|
On January 19 2011 08:41 reg wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2011 08:28 Romantic wrote:
Reg says it, so it is true?
Oh how I love thee, internet.
A quick Google showed numerous studies from Yale etc explicitly challenging the idea. Show nested quote +On January 19 2011 08:35 11cc wrote:
But did they take into account that facts are facts? http://www.opposingviews.com/i/busting-the-gun-control-equals-less-crime-mythPerhaps next time you can keep your snide little fingers away from the keyboard and participate like an adult. If you have a disagreement voice it but don't waste my time with your stupidity.
1) Did you take a look at the references of the "thing" you linked? You've got to be kidding me...
2) Accounting for stuff that drives people to murder might be relevant wouldn't you think - and now we are at it, increase in population size might also have something to do with a rise in crimes...
3) Using suicides as a measure of how effective banning guns are is pretty retarded. I happen to work at a psychiatric emergency department - Shooting yourself isn't a very popular method in the first place. Throwing yourself in front of a train/off a tall building, pills, asphyxiation, hanging - those are the big ones if you want to talk about the ways people do it succesfully.
On a related note when it comes to relevance, did you know that approximately 50% of all humans who have ever lived on the earth happens to live today? That means that the risk of dying is only 50%!!!!!!!!
Honestly, I'm not very pro guncontrol, and I would love to see a proper debate, but using "something" like that which you just linked is pretty useless...
|
On January 19 2011 08:41 reg wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2011 08:28 Romantic wrote:
Reg says it, so it is true?
Oh how I love thee, internet.
A quick Google showed numerous studies from Yale etc explicitly challenging the idea. Show nested quote +On January 19 2011 08:35 11cc wrote:
But did they take into account that facts are facts? http://www.opposingviews.com/i/busting-the-gun-control-equals-less-crime-mythPerhaps next time you can keep your snide little fingers away from the keyboard and participate like an adult. If you have a disagreement voice it but don't waste my time with your stupidity.
China has a strictly no guns allowed policy, even within the police force (of which have non-lethal guns). Only the armed police and military.
Gun death is literally 0.
It works, you've just never tried it.
Facts are facts herp.
|
On January 19 2011 09:01 ckw wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2011 05:10 DwD wrote:
??? That can't be right. How can the gun shoot 3 people on accident while being dropped? Did he carry a fucking m16 in his backpack... Please don't start this again because everyone knows that most of the shootings in the U.S. are by illegally obtained guns. The only thing a gun law restricts is the right for law abiding citizens to have them. Duh.
So increased availability of guns doesn't make it easier to acquire one illegally? Well, of course it makes it easier. One of the most common methods of obtaining guns is to steal them from legal owners 
The USA is off the chart for gun related deaths and there is no surprise as to why.
Hey, at least Columbia and Zimbabwe are a little bit more dangerous!
|
On January 19 2011 08:41 reg wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2011 08:28 Romantic wrote:
Reg says it, so it is true?
Oh how I love thee, internet.
A quick Google showed numerous studies from Yale etc explicitly challenging the idea. Show nested quote +On January 19 2011 08:35 11cc wrote:
But did they take into account that facts are facts? http://www.opposingviews.com/i/busting-the-gun-control-equals-less-crime-mythPerhaps next time you can keep your snide little fingers away from the keyboard and participate like an adult. If you have a disagreement voice it but don't waste my time with your stupidity.
I'm not saying these studies are conclusive, but there are lots of studies that show the opposite of what you claim:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_Guns,_Less_Crime#Studies_Against
"Facts" are simply numbers, and they can be used in any way they want. Also, your article cites gunowners.org, and that article cites various dubious sources.
|
On January 19 2011 09:11 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2011 09:01 ckw wrote:On January 19 2011 05:10 DwD wrote:
??? That can't be right. How can the gun shoot 3 people on accident while being dropped? Did he carry a fucking m16 in his backpack... Please don't start this again because everyone knows that most of the shootings in the U.S. are by illegally obtained guns. The only thing a gun law restricts is the right for law abiding citizens to have them. Duh. So increased availability of guns doesn't make it easier to acquire one illegally? Well, of course it makes it easier. One of the most common methods of obtaining guns is to steal them from legal owners The USA is off the chart for gun related deaths and there is no surprise as to why. Hey, at least Columbia and Zimbabwe are a little bit more dangerous!
Clearly, we cannot allow them to best us in this all important statistic; we need more guns, not less!
Also, this paper might be of interest to some of you.
|
It always suprises me how many people in a thread thats linked to gun violence think its not relevant to discuss gun control. Maybe its just because i live in a extremely middle class part of England but i honestly would not even know how to go about getting hold of a gun. Ive never seen or heard of anyone having one (im 21) and have reasonable exposure to drugs etc.
In all honesty it suprises me there arent more school shootings in the US. There are always a few kids in every school who are mocked relentlessly and are a little bit strange etc. I can think of 2 ppl in my year alone out of about 400 who if they had ready access too guns i wouldnt of been suprised if they just snapped one day.
|
On January 19 2011 09:11 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2011 09:01 ckw wrote:On January 19 2011 05:10 DwD wrote:
??? That can't be right. How can the gun shoot 3 people on accident while being dropped? Did he carry a fucking m16 in his backpack... Please don't start this again because everyone knows that most of the shootings in the U.S. are by illegally obtained guns. The only thing a gun law restricts is the right for law abiding citizens to have them. Duh. So increased availability of guns doesn't make it easier to acquire one illegally? Well, of course it makes it easier. One of the most common methods of obtaining guns is to steal them from legal owners The USA is off the chart for gun related deaths and there is no surprise as to why. Hey, at least Columbia and Zimbabwe are a little bit more dangerous!
Really, outlawing guns just creates a black market for guns.
There is a reason that the Mexico Drug Cartels have gold plated houses after all yes?
Banning something like guns in an area where it's been legal for so long is just a starting stick for failure. How would you go about collecting guns from people that already possess them? How would you really regulate the sale of guns as to not empower the already illegal owners of them?[
It isn't as black and white as people seem to think it is. Black market firearms are a very real threat you know. Banning guns allows the people that really shouldn't have them in the first place as the only ones that have them.
USA is simply different from other countries due to HOW LONG there has been a "lack" of gun control. If you make such a transition, expect nothing short of upheaval. I certainly wouldn't want to be the poor fool attempting to collect firearms from Texas citizens.
|
On January 19 2011 08:41 reg wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2011 08:28 Romantic wrote:
Reg says it, so it is true?
Oh how I love thee, internet.
A quick Google showed numerous studies from Yale etc explicitly challenging the idea. Show nested quote +On January 19 2011 08:35 11cc wrote:
But did they take into account that facts are facts? http://www.opposingviews.com/i/busting-the-gun-control-equals-less-crime-mythPerhaps next time you can keep your snide little fingers away from the keyboard and participate like an adult. If you have a disagreement voice it but don't waste my time with your stupidity.
Care to formulate an argument on your own or are you just going to link to an idiotic website and act like you've proven a point?
Pretty funny stuff btw..
"Japan: One newspaper headline says it all: Police say "Crime rising in Japan, while arrests at record low."(5) "
Yep, an obscure headline in a newspaper does say it ALL.
"The United States has experienced far fewer TOTAL MURDERS than Europe does over the last 70 years. In trying to claim that gun-free Europe is more peaceful than America, gun control advocates routinely ignore the overwhelming number of murders that have been committed in Europe. "
Lol best argument against gun control ever. "Omg 70 years ago there was world war 2 and a lot of people were murdered so that is why we shouldn't have gun control." Too funny..
|
On January 19 2011 09:39 TarQeS wrote:
It always suprises me how many people in a thread thats linked to gun violence think its not relevant to discuss gun control. Maybe its just because i live in a extremely middle class part of England but i honestly would not even know how to go about getting hold of a gun. Ive never seen or heard of anyone having one (im 21) and have reasonable exposure to drugs etc.
In all honesty it suprises me there arent more school shootings in the US. There are always a few kids in every school who are mocked relentlessly and are a little bit strange etc. I can think of 2 ppl in my year alone out of about 400 who if they had ready access too guns i wouldnt of been suprised if they just snapped one day.
If you have no idea about those 2 people you shouldn't assume who they are. Those people are just like me or you, they may be mocked relentlessly but that doesn't mean they are insane.
I would rather be hated by everyone in my school than to be liked.
Anyways shit happens, the only way to prevent things like this is to raise your children right.
|
On January 19 2011 09:06 Ghostcom wrote:1) Did you take a look at the references of the "thing" you linked? You've got to be kidding me...
If you had taken a moment to look at the sources listed in the study you would know that they were compiled from several news organizations and government agencies.
On January 19 2011 09:06 Ghostcom wrote:2) Accounting for stuff that drives people to murder might be relevant wouldn't you think - and now we are at it, increase in population size might also have something to do with a rise in crimes...
3) Using suicides as a measure of how effective banning guns are is pretty retarded. I happen to work at a psychiatric emergency department - Shooting yourself isn't a very popular method in the first place. Throwing yourself in front of a train/off a tall building, pills, asphyxiation, hanging - those are the big ones if you want to talk about the ways people do it succesfully.
On a related note when it comes to relevance, did you know that approximately 50% of all humans who have ever lived on the earth happens to live today? That means that the risk of dying is only 50%!!!!!!!!
Honestly, I'm not very pro guncontrol, and I would love to see a proper debate, but using "something" like that which you just linked is pretty useless...
In response to number two. Yes, pressures to murder should be accounted for and yes, an increase in the general population would lead to an increase in the total number of crimes committed. It would not lead to an increased percentage of murder. There are many factors that account for why people murder but one thing is clear: less gun regulation leads to less gun related crime.
I'm very surprised at the comments I've received but none more so than yours. You really took a lot of time to say nothing and, in the end, attempt to belittle the argument with a red herring. Once you properly understand how to behave in a discussion I'll be happy to talk you. Until then, please leave me alone. I don't have the time.
On January 19 2011 09:10 Jombozeus wrote:
China has a strictly no guns allowed policy, even within the police force (of which have non-lethal guns). Only the armed police and military.
Gun death is literally 0.
It works, you've just never tried it.
Facts are facts herp.
England attempted a gun confiscation and the crime rate went up as a result. China's no gun ban works because A) they're a totalitarian government and B) they'll fucking kill you for that shit.
Controlled media and internet access is a very, very easy way to limit ideas and restrict a populus into submission. I don't accept the Chinese government as a trustworthy source for crime in the same sense I don't trust the North Korean government to tell us how their economy is doing.
On January 19 2011 09:11 Cambium wrote:I'm not saying these studies are conclusive, but there are lots of studies that show the opposite of what you claim: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_Guns,_Less_Crime#Studies_Against"Facts" are simply numbers, and they can be used in any way they want. Also, your article cites gunowners.org, and that article cites various dubious sources.
There are studies that show literally anything. Vaccines cause autism and the like. I don't generally accept studies as viable proof (with an exception to the hard sciences). I prefer news articles with local data showing the results of introduced policies. "Facts", like you said, can be misconstrued. Evidence, which is a more proper term I should have used originally, can not.
Note, thats not to say I'm using Paul Krugman to explain economics or George Will to prove conservatism correct.
On January 19 2011 09:43 BlackJack wrote:
Care to formulate an argument on your own or are you just going to link to an idiotic website and act like you've proven a point?
Pretty funny stuff btw..
"Japan: One newspaper headline says it all: Police say "Crime rising in Japan, while arrests at record low."(5) "
Yep, an obscure headline in a newspaper does say it ALL.
"The United States has experienced far fewer TOTAL MURDERS than Europe does over the last 70 years. In trying to claim that gun-free Europe is more peaceful than America, gun control advocates routinely ignore the overwhelming number of murders that have been committed in Europe. "
Lol best argument against gun control ever. "Omg 70 years ago there was world war 2 and a lot of people were murdered so that is why we shouldn't have gun control." Too funny..
I don't particularly like you. If you genuinely, honestly believe that taking away guns from the "good-guys" will decrease the gun crime then thats your own business. The article cited many legitimate, liberal news sources that you chose to ignore for two different headlines that you straw-manned. You skimmed the article and responded with an attitude that can only be described as childish.
I have zero interest in continuing a discussion with you.
|
On January 19 2011 09:10 Jombozeus wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2011 08:41 reg wrote:On January 19 2011 08:28 Romantic wrote:
Reg says it, so it is true?
Oh how I love thee, internet.
A quick Google showed numerous studies from Yale etc explicitly challenging the idea. On January 19 2011 08:35 11cc wrote:
But did they take into account that facts are facts? http://www.opposingviews.com/i/busting-the-gun-control-equals-less-crime-mythPerhaps next time you can keep your snide little fingers away from the keyboard and participate like an adult. If you have a disagreement voice it but don't waste my time with your stupidity. China has a strictly no guns allowed policy, even within the police force (of which have non-lethal guns). Only the armed police and military. Gun death is literally 0. It works, you've just never tried it. Facts are facts herp.
China also proved that you don't need a gun to go into a school and kill a bunch of kids
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Chinese_school_attacks
|
On January 19 2011 05:10 travis wrote:then how did it shoot 3 people? lol
That'll teach those activists who always scream that guns don't kill shoot people (but people do)!
|
On January 19 2011 05:12 LazyMacro wrote:
Oh for fuck's sake, get the fuck out. Don't start the fucking obligatory gun control debate. It'll get the thread closed.
No, you get the fuck out. God I hate people like you with superiority complexes. The gun debate is related - it would be akin to starting up a thread about a baby being aborted and then you giving people shit for discussing abortion in the thread. And get some anger management while you're at it.
|
The United States will never have stricter gun control until the pull of the people is greater than the pull of the lobbyists for the gun industry.
As we all know congress is owned and controlled by corporations so strict gun control will likely never happen, never mind the 2nd ammendment.
I think there should be a separate thread for gun control/law debate as it seems to happen in every thread that deals with guns.
|
it doesnt matter if its a gun or a cup of coffee. either way, in america, someones going down.
+ Show Spoiler +On January 19 2011 05:23 LazyMacro wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2011 05:17 Sufficiency wrote:On January 19 2011 05:12 LazyMacro wrote:Anyone here who understands how a firearm functions knows that a firearm (a modern one, that is) cannot, by design, discharged by being dropped. Period. On January 19 2011 05:10 Sufficiency wrote:
US needs tougher gun law. Seriously.
Then again, this is a historical problem which is unlikely to get changed any time soon. Oh for fuck's sake, get the fuck out. Don't start the fucking obligatory gun control debate. It'll get the thread closed. On January 19 2011 05:10 DwD wrote:
??? That can't be right. How can the gun shoot 3 people on accident while being dropped? Did he carry a fucking m16 in his backpack... It can't. That's the problem. The school is blatantly lying to cover something up. OK I am sorry I brought it up. Regardless, it's mind-baffling why someone would bring a gun to school. No problem, I just don't want the thread to devolve into a gun control debate (read: people calling each other names, etc.). To me, it's not that someone would bring a gun to school. Utah has no problems with it and they're just fucking fine. It's when someone has the intent to commit a malicious act. At that point it doesn't matter if it's a gun, a knife, a cup of hot coffee, etc. Stupid people do stupid shit and innocent people get hurt for no reason. Show nested quote +On January 19 2011 05:17 Gatsbi wrote:
how does a trigger of a gun get pulled by falling? this doesnt make any sense It doesn't. The gun wasn't discharged from being dropped. Period. Guns are discharged deliberately or out of negligence. Show nested quote +On January 19 2011 05:17 TallMax wrote:
He dropped it on the ground, then there was a huge California earthquake. It seems like they've lost someone by the end of the story. It says three people in the headline, 3 students in the first paragraph, and two students were shot according to the last one.
At first, I was going to disagree with the US needing tougher gun laws, but yeah, I agree, this actually is the perfect example of needing tougher ones. Of course, he could've just forgotten to take his gun out of his backpack after going on a hunting trip. Here we go... If this gets locked I'm blaming you. The other guy was pretty civil about it.
|
|
|
I think school shootings/attacks are pretty bad. But they are inevitable with today's development of technology vs intellect vs social dynamics.
Allow me to elaborate. Humans are in their nature group animals, that quite rapidly rose above that. However, everything we've built still stands on that animalistic fundament. In the last few centuries education also pushed mental capacity of people quite much higher then it historically has been. At the same time development of technology lead to increased density of population, unnatural chemically produced shit that we consume (chemical balance is quite instrumental for mental stability), and availability of information.
All of those factors contribute to mental instability (It is well knows that the less IQ you have, and less knowledge about other ways of living you posses the less you need to be content) and increased competitiveness (Previously your place in the world was more or less preordained by birth). I suspect it would will get only worse.
I may not had explained dynamics very well, but it is quite understandable what I tried to convey.
Now to the topic of guns. Someone mentioned China having strict gun laws and nearly no gun related crimes. The reason is very simple. If Chinese people were allowed guns there would be an uprising and they would slaughter current government really fast. Google Chinese uprisings. In fact there are few cities in China with nearly total video surveillance coverage. 1984 anyone?
Founding fathers included second amendment specifically to avoid this kind of shit. Government already does great deal of shit it should not. I am not saying taking guns away will produce same environment as in China, but it will bring trouble. First off, lawful citizens would give up their guns, second gangs and gun dealers will re-surge because guns trading will be much more lucrative business Controlling that would require quite a bit of armed forces + invasion into privacy of lawful citizens. You can see where it goes. If we give up guns we will be giving up much more.
To kinda summarize, school violence is inevitable and will continue until humanity can ascend to a more humane kind with a lot more sociology, rather then technology, emphasis. Oh, and prohibiting guns is not a solution that I would be willing to pay cost for.
|
I've never held a gun in my life, and even though I drool over them in pictures and whatnot, because for some reason guns are fucking awesome in theory. But I would never ever have any practical use for one, ever. I don't know why people believe they need one? Maybe because other people have them? I bet most of the people who have a gun will never use it as intended.
And for arguements sake if I had a gun to protect me and my family in my home and someone came into my house and started stealing shit. I pulled my gun on him/her and they pulled theirs on me? I'd fucking drop my gun, help him/her load up all my shit and pat 'em on the ass on the way out. No way I'd risk my own life. I'm not shooting anyone. I couldn't live with myself if I took another life, even if it was in defence. And if this guy robbing me was gonna shoot me anyway, gun or no gun? No point in me having it in the first place. Home and contents insuance will cover me. And that's an upgrade of everything that was stolen. If it was sentimental shit, that sucks, but if I'm not alive to appreciate it then whats the point.
|
On January 19 2011 09:45 reg wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2011 09:06 Ghostcom wrote:1) Did you take a look at the references of the "thing" you linked? You've got to be kidding me... If you had taken a moment to look at the sources listed in the study you would know that they were compiled from several news organizations and government agencies. Show nested quote +On January 19 2011 09:06 Ghostcom wrote:2) Accounting for stuff that drives people to murder might be relevant wouldn't you think - and now we are at it, increase in population size might also have something to do with a rise in crimes...
3) Using suicides as a measure of how effective banning guns are is pretty retarded. I happen to work at a psychiatric emergency department - Shooting yourself isn't a very popular method in the first place. Throwing yourself in front of a train/off a tall building, pills, asphyxiation, hanging - those are the big ones if you want to talk about the ways people do it succesfully.
On a related note when it comes to relevance, did you know that approximately 50% of all humans who have ever lived on the earth happens to live today? That means that the risk of dying is only 50%!!!!!!!!
Honestly, I'm not very pro guncontrol, and I would love to see a proper debate, but using "something" like that which you just linked is pretty useless... In response to number two. Yes, pressures to murder should be accounted for and yes, an increase in the general population would lead to an increase in the total number of crimes committed. It would not lead to an increased percentage of murder. There are many factors that account for why people murder but one thing is clear: less gun regulation leads to less gun related crime. I'm very surprised at the comments I've received but none more so than yours. You really took a lot of time to say nothing and, in the end, attempt to belittle the argument with a red herring. Once you properly understand how to behave in a discussion I'll be happy to talk you. Until then, please leave me alone. I don't have the time.
I actually took the time to look at the references - hence I assumed you was kidding me. If you can't see the bias/poorly conducted review of data I believe you are out of reach for any rational discussion.
Regarding number 2, the point I raised was due to the fact that even if we accepted some of the numbers in the "study" (it really isn't a study) you linked it lacks to take these things into consideration, hence several of the points the "study" tries to make are based on faulty or incomplete data.
You are the one belittling everyone who disagrees with you, heck you even got a warning for your first post - don't you think that an look inwards would be helpful?
And for the reference it took me 1 minut to dissect your "study" and type it - hardly a long time, or well, perhaps if you are a goldfish....
|
On January 19 2011 07:58 bluefuzz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2011 07:48 theron[wdt] wrote:
most modern semi-automatic firearms have something called a drop safety, which means the firing pin will not engage when the gun is dropped on a hard surface. unless he had a revolver with the hammer back or the safety off with something engaging the trigger or a really old POS firearm, the gun did not go off by simply setting it on the table. So we are assuming that he has a modern firearm? As far as I know we still don't know what type of weapon it was, could have been a WWII Sten, which is known for accidental discharge when it is dropped. And although I doubt it, a long rifle, which most do not have a drop safety. "Accidental discharges not involving trigger-pull can also occur if the firearm is mechanically unsound: poor maintenance, abuse, inept "gunsmithing," or the use of substandard materials or defective ammunition in the gun may all lead to breakage." Old dirty gun not taken care of from grandpas old stuff in the attic? Until they tell us more, we are kinda stuck on the AD part of it.
ya the kid had a ww2 machine gun that was obvious
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
