Oregon shooting: Initial reports of 10 dead at Umpqua Community College

[Razgovory]

Dguller and Berkut in alliance.  The world shudders!

[DGuller]

Dguller and Berkut in alliance.  The world shudders!

I don't know if we are, and in any case, Berkut and I often agree on the issues, he just doesn't give me credit for getting there the correct way. 

For the record, I'm neither for nor against gun ownership.  I'm against sophistry, and gun nuts are in a league of their own in that department.  Not for lack of competition by any means, they're just so good at what they do.

[Admiral Yi]

And let's be clear, every single argument in favor of guns that claims that they save lives in aggregate is based on either an obvious lie or an obvious fallacy.  Every.  Single.  One.  Lies or stupidities, all of them.

Seems to me the more relevant question is whether guns save the lives of innocent victims.  The fact that a lot of people off themselves with guns is really neither here nor there.

[DGuller]

And let's be clear, every single argument in favor of guns that claims that they save lives in aggregate is based on either an obvious lie or an obvious fallacy.  Every.  Single.  One.  Lies or stupidities, all of them.

Seems to me the more relevant question is whether guns save the lives of innocent victims.  The fact that a lot of people off themselves with guns is really neither here nor there.

This isn't the only consideration, but in any case, I disagree.  Suicide is a result of an illness, and guns in the vicinity make that illness much more fatal.  It should definitely be one of the factors considered in the relationship of numbers of guns to numbers of deaths.

[Admiral Yi]

This isn't the only consideration, but in any case, I disagree.  Suicide is a result of an illness, and guns in the vicinity make that illness much more fatal.  It should definitely be one of the factors considered in the relationship of numbers of guns to numbers of deaths.

People are outraged at the moment about the epidemic of mass shootings and we are having this discussion in the context of proposed solutions.  If we're analyzing the effectiveness of an armed populace in deterring future Columbines, the fact that people kill themselves with guns is totally irrelevant.

[Razgovory]

This isn't the only consideration, but in any case, I disagree.  Suicide is a result of an illness, and guns in the vicinity make that illness much more fatal.  It should definitely be one of the factors considered in the relationship of numbers of guns to numbers of deaths.

People are outraged at the moment about the epidemic of mass shootings and we are having this discussion in the context of proposed solutions.  If we're analyzing the effectiveness of an armed populace in deterring future Columbines, the fact that people kill themselves with guns is totally irrelevant.

Disagree.  This was a suicide.  The shooter chose to murder people as a part of it.

[DGuller]

People are outraged at the moment about the epidemic of mass shootings and we are having this discussion in the context of proposed solutions.  If we're analyzing the effectiveness of an armed populace in deterring future Columbines, the fact that people kill themselves with guns is totally irrelevant.

I'm not sure we're limiting ourselves to just that kind of analysis.  But, for the sake of the argument, let's limit ourselves to this analysis. 

You don't think cost/benefit analysis is appropriate here?  if the cost of saving 1 life from mass shooting is 100 extra suicides that would have otherwise not happened or succeeded, that's a successful policy?

[crazy canuck]

This isn't the only consideration, but in any case, I disagree.  Suicide is a result of an illness, and guns in the vicinity make that illness much more fatal.  It should definitely be one of the factors considered in the relationship of numbers of guns to numbers of deaths.

People are outraged at the moment about the epidemic of mass shootings and we are having this discussion in the context of proposed solutions.  If we're analyzing the effectiveness of an armed populace in deterring future Columbines, the fact that people kill themselves with guns is totally irrelevant.

The percentage of the population of the US who owns guns is high.  The number of shootings is high.  There seems to be a relationship there even if you want to ignore the number of other deaths (eg suicide and accidental discharges) that are also gun related.

[Admiral Yi]

I'm not sure we're limiting ourselves to just that kind of analysis.  But, for the sake of the argument, let's limit ourselves to this analysis. 

You don't think cost/benefit analysis is appropriate here?  if the cost of saving 1 life from mass shooting is 100 extra suicides that would have otherwise not happened or succeeded, that's a successful policy?

I don't think suicide is a totally terrible thing.

[DGuller]

I'm not sure we're limiting ourselves to just that kind of analysis.  But, for the sake of the argument, let's limit ourselves to this analysis. 

You don't think cost/benefit analysis is appropriate here?  if the cost of saving 1 life from mass shooting is 100 extra suicides that would have otherwise not happened or succeeded, that's a successful policy?

I don't think suicide is a totally terrible thing.

So should it go to the benefit column?

[Rex Francorum]

So I guess you guys just need to mobilise and change the system by electing people who are not hostage to the gun lobby - that is if you cared enough about it to do something instead of bitching on online forums.

You seem to be operating under the assumption that America is a democracy or a republic, rather than a plutocracy.

You all also seem to be operating under the assumption that a majority of the electorate would actually be in favor of more stringent gun control, which isn't obvious.

Personally, I don't have any problem at all with requiring all firearms to be registered, but I don't think that would stop any shootings, just make it easier to figure out who committed them if they weren't caught in the act (which mass shooters almost always are). 

And I don't have any problem with building a lot of new mental hospitals and making it easier to involuntarily commit people to them.  It would be a better use of tax money than some of the things we spend it on instead.

Yeah, the "problem" seems as much cultural as legal.

[viper37]

Seems to me the more relevant question is whether guns save the lives of innocent victims.  The fact that a lot of people off themselves with guns is really neither here nor there.

You aggregate all guns together.  In all kind of situation.

If you have an assault rifle locked down in your basement and you are woken up in the middle of the night by someone entering your house, how is it of any help?

If you have an handgun but you never received any training and just leave it hanging around for anyone to pick up, you are a threat to just about anyone.

There is an argument for having a well trained militia.  There is an argument for letting hunters practice their sports.  There is an argument for having people train in the use of handguns, being screened for its possession and then having it at home or on themselves.

But I just can't see how a 11 year old shooting is an 8 year old is a demonstration that a live would have been saved if the little girl had had her own handgun.

And in the case of mass shooting, having untrained civilians prone to panic armed to the teeth will only make things worst.  As we have seen with many cases in the US over the years, most notably the Zimmerman case.

Besides, if terrorists where to invade a public building and start shooting, by the time anyone with a gun could even thing of pulling it, they'd likely be dead.

I'm all for softening canadian gun laws, but I'd never want the US system where anybody can own nearly anything.  I am undecided if some guns should simply be totally banned or if they offer some value to reasonable people, but I wouldn't feel safe knowing that just about anybody in town could own a fully automatic assault rifle.

[viper37]

with guns...right? 

that'd be nice to see

But no, I was thinking attack ads, ad hom, deformation of truths, anonymous conspiracy theories about the NRA, the stuff they basically do themselves.

[Ideologue]

I'm not sure we're limiting ourselves to just that kind of analysis.  But, for the sake of the argument, let's limit ourselves to this analysis. 

You don't think cost/benefit analysis is appropriate here?  if the cost of saving 1 life from mass shooting is 100 extra suicides that would have otherwise not happened or succeeded, that's a successful policy?

I don't think suicide is a totally terrible thing.

So should it go to the benefit column?

Given the urgent need for human dieback, the least we could do is treat the people who opt out of consuming and polluting as the heroes they are.

Even so, guns are a pretty bad vehicle for suicide.  Those who fail to complete tend to be all fucked up.

[Eddie Teach]

Even so, guns are a pretty bad vehicle for suicide.  Those who fail to complete tend to be all fucked up.

The same could be said for most readily available methods.