An idea for "Gun Control".

Originally posted by Chillmeister

Please, pray tell, how is that in any way comparable to the banning of a particular kind of firearm that has a high fire rate and, as evidenced by recent events, can take numerous innocent lives in a very short time?

Did you read one of my earlier posts? Do you know the percentage of gun violence in America due to assault rifles?

Guns are banned un your country, you should be happy.

You know, I see a lot of outrage over this. Where was the outrage when several nations, including yours, invaded Iraq at the behest of corporate profit and over a hundred thousand people lost their lives? Hypocrite.

Here's another thing for all you gun ban advocates. There are an estimated 310 MILLION non military guns in America of which several million are assault rifles and unlike handguns the overwhelming majority of assault rifles are not registered.If they are suddenly banned do you think there will be a rush to turn them in? on the contrary there is currently a rush to buy them because of the media storm. Assault rifles account for less than 1% of gun violence, they just recieve the most media attention.

Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
Did you read one of my earlier posts? Do you know the percentage of gun violence in America due to assault rifles?

Guns are banned un your country, you should be happy.

You know, I see a lot of outrage over this. Where was the outrage when several nations, including yours, invaded Iraq at the behest of corporate profit and over a hundred thousand people lost their lives? Hypocrite.

Any percentage is too high.

Of course the percentage is lower. The percentage is lower because less people own them than own pistols and they're not as easy to conceal. I'm sure there's less killings with anthrax than there is with guns in the US. Should it go on general sale?

What actual good do they do, these semi automatic weapons? What do they contribute to society? People don't need them and it's scary that anyone would want them.

There was plenty of outrage regarding the war with Iraq and Afghanistan. Absolutely loads of it. There were protests both in America and in the UK. I don't feel you have any right to call me a hypocrite over that considering you have no idea how outraged or not I was at the time.

Originally posted by Chillmeister

What actual good do they do, these semi automatic weapons? What do they contribute to society? People don't need them and it's scary that anyone would want them.

. ]

What good do a lot of things do? People do a lot of things that are harmful to themselves and othrs Hell, smoking kills 400,000 people in America each year and second hand smoke kills too. Alchohol related deaths (including those caused by drunk drivers) are around 100,000. Illegal drugs like heroin, meth, and cocaine (remember the illegal part here) kill around 30,000 compare with about 25,000 by guns and usually less than 100 by assault rifles. I own two what you call "assault rifles"as well as several handguns and shotguns.
I enjoy shooting them from time to time. I do not shoot anything alive including animals. When I'm not using them they are disassembled and scattered around the house so if I got burglarized, despite having a home security system, it would be nearly impossible for any thief to get a complete weapon.

All irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. If people want to drink, smoke, do drugs that's their choice. If guns were only used in suicides and they were killing the same number of people, I would not have a problem with them remaining legal.

What we have here is a country full of people who have a 200 year tradition of owning guns (as guaranteed by their bill of rights) and now that that right is being questioned, they're butthurt.

And I agree, semi-auto assault rifles are not needed by private citizens.

Originally posted by Chillmeister
All irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. If people want to drink, smoke, do drugs that's their choice. If guns were only used in suicides and they were killing the same number of people, I would not have a problem with them remaining legal.

But you're wrong. Drunk drivers kill OTHER people, so does second hand smoke. And over half of the gun violence is due to the illegal drug trade.

Originally posted by Casper Whitey
What we have here is a country full of people who have a 200 year tradition of owning guns (as guaranteed by their bill of rights) and now that that right is being questioned, they're butthurt.

And I agree, semi-auto assault rifles are not needed by private citizens.

So only governments, who kill FAR more people than private citizens, should have them? Is that what you're saying?

'An eye for an eye makes the world world blind' - Ghandi

Also comparing Japan and the UK, as DDM did, land masses/populations are probably a factor when compared to the US and Mexico.
IE: You guys have more people to worry about.
More people with differing ideologies, mental states, ability to deal with the increasing pressures of life etc etc

Thats why I think that being the numbers game that it is, why rapid body count achievers like these weapons are arguably a mistake.
I favour the idea a friend came up with in discussion the other day of tighter psychological screening being a pre-requisite for ownership of any gun period. 2nd amendment can cover other arms, you dont have to go the gun route.

You wanna keep your families safer? Buy a bunch of bullet proof vests. ('Cause if a guy shoots at you, you cant shoot their bullets out of the air before they get to you)

Just the way it seems to me...

Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
So can cars, let's ban them

That a very swaying argument, you've convinced me.

Cars can kill people; they're not banned, motorcycles can kill people; they're not banned, bowling pins can kill people; they're also not banned. Ergo, people should be allowed RPGs, anti-tank weapons, military-grade high yield explosives and for those lucky few that can afford it, allow them fully armed and loaded Hind gunships, as you never know when someone might need to repel a thief.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
'An eye for an eye makes the world world blind' - Ghandi

Also comparing Japan and the UK, as DDM did, land masses/populations are probably a factor when compared to the US and Mexico.

You are correct: the higher the population density, the more crime per 100,000 people.

Meaning, the UK and Japan should have more crime per 100,000 people because their population density is greater. However, they don't. So there are other factors, besides pure population density, contributing to the US problem.

I think those are culture and policies (law).

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
I favour the idea a friend came up with in discussion the other day of tighter psychological screening being a pre-requisite for ownership of any gun period. 2nd amendment can cover other arms, you dont have to go the gun route.

Yes, that was one of my ideas, as well. I think the frequency should be once a year. But, how effective would that screening really be?

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
('Cause if a guy shoots at you, you cant shoot their bullets out of the air before they get to you)

I lol'd.

Originally posted by Robtard
That a very swaying argument, you've convinced me.

Cars can kill people; they're not banned, motorcycles can kill people; they're not banned, bowling pins can kill people; they're also not banned. Ergo, people should be allowed RPGs, anti-tank weapons, military-grade high yield explosives and for those lucky few that can afford it, allow them fully armed and loaded Hind gunships, as you never know when someone might need to repel a thief.

He fails because he used the word "can" instead eliminating the word.

Just remove that word "can" from his post and then respond to his point.

I made the same point he did. Cars DO kill more people than guns by far. Alcohol, IIRC, does as well. 75,000 deaths a year.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6089353/ns/health-addictions/t/alcohol-linked-us-deaths-year/#.UNIJEHdazt0

"There were 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000."

From wiki...not sure about source on Wiki. But that adds up to 75,684 deaths.

Gun related deaths dropped significantly since 2000 (go figure). I don't have time to research the numbers but, basically, cars are killing more people than guns. Alcohol is killing more people than guns. Yet everyone is harping on banning guns.

Let me put it into perspective: alcohol is going on a killing spree, each and every day, killing 205 people. Everyone should be outraged. It is time we took a stand and banned alcohol except for extremely difficult licensing and routine psychological evaluations. I am not kidding. I want the same done for guns.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You are correct: the higher the population density, the more crime per 100,000 people.

Meaning, the UK and Japan should have more crime per 100,000 people because their population density is greater. However, they don't. So there are other factors, besides pure population density, contributing to the US problem.

I think those are culture and policies (law).

But the amount is less, is my point.
And maybe we are different culturally. We are a bit more secular/reserved on the whole. But those things aside, we still have passion and the rates of gun murder would be higher if we had guns. The streets are full of people who would shoot someone if they had a gun even at the best of times...like if they came home and found the missus in bed with the milkman for example...over business or even if their football team lost in some cases..
Its a good thing we dont have guns, basically.

Yes, that was one of my ideas, as well. I think the frequency should be once a year. But, how effective would that screening really be?

More effective than not doing it, I should imagine.
Fundimentalists of all types should be banned IMHO.
No one is more likely to shoot someone than an extremist who may be delluded enough to think that shooting someone might be a righteous act because of some text. saying that certain policies are enforceable against someone they think is an 'ordained' enemy... But Im not zeroing in on the religious all round though, as I said above: Humans are humans and mistakes get made in the heat of the moment. We dont need the enabling and equipping to make those mistakes. So we live without legal guns in close proximity and whilst we still have street crime, we arent scared enough to all get guns and start "Defending" ourselves all willy nilly.

Glad you lol'd at the vest thing: I hope that means you recognise my point.

Originally posted by dadudemon
He fails because he used the word "can" instead eliminating the word.

Just remove that word "can" from his post and then respond to his point.

I made the same point he did. Cars DO kill more people than guns by far. Alcohol, IIRC, does as well. 75,000 deaths a year.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6089353/ns/health-addictions/t/alcohol-linked-us-deaths-year/#.UNIJEHdazt0

"There were 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000."

From wiki...not sure about source on Wiki. But that adds up to 75,684 deaths.

Gun related deaths dropped significantly since 2000 (go figure). I don't have time to research the numbers but, basically, cars are killing more people than guns. Alcohol is killing more people than guns. Yet everyone is harping on banning guns.

Let me put it into perspective: alcohol is going on a killing spree, each and every day, killing 205 people. Everyone should be outraged. It is time we took a stand and banned alcohol except for extremely difficult licensing and routine psychological evaluations. I am not kidding. I want the same done for guns.

Still doesn't change the fact that guns are specifically designed to kill, cars and alcohol are not. I can own a gun and never kill with it, just as I can own a car and never drive it or buy a bottle of wine and never drink it. But their designed purpose stays the same.

Accidents happen.

How many car deaths are deliberate? ie how many deaths are caused by car killing sprees? I can only recall one in the last two years. The guy in the Lincoln Navigator (or other large SUV) that went into a mall.

Alcohol is another matter, I'm all for stricter regulations considering people can't handle themselves around the stuff. Drunk driving, violence caused by drinking etc should all have stiffer penalties.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Since the vast majority will be used for things other than killing things...and some are made to be specifically used in professional target shooting events, then, no, you're still wrong. I would agree with you concerning most shotguns, however. Oh, and hunting rifles. I'd say those are made specifically to kill living things. Same with Assault Rifles (most of them). But, no, most guns these days are not made with the purpose of destroying life. You have to get into military grade weapons for that.

"good reasons" is subjective. By your logic, there is no good reason to watch movies or play video games. By your logic, there's no good reason to have the components to make fertilizer weapons (I'm at work and can't use certain words...but you obviously know which word I meant instead of weapons)...which certainly have killed quite a few people. Obviously, everything that can be used to significantly harm human life should not be banned.

Cars kill more people than assault rifles in the US. Alcohol kills more people than assault rifles in the US. Start banning those before we ban assault rifles. The deadliest should come first, right?

You can own guns in Japan and the UK but their gun violence rates are MUCH lower than the US. Why? We should be exploring those ideas and concepts rather than banning things.

However, after reading about the shooting in detail, I really cannot justify the use of high powered weapons like assault rifles. From Wikipedia: "Marie Murphy, a teacher's aide who worked with special needs students, shielded 6-year-old Dylan Hockley with her body, trying to protect him from the bullets that killed them both." That is why I am okay with removing those from the equation. What is the justification for armor-piercing rounds and high-powered guns like assault rifles? What about sniper rifles? No justification for those, imo.

Can you list these weapons that are designed for target shooting? The only ones I was able to find was air guns and pellet guns, which obviously don't fit into this discussion.

Movies and games do have a valid purpose. Entertainment. They don't pose a great risk of danger like assault weapons do. The risk of danger posed by assault weapons outweigh whatever entertainment value they may hold for some people.

The comparison with cars is a bad one. Cars require training and testing to be able to drive, guns do not. A car's intended purpose is travel. When someone dies by a car it is an accident. Cars aren't designed and used as weapons to commit mass murder on a regular basis, which is why they aren't a part of the discussion.

Your point about Japan is a good one. We should definitely explore why gun violence doesn't happen there. The obvious reason is that most guns are completely illegal there. Only shotguns and air rifles are legal. Another reason is that they do things much in the way I said we should earlier in the thread. They require significant training before being allowed to own a gun, and they require that you take tests every 3 years as long as you own a gun, and they require a mental health test before you are allowed to own a gun.

Your last point just shows that we actually agree. I never said anything about banning all guns - just assault rifles.

Originally posted by BackFire
Can you list these weapons that are designed for target shooting? The only ones I was able to find was air guns and pellet guns, which obviously don't fit into this discussion.

Target guns are usually customized. A Ruger Mini-14 could be a hunting rifle (and was used in the Oslo shootings). The same rifle with glass bedding, a custom wood stock, a double trigger, and extra thick barrel is only a target rifle. Its expensive, heavy, relatively fragile, and marketed to competition shooters rather than hunters or law enforcement.

Target pistols might be a better example. A single shot .22 caliber pistol with a bunch of funny bits sticking off it is a terrible device for hurting people.

Originally posted by BackFire
Can you list these weapons that are designed for target shooting? The only ones I was able to find was air guns and pellet guns, which obviously don't fit into this discussion.

I appreciate you taking the effort to become informed: most people are not that level headed about this discussion.

My answer is "Just about every gun marketed, today." The exceptions are those I listed. I'm sure there are some shotguns that are made with the idea of clay pigeon shooting in mind but that just doesn't cut it for me. Well, I digress: it is the rounds that are sold that sometimes indicate if they are for harm or for clay shooting.

Originally posted by BackFire
Movies and games do have a valid purpose. Entertainment.

Yeah, that was my point. Same with guns. Target shooting is fun. When I target shoot, I am not thinking, "man...this would be awesome to kill people with!" I think, "I am not shooting very accurately, today...I need a tighter pattern." Yes, I suck that bad. 🙁

Originally posted by BackFire
They don't pose a great risk of danger like assault weapons do. The risk of danger posed by assault weapons outweigh whatever entertainment value they may hold for some people.

If you used "assault rifles" here, we would be in agreement. Is that what you mean? Your last comment makes me think that.

Originally posted by BackFire
The comparison with cars is a bad one. Cars require training and testing to be able to drive, guns do not. A car's intended purpose is travel. When someone dies by a car it is an accident. Cars aren't designed and used as weapons to commit mass murder on a regular basis, which is why they aren't a part of the discussion.

Actually, it is a perfect example and makes my point, if we add in your points. Even with training and proficiency tests, cars kill waaaaay more people than guns do (but there are more cars!). The solution is obviously not just in proficiency tests (I want that) or tighter regulations (I want that, as well): but the solution is in changing the culture in America.

But cars are used to commit murder in the dozens everyday...even if second or third degree.

Originally posted by BackFire
Your point about Japan is a good one. We should definitely explore why gun violence doesn't happen there. The obvious reason is that most guns are completely illegal there. Only shotguns and air rifles are legal. Another reason is that they do things much in the way I said we should earlier in the thread. They require significant training before being allowed to own a gun, and they require that you take tests every 3 years as long as you own a gun, and they require a mental health test before you are allowed to own a gun.

Is that really what they do? They obviously have a working system. However, before they tightened up their system, they still had better ...stats? Not sure how to word that but they were at our 1900s levels of firearm homicides back in the late 1980s when our murder problem was peaking in America. Shows that their solution is more than just regs and tests...I think their culture has a lot to do with it.

Originally posted by BackFire
Your last point just shows that we actually agree. I never said anything about banning all guns - just assault rifles.

313

Originally posted by dadudemon
I appreciate you taking the effort to become informed: most people are not that level headed about this discussion.

My answer is "Just about every gun marketed, today." The exceptions are those I listed. I'm sure there are some shotguns that are made with the idea of clay pigeon shooting in mind but that just doesn't cut it for me. Well, I digress: it is the rounds that are sold that sometimes indicate if they are for harm or for clay shooting.

You are now trying to alter what you previously implied. You implied there were specific guns that exist that were not created with the intent of being efficient at killing things or some rifles used for target practice and nothing else. Now you're saying you were talking about the likes of handguns? Would you consider a glock to be a gun that is not intended to kill people? Handguns were obviously created with efficient killing in mind. Though your point about ammo is fair enough.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yeah, that was my point. Same with guns. Target shooting is fun. When I target shoot, I am not thinking, "man...this would be awesome to kill people with!" I think, "I am not shooting very accurately, today...I need a tighter pattern." Yes, I suck that bad. 🙁

No, not the same with guns. You ignore too many important circumstances in order to pretend this is a valid comparison. Guns are used to kill people, games and movies aren't. Someone could buy a gun because they intend to try and eat it, it doesn't change the purpose of their design.

Originally posted by dadudemon
If you used "assault rifles" here, we would be in agreement. Is that what you mean? Your last comment makes me think that.

Yes, assault rifles. That is what I've been speaking of. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Actually, it is a perfect example and makes my point, if we add in your points. Even with training and proficiency tests, cars kill waaaaay more people than guns do (but there are more cars!). The solution is obviously not just in proficiency tests (I want that) or tighter regulations (I want that, as well): but the solution is in changing the culture in America.

But cars are used to commit murder in the dozens everyday...even if second or third degree.

But those are accidents. Those are based on people making mistakes or misusing the car. If someone kills someone with a gun, they are using the weapon properly. That was the point of a guns creation. The murder in Newtown wasn't an accident. It was someone fulfilling the intent behind the weapon that he was using. The point of a gun like the AR-15 is to kill human beings. That is why it was initially created for the military.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Is that really what they do? They obviously have a working system. However, before they tightened up their system, they still had better ...stats? Not sure how to word that but they were at our 1900s levels of firearm homicides back in the late 1980s when our murder problem was peaking in America. Shows that their solution is more than just regs and tests...I think their culture has a lot to do with it.

Yes, that is really what they do. They do even more than that, too. They also force you to keep your gun in a safe and the ammo in another safe and they make you tell the government where those safes will be in your home. Even back in the 1980's I imagine they had stricter gun laws than we have here, which likely kept deaths lower.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Target guns are usually customized. A Ruger Mini-14 could be a hunting rifle (and was used in the Oslo shootings). The same rifle with glass bedding, a custom wood stock, a double trigger, and extra thick barrel is only a target rifle. Its expensive, heavy, relatively fragile, and marketed to competition shooters rather than hunters or law enforcement.

Target pistols might be a better example. A single shot .22 caliber pistol with a bunch of funny bits sticking off it is a terrible device for hurting people.

This doesn't help the argument. You are implying that guns have to be altered in order to make them less deadly. That still means when that gun was created by the manufacturer it was made with the purpose of killing something in mind.

Originally posted by BackFire
This doesn't help the argument. You are implying that guns have to be altered order to make them less deadly.

The rifle is no less deadly than it was before. It fires the same round at the same speed. The alterations are simply to make it specialized for target shooting, it could be used to kill people but that's not the purpose it was constructed for. The pistol was built from the ground up to be used for target shooting, it was never altered from an original base.