I love how gun control proponents love to point to Australia as "proof" that gun control works. Hey, here's some proof that it doesn't work! Washington D.C. has some of the strictest gun control in the country. It also has the highest violent crime and murder rates in the country and guns are involved in the majority of those crimes.

Some fun facts:
1) Criminals don't care about gun laws and already obtain guns illegally.
2) Guns are a very effective deterrent against criminals (hence the reason why mass shootings almost always occur in the places where people are least likely to carry guns).
3) Banning guns won't make them disappear, just as banning alcohol didn't make it disappear and banning drugs hasn't made them disappear either.

As for murder sprees (which comprise a tiny portion of overall violent crime and murder), less access to guns wouldn't make them disappear. If someone really wants to kill a bunch of people, they'll figure out a way. The Seattle bombings are proof of that.

That is cool. I wish "authority" figures the world over were more like this. If cop from the US saw this he'd think: "this irresponsible idiot would immediately be to blame if a criminal suddenly crept into the area and killed a bunch of people while they were goofing off", while completely ignoring that people who go on public killing sprees are quite possibly revolting against overbearing police states.

And when they haul you into court after your little murder spree you can always just tell them it wasn't really you but an evil doppelganger from an alternate universe. They will of course present "evidence" like clothing fibers, hair samples and fingerprints but they couldn't possibly admit those things when they are based on something as flimsy as empirical observations.

Empirical observation is very powerful, and obviously very useful, and I am not casting any doubt on that. Empirical evidence is good enough for most things, but usefulness does not justify it as a standard for truth. If you want to say we must have empirical evidence for everything except for the idea that we need empirical evidence for everything, then this is what is known as special pleading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading

My biggest problem with inductive reasoning argument is that really it's just a simple fuck you response. The sun has risen on this planet again and again for the last 4 billion years or so but because inductive reasoning states that past performance is not a reliable predictor for the future. Holy shit! I'd better get my affairs in order because there's probably not going to be a tomorrow.

The problem of induction is simply pointing out the lack of rationale for why there should be a uniformity in nature (the constancy of natural law). Science has no answer for it; should the problem be ignored in order that the assumption may be justified? Doesn't sound very scientific to me.

By throwing in Inductive Reasoning, you are basically saying that nobody can ever really know anything, that religion and science are all the same, which I suspect is the true intent of the argument. I think some believe that if they can take science and reduce it to being just another "belief system" or "World View" then religion and science will be considered equally valid.

I think you're mistaking my position because I am not trying to equalize science and religion; I don't see any conflict between the two. In my worldview, everything that science does is completely justified. I can explain why there is uniformity in nature, and why empirical observation works and can be trusted. My worldview explains why we can know something to be true, and where our rationality comes from. The naturalistic/atheistic worldview can explain approximately none of these things. My argument, essentially, exposes the gaping holes of that position and the leaps of logic over those holes that must be made to justify it.

Empirical reasoning exists because we need some kind of shared standard for reality. Without that the court would have to acknowledge that your interpretation of reality (and that of your doppelganger) is as real and as valid as any scientifically produced evidence and you'd probably get away with murder.

So now, anytime you feel like you're losing an argument that involves scientific evidence you can just say "Inductive Reasoning" and you automatically win the argument.

Most of what I am called to do as a Christian is predicated in some way upon empirical observation. I am not challenging its usefulness at all; what I am really pointing out in this reply is that the problem of induction is only a problem for the atheist/agnostic and not the Christian.

What you seem to be saying here is that we must have a standard even if we can't explain it. If that is so, or even if it isn't, then I am here to tell you that we already have a standard given to us by the God who created you and me. He told us directly what this standard was when He sent His Son Jesus Christ into the world to die for our sins. The standard is Jesus Christ Himself, who said He is the way the truth and the life, and that no one comes to the Father but by Him. What He told us is that we must repent of our sins and believe on Him for forgiveness of our sins and that when we do we will be forgiven and receive eternal life.

And when they haul you into court after your little murder spree you can always just tell them it wasn't really you but an evil doppelganger from an alternate universe. They will of course present "evidence" like clothing fibers, hair samples and fingerprints but they couldn't possibly admit those things when they are based on something as flimsy as empirical observations.

My biggest problem with inductive reasoning argument is that really it's just a simple fuck you response. The sun has risen on this planet again and again for the last 4 billion years or so but because inductive reasoning states that past performance is not a reliable predictor for the future. Holy shit! I'd better get my affairs in order because there's probably not going to be a tomorrow.

By throwing in Inductive Reasoning, you are basically saying that nobody can ever really know anything, that religion and science are all the same, which I suspect is the true intent of the argument. I think some believe that if they can take science and reduce it to being just another "belief system" or "World View" then religion and science will be considered equally valid.

Empirical reasoning exists because we need some kind of shared standard for reality. Without that the court would have to acknowledge that your interpretation of reality (and that of your doppelganger) is as real and as valid as any scientifically produced evidence and you'd probably get away with murder.

So now, anytime you feel like you're losing an argument that involves scientific evidence you can just say "Inductive Reasoning" and you automatically win the argument.

And just to re-iterate for those that don't know me, I live in Canada. We are not allowed to use guns in self defense. Neither was the 14 year old girl in england who was killed by a pack of dogs...happen often? nope. But s*it does happen.

My interest in guns is a hobby, I'm safe and legal and resent people equating my sport with crazy lunatics who go on sprees like the guy who ran over 4 people killing 2...crazy.

You can do your own research if you really want to find the answer. From the research I've done, I've already established that the availability of guns does not guarantee a significant reduction in violent crime. If that were the case, DC's violent crime rate would be significantly lower than it is because they have very strict gun laws. I've also established that a ban on assault rifles would not have a significant impact on gun-related crime because the vast majority of gun-related crime is committed using pistols, not fully-automatic weapons. I've also established that the majority of guns used in gun-related crimes are obtained illegally, either stolen or obtained through unofficial means. The facts simply don't support the idea that banning assault rifles (or even all guns) would significantly reduce violent crime.

The current fixation on gun control is a purely reactionary response to recent shooting sprees (which comprise a negligible percentage of all gun violence). The only reason people care now is because these shooting sprees generally take place in middle and upper-class areas. Nobody cares when people get killed in poor areas, where the bulk of violent crime occurs.

I'm in no way a gun nut (I don't own nor plan to ever own any guns) but I'm not going to let my opinion of guns get in the way of facts. People who blindly believe that banning guns will solve all problems are just as bad as the NRA. Do your own research and don't ignore facts that contradict your own position. The FBI website is a great place to start, as they provide annual statistics on all crime in the U.S. and they don't have any reason to skew the numbers.

Sure. Alcohol, for example, clearly does more harm than it does good if alcohol-related death statistics are accurate. The question is whether or not guns actually do more harm than good and that's a difficult question to answer. There are certainly other countries with strict gun laws but those are different countries with different populations, different economies and different cultures. In an ideal world, banning guns would solve all our problems. Crime rates would decrease and nobody would have anything to fear. Unfortunately, I don't think that would happen in reality. Criminals would still get guns (because they don't care about laws) and there would still be gun-related deaths (albeit fewer), in addition to all the unrelated violent crimes. I'd be surprised if overall crime didn't increase to compensate for the lack of guns and the inability for civilians to protect themselves.

It just seems to me that the recent uproar about gun laws is a reactionary response to the occasional shooting spree. The vast majority of gun-related crimes are committed using pistols (such as the one used in this story), yet everyone is focused on assault rifles which are almost never used. Then everyone is ignoring the fact that smoking and alcohol cause significantly more deaths than guns do. Why is no one trying to ban those? Oh, right, we've tried that already and it failed. Banning liquor during the prohibition only resulted in criminals getting the upper hand, just as banning guns would do today.

A good way to judge the effectiveness of gun laws is by comparing Florida to Washington D.C. Floria basically has no gun laws. You can buy assault rifles in garage sales. No licenses or registrations required. It's essentially the Wild West. Conversely, D.C. has strict gun laws. No assault rifles, no automatic weapons, no concealed carry, no open carry, an extensive registration and permit process, etc. However, despite all this, D.C. had more than double the violent crime rate of Florida in 2011 and more than triple the murder rate.

Source: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-5

@jimnms

I'll address by paragraphs:

(1)

The reason I suggested that you are implying that the US is more violent by nature is because statistically it is far more murderous than a country of its socio-economic development should be. Have a look at Nationmaster tables of GDP/capita and compare than to murders/capita in terms of where the US sits.

If we take the view that you are suggesting that we should simply reduce violence globally then that is a laudable goal but it would suggest that the US is abysmally failing at this currently. I happen to believe this reason is gun availability. I see no reason to believe this abysmal failure comes from gross police incompetence or any other plausible factor, rather the gun ownership and availability that sticks out like a sore thumb when you compared to other countries such as those in the G8.

(2)

I think that we would be both agree that there are more gun enthusiasts in rural areas. Many of those would also own collections of guns for recreation rather than merely what self protection would require. The article below cites a study from 2007 by Harvard that says 20% own 65% of the nation's guns.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/19/tragedy-stresses-multiple-gun-ownership-trend-in-us/1781285/

There is no reason to suspect that these people are any more violent than your non gun-owning folk. The issue is not so much ownership levels, but the availability that feeds a would-be criminal's capacity to carry out a crime.

While actual ownership levels might be lower, guns can no doubt be purchased for cheaper and within a closer proximity in densely populated cities. This availability feeds the likelihood of them being employed as a tool to facilitate a crime.

This is also incidentally a key misunderstanding of the whole gun debate. No one is (or should be at least) implying that recreational gun owners are the problem. It is the necessity for guns to be freely available to gun enthusiasts among others for them to enjoy this hobby that causes the problems.

(3)

Building on my above point above, gun control shouldn't be seen as a punishment. There is no vidictiveness to it, merely a matter of weighing up the results of two courses of action. On the one hand there is diminished enjoyment of legal and responsible gun owners. On the other hand there is the high murder rate I discussed earlier, which really can't be explained away any other way than gun availability.

Let's do a back of the envelope calculation. Australia and the US are culturally relatively similar Anglo-Saxon societies. Let's assume for the sake of argument that my suggestion is true. Referencing wiki here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

The homicide rate in Australia is 1.0/10K/year and 4.8/10K/year. Let's say that gun availability explains 2/3rds of the difference. So we're talking about a 2.5/10K/year increase. Taking this against the US's 310M population this represents 7,500 more deaths.

Now to me, the issue is clear cut. The lives lost outweight gun enthusiast enjoyment.

And it's not just to me. There is a very clear reason that the vast majority of developed countries have made gun ownership incredibly difficult. I can guarantee, at some point they have done this back of the envelope calculation for their own country.

(4)

You raise the comparison to cars. See my workings above. With cars, they obviously provide a fundamentally invaluable benefit to society. The choice every society has made is to instead heavily regulate them. The reason there is no outcry to impose heavy restrictions on them is because there already are.

- Being required to pass license tests.
- Strict driving rules to follow.
- Speeding cameras everywhere.
- Random police checks for alcohol.

Can you think of any further regulations plausibly worth trying with cars that could reduce the accident death rate? I struggle to think of anything else effective that hasn't already been implemented.

With guns there are dozens of options not yet tried.

- Rigorous background checks.
- No gun show exemption.
- Assault weapon restrictions.
- Restrictions of ammo such as cost tariffs.

The list goes on. Imagine if we lacked the regulations we do on cars and there was a NCA (National Car Association) that was equating requiring to pass a driving test to tyranny.

(5)

I don't think there's much irrationality here. The US is clearly more murderous than other G8/OECD countries. To me, Occam's Razor explains why.

As for the comment on focussing on tragedies than the large issue, see my previous comment. You're missing the point that it's not just the gun sprees that are the problem, it's the steadily high murder rate. Mass shooting are just blips in this.

(6)

I will have a read through this.

@jimnms

(1)

I don't accept that the US is a more violent country by nature, therefore to me approaching it by cutting down all violence as you say is not plausible.

People can wax lyrically about a gun and violence obsessed culture but as far as I'm concerned the pervasiveness of Western society means you can say that about just about any country nowadays.

Socio-economic conditions determine the rate of murder and all indicators show that despite the US having a high per capita income rate, it has a drastically above average murder rate.

The only logical conclusion I see is that the easy availability of guns empowers the ratio of violent people with a tool designed to liquefy people's insides resulting in this.

(2)

I agree that the media focus on mass shootings ignores the wider issue. It is true however that mass shootings are certainly more common in the US that in equally highly developed countries so that mere fact is still newsworthy. The significantly higher murder rate of the US to any other developed country should be the issue but nobody seems to ever talk about it from the snippets I see.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

You mention China. Mass murder sprees certainly can happen in any country regardless of gun regulation. Nothing will stop the occasional delusion but resourceful individual from improvising but it stands to reason that looking at the wider trend, despite China being drastically less developed it's murder rate per capita is 20% of the US.

I'm not going to comment on the other half of your comment, but will put my 2c in on this part.

Although Australian and U.S. culture might be similar in many ways, the way we regard gun ownership is quite different to what has been discussed here on the sift, so @chingalera certainly has a point re apples and oranges.

The knee-jerk legislation has been vindicated by the follow-up study widely mentioned... and I'm not going to say it has stopped shooting sprees, since there could easily be one tomorrow but it is very hard to argue that it hasn't at least reduced them, since they were quite common pre-1996 and unknown since.

Gun violence hasn't necessarily been reduced as much as gun control advocates might say, but one specific type has been greatly reduced - suicides. The study doesn't explain why though, which is something that would be very interesting to know if you were thinking of drafting legislation on the subject.

One other thing worth mentioning is that I don't think it would be possible to pass the Australian legislation in the U.S.

On the subject: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/hammer-attack-then-death-comes-to-spring-street-20121212-2b8h9.html

Yeah man. The article on Aussie gun laws from the CSmonitor? Not apples and oranges man, AU has a completely different cultural and societal evolution that the U.S. and their knee-jerk legislation over a spree in 96' and coincidental lack of shooting sprees since is a bullshit point, but in the single-sentence 2nd paragraph it's used as a transitory sort of justification leading straight into the Connecticut story, remedial and insulting journalistic hackage.

Stand Your Ground laws were made to catch dumb-fucks in the act for more fodder for those who would legislate guns out of people's hands completely. Florida fucked-up, the laws they had were fine.
Stand Your Ground laws surrounding last-year's case in Florida are used as ammo by those who simply utilize destructive and de-evolutionary shit-think to propose agendas which limit individual free-will and personal empowerment. Stand Your Ground Laws aren't bad because they offer an alternative to being killed by some douche with or without a gun-They are bad because a justifiable use of force in self-defense is my goddamn right as a meatsack breathing air and I'll be fucked if I'll do a second of jail-time in the U.S. before leaving the country, should I be so accused of breaking some confabulatory law that goes against any personal action I know to be human-righteous. When society tries to fuck me, fuck society, I'm outta here.

Oh yeah, the Jelllo pudding vacuum....I'll get back to you on that one!

The problem (as I see it) is that we're conflating every-day street crime (which is statistically more rare than it used to be) with horrific gun rampages (which are statistically more common than it used to be, and obviously more rare than every-day street crimes.) They're completely different animals. Choggie would have us believe that baseball bats are just as dangerous as AR15s. Certainly, statistically, that is true when we're discussing average crime-rates. However, I've never heard of someone bludgeoning a classroom full of preschoolers with a louisville slugger.

As Americans, we have to decide: are we OK with horrific gun rampages a few times every year? Is your right to own a military sidearm or rifle worth the occasional shooting spree? Maybe it is. Maybe that's the price of freedom.

Certainly, absolutely we need to address street crime and the factors that contribute to it. However, its obvious from these statistics that WE ARE. The crime rate has gone down.


And yet the shooting spree rate has gone up.

bareboards2, your arguments all, may be condensed into one barrel of the same bilge.
Inflammatory rhetoric tinctured with convenient appeals to some idyllic world where assholes don't exist.

How bout some wake-up news from June of this year?? Hugo (Penn's best buddy) Chavez, cocksucking "president" of Venezuela, did what all great "leaders" do when they want no dissent and a country full of obedient and easy-to-control automatons:
-Outlawed all private ownership of guns, except of course for the military, the police, and certain private security monkeys. Their judicial system is total shiet, do some reading-up on how completely fucked it really is-

He's been in office since 99', "elected" once again by "popular" vote (give me a break), and if cancer doesn't kill him he'll probably die in office.

Guns are not the problem, society in decline, culture in decline, morality, ethics out windows, retarded ego-maniacal control-freak paranoids asshole douchebags in power..THIS is a much more pressing problem that mentally-retarded idgits raised by the developmentally-disabled twisting-off and going on killing sprees. If this recent shit happened in Inglewood or South-Centra-LA, there would not be a national uproar. It happened in a hamlet in Connecticut and the kid was living in his out-to-lunch, survivalist mother's home that was loaded with a massive collection of guns.

Didn't some Chinese guy twist \-off a few months ago and walk into a school and kill about 30 kids....WITH A FUCKING KNIFE!!?? Crazy fucks are the problem sir, firearms in their hands simply let's them reach-out and touch someone else with crazy. SO, keep guns in the hands of citizens with judgement and restraint and sound minds...Or go live in some shit-hole where only cops, soldiers, and officers of the King have weapons...How about Vatican City?? Bet that place is safe enough for ya??

Sorry Maynard, keeping my guns until I expatriate to a country without retarded fuckers being bred like tadpoles!

Okay, that's one example. Have any others? Also, guess how the shooter in that spree was stopped? He was shot by someone else with a gun. If nobody else was carrying guns in that area, the casualties would have been significantly higher.

The fact is that the vast majority of shooting sprees happen in schools and business areas.

Also, why do people think that banning guns would be any more effective than banning drugs? Have the junkies and cartels disappeared since the war on drugs began? No. Will guns disappear if they are banned? No. If people really want a gun, they'll get one, legally or not. Banning guns just ensures that people who obey the law will be left defenseless against criminals, which is exactly what criminals want.