[worry]

Do you anticipate that you will have to (for whatever reason you see fit) shoot another human being in your lifetime? Just curious.

[Silencer]

Nicodimas, on 04 January 2013 - 09:31 PM, said:

I want one because its available to own..legal..you know a freedom? Do you need a car that goes really quick..its makes it exceptionally dangerous...yet it can and is illegal to go that quickly.

Not an exact comparison for sure as you might effect a few people crashing, more than likely yourself the most.

Try banning em someone is going to find out a way via technology to just sidestep a ban..See above slide stock. Its the way we are as people. /shrug

I gave a fair proposal imo..work on the mental system try to figure it out before it occurs. As it is occurring is to late and they will use the best tool to inflict the most harm.

We should absolutely keep them around for Defense purposes. And Zombies.

Incidentally, the fastest your car *needs* to be able to travel is about 150km/h - that is to say, for emergency acceleration in a high-speed zone. We have laws to prevent people from doing that kind of speed in most areas, true - and moreover we enforce them as best we can. Does that stop people from misusing their cars? Driving drunk? On drugs? No. However, the precursor to most misuse-of-a-motorvehicle crimes, as you might have noticed, involves mind-altering substances and intoxication. Or youths being stupid. And in the latter case they *generally* don't set out to kill people by speeding/racing in suburban zones.
That is fundamentally different to the misuse of guns, particularly those leading to massacres. I am not 100% sure of this but I seriously doubt any crazy person has ever taken a car and rammed it into a school killing twenty kids and several more adults, unless said event happened alongside "was a terrorist and had a bomb in the car", or "was drunk and ploughed into a crowd of partygoers" (which incidentally did happen down here in NZ, once), however the point is that comparatively that shit doesn't happen. Because cars are not weapons. They aren't tools of war, in and of themselves. They are not EASY things to use to kill dozens.

However, the point is not one of comparison. You - and by the way, this is strawmanning the argument, and considering the amount of times we've been over this point in the thread it's getting stupid - keep going on about banning guns. No, what we are arguing for is increasing regulations. You know, like the way before you are allowed to drive a car you have know the road code, demonstrate you are capable of driving a car and only doing so while learning under supervision, etc, etc. Compared to the requirements for owning a gun, there are countless more hours that people have to pour into obtaining their drivers license. We're talking about a thing that has everyday utility and which does not have instant associations with murdering your enemies, having more restrictions on it than something that can, and has, repeatedly, been used to slaughter masses of people and moreover something which has little other purpose to it than doing just that (and btw, target shooting is basically just practice for shooting real things - a valid sport? Of course. And hunting is a valid hobby or sport also. But at the end of the day shooting at targets is exactly the same function of the device as shooting at people or animals, whereas driving your car to work and back is not quite the same thing as using it to ram innocent bystanders...assuming you drive your car properly, of course).

My next point is one of order - you say that you want one because it is legal, because it is available. What you seem to be missing from my post is the part why I say do you think it SHOULD be legal? - because that is a different kettle of fish. Next down the rank is the question of you want one beacuse it's available; do you want everything that is legal? Because that exercises your freedom? Do you buy one of everything in the country that is legal, because you CAN? No. So there has to be some reason you want this specific item.
And again, before that, this sort of thing is basically making your gun into a fully-automatic weapon. Which should not be readily available to the fucking public. Because of shooting massacres.

"You gave a fair proposal in your opinion" (paraphrasing); work on the mental aspect. That is all? That's enough to stop this? Because EVERYONE should/will be perfectly monitored from birth in order to pick up the necessary mental issues that lead to shootings? Because there is nothing comparable to drug driving, where some idiot gets high on drugs and goes and shoots up some folks? Plus, this requires psychological profiling to restrict what people can or can't do on assumptions about their future behaviour. I wouldn't have thought you'd be into that sort of thing, Nico.


And let's get one thing straight here; "they will use the best tool to inflict the most harm" is NOT a counter-argument to tighter gun regulations. Even if people came up with ways to circumvent supply controls (it actually isn't as easy as you think for the vast majority of people in a decent society), the point is relative difficulty. By increasing the difficulty inherent in approaching a problem from a certain way, you make it proportionally less likely to occur.
This is basic logic. Your argument then falls along the lines of "why regulate, people will just kill with X instead" - which is actually an argument FOR regulation. I'd rather a man go on a shooting spree with a semi than an auto, with a bolt than a semi, with a knife than a gun. This is so glaringly obvious that I don't think I should feel the need to point it out in every single debate like this I've been in over the past month or so. "Oh, a few people will still die/get hurt, so why bother even trying to reduce the number of victims/fatalities?" is atrocious reasoning. By this logic, we shouldn't bother with airport security, restricting access to/the sale /manufacture of explosives - because instead of using bombs people will just use guns and then people still die so why bother? WTF sort of argument is that?

I would rather a crazy person using the best tool at his disposal was more restricted in the potential harm he can cause than less. Agree/disagree?

No doubt you would see this as an argument for banning. This is not the case. It is merely an argument for tighter restrictions on what CAN be sold, not a complete ban. Why? Because in the REST OF THE FRAKKING WORLD [developed countries only, being a caveat] just a bit more depth of control and limitations appears to prevent this shit from happening. Oh, sure, correlation/causation has not been proven - but considering most everything else is the same this seems like a reasonable next step. Unless your argument is that America has more crazy people who choose to go on shooting rampages per head of population than the rest of the world by a factor of thirty-five times, in which case that is a very specific claim that I doubt you would every be able to prove (though you're welcome to try) and it's also incredibly depressing if so. Personally I think "ready availability of guns" is the more likely cause of, you know, gun crime. >.>

And lastly, I don't know why you capitalized the d in the word defence. Though I guess it's something to do with your perspective on the importance of that subject matter. I still fail to see why anyone would prefer to live in a country where they feel they NEED a gun for "Defence" of themselves than in a country where 99% of the population doesn't feel that need (and genuinely doesn't need them, according to statistics). Mind = boggled.

[worry]

These attempts at comparison do not hold up anyway. Cars are not designed to crash (into people, other cars, whatever). Doing so is a misuse. Guns (aside from hunting equipment) are designed to shoot human beings. The proper use of an automatic or semi-automatic weapon is to shoot multiple human beings quickly (or one human multiple times I suppose). There is no "this is not an exact comparison" caveat good enough. Unless you are comparing these weapons to other weapons of similar capability and intent, you are talking nonsense.

Anyway, here is a list of the actual 10 gun-related measures introduced by the new Congress. It's from thinkprogress, so there's a lefty slant to it which you can take with a grain of salt if you wish, but it does cover all 10 bills introduced and what they would do: http://thinkprogress...mart-gun-bills/

[King Lear]

BalrogLord, on 04 January 2013 - 03:23 PM, said:

Ornery Owl, on 04 January 2013 - 07:59 AM, said:

BalrogLord, on 03 January 2013 - 04:32 PM, said:

http://www.nationmas...s-with-firearms
Notice how after the top 5 there's a sharp decline. This is without controlling for comparable in countries, in which case the Americans would be #1 and there would be a sharp decrease in #2. By your own logic, the marked increase in deaths is justified via the individual empowerment one receives from owning a weapon. I strongly hope you reword that or point out some flaw in my reasoning, cause from where I'm standing that statement is nothing short of ludicrous.

I can't figure out what you're trying to say here. In any case that graph is meaningless because it's based on number of murders with firearms total, so it's useless for comparison (not to mention it's incomplete, but giving the source used I suppose that's not surprising). The same website also has this link which is sort of more useful, but I noticed that they're using figures from wiki, and wiki's source figures look like they're 20 years old? In any case, America slips down to number 8 using the figures from the per 100,000 population graph and it sits under that dramatic drop you mentioned.

By comparable countries do you mean other first world countries? Or countries with lower gun restrictions? One of these things is more relevant than the other to this discussion, because if you're talking about western vs. non-western (and good luck with that definition too) America isn't really comparable because of its gun laws.

Also, pathos, south africa still wins at murdering people with guns on the other graph.

http://www.hsph.harv...eath/index.html
Comparable countries would be countries of similar income level. G20 comes to mind. The comparison still holds as america has considerably higher gun deaths per capita then anyone else. The major difference to be found is lack of adequate gun control, and a culture that is crazy about guns. Income disparity and other factors likely play a factor but a small one at best. There are many posts from quite a few pages back that illustrate this further from the anecdotal to the empirical. Finally if the data seems dated, i see no reason why a desparity of a decade would invalidate the results, there are also economic reasons such as lack of funding, (NRA wink wink nudge nudge) or simple lack of interest in the field.

Umm, I thought of that, but when when you say similar income, are we talking average income? And when we're talking average income, how is that average calculated? (Exchange rates Because wage-gaps in America vs other countries means that comparable income doesn't always reflect the way money is shared between populations, which is why I'm wondering if it's really comparable at all, which is relevant when we're talking about homicides in general rather than the school shooting phenomenon (because of the connection between violent crime and poverty). I was hoping your link would reflect that, but it doesn't, really. It's just studies saying that more guns = more violence (with guns), which I wasn't actually arguing against? I was looking for more adequate and representative information, not because I disagree, but because I'd rather have my opinion backed by less problematic data than what was provided.

Edit 2: Can't count: South Africa's homicide stats looked very different in the late 70's and 80's than they do in those tables, and while I'm not sure I'd argue that America has experienced the same kind of social upheaval that South Africa did (I dunno, some might) saying things can't change in that period of time is just ridiculous.This is why we have longitudinal studies, because things do change. Don't make excuses for sources just because they support your point of view when they're shitty sources. Even if there is a lack of funding or interest in gathering new source (Which in the case of homicide records I HIGHLY doubt), it doesn't make the sources any more useful for an argument.

Edited to add: Nico what the actual fuck are doing gleefully talking about your next gun purchase ("because freedom" = worst excuse ever, by the way) in a thread about SOME GUY MURDERING A BUNCH OF CHILDREN WITH A GUN? I know the thread has moved onto discussing gun laws, but seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you? That just stinks of being completely inappropriate. Just because it's been a little while since the killings doesn't mean you shouldn't have some respect for the dead. Jesus. I'm sure you're perfectly capable of starting some yay-gun thread somewhere that's not this thread.

This post has been edited by Ornery Owl: 05 January 2013 - 06:44 AM

[Shinrei]

BalrogLord, on 03 January 2013 - 04:32 PM, said:

By the line of reasoning you have demonstrated, individual empowerment takes precedence over the lives of others. Having an over abundance of gun leads to more deaths and incidents. They don't all have to be deranged psychos. They don't all have to be fatalities as well.

No. My argument is you don't punish the many for the crimes of the few. The rights of Muslims as individual persons should override isolated incidents - so they shouldn't be harassed at airports or government buildings. The rights of Hispanic looking people as individual persons should override the possibility they could be illegal immigrants - so they shouldn't be stopped by police and asked for ID. The rights of African Americans as individuals with rights overrides police profiling just because statistics suggest their odds of being a criminal are higher- so police shouldn't do their spot checks and pull them over for "driving while black". Alcohol shouldn't be banned just because some abuse it.

The statistic I want to see is what percentage of legal gun owners have gun related incidents/deaths. That means you have to weed out all the criminal shootings with guns acquired illegally.

Some might argue that if you take all the guns away, then you don't need to worry about it in any case, but what should be perfectly clear to anyone with sense, a full out gun ban and forced collection of firearms is not feasible.

Now if you are asking if I think the right to a gun is stronger than someone's right to life (and I shouldn't have to do this because it is fucking obvious), the answer is NO, ABSOLUTELY NOT. However, if you believe the issue is that black-and-white easy you're letting your passions get the better of you.

[Illuyankas]

How the hell is being racially abused in any way applicable to owning a gun!? You don't choose to be black, you DO choose to buy a firearm! Such a nonsense statement. And compare how many people have killed with bombs to their legislation if we're going by your first sentence. And what the hell does that statistic you want to see have to do with anything? Lowering illegal gun ownership would be one of the benefits of - you guessed it - increased regulation.

[Shinrei]

Illuyankas, on 05 January 2013 - 05:09 PM, said:

How the hell is being racially abused in any way applicable to owning a gun!? You don't choose to be black, you DO choose to buy a firearm! Such a nonsense statement. And compare how many people have killed with bombs to their legislation if we're going by your first sentence. And what the hell does that statistic you want to see have to do with anything? Lowering illegal gun ownership would be one of the benefits of - you guessed it - increased regulation.

Illy, you're setting up a classic strawman argument. I am not comparing gun ownership to race and to say I am creates a soft target to beat up. My examples are simply meant to show other ways of punishing many for actions of few.

Quote

Lowering illegal gun ownership would be one of the benefits of - you guessed it - increased regulation.

Really? In Japan something like this works, because there were never assloads of guns and tens of millions of bullets already out there in the public's hands. One of the problems with gun regulation is that all the law abiding people follow the laws and, well duh, the non-law abiding DONT follow the law. If you're using your gun for armed robbery or to kill rival gang members, gun regulation laws aren't going to do much to scare you off from acquiring one.

[worry]

That's a little simplistic, the "criminal" vs. "non-criminal" binary. Never liked that argument. If you could reduce straw purchases, and if you can confiscate illegal weapons, and you close gun show loopholes, and loopholes for used guns (yes, used guns are treated differently than new guns at various points in the law, primarily at time of purchase), and you cut down the manufacture of those kinds of weapons....you reduce the likelihood of mass gun deaths. It takes time, obviously, but are we planning on ending the country anytime soon? If not, there's not a deadline. We implement smart answers, and we get better over time. I know you think we're doomed this century anyway for entirely different economic reasons, but I think we maybe ought to at least behave like that's not a certainty.

[Shinrei]

worrywort, on 05 January 2013 - 10:22 PM, said:

That's a little simplistic, the "criminal" vs. "non-criminal" binary. Never liked that argument. If you could reduce straw purchases, and if you can confiscate illegal weapons, and you close gun show loopholes, and loopholes for used guns (yes, used guns are treated differently than new guns at various points in the law, primarily at time of purchase), and you cut down the manufacture of those kinds of weapons....you reduce the likelihood of mass gun deaths. It takes time, obviously, but are we planning on ending the country anytime soon? If not, there's not a deadline. We implement smart answers, and we get better over time. I know you think we're doomed this century anyway for entirely different economic reasons, but I think we maybe ought to at least behave like that's not a certainty.

lol, nice.

Yeah, we have already determined earlier that I don't disagree with anything you say here. I do think there is sensible gun legislation that should be put in place.

I'm just trying to make my reasoning clearer as to why I think ordinary people should be allowed legal gun ownership. If the definitions of what is "legal gun ownership" change, that's fine.

[LinearPhilosopher]

Ornery Owl, on 05 January 2013 - 05:25 AM, said:

BalrogLord, on 04 January 2013 - 03:23 PM, said:

Ornery Owl, on 04 January 2013 - 07:59 AM, said:

BalrogLord, on 03 January 2013 - 04:32 PM, said:

http://www.nationmas...s-with-firearms
Notice how after the top 5 there's a sharp decline. This is without controlling for comparable in countries, in which case the Americans would be #1 and there would be a sharp decrease in #2. By your own logic, the marked increase in deaths is justified via the individual empowerment one receives from owning a weapon. I strongly hope you reword that or point out some flaw in my reasoning, cause from where I'm standing that statement is nothing short of ludicrous.

I can't figure out what you're trying to say here. In any case that graph is meaningless because it's based on number of murders with firearms total, so it's useless for comparison (not to mention it's incomplete, but giving the source used I suppose that's not surprising). The same website also has this link which is sort of more useful, but I noticed that they're using figures from wiki, and wiki's source figures look like they're 20 years old? In any case, America slips down to number 8 using the figures from the per 100,000 population graph and it sits under that dramatic drop you mentioned.

By comparable countries do you mean other first world countries? Or countries with lower gun restrictions? One of these things is more relevant than the other to this discussion, because if you're talking about western vs. non-western (and good luck with that definition too) America isn't really comparable because of its gun laws.

Also, pathos, south africa still wins at murdering people with guns on the other graph.

http://www.hsph.harv...eath/index.html
Comparable countries would be countries of similar income level. G20 comes to mind. The comparison still holds as america has considerably higher gun deaths per capita then anyone else. The major difference to be found is lack of adequate gun control, and a culture that is crazy about guns. Income disparity and other factors likely play a factor but a small one at best. There are many posts from quite a few pages back that illustrate this further from the anecdotal to the empirical. Finally if the data seems dated, i see no reason why a desparity of a decade would invalidate the results, there are also economic reasons such as lack of funding, (NRA wink wink nudge nudge) or simple lack of interest in the field.

Umm, I thought of that, but when when you say similar income, are we talking average income? And when we're talking average income, how is that average calculated? (Exchange rates Because wage-gaps in America vs other countries means that comparable income doesn't always reflect the way money is shared between populations, which is why I'm wondering if it's really comparable at all, which is relevant when we're talking about homicides in general rather than the school shooting phenomenon (because of the connection between violent crime and poverty). I was hoping your link would reflect that, but it doesn't, really. It's just studies saying that more guns = more violence (with guns), which I wasn't actually arguing against? I was looking for more adequate and representative information, not because I disagree, but because I'd rather have my opinion backed by less problematic data than what was provided.

Edit 2: Can't count: South Africa's homicide stats looked very different in the late 70's and 80's than they do in those tables, and while I'm not sure I'd argue that America has experienced the same kind of social upheaval that South Africa did (I dunno, some might) saying things can't change in that period of time is just ridiculous.This is why we have longitudinal studies, because things do change. Don't make excuses for sources just because they support your point of view when they're shitty sources. Even if there is a lack of funding or interest in gathering new source (Which in the case of homicide records I HIGHLY doubt), it doesn't make the sources any more useful for an argument.

Edited to add: Nico what the actual fuck are doing gleefully talking about your next gun purchase ("because freedom" = worst excuse ever, by the way) in a thread about SOME GUY MURDERING A BUNCH OF CHILDREN WITH A GUN? I know the thread has moved onto discussing gun laws, but seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you? That just stinks of being completely inappropriate. Just because it's been a little while since the killings doesn't mean you shouldn't have some respect for the dead. Jesus. I'm sure you're perfectly capable of starting some yay-gun thread somewhere that's not this thread.

OMG! i can finally post here using chrome, i haven't been able to do so in ages.

anyhow on to the topic at hand. If you really want to be specific, first world countries would provide adequate comparison. Now if you want to get into the specifics of what qualifies for first world countries, well that's a geo-political thing that's murky but i won't shy away from such a tangent if you wish to pursue. However i would think this would not need elaboration . Also in the more recent link provided there are many many studies in different areas within the sub heading of guns, i suggest you give it a second look. For more cross nation studies im sure google can sate your curiosity. I also mentioned in the original post that the link did not control for comparable countries. South africa and US are not comparable in this regard by any stretch of the imagination.

Now as to murders and these shootings, both are symptoms of the same problem. Tragedies such as these happen when unstable individuals have easy access to guns. Gun murders and incidents are the result of stable individuals having easy access to guns.

Shinrei, on 05 January 2013 - 01:22 PM, said:

BalrogLord, on 03 January 2013 - 04:32 PM, said:

By the line of reasoning you have demonstrated, individual empowerment takes precedence over the lives of others. Having an over abundance of gun leads to more deaths and incidents. They don't all have to be deranged psychos. They don't all have to be fatalities as well.

No. My argument is you don't punish the many for the crimes of the few. The rights of Muslims as individual persons should override isolated incidents - so they shouldn't be harassed at airports or government buildings. The rights of Hispanic looking people as individual persons should override the possibility they could be illegal immigrants - so they shouldn't be stopped by police and asked for ID. The rights of African Americans as individuals with rights overrides police profiling just because statistics suggest their odds of being a criminal are higher- so police shouldn't do their spot checks and pull them over for "driving while black". Alcohol shouldn't be banned just because some abuse it.

The statistic I want to see is what percentage of legal gun owners have gun related incidents/deaths. That means you have to weed out all the criminal shootings with guns acquired illegally.

Some might argue that if you take all the guns away, then you don't need to worry about it in any case, but what should be perfectly clear to anyone with sense, a full out gun ban and forced collection of firearms is not feasible.

Now if you are asking if I think the right to a gun is stronger than someone's right to life (and I shouldn't have to do this because it is fucking obvious), the answer is NO, ABSOLUTELY NOT. However, if you believe the issue is that black-and-white easy you're letting your passions get the better of you.

There are studies in the website above that would show this if you felt like digging. I agree with you that removing guns and an all out ban on guns would not only be ill-advised and unfeasible, but also counter productive. Some individuals have posted reasonable suggestions for alleviating this, such as requiring a criminal records check to purchase guns at a gun show, stronger license requirements including courses on how to use/store guns with the need to maintain the license by re-taking the courses at set periods of time. Perhaps even create separate types of licenses between recreational licenses (collectors) and those who need them for employment/livelyhood (farmers) with the former having more restrictions.

Now as to the few vs many. I'm a big fan of Kant as such to me, as long as you are a rational moral agent, you have the right to the categorical imperative(unfortunately my notes are in a different city atm) As a thought experiment let's try and apply the CI to this scenario and see where it leads.
3 parts to the CI
The maxim of every action should have universality
individual should be treated as an end of themselves not merely a means to an end
Action should bring about the kingdom of ends, that is the best possible system using this, and not incurring contradictions.
Now the big thing about the CI is that it is a set of negative rights, for example you have the right not to be discriminated against, the right not to be lied to, right not to be forced into x. Now let's apply this to our scenario.

Discriminating against a muslim would definetely be a breach of the CI part 1+2. Rational moral agents have the right not to be discriminated against. Now gun laws are not a negative law, they are a positive law, you have the right to bear arms. So if we include the logical negation, you have the right not to own a gun. Makes sense. Now if everyone is given the right to own arms, they are definitely being treated as a end of themselves so no problem there. The problem lies with number one, that is that of universality. The studies show that if we have more guns around we have more deaths. This is not just from criminals, accidents happen, people get caught up in the heat of the moment. As such the maxim, the right to own guns cannot be universal. Now Kant being a western philosopher was still under the impression that identity was it's own substance or thing. It wasn't until Heidegger that westerners finally got around to realising contigent identity so i would add that because individuals can change from rational moral agents even if only temporarily, then it provides further grounds as to why gun rights are not universal.

Now Not everyone is a big fan of Kant, heck most people don't even know what deontology is and Kant has his flaws (being a backdoor christian for one). But this does give rise to a good framework for evaluating the ethical content of a scenario. It also made something very important come to light, your comparison between discriminating against individuals and gun rights is flawed. Discrimination is a negative law, gun rights are positive, and because of that they are FUNDAMENTALLY incomparable. So for comparison sake's let's stick to comparing positive rights to other positive rights in our discussion of the few vs the many.

[worry]

Kant you boil it down any more than that?

[Silencer]

And it goes on....

"Only" three dead this time, plus the shooter who was apparently killed by Police.

America, fuck yeah!

[A Demon Llama!]

Also, things like this apparently happen all the time in the United States. 10 year old girl killed by stray bullet fired into air. After reading this it reminded me of one of the forum members posting how they celebrated by firing into the air somewhere in the US this New Years. This shit shouldn't happen.

I'm not going to debate either side because I'm not smart enough plus I probably wont say anything new that hasnt been already said. Although the one argument I always hear pro gun is that other shit like knifes, forks and other random stuff can be used to kill peeps and if someone wants to kill someone they will find a way, plus theres many dangerous items that people use daily, like cars that can speed. Firearms have only ONE purpose, and that is to KILL PEOPLE. That's what they were invented for.

[LinearPhilosopher]

worrywort, on 05 January 2013 - 11:33 PM, said:

Kant you boil it down any more than that?

im sure i kant dewey

This post has been edited by BalrogLord: 06 January 2013 - 05:09 AM

[Illuyankas]

This is a political cartoon - yes, I know, but I think this one got published in a newspaper somewhere if that makes any difference - from 2011 but really, it's applicable every year. And every time.

[Silencer]

Briar King, on 07 January 2013 - 04:13 AM, said:

That forum member was me.

Ive already said that I fired no shot that day it was my friends and its all nothing but dense woods surrouding the area.


I know this is a touchy subject after 12/14 so those of you that know me Id hope would think I wasnt being a hypocrite with the emotional story I told a few pgs back. These people are country people and know where to fire.

Well, clearly they don't. "Do not fire unless you are certain of your target, and what is behind it." Is a pretty major heading in firearms 101. Firing into the air is by definition not being sure of your target. Dense woods are all well and good - but you have neighbours, and there are ZERO guarantees that there weren't some nice campers out in those woods half a mile away whose lives could have been taken or ruined.

[cerveza_fiesta]

Nicodimas, on 04 January 2013 - 08:44 AM, said:

My next purchase

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=_U6tORrODJE

America rules!!! be jealous.

Totally legal too! My buddy showed me this weekend..wowzers.

I was pretty shocked to see this post Nico. The thread isn't here to boast about your new rifle purchases, nor is it to discuss the finer points of rifle design. We're debating gun violence and its possible solutions.

This post doesn't even express an opinion that approaches on-topic and in the context of mass school shootings, is pretty inappropriate IMO. Since we've collectively decided you're not a troll (at least I don't think so), please keep expressing your opinions on the topic, but leave the dumb inflammatory posts at home.

Anyway, nobody really had much to say about what I thought was your main valid point from before. What to do about all the current guns in circulation? I have heard about "buyback" programs. Do they actually work anywhere or is it just for older unsafe guns?

[LinearPhilosopher]

cerveza_fiesta, on 07 January 2013 - 01:45 PM, said:

Nicodimas, on 04 January 2013 - 08:44 AM, said:

My next purchase

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=_U6tORrODJE

America rules!!! be jealous.

Totally legal too! My buddy showed me this weekend..wowzers.

I was pretty shocked to see this post Nico. The thread isn't here to boast about your new rifle purchases, nor is it to discuss the finer points of rifle design. We're debating gun violence and its possible solutions.

This post doesn't even express an opinion that approaches on-topic and in the context of mass school shootings, is pretty inappropriate IMO. Since we've collectively decided you're not a troll (at least I don't think so), please keep expressing your opinions on the topic, but leave the dumb inflammatory posts at home.

Anyway, nobody really had much to say about what I thought was your main valid point from before. What to do about all the current guns in circulation? I have heard about "buyback" programs. Do they actually work anywhere or is it just for older unsafe guns?

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...ce-results.html

Google can further sate your appetite if you desire. Gun buy-back programs do work, it's just a question of implementation and incentives.

This post has been edited by BalrogLord: 07 January 2013 - 06:34 PM

[worry]

Los Angeles has a very successful one every year for the past few, usually Mother's Day weekend, but it was moved up to December this year as a solidarity thing of sorts. It was started in 2009 and has already had nearly 10,000 guns turned in. This December one they even ran out of money (they give Ralph's gift cards actually, not cash) and 100+ were still turned in for free. And believe me, these aren't hunting rifles.

[Nicodimas]

Good little article for a read:
http://1389blog.com/...ce-and-for-all/

Quote

The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by law enforcement: 14. The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by civilians: 2.5. The reason is simple. The armed civilians are there when it started.

Quote

Oregon. NOT a gun free zone. Shooter confronted by permit holder. Shooter commits suicide. Only a few casualties.
Texas. NOT a gun free zone. Shooter killed immediately by off duty cop. Only a few casualties.
Connecticut. GUN FREE ZONE. Shooters kills until the police arrive. Suicide. 26 dead.
China. GUN FREE COUNTRY. A guy with a KNIFE stabs 22 children.

Quote

That mass killer used a gun and homemade explosives. Make guns harder to get, and explosives become the weapon of choice. Please do keep in mind that the largest and most advanced military coalition in human history was basically stymied for a decade by a small group using high school level chemistry and the Afghani equivalent to Radio Shack.