27 dead at Connecticut school, including 14 kids

[klr]

...
Not a bad idea -- possibly NSFW -

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

Jeez, is that really appropriate in this thread? It's not against "the rules", but it just doesn't seem to be right.

Probably not. But, neither is yet another re-hash of the gun argument, for the 100th time.

We're re-hashing it because it's worth re-hashing to some of us. And we may be moved to re-hash it again at certain points in the future, as long as things stay as they are.

[orpheus]

Something else just occurred to me. To those who contend that guns are not the problem; that people would just kill with other implements: why don't we see those incidents then? If there's nothing special about guns, we should also see comparable numbers of deaths - intentional and accidental - from other weapons. But we don't. 

Wonder why that is.

Let me try to straighten out your warped perception of this line of argument. When I say guns are not the problem, I mean they are not the causative factor. The availability of guns is the reason they are used, yes. But the reason tragedies like this occur is not because of the tools employed. Thus they are not the problem. Remove the tools, the problem remains. Guns did not make this man do what he did, he used them to do it.

Sometimes I wonder if anti-gun people understand the concept of causality at all.

Yes, I understand causality, and I never said guns were the cause. I never said guns made the guy do this. You're putting words in my mouth there.

Well I'm glad you cleared that up then. Guns are not the problem and we agree.

No we don't, and stop distorting my words. Guns are not the cause. They are an immense part of the problem.

But guns are not comparable to old tool, either. I wonder if you understand that.

No, I don't understand that because it's false. They are tools just as knives are tools. They become weapons when used as a weapon.

Trying really hard not to roll my eyes. What other purpose does this tool serve? It's not like a Swiss Army knife, is it? Multifunction? Tell me, why else would you carry a gun?

 You say the availability of guns is the reason they're used. Bullshit. Knives and blunt objects are much more easily available, yet we don't see knife and blunt object tragedies on anything like this scale. What you've left out is that guns are remarkably efficient killing tools, designed expressly for that purpose. To not take that into account when describing the problem is either short-sighted or flat out dishonest.

Not at all. I made the mistake of assuming everyone here had the intelligence to understand the obvious and didn't need it stated. However, guns are not tools expressly for killing. I am glad we agree they are tools however.

See above re "tools".

So you're technically right when you say "Remove the tools, the problem remains." But remove these particular tools and the intensity and scale of the problem will go way, way down.

Your basis for this line of reasoning is what exactly? I mean when so many other methods of mass murder are so easily available, why should the removal of firearms reduce the intensity and scale of the damage these deranged persons are capable of doing?

What "other methods of mass murder are so easily available", to use you words? What is as efficient as a gun?

Again, if there's nothing special about guns, then we should see even more of these tragedies involving knives and baseball bats (which, after all, are even more easily available).

And, if there's nothing special about guns, then why do do many gun proponents argue for their use in self-defense? Knives and baseball bats - cheaper, more easily available, etc. But now I repeat myself. 

EDIT: Broken quote tag fixed (Mod)

[Jason]

Sorry Jim, but every weapon available in the United States is nearly as easily available in Canada (legally I mean), yet we do not have people mass murdering our children in schools. There's something rotten in the kingdom of Denmark and it isn't firearms.

[Jason]

Something else just occurred to me. To those who contend that guns are not the problem; that people would just kill with other implements: why don't we see those incidents then? If there's nothing special about guns, we should also see comparable numbers of deaths - intentional and accidental - from other weapons. But we don't. 

Wonder why that is.

Let me try to straighten out your warped perception of this line of argument. When I say guns are not the problem, I mean they are not the causative factor. The availability of guns is the reason they are used, yes. But the reason tragedies like this occur is not because of the tools employed. Thus they are not the problem. Remove the tools, the problem remains. Guns did not make this man do what he did, he used them to do it.

Sometimes I wonder if anti-gun people understand the concept of causality at all.

Yes, I understand causality, and I never said guns were the cause. I never said guns made the guy do this. You're putting words in my mouth there.

Well I'm glad you cleared that up then. Guns are not the problem and we agree.

No we don't, and stop distorting my words. Guns are not the cause. They are an immense part of the problem.

But guns are not comparable to old tool, either. I wonder if you understand that.

No, I don't understand that because it's false. They are tools just as knives are tools. They become weapons when used as a weapon.

Trying really hard not to roll my eyes. What other purpose does this tool serve? It's not like a Swiss Army knife, is it? Multifunction? Tell me, why else would you carry a gun?

 You say the availability of guns is the reason they're used. Bullshit. Knives and blunt objects are much more easily available, yet we don't see knife and blunt object tragedies on anything like this scale. What you've left out is that guns are remarkably efficient killing tools, designed expressly for that purpose. To not take that into account when describing the problem is either short-sighted or flat out dishonest.

Not at all. I made the mistake of assuming everyone here had the intelligence to understand the obvious and didn't need it stated. However, guns are not tools expressly for killing. I am glad we agree they are tools however.

See above re "tools".

So you're technically right when you say "Remove the tools, the problem remains." But remove these particular tools and the intensity and scale of the problem will go way, way down.

Your basis for this line of reasoning is what exactly? I mean when so many other methods of mass murder are so easily available, why should the removal of firearms reduce the intensity and scale of the damage these deranged persons are capable of doing?

What "other methods of mass murder are so easily available", to use you words? What is as efficient as a gun?

Again, if there's nothing special about guns, then we should see even more of these tragedies involving knives and baseball bats (which, after all, are even more easily available).

And, if there's nothing special about guns, then why do do many gun proponents argue for their use in self-defense? Knives and baseball bats - cheaper, more easily available, etc. But now I repeat myself. 

Is there some reason you just repeated yourself, nearly verbatim, in response? I'll respond to the only thing you added: Why do I carry a gun? I don't, except when I'm going hunting or target shooting.

EDIT: Broken quote tag fixed (Mod)

[Jason]

The fucked up quotes are your doing.. I'll be arsed if I'm going to fix them.

[mistermack]

I just hope that a high proportion of the parents were gun enthusiasts.

At least they'll have the comfort of knowing that their children weren't killed by guns. The gun was just a tool.
I'm sure it will make them feel so much better. Perhaps pord can write to the misguided ones and explain it all.
Or maybe we can have a whip-round, and buy them rifles to soften the blow.

I would probably be buying guns the next day, and go hunting NRA bosses.

[JimC]

Sorry Jim, but every weapon available in the United States is nearly as easily available in Canada (legally I mean), yet we do not have people mass murdering our children in schools. There's something rotten in the kingdom of Denmark and it isn't firearms.

We have very few guns in Oz (aside from hunting rifles, plenty of those). Same in NZ, same in Europe. And yet it's the US where this madness happens frequently. I wonder how many guns are actually available to nutters in Canada, in compaison to the US...

Many posters in this thread assert that, if the US, in revulsion with events like this, ended its love affair with the gun, and made the transition to a society with many fewer guns (particularly easy to conceal hand-guns), you would see a great reduction in such events.

Mind you, I doubt it will happen - my take is that the US is locked permanently into this gun culture, and will simply have to accept such horrific events as the price you pay for worshipping a fantasy from history...

[Jason]

I just hope that a high proportion of the parents were gun enthusiasts.

At least they'll have the comfort of knowing that their children weren't killed by guns. The gun was just a tool.
I'm sure it will make them feel so much better. Perhaps pord can write to the misguided ones and explain it all.
Or maybe we can have a whip-round, and buy them rifles to soften the blow.

I would probably be buying guns the next day, and go hunting NRA bosses.

You never miss an opportunity to be as repugnant a troll as you possibly can do you?

[klr]

The fucked up quotes are your doing.. I'll be arsed if I'm going to fix them.

Hopefully, I've fixed the two affected posts.

[orpheus]

The fucked up quotes are your doing.. I'll be arsed if I'm going to fix them.

Sorry about the quotes. I'm typing from my mobile which isn't cooperating.

[Jason]

I wonder how many guns are actually available to nutters in Canada, in compaison to the US...

I can speak to that with some authority. Just as many.

[orpheus]

The fucked up quotes are your doing.. I'll be arsed if I'm going to fix them.

Hopefully, I've fixed the two affected posts.

Thank you, klr.

[orpheus]

My first question to gun proponents was: If there's nothing special about guns, why don't we also see comparable numbers of murders and mass murders from other weapons.

Stupid question we've already covered. Availability, inclination, and effectiveness.

Another question: if there's nothing special about guns - if the tool doesn't matter, then why have a gun for self-defense? Why not have a knife? 

Another stupid question already covered.

They can't have it both ways. If guns are equivalent to other "tools", then they haven't a leg to stand on for a "self-defense" argument. If guns are special tools - better and more efficient at killing, then they can't argue that they're not part of the problem. 

False dichotomy. The problem is the psychopaths (and what fosters them) who commit these atrocities, not the atrocities themselves. Guns do not create psychopaths and guns do not foster their growth. Guns are not part of the problem. You've shifted the focus away again. I can only assume you're being deliberately dishonest.

Since my last post others have rebutted these points quite well, so I see no need to do so. Particularly since I've carefully articulated my arguments in several posts above, and you've responded by dodging my questions and putting words in my mouth. That's called arguing in bad faith.

It will probably earn me a warning, but quite honestly, fuck you.

[Jason]

Since my last post others have rebutted these points quite well

Only in your own mind.

It will probably earn me a warning, but quite honestly, fuck you.

How did I earn a 'fuck you' response? Is this how you conclude an argument you're doing poorly in? May I remind you that you're the one who keeps dishonestly shifting what 'the problem' is to firearms.

[klr]

I don't see any need for warnings or even reminders myself (your mileage may vary of course), but I can see this discussion is getting very heated. It's always worth while stepping back for a few minutes to take stock and see where things are going. I know, I've had to do it plenty of times myself in the past.