Gun Control & RKBA

On the Road

(20,783 posts)

183. The Problem with the Argument "Guns Don't Kill People -- People Kill People" Is

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 07:50 PM

Jul 2012

that it is muddling together different types of causes.

Legal dictionaries distinguish between proximate and immediate cause. Aristotle described material, formal, efficient, and final causes. There are whole subareas of law and philosophy concerned with causation, and this this argument misses the entire area by a mile.

The point is not so much to attach names, just to realize that they are different. There are always multiple causes, and insisting on one is not denying the other. The individual as well as the type of weapon were both necessary for Aurora to happen as it did.

-----------------------

Spree killings have occurred as long as we are are aware of, and if recent history is a guide, they will continue to happen sporadically about once a year in the US (nine incidents since 2002). The death toll in Aurora would certainly have been lower with a more limited weapon. And if private acquisition of weapons with these capabilities continues unabated, there will be more fatalities.

This has nothing to do with taking away guns for hunting or self-defense. The gun used in Aurora was not especially practical for either purpose. Restricting the sale of these weapons would no more violate the second amendment than prohibitions on private ownership of tanks and artillery.

Guns are not a hot-button issue for me either way. But trying to derail a discussion of which weapons should be legal for private sale with this kind of reasoning is just silly.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

194 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Why are people blaming the gun or the "arsenal" for Aurora? Read before commenting please. [View all] shadowrider Jul 2012 OP

One thing I know for sure... Speck Tater Jul 2012 #1

I didn't say he wasn't responsible. I said he has a condition that should have been shadowrider Jul 2012 #3

It is mistaken to conclude that people are blaming guns randr Jul 2012 #2

You're joking, right? Tejas Jul 2012 #4

I am not joking randr Jul 2012 #117

The immediate call for increased gun control tells me the gun(s) are being blamed shadowrider Jul 2012 #5

Yeah, imagine that! Pamela Troy Jul 2012 #7

Nah, knives never cause mass murder shadowrider Jul 2012 #9

yes there are other ways. So best not to do anything to make it less easy. Warren Stupidity Jul 2012 #12

Sure, knives are sometimes used in murders. Pamela Troy Jul 2012 #13

Hang on a second please shadowrider Jul 2012 #17

Those examples you offered don't prove knives can cause just as much damage as guns. Pamela Troy Jul 2012 #23

11 killed with a homemade flame thrower? gejohnston Jul 2012 #39

LOL! Given up on the knives thing, eh? Very wise. Pamela Troy Jul 2012 #42

Are dead only dead if killed with guns in your view or do other means mean nothing? shadowrider Jul 2012 #44

Oh, the dead are no less dead. There just tend to be so much fewer of them Pamela Troy Jul 2012 #45

You missed the memo on Rwanda, didn't you? n/t PavePusher Jul 2012 #134

guns are not often used in hold ups and rapes gejohnston Jul 2012 #46

Holmes didn't injure 71 people and kill 12? Pamela Troy Jul 2012 #47

last one I saw was gejohnston Jul 2012 #49

No. Not ten. Pamela Troy Jul 2012 #53

Why does distance matter? Euromutt Jul 2012 #19

They're more dead when killed with a gun, ain't you got the memo? n/t shadowrider Jul 2012 #20

They're less alive than they would be Pamela Troy Jul 2012 #26

You don't know that, and you can't know that Euromutt Jul 2012 #144

Please cite for me some examples of a single individual killing a dozen or more people within minute Pamela Troy Jul 2012 #171

they were choking on tear gas gejohnston Jul 2012 #175

Still waiting for all those examples of a single person with a knife Pamela Troy Jul 2012 #186

Still waiting to hear where he got the tear gas grenades gejohnston Jul 2012 #189

Yeah, the sale of that stuff needs to be controlled, to. Pamela Troy Jul 2012 #190

it is, that was my point gejohnston Jul 2012 #192

Seems I may have answered my own question, sort of. gejohnston Jul 2012 #194

You don't think being able to kill from a distance makes killing more effective? Pamela Troy Jul 2012 #25

You're moving the goalposts Euromutt Jul 2012 #102

I wish people would learn what these expressions mean before using them. Pamela Troy Jul 2012 #113

Let me quote what you said... Euromutt Jul 2012 #143

Indeed. You DON'T often hear of a single person managing to kill over a dozen people... Pamela Troy Jul 2012 #167

So all K-12 schools shouldn't be gun free zones? HockeyMom Jul 2012 #8

I didn't say they shouldn't be gun free but explain to me how you enforce it? shadowrider Jul 2012 #11

We can't prevent murder so should we then decriminalize it? upaloopa Jul 2012 #28

I said nothing of decriminalizing it. I asked how you enforce a no gun zone shadowrider Jul 2012 #32

A gun free zone does not actually protect kids, does it? hack89 Jul 2012 #151

He apparently can't explain how a gun-free zone would be enforced shadowrider Jul 2012 #153

In high school I took a gun every Thursday gejohnston Jul 2012 #14

Armed cops alabama_for_obama Jul 2012 #157

No, the gunS (he had more than one) didn't do it on their own. Pamela Troy Jul 2012 #6

I blame our idiotic gun culture and the absurd availability of weapons. Warren Stupidity Jul 2012 #10

So the mental health aspect means nothing. Blame it on the gun. Got it. shadowrider Jul 2012 #15

Yep. Without the guns this disturbed young man would likely not have done as much damage. Pamela Troy Jul 2012 #16

NOW you're getting it. Why wasn't this "unbalanced individual" treated when by all shadowrider Jul 2012 #18

Being in favor of some level of gun control Pamela Troy Jul 2012 #77

Good. Mental health services in this particular case could have averted this tragedy. shadowrider Jul 2012 #90

Coupled with effective gun control, yes, I think they could have. Pamela Troy Jul 2012 #96

W/out the gun Trunk Monkey Jul 2012 #29

Dude, get the memo. You're more dead if killed with a gun. Theyz evil I say n/t shadowrider Jul 2012 #33

Yes, I really think this guy would have been less likely to kill and maim the people he did Pamela Troy Jul 2012 #114

where did he set them gejohnston Jul 2012 #118

You think he used a gun because he wanted to kill FEWER people? Really? Pamela Troy Jul 2012 #119

no, gejohnston Jul 2012 #120

His ability to kill a lot of people plainly was limited, because his attempt at it WITHOUT a gun Pamela Troy Jul 2012 #121

for example? gejohnston Jul 2012 #122

His booby trapped apartment killed nobody. Pamela Troy Jul 2012 #123

Only because the cops knew what they were doing gejohnston Jul 2012 #125

But you see, nobody did enter and the cops knew what they were doing. Pamela Troy Jul 2012 #166

that is not why gejohnston Jul 2012 #174

Well duh, he did warn the police about that. Clames Jul 2012 #156

Even if the cops hadn't known about it, there's go guarantee... Pamela Troy Jul 2012 #168

actually, gejohnston Jul 2012 #173

could he get frag grenades? Trunk Monkey Jul 2012 #127

I don't mind debating the point with you but please Trunk Monkey Jul 2012 #128

By that logic, you don't need a gun to defend yourself or hunt. ThePhilosopher04 Jul 2012 #179

We're quite willing to discuss it Euromutt Jul 2012 #31

Nonsense.. EX500rider Jul 2012 #135

It isn't though Mojorabbit Jul 2012 #63

Thanks for a clear thought. It's appreciated, truly n/t shadowrider Jul 2012 #72

I'm not the sanest person in the world TrogL Jul 2012 #21

how insane are you? gejohnston Jul 2012 #22

Mild bipolar TrogL Jul 2012 #24

my bad gejohnston Jul 2012 #52

If he didn't have a gun he could be crazy as a loon and those people would have enjoyed their movie upaloopa Jul 2012 #27

Sure. And the police department has been trying for a day and a half to get into shadowrider Jul 2012 #34

Except, you see, he didn't. Pamela Troy Jul 2012 #35

Because he's exceptionally unbalanced and needed help long ago n/t shadowrider Jul 2012 #36

And yet, as you pointed out, unbalanced people have been known to use knives... Pamela Troy Jul 2012 #37

And yet you continue to ignore his mental problem and blame the tool n/t shadowrider Jul 2012 #38

Oh, I factor in his mental health. Pamela Troy Jul 2012 #40

My knives equivalence worked out just fine. You choose to discount it. shadowrider Jul 2012 #41

I chose to point out the math. As horrible as those attacks were, they did not leave as many killed Pamela Troy Jul 2012 #43

So less lethal means aren't as bad as long as there are less victims? shadowrider Jul 2012 #48

or to paraphrase Stalin gejohnston Jul 2012 #50

. shadowrider Jul 2012 #54

Are you an admirer of Stalin? Pamela Troy Jul 2012 #58

no, not at all. gejohnston Jul 2012 #64

But you appear to agree with his claim Pamela Troy Jul 2012 #68

see post 70 NT. gejohnston Jul 2012 #73

Been there, done that. Pamela Troy Jul 2012 #88

Your quote makes no sense in this context. Pamela Troy Jul 2012 #57

no, I'm projecting gejohnston Jul 2012 #70

"Projection" is when someone ascribes his or her own attitudes and faults to others. Pamela Troy Jul 2012 #82

you must be unique among gun control advocates gejohnston Jul 2012 #94

Yes, "less lethal" means that people who would have been likely killed in a gun attack Pamela Troy Jul 2012 #55

No. I'm saying you're discounting other means of mass murder and insisting guns are shadowrider Jul 2012 #59

No, I'm not "insisting guns are the cause of mass murder." Pamela Troy Jul 2012 #62

You are incorrect. Oklahoma City ring a bell or was that not mass murder? shadowrider Jul 2012 #66

Of course it was mass murder. Pamela Troy Jul 2012 #74

Really? News reports say this tragedy in Aurora took 4 months to plan shadowrider Jul 2012 #81

Actually, I believe they said he was planning it as far as four months ahead. Pamela Troy Jul 2012 #84

No one knows. And I agree the apartment took a lot of time shadowrider Jul 2012 #92

Yep. Building and planting an effective bomb takes time and care. Pamela Troy Jul 2012 #95

Toting guns into public places takes no time and care. You already know your shadowrider Jul 2012 #99

Not when you're firing into a crowd. Pamela Troy Jul 2012 #115

I've never tried, but alabama_for_obama Jul 2012 #158

He would have found another way with a much higher body count. n/t shadowrider Jul 2012 #160

And yet, isn't it interesting that most of the worst mass killings in this country Pamela Troy Jul 2012 #165

Most in the world are disaffected loners. gejohnston Jul 2012 #172

For the same reason you don't march onto certain military installations or parts of Pamela Troy Jul 2012 #187

The examples given gejohnston Jul 2012 #191

It's already against the law for a person with mental issues tobuy a gun rl6214 Jul 2012 #138

Lol alabama_for_obama Jul 2012 #159

Nah, the Jenoch Jul 2012 #185

He was a smart kid 4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #131

Guns don't kill people. Gun owners do. Lint Head Jul 2012 #30

Why can't I own a nuclear weapon as part of a well-regulated militia? LonePirate Jul 2012 #51

because they are not small arms gejohnston Jul 2012 #56

I want to be a fly on the wall for that one shadowrider Jul 2012 #61

Uh huh... gcomeau Jul 2012 #65

they used military terms of the time gejohnston Jul 2012 #75

The Second Amendment makes no mention of small-arms or size. LonePirate Jul 2012 #67

see the above post gejohnston Jul 2012 #78

Military and linquistic history have no bearing on the average American's feelings on the 2nd Amend. LonePirate Jul 2012 #87

Actually it might have been gejohnston Jul 2012 #91

The numbers are immaterial. They are instruments of death and both should both legal or illegal. LonePirate Jul 2012 #97

these are not high powered, but gejohnston Jul 2012 #100

Who's to say in 20 or 50 or 100 years that nukes won't be cheap and handheld? LonePirate Jul 2012 #103

let that be their problem in the future gejohnston Jul 2012 #106

Why does 1 direction and target make a difference? The Second Amendment makes no such distinction. LonePirate Jul 2012 #107

I'm not drawing the line anywhere gejohnston Jul 2012 #110

It's called the Law of Physics. Clames Jul 2012 #126

I think you are misjudging the amount of fissionable material necessary for a bomb. LonePirate Jul 2012 #129

I think you are misjudging the level of sophistication and what it exactly takes to achieve... Clames Jul 2012 #130

Compare the size and calculative power of today's computers with those from 50 years ago LonePirate Jul 2012 #133

My imagination is fine. You're understanding of the science... Clames Jul 2012 #147

You seem to be forgetting that technology shrinks and improves over time. It doesn't stagnate. LonePirate Jul 2012 #148

You've made enough assumptions and false accusations in one post... Clames Jul 2012 #149

You seem to think because it can't be done now, it can never be done. Your ignorance here is galling LonePirate Jul 2012 #150

It's because you need a certain amount of fissionable material alabama_for_obama Jul 2012 #161

If environmental impact was a cause for illegality, then millions would be without power, cars, jobs LonePirate Jul 2012 #163

I know enough to run circles around you. Clames Jul 2012 #182

Jeez shadowrider Jul 2012 #93

I appreciate your agreement with my point here. Thank you. LonePirate Jul 2012 #104

Jeez was "Holy crap, not this sh*t again", not an agreement n/t shadowrider Jul 2012 #108

You only think it's sh*t because it uses your argument to defend the indefensible LonePirate Jul 2012 #109

Big difference, you just arent willing to accept it. rl6214 Jul 2012 #140

If you look at the termonology of "keep and bear arms" you need to determine what "arms" are rl6214 Jul 2012 #139

NOBODY is "blaming the gun". gcomeau Jul 2012 #60

The *availability* of legal *fertilizer* and legal *diesel fuel* enabled McVeigh to kill 168 shadowrider Jul 2012 #69

I understand perfectly. gcomeau Jul 2012 #79

There is no Federal Department of Needs. What someone can afford to buy is their shadowrider Jul 2012 #85

... gcomeau Jul 2012 #136

What do "automatic assault weapons" have to do with it? N/T beevul Jul 2012 #105

I honestly can't even think how to appropriately respond to that... nt gcomeau Jul 2012 #137

You could start by explaining how guns that weren't used in the CO shooting are relevant... beevul Jul 2012 #142

This guy did NOT have any "automatic assault weapons" rl6214 Jul 2012 #141

I'd call it trolling, wouldn't you? DainBramaged Jul 2012 #145

No, I'd call it completely ignorant rl6214 Jul 2012 #180

Bite my ass, how's that. DainBramaged Jul 2012 #181

I'll agree with you here. I am not a gun owner; for my own reasons...... wandy Jul 2012 #98

You aren't a gun owner and I support your decision shadowrider Jul 2012 #101

Disagree...he should not of had a gun or guns or explosives....but he did and we movonne Jul 2012 #71

His mom "knew" it was him when she heard of it shadowrider Jul 2012 #83

Gun culture helped. liberalmuse Jul 2012 #76

miss the larger picture gejohnston Jul 2012 #86

The 1% are the real culprits Triloon Jul 2012 #80

A rather *loud* alarm on the door MAY have stopped this. shadowrider Jul 2012 #89

In my part of the country Jenoch Jul 2012 #193

because people want to blame their most feared object, not offend the shooter. ileus Jul 2012 #111

You can't blame both? Pamela Troy Jul 2012 #116

you can but like water off a ducks back ileus Jul 2012 #124

Until it's picked up and used by a crazy person. Pamela Troy Jul 2012 #169

At the very least, we shouldn't be making guns so easily available to disturbed pnwmom Jul 2012 #112

If the mother was aware of his state of mind freethought Jul 2012 #132

Which is my point. Personally, I think the guy should fry in a big time way. shadowrider Jul 2012 #146

Probably "Not My Kid" Syndrome. freethought Jul 2012 #164

No need to read... I've seen enough justifications from the gun crowd bowens43 Jul 2012 #152

Whatever n/t shadowrider Jul 2012 #154

And your answer is to "ban them all". So how would you go about it? oneshooter Jul 2012 #155

Exactly. Just imagine if McVeigh had been unable to get a gun 4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #162

And if Seung-Hi Cho had been unable to get a gun? Pamela Troy Jul 2012 #170

there ya go . . . that is it! DrDan Jul 2012 #176

Did you miss the part Jenoch Jul 2012 #184

Think what you want, but he should not have been able to gain access to such lethal equipment. jonthebru Jul 2012 #177

complete bullshit gejohnston Jul 2012 #178

The Problem with the Argument "Guns Don't Kill People -- People Kill People" Is On the Road Jul 2012 #183

couple of things. gejohnston Jul 2012 #188