EPTIf you're seeing this topic then another mass shooting hap…
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. | ||
|
fairymonger
United States81 Posts
| ||
|
Esk23
United States447 Posts
On July 30 2012 20:21 Focuspants wrote: I have already proven your statement about being hit by lioghtning and being killed in a mass shooting wrong. The odds of being hit by lightning twice in one year is 1 in 480 billion. Twice that is 1 in 960 billion. More than 1 in 960 billion people get killed in a mass shooting in the states each year. I showed you a statistic that there are ~20 mass shootings a year. You ignored all of this. My argument is that gun ownership relates to gun crime. Therefore, strict regulations and lower ownership, are better, as less people tget shot. Crime rates may be the same, but mortality rates due to firearms will be significantly lower (based on global statistics of Europe and Canada, about 10 in 100 000 lower). Edit* Oh now youve changed it to just being hit by lightning. Unfortunately, comparing your likelihood of getting injured from something, versus killed by something else is relatively pointless, so I will look at deaths per year as a result of both. Under 30 people a year on average die from lightning strikes in the US, and far more than 30 people die in mass shootings per year (considering they average ~20 per year, and have done so since 1978 as I linked to you in a previous post). In fact the absolute minimum amount of victims per year would be 80 (which it is not, it is significantly higher) as mass shootings are considered shootings with 4+ victims. So you are certainly more likely to be killed in a mass shooting than by lightning. I have never seen someone such as you, miss the point as many times as you do and as continuously and you do. It's really getting to be beyond a waste of my time. The point you missed is that the chance of being killed in a mass shooting is so significantly small that if you're going to be paranoid about that happening to you you might as well stay in your house and lock all your doors and never go outside for the rest of your life. I've already listed some things you are much much more likely to die from than a mass shooting or even in a gun related death and even those things are incredibly unlikely to ever happen to you. The specific odds of specific things happening vary depending on a lot of circumstances. For example, you like twice as likely to die in a homicide in Mexico where, by the way, civilian gun ownership for self defense purposes is illegal (where you all all this rampant gang related violence and where most of the Mexican police and government themselves are corrupt where many innocent civilians are being victimized), than you are to die in a homicide in the United States. This irrational way of thinking of less guns = less crime is simply and statistically not true, or even less guns = less gun deaths. I've already provided instances of this being completely false with Chicago's gun related crime and overall crime rates going UP after civilian gun ownership was banned. UK for example also saw an increase of gun crime and overall crime rates go up and even double after they banned civilian gun ownership for self defense purposes. "Crime rates may stay the same." But that's also untrue, I've already provided instances where crime went up, simply because criminals were more likely to rob or do whatever knowing their victims were less likely to have a gun and thus be able to defend themselves. Focusunderwear, your way of thinking is exactly what's dangerous to a society. That we need more laws/regulations in the name of freedom and safety when its effect does the opposite. We have all these government laws passing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act, The Cyber Security Act(look that one up), etc all in the name of "protecting you." I think you watch too much CNN, FOX, MSNBC, etc. where they continuously feed this BS propaganda that people unfortunately buy in to. Be more specific of what you mean by "restricter gun regulations." Stricter gun regulations would not have stopped the Colorado shooting, as the suspect himself did not have any criminal background whatsoever, he was a PHD student for Neuro-Science at the University of Colorado. You could easily argue that if people were allowed concealed carry in movie theaters the killer could have been shot. What you are proposing is something that punishes law abiding gun owners. It doesn't affect criminals getting guns, they are called criminals for a reason, they will break any gun laws in place to get their hands on a gun. Then you have the good people unable to or less likely to have a gun for self defense purposes. | ||
|
Rassy
Netherlands2308 Posts
No it does not effect hardened crinimals to get guns, but it does effect lunatics to get guns. How is a social inept lunatic going to buy a gun when he cant get them in the store? Go find criminal and buy from him? And the criminal would sell it to him? Personally i think a criminal would think twice selling a weapon to some nut guy with the risk of everything comming back at him when he does something silly and the weapon is traced back to the seller. It will be significantly more difficult for some psycho to get a gun when guns are forbidden | ||
|
Esk23
United States447 Posts
On July 31 2012 08:05 Rassy wrote: It doesn't affect criminals getting guns, they are called criminals for a reason, they will break any gun laws in place to get their hands on a gun No it does not effect hardened crinimals to get guns, but it does effect lunatics to get guns. How is a social inept lunatic going to buy a gun when he cant get them in the store? Go find criminal and buy from him? And the criminal would sell it to him? Personally i think a criminal would think twice selling a weapon to some nut guy with the risk of everything comming back at him when he does something silly and the weapon is traced back to the seller. It will be significantly more difficult for some psycho to get a gun when guns are forbidden "In last year’s shooting near Oslo, 69 people were killed and an additional 110 injured. Germany, a country with some of the strictest gun control in the world — it requires not only extensive psychological screening but also a year’s wait to get a gun — has been the site of three of the worst five multiple-victim K-12 public school shootings in the world, all in the past decade. There are more examples of attacks in countries with strict gun control, like in Austria, Britain, France, Finland and Italy." "The guns used for the attacks in Germany and Norway were obtained illegally. When individuals plan these attacks months or even years in advance, it is virtually impossible to stop them from getting whatever weapons they want." Source: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/07/30/new-gun-laws-will-do-nothing-to-stop-mass-shooting-attacks/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks Criminals find a way. | ||
|
Maxie
Sweden2653 Posts
On July 31 2012 08:13 Esk23 wrote: "In last year’s shooting near Oslo, 69 people were killed and an additional 110 injured. Germany, a country with some of the strictest gun control in the world — it requires not only extensive psychological screening but also a year’s wait to get a gun — has been the site of three of the worst five multiple-victim K-12 public school shootings in the world, all in the past decade. There are more examples of attacks in countries with strict gun control, like in Austria, Britain, France, Finland and Italy." "The guns used for the attacks in Germany and Norway were obtained illegally. When individuals plan these attacks months or even years in advance, it is virtually impossible to stop them from getting whatever weapons they want." Source: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/07/30/new-gun-laws-will-do-nothing-to-stop-mass-shooting-attacks/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks Criminals find a way. I wouldn't call ABB a mere criminal, though. | ||
|
Tarot
Canada440 Posts
On July 31 2012 08:13 Esk23 wrote: "In last year’s shooting near Oslo, 69 people were killed and an additional 110 injured. Germany, a country with some of the strictest gun control in the world — it requires not only extensive psychological screening but also a year’s wait to get a gun — has been the site of three of the worst five multiple-victim K-12 public school shootings in the world, all in the past decade. There are more examples of attacks in countries with strict gun control, like in Austria, Britain, France, Finland and Italy." "The guns used for the attacks in Germany and Norway were obtained illegally. When individuals plan these attacks months or even years in advance, it is virtually impossible to stop them from getting whatever weapons they want." Source: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/07/30/new-gun-laws-will-do-nothing-to-stop-mass-shooting-attacks/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks Criminals find a way. So just because we can't stop every criminal that schemes for years to get their hands on a gun and kill people, we shouldn't want to stop the corner street dealer from getting one too? | ||
|
Leth0
856 Posts
On July 31 2012 08:33 Tarot wrote: So just because we can't stop every criminal that schemes for years to get their hands on a gun and kill people, we shouldn't want to stop the corner street dealer from getting one too? The problem is that you want to infringe on law abiding citizens rights on the 'assumption' that if you do that you 'might' save someone. | ||
|
bayside
United States82 Posts
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/surveillance-vid-shows-71-year-old-concealed-carry-holder-opening-fire-on-would-be-robbers/ a 71 year old man stopped a robbery... imagine if everyone had a weapon, lots of people would be discouraged, as long as SAFE and METHODICAL approaches for handling them were taught to you by an instructor. | ||
|
Maxie
Sweden2653 Posts
On July 31 2012 09:48 bayside wrote: For those of us living in America, you have every single right to own a gun, and have the ability to carry it around, Im sorry but for anyone who lives in America and says there needs to be gun control, can just leave the country if you dont like it. The Constitution states: "You have the right to bear arms." Im sorry there is NO debate, NO exceptions. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/surveillance-vid-shows-71-year-old-concealed-carry-holder-opening-fire-on-would-be-robbers/ a 71 year old man stopped a robbery... imagine if everyone had a weapon, lots of people would be discouraged, as long as SAFE and METHODICAL approaches for handling them were taught to you by an instructor. So the Constitution is eternal, unchangeable, always perfect? Anyway, just because one wants to have tighter gun control, it doesn't mean that they have to be entirely banned. At least that's how I think of it. | ||
|
stevarius
United States1394 Posts
On July 31 2012 09:54 Maxie wrote: So the Constitution is eternal, unchangeable, always perfect? Anyway, just because one wants to have tighter gun control, it doesn't mean that they have to be entirely banned. At least that's how I think of it. Are you so naive as to believe we're really going to change one of the amendments contained in the bill of rights to LESSEN personal freedom? Gun control lobbyists would have to pay congressmen out the ass to even get a shot at reinstating the assault weapons ban again. It expired for a reason. Court cases have also shown that people have the right to own firearms and there is little that needs to be done besides making a more streamline process of background checks that could potentially include more factors to ensure the future owner of the firearm isn't going to go batshit crazy, but there is only so much you can even do to prevent that kind of irresponsible ownership. The kind of gun control in place in America that causes us to pay taxes on certain items is pretty fucked up and needs to be changed.... or states and cities not allowing people to get licensed to carry a firearm open or concealed. Other than that, not much. | ||
|
Maxie
Sweden2653 Posts
On July 31 2012 10:11 stevarius wrote: Are you so naive as to believe we're really going to amend one of the amendments contained in the bill of rights to LESSEN personal freedom? The kind of gun control in place in America that causes us to pay taxes on certain items is pretty fucked up and needs to be changed.... or states and cities not allowing people to get licensed to carry a firearm open or concealed. Other than that, not much. No. It won't happen. I'm pretty sure of that. But what is it that says that something like that (the constitution) cannot ever be changed? | ||
|
PassionFruit
294 Posts
On July 31 2012 10:16 Maxie wrote: No. It won't happen. I'm pretty sure of that. But what is it that says that something like that (the constitution) cannot ever be changed? The Constitution cannot technically be changed because it is practically impossible to do so from a procedural standpoint. But really, the Constitution is only as powerful as its interpretation. People who read the 2nd amendment at face value to support their own position pretty much give a blatant demonstration of their own ignorance with regard to not only Constitution but also the underlying idea of incorporation, federalism, and judicial interpretation. When you interpret the Constitution, the quesetion is not whether the "right" in itself should exist to begin with. That's a given (assuming incorporation stands as per state restriction). The question is the scope and interpretation of the existing right. So using the US Constitution to defend your "right" is utter garbage when it comes to this type of discussion because the issue here is not whether Americans have the "right" to own guns due to the decision of some old men ages ago, but whether "should people be allowed to own guns" from a general societal standpoing. Who gives a fuck what the Constitution says. At least read the federalist papers regarding the second amendment if you want some tangential relationship to the present discussion. | ||
|
Perplex
United States1693 Posts
On July 31 2012 09:54 Maxie wrote: So the Constitution is eternal, unchangeable, always perfect? Anyway, just because one wants to have tighter gun control, it doesn't mean that they have to be entirely banned. At least that's how I think of it. It can be amended sure, but you can't fundamentally alter its very core principles. To do so challenges the integrity of our nation's government. if you don't like it, just move to sweden or something lol | ||
|
stevarius
United States1394 Posts
On July 31 2012 09:54 Maxie wrote: So the Constitution is eternal, unchangeable, always perfect? Anyway, just because one wants to have tighter gun control, it doesn't mean that they have to be entirely banned. At least that's how I think of it. The last like 4 times an assault weapons ban legislation has been introduced to our congress, it died or never got out of committee. You be the judge of how any future legislation is going to turn out in order to enact any real gun control on top of what already exists. | ||
|
Elegy
United States1629 Posts
| ||
|
Cutlery
Norway565 Posts
On July 31 2012 07:39 Esk23 wrote: I have never seen someone such as you, miss the point as many times as you do and as continuously and you do. It's really getting to be beyond a waste of my time. The point you missed is that the chance of being killed in a mass shooting is so significantly small that if you're going to be paranoid about that happening to you you might as well stay in your house and lock all your doors and never go outside for the rest of your life. I've already listed some things you are much much more likely to die from than a mass shooting or even in a gun related death and even those things are incredibly unlikely to ever happen to you. The specific odds of specific things happening vary depending on a lot of circumstances. For example, you like twice as likely to die in a homicide in Mexico where, by the way, civilian gun ownership for self defense purposes is illegal (where you all all this rampant gang related violence and where most of the Mexican police and government themselves are corrupt where many innocent civilians are being victimized), than you are to die in a homicide in the United States. This irrational way of thinking of less guns = less crime is simply and statistically not true, or even less guns = less gun deaths. I've already provided instances of this being completely false with Chicago's gun related crime and overall crime rates going UP after civilian gun ownership was banned. UK for example also saw an increase of gun crime and overall crime rates go up and even double after they banned civilian gun ownership for self defense purposes. "Crime rates may stay the same." But that's also untrue, I've already provided instances where crime went up, simply because criminals were more likely to rob or do whatever knowing their victims were less likely to have a gun and thus be able to defend themselves. Focusunderwear, your way of thinking is exactly what's dangerous to a society. That we need more laws/regulations in the name of freedom and safety when its effect does the opposite. We have all these government laws passing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act, The Cyber Security Act(look that one up), etc all in the name of "protecting you." I think you watch too much CNN, FOX, MSNBC, etc. where they continuously feed this BS propaganda that people unfortunately buy in to. Be more specific of what you mean by "restricter gun regulations." Stricter gun regulations would not have stopped the Colorado shooting, as the suspect himself did not have any criminal background whatsoever, he was a PHD student for Neuro-Science at the University of Colorado. You could easily argue that if people were allowed concealed carry in movie theaters the killer could have been shot. What you are proposing is something that punishes law abiding gun owners. It doesn't affect criminals getting guns, they are called criminals for a reason, they will break any gun laws in place to get their hands on a gun. Then you have the good people unable to or less likely to have a gun for self defense purposes. It is to be expected that after a change in policies, there will be short term changes in statistics, until things reach a 'new equilibruim'. Everything I know about the world works like this; doesn't surprise me that gun ownership follows the same mathematical model. Accesibility, to a criminal, is a factor. Not everyone is dead set on commiting a crime no matter the cost. But I think it comes down to safety. Different cultures, different countries, safety varies alot. I feel safe enough here in Norway. I have no need to carry a gun, nor do I want to. We had Breivik, sadly, but I hear of alot more stabbings than gun shots (and no, there aren't alot of stabbings either, bad wording, just talking about the proportionality). I believe some people tried to kill an alleged terrorist with gunfire without succeeding. Imo if *alot* of people would suddenly start owning guns here in Norway, alot of these stabbings would be escalated to gunfire. But I so rarely hear of any murders or deadly fights here anyway.. We have a few big murder cases every now and then; doesn't make me feel unsafe. I'd feel more unsafe if I knew people were owning guns left and right. But this comes down to culture, and how safety works within a culture. I see alot of "fear" for crimes on the internet; I have never felt such fear. Some people I know are into mildly criminal activities, but I never fear for them cause I know that even when it comes to small-time drug-dealers, people are very safe here. Yes people get beat up, you don't hear about that unless someone saw it; out on the town or just because people hate eachother. But I'd rather get beaten up than enter a 50/50 gunfire duel. But that's just me. And my culture. I can't begin to tell you how the US *should* operate. But I do believe there are discrepancies in the statistics from state to state. I would assume the southern states to have a higher gun-shot wound or mortality rate than an national average; just because of the culture there. Got a *beef* with someone, you go for your gun, you don't always make a fist and punch like you would here. Just one more reason I feel safer here in Norway than I would in Texas; and having a gun at my hip would not change anything. If anything, I'd be worried that anyone mugging me would see the gun (after having me threatened) and panic, and I'd end up dead even if I had no intention of pulling the gun. Maybe I would enter a fistfight with someone mugging me, here in Norway, but I deffinitely would not enter a gunfight with someone in Texas. But I can't go around telling people from Texas just "how safer they would be without guns", simply because I can't know; I don't know the culture. But I can tell them that, in Norway, they're more than safe enough to not need a gun; and they'd only risk getting in trouble with the law or hurting someone unneccesary or even someone innocent. So if even gun owners say that there are issues with criminals and crimes are high, to the point where owing a gun is ONE sollution; why not work harder to find other sollutions so that guns feel less neccesary. To me that would be an obvious goal, even if it were long term. Edit: claiming that civilians need access to the latest "crimefighting technology/tools", like a gun, is also ridiculous cause then you could take things much further. You can even ask yourself "why did it stop at guns? Why aren't things escalating further?" Why do we have mass-shootings and not mass gas attacks? Grenades? Even biological weapons. Big explosions (well, we do have those every now and then) I'm just saying... If a criminal is bent on illegally obtaining the best tools to reach his goals, then why does he go for hand guns? Well, some get rifles and shotguns, but why stop there? Could accessibility be a factor here? | ||
|
Cutlery
Norway565 Posts
Pretty sure a criminal, who planned this, could outsmart enough people that the situation quickly gets out of hand, if he assumes that there are 2 or more guns placed on random civilians. Not saying any one scenario is inherently better; but I don't see how one can claim that one of these scenraios is better than the other. The criminal obviously adapts faster than unexpecting civilians. Trained cops may be able to outsmart most inexperienced criminals who only 'learn stuff online'. But a gun is a tool. It can be used for good or for bad; but if you are not trained to handle such situations, your gun probably won't be used for good, simply because you do not know what would be good in this specific situation. This scenario assumes that the rampaging shooter isn't afraid of his own life; which is common enough seeing as how these things often end with a suicide or a life in prison. I don't think such a shooter ever actually expects to get away with it. | ||
|
D10
Brazil3409 Posts
With this in mind, theres tons of ways to look at it. Guns for self defense ? Like small calliber firearms ? Probably justified to a lot of people Semi Automatic pistols, rifles, submachine guns and up ? I think if you allow your population to buy this kind of stuff you either can outclass them ridiculously like the US government could with its population Or you are begging for a coup, most countries wouldnt work with this arrangement because most countries would have a hell of a hard time stopping a couple thousand trained and well armed man. And thats the main reason why gun control is so fucking important, you dont want countries turning into afghanistan where governments have to deal with tribes and accept their laws and shit just because they have a ton of AK 47s and 500 kids to use them. | ||
|
Focuspants
Canada780 Posts
On July 31 2012 09:48 bayside wrote: For those of us living in America, you have every single right to own a gun, and have the ability to carry it around, Im sorry but for anyone who lives in America and says there needs to be gun control, can just leave the country if you dont like it. The Constitution states: "You have the right to bear arms." Im sorry there is NO debate, NO exceptions. The constitution also stated everyone was created equal, unless they didnt own property.... or were a woman.... or were black and were a slave.... wait this doesnt make sense? See where im going with this? Its a 236 year old piece of paper, and as smart as some of the people that wrote it were, they werent psychic, and todays world is FAR different from theirs. The only difference is, people choose to ignore certain things, and cling to others as if they are written in stone. You go so far as to make it sound treasonous to say "the second ammendment doesnt make sense or apply to modern day life in the way it did almost 250 years ago". There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with that system. | ||
|
Trasko
Sweden983 Posts
| ||
| ||
