China: Man intentionally drives into crowd. Kills 6

[We Never Know]

Question: why would you do that?


That is exacerbated by the availability of firearms.

I had a cousin and a good friend both commit suicide with a gun. I don't blame the gun. I blame meds and lax background check.
They both were on prescription meds. Pain, anxiety, depression, etc. In my opinion neither of them should have had a gun.
They would go see their Dr every 2-3 months who would say "how are you doing". They reply with fine/ok. The Dr would say "here's your scripts ..see you in 2-3 months".
That's wrong. They should be monitored more and the Dr's and state need to communicate better so someone on medications like those should be put in the system so a red flag pops up if they try to purchase a firearm.
That's again is part of the people problem by that not being done.

 

[dianaiad]

Ahem...

(grin) Yep.

The more liberals, the more gun deaths. Works for me.

 

[dianaiad]

Strawman argument. The point is that cars have a specific, non-killing function that they achieve every day millions of times with a relatively low mortality or injury rate. Guns, by comparison, have a significantly higher useage to injury and death ratio. What's more cars are already heavily regulated and require very strict guidelines in order to qualify for, and continue to operate. A comparison between the two is absurd.

You mean....like comparing the bird deaths as the result of wind farms as opposed to feral cats?

the problem with your argument here is that the strawman is really about the main use of cars vs. the principle use of guns. The fact is, more people....a great many more people, are killed by cars than by guns. If the reaction of those who claim to value human life over freedom is 'Ok, but we need cars to get to places, and you are taking my car away from me over my cold dead body!" then I cry hypocrisy.

Actually, I rather like how cars are "regulated." in order to drive a car, someone has to get a license, and prove that s/he is capable of driving. If a health issue comes up that might impact the ability to drive, that license is suspended or outright revoked. If the driver doesn't have insurance, his/her license might be revoked. Many things could impact a driver's license. The rules for what a car must have to operate safely on 'the street,' are pretty strict.

Just applying driver's license rules to gun ownership would be a really good idea. That's my opinion anyway, but here the claim of 'strawman' just doesn't apply. I was addressing hypocrisy here, not attempting to justify gun ownership by car ownership.

 

[Curious George]

Every nation has people problems. The next question is what the problematic people will use to cause harm. So... Not every nation has gun problems. Why then does Japan only have 10 homicides by hand gun compared to the thousands that US have? Try

What is Japan's suicide rate? Are you suggesting if we banned all guns the suicide rate would increase?

The problem with comparing countries is there are far too many variables. In general, the U.S. is a more violent and crime ridden place than Japan. Are our higher rapes a result of guns as well or some other possession?

We needn't assume that if Japan were to loosen gun restrictions that we would see any great incrrase of murder. That is simply faulty logic. If you want a better society the answer will always be more complicated than ban guns.

 

[Twilight Hue]

You mean....like comparing the bird deaths as the result of wind farms as opposed to feral cats?

the problem with your argument here is that the strawman is really about the main use of cars vs. the principle use of guns. The fact is, more people....a great many more people, are killed by cars than by guns. If the reaction of those who claim to value human life over freedom is 'Ok, but we need cars to get to places, and you are taking my car away from me over my cold dead body!" then I cry hypocrisy.

Actually, I rather like how cars are "regulated." in order to drive a car, someone has to get a license, and prove that s/he is capable of driving. If a health issue comes up that might impact the ability to drive, that license is suspended or outright revoked. If the driver doesn't have insurance, his/her license might be revoked. Many things could impact a driver's license. The rules for what a car must have to operate safely on 'the street,' are pretty strict.

Just applying driver's license rules to gun ownership would be a really good idea. That's my opinion anyway, but here the claim of 'strawman' just doesn't apply. I was addressing hypocrisy here, not attempting to justify gun ownership by car ownership.

I'm not against people taking a mandatory safety course with class instruction, handling and maintenance, coupled with actual range time firing the weapon. Exactly what I did when I got my first hunting license.

 

[We Never Know]

My point with this thread was simple. He used a car to kill 6 people and no one really sees it as a big deal. If he used a gun to kill those people it would have been a big deal just because a gun was used.

Let me clarify my above post .

The Dutch tram shooting that killed 3 has got more world attention than this guy who intentionally ran over and killed 6(twice as many). It's only because of the dreaded word "gun".

 

[Shad]

The point is that cars have a specific, non-killing function that they achieve every day millions of times with a relatively low mortality or injury rate. Guns, by comparison, have a significantly higher useage to injury and death ratio. What's more cars are already heavily regulated and require very strict guidelines in order to qualify for, and continue to operate. A comparison between the two is absurd.

Non-lethal rounds. You are conflating the projectile with what a gun does, platform. A gun's function is merely to contain the force require to expel a projectile. Hence limiting round capacity or round type like AP.

 

[Curious George]

https://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7551873/jaywalking-history

 

[dianaiad]

I'm not against people taking a mandatory safety course with class instruction, handling and maintenance, coupled with actual range time firing the weapon. Exactly what I did when I got my first hunting license.

I"m all for that. The NRA has great classes and safety instruction. If all gun owners had to take such classes before getting a firearm, it would be a very good thing. Sweden does this. The real problem with guns isn't the guns....it's the people who own them. Educate THEM. Require them to learn how to handle firearms. Require them to renew that education at regular intervals, and to pass tests.

You know, just like a driver's license.

 

[suncowiam]

What is Japan's suicide rate? Are you suggesting if we banned all guns the suicide rate would increase?

The problem with comparing countries is there are far too many variables. In general, the U.S. is a more violent and crime ridden place than Japan. Are our higher rapes a result of guns as well or some other possession?

We needn't assume that if Japan were to loosen gun restrictions that we would see any great incrrase of murder. That is simply faulty logic. If you want a better society the answer will always be more complicated than ban guns.

I'm not a prohibitionist unless we cannot find other solutions.

I do suggest we control, because we control every thing capable of doing damage to society. Suicides can mentally hurt the associated loved ones but , physically, does little damage to the surrounding community. So comparing suicides to murders is not equal. To combat suicides, we have to understand various factors like motive and how it was done.

We can discuss further on suicides but it's not equivalent to murders.

That's fair when you say comparing two countries is not exactly right because the two countries are different, BUT... When you get a statistic that shows correlation between gun control and less gun violence in all countries, then that actually shows a trend that can span across the differences of each country. So its fair to say that comparing to Japan by itself is not fair but when comparing to all countries including Japan, Korea, Australia, England and so on, when you can say all the countries are different... They still show a correlation of gun control to less gun violence. That should not be ignored.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I"m all for that. The NRA has great classes and safety instruction. If all gun owners had to take such classes before getting a firearm, it would be a very good thing. Sweden does this. The real problem with guns isn't the guns....it's the people who own them. Educate THEM. Require them to learn how to handle firearms. Require them to renew that education at regular intervals, and to pass tests.

You know, just like a driver's license.

The funny thing is when I went to get my pistol permit I found I wasn't even allowed to handle the weapon in class because it would be a felony to do so. There was an exemption however where I could go and file to get a training permit for classroom purposes that would enable me to legally touch the weapon in a classroom and range environment. On top of it the law just doesn't stop there. You are required to actually go out immediately and purchase a firearm. You can't just get the permit and get the firearm later on which was my intention. You had to get one right away and even a simple barrel revolver cost hundreds of dollars. Needless to say I moved to a different jurisdiction where it wasn't as stringent and dropped the class because I couldn't afford a pistol at the time. I just wanted the license.

If you were to look at some of the regulations, it seems socialist Liberals/Democrats are trying their hardest to make it almost impossible for the average citizen to obtain and possess a firearm without first jumping through countless hoops and red tape and frustrating and impeding the ability for the average citizen to enjoy their second amendment rights.

People shouldn't be banned from the rights granted by the founding fathers. Just educated and capable to handle a tool that requires a great deal of responsibility and care when using them properly. It's why I go all Bushido in defending people's rights to own and bear arms.

For me personally, I'm fine with just owning a direct feed shotgun and a bolt action caliber rifle for which I wouldn't buy it just to have it gather dust in the corner. I would like to go out there and shoot clay pigeons and targets and have a good time along with the knowledge that there's some protection available.

I would love to own an AR-15 because I'm post military and has had extensive training in the M16 of which the AR-15 is a semi-automatic version of the M16. It's more for nostalgia then practicality in my case. In fact when I think about it I'll probably be more happier with an M1 World War 2 style rifle.

With my new job and all, I think I might consider ambling down to the gun range this summer and get myself a new firearm and join a competitive shooting group if my aim is still good after all these years.

 

[Curious George]

I'm not a prohibitionist unless we cannot find other solutions.

I do suggest we control, because we control every thing capable of doing damage to society. Suicides can mentally hurt the associated loved ones but , physically, does little damage to the surrounding community. So comparing suicides to murders is not equal. To combat suicides, we have to understand various factors like motive and how it was done.

We can discuss further on suicides but it's not equivalent to murders.

That's fair when you say comparing two countries is not exactly right because the two countries are different, BUT... When you get a statistic that shows correlation between gun control and less gun violence in all countries, then that actually shows a trend that can span across the differences of each country. So its fair to say that comparing to Japan by itself is not fair but when comparing to all countries including Japan, Korea, Australia, England and so on, when you can say all the countries are different... They still show a correlation of gun control to less gun violence. That should not be ignored.

I am not worried about gun violence but violence. I am not worried a about gun homicides but homicides. When we are discussing that the correlation becomes much less pronounced. (Here I am speaking of the general trend, not Japan; I am well aware that the homicide rate is very low in Japan).

I think we can agree that eventually gun control leads to less gun violence. But that really doesn't matter when we move from 12 homicides where 6 involved guns to 12 homicides where 0 involved guns.

And the suicide rates are a factor. Consider the statistic that started this path of discussion. The figure used with gun deaths in the U.S. includes suicides. So, please do not tell me suicides are different unless you are doing so to acknowledge how the statistics are distorted by anti-gun arguments.

 

[suncowiam]

I am not worried about gun violence but violence. I am not worried a about gun homicides but homicides. When we are discussing that the correlation becomes much less pronounced. (Here I am speaking of the general trend, not Japan; I am well aware that the homicide rate is very low in Japan).

I think we can agree that eventually gun control leads to less gun violence. But that really doesn't matter when we move from 12 homicides where 6 involved guns to 12 homicides where 0 involved guns.

And the suicide rates are a factor. Consider the statistic that started this path of discussion. The figure used with gun deaths in the U.S. includes suicides. So, please do not tell me suicides are different unless you are doing so to acknowledge how the statistics are distorted by anti-gun arguments.

You're controlling the factors involved.

If an act was performed, we have to understand how that act was performed. You can suggest violence overall, but it would be incomplete if we didn't further dissect how and why each violent acts were performed.

The gun deaths in US does include suicides because technicality it's a "gun death." But the statistics break it down further between a homicide and suicide. It doesn't end at gun deaths. The reason we further divide the statistics is because there is a difference between a homicide by gun and suicide by guns. Those two acts are different even if they are acted out by guns.

 

[Curious George]

You're controlling the factors involved.

If an act was performed, we have to understand how that act was performed. You can suggest violence overall, but it would be incomplete if we didn't further dissect how and why each violent acts were performed.

The gun deaths in US does include suicides because technicality it's a "gun death." But the statistics break it down further between a homicide and suicide. It doesn't end at gun deaths. The reason we further divide the statistics is because there is a difference between a homicide by gun and suicide by guns. Those two acts are different even if they are acted out by guns.

Yet they are blended when convenient and separated when convenient. You don't find that suspicious?

 

[suncowiam]

Yet they are blended when convenient and separated when convenient. You don't find that suspicious?

I find it technicality correct to do so but they are still differentiated hence a category for homicide and a category for suicide. You want to discuss death by guns, then that is another conversation.

My main concern and always has been are homicides and crimes. Note that suicides are not considered crimes...

 

[Curious George]

I find it technicality correct to do so but they are still differentiated hence a category for homicide and a category for suicide. You want to discuss death by guns, then that is another conversation.

My main concern and always has been are homicides and crimes. Note that suicides are not considered crimes...

Then let us focus on homicides. Not merely homicides by guns.

 

[suncowiam]

Then let us focus on homicides. Not merely homicides by guns.

Sure...

 

[Shadow Wolf]

My point with this thread was simple. He used a car to kill 6 people and no one really sees it as a big deal. If he used a gun to kill those people it would have been a big deal just because a gun was used.

Cars aren't normally used with the intention of hurting and killing. It isn't even a part of their design. Guns, on the other hand, are designed and exist solely for causing injury and death.

 

[Curious George]

Cars aren't normally used with the intention of hurting and killing. It isn't even a part of their design. Guns, on the other hand, are designed and exist solely for causing injury and death.

That makes it better?

Dynamite isn't designed with the purpose of hurting or killing either.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That makes it better?

Intention does count for a lot. Cars aren't designed to destroy. Dynamite is.
Truly, however, we are not nearly as strict as we should be when it comes to driving. There is a clear and present case of public safety at hand, and too many people who have demonstrated they are unfit for driving yet they are allowed to legally do so. Drunk driving, for example, should be a crime that brings harsh, unyielding, and unwavering consequences, but so very often they get barely a slap on the wrist in comparison to the potential for risk great and severe harm they put others at. If someone becomes a habitual traffic offender, there should be no possibility for them to get their license back.