Machine gun fire into Las Vegas crowd at Route 91 music Festival

[exnihilo]

Alcohol is taxed at a higher rate than other substances, so the state does attempt to offset some of the costs with alcohol by having those that consume it pay more to keep from robbing the property of the rest of society.

The state doesn’t offset costs. It enriches itself on vice. Try getting some of that money if you are injured by a drunk driver.

Statistics show that if you have a gun, you are more likely to be shot by your own gun than you are to use that gun to defend yourself from a criminal.

Statistics show you are more likely to get in an auto accident within three miles of your home. Should we not then drive home? Needing a gun for self defense is uncommon because crime is uncommon. The same crime gun grabbers say is so pervasive we need to take away guns.

And yet you have no problem with regulating the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages. Go figure.

Actually I do have a problem with it.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

I have started a new thread on this, in world news

Las Vegas shooting: NRA calls for more regulation of bump stock devices used by shooter - ABC News

 

[Xystus]

Great so you would be all for it, right? Get rid of something morally neutral for the greatest of moral goods. Sounds like a plan.

I like the idea because it would reveal if the Democrats really are the party of death, and if the Republicans will ever give more than lip service to opposing abortion

i see, i did not catch on that you were proposing a trade. i get it now.

No, i would not take that trade. not being willing to give up a right does not mean opposition to abortion is mere lip service.

 

[Inisfallen]

All I hear in this thread is “well, nothing we can do. Too bad, so sad, that’s how it goes, but at least we still have our freedoms.” And maybe a prayer offered.

Amazing. We used to think of ourselves as the nation that could do anything. Not any more, I guess.

 

[Ridgerunner]

All I hear in this thread is “well, nothing we can do. Too bad, so sad, that’s how it goes, but at least we still have our freedoms.” And maybe a prayer offered.

Amazing. We used to think of ourselves as the nation that could do anything. Not any more, I guess.

Well, we’re not alone in failing to prevent such things. France, Britain, Russia and others have all had difficulty preventing attacks of this nature. Nobody seems to have figured out how to the prevent them except, perhaps Russia and a number of Islamic states, where they just kill people based on suspicion. But that’s a methodology that, so far, has been viewed as alien in the West, and hasn’t been spectacularly successful even where it’s used.

 

[Ridgerunner]

No, i would not take that trade. not being willing to give up a right does not mean opposition to abortion is mere lip service.

Nor, I am sure, would Dems take the deal.

 

[Jig_Saw]

The point was that guns are not a necessary ingredient to a murderous rampage. One could also say, by the way, that the Tsarnaevs’ murders and maimings were “acts of war” or “one-off incidents”. So, we could say, were the Bastille Day murders, which were done with a truck. All such acts are “one off” acts of murderousness and evil. Possibly modern societies that have any semblance of freedom at all are going to be subject to such things for some time, since it’s difficult to know who the jihadis, sociopaths and otherwise deranged people are and to stop them pre-emptively. We do know who most criminals are, but don’t seem able to effectively stop them from killing, even when law enforcement is reasonably convinced they are likely to do so sometime in the future.

But of all the remedies imaginable, it seems to me depriving law-abiding citizens of their right to have firearms is not going to deter jihadis, sociopaths and the deranged. Most definitely it won’t stop criminals from murdering.

Guns seem to be the #1 choice by a far margin for murderous rampages. So why not address that this? The whole “we can’t do anything” seems to be the only solution that you offer. You’re bringing up incidents that occurred twenty years ago or even a century ago to defend your position. As I’ve already said, if people were regularly killing people in the dozens on a yearly basis using ammonium nitrate, you can bet we’d be looking at adding explosive suppressants to that. Well, normal people would anyway. But somehow looking at guns is a sacred bridge we can’t cross - no matter what the cost is to society and how much the gun owners want to socialize those losses.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Guns seem to be the #1 choice by a far margin for murderous rampages. So why not address that this? The whole “we can’t do anything” seems to be the only solution that you offer. You’re bringing up incidents that occurred twenty years ago or even a century ago to defend your position. As I’ve already said, if people were regularly killing people in the dozens on a yearly basis using ammonium nitrate, you can bet we’d be looking at adding explosive suppressants to that. Well, normal people would anyway. But somehow looking at guns is a sacred bridge we can’t cross - no matter what the cost is to society and how much the gun owners want to socialize those losses.

Well, the constitution does protect possession of firearms, so that’s a little different.

And the Bastille Day murders were in 2016, not a century ago. 90+ people in Nice killed by a truck.

But regardless, the whole gun control argument is based on an assumption that if public access to guns was curtailed, psychopathic murderers wouldn’t kill people. There is no particular reason to believe that, since the methodology is not the motivation and there are manifestly other methodologies for carrying out murderous intent.

Just a word on ammonium nitrate. During the Obama administration, the government actually did institute a half-hearted attempt to remove it from the market. But the attempt was abandoned because, of the two alternatives, one is extremely dangerous itself, and the other had an unacceptable tendency to acidify the soil.

And, of course, Paddock was apparently going to use it and tannerite in one or more sequels to the shooting; quite possibly far worse ones. Had he reversed the order of things, some would now be talking about curtailing both ammonium nitrate and tannerite. But they would be just as wrong in that as people now are about guns. The methodology is not the motivation. The motivation is the driver, and there is no lack of methodologies.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

P.s. The methodology used is specified in the article.

I know. That’s why I said what I did about the methodology.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Read the article.

If you have a point to make about the article, please make it. Don’t make people guess what you mean.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The point was that guns are not a necessary ingredient to a murderous rampage.

Just because insulin does not treat cancer that does not mean we shouldn’t keep insulin on hand for diabetes. Just because gun control does not address truck bombings that does not mean we can’t use gun control to address the 11,000 gun deaths each year.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Just because insulin does not treat cancer that does not mean we shouldn’t keep insulin on hand for diabetes. Just because gun control does not address truck bombings that does not mean we can’t use gun control to address the 11,000 gun deaths each year.

You’re assuming quite a few things there. First, that criminal gun killings won’t happen if ordinary citizens can’t buy guns. Second, that the killings won’t happen by other means. Third, that Josie’s study is wrong and that therefore citizens’ access to guns serves no good societal purpose.

Personally, I think it’s a bridge too far.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

You’re assuming quite a few things there. First, that criminal gun killings won’t happen if ordinary citizens can’t buy guns. Second, that the killings won’t happen by other means. Third, that Josie’s study is wrong and that therefore citizens’ access to guns serves no good societal purpose.

1. & 2. I don’t assume that killings won’t happen if guns are restricted, or that killings won’t happen by other means. I know that a good many of the killings are done with guns, and if we can reduce those killings it is a win, even if killings by other means continue. I do assume that if guns are more restricted generally, they will be less available to criminals too. Not totally unavailable. But less available. And that too is a win.

3: I don’t dispute the accuracy of the study Josie cited. I only question its interpretation and applicability to the question at hand.

 

[Ridgerunner]

& 2. I don’t assume that killings won’t happen if guns are restricted, or that killings won’t happen by other means. I know that a good many of the killings are done with guns, and if we can reduce those killings it is a win, even if killings by other means continue. I do assume that if guns are more restricted generally, they will be less available to criminals too. Not totally unavailable. But less available. And that too is a win.

3: I don’t dispute the accuracy of the study Josie cited. I only question its interpretation and applicability to the question at hand.

If gun killings are reduced but killings are increased by other means, nothing is accomplished by disarming the law-abiding except making them more vulnerable to the non-law-abiding. If Josie’s article is correct in its conclusions, I think that would be a pretty strong reason not to disarm the law-abiding.

I do not pretend to any expertise in the subject matter. But as I mentioned before, gun killings in Mexico are less, per capita, than in the U.S. But murders in Mexico are three times as numerous proportionate to the population. Undoubtedly there are reasons for that high rate, and people probably debate it somewhere. But it certainly would be terrible if it’s even partially due to the generally unarmed population being unable to defend itself.

And not to be oppositional just to do it, but if criminals in this country can import tons of heroin and distribute them via pyramids of dealers in widespread networks, I just can’t accept the proposition that they could not do the same thing with guns. Nor do I think they would lack the motivation to do it, since they war with each other for territory with guns.

And while this is less likely, a great deal of the meth in this country is manufactured right here. If meth labs can operate, I can’t think of a good reason to assume clandestine gun builders couldn’t operate as well. Meth cooking is dangerous for a number of reasons, and the penalties for doing it can be steep. But people do it anyway for money. Is there truly a compelling reason to believe a skilled machinist wouldn’t get himself the tools and manufacture firearms if there was enough money in it for him? I know guys who manufacture parts for collectors’ antique weapons, and their skill is truly astonishing. They can build absolutely anything. Is there some reason to think there are no bad machinists?

I am not sure there really is a way to curtail the mass murders by domestic killers other than perhaps not “advertising” them the way we do in the media. Some deranged souls, (like the Columbine killers, for instance) revel in the moment of notoriety and perhaps expression of anger enough to die for it.

 

[Inisfallen]

I am not sure there really is a way to curtail the mass murders by domestic killers other than perhaps not “advertising” them the way we do in the media. Some deranged souls, (like the Columbine killers, for instance) revel in the moment of notoriety and perhaps expression of anger enough to die for it.

That would be great for the pro-gun advocates like the NRA, wouldn’t it? It would keep the public from getting all crazy and upset about mass killings and demanding some kind of action from our government. It would make the NRA’s job a heck of a lot easier.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

If gun killings are reduced but killings are increased by other means, nothing is accomplished…

True. But now you are assuming that when guns are unavailable, those who would have killed will always find another means. That is a stretch. Sure, some will. But not all. Many killings are domestic disputes that if left to cool off for a few minutes will not take place. Certainly that is the case for suicides. Suicide delayed is often suicide prevented.

I do not pretend to any expertise in the subject matter. But as I mentioned before, gun killings in Mexico are less, per capita, than in the U.S. But murders in Mexico are three times as numerous proportionate to the population. Undoubtedly there are reasons for that high rate, and people probably debate it somewhere. But it certainly would be terrible if it’s even partially due to the generally unarmed population being unable to defend itself.

Another speculation.

And not to be oppositional just to do it, but if criminals in this country can import tons of heroin and distribute them via pyramids of dealers in widespread networks, I just can’t accept the proposition that they could not do the same thing with guns.

That is true. But consider how much more heroin there would be in this country if it were available in every gun store. To compare apples to apples we would have to compare the amount of heroin in use with and without legal restrictions. That is what we are talking about with respect to guns. With vs without restrictions.

And while this is less likely, a great deal of the meth in this country is manufactured right here. If meth labs can operate, I can’t think of a good reason to assume clandestine gun builders couldn’t operate as well.

As with heroin, the proper comparison is how much meth is available with vs without restrictions on it. Care to venture a claim that restrictions make no difference at all to meth availability?

I am not sure there really is a way to curtail the mass murders by domestic killers other than perhaps not “advertising” them the way we do in the media.

Very true. Although I think even John Brown conducted his raid at Harpers Ferry partly for the publicity.

 

[Jig_Saw]

Well, the constitution does protect possession of firearms, so that’s a little different.

And the Bastille Day murders were in 2016, not a century ago. 90+ people in Nice killed by a truck.

But regardless, the whole gun control argument is based on an assumption that if public access to guns was curtailed, psychopathic murderers wouldn’t kill people. There is no particular reason to believe that, since the methodology is not the motivation and there are manifestly other methodologies for carrying out murderous intent.

Just a word on ammonium nitrate. During the Obama administration, the government actually did institute a half-hearted attempt to remove it from the market. But the attempt was abandoned because, of the two alternatives, one is extremely dangerous itself, and the other had an unacceptable tendency to acidify the soil.

And, of course, Paddock was apparently going to use it and tannerite in one or more sequels to the shooting; quite possibly far worse ones. Had he reversed the order of things, some would now be talking about curtailing both ammonium nitrate and tannerite. But they would be just as wrong in that as people now are about guns. The methodology is not the motivation. The motivation is the driver, and there is no lack of methodologies.

The Constitution also protects the right to life and property. It’s funny how little gun owners care about that.

Frankly, the whole ‘they’re going to do it anyway’ doesn’t really hold up all that well given that the vast majority of mass murders are done with guns, not trucks, not ammonium nitrate, but guns. So, golly, it seems to make sense to me that we look at that and ask that people who own guns take responsibility for their ownership instead of passing all the costs onto society. But my right to life and property is somehow trumped by the second amendment.

 

[exnihilo]

Frankly, the whole ‘they’re going to do it anyway’ doesn’t really hold up all that well given that the vast majority of mass murders are done with guns, not trucks, not ammonium nitrate, but guns

The point is killers will switch weapons. Would you argue for and support a ban on cars if they switched to cars? So for instance do you think France should now have a ban on cars?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The point is killers will switch weapons.

A few potential killers will switch weapons. And some will just not kill if their preferred weapon is not available. Not all killers are equally motivated. And if we can stop some of the killing, shouldn’t we do it, even if we don’t stop it all?

 

[exnihilo]

Right, so we ban cars and frying pans too, right? Or does the logic only apply to guns. If so it is an ad how argument and therefore not very convincing.