EPTAnd even then, an argument can be made that people stil grab way too easily for their gun for conflict resolution. The statistic prove this and not everyone being killed by a gun is killed by someone crazy.
If 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. | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium4656 Posts
And even then, an argument can be made that people stil grab way too easily for their gun for conflict resolution. The statistic prove this and not everyone being killed by a gun is killed by someone crazy. | ||
|
dontforgetosmile
87 Posts
On December 04 2015 14:23 Uldridge wrote: What people also seem to grossly overlook is that even though you might be able to stop a killer going on a rampage eventually with everyone packing, he will still take alot of people with him before he goes down. People who are unaware of the situation, people who are too slow to react, people who get caught in the crossfire. I think most mass murderers have a pretty good clue that they're not going to survive what they're doing, so they're just trying to take as many people as possible with them. Armed or unarmed, the casualties will be high. For instance, the lovely argument some people of the pro gun movement make is that the attack at Bataclan could've been 'prevented' or 'kept at a minium cost' if gun control wasn't so strict in France. However, who the fuck is going to pay attention to a few men coming from the side randomly opening fire? They're in a dark place, rocking out to the band they came to see. Sure, there might've been retaliation after the initial firing, but everything scenario that comes after that other than what happened is pure speculation and not based on truth whatsoever. I don't understand this comment. Statistics have already shown that per 100k people shooting happen alot more in the US than anywhere else. i'm not one of those people who thing having everyone is going to solve everything, but you're demonstrating your ignorance of the entire philosophy behind ccw. in a situation like that, people who ccw are doing the same thing as everyone else trying to get as far away from danger as possible. in many states, this is a legal requirement (and part of the responsibility you take on) unless you want to be charged with murder. no one in their right mind is going to want to start a gunfight when they are literally outgunned, in any case (compact pistol vs rifle). i suppose the basis for that type of argument is that if you were in that situation, would you prefer to be armed or unarmed? given that you had proper training and understand the rules of engagement i'd bet almost everyone is going to pick being armed. your first option is always fleeing to safety and avoiding conflict but if it comes down to it at least you'd have the ability to defend yourself. | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium4656 Posts
On December 04 2015 14:53 dontforgetosmile wrote: i'm not one of those people who thing having everyone is going to solve everything, but you're demonstrating your ignorance of the entire philosophy behind ccw. in a situation like that, people who ccw are doing the same thing as everyone else trying to get as far away from danger as possible. in many states, this is a legal requirement (and part of the responsibility you take on) unless you want to be charged with murder. no one in their right mind is going to want to start a gunfight when they are literally outgunned, in any case (compact pistol vs rifle). i suppose the basis for that type of argument is that if you were in that situation, would you prefer to be armed or unarmed? given that you had proper training and understand the rules of engagement i'd bet almost everyone is going to pick being armed. your first option is always fleeing to safety and avoiding conflict but if it comes down to it at least you'd have the ability to defend yourself. I'm sure there won't be any wannabe vigilantes who don't have the same idea of carrying a gun like you do. You're also making a big conditional with the training and rules of engagement there. In a chaotic situation rules of engagement don't apply and howmany people do you think are actually trained properly who own a gun? Personally I would never, ever want to carry a gun, even with proper training, to defend myself with because I think it's a killing tool that should just be abolished completely, simply because most people are inept for using a tool like that. The only exception I can justify guns being used when is the user is an gunslinger with absolute precision, trained and disciplined to enforce narrowly defined crisis situation. If you are able to hide or flee the scene chances of you surviving go up dramatically. It's if the scenario plays out in an enclosed and they find you that you might have a chance to defend yourself. And even then, howmany people are able to act properly in a crisis situation? Howmany people are trained to shoot straight riddled with adrenaline and shock? | ||
|
DropBear
Australia4314 Posts
| ||
|
dontforgetosmile
87 Posts
On December 04 2015 15:14 Uldridge wrote: I'm sure there won't be any wannabe vigilantes who don't have the same idea of carrying a gun like you do. You're also making a big conditional with the training and rules of engagement there. In a chaotic situation rules of engagement don't apply and howmany people do you think are actually trained properly who own a gun? Personally I would never, ever want to carry a gun, even with proper training, to defend myself with because I think it's a killing tool that should just be abolished completely, simply because most people are inept for using a tool like that. The only exception I can justify guns being used when is the user is an gunslinger with absolute precision, trained and disciplined to enforce narrowly defined crisis situation. If you are able to hide or flee the scene chances of you surviving go up dramatically. It's if the scenario plays out in an enclosed and they find you that you might have a chance to defend yourself. And even then, howmany people are able to act properly in a crisis situation? Howmany people are trained to shoot straight riddled with adrenaline and shock? your issue then is not with gun ownership but with education and training. neither is achieved by painting what is basically a personal catapult as an evil caricature. believe it or not, there are plenty of people who train with firearms. just like people train with knives, boxing, fencing, mma, etc. many people who train in their spare time are actually more competent than your average policeman but that's a different story. does it make them john rambo? no. but given the choice between certain death and possibly being able to squeeze off a few rounds and save yourself, i don't see anyone picking certain death. also, however macabre the idea is. if the gunmen run into enough people who are carrying, regardless of how slim the chance is, there is a chance that the gunmen can be stopped compared to gunning down unarmed people. again, the idea behind ccw is using the weapon as an absolute last resort. i guess this kinda boils down to the crux of the issue. you want your fear of firearms to dictate the laws so that others can't carry / own one. | ||
|
oBlade
United States5383 Posts
On December 04 2015 14:23 Uldridge wrote: What people also seem to grossly overlook is that even though you might be able to stop a killer going on a rampage eventually with everyone packing, he will still take alot of people with him before he goes down. People who are unaware of the situation, people who are too slow to react, people who get caught in the crossfire. I think most mass murderers have a pretty good clue that they're not going to survive what they're doing, so they're just trying to take as many people as possible with them. Armed or unarmed, the casualties will be high. For instance, the lovely argument some people of the pro gun movement make is that the attack at Bataclan could've been 'prevented' or 'kept at a minium cost' if gun control wasn't so strict in France. However, who the fuck is going to pay attention to a few men coming from the side randomly opening fire? They're in a dark place, rocking out to the band they came to see. Sure, there might've been retaliation after the initial firing, but everything scenario that comes after that other than what happened is pure speculation and not based on truth whatsoever. I don't understand this comment. Statistics have already shown that per 100k people shooting happen alot more in the US than anywhere else. The US has a homicide rate of around 3.8 compared to a world rate of a little over 6. It's a rate only 2-3x that of Canada's. On December 04 2015 15:19 DropBear wrote: Is there an economic issue as to why you can get guns so easily in America? Let's say that all gun stores got closed down, would there be a hit to the economy and jobs? Is there too much money being made for the pollies to stop the gun trade over there? But what do you mean when you say gun stores got closed down, that no new guns were manufactured? Or that the hundreds of millions of guns in the US suddenly couldn't be bought and sold legally, but could still be owned legally? Like what if all guns became "stuck" tomorrow? | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium4656 Posts
I know that there are plenty of people who train with firearms, but compared to everyone, is plenty enough? I also realize that, while I'm a pacifist, because of the collective body of knowledge in engineering and people with bad intentions it's very easy to make a weapon (doesn't really matter which one to be honest). So I do understand the counter'arming' as such. I'm not against the ownership of guns per se, but I'm for strict regulation of it. You can't drive a car without being thoroughly tested you can actually drive one, why should using a gun be any different? And the real question in situations like this is, to expand on your idea; if a gunman runs into enough people who are carrying, regardless of how slim the chance is, is the chance that he gets stopped by people using a gun as a last resort higher than one that will happen earlier than when the authorities stop him? Because if the answer is NO, then that defeats the entire purpose of actually carrying. I've still to see a situation where there are actually instances of this happening and this mostly makes my point why I think owning a gun / carrying a concealed weapon is completely unnecessary and pointless. | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium4656 Posts
On December 04 2015 15:43 oBlade wrote:] But that's homocide rate. If it's firearm related death rate, that jumps up to 10.5 per 100000 people. And that was data from 2013, so it could well be that it's either risen, fallen or hasn't changed at all, but that's not the point. The point is that it's higher than other Western countries and that this is seemingly reflected by the loose gun culture living in the US. Ofcourse that's only first glance and has alot more texture attached to it, but it's definitely a good indicator I'd say.The US has a homicide rate of around 3.8 compared to a world rate of a little over 6. It's a rate only 2-3x that of Canada's. And the world rate of 6 is taking into account countries that are far less stable than the US, so yes, good job US, you're just a tiny bit better than the average on intentional killing numbers. Saying it's only 2-3x the rate of Canada isn't really helping, since one could argue that the culture basically doubles/triples the amount of deaths from a gun. Sure it's good to put it in perspective, but one should try to aim for it being as low as possible and not try to make the multiplicator compared to another number as low as possible. | ||
|
dontforgetosmile
87 Posts
i agree that stricter regulation should be required. the problem is that the current political climate (at least in the US) is not conducive to any sort of practical solution because one side wants to eliminate all guns and one wants to keep it at all costs. either side feels that if they make concession they will eventually lose to the other. not to mention the ridiculous legislations that are proposed in the name of winning votes. the more people that we get educated about firearms (and the basic use and safety of them), the sooner we can have a more meaningful discussion that may lead to productive solutions. keeping guns out of the wrong hands is a difficult issue. but for something that is considered a basic right to many having an all or nothing approach is not going to work. pulling quick numbers from wiki: 2013 deaths from auto accidents (32,719) vs firearms (33,169. 21,175 of which are suicides). looking purely at the numbers there are clearly greater threats to human life than firearms. this is not even counting drugs, alcohol, tobacco, etc. objectively speaking, the are more important issues to tackle other than firearms regulation (not that it isn't needed). the only difference is that no one is asking you to justify your ownership of a vehicle that can wipe a family off the road in a split second. | ||
|
Foxxan
Sweden3427 Posts
To much rehersed crap | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
And not every vehicle, mind you, because specialized vehicles require further training and tests. Granted, North American standards aren't nearly as high as Europe, or even some Asian countries (though stricter than many other countries). | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11390 Posts
A pistol really only has one use, and that is to kill people. As a result of this, a car has a lot more justification to exist in a civilised society when compared to a gun. Also, i'd agree that car ownership (or at least being legally allowed to drive one) should be much more regulated. As far as i know, a US drivers license is a complete joke, often only involving having to take 5-10 hours of instruction by your parents. (Correct me if i am wrong here). I also think that cars are currently greatly overused in general. Consider riding a bike instead. Another big problem is the view of drunk driving being a cavalier delict. | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium4656 Posts
 I've become progressively apathic toward contemporary politics though so I can't really comment on it. However, on the case of US elections it's becoming hilariously caricaturistic (I mean, Donald Trump, really?!) I don't see it that way, entirely. I see it as potential threats that can end human lives at the pulling of a trigger. And no instrument like that should be a basic human right. Because if you can consider that a basic human right, than you can consider all substances that are considered hard drugs a basic human right, than you can consider running around on the street with a huge ass katana a basic human right and even exlosives. See the slippery slope here? I don't like the "there are more important issues at hand" argument AT ALL. Firstly, almost every adult owns a car, it's a much more volatile medium in which they are used and humans are still incompetent or fall into the trap of comfort so alot of accidents are caused (and deaths) there's not alot you can do about it other than automatizing driving (iCar, Smartcar, .. whatever LOL) Drugs/tobacco/alcohol are things an individual chooses to do to himself, that's something entirely different, so we'd better not get into that. Also, with these numbers you're not taking into account all the crimes and manipulation that's happened under the threat of a gun, so that's a huge factor you're not taking into account (also one I don't think is that easily assessed). Car culture is problematic in its own because it's so ingrained by now that it's considered a necessity. And ofcourse you are justified for your ownership of the car by getting a drivers license and needing to do mandatory checkups every so often (I'm not sure about the mandatory though). | ||
micronesia
United States24612 Posts
On December 04 2015 16:46 Simberto wrote: Because a car isn't designed to kill people. A car is designed to get you to places, and a side effect of moving fast is that squishy things like people can get hurt when stuff goes wrong. A pistol really only has one use, and that is to kill people. As a result of this, a car has a lot more justification to exist in a civilised society when compared to a gun. Also, i'd agree that car ownership (or at least being legally allowed to drive one) should be much more regulated. As far as i know, a US drivers license is a complete joke, often only involving having to take 5-10 hours of instruction by your parents. (Correct me if i am wrong here). I also think that cars are currently greatly overused in general. Consider riding a bike instead. Another big problem is the view of drunk driving being a cavalier delict. I know we have been down this road, but I think it's necessary to bring up a few points. 1) Just like cars, guns are primarily used for purposes other than killing in the USA. For every bullet fired at a person, a huge number of bullets are fired at a target for training/recreation/other uses. That's true for just about all types of firearms, including pistols. 2) Given 1 above, the primary purpose of a gun is clearly not to kill people (or at least, that's not how they are used). In fact, many guns were specifically not designed to kill people. Some guns were intended to be used to neutralize a target, whereas some were designed to wound a target in order to win battles involving large numbers of combatants (wounding an enemy will cause several other combatants to stop fighting temporarily, killing out-right is less likely to). Ironically, the features that are being legislated against the most are generally not the ones that were designed for increased lethality. | ||
|
evilfatsh1t
Australia8612 Posts
guns are supposed to inflict damage. full stop off the top of my head there is nothing else that is legal where its original purpose is to inflict damage. you can argue people 'train' with guns or use it for recreational purposes, but what positive impact does it actually have on society? what are you training for? why are you even trying to improve your shooting skills. the argument that alcohol, cars, and a whole lot of other shit should be banned if you ban guns is ludicrous. everything else has a positive purpose in society, its just that they have terrible side effects in some cases. guns literally have 0 positive purpose. they were created to kill shit | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On December 04 2015 13:26 dontforgetosmile wrote: if you want to prevent all the NDs (negligent discharges) you tragically hear about, you need to invest heavily in firearm education and provide certification programs (that require reasonable renewal) to demonstrate you will be a safe and diligent owner. a certain portion of gun owners will argue this is another way for a tyrannical government to keep firearms out of the hands of citizens. i won't. no one will argue the concept of right to self preservation, but it seems like many people are totally fine with taking away the most effect tool with which you can accomplish that. i hate to draw such an analogy but it's probably the easiest way to explain it. knee-jerk gun legislation is akin to DRM vs piracy. all you're doing is punishing the people who legally abide the law, those who don't won't feel any impact. as for mass shootings, i have no solution to that. an effective weapon makes it far to easy against an unarmed populous, but i won't pretend the solution is to have everyone open carry. i like living in a world where i can walk around without worrying about being shot. I'm a Canadian gun owner myself and I'm actually quite glad that in order to own a firearm now, you need to have passed the "Canadian Firearms Safety Course". That's fine regulation. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42169 Posts
On December 04 2015 16:02 Uldridge wrote: Yes that's entirely my issue. Education and training should be massive for carrying something that can kill someone by simply pulling a trigger. I know that there are plenty of people who train with firearms, but compared to everyone, is plenty enough? I also realize that, while I'm a pacifist, because of the collective body of knowledge in engineering and people with bad intentions it's very easy to make a weapon (doesn't really matter which one to be honest). So I do understand the counter'arming' as such. I'm not against the ownership of guns per se, but I'm for strict regulation of it. You can't drive a car without being thoroughly tested you can actually drive one, why should using a gun be any different? And the real question in situations like this is, to expand on your idea; if a gunman runs into enough people who are carrying, regardless of how slim the chance is, is the chance that he gets stopped by people using a gun as a last resort higher than one that will happen earlier than when the authorities stop him? Because if the answer is NO, then that defeats the entire purpose of actually carrying. I've still to see a situation where there are actually instances of this happening and this mostly makes my point why I think owning a gun / carrying a concealed weapon is completely unnecessary and pointless. Actually Americans can drive cars without anything like the kind of training and testing we have in Europe, or in the UK at least. | ||
|
Acritter
Syria7637 Posts
If we're trying to lower mortality, I believe it stands to reason that the proper way of doing it would be to determine leading causes of death, figure out what contributes to those causes, and then work out the most cost-efficient legislation that bears the effect of interfering with those causes of death. In the gun example, maybe it would turn out that restricting the sale of handguns severely would reduce suicide by eliminating a convenient method without costing much from the government. Maybe it would be even more cost-efficient to remove corn subsidies and thus eliminate the glut of cheap, empty calories that lend themselves towards obesity. But either way, reducing deaths from mass shootings wouldn't significantly reduce mortality, because they're the tiniest drop in the bucket. What I'm trying to point out here is just that if we're talking about eliminating mass shootings or any other kind of indiscriminate violence, it's wrong to think about it as saving lives. There might be a few that we end up saving incidentally, but if reducing mortality is really what we're on about, we shouldn't waste a second thinking about the statistical blip of mass shootings when there are problems so huge that they completely fail to be obvious. That's not to say that we shouldn't try to prevent them, but rather that if we're thinking about why we want to prevent them and what justifies effort in those fields, it has to be for a completely different reason than saving lives. Perhaps it could be an ideal of integration, or mental health, or even something cynical like reducing the fear of ignorant and emotional members of the public. Framing the problem in that light might yield some interesting and useful results, and get around the usual banging-of-heads over gun control. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
Its impossible to find solutions if your prohibited from studying the problem. | ||
|
ahswtini
Northern Ireland22208 Posts
On December 04 2015 22:14 evilfatsh1t wrote: just because a gun isnt being used to kill something, doesnt remove the original purpose of having a gun. guns are supposed to inflict damage. full stop off the top of my head there is nothing else that is legal where its original purpose is to inflict damage. you can argue people 'train' with guns or use it for recreational purposes, but what positive impact does it actually have on society? what are you training for? why are you even trying to improve your shooting skills. the argument that alcohol, cars, and a whole lot of other shit should be banned if you ban guns is ludicrous. everything else has a positive purpose in society, its just that they have terrible side effects in some cases. guns literally have 0 positive purpose. they were created to kill shit what is the positive purpose of alcohol or recreational drugs in society? is alcohol a required part of life? cars help you get around and life would be severely impacted without access to cars. can you really say the same about alcohol? | ||
| ||
