[Obdigore]

If we want to compare, via graph, two things that don't influence each other and try to claim correlation, we can play that game.

https://upload.wikim...28en%29.svg.png

This post has been edited by Obdigore: 18 February 2016 - 12:08 PM

[Aptorian]

Wait. There were 46,000 pirates at one point in history? That figure blows my mind but then again there used to be a lot more sea traffic as well.

[Macros]

There's only 17 pirates now?
This disappoints me

[Tsundoku]

@Nico
Gabrielle Gifford
Colorado Cinema
Both events full of responsible, trained, legal-carrying gun owners.
All "good guy" arguments are invalid.

@Primateus
"Responsible gun owner of the year"
The mystery isn't how the weapon was loaded after being cleaned and/or serviced (because people are fucking stupid).
No, it's "how was the fucking thing still cocked?". When you pull a weapon apart for maintenance, part of putting it back together is seeing that it functions. But doing that properly means checking the trigger, or dry firing mechanism. The weapon is then no longer cocked. So what the fuck did that idiot do? Re-cocked it before putting it back in his bed?
Unless the lady victim mucked around with it and cocked it by accident. But then we get into all sorts of suicide/murder grey areas ...

This post has been edited by Tsundoku: 18 February 2016 - 12:56 PM

[Illuyankas]

Reminds me of that incident with the man who decided to shoot at a robber but hit the victim, then picked up his shells and fled the scene

Or the fact gun numbers have risen but gun ownership has dropped like a stone, indicating that people who own guns are collectors, enthusiasts and nutjobs

Or the experiment one casual white guy and one incredibly brave black guy did where they both walked around in an open carry state with open carry permits and a legal rifle and guess who had the cops called on them, confiscate his gun and still not have returned it? here's a hint, he wasn't a Friend of Trump

[Illuyankas]

 Nicodimas, on 17 February 2016 - 10:56 PM, said:

Nonsense. This sounds really paranoid and a very fear driven response. Imagine now if the proper people who wanted to have guns were able to legally carry at these events. These people who would usually carry and act would more than likely be the well trained people correct? This is basic psychology as not everyone would even know how to act in this situation unless they had trained and trained hard to get past the intial fear response. Make sense? Think about the situation, not everyone is going to be a cowboy in this situation.

The police want people to not get their guns out because they will be killed as accomplices, training to point a gun and training to be able to handle stressful and panicky situations are extremely different to the point that the comparison is laughable and garbage nonsense. You also completely forget that the improper people who wanted to have guns (and have them) would be able to legally carry and since no background checks anything could happen.

Quote

This sounds racist. There is no reason for law abiding citizens to go around killing people as "terrorist's". This is a Crime. The Majority of gun owners are very law abiding. We are talking about 5 of 100,000 that commit murder. The goal should be to lower this number as a society to find out the best way to keep everyone safer.

Safe is the ability for everyone to have the equal right to defend themselves.

Suicide has been a crime in a lot of places. Do you know what the suicide success rate is for someone using a gun, compared to every other method? Do you know the person mostly likely to be killed by you with the gun in your house is yourself, followed by your family? Actual murder is a bynote compared to how many people are killed by themselves or in accidents with guns.

Hell, I've seen an argument that implementing background checks and a handgun ban in exchange for relaxing laws against machine guns and suppressors would drastically drop the rate at which people are killed in both intentional and unintentional ways by guns, with more fun stuff for the enthusiast and less hearing damage (as suppressors are not the Hollywood phut phut idea) and less overall kills in spree killings, even if they did get a machine gun.

[Primateus]

 Illuyankas, on 18 February 2016 - 08:18 PM, said:

Or the experiment one casual white guy and one incredibly brave black guy did where they both walked around in an open carry state with open carry permits and a legal rifle and guess who had the cops called on them, confiscate his gun and still not have returned it? here's a hint, he wasn't a Friend of Trump

Lies, we all know that racism is over! The supreme court said so.

But holy fucking shit, that is one supremely brave guy!

[Primateus]

I thought I'd share this one too, just because...

More good guys with guns.

[amphibian]

 Illuyankas, on 18 February 2016 - 08:18 PM, said:

Reminds me of that incident with the man who decided to shoot at a robber but hit the victim, then picked up his shells and fled the scene

It is important that you get your terminology correct when talking about firearms. Keep in mind that I generally agree with your overall points.

The man picked up his spent casings, not his shells. The word "shell" in reference to firearms usually means artillery level stuff, but sometimes, people will use it to talk about the whole cartridge/round (before the bullet is fired and the spent casing is ejected).

The reason why I pipe up on this is that quite often, people will fixate on the minor grammatical errors to the exclusion of all else. This is also a very tough subject to talk about knowledgeably if you have not fired a firearm, figured out current applicable gun laws in the location being talked about, and/or learned how to operate a firearm correctly.

[Illuyankas]

If someone choses to respond to, say, using the word clip instead of magazine by declaring you not knowledgable enough to debate gun control, they were never going to argue in good faith with you at any point anyway.

[worry]

The fact is, gun control legislation in America amounts to three things: 1) Let's not proliferate military-grade weapons among the populace, 2) let's not leave basic gun safety to the honor system, and 3) let's not return to Wild West style gunslinger "justice".

These are such simple, reasonable ideas that it pretty much requires fomenting paranoia and evoking 1-in-10-million life & death scenarios to inspire opposition to them. It never ceases to amaze me how people who consider themselves such independent thinkers, who suspect the government of wrongdoing and manipulation at every turn, fall hook line and sinker for those exact same things from gigantic private sector institutions. It's the same story over and over though, from the Tea Party to the gun fetishists. They might as well be handing their money to Bernie Madoff.

[amphibian]

 Illuyankas, on 18 February 2016 - 10:32 PM, said:

If someone choses to respond to, say, using the word clip instead of magazine by declaring you not knowledgable enough to debate gun control, they were never going to argue in good faith with you at any point anyway.

Pushing the point at which they rudely interrupt you further and further into the future is a good tactic to make use of.

[Macros]

Amph makes a fair point.
I've had this debate with a few very pro gun guys.
And when I made a few weapon generalisations and used terminology they deemed incorrect they berated me for clearly never having handled a gun and thus not understand the situation at all.and shouldn't have an opinion on it.

I calmly explained to them that I have indeed shot guns, in safe environments, designed specifically for shooting guns. Not schools or cinema theatres.

Didn't matter they insisted everyone should carry, and thus the world would be safe.

[Primateus]

I would suggest that both Amph and Illy's points have merits.

Amph in that correct terminology is important for better communication and understanding between opposing parties in the discussion. And that people will focus on wrong use of terminology to the exclusion of all other aspects of the discussion in order to derail the argument.

And Illy is correct that if people do that, then they're not arguing in good faith and are clearly not interested in having a reasonable and adult debate about whatever the subject matter is.

[worry]

Someone in Michigan just went around shooting people. 7 killed, more wounded.

http://www.bbc.com/n...canada-35624558

[Grief]

Keep it on topic please; this is a DB topic so posts that don't contribute are liable to be removed as spam. I'd also like to remind people that the point of this thread is not to sit around making snide comments every time someone gets killed in a shooting.

[worry]

If the 2nd Amendment was abolished, and guns confiscated (knowing it couldn't ever be 100%, but as much as possible) would there be more deaths or fewer deaths?

[Illuyankas]

Fewer deaths. This is indisputable.

[Andorion]

Combining the topic of discussion with the latest shooting, it appears that a man just drove around randomly shooting people. How is gun owner ship in Michigan? Did any gun owners try to stop him?

[Maark Abbott]

 Illuyankas, on 23 February 2016 - 01:37 AM, said:

Fewer deaths. This is indisputable.

From what I've seen - fewer deaths from firearms specifically, but as has happened in England / the UK, you'd probably see a rise in deaths caused by things like knives, pipes, etc.