Originally posted by popinjay There is not any embellishment in there. But as for you:
Originally posted by daeandor:
If you did ban guns, would those 17,002 suicides by firearms become zero and not fall into another category?
Second, that's a straw man. We are not talking about where the other deaths are going to come from. That suggests that those deaths would have occured either way even without guns. We were talking about all deaths, not just suicides.
There is no way that 700 9-year old kids ...
Sorry, I gotta step in at this point.
The figures at the CDC for 2006, the most recent year the we have data, states that 642 people died that year from accidents involving firearms. That's total. Adult and children. Out of those 642 people, 125 were under, or at, the age of 18. out of those 125 minors, 48 were aged 13 or under. Out of those 48 that hadn't gotten into high school yet, only 31 were age 9 or younger.
That's 48 accidental deaths in a country with 80 MILLION legal gun owners. It's still a tragic number, but given the alarmist tone of your talking points thus far, you'd think that number would be much, much higher than it is. I guess the majority of law abiding gun owners are responsible after all.
So I started to walk into the water. I won't lie to you boys...I was terrified. But I pressed on, and as I made my way past the breakers, a strange calm came over me. I don't know if it was divine intervention or the kinship of all living things, but I tell you, Jerry, at that moment ... I was a marine biologist.
As for the argument that we have a military and police to protect us.... At the end of the day, the barber shaves his own face.
Gameloading is trying to push the very European viewpoint that "our betters" should be making our decisions for us. The basic assumption is that the leaders of state are granted with some kind of divine insight the rest of us plebs are bereft of and are therefore more qualified than "Joe Average." In a democracy, even a representational democracy such as ours, the leaders are taken from the general populous. There are more than a few congressmen that started out life as factory workers, plumbers, construction laborers, etc.
Don't get me wrong, I found Plato's The Republic to be great overview of the primitive politics of a dead empire. But we need to keep the idea of a ruling elite buried with the Greeks and Romans that came up with the idea.
Making decisions about gun laws and having the responsibility of a gun are two entirely different things. If you hand out guns only to people who
1: Have proven themselves to be capable of having the responsibility of a firearm. Think Ex - police officers
Meh... not so much...
Do a search for the number of active police that have been arrested for domestic violence over the past year. These guy beat the shit out of their wives and children, yet we let them carry firearms while on duty. Sound like a good idea to you?
What's even more fucked up is that where the population has dared to suggest that these people either not be allowed to carry a weapon at all or removed from service, the local police force closes up ranks and talk about horrible it is that we would even THINK about disarming these wife beating bastards! More fucked up still, the whole issue usually blows over and get forgotten with these assholes still walking around with a gun AND a badge.
AND
2: Are an endangered group
What? Like pandas?
So only black people and Native Americans should be allowed to carry guns?
I just want some clarification here.
Then there is no talk of responsibility, Only logic. I also love how you continue to call it an "European viewpoint", as if that somehow takes away my credibility. It's a viewpoint many Americans, as well as people all over the world, have as well.
Then let's just call it an "old" European viewpoint due to the backward nature of the thing. I realize that most European countries have taken great strides toward democracy over the last couple of hundred years so I apologize for not being clearer.
To put it exactly the way that I meant it: You are advocating an elitist, old world mentality that has no place in any meaningful discussion regarding a truly free and independent Nation or the citizenry thereof.
Originally posted by Jimmy_Scythe Originally posted by popinjay There is not any embellishment in there. But as for you: Originally posted by daeandor:
If you did ban guns, would those 17,002 suicides by firearms become zero and not fall into another category?
Second, that's a straw man. We are not talking about where the other deaths are going to come from. That suggests that those deaths would have occured either way even without guns. We were talking about all deaths, not just suicides.
There is no way that 700 9-year old kids ...
Sorry, I gotta step in at this point. The figures at the CDC for 2006, the most recent year the we have data, states that 642 people died that year from accidents involving firearms. That's total. Adult and children. Out of those 642 people, 125 were under, or at, the age of 18. out of those 125 minors, 48 were aged 13 or under. Out of those 48 that hadn't gotten into high school yet, only 31 were age 9 or younger. That's 48 accidental deaths in a country with 80 MILLION legal gun owners. It's still a tragic number, but given the alarmist tone of your talking points thus far, you'd think that number would be much, much higher than it is. I guess the majority of law abiding gun owners are responsible after all. Who'd have guessed. Here's the point I keep trying to make to you.
Do we even need one needless death involving a handgun when it could have been prevented? I have no idea why you are perfectly comfortable with children's needless deaths that can easily be prevented by one act.
Does the fact that only 48 accidental as you say, and by the way that's not accidental deaths, let's call them what they are: negligent gun deaths, justify selling guns? An accident assumes there was no one at fault and this clearly is not the case. As any good lawyer knows, there is NO such thing as an accident. Then tack on the murders. Then tack on the crime that happened through easy gun purchases. I think Mexico gives a good argument for gun control... from the United States.
Correct. It's like when someone drowns. We don't ban all swimwear and shut off the town water supply just to make sure it doesn't happen again.
In one hand I have an apple. In the other, I have an orange. I wonder if you can tell the difference.
So I started to walk into the water. I won't lie to you boys...I was terrified. But I pressed on, and as I made my way past the breakers, a strange calm came over me. I don't know if it was divine intervention or the kinship of all living things, but I tell you, Jerry, at that moment ... I was a marine biologist.
As for the argument that we have a military and police to protect us.... At the end of the day, the barber shaves his own face.
Gameloading is trying to push the very European viewpoint that "our betters" should be making our decisions for us. The basic assumption is that the leaders of state are granted with some kind of divine insight the rest of us plebs are bereft of and are therefore more qualified than "Joe Average." In a democracy, even a representational democracy such as ours, the leaders are taken from the general populous. There are more than a few congressmen that started out life as factory workers, plumbers, construction laborers, etc.
Don't get me wrong, I found Plato's The Republic to be great overview of the primitive politics of a dead empire. But we need to keep the idea of a ruling elite buried with the Greeks and Romans that came up with the idea.
Making decisions about gun laws and having the responsibility of a gun are two entirely different things. If you hand out guns only to people who
1: Have proven themselves to be capable of having the responsibility of a firearm. Think Ex - police officers
Meh... not so much...
Do a search for the number of active police that have been arrested for domestic violence over the past year. These guy beat the shit out of their wives and children, yet we let them carry firearms while on duty. Sound like a good idea to you?
What's even more fucked up is that where the population has dared to suggest that these people either not be allowed to carry a weapon at all or removed from service, the local police force closes up ranks and talk about horrible it is that we would even THINK about disarming these wife beating bastards! More fucked up still, the whole issue usually blows over and get forgotten with these assholes still walking around with a gun AND a badge.
This is a very, VERY small percentage of the police force. Bad apples are part of any group of people
AND
2: Are an endangered group
What? Like pandas?
So only black people and Native Americans should be allowed to carry guns?
I just want some clarification here.
Going back to my police officers example once more, Police officers often build up grudges with criminals or criminal organizations. The people and their families are at a much higher risk than, say, a plumber
Then there is no talk of responsibility, Only logic. I also love how you continue to call it an "European viewpoint", as if that somehow takes away my credibility. It's a viewpoint many Americans, as well as people all over the world, have as well.
Then let's just call it an "old" European viewpoint due to the backward nature of the thing. I realize that most European countries have taken great strides toward democracy over the last couple of hundred years so I apologize for not being clearer.
To put it exactly the way that I meant it: You are advocating an elitist, old world mentality that has no place in any meaningful discussion regarding a truly free and independent Nation or the citizenry thereof.
You savvy?
eh backwards nature? Weapon control is actually a fairly new thing. Heck, back in the medieval days there wasn't even "sword control", people were free to carry weapons. Gun control became more and more popular as it became more and more evident that it was unnecessary.
It's actually you thats promoting an old world mentality. "Having guns to protect yourself from teh governmenz!!11" is something that might be possible 200 years ago, but with well armed military of today, it's just pointless. Pro gun (heck, Pro weaponry) is probably as old as humanity itself and is an outdated concept that has no place in a modern society.
As I already mentioned, "Freedom" only brings you so far. If you just keep saying "Freedom is more important than XX" you're promoting an Anarchy.
I hope you remember your statement when they put you into a death camp later next year.
Here come de gub'mint, gonna gitcha!
So I started to walk into the water. I won't lie to you boys...I was terrified. But I pressed on, and as I made my way past the breakers, a strange calm came over me. I don't know if it was divine intervention or the kinship of all living things, but I tell you, Jerry, at that moment ... I was a marine biologist.
Originally posted by popinjay There is not any embellishment in there. But as for you:
Originally posted by daeandor:
If you did ban guns, would those 17,002 suicides by firearms become zero and not fall into another category?
Second, that's a straw man. We are not talking about where the other deaths are going to come from. That suggests that those deaths would have occured either way even without guns. We were talking about all deaths, not just suicides.
There is no way that 700 9-year old kids ...
Sorry, I gotta step in at this point.
The figures at the CDC for 2006, the most recent year the we have data, states that 642 people died that year from accidents involving firearms. That's total. Adult and children. Out of those 642 people, 125 were under, or at, the age of 18. out of those 125 minors, 48 were aged 13 or under. Out of those 48 that hadn't gotten into high school yet, only 31 were age 9 or younger.
That's 48 accidental deaths in a country with 80 MILLION legal gun owners. It's still a tragic number, but given the alarmist tone of your talking points thus far, you'd think that number would be much, much higher than it is. I guess the majority of law abiding gun owners are responsible after all.
Who'd have guessed.
Here's the point I keep trying to make to you.
Do we even need one needless death involving a handgun when it could have been prevented? I have no idea why you are perfectly comfortable with children's needless deaths that can easily be prevented by one act.
Wait. Let me edit that last paragraph and see if it still makes sense for you.
Do we even need one needless death involving alcohol when it could have been prevented? I have no idea why you are perfectly comfortable with children's needless deaths that can easily be prevented by one act.
Does your argument still make sense? Shouldn't we prevent the death of even a single child by outlawing alcohol? I believe we tried doing that once. Question: Did prohibition end the problems associated with alcohol or magnify those problems? It's the same deal with guns.
Does the fact that only 48 accidental as you say, and by the way that's not accidental deaths, let's call them what they are: negligent gun deaths, justify selling guns?
Once again, Tobacco and Alcohol kill more people, many of them children in the US than firearms do. Yet tobacco and alcohol are legal for anyone of the appropriate age. By your logic, these things should be banned completely. But I don't see you advocating a second prohibition.
An accident assumes there was no one at fault and this clearly is not the case. As any good lawyer knows, there is NO such thing as an accident.
And that's not just because the make a living off of proving fault whether it existed or not. I'm sure that if someone gets struck by lightening some ambulance chaser would find someone to bleed money off of. That doesn't change the fact that in some cases you can do everything right and shit still goes wrong. We are human and occasional shit happens that no one could have seen coming even though we can trace the whole scenario after the fact. Are you suggesting that humans shouldn't be allowed to make decisions at all. Where are we going to find a higher evolved being to take care of then?
... One that actually speaks to us directly I mean.
Then tack on the murders. Then tack on the crime that happened through easy gun purchases.
Murder is illegal and hardly requires a gun. The ease of acquiring a gun is the same as acquiring narcotics. As long as there is an underground market that supplies these things to criminals, then criminals will get them. Criminals would be completely unaffected by a ban on guns so it doesn't make any sense to argue that such ban would deter gun crime.
Only law abiding people would be affected by a gun ban and you have yet to explain to me how they would be more safe without guns in comparison to, oh.... say... power tools or even.... a swimming pool. Both of which kill more children a year than firearms.
I think Mexico gives a good argument for gun control... from the United States.
Last time I checked, firearms were completely illegal for Mexican citizens. DOH!!!
Wait. Let me edit that last paragraph and see if it still makes sense for you. Do we even need one needless death involving alcohol when it could have been prevented? I have no idea why you are perfectly comfortable with children's needless deaths that can easily be prevented by one act. Does your argument still make sense?
If you wish to change the conditions of the post to make a different argument after its been presented, you are welcome to it. That's your right, its your post and you made it. I will not stop you from changing things around to suit your point and argue things that are not related to gun deaths.
Tobacco, alcohol, autos are not the discussion. Guns are and how we can stop guns from proliferating in the United States legally. That's what we are trying to discuss. Clouding the issue and throwing in stuff from Walmart is always cute, but it serves to do nothing but debase the point.
The vast overwhelming majority of people that own guns in the United States don't NEED them, they just WANT them. That is no reason to make guns available. There are only so many people that need guns on a daily basis or in their line of employment, and all of those people are highly trained professionals, not Rebel flag waving yahoos who leave guns out so their 7 year old kids kill themselves while still arguing gun rights. It's just plain nutty.
Gun limitations and banning WILL lower the death rate by firearms, its just simple math. Less guns, less deaths... negligent homicides or otherwise. That alone far outweighs some yahoo drinking beer and plinking plates. I see no merit or redeeming quality in the allowance of such individuals owning guns. But you cannot discriminate against that sadsack, so I am fair enough to say that everyone should be barred from buying weapons.
As for the argument that we have a military and police to protect us.... At the end of the day, the barber shaves his own face.
Gameloading is trying to push the very European viewpoint that "our betters" should be making our decisions for us. The basic assumption is that the leaders of state are granted with some kind of divine insight the rest of us plebs are bereft of and are therefore more qualified than "Joe Average." In a democracy, even a representational democracy such as ours, the leaders are taken from the general populous. There are more than a few congressmen that started out life as factory workers, plumbers, construction laborers, etc.
Don't get me wrong, I found Plato's The Republic to be great overview of the primitive politics of a dead empire. But we need to keep the idea of a ruling elite buried with the Greeks and Romans that came up with the idea.
Making decisions about gun laws and having the responsibility of a gun are two entirely different things. If you hand out guns only to people who
1: Have proven themselves to be capable of having the responsibility of a firearm. Think Ex - police officers
Meh... not so much...
Do a search for the number of active police that have been arrested for domestic violence over the past year. These guy beat the shit out of their wives and children, yet we let them carry firearms while on duty. Sound like a good idea to you?
What's even more fucked up is that where the population has dared to suggest that these people either not be allowed to carry a weapon at all or removed from service, the local police force closes up ranks and talk about horrible it is that we would even THINK about disarming these wife beating bastards! More fucked up still, the whole issue usually blows over and get forgotten with these assholes still walking around with a gun AND a badge.
This is a very, VERY small percentage of the police force. Bad apples are part of any group of people
AND
2: Are an endangered group
What? Like pandas?
So only black people and Native Americans should be allowed to carry guns?
I just want some clarification here.
Going back to my police officers example once more, Police officers often build up grudges with criminals or criminal organizations. The people and their families are at a much higher risk than, say, a plumber
Then there is no talk of responsibility, Only logic. I also love how you continue to call it an "European viewpoint", as if that somehow takes away my credibility. It's a viewpoint many Americans, as well as people all over the world, have as well.
Then let's just call it an "old" European viewpoint due to the backward nature of the thing. I realize that most European countries have taken great strides toward democracy over the last couple of hundred years so I apologize for not being clearer.
To put it exactly the way that I meant it: You are advocating an elitist, old world mentality that has no place in any meaningful discussion regarding a truly free and independent Nation or the citizenry thereof.
You savvy?
eh backwards nature? Weapon control is actually a fairly new thing. Heck, back in the medieval days there wasn't even "sword control", people were free to carry weapons. Gun control became more and more popular as it became more and more evident that it was unnecessary.
Uh, no. During the low middle ages murder wasn't even considered a crime so long as you weren't killing someone above your station. In all other respects, murder was considered a respectable means to defend one's "honor." In the high middle ages, certain nobles would ban the carrying of edged weaponry at their social events to prevent anything more deadly than a fist fight from breaking out. If you really study history, you'll find that murder was much more common in the middle ages, before the widespread adoption of guns, than it is today.
Most of the early laws prohibiting firearms had to do with poaching. As time, and war, carried on there was the added element that a peasant with an arquebus could kill a full blooded noble in full plate armour! It's the same kind of scandalous thing that happened in the Hundred Years War when common English Longbowmen were killing wealthy and well bred knights.
It had nothing to do with guns be unnecessary. It had everything to do with putting the serfs in their place.
It's actually you thats promoting an old world mentality. "Having guns to protect yourself from teh governmenz!!11" is something that might be possible 200 years ago, but with well armed military of today, it's just pointless. Pro gun (heck, Pro weaponry) is probably as old as humanity itself and is an outdated concept that has no place in a modern society.
You're assessment of me as a member of the tinfoil hat brigade is mildly amusing. Defending myself from the government would be as stupid as running from a pissed off midget. The government can barely deliver the mail. You tell me that people are too stupid to be trusted with guns, but I'm afraid that the government is far to stupid to have possesion of all the guns.
And don't think that I'm some objectivist corporate whore either. The free market may move a little faster than the government, but it is only put in check by it's own cannibalistic greed. Adam Smith's invisible hand was merely the fact that if you get too greedy and corrupt in a free market, someone else will cut off the arm that you over-reached with before proceeding to chop off your head.
I half ass'd agree with the "God favors the bigger army bit," but I remember event like Custer's last stand, Stalingrad and an African war leader by the name of Shaka Zulu. There are other advantages than material and war is more complicated than statistics would have you believe. But that's an entirely different, and more interesting topic.
As I already mentioned, "Freedom" only brings you so far. If you just keep saying "Freedom is more important than XX" you're promoting an Anarchy.
Not exactly. There is a golden mean and I think you err to far on the side of discretion. You have to look at this issue and, honestly, ask if anything would be accomplished by outright ban. After hearing all the arguments, looking at history pouring over statistics, I'm unconvinced that a wholesale ban on firearms will accomplish a damn thing. Nothing that any anti-gun advocate has said logically contradicts that conclusion.
As for the argument that we have a military and police to protect us.... At the end of the day, the barber shaves his own face.
Gameloading is trying to push the very European viewpoint that "our betters" should be making our decisions for us. The basic assumption is that the leaders of state are granted with some kind of divine insight the rest of us plebs are bereft of and are therefore more qualified than "Joe Average." In a democracy, even a representational democracy such as ours, the leaders are taken from the general populous. There are more than a few congressmen that started out life as factory workers, plumbers, construction laborers, etc.
Don't get me wrong, I found Plato's The Republic to be great overview of the primitive politics of a dead empire. But we need to keep the idea of a ruling elite buried with the Greeks and Romans that came up with the idea.
Making decisions about gun laws and having the responsibility of a gun are two entirely different things. If you hand out guns only to people who
1: Have proven themselves to be capable of having the responsibility of a firearm. Think Ex - police officers
Meh... not so much...
Do a search for the number of active police that have been arrested for domestic violence over the past year. These guy beat the shit out of their wives and children, yet we let them carry firearms while on duty. Sound like a good idea to you?
What's even more fucked up is that where the population has dared to suggest that these people either not be allowed to carry a weapon at all or removed from service, the local police force closes up ranks and talk about horrible it is that we would even THINK about disarming these wife beating bastards! More fucked up still, the whole issue usually blows over and get forgotten with these assholes still walking around with a gun AND a badge.
This is a very, VERY small percentage of the police force. Bad apples are part of any group of people
AND
2: Are an endangered group
What? Like pandas?
So only black people and Native Americans should be allowed to carry guns?
I just want some clarification here.
Going back to my police officers example once more, Police officers often build up grudges with criminals or criminal organizations. The people and their families are at a much higher risk than, say, a plumber
Then there is no talk of responsibility, Only logic. I also love how you continue to call it an "European viewpoint", as if that somehow takes away my credibility. It's a viewpoint many Americans, as well as people all over the world, have as well.
Then let's just call it an "old" European viewpoint due to the backward nature of the thing. I realize that most European countries have taken great strides toward democracy over the last couple of hundred years so I apologize for not being clearer.
To put it exactly the way that I meant it: You are advocating an elitist, old world mentality that has no place in any meaningful discussion regarding a truly free and independent Nation or the citizenry thereof.
You savvy?
eh backwards nature? Weapon control is actually a fairly new thing. Heck, back in the medieval days there wasn't even "sword control", people were free to carry weapons. Gun control became more and more popular as it became more and more evident that it was unnecessary.
Uh, no. During the low middle ages murder wasn't even considered a crime so long as you weren't killing someone above your station. In all other respects, murder was considered a respectable means to defend one's "honor." In the high middle ages, certain nobles would ban the carrying of edged weaponry at their social events to prevent anything more deadly than a fist fight from breaking out. If you really study history, you'll find that murder was much more common in the middle ages, before the widespread adoption of guns, than it is today.
Most of the early laws prohibiting firearms had to do with poaching. As time, and war, carried on there was the added element that a peasant with an arquebus could kill a full blooded noble in full plate armour! It's the same kind of scandalous thing that happened in the Hundred Years War when common English Longbowmen were killing wealthy and well bred knights.
It had nothing to do with guns be unnecessary. It had everything to do with putting the serfs in their place.
My whole point was that it's actually a lack of gun control that is an oldworld mentality. Just as we got rid of the criminal system of that day and age, we also move away from having everybody armed.
It's actually you thats promoting an old world mentality. "Having guns to protect yourself from teh governmenz!!11" is something that might be possible 200 years ago, but with well armed military of today, it's just pointless. Pro gun (heck, Pro weaponry) is probably as old as humanity itself and is an outdated concept that has no place in a modern society.
You're assessment of me as a member of the tinfoil hat brigade is mildly amusing. Defending myself from the government would be as stupid as running from a pissed off midget. The government can barely deliver the mail. You tell me that people are too stupid to be trusted with guns, but I'm afraid that the government is far to stupid to have possesion of all the guns.
And yet it's not going to change anything.If the governments wants you dead, you're going to be dead no matter how many weapons you have. This makes the whole arguement in favor of pro gun completely pointless. You may not trust the goverment to have possession of "All the guns". Thats fine, but handing you a gun does not change anything.
As I already mentioned, "Freedom" only brings you so far. If you just keep saying "Freedom is more important than XX" you're promoting an Anarchy.
Not exactly. There is a golden mean and I think you err to far on the side of discretion. You have to look at this issue and, honestly, ask if anything would be accomplished by outright ban. After hearing all the arguments, looking at history pouring over statistics, I'm unconvinced that a wholesale ban on firearms will accomplish a damn thing. Nothing that any anti-gun advocate has said logically contradicts that conclusion.
I think it's quite obvious what a ban would accomplish. Heck, a huge majority of people get into huge physical fights over irrelevant things such as a football match, and you want to actually arm these people with guns?
I think it's quite obvious what a ban would accomplish. Heck, a huge majority of people get into huge physical fights over irrelevant things such as a football match, and you want to actually arm these people with guns?
That is asking for problems.
Wow! that's a lot better. Still looks like you're posting from the other end of a long tunnel though....
Not everyone on earth is a soccer hooligan. I think you have a warped view of the human race if you believe that. Given, with media pumping violent imagery into you brain constantly it's only natural to believe that the real wold is much more dangerous than it really is.
Think about this for a minute: It only takes about a three inch penetration in the right spot to kill someone by stabbing. How hard do you think it would be for one of the soccer hooligans in your example to sneak in a three inch lockblade. In that crowd, in that chaos, how many people do you think a hooligan armed with such a weapon could injur or kill?
Now for the big question:
Why hasn't that happened? Why hasn't someone walked through Grand Central Station and just started discretely stabbing people in the back over, and over again? Knives are cheaper and easier to get your hands on. Knives are just as deadly and easy to use in the right situation. Why hasn't this happened?
I personally believe that it hasn't happened because most people are decent human beings. The spree killers and lone gunmen that you cite for your example are a very rare, and completely insane, breed apart from the rest of us. If we restrict rights because an insane or criminal person may abuse those rights, then we will soon find ourselves without any rights. We have to assume that individuals are responsible until they prove otherwise. Treating all of your citizens like potential Ted Bundys is the antithesis of freedom.
To sum up: There is no harm in allowing an average person to own firearms. The harm is not identifying and monitoring those individuals that are of less than sound mind or with a history of extreme violence. It is much more reasonable to keep track of, and restrict, the handful of nutjobs that absolutely are a threat than to try to regulate the behavior of everyone.
And you too are embellishing, pop. If you were to ban guns, would it turn that 30,694 number into a zero?
Did I claim that it would turn the number into a zero? If I said it would, then that would be embellishment. I said no such thing. An embellishment is the claim, not you putting words into my mouth as a claim. In fact, if you had read my comment to an earlier poster, I said quite the opposite of what you are suggesting:
I posted:
Of course some guns always get through to criminals, that's with anything in life. But it would limit the irresponsible behaviour of most citizens in the United States. You were quick to cite one case of a man in Scotland I see. But you know, that case popped up in your mind right away because that simply doesn't happen a lot because of the guns laws there.
There is not any embellishment in there. But as for you:
Originally posted by daeandor:
If you did ban guns, would those 17,002 suicides by firearms become zero and not fall into another category?
Second, that's a straw man. We are not talking about where the other deaths are going to come from. That suggests that those deaths would have occured either way even without guns. We were talking about all deaths, not just suicides.
There is no way that 700 9-year old kids are going to get their parents keys, get in the car with their friend and go down the interstate and accidentally kill themselves. You cannot even suggest that a accidental gun death by a 9 year old was simply "Fate" and that that death would have mysteriously popped up in some other place to keep the chi flowing in the circle of life and end up in another category.
Also, a gun suicide is most popular because it's a thing of convience. Pills are not reliable. Someone driving off a bridge isn't reliable. Knives certainly aren't. Guns are probably the most reliable form of suicide available to man. And if you have a gun, it's the quickest and most convienient form the average gun owner has.
You on the other hand, are certainly embellishing about me embellishing.
You say I use a straw man when you are using a circular argument? Please. You directly implied that banning guns would eliminate gun related suicide. However, you know nothing about suicide. If you claim to in response, it is a feeble attempt to deflect what I said. And although you won't trust me, I have intimate knowledge through discussions with people who have failed at suicide and those that want to commit suicide, do so quite effectively regardless of whether there is a gun around. So, from my experience, it's not a straw man to suggest that a person who would commit suicide with a gun would find any means necessary to do so in the absence of a gun. You do realize that many people who are suicidal actually get legal DNRs? So that if they fail using their alternate means (other than a gun) and are taken to a hospital, they are not revived?
Second, you talk like every gun owner has several irresponsible acts that they are predetermined to make, when that is completely baseless. You act as though guns cannot be used for any good, when again that is baseless. You, as usual are talking out your rear about something you honestly know nothing more than what the anti-gun crowd has fed to you.
Third, I didn't bring up anything about Scottland and have no clue what you are talking about. I'm sorry if I don't read every fricking post in a forum before replying, however, unlike some of the professional forum hacks we have here, I do have things to do in my life.
Lastly, you didn't address but one of my questions, and not even the most serious one.
You say I use a straw man when you are using a circular argument? Please. Of course you did. I said nothing about turning numbers into a zero. If you get that inference, that is your view. You certainly claimed I embellished when you were guilty of it yourself in the "proving". But suggesting these suicides or negligent child deaths would have happened either way no matter what is quite presumptive and worthy of Madame Zenobia, the Soothsayer and her ratbone rolling, future predictions. You directly implied that banning guns would eliminate gun related suicide. However, you know nothing about suicide. If you claim to in response, it is a feeble attempt to deflect what I said.I didn't claim to know about suicide. There you go again, lol. I posted links to several sites regarding suicide data. If you have a problem with the accuracy of it, shouldn't you be trying to rebut it with the author? I believe the data of the CDC and others I linked to be accurate. I'm sorry you do not. And although you won't trust me, I have intimate knowledge through discussions with people who have failed at suicide and those that want to commit suicide, do so quite effectively regardless of whether there is a gun around. So, from my experience, it's not a straw man to suggest that a person who would commit suicide with a gun would find any means necessary to do so in the absence of a gun. You do realize that many people who are suicidal actually get legal DNRs? So that if they fail using their alternate means (other than a gun) and are taken to a hospital, they are not revived?Ok, so let's see how this works: People are supposed to "trust" you that you are a suicide authority and everything you say isn't to be challenged at all but taken on face as gospel, yet in this and many other threads you constantly discount when someone says something because you don't give them the benefit of the doubt and "trust them", as you say? Are you claiming that you appear to be one of the few person in the United States that has "intimate knowledge" with people who think about and want to commit suicide, and are an authority to be taken as such? That must be quite a burden.
Second, you talk like every gun owner has several irresponsible acts that they are predetermined to make, when that is completely baseless. You act as though guns cannot be used for any good, when again that is baseless. You, as usual are talking out your rear about something you honestly know nothing more than what the anti-gun crowd has fed to you.Thank you again for saying I said something I did not. I did not suggest every gun owner has several irresponsible acts they are predetermined to make. You really love to keep putting words into people's arguments, don't you? Many law enforcement personnel ARE gun owners and I do not believe they are "predetermined" as you say. Why? Training... and lots of it. Average gun owner? None. People with many hours of PROFESSIONAL training are way less likely to commit "predetermined irresponsible" gun acts than someone who has bupkis or given by Billybob Kenthartleyspell his uncle, over beers. I don't know how you'd want to argue against that.
Third, I didn't bring up anything about Scottland and have no clue what you are talking about. That's because you havent' been following the WHOLE thread but are laserlike on me. While I'm flattered, you lose the valuable perspective you need to make a cogent discussion here. Go back and reread the thread when until you get to the post about Scotland and my remarks on it. That should put it into proper context.I'm sorry if I don't read every fricking post in a forum before replying, however, unlike some of the professional forum hacks we have here, I do have things to do in my life.
Lastly, you didn't address but one of my questions, and not even the most serious one Sorry, I didn't realize this was a public inquiry. I thought it was a discussion where people were free to choose what they respond to. If you have particular questions you want answered in that format, label them with numbers and I'll try to do my best to answer. Until then, if I didn't answer it, it's probably because it wasn't hidden among a mishmash of nonsensical opinion..
pop, i suggest you think a little harder about what you write then. You imply one thing in one post and then completely deny it in the next. Are you sure you aren't declaredemer's pseudonym?
Originally posted by daeandor pop, i suggest you think a little harder about what you write then. You imply one thing in one post and then completely deny it in the next. Are you sure you aren't declaredemer's pseudonym?
Well, I'm confident you are wrong, but I guess based on your expertise well just have to "trust you explicitly" on that one, right?
Anyways, it was a interesting thread. I feel confident that with just a few more whacko incidents in the United States in the coming years, President Obama and the Federal government will have no choice but to put such restrictions on guns as to make the effort not worth it, or ban them outright.
The right exists to ban sales of guns due to emergent circumstances by the United States in the country and based on the growing right wing rhetoric, that day is fast approaching. Unfortunately based on growing talk of revolution and armed struggle from within the United State's many militia organizations and shootings of publicly elected judges and officials, I see nothing coming but escalation of hostilities.
I hope things turn out different, but too many people push this point on "freedom" for entertainment value without realizing that many of these gun purchasers are mentally unbalanced citizens who stockpile guns, ammo, food and water for either Armageddeon, the Rapture or a coming race war by their own admission.
Pages 78 & 79 if you want specifics on total deaths for US residents in 2005 (latest information)
Sorry, that's not car suicide deaths, although you seem to think they are. he said car suicides.
Obviously you did not read it correctly. "Last I checked, cars kill several magnitudes more folks in this country than guns do... and most of those are suicides."
It's called a CONTEXT clue. The point was: Cars kill more people than guns do; Most gun deaths are suicides. Which Is a completely true statement that is statistically backed in the source YOU provided. Don't try to make me look like an ass when you are the one who cannot derive SIMPLE context clues.
Comments
Second, that's a straw man. We are not talking about where the other deaths are going to come from. That suggests that those deaths would have occured either way even without guns. We were talking about all deaths, not just suicides.There is no way that 700 9-year old kids ...
Sorry, I gotta step in at this point.
The figures at the CDC for 2006, the most recent year the we have data, states that 642 people died that year from accidents involving firearms. That's total. Adult and children. Out of those 642 people, 125 were under, or at, the age of 18. out of those 125 minors, 48 were aged 13 or under. Out of those 48 that hadn't gotten into high school yet, only 31 were age 9 or younger.
That's 48 accidental deaths in a country with 80 MILLION legal gun owners. It's still a tragic number, but given the alarmist tone of your talking points thus far, you'd think that number would be much, much higher than it is. I guess the majority of law abiding gun owners are responsible after all.
Who'd have guessed.
So let me get this straight.
Isolated, rare incidents like this one are why we DON'T need gun control.
But isolated, rare incidents like the one I posted in this thread:
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/235692/Nah-we-dont-need-to-worry-about-guns.html
Are just unavoidable.
So I started to walk into the water. I won't lie to you boys...I was terrified. But I pressed on, and as I made my way past the breakers, a strange calm came over me. I don't know if it was divine intervention or the kinship of all living things, but I tell you, Jerry, at that moment ... I was a marine biologist.
Gameloading is trying to push the very European viewpoint that "our betters" should be making our decisions for us. The basic assumption is that the leaders of state are granted with some kind of divine insight the rest of us plebs are bereft of and are therefore more qualified than "Joe Average." In a democracy, even a representational democracy such as ours, the leaders are taken from the general populous. There are more than a few congressmen that started out life as factory workers, plumbers, construction laborers, etc.
Don't get me wrong, I found Plato's The Republic to be great overview of the primitive politics of a dead empire. But we need to keep the idea of a ruling elite buried with the Greeks and Romans that came up with the idea.
Making decisions about gun laws and having the responsibility of a gun are two entirely different things. If you hand out guns only to people who
1: Have proven themselves to be capable of having the responsibility of a firearm. Think Ex - police officers
Meh... not so much...
Do a search for the number of active police that have been arrested for domestic violence over the past year. These guy beat the shit out of their wives and children, yet we let them carry firearms while on duty. Sound like a good idea to you?
What's even more fucked up is that where the population has dared to suggest that these people either not be allowed to carry a weapon at all or removed from service, the local police force closes up ranks and talk about horrible it is that we would even THINK about disarming these wife beating bastards! More fucked up still, the whole issue usually blows over and get forgotten with these assholes still walking around with a gun AND a badge.
AND
2: Are an endangered group
What? Like pandas?
So only black people and Native Americans should be allowed to carry guns?
I just want some clarification here.
Then there is no talk of responsibility, Only logic. I also love how you continue to call it an "European viewpoint", as if that somehow takes away my credibility. It's a viewpoint many Americans, as well as people all over the world, have as well.
Then let's just call it an "old" European viewpoint due to the backward nature of the thing. I realize that most European countries have taken great strides toward democracy over the last couple of hundred years so I apologize for not being clearer.
To put it exactly the way that I meant it: You are advocating an elitist, old world mentality that has no place in any meaningful discussion regarding a truly free and independent Nation or the citizenry thereof.
You savvy?
Correct. It's like when someone drowns. We don't ban all swimwear and shut off the town water supply just to make sure it doesn't happen again.
"If you can't out wit them, report them till they're banned!"- PopinJ'
There is no way that 700 9-year old kids ...
Sorry, I gotta step in at this point.
The figures at the CDC for 2006, the most recent year the we have data, states that 642 people died that year from accidents involving firearms. That's total. Adult and children. Out of those 642 people, 125 were under, or at, the age of 18. out of those 125 minors, 48 were aged 13 or under. Out of those 48 that hadn't gotten into high school yet, only 31 were age 9 or younger.
That's 48 accidental deaths in a country with 80 MILLION legal gun owners. It's still a tragic number, but given the alarmist tone of your talking points thus far, you'd think that number would be much, much higher than it is. I guess the majority of law abiding gun owners are responsible after all.
Who'd have guessed.
Here's the point I keep trying to make to you.
Do we even need one needless death involving a handgun when it could have been prevented? I have no idea why you are perfectly comfortable with children's needless deaths that can easily be prevented by one act.
Does the fact that only 48 accidental as you say, and by the way that's not accidental deaths, let's call them what they are: negligent gun deaths, justify selling guns? An accident assumes there was no one at fault and this clearly is not the case. As any good lawyer knows, there is NO such thing as an accident. Then tack on the murders. Then tack on the crime that happened through easy gun purchases. I think Mexico gives a good argument for gun control... from the United States.
"TO MICHAEL!"
Correct. It's like when someone drowns. We don't ban all swimwear and shut off the town water supply just to make sure it doesn't happen again.
In one hand I have an apple. In the other, I have an orange. I wonder if you can tell the difference.
So I started to walk into the water. I won't lie to you boys...I was terrified. But I pressed on, and as I made my way past the breakers, a strange calm came over me. I don't know if it was divine intervention or the kinship of all living things, but I tell you, Jerry, at that moment ... I was a marine biologist.
Correct. It's like when someone drowns. We don't ban all swimwear and shut off the town water supply just to make sure it doesn't happen again.
In one hand I have an apple. In the other, I have an orange. I wonder if you can tell the difference.
I could tell you the differences and the similarities. But I think deep down, you know them too.
"If you can't out wit them, report them till they're banned!"- PopinJ'
Gameloading is trying to push the very European viewpoint that "our betters" should be making our decisions for us. The basic assumption is that the leaders of state are granted with some kind of divine insight the rest of us plebs are bereft of and are therefore more qualified than "Joe Average." In a democracy, even a representational democracy such as ours, the leaders are taken from the general populous. There are more than a few congressmen that started out life as factory workers, plumbers, construction laborers, etc.
Don't get me wrong, I found Plato's The Republic to be great overview of the primitive politics of a dead empire. But we need to keep the idea of a ruling elite buried with the Greeks and Romans that came up with the idea.
Making decisions about gun laws and having the responsibility of a gun are two entirely different things. If you hand out guns only to people who
1: Have proven themselves to be capable of having the responsibility of a firearm. Think Ex - police officers
Meh... not so much...
Do a search for the number of active police that have been arrested for domestic violence over the past year. These guy beat the shit out of their wives and children, yet we let them carry firearms while on duty. Sound like a good idea to you?
What's even more fucked up is that where the population has dared to suggest that these people either not be allowed to carry a weapon at all or removed from service, the local police force closes up ranks and talk about horrible it is that we would even THINK about disarming these wife beating bastards! More fucked up still, the whole issue usually blows over and get forgotten with these assholes still walking around with a gun AND a badge.
This is a very, VERY small percentage of the police force. Bad apples are part of any group of people
AND
2: Are an endangered group
What? Like pandas?
So only black people and Native Americans should be allowed to carry guns?
I just want some clarification here.
Going back to my police officers example once more, Police officers often build up grudges with criminals or criminal organizations. The people and their families are at a much higher risk than, say, a plumber
Then there is no talk of responsibility, Only logic. I also love how you continue to call it an "European viewpoint", as if that somehow takes away my credibility. It's a viewpoint many Americans, as well as people all over the world, have as well.
Then let's just call it an "old" European viewpoint due to the backward nature of the thing. I realize that most European countries have taken great strides toward democracy over the last couple of hundred years so I apologize for not being clearer.
To put it exactly the way that I meant it: You are advocating an elitist, old world mentality that has no place in any meaningful discussion regarding a truly free and independent Nation or the citizenry thereof.
You savvy?
eh backwards nature? Weapon control is actually a fairly new thing. Heck, back in the medieval days there wasn't even "sword control", people were free to carry weapons. Gun control became more and more popular as it became more and more evident that it was unnecessary.
It's actually you thats promoting an old world mentality. "Having guns to protect yourself from teh governmenz!!11" is something that might be possible 200 years ago, but with well armed military of today, it's just pointless. Pro gun (heck, Pro weaponry) is probably as old as humanity itself and is an outdated concept that has no place in a modern society.
As I already mentioned, "Freedom" only brings you so far. If you just keep saying "Freedom is more important than XX" you're promoting an Anarchy.
I hope you remember your statement when they put you into a death camp later next year.
"If you can't out wit them, report them till they're banned!"- PopinJ'
Here come de gub'mint, gonna gitcha!
So I started to walk into the water. I won't lie to you boys...I was terrified. But I pressed on, and as I made my way past the breakers, a strange calm came over me. I don't know if it was divine intervention or the kinship of all living things, but I tell you, Jerry, at that moment ... I was a marine biologist.
Second, that's a straw man. We are not talking about where the other deaths are going to come from. That suggests that those deaths would have occured either way even without guns. We were talking about all deaths, not just suicides.
There is no way that 700 9-year old kids ...
Sorry, I gotta step in at this point.
The figures at the CDC for 2006, the most recent year the we have data, states that 642 people died that year from accidents involving firearms. That's total. Adult and children. Out of those 642 people, 125 were under, or at, the age of 18. out of those 125 minors, 48 were aged 13 or under. Out of those 48 that hadn't gotten into high school yet, only 31 were age 9 or younger.
That's 48 accidental deaths in a country with 80 MILLION legal gun owners. It's still a tragic number, but given the alarmist tone of your talking points thus far, you'd think that number would be much, much higher than it is. I guess the majority of law abiding gun owners are responsible after all.
Who'd have guessed.
Here's the point I keep trying to make to you.
Do we even need one needless death involving a handgun when it could have been prevented? I have no idea why you are perfectly comfortable with children's needless deaths that can easily be prevented by one act.
Wait. Let me edit that last paragraph and see if it still makes sense for you.
Do we even need one needless death involving alcohol when it could have been prevented? I have no idea why you are perfectly comfortable with children's needless deaths that can easily be prevented by one act.
Does your argument still make sense? Shouldn't we prevent the death of even a single child by outlawing alcohol? I believe we tried doing that once. Question: Did prohibition end the problems associated with alcohol or magnify those problems? It's the same deal with guns.
Does the fact that only 48 accidental as you say, and by the way that's not accidental deaths, let's call them what they are: negligent gun deaths, justify selling guns?
Once again, Tobacco and Alcohol kill more people, many of them children in the US than firearms do. Yet tobacco and alcohol are legal for anyone of the appropriate age. By your logic, these things should be banned completely. But I don't see you advocating a second prohibition.
An accident assumes there was no one at fault and this clearly is not the case. As any good lawyer knows, there is NO such thing as an accident.
And that's not just because the make a living off of proving fault whether it existed or not. I'm sure that if someone gets struck by lightening some ambulance chaser would find someone to bleed money off of. That doesn't change the fact that in some cases you can do everything right and shit still goes wrong. We are human and occasional shit happens that no one could have seen coming even though we can trace the whole scenario after the fact. Are you suggesting that humans shouldn't be allowed to make decisions at all. Where are we going to find a higher evolved being to take care of then?
... One that actually speaks to us directly I mean.
Then tack on the murders. Then tack on the crime that happened through easy gun purchases.
Murder is illegal and hardly requires a gun. The ease of acquiring a gun is the same as acquiring narcotics. As long as there is an underground market that supplies these things to criminals, then criminals will get them. Criminals would be completely unaffected by a ban on guns so it doesn't make any sense to argue that such ban would deter gun crime.
Only law abiding people would be affected by a gun ban and you have yet to explain to me how they would be more safe without guns in comparison to, oh.... say... power tools or even.... a swimming pool. Both of which kill more children a year than firearms.
I think Mexico gives a good argument for gun control... from the United States.
Last time I checked, firearms were completely illegal for Mexican citizens. DOH!!!
If you wish to change the conditions of the post to make a different argument after its been presented, you are welcome to it. That's your right, its your post and you made it. I will not stop you from changing things around to suit your point and argue things that are not related to gun deaths.
Tobacco, alcohol, autos are not the discussion. Guns are and how we can stop guns from proliferating in the United States legally. That's what we are trying to discuss. Clouding the issue and throwing in stuff from Walmart is always cute, but it serves to do nothing but debase the point.
The vast overwhelming majority of people that own guns in the United States don't NEED them, they just WANT them. That is no reason to make guns available. There are only so many people that need guns on a daily basis or in their line of employment, and all of those people are highly trained professionals, not Rebel flag waving yahoos who leave guns out so their 7 year old kids kill themselves while still arguing gun rights. It's just plain nutty.
Gun limitations and banning WILL lower the death rate by firearms, its just simple math. Less guns, less deaths... negligent homicides or otherwise. That alone far outweighs some yahoo drinking beer and plinking plates. I see no merit or redeeming quality in the allowance of such individuals owning guns. But you cannot discriminate against that sadsack, so I am fair enough to say that everyone should be barred from buying weapons.
"TO MICHAEL!"
Sign up with Storm Troopers For Obama today!
"If you can't out wit them, report them till they're banned!"- PopinJ'
Gameloading is trying to push the very European viewpoint that "our betters" should be making our decisions for us. The basic assumption is that the leaders of state are granted with some kind of divine insight the rest of us plebs are bereft of and are therefore more qualified than "Joe Average." In a democracy, even a representational democracy such as ours, the leaders are taken from the general populous. There are more than a few congressmen that started out life as factory workers, plumbers, construction laborers, etc.
Don't get me wrong, I found Plato's The Republic to be great overview of the primitive politics of a dead empire. But we need to keep the idea of a ruling elite buried with the Greeks and Romans that came up with the idea.
Making decisions about gun laws and having the responsibility of a gun are two entirely different things. If you hand out guns only to people who
1: Have proven themselves to be capable of having the responsibility of a firearm. Think Ex - police officers
Meh... not so much...
Do a search for the number of active police that have been arrested for domestic violence over the past year. These guy beat the shit out of their wives and children, yet we let them carry firearms while on duty. Sound like a good idea to you?
What's even more fucked up is that where the population has dared to suggest that these people either not be allowed to carry a weapon at all or removed from service, the local police force closes up ranks and talk about horrible it is that we would even THINK about disarming these wife beating bastards! More fucked up still, the whole issue usually blows over and get forgotten with these assholes still walking around with a gun AND a badge.
This is a very, VERY small percentage of the police force. Bad apples are part of any group of people
AND
2: Are an endangered group
What? Like pandas?
So only black people and Native Americans should be allowed to carry guns?
I just want some clarification here.
Going back to my police officers example once more, Police officers often build up grudges with criminals or criminal organizations. The people and their families are at a much higher risk than, say, a plumber
Then there is no talk of responsibility, Only logic. I also love how you continue to call it an "European viewpoint", as if that somehow takes away my credibility. It's a viewpoint many Americans, as well as people all over the world, have as well.
Then let's just call it an "old" European viewpoint due to the backward nature of the thing. I realize that most European countries have taken great strides toward democracy over the last couple of hundred years so I apologize for not being clearer.
To put it exactly the way that I meant it: You are advocating an elitist, old world mentality that has no place in any meaningful discussion regarding a truly free and independent Nation or the citizenry thereof.
You savvy?
eh backwards nature? Weapon control is actually a fairly new thing. Heck, back in the medieval days there wasn't even "sword control", people were free to carry weapons. Gun control became more and more popular as it became more and more evident that it was unnecessary.
Uh, no. During the low middle ages murder wasn't even considered a crime so long as you weren't killing someone above your station. In all other respects, murder was considered a respectable means to defend one's "honor." In the high middle ages, certain nobles would ban the carrying of edged weaponry at their social events to prevent anything more deadly than a fist fight from breaking out. If you really study history, you'll find that murder was much more common in the middle ages, before the widespread adoption of guns, than it is today.
Most of the early laws prohibiting firearms had to do with poaching. As time, and war, carried on there was the added element that a peasant with an arquebus could kill a full blooded noble in full plate armour! It's the same kind of scandalous thing that happened in the Hundred Years War when common English Longbowmen were killing wealthy and well bred knights.
It had nothing to do with guns be unnecessary. It had everything to do with putting the serfs in their place.
It's actually you thats promoting an old world mentality. "Having guns to protect yourself from teh governmenz!!11" is something that might be possible 200 years ago, but with well armed military of today, it's just pointless. Pro gun (heck, Pro weaponry) is probably as old as humanity itself and is an outdated concept that has no place in a modern society.
You're assessment of me as a member of the tinfoil hat brigade is mildly amusing. Defending myself from the government would be as stupid as running from a pissed off midget. The government can barely deliver the mail. You tell me that people are too stupid to be trusted with guns, but I'm afraid that the government is far to stupid to have possesion of all the guns.
And don't think that I'm some objectivist corporate whore either. The free market may move a little faster than the government, but it is only put in check by it's own cannibalistic greed. Adam Smith's invisible hand was merely the fact that if you get too greedy and corrupt in a free market, someone else will cut off the arm that you over-reached with before proceeding to chop off your head.
I half ass'd agree with the "God favors the bigger army bit," but I remember event like Custer's last stand, Stalingrad and an African war leader by the name of Shaka Zulu. There are other advantages than material and war is more complicated than statistics would have you believe. But that's an entirely different, and more interesting topic.
As I already mentioned, "Freedom" only brings you so far. If you just keep saying "Freedom is more important than XX" you're promoting an Anarchy.
Not exactly. There is a golden mean and I think you err to far on the side of discretion. You have to look at this issue and, honestly, ask if anything would be accomplished by outright ban. After hearing all the arguments, looking at history pouring over statistics, I'm unconvinced that a wholesale ban on firearms will accomplish a damn thing. Nothing that any anti-gun advocate has said logically contradicts that conclusion.
Gameloading is trying to push the very European viewpoint that "our betters" should be making our decisions for us. The basic assumption is that the leaders of state are granted with some kind of divine insight the rest of us plebs are bereft of and are therefore more qualified than "Joe Average." In a democracy, even a representational democracy such as ours, the leaders are taken from the general populous. There are more than a few congressmen that started out life as factory workers, plumbers, construction laborers, etc.
Don't get me wrong, I found Plato's The Republic to be great overview of the primitive politics of a dead empire. But we need to keep the idea of a ruling elite buried with the Greeks and Romans that came up with the idea.
Making decisions about gun laws and having the responsibility of a gun are two entirely different things. If you hand out guns only to people who
1: Have proven themselves to be capable of having the responsibility of a firearm. Think Ex - police officers
Meh... not so much...
Do a search for the number of active police that have been arrested for domestic violence over the past year. These guy beat the shit out of their wives and children, yet we let them carry firearms while on duty. Sound like a good idea to you?
What's even more fucked up is that where the population has dared to suggest that these people either not be allowed to carry a weapon at all or removed from service, the local police force closes up ranks and talk about horrible it is that we would even THINK about disarming these wife beating bastards! More fucked up still, the whole issue usually blows over and get forgotten with these assholes still walking around with a gun AND a badge.
This is a very, VERY small percentage of the police force. Bad apples are part of any group of people
AND
2: Are an endangered group
What? Like pandas?
So only black people and Native Americans should be allowed to carry guns?
I just want some clarification here.
Going back to my police officers example once more, Police officers often build up grudges with criminals or criminal organizations. The people and their families are at a much higher risk than, say, a plumber
Then there is no talk of responsibility, Only logic. I also love how you continue to call it an "European viewpoint", as if that somehow takes away my credibility. It's a viewpoint many Americans, as well as people all over the world, have as well.
Then let's just call it an "old" European viewpoint due to the backward nature of the thing. I realize that most European countries have taken great strides toward democracy over the last couple of hundred years so I apologize for not being clearer.
To put it exactly the way that I meant it: You are advocating an elitist, old world mentality that has no place in any meaningful discussion regarding a truly free and independent Nation or the citizenry thereof.
You savvy?
eh backwards nature? Weapon control is actually a fairly new thing. Heck, back in the medieval days there wasn't even "sword control", people were free to carry weapons. Gun control became more and more popular as it became more and more evident that it was unnecessary.
Uh, no. During the low middle ages murder wasn't even considered a crime so long as you weren't killing someone above your station. In all other respects, murder was considered a respectable means to defend one's "honor." In the high middle ages, certain nobles would ban the carrying of edged weaponry at their social events to prevent anything more deadly than a fist fight from breaking out. If you really study history, you'll find that murder was much more common in the middle ages, before the widespread adoption of guns, than it is today.
Most of the early laws prohibiting firearms had to do with poaching. As time, and war, carried on there was the added element that a peasant with an arquebus could kill a full blooded noble in full plate armour! It's the same kind of scandalous thing that happened in the Hundred Years War when common English Longbowmen were killing wealthy and well bred knights.
It had nothing to do with guns be unnecessary. It had everything to do with putting the serfs in their place.
My whole point was that it's actually a lack of gun control that is an oldworld mentality. Just as we got rid of the criminal system of that day and age, we also move away from having everybody armed.
It's actually you thats promoting an old world mentality. "Having guns to protect yourself from teh governmenz!!11" is something that might be possible 200 years ago, but with well armed military of today, it's just pointless. Pro gun (heck, Pro weaponry) is probably as old as humanity itself and is an outdated concept that has no place in a modern society.
You're assessment of me as a member of the tinfoil hat brigade is mildly amusing. Defending myself from the government would be as stupid as running from a pissed off midget. The government can barely deliver the mail. You tell me that people are too stupid to be trusted with guns, but I'm afraid that the government is far to stupid to have possesion of all the guns.
And yet it's not going to change anything.If the governments wants you dead, you're going to be dead no matter how many weapons you have. This makes the whole arguement in favor of pro gun completely pointless. You may not trust the goverment to have possession of "All the guns". Thats fine, but handing you a gun does not change anything.
As I already mentioned, "Freedom" only brings you so far. If you just keep saying "Freedom is more important than XX" you're promoting an Anarchy.
Not exactly. There is a golden mean and I think you err to far on the side of discretion. You have to look at this issue and, honestly, ask if anything would be accomplished by outright ban. After hearing all the arguments, looking at history pouring over statistics, I'm unconvinced that a wholesale ban on firearms will accomplish a damn thing. Nothing that any anti-gun advocate has said logically contradicts that conclusion.
I think it's quite obvious what a ban would accomplish. Heck, a huge majority of people get into huge physical fights over irrelevant things such as a football match, and you want to actually arm these people with guns?
That is asking for problems.
Wow! that's a lot better. Still looks like you're posting from the other end of a long tunnel though....
Not everyone on earth is a soccer hooligan. I think you have a warped view of the human race if you believe that. Given, with media pumping violent imagery into you brain constantly it's only natural to believe that the real wold is much more dangerous than it really is.
Think about this for a minute: It only takes about a three inch penetration in the right spot to kill someone by stabbing. How hard do you think it would be for one of the soccer hooligans in your example to sneak in a three inch lockblade. In that crowd, in that chaos, how many people do you think a hooligan armed with such a weapon could injur or kill?
Now for the big question:
Why hasn't that happened? Why hasn't someone walked through Grand Central Station and just started discretely stabbing people in the back over, and over again? Knives are cheaper and easier to get your hands on. Knives are just as deadly and easy to use in the right situation. Why hasn't this happened?
I personally believe that it hasn't happened because most people are decent human beings. The spree killers and lone gunmen that you cite for your example are a very rare, and completely insane, breed apart from the rest of us. If we restrict rights because an insane or criminal person may abuse those rights, then we will soon find ourselves without any rights. We have to assume that individuals are responsible until they prove otherwise. Treating all of your citizens like potential Ted Bundys is the antithesis of freedom.
To sum up: There is no harm in allowing an average person to own firearms. The harm is not identifying and monitoring those individuals that are of less than sound mind or with a history of extreme violence. It is much more reasonable to keep track of, and restrict, the handful of nutjobs that absolutely are a threat than to try to regulate the behavior of everyone.
There is not any embellishment in there. But as for you:
Second, that's a straw man. We are not talking about where the other deaths are going to come from. That suggests that those deaths would have occured either way even without guns. We were talking about all deaths, not just suicides.There is no way that 700 9-year old kids are going to get their parents keys, get in the car with their friend and go down the interstate and accidentally kill themselves. You cannot even suggest that a accidental gun death by a 9 year old was simply "Fate" and that that death would have mysteriously popped up in some other place to keep the chi flowing in the circle of life and end up in another category.
Also, a gun suicide is most popular because it's a thing of convience. Pills are not reliable. Someone driving off a bridge isn't reliable. Knives certainly aren't. Guns are probably the most reliable form of suicide available to man. And if you have a gun, it's the quickest and most convienient form the average gun owner has.
You on the other hand, are certainly embellishing about me embellishing.
You say I use a straw man when you are using a circular argument? Please. You directly implied that banning guns would eliminate gun related suicide. However, you know nothing about suicide. If you claim to in response, it is a feeble attempt to deflect what I said. And although you won't trust me, I have intimate knowledge through discussions with people who have failed at suicide and those that want to commit suicide, do so quite effectively regardless of whether there is a gun around. So, from my experience, it's not a straw man to suggest that a person who would commit suicide with a gun would find any means necessary to do so in the absence of a gun. You do realize that many people who are suicidal actually get legal DNRs? So that if they fail using their alternate means (other than a gun) and are taken to a hospital, they are not revived?
Second, you talk like every gun owner has several irresponsible acts that they are predetermined to make, when that is completely baseless. You act as though guns cannot be used for any good, when again that is baseless. You, as usual are talking out your rear about something you honestly know nothing more than what the anti-gun crowd has fed to you.
Third, I didn't bring up anything about Scottland and have no clue what you are talking about. I'm sorry if I don't read every fricking post in a forum before replying, however, unlike some of the professional forum hacks we have here, I do have things to do in my life.
Lastly, you didn't address but one of my questions, and not even the most serious one.
"TO MICHAEL!"
pop, i suggest you think a little harder about what you write then. You imply one thing in one post and then completely deny it in the next. Are you sure you aren't declaredemer's pseudonym?
What do you mean, daeandor?
What do you mean, daeandor?
Actually, that is quite funny.
What do you mean, daeandor?
Actually, that is quite funny.
What are you talking about, and what do you find "quite funny"?
Are you suggesting that I contradict myself, and if so when/where?
I really have no idea what you're alluding to. Do you even know what it is you are alluding to? LOL.
Well, I'm confident you are wrong, but I guess based on your expertise well just have to "trust you explicitly" on that one, right?
Anyways, it was a interesting thread. I feel confident that with just a few more whacko incidents in the United States in the coming years, President Obama and the Federal government will have no choice but to put such restrictions on guns as to make the effort not worth it, or ban them outright.
The right exists to ban sales of guns due to emergent circumstances by the United States in the country and based on the growing right wing rhetoric, that day is fast approaching. Unfortunately based on growing talk of revolution and armed struggle from within the United State's many militia organizations and shootings of publicly elected judges and officials, I see nothing coming but escalation of hostilities.
I hope things turn out different, but too many people push this point on "freedom" for entertainment value without realizing that many of these gun purchasers are mentally unbalanced citizens who stockpile guns, ammo, food and water for either Armageddeon, the Rapture or a coming race war by their own admission.
"TO MICHAEL!"
Obviously you did not read it correctly. "Last I checked, cars kill several magnitudes more folks in this country than guns do... and most of those are suicides."
It's called a CONTEXT clue. The point was: Cars kill more people than guns do; Most gun deaths are suicides. Which Is a completely true statement that is statistically backed in the source YOU provided. Don't try to make me look like an ass when you are the one who cannot derive SIMPLE context clues.
I promise to try not to.
"TO MICHAEL!"