A director wants to blame movies. More people see movies than are on this federal grant.

People do bad things. I don't think other people should have their rights curtailed.

More people die via abortions than guns--and abortions aren't explicitly guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.

1. Liberals blame guns.

2. There are many more gun owners than there are people on this kind of federal grant.

3. Why not blame the federal grant? It makes at least as much sense as blaming guns.

At the risk of stating the bleedin obvious, he didn't kill 14 people with a federal grant.

Doctor Fate wrote:3. Why not blame the federal grant? It makes at least as much sense as blaming guns.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that guns caused this incident; rather that by restricting the availability of guns this incident, or at least some of those like it, would not have taken place. Restricting the availability of federal research grants... (need I finish this sentence?)

(It's very hard for pro-gun people to make a logical argument at a time like this. The argument for guns isn't really a rational one, it's an emotional one tied up with rugged individualism, the pioneer spirit, cowboys and indians, the dangers of a hostile government, and so on. When things are calm, a very good rhetorician can just barely make a cogent case for the laxity of our gun laws. When things are as emotional as they now are, it's very difficult. Thus we see the pro-gun folks thrashing about and trying to ignore pointed questions.)

Purple wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:3. Why not blame the federal grant? It makes at least as much sense as blaming guns.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that guns caused this incident; rather that by restricting the availability of guns this incident, or at least some of those like it, would not have taken place. Restricting the availability of federal research grants... (need I finish this sentence?)

(It's very hard for pro-gun people to make a logical argument at a time like this. The argument for guns isn't really a rational one, it's an emotional one tied up with rugged individualism, the pioneer spirit, cowboys and indians, the dangers of a hostile government, and so on. When things are calm, a very good rhetorician can just barely make a cogent case for the laxity of our gun laws. When things are as emotional as they now are, it's very difficult. Thus we see the pro-gun folks thrashing about and trying to ignore pointed questions.)

It's very hard for gun control advocates to make a coherent argument. Big cities all over the country have such laws . . . To little or no effect.

Sassenach wrote:

1. Liberals blame guns.

2. There are many more gun owners than there are people on this kind of federal grant.

3. Why not blame the federal grant? It makes at least as much sense as blaming guns.

At the risk of stating the bleedin obvious, he didn't kill 14 people with a federal grant.

He would not have been in CO. We don't know why he did it. We do know where.

Doctor Fate wrote:

Purple wrote:(It's very hard for pro-gun people to make a logical argument at a time like this. The argument for guns isn't really a rational one, it's an emotional one tied up with rugged individualism, the pioneer spirit, cowboys and indians, the dangers of a hostile government, and so on. When things are calm, a very good rhetorician can just barely make a cogent case for the laxity of our gun laws. When things are as emotional as they now are, it's very difficult. Thus we see the pro-gun folks thrashing about and trying to ignore pointed questions.)

It's very hard for gun control advocates to make a coherent argument. Big cities all over the country have such laws . . . To little or no effect.

Often, there is indeed an irrational element to the anti-gun argument. A lot of liberals are afraid of guns, and afraid of people who like guns. But let's ALL try to be rational, okay?

First of all, looking at things rationally, the problem isn't the once-a-year madman who kills a dozen people, it's the day-in-day out gun violence. Could gun control laws bring those numbers down? Frankly, I don't know. No one, I think, knows for sure either way. Let's see what we do know...

Only three nations in the world have more than half as many privately-owned guns per capita as the USA: Serbia, Yemen and Switzerland. After that a dozen countries have between half and a third as many per capita, among them a lot of rich countries. Among the lowest countries: Japan, Lithuania, and South Korea, with about 1/100th as many guns per capita as the USA. Near the median: Hondouras, Scotland, Mozambique and Hungary, with roughly 1/15th as many. [source]

Why does the USA need roughly three times as many guns per capita as Canada? To some extent - but with huge exceptions like Yemen - gun ownership seems to track with affluence, as if guns were something of a luxury item. Interesting... the USA ranks 23rd in ownership per capita of TV sets. [source]

How about gun-related deaths? God bless Wikipedia... HERE is the page. The USA is number 12 on this list, but there are no advanced industrial democracies ahead of us. The closest behind, at roughly 2/3rds as many gun-deaths per capita, are Finland, Northern Ireland, Switzerland, and France. Finland has six times as many suicides as murders. Ah! The list is sortable by murder alone... The USA is now 17th overall, and once again none of our "peer" nations (except perhaps Northern Ireland) is ahead of us. It's an interesting list. Among our true peers, Italy comes next with less than half as many. (The Mafia??) Then Finland, with a quarter as many, then Canada, with a fifth as many.

Hey... I can pull both sets of data into a spreadsheet and calculate a VERY interesting number: the correlation between rate of gun ownership and rate of gun homicide. We already know the USA would be very high on both lists, but I'm going to treat the USA as an outlier, and not include them. Let's see if there's much correlation among the "normal" nations of the world.

To be continued in a new thread since this one is really about Aurora, which is a sizable topic in and of itself.

He would not have been in CO. We don't know why he did it. We do know where.

a) we don't know that he wouldn't have been Aurora, but this is irrelevant anyway.

b) he used his guns to shoot high-velocity projectiles into the flesh of his fellow human beings, thereby causing massive trauma to their bodily organs leading to blood loss, organ failure and ultimately death. You can't really do these things with a federal grant.

Doctor Fate wrote:He would not have been in CO. We don't know why he did it. We do know where.

But we also know how he did it. That he may not have been in Aurora to do it does not mean he would not have done something similar in another place. We don't even know that he wouldn't have gone to Colorado without a Federal grant (perhaps he could have done with a different funding source).

Purple wrote:But let's ALL try to be rational, okay?

Fair enough.

First of all, looking at things rationally, the problem isn't the once-a-year madman who kills a dozen people, it's the day-in-day out gun violence. Could gun control laws bring those numbers down? Frankly, I don't know. No one, I think, knows for sure either way. Let's see what we do know...

On day to day violence, what is the bigger risk? Guns or cars? I suspect it's cars.

Only three nations in the world have more than half as many privately-owned guns per capita as the USA: Serbia, Yemen and Switzerland. After that a dozen countries have between half and a third as many per capita, among them a lot of rich countries. Among the lowest countries: Japan, Lithuania, and South Korea, with about 1/100th as many guns per capita as the USA. Near the median: Hondouras, Scotland, Mozambique and Hungary, with roughly 1/15th as many. [source]

Why does the USA need roughly three times as many guns per capita as Canada? To some extent - but with huge exceptions like Yemen - gun ownership seems to track with affluence, as if guns were something of a luxury item.

I don't know if you mean to imply that American gun owners are more likely to be affluent, but there is no shortage of guns in poor areas. It's not Beverly Hills where the gang shootings take place.

Interesting... the USA ranks 23rd in ownership per capita of TV sets. [source]

I'm not sure, but this doesn't seem accurate. The link is for "households with television." I don't know that they mean "sets." It may be "cable" or "cable/satellite." In the most impoverished homes I've ever been in--floors with so many holes you had to be careful not to fall, windows missing, etc.--there were always 1 to 2 TV's.

How about gun-related deaths? God bless Wikipedia... HERE is the page. The USA is number 12 on this list, but there are no advanced industrial democracies ahead of us. The closest behind, at roughly 2/3rds as many gun-deaths per capita, are Finland, Northern Ireland, Switzerland, and France. Finland has six times as many suicides as murders. Ah! The list is sortable by murder alone... The USA is now 17th overall, and once again none of our "peer" nations (except perhaps Northern Ireland) is ahead of us. It's an interesting list. Among our true peers, Italy comes next with less than half as many. (The Mafia??) Then Finland, with a quarter as many, then Canada, with a fifth as many.

Hey... I can pull both sets of data into a spreadsheet and calculate a VERY interesting number: the correlation between rate of gun ownership and rate of gun homicide. We already know the USA would be very high on both lists, but I'm going to treat the USA as an outlier, and not include them. Let's see if there's much correlation among the "normal" nations of the world.

To be continued in a new thread since this one is really about Aurora, which is a sizable topic in and of itself.

That will be interesting.

Sassenach wrote:

He would not have been in CO. We don't know why he did it. We do know where.

a) we don't know that he wouldn't have been Aurora, but this is irrelevant anyway.

I think we do. He would not have been studying in Colorado. And, it is relevant if you live in Aurora.

b) he used his guns to shoot high-velocity projectiles into the flesh of his fellow human beings, thereby causing massive trauma to their bodily organs leading to blood loss, organ failure and ultimately death. You can't really do these things with a federal grant.

That is a fact.

There are millions who own guns and never have the impulse to commit mass murder. Even of those who do, few take the time to plan it out like this man did. He even booby-trapped his apartment so thoroughly it took, what, 2 full days to enter? That displays the mind of a man set on mass homicide. He was going to do it whether it was guns, explosives, fire, or Smilex.

I don't believe gun control would have stopped him. I don't believe anyone can demonstrate that it would have. People who are determined to kill find a way to do it.

Japan had chemical attacks and more recently sword attacks, Norway had the worst lone wolf attack ever. So I don't think the US is a special case.

I think it's bad form to blame the victim, indirectly we're all the victim in so much as this attack was indiscriminate and he'd have gladly shot any of us, had we been there. This was a very high functioning violent crazy person. He could have just as well have driven a SUV into a public gathering and gotten a similar body count.

I'm not saying there's nothing we can do, but I am saying there's nothing we were doing that warranted or provoked any of this.

Neal Anderth wrote:Japan had chemical attacks and more recently sword attacks, Norway had the worst lone wolf attack ever. So I don't think the US is a special case.

I think it's bad form to blame the victim, indirectly we're all the victim in so much as this attack was indiscriminate and he'd have gladly shot any of us, had we been there. This was a very high functioning violent crazy person. He could have just as well have driven a SUV into a public gathering and gotten a similar body count.

I'm not saying there's nothing we can do, but I am saying there's nothing we were doing that warranted or provoked any of this.

This might bite me in the butt, but I agree. That might be the second time in Redscape history.

Ahh, we need to invest in a like button for such unique moments :)

Ruffhaus,
I agree with your entire statement until the last 2 sentences where you personally attack a fellow member. IMO, that is not what Redscape is about.

bbauska wrote:Ruffhaus,
I agree with your entire statement until the last 2 sentences where you personally attack a fellow member. IMO, that is not what Redscape is about.

Check the first paragraph, and tell me if you agree with it again. If so, please highlight where I have made a personal attack in this thread.

It doesn't have to be of the same calibre as, say, likening someone to a mass murderer, but frankly I'm at a loss as to which post he is referring to.