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.

Find this soooo funny. The beatnicks who still wants these murder sticks around are now shooting each other by accident when there trying to appreciate them HAHAHAHAHA.

OMG, my thighs.

 Poppabear wrote:
Find this soooo funny. The beatnicks who still wants these murder sticks around are now shooting each other by accident when there trying to appreciate them HAHAHAHAHA.

OMG, my thighs.

What are you doing that accidental shootings make your thighs hurt?

 Frazzled wrote:

 Poppabear wrote:
Find this soooo funny. The beatnicks who still wants these murder sticks around are now shooting each other by accident when there trying to appreciate them HAHAHAHAHA.

OMG, my thighs.

What are you doing that accidental shootings make your thighs hurt?

Might have been an "accidental shooting", if you know what I mean...

Well, I didn't see any sort of bad behavior over the weekend in my area.

 Poppabear wrote:
Find this soooo funny. The beatnicks who still wants these murder sticks around are now shooting each other by accident when there trying to appreciate them HAHAHAHAHA.

It says quite a lot about a person who finds humor in people being injured - none if it good.

 Breotan wrote:
Well, I didn't see any sort of bad behavior over the weekend in my area.

 Poppabear wrote:
Find this soooo funny. The beatnicks who still wants these murder sticks around are now shooting each other by accident when there trying to appreciate them HAHAHAHAHA.

It says quite a lot about a person who finds humor in people being injured - none if it good.

He's either trolling or ... Well I just hope he's being that dumb on purpose

I think it's just brilliant that so many conservatives are now arguing that we need to fix the cultural and economic problems that drive crime rates up. Good oh then, seems now everyone is on board with income equality so let's stop talking about guns and start talking about getting that minimum wage up to $15 and giving everyone free access to college.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Breotan wrote:
It says quite a lot about a person who finds humor in people being injured - none if it good.

Yeah, because the internet has always taken a strong stance against laughing at the misfortune of strangers.

That kind of moralising is just the weakest, laziest kind of way to try and make your argument.

 sebster wrote:
I think it's just brilliant that so many conservatives are now arguing that we need to fix the cultural and economic problems that drive crime rates up. Good oh then, seems now everyone is on board with income equality so let's stop talking about guns and start talking about getting that minimum wage up to $15 and giving everyone free access to college.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Breotan wrote:
It says quite a lot about a person who finds humor in people being injured - none if it good.

Yeah, because the internet has always taken a strong stance against laughing at misfortune of strangers.

Stop the moralising.

Change entitlement first... *ducks, waves, then runs!*

 sebster wrote:
I think it's just brilliant that so many conservatives are now arguing that we need to fix the cultural and economic problems that drive crime rates up. Good oh then, seems now everyone is on board with income equality so let's stop talking about guns and start talking about getting that minimum wage up to $15 and giving everyone free access to college.

So Obama's plan wasn't to fake his birth to become President in order to take our guns away for the UN? Instead it was his plan to fake his birth, become president, then use our fear of the UN thugs and our love for guns in order to push his liberal agenda!

 d-usa wrote:

 sebster wrote:
I think it's just brilliant that so many conservatives are now arguing that we need to fix the cultural and economic problems that drive crime rates up. Good oh then, seems now everyone is on board with income equality so let's stop talking about guns and start talking about getting that minimum wage up to $15 and giving everyone free access to college.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Breotan wrote:
It says quite a lot about a person who finds humor in people being injured - none if it good.

Yeah, because the internet has always taken a strong stance against laughing at misfortune of strangers.

That kind of moralising is just the weakest, laziest kind of way to try and make your argument.

So Obama's plan wasn't to fake his birth to become President in order to take our guns away for the UN? Instead it was his plan to fake his birth, become president, then use our fear of the UN thugs and our love for guns in order to push his liberal agenda!

er...wait wut?

Wierdos spreading this crap on your Facebook wall?

Facebook has become the commons of the psych ward.

 d-usa wrote:
Facebook has become the commons of the psych ward.

LOL... that's so true... I barely look at mine anymore and still with Twitter...

Athough... twitter is getting there.

@Frazzled and whembly: Thanks very much.

 dogma wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:

Of course, it is proper to ask, what is the context for these numbers? If 606 deaths where caused by 500,000 firearms, then that is a high rate of injury (a bit over 1 per 1000). It is not; it;s generally accepted that there are ~300,000,000 firearms in the US (~2 accidental deaths per million firearms). There are an estimated ~250,000,000 passenger motor vehicles in the US, so that 35,332 translates to a bit above 1 per 10,000. Automobiles are two orders of magnitude more likely then firearms to be involved in accidental deaths.

In order to compare two physically distinct items you have to establish a neutral means of comparison. Time of use would work here, but I doubt there are readily available statistics regarding time engaged in gun use.

While that is a good point, the problem, as in comparing, say, acetaminophen and pools, is that such disparate things cannot easily be classified into durations of "use". With regards to firearms, it's very difficult to define such use: I have on my desk at the moment a .32, is it in use? Is a shotgun loaded and kept by the bed for an eventuality the homeowner hopes never arrives, in use? It is worth pointing out that the original post did not deal with firearms being used at a range, but stored and transported haphazardly.

A better way of looking at things is that both firearms, automobiles and acetaminophen are ubiquitous. That is, they are sufficiently wide spread that availability does not fundamentally contribute to the statistics. Compare to, say, a venomous cobra.

If one were to say that cobras kill only 5 Americans per year, it would not indicate that they are safe, as (presumably) venomous cobras are vanishingly rare in the USA.

 d-usa wrote:
So Obama's plan wasn't to fake his birth to become President in order to take our guns away for the UN? Instead it was his plan to fake his birth, become president, then use our fear of the UN thugs and our love for guns in order to push his liberal agenda!

Finally his socialist muslim agenda becomes clear!

 Buzzsaw wrote:

While that is a good point, the problem, as in comparing, say, acetaminophen and pools, is that such disparate things cannot easily be classified into durations of "use".

With regards to firearms, it's very difficult to define such use: I have on my desk at the moment a .32, is it in use? Is a shotgun loaded and kept by the bed for an eventuality the homeowner hopes never arrives, in use?

Cars and guns aren't related in the manner that acetaminophen and pools are. Indeed, pools are more like both cars and guns than acetaminophen is like any of the three.

You could be said to use a pool if you were swimming in it. You could be said to use a car if you were driving it. You could be said to use a gun if you were firing it. But the only manner in which you could be said to use acetaminophen is if you were consuming it. In the case of the former 3, use ends when the behavior ceases. In the last case use continues after consumption.

 Buzzsaw wrote:

A better way of looking at things is that both firearms, automobiles and acetaminophen are ubiquitous. That is, they are sufficiently wide spread that availability does not fundamentally contribute to the statistics.

They are ubiquitous in the United States, but when the US is compared to otherwise similar nations the greater prevalence of firearms correlates positively with firearm crime.

 Seaward wrote:
Driver's licenses prevent people who quite simply lack the knowledge of traffic laws, or have physical disabilities that prevent them from driving safely, from driving a vehicle, but they do nothing at all to prevent people who meet basic requirements from making stupid decisions or even stupid mistakes. I'm not sure why people think it would be any different with guns, save for simply not having actually spent any time considering it.

So what you're saying is, people who lack the knowledge of gun laws (lets include safety here) or have disabilities that prevent them from using a gun safely, should be able to have and to use a gun anyway?

 dogma wrote:
They are ubiquitous in the United States, but when the US is compared to otherwise similar nations the greater prevalence of firearms correlates positively with firearm crime.

And when gun restrictions are tightened in those countries, deaths from firearms (homicide, suicide, accidental and lawful) all decrease. Ultimately this isn't something that can be debated.

There are plenty of decent points that can be debated (why it won't work in America, and that the death toll sucks but it doesn't justify people losing their use of firearms, among others), but the basic reality that tighter gun controls means less guns which means less death by guns is just something that is known, and well established. But, the quality of this debate being as woeful as it is, it seems most of the time gets sucked up on the nonsense about gun control not impacting the rates of death by gun.

 dogma wrote:

Cars and guns aren't related in the manner that acetaminophen and pools are.

Wussy thats just because you aren't using enough of it.

Mattman154 wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
Well, I didn't see any sort of bad behavior over the weekend in my area.

 Poppabear wrote:
Find this soooo funny. The beatnicks who still wants these murder sticks around are now shooting each other by accident when there trying to appreciate them HAHAHAHAHA.

It says quite a lot about a person who finds humor in people being injured - none if it good.

He's either trolling or ... Well I just hope he's being that dumb on purpose

Its PoppaBear, pretty much everything he types is troll BS. So just continue as normal

 Kaldor wrote:
So what you're saying is, people who lack the knowledge of gun laws (lets include safety here) or have disabilities that prevent them from using a gun safely, should be able to have and to use a gun anyway?

The overwhelming majority of gun laws have nothing at all to do with safety, so let's not include safety, no.

And yeah. I have no problem with someone being able to buy a revolver in Virginia despite the fact that they don't know the first thing about NFA weapons, or the import laws in Pennsylvania. It's sort of like how I got my driver's license despite not knowing the very limited circumstance under which you can make a left turn on red in the Commonwealth.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:
There are plenty of decent points that can be debated (why it won't work in America, and that the death toll sucks but it doesn't justify people losing their use of firearms, among others), but the basic reality that tighter gun controls means less guns which means less death by guns is just something that is known, and well established. But, the quality of this debate being as woeful as it is, it seems most of the time gets sucked up on the nonsense about gun control not impacting the rates of death by gun.

It can be debated, actually. Point me out a country that has imposed tighter gun controls with a gun per person rate of...oh, say, over 50, and seen gun violence decline, and then you might have some proof that it's a "basic reality."

Because we have seen the exact opposite in the United States. Tighter gun laws have led to either no change in crime rates or a worsening of crime.

 Seaward wrote:
Because we have seen the exact opposite in the United States.

Part of our national character is extreme paranoia (about just about anything) though, which a lot of other countries don't have as a major trait. You add that to our braggadocio and you have a heady mix of guns, paranoia, and arrogance. We obliviously have good points in our national character as well, but this isn't a pros and cons list, and I just like to type braggadocio.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
Because we have seen the exact opposite in the United States.

Part of our national character is extreme paranoia (about just about anything) though, which a lot of other countries don't have as a major trait. You add that to our braggadocio and you have a heady mix of guns, paranoia, and arrogance. We obliviously have good points in our national character as well, but this isn't a pros and cons list, and I just like to type braggadocio.

5 points for using it twice.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
Because we have seen the exact opposite in the United States.

Part of our national character is extreme paranoia (about just about anything) though, which a lot of other countries don't have as a major trait. You add that to our braggadocio and you have a heady mix of guns, paranoia, and arrogance. We obliviously have good points in our national character as well, but this isn't a pros and cons list, and I just like to type braggadocio.

That's actually a distinction I think that gets ignored quite a bit.

For instance, many of us have a healthy dose of skepticism that our government does things in our best interests.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/21/mexico-self-defense-squads_n_2519837.html

Meanwhile in Mexico

 Seaward wrote:
It can be debated, actually. Point me out a country that has imposed tighter gun controls with a gun per person rate of...oh, say, over 50, and seen gun violence decline, and then you might have some proof that it's a "basic reality."

Inventing little reasons to dismiss the greater international experience is one of the classic ways of hiding from statistical findings.

"Oh sure, it worked everywhere else, but it will never work here because we have more guns per person. I mean sure, there's never been any indication in any study that effectiveness reduces as the number of guns pre-ban increases, but I still choose to believe that, and believe it is enough to reject any international results."

Total fething bs.

Because we have seen the exact opposite in the United States. Tighter gun laws have led to either no change in crime rates or a worsening of crime.

Because in a country with completely open state borders state by state legislation is meaningless.

 sebster wrote:
Inventing little reasons to dismiss the greater international experience is one of the classic ways of hiding from statistical findings.

"Oh sure, it worked everywhere else, but it will never work here because we have more guns per person. I mean sure, there's never been any indication in any study that effectiveness reduces as the number of guns pre-ban increases, but I still choose to believe that, and believe it is enough to reject any international results."

Total fething bs.

I always find it amusing that countries with smaller populations than California are convinced their one-size-fits-all solutions will work over here. I find it incredibly naive, but hey, you're convinced, and that's all that matters.

Because in a country with completely open state borders state by state legislation is meaningless.

About as meaningless as a federal ban or registration scheme in a country with 250+ million firearms and nowhere near even the prayer of enough money or manpower to actually enforce any of it.

 Seaward wrote:
I always find it amusing that countries with smaller populations than California are convinced their one-size-fits-all solutions will work over here. I find it incredibly naive, but hey, you're convinced, and that's all that matters.

Seriously dude, your reading is just getting worse. Here is a quote from my post that you originally replied to;
"There are plenty of decent points that can be debated (why it won't work in America, and that the death toll sucks but it doesn't justify people losing their use of firearms, among others)"

It's the first damn sentence that you quoted, for feth's sake.

So now that we've established, once again, that you don't read posts that you're replying to and live in your own little world of Seaward's imaginary debates, I guess it's up to me to point out, once again, that there are decent points to be made about why policy enacted in other countries won't work in the US. And that's a debate worth having.

But there is no debate to be had over the idea that banning and restricting guns will lead to a fall in deaths by firearms.

 sebster wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
I always find it amusing that countries with smaller populations than California are convinced their one-size-fits-all solutions will work over here. I find it incredibly naive, but hey, you're convinced, and that's all that matters.

Seriously dude, your reading is just getting worse. Here is a quote from my post that you originally replied to;
"There are plenty of decent points that can be debated (why it won't work in America, and that the death toll sucks but it doesn't justify people losing their use of firearms, among others)"

It's the first damn sentence that you quoted, for feth's sake.

So now that we've established, once again, that you don't read posts that you're replying to and live in your own little world of Seaward's imaginary debates, I guess it's up to me to point out, once again, that there are decent points to be made about why policy enacted in other countries won't work in the US. And that's a debate worth having.

But there is no debate to be had over the idea that banning and restricting guns will lead to a fall in deaths by firearms.

hello.. i live in southern california... here the mexican cartels are a real threat just across the border, their operations here are kept at bay by 1. a police force that is not in their pocket and 2. A (rather) heavily armed population that will not be bullied ( unlike Mexico's which has heavily restrictive gun laws that SOMEHOW dont affect the criminals) There is a debate to be had there.... and while i respect you i had to bring this up to show the precarious situation of the Southwest and how banning and restricting guns will lead to even more deaths here....

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/21/mexico-self-defense-squads_n_2519837.html

Meanwhile in Mexico

So, just to play Devil's Advocate, an extrajudicial armed mob that arrests people because they believe the arrested persons are a part of a criminal network, trampling all over the few scraps of the right to due process remaining?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/21/mexico-self-defense-squads_n_2519837.html

Meanwhile in Mexico

So, just to play Devil's Advocate, an extrajudicial armed mob that arrests people because they believe the arrested persons are a part of a criminal network, trampling all over the few scraps of the right to due process remaining?

Northern Mexico is a defacto warzone. More then 45,000 deaths in the last 5 years. Some estimates range up to 100,000 people. The police are either working with the cartels, or being killed by them. The military isn't being very effective against them. In many portions of Mexico (including the state bordering California) this is the closest thing there is to law anymore.

It really is a shame that there isn't more of a media spotlight on the region. With death tolls that rival Iraq and Afghanistan, it's a full on war right on the US border.

 sebster wrote:
But there is no debate to be had over the idea that banning and restricting guns will lead to a fall in deaths by firearms.

There absolutely is when it comes to death by homicide, yes. That will not change despite your usual tactic of repeating something until people stop listening to you.