Mass Shooting in Las Vegas

[zzz_pt]

Because you're not considering it to be the equivalent of say... the Nice attack in France. You lump it into its own category based on fairly arbitrary particulars of the event.

You know they're not the same, I'm sure. Before 9/11 and the increasing influx of people from muslim countries from war zones and the rise of ISIS there was no such things happening in Europe. Bomb attacks, truck attacks are virtually all, as I've said in a previous post, directly linked to an ideology contrary to western values. You don't see european citizens with western values simply doing that stuff. You saw Breivik in Norway but that's pretty rare. Mass shootings (not on the scale of this last one obviously) in the USA happen on almost a daily basis, unfortunately.

Not perfect, but not outdated either.

What would you change?

You're a bit confused on a few things, which is fine, but this isn't the right thread to address all of it. I'll try to do a quick lap around it, but if you want to go into this, it's for a different thread. Maybe the human rights thread. The super super short answer is that reckless driving is the only one of those things that should actually be a crime. The rest of it utilitarian nonsense.

Maybe. I confess it was a bit hard to understand your point and I might have gotten something wrong.
But is a simple thing as a parking ticket an utilitarian nonsense?

Any country which heavily restricts or outlaws firearms for the sake of reducing gun deaths is a utilitarian system which is immoral to the extent that they implement such a ban. That's my evidence.

I was speaking about more general terms. Also most European countries allow for their citizens to own a gun, just with very strict rules. You argued that the US didn't have an utilitarian system compared to most other countries but that's not true. Maybe in the single issue of gun ownership but even that is a stretch because in many other countries people can own guns they just don't bother because it's not that easy and there's no need for it, statistically speaking.

Yes, the ability to defend yourself with deadly force is just as much a principle as freedom of speech. Which is part of the reason that it's right next to freedom of speech.

How do you defend yourself? Do you carry your gun/s all the time? Wasn't there a study that found that people who carry guns are more likely to be killed? Or if you have them in a safe, how can you defend yourself?

Freedom of speech doesn't bring with it the danger of firearms. No one has ever killed another person for being free to express himself. It doesn't carry the necessity of owning an object independent from one's body that can be wrongly used, robbed, etc.

What does "most people" have to do with anything. "Most people" can be wrong... a lot... about a wide variety of subjects.

Agree.

Yup.

"Most people" again.

Yes, correct. Most people in the developed world don't need guns. I never met a single person who was of the contrary opinion.

It would be immoral to tell them they can't commit suicide. That's the use of force against an innocent person.

That's not the issue. I don't think it's moral or legal to block someone from taking their own life. The issue is that the likelihood of that happening is higher if people have easy access to a gun.

The victims are all gun owners (millions of people) having their rights infringed.

That seems like a stretch. Fist, a lot of them will never be in a situation where they could use their guns. Second, I don't think the concept of "victim" is correct because if that would happen, it wouldn't be a right any more, so they wouldn't have that right except in their own minds. Jim Jefferies once brought up the slavery example. Were the slave owners victims when the state ruled slavery as illegal? No, because slave owners didn't have that right any more.

I'm not a utilitarian.

I got that. ^^ I'm not one either but I don't rule out everything utilitarian to be nonsense.

Ok, how does that change if you're not allowed to have a gun?

Exactly, for me nothing. But if the guy also wasn't allowed to have one, he probably wouldn't kill me.

Only 2 of my 6 guns are for self defense (his and hers). The other 4 are collectible.

So I guess you both carry your guns and the others are inside a safe so no one can get them?

It's immoral because you're imposing force against someone who has committed no crime. You're telling them that they can't own a gun, and you have no authority to do so because they have committed no transgression. And banning guns is telling me that my actions right now are criminal (because I have them).

So again, why stop with guns and not going for bazookas, drones, full autos, (tanks no because they're a bit of a stretch taking into consideration the wording of the 2nd amdt.) etc? What's the difference, morally speaking? That was one of the questions I was more looking forward to see your answer.

I'm not arguing for a ban. I don't know what's the solution exactly. I'm pointing out a problem where I see it and compare the reality in Europe from the several countries where I've lived.

I don't see it as you being a criminal because you have guns. I'm sure that if some new laws were put in place to address the gun violence issue and you were required to make some kind of test or take a license in order to put yourself in accordance to it, you'd do it, right? Or any new law will also be dismissed as immoral and an infringement on your rights?

Since you dismiss any argument that brings the possibility of increasing the safety and well being of others as utilitarian nonsense, I can't say anything more.

So... Nevada allows citizens to own fully automatic guns... and yet that was not what was used. We discussed earlier that Ahnold the Governator owns a tank... legally.

That's just stupid imo.

Down I own the plane?

No. But you can still encounter someone who might want to kill you. Still you can't bring a gun or even a bottle of water from home. Point being, the 2nd amdt. Is meaningless when we talk about carrying the firearm where other people are/live. You can do it in your own home where you're alone or with your family and friends all the time. So you're letting a private company tell you your right is nonsense inside their plane/space for the sake of the greater good and the well being of everyone but you won't admit that if it comes from the government. Is that right?

You actually are the one who seem pretty settled on the notion that banning guns is the only solution. I'm interested in how we stop people from committing acts of violence against the masses... whether it be guns, trucks, bombs or what have you. You're myopically focused on this one particular aspect of a much larger issue that needs a completely different approach. I don't have all the answers, but I know that taking guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens is immoral.

For the 5th time, I'm not arguing for banning guns or even a "solution". I've admitted already I have no idea what the solution is. It seems to me there's a clear problem stemming from the fact that in the US people can get hold of a gun so easily and that it might be worth looking into the gun laws and the examples we have from other western, developed countries, were people live safer lives, in general.

Because many Americans are willing to defend their rights with force. They're not crazy lunatic criminals for doing so.

How exactly do you imagine that? I'm generally curious.

 

[Todo Em Lixo]

So what you are essentially saying is that illegally modified rifles need to be banned even further?

Nice try.

Illegally or not, the base rifle unmodified could use a well deserved ban.

 

[Famine]

Yeah, no offense but I wouldn't have you near my family.

I would. And did. And he's not only a parent to his children but a godparent (or the atheist equivalent) to mine.

But neither of these things are relevant, and if you have a solid, objective argument you wouldn't need to fall back on the textual equivalent of pulling a face, sticking your tongue out and yelling "I don't like you".

 

[TetsuKobura]

If we are supposed to have passed something on an issue like guns by now, then can we all agree that if we're going to pass something on background checks, we should get something in return, like Kate's Law? I know the shooter wasn't an illegal, but something like that should've also been passed long ago.

 

[Danoff]

You know they're not the same, I'm sure. Before 9/11 and the increasing influx of people from muslim countries from war zones and the rise of ISIS there was no such things happening in Europe. Bomb attacks, truck attacks are virtually all, as I've said in a previous post, directly linked to an ideology contrary to western values. You don't see european citizens with western values simply doing that stuff. You saw Breivik in Norway but that's pretty rare. Mass shootings (not on the scale of this last one obviously) in the USA happen on almost a daily basis, unfortunately.

How many times do i have to post Timothy McVeigh in this thread for people to notice? No, they're not different. Whether you're attacking people for their values, or religion, or whatever other wackjob notion you come up with, it's indiscriminate violence against innocent people. All of it, it's all one problem. You cannot discount the mass killings of 9/11 as being irrelevant to this event just because the killer used a gun or didn't shout Allah Akbar.

What would you change?

I'd take out the "militia" clause, it has been confusing people

But is a simple thing as a parking ticket an utilitarian nonsense?

No, that's you breaking your agreement for entering/using property that you do not own.

I was speaking about more general terms. Also most European countries allow for their citizens to own a gun, just with very strict rules. You argued that the US didn't have an utilitarian system compared to most other countries but that's not true.

I argued that the Bill of Rights is not utilitarian.

How do you defend yourself? Do you carry your gun/s all the time? Wasn't there a study that found that people who carry guns are more likely to be killed? Or if you have them in a safe, how can you defend yourself?

I can open my safe? I don't see that a study which finds a statistical correlation between people that feel the need to carry and their being killed as being particularly convincing of anything. But regardless, it's utilitarian reasoning. It's up to the individual to make that assessment.

Freedom of speech doesn't bring with it the danger of firearms.

Utilitarian.

Yes, correct. Most people in the developed world don't need guns. I never met a single person who was of the contrary opinion.

Hello. I'm Danoff.

The issue is that the likelihood of that happening is higher if people have easy access to a gun.

Utilitarian.

That seems like a stretch. Fist, a lot of them will never be in a situation where they could use their guns. Second, I don't think the concept of "victim" is correct because if that would happen, it wouldn't be a right any more, so they wouldn't have that right except in their own minds. Jim Jefferies once brought up the slavery example. Were the slave owners victims when the state ruled slavery as illegal? No, because slave owners didn't have that right any more.

That's not how rights work. Slave owners never had that right. They were legally allowed to own slaves in violation of human rights.

Exactly, for me nothing. But if the guy also wasn't allowed to have one, he probably wouldn't kill me.

Unless he did something he wasn't allowed to do. Or maybe just because he's bigger than you and has a knife.

So I guess you both carry your guns and the others are inside a safe so no one can get them?

I don't carry. Not that I see how that matters.

So again, why stop with guns and not going for bazookas, drones, full autos, (tanks no because they're a bit of a stretch taking into consideration the wording of the 2nd amdt.) etc? What's the difference, morally speaking? That was one of the questions I was more looking forward to see your answer.

Tanks can be legally owned. Ahnold has one. Automatic weapons can be legally owned in Nevada, and it did not contribute in any way to this event. Semi-automatic weapons can be legally owned in all states. I have to admit, I don't know all of the rules on explosives.

Do I think tanks should be illegal? No. Do I think automatic weapons should be illegal? No. Do I think semi-automatic weapons should be illegal? No. I own 3? Maybe 4 depending on how you classify that. Do I think bazookas should be illegal? No. Tanks aren't even illegal, and they're far more destructive.

I don't see it as you being a criminal because you have guns.

I would be overnight if it became illegal to own them.

I'm sure that if some new laws were put in place to address the gun violence issue and you were required to make some kind of test or take a license in order to put yourself in accordance to it, you'd do it, right?

That would be legal gun ownership, not a ban. Yes I have obtained a handgun license in CA.

No. But you can still encounter someone who might want to kill you. Still you can't bring a gun or even a bottle of water from home. Point being, the 2nd amdt. Is meaningless when we talk about carrying the firearm where other people are/live.

My right to own a gun does not confer the right to take that gun onto someone else's private property. I agree to their terms when I use their property.

You can do it in your own home where you're alone or with your family and friends all the time. So you're letting a private company tell you your right is nonsense inside their plane/space for the sake of the greater good and the well being of everyone but you won't admit that if it comes from the government. Is that right?

There's a big difference between a private organization telling me what I'm allowed to do on their property, and the government telling me what I'm allowed to do on mine.

How exactly do you imagine that? I'm generally curious.

I'm not sure what you mean. There are many gun owners who would not give up their guns. If their guns are registered, police may try to seize them, and they may be met with armed resistance.

 

[hejustsits]

I would. And did. And he's not only a parent to his children but a godparent (or the atheist equivalent) to mine.

But neither of these things are relevant, and if you have a solid, objective argument you wouldn't need to fall back on the textual equivalent of pulling a face, sticking your tongue out and yelling "I don't like you".

I wouldn't have him near my family as I wouldn't have anyone near them who has a sufficiently militaristic mentality, or equally concerningly, sufficient enthusiasm for guns, that they feel the need to own more than six of them. As someone who has lost family members in armed conflicts in developing nations, developed nations such as the USA and the UK offer a sanctuary, or at least the opportunity for sanctuary from firearms, so it's certainly not out of immaturity that I say that people who either glorify them or believe in their necessity in countries such as these are people I wouldn't like near my family.

You mentioned the Catalonian elections as an instance in which an armed civilian population would have lessened the likelihood of police repression, but as far as I'm concerned, people got hurt and there were terrible scenes, but no lives were lost, and talks are ongoing.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Illegally or not, the base rifle unmodified could use a well deserved ban.

As I have stated in my first post in this thread, we DID try that with the Brady Bill from 1998-2014, and it failed miserably. All it succeeded in doing was militarizing the police, which for those supporters of Black Lives Matter, should be looking at as the root cause of their issues.

Not once did I see you source anything that is worth its merit in the 4+ pages that I have seen you take this argument, but I will humor you for a bit as I dissect the study that you have graciously provided.

Okay, there is this little matter that slipped out in the article:

The authors of each of the 130 studies could have also had affiliations and personal interests that might have biased their results, Santaella-Tenorio and the team admit (who, for the record, declared no conflicts of interest in their review).

But they believe that their analysis provides compelling evidence that gun control really does save lives.

That is a pretty big conflict of interest right there, wouldn't you agree?

Further more, there is a Supreme Court case that universally guarantees our right to own a gun. You might have heard of DC v Hiller.

 

[Rage Racer]

Hmm... Never knew about bump stocks. I keep learning someting new.

Spoiler: for those who don't know

A stock that allows to aim when using "bump fire" method that enables a semi-auto rifle to shoot like a full-auto.

I wonder if they're legal in Russia, where full-autos are banned from civilian use, too. But they probably wouldn't be that effective, because magazines with over 10 rounds are banned, too.

In the UK any private tank over five tons has to have rubber tracks for the road, in fact it's recommended for under five tons too. For obvious reasons.

Five tons? But that's hardly a tank already. That would rather be classified as a recon vehicle than a tank. Even FV107 Scimitar weighs over 7 tonnes
(by "tank", I usually imagine an MBT, something like Chieftain or T-72).

 

[Obelisk]

clips

Magazine. A clip is what you use to load into a magazine.

 

[Danoff]

I wouldn't have him near my family as I wouldn't have anyone near them who has a sufficiently militaristic mentality, or equally concerningly, sufficient enthusiasm for guns, that they feel the need to own more than six of them. As someone who has lost family members in armed conflicts in developing nations, developed nations such as the USA and the UK offer a sanctuary, or at least the opportunity for sanctuary from firearms, so it's certainly not out of immaturity that I say that people who either glorify them or believe in their necessity in countries such as these are people I wouldn't like near my family.

I'd like you to find some evidence of me having a militaristic mentality or actually even an enthusiasm for guns. Not that I'd be a dangerous person simply for having an enthusiasm for guns, but I'm not particularly enthusiastic about them.

 

[Rage Racer]

Magazine. A clip is what you use to load into a magazine.

Yes. My bad. (Just my confusion of weapon terms in English...)

 

[McLaren]

On the topic of multiple guns, it’s funny how some can never comprehend that is a hobby like anything else for people. Not all guns go “Pew pew” and that’s it. It’s fun to try out different weapons and see how they perform. A buddy of mine has around 5-6 ARs and when I asked why, he responded that he had them set up differently bc he didn’t want to keep just switching up 1 for a new configuration.

Another friend has 2 AKs, an AR, tactical looking shotgun & 3 pistols. Loves to go shooting once a month and always keeps his guns locked up. He also had a Desert Eagle that he sold bc as fun as it was to shoot, it was also the most pointless weapon to have; completely impractical for self defense and a pain to upkeep.

Funny enough, he is all for stricter gun laws as well and fears the day he may need to use his pistol to protect him or his family bc of the massive legal outcome proving he had no choice. Banning though, is where he doesn’t feel the need to be punished for the actions of others; he’s done everything by the book as a gun owner.

I don't know, just google hunting rifle. I'm guess most single bolt action.,,

Yes so lets base the law of that improbable event that militarized government attack and terrorize innocent civilians. In event of that happening I'm think not one or two or even ten assault rifles not gonna help you.

Improbable? @Famine just pointed out that this scenario just happened with a police force attacking a polling station.

 

[Famine]

I wouldn't have him near my family as I wouldn't have anyone near them who has a sufficiently militaristic mentality, or equally concerningly, sufficient enthusiasm for guns, that they feel the need to own more than six of them. As someone who has lost family members in armed conflicts in developing nations, developed nations such as the USA and the UK offer a sanctuary, or at least the opportunity for sanctuary from firearms, so it's certainly not out of immaturity that I say that people who either glorify them or believe in their necessity in countries such as these are people I wouldn't like near my family.

And these are all appeals to emotion, not solid, objective arguments; there's nothing rational in there at all. It just doesn't belong in a sensible discussion - discuss the points, not the personal qualities of the people making them.

For fun, you could chuck in the word "cars" instead of guns/firearms (and 'petrolhead mentality', 'speed-related crashes' etc.) and see how much you still agree with it. That's pretty much BRAKE's mission statement right there.

 

[Todo Em Lixo]

As I have stated in my first post in this thread, we DID try that with the Brady Bill from 1998-2014, and it failed miserably. All it succeeded in doing was militarizing the police, which for those supporters of Black Lives Matter, should be looking at as the root cause of their issues.

Not once did I see you source anything that is worth its merit in the 4+ pages that I have seen you take this argument, but I will humor you for a bit as I dissect the study that you have graciously provided.

Okay, there is this little matter that slipped out in the article:



That is a pretty big conflict of interest right there, wouldn't you agree?

Further more, there is a Supreme Court case that universally guarantees our right to own a gun. You might have heard of DC v Hiller.

That is ALWAYS the case when doing scientific study, notice the words "could have". These issues are also analyzed and reflected at the end of each study.
And if that Brady Bill was in place today; How do Stephen Paddock buy 10 AR-15 and more semi-auto rifles and kill 50+ people inside Las Vegas?
Regarding the statistic to change, more time could be needed like I'm already say.

 

[Danoff]

I wouldn't have him near my family as I wouldn't have anyone near them who has a sufficiently militaristic mentality, or equally concerningly, sufficient enthusiasm for guns, that they feel the need to own more than six of them. As someone who has lost family members in armed conflicts in developing nations, developed nations such as the USA and the UK offer a sanctuary, or at least the opportunity for sanctuary from firearms, so it's certainly not out of immaturity that I say that people who either glorify them or believe in their necessity in countries such as these are people I wouldn't like near my family.

As an aside, I've been vetted by the US government for any concerns regarding personality at least 4 times, and I've passed every background check they've thrown at me, some of them were extensive, all of them routine, never any concerns. My wife and I have also been evaluated extensively 3 times by a social worker, including 1 on 1 private interviews with my children, and more background checks with various government agencies, all to make sure that our home is suitable for placement of an adoptive child. Each time we were evaluated they found no concerns whatsoever. We showed the social worker where we keep our guns, and how.

I'm also an Eagle Scout and have been awarded an exception achievement medal (non-military) by the US government, and more which I can't tell you.

 

[Todo Em Lixo]

On the topic of multiple guns, it’s funny how some can never comprehend that is a hobby like anything else for people. Not all guns go “Pew pew” and that’s it. It’s fun to try out different weapons and see how they perform. A buddy of mine has around 5-6 ARs and when I asked why, he responded that he had them set up differently bc he didn’t want to keep just switching up 1 for a new configuration.

Another friend has 2 AKs, an AR, tactical looking shotgun & 3 pistols. Loves to go shooting once a month and always keeps his guns locked up. He also had a Desert Eagle that he sold bc as fun as it was to shoot, it was also the most pointless weapon to have; completely impractical for self defense and a pain to upkeep.

Funny enough, he is all for stricter gun laws as well and fears the day he may need to use his pistol to protect him or his family bc of the massive legal outcome proving he had no choice. Banning though, is where he doesn’t feel the need to be punished for the actions of others; he’s done everything by the book as a gun owner.

Improbable? @Famine just pointed out that this scenario just happened with a police force attacking a polling station.

So you bring your assault rifle when going to vote? There was no deaths.
Weapon on both sides just only gonna make the fight more bloody.

 

[McLaren]

As an aside, I've been vetted by the US government for any concerns regarding personality at least 4 times, and I've passed every background check they've thrown at me, some of them were extensive. My wife and I have also been evaluated extensively 3 times by a social worker, including 1 on 1 private interviews with my children, and more background checks with various government agencies, all to make sure that our home is suitable for placement of an adoptive child. Each time we were evaluated they found no concerns whatsoever. We showed the social worker where we keep our guns, and how.

I'm also an Eagle Scout and have been awarded an exception achievement medal (non-military) by the US government, and more which I can't tell you.

No need to go into personal details to justify yourself Danoff. 👍

So you bring your assault rifle when going to vote? There was no deaths.
Weapon on both sides just only gonna make the fight more bloody.

That was Famine’s point; a military/police force is going to think twice attacking an armed society to avoid that very outcome as well.

Otherwise, they’re just going to storm in and subdue any one that resists with force bc they know the citizens can not defend themselves. There were no deaths thankfully, that doesn’t mean each scenario of an armed group attacking an unarmed group will result in same amount of zero deaths.

 

[Obelisk]

And if that Brady Bill was in place today;

This bill failed. It failed for 16 years straight. What makes you think it would magically work all of a sudden in 2016-2017?

 

[Sanji Himura]

That is ALWAYS the case when doing scientific study, notice the words "could have". These issues are also analyzed and reflected at the end of each study.

The issue that I bring up is that it wasn't disclosed in the final report. Going into a study with a preconceived conclusion is very much a conflict of interest, sir. By them not disclosing that the studies may be colored, it certainly brings a lot of doubt into this conversation, do you think?

And if that Brady Bill was in place today; How do Stephen Paddock buy 10 AR-15 and more semi-auto rifles and kill 50+ people inside Las Vegas?
Regarding the statistic to change, more time could be needed like I'm already say.

I have already pointed out the statistics that shown that it was a failure, but again, I'll just humor you.

0.6% of all Brady Bill background checks actually did its job. In other words, of the over 202 million background checks that were filed between 1998-2014, only 1.2 million were not able to purchase a gun (due to a prior felony conviction). And a Duke University study has shown that it had virtually NO EFFECT on gun violence in the US.

Which actually leads me to question your study on its face. As for your hypothetical, Stephen Paddock wasn't a prior felon, nor was he wanted by the FBI, so he could legally purchase AR-15's until the day is long. Why? Because AR-15's are semi-autos, not fully automatic sir.

 

[Todo Em Lixo]

This bill failed. It failed for 16 years straight. What makes you think it would magically work all of a sudden in 2016-2017?

So analyze why it fail and make it better.

 

[Sanji Himura]

So analyze why it fail and make it better.

Oh, there is a little thing called the 2nd amendment that guarantees our right to own a gun. If I was living in any other country, or if the shooting happened in any other country, then you may have a point.

 

[hoof hearted]

I feeld sad for the victims. And the guy was dead. Does everyone knows why he raged over these innocent people?

 

[Sanji Himura]

I feeld sad for the victims. And the guy was dead. Does everyone knows why he raged over these innocent people?

No.

 

[ryzno]

This thread seems to be going around in circles...
My brain is done.

 

[Com Fox]

Your question was regarding mass shootings, so I'm give you the answer. And yes you are right, every country is different but the main problem still stands. And how is anyone ever gonna have "evidence" that a gun ban doesn't work if you can only say "yes but that country is different"?

That's why using other countries is a flawed argument. You need to make sure it works for that country.

Gun control works for Australia but it doesn't mean it works for other countries as not 2 countries are the same.

 

[eran0004]

Oh, there is a little thing called the 2nd amendment that guarantees our right to own a gun. If I was living in any other country, or if the shooting happened in any other country, then you may have a point.

The second amendment isn't written in stone. It can be changed by adding a new amendment. All you need is the political will to do so.

 

[Todo Em Lixo]

The issue that I bring up is that it wasn't disclosed in the final report. Going into a study with a preconceived conclusion is very much a conflict of interest, sir. By them not disclosing that the studies may be colored, it certainly brings a lot of doubt into this conversation, do you think?


I have already pointed out the statistics that shown that it was a failure, but again, I'll just humor you.

0.6% of all Brady Bill background checks actually did its job. In other words, of the over 202 million background checks that were filed between 1998-2014, only 1.2 million were not able to purchase a gun (due to a prior felony conviction). And a Duke University study has shown that it had virtually NO EFFECT on gun violence in the US.

Which actually leads me to question your study on its face. As for your hypothetical, Stephen Paddock wasn't a prior felon, nor was he wanted by the FBI, so he could legally purchase AR-15's until the day is long. Why? Because AR-15's are semi-autos, not fully automatic sir.

So what do that say about this Brady Bill? Brady Bill make it harder to buy semi-automatic weapons or not? If some man can go and buy 10 AR-15 with this Bill in place then what use does it do? Obviously the fault is with the bill itself.

Regarding the final report it is very much "disclosed" in the final report. Go read it. qoute from the report: "One potential problem of studies on firearms laws is the way in which the author's affiliations and personal interests bias study results and influence what is to be published. This can be particularly problematic when researchers are funded by for-or-against firearms groups and when these organizations have control of what material is publishable and what is not, and also when researchers purposely select to present only the results that match their interests. In this review, we have avoided making statements on sources of funding or on affiliations of authors, although we acknowledge that this is an important problem that may distort the general information that could be obtained from this review, and that may contribute to publication bias."
And lika I'm already say; This ALWAYS gonna be the case.

 

[Todo Em Lixo]

That's why using other countries is a flawed argument. You need to make sure it works for that country.

Gun control works for Australia but it doesn't mean it works for other countries as not 2 countries are the same.

Some things are universal. No two countries are the same but hints of what works and not can easily be learned, tweaked and implemented in others.

 

[Danoff]

The second amendment isn't written in stone. It can be changed by adding a new amendment. All you need is the political will to do so.

It's an example of a human right that exists independent of the constitution or law. So if the 2nd amendment were deleted, our right to defend ourselves would not suddenly vanish, it would be infringed by a government that undermines its legitimacy by refusing to recognize it.

 

[zzz_pt]

@Danoff

People die from every sort of reasons everyday. Will you address cancer related deaths with diabetes related ones? No. Because they're not the same.

You can bring Timothy McVeigh as many times as you want to the thread, that doesn't mean that every senseless act of violence and indiscriminate killing is the same, has the same roots and will be addressed and solved with the same solution. And again, pretty much everyday in the US there's a mass shooting. That's a lot.

So many people die annually from gunfire in the US that the death toll between 1968 and 2011 eclipses all wars ever fought by the country. According to research by Politifact, there were about 1.4 million firearm deaths in that period, compared with 1.2 million US deaths in every conflict from the War of Independence to Iraq.

I have the impression that when looking at these numbers a person with your opinion would think something like "Well, if Canada, Australia and the UK had the same number of guns per capita they would have similar or worse results. Guns are not the problem and it's my right to own a gun. For the amount of firearms we have in the USA, that's pretty good though".

I look at this and think if the USA had the same number of guns per capita as Canada, Australia and the UK, a lot of innocent lives would be spared. But who cares about other people's lives right? Our own life is what matters independently of how our choices impact others. Nonsense in your own words. After all pretty much every other western country is immoral because they have strict gun laws and want to see less people being killed.

___________

So you're a libertarian who doesn't give an inch to anything / anyone who would try to address a problem from the point of view of the society's well being instead of your individual opinion. I deliberately didn't use the word "rights" because those are as arbitrary as any other rights and are not an absolute basis for anyone to set in stone their world view and refuse anything else that might be better. My opinion of course... as subjective as any other. For example on the issue of drugs, I think people should be able to use them legally (I'm not sure about heroine only for specific reasons that don't make sense bringing up now) but doing drugs doesn't kill other people or have the potential to kill other people so easily. Owning tanks, bazookas, etc, etc... just imagine the USA if everyone could buy those legally as they can buy a simple pistol.

I found radical thought pretty frustrating tbh. I don't think there are absolute rights that work for the best of all individuals all the time and imo, there might be some value in looking at things from a different point of view.

What would you say if a new law would say something along the lines of "those who own guns can keep them in their own property but they will have to be regulated and inspected every year and for those who want to acquire a firearm, new legislation will be put in place in order to make the whole process safer for everyone and avoid the current bloodshed we see on our country"? You wouldn't be a criminal but you wouldn't be able to use your firearms outside your property either. Then, the government wouldn't be telling you you can't have guns in your own property.

 

[Com Fox]

Some things are universal. No two countries are the same but hints of what works and not can easily be learned, tweaked and implemented in others.

Comparing 2 countries thare have different culture in terms of guns, placement in politics as well as completely different types of locations isn't universal.

Then you have countries that are just fine without gun control, Switzerland goes usually fine with a lack of gun control. Just to show how gun control doesn't for all countries.