Summations Only

No, we don't. Once smallpox was eradicated the benefits didn't outweigh the risks. Routine smallpox vaccination ended in 1972.

I don't know what to tell you, Hooah, but yes - you're going to have to accept that bad things can happen to you and yours regardless of what laws we pass, because making something illegal isn't going to be enough to dissuade someone who's sufficiently motivated to do something that they don't mind dying in the attempt. Yes, you're going to have to accept that bad things can happen to people. Well, no, you're not. You're not doing a goddamn thing to lower those deaths. Literally nothing is what you're doing.

On what basis could you say that? If guns had not been at his house he might well have still obtained them. If guns had been completely illegal he might still have obtained them. If guns had been unobtainable he might simply have used something else.

"Death by guns" isn't the right statistic, though, now is it? If you're killed in a situation where a gun might have saved your life, it doesn't follow that it would be classified as a gun death.

These shootings don't happen because of a passing "mania" or anger. They're not the result of a guy "flipping out" or losing control. They invariably represents months of planning prior to execution. The Columbine killers plotted for over a year, gathering weapons, explosives, and marksmanship training. James Holmes stockpiled weapons and ammunition for a year. The Clackamas, Oregon mall guy - whose mass shooting has largely disappeared from the news as a result of this latest one, and also because, having been stopped by the actions of a concealed-carry permit holder, don't fit the emerging "guns are terrible" narrative - spent the better part of a day gathering magazines, ammunition, and stealing the AR-15 before opening fire.We now know that the Sandy Hook shooter's weapons all belonged to his mother. They weren't from out of state as it was earlier suggested. It's fine to talk about background checks, closing loopholes, or Canada's "two references" requirement but there's no licensure regime in the world that is going to flag a middle-aged suburban divorcee as an unacceptable risk. Again, this shooting happened in a state that has nearly every characteristic of the model gun control state - an incredibly strict control regime, half the firearms per capita of more than a dozen nations, including the vaunted Canada, no "shall-issue" concealed-carry permits. Everything you guys have suggested as a solution to the problem of gun violence, Connecticut has.And it didn't prevent this tragedy. Of course. It absolutely means less gun deaths. But similarly, it's impossible to argue that the incredibly strict measures of the War on Drugs haven't reduced deaths from drugs. It absolutely has.But that's not the sole criteria. No control measure comes for free. It's widely understood and not controversial at all, at this point, to note that the War on Drugs - the anti-drug measures themselves - have resulted in enormous human immiseration and actual death. I don't understand why people like you can't understand that a topographically-identical War on Guns being proposed, here, wouldn't have topographically-identical results.

Ok, but then you can't count as a "gun death" those deaths where the victim would still have been killed had their assailant been armed with a knife or a bomb or any other weapon. Fair's fair.

So the "mania" didn't pass, I guess?

No, in fact, no country has done it. Other countries have simply preserved a pre-existing low rate of gun ownership by a series of restrictive laws. But no country has ever peacefully reduced its rate of gun ownership from US levels to Canada levels, and its not clear that there's any way to do so except by people voluntarily deciding they want to own less guns.

No, they haven't. Show me even a single example where a country has peacefully legislated their way from 80 guns per 100 citizens down to 16 guns per 100, the ownership rate of Connecticut which we will stipulate is the least we'd have to do. No, what I mean is that as usual, you're saying things that aren't true.

So show me one. I don't care what the country looks like. The country can have any shape at all, I don't care. Just show me a country that has peacefully legislated their way from over 80 guns per 100 citizens down to 16, and I'll consider your claim supported.

I didn't say that if guns were illegal he wouldn't have had access to them. Making things illegal doesn't mean that its impossible to obtain them. That is, after all, the strategy of the War om Drugs - make it illegal to use and possess drugs, and people won't use or possess drugs. How well has that strategy worked? Why would it work any better for guns? Almost nobody in Connecticut owned guns. Connecticut has a lower rate of firearms ownership than Canada, France, and parts of the UK. Again, I'm prepared to consider additional gun control measures in the US but proponents of those measures need to grapple with the fact that this tragedy happened in a state widely considered a model for effective gun control, and almost all of the measures I've heard proposed were already in effect for this shooting. What more could be done, short of nationwide confiscation of firearms?What you UK guys keep asking is basically "why can't there suddenly not be 300 million firearms in the US"? Well, because there's no such thing as magic, is why. You just can't wish that America didn't contain 300 million privately-owned firearms inside its borders. The way you achieved a largely gun-free society was by already being a largely gun-free society, and then you took steps to keep it that way. For obvious reasons, that's not something that can happen here. Not because we have the Second Amendment, but because we don't have time machines.

No, it's asking you to support your contention that "every other country" has done what we need to do, which is go from a country with more 80 guns per 100 people to a country with 15 or 30, like Canada.Except that you're wrong, foolishly so. No country has ever done that. Not a single one of them. If there was one, you'd be able to present it. But you can't, even though you said that you could. Well, the United States has successfully legislated against guns. We passed the Federal assault weapons ban. We passed the Brady Bill. Various states have various gun control measures of their own.The problem is, we've done everything that we can do without convening a Constitutional convention to repeal the Second Amendment. And we can't do that. And it turns out, all that stuff didn't do anything in other countries; their low rates of gun homicides after passing gun control legislation simply reflect their low rates of gun homicide before they passed gun control legislation.There's no country that has gone from 80 guns per 100 people or more to 15 except by violence and oppression. Not even a one.

That's abundantly false. There's not a state in the US where firearms aren't regulated under state law. By noting that other states have less strict gun control regimes? How does that leave "plenty of room" to argue that Connecticut would be more strict? You're aware, surely, that Connecticut can only pass laws that apply to Connecticut.

quote:

---

But the state scored only 58 points out of a possible 100, below the 81 points of top state California but far ahead of most other U.S. states.

---

I read today that last night, in a California parking lot, some guy popped off over 50 rounds from a semi-auto rifle. Nobody was hurt because apparently he fired into the air (not sure what that was about) Isn't it time to take a look around at all these gun crimes that happen under gun control regimes and admit that you can't actually control guns with a law?

I accept your apology for saying things that you knew weren't true. This statement is too broad for me to interpret, but this sounds like you're talking about Tangle's claim.But Tangle's abandoned that claim because it's impossible to support. Other countries have had success only in preserving a low rate of ownership. There aren't any countries at all that have been able to peacefully transition from high ownership to low via the legal process. Now, it's true that American gun ownership is in decline, most likely in response to the general drop in crimes of all kinds. Getting lead out of paint turns out to have been the most successful anti-crime campaign in American history.It's not yet clear that it's possible to pass a law that reduces gun ownership except by confiscation.

The US has, as I've shown. Again, I'm asking you to show me even a single country that has gone from over 80 guns per 100 people to as low as 15 peacefully, by passing gun control laws.Show me even one, or we'll consider your claim refuted.