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.

Yes, messy accidents like toddlers shooting themselves or relatives, shooting yourself when cleaning a gun and so on.

Various sorts of things that would be much reduced by a legal framework of training and licensing.

 ZultanQ wrote:
It's pretty much common knowledge that at least in the US, most violent crimes take place in areas with stricter gun control laws, ie Chigaco, NYC, etc.

Have proponents of gun control stopped for a minute and considered that many of these deaths might have been justified? In the OP's article it conveniently mentions "gun violence" instead of gun crime, which are not necessarily the same thing. Many of these deaths "caused by guns" might have been in self defense and prevented even more heinous deeds by criminals. The police kill people with guns in the US regularly and I'm glad they do as long as they are within their legal limits.

As sad as it is, this type of ignorance has already overtaken much of Europe and I fear that the US will soon fall under the same delusion. People will trade their second amendment rights for perceived safety, when such laws statistically make them less safe. Liberal logic, not even once.

US murder rate 2012 per 100,000: 4.7

Swedish murder rate 2012 per 100,000: 2.479

0/10, try again, thanks for playing.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Yes, messy accidents like toddlers shooting themselves or relatives, shooting yourself when cleaning a gun and so on.

Various sorts of things that would be much reduced by a legal framework of training and licensing.

Training and licensing are already legal.

 Seaward wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Yes, messy accidents like toddlers shooting themselves or relatives, shooting yourself when cleaning a gun and so on.

Various sorts of things that would be much reduced by a legal framework of training and licensing.

Training and licensing are already legal.

I was a firearm trainer for a while. If it becomes mandatory, how is that done because training isn't cheap. Is that another cost to add to the already expensive gun and ammo? Isn't this being discriminatory to poor people and keeping them from participating in their Constitutional rights? Should we have training for free speech before someone is allowed on the internet? After all, ideas are far more dangerous than guns.

I'll probably regret coming into here, but oh well. Could I just ask something? I don't understand why some people are saying "oh, but x kills more people than guns". Is that meant to somehow make the gun deaths more acceptable, or lessen them as a problem?

 Troike wrote:
I'll probably regret coming into here, but oh well. Could I just ask something? I don't understand why some people are saying "oh, but x kills more people them guns". Is that meant to somehow make the gun deaths more acceptable, or lessen them as a problem?

I think for the most part it's just used as a knee jerk deflection technique.

You can see them start to panic and sweat.
"Bu-bu-but alcohol and th-the cars..." "WONT SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?"



I could be wrong though.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 ZultanQ wrote:
It's pretty much common knowledge that at least in the US, most violent crimes take place in areas with stricter gun control laws, ie Chigaco, NYC, etc.

Have proponents of gun control stopped for a minute and considered that many of these deaths might have been justified? In the OP's article it conveniently mentions "gun violence" instead of gun crime, which are not necessarily the same thing. Many of these deaths "caused by guns" might have been in self defense and prevented even more heinous deeds by criminals. The police kill people with guns in the US regularly and I'm glad they do as long as they are within their legal limits.

As sad as it is, this type of ignorance has already overtaken much of Europe and I fear that the US will soon fall under the same delusion. People will trade their second amendment rights for perceived safety, when such laws statistically make them less safe. Liberal logic, not even once.

US murder rate 2012 per 100,000: 4.7

Swedish murder rate 2012 per 100,000: 2.479

0/10, try again, thanks for playing.

Dutch murder rate 2012 per 100.000: 1.1

God damn our strict laws!

 Soladrin wrote:
Dutch murder rate 2012 per 100.000: 1.1

God damn our strict laws!

When will you sheep realise that you're just not safe!!

But 87% of those murders are bicycle road rage incidents...

 d-usa wrote:
But 87% of those murders are bicycle road rage incidents...

Freaking cyclists. One nearly caused a 3 car crash today. Dude just threw his arm out, no shoulder check, and swerved across traffic. He was lucky not too get cleaned up the prick.

 motyak wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
But 87% of those murders are bicycle road rage incidents...

Freaking *bad* cyclists. One nearly caused a 3 car crash today. Dude just threw his arm out, no shoulder check, and swerved across traffic. He was lucky not too get cleaned up the prick.

Fixed that for you. I get screwed over by bad drivers far more often than I do by bad cyclists.

 Troike wrote:
I'll probably regret coming into here, but oh well. Could I just ask something? I don't understand why some people are saying "oh, but x kills more people than guns". Is that meant to somehow make the gun deaths more acceptable, or lessen them as a problem?

No. It just demonstrates a level of hypocracy present in a lot of the anti gun crowd. They go on about how guns are bad because they kill people, but have no second thoughts about buying alcohol or serving it at parties, thereby supporting something that does far more damage to people yearly than guns.


For your consideration, the government Center for Disease Control Statistics on the negative effects of alcohol, which go far beyond just the deaths it causes yearly:

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


Firearm related deaths:

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


Alcohol and it's impact on those under 21:

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

All are horrible, but the part of the anti gun crowd that consumes and serves up alcohol shouldn't be saying they are concerned about saving lives when they are party to supporting an industry causing 10 times the number of deaths yearly, coupled with all the other misery that goes with alcohol consumption, than that caused by guns.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Snrub wrote:

 Troike wrote:
I'll probably regret coming into here, but oh well. Could I just ask something? I don't understand why some people are saying "oh, but x kills more people them guns". Is that meant to somehow make the gun deaths more acceptable, or lessen them as a problem?

I think for the most part it's just used as a knee jerk deflection technique.

You can see them start to panic and sweat.
"Bu-bu-but alcohol and th-the cars..." "WONT SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?"



I could be wrong though.

You are.

Relapse wrote:
You are.

And that's in no way a biased response is it?

 Snrub wrote:

Relapse wrote:
You are.

And that's in no way a biased response is it?

It was based on your judgement of my statements. You were wrong about knee jerk reaction on my part.

 Goliath wrote:

 motyak wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
But 87% of those murders are bicycle road rage incidents...

Freaking *bad* cyclists. One nearly caused a 3 car crash today. Dude just threw his arm out, no shoulder check, and swerved across traffic. He was lucky not too get cleaned up the prick.

Fixed that for you. I get screwed over by bad drivers far more often than I do by bad cyclists.

It's because you don't have roads adjusted for cyclists. We do.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Yes, messy accidents like toddlers shooting themselves or relatives, shooting yourself when cleaning a gun and so on.

Various sorts of things that would be much reduced by a legal framework of training and licensing.

Training and licensing are already legal.

I was a firearm trainer for a while. If it becomes mandatory, how is that done because training isn't cheap. Is that another cost to add to the already expensive gun and ammo? Isn't this being discriminatory to poor people and keeping them from participating in their Constitutional rights? Should we have training for free speech before someone is allowed on the internet? After all, ideas are far more dangerous than guns.

Hey, you'll accept your tax on your constitutional rights, and you will like it!

Civil liberties? Eh, I wasn't using them anyway.

I just want to know why we feel like we can tell people that they're not allowed to end their own life.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Yes, messy accidents like toddlers shooting themselves or relatives, shooting yourself when cleaning a gun and so on.

Various sorts of things that would be much reduced by a legal framework of training and licensing.

That would depend on the jurisdiction. After the Chicago ban was ruled unconstitutional they attempted to create mandatory training.... and promptly made it nigh on impossible to provide the training

 Snrub wrote:
I think for the most part it's just used as a knee jerk deflection technique.

You can see them start to panic and sweat.
"Bu-bu-but alcohol and th-the cars..." "WONT SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?"


I could be wrong though.

Except that those in favour of gun ownership don't frame the debate in terms of won't someone think of the children, or surround themselves with children to further their agenda. The reason that we have these comparisons is to show that much of the concern over firearms is a moral panic, and that there are many other causes of death much more severe than firearms which do not generate the same outrage or legislative focus. Case in point, the dreaded "assault rifle". Leaving aside the fact that this phrase has no workable definition beyond a scary black rifle, these "assault rifles" are used in a statistically minor amount of incidents, and cause very few deaths compared to illegally held firearms. By comparison baseball bats are responsible for more deaths and used in more crime, but we aren't seeing a corresponding drive to ensure that all of them are registered, that there are background checks for buying them, training to use them, that they must be locked up in a sporting facility when not in use, etc.
(please note; the above was written without panic, sweating, or stammering)

So, in spite of your own efforts to deflect and mischaracterize those in favour of gun ownership, you would be wrong


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:
Hey, you'll accept your tax on your constitutional rights, and you will like it!

Yet providing free voter ID to exercise your constitutional right to vote is derided as a poll tax by some.

 Lordhat wrote:
I just want to know why we feel like we can tell people that they're not allowed to end their own life.

That's not really what the article is saying. It's that people can come through their depression and if they didn't have readily available firearms they wouldn't be able to kill themselves comparatively easily to the other suicide options.

This is hardly overlapping into the Euthanasia debate.

 Medium of Death wrote:

 Lordhat wrote:
I just want to know why we feel like we can tell people that they're not allowed to end their own life.

That's not really what the article is saying. It's that people can come through their depression and if they didn't have readily available firearms they wouldn't be able to kill themselves comparatively easily to the other suicide options.

This is hardly overlapping into the Euthanasia debate.

And that is a purely facetious idea. If someone is dead set on suicide, they will do it no matter what implement they have handy to do it with. The US and UK have near identical suicide rates, 12 and 11.8 per 100k. In the US 50% are done with firearms, in the UK 50% are done by hanging.

So you have one modern western nation with readily available guns, one modern western nation without. Same suicide rates. The point is debunked.

 Medium of Death wrote:
That's not really what the article is saying. It's that people can come through their depression and if they didn't have readily available firearms they wouldn't be able to kill themselves comparatively easily to the other suicide options.

Except that firearms are only a leading mechanism of death in suicides in males (http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/suicide/statistics/mechanism02.html), in females suffocation or poisoning is the most common mechanism used. Furthermore "33.3% of suicide decedents tested positive for alcohol, 23% for antidepressants, and 20.8% for opiates, including heroin and prescription pain killers"
http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/suicide-datasheet-a.pdf

So to just blame firearms is to ignore many other factors at play including age and race
http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/suicide/statistics/mechanism04.html
http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/suicide/statistics/mechanism05.html

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Snrub wrote:
I think for the most part it's just used as a knee jerk deflection technique.

You can see them start to panic and sweat.
"Bu-bu-but alcohol and th-the cars..." "WONT SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?"


I could be wrong though.

Except that those in favour of gun ownership don't frame the debate in terms of won't someone think of the children, or surround themselves with children to further their agenda.

Absolute nonsense. Not long after Sandy Hook you had the NRA calling for arming the teachers and pushing for "armed security guards" instead of school resource officers.

The reason that we have these comparisons is to show that much of the concern over firearms is a moral panic, and that there are many other causes of death much more severe than firearms which do not generate the same outrage or legislative focus.

They "do not generate the same outrage or legislative focus" because there is already a framework in place to prevent teenagers from drinking. You have to be 21 years old to buy alcohol or drink alcohol. Stores, dining establishments, and bars that sell alcohol to minors face pretty stiff fines and the loss of liquor licenses--which in turn leads to a further loss of money.

Case in point, the dreaded "assault rifle". Leaving aside the fact that this phrase has no workable definition beyond a scary black rifle, these "assault rifles" are used in a statistically minor amount of incidents, and cause very few deaths compared to illegally held firearms. By comparison baseball bats are responsible for more deaths and used in more crime, but we aren't seeing a corresponding drive to ensure that all of them are registered, that there are background checks for buying them, training to use them, that they must be locked up in a sporting facility when not in use, etc.
(please note; the above was written without panic, sweating, or stammering)

So, in spite of your own efforts to deflect and mischaracterize those in favour of gun ownership, you would be wrong

I'm pretty sure there is absolutely nothing to support what you just said. I cannot think of any databases that track "baseball bat usage in murders".

 djones520 wrote:
Hey, you'll accept your tax on your constitutional rights, and you will like it!

Yet providing free voter ID to exercise your constitutional right to vote is derided as a poll tax by some.

Because the "voter ID laws" haven't been packaged with anything else, right?

So you're trying to say that removal of early voting dates and Sunday voting, closure of early voting sites, alteration of registration patterns for younger voters, and the like did not happen in NC with that ever so popular "voter ID law"? Or that certain forms of photo ID which previously were acceptable as identification are suddenly NOT valid for voting purposes?

Oh right. That did happen--and it was not exclusive to NC. The whole reason voter ID laws have gotten shoved through is to create what is effectively a "poll tax", with the laws also having super special happy meal surprises like what I stated earlier bundled in. The Republican legislatures in areas where they've shoved these laws through know that most people aren't going to actually READ the damn laws and instead are only going to focus on what they hear about.


But hey, it's not like they're trying to hide anything about this whole law right?
Not after a Conservative think tank here in NC called for disclosure of a UNC professor's emails claiming that if you work for the public you have no privacy?

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Snrub wrote:
I think for the most part it's just used as a knee jerk deflection technique.

You can see them start to panic and sweat.
"Bu-bu-but alcohol and th-the cars..." "WONT SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?"


I could be wrong though.

Except that those in favour of gun ownership don't frame the debate in terms of won't someone think of the children, or surround themselves with children to further their agenda.

bs. Not long after Sandy Hook you had the NRA calling for arming the teachers and providing for "armed security guards" instead of school resource officers.

The reason that we have these comparisons is to show that much of the concern over firearms is a moral panic, and that there are many other causes of death much more severe than firearms which do not generate the same outrage or legislative focus.

They "do not generate the same outrage or legislative focus" because there is already a framework in place to prevent teenagers from drinking. You have to be 21 years old to buy alcohol or drink alcohol. Stores, dining establishments, and bars that sell alcohol to minors face pretty stiff fines and the loss of liquor licenses--which in turn leads to a further loss of money.

Case in point, the dreaded "assault rifle". Leaving aside the fact that this phrase has no workable definition beyond a scary black rifle, these "assault rifles" are used in a statistically minor amount of incidents, and cause very few deaths compared to illegally held firearms. By comparison baseball bats are responsible for more deaths and used in more crime, but we aren't seeing a corresponding drive to ensure that all of them are registered, that there are background checks for buying them, training to use them, that they must be locked up in a sporting facility when not in use, etc.
(please note; the above was written without panic, sweating, or stammering)

So, in spite of your own efforts to deflect and mischaracterize those in favour of gun ownership, you would be wrong

I'm pretty sure there is absolutely nothing to support what you just said. I cannot think of any databases that track "baseball bat usage in murders".

 djones520 wrote:
Hey, you'll accept your tax on your constitutional rights, and you will like it!

Yet providing free voter ID to exercise your constitutional right to vote is derided as a poll tax by some.

Because the "voter ID laws" haven't been packaged with anything else, right?

So you're trying to say that removal of early voting dates and Sunday voting, closure of early voting sites, alteration of registration patterns for younger voters, and the like did not happen in NC with that ever so popular "voter ID law"? Or that certain forms of photo ID which previously were acceptable as identification are suddenly NOT valid for voting purposes?

Oh right. That did happen--and it was not exclusive to NC. The whole reason voter ID laws have gotten shoved through is to create what is effectively a "poll tax", with the laws also having super special happy meal surprises like what I stated earlier bundled in. The Republican legislatures in areas where they've shoved these laws through know that most people aren't going to actually READ the damn laws and instead are only going to focus on what they hear about.

#1. The NRA immediately called for armed guards in the school. Their specific wording in their press release was "qualified, armed security". They acknowledge that police officers in every school would be ideal, but they also acknowledge it would be impossible. Instead of casting aspersions, maybe you can show how it would be possible.
http://home.nra.org/pdf/Transcript_PDF.pdf

#2. And yet despite that framework, those under 21 still manage to get their hands on alcohol and tragedy frequently follows. You do realize there is also a framework for acquiring firearms as well right? Any establishment who sells firearms to a minor faces fines, loss of license, and quite possibly prosecution.

#3. Rifle (all, not just "assault") deaths accounted for less then 400 in 2011. Hammer and Club deaths accounted for more then 400. Per the FBI.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11

#4. And here you go on that tangent again... We got it. N. Carolina bad.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Except that those in favour of gun ownership don't frame the debate in terms of won't someone think of the children, or surround themselves with children to further their agenda.

bs. Not long after Sandy Hook you had the NRA calling for arming the teachers and providing for "armed security guards" instead of school resource officers.

Your opening line is profanity. I can't wait to see what enlightenment this exchange will bring, that and conflating "those in favour of gun ownership" as being solely the NRA.
So the NRA were surrounded with children while calling for these measures to help prevent school shootings?
Do you also object to the LEOs who are in favour of armed teachers and classroom assistants in the same terms?

 Kanluwen wrote:
They "do not generate the same outrage or legislative focus" because there is already a framework in place to prevent teenagers from drinking. You have to be 21 years old to buy alcohol or drink alcohol. Stores, dining establishments, and bars that sell alcohol to minors face pretty stiff fines and the loss of liquor licenses--which in turn leads to a further loss of money.

And we already have a legislative framework in place concerning firearms. With hefty fines and jail time for breaking the law. Yet the focus is still on firearms, in spite of the fact that most firearms used in crimes are possessed unlawfully.

 Kanluwen wrote:
I'm pretty sure there is absolutely nothing to support what you just said. I cannot think of any databases that track "baseball bat usage in murders".

Really? The FBI begs to differ

 Kanluwen wrote:
Because the "voter ID laws" haven't been packaged with anything else, right?

And because we aren't talking about your particular hobby horse, right? We are talking about constitutional rights, and the fact that certain people are happy to see others infringed and others not.
If you want to have another discussion about NC's voting legislation perhaps you can take it to your last ( as yet unresponded to) thread

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 ZultanQ wrote:
It's pretty much common knowledge that at least in the US, most violent crimes take place in areas with stricter gun control laws, ie Chigaco, NYC, etc.

Have proponents of gun control stopped for a minute and considered that many of these deaths might have been justified? In the OP's article it conveniently mentions "gun violence" instead of gun crime, which are not necessarily the same thing. Many of these deaths "caused by guns" might have been in self defense and prevented even more heinous deeds by criminals. The police kill people with guns in the US regularly and I'm glad they do as long as they are within their legal limits.

As sad as it is, this type of ignorance has already overtaken much of Europe and I fear that the US will soon fall under the same delusion. People will trade their second amendment rights for perceived safety, when such laws statistically make them less safe. Liberal logic, not even once.

US murder rate 2012 per 100,000: 4.7

Swedish murder rate 2012 per 100,000: 2.479

0/10, try again, thanks for playing.

Just for giggles... does Sweden have the same sorts of problems with gangs, drugs crimes, cartel, and the likes to areas in the US?

To me, that isn't comparing apples to apples.

0/10, try again... thanks for playing.

 whembly wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 ZultanQ wrote:
It's pretty much common knowledge that at least in the US, most violent crimes take place in areas with stricter gun control laws, ie Chigaco, NYC, etc.

Have proponents of gun control stopped for a minute and considered that many of these deaths might have been justified? In the OP's article it conveniently mentions "gun violence" instead of gun crime, which are not necessarily the same thing. Many of these deaths "caused by guns" might have been in self defense and prevented even more heinous deeds by criminals. The police kill people with guns in the US regularly and I'm glad they do as long as they are within their legal limits.

As sad as it is, this type of ignorance has already overtaken much of Europe and I fear that the US will soon fall under the same delusion. People will trade their second amendment rights for perceived safety, when such laws statistically make them less safe. Liberal logic, not even once.

US murder rate 2012 per 100,000: 4.7

Swedish murder rate 2012 per 100,000: 2.479

0/10, try again, thanks for playing.

Just for giggles... does Sweden have the same sorts of problems with gangs, drugs crimes, cartel, and the likes to areas in the US?

To me, that isn't comparing apples to apples.

0/10, try again... thanks for playing.

That border with Norway is a mess. Viking raids and all that.

 djones520 wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:

 Lordhat wrote:
I just want to know why we feel like we can tell people that they're not allowed to end their own life.

That's not really what the article is saying. It's that people can come through their depression and if they didn't have readily available firearms they wouldn't be able to kill themselves comparatively easily to the other suicide options.

This is hardly overlapping into the Euthanasia debate.

And that is a purely facetious idea. If someone is dead set on suicide, they will do it no matter what implement they have handy to do it with. The US and UK have near identical suicide rates, 12 and 11.8 per 100k. In the US 50% are done with firearms, in the UK 50% are done by hanging.

So you have one modern western nation with readily available guns, one modern western nation without. Same suicide rates. The point is debunked.

Nice logic, because we know that the United Kingdom and America are so interchangeable. There can be other factors at work beyond, Scotland has a higher suicide rate that the rest of the UK for example.

I'm not saying that guns are the reason that a lot of people kill themselves I'm saying that them being readily available gives people an "easier" option. It might be a small percent out of the total that do kill themselves with guns, but it's probably still there.

 djones520 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 ZultanQ wrote:
It's pretty much common knowledge that at least in the US, most violent crimes take place in areas with stricter gun control laws, ie Chigaco, NYC, etc.

Have proponents of gun control stopped for a minute and considered that many of these deaths might have been justified? In the OP's article it conveniently mentions "gun violence" instead of gun crime, which are not necessarily the same thing. Many of these deaths "caused by guns" might have been in self defense and prevented even more heinous deeds by criminals. The police kill people with guns in the US regularly and I'm glad they do as long as they are within their legal limits.

As sad as it is, this type of ignorance has already overtaken much of Europe and I fear that the US will soon fall under the same delusion. People will trade their second amendment rights for perceived safety, when such laws statistically make them less safe. Liberal logic, not even once.

US murder rate 2012 per 100,000: 4.7

Swedish murder rate 2012 per 100,000: 2.479

0/10, try again, thanks for playing.

Just for giggles... does Sweden have the same sorts of problems with gangs, drugs crimes, cartel, and the likes to areas in the US?

To me, that isn't comparing apples to apples.

0/10, try again... thanks for playing.

That border with Norway is a mess. Viking raids and all that.

Well... the Vikings are deadly with their close-combat weapons. BANE ALL SHARP AND POINTY THINGS. Remember, its for the CHILDRENS!!

 Medium of Death wrote:
Nice logic, because we know that the United Kingdom and America are so interchangeable. There can be other factors at work beyond, Scotland has a higher suicide rate that the rest of the UK for example.

I'm not saying that guns are the reason that a lot of people kill themselves I'm saying that them being readily available gives people an "easier" option. It might be a small percent out of the total that do kill themselves with guns, but it's probably still there.

And the US also has regional variations on suicide too http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00049117.htm