Mass Shooting in Las Vegas

[eran0004]

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.

Of course it doesn't. What would change is the right to keep and bear arms.

 

[Danoff]

Of course it doesn't. What would change is the right to keep and bear arms.

Our rights don't come from the constitution. They're codified in the constitution, sometimes correctly, sometimes incorrectly. For example, when the constitution was amended to prohibit alcohol, people didn't suddenly lose the right to drink. Their government just briefly refused to recognize their right to drink, and incarcerated people immorally for doing so.

 

[Todo Em Lixo]

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.

That not what I'm mean when I'm say universal. Look second part of the post
Also Switzerland lacks about of mass shootings so there is not the same need for concern as in USA.

 

[Danoff]

@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.

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.

I'm not a utilitarian. Yes, it is immoral to pass laws which infringe people's rights in the hope of saving lives.

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.

They can. I don't have to imagine it. US citizens can buy those things just as legally as they can buy a simple pistol. Bazookas included.

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.

This is really for the human rights thread, where I have demonstrated exactly where objective rights come from.

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.

Banning guns from public property is... probably ok, but mostly because public property poses its own problems. The government also cannot tell someone else that they have to ban my guns on that person's property.

 

[Com Fox]

Those hints? That's why I threw in Switzerland in the argument.

You can't get hints on clues from other countries for a clear answer as countries clearly contradict each other.

This is the norm, since countries have their own people.

 

[Todo Em Lixo]

Those hints? That's why I threw in Switzerland in the argument.

You can't get hints on clues from other countries for a clear answer as countries clearly contradict each other.

This is the norm, since countries have their own people.

Switzerland and Usa may contradict. That doesn't make every country contradict. So Yes; you can get hints, There are massive examples in human history where one country look to another of what works and what not works.

 

[Com Fox]

Switzerland and Usa may contradict. That doesn't make every country contradict. So Yes; you can get hints, There are massive examples in human history where one country look to another of what works and what not works.

Yes but I don't think gun control is going to be one of those things.

I guess this the agree to disagree part then

 

[eran0004]

Our rights don't come from the constitution. They're codified in the constitution, sometimes correctly, sometimes incorrectly. For example, when the constitution was amended to prohibit alcohol, people didn't suddenly lose the right to drink. Their government just briefly refused to recognize their right to drink, and incarcerated people immorally for doing so.

It doesn't matter where the rights come from. They are regulated in the constitution, so to change them you need to make amendments to it. What rights you should and shouldn't have is a different discussion.

 

[Exorcet]

...and I'd like to think we can also all agree that if people want to hurt other people, they will find a way.

Agreed.

How to avoid non gun death is a complete different story,

If the likelihood of being killed goes down while a greater percentage of deaths comes from gun violence, wouldn't that be an improvement? Also in opposite case, where gun deaths drop but the likelihood of death increases, isn't that bad? I don't think it makes sense to focus so tightly on one category. I guess if your position is that gun violence be replaced by any other kind of violence your stance makes sense, but that doesn't fit with evidence, and looking just at gun violence won't let you see that.

Taking people's property if it's made for killing is justifiable in my opinion. You can't eliminate intent, but you can limit the access for the intent to happen.

You can't justify taking people property when they've not done anything to harm you. What allows you to do this?

Do you think that you can influence intent at all? What if a murderer kills due to poor mental health? Would detecting and fixing this problem not do at least as good a job as removing guns, on top of other benefits? I think this is a problem like any other. Find the root and fix it, and do this without forcing innocent people to give up their rights.

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.

I know this was asked to Danoff, but my own take on a couple of points:

Society is made of individuals. The only way to do better for society is to work on the individual level. No one cares about society, they only care about their own desires (this applies to philanthropy as well). The society argument comes about when people can join a majority or large group because this tends to give them influence, even though it shouldn't.

You are right to say that legal rights are arbitrary. This objective fact is the foundation of objective human rights. No authority can make up objective rules. This means that the government can't justify a gun ban. People can however come together and agree on a set rules and live by them. This is what government should be, but it's not. If individuals want to get together and form a gun (or anything, guns only being brought up because of the topic of discussion) free society, they have every right to. They same goes for a society with free access to guns.

The argument against the gun ban isn't actually about guns at its heart and it's not about ignoring healthy society. It's really about promoting healthy society (individuals) by extending protection to everyone instead letting some groups trample over others. If people don't like where they live, they should free to seek out a better life. That's a better solution than just forcing those elements of society that disagree to give up their lives.

 

[Todo Em Lixo]

Agreed.


If the likelihood of being killed goes down while a greater percentage of deaths comes from gun violence, wouldn't that be an improvement? Also in opposite case, where gun deaths drop but the likelihood of death increases, isn't that bad? I don't think it makes sense to focus so tightly on one category. I guess if your position is that gun violence be replaced by any other kind of violence your stance makes sense, but that doesn't fit with evidence, and looking just at gun violence won't let you see that.




You can't justify taking people property when they've not done anything to harm you. What allows you to do this?

Do you think that you can influence intent at all? What if a murderer kills due to poor mental health? Would detecting and fixing this problem not do at least as good a job as removing guns, on top of other benefits? I think this is a problem like any other. Find the root and fix it, and do this without forcing innocent people to give up their rights.



I know this was asked to Danoff, but my own take on a couple of points:

Society is made of individuals. The only way to do better for society is to work on the individual level. No one cares about society, they only care about their own desires (this applies to philanthropy as well). The society argument comes about when people can join a majority or large group because this tends to give them influence, even though it shouldn't.

You are right to say that legal rights are arbitrary. This objective fact is the foundation of objective human rights. No authority can make up objective rules. This means that the government can't justify a gun ban. People can however come together and agree on a set rules and live by them. This is what government should be, but it's not. If individuals want to get together and form a gun (or anything, guns only being brought up because of the topic of discussion) free society, they have every right to. They same goes for a society with free access to guns.

The argument against the gun ban isn't actually about guns at its heart and it's not about ignoring healthy society. It's really about promoting healthy society (individuals) by extending protection to everyone instead letting some groups trample over others. If people don't like where they live, they should free to seek out a better life. That's a better solution than just forcing those elements of society that disagree to give up their lives.

It would be improvement if less people are killed. But this is not about how to reduce homicide rate. This is about Las Vegas killer, and his "rights" just contributed to kill 50+ people and injured hundreds.

 

[MustangRyan]

...and I'd like to think we can also all agree that if people want to hurt other people, they will find a way.

The crazy part is that if this guy was really wanting to kill more people, he could have easily loaded up barrels full of gasoline into the airplane he owned and flown it into the middle of the crowd during the concert. He could have flown drones with TNT taped to them into the crowd, and set them off.

Either method would have easily killed more than 60 people, given the high concentration of people located inside the concert's perimeter.

This guy definitely had the means to kill more people, if he really wanted to do so. Why he chose to use guns, we will probably never know unless he left behind a manifesto.

 

[Exorcet]

It would be improvement if less people are killed. But this is not about how to reduce homicide rate. This is about Las Vegas killer, and his "rights" just contributed to kill 50+ people and injured hundreds.

So if he could not get a gun, the chance of anyone dying would be 0?

In addition to that, do we know enough about him to say that as long as he had a gun, people would die?

 

[Todo Em Lixo]

So if he could not get a gun, the chance of anyone dying would be 0?

In addition to that, do we know enough about him to say that as long as he had a gun, people would die?

Not zero of course, maybe he plan something else we will never know.

 

[Sage Ages]

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

Never liked the idea of these being legal. Just seems like loophole abuse.

 

[MustangRyan]

Not zero of course, maybe he plan something else we will never know.

I feel pretty confident in saying that if a guy this hell bent on killing people wanted to, he would find a way to do it, with or without legal access to guns.

 

[Obelisk]

I feel pretty confident in saying that if a guy this hell bent on killing people wanted to, he would find a way to do it, with or without legal access to guns.

I have to QFT this one.

 

[Danoff]

The crazy part is that if this guy was really wanting to kill more people, he could have easily loaded up barrels full of gasoline into the airplane he owned and flown it into the middle of the crowd during the concert. He could have flown drones with TNT taped to them into the crowd, and set them off.

The light aircraft thing is really scary and really possible, and I know a few guys who fly them and it's a fantastic hobby of course. If it's a super light aircraft it might be tough to load much gas in it. The really small ones don't have a ton of cargo space. I don't know what kind he had, but if it had room for a decent number of passengers or cargo you are absolutely right that he could have done more damage that way. My big concern is that someone is going to send one of these into a football stadium.

 

[Famine]

If you look at that chart and think "the gun part in the USA is massive, so guns are the problem", you aren't looking at the problem. You're looking at a scapegoat.
If you look at that chart and think "even without the gun part, the USA's homicide rate is considerably above the other nations", you're looking at the problem. The problem is people are willing to kill other people at a higher rate in the USA than in these other three countries that form the bulk of the Anglophonic world, regardless of the tool used.

If you look at that chart and think "hang on a minute, what's a 'homicide'? That literally just means 'person-killing'. Is this limited to premeditated murder or does it include crimes of passion, 'honour' killings, suicide, accidental death, manslaughter? What about 'lawful killings', which are homicides but not crimes, such as those where police kill someone and are found to have acted lawfully? Is it the same statistics for all the nations there? Where did the statistics come from in each case?", then you're probably a scientist.

 

[zzz_pt]

If you look at that chart and think "the gun part in the USA is massive, so guns are the problem", you aren't looking at the problem. You're looking at a scapegoat.
If you look at that chart and think "even without the gun part, the USA's homicide rate is considerably above the other nations", you're looking at the problem. The problem is people are willing to kill other people at a higher rate in the USA than in these other three countries that form the bulk of the Anglophonic world, regardless of the tool used.

If you look at that chart and think "hang on a minute, what's a 'homicide'? That literally just means 'person-killing'. Is this limited to premeditated murder or does it include crimes of passion, 'honour' killings, suicide, accidental death, manslaughter? What about 'lawful killings', which are homicides but not crimes, such as those where police kill someone and are found to have acted lawfully? Is it the same statistics for all the nations there? Where did the statistics come from in each case?", then you're probably a scientist.

Data from pew reaserch data from 2010 (although the numbers don't vary that much):

U.S. Firearm Deaths
In 2010, there were 3.6 gun homicides per 100,000 people

Notes on Terminology
“Homicides,” which come from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data, are fatal injuries inflicted by another person with intent to injure or kill. Deaths due to legal intervention or operations of war are excluded. Justifiable homicide is not identified.


I think this point makes sense though:

The problem is people are willing to kill other people at a higher rate in the USA than in these other three countries that form the bulk of the Anglophonic world, regardless of the tool used.

One would think that, if this is the case, having more guns around is not the best idea.

 

[TetsuKobura]

Again, because it hasn't been said enough I guess, criminals don't care about gun laws or any weapon laws in general. They will do whatever it takes to get what they want, no matter how "deadly" the weapon. Banning guns does nothing but hurt those law abiding citizens who like collecting guns or going to ranges. Banning certain items like a bumpfire stock are okay but they're borderline when it comes to the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Sanji Himura]

An act of Heroism: A Marine used a stolen truck to personally save 30 wounded.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-drives-nearly-30-victims-hospital/726942001/

This man deserves a medal.

 

[zzz_pt]

Again, because it hasn't been said enough I guess, criminals don't care about gun laws or any weapon laws in general.

Yes this comes around a lot. Any evidence to support that idea? That guns have absolutely no impact on where someone will commit a crime or not? Is there any study made on that topic that confirms that criminals will do exactly the same if they have no guns but a baseball bat, a hammer, a bow and arrow, etc?

Of course ignoring the fact that a lot of those criminals were law-abiding citizens until they used their guns for something other than collecting, hunting or range shooting.

 

[TetsuKobura]

Yes this comes around a lot. Any evidence to support that idea? That guns have absolutely no impact on where someone will commit a crime or not? Is there any study made on that topic that confirms that criminals will do exactly the same if they have no guns but a baseball bat, a hammer, a bow and arrow, etc?

Of course ignoring the fact that a lot of those criminals were law-abiding citizens until they used their guns for something other than collecting, hunting or range shooting.

I mean you could look at all the attacks that are happening in your continent that aren't gun related.

 

[zzz_pt]

I mean you could look at all the attacks that are happening in your continent that aren't gun related.

Over 10.000 people die in the USA victims of homicide every year ("Deaths due to legal intervention or operations of war are excluded. Justifiable homicide is not identified"). In 2015, around 1000 people died of homicides in the EU (740 + million citizens) source.

Analysis of the WHO data indicates that between 2000 and 2012, European countries registered more than 12,000 homicides committed using a firearm. From these figures we can estimate the total number of gun homicides in this period to be approximately 15,000 in Europe and 13,200 within the EU (see table 15 in Annex). This comes down to 1,500 gun homicides per year in Europe and 1,000 gun homicides per year within the EU.

I guess you can put all the terrorist attacks (I argue those have a different root cause all together) + the homicide numbers of the last 7/8 years in the same plate and you get nowhere near the numbers of people who die in the USA every year victims of gun violence. Keep in mind Europe has more than double the people from the USA and to get the same numbers of homicides it needs 10x more time and for suicides 4x more time (years).

Pointing to a second problem doesn't make the first one disappear.


____

From the same source:

It is sometimes argued that, when no firearm is available, another instrument will be used for the suicide or the homicide (‘substitution’). This would mean that in countries where firearm possession rates are lower, there are more homicides and suicides using instruments other than firearms. However, statistical analyses show this is not the case.

 

[Lain]

If you look at that chart and think "the gun part in the USA is massive, so guns are the problem", you aren't looking at the problem. You're looking at a scapegoat.
If you look at that chart and think "even without the gun part, the USA's homicide rate is considerably above the other nations", you're looking at the problem. The problem is people are willing to kill other people at a higher rate in the USA than in these other three countries that form the bulk of the Anglophonic world, regardless of the tool used.

If you look at that chart and think "hang on a minute, what's a 'homicide'? That literally just means 'person-killing'. Is this limited to premeditated murder or does it include crimes of passion, 'honour' killings, suicide, accidental death, manslaughter? What about 'lawful killings', which are homicides but not crimes, such as those where police kill someone and are found to have acted lawfully? Is it the same statistics for all the nations there? Where did the statistics come from in each case?", then you're probably a scientist.

Well, one could notice the dramatically increased % of homicide-by-gun in the US compared to those other nations, and reasonably come up with a hypothesis that the ease of gun access is contributing to our nation's overall higher homicide rate. Though obviously they couldn't be the sole factor, due to the increased non-gun homicides we also have.

The numbers aren't necessarily a measure of our "willingness to kill", just a measure of how much we kill. Perhaps the other countries have stricter gun/knife laws which affect the likelihood of people being able to kill in the spur of the moment... they could be just as willing to kill, but more likely to cool off before being able to.

But that'd still just be a hypothesis, and proving it would depend on all those scientisty bits you touched on. And realistically speaking, there might just be too many variables at play to draw any concrete conclusions.

 

[McLaren]

Yes this comes around a lot. Any evidence to support that idea?

You mean besides the fact that places that specifically do not allow guns (like the Orlando club or military bases), have still been attacked by a person with a gun?

That guns have absolutely no impact on where someone will commit a crime or not? Is there any study made on that topic that confirms that criminals will do exactly the same if they have no guns but a baseball bat, a hammer, a bow and arrow, etc?

Beyond the handgun, more homicides in 2014 were committed with bare hands than with a rifle, shotgun, or other weapon combined; 603 to 660. That's also more deaths by nothing but what god gave you over a blunt object as well.

Terrorists have resorted to using the every-day automobile now that they can barely get away with planting bombs.... A person in Japan killed 19 & wounded 26 people with a simple knife last year. Not only does Japan not allow guns to be owned by the public, but swords as well. This man still committed a mass attack.

Anyone with the intent on killing large groups does not need a gun & trying to ban them will not automatically deter them from the intent.

I guess you can put all the terrorist attacks (I argue those have a different root cause all together) + the homicide numbers of the last 7/8 years in the same plate and you get nowhere near the numbers of people who die in the USA every year victims of gun violence. Keep in mind Europe has more than double the people from the USA and to get the same numbers of homicides it needs 10x more time and for suicides 4x more time (years).

Pointing to a second problem doesn't make the first one disappear.

Comparing 1 continent to another doesn't prove your point, either. As shown by the CDC over a 10-year period of 1993-2003, gun homicides declined as more people with guns showed up.

The chart above was inspired by a similar one featured by Max Ehrenfreund in his recent Wonkblog post titled “We’ve had a massive decline in gun violence in the United States. Here’s why.” In contrast to the widely embraced narrative, perpetuated by liberal politicians and the media, that gun violence in America is getting worse all the time, the data reveal that the exact opposite is true. According to data retrieved from the Centers for Disease Control, there were 7 firearm-related homicides for every 100,000 Americans in 1993 (see light blue line in chart). By 2013 (most recent year available), the gun homicide rate had fallen by nearly 50% to only 3.6 homicides per 100,000 population.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ited-states-heres-why/?utm_term=.9129bc62ccba

 

[Snaeper]

When I first learned of bump-fire stocks I knew that nothing good would come of them.

They serve no purpose for sports shooting or hunting. They're all about some chuckle****s wasting money to pretend they have an automatic weapon and this incident was almost inevitable.

I completely support banning them from sale.

I also wish I knew why that guy brought 20+ guns to the room.

 

[Danoff]

Is there any study made on that topic that confirms that criminals will do exactly the same if they have no guns but a baseball bat, a hammer, a bow and arrow, etc?

Who said anything about disarming criminals? I thought we were talking about disarming law-abiding citizens.

 

[McLaren]

USA Today shared this image of an AR15 and the accessories you can put on it. Who the hell is selling grenade launcher attachments?

 

[mustafur]

Bump stock really Isn't in the spirit of the Law, surely it's fair game if they ban that.