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.

ParatrooperSimon wrote:not to defend someone's or yours

That's not true.

They're called personal defense weapons for a reason.

Melissia wrote:They're called personal defense weapons for a reason.

Culpability insurance?

Melissia wrote:

ParatrooperSimon wrote:not to defend someone's or yours

That's not true.

They're called personal defense weapons for a reason.

I know more than a few people that have defended themselves with guns where they otherwise would have ended up dead or injured.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ifStatement wrote:

Melissia wrote:They're called personal defense weapons for a reason.

Culpability insurance?

This brings up another good point. Time and again gun manufacturerers get sued by family members of someone that was killed by a gun.
Would not a distiller or brewer be equally liable over someone that lost a relative to a drunk driver?

Sometimes the bartenders are.

Relapse wrote:Time and again gun manufacturerers get sued by family members of someone that was killed by a gun.

That actually happens?

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DZs5DxwzEXHQ&v=Zs5DxwzEXHQ&gl=US

Yup.

SOFDC wrote:Because to some people, perceived intent supersedes reality.

A car is automatically morally superior to a firearm, even if the car kills 100,000 times more people than all firearms combined, because the car is not "Designed to kill"....as if this mattered, and as if that function did not have merit all on its own.

Intention doesn't matter?

I don't know of many people carrying torches in order to take down the mass murderers at Ford, GM, and Chrysler, but there was dancing in the street when Osama bin Laden was killed.

And, before you talk about the conflation of killing and murder, the difference is basically whatever we want it to be.

SOFDC wrote:
How about politicians that advocate gun control and also carry concealed? For me, but not for thee...

I advocate gun control, and while I don't have concealed carry, I own a couple guns, with one on the way. My perfect world is one in which only I am allowed to own firearms, your rights are absolutely meaningless to me in the face of my own.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:
Would not a distiller or brewer be equally liable over someone that lost a relative to a drunk driver?

In many states commercial vendors of alcohol are liable for injuries their drunk patrons cause.

Gun stores are similarly liable in certain states when they do not follow the relevant laws.

So far as I know, suits against manufacturers in either case are little more than grandstanding.

Here's a lil' Penn and Teller take on gun control

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=SCXtfR0_roE

It' s the first of a three parter. Just a warning, it's got a bit of language not for youngsters.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. If I know how to killa person with my fist, should I get my fist confinscated? It's just another way to enslave mankind, yet again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Johnny-Crass wrote:Yah do not hear about school shootings with crossbows.

That's the School's fault for not controlling bullying.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ParatrooperSimon wrote:Guns are made for one reason, and one reason only, to take another human beings life, not to defend someone's or yours, but to kill another person. Gun's should't be sold anywhere and should only be permitted to Military personal only.

What will happen if a Military Coup happens?

rockerbikie wrote:Guns don't kill people, people kill people. If I know how to killa person with my fist, should I get my fist confinscated? It's just another way to enslave mankind, yet again.

That tube you feel is your trachea. Think of it as a handle. Your thumb is on your carotid artery, that's your button. Now remember, grab the handle, push the button.

Private_Joker wrote:

What will happen if a Military Coup happens?

I don't know. Most people who don't shoot guns have no idea what people who shoot are like. We already have laws that prevent us from owning machine guns, grenades, mortars, anti-aircraft weapons, artillery, tanks and RPGs. That takes care of most everything seriously dangerous to the population. So what does that leave us with? Shotguns, rifles and pistols?

I'd be interested to know how many people were killed by machine guns and grenades before the ban.

Guns are not dangerous. Americans with guns are dangerous

Bad joke aside I think that only former military may own guns.

You should be able to own a weapon, but like the military a quatermaster or clerk should hang onto it maybe even local police, so everytime you want to use it, sign out for it and put it back again. You do NOT need a firearm in your house.

Starting a firefight is not the smartest move with your family in the house. No matter how accurate you think you are a single missed round goes straight through your wall into your kids bedroom. If you want to learn how to protect your family invest in things like a panic room or security systems for your home. I don't care if it costs too much its worth less than a persons life, even if they are a criminal.

Part 2 of my rant: Do you really want everyone to own firearms? Sure if you want to suppress a military coup using civilians...be my guest. Trust me it would be a useless slaughter. Also what's to stop a minority group who do not represent the majority from utilising there new found weapons to overthrow your goverment? Give the populace some leash and they will run amock. So what if your a little oppressed, beats the heck out of drive-by Tuesday.

Rather than "deaths caused" maybe you should look at "intentional
deaths caused", i.e. homicide. I think the homicide rate with guns is
that over 50% of homicides are committed with guns? Not sure, I'll
have to check later.

Because I think most deaths are caused in america by heart disease.

malfred wrote:Rather than "deaths caused" maybe you should look at "intentional
deaths caused", i.e. homicide. I think the homicide rate with guns is
that over 50% of homicides are committed with guns? Not sure, I'll
have to check later.

Because I think most deaths are caused in america by heart disease.

The presence of intent makes no difference to the families I know of people killed or crippled by drunk or stoned drivers. Their loved ones are dead at the hands of people that well know the risks of driving impaired. It's the same as murder in their minds.

Private_Joker wrote:You do NOT need a firearm in your house.

Home defense.

We have a security system. But it still takes several minutes for police to respond.

You seem to think that the moment a criminal trips the alarm, police are right there to respond, and that's completely detached from reality.

Melissia wrote:

Private_Joker wrote:You do NOT need a firearm in your house.

Home defense.

We have a security system. But it still takes several minutes for police to respond.

You seem to think that the moment a criminal trips the alarm, police are right there to respond, and that's completely detached from reality.

An alarm blaring away making a deafening sound? I'm sure any criminal trying to pull off a break and enter would be deterred from continuing once he knows he is revealed. Also I never said anything about police responding?

I love this scene from Family Guy



Some years ago while I was at University and walking home from a night out. A friend of mine who was an amount over 6ft tall with weight to match and a hoodie pulled up over his head, decided he couldn't wait until he got home to take a pee and so relieved himself in a bush, near the doorway of someone's house. However, perhaps unluckily for him the place was home to a guy with anger issues. Not having the mental ability to say his own name let alone a reasoned response to why he was watering the guy's flowers, the latter decided to run out of his house and bop him on the nose.

While the house owner could have taken a more diplomatic approach, from his perspective seeing a the silhouette of a massive guy with a hood up walk past his window late at night I can understand his response (especially considering the area had a pretty bad crime rate). But I can't help but think that the worst my friend woke up with the next morning was a fuzzy head and a slightly larger nose than normal, whereas had he been in the States it could well have been on a slab with a tag on his toe.

In response to the OP, the arms industry carried massive weight in American politics, to the point where it would be political suicide to go up against it. I believe Clinton tried, but considering the money that lobbyists give towards campaign funds I think for the most part their hands are tied. In the meantime, people are lead by the nose and told that having a significant population walking around with the capacity to deal death at the twitch of a finger is somehow a good thing.

Private_Joker wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Private_Joker wrote:You do NOT need a firearm in your house.

Home defense.

We have a security system. But it still takes several minutes for police to respond.

You seem to think that the moment a criminal trips the alarm, police are right there to respond, and that's completely detached from reality.

An alarm blaring away making a deafening sound? I'm sure any criminal trying to pull off a break and enter would be deterred from continuing once he knows he is revealed. Also I never said anything about police responding?

During the LA riots, the property owners that were armed were well able to defend their homes and businesses from the mobs. Those that had no weapons were often told by the police that they were on their own and got robbed blind. I can tell you there were a lot of blaring alarms that did no good.

Giving the mob weapons is suicide. Just look at what happened in Paris during the Commune.

Warrior Squirrel wrote:Giving the mob weapons is suicide. Just look at what happened in Paris during the Commune.

On the other hand look at the American Revolution.

Relapse wrote:

Warrior Squirrel wrote:Giving the mob weapons is suicide. Just look at what happened in Paris during the Commune.

On the other hand look at the American Revolution.

A bunch of incompetent former prisoners in red coats got lost a lot and beat up by angry conservative farmers?

Is that what you are saying the British armies consisted of during the Revolution? This could be an interesting topic for another thread.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5337a2.htm#tab

According to these stats, alcohol caused over 75,000 deaths in the U.S. in 2001. If guns were responsible for even half that number, there wouldn't even be squirt guns for sale these days.
Instead what we get are ads on TV and in magazines talking about the good times to be had with alcohol.

Relapse wrote:Is that what you are saying the British armies consisted of during the Revolution? This could be an interesting topic for another thread.

Let's be honest, there have been several periods of history where the Redcoats were a joke. It's not that they weren't capable of winning battles so much as they seemed unable to, and with a professional army, that's a very embarassing trait.
But I digress, I must admit. Sorry, history's kinda my thing.

Private_Joker wrote:An alarm blaring away making a deafening sound? I'm sure any criminal trying to pull off a break and enter would be deterred from continuing once he knows he is revealed. Also I never said anything about police responding?

... oooor they could just decide to rush the job and shoot anyone they come across, taking their chances that the police won't arrive in time.

Nevermind if they know there's an emergency going on an the police CAN'T respond.

Yes, most criminals want to avoid confrontation. But most isn't equivalent to all.

Relapse wrote:With all the things out there that cause so much death and mahem, why is it that guns seem to get such a, in my mind anyway, disproportionate amount of blame? I keep seeing references to Columbine and all of the students killed there along with well publicized yearly memorials, gun crimes, ect., and it seems that the news does not lose step talking about how more gun control should be put in place.
I don't ever see anything about this, though:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrollton,_Kentucky_bus_collision

You're absolutely kidding yourself if you think there isn't constant media coverage over alcohol and drug consumption. The media is saturated with stories of drugs and alcohol.

Just to put this in context, I remember when this was on the news years ago, and there were nothing more th an scattered reports after a couple of weeks.

If you look purely at stories that exist as media circuses for a few weeks, then the only thing the media concerns itself with are school massacres, terrorism, celebrities doing too many drugs and the abduction of pretty young white girls. But if you expand that out and consider the daily news, you'll realise that every violent death gets coverage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SOFDC wrote:Because to some people, perceived intent supersedes reality.

A car is automatically morally superior to a firearm, even if the car kills 100,000 times more people than all firearms combined, because the car is not "Designed to kill"....as if this mattered, and as if that function did not have merit all on its own.

You've gotten yourself all confused there. It's not that the car isn't intended for killing, it's that the car is very valuable outside of it's ability to kill people.

Consider a society in which, for whatever quirk of history or science you care to imagine, guns were never invented. It isn't hard to do at all, because if you took the guns out of society the lives of 90% of people wouldn't change, and the other 10% would change only slightly. Because guns are a minor part of society.

Now consider a society in which, for whatever quirk of history or science you care to imagine, cars were never invented. That's a right mindfuck, because cars are the foundation of a modern economy (can't have mass markets without transport) and a major part of just about everyone's lives (you can look for work anywhere within 50kms or more, but if you're stuck walking to work then that distance becomes about 2kms).

That's why cars are thought of very differently to guns, despite both killing a lot of people. Because cars do so much else within society. Guns just kill people.

How about politicians that advocate gun control and also carry concealed? For me, but not for thee...

Only if they were in favour of banning CC for other people, or you were silly enough to consider the gun debate to be entirely a matter of more control vs less control. Instead, a person can form an opinion that CC is a good and constitutional right, and one the individual is in favour of exercising and protecting the right of others to exercise, but believe that improved background checks and similar laws are essential.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rockerbikie wrote:Guns don't kill people, people kill people. If I know how to killa person with my fist, should I get my fist confinscated? It's just another way to enslave mankind, yet again.

There is an interesting debate to be had on guns, but it can't be had with people who think the above is a sensible line of argument.

What will happen if a Military Coup happens?

Then the people with guns will almost certainly side with the military.

And if it doesn't, then you can smuggle guns in. When you undertake armed resistance against a government you need a sophisticated cell structure so that individual parts can support and supplement each other, but also remain seperate so that if one cell is compromised the others are not. If you can build a network like that, then getting your hands on some guns is a piece of cake.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:Let's be honest, there have been several periods of history where the Redcoats were a joke. It's not that they weren't capable of winning battles so much as they seemed unable to, and with a professional army, that's a very embarassing trait.
But I digress, I must admit. Sorry, history's kinda my thing.

Politics have infected presentation of the American Revolution very badly, and I think it may have influenced your reading. It is, for instance, very hard to reconcile your argument above with the fact that actual Redcoats made up a fraction of the colonial army. Or that Revolutionary casualties were more than double that of the English forces.

Fact is they were too few, too far from home, with a government that didn't want, or have, the blood and treasure needed to defeat the revolutionary forces.

Most Europeans want to live in a society without guns. Americans do not understand this.
Similarly I don't want to live in a society that allows the populace to own firearms.

Joey wrote:Most Europeans want to live in a society without guns. Americans do not understand this.

We understand this.

We just don't understand why you want to force that on us.

Aside from arrogance anyway.