Stop using guns to kill things!

Post Reply New Topic

Tell that to the kid who kicked a gun out of her attacker's hands then flipped him, even though she weighed 100 pounds less than him. Ahahahaha that was me. :I It was scary as s**t that a guy actually pulled a gun on me but I wasn't thinking when I did it.

And also:

Common people sometimes commit crimes because => They can because = > They have guns because => repeat

Back when the right to bear arms was established, they were making "poaching" legal. A rifle made it easy to hunt, and a pistol was nice to have around the house in case you ever got attacked.

Nowadays, not everyone wants to limit themselves to a rifle for hunting deer and a pistol under their mattress in case someone breaks in. They want to carry a pistol under their belt where no one can see it and have a semi-automatic handgun on their mantle. That's excessive. If the government wants to put out a concealed weapons or automatic weapons ban, I'll be all for it.

If everyone had sense of humanity and weren't hostile, or violent, or had the intent to kill on the mind guns would never be needed. Unfortunately such a world does not exist.

What? People get emotional and irrational. Denying that in a context where deaths are involved is not just foolish, but harmful. Hell, even aspies have the occasional melt-down where we behave irrationally for a small period of time. Should we work on that? Of course. Is the world better off if our friends, family, and society recognize that all humans have occasional bursts of irrationality? Yes.

I've had my bad spells (a.k.a. meltdowns) while I've had a loaded pistol ON my person or close at hand often enough.
Guess what? NOTHING HAPPENED involving the guns.
Why? I know the consequences even in the darkest times.....
Is everyone like me in this regard? Probly not but It's not the kind of thing I allow to keep me up nights.
As for the rest of you I suggest you lighten up a little and come to grips with life's unavoidable risks.
And with that I close my involvement in this thread.
Happy trails.

How do you know it's regret? It's not in your link. Over 40 percent of all prisoners in South Africa have HIV/AIDS. The arguably best crime deterrent in the country is the realization of what might happen to you if you go there. It seems logical to me, given what is shown, that these people might have been more concerned about getting AIDS than actually having regret, especially if it is not explicitly stated in the report. Where is it in the report that it is regret and showing it is not the fear of getting AIDS that they do it?

Problem is no one knows what their darker times are going to be in the future. If one has uncontrollable bouts of emotional outbursts, they shouldn't be anywhere close to a loaded gun. If one understands they have uncontrollable bouts of emotional outbursts, and thinks they can predict the future they are mistaken, as no one can accurately predict there future responses to circumstances.

I have no idea what your definition of a meltdown is, but never the less, for those that experience a meltdown that is associated with an uncontrollable emotional outburst, loaded guns can result in deaths, as it is much easier to pull a trigger separated from what will occur after that moment opposed to going through an actual physical act of violence where there is physical contact with another individual. Particularly a loved one.

It is part of the reason why the majority of homicides in domestic violence are a result of the use of a firearm. The heat of the moment and no turning back after the trigger is pulled. People are studied as naturally averse to killing other human beings through actual physical acts of violence. The trigger itself is one of the most effective of killing devices because it separates one from the actual physical assault of violence, per the natural human inclination adverse to killing one in the same species, and the fact that the results of pulling the trigger are so effective in killing the other person.

One doesn't read much about people carrying a concealed weapon and killing their spouse, as it usually happens within the confines of a household, often in an emotional irrational moment of distress, associated with domestic violence. Domestic violence associated with a firearm is 12 times more likely to result in a death, than with any other weapon or use of force. No big surprise as triggers are much easier to pull than other tools of violence and guns are the most dangerous weapon usually found in a home.

But the courts have identified the domestic violence issue and taken appropriate action per the link below as even a misdemeanor conviction of domestic violence prevents one from possessing a gun. The Supreme Court ruling, per the constitution, does not allow one the right to own a gun, if they cannot control their violent impulses in the domestic environment, per a conviction of a misdemeanor offense of domestic violence offenses, defined by the courts.

That law alone in 2009, will likely continue to contribute to the decline of homicides by gun violence in the US. A much larger issue of danger on average of what a person is likely to encounter in real life, per convenience of carrying a concealed weapon, in the general public, particularly for women who are studied to be three times more likely to be killed when a firearm is in the home as compared to homes with no firearms, and women are 5 times more likely to be killed with a firearm by an intimate partner, rather than a stranger.

Could have something to do with women not liking guns quite as much as men, overall, but the victims often don't get an opinion.

And since there are twice as many suicides in the US as homicides, it becomes more than evident that the ownership of a gun is a more dangerous tool of death to the owner than anyone else, particularly men in this case as it often the method used for that act by males. Of course the overwhelming majority of individuals are averse to killing themselves, but guns make a permanent solution, easier per the pull of a trigger opposed to an effort that would require more foresight and action.

Guns can be fun, as well an effective tool for defense, but the potential consequences for those human beings that aren't well in control of their impulses and emotions, can be very risky.

And for those that have extreme problems with their impulses, emotions, or state of mind, easy access to the purchase of very powerful "assault weapons", is a mix evidenced to result in a potential horrifying consequence, of which the only associated factor, evidenced, that can be reliably controlled is the access to the weapons, per legislative control. Cost benefit. The fun, perceived level of safety, and the general love of all types of firearms in the general public, so far close to the last 10 years, outweighs that specific risk, unless the acts become more frequent and that risk becomes more of rational concern for the general public.

Unfortunately, while overall violence against others is not evidenced overall as higher among those with mental disorders, the risk of suicide is higher among individuals with many mental disorders, including Aspergers Syndrome, as close to 90% of suicides are among those with a diagnosable mental disorder. There are other alternatives than guns, but it is often the method used by males, of which there is a 5 to 1 ratio in ASD's. Cost/benefit/risks; staying up at night worrying is not much a benefit to anyone, however making informed choices is. Guns may be fun and comfort for some, but they are always a serious potential tool used for lethal force, warranting serious discussion, associated with issues of life and death.

http://depts.washington.edu/mhreport/facts_suicide.php

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-02-24/justice/suspreme.court.gun.rights_1_domestic-violence-battery-charge-gun-possession?_s=PM:CRIME

http://smartgunlaws.org/the-second-amendment-battleground-victories-in-the-courts/

http://www.freakonomics.com/2011/08/31/new-freakonomics-radio-podcast-the-suicide-paradox

If the world was that civil there would be no issue with buying a Mk.19 grenade launcher off ebay and having it shipped to your door without paperwork or any questions asked! That would be fun as hell fore recreational use! A weapon does not make the world more or less civil. Personally I wouldn't mind only needing guns for sport and recreation but that's not going to happen- especially where I live!

If they have bursts of irrational behavior that result in violence, then they have a responsibility to address it since such problems don't magically appear one day and they have time to address it. If someone has a problem with anger or alcohol or bipolar mania, or anything, they have a responsibility to address that on their own. The government is not their mommy.

The government provides the laws that restrict purchases of guns for those evidenced with these issues as harmful or potentially harmful to others. Per my recent post of issues associated with domestic violence.

Unfortunately per human nature, while the law may provide guidelines for responsibility, some humans are not in control of their actions per any rational standard.

There may come a day where all individuals with diagnosed mental disorders, associated with potential harm to themselves or harm to others, are restricted from purchasing a weapon, which would require release of medical records to the government.

Possessing a weapon is a right that anyone can quickly lose, with a change in evidenced behavior, determined as of significant harm to themselves or others; the Supreme Court can determine where the line is drawn. If one finds them self in a new category that emerges from new boundaries, they lose that legal right, just as those convicted of misdemeanors of domestic violence recently lost their rights to possess firearms.

Although if this happened one could imagine avoiding a diagnosis of a mental disorder at all costs to maintain their rights to their guns.

I doubt such a law could be reasonably passed, because of that one factor.

No doubt the new gun laws, among some gun owners, are a powerful incentive since 2009, to restrain themselves per potential acts of misdemeanor domestic violence. In this case the criminal justice system may not be the mommy or the daddy, but the Supreme Court has definitely put the system into the possession of greater psychological control of the carrot and the stick, in greater control of the potential offense.

It depends. While there are some situations evidenced that guns don't make the world a more or less civilized place to live, they definitely make the world a less civilized place for those subject to domestic violence, per the research that has been done. There is no doubt about this, as women subject to domestic violence are much more likely to be killed where there is a firearm as opposed to a home environment where there is not a firearm.

Guns are a convenient and proven effective killing device where there is the potential for violence, more so as evidenced in comparison to other tools used for killing.

Semi automatic "assault weapons" are a more effective killing machine than regular guns, but not a necessary requirement to effectively kill one person. The question is where does one draw the line for the legal possession of a killing device. Grenade Launcher not allowed, because of potential of numbers of individuals killed as well as destruction of property. Semi automatic "assault weapons" allowed so far, because people have shown themselves responsible enough to use them without too much resulting carnage. Boundaries continue to change depending on levels of carnage, and perceptions of that carnage.

translation: punish, don't prevent.

Number 2:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17070975

Bolding mine.
Not just intimate homicide, but all levels of homicide increase with the prevalence of gun ownership.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLU1praP47k&feature=related[/youtube]

Makes sense that the absence of the most efficient killing tool available for the average citizen to kill other people would be associated with a lower level of homicides in those households where the tool was not readily available. Good study, to provide some evidence, that pulling a trigger is easier overall on average than strangling, stabbing, or beating someone to death, thus resulting in the potential for a greater number of homicides.

More efficient tools usually lead to higher levels of productivity, whether or not the results of the productivity is judged as positive or negative. Ranging from the average number of deaths resulting from a fist fight to a nuclear bomb. Guns on average are the weapon of choice for homicides when available. Should be common sense.

Also, should be common sense that there is less opportunity to kill a large number of human beings at one time by shooting them, if semi automatic "assault weapons", are illegal to purchase, as they too, are more efficient killing machines than most guns that aren't semi automatic.

But again, there is the cost/benefit of the perceived toll of carnage, and how high it must go, to result in that type of legislative change. Sad that perceived carnage, is more important than common sense in steps to mediate the potential for carnage, as human lives are at stake in the cost/benefit of the decision.

But, close to half the country was against health care reform, that will potentially save thousands of lives. The country appears almost too big to come to agreement on whether or not it was a beneficial move to potentially save thousands of lives, so it is not a big surprise that12 dead and 71 injured does not rise to the level of carnage to implement much if any change associated with gun control.

Strong efforts to pass gun control now, could result in a change in election results, there too is a potential cost/benefit decision as to how that might impact the successful health care reform that will likely save thousands of lives. I'm glad I'm not a politician, as there is often no good solutions to problems, that don't harm someone.

I can see why you need exceptions to the law. My maternal grandfather is the only person I know who owns a gun (though actually I'm not sure he owns it any more). He was a farmer and needed a gun to shoot any animals that got in accidents and were otherwise going to die slow, painful deaths. If you lived in a neighbourhood with a rabid dog problem, then you should be allowed to own a gun to shoot the dogs. A blanket ban seems almost as stupid as the near blanket allowance of guns that is currently in the US- sometimes a gun really is necessary. However, those should be exceptions, rather than the rule. Think of it like with knives- most people aren't allowed to carry a sharp knife even for protection or they'll go to prison, but we allow people to carry knives visibly if they need to cut ropes, or if they are high up in the Sikh faith.

That does it...I'm going out THIS WEEK to purchase a nice pocket knife. I've never owned one.

It's hard to weaponize pocket knives, too. They're too hard to open and snap shut after use. If you attack someone with a pocket knife, you have more of a risk of the thing closing on you and cutting your finger down to the bone than you would do actual damage to an attacker. But it does give you an slight advantage if you can wait out an attacker for an opening, or if you're taken captive it's a tool that can help facilitate escape. Not to mention they're just useful for all kinds of things.

They're also collectable and could be used as a bartering tool should the need arise.