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.
2012/12/21 10:54:37
Subject: Re:Would gun laws alone deter you from living in a certain place?
d-usa wrote: So we agree that there is an acceptable ratio between the need of an object and people getting killed by it on a daily basis?
I believe that implication is fairly clearly defined. You can never hope to entirely eliminate danger, simply reduce it to a level where it is "acceptable". It is why cars now have seatbelts, crumple zones, airbags, and you are required to pass a test before you can use one etc; these all make driving safer but do not really inconvenience people in the car (though I know there was a big row over seatbelts when they were first introduced much as there is a big row over anyone mentioning gun control now, which should let you know how pathetic some people can be ).
None of which prevent you from using it as a weapon, or driving over other people, driving it drunk, passing out in the wheel. They might protect the people on the inside, but don't do anything to the people outside of the car.
So we are fine with something that kills lots of other people a year because it is helpful to you.
2012/12/21 10:57:11
Subject: Re:Would gun laws alone deter you from living in a certain place?
Kilkrazy wrote: What about general gun related crime and accidents?
Part of the argument about the school killings is that licensing is not necessary because such incidents are rarer than being struck by lightning. We should remember the other bad effects of gun crime too, which are much more common.
The fact sheet KM posted in the other thread suggests that 94% of gun crime is drug/gang related. That sounds high to me, but it sounds far from impossible.
I'm going to see if I can track them down again, but the CDC quietly published some firearm death numbers, broken down by race. White Americans have roughly as much chance of being killed by a gun as your average European, about 1.5 in 100,000. Hispanic Americans are - if memory serves - at around 4.5 in 100,000. African-American males are at a ridiculous 38.5 in 100,000.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/12/21 10:59:28
2012/12/21 11:01:23
Subject: Re:Would gun laws alone deter you from living in a certain place?
d-usa wrote: None of which prevent you from using it as a weapon
Their sole purpose is not that of a weapon though.
or driving over other people, driving it drunk, passing out in the wheel.
There are devices which can be used to help eliminate those dangers, though they are not widespread as yet. Automatic collision sensors, built in breathalysers and sensors in the seat to monitor the driver can all help reduce the dangers posed by the driver of the car. As the technology becomes cheaper I don't doubt that it will become more common. Hell, some of them may become legal requirements like seatbelts.
They might protect the people on the inside, but don't do anything to the people outside of the car.
They are a hell of a lot safer for the people within the car than they used to be, and they are also getting safer for people who are hit (for example the old style Jaguar emblem can no longer be used as it is too dangerous to pedestrians, and pedestrian air bags are also being developed).
So we are fine with something that kills lots of other people a year because it is helpful to you.
d-usa wrote: None of which prevent you from using it as a weapon
Their sole purpose is not that of a weapon though.
So we are okay with something that killed just as many people in 2011 as guns (using US numbers) because it has been made safer, is convinient, and wasn't designed to be a weapon?
2012/12/21 11:13:23
Subject: Re:Would gun laws alone deter you from living in a certain place?
d-usa wrote: So we are okay with something that killed just as many people in 2011 as guns (using US numbers) because it has been made safer, is convinient, and wasn't designed to be a weapon?
No, we're not "OK" with that, which is why cars have been made safer and safer, road calming measures have been introduced in trouble spots, driving licence tests have become harder (in the UK at least, I don't know about the US), etc.
The point is that a car is a necessary part of modern life and no way analogous to a gun. Equating a car and a gun is a false analogy and a distraction from the issue at hand (as I am sure you are aware). Remove all the cars today and you would have absolute chaos for months or even years. Remove all the guns today and you will have some gun enthusiasts be a little bit upset and some gun nuts going mental, but for 99.9999999999999999% of people, life would go on as normal.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/12/21 11:13:40
d-usa wrote: So we are okay with something that killed just as many people in 2011 as guns (using US numbers) because it has been made safer, is convinient, and wasn't designed to be a weapon?
No, we're not "OK" with that, which is why cars have been made safer and safer, road calming measures have been introduced in trouble spots, driving licence tests have become harder (in the UK at least, I don't know about the US), etc.
The point is that a car is a necessary part of modern life and no way analogous to a gun. Equating a car and a gun is a false analogy and a distraction from the issue at hand (as I am sure you are aware). Remove all the cars today and you would have absolute chaos for months or even years. Remove all the guns today and you will have some gun enthusiasts be a little bit upset and some gun nuts going mental, but for 99.9999999999999999% of people, life would go on as normal.
Why do we want to remove guns?
2012/12/21 11:15:55
Subject: Re:Would gun laws alone deter you from living in a certain place?
SilverMK2 wrote: The point is that a car is a necessary part of modern life and no way analogous to a gun. Equating a car and a gun is a false analogy and a distraction from the issue at hand (as I am sure you are aware). Remove all the cars today and you would have absolute chaos for months or even years. Remove all the guns today and you will have some gun enthusiasts be a little bit upset and some gun nuts going mental, but for 99.9999999999999999% of people, life would go on as normal.
I find your assertion that only 00.0000000000000001% of the population has ever had cause to use a gun to be suspect.
2012/12/21 11:16:19
Subject: Re:Would gun laws alone deter you from living in a certain place?
Seaward wrote: I find your assertion that only 00.0000000000000001% of the population has ever had cause to use a gun to be suspect.
If you look at what I said, I didn't say that those people would have had "cause to use a gun", I said, how many people would have to drastically change their lifestyle to cope with living without guns.
And as I have said several times, I don't have a problem with guns, nor do I want to ban them - I just want to have better control over their sale and distribution and ensure that people using them know what the hell they are doing.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/12/21 11:21:38
Well... maybe my intevention is useless, but I would'nt move to America, since I wouldn't feel safe knowing that everybody is entitled to have guns. But I know europeans and americans have very different ideas about this... I really don't understand why americans feel so attached to their guns...
2012/12/21 12:04:07
Subject: Re:Would gun laws alone deter you from living in a certain place?
It is fairly obvious that cars have become a necessary part of modern life. Take every single gun away and the vast majority of people would carry on their life without any problem what so ever. Look at societies like, well, most civilised western societies for examples of people going about their day to day lives without guns.
So we agree that there is an acceptable ratio between the need of an object and people getting killed by it on a daily basis?
That's a false analogy that uses far too much logic and not enough emotion to come to a conclusion.
Leftist Hippy.
Seaward wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote: What about general gun related crime and accidents?
Part of the argument about the school killings is that licensing is not necessary because such incidents are rarer than being struck by lightning. We should remember the other bad effects of gun crime too, which are much more common.
The fact sheet KM posted in the other thread suggests that 94% of gun crime is drug/gang related. That sounds high to me, but it sounds far from impossible.
I'm going to see if I can track them down again, but the CDC quietly published some firearm death numbers, broken down by race. White Americans have roughly as much chance of being killed by a gun as your average European, about 1.5 in 100,000. Hispanic Americans are - if memory serves - at around 4.5 in 100,000. African-American males are at a ridiculous 38.5 in 100,000.
I don't think it was that quiet. I seem to remember the Chicago or Detroit police chief making a claim that boiled down to "ban guns they kill black kids." I don't remember the exact numbers either but the contrast was pretty stark. Like the difference in prison population stark. I'm sure if there were no guns all this would level out into a colorblind egalitarian utopia.
Avatar 720 wrote: You see, to Auston, everyone is a Death Star; there's only one way you can take it and that's through a small gap at the back.
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..
2012/12/21 12:33:04
Subject: Re:Would gun laws alone deter you from living in a certain place?
Banning the assault weapons would be a step in the right direction... nobody needs one.
Whats an assault weapon? Is that like a pointy knife? Sharp stick? Bat with a nail in it?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/12/21 12:35:16
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2012/12/21 12:37:17
Subject: Re:Would gun laws alone deter you from living in a certain place?
Are there higher rates of gun incidents inside gun-free zones than outside them?
Yes. Every school shooting.
No.
I mentioned it in the other thread and it got ignored there as well.
But I am pretty dang certain that the majority of gun related shootings (the illegal gang bangers) are actually committed in areas where guns are allowed to be legally carried (if you are licensed). Most shootings are in private dwellings, out in the streets, drive by's, etc. I feel very comfortable saying that if somebody did the actual work they would find that only a small minority of shootings are commited in gun free zones.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/12/21 12:37:49
2012/12/21 12:40:11
Subject: Re:Would gun laws alone deter you from living in a certain place?
And as I have said several times, I don't have a problem with guns, nor do I want to ban them - I just want to have better control over their sale and distribution and ensure that people using them know what the hell they are doing.
Thing is though, looking at statistics, yes, current laws work, and work really well. Youre just looking at the people that use them incorrectly, when over 99% of legal gun owners, never use them in anyway other then they were intended to be used.
2012/12/21 12:40:27
Subject: Re:Would gun laws alone deter you from living in a certain place?
Are there higher rates of gun incidents inside gun-free zones than outside them?
Yes. Every school shooting.
No.
I mentioned it in the other thread and it got ignored there as well.
But I am pretty dang certain that the majority of gun related shootings (the illegal gang bangers) are actually committed in areas where guns are allowed to be legally carried (if you are licensed). Most shootings are in private dwellings, out in the streets, drive by's, etc. I feel very comfortable saying that if somebody did the actual work they would find that only a small minority of shootings are commited in gun free zones.
Generally schools (public schools) are gun free zones.
The Connecticut shooting is just the most recent example. Every school shooting in the last thirty years have been at a "gun free zone."
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2012/12/21 12:53:37
Subject: Would gun laws alone deter you from living in a certain place?
d-usa wrote: But the sign is saying that not having gun-free zones would be safer.
Except it isn't. There is no difference between the two in terms of risk and history backs that up.
It doesn't appear to.
I can't recall many mass shooters picking out, for example, police stations or NRA meetings as targets. Schools and churches seem pretty popular, though, as do gun-free malls.
2012/12/21 13:17:55
Subject: Would gun laws alone deter you from living in a certain place?
d-usa wrote: But the sign is saying that not having gun-free zones would be safer.
Except it isn't. There is no difference between the two in terms of risk and history backs that up.
It doesn't appear to.
I can't recall many mass shooters picking out, for example, police stations or NRA meetings as targets. Schools and churches seem pretty popular, though, as do gun-free malls.
What percentage of the 30,000+ gun deaths each year were commited during mass shootings?
Are there higher rates of gun incidents inside gun-free zones than outside them?
Yes. Every school shooting.
No.
I mentioned it in the other thread and it got ignored there as well.
But I am pretty dang certain that the majority of gun related shootings (the illegal gang bangers) are actually committed in areas where guns are allowed to be legally carried (if you are licensed). Most shootings are in private dwellings, out in the streets, drive by's, etc. I feel very comfortable saying that if somebody did the actual work they would find that only a small minority of shootings are committed in gun free zones.
Actually if you look at it, the high crime cities for murder rates are Detroit, New York, parts of Cali, and while they aren't gun free zones, they have incredibly stringent gun control and in Illinois (till the other day). You're correct about the majority of homicide shootings, BUT these spree killers do target gun free, high population zones. Schools, malls, movie theaters. Mass groups of unarmed individuals. That those shootings remain rare enough that they're a statistical anomaly should also be mentioned.
Back on to "needing" my so called "assault weapon" (which as we've established is a meaningless term). No. I don't "need" it. But I want it. I and you for that matter technically don't need anything beyond some basic medical care, three hots and a cot. So who the hell are you to tell me what I can and can't have? Assault weapons annoy me and most gun owners because it's literally a cosmetic ban.
Same function, different furniture. Here's a more direct example.
This is a Saiga hunting rifle. I don't have one. I do have a Semi Automatic rifle in the Kalashnikov pattern however.
Would you like to know the difference between the two?
Not a damn thing.
Same receiver, same mag well, same bolt, slightly better quality barrel on the Saiga. The Saiga's even Russian made, so it's even higher quality then my US assembled from Romanian parts beater AK. That Saiga will never show up on a ban list, because it's dressed up in a sporting style.
Further, this type of weapon accounts for something like less then 1% of criminal firearms activity per year. So why ban them?
And as I have said several times, I don't have a problem with guns, nor do I want to ban them - I just want to have better control over their sale and distribution and ensure that people using them know what the hell they are doing.
Thing is though, looking at statistics, yes, current laws work, and work really well. Youre just looking at the people that use them incorrectly, when over 99% of legal gun owners, never use them in anyway other then they were intended to be used.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/12/21 15:10:05
I beg of you sarge let me lead the charge when the battle lines are drawn
Lemme at least leave a good hoof beat they'll remember loud and long
d-usa wrote: But the sign is saying that not having gun-free zones would be safer.
Except it isn't. There is no difference between the two in terms of risk and history backs that up.
It doesn't appear to.
I can't recall many mass shooters picking out, for example, police stations or NRA meetings as targets. Schools and churches seem pretty popular, though, as do gun-free malls.
Though, as pointed out by users in the other gun thread, these shootings are rarer than being struck by lightning and need not cause any concern as they are statistically insignificant.
I am not sure I believe that, myself.
We must return to the question of the number of gun incidents that happen overall, and split them into gun-free and non-gun-free zones, to see how the data stacks up.
Overall, no, apologies. I thought we were just trying to solve mass shootings, as that's what everyone's hysterical about right now.
Yeah, I was just commenting on the sign itself and the idea that not having any gun-free zones would make us all safer.
Does having them make us safer?
We know that they attract people who wish to do mass shootings. But do they really dissuade anyone period?
The neighbor's wiener dog - Maximo- would routinely get out and wander into the elementary school. All the staff new Max well and he was their unofficial mascot. Since his passing, Carl the cat (the cat Rodney actually got a hold of once) has taken his place as school mascot and resident.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2012/12/21 20:14:29
Subject: Re:Would gun laws alone deter you from living in a certain place?
Mannahnin wrote:A lot of folks online (and in emails in other parts of life) use pretty mangled English. The idea is that it takes extra effort and time to write properly, and they’d rather save the time. If you can still be understood, what’s the harm? While most of the time a sloppy post CAN be understood, the use of proper grammar, punctuation, and spelling is generally seen as respectable and desirable on most forums. It demonstrates an effort made to be understood, and to make your post an easy and pleasant read. By making this effort, you can often elicit more positive responses from the community, and instantly mark yourself as someone worth talking to.
insaniak wrote: Every time someone threatens violence over the internet as a result of someone's hypothetical actions at the gaming table, the earth shakes infinitisemally in its orbit as millions of eyeballs behind millions of monitors all roll simultaneously.
).
