Reply to Re: My opinion on the school shootings in the US
If you don't have an account, just leave the password field blank.
Thank you Shevek, you are providing a meaningful debate that doesn't revolve around name calling to get it's point across.
Let's break that down: you seem to be arguing that it would be a good idea to have stricter gun laws, because with all these guns around, innocent people get killed. But if you implement stricter gun laws, even more people may get killed in riots, so that harm is possibly greater and should be avoided (or at least we should weigh it in the decision).
I don't think these riots will happen; I'd expect some (perhaps many, initially) people to hold on to their guns, I don't expect them to start shooting random people in anger. But let's assume for the sake of the argument that that is what they will do.
Then still the argument is invalid, because of a fundamental flaw: people getting killed due to not having strict laws is a structural problem; people get killed every year because of this. The riots are incidental: they only happen once. While the riots may kill more people than get killed per year through not having strict laws, if you wait long enough the structural effect will always be larger than the incidental effect.
Yes, that is the key, to wait long enough. In the meantime though there will be drawbacks (I will list these at the end of this post). Still, a very good point and it means our country should try to improve gun laws at the very least, even if not banning them.
So this argument means that the country should start as soon as possible to make stricter laws. While it also means that it may need to be done in a careful (and possibly slow) manner, not doing it at all results in more killings.
Agreed.
So no, the fact that a significant group of criminals would still own guns does not pose a major danger for people. If you are afraid of gangs with guns that would start raiding the defenseless town, I think you can predict as well as I that even underpaid police with too little equipment would be very pissed off, and the gangs would get caught soon enough. Sure, it sucks if they visit your house before they get caught, but there is a really low risk for that, because they would very soon get caught. So the benefit of banning guns in this case is much greater than the harm.
It depends. Our hope would be that the criminals fight amongst themselves too much to worry about normal people. But if they were to work together, it could be catastrophic. With enough criminals working together I don't think the police would be good enough, we would need to call in the army or something... Still that risk could be a price to pay for the better good.
If that happens, you are in serious trouble and ready for a revolution. But note that no matter what the laws are, the government will always have more and bigger guns than you. So even if this situation were likely (which I sure hope it isn't), it isn't a reason for allowing people to own guns.
They have bigger and more guns, but we have numbers. And if we could get the army on the side of the people instead of the government, that would help a lot. But yeah, hopefully this never happens. Still, I feel like this country is turning more authoritarian every week. And they are smart, making it gradual so we don't riot.
Children in the U.S. get murdered with guns at a rate that is 13 times higher than that of other developed nations. For our young people aged 15 to 24, the rate is 43 times higher.
We're not talking small differences here. That's not 43% (which would have been large), it's 43 times or 4300%.
I haven't taken a look at the article yet, but if that sentence is true that is definitely a big deal. Though it's definitely worth noting that there are bigger causes of death in the US than guns: http://www.realclearscience.com/journal_club/2013/03/01/top_10_causes_of_death_in_the_us_106473.html. Gun violence isn't even in the top 10. Suicide and car crashes are, along with many diseases (and even though suicide is #10 it is more than twice as common as gun violence deaths). And if we improve our schools and such to take down suicide rates, it's a fair guess that gun violence (and accidents) would go down too. We are bitter and not educated well enough, that's what needs to be fixed the most, not just our control laws. We need to fix the root, not bury it and hope that the problem goes away, because it won't. One thing worth noting is gun accidents, but from what I've read it sounds like around 600 die from them per year, which while bad and in need of addressing, it still leaves guns somewhat low on the list. It's also worth noting that it's easier to commit suicide when you have a gun, which could skew the "true" deaths caused by guns.
Going into the wilderness like that is like going to space in several ways. First, there are dangers that are unavoidable, meaning you can die there. That's a risk you take. Second, almost nobody does it. I think I have seen two astronauts in real life, and zero people who go into the jungle in the way you describe.
From a law makers perspective, both these points are important. Allowing pretty much everybody to own a gun causes tens of dead people every day, including people who didn't choose to be in danger (by which I mean they don't own a gun themselves). If guns are outlawed, the number of people getting killed in the jungle per _year_ would probably be near zero. The fraction of those which would have been saved if they had had a gun is likely small as well, taking the total number of saved people by allowing them to carry guns possibly below 10 per century (which is just a guesstimate not based on anything but the above analysis).
While I think that more people die in ways like this than is reported (A human corpse in a jungle is not going to last very long), you still make a good point and it's almost certain that more people die by guns each day than by jungle affairs. Just remember that jungle affairs aren't the only possible way a person could die from guns being outlawed.
About Kris I think you are right; the fact that he can understand someone putting a gun in his living room for display proves it, I think.[1] But every American, no. I'm now in the US, working on 3-D printers, and as such printing guns has been the topic of discussion several times. I have met several people who find it as crazy as I do that this is something you want to print, let alone it being the first thing you want to print.
Ah, printing guns, that would become very popular if guns were banned. I hadn't even thought of that.
Ok, some things to note about banning guns that need to be addressed:
1. Banning guns would damage the economy. Think about how big of a business gun sale and manufacture in the US is. I don't see a way that the government could reimburse that much damage to businesses, which means that a lot of people would lose their job and get no reimbursement, and a ton of factories and gun stores would be left to rot. For a bit of an idea, the gun industry employs more than twice as many americans as GM: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/26/nr-draft-how-important-are-guns-to-the-u-s-economy-for-starters-the-firearms-industry-employs-twice-as-many-americans-as-bailed-out-gm/
2. I don't see how the government could reimburse people for guns that are taken from them, especially gun collectors will lose their life collection of guns, and it will be catastrophic to them.
3. People who organize hunting, targets, or own organizations related to those things will be out of business, further damaging the economy.
4. How could this be enforced? Will police go to every single persons house and search them unwarranted to find these guns (and thus find everyone's pot collections and arrest them in the process)? I think treating gun laws the same as drug laws would absolutely not work (where they could only search if there is reasonable suspicion you have a gun). The only thing it would do is make people hide their guns better. But police invading EVERY person's home in the country would create an outrage, as well as costing the police force/government massive money. So my question is, how could this be done cleanly?
5. How would a gradual gun law work? I know the strictness of gun control could be improved and that would be a great start and the most logical current solution. But as for true banning of guns, I foresee many many problems with that. I can't think of any gradual solution that bans guns that would not have grave drawbacks.
Here is what I have come up with from all the information in this topic:
American gun laws need to be improved: BUT, the banning of guns is probably not the best option at this point in time. The best thing I can think of is to implement features into guns that make them less easy for a child to use, along with educating children not to touch them and parents not to leave them where a child can get them (in other words, lock those guns up folks!). There could be public announcements on the news and TV that tell parents to lock up there guns and explain the consequences of not doing so, and people could be reported by other people for leaving guns in places that are unsafe, thus prompting police action to confiscate their gun and ban the owner from getting another one, or something. I'm not sure how background checks work here, but those could probably be made stricter as well. Guns could be illegal to sell without a license (so that people don't privately sell them as much) and guns that are stolen may be required by law to be reported. Buying gun ammo should require you to show the gun and receipt and proof of identity so that people can't 3d print guns and then buy ammo for them unregulated. With these kind of changes, I think a vast reduction in gun-related deaths would occur, without the major drawbacks of completely banning them, and without the economy being seriously damaged or the black market being seriously empowered. In addition this would make suicides less common (as the gun is harder to reach), and people would be less likely to be shot by a break-in because they might not have as easy a time getting to the gun to make the other person scared enough to shoot them. And teens would be less likely to go rob some place if the gun was locked up and all they could get to threaten with is a stick or a knife. (well except for the more resourceful ones, who could come up with some interesting things)
Let's break that down: you seem to be arguing that it would be a good idea to have stricter gun laws, because with all these guns around, innocent people get killed. But if you implement stricter gun laws, even more people may get killed in riots, so that harm is possibly greater and should be avoided (or at least we should weigh it in the decision).
I don't think these riots will happen; I'd expect some (perhaps many, initially) people to hold on to their guns, I don't expect them to start shooting random people in anger. But let's assume for the sake of the argument that that is what they will do.
Then still the argument is invalid, because of a fundamental flaw: people getting killed due to not having strict laws is a structural problem; people get killed every year because of this. The riots are incidental: they only happen once. While the riots may kill more people than get killed per year through not having strict laws, if you wait long enough the structural effect will always be larger than the incidental effect.
Yes, that is the key, to wait long enough. In the meantime though there will be drawbacks (I will list these at the end of this post). Still, a very good point and it means our country should try to improve gun laws at the very least, even if not banning them.
So this argument means that the country should start as soon as possible to make stricter laws. While it also means that it may need to be done in a careful (and possibly slow) manner, not doing it at all results in more killings.
Agreed.
So no, the fact that a significant group of criminals would still own guns does not pose a major danger for people. If you are afraid of gangs with guns that would start raiding the defenseless town, I think you can predict as well as I that even underpaid police with too little equipment would be very pissed off, and the gangs would get caught soon enough. Sure, it sucks if they visit your house before they get caught, but there is a really low risk for that, because they would very soon get caught. So the benefit of banning guns in this case is much greater than the harm.
It depends. Our hope would be that the criminals fight amongst themselves too much to worry about normal people. But if they were to work together, it could be catastrophic. With enough criminals working together I don't think the police would be good enough, we would need to call in the army or something... Still that risk could be a price to pay for the better good.
If that happens, you are in serious trouble and ready for a revolution. But note that no matter what the laws are, the government will always have more and bigger guns than you. So even if this situation were likely (which I sure hope it isn't), it isn't a reason for allowing people to own guns.
They have bigger and more guns, but we have numbers. And if we could get the army on the side of the people instead of the government, that would help a lot. But yeah, hopefully this never happens. Still, I feel like this country is turning more authoritarian every week. And they are smart, making it gradual so we don't riot.
Children in the U.S. get murdered with guns at a rate that is 13 times higher than that of other developed nations. For our young people aged 15 to 24, the rate is 43 times higher.
We're not talking small differences here. That's not 43% (which would have been large), it's 43 times or 4300%.
I haven't taken a look at the article yet, but if that sentence is true that is definitely a big deal. Though it's definitely worth noting that there are bigger causes of death in the US than guns: http://www.realclearscience.com/journal_club/2013/03/01/top_10_causes_of_death_in_the_us_106473.html. Gun violence isn't even in the top 10. Suicide and car crashes are, along with many diseases (and even though suicide is #10 it is more than twice as common as gun violence deaths). And if we improve our schools and such to take down suicide rates, it's a fair guess that gun violence (and accidents) would go down too. We are bitter and not educated well enough, that's what needs to be fixed the most, not just our control laws. We need to fix the root, not bury it and hope that the problem goes away, because it won't. One thing worth noting is gun accidents, but from what I've read it sounds like around 600 die from them per year, which while bad and in need of addressing, it still leaves guns somewhat low on the list. It's also worth noting that it's easier to commit suicide when you have a gun, which could skew the "true" deaths caused by guns.
Going into the wilderness like that is like going to space in several ways. First, there are dangers that are unavoidable, meaning you can die there. That's a risk you take. Second, almost nobody does it. I think I have seen two astronauts in real life, and zero people who go into the jungle in the way you describe.
From a law makers perspective, both these points are important. Allowing pretty much everybody to own a gun causes tens of dead people every day, including people who didn't choose to be in danger (by which I mean they don't own a gun themselves). If guns are outlawed, the number of people getting killed in the jungle per _year_ would probably be near zero. The fraction of those which would have been saved if they had had a gun is likely small as well, taking the total number of saved people by allowing them to carry guns possibly below 10 per century (which is just a guesstimate not based on anything but the above analysis).
While I think that more people die in ways like this than is reported (A human corpse in a jungle is not going to last very long), you still make a good point and it's almost certain that more people die by guns each day than by jungle affairs. Just remember that jungle affairs aren't the only possible way a person could die from guns being outlawed.
About Kris I think you are right; the fact that he can understand someone putting a gun in his living room for display proves it, I think.[1] But every American, no. I'm now in the US, working on 3-D printers, and as such printing guns has been the topic of discussion several times. I have met several people who find it as crazy as I do that this is something you want to print, let alone it being the first thing you want to print.
Ah, printing guns, that would become very popular if guns were banned. I hadn't even thought of that.
Ok, some things to note about banning guns that need to be addressed:
1. Banning guns would damage the economy. Think about how big of a business gun sale and manufacture in the US is. I don't see a way that the government could reimburse that much damage to businesses, which means that a lot of people would lose their job and get no reimbursement, and a ton of factories and gun stores would be left to rot. For a bit of an idea, the gun industry employs more than twice as many americans as GM: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/26/nr-draft-how-important-are-guns-to-the-u-s-economy-for-starters-the-firearms-industry-employs-twice-as-many-americans-as-bailed-out-gm/
2. I don't see how the government could reimburse people for guns that are taken from them, especially gun collectors will lose their life collection of guns, and it will be catastrophic to them.
3. People who organize hunting, targets, or own organizations related to those things will be out of business, further damaging the economy.
4. How could this be enforced? Will police go to every single persons house and search them unwarranted to find these guns (and thus find everyone's pot collections and arrest them in the process)? I think treating gun laws the same as drug laws would absolutely not work (where they could only search if there is reasonable suspicion you have a gun). The only thing it would do is make people hide their guns better. But police invading EVERY person's home in the country would create an outrage, as well as costing the police force/government massive money. So my question is, how could this be done cleanly?
5. How would a gradual gun law work? I know the strictness of gun control could be improved and that would be a great start and the most logical current solution. But as for true banning of guns, I foresee many many problems with that. I can't think of any gradual solution that bans guns that would not have grave drawbacks.
Here is what I have come up with from all the information in this topic:
American gun laws need to be improved: BUT, the banning of guns is probably not the best option at this point in time. The best thing I can think of is to implement features into guns that make them less easy for a child to use, along with educating children not to touch them and parents not to leave them where a child can get them (in other words, lock those guns up folks!). There could be public announcements on the news and TV that tell parents to lock up there guns and explain the consequences of not doing so, and people could be reported by other people for leaving guns in places that are unsafe, thus prompting police action to confiscate their gun and ban the owner from getting another one, or something. I'm not sure how background checks work here, but those could probably be made stricter as well. Guns could be illegal to sell without a license (so that people don't privately sell them as much) and guns that are stolen may be required by law to be reported. Buying gun ammo should require you to show the gun and receipt and proof of identity so that people can't 3d print guns and then buy ammo for them unregulated. With these kind of changes, I think a vast reduction in gun-related deaths would occur, without the major drawbacks of completely banning them, and without the economy being seriously damaged or the black market being seriously empowered. In addition this would make suicides less common (as the gun is harder to reach), and people would be less likely to be shot by a break-in because they might not have as easy a time getting to the gun to make the other person scared enough to shoot them. And teens would be less likely to go rob some place if the gun was locked up and all they could get to threaten with is a stick or a knife. (well except for the more resourceful ones, who could come up with some interesting things)
