Blinky wrote:

thintheherd wrote: Funny.. I found it completely germane. His statement recognizes the inherent dangers of more free access and places that within the context of freedoms price. Sorry it doesn't fly for you, I understand why you and BLinky chose to ignore however. I didn't ignore it: Blinky wrote: Not personal, but this is nothing but a hollow meaningless Libertarian catchphrase. Being killed in a mass shooting spree carried out by some unbalanced guy who's upset because he got fired from a job is not an "inherant danger of freedom".

My apologies.. I missed your individual reply, not that I agree with it mind you

Quote:

Guns are at the root of shooting rampages as without them, shooting rampages are impossible.

so blinky... if the guns are gone then what else are they going to use... remember a few years back when some moron in Japan went nuts with a sword.... and how about numerous times where morons used knives...

thintheherd wrote:

Danct wrote: thintheherd wrote: Danct wrote: thintheherd wrote: Danct wrote: thintheherd wrote: ikari wrote: It's also important to understand that proper government is not to act against the rights and liberties of the individual. While promoting freedom, one must understand the inherent dangers, duties, and consequences of freedom. Those strong enough to support it shall, those too weak shall give it away. Ever notice how a discussion purposely driven into one of semantics nearly always quickly and quietly ignores that which the driver yearns to dismiss? Good point there. I'm always wary of arguments that use the Reductive Fallacy. Also a good analogy considering your avatar. lulz for not being able to figure out who the driver is. lutz For not being able to figure out my sarcasm. lulz for assuming sarcasm is immediately apparent in the written word, in addition to the thought process that affords the luxury of ignoring that which it purposely smokescreens. Wow, you CAN turn a phrase, eh? "Sarcasm" is apparent to those who can see it, no? The very thing that you accuse me of "smokescreen[ing]" is ironically a smokescreen itself. If you recall the discussion between Blinky and Ikari was about access to guns and the effect thereof. THIS is where Ikari decided to use his diversionary tactic of singing the Star Spangled Banner while waving the flag. And THIS is where you decided that it was appropriate to accuse OTHERS of "semantics". I felt my use of sarcasm was fairly clever there if I do say so myself. Kind of like killing two birds with one stone, if you will. Funny.. I found it completely germane. His statement recognizes the inherent dangers of more free access and places that within the context of freedoms price. Sorry it doesn't fly for you, I understand why you and BLinky chose to ignore however. The way I see it freedom and personal responsibility are not things you wish to entrust to yourself or your fellow man. Safety provided is an illusion. Hand the responsibility for you own in the hands of another and you deserve nothing more than bitter disappointment that is likely to follow.

Ha..... Freedom has nothing to do with the business end of a gun, my friend. Your attempts to lead everything that way is naive. I don't need a gun to be free and neither does Blinky. I enjoy every freedom that you do and more because I'm not encumbered by the fear of imminent disaster. My freedom is born from those who fought in wars, struggled with oppression, organized communities, volunteered services etc. Please don't imply that YOUR gun has some mystical powers that it doesn't actually posses.

But. of course all that I responded to above was another diversion on your part and ironically the very "smokescreen" that you accused others here of practicing. You'll remember that the topic wasn't "freedom" because restrictions on gun ownership isn't about freedoms. You and Ikari make a False Dichotomy here. This Black and white thinking assumes that we can't be free if we allow reasonable restrictions which of course isn't correct.

but Danct there is always the proverbial what if... and then when you are in the wrong place at the wrong time... the what if happens....

and then you might actually wish that some person actually has or had a gun handy... one of those misinformed and fear mongering people that say the gun keeps the govt. in check and that same person who says that the gun can and often does save thousands if not more lives every year....

Quote:

freedom is born from those who fought in wars,

That is right... these are the ones that fought and gave you the right to live free..and had it not been for them you would have no freedoms and you know that.... they fought to keep the right of guns among other things and you have the right to not want one and ...you have the right to speak freely.... who fought and gave you the right to do that.... who fought to give you the right to have your volunteer groups that go out and protest????

These are the same people that understood what a gun is and what it can do.... and they are the same people that are still fighting to prserve that right and to protect people from ignorant savages that want to do nothing more than harm innocent people....

I am one of those people that fought and still fights for that right and that also includes the means of protecting your ass from the afformentioned savage that would do nothing but kill you and yours if they see the need to do so and have the means (and they do)... so in essence the only thing standing between you and them is a government that has ...thuse far ignored ignorant people that want to take away guns or control them to the point where the law abiding people have no choice but to fight back... the savage i mentioned loves gun laws and gun control...they really do.... but all to many people do not understand that aspect of it ...or they do not want to....

whatever the reason is they are running around with their vision clouded and cannot see the wonderful single tree in the forest... they think that we must all get along... wonderful in a dream world where everything is perfect and all land of the yellow brick road... sadly the world is not like that and it never will be....

because for every person that wants to control gun rights there are 5 willing to fight back.... the problem is that these are so called special interests that believe the police can or will come to your aid... they are not required to do that ..at all....

Then we got the people out there that think the savage (mentioned earlier) is just misunderstood and they ought to be catered and pampered... those savages love idiots like that...

see it appears to me (correct me if I am wrong) that you live in an idealistic world and that if you raise hell about something long enough it will go away.... you live in an area of your town that has little to no crime (yet) and is the epitomy of suburbia.... and the list can go on.


Danct... what I am trying to say is that there are people out there that want nothing better than to control any or all of us.... and if you think they are going to actually pay anything but lip service to your volunteer groups and such... please think again...because they are nothing but fodder to these people...so wake up and do not think they actually care about you or me...because they do not...and in the end it comes down to 2 very simple things..... power and control..

lilwolf wrote:

but Danct there is always the proverbial what if... and then when you are in the wrong place at the wrong time... the what if happens....

I suggest that you leave that to me. You need not concern yourself for me this way.

lilwolf wrote:

Danct... what I am trying to say is that there are people out there that want nothing better than to control any or all of us.... and if you think they are going to actually pay anything but lip service to your volunteer groups and such... please think again...because they are nothing but fodder to these people...so wake up and do not think they actually care about you or me...because they do not...and in the end it comes down to 2 very simple things..... power and control..

Lilwolf, you have said this same rhetoric many times before and you offer nothing new above. I fully understand your world views by now and I don't begrudge you that. I only ask you that you don't thrust those onto me along with your assumptions about my "groups" or my motivations or the "motivations" of others because you really can't claim to know those things, can you? Really? Honestly? No.... I don't think that you can, so why not stick to what you DO know. Let's address what I was actually addressing above to 'Thintheherd'. I was addressing that the argument that our freedom is inexplicably tied to gun restrictions, no matter how small or insignificant is simply a false dichotomy.

Danct wrote:

lilwolf wrote: but Danct there is always the proverbial what if... and then when you are in the wrong place at the wrong time... the what if happens.... I suggest that you leave that to me. You need not concern yourself for me this way. lilwolf wrote: Danct... what I am trying to say is that there are people out there that want nothing better than to control any or all of us.... and if you think they are going to actually pay anything but lip service to your volunteer groups and such... please think again...because they are nothing but fodder to these people...so wake up and do not think they actually care about you or me...because they do not...and in the end it comes down to 2 very simple things..... power and control.. Lilwolf, you have said this same rhetoric many times before and you offer nothing new above. I fully understand your world views by now and I don't begrudge you that. I only ask you that you don't thrust those onto me along with your assumptions about my "groups" or my motivations or the "motivations" of others because you really can't claim to know those things, can you? Really? Honestly? No.... I don't think that you can, so why not stick to what you DO know. Let's address what I was actually addressing above to 'Thintheherd'. I was addressing that the argument that our freedom is inexplicably tied to gun restrictions, no matter how small or insignificant is simply a false dichotomy.

really man... I personally do not care what happens to you at all... never have... but you better keep in mind that big ugly.... "what if".... those things have a tendancy of reaching out and biting you when you least expect it.... kinda like.... accidents always happen to the other guy and not me...I am a good driver..... guess what Danct.... you are also the other guy

The assumptions are based upon documented evidence of manipulation of data on countless counts.... statements by the so called educated morins that spout off about the evils of guns and gun owners and wha they want to do in their agendas.... so I actually do know what I am talking about...and the words are right from their own mouths...

And we do remain a lot freer than many because we do have guns and that keeps the so called benevolent leaders at bay... for now it does.... and when the what if happens..... there is gonna be some killing.... and that also is fact....

lilwolf wrote:

And we do remain a lot freer than many because we do have guns and that keeps the so called benevolent leaders at bay...

What? So the only reason you're not a nation of slaves is because citizens own weapons? Why isn't my country a nation of slaves?

Quote:

for now it does.... and when the what if happens..... there is gonna be some killing.... and that also is fact....

That's not fact, its pure speculation.
And unlikely considering recent history - the introduction of the most invasive and restrictive domestic legislation in US history (the patriot act), the documented response of weapon owners during illegal weapon seizures following the hurricaine in New Orleans. I would not be betting money on American citizens staging an armed insurrection at all, let alone a successful one.

Blinky wrote:

lilwolf wrote: And we do remain a lot freer than many because we do have guns and that keeps the so called benevolent leaders at bay... What? So the only reason you're not a nation of slaves is because citizens own weapons? Why isn't my country a nation of slaves? Quote: for now it does.... and when the what if happens..... there is gonna be some killing.... and that also is fact.... That's not fact, its pure speculation. And unlikely considering recent history - the introduction of the most invasive and restrictive domestic legislation in US history (the patriot act), the documented response of weapon owners during illegal weapon seizures following the hurricaine in New Orleans. I would not be betting money on American citizens staging an armed insurrection at all, let alone a successful one.

wanna bet money blinky?????

lilwolf wrote:

Danct wrote: lilwolf wrote: but Danct there is always the proverbial what if... and then when you are in the wrong place at the wrong time... the what if happens.... I suggest that you leave that to me. You need not concern yourself for me this way. lilwolf wrote: Danct... what I am trying to say is that there are people out there that want nothing better than to control any or all of us.... and if you think they are going to actually pay anything but lip service to your volunteer groups and such... please think again...because they are nothing but fodder to these people...so wake up and do not think they actually care about you or me...because they do not...and in the end it comes down to 2 very simple things..... power and control.. Lilwolf, you have said this same rhetoric many times before and you offer nothing new above. I fully understand your world views by now and I don't begrudge you that. I only ask you that you don't thrust those onto me along with your assumptions about my "groups" or my motivations or the "motivations" of others because you really can't claim to know those things, can you? Really? Honestly? No.... I don't think that you can, so why not stick to what you DO know. Let's address what I was actually addressing above to 'Thintheherd'. I was addressing that the argument that our freedom is inexplicably tied to gun restrictions, no matter how small or insignificant is simply a false dichotomy. really man... I personally do not care what happens to you at all... never have... but you better keep in mind that big ugly.... "what if".... those things have a tendancy of reaching out and biting you when you least expect it.... kinda like.... accidents always happen to the other guy and not me...I am a good driver..... guess what Danct.... you are also the other guy

Well, that wasn't very nice, lilwolf. I though you were going to "try". Perhaps that was short-lived.

I'll simply repeat; "I suggest that you leave that to me." You talked about "freedom" above and yet you seem to want restrict my own freedom by telling me what to do. "Freedom" isn't about guns. It's about making our own choices and accepting the consequences of those choices.

I personally have no problem with this concept and you need not concern yourself with me in this regard. Get it?

lilwolf wrote:

The assumptions are based upon documented evidence of manipulation of data on countless counts.... statements by the so called educated morins that spout off about the evils of guns and gun owners and wha they want to do in their agendas.... so I actually do know what I am talking about...and the words are right from their own mouths...

Demonizing those with whom you disagree doesn't strengthen your argument. The truth is, you really DON'T know what my motivations are and you don't really know what others' motivations are either. Questioning others' motivations is another form of your often-used Ad Hominem Attack. More specifically 'attack by innuendo'. If you wish to advance your positions here, I suggest you drop the fallacies and concentrate on more legitimate forms of argument.

Blinky wrote:

That's not fact, its pure speculation. And unlikely considering recent history - the introduction of the most invasive and restrictive domestic legislation in US history (the patriot act), the documented response of weapon owners during illegal weapon seizures following the hurricaine in New Orleans. I would not be betting money on American citizens staging an armed insurrection at all, let alone a successful one.

From what I can tell, most of the people who had guns confiscated in New Orleans post-Katrina, were people who had no way of getting out of the city. Anybody with any ability to get out left. It wasn't a typical cross-section of gun-owners. Also, the system worked in getting those people their guns back and changing the law. No need for insurrection if the other side backs down.

That said, we won't have an armed insurrection until we get to the point where members of the government stay in office despite having lost elections.

lilwolf wrote:

wanna bet money blinky?????

Yes.

Danct wrote:

lilwolf wrote: Danct wrote: lilwolf wrote: but Danct there is always the proverbial what if... and then when you are in the wrong place at the wrong time... the what if happens.... I suggest that you leave that to me. You need not concern yourself for me this way. lilwolf wrote: Danct... what I am trying to say is that there are people out there that want nothing better than to control any or all of us.... and if you think they are going to actually pay anything but lip service to your volunteer groups and such... please think again...because they are nothing but fodder to these people...so wake up and do not think they actually care about you or me...because they do not...and in the end it comes down to 2 very simple things..... power and control.. Lilwolf, you have said this same rhetoric many times before and you offer nothing new above. I fully understand your world views by now and I don't begrudge you that. I only ask you that you don't thrust those onto me along with your assumptions about my "groups" or my motivations or the "motivations" of others because you really can't claim to know those things, can you? Really? Honestly? No.... I don't think that you can, so why not stick to what you DO know. Let's address what I was actually addressing above to 'Thintheherd'. I was addressing that the argument that our freedom is inexplicably tied to gun restrictions, no matter how small or insignificant is simply a false dichotomy. really man... I personally do not care what happens to you at all... never have... but you better keep in mind that big ugly.... "what if".... those things have a tendancy of reaching out and biting you when you least expect it.... kinda like.... accidents always happen to the other guy and not me...I am a good driver..... guess what Danct.... you are also the other guy Well, that wasn't very nice, lilwolf. I though you were going to "try". Perhaps that was short-lived. I'll simply repeat; "I suggest that you leave that to me." You talked about "freedom" above and yet you seem to want restrict my own freedom by telling me what to do. "Freedom" isn't about guns. It's about making our own choices and accepting the consequences of those choices. I personally have no problem with this concept and you need not concern yourself with me in this regard. Get it? lilwolf wrote: The assumptions are based upon documented evidence of manipulation of data on countless counts.... statements by the so called educated morins that spout off about the evils of guns and gun owners and wha they want to do in their agendas.... so I actually do know what I am talking about...and the words are right from their own mouths... Demonizing those with whom you disagree doesn't strengthen your argument. The truth is, you really DON'T know what my motivations are and you don't really know what others' motivations are either. Questioning others' motivations is another form of your often-used Ad Hominem Attack. More specifically 'attack by innuendo'. If you wish to advance your positions here, I suggest you drop the fallacies and concentrate on more legitimate forms of argument.

what ever.... you think...but you still are always going to be the other guy...


now onto the rest .... so to question your sources as innacurate is not acceptable.... and to question their motivations is not acceptable as well....

well you better learn to live with it...because a great deal of your sources and items are subject to severe questions and such and they will be continually challenged when it is needed.... Get it???

Blinky wrote:

http://www.smh.com.au/world/gunman-kills-one-wounds-six-2009 1107-i2hq.html IMO had this office worker not been able to access guns he would not have been able to do this, or may even have not attempted to if his only choice was a knife or some other non-firearm.

God forbid these people take reponsibility for his actions. Scary thought right?

Libertarian94 wrote:

Blinky wrote: http://www.smh.com.au/world/gunman-kills-one-wounds-six-2009 1107-i2hq.html IMO had this office worker not been able to access guns he would not have been able to do this, or may even have not attempted to if his only choice was a knife or some other non-firearm. God forbid these people take reponsibility for his actions. Scary thought right?

Who are "these people"?

Blinky wrote:

Libertarian94 wrote: Blinky wrote: http://www.smh.com.au/world/gunman-kills-one-wounds-six-2009 1107-i2hq.html IMO had this office worker not been able to access guns he would not have been able to do this, or may even have not attempted to if his only choice was a knife or some other non-firearm. God forbid these people take reponsibility for his actions. Scary thought right? Who are "these people"?

Those who commited the crime. You dont give premptive death penalties because there were a couple of serial killers. So why would you make a preemptive attack on personal rights?

Libertarian94 wrote:

Blinky wrote: Libertarian94 wrote: Blinky wrote: http://www.smh.com.au/world/gunman-kills-one-wounds-six-2009 1107-i2hq.html IMO had this office worker not been able to access guns he would not have been able to do this, or may even have not attempted to if his only choice was a knife or some other non-firearm. God forbid these people take reponsibility for his actions. Scary thought right? Who are "these people"? Those who commited the crime.

Oh, then it should have been "their actions" not "his actions". I doubt people who go on shooting rampages care much about taking responsibility for their actions, but society and the government will hold them accountable regardless.

Quote:

You dont give premptive death penalties because there were a couple of serial killers. So why would you make a preemptive attack on personal rights?

For the same reason the government makes "pre-emptive attacks" on your right to do a whole range of things - because if they didn't it would inevitably lead to death and destruction.

Blinky wrote:

Libertarian94 wrote: Blinky wrote: Libertarian94 wrote: Blinky wrote: http://www.smh.com.au/world/gunman-kills-one-wounds-six-2009 1107-i2hq.html IMO had this office worker not been able to access guns he would not have been able to do this, or may even have not attempted to if his only choice was a knife or some other non-firearm. God forbid these people take reponsibility for his actions. Scary thought right? Who are "these people"? Those who commited the crime. Oh, then it should have been "their actions" not "his actions". I doubt people who go on shooting rampages care much about taking responsibility for their actions, but society and the government will hold them accountable regardless. Quote: You dont give premptive death penalties because there were a couple of serial killers. So why would you make a preemptive attack on personal rights? For the same reason the government makes "pre-emptive attacks" on your right to do a whole range of things - because if they didn't it would inevitably lead to death and destruction.

The right to bear arms shall not be infringed??? So that means nothing? I know our constitution doesnt mean anything in your country but its kinda what makes our countrt great. I am saying you really have no place to criticize our nation?

Lets entertain this argument despite it being blatantly unconstitutional.

1) Why replace personal resposibility with federal regulations?

2) What would it accomplish? The criminals dont care if the guns are legal or not.

3) You would only take them away from the people who actually obey the law leaving them defenseless.

4) It hasnt worked so well in the UK gun violence actually was increased after the ban.

Libertarian94 wrote:

Blinky wrote: Libertarian94 wrote: Blinky wrote: Libertarian94 wrote: Blinky wrote: http://www.smh.com.au/world/gunman-kills-one-wounds-six-2009 1107-i2hq.html IMO had this office worker not been able to access guns he would not have been able to do this, or may even have not attempted to if his only choice was a knife or some other non-firearm. God forbid these people take reponsibility for his actions. Scary thought right? Who are "these people"? Those who commited the crime. Oh, then it should have been "their actions" not "his actions". I doubt people who go on shooting rampages care much about taking responsibility for their actions, but society and the government will hold them accountable regardless. Quote: You dont give premptive death penalties because there were a couple of serial killers. So why would you make a preemptive attack on personal rights? For the same reason the government makes "pre-emptive attacks" on your right to do a whole range of things - because if they didn't it would inevitably lead to death and destruction. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed??? So that means nothing? I know our constitution doesnt mean anything in your country but its kinda what makes our countrt great. I am saying you really have no place to criticize our nation? Lets entertain this argument despite it being blatantly unconstitutional. 1) Why replace personal resposibility with federal regulations?

Its not a replacement - its an extension of the system currently in place. Are you free to do whatever you want Libertarian94? Exactly.
And I would point out that the legality of something does not make it right. The same people who drafted your precious constitution made allowences to ensure the "right" only extended to white people. Probably because some of them kept slaves. Not such a model of human freedoms anymore is it?

Quote:

2) What would it accomplish? The criminals dont care if the guns are legal or not.

So there are no criminals in Australia post current gun control? Or there are but we don't have shooting sprees because they can't get guns? There have been zero shooting rampages in Australia since gun control, there have been dozens in the US in the same timeframe. Who's safer - me or you?
Remember we are discussing this in the context of shooting rampages.

Quote:

3) You would only take them away from the people who actually obey the law leaving them defenseless.

This old chestnut? Where do illegal guns come from? The infinite pool of once-legal guns. If gun restrictions are across the board , then they become a rare commodity, the price of them skyrockets and only the upper tier of criminals can afford them - not the likes if the sort of criminal you or I may have a run in with like a junkie mugger. If your worldview were correct every law-abiding citizen in the UK and Australia would be at the mercy of armed criminals. But you are more likely to be murdered, assaulted, and raped in the US than you are in the UK. Why?

Quote:

4) It hasnt worked so well in the UK gun violence actually was increased after the ban.

Link please.

lilwolf wrote:

Danct wrote: lilwolf wrote: Danct wrote: lilwolf wrote: but Danct there is always the proverbial what if... and then when you are in the wrong place at the wrong time... the what if happens.... I suggest that you leave that to me. You need not concern yourself for me this way. lilwolf wrote: Danct... what I am trying to say is that there are people out there that want nothing better than to control any or all of us.... and if you think they are going to actually pay anything but lip service to your volunteer groups and such... please think again...because they are nothing but fodder to these people...so wake up and do not think they actually care about you or me...because they do not...and in the end it comes down to 2 very simple things..... power and control.. Lilwolf, you have said this same rhetoric many times before and you offer nothing new above. I fully understand your world views by now and I don't begrudge you that. I only ask you that you don't thrust those onto me along with your assumptions about my "groups" or my motivations or the "motivations" of others because you really can't claim to know those things, can you? Really? Honestly? No.... I don't think that you can, so why not stick to what you DO know. Let's address what I was actually addressing above to 'Thintheherd'. I was addressing that the argument that our freedom is inexplicably tied to gun restrictions, no matter how small or insignificant is simply a false dichotomy. really man... I personally do not care what happens to you at all... never have... but you better keep in mind that big ugly.... "what if".... those things have a tendancy of reaching out and biting you when you least expect it.... kinda like.... accidents always happen to the other guy and not me...I am a good driver..... guess what Danct.... you are also the other guy Well, that wasn't very nice, lilwolf. I though you were going to "try". Perhaps that was short-lived. I'll simply repeat; "I suggest that you leave that to me." You talked about "freedom" above and yet you seem to want restrict my own freedom by telling me what to do. "Freedom" isn't about guns. It's about making our own choices and accepting the consequences of those choices. I personally have no problem with this concept and you need not concern yourself with me in this regard. Get it? lilwolf wrote: The assumptions are based upon documented evidence of manipulation of data on countless counts.... statements by the so called educated morins that spout off about the evils of guns and gun owners and wha they want to do in their agendas.... so I actually do know what I am talking about...and the words are right from their own mouths... Demonizing those with whom you disagree doesn't strengthen your argument. The truth is, you really DON'T know what my motivations are and you don't really know what others' motivations are either. Questioning others' motivations is another form of your often-used Ad Hominem Attack. More specifically 'attack by innuendo'. If you wish to advance your positions here, I suggest you drop the fallacies and concentrate on more legitimate forms of argument. what ever.... you think...but you still are always going to be the other guy... now onto the rest .... so to question your sources as innacurate is not acceptable.... and to question their motivations is not acceptable as well.... well you better learn to live with it...because a great deal of your sources and items are subject to severe questions and such and they will be continually challenged when it is needed.... Get it???

Oh well, .............I tried. You suggested to me that you were going to try to debate me more reasonably. Unfortunately, I see none of that above, in fact most of it doesn't even make sense. I'll pass on future ones like this, OK?

Blinky wrote:

Thats what I acknowldege too, which is why I was carerful not to label guns a cause (for all the good it did - there's always one who leeps onto "Gunz don't cause crimez, pencils don't mispell wordz!!"). I said it was at the root - it contributes because without guns shooting sprees would not occur. If the formula looks something like this: Crazy guy + access to gun = shooting rampage Then I'd say that places access to a gun as a pretty significant contributor, wouldn't you?

No, I'd say guns allow for an offset. Access to guns in and of itself is not a major factor in people shooting up a place. To say it is at the root suggests that it is a primary motivator, but it's a tertiary effect of aggregated gun use. It saturates rather quickly. Saying it's at the root suggests that it has ability to affect the slope. I have maintained that it provides an offset and nothing beyond that.

Blinky wrote:

I thought we'd already agreed that one can't legislate against insanity.

You can't, but mental stability is at the root of the problem.

Blinky wrote:

And what in an inevitable consequence of that access? The "mentally unstable" will also have access - which is where the problem occurs.

At some point, but the illustration was to point out which what dynamic was at the root. It wasn't access to guns because guns are widely accessed by many people. But the number of shootings doesn't scale with access to guns. There is an offset, and then beyond that no noticeable change.

Blinky wrote:

Ikari, I know that a mentally stable person with a gun is not considered a risk. But its like you're ignoring the fact that that access to guns means that someone who is mentally unstable will also have the same access to guns. When I started this thread I said that if the mentally unstable guy in the office block shooting had not had access to guns, this attack would not have occured (and in all liklihood he wouldn't have staged an attack of any kind). The number of mass shootings experienced in the US shows that too often the wrong people are getting their hands on guns. So there is a problem there. Since we can't legislate agasinst insanity, what is one effective way to stop this occuring? Australia seems to have hit the nail on the head.

I'm not ignoring it, I'm clarifying order of magnitude estimation. Access to guns is not a major cause. The effect is an abrupt offset and beyond that it has no more affect. You allow guns, you'll get a certain amount of gun crime. The mass shootings, which are a rare event, are even more removed for the effects of access to guns. At the root is the stability of the individual, not their access to guns. You allow guns, you get X of the extreme cases, more guns beyond that does not make X scale with gun access. The extremes have already been carried out.

Blinky wrote:

Then why did you say "access to guns is not a contributor"?

Not in the sense that they can effect the slope.

Blinky wrote:

If you look at what I wrote I already acknowledged that compared to all other instances of gun use mass shootings were rare. But you haven't addressed the second part: are they rare relative to other comparable countries rates of mass shootings? Absolutely not.

I have, there are too many variables to be able to make direct comparison with clear certainty.

Blinky wrote:

If that were true, we would see stabbing rampages and the like in places (like Australia) where the option of using guns in a rampage has been removed. Like I said, we haven't cured "mental unstability" in Australia, but we've cut off what you acknowledege as the facilitator of these kind of violent outbursts. Its the same principal as making sure someone who is suicidal doesn't have anything that they may use to harm themselves with.

No, if what I say is true, you wouldn't see that effect at all. As I am not making claim to effect over slope, but rather claim to offset.