Gun Violence

I don’t really find that argument compelling, even as one can argue that it could be taechnically true. Like, is there no utility to making it much, much harder to kill large numbers of people quickly?

Lots of people die in car accidents. It would be effectively impossible to bring that number to zero, but does that mean that we shouldn’t have seatbelts, ABS, collision-avoidance technology, DUI laws, etc?

How many AN bombs have there been since Oklahoma City?
 
Julio3000 said:
I don’t really find that argument compelling, even as one can argue that it could be taechnically true. Like, is there no utility to making it much, much harder to kill large numbers of people quickly?

Lots of people die in car accidents. It would be effectively impossible to bring that number to zero, but does that mean that we shouldn’t have seatbelts, ABS, collision-avoidance technology, DUI laws, etc?

How many AN bombs have there been since Oklahoma City?
Click to expand...

There are a whole ton of restrictions on guns. The problem is that some will not be happy until they are illegal all together.

All gun control does is take guns out of law abiding citizens.
 
It's just a matter of time before the nut cases start killing rich white people. Then you'll have your gun restrictions.
 
Julio3000 said:
I don’t really find that argument compelling, even as one can argue that it could be taechnically true. Like, is there no utility to making it much, much harder to kill large numbers of people quickly?

Lots of people die in car accidents. It would be effectively impossible to bring that number to zero, but does that mean that we shouldn’t have seatbelts, ABS, collision-avoidance technology, DUI laws, etc?

How many AN bombs have there been since Oklahoma City?
Click to expand...

I think we should strive to reduce shooting deaths. I think everyone agrees on that. But the evidence of the effectiveness of many of the proposed gun regulations is pretty bad.

To use your car analogy, it would be like saying every car must include a newly developed airbag without any evidence the airbag would be effective.

I just dont get the dogmatic gun control reactions while ignoring the root causes of people getting to the point where they'd engage in that activity.

The goal shouldn't be gun control. The goal should be reducing murders. Gun laws have to be part of that discussion but it's so much larger than that.
 
Julio3000 said:
I don’t really find that argument compelling, even as one can argue that it could be taechnically true. Like, is there no utility to making it much, much harder to kill large numbers of people quickly?

Lots of people die in car accidents. It would be effectively impossible to bring that number to zero, but does that mean that we shouldn’t have seatbelts, ABS, collision-avoidance technology, DUI laws, etc?

How many AN bombs have there been since Oklahoma City?
Click to expand...

actually we all die eventually...it is all pointless
 
striker42 said:
I think we should strive to reduce shooting deaths. I think everyone agrees on that. But the evidence of the effectiveness of many of the proposed gun regulations is pretty bad.

To use your car analogy, it would be like saying every car must include a newly developed airbag without any evidence the airbag would be effective.

I just dont get the dogmatic gun control reactions while ignoring the root causes of people getting to the point where they'd engage in that activity.

The goal shouldn't be gun control. The goal should be reducing murders. Gun laws have to be part of that discussion but it's so much larger than that.
Click to expand...

So maybe we need an experiment...greatly reduce or eliminate guns in some places and see if it makes a difference
 
I'll put this out as a proposition that I'd like to think people interested in taking a constructive approach to gun deaths might latch on to:

There are ways to restrict gun ownership and reduce gun deaths that are compliant with the second amendment.

We can move away from what has become a sterile and unproductive debate by focusing on that.
 
striker42 said:
I think we should strive to reduce shooting deaths. I think everyone agrees on that. But the evidence of the effectiveness of many of the proposed gun regulations is pretty bad.

To use your car analogy, it would be like saying every car must include a newly developed airbag without any evidence the airbag would be effective.

I just dont get the dogmatic gun control reactions while ignoring the root causes of people getting to the point where they'd engage in that activity.

The goal shouldn't be gun control. The goal should be reducing murders. Gun laws have to be part of that discussion but it's so much larger than that.
Click to expand...

I agree about the potential efficacy of some gun control measures and on the goal of reducing murders (which have been declining for a while). But I think any good-faith effort to do that is going to include comprehensive study of the issue and the ability to make policy recommendations, both of which have been severely curtailed by Congress since 1996.
 
Julio3000 said:
I agree about the potential efficacy of some gun control measures and on the goal of reducing murders (which have been declining for a while). But I think any good-faith effort to do that is going to include comprehensive study of the issue and the ability to make policy recommendations, both of which have been severely curtailed by Congress since 1996.
Click to expand...

I 100% agree that studies need to be done. Refusing to allow research is idiotic. It means you're making policy decisions blind.
 
Julio3000 said:
I’m curious to know what you base this on. It seems to be something you believe strongly, but I’m curious to know the provenance of that belief.
Click to expand...

For one, I'd sure like to be able to defend myself when a nutcase is trying to kill me.

It's difficult to find data on gun shootings in places that allow guns.

But I notice pretty much all mass shootings happen in public spaces that dont allow law abiding citizens their right to defend themselves.

There are college campuses that allow carrying weapons and I never hear of them getting shot up.

Gun ranges, are made up of all those scary white men shooting guns and nobody ever seems to decide to start mowing down people.

I can't imagine a nutcase terrorist wants his legacy to be that he got shot down by the math teacher.
 
sturg33 said:
For one, I'd sure like to be able to defend myself when a nutcase is trying to kill me.

It's difficult to find data on gun shootings in places that allow guns.

But I notice pretty much all mass shootings happen in public spaces that dont allow law abiding citizens their right to defend themselves.

There are college campuses that allow carrying weapons and I never hear of them getting shot up.

Gun ranges, are made up of all those scary white men shooting guns and nobody ever seems to decide to start mowing down people.

I can't imagine a nutcase terrorist wants his legacy to be that he got shot down by the math teacher.
Click to expand...

Only a few Muslims tried it knowing they are watched.

Rich or have parents that are do this. That is mental illness. Maybe not the perfect family.

Media, video games and what not does not help as well.

But this crap did not happen between 1960 to 2000 that much. That is on the parents and they are living in their own glitzy world.

Oh not many blacks but in that list, most if not is black, gang related or drug related. Blacks is not going to shoot up a place unlike they have a target but the media will not say that.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top