Can we please just admit that maybe gun control is a good idea finally?

I feel that some posters in last couple of pages have been conflating the reasons and contributing causes of mass killings with the reasons and contributing causes of murder in the U.S. I think those are very different things, and their solutions only partially overlap.

Mass killings: protect known targets (within reason), provide better mental health screening and care, decrease accessibility of non-hunting weapons.

Murder: decrease accessibility of non-hunting weapons, increase conflict resolution training (?), increase opportunities and buy-in among the poor so that gangs and crime are a sub-optimal lifestyle instead of a dangerous but socially normal choice, take domestic violence seriously.

I'm sure there are other routes and perhaps some problems with my suggestions, but I do think the problems are not identical.

I put a question mark on conflict resolution training because I keep hearing it works, but it seems implausible to me that getting a bunch of macho kids in a room and telling them to work through their anger is going to work. Hope I'm wrong though.

... I do. Well, not burst into tears; I'm too thoroughly infected by society's "men and boys don't cry" bullshit, at too low a level for me to actually do anything about.

In the around two decades in which I've been old enough to understand what death means, it has not gotten any less heartwrenching when someone close to me dies, or when I read about a tragic death, or what have you.

Maybe in another decade I'll be desensitized. It'd probably have a significant, positive impact on my life.

No, it's not because he's not wildly upset. It's because he doesn't understand why some people might be. He says he's desensitized. That's pretty regrettable.

Fair enough. I guess I'm just staking out a third position, agreeing with neither him nor the people he's arguing with.

I'm not trying to dismiss them out of hand, the above is what I was trying to get across in response to claims like this:

Not to pick on Ben, but the narrative here basically just isn't supported that I can see. It's kind of the knee-jerk response of liberals to guns, the same way conservatives think adding more guns would solve things by the deterrent effect or shooting back.

The paper I linked actually suggests he's basically right. Heh, now I'm kind of tempted to try and plug some stuff into STATA to see what I can get come out... Off the top of my head, I'd like to do a model that looks something like:

HomicideRate = B0 + B1(GunsPerCapita) + B2(IncomePerCapita) + B3(PovertyRate)

Plus some regional dummy variables to adjust for that always favorite "culture" nonsense. If I can get state-by-state data on this stuff I can probably churn it out pretty quickly... BUT INSTEAD IM FINALLY GOING TO FOCUS ON MY FUCKING PAPER.

Could be! That's why I like the exercise of just saying "ok, it's true - now what?" The implications of that are far more disturbing; we get rid of all the guns and everyone's constantly stabbing each other.

Net net that'd be a better outcome. Probably fewer fatalities!

It's easier to fight back or run away from a dude with a knife. Dude has to get within a couple feet of you.

I envision more "come at me bro" knife fights, with people circling each other looking for an opening. Kind of like Fallout: New Vegas melee combat.

How about this, Jason? The subject of guns and death (i say death because you have to consider murder, suicide and accidental death) appears to be one on which data simply supports both points of view, can't be trusted and/or is at best inconclusive. However, given that guns have no function other than to kill someone/some thing, and have proven to be quite efficient in doing so, why not default to the view that they are highly dangerous items for which their proponents must supply a compelling case, a case which has not, IMO, been made.

Floaty and unsatisfying?

I'm not sure I follow; as a advocacy theory it's been tried and Americans aren't buying.

Yes, but that's a separate issue. Liberals went in on restrictions on firearms in the 1990s and the country collectively kicked their ass for it.

They're not buying labor unions either, but that never stops you from trying. I guess we're just passionate about different things.
My point is that both sides can sling data back and forth and never get anywhere apparently. But only one side has common sense in its favor and it's not the guns=good side.

Again guns have other functions then to kill. Ask a competative shooter like Houngan if his guns have no function other then to kill.

That paper does make a hell of a case for suicides. I had no idea Australia had a 1968-1990 jump in homicide rates like the US; interesting.

The actual function of a firearm is to propel a small piece of metal at an extremely high velocity with some degree of precision. The intended function of a firearm is to kill things. People have found other, alternative functions for firearms, such as target shooting and home decor. This does not change their intended function.

The actual function of an automobile is to utilize properties of combustion and various simple machines to turn a couple of wheels. The intended function of an automobile is to convey passengers from place to place. People have found other, alternative functions for automobiles, such as competitive racing and bouncing up and down via hydraulics. This does not change their intended function.

The person I was responding to kept up the old anti gun standby of saying they have NO other purpose then to kill. That is different from what you are saying here.

I'll make you (and Houngan in absentia) a deal, Brett. Guns may be sold to, and only to, licensed and regulated gun clubs for the sole purpose of target shooting. The guns may not be owned by individual members but only by the club, who will keep them secured when not in use on the target range. Any violation will result in loss of license and confiscation of all firearms.

We good?

Nope, as hunting is needed, at least in the US, to control animal populations to prevent overpopulation in many areas. I have no real problems anymore with finding common ground on gun regulation, but the ban them all, all gun owners really just want to kill something ect, stand is never one I will agree with in any way.

All hunters just want to kill something, and I am not inclined to indulge them. Please don't even try to tell me otherwise. Letting you know in advance that I will simply not be receptive to pro-hunting arguments.

Well good for you, but you're not going to accomplish anything that way..I find hunting appalling, but its like my vegetarianism; a personal opinion. It's not politically actionable, ignoring the real question of whether its your business or not.

Dude, totally separate from the gun control politics, hunting is a data-driven historically proven way to properly manage animal populations. It is science, and has nothing to do with which side anyone might be on otherwise in this thread. Your gun club idea has merit as a kind of starting point on the gun control side of the political issue and perhaps hunting clubs would be similar, but to equate government managed and licensed hunting with CHILDMURDER (which is really your underlying implication here) is both emotionally repugnant and scientifically bad policy.

So you would rather have animals die a slow death from starvation? As in many cases that is the alternative to allowing a controlled hunting season. I don't hunt myself, or fish even, but I do understand the need in some areas for a controlled and regulated hunting season.

Also: dumb.

I know the science and I really don't care about it in this context. I just want to get guns away from people. In my opinion, people who get a thrill out of killing animals are by definition especially dangerous people. Let government agencies hunt for population management if need be.

I certainly didn't intend to equate hunting and child murder and apologize if that was implied by anything I said. I'm arguing for gun control and hunting was offered as a counterpoint, so I was just addressing it. Also, I have nothing against Jason but his cold pragmatism in this thread is unhinging me a bit.

For all your spree killing needs.

We had this discussion in the Syria thread. TL;DR: you're wrong.

Remember how they used to do retarded shit in WWI like shoot at each other with revolvers from biplanes? That was the state of chemical warfare at the time too. Things are different now.

Not to defend the "let's do nothing!" shit, but you're also wrong. IED's in Iraq and Afghanistan do not make themselves, they do not get made by trained professionals, they have however killed several thousand Americans by now.

You don't make Trinitrotoluene with fertilizer, for TNT you need toluene, nitric acid, sulfuric acid, and fuming sulfuric acid. With ammonium nitrate you make ANFO. Which is roughly as powerful as dynamite, and very stable to the point where you could spill some into an open flame without losing a digit. The trick is initiating it: a popular number with the allahu ackbar crowd are organic peroxides. Which I'm not going to go into because both reagents and the catalyst are available at a hardware store, neither are restricted in any way whatsoever, and while it's not hard to do right the consequences for doing it wrong are pretty dire.

EDIT: Besides which, given lockdown procedures and the absolutely shit fire resistance ratings of your average school simple incendiaries would be something of a nightmare scenario.

What about bows and crossbows? They've been around longer than firearms.

In Canada, you don't need a license to own a bow or crossbow. A few weeks ago a man killed his father with a bow after killing his father's girlfriend with a knife. Two years ago a distraught man killed his father with a crossbow in a public library. Hand-held pistol crossbows (shorter than 500mm) are banned in Canada after a woman was murdered several years ago by her husband who used the mini-crossbow.

Someone probably killed someone once with a pen. We should look into that while we're at it.

The "People kill things with stuff other than guns, therefore we shouldn't ever re-consider firearms policy in the United States" has got to be one of the stupidest lines of reasoning in what is a fairly low-quality national debate.

*backs away slowly*

Oooookay then.

Fair enough.

I'm still reeling a bit from my exchange with Nute earlier* so I guess when people say GUNS ARE ONLY FOR KILLING, it triggers me not only to point out this is false (despite what guns were invented for hundreds of years ago there are legitimate non-killing uses these days) and further putting all killing in one bucket so that hunting animals = murdering innocent children. Perhaps it is one of my own faults, but I tend to lean more towards pragmatism when a highly charged emotional issue comes up; I feel like some enforced cold rationality tempers really poor decision making.

It's hilarious to me that Jason is getting piled on since he is a serious "blue state Liberal" in most political topics and anything but some gun-nutter Idaho militiaman. I mean, he's trying to tease out some deeper thinking on a difficult issue with the idea that culture is more the problem than the guns themselves; and basically people are sidestepping that by reminding us how many young children were murdered and if only we could magically make them all go poof. Many of the same people are then tired of seeing crying Santa/hugging parents pics in the political images thread.

We are a strange people. We are Broken.

*believe it or not, I try not to be a total cunt when I see a normally rational forum member post something so amazingly opposite what I would have expected.

True, but bows are also ONLY FOR KILLING according to some of the logic presented here perhaps because sport shooting and hunting and so on is not "valid" or something, I'm sure. So while they don't have the ease of use and large danger zone as guns, they probably do fit somewhere in the conversation.

I actually think the main reason Jason's getting piled on is that he was playing fairly fast and loose with how he framed things, and people who aren't familiar with the long history this discussion has got rather understandably confused.

You think the desire to kill something is a positive human trait?


*backs away slowly*

It certainly lacks a level of nuance and I'm not entirely comfortable with it. On the other hand, most of the people who fall into the "guns aren't made for killing" camp often seem to be coming at the topic from a position that equally lacks nuance and refuses to acknowledge the social costs of widespread firearm ownership. Two wrongs making zero rights I guess.

Coming at it a bit more rationally with a good night's sleep (and thank you for not being a complete twatwaffle about it): to me it's simple math - whatever benefit is gained from civilian ownership of firearms does not outweigh the obvious and provable harm. Until verifiable evidence that private ownership of firearms actually prevents more harm than it causes, I'll stick with my opinion that the average everyday person has no need for one. And if it were up to me, I would lose no sleep taking guns away from responsible citizens if it meant also preventing the irresponsible 90% from being able to own them.

The 90% is pulled out of my ass just based on the average cross-section of humanity I see every day. Ninety percent of people I wouldn't trust with a plastic spork, much less a firearm.

The idea of arming schoolteachers is ridiculous - this is not Sarajevo or Basra.

Yes, but his starting point seemed to be that "controlling guns is a frivolous notion, think of something else." If that's not what he intended, it didn't come across.

Apparently, you don't care about applicable science. You think that people who enjoy hunting "are by definition especially dangerous people", for which of course you don't bother to provide a citation. You're off your rocker if you expect me to take anything you say in this context seriously, when you say shit like that.

Provide science or expect anyone who takes the issue remotely seriously to think you're literally too irrational to have your opinions be relevant to policy discussion.

PS: Your statement that I quoted does not boil down to "the desire to kill something is not a positive human trait". That you think it does is rather depressing.