The existence of other causes of preventable death has no bearing whatsoever on the merits of reducing or eliminating this cause of preventable death. You are adding nothing to the discussion with this effort at misdirection. In fact, it belies your claimed lack of love for guns.
It's the tired old adage of if you can't stop one type of preventable death, why bother trying to stop any at all
The Following User Says Thank You to Hemi-Cuda For This Useful Post:
Yeah, and on every one of those days 3000 people in the US died from preventable causes, and I bet a whole lot of those have equally sad circumstances behind them. I have no love for guns, would never own one, and would be just fine is someone took them all away. But the fact is mass shooting are just not statistically significant and even if you eliminated all of them, you aren't really making the country any safer in any kind of measurable way.
The Australia model seems to be working, Snopes had to cover the numerous claims that things are worse since the 1997 ban:
It's the tired old adage of if you can't stop one type of preventable death, why bother trying to stop any at all
Why focus on the .001 percent when you could focus on the 20 or 30 percent and actually make people safer, especially when this particular issue is likely one of the hardest and most costly to solve. I don't see it a whole lot different than all the money, fear and propaganda directed at terrorism when both mass shootings and terrorism are both things that you have virtually zero percent chance of dying from. Making policy decisions based on headlines from isolated incidents annoys me no matter which side of the argument. It is not a whole lot different than denying climate change because of a cold winter or believing that vaccines caused your child's autism.
I am for gun control and elimination of guns. I just don't like using tragic events like this as a rallying point.
Yeah, and on every one of those days 3000 people in the US died from preventable causes, and I bet a whole lot of those have equally sad circumstances behind them. I have no love for guns, would never own one, and would be just fine is someone took them all away. But the fact is mass shooting are just not statistically significant and even if you eliminated all of them, you aren't really making the country any safer in any kind of measurable way.
I get what you're saying, but those other deaths aren't utterly senseless like mass shootings are. And I can't imagine America's deathrate for those other "preventable causes" is that much different from most western countries, whereas obviously the gun homicide rate in America is astronomically higher than any other western country.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
Violent crimes and murders are way down in the US since the 80s and 90s. I think the murder rate is about 50% what it was.
I personally do believe that eliminating guns has a net benefit to safety. I am just arguing whether it is significant enough to bother.
The world is getting safer, this is true, what is up is mass shootings however, and the answer to why is the question everyone is asking. Lack of access to a universal healthcare system with mental health support? The growing poverty, the struggling middle class, the partisanship of politics and the growing animosity between "left" and "right"..
I wish there was a good answer to how to stop this, banning guns in the US won't work, it would start a mini civil war.
Why focus on the .001 percent when you could focus on the 20 or 30 percent and actually make people safer, especially when this particular issue is likely one of the hardest and most costly to solve. I don't see it a whole lot different than all the money, fear and propaganda directed at terrorism when both mass shootings and terrorism are both things that you have virtually zero percent chance of dying from. Making policy decisions based on headlines from isolated incidents annoys me no matter which side of the argument. It is not a whole lot different than denying climate change because of a cold winter or believing that vaccines caused your child's autism.
I am for gun control and elimination of guns. I just don't like using tragic events like this as a rallying point.
Tell the families of the victims of any of these shootings that they are statistically irrelevant.
Also, dying from disease (preventable or not) is a whole lot different than dying at the hands of some murderer. At least you got to live your life and make your own choices.
If you don't find the number of shootings to be of any concern, you are just burying your head in the sand. A modern civilization shouldn't have citizens killing eachother this way, this easily, this often.
__________________
A few weeks after crashing head-first into the boards (denting his helmet and being unable to move for a little while) following a hit from behind by Bob Errey, the Calgary Flames player explains:
"I was like Christ, lying on my back, with my arms outstretched, crucified"
-- Frank Musil - Early January 1994
The world is getting safer, this is true, what is up is mass shootings however, and the answer to why is the question everyone is asking. Lack of access to a universal healthcare system with mental health support? The growing poverty, the struggling middle class, the partisanship of politics and the growing animosity between "left" and "right"..
I wish there was a good answer to how to stop this, banning guns in the US won't work, it would start a mini civil war.
I personally think the attention these stories get inspires others (much like suicides) and that the coverage needs to be way toned down.
The part that worries me about gun control movements is that they become rallying points for the lowest of the low conservative politicians, and also lead to more people buying guns.
I do have to say though, that it seems a lot of people in this thread think of the US as this crazy gun crazy place. When really it just isn't something most people even think about 95% of the time. After living here 15 years, I feel every bit as safe for myself and my kids as I did when I lived in Calgary.
I'll just ignore your insults and assume that you resort to them since you don't have anything intelligent to say.
Is the insult saying it's straight out of the NRA handbook? Your comment doesn't make any sense.
Of course these tragedies must be used as a rallying point. You have to because if you try to change anything during the brief moments of non tragedy the counter argument is "but why? Everything's ok!" Of course within a month there will be another tragedy to use as an example and nothing will change.
The US decided as a population that dead schoolchildren are acceptable collateral damage for "freedom". The gun people won, it seems to be quite decided at this point.
Edit: I see flashpoint said litch-relly the same thing right before I did.
Something like 75% of Americans support stricter gun regulation as well.
They say that right up until they step up to the ballot box. I was just watching a documentary where a former Florida state attourney lamented that he made gun control his campaign issue after a mass shooting. The polls told him it would be a big winner for him. I believe things will change but, despite all that's happened, I don't they're there yet.
__________________ FU, Jim Benning
Quote:
GMs around the campfire tell a story that if you say Sbisa 5 times in the mirror, he appears on your team with a 3.6 million cap hit.
I'll just ignore your insults and assume that you resort to them since you don't have anything intelligent to say.
That isn't an insult. That is actually, part and parcel, what gun advocates say, every time. "Oh, we shouldn't politicize this" or "we shouldn't talk about it now". They say this because they know that their greatest ally is inertia. If they can prevent a movement from gaining steam, they can maintain a status quo that favours them.
So even if accidental, you are still arguing the pro-gun, easy access argument that the NRA itself has made its mantra.
It is also a horribly incorrect argument. Tragedies routinely become rallying calls for change. Lac Megantic forced government and the railways to look at safety. Mine disasters force safety changes. The 2013 flood forced this province to create, alter and improve disaster planning.
The reason these become rallying points is because our society only really functions if we learn from our past mistakes to mitigate or prevent repeats. So what the hell makes gun control and the easy reliance on gun violence in the US a sacred cow that shall not be discussed?
The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to Resolute 14 For This Useful Post:
Really? I don't recall seeing anything like that here ever. Can you point out such a post or name such a member?
Quote:
Originally Posted by nfotiu
Yeah, and on every one of those days 3000 people in the US died from preventable causes, and I bet a whole lot of those have equally sad circumstances behind them. I have no love for guns, would never own one, and would be just fine is someone took them all away. But the fact is mass shooting are just not statistically significant and even if you eliminated all of them, you aren't really making the country any safer in any kind of measurable way.
This type of stuff and there's been tons of it over the years on CP.
This type of stuff and there's been tons of it over the years on CP.
I'm not American though. I've lived here for 15 years, and I guess I am a little apathetic towards gun control, especially as it relates to mass shootings. I guess I'm also a little more tolerant of other people's cultures and beliefs too.
I am American, conservative, and from a household that had multiple firearms growing up. I've used firearms for hunting, sporting shooting, and fun. I think I have even tried arguing my pro firearm stance on CP multiple times. However..... ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! .
Seeing the complete empathy people have for other people's lives is sickening and disheartening. I would gladly trade in my every gun right I have ever had as an American to stop this senseless stuff. Get rid of all of them... every last one and I wouldn't care.
I totally agree. I'm in the same boat, grew up with guns and used guns all my life. I own several guns, including a handgun which I don't need.
But this is getting ridiculous. I know the argument is always, "Well it doesn't matter if you make guns illegal, people will get them anyways". While that is true, A) It would prevent most non-premeditated shootings and B) Just because people can get them anyways, doesn't mean we might as well make it easy to get them. That makes absolutely no sense. If that's the case then why not allow fully automatic's and grenade launchers since people can get them if they really want to (Ok, maybe the grenade launcher is a bit extreme).
My brother and I are on opposite sides of the argument here. He believes we need to be able to carry concealed weapons. When was the last time we heard of a mass shooting, or any kind of shooting, be prevented because random joe had a gun and stopped it? I can' think of one.
Look at the recent terrorist takedown on the train in Europe. They took the guy down with no guns, granted they were trained military personnel but still.
This type of stuff and there's been tons of it over the years on CP.
He's Canadian.
__________________ I am in love with Montana. For other states I have admiration, respect, recognition, even some affection, but with Montana it is love." - John Steinbeck
That isn't an insult. That is actually, part and parcel, what gun advocates say, every time. "Oh, we shouldn't politicize this" or "we shouldn't talk about it now". They say this because they know that their greatest ally is inertia. If they can prevent a movement from gaining steam, they can maintain a status quo that favours them.
So even if accidental, you are still arguing the pro-gun, easy access argument that the NRA itself has made its mantra.
It is also a horribly incorrect argument. Tragedies routinely become rallying calls for change. Lac Megantic forced government and the railways to look at safety. Mine disasters force safety changes. The 2013 flood forced this province to create, alter and improve disaster planning.
The reason these become rallying points is because our society only really functions if we learn from our past mistakes to mitigate or prevent repeats. So what the hell makes gun control and the easy reliance on gun violence in the US a sacred cow that shall not be discussed?
That's a more thoughtful response, but not one I necessarily agree with. That type of thinking has also led to invading Iraq, the Patriot Act, Kindergarten teachers being armed, and many other bad decisions.
My personal opinion is just that unless you can get the number of guns here from 300 million to about 100 million, then there probably isn't a lot of point, because the really the only way to reduce the number of gun deaths is to significantly reduce the number of guns.
Implementing laws that make it harder for some people to get guns, or to attempt to say make it harder for mentally ill people to buy guns may make people feel better that they think they made a difference and did something, but in reality, it likely doesn't make anyone all that much safer. Not saying I am against anything like that, just think it is a waste of time, money and political capital.
The existence of other causes of preventable death has no bearing whatsoever on the merits of reducing or eliminating this cause of preventable death. You are adding nothing to the discussion with this effort at misdirection. In fact, it belies your claimed lack of love for guns.
It's not even misdirection - if you eliminated every mass shooting, it not only wouldn't be a drop in the bucket in terms of preventable deaths in the USA, it wouldn't even be a drop in the bucket with respect to gun deaths.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
