-> $ <-

They say there are lies, big lies and statistics. I don't say that articles cited here or diagrams are not true. But I say they may not show the whole picture. For example density of population has great effect on crime so comparing #of crimes per 1mil people is useless between say Canada and US.

While it is true that statistics may be falsified, not used in context and even misused, but what is the alternative [to statistics]? Do you want to go by word by mouth, what you helive is true, or not do anything at all because we can't know for sure? I'm totally pro being more careful with making decisions, double checking your sources etc... but at the end of the day decisions have to be made based on what we belive is true, and statistics (from a credible source which are peer-checked), is one way of getting data to aid such decisions. Even if there turns out to be other evidence that suggests otherwise in the future, like ie. what you said that the drunk-driver punishment system didn't turn out as planned, thats really fine, knowledge gets invalided on a day-by-day basis, only important thing is that you change such a system like you mentioned once you get newer, better evidence.

I happened to be looking at the BBC (UK) news website on my phone last night; scrolling down I saw this story, my reactions was a jaded 'huh..' followed by my scrolling on to look for something more interesting to read...

For example density of population has great effect on crime so comparing #of crimes per 1mil people is useless between say Canada and US.

I generally agree on the basis that high population density means more chances of interacting with other people who'll make you have a worse day than what you're already having...

On the other hand, I'm from Oregon and I'm very familiar with the Roseburg area. It's a very small town and is fairly spread out. It's in a nice, quiet secluded hilly region with forest and farmland. It's probably the last place where I'd think a mass shooting would occur.

I don't know what the root cause of the shooting was, but there are plenty of preventative measures we could take to try to stop this kind of thing.

Just fully implement the constitutional right to bear arms and let the problem solve itself -- allow the citizenry to hold the same class of weapons as the military (which seems to be the original intention -- allow the people the means to challenge their own rulers, removing the state's monopoly of force?)
Either America would revolt and "regime change" itself into freedom, or it's military would have to de-arm and stop trying to take over the world. Either way...

Considering America wasn't even supposed to have a standing army, only a self-defense Militia composed of - you guessed it - citizens and the guns they owned, that's pretty much exactly the point.

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government" - Thomas Jefferson

I agree with frob on this one. It is purely mental health issues, but the problem is you don't know what sort of mental health issue will cause the individual to snap and go on mass killing sprees. Same with trauma, my father was murdered when I was 9 years old and I've never wanted anyone to be hurt or killed, but I also never fell into the sorrow filled illusion that gun control will somehow fix it. Yes, it is fact that it is harder to kill with a knife, but people ignore that with this day of readily available information on the internet, you take their guns they will just go to other more explosive mass murder devices. Remember just recently that a guy in Florida was arrested for telling an undercover FBI agent how to build a bomb.

I agree with frob on this one. It is purely mental health issues

Then what is the argument for why other countries have an order of magnitude less of these events? Are Europeans just more mentally stable than Americans? Do Australians take enough more vacation that they don't need to go around shooting people?

Unless one of you can cite data to indicate drastically higher rates of mental health issues in the US, this line of reasoning is pure speculation.

BHXSpecter, on 02 Oct 2015 - 6:55 PM, said:
I agree with frob on this one. It is purely mental health issues
Then what is the argument for why other countries have an order of magnitude less of these events? Are Europeans just more mentally stable than Americans? Do Australians take enough more vacation that they don't need to go around shooting people?

Exactly, @BHXSpecter, did you skip the stats/graph posted by Eternal?

I think what's often lost in the debate/argument is that not all guns are equal. There's a massive difference between the uses and effects of a say a hunting rifle as opposed to a hand gun or an assault weapon.

Where-as I don't really care if a chronically drunk driver were to drive a moped, I have a big problem if he were allowed to drive a big-rig.

A hunting rifle for example is a terrible weapon for mass murder of people. They reload very slowly, they are terrible at close quarters, hitting an erratically moving target through a scope takes some serious skill, and there's no possibility of hiding the weapon. You're much better off just using a car or a knife. On the other hand assault weapons are designed to mow down people indiscriminately. They have no other use but to kill.

Unless one of you can cite data to indicate drastically higher rates of mental health issues in the US, this line of reasoning is pure speculation.

Well, speculation is all we have If it would be so simple problem would be solved long ago. There are just too many other factors that have influence.

Exactly, @BHXSpecter, did you skip the stats/graph posted by Eternal?

Did you? The first graph "homicides by firearm per 1mil people". Difference between Switzerland (7.7) and Germany (1.9) is over 4.05 (Switzerland's value is over 4 times larger than Germany) and is larger than difference between US (29.7) and Switzerland (7.) that is about 3.86. Yet both Germany and Switzerland are European countries that share a border so should be quite close with other aspects (like culture), right?

Again. There is no right or wrong way to read such data. Yes they can and will be used to get some information and to define new law in order to solve some problems. But that is not the point I'm trying to make here The point is that law by itself is useless way to enforce anything if it is not supported by proper education.

Forbidding guns completely in regions of high crime may decrease it. Or it may have no influence at all. But for sure there may be other action that would solve it in other way. Again no one easy solution, but for example lowering unemployment, increasing education and providing better access to food and healthcare could have better results than just new law.