Mass shooting in Southern Texas Church

[TetsuKobura]

I didn't imply a thing. I asked you a simple question.

For all we know, they could all (or mostly) be handguns, shotguns, knives, etc. I don't include unknown simply because it's unknown.

 

[huskeR32]

For all we know, they could all (or mostly) be handguns, shotguns, knives, etc.

Well, none of them are knives, as the category is "Firearms (type unknown)." But otherwise, you're right, for all we know none of them are rifles. Or all of them are. Or half of them are.

The point is that this bit...

tl;dr Rifles for a majority of this table cause the least amount of deaths when each type of weapon used for a murder is split up. Banning rifles won't solve anything.

...could easily be wrong when upwards of 30% of the firearm data is incomplete.

For quite a few states on that list, if even 10-20% of those unknown firearms are rifles, they suddenly rank behind only handguns as the murder method of choice. Hardly renders them the irrelevant factor you've so confidently proclaimed them to be.

 

[RC45]

Well, none of them are knives, as the category is "Firearms (type unknown)." But otherwise, you're right, for all we know none of them are rifles. Or all of them are. Or half of them are.

The point is that this bit...

tl;dr Rifles for a majority of this table cause the least amount of deaths when each type of weapon used for a murder is split up. Banning rifles won't solve anything.

...could easily be wrong when upwards of 30% of the firearm data is incomplete.

For quite a few states on that list, if even 10-20% of those unknown firearms are rifles, they suddenly rank behind only handguns as the murder method of choice. Hardly renders them the irrelevant factor you've so confidently proclaimed them to be.

Which still means nothing in the grand scheme of things. Until swimming pools and cars are outlawed (huge killers of children) why the collective obsession with gun death stats?

If only we can save one more of the poor "chillen's" - right?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Which still means nothing in the grand scheme of things. Until swimming pools and cars are outlawed (huge killers of children) why the obsession with guns?

If only we can save one more of the poor "chillen's" - right?

What makes you think that there should only be a single focus in saving lives? Strong, appropriate mitigation works for swimming pools and vehicles, that's why we teach all children to swim and mandate safety belts in cars. Why not mitigate against dangers for other things?

 

[RC45]

What makes you think that there should only be a single focus in saving lives? Strong, appropriate mitigation works for swimming pools and vehicles, that's why we teach all children to swim and mandate safety belts in cars. Why not mitigate against dangers for other things?

So why not teach children about gun safety and proper firearm use?

How is confiscating my collection of firearms or limiting my right to defend myself or my family mitigating the death of some other person in some other place?

Hell, how is the confiscating of someone else's collection of firearms or limiting someone else's rights to self defense making me safer or potentially saving my life?

What exactly is your or other anti-gunners real end game?

Saving chillens? Lowering death rates? Eradicating guns? What is the desired end result?

We know that eliminating all road deaths is not the end goal of traffic safety - if it was, then 10mph speed limits and strict HP limits would be mandated.

So we know there is an acceptable number of traffic deaths we are willing to live with.... x/1000 population.

What is the acceptable gun death rate we can live with? It seems guns are already safer than cars, so why keep obsessing over them? Perhaps it is time we made cars safer.

Unless car deaths are less of important to people than gun deaths.

Well? Which death is worse and why?

 

[Exorcet]

What exactly is your or other anti-gunners real end game?

Going back to the post that @huskeR32 made, it looks like it was understanding data and nothing more. That's not anti-gun.

I can agree with some of the points you made, but I don't think they all fit in as replies to the posts you've quoted.

 

[RC45]

Going back to the post that @huskeR32 made, it looks like it was understanding data and nothing more. That's not anti-gun.

I can agree with some of the points you made, but I don't think they all fit in as replies to the posts you've quoted.

It does not mater.

The question is still unanswered.

What is the end game of anti-gunners?

Eliminate all guns? Eliminate all gun deaths? Save 1 more life?

Without a goal how can there be a common sense plan? Without a plan what good is having more stats on hand?

If we do not aim to eliminate all traffic deaths and as a society we accept the risk and live with traffic deaths as a daily un-news worthy occurrence, why the obsession with guns, gun death data and gun ownership rolls?

What is the anti-gun end goal?

 

[TetsuKobura]

It does not mater.

The question is still unanswered.

What is the end game of anti-gunners?

Eliminate all guns? Eliminate all gun deaths? Save 1 more life?

Without a goal how can there be a common sense plan? Without a plan what good is having more stats on hand?

If we do not aim to eliminate all traffic deaths and as a society we accept the risk and live with traffic deaths as a daily un-news worthy occurrence, why the obsession with guns, gun death data and gun ownership rolls?

What is the anti-gun end goal?

Technically traffic deaths aren't completely un-news worthy, since New York/Charlottesville was the work of a car. It's sad though that a mass tragedy has to happen for something like this to be mentioned.

 

[Biggles]

If we do not aim to eliminate all traffic deaths and as a society we accept the risk and live with traffic deaths as a daily un-news worthy occurrence, why the obsession with guns, gun death data and gun ownership rolls?

I think the obsession with guns is more on the part of you & others like you, leaving you with a completely unrealistic & unobjective view of the subject.

Society lives with the reality of traffic deaths because cars (& buses, trucks etc.) are an inescapable & fundamental foundation of the the United State's prosperity & lifestyle. Without driving, the entire economy of the US would collapse in a matter of days.

Nevertheless, there are many, many restrictions placed on driving: licensing requirements, insurance requirements, competency requirements, speed limits, traffic lights, seat-belt laws, age restrictions, alcohol & drug use restrictions etc. etc. There is also a lot of focus on improving the safety & efficiency of cars & road systems. All this is a conscious attempt, successful to a significant degree, to lower traffic fatalities:

According to NHTSA, traffic fatalities fell to 32,367 in 2011, a 1.9 percent drop over 2010 and the lowest since 1949.

Accidents & fatalities are on the rise again, due largely to the increased use of cell phones while driving. Many states have now restricted the use of hand-held devices to counter this. Again, a restriction on individual freedom in order to reduce traffic deaths. So ... it is totally inaccurate to pretend that "we accept the risk" - on the contrary every attempt is made to limit the risk.

The statistics show that the US is an extreme outlier when it comes to guns. So, a more realistic question would be, why do many people in the US have an obsession with owning guns?

 

[KungFury]

I think the obsession with guns is more on the part of you & others like you, leaving you with a completely unrealistic & unobjective view of the subject.

Society lives with the reality of traffic deaths because cars (& buses, trucks etc.) are an inescapable & fundamental foundation of the the United State's prosperity & lifestyle. Without driving, the entire economy of the US would collapse in a matter of days.

And without guns we have no recourse against our government(a fundamental foundation for the United State's prosperity & lifestyle.), we need and want both and we have them. I'd bet gun manufacturing is a decent part of our economy as well.

I don't see the big deal, even the leftest of the left and most anti gun I've ever seen in congress agrees that no gun law would have stopped this Texas mass shooting, Well she actually said the one in Las Vegas but it's the same thing, here is what she said while still pushing hard for anti bump stock laws. I honesty believe her plan is to keep chipping away at guns until we get to a point where only criminals and governments own them.Dianne Feinstein

“Could there have been any law passed that would've stopped him?” Host John Dickerson asked the senator.

“No, he passed background checks registering for handguns and other weapons on multiple occasions,” Feinstein replied.

On a side note, guns will always be mass produced, especially the so called assault riffle, as long as there are wars and the last time I checked civilians do not typically start wars.

 

[Danoff]

So, a more realistic question would be, why do many people in the US have an obsession with owning guns?

Personal responsibility. Also, it does feel like a direct attack to suggest that something I'm doing right now should be criminal, and to insinuate that I can't be trusted. Not that you did that, but that's how the "guns are dangerous and should be banned" argument comes across - as a personal attack on the character of law-abiding gun owners. That's why responses are often emotional.

The entire concept of public property existing aside for a moment, public property regulation for motor vehicles and gun use is heavy in many respects. Guns are outright banned on a lot of public property. Cars are not treated with the same degree of skepticism.

What bothers me most is a complete lack of accounting for the damage caused by gun bans (and similar) and really lazy accounting for the benefit of it. The argument is almost always of the form that "it could prevent people from getting shot" and that's it. No assessment of the destruction of millions of peoples' ability to protect themselves. No assessment of whether those same people got murdered some other way.

If I get murdered, I'd prefer that it be in the least painful way possible. Being beaten to death or stabbed to death does not rate highly on my list. I don't see a reason to prefer those to being shot, or being hit by a truck, or being blown up. Violent crime is what matters. Not "gun deaths".

 

[RC45]

Again, a restriction on individual freedom in order to reduce traffic deaths. So ... it is totally inaccurate to pretend that "we accept the risk" - on the contrary every attempt is made to limit the risk.

If this claim is true why are there no attempts to outright ban vehicles?

That would take the traffic fatality rate to 0.

Effectively eliminating traffic deaths as a risk factor completely. Saving all those precious lives.

Why not ban vehicles? After all, driving is not even a right - so why protect peoples ability to drive?

 

[Joey D]

If this claim is true why are there no attempts to outright ban vehicles?

That would take the traffic fatality rate to 0.

Effectively eliminating traffic deaths as a risk factor completely. Saving all those precious lives.

Why not ban vehicles? After all, driving is not even a right - so why protect peoples ability to drive?

Transportation is the cornerstone of the world economy. If you take that out of the equation then the entire global economy would fall in a matter of hours.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Transportation is the cornerstone of the world economy. If you take that out of the equation then the entire global economy would fall in a matter of hours.

Then you'd have to agree that not every attempt is made to limit the risk correct? In truth we limit the risk to that which we deem acceptable and that which doesn't impede our economy.

 

[KungFury]

Public transportation is always pushed on state and city levels as an alternative to owning a car, it's been so as long as I can remember. The fear from that is an effective way to limit a persons ability to move around freely, you can't exactly ride your horse down the expressway. The reason is usually environmental concerns and not less car deaths though, all you need to do is take a look at gas tax.

Maybe if enough terrorists go around mowing people down in rented moving trucks the anti gun crowd will start calling for only the police being able to rent them

This is worth repeating, as I was saying earlier, the lazy will eventually win and we will have our hands tied. Especially the responsible ones who don't care much to have their hand held and mouths fed like a child.

Personal responsibility. Also, it does feel like a direct attack to suggest that something I'm doing right now should be criminal, and to insinuate that I can't be trusted. Not that you did that, but that's how the "guns are dangerous and should be banned" argument comes across - as a personal attack on the character of law-abiding gun owners. That's why responses are often emotional.

👍

 

[TenEightyOne]

And without guns we have no recourse against our government

Oh come on.

 

[KungFury]

Oh come on.

O.K., Where will we be going?

 

[Joey D]

Then you'd have to agree that not every attempt is made to limit the risk correct? In truth we limit the risk to that which we deem acceptable and that which doesn't impede our economy.

Sure, you could say that.

I'm honestly not sure why guns are compared with traffic deaths anyways. Guns are not an integral part of making everything in the world work, whereas vehicles are. If you took away guns, the economy would still function. I don't think it's a really good comparison. Also, when you get behind the wheel of a car you have an assumed risk that you might be killed in an accident. The odds are fairly low, but it's there. There isn't an assumed risk walking into a building and thinking you might be shot at though. That's the big difference there.

However, as I've said in this thread multiple times I'm not against gun ownership and I don't support a ban on them. I just never really understood the comparison to vehicle fatalities to gun-related deaths.

 

[Danoff]

However, as I've said in this thread multiple times I'm not against gun ownership and I don't support a ban on them. I just never really understood the comparison to vehicle fatalities to gun-related deaths.

I agree. Especially when we're talking about regulations on public property vs. private.

Edit (after @Joey D hit the like button):

I guess it depends on what kind of conversation you're having about guns and vehicle fatalities. Obviously vehicles and guns can both be used as weapons of mass murder. So they're related on that front. Also vehicles and guns account for accidental death and suicide, so those elements are related. They're also both regulated by the government.

I don't think it's particularly instructive to compare accidental vehicle deaths to gun homicide death. And nobody pulls accidental gun death stats and compares them to vehicular homicide.

Anyway, the apples-to-apples comparison gets lost easily.

 

[RC45]

Transportation is the cornerstone of the world economy. If you take that out of the equation then the entire global economy would fall in a matter of hours.

But many precious lives will be saved.

After all, that's the point right - even if just 1 life can be saved.

Transportation is a major killer of innocent lives. Why not eliminate that threat with the vigor folks try eliminate guns.

Once all the civilian guns are melted in plow shares - then what?

Is the thought that all deaths by the hand of another will be eradicated?

This is why I ask again - What is the end game of the anti-gun crowd? ***all ears***

Sure, you could say that.

I'm honestly not sure why guns are compared with traffic deaths anyways. Guns are not an integral part of making everything in the world work, whereas vehicles are. If you took away guns, the economy would still function. I don't think it's a really good comparison. Also, when you get behind the wheel of a car you have an assumed risk that you might be killed in an accident. The odds are fairly low, but it's there. There isn't an assumed risk walking into a building and thinking you might be shot at though. That's the big difference there.

However, as I've said in this thread multiple times I'm not against gun ownership and I don't support a ban on them. I just never really understood the comparison to vehicle fatalities to gun-related deaths.

What difference?

The chance of you being killed in or by a vehicle is multiple factors higher than of you being killed by a gun.

Every time you step off the sidewalk you might die by vehicle.

Every time.

Every time you get behind the wheel and drive off, you might die by way of vehicle.

Unless you are a young black young man in Chicago or DC hanging out on the weekend, the chance of you getting killed by way of fire-arm as you simply step into the street is astonishingly small.

Add to this the fact that you are even more likely to die by vehicle in an anti-gun country, why again are we so tolerant of vehicle deaths?

BTW, if you eliminated all mechanized transportation, the world economy would still function - it will function at a hugely reduced capacity, but it will still function - it functioned with manual transportation for millennia before the ICE arrived. The world will adjust.

If guns are not an integral part of making the world work, why do national governments possess many millions of guns? Surely they shoudl also melt their guns into plowshares?

 

[RC45]

duplicate

 

[Northstar]

This is why I ask again - What is the end game of the anti-gun crowd? ***all ears***

I think both sides want the same thing, that being an end to these mass shootings and gun violence in general. Where they differ is how to go about achieving that goal.

Personally, I don't think any amount of gun control will solve anything until we address the fact there are people that want to kill innocent civilians.

There is no reason that conversation can't be civil either even though it seems to be impossible for some (not necessarily here, just a general observation).

 

[RC45]

I think both sides want the same thing, that being an end to these mass shootings and gun violence in general. Where they differ is how to go about achieving that goal.

Personally, I don't think any amount of gun control will solve anything until we address the fact there are people that want to kill innocent civilians.

There is no reason that conversation can't be civil either even though it seems to be impossible for some (not necessarily here, just a general observation).

Addressed how? Killing is already illegal and immoral. Well, except for abortion, that seems to be OK. Killing babies in the womb is OK, but it seems society has a problem with killing outside the womb, but only if it happens with a gun.

Killing by car, bat, knife, fist, ice pick, shovel, leg, water, rental truck, poison and falling are OK, they are acceptable because people apparently accept the risk they may die by car, bat, knife, fist, ice pick, shovel, leg, water, rental truck, poison and falling at the hand of another.. but they just do not accept the risk they might die by gun.

And its OK if people are killed by onesy and twosey... you know, just a few at a time - even if the total is in the millions, its OK if its a steady trickle. 3 stabbings here, 2 hit and runs there, a half dozen beatings, an ice pick to the forehead every few months, the odd poisoning - But God forbid 20 people die by gun in one sitting now death by another person is terrible and news worthy.

People kill other people. They did it before the gun was invented and will do so long after the solid propellant cartridge gun is replaced by rail guns and energy weapons.

Both sides don't want the same thing. Please be honest. Gun haters want civilian gun ownership and by extension the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution eliminated.

So again, why is homicide by car, bat, knife, fist, ice pick, shovel, leg, water, rental truck, poison and falling, a few at a time an acceptable risk but not by gun?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Transportation is a major killer of innocent lives. Why not eliminate that threat with the vigor folks try eliminate guns.

We do. Look at the money invested in self-driving or look at the safety investments in any vehicle near you right now that mark a car as "modern" compared to a vehicle of identical function from the 1950s. Why are manufacturers spending so much money on those safety systems?

Killing is already illegal and immoral.

Sometimes is, sometimes isn't. I thought that part of your argument was a legally-provided right to kill?

 

[Northstar]

Addressed how?

A complete rebuilding of our mental health system. We don't spend any less than any other developed country, yet the system itself is plain terrible.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...al-health-care-system/?utm_term=.2959f966eb11

Until you fix that issue, there will be mass killings and a high suicide rate.

 

[DK]

Good luck getting funding for improved mental health services when the GOP hears that poor people will need it.

 

[DK]

Edit: stupid mobile internet.

 

[TetsuKobura]

Good luck getting funding for improved mental health services when the GOP hears that poor people will need it.

Not gonna get into an argument on this since it should be in a healthcare related thread, but Obamacare made it worse.

 

[Northstar]

Good luck getting funding for improved mental health services when the GOP hears that poor people will need it.

The funding is already there, it's just going to the wrong places. Which is the fault of both parties as both sides have a tendency to cave in to lobbyists.

 

[Joey D]

I agree. Especially when we're talking about regulations on public property vs. private.

Edit (after @Joey D hit the like button):

I guess it depends on what kind of conversation you're having about guns and vehicle fatalities. Obviously vehicles and guns can both be used as weapons of mass murder. So they're related on that front. Also vehicles and guns account for accidental death and suicide, so those elements are related. They're also both regulated by the government.

I don't think it's particularly instructive to compare accidental vehicle deaths to gun homicide death. And nobody pulls accidental gun death stats and compares them to vehicular homicide.

Anyway, the apples-to-apples comparison gets lost easily.

I fully agree with that. If you want to see how deadly a car is you need to look at the number of murders involving a car as a weapon vs. a gun being used as a weapon. You'd probably also need to figure out the numbers for suicide in both cases too.

What is the end game of the anti-gun crowd? ***all ears***

Couldn't tell you, I'm not anti-gun. I think you have a right to own a gun for personal protection, sport, or as a hobby. But I think gun safety should evolve much like car safety did. Smart guns, trigger locks, better tracking of guns, etc. are all something that should be explored by gun manufacturers. If anything it'd cut down on accidental gun-related deaths and probably suicides. Border security would also help prevent illegal weapons from making their way into the US as well (and I don't mean that stupid wall).

I do think to be able to get a concealed carry permit should require more extensive training. I know it Michigan it was one 8 hour class where you fired only a few rounds. I feel like it should be more intensive so that people who choose to carry know what they're doing. The last thing I want in an incident like the church shooting in Texas is some cowboy thinking he knows what he's doing and returning fire only to hit several innocent bystanders. I'd feel way better knowing that whoever is carrying a gun knows how to properly use it.

Besides feeling like I don't need to carry a gun in Utah, I also don't feel like I'm a good enough shot to carry one either. Chances are I'd make a bad situation worse.

What difference?

The chance of you being killed in or by a vehicle is multiple factors higher than of you being killed by a gun.

Every time you step off the sidewalk you might die by vehicle.

Every time.

Every time you get behind the wheel and drive off, you might die by way of vehicle.

Unless you are a young black young man in Chicago or DC hanging out on the weekend, the chance of you getting killed by way of fire-arm as you simply step into the street is astonishingly small.

Accidental death is different than murder. Also, as I've said there is an assumed risk when you get behind the wheel of a car that something might happen. There isn't an assumed risk walking down the street that you might be shot.

See my reply to Danoff. If you want to compare all gun-related deaths to all vehicle-related deaths this is what you end up with: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...le-as-cars-in-the-u-s/?utm_term=.0f8152580cd9

As you can see that number and data is a bit skewed since it factors in things like suicide by gun.

I can't find any real number about the number of homicides used where a car is a primiary weapon, but I'm sure it exists somewhere. If you could find it, it would show whether a car is indeed deadlier than a gun with regards to murder.

If guns are not an integral part of making the world work, why do national governments possess many millions of guns? Surely they shoudl also melt their guns into plowshares?

I don't know, ask our illustrious leaders who think we need to blow the hell out of third world nations every chance we get.