states with stricter gun control have fewer mass shootings

Author: n8nrgmi

Posts

Total: 285
#31
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@dustryder
Concretely, how many cases have there been where a civilian has successfully used an AK-47 to defend him/herself against multiple people, where a pistol, or realistically any other action would not have sufficed?
Anytime there are multiple armed robbers at once trying to invade your house.  Robbers tend to not only steal, but they might rape females in your house, and they might kill the people involved, because that's what criminals do.  I heard of this scary time for this one guy and his AK 47 saved his life.  This was when no gun shots were fired.  The robbers saw the gun, they got scared, and they ran away.  Had he not had a gun, he would have gotten robbed, or maybe even killed.
#32
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@Vader
I have Asperger syndrome and what's wrong with me owning a gun?  I don't want to kill any human with it.
#33
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,626
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
-->
@Alec
Asperger is ok with me because even though they tend to be socially awkward, there are many times that they are high functioning and end up mastering a subject
#34
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@Vader
Autistic s need protection too.
#35
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,626
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
-->
@Alec
I don't think you're wrong. But they need to be better trained with a gun and be certified that they can own one. They need frequent checks of mental stability
#36
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@Vader
But they need to be better trained with a gun and be certified that they can own one. 
I'm fine with training requirements.

Depends on what "mental stability" means.  If it means that no one with a mental disability is allowed a gun, then no.  If it means prohibiting ISIS members from getting a gun, then that makes sense.
#37
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@Alec
Anytime there are multiple armed robbers at once trying to invade your house.  Robbers tend to not only steal, but they might rape females in your house, and they might kill the people involved, because that's what criminals do.  I heard of this scary time for this one guy and his AK 47 saved his life.  This was when no gun shots were fired.  The robbers saw the gun, they got scared, and they ran away.  Had he not had a gun, he would have gotten robbed, or maybe even killed.
Which is how many times per year? Not multiple armed robbers, but the amount of times where an AK-47 has successfully been used by a civilian, where an alternate firearm or other decision making choice wouldn't have sufficed. Because that's your argument right? That AK-47s fill a specific, beneficial niche that no other "thing" can provide and are hence necessary. Well you need to demonstrate that AK-47s actually perform that service, and you can only do that by providing hard evidence. Me, I can just point to the multiple mass shootings in which an AK-47 was used.




#38
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@dustryder
https://mic.com/articles/64663/5-people-who-used-an-ar-15-to-defend-themselves-and-it-probably-saved-their-lives#.mgwhWYkb3 shows 5 examples of when an AK 47 was used to save someone.  Any time multiple people rob your house with guns they will get either legally or illegally, a pistol alone won't save you.  An AK 47 gives you more of a chance against a mob of robbers.

#39
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@Alec
In how many of those examples would a handgun or alternative method sufficed?

From my perspective, a handgun would've sufficed in the first four examples. The fifth case was a case for the use of firearms in general, not AR-15s specifically, and was only made necessary due to the failure of police. Alternatively, the use of firearms was only necessary due to counter-resistance, and fleeing the riots would've also been an option, if avoiding violence. Moreover, none of these examples were mobs of robbers.

Regardless, how does this compare to the examples of negative uses of AR-15s? In Sandy Hook alone, 28 people were killed. 

Are the positive uses of AR-15s/AK-47s a common enough occurence to justify the negative uses of them?

#40
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@Vader
@dustryder
They would threaten a student if they do not send pictures by shooting them or pointing a gun. Teachers kill their students sometimes, and I bet you can look up an article about it

isn't there laws against that?  how do you ensure and enforce those laws?  Sex with students has been in the news a lot last couple of years, female teachers at that, how do you prevent it?  Ban schools and make homeschooling mandatory?


Are the positive uses of AR-15s/AK-47s a common enough occurence to justify the negative uses of them?

shall not be infringed, I don't think you fully understand what the 2A is and what it means.
more children are killed in swimming pools than by a rifle of any kind, swimming isn't mandatory, pools are legal, neither is in the Constitution or Bill of Rights.
A .308 is very close to what an AK-47 fires, .308 is a popular hunting round.  The irony here is those who judge things by how they look rather than function out of ignorance, would be the same condemning others who judge people by how they look.  It's pretty funny if you think about it.
I'd suggest you research the "assault weapons" ban by Bill Clinton and see what the outcome of that was, since it was tracked and studied.
#41
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@dustryder
A handgun wouldn't necessarily protect someone in #3 and #4.  There were multiple intruders at once.  If you shoot one with a pistol, the other shoots you with their gun.

As tragic as mass shootings are, they are extremely rare.  There are about 320 mass shootings a year.  There are about 320 million people in the US.  Assuming the average mass shooting kills 10 people, this equates to 1/100,000 chance of dying from a mass shooting in a year.  Moreover, if you want do prevent future school shootings from happening, If you ban AK 47s, crazy shooters get the guns illegally and they commit shootings against classrooms that usually don't have protection.  This is why arming teachers and advertising it on schools would deter shooters from committing mass shootings.
#42
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@Alec
when there's a bad guy with and kind of weapon, or no weapon, whom do you call?  A good guy with a gun aka police.  When seconds count the police are only minutes away.
There's a lot of truth in those statements often used, for those who are honest about the issue.

banks, shopping malls, lots of places are protected by people with guns, pepper spray and or tasers, not so much schools.  Seems a bit odd that the democrats favor late term abortion and no armed teachers, seems related to me.
#43
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
70% of robberies are over in around 7 minutes.  The average time it takes the police to get to your house is 11 minutes.  The police can be used after the robbery to catch the criminal but immediate defense is best reserved for the individual.
#44
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@Alec
70% of robberies are over in around 7 minutes.  The average time it takes the police to get to your house is 11 minutes.  The police can be used after the robbery to catch the criminal but immediate defense is best reserved for the individual.
well said, if you look at crime stats by state counties it's very surprising imo, even some of the states with high crime rates have counties with extremely low crime rates.  Population density has a lot do to with it I'm sure, firearm ownership, not so much.

#45
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@Alec
A handgun wouldn't necessarily protect someone in #3 and #4.  There were multiple intruders at once.  If you shoot one with a pistol, the other shoots you with their gun.

Not necessarily no, but when it comes to guns, the main point isn't to shoot someone. It's to act as a sufficient deterrent. You'll note that in the case of 3 , the act of showing the firearm was enough to deter the intruders. In the case of 4, the act of showing and/or firing a handgun would've also been sufficient to act as a deterrent. Keeping in mind that burglars are opportunists and confrontation is enough to deter most of them, let enough confrontation with a gun and the discharging of one.

As tragic as mass shootings are, they are extremely rare.  There are about 320 mass shootings a year.  There are about 320 million people in the US.  Assuming the average mass shooting kills 10 people, this equates to 1/100,000 chance of dying from a mass shooting in a year.  Moreover, if you want do prevent future school shootings from happening, If you ban AK 47s, crazy shooters get the guns illegally and they commit shootings against classrooms that usually don't have protection.  This is why arming teachers and advertising it on schools would deter shooters from committing mass shootings. 
Mass shootings are rare, but rarer still are uses cases of AR-15s/AK-47s over other types of firearms. The facts are these

-They only have one use case that other firearms cannot perform, that is, they are better against groups of targets
-There are scarcely any accounts of civilians actually having to use such firearms in such situations
-While mass shootings are rare, they occur far more frequently than such situations, and such guns are commonly used in them.

Ultimately you are telling that you support keeping a gun that is provably used to mow down innocents in mass shootings, just so that they *might* be used in edge cases where they may not even be necessary. This is absurd.
#46
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@dustryder
Me, I can just point to the multiple mass shootings in which an AK-47 was used.
please do so, because I don't believe that is true.....at all.


#47
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
please do so, because I don't believe that is true.....at all.
Is this one of those "Gotcha, I caught you out on a technicality but I've missed the overall point"?


#48
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@dustryder
what is the over all point?  that the % is incredibly small compared to handguns, knives, other bludgeons, hands and feet?  then yeah maybe, don't say it if you don't mean it, it's like crying wolf :)

how about we focus on the how and why people kill and try to address that, rather than the means they use?

you don't really want to ban ak-47s you don't want people to kill each other right?  I mean what ever method is used, that's pretty irrelevant to the dead and loved ones of.

I don't want people to kill each other or commit violence against one another.  Perhaps we can do a better job to minimize those behaviors.  How come we don't focus on that?  If people didn't kill each other or I should say innocent people we wouldn't need to even have a ban conservation.
#49
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,927
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
People with no military background don't even understand that the full auto feature is only used for suppression fire, not to kill people, because you can kill far more people using semi auto, even if they are grouped up.



In fact, if you really want to save peoples lives in mass shootings, you should ban semi automatic and only allow fully automatic, as Semi-auto has a far less chance to miss with the shots.

There's a reason why they call it "spray and pray" when trying to score hits on fully auto.

It takes an amazing amount of skill to keep the muzzle of the gun from rising up and shooting over your target's head in full auto.
Forget the fantasy myths you have seen from Hollywood.

Full auto would also be a great tool for self defense as the goal is to frighten off intruders and get them to back down, not kill them, so suppression fire is perfect for that role.
#50
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
The overall point is that AR-15's, not AK-47's, in conventional applications can be replaced by other firearms. They are also commonly used in mass shootings. There doesn't seem to be any good, practical reason why they should not be banned.

There are multiple ways to solve problems certainly. However it's ignorant to avoid the fact that without guns in the first place, mass shootings cannot take place. Easy access to guns is exactly the reason why America is a world leader among first world countries in mass shootings.







#51
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,927
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@dustryder
Even if the USA were to have 10 times the current amount of mass shootings, it would not justify repealing the 2nd A.
#52
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@dustryder
However it's ignorant to avoid the fact that without guns in the first place, mass shootings cannot take place. 
well you can't put the genie back in the bottle and there's no way to rid the world of guns.  Let's not forget the terrorist who used full autos in countries where guns are all but banned.
Tunisia beach attack
Carcassonne and Trèbes attack
If you look at Australia for example, they just don't want to kill each other as much as other countries, so they don't as often.  Even before their gun ban they never had what could really be considered a murder problem.

it seems you are trying to ice skate up hill.  aren't there other things that can be address that most if not all could agree upon that shouldn't be the prime focus?
I can't find it atm, but I read an article that basically said if people were taught how to deal with conflicts correctly that would greatly reduce murder and violence.  Consider the road rage encounters, look on youtube even, some pull guns and even shoot, over road rage, that's not normal behavior.  Neither is beating someone up because of a hat they are wearing, but there we are, this is the new norm.  How can you possibly expect anything to change if that kind of behavior doesn't?  Life has no value, neither to manners, compassion or empathy.  That is your answer, but one that will never happen.
You do understand all this will be moot once 3d printed guns become main stream right?  You do know someone 3d printed a metal gun right?  While it's not cost effective right now, someday it will be.  
here watch this now imagine what a machinist with a machine shop could do.
or maybe you like to build things by hand?

what do you consider "easy access" to guns?  Do you know who's gun Kate Steinle was killed with?

#53
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
If you look at Australia for example, they just don't want to kill each other as much as other countries, so they don't as often.  Even before their gun ban they never had what could really be considered a murder problem.
In Australia everything wants to kill humans, there's no need for humans to do it, even the really cute little ones want to kill you they just can't.

#54
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
well you can't put the genie back in the bottle and there's no way to rid the world of guns.
Fine, you can't rid the world of guns. But you can minimise the threat of guns in your own country. Having no guns at all prevents gun deaths. Reducing the amount of guns reduces the amount of gun deaths which is almost equally as admirable.

Let's not forget the terrorist who used full autos in countries where guns are all but banned.
Tunisia beach attack
Carcassonne and Trèbes attack
Tragic, however outlier events. I do not care about outlier events. I care about the norm. If Alec's data is correct, America averages out to nearly one mass shooting a day. France and Tunisia don't remotely come close to that

it seems you are trying to ice skate up hill.  aren't there other things that can be address that most if not all could agree upon that shouldn't be the prime focus?
I can't find it atm, but I read an article that basically said if people were taught how to deal with conflicts correctly that would greatly reduce murder and violence.  Consider the road rage encounters, look on youtube even, some pull guns and even shoot, over road rage, that's not normal behavior.  Neither is beating someone up because of a hat they are wearing, but there we are, this is the new norm.  How can you possibly expect anything to change if that kind of behavior doesn't? 
You know, other countries manage to not suffer from such a large quantity of mass shootings without carting off everyone to conflict management class.

You do understand all this will be moot once 3d printed guns become main stream right?  You do know someone 3d printed a metal gun right?  While it's not cost effective right now, someday it will be.  
I have complete faith that regulations will catch up to such an eventuality. In civilised countries anyway

what do you consider "easy access" to guns?  Do you know who's gun Kate Steinle was killed with?
Well as I understand it and do correct me if I'm wrong, in many US states, only the minimum federal laws are applied. That is, a certain age, and a background check for public sales which is likely to pass if you don't have a prior record in the general case. I think this constitutes easy access. At the very least, easy enough for mass shooters.
#55
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@dustryder
You'll note that in the case of 3 , the act of showing the firearm was enough to deter the intruders. In the case of 4, the act of showing and/or firing a handgun would've also been sufficient to act as a deterrent.
If you have 1 pistol and your up against 3 people all with pistols and you show them the pistol, it won't be enough of a deterrent to protect yourself.  Your outnumbered with guns.  Showing them a AK 47 would help prevent anyone from getting robbed, and would prevent anyone from getting shot.

There are scarcely any accounts of civilians actually having to use such firearms in such situations
I just listed a sample.  You have about a 1/20 chance of getting robbed in your lifetime(http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm).  Given that people are alive for a long time, it is safe to assume that you yourself have a significant chance of getting robbed.  To make it personal, my aunt got robbed, and that is just within my family.  Robberies are common.

While mass shootings are rare, they occur far more frequently than such situations, and such guns are commonly used in them.
Most mass shootings are caused by handguns.  Only a fraction are caused by AK 47s and AK 15s combined.

Topic's author
#56
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
conservatives just ignore that australia mass shootings vanished. they had almost one per year before their ban, and it's been around twenty three years and i think they may have had one within the last year or two, so it took over twenty years for another one. you can see all kinds of rationalizing but again, conservatives just choose to stick their head in the sand and ignore this.

#57
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@dustryder
I give no credibility to other countries because there is no logical comparison.  The U.S. doesn't have hate speech laws because freedom of speech is a fundamental right protected, and other rights which other countries don't have, by the U.S. constitution and bill of rights, as one of many examples of differences.
It doesn't seem you are looking at the big picture.  Yearly murders is my priority.  One mass shooting of 50 is less important to me than 1000 murders per year.  This concern or outrage of single rare events boggles the mind when far more 1 and 2 murders add up to so much more per year than these anomalies as you put it.
This term "mass shooting" is a scare tactic which should be obvious.  Recently this crazy man killed is pregnant wife and his 2 children, so 4 people, mass murder?  Not really since they were all related and it was contained to that one instance and family.  He didn't use a gun, don't you want to stop nuts like that?  I do.

Reducing the amount of guns reduces the amount of gun deaths which is almost equally as admirable.
Reducing the amount of murders is admirable, focusing on how someone is murdered is far from admirable.  And you are specifically talking about mass shootings.  You can have a mass murder but without it being a mass shooting.
How do you propose to do that?  A house to house search and confiscation by people WITH guns?  How do you stop the black market given the videos I posted and 3d printing?  If getting rid of guns is so easy why can't they get them away from criminals?  How many illegal guns are on the streets?  No one could possibly know.  If all manufacturing stopped today, how long would it take for all the guns to eventually break and or be taken away from criminals?  few thousand years?  maybe more?
What about the police and military?  their guns get stolen, what do you do about that?  How do you stop guns coming in over the Mexican border?

in the U.S. Blacks commit half or more of the crimes yet are less than half the population, how about they can't have guns, you ok with that?  that would greatly reduce the number of murders, maybe it's not the gun after all?
yes I'm be facetious

this actually surprised me total 43%
Single victim/unknown offender or offenders

31.2%
Single victim/multiple offenders
    11.8%

if you didn't watch or understand the video of the murders per 100k it explains that if you actually look at the specific data, murders are mostly narrowed to a small number of counties in the U.S.  This is why general sweeping idea such as yours are illogical.  If you want to address murders look and where they are happening, that seems to be a pretty painfully obvious first step, and yet that doesn't really happen.
Chicago has been the poster city for murders, in fact they keep weekend totals.  What's been tried to address that?  They did have a ban which didn't help, but that's pretty much it.  
You seemed to selectively ignore facts like the assault weapons ban did nothing to affect crime rates or that people are murdered by other ways than guns.


It doesn't appear we have any real common ground.  While I want solutions to stop murders, you seem to have tunnel vision for "mass gun murders" which makes no sense at all to me.


#58
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@n8nrgmi
that's been debunked so many times

even by their own government and creators of the ban, try reading the facts they themselves admit they can't prove it had any effect on the murder rate, which was very low to begin with and trending down.

#59
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@Greyparrot
Even if the USA were to have 10 times the current amount of mass shootings, it would not justify repealing the 2nd A.

Topic's author
#60
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
so you post a link that doesn't prove anything? can you state simply how it's untrue that there was a mass shooting almost every year before the ban but almost never after?  you are just ignoring it. it's a fact.