Shooting at Sikh temple in Milwaukee.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT
 

Reginald:
You can make it much harder for inappropriate people to get firearms. We can't prevent death car accidents, that doesn't mean we should get rid of all traffic laws.

Looks like you have changed your tune.

Anyway, can you prove that you can make it harder for criminals to get guns? I mean hard enough that they cannot get them when they want them? No? Of course not.

BTW your example is foolish. You have yet to present a single law and as such I can only assume that the laws you are proposing are the same feel good measures that certain antis always seem to be proposing. Sorry, but just adding random gun laws to the books is not going to fix anything.

I'm not for destroying every gun in existence. I am, however, for taking measures to prevent crazies from having guns. I'd be fine with criminals and the certifiably insane having their weapons confiscated.

In other words you are in favor of getting rid of some guns. Your statement is false.

Donuthole:
At the risk of deviating from what has turned into yet another ridiculous gun wank, does anyone remember the hubbub from the Department of Homeland Security report that far-right domestic terror groups might seek to recruit military veterans? And how that was twisted by the right-wing noise machine into "Obama is calling the troops terrorists"?

Well, holy shit, the DHS report was apparently right, albeit 10 years too late from when this guy was discharged.

The infrastructure for getting many of our veterans re-acclimated to civilian life is pretty shitty, and it can often lead to people (especially some with PTSD or other military health-related issues) to become seriously disaffected. This makes them targets for domestic groups who may value their arms training and other skills that their military background may provide.

Yet when this was correctly pointed out, the right screeched that Obama and Janet Napolitano were smearing the military.

Well, guess who looks stupid now?

Still them. This is one guy out of millions. The phrase statistically irrelevant comes to mind.

i'm gonna wait for this threat to turn into something about how miniority religions are too pussy;not like moslem/x'tian master race.

farson135:

Donuthole:
At the risk of deviating from what has turned into yet another ridiculous gun wank, does anyone remember the hubbub from the Department of Homeland Security report that far-right domestic terror groups might seek to recruit military veterans? And how that was twisted by the right-wing noise machine into "Obama is calling the troops terrorists"?

Well, holy shit, the DHS report was apparently right, albeit 10 years too late from when this guy was discharged.

The infrastructure for getting many of our veterans re-acclimated to civilian life is pretty shitty, and it can often lead to people (especially some with PTSD or other military health-related issues) to become seriously disaffected. This makes them targets for domestic groups who may value their arms training and other skills that their military background may provide.

Yet when this was correctly pointed out, the right screeched that Obama and Janet Napolitano were smearing the military.

Well, guess who looks stupid now?

Still them. This is one guy out of millions. The phrase statistically irrelevant comes to mind.

They never did look stupid, because their statement was 100% accurate. Or are you of the belief that Obama and Napolitano were "smearing the military" by claiming that right-wing domestic terror groups might seek to recruit veterans, which they obviously do?

farson135:

Reginald:
You can make it much harder for inappropriate people to get firearms. We can't prevent death car accidents, that doesn't mean we should get rid of all traffic laws.

Looks like you have changed your tune.

Looks like you're either deliberately misinterpreting my statements or you don't know how to read.

farson135:

I'm not for destroying every gun in existence. I am, however, for taking measures to prevent crazies from having guns. I'd be fine with criminals and the certifiably insane having their weapons confiscated.

In other words you are in favor of getting rid of some guns. Your statement is false.

No, I'm not in favour of getting rid of all guns in existence. Again, you're either deliberately misinterpreting what I'm saying, or you're having trouble reading.

Should people who shouldn't have guns have easy, legal access to guns? Don't skirt around the question, don't pretend you're illiterate, don't bring up anything unrelated to the question. Just answer it. Should people who should not have guns have easy, legal access to guns?

Donuthole:
They never did look stupid, because their statement was 100% accurate.

Prove it.

Or are you of the belief that Obama and Napolitano were "smearing the military" by claiming that right-wing domestic terror groups might seek to recruit veterans, which they obviously do?

No, it is my belief that they have no idea what they are talking about.

You have it backwards. Gangs are known for having their people join the military so that they get experience. However, the idea that the US military is a gigantic recruiting block for domestic terrorism is just false.

Reginald:
Looks like you're either deliberately misinterpreting my statements or you don't know how to read.

You went from "preventing" to "making it hard to". That is a change in tune.

No, I'm not in favour of getting rid of all guns in existence. Again, you're either deliberately misinterpreting what I'm saying, or you're having trouble reading.

You are in favor of getting rid of guns. That is what you have said. "All" was never in my statement.

Should people who shouldn't have guns have easy, legal access to guns? Don't skirt around the question, don't pretend you're illiterate, don't bring up anything unrelated to the question. Just answer it. Should people who should not have guns have easy, legal access to guns?

Who shouldn't have guns? A lot of people shouldn't have things but we do not stop them from owning them. People who live in apartments should not have surround sound audio but from the sound above me, someone here obviously does.

Your question is intentionally vague and is meant to trap me. Make specific proposals and stop the bullshit.

farson135:
Your question is intentionally vague and is meant to trap me. Make specific proposals and stop the bullshit.

You know what I'm talking about. You're the one bullshitting. Should people who should not have guns have easy, legal access to guns?

farson135:

No, it is my belief that they have no idea what they are talking about.

I will take the DHS report, crafted by actual counterterrorism experts, over your word for it, thanks. Especially since this:

farson135:
the US military is a gigantic recruiting block for domestic terrorism

Isn't what it said.

http://www.emptywheel.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/rightwing1.pdf

Reginald:
You know what I'm talking about. You're the one bullshitting. Should people who should not have guns have easy, legal access to guns?

Who in the blue fuck are you talking about?

How am I supposed to answer a question when the parameters of the question are unknown? Am I one of those people who should not have easy, legal access to guns? If so, then on what grounds?

Donuthole:
I will take the DHS report, crafted by actual counterterrorism experts, over your word for it, thanks.

Actually, the counter-terrorism experts are in the military.

Especially since this:

farson135:
the US military is a gigantic recruiting block for domestic terrorism

Isn't what it said.

http://www.emptywheel.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/rightwing1.pdf

In other words you are willing to believe a report because the report exists. Not particularly compelling, especially since the people you are talking about have claimed that a person who has a 2 week supply of food is a potential terrorist (guilty as charged).

ElPatron:

pyrate:
Do you agree that having more guns results in a higher number of crimes involving guns?

The estimated total number of guns held by civilians in Italy is 7,000,000
In Italy, the annual rate of all gun deaths per 100,000 population is 1.35

The estimated total number of guns held by civilians in Germany is 25,000,000
In Germany, the annual rate of all gun deaths per 100,000 population is 1.16

pyrate:
Do you agree that guns are statistically more lethal than knives?

Not enough data, too many street variables. A .22LR can kill a bear but there have been people taking a shotgun blast at close range and survive.

A knife in the heart or neck can cause a person to bleed out in mere seconds.

pyrate:
Those are the only two questions you need to answer. If you do not answer yes than you are either stupid or dishonest.

Ad Hominem, your argument failed and to add insult to injury you insult anyone who disagrees with you.

GG.

First of all, as it has been said, there are many more factors than just the estimated number of guns. Estimating numbers is not an exact science, there is no real way of telling how many guns there are that are not registered. Most of the 25 million guns in Germany are a guess, it is not easy because of the history of Germany. What matters more is how many of those guns are actually in circulation. 25 million guns is a meaningless number if 20 million of them have been sitting idle in storage for decades.

What we do know is that currently both Italy and Germany have strict gun control.

As for mortality rates, there have been numerous studies done over the years. They always reach the same conclusion, guns are more lethal.

For example, here is one that specifically looked at wounds to the heart.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10780588

A GSW to the heart is lethal in ~77% of the time, a knife wound to the heart is lethal ~42% of the time. It is important to note that this report deals with a specific serious wound because serious wounds are less likely in knife attacks.

The general conclusion based on numerous reports is that guns are around 4x more lethal than knives.

farson135:

Reginald:
You know what I'm talking about. You're the one bullshitting. Should people who should not have guns have easy, legal access to guns?

Who in the blue fuck are you talking about?

How am I supposed to answer a question when the parameters of the question are unknown? Am I one of those people who should not have easy, legal access to guns? If so, then on what grounds?

There are people who should not have guns. Should these people be given easy access to guns? Yes, or no?

Reginald:

farson135:

Reginald:
You know what I'm talking about. You're the one bullshitting. Should people who should not have guns have easy, legal access to guns?

Who in the blue fuck are you talking about?

How am I supposed to answer a question when the parameters of the question are unknown? Am I one of those people who should not have easy, legal access to guns? If so, then on what grounds?

There are people who should not have guns. Should these people be given easy access to guns? Yes, or no?

Wasn't that already covered?
http://legallad.quickanddirtytips.com/who-can-own-guns.aspx
Under the federal Gun Control Act of 1968, certain categories of persons are not eligible to possess a firearm or ammunition. These include
◦Fugitives from justice
◦Illegal aliens
◦Unlawful users of certain drugs
◦Those committed to a mental institution
◦Those convicted of crimes punishable by imprisonment for more than one year (which generally covers felonies)
◦Those convicted of crimes of domestic violence
The federal law not only creates a permanent ban on gun ownership for anyone convicted of a felony, it even applies to those under indictment for a felony.

That is not all though, I know if you also received a dishonrable discharge from the military you are also not able to own a firearm.

This does not appear to stop them though when you look at the number of repeat offenders. The thing is though Bad guys and crazy people really do not give a @$#! what the law says.

a good rant from cenk about the fucked up politics of gun control

he has mentioned in a few other videos the recent polls about certain gun control measures like registration, background checks on everyone, limit on number of guns bought in a period of time and so on. all of these things polled at above 70% support amongst NRA members. yet washington cannot do anything about it because the NRA has bought so many politicians and will spend so much money against those who come out against them.

senordesol:

And with hundreds of thousands of DGUs per year, http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/hemenway1.htm , stopping a crime with a firearm is easier too.

Serious question. Have you actually read that article? Here's a few quotes from it, followed by the conclusion:

"NCVS results indicate that, nationally, victims use guns against offenders approximately 65,000 times per year."

"Many problems exist with the survey conducted by Kleck and Gertz. A deficiency in their article is that they do not provide detailed information about their survey methodology or discuss its many limitations. For example, the survey was conducted by a small firm run by Professor Gertz. The interviewers presumably knew both the purpose of the survey and the staked-out position of the principal investigator regarding the expected results."

"K-G oversampled males and individuals from the South and West. [20] The reader is presented with weighted rather than actual data, yet the authors do not explain their weighting technique. K-G claim their weighted data provide representative information for the entire country, [21] but they appear to have obtained various anomalous results. For example, they find that only 38% of households in the nation possess a gun, which is low, outside the range of all other national surveys. [22] They find that only 8.9% of the adult population is black, [23] when 1992 Census data indicate that 12.5% of individuals were black."

"K-G derive their 2.5 million estimate from the fact that 1.33% of the individuals surveyed reported that they themselves used a gun in self-defense during the past year; [15] in other words, about 66 people out of 5000 reported such a use. Extrapolating the 1.33% figure to the entire population of almost 200 million adults gives 2.5 million uses."

The conclusion:

"Self-report surveys of rare events easily lead to huge overestimates of the true incidence of such events, particularly if the event in question has some potential social desirability. Researchers who claim that such survey incidence data are accurate must show how they have eliminated the enormous problem of false positives. Kleck and Gertz do not accept, let alone meet, this burden of proof. Their survey methodology does not ensure a Specificity rate of well over 99%. Attempts to determine the external validity of their estimates only buttress the presumption of massive overestimation. The conclusion seems inescapable: the Kleck and Gertz survey results do not provide reasonable estimates about the total amount of self-defense gun use in the United States."

It clearly does not support the view that there are hundreds of thousands of DGUs every year.

farson135:

You have it backwards. Gangs are known for having their people join the military so that they get experience. However, the idea that the US military is a gigantic recruiting block for domestic terrorism is just false.

Mostly true, but...

Given the mentality of many far right groups - paranoid, survivalist, militaristic, race war rhetoric, etc. - service in the military would be a natural inclination. However, such groups would also eagerly seek fresh recruits from it and proselytise accordingly.

The military may be a pretty fertile recruiting ground for white supremacists, even though it constitutes a very small proportion of military personnel and is opposed by the military establishment. Without accurate statistics, we don't know.

reonhato:

In response to him saying that the 30 round clip was the problem in Arizona:

ElPatron:
The estimated total number of guns held by civilians in Italy is 7,000,000
In Italy, the annual rate of all gun deaths per 100,000 population is 1.35

The estimated total number of guns held by civilians in Germany is 25,000,000
In Germany, the annual rate of all gun deaths per 100,000 population is 1.16

Firstly: What's the source of that. 99% of all pro-gun statistics are either lies or bullshit, so source or it didn't happen.

And of course the populations of Germany and Italy are exactly the same, and so is crime, and so are socio-economic conditions, and population density, so you can totally compare these numbers. Of course there is also no such thing as the mafia in Italy, so there are no gang wars and such to elevate those statistics.

Oh, you did notice the rather high number of school shootings in Germany, in each case done by people who had guns 'for self defense'? And, you know, the big argument about changing gun laws, which Germany already tightened, and hears many voices to tighten even further.

pyrate:

First of all, as it has been said, there are many more factors than just the estimated number of guns. Estimating numbers is not an exact science, there is no real way of telling how many guns there are that are not registered. Most of the 25 million guns in Germany are a guess, it is not easy because of the history of Germany. What matters more is how many of those guns are actually in circulation. 25 million guns is a meaningless number if 20 million of them have been sitting idle in storage for decades.

What we do know is that currently both Italy and Germany have strict gun control.

As for mortality rates, there have been numerous studies done over the years. They always reach the same conclusion, guns are more lethal.

For example, here is one that specifically looked at wounds to the heart.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10780588

A GSW to the heart is lethal in ~77% of the time, a knife wound to the heart is lethal ~42% of the time. It is important to note that this report deals with a specific serious wound because serious wounds are less likely in knife attacks.

The general conclusion based on numerous reports is that guns are around 4x more lethal than knives.

I'm late to the thread, but aren't cars (just using basic observation) several times more lethal than guns? And don't we allow children as young as 16 the ability to drive a car through crowded city streets and neighborhoods?

A mass murderer (which is what this thread originally related to) could almost-certainly kill more people by blowing through a parade ground than they could using a handgun, even if a handgun would be better for killing a person in a sneak attack. Hell, I'd argue that the knife would be best for a silent attack, but obviously worst for mass murder.

Blablahb:

ElPatron:
The estimated total number of guns held by civilians in Italy is 7,000,000
In Italy, the annual rate of all gun deaths per 100,000 population is 1.35

The estimated total number of guns held by civilians in Germany is 25,000,000
In Germany, the annual rate of all gun deaths per 100,000 population is 1.16

Firstly: What's the source of that. 99% of all pro-gun statistics are either lies or bullshit, so source or it didn't happen.

And of course the populations of Germany and Italy are exactly the same, and so is crime, and so are socio-economic conditions, and population density, so you can totally compare these numbers. Of course there is also no such thing as the mafia in Italy, so there are no gang wars and such to elevate those statistics.

Oh, you did notice the rather high number of school shootings in Germany, in each case done by people who had guns 'for self defense'? And, you know, the big argument about changing gun laws, which Germany already tightened, and hears many voices to tighten even further.

Whatever gang problems Italy has, I can personally almost guarantee that the United States has it far, far worse. Legitimate gun owners in the United States pretty rarely break the law, let alone break the law using their legitimately-purchased firearms. The sole exception is with mass murderers, who actually have similar numbers in most Western countries, but generally use legally-purchased weapons to do so.

People who purchase firearms legally (and have no prior criminal record) are far less likely to commit a felony than the average citizen.

Source: http://www.futurity.org/society-culture/crimes-escalate-for-convicted-handgun-owners/

chadachada123:

pyrate:

First of all, as it has been said, there are many more factors than just the estimated number of guns. Estimating numbers is not an exact science, there is no real way of telling how many guns there are that are not registered. Most of the 25 million guns in Germany are a guess, it is not easy because of the history of Germany. What matters more is how many of those guns are actually in circulation. 25 million guns is a meaningless number if 20 million of them have been sitting idle in storage for decades.

What we do know is that currently both Italy and Germany have strict gun control.

As for mortality rates, there have been numerous studies done over the years. They always reach the same conclusion, guns are more lethal.

For example, here is one that specifically looked at wounds to the heart.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10780588

A GSW to the heart is lethal in ~77% of the time, a knife wound to the heart is lethal ~42% of the time. It is important to note that this report deals with a specific serious wound because serious wounds are less likely in knife attacks.

The general conclusion based on numerous reports is that guns are around 4x more lethal than knives.

I'm late to the thread, but aren't cars (just using basic observation) several times more lethal than guns? And don't we allow children as young as 16 the ability to drive a car through crowded city streets and neighborhoods?

A mass murderer (which is what this thread originally related to) could almost-certainly kill more people by blowing through a parade ground than they could using a handgun, even if a handgun would be better for killing a person in a sneak attack. Hell, I'd argue that the knife would be best for a silent attack, but obviously worst for mass murder.

except cars are not designed to kill, the are in fact designed to be as safe as possible while still retaining their purpose.

pro gunners will often use the car death statistics to show something ( i really do not know what). they ignore that millions of people in america spend multiple hours everyday driving and even more spend at least some time in a car. very few people spend the same amount of time using a gun.

BOOM headshot65:

reonhato:

In response to him saying that the 30 round clip was the problem in Arizona:

lets just put a few holes into your argument.

the guy in the video is a trained professional. the guy in the video is under no pressure at all. the guy in the video does not have someone trying to grab his gun.

the idea behind restricting clip size is that most people are not going to be able to reload and continue firing in an intense situation within the 2 seconds this guy does, it is much more likely to take an untrained, stressed, hyped up person several seconds to do it.

even if it is 2 seconds, that is 2 more seconds that someone has to either escape or try and disarm the attacker. to fire 30 rounds without reloading is obviously going to take less time than 30 rounds with 2 reloads. to think that the extra seconds will never make a difference is just being wilfully stupid.

it is the same situation as the "but they will just use another weapon" argument. yes it will not change every situation. not every situation is going to be automatically better because the attacker has to reload, but that is not a reason to just give up and say fuck it. just as some people will go out and use different weapons to kill, it does not mean you should say "well we cant stop 100% of them so why bother".

chadachada123:

I'm late to the thread, but aren't cars (just using basic observation) several times more lethal than guns? And don't we allow children as young as 16 the ability to drive a car through crowded city streets and neighborhoods?

I might argue that nuclear bombs are less lethal than both. Global deaths due to nuclear bombs throughout history are utterly trivial compared to those from guns or vehicles. And yet this is not a compelling reason to permit individuals to keep their own, personal, nuclear weapons.

Cars probably have a much lower lethality than guns in terms of deaths per unit time in use, but as there are so many cars used for so much time compared to guns, the absolute number of deaths will be higher.

Cars also perform a particularly obvious and beneficial societal function - transport - whereas guns offer far more limited practical uses for general society. We can see that many modern societies heavily restrict guns with few problems. Very few could apply the same restrictions to cars without causing themselves enormous problems.

Agema:

chadachada123:

I'm late to the thread, but aren't cars (just using basic observation) several times more lethal than guns? And don't we allow children as young as 16 the ability to drive a car through crowded city streets and neighborhoods?

I might argue that nuclear bombs are less lethal than both. Global deaths due to nuclear bombs throughout history are utterly trivial compared to those from guns or vehicles. And yet this is not a compelling reason to permit individuals to keep their own, personal, nuclear weapons.

Oh, as an aside, it was the 67th anniversay of the use of nuclear weapons the other day. Apparently this is particularly noteworthy as 67 cities were razed by conventional bombs in WW2 before then.

Also, supposedly the Japanese killed more civilians with swords in that war than died as a result of both nuclear devices.

chadachada123:
The sole exception is with mass murderers, who actually have similar numbers in most Western countries, but generally use legally-purchased weapons to do so.

Not really.

The UK has had 3 mass murderers (by FBI criteria) who have gone on gun rampages in the last 25 years. By adjusting for population, the USA should have had 15 in the last 25 years. However, the actual figure is much higher.

Why, of course, is another matter; it's not necessarily anything to do with gun ownership per se.

Agema:

chadachada123:

I'm late to the thread, but aren't cars (just using basic observation) several times more lethal than guns? And don't we allow children as young as 16 the ability to drive a car through crowded city streets and neighborhoods?

I might argue that nuclear bombs are less lethal than both. Global deaths due to nuclear bombs throughout history are utterly trivial compared to those from guns or vehicles. And yet this is not a compelling reason to permit individuals to keep their own, personal, nuclear weapons.

Cars probably have a much lower lethality than guns in terms of deaths per unit time in use, but as there are so many cars used for so much time compared to guns, the absolute number of deaths will be higher.

Cars also perform a particularly obvious and beneficial societal function - transport - whereas guns offer far more limited practical uses for general society. We can see that many modern societies heavily restrict guns with few problems. Very few could apply the same restrictions to cars without causing themselves enormous problems.

I was actually arguing that cars used to kill are more lethal than guns used to kill, since we were talking about guns and knives being used in a crime, and their rate of lethality during said crime not overall usage. Not that cars are statistically more likely to kill, that is not the point at all.

Aside from this, my main issue is that kids can use cars, which I above argue are far more lethal when used illegally, at a far younger age than they can use guns, when both can be used very easily in crime-of-passion murders. The disconnect is my issue.

reonhato:

except cars are not designed to kill, the are in fact designed to be as safe as possible while still retaining their purpose.

pro gunners will often use the car death statistics to show something ( i really do not know what). they ignore that millions of people in america spend multiple hours everyday driving and even more spend at least some time in a car. very few people spend the same amount of time using a gun.

That's completely irrelevant, since they are designed to be as safe as possible for the driver, sure, but they do nothing to protect pedestrians that a driver is trying to kill, and also would do basically nothing to protect a driver that wants to commit suicide (environment pending).

And, again, I'm not talking about the rates, I'm talking about their lethality when being used illegally, which is entirely separate, in combination with their restriction based on age.

chadachada123:

Agema:

chadachada123:

I'm late to the thread, but aren't cars (just using basic observation) several times more lethal than guns? And don't we allow children as young as 16 the ability to drive a car through crowded city streets and neighborhoods?

I might argue that nuclear bombs are less lethal than both. Global deaths due to nuclear bombs throughout history are utterly trivial compared to those from guns or vehicles. And yet this is not a compelling reason to permit individuals to keep their own, personal, nuclear weapons.

Cars probably have a much lower lethality than guns in terms of deaths per unit time in use, but as there are so many cars used for so much time compared to guns, the absolute number of deaths will be higher.

Cars also perform a particularly obvious and beneficial societal function - transport - whereas guns offer far more limited practical uses for general society. We can see that many modern societies heavily restrict guns with few problems. Very few could apply the same restrictions to cars without causing themselves enormous problems.

I was actually arguing that cars used to kill are more lethal than guns used to kill, since we were talking about guns and knives being used in a crime, and their rate of lethality during said crime not overall usage. Not that cars are statistically more likely to kill, that is not the point at all.

Aside from this, my main issue is that kids can use cars, which I above argue are far more lethal when used illegally, at a far younger age than they can use guns, when both can be used very easily in crime-of-passion murders. The disconnect is my issue.

reonhato:

except cars are not designed to kill, the are in fact designed to be as safe as possible while still retaining their purpose.

pro gunners will often use the car death statistics to show something ( i really do not know what). they ignore that millions of people in america spend multiple hours everyday driving and even more spend at least some time in a car. very few people spend the same amount of time using a gun.

That's completely irrelevant, since they are designed to be as safe as possible for the driver, sure, but they do nothing to protect pedestrians that a driver is trying to kill, and also would do basically nothing to protect a driver that wants to commit suicide (environment pending).

And, again, I'm not talking about the rates, I'm talking about their lethality when being used illegally, which is entirely separate, in combination with their restriction based on age.

this is another thing pro gunners will do, you can even see it in this thread. pyrate mentioned that knives were less lethal than guns and TSB replied with

A .22LR can kill a bear but there have been people taking a shotgun blast at close range and survive.

A knife in the heart or neck can cause a person to bleed out in mere seconds.

they talk about specific examples, ignoring that statistics are not done that way. sure a person can survive a shotgun blast and i could kill someone with a pillow.... that does not make pillows more lethal.

you can say what about when cars are used illegally ( i assume you mean when cars are used to deliberately hit people), but i can just respond by saying how about we only include headshots, that will dramatically raise how lethal a gun is.

Agema:

chadachada123:
The sole exception is with mass murderers, who actually have similar numbers in most Western countries, but generally use legally-purchased weapons to do so.

Not really.

The UK has had 3 mass murderers (by FBI criteria) who have gone on gun rampages in the last 25 years. By adjusting for population, the USA should have had 15 in the last 25 years. However, the actual figure is much higher.

Why, of course, is another matter; it's not necessarily anything to do with gun ownership per se.

Hm, my source may have been wrong, or I may have remembered incorrectly.

Giving a quick look on Wikipedia, the Americas have 116 rampage murderers listed, while the entirety of Europe has 99 such killers listed. The Americas have a population of around 900 million, while Europe has a population of around 740 million.

Europe has more rampages per person than the Americas, from my quick search, but I would call this statistically insignificant since it's within +/- 10% and they're such a rare occurance. This doesn't account for gun laws in, say, South America, obviously doesn't include every rampage killer, and doesn't include school shootings. For school shootings, I found that in the top fifteen most-lethal school shootings, seven happened in the Americas (five in the US), and five happened in Europe (three in Germany).

I'd really rather not scour the internet and come up with a detailed analysis, but I personally think that the UK is an outlier, or that someone's math was seriously messed up.

reonhato:

this is another thing pro gunners will do, you can even see it in this thread. pyrate mentioned that knives were less lethal than guns and TSB replied with

[quote A .22LR can kill a bear but there have been people taking a shotgun blast at close range and survive.

A knife in the heart or neck can cause a person to bleed out in mere seconds.[/quote]

they talk about specific examples, ignoring that statistics are not done that way. sure a person can survive a shotgun blast and i could kill someone with a pillow.... that does not make pillows more lethal.

you can say what about when cars are used illegally ( i assume you mean when cars are used to deliberately hit people), but i can just respond by saying how about we only include headshots, that will dramatically raise how lethal a gun is.

You're right that the other person threw in a specific situation when it was uncalled for.

However, that doesn't mean that when discussing lethality during a crime that you can make unnecessary constraints. Let's just back this up, and stop talking about 'pro-gunners' in general. You're talking to me, not to literally every single person that generally agrees with me. Whether or not they're fallacious has no bearing on whether or not I am. So let's start simple and go from there.

When a gun is used correctly, there are no victims. When a car is used correctly, there are no victims. When a gun/car is used incorrectly, there are victims. When a gun/car is used deliberately to cause injury/death, I argue that cars are significantly more dangerous than guns to the victims. For this reason, I find an inconsistency with how cars are licensed in terms of age, with the generalization that younger kids are more likely to commit crimes of passion, and should be prevented from having unrestricted access to both cars and guns given their lethality during a crime (of passion).

The sole counter to this line of reasoning that I can see is that a crime of passion with a gun would be easier since you would be less likely to see your intended victim while driving, unless your victim takes walks often. Whether or not that is big enough to counter everything has yet to be argued.

Reginald:
There are people who should not have guns. Should these people be given easy access to guns? Yes, or no?

Who? I am not going to answer your question without parameters on it.

Agema:
The military may be a pretty fertile recruiting ground for white supremacists, even though it constitutes a very small proportion of military personnel and is opposed by the military establishment. Without accurate statistics, we don't know.

Domestic terrorist groups are a tiny percentage of the population of the US. In fact the numbers are so low that you can effectively call them irrelevant (when it comes to population size). The fact that they typically are white supremacist means that you automatically disqualify about 1/3 of the military. That leaves about 1 million people. The majority of whom are not going to be front line soldiers (contrary to popular belief most soldiers are support nowadays). Therefore, they have less reason to be disenchanted with the government etc. Most of the front line soldiers are going to be alright and are not going to suffer major ill effects. In other words, a tiny percentage of the military is even susceptible to such recruiting and an ever smaller percentage will actually join.

You are right that we cannot know the exact numbers but there is no real proof that it is a problem other than a single report from an agency that describes purchasing 2 weeks' worth of food as being suspicious while at the same time telling people to buy that much food in case of a disaster (whether natural or manmade).

I asked the person who said that to provide more proof but he/she has not brought anything else to the table.

Agema:
Cars probably have a much lower lethality than guns in terms of deaths per unit time in use, but as there are so many cars used for so much time compared to guns, the absolute number of deaths will be higher.

Keep in mind, I carry a gun far more than I drive a car. It is the same for millions of people. We CHLs may carry a firearm 10-12 hours a day or more (same with LEOs etc).

Cars also perform a particularly obvious and beneficial societal function - transport - whereas guns offer far more limited practical uses for general society. We can see that many modern societies heavily restrict guns with few problems. Very few could apply the same restrictions to cars without causing themselves enormous problems.

Do you want to keep eating at your current level? Then we hunters need our equipment. Otherwise, pests are going to destroy our crops and foodstuffs are going to rise in price all over the world. A bolt action rifle with a 5-shot mag is not going to be able to keep up with wild pigs that can breed up to 10 to a litter.

(Facepalm) *SIGH* And my folks wonder why I dislike people... It reminds me of what a certain comic book character once said:

"It's hard to be religious when certain individuals aren't struck by lighting."- Calvin

chadachada123:

Hm, my source may have been wrong, or I may have remembered incorrectly.

Giving a quick look on Wikipedia, the Americas have 116 rampage murderers listed, while the entirety of Europe has 99 such killers listed. The Americas have a population of around 900 million, while Europe has a population of around 740 million.

Europe has more rampages per person than the Americas...

Purely for pedantry, 900 million/116 is higher than 740million/99, so there are more in the Americas. But as you said, it's statistically insignificant.

However, if you're talking "Western countries", you'd want to compare USA + Canada versus Western Europe. Latin America and Eastern Europe are generally not classified as Western countries. It would help control for similarities of wealth and stability.

Although this is moot, as I would suspect there may be wide variations within any countries compared, and I don't think it's a fruitful exercise anyway, as what makes people go on gun rampages can't readily be explained by statistics.

farson135:
Domestic terrorist groups are a tiny percentage of the population of the US. In fact the numbers are so low that you can effectively call them irrelevant

The FBI warned for 'sovereign america' type domestic terrorist groups who revere weapon ownership and the redneck life, and absolutely loathe any form of government.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/07/us-usa-fbi-extremists-idUSTRE81600V20120207

Apparently these engage in a lot of shootings against police, sometimes over nothing, like being stopped for a speeding ticket.

Blablahb:

farson135:
Domestic terrorist groups are a tiny percentage of the population of the US. In fact the numbers are so low that you can effectively call them irrelevant

The FBI warned for 'sovereign america' type domestic terrorist groups who revere weapon ownership and the redneck life, and absolutely loathe any form of government.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/07/us-usa-fbi-extremists-idUSTRE81600V20120207

Apparently these engage in a lot of shootings against police, sometimes over nothing, like being stopped for a speeding ticket.

Wow, 18 crimes in the US for each of the past 2 years with a populaion of 300 million (most of which are for fraud). How do we sleep at night.

The FBI has been known to exaggerate dangers. Hell, these guys had a hand in the Ruby Ridge incident where the US government deployed the National Guard to arrest one guy.

BTW "redneck life"? You mean Ashton Shepard is now a domestic terrorist?-

Or maybe you mean Gretchen Wilson-

Or maybe Craig Morgan-

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked