Time to discuss gun regulation in the US?

[Captainplanet]

I'm not sure how you got that from what I said. I was saying that alcohol is not directly responsible for a homicide, where as guns are (insert, guns don't kill people, people do argument here). I am in no way saying that driving while intoxicated is not wrong, I'm merely saying that comparing a ban on guns and a ban on alcohol, because they both result in deaths, is a terrible comparison.

The beginning of the quote was directed at someone who at one point said they wanted a gun to defend themselves, and then later said that this was only getting attention because of racial reasons, and referenced 'criminals' killing each other every day without media attention. And really isn't related to the alcohol portion of the quote.
Hope that clarifies it for you.

Ahh, then I must have been mistaken. but my point still stands, its more about pre existing conditions than the actual fact, IE the Connecticut shooter failed the psychological portion of the state firearms license test (HONKING RED LIGHT TO THE POLICE AND THE ATF), then his mother tried to have him admitted to a looney house but the authorities refused. And then for some reason this happens and noone knows why, they just blame it on the death machines in his hands.

[ptwonline]

So we're trying to base laws around the fact that we only want people to kill their intended target.

In an odd way, that would actually be progress.

---------- Post added 2013-01-16 at 07:54 PM ----------

Whatever you say, kid. Reading comprehension is obviously an issue for you, and I'm not one to make fun of the handicapped.

We need a meme for something like this. You know, when you lose an argument and then the ad hom comes out.

[Moriturri]

So we're trying to base laws around the fact that we only want people to kill their intended target.

No, we should base laws around trying to prevent the loss of life. It's silly to suggest that we can prevent every single murder, you can kill someone with your bare hands if you really want to, however if we remove the ability to quickly and effectively kill people, I don't think we would see many stories of "man goes on punching spree, 14 dead." Feel free to pull out the story about the teen in China killing something like 7 people with a knife before being apprehended, however then I would draw your attention, or rather your imagination, of how many would have been killed if he had an automatic rifle with a 25round magazine and extra magazines in his pockets. My point is (and at this point I'm sure you are aware of it, and just enjoy arguing for the enjoyment) that if given the choice, I would rather see the article "Gang member stabs other gang member to death" than "Gang member kills 3 injures 6 in driveby shooting."

Ahh, then I must have been mistaken. but my point still stands, its more about pre existing conditions than the actual fact, IE the Connecticut shooter failed the psychological portion of the state firearms license test (HONKING RED LIGHT TO THE POLICE AND THE ATF), then his mother tried to have him admitted to a looney house but the authorities refused. And then for some reason this happens and noone knows why, they just blame it on the death machines in his hands.

I am a strong proponent of mental health, and so believe that if people require mental health treatment they should receive it (of course the more bans we put in place preventing people with mental disorders in their history from doing things, the more of a stigma we attach, and the less treatment there will be). However, in this case, it's not difficult to see how this story would have been different if his mother didn't own guns either.

[Buckwald]

If you are listing countries with access to nuclear weapons you missed a few. Additionally the point I assume you are trying to make is that some people DO have access to nuclear weapons? Which is completely ridiculous, there is no discussion here about what weapons governments should have, it's about where to draw the line for private ownership.

No, my point was directed to his post about how the constitution is outdated and the 2nd Amendment no longer applies and yet those countries have all disarmed their citizens and killed just a few people.

[Daerio]

No, we should base laws around trying to prevent the loss of life. It's silly to suggest that we can prevent every single murder, you can kill someone with your bare hands if you really want to, however if we remove the ability to quickly and effectively kill people, I don't think we would see many stories of "man goes on punching spree, 14 dead." Feel free to pull out the story about the teen in China killing something like 7 people with a knife before being apprehended, however then I would draw your attention, or rather your imagination, of how many would have been killed if he had an automatic rifle with a 25round magazine and extra magazines in his pockets.

There are plenty of efficient ways of killing people without guns. Plenty. Cars are pretty effective at killing people, ESPECIALLY if you're trying - and there are people who go on drug tears and decide it might be fun to mow down people on the sidewalk. It happens. Flammable liquids are readily available to make into Molotov Cocktails - burning alive isn't very pleasant from what I hear, even if it doesn't have a 100% fatality rate. (neither do guns) Bombs can be made from almost anything.

As far as pointing out an incident in China, I could point out plenty of cases - there are a LOT of them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/wo...hina.html?_r=0

"A man wielding a knife wounded 22 children and one adult outside a primary school in central China as students were arriving for classes on Friday, the police said."

"No motive was given for the attack, which resembled a string of similar assaults against Chinese schoolchildren in 2010 that killed nearly 20 and wounded more than 50."

"In one of the worst attacks, a man described as an unemployed, middle-aged doctor killed eight children with a knife in March 2010 to vent his anger over a thwarted romantic relationship."

Hell, that isn't even the one I remember reading about, where a man cut something like 26 children, scarring them for life. His intention wasn't to kill them, and he didn't. That doesn't make the attack "better" somehow. And it damn sure doesn't mean you can't go on a killing spree without a gun - it's just less 'in style' over here. You can thank the media for the mass shooting trends.

[Captainplanet]

No, we should base laws around trying to prevent the loss of life. It's silly to suggest that we can prevent every single murder, you can kill someone with your bare hands if you really want to, however if we remove the ability to quickly and effectively kill people, I don't think we would see many stories of "man goes on punching spree, 14 dead." Feel free to pull out the story about the teen in China killing something like 7 people with a knife before being apprehended, however then I would draw your attention, or rather your imagination, of how many would have been killed if he had an automatic rifle with a 25round magazine and extra magazines in his pockets. My point is (and at this point I'm sure you are aware of it, and just enjoy arguing for the enjoyment) that if given the choice, I would rather see the article "Gang member stabs other gang member to death" than "Gang member kills 3 injures 6 in driveby shooting."



I am a strong proponent of mental health, and so believe that if people require mental health treatment they should receive it (of course the more bans we put in place preventing people with mental disorders in their history from doing things, the more of a stigma we attach, and the less treatment there will be). However, in this case, it's not difficult to see how this story would have been different if his mother didn't own guns either.

He would have found another way to kill people, or it may not have happened for a few years. Insanity is just inquantifiable in terms of crime but as a general rule, a crazy person with a gun or a kitchen knife or a bottle of chlorox is not to be trusted. Chances are that he was criminally insane (he shot his mother in the face, I doubt he was thinking on a cool head). My point is, that if she didnt have any guns or if they were locked up in a nice big safe, then this probably would not have happened so soon, maybe he would have killed someone else, or waited until he could feign mental stability and buy guns of his own to do it sometime in the future. But the certainty that disarmament would have stopped any sort of murders done by a nut case is ludicrous.

[Moriturri]

There are plenty of efficient ways of killing people without guns. Plenty. Cars are pretty effective at killing people, ESPECIALLY if you're trying - and there are people who go on drug tears and decide it might be fun to mow down people on the sidewalk. It happens. Flammable liquids are readily available to make into Molotov Cocktails - burning alive isn't very pleasant from what I hear, even if it doesn't have a 100% fatality rate. (neither do guns) Bombs can be made from almost anything.

I removed the links to conserve space, and again, I even suggested you pull out those stats, because I stick by the fact that those would have been larger casualty counts if large magazine automatic weapons were involved, doesn't make them 'nice stories,' however proving that knives are dangerous in no way disproves guns aren't more dangerous (in fact, proof of the opposite is that we equip our military with guns, rather than just swords, and yes they also carry knives, but they tend to use guns more than knives when in combat).

We license people to drive because it's recognized that it's a dangerous thing to the untrained (I don't require training to buy a gun btw). And vehicles are primarily for transportation, guns are primarily for killing (even if you are using it for 'protection' that form of protection is killing them before they kill you, therefore, killing is it's primary use). Molotov Cocktails and bombs are banned last I heard. Possession of them is illegal. Although I could be mistaken, maybe they fall under your second amendment as well? In which case I would suggest I would like to lump them in with the other weapons I'm arguing against. Just because something is easy to make or get, doesn't change the fact it should be illegal to possess it. In fact, did you know that in the USA it's illegal to buy 2 very normal requirements for agriculture at the same time in large quantities purely because when combined they CAN be used to make an explosive?

He would have found another way to kill people, or it may not have happened for a few years. Insanity is just inquantifiable in terms of crime but as a general rule, a crazy person with a gun or a kitchen knife or a bottle of chlorox is not to be trusted. Chances are that he was criminally insane (he shot his mother in the face, I doubt he was thinking on a cool head). My point is, that if she didnt have any guns or if they were locked up in a nice big safe, then this probably would not have happened so soon, maybe he would have killed someone else, or waited until he could feign mental stability and buy guns of his own to do it sometime in the future. But the certainty that disarmament would have stopped any sort of murders done by a nut case is ludicrous.

I would never suggest that a ban on firearms would stop murderers, but it may cut down their kill count, and even if that's one less person dead, that's better than the full count. In addition, think of all the accidental deaths and injuries to firearms every year, yes those are the result of "irresponsible gun ownership," but again, those people would not have died at that time if not for those weapons being owned.

[Captainplanet]

I would never suggest that a ban on firearms would stop murderers, but it may cut down their kill count, and even if that's one less person dead, that's better than the full count. In addition, think of all the accidental deaths and injuries to firearms every year, yes those are the result of "irresponsible gun ownership," but again, those people would not have died at that time if not for those weapons being owned.

Awareness of the issue is better than a ban, people need to take responsibility for their own safety and that of their property, legislation based on the actions of the .00000000002% that will affect the other 99.999999997% is what's wrong here. The VAST majority of other gun owners go through their day without skipping a beat or violating anyone else's right to life or free speech. So expecting them to take this is dumb as much as thinking this is better than better enforcement of current laws and safety minded people replacing sensationalists.

Remember, education can solve most of our problems.

[Buckwald]

Awareness of the issue is better than a ban, people need to take responsibility for their own safety and that of their property, legislation based on the actions of the .00000000002% that will affect the other 99.999999997% is what's wrong here. The VAST majority of other gun owners go through their day without skipping a beat or violating anyone else's right to life or free speech. So expecting them to take this is dumb as much as thinking this is better than better enforcement of current laws and safety minded people replacing sensationalists.

Remember, education can solve most of our problems.

Amazing post.

[Captainplanet]

Amazing post.

Do I win an internet?

[Moriturri]

Awareness of the issue is better than a ban, people need to take responsibility for their own safety and that of their property, legislation based on the actions of the .00000000002% that will affect the other 99.999999997% is what's wrong here. The VAST majority of other gun owners go through their day without skipping a beat or violating anyone else's right to life or free speech. So expecting them to take this is dumb as much as thinking this is better than better enforcement of current laws and safety minded people replacing sensationalists.

Remember, education can solve most of our problems.

I can agree with this, education is necessary, and in fact if it was perfect I would have no problem with gun ownership (however if education was perfect then I also believe we would have no need for guns at all). The problem, (brace yourself, I'm about to employ what is a straw-man fallacy I'm aware, however I believe it will highlight my point, and as you seem to be much more articulate and willing to discuss things that much of the others in this thread, I feel you will understand my reason for using it) is that education won't be as effective as it needs to be. Take Seat belts in vehicles, while educational campaigns abound about the importance of wearing them, not everyone does (the only fact I could quickly find: "...for African American men age 18-29, belt use is significantly higher in primary enforcement states than in secondary law states, 58% v. 46%" (American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 88, No. 2, Feb. 1998))

edit: Just to clarify, while I have been arguing strongly against gun ownership in this entire thread, I actually don't really feel that way (partially I'm overcompensating in order to get people to meet me in the middle, closer to my own beliefs :P ). I do however believe there needs to be EXTREMELY tight controls on them. Even the most stringent training programs offered I don't believe offer a strong enough limit. Courses and testing required to acquire one should be practically a full time job for a year imo (okay, maybe not QUITE that bad). You should know everything about guns, their history, their safety, take psychological testing, etc. and should be required to have to show up at, for example, a police station once a year to verify that you have a gun, and it is in proper good condition, thus ensuring that if it is stolen, it's your problem, and not the "oops" that it seems to be now.

[Tinykong]

In an odd way, that would actually be progress.

Progress: when a mass killer only kills 10 instead of 20.

That needs to be added to the internet's compendium of fail logic.

[ptwonline]

Progress: when a mass killer only kills 10 instead of 20.

That needs to be added to the internet's compendium of fail logic.

You mean having fewer people getting killed is not progress?

It's hardly ideal, but in my books if you could have saved 10 of those 20 first graders at Sandy Hook I certainly wouldn't have dismissed that as "fail logic". That's 10 more innocent that would have been saved. 10 fewer families that would have been shattered.

[Moriturri]

Progress: when a mass killer only kills 10 instead of 20.

That needs to be added to the internet's compendium of fail logic.

Meanwhile, in normal articles, laws are praised based on tenths of a percentage point of reducing murder rates, but on MMO 50% reduction isn't good enough :P

[Xarkan]

Meanwhile, in normal articles, laws are praised based on tenths of a percentage point of reducing crime rates, but on MMO 50% reduction isn't good enough :P

If the single crime kills 10 people instead of 20 the crime rate is reduced by nothing i would think

[Tinykong]

You mean having fewer people getting killed is not progress?

It's hardly ideal, but in my books if you could have saved 10 of those 20 first graders at Sandy Hook I certainly wouldn't have dismissed that as "fail logic". That's 10 more innocent that would have been saved. 10 fewer families that would have been shattered.

The goal should be preventing mass killings, not lowering body counts.

[Captainplanet]

I can agree with this, education is necessary, and in fact if it was perfect I would have no problem with gun ownership (however if education was perfect then I also believe we would have no need for guns at all). The problem, (brace yourself, I'm about to employ what is a straw-man fallacy I'm aware, however I believe it will highlight my point, and as you seem to be much more articulate and willing to discuss things that much of the others in this thread, I feel you will understand my reason for using it) is that education won't be as effective as it needs to be. Take Seat belts in vehicles, while educational campaigns abound about the importance of wearing them, not everyone does (the only fact I could quickly find: "...for African American men age 18-29, belt use is significantly higher in primary enforcement states than in secondary law states, 58% v. 46%" (American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 88, No. 2, Feb. 1998))

Very true, though most solutions brought on by people either seem completely authoritarian or completely stupid. No legislation from any side will solve the problem because its simply a part of human society that this will happen, since the dawn of our species there have been mindless deaths for stupid reasons. While education may help, I use myself as a prime example of an educated person that is still prone to lashing out with extreme fury at the uneducated and their blissful ignorance. Thus, in some future I MIGHT end up a criminal nutcase for some forum posters and news jackasses to talk about in the future, but I know gun safety and to stay away from social vices that lead people into ignorance and/or violence because when I have a rifle in my hand I could point it at someone and then end their life, because their life is only as heavy as the pull of a trigger. But I havent, lawful gun owners have a very high degree of self control, otherwise all this media demonization would lead to even more shootings.

At this point, more research is needed concerning this whole fiasco, my elementary school was a gun free zone and there were no armed guards yet I went through my young school years without being in the sights of some nut case. But I believe that is more out of common sense (OMG) and the good in people's hearts than the laws put in place that supposedly do a better job.

[Moriturri]

If the single crime kills 10 people instead of 20 the crime rate is reduced by nothing i would think

Sorry: Murder rate not crime rate, you are correct and I will edit my post to the appropriate wording.

[Tinykong]

Meanwhile, in normal articles, laws are praised based on tenths of a percentage point of reducing crime rates, but on MMO 50% reduction isn't good enough :P

Praising a 50% reduction in a tiny, less than 1% part of total violent gun crime while completely ignoring the largest portion of violent gun crime. More fail logic.

[Moriturri]

Praising a 50% reduction in a tiny, less than 1% part of total violent gun crime while completely ignoring the largest portion of violent gun crime. More fail logic.

I hope for your sake you never have a family member involved in some form of mass shooting. I'm sure if that were to occur you wouldn't consider the reduction of even one murder 'fail logic'