[Kaijo]

Originally Posted by kyp275

No, that's neither comprehensive nor does it do anything other than create further stereotypes. What I want is a comprehensive look at the overall picture, not getting tunnel-visioned into one subsection of it.

So, that's the only thing it will take with you? You need a comprehensive study, that should have absolutely zero flaws in it, in order to finally make any kind of judgment with respect to the situation? I hate to disappoint, but science doesn't work that way. Science is incremental. We take baby steps, measuring one thing, getting that down, moving on to something else, slowly building a picture, piece by piece.

Consider yourself corrected You won't find me saying that guns don't kill people, or that the proliferation of guns won't result additional casualties. What you and I differ in is the degree of blame that is laid on the existence of firearm itself, the underlying cause of the issue, and the best way to go about fixing them.

And you won't find me saying that the person holding the gun is absent any blame. Only that a person with a gun, can kill more people than without. After all, if we are going to allow arms, then let's allow the average citizen to own a nuke. Why don't we? Because with a nuke, 1 person can commit mass-murder on a huge scale. And we'd rather limit the damage one person can do.

There is an old joke, about Churchill talking with a woman:
Churchill: "Madam, would you sleep with me for 1 million pounds?"
Woman: "Oh my goodness, well, we might just have to talk about that."
Churchill: "Madam, would you sleep with me for 5 pounds?"
Woman: "What kind of woman do you think I am!?"
Churchill: "Madam, we've already established that. Now we're just haggling over the price."

With respect to guns/arms/nukes/etc, we've already established things. Now we're just haggling over the price.

I tend to give little weight to those "mass killings" when considering gun policy, as while they may carry a big shock value, I don't consider the loss of live in those incidents any more or less important than others.

Neither do I. In fact, I find the 15,000~30,000 dead from guns each year to be more repugnant than the mass killings, but the latter is what people focus on. And a gun simply makes killing easier. But if there were a way to at least stop the mass killings, I'd go for that. After all, many other countries no longer have them, or have them very, very rarely.

I think a good addition to what you're saying about man's nature is that man will always find a way to adapt. Do you think gangs will stop their killings if you banned handguns? your ban may very well reduce deaths in some areas, but what's the point if it's made up in other areas with increased stabbing, rapes, robberies or other violent crimes?

You presume that if homicides by gun go down, other crime goes up. I'm sure you can probably find some statistic in one area that supports that notion, but there are other areas that would contradict it. I might also ask: "Keeping guns may very well protect people from killers and cause the crime rate to go down, but what's the point if the death rate is made up for when Godzilla attacks?"

In short, we can't know the future. That is why we experiment. I would have called Prohibition a good idea, and at least something to try. Having tried it, and seeing the effect, I would now say it isn't a good idea.

Um, no. Take this from someone who wears a lot more body armor on the job than any mass shooters ever had, no They offer protection to a degree, but hardly invulnerability.

Oh, I'm well aware it wasn't perfect. But it is one among many factors (and you like a lot of factors, right?) to consider. There is also the confusion of the moment. In the Aurora theater, it was dark, and once things started happening, there was smoke. I believe there was even people with guns there, but they couldn't figure out what to aim at.

Now, if we want to play the presumption game, what if someone is there with a gun, and decided to start shooting anyway, and hit innocent bystanders? Therefore, a good person with a gun can increase casualties as much as decrease them.

My thought: Let's experiment.

Not in their target area of choice, no, but if they didn't have access to guns, they would've chosen other avenues that will be much more susceptible to their method of choice.

Presumption. Maybe they would have just given up, when they realized they couldn't cause as much harm as they wanted. We might never know... unless we ban guns and find out.

There you go again with your correlation = causation fallacy. If you want to make a comparison using only the homicide rate and and gun ownership, then you'd better make sure that there are no other factors that can influence the number. Basically, you managed to respond to Ithekro's question without actually responding to it. What you needed was the trend in homicide ratio (and other violent crimes) in UK and Australia pre and post their gun bans, and even then you'll still be operating under the problem where you're assuming no other factors are in play.

Well, I did point out that Australia hasn't had any mass shootings since their gun laws. You're right to a degree about the correlation = causation fallacy, but you also refuse to look at the difference in gun laws as a factor. If I am reading too much into it, you aren't reading enough. But if we want to start tackling some numbers, and if you didn't like my other sources, maybe you'd prefer snope's take on Australia's gun ban?

Another article analyzing the Aussie situation.