13 Dead, 20 Wounded...

[Cow Poke]

[Sam]

We need to outlaw "Gun Free" zones. Every mass shooting in the past two-decades has happened in a "Gun Free" zone.

Your logic here only goes so far as establishing a correlation, not a causation. Therefore, the same logic extends to the home, where a firearm is more likely to be fatally used against a family member than an intruder. Following the logic, we need outlaw guns in homes.

[KingsGambit]

And as usual, the same talking points from both side will spill over onto here as they do every time this happens and nobody will change their minds.

[Sam]

And as usual, the same talking points from both side will spill over onto here as they do every time this happens and nobody will change their minds.

Unfortunately, there's not an undiscovered third option to resolve this issue:

Source: America's unique problem with gun violence, in one chart. German Lopez. Vox.com. Updated 2015.10.02

gun_homicides_per_capita__1_.0.jpg

This chart, compiled using United Nations data collected by the Guardian's Simon Rogers, shows that America far and away leads other developed countries when it comes to gun-related homicides. Why? Extensive reviews of the research by the Harvard School of Public Health's Injury Control Center suggest the answer is pretty simple: The US is an outlier on gun violence because it has way more guns than other developed nations.

© Copyright Original Source

[Cow Poke]

And as usual, the same talking points from both side will spill over onto here as they do every time this happens and nobody will change their minds.

Pretty much, yeah.

[rogue06]

Your logic here only goes so far as establishing a correlation, not a causation. Therefore, the same logic extends to the home, where a firearm is more likely to be fatally used against a family member than an intruder. Following the logic, we need outlaw guns in homes.

The fact that someone's family member or friend is far more likely than a complete stranger is to attack and kill them always somehow gets ignored when this gets mentioned.

[Cow Poke]

Your logic here only goes so far as establishing a correlation, not a causation. Therefore, the same logic extends to the home, where a firearm is more likely to be fatally used against a family member than an intruder. Following the logic, we need outlaw guns in homes.

If I see a family member sitting in a dark corner wearing army clothing, and mumbling about hating Christians or posting crazy stuff on the internet, I don't need a law to tell me there's a problem and I need to do something about it.

[rogue06]

If I see a family member sitting in a dark corner wearing army clothing, and mumbling about hating Christians or posting crazy stuff on the internet, I don't need a law to tell me there's a problem and I need to do something about it.

Substitute "Texans" for "Christians" and this is about me isn't it?

[KingsGambit]

Substitute "Texans" for "Christians" and this is about me isn't it?

No, because he only phrased it as a hypothetical there.

[Cow Poke]

No, because he only phrased it as a hypothetical there.

Somebody had me a fish with which to slap KG.

[Sam]

The fact that someone's family member or friend is far more likely than a complete stranger is to attack and kill them always somehow gets ignored when this gets mentioned.

That's only relevant in rebuttal if the number of fatalities attributed to self-defense in homes is significantly higher than the number of fatalities resulting from assaults or accidents. Unfortunately, the inverse is true:

Source: 10 Pro-Gun Myths, Shot Down. Dave Gilson. Mother Jones. 2013.01.31

For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home.

© Copyright Original Source

Bolding added.

So the fact that someone is more likely to be killed by a close friend or family member than a complete stranger actually serves as just another reason that guns should be much more strictly regulated: they don't even tend to serve their primary function of family safety.

[Cow Poke]

So the fact that someone is more likely to be killed by a close friend or family member than a complete stranger actually serves as just another reason that guns should be much more strictly regulated: they don't even tend to serve their primary function of family safety.

Yeah, Mother Jones is always my "go to" for unbiased reporting.

But, seriously, to assume that the only reasonable response is to ban guns is silly. Do you have any breakdown showing other factors in these homes? How many of these homes were nuclear families where values were taught, for example? How many of these homes were crack houses, or places where irresponsible persons would have had guns anyway?

[Starlight]

Source: America's unique problem with gun violence, in one chart. German Lopez. Vox.com. Updated 2015.10.02

[ATTACH=CONFIG]10270[/ATTACH]

© Copyright Original Source

And it's not like no one else has ever solved the problem. Australia, a culturally similar country to the US, went from being like the US on gun deaths to topping your above chart. And how did they turn it around? After a particularly big massacre, they implemented really strong gun regulation. It completely solved the problem.

The problem is known. The solution is known.

So in cases like this, in my mind anyone against actually fixing the problem is morally culpable when gun murders occur. Against gun regulation? Then you're an evil person who is morally to blame for massive amount of gun deaths in the US. Period.

I find it really bizarre that that narrative is not more present in the US public discourse. Because that's the natural reaction that everyone here has whenever we hear of yet-another mass shooting in the US. People will make comments like: "~sigh~ Stupid morons and their crazy obsession with not regulating guns. How many more people need to die before sanity prevails?" Yet I don't see the same sentiment in US media that the people who are against fixing the problem are morally evil and to blame for these numerous gun deaths.

[Cow Poke]

I don't know the answer to this, so I'm asking -- this isn't the beginning of an argument I am trying to defend.....


Those who are opposed to guns, or want them banned, do they make any efforts to teach gun safety? Are they supportive of gun safety?
The reason I'm asking is because or that last one...

"In one experiment, one third of 8-to-12-year-old boys who found a handgun pulled the trigger."

Wouldn't it make sense to have an emphasis on "IF you come into contact with a gun......"?

[rogue06]

That's only relevant in rebuttal if the number of fatalities attributed to self-defense in homes is significantly higher than the number of fatalities resulting from assaults or accidents. Unfortunately, the inverse is true:

Source: 10 Pro-Gun Myths, Shot Down. Dave Gilson. Mother Jones. 2013.01.31

For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home.

© Copyright Original Source

Bolding added.

So the fact that someone is more likely to be killed by a close friend or family member than a complete stranger actually serves as just another reason that guns should be much more strictly regulated: they don't even tend to serve their primary function of family safety.

Those statistics are based on the time that a firearm is actually discharged which is far from being the same thing as being used for self-defense. Simply chambering a round in a pump action shotgun, for instance, has sent more than one potential assailant running for the hills.

This is another thing that often somehow manages to be ignored or forgotten.