I'm just an asshole. Either one is possible.

Although I believe if anyone would care to search for it, they would quickly and easily find that I have been nothing short of outspoken in my belief that better gun control is a part of solution but only a part and that any true solution requires finding a way to cure the actual underlying problem of more and more people feeling the need to commit horrific acts in the course of suicide or otherwise ending their relationship with society.

[Shiranu]

Fair enough I suppose. Though I can't justify it or easily prove it, I still believe a magical solution is what most of those posters are implying most of the time. Perhaps that's because you never see any of them commenting on how the problem is larger and ultimately requires a more complex solution. Or maybe I'm just an asshole. Either one is possible.

I can only speak for myself when I post about it, in that I think it would go a very long way in fixing the problem. But I think nearly as valuable would be changing economic and education conditions (gang related crime, which makes up a large majority of shootings) and providing better mental health services. The benefits of those two would also extend beyond violence.

That said, the accidental death & murder of family members in brief bursts of emotion is too statistically damning to think that heavily regulating guns would not be a very useful step.

[Johan]

I can only speak for myself when I post about it, in that I think it would go a very long way in fixing the problem.

Yeah that's what I think is just not knowable. Australia is a obviously different beast. But I think exactly how different is unknowable. And the fact is that their rate of mass murder didn't change all that much, only the method changed.

Is America different? Obviously it is. They didn't have nearly the gang violence problem that we have. But lets face it, if we eliminated all the 'mass murders' getting actual media attention in this country tomorrow and did absolutely nothing to stem the gang-related gun-based homicide rate in the least, most on the ban all guns side of this issue would happily go back to their normally scheduled lives and never mention it again. They don't give a fuck about gangs shooting one another. They only care about the potential for themselves and their loved ones ending up as innocent victims. And the incidence of that happening in relation to gang violence is minimal these days so long as you have the economic wherewithal to stay out of the 'Vietnam' sections of most of our cities.

So subtracting out gang violence, what would banning all semi-autos and most handguns do? I think if you subtract out gang violence, we're left to look at Australia's model. Their history shows that non-gang mass-murder didn't subside all that much, only the method changed. Would that happen here? I think its reasonable to assume it would. Which is not to say that restricting access isn't part of a broader solution. Its only to say that if you want to talk about restricting access with me, you'd better be fully prepared to also talk in detail about the broader solution. Saying well ben them now and we'll figure the rest out later doesn't get it with me because I've been screwed too many times in the past by that sort of thinking.

[baronvonrort]

Yeah, Imagine....

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

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quakers_Hill,_New_South_Wales#Nursing_home_fire

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

I also want to guess that people freaked out over these because they almost never happen vs nonchalantly said, "Oh. Another shooting. Meh.".

We only had 5 mass shootings where the victims were unknown to the offender before a gun hating Prime Minister threatened to withhold funding for states if they didn't impose strict gun laws.
www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/10/21/1034561442556.html

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics the semi auto rifles we banned in 1996 accounted for just over 1% of all firearm deaths from 1980-1995.
In 1995 we had 67 firearm homicides with a rate of 0.3 per 100,000
Accidents - 283 deaths, military style rifle =5 deaths
Suicides- 5,487 deaths, military style rifle =52 deaths
Homicides - 813 deaths, military style rifle = 27 deaths
Total proportion of Military firearm deaths 1980-1995 = 1.3%
www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/productsbytitle/9C85BD1298C075EACA2568A900139342?OpenDocument

Non firearm homicides have declined at a greater rate than firearm homicides in Australia since 1996, firearm homicides were declining for over a decade and a half before our gun laws according to the ABS.

We allow semi auto pistols for target shooting in Australia, the gun grabbers say owning a semi auto rifle will turn you into a mass murdering terrorist.
A recreational shooter can have a Ruger Charger with a pistol license yet they cannot have the rifle version of the exact same gun the Ruger 10/22 because we banned semi auto rifles in 1996.

The worst mass murders on the east coast of Australia were done by lighting fires, the gun grabbers say being shot dead is worse than being burnt alive.

A Turkish muslim did this attack in the USA, how would gun laws have stopped it considering he stole the gun?

[Johan]

We only had 5 mass shootings where the victims were unknown to the offender before a gun hating Prime Minister threatened to withhold funding for states if they didn't impose strict gun laws.
www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/10/21/1034561442556.html

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics the semi auto rifles we banned in 1996 accounted for just over 1% of all firearm deaths from 1980-1995.
In 1995 we had 67 firearm homicides with a rate of 0.3 per 100,000
Accidents - 283 deaths, military style rifle =5 deaths
Suicides- 5,487 deaths, military style rifle =52 deaths
Homicides - 813 deaths, military style rifle = 27 deaths
Total proportion of Military firearm deaths 1980-1995 = 1.3%
www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/productsbytitle/9C85BD1298C075EACA2568A900139342?OpenDocument

Non firearm homicides have declined at a greater rate than firearm homicides in Australia since 1996, firearm homicides were declining for over a decade and a half before our gun laws according to the ABS.

We allow semi auto pistols for target shooting in Australia, the gun grabbers say owning a semi auto rifle will turn you into a mass murdering terrorist.
A recreational shooter can have a Ruger Charger with a pistol license yet they cannot have the rifle version of the exact same gun the Ruger 10/22 because we banned semi auto rifles in 1996.

The worst mass murders on the east coast of Australia were done by lighting fires, the gun grabbers say being shot dead is worse than being burnt alive.

A Turkish muslim did this attack in the USA, how would gun laws have stopped it considering he stole the gun?

Quoted for truth. Every word of it.

[Baruch]

There is no fix to any problem.  Every fix  ... creates new problems.  It is a bit like Chinese handcuffs (a child's toy).  Stop trying to fix problems.  Deal with them.  Not the same thing.  Can you fix the need to clean leaves out of rain gutters?  No, just just deal with it at the end of every fall, before the snow flies.  But people don't like that ... they want to ban leaves instead ... or invent self cleaning robotic rain gutters that plot to take over the world etc.  There is always a technical fix, or a ban-it fix.  People problem?  Ban people.  Otherwise don't think you are the least bit consistent in your other reasonings.

So if one chose to buy a house not far off the driving green ... and then you had one too many golf balls go thru your bay window ... do you call your lawyer and sue the golf course you knowingly moved next to?  No ... lets form a new political party, or create a pressure group in an existing political party ... and simply ban golf courses.  Problem solved, right?  Don't like human violence ... then go all Dr Frankenstein with Monsanto, genetically reengineer billions of people to not be so violent ... and it is all good, as long as your intentions are pure.  Or the tried and true ... lock everyone up, particularly people I don't like anyway.  There is no solution, that doesn't generate bigger problems than the one you just thought you solved (but didn't really in the real world).