3 dead, 7 hurt when gunman opens fire in Lafayette movie theater

[brucewarren]

I disagree.

I'm not saying it can't happen, nor that it won't, but to say anything is "will happen" is to make an assumption about the future.

Us mere mortals cannot make assumptions about the future. Anything could happen. We can guess, but we cannot know.

Personally I think Masterbagger is right, but not for the reason he probably thinks.

As long as it's legal for companies to bribe senators (-> I mean "lobby" of course. Silly me) the gun manufacturers have got it made.

I used to think the famous Constitution meant something, but I changed my mind after something Alastair Cooke once said on his "Letter from America" radio show.

"The Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means"

[Masterbagger]

I disagree.

I'm not saying it can't happen, nor that it won't, but to say anything is "will happen" is to make an assumption about the future.

Us mere mortals cannot make assumptions about the future. Anything could happen. We can guess, but we cannot know.

Personally I think Masterbagger is right, but not for the reason he probably thinks.

As long as it's legal for companies to bribe senators (-> I mean "lobby" of course. Silly me) the gun manufacturers have got it made.

Where does the gun lobby get their money? Where do the gun manufacturers get their money to give to the gun lobby? It's people. America has a better armed citizen than any nation in the history of mankind. We have it because we voted for it and defend it.

Look at our situation. Gun control in America is a sham. They push laws that don't deal with crime at all. They get up on stage over and over promising to crack down on guns and fail to deliver anything that would have a hope of improving our lives. Empty words.

Concealed carry is a direct response to what they are failing to address. People don't want to be told they are statistically unlikely to be a victim of crime. They want something tangible and real. They get a gun.

[Timsup2nothin]

Where does the gun lobby get their money? Where do the gun manufacturers get their money to give to the gun lobby? It's people. America has a better armed citizen than any nation in the history of mankind. We have it because we voted for it and defend it.

Look at our situation. Gun control in America is a sham. They push laws that don't deal with crime at all. They get up on stage over and over promising to crack down on guns and fail to deliver anything that would have a hope of improving our lives. Empty words.

Concealed carry is a direct response to what they are failing to address. People don't want to be told they are statistically unlikely to be a victim of crime. They want something tangible and real. They get a gun.

Gun control in America is a sham, and the sham is maintained by the gun lobby. The only politician who can talk about reforming our ineffectively written gun laws is a second term president, because gun nuts will invariably vote as directed by the NRA, and the combination of money and votes is something no one who will have to face an election can turn down. That's how we got such a poorly written law in the first place.

I'm fine with the gun nuts having locked down representation, I just wish they could stop pretending they are the ones being treated unfairly by the process or that they have any interest in reducing crime or otherwise making life better. They want their cold steel courage, and they get it. That's life in America.

[Masterbagger]

Gun control in America is a sham, and the sham is maintained by the gun lobby. The only politician who can talk about reforming our ineffectively written gun laws is a second term president, because gun nuts will invariably vote as directed by the NRA, and the combination of money and votes is something no one who will have to face an election can turn down. That's how we got such a poorly written law in the first place.

I'm fine with the gun nuts having locked down representation, I just wish they could stop pretending they are the ones being treated unfairly by the process or that they have any interest in reducing crime or otherwise making life better. They want their cold steel courage, and they get it. That's life in America.

Dude. Gun nuts in America ARE reducing crime. People are choosing to be gun nuts in record numbers because of crime.

Look.
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

"Roughly 16,272 murders were committed in the United States during 2008. Of these, about 10,886 or 67% were committed with firearms.[11]


* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 0.5% of households had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone "almost certainly would have been killed" if they "had not used a gun for protection." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 162,000 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[12]"

Murder with firearms is not on the level of murder prevented by firearms. Not even close.

Who is the nut here? Ignoring the data is why we have a failure to do anything meaningful to keep guns away from criminals.

[X2-Illuminatus]

Murder with firearms is not on the level of murder prevented by firearms. Not even close.

Dude (to keep the general tone here), this is not how statistics work. You cannot compare estimated numbers with absolute numbers, especially not from two different timeframes.
Also the survey you're quoting from was asking, whether people thought they did the right thing, i.e. used a gun to protect themselves or others. That doesn't actually mean they did the right thing or that they were indeed in a situation, where they had to use a gun.

[Masterbagger]

Murder with firearms is not on the level of murder prevented by firearms. Not even close.

Dude (to keep the general tone here), this is not how statistics work. You cannot compare estimated numbers with absolute numbers, especially not from two different timeframes.
Also the survey you're quoting from was asking, whether people thought they did the right thing, i.e. used a gun to protect themselves or others. That doesn't actually mean they did the right thing or that they were indeed in a situation, where they had to use a gun.

Estimates are the only data available for defensive gun use. It isn't tracked like murder is. It would be nice if it was. There are still multiple sources supporting it. It's impossible to pin down an empirical number of yearly defensive uses.

And you are correct. A 1993 figure wouldn't be very relevant anymore. The perceived threat vs actual threat is though. A genuine fear for life a reasonable person might have is a justification for use of force.

[X2-Illuminatus]

Well then a lot of people in the USA seem to live in fear.

[Skism]

https://www.dosomething.org/facts/11-facts-about-guns

If this has already been posted i apolergise but three facts stood out:

Since January of 2013, support for gun rights has increased from 45% to 52% and the percentage prioritizing gun control has fallen five points (from 51% to 46%).
Trigger locks make a firearm more difficult to discharge and act as a safety precaution in carrying and owning guns. However, only 9 states (NY, NJ, CA, OH, MI, RI, MD, PA, MA) have trigger lock laws that enforce this precautionary measure.

Since 1950, every public mass shooting (with the exception just 1) in the U.S. has occurred in a place where civilians are banned from carrying firearms.

The last one is striking.

Another point I would like to raise: calling the opposition 'Gun Nuts' is bad because it implies you think they are stupid and crazy, and if someone I was arguing with thought that - I would not bother arguing with them.

[Timsup2nothin]

Since 1950, every public mass shooting (with the exception just 1) in the U.S. has occurred in a place where civilians are banned from carrying firearms.

The last one is striking.

That appears more striking than it is. Since civilians are banned from carrying firearms pretty much everywhere large groups of people congregate that is pretty much the only places mass shootings can occur.

As to calling people "gun nuts"...once they demonstrate that they aren't listening I don't care how offended they might get. And American gun nuts are so deep in their own NRA provided propaganda that by and large they can't be reasoned with.

They stand behind a known failed law that they in large part foisted on the public the last time public arousal got so strong that regulation was inevitable, and say that the failure of that law to work is evidence that regulation won't work. By and large I find the whole thing hilarious, because eventually their denial of realities is going to leave them out of the conversation entirely...or we will descend into every man for himself anarchy, and I'm okay with that.

[Skism]

Since 1950, every public mass shooting (with the exception just 1) in the U.S. has occurred in a place where civilians are banned from carrying firearms.

The last one is striking.

That appears more striking than it is. Since civilians are banned from carrying firearms pretty much everywhere large groups of people congregate that is pretty much the only places mass shootings can occur.

As to calling people "gun nuts"...once they demonstrate that they aren't listening I don't care how offended they might get. And American gun nuts are so deep in their own NRA provided propaganda that by and large they can't be reasoned with.

They stand behind a known failed law that they in large part foisted on the public the last time public arousal got so strong that regulation was inevitable, and say that the failure of that law to work is evidence that regulation won't work. By and large I find the whole thing hilarious, because eventually their denial of realities is going to leave them out of the conversation entirely...or we will descend into every man for himself anarchy, and I'm okay with that.

Hmm I do not think isolating the people you disagree with is a good plan - nor is anarchy because then there position will get stronger, not weaker.

Isolating gun rights activists will ultimately mean war, and you will have helped bring that about.*

* in case you think armed militias are ineffective. consider ISIS (morally they have no comparison though they do in will) EDIT Masterbagger I am not saying you are the same as ISIS just making that point to prove groups of militia are effective.

[RegisterMe]

Who is the nut here? Ignoring the data is why we have a failure to do anything meaningful to keep guns away from criminals.

So, for once, I agree with Skism . Using the term "gun nuts" doesn't help anybody. Anyway, back to the data (and yes, I am cherry picking):-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... death_rate

USA (2013 data) - 10.64 firearms related deaths / 100 thousand population
United Kingdom (2010 data) - 0.26 firearms related deaths / 100 thousand population

Now, allowing for the paucity of the data, this suggests that firearms related deaths in the US are 41 times higher than the UK.

FORTY ONE TIMES.

The US has a population of about 325 million, the UK about 65 million. Which, neatly enough, means that the US has five times the population of the UK.

According to the wiki data I posted (and allowing for both mistakes in the maths, and rounding on my part):-

In 2013 34,580 people died as a result of firearms in the US.
In 2010 169 people died as a result of firearms in the UK.

Adjust for population difference and you would see 845 people in the UK dying as a result of firearms in the UK.

It might be hard to swallow, but the difference, 33,735 deaths a year, is down to the availability of firearms, the laws surrounding their use, and on the culture that celebrates them (and lobbying, and dysfunctional politics and blah).

This won't change until Americans want it to.

Tragedy is defined as a form of drama based on human suffering that invokes in its audience pleasure in the viewing. Think driving down the motorway and rubbernecking at the car crash on the other side of the road.

That's what the developed world does to America with regard to firearms related deaths.

It's a tragedy.

[Timsup2nothin]

Isolating gun rights activists will ultimately mean war, and you will have helped bring that about.*

* in case you think armed militias are ineffective. consider ISIS (morally they have no comparison though they do in will) EDIT Masterbagger I am not saying you are the same as ISIS just making that point to prove groups of militia are effective.

In my opinion they have long since isolated themselves. This exchange with Masterbagger being a perfect example.

As to concerns about armed militias...the key word is organized. I worry about the cops, because they are very well armed and their structure won't break down immediately, but the...gun rights activists...with their need for cold steel courage to face the mean streets of current day civilization will be hiding in their basements, not organizing. I don't worry about them at all if civilization stops working.

[Masterbagger]

Who is the nut here? Ignoring the data is why we have a failure to do anything meaningful to keep guns away from criminals.

So, for once, I agree with Skism . Using the term "gun nuts" doesn't help anybody. Anyway, back to the data (and yes, I am cherry picking):-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... death_rate

USA (2013 data) - 10.64 firearms related deaths / 100 thousand population
United Kingdom (2010 data) - 0.26 firearms related deaths / 100 thousand population

Now, allowing for the paucity of the data, this suggests that firearms related deaths in the US are 41 times higher than the UK.

FORTY ONE TIMES.

The US has a population of about 325 million, the UK about 65 million. Which, neatly enough, means that the US has five times the population of the UK.

According to the wiki data I posted (and allowing for both mistakes in the maths, and rounding on my part):-

In 2013 34,580 people died as a result of firearms in the US.
In 2010 169 people died as a result of firearms in the UK.

Adjust for population difference and you would see 845 people in the UK dying as a result of firearms in the UK.

It might be hard to swallow, but the difference, 33,735 deaths a year, is down to the availability of firearms, the laws surrounding their use, and on the culture that celebrates them (and lobbying, and dysfunctional politics and blah).

This won't change until Americans want it to.

Tragedy is defined as a form of drama based on human suffering that invokes in its audience pleasure in the viewing. Think driving down the motorway and rubbernecking at the car crash on the other side of the road.

That's what the developed world does to America with regard to firearms related deaths.

It's a tragedy.

Cause of death statistics.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf

2/3 of those deaths you mention were suicides. Half of all suicide involves a gun. This is a problem if you are trying to prevent suicide. For violence using guns? Not so much.

Gun homicide is the bulk of what is left over. How you stop gun homicide? Total prohibition of guns is not an option, nor would it work. Gun control is bogus. It doesn't attempt to deal with guns held by criminals.

Now, look here.

http://nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violenc ... lcome.aspx

The last column has the magic numbers under "Firearm crimes as a percent of all violent incidents". The bulk of our violent crime does not use firearms. Fighting guns to fight gun violence is a theory, but ignores two things. Violent crime still happens without guns, and gun ownership mitigates violent crime.

[Santi]

Not going into the discussion but thinking about other countries who had a massive amount of guns in possession of the citizens made me look up Switzerland. Completely different reason why the guns are there, but interesting reading.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_polit ... witzerland

[Usenko]

Suicides plummeted in Australia after guns were removed from the population. Firearm suicides are now very rare. Other forms of suicide increased very slightly, but not enough to counter the enormous drop.

So we know that you prevent a large number of suicides if the suicidal person can't get a gun. You don't just push them to other methods, you actually prevent them.

So - a large number of those 2/3 that you mention would have been prevented if the gun laws made it hard to get a firearm, by your own description.

You say "Total prohibition of guns is not an option". No indeed. But restrictions are VERY helpful. Your conclusion that "gun control is bogus" is not supported.

Our laws have MASSIVELY decreased the number of guns in society. Therefore the remaining weapons become more expensive (supply and demand). Therefore criminals can't afford them. So no, you're incorrect. Our laws have VERY much dealt with criminals holding guns; only the very richest can afford them (remember, $15,493 for an AK-47 in Sydney!).

You are also correct about the fact that violent crime happens without guns. But it takes a lot more effort to kill someone with a knife or a blunt instrument, and we have found that the majority of people (even criminals) simply can't or won't do it.

It won't cure your society's problems, but it will decrease them.

[RegisterMe]

Agreed Usenko. Indeed, I find Masterbagger's chain of reasoning to avoid coming to the same conclusion to be incredibly convoluted (well, actually, I think it simply doesn't hold up).

Back to what Gavrushka said a few pages ago:-

I think I'd respect those who support guns more if they'd stop spouting crap and just admit that gun ownership is just part of US 'culture'.

The only group who find any validity in their ridiculous justifications are other supporters.

Bagger, and other gun supporters, just admit that the volume of deaths from gun-related crime is an acceptable price to pay for you to keep your weapons, and none of us would be able to argue with your stance. - We won't agree, but this embarrassing debate would end in a moment.

[Chips]

Cause of death statistics.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf

2/3 of those deaths you mention were suicides. Half of all suicide involves a gun. This is a problem if you are trying to prevent suicide. For violence using guns? Not so much.

Gun homicide is the bulk of what is left over. How you stop gun homicide? Total prohibition of guns is not an option, nor would it work. Gun control is bogus. It doesn't attempt to deal with guns held by criminals.

Now, look here.

http://nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violenc ... lcome.aspx

The last column has the magic numbers under "Firearm crimes as a percent of all violent incidents". The bulk of our violent crime does not use firearms. Fighting guns to fight gun violence is a theory, but ignores two things. Violent crime still happens without guns, and gun ownership mitigates violent crime.

What are included in "violent incidents" - is that including assault, fights, beatings, stabbings, threatening, domestic abuse, road rage etc? Do violent incidents cause death, or just injury, or include those which are just a threat of injury?

Since you dismiss suicide - lets look at the numbers you wilfully ignore. Not the "violent crime... without any quantification as to what consistitues violent crime" - lets go back to the actual gun death statistics we do have.

The homicide rate with firearms is far lower in the UK than the US. That's a fact. It's lower in the UK, France, Canada, Italy, Switzerland, Ireland, Spain, Germany, Austria, Greece, Japan, Australia, India, Belgium, New Zealand, Finland, Denmark, Netherlands, Sweden, Norway and South Korea... and that's not an exhaustive list.

The US Homicide rate with guns is 3.55 per 100,000. The highest on the above list is Greece and Canada at 0.59 and 0.51 per 100,000 respectively. The UK is 0.05 per 100,000.

Does Canada not have a similar gun ownership ratio as the US?

That's outside of suicide / homicide ratios. If you include that, the UK has a higher proportion of suicide to homicide ratios of deaths to guns at 3:1, compared to the US 2:1.

The UK doesn't have total "prohibition" of guns, we've got rifles, shotguns and more - including one in this very house. If you look at crime rates with gun types, shotgun occurs 3 times more frequently than illegal hand guns. I can't say there's a definite correlation between the accessibility of those guns and crime - as lets be honest - shootings/homicide can be a crime of passion (i.e. shoot their partner) which doesn't require getting hold of an illegal weapon. If anything, that may give credence to a causal link between accessibility of weapons and use for homicide outside of the usual illegal access path of crime.

So rather than trying to deny "guns aren't a problem" (when in the US it most definitely is a problem!), perhaps you should try a different tact. That guns aren't the problem.

Doesn't Canada have a similar gun ownership ratio as the US? Then why is it they have a homicide rate per 100,000 that's 1/7th of the US rate? What's different? Or how about Switzerland - which is 1/15th the rate of the US?

So something about US culture, attitudes or other causes a spectacular difference in homicide with gun rate. But rather than examine this you're hell bent on the "no, there's no issue here..." and therefore ignore all and anything before you.

And that's why any discussion is usually an utter waste of time. So scared of the 'attacks' around gun ownership and homicides that you're not willing to try and find out why it works in other countries/cultures compared to your own.

Why so scared of having a look at that?

[fiksal]

Something I want to know is why we dont allow civilians access to explosives and military vehicles. That surely would reduce crime as well, if more weapons = less crime logic holds true

heh

Or why dont we arm civilians with non lethal means if things are so terrible that you need a gun.

that too usually goes unanswered.

Suicides plummeted in Australia after guns were removed from the population. Firearm suicides are now very rare. Other forms of suicide increased very slightly, but not enough to counter the enormous drop.

How's the other crime with guns specifically is doing? I recall Australia being shown in the news as lawless land of crime after your laws about guns took in effect.

(actually I even recall asking you this same question)

[Masterbagger]

Suicides plummeted in Australia after guns were removed from the population. Firearm suicides are now very rare. Other forms of suicide increased very slightly, but not enough to counter the enormous drop.

So we know that you prevent a large number of suicides if the suicidal person can't get a gun. You don't just push them to other methods, you actually prevent them.

So - a large number of those 2/3 that you mention would have been prevented if the gun laws made it hard to get a firearm, by your own description.

You say "Total prohibition of guns is not an option". No indeed. But restrictions are VERY helpful. Your conclusion that "gun control is bogus" is not supported.

Our laws have MASSIVELY decreased the number of guns in society. Therefore the remaining weapons become more expensive (supply and demand). Therefore criminals can't afford them. So no, you're incorrect. Our laws have VERY much dealt with criminals holding guns; only the very richest can afford them (remember, $15,493 for an AK-47 in Sydney!).

You are also correct about the fact that violent crime happens without guns. But it takes a lot more effort to kill someone with a knife or a blunt instrument, and we have found that the majority of people (even criminals) simply can't or won't do it.

It won't cure your society's problems, but it will decrease them.

Suicides have no effect on my liberty or my safety. I don't want a government dabbling in nanny laws to fight it. Find a way to reduce suicide that doesn't involve getting rid of the 99.99% of guns that aren't being used in suicide and I'll listen.

I can't also see any means of reducing our supply of guns that would pass the check of being a Constitutional law.

Something I want to know is why we dont allow civilians access to explosives and military vehicles. That surely would reduce crime as well, if more weapons = less crime logic holds true

heh

Or why dont we arm civilians with non lethal means if things are so terrible that you need a gun.

that too usually goes unanswered.

Destructive device category under the NFA weapons. You said it to be clever, but the fact is if you want a grenade or a rocket launcher you could have one.

Non lethal weapons suck. Bottom line, they just plain suck.

[fiksal]

I can't also see any means of reducing our supply of guns that would pass the check of being a Constitutional law.

Constitution says nothing about what kind of gun is legal and what kind of isnt. Yet we have that distinction. So as long as there's at least one gun that remains legal, I dont see a Constitutional issue with disallowing others.