Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Mayhem]

I really don't understand what your problem is, other than an obvious misunderstanding when it comes to a part of the discussion you weren't involved in.

The study I linked contained a chart showing 79% of firearm injuries being non fatal. You somehow twisted that into 'youth are more proficient with guns.'

nope i answered on your guess that firearm injuries are less lethal because you have to be proficient to kill someone, when right beneath the list of issues writes that it is do a higher degree an issue for younger people... that´s why i asked you, nevertheless would you care to adress the points in your source or not?

[vaeevictiss]

I think people are giving people who use guns to commit murder too much credit. Ive been shooting my whole life and quite frankly it really is not hard to point at someone and shoot them when you are hell bent on killing people...especially when they are not shooting back. Same with the knife example. There really is no issue until it becomes a defensive issue and that is where skill and training excels.

All these school shootings and mass shootings become mass shootings because there is no one to shoot back. Its like shooting fish in a barrel at that point. Take the little newtown punk. Had you taken him to, say, a 3 gun match when time is everything, he most likely would have been horrible. Throw him in a school with nothing to stop him, and its a casual day at the range.

[PhaelixWW]

I think people are giving people who use guns to commit murder too much credit. Ive been shooting my whole life and quite frankly it really is not hard to point at someone and shoot them when you are hell bent on killing people...especially when they are not shooting back. Same with the knife example. There really is no issue until it becomes a defensive issue and that is where skill and training excels.

All these school shootings and mass shootings become mass shootings because there is no one to shoot back. Its like shooting fish in a barrel at that point. Take the little newtown punk. Had you taken him to, say, a 3 gun match when time is everything, he most likely would have been horrible. Throw him in a school with nothing to stop him, and its a casual day at the range.

Yeah, that's kind of what I was getting at when I was talking about navy seals being more adept at defending against attacks. Killing ordinary, defenseless people with just about any form of weapon isn't terribly hard. Blunt weapons require more of a degree of force, but bladed weapons make killing a relatively trivial thing, if the person is properly motivated.

[Mayhem]

Yeah, that's kind of what I was getting at when I was talking about navy seals being more adept at defending against attacks. Killing ordinary, defenseless people with just about any form of weapon isn't terribly hard. Blunt weapons require more of a degree of force, but bladed weapons make killing a relatively trivial thing, if the person is properly motivated.

that wholly depends on the curcumstances

if it´s a suprise attack sure

if it´s not, well a gun has a pretty hefty advantage called range, plus the shock from the noise and if you´re unable to grab the wrist at a right angle you´re at a much higher risk at getting yourself or some bystander injured

just as if the invention of firearms had the purpose of making killing/harming easier, but that´s just me guessing

[Eroginous]

nope i answered on your guess that firearm injuries are less lethal because you have to be proficient to kill someone, when right beneath the list of issues writes that it is do a higher degree an issue for younger people... that´s why i asked you, nevertheless would you care to adress the points in your source or not?

This is a non sequitur. The number of people who survive injuries exists independent of the number of people between ages 15-24 who die because of firearms. Age has little to do with proficiency, and more to do with things such as impulsive behavior, propensity for violence, and lack of self control. It's quite possible that people between 15-24 are more involved in gun violence than people outside that age group.

Again, you're twisting the data to try and fit your goal of discrediting my post. Maybe you should spend more time forming an actual argument.

[PhaelixWW]

that wholly depends on the curcumstances

Yeah... ... ... ... ...like the victim being unarmed, which is what I was saying. I'm not arguing guns vs. knives, I'm merely agreeing that either one is effective enough against a single unarmed target.

Most of the capability differences are unimportant in that scenario, which is honestly most murder scenarios. If the person is adept at defending themselves (IE, a navy seal), or if they are defending themselves with some sort of weapon, then the rules change and factors would definitely favor a gun.

You know, it's almost like...

just as if the invention of firearms had the purpose of making killing/harming people who are trained and armed easier, but that´s just me guessing

Fixed that for ya.

[Mayhem]

This is a non sequitur. The number of people who survive injuries exists independent of the number of people between ages 15-24 who die because of firearms. Age has little to do with proficiency, and more to do with things such as impulsive behavior, propensity for violence, and lack of self control. It's quite possible that people between 15-24 are more involved in gun violence than people outside that age group.

Again, you're twisting the data to try and fit your goal of discrediting my post. Maybe you should spend more time forming an actual argument.

it was already stated that probably more survive because the chart you posted counted legal intervention as well, for everything else, you have no argument, your guessing what that number means, and with that your guess is as good as mine

so are you going to take on the other points or not?

[Aeluron Lightsong]

I think people are giving people who use guns to commit murder too much credit. Ive been shooting my whole life and quite frankly it really is not hard to point at someone and shoot them when you are hell bent on killing people...especially when they are not shooting back. Same with the knife example. There really is no issue until it becomes a defensive issue and that is where skill and training excels.

All these school shootings and mass shootings become mass shootings because there is no one to shoot back. Its like shooting fish in a barrel at that point. Take the little newtown punk. Had you taken him to, say, a 3 gun match when time is everything, he most likely would have been horrible. Throw him in a school with nothing to stop him, and its a casual day at the range.

Throwing more guns doesn't solve the problem if you are implying that.

[Mayhem]

Yeah... ... ... ... ...like the victim being unarmed, which is what I was saying. I'm not arguing guns vs. knives, I'm merely agreeing that either one is effective enough against a single unarmed target.

Most of the capability differences are unimportant in that scenario, which is honestly most murder scenarios. If the person is adept at defending themselves (IE, a navy seal), or if they are defending themselves with some sort of weapon, then the rules change and factors would definitely favor a gun.

You know, it's almost like...

Fixed that for ya.

i get it, running away form a guy with a knife has equal survival chances as running away from a guy with a gun

[Tinykong]

i get it, running away form a guy with a knife has equal survival chances as running away from a guy with a gun

Everyone who picks up a gun can hit a moving target. Clearly picking up a gun turns you into Charles Bronson.

[Eroginous]

Throwing more guns doesn't solve the problem if you are implying that.

Why would anyone throw a gun?

it was already stated that probably more survive because the chart you posted counted legal intervention as well, for everything else, you have no argument, your guessing what that number means, and with that your guess is as good as mine

so are you going to take on the other points or not?

Sure, but you're not going to like it:

Firearm injury and its subsequent repercussions are preventable. Research on firearm injury provides evidence that specific changes can be made that will reduce the deaths, disability, and costs to society.

I agree. Things can be done to lower firearm injuries and deaths.

Firearm violence is a complex health issue, which cannot be understood or addressed in isolation from a broader community context.

I agree. There are more variables at work than just guns.

Firearm injury disproportionately affects young people, resulting in lives cut short or forever affected by violence (See Figure 3).

Sure. It makes sense that older people are more patient and less likely to pick up a firearm with the intent on hurting someone with it.

Compared to other causes of death, the number of firearm injury and death in the United States demonstrates its impact on American society. Firearms, especially handguns, are effective lethal weapons with the capability to escalate often-impulsive acts of interpersonal violence or suicidal thoughts into death.

I agree. It's much harder to kill yourself or someone else if you don't have a weapon.

States with higher rates of household firearm ownership had significantly higher homicide victimization rates in multivariate analyses.

Yup. Kind of hard to kill someone with a firearm if you don't have a firearm.

Everyone who picks up a gun can hit a moving target. Clearly picking up a gun turns you into Charles Bronson.

Or Clint Eastwood.

[Mayhem]

Everyone who picks up a gun can hit a moving target. Clearly picking up a gun turns you into Charles Bronson.

do you mean his time as an aerial gunner during ww2? i doubt it XD

i said i got it, they´re equal, alright

- - - Updated - - -

Why would anyone throw a gun?



Sure, but you're not going to like it:



I agree. Things can be done to lower firearm injuries and deaths.



I agree. There are more variables at work than just guns.



Sure. It makes sense that older people are more patient and less likely to pick up a firearm with the intent on hurting someone with it.



I agree. It's much harder to kill yourself or someone else if you don't have a weapon.



Yup. Kind of hard to kill someone with a firearm if you don't have a firearm.



Or Clint Eastwood.

i just love how you´re switching between weapon and firearm just as it suits you

and i find it funny that your answer is naming an actor, not something realistic...

good knight folks, read you tomorrow

[Eroginous]

i just love how you´re switching between weapon and firearm just as it suits you

What?

and i find it funny that your answer is naming an actor, not something realistic..

That was the point.

[PhaelixWW]

i just love how you´re switching between weapon and firearm just as it suits you

I'm pretty sure he never said that firearms couldn't sometimes be used as weapons, merely that those cases are exceedingly rare for civilian-owned fireams.

And in the context of the text he was responding to, "weapon" was an appropriate term, since it only was dealing with firearms being used to harm people.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

Why would anyone throw a gun?

What I meant to say is. The whole "Well if there's shootings. Just arm the guards heck arm the teachers111111"

Throwing more guns at a gun problem. @_@

[Rukentuts]

What I meant to say is. The whole "Well if there's shootings. Just arm the guards heck arm the teachers111111"

Throwing more guns at a gun problem. @_@

He knows. He's just thinks he's being funny.

[XdarkXanarchyX]

The 2nd amendment of the United States Constitution states that we have the right to bear arms. They're necessary for protection against a government such as the one we've got right now as well as against anyone else that has a gun. Also needed for hunting and such. (Well, okay, not really needed because I'd prefer to use a bow & arrow personally because that just seems like a more fair option.)
However it seems they're trying to overwrite this right and disarm the masses while only They are fully armed. Where does that leave the rest of us? Enslaved. No thanks. Stand up for your rights. Buy whatever guns you want, learn how to use them and don't give them up; that's unconstitutional as well as just plain stupid and wrong.

Sure, I may not like violence any more than the next dirty hippie but weapons and self protection has always been necessary as well as tools of war and the hunt.

Just think, if everyone has a gun on them when someone goes to rob a store then they've got 10 people pointing guns at that one person. How many people you think are going to try that? And how many actually be able to get away with doing anything harmful?
Many people may have a weapon but be full of empty threats anyway.


What really needs to be done is better education on guns. Everyone needs to be taught how to use one, how to take care of one as well as how to shoot it and get some practice. Responsibility. Safety.
People need to stop being afraid of everything and trying to ban everything. Instead we need to raise the standards.

[NYC17]

The 2nd amendment of the United States Constitution states that we have the right to bear arms. They're necessary for protection against a government such as the one we've got right now as well as against anyone else that has a gun. Also needed for hunting and such. (Well, okay, not really needed because I'd prefer to use a bow & arrow personally because that just seems like a more fair option.)
However it seems they're trying to overwrite this right and disarm the masses while only They are fully armed. Where does that leave the rest of us? Enslaved. No thanks. Stand up for your rights. Buy whatever guns you want, learn how to use them and don't give them up; that's unconstitutional as well as just plain stupid and wrong.

Sure, I may not like violence any more than the next dirty hippie but weapons and self protection has always been necessary as well as tools of war and the hunt.

Just think, if everyone has a gun on them when someone goes to rob a store then they've got 10 people pointing guns at that one person. How many people you think are going to try that? And how many actually be able to get away with doing anything harmful?
Many people may have a weapon but be full of empty threats anyway.


What really needs to be done is better education on guns. Everyone needs to be taught how to use one, how to take care of one as well as how to shoot it and get some practice. Responsibility. Safety.
People need to stop being afraid of everything and trying to ban everything. Instead we need to raise the standards.

False assumption that opposition to guns means people are afraid of guns.

False assertion that guns are a check against government.

False assertion that they're is intent to disar...ah fuck it. Just read the god damn thread instead of lecturing about what needs to be done.

[Eroginous]

What I meant to say is. The whole "Well if there's shootings. Just arm the guards heck arm the teachers111111"

I think you should stop grossly oversimplifying a possible solution as 'throwing guns at the problem.'

I don't think there's a worse possible way of describing a situation where one might address the problem of armed intruders.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

[QUOTE=Eroginous;24929631]

What I meant to say is. The whole "Well if there's shootings. Just arm the guards heck arm the teachers111111"

I think you should stop grossly oversimplifying a possible solution as 'throwing guns at the problem.'

I don't think there's a worse possible way of describing a situation where one might address the problem of armed intruders.

I'm not grossly oversimplifying anything. People think getting more guns solve a gun problem. No that isn't it.

Everyone

Yeah I'm not touching guns.

And quotes are messing up again. Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee