*quality discussion!

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by ChaosEngine.

Cars drive and kill. True. And all the regulations he mentioned didn't stop one crazy guy hopping in a truck and saying "fuck you" and mowing down a hundred people. This is an important point because he's talking about firearm regulation in the context of mass shootings, and that firearm regulation will lessen or prevent these mass shootings - which he then compares to mass murder by vehicle, and vehicle regulation - regulation which clearly failed to stop any sort of purposeful mass murder by vehicle. Vehicle regulation is to lessen the impact of accidents and provide the government with a revenue stream through taxes. If vehicle regulation was to stop mass murder by vehicle, and you were to use Australia's firearm laws as a blueprint, you wouldn't be driving to work tomorrow.

The scary thing is, cars have killed more people by accident over the last 50 years in the USA than firearms have on purpose. That's how truly dangerous they are. If people woke up and realised they are a fantastic killing machine, then you'd start to see an increase in the incidence of mass vehicle killings... oh wait.

The reality is, from a public health discourse, there are plenty of things that kill at higher rates than firearms. The difference is that firearms are sometimes used to murder people and as far as we know most medical malpractice, car crashes, etc. are accidental. They are emotively tackled very differently.

PS: I'm not arguing against some firearm regulations being introduced in America. I'd use a modified version of New Zealand legislation (which allows for semi-auto long arms, high capacity magazines, etc.). I'd add self defense as a reason to own, and add concealed carry permits for those willing to do a course (with the catch that they would become a form of quasi-deputy of the state - so there would be hurdles to jump to get this permit).

Which is why, when just registration and licensing proved inadequate, more regulations were put in place to make it harder to get trucks and often impossible to get them into crowds now, without complaint. Just think...if only that could work with other devices to prevent mass killings....oh wait.

Plenty of things that kill or harm at lower rates are regulated far more strictly. The examples you give are all essentials that might occasionally go wrong, guns often kill when they work as designed, rarely by accident.

The difference is, modern civilization doesn't work without personal and commercial transportation or doctors, but does just fine without firearms. Firearms offer no tangible benefit to civilization, cars and medicine do, even with their undeniable faults.

I don't know where you live, but you can hire or steal a truck pretty easily here in Australia (one of the most heavily regulated countries in the world). And our regulations haven't stopped recent idiots mowing down people with cars on purpose (Melbourne!!!). They're thinking of putting bollards in place in strategic locations - because you can't regulate away what we don't want happening.

Yes, some things kill at lower rates than the examples but I had to end somewhere.

Vehicle ownership is not essential. You can have public transport service everyone just fine (e.g. Singapore). Of course, some people argue that what is good for Singapore may not be suitable for themselves (i.e. it is essential in my scenario because I say it is). And you can extend that same argument to firearms (that they are essential in someone else's scenario). Firearms have a measured economic benefit, protection benefit, health benefit (active outdoor sports), military benefit, etc.

Modern civilisation works fine (I'd argue it works better) without private vehicles. Try having a civilisation without firearms - you'll have to have awfully large mobs of bobbies armed with nothing but sticks. Good luck with that

America. I really don't know that they've made any meaningful changes to rentals, but I recall they made some. I don't rent semi trucks to know what. I do know they now surround crowds with dump trucks full of sand to block trucks. Those bollards, they're regulators too of a sort, regulating vehicular access to certain areas at certain times.

If systems were designed that way, sure public transport could do it all, but ours aren't....and to make that work outside of metropolitan areas gets prohibitively expensive.

Including all the negatives (economic detriment, need for protection from others that have them, injuries and deaths, property damage, lead pollution, mitigation programs, etc), I doubt guns are a net gain....all depends on what you value though. They are mostly considered essential to protect from other guns, without other guns it's really hard to make the case that they're essential if you don't hunt to eat.

Civilization could work fine without autos, but it would require a revamp of all transportation systems. Revamping police to deal with an unarmed populace seems far easier to me.

Sticks? You've heard of swords, right? ;-)

A large collection of bobbies with sticks is pretty much how it's done:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMvuF5qSP9o

Of course they have access to more than that when needed, but often it's not. It takes more time and effort, but in the end you have someone to prosecute (or provide treatment for) rather than someone to bury.

"Do you want Smugness? Because THAT'S how you get Smugness!" Is all I want to repeat post-shooting / post-"let's not politicize" messaging.

The leftists here have become co-dependantly passive/aggressive.

Let's just ban murder. Problem solved. Right? Sorry, but it is just ridiculous to blame the tool. It's such a simplistic and naive viewpoint. The only way gun regulations are going to have any effect on mass murders - by guns - would be a complete ban of all guns. Something most people, including myself, would never support.

Yep. Not allowing people to buy missiles, bombs, high explosives, and weaponized machines has no effect either. Of course not, it's ridiculous to blame the tool that makes mass murder simple and easy.
Good plan. No single simple solution could completely solve the problem, so it's better to do nothing at all. That's how we deal with all dangerous products, right?

My post was in the context of mass murder and gun regulation. Blaming the gun, fearing the tool and having a knee jerk response to do 'something' to avoid something like this - I think leads to initiatives that just will not have any true effect unless we examine everything at play here. People get very frustrated and want solutions right away. Gun regulation is an easy out. But in the end, what really needs to be looked at is mental health issues, poverty issues, resource access issues, venue security and education for more returns on your investment. People intent on mass murder are just not going to be deterred or hindered by regulations.

Knee jerk?! As if this wasn't beyond the 500th mass shooting in under 2 years, 1516 in 1735 days.
That's a total bullshit position, along with "this isn't the time" arguments. When mass shootings happen daily, pretending we must wait for a shooting free month, season, year before we can rationally tackle the issue is asinine. We can't make it 1/2 week without 3.
I agree, all those things you mention factor into the issue, but the easiest, simplest, most effective tool, proven effective in multiple cases, is gun control, and it is the best return for your investment, as it's by far the cheapest. (I own guns).
People intent on mass murder may not be deterred, but they are absolutely, unequivocally hindered by regulations from causing exponentially more damage. It's just retarded that some people don't grasp that fact and instead continue to advocate for fewer regulations....as if he wouldn't have purchased a Vulcan cannon if he could have.

This was not the 500th mass shooting. You are using an unusable definition that shuts down debating anything on true mass shootings. Most people consider mass shooting to be the killing of innocent people indiscriminately - usually in a public place. Using such an overreaching definition just starts losing its intended meaning. It also shuts down dialog. I own guns. I support practical regulations. I just don't connect gun regulations as an effective solution to mass murder. I can see regulations and restrictions on guns - safety courses, etc on saving lives, but not preventing crime and murder.

Mass=4
4 or more shot = mass shooting.
Derived from 4 or more shot to death=mass murder. (Amended to 3 by congress in 2013)
You may differ with that definition, most people don't. This is from the legal, federal definition of the term mass murder.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shooting

I actually agree with you mostly, but you're not gonna like it.

One thing I will point out though - "I just don't connect gun regulations as an effective solution to mass murder."

We have data on this. Take Australia. In the 21 years leading up to Port Arthur and that massacre itself, which triggered the nation into heavily regulating guns, there were 16 mass murders of four or more people, totaling 137 murders. Since then, there have been 12, with a total of 76 murders. This despite there being population growth.

Violent crime rate has dropped from 1996 to now, mainly from reductions in robbery and a small drop in homicide rates.

There is very clear evidence that if most guns are removed from circulation, there are very real and likely benefits when it comes to reducing violent crime in general and murder.

I'm a political moderate and pragmatic. I go with what works. Don't care how liberal or conservative the solution is. I'm never in favor of regulation that is ineffective at solving problems.

And to that end, I'm against most gun control measures. I'm on board with banning assault weapons, fully automatic weapons, armor piercing bullets, but most gun control things like psychiatric evaluations, universal background checks? No.
Why? Because societal models we know that provided real progress on problems seemed to suggest one thing - it's the prevalence of guns that is the problem. If you make it marginally harder to buy guns by things like...

Three day waiting periods
Universal background checks
Psychiatric evaluations

They don't work. Banning guns works, though. It's worked time and time again. Australia, Britain, over and over and over, if guns lose prevalence, violence, murder, etc. decrease significantly.

At some point, society has to decide that giving up guns is worth it. But until that time, "common sense" gun control is a waste of time, and I quite frankly think it might do real effective gun control measures harm because when nothing gets better from these mild measures, they're going to point that out.

Something needs to be done. Regrettably it is up to politicians.

The American people are at fault for keeping those who stop solutions from becoming a law in power.

So if we can't prevent 100% of shootings, we should do nothing?

Also, bobbies with sticks works just fine in Ireland, New Zealand, the UK, Norway, Iceland.

I like how he mentioned the inability of the CDC, due to regulations, to gather a comprehensive database on gun violence. As that seems to be an oft to ignored law. Undo that law, let the CDC gather all the various data points into one set, and then let that set be used for analysis. A gun used to commit a robbery, rape or other violent crime? That needs to be reported to the CDC database, along with any details known such as gun source, legality etc. A gunshot victim gets treated at a hospital or clinic, that gets reported to the CDC database along with cause, which in most cases is accidental. Suicide by gun, homicide by gun, mass shooting, all get put into that database. That data then can be used by all sides to support their cause, perhaps it will show that many of the proposed regulations would have little effect. I suspect, however, the fact that the gun lobby fights so hard to prevent the CDC from gathering the data for others to use, means they fear it will be far less favorable to their side.

I personally would be happy enough for now though for this step to be taken. So that we aren't making choices based on incomplete data and conjuncture.

I personally support the right to own a gun for hunting and self-defense. I'm not sure how an AR-15 or something like that would be useful in either case, short of an unrealistic scenario of a zombie apocalypse... and before the right-wingnuts suggest self-defense of in case of a military invasion, or from some odd right-wing fantasy of our own military, let me remind you of how well even better weapons and training worked out for the Branch Davidians. Admittedly, a military invasion scenario of either type is more likely than a zombie or otherwise apocalypse, but exceedingly low... Now if Trump gets us into WW3, and we lose power for years, and it becomes survival of the fittest, then there may be an argument, the solution to that, of course, is don't get the world into that situation with idiots like him at the wheel.

You mean Americans like the one you pretend to be?
Those in power who stop (partial) solutions from becoming law are mostly (not exclusively, but nearly) Republicans.
Those who propose those solutions are exclusively non-Republicans, current bipartisan bump stock legislation being the single exception to that rule.