Mass Shooting Las Vegas...

[Adrift]

Not to mention the fact that disarming a citizenry has always preceded stringent rises in levels of authoritarianism typically culminating in human rights abuses.

A lot of places have disarmed their citizens without the rise of authoritarianism, haven't they? Most of Europe and Australia seem like positive examples of that.

[Cerebrum123]

That may be, but despite the overwhelming data presented here, I simply cannot shake the idea that no guns means no gun murders. It just makes logical sense to me. I can't explain the surveys. I don't know why they say what they say, but they simply don't make logical sense in my mind.

Maybe you need to reevaluate what you perceive as "logical". I've had to do that myself in the past.

[Adrift]

The murder rate in the US has actually gone DOWN, as has the overall number of shootings, since roughly 1996 (again, not 100% sure since I don't have all the exact data to hand right now). And this is despite the fact that Diane Feinstein's harebrained Federal Assault Weapon Ban expired.

So, gun control has gotten stricter, and the murder rate has gone down? I thought the murder rates got higher when gun control got stricter.

[Adrift]

Maybe you need to reevaluate what you perceive as "logical". I've had to do that myself in the past.

I don't think that would work. If I take your apple away from you, you can't eat your apple. That makes logical sense. I can't change that logic. I can't look at that from some other logical point of view. This should work regardless of whether we're referring to apples or guns. If I take your gun away from you, you can't kill me with a gun. And guns are really good at killing people. People here are trying to tell me that they're not that great at killing people, but I joined the US military. We trained with guns all the time. I don't know why they would do that if they didn't work. There are all sorts of things in this thread that just sound crazy to me, and I can't explain why I can't see eye to eye with people here who think ladders and knives are more dangerous than guns, or why if I take your gun away, gun crime will go up, or likewise, if I make it harder for you to access drugs, you won't be able to do as many drugs. These all seem to go against what I've lived 42 years on this earth believing was common sense. To reverse all of that would all of a sudden mean I'd have to admit up is down, and left is right. That's just too much for me.

[Cerebrum123]

I don't think that would work. If I take your apple away from you, you can't eat your apple. That makes logical sense. I can't change that logic. I can't look at that from some other logical point of view. This should work regardless of whether we're referring to apples or guns.

What we see as "logical" and true logical reasoning aren't always the same thing. That's why I put it in quotes. Sometimes you have to re-evaluate your position to see if it really does line up with the laws of logic, instead of your own intuition.

If I take your gun away from you, you can't kill me with a gun. And guns are really good at killing people. People here are trying to tell me that they're not that great at killing people, but I joined the US military. We trained with guns all the time. I don't know why they would do that if they didn't work. There are all sorts of things in this thread that just sound crazy to me, and I can't explain why I can't see eye to eye with people here who think ladders and knives are more dangerous than guns, or why if I take your gun away, gun crime will go up, or likewise, if I make it harder for you to access drugs, you won't be able to do as many drugs. These all seem to go against what I've lived 42 years on this earth believing was common sense. To reverse all of that would all of a sudden mean I'd have to admit up is down, and left is right. That's just too much for me.

I've read a decent chunk of this thread, and I don't remember seeing anyone try and convince you that guns are not efficient for killing. I haven't seen them say that gun crime will go up if you take away guns, only that it won't do anything to reduce violent crime.

We all want mass killings to be reduced, preferably to none, but I don't think that is realistic in our world. Removing guns won't prevent them in the slightest, and will, in my eyes, remove defenses that many citizens have right now. If you try to do something like this now, given how divided and extremely polarized the USA has become, I think you will have the opposite outcome. I think this would happen with any kind of substantial attempt at gun control, and not just with full blown attempts at abolition like Australia has done.

[Adrift]

What we see as "logical" and true logical reasoning aren't always the same thing. That's why I put it in quotes. Sometimes you have to re-evaluate your position to see if it really does line up with the laws of logic, instead of your own intuition.

Again, if I take your apple away from you, you can't eat it. That seems pretty dang airtight. I don't know how else to re-evaluate a statement like that.

I've read a decent chunk of this thread, and I don't remember seeing anyone try and convince you that guns are not efficient for killing. I haven't seen them say that gun crime will go up if you take away guns, only that it won't do anything to reduce violent crime.

I've been seeing it all throughout this thread. A few people were attempting to tell me that trucks are far more efficient at killing people than guns. MM and I got into a bit of a debate about the lethality of ladders and guns, and Joel and I discussed the lethality of knives and guns (others also brought in their thoughts about how knives were much better at killing people than guns). Also more than a few people have suggested that taking guns away will increase gun crime. In fact, that seems to be one of the main reasons why a lot of people think we should reverse gun control.

We all want mass killings to be reduced, preferably to none, but I don't think that is realistic in our world. Removing guns won't prevent them in the slightest, and will, in my eyes, remove defenses that many citizens have right now. If you try to do something like this now, given how divided and extremely polarized the USA has become, I think you will have the opposite outcome. I think this would happen with any kind of substantial attempt at gun control, and not just with full blown attempts at abolition like Australia has done.

It seems to me that the answer proposed by the pro-gun crowd is that if you want less gun massacres you should actually have MORE guns. That more people should own guns, and that they should be more readily accessible in more areas. This sounds crazy to me. In my head the logic of this is tantamount to thinking, if I want to make sure you won't eat any apples, I should in fact give your more apples. So many more apples you won't know what to do with them.

[demi-conservative]

A lot of places have disarmed their citizens without the rise of authoritarianism, haven't they? Most of Europe seem like positive examples of that.

You mean Fourth Reich where even talking bad about flood of immigrants is already or becoming illegal?

[demi-conservative]

That may be, but despite the overwhelming data presented here, I simply cannot shake the idea that no guns means no gun murders. It just makes logical sense to me. I can't explain the surveys. I don't know why they say what they say, but they simply don't make logical sense in my mind.

Again, that just doesn't make sense to me. What would it be about taking a nations guns away from them that would make them more violent? That's just weird. Perhaps people got more violent for other reasons, and the taking away of guns was a fantastic thing because then the violence would have been even more lethal.

These all seem to go against what I've lived 42 years on this earth believing was common sense. To reverse all of that would all of a sudden mean I'd have to admit up is down, and left is right. That's just too much for me.

*BEEP BOOP* brain circuit overload when lib assumptions contact with reality and studies

SHUTTING DOWN NOW!!!

[KingsGambit]

A few people were attempting to tell me that trucks are far more efficient at killing people than guns.

I don't see what's outrageous about this statement. Strictly speaking, they probably are (note that terrorists have increasingly used this tactic in the last couple of years).

[Jedidiah]

That may be, but despite the overwhelming data presented here, I simply cannot shake the idea that no guns means no gun murders. It just makes logical sense to me. I can't explain the surveys. I don't know why they say what they say, but they simply don't make logical sense in my mind.

Don't confuse me with facts? If you really want to accomplish something ignoring facts and going with baseless doesn't "make logical sense in my mind." That is just going by gut feeling. Look at the real facts before deciding. Too often people go with gut feelings and do counter productive things.

[Cerebrum123]

Again, if I take your apple away from you, you can't eat it. That seems pretty dang airtight. I don't know how else to re-evaluate a statement like that.

That one is, but was beside the point. My point was that you may view a conclusion of yours as if it is formal logic, even when it is not. In this case, the idea that gun control will lead to less mass killings. As others have pointed out, there are plenty of places with tighter gun regulations, but with higher rates of violent crime, and places with far more guns, but less violent crime. I don't know about you, but I've noticed a lot more vehicular mass killings lately than those done by guns.

I've been seeing it all throughout this thread. A few people were attempting to tell me that trucks are far more efficient at killing people than guns. MM and I got into a bit of a debate about the lethality of ladders and guns, and Joel and I discussed the lethality of knives and guns (others also brought in their thoughts about how knives were much better at killing people than guns). Also more than a few people have suggested that taking guns away will increase gun crime. In fact, that seems to be one of the main reasons why a lot of people think we should reverse gun control.

Yes, they said that there were more deaths caused by trucks, ladders, and knives than guns, but I don't see them saying that guns are not efficient at killing. If people didn't realize how efficient guns were at killing, then I think you'd actually see more gun deaths, because they wouldn't be handled properly. I see improper handling as the major reason for most vehicle accidents, ladder accidents, and knife injuries.

It seems to me that the answer proposed by the pro-gun crowd is that if you want less gun massacres you should actually have MORE guns. That more people should own guns, and that they should be more readily accessible in more areas.

I've mostly seen people suggest that the "gun free zones" ought not exist since they seem to only paint a target on people's backs for potential shooters. I've also seen the occasional argument for arming teachers to help prevent school shootings.

This sounds crazy to me. In my head the logic of this is tantamount to thinking, if I want to make sure you won't eat any apples, I should in fact give your more apples. So many more apples you won't know what to do with them.

Do you think there are more law abiding citizens, or more criminals? More people with guns in the former category could indeed lead to less mass shootings. This is because they would no longer be easy targets with no defense. Criminals will get guns regardless of the laws against having them. I'm not saying more guns will result in less violent crimes, but I can certainly see the reasoning behind such suggestions.

I believe you have the best of intentions, but the only kinds of gun control that would actually do something to reduce mass shootings*, wouldn't reduce mass killings at all. It would also likely make such a thing worse by causing a rebellion in the USA.

*Meaning it would have to be something very unlike the previous "assault weapons ban" which merely banned guns based on their appearance rather than functionality.

[Jedidiah]

Sounds like you've answered your own question here. It looks like a lot of people in this thread who are against increase gun-control are in favor of legalizing hard drugs. I find that pretty astounding, but I honestly don't think its the way to go.

To be honest I am not sure about legalizing hare drugs. I think it would lead to a great deal of hurt, but if this nation could exercise tough love it might be better in the long run. Banning drugs has mostly had the result of sending rebellious youth into use of them. If I could change the past I would have prevented the legal ban on drugs which has resulted in a subsidy to scofflaws rather than a reduction in usage. My point was only to look at the prison over population in the context of tougher sentences for criminal use of guns. I would like to see seriously heavy penalties for using a gun in commission of a crime. Our legal system talks big but gives no harsh treatment for such use.

[KingsGambit]

If I could change the past I would have prevented the legal ban on drugs which has resulted in a subsidy to scofflaws rather than a reduction in usage.

Along the same lines, if that was on the table, I probably would have instituted stricter gun laws earlier in the nation's history to avoid the gun culture we have today. With so many guns presently in circulation, any mass gun control efforts seem doomed to fail.

[KingsGambit]

As a general note, the "guilt by association" fallacy ought to be avoided in serious discourse. In this thread, I have seen people both try to correlate support for gun control with support for abortion, and opposition to gun control with support for drug legalization. These issues should be kept separate as there is no reason any of these positions should have to correlate, and trying to draw a correlation prevents us from discussing the actual merits of gun policies.

[RumTumTugger]

I think some laws can help in some areas. In other areas it'll take a concerted effort by the church. We have to hit the issue from many different angles. And as I've stated earlier, I'm okay with eliminating all guns from private hands if it means that many bad people won't have access to them.

in other words you are ok with punishing innocent law abiding people for what Criminals do