I'm starting up this thread just to show the hypocracy, as I see it of the anti gun crowd. It's been a daily bombardment of anyone getting killed because of guns, but there's a lot more behind it than just guns. People are getting killed over drug sales, cartel wars, impaired drivers, etc., yet we don't see the big daily reports about entire families being killed or maimed by a drunk driver or calls from the news services for people to stop doing drugs since drugs are the cause of thousands of people a year getting killed.
MIAMI VALLEY — Debate over gun control heated up this weekend in the Miami Valley. Supporters and opponents each tried to make their points in public displays.
Saturday morning, Eric Grant was one of about a dozen people taking a walk in Beavercreek and then eating his lunch at Smoky’s Barbecue. He was carrying his sidearm.
“Just because we gather with firearms, doesn’t mean that havoc is going to ensue or that there will be violence” he said.
After a new assault weapons ban was introduced in the senate this past week, the group said it wanted to gather peacefully and exercise its second amendment right to carry firearms.
“It’s a right that I cherish and hold very dear,” said Travis Trop. “Make a presence known that we’re not, you know, these bad guys. I think a lot of people have the misconception that we are.”
Teri Dunlap said “Educate people that you know it’s possible to carry a gun and not, you know, be a bad guy that goes and causes … inflicts harm.”
“The vast preponderance of gun owners in the country … you never hear about because they never cross the line to do anything illegal” said Dennis Carter.
Outside of Bill Goodman’s Gun and Knife Show, people were protesting the sale of assault weapons. Those are the guns which the proposed bill would ban inside Hara Arena.
“We know that guns are being sold on the floor inside Hara Arena illegally” said Jerome McCorry. “No background checks no identification of any kind.”
McCorry said “AK-47s and M16s are not gonna be used for hunting, they’re not going to be used to protect anybody. These are the weapons that are coming back and being used in mass murders and mass killings.”
These events happened as thousands of people marched through Washington Saturday to promote gun safety. Some Newtown, Connecticut residents were among those participating in the march.
Google up Jerome McCorry... he's a convicted rapist.
Relapse wrote: yet we don't see the big daily reports about entire families being killed or maimed by a drunk driver or calls from the news services for people to stop doing drugs since drugs are the cause of thousands of people a year getting killed.
... ok...
I don't know if you have missed the "war on drugs" but it has been pretty big for quite a few years now, not just with camapigns aimed directly at stopping the flow of drugs/money, but also in educating people against the use of drugs. And if the US is anything like the UK in terms of stuff out there aimed at stopping drink driving then I can't imagine how you feel it isn't being treated as a serious problem.
So... how does this relate to outrage over someone saying gun sales should be more tightly controlled and monitored again?
So what's your point? That people should be outraged over other things as well? I'm not seeing that as any kind of hypocracy, I think people aren't too pleased about the drug situation either. 0.o
...And its not so much about the criminals. Its about breeding a culture which doesn't worship guns so much. Lots of things are illegal, but people still have access to them. But its a lot more difficult than say just popping in a few blocks of cocaine in with your weekly shopping at the super market.
I'll point this out as ever; if you happen to look at these gun discussion threads you'll rarely find any gun advocators from outside of the US. Hey, maybe its just that the rest of the world that's wrong...
Relapse wrote: yet we don't see the big daily reports about entire families being killed or maimed by a drunk driver or calls from the news services for people to stop doing drugs since drugs are the cause of thousands of people a year getting killed.
... ok...
I don't know if you have missed the "war on drugs" but it has been pretty big for quite a few years now, not just with camapigns aimed directly at stopping the flow of drugs/money, but also in educating people against the use of drugs. And if the US is anything like the UK in terms of stuff out there aimed at stopping drink driving then I can't imagine how you feel it isn't being treated as a serious problem.
So... how does this relate to outrage over someone saying gun sales should be more tightly controlled and monitored again?
Read what I wrote earlier about a lot of people in the anti gun crowd using drugs.
If I was calling for better gun control in the US (which I'm not I couldn't care less what your country does) I wouldn't be a hypocrite because I also didn't mention how bad drink driving or drug cartels were at the same time.
Relapse wrote: Read what I wrote earlier about a lot of people in the anti gun crowd using drugs.
A lot of people on the pro-gun crowd speed. Where is the outrage?!?!
You also didn't say that in the OP, which is what I was replying to.
The drug users in the control crowd are saying there are too many gun deaths, but don't think twice about being the cause of thousands of deaths a year by cartels vying to control the drug trade
Relapse wrote: The drug users in the control crowd are saying there are too many gun deaths, but don't think twice about being the cause of thousands of deaths a year by cartels vying to control the drug trade
Soooo... because they do something wrong their opinion on something else must be ignored? Wrong? What?
Guns kill people - a lot of them are used by people in the cartels. They'd have a lot harder time killing thousands of people a year if arms and ammunition were harder to get hold of. So would all the street pushers selling drugs to hippies and other hardened anti-gun people that you seem to think keep them in bling and bullets.
The drug users in the control crowd are saying there are too many gun deaths, but don't think twice about being the cause of thousands of deaths a year by cartels vying to control the drug trade
The easy answer to that is to simply make most drugs legal, or at least decriminalised. If that happens the death statistics related to recreational drugs will plummet. Also how many of those drug related deaths were due to gunshot wounds?
The drug users in the control crowd are saying there are too many gun deaths, but don't think twice about being the cause of thousands of deaths a year by cartels vying to control the drug trade
The easy answer to that is to simply make most drugs legal, or at least decriminalised. i fthat happens the death statistics related to recreational drugs will plummet. Also how many of those drug related deaths were due to gunshot wounds?
The quote system on these boards is terrible.
Looks like you had a messed up quote. Until then, people will keep using, not caring about those they caused to be killed.
You are attempting to claim that people who use recreational drugs are somehow hypocrits due to the large number of recreational drug related deaths. However the real reason for those deaths is overly strict and unhelpful legislation and the easy availability of firearms, both of which are almost certainly strongly supported by the gun lobby. Thats a generalisation of course but you started it.
This is like in school where Little-Miss-Weak-Gun-Control spat in Tommy's face and when the teacher said she was going to punish Little-Miss-Weak-Gun-Control she pointed at Little-Miss-Drink-Driving and Little-Miss-Drug-Cartels and asked why they didn't get punished when nthey spat in Tommy's face. Well guess what Little-Miss-Poor-Gun-Control, Little-Miss-Drink-Driving and Little-Miss-Drug-Cartels DID get punished when they spat in Tommy's face and that has nothing to do with you spitting at him. Now go stand in the corner.
Relapse wrote: Until then, people will keep using, not caring about those they caused to be killed.
Cars kill plenty of people every day, more than guns actually. Yet people don't care about that as they drive to work going faster than they should or talking on their mobile phone.
daedalus wrote: I don't really care about either. People kill people, be it with/over drugs, guns, religion, negligence, or a myriad of other reasons.
The only common denominator here is people.
The only logical course of action to prevent people killing other people is to ban people.
Let me know when you have any other problems you require me to solve.
People should be forced to take birth control and not allowed to breed until they prove they've been drug free for X amount of time, have an income, and can read.
daedalus wrote: I don't really care about either. People kill people, be it with/over drugs, guns, religion, negligence, or a myriad of other reasons.
The only common denominator here is people.
The only logical course of action to prevent people killing other people is to ban people.
Let me know when you have any other problems you require me to solve.
People should be forced to take birth control and not allowed to breed until they prove they've been drug free for X amount of time, have an income, and can read.
I'll also propose a bill that Auto makers have to design their cars that makes it so that when you turn on your windshield wipers, your headlights come on automatically.
If you've driven in a proper Houston monsoon, you know why this is important. Grey cars (and a few other colors) become practically invisible when it rains during the day time, yet people don't turn on their headlights.
daedalus wrote: How's the track record for the ones you did vote for who DID say they care about those issues?
I've only voted once before and that was for the NDP in the last Canadian national election but they didn't actually win though, but I assume they actually give a gak about those issues.
Relapse wrote: Until then, people will keep using, not caring about those they caused to be killed.
Cars kill plenty of people every day, more than guns actually. Yet people don't care about that as they drive to work going faster than they should or talking on their mobile phone.
OUTRAGE!
Cars are needed for our societies to function, recreational drugs aren't. People get tickets and lose liscences over talking on mobile phones while driving in many areas.
kronk wrote: I'll also propose a bill that Auto makers have to design their cars that makes it so that when you turn on your windshield wipers, your headlights come on automatically.
If you've driven in a proper Houston monsoon, you know why this is important. Grey cars (and a few other colors) become practically invisible when it rains during the day time, yet people don't turn on their headlights.
I'm taking away that ability to chose!
I was in one of those in Houston with some guy driving not 5 feet behind me. Fun times.
kronk wrote: I'll also propose a bill that Auto makers have to design their cars that makes it so that when you turn on your windshield wipers, your headlights come on automatically.
If you've driven in a proper Houston monsoon, you know why this is important. Grey cars (and a few other colors) become practically invisible when it rains during the day time, yet people don't turn on their headlights.
Cars are needed for our societies to function, recreational drugs aren't. People get tickets and lose licences over talking on mobile phones while driving in many areas.
Mankind has been taking "recreational drugs" for untold thousands of years,and continues to take them in numbers that dwarf the number of people who drive cars in the world.
We need some form of release or stimulant for our societies to function, far more so than we do cars. A point easily proven if one bothers to consider the length of time we've had cars compared to the length of time we've been happily altering our moods and consciousnesses through chemicals.
Where's the outrage? Forget the gun or drugs angle, they're both wrong. These are 12 dead Mexicans, in Mexico. You couldn't pay Americans to care about this.
When 12 dead white blonde girls show up in a well, then you'll see outrage.
Ouze wrote: Where's the outrage? Forget the gun or drugs angle, they're both wrong. These are 12 dead Mexicans, in Mexico. You couldn't pay Americans to care about this.
When 12 dead white blonde girls show up in a well, then you'll see outrage.
I guess it bugs me because I'm friends with quite a few Mexicans both at work and in my neighborhood and I hear their stories about what's going on down there. They love Mexico, but because of the cartels and drug violence a lot came here to keep their families safe. The point about the average U.S. Citizen not caring is well taken, though.
kronk wrote: I'll also propose a bill that Auto makers have to design their cars that makes it so that when you turn on your windshield wipers, your headlights come on automatically.
If you've driven in a proper Houston monsoon, you know why this is important. Grey cars (and a few other colors) become practically invisible when it rains during the day time, yet people don't turn on their headlights.
I'm taking away that ability to chose!
Yep. Of course its just been recently cars will turn their lights off if you turn the key off (or something similar).
Ouze wrote: Where's the outrage? Forget the gun or drugs angle, they're both wrong. These are 12 dead Mexicans, in Mexico. You couldn't pay Americans to care about this.
When 12 dead white blonde girls show up in a well, then you'll see outrage.
I guess it bugs me because I'm friends with quite a few Mexicans both at work and in my neighborhood and I hear their stories about what's going on down there. They love Mexico, but because of the cartels and drug violence a lot came here to keep their families safe. The point about the average U.S. Citizen not caring is well taken, though.
The issue of course is, how do we stop the cartels? Legalize weed and they sell more crack, more human trafficing. How do you stop them?
When its a few dozen mob guys...meh. When its a few thousand guys...
That is one of the big things that pisses me off about the anti gun crowd. A lot of them use drugs and helped build up the cartels with the money spent on their drugs. Then they turn around and say we need to either tightly control or eliminate guns in order to save lives.
I also propose that the expiration dates on milk have two days added to them. Mine expire when I have at least one more cereal bowl's worth of milk left!
To be serious for a moment, Relapse has a good point. Too many people are killed or injured by cars and something should be done.
I have never thought it worthwhile before, but if it is the price that pro-gun people demand in return for their support for restrictions on guns, I would definitely approve of the following anti-car measures.
1. Registration of all vehicles.
2. Certain types of vehicles to be restricted, such as military.
3. Licensing of drivers. Licence only granted if they pass a realistic test.
4. Compulsory insurance.
5. Pedestrians, who let's face it are responsible for a lot of accidents, to be prevented from wandering over the roads and given proper crossing places.
Kilkrazy wrote: To be serious for a moment, Relapse has a good point. Too many people are killed or injured by cars and something should be done.
I have never thought it worthwhile before, but if it is the price that pro-gun people demand in return for their support for restrictions on guns, I would definitely approve of the following anti-car measures.
1. Registration of all vehicles.
2. Certain types of vehicles to be restricted, such as military.
3. Licensing of drivers. Licence only granted if they pass a realistic test.
4. Compulsory insurance.
5. Pedestrians, who let's face it are responsible for a lot of accidents, to be prevented from wandering over the roads and given proper crossing places.
Kilkrazy wrote: To be serious for a moment, Relapse has a good point. Too many people are killed or injured by cars and something should be done.
I have never thought it worthwhile before, but if it is the price that pro-gun people demand in return for their support for restrictions on guns, I would definitely approve of the following anti-car measures.
1. Registration of all vehicles.
2. Certain types of vehicles to be restricted, such as military.
3. Licensing of drivers. Licence only granted if they pass a realistic test.
4. Compulsory insurance.
5. Pedestrians, who let's face it are responsible for a lot of accidents, to be prevented from wandering over the roads and given proper crossing places.
Well said. I'd consider all of these to be reasonable measures.
Kilkrazy wrote: To be serious for a moment, Relapse has a good point. Too many people are killed or injured by cars and something should be done.
I have never thought it worthwhile before, but if it is the price that pro-gun people demand in return for their support for restrictions on guns, I would definitely approve of the following anti-car measures.
1. Registration of all vehicles.
2. Certain types of vehicles to be restricted, such as military.
3. Licensing of drivers. Licence only granted if they pass a realistic test.
4. Compulsory insurance.
5. Pedestrians, who let's face it are responsible for a lot of accidents, to be prevented from wandering over the roads and given proper crossing places.
When did I say too many people were being killed by cars? .
kronk wrote: I also propose that the expiration dates on milk have two days added to them. Mine expire when I have at least one more cereal bowl's worth of milk left!
Stop making me throw out my milk!
You know you don't have to throw it out just because it's passed the date on the carton or jug. If it's not sour it's fine, and if it's only a bit sour you can still use it for baking.
2. Certain types of vehicles to be restricted, such as military.
Did you know it's not illegal to buy a tank in the US? It's just normally prohibitively expensive. Getting ammunition for the main gun would probably be tricky though.
That is one of the big things that pisses me off about the anti gun crowd. A lot of them use drugs and helped build up the cartels with the money spent on their drugs. Then they turn around and say we need to either tightly control or eliminate guns in order to save lives.
I'm sorry, but are this 'anti-gun crowd' of which you speak forced to submit to mandatory drug testing with public results or something? Because the way you say 'a lot of them use drugs' and then use that to theoretically disprove their argument must mean that:
a) you have statistics showing the proportion which take drugs, and that
b) it must be at least 50% for it to have that kind of impact, and
c) doing one bad thing means you're a hypocrite when you say something else altogether is bad (which is some pretty strange system of moral judgement).
I mean, to expound on c), if I let my kid get fat, my opinion on drugs, drunk driving, and many other things should be ignored. All because I'm theoretically sponsoring deaths through obesity, and thus should have no say on anything that causes death.
Just because a white collar thief says mugging old ladies in the street is wrong does not make his argument invalid. Just because someone watched a movie at their friends house does not automatically disprove/counter them when they say online piracy should be stopped.
Also, when did this "most anti gun people are drug users" meme start up? I mean does this have any basis in reality, or is it as made up as all those stupid facebook image macros of some founding father with a pro-gun sentiment they never said scrawled on it?
Ouze wrote: Also, when did this "most anti gun people are drug users" meme start up? I mean does this have any basis in reality, or is it as made up as all those stupid facebook image macros of some founding father with a pro-gun sentiment they never said scrawled on it?
Yeah... I'm sorta puzzled by this too... still am. *shrugs*
That is one of the big things that pisses me off about the anti gun crowd. A lot of them use drugs and helped build up the cartels with the money spent on their drugs. Then they turn around and say we need to either tightly control or eliminate guns in order to save lives.
I'm sorry, but are this 'anti-gun crowd' of which you speak forced to submit to mandatory drug testing with public results or something? Because the way you say 'a lot of them use drugs' and then use that to theoretically disprove their argument must mean that:
a) you have statistics showing the proportion which take drugs, and that
b) it must be at least 50% for it to have that kind of impact, and
c) doing one bad thing means you're a hypocrite when you say something else altogether is bad (which is some pretty strange system of moral judgement).
I mean, to expound on c), if I let my kid get fat, my opinion on drugs, drunk driving, and many other things should be ignored. All because I'm theoretically sponsoring deaths through obesity, and thus should have no say on anything that causes death.
Just because a white collar thief says mugging old ladies in the street is wrong does not make his argument invalid. Just because someone watched a movie at their friends house does not automatically disprove/counter them when they say online piracy should be stopped.
This. This. A thousand times this.
Nice try at deflecting the debate over gun control by insulting those who disagree with you, Relapse.
That is one of the big things that pisses me off about the anti gun crowd. A lot of them use drugs and helped build up the cartels with the money spent on their drugs. Then they turn around and say we need to either tightly control or eliminate guns in order to save lives.
I'm sorry, but are this 'anti-gun crowd' of which you speak forced to submit to mandatory drug testing with public results or something? Because the way you say 'a lot of them use drugs' and then use that to theoretically disprove their argument must mean that:
a) you have statistics showing the proportion which take drugs, and that
b) it must be at least 50% for it to have that kind of impact, and
c) doing one bad thing means you're a hypocrite when you say something else altogether is bad (which is some pretty strange system of moral juUdgement).
I mean, to expound on c), if I let my kid get fat, my opinion on drugs, drunk driving, and many other things should be ignored. All because I'm theoretically sponsoring deaths through obesity, and thus should have no say on anything that causes death.
Just because a white collar thief says mugging old ladies in the street is wrong does not make his argument invalid. Just because someone watched a movie at their friends house does not automatically disprove/counter them when they say online piracy should be stopped.
It's easily enough proved by personal observation and asking people that are for strict gun control. I've had this conversation with several people over the years and it's pretty much the same in that they either admit using drugs themselves or know others pushing for gun control that do. Just do some checking around and try to prove me wrong and whilem your at it ask how many don't think twice about drinking and driving.
Did you know it's not illegal to buy a tank in the US? It's just normally prohibitively expensive. Getting ammunition for the main gun would probably be tricky though.
Relapse wrote:
It's easily enough proved by personal observation and asking people that are for strict gun control. I've had this conversation with several people over the years and it's pretty much the same in that they either admit using drugs themselves or know others pushing for gun control that do. Just do some checking around and try to prove me wrong and whilem your at it ask how many don't think twice about drinking and driving.
Well guys I don't think we can argue with that, this guy knows his stuff.
kronk wrote: I also propose that the expiration dates on milk have two days added to them. Mine expire when I have at least one more cereal bowl's worth of milk left!
Stop making me throw out my milk!
Milk has a Best Before date, rather than an Expiry date, as it is a product that will become too nasty to consume long before it actually becomes dangerous to consume. It's still perfectly safe (if progressively less pleasant) to consume milk that is past its Best Before date.
Relapse wrote:
It's easily enough proved by personal observation and asking people that are for strict gun control. I've had this conversation with several people over the years and it's pretty much the same in that they either admit using drugs themselves or know others pushing for gun control that do. Just do some checking around and try to prove me wrong and whilem your at it ask how many don't think twice about drinking and driving.
As much as I dislike the idea of disarming the US people in any capacity, the plural of anecdote is not data.
I kind of think you're going about what you're trying to go about doing in the wrong way.
Relapse wrote:
It's easily enough proved by personal observation and asking people that are for strict gun control. I've had this conversation with several people over the years and it's pretty much the same in that they either admit using drugs themselves or know others pushing for gun control that do. Just do some checking around and try to prove me wrong and whilem your at it ask how many don't think twice about drinking and driving.
So you're saying that your evidence for, 'lots of anti-gun people do drugs' is, 'I've occasionally spoken to someone who was anti-gun, and they said that they, or someone else they knew take or once took drugs?'
I especially like the additional implication that all these crazy drug using anti-gun nutters all do drink driving as well.
I think I'm done here. That's enough crazy for me in one night.
Relapse wrote: It's easily enough proved by personal observation and asking people that are for strict gun control. I've had this conversation with several people over the years and it's pretty much the same in that they either admit using drugs themselves or know others pushing for gun control that do. Just do some checking around and try to prove me wrong and whilem your at it ask how many don't think twice about drinking and driving.
All the pro gun people I know play wargames and talk about them online. They are clearly not mature people and so should not be listened to when they talk about there being no need for gun control. I've spoken with quite a few of these people but then I see them talking about playing with toy soldiers!
Ask anyone on this forum and they will tell you they play or collect models! How can you take anything they say about gun control seriously when I know people who don't play with toy soldiers who are for gun control - clearly they are the people who we should listen to!?!?
Relapse wrote: It's easily enough proved by personal observation and asking people that are for strict gun control. I've had this conversation with several people over the years and it's pretty much the same in that they either admit using drugs themselves or know others pushing for gun control that do. Just do some checking around and try to prove me wrong and whilem your at it ask how many don't think twice about drinking and driving.
All the pro gun people I know play wargames and talk about them online. They are clearly not mature people and so should not be listened to when they talk about there being no need for gun control. I've spoken with quite a few of these people but then I see them talking about playing with toy soldiers!
Ask anyone on this forum and they will tell you they play or collect models! How can you take anything they say about gun control seriously when I know people who don't play with toy soldiers who are for gun control - clearly they are the people who we should listen to!?!?
It's kind of like the anti-gun people who keep saying that the guns that Feinstein considers "assault weapons" don't have any use in hunting or defense, when there is evidence to the contrary. Or anti-gun people who paint gun-owners or NRA members as dangerous lunatics. Neither side is innocent of making silly sweeping generalizations.
Hordini wrote: Neither side is innocent of making silly sweeping generalizations.
Entirely true. However, that doesn't mean you can't have a serious debate on the matter and try and ignore the idiots on both sides. No matter what American political "debate" might seem to indicate, slinging insults and sweeping generalisations at one another isn't debate.
Kilkrazy wrote: To be serious for a moment, Relapse has a good point. Too many people are killed or injured by cars and something should be done.
I have never thought it worthwhile before, but if it is the price that pro-gun people demand in return for their support for restrictions on guns, I would definitely approve of the following anti-car measures.
1. Registration of all vehicles.
2. Certain types of vehicles to be restricted, such as military.
3. Licensing of drivers. Licence only granted if they pass a realistic test.
4. Compulsory insurance.
5. Pedestrians, who let's face it are responsible for a lot of accidents, to be prevented from wandering over the roads and given proper crossing places.
kronk wrote: I also propose that the expiration dates on milk have two days added to them. Mine expire when I have at least one more cereal bowl's worth of milk left!
Stop making me throw out my milk!
You know you don't have to throw it out just because it's passed the date on the carton or jug.
Kilkrazy wrote: To be serious for a moment, Relapse has a good point. Too many people are killed or injured by cars and something should be done.
I have never thought it worthwhile before, but if it is the price that pro-gun people demand in return for their support for restrictions on guns, I would definitely approve of the following anti-car measures.
1. Registration of all vehicles.
2. Certain types of vehicles to be restricted, such as military.
3. Licensing of drivers. Licence only granted if they pass a realistic test.
4. Compulsory insurance.
5. Pedestrians, who let's face it are responsible for a lot of accidents, to be prevented from wandering over the roads and given proper crossing places.
This if the best post I have ever seen, on any topic, anywhere. My wife wants to create an account just so she can exalt it.
Kilkrazy wrote: To be serious for a moment, Relapse has a good point. Too many people are killed or injured by cars and something should be done.
I have never thought it worthwhile before, but if it is the price that pro-gun people demand in return for their support for restrictions on guns, I would definitely approve of the following anti-car measures.
1. Registration of all vehicles.
2. Certain types of vehicles to be restricted, such as military.
3. Licensing of drivers. Licence only granted if they pass a realistic test.
4. Compulsory insurance.
5. Pedestrians, who let's face it are responsible for a lot of accidents, to be prevented from wandering over the roads and given proper crossing places.
This if the best post I have ever seen, on any topic, anywhere. My wife wants to create an account just so she can exalt it.
What complicates things is the fact that the right to bear arms is a constitutional right guaranteed to law-abiding citizens. It's hard to get people to like the idea that they only get access to their rights if they can pass a test, buy a license, afford insurance, and so on.
Which, as an outsider from a country with no such list of constitutional rights, is a little hard to understand. It seems that a lot of Americans put their own individual rights above their responsibility to the society they live in, which seems not only backwards but also appears to go against what that second amendment is actually intended to do...
Relapse wrote:It's easily enough proved by personal observation and asking people that are for strict gun control. I've had this conversation with several people over the years and it's pretty much the same in that they either admit using drugs themselves or know others pushing for gun control that do. Just do some checking around and try to prove me wrong and whilem your at it ask how many don't think twice about drinking and driving.
By this logic, would it be fair to assume that because I once saw a movie wherein some pro-gun people forcibly sodomized Ned Beatty, that all pro-gun people are also part of the "squeal like a pig, fatboy" crowd?
insaniak wrote: Which, as an outsider from a country with no such list of constitutional rights, is a little hard to understand. It seems that a lot of Americans put their own individual rights above their responsibility to the society they live in, which seems not only backwards but also appears to go against what that second amendment is actually intended to do...
It's easily enough proved by personal observation and asking people that are for strict gun control. I've had this conversation with several people over the years and it's pretty much the same in that they either admit using drugs themselves or know others pushing for gun control that do. Just do some checking around and try to prove me wrong and whilem your at it ask how many don't think twice about drinking and driving.
I'm all for strict gun controls.
I don't take drugs, and never have. I drink in moderation, and don't drive if I've been drinking. I don't speed, and I don't use my mobile phone in the car.
insaniak wrote: Which, as an outsider from a country with no such list of constitutional rights, is a little hard to understand. It seems that a lot of Americans put their own individual rights above their responsibility to the society they live in, which seems not only backwards but also appears to go against what that second amendment is actually intended to do...
Relapse wrote:It's easily enough proved by personal observation and asking people that are for strict gun control. I've had this conversation with several people over the years and it's pretty much the same in that they either admit using drugs themselves or know others pushing for gun control that do. Just do some checking around and try to prove me wrong and whilem your at it ask how many don't think twice about drinking and driving.
By this logic, would it be fair to assume that because I once saw a movie wherein some pro-gun people forcibly sodomized Ned Beatty, that all pro-gun people are also part of the "squeal like a pig, fatboy" crowd?
It's a safe assumption... I say it on a daily basis...
Putting your own individual rights above the "responsibility to the society you live in" does not conflict with what the Second Amendment was designed to do.
Putting your own individual rights above the "responsibility to the society you live in" does not conflict with what the Second Amendment was designed to do.
What do you think the second amendment was designed to do?
Putting your own individual rights above the "responsibility to the society you live in" does not conflict with what the Second Amendment was designed to do.
My understanding (and again, as an outsider, and not a student of such things, so happy to be proven wrong) is that the right to bear arms in the US constitution is intended specifically for the purposes of allowing a citizen militia to be formed for the defense of the US where necessary.
But when you hear people complaining about their guns being restricted, you never seem to hear 'But how will I defend my country?'... it's more likely to be 'But how will I defend myself?', or simply 'But, I have rights!'
This is easier in Australia, where we don't have a bill of rights, so we're entitled to only as much as the government decides we can be trusted with
Putting your own individual rights above the "responsibility to the society you live in" does not conflict with what the Second Amendment was designed to do.
My understanding (and again, as an outsider, and not a student of such things, so happy to be proven wrong) is that the right to bear arms in the US constitution is intended specifically for the purposes of allowing a citizen militia to be formed for the defense of the US where necessary.
Incorrect. Here's the verbiage:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
See the distinction?
But when you hear people complaining about their guns being restricted, you never seem to hear 'But how will I defend my country?'... it's more likely to be 'But how will I defend myself?', or simply 'But, I have rights!'
wut? That's exactly what's happening!
This is easier in Australia, where we don't have a bill of rights, so we're entitled to only as much as the government decides we can be trusted with
Hope that benevolent overloads stays... ya know... benevolent.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
See the distinction?
No, that looks like exactly what I said. Americans are supposed to be allowed to bear arms because the guys who set the place up felt that an armed (and regulated) militia was an important thing to have... not because they felt that every man should have free access to every firearm ever made just, you know, because.
Hope that benevolent overloads stays... ya know... benevolent.
The system more or less requires it if they want to stay in power.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
See the distinction?
No, that looks like exactly what I said. Americans are supposed to be allowed to bear arms because the guys who set the place up felt that an armed (and regulated) militia was an important thing to have... not because they felt that every man should have free access to every firearm ever made just, you know, because
Still... incorrect... allow me to elaborate:
It seems you're hung up on that second clause of the amendment... that is "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" infers to the Militia only... that is not the case.
Also, this:
- The founders believed that one had a God-given right to rebel against tyranny. How in the bloody hell can you do this if you weren't armed? Oh, I left out a really important piece: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"
-People forget that the Battles of Lexington and Concord were prompted by an attempt by the British to take away our arms.
- The fact that no one has attempted to overthrow our current government from within, is not proof we don’t need the Second Amendment; it is proof it is working.
-Keep in mind that, historically governments have taken guns away from groups they hated.
-Probably most importantly... you cannot always trust the government to defend you.
Hope that benevolent overloads stays... ya know... benevolent.
The system more or less requires it if they want to stay in power.
So... minority... groups... never had need to defend themselves?
In our current system of government, if a minority group needs guns to defend themselves, something has gone seriously wrong... And in that case, they're going to get their hands on weapons regardless of whether our not the law says they are allowed to have them.
But frankly, I can't see that happening. You can take the lack of recent revolution as a sign that your second amendment is working... But Australia and the UK are similarly revolution free, without any such God-given right backing it up.
The democratic system is what keeps us revolution free, not the ability of our citizens to make rabbits explode.
insaniak wrote: [My understanding (and again, as an outsider, and not a student of such things, so happy to be proven wrong) is that the right to bear arms in the US constitution is intended specifically for the purposes of allowing a citizen militia to be formed for the defense of the US where necessary.
No, but this was an open question until fairly recently. I don't know the case - I want to say Heller - they knocked down the militia-only argument.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Yes, it was Heller.
insaniak wrote: No, that looks like exactly what I said. Americans are supposed to be allowed to bear arms because the guys who set the place up felt that an armed (and regulated) militia was an important thing to have... not because they felt that every man should have free access to every firearm ever made just, you know, because.
Because computers are necessary to go to the moon, we will not infringe on the people's right to own computers.
Does that mean I need to go to the moon in order to own a computer? Of course not. That's how the Second needs to be read. It's providing a blanket prohibition - denying the ability to infringe on the right to bear arms - and proving a reason why. Anti-gunners focus on the reason, despite the fact that it's largely irrelevant to the point of the amendment - the prohibition on the infringement of the right to bear arms.
insaniak wrote: No, that looks like exactly what I said. Americans are supposed to be allowed to bear arms because the guys who set the place up felt that an armed (and regulated) militia was an important thing to have... not because they felt that every man should have free access to every firearm ever made just, you know, because.
Because computers are necessary to go to the moon, we will not infringe on the people's right to own computers.
Does that mean I need to go to the moon in order to own a computer? Of course not. That's how the Second needs to be read. It's providing a blanket prohibition - denying the ability to infringe on the right to bear arms - and proving a reason why. Anti-gunners focus on the reason, despite the fact that it's largely irrelevant to the point of the amendment - the prohibition on the infringement of the right to bear arms.
That is some epic not-logic you've posted right there.
Here, let me replace all the pronouns with their respective proper nouns for you so as to best explain why what you just said is full of silliness:
"Anti-gunners focus on the reason, despite the fact that the reason is largely irrelevant to the reason of the amendment - the prohibition on the infringement of the right to bear arms"
You are essentially saying that you have an absolute right because you just do so. And this is not the case. At all. Without the reason, the right to it is arbitrary.
We use computers to do myriad tasks every day, so we will not infringe on the people's rights to own computers. Firearms, however, have a singular use: to propel a lethal projectile at a target. So if you want to say your reason is "defense", well I'm pretty sure that if you fail to defend yourself from a mugger with a 6-round .38s, then another ten rounds won't help you. And if you feel that you need to hunt, and feel you need more than a wood bow to do so, then you are mistaken about one or the other.
And, as a side note, I wish we'd stop calling people "anti-gunners". I think people should have the right to own a gun, however many guns they want, really. I don't even have a problem with automatic weapons for private ownership. I also think that they should be required to show some level proficiency before being able to buy one (or some classes of them) and have a background check made before buying one regardless of venue. I don't think that makes me, for example, an "anti-gunner".
I know it's easy and simple to just make a binary choice because you feel the need to break things down simplistically like a child would, but it really kind of hurts your credibility when you do so.
Your argument's with the Supreme Court, then, who've likewise decided that the Second Amendment does not in fact state that membership in a militia is not a requirement for firearm ownership.
Here, let me replace all the pronouns with their respective proper nouns for you so as to best explain why what you just said is full of silliness:
Yes, if you ignore what I wrote and re-write it to make your point, it does make less sense. Well done.
You are essentially saying that you have an absolute right because you just do so. And this is not the case. At all. Without the reason, the right to it is arbitrary.
Nope. Not quite. I'm saying the prohibition on infringement is clearly stated, and that you could put whatever reason you wanted in front of it - it doesn't change the fact that the prohibition on infringement is clearly stated.
Firearms, however, have a singular use: to propel a lethal projectile at a target. So if you want to say your reason is "defense", well I'm pretty sure that if you fail to defend yourself from a mugger with a 6-round .38s, then another ten rounds won't help you.
You say this from vast experience with close quarters firefights and general self-defense? The considerable and unfortunately all-too-common inaccuracy of that statement really would deserve its own thread if it hadn't had one about six times in the past couple months.
Ouze wrote: And, as a side note, I wish we'd stop calling people "anti-gunners". I think people should have the right to own a gun, however many guns they want, really. I don't even have a problem with automatic weapons for private ownership. I also think that they should be required to show some level proficiency before being able to buy one (or some classes of them) and have a background check made before buying one regardless of venue. I don't think that makes me, for example, an "anti-gunner".
I know it's easy and simple to just make a binary choice because you feel the need to break things down simplistically like a child would, but it really kind of hurts your credibility when you do so.
Agreed, the gun-debate isn't a black and white subject people are all over the spectrum in terms of what they want with gun control to turn this issue into an anti-gun vs pro-gun debate is a gross oversimplification and shows a lack of understanding and knowledge on the topic at hand.
Seaward wrote: [You say this from vast experience with close quarters firefights and general self-defense?
I can't speak for Azazel, but I've been in hundreds of gunfights this week alone, and I can nearly always get a kill with 3 or 4 bullets, max. It's easier if you aim for the head - right clicking lets you zoom in and place the shots more accurately.
Cheesecat wrote: Agreed, the gun-debate isn't a black and white subject people are all over the spectrum in terms of what they want with gun control to turn this issue into an anti-gun vs pro-gun debate is a gross oversimplification and shows a lack of understanding and knowledge on the topic at hand.
Yet we're perfectly fine reducing complex problems to black-and-white descriptors with anti-abortion and anti-homosexual positions.
Curious.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: I can't speak for Azazel, but I've been in hundreds of gunfights this week alone, and I can nearly always get a kill with 3 or 4 bullets, max. It's easier if you aim for the head - right clicking lets you zoom in and place the shots more accurately.
Funnily enough, there's at least a few examinations of "one-shot stops" out there that suggest a majority of them can be attributed to a psychological rather than physiological response, which essentially boils down to, "I have been shot. From everything I've seen (movies, TV, etc.), this suggests I should fall down."
I think there is a difference here, certainly for abortion. The people who are against abortion are completely up-front they'd like to have Roe vs Wade overturned completely, and wish to chip away at it until then until they can get it overturned - something that would only take 5 justices to do, and which was previously unlawful within the lifetime of many posters on these fora.
With the exception of the complete crazies, the people who want tighter gun restrictions don't want gun ownership to be blanketly illegal, a total ban on guns. Addtionally, even if the could somehow get such legislation passed, the odds of that actually happening are effectively zero - the SCOUTUS would obviously overturn it. Lets not pretend like this is a real thing that could actually happen.
Ouze wrote: I think there is a difference here, certainly for abortion. The people who are against abortion are completely up-front they'd like to have Roe vs Wade overturned completely, and wish to chip away at it until then until they can get it overturned - something that would only take 5 justices to do, and which was previously unlawful within the lifetime of many posters on these fora.
With the exception of the complete crazies, the people who want tighter gun restrictions don't want gun ownership to be blanketly illegal, a total ban on guns. Addtionally, even if the could somehow get such legislation passed, the odds of that actually happening are effectively zero - the SCOUTUS would obviously overturn it. Lets not pretend like this is a real thing that could actually happen.
It's not an apples to apples comparison.
I think it is, because in both cases it's the extreme ends of the spectrum that're involved in the debate. Polling shows us that America's pretty much in the middle on abortion, and pretty much in the middle on gun control. It's the advocacy groups on both sides, in both of the debates, that are the drivers, however. Most Americans aren't in favor of unfettered abortion access (against partial birth, in favor of parental notification, etc.), and the same is true for much of the gun debate. If all the president wanted to push through was universal background checks, this wouldn't even be a debate anymore.
None of which matters at all, of course, to the context of the current discussion, which was an Aussie asking about the militia part of the Second Amendment. Anyone who's making the, "Nuh uh, it's for militias only!" argument is going to be, by default, anti-gun.
insaniak wrote: [My understanding (and again, as an outsider, and not a student of such things, so happy to be proven wrong) is that the right to bear arms in the US constitution is intended specifically for the purposes of allowing a citizen militia to be formed for the defense of the US where necessary.
No, but this was an open question until fairly recently. I don't know the case - I want to say Heller - they knocked down the militia-only argument.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Yes, it was Heller.
I should have googled that before responding.
To be fair Insaniak's initial argument, that the Second Amendment implies a sort of social responsibility, does not conflict with Heller; as it specifically notes that the prefatory clause supplies the purpose of the Amendment. This is, if I recall correctly, the reason behind the Court's refusal to nominate all regulation as being Unconstitutional.
Did you know it's not illegal to buy a tank in the US? It's just normally prohibitively expensive. Getting ammunition for the main gun would probably be tricky though.
Yes, it's the same in the UK. However, the kinds of vehicles allowed on the road are defined and restricted by law, which is my general point.
Cheesecat wrote: Agreed, the gun-debate isn't a black and white subject people are all over the spectrum in terms of what they want with gun control to turn this issue into an anti-gun vs pro-gun debate is a gross oversimplification and shows a lack of understanding and knowledge on the topic at hand.
Yet we're perfectly fine reducing complex problems to black-and-white descriptors with anti-abortion and anti-homosexual positions.
Curious.
Well there isn't much room for debate with abortion it's basically a discussion about whether it's right or wrong to remove a fetus or embryo from the uterus or what situations makes it justifiable or unjustifiable then add a couple of reasons for why you came to that conclusion. Most high
income nations have already discussed the issue of homophobia and it seems most agree that it's a bad thing and it's probably not a position you would want to defend anyways.
whembly wrote: -People forget that the Battles of Lexington and Concord were prompted by an attempt by the British to take away our arms.
None of the Intolerable Acts called for the seizing of firearms. The dissolving of the Massachussets congress didn't call for the seizure of weapons.
I mean, the initial military actions were an attempt to destroy militia supplies, but comparing that to a government attempt to sieze firearms is something of a stretch - by that point it was a military operation against another military, destroying their means to war is kind of the point. Otherwise you could argue the first Gulf War, which began with targetted strikes against Iraqi command and control positions and thereby destroy their means to fight, was an attempt by the UN to sieze the arms of Iraqis.
-Keep in mind that, historically governments have taken guns away from groups they hated.
That's one of those half true things that really misses the point. The bigger point is that tyrants rule not by themselves, but through the consent of some element of the population, either a majority or a minority. Hitler's firearm reforms took weapons away from Jews, but expanded ownership rights for everyone else.
Have a look at this thread, and look at the torture thread. Try finding people who believe they need guns to protect their liberty, who are also concerned about the use of torture by their government.
-Probably most importantly... you cannot always trust the government to defend you.
No, but there's always those really big oceans to do that for you.
Your argument's with the Supreme Court, then, who've likewise decided that the Second Amendment does not in fact state that membership in a militia is not a requirement for firearm ownership.
I think some wires are getting crossed here... my point has nothing to do with a militia... my point is that there is an underlying reason why the 2nd amendment exists, and without knowledge of what that reason is, the right it grants is arbitrary. In other words, "Cuz it sez so!" isn't really an argument that coincides with the concept of a "living document" like the US Constitution. You have to justify why you need those firearms, and I think it's very hard to justify needing an LMG.
Seaward wrote:
Firearms, however, have a singular use: to propel a lethal projectile at a target. So if you want to say your reason is "defense", well I'm pretty sure that if you fail to defend yourself from a mugger with a 6-round .38s, then another ten rounds won't help you.
You say this from vast experience with close quarters firefights and general self-defense? The considerable and unfortunately all-too-common inaccuracy of that statement really would deserve its own thread if it hadn't had one about six times in the past couple months.
And my point is that if you've fired off 6 rounds and not hit your attacker, then I hope I'm nowhere near your 15 rounds of spray-and-pray. It's not the firearms that I'm concerned about; not remotely. It's the wanton irresponsibility of large groups of American gun culture that I find terrifying. One poster on Dakka even admitted that they keep firearms on the floor in a house with toddlers. If someone is that irresponsible with their own children, then I have good reason to be nervous about living in a society where that person has access to a machine gun. (and I have never been in a gunfight. But I have been in 2 knife fights and a handful of street/bar fights, and I'm still pretty, so I must know what I'm doing on some level of self-defense)
Seaward wrote:None of which matters at all, of course, to the context of the current discussion, which was an Aussie asking about the militia part of the Second Amendment. Anyone who's making the, "Nuh uh, it's for militias only!" argument is going to be, by default, anti-gun.
What about people like me that just want to see firearms laws coincide more with those of Canada?
azazel the cat wrote: I think some wires are getting crossed here... my point has nothing to do with a militia... my point is that there is an underlying reason why the 2nd amendment exists, and without knowledge of what that reason is, the right it grants is arbitrary. In other words, "Cuz it sez so!" isn't really an argument that coincides with the concept of a "living document" like the US Constitution. You have to justify why you need those firearms, and I think it's very hard to justify needing an LMG.
Constitutionally speaking, no. The amendment could read, "Cheese being delicious, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed," and it wouldn't change the fact that it's a prohibition on the infringement of the right to keep and bear arms. How people who believe the Constitution to be a "living document" would, certainly, change, but I consider that fairly irrelevant, as I do not consider it to be such.
And my point is that if you've fired off 6 rounds and not hit your attacker, then I hope I'm nowhere near your 15 rounds of spray-and-pray.
What if I fire off six rounds and hit with all of them, but not dropped my attacker? It's certainly happened. It's not evenallthatuncommon. The human body is extremely resilient, and handgun rounds are weak and inefficient. Unless you hit a very small part of it, you're not going to instantly kill or incapacitate someone. This is why all credible self-defense instructors teach you to shoot until the threat is no longer a threat.
What about people like me that just want to see firearms laws coincide more with those of Canada?
From what little I recall of Canadian gun laws, they're basically similar to New York's before New York took an even bigger bite of crazy. I'd call it pretty anti-gun.
azazel the cat wrote: I think some wires are getting crossed here... my point has nothing to do with a militia... my point is that there is an underlying reason why the 2nd amendment exists, and without knowledge of what that reason is, the right it grants is arbitrary. In other words, "Cuz it sez so!" isn't really an argument that coincides with the concept of a "living document" like the US Constitution. You have to justify why you need those firearms, and I think it's very hard to justify needing an LMG.
Constitutionally speaking, no. The amendment could read, "Cheese being delicious, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed," and it wouldn't change the fact that it's a prohibition on the infringement of the right to keep and bear arms. How people who believe the Constitution to be a "living document" would, certainly, change, but I consider that fairly irrelevant, as I do not consider it to be such.
In that case, I assume you define "arms" to mean muskets, and have disposed of all your illegal non-musket firearms?
Seaward wrote:
azazel the cat wrote:And my point is that if you've fired off 6 rounds and not hit your attacker, then I hope I'm nowhere near your 15 rounds of spray-and-pray.
What if I fire off six rounds and hit with all of them, but not dropped my attacker? It's certainly happened. It's not evenallthatuncommon. The human body is extremely resilient, and handgun rounds are weak and inefficient. Unless you hit a very small part of it, you're not going to instantly kill or incapacitate someone. This is why all credible self-defense instructors teach you to shoot until the threat is no longer a threat.
I think you've missed my point. My fear is not a weapon's ability to deliver a successfully lethal volley; it is with people who have access to such weapons and believe themselves, unpracticed, to be Rambo incarnate.
Seaward wrote:
azazel the cat wrote:What about people like me that just want to see firearms laws coincide more with those of Canada?
From what little I recall of Canadian gun laws, they're basically similar to New York's before New York took an even bigger bite of crazy. I'd call it pretty anti-gun.
Hardly.
In Canada, full-auto is prohibited, as well as sawed-off barrels. Can't have center-fire magazines in excess of 5 rounds for semi-auto long guns, 10 rounds for semi-auto handguns. Must have a license which requires a safety course, a test that's virtually impossible to fail, and about a 30 day wait that includes a background check. Firearms must be securely locked up, unloaded, behind 2 locks (trigger & gun safe, for example) or else disassembled.
There is absolutely no legal use someone can come up with that requires more firepower than is already permissible under the above guidelines; and the emphasis of our laws is around education and storage of firearms; not procurement.
azazel the cat wrote: There is absolutely no legal use someone can come up with that requires more firepower than is already permissible under the above guidelines;
Of course there is. Again, this assumption that it will only ever take a round or two to stop a threat is pure Hollywood.
Did you know it's not illegal to buy a tank in the US? It's just normally prohibitively expensive. Getting ammunition for the main gun would probably be tricky though.
Yes, it's the same in the UK. However, the kinds of vehicles allowed on the road are defined and restricted by law, which is my general point.
Technically, many things are not illegal to buy with the appropriate licenses and enough chase. The tank without the gun is purely a money issue as long as the purchaser is fine not getting all the wiz-bang military grade sensors and optics. The gun requires a class III FFL because it is a destructive device and a $200 tax stamp. In addition, each round of ammunition because of size also requires a $200 tax stamp and the associated FFL license.
If it's designated as farm equipment and isn't destroying the road, it would be allowed on any road other than interstates or other restricted areas.
azazel the cat wrote: There is absolutely no legal use someone can come up with that requires more firepower than is already permissible under the above guidelines;
Of course there is. Again, this assumption that it will only ever take a round or two to stop a threat is pure Hollywood.
This is the Beretta Px4 Storm. It holds 10 rounds of .45 ACP and Canadian border guards all use this. It is perfectly legal for civilian use.
This is the Beretta 96FS. It holds 10 rounds of .40 S&W and RCMP officers all use this. It is perfectly legal for civilian use.
For some goofy reason, even law enforcement officers only seem to carry semi-automatic handguns.
Wanna go hunting? You'll find that every type of hunting rifle under the sun is legal in Canada (even though real hunters wouldn't need to use more than a bow).
Need to defend yourself? You'll find that almost all non-sawed-off shotguns and semi-automatic handguns are legal in Canada (with the exception of Derringers).
So again, tell me about what exactly is attacking you that you feel you need a weapon that is not legal under the Canadian laws. Please, give me a specific situation or type of attack that you feel you cannot defend against without the use of an M249.
EDIT: And you still haven't told me whether or not you've disposed of all your non-musket firearms, since you don't consider the US Constitution to be a "living document", and its original definition of arms was limited to just muskets and edged weapons.
EDIT: And you still haven't told me whether or not you've disposed of all your non-musket firearms, since you don't consider the US Constitution to be a "living document", and its original definition of arms was limited to just muskets and edged weapons.
Wait...wut?
It's not limited to just muskets and edged weapons.
That's like saying.. .you can only write political expression (free speech) on the old printing press...but, the interweb doesn't have protected speech.
azazel the cat wrote: So again, tell me about what exactly is attacking you that you feel you need a weapon that is not legal under the Canadian laws. Please, give me a specific situation or type of attack that you feel you cannot defend against without the use of an M249.
Who's talking about machine guns? I'm talking about 15-round Glock 22s. No one's ever come out the other side of a fight wishing he'd had fewer bullets, and there's a very real reason the overwhelming majority of American law enforcement organizations prefer sidearms with capacities in the 13 to 17 range.
Hordini wrote: Neither side is innocent of making silly sweeping generalizations.
Entirely true. However, that doesn't mean you can't have a serious debate on the matter and try and ignore the idiots on both sides. No matter what American political "debate" might seem to indicate, slinging insults and sweeping generalisations at one another isn't debate.
Such use of calm, facts and logic have no place here!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hordini wrote: What complicates things is the fact that the right to bear arms is a constitutional right guaranteed to law-abiding citizens. It's hard to get people to like the idea that they only get access to their rights if they can pass a test, buy a license, afford insurance, and so on.
azazel the cat wrote: There is absolutely no legal use someone can come up with that requires more firepower than is already permissible under the above guidelines;
Of course there is. Again, this assumption that it will only ever take a round or two to stop a threat is pure Hollywood.
This is the Beretta Px4 Storm. It holds 10 rounds of .45 ACP and Canadian border guards all use this. It is perfectly legal for civilian use.
This is the Beretta 96FS. It holds 10 rounds of .40 S&W and RCMP officers all use this. It is perfectly legal for civilian use.
For some goofy reason, even law enforcement officers only seem to carry semi-automatic handguns.
Wanna go hunting? You'll find that every type of hunting rifle under the sun is legal in Canada (even though real hunters wouldn't need to use more than a bow).
Need to defend yourself? You'll find that almost all non-sawed-off shotguns and semi-automatic handguns are legal in Canada (with the exception of Derringers).
So again, tell me about what exactly is attacking you that you feel you need a weapon that is not legal under the Canadian laws. Please, give me a specific situation or type of attack that you feel you cannot defend against without the use of an M249.
EDIT: And you still haven't told me whether or not you've disposed of all your non-musket firearms, since you don't consider the US Constitution to be a "living document", and its original definition of arms was limited to just muskets and edged weapons.
You know you just cracked up and revealed your ignorance right? People aren't out there buying legal automatic weapons.
ITS ALREADY RESTRICTED!
azazel the cat wrote: So again, tell me about what exactly is attacking you that you feel you need a weapon that is not legal under the Canadian laws. Please, give me a specific situation or type of attack that you feel you cannot defend against without the use of an M249.
Who's talking about machine guns? I'm talking about 15-round Glock 22s. No one's ever come out the other side of a fight wishing he'd had fewer bullets, and there's a very real reason the overwhelming majority of American law enforcement organizations prefer sidearms with capacities in the 13 to 17 range.
I want you to find me an instance of a person who was able to withstand 10 rounds of .40 S&W or .45 ACP and continued to fight.
Also, did you miss the part about the focus in Canadian firearms laws is around education, safety and storage? As is, we like to make sure that our firearms owners understand how to care for their guns, understand how to use them safely and effectively, and how to store them so that unintended use is reduced to an absolute minimum.
What is it with the American zeitgeist of thinking "backgrounds checks, safety training and locking up your guns" = "take away my guns"?
EDIT: Yes, Frazzled, I am well aware that full-auto machine guns are already restricted in the US. I am using machine guns to serve as a point in asking the question of what the mindset is that makes a person think something of that calibre (pun unintended) is necessary for self-defense. I'm not asking a question about the legality of such, as I'm aware that no new machine guns are being manufactured or sold for civilian use, and it has been the case for more than 15 years. I'm asking a question of the desire for those firearms. Specifically, I want to know just what is the honest mindset of a person -do they feel impotent or paranoid or something else- that makes a person believe that they needed an LMG for home use. But it's nice to see how desperate you are to try and find something to discredit me in hopes of invalidating my inquiry.
FURTHER EDIT: The really funny part is that I actually have a gun license and am very pro-gun. I'm just very anti- little-man-needs-to-feel-powerful, and very anti- crazy-man-wants-a-gun-because-it's-his-right and particularly anti- moron-wants-a-dangerous-tool-so-he-can-be-a-danger-to-his-neighbours
azazel the cat wrote: So again, tell me about what exactly is attacking you that you feel you need a weapon that is not legal under the Canadian laws. Please, give me a specific situation or type of attack that you feel you cannot defend against without the use of an M249.
Who's talking about machine guns? I'm talking about 15-round Glock 22s. No one's ever come out the other side of a fight wishing he'd had fewer bullets, and there's a very real reason the overwhelming majority of American law enforcement organizations prefer sidearms with capacities in the 13 to 17 range.
I want you to find me an instance of a person who was able to withstand 10 rounds of .40 S&W or .45 ACP and continued to fight.
Also, did you miss the part about the focus in Canadian firearms laws is around education, safety and storage? As is, we like to make sure that our firearms owners understand how to care for their guns, understand how to use them safely and effectively, and how to store them so that unintended use is reduced to an absolute minimum.
What is it with the American zeitgeist of thinking "backgrounds checks, safety training and locking up your guns" = "take away my guns"?
1. There are lots and lots of reports on that. I'm not going to pull them as they are ususally attached to graphic images I don't need to see. Having said that NY police statistics thumbnail is: 3-4 shots to make a hit (this is within 10 feet). Then 3-4 shots to stop an attacker. Thats trained police. you expect the average housewife to be as good as NY SWAT? AND OF COURSE THAT ASSUMES ONE ATTACKER ONLY.
2. American Zeitgeist. A reasonable person: I have no concern whatseover. But we';re talking the govenrment. ON your three points: A. background checks. The current background check questions and categories (done by law by the way) are fine. However that can be easily used to add categories and as a defacto ban. Background check requirements are a way states use now to exclude people (or everyone) they don't like for permits. For example, getting a CHL in Texas is a shall issue and the background requirements are generally no different than federal requirements to actually purchase. In NJ its not shall issue and the background test is one method used to exclude pretty much everyone besides the famous or politicians from having such. Thats the fear. I'm personally for a universal background check for all nonfamily transactions through an FFL.
B. Safety training: again no problem if its a simple course you take once, with no test. However this can easily be manipulated into another way to ban firearm ownership. Is it onerous? Is it expensive? Is it government run only? etc. etc.
all these methods have been used in the past to exclude minorities from owning firearms, especially during Jim Crow/KKK days. This should be remembered. In the US we don't trust the government. The government has shown itself to not be ptrustworthy.
azazel the cat wrote: I want you to find me an instance of a person who was able to withstand 10 rounds of .40 S&W or .45 ACP and continued to fight.
How many do you want, exactly? Hell, just last month we had the thread about the guy who got shot six times - mostly in the face - down in Georgia and still was able to run away, hop into his truck, and drive off. Again, you seem to be thinking that .40 or .45 are particularly robust rounds with "stopping power," a concept that, quite simply, doesn't exist in common handgun cartridges. The only thing that will stop an aggressor immediately is incapacitation through a CNS hit - an incredibly small target - or the decision to surrender. And what if there are two aggressors?
Also, did you miss the part about the focus in Canadian firearms laws is around education, safety and storage? As is, we like to make sure that our firearms owners understand how to care for their guns, understand how to use them safely and effectively, and how to store them so that unintended use is reduced to an absolute minimum.
What is it with the American zeitgeist of thinking "backgrounds checks, safety training and locking up your guns" = "take away my guns"?
Taking away guns that have a standard capacity of more than 10 rounds isn't taking away guns? News to me.
EDIT: Yes, Frazzled, I am well aware that full-auto machine guns are already restricted in the US. I am using machine guns to serve as a point in asking the question of what the mindset is that makes a person think something of that calibre (pun unintended) is necessary for self-defense. I'm not asking a question about the legality of such, as I'm aware that no new machine guns are being manufactured or sold for civilian use, and it has been the case for more than 15 years. I'm asking a question of the desire for those firearms. Specifically, I want to know just what is the honest mindset of a person -do they feel impotent or paranoid or something else- that makes a person believe that they needed an LMG for home use. But it's nice to see how desperate you are to try and find something to discredit me in hopes of invalidating my inquiry.
I haven't seen anyone argue that a machine gun is necessary for self-defense. I'm not sure why you're continuing to use it, since nobody's saying it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: But hey, just for the sake of killing off this, "You get shot once, you're immediately done!" BS...
Remarkably, Palmer had taken 22 hits from Soulis' .40-caliber Glock, 17 of which had hit center mass. Despite the fact that the weapon had been loaded with Ranger SXTs considered by many to be one of the best man-stoppers available Palmer lived for more than four minutes after the last shot was fired. His autopsy revealed nothing more than a small amount of alcohol in his bloodstream.
Then there's Officer Steve Chaney, who shot an assailant 11 times with .38 +p JHPs - including one shot to the brain that did not stop him.
The Miami Shootout's pretty well-known for the two criminals fighting through multiple gunshot wounds from the FBI.
Officer Stacy Lim's another one of those, "Huh. How's that work?" cases. She got shot in the heart with a .357 magnum, and then chased down the guy who shot her and shot him back.
Frazzled wrote:1. There are lots and lots of reports on that. I'm not going to pull them as they are ususally attached to graphic images I don't need to see. Having said that NY police statistics thumbnail is: 3-4 shots to make a hit (this is within 10 feet). Then 3-4 shots to stop an attacker. Thats trained police. you expect the average housewife to be as good as NY SWAT? AND OF COURSE THAT ASSUMES ONE ATTACKER ONLY.
Yes, I expect all firearms owners to be practiced and skilled with their firearms. My primary, number-one-with-a-bullet (pun intended this time) concern about firearms owners is catching a stray because some fool has no idea what they're doing when they handle firearms.
2. American Zeitgeist. A reasonable person: I have no concern whatseover. But we';re talking the govenrment. ON your three points:
A. background checks. The current background check questions and categories (done by law by the way) are fine. However that can be easily used to add categories and as a defacto ban. Background check requirements are a way states use now to exclude people (or everyone) they don't like for permits. For example, getting a CHL in Texas is a shall issue and the background requirements are generally no different than federal requirements to actually purchase. In NJ its not shall issue and the background test is one method used to exclude pretty much everyone besides the famous or politicians from having such. Thats the fear. I'm personally for a universal background check for all nonfamily transactions through an FFL.
Sorry... I'm not sure what CHL & FFL are. But thank you for explaining that the actual fear is a ban on owning guns via a bureacratic wall. I suspect that is and will likely always be the disconnect, as in Canada it is a universal background check performed by the federal government.
B. Safety training: again no problem if its a simple course you take once, with no test. However this can easily be manipulated into another way to ban firearm ownership. Is it onerous? Is it expensive? Is it government run only? etc. etc. all these methods have been used in the past to exclude minorities from owning firearms, especially during Jim Crow/KKK days. This should be remembered.
In the US we don't trust the government. The government has shown itself to not be ptrustworthy.
I personally think the Canadian system is too easy to abuse: it is a one-time training course (2 days in length) and requires a test. Trust me when I say that if you fail the test, nobody wants you handling firearms. At all. Ever. It's that kind of test. Anyway, the test is standardized and administered by private companies (pretty much any gun range or store will have the option to take the test there) who will then endorse your score and send it to the federal government. I personally dislike that element because of the chance for abuse, but historically this has been an unfounded worry.
Frazzled wrote: C. Locking up guns - please define that more.
This pertains to storage. In Canada, we are required to keep our firearms secured. The simplified explanation of the law is that all non-restricted firearms (like shotguns) must be secured behind locks, or else disassembled of important parts. "important parts" is defined as a select list of pieces, such as trigger mechanism or barrel. And "locks" is defined as things like trigger locks or a gun safe. Firearms may not be stored loaded. These laws are designed to cut down on exactly the kind of firearms use that nobody wants: children playing with them, accidental firings or thieves gaining easy access during a break-in. Now, these laws are impossible to enforce, unless something bad happens and the police are investigating (such as you report your home being burgled, your guns stolen, and the police ask why they weren't stored in a gun safe)
A common argument against this is that when an intruder gets into your home, you won't have time to access your firearms. However, I counter with the point that if you are not dextrous and calm enough to open up your gun safe and load a magazine under pressure, then I do not believe you are profficient or level-headed enough to operate a firearm in that situation to begin with.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote:
Also, did you miss the part about the focus in Canadian firearms laws is around education, safety and storage? As is, we like to make sure that our firearms owners understand how to care for their guns, understand how to use them safely and effectively, and how to store them so that unintended use is reduced to an absolute minimum.
What is it with the American zeitgeist of thinking "backgrounds checks, safety training and locking up your guns" = "take away my guns"?
Taking away guns that have a standard capacity of more than 10 rounds isn't taking away guns? News to me.
Thank you for exemplifying precisely what I'm talking about.
Why don't you read this again. I mentioned:
Background checks ......check.
Safety training ................check.
Locking up your guns ...check.
Taking away guns .........nope. not mentioned.
You responded to:
Background checks ......nope.
Safety training ................nope.
Locking up your guns ...nope.
Taking away guns .........check.
Seaward wrote:But hey, just for the sake of killing off this, "You get shot once, you're immediately done!" BS...
You're incapable of holding a discussion without reducing things to polarized strawmen, aren't you? Have you honestly never noticed that I have never once made a statement to the effet of "done in one"? I simply question the need for excessive magazine sizes, as I consider the fear that "I may be beset upon by a small posse of determined attackers" to be an unreasonable -to the point of mental ilness- fear.
Yes, I expect all firearms owners to be practiced and skilled with their firearms. My primary, number-one-with-a-bullet (pun intended this time) concern about firearms owners is catching a stray because some fool has no idea what they're doing when they handle firearms.
No, you’re somehow expecting them to be more experienced and practiced than trained NY police officers. That’s a pretty damn tall order for your average Joe.
CHL & FFL are.
Gotcha: Concealed Handgun license, Federal Firearms License. FFLs are stores or others that retail firearms and perform federal background checks.
This pertains to storage. In Canada, we are required to keep our firearms secured. The simplified explanation of the law is that all non-restricted firearms (like shotguns) must be secured behind locks, or else disassembled of important parts. "important parts" is defined as a select list of pieces, such as trigger mechanism or barrel. And "locks" is defined as things like trigger locks or a gun safe.
I have no problem with storing firearms when not in use if I have kids. That’s what I have now.
Firearms may not be stored loaded.
Why not? That’s stupid. If they’re locked up, well they’re locked up.
A common argument against this is that when an intruder gets into your home, you won't have time to access your firearms.
This blindingly overlooks (get it hahah!)
1. The time factor. You may have a second only to get a firearm.
2. Alertness. Running around to a safe gives away your position. The BG may already even be in the room.
3. Again, whats this bs with not being loaded? You’re going to load a shotgun shell by shell in the dark?
For the record, I know from one of my SNCOs that when we invaded Grenada there were more then a few guys who refused to go down with a body full of 5.56, and that similar things have happened in the sand box. Albeit the former was mostly thanks to Special K, but it does happen.
Frazzled wrote: No, you’re somehow expecting them to be more experienced and practiced than trained NY police officers. That’s a pretty damn tall order for your average Joe.
One of the common posts I've seen around dakka about how gun using citizens put in more time at the range and are better shots than most policemen who, apparently, only do the minimum shooting possible to remain qualified (but hey, at least they are qualified! ). Apparently this is why you all need guns.
So, which is it? Are police unable to hit a barn from the inside while civillians are much better shots, or are citizens going to spray and pray their way through their much needed 40 round extended magazine?
Or is it perhaps that most people exist somewhere in between the two contradictory extremes pro-gun posters seem to think they somehow fall into simultaneously?
Frazzled wrote: No, you’re somehow expecting them to be more experienced and practiced than trained NY police officers. That’s a pretty damn tall order for your average Joe.
One of the common posts I've seen around dakka about how gun using citizens put in more time at the range and are better shots than most policemen who, apparently, only do the minimum shooting possible to remain qualified (but hey, at least they are qualified! ). Apparently this is why you all need guns.
So, which is it? Are police unable to hit a barn from the inside while civillians are much better shots, or are citizens going to spray and pray their way through their much needed 40 round extended magazine?
Or is it perhaps that most people exist somewhere in between the two contradictory extremes pro-gun posters seem to think they somehow fall into simultaneously?
Frazzled wrote: No, you’re somehow expecting them to be more experienced and practiced than trained NY police officers. That’s a pretty damn tall order for your average Joe.
One of the common posts I've seen around dakka about how gun using citizens put in more time at the range and are better shots than most policemen who, apparently, only do the minimum shooting possible to remain qualified (but hey, at least they are qualified! ). Apparently this is why you all need guns.
So, which is it? Are police unable to hit a barn from the inside while civillians are much better shots, or are citizens going to spray and pray their way through their much needed 40 round extended magazine?
Or is it perhaps that most people exist somewhere in between the two contradictory extremes pro-gun posters seem to think they somehow fall into simultaneously?
Its not either or, and to make it such is sophistry. Using NY statistics we're saying trained shooters - at close range - require 3-4 shots to hit and 3-4 shots to stop one target. Thats 16 shots boys and girls for one person. Unless you have the resources and training you are not going to be to that level. Many shooters worth their spit are, but thats a minority. Saying just use ten shots from a bigger round have not shot a bigger round, and frankly aren't women with further limitations (on average).
People in Japan and the UK have terrible problems with car drivers equipped with steel belt low profile radials and titanium exhausts. It is the cause of many an un-necessary road death.
Kilkrazy wrote: People in Japan and the UK have terrible problems with car drivers equipped with steel belt low profile radials and titanium exhausts. It is the cause of many an un-necessary road death.
So we are arguing that we need high capacity magazines because we are bad shots and need to be able to send 12 shots into whatever happens to be around our target (walls, animals, bystanders, kids) so that we can hit them 4 times?
Kilkrazy wrote:People in Japan and the UK have terrible problems with car drivers equipped with steel belt low profile radials and titanium exhausts. It is the cause of many an un-necessary road death.
A few days ago, Vancouver saw its first homicide of the year.
Kilkrazy wrote:People in Japan and the UK have terrible problems with car drivers equipped with steel belt low profile radials and titanium exhausts. It is the cause of many an un-necessary road death.
A few days ago, Vancouver saw its first homicide of the year.
The guy was killed with a sword.
I thought the biggest killers were the cyborg Mooses (Meeses?).
Thank you for exemplifying precisely what I'm talking about.
I suggest going back and reading your own posts. You spent quite a bit of time questioning why anyone would possibly need more than ten rounds.
I provided examples, and now you're writing drek like this:
You're incapable of holding a discussion without reducing things to polarized strawmen, aren't you? Have you honestly never noticed that I have never once made a statement to the effet of "done in one"? I simply question the need for excessive magazine sizes, as I consider the fear that "I may be beset upon by a small posse of determined attackers" to be an unreasonable -to the point of mental ilness- fear.
I just showed you multiple examples involving only one attacker, after you scoffed at the notion someone could possibly survive and continue to fight through being shot more than a couple times. Please stop being disingenuous if you want to continue this discussion.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: So we are arguing that we need high capacity magazines because we are bad shots and need to be able to send 12 shots into whatever happens to be around our target (walls, animals, bystanders, kids) so that we can hit them 4 times?
No, I'm arguing for standard capacity magazines, for a lot of reasons. People are demanding evidence, and then ignoring it when it doesn't fit their preconceived notion of what they think should happen based entirely on watching TV.
I was just replying to the post that Frazzled made.
What would you consider a standard capacity magazine? I know that for my LCP 6 would be a "standard" capacity, but it's a pocket gun so that is understandable. I would think that 17 or 19 would easily be a standard magazine for different models of Glocks as an example. Having a hard number and saying that "x is a high capacity mag" would ignore that there are different guns for different reasons.
d-usa wrote: I was just replying to the post that Frazzled made.
What would you consider a standard capacity magazine? I know that for my LCP 6 would be a "standard" capacity, but it's a pocket gun so that is understandable. I would think that 17 or 19 would easily be a standard magazine for different models of Glocks as an example. Having a hard number and saying that "x is a high capacity mag" would ignore that there are different guns for different reasons.
Standard capacity is whatever the gun was designed around. For a Glock 17, it's a 17-round mag. For the HK P30, it's a 15-rounder.
d-usa wrote: I was just replying to the post that Frazzled made.
What would you consider a standard capacity magazine? I know that for my LCP 6 would be a "standard" capacity, but it's a pocket gun so that is understandable. I would think that 17 or 19 would easily be a standard magazine for different models of Glocks as an example. Having a hard number and saying that "x is a high capacity mag" would ignore that there are different guns for different reasons.
Standard capacity is whatever the gun was designed around. For a Glock 17, it's a 17-round mag. For the HK P30, it's a 15-rounder.
So would you consider any magazine that extends past the grip "high capacity"? Or would you use a different definition?
d-usa wrote: So would you consider any magazine that extends past the grip "high capacity"? Or would you use a different definition?
I would say "high capacity" magazines don't exist for most firearms. I would consider them to be things like 33-round Glock mags (or the absurd 50-round Glock drum), AR drum mags, etc.
Could someone please clarify for me... When someone has a gun for 'defence', what does that actually mean? For the ordinary family man (I.e. none police/security) what exactly are you defending against?
I mean here if you live in a gakky neighbourhood, or you are worried about home invasion, you just get bars on your windows. Which to me sounds much more secure than sleeping shifts next to the gun incase someone sneaks in. What good is owning a gun if the criminals already have the drop on you? It seems to me that for most situations... mugging, armed robbery, being woken up by rapists etc... The criminals will already have the drop on you, so you won't be able to get to your gun anyway. Is it really that useful?
Smacks wrote: Could someone please clarify for me... When someone has a gun for 'defence', what does that actually mean? For the ordinary family man (I.e. none police/security) what exactly are you defending against?
I mean here if you live in a gakky neighbourhood, or you are worried about home invasion, you just get bars on your windows. Which to me sounds much more secure than sleeping shifts next to the gun incase someone sneaks in. What good is owning a gun if the criminals already have the drop on you? It seems to me that for most situations... mugging, armed robbery, being woken up by rapists etc... The criminals will already have the drop on you, so you won't be able to get to your gun anyway. Is it really that useful?
Home intruders: Usually make noise when they break in, so there will be notice. I have seen too many people burn to death in houses that had bars in windows to ever consider that. If you have no weapon to defend yourself, you will never be able to defend yourself. If you have a weapon there might be a chance to defend yourself.
Muggers, armed robbery, etc: A gun will be almost useless unless you have situational awareness. Know what is going on around you at all times. Situational awareness often lets you avoid a situation where you would have to pull a gun to begin with and give you enough notice to be able to defend yourself. And having a gun doesn't always mean you have to use it. I can imagine that there are situations where it might just be safer to hand over a wallet than trying to defend yourself. Personally for me, the gun is to protect me and not the property. (Kind of related: I am a fan of carrying a "stunt wallet").
d-usa wrote: Muggers, armed robbery, etc: A gun will be almost useless unless you have situational awareness.
I don't agree with that, though I do agree that situational awareness is a damn good idea.
It's not a all difficult to hop onto even YouTube and find plenty of videos of armed robbers completely losing their gak when they encounter armed resistance. Even where someone "has the drop" on an armed citizen, they most often don't know the citizen is armed, and certainly don't expect a fight. A lot of the time, the result of getting one is fleeing, surrendering, or dying.
d-usa wrote: Muggers, armed robbery, etc: A gun will be almost useless unless you have situational awareness.
I don't agree with that, though I do agree that situational awareness is a damn good idea.
It's not a all difficult to hop onto even YouTube and find plenty of videos of armed robbers completely losing their gak when they encounter armed resistance. Even where someone "has the drop" on an armed citizen, they most often don't know the citizen is armed, and certainly don't expect a fight. A lot of the time, the result of getting one is fleeing, surrendering, or dying.
I was mostly thinking about scenarios where somebody has a knife and can easily stab you before you ever pull out a gun, or a situation where somebody already has hands on you before you know what is going on. I admit that I was probably a bit too "black/white" with that statement.
d-usa wrote: Home intruders: Usually make noise when they break in, so there will be notice. I have seen too many people burn to death in houses that had bars in windows to ever consider that. If you have no weapon to defend yourself, you will never be able to defend yourself. If you have a weapon there might be a chance to defend yourself.
I can see how some bars could hinder escape from a burning building, but I don't think they need to. They are also not the only way to secure a house. Personally I would rather be safe in a secure building with the criminals outside, and waiting for the police to turn up. Than have the criminals inside and have to shoot it out with them myself in my underwear.
Seaward wrote: It's not a all difficult to hop onto even YouTube and find plenty of videos of armed robbers completely losing their gak when they encounter armed resistance. Even where someone "has the drop" on an armed citizen, they most often don't know the citizen is armed, and certainly don't expect a fight. A lot of the time, the result of getting one is fleeing, surrendering, or dying.
On the flip side there are probably just as many shop keepers who were gunned down when they escalated things by going for a weapon. Many armed robbers carry weapons for intimidation with no intention of using them. Escalating the situation probably isn't sensible (edit: in the case where someone has the drop on you)... Even if some people get away with it and look like heroes on youtube.
Smacks wrote: On the flip side there are probably just as many shop keepers who were gunned down when they escalated things by going for a weapon. Many armed robbers carry weapons for intimidation with no intention of using them. Escalating the situation probably isn't sensible (edit: in the case where someone has the drop on you)... Even if some people get away with it and look like heroes on youtube.
Personally speaking, if someone's holding a gun on me, I'm not going to put my faith in their benevolent intentions.
Smacks wrote: On the flip side there are probably just as many shop keepers who were gunned down when they escalated things by going for a weapon. Many armed robbers carry weapons for intimidation with no intention of using them. Escalating the situation probably isn't sensible (edit: in the case where someone has the drop on you)... Even if some people get away with it and look like heroes on youtube.
Personally speaking, if someone's holding a gun on me, I'm not going to put my faith in their benevolent intentions.
If someone has a gun on you then your options might be somewhat limited though. if you have a 90% chance of getting shot, while making a mad dash for your shotgun, versus an unknown chance of getting shot if you wait and see... it's kind of a tough call.
Smacks wrote: If someone has a gun on you then your options might be somewhat limited though. if you have a 90% chance of getting shot, while making a mad dash for your shotgun, versus an unknown chance of getting shot if you wait and see... it's kind of a tough call.
I think you'd be surprised how fast you can draw from concealment and get three shots on target when you practice.
Seaward wrote:
Personally speaking, if someone's holding a gun on me, I'm not going to put my faith in their benevolent intentions.
Seaward wrote:
I think you'd be surprised how fast you can draw from concealment and get three shots on target when you practice.
Whatever you say, Wild Bill.
It can be fairly fast, also keep in mind that if somebody is trying to rob you they will expect you to get your wallet. So the slow movement into a pocket to "get your wallet" will be expected and they would not react to that part of the draw. The only unexpected draw is from pocket to shooting position.
Seaward wrote: I think you'd be surprised how fast you can draw from concealment and get three shots on target when you practice.
Now hold on.. I was primarily talking about non police/security personnel owning a weapon for home defence, and how useful it really is. I did mention armed robbery which I concede does imply business defence. But now you are talking about concealed weapons. I'm not an expert on this, and I'm sure the rules vary from state to state... but I thought people who were licenced to carry concealed weapons usually had to have a reason (dangerous job etc...). I think that falls outside the boundaries of someone who just wants a gun for personal defence, who may not even be permitted to carry it on the street.
Smacks wrote: Now hold on.. I was primarily talking about non police/security personnel owning a weapon for home defence, and how useful it really is. I did mention armed robbery which I concede does imply business defence. But now you are talking about concealed weapons. I'm not an expert on this, and I'm sure the rules vary from state to state... but I thought people who were licenced to carry concealed weapons usually had to have a reason (dangerous job etc...). I think that falls outside the boundaries of someone who just wants a gun for personal defence, who may not even be permitted to carry it on the street.
No. In fact, the last holdout state that refused to issue concealed carry permits to average citizens - Illinois - has recently been forced by court order to come up with concealed carry legislation. That makes all 50 states where a citizen has the right to carry a firearm concealed if he or she so chooses.
Seaward wrote: No. In fact, the last holdout state that refused to issue concealed carry permits to average citizens - Illinois - has recently been forced by court order to come up with concealed carry legislation. That makes all 50 states where a citizen has the right to carry a firearm concealed if he or she so chooses.
Okay. I stand corrected then.
So anyone can pull a gun on you at any time? That's the scariest thing I've ever heard!
Seaward wrote: No. In fact, the last holdout state that refused to issue concealed carry permits to average citizens - Illinois - has recently been forced by court order to come up with concealed carry legislation. That makes all 50 states where a citizen has the right to carry a firearm concealed if he or she so chooses.
Okay. I stand corrected then.
So anyone can pull a gun on you at any time? That's the scariest thing I've ever heard!
You wear a seatbelt when you drive so that you don't die in a crash? So a car can pull out in front of you at any time and kill you? Driving is the scariest thing I've ever heard!
The thing about the magazine capacity is that it is a red herring for both sides of the argument.
The key problem is that so many gun woundings are done with pistols. It doesn't matter much the magazine capacity. If we want to reduce gun woundings, we need to find a way to reduce pistol use per se.
Fewer bullets might in some cases avoid more woundings, but it might result in more cases where an attacker was successful because he was not stopped by only six, or 10 hits.
Concentrating on this narrow aspect of the debate avoids the core matter.
d-usa wrote: You wear a seatbelt when you drive so that you don't die in a crash? So a car can pull out in front of you at any time and kill you? Driving is the scariest thing I've ever heard!
I'm not really used to everyday people I meet in the street, or in shops or on trains having absolute power over life and death. How are you supposed to have argument or a fight with someone with the constant threat of being shot looming all the time?
I agree that cars are dangerous, but they also serve an important transport purpose. It would be better if they drove themselves, humans are clearly the weak link in the decision making process. Edit: Which is the main reason I worry about letting them have guns.
Smacks wrote: I'm not really used to everyday people I meet in the street, or in shops or on trains having absolute power over life and death. How are you supposed to have argument or a fight with someone with the constant threat of being shot looming all the time?
This argument comes up from our friends in the Commonwealth so often that I'm forced to conclude the only thing stopping you guys from constantly killing each other over petty arguments is the lack of readily available weaponry.
Smacks wrote: I'm not really used to everyday people I meet in the street, or in shops or on trains having absolute power over life and death. How are you supposed to have argument or a fight with someone with the constant threat of being shot looming all the time?
This argument comes up from our friends in the Commonwealth so often that I'm forced to conclude the only thing stopping you guys from constantly killing each other over petty arguments is the lack of readily available weaponry.
Given the number of readily available weapons in America and the large number of gun related deaths compared to here. I'm forced to conclude you are right.
Smacks wrote: I'm not really used to everyday people I meet in the street, or in shops or on trains having absolute power over life and death. How are you supposed to have argument or a fight with someone with the constant threat of being shot looming all the time?
This argument comes up from our friends in the Commonwealth so often that I'm forced to conclude the only thing stopping you guys from constantly killing each other over petty arguments is the lack of readily available weaponry.
I concur. I carry every day, I doubt any one around me has a clue I have a weapon on me. I have arguments just the same as any one else... but why would I shoot them if I'm just explaining they're an idiot? I'd rather avoid making a complete ass of myself and getting into a fist fight but you know, I suppose if that's just the cultural thing for the English, go to the pub have a pint, chat up a girl, buy her a strongbow, punch someone for the hell of it, you do what you do.
I personally don't buy the "escalation" theory by and large, because with the sheer amount of firearms in American hands, the population of this country would at least be reduced by half by this point.
It's also worth noting that every time you drive a car you're taking the absolute power of life or death into your hands... or clench your firsts, or pick up a bat (cricket, baseball, take your pick), hammers, handle any form of sharp object etc. We're remarkably fragile creatures. Take some basic medical classes, it's surprising. Eight pounds of pressure to snap a human neck, get a cut in the right extremely shallow place and you bleed out in second and so forth. So I suppose the real question for the commonwealth side of this particular argument, if the power of life and death over others is such a massive deal, why are you constantly terrified of the world around you, and have you considered a gerbil for your national mascot instead of a bulldog along with some downers to relax you?
Smacks wrote: I'm not really used to everyday people I meet in the street, or in shops or on trains having absolute power over life and death. How are you supposed to have argument or a fight with someone with the constant threat of being shot looming all the time?
This argument comes up from our friends in the Commonwealth so often that I'm forced to conclude the only thing stopping you guys from constantly killing each other over petty arguments is the lack of readily available weaponry.
I concur. I carry every day, I doubt any one around me has a clue I have a weapon on me. I have arguments just the same as any one else... but why would I shoot them if I'm just explaining they're an idiot? I'd rather avoid making a complete ass of myself and getting into a fist fight but you know, I suppose if that's just the cultural thing for the English, go to the pub have a pint, chat up a girl, buy her a strongbow, punch someone for the hell of it, you do what you do.
I personally don't buy the "escalation" theory by and large, because with the sheer amount of firearms in American hands, the population of this country would at least be reduced by half by this point.
It's also worth noting that every time you drive a car you're taking the absolute power of life or death into your hands... or clench your firsts, or pick up a bat (cricket, baseball, take your pick), hammers, handle any form of sharp object etc. We're remarkably fragile creatures. Take some basic medical classes, it's surprising. Eight pounds of pressure to snap a human neck, get a cut in the right extremely shallow place and you bleed out in second and so forth. So I suppose the real question for the commonwealth side of this particular argument, if the power of life and death over others is such a massive deal, why are you constantly terrified of the world around you, and have you considered a gerbil for your national mascot instead of a bulldog along with some downers to relax you?
If it's that easy to defend oneself, why do you need guns?
KalashnikovMarine wrote: It's also worth noting that every time you drive a car you're taking the absolute power of life or death into your hands... or clench your firsts, or pick up a bat (cricket, baseball, take your pick), hammers, handle any form of sharp object etc.
Those things don't represent absolute power. A person has a chance of being able to defend or flee from any of the weapons you mention. (Edit: also you are not permitted to carry hammers or knifes for defence here either) And this drawing parallels with cars is a nonsense fallacy. Cars can kill and injure people, as can many things, but it is not their intended purpose. In fact the opposite, cars (and even roads) are designed to try and keep people safe. I would guess that well over 99% of driving related injuries and fatalities are accidents. That is pretty key.
Guns are weapons, designed to kill and injure. That is their purpose. And they are really good at it. Then we have statements like these... "
Seaward wrote: I think you'd be surprised how fast you can draw from concealment and get three shots on target when you practice.
I'm sure you would be surprised if you just got shot 3 times. Hope you deserved it.
So I suppose the real question for the commonwealth side of this particular argument, if the power of life and death over others is such a massive deal, why are you constantly terrified of the world around you, and have you considered a gerbil for your national mascot instead of a bulldog along with some downers to relax you?
That isn't really the real question at all. It just sounds like ad hominem. People from the commonwealth threaten your ideas so you call them sissy. Why even go there? If anyone lives in fear it's the guy who is too afraid to step outside without a carrying a gun.
Smacks wrote: Guns are weapons, designed to kill and injure. That is their purpose. And they are really good at it.
Yes, and there are 300 million of them in this country. Simply declaring them to be icky does not magically make them disappear. Protesting that you do not believe in firearm violence is a pretty low percentage shot in terms of dissuading an armed attacker.
Then we have statements like these... "
Seaward wrote: I think you'd be surprised how fast you can draw from concealment and get three shots on target when you practice.
Smacks wrote: I'm not really used to everyday people I meet in the street, or in shops or on trains having absolute power over life and death. How are you supposed to have argument or a fight with someone with the constant threat of being shot looming all the time?
This argument comes up from our friends in the Commonwealth so often that I'm forced to conclude the only thing stopping you guys from constantly killing each other over petty arguments is the lack of readily available weaponry.
I concur. I carry every day, I doubt any one around me has a clue I have a weapon on me. I have arguments just the same as any one else... but why would I shoot them if I'm just explaining they're an idiot? I'd rather avoid making a complete ass of myself and getting into a fist fight but you know, I suppose if that's just the cultural thing for the English, go to the pub have a pint, chat up a girl, buy her a strongbow, punch someone for the hell of it, you do what you do.
I personally don't buy the "escalation" theory by and large, because with the sheer amount of firearms in American hands, the population of this country would at least be reduced by half by this point.
It's also worth noting that every time you drive a car you're taking the absolute power of life or death into your hands... or clench your firsts, or pick up a bat (cricket, baseball, take your pick), hammers, handle any form of sharp object etc. We're remarkably fragile creatures. Take some basic medical classes, it's surprising. Eight pounds of pressure to snap a human neck, get a cut in the right extremely shallow place and you bleed out in second and so forth. So I suppose the real question for the commonwealth side of this particular argument, if the power of life and death over others is such a massive deal, why are you constantly terrified of the world around you, and have you considered a gerbil for your national mascot instead of a bulldog along with some downers to relax you?
If it's that easy to defend oneself, why do you need guns?
Me personally? It's the great equalizer. Unless you're blind or have terrible hand tremors any one can become skilled with a firearm and successfully defend themselves. It completely divorces the old rule of the world, that innate physical strength would rule the day. With a gun in hand any one from me, to a 100lb woman, to an eleven year old, to my white haired Irish granny can successfully defend themselves against the thug du jour. No matter how big, or mean or strong he might be. 100% level playing field. It also multiplies my combat power against multiple aggressors where before all but the most skilled or most physically able could fight off multiple people.
I'd say Kendra St. Clair would agree with me:
Kendra St. Clair, 12, was at home alone in Oklahoma, when loud banging began on the door to her family's home. Soon, the glass shattered and an intruder had entered.
"I was scared and I didn't know what to do next," Kendra told ABC News.
Petrified, she called her mom Debra.
"I said Kendra get the gun and go get in my closet now. And call 911."
The young 6th grader followed her mom's orders to the tee.
The 911 tapes tell the story as it unfolded.
Kendra: "I'm at my house. I'm in my closet. And I ran away from (inaudible) someone's trying to get into my house and I do not know who they are." Dispatcher: "Ok I have a deputy en route, I want you to stay on the phone with me. Ok?" Kendra: "Ok. Please. I think they are in the house."
Kendra had taken shelter in a closet, clutching her mother's .40 caliber glock gun while she listened to the intruder make his way around her home.
Kendra: "Please help me. Please." Dispatcher: "Alright, alright. I understand. Do you still have your mom's gun there?" Kendra: "Yes I do. I have it in my hand."
Her fear intensified to sheer terror, when she saw the knob of the closet door beginning to turn.
At that point, that for the first time in her life, Kendra fired a gun.
Police said the bullet traveled straight through the closet door and struck 32-year-old Stacey Jones in the shoulder, scaring him out of the house.
They arrested him a few blocks away and charged Jones with first degree burglary.
"When I had the gun, I didn't think I was actually going to have to shoot somebody," the 6th grader recalled. "I think it's going to change me a whole lot, knowing that I can hold my head up high and nothing can hurt me anymore."
Or this young man from Texas who took up his father's rifle to defend his sister and the family home from a pair of burglars.
The teenage son of a Harris County Precinct 1 deputy shot a home intruder Tuesday afternoon in the 2600 block of Royal Place in northwest Harris County, deputies said.
The 15-year-old boy and his 12-year-old sister had been home alone in the Mount Royal Village subdivision when around 2:30 p.m. a pair of burglars tried the front and back doors, then broke a back window.
The teenager grabbed his father's assault rifle and knew what to do with it.
Heart strings because these are stories about kids? Sure I'll accept that criticism.
Mother of two defending her kids? http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/mother-of-two-surprises-burglar-with-five-gunshots/nTnGR/ we've seen this one before but it still gets the point across. These situations and many hundreds of thousands of others for hundreds of thousands of innocent citizens, male, female, young and old, would not have ended well for any one but the scum bags had they been disarmed.
Smacks wrote: Guns are weapons, designed to kill and injure. That is their purpose. And they are really good at it.
Yes, and there are 300 million of them in this country. Simply declaring them to be icky does not magically make them disappear. Protesting that you do not believe in firearm violence is a pretty low percentage shot in terms of dissuading an armed attacker.
I agree. It could take centuries for the US to get guns under control. But I don't know if "so lets not bother" is constructive either.
Then we have statements like these...
Seaward wrote: I think you'd be surprised how fast you can draw from concealment and get three shots on target when you practice.
What's wrong with that statement?
Nothing at all, I wasn't criticising you. It just demonstrates the power of the weapon, and how quickly someone with poor judgement could take everything away from you. I'm not saying you guys have poor judgement. But you know there are idiots outs there... they're everywhere.
I think we have guns under pretty decent control right now.
That's demonstrably not true, otherwise this subject wouldn't be being debated. It does seems to me the problem is more to do with culture than proliferation of weapons, other countries have similar numbers of guns but don't have anywhere near the number of tragedies in schools, but if access to these weapons were restricted then there wouldn't be as many shootings. Perhaps the "pro-gun" lobby should start offering solutions to this problem rather than screeching THEY TRYIN TO TAKE OUR GUNS.
dæl wrote: That's demonstrably not true, otherwise this subject wouldn't be being debated. It does seems to me the problem is more to do with culture than proliferation of weapons, other countries have similar numbers of guns but don't have anywhere near the number of tragedies in schools, but if access to these weapons were restricted then there wouldn't be as many shootings. Perhaps the "pro-gun" lobby should start offering solutions to this problem rather than screeching THEY TRYIN TO TAKE OUR GUNS.
No. No one has anywhere near our number of guns. The next closest is Serbia, and they're very, very far behind.
The pro-gun lobby has offered solutions. None of them satisfy the misguided urges of the anti-gun lobby, so they will not be adopted. Aside from the ones proposed already by Democrats like Bill Clinton, that is, such as putting armed guards in schools.
dæl wrote: That's demonstrably not true, otherwise this subject wouldn't be being debated. It does seems to me the problem is more to do with culture than proliferation of weapons, other countries have similar numbers of guns but don't have anywhere near the number of tragedies in schools, but if access to these weapons were restricted then there wouldn't be as many shootings. Perhaps the "pro-gun" lobby should start offering solutions to this problem rather than screeching THEY TRYIN TO TAKE OUR GUNS.
No. No one has anywhere near our number of guns. The next closest is Serbia, and they're very, very far behind.
The pro-gun lobby has offered solutions. None of them satisfy the misguided urges of the anti-gun lobby, so they will not be adopted. Aside from the ones proposed already by Democrats like Bill Clinton, that is, such as putting armed guards in schools.
I was under the impression that Sweden and Switzerland had similar levels of guns per person, its seems not from a quick look at the facts. Switzerland had much higher rates as its population were a militia, but that seems to no longer be the case.
What solutions have been offered? Other than more guns in schools, because that will just move the issue elsewhere.
Interesting how guns are being villainized and many people here are saying to outlaw or heavily control them. Alcohol and drugs kill as many or more people, not even talking about traffic fatalities or murders because of them, and take as heavy an emotional toll on the lives they impact, yet people are all for them being legal and brag about how much they drink.
Why?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Some stats from the CDC:
Automatically Appended Next Post: Alcohol Use and Health
There are approximately 80,000 deaths attributable to excessive alcohol use each year in the United States.1 This makes excessive alcohol use the 3r d leading lifestyle-related cause of death for the nation.2 Excessive alcohol use is responsible for 2.3 million years of potential life lost (YPLL) annually, or an average of about 30 years of potential life lost for each death.1 In 2006, there were more than 1.2 million emergency room visits and 2.7 million physician office visits due to excessive drinking.3 The economic costs of excessive alcohol consumption in 2006 were estimated at $223.5 billion.3
Automatically Appended Next Post: Fire arm homicides:
Relapse wrote: Interesting how guns are being villainized and many people here are saying to outlaw or heavily control them. Alcohol and drugs kill as many or more people, not even talking about traffic fatalities or murders because of them, and take as heavy an emotional toll on the lives they impact, yet people are all for them being legal and brag about how much they drink.
Why?
Because alcohol and drugs bring people joy.
More properly, there are certain contributing factors to death that any given society will choose to accept, for any number of reasons. We (the US) accept drugs, alcohol, cars, cheeseburgers, and numerous other things. Most of us also accept guns but, being the liberal democracy that we are, debate persists.
Relapse wrote: Interesting how guns are being villainized and many people here are saying to outlaw or heavily control them. Alcohol and drugs kill as many or more people, not even talking about traffic fatalities or murders because of them, and take as heavy an emotional toll on the lives they impact, yet people are all for them being legal and brag about how much they drink.
Why?
You probably don't want to compare the joy of owning/firing a gun to the joy of smoking pot, or boozing. That would imply that guns alter one's state of mind.
You probably don't want to compare the joy of owning/firing a gun to the joy of smoking pot, or boozing. That would imply that guns alter one's state of mind.
Different joys for different boys.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Seriously, though, 80,000 deaths compared to 11,000?
Automatically Appended Next Post: There is also the millions of visits to doctors and ER's due to alcohol use.
Kilkrazy wrote: Better ban hospitals too. There are suspiciously high numbers of deaths in them.
It is complete hypocrisy to complain about road deaths and ignore hospital deaths.
Talk as ridiculously as you wish, but alcohol is not neccesary. People use it for pleasure and a lot die or are permanently impaired because of it.
I just want to know why people don't have the level of anger against something that is proven far more dangerous than guns.
I think Dogma pretty well has the right of it, but it just seems strange to me. Kind of like getting upset over a campfire when the house is burning down behind you.
Ok, Im not a real Staunch proponent of gun control.
But you cannot compare drugs and Alchohol to Guns. ITs like comparing Elvis too Humphrey Bogart.
1: Guns are made for killing. That is what they are for. Drugs are made for people to get high.
2: When someone takes a drugs, they are, for the most part, physically harming themselves. When someone has a gun, and intent on using it in a harmful way, they are harming mostly others.
Talk as ridiculously as you wish, but alcohol is not neccesary. People use it for pleasure and a lot die or are permanently impaired because of it.
The same is true of sexual intercourse.
Actually it is for the survival of the species.
No some people do it purely for pleasure.
We could go round with you putting up straw men but the fact remains people are against guns all out of proportion to the damage they do compaired to alcohol and illegal drugs.
I didn't even bother looking up illegal drugs because 80,000 deaths from alcohol alone dwarfs the number of people killed by guns. Yet people don't think twice about drinking or giving drinks to others but get all bent out of shape because 11, 000 people were killed because of guns.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hotsauceman1 wrote: Ok, Im not a real Staunch proponent of gun control.
But you cannot compare drugs and Alchohol to Guns. ITs like comparing Elvis too Humphrey Bogart.
1: Guns are made for killing. That is what they are for. Drugs are made for people to get high.
2: When someone takes a drugs, they are, for the most part, physically harming themselves. When someone has a gun, and intent on using it in a harmful way, they are harming mostly others.
Actually, over 11,000 people were killed because of impaired drivers, not even going into others were killed because someone was drunk or high. When someone gets drunk or uses drugs they have the potential to harm others, not to mention the Hell Mexico has turned into with tens of tnousands of deaths a year because of the drug trade.
The two are very much comparable
Talk as ridiculously as you wish, but alcohol is not neccesary. People use it for pleasure and a lot die or are permanently impaired because of it.
The same is true of sexual intercourse.
Actually it is for the survival of the species.
No some people do it purely for pleasure.
We could go round with you putting up straw men but the fact remains people are against guns all out of proportion to the damage they do compaired to alcohol and illegal drugs.
I didn't even bother looking up illegal drugs because 80,000 deaths from alcohol alone dwarfs the number of people killed by guns. Yet people don't think twice about drinking or giving drinks to others but get all bent out of shape because 11, 000 people were killed because of guns.
Because drinking related deaths aren't really relevant to a discussion about gun crime plus the concern with US gun crime isn't the fact that it's the #1 killer in US it's the fact that there is significantly more gun related deaths in the US than any other high-income nation in the world.
Talk as ridiculously as you wish, but alcohol is not neccesary. People use it for pleasure and a lot die or are permanently impaired because of it.
The same is true of sexual intercourse.
Actually it is for the survival of the species.
No some people do it purely for pleasure.
We could go round with you putting up straw men but the fact remains people are against guns all out of proportion to the damage they do compaired to alcohol and illegal drugs.
I didn't even bother looking up illegal drugs because 80,000 deaths from alcohol alone dwarfs the number of people killed by guns. Yet people don't think twice about drinking or giving drinks to others but get all bent out of shape because 11, 000 people were killed because of guns.
Because drinking related deaths aren't really relevant to a discussion about gun crime plus the concern with US gun crime isn't the fact that it's the #1 killer in US it's the fact that there is significantly more gun related deaths in the US than any other high-income nation in the world.
The discussion on this thread, however, is why are people so upset about gun deaths and at the same willing to turn a blind eye to the far greater number of deaths, either to the users or others, caused by the desire to get high or drunk.
Actually, over 11,000 people were killed because of impaired drivers, not even going into others were killed because someone was drunk or high. When someone gets drunk or uses drugs they have the potential to harm others, not to mention the Hell Mexico has turned into with tens of tnousands of deaths a year because of the drug trade.
The two are very much comparable
Again, the difference being that guns are meant to kill or injure. The main uses of alcohol and drugs aren't.
And for the record, I don't drink and don't think that recreational drugs should be allowed.
Actually, over 11,000 people were killed because of impaired drivers, not even going into others were killed because someone was drunk or high. When someone gets drunk or uses drugs they have the potential to harm others, not to mention the Hell Mexico has turned into with tens of tnousands of deaths a year because of the drug trade.
The two are very much comparable
Again, the difference being that guns are meant to kill or injure. The main uses of alcohol and drugs aren't.
And for the record, I don't drink and don't think that recreational drugs should be allowed.
That says a bit right there. Something people use for recreational purposes, and I'll count drugs and alcohol together, is the cause of at least 5 times more deaths than something you say is meant to kill.
Kilkrazy wrote: Better ban hospitals too. There are suspiciously high numbers of deaths in them.
It is complete hypocrisy to complain about road deaths and ignore hospital deaths.
Talk as ridiculously as you wish, but alcohol is not neccesary. People use it for pleasure and a lot die or are permanently impaired because of it.
Absolutely false, alcohol have saved human populations from many diseases over the ages. If you ever doubt the quality of the water you are forced to drinking, a rather effective method of purifying it is to cut hard alcohol with it.
Kilkrazy wrote: Better ban hospitals too. There are suspiciously high numbers of deaths in them.
It is complete hypocrisy to complain about road deaths and ignore hospital deaths.
Talk as ridiculously as you wish, but alcohol is not neccesary. People use it for pleasure and a lot die or are permanently impaired because of it.
Absolutely false, alcohol have saved human populations from many diseases over the ages. If you ever doubt the quality of the water you are forced to drinking, a rather effective method of purifying it is to cut hard alcohol with it.
We are talking about inside the US during this century. I was wrong about 5 times the number of people killed because of drugs and alcohol compaired to the number of people killed by guns however. The difference is more like 8 times.
Actually, over 11,000 people were killed because of impaired drivers, not even going into others were killed because someone was drunk or high. When someone gets drunk or uses drugs they have the potential to harm others, not to mention the Hell Mexico has turned into with tens of tnousands of deaths a year because of the drug trade.
The two are very much comparable
Again, the difference being that guns are meant to kill or injure. The main uses of alcohol and drugs aren't.
And for the record, I don't drink and don't think that recreational drugs should be allowed.
That says a bit right there. Something people use for recreational purposes, and I'll count drugs and alcohol together, is the cause of at least 5 times more deaths than something you say is meant to kill.
The difference is that those deaths are usually accidents. More people die putting their socks on each year than are killed by sharks. But that just demonstrates the flaw in these kind of statistics. Are you going to tell me socks are more dangerous than sharks? They are not, they just happen to have about a billion times more contact with people. So freak sock related accident outnumber shark attack (which would probably be more frequent if sharks didn't have the advantage of being not where we are almost all of the time).
The same thing comes up with sport. More people die playing rugby and skiing than boxing. Again the intention is different, those deaths are accidents. Boxing related deaths are caused by injuries that are deliberately inflicted. There is an important difference.
Actually, over 11,000 people were killed because of impaired drivers, not even going into others were killed because someone was drunk or high. When someone gets drunk or uses drugs they have the potential to harm others, not to mention the Hell Mexico has turned into with tens of tnousands of deaths a year because of the drug trade.
The two are very much comparable
Again, the difference being that guns are meant to kill or injure. The main uses of alcohol and drugs aren't.
And for the record, I don't drink and don't think that recreational drugs should be allowed.
That says a bit right there. Something people use for recreational purposes, and I'll count drugs and alcohol together, is the cause of at least 5 times more deaths than something you say is meant to kill.
The difference is that those deaths are usually accidents. More people die putting their socks on each year than are killed by sharks. But that just demonstrates the flaw in these kind of statistics. Are you going to tell me socks are more dangerous than sharks? They are not, they just happen to have about a billion times more contact with people. So freak sock related accident outnumber shark attack (which would probably be more frequent if sharks didn't have the advantage of being not where we are almost all of the time).
The same thing comes up with sport. More people die playing rugby and skiing than boxing. Again the intention is different, those deaths are accidents. Boxing related deaths are caused by injuries that are deliberately inflicted. There is an important difference.
Just to remind you, the thread is about alcohol and drug related deaths in the US as compared to gun deaths. If over 80,000 people died due to putting on socks, I'd dare say we'd all be concerned. Accidental or not, the education and statistics are out there to show it's more dangerous to drink or use drugs than to own a gun, yet people seem determined to defend drinking and drugs while condemming gun ownership.
Kilkrazy wrote:It isn't about defence. It is about cultural beliefs and attitudes.
Yes. And I could easily accept this and be done with it all, if the hardcore guns-and-paranoia side (I won't say pro-gun, because I am pro-gun) would just give up their rhetoric and admit that they are basically just worshippers of Zardoz.
Kilkrazy wrote:It isn't about defence. It is about cultural beliefs and attitudes.
Yes. And I could easily accept this and be done with it all, if the hardcore guns-and-paranoia side (I won't say pro-gun, because I am pro-gun) would just give up their rhetoric and admit that they are basically just worshippers of Zardoz.
Would that mean they'd have to dress like Sean Connery did in the movie?
Relapse wrote: Accidental or not, the education and statistics are out there to show it's more dangerous to drink or use drugs than to own a gun
But it doesn't show that it is more dangerous, it only shows that there are more deaths. But this is like comparing apples with oranges. Pretty much everything is more dangerous than owning a gun, if the gun is locked up tight in a safe the whole time. Even putting socks on.
What we are concerned about are those other times when guns are in peoples hands and being fired at other people. At those times guns become an order of magnitude more dangerous.
We are talking about inside the US during this century. I was wrong about 5 times the number of people killed because of drugs and alcohol compaired to the number of people killed by guns however. The difference is more like 8 times.
And so? You still believe that media attention is predicated by a rational will to protect the people?
The shark example is a great one. Thousands die every year killed by house dogs, about a dozen by sharks. Which one is the bigger center of attention... ?
Relapse wrote: Accidental or not, the education and statistics are out there to show it's more dangerous to drink or use drugs than to own a gun
But it doesn't show that it is more dangerous, it only shows that there are more deaths. But this is like comparing apples with oranges. Pretty much everything is more dangerous than owning a gun, if the gun is locked up tight in a safe the whole time. Even putting socks on.
What we are concerned about is those other times when guns are in peoples hands and being fired at other people. At those times guns become an order of magnitude more dangerous.
That statement is a tad illogical, saying that something that results in at least 8 times the deaths as something else, along with the 3,000,000 plus ER and doctor visits it causes is not more dangerous.
Yes. And I could easily accept this and be done with it all, if the hardcore guns-and-paranoia side (I won't say pro-gun, because I am pro-gun) would just give up their rhetoric and admit that they are basically just worshippers of Zardoz.
The gun is good. The penis is evil. The penis shoots seeds, and makes new life to poison the Earth with a plague of men, as once it was, but the gun shoots death, and purifies the Earth of the filth of brutals. Go forth ... and kill!
We are talking about inside the US during this century. I was wrong about 5 times the number of people killed because of drugs and alcohol compaired to the number of people killed by guns however. The difference is more like 8 times.
And so? You still believe that media attention is predicated by a rational will to protect the people?
The shark example is a great one. Thousands die every year killed by house dogs, about a dozen by sharks. Which one is the bigger center of attention... ?
I think you might have a point there about sensationalism. The sad thing is people are falling for it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Relapse wrote: Interesting how guns are being villainized and many people here are saying to outlaw or heavily control them. Alcohol and drugs kill as many or more people, not even talking about traffic fatalities or murders because of them, and take as heavy an emotional toll on the lives they impact, yet people are all for them being legal and brag about how much they drink.
Why?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Some stats from the CDC:
Automatically Appended Next Post: Alcohol Use and Health
There are approximately 80,000 deaths attributable to excessive alcohol use each year in the United States.1 This makes excessive alcohol use the 3r d leading lifestyle-related cause of death for the nation.2 Excessive alcohol use is responsible for 2.3 million years of potential life lost (YPLL) annually, or an average of about 30 years of potential life lost for each death.1 In 2006, there were more than 1.2 million emergency room visits and 2.7 million physician office visits due to excessive drinking.3 The economic costs of excessive alcohol consumption in 2006 were estimated at $223.5 billion.3
Automatically Appended Next Post: Fire arm homicides:
That statement is a tad illogical, saying that something that results in at least 8 times the deaths as something else, along with the 3,000,000 plus ER and doctor visits it causes is not more dangerous.
I like how you quoted me, but apparently didn't even read what I wrote. Then when on to restate that there are more deaths, which is what I said. And then completely disregarded the whole point... Which was that more deaths is not the same as more dangerous.
Why not go the whole hog and take this bit out of context.
Smacks wrote: Pretty much everything is more dangerous than owning a gun, if the gun is locked up tight in a safe the whole time. Even putting socks on.
Then you could pretend you've won the thread.
Again I will restate. No one is concerned about guns locked up safe and never being used. People are concerned about when guns are being used to shoot other people (their intended purpose). At those times guns are almost certain to cause death or injury. They become infinitely more dangerous than pretty anything else you encounter in every day life.
We are talking about inside the US during this century. I was wrong about 5 times the number of people killed because of drugs and alcohol compaired to the number of people killed by guns however. The difference is more like 8 times.
And so? You still believe that media attention is predicated by a rational will to protect the people?
The shark example is a great one. Thousands die every year killed by house dogs, about a dozen by sharks. Which one is the bigger center of attention... ?
I think you might have a point there about sensationalism. The sad thing is people are falling for it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Relapse wrote: Interesting how guns are being villainized and many people here are saying to outlaw or heavily control them. Alcohol and drugs kill as many or more people, not even talking about traffic fatalities or murders because of them, and take as heavy an emotional toll on the lives they impact, yet people are all for them being legal and brag about how much they drink. Why?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Some stats from the CDC:
Automatically Appended Next Post: Alcohol Use and Health There are approximately 80,000 deaths attributable to excessive alcohol use each year in the United States.1 This makes excessive alcohol use the 3r d leading lifestyle-related cause of death for the nation.2 Excessive alcohol use is responsible for 2.3 million years of potential life lost (YPLL) annually, or an average of about 30 years of potential life lost for each death.1 In 2006, there were more than 1.2 million emergency room visits and 2.7 million physician office visits due to excessive drinking.3 The economic costs of excessive alcohol consumption in 2006 were estimated at $223.5 billion.3
Automatically Appended Next Post: Fire arm homicides:
Firearm homicides Number of deaths: 11,078 Deaths per 100,000 population: 3.6
Just to put the CDC stats back out so they don't get buried.
Now what would be relevant would be stats about alcohol-related deaths in a country of comparable size and of comparable culture as the US, but without any legislation surrounding the consumption or impairment. Sadly, that's not going to happen.
Kilkrazy wrote: Better ban hospitals too. There are suspiciously high numbers of deaths in them.
It is complete hypocrisy to complain about road deaths and ignore hospital deaths.
Talk as ridiculously as you wish, but alcohol is not neccesary. People use it for pleasure and a lot die or are permanently impaired because of it.
I just want to know why people don't have the level of anger against something that is proven far more dangerous than guns.
I think Dogma pretty well has the right of it, but it just seems strange to me. Kind of like getting upset over a campfire when the house is burning down behind you.
You haven't understood statistics.
To show that alcohol is as dangerous as guns you have to find that people are equally likely to have an injury from taking a drink or taking a bullet (or a ride in a car, if we want to include road transport.)
That statement is a tad illogical, saying that something that results in at least 8 times the deaths as something else, along with the 3,000,000 plus ER and doctor visits it causes is not more dangerous.
I like how you quoted me, but apparently didn't even read what I wrote. Then when on to restate that there are more deaths, which is what I said. And then completely disregarded the whole point... Which was that more deaths is not the same as more dangerous.
Why not go the whole hog and take this bit out of context.
Smacks wrote: Pretty much everything is more dangerous than owning a gun, if the gun is locked up tight in a safe the whole time. Even putting socks on.
Then you could pretend you've won the thread.
Again I will restate. No one is concerned about guns locked up safe and never being used. People are concerned about when guns are being used to shoot other people (their intended purpose). At those times guns are almost certain to cause death or injury. They become infinitely more dangerous than pretty anything else you encounter in every day life.
Again I restate that you are being illogical. No one worries about alcohol in a bottle on the shelf either, but when people drink to excess is when the nastiness starts far more often than from gun owners.
Kilkrazy wrote: Better ban hospitals too. There are suspiciously high numbers of deaths in them.
It is complete hypocrisy to complain about road deaths and ignore hospital deaths.
Talk as ridiculously as you wish, but alcohol is not neccesary. People use it for pleasure and a lot die or are permanently impaired because of it.
I just want to know why people don't have the level of anger against something that is proven far more dangerous than guns.
I think Dogma pretty well has the right of it, but it just seems strange to me. Kind of like getting upset over a campfire when the house is burning down behind you.
You haven't understood statistics.
To show that alcohol is as dangerous as guns you have to find that people are equally likely to have an injury from taking a drink or taking a bullet (or a ride in a car, if we want to include road transport.)
Bottom line is that there is currently far more damage and loss of life, and financial impact on this nation from alcohol consumed for recreational purposes than from guns crime, yet people still support the distillers and brewers. We don't have politicians leaning on banks that do business with distillers, for instance.
People use cars far more than they use guns. People drink, generally, more than they would use guns.
If people use a car for an hour a day and a gun for an hour a month at the range then you would expect there to be a corresponding ratio between the number of accidents/injuries/etc in the car as when using the gun if they were both equally (un)safe.
Similarly, alcohol is generally enjoyed by many people for maybe an hour a day (a beer or glass of wine with dinner for example) - the measurable effects of which can then last an additional hour or so (or longer depending on the strength and quantity of alcohol).
The problem here is that you are trying to compare something which many millions of people do for what could be many hours a day (driving/drinking) with something that a smaller number of people do for a much smaller amount of time.
Not only that, but you are trying to compare the number of people killed in total by everyone on the road/drinking with the number killed by guns, where the majority of the gun deaths are caused a) where guns are used deliberately to commit violence, or b) in suicides.
A fairer comparison would be to filter out car accidents, alcohol related deaths/hospitalisations and look only at deaths relating to when a car/alcohol is deliberately being used to commit violence, or in suicides. I think if you do, you will find that cars and alcohol are far "safer" than guns.
But as has been said multiple times, regardless of how you want to compare cars/alcohol and guns, there are increasing measures being put into place both through regulation and market pressure to make cars safer and reduce alcohol related injuries/deaths; people complained about being "forced" to wear a seat belt when it was first introduced, yet it saves thousands of lives every year for what? 10 seconds of your life each time you get into a car? I seem to remember "anti-belters" saying that seatbelts were not only ineffective at preventing injury but also actually dangerous!
The parallels between their arguments and those who are for less (or no more) "control" on guns is rather startling I feel
And as I have said previously in several threads; you can magically remove guns from the world today and very few people's lives will change negatively and many people's lives will vastly improve. Magically remove cars and the entire western world would collapse; cars are an essential part of modern life, without which it would be almost impossible for society to function.
Take away alcohol and it becomes another drug for the cartels/mobs to fund themselves with. In fact, I am pretty sure that is what happened last time it was banned in the USA
Relapse wrote: Again I restate that you are being illogical. No one worries about alcohol in a bottle on the shelf either, but when people drink to excess is when the nastiness starts far more often than from gun owners.
Gun owners are not immune to drinking too much and being nasty. Can't you see why that is an argument against guns be freely available to every irresponsible person who wants one?
Using alcohol or a car for its intended purpose is not guaranteed to cause death or injury either. Using a gun for its intended purpose is almost certain to cause death or injury. Compare them fairly and it obvious which one is more dangerous. I don't see soldiers handing out shots of tequila to kill the enemy.
Edit: What SilverMK2 said. He articulated the point much better. Exalt +1
Talk as ridiculously as you wish, but alcohol is not neccesary. People use it for pleasure and a lot die or are permanently impaired because of it.
The same is true of sexual intercourse.
Actually it is for the survival of the species.
Yes it is, but there is no particular reason that the species needs (because it can't independently need anything) to survive. Indeed, I doubt anyone engages in sexual intercourse thinking "Its for the species!". Survival of the species is a happy accident of sex being fun, and people finding their hideous spawn adorable.
We have sex for pleasure, we drink for pleasure, we toke for pleasure, and we shoot for pleasure. But I would wager that the first three are more pleasurable than the last, for most people.
SilverMK2 wrote: People use cars far more than they use guns. People drink, generally, more than they would use guns.
If people use a car for an hour a day and a gun for an hour a month at the range then you would expect there to be a corresponding ratio between the number of accidents/injuries/etc in the car as when using the gun if they were both equally (un)safe.
Similarly, alcohol is generally enjoyed by many people for maybe an hour a day (a beer or glass of wine with dinner for example) - the measurable effects of which can then last an additional hour or so (or longer depending on the strength and quantity of alcohol).
The problem here is that you are trying to compare something which many millions of people do for what could be many hours a day (driving/drinking) with something that a smaller number of people do for a much smaller amount of time.
Not only that, but you are trying to compare the number of people killed in total by everyone on the road/drinking with the number killed by guns, where the majority of the gun deaths are caused a) where guns are used deliberately to commit violence, or b) in suicides.
A fairer comparison would be to filter out car accidents, alcohol related deaths/hospitalisations and look only at deaths relating to when a car/alcohol is deliberately being used to commit violence, or in suicides. I think if you do, you will find that cars and alcohol are far "safer" than guns.
But as has been said multiple times, regardless of how you want to compare cars/alcohol and guns, there are increasing measures being put into place both through regulation and market pressure to make cars safer and reduce alcohol related injuries/deaths; people complained about being "forced" to wear a seat belt when it was first introduced, yet it saves thousands of lives every year for what? 10 seconds of your life each time you get into a car? I seem to remember "anti-belters" saying that seatbelts were not only ineffective at preventing injury but also actually dangerous!
The parallels between their arguments and those who are for less (or no more) "control" on guns is rather startling I feel
And as I have said previously in several threads; you can magically remove guns from the world today and very few people's lives will change negatively and many people's lives will vastly improve. Magically remove cars and the entire western world would collapse; cars are an essential part of modern life, without which it would be almost impossible for society to function.
Take away alcohol and it becomes another drug for the cartels/mobs to fund themselves with. In fact, I am pretty sure that is what happened last time it was banned in the USA
In the end, after everything is said and done after the numbers are manipulated, more people die from the consumption of alcohol and drugs, either through being murdered by their tens of thousands per year in drug wars, or dying by their tens of thousands per year though consumption or being killedby accident because of someone being drunk or stoned.
The reason for all this death and injury? Someone wanted to have a good time partying.
I see it that people who use drugs or continually drink to excess don't care about the consequences of their actions as long as those consequences don't fall on their shoulders immediatly if at all. 10-20 thousand Mexicans killed each year so the cartels can get their drugs to the users? No loss.
A few thousand people killed on the roads by drunk drivers? It'll never happen to them they think, so again, no loss.
These people not only don't care but do all they can to support these industries.
I agree that guns shouldn'tbe given out to just anyone, that's insane. I also agree with a lot of the gun control points, but as I said earlier, compared with the damage alcohol and drugs are doing a huge part of the gun control people are worried about a campfire while the house is burning down.
Kovnic and Dogma have it pretty well summed up in their posts, I think.
d-usa wrote: So if something kills less people they guns annually, we shouldn't worry about that either?
It's just that people seem very hung up on guns and the deaths they cause and don't give a damn that in pursuit of something for a party they are supporting industries that kill 100,000 people at least a year.
Yes. And I could easily accept this and be done with it all, if the hardcore guns-and-paranoia side (I won't say pro-gun, because I am pro-gun) would just give up their rhetoric and admit that they are basically just worshippers of Zardoz.
I'd want them to do that, too, if that were actually the case. But it isn't. It's simply a matter of knowing more. People who genuinely believe that no one will ever need more than two or three hits to center mass to stop a threat are always going to consider themselves "pro-gun" despite wanting strict, irrational limitations, because they simply don't know any better - and as you proved earlier in this thread, are unwilling to acknowledge when they're blatantly wrong on the issue.
d-usa wrote: So if something kills less people they guns annually, we shouldn't worry about that either?
It's just that people seem very hung up on guns and the deaths they cause and don't give a damn that in pursuit of something for a party they are supporting industries that kill 100,000 people at least a year.
d-usa wrote: So if something kills less people they guns annually, we shouldn't worry about that either?
It's just that people seem very hung up on guns and the deaths they cause and don't give a damn that in pursuit of something for a party they are supporting industries that kill 100,000 people at least a year.
This argument seems to be going round in circles.
Are you yourself anti-gun?
I don't own a gun, but I'm not anti gun. I do believe, as I said earlier, that not just anyone should have a gun, but am not in the camp of thinking outlawing guns is going to make the killing go away. All it will do is, like prohibition, cast law abiding people as criminals overnight.
Don't think I'm not bothered by people getting killed by guns, I'm very much so and have had my own face to face with gun violence.
A friend got shotgunned to death through a door, and a few other people I've known over the years have died because of guns. I've had a pistol pulled on me and fed it back to the guy that did, so it's not like I'm isolated from it.
On the other hand, I've had friends killed by drunk drivers and have seen far more people die because of drugs and alcohol than guns.
I am friends with quite a few Mexicans and have heard them damn drug users to Hell because of what goes on in their country. Talk to some Mexicans sometime if you want to see what they think of drug users who say drugs should be legal in order to stop the violence. They'll tell them fething thanks for nothing since it was their appetite for drugs that put the cartels in power in the first place.
I could go on, but that's the gist of it.
Yes. And I could easily accept this and be done with it all, if the hardcore guns-and-paranoia side (I won't say pro-gun, because I am pro-gun) would just give up their rhetoric and admit that they are basically just worshippers of Zardoz.
I'd want them to do that, too, if that were actually the case. But it isn't. It's simply a matter of knowing more. People who genuinely believe that no one will ever need more than two or three hits to center mass to stop a threat are always going to consider themselves "pro-gun" despite wanting strict, irrational limitations, because they simply don't know any better - and as you proved earlier in this thread, are unwilling to acknowledge when they're blatantly wrong on the issue.
But I'm not "blatantly wrong", as I have never once been in the camp that claims "done in one" is realistic. I honestly do not understand why you keep attributing me to that.
However, I am one of the myriad posters that routinely points out your errors- such as your use of anecdotal evidence. Of course there are reports of someone still living after being shot five or six times. However, if you insist on using anecdotal evidence and then claiming that it is necessary to prepare for such an event, then why do you half-ass it? I mean, why not look at the case of Yogendra Singh Yadav, who continued to fight in India's Kargil War despite being shot upwards of 15 times and having an arm blown off by a grenade. Yet, I don't see you making a claim that it is necessary to carry multiple grenades and more firepower than a LMG to protect yourself, despite there being an account of at least one person who endured that and continued his attack.
So yes, I'm sure there are reports of people from time to time needing more than 2-3 rounds to be neutralized. But there are also reports of people needing 15+ rounds and several explosive devices in order to be neutralized. So why do you arbitrarily claim that only in excess of the 2-3 rounds is needed, and then cite something anecdotal?
To further this case, I have difficulty understanding what a semi-auto AR-15 will accomplish for you in defense of your home against an intruder that a shotgun won't.
...that is, unless you actually admit that the "self defense" line is complete and utter BS and you're really just a gun fetishist. I could accept that, because it's at least honest.
d-usa wrote: So we are arguing that we need high capacity magazines because we are bad shots and need to be able to send 12 shots into whatever happens to be around our target (walls, animals, bystanders, kids) so that we can hit them 4 times?
If you want to actually stop a potential attacker/rapist/murderer yes. If you want to just piss them off do what the lefties who've never shot a gun in their lives are saying.
Kilkrazy wrote:People in Japan and the UK have terrible problems with car drivers equipped with steel belt low profile radials and titanium exhausts. It is the cause of many an un-necessary road death.
A few days ago, Vancouver saw its first homicide of the year.
The guy was killed with a sword.
I thought the biggest killers were the cyborg Mooses (Meeses?).
So as not to terrify the tourists, they classify that as death by natural causes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: I was just replying to the post that Frazzled made.
What would you consider a standard capacity magazine? I know that for my LCP 6 would be a "standard" capacity, but it's a pocket gun so that is understandable. I would think that 17 or 19 would easily be a standard magazine for different models of Glocks as an example. Having a hard number and saying that "x is a high capacity mag" would ignore that there are different guns for different reasons.
The magazine capacity the pistol was designed for. A full size 9mm will hold 15-19 rounds depending on manufacturer.
CC pieces are limited by weight and size as their primary purpose is concealment.
d-usa wrote: I was just replying to the post that Frazzled made.
What would you consider a standard capacity magazine? I know that for my LCP 6 would be a "standard" capacity, but it's a pocket gun so that is understandable. I would think that 17 or 19 would easily be a standard magazine for different models of Glocks as an example. Having a hard number and saying that "x is a high capacity mag" would ignore that there are different guns for different reasons.
Standard capacity is whatever the gun was designed around. For a Glock 17, it's a 17-round mag. For the HK P30, it's a 15-rounder.
So would you consider any magazine that extends past the grip "high capacity"? Or would you use a different definition?
The issue is a distraction as it doesn't matter in the real world in its supposed intent. Is a 10 round 9mm somehow less subject to being used by a BG than an 11 round 9mm? is a 10 round .45 somehow better than a 15 round 9mm? How are women/older people supposed to handle higher calibers? Does a BG give a gak?
d-usa wrote: So would you consider any magazine that extends past the grip "high capacity"? Or would you use a different definition?
I would say "high capacity" magazines don't exist for most firearms. I would consider them to be things like 33-round Glock mags (or the absurd 50-round Glock drum), AR drum mags, etc.
Hey, I just think that "we need more bullets because we are crappy shots and the majority of our bullets hit something else other than what we are aiming for" is probably a bad argument. Just saying...
I can see how some bars could hinder escape from a burning building, but I don't think they need to. They are also not the only way to secure a house. Personally I would rather be safe in a secure building with the criminals outside, and waiting for the police to turn up. Than have the criminals inside and have to shoot it out with them myself in my underwear.
One good kick on most doors and then they are in your house.
Seaward wrote: I think you'd be surprised how fast you can draw from concealment and get three shots on target when you practice.
Now hold on.. I was primarily talking about non police/security personnel owning a weapon for home defence, and how useful it really is. I did mention armed robbery which I concede does imply business defence. But now you are talking about concealed weapons. I'm not an expert on this, and I'm sure the rules vary from state to state... but I thought people who were licenced to carry concealed weapons usually had to have a reason (dangerous job etc...). I think that falls outside the boundaries of someone who just wants a gun for personal defence, who may not even be permitted to carry it on the street.
Seaward wrote: No. In fact, the last holdout state that refused to issue concealed carry permits to average citizens - Illinois - has recently been forced by court order to come up with concealed carry legislation. That makes all 50 states where a citizen has the right to carry a firearm concealed if he or she so chooses.
Okay. I stand corrected then.
So anyone can pull a gun on you at any time? That's the scariest thing I've ever heard!
Here's the essential problem. You think whether or not there is a law matters to whether the BG is going to have a gun?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
You wear a seatbelt when you drive so that you don't die in a crash? So a car can pull out in front of you at any time and kill you? Driving is the scariest thing I've ever heard!
Watching my boy drive on his own for the first is indeed one of the scariest things I've ever seen.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm not really used to everyday people I meet in the street, or in shops or on trains having absolute power over life and death. How are you supposed to have argument or a fight with someone with the constant threat of being shot looming all the time?
Smacks wrote: I'm not really used to everyday people I meet in the street, or in shops or on trains having absolute power over life and death. How are you supposed to have argument or a fight with someone with the constant threat of being shot looming all the time?
This argument comes up from our friends in the Commonwealth so often that I'm forced to conclude the only thing stopping you guys from constantly killing each other over petty arguments is the lack of readily available weaponry.
It does explain why they conquered the world. Someone gave them weaponry, a book on cuisine of the world, and a map. The rest is history.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Hey, I just think that "we need more bullets because we are crappy shots and the majority of our bullets hit something else other than what we are aiming for" is probably a bad argument. Just saying...
Its a real world argument for a real world issue. If you have a pistol for self defense, it should have thew capacity to actually be successful. The argument about having mandatory magazine limits has - ASVP BIDEN ACCIDENTALLY ADMITTED LAST WEEK- feth all to do in stopping mass killers.
I think magazine limits are dumb, at least for magazines that hold less bullets than the gun is designed for. I just wouldn't use the argument that I am more likely to hit a bystander than the bad guy to push against limits.
azazel the cat wrote: But I'm not "blatantly wrong", as I have never once been in the camp that claims "done in one" is realistic. I honestly do not understand why you keep attributing me to that.
However, I am one of the myriad posters that routinely points out your errors- such as your use of anecdotal evidence. Of course there are reports of someone still living after being shot five or six times. However, if you insist on using anecdotal evidence and then claiming that it is necessary to prepare for such an event, then why do you half-ass it? I mean, why not look at the case of Yogendra Singh Yadav, who continued to fight in India's Kargil War despite being shot upwards of 15 times and having an arm blown off by a grenade. Yet, I don't see you making a claim that it is necessary to carry multiple grenades and more firepower than a LMG to protect yourself, despite there being an account of at least one person who endured that and continued his attack.
You see me making the claim that if I ever have to defend myself, I want as much firepower as possible. Funnily enough, most people would agree.
So yes, I'm sure there are reports of people from time to time needing more than 2-3 rounds to be neutralized. But there are also reports of people needing 15+ rounds and several explosive devices in order to be neutralized. So why do you arbitrarily claim that only in excess of the 2-3 rounds is needed, and then cite something anecdotal?
That's not quite the way it went. You expressed disbelief that an aggressor could continue to be a threat after taking more than a few rounds, and I provided you with multiple examples. Examples, by the way, not the comprehensive list of every event. There are hundreds of such instances readily available for reference. It is not even terribly uncommon. There is a reason that the overwhelming majority of police departments in this country favor what you would call "high capacity" pistols.
To further this case, I have difficulty understanding what a semi-auto AR-15 will accomplish for you in defense of your home against an intruder that a shotgun won't.
That does not surprise me.
...that is, unless you actually admit that the "self defense" line is complete and utter BS and you're really just a gun fetishist. I could accept that, because it's at least honest.
The problem is, everyone who knows what they're talking about when it comes to self defense disagrees with you. You won't find instructors with actual experience advocating as little capacity and firepower as possible; quite the opposite. People who have been involved in numerous gunfights - guys like Vickers, Lamb, Defoor - do not suggest going with six-round guns for protection, specifically citing the possibility, if not probability, of needing to shoot more than that, quickly.
So, on the one side, we have experts. On the other, we have you. Frankly, I know whose opinions are going to get more weight.
As interesting as whether or not we need a magazine that can hold 3 bullets or 3,000 is, it isn't what this thread is about.
I started it because I was curious about people and the news focusing almost entirely on gun fatalities when drugs and alcohol kill 8 -10 times more people on a yearly basis.
Thoughts on that are really appreciated with special thanks to Kovnic and Dogma for putting thoughts that I think are closest to the mark out there.
d-usa wrote: So we should focus even less attention on stuff that kill even less things than guns?
Just read my post further up tjhis page so I don't have to keep repeating myself to you.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Never mind, I'll save you the trouble:
Kilkrazy wrote:
Relapse wrote:
d-usa wrote:
So if something kills less people they guns annually, we shouldn't worry about that either?
It's just that people seem very hung up on guns and the deaths they cause and don't give a damn that in pursuit of something for a party they are supporting industries that kill 100,000 people at least a year.
This argument seems to be going round in circles.
Are you yourself anti-gun?
I don't own a gun, but I'm not anti gun. I do believe, as I said earlier, that not just anyone should have a gun, but am not in the camp of thinking outlawing guns is going to make the killing go away. All it will do is, like prohibition, cast law abiding people as criminals overnight.
Don't think I'm not bothered by people getting killed by guns, I'm very much so and have had my own face to face with gun violence.
A friend got shotgunned to death through a door, and a few other people I've known over the years have died because of guns. I've had a pistol pulled on me and fed it back to the guy that did, so it's not like I'm isolated from it.
On the other hand, I've had friends killed by drunk drivers and have seen far more people die because of drugs and alcohol than guns.
I am friends with quite a few Mexicans and have heard them damn drug users to Hell because of what goes on in their country. Talk to some Mexicans sometime if you want to see what they think of drug users who say drugs should be legal in order to stop the violence. They'll tell them fething thanks for nothing since it was their appetite for drugs that put the cartels in power in the first place.
I could go on, but that's the gist of it.
You seem hung up about people being hung up on things that cause less deaths than alcohol. Just trying to make sure you are consistent and not hung up yourself on things that cause less deaths than alcohol, drugs, or even guns.
d-usa wrote: You seem hung up about people being hung up on things that cause less deaths than alcohol. Just trying to make sure you are consistent and not hung up yourself on things that cause less deaths than alcohol, drugs, or even guns.
I'm hung up on the hypocrasy of the people that say gun violence needs to end, yet for the sake of recreation contribute to far greater amounts of death and carnage.
So if you are upset that people want to keep one contributor of death legal while passing laws against something that kills less people each year, then you would also be against laws being passed to fight against things that kill even less.
Or is it just a weak attempt to deflect the issue?
Mods, I think perhaps this thread has run it's course and as Kilkrazy suggests, is going in circles.
There have been some intellegent answers to my question, so I think we can lock it now.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: So you admit that it is about numbers.
It's about the hypocrasy of the people that create, through their selfish desire for recreation, while saying we need to eliminate guns, cause 10 times the death that guns do.
d-usa wrote: So you admit that it is about numbers.
So if you are upset that people want to keep one contributor of death legal while passing laws against something that kills less people each year, then you would also be against laws being passed to fight against things that kill even less.
Or is it just a weak attempt to deflect the issue?
It's your weak attempt, are you offended because you have used drugs or given alcohol to someone that got in a wreck?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Relapse: it's dumb that people want to ban something that kills a few people when they want to keep something that kills more people.
Me: so are you okay with not fighting things that kill less things than the thing you want to keep legal?
Relapse: there are no more intelligent answers, please lock...
If you don't want to answer the question then just say "I don't want to answer the question."
Would you be guilty yourself if you supported laws and actions against something that kills less people than guns, since you are saying that you shouldn't make something illegal of you support something that is more lethal.
d-usa wrote: If you don't want to answer the question then just say "I don't want to answer the question."
Would you be guilty yourself if you supported laws and actions against something that kills less people than guns, since you are saying that you shouldn't make something illegal of you support something that is more lethal.
I thought I answered your question several times what is it you want?
d-usa wrote: You seem hung up about people being hung up on things that cause less deaths than alcohol. Just trying to make sure you are consistent and not hung up yourself on things that cause less deaths than alcohol, drugs, or even guns.
I'm hung up on the hypocrasy of the people that say gun violence needs to end, yet for the sake of recreation contribute to far greater amounts of death and carnage.
If you say the supporting laws against something that kills less people than something you like makes you a hipocrite, would you also be a hipocrite if you did the same?
d-usa wrote: You seem hung up about people being hung up on things that cause less deaths than alcohol. Just trying to make sure you are consistent and not hung up yourself on things that cause less deaths than alcohol, drugs, or even guns.
I'm hung up on the hypocrasy of the people that say gun violence needs to end, yet for the sake of recreation contribute to far greater amounts of death and carnage.
Gun violence isn't fun.
Fun violence is fun.
/thread.
Amirite, anyone?
Once again, Kovinic, you cut through the gak and get to the heart of the matter.
If you say the supporting laws against something that kills less people than something you like makes you a hipocrite, would you also be a hipocrite if you did the same?
I've already answered that question a few times with you. Just read the thread through a couple more times because at some point what I've already put out there will sink in, and it will save us both the trouble of repitition.
d-usa wrote: You make a lot of arguments. You haven't given a simple yes/no answer.
Because the way you wrote the question doesn't get a yes/no answer.
Just in the spirit that I know you are intellegent, I 'll say this,
Yes, I am offended by the hypocracy of the anti gun crowd when they support willingly, For the mere sake of recreation, with money and enablement, drugs and alcohol when they can see what the drug trade has done to Mexico with tens of thousands of murders per year and can see from CDC numbers the far greater toll alcohol takes on people and this nation.
"If I were to support guns and support laws against things that kill less people than guns, I would be a hipocrite" is not something that can be answered with a yes/no answer?
I'll also say it again that I am not a gun owner, and never felt the desire or need to have one.
Just coupl a yes/no questions back at you
Do you use drugs and that does include pot.
Do you drink or share out alcohol at parties?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: "If I were to support guns and support laws against things that kill less people than guns, I would be a hipocrite" is not something that can be answered with a yes/no answer?
I didn't know you were a politician.
I just answered your question with a yes answer under condition or did you not read that part of my post? By the way, that is not the way you originally phrased the question.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: "If I were to support guns and support laws against things that kill less people than guns, I would be a hipocrite" is not something that can be answered with a yes/no answer?
1) you keep on spinnig the answer into "yes, it makes you a hipocrite to support drugs/alcohol and be agains guns". You have never answered yes/no that it would make gun owners hipocrites if they supported laws against something that kills less people than guns.
2) I can proudly say that I have never done any sort of drug. I support the responsible consumption of alcohol the same as I support the responsible ownership and use of guns. I drink, never drive afterwards, and volunteer as designated driver at other times.
d-usa wrote: 1) you keep on spinnig the answer into "yes, it makes you a hipocrite to support drugs/alcohol and be agains guns". You have never answered yes/no that it would make gun owners hipocrites if they supported laws against something that kills less people than guns.
2) I can proudly say that I have never done any sort of drug. I support the responsible consumption of alcohol the same as I support the responsible ownership and use of guns. I drink, never drive afterwards, and volunteer as designated driver at other times.
Give me a for instance law. Would the law protect people, such as those forced into the porn industry, child labor where they die in sweatshop factories, etc. That are already on the books? If those are the type of laws you talk about definitely they need to be well enforced and supported
Seaward wrote:The problem is, everyone who knows what they're talking about when it comes to self defense disagrees with you. You won't find instructors with actual experience advocating as little capacity and firepower as possible; quite the opposite. People who have been involved in numerous gunfights - guys like Vickers, Lamb, Defoor - do not suggest going with six-round guns for protection, specifically citing the possibility, if not probability, of needing to shoot more than that, quickly.
So, on the one side, we have experts. On the other, we have you. Frankly, I know whose opinions are going to get more weight.
I don't know who those people are. Maybe Vickers.
Tell me, were they involved in a firefight in their houses? Or were they in combat?
Because the level of irresponsibility that goes into firing an AR-15 in one's home is staggering. And that's exactly what I'm talking about when I say that I'm pro-gun, and anti-moron-with-an-overcompensation-device. Assuming a backyard Rambo like yourself can even hit your target, the bullet will go clean through, through a wall or two, and potentially into your neighbour's kid.
But, y'know, just in case the Commies kick in your door, it's always better to have an AR-15, right?
Relapse wrote: As interesting as whether or not we need a magazine that can hold 3 bullets or 3,000 is, it isn't what this thread is about.
I started it because I was curious about people and the news focusing almost entirely on gun fatalities when drugs and alcohol kill 8 -10 times more people on a yearly basis.
Thoughts on that are really appreciated with special thanks to Kovnic and Dogma for putting thoughts that I think are closest to the mark out there.
It seems like you are just trying to deflect the discussion rather than have it. If you want to defend guns, then defend guns. But don't try to make out it is a non-issue because of [insert other issue].
Perhaps the reason people want to discuss guns in the media: is because they feel that there is something that still needs to be discussed; changes that need to be made. Perhaps more people do die in car crashes, but what are you going to do? ban cars? We already have airbags, crumple zones, impact bars, speed limits, driving tests, traffic cops, safety cameras, pedestrianised areas. It seems everything that can be done to make cars safer is being done. What more is there to discuss? The same with drugs, do you want to ban drugs? They are already illegal. The only discussion left seems to be how much money we can afford to pour into enforcing anti-drug laws.
Maybe guns are being discussed because there is still a lot more that could be done to make people safer. Though I think cars, drugs and alcohol still get their fair share of bad press.
"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The most extensive study yet by the U.S. government on suicide among military veterans shows more veterans are killing themselves than previously thought, with 22 deaths a day - or one every 65 minutes, on average."
For those who couldn't be bothered to read it when posted the first couple times:
Kilkrazy wrote:
Relapse wrote:
d-usa wrote:
So if something kills less people they guns annually, we shouldn't worry about that either?
It's just that people seem very hung up on guns and the deaths they cause and don't give a damn that in pursuit of something for a party they are supporting industries that kill 100,000 people at least a year.
This argument seems to be going round in circles.
Are you yourself anti-gun?
I don't own a gun, but I'm not anti gun. I do believe, as I said earlier, that not just anyone should have a gun, but am not in the camp of thinking outlawing guns is going to make the killing go away. All it will do is, like prohibition, cast law abiding people as criminals overnight.
Don't think I'm not bothered by people getting killed by guns, I'm very much so and have had my own face to face with gun violence.
A friend got shotgunned to death through a door, and a few other people I've known over the years have died because of guns. I've had a pistol pulled on me and fed it back to the guy that did, so it's not like I'm isolated from it.
On the other hand, I've had friends killed by drunk drivers and have seen far more people die because of drugs and alcohol than guns.
I am friends with quite a few Mexicans and have heard them damn drug users to Hell because of what goes on in their country. Talk to some Mexicans sometime if you want to see what they think of drug users who say drugs should be legal in order to stop the violence. They'll tell them fething thanks for nothing since it was their appetite for drugs that put the cartels in power in the first place.
I could go on, but that's the gist of it.
"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The most extensive study yet by the U.S. government on suicide among military veterans shows more veterans are killing themselves than previously thought, with 22 deaths a day - or one every 65 minutes, on average."
The wars continue at home.
Holy crap that's a lot of opting-out. You might want to check out your benefit package, it doesn't seem to be enough to retain clientèle.
"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The most extensive study yet by the U.S. government on suicide among military veterans shows more veterans are killing themselves than previously thought, with 22 deaths a day - or one every 65 minutes, on average."
The wars continue at home.
Holy crap that's a lot of opting-out. You might want to check out your benefit package, it doesn't seem to be enough to retain clientèle.
Not every war vet gets benefits. Most get out with under 20 years service with nothing but stories... All volunteer force and all.
It would be interesting to know the percentages of the various reasons for suicide.
I've in on a suicide watch and prevented one where I had to walk through a door not knowing if I was going to be the one taking a bullet. Pretty tense all around.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I think this thread is now well and truly finished, but the vet suicide conversation would make for some good enlightenment.
My thanks once again to Kovnic and Dogma for setting it out there.
d-usa, thank you, also. I think we are closer in agreement than our exchange would indicate.
Tell me, were they involved in a firefight in their houses? Or were they in combat?
Because the level of irresponsibility that goes into firing an AR-15 in one's home is staggering. And that's exactly what I'm talking about when I say that I'm pro-gun, and anti-moron-with-an-overcompensation-device. Assuming a backyard Rambo like yourself can even hit your target, the bullet will go clean through, through a wall or two, and potentially into your neighbour's kid.
But, y'know, just in case the Commies kick in your door, it's always better to have an AR-15, right?
Again, I don't understand the focus on the ARs. Can you find me one single post I've made in this thread - or any other - where I haven't been talking about the asinine stupidity of pistol mag capacity limits? Because, as I'm sure you know, they're blanket cap limits. They don't just apply to the AR-15, they apply to everything. Including pistols. Which is what I've been talking about for however many posts this has been now. Let me know if you need me to repeat that a few more times before it sinks in.
Also, you're overestimating the .223's penetration capability, especially when using frangible ammo. But that's beside the point. I think we established you're one of the legion who has strong opinions on this issue despite not having done even a basic level of research.
Don't get me wrong, I think it's insidiously clever to claim to be pro-gun while parroting uneducated anti-gun talking points about how no one would ever possibly need more than ten rounds and the like.
Frazzled wrote: Here's the essential problem. You think whether or not there is a law matters to whether the BG is going to have a gun?
It might not make a huge difference as to whether or not the bad guy has a gun (although that's arguable).
It can make a difference as to whether or not the crazy guy has a gun.
The crazy guy will still have a gun, or a car, or a bomb.
We've had high capacity weapons since WWIIavilable to civilians. How many mass murders before the 90s? how many after? Interesting isn't it? But not discussed. Whats changed? It sure isn't the firearms.
Seaward wrote: I think you'd be surprised how fast you can draw from concealment and get three shots on target when you practice.
We've actually got someone in a gun thread talking about outdrawing an armed intruder pointing a gun at him, and he seems quite indifferent to the basic reality that that kind of things is unbelievably, ridiculously rare. I mean, that's where the gun debate pretty much ends up every time, doesn't it... sooner or later the pro-gun folk are just talking about their gun wielding, bad guy shooting fantasies.
It kind of reminds me of the gay rights debates we had on this forum. The anti-gay arguments just got stupider and stupider the more debates we had, and while the people in those threads would never admit how stupid their arguments got, in the end they just dropped off. Between continuing to defend a position that was more and more obviously nonsensical, and rejecting their former position, instead they just dropped off. And the same thing happened nationally, more and more people just chose to redirect their political focus elsewhere, quietly conceding they really just didn't have a coherent argument at the end of the day and that they should just stop talking.
Anyway, here's the actual reality of gun ownership, in one simple graph.
The more guns in your country, the more gun deaths you. And you can split that down into homicides, suicides and accidents if you want and the trend holds firm for each. The more guns you have, the more you get of each category.
There's really no sensible debate to be had. Just a lot of years of slowly getting the pro-gun, I can outdraw an armed intruder in my house people to realise how ridiculous they are, and one by one get them to stop throwing their crazy into the debate.
d-usa wrote: If you don't want to answer the question then just say "I don't want to answer the question."
Would you be guilty yourself if you supported laws and actions against something that kills less people than guns, since you are saying that you shouldn't make something illegal of you support something that is more lethal.
I had a good friend killed by a drunk driver. My wife's life was utterly changed by a drunk driver. None of us were attacked by raging maniacs with AR-15s. Yet thats the issue when they just legalized marijuana in western states? Nuts.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: I think by now most people can see what your answer is.
Just because you ask a question doesn't mean its the right question.
Anyway, here's the actual reality of gun ownership, in one simple graph.
The more guns in your country, the more gun deaths you. And you can split that down into homicides, suicides and accidents if you want and the trend holds firm for each. The more guns you have, the more you get of each category.
There's really no sensible debate to be had. Just a lot of years of slowly getting the pro-gun, I can outdraw an armed intruder in my house people to realise how ridiculous they are, and one by one get them to stop throwing their crazy into the debate.
dæl wrote: I was under the impression that Sweden and Switzerland had similar levels of guns per person, its seems not from a quick look at the facts. Switzerland had much higher rates as its population were a militia, but that seems to no longer be the case.
Switzerland has less guns per capita than the US, but still more than other developed countries. And so, as the graph I've shown above demonstrates, they have less gun homicides than the US per capita, but much more than other developed countries.
Tell me, were they involved in a firefight in their houses? Or were they in combat?
Because the level of irresponsibility that goes into firing an AR-15 in one's home is staggering. And that's exactly what I'm talking about when I say that I'm pro-gun, and anti-moron-with-an-overcompensation-device. Assuming a backyard Rambo like yourself can even hit your target, the bullet will go clean through, through a wall or two, and potentially into your neighbour's kid.
But, y'know, just in case the Commies kick in your door, it's always better to have an AR-15, right?
Again, I don't understand the focus on the ARs. Can you find me one single post I've made in this thread - or any other - where I haven't been talking about the asinine stupidity of pistol mag capacity limits? Because, as I'm sure you know, they're blanket cap limits. They don't just apply to the AR-15, they apply to everything. Including pistols. Which is what I've been talking about for however many posts this has been now. Let me know if you need me to repeat that a few more times before it sinks in.
Also, you're overestimating the .223's penetration capability, especially when using frangible ammo. But that's beside the point. I think we established you're one of the legion who has strong opinions on this issue despite not having done even a basic level of research.
Don't get me wrong, I think it's insidiously clever to claim to be pro-gun while parroting uneducated anti-gun talking points about how no one would ever possibly need more than ten rounds and the like.
There's nothing insidious about it: I'm very pro-gun. However, above that I am very anti-morons-with-guns. I just want to have mental illness screened out, mandatory safety training, and laws requiring secure storage first.
And then you can have your guns.
Why? Because I'm far more afraid of the overcompensating d-bag next door with no idea how to handle firearms than I am of the mythical boogeyman that you speak of. I suspect that this is a cultural thing, as the levels of crime in Canada are considerably lower than they are in the US, and as such I have more to fear from someone else's incompetence than I do of their malice.
My problems with massive magazine size is that it will lead to more people spraying the general direction of a presumed attacker, and thus cause far more stray bullets.
I believe it was you who in another thread specifically said that criminals attack those who do not fight back. So it only follows that if you are attacked by 3 men, and you shoot one of them, the other two will run away. After all, that's your own logic, is it not? So why the facade about masking your gun fetish as saying that you need more than ten rounds in case you have to fend off multiple attacks, where each attacker will require 3-4 shots? Obviously your own logic (when it's convenient for you) should dictate that 3-4 rounds for hit the target and 3-4 rounds to down your attacker, should leave you with 2-4 rounds in the magazine whilst the others run away from your successful defense. After all, criminals do not want to get into a fight, isn't that what you said?
But this isn't your line of thinking. Your line of thinking is "yippee-ki-yay motherfether, I'm John McLane".
If someone wants a gun of any sort badly enough, then they're going to get their hands on one. I have few doubts about that. However, I have problems with the idea that a dangerous ballistic tool is considered the God-given right of any imbecile with foolish misconceptions of manhood.
Kovnik Obama wrote: And so? You still believe that media attention is predicated by a rational will to protect the people?
The shark example is a great one. Thousands die every year killed by house dogs, about a dozen by sharks. Which one is the bigger center of attention... ?
There's less than 20 deaths to dogs every year in the US... not thousands.
The gun is good. The penis is evil. The penis shoots seeds, and makes new life to poison the Earth with a plague of men, as once it was, but the gun shoots death, and purifies the Earth of the filth of brutals. Go forth ... and kill!
You know we just don't get enough incoherent sci-fi weirdness anymore.
Kovnik Obama wrote: And so? You still believe that media attention is predicated by a rational will to protect the people?
The shark example is a great one. Thousands die every year killed by house dogs, about a dozen by sharks. Which one is the bigger center of attention... ?
There's less than 20 deaths to dogs every year in the US... not thousands.
The gun is good. The penis is evil. The penis shoots seeds, and makes new life to poison the Earth with a plague of men, as once it was, but the gun shoots death, and purifies the Earth of the filth of brutals. Go forth ... and kill!
You know we just don't get enough incoherent sci-fi weirdness anymore.
I think he knew it was hyperbole about the dogs, but I really like his comment about the news services and think he was bang on.
I think he knew it was hyperbole about the dogs, but I really like his comment about the news services and think he was bang on.
Actually, no, I was going off some zoologist being interviewed by Discovery, saying how dogs kills thousands worldwide every year. Maybe some other parts compensate, but from research I'm doing right now, Sebster is quite correct. Adding up Canadian and US fatalities, since 1982, there's been 233 fatalities from pitbulls, which is the most lethal breed by far.
Kovnik Obama wrote: And so? You still believe that media attention is predicated by a rational will to protect the people?
The shark example is a great one. Thousands die every year killed by house dogs, about a dozen by sharks. Which one is the bigger center of attention... ?
There's less than 20 deaths to dogs every year in the US... not thousands.
The gun is good. The penis is evil. The penis shoots seeds, and makes new life to poison the Earth with a plague of men, as once it was, but the gun shoots death, and purifies the Earth of the filth of brutals. Go forth ... and kill!
You know we just don't get enough incoherent sci-fi weirdness anymore.
That reminds me I've been wanting to see Zardoz for awhile as a so bad it's good movie would you recommend it or is it a so bad it's bad movie?
Kovnik Obama wrote: And so? You still believe that media attention is predicated by a rational will to protect the people?
The shark example is a great one. Thousands die every year killed by house dogs, about a dozen by sharks. Which one is the bigger center of attention... ?
There's less than 20 deaths to dogs every year in the US... not thousands.
The gun is good. The penis is evil. The penis shoots seeds, and makes new life to poison the Earth with a plague of men, as once it was, but the gun shoots death, and purifies the Earth of the filth of brutals. Go forth ... and kill!
You know we just don't get enough incoherent sci-fi weirdness anymore.
That reminds me I've been wanting to see Zardoz for awhile as a so bad it's good movie would you recommend it or is it a so bad it's bad movie?
I'll qualify my reccomendation to watch it by saying that seeing Sean Connery in his costume may never be unseen.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Just to make this thread run the full gamit, anyone here got a picture of Sean?
Kovnik Obama wrote: Damn. So you are saying I can't trust the Discovery Channel to provide me with verified facts anymore? My life is a lie.
Thinking about it some more, the figure I gave was for the US. Multiply that out for the world and you'd get up to 600 a year. And then you figure dog attacks are going to be more common and more fatal in plenty of places, so maybe a thousand would be reasonable worldwide. I might have spoken too soon.
You know, I was really apprehensive when I first watched that movie. Now I want a remake. With Sean Connery taking up his role.
Zardoz is what Zardoz is. I don't think you could ever replicate it. It just perfectly captures a kind of 70s thinking that just doesn't exist anymore.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Relapse wrote: I think he knew it was hyperbole about the dogs, but I really like his comment about the news services and think he was bang on.
I agree that the news runs on the emotion of single stories, and does very little to put those instances into context. Definitely agree.
It's why this whole stupid debate has focussed on 'assault weapons' and fear about school getting shot up, when those are, statistically, really minor events. Meanwhile there's thousands killed every year with handguns, and no-one is talking about that. Because the news focusses on the scary anecdote.
It's great midnight movie stuff, along with "A Boy and His Dog".
The call to put armed teachers in schools just makes me hang my head. I'd homeschool my kids before sending them into an area that neccesitates that many armed guards with questionable skills and judgement.
Cheesecat wrote: That reminds me I've been wanting to see Zardoz for awhile as a so bad it's good movie would you recommend it or is it a so bad it's bad movie?
Parts of it are utterly hilarious (the floating head spewing guns, Connery in a nappy, the trippy bass music playing when he gets aroused by the leading girl), and lots of it is really boring - there's a lot of sci-fi concepts just dumped on the audience with basically no art.
Just watch it. It's an experience from a time when film making just didn't work like it does today.
Cheesecat wrote: That reminds me I've been wanting to see Zardoz for awhile as a so bad it's good movie would you recommend it or is it a so bad it's bad movie?
Parts of it are utterly hilarious (the floating head spewing guns, Connery in a nappy, the trippy bass music playing when he gets aroused by the leading girl), and lots of it is really boring - there's a lot of sci-fi concepts just dumped on the audience with basically no art.
Just watch it. It's an experience from a time when film making just didn't work like it does today.
sebster wrote: We've actually got someone in a gun thread talking about outdrawing an armed intruder pointing a gun at him, and he seems quite indifferent to the basic reality that that kind of things is unbelievably, ridiculously rare. I mean, that's where the gun debate pretty much ends up every time, doesn't it... sooner or later the pro-gun folk are just talking about their gun wielding, bad guy shooting fantasies.
Draw from surrender, three on 7 yard target in under a second and a half. You put work into it, you can get good at anything, sebster. But by all means, continue to deny the possibility as though I can't reference tons of proof.
There's really no sensible debate to be had.
Not when you're convinced you know what you're talking about despite no experience or research, no, there isn't.
Just a lot of years of slowly getting the pro-gun, I can outdraw an armed intruder in my house people to realise how ridiculous they are, and one by one get them to stop throwing their crazy into the debate.
Here's the thing, sebster. You have people who've actually been in fights involving firearms on this very forum, telling you that your wild assumptions about what is and is not possible are flat-out wrong. Some of us are speaking from experience, whereas I'm obliged to assume you're speaking from...I don't know. Political agenda? Who knows. What saddens me about the whole thing is that a lot of the stuff you're claiming to be outlandish isn't even considered all that uncommon among people who actually know what they're talking about. The education gap when it comes to general firearms knowledge and use is massive. We have guys like you, who learned everything they 'know' about guns from television and movies, and then we have people who can either speak to real-world application from experience, or else from the study of experience, and the conclusions drawn by those two groups are so wildly divergent that neither can believe the other is serious.
I don't know what to do about that. You don't want to actually learn, so teaching wouldn't help. You'll dismiss easily-verified claims as "fantasy," while continuing to promote this weird, willfully ignorant view that just doesn't jive with reality, and unfortunately it's going to work on people who don't know any better than you do, which is way too many.
sebster wrote: We've actually got someone in a gun thread talking about outdrawing an armed intruder pointing a gun at him, and he seems quite indifferent to the basic reality that that kind of things is unbelievably, ridiculously rare. I mean, that's where the gun debate pretty much ends up every time, doesn't it... sooner or later the pro-gun folk are just talking about their gun wielding, bad guy shooting fantasies.
Draw from surrender, three on 7 yard target in under a second and a half. You put work into it, you can get good at anything, sebster. But by all means, continue to deny the possibility as though I can't reference tons of proof.
There's really no sensible debate to be had.
Not when you're convinced you know what you're talking about despite no experience or research, no, there isn't.
Just a lot of years of slowly getting the pro-gun, I can outdraw an armed intruder in my house people to realise how ridiculous they are, and one by one get them to stop throwing their crazy into the debate.
Here's the thing, sebster. You have people who've actually been in fights involving firearms on this very forum, telling you that your wild assumptions about what is and is not possible are flat-out wrong. Some of us are speaking from experience, whereas I'm obliged to assume you're speaking from...I don't know. Political agenda? Who knows. What saddens me about the whole thing is that a lot of the stuff you're claiming to be outlandish isn't even considered all that uncommon among people who actually know what they're talking about. The education gap when it comes to general firearms knowledge and use is massive. We have guys like you, who learned everything they 'know' about guns from television and movies, and then we have people who can either speak to real-world application from experience, or else from the study of experience, and the conclusions drawn by those two groups are so wildly divergent that neither can believe the other is serious.
I don't know what to do about that. You don't want to actually learn, so teaching wouldn't help. You'll dismiss easily-verified claims as "fantasy," while continuing to promote this weird, willfully ignorant view that just doesn't jive with reality, and unfortunately it's going to work on people who don't know any better than you do, which is way too many.
azazel the cat wrote: There's nothing insidious about it: I'm very pro-gun. However, above that I am very anti-morons-with-guns. I just want to have mental illness screened out, mandatory safety training, and laws requiring secure storage first.
You also, as you're about to prove, want mag capacity bans, and given your earlier rants about AR-15s, you probably want "assault weapon" bans, too.
Why? Because I'm far more afraid of the overcompensating d-bag next door with no idea how to handle firearms than I am of the mythical boogeyman that you speak of. I suspect that this is a cultural thing, as the levels of crime in Canada are considerably lower than they are in the US, and as such I have more to fear from someone else's incompetence than I do of their malice.
You guys are more than welcome to put whatever laws in place up in Canada you want. I'm going to go ahead and continue arguing against writing legislation based off of what works for a country with fewer people than California and far fewer guns, criminals, and gun-wielding criminals.
My problems with massive magazine size is that it will lead to more people spraying the general direction of a presumed attacker, and thus cause far more stray bullets.
This claim gets made a lot, but I've never seen any evidence to actually back it up, aside from pretty much officer-involved shooting that takes place with members of the NYPD.
I believe it was you who in another thread specifically said that criminals attack those who do not fight back.
No, it wasn't.
So it only follows that if you are attacked by 3 men, and you shoot one of them, the other two will run away.
Not necessarily.
After all, that's your own logic, is it not?
No. But I suppose you're welcome to continue putting someone else's words in my mouth if it makes your argument easier.
So why the facade about masking your gun fetish as saying that you need more than ten rounds in case you have to fend off multiple attacks, where each attacker will require 3-4 shots?
Exactly how many times do I need to tell you, and provide examples from countless incidents to back it up, that you cannot guarantee an aggressor's going to go down with X number of shots? It just doesn't work that way, dude.
But this isn't your line of thinking. Your line of thinking is "yippee-ki-yay motherfether, I'm John McLane".
You use this sort of tripe often enough that I'm starting to think it's projection. Running half a box of ammo through your new gun and declaring yourself to be competent while relying on "stopping power" smacks of someone who has quite simply not bothered to get good training or do even a modicum of research on terminal ballistics. I don't know how many times I have to tell you that guns don't work in real life like they do in the movies, but I'm hoping it'll sink in one of these days.
If someone wants a gun of any sort badly enough, then they're going to get their hands on one. I have few doubts about that. However, I have problems with the idea that a dangerous ballistic tool is considered the God-given right of any imbecile with foolish misconceptions of manhood.
Again, if this is about you associating guns with "manhood," then I fully agree, you're exactly the sort of person I don't want owning one. However, there's not really a good way to test for that sort of attitude, so in America, at least, folks with your sort of attitude will continue to be allowed to buy one.
Funny how the argument is always "im defending myself from criminals" when that argument is repeatedly proven to be flawed.
Fact is an armed society is more dangerous, because of the mixture of easily obtainable firearms and loopholes that circumvent even America's laughable 'controls', allowing any redneck access to deadly force.
rubiksnoob wrote: May I ask, Seaward, what your reaction to the data illustrated by the graph would be?
I don't have much of a reaction to it. We have more gun homicides than most, that's not exactly new information. I think it's remarkably foolish to ignore all other factors - such as the fact that we have considerably more gang and inner-city violence than our 'competitors,' a drug war that's responsible for a hell of a lot of the gun violence, etc. - and draw the conclusion that it's just the guns, or that we still wouldn't have a higher homicide rate without them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MarsNZ wrote: Funny how the argument is always "im defending myself from criminals" when that argument is repeatedly proven to be flawed.
Fact is an armed society is more dangerous, because of the mixture of easily obtainable firearms and loopholes that circumvent even America's laughable 'controls', allowing any redneck access to deadly force.
That argument's repeatedly proven to be the case in this country, actually. Defensive gun use is fairly common.
As far as deadly force goes...you've got access to it right now. I'm not sure what you're driving at.
I can see how some bars could hinder escape from a burning building, but I don't think they need to. They are also not the only way to secure a house. Personally I would rather be safe in a secure building with the criminals outside, and waiting for the police to turn up. Than have the criminals inside and have to shoot it out with them myself in my underwear.
One good kick on most doors and then they are in your house.
If the door can be opened with one good kick then it is clearly not a secure property and not what I am talking about. For the equivalent price of a handgun + ammo, I could build a door so tough, it would be easier to come through the wall.
So anyone can pull a gun on you at any time? That's the scariest thing I've ever heard!
Here's the essential problem. You think whether or not there is a law matters to whether the BG is going to have a gun?
It does matter. In the US apparently you can be stopped by the police, show them your gun, then 10 mins later walk into a school and go on a killing spree. In the UK anyone identified as having a gun (or any weapon, including replicas) would be arrested, and could face up to life in prison. If they aren't shot on site by armed police first. Most people here, including criminals are smart enough not to be caught carrying a firearm.
I'm not really used to everyday people I meet in the street, or in shops or on trains having absolute power over life and death. How are you supposed to have argument or a fight with someone with the constant threat of being shot looming all the time?
Here's a novel idea: don't have a fight.
I could just as easily say "don't shoot people". But apparently sometimes it is necessary to stand your ground. I don't see anything positive about an environment where any kind of confrontation can quickly escalate into a situation where you either get shot, or are forced to shoot someone. I'm much happier to confront people cutting lines and being jerks here where the worst that's likely to happen is a scuffle.
Seaward wrote: Draw from surrender, three on 7 yard target in under a second and a half. You put work into it, you can get good at anything, sebster. But by all means, continue to deny the possibility as though I can't reference tons of proof.
You missed the point. A person most certainly can be that skilled with a firearm. The issue is with the staggering improbability of the individual ever being presented with a situation in which he'd have to draw and put rounds into an armed assailant.
Not when you're convinced you know what you're talking about despite no experience or research, no, there isn't.
No seriously, we know the rates of guns ownership in developed countries, and we know the rates of homicide, suidice and accidental death by firearms in those countries. We can put them on a graph and see how they correlate really, really strongly.
You can even look at the fething graph I posted.
But you won't. You'll just post gibberish about drawing down on evil doers. Because you're at the end of a losing cause against reality. You're the last, worst and craziest line of defence against the basic realities of the issue.
Here's the thing, sebster. You have people who've actually been in fights involving firearms on this very forum, telling you that your wild assumptions about what is and is not possible are flat-out wrong.
Oh, okay, so as soon as I get in a firefight all the numbers and stats will just go away. I'll enter a netherworld of ur-reality where the the US doesn't have 10,000 firearm deaths a year. Good to know.
Some of us are speaking from experience, whereas I'm obliged to assume you're speaking from...I don't know. Political agenda?
I'm coming from the reality of the issue. A reality that has been captured and made clear by statistical studies.
We have guys like you, who learned everything they 'know' about guns from television and movies, and then we have people who can either speak to real-world application from experience, or else from the study of experience, and the conclusions drawn by those two groups are so wildly divergent that neither can believe the other is serious.
I could be an ex-spec ops guy, or I could be a corn farmer from the wilds of the Swan River delta who doesn't even know which end of the gun to point forward, and it wouldn't matter two gaks to the plain and simple reality of guns and gun homicide.
You can make up all kinds of nattering stupidity to pretend the reality is something other than what it really is, but the numbers will be there anyway, making you completely and utterly wrong.
And you don't even stop to think for one second that holding beliefs that are completely at odds with the basic realities of the numbers might be a problem. Being a bad ass who's ready to shoot down the guy you really just might come into his house and stand there pointing a gun at you is way to important to let something like reality get in the way.
But it isn't troubling. It's pathetic.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: I don't have much of a reaction to it. We have more gun homicides than most, that's not exactly new information. I think it's remarkably foolish to ignore all other factors - such as the fact that we have considerably more gang and inner-city violence than our 'competitors,' a drug war that's responsible for a hell of a lot of the gun violence, etc. - and draw the conclusion that it's just the guns, or that we still wouldn't have a higher homicide rate without them.
feth me. You don't read and you don't look at graphs.
The graph doesn't just show the US having more gun deaths, it also shows other developed countries with more guns also have more gun deaths. Are you gonna claim Switzerland has gang and inner city violence that also happens to produces its higher gun death rate? What about Canada?
And when you line all the countries up, you get a thing in stats they call correlation. And that correlation produces strong positive relationship between gun ownership and gun deaths. Even removing the US as an outlier, you can see that more gun ownership leads to more gun deaths.
Now, its likely that very few of the statisticians that produced these results were ever in gun fights, so you might dismiss their work. But the reality of it remains as it is.
So what does all that boil down to sebster? What do you think the US should do? Institute strict gun control similar to Australia's or the UK's?
The probability of having to defend yourself with a gun is statistically pretty low in the US. So should people lose the ability to do so simply because the probability is low.
I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, I seriously want to know what you think the US should do. Is the very idea of someone wanting to have the ability to defend themselves with a firearm pathetic to you?
I think part of what sebster would do is try to have a honest, open discussion about guns. As it is, if you even broach the subject you are immediately branded an enemy of the Second Amendment and part of 'tyranny' by one side and that becomes the entire debate.
sebster wrote: You missed the point. A person most certainly can be that skilled with a firearm. The issue is with the staggering improbability of the individual ever being presented with a situation in which he'd have to draw and put rounds into an armed assailant.
Either we have such a terribly high violent crime rate in this country that we need to do something about it, or else the probability of ever needing to defend yourself - and therefore the violent crime rate - is staggeringly low. You cannot have it both ways when you realize your argument doesn't make any sense.
But you won't. You'll just post gibberish about drawing down on evil doers. Because you're at the end of a losing cause against reality. You're the last, worst and craziest line of defence against the basic realities of the issue.
I'd be worried, but my 'cause' is actually gaining ground, according to polls. More people than ever before support the right to own handguns in this country, sebster. That's post-Sandy Hook. It went up, not down.
Oh, okay, so as soon as I get in a firefight all the numbers and stats will just go away. I'll enter a netherworld of ur-reality where the the US doesn't have 10,000 firearm deaths a year. Good to know.
That's not what we were discussing when you decided to hop on in without reading.
I'm coming from the reality of the issue. A reality that has been captured and made clear by statistical studies.
And as far as those statistical studies go concerning "stopping power" and thus the rationale behind mag capacity bans - what the Canuck and I were arguing about - the data's in my favor.
feth me. You don't read and you don't look at graphs.
I do, actually, I just happen to know more than you. It's a common theme to our little contretemps.
The Swiss have a lot of guns, yeah. What you're missing is that they have so many guns because most of them are state-issued due to their weird militia rules and no longer in the "owner's" home. You're trying to make the claim that Switzerland has more gun homicides due to more uncontrolled guns, but - oops - that may just not be the case, unless you can tell me how many guns are actually in private ownership in Switzerland. And I doubt you can.
This is the problem with taking a position before bothering to learn anything at all about it.
Now, its likely that very few of the statisticians that produced these results were ever in gun fights, so you might dismiss their work. But the reality of it remains as it is.
I don't require that my statisticians be in gunfights to comment on statistics.
I would like them to have done a bare basic amount of research before calling the idea of being able to draw a gun quickly absurd, though.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote: I think part of what sebster would do is try to have a honest, open discussion about guns. As it is, if you even broach the subject you are immediately branded an enemy of the Second Amendment and part of 'tyranny' by one side and that becomes the entire debate.
Put up some open, honest solutions designed to reduce firearm crime and you'd probably get it.
That gives me an idea for a new form of society. One where we can sway the population into being moderate by twinning all extreme liberal ideas with with an equal an opposite conservative idea.
For example you can carry a gun... but only if you wear really gay bondage pants, and lipstick.
Or you can smoke pot... But only if you attend mass every morning and Jesus camp.
Hordini wrote: So what does all that boil down to sebster? What do you think the US should do? Institute strict gun control similar to Australia's or the UK's?
If I was made King of America for day, and able to pass a law as I pleased regardless of the political realities like popular opinion, and power of lobbyist and the constitution? Well then I'd drop all this assault weapon silliness, because the story from the numbers is that long arms simply are not the killers - handguns are. I'd then look to put extensive controls on handguns, and yeah, they wouldn't be loved by everyone.
I wouldn't just stop at police checks, the issue just isn't with crazies with records getting their hands on guns. The issue is with guns bought legally, and then moved into the black market, some stolen and many onsold deliberately and reported stolen. Now, I'm not an expert and so I couldn't tell you the best ways to ensure that the person who bought a gun actually keeps it on his person at all times, and there's been very little discussion on what might be, as the gun control debate gets caught up on so many other non-issues and bad ideas (assault weapon ban, armed guards in schools), but I'd think that a requirement to present and re-register guns every few years, or explain what happened to the firearm might work.
The probability of having to defend yourself with a gun is statistically pretty low in the US. So should people lose the ability to do so simply because the probability is low.
No, but the low probability should be more sensibly balanced against the death toll caused by the large number of guns in the country.
Is the very idea of someone wanting to have the ability to defend themselves with a firearm pathetic to you?
Not at all. Nor is the idea of owning a firearm. Hell, when the money frees up* I'd like to invest in a musket, I had a blast years ago when some mates joined the blackpowder club and I went shooting with them.
What is pathetic is denying the numbers that show the situation pretty clearly, of choosing a different reality because this one doesn't suit a preferred political opinion.
*Well, not only the money, but also the firearm regulations. As much as our crackdown on firearms was a good thing and definitely saved lives, it produced some really obnoxious pointless regulation that should, hopefullly, eventually be pulled back. Like having to deregister a firearm and re-register it if you're moving house (effectively paying twice for the rego on the gun). Which, given that's something I'll likely do in the next year or so, is not something I want to do.
Seaward wrote: The Swiss have a lot of guns, yeah. What you're missing is that they have so many guns because most of them are state-issued due to their weird militia rules and no longer in the "owner's" home. You're trying to make the claim that Switzerland has more gun homicides due to more uncontrolled guns, but - oops - that may just not be the case, unless you can tell me how many guns are actually in private ownership in Switzerland. And I doubt you can.
Whether or not they personally own the gun in their house doesn't alter the fact that they have a gun in the house...
I would like them to have done a bare basic amount of research before calling the idea of being able to draw a gun quickly absurd, though.
I suspect that for those of us from countries where criminals don't habitually wave guns around, the idea of someone actually thinking that trying to outdraw someone currently pointing a gun at you is a good idea seems a little crazy to begin with...
Put up some open, honest solutions designed to reduce firearm crime and you'd probably get it.
I believe the solution has been suggested: Reduce or better regulate the number of firearms that are available to the public.
Fewer firearms means less firearm related crime.
And yes, laws don't stop the bad guys from carrying guns. But there's a school of thought that says that people having guns for self defence simply serves to encourage the criminals to carry them, where amongst a less well-armed population, they're less likely to feel the need. They carry guns not because they're bad guys and bad guys carry guns, but because the people they're bad guy-ising might be carrying guns.
No idea what research there is to back that up, although I can at least say that far more store hold ups here in Oz are carried out by guys with knives or (for some bizarre reason) screwdrivers than with guns.
insaniak wrote: Whether or not they personally own the gun in their house doesn't alter the fact that they have a gun in the house...
The gun's in the house. The ammo isn't.
I suspect that for those of us from countries where criminals don't habitually wave guns around, the idea of someone actually thinking that trying to outdraw someone currently pointing a gun at you is a good idea seems a little crazy to begin with...
Why, exactly?
I believe the solution has been suggested: Reduce or better regulate the number of firearms that are available to the public.
Fewer firearms means less firearm related crime.
That's great and all, and draconian efforts to get rid of guns might pay off in, say, a century or two, but again. 89 guns per every 100 people in this country. They aren't going anywhere. You could stop all sales on every type of firearm tomorrow and anyone who wanted one would still be able to easily get a gun fifty years from now. "Guns bad" is not a solution that's going to work.
Seaward wrote: Either we have such a terribly high violent crime rate in this country that we need to do something about it, or else the probability of ever needing to defend yourself - and therefore the violent crime rate - is staggeringly low. You cannot have it both ways when you realize your argument doesn't make any sense.
Something needs to be done. Owning a gun is something. Therefore it must be done.
Which is, I guess, a kind of logic. Doesn't really matter that owning a gun doesn't really impact the crime rate, or your odds of surviving a home break-in.
And, also, the US doesn't have that high of a crime rate. Home break ins, muggings, all sorts of other person on person crimes, you're not far from other developed countries. You've just got a really high homicide rate.
I'd be worried, but my 'cause' is actually gaining ground, according to polls. More people than ever before support the right to own handguns in this country, sebster. That's post-Sandy Hook. It went up, not down.
And in 2004 opposition to gay marriage spiked as well, and lots of social conservatives thought they'd bested that horrible gay marriage issue. Because you can get people to believe crazy nonsense for an election cycle or two. But ultimately, the trend is towards sanity.
And even if you don't buy into that, there's a much greater trend at work here, and that's steady, 60 year decline in gun ownership rates.
So really, if you want to ensure good gun laws that let people who want to own guns with a minimum of fuss, then you better get to work on forming sensible, long erm sustainable policy while you've got a political advantage. Because the longer your side insists on crazy nonsense like denying the basic correlation between guns and gun deaths, the quicker you'll lose legitimacy.
That's not what we were discussing when you decided to hop on in without reading.
No, you weren't. That's the point. You were talking about silly little hypotheticals about drawing down on armed attackers, and ignoring the basic stuff that really matters.
It'd be a bit like talking about WWII and focussing in on the quality of German gun sights and how important they are to winning a war, without any context given to simple fact that they're not that important compared to lots of other stuff, because the Germans lost.
And so yeah, a person might be able to whip out a pistol and shoot down a killer, and every so often in a country of 300 million people that's going to happen. But in the context of 10,000 gun murders a year it's pretty close to meaningless.
And as far as those statistical studies go concerning "stopping power" and thus the rationale behind mag capacity bans - what the Canuck and I were arguing about - the data's in my favor.
Yeah, sure. No argument there. But, as I've pointed out, having little sub-debate while ignoring the greater context of the massive number gun killings in the US is disfunctional.
I do, actually, I just happen to know more than you. It's a common theme to our little contretemps.
You keep saying that, right in the middle of me explaining to you something you're oblivious to, or repeating something you missed when I posted it previously. Which is quite an odd thing to still be happening, I must say.
The Swiss have a lot of guns, yeah. What you're missing is that they have so many guns because most of them are state-issued due to their weird militia rules and no longer in the "owner's" home. You're trying to make the claim that Switzerland has more gun homicides due to more uncontrolled guns, but - oops - that may just not be the case, unless you can tell me how many guns are actually in private ownership in Switzerland. And I doubt you can.
Any other questions, or are you just going to stop looking like an idiot, and accept that just because you don't know anything doesn't mean there isn't information that the rest of us can use to develop intelligent opinions?
This is the problem with taking a position before bothering to learn anything at all about it.
I've read and learned about this issue for a touch more than a decade. Which I'm sure is less time than you're about to tell me you've spent, but of course the difference is I've spent my time reading about the effect of guns on a population, while you've spent it insisting that because you don't know anything, no-one else must either.
I don't require that my statisticians be in gunfights to comment on statistics.
Then you accept that gun ownership correlates strongly with gun homicide, accidental gun death and gun suicide? Good then. Now that you've come to accept the basic statistical facts of the situation we can finally move on to a sensible discussion of how to limit the number of gun deaths in the US each year.
I would like them to have done a bare basic amount of research before calling the idea of being able to draw a gun quickly absurd, though.
Seriously, that's the claim you're falling back on? After I explain; "A person most certainly can be that skilled with a firearm. The issue is with the staggering improbability of the individual ever being presented with a situation in which he'd have to draw and put rounds into an armed assailant."
And you then quote that and reply to it, implying you read it... then in the same damn post repeat the same stupid nonsense that I was doubting it is possible. I mean, come on, that is just not good enough. Even by the fairly crappy standards of dakka, that's woeful.
Put up some open, honest solutions designed to reduce firearm crime and you'd probably get it.
While you're carrying on like this? No, not possible at all. All we'd get is the same semi-coherent nattering you've put into all these gun threads.
A part of me kind of wishes that the US is like a wild west film where every citizen quickly draws there 6 shot revolver shooting down the evil bandits and then riding off into the sunset.
Seaward wrote: So your contention is those homicides would not have occurred if firearms weren't available?
Yeah. And you might argue that they'd just use another weapon, but I'd point out that frankly that's just you ignoring the numbers, yet again. The US has a homicide rate of 4.8 per 100,000. Compare that to other developed countries, like Germany, 0.8, the United Kingdom, 1.2, France, 1.1, Australia, 1.0, Canada, 1.6, and you find the US is way above any of them. And none of them are inherently free of the drug and social problems that drive murder rates (though the greater level of economic equality could be expected to reduce the rate somewhat, but nothing like the four fold decrease you see compared to the US).
Nor does your 'its all gangs and drug violence' match up when you look at the motives reported by FBI studies on murder in the US - with 25% being killed by family members (where the killer was known) you've already got as much inter-family murder per capita as another developed country has in total. Meanwhile felony circumstances only accounted for 23.1% of killings, meaning that simply isn't an explanation for the roughly four fold increase in killings compared to other developed countries.
So you either have to conclude that Americans are somehow a uniquely murderous, crazed people, who will kill family members as often as the rest of us kill in total, or that there is something in America that makes killing happen a lot more often.
And all those guns, which are afterall tools designed to make killing easier, seem a pretty solid explanation for what it is that makes killing happen.
sebster wrote: Something needs to be done. Owning a gun is something. Therefore it must be done.
Which is, I guess, a kind of logic. Doesn't really matter that owning a gun doesn't really impact the crime rate, or your odds of surviving a home break-in.
It does, actually. I'd post the numbers again, but you just keep whining about how you don't like them ever since Kalashnikov first put them up.
And, also, the US doesn't have that high of a crime rate. Home break ins, muggings, all sorts of other person on person crimes, you're not far from other developed countries. You've just got a really high homicide rate.
And it's on the way down. Sounds like what we're doing is working. Problem solved, we can all stop talking about it.
And in 2004 opposition to gay marriage spiked as well, and lots of social conservatives thought they'd bested that horrible gay marriage issue. Because you can get people to believe crazy nonsense for an election cycle or two. But ultimately, the trend is towards sanity.
And even if you don't buy into that, there's a much greater trend at work here, and that's steady, 60 year decline in gun ownership rates.
Fortunately, the support for gun ownership has been trending up even if actual ownership hasn't.
So really, if you want to ensure good gun laws that let people who want to own guns with a minimum of fuss, then you better get to work on forming sensible, long erm sustainable policy while you've got a political advantage. Because the longer your side insists on crazy nonsense like denying the basic correlation between guns and gun deaths, the quicker you'll lose legitimacy.
We've got it. Problem solved.
That's not the agenda of the opposition, unfortunately.
No, you weren't. That's the point. You were talking about silly little hypotheticals about drawing down on armed attackers, and ignoring the basic stuff that really matters.
See, this is the problem, sebster. They're hardly hypotheticals, and they matter a great deal. When people refuse to acknowledge that you can in fact defend yourself with a gun, it's a very easy way to simply paint the entire notion of owning a gun as lunacy.
[quote[And so yeah, a person might be able to whip out a pistol and shoot down a killer, and every so often in a country of 300 million people that's going to happen. But in the context of 10,000 gun murders a year it's pretty close to meaningless.
If your argument is that more people should carry and know how to handle their carry gun, I completely agree with you.
Any other questions, or are you just going to stop looking like an idiot, and accept that just because you don't know anything doesn't mean there isn't information that the rest of us can use to develop intelligent opinions?
Yep, you're right.
Mexico, I noticed, is quite a ways down on the list. Since you're the expert here, and you've been making the claim that the number of firearms available in the country is the only statistic relevant to the firearm homicide rate, could you explain Mexico for me?
Then you accept that gun ownership correlates strongly with gun homicide, accidental gun death and gun suicide? Good then. Now that you've come to accept the basic statistical facts of the situation we can finally move on to a sensible discussion of how to limit the number of gun deaths in the US each year.
Sure. As they're trending down anyway, I'd say do nothing. I'm utterly unconcerned with gun suicides, and gun homicide is overwhelmingly associated with the drug trade and gang activity. Get rid of drugs and gangs, I'd say, because that's been working out great for decades.
Seriously, that's the claim you're falling back on? After I explain;
"A person most certainly can be that skilled with a firearm. The issue is with the staggering improbability of the individual ever being presented with a situation in which he'd have to draw and put rounds into an armed assailant."
Again, if being confronted with an armed assailant is staggeringly improbable, I'm not sure why you're so vehement that something needs to be done about guns. You keep trying to have it both ways - guns are a huge problem, but your chances of ever being confronted with one are next to nil. It simply cannot be both.
While you're carrying on like this? No, not possible at all. All we'd get is the same semi-coherent nattering you've put into all these gun threads.
First of all, the irony abounds.
And I'll take that to mean you have no solutions beyond your vague, "Well, make people register and then re-register five years later," 'solution.'
d-usa wrote:What about people tripping over Chihuahuas?
Just so long as they're not Assault Chihuahuas.
Seaward, I was going to call you out on your crap again but I see that Sebster has basically done that for me, so I really have nothing further to add here. I have to spend half my time dealing with your strawman arguments, and I'm getting bored. Rather than having a decent debate, you've instead decided to just start blatantly making stuff up, and I have no patience for that. Best of luck there big guy.
sebster wrote: Nor does your 'its all gangs and drug violence' match up when you look at the motives reported by FBI studies on murder in the US - with 25% being killed by family members (where the killer was known) you've already got as much inter-family murder per capita as another developed country has in total. Meanwhile felony circumstances only accounted for 23.1% of killings, meaning that simply isn't an explanation for the roughly four fold increase in killings compared to other developed countries.
I'm missing the part where they break down killings involving gang activity or drugs. You seem to be throwing out the inter-family murders as having nothing to do with either, when there's no data either way to support that, as well as the murders that occurred related to another felony.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
azazel the cat wrote: Seaward, I was going to call you out on your crap again but I see that Sebster has basically done that for me, so I really have nothing further to add here. I have to spend half my time dealing with your strawman arguments, and I'm getting bored. Rather than having a decent debate, you've instead decided to just start blatantly making stuff up, and I have no patience for that. Best of luck there big guy.
Does this mean we won't be getting anymore "Why would anyone possibly need more than a musket?" garbage? I'm crushed.
Seaward wrote: It does, actually. I'd post the numbers again, but you just keep whining about how you don't like them ever since Kalashnikov first put them up.
Yeah, pointing out the numbers have a chronic problem in their methodology (using a cold call method on an event with a very low % produces an overwhelming false positive rate), and pointing out the absolutely insane conclusions of those figures (more rapes stopped by firearms than there was a total number of rapes and attempted rapes that year) and referencing the FBI report that stated this is whining about the numbers.
fething seriously, get better at this.
And it's on the way down. Sounds like what we're doing is working. Problem solved, we can all stop talking about it.
Of course, because as countries get richer, and education rates improve the murder rate goes down. But the idea that having a murder rate that's fourfold other developed countries is okay if it drops by 2 or 3% is flying rodent gak crazy.
Oh sure, if we had a murder rate like the United Kingdom then 7,500 less people would have been killed last year. But the rate did drop 2%, so everything is good.
Fortunately, the support for gun ownership has been trending up even if actual ownership hasn't.
And if you think that's sustainable then I wish you luck in your crazy journey into the brave new world of "Seaward ignores demographics because he thinks that is a thing people can do".
The Republican party that you try so very much to distance yourself from thought demographics were just a thing in other people's reality. Then they hit the maxxed out white people vote and lost the 2012 election anyway. Thing about political parties is that they can make those kind of screw ups, and re-brand themselves as something else.
But the people in favour of gun rights can't do that. So they have to put this issue to bed before the gun owners find themselves much smaller than the people who think 10,000 murder victims are year is a serious issue.
See, this is the problem, sebster. They're hardly hypotheticals, and they matter a great deal. When people refuse to acknowledge that you can in fact defend yourself with a gun, it's a very easy way to simply paint the entire notion of owning a gun as lunacy.
Of course you can defend yourself with a gun. That isn't at question, no matter how much you keep trying to pretend it is.
The point, simply, is that the instances in which people defend themselves with guns is very small. No matter how much of a gun toting bad ass you might personally be, the odds of someone breaking in to your house, coming to your bedroom and pointing a gun at you, just in time for you to draw and put three in him is very, very small. I can't believe I had to type that.
Meanwhile, we can see the effect of guns on the nation as a whole, divorced from any personal little dreams of taking down an intruder. And those numbers are not gun friendly.
Yep, you're right.
Thanks for accepting that.
Mexico, I noticed, is quite a ways down on the list. Since you're the expert here, and you've been making the claim that the number of firearms available in the country is the only statistic relevant to the firearm homicide rate, could you explain Mexico for me?
See how I kept saying 'developed countries'? I did that because in poorer countries, with lower police resources (and more corruption lowering the effectiveness of what police resources there are), greater poverty rates, minimal social security and all the rest, then you get other factors taking a lead in driving the murder rate.
Which is why Mexico has the murder rate it does. But the US is a wealthy country, with great police resourcing, welfare systems and all the rest. There's no reason it should be such an outlier compared to Germany, Spain, the UK, Australia and all the other developed countries. But there it is, sticking out all by itself.
Sure. As they're trending down anyway, I'd say do nothing. I'm utterly unconcerned with gun suicides, and gun homicide is overwhelmingly associated with the drug trade and gang activity. Get rid of drugs and gangs, I'd say, because that's been working out great for decades.
Again, a couple of percent drop in murder rates, when the overall rate is four times other developed countries, is just not a 'its okay do nothing' situation.
And as I pointed out later in my answer, drugs and gangs just don't explain the rate.
Again, if being confronted with an armed assailant is staggeringly improbable, I'm not sure why you're so vehement that something needs to be done about guns. You keep trying to have it both ways - guns are a huge problem, but your chances of ever being confronted with one are next to nil. It simply cannot be both.
No, the situation you describe is something that, statistically, doesn't happen very often. Exactly why this is doesn't matter, it is known that such responses aren't very common. It could be that armed assailants commonly work in pairs or more. Or that gun owners don't react as effectively as they'd personally like when that situation presents itself. Or that armed attackers don't often prey on the middle class men who most commonly carry guns.
I don't know exactly why, but it could be a combination of some of the above and a bunch of other stuff as well. The point is that we simply know from the stats that the situation you're describing is not that common.
I want to point out the most troubling factor in all of this is not guns, of that I am sure. The human condition is to blame, plane and simple we have built up society around us and allowed ourselfs to think we are enlightened, but in truth we are blind to our very own nature. Let's take a look at nature, there are the eaters and eaten. All the eaten(for the most part) have eyes in the side of there heads or in a best place to better detect predators, and the predator has eyes to the front, to better detect its pray, its eyes are sensitive to movement, its chemical and biological system is geared to aid in the kill and preserve itself. Oh what.... that's us?!?!?! Yes we are predators, and if you allow yourself to believe there are not people among us that would make a meal of you then thats on you.
We have been killing each other since the beginning of time, for one reason or another.
2nd amendment "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Many argue this is the keep the "boogy man" away, I am inclined to believe this to be true in the literal sence of, bad guy in my house but an another also,I would point out "necessary to the security of a free state", I am inclined to believe that the German citizens of WWII would have stood up to the nazis, had there right to bear arms not been infringed(what rational person in a position to act would stand idly) But history shows that once the people were no longer a threat (disarmed) to the government, that government commited some of historys worst crimes against humanity. In 1930s/40s I am sure (just like today) that the people belived themselves to be the most advanced and civilized people of history. I am willing to bet the average person today believe that to be true of todays people.
At the end of the day to fix the worlds gun problem we need to go back in time and un-invent them, as it stands this day....... we can't. So how can I legitimately ask a fellow citizen to give up a right or even make up their mind for them? I personally don't believe anyone, government or otherwise has the RIGHT. It rests completely on the individual as to what they deem necessary for their needs.
I am inclined to believe that the German citizens of WWII would have stood up to the nazis, had there right to bear arms not been infringed(what rational person in a position to act would stand idly)
What. How many times has this been gone over in just this thread I wonder. Did you know that the Nazis actually relaxed gun ownership for everyone except Jews?
Seaward wrote: I'm missing the part where they break down killings involving gang activity or drugs. You seem to be throwing out the inter-family murders as having nothing to do with either, when there's no data either way to support that, as well as the murders that occurred related to another felony.
Oh for feth's sake, read. Please just fething once read one of my posts, actually fething figure out what I wrote, think about it, and then give an answer based on what I fething wrote, not some bizarro world interpretation based on a loose skimming of the key words. fething please.
And when you read my response, you'll realise that I recognised that the murder linked to other felonies are an indicator of your 'it's drugs and gangs and stuff' explanation. But that number is only 23.1% of killing, nothing like what it'd have to be to explain the four fold greater rate of murder in the US compared to other developed countries. I mean, if you want to get all maths wonk about it, assuming felong related murder was also 23.1% of murder elsewhere in the world, then in the US it'd have to be more like 80.7% to be an explanation for the four fold increase in murder.
But it isn't.
And yeah, inter-family killings are unlikely to be related to drugs. Claiming otherwise would require claiming that the roughly 1/3 of family killings that involve the husband killing the wife are because the wife couldn't pay for the coke she snorted last week, and husband ain't gonna tolerate that. Given that's insane, we're gonna have to conclude it ain't true.
sebster wrote: Yeah, pointing out the numbers have a chronic problem in their methodology (using a cold call method on an event with a very low % produces an overwhelming false positive rate), and pointing out the absolutely insane conclusions of those figures (more rapes stopped by firearms than there was a total number of rapes and attempted rapes that year) and referencing the FBI report that stated this is whining about the numbers.
fething seriously, get better at this.
How many times need we point out that most defensive gun uses go unreported? Someone tries to assault me, I pull a gun, assault doesn't occur, I don't shoot. That's how, if my memory of KM's numbers serves, most DGUs go. Neither side in that encounter has an incentive to report it, and according to the statistics posted, they overwhelmingly don't.
Of course, because as countries get richer, and education rates improve the murder rate goes down. But the idea that having a murder rate that's fourfold other developed countries is okay if it drops by 2 or 3% is flying rodent gak crazy.
The problem with that assertion is that guns alone don't make up the difference in the murder rate, so you're kind of proving the point that guns are not the one and only factor at play in America's homicide problem.
And if you think that's sustainable then I wish you luck in your crazy journey into the brave new world of "Seaward ignores demographics because he thinks that is a thing people can do".
Why do you think demographic shifts will have anything to do with it? Are minorities more unlikely to support firearm ownership? If so, I'd like to see some evidence. Support's on the rise as this great demographic shift occurs, so I'm not sure where you're drawing your conclusion that demographics will shift massively against gun rights from.
Of course you can defend yourself with a gun. That isn't at question, no matter how much you keep trying to pretend it is.
Seriously, go back and read the posts about this topic before you joined the thread again. The only reason it's come up at all is that we had some Canadians claiming nobody could use a gun to defend themselves against someone who already had a gun drawn on them. That's it. I keep explaining it, and you keep arguing some other issue.
The point, simply, is that the instances in which people defend themselves with guns is very small.
This brings us back to KM's numbers. I think it's a lot more frequent than you're giving it credit for.
Meanwhile, we can see the effect of guns on the nation as a whole, divorced from any personal little dreams of taking down an intruder.
Ah, yes. Do I also have personal little dreams of my house catching fire because we installed a sprinkler system in it?
Again, a couple of percent drop in murder rates, when the overall rate is four times other developed countries, is just not a 'its okay do nothing' situation.
I disagree. It is when the trend is continuing down, and the other proposed solutions that anyone takes seriously have already had their time in the sun here and been proven not to work. AWB? Didn't do anything, by the DOJ's own analysis. Mag cap bans? We tried that, too. They don't work.
Universal background checks might make a dent, but I doubt it, to a degree. Either way, I'm in favor of them, but the problem is they come packaged with all this other crap that we know, for fact, doesn't do anything.
No, the situation you describe is something that, statistically, doesn't happen very often. Exactly why this is doesn't matter, it is known that such responses aren't very common. It could be that armed assailants commonly work in pairs or more. Or that gun owners don't react as effectively as they'd personally like when that situation presents itself. Or that armed attackers don't often prey on the middle class men who most commonly carry guns.
I don't know exactly why, but it could be a combination of some of the above and a bunch of other stuff as well. The point is that we simply know from the stats that the situation you're describing is not that common.
Personally, I think it's because the overwhelming majority of Americans don't carry guns.
battle8rother wrote: I want to point out the most troubling factor in all of this is not guns, of that I am sure. The human condition is to blame, plane and simple we have built up society around us and allowed ourselfs to think we are enlightened, but in truth we are blind to our very own nature. Let's take a look at nature, there are the eaters and eaten. All the eaten(for the most part) have eyes in the side of there heads or in a best place to better detect predators, and the predator has eyes to the front, to better detect its pray, its eyes are sensitive to movement, its chemical and biological system is geared to aid in the kill and preserve itself. Oh what.... that's us?!?!?! Yes we are predators, and if you allow yourself to believe there are not people among us that would make a meal of you then thats on you.
Now, given the US has a rate of murder that's four times that of other developed countries, you either have to argue that the people of the US are either super-predators with a simply greater murderous desire, or there is something else at work.
I mean, to extend your argument, consider a species that is a super-predator because it is more capable of killing others of its own kind. Don't you think such a species would commit such an act more often, that if instead of having to beat a victim about the head many times, the predator could just kill from a distance with little more than simple motion. And then consider that's what a gun allows for.
Isn't it just common sense that when a thing becomes easier, we do it more often?
I am inclined to believe that the German citizens of WWII would have stood up to the nazis, had there right to bear arms not been infringed
Their guns weren't taken away. The firearms act of 1938 actually loosened the gun laws for everyone except the Jews. Firearms were permitted in Hussein's Iraq.
Basically, the nature of political oppression is just not as simple as 'we don't have the guns to fight them'. If you want to talk about human nature, then talk about the sad but undeniable reality that horrific governments are generally supported by a significant portion of their population (the ones who are the victims of oppression). Hitler wasn't that unpopular until the war started going badly.
Smacks wrote: I'm not really used to everyday people I meet in the street, or in shops or on trains having absolute power over life and death. How are you supposed to have argument or a fight with someone with the constant threat of being shot looming all the time?
This argument comes up from our friends in the Commonwealth so often that I'm forced to conclude the only thing stopping you guys from constantly killing each other over petty arguments is the lack of readily available weaponry.
I really wanted to contrast this with what sebster wrote. Since it was requoted a couple of times as a dig at the commonwealth.
sebster wrote: ...FBI studies on murder in the US - with 25% being killed by family members (where the killer was known) you've already got as much inter-family murder per capita as another developed country has in total...
So you either have to conclude that Americans are somehow a uniquely murderous, crazed people, who will kill family members as often as the rest of us kill in total, or that there is something in America that makes killing happen a lot more often...
@ Seaward: These statistics do indicate that when weapons are readily available people do kill each other more... notably Americans. Seems ironic that your snipe at the commonwealth should be corroborated by the violence currently taking place in your own country.
sebster wrote: Oh for feth's sake, read. Please just fething once read one of my posts, actually fething figure out what I wrote, think about it, and then give an answer based on what I fething wrote, not some bizarro world interpretation based on a loose skimming of the key words. fething please.
And when you read my response, you'll realise that I recognised that the murder linked to other felonies are an indicator of your 'it's drugs and gangs and stuff' explanation. But that number is only 23.1% of killing, nothing like what it'd have to be to explain the four fold greater rate of murder in the US compared to other developed countries. I mean, if you want to get all maths wonk about it, assuming felong related murder was also 23.1% of murder elsewhere in the world, then in the US it'd have to be more like 80.7% to be an explanation for the four fold increase in murder.
But it isn't.
And yeah, inter-family killings are unlikely to be related to drugs. Claiming otherwise would require claiming that the roughly 1/3 of family killings that involve the husband killing the wife are because the wife couldn't pay for the coke she snorted last week, and husband ain't gonna tolerate that. Given that's insane, we're gonna have to conclude it ain't true.
I read what you wrote. I think you need to re-read what I wrote. Namely, that there's no indication to conclude it's only the murders linked to other felonies that involve drugs or gangs. Pretty simple concept.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Smacks wrote: @ Seaward: These statistics do indicate that when weapons are readily available people do kill each other more... notably Americans. Seems ironic that your snipe at the commonwealth should be corroborated by the violence currently taking place in your own country.
No, they really don't.
And the "snipe at the Commonwealth" was taken due to remembering the article from 2005 posted here a couple months back about British docs recommending a ban on pointed knives due to the number of Britons being killed in the heat of a passionate argument due to their ready availability.
Seaward wrote: So you believe that if guns vanished from America overnight we'd suddenly have Britain's homicide rate?
Whatever floats your boat, I suppose.
Let me just get this straight. With one hand you say the British people are somehow more violent, and the only thing that stops them killing each other is lack of firearms.
Then with the other hand you are saying that Americans (who I assume you consider much more civilised) would still kill each other 4 times more, given the same access to weapons that the British have?
One of your hands doesn't make sense. I think it's both of them...
If all guns disappeared overnight, murder rates would plummet. Particularly crimes of passion. Pulling a trigger is too easy. See how killy you all feel when you have to murder each other up close and personal with spoons, like the British. I'd be surprised if you made it over 0.9.
Smacks wrote: Let me just get this straight. With one had you say the British people are somehow more violent, and the only thing that stops them killing each other is lack of firearms.
No. I said that the frequent refrain from Brits and Aussies that they'd be terrified of constantly getting shot if they had access to guns suggests that the only thing keeping them from killing each other right now is the lack of access to guns.
Then with the other hand you are saying that Americans (who I assume you consider much more civilised) would still kill each other 4 times more, given the same access to weapons that the British have?
I absolutely think we'd still be killing each other four times more than the Brits if guns vanished overnight from America. I also don't think we're "more civilized" than they are. I kind of like it that way, personally.
If all guns disappeared overnight, murder rates would plummet.
I doubt it. If we look at Australia, for example, the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research concluded in 2005 that their near-ban legislation in 1996 had little to no effect on violence.
Smacks wrote: Let me just get this straight. With one had you say the British people are somehow more violent, and the only thing that stops them killing each other is lack of firearms.
No. I said that the frequent refrain from Brits and Aussies that they'd be terrified of constantly getting shot if they had access to guns suggests that the only thing keeping them from killing each other right now is the lack of access to guns.
How is that not the same thing?
Then with the other hand you are saying that Americans (who I assume you consider much more civilised) would still kill each other 4 times more, given the same access to weapons that the British have?
I absolutely think we'd still be killing each other four times more than the Brits if guns vanished overnight from America.
I'd love to hear why?
If all guns disappeared overnight, murder rates would plummet.
I doubt it. If we look at Australia, for example, the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research concluded in 2005 that their near-ban legislation in 1996 had little to no effect on violence.
Yes but all guns did not disappear over night. That is not the same thing at all.
). Apparently this is why you all need guns.
