Michael Shermer and John Lott debate guns...

[Toma]

Brief summary, debate will end up on youtube.

http://readingeagle.com/article.aspx?id=512703

[Modelexis]

The Navy Yard shooter had a history of gun violence and even with that police failed to stop him from escalating his violence.

This is not a gun violence epidemic, the gun violence is a symptom of the underlying epidemic which is mental instability and prescription drugs. Mental instability that goes unchecked until it boils over, with the community and law enforcement ignoring all the signs of danger.

p3tUdkkGZZ0

[frizzlefry]

Originally posted by Modelexis
The Navy Yard shooter had a history of gun violence and even with that police failed to stop him from escalating his violence.

This is not a gun violence epidemic, the gun violence is a symptom of the underlying epidemic which is mental instability and prescription drugs. Mental instability that goes unchecked until it boils over, with the community and law enforcement ignoring all the signs of danger.

p3tUdkkGZZ0

You are on my ignore list (just so I can prepare myself before I click "view post") but you pretty much nailed it with this one. :nut:

Guns are easier to get than help for mental disorders. Don't see the good old US of A changing that anytime soon though.

[DEATH2000]

Originally posted by frizzlefry

Guns are easier to get than help for mental disorders. Don't see the good old US of A changing that anytime soon though.
Its the same here in Canada.

In case you werent aware the ONLY difference between getting a gun their and here, is we have a 28 day waiting period, theirs is 15.

[frizzlefry]

Originally posted by DEATH2000

Its the same here in Canada.

In case you werent aware the ONLY difference between getting a gun their and here, is we have a 28 day waiting period, theirs is 15.

You are missing the point. Not saying its easier to get guns down there. Its easier to get mental health support here.

Issue is not with guns. Its with the support systems to ID and help those who may feel inclined to use them against the public that makes the difference.

The yanks will debate gun control over and over...they are debating how to handle the pig shit instead of dealing with the pig itself.

[Toma]

Why do people make excuses for, and try and rationalize simple facts??


Around The World, Gun Ownership And Firearms Deaths Go Together


A study on guns, violence and mental health, long scheduled to be published this week, finds that gun ownership is a bigger factor than mental illness when it comes to firearms deaths. But the data suggest that both play roles.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/09/17/223508595/around-the-world-gun-ownership-and-firearms-deaths-go-together

[Gman.45]

It comes down to the people IMO. Alberta has nearly as many firearms per household as Texas, yet look at the crime rates.

Also, how do you explain Switzerland, a country that last year had 40 homicides with firearms, which is 0.70 per 100,000 people, one of the lowest in the world. Meanwhile, a majority of men over 18 are provided a Sig PE90/550 rifle as per their mandatory military service, a rifle which is kept in the home, and usually given to the person once they "retire" from reserve military service.

Switzerland has a huge shooting community as well, a quarter of a million people show up at some of their rifle competitions, not to mention that on weekends hundreds of thousands of Swiss take to their 300m electronic rifle ranges every single weekend.

Comparatively, the USA supposedly according to the anti gun groups has 180 million guns. This is a similar number as a ratio to Switzerland, yet the rate of shootings - an order of magnitude in difference.

Anyone here want to take a crack why this is?

[Tomaz]

I'm going to say it comes down to people as well. Firearms are a tool, and like any other tool it they need to be treated with respect and used properly. I know I will never have the intent to use my firearms to kill anybody. In fact, my firearms would be pretty useless to me if someone broke into my house.

Any stats on how many firearm relate deaths compared to knives? How about rope? How about a board with a nail on it?

Humans have always killed each other through whatever means they can get their hands on. Maybe even compare stats of how many violent crimes per capita there have been in general over the centuries. Gun control can only work so much. People need to change how they think.

[Modelexis]

Originally posted by Toma
Why do people make excuses for, and try and rationalize simple facts??
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/09/17/223508595/around-the-world-gun-ownership-and-firearms-deaths-go-together

Correlation is not causation.

even the article you posted says:

This study, like earlier ones, finds a correlation but no direct cause. The findings can't prove that gun ownership or mental illness are causing the deaths.
There was no overall association between gun ownership or mental illness and the overall crime rate in the 27 countries.
So this is not a simple fact as you say.

The article you posted makes a direct point that gun numbers do not correlate to gun deaths.

[Feruk]

Stats time out! Lets focus on the two first world countries I know for a fact do not allow you to own guns: Japan and the UK.
Gun homicides per 100,000:
Japan: 0.00
UK: 0.04

Compare that with 3.6 in Amurica, and 0.5 in Canada. Now, before someone argues that it's a "tool" and that people will find a different way to kill each other, let's look at homicide rates:
Japan: 0.4
UK: 1.2

Compared with Amurica at 4.8, Canada at 1.6.

While murders per capita are significantly affected by a myriad of issues (overpopulation, standard of living, black rage, abortion laws, ect), it seems that with more guns you get more murders. I'm not saying we should ban guns, but I think it's ignorant to say that the guns are not part of the problem.


Other interesting tidbit from that: It seems if you get murdered in the USA, there is a 75% chance (3.6/4.8) you'll get blown away with a firearm.


Links to stats:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

[Modelexis]

Originally posted by Feruk
Stats time out!

Even if you can prove that places that have guns have gun crimes that doesn't mean that you've proven that gun ownership causes death.
You've simply pointed out a correlation.

You're grouping in too many things with those broad numbers.
It's like including the entire country in stats of how many people get drunk each day on alcohol. You have responsible alcohol users and you have highschool kids in bars getting maxed.

You wanna surprise me with stats?
Find me the average murder rate at shooting ranges and compare that with the average ghetto neighborhood in the US.

The range or gun store will have much higher ownership but somehow there is very few murders at the gun store.

Gun store has like 500 guns per resident but the gun crime is 0

[Tomaz]

Already brought out the "tool" thing. lol

Sorry, I cant see it as anything else. Really. Just like a bow and arrow, pocket knife, impact wrench. Each of them have a job that I utilize them for, and that is it. I have never thought about using any of them to kill another human, so from my experience, people who kill would do so with whatever they can.

[Modelexis]

I've said it before, if guns are the problem we need to first disarm our police and military.

[01RedDX]

.

[Akumaz]

Originally posted by Modelexis


Even if you can prove that places that have guns have gun crimes that doesn't mean that you've proven that gun ownership causes death.
You've simply pointed out a correlation.

um if you own a gun, it makes it much easier to commit a gun related crime, compared to someone who does not have access to guns...

Originally posted by Modelexis

You're grouping in too many things with those broad numbers.
It's like including the entire country in stats of how many people get drunk each day on alcohol. You have responsible alcohol users and you have highschool kids in bars getting maxed.

even if you break "those broad numbers" down, the ratio is still exponentially lower



Originally posted by Modelexis
You wanna surprise me with stats?
Find me the average murder rate at shooting ranges and compare that with the average ghetto neighborhood in the US.

The range or gun store will have much higher ownership but somehow there is very few murders at the gun store.

Gun store has like 500 guns per resident but the gun crime is 0

cant tell if you are serious or trolling...
most "gun crimes" are targeted, to kill/rob/make a name for them selves
do you realize how much harder it is to rob or go shoot up a gun store than a local convenient store? its all about risk/ reward

[Modelexis]

Originally posted by Akumaz
um if you own a gun, it makes it much easier to commit a gun related crime, compared to someone who does not have access to guns...

Owning a car makes it easier to get into a car accident, the two things are correlated but one is not caused by the other.

Owning a gun would make it easier to commit a gun crime, that does not mean that owning guns causes people to commit gun crimes.

Gun regulations curb gun ownership, but the problem with that is gun ownership is not a direct cause of gun crime. It actually makes things worse in a society with guns already present. It restricts lawful people from obtaining guns and criminals continue to acquire guns as usual.

[DEATH2000]

Originally posted by 01RedDX


:nut: Really? That's the ONLY difference?

You're saying THEIR PAL and restricted requirements over THERE are the same? Their background checks are the same? ALL their regulations are the same except for the waiting period? In every state?

You might want to do some research.
I have, but thanks.

We both have the right to own firearms. While individual licensing is different between here and the US, the only REAL difference is it takes Canadians 28 days to be able to purchase a firearm while in the US its 15.

[Modelexis]

Another decent vid, this one from Reason.

zn6ADiuUvTA

[01RedDX]

.

[frizzlefry]

Isn't there also substantial differences on what kind of weapons you can legally own in Canada vs the USA?

[Toma]

Sure. Lots of differences. We have a 5 shot clip long gun limit. We have handgun clip limits. We have length limits. We cant buy autos.

We MUST have a license or PAL or whatever they call it now. They don't. Hell.... some states have no background check s and you can but a gun with nothing but ID right over the counter.

Plus when you buy a handgun here.... you MUST belong to a club and the only reason you can put on your permit is 'target shooting'. Your transport permit only permits your handgun to he transported securely locked directly to and from the fun range.

Try putting 'self defense' on your permit application. Lol. Also last I checked. ... if you buy a handgun, it went to the cops for a month (gun jail lol) first where they made record of it and test fired it and kept all the records.

Also.... America style fear based propaganda on news and tv is pretty new here. So traditionally most rational Canadians were like 'wtf do I need a gun for?'.

[Toma]

Hell, a CANADIAN friend of mine visiting Arizona bought a hand gun from a guy on Craigslist. That is perfectly legal down there, only gun shops need to do back ground checks where it is required, and only ID is required in many others.

Saying there "are not fundamental differences" between the USA and Canada is rather silly imo.

[01RedDX]

.

[Feruk]

Originally posted by Modelexis
Even if you can prove that places that have guns have gun crimes that doesn't mean that you've proven that gun ownership causes death.
You've simply pointed out a correlation.

You're grouping in too many things with those broad numbers.
It's like including the entire country in stats of how many people get drunk each day on alcohol. You have responsible alcohol users and you have highschool kids in bars getting maxed.
Are you actually saying that you believe the murder rate is not affected by the right to own a gun?? I do agree it's not the only factor, but I think it is fair to say that where you have guns, you will have more gun crime, and apparently a higher murder rate.

Your car example makes no sense. The primary purpose of a car is transportation. The PRIMARY purpose of a gun is to kill people. Guns can be used for other things as well (sport, ect), but the primary purpose will always be either to shoot people or "self defense" (which also means to shoot people).

[Toma]

He is confused. Sure, it is a correlation, it's strength adding to it's legitimacy, and the 'experiment' in many places and especially down under proves the cause and effect relationship to a very reasonable degree.

Lets face facts. Your kids cant accidentally shoot his best friend when you are not home if you don't have guns in the house. Not only does it make simple kiss type sense, and any complicated justification or excuse violates occams razor.

The parents didn't lock them properly, store them properly, raise the kids properly, hid the keys properly, hidden the bullets properly, educated the kids properly, beat the kids enough, or, the 8 year old bought a gun from the criminals and bikers that will always have guns legal or not.... blah blah blah ad nauseam.

Anyway.

Dead horse. But the wrong side STILL tries to justify, weasle, rationalize, skate around the simple issue. Guns kill more people than if there were no guns. Duh.

[Modelexis]

Originally posted by Feruk
Are you actually saying that you believe the murder rate is not affected by the right to own a gun?? I do agree it's not the only factor, but I think it is fair to say that where you have guns, you will have more gun crime, and apparently a higher murder rate.
You are combining several groups when you say "where you have guns" you are combining both criminals who have guns for violent reasons and peaceful responsible people who have guns for self defense or the defense of others (police).

You can't magically prevent bad people from getting guns and still have guns provided to peaceful people.


Originally posted by Feruk
Your car example makes no sense. The primary purpose of a car is transportation. The PRIMARY purpose of a gun is to kill people. Guns can be used for other things as well (sport, ect), but the primary purpose will always be either to shoot people or "self defense" (which also means to shoot people).

The primary purpose of a gun is to fire a projectile.
In the case of hunting guns, shotguns, rifles etc the primary purpose is to kill animals.

It's like saying the primary purpose of a keg tap is to give college kids alcohol poisoning.

Yeah, a keg tap is fucking good at doing that, and if it was illegal to own a keg tap you would have a lot less kids getting alcohol poisoning from a keg.

Is the primary purpose of a keg tap to get college kids drunk?

The gun depending on the design will typically send out a striker to strike the primer of a round of ammunition. The ammunition is what is designed to kill humans specifically.

It's just easy to ask for a ban on guns rather than ammo.
Ammo isn't serialized or tracked, I can buy as many rounds of ammunition and the government will not know how many I own.

A gun without ammo is only a dangerous as the next piece of steel.

[Feruk]

The problem isn't criminals with guns... Those fools mainly just kill each other. None of these school shooters were "criminals." They were normal every day people. Criminals don't shoot up schools or naval yards. The problem has nothing to do with "bad people getting guns."

The rest of your reply is definition what gun supporters use to muddle the issue. No, a gun was not designed for sport, it was not designed for hunting, and the ammunition vs actual firearm argument is just a massive waste of time. Guns/muskets were designed as a tool of war. The most popular gun in the world, the AK47, is not designed for hunting. So let's cut the horse shit. We either ban them outright or accept that innocent people are regularly gonna get blown away. But let's not lie to ourselves.

[Modelexis]

Originally posted by Feruk
We either ban them outright or accept that innocent people are regularly gonna get blown away. But let's not lie to ourselves.

You are not arguing for a gun ban, as you say, let's not lie to ourselves, you want guns in the hands of police and military.
A true gun ban would ban guns from the hands of police and military as well.

There is no such thing as a gun ban. Look at any place in the world with a gun ban and you will still find guns.

A gun ban would be a great place for a shooting as well, just look at where all the shootings have taken place, in a movie theater with a gun ban, at a school with a gun ban.
Gun ban areas make perfect places for a massacre and the larger the gun ban area the better.


Originally posted by Feruk
The problem isn't criminals with guns... Those fools mainly just kill each other. None of these school shooters were "criminals." They were normal every day people. Criminals don't shoot up schools or naval yards. The problem has nothing to do with "bad people getting guns."

You obviously didn't study the background of this naval yard shooter.
He had a prior history of gun violence and mental problems, he was investigated by police on more than one account and never charged.
Just because the cops are too stupid to catch the criminal does not mean he is innocent up until the naval shooting.

What good is a gun ban going to do in the future when you can get a CNC machine for the same price as a laser printer and can just mill out your own gun from plans on the internet.

Then you will have to ban the internet, ban steel, and ban CNC machines.

If bans on things worked in practice the alcohol ban of the 20's would have worked beautifully and same with the ban on marijuana in the present.

[Gman.45]

It's referred to as a "friend to friend" purchase in the USA, and yes, in many states, it's completely legal, and no background check is required. I know, as while living in the USA, and working in the private military/security business, part of my job as an instructor was procuring firearms, and it's very common.

The previous poster said it best - in order for the majority of law abiding peaceful people to have access to firearms, society must accept a certain number will end up in the hands of the insane, and lives will be lost. There IS no solution to this problem, and those who put their hands on the hips and make ridiculous statements about creating more gun laws ARE the ones who are delusional. Nothing short of time travel will make one lick of difference regarding the situation in the USA and Canada now due to the proliferation of huge numbers of firearms in both countries.


The PRIMARY purpose of a gun is to kill people. Guns can be used for other things as well (sport, ect), but the primary purpose will always be either to shoot people or "self defense" (which also means to shoot people).

In Canada, there are on average 800 people shot per year the last 10 years. 6 to 650 of these are suicides. The majority of the rest are criminal in nature. I myself personally shoot more than 800 varmits and animals just hunting and plinking on my property every year.

In fact, most guns in the USA and Canada are used to kill ANIMALS. If you compare the number of animals taken by hunting to people who are shot, the ratio is an order of magnitude in favor of animals. Firearms CAN be used to shoot people, but the majority of gun owners never engage in that particular activity. It would be like saying "cars are used primarily for drunk driving"...in fact more cars are used for drunk driving than guns are used for killing people, as it were, but the statement is still ridiculous. No, cars CAN be used for drunk driving, but mostly are used for transportation. Likewise, firearms CAN be used to kill people, but are mostly used for hunting, or target practice, or varmit control. The CFC/RCMP have over 3 million PAL's active. For the male population over 18 in Canada, that's a huge percentage of Canadians with firearms or access to them. Yet with only 150 uses on average in criminal shootings each year, you claim that firearms are used "primarily to kill people"? I'm not sure where you learned mathematics, but 3 million to 150 seems a far throw from "primarily" to me.



My neighbor has 3 DUI charges, and has killed 2 people - should I lose my rights to drive a vehicle, because society would be safer if HE didn't have access to one, and the only way to ensure that was to eliminate them? On both the 2nd and 3rd he was driving while "prohibited", so obviously just making law against driving doesn't work, the only solution is to remove the cars. Nobody truly NEEDS a car, much less one over 50 horsepower, public transit in control of the government is a much more efficient and safe form of transportation. Look at the accident/death ratio of buses to cars. We would all be better off if personal vehicles were prohibited.

Why is this argument ridiculous for cars, but not for firearms?

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by Modelexis
This is not a gun violence epidemic, the gun violence is a symptom of the underlying epidemic which is mental instability and prescription drugs. Mental instability that goes unchecked until it boils over, with the community and law enforcement ignoring all the signs of danger.


This.

But the conclusion then begs the question: "What is the cause of the mental instability", and how do we address that"?

[Gman.45]

My point Seth is we don't "address" it, we "accept" it. Since the start of recorded history there have been people doing crazy and unexplainable things with regards to violence versus their fellow man.

All the science, pharmacology, and psychotherapy hasn't changed things much in terms of the probability of events like mass shootings happening. Both sides of the argument, the left wing's "let's restrict or ban the tools these insane people use" and the right's "let's study the root cause of the insanity, or use active measures like security to stop them" are the truly INSANE thing that is going on.

It is simply NOT possible to stop these things, period, by any measure.

On the right wing's side, the science and psychology side has had obviously no positive effect, and so far as "security" measures of arming guards and what not...JFK said it, when he said even though he was surrounded by the best trained guards in the history of the world, if one nut wanted to kill him, he easily could. That remains true today.

On the left wing's side, attempting to remove or restrict the weapons used by the insane will have a similarly useless effect, in addition to having the backlash from the tens of millions of sane people who use these very weapons in a legal manner.

This is why I believe there is NOTHING that can be done, and it just must be accepted. I'm not saying give up on the science and psycho-studies, or not to bother trying to secure things as best you can so far as guards and locked doors and the like. It just needs to be accepted that an insane yet capable threat can and will find ways by these types of things if he's motivated enough to do so.

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by Gman.45
[B]My point Seth is we don't "address" it, we "accept" it. Since the start of recorded history there have been people doing crazy and unexplainable things with regards to violence versus their fellow man.]

I completely agree with that and the rest of your post. That's exactly what what I was getting at when I said tongue in cheek:


"What is the cause of the mental instability", and how do we address that"?

In other words, causation is human birth. There's not much that can viably be done about that. That's why I don't have any issue when the time comes to pack up my shit and get out of here:)

With that being said, a small but persistent part of me tells me that these conclusions are only mostly true. This can be proven by societies and countries who's citizens are generally not prone to senseless destruction and violence.

[01RedDX]

.

[Feruk]

Originally posted by Gman.45
In Canada, there are on average 800 people shot per year the last 10 years. 6 to 650 of these are suicides. The majority of the rest are criminal in nature. I myself personally shoot more than 800 varmits and animals just hunting and plinking on my property every year.

In fact, most guns in the USA and Canada are used to kill ANIMALS. If you compare the number of animals taken by hunting to people who are shot, the ratio is an order of magnitude in favor of animals. Firearms CAN be used to shoot people, but the majority of gun owners never engage in that particular activity. It would be like saying "cars are used primarily for drunk driving"...in fact more cars are used for drunk driving than guns are used for killing people, as it were, but the statement is still ridiculous. No, cars CAN be used for drunk driving, but mostly are used for transportation. Likewise, firearms CAN be used to kill people, but are mostly used for hunting, or target practice, or varmit control. The CFC/RCMP have over 3 million PAL's active. For the male population over 18 in Canada, that's a huge percentage of Canadians with firearms or access to them. Yet with only 150 uses on average in criminal shootings each year, you claim that firearms are used "primarily to kill people"? I'm not sure where you learned mathematics, but 3 million to 150 seems a far throw from "primarily" to me.

I was referring to worldwide, not Canada. Hence why the next sentence you did not quote referenced an AK47, the most popular gun in the "world", not Canada where you can't get it (as far as I know).


Originally posted by Modelexis
A true gun ban would ban guns from the hands of police and military as well.

You obviously didn't study the background of this naval yard shooter.
He had a prior history of gun violence and mental problems, he was investigated by police on more than one account and never charged.
Just because the cops are too stupid to catch the criminal does not mean he is innocent up until the naval shooting.

I like the setup the cops have in Japan. They do not carry firearms on them, but rather have them in the trunk as a tool of last resort. As for the naval yard shooter, I did know all this, but this isn't "criminal activity." It's just one crazy dude.

I think Japan and the UK show that gun bans do work... I also doubt the amount of guns out there today makes any difference as I'd bet the same were true in both those countries after WWII.

[Modelexis]

I also don't have a perfect solution to the problem of gun violence.

I do know that whenever you have a problem of violence, it usually reflects a societal problem at the root. Whether it's violence in the home, violence on the streets, or a culture of traveling overseas to inflict pain and suffering. These root/core/fundamental places where we find violence will be the most critical in finding answers to today's problems.

That should be our compass in finding a solution to these societal problems, rather than knee jerk every time there's a tragedy or using the violence of the state to take away guns from peaceful people.

Gun regulations is a violent action, it violates the NAP and property rights. So even if it did solve the problem of gun violence in society you would be employing gun violence at the same time to achieve this, so you've not gotten rid of gun violence you've just given a monopoly of gun violence to the police and military and criminals.

[Seth1968]

Ok, I'll stick my neck out and further get into what I was hinting at:

Check out the intentional global homicide rates. Note that no other country even comes close to Africa and the Americas.

Now why do you think that is? :angel:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

[Tomaz]

I have proven that I am pro-guns, or more accurately pro-choice towards firearms. But at the same time I am a strong advocate of proper training and licencing. Just like cars, I want to see people adequately trained on the anatomy, utilization, and neutralization of firearms.

Actually, I would rather see both drivers licencing, and firearms licencing go through a similar licencing process as the aviation industry. For those who don't know much about that, it has a few things that I wish both drivers/riders and firearms owners would require before being licensed.

More to the point of:

Make licensing medically approved - I need to pass a medical examination in order to get a pilots license, and drivers must pass a vision (sometimes medical) examination to possess a licence holder. Firearms should be the same, but more of a psychological test of some kind. I was shocked that getting my restricted was so easy. 5 minute interview about why I want an RPAL, and a 5 min convo with a couple friends. Maybe a bit more depth is required. Have ever been put on suicide watch or show signs of aggression? No licence for you.

Classroom time - This happens already in Canada, and it is effective. You learn some history, some basic anatomy, and you get somewhat familiarized with both restricted and non-restricted firearms that are deactivated. I actually wish there was a bit more depth in the course, but I found it to be adequate. Cant figure out who to do basic maintenance and proper handling of a firearm? no license for you.

Hands-on training - Just like driving or flying, I would want to see some actual trigger-time with new students. I feel as if a lot of accidental shootings would be greatly reduced if "green" shooters got some trigger time and get comfortable with firearms before going out to ranges, hunting, etc. When I see a nervous shooter, I get nervous because I can foresee accidents happening if something unexpected happens. Just like new drivers that don't have enough wheel-time, you can pick them out of a crowd. Cant drive? Keep training till you can, or else no licence for you.