Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Edge-]

https://www.columbiapsychiatry.org/n...mental-illness

A research team at Columbia University Irving Medical Center and the New York State Psychiatric Institute (NYSPI) examining 82 mass murders that occurred at least partially in academic settings throughout the world, found that most mass murderers and mass shooters did not have severe mental illness.

The study, led by Ragy R. Girgis, MD, and Gary Brucato, PhD, associate research scientist, also found that most mass murderers used firearms, and semi- or fully-automatic firearms most commonly. Among incidents of mass school murder not involving firearms, stabbing was the most common method.

The research(link is external and opens in a new window), published online Oct. 27 in the Journal of Forensic Sciences, according to study authors, is largest analysis ever conducted on mass school shootings.

“Our findings suggest that mass school shootings are different from other forms of mass murder, and that they should be looked at as a distinct phenomenon,” said Dr. Girgis, director of the Center of Prevention and Evaluation (COPE), a research clinic at Columbia/NYSPI specializing in the study and treatment of young adults at high risk for schizophrenia and other psychoses. “To prevent future mass school shootings, we need to begin to focus on the cultural and social drivers of these types of events, such as the romanticization of guns and gun violence, rather than on individual predictors.”

Add another to the bucket of, "No, while mental health access is a problem it's not the cause of mass school shootings." and to the bucket of, "Yes, the research and data consistently points to access to firearms and American firearm culture as more significant causes of mass school shootings".

For the mass school shooting study, the researchers isolated cases of mass murder perpetrated at least in part at schools, colleges, and universities and categorized them by location (within or outside of the US), and whether firearms were used.

Of the 82 incidents of mass murder involving academic settings:

Nearly half (47.6%) and most involving firearms (63.2%) were U.S.-based
Consistent with previous reports, perpetrators of mass shootings involving academic settings are primarily Caucasian (66.7%) and male (100%)
Severe mental illness (e.g., psychosis) was absent in the majority of perpetrators; when present, psychotic symptoms are more associated with mass murders in academic settings involving means other than firearms
About half (45.6%) of mass school shootings ended with the perpetrator's suicide

Coauthor Paul S. Appelbaum, MD, the Elizabeth K. Dollard Professor of Psychiatry, Medicine and Law at Columbia, said that identifying mental illness as a primary cause of violence is misleading.

“The findings strongly suggest that focusing on mental illness, particularly psychotic illness, when talking about mass school shootings risks is missing other factors that contribute to the vast majority of cases, as well as exacerbating the already widespread stigma surrounding severe mental illness,” said Dr. Appelbaum.

[Grinning Serpent]

So pretty much what we already knew. It's always good to have more data, though. I've seen people claim that "anyone who decides to commit a mass shooting isn't mentally healthy," which makes a certain kind of sense, but I don't think it's aligned with what people mean when they say "we need mental health checks to buy guns." And obviously, Republican rhetoric is just trying to make the problem go away so that the gun manufacturers that own them can continue making lots of money. Just like Democrats have to grandstand about "assault weapons" and keep throwing away elections because they need those Bloomberg Bux.



Oh, and I forgot to bring up some data about types of guns used in mass shootings. Got sidetracked and busy, sorry. Statista actually just recently published some information, so it's as good a starting place as any: https://www.statista.com/statistics/...on-types-used/

It's worth noting that Statista's data isn't delineating between semiautomatic and "not semiautomatic" firearms of the three delineated types (so a semiautomatic pistol like a Glock would be in the same data set as an old .38 special revolver), just between pistol, rifle, and shotgun. I also can't tell whether or not they're added to the pool if they were present, or if they were only added if the reports determined that they were actually used.

It's not uncommon for shooters to bring multiple guns and only end up using a portion of them, so I don't know if "kid brings rifle and three pistols to school and only uses the rifle and a pistol" would be counted as 1 rifle, 3 pistols or just 1 rifle, 1 pistol. It's also tracking all mass shootings, not just school shootings. I don't think I've ever seen data only *just* school shootings or *just* non-school shootings. These acts are so rare (even for here, they're still vanishingly rare compared to all violent gun crime or gun homicide) that you'd have a very small data set to work with if you separated the two "types," I think.

Weapons used in mass shootings, and school shootings especially, are basically just whatever's readily available, especially if notoriety isn't their objective. As I mentioned up the thread, when you're talking about attacking unarmed, unaware and undefended people, it doesn't really matter how many shots you get in a magazine or the specific caliber of the gun or whatever - it's "shooting fish in a barrel." Hell, you could stuff a backpack with late 18th Century pistols and still probably kill a good several people, if we wanted to adopt the hard-line "2A only applies to period pieces" interpretation. Stuff like magazine size and various other features are really only relevant when you're being shot at and having to shoot back or otherwise evade incoming fire.

[Mayhem]

Weapons used in mass shootings, and school shootings especially, are basically just whatever's readily available, especially if notoriety isn't their objective. As I mentioned up the thread, when you're talking about attacking unarmed, unaware and undefended people, it doesn't really matter how many shots you get in a magazine or the specific caliber of the gun or whatever - it's "shooting fish in a barrel." Hell, you could stuff a backpack with late 18th Century pistols and still probably kill a good several people, if we wanted to adopt the hard-line "2A only applies to period pieces" interpretation. Stuff like magazine size and various other features are really only relevant when you're being shot at and having to shoot back or otherwise evade incoming fire.

Yep, 18th century flintlock pistols are basically just like semi-automatic glocks, I mean, have you seen how fucking fast teenagers are? They could easily take out flintlock after flintlock and shoot just as many people, seriously.

/s

[KayossZero]

Yep, 18th century flintlock pistols are basically just like semi-automatic glocks, I mean, have you seen how fucking fast teenagers are? They could easily take out flintlock after flintlock and shoot just as many people, seriously.

/s

I mean to be fair; Pirates seem to be perfectly capable of carrying 6 preloaded flintlocks at a time, so the threat could be tangible!

/s

[Lynarii]

Then why are you fucking having it? We *already agreed* that 2A ain't going anywhere, and that because 2A ain't going anywhere, any kind of solution or idea that involves meaningfully limiting access to guns is impractical if not just plain impossible in the US.

Just to touch on this. the argument being made is that it is untrue to say that it can't be fixed. If the majority of US citizens WANTED to fix it, they could. We all recognize that they do not, and will not.

That is what we are bemoaning. That the US proudly does not want to fix it. That at BEST they will say "Well, we'd like to fix it, but so far we haven't found a solution that stops 100% of all violent crime forever without any restrictions or impact upon our lifestyle, so what can we do? Our hands are tied until you give us that perfect solution!"

All I can hope for right now is that if people continue to point out how screwed up and wrong that is, maybe a future generation will eventually say "Enough is enough". I don't expect to live to see that day. I'd like to think that someone I care about might. But it will never ever change if we throw our hands up and just accept that murdering children is a inescapable part of American culture.

[Grinning Serpent]

Yep, 18th century flintlock pistols are basically just like semi-automatic glocks, I mean, have you seen how fucking fast teenagers are? They could easily take out flintlock after flintlock and shoot just as many people, seriously.

/s

The argument isn't and never has been "shoot just as many." That's a strawman you're creating.

The argument is that "you could still do mass shootings with 18th Century equipment." Again, these are unaware and unarmed people being attacked by surprise. This isn't a video game, where your first impulse might be to just try and rush them "because eventually they'll have to reload" and it's not like you're actually out anything if you get hit or die. People are going to panic and try to find cover, which means the shooter has more than enough time to reload, pull another weapon out of their bag, whatever. This is *literally* what happens when you read the investigation reports and the timelines they piece together from the evidence and witness testimony - it's not like they're playing Quake and the shooter is just fucking bunnyhopping down the hallways, the shooter stops and pauses, reloads or changes weapons, etc.

Like, sure, you're probably not going to see the body counts if we were somehow able to limit gun availability to 18th Century arms. But is that going to make the people that do get killed any less dead? Is that going to make it any less tragic or fucking stupid? I would prefer to target the *root causes* of the crimes. And in a country where gun availability is guaranteed, "the guns" are not a viable starting place.

[Endus]

Like, sure, you're probably not going to see the body counts if we were somehow able to limit gun availability to 18th Century arms. But is that going to make the people that do get killed any less dead? Is that going to make it any less tragic or fucking stupid?

It is going to vastly reduce the pace at which they can kill people. That's simply a fact.

I would prefer to target the *root causes* of the crimes.

Sure. Let's start by talking about complete economic reformation to eliminate poverty and the capitalist model. Do you seriously think that's the easier solution?

And in a country where gun availability is guaranteed, "the guns" are not a viable starting place.

In the first part of that sentence, you've admitted you know where that starting place does lie. Repealing the 2nd Amendment. That's not that crazy an idea. It's no less crazy than repealing prohibition (which also required repealing an Amendment), or abolishing slavery (which was written into and protected by the Constitution proper, before even considering Amendments to that text). Clearly, that's an achievable goal, and no, I don't accept "but it's haaaard" as a legitimate counter.

[Grinning Serpent]

Just to touch on this. the argument being made is that it is untrue to say that it can't be fixed. If the majority of US citizens WANTED to fix it, they could. We all recognize that they do not, and will not.

This isn't correct. What the people want is *not* how our government works.

We are not electing a single person to go to Congress and do a single thing for us - politicians are a package deal, and that *inevitably* requires us to sign deals with the devil.

What happens is that you have to select your candidates based on your own list of priorities and what they promise to pursue in office. You pick the ones that best-match your wants, and maybe share your top priorities, and anything they do that you don't like, or won't do that you want them to do... well, that's the deal you have to take.

There ain't a single fucking warm-blooded person on Earth that "wants kids to get murdered" or whatever fucking strawman nonsense you and the anti-gun nuts want to trot out. Fucking *no one* is voting for that, no one wants that.

But "school shootings" are not even in the top 5 for a lot of people. Not because they don't matter, but to most people, *other things matter more.* And if you want to get down to brass tacks and actually math it out (as much as you can make empirical measurements about the value of a life, anyway), *school shootings aren't important enough to focus on over other things.* How many kids died in school shooting number next? How does that stack up to the number of kids that die if you don't pursue action on this other thing? What about kids that don't die, but live in misery and suffering? Do they count less than kids who die? What about suffering of generations after this one and the next? Do we need to factor in their suffering? Should we?

It's not as simple as you want to make it out to be. If it were, we'd snap our fingers and end the problem. Fucking no one likes or wants dead kids. What an absurd, insane thing to suggest.

- - - Updated - - -

It is going to vastly reduce the pace at which they can kill people. That's simply a fact.

Sure. But you can't take away access to modern arms. We're talking about a straight-up manufactured hypothetical. We're taking a dumb fucking meme and extrapolating it to try and see what it would look like if that's how things were. We're not talking about reality, dude.

Sure. Let's start by talking about complete economic reformation to eliminate poverty and the capitalist model. Do you seriously think that's the easier solution?

Yes, I do, because unlike gun control, it's actually possible to take small measures and make progressive improvements to it. I don't think we'll ever "overthrow capitalism," but expanding our national healthcare beyond the ACA? Further improving student loan debt forgiveness? Housing assistance? All of those things are easy to increase or adjust, and occasionally add directly to or create new programs for.

In the first part of that sentence, you've admitted you know where that starting place does lie. Repealing the 2nd Amendment. That's not that crazy an idea. It's no less crazy than repealing prohibition (which also required repealing an Amendment), or abolishing slavery (which was written into and protected by the Constitution proper, before even considering Amendments to that text). Clearly, that's an achievable goal, and no, I don't accept "but it's haaaard" as a legitimate counter.

Actually, the starting place for me would be in community outreach and assistance, because a very common theme with school shootings in particular is a boy that for one reason or another feels socially isolated, hopeless, and often angry. Remove the motive, you don't have a crime in the first place.

And we have already covered why repealing/amending 2A isn't going to happen this century, so I'd really appreciate if instead of trying to rehash an old argument you'd just fucking go back and re-read what we've already said on the subject. I don't see any value in repeating ourselves.

[Edge-]

I would prefer to target the *root causes* of the crimes. And in a country where gun availability is guaranteed, "the guns" are not a viable starting place.

If we're talking about what's actually practically achievable, then there's literally nothing we can do beyond what we've done for decades: Thoughts and Prayers.

Which have literally never worked, by the way.

[Grinning Serpent]

If we're talking about what's actually practically achievable, then there's literally nothing we can do beyond what we've done for decades: Thoughts and Prayers.

Which have literally never worked, by the way.

I mean, slowly improving our country's issues with social and economic programs not being remotely up to par with our peers is definitely something we can and should be doing.

Thing is, though, neither Republicans *nor* Democrats want that. They don't want anything to do with that shit because it smells like socialism, and that word (whether big S or small S) is scaaaaarryyyyyy to the corporations that own them. So Republicans do absolutely nothing, while Democrats make concerned and empathetic noises and do the things that they're told to do in order to obtain those Bloomberg Bucks even while we know what Bloomberg wants ain't gonna do fuck all to fix the problem, either.

If your belief is "we need to take the access to guns away" in order to reduce/mitigate the impact or occurrence of mass shootings in America... yeah, it's never going to fucking happen. It doesn't even matter what the laws say, it's a logistical impossibility. But if you look at the *other* causes of mass shootings... there's some stuff we could be doing or at least exploring. But gun control is just way too effective a tool for both Republicans and Democrats. They don't want to solve it, because a solved issue can't be used to pander to voters anymore.

[Endus]

Sure. But you can't take away access to modern arms. We're talking about a straight-up manufactured hypothetical. We're taking a dumb fucking meme and extrapolating it to try and see what it would look like if that's how things were. We're not talking about reality, dude.

You can deny access to a hell of a lot; https://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/en/firearms/classes-firearms

By trying to make that about "all modern arms", you're attacking a straw man.

Yes, I do, because unlike gun control, it's actually possible to take small measures and make progressive improvements to it. I don't think we'll ever "overthrow capitalism," but expanding our national healthcare beyond the ACA? Further improving student loan debt forgiveness? Housing assistance? All of those things are easy to increase or adjust, and occasionally add directly to or create new programs for.

Can do the same with gun control. Literally. The USA has, repeatedly, in fact. That's why you can't own a briefcase nuke, for instance.

And we have already covered why repealing/amending 2A isn't going to happen this century, so I'd really appreciate if instead of trying to rehash an old argument you'd just fucking go back and re-read what we've already said on the subject. I don't see any value in repeating ourselves.

Yeah, your entire argument boils down to "but it's haaaard." I do not accept that as a valid reason. Will a lot of Americans fight it for stupid-ass reasons? Sure. Same was true of abolishing slavery. Or recognizing women's human rights. Or the civil rights act. Or anything else meaningful. "But it takes work and we can't just do it right away" is not an argument. It's a refusal to make any kind of effort.

[Edge-]

I mean, slowly improving our country's issues with social and economic programs not being remotely up to par with our peers is definitely something we can and should be doing.

Can? No, not if you've been paying attention to modern politics. Should be? Sure. But we "should be" seriously considering a repeal of the Second Amendment as well, and if that's off the table in the name of what's practically achievable, so are solving many of the associated economic and social issues.

Thing is, though, neither Republicans *nor* Democrats want that.

Criticisms of corporate Democrats aside, this is absolutely not a "both sides" thing. At all. In any way.

If your belief is "we need to take the access to guns away" in order to reduce/mitigate the impact or occurrence of mass shootings in America... yeah, it's never going to fucking happen.

Again, nobody is talking about a blanket ban on guns. Simply the removal of gun ownership as a right to allow it to be regulated and controlled.

But gun control is just way too effective a tool for both Republicans and Democrats.

For Republicans? Yes, it's a great tool to fearmonger and fundraise over. Hence why we always have "DEMOCRATS ARE COMING FOR YOUR GUNS!" fearmongering despite that literally never actually happening.

For Democrats? I mean...yeah, because as both Endus and I have repeatedly linked that's because that's what all the data and studies show.

They don't want to solve it, because a solved issue can't be used to pander to voters anymore.

Again, Republicans don't want to solve this because it's a great campaign issue. Democrats want to solve it because that's a huge win they can notch on their belt and move onto other issues. I'm not pretending Democrats are super competent saints or anything, mind you, but this is reality.

[Lynarii]

This isn't correct. What the people want is *not* how our government works.

We are not electing a single person to go to Congress and do a single thing for us - politicians are a package deal, and that *inevitably* requires us to sign deals with the devil.

What happens is that you have to select your candidates based on your own list of priorities and what they promise to pursue in office. You pick the ones that best-match your wants, and maybe share your top priorities, and anything they do that you don't like, or won't do that you want them to do... well, that's the deal you have to take.

There ain't a single fucking warm-blooded person on Earth that "wants kids to get murdered" or whatever fucking strawman nonsense you and the anti-gun nuts want to trot out. Fucking *no one* is voting for that, no one wants that.

But "school shootings" are not even in the top 5 for a lot of people. Not because they don't matter, but to most people, *other things matter more.* And if you want to get down to brass tacks and actually math it out (as much as you can make empirical measurements about the value of a life, anyway), *school shootings aren't important enough to focus on over other things.* How many kids died in school shooting number next? How does that stack up to the number of kids that die if you don't pursue action on this other thing? What about kids that don't die, but live in misery and suffering? Do they count less than kids who die? What about suffering of generations after this one and the next? Do we need to factor in their suffering? Should we?

It's not as simple as you want to make it out to be. If it were, we'd snap our fingers and end the problem. Fucking no one likes or wants dead kids. What an absurd, insane thing to suggest.

I addressed this in the second paragraph in what you quoted. I didn't say that you like dead kids. I said that when faced by the choice between dead kids and actually making changes that would impact their lifestyle and culture, a majority of US citizens will consider them a tragic, but acceptable, loss. And then wring their hands about how the 'perfect' solution hasn't been found yet as an excuse for why they did nothing. Just like you did in your response.

I have no doubt that if there was the magical perfect solution, everyone would agree to do it. But that doesn't exist, it will never exist. You can keep waiting until one shows up so you can snap your fingers and achieve it, but doing so makes you part of the problem.


Edit: Also, to be clear, I don't want to 'take your guns away'. That's a terrible idea, and even attempting to go into legal gun owner's homes to confiscate their weapons would only make the problem worse, not better. That's ASKING for violent push back, and when that push back happens, it's only going to be innocents taking the brunt of it. Both innocent bystanders, and innocent gun owners. Any law that takes a generally law-abiding person and makes them into a criminal overnight is a bad law.

[Edge-]

I have no doubt that if there was the magical perfect solution, everyone would agree to do it. But that doesn't exist, it will never exist. You can keep waiting until one shows up so you can snap your fingers and achieve it, but doing so makes you part of the problem.

No, it does exist.

"Thoughts and prayers"

Just not sure why it hasn't worked yet, maybe a few decades more of thinking and praying will do the trick.

[Grinning Serpent]

You can deny access to a hell of a lot; https://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/en/firearms/classes-firearms

By trying to make that about "all modern arms", you're attacking a straw man.

This only works for countries without a large amount of the object in question already in widespread distribution. Trying to make the possession or sale of handguns illegal in a country with 180+ million of them in circulation (a recent news report made after Uvalde listed a number of 393 million guns in circulation, and other figures indicate 82-83% of gun owners own at least one pistol, so I'm going to spitball a 160-200 million figure off that information) is *wasting your fucking time.* It will do fuck all to curtail crime or mitigate crimes.

You're going out and getting a really nice padlock for the barn after the goddamn horse got out, and then patting yourself on the back like it accomplished something. Because you can't just accept that gun control *ain't the fucking answer here.* I fucking wish it was, man. I really do. But it's not, and any argument on the basis of "well we should start by putting in gun control like <insert example peer country here> does" is an automatic failure.

You can outlaw briefcase nukes, because nukes are not and never have been in wide circulation here. It's also why our bans on automatic weapons are also enforceable and automatic weapons are not going to be commonly seen in criminal use - there aren't that many of them in circulation, and we haven't been able to introduce more into circulation since 1986, so you can actually keep tabs on them.

But semiautomatic rifles and shotguns? Handguns? Yeah, you missed that bus by like 30 or 40 years, dude. Pitching a fit about it and trying to regurgitate arguments that we already settled ain't gonna change that. You should just accept what you can't change and focus on the things you can.

Note that this all also assumes widespread compliance with such laws. I believe I mentioned this already, but compliance with gun laws tends to be very low here, and it's not even especially high in our peer countries - though I guess it depends on what threshold you're setting for "good." I think the Aussies and Kiwis saw like 70% or so compliance with their buybacks and such? To me, that's pretty poor performance, but I don't know where you'd draw the line on such things to be honest.

[Endus]

This only works for countries without a large amount of the object in question already in widespread distribution.

Why?

You consistently make sweeping statements like this which don't hold up to basic scrutiny.

Yes, you might need buyback or amnesty programs to encourage disarmament. And? That's part of gun control legislation policy.

Trying to make the possession or sale of handguns illegal in a country with 180+ million of them in circulation (a recent news report made after Uvalde listed a number of 393 million guns in circulation, and other figures indicate 82-83% of gun owners own at least one pistol, so I'm going to spitball a 160-200 million figure off that information) is *wasting your fucking time.* It will do fuck all to curtail crime or mitigate crimes.

Could make the same argument about meth. Should we make the same argument about meth? Or is this just not really a responsible argument, from the outset?

It absolutely would mitigate crime rates. It would not eliminate them, the same way drug laws don't eliminate the trafficking and abuse of methamphetamines.

You're going out and getting a really nice padlock for the barn after the goddamn horse got out, and then patting yourself on the back like it accomplished something. Because you can't just accept that gun control *ain't the fucking answer here.*

The solution that's worked in so many other countries can't possibly work in the USA, because the USA is the specialist most unique country ever. Or something.

You don't have a basis for this claim. You're insisting I agree with you, because you demand it, and that's not how argument works. There's plenty of counterexamples. Australia, for instance; https://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9212725/australia-buyback

Sure, 650,000 isn't anywhere close to the USA's number of firearms, but it was effective enough to halve licensed gun owners by 2020, as well as halving gun deaths in the same period. Gun control works. It's basically the only thing that's been shown to. https://www.sydney.edu.au/news-opini...rt-arthur.html

Pitching a fit about it and trying to regurgitate arguments that we already settled ain't gonna change that. You should just accept what you can't change and focus on the things you can.

We didn't "settle" anything. You've made unsubstantiated claims and declared victory absent any reasonable argument to justify that.

[Grinning Serpent]

Can? No, not if you've been paying attention to modern politics. Should be? Sure. But we "should be" seriously considering a repeal of the Second Amendment as well, and if that's off the table in the name of what's practically achievable, so are solving many of the associated economic and social issues.

This is a bunch of hogwash. It's a *lot* fucking easier to implement additions and improvements to the ACA or social welfare systems than it is to *amend the fucking Constitution.* Like, a *LOT* easier.

The stuff I'm wanting just requires passing a bill through Congress. Admittedly harder than it maybe ought to be these days, but still within the realm of possibility. Wanting to pass a Constitutional amendment in our political environment might as well be literally impossible. You'll never get enough votes from the opposition party in Congress, and the "Constitutional convention" option has literally never happened.

Criticisms of corporate Democrats aside, this is absolutely not a "both sides" thing. At all. In any way.

It absolutely is. The Democrats don't stand on the corpses of schoolchildren because it makes them happy, they do it because it gets them *votes.* Same reason why they'll occasionally stop everything to belch out something about gun control before moving back to what they were doing. It's because *it gets them votes.* If they *fix* it, it won't get them votes anymore. They *don't want to* fix it.

Honestly, I doubt Bloomberg wants them to actually fix it, either. I'm not sure what Bloomberg's objective is. It's not "make the country a better, safer place to live," else he could be using his money for something actually productive.

Again, nobody is talking about a blanket ban on guns. Simply the removal of gun ownership as a right to allow it to be regulated and controlled.

Yes, they are. Even if they don't realize it. We can go through this, if you'd like.

Generally speaking, the aims of gun control proponents means copying some other country's homework. This usually starts with heavy restrictions or bans on handgun ownership (which makes sense, handguns are *BY FAR* the most commonly used type of gun in all types of gun crime) and it also includes feature bans or specific bans on those scary black plastic rifles everyone is scared of so much. Semiautomatic shotguns usually get added into this mix, too, because... well, what's the difference really between a rifle that goes bang with every pull and a shotgun that goes bang with every pull?

Thing is, though... what's the functional difference between a scary black plastic "tactical rifle" that's as short as it can legally be and a "hunting rifle" using the same caliber and semiautomatic function? None, at least for the purposes of shooting unarmed and unaware people. So those guns are on the chopping block next. Might as well just say, "hey all semiautomatic guns are banned" because they're all kind of basically the same, aren't they?

Now realize, "semiautomatic gun" is going to be the overwhelming majority of all guns produced in the past century or so, and especially in the past 50 years. It's not *literally* "banning all the guns," but it's pretty damn close to it.

Especially when you look and realize that, because we still haven't bothered to treat the actual root causes of these fucking crimes (mass shooting or mundane), they'll just fucking use those pump-action shotguns and bolt-action rifles you said were okay to own. You think a .223 fucks up a 15 year old, wait til you see what a .308 does to them. Well, actually, they'll just use the now extra illegal guns that never went anywhere because there's fucking hundreds of millions of them out there...

It's the slippery slope argument, and in this case I think it has plenty of weight because fucking UK is an object example of it - look at their insanity with licenses and shit, all because they're trying to control the knives (or scissors, or screwdrivers, or cutlery, or...) people stab each other with instead of targeting the root causes of those crimes.

These folks are not arguing to "ban all the guns," but the logic that they are operating will *lead to* "banning all the guns." Not that the average idiot Republican thinks that far, they just show up to vote for the red guy because some dumb fucking Democrat just couldn't help himself and had to yell about guns like a fucking nimrod.

You'd think that after seeing how many elections they've thrown away, they'd realize it's politically toxic. I'd love to see what happens if Democrats turned face and started embracing guns and exemplifying healthy, responsible gun culture. I'd pay good money to see someone like AOC show up at a 3-gun competition and crush everyone and use that in a campaign ad.

[Endus]

Now realize, "semiautomatic gun" is going to be the overwhelming majority of all guns produced in the past century or so, and especially in the past 50 years. It's not *literally* "banning all the guns," but it's pretty damn close to it.

Y'know, you could look at most other countries' gun laws, like Canada's, Australia's, Germany's, whatever, and you'd see that what you're claiming here is just objectively false.

It's the slippery slope argument, and in this case I think it has plenty of weight

Slippery slope arguments are mostly fallacious, and the exceptions require that you acknowledge the possibility of middle ground outcomes, which you're refusing to do here. Making your use an admission of faulty, fallacious reasoning.

because fucking UK is an object example of it - look at their insanity with licenses and shit, all because they're trying to control the knives (or scissors, or screwdrivers, or cutlery, or...) people stab each other with instead of targeting the root causes of those crimes.

Why is this "insanity", again? Just because you want a free-for-all? Plus, there isn't a blanket ban on guns in the UK; they have licensing and plenty of types of firearms that are legally permitted to own for hunting and sport. So the example you picked literally debunks the accusation you're trying to support.

[Grinning Serpent]

Why?

You consistently make sweeping statements like this which don't hold up to basic scrutiny.

Yes, you might need buyback or amnesty programs to encourage disarmament. And? That's part of gun control legislation policy.

Buyback programs and amnesty programs have never been effective here. I'm not sure you could argue they've been successful anywhere. Mostly because the guns being handed over are not guns being used to commit crimes in the first place.

Could make the same argument about meth. Should we make the same argument about meth? Or is this just not really a responsible argument, from the outset?

It absolutely would mitigate crime rates. It would not eliminate them, the same way drug laws don't eliminate the trafficking and abuse of methamphetamines.

There is nothing inherently wrong about meth. If people want to use it, they should be allowed to use it. There's crime centered *around* meth (trafficking it, obtaining it, producing it, etc) but that's only because it's illegal. If it were legal, most of that would go away.

It's not the best comparison, because attacking someone with a gun is an inherently criminal act, while using a drug (of any sort) at a party or in your own home or whatever isn't inherently criminal. You can decriminalize the possession, sale, and use of that drug because it's not inherently criminal. I mostly pulled drugs because the War on Drugs is a well known example of idiotic and racist lawmaking that has done nothing to make us safer and likely has made us less safe - because it's trying to outlaw something already in widespread use and with widespread availability.

The solution that's worked in so many other countries can't possibly work in the USA, because the USA is the specialist most unique country ever. Or something.

You don't have a basis for this claim. You're insisting I agree with you, because you demand it, and that's not how argument works. There's plenty of counterexamples. Australia, for instance; https://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9212725/australia-buyback

Sure, 650,000 isn't anywhere close to the USA's number of firearms, but it was effective enough to halve licensed gun owners by 2020, as well as halving gun deaths in the same period. Gun control works. It's basically the only thing that's been shown to. https://www.sydney.edu.au/news-opini...rt-arthur.html

Fewer guns in circulation than we ever had, they never once had the kind of toxic gun culture we have, and they also never had a mass shooting problem *before* Port Arthur... so it stands to reason that they'd continue not having one afterwards. FWIW, it's also an island nation and it's quite a lot easier to control smuggling and contraband through ports than land borders. I'm kind of curious if the cartels would start shipping guns back *into* the US to fuel consumer demand if we *did* pass some kind of long-reaching, long-term gun ban. Guns can be disassembled into tiny little parts and not every part has to be metallic, so I bet they could even use some of the same smuggling operations.

You're ignoring everything I tell you that's explaining why your ideas don't work, why they're a waste of effort, and then just vomiting data at me as though that's supposed to be convincing. Data by itself isn't useful. You're pointing to the data as though it's sacred, when I've already told you why the data you're citing doesn't directly apply here.

I'm going to ignore any further attempts to steer conversation in this direction. I've spent more than enough time explaining this to you across the past few pages - you can go back and read them if you've missed something.

- - - Updated - - -

Y'know, you could look at most other countries' gun laws, like Canada's, Australia's, Germany's, whatever, and you'd see that what you're claiming here is just objectively false.

The laws that get tightened every time there's a high profile shooting? Those laws? I appreciate you reinforcing my point.

[Endus]

Buyback programs and amnesty programs have never been effective here. I'm not sure you could argue they've been successful anywhere. Mostly because the guns being handed over are not guns being used to commit crimes in the first place.

I already cited the objectively successful buyback in Australia. Facts weigh heavier than your unsubstantiated claims.

Also, legally purchased guns are used to commit crimes all the time. Legal purchases in the USA are one of the chief supply lines for Mexican cartels arming themselves, for instance.

You're ignoring everything I tell you that's explaining why your ideas don't work, why they're a waste of effort, and then just vomiting data at me as though that's supposed to be convincing. Data by itself isn't useful. You're pointing to the data as though it's sacred, when I've already told you why the data you're citing doesn't directly apply here.

I'm not "ignoring" them. You have not substantiated them, so I'm stating that I do not believe you and you have given me absolutely no reason to. I'm gonna need a hell of a lot more than "because Grinning Serpent said so".

If one of us has facts and data, and the other doesn't, it's only the former who has a valid argument.

The laws that get tightened every time there's a high profile shooting? Those laws? I appreciate you reinforcing my point.

That's just not true, on its face. Why do you make shit up like this?