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.

 Redcruisair wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Even though shootings make the headlines, they're still incredibly rare events. And school shootings are miniscule even just within total firearm deaths/injuries.

This line here sits poorly with me. Is one school shooting not one too many?

Saying it doesn’t matter, because the number of school shootings is low in comparison to other cases of deaths, doesn’t really make these horrible incidents any less bad. I mean for Christ sake, people have had their kids murdered in those shootings.

I don’t really care for the pro vs con gun debate in America, because it’s not my business to care about it. However, it does make my stomach churn a bit when people so causally hand wave away these tragic incidents as if they didn’t even matter.

Of course they matter, but not in the gun debate. They're tragic events and I do feel for people who've lost loved ones in them, but they have no relevance in the debate over guns.

Actually, they do.

What Da Boss said was accurate.

 Da Boss wrote:
Yeah the whole "shoot to wound" thing is really unrealistic. No police force in the world trains for that.

Ours seem pretty good at stopping armed people with a leg shot, though sometimes a suspect who doesn't give up is severely wounded or killed. Then again, they're also pretty fast at closing off areas so that bystanders aren't at risk, after which one can try reasoning with the suspect. Even heavy criminals will rarely point a gun at police so they can afford to try words first. IIRC they fired a total of six shots in the line of duty in 2013, and had to brandish a gun a few dozen times in total.

Ofc, we have less police in this country of ~5.5 million people than any major US city. And way less handguns either legal or illegal.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
When I was living in Europe I didn't feel the need to own or carry a weapon either.

Tell me more. What made you make this decision?

Make what decision? To not own a weapon? The fact that I had a residence permit and respected the laws of the country in which I was living was certainly enough reason for me. As a non-citizen, I don't think me owning a weapon legally would have even been possible, and if it was, all the legal hoops I would have had to jump through and all the time and money I would have had to spend wouldn't have been worth it, especially considering virtually no one else had a weapon either. I was quite busy and focused on other things, and was traveling a lot, and wouldn't have spent the money on a weapon even if the laws of the country I was in were the same as in the US. I was living in an urban area with no way to store it or transport it properly either, so basically it would have been nothing more than a waste of money and a pain in the arse. I'm also generally pretty good at avoiding trouble.

It wasn't even something I really thought about at the time. I probably have spent more time thinking about it while writing this post than I ever did when I was over there. In the US, it's different.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Da Boss wrote:
Well, any cause of preventable death is a problem. It just depends whether you think it is a big problem or a small problem, surely.

Unless you're of the opinion that we have too many humans and therefore some of them dying in preventable situations is a good thing. Which is a fair cop.

It also depends on whether or not you believe passing laws to restrict ownership would actually prevent the problem, and not just deprive citizens of their property (in many cases very expensive property, I might add) and civil rights. As has been pointed out, there are many other things that cause way more accidental, preventable deaths than firearms that are even less restricted, such as swimming pools.

 Hordini wrote:

It also depends on whether or not you believe passing laws to restrict ownership would actually prevent the problem, and not just deprive citizens of their property (in many cases very expensive property, I might add) and civil rights.

Guns are also sort of an heirloom item. Less so than other people than have things dating crazy back, my grandfather has a .38 that's been in the family since the late 1800s, if I'm getting my facts straight.

That's a good point as well. I know a several people who have firearms that were given to them that used to belong to their fathers, grandfathers, and great-grandfathers. I don't care what your feelings on firearms are, asking someone to give something like that up is a big deal.

 Redcruisair wrote:
This line here sits poorly with me. Is one school shooting not one too many?

Saying it doesn’t matter, because the number of school shootings is low in comparison to other cases of deaths, doesn’t really make these horrible incidents any less bad. I mean for Christ sake, people have had their kids murdered in those shootings.

I don’t really care for the pro vs con gun debate in America, because it’s not my business to care about it. However, it does make my stomach churn a bit when people so causally hand wave away these tragic incidents as if they didn’t even matter.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Actually, they do.

What Da Boss said was accurate.

No one is trying to diminish the loss of life that occur in these tragic events. What we are trying to do is to put them in context.
In the United States;
100 people PER DAY die in car accidents
2,640 people PER YEAR die from house fires
167 people died from mass shootings… in the last decade

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
No one is trying to diminish the loss of life that occur in these tragic events. What we are trying to do is to put them in context.
In the United States;
100 people PER DAY die in car accidents
2,640 people PER YEAR die from house fires
167 people died from mass shootings… in the last decade

The problem with that 'context' is you imply that things like handguns are as necessary to everyday living as cars and cooking, and a lot of people would disagree with that. In the UK handguns are completely illegal, and yet the world keeps on turning, and spree killings are incredibly rare (only 1 since handguns were banned 19 years ago).

It is not just about the number of deaths, it is also about how needless the deaths are.

 Smacks wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
No one is trying to diminish the loss of life that occur in these tragic events. What we are trying to do is to put them in context.
In the United States;
100 people PER DAY die in car accidents
2,640 people PER YEAR die from house fires
167 people died from mass shootings… in the last decade

The problem with that 'context' is you imply that things like handguns are as necessary to everyday living as cars and cooking, and a lot of people would disagree with that. In the UK handguns are completely illegal, and yet the world keeps on turning, and spree killings are incredibly rare (only 1 since handguns were banned 19 years ago).

It is not just about the number of deaths, it is also about how needless the deaths are.

But you also need to take into account the massive number of guns in circulation in the US, and what suddenly making handguns illegal would mean. Handguns are legal in the US, and yet the world keeps on turning, and spree killings are rare. Law-abiding citizens should be able to decide for themselves whether or not they want to have a firearm.

 Smacks wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
No one is trying to diminish the loss of life that occur in these tragic events. What we are trying to do is to put them in context.
In the United States;
100 people PER DAY die in car accidents
2,640 people PER YEAR die from house fires
167 people died from mass shootings… in the last decade

The problem with that 'context' is you imply that things like handguns are as necessary to everyday living as cars and cooking, and a lot of people would disagree with that. In the UK handguns are completely illegal, and yet the world keeps on turning, and spree killings are incredibly rare (only 1 since handguns were banned 19 years ago).

It is not just about the number of deaths, it is also about how needless the deaths are.

So then we can go back to cigarettes and alcohol...

Ban those too!

(I like guns btw)

 djones520 wrote:

 Smacks wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
No one is trying to diminish the loss of life that occur in these tragic events. What we are trying to do is to put them in context.
In the United States;
100 people PER DAY die in car accidents
2,640 people PER YEAR die from house fires
167 people died from mass shootings… in the last decade

The problem with that 'context' is you imply that things like handguns are as necessary to everyday living as cars and cooking, and a lot of people would disagree with that. In the UK handguns are completely illegal, and yet the world keeps on turning, and spree killings are incredibly rare (only 1 since handguns were banned 19 years ago).

It is not just about the number of deaths, it is also about how needless the deaths are.

So then we can go back to cigarettes and alcohol...

Or motorcycles.

 Hordini wrote:
But you also need to take into account the massive number of guns in circulation in the US, and what suddenly making handguns illegal would mean. Handguns are legal in the US, and yet the world keeps on turning, and spree killings are rare. Law-abiding citizens should be able to decide for themselves whether or not they want to have a firearm.

Absolutely. Limiting, or worse abolishing, the rights of millions of people because of the unlawful actions of a few is completely disproportionate.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
But you also need to take into account the massive number of guns in circulation in the US, and what suddenly making handguns illegal would mean. Handguns are legal in the US, and yet the world keeps on turning, and spree killings are rare. Law-abiding citizens should be able to decide for themselves whether or not they want to have a firearm.

Absolutely. Limiting, or worse abolishing, the rights of millions of people because of the unlawful actions of a few is completely disproportionate.

Yet so many "civilized" people see it as "the moral thing to do"...

Many "civilized" people used to think burning people to death for proposing that the world might revolve around the sun and not the other way around. I've never understood how punishing law abiding citizens for the actions of criminals is supposed to keep people safe.

 Hordini wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
So then we can go back to cigarettes and alcohol...

Or motorcycles.

Well those things are not a shield for guns to hide behind. Cigarettes are a terrible curse on humanity, many smokers wish they'd never started. Millions of people struggle with alcohol addiction, and addicts, alcohol causes a lot of social issues and expense. And motorcycles are indeed dangerous.

I'm not going to say that any of those things should be outright banned, and I'm not saying guns should be banned either. But none of these things are just fine a dandy by any standard. It is worth discussing how to make all these things safer, and how much control people have over the dangers.

I would not expect be exposed to the dangers of passive smoking in a Walmart (in the UK it would be a health and safety violation). Why should I have to be exposed to potential firearm accidents?

It has to do with what's important. Guns are no where as important in Europe as opposed to America.

 Alex C wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
But you also need to take into account the massive number of guns in circulation in the US, and what suddenly making handguns illegal would mean. Handguns are legal in the US, and yet the world keeps on turning, and spree killings are rare. Law-abiding citizens should be able to decide for themselves whether or not they want to have a firearm.

Absolutely. Limiting, or worse abolishing, the rights of millions of people because of the unlawful actions of a few is completely disproportionate.

Yet so many "civilized" people see it as "the moral thing to do"...

Probably because it happens all the time? Most laws are based around removing the choice or right to do something.

Speed limits, for example. Why can't law abiding citizens decide for themselves whether they want to drive at 40 or 140?

 Torga_DW wrote:
Many "civilized" people used to think burning people to death for proposing that the world might revolve around the sun and not the other way around. I've never understood how punishing law abiding citizens for the actions of criminals is supposed to keep people safe.

It's not supposed to keep people safe, It's supposed to make politicians look good by giving the impression that they are actually doing something about a supposed "problem" and are therefore worthy of re-election.

But y'know, that evil NRA just keeps stopping them from banning everything. Couldn't possibly be that most of us want our rights left alone and for the government to bugger off and keep their noses out of our gun safes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Alex C wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
But you also need to take into account the massive number of guns in circulation in the US, and what suddenly making handguns illegal would mean. Handguns are legal in the US, and yet the world keeps on turning, and spree killings are rare. Law-abiding citizens should be able to decide for themselves whether or not they want to have a firearm.

Absolutely. Limiting, or worse abolishing, the rights of millions of people because of the unlawful actions of a few is completely disproportionate.

Yet so many "civilized" people see it as "the moral thing to do"...

Probably because it happens all the time? Most laws are based around removing the choice or right to do something.

Speed limits, for example. Why can't law abiding citizens decide for themselves whether they want to drive at 40 or 140?

Again with the speed limit comparisons

I'll say it once more, and please try to understand because I'm not going to parrot it:

We have the right to bear arms. We do not have the right to drive 140mph. We don't even have a right to drive. It is a ridiculous comparison.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Even though shootings make the headlines, they're still incredibly rare events. And school shootings are miniscule even just within total firearm deaths/injuries.

In the US in 2010, 480,000 people died from smoking. Only 11,068 people died in a Firearm Homicide in that same year.

43 times more people die because of smoking(including second hand smoke) than are killed with firearms. This is despite very aggressive campaigns of education and general public knowledge that smoking kills.

The number of firearm deaths is miniscule, only 3.6 per 100,000. Its not a problem in any way, shape, or form.

Do you not think that the picture would look better, without those 11,068 deaths?

It would be interesting to see what the figures would be for 'lives altered' on top of that; those wounded in some shape or form that alters both their lives and the people around them, or the families left destroyed by those deaths.

I'm not questioning what is undeniably a part of US culture, and what has come about and continues to persist for a myriad of reasons. But, I just can't understand where this 'isn't a problem' attitude comes from. Look at some of the graphs below, look what kind of company the US is keeping, and tell me that's something somehow acceptable considering we are talking about the richest country in the world, and leader of science, technology and industry?

Comparing murder rates in certain cities to other countries
http://www.citylab.com/politics/2013/01/gun-violence-us-cities-compared-deadliest-nations-world/4412/

All of those numbers are still far lower than other causes of death.

If guns were truly this huge problem, they should at least be comparable to other causes of death. But its far lower than others, thus it can't be all that big of a problem.

 Redcruisair wrote:
This line here sits poorly with me. Is one school shooting not one too many?

Saying it doesn’t matter, because the number of school shootings is low in comparison to other cases of deaths, doesn’t really make these horrible incidents any less bad. I mean for Christ sake, people have had their kids murdered in those shootings.

I don’t really care for the pro vs con gun debate in America, because it’s not my business to care about it. However, it does make my stomach churn a bit when people so causally hand wave away these tragic incidents as if they didn’t even matter.

It's not that school shootings don't matter, it's that you can't make policy decisions based on such rare events. When something happens so rarely you don't have enough information about what caused it and what you can do to prevent it, so any decisions you try to make as a result are blind guesses and/or emotional reactions. Gun control laws need to be based on common situations/events, not isolated tragedies that get the biggest headlines.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Redcruisair wrote:
This line here sits poorly with me. Is one school shooting not one too many?

Saying it doesn’t matter, because the number of school shootings is low in comparison to other cases of deaths, doesn’t really make these horrible incidents any less bad. I mean for Christ sake, people have had their kids murdered in those shootings.

I don’t really care for the pro vs con gun debate in America, because it’s not my business to care about it. However, it does make my stomach churn a bit when people so causally hand wave away these tragic incidents as if they didn’t even matter.

It's not that school shootings don't matter, it's that you can't make policy decisions based on such rare events. When something happens so rarely you don't have enough information about what caused it and what you can do to prevent it, so any decisions you try to make as a result are blind guesses and/or emotional reactions. Gun control laws need to be based on common situations/events, not isolated tragedies that get the biggest headlines.

Damnit Peregrine, I really hate agreeing with you.

 djones520 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Redcruisair wrote:
This line here sits poorly with me. Is one school shooting not one too many?

Saying it doesn’t matter, because the number of school shootings is low in comparison to other cases of deaths, doesn’t really make these horrible incidents any less bad. I mean for Christ sake, people have had their kids murdered in those shootings.

I don’t really care for the pro vs con gun debate in America, because it’s not my business to care about it. However, it does make my stomach churn a bit when people so causally hand wave away these tragic incidents as if they didn’t even matter.

It's not that school shootings don't matter, it's that you can't make policy decisions based on such rare events. When something happens so rarely you don't have enough information about what caused it and what you can do to prevent it, so any decisions you try to make as a result are blind guesses and/or emotional reactions. Gun control laws need to be based on common situations/events, not isolated tragedies that get the biggest headlines.

Damnit Peregrine, I really hate agreeing with you.

As do I, but o'well, things happen.

 Pacific wrote:
Do you not think that the picture would look better, without those 11,068 deaths?

Of course it would, but how do you prevent them? Keep in mind that a gang member can still get an illegal gun even if guns are 100% banned, an abusive spouse can still use a different weapon, etc. It's not as easy as just saying "ban guns and those 11k people are still alive".

Assuming those statistics are accurate, it's interesting how most of those places with the high number of firearm homicides are coincidentally the same places with the tightest gun control in the country.

I think part of the problem is the bill of rights. How many countries actually have such a thing built into their consitution? I'm seeing (google) 196 countries in the world and maybe 15 (tops) with an actual bill of rights. The perspective of someone who has assumed individual rights built into their governmental and legal systems is probably going to be different to someone who doesn't.

I wasn't really advocating for tighter gun control laws when I said that deaths from guns were a problem.

I mean, lots of things are problematic, but we don't need laws to control them. We can just accept that some amount of risk or damage is worth the freedom or usefulness of the problematic thing. And like Hordini says, sometimes we just can't control problems with laws. I could start listing stuff here, but I figure everyone reading this is smart enough to think of their own examples.

I just felt Grey Templar was being a bit hyperbolic in his defense of his position, and since someone would surely point it out if someone anti-gun did that, I felt obliged to say so

 Alex C wrote:
Assuming those statistics are accurate, it's interesting how most of those places with the high number of firearm homicides are coincidentally the same places with the tightest gun control in the country.

I wouldn't assume too much from that, because we don't know which is the cause and which is the effect. Is it the case that strict gun control has no effect on homicide rates (or even makes them worse), or is it simply the case that places with high homicide rates tend to pass strict gun control laws in an attempt to reduce that rate? Or is it about politics, where cities tend to lean left and also have the strongest factors that encourage violent crime (completely independent of their political bias), while rural areas tend to lean right and don't share those crime-producing factors.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Pacific wrote:
Do you not think that the picture would look better, without those 11,068 deaths?

Of course it would, but how do you prevent them? Keep in mind that a gang member can still get an illegal gun even if guns are 100% banned, an abusive spouse can still use a different weapon, etc. It's not as easy as just saying "ban guns and those 11k people are still alive".

I think you have to start by wanting a change. No one said it would be easy, it could take a hundred years, but it needs to start somewhere. The problem is there are a lot of people that are so caught up in the idea of someone taking their guns away, that they don't even want to look at the big picture.