Where's the outrage on this?

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.

**Kovnik Obama**

Relapse wrote:

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**

Smacks wrote:
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.

**Kovnik Obama**

azazel the cat wrote:

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!

**Relapse**

Kovnik Obama wrote:
Relapse wrote:

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:

underage drinking:

http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/underage-drinking.htm

80,000 deaths per year due to a alcohol:

http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-use.htm

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:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

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.

**Smacks**

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.

**Kovnik Obama**

Relapse wrote:
Kovnik Obama wrote:
Relapse wrote:

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:

underage drinking:

http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/underage-drinking.htm

80,000 deaths per year due to a alcohol:

http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-use.htm

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:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

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**

Relapse wrote:
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.)

**Relapse**

Smacks wrote:
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.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:
Relapse wrote:
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.

**d-usa**

So who cares about guns being used to kill as long as there is other stuff that kills more people?

**SilverMK2**

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

**Smacks**

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

**dogma**

Relapse wrote:
dogma wrote:
Relapse wrote:

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.

**Relapse**

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**

So if something kills less people they guns annually, we shouldn't worry about that either?

**Relapse**

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.

**Seaward**

azazel the cat wrote:

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.

**Kilkrazy**

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?

**Relapse**

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.

**azazel the cat**

Seaward wrote:
azazel the cat wrote:

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.

**Frazzled**

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.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:
azazel the cat wrote:
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.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:
Seaward wrote:
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?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Seaward wrote:
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.

I'll agree with that.

**d-usa**

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...

**Frazzled**

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.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Smacks wrote:
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.

Only in liberal paradises like Chicago and NY.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Smacks wrote:
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?

Here's a novel idea: don't have a fight.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Seaward wrote:
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 - AS VP BIDEN ACCIDENTALLY ADMITTED LAST WEEK- feth all to do in stopping mass killers.

**d-usa**

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.

**MetalOxide**

USA must keep the guns to fight off those evil commies and save the apple pies!

**Seaward**

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.

**Relapse**

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**

So we should focus even less attention on stuff that kill even less things than guns?

**Relapse**

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.

**d-usa**

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.

**Relapse**

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.