|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On July 25 2012 11:00 sevencck wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 10:54 BearStorm wrote:On July 25 2012 10:10 Zahir wrote:
Bear storm, if a man wants to kill himself with alcohol or a gun, I say let him. It's sad but that's his choice. If a man wants to get an assault weapon, and he's not a soldier fighting in some war, id say no. You do not use an assault weapon to kill yourself, you use it to kill others. I know spree killings are statistically minuscule, but the fear and depression they can cause within a single community is massive, and their societal impact is pretty massive as well. To not regulate assault weapons just because alcohol kills is a flawed comparison. Very few people die in nuclear explosions but those are fiercely regulated because they are a weapon; the most devastating of weapons. The fact is that not all deaths are somehow morally equal and while society ought have little to say as far as what a man does to himself, society should try to prevent its members from killing each other, or else the entire exercise is a little futile. I wasn't saying that guns shouldn't be regulated. I am actually in support of the general gun control laws across the states. Basically they should be similar to alcohol consumption where there are age restraints and strict enforcement of those restraints. A minor difference in gun regulation is that guns require a background check as well as a safety certification test/demonstration (at least in CA). I am all for this as well. I think you might have misinterpreted my point based on your statement about deaths not being morally equal. So I'll try to reiterate my argument against poeple wanting strict gun control based on annual deaths: - guns and alcohol kill people, but alcohol kills more On the other hand, you can't kill me with your alcohol, can you?
Sure I can. I get drunk and grab a gun and shoot you, or I can get into a car and accidentally kill you, or how about I get really mad an start a bar fight which ends in your death. In the comparison of alcohol vs guns, alcohol will impair judgement which is more likely to cause situations where you kill someone, whereas having a gun does not enhance your desire to kill. I think it is foolish to assume alcohol cannot be the cause of death for someone other than the user.
EDIT* I noticed that you misquoted me leaving out essential parts of the argument. For future reference don't do that.
|
The problem has to do primarily, IMO, with the actual supply of firearms.
The problem of criminals freely wielding firearms can't be solved relatively quickly in the United States by making firearms illegal because the firearm industry is huge. Shutting down such a huge industry all at once is very difficult, if not impossible.
Thus any reform would take years. Americans are pretty notorious for being impatient (just look at the foundation of the economic system) and so in the current political atmosphere (and for the foreseeable future) such initiatives will be incredibly hard to implement.
So, I think baby steps are required. Suppose we ban assault weapons first and create programs to reduce their sale and proliferation in the United States. Impose sanctions on private sellers of these weapons. Ensure that they are hard (if not impossible) to obtain online easily. Cause the market price of these guns to go up.
What happens? Supply of these guns goes down and they're less available for the average criminal.
Ultimately if you can achieve what Britain or the rest of Europe has achieved when it comes to gun control, firearm violence will be unheard of because no one will have firearms.
Also, I think the argument that guns in the hands of civilians deters firearm violence is pretty flawed at its core. The United States has the highest rate of firearm related homicide in the world almost simply due to how easy it is to obtain a gun. In places like Switzerland where guns are as common as they are here, the system is designed to educate the possessor about the usage of the weapon. Firearm violence isn't reduced there because of the guns themselves but rather that the culture is simply different. Also, firearm violence in Switzerland is higher than in other European states, from what I recall.
Finally if you think about it, the notion that firearms in the hands of civilians deters criminal activity is essentially a notion that vigilante justice is okay. I don't think that's true, because civilians aren't trained to handle criminals like the police are.
As it was described by someone else in the CO shooting thread, in certain situations civilians are more likely to cause further harm (by shooting other civilians on the scene) than helping.
Indeed, if you're in a dark theater and you hear one gunman shooting, how do you know who it is? How do you know where the shots are coming from? If you then start hearing return fire, is it multiple shooters? How do you distinguish the "good guy" from the "bad guy"? What happens if the guy who returned fire mistakes some innocent bystander for the gunman and kills them? A lot of these "what-ifs" create huge problems that you can't just solve by saying "well if civilians had guns this wouldn't happen." In fact, often times the criminals were law-abiding gun owners just before the crime. They're not considered criminals until they commit the act, no?
|
On July 25 2012 11:14 wherebugsgo wrote:
The problem has to do primarily, IMO, with the actual supply of firearms.
The problem of criminals freely wielding firearms can't be solved relatively quickly in the United States by making firearms illegal because the firearm industry is huge. Shutting down such a huge industry all at once is very difficult, if not impossible.
Thus any reform would take years. Americans are pretty notorious for being impatient (just look at the foundation of the economic system) and so in the current political atmosphere (and for the foreseeable future) such initiatives will be incredibly hard to implement.
So, I think baby steps are required. Suppose we ban assault weapons first and create programs to reduce their sale and proliferation in the United States. Impose sanctions on private sellers of these weapons. Ensure that they are hard (if not impossible) to obtain online easily. Cause the market price of these guns to go up.
What happens? Supply of these guns goes down and they're less available for the average criminal.
Ultimately if you can achieve what Britain or the rest of Europe has achieved when it comes to gun control, firearm violence will be unheard of because no one will have firearms.
Also, I think the argument that guns in the hands of civilians deters firearm violence is pretty flawed at its core. The United States has the highest rate of firearm related homicide in the world almost simply due to how easy it is to obtain a gun. In places like Switzerland where guns are as common as they are here, the system is designed to educate the possessor about the usage of the weapon. Firearm violence isn't reduced there because of the guns themselves but rather that the culture is simply different. Also, firearm violence in Switzerland is higher than in other European states, from what I recall.
Finally if you think about it, the notion that firearms in the hands of civilians deters criminal activity is essentially a notion that vigilante justice is okay. I don't think that's true, because civilians aren't trained to handle criminals like the police are.
As it was described by someone else in the CO shooting thread, in certain situations civilians are more likely to cause further harm (by shooting other civilians on the scene) than helping.
Indeed, if you're in a dark theater and you hear one gunman shooting, how do you know who it is? How do you know where the shots are coming from? If you then start hearing return fire, is it multiple shooters? How do you distinguish the "good guy" from the "bad guy"? What happens if the guy who returned fire mistakes some innocent bystander for the gunman and kills them? A lot of these "what-ifs" create huge problems that you can't just solve by saying "well if civilians had guns this wouldn't happen." In fact, often times the criminals were law-abiding gun owners just before the crime. They're not considered criminals until they commit the act, no?
Then is the problem really about the availability and prevelance of firearms? Or is it the motive of the would-be shooter?
If criminals knew that there might be someone with a concealed-carry weapon at the location that they planned to strike, they might be deterred altogether from committing the act in the first place. Hopefully....
Also, I've heard precisely the opposite concerning the Swiss/British and gun violence. Be skeptical of the statistics, lol. ALL of them, no matter the side they support....
|
On July 25 2012 01:35 Chocolate wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 01:14 Lagcraft wrote:
There is absolutely no reason whatsoever for the average citizen to be able to own an automatic or semi-automatic gun. None at all. I would be in favor of outlawing guns in all shapes and sizes but I do not object to say, a hunting rifle or a small-caliber pistol. Neither of these weapons can be used for any kind of large-scale killing spree, the way automatic or semi-automatic guns can be. Good luck being able to defend yourself with a .22. The extra danger of confronting a criminal with a gun wouldn't even be worth the small amount of firepower at your disposal.
It only takes one bullet to kill someone. You don't need 25.
|
On July 25 2012 11:25 cLAN.Anax wrote:
Then is the problem really about the availability and prevelance of firearms? Or is it the motive of the would-be shooter?
If criminals knew that there might be someone with a concealed-carry weapon at the location that they planned to strike, they might be deterred altogether from committing the act in the first place. Hopefully....
Also, I've heard precisely the opposite concerning the Swiss/British and gun violence. Be skeptical of the statistics, lol. ALL of them, no matter the side they support....
British gun crime is very low compared to the US. However, knife crime is problematic here. We all know that one of the primary causes of violent crime is poverty and that there are more poor people in the US, therefore statistics regarding violent crime will never favour the US. It is hard to use stats to argue either way for gun control.
However, I think you are very wrong about do-gooders with concealed carry weapons. They are likely to cause more damage than they prevent. Even if they are well trained a person will have difficulty shooting safely in a public place (movie theatre, shopping mall, etc).
I cannot be bothered to write post to explain my reasoning for this as 99% of people would disagree/dislike said reasons, but the short answer is: Europeans will be for strict gun control and Americans will be against it. If one of these options was proved to be incorrect then neither Europeans nor Americans would change their minds on the issue.
|
On July 25 2012 11:43 Lagcraft wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 01:35 Chocolate wrote:On July 25 2012 01:14 Lagcraft wrote:
There is absolutely no reason whatsoever for the average citizen to be able to own an automatic or semi-automatic gun. None at all. I would be in favor of outlawing guns in all shapes and sizes but I do not object to say, a hunting rifle or a small-caliber pistol. Neither of these weapons can be used for any kind of large-scale killing spree, the way automatic or semi-automatic guns can be. Good luck being able to defend yourself with a .22. The extra danger of confronting a criminal with a gun wouldn't even be worth the small amount of firepower at your disposal. It only takes one bullet to kill someone. You don't need 25.
To the head. I've heard a .22 caliber round doesn't do that much damage unless you nail a vital spot, believe it or not. It takes at least a 9mm, and hollow points at that, to really put someone out of a gunfight.
(NOTE: I'm saying this for informational purposes only. I'm NOT suggesting violence. Please don't ban me....)
User was warned for this post
|
On July 25 2012 08:57 Esk23 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 08:42 Defacer wrote:On July 25 2012 04:16 blinken wrote:On July 24 2012 14:44 Defacer wrote:On July 24 2012 14:25 blinken wrote:
I think it is hilarious when people argue about gun control.
People kill people, not guns.
When these psychos want to kill people, they will find a way with or without guns. At least once per page, some random poster will make this hilariously stupid argument to justify doing nothing about gun control, or avoiding the discussion of gun control altogether. It's no different than saying ... NEWSFLASH: Rain is wet, and it will rain if we do or don't have umbrellas. Well thank you, Dr. Einstein! But you've kind of missed the basic and most obvious point of the entire discussion. It's easier to kill things with Guns than other objects! In fact, that's what they're designed to do -- kill things easily! If they were bad at killing things easily, no one would need to buy guns! Guns are more dangerous than other things! In fact, that's what makes them effective! Hmmmm ... Do you think that the sale of guns needs some limitations and rules? Discuss! Please don't be so condescending, it makes you sound unintelligent. I could make a home-made bomb that could take out half that theatre which I could conceal as easily as a gun. Search the internet for five minutes, you can too. Are you aware of how many guns are in North America? It is simply unrealistic to implement the magnitude of control necessary to prevent the kind of tragedies that have taken place recently. You cannot prevent all tragedies, obviously. But there's no need to exacerbate the problem by pretending that the government, the NRA, gun owners or sellers have done ALL they can to discourage the legal purchase of guns for illegal or irresponsible purposes. You can argue for more regulation, better enforcement of less regulation, higher standards for security in public spaces, a better and more effective mental health care system, etc. My issue with your argument -- and I apologize for being a dick to you specifically, because you're not the only one that's made this argument -- is that it's defeatist. It's the equivalent of throwing your hands in the air and saying, "No point in arguing. Gun massacres are part of life." Yes, that's an argument, it's just not particularly useful. Do you know what knee-jerk politics are? Are you into that? So from one incident that very rarely happens if ever, we need more laws to "protect" people from this sort of thing? We need to regulate and take more rights away from good people because of the bad people? Just like 9/11 the Patriot Act passed that makes it legal for the government here in the US to spy on you and tap your phones to prevent "terrorism". You can't live freely and be safe %100 of the time. You're more likely to be struck by lightning twice than die from a mass murder like the recent one, yet we got people like you who want more restrictive government laws to "protect" us. And you don't even live in the US.
This is factually false.
http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/medical.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state
There were 360 people injured from SINGLE lightning strikes in the US. Only 39 of these people died. There were almost 9000 people KILLED by firearms. That doesnt include injuries which are FAR greater. If youre going to argue, use facts. Youre accusing someone of having knee jerk responses that are illogical, yet you spew some random crap that is easily disproven. Tisk tisk.
|
On July 25 2012 11:13 BearStorm wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 11:00 sevencck wrote:On July 25 2012 10:54 BearStorm wrote:On July 25 2012 10:10 Zahir wrote:
Bear storm, if a man wants to kill himself with alcohol or a gun, I say let him. It's sad but that's his choice. If a man wants to get an assault weapon, and he's not a soldier fighting in some war, id say no. You do not use an assault weapon to kill yourself, you use it to kill others. I know spree killings are statistically minuscule, but the fear and depression they can cause within a single community is massive, and their societal impact is pretty massive as well. To not regulate assault weapons just because alcohol kills is a flawed comparison. Very few people die in nuclear explosions but those are fiercely regulated because they are a weapon; the most devastating of weapons. The fact is that not all deaths are somehow morally equal and while society ought have little to say as far as what a man does to himself, society should try to prevent its members from killing each other, or else the entire exercise is a little futile. I wasn't saying that guns shouldn't be regulated. I am actually in support of the general gun control laws across the states. Basically they should be similar to alcohol consumption where there are age restraints and strict enforcement of those restraints. A minor difference in gun regulation is that guns require a background check as well as a safety certification test/demonstration (at least in CA). I am all for this as well. I think you might have misinterpreted my point based on your statement about deaths not being morally equal. So I'll try to reiterate my argument against poeple wanting strict gun control based on annual deaths: - guns and alcohol kill people, but alcohol kills more On the other hand, you can't kill me with your alcohol, can you? Sure I can. I get drunk and grab a gun and shoot you, or I can get into a car and accidentally kill you, or how about I get really mad an start a bar fight which ends in your death. In the comparison of alcohol vs guns, alcohol will impair judgement which is more likely to cause situations where you kill someone, whereas having a gun does not enhance your desire to kill. I think it is foolish to assume alcohol cannot be the cause of death for someone other than the user. EDIT* I noticed that you misquoted me leaving out essential parts of the argument. For future reference don't do that.
"herpaderp driving drunk or shooting someone while being drunk or beating someone to death while being drunk is possible as well". All those things are illegal and prohibited
You're trying to say guns should stay legal because you could as well do something illegal instead and achieve the same thing.
Sounds solid to me.
|
On July 25 2012 12:03 Focuspants wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 08:57 Esk23 wrote:On July 25 2012 08:42 Defacer wrote:On July 25 2012 04:16 blinken wrote:On July 24 2012 14:44 Defacer wrote:On July 24 2012 14:25 blinken wrote:
I think it is hilarious when people argue about gun control.
People kill people, not guns.
When these psychos want to kill people, they will find a way with or without guns. At least once per page, some random poster will make this hilariously stupid argument to justify doing nothing about gun control, or avoiding the discussion of gun control altogether. It's no different than saying ... NEWSFLASH: Rain is wet, and it will rain if we do or don't have umbrellas. Well thank you, Dr. Einstein! But you've kind of missed the basic and most obvious point of the entire discussion. It's easier to kill things with Guns than other objects! In fact, that's what they're designed to do -- kill things easily! If they were bad at killing things easily, no one would need to buy guns! Guns are more dangerous than other things! In fact, that's what makes them effective! Hmmmm ... Do you think that the sale of guns needs some limitations and rules? Discuss! Please don't be so condescending, it makes you sound unintelligent. I could make a home-made bomb that could take out half that theatre which I could conceal as easily as a gun. Search the internet for five minutes, you can too. Are you aware of how many guns are in North America? It is simply unrealistic to implement the magnitude of control necessary to prevent the kind of tragedies that have taken place recently. You cannot prevent all tragedies, obviously. But there's no need to exacerbate the problem by pretending that the government, the NRA, gun owners or sellers have done ALL they can to discourage the legal purchase of guns for illegal or irresponsible purposes. You can argue for more regulation, better enforcement of less regulation, higher standards for security in public spaces, a better and more effective mental health care system, etc. My issue with your argument -- and I apologize for being a dick to you specifically, because you're not the only one that's made this argument -- is that it's defeatist. It's the equivalent of throwing your hands in the air and saying, "No point in arguing. Gun massacres are part of life." Yes, that's an argument, it's just not particularly useful. Do you know what knee-jerk politics are? Are you into that? So from one incident that very rarely happens if ever, we need more laws to "protect" people from this sort of thing? We need to regulate and take more rights away from good people because of the bad people? Just like 9/11 the Patriot Act passed that makes it legal for the government here in the US to spy on you and tap your phones to prevent "terrorism". You can't live freely and be safe %100 of the time. You're more likely to be struck by lightning twice than die from a mass murder like the recent one, yet we got people like you who want more restrictive government laws to "protect" us. And you don't even live in the US. This is factually false. http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/medical.htmhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-stateThere were 360 people injured from SINGLE lightning strikes in the US. Only 39 of these people died. There were almost 9000 people KILLED by firearms. That doesnt include injuries which are FAR greater. If youre going to argue, use facts. Youre accusing someone of having knee jerk responses that are illogical, yet you spew some random crap that is easily disproven. Tisk tisk.
Gotta love the foreigners who don't understand US culture, history, government, Bill of Rights, Constituition and why things are the way they are come into a topic like this and give their advice or opinion on the matter they think they're right about. You can't have a debate with someone who doesn't understand these things because all it turns into is me teaching you and it'd be a waste of time anyways seeing you don't live here to vote on anything anyways.
I think these issues are far more important:
Number of deaths for leading causes of death
Heart disease: 599,413
Cancer: 567,628
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 137,353
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 128,842
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 118,021
Alzheimer's disease: 79,003
Diabetes: 68,705
Influenza and Pneumonia: 53,692
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 48,935
Intentional self-harm (suicide): 36,909
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm/
Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death among those age 5-34 in the U.S. More than 2.3 million adult drivers and passengers were treated in emergency departments as the result of being injured in motor vehicle crashes in 2009. The economic impact is also notable: the lifetime costs of crash-related deaths and injuries among drivers and passengers were $70 billion in 2005.
http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/
And this guy cries out about 9,000 dying from guns, yet doesn't have any statistic about how many people were saved using a gun to defend themselves.
|
On July 25 2012 11:02 cLAN.Anax wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 10:48 sevencck wrote:On July 25 2012 10:39 cLAN.Anax wrote:On July 25 2012 10:33 sevencck wrote:On July 25 2012 10:26 cLAN.Anax wrote:On July 25 2012 10:02 semantics wrote:
He reads one sentence, and posts an article on an American conservative website saying it's unbais, you should at least post something from AP, because the Internet is a reliable source. He can't even grasp that england like japan which has slightly laxer gun laws but still very strict by US standards also have a very low gun death rate per person. Because guns are not readily available, guns per a person is low and thus it's just simple numbers. Yes you can have alot of guns in a country has a low gun death rate, but it's just simply logical that less guns available less chance for gun death, assuming the same population. And if your goal is less dead people one is simply easier to do then to ask everyone with guns to be morally outstanding citizens.
It's funny how hard to responds to that one sentence but completely misses the rest of what i wrote. On July 25 2012 09:43 cLAN.Anax wrote:On July 25 2012 09:06 semantics wrote:On July 25 2012 08:53 Mr.Pyro wrote:
Truth is you're just as safe with a pepper spray or a tazer, so why allow guns? It only makes matters worse, and puts more weapons on the streets.
I really have never heard a solid argument as for why you should be allowed to have a gun from americans, other than 'It's in the constitution'. Number one way to remove gun deaths is to completely outlaw guns, take japan where it's legal to own a gun but it's nearly impossible to obtain a legal license and you're very limited in type and use of the gun. You have a very dense population, but a culture that is strongly against guns, even before wwii, guns/swords were not popular. And with that you get very few gun deaths, yes gangs still get hands on things like uzi's etc but they are very rare incidents and over all japan has incredibility low gun deaths. Frankly i'm fine with guns for sport/fun, don't care for the idea of self defense with guns. And the idea of gun regulation needs to be revisited in the US to what should be allowed in peoples homes, and how to tract suspicious activity. People throw around the 2nd amendment like it means anything is allowed, just because something has been classified as a right doesn't mean it's as broad as unlimited as possible, the courts have always defined limits to rights. Number one way to remove gun deaths is for people to stop shooting other people, accidentally or on purpose. Period. They outlaw narcotics, but people still get their hands on those. The US outlawed alochol during Prohibition, but folks still drank. I've never cared for statistics and studies and such, as experience tells me it's usually cherry-picked to cater the author's agenda. To counter your claim, that Japan is largely free of gun-related deaths, I read an article today from the opposition. Thomas Sowell is not unbiased and the column deals with England rather than Japan, but at the least, it's to show you that "studies," and the people that conduct them, are indeed fallible, regardless of agenda. In repsonse to the question posed in the title of this thread, I want to present a quote that perhaps throws a different take on the issue of gun control and the right to bear arms. Sees it through a different view. In fact, it sounds like Defacer is kinda getting at this in his posts: "To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding." - Jeff Snyder Yes, I did say he was biased. My goal is for less death through a more intelligent and safe citizenry. There may be less guns in a country, but that doesn't necessarily lead to lower gun-crimes; that sounds illogical, but regulating gun numbers does a better job at ensuring the legal citizens have fewer guns than preventing them from getting into the hands of a criminal. Also, for whatever reason, I bristle at the thought that the government would take my right to legally purchase, own, and operate a firearm for a useful (safety), legal, and recreational purpose. Logically, you don't need to own a gun for the purposes of recreational shooting. They can easily be obtained at ranges. That's a good point. You could even apply that to hunting; rent out a piece of land for a day, and the owners "stock" the forests with game, much like with fishing in a river. However, between us Americans' love for independence, easy convenience, and the cheapest way out (  ), we like to have our own firearms.  So then the question again becomes: what's the best way for people to own guns in a morally acceptable, politically legal, and socially safe manner? Hunting is a separate issue, since I can begrudgingly concede licenced ownership of rifles for the purposes of hunting like 0.303 etc. Handgun ownershp is different though, since they aren't really useful for hunting, only for killing people or shooting at a range. Are you sure that's what the question becomes? The question I wanted to ask is why independence, convenience, and expense are to be valued so highly if we're really seeking a safer citizenry handling guns in a socially safe manner. They're arguments to support my position. They're not sufficient on their own by any means, but I wouldn't say they detract from my position supporting gun ownership. Of course I'm not saying, "Scrap safety, we want it only 'cause it's cheaper, danggit!" Lol. X-D Perhaps my statement of the question did not follow very well. My bad. Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 11:00 sevencck wrote:On July 25 2012 10:54 BearStorm wrote:On July 25 2012 10:10 Zahir wrote:
Bear storm, if a man wants to kill himself with alcohol or a gun, I say let him. It's sad but that's his choice. If a man wants to get an assault weapon, and he's not a soldier fighting in some war, id say no. You do not use an assault weapon to kill yourself, you use it to kill others. I know spree killings are statistically minuscule, but the fear and depression they can cause within a single community is massive, and their societal impact is pretty massive as well. To not regulate assault weapons just because alcohol kills is a flawed comparison. Very few people die in nuclear explosions but those are fiercely regulated because they are a weapon; the most devastating of weapons. The fact is that not all deaths are somehow morally equal and while society ought have little to say as far as what a man does to himself, society should try to prevent its members from killing each other, or else the entire exercise is a little futile. I wasn't saying that guns shouldn't be regulated. I am actually in support of the general gun control laws across the states. Basically they should be similar to alcohol consumption where there are age restraints and strict enforcement of those restraints. A minor difference in gun regulation is that guns require a background check as well as a safety certification test/demonstration (at least in CA). I am all for this as well. I think you might have misinterpreted my point based on your statement about deaths not being morally equal. So I'll try to reiterate my argument against poeple wanting strict gun control based on annual deaths: - guns and alcohol kill people, but alcohol kills more On the other hand, you can't kill me with your alcohol, can you? I'm sure this has been hashed to death, but, drunk-driving?
I can appreciate that you're putting both of these things on an even keel, since your logic is about personal responsibility. Unfortunately, this is a strawman fallacy. You simply cannot compare guns to drunk driving.
Unethical and illegal use of an implement designed to kill is with the intent to injure or kill. Unethical and illegal use of an implement designed for transportation is with the intent of self transportation. Do you now see why comparing these two things is totally crazy? The most likely outcome even of irresponsible use of a car in conjunction with alcohol is someone getting somewhere. Accidental injury or death cannot be meaningfully compared to irresponsible use of a gun, the intent of which is specifically to injure or kill.
On July 25 2012 11:13 BearStorm wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 11:00 sevencck wrote:On July 25 2012 10:54 BearStorm wrote:On July 25 2012 10:10 Zahir wrote:
Bear storm, if a man wants to kill himself with alcohol or a gun, I say let him. It's sad but that's his choice. If a man wants to get an assault weapon, and he's not a soldier fighting in some war, id say no. You do not use an assault weapon to kill yourself, you use it to kill others. I know spree killings are statistically minuscule, but the fear and depression they can cause within a single community is massive, and their societal impact is pretty massive as well. To not regulate assault weapons just because alcohol kills is a flawed comparison. Very few people die in nuclear explosions but those are fiercely regulated because they are a weapon; the most devastating of weapons. The fact is that not all deaths are somehow morally equal and while society ought have little to say as far as what a man does to himself, society should try to prevent its members from killing each other, or else the entire exercise is a little futile. I wasn't saying that guns shouldn't be regulated. I am actually in support of the general gun control laws across the states. Basically they should be similar to alcohol consumption where there are age restraints and strict enforcement of those restraints. A minor difference in gun regulation is that guns require a background check as well as a safety certification test/demonstration (at least in CA). I am all for this as well. I think you might have misinterpreted my point based on your statement about deaths not being morally equal. So I'll try to reiterate my argument against poeple wanting strict gun control based on annual deaths: - guns and alcohol kill people, but alcohol kills more On the other hand, you can't kill me with your alcohol, can you? Sure I can. I get drunk and grab a gun and shoot you, or I can get into a car and accidentally kill you, or how about I get really mad an start a bar fight which ends in your death. In the comparison of alcohol vs guns, alcohol will impair judgement which is more likely to cause situations where you kill someone, whereas having a gun does not enhance your desire to kill. I think it is foolish to assume alcohol cannot be the cause of death for someone other than the user. EDIT* I noticed that you misquoted me leaving out essential parts of the argument. For future reference don't do that.
The fact that you can get drunk and shoot me is a good reason for gun regulation. It doesn't meaningfully compare to getting drunk and driving, please see above. If you kill me in a bar fight you'll either get charged with manslaughter or murder 2, the difference is I can easily defend myself against you if you don't have a gun. If I die as an indirect result of your actions, then again, it doesn't compare meaningfully to the unethical/illegal use of a gun, which is absolutely to injure or kill a specific target. And no, I didn't leave out anything essential. I read your entire post from top to bottom to be sure I didn't. Nothing changed the context of the point I was responding to.
Your second bolded statement: assuming alcohol makes you more willing to kill someone, or assuming it merely makes you less inhibited to engage in dangerous activity, the possession of guns still facilitates killing in a way that isn't possible in the absence of guns. So, whether alcohol makes you crazy or not is irrelevant, since in either case, a gun enables you to easily kill someone. I don't know why we're talking about alcohol, it has no meaningful bearing on this discussion.
|
On July 25 2012 11:13 BearStorm wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 11:00 sevencck wrote:On July 25 2012 10:54 BearStorm wrote:On July 25 2012 10:10 Zahir wrote:
Bear storm, if a man wants to kill himself with alcohol or a gun, I say let him. It's sad but that's his choice. If a man wants to get an assault weapon, and he's not a soldier fighting in some war, id say no. You do not use an assault weapon to kill yourself, you use it to kill others. I know spree killings are statistically minuscule, but the fear and depression they can cause within a single community is massive, and their societal impact is pretty massive as well. To not regulate assault weapons just because alcohol kills is a flawed comparison. Very few people die in nuclear explosions but those are fiercely regulated because they are a weapon; the most devastating of weapons. The fact is that not all deaths are somehow morally equal and while society ought have little to say as far as what a man does to himself, society should try to prevent its members from killing each other, or else the entire exercise is a little futile. I wasn't saying that guns shouldn't be regulated. I am actually in support of the general gun control laws across the states. Basically they should be similar to alcohol consumption where there are age restraints and strict enforcement of those restraints. A minor difference in gun regulation is that guns require a background check as well as a safety certification test/demonstration (at least in CA). I am all for this as well. I think you might have misinterpreted my point based on your statement about deaths not being morally equal. So I'll try to reiterate my argument against poeple wanting strict gun control based on annual deaths: - guns and alcohol kill people, but alcohol kills more On the other hand, you can't kill me with your alcohol, can you? or I can get into a car and accidentally kill you
That's why driving drunk is forbidden. Being drunk on the public thoroughfare is forbidden as well. And then again, a drunk incident with a gun is way more dangerous than by fists.
|
On July 25 2012 12:54 Esk23 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 12:03 Focuspants wrote:On July 25 2012 08:57 Esk23 wrote:On July 25 2012 08:42 Defacer wrote:On July 25 2012 04:16 blinken wrote:On July 24 2012 14:44 Defacer wrote:On July 24 2012 14:25 blinken wrote:
I think it is hilarious when people argue about gun control.
People kill people, not guns.
When these psychos want to kill people, they will find a way with or without guns. At least once per page, some random poster will make this hilariously stupid argument to justify doing nothing about gun control, or avoiding the discussion of gun control altogether. It's no different than saying ... NEWSFLASH: Rain is wet, and it will rain if we do or don't have umbrellas. Well thank you, Dr. Einstein! But you've kind of missed the basic and most obvious point of the entire discussion. It's easier to kill things with Guns than other objects! In fact, that's what they're designed to do -- kill things easily! If they were bad at killing things easily, no one would need to buy guns! Guns are more dangerous than other things! In fact, that's what makes them effective! Hmmmm ... Do you think that the sale of guns needs some limitations and rules? Discuss! Please don't be so condescending, it makes you sound unintelligent. I could make a home-made bomb that could take out half that theatre which I could conceal as easily as a gun. Search the internet for five minutes, you can too. Are you aware of how many guns are in North America? It is simply unrealistic to implement the magnitude of control necessary to prevent the kind of tragedies that have taken place recently. You cannot prevent all tragedies, obviously. But there's no need to exacerbate the problem by pretending that the government, the NRA, gun owners or sellers have done ALL they can to discourage the legal purchase of guns for illegal or irresponsible purposes. You can argue for more regulation, better enforcement of less regulation, higher standards for security in public spaces, a better and more effective mental health care system, etc. My issue with your argument -- and I apologize for being a dick to you specifically, because you're not the only one that's made this argument -- is that it's defeatist. It's the equivalent of throwing your hands in the air and saying, "No point in arguing. Gun massacres are part of life." Yes, that's an argument, it's just not particularly useful. Do you know what knee-jerk politics are? Are you into that? So from one incident that very rarely happens if ever, we need more laws to "protect" people from this sort of thing? We need to regulate and take more rights away from good people because of the bad people? Just like 9/11 the Patriot Act passed that makes it legal for the government here in the US to spy on you and tap your phones to prevent "terrorism". You can't live freely and be safe %100 of the time. You're more likely to be struck by lightning twice than die from a mass murder like the recent one, yet we got people like you who want more restrictive government laws to "protect" us. And you don't even live in the US. This is factually false. http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/medical.htmhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-stateThere were 360 people injured from SINGLE lightning strikes in the US. Only 39 of these people died. There were almost 9000 people KILLED by firearms. That doesnt include injuries which are FAR greater. If youre going to argue, use facts. Youre accusing someone of having knee jerk responses that are illogical, yet you spew some random crap that is easily disproven. Tisk tisk. Gotta love the foreigners who don't understand US culture, history, government, Bill of Rights, Constituition and why things are the way they are come into a topic like this and give their advice or opinion on the matter they think they're right about. You can't have a debate with someone who doesn't understand these things because all it turns into is me teaching you and it'd be a waste of time anyways seeing you don't live here to vote on anything anyways.
Good idea buddy. Ignore my post and the fact that I proved your point wrong and attack me even though you dont know me. I have a degree in history, focused on US history from the best educational institution in our country. I would bet my life on me knowing more about all of the above issues than you. However, if we want to keep to the point, none of this has absolutely ANYTHING to do with my post. You said you are mroe likely to be struck by lightning twice than killed in a firearm killing spree. This is factually false. You are 30 times more likely to be killed by a gun than to be hit by lightning ONCE. You are 300 times more likely to be killed by a gun than killed by lightning. These are numbers and facts. Considering you only deal with attacks on someone you dont know about issues they arent speaking about, and being absolutely fucking horrible at reading, I wouldnt expect you to do any research though, so it is understandable you just make unsubstantiated claims that are totally bogus instead of offer any useful input.
|
On July 25 2012 13:06 Focuspants wrote:
Good idea buddy. Ignore my post and the fact that I proved your point wrong and attack me even though you dont know me. I have a degree in history, focused on US history from the best educational institution in our country. I would bet my life on me knowing more about all of the above issues than you. However, if we want to keep to the point, none of this has absolutely ANYTHING to do with my post. You said you are mroe likely to be struck by lightning twice than killed in a firearm killing spree. This is factually false. You are 30 times more likely to be killed by a gun than to be hit by lightning ONCE. You are 300 times more likely to be killed by a gun than killed by lightning. These are numbers and facts. Considering you only deal with attacks on someone you dont know about issues they arent speakign aboutl, and being absolutely fucking horrible at reading, I wouldnt expect you to do any research though, so it is understandable you just make unsubstantiated claims that are totally bogus instead of offer any useful input.
Not to rain on your parade but he was specific in his statement. He said an incident like this, ie a mass homicide with a firearm. You gave the number 9000 for people killed by a gun. These are not the same thing, and you know that. Although it might not be double, I think the number is rather close to equal.
|
On July 25 2012 12:54 Esk23 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 12:03 Focuspants wrote:On July 25 2012 08:57 Esk23 wrote:On July 25 2012 08:42 Defacer wrote:On July 25 2012 04:16 blinken wrote:On July 24 2012 14:44 Defacer wrote:On July 24 2012 14:25 blinken wrote:
I think it is hilarious when people argue about gun control.
People kill people, not guns.
When these psychos want to kill people, they will find a way with or without guns. At least once per page, some random poster will make this hilariously stupid argument to justify doing nothing about gun control, or avoiding the discussion of gun control altogether. It's no different than saying ... NEWSFLASH: Rain is wet, and it will rain if we do or don't have umbrellas. Well thank you, Dr. Einstein! But you've kind of missed the basic and most obvious point of the entire discussion. It's easier to kill things with Guns than other objects! In fact, that's what they're designed to do -- kill things easily! If they were bad at killing things easily, no one would need to buy guns! Guns are more dangerous than other things! In fact, that's what makes them effective! Hmmmm ... Do you think that the sale of guns needs some limitations and rules? Discuss! Please don't be so condescending, it makes you sound unintelligent. I could make a home-made bomb that could take out half that theatre which I could conceal as easily as a gun. Search the internet for five minutes, you can too. Are you aware of how many guns are in North America? It is simply unrealistic to implement the magnitude of control necessary to prevent the kind of tragedies that have taken place recently. You cannot prevent all tragedies, obviously. But there's no need to exacerbate the problem by pretending that the government, the NRA, gun owners or sellers have done ALL they can to discourage the legal purchase of guns for illegal or irresponsible purposes. You can argue for more regulation, better enforcement of less regulation, higher standards for security in public spaces, a better and more effective mental health care system, etc. My issue with your argument -- and I apologize for being a dick to you specifically, because you're not the only one that's made this argument -- is that it's defeatist. It's the equivalent of throwing your hands in the air and saying, "No point in arguing. Gun massacres are part of life." Yes, that's an argument, it's just not particularly useful. Do you know what knee-jerk politics are? Are you into that? So from one incident that very rarely happens if ever, we need more laws to "protect" people from this sort of thing? We need to regulate and take more rights away from good people because of the bad people? Just like 9/11 the Patriot Act passed that makes it legal for the government here in the US to spy on you and tap your phones to prevent "terrorism". You can't live freely and be safe %100 of the time. You're more likely to be struck by lightning twice than die from a mass murder like the recent one, yet we got people like you who want more restrictive government laws to "protect" us. And you don't even live in the US. This is factually false. http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/medical.htmhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-stateThere were 360 people injured from SINGLE lightning strikes in the US. Only 39 of these people died. There were almost 9000 people KILLED by firearms. That doesnt include injuries which are FAR greater. If youre going to argue, use facts. Youre accusing someone of having knee jerk responses that are illogical, yet you spew some random crap that is easily disproven. Tisk tisk. Gotta love the foreigners who don't understand US culture, history, government, Bill of Rights, Constituition and why things are the way they are come into a topic like this and give their advice or opinion on the matter they think they're right about. You can't have a debate with someone who doesn't understand these things because all it turns into is me teaching you and it'd be a waste of time anyways seeing you don't live here to vote on anything anyways. + Show Spoiler [rest] +I think these issues are far more important: Number of deaths for leading causes of death Heart disease: 599,413 Cancer: 567,628 Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 137,353 Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 128,842 Accidents (unintentional injuries): 118,021 Alzheimer's disease: 79,003 Diabetes: 68,705 Influenza and Pneumonia: 53,692 Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 48,935 Intentional self-harm (suicide): 36,909 http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm/Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death among those age 5-34 in the U.S. More than 2.3 million adult drivers and passengers were treated in emergency departments as the result of being injured in motor vehicle crashes in 2009. The economic impact is also notable: the lifetime costs of crash-related deaths and injuries among drivers and passengers were $70 billion in 2005. http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/And this guy cries out about 9,000 dying from guns, yet doesn't have any statistic about how many people were saved using a gun to defend themselves.
Noone in here tries to change things. People are here because it's interesting to talk about stuff like that with people from all over the globe and exchange thoughts with people comming from a different position.
I don't care wether you change your gun regulation or not I want to know wether I'd consider it to be a good thing out of curiosity and to form an opinion myself I either have to explain something myself or have to listen to someone who explains something.
Again, I'm fairly certain that AT LEAST the guys no living in the US who are posting here are not posting here to change the world.
|
On July 25 2012 13:06 Focuspants wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 12:54 Esk23 wrote:On July 25 2012 12:03 Focuspants wrote:On July 25 2012 08:57 Esk23 wrote:On July 25 2012 08:42 Defacer wrote:On July 25 2012 04:16 blinken wrote:On July 24 2012 14:44 Defacer wrote:On July 24 2012 14:25 blinken wrote:
I think it is hilarious when people argue about gun control.
People kill people, not guns.
When these psychos want to kill people, they will find a way with or without guns. At least once per page, some random poster will make this hilariously stupid argument to justify doing nothing about gun control, or avoiding the discussion of gun control altogether. It's no different than saying ... NEWSFLASH: Rain is wet, and it will rain if we do or don't have umbrellas. Well thank you, Dr. Einstein! But you've kind of missed the basic and most obvious point of the entire discussion. It's easier to kill things with Guns than other objects! In fact, that's what they're designed to do -- kill things easily! If they were bad at killing things easily, no one would need to buy guns! Guns are more dangerous than other things! In fact, that's what makes them effective! Hmmmm ... Do you think that the sale of guns needs some limitations and rules? Discuss! Please don't be so condescending, it makes you sound unintelligent. I could make a home-made bomb that could take out half that theatre which I could conceal as easily as a gun. Search the internet for five minutes, you can too. Are you aware of how many guns are in North America? It is simply unrealistic to implement the magnitude of control necessary to prevent the kind of tragedies that have taken place recently. You cannot prevent all tragedies, obviously. But there's no need to exacerbate the problem by pretending that the government, the NRA, gun owners or sellers have done ALL they can to discourage the legal purchase of guns for illegal or irresponsible purposes. You can argue for more regulation, better enforcement of less regulation, higher standards for security in public spaces, a better and more effective mental health care system, etc. My issue with your argument -- and I apologize for being a dick to you specifically, because you're not the only one that's made this argument -- is that it's defeatist. It's the equivalent of throwing your hands in the air and saying, "No point in arguing. Gun massacres are part of life." Yes, that's an argument, it's just not particularly useful. Do you know what knee-jerk politics are? Are you into that? So from one incident that very rarely happens if ever, we need more laws to "protect" people from this sort of thing? We need to regulate and take more rights away from good people because of the bad people? Just like 9/11 the Patriot Act passed that makes it legal for the government here in the US to spy on you and tap your phones to prevent "terrorism". You can't live freely and be safe %100 of the time. You're more likely to be struck by lightning twice than die from a mass murder like the recent one, yet we got people like you who want more restrictive government laws to "protect" us. And you don't even live in the US. This is factually false. http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/medical.htmhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-stateThere were 360 people injured from SINGLE lightning strikes in the US. Only 39 of these people died. There were almost 9000 people KILLED by firearms. That doesnt include injuries which are FAR greater. If youre going to argue, use facts. Youre accusing someone of having knee jerk responses that are illogical, yet you spew some random crap that is easily disproven. Tisk tisk. Gotta love the foreigners who don't understand US culture, history, government, Bill of Rights, Constituition and why things are the way they are come into a topic like this and give their advice or opinion on the matter they think they're right about. You can't have a debate with someone who doesn't understand these things because all it turns into is me teaching you and it'd be a waste of time anyways seeing you don't live here to vote on anything anyways. Good idea buddy. Ignore my post and the fact that I proved your point wrong and attack me even though you dont know me. I have a degree in history, focused on US history from the best educational institution in our country. I would bet my life on me knowing more about all of the above issues than you. However, if we want to keep to the point, none of this has absolutely ANYTHING to do with my post. You said you are mroe likely to be struck by lightning twice than killed in a firearm killing spree. This is factually false. You are 30 times more likely to be killed by a gun than to be hit by lightning ONCE. You are 300 times more likely to be killed by a gun than killed by lightning. These are numbers and facts. Considering you only deal with attacks on someone you dont know about issues they arent speaking about, and being absolutely fucking horrible at reading, I wouldnt expect you to do any research though, so it is understandable you just make unsubstantiated claims that are totally bogus instead of offer any useful input.
How unsubstantiated do your arguments have to be against gun rights when you resolve to prove that lightning strikes are more likely to kill you than bullets?
'
Also, if you're going to claim that someone can't read, you should probably read the part where he said "you are more likely to be struck by lightning twice than to die from a MASS MURDER"
Can you read, bro? He was talking about lightning vs mass murder, not lightning vs gun crime statistics that aren't broken down into the category of gun crime he specified.
This thread is hilarious and so are all the assholes in it.+ Show Spoiler +And by assholes I mean people who have no business in the political debate about American firearm laws and regulations because they don't live here. Your opinion on how much you hate Americans having guns is fine, but do you really have to sputter the same nonsense every time something bad in the world happens that involves firearms? Even the White House probably thinks this uproar from the anti-gun crowd is annoying.
|
On July 25 2012 13:17 stevarius wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 13:06 Focuspants wrote:On July 25 2012 12:54 Esk23 wrote:On July 25 2012 12:03 Focuspants wrote:On July 25 2012 08:57 Esk23 wrote:On July 25 2012 08:42 Defacer wrote:On July 25 2012 04:16 blinken wrote:On July 24 2012 14:44 Defacer wrote:On July 24 2012 14:25 blinken wrote:
I think it is hilarious when people argue about gun control.
People kill people, not guns.
When these psychos want to kill people, they will find a way with or without guns. At least once per page, some random poster will make this hilariously stupid argument to justify doing nothing about gun control, or avoiding the discussion of gun control altogether. It's no different than saying ... NEWSFLASH: Rain is wet, and it will rain if we do or don't have umbrellas. Well thank you, Dr. Einstein! But you've kind of missed the basic and most obvious point of the entire discussion. It's easier to kill things with Guns than other objects! In fact, that's what they're designed to do -- kill things easily! If they were bad at killing things easily, no one would need to buy guns! Guns are more dangerous than other things! In fact, that's what makes them effective! Hmmmm ... Do you think that the sale of guns needs some limitations and rules? Discuss! Please don't be so condescending, it makes you sound unintelligent. I could make a home-made bomb that could take out half that theatre which I could conceal as easily as a gun. Search the internet for five minutes, you can too. Are you aware of how many guns are in North America? It is simply unrealistic to implement the magnitude of control necessary to prevent the kind of tragedies that have taken place recently. You cannot prevent all tragedies, obviously. But there's no need to exacerbate the problem by pretending that the government, the NRA, gun owners or sellers have done ALL they can to discourage the legal purchase of guns for illegal or irresponsible purposes. You can argue for more regulation, better enforcement of less regulation, higher standards for security in public spaces, a better and more effective mental health care system, etc. My issue with your argument -- and I apologize for being a dick to you specifically, because you're not the only one that's made this argument -- is that it's defeatist. It's the equivalent of throwing your hands in the air and saying, "No point in arguing. Gun massacres are part of life." Yes, that's an argument, it's just not particularly useful. Do you know what knee-jerk politics are? Are you into that? So from one incident that very rarely happens if ever, we need more laws to "protect" people from this sort of thing? We need to regulate and take more rights away from good people because of the bad people? Just like 9/11 the Patriot Act passed that makes it legal for the government here in the US to spy on you and tap your phones to prevent "terrorism". You can't live freely and be safe %100 of the time. You're more likely to be struck by lightning twice than die from a mass murder like the recent one, yet we got people like you who want more restrictive government laws to "protect" us. And you don't even live in the US. This is factually false. http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/medical.htmhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-stateThere were 360 people injured from SINGLE lightning strikes in the US. Only 39 of these people died. There were almost 9000 people KILLED by firearms. That doesnt include injuries which are FAR greater. If youre going to argue, use facts. Youre accusing someone of having knee jerk responses that are illogical, yet you spew some random crap that is easily disproven. Tisk tisk. Gotta love the foreigners who don't understand US culture, history, government, Bill of Rights, Constituition and why things are the way they are come into a topic like this and give their advice or opinion on the matter they think they're right about. You can't have a debate with someone who doesn't understand these things because all it turns into is me teaching you and it'd be a waste of time anyways seeing you don't live here to vote on anything anyways. Good idea buddy. Ignore my post and the fact that I proved your point wrong and attack me even though you dont know me. I have a degree in history, focused on US history from the best educational institution in our country. I would bet my life on me knowing more about all of the above issues than you. However, if we want to keep to the point, none of this has absolutely ANYTHING to do with my post. You said you are mroe likely to be struck by lightning twice than killed in a firearm killing spree. This is factually false. You are 30 times more likely to be killed by a gun than to be hit by lightning ONCE. You are 300 times more likely to be killed by a gun than killed by lightning. These are numbers and facts. Considering you only deal with attacks on someone you dont know about issues they arent speaking about, and being absolutely fucking horrible at reading, I wouldnt expect you to do any research though, so it is understandable you just make unsubstantiated claims that are totally bogus instead of offer any useful input. How unsubstantiated do your arguments have to be against gun rights when you resolve to prove that lightning strikes are more likely to kill you than bullets? ' Also, if you're going to claim that someone can't read, you should probably read the part where he said "you are more likely to be struck by lightning twice than to die from a MASS MURDER" Can you read, bro? He was talking about lightning vs mass murder, not lightning vs gun crime statistics that aren't broken down into the category of gun crime he specified. This thread is hilarious and so are all the assholes in it.
My numbers didnt even account for suicides, accidental gun deaths, etc... The actual figure of deaths related to guns is around 30,000. If you actually think you are more likely to get hit by lightning twice than be killed by a firearm in an incident with more than 1 victim, you are seriously mental. Your odds of being hit by lightning twice based on worldwide statistics is 1 in 490 billion per year. Would you like to tell me that your chances of being killed in a mass murder are lower than that?
|
On July 25 2012 12:57 sevencck wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 11:02 cLAN.Anax wrote:On July 25 2012 10:48 sevencck wrote:On July 25 2012 10:39 cLAN.Anax wrote:On July 25 2012 10:33 sevencck wrote:On July 25 2012 10:26 cLAN.Anax wrote:On July 25 2012 10:02 semantics wrote:
He reads one sentence, and posts an article on an American conservative website saying it's unbais, you should at least post something from AP, because the Internet is a reliable source. He can't even grasp that england like japan which has slightly laxer gun laws but still very strict by US standards also have a very low gun death rate per person. Because guns are not readily available, guns per a person is low and thus it's just simple numbers. Yes you can have alot of guns in a country has a low gun death rate, but it's just simply logical that less guns available less chance for gun death, assuming the same population. And if your goal is less dead people one is simply easier to do then to ask everyone with guns to be morally outstanding citizens.
It's funny how hard to responds to that one sentence but completely misses the rest of what i wrote. On July 25 2012 09:43 cLAN.Anax wrote:On July 25 2012 09:06 semantics wrote:On July 25 2012 08:53 Mr.Pyro wrote:
Truth is you're just as safe with a pepper spray or a tazer, so why allow guns? It only makes matters worse, and puts more weapons on the streets.
I really have never heard a solid argument as for why you should be allowed to have a gun from americans, other than 'It's in the constitution'. Number one way to remove gun deaths is to completely outlaw guns, take japan where it's legal to own a gun but it's nearly impossible to obtain a legal license and you're very limited in type and use of the gun. You have a very dense population, but a culture that is strongly against guns, even before wwii, guns/swords were not popular. And with that you get very few gun deaths, yes gangs still get hands on things like uzi's etc but they are very rare incidents and over all japan has incredibility low gun deaths. Frankly i'm fine with guns for sport/fun, don't care for the idea of self defense with guns. And the idea of gun regulation needs to be revisited in the US to what should be allowed in peoples homes, and how to tract suspicious activity. People throw around the 2nd amendment like it means anything is allowed, just because something has been classified as a right doesn't mean it's as broad as unlimited as possible, the courts have always defined limits to rights. Number one way to remove gun deaths is for people to stop shooting other people, accidentally or on purpose. Period. They outlaw narcotics, but people still get their hands on those. The US outlawed alochol during Prohibition, but folks still drank. I've never cared for statistics and studies and such, as experience tells me it's usually cherry-picked to cater the author's agenda. To counter your claim, that Japan is largely free of gun-related deaths, I read an article today from the opposition. Thomas Sowell is not unbiased and the column deals with England rather than Japan, but at the least, it's to show you that "studies," and the people that conduct them, are indeed fallible, regardless of agenda. In repsonse to the question posed in the title of this thread, I want to present a quote that perhaps throws a different take on the issue of gun control and the right to bear arms. Sees it through a different view. In fact, it sounds like Defacer is kinda getting at this in his posts: "To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding." - Jeff Snyder Yes, I did say he was biased. My goal is for less death through a more intelligent and safe citizenry. There may be less guns in a country, but that doesn't necessarily lead to lower gun-crimes; that sounds illogical, but regulating gun numbers does a better job at ensuring the legal citizens have fewer guns than preventing them from getting into the hands of a criminal. Also, for whatever reason, I bristle at the thought that the government would take my right to legally purchase, own, and operate a firearm for a useful (safety), legal, and recreational purpose. Logically, you don't need to own a gun for the purposes of recreational shooting. They can easily be obtained at ranges. That's a good point. You could even apply that to hunting; rent out a piece of land for a day, and the owners "stock" the forests with game, much like with fishing in a river. However, between us Americans' love for independence, easy convenience, and the cheapest way out ( ), we like to have our own firearms. So then the question again becomes: what's the best way for people to own guns in a morally acceptable, politically legal, and socially safe manner? Hunting is a separate issue, since I can begrudgingly concede licenced ownership of rifles for the purposes of hunting like 0.303 etc. Handgun ownershp is different though, since they aren't really useful for hunting, only for killing people or shooting at a range. Are you sure that's what the question becomes? The question I wanted to ask is why independence, convenience, and expense are to be valued so highly if we're really seeking a safer citizenry handling guns in a socially safe manner. They're arguments to support my position. They're not sufficient on their own by any means, but I wouldn't say they detract from my position supporting gun ownership. Of course I'm not saying, "Scrap safety, we want it only 'cause it's cheaper, danggit!" Lol. X-D Perhaps my statement of the question did not follow very well. My bad. On July 25 2012 11:00 sevencck wrote:On July 25 2012 10:54 BearStorm wrote:On July 25 2012 10:10 Zahir wrote:
Bear storm, if a man wants to kill himself with alcohol or a gun, I say let him. It's sad but that's his choice. If a man wants to get an assault weapon, and he's not a soldier fighting in some war, id say no. You do not use an assault weapon to kill yourself, you use it to kill others. I know spree killings are statistically minuscule, but the fear and depression they can cause within a single community is massive, and their societal impact is pretty massive as well. To not regulate assault weapons just because alcohol kills is a flawed comparison. Very few people die in nuclear explosions but those are fiercely regulated because they are a weapon; the most devastating of weapons. The fact is that not all deaths are somehow morally equal and while society ought have little to say as far as what a man does to himself, society should try to prevent its members from killing each other, or else the entire exercise is a little futile. I wasn't saying that guns shouldn't be regulated. I am actually in support of the general gun control laws across the states. Basically they should be similar to alcohol consumption where there are age restraints and strict enforcement of those restraints. A minor difference in gun regulation is that guns require a background check as well as a safety certification test/demonstration (at least in CA). I am all for this as well. I think you might have misinterpreted my point based on your statement about deaths not being morally equal. So I'll try to reiterate my argument against poeple wanting strict gun control based on annual deaths: - guns and alcohol kill people, but alcohol kills more On the other hand, you can't kill me with your alcohol, can you? I'm sure this has been hashed to death, but, drunk-driving? I can appreciate that you're putting both of these things on an even keel, since your logic is about personal responsibility. Unfortunately, this is a strawman fallacy. You simply cannot compare guns to drunk driving. Unethical and illegal use of an implement designed to kill is with the intent to injure or kill. Unethical and illegal use of an implement designed for transportation is with the intent of self transportation. Do you now see why comparing these two things is totally crazy? The most likely outcome even of irresponsible use of a car in conjunction with alcohol is someone getting somewhere. Accidental injury or death cannot be meaningfully compared to irresponsible use of a gun, the intent of which is specifically to injure or kill.
I see what you're getting at. Though I don't think my comparison is "crazy." I see it like this: both alcohol and firearms can be used for good causes (alcohol because it's tasty, guns because of recreation and hunting [again, these arguments are not sufficient on their own, but they are arguments nonetheless]); both can also be abused for bad reasons (alcohol - fights, drunk driving, etc.; guns - killing rampages like Aurora, unsafe/careless handling like with my friend). I see the two parallel along the track of stewardship: "Do use. Don't abuse." This principle, I believe, is something that applies not just to alcoholic beverages and firearms; it's applicable for many, many different issues as well.
On July 25 2012 13:16 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 12:54 Esk23 wrote:On July 25 2012 12:03 Focuspants wrote:On July 25 2012 08:57 Esk23 wrote:On July 25 2012 08:42 Defacer wrote:On July 25 2012 04:16 blinken wrote:On July 24 2012 14:44 Defacer wrote:On July 24 2012 14:25 blinken wrote:
I think it is hilarious when people argue about gun control.
People kill people, not guns.
When these psychos want to kill people, they will find a way with or without guns. At least once per page, some random poster will make this hilariously stupid argument to justify doing nothing about gun control, or avoiding the discussion of gun control altogether. It's no different than saying ... NEWSFLASH: Rain is wet, and it will rain if we do or don't have umbrellas. Well thank you, Dr. Einstein! But you've kind of missed the basic and most obvious point of the entire discussion. It's easier to kill things with Guns than other objects! In fact, that's what they're designed to do -- kill things easily! If they were bad at killing things easily, no one would need to buy guns! Guns are more dangerous than other things! In fact, that's what makes them effective! Hmmmm ... Do you think that the sale of guns needs some limitations and rules? Discuss! Please don't be so condescending, it makes you sound unintelligent. I could make a home-made bomb that could take out half that theatre which I could conceal as easily as a gun. Search the internet for five minutes, you can too. Are you aware of how many guns are in North America? It is simply unrealistic to implement the magnitude of control necessary to prevent the kind of tragedies that have taken place recently. You cannot prevent all tragedies, obviously. But there's no need to exacerbate the problem by pretending that the government, the NRA, gun owners or sellers have done ALL they can to discourage the legal purchase of guns for illegal or irresponsible purposes. You can argue for more regulation, better enforcement of less regulation, higher standards for security in public spaces, a better and more effective mental health care system, etc. My issue with your argument -- and I apologize for being a dick to you specifically, because you're not the only one that's made this argument -- is that it's defeatist. It's the equivalent of throwing your hands in the air and saying, "No point in arguing. Gun massacres are part of life." Yes, that's an argument, it's just not particularly useful. Do you know what knee-jerk politics are? Are you into that? So from one incident that very rarely happens if ever, we need more laws to "protect" people from this sort of thing? We need to regulate and take more rights away from good people because of the bad people? Just like 9/11 the Patriot Act passed that makes it legal for the government here in the US to spy on you and tap your phones to prevent "terrorism". You can't live freely and be safe %100 of the time. You're more likely to be struck by lightning twice than die from a mass murder like the recent one, yet we got people like you who want more restrictive government laws to "protect" us. And you don't even live in the US. This is factually false. http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/medical.htmhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-stateThere were 360 people injured from SINGLE lightning strikes in the US. Only 39 of these people died. There were almost 9000 people KILLED by firearms. That doesnt include injuries which are FAR greater. If youre going to argue, use facts. Youre accusing someone of having knee jerk responses that are illogical, yet you spew some random crap that is easily disproven. Tisk tisk. Gotta love the foreigners who don't understand US culture, history, government, Bill of Rights, Constituition and why things are the way they are come into a topic like this and give their advice or opinion on the matter they think they're right about. You can't have a debate with someone who doesn't understand these things because all it turns into is me teaching you and it'd be a waste of time anyways seeing you don't live here to vote on anything anyways. + Show Spoiler [rest] +I think these issues are far more important: Number of deaths for leading causes of death Heart disease: 599,413 Cancer: 567,628 Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 137,353 Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 128,842 Accidents (unintentional injuries): 118,021 Alzheimer's disease: 79,003 Diabetes: 68,705 Influenza and Pneumonia: 53,692 Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 48,935 Intentional self-harm (suicide): 36,909 http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm/Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death among those age 5-34 in the U.S. More than 2.3 million adult drivers and passengers were treated in emergency departments as the result of being injured in motor vehicle crashes in 2009. The economic impact is also notable: the lifetime costs of crash-related deaths and injuries among drivers and passengers were $70 billion in 2005. http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/And this guy cries out about 9,000 dying from guns, yet doesn't have any statistic about how many people were saved using a gun to defend themselves. Noone in here tries to change things. People are here because it's interesting to talk about stuff like that with people from all over the globe and exchange thoughts with people comming from a different position. I don't care wether you change your gun regulation or not I want to know wether I'd consider it to be a good thing out of curiosity and to form an opinion myself I either have to explain something myself or have to listen to someone who explains something. Again, I'm fairly certain that AT LEAST the guys no living in the US who are posting here are not posting here to change the world.
Yaaaay!! Someone who genuinely wants to search for the truth and isn't out to win a silly debate over the Internet as his sole objective! We need more people like this.
|
On July 25 2012 09:41 Dosey wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 08:10 Zahir wrote:
It's incredibly realistic to think that this theater shooting could have been stopped. The shooter tried to become a member at a shooting range and set off all kinds of alarm bells and was rejected. If the person who received his application had alerted the police and been like "this guy seems dangerous" that alone might have been enough.
People keep throwing around that garbage about wishing there had been some John woo action star with a pistol in that theatre to single handedly stop the shooter... What I wish is that someone had noticed this kids rapid and apparently quite evident descent into madness (if he was ever sane to begin with) and tried to get him some help, or at least notified his family or some authority. To me that sounds much more sane than putting guns in the entire worlds hands, throwing up our hands as far as regulations and hoping for the best.
Instead, thanks to our lax regulations He was able to buy four guns including a semi auto legally... If the latter wasn't on the market I doubt his rampage would have been as deadly. Lives matter. And the 6,000 rounds he was able to buy over the Internet... 6000 is beyond what any individual could possibly need for defense or hunting. Companies selling large quantities of ammo online, this is clearly not the most rational system we're dealing with here.
I want to focus on just one issue though, the assault weapon. Because I realize this is not an ideal world and we can't restrict something like ammo that is hard to keep track of. Assault weapons though, there is absolutely no reason for a citizen to have one, and a pretty damn good reason not to.
It sucks though, because my government is full of tools who use garbage party manufactured arguments like the ones that fill this thread "one armed citizen in the theatre could have saved so many lives..." really realistic... Or those, no compromise allowed arguments like "regulation is pointless thx to Mexico" we already regulate drugs, explosives, bio hazards and wmds... Or people who just cherry pick stupid arguments and respond to those only like the guys who keep taking "we have so many guns already so gl trying to take our guns"... Like total deregulation, or a total gun ban are the only positions you can have on this issue.
Arguments like those are just symptomatic of how politics in the us have degenerated... There are the outright stupid ones that make for good sound bites but are like the antithesis of actual thought or facts. Then there are the people who dont believe government should ever do anything, like regulate guns, and stick to that principle no matter how reasonable or potentially helpful the regulations that get proposed... And then there are people who just debate dishonestly and avoid the issues by attacking some commie liberal straw man, cause its easier than acknowledging that change might be in order.
Us has the most lax gun policy of any civilized nation... I don't believe it should be so easy to get ASSAULT weapons. I'm guessing most people would agree, but too bad that means nothing in the divisive, corrupt gridlock that is US politics. You do know it is illegal for Americans to own fully automatic assault weapons, right? The assault weapon he had was a semi-automatic AR-15. Basically a more accurate pistol with a much larger mag, more likely to jam than a pistol (which happened) and harder to fix (which is why he switched to the pistol). One could argue that a shotgun is more dangerous in that situation due to how crowded it was and a pistol is just as lethal.
You live in the US and dont even know the gun-regulations, do you?
Basically a more accurate pistol with a much larger mag, yeah right, if you completely space out stuff like caliber, velocity, etc.
And you are also wrong about the full auto part. You can legally have and use a 900 RPM AR-15, which technically is not fully automatic, but at 900 RPM its just semantics. And yeah, i assure you, you can convert your AR-15 without any knowledge about mechanics for 350 bucks to "full auto". Completely legal. And just for your knowledge, the G36 (german standard army assault rifle) has a rate of fire of ~750. With full automatic fire.
Edit: not to mention that its actually completely legal to even own a real full automatic weapon, just alot more expensive.
|
On July 25 2012 13:25 Focuspants wrote:
My numbers didnt even account for suicides, accidental gun deaths, etc... The actual figure of deaths related to guns is around 30,000. If you actually think you are more likely to get hit by lightning twice than be killed in an incident with more than 1 victim, you are seriously mental. Your odds of being hit by lightning twice based on worldwide statistics is 1 in 360 billion per year. Would you like to tell me that your chances of being killed in a mass murder are lower than that?
So because his numbers are inflated, you can inflate your numbers and take them out of the context of the statement. If he had said struck once (1 in 600,000), and you stuck with even defined criteria for mass murder (4 or more victims), which isn't necessarily matching an event like this, would you still feel the numbers are so far in favor of your argument? Both events are quite rare.
In the end, these numbers don't matter. They are not comparable events. The general idea is that you are not very likely to die from either a lightning strike or a mass homicide, so basing regulation due to THESE events are pointless.
|
On July 25 2012 13:06 Focuspants wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 12:54 Esk23 wrote:On July 25 2012 12:03 Focuspants wrote:On July 25 2012 08:57 Esk23 wrote:On July 25 2012 08:42 Defacer wrote:On July 25 2012 04:16 blinken wrote:On July 24 2012 14:44 Defacer wrote:On July 24 2012 14:25 blinken wrote:
I think it is hilarious when people argue about gun control.
People kill people, not guns.
When these psychos want to kill people, they will find a way with or without guns. At least once per page, some random poster will make this hilariously stupid argument to justify doing nothing about gun control, or avoiding the discussion of gun control altogether. It's no different than saying ... NEWSFLASH: Rain is wet, and it will rain if we do or don't have umbrellas. Well thank you, Dr. Einstein! But you've kind of missed the basic and most obvious point of the entire discussion. It's easier to kill things with Guns than other objects! In fact, that's what they're designed to do -- kill things easily! If they were bad at killing things easily, no one would need to buy guns! Guns are more dangerous than other things! In fact, that's what makes them effective! Hmmmm ... Do you think that the sale of guns needs some limitations and rules? Discuss! Please don't be so condescending, it makes you sound unintelligent. I could make a home-made bomb that could take out half that theatre which I could conceal as easily as a gun. Search the internet for five minutes, you can too. Are you aware of how many guns are in North America? It is simply unrealistic to implement the magnitude of control necessary to prevent the kind of tragedies that have taken place recently. You cannot prevent all tragedies, obviously. But there's no need to exacerbate the problem by pretending that the government, the NRA, gun owners or sellers have done ALL they can to discourage the legal purchase of guns for illegal or irresponsible purposes. You can argue for more regulation, better enforcement of less regulation, higher standards for security in public spaces, a better and more effective mental health care system, etc. My issue with your argument -- and I apologize for being a dick to you specifically, because you're not the only one that's made this argument -- is that it's defeatist. It's the equivalent of throwing your hands in the air and saying, "No point in arguing. Gun massacres are part of life." Yes, that's an argument, it's just not particularly useful. Do you know what knee-jerk politics are? Are you into that? So from one incident that very rarely happens if ever, we need more laws to "protect" people from this sort of thing? We need to regulate and take more rights away from good people because of the bad people? Just like 9/11 the Patriot Act passed that makes it legal for the government here in the US to spy on you and tap your phones to prevent "terrorism". You can't live freely and be safe %100 of the time. You're more likely to be struck by lightning twice than die from a mass murder like the recent one, yet we got people like you who want more restrictive government laws to "protect" us. And you don't even live in the US. This is factually false. http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/medical.htmhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-stateThere were 360 people injured from SINGLE lightning strikes in the US. Only 39 of these people died. There were almost 9000 people KILLED by firearms. That doesnt include injuries which are FAR greater. If youre going to argue, use facts. Youre accusing someone of having knee jerk responses that are illogical, yet you spew some random crap that is easily disproven. Tisk tisk. Gotta love the foreigners who don't understand US culture, history, government, Bill of Rights, Constituition and why things are the way they are come into a topic like this and give their advice or opinion on the matter they think they're right about. You can't have a debate with someone who doesn't understand these things because all it turns into is me teaching you and it'd be a waste of time anyways seeing you don't live here to vote on anything anyways. Good idea buddy. Ignore my post and the fact that I proved your point wrong and attack me even though you dont know me. I have a degree in history, focused on US history from the best educational institution in our country. I would bet my life on me knowing more about all of the above issues than you. However, if we want to keep to the point, none of this has absolutely ANYTHING to do with my post. You said you are mroe likely to be struck by lightning twice than killed in a firearm killing spree. This is factually false. You are 30 times more likely to be killed by a gun than to be hit by lightning ONCE. You are 300 times more likely to be killed by a gun than killed by lightning. These are numbers and facts. Considering you only deal with attacks on someone you dont know about issues they arent speaking about, and being absolutely fucking horrible at reading, I wouldnt expect you to do any research though, so it is understandable you just make unsubstantiated claims that are totally bogus instead of offer any useful input.
Do you know the difference between a shooting spree and just gun murders? Doesn't seem like you do, you compared total gun murders to chances of being struck by lightning, not shooting sprees like the recent one we're all talking about. EHHHHH wrong again. You are more likely to be struck by lightning TWICE than die from a mass shooting spree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
