10 dead in Oregon College Shooting

[Allanea]

The mental health discussion is a form of Julia! Not Me! argument, I think.

"Let's make it easier for phychiatrists to put more mentally ill people under observation/in treatment against their will and then they won't take my guns!"

1. This won't work.

2. Mentally ill people have rights too.

[Washington Resistance Army]

known to be in possession of anti-tank weapons.

Holy shit. What kind of anti-tank weapons?

The fun kind. When I was in the wild hundreds a few years back some of the people I knew had some pretty big arsenals, to say the least.

[L Ron Cupboard]

So an 11 year-old boy shoots 8 year-old neighbour dead, with his father's shotgun, because she refused to show him her puppy.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34450841

[Val Halla]

So an 11 year-old boy shoots 8 year-old neighbour dead, with his father's shotgun, because she refused to show him her puppy.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34450841

I see the statistics. Without guns, the US and Canada have roughly the same homicide rate. Because of guns, the US homicide rate is 2 times that of Canada. 60% of US homicides are from guns. There has been 994 mass shootings since the start of this term.

[L Ron Cupboard]

So an 11 year-old boy shoots 8 year-old neighbour dead, with his father's shotgun, because she refused to show him her puppy.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34450841

I see the statistics. Without guns, the US and Canada have roughly the same homicide rate. Because of guns, the US homicide rate is 2 times that of Canada. 60% of US homicides are from guns. There has been 994 mass shootings since the start of this term.

I don't think you can interpret that graph in quite that way. It just shows a higher homicide rate in the US, and a greater proportion of those involve guns. It doesn't necessarily follow that without guns the homicide rate would be the same as that of Canada.

[Alvecia]

So an 11 year-old boy shoots 8 year-old neighbour dead, with his father's shotgun, because she refused to show him her puppy.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34450841

Relevant to a point I wanted to raise.
If you allow for more people to have guns so that they can defend themselves from other people with guns, you kind of have to accept that there will be an increase in accidental gun deaths.
At which point you have to run a risk/reward analysis.
Is the increase in the amount of people accidentally killing themselves and others worth the reduction in people getting killed in mass shootings or home invasion etc.
I have no predictive statistics on this nor do I know where to find any.

I was going to isolate only mass shootings but since the guns are being used for defense I think it's only fair that all forms are included, not only potential decrease in mass shooting death toll, as was being discussed earlier.

[Alvecia]

So an 11 year-old boy shoots 8 year-old neighbour dead, with his father's shotgun, because she refused to show him her puppy.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34450841

I see the statistics. Without guns, the US and Canada have roughly the same homicide rate. Because of guns, the US homicide rate is 2 times that of Canada. 60% of US homicides are from guns. There has been 994 mass shootings since the start of this term.

I think you can argue in the same vein as "guns don't kill people". Maybe the homocide rate would decrease without guns, but also consider that anywhere from some to many of those murders may have occured anyway, just with a different murder weapon.

[Imota]

Japan here. Hey, America, remember a long time ago when you told us it might be a good idea to lay off the guns n' shit? You think maybe, just maybe, you wouldn't have such a problem if you followed your own advice?

[Rusozak]

The mental health discussion is a form of Julia! Not Me! argument, I think.

"Let's make it easier for phychiatrists to put more mentally ill people under observation/in treatment against their will and then they won't take my guns!"

1. This won't work.

2. Mentally ill people have rights too.

But we still have to talk about it and focus on mental health and motives, not just guns.

As for them having rights, that may be so, but it would be in everyone's best interest if possibly dangerous people be observed, and if need be, contained.

[High Republic of Portugal]

Japan here. Hey, America, remember a long time ago when you told us it might be a good idea to lay off the guns n' shit? You think maybe, just maybe, you wouldn't have such a problem if you followed your own advice?

Japan is nothing like the US. Completely different cultures. Guns is already deep within american culture and removing guns from lawful owners wouldn't decrease armed crime at all.

[Uxupox]

Holy shit. What kind of anti-tank weapons?

The fun kind. When I was in the wild hundreds a few years back some of the people I knew had some pretty big arsenals, to say the least.

You know where I can get more information on that SMAW lookalike in the back? I fired several last year when I was doing my AT and since it was very fun I wanna shoot it again.

[Washington Resistance Army]

The fun kind. When I was in the wild hundreds a few years back some of the people I knew had some pretty big arsenals, to say the least.

You know where I can get more information on that SMAW lookalike in the back? I fired several last year when I was doing my AT and since it was very fun I wanna shoot it again.

If I'm not mistaken it was an M72, as for where you can get more information? Well, Google

[Imperializt Russia]

What were they going to do on the "mental health" front?
Declare war on autism? That would be even more stupid than AWBs.

How about improving mental health services? Or better training for educators to spot potential mental health problems with students?

What would those things have achieved, particularly in the Lanza shooting?

Holy shit. What kind of anti-tank weapons?

RPG's probably. Getting a hand on a SMAW is a short ticket to the FBI or CIA watchlist.

And a Russian rocket launcher isn't?

Nobody defended Nidal Hassan by claiming he was mentally ill, insisting that he was a politically motivated terrorist.

My point still stands.

It absolutely does not.

Fuck this shit. I'm tired of Feminists hijacking the fucking thread with their fucking bullshit about the Patriarchy and Mansplaining. I'm done here. Bye.

This never even happened.

Vitaphone was blaming other men for the attitude that people like Elliot Rodger had.

So an 11 year-old boy shoots 8 year-old neighbour dead, with his father's shotgun, because she refused to show him her puppy.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34450841

Relevant to a point I wanted to raise.
If you allow for more people to have guns so that they can defend themselves from other people with guns, you kind of have to accept that there will be an increase in accidental gun deaths.
At which point you have to run a risk/reward analysis.
Is the increase in the amount of people accidentally killing themselves and others worth the reduction in people getting killed in mass shootings or home invasion etc.
I have no predictive statistics on this nor do I know where to find any.

I was going to isolate only mass shootings but since the guns are being used for defense I think it's only fair that all forms are included, not only potential decrease in mass shooting death toll, as was being discussed earlier.

Since other countries do just fine not allowing the defence argument (in the UK, excluding Northern Ireland where the exception should be plainly obvious, self-defence is explicitly considered not a valid reason to own a firearm), one must question whether it's valid in the US, since it's not anywhere else.

[Uxupox]

You know where I can get more information on that SMAW lookalike in the back? I fired several last year when I was doing my AT and since it was very fun I wanna shoot it again.

If I'm not mistaken it was an M72, as for where you can get more information? Well, Google

Yea a quick search in google produced good results. Though it's gonna be a hassle to ship even an inert one to my country.

[Alvecia]

Since other countries do just fine not allowing the defence argument (in the UK, excluding Northern Ireland where the exception should be plainly obvious, self-defence is explicitly considered not a valid reason to own a firearm), one must question whether it's valid in the US, since it's not anywhere else.

I do think that the US would be better off if guns were restricted to the level of other countries, but realistically I don't think that'll happen any time soon. Baby steps.

[West Dixieland]

Gun control, violence in media and video games, these are not what caused this. These are scapegoats.
What's wrong is a fucked up society, we need help for this individuals that turn to this.
Preventing me from being able to have a Concealed Handgun License wouldn't stop him, I'd just make it impossible for me to defend my life.

[Alvecia]

Gun control, violence in media and video games, these are not what caused this. These are scapegoats.
What's wrong is a fucked up society, we need help for this individuals that turn to this.
Preventing me from being able to have a Concealed Handgun License wouldn't stop him, I'd just make it impossible for me to defend my life.

Emphasis mine.

That just loops right back round to the "well then everyone should have guns", which massively increases the risk of accidental gun death.
Which begs the question are you willing to accept the deaths of more and more people, children included as mentioned before, just so that you personally are better able to protect yourself against a threat that statistically will likely never bother you?

[West Dixieland]

So an 11 year-old boy shoots 8 year-old neighbour dead, with his father's shotgun, because she refused to show him her puppy.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34450841

I see the statistics. Without guns, the US and Canada have roughly the same homicide rate. Because of guns, the US homicide rate is 2 times that of Canada. 60% of US homicides are from guns. There has been 994 mass shootings since the start of this term.

The crime rate is not from the sad situation of the poster you replied to. Comparing Canada and the United States is comparing to different societies. Canada simply lacks (at least in number) the huge amount of crime-stricken communities where poverty and morals facilitate massive violent crime.
It's not guns that are doing this, it's widespread gangs embedding themselves in vulnerable communities.

[Imperializt Russia]

I see the statistics. Without guns, the US and Canada have roughly the same homicide rate. Because of guns, the US homicide rate is 2 times that of Canada. 60% of US homicides are from guns. There has been 994 mass shootings since the start of this term.

The crime rate is not from the sad situation of the poster you replied to. Comparing Canada and the United States is comparing to different societies. Canada simply lacks (at least in number) the huge amount of crime-stricken communities where poverty and morals facilitate massive violent crime.
It's not guns that are doing this, it's widespread gangs embedding themselves in vulnerable communities.

So why does gangland violence account for only 900 of the 8600 firearms homicides in the US in 2011?

[West Dixieland]

Gun control, violence in media and video games, these are not what caused this. These are scapegoats.
What's wrong is a fucked up society, we need help for this individuals that turn to this.
Preventing me from being able to have a Concealed Handgun License wouldn't stop him, I'd just make it impossible for me to defend my life.

Emphasis mine.

That just loops right back round to the "well then everyone should have guns", which massively increases the risk of accidental gun death.
Which begs the question are you willing to accept the deaths of more and more people, children included as mentioned before, just so that you personally are better able to protect yourself against a threat that statistically will likely never bother you?

You brought up an interesting point, so I stopped to look into the numbers. I'm on my phone, so navigation is kind of difficult, but from what I gather DGU (Defensive Gun Use) measures in the tens of thousands (on the low estimates, some predict much higher, even in hundreds of thousands) while accidentally firearms deaths are much lower, in the four digits.
But if you can find unbiased statistics that say otherwise, I'm inclined to believe you.

[Deitros]

So an 11 year-old boy shoots 8 year-old neighbour dead, with his father's shotgun, because she refused to show him her puppy.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34450841

I see the statistics. Without guns, the US and Canada have roughly the same homicide rate. Because of guns, the US homicide rate is 2 times that of Canada. 60% of US homicides are from guns. There has been 994 mass shootings since the start of this term.

But getting rid of guns completely would only get rid of another way for most Americans, 1 in 3, to defend themselves. Because do you honestly believe that making guns illegal to the public would stop criminals from using them? We would only be giving those who want to do these crazy gun sprees an advantage. Plus look at where they are shooting up, churches, schools, and GUN FREE ZONES.

[West Dixieland]

The crime rate is not from the sad situation of the poster you replied to. Comparing Canada and the United States is comparing to different societies. Canada simply lacks (at least in number) the huge amount of crime-stricken communities where poverty and morals facilitate massive violent crime.
It's not guns that are doing this, it's widespread gangs embedding themselves in vulnerable communities.

So why does gangland violence account for only 900 of the 8600 firearms homicides in the US in 2011?

Could I have a source?
Maybe in specifically gang-on-gang violence in gang-related activities, but I believe it's much higher.
It isn't the suburban financially-secure middle class going around killing each other.

[Alvecia]

Emphasis mine.

That just loops right back round to the "well then everyone should have guns", which massively increases the risk of accidental gun death.
Which begs the question are you willing to accept the deaths of more and more people, children included as mentioned before, just so that you personally are better able to protect yourself against a threat that statistically will likely never bother you?

You brought up an interesting point, so I stopped to look into the numbers. I'm on my phone, so navigation is kind of difficult, but from what I gather DGU (Defensive Gun Use) measures in the tens of thousands (on the low estimates, some predict much higher, even in hundreds of thousands) while accidentally firearms deaths are much lower, in the four digits.
But if you can find unbiased statistics that say otherwise, I'm inclined to believe you.

I believe you that DGU would measure much higher than accidental gun death, a quick google shows similar results for me. I'm looking more into the future.
I guess the comparison I'm trying to make would be between a state with no guns and a state where everyone had a gun.
In each, what would be the rates of accidental gun death and DGU + homocide? Which would be higher? From that we can determine which would be preferable.
Assuming the end goal is least amount of deaths.

[Paddy O Fernature]

Another shooting? Bloody hell!
Still believe guns are good?

Overall, yes.

[Alvecia]

I see the statistics. Without guns, the US and Canada have roughly the same homicide rate. Because of guns, the US homicide rate is 2 times that of Canada. 60% of US homicides are from guns. There has been 994 mass shootings since the start of this term.

But getting rid of guns completely would only get rid of another way for most Americans, 1 in 3, to defend themselves. Because do you honestly believe that making guns illegal to the public would stop criminals from using them? We would only be giving those who want to do these crazy gun sprees an advantage. Plus look at where they are shooting up, churches, schools, and GUN FREE ZONES.

Emphasis mine.

I get the impression that the underlying assumption here is that is gun free zones worked like they are supposed to, a killer looking to go on a murder spree would see the gun free zone sign and say "Oh, I couldn't possibly be shooting here up, it's gun free".
I'm quite sure that when they thought of the idea, that wasn't the effect they were expecting to have.
I would however, speculate that the rate of accidental gun deaths/injuries are much lower in said zones. Which I can totally imagine being one of the goals of having gun free zone.s