|
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 May 10 2013 04:17 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 04:11 Piledriver wrote:On May 10 2013 04:08 Millitron wrote:On May 10 2013 04:04 Stratos_speAr wrote:
More people die from cars and alcohol than from guns. And no, cars and alcohol aren't more common than guns, given that there's at least 100 million guns in the US, possibly as many as 300 million depending on whose stats you like.
If guns are more dangerous than cars and alcohol, and they're just as common, why don't guns kill more than cars or alcohol?
Guns and automobiles are roughly as common in the population and alcohol is far, far more popular (I would be stupefied if you tried to argue otherwise). Quick Google searches show that alcohol causes far more deaths/100,000 and guns/cars cause about the same amount per 100,000. Guess which one out of the latter two is more regulated? Depends. In many states there's bans on high-capacity magazines, and fully-automatic guns are almost banned nationwide. I don't see any particular types of cars, or car features being banned, especially not on private property. Not this again...A learner's license, a written test, and an actual driving test are required to drive a car, along with citations and fines for even minor violations. Can you say the same for guns? Those are only required for driving cars on public property. You don't need them for private property. The same IS true of guns in most states. Public carry licenses involve all sorts of classes and safety tests. In some states it's even outright forbidden. Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 04:12 Jormundr wrote:On May 10 2013 04:08 Millitron wrote:On May 10 2013 04:04 Stratos_speAr wrote:
More people die from cars and alcohol than from guns. And no, cars and alcohol aren't more common than guns, given that there's at least 100 million guns in the US, possibly as many as 300 million depending on whose stats you like.
If guns are more dangerous than cars and alcohol, and they're just as common, why don't guns kill more than cars or alcohol?
Guns and automobiles are roughly as common in the population and alcohol is far, far more popular (I would be stupefied if you tried to argue otherwise). Quick Google searches show that alcohol causes far more deaths/100,000 and guns/cars cause about the same amount per 100,000. Guess which one out of the latter two is more regulated? Depends. In many states there's bans on high-capacity magazines, and fully-automatic guns are almost banned nationwide. I don't see any particular types of cars, or car features being banned, especially not on private property. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_inspection_in_the_United_Stateshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Motor_Vehicle_Safety_StandardsWrong again. Again, this is only for public property.
I know this was a few pages ago, but you kept saying it and it's getting quite frustrating. I understand that you are arguing for the fact that you should be able to do what you want with guns on your own property, but surely if you applied even the slightest amount of logic (and I'm sure you have) rather than just furthering your own agenda you would see that there are significant differences with regards to guns and cars that allowing their unregulated use in private and public is incomparable.
The main issue that comes to mind is the capability to abuse the differences in private and public ownership/usage laws. One of the reasons to create gun regulations is to attempt to stop people from committing crimes in public, if you only regulate in public and allow total freedom in private, then obviously people will be able to abuse these laws in order to take their guns from their home into the public. Of course someone could try to abuse said differences with a car but a car is a lot harder to conceal than a gun, requires clearly visible registration and license plates and there is always the chance that they might get pulled for a license check.
Another reason off the top of my head are the facts that since cars are primarily used for transportation in the vast majority of cases people are going to have no use for them on private property, so I can't see many reasons why people would even bother abusing these differences or why the government would even bother putting restrictions on vehicles in private property.
If you really have a problem with people driving around unlicensed or unregistered on private property I suggest you take that argument somewhere else, but please stop pretending that it is a valid argument for allowing free usage of guns on private property*.
*Note: I don't have anything against valid arguments for private gun usage, and I am not trying to debate this as a whole, I am only attempting to disprove the idea that private usage of cars = private usage of guns.
On May 10 2013 00:17 -VapidSlug- wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 23:56 Stratos_speAr wrote:
If you can't see the difference between a gun and beer/cars, you're willfully ignorant. I do see the difference. Alcohol and cars are far more dangerous, as are knives if you live in the UK.
Claiming that cars and alcohol are more dangerous than guns purely based on the number of fatalities is pretty disingenuous. Shiori suggested looking at fatalities per incident, but I would go further and suggest injuries and fatalities per time used. Since statistics for this would be extremely hard to find/calculate I'll just run through a broad generalisation that I feel is pretty reasonable.
What percentage of people in the US would you say drive/are driven (ie make use of a car or bus) every week day to go to work/school? I'm not sure but I would guess at least 80%, so there and back thats 80% at least twice a day for varying amounts of time. How many people do you think use a gun every day (actually shooting a gun)? I would guess less than 10%.
My generalisation could be way off, but surely you can see the people use cars far far more often than they use guns. Based off fatalities you could say that you are statistically more likely to die from cars or alcohol but this does not make them more dangerous.
|
On May 10 2013 16:16 Myrddraal wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 04:17 Millitron wrote:On May 10 2013 04:11 Piledriver wrote:On May 10 2013 04:08 Millitron wrote:On May 10 2013 04:04 Stratos_speAr wrote:
More people die from cars and alcohol than from guns. And no, cars and alcohol aren't more common than guns, given that there's at least 100 million guns in the US, possibly as many as 300 million depending on whose stats you like.
If guns are more dangerous than cars and alcohol, and they're just as common, why don't guns kill more than cars or alcohol?
Guns and automobiles are roughly as common in the population and alcohol is far, far more popular (I would be stupefied if you tried to argue otherwise). Quick Google searches show that alcohol causes far more deaths/100,000 and guns/cars cause about the same amount per 100,000. Guess which one out of the latter two is more regulated? Depends. In many states there's bans on high-capacity magazines, and fully-automatic guns are almost banned nationwide. I don't see any particular types of cars, or car features being banned, especially not on private property. Not this again...A learner's license, a written test, and an actual driving test are required to drive a car, along with citations and fines for even minor violations. Can you say the same for guns? Those are only required for driving cars on public property. You don't need them for private property. The same IS true of guns in most states. Public carry licenses involve all sorts of classes and safety tests. In some states it's even outright forbidden. On May 10 2013 04:12 Jormundr wrote:On May 10 2013 04:08 Millitron wrote:On May 10 2013 04:04 Stratos_speAr wrote:
More people die from cars and alcohol than from guns. And no, cars and alcohol aren't more common than guns, given that there's at least 100 million guns in the US, possibly as many as 300 million depending on whose stats you like.
If guns are more dangerous than cars and alcohol, and they're just as common, why don't guns kill more than cars or alcohol?
Guns and automobiles are roughly as common in the population and alcohol is far, far more popular (I would be stupefied if you tried to argue otherwise). Quick Google searches show that alcohol causes far more deaths/100,000 and guns/cars cause about the same amount per 100,000. Guess which one out of the latter two is more regulated? Depends. In many states there's bans on high-capacity magazines, and fully-automatic guns are almost banned nationwide. I don't see any particular types of cars, or car features being banned, especially not on private property. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_inspection_in_the_United_Stateshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Motor_Vehicle_Safety_StandardsWrong again. Again, this is only for public property. I know this was a few pages ago, but you kept saying it and it's getting quite frustrating. I understand that you are arguing for the fact that you should be able to do what you want with guns on your own property, but surely if you applied even the slightest amount of logic (and I'm sure you have) rather than just furthering your own agenda you would see that there are significant differences with regards to guns and cars that allowing their unregulated use in private and public is incomparable. The main issue that comes to mind is the capability to abuse the differences in private and public ownership/usage laws. One of the reasons to create gun regulations is to attempt to stop people from committing crimes in public, if you only regulate in public and allow total freedom in private, then obviously people will be able to abuse these laws in order to take their guns from their home into the public. Of course someone could try to abuse said differences with a car but a car is a lot harder to conceal than a gun, requires clearly visible registration and license plates and there is always the chance that they might get pulled for a license check. Another reason off the top of my head are the facts that since cars are primarily used for transportation in the vast majority of cases people are going to have no use for them on private property, so I can't see many reasons why people would even bother abusing these differences or why the government would even bother putting restrictions on vehicles in private property. If you really have a problem with people driving around unlicensed or unregistered on private property I suggest you take that argument somewhere else, but please stop pretending that it is a valid argument for allowing free usage of guns on private property*. *Note: I don't have anything against valid arguments for private gun usage, and I am not trying to debate this as a whole, I am only attempting to disprove the idea that private usage of cars = private usage of guns. Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 00:17 -VapidSlug- wrote:On May 09 2013 23:56 Stratos_speAr wrote:
If you can't see the difference between a gun and beer/cars, you're willfully ignorant. I do see the difference. Alcohol and cars are far more dangerous, as are knives if you live in the UK. Claiming that cars and alcohol are more dangerous than guns purely based on the number of fatalities is pretty disingenuous. Shiori suggested looking at fatalities per incident, but I would go further and suggest injuries and fatalities per time used. Since statistics for this would be extremely hard to find/calculate I'll just run through a broad generalisation that I feel is pretty reasonable. What percentage of people in the US would you say drive/are driven (ie make use of a car or bus) every week day to go to work/school? I'm not sure but I would guess at least 80%, so there and back thats 80% at least twice a day for varying amounts of time. How many people do you think use a gun every day (actually shooting a gun)? I would guess less than 10%. My generalisation could be way off, but surely you can see the people use cars far far more often than they use guns. Based off fatalities you could say that you are statistically more likely to die from cars or alcohol but this does not make them more dangerous.
How can something be statistically more likely to kill you and less dangerous at the same time? Isn't that contradictory? Unless your definition of dangerous is different than mine.
|
In other news:
Reddit Thread
This issue encompasses far more than the Second Amendment, but is still important to note.
|
On May 10 2013 16:32 acker wrote:In other news: Reddit ThreadThis issue encompasses far more than the Second Amendment, but is still important to note.
the irony here; you could legally buy more guns and ammo to wipe out a 3rd world country with the money you spent on a 3d printer.
|
On May 10 2013 16:38 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 16:32 acker wrote:In other news: Reddit ThreadThis issue encompasses far more than the Second Amendment, but is still important to note. the irony here; you could legally buy more guns and ammo to wipe out a 3rd world country with the money you spent on a 3d printer.
Could you elaborate? Do you need a very high grade 3d printer to print these parts?
Edit: Just looking around, it seems you can buy one capable of printing this thing for under 2000 dollars. Which obviously isn't nearly enough to overthrow even the smallest island state.
|
On May 10 2013 17:00 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 16:38 wei2coolman wrote:On May 10 2013 16:32 acker wrote:In other news: Reddit ThreadThis issue encompasses far more than the Second Amendment, but is still important to note. the irony here; you could legally buy more guns and ammo to wipe out a 3rd world country with the money you spent on a 3d printer. Could you elaborate? Do you need a very high grade 3d printer to print these parts?
From the reddit thread, the absolute minimum requirement printer costs around 2,000 dollars. If you don't want to risk having chunks of plastic hit your face at rather unsafe speeds...the printer they tested it on is upwards of 8,000 dollars.
For reference, you can buy a fully-automatic Uzi, Mac, or M2 for around the same price. Surplus WWII bolt-action rifles can be found for roughly $100.
|
On May 10 2013 17:09 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 17:00 Crushinator wrote:On May 10 2013 16:38 wei2coolman wrote:On May 10 2013 16:32 acker wrote:In other news: Reddit ThreadThis issue encompasses far more than the Second Amendment, but is still important to note. the irony here; you could legally buy more guns and ammo to wipe out a 3rd world country with the money you spent on a 3d printer. Could you elaborate? Do you need a very high grade 3d printer to print these parts? From the reddit thread, the absolute minimum requirement printer costs around 2,000 dollars. If you don't want to risk having chunks of plastic hit your face at rather unsafe speeds...the printer will be upwards of 8,000 dollars. For reference, you can buy a fully-automatic Uzi, Mac, or M2 for around the same price.
You could get all 3 of those for less than 5k.
|
On May 10 2013 17:11 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 17:09 acker wrote:On May 10 2013 17:00 Crushinator wrote:On May 10 2013 16:38 wei2coolman wrote:On May 10 2013 16:32 acker wrote:In other news: Reddit ThreadThis issue encompasses far more than the Second Amendment, but is still important to note. the irony here; you could legally buy more guns and ammo to wipe out a 3rd world country with the money you spent on a 3d printer. Could you elaborate? Do you need a very high grade 3d printer to print these parts? From the reddit thread, the absolute minimum requirement printer costs around 2,000 dollars. If you don't want to risk having chunks of plastic hit your face at rather unsafe speeds...the printer will be upwards of 8,000 dollars. For reference, you can buy a fully-automatic Uzi, Mac, or M2 for around the same price. You could get all 3 of those for less than 5k.
Where? I haven't found anything less than 4k yet...
|
On May 10 2013 17:11 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 17:09 acker wrote:On May 10 2013 17:00 Crushinator wrote:On May 10 2013 16:38 wei2coolman wrote:On May 10 2013 16:32 acker wrote:In other news: Reddit ThreadThis issue encompasses far more than the Second Amendment, but is still important to note. the irony here; you could legally buy more guns and ammo to wipe out a 3rd world country with the money you spent on a 3d printer. Could you elaborate? Do you need a very high grade 3d printer to print these parts? From the reddit thread, the absolute minimum requirement printer costs around 2,000 dollars. If you don't want to risk having chunks of plastic hit your face at rather unsafe speeds...the printer will be upwards of 8,000 dollars. For reference, you can buy a fully-automatic Uzi, Mac, or M2 for around the same price. You could get all 3 of those for less than 5k.
Not even close. A full auto M2 costs 20k all the way up 60k in the US. And that's before fees, licenses and bullets (that cost about $5 each.)
|
On May 10 2013 17:16 heliusx wrote:
Not even close. A full auto M2 costs 20k all the way up 60k in the US. And that's before fees, licenses and bullets (that $5 a peice.)
The carbine, not the heavy machine gun ><
|
On May 10 2013 17:16 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 17:11 wei2coolman wrote:On May 10 2013 17:09 acker wrote:On May 10 2013 17:00 Crushinator wrote:On May 10 2013 16:38 wei2coolman wrote:On May 10 2013 16:32 acker wrote:In other news: Reddit ThreadThis issue encompasses far more than the Second Amendment, but is still important to note. the irony here; you could legally buy more guns and ammo to wipe out a 3rd world country with the money you spent on a 3d printer. Could you elaborate? Do you need a very high grade 3d printer to print these parts? From the reddit thread, the absolute minimum requirement printer costs around 2,000 dollars. If you don't want to risk having chunks of plastic hit your face at rather unsafe speeds...the printer will be upwards of 8,000 dollars. For reference, you can buy a fully-automatic Uzi, Mac, or M2 for around the same price. You could get all 3 of those for less than 5k. Not even close. A full auto M2 costs 20k all the way up 60k in the US. And that's before fees, licenses and bullets (that cost about $5 each.)
I was sorta excluding the m2, different class of weapons incomparison to the first 2, but I wouldn't be surprise if someone was selling an old m2 for a few grand.
|
On May 10 2013 17:20 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 17:16 heliusx wrote:
Not even close. A full auto M2 costs 20k all the way up 60k in the US. And that's before fees, licenses and bullets (that $5 a peice.) The carbine, not the heavy machine gun ><
Still any full auto is gonna costs thousands a piece before fees. They are harder and harder to get because they must registered before may 1986. So naturally the price goes up.
|
On May 10 2013 17:22 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 17:16 heliusx wrote:On May 10 2013 17:11 wei2coolman wrote:On May 10 2013 17:09 acker wrote:On May 10 2013 17:00 Crushinator wrote:On May 10 2013 16:38 wei2coolman wrote:On May 10 2013 16:32 acker wrote:In other news: Reddit ThreadThis issue encompasses far more than the Second Amendment, but is still important to note. the irony here; you could legally buy more guns and ammo to wipe out a 3rd world country with the money you spent on a 3d printer. Could you elaborate? Do you need a very high grade 3d printer to print these parts? From the reddit thread, the absolute minimum requirement printer costs around 2,000 dollars. If you don't want to risk having chunks of plastic hit your face at rather unsafe speeds...the printer will be upwards of 8,000 dollars. For reference, you can buy a fully-automatic Uzi, Mac, or M2 for around the same price. You could get all 3 of those for less than 5k. Not even close. A full auto M2 costs 20k all the way up 60k in the US. And that's before fees, licenses and bullets (that cost about $5 each.) I was sorta excluding the m2, different class of weapons incomparison to the first 2, but I wouldn't be surprise if someone was selling an old m2 for a few grand.
I thought u meant m2 browning lol
|
On May 10 2013 17:23 heliusx wrote:
Still any full auto is gonna costs thousands a piece before fees. They are harder and harder to get because they must registered before may 1986. So naturally the price goes up.
Of course M2s cost thousands of dollars. But it's not nearly as high as 20k, it took me ten seconds to google a legal 6k conversion kit.
And the bullets aren't even close to five bucks a round.
|
On May 10 2013 17:25 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 17:22 wei2coolman wrote:On May 10 2013 17:16 heliusx wrote:On May 10 2013 17:11 wei2coolman wrote:On May 10 2013 17:09 acker wrote:On May 10 2013 17:00 Crushinator wrote:On May 10 2013 16:38 wei2coolman wrote:On May 10 2013 16:32 acker wrote:In other news: Reddit ThreadThis issue encompasses far more than the Second Amendment, but is still important to note. the irony here; you could legally buy more guns and ammo to wipe out a 3rd world country with the money you spent on a 3d printer. Could you elaborate? Do you need a very high grade 3d printer to print these parts? From the reddit thread, the absolute minimum requirement printer costs around 2,000 dollars. If you don't want to risk having chunks of plastic hit your face at rather unsafe speeds...the printer will be upwards of 8,000 dollars. For reference, you can buy a fully-automatic Uzi, Mac, or M2 for around the same price. You could get all 3 of those for less than 5k. Not even close. A full auto M2 costs 20k all the way up 60k in the US. And that's before fees, licenses and bullets (that cost about $5 each.) I was sorta excluding the m2, different class of weapons incomparison to the first 2, but I wouldn't be surprise if someone was selling an old m2 for a few grand. Even a trashy vector 9mm uzi is going to run 6k minimum. =/
Could just buy glock and mod for full auto, for under a grand. Same destruction, fraction of the price.
|
On May 10 2013 17:25 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 17:23 heliusx wrote:
Still any full auto is gonna costs thousands a piece before fees. They are harder and harder to get because they must registered before may 1986. So naturally the price goes up. Of course M2s cost thousands of dollars. But it's not nearly as high as 20k, it took me ten seconds to google a legal 6k conversion kit. And the bullets aren't even close to five bucks a round.
Good luck finding a full auto for 6k... And yeah the rounds do cost a lot. $4 or 5 bucks a pop depending on what brand you buy. Prices of guns have skyrocketed in the last year.
|
On May 10 2013 17:30 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 17:25 acker wrote:On May 10 2013 17:23 heliusx wrote:
Still any full auto is gonna costs thousands a piece before fees. They are harder and harder to get because they must registered before may 1986. So naturally the price goes up. Of course M2s cost thousands of dollars. But it's not nearly as high as 20k, it took me ten seconds to google a legal 6k conversion kit. And the bullets aren't even close to five bucks a round. Good luck finding a full auto for 6k... And yeah the rounds do cost a lot. $4 or 5 bucks a pop depending on what brand you buy. Prices of guns have skyrocketed in the last year.
Cuz demand has risen, "obama the big bad communist coming to take our gunz away" propaganda spread by nra was the best thing to happen to the gun industry.
|
|
|
You know damn well I was talking about .50 bmg linked ammo.
|
On May 10 2013 17:36 heliusx wrote:
You know damn well I was talking about .50 bmg linked ammo.
Why on earth are you talking about .50 BMG? I'm talking about the M2 Carbine, not the M2 HMG.
On May 10 2013 17:16 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 17:11 wei2coolman wrote:On May 10 2013 17:09 acker wrote:
For reference, you can buy a fully-automatic Uzi, Mac, or M2 for around the same price. You could get all 3 of those for less than 5k. Not even close. A full auto M2 costs 20k all the way up 60k in the US. And that's before fees, licenses and bullets (that cost about $5 each.)
Seriously, here's the quote. Why would I include a heavy support weapon alongside small arms?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
