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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Roseeurekacross
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
exnihilo said:
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.
Click to expand...
The logic applies wherever the reduction in deaths can be most cost-effectively accomplished. The other items you cite are not very cost-effective to ban because of the immense utility of cars and frying pans.
 
exnihilo said:
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?
Click to expand...
No, France will probably do things to ensure that cars cannot easily access where pedestrians are walking. Cement barriers, etc.
 
starshiptrooper said:
Locking up every black person in solitary confinement would also save lives too. Your end does not make your means moral.
Click to expand...
Confiscating and banning all guns is totally different from committing genocide against a certain minority populace. I am totally opposed to committing genocide against any group, whether it be the Armenians or the American Indians. OTOH, I am in favor of stricter gun control laws and confiscating and banning certain types of weapons.
 
exnihilo said:
Right, so we ban cars and frying pans too, right? Or does the logic only apply to guns.
Click to expand...
Yes the logic only applies to guns. It does not apply to frying pans. I don;t see where it would be ;possible to murder 58 innocent people and wound 500 innocent people with a lone assassin using a frying pan.
 
The fact that several people in this thread refuse to remove suicides from gun death statistics pretty much proves they just don’t like guns. It apparently has little do do with preventing mass murder.
 
FirstFiveEighth said:
The fact that several people in this thread refuse to remove suicides from gun death statistics pretty much proves they just don’t like guns. It apparently has little do do with preventing mass murder.
Click to expand...
You are almost right. Several people, including me, think that the problem with guns goes way beyond mass murder. So much so that we want to entertain solutions that target other forms of gun deaths (like suicides) more than the recent Las Vegas attack.
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle said:
I stand by the statements I made based on that article, especially the per capita rates compared to other cites. Look at the bar graphs for fatal and non-fatal shootings.
Click to expand...
Why does the first graph show homicide rates (looks like all murders not just guns) and the second one with just guns?
 
Jig_Saw said:
40.png
ucfengr:
Since a single event like Las Vegas or Sandy Hook could bankrupt an insurance company, I don’t see how they can profitably sell the insurance, which I’m sure you know. Personally I think it is a back door ban of firearms, and personally, I think you know that, and personally, I don’t think gun control advocates are willing to be honest about what they really want, which is a ban on the private ownership of firearms, because they know the public would never go for it, so they talk about “common sense regulation”, which focus groups well, but don’t talk about what they, and you, really want.
Click to expand...
I am for my right to life and property. I don’t see any reason why I need to give up my rights for someone else. I am fine with firearm ownership except I don’t want it for myself, nor do I want to pay the costs of it. Why do so many on your side seem to want the right but not accept the responsibility?
Click to expand...
The 2nd amendment was specifically included in the Constitution to allow you to defend your life and property. And you still haven’t explained why I, as a law abiding gun owner, should bear a financial liability for what happened in Las Vegas, or for that matter, what happens in Chicago where 59 people shot to death is called a “normal month”.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
The logic applies wherever the reduction in deaths can be most cost-effectively accomplished. The other items you cite are not very cost-effective to ban because of the immense utility of cars and frying pans.
Click to expand...
So what you are saying is people value their cars and frying pansy more than human lives? They aren’t willing to give those up so that human lives can be spared.

What do you mean by cost effective anyway? How is it cost effective to get rid of guns but not cars and frying pans?
 
I only skimmed Kleck’s conclusions but this seems like a valid criticism:
Here are the facts Kleck missed: According to his own survey more than 50 percent of respondents claim to have reported their defensive gun use to the police. This means we should find at least half of his 2.5 million annual Defensive Gun Uses (DGUs) in police reports alone. Instead, the most comprehensive nonpartisan effort to catalog police and media reports on DGUs by The Gun Violence Archive was barely able to find 1,600 in 2014. Where are the remaining 99.94 percent of Kleck’s supposed DGUs hiding?
Click to expand...
Defensive Gun Use Is Not a Myth - from the response after the article
 
Yes, my point is, you did not read the article, no one could have in the time you did, i.e., the timing of your response to mine, bears that out.
 
AlNg said:
Yes the logic only applies to guns. It does not apply to frying pans. I don;t see where it would be ;possible to murder 58 innocent people and wound 500 innocent people with a lone assassin using a frying pan.
Click to expand...
I think I get it. You think if you can kill x number of people in y amount of time then the object which can accomplish that should be illegal. But what is x and y? That has remained obscured.
 
Actually he (Kleck) talks about this in the interview with Shultzman, so you must have missed that part when reading the article I posted.

From the article you cited:
It’s deja vu all over again. In a recent Politico Magazine article, Evan DeFilippis and Devin Hughes resuscitate criticisms of a survey on defensive gun use that I conducted with my colleague Marc Gertz way back in 1993—the National Self-Defense Survey (NSDS). The authors repeat, item for item, speculative criticisms floated by a man named David Hemenway in 1997 and repeated endlessly since. The conclusion these critics drew is that our survey grossly overestimated the frequency of defensive gun use (DGU), a situation in which a crime victim uses a gun to threaten or attack the offender in self-defense. But what DeFilippis and Hughes carefully withheld from readers is the fact that I and my colleague have refuted every one of Hemenway’s dubious claims, and those by other critics of the NSDS, first in 1997, and again, even more extensively, in 1998 and 2001. Skeptical readers can check for themselves if we failed to refute them—the 1998 version is publicly available here. More seriously motivated readers could acquire a copy of Armed, a 2001 book by Don Kates and me, and read chapter six.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
MidwestGuy said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
I stand by the statements I made based on that article, especially the per capita rates compared to other cites. Look at the bar graphs for fatal and non-fatal shootings.
Click to expand...
Why does the first graph show homicide rates (looks like all murders not just guns) and the second one with just guns?
Click to expand...
Because it just does. It still uses the same criteria for all cities in the same graph, so it is a valid way to compare one city with another, which was the whole point.
 
exnihilo said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
The logic applies wherever the reduction in deaths can be most cost-effectively accomplished. The other items you cite are not very cost-effective to ban because of the immense utility of cars and frying pans.
Click to expand...
So what you are saying is people value their cars and frying pansy more than human lives?
Click to expand...
No, I am saying that people should value their cars and frying pans more than they value their guns.
What do you mean by cost effective anyway? How is it cost effective to get rid of guns but not cars and frying pans?
Click to expand...
Cost effective means how much benefit you can get for how much cost, where cost includes both monetary and non-monetary costs, such as the loss of utility. It is not cost effective to get rid of cars because our economy would collapse without them. It is how most people get to work, to the store to buy groceries, etc. Even though cars do kill more people than guns, cars are so much more necessary to the economy than guns that on balance the ratio favors not getting rid of cars. And frying pans may not be quite as indispensable as cars, as people could get by with aluminum sauce pans. But neither are they so often used for killing as guns. So while the cost of getting rid of frying pans is not too high, the benefit to be gained by getting rid of them is tiny. Again the ratio does not favor getting rid of frying pans. But guns are relatively unnecessary for the vast majority of people. So while the cost of getting rid of all guns would be quite high (police, for example, would not be very effective without them) the cost of restricting guns to only those that have a proven need would not be quite as high. And I believe the benefit would be huge in terms of reduced deaths. So I think of the three items you mentioned, guns comes the closest to being cost-effective to restrict.

(Note that while we don’t get rid of cars entirely, we do restrict them too, in terms of who may drive them and where they may drive. I don’t know of any similar restrictions on frying pans though.)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top