EPTMore purpose designed killing devices = more safety
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. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
More purpose designed killing devices = more safety | ||
|
superstartran
United States4013 Posts
On November 12 2018 12:12 Doodsmack wrote: Let's all take a moment to appreciate the central logic behind the "good guys with guns" argument: More purpose designed killing devices = more safety More guns should mean a steadily rising homicide rate according to your logic, except the numbers don't back that assertion up. Try again. | ||
|
evilfatsh1t
Australia8916 Posts
On November 12 2018 13:42 superstartran wrote: More guns should mean a steadily rising homicide rate according to your logic, except the numbers don't back that assertion up. Try again. no, according to his logic its less guns = more safety. this is proven to be true. youre pretty unlikely to die to a gun when your country doesnt have many guns. | ||
|
ReditusSum
79 Posts
On November 11 2018 11:26 ShambhalaWar wrote: They only stop it because they are paid by the gun lobby to not act. Maybe some other big money lobby also stops it, because they would rather have us killing and fighting each other over it, rather than fight them and decrease their profit margins. The gun-lobby is actually not that big a spender relatively speaking. The "importance" of the issue in politics is extremely disproportionate to the spending put on it. The real reason the NRA and associated organizations are so powerful is that they represent a massive amount of votes, money is a side issue. The fact is that Republican politicians (and many Democrats in reddish-districts/states) who oppose gun-rights (or support gun-control) are at serious risk of losing their seats, not because they lose funding, but because they lose votes. If you want to address the gun problem from the point of view of getting rid of guns, you are kind of wasting your time by going after the "gun-lobby" and you'd do better focusing on changing people's minds about the necessity of owning a gun. But that's hard work and honestly, won't work for the vast majority of them. I live in a very rural area. I have large carnivores that routinely come on and around my property. Bears and cougars, both of which are fully capable of killing a grown man. The closest police station is over 15 minutes away on a dry, summer road. When the roads are icy during the winter or during a blizzard, it could potentially take the police thirty minutes or more to respond to an emergency call. That means I am 100% responsible for providing for my own defense. The police cannot help me, cannot save me, and will not be available when I "need them most". Gun laws designed for a heavily populated, urban area do not reflect my situation and many urban dwellers seem to have a problem understanding that. They look at their apartment building and the police station two blocks away and wonder why someone would need an AR. It's pretty easy to understand when you look out the window and see a 200-lbs cat walking across your driveway. That is one problem with many gun-control advocates, they do not understand the issue from all the angles and many times they don't care to understand. I shouldn't have to jump through ten-thousand hoops to protect my home and my family. I am a law-abiding citizen with no criminal record. I have never swung my fist in anger at any man, even when provoked, and I have never pointed my gun at another human being. I should be allowed to walk into a pawn shop and walk out with a gun that day if I want, and I will vote against anyone who says otherwise. If you want your city to have different laws, that's fine. I won't tell you how to live and you don't tell me how to live. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9958 Posts
On November 12 2018 16:39 ReditusSum wrote: The gun-lobby is actually not that big a spender relatively speaking. The "importance" of the issue in politics is extremely disproportionate to the spending put on it. The real reason the NRA and associated organizations are so powerful is that they represent a massive amount of votes, money is a side issue. The fact is that Republican politicians (and many Democrats in reddish-districts/states) who oppose gun-rights (or support gun-control) are at serious risk of losing their seats, not because they lose funding, but because they lose votes. If you want to address the gun problem from the point of view of getting rid of guns, you are kind of wasting your time by going after the "gun-lobby" and you'd do better focusing on changing people's minds about the necessity of owning a gun. But that's hard work and honestly, won't work for the vast majority of them. I live in a very rural area. I have large carnivores that routinely come on and around my property. Bears and cougars, both of which are fully capable of killing a grown man. The closest police station is over 15 minutes away on a dry, summer road. When the roads are icy during the winter or during a blizzard, it could potentially take the police thirty minutes or more to respond to an emergency call. That means I am 100% responsible for providing for my own defense. The police cannot help me, cannot save me, and will not be available when I "need them most". Gun laws designed for a heavily populated, urban area do not reflect my situation and many urban dwellers seem to have a problem understanding that. They look at their apartment building and the police station two blocks away and wonder why someone would need an AR. It's pretty easy to understand when you look out the window and see a 200-lbs cat walking across your driveway. That is one problem with many gun-control advocates, they do not understand the issue from all the angles and many times they don't care to understand. I shouldn't have to jump through ten-thousand hoops to protect my home and my family. I am a law-abiding citizen with no criminal record. I have never swung my fist in anger at any man, even when provoked, and I have never pointed my gun at another human being. I should be allowed to walk into a pawn shop and walk out with a gun that day if I want, and I will vote against anyone who says otherwise. If you want your city to have different laws, that's fine. I won't tell you how to live and you don't tell me how to live. I disagree completely with this statement. You should be able to plan ahead and get a gun with 28 days notice if you need one to protect your family. The lack of a waiting period will get people killed. Suicides particularly could probably be prevented by not allowing people to just walk into a shop and buy their gun whenever they are having a bad day. If you can't wait a few days for your gun, you should be questioning why you need the gun so urgently. | ||
|
Aceace
Turkey1305 Posts
On November 12 2018 16:39 ReditusSum wrote: I shouldn't have to jump through ten-thousand hoops to protect my home and my family. I am a law-abiding citizen with no criminal record. I have never swung my fist in anger at any man, even when provoked, and I have never pointed my gun at another human being. I should be allowed to walk into a pawn shop and walk out with a gun that day if I want, and I will vote against anyone who says otherwise. If you want your city to have different laws, that's fine. I won't tell you how to live and you don't tell me how to live. So I can buy a gun in a pawn shop in your city then go somewhere else and use it to kill people??? | ||
|
Gzerble
82 Posts
On November 12 2018 16:39 ReditusSum wrote: I shouldn't have to jump through ten-thousand hoops to protect my home and my family. Then you don't respect how dangerous a gun is, and I don't think you should be trusted with the responsibility of owning one. | ||
|
evilfatsh1t
Australia8916 Posts
i mean, they dont use shotguns to manage animals in zoos. if were trusting people to use guns to kill animals for self-defense i cant see why you cant just give them tranquilisers instead. | ||
|
superstartran
United States4013 Posts
On November 12 2018 14:34 evilfatsh1t wrote: no, according to his logic its less guns = more safety. this is proven to be true. youre pretty unlikely to die to a gun when your country doesnt have many guns. And yet there are numerous instances where that is not true. If more guns means a less safe country, the United States homicide rate should have gone up, not down. Switzerland would not have a near 0 murder rate despite high number of firearms, regardless of current firearm laws (they are lax enough where if someone wanted to commit a murder they could). And in the reverse, there are instances where countries like Brazil have banned firearms, and murder rates have skyrocketed in the aftermath. Less guns, or more strict gun laws, etc. do not necessarily mean less deaths. There are many instances where this is not true. Not sure why I have to keep repeating that ad nauseam. Stop saying things that I have already proven to be false. On November 12 2018 18:51 evilfatsh1t wrote: while were on the topic of self-defense against animals, surely there are better alternatives to guns? i mean, they dont use shotguns to manage animals in zoos. if were trusting people to use guns to kill animals for self-defense i cant see why you cant just give them tranquilisers instead. No matter how powerful the tranquilizer is, it can take up to 15-30 minutes, sometimes more depending on the size of the animal. Not just that, the chances of missing means there's a chance that you might miss, and it's not like you're going to get many shots. Although I agree in a controlled environment where you have an opportunity to avoid animal conflict, you should, however not all animals are like that. High powered bolt action rifles give you more than one shot, the loud gunshot along with the pain (or potential fatal shot) is more likely to force the animal away. This is the same discussion people had when they talked about the gorilla Harambe; why didn't they just tranq him? Because it takes minutes, and the tranq can easily aggravated him and caused him to kill the child that he had held onto. Again, this is exactly why lawful gun owners are not to keen on just pushing through legislation at a whim, because most of the time people are highly ignorant on the purpose of firearms. | ||
|
Excludos
Norway8277 Posts
On November 12 2018 18:51 evilfatsh1t wrote: while were on the topic of self-defense against animals, surely there are better alternatives to guns? i mean, they dont use shotguns to manage animals in zoos. if were trusting people to use guns to kill animals for self-defense i cant see why you cant just give them tranquilisers instead. They do actually. Remember Harambe? They shot him because a tranq would have taken too long for effect. | ||
|
Excludos
Norway8277 Posts
On November 12 2018 16:39 ReditusSum wrote: The gun-lobby is actually not that big a spender relatively speaking. The "importance" of the issue in politics is extremely disproportionate to the spending put on it. The real reason the NRA and associated organizations are so powerful is that they represent a massive amount of votes, money is a side issue. The fact is that Republican politicians (and many Democrats in reddish-districts/states) who oppose gun-rights (or support gun-control) are at serious risk of losing their seats, not because they lose funding, but because they lose votes. If you want to address the gun problem from the point of view of getting rid of guns, you are kind of wasting your time by going after the "gun-lobby" and you'd do better focusing on changing people's minds about the necessity of owning a gun. But that's hard work and honestly, won't work for the vast majority of them. I live in a very rural area. I have large carnivores that routinely come on and around my property. Bears and cougars, both of which are fully capable of killing a grown man. The closest police station is over 15 minutes away on a dry, summer road. When the roads are icy during the winter or during a blizzard, it could potentially take the police thirty minutes or more to respond to an emergency call. That means I am 100% responsible for providing for my own defense. The police cannot help me, cannot save me, and will not be available when I "need them most". Gun laws designed for a heavily populated, urban area do not reflect my situation and many urban dwellers seem to have a problem understanding that. They look at their apartment building and the police station two blocks away and wonder why someone would need an AR. It's pretty easy to understand when you look out the window and see a 200-lbs cat walking across your driveway. That is one problem with many gun-control advocates, they do not understand the issue from all the angles and many times they don't care to understand. I shouldn't have to jump through ten-thousand hoops to protect my home and my family. I am a law-abiding citizen with no criminal record. I have never swung my fist in anger at any man, even when provoked, and I have never pointed my gun at another human being. I should be allowed to walk into a pawn shop and walk out with a gun that day if I want, and I will vote against anyone who says otherwise. If you want your city to have different laws, that's fine. I won't tell you how to live and you don't tell me how to live. No, you're the one who's not understanding. No one is saying you shouldn't have guns to defend yourself. What people are saying is that you should require training and certificates to do so. That's not thousands of hoops or even remotely unreasonable to demand. People who think anyone should be able to just waltz into a store and pick up a gun without having touched one before are the exact types of people who shouldn't be allowed to have them. You have no respect for guns or how dangerous they are, or at the very least feigning ignorance for the sake of your argument. This is the exact mentality that America needs to get rid of if they hope to create a better gun culture. | ||
|
deacon.frost
Czech Republic12132 Posts
On November 12 2018 21:18 Excludos wrote: No, you're the one who's not understanding. No one is saying you shouldn't have guns to defend yourself. What people are saying is that you should require training and certificates to do so. That's not thousands of hoops or even remotely unreasonable to demand. People who think anyone should be able to just waltz into a store and pick up a gun without having touched one before are the exact types of people who shouldn't be allowed to have them. You have no respect for guns or how dangerous they are, or at the very least feigning ignorance for the sake of your argument. This is the exact mentality that America needs to get rid of if they hope to create a better gun culture. To be fair it's in the shop's best interest to learn their customers how to safely operate guns. For 2 reasons - #1 dead customer won't buy any ammo/guns/accessories and #2 it's a bad case for gun restriction. To be fair around half of the states in US has similar or worse restrictions than in Czech Republic and I can't see many mass shootings here compared to the US. So the question is - what can be enhanced in US? Is it just people or is it a more complex problem? I don't believe that more restrictions would work against mass shooting. We need a good indenpendat study and I believe we have none because CDC can't use their money to study gun violance(in general). Not sure though, it's US, so I don't care that much  | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On November 12 2018 10:28 superstartran wrote: In 2015 there were 150 deaths to radical Islamic terrorism in Europe. In 2015 in the United States there were 46 fatalities that occurred from Mass Shootings. So unless you're contesting the mass hysteria part (which I don't completely deny, some people certainly are really anti-immigration in Europe), I don't see why you're laughing at my factually correct statement. 1) Where's your source? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34996604 A quick google search puts deaths from mass shootings in USA at 475, so you are off by a multiple of of 10. 2) The population of Europe is twice that of USA. 3) You are looking at specific years? That's about as useful as looking at specific days, or months. 4) Everytime there is even a minor incident, even one with no injuries of fatalities, it's one front page media and news cycles. Now that's real hysteria. So, at one point everybody just have to accept that you are intellectually dishonest, especially when you have no idea about European (which compromises something like 30 countries just so you know; Europe isn't a country) politics. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
superstartran
United States4013 Posts
On November 12 2018 22:24 Dangermousecatdog wrote: 1) Where's your source? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34996604 A quick google search puts deaths from mass shootings in USA at 475, so you are off by a multiple of of 10. 2) The population of Europe is twice that of USA. 3) You are looking at specific years? That's about as useful as looking at specific days, or months. 4) Everytime there is even a minor incident, even one with no injuries of fatalities, it's one front page media and news cycles. Now that's real hysteria. So, at one point everybody just have to accept that you are intellectually dishonest, especially when you have no idea about European (which compromises something like 30 countries just so you know; Europe isn't a country) politics. LMAO you want to accuse someone of intellectual dishonesty and then don't even bother to look at the fact that your source itself is intellectually dishonest. The site claims to follow the FBI definition of a mass shooting, but it actually does not. The FBIs definition is 4 or more killings, not 4 or more injuries. A cursory glance at your source would tell you this. There's no set definition for mass shootings, but if your source for your number is going to claim to follow a certain methodology, it should follow it. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
You don't like my source? Go argue with the BBC. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10939 Posts
On November 13 2018 00:35 JimmiC wrote: Here is a very recent article on the magic that is Switzerland. Basically it is way more training a licencing, and half the guns are old service weapons. They also don't have much of a military so they take it very serious. They still have the highest rates of suicide in Europe. And are enacting more and more gun laws, which in turn are lowering gun violence (go figure). I think we are in agreement if you think that US should follow the Swiss model. They just need to do it nationally in the US because people can travel internally so freely. https://www.businessinsider.com/switzerland-gun-laws-rates-of-gun-deaths-2018-2 Fun fact... Superstartran has brought up Switzerland on these pages: "15888 15849 15841 15832 14885 14556 14491 14472 14410 14374 14362 14351 14349 14336 14334 14329 14326 14310 14305 13464 13462 13460 13455 13420" He got debunked time and time again. By swiss and other informed people. Yet he just sticks to the exactly same argument time and time again. I admire you for trying again, but this is just pointless. He also changes his argument at a whim if it suits him better. Over a few pages he goes from "Switzerland is proof that more guns doesn't mean more murder" to "you can't compare Switzerland to the US anyway." Btw: Iirc most people I saw arguing here would actually be pretty happy with a Switzerland "solution". He isn't, he just likes to bring up this fantasy switzerland some american gun owners have made up in their head. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On November 13 2018 01:31 Dangermousecatdog wrote: I trust the BBC. You haven't given me your source, so I do not trust you. You don't like my source? Go argue with the BBC. The thing about his objection is that he isn’t objecting to the data itself, only that they misstate the accuracy of their data to the term “mass shooting” by claiming they follow the FBI definition. As always, he is arguing about something that isn’t the amount of violence in the US caused by guns. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
That's 475 people killed, not injured. If I am using a source, and the source of the numbers of people killed during a mass shooting in 2015 in USA is 475, that's better than superstanstrain number, which appears to have no source at all. | ||
| ||
