Today's mass shooting in the US

[Newbie007]

And what benefit is there from guns, for the vast majority of people, aside from that sweet, sweet hit of dopamine when you fire it?

Safety, self defense, a deterrent. Criminals are far less likely to break and enter or commit a crime if they know their target has a weapon.

 

[VincentHanna]

Safety, self defense, a deterrent. Criminals are far less likely to break and enter or commit a crime if they know their target has a weapon.

All the data I've seen says that homes with guns are more likely to result in the death of somebody in that house, than those without.

 

[Newbie007]

All the data I've seen says that homes with guns are more likely to result in the death of somebody in that house, than those without.

Link to source?

 

[adolf hamster]

Safety, self defense, a deterrent. Criminals are far less likely to break and enter or commit a crime if they know their target has a weapon.

the same argument is used for the death penalty, last i checked criminals still criminal'd regardless.

 

[Newbie007]

the same argument is used for the death penalty, last i checked criminals still criminal'd regardless.

Except there's been studies done of prison inmates around this exact issue (linked in my post yesterday)

 

[VincentHanna]

Link to source?

https://injury.research.chop.edu/vi...-violence/gun-violence-facts-and#.XVFB4M5KguU

• Those people that die from accidental shooting were more than three times as likely to have had a firearm in their home as those in the control group.
• Among children, the majority (89%) of unintentional shooting deaths occur in the home. Most of these deaths occur when children are playing with a loaded gun in their parent’s absence.
• People who report “firearm access” are at twice the risk of homicide and more than three times the risk of suicide compared to those who do not own or have access to firearms.

 

[Roar87]

Would more gun control, in general, save more lives than less control, just like more control over nicotine consumption, in general, would save lives?

Possibly, but seeing as we have a massive reluctance to make things that are illegal legal again, then just through the passage of time eventually everything can be made illegal with the argument of saving lives. So where do you draw the line? Do you want to live in a state where anything remotely dangerous is illegal? It'll be like demolition man where swearing becomes illegal because it can trigger violent behaviour, yet the left are willing to give the government whatever power they ask for in order to "save lives", except if it offends a minority group obviously

 

[Schlong&Stable]

the same argument is used for the death penalty, last i checked criminals still criminal'd regardless.

How do we measure that statistic though? I mean, do people who would have committed crimes step forward to say "Well I was going to murder my lover, but I didn't want to face the death penalty". It's very difficult to measure the impact as the people who are arrested and convicted tend to be those who wouldn't be deterred anyway.

That said, I've never much gone for the deterrence argument for the death penalty.

 

[Newbie007]

So proper education of children at homes with a firearm should be the number 1 priority of those parents

 

[VincentHanna]

It's not just children, the bit in bold was the pertinent bit.

 

[wesimmo]

Possibly, but seeing as we have a massive reluctance to make things that are illegal legal again, then just through the passage of time eventually everything can be made illegal with the argument of saving lives. So where do you draw the line? Do you want to live in a state where anything remotely dangerous is illegal? It'll be like demolition man where swearing becomes illegal because it can trigger violent behaviour, yet the left are willing to give the government whatever power they ask for in order to "save lives", except if it offends a minority group obviously

The hyperbole does your argument no favours. Why have a made up dig at the left?

But no, my position is that the government should legislate for common sense.

So certain drugs should be made legal and the money spent on policing redirected to education and rehabilitation.

But let's compare 2 dangerous hobbies.

I love cars and attend tracks as a spectator, passenger and driver. All of those are risky. I choose to do them knowing the risks, I make a decision about my hobby and my risk.

Sport/casual shooting, on the other hand, has the potential for other people to be be put at risk with no decision on their part. I'd therefore put severe controls in place to minimise the risk to people who have no choice in the matter.

So people who have a legitimate use for guns are able to keep them but registered, licensed and limited to the absolute required weapon.

Sport/casual gun owners should have to keep their guns at registered shooting centres. In those cases I've got less concern about semi autos, grenade launchers or whatever. If you get your rocks off firing huge weapons into a hillside under controlled conditions, go for it.

 

[DB_SamX]

Theres no guarentee there would be

No, there isn't, but what does the American society have to lose by trying?

 

[Rroff]

I love cars and attend tracks as a spectator, passenger and driver. All of those are risky. I choose to do them knowing the risks, I make a decision about my hobby and my risk.

Sport/casual shooting, on the other hand, has the potential for other people to be be put at risk with no decision on their part. I'd therefore put severe controls in place to minimise the risk to people who have no choice in the matter.

Eh? most sport/casual shooting is done under range conditions with little difference in chance for bystander, etc. to be injured than at a motor sport event - even in the US if you started shooting for fun in a random field you'd probably end up with law enforcement turning up. Hunting a little different in that regard.

 

[wesimmo]

Eh? most sport/casual shooting is done under range conditions with little difference in chance for bystander, etc. to be injured than at a motor sport event - even in the US if you started shooting for fun in a random field you'd probably end up with law enforcement turning up. Hunting a little different in that regard.

Most. Not all.

But my point was more about controlling the storage and access to guns outside of controlled areas.

It's obviously not practical to say sport guns can only be stored in one place that isn't your own home if you want attend multiple ranges. Or is it? Could there not be a system in place where you have a "home range" but there are regulated and secure couriers that move guns about when you want to go elsewhere? There's loads of ways of looking at how to do these things, I'm no expert beyond knowing that more control than being able to wander about the place with a semi auto gun of some sort is a no brainer.

 

[Hotwired]

No, there isn't, but what does the American society have to lose by trying?

Firearms held privately for the sole purpose of killing other humans.

Plus the excitement of easily escalating any conflict to the level of lethal force.

 

[StriderX]

Basically people who defend the right to carry a gun to the point of "testing laws", have small penises and need to compensate with threats of violence.

 

[FTM]

let them all have a gun from the era the bill was introduced....problem solved

 

[FTM]

I am a terrible person anyway...if I lived in the states I guarantee I would have a basement armory

even though I know how stupid it is and how it clearly contributes peoples deaths

 

[Rroff]

let them all have a gun from the era the bill was introduced....problem solved

That doesn't actually satisfy the spirit of the bill.

 

[Roar87]

Basically people who defend the right to carry a gun to the point of "testing laws", have small penises and need to compensate with threats of violence.

Carrying a gun isn't a threat of violence lol