|
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 January 19 2013 15:41 gDubS91 wrote:
There is no reason why citizens should not be able to possess FIREARMS. Guns dont kill people, its the person that pulls the trigger that is the culprit in trying to end anothers' life.
Guns dont kill peaople, people kill people....yadayada.
ist that all the more reason to not give people guns?
|
CNN report
Five wounded today by accidental gun discharge at weapon shows today. Supposedly people involved in those kind of activities should now how to handle guns..
kob.com - New Mexico teenager fatally shot 2 adults, 3 children
Lots of weapons found in the residence, including assault type rifles. But yeah, guns dont kill people right, I'm sure this 15 year old would have found an alternative way to get the job done.
|
On January 21 2013 02:19 SpeaKEaSY wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2013 01:48 agitprop wrote:graph of gun deaths per capita vs gun ownership per capitaWhat is clear, control of gun proliferation in a developed country is possible. There seems to be an identifiable trend line between gun proliferation and deaths by gun shots. Of course, correlation is not causation, but a causal relationship is suggested here. Of course, all deaths due to gun violence in the US are relatively insignificant next to deaths due to heart disease, malnutrition, and vehicle accidents. I dislike how so many posts here come armed with whatever talking point that resonated with a person. I would prefer that people try to apply facts and figures and dig into the complexity. Moreover, I don't hear solutions for general gun violence from gun proponents. For school shootings, the notion of armed guards in schools is a laughable expense that may or may not save less than 100 lives a year, when that very same money could save tens of thousands of lives a year in malnutrition or health care. Agit I'd be curious to see the same chart with "gun murders" on the y-axis rather than "gun deaths." If you were to remove suicides and self defense related gun deaths from the US tally, I think you'd see that graph move closer to the x-axis for the US data point. I'd also like to see a graph of the ratio of deaths to ownership vs ownership, and I'm curious to see why a country like Yemen isn't on this chart, even though it comes second to the United States in gun ownership per capita. I'd also like to see a version of this graph regarding automobile related deaths vs ownership, and see what sort of conclusions we can come up with based on that. TBH I think the best way to reduce gun violence while preserving the right to self defense is to rethink our culture in general, and not just gun culture. I don't believe that if you doubled gun ownership in Japan that violence would suddenly double, nor do I believe that if you halved gun ownership in the United States that violence would be cut in half as well. Unfortunately, our society does teach that violence solves problems, so it's non wonder we see so much violence. I think parents should actually raise their children, rather than having an electronic box or an overpaid babysitter do it. Of course, no one likes this solution because it actually involves people taking responsibility, rather than placing the blame on inanimate objects.
You would. Of the approximately 30,000 firearms-related deaths each year, 19,000 are suicides. Any figure that uses gun deaths as opposed to homicides is misleading, possibly intentionally.
On January 21 2013 04:00 karelen wrote:CNN reportFive wounded today by accidental gun discharge at weapon shows today. Supposedly people involved in those kind of activities should now how to handle guns.. kob.com - New Mexico teenager fatally shot 2 adults, 3 childrenLots of weapons found in the residence, including assault type rifles. But yeah, guns dont kill people right, I'm sure this 15 year old would have found an alternative way to get the job done.
Did the gun shoot those people in New Mexico, or did the teen?
Are you really going to blame an inanimate object instead of the person holding it?
As for the gun shows, anyone can attend them. You don't have to know a single thing about guns to go.
On January 21 2013 03:32 Snotling wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2013 15:41 gDubS91 wrote:
There is no reason why citizens should not be able to possess FIREARMS. Guns dont kill people, its the person that pulls the trigger that is the culprit in trying to end anothers' life. Guns dont kill peaople, people kill people....yadayada. ist that all the more reason to not give people guns?
No, because the vast majority of gun owners kill no one.
By your logic, the fact that cars don't drive drunk, people do means we should get rid of alcohol. Even though the vast majority of people do not drive drunk.
|
People kill people, but one crazy teenager won't be able to go berserk and kill a several people unless hes armed with a gun.
|
On January 21 2013 03:32 Snotling wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2013 15:41 gDubS91 wrote:
There is no reason why citizens should not be able to possess FIREARMS. Guns dont kill people, its the person that pulls the trigger that is the culprit in trying to end anothers' life. Guns dont kill peaople, people kill people....yadayada. ist that all the more reason to not give people guns?
But the smaller ones can be used as passable paperweights. In fact, holding down paper was their design purpose, and the whole high-velocity, puncturing projectiles were just a happenstance.
We have the constitutional right to own paperweights. Maybe we should just redesign them so they don't shoot high-velocity, armor-piercing projectiles anymore.
Then we'll all be happy. Because obviously no one buys a gun thinking it could kill somebody.
|
On January 21 2013 04:42 Millitron wrote:
Did the gun shoot those people in New Mexico, or did the teen?
Are you really going to blame an inanimate object instead of the person holding it?
Blame for anything is never really singular, is it? There are a lot of contributing factors. Why blame the perpetrator, he was abused as a child maybe, so let's just trace it all back to the inherent evil we find in all of nature. The Devil did it.
Everything you're saying in your posts is simple: Blame the person, nothing else could have contributed to the victim's death, he was killed with mind-powers; guns are an inanimate object, just like uranium and cyanide.
|
people should really just read the thread instead of making the same arguments again and again and again...
|
On January 21 2013 06:41 Jockmcplop wrote:
people should really just read the thread instead of making the same arguments again and again and again...
You're going to tell people to read all 370 pages?? 
No one is going to do that. I feel like the only way to handle this, is to get the most knowledgeable people about gun control on TL to have a formal debate, where they get their own thread, and can go through every argument from every angle, debating statistics as detailed as they want. We need to establish who the "Team Liquid Intellectuals" are . I already have a few in my mind.
I think there was a debate thread somewhere around here, but honestly I feel like any specific debate should just be a dedicated thread on the forum, so that we can clearly and easily find the debate and keep track of progress.
---
Also to chime in, I agree with Leporello. But obviously its a weighing game. We don't ban alcohol, even though it results in so many deaths. But we try to put some restrictions on it nonetheless. I'm guessing this is common sense to most people. Similarly with guns. At this point, I think having a handgun for personal self-defense, or using guns for hunting and other sport, or just because you're a collector, probably makes them just as important, if not more important, than the need to have alcohol in society (even if shooting sprees don't happen with alcohol, overall the number of deaths is what matters here...not whether they all died in once place or not).
|
On January 21 2013 06:36 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2013 04:42 Millitron wrote:
Did the gun shoot those people in New Mexico, or did the teen?
Are you really going to blame an inanimate object instead of the person holding it?
Blame for anything is never really singular, is it? There are a lot of contributing factors. Why blame the perpetrator, he was abused as a child maybe, so let's just trace it all back to the inherent evil we find in all of nature. The Devil did it. Everything you're saying in your posts is simple: Blame the person, nothing else could have contributed to the victim's death, he was killed with mind-powers; guns are an inanimate object, just like uranium and cyanide.
Well by your logic I guess we need to start throwing shitty parents in jail because their kids turned out to be rapists and murderers, right? It's called personal accountability for actions, not blaming people who shaped that person or the weapons of choice laid out in front of them.
|
Oh god, why can't we ever get out of this "guns don't kill, people do" argument ?!
Ok, guns don't kill people. But it eases the act of killing so much it's indecent. A normal guy can have a moment of madness, if at this moment, he doesn't have a firearm at his disposal, there's so much less chance he kills someone...
It's putting the wrong tools in the hands of the (potentially) wrong person.
Oh hey, nuclear bombs don't kill, it's the guy who launches it who kills ! So why can't everyone own his own nuke ? Hey, fair idea, right ?
|
On January 21 2013 07:32 Nouar wrote:
Oh god, why can't we ever get out of this "guns don't kill, people do" argument ?!
Ok, guns don't kill people. But it eases the act of killing so much it's indecent. A normal guy can have a moment of madness, if at this moment, he doesn't have a firearm at his disposal, there's so much less chance he kills someone...
It's putting the wrong tools in the hands of the (potentially) wrong person.
Oh hey, nuclear bombs don't kill, it's the guy who launches it who kills ! So why can't everyone own his own nuke ? Hey, fair idea, right ?
It would help to read the last couple pages of the thread. Gun Control doesn't work. Do you have stats for people killed "in a moment of madness?" All these mass shootings that spurred this mess were deliberate actions.
I think a good way of thinking about the nukes is the following: A citizen can't use a nuke for any of the things people use firearms for. Self-defense, hunting, protection from government, and sport. Furthermore, when you use a nuke you infringe on the rights of others, while a gun is used vs individuals. Nukes are to protect nations, guns to protect people.
the general argument for Gun Control is emotional, rather than stat based. but read the past couples pages, that way you won't repeat the attack on "guns don't kill, people do."
|
It works when it has been done since the start, but the US is long past that stage. So it doesn't work anymore, or it would take decades before effects would be seen.
I have seen the numbers, the studies, etc... you can find good arguments for both povs. My point of view however is that if nobody owns a gun (just some handguns and hunters like in most countries), and the government nearly can't use theirs cause they have strict rules (sometimes so strict they're dumb), potential criminals have difficulties accessing weapons (determined individuals always will manage), and regular criminals trespassing in homes etc don't have to shoot or even have weapons since civilians are unharmed.
Do we have less crime ? No. Do we have less deathes by firearms and deathes at all ? Definitely yes.
Do we have more mass killings cause "but how do you defend against madmen since you don't have firearms ???§:;§MOL§%M". Well, no, we don't have mass killings, sorry. Cause those mass killings, barring exceptions like Breivik which can always happen and fringe on terrorism, are often the cause of ill people and not determined and smart individuals, who can gather the weapons needed.
Do I feel unsafe cause I don't have weapons ? No. Do I feel my home or family is exposed ? No.
So yes, gun control works. But that's not how it works in the US, historically speaking, and I have no solution for their situation, and much smarter people than me still haven't found one.
But don't say it *doesn't* work. Most US citizens just fail to see how it works for us, like we fail to see why you feel such need to own fucking assault rifles. Just a culture difference.
And you don't need assault rifles or bigass magazines or open weapons faires for self-defense, hunting, or sport. Protection from the government is a shitty excuse nowadays. Might have been true 200years ago.
Nukes and guns are NOT made to protect, they are made to kill. Incapacitation weapons might be non-lethal enough to deserve the "protection" mention. protection by killing is almost always bad, but such is the way of humans :-(
and if you want numbers... there is an yearly average of 150 homicides by firearms in france over the last 15 years (0.25/100000), while the US had 11k in 2010 (3.6/100000). You're right, numbers are against gun control.
|
Canada11268 Posts
Well speaking of stats vs emotions and keeping to the facts- I have a question.
I've seen a couple news pieces in CNN and CBS recently that the NRA has been actively hindering research from being conducted through the CDC amongst other things. Is there truth to this? Because it seems to me if it truly is about stats and facts, then the NRA shouldn't be worried about more research to the extent to which they try to block it.
|
It's like every industry. You never know what people could find with stats, so blocking is safe. Happens in all fields where propaganda is important. Cigarettes, guns, medicine, dna modified crops... Why would they even take a risk when their position is strong as fuck ?
|
On January 21 2013 09:06 Falling wrote:
Well speaking of stats vs emotions and keeping to the facts- I have a question.
I've seen a couple news pieces in CNN and CBS recently that the NRA has been actively hindering research from being conducted through the CDC amongst other things. Is there truth to this? Because it seems to me if it truly is about stats and facts, then the NRA shouldn't be worried about more research to the extent to which they try to block it.
I don't know about that, (it wouldn't surprise me, the NRA is insane), but why would the CDC be looking into guns, exactly?
I'd be a little nervous about why the Center for Disease Control was using tax dollars to look into something not (as far as I can tell) related to their domain, and where the ideas came from.
I wouldn't really want the NRA to do a study on HIV either.
|
On January 21 2013 09:06 Falling wrote:
Well speaking of stats vs emotions and keeping to the facts- I have a question.
I've seen a couple news pieces in CNN and CBS recently that the NRA has been actively hindering research from being conducted through the CDC amongst other things. Is there truth to this? Because it seems to me if it truly is about stats and facts, then the NRA shouldn't be worried about more research to the extent to which they try to block it.
I can't speak to this directly, but it's generally accepted in the U.S. that the NRA is full of nuts. There are plenty of reasonable people who are members as well, but those in power are on par with the heads of the current conservative Republican party. Bad politics.
|
On January 21 2013 08:42 Nouar wrote:
It works when it has been done since the start, but the US is long past that stage. So it doesn't work anymore, or it would take decades before effects would be seen.
I have seen the numbers, the studies, etc... you can find good arguments for both povs. My point of view however is that if nobody owns a gun (just some handguns and hunters like in most countries), and the government nearly can't use theirs cause they have strict rules (sometimes so strict they're dumb), potential criminals have difficulties accessing weapons (determined individuals always will manage), and regular criminals trespassing in homes etc don't have to shoot or even have weapons since civilians are unharmed.
Do we have less crime ? No. Do we have less deathes by firearms and deathes at all ? Definitely yes.
Do we have more mass killings cause "but how do you defend against madmen since you don't have firearms ???§:;§MOL§%M". Well, no, we don't have mass killings, sorry. Cause those mass killings, barring exceptions like Breivik which can always happen and fringe on terrorism, are often the cause of ill people and not determined and smart individuals, who can gather the weapons needed.
Do I feel unsafe cause I don't have weapons ? No. Do I feel my home or family is exposed ? No.
So yes, gun control works. But that's not how it works in the US, historically speaking, and I have no solution for their situation, and much smarter people than me still haven't found one.
But don't say it *doesn't* work. Most US citizens just fail to see how it works for us, like we fail to see why you feel such need to own fucking assault rifles. Just a culture difference.
And you don't need assault rifles or bigass magazines or open weapons faires for self-defense, hunting, or sport. Protection from the government is a shitty excuse nowadays. Might have been true 200years ago.
Nukes and guns are NOT made to protect, they are made to kill. Incapacitation weapons might be non-lethal enough to deserve the "protection" mention. protection by killing is almost always bad, but such is the way of humans :-(
Actually, the stats aren't all over the place. They either say it has no effect or makes crime worse. No proven positive effects that I am aware of.
If everyone was gunless, then criminals would use something else (Timothy McVeigh, anyone?). Most murders (as far as I'm aware) are one person killing one other. They can do this with a knife. With NO guns, maybe you could reduce the number of mass killings. Maybe.
Also, the limit on mag size is stupid. 7 rounds? That's ok. 10? OMYGOODNESSHE'SADANGER. You never know. Fine, now you just buy more mags. Problem not solved.
Guns are made to kill for certain purposes, not just for "killing."
if you don't have any weapons (and you were in America) that would be up to you. Why do you feel the level of superiority that makes you confident enough to say that no one needs them? If someone feels he needs a gun to defend his family, why do you get to tell him no? Especially since he could be the victim of gun crime? Being a victim is not morally superior to fighting back. I think I posted a stat yesterday explaining all this (with some cites!) As a matter of fact, the last 5 pages (about the time I started paying attention) has been the same thing over and over again. I'm just about done. The idea of gun control is based on bad logic and is, statistically, useless.
Thank you for your opinion on resistance.
How long has France been this way? Do they have stats from before? genuinely curious.
Someone should take the time to organize all the stats and theory in a single post.
|
On January 21 2013 09:19 CapnAmerica wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2013 09:06 Falling wrote:
Well speaking of stats vs emotions and keeping to the facts- I have a question.
I've seen a couple news pieces in CNN and CBS recently that the NRA has been actively hindering research from being conducted through the CDC amongst other things. Is there truth to this? Because it seems to me if it truly is about stats and facts, then the NRA shouldn't be worried about more research to the extent to which they try to block it. I can't speak to this directly, but it's generally accepted in the U.S. that the NRA is full of nuts. There are plenty of reasonable people who are members as well, but those in power are on par with the heads of the current conservative Republican party. Bad politics.
Actually, the NRA has a higher favorability rating than Congress and the president (41%ish). I don't know where you get your news to think that is "generally accepted."
|
Just curious; why does the weapon you own for protection have to be capable of killing someone?
What level of protection does an assault rifle afford you that, for example, a taser does not?
It seems to me that a reasonable compromise is available here, wherein mass killings become much less frequent but no one who relies on a weapon for a feeling of safety needs to be denied that.
|
Canada11268 Posts
On January 21 2013 09:18 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2013 09:06 Falling wrote:
Well speaking of stats vs emotions and keeping to the facts- I have a question.
I've seen a couple news pieces in CNN and CBS recently that the NRA has been actively hindering research from being conducted through the CDC amongst other things. Is there truth to this? Because it seems to me if it truly is about stats and facts, then the NRA shouldn't be worried about more research to the extent to which they try to block it. I don't know about that, (it wouldn't surprise me, the NRA is insane), but why would the CDC be looking into guns, exactly? I'd be a little nervous about why the Center for Disease Control was using tax dollars to look into something not (as far as I can tell) related to their domain, and where the ideas came from. I wouldn't really want the NRA to do a study on HIV either.
Well I don't really know what jurisdiction your various organizations have. I think it was under the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control that the research was blocked.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/us/26guns.html/?pagewanted=all&_r=0
The centers also ask researchers it finances to give it a heads-up anytime they are publishing studies that have anything to do with firearms. The agency, in turn, relays this information to the N.R.A. as a courtesy, said Thomas Skinner, a spokesman for the centers.
Amongst other things. I mean I guess it could be the wrong organization doing the research. But it doesn't seem like any related organization has filled in the gap. It just got shut down in one area. And then I think it got shut down again with the National Institutes for Health. But it seems there is a great concern for shutting down government research then for relocating to the proper organization- if there is one. Dunno. I'll admit this isn't a topic I am very strong on- hence my asking whether this is true vs biased news reporting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
