Chicago mass shooting

[_Chap]

The point of gun control is to limit the availability to people who aren't career criminals. That's the point. This means fewer gun crimes of passion. This means fewer gun suicides. This means fewer toddlers killing themselves with poorly kept guns. This means fewer gun crimes of opportunity.

A key point in a luminous post for which DrC deserves big upticks.

I really like his argument that runs in effect.

1. It is claimed that the possession of firearms enables people to defend themselves against violence or robbery by criminals with guns.

2. BUT many if not most criminals have guns. AND criminals with guns are frequently killed by other criminals who have guns.

3. THEREFORE the possession of a gun does not appear to be much of a defence against violence or robbery by criminals with guns.

That really drops Mt Doom on the 'self-defence' case for widespread gun possession by the generality of citizens.

[_Kevin Graham]

It "cites" the CDC and WHO, but good luck actually finding those numbers there.

I posted a link to the 2017 CDC numbers earlier in the thread, but here it is again:

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr ... 09-508.pdf

From page 2:

The age-adjusted death rate for non-Hispanic white males was 54.9% lower than for non-Hispanic black males and 73.9% higher than for Hispanic males... the age adjusted death rates for firearm-related injuries increased significantly in 2017 from 2016 for non-Hispanic white males (3.2%). The rates for non-Hispanic white females, non-Hispanic black males, non-Hispanic black females, Hispanic males, and Hispanic females did not change significantly.

That of course doesn't mean much so the CDC provides further analysis:

In 2017, 39,773 persons died from firearm injuries in the United States (Table 11), accounting for 16.4% of all injury deaths that year.

So, to the point:

Page 46, Table 10 (eta: click on the image to blow it up):



Now. My question is this. What would happen if we were to regulate guns and rifles like we do cars? Is the answer not obvious?

Yes, criminals will get guns. Cops have guns, too. The thing about guns is they aren't very good shields. To be able to use a gun to defend yourself against a gun, you need to have your gun on your person, loaded, and at the ready (and not already reeling from being shot).

If you go up to someone unsuspecting and shoot them, will they be able to defend themselves with a gun? No. So having a gun on your person is a non-starter if you're the target. What if you're packing? Well, it didn't stop a mass shooting in Florida, Nevada, and TEXAS of all places. Places where there ARE low standards for gun control doesn't deter a mass shooting, well, anywhere there's a determined person.

Ok. What about gangs? They'll get guns illegally, no? The "there's no chance the victims can defend themselves" is a non-starter because most of this type of crime isn't against law-abiding victims, but rather it's other criminals who probably have their own guns.

Here's the thing about criminals and guns. If gun ownership were good deterrence, wouldn't we end up with pretty much NO gang violence, and only have criminals using guns against poor innocent law abiding citizens? Yet, this really isn't the case. Uninvolved people very rarely end up being the target of gun violence. And when they do, it is rarely in a situation where they would be protected by having a gun.

When people say things like, "If it's hard to legally own guns, only criminals will have guns" they really don't understand what they're saying. I'm fine with only criminals having guns. You know what a criminal with a gun can do to an unarmed person they want to mug? They can threaten with a gun and take your money. You know what a criminal with a gun can do to a person who they think is probably armed that they want to mug? They can shoot you and take your money.

Ok. Let's look at Dayton. I think it was a nightclub or outside a nightclub where the shooting took place, no? You know what would happen if a bunch of people had guns in the nightclub and shots were fired? Really one of two things. Either people wouldn't react and would run away just as though they were unarmed, or they would actually fire, and a lot more bullets would be flying around the nightclub. Do we really want a bunch of scared, or pumped up on adrenalin club goers, shooting guns at other people who they don't know aren't the shooters? It's friendly fire clustser ____.

How hard is it for a disgruntled socially awkward incel in the other listed countries in subs' graphic to get ahold of an AR-15? How hard is it for a person in one of those countries, having a mental break, to get ahold of that weapon?

The point of gun control is to limit the availability to people who aren't career criminals. That's the point. This means fewer gun crimes of passion. This means fewer gun suicides. This means fewer toddlers killing themselves with poorly kept guns. This means fewer gun crimes of opportunity.

I believe it's utterly callous to, in effect, shrug your shoulders and say something akin to, 'It's their culture and they need to change their entire reality so I can keep packing in the event someone pulls a gun on me, and I can have that duel I've always thought about. So, what if we suffered a million deaths since 1990? The tree of liberty needs its blood. We could totally outgun the federal government in the event we decide to rebel. Totally."

- Doc

Your best post ever.

[_subgenius]

2. BUT many if not most criminals have guns. AND criminals with guns are frequently killed by other criminals who have guns.

Are you assumining that the criminal killed in these scenarios is the attacker ? or the one defending himself from an attacker?

(either way your inferences are absurd, unreasonable, and illogical)

[_EAllusion]

At least when I looked it up, there were zero - zero! - sources of that graph I could find that weren't venues of straight up white supremacists. I think it originated on /pol at 4chan, but I'm not sure. It'd be fun to see subs admit where he got the graph. He won't, of course, but it would tell you the sources he's reading.

My first guess would be Stefan Molyneux. But who knows? Subs ain't talking.

[_subgenius]

image of graph with neither commentary nor source provided.

What point are you trying to make, Subs?

It supports the recently criticized position of a public personality that emotion, and not data, is the driving force on the issue at hand. This graphic also illustrates how fleeting the concern actually is.

[_EAllusion]

What point are you trying to make, Subs?

It supports the recently criticized position of a public personality that emotion, and not data, is the driving force on the issue at hand. This graphic also illustrates how fleeting the concern actually is.

Cool. What's the source of the graph? Further, can you directly supply the sources for the data used in the graph?

Thanks.

[_moksha]

...
What do you think about deporting NRA officials to Moscow?

This seems fair since you are proposing that we import Kremlin officials here, in irder ti expedite your confiscation schemes.

Currently, Moscowians would be more interested in money laundering and helping to disrupt America by backing a certain woefully dysfunctional politician.

Don't think Doc Cam was talking about a rigorous gun confiscation program. That would be unworkable.

[_canpakes]

What point are you trying to make, Subs?

It supports the recently criticized position of a public personality that emotion, and not data, is the driving force on the issue at hand.

Not that you can identify the issue at hand, or how the data in the graph relates to it anyway. But that was a nice try.

[_Chap]

... emotion, and not data, is the driving force on the issue at hand.

Well, like what else should be the driving force behind public concern with the appalling spectacle of Americans (children as well as adults) being massacred by hate-filled guys with assault weapons in schools, supermarkets and elsewhere?

If that does not make you have emotions, goodness knows what will. Then, stirred by those emotions, you think 'What collective action could be taken to reduce the likelihood of such horrifying spectacles being repeated? Because we should not be in a state of a society in which reasonable people have to feel this kind of horror and fear.' Then you start to think about possible means of harm reduction.

What's subgenius' best suggestion for harm reduction in this area, I wonder? Nothing so vulgar as making it more difficult for civilians to acquire weapons designed for rapid battlefield killing, I'll be bound!

[_canpakes]

... emotion, and not data, is the driving force on the issue at hand.

Well, like what else should be the driving force behind public concern with the appalling spectacle of Americans (children as well as adults) being massacred by hate-filled guys with assault weapons in schools, supermarkets and elsewhere?

Not only that, but the data seems to be evolving to drive public concern anyway.

The Cato Institute looked at related data early last year and arrived at an interesting conclusion about the risk of dying in a ‘mass shooter’ event, but even in suggesting how rare such an occurrence is, it still sheds light on the overall issue of firearms deaths from multiple causes. It’s not pretty.

https://www.cato.org/blog/are-mass-shoo ... e-frequent