Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > for the gun control people [CLOSED      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 4ms4me
Joined: 4/24/2010
Msg: 226
view profile
History
for the gun control peoplePage 10 of 19    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19)
Post #379,
I notice you only responded to one thing I said - is that because you have no cogent response to the other questions?
What you did say ...

Yes, I am certain that a lot of people try to defend themselves, and make a mess of it..... but that is not the point......

Make a botch of it? Oh, so it's their fault if they're injured or killed trying to be a "hero"?

The point is that at least they had the OPPORTUNITY to at least try to take care of themselves.

Imagining for a moment that law enforcement actually knew what they were talking about and really meant that it was safer for people not to fight back, how are people taking care of themselves (or anyone) by following the riskiest course?

When you take oppoerunity away, then the bad guys win 100% of the time........ that means the bad guys win ALL the time.

Bad guys do not win 100% of the time. I do not know what the stats are for solving crimes and putting away perps, but I'm pretty damn sure it's not "0" given the number of people currently incarcerated. And, speaking specifically of mass-murderers, they often kill themselves or give themselves up anyway, so there's your theory about the bad guys winning 100% of the time if citizens don't have guns shot all to h3ll.

The point that law enforcement is trying to make is to try to keep those who have no business carrying a weapon. There are those who really shouldn't be carrying, as they have no clue as to what to do. Believe it or not, some people buy a gun, load it and carry it, without even shooting it even once at a range........... THAT is the type of person who should never even be in the same room as a gun. The type of person who is proficient and of a sound mind is not who the police are trying to keep guns out of the hands of.

Gee, then the firearms instructor who was killed when he tried to be a hero in Tyler Texas shouldn't have had a gun in his possession, because he didn't know how to use it?

Or how about the policemen who accidentally shot 9 innocent bystanders trying to take down one armed robber in New York last summer - no training, right? (http://www.inquisitr.com/311349/bloomberg-confirms-one-dead-bystanders-accidentally-shot-by-police-in-workplace-shooting/)

I'm sure mimimal research will demonstrate how often even trained professionals make mistakes and shoot the wrong person. Ask yourself just how much more likely that will happen when a civilan starts shooting, regardless of how often he's or she's been out target shooting. Not to mention, if you and the perp both have guns in hand, blazing away when the cops arrive, the cops aren't going to know you're already saving the day: that's a situation where they're liable to shoot first and ask questions later. They may feel awful bad about killing a law-abiding citizen just trying to do his heroic duty, but that won't make you any less dead.

I think law enforcement really means everyone when they say it's safer not to fight back; they have firsthand knowledge of how often someone who is protecting themselves ends up losing. Just because they don't upload videos to You-Tube to "prove" their point doesn't mean they're wrong.
 BlokeInSydney
Joined: 5/7/2012
Msg: 227
for the gun control people
Posted: 12/21/2012 2:17:09 PM

but lets say me and you are in a mall one day and somebody starts to open fire, and the police are not there to save us you know their flirting with that cute girl at 7 11, it would be my honor and my duty to take out that threat like any other law enforcement officer to protect your family and mine. as i see it when i give my ggovernment an inch they take the country.

You're kidding, right? And somebody gave you a gun?

Let's just say you pull out your gun in this crowded mall and accidentally kill one of the hundreds of bystanders because you're pretending to be a policeman. You're delusional.

Nice bumper sticker logic at the end there too, you realise YOUR government governs for everybody, not just the people who love their guns? What they are finally trying to do now is something about this uniquely American tragedy of the sheer number of gun deaths each year.

I find it ironic the mother of the shooter in Newtown was herself a paranoid gun-lover who made sure her sons (one of whom had serious mental issues) had gun-training, and she was the first to die, shot with her own gun. Good job of keeping everybody safe. If Connecticut had the same gun restrictions we thankfully have over here, there would have been no guns in the house and certainly no Bushmaster which did most of the damage. Those poor children and their brave teachers would still be alive.
 JKURB
Joined: 8/28/2012
Msg: 228
for the gun control people
Posted: 12/21/2012 2:29:16 PM
Msg #375:
The difference is, guns were specifically invented to kill, not for any other purpose.


A dramatic saying, but ultimately meaningless unless you are also claiming that every use of a gun results in a wrongful death (i.e. murder). There are plenty of legal uses for guns. Heck, the only use for non-medicinal alcohol is to get you drunk. The cdc.gov site states the number of alcohol-induced deaths, excluding accidents and homicides was 24,518 for 2009. Where's the outrage? Isn't saving even one life worth reconsidering the loose controls on this dangerous mind-altering substance?

In fact, if we want to save lives, why not ban obesity? There are an estimated 400,000 deaths a year in the US from obesity related causes, not to mention the $123 billion it costs us annually. Do these people not matter?

Msg #378:
Funny how both mass murders and victims more than doubled after the ban on assault weapons was lifted in 2004.


Ah, the expired "assault rifle" ban... You mean the one that grandfathered all the existing AK's/etc., and large capacity magazines, only stopping the import/manufacture of more? Hate to break it to you, but it was still legal to buy & sell the ones that were currently in circulation, it just raised the price a little, but not so much that you couldn't have one if you wanted it. There was certainly no lack of them at any of the gunshows that I went to during that time. Even if that law had been renewed, that kid's mother could have easily picked up an equivalent weapon to what she had & it would have been 100% legal.

Another funny thing about that bill is that many of the specific weapons called out for an outright ban in that bill were redesigned by the manufacturers to remove the "offending" characteristics that made them illegal. The Brady Campaign & the VPC responded by complaining that the manufacturers were bypassing the law! Yeah, changing a product to meet the new regulations was somehow gaming the system.

Bottom line: the expiration of that bill wasn't the gamechanger some people try to portray it as. Even a full out ban on guns in this country would be as ineffective as the 1 trillion we've spent on the drug war (not to mention the overfilled prison system).

While I don't think too much of putting an armed guard in every school, or pointing to violent video games proposes much of a solution either, it's probably a good idea to stop making these criminals famous. There's nothing to be gained by publishing every aspect of their worthless lives and encouraging copycats who want the attention. I'd go along with having a background check even between private party sales, if we also put some controls on the uncontrolled media sensationalism that only has the goal of selling advertising space.
 4ms4me
Joined: 4/24/2010
Msg: 229
view profile
History
for the gun control people
Posted: 12/21/2012 2:56:32 PM
the expiration of that bill wasn't the gamechanger some people try to portray it as.

Fair enough, I don't know what weapons were still allowed - although I do think there must have been something that resulted in so much increase in mass murders from the previous couple of decades.

Even a full out ban on guns in this country would be as ineffective as the 1 trillion we've spent on the drug war (not to mention the overfilled prison system).

Assuming a full-out ban could even be achieved, why do you think it would be ineffective? Criminals get their guns via legal outlets, even if they don't do the actual buying themselves so drying up legal means of obtaining guns would have to have some effect. Organized crime would probably try smuggling from Mexico, but this would probably not be really practical for the street-level criminal who wants to hold up a convenience store to pay for his next hit, or a middle-class kid with a yen to shoot up the local school.

There's nothing to be gained by publishing every aspect of their worthless lives and encouraging copycats who want the attention.

I agree that media contributes to the overall culture of gun violence, and that sensationlizing these stories doesn't help. But I don't think the news reporting itself has that big an effect; I'd lay more blame on violent movies and games in terms of influencing already unstable personalities.

I'd go along with having a background check even between private party sales, if we also put some controls on the uncontrolled media sensationalism that only has the goal of selling advertising space.

Background check won't find people who've gone over some edge and are looking to start and end their criminal career in one afternoon. Australia's idea of making non-operational army-style weapons available to collectors, while still allowing firearms of more limited firing power seems like a plan. Collectors can still collect all the "cool" guns, but don't have to worry about someone taking it to inflict mayhem, and people who like target shooting can still enjoy that sport. What do you think?
 TraveliciousGuy
Joined: 9/17/2011
Msg: 230
for the gun control people
Posted: 12/21/2012 3:06:39 PM
A dramatic saying, but ultimately meaningless unless you are also claiming that every use of a gun results in a wrongful death (i.e. murder). There are plenty of legal uses for guns.


It cannot be meaningless if 1000 years of history proves it to be the truth. No one is claiming that every use of a gun results in a "wrongful" death. That doesn't change the fact that guns were invented as a killing device. Using guns for any purpose other than killing, or at the very least injuring, is still secondary to the reason guns were originally invented,(see below) and continue to be used. The armed forces of the world are not fitted out with baseball bats to conduct their operations. They are fitted out with the most efficient "killing " devices.

From "How Stuff Works":

"It all started in China, where gunpowder was first created. In the ninth century, alchemists blended charcoal, saltpeter and sulfur into a powder called huo yao, which was used to treat skin infections [source: Kit Meng]. Armies quickly learned the powder could be used in bombs, mines and other weapons [source: McLean Brevard]. Gunpowder was transported to Europe in the 13th century, likely over the Silk Road trade routes through central Asia. Rival nations refined gunpowder recipes in the ensuing centuries before arriving at the optimum mixture: approximately 75 percent saltpeter, 15 percent charcoal and 10 percent sulfur [source: Nolan].

Historians typically recognize Chinese fire lances, which were invented in the 10th century, as the first guns. These bamboo or metal tubes projected flames and shrapnel at their targets. Cannons appeared in Italy around 1320, where they were modified as European nations waged many wars. By the 16th century, European firearms had become far more advanced -- and far more deadly -- than their counterparts in the East.

Though cannons boomed on the battlefield , the conservative military resisted the change that guns and other new technology represented [source: Nolan]. They had practical reasons to shun guns, too: Gunpowder was expensive, the operator was as likely to injure himself as his target and the weapons so inaccurate that aiming them was pointless.

In the 15th century, the invention of the lock -- the firing mechanism on the gun -- made for the creation of the first reliable handguns. The first was the French arquebus, a short-barreled firearm held at the shoulder and small enough to be handled by one man. A gunpowder-soaked cord burned at both ends until it touched a pan of flash powder, which sent a half-ounce ball soaring toward its enemy. Still, they were cumbersome weapons that could only be fired once every two minutes. Even with advances in gun craftsmanship, archers continued to outnumber marksmen on many battlefields for centuries [source: Nolan]

Guns slowly replaced old-guard weapons, because they were more economical, rather than more lethal. Lifelong devotion was required to become a highly skilled (and highly paid) swordsman or archer, but a few weeks or months of training could turn a lower-class soldier into a skilled gunner. "Guns de-horsed the aristocrats," says professor Cathal Nolan, military historian at Boston University [source: Nolan].

Besides increasing the field of soldiers, guns have had far-reaching influence on the nature of armed combat, from the distances at which dueling armies engage one another to the types of wounds soldiers incur. Only the horse -- which dominated battlefields for millennia -- has proven more important than the gun, says Nolan. "Until we got to atomics -- to weapons that obliterate entire armies and countries -- all war centered on gun and gunpowder tactics.""

From "Wikipedia":

"The fire lance (simplified Chinese: ??; traditional Chinese: ??; pinyin: huo qiang) or fire spear is one of the first gunpowder weapons in the world.

The earliest fire lances were spear-like weapons combining a bamboo tube containing gunpowder and projectiles tied to a Chinese spear. Upon firing, the charge ejected a small projectile or poison dart along with the flame. These fire lances had a range of only a few feet. Being a weapon that combines with a spear, it was initially used as a hand-to-hand weapon with the gunpowder shot designed to give the wielder an edge in close-quarter combat.

Inventors soon saw the merit in the gunpowder/tube design and fire lances then appeared independent of the spear.


The first fire-lances were seen in China during the 10th century, but by about 1260 they had developed into a variety of forms and although normally associated with peasant rebels, regular Song troops also used them, their use by cavalry being described at the siege of Yangzhou in 1276. They were cheap and popular for several centuries sometimes being used in racks to defend cities and remained in use until well after the Ming period. The development of gunpowder in the fire lance to have enough force to hurl a killing projectile was a key step along the development of the first true guns.

This weapon paved the way for further improvements to gunpowder weapons and is the direct ancestor of the modern-day firearm and artillery.

The weapon seems also to have evolved into rockets, which were used as a weapon in their own right."

Neither of those articles mentions "skeet shooting" or "target practice" as the reason guns were invented and refined.
 toightpants
Joined: 11/15/2012
Msg: 231
for the gun control people
Posted: 12/21/2012 3:43:59 PM

Why do countries with more gun control have fewer gun deaths?

No one knows.
They have opinions though.
Such as differences in cultural and racial "melting pot" makeup.
Or that other countries have different systems of government to go along with their culture.


If gun control doesn't work, why can't I bring a gun to Congress or the White House, or even on a plane?

Because the government spends billions of dollars on technology and to hire, train, and arm people to be at those specific locations to keep you from bringing your gun there. Although you "can" bring your gun there, good luck keeping it or using it. You do not have a right to be there. You do not have a right to fly.
Are you advocating everyone has a metal detector and TSA agent(s) in their home, and/or at every retail store, every recreational facility, every school, anywhere that people congregate or happen to exist?
Because that's the effect of this argument. "Why can't they have the same gun control everywhere that they have in some specific places."
I would admit that gun control is somewhat effective when you have 3 people enforcing it for every single citizen that passes through a checkpoint.
Although
http://abcnews.go.com/US/tsa-lets-loaded-guns-past-security-planes/story?id=17358872


From http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-control-in-australia/ comes the interesting information that after gun control was introduced to Australia in 1996, all violent crime decreased, and gun homicides decreased most of all.

That article is more about "debunking" an increase in gun violence after more strict laws were in place.
I think there was an important part of it that read:
"Yet another analysis, from 2008, from the University of Melbourne, concluded that the buyback had no significant effect on firearm suicide or homicide rates.
So there’s no consensus about whether the changes decreased gun violence or had little to no effect."
See? They don't know why countries that have higher gun control laws have fewer gun deaths.

The UK has higher gun control laws than the U.S.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6960431.stm
"What all of this means is that we cannot draw any simple nationwide conclusions about gun crime. What we can say with certainty is that gun crime is a problem that remains closely focused in some cities that have witnessed some terrible deaths."
So even with significant gun control...gun crimes are still a problem where people are exposed to some terrible deaths.


Australia's idea of making non-operational army-style weapons available to collectors, while still allowing firearms of more limited firing power seems like a plan.

Seems like one. "Seems" being the operative word.
But, personally, I don't want to pass arbitrary laws inhibiting rights that are specifically codified in the Bill of Rights just to give some people a false sense of security.
 JKURB
Joined: 8/28/2012
Msg: 232
for the gun control people
Posted: 12/21/2012 4:06:02 PM
Msg 386

It cannot be meaningless if 1000 years of history proves it to be the truth. No one is claiming that every use of a gun results in a "wrongful" death.


Yes, it's meaningless because that statement tries to imply that there are only wrongful uses for that item. Are there also socially acceptable uses? Yes. Then some misguided attempt to downplay, or even ignore, them through "original sin" via invention is just an emotional plea to sway an argument, providing no new insight.

Like I said, look at recreational alcohol use & the people it kills (or even ruins their lives) every year. Where's the outrage for something invented only to alter your behavior?

Msg 385:

Fair enough, I don't know what weapons were still allowed - although I do think there must have been something that resulted in so much increase in mass murders from the previous couple of decades.


Sure there's something, but determining it requires a thorough understanding of the issue. Too many are jumping on the expiration of the original bill as a root cause, and a needed present solution, but they don't actually understand what the bill did & didn't do. That doesn't make sense to me.


Organized crime would probably try smuggling from Mexico, but this would probably not be really practical for the street-level criminal who wants to hold up a convenience store to pay for his next hit, or a middle-class kid with a yen to shoot up the local school.


The smuggling is practical enough for anyone who wants to wants to get high from any of a number of substances to do so fairly easily. The borders are porous enough to allow an estimated 11.5 million people to immigrate illegally (though I don't blame them as I'd do it too in their shoes). I think it'd be even easier to smuggle gun parts & ammo, if that became profitable enough. Our prohibitions have a pretty poor track record. I haven't seen any new methods proposed that would make this item any different, unless I'm missing something?


But I don't think the news reporting itself has that big an effect; I'd lay more blame on violent movies and games in terms of influencing already unstable personalities.


Other countries have the same movies & games. Yeah, they have a sensationalist media too, but it's telling how many copycat threats were phoned in after the last tragedy. Right now a loser is guaranteed fame if they're willing to commit an atrocity. Everyone will have to "finally" notice them. One of the criminals that did something like this even left info saying he did it for the fame. This is why I think this should be evaluated, maybe even tried with a sunset clause on the bill if it doesn't make a change. Why not?


Collectors can still collect all the "cool" guns, but don't have to worry about someone taking it to inflict mayhem, and people who like target shooting can still enjoy that sport. What do you think?


I think if people actually came up with an IRON-CLAD guarantee that standard bolt-action hunting rifles and shotguns wouldn't be targeted for later bans if they were misused, it might go a lot further to smoothing resistance to banning semi-auto's with detachable clips for the general public. Then again maybe it wouldn't, but IMO it's something that should be considered if you want to remove the slippery slope worry.
 outlaw4200
Joined: 12/15/2012
Msg: 233
view profile
History
for the gun control people
Posted: 12/21/2012 4:18:53 PM
anyone ever seen the movie god of war?
 outlaw4200
Joined: 12/15/2012
Msg: 234
view profile
History
for the gun control people
Posted: 12/21/2012 4:50:32 PM
correct, if you mean nic.
 4ms4me
Joined: 4/24/2010
Msg: 235
view profile
History
for the gun control people
Posted: 12/21/2012 4:54:41 PM

No one knows.
They have opinions though.
Such as differences in cultural and racial "melting pot" makeup.
Or that other countries have different systems of government to go along with their culture.

I have no argument with the fact that culture makes a significant difference in terms of violence. Part of the culture in the States is that people are entitled to bear arms. Change that, and you've begun changing the culture. Take away people's notion that they are entitled to own, carry and use deadly weapons, and perhaps they'll be less inclined to own, carry and use? Perhaps then people will think it more important to regulate who actually can buy guns?

I understand that since the Newton shooting, guns have been selling like hotcakes in the States; how many of those people might accidentally shoot a family member, decide to shoot their neighbor in a moment of rage, or whose kid might decide to show the world just how crappy life is for him by taking out a bunch of other people along with himself?

That article is more about "debunking" an increase in gun violence after more strict laws were in place.
I think there was an important part of it that read:
"Yet another analysis, from 2008, from the University of Melbourne, concluded that the buyback had no significant effect on firearm suicide or homicide rates.
So there’s no consensus about whether the changes decreased gun violence or had little to no effect."

That was in reference to the buyback of arms, and not directly related to the more stringent laws regarding gun ownership. According to the article, the rate of the buyback had some relationship to how much decrease there was to homicide/suicide rates. It was noted that suicide rates dropped more than homicide rates, so there's a stronger correlation between gun controls and suicide than gun control and homicides.

They don't know why countries that have higher gun control laws have fewer gun deaths.

So still countries with higher gun control laws have fewer gun deaths. That statement in itself says something about the relationship between gun control laws and gun deaths. Tighter gun regulations may not be a panacea to violent death, but it does seem to make a positive difference - if only due to the likelihood of fewer gun accidents and fewer suicides.
From http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/
8. More guns tend to mean more homicide.

The Harvard Injury Control Research Center assessed the literature on guns and homicide and found that there’s substantial evidence that indicates more guns means more murders. This holds true whether you’re looking at different countries or different states. Citations here.

9. States with stricter gun control laws have fewer deaths from gun-related violence.

Last year, economist Richard Florida dove deep into the correlations between gun deaths and other kinds of social indicators. Some of what he found was, perhaps, unexpected: Higher populations, more stress, more immigrants, and more mental illness were not correlated with more deaths from gun violence. But one thing he found was, perhaps, perfectly predictable: States with tighter gun control laws appear to have fewer gun-related deaths. The disclaimer here is that correlation is not causation. But correlations can be suggestive


So even with significant gun control...gun crimes are still a problem where people are exposed to some terrible deaths.

Yes, gun controls do not eliminate gun crime - but again, gun controls somehow result in less gun injuries - even if people don't know why.

Many Americans worry that if guns are controlled, only the criminals will have guns. In Canada, criminals import guns from the States, mostly to use on each other although civilans do get caught in the crossfire. Even though the gun smuggling for gang use is relatively recent, Canada's overall crime rate, including homicide, continues to trend downward. It seems to me that the idea that the average American needs a gun to "protect" himself is a hugely overblown scare tactic.


I don't want to pass arbitrary laws inhibiting rights that are specifically codified in the Bill of Rights just to give some people a false sense of security.

What if it's not a false sense of security? What if the apparent relationship between tighter gun controls and reduced gun injury/death was real? Isn't it at least worth considering that option, so that maybe mass murders of schoolchildren or theatre goers or university students was reduced, or heck ... maybe even virtually eliminated, as it has been in Australia since they enacted gun control. Maybe it would reduce the likelihood that a football player would shoot his girlfriend, and then himself in front of teammates, or that any number of murder-suicides by gun would be decreased. Isn't that worth some rethinking?

Someone who worked in the maximum security section of our prison system for 28 years told me that in his experience, most of the people who killed with guns were not really killers; they were in a situation and a gun was readily available - without the gun, there would have been no death. They wouldn't have the stomach to use a knife, or bat or other types of weapons. Guns are "easy" and impersonal. The real killers, he said, were far fewer in number - and would use any weapon, including guns, to obtain their objective. From that perspective alone, he thinks tighter gun control would reduce shootings.
 TraveliciousGuy
Joined: 9/17/2011
Msg: 236
for the gun control people
Posted: 12/21/2012 4:58:37 PM
Yes, it's meaningless because that statement tries to imply that there are only wrongful uses for that item.


It's only meaningless to you. And your opinion will still not change 1000 years of actual recorded history. It's not implying anything but the fact that guns were invented to kill, so it should come as no surprise when someone chooses to use a gun to kill. While there are other uses, they were not, and still are not, the primary function of guns. Ignoring THAT fact ignores the reality starting point. When people start using bags of rocks to commit these crimes, I will accept the view that the proliferation of guns, and the easy access to them, is not a major part of the problem.



I haven't read every post regarding this, but I don't really think people are calling for bans on skeet shooting and target practice at gun ranges. They are looking for ways not to become a victim of people who have easy access to efficient killing devices, who should not have such easy access.

Alcohol is a whole other subject, not the topic of this thread. And besides, Prohibition (which didn't work well), MADD, SADD, police checkpoints, etc. prove that efforts have been made on that topic.
 billingsmason
Joined: 2/3/2012
Msg: 237
for the gun control people
Posted: 12/21/2012 5:03:03 PM
forget where I heard this originally.... but it's great

everyone should be given a "kill one person free" card when they're born.
no matter what reason you have- you get one free, no punishment.
then people would be a LOT nicer to each other.... not knowing if they'd used their card yet.

the same can be said if you don't know whether the store clerk has a gun, or the bank teller, or the homeowner....

gun control is a touchy subject, especially in MT. here it means you can group within four inches at 500 yards.


I searched for stats before posting.... and found so many conflicting reports, it's not possible to decide which is the truth. either side can post a study backing their opinion... but here is one with some easy to understand figures, and just plain common sense.

Harvard study- gun control is counter productive.

they make some interesting points- overall murder per-capita, any means.
Russia has 4 times more murders than the US, and has very few guns in the hands of it's citizens.
Norway has the highest gun ownership inWestern Europe, yet the lowest murder rate.
more examples noted...

If the mantra "more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death" were true, broad cross-national comparisons should show that nations with higher gun ownership per capita consistently have more death. Nations with higher gun ownership rates, however, do not have higher murder or suicide rates than those with lower gun ownership. Indeed many high gun ownership nations have much lower murder rates. (p. 661)

easy to understand?
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 238
for the gun control people
Posted: 12/21/2012 5:12:12 PM


It cannot be meaningless if 1000 years of history proves it to be the truth. No one is claiming that every use of a gun results in a "wrongful" death.


Yes, it's meaningless because that statement tries to imply that there are only wrongful uses for that item. Are there also socially acceptable uses? Yes. Then some misguided attempt to downplay, or even ignore, them through "original sin" via invention is just an emotional plea to sway an argument, providing no new insight.

This argument is nonsense... You are committing more than one logicl fallacy here... First, you are creating a strawman by saying that the statement tries to imply "only wrongful uses"... It does no such thing... The primary design purpose of firearms is to kill, plain and simple... "Kill" does mean only homicide, hunting is also killing no matter how you slice it.... Gun control does not attempt to ban or even reduce hunting, it only seeks to reduce wrongful uses...

Second, you are creating an additional strawman in suggesting that the poster's mention of the primary design purpose necessarily implies that the poster denies that there are acceptable uses...

Like I said, look at recreational alcohol use & the people it kills (or even ruins their lives) every year. Where's the outrage for something invented only to alter your behavior?

And then you add this little non sequiter as if your previous strawman arguments somehow made this little false equivalency relevant... The fact is that the making of alcoholic beverages was not developed by men for the purpose of killing, guns were...

As to your other point of "where is the outrage"... Here too you are committing a logical error in attempting to ignore the realities of the issue you raise... The reality is that society and law do take significant steps to mitigate the harms of "wrongful" alchol use... society and law provide a myriad of resources to this end... Alcoholism rehabilitation programs (both private and gov't funded) and legal means to force participation in certain cases... laws governing public drunkenness whether any actual injury occurs or not... laws governing drunkenness while engaged in professions that have a public safety component (like pilots) whether any actual injury occurs or not... laws governing drunkenness which presents a public health risk (like dwi/dui) whether any actual injury occurs or not... The vast majority of these laws were made as a result of public outrage over incidents of death, injury and crime...
 OyVay...
Joined: 7/15/2011
Msg: 239
for the gun control people
Posted: 12/21/2012 5:15:55 PM
Hmmm, another thread about gun control....

So maybe this one can answer the question? What reason is there to own an Assualt rifle?

Ok some casual observations...

"Cars can be deadly weapons too"....and..."but imagine a law that gave the state power to decide if a person could even buy or own a car"

(yawn) cars and planes have been used to kill people...BUT that was not what they were designed to do. Neither is a wrench, but if you wack somebody on the head with it, you could kill them. GUNS WERE DESIGNED TO KILL THINGS!

As for the law 'that gave the state power'...it's called the rules of the DMV...if you have your license revoked, it's tough to buy a car. Even if you can, you cannot register or insure it...again it wasn't it's intended use, to kill someone.

The next thing of note are these wonderful stories about people defending themselves with guns. Not to be a killjoy, I would like to see people posting dates and cities...or they merely become "this one time, at band camp..." kinda anecdotes. Not that I'm calling anyone a liar, but some of what I read sure sounds like apple polishing...

Next #377, "The NRA, love them or hate them, is grass roots democracy"...then goes onto compare them to the AARP, MADD, Audobon Society and the NAACP(that's what I think you meant)...

Now which of those organizations promotes killing shit? Which of those oppose things bad for the general population? I mean you all will be old some day, drunk driving kills the young and the old and is against the law, supporting birds and wildlife seems a far cry from killing shit, besides which it gives you guys more birds to kill! Civil rights, seems a good thing and also shouldn't provide additional deaths..in fact it tries to stop violence...

So your comparison is ludicrous!

Finally did everyone see the NRA conference today? Yeah they need a reality check...how do I put this....hmmm let me think...oh yeah...20 young children DIED, plus 6 adults, in a grammar school. What does the NRA advocate, why naturally MORE GUNS!!!! Or blame it on a 10 year old video game...tell me oh geniuses...other countries have video games, you don't see them having the number of mass killings we have...

This would be laughable if it were not so tragic.

The only thing "un-American" is allowing maniacs to have more weapons to kill more innocent children....

"or with government of, by, and for the people"

Well if a majority of americans are sick of this shit, they have a right to ban whatever the hell they want. Not to have their congressional representation bought and paid for by the NRA.

Wake up!
 outlaw4200
Joined: 12/15/2012
Msg: 240
view profile
History
for the gun control people
Posted: 12/21/2012 5:43:47 PM
bloke in wherever, um, nobody gave me a gun, i went throught shooters saftey at age 14, was raised in a hunting and millitary family for 2, at 21 took a defensive shooting course taught by ex millitary and police, shooting times accuracy, hits on targets, and speed loading, then at 24 got my ccw. also i am in no way pretending to be a police man, nobody knows what the outcome of a gun fight will be in a defensive situation so i am done speculating. as for popular opinions, the people have spoken, words through actions and gun sales, and please people can we stop stigmatizing the deceased for personal gain please. as for your paraniod rant im safe and doing a pretty good job at it. you know why we dont have your laws over here, because we won our independince from those laws, when you deprive a nation of there right to defence you get genocide that a comforting thought huh, look at burma, look at north korea, look at africa, wheres your sympathy for those children, then tell me america has a problem...
 JKURB
Joined: 8/28/2012
Msg: 241
for the gun control people
Posted: 12/21/2012 6:01:04 PM
Msg #393
It's only meaningless to you. And your opinion will still not change 1000 years of actual recorded history.


Ah, back & forth... Let's try again. NO ONE is disputing that guns were invented as a weapon either. Weapons, of course, are intended to harm, sometimes in good causes, sometimes bad. We're good so far, right? Ok... However, even though something is a weapon (even a club), we, as a society, have to make a decision whether the socially acceptable uses outweigh the socially unacceptable uses. In the course of doing this deciding to say, "well, it's a weapon & weapons are bad because they're made to harm", doesn't evaluate the whole picture of how they're actually used the majority of the time. So, once again, a statement that focuses on only one facet/characteristic of an item is limited, and ultimately is pointless if you're trying to logically evaluate something.


Alcohol is a whole other subject, not the topic of this thread. And besides, Prohibition (which didn't work well), MADD, SADD, police checkpoints, etc. prove that efforts have been made on that topic.


The alcohol comparison is completely valid as it looks at what the original intent of an item was, compared to how it's used, and the effects of having it in society. The numerous existing gun laws (likely far more than a dangerous item like alcohol) prove that efforts have been made for guns too. And?

Msg #395
You are committing more than one logicl fallacy here... First, you are creating a strawman by saying that the statement tries to imply "only wrongful uses"... It does no such thing...


See my reply to 393.

I will add this though... Adding terms like logical fallacy, false equivalency and strawman to your statement doesn't make it stronger. I know, it seems cool on the internet and all, but it's always sad when people try to deny the obvious. You state "guns were designed to kill" why?

Because "killin' is bad, mmmmkay..."

Well, sometimes it's not. When it is though, it's called murder. Were guns designed to murder?

No.

Oh, and, like it, or not, nothing changes the fact that alcohol was invented for the purpose of making people drunk, a non-positive (and lethel for many) effect. The fact that there are some controls in effect (just like for guns) doesn't change that. Again, see the reply to 393.

Worry about your own country's laws, and I'll worry about mine, eh?
 Midwest_Southwest
Joined: 9/9/2012
Msg: 242
for the gun control people
Posted: 12/21/2012 6:16:52 PM

Harvard study- gun control is counter productive.

cite please.



http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use/index.html :

-- Guns are not used millions of times each year in self-defense
-- Most purported self-defense gun uses are gun uses in escalating arguments and are both socially undesirable and illegal 

-- Firearms are used far more often to intimidate than in self-defense. 


-- Guns in the home are used more often to intimidate intimates than to thwart crime. 


-- Adolescents are far more likely to be threatened with a gun than to use one in self-defense.
-- Criminals who are shot are typically the victims of crime


-- Few criminals are shot by decent law abiding citizens 



and other Harvard associated research on guns: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/
 billingsmason
Joined: 2/3/2012
Msg: 243
for the gun control people
Posted: 12/21/2012 6:17:14 PM
What reason is there to own an Assault rifle?

to kill things with
to remain technologically competitive with Mikhail Kalashnikov's invention
to protect my family with
to stave off foreign enemies at a local level
to shoot at poor little old soda cans
to amuse myself and children with
to teach my children about responsibility and respect
to thrill seek
to cut down trees with
to feel like a man's man with
to extend my phallic sense of power with
to have fun with
to rile up the kinder gentler folks with no sense of live and let live
to sleep with
to enjoy the smell of cordite in the morning with
to wave out of my truck window to shoo crows with
to shoot squeekers with
to prop in the corner behind the counter of your favorite fish and chips pub
to be prepared for the zombie apocalypse
to hang my hat on in the back window of my truck
to seriously kill some poor lil ol soda cans with
to see who can spend the most on ammo at the range on saturday
to defend our sense of constitutional rights with
to enjoy the feel of 200 rounds a minute
to promote peace
to promote kindness
to promote and protect the 2nd amendment
to hammer nails with

the first amendment doesn't give us the freedom of religion, as long as it's yours.

the majority of Americans HAVE decided this issue.
actually, if you brush up on history a lil..... it had a minor role in founding this country. or freeing this country if you will.

yawning in the same sentence as speaking about killing, is dismissive of those who have been killed by autos and in the tragic events of september 11. epic fail



for above- google :
Harvard study- gun control is counter productive
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 244
view profile
History
for the gun control people
Posted: 12/21/2012 6:42:18 PM
#396

Well if a majority of americans are sick of this shit, they have a right to ban whatever the hell they want.


Only if you're talking about a moral right, which is a matter of opinion. A majority of Americans--no matter how large it is--has no legal right to do that, unless they amend the Constitution to change the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court's two Second Am. decisions make clear there are limits to the control of firearms past which neither the federal nor the state governments may go. If a very large national majority really did want to weaken or even repeal the Second Amendment, it should have no trouble amending the Constitution to do that. Until such time, it's the law.

The Court has quite a long discussion in McDonald v. Chicago about the important role the desire to suppress blacks has played historically in passing gun control laws in the U.S. I'm not surprised to see so-called liberals supporting those laws, because I think the reason they show such a propensity for seeing racial discrimination in everything anyone says or does is that they have a dirty little secret: Many of them are are racially biased themselves.

Certainly one of the groups gun control laws hurt the most is the many black single mothers who live in areas where there is a lot of violent crime. Without guns, they and their children are at the mercy of armed criminals until the police show up--which will usually be too late. Otis McDonald himself was an elderly black man who lived alone and had more than once been broken in on by armed thugs who had nearly killed him. But under the Illinois law the Court struck down, he could not keep a gun to defend himself.


GUNS WERE DESIGNED TO KILL THINGS!


Obviously--and as long as they kill the right things--game animals, and people who are seriously threatening lives and can't be stopped any other way--that's great. I understand that having armed guards on the grounds is the rule in Israeli schools, and they wouldn't be there if most people felt their presence made their kids less safe. And Anders Brevik never could have murdered all those dozens of young Norwegians if there had been an armed guard or two at the site.


What does the NRA advocate, why naturally MORE GUNS!!!!


I agree with what Mr. LaPierre said. Creating gun-free zones has the paradoxical effect of making the people there less safe, not more. Most of these mass shootings have taken place at schools, at shopping malls, in restaurants, and in other places where prospective murderers can be sure there won't be anyone shooting back. About 4% of Coloradans have concealed-carry permits, and not all theaters prohibit customers from bringing in guns. Several of these were showing the movie the Batman murderer was so obsessed with, but even though it was farther away, he picked the one theater in the area that had signs expressly prohibiting guns.
 TraveliciousGuy
Joined: 9/17/2011
Msg: 245
for the gun control people
Posted: 12/21/2012 7:03:34 PM
Were guns designed to murder?


That depends on one's viewpoint of war. Guns replaced the bow and arrow as the primary weapons of war, including wars of aggression. Did you not read the history lesson I provided?


", doesn't evaluate the whole picture of how they're actually used the majority of the time.


Well, what ARE they used for the majority of the time, then? It's not for changing tires on a car, I know that. Can you name any wars in the last 500 years that didn't included the primary use of guns, especially ever more powerful and efficient guns designed to kill even more people?



The alcohol comparison is completely valid


Once again, this thread is not about alcohol. Read the title.


Worry about your own country's laws, and I'll worry about mine, eh?


Well, what country do you live in, if this discussion is not affecting you?
 4ms4me
Joined: 4/24/2010
Msg: 246
view profile
History
for the gun control people
Posted: 12/21/2012 7:03:52 PM

Because "killin' is bad, mmmmkay..."
.... Were guns designed to murder?
No.

He didn't say killing was bad; he said guns were designed to kill. Whether one uses it to kill a deer, the enemy or their spouse, a gun has fullfilled it's primary purpose of killing. Spears and bows and arrows were designed for the same purpose, regardless of whether the killing was for food, to dispatch an enemy or a relative. Bombs and grenades are two more items designed to kill, and specifically designed to kill people. Trying to claim that guns weren't designed to commit murder is rather silly, because murder is simply a subset of killing, just as hunting is a subset of killing.


"well, it's a weapon & weapons are bad because they're made to harm", doesn't evaluate the whole picture of how they're actually used the majority of the time.

And how are weapons used, the majority of the time? Target practice? What is the purpose of target practice? To ensure that should one be in a position to have to kill something, they won't miss? Are they used primarily in war? If so, they are again fullfilling their primary purpose - which is to kill.


The alcohol comparison is completely valid as it looks at what the original intent of an item was, compared to how it's used, and the effects of having it in society.

The original intent of alcohol is to change people's mood, and it is primarily used for that purpose. The original intent of alcohol was not to create illness, drunk driving, addiction or any of the other negative affects over-consumption can cause. The primary purpose of guns is still killing, and it is used in that manner quite effectively. The side affects of guns seem to be periodic episodes of mass murders, injury and death by accident, and maybe even increased successful suicides - so just like society tries to mitigate the side effects of alcohol use, why shouldn't the same be done with guns?
 JKURB
Joined: 8/28/2012
Msg: 247
for the gun control people
Posted: 12/21/2012 7:43:43 PM
Msg #402:
That depends on one's viewpoint of war. Guns replaced the bow and arrow as the primary weapons of war, including wars of aggression. Did you not read the history lesson I provided?


Your unneeded history was a meaningless sidetrack. The main point is that all killing is not murder (i.e. a socially unacceptable death). Since societies define what is moral, AND the majority of societies define certain instances of killing as being socially acceptable, trying to imply weapons only have socially unacceptable uses is false.

That's the way it is.


Once again, this thread is not about alcohol. Read the title.


Sorry , the comparison remains valid as the same points you raise apply to it, and it highlights the ridiculousness of a limited perspective.


Well, what country do you live in, if this discussion is not affecting you?


That poster was from Canada, where denigrating Americans ranks 2nd only to hockey. I'm as friendly to them as they are to me.

Msg #403:

He didn't say killing was bad; he said guns were designed to kill.


See the response to 402.

Oh, and regarding "And how are weapons used, the majority of the time?, considering there are an estimated 200 million guns in this country, I'd say the majority are used in non-lethal, non-murder, ways.

Maybe you have a different interpretation?


so just like society tries to mitigate the side effects of alcohol use, why shouldn't the same be done with guns?


If only we only we had gun laws... If only I had mentioned gun laws that I supported, or would support... Wait, we do, and I have. Huh... If only people didn't get fixated on "fixing" something the way they knee-jerked themselves into thinking was the only right way (without doing bothering to do any research, or considering past results of similar situations). Hey... Now we're talking!

25,000 people die a year from alcohol related deaths, excluding accidents and homicides, and definitely not counting the lives ruined by using this completely unneeded and dangerous mind-altering substance. Don't forget the 400,000 deaths in the US due to obesity related issues, plus $123 billion added in costs. What about the estimated 443,000 deaths directly attached to tobacco? Where are the outraged posters demanding a COMPLETE ban on alcohol, tobacco and obesity? Do you want to save lives, or not? We're talking almost a million people a year, here. Don't you care?

Valid question, folks, as this whole discussion essentially is about taking action against "non-necessary" things to save lives.
 OMG!WTF!
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 248
view profile
History
for the gun control people
Posted: 12/21/2012 7:55:12 PM
I understand that having armed guards on the grounds is the rule in Israeli schools, and they wouldn't be there if most people felt their presence made their kids less safe.


I'd feel safer with armed guards at schools too if I lived in a country that was AT WAR with all of its neighbors. Do you live in a war zone? Do you wish you lived in a war zone so people could guard you with m-16's all the time?


And Anders Brevik never could have murdered all those dozens of young Norwegians if there had been an armed guard or two at the site.


I bet fewer kids would have died in Newtown if there had been armed guards too. So now all you have to do is place armed guards in absolutely every public place you can think of and you will be completely safe. You sir, are a genius.


Where are the outraged posters demanding a COMPLETE ban on alcohol, tobacco and obesity? Do you want to save lives, or not? We're talking almost a million people a year, here. Don't you care?


Is it possible to kill 26 people in ten minutes with alcohol, smokes or bags of chips? If so, then you have a point.
 JKURB
Joined: 8/28/2012
Msg: 249
for the gun control people
Posted: 12/21/2012 8:01:49 PM

Is it possible to kill 26 people in ten minutes with alcohol, smokes or bags of chips? If so, then you have a point.


So only the amount of time matters, not the total number of people? Let's say some psycho kills 26 people over 50 years, is that ok?

Not such a clever comeback after all, huh?
 TraveliciousGuy
Joined: 9/17/2011
Msg: 250
for the gun control people
Posted: 12/21/2012 8:11:16 PM
Your unneeded history was a meaningless sidetrack. The main point is that all killing is not murder (i.e. a socially unacceptable death). Since societies define what is moral, AND the majority of societies define certain instances of killing as being socially acceptable, trying to imply weapons only have socially unacceptable uses is false.

That's the way it is.


Your brand of logic goes nowhere. The history lesson proved my point that guns were invented to kill, and have been used to kill ever since. You keep injecting other terminology and non-related topics to ignore that simple fact. All the denial in the world will not change that fact. And you choose to ignore the other realities. Adam Lanza could have put together a bag of rocks to take to the school, but instead he chose to take a cache of guns. Why? Because they are more efficient killing devices than rocks. If you have a better explanation of why he chose the guns over any other method of killing, feel free to offer it. And as long as the most efficient killing devices are allowed to be available to anyone who wants them and has the cash to buy them, then mass killings of this type will most likely continue.

If you go back and review the early messages on this thread, few if any people steered off-topic.

A couple of days after the Connecticut shooting, a local man here in SoCal shot off 50 or 54 rounds into the air at a crowded mall (no one was killed or injured from the bullets) and was reportedly "unhappy with his life." I don't see that as an acceptable excuse to go shoot off a gun at crowded mall.Why couldn't he take his gun to a shooting range and let off steam there? No, he'd rather risk injury or death to strangers.

And once again....this discussion is about guns......READ the title of the thread....."for the gun control people"
If you want to discuss the other things, start your own thread about those.
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > for the gun control people [CLOSED