Stop using guns to kill things!

Page 14 of 21 [ 332 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 ... 21 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

John_Browning
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range

29 Jul 2012, 11:44 pm

Raptor wrote:

The_Walrus wrote:

Raptor wrote:

The_Walrus wrote:

Quote:

A gun is not a "basic right".

The possession of arms is a right. You can misinterpret the constitution

You Americans (or at least many of you, obviously not all of you) still worship a document that is hundreds of years old. No wonder you are so backward on issues like guns, abortion, gay marriage, health care... in fact pretty much any issue the Republican Party takes up. The world does not revolve around America.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

Nothing about guns or arms on there, just like there is nothing about televisions or cars. Billions of people get along just fine without guns (or televisions or cars). Go up to a person living in squalor in a country where they are repressed and ask what rights they need.

"Would you like freedom to choose your religion, not be forced into slavery, a food supply, an education, health care, freedom from discrimination? The right to a fair trial, or privacy, or freedom of movement?"
"No thanks, I'd rather have a gun" :roll:

Really desperate now aren't we?
As for our Constitution I think we'll keep it. Those of us worthy of living here like it just fine and the fact that your kind hates it only adds to it's luster.
I didn't bother to go to the link. It's UN so that's all i need to know.
If I and many other Americans had it our way the US would be out of the UN and the UN would be out of the US. Let's see how well they would do without us.
You live your way in your country and I'll live my way in mine. That's as good as it's ever going to get from me.

Maybe one of these days Europeans and Canadians will figure out that the majority are unaware of the UN human rights declaration or any other treaty/mental masturbation of theirs, and most of those that are aware of it don't give a crap about it and favor the US constitution.

Seriously, no one in the US expects to be taken seriously by the public by mentioning the UN as a credible source for a argument!

_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown

"A fear of weapons is a sign of ret*d sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud

ButterflyLady
Snowy Owl

Joined: 29 Apr 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 146
Location: Gainesville, FL

29 Jul 2012, 11:54 pm

i got to page 3 and couldn't read anymore. whoever started this thread, if they don't like guns get the hell out of the country and move to a country which already has guns banned. removing guns from the hands of citizens will only leave them unprotected. do you really think that the police will ALWAYS be there when you need them? hell no they won't!! they will get there after it's already too late and your laying dead on the ground! no matter how many laws, or gun bans you have the criminal will turn to the black market and STILL own a gun to go out and use those guns they got illegally against unarmed people. taking guns away may very well start another civil war!! ! Our founding fathers wanted us to be able to protect ourselves. it is written into the Constitution!!

Quote:

Fact: when Britain banned handguns, their violent crime rate sky-rocketed. Look it up.
Fact: New York has some of the strictest gun control laws - 67 people this weekend were just shot.
Fact: The Constitution is, indeed, founded to protect its citizens from big government. They just fought against a tyrant who didn't want to give them any rights. "Taxation without representation." You want that again? Move to North Korea. 'Nuff said.

_________________
Do I stress you out My sweater is on backwards and inside out And you say how appropriate
Your Aspie score: 151 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 55 of 200
You are very likely an Aspie

Last edited by ButterflyLady on 30 Jul 2012, 12:04 am, edited 1 time in total.

simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

30 Jul 2012, 12:02 am

The shooter didnt appear to choose the theater because it was a "gun free zone'. He was wearing full kevlar gear, including a ballistic helmet, and so was apparently expecting to be shot at by someone. He went there because he had a Batman fetish of some sort.

John_Browning
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range

30 Jul 2012, 1:14 am

simon_says wrote:

The shooter did not have a competent grasp of what is happening in reality and he's not cooperating with detectives or psychiatrists. That's all that can be determined right now. Someone in his mental state might have just thought the joker would be an amusing anecdote to the shooting, or a lot of other possible morbid things that don't necessarily involve being a diehard Batman fan. We probably won't know what the deal is anytime soon.

aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,099

30 Jul 2012, 1:16 am

Raptor wrote:

Aghogday wrote:

Quote:

It would probably be good thing if people had the ability and/or the resources to stock enough non-perishable items and drinking water for two weeks, but it's not a feasible feat for most of the population, particularly those that don't have a lot of resources, but they are advised to have enough for at least three days until FEMA comes to the rescue. If the government doesn't come in to help, and 95% of the population has nothing to eat or drink, then there is 95% of the population starving. Then one has real problems without government support.

Most people can at least squirrel away a little at a time for emergencies. There’s nothing I can say about the comparative few that can’t.

Quote:

It's not an unreasonable aspect of the new federal law to temporarily confiscate guns during a rescue, for the safety of those engaging in the rescue as well as the safety of those that are being rescued. People don't always make good decisions, in these type of stressed circumstances.

Depends: For a ride in a rescue vehicle, especially a chopper, temporarily holding or stowing a weapon for a rescuee is a good idea for safety but the guns should be returned without delay once that person is no longer a passenger. If they think they have to disarm them before they rescue them then why bother to rescue them at all?
Going door to door and raiding for guns, traffic stops for no apparent reason than disarmament, or raiding people's boats for the same reason is wrong in every way, period. It’s not only a violation of their rights but also leaving them defenseless during particularly bad time. The old lady in the video that was mugged in her own home by those cops had every right to be armed and to stay at home with her dogs.
That was pure bullying and thuggery if I ever saw it.
Times like that bring out the best and worse in people so be ready for both.

Quote:

And if there are 5 family members on one roof, with one unstable shooter among the family, the rest of the family doesn't deserve to be shot and killed because there is one unstable person among the group. It's not like the rest of the family on the roof have much of an option but to be on the roof, when the other option is drowning, or that they will necessarily be able to stop the shooter from acting.
Shooting everyone standing close to a shooter would be a potential complete loss of rights, among citizens.

If you have one rooftop (or wherever else) shooter preventing several others from being rescued or helped by pinning down the rescue resources then you do what you have to in a timely manner to resume rescue operations including clearing that rooftop or immediate area with bullets.
Even turn a blind eye while his neighbors shoot him, whatever……
Interpret or read into that whatever you want.

Quote:

That's the problem of 5 or 6 quasi trained civilian shooters attempting to take the bad guy shooter out in a dark theater. The folks standing close to the shooter lose all their rights, if the quasi trained shooter misses and hits 5 or 6 other people somewhere in the line of sight to where they think the shooter is.
And if the 5 or 6 quasi trained shooters, are over estimating that they have the skills required, then it may be a problem for 25 or 30 people standing in the line of sight of the shooter, along with the confusion of whether or not the person shooting at the shooter is the good guy or the bad guy, when the perceived shooter, is not hit.
That is if anyone at that point can tell who the good guys and the bad guys are in a dark theater.
If everyone is a good citizen and are dutifully armed with a concealed weapon if it were allowed in theaters, and pulls out their gun at the same time, what are they going to do, yell I'm the good guy shooting at the bad guy, don't shoot me?

That's the problem with the concealed weapon defense in a dark theater, it is next to impossible to know who the bad guy is and who the good guy is, if there is more than one.

There is no rule that one person is going to be the good guy or the bad guy, or dress in a way or act in a way that clearly identifies them as such.

Maybe good guy florescent vests could be handed out at the entrance, not unlike what is used by deer hunters so they don't get shot by their fellow deer hunters in the woods. But, unlike the woods, that won't work either as unlike any potential offense from a deer, that makes one a target for the bad guy shooter without the good guy vest. Law Enforcement wearing identifying uniforms get paid to take that risk.

There is little potential that a room full of concealed weapons is going to lead to a positive result in a dark theater, when shooting starts to happen, unless people have amazing "bat like" psychic skills, to determine who the good and bad guys are in the dark.

It appears that too many people in the general public have been raised watching the good guys do incredible things on TV, and live to see another day, when reality doesn't work that way.

The theaters that have the signs that say no weapons, as well as malls, and other crowded areas aren't requiring this restriction for no good reason. Nor are the potential law enforcement rescue professionals whom will confiscate weapons temporarily during a rescue in a crowded helicopter or emergency vehicle, when humans are extremely stressed, without sleep, and potentially in a position to make a lethal decision that they would not have ordinarily made.

These decisions for these restrictions, aren't made without weighing the cost/benefit per risk in potential scenarios, as well as legislative agreement in the case of rescues and temporary confiscations. While I can speculate here for opinion, they most often have qualified individuals to provide advice, before these cost/benefit decisions are made. As all large private businesses/public operations do.

Carrying a concealed weapon is not a basic right, nor is it protected by the 2nd amendment, in those places determined where it is illegal to be in possession of a weapon. If everyone got to decide what their rights were without carefully determined and enforced rules and regulations from society, there would be no civilization.

Federal, State, local, and even private rules in hunting clubs are complex and restrictive, in limits of what one can't and can do when hunting deer, etc., if one one wants to hunt or even fish. Why wouldn't we expect the same or much stricter rules when there is the potential of hunting human beings?

If there were no regulations or restrictions associated with killing deer, there wouldn't be many deer left, at least not in my area. Fortunately people are generally more averse to the idea of hunting human beings, but it does rarely happen.

Back to the theater thing again.
There are no absolute does and don’ts. The opportunity may or may not present itself to neutralize an active shooter, not that everyone should automatically draw and un-ass a magazine or two in the general direction just to see if they get lucky. It all depends on the circumstances and conditions, period.

Establishing any kind of “gun-free” zone anywhere is the same as advertising it as a shooting gallery to a prospective active shooter. I hope I don’t have to explain why.

We’re thick with CCW licensees in a three county area here and we also have lots of malls, even more theaters, stadiums, auditoriums, parks, two international airports, etc. and no one jumping at the chance to whip out their pistol and start blasting at the least little provocation. If so it’d be on the news and I’d hear about it through other channels, too.
If anything I think it should be evident that the fact that there are so many people here packing heat that it’s an unseen threat to any would be active shooter. It sure as hell doesn’t welcome them to commit a massacre.

The people in the US that don't have a two week supply of non-perishable food, and water, are not few in comparison. FEMA, recommends at least three days, and people don't normally stock up on non-perishable items until the Hurricane is well on it's way, in my area; even after experiencing two weeks dependent on FEMA. I agree they should always have a three day supply, but it's much more than a comparative few that don't, even for a three day supply of drinking water.

Clearing a group of potentially innocent US citizens by their proximity to a shooter, by killing them, is a war time potential, and might be something that a civilian would do opposed to the law, but not a procedure that law enforcement has used to date, per laws as they exist.

They would attempt to take out the shooter, and potentially hit someone else by mistake, but taking out the potential innocent members in the group with a gun is not part of any known legal civil law enforcement procedure that I am aware of.

Rampage killings are extremely rare, and unpredictable, obviously as most every violent crime has been decreasing steadily since the 90's except for this type of violent crime. Easy access to guns and concealed weapons, isn't reducing the frequency of this type of violent crime.

NFL football games have been advertised as gun free zones, for decades, without a single rampage killing, with or without metal detectors. As well as Yoga classes and movie theaters until recently. There is always an avenue of easy targets. Thankfully none have mowed down a group of people in a crowd with a large vehicle yet. But it appears that guns are the weapon of choice, among most rampage killers, to date.

I've read several law enforcements experts suggest that shooting back at the shooter would not have been an appropriate action in this latest particular theater circumstance, and would have likely led to more injuries, but at least in this case, in part, a gun free zone, prevented that type of potential action, as many people seem to express that they would have attempted it, if they had been carrying a weapon.

Hopefully a mistake in a crowd, won't be necessary in the future, to evidence that point.

And as far as concealed weapons, here is one source that suggests that earlier research that suggested states with the right to carry were flawed in suggesting that assault with a weapon actually decreases when right to carry laws are expanded, and there is actually as small increase in that one particular type of crime.

http://news.yahoo.com/could-concealed-handguns-prevented-colo-shooting-212511731.html

Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

30 Jul 2012, 11:58 am

AceOfSpades wrote:

Vigilans wrote:

So... four people shooting from the aisles in the smokey dark while people run and crouch around in panic, lie bleeding, screaming, crying, human carnage lies open upon the ground; versus a killer in black body armor and besides being much more heavily armed than them, is also armed with the cold, unsympathetic and relentless determination that makes his half of the fight that much easier since he does not have to worry about collateral damage? What we are talking about is a battle, and all of the uncertainty that goes into one

Yeah, there's really no telling how it would've gone but I'm willing to bet there would've been major casualties one way or the other. The killer had the element of surprise plus the psychological preparation to carry out violence to such a shocking extent. It's traumatizing for anyone to go through such a situation, so the odds are inherently stacked against the victims.

I think that had there been return fire it would have been an even bloodier massacre. They found the guy outside, calm, and he surrendered without incident. If he had been engaged in a gun fight with cinema patrons, he probably would have stayed inside and exchanged fire with them, and soon after with the police when they showed up; probably fighting to his own death and requiring serious police resources to take him down in the mean time. Additionally the police could fire at the people firing at the shooter in the confusion and wound or kill them by accident

_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do

AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

30 Jul 2012, 1:13 pm

Vigilans wrote:

AceOfSpades wrote:

Vigilans wrote:

It could've easily went one way or the other. They could've scared him off, one guy could've stopped him quickly enough, it could've gotten chaotic with everyone shooting frantically and ending up with collateral damage. Either way, there's so many different possibilities that it's hard to narrow the outcome down to anything. I don't know about the gun control laws in Colorado, but I'm not gonna waste my time using a tragedy to point my finger at the gun control crowd for this tragedy. It's a damn shame it even had to happen, and it disgusts me whenever tragedies are politicized. People say well an issue like this is inherently political, but the problem is whenever anything turns political it becomes a matter of everyone stroking their own egos and pointing their fingers at the outsiders of their "tribe". At that point it isn't even about the incident anymore and very few people have the intellectual honesty to have a real discussion anyways. Tragedies aren't the time or place for egotism or chauvinistic "us and them" mentalities, especially when the same egotism and chauvinism lead the shooter to doing such a thing in the first place.

Politicized tragedies constantly remind me of what tribal s**t slinging degenerates us human beings truly are. Seems like we care more about fueling our self-righteousness than the actual suffering of the victims. Anyways, I'm really f*****g pissed off today and I just got a post deleted so I think I should take a little vacation off this forum for today.

Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

30 Jul 2012, 6:52 pm

aghogday wrote:

Quote:

I said most people can and should prepare in advance, not that they always do.

Quote:

Clearing a group of potentially innocent US citizens by their proximity to a shooter, by killing them, is a war time potential, and might be something that a civilian would do opposed to the law, but not a procedure that law enforcement has used to date, per laws as they exist.
They would attempt to take out the shooter, and potentially hit someone else by mistake, but taking out the potential innocent members in the group with a gun is not part of any known legal civil law enforcement procedure that I am aware of.

Nothing more I can say about this that I haven’t already said. I don’t go along with the idea of a dime holding up a dollar.

Quote:

Rampage killings are extremely rare, and unpredictable, obviously as most every violent crime has been decreasing steadily since the 90's except for this type of violent crime. Easy access to guns and concealed weapons, isn't reducing the frequency of this type of violent crime.

Comparatively rare maybe but still not something to be taken lightly. That massacre at Virginia Tech was in a gun free zone so no one legally was permitted to be armed. The no guns thing didn’t seem to deter Seung-Hui Cho, though, and I’m sure he took the gun free status into account when he decided to launch his shooting spree. He could have possibly been stopped at some point had the rules been different.
No, I’m not saying that pistols should be "handed out like candy" on the campuses but for someone of legal age with a valid CCW and their own pistol I see no issues with it other than imaginary ones the handwringers will always have.

Quote:

NFL football games have been advertised as gun free zones, for decades, without a single rampage killing, with or without metal detectors.

Gun free in name only. All of those people did not leave their gun in the car and any would be shooter knows that. Give it time and someone will fail to consider that.

Quote:

I've read several law enforcements experts suggest that shooting back at the shooter would not have been an appropriate action in this latest particular theater circumstance, and would have likely led to more injuries, but at least in this case, in part, a gun free zone, prevented that type of potential action, as many people seem to express that they would have attempted it, if they had been carrying a weapon.

I never said that anyone was negligent for not shooting back in that theater I said the possibly might have been there (or words to that effect) or maybe not. I wasn’t there so I don’t know. I’ve carried a CCW piece in theaters several times but not necessarily for the viewing rooms themselves.

Quote:

And as far as concealed weapons, here is one source that suggests that earlier research that suggested states with the right to carry were flawed in suggesting that assault with a weapon actually decreases when right to carry laws are expanded, and there is actually as small increase in that one particular type of crime.

I’d be very skeptical of that. There’s also more to consider in crime rates than gun related stuff alone.
It stands to reason that a would be violent criminal will exercise more caution when they don’t know who all is armed, just that some are for a fact armed no matter where they go in public. And those that can’t or don’t consider that risk can die in a pool of their own blood in the mall corridor for all I care.…..
That’s about all I have to say about the above items.

_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson

LKL
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

31 Jul 2012, 12:18 am

AceOfSpades wrote:

LKL wrote:

Hahaha what a joke, Vancouver and Seattle are totally fair comparisons. Never mind that both have a completely different ethnic make up :roll:

Quote:

Kellermann and Sloan glossed over the disparate ethnic compositions of Seattle (12.1% Black and Hispanic; 7.4% Asian) and Vancouver (0.8% Black and Hispanic; 22.1% Asian). The importance? Despite typically higher prevalence of legal gun ownership amongst non-Hispanic-Caucasians in the US, [10] the homicide rate was lower for non-Hispanic-Caucasian Seattle residents (6.2 per 100,000) than for those in adjacent Vancouver, Canada (6.4). Only because the Seattle Black (36.6) and Hispanic (26.9) homicide rates were astronomic could the authors make their claim.[/b] [See Graph 14: "Ethnic and Racial Groups -- Seattle and Vancouver" & Graph 15: "Homicide Rates by Ethnic and Racial Group -- Seattle and Vancouver"]

Could guns have some special evil influence over Blacks and Hispanics, but not others? Hardly! The authors failed to identify the inescapable truth. The roots of inner-city violence lie in the disruption of the family, the breakdown of society, desperate and demoralized poverty, promotion of violence by the media, [47] [48] the profit of the drug trade, the pathology of substance abuse, child abuse, disrespect for authority, and racism -- not in gun ownership.

http://www.rkba.org/research/suter/med-lit.html
For anyone that wants to look even further into the source to see how unscientific studies on guns in medical literature really is, check it out. I love how you just drop a bunch of links without quoting anything or giving any sort of commentary whatsoever. Reeks of ignorance to me. As for suicide rates, ever heard of Japan or South Korea? Hardly anyone owns guns in those countries and yet the suicide rates are astronomically higher than that of the US.

That was a criticism of ONE of the studies I linked. Here is the abstract of that study:

Quote:

Abstract

To investigate the associations among handgun regulations, assault and other crimes, and homicide, we studied robberies, burglaries, assaults, and homicides in Seattle, Washington, and Vancouver, British Columbia, from 1980 through 1986. Although similar to Seattle in many ways, Vancouver has adopted a more restrictive approach to the regulation of handguns. During the study period, both cities had similar rates of burglary and robbery. In Seattle, the annual rate of assault was modestly higher than that in Vancouver (simple assault: relative risk, 1.18; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.15 to 1.20; aggravated assault: relative risk, 1.16; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.12 to 1.19). However, the rate of assaults involving firearms was seven times higher in Seattle than in Vancouver. Despite similar overall rates of criminal activity and assault, the relative risk of death from homicide, adjusted for age and sex, was significantly higher in Seattle than in Vancouver (relative risk, 1.63; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.28 to 2.08). Virtually all of this excess risk was explained by a 4.8-fold higher risk of being murdered with a handgun in Seattle as compared with Vancouver. Rates of homicide by means other than guns were not substantially different in the two study communities. We conclude that restricting access to handguns may reduce the rate of homicide in a community.

Similar levels of crime. More homicide in Seattle. I guess you're claiming that white criminals are just nicer than black criminals?

LKL
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

31 Jul 2012, 12:23 am

nominalist wrote:

AceOfSpades wrote:

No, you never gave any goddamn reasons, all you did was use conclusions to support conclusions, which by definition is circular logic. Ok you didn't literally use the word "trust", but you made it clear that you think most people online who oppose gun control are the type of people who shouldn't have guns so what else am I supposed to infer from that other than mistrust?

Almost your entire posting consists of ad hominem attacks and repetitions of subjects we have already covered. By definition, you have already lost the argument on those grounds alone.

I continued this discussion because I found it mildly entertaining and, hopefully, instructive to others. However, I am now bored.

Nominalist, although I disagree with Ace, my perception is that you were using his normal-for-an-argument antagonism level to use the definitions of logical fallacies to declare victory, rather than actually addressing the fight. You turned the argument into a cockfight between the two of you.
Sorry.

LKL
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

31 Jul 2012, 12:24 am

Vexcalibur wrote:

AceOfSpades wrote:

LKL wrote:

Hahaha what a joke, Vancouver and Seattle are totally fair comparisons. Never mind that both have a completely different ethnic make up :roll:

LKL: Your blunder here was to ignore the rule about Conservation of Ninjutsu As you posted tons of links in a single group. AceOfSpades needed only the effort to dismiss one group instead of 15.

What you should have done is post them one by one.

D'Oh!
Maybe I should repost the abstracts one by one...

LKL
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

31 Jul 2012, 12:33 am

Number 1: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18670666

Quote:

Abstract
OBJECTIVE:

To examine the incidence and patterns of intimate femicide-suicide in South Africa and to describe the factors associated with an increase in the risk of suicide after intimate femicide (i.e. the killing of an intimate female partner).
METHODS:

A cross-sectional retrospective national mortuary-based study was conducted at a proportionate random sample of 25 legal laboratories to identify all homicides committed in 1999 of women aged over 13 years. Data were collected from the mortuary file, autopsy report and a police interview.
FINDINGS:

Among 1349 perpetrators of intimate femicide,19.4% committed suicide within a week of the murder. Suicide after intimate femicide was more likely if the perpetrator was from a white rather than an African racial background (odds ratio, OR: 5.8; 95% confidence interval, CI: 1.21-27.84); was employed as a professional or white-collar worker rather than a blue-collar worker (OR: 37.28; 95% CI: 5.82-238.93); and owned a legal gun rather than not owning a legal gun (OR: 45.26; 95% CI: 8.33-245.

. The attributable fraction shows that 91.5% of the deaths of legal gun-owning perpetrators and their victims may have been averted if this group of perpetrators did not own a legal gun.
CONCLUSION:

South Africa has a rate of intimate femicide-suicide that exceeds reported rates for other countries. This study highlights the public health impact of legal gun ownership in cases of intimate femicide-suicide.

bolding mine.
If you get into a fight with your partner and are so mad that you want to kill him/her, a gun allows you to do so quickly and easily, before the heat of the moment passes.

John_Browning
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range

31 Jul 2012, 1:03 am

LKL wrote:

Number 1: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18670666

Quote:

bolding mine.
If you get into a fight with your partner and are so mad that you want to kill him/her, a gun allows you to do so quickly and easily, before the heat of the moment passes.

If you get into that bad of fights, you should have started counseling a long time ago. Being domestic violence related, it's careless not to investigate substance abuse or even just alcohol consumption at the time. And passion crimes, of all things, tend to be by far the most diverse when it comes to the choice of weapon.

LKL
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

31 Jul 2012, 1:09 am

John_Browning wrote:

LKL wrote:

Number 1: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18670666

Quote:

bolding mine.
If you get into a fight with your partner and are so mad that you want to kill him/her, a gun allows you to do so quickly and easily, before the heat of the moment passes.

I'm pretty sure they have pretty universal access to knives, ropes, etc. in South Africa.
As for couples counseling and substance abuse: Duh. That doesn't change the fact that guns allow you to kill your spouse quickly and easily, and that many people regret it so much that they kill themselves afterward.

John_Browning
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range

31 Jul 2012, 2:36 am

LKL wrote:

Ans that doesn't change the fact that the whole study is an attempt to legitimize the total abdication of personal responsibility.

Shau
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Oct 2009
Age: 165
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,270

31 Jul 2012, 3:07 am

As much as I know guns are a major enabler of psychos and their rampages, people from BOTH sides of the argument need to fully realize that it's the society producing said psychos that's the biggest problem.

You take away the guns from Americans, like literally get rid of them all somehow, and you've only partly solved the problem. It's my belief that guns make it easier to wreak all kinds of havoc, but you'd still have a gunless society full of these people that want to do horrible things to each other, and will simply have to go to greater lengths to do them. Knives, gang bangs, baseball bats, the kind of people that go and shoot other people will use those methods instead, you would get a moderate reduction in incidents of these types of crimes at best, due to them being more difficult.

Or, you might merely remove the mass murder incidents like Colombine and Virginia Tech, but I seem to recall reading that the vast majority of murders do not occur as sprees, but in 1s and 2s.

tl;dr version: Removing the guns from Americans would only partially solve the problem. You gotta fix the society too.

Page 14 of 21 [ 332 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 ... 21 Next

Jump to:

Stop using guns to kill things! Post Reply New Topic

Stop using guns to kill things!