Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 sebster wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Except this right is actually extremely important. Its the right that guarantees all the others. The fact you don't need to exercise it all that much is proof that it works. That is why it will never be obsolete and should always remain.

It is a safeguard against tyranny, and as a bonus it also protects you from criminals.

Except that other countries exist, and we maintain strong freedoms despite having strict firearm controls.

I really just have to plead with you to please just look outside the borders of your country and fething learn something about how the world works.

Who gives a damn about other countries? This is about the US. Not anyone else.

I don't tell Australia or Britain or France what to do. Why should people there tell us what to do?

 Grey Templar wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Except this right is actually extremely important. Its the right that guarantees all the others. The fact you don't need to exercise it all that much is proof that it works. That is why it will never be obsolete and should always remain.

It is a safeguard against tyranny, and as a bonus it also protects you from criminals.

Except that other countries exist, and we maintain strong freedoms despite having strict firearm controls.

I really just have to plead with you to please just look outside the borders of your country and fething learn something about how the world works.

Who gives a damn about other countries? This is about the US. Not anyone else.

I don't tell Australia or Britain or France what to do. Why should people there tell us what to do?

edited for rudeness, motyak

Relapse wrote:
Here's a question, then, since you say you like drinking. At parties, do you get drinks for people or serve them out? You are putting someone at risk whenever you do.

It's an interesting philosophical question no doubt, but it's unlikely I'm going to be putting them at as much risk as if I were to shoot them.

 Smacks wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Here's a question, then, since you say you like drinking. At parties, do you get drinks for people or serve them out? You are putting someone at risk whenever you do.

It's an interesting philosophical question no doubt, but it's unlikely I'm going to be putting them at as much risk as if I were to shoot them.

False equivalency.

 Smacks wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Here's a question, then, since you say you like drinking. At parties, do you get drinks for people or serve them out? You are putting someone at risk whenever you do.

It's an interesting philosophical question no doubt, but it's unlikely I'm going to be putting them at as much risk as if I were to shoot them.

Not really. Some statistics from Britain where alcohol related deaths and health problems are on the rise:

https://www.alcoholconcern.org.uk/help-and-advice/statistics-on-alcohol/

Just this one statement alone is troubling:

"The number of older people between the ages of 60 and 74 admitted to hospitals in England with mental and behavioural disorders associated with alcohol use has risen by over 150% in the past ten years, while the figure for 15-59 years old has increased by 94%"

Didn't Australia had a whackjob with a shotgun go full on "Shooter" in a coffee shop last year?
Not the teen with a fire axe going full tantrum on some poor Mini Coop(?)

France has/had a few whackjobs go full on "Shooter"
UK had one whackjob go full "shooter" to

Its not like the US is the only one with "Shooters"

People go whackjob to full on shooter can happen anywhere regardless of the country laws concerning fire arms

Edit

Watching Shindler List so my inner rage might show later on

 Grey Templar wrote:
Who gives a damn about other countries? This is about the US. Not anyone else.

I don't tell Australia or Britain or France what to do. Why should people there tell us what to do?

It isn't just about the US. Remarkable as it may sound other countries also have guns, and gun problems. The question of whether guns are healthy for a civilized society is a human question, not just an American one. It just often seems like an American one because you have so many shooting incidents.

And when I see people dying in other countries, be it China, or Iran, or America then I think not only do I have a right, but I have a responsibility to speak out, and say "this is wrong".

Alex C likes to cuddle his gun and tell people to STFU. But I think people deserve to be able to watch a movie, without being shot, more. Despite what he claims, I do understand, and comprehend etc... that he thinks he has a right. But I think if having that right is going to cost many other people their lives, when he could make do with out it, then he is just being selfish, and that's wrong.

 Smacks wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Who gives a damn about other countries? This is about the US. Not anyone else.

I don't tell Australia or Britain or France what to do. Why should people there tell us what to do?

It isn't just about the US. Remarkable as it may sound other countries also have guns, and gun problems. The question of whether guns are healthy for a civilized society is a human question, not just an American one. It just often seems like an American one because you have so many shooting incidents.

And when I see people dying in other countries, be it China, or Iran, or America then I think not only do I have a right, but I have a responsibility to speak out, and say "this is wrong".

Alex C likes to cuddle his gun and tell people to STFU. But I think people deserve to be able to watch a movie, without being shot, more. Despite what he claims, I do understand, and comprehend etc... that he thinks he has a right. But I think if having that right is going to cost many other people their lives, when he could make do with out it, then he is just being selfish, and that's wrong.

I think people deserve to be able to drive without a drunk driver running into them, also, or the 2 in 3 victims of domestic abuse caused by alcohol not having to suffer such a thing. Yet here we have people with no problem serving up alcohol, putting other people's lives at risk from the fallout, yet who go on about wanting to save lives from something that affects far less people.

Him having that gun hasn't harmed anyone. Just like the millions of other law abiding Americans who own firearms but haven't hurt anyone.

Why should you trample on the rights of millions because you think you might stop a few hundred from dying? Especially when the evidence has no indication you would actually save those few people.

 Jihadin wrote:
Didn't Australia had a whackjob with a shotgun go full on "Shooter" in a coffee shop last year?
Not the teen with a fire axe going full tantrum on some poor Mini Coop(?)

France has/had a few whackjobs go full on "Shooter"
UK had one whackjob go full "shooter" to

Its not like the US is the only one with "Shooters"

People go whackjob to full on shooter can happen anywhere regardless of the country laws concerning fire arms

Edit

Watching Shindler List so my inner rage might show later on

There was also a shooting in Sweden:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/19/sweden-shootings-deaths-at-gothenburg-restaurant-say-police

It appears to be drug related, which brings in a whole other segment of the population who buy drugs, giving motive to the killers.

Relapse wrote:
I think people deserve to be able to drive without a drunk driver running into them, also, or the 2 in 3 victims of domestic abuse caused by alcohol not having to suffer such a thing. Yet here we have people with no problem serving up alcohol, putting other people's lives at risk from the fallout, yet who go on about wanting to save lives from something that affects far less people.

You are just deflecting. And it's not going to work. You think that you can somehow undermine my argument by switching guns for alcohol and exposing a double standard, but it isn't going to work. I agree alcohol is bad, and I think society would be better off without it. The fact that I enjoy drinking doesn't blind me to that fact.

So by the same measure I can say without any double standard that I think society would be better off without guns. I think you are letting your own enjoyment of guns cloud your judgement on this issue.

 Smacks wrote:

Relapse wrote:
I think people deserve to be able to drive without a drunk driver running into them, also, or the 2 in 3 victims of domestic abuse caused by alcohol not having to suffer such a thing. Yet here we have people with no problem serving up alcohol, putting other people's lives at risk from the fallout, yet who go on about wanting to save lives from something that affects far less people.

You are just deflecting. And it's not going to work. You think that you can somehow undermine my argument by switching guns for alcohol and exposing a double standard, but it isn't going to work. I agree alcohol is bad, and I think society would be better off without it. The fact that I enjoy drinking doesn't blind me to that fact.

So by the same measure I can say without any double standard that I think society would be better off without guns. I think you are letting your own enjoyment of guns cloud your judgement on this issue.

Not deflecting at all. Just proving the hypocrisy inherent in saying the desire to get rid of guns is rooted in wanting to save lives while indulging in and encouraging others to indulge in a pass time that ends or impacts far more lives negatively.
Just as an aside, I don't own any guns. Don't have the desire to.

 Smacks wrote:
To connect them with basic human right like free speech and a fair trial is obscene. Any developed society would want free speech, no one wants America's gun problem, not even America.

If I have the right to life why do I not have the right to defend that life? And support for gun control is at an all time low here, with many jurisdictions relaxing gun laws. I think that should provide you some indication of what America wants

 Smacks wrote:
The problem is that people with guns like to shoot other people

That is quite the bold claim. I would to see you substantiate it.

 Smacks wrote:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/

The most recent source in that study is 11 years old. So I would question it's accuracy to today

http://www.theacru.org/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/
Another Harvard study has shown;

If the mantra “more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death” were true, broad cross-national comparisons should show that nations with higher gun ownership per capita consistently have more death. Nations with higher gun ownership rates, however, do not have higher murder or suicide rates than those with lower gun ownership. Indeed many high gun ownership nations have much lower murder rates. (p. 661)

[P]er capita murder overall is only half as frequent in the United States as in several other nations where gun murder is rarer, but murder by strangling, stabbing, or beating is much more frequent. (p. 663 – emphases in original)

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent

“Self-defense can be an important crime deterrent,”says a new report by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). The $10 million study was commissioned by President Barack Obama as part of 23 executive orders he signed in January.
“Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies,” the CDC study, entitled “Priorities For Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence,” states.

The report, which notes that “ violent crimes, including homicides specifically, have declined in the past five years,” also pointed out that “some firearm violence results in death, but most does not.” In fact, the CDC report said, most incidents involving the discharge of firearms do not result in a fatality.

CDC study from 2013 stands at odds with your source


I know that this is nothing new, but this bears repeating for others who may not have seen this;

Gun ownership has been trending upwards for many years


At the same time homicides, including those with guns have been on the decline


Even accidental deaths from firearms has been on the decline as ownership has been on the rise


How do accidental deaths by firearm contribute to the overall total for accidental deaths?

Not by much

So out of all the guns in private hands in the US how many are used in crimes?


From John Lott's recent report, Concealed Carry Permit Holders Across the United States

– The number of concealed handgun permits is increasing at an ever- increasing rate. Over the past year, 1.7 million additional new permits have been issued – a 15.4% increase in just one single year. This is the largest ever single-year increase in the number of concealed handgun permits.

– 5.2% of the total adult population has a permit.

– Five states now have more than 10% of their adult population with concealed handgun permits.

– In ten states, a permit is no longer required to carry in all or virtually all of the state. This is a major reason why legal carrying handguns is growing so much faster than the number of permits.

– Since 2007, permits for women has increased by 270% and for men by 156%.

– Some evidence suggests that permit holding by minorities is increasing more than twice as fast as for whites.

– Between 2007 and 2014, murder rates have fallen from 5.6 to 4.2 (preliminary estimates) per 100,000. This represents a 25% drop in the murder rate at the same time that the percentage of the adult population with permits soared by 156%. Overall violent crime also fell by 25 percent over that period of time.

– Regression estimates show that even after accounting for the per capita number of police and people admitted to prison and demographics, the adult population with permits is significantly associated with a drop in murder and violent crime rates.

– Concealed handgun permit holders are extremely law-abiding. In Florida and Texas, permit holders are convicted of misdemeanors or felonies at one- sixth the rate that police officers are convicted.

 Smacks wrote:
The problem with guns in America is that any kind of control is resisted by the gun-rights lobby as unconstitutional. There is a lot of middle ground between unrestricted and banned which could be described as "controlled", but it's difficult to even find a compromise if one side sees their position as a god given right.

Well, when it comes to the Second Amendment the issue of constitutionality must always be considered. That is just a legal and constitutional fact

What do you feel is a "compromise" position?

 Jihadin wrote:
Its not like the US is the only one with "Shooters"

One of the deadliest mass killings took place in Norway, and there are dozens of other mass shootings that have taken place outside the United States.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Smacks wrote:
Despite what he claims, I do understand, and comprehend etc... that he thinks he has a right. But I think if having that right is going to cost many other people their lives, when he could make do with out it, then he is just being selfish, and that's wrong.

He does have that right (provided that he is not a disqualified person).

Owning a firearm is not "going to cost many people their lives". As shown above the overwhelming majority of firearms are not used in crime, much less used to harm another person. No one here is defending the cinema shooter. Far from it. This person was not eligible to own a firearm as he was a felon, had documented mental health issues, was a domestic abuser, and had previously been subject to a restraining order. Something appears to have gone very wrong with the FBI's background check system. Restricting the rights of millions of law abiding Americans will not fix that.

This thread is really starting to hit its stride as a regular gun thread in terms of the rudeness on display at points in it. It's very important that this doesn't continue, or else another gun thread is going to go the way of the dodo. This isn't in reference to the most recent posts mind, but just a heads up because of how it was going

So in light of a second in thread Moderator warning, and in an attempt to get us back to the original topic of the thread, have there been any further developments or details released in this case?

Relapse wrote:
Not deflecting at all. Just proving the hypocrisy inherent in saying the desire to get rid of guns is rooted in wanting to save lives while indulging in and encouraging others to indulge in a pass time that ends or impacts far more lives negatively.

Drinking and traffic accidents impact more lives because at any given time there are a huge number of people drinking and/or driving. That does not mean that either is pound for pound as dangerous as when a gun is fired.

You are trying to point out hypocrisy where there isn't any. As I have said, I agree that society would be better off without alcohol. I wish that people had something more meaningful in lives.

And you are deflecting. It doesn't matter to this topic if drinking kills more people than guns, that doesn't excuse any gun related deaths. Charles Manson does not suddenly become innocent because he killed fewer people than Ted Bundy. Chris Kyle killed more than Bundy but that doesn't make him a greater evil. Trying to to appeal to bigger problems, especially unrelated problems, is just deflection.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
So in light of a second in thread Moderator warning, and in an attempt to get us back to the original topic of the thread, have there been any further developments or details released in this case?

Sorry, I had to go AFK before I could click send, so the above post is from before the mod warning. I'm happy to get back on topic though and drop the argument.

It does make the impact of legislation questionable.

If so few people die to guns, there is no good reason to waste legislative time on curbing them. Doubly so when it is a fundamental human right that is involved. Unlike booze, which is not a fundamental human right.

If booze isn't worth further legislating against, then guns are certainly even less worth our time.

 Smacks wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Not deflecting at all. Just proving the hypocrisy inherent in saying the desire to get rid of guns is rooted in wanting to save lives while indulging in and encouraging others to indulge in a pass time that ends or impacts far more lives negatively.

Drinking and traffic accidents impact more lives because at any given time there are a huge number of people drinking and/or driving. That does not mean that either is pound for pound as dangerous as when a gun is fired.

You are trying to point out hypocrisy where there isn't any. As I have said, I agree that society would be better off without alcohol. I wish that people had something more meaningful in lives.

And you are deflecting. It doesn't matter to this topic if drinking kills more people than guns, that doesn't excuse any gun related deaths. Charles Manson does not suddenly become innocent because he killed fewer people than Ted Bundy. Chris Kyle killed more than Bundy but that doesn't make him a greater evil. Trying to to appeal to bigger problems, especially unrelated problems, is just deflection.

You agree society would be better without it, yet you support it by your use and sharing of it. Just another example of a country with an alcohol problem:

http://qz.com/403307/russia-is-quite-literally-drinking-itself-to-death/

I think people going after guns and ignoring alcohol is strange.

Using Chris Kyle in your example is a bit wrong. I shot back in anger and have engaged active shooters. I am not "evil"

 Smacks wrote:
Here we go with whataboutism again. At least people who drink alcohol are willing to admit that they just enjoy getting drunk and having fun. They don't feel the need conceal it behind "I get drunk in case I need to fight a burglar"

That's why I drink.

 Smacks wrote:
The problem is that people with guns like to shoot other people (whether those people are pro-gun or not) which takes a lot of the "personal choice" out of it.

I think you had a lot of good arguments in this thread but this is crazy talk.

In this country there is a very strong hunting culture, especially in rural areas. Additionally, a great many people, myself included, enjoy the shooting sports such as skeet, trap, and so on. To claim these people all are hoping to shoot people is really, really condescending, wrong, and rude.

Relapse wrote:
You agree society would be better without it, yet you support it by your use and sharing of it.

There are lots of things I disagree with, such as usury, pollution etc... But I will inevitably contribute to them because they are so deeply ingrained in society. If I could live in a solar powered house I would, but my house is rented, and my landlord would never pay for something like that so meh. I guess sometimes we are just stuck with what we've got. That doesn't mean I can't disagree with way things are, and imagine a better world, even if I must contend with this one for now.

Ouze wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
The problem is that people with guns like to shoot other people (whether those people are pro-gun or not) which takes a lot of the "personal choice" out of it.

I think you had a lot of good arguments in this thread but this is crazy talk.

In this country there is a very strong hunting culture, especially in rural areas. Additionally, a great many people, myself included, enjoy the shooting sports such as skeet, trap, and so on. To claim these people all are hoping to shoot people is really, really condescending, wrong, and rude.

Ouze, as you're the third person to bring that up. I can only apologise. That is absolutely not what I was trying to suggest, and I really can't apologise enough if I inadvertently caused offence.

I did not mean to imply that all people with guns are looking to shoot someone. Just that guns are sometimes (some people might say too often) use to shoot other people. This is a point I'm sure you can acknowledge as just a statement of fact.

If you look at the context of my post, I was talking about self inflicted harm, versus harm inflicted by others. Not the character of of gun owners. I hope you will see that any offence I might have caused through a poor choice of words, was accidental, and not a reflection of my actually beliefs.

I in no way shape or form believe that gun owners like killing, that would indeed be crazy talk, and it's not something I stand behind.

Your apology is accepted.

Yes, guns are often used to hurt people. Fortunately, its far less people than are hurt by a multitude of other things. Which is the real thing to take away.

I enjoy hunting and am in two shooting leagues (a glock league at the local range and a skeet league at the local sportsman club).

It would be easier to take you seriously if you didn't offhandedly dismiss all the people that also enjoy shooting sports and hunting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Smacks wrote:


I did not mean to imply that all people with guns are looking to shoot someone. Just that guns are sometimes (some people might say too often) use to shoot other people. This is a point I'm sure you can acknowledge as just a statement of fact.

If you look at the context of my post, I was talking about self inflicted harm, versus harm inflicted by others.

The same can be said about any number of tools, alcohol, and drugs.

 Smacks wrote:
Ouze, as you're the third person to bring that up. I can only apologise. That is absolutely not what I was trying to suggest, and I really can't apologise enough if I inadvertently caused offence.

I did not mean to imply that all people with guns are looking to shoot someone. Just that guns are sometimes (some people might say too often) use to shoot other people. This is a point I'm sure you can acknowledge as just a statement of fact.

If you look at the context of my post, I was talking about self inflicted harm, versus harm inflicted by others. Not the character of of gun owners. I hope you will see that any offence I might have caused through a poor choice of words, was accidental, and not a reflection of my actually beliefs.

I in no way shape or form believe that gun owners like killing, that would indeed be crazy talk, and it's not something I stand behind.

I appreciate you walking that back, thank you.

I'd generally agree with most of the rest of what you've said in this thread. It rankles me when people say that the second amendment ensures all other rights - that's lunacy. We've had 27 amendments and various constitutional crises but at no point were any of these enacted or resolved via force of arms. I would strongly argue that it's the first amendment that ensures all others. YMMV of course.

Just because something hasn't been actively used doesn't mean it isn't working. Thats kinda the point of deterrent systems. It works for nuclear weapons.

If I own a gun for my entire life for self defense, but I never use it in self defense, it wasn't a waste.

If I have insurance, but I never ever have to use it, it wasn't a waste.

Ouze wrote:
I would strongly argue that it's the first amendment that ensures all others. YMMV of course.

Perhaps one could say that the first ensures all others, and the second is a fail-safe that protects the first.

 Smacks wrote:

Relapse wrote:
You agree society would be better without it, yet you support it by your use and sharing of it.

There are lots of things I disagree with, such as usury, pollution etc... But I will inevitably contribute to them because they are so deeply ingrained in society. If I could live in a solar powered house I would, but my house is rented, and my landlord would never pay for something like that so meh. I guess sometimes we are just stuck with what we've got. That doesn't mean I can't disagree with way things are, and imagine a better world, even if I must contend with this one for now.
.

So you drink and don't stop because it is so deeply ingrained with you? Gun culture is deeply ingrained here and does far less damage than alcohol and more than a few times, guns save lives.

Relapse wrote:
So you drink and can't stop because it is so deeply ingrained with you? What you seem to be saying is that because someone likes guns, they are indulging in dangerous behavior and are doing something worse than what you do because it's different, even if it is far less dangerous to the public welfare.

I'm not really sure what you are trying to get at here. I don't have a problem with any individual who owns a gun legally and uses it responsibly.

EDIT: Because you edited your post.

Relapse wrote:
So you drink and don't stop because it is so deeply ingrained with you? Gun culture is deeply ingrained here and does far less damage than alcohol and more than a few times, guns save lives.

I did not say that I don't stop drinking, or that I would not stop drinking. Stop trying to get me to defend alcohol. I have already said multiple times that I think the world would likely be a better place without alcohol.

The fact that I occasionally drink alcohol is irrelevant. I think guns are cool too. I'd love to go to a shooting range and shot the gak out of some stuff. Or even blow some gak up from a helicopter, that looks like loads of fun. But that doesn't mean I'm forced to agree guns in society aren't a recipe for trouble.

 Smacks wrote:

Relapse wrote:
So you drink and can't stop because it is so deeply ingrained with you? What you seem to be saying is that because someone likes guns, they are indulging in dangerous behavior and are doing something worse than what you do because it's different, even if it is far less dangerous to the public welfare.

I'm not really sure what you are trying to get at here. I don't have a problem with any individual who owns a gun legally and uses it responsibly.

You certainly seem to have been talking against people owning guns the past few pages. You weren't talking about legalities, just that guns were bad, the second amendment was bad, etc.

Man I'm glad we managed to come to a consensus on gun control and related matters in this thread, since that was the main topic of the thread. We have changed lives here. Since we have finished with the main topic now though, and that sideshow topic of someone shooting people in a theatre died out ages ago, I think we're good to lock it up