Study shows gun control would prevent mass shootings

Le Bateleur said:
Not really, most people are lazy and take the path of least resistance. Making almost anything slightly harder deters a lot of people.

A good example is suicide railings on bridges. Putting up the railings doesn't lead to an increase in suicides by other methods - a good proportion of suicidal people just don't bother if the "easy" option is removed.
Click to expand...

Suicide is something you feel like doing. Spree shootings are something you plan on doing. Klebold and Harris had enough patience to make pipe bombs, get in touch with people supplying army grade weapons illegally, testing firearms in the woods & record their goodbyes on tape. They were teenagers.

Enclave Supremacy said:
I don't really believe that personally. Unless your from that world how is someone else going to know how to get a gun? Who to speak to and where to go?
Click to expand...

Same way as you get in touch with people selling drugs; connections, random offers & using the internet.
 
MarvinTheParanoidAndroid said:
Suicide is something you feel like doing. Spree shootings are something you plan on doing. Klebold and Harris had enough patience to make pipe bombs, get in touch with people supplying army grade weapons illegally, testing firearms in the woods & record their goodbyes on tape. They were teenagers.



Same way as you get in touch with people selling drugs; connections, random offers & using the internet.
Click to expand...
Klebold and Harris were exceptions, not the rule. For every Columbine, there'll be cases where the would-be perpetrators couldn't carry out their plan, or changed their mind at the last minute like Lindsay did.

I'm talking about the effect of an intervention at a population level rather than an individual level.

Slightly OTC, but I'd reckon it's more common for suicide to be premeditated than gun-involved homicide.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Marvin
Le Bateleur said:
Klebold and Harris were exceptions, not the rule. For every Columbine, there'll be cases where the would-be perpetrators couldn't carry out their plan, or changed their mind at the last minute like Lindsay did.
Click to expand...

Explain James Holmes & Elliot Rodger. Rodger wrote a big ass manifesto about his motives, what he wanted and was intent on doing before he went on his killing spree. James Holmes was elaborate enough to set up bombs at his apartment & got a hold of automatic weapons; he discussed his intentions at length with a therapist before committing the shooting.

Explain George Hennard who bought his guns of choice two months apart prior to the Luby shooting.

Actually, what about sniper killers like John and Lee? What about Robert Essex? He escaped police pursuit twice before finally ending up at the Holiday Inn a week later. His entire goal was to kill white dudes & anti-honky shit was found painted all over the walls of his apartment.

Le Bateleur said:
I'm talking about the effect of an intervention at a population level rather than an individual level.
Click to expand...

You'd just be disarming civilians and maybe cops depending on how far you wanna go. Doesn't do much about criminals who now get to have a monopoly on a product.

Le Bateleur said:
Slightly OTC, but I'd reckon it's more common for suicide to be premeditated than gun-involved homicide.
Click to expand...

No, suicide is impulse driven, otherwise minor deterrents wouldn't stop them.
 
  • Winner
  • Disagree
Reactions: Derbydollar, Splendid and Le Bateleur
MarvinTheParanoidAndroid said:
You'd just be disarming civilians and maybe cops depending on how far you wanna go. Doesn't do much about criminals who now get to have a monopoly on a product.
Click to expand...
Market effects do have an impact.

The "criminals will do it anyway" is silly because you can apply it to anything illegal. For example, requiring pawn shops to record transactions doesn't eliminate petty theft, but it does make it less profitable.
 
  • Agree
  • Disagree
Reactions: Vitriol, Splendid and Le Bateleur
Marvin said:
Market effects do have an impact.

The "criminals will do it anyway" is silly because you can apply it to anything illegal. For example, requiring pawn shops to record transactions doesn't eliminate petty theft, but it does make it less profitable.
Click to expand...
There isn't really a profit motive in spree killings though, and few spree killers really expect to survive, so this sort of long term planning doesn't really apply.
 
  • Agree
  • Disagree
Reactions: SodomyRocket, Derbydollar, autisticdragonkin and 1 other person
Splendid Meat Sticks said:
There isn't really a profit motive in spree killings though, and few spree killers really expect to survive, so this sort of long term planning doesn't really apply.
Click to expand...
The profit motive from the perspective of the people selling the guns. If properly executed background checks disqualify a potential spree shooter from getting a gun cheaply, legally, then they only have black market sources for their weapons. That makes pulling off a spree shooting harder; it makes them take longer to plan; it gives the person some extra time to think things out; it gives other people time to intervene, etc.

Of course, that seems like a small change. But even if it's small, it's worth it if the benefits it provides outweigh the cost of implementing such programs. And implementing those programs can be done very cheaply.
The Master Debater said:
In America the second amendment shall not be infringed. Most of these guys can't be talked down. But they can be stopped. Sometimes a man with a gun is the only effective counter to another man with a gun.
Click to expand...
The second amendment is not unlimited. And while, yes, there do exist situations that are completely unworkable, we still have a wide range of constitutionally legal regulations we can use to make pulling off a spree shooting that much harder.
 
  • Disagree
  • Agree
Reactions: SodomyRocket, Splendid and AnOminous
Marvin said:
The profit motive from the perspective of the people selling the guns. If properly executed background checks disqualify a potential spree shooter from getting a gun cheaply, legally, then they only have black market sources for their weapons. That makes pulling off a spree shooting harder; it makes them take longer to plan; it gives the person some extra time to think things out; it gives other people time to intervene, etc.

Of course, that seems like a small change. But even if it's small, it's worth it if the benefits it provides outweigh the cost of implementing such programs. And implementing those programs can be done very cheaply.

The second amendment is not unlimited. And while, yes, there do exist situations that are completely unworkable, we still have a wide range of constitutionally legal regulations we can use to make pulling off a spree shooting that much harder.
Click to expand...
Yet by screwing over a minority of edgelords you screw over everyone
 
  • Agree
Reactions: MarvinTheParanoidAndroid, Derbydollar and Splendid
Marvin said:
Background checks shouldn't screw anyone over. (Anyone who doesn't deserve to be screwed over, anyway.)
Click to expand...
The background system is prettysomewhat broken though. I've known people who have bought a gun with no problems, then gone back in the next day to buy another one and been denied for some arbitrary reason. That means either someone who should be able to buy a gun was prevented from doing so, or that someone who shouldn't be able to buy a gun was allowed to.

I think we have a lot of good gun laws on the books, but they're either implemented poorly or not at all.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: MarvinTheParanoidAndroid, Splendid and Marvin
The Master Debater said:
Yet they create a de facto list of people.
Do you know how long those take to process? And that's just in the USA.
Click to expand...
The technology and bureaucratic processes necessary to make background checks efficient and effective do currently exist. That we're not making using them to their full potential just means we should get our game together.
 
  • Agree
  • Disagree
Reactions: The Master Debater, AnOminous and Some JERK
Marvin said:
The technology and bureaucratic processes necessary to make background checks efficient and effective do currently exist. That we're not making using them to their full potential just means we should get our game together.
Click to expand...
Yet they're making a list by doing so. There is a level of necessity and then there's bureaucracy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MarvinTheParanoidAndroid
Let's say we do background checks. Then some nut passes his background check and kills 50 people. Now what? Do we ban all guns? Do we add a psych test? Do we make everyone who wants to own a gun for anything tracked and their guns have some mobile kill switch? How far do you go?
 
  • Like
Reactions: MarvinTheParanoidAndroid
Also, there's talks of "sensible compromises."

We've compromised so many times with gun control.
This huge (hence the spoilers) image explains it
Illustrated-Guide-To-Gun-Control.png
 
  • Disagree
  • Agree
  • Informative
Reactions: MarvinTheParanoidAndroid, Vitriol and Cthulu
It really is about more than guns. It's about rights. How far do you go and how many are you willing to give up for safety? Do you really trust the government with it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: MarvinTheParanoidAndroid
Cthulhu said:
Let's say we do background checks. Then some nut passes his background check and kills 50 people. Now what? Do we ban all guns? Do we add a psych test? Do we make everyone who wants to own a gun for anything tracked and their guns have some mobile kill switch? How far do you go?
Click to expand...
What you are saying is not only an argument against background checks. It's an argument against any and all firearm regulation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back