Florida High School Shooting

[soundforbjt]

Yes, its likely due to better healthcare as well as differences in society. I also notice that you ignored your original stance that less guns means less violence. Again, we have had guns in this country from the start, and this mass shootings thing is recent. It seems silly to just focus on the tool that makes it easier to kill which has been around for 100% of the time in this country, and not look at what drives people here.

Ask yourself this, why does Switzerland not have the same gun problem that the US has given AR15s are legal there?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/maps-and-graphics/mapped-the-countries-with-the-most-guns/

From this article, it says that Switzerland has 45.7 guns per 100 people, yet they are not even close to what we see in the US.

You can always find an outlier, Switzerland’s population is what?

Does the average Swiss gun owner have 17 guns or more like the typical US gun owners.

 

[fskimospy]

Simple, look at other countries that have less guns and few mass shootings, what are the differences. Better healthcare? Non starter here because reasons.

The only primary explanation that makes any sense is easy access to firearms in the US and everyone knows it.

 

[realibrad]

MH is a non-sense canard. Currently about 7% of the US has or has had major depression and probably twice as many are undiagnosed. If these people go on to shoot someone, we blame the shooting on mental health despite mental health issues being so incredibly prevalent in our society. The question to ask is whether mental health problems are the cause of the shooting or an association? That is a question that society doesn't have an answer to. My personal feeling is that mental health disorders are associated with these types of shooting but not necessary causal. (I also have this belief with drugs and crime: drug use is strongly associated with crime but drug use on the whole doesn't cause users to commit crime. There is pretty good evidence that many of these arrested drug users were committing crimes well before they ever got caught with drugs or even started using drugs). Its like for example the association of smoking and schizophrenia: a ridiculously large proportion of schizophrenics smoke, most experts don't believe smoking causes schizophrenia). To me, saying these shooters are all mentally ill is an odd way to approach the situation as a society because its basically an unprovable point upon which people are trying to build policy. Its one of those self-fulfilling beliefs. If someone is a shooter but default then he is mentally ill in our society. That seems like a position that is easy to throw out but does it really stand on its own two feet? Can it proved? I think not.

This is strange. Guns don't cause mental illness, but it can drive someone to want to commit acts of violence and guns become a tool to accomplish that. Smoking does not cause Schizophrenia, but Schizophrenia can drive people to smoke because of what smoking does.

Weird post.

 

[realibrad]

You can always find an outlier, Switzerland’s population is what?

Does the average Swiss gun owner have 17 guns or more like the typical US gun owners.

Sweden, Norway, Germany.

What about those. How many outliers until they are not outliers? The point is, that if it were truly about guns, then those should not exist. Guns make it easier, but guns themselves do not cause violence.

 

[realibrad]

And in 1978 we had way, way more gun murders than we have today. With that in mind it sure sounds like fewer guns are the answer.

The answer to what question? We have been talking about mass shootings, so now you bring up all gun crime?

Way to go sport!

 

[Jhhnn]

You'll be perfectly content with future school shootings once AR-15s are banned for them to be carried out with handguns? Is that another duhflection?

More dishonesty. I'd have no problem banning the sale of high capacity handguns. OTOH, it's important to recognize that they're not nearly as effective for the purpose at hand.

 

[momeNt]

Sweden, Norway, Germany.

What about those. How many outliers until they are not outliers? The point is, that if it were truly about guns, then those should not exist. Guns make it easier, but guns themselves do not cause violence.

It's not about no more guns ending violence, it is about lowering violence, or reducing the severity of violence.

I personally think it is an unacceptable restriction. Firearms are a personal property right. Through our labor we earn money, and with our money we can purchase somebody else's labor, which can be guns or bullets, or groceries, or whatever. I am not willing to accept restrictions on personal property rights. The ownership in and of itself is not harmful, only its use, it comes down to a very basic right of life.

I hold the same views on abortion. I will accept absolutely no compromise over the personal liberty of a woman to exert her will over her body. Being pregnant is not conscription into the ensuing labor of pregnancy and child birth, that is unacceptable and akin to slavery.

Sometimes hard lines need to be drawn, and personal liberties is one of them.

 

[momeNt]

More dishonesty. I'd have no problem banning the sale of high capacity handguns. OTOH, it's important to recognize that they're not nearly as effective for the purpose at hand.

How are you going to ban a high capacity handgun? Make them only revolvers? Because any magazine fed semi-auto can be extended to high capacity.

 

[fskimospy]

The answer to what question? We have been talking about mass shootings, so now you bring up all gun crime?

Way to go sport!

I didn’t realize you were any less dead from a gun if it was a solo shooting. If the question is about the link between gun ownership and gun violence then it is only logical to include all gun violence.

 

[fskimospy]

Sweden, Norway, Germany.

What about those. How many outliers until they are not outliers? The point is, that if it were truly about guns, then those should not exist. Guns make it easier, but guns themselves do not cause violence.

Saying that if guns are truly a driving force of violence that outliers should not exist is nonsense and a fundamental misunderstanding of statistics and empirical research.

That access to guns is associated with higher levels of gun violence is well established in the literature. When you look at the issue as a whole instead of cherry picking this is abundantly clear.

 

[soundforbjt]

Sweden, Norway, Germany.

What about those. How many outliers until they are not outliers? The point is, that if it were truly about guns, then those should not exist. Guns make it easier, but guns themselves do not cause violence.

Where are you getting your figures?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

 

[Younigue]

So, I don't know how to post videos on this forum and my husband won't be bothered to teach me. Will someone post the CNN video of Scott Dani Pappalardo? THAT man is a REAL man.

 

[realibrad]

It's not about no more guns ending violence, it is about lowering violence, or reducing the severity of violence.

I personally think it is an unacceptable restriction. Firearms are a personal property right. Through our labor we earn money, and with our money we can purchase somebody else's labor, which can be guns or bullets, or groceries, or whatever. I am not willing to accept restrictions on personal property rights. The ownership in and of itself is not harmful, only its use, it comes down to a very basic right of life.

I hold the same views on abortion. I will accept absolutely no compromise over the personal liberty of a woman to exert her will over her body. Being pregnant is not conscription into the ensuing labor of pregnancy and child birth, that is unacceptable and akin to slavery.

Sometimes hard lines need to be drawn, and personal liberties is one of them.

First, guns are not the same as abortion because the other side does not believe it qualifies as a life. Totally different.

Second, are you saying that there should be no limits on ownership of property? I can think of many reasons I do not want my neighbor having a nuclear reactor that can melt down. The justification for restriction is that somethings are a danger beyond a reasonable level. A nuclear reactor needs to be maintained and if its not, it can kill many people.

What I would be in favor for is restrictions and not bans of most guns. I do think that some things should be banned. I see no reason to allow people to have AA weapons in their backyard because I don't think they have the skill to maintain them.

 

[realibrad]

I didn’t realize you were any less dead from a gun if it was a solo shooting. If the question is about the link between gun ownership and gun violence then it is only logical to include all gun violence.

"uuuu context uuuu". We have been talking about mass shootings. But even still, why do other countries not have the same gun violence as the US. If it were only about guns, then the countries I already mentioned would be at the same levels as the US adjusted for ownership, and yet that is not true.

 

[Meghan54]

I personally think it is an unacceptable restriction. Firearms are a personal property right. Through our labor we earn money, and with our money we can purchase somebody else's labor, which can be guns or bullets, or groceries, or whatever. I am not willing to accept restrictions on personal property rights. The ownership in and of itself is not harmful, only its use, it comes down to a very basic right of life.

You might think all that, but in the real world, there are hosts of restrictions on buying/owning all sorts of personal property, since you so loosely defined it. Taking your argument to logical ends, the city has no right to restrict homeowners in that city from keeping barnyard animals on their property.

And I'm sure you'd agree that since there shouldn't be any restrictions upon purchasing the labor of another, I'm sensing you're for unrestricted sales of meth and oxycontin in every 7-11, WalMart, etc.

And I'm also sure you'd agree a 5 year old has the right to unrestricted access to purchase alcohol, right?

 

[realibrad]

Saying that if guns are truly a driving force of violence that outliers should not exist is nonsense and a fundamental misunderstanding of statistics and empirical research.

No, the argument is that if they were the only. I have clearly said they are part of the problem. Keep up dummy.

That access to guns is associated with higher levels of gun violence is well established in the literature. When you look at the issue as a whole instead of cherry picking this is abundantly clear.

Brilliant! Guns are associated, but there are other factors. Again, if it were inherent, those other countries should have same rates adjusted. They don't because there are other factors.

 

[momeNt]

You might think all that, but in the real world, there are hosts of restrictions on buying/owning all sorts of personal property, since you so loosely defined it. Taking your argument to logical ends, the city has no right to restrict homeowners in that city from keeping barnyard animals on their property.

And I'm sure you'd agree that since there shouldn't be any restrictions upon purchasing the labor of another, I'm sensing you're for unrestricted sales of meth and oxycontin in every 7-11, WalMart, etc.

And I'm also sure you'd agree a 5 year old has the right to unrestricted access to purchase alcohol, right?

I dont imagine a place would be in business for very long if they sold alcohol to people who are clearly minors. I think society doesn't often give itself enough credit for the regulation of many things absent laws.

Meth and oxycontin are essentially unrestricted now, the laws do very little in the way of managing that.

I choose to be an anarcho-capitalist because it is the only viewpoint that remains logically consistent through all tests.

 

[Gryz]

So, I don't know how to post videos on this forum and my husband won't be bothered to teach me. Will someone post the CNN video of Scott Dani Pappalardo? THAT man is a REAL man.

Thanks for the pointer. Found it.
This might not be the best version of his movie. But this is what I found:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNIxWPuNFfk

 

[soundforbjt]

According to the Congressional Research Service, as of 2009 there were roughly twice as many guns per capita in the United States as there were in 1968: more than 300 million guns in all.[5][7]

 

[mdram]

Thanks for the pointer. Found it.
This might not be the best version of his movie. But this is what I found:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNIxWPuNFfk

he cut the barrel off, no real damage done. another barrel and its good as new

although by shortening that barrel like he did he violated the NFA, and is now a felon, with video evidence

 

[balloonshark]

Embedded the video.

 

[mdram]

i recommend removing the video, as it is a violation of federal law

 

[momeNt]

Damn that's 10 years and 100k fine. Didn't even destroy the firearm technically.

 

[fskimospy]

No, the argument is that if they were the only. I have clearly said they are part of the problem. Keep up dummy.

Brilliant! Guns are associated, but there are other factors. Again, if it were inherent, those other countries should have same rates adjusted. They don't because there are other factors.

Literally no one on the planet believes guns are the only factor so you are only arguing with yourself. The dumbness should be obvious.

 

[mdram]

Literally no one on the planet believes guns are the only factor so you are only arguing with yourself. The dumbness should be obvious.

yet that is the only target for many people