The Topic of Gun Control and How it Relates to Recent Mass Shootings

Lanza wasn't allowed to have it.

 

not vigilantism, defense of self and others

 

His mom was allowed. That's precisely the point. Nobody should be allowed.

 

Devils Advocate would say she was irresponsible to have it where he could get to it.

Rocket River

 

That's true. Fail on her part to recognize the dangers within. I assess my family when I purchase firearms, or when I'm ordering normal capacity 30 round mags for my AR15s

 

great quotes from Teh Founders

Spoiler

 

It's not devil's advocate. Those are not competing philosophies. Of course it was irresponsible. You know what was more irresponsible? Letting certain weapons into civilian circulation in the first place.

 

Generally, gun control is not an issue that I feel particularly strongly about. Unfortunately, in the course of reading this thread, I see the same thing that often drags me into debates - really terrible reason-defying arguments made by the "conservative" folks. I feel like arguing against them because, even though I don't care that much, it's the same response that makes a wolf kill the weakest/slowest member of a herd.

Seriously man ... if you have no RATIONAL JUSTIFICATION for something, then just admit it! "I don't want to get rid of guns because they make me feel safe/powerful/bad-ass!" I'm sure you can find an actual reason if you look hard enough. Maybe.

 

who's making this argument?

 

Mass shooting deaths in last decade: less than 200
Deaths from house fires in one year: 2640
Deaths from cars in one day: 250

The threat of mass shooting deaths to the general public in USA needs to be put in perspective better.

 

1) Stop comparing the cost-benefit of things like cars to guns. It does not work.

2) Gun control is meant to stop gun violence, not just mass shootings.

 

The gun industry is a huge domestic business that supports the economy. I'm not make racial judgements but background checks are foresaken due to the fact that the primary customer is a white male. They take a blind eye to a person like Michael Wade Page and you know what I mean due to the fact that an overwhelming majority are more likely to not to have extreme right wing/facist views...

 

OK, thanks for the perspective. I guess 1-2 to random public school shootups potentially involving little children a year are par for the course and are an acceptable cost of living in the great America.

Arguments like this are just as dense as the "I wish the principal had an M4 rifle in her office" argument. Maybe things would be a lot better if only 5-6 little children had died instead of 20 because that sweet woman would have been able to calmly pull her rifle from its storage locker in the midst of a hailstorm of bullets and pump about 20 rounds into that deranged young man. The few precious casualties would just be acceptable collateral damage for the freedoms that make America great.

 

Why not? It is numerically a greater threat. We don't have any right to own a car...ban cars, use mass transit if it means saving just one days worth of lives per day.

Basically, you are hoping to stop unnecessary death. So am I..but you have to look at greater threats first. The fear of people didn't just happen suddenly....it happened because of "mass shooting deaths", which when put in perspective is less likely to cause death to you than lightning.
Over the last 10 years more freaking people died from lightning, than the mass shooting that is the cause of such public hysteria. Just perspective is needed...

 

Not that devilish to me.

I think this has to be looked at on aggregate. We know no matter what regulations, some guns will be irresponsibly kept by lawful owners and will fall into the hands of people that should not have guns. That's law of percentage. It's like that famous GM car example, we know a defect in the car, a way to fix that defect, and a cost assoicated with the defect. We know if the defect is not fixed, the car will have a small chance malfunction leading to safety issue, say death one out of every 100k cars sold with that defect. Of course, GM decided not to fix the defect and rather be sued, b/c they figure the cost of fixing the defect in every car will be greater in aggregate than the penalty they would have paid for a death out of every 100k cars.

IMO, the lives of those little kids and other innocent people outweighs the liberty loss assoicatied with banning the guns.

 

You sound like you don't have a heart. It's all just a numbers game in the end, eh?

 

Actually that argument is being made.
People say if he only had a knife . . he'd only been able to kill a few . . .*shrug*

I don't recall the 1 ~ 2 sprees involving small kids last year
or even the year before . . .

I can honestly say . . . I don't own a gun
I have never owned a gun
I have only shot one maybe 3 ~5 times in my whole life
and it was target shooting and none in the last 10 yrs

I know Cops terrify me
I know the Joe Horn types Terrify me
I know the George Zimmerman types Terrify me

I am terrified that 'effective' gun control would not keep the guns out of their hands

If we outlawed all gun . . . would it be ok that the only cops that carry guns would be SWAT?
I could live with that.

I think the next question for this group is. . . .
WHAT TYPE OF LAWS WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE ENACTED?
Assault Rifles banned
Any Military weapons
This leaves what. .. handguns?
Should there be limits on calibers? [No 45s or 357s]?

Rocket River

 

Bad analogy. Same fallacy as that "penis" analogy.

What's the utility of having guns if everyone else is not allowed to have guns?

People need cars to get around. Well, I am not going to explain why people need "penis".

 

About 19 victims (average per year) to mass shooting over the last 10 years with the vast majority NOT children...meanwhile, we can only hope 19 victims are the result of DWI in a week.

 

Nobody needs cars. You can mandate mass transit and community driving.