New Zealand Mosque Shooting

[Sander 001]

I don't think the point is to entertain.



Of course not, but it can demonstrate methods by which you could rationally assess a topic. If you can create a justification for, say, the restriction of guns based on the risk and danger that they present, that same logic should either be able to be applied to any other dangerous item or you should be able to explain very clearly why the same logic doesn't apply.

Cars are a great example, largely because they're far more dangerous than most people give them credit for. In general, I would say that people are more scared of planes than they are of cars, which if you simply take the numbers is stupid.

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/how-safe-is-flying-here-s-what-the-statistics-say

People have emotional attachments to things based on their cultural background and upbringing. In the case of people from places with particularly restrictive gun cultures (and I'm one of them), that leads to a natural negative reaction to guns. But that doesn't mean that that reaction is rational or defensible.



I don't think it was supposed to. I saw it as pointing out to someone who was trying to railroad the argument based on original design purpose (of all things) that perhaps there's more to consider. Guns may have been designed to kill (I disagree, but for the sake of argument) and cars may have been designed to transport (again, disagree, but whatever), but neither of those things are relevant to the specific uses and regulation of those items in a modern society.

The point is not to say "cars are like this, therefore guns should be also", the point is that if you want to regulate something based on it being dangerous, then whatever justification you want to put forth needs to apply generically to at least most dangerous things. Hence why people are pointing out that the laws around cars are actually quite a lot stricter than those around basic firearms, and that actually makes a fair bit of sense. You could do a lot worse than starting from the same axioms that are used to justify car licensing and seeing where that leads you with guns.

No, you don’t generically regulate everything into one category, basing it by a single criteria. Which is what you’re effectively saying here by wanting to wholesale apply a specific justification.

 

[Imari]

No, you don’t generically regulate everything into one category, basing it by a single criteria. Which is what you’re effectively saying here by wanting to wholesale apply a specific justification.

That's not what I said. Not even a little bit.

You can use as many criteria as you see fit, and you can change them depending on the item being regulated if that's appropriate. But you do so with logic and reasoning, not appeals to emotion. If two items are being regulated for the same or similar reasoning, say, because they're dangerous and can be easily misused, then there should probably be similar logic supporting their regulation. Because they're being regulated for the same purpose. They may not ultimately be regulated in the same way, but you should be able to explain why the differences exist in a rational and logical manner.

Let's take an example, because maybe we're getting lost in non-specifics. Ammonium nitrate isn't regulated the same way that TNT or black powder are, but the reason for regulation of all of them is (in most countries) the same or similar. They're dangerous if misused, correct use is not entirely intuitive, and misuse can result in significant harm to people beyond the user.
Generally, black powder has limited regulation, in part because it's not really that dangerous and in part because it's so trivial to make that having hard regulations is a waste of everyone's time.
Ammonium nitrate tends not to have hard restrictions because it's used widely in agriculture, but nor is it available in large quantities to the general public as it's far too easy to use it to make large quantities of a quite powerful explosive. Purchases tend to be monitored, and suspicious purchases will be questioned, denied or investigated.
TNT is generally outright controlled, as it's toxic, powerful and has very few cases where the lay user would require it outside of commercial ventures that are willing to jump through the required regulatory hoops. Using explosives for military or industry almost always comes with training and probably licensing.

You can apply the same sort of logic to cars, and end up with something like a justification for the types of licensing and registration that are common in most western countries. If one wished, one could also apply the same sort of logic to guns, and if one were to spell out ones reasoning step by step then it would be a very good way of clearly communicating why you thought a specific regulatory system would be beneficial. It would be easy to discuss each logical step clearly, without resorting to hand waving like "guns are designed to kill". One could even choose to break it down by types of guns, as they're not all the same, in just the same way that cars, motorcycles, tanker trailers and forklifts all have slightly different regulatory requirements.

I'm not saying make everything the same. I'm saying be consistent in the logic that you apply to regulation, if you're advocating regulation for the same or similar reasons.

 

[Sander 001]

If two items are being regulated for the same or similar reasoning, say, because they're dangerous and can be easily misused, then there should probably be similar logic supporting their regulation. Because they're being regulated for the same purpose.

That’s not how any of this works in the real world, at least first world nations. Not that I’ve seen.

Proper legislative regulation is backed by studies, science, research. Can you cite any which has used the methodology you describe?

 

[PocketZeven]

How are you defining these things? Is a tractor a tank? Is an APC? Is a 737 MAX8 a fighter plane? A bazooka is a bottle rocket with ambition. A grenade is a cherry bomb on steroids.

You define classes of objects specifically so that you can attempt to label them as purely killing devices. The world doesn't work like that, there's technology crossover everywhere. Nuclear reactors for weapons ended up as nuclear power plants. V1 rockets for destroying London ended up as launch vehicles for satellites and to get men to the moon. GPS was designed for the military, but is now an almost integral part of civilian life.

Stop treating everything as if it's black and white and grow some nuance.



No, you allow them the tools to harm themselves. There's a difference, unless you think that consumers have absolutely no free will whatsoever. It says a lot about your opinion of other people and the self-responsibility that they should be allowed.



These statements are all wrong. You may want to do a little more research before you continue.

I am farthest from black/white. My issue is the comparison of cars with guns as apples with apples. Like its black and white. I take issue with that. Car deaths and gun deaths can be compared, but should be compared with great nuance. Like you stated. Simply saying if guns are bad, then cars should be banned too, because they are more deadly is an inaccurate comparison.

Wouldnt you agree?

 

[BobK]

My issue is the comparison of cars with guns as apples with apples.

And yet you were willing to compare guns with fats and sugars?

 

[PocketZeven]

And yet you were willing to compare guns with fats and sugars?

No I wasnt. I was using that as an example n how comparing cars and guns isnt accurate as there is much more nuance like @Imari correctly stated.

 

[Danoff]

Loosening Gun regulation is a massively losing issue in Australia, even though I think the extent the media goes is Fear merchant level.

Politicians will go hard on guns even when the laws in place are already extremely restrictive and are proving to work, even though the vast majority(over 99%) of gun crime is Illegal guns, but it pleases People's fears of an American sceniaro.

I think you'd have a hard time allowing cars to be legal, or even fueling cars if we'd never seen it before. "You mean everyone can just, own one of these 2-ton death machines that go like a bat out of hell and they could just drive them through my house? What if they had a seizure or sneezed or fell asleep? Let alone a case where they get angry and lose their cool and run me over." Similarly I think people would expect gasoline to be way too dangerous for general handling.

If these things were made illegal I think after public got used to it you'd have a hard time talking them into legalizing it. It would seem like total chaos.

One of the worst straw man arguments I’ve seen in a long while.

Uh... I don't want to repeat what others have properly stated. But I will point out that I'm not sure it was even an argument. It was potentially me agreeing with him. He didn't say what he personally thinks about the issue so it's hard to tell. The natural instinct to fear freedom, and assume the worst of your neighbor, is at play in many discussions about civil liberty.

Occasionally, when I travel at 80 mph with my entire family in a 2-ton death machine next to a bunch of other people traveling at 80 mph with absolutely minimal licensing and absolutely minimal mechanical inspections for their own 2-ton death machine, I marvel at the fact that we're even capable of doing it. I mean, who'd have thought that not just the average, but well below average examples of a particular trained primate would be able to operate this complex piece of machinery carefully enough to move gracefully from one lane to another without hitting anything, even in busy traffic with various other primates moving in and out of traffic and taking exits and entering, and managing the occasional wildlife, etc. etc.?

It's not just the best of us that can manage this feat without killing people, it is among the worst. It's not just the most saintly of us that manages not to murder our fellow man with this machine and speed off into the night, it is among the worst. And it's not something that we only do when we're primed and ready, having had a full cup of coffee and no distractions. We can do this day in day out for hours at a time with screaming kids and radios blaring and STILL not kill people.

Ok so lots of people die in cars. But honestly, it is a marvel that it's not constant. I can't imagine convincing someone who had never seen it happen that it would be possible.

 

[Mightymurph15]

I still can't believe this happened in my own country! It's heart breaking

 

[G.T.Ace]

In stark contrast to the United States, where even the most minor curbs on gun ownership meet ferocious opposition led by the National Rifle Association, New Zealand gun owners agree action is needed.

"We want to support our government in any changes to prevent a terrorist attack from happening in New Zealand again," said Nicole McKee, secretary of the Council of Licensed Firearm Owners.

One of New Zealand's largest gun retailers, Hunting & Fishing, voluntarily stopped selling MSSAs and halted online firearms sales.

"Such weapons of war have no place in our business or our country," said chief executive Darren Jacobs.

New Zealand has its own National Rifle Association, but since the shooting, it has taken great pains to point out it is a small sporting organisation, not a wealthy political lobby group like its American counterpart.

"Our members shoot with single-shot bolt action rifles at paper targets," said president Malcolm Dodson.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019...istchurch-mosques-attack-190401040859005.html

 

[Biggles]

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019...istchurch-mosques-attack-190401040859005.html

That's because new Zealanders haven't fetishized gun ownership the way many Americans have. The NRA is powerful not primarily because they have lobbying money, but because they espouse views held by many Americans.

Uh... I don't want to repeat what others have properly stated. But I will point out that I'm not sure it was even an argument. It was potentially me agreeing with him. He didn't say what he personally thinks about the issue so it's hard to tell. The natural instinct to fear freedom, and assume the worst of your neighbor, is at play in many discussions about civil liberty.

Occasionally, when I travel at 80 mph with my entire family in a 2-ton death machine next to a bunch of other people traveling at 80 mph with absolutely minimal licensing and absolutely minimal mechanical inspections for their own 2-ton death machine, I marvel at the fact that we're even capable of doing it. I mean, who'd have thought that not just the average, but well below average examples of a particular trained primate would be able to operate this complex piece of machinery carefully enough to move gracefully from one lane to another without hitting anything, even in busy traffic with various other primates moving in and out of traffic and taking exits and entering, and managing the occasional wildlife, etc. etc.?

It's not just the best of us that can manage this feat without killing people, it is among the worst. It's not just the most saintly of us that manages not to murder our fellow man with this machine and speed off into the night, it is among the worst. And it's not something that we only do when we're primed and ready, having had a full cup of coffee and no distractions. We can do this day in day out for hours at a time with screaming kids and radios blaring and STILL not kill people.

Ok so lots of people die in cars. But honestly, it is a marvel that it's not constant. I can't imagine convincing someone who had never seen it happen that it would be possible.

I don't know what your point is. Guns were invented to kill things - people & animals. They have done a great job at doing that. Tens of millions, possibly hundreds of millions of people have been killed by guns. Entire species of animals have been wiped out or brought close to extinction.

Cars have also killed a lot of people ... by accident ... but nowhere near the numbers killed by guns. And cars have a practical purpose that has nothing to do with killing. If you could remove all the guns from the world overnight, it would have a negligible effect on most people's daily lives. If you removed all the cars overnight, the result would be a total economic collapse.

Yes, the vast majority of people don't use their guns to kill other people. In fact, in the US, I imagine the vast majority of gun owners don't use their guns for anything at all. People DO use their cars, all the time, every day.

What the New Zealand government is saying is, that in spite of the fact that most owners of assault rifles don't go around shooting people, the the risk represented to the public that someone WILL use one to mass murder people outweighs the right of someone to own one of these weapons. Seems like a perfectly reasonable position.

 

[Danoff]

I don't know what your point is. Guns were invented to kill things - people & animals. They have done a great job at doing that. Tens of millions, possibly hundreds of millions of people have been killed by guns. Entire species of animals have been wiped out or brought close to extinction.

Cars have also killed a lot of people ... by accident ...

but nowhere near the numbers killed by guns.

But some of the people killed by guns were bad.

And cars have a practical purpose that has nothing to do with killing.

You're using killing pretty broadly here (to include animals, like... to feed yourself with). So I'd say that this is super arbitrary.

If you could remove all the guns from the world overnight, it would have a negligible effect on most people's daily lives. If you removed all the cars overnight, the result would be a total economic collapse.

Yes, the vast majority of people don't use their guns to kill other people. In fact, in the US, I imagine the vast majority of gun owners don't use their guns for anything at all. People DO use their cars, all the time, every day.

You're putting forth a very utilitarian argument, which, admittedly, is very consistent for you. You're using a utilitarian perspective to try to combat a principled argument. You say "I see a utilitarian distinction between these things" and you get back "but there is not a principled one" and around we go.

The point is that it's arbitrary from the perspective of principle. If that doesn't mean anything to you because you're a utilitarian, fine. But then let's not try to make a principled argument such as inventing what an inanimate object is "for" and trying to use that to determine its legality.

 

[mustafur]

The idea being you don't use a gun to cut your Travel times(unless you want to break laws), you can with cars.

They have a different purpose even though they can kill very easily.

The freedom element is the exact same between cars and guns though, if both are legal there is a element of trust by society that your going to use them correctly.

 

[Danoff]

They have a different purpose even though they can kill very easily.

They each have lots of different purposes. Many of those purposes are legal and consistent with safeguarding human rights. So this is a non-issue.

 

[Biggles]

You're putting forth a very utilitarian argument, which, admittedly, is very consistent for you. You're using a utilitarian perspective to try to combat a principled argument. You say "I see a utilitarian distinction between these things" and you get back "but there is not a principled one" and around we go.

The point is that it's arbitrary from the perspective of principle. If that doesn't mean anything to you because you're a utilitarian, fine. But then let's not try to make a principled argument such as inventing what an inanimate object is "for" and trying to use that to determine its legality.

Let's be honest here: pretty much everybody has a utilitarian perspective compared to you. It reminds me of my former born-again secretary who liked to proclaim that "Catholics aren't Christians". What you're saying is that your concept of "morality" is universal & the only one possible. If other people disagree they are, in your view, unprincipled.

I'm not actually making a argument for gun control ... I'm just saying that your comments about cars represent (another) example of your penchant for reductio ad absurdum. It's not really remarkable that people can drive 2 ton vehicles at 80 mph in traffic without causing inevitable mayhem. Human beings are actually pretty good at social organization & following rules.

 

[McLaren]

I don't know what your point is. Guns were invented to kill things - people & animals.

Disproven when Pocket asked Famine.

To project flames, possibly for display purposes, in the 10th Century. The first recorded use as a weapon comes a couple of hundred years later, in the 12th Century.

Cars have also killed a lot of people ... by accident ... but nowhere near the numbers killed by guns.

I think the current statistics provided several, several times earlier over the last few pages say otherwise.

Almost 1.3 million people die annually because people can't use cars responsibly, and that's fine, while 250,000 people - less than 20% of that number - die annually* because people can't use guns responsibly, but that's not fine?

What's your threshold for acceptable death tolls from accidents with an object before the object is too dangerous for the public to have? What's your threshold for acceptable death tolls from deliberate acts with an object before the object is too dangerous for the public to have? Are these limits different, and why?


*Some 27% of which are suicides**
**Fun fact, that's one death per 4,000 guns, but one death per 1,000 cars. Yep, a car is four times more likely to kill you by accident than a gun is on purpose, even including times when you point the gun at yourself...

 

[Exorcet]

Human beings are actually pretty good at social organization & following rules.

Then why not rely on that and focus on the people who aren't good at it when a problem arises?

 

[Danoff]

Let's be honest here: pretty much everybody has a utilitarian perspective compared to you. It reminds me of my former born-again secretary who liked to proclaim that "Catholics aren't Christians". What you're saying is that your concept of "morality" is universal & the only one possible. If other people disagree they are, in your view, unprincipled.

No. The fallacy you're looking for is "no true Scotsman", and that simply doesn't apply here. I even pointed out a principled (flawed) argument that wasn't utilitarian (that what a thing is "for" should determine its legality) which I do not support. The difference between a principled view and a utilitarian view is not the difference between my view and a utilitarian view. One can make a principled argument that isn't my view. Another counter-point (not that I need another one) is that I myself use utilitarianism outside of principle. So, for example, a murderer is caught and convicted. What shall his sentence be? There are (basically) no principles that govern what the sentence has to be. Ok maybe I could see a principle argument that torture is off the table, but pretty much everything else is on the table. So what is his sentence? Step forth utilitarianism!

I'm not actually making a argument for gun control ... I'm just saying that your comments about cars represent (another) example of your penchant for reductio ad absurdum.

Reductio ad absurdum is a very useful logical technique which can be used to determine whether a principled argument is actually logical. I'd invite everyone to employ it when trying to assess the logical validity of a principled view.

It's not really remarkable that people can drive 2 ton vehicles at 80 mph in traffic without causing inevitable mayhem. Human beings are actually pretty good at social organization & following rules.

It is actually. It's remarkable and beautiful and makes me marvel at humanity. Not just that we make these things, but that so many of us can operate them so efficiently. And let's not kid ourselves, it's dying.

 

[Biggles]

Disproven when Pocket asked Famine.


I think the current statistics provided several, several times earlier over the last few pages say otherwise.

Deaths caused by guns in wars - a primary use for guns - over the last couple of centuries? Many, many, many times the number of people killed by cars.

And I would draw your attention to this:

Firearm-related fatalities exceeded motor vehicle fatalities in 21 states and the District of Columbia in 2014, the most recent year for which state-level data is available for both products from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That year, gun deaths (including gun suicide, homicide, and fatal unintentional shootings) outpaced motor vehicle deaths in Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, District of Columbia, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington.

Increased safety regulations have led to a significant drop in the number of traffic fatalities.

 

[Exorcet]

Deaths caused by guns in wars - a primary use for guns - over the last couple of centuries? Many, many, many times the number of people killed by cars.

That would exclude those guns not used for war, which is pretty much all the privately own guns in first world nations today. If you want to assign guns as high a kill count as possible, you can include warfare, but it seems unrelated to a discussion on whether or not they can be safely owned in society.

 

[Biggles]

That would exclude those guns not used for war, which is pretty much all the privately own guns in first world nations today. If you want to assign guns as high a kill count as possible, you can include warfare, but it seems unrelated to a discussion on whether or not they can be safely owned in society.

Agreed. I didn't bring it up, but am just responding to the discussion on the relative safety of cars compared to guns. It seems common sense to acknowledge the fact that cars have a completely different function from guns. The function of cars is primarily transportation, the function of guns is primarily to kill. In addition, for better or for worse, cars are essential to the lives of billions of people ... guns, not so much.

 

[McLaren]

Deaths caused by guns in wars - a primary use for guns - over the last couple of centuries? Many, many, many times the number of people killed by cars.

And I would draw your attention to this:

View attachment 812297


Firearm-related fatalities exceeded motor vehicle fatalities in 21 states and the District of Columbia in 2014, the most recent year for which state-level data is available for both products from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That year, gun deaths (including gun suicide, homicide, and fatal unintentional shootings) outpaced motor vehicle deaths in Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, District of Columbia, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington.

Increased safety regulations have led to a significant drop in the number of traffic fatalities.

Good thing I said current statistics and not centuries.

I think you need to draw your attention back to what Famine pointed out. Even with 21 states having higher firearm related deaths, overall, the motor vehicle related deaths was way higher.

But that’s a stat you’ll ignore while you bring up warfare and animal extinction as if that has any relevance. You’re too far up the anti-gun alley to even consider any counter point.

 

[gladbecker82]

Agreed. I didn't bring it up, but am just responding to the discussion on the relative safety of cars compared to guns. It seems common sense to acknowledge the fact that cars have a completely different function from guns. The function of cars is primarily transportation, the function of guns is primarily to kill. In addition, for better or for worse, cars are essential to the lives of billions of people ... guns, not so much.

guns can be used for self defense, as a deterrent etc. most people who own a gun probably dont buy it with the intention to kill people.
And regarding cars, in Europe, almost everywhere there is some kind of public transport. car culture is also not really a global thing, more some western, japanese thing, as represented by who is building cars.

 

[Exorcet]

Agreed. I didn't bring it up, but am just responding to the discussion on the relative safety of cars compared to guns. It seems common sense to acknowledge the fact that cars have a completely different function from guns. The function of cars is primarily transportation, the function of guns is primarily to kill. In addition, for better or for worse, cars are essential to the lives of billions of people ... guns, not so much.

When it comes to safety, what you're trying to be safe from is going to shape the discussion. If it's murders, and guns are used more often in those crimes, then guns are a bigger threat to safety. If it's death, accidents and intentional killings lose their distinctions. I don't see why murder is worse than an accident or a natural disaster if the result is the same. A major point of the car/gun comparison to me is that the threat to safety comes from each tool being used poorly or maliciously. If you removed the tool only in those situations where it contributes to harm you would be able to ensure safety without needing to deprive innocent people of anything. This might be harder to work out than a total ban, but I think it's worth the effort. It's also not reassuring when the reaction to a killing is to focus on the tool when it's not hard to replace it with something else. The New Zealand attack would have been different without a gun, but that doesn't mean that the risk of harm would have been eliminated. We can't even be sure that the number of casualties would have been reduced.

 

[Biggles]

Good thing I said current statistics and not centuries.

I think you need to draw your attention back to what Famine pointed out. Even with 21 states having higher firearm related deaths, overall, the motor vehicle related deaths was way higher.

But that’s a stat you’ll ignore while you bring up warfare and animal extinction as if that has any relevance. You’re too far up the anti-gun alley to even consider any counter point.

Oh lordy.

The relevance has to do with the immediate topic of discussion: the comparison between cars & guns. What they are as things ... what their function is. Cars are very, very useful to many people's lives ... people in the US use them a lot. That's why, even though the vast majority of car trips take place without incident, there are still a lot of traffic fatalities.

Most gun owners in the US don't use them a lot. They don't use them for killing other people, they don't use them for killing themselves, they don't use them for self-defence ... they don't use them much at all. Yes, some are used for hunting & some are used for sport shooting, but that amount of use pales into insignificance compared to the amount of time people spend using their cars. When it comes to wars, people do use guns a lot & in consequence there are a lot of fatalities. It's the nature of the tool.

This is not an indication of being "far up the anti-gun alley" - it's not an opinion on gun control at all. It's a recognition of reality.

When it comes to safety, what you're trying to be safe from is going to shape the discussion. If it's murders, and guns are used more often in those crimes, then guns are a bigger threat to safety. If it's death, accidents and intentional killings lose their distinctions. I don't see why murder is worse than an accident or a natural disaster if the result is the same. A major point of the car/gun comparison to me is that the threat to safety comes from each tool being used poorly or maliciously. If you removed the tool only in those situations where it contributes to harm you would be able to ensure safety without needing to deprive innocent people of anything. This might be harder to work out than a total ban, but I think it's worth the effort. It's also not reassuring when the reaction to a killing is to focus on the tool when it's not hard to replace it with something else. The New Zealand attack would have been different without a gun, but that doesn't mean that the risk of harm would have been eliminated. We can't even be sure that the number of casualties would have been reduced.

Most guns in the US are not used irresponsibly. Most shootings occur within a relatively small segment of the population. But I believe the psychological impact of random mass shootings on society is far greater than the statistical likelihood of being killed in an attack of that sort. That's what the NZ government is responding to.

Most car drivers in the US don't drive irresponsibly, but the sheer volume of car use contributes to the quantity of fatalities. Drivers in the US are actually, relatively, very responsible - the culture of car use is relatively responsible. The same is true in most of the First World. What is fascinating is to look at the global statistics on driving fatalities. They give a startling picture of just how "poorly" a car can be used:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate

The fatality rate per 100,000 vehicles ranges from a low of 3.1 in Norway (12.9 in the US) to a mind-boggling 9,462 in the African nation of Guinea. I think it would be fair to say that Guinea has a "car control" problem.

 

[McLaren]

View attachment 812384

Oh lordy.

The relevance has to do with the immediate topic of discussion: the comparison between cars & guns. What they are as things ... what their function is. Cars are very, very useful to many people's lives ... people in the US use them a lot. That's why, even though the vast majority of car trips take place without incident, there are still a lot of traffic fatalities.

Most gun owners in the US don't use them a lot. They don't use them for killing other people, they don't use them for killing themselves, they don't use them for self-defence ... they don't use them much at all. Yes, some are used for hunting & some are used for sport shooting, but that amount of use pales into insignificance compared to the amount of time people spend using their cars. When it comes to wars, people do use guns a lot & in consequence there are a lot of fatalities. It's the nature of the tool.

This is not an indication of being "far up the anti-gun alley" - it's not an opinion on gun control at all. It's a recognition of reality.



Most guns in the US are not used irresponsibly. Most shootings occur within a relatively small segment of the population. But I believe the psychological impact of random mass shootings on society is far greater than the statistical likelihood of being killed in an attack of that sort. That's what the NZ government is responding to.

Most car drivers in the US don't drive irresponsibly, but the sheer volume of car use contributes to the quantity of fatalities. Drivers in the US are actually, relatively, very responsible - the culture of car use is relatively responsible. The same is true in most of the First World. What is fascinating is to look at the global statistics on driving fatalities. They give a startling picture of just how "poorly" a car can be used:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate

The fatality rate per 100,000 vehicles ranges from a low of 3.1 in Norway (12.9 in the US) to a mind-boggling 9,462 in the African nation of Guinea. I think it would be fair to say that Guinea has a "car control" problem.

Good lord yourself, Famine's question couldn't apply any more to your argument.

Almost 1.3 million people die annually because people can't use cars responsibly, and that's fine, while 250,000 people - less than 20% of that number - die annually* because people can't use guns responsibly, but that's not fine?

What's your threshold for acceptable death tolls from accidents with an object before the object is too dangerous for the public to have? What's your threshold for acceptable death tolls from deliberate acts with an object before the object is too dangerous for the public to have? Are these limits different, and why?


*Some 27% of which are suicides**
**Fun fact, that's one death per 4,000 guns, but one death per 1,000 cars. Yep, a car is four times more likely to kill you by accident than a gun is on purpose, even including times when you point the gun at yourself...

When it comes to wars, people do use guns a lot & in consequence there are a lot of fatalities. It's the nature of the tool.

BTW, this is the stupidest argument presented, no surprise of all people.

What else do you use to win wars besides mainly guns? Let's also ignore the "tiny" fact that in warfare, both sides have guns. Why you decide to rope those deaths into the amount of people killed by guns in world history in a topic about guns in the hands of civilians is beyond dumb (considering it's not civilians or a mass shooter that mainly contributes to war deaths by guns ), maybe dumber than bringing up how guns contribute to animal extinction as some sort of weak ass point for why we don't need guns.

 

[PocketZeven]

guns can be used for self defense, as a deterrent etc. most people who own a gun probably dont buy it with the intention to kill people.
And regarding cars, in Europe, almost everywhere there is some kind of public transport. car culture is also not really a global thing, more some western, japanese thing, as represented by who is building cars.

Self defense and deterrent can be translated to the threat of being shot dead. So its purpose doesnt change.

 

[Dotini]

Guns were invented to kill things - people & animals.

According to my understanding of history, guns (in medieval Europe) were originally invented to bombard castle walls and generally disorganize and intimidate horse and soldier from a distance, being almost useless in melee on the battlefield.

 

[Famine]

So its purpose doesnt change.

Is threat of use now the same thing as use?

So, while we're still all processing the concept that the cars we love kill 1.2 million people a year from misuse and how that's better to live with than the 250,000 people a year that the guns we don't like kill through misuse, let's talk about the 400,000 premature deaths worldwide every year from vehicle tailpipe emissions (mainly particulates and nitrogen oxides).



Hey, what's this behind the Global Climate Change door?

 

[Danoff]

Most gun owners in the US don't use them a lot.

TL;DR - Fire Extinguishers

In a case study of Danoff, it depends on which guns you're talking about, and what constitutes a use.

I have 6. It'll itemize:

1) Revolver handgun
2) 9 mm handgun
3) M1 garand (for the uninitiated this is a semi-automatic rifle from WWII).
4) M1 carbine (another semi-automatic rifle from WWII).
5) Double-barreled shotgun, well over 100 years old
6) Reproduction civil war black powder musket.

All of these guns are in a long gun safe. So let's run through them really quickly. Do I use the black powder musket? Well, no probably not. I don't know how to load it, I don't own black powder, I don't own a musket ball. I'm not a civil war re-enacter, I have no interest in shooting a musket. As you might have gathered, I did not purchase this gun, it was a hand-me-down. I don't know that I'm dying to sell it, but I'm also not dying to use it. I also don't think it can hurt anybody, because I imagine that if I took a poll of the 10,000 people nearest to me, there might be like 1 that would actually know how to load and fire it. I wouldn't be surprised if none of them did.

Do I use the double-barreled shotgun? Well again, probably not. That one is really ornamental, and it does a bad job of that in my safe, where nobody can see it. The last time it was fired was approximately 80 years ago, and it was so old at that time that it broke itself (one of the hammers shattered). At this point firing it would probably further break it. I don't own ammunition for it, and I don't consider it to be much of a liability. I find it interesting because it pre-dates gun serial numbers and it's one of the earliest gun-guns (as opposed to muskets). So really more of a collector's item. Am I using a collector's item? Uh... probably not as a collector normally would. I don't display it.

How about the M1s? Do I use the M1s? I'll admit that I don't have ammunition for them and don't know how to load them (apart from my experience watching the CGI guy do it in Call of Duty). Once again, I own these more like a collector would. I don't display them, but I find them interesting and I like that I own them. I also don't think they pose any risk to anyone. Once again, I don't own the ammunition, loading them is not exactly super straight forward (so it's not like a toddler is going to do it, without ammo, on accident). And they're in a safe.

So that's 4 guns down. Let's get to the real ones.

Do I use the handguns? Well I have fired them both recently. I'd say within the last 2 years. I try to take them to a gun range and keep skills sharp periodically. I find that I forget a few little details here and there if I don't do that. I also like to exercise the spring in the magazine of the 9mm a little and make sure that it actually performs its reload function. But I do not particularly enjoy shooting at the firing range. It's expensive and loud and kinda uncomfortable. And I really despise jams, which the 9mm will do if you're firing cheap ammo. I go fire these guns regularly because I consider it to be my adult responsibility to be proficient and accountable for my safety and the safety of my family.

In a sense, I use these guns every moment that I'm at home. The represent the ability to defend if needed. I also own an emergency kit that includes some food and water in case of a blizzard. I don't use the emergency kit, I've never used it. But I'm prepared for an emergency. So I use it to be prepared. I also own fire extinguishers. Now I've never had my house on fire. But in a very real sense, I use those fire extinguishers every day to be prepared for one. If you took my fire extinguishers away, would it affect my day-to-day life? Well not in an outwardly visible fashion, but I'd be less prepared, and I'd stress that a little. I'd feel less in control of my life and circumstances, irresponsible, and if the worst should happen, and a fire starts, I'd feel criminally wronged by the government that prevented me from being prepared.

 

[PocketZeven]

Is threat of use now the same thing as use?

So, while we're still all processing the concept that the cars we love kill 1.2 million people a year from misuse and how that's better to live with than the 250,000 people a year that the guns we don't like kill through misuse, let's talk about the 400,000 premature deaths worldwide every year from vehicle tailpipe emissions (mainly particulates and nitrogen oxides).



Hey, what's this behind the Global Climate Change door?

Countering with another whataboutism to discredit guncontrol, really does not change the fact that the people in the NZ masshooting did not die by car or vehicle tailpipe emissions. You make valid arguments, but that is suitable for its own thread. The mass shooting had absolutely nothing to about caraccidents or emissions so why keep bringing it up?

Like i mentioned before why not mention sugar and fat?

TL;DR - Fire Extinguishers

In a case study of Danoff, it depends on which guns you're talking about, and what constitutes a use.

I have 6. It'll itemize:

1) Revolver handgun
2) 9 mm handgun
3) M1 garand (for the uninitiated this is a semi-automatic rifle from WWII).
4) M1 carbine (another semi-automatic rifle from WWII).
5) Double-barreled shotgun, well over 100 years old
6) Reproduction civil war black powder musket.

All of these guns are in a long gun safe. So let's run through them really quickly. Do I use the black powder musket? Well, no probably not. I don't know how to load it, I don't own black powder, I don't own a musket ball. I'm not a civil war re-enacter, I have no interest in shooting a musket. As you might have gathered, I did not purchase this gun, it was a hand-me-down. I don't know that I'm dying to sell it, but I'm also not dying to use it. I also don't think it can hurt anybody, because I imagine that if I took a poll of the 10,000 people nearest to me, there might be like 1 that would actually know how to load and fire it. I wouldn't be surprised if none of them did.

Do I use the double-barreled shotgun? Well again, probably not. That one is really ornamental, and it does a bad job of that in my safe, where nobody can see it. The last time it was fired was approximately 80 years ago, and it was so old at that time that it broke itself (one of the hammers shattered). At this point firing it would probably further break it. I don't own ammunition for it, and I don't consider it to be much of a liability. I find it interesting because it pre-dates gun serial numbers and it's one of the earliest gun-guns (as opposed to muskets). So really more of a collector's item. Am I using a collector's item? Uh... probably not as a collector normally would. I don't display it.

How about the M1s? Do I use the M1s? I'll admit that I don't have ammunition for them and don't know how to load them (apart from my experience watching the CGI guy do it in Call of Duty). Once again, I own these more like a collector would. I don't display them, but I find them interesting and I like that I own them. I also don't think they pose any risk to anyone. Once again, I don't own the ammunition, loading them is not exactly super straight forward (so it's not like a toddler is going to do it, without ammo, on accident). And they're in a safe.

So that's 4 guns down. Let's get to the real ones.

Do I use the handguns? Well I have fired them both recently. I'd say within the last 2 years. I try to take them to a gun range and keep skills sharp periodically. I find that I forget a few little details here and there if I don't do that. I also like to exercise the spring in the magazine of the 9mm a little and make sure that it actually performs its reload function. But I do not particularly enjoy shooting at the firing range. It's expensive and loud and kinda uncomfortable. And I really despise jams, which the 9mm will do if you're firing cheap ammo. I go fire these guns regularly because I consider it to be my adult responsibility to be proficient and accountable for my safety and the safety of my family.

In a sense, I use these guns every moment that I'm at home. The represent the ability to defend if needed. I also own an emergency kit that includes some food and water in case of a blizzard. I don't use the emergency kit, I've never used it. But I'm prepared for an emergency. So I use it to be prepared. I also own fire extinguishers. Now I've never had my house on fire. But in a very real sense, I use those fire extinguishers every day to be prepared for one. If you took my fire extinguishers away, would it affect my day-to-day life? Well not in an outwardly visible fashion, but I'd be less prepared, and I'd stress that a little. I'd feel less in control of my life and circumstances, irresponsible, and if the worst should happen, and a fire starts, I'd feel criminally wronged by the government that prevented me from being prepared.

As we have discussed in a prior thread, I agree that you are a proper example of a responsible of a gunowner and how gun control should work. Switzerland is an example how gunownership can coexist with proper gun control.