EPTIf you're seeing this topic then another mass shooting hap…
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
| ||
|
ShambhalaWar
United States930 Posts
On August 28 2018 04:12 affect wrote: Cars are more much dangerous than guns. A gun is a tool and with proper training a very effective tool for defense and recreation. Accidental gun deaths don't happen as much as you would think, which means someone decides to harm or kill, which is a misuse of the tool. Cars on the other hand will be responsible for many unintentional deaths, which means even if they are used as designed people will kill each other. It's not always a drunk or a texter either, sometimes people just make mistakes. My point is if both these tools are used with care, cars are more dangerous than guns. Guns being a problem is more a reflection on the poor state of mental health in our society. This is a false parallel to draw. Everyone over the age of 16 in America needs a car for the purpose of existing in society (for the most part). The prevalence of cars in our country vastly outweigh prevalence of guns (you don't need a gun for anything in our country). Of course there will be more automotive deaths, than gun deaths, you could also argue that they are all do to carelessness. You could also argue that if everyone was required to carry a firearm and use that firearm everyday to get to work that you would have many many many more people dying from gunshots due to such increased usage. Someone else made the argument that a gun IS the most effective tool to kill someone whether it is used that way or not, and that person is right. Regardless of how many people die from cars per year, killing someone with a car is never more effective than with a gun. You never hear of a child killing itself with a car, but there are many examples of that with a gun. | ||
|
evilfatsh1t
Australia8852 Posts
guns serve no purpose other than to kill; its literally what theyre designed to do. how you can compare that to cars or whatever, things that actually provide value to a productive society, is beyond me. not to mention the fact that cars and every other thing that causes significant amounts of deaths are regulated to no end. i havent even started on how pointless this entire argument is on a moral standpoint. no amount of stats and data is going to change the fact that gun violence is preventable and wrong. the number of casualties due to guns should never be considered simply as collateral damage for your rights to bear arms. | ||
|
ShambhalaWar
United States930 Posts
On August 28 2018 05:15 solidbebe wrote: You cant just plop suicides by gun onto the number of gun deaths per year. Although Im sure it would be much less than 20k, a number of those people would have used other means had they not had a gun. Number of gun deaths per year covers all gun deaths from that year, use a different criteria if you don't want suicide included. Also it is very relevant to death occurring as it was pointed out that suicide attempt have drastically higher success when performed by gun. Take all those suicide attempts and replace guns with overdose by pills... The rate of deaths drops drastically, because people that try to overdose with pills might not take enough, might change their mind and call 911, someone might find them. Stick a gun in your mouth and make a 1/2 second decision to pull the trigger and 99% your dead before the second is over. There are many people alive today only because when they attempted suicide a gun wasn't available to them. | ||
|
Luolis
Finland7166 Posts
On August 28 2018 06:03 KwarK wrote: Knives and coke are much less likely to facilitate mass murder. Also I’ve been to a few big LANs in the U.K. and exactly none of them had backpack searching. I stand by my point. And i've been to a lot of finnish lans, big and small and all of them had backpack searching. I don't see why its such a big problem. | ||
|
Excludos
Norway8254 Posts
On August 28 2018 18:06 Luolis wrote: And i've been to a lot of finnish lans, big and small and all of them had backpack searching. I don't see why its such a big problem. I have been to probably 20 lans, and none has had backpack searchings. Holy shit the que is long enough at The Gathering without them. It would take days if everyone was searched on the way in. Not trying to compare Scandinavia with the current status of the US, but it is worth pointing out that backpack searches at lans does not have to seem normal. It actually surprises me this is normal in Finland, another country where mass shootings are not prevalent. | ||
|
ahswtini
Northern Ireland22212 Posts
| ||
|
Luolis
Finland7166 Posts
On August 28 2018 19:20 ahswtini wrote: because guns aren't the only way to kill someone. and the backpack searches are for bombs. especially relevant in the UK after the manchester bombing Yea, the backpack checks are mostly for checking that nobody's bringing sharp stuff you can stab people with, alcohol or drugs in. Obviously guns too but nobody brings those. I don't think it's too much to be a bit careful especially as its like a minute long procedure lol | ||
|
Excludos
Norway8254 Posts
On August 28 2018 19:20 ahswtini wrote: because guns aren't the only way to kill someone. and the backpack searches are for bombs. especially relevant in the UK after the manchester bombing I don't imagine anyone would have a hard time smuggling in a bomb (or a gun for that matter) between their computer, 2 bags of gear, 1 or 2 screens, and 2x way too large subwoofers. Unless you're literally screening everyone airport style this is not going to remotely work, and that is going to take much much longer than "a minute". I'm sure, however, it's effective against people trying to bring in alcohol and unwanted drugs, as people tend not to put a lot of effort into hiding those. But let's not pretend that has anything to do with gun/bomb control. | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9296 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States43953 Posts
On August 28 2018 19:20 ahswtini wrote: because guns aren't the only way to kill someone. and the backpack searches are for bombs. especially relevant in the UK after the manchester bombing What's the plan there? You can only get the bomb as far as the big line where everyone is clustered around waiting for entrance? Who is that stopping? You might as well search for terrorists at the arrivals gate of an airport. Either accept the reality that it's basically impossible to stop people with access to weapons using weapons and do away with the security theatre or reduce access to weapons. This middle ground where we provide access to weapons but inconvenience people to make them feel safe is absurd and cultivates an unhealthy culture of imposition. | ||
|
Broetchenholer
Germany1961 Posts
| ||
|
ahswtini
Northern Ireland22212 Posts
On August 29 2018 17:21 Broetchenholer wrote: You have it all wrong. For all public events, there should not be a bag search to keep guns out of those events. Instead, every NRA member with NRA training should be handed a semi automatic long rifle firing 5.56 ammo. So that they can protect the rest of the people in the event. Problem solved. sounds good to me | ||
|
Excludos
Norway8254 Posts
On August 29 2018 17:21 Broetchenholer wrote: You have it all wrong. For all public events, there should not be a bag search to keep guns out of those events. Instead, every NRA member with NRA training should be handed a semi automatic long rifle firing 5.56 ammo. So that they can protect the rest of the people in the event. Problem solved. Just remember to hand out AP rounds and grenades as well. Never know when a terry might be hiding around a corner or behind some plywall | ||
|
solidbebe
Netherlands4921 Posts
 | ||
|
evilfatsh1t
Australia8852 Posts
surely if arming teachers is a legitimate discussion then using "trained" nra members is a more sensible solution. broetchenholer for president | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
ShambhalaWar
United States930 Posts
On August 29 2018 21:57 evilfatsh1t wrote: what if he was serious? surely if arming teachers is a legitimate discussion then using "trained" nra members is a more sensible solution. broetchenholer for president The opposition (pro gun) argument is just so fucking stupid and failed at this point, when legitimate discussion doesn't put a dent in the pro gun culture why not try sarcasm? Here are some reminder legitimate points anyway. Countless deaths... and the only response that gun culture offers is a "good guy with a gun" or I have to "defend myself." Police are good guys with guns, but there is never one there to stop anything... because you would need to be able to predict the future to stop any of these mass shootings. As far as defending one self goes, it's interesting how people "defending" themselves are getting charged with manslaughter. https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/14/us/florida-stand-your-ground-previous-incidents/index.html | ||
micronesia
United States24769 Posts
I get that folks are super frustrated... I am too. But this mocking of those you disagree with and resorting to chains of sarcasm renders the thread useless. | ||
|
ShambhalaWar
United States930 Posts
On August 30 2018 11:28 micronesia wrote: ShambhalaWar your post is basically a gun nut's wet dream. You...
I get that folks are super frustrated... I am too. But this mocking of those you disagree with and resorting to chains of sarcasm renders the thread useless. I appreciate your approach, but take 60 minutes away from the thread, then come back and read my post. Nothing in my post was sarcastic, plenty of other posts in this thread are and I support that expression, but you singling me out doesn't feel connected to the words in my post. And your words don't seem accurate to me. I never called anyone stupid, I said the argument used by the opposition is stupid. I stand by that. Arming teachers, for example, is a stupid fucking idea. The situation is ugly and completely fucked up, what do you want me to say about it? It's an ugly thing that's going on with guns in America and using ugly words to describe it isn't crazy or inaccurate. It's ridiculous and murderous... for what? People with guns want to keep them because they are afraid someone will kill them and it's their "right" to own.... That's the best argument I get from the other side. Yet the more guns on the street increase the chances someone will actually kill them. Also, the people that are doing these shooting aren't people that don't own guns, the people that do these shootings are the gun owners... The shooters more often than not own these guns and buy them legally. If people on the others side cared about doing anything to prevent shootings, they would opt/lobby their own side for stricter laws, licenses, etc.. to make sure only responsible people got to arm themselves... In my time on this thread I've never heard any pro-gun person talk like that or ask for those reforms to prevent things like this from happening. What I get is the immediate diversion to "they are going to take all our guns away." All I hear is straw men arguments and diversion from real discussion, because at this point the whole thing is so fucked up it's indefensible there is nothing they can say that really makes sense. That's why you saw marco rubio getting reamed out in a stadium standing there studdering like an ass, because there is no logical defense not enacting any law after the MSD shooting, or sandy hook for that matter. How is "countless deaths" hyperbole? Can you count me the number of gun deaths in the US in that last 10-5 years or even this year alone? I cannot. You can reference statistics... but at what number does it the term "countless" have meaning? 1,000.... 10,000... 100,000? Because you can read a number on a screen associated with many murders doesn't make the term "countless" meaningless or BS. Those two examples I sited make up the majority of the opposition argument. There are always other arguments, you can create infinite different arguments for almost any viewpoint and run in circles with them, I'm not going to sit here and regurgitate and refute the entire opposition list of arguments, I'll pick a few. My point with the cnn story was that this person was an example of a "good guy with a gun" who is suppose to be stopping these shootings, but guns for defense aren't always used for that purpose. Also this particular gun owner believe he had the need to defend himself from others, which is something that can be a fear manufactured in the mind, and likely has little to do with actual reality. This man had a history of aggressive confronting people as if they were going to attack him. You ever hear the saying, "Once you have a hammer everything looks like a nail"? Once you have a gun, everyone looks like a threat. I truly believe that is a legitimate psychological phenomena, and that story illustrated an example of a man who acted on his fears and the story he built in his mind, not on any real threat. If I'm guilty of something here I would say it's not explaining my points fully, which I have done many times and it has appeared to fall on deaf ears. So why single me out if we are on the same side? If you are frustrated as well why not voice your own opposition instead of criticize me? | ||
| ||
