Connecticut shooting, gun control laws?

[Biz_R_0]

TLDR: More guns = more homicides, take it from people that are smarter than we are and actually know how to research things and evaluate facts before they make up their mind about something.

Correlation =/= causation and appeal to authority.

Stop selling assault rifles to every joe schmuck with a thick wallet and mommy/daddy issues = profit

This.

 

[GwJ]

By the way, it's not an appeal to authority when the authority being appealed to is ACTUALLY an authority. I didn't read the article he cited, but just wanted to get that out.

 

[Biz_R_0]

By the way, it's not an appeal to authority when the authority being appealed to is ACTUALLY an authority. I didn't read the article he cited, but just wanted to get that out.

It wasn't an actual authority, he just said they're smarter than us. Which, although true, doesn't make them right.

The second amendment was written for a very different era. Parroting the part of the sentence that makes your argument seem salient while ignoring the rest of it and its intent is not intelligent.

The second part is the one that actually matters, the first is just an explanation as to why. If the 13th amendment said "because of Lincoln's uncontrollable clown fetish, no more slavery", would we still be allowed to have slaves?

 

[GwJ]

Does the article say who did the study?

 

[Biz_R_0]

It doesn't matter, correlation doesn't imply causation, who did it doesn't change that.

 

[Evil Eye]

Correlation =/= causation

Well golly gee, this issue must be trapped in a mighty singularity of overwhelming coincidences, considering nations like Japan display the exact trends you would expect from massive regulation where a causal relationship exists. Or the exponentially lower firearm and standard homicide rates in Canada, which is about as culturally close to America as it gets, and also has a great deal more regulation (and a great deal less than Japan).

There's a point where things stop being "hur hur correlation" and start being "based on available data, the most logical and presumable inference is ____". There's a whole occupation that revolves around analyzing data and making such inferences.

That's cool though just keep citing a blanket counter-argument you probably got off a list of logical fallacies that made the rounds via chain email or whatever



Edit: Ugh, no, I'm not gonna bother. Anything I say is just going to be a watered down, worse-structured version of my last attempt to post in this thread. Sigh...

Edit 2: I will say, however, that the whole point of "appealing to [that] authority" was because I didn't have it in me to write another ~5 page research paper for an internet argument where no one's gonna listen to any argument no matter how good it is anyway, so I just did a quick google to see if anyone had already done a similar study that published it somewhere I could link to it. And, lo and behold, Harvard University had.

 

[Bobwithlobsters]

Assuming of course you ignore mexico, where there is very strict gun laws which have done nothing to curb gun crimes or homicides...

Plus that article specified gun availability which ignores if those guns were supposed to be available or not which makes areas like south america and africa greatly skew the results. They both have gun and homicide problems even though there aren't supposed to be guns in civilians hands.

Another country that contradicts their data is switzerland with extremely high gun ownership and last I checked is the second safest place in the world.

Edit: sick of hearing this so just to clear this up, assault rifles are not legal in america. an assault rifle by definition has select fire be it burst or full auto. Both of these are already illegal. The weapon used in this shooting was a "assault type" weapon which roughly translates to, a weapon that kinda looks like an assault rifle...

 

[Biz_R_0]

Well golly gee, this issue must be trapped in a mighty singularity of overwhelming coincidences, considering nations like Japan display the exact trends you would expect from massive regulation where a causal relationship exists. Or the exponentially lower firearm and standard homicide rates in Canada, which is about as culturally close to America as it gets, and also has a great deal more regulation (and a great deal less than Japan).

"There's more of a correlation, which means that it is definitely the cause of it!" I admit there's a definite link but that doesn't necessarily mean you're right about guns causing murders.

There's a point where things stop being "hur hur correlation" and start being "based on available data, the most logical and presumable inference is ____". There's a whole occupation that revolves around analyzing data and making such inferences.

You said the exact same thing but stupid and then smart to make your point look better. "hurr durr your point", as opposed to "intelligently stated my point" doesn't change anything and can really be used with anything.

That's cool though just keep citing a blanket counter-argument you probably got off a list of logical fallacies that made the rounds via chain email or whateve

Actually no, I usually hate it when people list off fallacies and then act like they're so intelligent for copy-pasting from Wikipedia. It's just that yours were pretty blatant and those two get on my nerves.

 

[Evil Eye]

Assuming of course you ignore mexico, where there is very strict gun laws which have done nothing to curb gun crimes or homicides...

Uh, yeah, and I'm sure that has nothing to do with ineffective enforcement strategies, particularly in a country where the corruptive and violent grip of drug cartels has the federal police that are supposed to be FIGHTING them not only in their employ, but assassinating CIA officers. With guns, to boot!

Plus that article specified gun availability which ignores if those guns were supposed to be available or not which makes areas like south america and africa greatly skew the results. They both have gun and homicide problems even though there aren't supposed to be guns in civilians hands.

How do you know? The language is inspecific. You're making an assumption that happens to support your own perspective but actually has zero basis for inference one way or the other. Maybe this does factor in the availability of illicit firearm ownership -- however, such a broad and generalized study would have very little value, no? Particularly given how difficult it is to empirically measure the available quantity of a commodity whose whole economic raison d'etre is staying off the books.

It seems much more logical to assume that this is based on legal availability given that, y'know, it's actually quantifiable, has an actual purpose for study (it's not like anyone is debating whether we should be fighting the illegal arms trade for God's sake), and thus can lead toward an actual conclusion instead of trying to dance around immeasurable ghost figures.

Regardless, it can't be concluded either way, although logic certainly lends toward the study regarding legal availability. If you're right and it regards all availability of guns (incredibly doubtful for aforementioned reasons), what of it? Does that somehow disprove my assertion that more guns = more gun crime and thus homicides?

But that's cool just make a cavernous assumption that hardly makes sense to support your POV that's coo'

To the bold. Uh, what? The study reviewed high income countries. It makes numerous America-specific references. Why are you babblin' about South America and Africa?

(Btw, both nations above America on the list of nations by firearm-related death rate that are in Africa -- South Africa and Swaziland -- are quite legal for civilian purchase)

Another country that contradicts their data is switzerland with extremely high gun ownership and last I checked is the second safest place in the world.

Where to begin...

1. When exactly is the "last time you checked", because it looks pretty middle of the road to me, and is nowhere near the lowest rates.

2. I'm sure that has nothing to do with the extensive regulations that are in place, including indepth background checks, an outright prohibition on civilian ownership of fully automatic weapons, and more.

3. Even if Swiss gun ownership ran as unchecked as you sneakily tried to imply there, the existence of outliers does not a rebuttal make. Outliers almost always exist, relative to any pattern. They are not contrary evidence. They are a strange coincidence to be controlled for.

sick of hearing this so just to clear this up, assault rifles are not legal in america. an assault rifle by definition has select fire be it burst or full auto. Both of these are already illegal. The weapon used in this shooting was a "assault type" weapon which roughly translates to, a weapon that kinda looks like an assault rifle...

In the United States, civilians are not allowed to possess machine-guns, sawn-off shotguns and rifles, silencers, and armour-piercing ammunition without appropriate registration

In the United States, private possession of fully automatic weapons is prohibited without appropriate registration

In the United States, private possession of semi-automatic assault weapons is permitted without a licence in some jurisdictions

???

In the United States, the private sale and transfer of firearms is permitted in some jurisdictions

The buyer of a firearm in a private sale in the United States is not obliged to pass official background checks before taking possession

????

 

[GwJ]

Can you just answer my question for me?

 

[Evil Eye]

"There's more of a correlation, which means that it is definitely the cause of it!" I admit there's a definite link but that doesn't necessarily mean you're right about guns causing murders.

See this is the point where I could just say "Strawman" and not reply to your point. I never said gun availability is THE cause.

To be fair, I admit I didn't actually make a conclusion outright, but whatever. I'm saying it's a cause. Regulate the hell out of gun ownership and prohibit the ownership of stupid as **** "no really though, who the hell needs an assault rifle with explosive ammunition, seriously, what the ****" weapons. Homicides will decrease. I don't care about hunters, gun hobbyists, paranoid widows, whatever. Not sure if that was clear or not. Hell, I personally really love shootin' guns.

What I should say is that I'm saying that, right now, gun regulation in the U.S.A. is weak as ****, and people that should absolutely not get guns... can get them. There are also guns on the market that just shouldn't damn well be there. Solve these two problems and you have made murderin' -- particularly mass murderin' -- a greatly more difficult task.

Can you concede that much? If not, what exactly is your "definite link", because I can't think of one that doesn't concede those points.

You said the exact same thing but stupid and then smart to make your point look better. "hurr durr your point", as opposed to "intelligently stated my point" doesn't change anything and can really be used with anything.

Alright, fair, but I was annoyed by your "correlation =/= causation" argument and still am. Are you saying that my points about inferences based upon analysis of data aren't true? Are meteorologists, economists, stockbrokers and others just sham artists pulling figures outta their butts?

In the course of objecting to how I made my point you have shirked actually answering it.

Actually no, I usually hate it when people list off fallacies and then act like they're so intelligent for copy-pasting from Wikipedia. It's just that yours were pretty blatant and those two get on my nerves.

Well, I could do the same thing for a great many of your posts in this thread thus far, but I have decided to have an actual conversation instead.

 

[Bobwithlobsters]

With regards to mexico I will agree that it does support that guns = murders but it does not support your solution that regulating the guns would solve the problem.

on switzerland if you look at the homicide rate as opposed to the firearm homicide rate it is only higher than two european countries both of which are considered in the top safest countries in the world. You are correct though that switzerland doesn't seem to be considered as safe as last I checked. Still ranked ten on the list I saw.

This brings up another topic though. You are using the measure of gun related killings as your metrics but who cares how they were killed? You are dead regardless so of course switzerland with probably the highest rate of gun ownership has a high rate but they are very low on all forms of homicide rate. All you have shown is that gun crimes just make up a large percent of their low homicide rate.

Now on assault rifles, technically they can be legally purchased, but for all purposes they are illegal. you needed a special permit that the government entity that issues them had its funding cut and no longer exists. So if you can get a permit from a government group that doesn't exist then you can get one.

I'm sorry if I didn't address all of your comments evil eye but I'm responding by cell phone.

edit: fyi the two european countries with a lower homicide rate than switzerland are iceland and norway. In case anyone was wondering.

 

[Biz_R_0]

Regulate the hell out of gun ownership and prohibit the ownership of stupid as **** "no really though, who the hell needs an assault rifle with explosive ammunition, seriously, what the ****" weapons. Homicides will decrease. I don't care about hunters, gun hobbyists, paranoid widows, whatever. Not sure if that was clear or not. Hell, I personally really love shootin' guns.

In that case the people who'd go crazy would just get a pistol. Although, there's no reason why you'd need a military grade sniper rifle to shoot targets.

What I should say is that I'm saying that, right now, gun regulation in the U.S.A. is weak as ****, and people that should absolutely not get guns... can get them. There are also guns on the market that just shouldn't damn well be there. Solve these two problems and you have made murderin' -- particularly mass murderin' -- a greatly more difficult task.

A lot of these people use someone elses gun. If people just put their guns in a numberlocked case where only they can get to it, this wouldn't happen even close to as often.

 

[Bobwithlobsters]

To expand on the point that most guns were not their own, the vast number of these guns are just plain obtained illegally. For example this school shooting was a gun free zone, the guns he used he couldn't legally own, he stole the guns, and then he started murdering. so he had already broken three laws probably four as I'm guessing he transported then illegally as well, before he started murdering people.

Now how would we have stopped that with additional regulation. I'm curious if anyone could come up with a law that doesn't violate the 2nd amendment and would have prevented this. I personally can't think of an additional law that he wouldn't have just ignored along with the other laws.

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

The second part is the one that actually matters, the first is just an explanation as to why. If the 13th amendment said "because of Lincoln's uncontrollable clown fetish, no more slavery", would we still be allowed to have slaves?

It matters. If it didn't, the constitution wouldn't be amendable. The authors of the constitution knew that down the line, things would change, and so they granted future generations the ability to amend the constitution to better fit changing times. Are you arguing that the changes in both the function and form of the military aren't relevant? Why not? I mean, your argument is full of assumptions. You'd have to assume that the reason arms were granted to citizens was unrelated to the first part of the sentence, when in fact it most certainly was. lol

Or are you seriously arguing by the way that intent of law isn't relevance? That the reason for a law, no less constitutional law, has no relevancy? That owning a gun is somehow so much so a human right that reasoning for granting such a right isn't necessary?

You're talking to someone by the way that doesn't even have much of an opinion on the gun ownership issue, but the "pro-ownership" side of the debate does a piss poor job presenting their side of things. They do it with misinformation, carefully massaged interpretation of existing data, and the dismissal of any point against their view as superfluous when it clearly and logically isn't.

 

[Alphicans]

I think it's important to also look at the time period that was said. A gun back then shot one bullet at a time and took like 5 minutes to reload. And it wouldn't be nearly as deadly as a gun is now a days, since the bullets just weren't designed as well.

 

[Bobwithlobsters]

I think it's important to also look at the time period that was said. A gun back then shot one bullet at a time and took like 5 minutes to reload. And it wouldn't be nearly as deadly as a gun is now a days, since the bullets just weren't designed as well.

I believe this is referring to the second amendment. If that is the case they weren't really just referring to guns with this amendment. At the time arms was referring to general combat tools, meaning guns swords spears and probably even things like cannons. To the best of my knowledge they were really talking things like military tools. Not hunting tools. Got that impression from the whole "a well regulated militia" part.

 

[Biz_R_0]

@SFP and Alphicans; are you saying that the second amendment is outdated and shouldn't be there anymore, or that it doesn't give people the right to bare arms?

 

[Falconv1.0]

And it wouldn't be nearly as deadly as a gun is now a days, since the bullets just weren't designed as well.

Gunshots were far worse back in that period when there was no real way to stop the horrible gaping wounds from doing all kinds of terrible things to you. Survivors from direct shots were not exactly common.

I get your point with the whole speed and accuracy thing, though.

 

[Alphicans]

@SFP and Alphicans; are you saying that the second amendment is outdated and shouldn't be there anymore, or that it doesn't give people the right to bare arms?

I think looking at what they said for moral guidance is a mistake in general. They may be correct in saying we should have the right, but the fact that they said it shouldn't make it right.

But yeah to take what they said about guns at the time and continuing to apply it after such technological revolutions should be questioned. Back then a gun MIGHT kill someone, but only if the person is close enough (those guns had **** for range), and if the aim is good (guns were not forgiving in terms of accuracy). After that shot is fired, the gun has to be reloaded, which takes a significant amount of time, maybe not 5 minutes but it certainly wouldn't enable you to massacre a school.

In my own opinion, I don't think anyone should have the right nor the privilege to own a device that is capable of murdering mass amounts of people at a time. Even a hand pistol has high potential to kill half a dozen people in a matter of seconds, which is crazy if you think about it. Of course I am a bit of an idealist, but I stand behind those concepts because they are a truth society should strive towards.

 

[Biz_R_0]

How about swords?

 

[Jaedrik]

All I have to say is Kennesaw, Georgia (U.S.) and Switzerland, and Chicago. Oh Chicago, where just about as many people are killed weekly, yet there isn't so much media coverage.

A life is a life is a life.
A murder is a murder is a murder.
Intent doesn't matter, nor should it ever.
Character witnesses are just stupid justice.

 

[Jam Stunna]

All I have to say is Kennesaw, Georgia (U.S.) and Switzerland, and Chicago. Oh Chicago, where just about as many people are killed weekly, yet there isn't so much media coverage.

A life is a life is a life.
A murder is a murder is a murder.
Intent doesn't matter, nor should it ever.
Character witnesses are just stupid justice.

Your reference to Chicago specifically made me think of this article (I'm going to post the text since I can't link it):

Deaths of children that don’t make news
By VIJAY PRASHAD
Monday, December 17, 2012

NORTHAMPTON — No community easily suffers the death of children. Accidents, violent crimes and illness: the cause is immaterial.

No death of a child is for a reason. All such deaths are senseless.

In his emotional address shortly after news came of the massacre in Newtown, Conn., President Obama pointed to the frequency of such mass crimes and nudged the country to widen our field of vision: “Whether it is an elementary school in Newtown, or a shopping mall in Oregon, or a temple in Wisconsin, or a movie theater in Aurora, or a street corner in Chicago — these neighborhoods are our neighborhoods, and these children are our children.”

The contrary nudge came in his last destination, the “street corner in Chicago.”

When a singular mass killing occurs in mainly affluent suburbs, it shocks the nation — and rightly so. But it might be a shock to some to know that this year alone 117 children died from handgun violence in Chicago. These deaths do not get discussed, let alone memorialized in the national conversation of tragedy.

There are at least two reasons for this. First, these deaths do not happen in a spectacular fashion. They take place in ones and twos, often in the lonely hours of the night when bullets depart from their targets and settle in the soft tissue of children asleep in their homes, or in the afternoon as they play on the sidewalk.

Take the case of April 12. One-year-old Jayliah Allen was shot while she slept in her bed, the bullet entering the window. Seven-year-old Derrick Robeteau was shot in the leg while playing outside his grandfather’s home and a 7-year-old girl was shot as she stood outside her home. Three children hit by handguns in one day, but in an unspectacular form.

Second, old racist habits linger. These are African-American and Latino kids, whose neighborhoods are considered dangerous. Which is why when Jayliah and Derrick were killed no one called their neighborhoods bucolic or thought that this violence was senseless. There is a hardness that has entered our consciousness, allowing us to avoid the sealed fates of these kids.

No memorials exist as well for the 178 children killed by U.S. drone strikes in the borderlands of Pakistan and Afghanistan. Noor Aziz, 8, Talha, 8, Najibullah, 13, Adnan, 16, Hizbullah, 10, Wilayat Khan, 11, Asadullah, 9, Sohail, 7: these are some of the names of children killed by the drones. News reports frequently say “three militants killed,” and then a few days later, in the Pakistani press, one hears that amongst the dead were children with no association with the militants. Unlike the street shootings in Chicago, there have been mass killings by drones, which have received only minimal attention. On Oct. 30, 2006, a U.S. drone struck a school in Bajaur, Pakistan, killing 83 people. The New York Times story ran Nov. 10 with the headline, “American Strike in January Missed Al-Qaeda’s No. 2 By a Few Hours.”

The Times noted in the story that the drone hit “a madrasa, or religious school,” but left it at that. It did not mention that only three of those killed were older than 20. The rest were between the ages of 7 and 17.

There was no apology for this strike, authorized by the White House, no call to put an end to this kind of tragedy. One of the more unseemly coincidences of the Newtown massacre is that just down the road from the elementary school is Forecast International, a military intelligence firm that has been bullish on drones.

On Oct. 23, Time’s Joe Klein was on MSNBC’s Morning Joe. Host Joe Scarborough spoke passionately against the use of drones, saying “it seems so antiseptic and yet you have 4-year-old girls being blown to bits because we have a policy that now says, ‘You know what? Instead of trying to go in and take the risk and get the terrorists out of hiding in a Karachi suburb, we’re just going to blow up everyone around them.’ ”

Klein, a defender of the Obama record, answered emotionlessly, “The bottom line in the end is — whose 4-year-old gets killed? What we’re doing is limiting the possibility that 4-year-olds here will get killed by indiscriminate acts of terror.”

Such a callous calculation is not Klein’s alone; it is reflected in the general lack of concern for what is being carried out in our name.

No human beings can tolerate to see their children killed. No human beings, not anywhere.

 

[Jaedrik]

Your reference to Chicago specifically made me think of this article (I'm going to post the text since I can't link it):

And Obama has increased the amount of drone strikes significantly.
Arguing that drone strikes cause more child deaths than and are less effective than military personnel may be valid, I haven't done enough research on the subject the other way.

 

[BarDulL]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/19/us/connecticut-school-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Interesting development. Obama is moving to enforce stricter gun policies in an effort to reduce violence. Wonder if it's gonna work or not.

 

[GwJ]

Depends how hard the NRA lobbies.

 

[Biz_R_0]

They said they're not going to just let the government pass whatever they want but they actually want a solution. It's linked in the article.

 

[Pink Reaper]

their solution is "buy more guns" in the same way that any other group that's centered around a specific corporation or business is "Buy more of our stuff"

 

[Biz_R_0]

Making assumptions about people/groups you disagree with is a great way to feel right about your opinions, isn't it?

 

[Pink Reaper]

I dont think you quite understand how the world works. Any large group is inherently going to be self serving out of a need for self preservation. The NRA will not only fight against harsher gun laws but will also push the "If teachers had guns" opinion because that's literally what their organization is about. It's not a matter of opinion, it's what they have to do because they cant be anti-gun. They have to be 100% anti-anti gun.

 

[Biz_R_0]

I dont think you quite understand how the world works.

First off, declaring your opponent ignorant for not agreeing with you is extremely ignorant and you look smug for doing it. Second, you don't need to be 100% adamant about your opinions, you don't need to always be for something that you're usually for. If this were true, they'd be all for this maniac owning a gun, which they obviously aren't. What you're doing is taking their opinion and stretching it to the furthest extreme and then criticizing them for your exaggeration of their opinion, which is both a strawman and an oversimplification, which are both logical fallacies. It's not all black and white.

 

[Pink Reaper]

You know what, **** it, im not even going to bother. You clearly are under some odd assumption of what im talking about. Im assuming you think im talking about individuals when im talking about an organization which has some pretty clear and concise ideals. If you honestly think they're going to take a stance that's the complete opposite from what they were founded on then more power to you bizzaro human.

 

[Biz_R_0]

You know what, **** it, im not even going to bother. You clearly are under some odd assumption of what im talking about. Im assuming you think im talking about individuals when im talking about an organization which has some pretty clear and concise ideals.

So would this organization be for crazy people having assault rifles? That's what I'm getting from you because you're assuming that they're literally 100% pro gun in all cases.

If you honestly think they're going to take a stance that's the complete opposite from what they were founded on then more power to you bizzaro human.

They were never in favor of killing innocent people.

 

[GwJ]

Biz, stop being so defensive.

 

[Biz_R_0]

I can't help it, I play Brawl.

 

[GwJ]

Brawl will do that to you, I suppose.

 

[BarDulL]

Playing Wario just adds more fuel to the fire. :[

Anywho!

NRA response: http://www.freep.com/article/201212...ic-spotlight-one-week-after-Newtown-shootings

Hmmmmmmmm. Hmm. More about it later. I don't necessarily agree with it though? I have mixed feelings on it.

 

[Pink Reaper]

Music, TV, Video Games, all to blame for killing. Guns dont kill people, the media does. I cant wait for their generation to die off. Maybe something can actually get done at that point(still unlikely)

 

[GwJ]

Don't forget, we still have to account for their spawn.

 

[Biz_R_0]

Honestly, if they did have an armed guard there, or even just a regular policeman or something, this probably would've been a lot less severe. I'm not saying it's the best solution, but it's really better than nothing and I think it should be taken into consideration regardless.

edit: I'll try to find it, but the most recent study I've seen said only about 1/7 gun crimes are committed by legal owners. It was from '97, though.