|
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 December 05 2015 19:43 Holy_AT wrote:Its hypocrite to only ban some guns or some body armor. I mean if there are reasons to ban some weapons, what are they? And why don't they apply to the other weapons. If there are reasons to carry certain guns, what are they? And why don't they apply to other guns, firearms and body armor. The hole dicussion is just nit-picking and all that politicans do, is cater to one or the other view to collect votes. http://guntv.tv/:D I like the jingelly music of the spot.,,,
The reasons to ban some weapons are that assault weapons and high capactiy magazines can directly contribute to more deaths during shooting incidents. There are plenty of weapons that have no use in hunting or arguably in self-defense. You can protect people's right to defend themselves and go out hunting without allowing them to carry military grade weaponry on the streets.
The reasons to carry certain guns are: law enforcement, self defense, and hunting.
On December 05 2015 18:00 dontforgetosmile wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2015 14:13 evilfatsh1t wrote:
i dont think anyone here is saying recreational shooting has no value to people who enjoy recreational shooting.
its just blatantly obvious that the drawbacks of allowing people to have guns simply because they like shooting for fun are way too severe. this stuff just went without saying but it's not too severe. the amount of people killed in gun homicide is less than 30% the amount of people that die in auto accidents (in 2013). primary or secondary uses for guns or cars has no bearing if the logic your using is that gun ownership costs lives, when it comes down to cold hard numbers cars kill more people than guns do. well, you might say but cars are a modern necessity, it's worth it. if you're ok with justifying the deaths of thousands for the convenience of faster travel, i don't see how it's so utterly incomprehensible to say a few crazy outliers and gang / drug violence (in which, i'd guess firearms are not obtained legally anyway) is a small price to pay for the right to bear arms.
I don't think the car analogy is a good one because most auto deaths are accidental while most gun deaths are deliberate.
|
On December 06 2015 02:24 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I really wish defensive gun use research didn't have to rely on such bias-prone methodology (making any results pretty questionable, whether pro or con DGU) and actually did some interventional time series assessments in the U.S. I cannot imagine, for example, that any areas with assault weapons bans have had significant decreases in defensive gun use-or that many of the cases of DGU in general are done with assault weapons.
But we don't have good research on either, so who knows?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban#Criteria_of_an_assault_weapon
if we look at the legal definition of assault weapon in regards to semiautomatic rifles. we can see that there is almost no meaningful distinction between what makes an "assault weapon" vs "hunting rifle" aside from ergonomic modification (adjustable stock / pistol grip / threaded barrels) and obscure mounts.
A handgun I can see people using to defend themselves. A shotgun or hunting rifle even. But I can't see what an assault weapon will do for self-defense that those two won't the vast majority of the time with less potential for collateral damage.
so handguns are actually what are used in a majority of gun homocides. i don't know the exact numbers but rifles / assault weapons make up a very small percentage of that. it's also significantly more difficult to properly operate a handgun under duress than a shoulderable rifle.
judging by the rest of the quote above i can tell you don't own firearms but that's ok 
if we're talking about home defense, over-penetration is a real concern, which among other reasons has led to the widespread adoption of hollowpoints as the preferred home defense ammo.
if we use the ar-15 platform as an example, a very large majority of these rifles are likely sold chambering .223 which is considered an intermediate round (between pistol and larger bore rifles). your average "hunting rifle" round is going to be larger and more powerful than .223 (largely in an effort by states to lessen animal suffering during hunting) and, taken by itself, is a more effective killing round and would be far more prone to overpenetration (or as you state it collateral damage). .223 on the other hand is largely known to break apart and lose velocity / efficacy after penetrating layers of cover. whether or not that is enough to make it a safer alternative to larger bore rifles depends on your environment.
Edit: Also, on the subject of target shooting, it's perfectly conceivable to sustain target shooting while totally altering laws about individuals being able to own or carry guns. It just means that people would have to rent guns to practice and competitions would have to provide guns (which arguably makes them fairer anyway). What it would kill is the gun modification industry really.
this would pretty much destroy competitive long range shooting. barrel condition, trigger pull, and cheek weld play a HUGE part in precision shooting and what you described would make it difficult if not impossible to obtain consistent results.
|
On December 06 2015 03:38 TheFish7 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2015 18:00 dontforgetosmile wrote:On December 05 2015 14:13 evilfatsh1t wrote:
i dont think anyone here is saying recreational shooting has no value to people who enjoy recreational shooting.
its just blatantly obvious that the drawbacks of allowing people to have guns simply because they like shooting for fun are way too severe. this stuff just went without saying but it's not too severe. the amount of people killed in gun homicide is less than 30% the amount of people that die in auto accidents (in 2013). primary or secondary uses for guns or cars has no bearing if the logic your using is that gun ownership costs lives, when it comes down to cold hard numbers cars kill more people than guns do. well, you might say but cars are a modern necessity, it's worth it. if you're ok with justifying the deaths of thousands for the convenience of faster travel, i don't see how it's so utterly incomprehensible to say a few crazy outliers and gang / drug violence (in which, i'd guess firearms are not obtained legally anyway) is a small price to pay for the right to bear arms. I don't think the car analogy is a good one because most auto deaths are accidental while most gun deaths are deliberate.
while this may change how you feel about the amount of people killed, it does not change the amount of people killed.
|
On December 06 2015 04:38 dontforgetosmile wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2015 02:24 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I really wish defensive gun use research didn't have to rely on such bias-prone methodology (making any results pretty questionable, whether pro or con DGU) and actually did some interventional time series assessments in the U.S. I cannot imagine, for example, that any areas with assault weapons bans have had significant decreases in defensive gun use-or that many of the cases of DGU in general are done with assault weapons.
But we don't have good research on either, so who knows? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban#Criteria_of_an_assault_weaponif we look at the legal definition of assault weapon in regards to semiautomatic rifles. we can see that there is almost no meaningful distinction between what makes an "assault weapon" vs "hunting rifle" aside from ergonomic modification (adjustable stock / pistol grip / threaded barrels) and obscure mounts. Show nested quote +A handgun I can see people using to defend themselves. A shotgun or hunting rifle even. But I can't see what an assault weapon will do for self-defense that those two won't the vast majority of the time with less potential for collateral damage. so handguns are actually what are used in a majority of gun homocides. i don't know the exact numbers but rifles / assault weapons make up a very small percentage of that. it's also significantly more difficult to properly operate a handgun under duress than a shoulderable rifle. judging by the rest of the quote above i can tell you don't own firearms but that's ok if we're talking about home defense, over-penetration is a real concern, which among other reasons has led to the widespread adoption of hollowpoints as the preferred home defense ammo. if we use the ar-15 platform as an example, a very large majority of these rifles are likely sold chambering .223 which is considered an intermediate round (between pistol and larger bore rifles). your average "hunting rifle" round is going to be larger and more powerful than .223 (largely in an effort by states to lessen animal suffering during hunting) and, taken by itself, is a more effective killing round and would be far more prone to overpenetration (or as you state it collateral damage). .223 on the other hand is largely known to break apart and lose velocity / efficacy after penetrating layers of cover. whether or not that is enough to make it a safer alternative to larger bore rifles depends on your environment. Show nested quote +Edit: Also, on the subject of target shooting, it's perfectly conceivable to sustain target shooting while totally altering laws about individuals being able to own or carry guns. It just means that people would have to rent guns to practice and competitions would have to provide guns (which arguably makes them fairer anyway). What it would kill is the gun modification industry really. this would pretty much destroy competitive long range shooting. barrel condition, trigger pull, and cheek weld play a HUGE part in precision shooting and what you described would make it difficult if not impossible to obtain consistent results.
I will acknowledge you have far more experience with the subject. The problem I think is that gun control policymakers and gun experts have an adversarial relationship instead of a cooperative one (with extremists on both sides dominating most of the policy debate). That's a big problem with current legislation. I would never ask someone to write the definition of "assault weapon" that has little to no experience with assault weapons, but I suspect that's kind of what happened.
It's true that handguns are most gun homicides but they're also probably the majority of defensive gun use (but since no one studies that we don't know). I am purely talking about the defensive gun use side of the equation at that point, since it's a pretty important part of any public health equation we try to calculate with gun control. If a type of weapon is never ever used as a defensive weapon, banning it would always result in equal or fewer casualties from a pure public health perspective.
Since you know so much more, though, are there cases where it is better to defend yourself with an assault weapon than a handgun or shotgun? I probably shouldn't have said hunting rifle (almost stopped myself).
As for competitions, I'll bow to your expertise again, but you could allow individuals to modify guns but still requiring them to store it in the designated ranges, right? Note that I'm not saying it's a good idea, but more trying to make the point that it is conceptually possible to totally ban gun ownership in the home without banning competitive shooting.
|
On December 06 2015 03:38 TheFish7 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2015 19:43 Holy_AT wrote:Its hypocrite to only ban some guns or some body armor. I mean if there are reasons to ban some weapons, what are they? And why don't they apply to the other weapons. If there are reasons to carry certain guns, what are they? And why don't they apply to other guns, firearms and body armor. The hole dicussion is just nit-picking and all that politicans do, is cater to one or the other view to collect votes. http://guntv.tv/:D I like the jingelly music of the spot.,,, The reasons to ban some weapons are that assault weapons and high capactiy magazines can directly contribute to more deaths during shooting incidents. There are plenty of weapons that have no use in hunting or arguably in self-defense. You can protect people's right to defend themselves and go out hunting without allowing them to carry military grade weaponry on the streets. The reasons to carry certain guns are: law enforcement, self defense, and hunting. Show nested quote +On December 05 2015 18:00 dontforgetosmile wrote:On December 05 2015 14:13 evilfatsh1t wrote:
i dont think anyone here is saying recreational shooting has no value to people who enjoy recreational shooting.
its just blatantly obvious that the drawbacks of allowing people to have guns simply because they like shooting for fun are way too severe. this stuff just went without saying but it's not too severe. the amount of people killed in gun homicide is less than 30% the amount of people that die in auto accidents (in 2013). primary or secondary uses for guns or cars has no bearing if the logic your using is that gun ownership costs lives, when it comes down to cold hard numbers cars kill more people than guns do. well, you might say but cars are a modern necessity, it's worth it. if you're ok with justifying the deaths of thousands for the convenience of faster travel, i don't see how it's so utterly incomprehensible to say a few crazy outliers and gang / drug violence (in which, i'd guess firearms are not obtained legally anyway) is a small price to pay for the right to bear arms. I don't think the car analogy is a good one because most auto deaths are accidental while most gun deaths are deliberate.
Well I dunno. If I'm a person living somewhere, I'd like to know what my chances of dying are given that I do normal person things. Gun related deaths are such a small portion of deaths, especially when you consider the deaths of people not involved in criminal activity.
You are right, you can reduce common causes of death like lung cancer or circulatory diseases, and it feels like you can alter the outcomes (even though only to a limited extent, having a proper diet an exercise according to most life expectancy calculators will add 5-10 years max. In the same way as all the other causes of death, they are only somewhat in your control. In Calgary, they publicly release the names of all homicides, and usually every year I search the web to find out about these people. We had an unfortunate mass murder of 4 people last year, but when looking at the other deaths - well without being too judgmental, lets just say that they don't fall into the demographic of the people that are trying to put stricter regulations in place.
The fact that suicide rates are 86/100,000 in Canada versus the 0.5/100,000 gun related homicide rate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate), and then here are some statistics for Canada as well:
http://www.acbr.com/causdeat.htm
So yeah, I just think this problem is being exaggerated out of proportion. Like someone here said previously, maybe the US has a "guns are cool" culture and whatnot (I don't have intimate knowledge of poor community life in the US), but I firmly stand by my original point, that an improved education system, and dealing with poverty will lead to massive results.
|
On December 06 2015 05:09 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2015 04:38 dontforgetosmile wrote:On December 06 2015 02:24 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I really wish defensive gun use research didn't have to rely on such bias-prone methodology (making any results pretty questionable, whether pro or con DGU) and actually did some interventional time series assessments in the U.S. I cannot imagine, for example, that any areas with assault weapons bans have had significant decreases in defensive gun use-or that many of the cases of DGU in general are done with assault weapons.
But we don't have good research on either, so who knows? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban#Criteria_of_an_assault_weaponif we look at the legal definition of assault weapon in regards to semiautomatic rifles. we can see that there is almost no meaningful distinction between what makes an "assault weapon" vs "hunting rifle" aside from ergonomic modification (adjustable stock / pistol grip / threaded barrels) and obscure mounts. A handgun I can see people using to defend themselves. A shotgun or hunting rifle even. But I can't see what an assault weapon will do for self-defense that those two won't the vast majority of the time with less potential for collateral damage. so handguns are actually what are used in a majority of gun homocides. i don't know the exact numbers but rifles / assault weapons make up a very small percentage of that. it's also significantly more difficult to properly operate a handgun under duress than a shoulderable rifle. judging by the rest of the quote above i can tell you don't own firearms but that's ok if we're talking about home defense, over-penetration is a real concern, which among other reasons has led to the widespread adoption of hollowpoints as the preferred home defense ammo. if we use the ar-15 platform as an example, a very large majority of these rifles are likely sold chambering .223 which is considered an intermediate round (between pistol and larger bore rifles). your average "hunting rifle" round is going to be larger and more powerful than .223 (largely in an effort by states to lessen animal suffering during hunting) and, taken by itself, is a more effective killing round and would be far more prone to overpenetration (or as you state it collateral damage). .223 on the other hand is largely known to break apart and lose velocity / efficacy after penetrating layers of cover. whether or not that is enough to make it a safer alternative to larger bore rifles depends on your environment. Edit: Also, on the subject of target shooting, it's perfectly conceivable to sustain target shooting while totally altering laws about individuals being able to own or carry guns. It just means that people would have to rent guns to practice and competitions would have to provide guns (which arguably makes them fairer anyway). What it would kill is the gun modification industry really. this would pretty much destroy competitive long range shooting. barrel condition, trigger pull, and cheek weld play a HUGE part in precision shooting and what you described would make it difficult if not impossible to obtain consistent results. I will acknowledge you have far more experience with the subject. The problem I think is that gun control policymakers and gun experts have an adversarial relationship instead of a cooperative one (with extremists on both sides dominating most of the policy debate). That's a big problem with current legislation. I would never ask someone to write the definition of "assault weapon" that has little to no experience with assault weapons, but I suspect that's kind of what happened.
i agree with this. unfortunately, what we have happening right now are policymakers who want no limitations on firearms and policymakers who want a complete ban on civilian firmarms. all the legislation you see now is evidence of that (aka not addressing real issues such education, training, and at the very least targeting the type of firearm most responsible for deaths) and in pushing such legislation only garner more distrust.
It's true that handguns are most gun homicides but they're also probably the majority of defensive gun use (but since no one studies that we don't know). I am purely talking about the defensive gun use side of the equation at that point, since it's a pretty important part of any public health equation we try to calculate with gun control. If a type of weapon is never ever used as a defensive weapon, banning it would always result in equal or fewer casualties from a pure public health perspective.
edit: i'm not necessarily advocating more legislation for handgun ownership, but merely pointing out that it is a far more prevalent issue than "assault weapons" that everyone immediately points their fingers to when outliers go nuts.
if it's not being used to commit crimes i don't think a certain type of firearm should be targeted for legislation just because it can be. if it's not being used to commit homocide on a large scale, i would argue that deaths and injuries resulting from negligent discharges can be lowered through reasonable and proper education and training requirements. an added bonus of that is we aren't setting a precedent of encroaching on personal liberties.
while it's certainly true that banning a certain type of firearm would result in less firearm related deaths, the same can be said about banning certain type of cars resulting in less auto accidents, or pools resulting in less drowning, etc.
Since you know so much more, though, are there cases where it is better to defend yourself with an assault weapon than a handgun or shotgun? I probably shouldn't have said hunting rifle (almost stopped myself).
i'm far from an expert on the subject but i think it is very much a double-edged sword. i think it is generally agreed upon that a pistol caliber carbine or an intermediate rifle round is best because of ease of handling (weight, maneuverability), capacity (this is a nonfactor in magazine capped states), and lower physical requirements (felt recoil, faster followup shots). these same factors that contribute to more effective neutralization on a threat to your life can also be used to senselessly take others.
As for competitions, I'll bow to your expertise again, but you could allow individuals to modify guns but still requiring them to store it in the designated ranges, right? Note that I'm not saying it's a good idea, but more trying to make the point that it is conceptually possible to totally ban gun ownership in the home without banning competitive shooting.
it's 100% possible. nearly every aspect of life can be taken over by some entity in an effort to make it safer, but in doing so we give up personal liberties. a small example would be what would happen if i want to take the firearm to a different range? how much paperwork / bureaucracy would there have to be in a system like that to do something so simple? it kind of harkens back to the analogy of DRM vs pirating i made earlier in that it will only largely inconvenience the law abiding citizen.
|
United States42166 Posts
Terrorist attack in London today. Terrorist couldn't get a gun so he used a knife. He failed to kill anyone and the police took him into custody.
|
United States43978 Posts
On December 06 2015 11:56 KwarK wrote:
Terrorist attack in London today. Terrorist couldn't get a gun so he used a knife. He failed to kill anyone and the police took him into custody.
So what was the damage? A few people were wounded but fortunately everyone is in stable condition?
|
On December 06 2015 12:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2015 11:56 KwarK wrote:
Terrorist attack in London today. Terrorist couldn't get a gun so he used a knife. He failed to kill anyone and the police took him into custody. So what was the damage? A few people were wounded but fortunately everyone is in stable condition?
Looks like 3 people were wounded. Hopefully that's all.
|
United States42166 Posts
On December 06 2015 12:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2015 11:56 KwarK wrote:
Terrorist attack in London today. Terrorist couldn't get a gun so he used a knife. He failed to kill anyone and the police took him into custody. So what was the damage? A few people were wounded but fortunately everyone is in stable condition?
Pretty much. Sure, with time and preparation he could have potentially launched a more effective gun free attack but with that he runs the risk that our 1984 style GCHQ picks up on him googling "how to make a bomb". Nothing rivals the convenience of buying a semi automatic weapon at a hunting goods shop.
|
On December 06 2015 12:59 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2015 12:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 06 2015 11:56 KwarK wrote:
Terrorist attack in London today. Terrorist couldn't get a gun so he used a knife. He failed to kill anyone and the police took him into custody. So what was the damage? A few people were wounded but fortunately everyone is in stable condition? Pretty much. Sure, with time and preparation he could have potentially launched a more effective gun free attack but with that he runs the risk that our 1984 style GCHQ picks up on him googling "how to make a bomb". Nothing rivals the convenience of buying a semi automatic weapon at a hunting goods shop.
Haven't been following what you've been saying. What do you suggest?
|
United States42166 Posts
On December 06 2015 13:00 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2015 12:59 KwarK wrote:On December 06 2015 12:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 06 2015 11:56 KwarK wrote:
Terrorist attack in London today. Terrorist couldn't get a gun so he used a knife. He failed to kill anyone and the police took him into custody. So what was the damage? A few people were wounded but fortunately everyone is in stable condition? Pretty much. Sure, with time and preparation he could have potentially launched a more effective gun free attack but with that he runs the risk that our 1984 style GCHQ picks up on him googling "how to make a bomb". Nothing rivals the convenience of buying a semi automatic weapon at a hunting goods shop. Haven't been following what you've been saying. What do you suggest?
Nothing, I think the whole situation is pretty much a success. From nobody dying to the police taking him alive.
|
On December 06 2015 13:03 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2015 13:00 Djzapz wrote:On December 06 2015 12:59 KwarK wrote:On December 06 2015 12:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 06 2015 11:56 KwarK wrote:
Terrorist attack in London today. Terrorist couldn't get a gun so he used a knife. He failed to kill anyone and the police took him into custody. So what was the damage? A few people were wounded but fortunately everyone is in stable condition? Pretty much. Sure, with time and preparation he could have potentially launched a more effective gun free attack but with that he runs the risk that our 1984 style GCHQ picks up on him googling "how to make a bomb". Nothing rivals the convenience of buying a semi automatic weapon at a hunting goods shop. Haven't been following what you've been saying. What do you suggest? Nothing, I think the whole situation is pretty much a success. From nobody dying to the police taking him alive.
Well agree but I was under the impression that your rhetoric was about how the UK makes it difficult to obtain firearms in some way, and so we should do the same. Or was I reading too much into what you said? I'm saying that because while the situation of the UK is by no means great, it can be argued that guns are harder to come by there and perhaps it saved lives in this particular situation.
And I'm saying that as a guy who's opposed to overly strict gun control measures.
|
United States42166 Posts
On December 06 2015 13:05 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2015 13:03 KwarK wrote:On December 06 2015 13:00 Djzapz wrote:On December 06 2015 12:59 KwarK wrote:On December 06 2015 12:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 06 2015 11:56 KwarK wrote:
Terrorist attack in London today. Terrorist couldn't get a gun so he used a knife. He failed to kill anyone and the police took him into custody. So what was the damage? A few people were wounded but fortunately everyone is in stable condition? Pretty much. Sure, with time and preparation he could have potentially launched a more effective gun free attack but with that he runs the risk that our 1984 style GCHQ picks up on him googling "how to make a bomb". Nothing rivals the convenience of buying a semi automatic weapon at a hunting goods shop. Haven't been following what you've been saying. What do you suggest? Nothing, I think the whole situation is pretty much a success. From nobody dying to the police taking him alive. Well agree but I was under the impression that your rhetoric was about how the UK makes it difficult to obtain firearms in some way, and so we should do the same. Or was I reading too much into what you said? I'm saying that because while the situation of the UK is by no means great, it can be argued that guns are harder to come by there and perhaps it saved lives in this particular situation. And I'm saying that as a guy who's opposed to overly strict gun control measures.
Unless you tow America out into the Pacific and fill it with Brits there's probably not so much you could emulate from the UK. But gun control did work today in the UK.
|
On December 06 2015 13:13 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2015 13:05 Djzapz wrote:On December 06 2015 13:03 KwarK wrote:On December 06 2015 13:00 Djzapz wrote:On December 06 2015 12:59 KwarK wrote:On December 06 2015 12:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 06 2015 11:56 KwarK wrote:
Terrorist attack in London today. Terrorist couldn't get a gun so he used a knife. He failed to kill anyone and the police took him into custody. So what was the damage? A few people were wounded but fortunately everyone is in stable condition? Pretty much. Sure, with time and preparation he could have potentially launched a more effective gun free attack but with that he runs the risk that our 1984 style GCHQ picks up on him googling "how to make a bomb". Nothing rivals the convenience of buying a semi automatic weapon at a hunting goods shop. Haven't been following what you've been saying. What do you suggest? Nothing, I think the whole situation is pretty much a success. From nobody dying to the police taking him alive. Well agree but I was under the impression that your rhetoric was about how the UK makes it difficult to obtain firearms in some way, and so we should do the same. Or was I reading too much into what you said? I'm saying that because while the situation of the UK is by no means great, it can be argued that guns are harder to come by there and perhaps it saved lives in this particular situation. And I'm saying that as a guy who's opposed to overly strict gun control measures. Unless you tow America out into the Pacific and fill it with Brits there's probably not so much you could emulate from the UK. But gun control did work today in the UK.
Fair enough.
|
On December 06 2015 02:51 Simberto wrote:
Probably has something to do with the fact that people see the US as a generally western society quite similar to european nations, while they see mexico as a third world country ruled by criminal cartells and corruption.
Yes, an assumption which may not be grounded in reality so much as people who believe they already have "the answer" just disregard something that doesn't fit.
On December 06 2015 02:01 Uldridge wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2015 01:21 oBlade wrote:+ Show Spoiler +One rate or another may have fallen or risen since 2013, but it is trending downwards.
About 2/3 of the "firearm related death rate" is suicides, were you aware of that?
I'm saying the homicide rate is only 2-3x that of say, Canada or Finland because it's true, what do you mean "helping." Yes, the homicide rate is higher than certain small democratic countries. But it's not 100x worse or whatever people think when they look at this issue hysterically. Despite having half the world's guns, the USA's homicide rate is clearly below the world average... I don't see how that's something to dismisss. There are some notable countries with stricter gun control, or all countries have fewer guns than the US of course, like Mexico, Brazil, South Africa, and Russia, that have homicide rates between like 10 and 30. Sure, but think about this, would the suicide numbers be as high if the access to guns was more restricted? People who failed suicide attempts have been recorded to say they almost always directly regretted attempting suicide after they jumped or overdosed or whatever. Aot of suicides are also passionate in the sense that people have something traumatic or lifechanging happen to them and they can't handle it, so they want to end it. A gun is a very easy way to actually end it really quickly without alot of hassle or chance of it failing. The downward trend is good, I've also noticed that, so I hope it continues dropping. This may also be because more and more people are becoming more responsible or something? Comparing the US to countries with massive internal problems isn't really a good comparison though. Major gang violence / militia force in Mexico, Brazil and South Africa for example. But it's true what you said, the numbers aren't extremely disproportionate for the US and other Western countries, however, it's still a number that's too high in my opinion, and is caused by this gun culture or at least is a major contributor.
Perhaps the USA, a country more vast than any other "western" points of comparison, also has areas of huge gang/crime problems that nobody wants to admit in this discussion? Maybe it's easier to jump on the "I have the answer, more 'gun control'" bandwagon if you want to get elected?
Wouldn't it be neat to look at a homicide study comparing multiple countries that filtered/accounted for shootings related to gang violence, shootings between career criminals, and so on?
There's also about 50 countries with suicide rates higher than the USA. Suicide rates are usually higher than homicide rates, but this is reversed sometimes, notably in places like Mexico, Brazil. Among most of our go-to "western" points of comparison, i.e. places like European countries with about 30% guns per capita, suicide rates tend to be around 10x homicide rates, whereas suicide in the USA is about 3-4x homicide (because the USA has a higher homicide rate to compare against). The suicide rates themselves are all pretty comparable, though, around 9-15 per 100k (USA at 12).
My point here is despite that suicide happens about 10x as much as homicide in those countries, and coincidentally gun suicides themselves also happen about 10x as often as gun homicides, I don't see that people cite this as an issue fundamentally of gun control for those countries.
On December 06 2015 03:38 TheFish7 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2015 19:43 Holy_AT wrote:Its hypocrite to only ban some guns or some body armor. I mean if there are reasons to ban some weapons, what are they? And why don't they apply to the other weapons. If there are reasons to carry certain guns, what are they? And why don't they apply to other guns, firearms and body armor. The hole dicussion is just nit-picking and all that politicans do, is cater to one or the other view to collect votes. http://guntv.tv/:D I like the jingelly music of the spot.,,, The reasons to ban some weapons are that assault weapons and high capactiy magazines can directly contribute to more deaths during shooting incidents. There are plenty of weapons that have no use in hunting or arguably in self-defense. You can protect people's right to defend themselves and go out hunting without allowing them to carry military grade weaponry on the streets. The reasons to carry certain guns are: law enforcement, self defense, and hunting.
Also sport/hobbyism.
On December 06 2015 03:38 TheFish7 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2015 18:00 dontforgetosmile wrote:On December 05 2015 14:13 evilfatsh1t wrote:
i dont think anyone here is saying recreational shooting has no value to people who enjoy recreational shooting.
its just blatantly obvious that the drawbacks of allowing people to have guns simply because they like shooting for fun are way too severe. this stuff just went without saying but it's not too severe. the amount of people killed in gun homicide is less than 30% the amount of people that die in auto accidents (in 2013). primary or secondary uses for guns or cars has no bearing if the logic your using is that gun ownership costs lives, when it comes down to cold hard numbers cars kill more people than guns do. well, you might say but cars are a modern necessity, it's worth it. if you're ok with justifying the deaths of thousands for the convenience of faster travel, i don't see how it's so utterly incomprehensible to say a few crazy outliers and gang / drug violence (in which, i'd guess firearms are not obtained legally anyway) is a small price to pay for the right to bear arms. I don't think the car analogy is a good one because most auto deaths are accidental while most gun deaths are deliberate.
I think that's what makes it fascinating... the USA has more guns than it has cars on the road, yet the thing that isn't ultimately designed to kill people claims more lives than gun homicides.
|
United States42166 Posts
On December 06 2015 16:18 oBlade wrote:
I think that's what makes it fascinating... the USA has more guns than it has cars on the road, yet the thing that isn't ultimately designed to kill people claims more lives than gun homicides.
That's an utterly meaningless statement, it ignores the regularity of use, the lethality and a billion other variables. You might as well say "it's fascinating that the days in which Americans drink water outnumber the days in which they drive and yet, despite drowning historically being far more dangerous than driving, particularly in the years before 1900, driving results in more death". It's not in any way fascinating, it's utterly meaningless.
|
I think it's fascinating, it might not be that important a piece of information, or a good basis for policy, but it's still interesting info imho.
|
I think its fascinating that people seem to care so much about human life but when told 100 people die everyday from automobiles in the USA they dismiss it. As if gun control is a larger issue affecting more peoples lives. Where is the passion to lower that number? To make something not designed to kill safer for every day use. 100 people every single day die and there family's and loved ones have to deal with the tragic event.
|
United States24612 Posts
One way to protect yourself from dying in a car accident is to get a larger vehicle. Of course, driving a larger vehicle places other drivers at greater risk. It actually sounds pretty similar to people who arm themselves for self defense even though the availability of that option also carries potential safety risks for others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
