Woman shot following Walking Dead argument

[Aeronef]

PKerr wrote:

---

We have been killing each other since the beginning of time, blame the person not the tool used to kill.

That's a lot like saying "don't blame the cigarettes for lung cancer, blame the people who smoke them."

I'm glad that you mentioned driving and texting, because the real reason for not restricting or prohibiting guns is the same as the reason for not restricting or prohibiting cars, or cell phones--or for that matter, cigarettes.

That is to say: because, in the minds of the people who own and use and enjoy these items, and the people who depend on the manufacture and sale of these items for their livelihood, their utility outweighs the inevitable and predictable costs of allowing them. Everything else is just rationalization.

Mass cigarette smoking leads, inevitably and predictably, to mass lung cancer. Mass automobile ownership leads, inevitably and predictably, to mass auto accidents, injuries, and deaths. And the easy availability of guns leads, inevitably and predictably, to widespread gun violence.

The decision to tolerate all this collateral damage rests entirely on the calculation that our own convenience and pleasure and profit outweigh the risks to ourselves and (especially) to others. Other people are always acceptable losses.

In the case of personal automobiles, their utility is so obvious, and their appeal is so nearly universal, that almost nobody would think of trying to ban them, despite the mayhem they cause. Cigarettes, by contrast, have no utility, and their appeal has been declining for decades: the result has been a steady increase in restrictions on their sale and use. Guns fall in between the two extremes, which is why they're so controversial.

[Magellan]

Aeronef wrote:

---

That's a lot like saying "don't blame the cigarettes for lung cancer, blame the people who smoke them."

I'm glad that you mentioned driving and texting, because the real reason for not restricting or prohibiting guns is the same as the reason for not restricting or prohibiting cars, or cell phones--or for that matter, cigarettes.

That is to say: because, in the minds of the people who own and use and enjoy these items, and the people who depend on the manufacture and sale of these items for their livelihood, their utility outweighs the inevitable and predictable costs of allowing them. Everything else is just rationalization.

Mass cigarette smoking leads, inevitably and predictably, to mass lung cancer. Mass automobile ownership leads, inevitably and predictably, to mass auto accidents, injuries, and deaths. And the easy availability of guns leads, inevitably and predictably, to widespread gun violence.

The decision to tolerate all this collateral damage rests entirely on the calculation that our own convenience and pleasure and profit outweigh the risks to ourselves and (especially) to others. Other people are always acceptable losses.

In the case of personal automobiles, their utility is so obvious, and their appeal is so nearly universal, that almost nobody would think of trying to ban them, despite the mayhem they cause. Cigarettes, by contrast, have no utility, and their appeal has been declining for decades: the result has been a steady increase in restrictions on their sale and use. Guns fall in between the two extremes, which is why they're so controversial.

Well the problem with the gun control debate is that, as far as I am aware the data associating mass gun ownership with mass gun violence is far less clear. The US does have a lot of gun violence but a state by state analysis doesnt show a particularly strong relationship between gun ownership and gun violence. Northern US states with very high gun ownership dont have particularly high violent crime rates.

If the data were very clear cut there may be more support in the US for repealing our 2nd amendment, but it isn't. In this one particular case it may be that had he had no gun the crime may never had occur but it doesn't tell any of us how many gun crimes in general would be prevented by banning guns or for that matter how many more crimes would occur without legal gun ownership.As an American if the data were only so-so or a wash in reduction of violence versus restricting gun ownership I will go with the free-er choice myself

In the example of the UK or other countries it is worth considering several facts

1) The UK is an island nation. I would imagine that makes border smuggling a tad bit harder

2) If the UK had as many firearms per capita as the US when restricting ownership it is entirely probably that there would be so many firearms available that criminals would be easily able to obtain them.


To the original post this is tragic, not unexpected and very likely not very related to guns or the walking dead

[Set Harth]

Northern US states with very high gun ownership dont have particularly high violent crime rates.

The inner cities do, and if you live in one of their suburbs you read about new shootings every day in the morning paper.

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Aeronef wrote:

---

That's a lot like saying "don't blame the cigarettes for lung cancer, blame the people who smoke them."

Oh bloody hell...who would even think of blaming the show or its writers/producers for this shit? It's a fucking TV show. Millions of people watch it with no ill effects.

[Pingfah]

Aeronef wrote:

---

That's a lot like saying "don't blame the cigarettes for lung cancer, blame the people who smoke them."

Considering cigarettes don't give you lung cancer if you eat them, that seems reasonable.

[Kegg]

M. Laser Beam - I don't think anyone was blaming Walking Dead.

PKerr wrote:

---

Of course I'm not saying that a gun is less dangerous as a knife,

Good.

I'm saying IF, in your sick mind (not yours, you know what I mean) you wanted to kill a bunch of people a gun wouldn't be needed.

You cannot do the amount of damage that was done in Denver within the same relatively short timeframe without a gun, or a weapon and/or materials that - in America - is more difficult to acquire than a gun. This is why I had basically no fear of any copycat crimes occurring when I sat down in a theatre to watch Dark Knight Rises the same day as the Denver massacre.

It's ease of access combined with lethality. When you have people who aren't too bright - and/or are clearly mentally disturbed - and you give them that level of firepower, you get Tucson and Denver and what have you.

[Caligula]

Pingfah wrote:

---

Considering cigarettes don't give you lung cancer if you eat them, that seems reasonable.

While that's true, in that case you'd potentially be dealing with mouth cancer instead... or stomach, liver, bladder, colon or possibly even pancreatic cancer if you foolishly swallow it. Some part of you is getting poisoned no matter what.

[Forbin]

^Chewing tobacco causes mouth cancer.
but it's MANLY!!!

[Pingfah]

Caligula wrote:

---

While that's true, in that case you'd potentially be dealing with mouth cancer instead... or stomach, liver, bladder, colon or possibly even pancreatic cancer if you foolishly swallow it. Some part of you is getting poisoned no matter what.

Well of course, but that wasn't really the point. The point is that the person knowingly ingesting something poisonous is most definitely to blame for poisoning themselves. It's a pretty poor analogy for gun violence at any rate.

[Caligula]

Pingfah wrote:

---

Well of course, but that wasn't really the point. The point is that the person knowingly ingesting something poisonous is most definitely to blame for poisoning themselves. It's a pretty poor analogy for gun violence at any rate.

Oh, it's okay. I knew where you were going with that. I was just having a bit of fun with it. I completely agree that it's a very poor analogy.