Depending what we are talking about, it isn’t that I am against a majority of the suggestions because I don’t think they aren’t perfect. It is because I don’t think they will help to combat the problem in any significant way. I don’t believe that is Nirvana Fallacy.
Is there a fallacy for support of something in the hope it will work with out evidence of it working out in the past? (Or even just logically thinking about how it would work if enacted?) One will point to the UKs laws that it works, I’ll point to Mexico’s laws to show the law alone doesn’t, and I’ll just endure sports ball related gifs that surely every point I make must be a logical fallacy. Which I am sure sometimes it is, but one rarely sees a purely logical discussion in a discussion forum.
That’s because you never specify what you feel the problem is, so how else could you do anything but declare you feel those things wouldn’t reduce the overall crime rate of a nation (something that is in itself avoiding ge topic).
Yes I have. At least I have for the general violent crime rate. tl;dr, Segregation of poor, drain of public resources in those areas, creates a feedback loop where hope and opportunity for these areas are dramatically less than a few miles somewhere else. The illegal drug trade, prostitution, and dealing in other illicit activities are some of the few opportunities to make money and why more people in those areas are willing to risk death and jail to make a living and possibly thrive. The reason we have crime stats that compare to the 2nd and 3rd world, is because we are creating little 2nd and 3rd world niches.
i pointed to two different approaches, japan and australia, both of which work in the sense of greatly reducing gun deaths and eliminating mass shootings. the australian approach also reduced overall murder rates and suicide rates.i realize that our 2nd amendment as presently constituted would seem to prevent that but at some point the outrage over the continuing, seemingly ceaseless, slaughter is going to overwhelm that right. either the supreme court will find a way to walk back the most recent broadening of gun rights or the populace will create a demand for a constitutional amendment revising the second.
a few months before he signed the emancipation proclamation, lincoln brought in some loyalist slave owners from the border states and begged them to find some kind of compromise around the idea of voluntary but paid emancipation of the slaves in their home states, telling them to get the best deal they could now before the friction of events took their slaves from them uncompensated. they walked out in a fury and considered him naive to think something like that could happen in a country that supported property rights like the united states. you and those like you as well as the nra are in the position, right now, of those border state slave owners. the friction of outrage may sweep your guns from you in a manner over which you will have no input because you (the plural you) chose to remain aloof from the process. even in texas, even in the heart of darkest texas i’m beginning to hear things from the republicans who are not fans of guns i never thought to hear when the world shrugged off sandy hook.
Well I am comparing murder rates as that is what we are talking about, right? (and I am accused of goal post moving, ) But I guess that is my fault because in trying to say what the “problem” is, I said “general violent crime” vs just the murder rate. What I meant was the cause of the bulk of homicides, vs the sensational mass shootings. I still think my assessment has merit.
Compared to most of Europe, yes, you’re right, the rest of the violent crime rates are similar. Possibly even higher in parts of the UK. (though what constitutes an assault statistic varies from country to country). Though it looks like Japan has lower crime across the board. Again I will point out that even before the UK and Australia revised their gun laws so severally, and had similar gun laws to the US, their murder rate was much less in comparison. What is it that makes people more like to just kill a person vs assault them in the US?
Still, while we are talking statistics, the murder rate is down significantly since the 80s/90s, and it looks similar to the 60s in the US - back when not only were guns much easier to come by, but some consider “the good ol days” when you could still leave your doors unlocked. It seems the 80s-90s was when murder rates were out of control and the need for change should have been mandated. But I don’t think the calls for change were nearly as loud and prominent as today. The reason, like I said earlier, is because of these high profile tragedies in “normal” suburbia. Which again makes me look at charts like this (from Slate), showing a big curve and wonder why the “mood swing” in the US when the rest of the nations compared are more or less flat, with a slight downward trend? Still - look - things are getting significantly better.
You’re possibly right. The right may die via the guillotine vs the feared 1000 cuts. Before I am accused again of the slippery slope fallacy, the “common sense” legislation of registration was in fully swing in the UK and Australia. But it didn’t stop every tragedy and that is what lead to the ban and turn in. And that is why the people fighting to retain the rights are so opposed to those schemes. Like I said, I could live with a licensing scheme (which already exists in some places). But when legislation is actually proposed, it lately hasn’t been more bureaucracy, it has been bans. Several states did things like magazine capacity bans and assault rifle bans after Sandy Hook (Colorado, NY, Conn, and Maryland).
I really dislike your Lincoln analogy as it seems to frame gun rights as an archaic evil like slavery. Which I am not saying you did with that intention, but isn’t a fair comparison. I do get your point about how their unwillingness to compromise lead to them lacking even a seat at the table at the decision.
You are right. There is a faint stir here in Texas. People know a change is coming. It might not be this year, or as long as the R’s are in control, but a rollback of significant portions of the 2nd is brewing. If they’re lucky, it will start with registry, then progress to annual registry, then to other stuff like regulating production, buybacks and a general crackdown. If they fight it and make it hard for themselves, there will be a Brady Bill on Steroids, with broad brush prohibition on semi automatics and all the accessories. My money is on a big fight, just like you described about Southern States. They will not just roll over. Maybe they’ll be exposed for the angry frauds they are.
the “common sense” legislation of registration was in fully swing in the UK and Australia. But it didn’t stop every tragedy and that is what lead to the ban and turn in. And that is why the people fighting to retain the rights are so opposed to those schemes. Like I said, I could live with a licensing scheme (which already exists in some places). But when legislation is actually proposed, it lately hasn’t been more bureaucracy, it has been bans.
“common sense” tells us it’s probably impossible to correctly identify the correct year from the graph, because it was trending down anyway
Interestingly, the graph linked in step 1. above allows us to get a sense of how many lives have been saved by the change in AU policy after Port Arthur.
* From 1986 till 1996 there ~16 fewer deaths year on year.
* Similarly, from 1996 till 2014 there were also ~16 fewer deaths, year on year.
No change, right, so why bother with altering the legislation? Not so fast tiger.
* After a dramatic plunge between 1996 and 1998, the decline from 1998 till 2014 was ~6/yr. So instead of a steady decline over the period there was initially a rapid drop followed by roughly steady state. That creates a triangle between the expected steady decline and the actual rapid drop followed by slower decline. The area of that triangle represents lived saved by (or mostly saved by) the change in policy.
* therefore, calculating the size of that triangle shows that between 1996 and 2014 there were approx. 3,156 fewer lives lost to firearms. To give a sense of scale; in the US a similar outcome over the same time period would equate to around 47,000 people still alive.
Whether 3,100 Australian - or 47,000 American - lives are worth the emotional pain of not being able to play with your favourite toy is a matter between you and your conscience.
^ I don’t live in AU, but the rules here are broadly similar. Under the rules in place here I can own a Colt M1911 and/or a Desert Eagle and/or a fully functional MG-42 if that is what my heart truly desires. I know this because I’ve looked at the legislation, and because I know people who own fully functional MGs and numerous pistols, some of which I have fired. I can’t think of any sane dictionary which would consider such a legislative regime to be a ‘ban’.
In 1969: 2/3 of homicides were committed with a firearm, 3/4 of which have been with handguns, population 203 million with 90 millions guns and 50% of the population owned guns.
In 2011: 2/3 of homocides were committed with a firearm, 3/4 of which have been with handguns, population 313 million with 270 million guns (though no one really knows because we are not allowed to know) and 40% of the population owns guns.
Guns were not easier to get in 1969, it was easier to buy the guns that happened to be nearby you - which is why handgun ownership (despite commuting the same percentage of murders) was nearly half what it is today. People pretty much owned service weapons and long guns. That is not true in the 1.7 guns per American household modern day where you can mail order bump stocks from the company that sold them to the Las Vegas shooter using your MAGA discount code. Guns are exceedingly plentiful and easy to find. It even has an extra layer of corporate culture on top fueled by the government and media to result in roughly 1/3 of the people possessing enough weaponry to represent every household in the country.
Yes, all crime in the United States has fallen since the 80s. That’s obviously not got a lot to do with guns. However there is no metric in which the US has reduced gun violence or deaths outside of the general trend in crime or violent crime in the country. Even suicides have basically been flat since forever. As a country we have been spinning our wheels for longer than I have been alive. At least I know that the average gun owner is aging up, now in his 50s - so maybe I can just outlive the problem and hope things get better.
I don’t think I ever said that the severe bans in Australia and the UK didn’t have some effect. A total ban would have some effect here as well. But while from the ~700 homicides in 1980 to the ~200 today gives you a ~71% reduction in homicides, the US went from ~10 per 100K in 1980 to ~5 per 100k in 2016, a 50% reduction. Not as good obviously, but similar results with out the severity.
However, please look at our rates and see if you can find the correlation of the large federal gun law bills and the murder rate. It IS a fun game. Though I am sure our problem was, the laws just weren’t severe enough.
NO ONE has even surmised a guess why Australia was slacking off in the murder category before the buy back. Maybe America is just full of more violent assholes.
Also, I’ve read the Australian laws, and certain types (like the AR-15) are basically banned. The special circumstances required for the highest class of licenses (combined with the buy back) makes it a ban for all intents and purposes. Its basically for a specialist pest killer. I couldn’t find out how many permits there are of that class (I want to say it was “E” class) but I am very curious what the number is.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to prove with this graph, except the exact opposite of what you just wrote. I see a steep drop after the Brady Bill, then a sharp increase when it was rolled back. A less severe drop with the assault weapon ban, and a rise again with its repeal. Bearing in mind that each one of those troughs represent thousands of people still living, trying to claim that those actions were ineffective makes you look like a ass gun nut with an agenda.
I don’t want to detail this thread, and from what you added further about your father’s rifle, I don’t think you wrote in bad faith. But the “absolutely kill people” annoyed me for several days now, I just can’t get it out of my head.
It’s bullshit.
Any larger animal is capable of killing humans, and Sus scropha Linnaeus, 1758 and it’s bastards, i.e. feral pigs, are no exception. Indeed, feral pigs are quite dangerous animals when cornered, or with shoats.
In Berlin, there are an estimated 5k to 10k wild boars. It’s one of the most densely human-populated areas of Europe. Reports of humans attacked, per year: 10 to 20. Fatalities, to the best of my knowledge: one, by heart attack after an incident on January 4th, 2014.
I don’t think we should go into further discussion, since this thread is dedicated to discuss the murder of schoolchildren, teenagers, humans - and how to prevent this clusterfuck from repeating over and over again.
If you however want to discuss pigs further, feel free to open a new thread. I just needed to get this out of my system.
The right to easily own the means to mass-murder people versus right to own their bodies… what’s the difference? I don’t really see a difference. In both cases, the right of a single person to own something is directly impinging on the rights of others to live their lives without harassment or fear.
But, as others have already pointed out in this thread, you find that an acceptable trade-off.
But I really don’t see why you’re upset. The general population of the USA might no longer agree with you, but the actual enfranchised oligarchs have your back. Nothing is going to change. So why are you so worried and defensive? You and the others who share your opinions will continue to live with your stockpiles of deadly weapons, and radicalized white men will be able to continue to massacre all the children and concert-goers and gay nightclub attendees they want, and we can’t do a thing to stop it.
Or are you upset because you think that we’re wrong? Well, given that you’ve repeatedly shown through your rhetoric and fallacious reasoning that this is an emotional topic for you–and one so firmly entrenched that not even the death of a friend can shake it… you’re not going to have much luck convincing us to share the depth of your commitment to your death-toys.
And, yes, I am aware that this is an ad hominem, and I’m expecting this to get flagged to oblivion because of that, but, really, I just need to express my awe, and horror, and disgust, at someone that can hear about the needless deaths of children… and react with “don’t take my guns!”
it might lead to greater restrictions in the future. The risk of maybe collectively having to be more responsible with your death-toys is so unnerving to you that you consider it worthwhile to oppose, instead of the near-certitude that people will die needlessly.
On Thursday, Trump will meet “with state and local officials on school safety.” The next morning, the president will address the Conservative Political Action Conference, a group for which gun rights are a top issue. Wayne LaPierre, one of the leaders of the NRA, is also scheduled to speak.
One thing that I don’t see in the FBI-blaming is the volume of similar reports that they receive all the time. I’m sure I could find equally bad YouTube (or Breitbart) comments without trying too hard.
) But I guess that is my fault because in trying to say what the “problem” is, I said “general violent crime” vs just the murder rate. What I meant was the cause of the bulk of homicides, vs the sensational mass shootings. I still think my assessment has merit.
