You can't have my guns.

[mikeymikec]

HEY look at that! how about taking some personal responsibility into your lives.

and has it been happening a lot lately?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers:_Americas

only 117 in the last 149 years according to that article and that includes Canada, Mexico, and South America.

I love it, "only". At what point would you start to sit up and think "you know what, this is becoming quite common!"?

Your stats have already been countered in this thread:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=34377773&postcount=237

 

[sixone]

I don't want to live in your reality. And fortunately, the 45 years I've been on this planet, haven't been in your reality.

I agree with tokie. You are paranoid and live in fear. Many gun owners do.

You're deliberately misunderstanding my reality. I'm not paranoid, and I don't live in fear. I simply want to be prepared to protect myself, if it becomes necessary.

I find your determination to ignore facts in favor of the ones you want to make up much more frightening than the idea of scared people owning guns and being prepared to used them safely and responsibly.

 

[Veliko]

against.

again, you don't understand the OP's post.

I will try to help you understand.

Peasants represent the subjugated people of a repressive government. They have no rights and no means to stop the government from subjugating them.

US citizens have the right to protect themselves from criminals and a repressive government. They will not allow wishy-washy leftist socialists to strip them of their rights because you lefties wish to submit to any emotionally driven, knee-jerk reaction by a political party. Lefties worry a lot of people because they would rather lick the boots of a dictator than fight back against them.

So the only ones who are mentally ill are people who would rather submit to socialist lies than fight to keep their rights from an onslaught of politically correct BS.

Good grief, do people like you actually exist? I thought it was just one of those stereotypes you see on King of the Hill, or South Park.

You're a complete nutcase.

 

[Farmer]

You can't ban everything potentially dangerous, guns give anyone an empowerment to kill in large numbers very quickly and unfortunately this has been happening a lot lately..

and has it been happening a lot lately?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers:_Americas

only 117 in the last 149 years according to that article and that includes Canada, Mexico, and South America.

I'll capitalize the important words for you guys:

Can you please address why "this has been happening a lot lately" and why rampage shootings are a huge issue? Because the statistics cited by pontifex indicate just as what I have stated forever now: They happen once or twice every year or two for the past 100 years or so. Gun laws are much stricter now than ever before, and yet the rate of occurrence of these events, if any different, is only higher, perhaps pro rata with the growth in population. Rampage shootings are a NEGLIGIBLE portion of total deaths resulting from gun crime.

So, as any rational individual can see from a mile away, severity of gun control has NO CORRELATION with the occurrence of these shootings. This has widely been the conclusion of most scholarly works in this field (not limited to rampage shootings, all gun crime, in fact).

You keep proposing a solution which you think works (but doesn't) to a problem which you claim to be rampant (but isn't), all because 24/7 coverage on CNN designed to make you outraged is achieving its intended goal. This is not rational, this is the definition of knee-jerk.

I love it, "only". At what point would you start to sit up and think "you know what, this is becoming quite common!"?

Your stats have already been countered in this thread:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=34377773&postcount=237

Countered how? You show statistics of gun murder rates from different countries, originally found on an anti-gun billboard designed to spark an emotional response because it does not actually show any real information. He is showing deaths specifically related to rampage-type shootings like the one that just occurred, in the nation that we are talking about.

 

[pontifex]

I love it, "only". At what point would you start to sit up and think "you know what, this is becoming quite common!"?

Your stats have already been countered in this thread:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=34377773&postcount=237

Direct quote from you: "this has been happening a lot lately".
those stats prove that it is not happening a lot lately nor is it common. You do know the definition of common, right?

the stats i posted have NOTHING to do with the stats in the link you posted. NOTHING!

 

[mikeymikec]

Direct quote from you: "this has been happening a lot lately".
those stats prove that it is not happening a lot lately nor is it common. You do know the definition of common, right?

the stats i posted have NOTHING to do with the stats in the link you posted. NOTHING!

I just found it amusing that you wouldn't regard a 78% chance of a mass shooting each year in the Americas "common". I looked it up the last time I was participated in a thread like this, and the incidents like this were more of a 'one in ten years' scenario in most developed countries.

I would personally regard the homocide rates for countries around the world compared to the US as relevant. Obviously not all of those are committed with firearms, but I would put a hefty bet down that a heck of a lot of those in the US are with firearms.

Btw, when you capitalise "NOTHING" twice to make your point, it reminds of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOrI6uqS-vk
That makes me smirk.

 

[Veliko]

You keep proposing a solution which you think works (but doesn't) to a problem which you claim to be rampant (but isn't), all because 24/7 coverage on CNN designed to make you outraged is achieving its intended goal. This is not rational, this is the definition of knee-jerk.

Compared to the rest of the developed world, these shootings in the US are rampant.

 

[Farmer]

I just found it amusing that you wouldn't regard a 78% chance of a mass shooting each year in the Americas "common". I looked it up the last time I was participated in a thread like this, and the incidents like this were more of a 'one in ten years' scenario in most developed countries.

Btw, when you capitalise "NOTHING" twice to make your point, it reminds of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOrI6uqS-vk
That makes me smirk.

If you look carefully at the Wiki page he linked, what conclusions can you draw, assuming that gun control has become stricter with time?

This mass shooting killed nearly 30 individuals. Tragic, yes. A major component of gun deaths per annum? Not at all. So the rational response is to tailor policy at addressing the cause of a negligible portion of total gun deaths per annum? Maybe in the UK.

 

[sixone]

I just found it amusing that you wouldn't regard a 78% chance of a mass shooting each year in the Americas "common". I looked it up the last time I was participated in a thread like this, and the incidents like this were more of a 'one in ten years' scenario in most developed countries.

A 78% chance of one mass shooting at one of the thousands of schools across the continent is not what any reasonable person would call common.

 

[Farmer]

Compared to the rest of the developed world, these shootings in the US are rampant.

How can you say it is rampant? In what way is the United States so similar to other nations in the world that a direct comparison can be made? Why do you isolate lack of gun control as the sole issue at hand? As opposed to say, low quality of mental healthcare, income and quality of life gap, ethnic and social diversity?

 

[Veliko]

How can you say it is rampant?

Because they ultimately don't really happen anywhere else.

In what way is the United States so similar to other nations in the world that a direct comparison can be made?

Eh? What is so utterly different about the US, that you can't make a comparison?

Why do you isolate lack of gun control as the sole issue at hand? As opposed to say, low quality of mental healthcare, income and quality of life gap, ethnic and social diversity?

I didn't isolate it.

 

[mikeymikec]

If you look carefully at the Wiki page he linked, what conclusions can you draw, assuming that gun control has become stricter with time?

This mass shooting killed nearly 30 individuals. Tragic, yes. A major component of gun deaths per annum? Not at all. So the rational response is to tailor policy at addressing the cause of a negligible portion of total gun deaths per annum? Maybe in the UK.

I would read the paragraph at the top of the page, which says:

"This section does not include school massacres, workplace killings, hate crimes, or mass murders that took place primarily in a domestic environment, like familicides, which form their own categories"

To which I would have to ask "why not?". Just because someone guns a load of people down at work or in a school or cinema, it doesn't make a lot of difference for the purpose of the point.

Personally I don't see mass killings as the sole basis for a change in gun ownership policy, I would see them as the most blatant reason for it.

Btw, I'm not one of those people who say "if it prevents one death then it must be worth it" (whom I regard to be idiots).

I found the information I was looking at the last time I participated in a discussion like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_the_United_Kingdom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Germany

I'm not sure what the distinction is for these different categories of killings, but most developed countries have a load that were to do with terrorist events. The US has a somewhat different story.

For people who have joined this discussion somewhat later, I want to draw your attention to a previous post I made on this thread if you want to know my opinion:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=34376247&postcount=107

 

[pontifex]

I just found it amusing that you wouldn't regard a 78% chance of a mass shooting each year in the Americas "common". I looked it up the last time I was participated in a thread like this, and the incidents like this were more of a 'one in ten years' scenario in most developed countries.

I would personally regard the homocide rates for countries around the world compared to the US as relevant. Obviously not all of those are committed with firearms, but I would put a hefty bet down that a heck of a lot of those in the US are with firearms.

Btw, when you capitalise "NOTHING" twice to make your point, it reminds of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOrI6uqS-vk
That makes me smirk.

how does a "chance" of something happening mean it's common? and where did you pull 78% from?

it's also sad that you find these mass murders amusing.

 

[Farmer]

Because they ultimately don't really happen anywhere else.



Eh? What is so utterly different about the US, that you can't make a comparison?



I didn't isolate it.

So then what are you trying to say?

Name another nation whose populace has as much diversity in ethnicity, socioeconomic status, religion, and political conviction, and is still governed by a two-party system. You won't find many (or any) in the first world, definitely not one with a population as large as the United States.

It's hard to say any one country is largely the same as another. It is even harder to say something like that about the United States.

 

[pontifex]

I would read the paragraph at the top of the page, which says:

"This section does not include school massacres, workplace killings, hate crimes, or mass murders that took place primarily in a domestic environment, like familicides, which form their own categories".

i didn't notice that, but still, even if we double or triple that number, its still NOT COMMON

 

[Farmer]

Personally I don't see mass killings as the sole basis for a change in gun ownership policy, I would see them as the most blatant reason for it.

Btw, I'm not one of those people who say "if it prevents one death then it must be worth it" (whom I regard to be idiots).

OK, that's fair and good to see there is some common ground.

However, why do you say it is the most blatant? Due to media attention?

This is what I don't really understand: In most areas in the US (especially CT), personal carry of weapons as a means for self defense is very rare. It could be reasoned that an armed citizen may have prevented or lessened the death toll in a rampage shooting scenario. Why then, is the appropriate response to increase severity of gun control? As opposed to, say, encouraging more citizens to become proficient in the use of firearms for self defense? Is there a notion that, somehow, gun ownership leads to murderous tendencies? Or perhaps that the average citizen is incapable of being taught proper use of firearms for self defense? (The latter I don't believe, take the Swiss, the Israelis, Singapore, etc, for example. The former I find equally difficult to believe, since responsible, lawful gun owners vastly number insane ones). I mean, unless you think that, I can't see how stricter gun laws help.

 

[mikeymikec]

how does a "chance" of something happening mean it's common? and where did you pull 78% from?

117/149 = 0.78

it's also sad that you find these mass murders amusing.

Yes, that's exactly what I said wasn't it.

 

[Veliko]

So then what are you trying to say?

Name another nation whose populace has as much diversity in ethnicity, socioeconomic status, religion, and political conviction, and is still governed by a two-party system. You won't find many (or any) in the first world, definitely not one with a population as large as the United States.

It's hard to say any one country is largely the same as another. It is even harder to say something like that about the United States.

The continent of Europe has all that diversity, but none of the problems with the shootings.

 

[sixone]

117/149 = 0.78

You do realize, don't you, that that's a 78% chance of it happening ANYWHERE, and not a 78% chance of it happening somewhere specific, right?

Statistically, that figure is worthless. Using your formula, there was a 0% chance of this school shooting happening at Newtown, and yet it happened anyway.

 

[Farmer]

The continent of Europe has all that diversity, but none of the problems with the shootings.

I really don't think so. I don't think people generally look at Europe and say "well it's just like America." Perhaps certain parts of America. I would have thought that common sense would be sufficient. Can you please cite?

Government social programs are far more developed in Europe, such that the standard of living is higher.

 

[Farmer]

117/149 = 0.78

This is really abuse of statistics. Assuming that is the underlying probability (there is no way to know), and continuing this naive probabilistic analysis (that is, all things being equal, ignore every other covariant variable) the probability of it occurring at any given elementary school in the United States is that number divided by the number of elementary schools in the United States. As you can imagine, it becomes quite a small number.

 

[tokie]

You're deliberately misunderstanding my reality. I'm not paranoid, and I don't live in fear. I simply want to be prepared to protect myself, if it becomes necessary.

I find your determination to ignore facts in favor of the ones you want to make up much more frightening than the idea of scared people owning guns and being prepared to used them safely and responsibly.

Let me try and understand you.

Suppose you are going to go down the street to the local McDonald's. You put on your shoes, jacket, and you also strap on your gun? Because it is such a necessary thing in case anything in the outside world is dangerous?

You say you don't live in fear but "I want to be prepared to protect myself". That implies you are afraid of something. Nobody walks down the street carrying a gun if they are not afraid of anything.

 

[pontifex]

Let me try and understand you.

Suppose you are going to go down the street to the local McDonald's. You put on your shoes, jacket, and you also strap on your gun? Because it is such a necessary thing in case anything in the outside world is dangerous?

You say you don't live in fear but "I want to be prepared to protect myself". That implies you are afraid of something. Nobody walks down the street carrying a gun if they are not afraid of anything.

do you have smoke detectors in your house? Do you have fire extinguishers? Do you have car or home insurance? do you wear a seatbelt?

 

[Iron Woode]

Good grief, do people like you actually exist? I thought it was just one of those stereotypes you see on King of the Hill, or South Park.

You're a complete nutcase.

yes, anyone that doesn't agree with your extreme views is mentally ill.

does that help you sleep at night?

 

[Veliko]

yes, anyone that doesn't agree with your extreme views is mentally ill.

does that help you sleep at night?

What 'extreme' views of mine are you referring to?