News Mass shooting in N Illinois University

[Oerg]

Yes, but my point is that it's probably not desirable to let people vote and make decision for other people whenever they want just because we have a democracy. You're claiming that we're voting on whether or not we should have gun control. I'm asking, if we should vote on gun control, then why shouldn't we vote of free-speech and slavery as well?

Well my point is that by voting for the candidate that you would like to govern you, then you would be indirectly voting for issues like slavery and such because the candidate that you vote would best represent your views and needs unless you are telling me that :"I do not share the same views as candidate Z and I do not like his ideas for reforms but I would like him to govern me"; which I am sure would not be the case for most people.

In this sense, in a democracy, it is mostly the case when people will vote and make a decision for other people whenever they want. The individual view does not matter in a democracy. In a democracy, we are already voting on whether or not we want gun control and issues like free speech and slavery too. A good example would be if Candidate Z now says: I want slavery to return and no free speech please". Would you vote for him? Would the population vote for him? By voting for him, you are already voting on how you would like some issues to be treated.

 

[seycyrus]

Your poll is invalid, how can you poll prisoners and gather from their answers ithat tighter gun control laws would not make it harder for them to obtain weapons?.

If you are arguing that the prisoners do not know for a FACT that tighter gun control wouldn't make it harder, then I agree. It is speculation after all.

But I think that the people who have actually obtained guns illegally in the past would be the most familar with ins and outs of the balck market system and the ramifications on the system.

 

[Oerg]

If you are arguing that the prisoners do not know for a FACT that tighter gun control wouldn't make it harder, then I agree. It is speculation after all.

But I think that the people who have actually obtained guns illegally in the past would be the most familar with ins and outs of the balck market system and the ramifications on the system.

yep, that is my point. You ahve brought up a valid point too. These criminals know where to get their guns, that is why the think that stricter gun control laws like who and who can buy guns, or the processing of documentation that would be required to ahve a gun are useless.

In this sense, your poll is valid, but if were to outlaw guns altogether, then the poll is invalid because they were polled for stricter gun control laws. Furthermore, I am sure your country has not tried banning guns altogether too. So in this sense, it is invalid.

 

[drankin]

yep, that is my point. You ahve brought up a valid point too. These criminals know where to get their guns, that is why the think that stricter gun control laws like who and who can buy guns, or the processing of documentation that would be required to ahve a gun are useless.

In this sense, your poll is valid, but if were to outlaw guns altogether, then the poll is invalid because they were polled for stricter gun control laws. Furthermore, I am sure your country has not tried banning guns altogether too. So in this sense, it is invalid.

Because of the second amendment of our Constitution, banning guns altogether cannot be done, legally. "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

[Economist]

Well my point is that by voting for the candidate that you would like to govern you, then you would be indirectly voting for issues like slavery and such because the candidate that you vote would best represent your views and needs unless you are telling me that :"I do not share the same views as candidate Z and I do not like his ideas for reforms but I would like him to govern me"; which I am sure would not be the case for most people.

Well, it'd be nice if it worked that way but it doesn't. When you select a candidate you're selecting a bundle of choices. Since people have fairly diverse opinions, they're forced to choose the lesser of two evils and the person who agrees with them the most. People might end up voting for a candidate that they only agree with on 25% of the issues. Other people will vote for those one only one issue (such as abortion), and others will vote because they like the candidate as a person, others vote when they're very uninformed.

A good example would be if Candidate Z now says: I want slavery to return and no free speech please". Would you vote for him? Would the population vote for him? By voting for him, you are already voting on how you would like some issues to be treated.

My point is that I shouldn't be allowed to vote for such a politician. The question is not whether this person would get elected, the point is if they should be allowed to make such decisions. Nobody has a right to suppress free-speech or inslave people even in a democracy. Just because some arrogant power hungry politician wants certain things does not mean they should happen. My point is that we've restricted democracy on many issues, we don't allow people to vote for anything and everything. With some things (I would even argue most things) the majority opinion does not matter. Just because the majority want something does not mean they should get it (because often times they're making decisions for other people).

Here's a good read: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0691129428/?tag=pfamazon01-20

 

[Evo]

I already did, look back at my previous posts in this thread. I posted 2 of his books, and 2 of the academic peer reviewed studies he wrote.

Obviously a book is not a peer reviewed study.

Please either give the post number where you posted links to the peer reviewed studies or repost them.

 

[Economist]

Obviously a book is not a peer reviewed study.

Please either give the post number where you posted links to the peer reviewed studies or repost them.

It's post #22

 

[Oerg]

Well, it'd be nice if it worked that way but it doesn't. When you select a candidate you're selecting a bundle of choices. Since people have fairly diverse opinions, they're forced to choose the lesser of two evils and the person who agrees with them the most. People might end up voting for a candidate that they only agree with on 25% of the issues. Other people will vote for those one only one issue (such as abortion), and others will vote because they like the candidate as a person, others vote when they're very uninformed.

I know what you mean, but this becomes insignificant as the issue becomes serious. On 25% of the issues they agree with, these must be the issues that are of top concern to them. Gun control should be something of top concern, besides everyone seems to have a different view on it while the views on other important issues may be shared by most politicians or candidates for elections.

With some things (I would even argue most things) the majority opinion does not matter. Just because the majority want something does not mean they should get it (because often times they're making decisions for other people).

de·moc·ra·cy /dɪˈmɒkrəsi/
1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system

(Definition by dicionary.com unabridged)

If there are alraedy a set of rules about how most issues should be treated, then what is the point of a government appointed by the people if the people have no say in how some issues should be treated?

It is a different thing altogether when the general population votes for how they want to be still treated by the same set of rules versus voting because they have no choice in how the rules can be changed.

drankin mentioned that the right to carry firearms is the second amendment to your constitiution. Are these rules already cast in stone? What if tomorrow the American public wants to abolish the right to carry firearms? Will the amendment still change? Will your political system still be democratic? If I have a new political party that wants to carry out the wishes of the American public will the party with the power of governance over the country have the power to abolish these rights? If so, can they really be in power of the country when the country has already been governed by an invisible view that gun rights are a mundane right that cannot be changed?

By saying what you said in your post, you just threw some of the fundamentals of democracy out of the window.

 

[Moridin]

The death penalty do not deter criminals, so why should the idea that some people might have concealed weapons?

Also note that correlation does not imply causation so all arguments presented based on correlation are invalid.

 

[drankin]

I know what you mean, but this becomes insignificant as the issue becomes serious. On 25% of the issues they agree with, these must be the issues that are of top concern to them. Gun control should be something of top concern, besides everyone seems to have a different view on it while the views on other important issues may be shared by most politicians or candidates for elections.




(Definition by dicionary.com unabridged)

If there are alraedy a set of rules about how most issues should be treated, then what is the point of a government appointed by the people if the people have no say in how some issues should be treated?

It is a different thing altogether when the general population votes for how they want to be still treated by the same set of rules versus voting because they have no choice in how the rules can be changed.

drankin mentioned that the right to carry firearms is the second amendment to your constitiution. Are these rules already cast in stone? What if tomorrow the American public wants to abolish the right to carry firearms? Will the amendment still change? Will your political system still be democratic? If I have a new political party that wants to carry out the wishes of the American public will the party with the power of governance over the country have the power to abolish these rights? If so, can they really be in power of the country when the country has already been governed by an invisible view that gun rights are a mundane right that cannot be changed?

By saying what you said in your post, you just threw some of the fundamentals of democracy out of the window.

Yes, the amendment can be amended. Whether it should or not is another discussion.

 

[drankin]

The death penalty do not deter criminals, so why should the idea that some people might have concealed weapons?

Also note that correlation does not imply causation so all arguments presented based on correlation are invalid.

Come, on! Murders typcally think they will not get caught. Now if the murderer finds that his victim is armed, giving him an immediate execution, that would certainly deter him. Think about it.

 

[Oerg]

Yes, the amendment can be amended. Whether it should or not is another discussion.

And precisely because it can be amended by the government in power, which is appointed by the people that makes this set of "unchangeable rules that cannot be left out for the majority to decide" untrue.

 

[Economist]

If there are alraedy a set of rules about how most issues should be treated, then what is the point of a government appointed by the people if the people have no say in how some issues should be treated?

It is a different thing altogether when the general population votes for how they want to be still treated by the same set of rules versus voting because they have no choice in how the rules can be changed.

drankin mentioned that the right to carry firearms is the second amendment to your constitiution. Are these rules already cast in stone? What if tomorrow the American public wants to abolish the right to carry firearms? Will the amendment still change? Will your political system still be democratic? If I have a new political party that wants to carry out the wishes of the American public will the party with the power of governance over the country have the power to abolish these rights? If so, can they really be in power of the country when the country has already been governed by an invisible view that gun rights are a mundane right that cannot be changed?

By saying what you said in your post, you just threw some of the fundamentals of democracy out of the window.

Again, I'm asking you should this be the case? Should we be allowed to vote on everything because we're a democracy? Should we vote on who you can and cannot marry? Should we be allowed to vote on where you work? Should we be allowed to vote on who you can trade and do business with? Should we vote on whether some races can eat at restaurants? Should we be allowed to vote on whether schools should be segregated? Should we be allowed to vote on slavery?

In my view, having a democracy does not mean that you should be allowed to use the system in order to suppress the rights of others. In the book "On Liberty," John Stuart Mill constantly talks about the dark side of democracy, or what he calls "tyranny of the majority." It's a classic: https://www.amazon.com/dp/9568356266/?tag=pfamazon01-20

 

[drankin]

And precisely because it can be amended by the government in power, which is appointed by the people that makes this set of "unchangeable rules that cannot be left out for the majority to decide" untrue.

Your are trying to debate about the rules of a government you obviously do not understand and derail the topic of this thread. Start a new thread please.

 

[Oerg]

Again, I'm asking you should this be the case? Should we be allowed to vote on everything because we're a democracy? Should we vote on who you can and cannot marry? Should we be allowed to vote on where you work? Should we be allowed to vote on who you can trade and do business with? Should we vote on whether some races can eat at restaurants? Should we be allowed to vote on whether schools should be segregated? Should we be allowed to vote on slavery?

Erm, my answer is this does not necessarily have to be the case. As i have said before, there are issues that have higher priorites over other stuff like who you can or cannot marry or do business with.

Many people have differing views over these various issues, but on more important issues like gun control, this is where the population wants to have a say. Candidates often propose to the public what they would do after being elected and in this sense, the public has indirect control on a specific important issue like gun control. What the public views as a top priority to them, the candidate must have an opinion on the subject. Of course I am not saying that gun control is an important issue for everyone, but I think that it is compared to other issues.

I have not read the book you recommended and I believe I do not ahve the time to read it before the end of this argument, perhaps you can share some relevant views that the author has to offer.

EDIT: Sorry drankin, I do not mean to derail the subject of this thread, I guess i got carried away

 

[BobG]

Come, on! Murders typcally think they will not get caught. Now if the murderer finds that his victim is armed, giving him an immediate execution, that would certainly deter him. Think about it.

Would it? Generally, victims seen as a bigger threat are the most likely to be shot.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf (way down on page 7)
When a male was the victim, nearly 40% of criminals were armed. When a female was the victim, less than 20% of the criminals were armed. The criminal used a gun less than 10% of the time when their victim was younger than 18. Over 18, the percentage went down as the victim became older. Criminals were also more likely to use a gun when they didn't know the victim very well.

In one sense, what you say makes sense. Most criminals would prefer to prey on those weaker than themselves. I think there would be much fewer unarmed robberies or assaults if criminals were worried about their victims carrying weapons.

I wouldn't be surprised to see both an overall decrease in face to face crimes, but an increase in crimes such as armed robbery with an accompanying increase in fatal crimes.

 

[drankin]

Would it? Generally, victims seen as a bigger threat are the most likely to be shot.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf (way down on page 7)
When a male was the victim, nearly 40% of criminals were armed. When a female was the victim, less than 20% of the criminals were armed. The criminal used a gun less than 10% of the time when their victim was younger than 18. Over 18, the percentage went down as the victim became older. Criminals were also more likely to use a gun when they didn't know the victim very well.

In one sense, what you say makes sense. Most criminals would prefer to prey on those weaker than themselves. I think there would be much fewer unarmed robberies or assaults if criminals were worried about their victims carrying weapons.

I wouldn't be surprised to see both an overall decrease in face to face crimes, but an increase in crimes such as armed robbery with an accompanying increase in fatal crimes.

I think you have the right intentions, Bob. What it comes down to is should we not allow someone to carry for their own protetion who is a law abiding citizen? Why would we want to disarm such a man or woman? They are not the criminals. They are not the one committing the crimes. They are simply taking measures to protect themselves from someone who is a criminal. I didn't own a gun until a couple of years ago when my wife got out of night class and was chased several blocks to her car. I immediately bought my first firearm (a small pistol) and gave it to her to carry. She now has a permit. At the time I didn't give rats-ass if she had one or not, I don't want her getting raped, abducted, or murdered because she can't defend herself (she is a small woman). Crime doesn't go up because my wife carries a handgun.

 

[kev1829]

One women got hit in the face repeatedly with a hammer while walking to her care at like 7:00 in the morning.

Just think, if everyone was carrying their own hammers this crime could have been prevented!

I have just read the entire thread and find the underlying problem with armed students is missing. If 5% of the students carried guns, the class would have had about eight people with guns. I would much rather try to duck one persons bullets than be caught in crossfire.

Also, to get a CCW I would need to complete an eight hour gun safety course which includes three hours of range time. This level of training does not prepare a person for armed conflict resolution.

 

[ShawnD]

I think the problem ( I'm not sure, but it seems logically so) lies in border control checks. If it is possible that an extremely small number of firearms made it through the border (maybe even none at all) between Malaysia and Singapore, then it would seem possible for any other country. Of course, Malaysia and Singapore are only connected by 2 bridges, while the US of A and Canada are connected with a border which is thousands of kilometres long, but I believe that if the government is determined about border checks, then it is possible to reduce the number of illegal guns in the country.

It's not so much the number of openings as it is the shear volume of stuff coming into the country. How much stuff enters and leaves Singapore? Can police feasible check every single package going into or out of the country? If not, a gun ban cannot work. Now scale up by 100x and you'll be in the ballpark of what US police would be looking at.

 

[drankin]

Just think, if everyone was carrying their own hammers this crime could have been prevented!

I have just read the entire thread and find the underlying problem with armed students is missing. If 5% of the students carried guns, the class would have had about eight people with guns. I would much rather try to duck one persons bullets than be caught in crossfire.

Also, to get a CCW I would need to complete an eight hour gun safety course which includes three hours of range time. This level of training does not prepare a person for armed conflict resolution.

You can run and hide but who are you to tell another he cannot defend him/herself? 8hrs of training will certainly train you enough to evaluate your environment, safely draw your pistol, release the safety, aim, hit your target. If 5% of the students had guns, it is less likely you will have people showing up to shoot up the place. A gun-free zone is a plinking gallery for wackos.

 

[kev1829]

8hrs of training will certainly train you enough to evaluate your environment, safely draw your pistol, release the safety, aim, hit your target.

This is not an accurate statement. A requirement of eight hours of safety training including three hours of range time (firing a minimum of thirty rounds) may give you the ability to safely draw your pistol and hit a target in a controlled environment. While under fire is not a contolled environment. It is an environment that quite often leaves police unable to hit a target. They receive many more hours of situational training.

I don't have a problem with gun ownership to protect yourself. But when your gun ownership has the potential of harming me, I have an issue. Why do people always want to carry guns? Can't you defend yourself with other weapons that don't involve projectiles?

 

[drankin]

This is not an accurate statement. A requirement of eight hours of safety training including three hours of range time (firing a minimum of thirty rounds) may give you the ability to safely draw your pistol and hit a target in a controlled environment. While under fire is not a contolled environment. It is an environment that quite often leaves police unable to hit a target. They receive many more hours of situational training.

I don't have a problem with gun ownership to protect yourself. But when your gun ownership has the potential of harming me, I have an issue. Why do people always want to carry guns? Can't you defend yourself with other weapons that don't involve projectiles?

The only effective way you can defend yourself from a shooter is with your own gun. Bruce Lee is dead, Jet Li is in Hollywood, Chuck Norris... he's pretty fast but...

 

[seycyrus]

I don't have a problem with gun ownership to protect yourself. But when your gun ownership has the potential of harming me, I have an issue. Why do people always want to carry guns? Can't you defend yourself with other weapons that don't involve projectiles?

Obviously, the students at Northern couldn't :(

Criminals wil lcarry guns regardless of the legality.

The states with concealed carry have not devolved into a road-rage, bullets flying version of the old west.

 

[kev1829]

Gun ownership or the right to carry wouldn't have made a difference in Michigan anyway. Restriction 1: must be 21 years old. I suppose if you aren't responsible enough to drink legally, you can't make appropriate decisions about deadly force.

The use of firearms by the police is always the last resort. I assume that the average citizen would consider it a practical option much sooner. In my experience, people who advocate ccw's are way to excited about the possibility of getting to "defend" themselves.

 

[drankin]

Gun ownership or the right to carry wouldn't have made a difference in Michigan anyway. Restriction 1: must be 21 years old. I suppose if you aren't responsible enough to drink legally, you can't make appropriate decisions about deadly force.

The use of firearms by the police is always the last resort. I assume that the average citizen would consider it a practical option much sooner. In my experience, people who advocate ccw's are way to excited about the possibility of getting to "defend" themselves.

You are making emotional assumptions about what a person would do in that situation. Do you have any facts to support your claims of what someone with a ccw would do? One of the victims in this case was 32yrs old, old enough to carry. There were probably several people old enough. At one point the shooter stopped to reload obviously not worried about anyone firing back at him.

 

[BobG]

There's over 37,000 high schools and around 6,500 colleges and universities in the US. In the last dozen years, you've had 8 mass killings resulting in 74 deaths and 103 wounded (32 deaths and and 15 wounded were from one incident). That's an average of .00014 deaths per school via mass killings per year.

Mass school shootings make the news and make great emotional appeals, but they're not a very good basis for policy about gun laws.

 

[Economist]

There's over 37,000 high schools and around 6,500 colleges and universities in the US. In the last dozen years, you've had 8 mass killings resulting in 74 deaths and 103 wounded (32 deaths and and 15 wounded were from one incident). That's an average of .00014 deaths per school via mass killings per year.

Mass school shootings make the news and make great emotional appeals, but they're not a very good basis for policy about gun laws.

I agree, it is very rare. And I also agree that the whole issue/debate is not won or lost based on school shootings.

I don't have a problem with gun ownership to protect yourself. But when your gun ownership has the potential of harming me, I have an issue. Why do people always want to carry guns? Can't you defend yourself with other weapons that don't involve projectiles?

I don't have a problem with someone not wanting to own a gun. But when they want me to not own a gun, the their gun non-ownership ideas can potentially harm me, and that's when I have an issue. Why do people always want to tell me I don't have the right to carry a gun? Can't I choose to defend myself with the weapon even if you choose not to?

 

[Cyrus]

I agree, it is very rare. And I also agree that the whole issue/debate is not won or lost based on school shootings.



I don't have a problem with someone not wanting to own a gun. But when they want me to not own a gun, the their gun non-ownership ideas can potentially harm me, and that's when I have an issue. Why do people always want to tell me I don't have the right to carry a gun? Can't I choose to defend myself with the weapon even if you choose not to?

No, you may not. Thats exactly why I asked you about the grandmother question. You don't have the 'right to play police man'. You absolutely do NOT have any authority to go over there and shoot the guy to help grandma from being mugged.

Quite simply, you don't have any right to 'carry a gun', you have the right to OWN a gun.

 

[Gokul43201]

There have been several claims of statistical fact in this thread - some not so easily verified as others. I am aware of the statistics regarding drops in crime rates following implementation of cc laws, but haven't actually seen any statistics for the fraction of gun-related crimes committed by cc permit holders. Could someone please post the stats for this?

Why would that matter? I'm reminded of Bowling for Columbine where Moore compared gun murders in different countries, because being stabbed in Canada is way better than being shot in the US. God only let's stab victims into heaven, you know?

edit: I'm not calling you out or anything. Just making it obvious that the bigger picture of overall crime is more important than the details. If CC permits cause the overall murder rate to go down but the gun-related murder rate to go up, I would see that as a good thing because fewer people are dying, while someone like Michael Moore would see that as a bad thing because he does a little dance every time someone is stabbed to death.

The emphasis was not really on the guns as much as it was on ratio of crimes by cc permit holders vs. non-holders. In any case, the query was in response to this assertion:

There ARE statistics available for the number of gun crimes committed by those who have CC permits. The number is incredibly small.

That is one of the reasons why the number of states allowing concealed carry is increasing.

 

[Gokul43201]

It's not so much the number of openings as it is the shear volume of stuff coming into the country. How much stuff enters and leaves Singapore? Can police feasible check every single package going into or out of the country? If not, a gun ban cannot work. Now scale up by 100x and you'll be in the ballpark of what US police would be looking at.

Singapore is probably the busiest port in the world, in terms of tonnage handled. Over half as much cargo enters and leaves Singapore as does the Baton Rouge/New Orleans region + New York/New Jersey region + LA/Longbeach region + Houston/Corpus Christi region (all put together), and in the case of Singapore, almost all of this is foreign cargo.

I think you may be a little off in your 100x factor.

PS: Keep in mind that Singapore's GDP is about 50x smaller than the US GDP (while the total tonnage handled is at the least 10x smaller). That means they have much less money to put into each ton of cargo inspection than the US.