Gun control: more divisive than reason

Post Reply New Topic

Really look no further than the US. There IS reasonable regulation on weapons, namely, the NFA on machine guns and destructive devices - The whole system is statewide, may-issue and does not have obvious loopholes like private transfer. How many crime in the last 20 years involve these weapon types?


No such thing. 'Arms' in the constitution obviously include swords, arrows, i.e. all weapons in the modern sense.


In other words, just your opinion.


A shotgun does not fire a single projectile.


Wrong. The HEAT warhead is designed to funnel the explosive energy into a jet, for the purpose of defeating armor.


In other word, your willful ignorance.


Nope. It just demonstrates the special pleading fallacy committed by the pro-gunners. Why should other people respect the gun vs other weapons line arbitrarily drawn by some gun hobbyists?


Based on what you make such assertion? How many murder (i.e. deliberate killing) is committed using a car as a tool (as opposed to accidents)? How many cars and drivers are there compared with guns and gun owned? Most importantly, how many instances guns are used compared with cars (I doubt you fire your gun everyday)?

The vast majority? Of course not. Maybe a few dozen a year. I would consider that worth it, though; it's a minor inconvenience. Who legitimately needs a gun *right away* for legitimate purposes, other than a law enforcement officer?


The point is that having a line at all is a limit on the right to 'bear arms.' So, for that matter, are the limitations that most states have on carrying truly edged swords, or knives above a certain length, or various martial arts weapons. I'd put the limit, in this case, at the same place as you (though I would limit clip (sorry: magazine) size to 12 rounds or less).
I've talked to guys, first hand, before, who have told me that they needed to have an automatic gun capable of firing bullets large enough to pass through multiple walls and still kill a person on the other side 'in case his house was invaded by a gang of thugs, and he had to protect his family.'

[/quote]
When I first started at the hospital, we had at least one seriously mashed MVA patient a week. Major traumas: broken bones, serious blunt-force traumas, whiplash, etc. People bleeding out of their eyes and ears and mouth and nose; people whose arms draped like an elephant's trunk because their bones were shattered into so many tiny pieces. Over the 13 years that I was there, the number of really bad MVAs has slowly decreased, to the point that we get maybe a few a year now (it's a small, rural hospital); those few are almost all people who still drive older-model cars. Gradually, the percentage of cars on the road with protective equipment such as anti-lock brakes and airbags has increased and the percentage of death-trap cars has decreased.

Would registering new guns, and gun sales, change things right away? Of course not. It might even take decades. If we start now, we might see a difference in 2024; if we start in 2024, we won't see a difference until 2034.

How many involved them before, and how many involve illegal versions today? Machineguns and destructive devices became a problem because of prohibition, not simply because they existed.



My well informed opinion as a credentialed expert in the subject, as opposed to a bunch of ignorant anti-gunners on the internet.



Discrete enough, shotguns spread a lot less than is commonly believed, and are also used with slugs, i.e. single projectiles. Which you'd know, if you knew anything about guns. Which you don't.



The HE in HEAT stands for High Explosive, which means it explodes, which means it's not discrete. Also, seriously? After you just ignored the existence of shotgun slugs to dig at me, you pick out one category of relatively focused explosives to try and hit me here? And then you try to invoke special pleading?



You do know that "ignorance" has a specific meaning, right? And that it's really ironic for you to try an apply it to anyone other than yourself in this topic, especially me, right? Doing it right after having made an ass of yourself by attempting to hammer me with a nit-pick fail just makes it worse.



One, I'm professionally credentialed, and two, you're not only not, but have proven again and again that you don't know jack about guns, while I've repeatedly demonstrated my expertise over the last 5+ years. When it comes down to choosing between and expert and an idiot, well that's not much of a choice at all now is it?



Did I say anything about murders? I said "dangerous". Quite a comprehension problem you've got there, you should take care of that before you try and nit-pick other people's posts.
But, because you asked, in 2009 there were 10,800,000 motor vehicle accidents resulting in 35,900 deaths,
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/ ... 2s1103.pdf
while guns were involved in 11,078 murders and around 1000 accidental deaths in the same period.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm
Just for fun, 26,009 people died in accidental falls. (same source as gun info.

Total number of cars in the US: 254.4 million (Wikipedia}
Total number of guns in the US: 310 million (Wikipedia)

For even more fun, a better number cruncher than I has taken a crack at this exact thing before:

That's the raw data.

This one is adjusted to account for the difference in the number of licensed drivers vs licensed concealed carriers.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/0 ... rrelevant/

But, even a little bit of thought should have spared you all that, because a carried gun is not at all dangerous unless drawn, modern safety mechanisms having to be lawyer proof and all, and drawing without cause is illegal, while a car is deadly every second it's on the road. I can forget all about my carry gun while I go about my business, not so much my car. It seems pretty obvious that a 2 ton bludgeon moving at high speed is more intrinsically dangerous than a device that launches small projectiles on demand subject to multiple fail-safe systems, but then I remember who I'm talking to.

Uhh, maybe that hypothetical DV victim with the psychotic abuser? Regardless, it's not your call to make.



Those laws are stupid too, I believe even you have agreed on that one in the past. How many lives have been saved by banning tonfa and throwing stars, to say nothing of the scourge of blowguns and "nunchucks"?



Why? Just cause?



I've talked to feminists who like to preemptively label all men "potential rapists"; every tree has some nuts in it, and I know full well that you don't like having your tree judged on the basis of it's nuts any more than I do.



You've still never shown in any way that it would work at all, so why should I surrender my rights to your theory?

How many crimes since the end of prohibition involve these weapon types? Hint: It's essentially the same number.



No, actually, it doesn't. A tank is a weapon, but it is not "arms". Arms have always been defined as weapons that are held by humans in their arms (hence the meaning of the word) - this is in contrast to the word artillery, which refers to things larger than arms, and ordinance, which refers to explosive things.



Which is why he used the plural projectiles, instead of the singular projectile(no 's'). But, thanks for pointing that out.



...armor on *vehicles* which have multiple occupants. By definition that is a wide area of effect.



He said "dangerous", not "useful as a weapon". The distinction between the deliberate taking of life vs the accidental taking of life is irrelevant when you're looking for the potential for danger.

The rate of car crash fatalities in the US is 1200% higher than the rate of all gun fatalities combined - there are estimates that 45% of american households own guns, and the average number of cars per household is less than 2 - so even using the most liberal math possible, there's no way to come up with a number that even remotely comes close.

I like how political commentator Ben Shapiro addressed this issue...

(paraphrasing)

"The liberal left always want to make it about "what do we need", when the truth is about our rights under the Constitution. If the government gets to determine what you need, then we're back in Communist Russia. Might as well leave behind your cars, air conditioners, TVs, phones, etc., because you don't need them to survive."

He also pointed out that while the mass killings in the last decade have largely been done with assault rifles, many more are done every day with handguns. Therefore, it doesn't make any rational sense for the Feds and/or activists to go after the rifles instead of pistols and such.

Alright, I would agree that a waiting period may prevent a few murders a year. However there also may be instances where a person does need a gun that very day, such as to defend themselves against a violent stalker, etc. Perhaps the waiting period will save a few lives and perhaps it will cost a few. It seems to me though,in the long run focusing on a very small minority of murders will not effect the overall murder rate, which is surprisingly at record lows.

Well, I really wouldn't consider a mortar as an "arm" per say, nor would I believe any intelligent lifeforms. I have seen people carrying 6in hunting knives before, so if you could carry it people general do regardless of the law. I think for simplicity however, we should stick to ownership of said weapons. Please never group idiots with everyone else. He was probably just a freak with the IQ of a slug. You could try banning high large capacity magazines sure, but how are you going to enforce it especially among criminals. Even if you somehow could effectively ban large magazines, it would not stop criminals from modifying them to increase their capacity. Lets not forget that Lanza never expended all the ammo in his magazines. He was said to have always reloaded with a live round still in the gun ( a so called tactical reload).


How, I mean the are not exactly a simple thing to track even in 2024.

I believe in the second amendment because it is in the bill of rights. If you don't believe in the second amendment, you don't believe in this country, or its laws.

See, this is a much different thread than all the other gun control threads.

This one has pretty pictures.

So, with the term "arms," the pro-gun folks here think that shoulder-mounted grenade launchers should be available for public use, with no background check, no registration, and no waiting period? Am I correct in saying that you think that constitution guarantees that right?

As for why the constitution doesn't say anything about cars, they hadn't been invented when the constitution was written. Neither had grenade launchers. The constitution has to be a living document, or it will become irrelevant.

As for domestic violence victims: they're far more likely to be victims of a gun, than to use one to defend themselves. Guns in general are not statistically good for women, and women in general dislike guns.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12764330
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12642559
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18624102
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15284052
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20502288
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20088664
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23759665
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19617417
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17596343

As for the argument that murderers and suicidal people will simply choose other methods of murder and suicide if guns aren't around: yes. They will try. Guns, however, have a much higher 'success' rate both in killing other people and in killing oneself than other types of weapons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failed_suicide_attempt
In china, men go on slashing rampages rather than shooting rampages, and a lot fewer of their victims (including children) die. Is it horrific? Of course. Is it less lethal? Indubitably.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... tacks.html

Guns are a tools for killing things easily. They are very good tools.

Read my post again, I specifically said that explosive weapons are not arms but ordnance, and thus not covered under the 2nd Amendment, a point that was then reiterated by SJC. I didn't see anyone else arguing for grenade launchers either, so the idea must have originated with you, as an attempt at an argumentum ad absurdum that no one has taken the bait for; not that that inconvenient little fact has stopped you from repeatedly beating on it.



That's what amendments are for, if you don't like one, try and get it overturned, that's the process. That the Constitution doesn't mention cars is also irrelevant, as we're not really talking about cars, and it does mention guns, making the possession and carrying of them an enumerated right, which means any restriction have to be narrowly tailored to pass muster.



That's what we call a vicious cycle; women don't like guns, and so don't carry them, and so see mostly the negatives rather than the positives, and so dislike them even more. I personally know women who've successfully defended themselves from men using guns, they're pretty enthusiastic about them; would you deny them that right because you personally don't like the things? And, since this is me here, I do need to point out that people who don't like something don't tend to learn much about it, and thus are not a reliable source regarding said subject.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... icide_rate

1 Greenland[2][3] (more info) 133.6 79.2 108.1 2010[4]
2 South Korea[5] (more info) 39.3 19.7 31.7 2011
3 Lithuania[6] (more info) 54.6 11.6 31.6 2012
4 Guyana (more info) 39.0 13.4 26.4 2006
5 Kazakhstan (more info) 43.0 9.4 25.6 2008
6 Belarus[7][8] 22.9 2011
7 China China[9] (more info) 22.23 2011
8 Slovenia[10] 34.6 9.4 21.8 2011
9 Hungary[11] 37.4 8.5 21.7 2009
10 Japan (more info)[12] 21.7 2012
11 Sri Lanka(more info) 34.8 9.24 14.7 2011[13]
12 Ukraine (more info) 37.8 7.0 21.2 2009
13 Russia[14] (more info) 20.2 2012
14 Croatia[15] 30.2 10.0 19.7 2002
15 Latvia 18.2 2010 [16]
16 Moldova 17.4 2008
17 Serbia 24.9 9.0 17.3 2011[17]
18 Belgium[note 1][11][note 2] 17[18] 2009
19 Finland[19] 25.6 7.1 16.1 2011
20 Bhutan[20] 16.2 2011
21 Uruguay 26.0 6.3 15.8 2004
22 South Africa[21] 15.4 2005
23 Poland 27.8 3.8 15.3 2010
24 Taiwan[22] 20.5 9.7 15.1 2011
25 Estonia 27.3 4.5 14.8 2010 [16]
26 France (more info) 22.8 7.4 14.7 2010 [16]
27 Suriname 23.9 4.8 14.4 2005
28 Bosnia and Herzegovina[23] 13.3 2011
29 Austria 23.8 7.1 12.8 2009
30 Czech Republic 12.8 2010
31 Cuba 19.0 5.5 12.3 2008
32 Bulgaria 18.8 6.2 12.3 2008
33 United States[24] (more info)

That's funny, it seems plenty of people in damn near gun free countries manage to successfully kill themselves at far greater rates than in the gun awash US; kinda sticks a fork in that argument. As for homicides, check this out:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_g ... 00-000-pop
This is our non-firearms homicide rate, and we still rank highly, number 16 in the world to be exact. Now if guns were the real problem, you'd expect us to be high in firearms homicides and low in non-firearms homicides, but that's not the case, we're high in both, which points to a cultural problem, just as does the high suicide rate in Japan, but you don't want to talk about that, you just want to demonize the guns.



Or, they use firebombs and kill many more people than our mass shooters do:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/09/world ... .html?_r=0
Is gasoline control the solution?



Even if I accept that at face value, which I don't, sometimes killing is the job that needs doing, as in a self defense situation; unless you're going to argue that it's better to be killed than to kill, what's your point?

It's easy to get caught in the trap of dealing with killing rampages - but the fact is that these mass killing events represent an extremely tiny fraction of the total murders in every society. Most gun homicides, in the US and elsewhere, are the result of one person killing another for whatever reason - and in that regard a knife is just as effective as a gun. The only advantage a gun has over a knife is distance - yet most gun homicides happen at nearly point-blank range. A knife at that range can do considerably more damage than a bullet wound - it penetrates deaper, leaves a larger wound, and there is no limit to the amount of times you can stab someone.

The statement was also made (not by you, IIrc) that 'arms are what you carry.' A shoulder-fired grenade launcher is carried and utilized by a single person. Not on this thread (yet), but elsewhere, I have heard gun enthusiasts say that they felt they should have a right to RPGs.


Amendments and legislative or judicial interpretation. The right to 'freedom of speech' is enumerated pretty clearly, too, but there are legal limits on that; it wasn't too long ago that everyone thought that the 'well-regulated militia' part of the 2nd amendment meant that there should be few, if any, guns outside of the national guard.


No, it doesn't. Suicide success rate is an entirely different statistic than suicide attempt rate. At the hospital, we don't get too many attempted suicides who have used a gun, because their brains are pretty effectively splattered all over; we do get lots of attempted suicides from medications, some from cutting their wrists, and once even an attempted hanging. We had one from trying to stab himself in the chest with a carving knife, but who kept on running into his own ribs b/c he had the knife oriented vertically - he tried about a dozen times, really meant it. If he'd used a gun, it would only have taken one shot. Most of those people end up glad that they didn't succeed.
Likewise, murder attempt rate is different than murder success rate. From what I hear, there are a lot of crazies running around China with knives right now, but it's a hell of a lot harder to kill a lot of people with a knife than it is with a gun. You have to get closer, and you have to have better aim.
@sliqua-jcooter, you are simply incorrect about the damage caused by knife vs. bullet wounds, and the distance you mention makes a hell of a difference sometimes. A bullet does not just make a little bullet-width tunnel through the tissue; it basically shreds to liquefaction everything around its passage, with the diameter of damage dependent on the caliber and speed of the bullet.

Unlike guns, gasoline and cars are tools with purposes other than killing or pretending to kill things.

I'm not arguing for an outright ban on guns, remember? I'm arguing for universal background checks; for limits on killing capability; and for reasonable waiting periods of a few days to a week. I agree with you that guns are sometimes the tool that is needed to get a job done; I just don't think that they should be treated as casually as they are.

People come here for freedom, not a repeat of Europe. Woe to the AMERICAN dream, now we are just a sad copy of UN power hounds ideals, not AMERICA.
Keep guns away from everyone who could possibly protect me, and we will be very safe here in France? Hmm, there grand fathers from the french underground of WW2 say "PEEYU! You stank lok Hitlah goonse! Kape yo grubbay paws uff mah frahduhms fashiist puppate! Aye libarrate yuu for nuthang yuu ponk!!"

I general I'm pretty happy with our gun laws. We've restricted the right weapons and avoided some very bloody outcomes. I'm not up for assault weapon bans but I do like the idea of magazine restrictions and I very much want stronger background checks. My problem isnt gun owners, it's crazy people.