Gun ownership poll

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Of the gun "massacres" from 1997-2022 you sight, most of them are of 2 or 3 people, something that occurs virtually EVERY DAY in the USA. The few that exceeded 3 are generally restricted to a single household.

You say that you can produce studies showing that Australia's guns laws have not reduced gun violence, but you haven't produced any.

Instead you have cited Wikipedia.

Yes, I looked up the list of massacres on Wikipedia. I do not look up an independent scholarly source of every incident on JSTOR, but used a readily accessible list as common sense would suggest. How many deaths would you like to redefine as a massacre? Which here massacre is incorrect and wrong because the list is on Wikipedia (not exactly a bastion of the right)? It would seem rather silly to compile a list from scratch that already exists. I'm sorry the list does not support your narrative.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by G1911

Yes, I looked up the list of massacres on Wikipedia. I do not look up an independent scholarly source of every incident on JSTOR, but used a readily accessible list as common sense would suggest. How many deaths would you like to redefine as a massacre? Which here massacre is incorrect and wrong because the list is on Wikipedia (not exactly a bastion of the right)? It would seem rather silly to compile a list from scratch that already exists. I'm sorry the list does not support your narrative.

Just provide one of the studies you say supports the view that Australia's gun laws have not decreased gun violence, please.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Just provide one of the studies you say supports the view that Australia's gun laws have not decreased gun violence, please.

Sure, here is one. I do not endorse this or any other, as argument from authority is silly and irrational. This finds that the drop is due to other factors and begins long before the ban: https://web.archive.org/web/20090611...tandi269t.html


I should make it a signature at this point as it's getting old typing it out. An appeal to authority is not a logical argument, nor is it persuasive (as many other kinds of illogical arguments are). Another expert or study will always be found that concludes something a different; a claim is true or untrue or an opinion/value statement that is neither false nor true on the merits of itself and its supporting evidence, not the authority or claim of any person or group.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by G1911

Sure, here is one. I do not endorse this or any other, as argument from authority is silly and irrational. This finds that the drop is due to other factors and begins long before the ban: https://web.archive.org/web/20090611...tandi269t.html


I should make it a signature at this point as it's getting old typing it out. An appeal to authority is not a logical argument, nor is it persuasive (as many other kinds of illogical arguments are). Another expert or study will always be found that concludes something a different; a claim is true or untrue or an opinion/value statement that is neither false nor true on the merits of itself and its supporting evidence, not the authority or claim of any person or group.

I appreciate you providing a link re: Australia gun violence. But I don't see where in the article it supports your view that the laws enacted in 1996 did not decrease gun violence. You chose an article from 2003, and from what I am reading in the article, it acknowledges that gun violence decreased in Australia but it might have been too early to attribute it to the laws. Further study was needed. That further study has since occurred, and the studies indicate that the laws led to a substantial decrease in gun violence.

At the end of the day, are you okay with the current levels of gun violence in the US? If not, what do you think should change?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

I appreciate you providing a link re: Australia gun violence. But I don't see where in the article it supports your view that the laws enacted in 1996 did not decrease gun violence. You chose an article from 2003, and from what I am reading in the article, it acknowledges that gun violence decreased in Australia but it might have been too early to attribute it to the laws. Further study was needed. That further study has since occurred, and the studies indicate that the laws led to a substantial decrease in gun violence.

At the end of the day, are you okay with the current levels of gun violence in the US? If not, what do you think should change?

Again, argument by authority is not rational. I do not endorse it. A competing authority is always available. The massacre data does not suggest they are any less common after than before.

Am I okay with the levels of gun violence in the US? This is, frankly, the kind of rhetorical crap that gets tiring. Why do you only care about gun violence? Why is a shooting more tragic than a stabbing, besides that one has been politicized as a tool? People who do not agree with the gun control push do not support homicides. For the one hundredth time: I am against homicide. We all are. Nobody is okay with these events. I am against shootings. I am against stabbings. I am against it. Can we debate in basic good faith?


I do not see how criminalizing tens of millions of peaceful Americans exercising their constitutional rights makes any sense or accomplishes anything besides the benefit to one side of criminalizing the other side. A psycho who wants to murder a room of children does not care if the tool he uses is legal or illegal. I am against the left trying to criminalize normal citizens who disagree with them and live differently, I am against the right trying to criminalize normal citizens who disagree with them and live differently. I do not blame millions of people for the actions of a single psycho. I do not think you can practically legislate away sin and evil (thousands of years of trying have produced no result still). I think the law should punish the guilty perpetrator, not half the country. I think we should look at our mental health problems and see what we can do to maybe reduce the number of people who reach this mental place effectively unsupervised (and gave 3 specific possible avenues off the top of my head earlier in this thread). This seems to be the actual problem. If anyone can finally tell me what "strengthening background checks" actually means I might endorse it; NICS already exists and is federal law which most who have brought it up in this thread apparently don't know. I am probably okay with a waiting period for a first firearm purchase. There is no evidence these actually accomplish anything, but it's not a huge deal.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by G1911

Again, argument by authority is not rational. I do not endorse it. A competing authority is always available. The massacre data does not suggest they are any less common after than before.

Am I okay with the levels of gun violence in the US? This is, frankly, the kind of rhetorical crap that gets tiring. Why do you only care about gun violence? Why is a shooting more tragic than a stabbing, besides that one has been politicized as a tool? People who do not agree with the gun control push do not support homicides. For the one hundredth time: I am against homicide. We all are. Nobody is okay with these events. I am against shootings. I am against stabbings. I am against it. Can we debate in basic good faith?


I do not see how criminalizing tens of millions of peaceful Americans exercising their constitutional rights makes any sense or accomplishes anything besides the benefit to one side of criminalizing the other side. A psycho who wants to murder a room of children does not care if the tool he uses is legal or illegal. I am against the left trying to criminalize normal citizens who disagree with them and live differently, I am against the right trying to criminalize normal citizens who disagree with them and live differently. I do not blame millions of people for the actions of a single psycho. I do not think you can practically legislate away sin and evil (thousands of years of trying have produced no result still). I think the law should punish the guilty perpetrator, not half the country. I think we should look at our mental health problems and see what we can do to maybe reduce the number of people who reach this mental place effectively unsupervised (and gave 3 specific possible avenues off the top of my head earlier in this thread). This seems to be the actual problem. If anyone can finally tell me what "strengthening background checks" actually means I might endorse it; NICS already exists and is federal law which most who have brought it up in this thread apparently don't know. I am probably okay with a waiting period for a first firearm purchase. There is no evidence these actually accomplish anything, but it's not a huge deal.

Sounds like you don't endorse any gun reform.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Sounds like you don't endorse any gun reform.

I do not generally endorse continuing to cede constitutional rights and criminalizing normal gun owners or subsets of normal gun owners. Holding the other half of the country liable for a single psycho is a bastardization of law. I’ve said this since page 1. You might want to read the last few sentences though. I might endorse background check changes if anyone can actually tell me what they want to change, specifically (it’s hard to endorse a meaningless proposition that doesn’t specify what would change). If data suggests a waiting period helps, I’d endorse it for a first firearm purchase too.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Sounds like you don't endorse any gun reform.

I know this isn't addressed to me, but I'll pretend for a moment it was.

I would propose a compromise:
1. Raise the age limit on firearm purchase to 21 (as is/has been done with things like alcohol and tobacco) and require a proficiency exam that is reasonable to pass (as is done when getting a drivers' licence or permit to drive.)
2. Have 2 or 3 people in every school in this country, with firearm experience and having passed a training test, carrying at all times while in or near the school. Could be teachers, administrators, janitors, whatever.

Compromise because:
1. All agree, some people should not have firearms and maturity and gun safety are reasonable requirements.
2. All should recognize the obvious fact that when these incidents occur, and they always will because we have thousands and thousands of nuts walking around, they end when a good guy with a gun, who knows how to use it, uses it. The sooner the better, and on-site is much faster than phone calls for help, esp. in rural areas.

I'm tired of the gun being blamed. If there is an effort to restrict gun purchases, the compromise is an equal acknowledgement that guns in the right hands save lives.