Mass Shooting Las Vegas...

[lilpixieofterror]

Thats because you're very simple minded. It may tell you that, unlike many christian conservatives gun nuts here, he has a conscience, and is actually bothered when 60 human beings lose their lives and 470 end up in the hospital and he wants to do what he can to prevent it from happening again.

More emotion and no logic, yep typical Jimmy. Of course, the fact that not a single proposed law would have prevented this from happening seems lost on you. Why?

[rogue06]

Thats because you're confusing intelligence with grammar.

You have yet to demonstrate that you are any good at either.

[JimL]

More emotion and no logic, yep typical Jimmy. Of course, the fact that not a single proposed law would have prevented this from happening seems lost on you. Why?

Yes, we all know the gun nuts talking points Lilpix, frankly we're getting pretty sick of it. You think we should all just get used to it right? Idiot!

[Mountain Man]

What was the source of your statistics?. I couldn't trace it.

The "infamous" (most would say highly successful) 'buy back program' has resulted in no mass shootings in 21 years in Australia. And homicides have decreased.

"Australian crime statistics show a marked decrease in homicides since the gun law changehttp://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/gun...ralia-updated/No other developed nation comes close to the rate of gun violence in America. Americans own an estimated 265m guns, more than one gun for every adult".

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...s-gun-violence

Here's the source:

http://gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html

No change in the rate of violent crime, including murder, following Australia's infamous "buy back" scheme.

Why fixate on gun violence, like that Guardian article with its skewed statistics (counting injuries instead of just deaths... very sneaky; by that metric, Australia has had at least 3 mass shootings since the ban)? Why not look at violent crime in general? Yes, guns can be used to kill people, but so can a lot of things. If banning guns doesn't decrease violent crime then what have you gained? Nothing, that's what. I notice in the Guardian article that Chicago is listed over 100 times, Washington DC nearly 2-dozen times, and they have by far the strictest gun laws in the country.

[JimL]

You have yet to demonstrate that you are any good at either.

Well you see, the problem you're having rogue is that you have to be intelligent yourself in order to recognize it in others.

[lilpixieofterror]

Yes, we all know the gun nuts talking points Lilpix, frankly we're getting pretty sick of it. You think we should all just get used to it right? Idiot!

[Adrift]

I'm not sure where I'm losing you. You are talking about hypothetically gun usage increasing so that it's equal to the amount of ladder usage (assuming it is currently less). If a large part of actual gun usage is safe usage at gun ranges, then in our hypothetical increase of gun usage, we presumably should assume that usage at gun ranges is a large (proportional) part of the increase in gun usage. To not include gun usage at ranges in your hypothetical increase or in the total amount of gun usage would be to beg the question, and give you a conclusion counter to the facts.

I don't know. I think I'm fine with begging the question then I suppose. I don't think that's what I'm doing, of course, but if that's what you want to call it, then I don't know what to say. I have to discount the monitored safe use of guns vs. the unmonitored unsafe usage of ladders. I just cannot shake that that that's a much more fair comparison. You may not think it is, but I feel that it must be. I don't know why we can't see eye to eye on this, but for me, it's the only thing that makes rational sense.

Equivalently if we want to evaluate risk per gun usage (to try to compare it to risk per usage of ladders), we need to include the actual common usages of guns (including at ranges) in calculating that average. Yes? We would take gun deaths, divided by the total quantity of usage (including at ranges, competitions, hunting, etc.).

No. Unfortunately, I simply cannot follow you there. They're not the same, and no matter what you say, I just don't feel I can agree with you. Most people I know have never been to a ladder range. As far as I know, monitored, safety prepared ladder ranges simply do not exist, and that's what it would take for me to agree with you that they are comparable.

If instead you included only riskier usages, then your claim is weaker. You'd only be saying that risky usage of guns is risky. Which nobody can deny, but that doesn't tell us whether actual gun usage on average is risky.

Why not? It's something I feel that a lot of people deal with on an ordinary level. I know so many people who own guns who don't keep them in a safe forever, or who don't only use them outside of a gun range. That's my reality. I imagine that with the number of guns that exist in the US, that a lot of people simply do not handle them with the care we'd expect at a range, or handle them with the type of supervision we might expect in the same. Guns, unlike ladders, are really very dangerous. It seems like you and a few others here want to convince me that they're not, but that seems totally surreal, and unbelievable. I know, from personal experience, the damage that comes from guns. I also know, relatively speaking the damage that comes from ladders (I used to do siding and roofing, so ladders were a pretty big part of my work experience). No matter what you say, no matter your justifications, in my own personal experience, guns are FAR more dangerous than ladders. I'm truly sorry, but you simply cannot convince me otherwise.

You are wanting me to compare gun usage under certain conditions to ladder usage under comparable conditions. But that's not the relevant comparison.

I feel it is. If you cannot follow me there, then that's okay. I can only tell you what I myself feel about the subject. Maybe you're dealing with your own experience with ladders and guns, but it's simply not the experience I share.

What's relevant is gun usage under the actual conditions that it occurs in the real world compared to ladder usage under the actual conditions that it occurs in the real world. The actual conditions of real gun usage may not be of the same quality as the actual conditions of real ladder usage. There may in fact be more safety training and caution regarding gun usage than there is with ladder usage. The percentage of gun usage that occurs in controlled environments like ranges is probably a lot higher than the percentage of ladder usage that occurs in comparably controlled environments. Those differences will factor in to the averages.

I think that's probably the case. I have to discount safe gun usage, because I don't believe that's comparable with average ladder usage. To compare the two seems, at least in my head, nonsense. Again, I don't feel like I'm weird, or out of this world crazy for suggesting that guns are more dangerous than ladders, but you and a few others here seem to be suggesting that, and it seems Twilight Zonish to me. Like we live in different worlds. I really don't know what to tell you at this point.

There exist high school shooting programs.
I was in a shooting sports club (outside of school) when I was in grade school.

That's cool. I'm going on 42. Can't say that was a thing at my schools growing up, or if it was, I wasn't aware of them. I hope that those sorts of programs continue without accident.

The perception that guns are more dangerous can also contribute to people being more cautious with their use.

I'd like to think that, but I feel that in this country we're far off the mark from where we should be.


I realize that in the above I'm mostly basing my views on this subject on my feelings and intuition. Again, I realize that that may not be the best form of convincing argumentation (and in many cases I would agree it's a poor form of argumentation), but I think it's good to be honest with myself and with others on this topic.

[Adrift]

Reports say that the crowd at the concert was between 22,000 to 30,000 people. If you couldn't shoot and kill far more than 59 people in that amount of time considering his set up then you must have been an incredibly poor shot. Fortunately, he picked a device that while increasing the ROF drastically reduces accuracy (though I've heard that some people who practice with it a lot can compensate for it somewhat).

I probably was. Disturbingly, I'm taking into consideration breath control, aiming for headshots from that sort of distance, and the movement/dispersal of the crowd. I honestly don't think I could take down that many people (never mind wounding) in that little amount of time. Maybe a trained assassin, but I haven't heard yet about this guy being that capable. It's a sickening thought, but I sincerely think he picked the best way of eliminating the most people.

[One Bad Pig]

Thats because you're confusing intelligence with grammar.

In your case, Jim, it's a pretty good correlation. Scoring own goals doesn't exactly correlate well with intelligence either.

You might be intelligent, and only look stupid because you don't take the opposition seriously.

[Adrift]

If we really want to go there... have you noticed just how many folks that are avidly pro-gun control are also enthusiastic supporters of abortion? Think of how many millions of lives that could be saved by banning abortion which was never directly covered by a specific Constitutional Amendment.

I'm not a supporter of abortion, and I can tell you that it has absolutely nothing to do with some man-made Constitution that only came onto the scene some 240 years ago.

[Adrift]

We could leave the use of ladders up to trained and licensed professionals.

That likely wouldn't be practical.

[Adrift]

So as long as someone kept their firearm on their property there would be no license or registration requirement?

? I'm not sure I get where you're coming from. If I keep a car on my property and intend on using it, I need to make sure it's licensed and registred.

[rogue06]

? I'm not sure I get where you're coming from. If I keep a car on my property and intend on using it, I need to make sure it's licensed and registred.

As long as your car does not leave your property you don't need to either register or license it.

[Adrift]

We should restrict knives to trained chefs and the like. Others can not be trusted.

I don't think knives are as dangerous as guns. Do you?

[rogue06]

I'm not a supporter of abortion, and I can tell you that it has absolutely nothing to do with some man-made Constitution that only came onto the scene some 240 years ago.

Please notice that I made sure not to say all supporters of increased gun control. I think I can confidently say that Teal isn't either.