|
Gun Control in America (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| WM2 |
Funny thought here. Should we take cars away from people because of drunk driving deaths? Drunk driving deaths and firearm related deaths are pretty close, but half of firearm related deaths are really suicides so it's not even close when you really get down to the actual numbers.
So, cars are just as capable of killing people as guns are which is to say that they aren't. It's the people operating them that's the problem. A responsible operator in both cases is required, but we aren't rallying to outlaw cars or alcohol. No, guns are definitely worse. People kill themselves with them more often than they do others.
Hell, I'm all about getting rid of people that talk on their cellphones while driving. It's being found to be just as deadly if not more so(studies aren't entirely conclusive yet) than drunk driving. I don't see anyone bitching about people and their cellphones. No, take the guns away. That fixes everything. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
did you even read that page?
| quote: |
Critics, citing numerous statistics, have questioned the efficiency of these restrictions. The combination in Washington of strict gun-restriction laws and high levels of gun violence is sometimes used to criticize gun-restriction laws in general as ineffective. However, a significant portion of firearms used in crime are either obtained on the second-hand market or in neighboring states. Results from the ATF's Youth Crime Gun Interdiction Initiative indicate that the percentage of imported guns involved in crimes is tied to the stringency of local firearm laws. |
| quote: | Originally posted by WM2
People will kill no matter what they have available to them. Taking the weapons away won't reduce the issue since it's an inanimate object. You can kill someone just as easily with a hammer as you can a gun. |
not at all true. the actual process for killing someone with a firearm is "clean" compared to bashing their skull in with a hammer. it is also far far easier to do. if they were relatively similar you'd still have armies using hammers :rolleyes:
| quote: | Originally posted by WM2
Now, what's to say he wouldn't have still killed. Nothing. That was his plan from the beginning. His methods would have adjusted, but he was still going to do it. |
irrelevant. theres no way in hell he wouldve been able to knife or stab or bash 30 people.
| quote: | Originally posted by WM2
That's your opinion. Here in Indy we have moderate gun control laws, and we have relatively few gun related deaths. Read about the craziness in D.C. and you'll see they have some of the most strict and the highest death rate despite having half the people we do. |
oh, just my opinion you reckon? how can you possibly argue that the greatet number of guns in any population has no effect on those guns being misused or misappropriate? who's being asinine? lets go back to that page you gave me shall we?
| quote: |
However, a significant portion of firearms used in crime are either obtained on the second-hand market or in neighboring states. |
looks like i was right, huh?
| quote: | Originally posted by WM2
Thus your argument that because of the legal trade the illegal trade is there is false. The illegal trade is going to be there regardless of the legal trade. |
if you had even bothered to read that page you would realise how silly youre sounding. in a federal system its useless to debate a state v state situation, where (as already noted) one can simply go elsewhere to purchase your weapons.
now, the illegal trade is going to be there NOW, because you've had access to such weapons for a long period of time. i have already posted elsewhere that america has fvcked itself. its a lost cause. again, your notion that more guns around does not mean more misuse is ridiculously illogical.
| quote: | Originally posted by WM2
If someone acquired a firearm illegally that is a criminal act. If someone that owns a firearm uses it for something they know to be wrong that is a criminal act. You just pretty much just asked the same question without wording it the same way. |
oh i see! so those that buy their guns legally and then kill 32 people, woohoo! easy access to firearms with minimal checks hasnt at all contributed to this massacre at all! all the other advanced nations that have much stricter gun control laws, our much much lower incidences of gun-related violence must be related to something other than the prevelance of firearms in our society.
thanks!
| quote: | | The FBI's Crime in the United States estimated that 66% of the 16,137 murders in 2004 were committed with firearms. |
| quote: | Originally posted by WM2
Wrong. I know plenty of people with guns that are more than responsible about owning them. It's the people that are not interested in being responsible in the first place that make that an issue. |
oh, because you know heaps of people with guns that are responsible then its a non-issue! wtf? your reasoning makes NO sense. there are plenty of law-abiding people with ready-access to firearms, that one day decide theyre NOT going to be law-abiding. how many kids have accessed daddy's locked cabinet and then shot up their school? :rolleyes: how much more often does this happen in the US than any other comparable country?
| quote: | Originally posted by WM2
Funny thought here. Should we take cars away from people because of drunk driving deaths? Drunk driving deaths and firearm related deaths are pretty close, and half of firearm related deaths are suicides so it's not even close when you really get down to the actual numbers.
So, cars are just as capable of killing people as guns are which is to say that they aren't. It's the people operating them that's the problem. A responsible operator in both cases is required, but we aren't rallying to outlaw cars or alcohol. No, guns are definitely worse. People kill themselves with them more often than they do others.
Hell, I'm all about getting rid of people that talk on their cellphones while driving is being found to be just as deadly if not more so(studies aren't entirely conclusive yet) than drunk driving. I don't see anyone bitching about people and their cellphones. No, take the guns away. That fixes everything. |
dumbest analogy ever. the difference being that cars serve a purpose OTHER THAN killing other drivers. the handgun is designed for killing people. it serves no other useful purpose. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| Are all the anti-gun nuts here stupid or something? Criminals don't legally aquire their firearms. End of story. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Are all the anti-gun nuts here stupid or something? Criminals don't legally aquire their firearms. End of story. |
are all the NRA apologists retarded? how easy is it to acquire or steal guns in a society where you can buy one at your local kmart? |
|
|
| WM2 |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
did you even read that page?
[quote]Critics, citing numerous statistics, have questioned the efficiency of these restrictions. The combination in Washington of strict gun-restriction laws and high levels of gun violence is sometimes used to criticize gun-restriction laws in general as ineffective. However, a significant portion of firearms used in crime are either obtained on the second-hand market or in neighboring states. Results from the ATF's Youth Crime Gun Interdiction Initiative indicate that the percentage of imported guns involved in crimes is tied to the stringency of local firearm laws.
|
The real question here is did you even read what YOU quoted. Next.
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
not at all true. the actual process for killing someone with a firearm is "clean" compared to bashing their skull in with a hammer. it is also far far easier to do. if they were relatively similar you'd still have armies using hammers :rolleyes: |
Great, so now we talking about military operations instead of acts of passion as murders are typically considered.
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
irrelevant. theres no way in hell he wouldve been able to knife or stab or bash 30 people. |
I knew you would say something asinine. The entire point is that this is such a limited act that it borders on being entirely unimportant outside of the context of lives lost. Again, people should worry more about being struck by lightning than having someone like this around them.
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
oh, just my opinion you reckon? how can you possibly argue that the greatet number of guns in any population has no effect on those guns being misused or misappropriate? who's being asinine? lets go back to that page you gave me shall we? |
It's called statistics. Almost 60% of those deaths are suicides.
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
looks like i was right, huh? |
Actually, you would have realized you were wrong if you had any sort of reading comprehension. The rules are the result.
Again.
| quote: | | Results from the ATF's Youth Crime Gun Interdiction Initiative indicate that the percentage of imported guns involved in crimes is tied to the stringency of local firearm laws. |
Meaning that if people want the guns they don't care about what laws they break to get them.
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
if you had even bothered to read that page you would realise how silly youre sounding. in a federal system its useless to debate a state v state situation, where (as already noted) one can simply go elsewhere to purchase your weapons. |
You're going to have the balls to call me out on reading when you don't even read what you quoted?
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
now, the illegal trade is going to be there NOW, because you've had access to such weapons for a long period of time. i have already posted elsewhere that america has fvcked itself. its a lost cause. again, your notion that more guns around does not mean more misuse is ridiculously illogical. |
Yes, we're so ed because we have guns. We're so ed that we're still one of the best places in the world to take up residence.
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
oh, because you know heaps of people with guns that are responsible then its a non-issue! wtf? your reasoning makes NO sense. there are plenty of law-abiding people with ready-access to firearms, that one day decide theyre NOT going to be law-abiding. how many kids have accessed daddy's locked cabinet and then shot up their school? :rolleyes: how much more often does this happen in the US than any other comparable country? |
You still lack the ability to see the overall issue. These occurrences are so rare and limited that they are almost entirely unimportant to any kind of debate about this subject. However, people such as yourself are the reason why these instances are used to start the debate.
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
dumbest analogy ever. the difference being that cars serve a purpose OTHER THAN killing other drivers. the handgun is designed for killing people. it serves no other useful purpose. |
Actually, it's a rather insightful analogy. In either instance you have a person operating a machine. One was designed to be a transportation answer to what comes after the horse, and the other was the modern replacement to the bow and arrow. In both cases when used improperly the results are going to be disastrous.
This brings back into play the real issue. The operator. You have responsible ones, and irresponsible ones. Either way happens. The only way to stop it is to take all of them away, but no one is saying anything about taking our cars away despite them causing more fatalities than guns. I don't see anything happening about people talking on their phones while driving either, but that's just as bad. |
|
|
| WM2 |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
are all the NRA apologists retarded? how easy is it to acquire or steal guns in a society where you can buy one at your local kmart? |
How easy is it to kill someone using your bare hands if you want to? , what about the little girl in Japan using a box knife to kill one of her classmates. Take guns away and people just revert back to other methods. The point is that anti-gun people are typically lacking in foresight and want to blame the problem on a machine and not on the operator.
And you lump all of us in as NRA nuts and call us retarded. You didn't even read what you quoted twice! |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by WM2
Great, so now we talking about military operations instead of acts of passion as murders are typically considered. |
no, just pointing out that comparing a hammer to a handgun or assault rifle is inherently silly.
| quote: | Originally posted by WM2
I knew you would say something asinine. The entire point is that this is such a limited act that it borders on being entirely unimportant outside of the context of lives lost. Again, people should worry more about being struck by lightning than having someone like this around them. |
but im not just talking about recent events. just general, average day-to-day murder. and murder is far easier (in numerous ways) with a firearm.
| quote: | Originally posted by WM2
It's called statistics. Almost 60% of those deaths are suicides. |
if you say so. admittedly old, but from the same department
| quote: |
In 1996 (the most recent year for which data are available), 34,040 people died from gunfire in the United States. Of these deaths, approximately 54 percent resulted from suicide, 41 percent resulted from homicide, and 3 percent were unintentional (see figure 2). Firearm injuries are the eighth leading cause of death in the United States. In addition, for every fatal shooting, there are roughly three nonfatal shootings. |
http://ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/pubs/gun_violence/sect01.html
| quote: | Originally posted by WM2
Meaning that if people want the guns they don't care about what laws they break to get them. |
see, this is where your selective emphasis is just ridiculous. yes, i know criminals are going to go get guns. what you're not accepting, and which is blatantly obvious, is that they are far easier to obtain by criminals in a society that has a lot of guns floating around. you keep focusing on demand instead of supply.
| quote: | Originally posted by WM2
You're going to have the balls to call me out on reading when you don't even read what you quoted? |
i read what you quoted, you just like to be select on what you think a quote means. its painfully obvious that if you have lax gun-control laws in one state, bad people will go there to get what they want and your country makes it profoundly easy for them to do so.
| quote: | Originally posted by WM2
Yes, we're so ed because we have guns. We're so ed that we're still one of the best places in the world to take up residence. |
according to whom? let's not bring out the stats on how far behind the US is in important areas according to OECD. certainly nothing to be proud of for the richest nation on earth. and for the record, i didnt say the US is fvcked, i said the US is fvcked when it comes to gun control. no matter what you try to do now.
| quote: | Originally posted by WM2
You still lack the ability to see the overall issue. These occurrences are so rare and limited that they are almost entirely unimportant to any kind of debate about this subject. However, people such as yourself are the reason why these instances are used to start the debate. |
no, youre the one failing to acknowledge that the easy access to weapons is part of the problem of both mass shootings as well as general criminal activity. you have the highest rate of gun-related murder THAN ANY OTHER WESTERN COUNTRY. if thats not related to the gun-toting american society, explain to me why its that way.
| quote: | Originally posted by WM2
Actually, it's a rather insightful analogy. In either instance you have a person operating a machine. One was designed to be a transportation answer to what comes after the horse, and the other was the modern replacement to the bow and arrow. In both cases when used improperly the results are going to be disastrous. |
but theres no need for the "bow and arrow" in modern society. we have professional outfits that now use their bows to protect us. the reason why we might need our own weapons is because the rest of society is flooded with easy to obtain tools designed principally for murder. i dont have faith in the average person to hold that kind of power in their hands, because the average, even "law-abiding" citizen is an idiot.
| quote: | Originally posted by WM2
This brings back into play the real issue. The operator. You have responsible ones, and irresponsible ones. Either way happens. The only way to stop it is to take all of them away, but no one is saying anything about taking our cars away despite them causing more fatalities than guns. I don't see anything happening about people talking on their phones while driving either, but that's just as bad. |
the difference being that people know that driving is dangerous, and accept that risk when they head onto the road. suffice it to say thousands of people have no doubt been caught by surprise by their gun-toting murderer. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by WM2
How easy is it to kill someone using your bare hands if you want to? , what about the little girl in Japan using a box knife to kill one of her classmates. Take guns away and people just revert back to other methods. The point is that anti-gun people are typically lacking in foresight and want to blame the problem on a machine and not on the operator.
And you lump all of us in as NRA nuts and call us retarded. You didn't even read what you quoted twice! |
far far harder to kill anyone with your bare hands than it is with a firearm. far harder also to accidentally kill someone with your bare hands.
yes, people might revert back to other methods, and all other methods are less lethal. |
|
|
| Dj O'Callaghan |
| quote: | Originally posted by WM2
Callaghan you're retarded. There are 300 million people in the U.S.. If one every year does something like what happened at VT that is 1 person out of 300,000,000 taking this sort of action. The odds of getting struck by lightning are higher than the odds of someone doing something like this.
Saying that we're all gun crazy paranoid hillbillies is about as stereotypical and wrong as me saying Aussies are a bunch of redneck outback hiking, fosters drinking, surfers.
And just for good measure, many of the cities in the U.S. with the most strict gun control laws are the same cities that have the highest rate of gun related violence. Just like we keep saying, you take guns away from the innocent and you're only leaving them less protected.
None of this in anyway means I'm for everyone owning whatever they want, but making assumptions like you are is the sign of ignorance.
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."
Robert A. Heinlein |
And there is over one billion people in China and when do you ever see this happen there?
I'm not even bothering with this thread. I'm going to stick to the stance I've taken on gun control. Which is low calibre rifles and shotguns are legal to the public subject to psycological and criminal tests. Everything else should be left to the cops and military.
Yes I'm streotyping you people, but it's the fact everyone cries on about protecting themselves from criminals.
It's a dicussion I'm not even bothering pursueing any longer. |
|
|
| LazFX |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dj O'Callaghan
Yes I'm streotyping you be people but its the fact everyone cries on about protecting themselves from criminals.
|
You "People" what is that supposed to mean? ;) |
|
|
| XaNaX |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dj O'Callaghan
And there is over one billion people in China and when do you ever see this happen there?
I'm not even bothering with this thread. I'm going to stick to the stance I've taken on gun control. Which is low calibre rifles and shotguns are legal to the public subject to psycological and criminal tests. Everything else should be left to the cops and military.
Yes I'm streotyping you people, but it's the fact everyone cries on about protecting themselves from criminals.
It's a dicussion I'm not even bothering pursueing any longer. |
China is a communist dictatorship. Even if it did happen they would censor the media.
And btw, did you notice that one of the weapons used in the VT shooting was a low caliber rifle, a .22? And how exactly are you going to define low caliber? An M-16 shoots a .223 caliber bullet, thats only .003 bigger than a .22 rimfire.
And I have a 12 gauge shotgun that holds eight 3" magnum rounds that I could up a lot of people with. Only takes about 7 or 8 seconds to fully reload that thing, only a second to drop a single shell in the chamber, and its a hell of a lot more destructive at close range than my "evil" CAR-15 military style rifle that shoots .223
No matter how bad you want them to, no gun control laws are ever going to keep you safe. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Are all the anti-gun nuts here stupid or something? Criminals don't legally aquire their firearms. End of story. |
Mark it on the calendar; I'm agreeing with shaolin_Z on this one...:p |
|
|
|
|
