Mass shooting in Southern Texas Church

[Danoff]

That's not the aspect I meant was a moot point. I meant that because you are able to drive on your own property, you can't just apply that to guns. Generally, driving on your own property is almost always private and has little effect to other people; the ownership of guns cannot be applied in the same way.

Except... when people use guns on their personal property without affecting others?

Well... they are, because everyone has to have the same rights as you. It's called society. How do you propose that we get a 100% success rate in identifying would-be murderers before they can access a weapon? Until that can be obtained, then your attitude is dangerous.

Why are my rights to my property linked with the ability to prevent crime altogether? That applies to absolutely nothing. My guns, my gun rights, my personal property, has killed zero toddlers, or adults for that matter. So no, my rights are not an issue. Other people may commit crimes, but you're not talking about using force against them, you're talking about using force against me, an innocent person. That's immoral.

 

[Exorcet]

That's all well and good, but how do you identify the criminals and those unable to act rationally before they act? There is absolutely no chance you will get a 100% success rate, or even an 80% success rate.

That's true. You can't guarantee 100% safety no matter what. That's just another reason why we shouldn't be taking rights away just to feel safer. At some point the responsibility falls on you. If a person really feels so uncomfortable because of something they should take some responsibility for their level of risk instead of forcing other people to do that for them.

As for filtering out those who shouldn't have a gun, we have existing methods like background checks and license/permits for certain types of weapons. Emerging technology like smart guns can be combined with these to make it really hard for someone to make unintended use of a gun. The most common smart gun idea that I have seen involves identifying the owner. You could also limit a gun's functionality to a specific location, like a house, which would make it purely defensive.

Why is it the vast majority of people in Europe and everyone in Australia/New Zealand (a total population over double that of the US) is able to defend themselves without this? Can you not see that this is a catalyst to the violence?

Guns aren't necessary in the US. This isn't about need.

Nice idea but not quite feasible

Why not?

 

[McLaren]

To expand upon this, why should we need driver's licences? If the argument is that one person's misuse of a deadly weapon shouldn't infringe upon your "right" to use a similar deadly weapon, then surely the same should be true for cars. If some people can't be trusted to drive safely and thus put the rest of the people on the road at risk, then do you feel it's necessary to control who can and can't use a car legally, and require safe drivers to adhere to the same standards and regulations?

Do we not already do this, though? People who get too many points, multiple tickets, DUI/DWI, failing to pay court fees, etc. can get suspended driving licenses that will require them to serve the time given or take part in a school & pay a fee to have it. These people show they can not control a vehicle properly and thus, they are punished for it by taking away their right to drive.

Now, I'm not entirely closed minded to the discussion of applying the same rules to guns; certain offenses can have your gun confiscated for a certain amount of time with the addition that the weapon be registered to you beforehand so law enforcement knows you own one. If you don't register or keep the gun after the offense, you get penalized. Gun owners may not like the idea, but at least it allows govt. an idea of who owns a weapon and allows law abiding citizens the right to keep theirs.

*Not a gun owner, so I'm waiting for @Danoff or @LMSCorvetteGT2 to tell me if we already do this*

I'm more than in agreement with you that it's not black or white.

 

[Joey D]

Now, I'm not entirely closed minded to the discussion of applying the same rules to guns; certain offenses can have your gun confiscated for a certain amount of time with the addition that the weapon be registered to you beforehand so law enforcement knows you own one. If you don't register or keep the gun after the offense, you get penalized. Gun owners may not like the idea, but at least it allows govt. an idea of who owns a weapon and allows law abiding citizens the right to keep theirs.

I'm going off limited knowledge here, but I think if you're convicted of certain felonies in some states you loose the right to own a firearm. I think things like white collar felonies don't bar people from owning guns though.

 

[Danoff]

Do we not already do this, though? People who get too many points, multiple tickets, DUI/DWI, failing to pay court fees, etc. can get suspended driving licenses that will require them to serve the time given or take part in a school & pay a fee to have it. These people show they can not control a vehicle properly and thus, they are punished for it by taking away their right to drive.

Now, I'm not entirely closed minded to the discussion of applying the same rules to guns; certain offenses can have your gun confiscated for a certain amount of time with the addition that the weapon be registered to you beforehand so law enforcement knows you own one. If you don't register or keep the gun after the offense, you get penalized. Gun owners may not like the idea, but at least it allows govt. an idea of who owns a weapon and allows law abiding citizens the right to keep theirs.

*Not a gun owner, so I'm waiting for @Danoff or @LMSCorvetteGT2 to tell me if we already do this*

I'm more than in agreement with you that it's not black or white.

I'm going off limited knowledge here, but I think if you're convicted of certain felonies in some states you loose the right to own a firearm. I think things like white collar felonies don't bar people from owning guns though.

Apparently the felony gun restriction is federal, and states can "restore" gun rights case-by-case.

 

[McLaren]

I'm going off limited knowledge here, but I think if you're convicted of certain felonies in some states you loose the right to own a firearm. I think things like white collar felonies don't bar people from owning guns though.

I've heard of similar laws. But, I don't know if that does the public any good if the person already owns a gun beforehand?

Apparently the felony gun restriction is federal, and states can "restore" gun rights case-by-case.

What are your thoughts on making it a federal decision case-by-case?

 

[Blood Eagle]

I'm going off limited knowledge here, but I think if you're convicted of certain felonies in some states you loose the right to own a firearm. I think things like white collar felonies don't bar people from owning guns though.

Any Felony bars firearm ownership and also misdemeanor Domestic Violence.

 

[EamerRed]

Except... when people use guns on their personal property without affecting others?

Why are my rights to my property linked with the ability to prevent crime altogether? That applies to absolutely nothing. My guns, my gun rights, my personal property, has killed zero toddlers, or adults for that matter. So no, my rights are not an issue. Other people may commit crimes, but you're not talking about using force against them, you're talking about using force against me, an innocent person. That's immoral.

I'm going to keep repeating my point because no one is answering it. It's not a question of morality, it might not be fair, but no laws are 100% fair. It's what works for society, and this means there has to be a trade off, and if it means saving lives v people not being able to have a toy they'll never use, and that the vast majority of the Western world can live without, then I'm all for banning them. Answer me these questions:

• Why is saving tens of thousands of lives less important than the enormous 'immorality' of you not having a gun?
• Why is every other Westernised country able to cope but you guys aren't?

 

[Exorcet]

I'm going to keep repeating my point because no one is answering it. It's not a question of morality, it might not be fair, but no laws are 100% fair.

Any law that is not fair is invalid and is to be discarded. You can have fair laws, all you need to do is respect individual rights. If someone is not harming another person, you can't justify using force against them.

It's what works for society,

This is what I was getting at a few posts ago when I mentioned carrying baggage from the past. Law should not be about what works at the cost of what is fair. We did that initially because trying to survive in the wild isn't easy. Thankfully technology has made life so much easier that we've started to become more concerned with fair treatment.

When it comes to what works, people should be able to live in a way that suits them. Let communities decide rather than have the government conduct social engineering.

if it means saving lives v people not being able to have a toy they'll never use, and that the vast majority of the Western world can live without, then I'm all for banning them.

You're assuming that banning guns will save lives and that there is no alternative to a ban. You're also assuming that you know better than everyone else. Why is the minutely reduced risk of gun violence worth giving up guns? Why is it that the gun owners have to make sacrifices? Why not the people who are concerned with the presence of guns?

• Why is saving tens of thousands of lives less important than the enormous 'immorality' of you not having a gun?
• Why is every other Westernised country able to cope but you guys aren't?

Being able to live the life you want is very important. If you're denied that, why even live at all? We need to protect people's rights to protect them from being victims of unjust laws or criminals that would do them harm. That puts saving lives on equal ground with protecting property, it does not make the former less of a concern. You're not necessarily saving lives with a gun ban anyway, you're just letting other weapons take over.

I'm not sure what you mean by your second point given that the US is not the only western nation where gun ownership is legal.

 

[UKMikey]

Why is every other Westernised country able to cope but you guys aren't?

I'm not sure what you mean by your second point given that the US is not the only western nation where gun ownership is legal.

I think this is something to do with the higher incidence of gun deaths per capita in the US when compared to the "Euro nutjobs".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate#List

 

[EamerRed]

You're assuming that banning guns will save lives and that there is no alternative to a ban. You're also assuming that you know better than everyone else. Why is the minutely reduced risk of gun violence worth giving up guns? Why is it that the gun owners have to make sacrifices? Why not the people who are concerned with the presence of guns?

I'm sorry but this bit is ridiculous mate. Minutely reduced risk? How much evidence do you need?! It's overwhelming. We barely have massacres over here. It just doesn't happen, and yet you guys seem to have them every day.

Again, someone has to answer this point because your entire argument is based on it. You keep saying 'because it's fair', etc but not actually answering it. Why is the supposed morality argument more important than absolute statistical proof that lives would be saved with gun control? You keep saying it just is, but why? What is the danger, what is the downside?

You mention it infringes upon freedom, but it's hardly a big thing! What part of your life is a gun ban stopping you enjoying? What are you missing out on? If they were taking your liberty, your time, your freedom to roam, I'd understand. But it's a tiny part of your life which if used properly should not bring any pleasure anyway. Suppose for a minute that making bombs was legal. If everyone was doing it, and mistakes were happening that were killing entire towns by unruly creators, would that still be ok? Would it be infringing upon their freedom to not develop them? It's ludicrous mate.

It is, as mentioned, a greater good.

 

[Drayenko]

I'm sorry but this bit is ridiculous mate. Minutely reduced risk? How much evidence do you need?! It's overwhelming. We barely have massacres over here. It just doesn't happen, and yet you guys seem to have them every day.

So there's no crime whatsoever?
Everyday? Really?

 

[huskeR32]

We barely have massacres over here. It just doesn't happen, and yet you guys seem to have them every day.

So there's no crime whatsoever?
Everyday? Really?

Come on.

 

[Exorcet]

I'm sorry but this bit is ridiculous mate. Minutely reduced risk? How much evidence do you need?! It's overwhelming. We barely have massacres over here. It just doesn't happen, and yet you guys seem to have them every day.

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/thre...hern-texas-church.366420/page-8#post-12047535

The risk of death from a gun in the US is so small so as to be ignorable in day to day life. You can have unlikely events in succession with a high population, but the risk to you is still virtually nothing.

Again, someone has to answer this point because your entire argument is based on it. You keep saying 'because it's fair', etc but not actually answering it. Why is the supposed morality argument more important than absolute statistical proof that lives would be saved with gun control? You keep saying it just is, but why? What is the danger, what is the downside?

What I mean by fair is that it respects human rights. If you want a deeper look into that, there is a human rights thread on this forum. The short of it is that there is nothing to justify having authority over another person if that person is not harming you in any way.

As for statistics, we can do better than that. You're not saving any lives by taking guns away from people who will not abuse them. We shouldn't focus on taking those guns away. We should only focus on taking them away from people who are dangerous. That is a system that is prone to error as you bring up, but it's not unique in that regard.

You mention it infringes upon freedom, but it's hardly a big thing!

That's subjective. However you can argue against it being trivial very easily when you look at the protection that guns offer to people.

What part of your life is a gun ban stopping you enjoying?

Me personally? Very little as I don't own guns. This is not about me. I'm not arguing to make society better for me personally (at least not directly - I benefit from having my rights respected, so I do gain in the end) I am arguing to try to protect every individual in society.

If they were taking your liberty, your time, your freedom to roam, I'd understand.

This goes back to the moral side of the argument. You'll taking things that you value personally and making them more important than what other people value. You have no justification to do this.

But it's a tiny part of your life which if used properly should not bring any pleasure anyway.

You can't say that it's subjective. I'm also kind of curious as to what you mean by properly in this case.

Suppose for a minute that making bombs was legal. If everyone was doing it, and mistakes were happening that were killing entire towns by unruly creators, would that still be ok? Would it be infringing upon their freedom to not develop them? It's ludicrous mate.

This is all made up. You could also make up a situation where bombs are legal and no one is hurt. That isn't even so far fetched as you can own reactive chemicals already.

But we can assume that we start with your situation. People could get sick of these explosions and form a community where the bombs are prohibited. This would be done through their property rights, i.e. they own the land so they could decide what is permitted or not on that land. The people wanting to make bombs could do so where they won't be infringing on people's rights and deal with what they would consider acceptable risk.

Notice that legal bombs does not mean bombs on every street corner.

It is, as mentioned, a greater good.

There is no such thing in my opinion. Rights are respected, or they are violated. If you protect people on the individual level, you protect everything above that.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I'm sorry but this bit is ridiculous mate. Minutely reduced risk? How much evidence do you need?! It's overwhelming. We barely have massacres over here. It just doesn't happen, and yet you guys seem to have them every day.

Again, someone has to answer this point because your entire argument is based on it. You keep saying 'because it's fair', etc but not actually answering it. Why is the supposed morality argument more important than absolute statistical proof that lives would be saved with gun control? You keep saying it just is, but why? What is the danger, what is the downside?

You mention it infringes upon freedom, but it's hardly a big thing! What part of your life is a gun ban stopping you enjoying? What are you missing out on? If they were taking your liberty, your time, your freedom to roam, I'd understand. But it's a tiny part of your life which if used properly should not bring any pleasure anyway. Suppose for a minute that making bombs was legal. If everyone was doing it, and mistakes were happening that were killing entire towns by unruly creators, would that still be ok? Would it be infringing upon their freedom to not develop them? It's ludicrous mate.

It is, as mentioned, a greater good.

Let's say for the sake of argument, guns are banned outright and all the law abiding citizens turn over their guns. Obviously the criminals and ne'er do wells will hold on to theirs. We already know that guns are used in self defence on a regular basis and a figure of 2 million times annually has been quoted in this thread. So we can safely conclude that dozens, hundreds, and most likely thousands of innocent people will annually be injured or killed by criminals welding illegal guns. This is in addition to the likely hundreds of thousands or more who will be injured, beaten, robbed etc. who may not otherwise have been harmed had the ability to protect themselves with a firearm been maintained or at least the possibility existed in the minds of a criminal as a deterrent.

I'm curious to know how this fits into the greater good argument. Is there a number of innocent lives lost and negatively affected post gun ban that would negate the greater good argument? Say, for example, rapes increased 10% because rapists know women can't protect themselves as well. Or maybe home invasion or robbery deaths went up by 3 or 4000 a year? Would that negate the greater good argument? How are you going to protect this members of society that are most vulnerable? The old, the physically challenged, those that are a long way from emergency response and currently rely on themselves for home defense etc?

 

[TenEightyOne]

I'm not sure what you mean by your second point given that the US is not the only western nation where gun ownership is legal.

But you own nearly half of the world's civilian-owned guns, doesn't that seem a bit odd to you?

 

[Northstar]

But you own nearly half of the world's civilian-owned guns, doesn't that seem a bit odd to you?

So why isn't our murder rate astronomically higher? Sure we have lots of guns, but every stat I can find doesn't show that much higher levels of crime compared to other countries.

Of course, this all ignores that the last two events should have been avoided by the government simply doing their jobs and enforcing already existing laws.

 

[Danoff]

I'm going to keep repeating my point because no one is answering it. It's not a question of morality, it might not be fair, but no laws are 100% fair. It's what works for society, and this means there has to be a trade off, and if it means saving lives v people not being able to have a toy they'll never use, and that the vast majority of the Western world can live without, then I'm all for banning them. Answer me these questions:

• Why is saving tens of thousands of lives less important than the enormous 'immorality' of you not having a gun?
• Why is every other Westernised country able to cope but you guys aren't?

I explained that to you, in a fair amount of detail. Most countries don't concern themselves with morality when it comes to laws it seems. The US tries (Bill of Rights) but falls short anyway. One of the places where we've drawn a line in the sand when it comes to morality is the government preventing people from owning guns. The reason is because they're such an effective tool for self-defense, which is a human right.

It does not matter how many lives are saved, the ends do not justify the means. You can't do it. Your utility function doesn't trump anyone else's, so you don't get to use force to enact it. So what do you think? do you kill the healthy guy and harvest his organs? You'd save 10 lives at the cost of one. That's the moral dilemma your post above fails.

 

[Exorcet]

But you own nearly half of the world's civilian-owned guns, doesn't that seem a bit odd to you?

This is not the only difference between the US and Europe though, so you can't just immediately link the two.

Supposedly this is the breakdown of adult views on Evolution. The US is second from the bottom in accepting what is nearly self evident fact at this point. That's pretty troubling. This might not related directly guns but it shows that at least some section of the US population holds views that lay far off from that in other similar nations.

Source here:

http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2013/11/why-dont-people-accept-evolution.html

Did not have the time to look through others

 

[EamerRed]

Let's say for the sake of argument, guns are banned outright and all the law abiding citizens turn over their guns. Obviously the criminals and ne'er do wells will hold on to theirs. We already know that guns are used in self defence on a regular basis and a figure of 2 million times annually has been quoted in this thread. So we can safely conclude that dozens, hundreds, and most likely thousands of innocent people will annually be injured or killed by criminals welding illegal guns. This is in addition to the likely hundreds of thousands or more who will be injured, beaten, robbed etc. who may not otherwise have been harmed had the ability to protect themselves with a firearm been maintained or at least the possibility existed in the minds of a criminal as a deterrent.

I'm curious to know how this fits into the greater good argument. Is there a number of innocent lives lost and negatively affected post gun ban that would negate the greater good argument? Say, for example, rapes increased 10% because rapists know women can't protect themselves as well. Or maybe home invasion or robbery deaths went up by 3 or 4000 a year? Would that negate the greater good argument? How are you going to protect this members of society that are most vulnerable? The old, the physically challenged, those that are a long way from emergency response and currently rely on themselves for home defense etc?

Your post is based entirely on the bold bit being true so let's focus on that.

I've mentioned it, but I'm going to mention it again. Australia had 13 massacres in 18 years pre-1996. In the 21 years since, there hasn't been one, which blows your statement out of the water. Or maybe it was just coincidence...

I love America, I really do, I'm not trying to be nice because of our argument, but I despair, it's only the US that can't see it, and it's tragic. The only argument is this - people shouldn't take away my guns, I'm a responsible gun owner, so why should I have to give them up (despite the fact that they would be missing out on NOTHING by not having them). Well saving 30,000 lives per year in the US alone is a start...

 

[EamerRed]

This is not the only difference between the US and Europe though, so you can't just immediately link the two.

Supposedly this is the breakdown of adult views on Evolution. The US is second from the bottom in accepting what is nearly self evident fact at this point. That's pretty troubling. This might not related directly guns but it shows that at least some section of the US population holds views that lay far off from that in other similar nations.

Source here:

http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2013/11/why-dont-people-accept-evolution.html

Did not have the time to look through others

Removing the image for hygiene reasons but this is a point. I'm not trying to say Americans are uneducated, I wouldn't be so rude or assume such a thing, but there are a few things absorbed in US society which seems directly opposite to the progressive nature of other developed nations. The attitude to religion, the attitude against science, the death penalty, things like this. Worst of all is the incarceration rate which is downright appalling.

 

[Northstar]

Your post is based entirely on the bold bit being true so let's focus on that.

I've mentioned it, but I'm going to mention it again. Australia had 13 massacres in 18 years pre-1996. In the 21 years since, there hasn't been one, which blows your statement out of the water. Or maybe it was just coincidence...

I love America, I really do, I'm not trying to be nice because of our argument, but I despair, it's only the US that can't see it, and it's tragic. The only argument is this - people shouldn't take away my guns, I'm a responsible gun owner, so why should I have to give them up (despite the fact that they would be missing out on NOTHING by not having them). Well saving 30,000 lives per year in the US alone is a start...

Why do people always bring up Australia? It’s a terrible example.

It’s entirely surrounded by water meaning they have pretty much total control of what gets into the country. The US on the other hand has sea ports as well as thousands of miles worth of land border. It’s impossible to have complete control over all our borders, despite what Trump may like to think.

 

[Danoff]

Your post is based entirely on the bold bit being true so let's focus on that.

I've mentioned it, but I'm going to mention it again. Australia had 13 massacres in 18 years pre-1996. In the 21 years since, there hasn't been one, which blows your statement out of the water. Or maybe it was just coincidence...

I love America, I really do, I'm not trying to be nice because of our argument, but I despair, it's only the US that can't see it, and it's tragic. The only argument is this - people shouldn't take away my guns, I'm a responsible gun owner, so why should I have to give them up (despite the fact that they would be missing out on NOTHING by not having them). Well saving 30,000 lives per year in the US alone is a start...

You have yet to explain to me how me taking my guns out of my safe and handing them to the government would save lives. Are you assuming that 30,000 people would not be killed if guns were banned? That seems like a MASSIVE leap. Absolutely, almost unquestionably wrong. You'd have a hard time showing that US homicide rates would even decrease.

Here's a list of mass-killings in Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia

Looks like one in 2017, 2014, 2014, 2014, 2011... the US has more of course, but our population is also what... 13 times that of Australia?

The top 9 US cities for population make up Australia's entire population. It'd be as if we took those 9 cities and spread them out across our entire country (at least the contiguous 48 states). We also share a border with Mexico, one of the scariest places on Earth. One reporter who had spent time in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan covering war over there is quoted as saying that Mexico is the scariest place he has ever been. That's our neighbor, and the border between our countries is some dust and a highway (not that I'm advocating building a wall).

 

[Blood Eagle]

Well saving 30,000 lives per year in the US alone is a start...

How many suicides in that 30K number? The majority of gun deaths are suicide.

 

[Danoff]

Looks like the US homicide rate has dropped slightly more than Australia's since 1996.

 

[EamerRed]

Why do people always bring up Australia? It’s a terrible example.

It’s entirely surrounded by water meaning they have pretty much total control of what gets into the country. The US on the other hand has sea ports as well as thousands of miles worth of land border. It’s impossible to have complete control over all our borders, despite what Trump may like to think.

Only a terrible example because it goes against your point. Try answering the question then, was it coincidence? Same goes for Europe, you can't tell me that is a tiny island, and we cope just fine.

You have yet to explain to me how me taking my guns out of my safe and handing them to the government would save lives. Are you assuming that 30,000 people would not be killed if guns were banned? That seems like a MASSIVE leap. Absolutely, almost unquestionably wrong. You'd have a hard time showing that US homicide rates would even decrease.

Here's a list of mass-killings in Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia

Looks like one in 2017, 2014, 2014, 2014, 2011... the US has more of course, but our population is also what... 13 times that of Australia?

The top 9 US cities for population make up Australia's entire population. It'd be as if we took those 9 cities and spread them out across our entire country (at least the contiguous 48 states). We also share a border with Mexico, one of the scariest places on Earth. One reporter who had spent time in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan covering war over there is quoted as saying that Mexico is the scariest place he has ever been. That's our neighbor, and the border between our countries is some dust and a highway (not that I'm advocating building a wall).

Okay then, let's distort the figures per capita. So that population isn't affecting the results. Gun homicides are 25 times higher than in other high-income countries - http://edition.cnn.com/2017/10/03/americas/us-gun-statistics/index.html

Of the 17 deadliest massacres in recent decades, 6 have been in the US. 2 have been in Europe + Australia, despite having a combined population double that of the US - https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/mass-shootings/

Another one for you - https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/WgN...set/file/9371299/gun_homicides_per_capita.jpg

Fact is people, more guns = more deaths.

How many suicides in that 30K number? The majority of gun deaths are suicide.

Who said it has to be just murders? Would you not hope that removal of a weapon would make it harder to kill yourself, give you time to think? See point 10 - https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/2/16399418/us-gun-violence-statistics-maps-charts

The facts are out there guys. It's not a coincidence... It's overwhleming.

 

[Danoff]

Okay then, let's distort the figures per capita. So that population isn't affecting the results. Gun homicides are 25 times higher than in other high-income countries - http://edition.cnn.com/2017/10/03/americas/us-gun-statistics/index.html

Of the 17 deadliest massacres in recent decades, 6 have been in the US. 2 have been in Europe + Australia, despite having a combined population double that of the US - https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/mass-shootings/

Another one for you - https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/WgN...set/file/9371299/gun_homicides_per_capita.jpg

Fact is people, more guns = more deaths.

"Gun homicides" is a pointless statistic. "Homicides" is what actually matters. "Gun massacres" is a pointless statistic. "Massacres" is what matters. This is why you incorrectly stated that "Australia had 13 massacres in 18 years pre-1996. In the 21 years since, there hasn't been one", which was (as I demonstrated) a complete falsehood. You made the mistake yet again when you said "the 17 deadliest massacres" above... and then linked me to something that involves "shooting". One of the deadliest massacres in US history was a car bomb. We also had a bigger one involving some box cutters and passenger aircraft (note the non-gun homicide rate in my chart in my previous post during 2001).

I'm not pretending that we can't influence "gun crime" statistics in the US. But I see no reason to focus on the particular weapon used in crime. If homicides go up and gun homicides goes down, that's a net loss. How is that not clear to you? Our homicide rate is falling at at least the same rate as Australia's since your gun ban, if not faster (at least until 2010, I didn't find handy charts that went further). Tell me again how much we need it... Tell me again how much safer Australia's gun ban is making it than the US...

 

[Exorcet]

Fact is people, more guns = more deaths.

Except when it's the opposite


https://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/

In any case, do you even consider alternatives to removing guns? What do you think about smart guns for instance?

 

[Northstar]

Only a terrible example because it goes against your point. Try answering the question then, was it coincidence? Same goes for Europe, you can't tell me that is a tiny island, and we cope just fine.



Okay then, let's distort the figures per capita. So that population isn't affecting the results. Gun homicides are 25 times higher than in other high-income countries - http://edition.cnn.com/2017/10/03/americas/us-gun-statistics/index.html

Of the 17 deadliest massacres in recent decades, 6 have been in the US. 2 have been in Europe + Australia, despite having a combined population double that of the US - https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/mass-shootings/

Another one for you - https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/WgN...set/file/9371299/gun_homicides_per_capita.jpg

Fact is people, more guns = more deaths.



Who said it has to be just murders? Would you not hope that removal of a weapon would make it harder to kill yourself, give you time to think? See point 10 - https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/2/16399418/us-gun-violence-statistics-maps-charts

The facts are out there guys. It's not a coincidence... It's overwhleming.

Australia is a bad example for the reasons I stated. Europe would be a much better example, but you didn’t use that.

I also openly admit we have a problem. I just think think banning guns is treating the symptom and not the disease itself, which is the sorry state of mental health care in the U.S.

 

[KungFury]

Same goes for Europe, you can't tell me that is a tiny island, and we cope just fine.

What is it you're coping with just fine? Some interesting numbers in this vid.