On-Topic Roger Ebert's Thoughts on the Aurora Shootings

[Stardreamer]

Right. It illustrates that an armed society is a polite society.

Of course the problem is that we have largely forgotten that we have an obligation to treat others with respect (something lawyers delight in and encourage), so switching immediately back to a fully armed society would entail a period of craziness. La Pierre and friends want to get there fast, regardless of the cost; prudence says take things more slowly.

I think it illustrates another point and that in and of itself the number of guns available is not really a prime factor in determining the amount of violent crime in a society. You can't say it is not a factor at all, availability would have some influence but other factors are more relevant I think.

 

[Kulindahr]

I think it illustrates another point and that in and of itself the number of guns available is not really a prime factor in determining the amount of violent crime in a society. You can't say it is not a factor at all, availability would have some influence but other factors are more relevant I think.

Good point. There are places in Oregon where better than one in ten people has a concealed carry license, and better than half of them say they carry all the time. So something more than one in twenty people on the street is carrying a firearm -- but the crime is less than in the places where fewer people are carrying.

It's not the number of guns -- it's the number of crazies.

 

[Rolyo85]

So what was your excuse for having ridiculously large percentage of gun deaths compared to countries with gun control again?

 

[Kulindahr]

the thing that those who argue for no gun laws is that omit the element of matching an individual to his weapons and to the number of weapons he may own.

in that sense, it would be something like pharmacies tracking which drugs and how many drugs someone may be legally prescribed VERSUS what happens now (even with prescription drugs) where someone can fill orders everywhere and with numerous doctors.

Gun control of a reasonable, responsible, genuine sort would not allow a citizen to own numerous assault weapons and thousands and thousands of rounds of ammo...without even much asking why...let alone sending the stuff sight unseen via an Internet purchase.

Why should there be a limit on how many weapons a person can own? He can still only shoot one at a time, one bullet per pull of the trigger.

Or a limit on the number of rounds of ammo? If I have twelve rifles and eight hand guns, I'm going to want at least two thousand rounds on hand, and probably more than that; target shooting, I've burned eight hundred rounds in an afternoon.

 

[Kulindahr]

That is a sentence from your link. Is this true? Averaging about 2 dozen a year?

It depends on how you define them. The number runs from three to two dozen, depending on who's doing the defining. But no matter which definition is used, the result is that the number has stayed constant, while the population just keeps growing.

It's a puzzling phenomenon, similar in that respect to drownings, which held at around 2k per year despite the number of people engaging in aquatic recreation increasing tenfold over a couple of decades. It came down for a while in the face of a vigorous Red Cross water safety effort, but has begun to drift back up -- all while that mass shooting number hangs steady.

I don't get it; in an increasing population I'd expect increasing numbers of crazies, leading to increased mass shootings.