Yet another US college gun slaughter - "at least 10" killed in Oregan shooting

[8den]

You see, it's this sort of bollocks that udermines you; if you were capable of building a coherent argument, you wouldn't have to resort to such nonsense. Pathetic.

Anyway, since you're no loger even making a pretence of discussing the issue, let's leave it. You think you know what you're talking about; I think you don't; let's agree to disagree on that.

Like I said you're the one quoting Alex Jones and then claiming people don't understand the complexity of the argument, and then when challenged on it you wave people back to other posts on the thread or pretend people don't understand you.

Now if you don't want to discuss the issue fuck off like you've been promising to for ages.

 

[Athos]

Like I said you're the one quoting Alex Jones and then claiming people don't understand the complexity of the argument, and then when channelled on it you wave people back to other posts on the thread or pretend people don't understand you.

Now if you don't want to discuss the issue fuck off like you've been promising to for ages.

You're like the initially well-meaning but ill-informed bloke down the pub who gets touchy when someone challanges his poorly-thought-through ideas. Boring. Especially since you've had to resort to simply repeating some bullshit you've made up.

I'm not going to fuck off, becasue I'm happy to discuss the issue with anyone who has something worth talking about.

 

[8den]

You're like the initially well-meaning but ill-informed bloke down the pub who gets touchy when someone challanges his poorly-thought-through ideas. Boring. Especially since you've had to resort to simply repeating some bullshit you've made up.

Unfortunately were your argument falls down is this. I'm the one who's supporting my position with statistics reports and studies. While you're the one spouting conspiracy style guff from a fat ignorant Texan.

But yeah I'm the one who's "ill informed". You're the one who lacks basic self awareness.

I'm not going to fuck off, becasue I'm happy to discuss the issue with anyone who has something worth talking about.

Like who, I'm not the only one on this thread asking you to support your assertions, you're one who seems to be completely in the wilderness here.

 

[MrsDoyle]

Do you really believe that people - many of then ordinary family men and women - who care about the prospect of having their constitutional rights curtailed aren't appalled by kids being killed? Really?

no, that's exactly it, I can't see how anyone isn't appalled by this, but there are soundbites from Jeb Bush and Trump along the lines of "these things happen" ie: tantamount to collateral damage....and yes, it amazes me that here and in other forums where i've seen this and previous shootings debated so will infer that it's a purely political rather than humanitarian argument....it floors me is all...how anyone with humanity can not just see dead children and say ENOUGH - whatever the bigger picture and wider political implications, this is not acceptable any more in a so-called civilised nation

 

[Athos]

Unfortunately were your argument falls down is this. I'm the one who's supporting my position with statistics reports and studies. While you're the one spouting conspiracy style guff from a fat ignorant Texan.

But yeah I'm the one who's "ill informed". You're the one who lacks basic self awareness?

Like who, I'm not the only one on this thread asking you to support your assertions, you're one who seems to be completely in the wilderness here.

Your statistics and studies don't address the central issue, which you've failed to grasp. You don't undestand the unique significance of firearms in US culture, or their importance to the US psyche, particularly with regard to Americans' notions of freedom from tyrany. (Nor have you addressed the objective arguments about the threat to freedom which arises when states remove citizens' only meaningful expression of their right to defend themselves.) You have also completely failed to address the practical challanges to the measures you propose. Instead, you've relied on ad hominem attacks, facile comparisons with other cultures, dubious statistics (in respect of which you've failed to understand the difference between correlation and causation) and appeals to emotion. You have nothing of value to add to this discussion. That's why I see no value in discussing the substance of it with you.

I have enaged quite happily and fruitfully with others here, on this issue.

 

[Athos]

no, that's exactly it, I can't see how anyone isn't appalled by this, but there are soundbites from Jeb Bush and Trump along the lines of "these things happen" ie: tantamount to collateral damage....and yes, it amazes me that here and in other forums where i've seen this and previous shootings debated so will infer that it's a purely political rather than humanitarian argument....it floors me is all...how anyone with humanity can not just see dead children and say ENOUGH - whatever the bigger picture and wider political implications, this is not acceptable any more in a so-called civilised nation

Well, even at the most basic level, there are people who believe that their kids would be more likely to be killed as a result of a ban on weapons that by the existing situation. I'm not saying the statistics bear this out necessarily, but that's an example of a humanitarian argument against the ban (assuming, one accepts the distinction between policitcal and humanitarian arguments, about which I'm not sure).

 

[8den]

Your statistics and studies don't address the central issue, which you've failed to grasp. You don't undestand the unique significance of firearms in US culture, or their importance to the US psyche, particularly with regard to Americans' notions of freedom from tyrany.

For starts, you've repeatedly stated that the US has some "unique" significance of Firearms in their culture. You've just stated this OVER and OVER and OVER again, and when challenged to elaborate on this you've run away.

(Nor have you addressed the objective arguments about the threat to freedom which arises when states remove citizens' only meaningful expression of their right to defend themselves.)

You've made no objective arguments about the "threat to freedom". You've ranted about Mao Stalin and Hitler, but you've yet to give a coherent argument about why the US needs weapons to prevent Tyranny. Is the state of democracy in the US uniquely perilous and at risk from the rise of fascism, that it's neighbours and other western democracies are not.

You have also completely failed to address the practical challanges to the measures you propose.

In both the above arguments, I've cited two Western Democracies (Australia & the UK) were buy backs were proposed and implemented successfully. You've claimed that the situation is different in the US but have consistently failed to explain how laws enacted successfully recently by other countries would not work in the UK.

Instead, you've relied on ad hominem attacks,

Nope I've used ad hominem attacks, in addition to quoting statistics and other examples that support my argument.

facile comparisons with other cultures, dubious statistics (in respect of which you;ve failed to understand the difference between correlation and causation) and appeals to emotion.

How are comparsions with countries like the UK and Australia "facile". How are studies from Universities like Havard "dubious"? And how exactly can you not see a simple statistics like the size of gun homicides in the US dwarving the next ten nations, or how there have been 275 mass shooting this year and 45 in schools, and claim I don't understand the "statistics"

I'm sorry I'm the one using "ad hominems"?

You have nothing of value to add to this discussion. That's why I see no value in discussing the sybstance of it with you. I have enaged quite happily and fruitfully with others here, on this issue.

And yet you continue to discuss the "sybstance" with me.

Tool.

 

[8den]

Well, even at the most basic level, there are people who believe that their kids would be more likely to be killed as a result of a ban on weapons that by the existing situation. I'm not saying the statistics bear this out necessarily, but that's an example of a humanitarian argument against the ban (assuming, one accepts the distinction between policitcal and humanitarian arguments, about which I'm not sure).

And 40% of Americans believe the rapture is going to be a real and actual thing. Just because someone believes that their child is going to be in more danger after a firearms ban doesn't mean they have to be pandered to.

 

[Athos]

For starts, you've repeatedly stated that the US has some "unique" significance of Firearms in their culture. You've just stated this OVER and OVER and OVER again, and when challenged to elaborate on this you've run away.



You've made no objective arguments about the "threat to freedom". You've ranted about Mao Stalin and Hitler, but you've yet to give a coherent argument about why the US needs weapons to prevent Tyranny. Is the state of democracy in the US uniquely perilous and at risk from the rise of fascism, that it's neighbours and other western democracies are not.



In both the above arguments, I've cited two Western Democracies (Australia & the UK) were buy backs were proposed and implemented successfully. You've claimed that the situation is different in the US but have consistently failed to explain how laws enacted successfully recently by other countries would not work in the UK.



Nope I've used ad hominem attacks, in addition to quoting statistics and other examples that support my argument.



How are comparsions with countries like the UK and Australia "facile". How are studies from Universities like Havard "dubious"? And how exactly can you not see a simple statistics like the size of gun homicides in the US dwarving the next ten nations, or how there have been 275 mass shooting this year and 45 in schools, and claim I don't understand the "statistics"

I'm sorry I'm the one using "ad hominems"?



And yet you continue to discuss the "sybstance" with me.

Tool.

We're just going round and round. I've tackled most if not all of these points earlier in the thread. As I say, there's no value in discussing this with you. Sorry.

 

[8den]

We're just going round and round. I've tackled most if not all of these points earlier in the thread. As I say, there's no value in discussing this with you. Sorry.

No you havent and pretending you have is making you look like a bigger idiot, which at this point is actually becoming moderately impressive.[/QUOTE]

 

[Athos]

No you havent and pretending you have is making you look like a bigger idiot, which at this point is actually becoming moderately impressive.

I'm not that wounded by the fact that you think me an idiot.

 

[8den]

I'm not that wounded by the fact that you think me an idiot.

For someone who was "done talking to me" well over a page ago you seem to be dragging out this ending longer the "return of the king"

Or do you have some pathological need to get the last word in?

 

[Athos]

For someone who was "done talking to me" well over a page ago you seem to be dragging out this ending longer the "return of the king"

Or do you have some pathological need to get the last word in?

The latter.

 

[8den]

The latter.

Well while we're here. Australia has 23 million people and bought back nearly a million guns. Thats one gun per 23 people. So care to explain why a gun buy back wouldn't work in the US?

 

[Athos]

Well while we're here. Australia has 23 million people and bought back nearly a million guns. Thats one gun per 23 people. So care to explain why a gun buy back wouldn't work in the US?

Again, you seek to reduce a complex issue to childlike simplicity. I'm sorry, but I really don't see much point in discussing this with you.

If it helps you to think that, that's fine by me. In any event, there's little point us discusing it, since you don't seem able to understand the issues.

Anyway, since you're no loger even making a pretence of discussing the issue, let's leave it. You think you know what you're talking about; I think you don't; let's agree to disagree on that.

... You have nothing of value to add to this discussion. That's why I see no value in discussing the substance of it with you.

We're just going round and round. I've tackled most if not all of these points earlier in the thread. As I say, there's no value in discussing this with you. Sorry.

 

[8den]

So you can't. Stop pretending theres anything of substance to your position.

 

[Athos]

So you can't. Stop pretending theres anything of substance to your position.

Please see post #410.

 

[Azrael]

For starts more than half of mass shooters use assault weapons and high capacity magazines so those are two things that should be made completely illegal straight off the bat. Theres no possible justification for private ownership for either of these things.

Furthermore the idea that guns prevent violence and are a successful deterrent is widely exaggerated. Most statistics used to defend this position are criticize for many false positives (for example people who claim they "heard" an intruder and yelled that they had a gun to scare off an intruder (who may or may not have even existed) is used as an example of someone using a firearm for self defence in many pro gun studies.

if there is a handgun in your house you are more likely to be the victim of gun violence, this is a fact
Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study Furthermore owning a handgun means you are more likely to commit suicide. There were nearly 40,000 suicides in the US in 2010, and in more than half of them guns were used. Guns & Suicide: The Hidden Toll | Magazine Features | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health Magazine Features

Once again in Australia after the buy back there was a significant drop in the suicide rate. Not just in the suicide rate using firearms but the overall suicide rate dropped. After the Gun buy back the firearms suicide rate dropped by massive 74% and there was no increase in non firearms related suicide to correlate with that.

Australia confiscated 650,000 guns. Murders and suicides plummeted.

This comes on top of a 50% decrease in firearm homicides.

So as I said to purchase a handgun you should have to go through the same hoops as I suggested my post above. Background check. Criminal background check. Medical check. Practical and Theoretical training. And a mandatory 30 day waiting period. With weapons held in a secure location that can be inspected by police.

Can you argue against any of the above?

Oh hell yes.

To kick off, this extraordinary caveat from the first study you linked exposes it as junk science:-

... it is possible that the association between a gun in the home and risk of a violent death may be related to other factors that we were unable to control for in our analysis. For instance, with homicide, the association may be related to certain neighborhood characteristics or the decedent’s previous involvement in other violent or illegal behaviors.

Violent criminals may be more likely to commit murder or die than law-abiding citizens. No kidding! Any data-pool that merges felons and military vets isn't worth the pixels it takes to display.

The same can be said of proposals to ban "assault weapons," which, as I've already noted, are functionally identical to other semi-auto weapons. It's a political term to describe scary looking guns. Actual assault rifles (select-fire weapons) have been heavily restricted since the 1930s, and thanks to the 1980s Hughes amendment, no new models can be registered with the ATF. They've been used in a grand total of one murders, ironically by a police officer.

So to be meaningful, gun control must ban all semi-auto rifles. I can see the argument for this, and they might not be protected by the Second Amendment, but since the vast majority of gun murders are committed by handguns, it would waste time, money and political capital better spent on campaigning to ban handguns.

The American suicide rate is lower than several developed countries with relatively stringent gun laws, like France, Finland and Iceland, and in any case, since we're sovereign over our own bodies, this is a poor argument for gun control, especially if the choice is between forcing people who want to die to live, and forcing people who want to live to die (National Crime Victimization Survey research, much criticized by criminologists for underestimating armed self-defense, put the number of defensive gun usages at over 80,000 per year, and that was back in the early '90s).

 

[MrsDoyle]

If it helps you to think that, that's fine by me. In any event, there's little point us discusing it, since you don't seem able to understand the issues.

sometimes/often we are drawn into overcomplicating "things" for a plethora of reasons and led to believing the overly complicated and highly embroiled 'nuances' that simply didn't seem to exist say when the 2nd amendment was drawn up for instance. Whereas actually the simple bald issues are these: the more mechanisms of death (guns and ammo) available, the more deaths from those mechanisms, simple logic; sometimes the simple answers are the best ones....I forget who said it before but all these debates over what will succeed or fail without anyone having the balls to try is just another form of divide and conquer

 

[Athos]

sometimes/often we are drawn into overcomplicating "things" for a plethora of reasons and led to believing the overly complicated and highly embroiled 'nuances' that simply didn't seem to exist say when the 2nd amendment was drawn up for instance. Whereas actually the simple bald issues are these: the more mechanisms of death (guns and ammo) available, the more deaths from those mechanisms, simple logic; sometimes the simple answers are the best ones....I forget who said it before but all these debates over what will succeed or fail without anyone having the balls to try is just another form of divide and conquer

Except the statistics shown it's not such a bald correlation. And that's without considering the issue of causation.

ETA: See Number of guns per capita by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia vs List of countries by firearm-related death rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[8den]

Oh hell yes.

To kick off, this extraordinary caveat from the first study you linked exposes it as junk science:-

Violent criminals may be more likely to commit murder or die than law-abiding citizens. No kidding! Any data-pool that merges felons and military vets isn't worth the pixels it takes to display.

Thats not "junk science" thats the researches saying that that there are difficult factors in establishing the picture. Are they supposed to dismiss any firearms death because a party as a criminal record no matter what it is? Because they are a "criminal" their death is meanless what crimes should disqualify someone from the study?

The same can be said of proposals to ban "assault weapons," which, as I've already noted, are functionally identical to other semi-auto weapons. It's a political term to describe scary looking guns. Actual assault rifles (select-fire weapons) have been heavily restricted since the 1930s, and thanks to the 1980s Hughes amendment, no new models can be registered with the ATF. They've been used in a grand total of one murders, ironically by a police officer.

But these weapons can be modified from their semi automatic mode. And Even in semi automatic mode a AR-15 (for example) has a large magazine, and can't be compared to a single action rifle used for deer hunting.

So to be meaningful, gun control must ban all semi-auto rifles. I can see the argument for this, and they might not be protected by the Second Amendment, but since the vast majority of gun murders are committed by handguns, it would waste time, money and political capital better spent on campaigning to ban handguns.

And again I'm arguing for handgun restrictions.

The American suicide rate is lower than several developed countries with relatively stringent gun laws, like France, Finland and Iceland, and in any case, since we're sovereign over our own bodies, this is a poor argument for gun control, especially if the choice is between forcing people who want to die to live, and forcing people who want to live to die (National Crime Victimization Survey research, much criticized by criminologists for underestimating armed self-defense, put the number of defensive gun usages at over 80,000 per year, and that was back in the early '90s).

I'm sorry are you really saying that if people want to die we should let them? No matter what the circumstances? There's a world of difference between someone facing a terminal illness and someone suffering from depression and has more ready access to a firearm than mental health facilities.

You yourself were arguing a few pages ago that there should be better mental health facilities in the US and are now stating "hey if someone wants to blow their brains out who are we to stop them"?

 

[8den]

Except the statistics shown it's not such a bald correlation. And that's without considering the issue of causation.

And once again you claim these statistics exist yet refuse to produce them.

 

[Idris2002]

The pro-gun lobby in the US make great claims that gun control is a Nazi policy. . .turns out that they're a bunch of big fat phonies:

- Google Scholar

That link should take you to a paper from the Fordham Law Review, which sets out what really happened, among other things.

This link is good as well:

Nazi gun control theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Ponyutd]

Another mass shooting hitting the news...Arizona.

"A deadly shooting occurred on Northern Arizona University’s Flagstaff campus early this morning, and the suspected shooter is in custody, according to a university spokesperson.

One person died and three others were wounded in the shooting, the spokesperson said.

It's unclear what sparked the shooting, which took place near Mountain View Hall, a dormitory which houses most of the campus' students involved in Greek organizations.

According to an emergency alert sent by the university, residents in Mountain View Hall were asked to stay indoors."

 

[J Ed]

Just another day in America, sadly

 

[High Voltage]

I like guns, but it's damn hard to argue against this link - the man makes a point

 

[likesfish]

Azrael fuck off with its not a real assault rifle if its only semi automatic BULLSHIT.
I was an infantry soldier guess what we used are assault rifles on semi automatic most of the time it gives you the chance to actually hit something

what else are you going to call an AR15 or an AKM a sporting carbine? military style semi automatic rifle is a mouthful.
scary black rifle or tan its the new black they tend to be ones spree killers go for a proper target rifle is too expensive and might hurt their sensitive shoulders plus the whole getting rounds into that pesky bullseye is tricky and takes practice while anyone can unload a magazine in the general direction of a target.

The US could just insist you get a FEDERAL licence for any military style weapon but that's a minefield as people would play fast and lose with the definition although semi automatic with a detachable magazine might work

 

[sim667]

Realistically you could never really place any more restrictions on firearms in the US now, they're too far gone. Something like 1 gun for every person in the US......... I use an American mac forum, and seeing what some of the posters on there have got stashed away it seems like they're prepared for a zombie apocalypse or for Russia to invade the US.

Of course their justification tends to be "crime", sometimes followed up by "commies"

 

[ViolentPanda]

Well while we're here. Australia has 23 million people and bought back nearly a million guns. Thats one gun per 23 people. So care to explain why a gun buy back wouldn't work in the US?

What, besides the issue of there being more than one gun per American, discounting "historic" black powder weapons?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Azrael fuck off with its not a real assault rifle if its only semi automatic BULLSHIT.
I was an infantry soldier guess what we used are assault rifles on semi automatic most of the time it gives you the chance to actually hit something

what else are you going to call an AR15 or an AKM a sporting carbine? military style semi automatic rifle is a mouthful.
scary black rifle or tan its the new black they tend to be ones spree killers go for a proper target rifle is too expensive and might hurt their sensitive shoulders plus the whole getting rounds into that pesky bullseye is tricky and takes practice while anyone can unload a magazine in the general direction of a target.

The US could just insist you get a FEDERAL licence for any military style weapon but that's a minefield as people would play fast and lose with the definition although semi automatic with a detachable magazine might work

Stripper clips would get round a fixed mag