Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[TZucchini]

Yuh-huh...


Try again?

I'm really not interested, and I'd rather just concede the point. It appears as though you're right.

The definition isn't as important as whether or not people can agree on it. I've stated the definition is informal, and I've stated why I believe it should be defined a certain way. If you're using the guidelines for "Mass murder", then we should replace murder with someone being shot, all other things being equal. If you think I'm wrong, tell me why.

[Tinykong]

Was it you arguing against the definition of "weapon"?

If we're going to talk about definitions, they need to be used appropriately. Three people killed wouldn't constitute a mass killing, so saying a father killing his family and himself is a "mass killing" is not always accurate.

[Deleted]

If we're going to talk about definitions, they need to be used appropriately. Three people killed wouldn't constitute a mass killing, so saying a father killing his family and himself is a "mass killing" is not always accurate.

What's the story with the crusade against comprehension?
As themius said, I think the hysteria is due to other reasons and its pretty appropriate in your situation, looking at the stats. It's inconceivable to have such high numbers in a developed first world country.

[PhaelixWW]

i´m sorry the 7 gun related deaths were from his found he had to add to the number that was wrong

Yes, he was adding 7 gun homicides deaths that occurred in that year but weren't officially counted as "murders" because they were from "undetermined cause" (ie, not accidental or suicidal). In the US, those go under the "homicide" column.

[Themius]

Some of these statements are flat out wrong. Hence, hysteria.

What did I say that's flat out wrong?

We do lead in school shootings, we do have a higher chance being shot here than in some 3rd world countries, and we lead when it comes to shootings. What about that is flat out wrong, are you just going to say it's flat out wrong and say nothing more?

- - - Updated - - -

Who cares if people misunderstand what "assault weapons" are because the name conjures up something different from reality?

Oh, right. The names we use should match the public expectation, otherwise you bias the viewpoints of the people when you say "365 mass shootings a year!". If people have a common idea as to what a mass shooting entails, then headlines like that are bogus.



A fair number of mass killing interpretations exclude the perpetrator death from the total. Victim deaths only.

365 mas shootings a year = 365 instances were 4 or more people were shot, it's not "bogus"

[Tinykong]

What did I say that's flat out wrong?

We do lead in school shootings, we do have a higher chance being shot here than in some 3rd world countries, and we lead when it comes to shootings. What about that is flat out wrong, are you just going to say it's flat out wrong and say nothing more?

What third world countries? The per capita rates sans suicide have been posted in this thread before.

[Themius]

What third world countries? The per capita rates sans suicide have been posted in this thread before.

Ah so you misread my some 3rd world countries as all. I posted this already before in another gun topic around the same time this was made, it was either merged into this or is somewhere in another topic.

[Tinykong]

365 mas shootings a year = 365 instances were 4 or more people were shot, it's not "bogus"

"People" don't know that a mass shooting is 4 or more people. They hear "mass shooting" and it conjures up a different image.

[PhaelixWW]

The definition isn't as important as whether or not people can agree on it.

This I agree with wholeheartedly.

I've stated the definition is informal, and I've stated why I believe it should be defined a certain way. If you're using the guidelines for "Mass murder", then we should replace murder with someone being shot, all other things being equal. If you think I'm wrong, tell me why.

I don't think you're wrong, per se. I think that, based on basic logic, that should be what the definition is. But for better or for worse, the average person in this country has a preconceived notion about what a "mass shooting" is. And to avoid confusing the issue, it is far, far, far better to stick to what matches up with what people's expectations are, rather than cause even more confusion in a radically divisive issue.

I still get annoyed at terms like "assault weapon" and "semi-automatic" because of how people tend to misinterpret them. It'd be much better if the logical interpretation of the term, the common usage of the term, and the "legal" definition of the term always matched up.

[Deleted]

"People" don't know that a mass shooting is 4 or more people. They hear "mass shooting" and it conjures up a different image.

And that is a problem because? I don't really understand where are you going with this.

[Themius]

"People" don't know that a mass shooting is 4 or more people. They hear "mass shooting" and it conjures up a different image.

Really... when I hear mass shooting or murder I know that it must first be more than 4, and then hope it's just 4 and not more.

[Tinykong]

Ah so you misread my some 3rd world countries as all. I posted this already before in another gun topic around the same time this was made, it was either merged into this or is somewhere in another topic.

Again, what third world country? Provide some context.

Also, did you not say

we lead when it comes to shootings period.

[Themius]

And that is a problem because? I don't really understand where are you going with this.

Because it paints guns in worse light to some people apparently... on those poor guns...

[Deleted]

Sorry guys but what would be this preconceived notion you two are on about?

[Tinykong]

Really... when I hear mass shooting or murder I know that it must first be more than 4, and then hope it's just 4 and not more.

The average person doesn't have a working understand of legal or technical definitions. I'd be willing to bet most people would not know the difference between a mass killing and a serial killer.

[Themius]

Again, what third world country? Provide some context.

Also, did you not say

That needs context which I gave earlier, which was compared to other countries that are as developed as us namely Canada and most of Europe and Australia. They are leaps and bounds ahead of us in this matter.

[Tinykong]

And that is a problem because? I don't really understand where are you going with this.

It continues to perpetuate the myth and hysteria over violence in the US.

[Themius]

The average person doesn't have a working understand of legal or technical definitions. I'd be willing to bet most people would not know the difference between a mass killing and a serial killer.

So we should abstain from using certain words because some people are ignorant of the definitions, instead of teach them?

[PhaelixWW]

365 mas shootings a year = 365 instances were 4 or more people were shot, it's not "bogus"

Yes, it is. When you say "365 mass shootings a year", but people tend to interpret "mass shootings" as "mass public shooting murders", then your comment is disingenuous.

[Themius]

It continues to perpetuate the myth and hysteria over violence in the US.

But we do have a high crime rate and a high death rate. Yes other countries do have higher assault rates and some have higher attempted murder rates but... at least the victim isn't dead.