Well my goodness. Didn't this thread get busy.
Dr Winston O'Boogie;1880548 wrote:There will always be ways to kill people available to these people. The cost to society of eliminating automobiles because they are dangerous is incalculable. They are produced for a multitude of uses that allow the functioning of the world.
That is true. However, I would argue that the ability to defend one's individual property in a society that recognizes such individual property is equally necessary for functioning within that society.
Also, while we can look at it from the cost standpoint, banning vehicles would be far more effective because of the difficulty of concealing a vehicle as opposed to a gun.
I'm being facetious, of course, but not all bans themselves are created equal, and the market for a banned piece of property doesn't necessarily go down just because it is banned. The opposite even results sometimes.
Dr Winston O'Boogie;1880548 wrote:Assault/powerful weapons are made for one purpose. They are military grade weapons.
AR-15s are not, as has been said. They just look more like an M-4 than most other semi-auto hunting rifles.
iclfan2;1880549 wrote:... what happens to the millions already on the street?
And let's not pretend that we, as the biggest consumer nation, wouldn't be a wet dream for illegal arms importers.
Dr Winston O'Boogie;1880565 wrote:Why is it the weapon of choice for many of these mass shooters?
There would be a couple reasons:
1. The most sensible one would be if the shooter had mid-range targets en masse, like the Vegas shooter did.
2. The shooter knows he's going to be on the news, and he wants any footage to look scary.
3. They've become largely popularized by the media attention they get.
4. The shooter is generally a dipshit.
Two semi-auto handguns with some heft to them (so as to absorb the kick a little more) would be far more viable for mass carnage in short order.
Dr Winston O'Boogie;1880566 wrote:If the guns aren't the factor, how do you explain these large mass shootings not happening elsewhere? Mental health? There are mentally ill people everywhere in the world? Poverty? Our rate of poverty is lower than many other countries that don't have these types of mass shootings. So what is it? If its not the fact that we own more guns per capita of any country in the world (by a long shot), then what is it that causes these?
Mass shootings? Population size.
We're a bigger country than most from the standpoint of sheer population. Most phenomena are going to happen more frequently here for the same reason that more D1 college players come out of large high schools as opposed to small ones. The pool from which to find that level of talent is larger.
In the same way, our population being larger means we have a larger "pool" from which someone capable of a mass shooting might come.
queencitybuckeye;1880568 wrote:In every mass shooting, when someone arrives at the scene with roughly equal firepower, the killer either flees or kills himself. The killing stops. Is making this equalizer harder to get really a step forward in reducing the carnage? Doesn't seem so.
This is an excellent point, and one I don't see made often enough, from even the pro side.
Dr Winston O'Boogie;1880592 wrote:Okay, it's not the guns. Then what is it that is driving these huge mass shootings here? Why are they not happening in any way comparable in other western countries?
They do. But we're the country in the lime light, so it's publicized much more widely, and again, because we're also larger, it does happen more frequently (not per capita, but because of sheer volume).
kizer permanente;1880608 wrote:So if gun legislation isn't the answer, what is the answer? I see people cite crime statistics with and without gun legislation, but I never see an opinion offered to what they think is the answer. Is there no answer? We just live with it? Don't do anything about it? Is that the answer?
Whenever this question comes up (If not legislation, then what?), I sometimes borrow the name of a fallacious line of reasoning among some religious people. This smacks of "government in the gaps," not unlike the reason some people find answers in a deity. The "God of the gaps" idea is that people plant God as the answer to things that otherwise don't seem to have a clear answer, but doing so is correctly viewed as a flawed system. Just because we don't have a good answer at the time of asking the question, throwing out the "God did it" answer isn't adequate.
In the same way, not having a solution to this problem doesn't justify throwing out the "let government do it" proposed solution, either.
Automatik;1880609 wrote:THOUGHTS AND PRAYERS!!
#chuckle
Granted, some people are REALLY going after the whole "thoughts and prayers" thing way too hard, but this was still funny.
queencitybuckeye;1880612 wrote:We might want to consider the opposite approach as always seems to be suggested. Since nearly all, if not all mass killings tend to occur in "gun-free zones"...
You'll NEVER get that passed. Most pro-gun people are even in favor of some of the gun legislation currently in place.
iclfan2;1880614 wrote:The same liberals who defended the Muslims use of allah akbar last week were the ones making fun of Christians this week for sending prayers for a tragedy. Mocking one religion while defending another one is how you get Trump in the first place.
Thoughts technically are irreligious.
iclfan2;1880614 wrote:Also, let’s here how you could have stopped any of these attacks other than repealing the 2nd amendment. Bc that isn’t happening.
I would argue that even repealing the second amendment wouldn't fix it. It would just change the rules of the game, but the players would still play.
Heretic;1880617 wrote:Oh well, I'm not running for anything, so fuck all your fake gods.
Fuck you, too!
Automatik;1880619 wrote:As for how to prevent these events? I don't know the answer, but "thoughts and prayers" don't to shit.
I mean ... I don't think they're intended to "do" anything other than express sympathies/condolences. And for that, they appear to work fairly well.
Sure, "I swear to you on my father's grave that I will avenge your loved one," sounds nice, and perhaps it would 'do' more than "thoughts and prayers," but they're not meant to accomplish the same thing.
Automatik;1880627 wrote:I just find it funny that most conservatives are quick to offer thoughts and prayers (this is based on my social media feeds) but once someone brings up addressing gun legislation, they get all "zomg don't take muh gunz!"
Again, I think the two responses are not intended to do the same thing. One is to express sympathy. The other is over actual legislation.
like_that;1880635 wrote:I'm not one to have the state pay for everything, but perhaps we could save some chunk change billions by decriminalizing drugs and focusing on mental health. All in all though, I believe nonprofits could do a much better job, if people had more of their own money to spend.
Truth be told, I don't actually think this is a mental health thing, either. The BJS report I posted earlier showed that about 88.6% of weapons that prison inmates possessed at the time of their offense were NOT purchased through gun retailers, flea markets, gun shows, or pawn shops. 77.4% were either obtained from loved ones or bought illegally.
