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.

 Frazzled wrote:
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?

It might not make a huge difference as to whether or not the bad guy has a gun (although that's arguable).

It can make a difference as to whether or not the crazy guy has a gun.

So you admit that it is about numbers.

So if you are upset that people want to keep one contributor of death legal while passing laws against something that kills less people each year, then you would also be against laws being passed to fight against things that kill even less.

Or is it just a weak attempt to deflect the issue?

Mods, I think perhaps this thread has run it's course and as Kilkrazy suggests, is going in circles.
There have been some intellegent answers to my question, so I think we can lock it now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
So you admit that it is about numbers.

It's about the hypocrasy of the people that create, through their selfish desire for recreation, while saying we need to eliminate guns, cause 10 times the death that guns do.

Relapse: it's dumb that people want to ban something that kills a few people when they want to keep something that kills more people.

Me: so are you okay with not fighting things that kill less things than the thing you want to keep legal?

Relapse: there are no more intelligent answers, please lock...

Okay then...

 d-usa wrote:
So you admit that it is about numbers.

So if you are upset that people want to keep one contributor of death legal while passing laws against something that kills less people each year, then you would also be against laws being passed to fight against things that kill even less.

Or is it just a weak attempt to deflect the issue?

It's your weak attempt, are you offended because you have used drugs or given alcohol to someone that got in a wreck?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
Relapse: it's dumb that people want to ban something that kills a few people when they want to keep something that kills more people.

Me: so are you okay with not fighting things that kill less things than the thing you want to keep legal?

Relapse: there are no more intelligent answers, please lock...

Okay then...

Not only keep, but with whole heart, support.

If you don't want to answer the question then just say "I don't want to answer the question."

Would you be guilty yourself if you supported laws and actions against something that kills less people than guns, since you are saying that you shouldn't make something illegal of you support something that is more lethal.

 d-usa wrote:
If you don't want to answer the question then just say "I don't want to answer the question."

Would you be guilty yourself if you supported laws and actions against something that kills less people than guns, since you are saying that you shouldn't make something illegal of you support something that is more lethal.

I thought I answered your question several times what is it you want?

Relapse wrote:

 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.

Gun violence isn't fun.
Fun violence is fun.

/thread.

Amirite, anyone?

Simple yes/no answer:

If you say the supporting laws against something that kills less people than something you like makes you a hipocrite, would you also be a hipocrite if you did the same?

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 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.

Gun violence isn't fun.
Fun violence is fun.

/thread.

Amirite, anyone?

Once again, Kovinic, you cut through the gak and get to the heart of the matter.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
Simple yes/no answer:

If you say the supporting laws against something that kills less people than something you like makes you a hipocrite, would you also be a hipocrite if you did the same?

I've already answered that question a few times with you. Just read the thread through a couple more times because at some point what I've already put out there will sink in, and it will save us both the trouble of repitition.

You make a lot of arguments. You haven't given a simple yes/no answer.

 d-usa wrote:
You make a lot of arguments. You haven't given a simple yes/no answer.

Because the way you wrote the question doesn't get a yes/no answer.

Just in the spirit that I know you are intellegent, I 'll say this,

Yes, I am offended by the hypocracy of the anti gun crowd when they support willingly, For the mere sake of recreation, with money and enablement, drugs and alcohol when they can see what the drug trade has done to Mexico with tens of thousands of murders per year and can see from CDC numbers the far greater toll alcohol takes on people and this nation.

"If I were to support guns and support laws against things that kill less people than guns, I would be a hipocrite" is not something that can be answered with a yes/no answer?

I didn't know you were a politician.

I'll also say it again that I am not a gun owner, and never felt the desire or need to have one.
Just coupl a yes/no questions back at you

Do you use drugs and that does include pot.
Do you drink or share out alcohol at parties?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
"If I were to support guns and support laws against things that kill less people than guns, I would be a hipocrite" is not something that can be answered with a yes/no answer?

I didn't know you were a politician.

I just answered your question with a yes answer under condition or did you not read that part of my post? By the way, that is not the way you originally phrased the question.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
"If I were to support guns and support laws against things that kill less people than guns, I would be a hipocrite" is not something that can be answered with a yes/no answer?

I didn't know you were a politician.

Here's the way you originally asked it.

1) you keep on spinnig the answer into "yes, it makes you a hipocrite to support drugs/alcohol and be agains guns". You have never answered yes/no that it would make gun owners hipocrites if they supported laws against something that kills less people than guns.

2) I can proudly say that I have never done any sort of drug. I support the responsible consumption of alcohol the same as I support the responsible ownership and use of guns. I drink, never drive afterwards, and volunteer as designated driver at other times.

 d-usa wrote:
1) you keep on spinnig the answer into "yes, it makes you a hipocrite to support drugs/alcohol and be agains guns". You have never answered yes/no that it would make gun owners hipocrites if they supported laws against something that kills less people than guns.

2) I can proudly say that I have never done any sort of drug. I support the responsible consumption of alcohol the same as I support the responsible ownership and use of guns. I drink, never drive afterwards, and volunteer as designated driver at other times.

Give me a for instance law. Would the law protect people, such as those forced into the porn industry, child labor where they die in sweatshop factories, etc. That are already on the books? If those are the type of laws you talk about definitely they need to be well enforced and supported

Good on you for the second set of answers.

I think by now most people can see what your answer is.

Seaward wrote: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.

I don't know who those people are. Maybe Vickers.

Tell me, were they involved in a firefight in their houses? Or were they in combat?

Because the level of irresponsibility that goes into firing an AR-15 in one's home is staggering. And that's exactly what I'm talking about when I say that I'm pro-gun, and anti-moron-with-an-overcompensation-device. Assuming a backyard Rambo like yourself can even hit your target, the bullet will go clean through, through a wall or two, and potentially into your neighbour's kid.

But, y'know, just in case the Commies kick in your door, it's always better to have an AR-15, right?

Relapse wrote:
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.

It seems like you are just trying to deflect the discussion rather than have it. If you want to defend guns, then defend guns. But don't try to make out it is a non-issue because of [insert other issue].

Perhaps the reason people want to discuss guns in the media: is because they feel that there is something that still needs to be discussed; changes that need to be made. Perhaps more people do die in car crashes, but what are you going to do? ban cars? We already have airbags, crumple zones, impact bars, speed limits, driving tests, traffic cops, safety cameras, pedestrianised areas. It seems everything that can be done to make cars safer is being done. What more is there to discuss? The same with drugs, do you want to ban drugs? They are already illegal. The only discussion left seems to be how much money we can afford to pour into enforcing anti-drug laws.

Maybe guns are being discussed because there is still a lot more that could be done to make people safer. Though I think cars, drugs and alcohol still get their fair share of bad press.

Wheres the concern about this USA?

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The most extensive study yet by the U.S. government on suicide among military veterans shows more veterans are killing themselves than previously thought, with 22 deaths a day - or one every 65 minutes, on average."

The wars continue at home.

Sigh,

For those who couldn't be bothered to read it when posted the first couple times:


 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.

 Byte wrote:


"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The most extensive study yet by the U.S. government on suicide among military veterans shows more veterans are killing themselves than previously thought, with 22 deaths a day - or one every 65 minutes, on average."

The wars continue at home.

Holy crap that's a lot of opting-out. You might want to check out your benefit package, it doesn't seem to be enough to retain clientèle.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Byte wrote:


"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The most extensive study yet by the U.S. government on suicide among military veterans shows more veterans are killing themselves than previously thought, with 22 deaths a day - or one every 65 minutes, on average."

The wars continue at home.

Holy crap that's a lot of opting-out. You might want to check out your benefit package, it doesn't seem to be enough to retain clientèle.

Not every war vet gets benefits. Most get out with under 20 years service with nothing but stories... All volunteer force and all.

It would be interesting to know the percentages of the various reasons for suicide.
I've in on a suicide watch and prevented one where I had to walk through a door not knowing if I was going to be the one taking a bullet. Pretty tense all around.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think this thread is now well and truly finished, but the vet suicide conversation would make for some good enlightenment.

My thanks once again to Kovnic and Dogma for setting it out there.

d-usa, thank you, also. I think we are closer in agreement than our exchange would indicate.

 azazel the cat wrote:
I don't know who those people are. Maybe Vickers.

Tell me, were they involved in a firefight in their houses? Or were they in combat?

Because the level of irresponsibility that goes into firing an AR-15 in one's home is staggering. And that's exactly what I'm talking about when I say that I'm pro-gun, and anti-moron-with-an-overcompensation-device. Assuming a backyard Rambo like yourself can even hit your target, the bullet will go clean through, through a wall or two, and potentially into your neighbour's kid.

But, y'know, just in case the Commies kick in your door, it's always better to have an AR-15, right?

Again, I don't understand the focus on the ARs. Can you find me one single post I've made in this thread - or any other - where I haven't been talking about the asinine stupidity of pistol mag capacity limits? Because, as I'm sure you know, they're blanket cap limits. They don't just apply to the AR-15, they apply to everything. Including pistols. Which is what I've been talking about for however many posts this has been now. Let me know if you need me to repeat that a few more times before it sinks in.

Also, you're overestimating the .223's penetration capability, especially when using frangible ammo. But that's beside the point. I think we established you're one of the legion who has strong opinions on this issue despite not having done even a basic level of research.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's insidiously clever to claim to be pro-gun while parroting uneducated anti-gun talking points about how no one would ever possibly need more than ten rounds and the like.

 insaniak wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
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?

It might not make a huge difference as to whether or not the bad guy has a gun (although that's arguable).

It can make a difference as to whether or not the crazy guy has a gun.

The crazy guy will still have a gun, or a car, or a bomb.
We've had high capacity weapons since WWIIavilable to civilians. How many mass murders before the 90s? how many after? Interesting isn't it? But not discussed. Whats changed? It sure isn't the firearms.

 Seaward wrote:
I think you'd be surprised how fast you can draw from concealment and get three shots on target when you practice.

We've actually got someone in a gun thread talking about outdrawing an armed intruder pointing a gun at him, and he seems quite indifferent to the basic reality that that kind of things is unbelievably, ridiculously rare. I mean, that's where the gun debate pretty much ends up every time, doesn't it... sooner or later the pro-gun folk are just talking about their gun wielding, bad guy shooting fantasies.

It kind of reminds me of the gay rights debates we had on this forum. The anti-gay arguments just got stupider and stupider the more debates we had, and while the people in those threads would never admit how stupid their arguments got, in the end they just dropped off. Between continuing to defend a position that was more and more obviously nonsensical, and rejecting their former position, instead they just dropped off. And the same thing happened nationally, more and more people just chose to redirect their political focus elsewhere, quietly conceding they really just didn't have a coherent argument at the end of the day and that they should just stop talking.




Anyway, here's the actual reality of gun ownership, in one simple graph.



The more guns in your country, the more gun deaths you. And you can split that down into homicides, suicides and accidents if you want and the trend holds firm for each. The more guns you have, the more you get of each category.

There's really no sensible debate to be had. Just a lot of years of slowly getting the pro-gun, I can outdraw an armed intruder in my house people to realise how ridiculous they are, and one by one get them to stop throwing their crazy into the debate.

 d-usa wrote:
If you don't want to answer the question then just say "I don't want to answer the question."

Would you be guilty yourself if you supported laws and actions against something that kills less people than guns, since you are saying that you shouldn't make something illegal of you support something that is more lethal.

I had a good friend killed by a drunk driver. My wife's life was utterly changed by a drunk driver. None of us were attacked by raging maniacs with AR-15s. Yet thats the issue when they just legalized marijuana in western states? Nuts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
I think by now most people can see what your answer is.

Just because you ask a question doesn't mean its the right question.

 sebster wrote:

Anyway, here's the actual reality of gun ownership, in one simple graph.



The more guns in your country, the more gun deaths you. And you can split that down into homicides, suicides and accidents if you want and the trend holds firm for each. The more guns you have, the more you get of each category.

There's really no sensible debate to be had. Just a lot of years of slowly getting the pro-gun, I can outdraw an armed intruder in my house people to realise how ridiculous they are, and one by one get them to stop throwing their crazy into the debate.

Just quoting to make sure no one misses it.

 dæl wrote:
I was under the impression that Sweden and Switzerland had similar levels of guns per person, its seems not from a quick look at the facts. Switzerland had much higher rates as its population were a militia, but that seems to no longer be the case.

Switzerland has less guns per capita than the US, but still more than other developed countries. And so, as the graph I've shown above demonstrates, they have less gun homicides than the US per capita, but much more than other developed countries.