No I'm more interested in why you wouldn't include this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monash_University_shooting

That does not make sense at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crack_e...ited_States%29

Gun violence is decreasing because the effect of the crack epidemic was decreasing. You can't look at the highest point of the hump when gun laws may have been "loosened" (whatever that means) and say looser gun laws led to the gun violence decline. There's a huge confounding factor.

The drug war increases violence? Who could have guessed?

Ya read your sentence he bolded again. Your conclusion is fine, you just worded it poorly.

Nice theory, but not borne out by Britain and Japan.

Because of course, they are not easy to make.

Could even one of the mass killers have built the weapon they used?

How many crack dealers can fit a milling machine up the stairs to their apartment?

Did you ask your friends how many illegal guns they had bought? Besides, the crazed loners don't have the social skills to make connections.

3D printing, tho.

Yeah, I left out a pretty important part.

What question do you feel was unanswered? You may not make personal attacks on posters and you may not call posters names. if you think there is a chance something isn't allowed, it most likely isn't.

Actually, the Freakonomics hypothesis is that while the crack epidemic did cause a temporary spike in violent crime in certain areas, the overall violent crime rate began to fall in the late 80's and 90's thanks to abortion legalization in the 70's...

http://www.freakonomics.com/2005/05/...d-you-believe/

Just more fuel for the "lots of variables influence the crime rate, not just the gun laws" argument, I guess...

Is the term "gun nut" ok to use? Do gun peeps not like to be called this or do they wear it as a badge of honor here?

I will say this, if the gun peeps don't like the gun nut thing I will refrain.

I have seen people use the term directly and indirectly many times. So I will ask once more:

GUN NUT. YES OR NO?

I'm asking yes or no about gun nut. Not ******, idiot, gay boatman, stupid head or ass taster. GUN NUT.

Ya, there is a ton of variables at play. Proximity, proliferation of guns, poverty, culture, etc.

Well, I'm thinking of their race and crime arguments (which may have been a subset of the abortion argument, I don't recall). But basically race and crime were unrelated except for murders in the 1980s and 1990s--and that exception was likely because of the crack epidemic, which disproportionally affected minority urban areas. In other words, the crack epidemic was a huge influence one should be aware of before drawing conclusions wrt crime trends/statistics.

Also see ikes graph--handgun homicides skyrocket in the late 1980s.

People who mistype ect. are gay boatmen imo.

People itt have used gun nut and not been banned. That may or may not continue.

People who point out grammar mistakes are poopy doo doo bums.

As a generic term it is fine. As an attack on an individual, it should be avoided.

What do you mean "why didn't I include it"? What are you even referring to? Include it in what?

In any event, are you really trying to say that one shooting event that happened a decade ago means Australia gun restrictions aren't working?

If you are, maybe sit this conversation out

Wait. You're actually trying to use this to bolster the libertarian point of view? No one is saying there aren't crazy people who will try to harm children. In fact the exact opposite. We're saying we know there are crazy people, and maybe they'll do a lot less damage if they don't have easy access to guns. Yes, admittedly, wounded isn't dead.

Suzzer,

Just a guess, but I feel like he may have been highlighting where the slippery slope leads. Like, if we start down the path of tighter and tighter controls of guns, where does it stop? People won't be able to buy large knives at some point, if we follow chinas example. (Well, they just have to register them or whatever)

Hey, this sounds familiar.

the question of whether gun control will actually reduce violence is only part of the issue. it might, slightly (or might not), but at what cost? the utility gained from private gun ownership, in aggregate, is enormous in the US.

even more troublesome is the slippery-slope threat. if we permit ourselves to take this power from the people and put it solely into government hands - to criminalize people for safely possessing legitimate, simple, useful tools, what else might we be opening the door to? if we allow our government that kind of power, what happens when whichever party you despise most takes control and exercises that power?

This is the same argument I make whenever one party starts bitching about wanting to end the filibuster in the senate, or when Obama signed the, what was it, ndaa and promised not to use parts of it against American citizens or whatever it was.

wat?

Define utility as personal fulfillment / enjoyment, and that statement is fine. Define otherwise, it's not. Have fun working out the correct definition of utility.

EDT: My point here is this is just a complete argumentative shift. Defining utility as including " recreational enjoyment / pride of ownership / feeling of safety" presupposes that "enjoyment" is part of the utility of deadly firearms. Defining utility as not including "recreational enjoyment / pride of ownership / feeling of safety" presupposes that those potential benefits of ownership do not factor into discussions of the value of gun ownership. Either way, you're both completely undermining each other before the discussion even starts. A blanket statement either way is worthless until the term is defined.