Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Deleted]

my point was, guns have no other "intended use"


*edit:typo

When an item is not used for what it's designed for 99+% of the time, you can start to question if "intended use" really matters.

[Svifnymr]

what's with all this really hard to grasp-at debate about cars are like guns /guns are like cars

1 is made to BENEFIT the comfort of manking
the other is made with murder in mind ( guns are made to kill, not to scare, not to injure, they were invented to kill, nothing less )

it's a bit baffling that you people have heated arguments about the comparison of these 2 items

semantics, really, but "murder" has specific meanings. Guns were originally designed as a more efficient method of killing, certainly, as was the bow, but that doesn't mean all guns today are made for harming another living thing. There are guns made for collecting, for artistic purposes that are never meant to be shot (but are fully capable of such), and purely recreational guns. There is also the simple fact that hunting may be killing, but is not somehow inherently harmful to society.

The car/gun comparison is not a direct thing, but it does have some lines. Not all cars are made to be the most efficient means of transportation.

[hakujinbakasama]

The car/gun comparison is not a direct thing, but it does have some lines. Not all cars are made to be the most efficient means of transportation.

The comparison is even worse in my mind. If we extrapolate the concept you'll find that Cars, or in reality the combustion engine, has done more long term damaging effects to the planet and reasonably led to more deaths than firearms. The combustion engine along with the assembly line gave us WW1, WW2, and every other war post 1910. In the scale of human history, the modern firearm is nothing compared to "Human comfort and benefit." We've not ever yet begun to see the devastating effects of the waste of modern conveniences.

Last I checked, guns aren't going to kill the planet or atmosphere, cars and industrialization are. http://co2now.org/

[Nakura Chambers]

I'm still surprised it expired, damn people like Bush...

Bush traveled back in time and created the sunset provisions?

[Eroginous]

i think it's funny when conservatives pretend there is no difference between INTENTIONAL MURDER and ACCIDENT. selective perception much?

If they both result in unnecessary death, is there?

Also, I am not conservative. I'd just rather not see gun ownership get destroyed by people who want to rid the world of 'scary things.'

[smelltheglove]

If they both result in unnecessary death, is there?

Also, I am not conservative. I'd just rather not see gun ownership get destroyed by people who want to rid the world of 'scary things.'

there is a very big difference. trying to equate the 2 is the definition of dishonesty imo.

i dont want guns banned btw. i want honest dialog about it, and bullshit equivalences (on both sides) preclude honest conversation

[lockedout]

I agree that walking down the sidewalk randomly firing your gun would be rather silly, but a proper analogy to the extensive amount of car usage was escaping me.

How about 10,000 people walking down the block with their firearm holstered.

[PhaelixWW]

A gun registry, which would allow for proper tracking and tracing of guns used in a crime, but on the flip side could eventually be used to confiscate guns in some dystopian future where the government imposes absolute rule and confiscates all of the guns.

I'm curious why you think that a government gun confiscation is only possible "in some dystopian future where the government imposes absolute rule". Is Australia a dystopian society with absolute rule? And yet they had a gun confiscation. Such a confiscation might even be seen as a "good move" by a majority of people who don't have, care about, or even really understand firearms.

The pro-gun crowd worries about a gun confiscation happening, not in some unforeseen future where the government takes absolute control, but as something that could happen almost overnight, with a suitably-minded SCOTUS and Congress. I mean, even if another group of Supreme Court Justices come along afterwards and deem the previous decision unconstitutional, it would already be a fait accompli.

What if they first decide to just collect all the legally-owned automatic firearms? And then the "scary" semi-automatics? If there are Congressmen/women who are pushing hard for an assault weapons ban, who's to say that they wouldn't pursue a confiscation if there was a registry?

Change a law, reinterpret an amendment, and poof... they're gone.

---------- Post added 2013-05-25 at 11:37 PM ----------

I agree that walking down the sidewalk randomly firing your gun would be rather silly, but a proper analogy to the extensive amount of car usage was escaping me.

The thing is that the causes of accidents aren't really comparable between the two, either. Accidents with firearms are more often an issue with a lack of training. More consistent use would tend to reduce the number of accidents per use. There might be more accidents overall, but at a slower rate per hour of firearm use, let's say. So twice as many hours spent using a gun would not be twice as many accidents.

The same can't be said for motor vehicle accidents. Those are most often caused by external conditions (rain, ice, low visibility, tire blowout at 70mph, etc.) and by distractions. Distractions happen any time, regardless of training. I mean, sure, you can minimize your risk by not being stupid and texting or doing your makeup when you drive, but it's not going to eliminate potential distractions. And the more you drive, the more you tend to zone out when you drive. I'd figure that doubling the amount of time driving would at least double the amount of accidents. More if you figure that you're then sharing the road with that many more potentially distracted drivers.

And for accident statistics:

From the CDC 2010 Final Mortality Statistics: 606 accidental firearm deaths vs. 35,332 accidental motor vehicle deaths.

---------- Post added 2013-05-25 at 11:40 PM ----------

what's with all this really hard to grasp-at debate about cars are like guns /guns are like cars

1 is made to BENEFIT the comfort of manking
the other is made with murder in mind ( guns are made to kill, not to scare, not to injure, they were invented to kill, nothing less )

it's a bit baffling that you people have heated arguments about the comparison of these 2 items

Well, when the item that's designed "to benefit the comfort of mankind" causes more deaths in a year than the item that's designed "with murder in mind", then you understand the potential for comparison.

---------- Post added 2013-05-26 at 02:57 AM ----------

Another perspective on the accident statistics.

60x as many accidental motor vehicle deaths as accidental firearm deaths. Let's say that the number of firearm users are half the number of vehicle users. Evening out those numbers would lead to a 30x difference (assuming a stable ratio).

If the average car user drives 1 hour a day, and the average gun owner spends 1 hour a month shooting, then the usage time per accidental death would be equivalent between firearms and vehicles.

So... what does that say?

[Sicarus]

my point was, guns have no other "intended use"


*edit:typo

You could like, do that thing, where you shoot animals for food.

[Cthulhu 2020]

How about 10,000 people walking down the block with their firearm holstered.

Walking down the sidwalk with guns in their hands and their fingers on the trigger. You know, like Feinstein did in her demonstrations. That's about what driving 2 tons of metal at 60 mph could be comparable to.

[Svifnymr]

Walking down the sidwalk with guns in their hands and their fingers on the trigger. You know, like Feinstein did in her demonstrations. That's about what driving 2 tons of metal at 60 mph could be comparable to.

Maybe if it was a school zone, being intentionally unsafe in one example doesn't somehow help illustrate anything. Phaelix gave an example of shooting once a month for one hour as the "break point" where the accident rate is comparable with driving every day for 1 hour. Seems close enough. There are people that drive more and people that shoot more.

I'm sure there's average speeds of collisions and such numbers too, and of course alcohol related driving accidents are more recorded than alcohol related gun accidents, but it depends on how far you want to research the allegory.

[Cthulhu 2020]

I'm pretty sure at this point the analogy is overused by people on both sides of the debate. Any time the tug of war back and forth isn't going in one side's favor, they pull out the car analogy.

[Roxinius]

my point was, guns have no other "intended use"


*edit:typo

so am i using my gun wrong by target shooting getting into competition with it i mean since im not killing someone im not using it correctly right?

[Sicarus]

so am i using my gun wrong by target shooting getting into competition with it i mean since im not killing someone im not using it correctly right?

Obviously, according to WhoAmiSc, you should be using it to murder, I mean, it has no other "intended use", right?

[Roxinius]

Obviously, according to WhoAmiSc, you should be using it to murder, I mean, it has no other "intended use", right?

damn now i feel stupid i've owned my sig for over 2 years now and just now finding out im using it wrong son of a bitch

[Jaxi]

You know, like Feinstein did in her demonstrations.

I've always found it interesting how gun-control advocates exercise the least amount of gun safety.

[Wells]

I've always found it interesting how gun-control advocates exercise the least amount of gun safety.

What is this based on? Because I could dig up the story about that NRA instructor accidently shooting himself again if you like.

[Jaxi]

What is this based on? Because I could dig up the story about that NRA instructor accidently shooting himself again if you like.

Oh if we're going for obscure stories I'm sure you could. If, however, someone is going to be a public face for gun control, perhaps they should learn basic gun safety?
Feinstein, Biden, Diana DeGette.

[Dillon]

Oh if we're going for obscure stories I'm sure you could. If, however, someone is going to be a public face for gun control, perhaps they should learn basic gun safety?
Feinstein, Biden, Diana DeGette.

People are often afraid of and want to control things they don't understand.

[Wells]

Oh if we're going for obscure stories I'm sure you could. If, however, someone is going to be a public face for gun control, perhaps they should learn basic gun safety?
Feinstein, Biden, Diana DeGette.

Why do you get to pick who counts as the public face and who is obscure?

Not to mention you're moving goal posts now.