Today's mass shooting in the US

[Sankari]

Isn't just about firearms deaths though - other countries which have had or currently do have more relaxed firearms regulations don't see the same problems the US does -

Yes it's also about culture. But even the countries with 'more relaxed' gun laws still have laws that are far stricter than the US.

Australia for a chunk of its history had laws relatively close to the US without seeing the issues the US has

No it didn't. For a start, the US has the 2nd amendment. Australians have never enjoyed the right to bear arms, nor have we ever had laws that allowed us to own fully automatic weapons or other firearms Americans took for granted over many decades. Our laws have always been radically different from America's; far stricter in every way.

- interestingly since the 1996 law changes firearms incidents in Australia have dropped significantly but firearms per capita has actually gone back up again, although that tends to be existing owners buying additional, or replacing their banned semi-automatics, rather than new owners. One of the difference being the types of gun though with semi-automatic rifles being replaced with bolt action or straight pull variants.

Yes, Australia's new firearm laws worked as intended: they continued to allow the purchase and ownership of firearms, while reducing firearm deaths by limiting availability. As a result, ownership of the more problematic weapons has shrunk to negligible levels.

America has a problem and it goes far beyond firearms.

Yes. Which means the US still has to address firearms in addition to her other problem.

 

[Rroff]

No it didn't. For a start, the US has the 2nd amendment. Australians have never enjoyed the right to bear arms, nor have we ever had laws that allowed us to own fully automatic weapons or other firearms Americans took for granted over many decades. Our laws have always been radically different from America's; far stricter in every way.

Reason I put relatively in there - for a chunk of Australia's history it wasn't prohibitively difficult to own many common weapons found in the US - sure some places banned handguns after WW2, etc. but access to things like semi-automatic "assault style" rifles was only tightened up after 1996. The US has been quite restrictive on full-automatic firearms for awhile now. As per your post above even when ownership of the more problematic weapons was more widespread Australia never had the problems the US does (sure some mass shootings happened but it was a relatively rare thing).

 

[MissChief]

Stats of the States - Homicide Mortality

www.cdc.gov

Another interesting set of stats. All those second amendment loving states topping the list not New York and Illinois

Interesting that you use CDC figures. They're duty bound to look at causes of injury (not death) in the US, yet previously were barred by law from looking into Gun injuries after Federal funding to do so was stopped by the Gun Lobby and NRA financed republicans. This is slowly changing though. https://www.npr.org/2021/09/29/1039907305/cdc-study-toll-guns-america

 

[StriderX]

Reason I put relatively in there - for a chunk of Australia's history it wasn't prohibitively difficult to own many common weapons found in the US - sure some places banned handguns after WW2, etc. but access to things like semi-automatic "assault style" rifles was only tightened up after 1996. The US has been quite restrictive on full-automatic firearms for awhile now. As per your post above even when ownership of the more problematic weapons was more widespread Australia never had the problems the US does (sure some mass shootings happened but it was a relatively rare thing).

Such is the consequence of putting a piece of paper on a pedestal so high that there can be no changes... ever. Any culture that is this static doesn't have long to rectify it.

 

[Twinz]

Such is the consequence of putting a piece of paper on a pedestal so high that there can be no changes... ever. Any culture that is this static doesn't have long to rectify it.

The "piece of paper" as you call it, *can be changed*, and has been before.

 

[Sankari]

The "piece of paper" as you call it, *can be changed*, and has been before.

Yes, but now Republicans refuse to change it.

 

[Trig]

This site doesn’t appear to take into account attempted suicides. It only shows people who did manage to take their own lives. What this data appears to show is that states with more relaxed gun laws have more “successful” suicide attempts.

Range I went to in the States a few years ago was very tight about people they didn't know being there, bro inlaw was a member and they still wanted our UK addresses and details as well as passport etc.
Turns out a guy had split up with his missus, gone in, put a load of rounds down the range, went back to the shop, got a load more, put them down range bar the last one, which he put in his own head, guy was in the box net to bro inlaw, who turned around and stood in claret when they hit the alarms and everyone made safe so its not always about mental health and people having guns at home its about actual ease of access as well.

 

[platinum87]

No, the issue is firearm deaths, no matter how they occur. That's because the common denominator in firearm deaths is access to firearms. Reduce access, and you reduce deaths. Every other Western nation does this successfully.

Cherry picking which firearm deaths to remove from the statistics is moronic at best, and dishonest at worst.



We don't need infinite resources. Every other Western nation outperforms the US when it comes to firearm deaths. Why do you think that is?

The issue is not all firearm deaths, if it was you can expand it to all deaths in one single step, at which point you'd just ignore firearm related deaths entirely as other things are a far better use of your time and limited resources.

Its not cherry picking, i didnt phrase it right, the statistic of total firearm deaths is in itself moronic. How many innocent people were killed by guns shot by other people, is much better, and its what people think when you say firearm deaths.

 

[fez]

Such is the consequence of putting a piece of paper on a pedestal so high that there can be no changes... ever. Any culture that is this static doesn't have long to rectify it.

Its not that, its that is a great excuse for people who want to have guns. If they turned over the page and found a paragraph they missed saying "200 years after this was written we shall return this land to the native Americans" I don't think you would find all the hillbillies and hicks screaming about defending that part.

Its a simple crutch for these people to lean on. They don't exactly live by the rest of the values anyway so the fact they so vociferously defend the second amendment is frankly laughable and thats ignoring the fact that its not about everyone having a load of guns to kill someone who ****** them off.

The whole thing is ridiculous but thats America in a nutshell. I think you have to have been brought up over there not to see them as a monstrous contradiction.

 

[plasmahal]

Yes, but now US politicians refuse to change it.

Fixed that for you...

 

[Trig]

The "piece of paper" as you call it, *can be changed*, and has been before.

Pretty sure thats what the word amendment is for...

 

[Twinz]

Yes, but now Republicans refuse to change it.

That's the thing about that "piece of paper". It took very persuasive / convincing arguments to get things put there. The bar to get on that document is intentionally very high. Whatever case is made to add something to, or remove something from that paper has to convince a super-majority of the populace *and* remain persuasive over an extended period of time.

It's a surprisingly effective way to filter out knee-jerk, emotional reactions that can easly befall raw, mob-rule democracy.
 
If you want something changed on that peice of paper, you have to make a very, very convincing argument.

 

[Sankari]

The issue is not all firearm deaths

Yes it is, because that's what firearm legislation is intended to address by reducing avaliability. This was literally the goal of the Australian legislation. It wasn't to address only a handful of firearm deaths.

if it was you can expand it to all deaths in one single step, at which point you'd just ignore firearm related deaths entirely as other things are a far better use of your time and limited resources.

Hilarious nonsense.

Its not cherry picking, i didnt phrase it right, the statistic of total firearm deaths is in itself moronic. How many innocent people were killed by guns shot by other people, is much better,

Of course it's cherry picking. You want to exclude one category of firearm death simply because they don't fall under the category of crime, even though these deaths could be reduced by the same firearm legislation that helps to reduce firearm crime. Accidental firearm deaths should also be counted, for the same reason.

Would you say we should exclude accidental car-related deaths from car death statistics because they weren't caused by someone delilverately killing another person with a car?

and its what people think when you say firearm deaths.

It's what you think when you say firearm deaths, and you are wrong. When you look at the statistics, 'firearm deaths' or 'firearm related deaths' always includes all deaths from firearms. If you don't like that, go and argue with the statisticians.

 

[Sankari]

It's a surprisingly effective way to filter out knee-jerk, emotional reactions that can easly befall raw, mob-rule democracy.
 

There is no country on this planet that uses 'mob-rule democracy.' In fact, that very term is an oxymoron. Democracy is not mob rule. It is a strictly moderated form of government with safeguards and caveats that prevent it descending into mob rule. Anyone using the term 'mob rule' in the context of democracy is simply demonstrating their ignorance of politics.

If you want something changed on that peice of paper, you have to make a very, very convincing argument.

Yes, and the US found very, very convincing arguments for many amendments at the time they were written. There are now very, very convincing arguments for additional amendments, but due to the toxic nature of partisan American politics, the US isn't willing to consider them.

 

[fez]

It's a surprisingly effective way to filter out knee-jerk, emotional reactions that can easly befall raw, mob-rule democracy.
 
If you want something changed on that peice of paper, you have to make a very, very convincing argument.

No it isn't. Its a very narrow document that has plenty of things that could and should be changed because they are so broad in their coverage and meaning as to be largely either pointless or completely up for interpretation.

The country isn't run on it. You cannot run a country even in principle on such a small document. Its just another weird American anachronism that they are desperately clinging to as it gives them and identity and a history. Similar to how all Americans love to tell you about their "heritage" despite their family having be entirely US based for over a hundred years and they have never set foot outside their state lines.

 

[Twinz]

Yes, and the US found very, very convincing arguments for many amendments at the time they were written. There are now very, very convincing arguments for additional amendments, but due to the toxic nature of partisan American politics, the US isn't willing to consider them.

What an interesting way to assert that your favored position is more convincing than you can actually prove.

We have a system for changing that "peice of paper." If you can't change it, your argument may not be as persuasive as you think it is.

 

[Sankari]

What an interesting way to assert that your favored position is more convincing than you can actually prove.

This is so fractally wrong, I can't even call it a straw man.

We have a system for changing that "peice of paper." If you can't change it, your argument may not be as persuasive as you think it is.

Quite possibly, or it could be that the side with the weaker argument simply has better marketing and more money behind it. That's how a lot of politicians get elected, after all. How else do you explain Neil Hamilton?

I personally feel that when a bunch of people are screaming 'No, we can't risk changing the constitution', it's because they fear that their argument would not be persuasive if it was put to the public. So they want to maintain the status quo because they believe their argument no longer carries weight.

In any case, changing the constitution involves a process which has to be initiated. If a president refuses to initiate that process, he can ignore the arguments on both sides no matter how good they might be.

Plenty of people believed they had very, very convincing arguments for leaving the EU, but those arguments couldn't change anything until the government agreed to hold a referendum. So it's not just about having convincing arguments, it's about having the opportunity to have those arguments voted on by the public.

Australia is due to hold a referendum later this year, in which we'll be asked to vote on a constitutional change. If the government hadn't agreed to hold a referendum, the arguments for both side would be utterly moot because arguments by themselves are not enough to change the constitution. There's a process involved.

On the subject of constitutional change in the US, I believe it will never happen; at least, not in my lifetime. Americans consider the constitution untouchable, and the 2nd amendment is prized most highly of all. No modern president will ever risk his political career by offering a constitutional amendment.

There are no solutions for the US gun problem; it's here to stay because it's hardwired into American culture, American politics, and the American psyche.

 

[mrk]

The new Vice video on infiltrating the NRA is interesting, perfectly timed too...

 

[platinum87]

Yes it is, because that's what firearm legislation is intended to address by reducing avaliability. This was literally the goal of the Australian legislation. It wasn't to address only a handful of firearm deaths.



Hilarious nonsense.



Of course it's cherry picking. You want to exclude one category of firearm death simply because they don't fall under the category of crime, even though these deaths could be reduced by the same firearm legislation that helps to reduce firearm crime. Accidental firearm deaths should also be counted, for the same reason.

Would you say we should exclude accidental car-related deaths from car death statistics because they weren't caused by someone delilverately killing another person with a car?



It's what you think when you say firearm deaths, and you are wrong. When you look at the statistics, 'firearm deaths' or 'firearm related deaths' always includes all deaths from firearms. If you don't like that, go and argue with the statisticians.

Because basically crime is the only thing affecting people in relation to firearms, the fact i kill myself with a gun is not an issue for anyone else, nor is it bad that the recent shooter was killed by police, nor is it bad that a lot of criminals.

Saying its hilarious nonsense is pure insanity, take for instance the chemical spills that occur, that cant be good surely, that directly affects everyone as does particulate pollution via engines/coal plants and so forth.

So what we need to do, is figure out how many deaths occur which are an issue overall, and how much of an issue they are, when we do that for guns, give or take, the number will drop by half atleast.

We then do that for everything else, then we see how difficult it is to effect positive change, then we decide to spend effort on the easiest thing possible.

What you are doing is the opposite, you formulate an ideology, then you use statistics to support said ideology.

Its obvious you cannot understand anyone elses argument, or you would include car deaths via accidents, if i am run over by someone accident or not its the absolutely same thing as if someone randomly just murders me with a gun.

There are stats on all aspects of gun deaths surely, the only one people use is the highest number, because that is what you do when your goal is to push rhetoric.

There are stats on everything, the issue is not the stats it is how you use them, you don't understand how to use statistics.

 

[Sankari]

MTG wants everyone to know that she has some serious and well considered thoughts about the shooting.