The Truth about Gun Control

[wehateporn]

[CDSmith]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graph...gs-in-america/

Some interesting reading which may shed light on why "guns now a problem?"

[galleryseek]

stahp it, you're triggering the gun control nuts.

[Helix]

Originally Posted by galleryseek

stahp it, you're triggering the gun control nuts.

[Spunky]

The anology of closing the barn door after the cows left comes to mind

[VikingMan]

emotional basket cases being allowed to vote is the problem

[dyna mo]

that would make sense except for the facts being omitted.

[Hannes]

"suddenly guns are a problem" the logic there makes no sense.
maybe people are doing more messed up shit that it's a are serious issue.

[dyna mo]

Guns have always been a concern in the USA. That's why they were addressed in our Constitution and why we have umpteen gun laws and SC decisions and so on and so forth.

Nothing about guns in America is all the sudden.

[galleryseek]

The point to take away from the chart is we can see every time some sort of decree is passed by our rulers, violence gets worse.

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by galleryseek

The point to take away from the chart is we can see every time some sort of decree is passed by our rulers, violence gets worse.

the federal assault weapons ban of 1994-2004 contradicts your claim.

[woj]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

the federal assault weapons ban of 1994-2004 contradicts your claim.

are you aware of the fact that "mass shootings" account for <1% of all homicides? so while they are vivid and elicit emotional response, from statistical point of view they are meaningless... do you think it's wise to base policy decisions on such a rare event?

[pimpmaster9000]

more americans die in america from domestic shootings than they did in war since ww2, this would be normal for every other country but america is non stop at war like all the mother fucking time...

[Jigster715]

Originally Posted by galleryseek

stahp it, you're triggering the gun control nuts.

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by woj

are you aware of the fact that "mass shootings" account for <1% of all homicides? so while they are vivid and elicit emotional response, from statistical point of view they are meaningless... do you think it's wise to base policy decisions on such a rare event?

i'm totally aware of that. and that's why i acknoweldge it as a problem, a big problem. because the media jumps on this events, overshadowing the problem of where and how and why the majority of people are killed by guns.

most people are not killed by assault style weapons but most all, like 90+% all of mass shooters kill with assault style weapons so yes, i think a policy re: assault style weapons would go towards solving several problems:

1. curbing mass shootings
2. curbing media sensationalism of mass shootings and shooters that distracts from addressing other gun problems.
3. being able to then address other gun problems

[420]

Everyone knows gun control won't work because murder is already illegal.

Originally Posted by VikingMan

emotional basket cases being allowed to vote is the problem

I agree, women should have never been granted the right to vote.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by Spunky

The anology of closing the barn door after the cows left comes to mind

The analogy of closing the barn door after the cows left comes to mind, is only held by morons. There is no barn, this is a river that keeps being refilled.

No one want's to take away all your guns. The people who are pro-control want to limit the killing power of the weapons you can own and the number of weapons.

If you want to go hunting, a single-shot is fine for everything but birds, in which case a double barrelled shotgun is fine. If you want to defend yourself a six-shooter is more than adequate. The odds of you coming out on top in that fight are long.

Also how weapons are kept is an issue. There are so many needless deaths where instead of punches being thrown, someone gets shot.

And then children who have shot people. These are the times we read about. How many times has a child fired a gun and not hit anyone?

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by woj

are you aware of the fact that "mass shootings" account for <1% of all homicides? so while they are vivid and elicit emotional response, from statistical point of view they are meaningless... do you think it's wise to base policy decisions on such a rare event?

So you have no problem with limiting the power, magazine and quantity of guns a person can own. In order to save lives.

Or maybe you do.

[woj]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

So you have no problem with limiting the power, magazine and quantity of guns a person can own. In order to save lives.

Or maybe you do.

Would you have a problem with "limiting the power" and max speed of cars sold "in order to save lives"? What justification is there for producing a car that is able to go over the speed limit? Clearly, traveling over the speed limit:
1. breaks the law
2. puts driver at much higher risk of death
3. significantly increases the risk for everyone else on the road
4. causes more deaths each year than all mass shootings ever combined

So obviously, the max speed on cars should be limited to 65mph (or whatever the max speed limit is in your country)... right?

[MiamiBoyz]

Murder with guns is pretty much the only thing that America can claim being number one anymore so nothing will be done.

Sorry but for national pride we must strive to keep those numbers growing.

[woj]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

i'm totally aware of that. and that's why i acknoweldge it as a problem, a big problem. because the media jumps on this events, overshadowing the problem of where and how and why the majority of people are killed by guns.

most people are not killed by assault style weapons but most all, like 90+% all of mass shooters kill with assault style weapons so yes, i think a policy re: assault style weapons would go towards solving several problems:

1. curbing mass shootings
2. curbing media sensationalism of mass shootings and shooters that distracts from addressing other gun problems.
3. being able to then address other gun problems

it's not clear how banning "assault style weapons" would "curb media sensationalism of mass shootings" or even "curb mas shootings" in the first place? If "assault style weapons" are banned, then obviously the nutjob would use a different weapon, perhaps an ordinary handgun, a pipe bomb, or any of dozens of other possible weapons, which seems at best would be only marginally less lethal and news worthy?

So the only possible advantage is that the mass shootings would be slightly less lethal... which is obviously a good outcome, but I don't see how focusing on saving perhaps 10-20 lives per year is smart, as there are ways to save way more lives with way less political friction than this...

[galleryseek]

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by wehateporn

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

So you have no problem with limiting the power, magazine and quantity of guns a person can own. In order to save lives.

Or maybe you do.

the government limits personal power in many many ways Paul. don't buy this gun, don't fuck that person, don't drink this or smoke that... big deal.

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by woj

it's not clear how banning "assault style weapons" would "curb media sensationalism of mass shootings" or even "curb mas shootings" in the first place? If "assault style weapons" are banned, then obviously the nutjob would use a different weapon, perhaps an ordinary handgun, a pipe bomb, or any of dozens of other possible weapons, which seems at best would be only marginally less lethal and news worthy?

So the only possible advantage is that the mass shootings would be slightly less lethal... which is obviously a good outcome, but I don't see how focusing on saving perhaps 10-20 lives per year is smart, as there are ways to save way more lives with way less political friction than this...

woj, you write windows apps?

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by woj

it's not clear how banning "assault style weapons" would "curb media sensationalism of mass shootings" or even "curb mas shootings" in the first place? If "assault style weapons" are banned, then obviously the nutjob would use a different weapon, perhaps an ordinary handgun, a pipe bomb, or any of dozens of other possible weapons, which seems at best would be only marginally less lethal and news worthy?

So the only possible advantage is that the mass shootings would be slightly less lethal... which is obviously a good outcome, but I don't see how focusing on saving perhaps 10-20 lives per year is smart, as there are ways to save way more lives with way less political friction than this...

When comparing an assault rifle to a handgun, handguns have less range and less amoo per clip. Imagine reducing the amount of people killed per mass shooting incident by two thirds.



This weapon used was created for the US Special Forces. How in the world do we justify handing out this out to civilians? The ONLY people who need this would be the military. It's not that it looks scary - it's deadly. This is a weapon designed to kill people.

Gun Review: SIG SAUER MCX - The Truth About Guns

I honestly don't care. Statistics tell me I am most likely die falling down the stairs in my house. I have a higher chance of being electrocuted in my tub than I do being the victim of a mass shooting (and I don't take baths). I own assault rifles myself. I just don't see the need why anyone would need something like this.

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by woj

it's not clear how banning "assault style weapons" would "curb media sensationalism of mass shootings" or even "curb mas shootings" in the first place? If "assault style weapons" are banned, then obviously the nutjob would use a different weapon, perhaps an ordinary handgun, a pipe bomb, or any of dozens of other possible weapons, which seems at best would be only marginally less lethal and news worthy?

So the only possible advantage is that the mass shootings would be slightly less lethal... which is obviously a good outcome, but I don't see how focusing on saving perhaps 10-20 lives per year is smart, as there are ways to save way more lives with way less political friction than this...

And you're free not to see that mass shootings are a big problem.

[woj]

Originally Posted by Rochard

When comparing an assault rifle to a handgun, handguns have less range and less amoo per clip. Imagine reducing the amount of people killed per mass shooting incident by two thirds.

This weapon used was created for the US Special Forces. How in the world do we justify handing out this out to civilians? The ONLY people who need this would be the military. It's not that it looks scary - it's deadly. This is a weapon designed to kill people.

Gun Review: SIG SAUER MCX - The Truth About Guns

I honestly don't care. Statistics tell me I am most likely die falling down the stairs in my house. I have a higher chance of being electrocuted in my tub than I do being the victim of a mass shooting (and I don't take baths). I own assault rifles myself. I just don't see the need why anyone would need something like this.

I agree, no one "needs" a gun like that... but maybe the owner feels safer owning one, maybe he derives pleasure from going to a gun range and shooting it, maybe his cock grows 2 inches when he shows it off to his friends, etc... who are we to judge?

is it really any different from an owner of a 800hp supercar that goes from 0-60 in 2 seconds and reaches 200mph? Does he "need" a car like that? Isn't it likely (I mean actually 100% certain) that he will drive it recklessly putting everyone at risk?

[Bladewire]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

The analogy of closing the barn door after the cows left comes to mind, is only held by morons. There is no barn, this is a river that keeps being refilled.

No one want's to take away all your guns. The people who are pro-control want to limit the killing power of the weapons you can own and the number of weapons.

If you want to go hunting, a single-shot is fine for everything but birds, in which case a double barrelled shotgun is fine. If you want to defend yourself a six-shooter is more than adequate. The odds of you coming out on top in that fight are long.

Also how weapons are kept is an issue. There are so many needless deaths where instead of punches being thrown, someone gets shot.

And then children who have shot people. These are the times we read about. How many times has a child fired a gun and not hit anyone?

On point & well said

[Relic]

Omar Mateen - IMDb

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

The analogy of closing the barn door after the cows left comes to mind, is only held by morons. There is no barn, this is a river that keeps being refilled.

No one want's to take away all your guns. The people who are pro-control want to limit the killing power of the weapons you can own and the number of weapons.

If you want to go hunting, a single-shot is fine for everything but birds, in which case a double barrelled shotgun is fine. If you want to defend yourself a six-shooter is more than adequate. The odds of you coming out on top in that fight are long.

Also how weapons are kept is an issue. There are so many needless deaths where instead of punches being thrown, someone gets shot.

And then children who have shot people. These are the times we read about. How many times has a child fired a gun and not hit anyone?

you know someone has no clue what they're talking about when they're claiming a "six-shooter is more than adequate" for personal protection/home protection.

also way off base to exclaim "no one wants to take away your guns" when in fact there are plenty of people who advocate that.

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by woj

I agree, no one "needs" a gun like that... but maybe the owner feels safer owning one, maybe he derives pleasure from going to a gun range and shooting it, maybe his cock grows 2 inches when he shows it off to his friends, etc... who are we to judge?

We have now gotten to the point where the very best military grade weapons designed for special forces can purchased by ANYONE. And this doesn't seem to concern anyone at all.

Originally Posted by woj

is it really any different from an owner of a 800hp supercar that goes from 0-60 in 2 seconds and reaches 200mph? Does he "need" a car like that? Isn't it likely (I mean actually 100% certain) that he will drive it recklessly putting everyone at risk?

The difference is an 800 hp super car isn't designed to kill a person.

[PaulBaker]

Originally Posted by woj

it's not clear how banning "assault style weapons" would "curb media sensationalism of mass shootings" or even "curb mas shootings" in the first place? If "assault style weapons" are banned, then obviously the nutjob would use a different weapon, perhaps an ordinary handgun, a pipe bomb, or any of dozens of other possible weapons, which seems at best would be only marginally less lethal and news worthy?

In Australia we've had 3 'lone wolf' terror attacks. The result has been 3 dead terrorists + 3 innocent victims. The weapons used by the terrorists was a knife, a shot gun, a revolver.

Australia changed it's gun laws in 1996 with the primary intention of limiting mass shootings. The result, no mass shootings in 20 years.

Organized criminals still have guns in Australia but they tend to shoot other criminals.

Criminals robing convenience stores or houses do use knives now instead of guns, but a bad guy with a knife is no match for a good guy with a baseball bat.

An important point about the Australian law changes is that it took a conservative government to say 'enough is enough.'

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by woj

Would you have a problem with "limiting the power" and max speed of cars sold "in order to save lives"? What justification is there for producing a car that is able to go over the speed limit? Clearly, traveling over the speed limit:
1. breaks the law
2. puts driver at much higher risk of death
3. significantly increases the risk for everyone else on the road
4. causes more deaths each year than all mass shootings ever combined

So obviously, the max speed on cars should be limited to 65mph (or whatever the max speed limit is in your country)... right?

How many innocent lives is it worth to keep your right to own the guns that are pointless?

Yes limiting the power of cars is sensible. Again how many lives is it worth to own a car that is pointless?

Of course, if you can give us a valid reason for overpowered cars or guns, we can debate that.

This goes for any moron who thinks an overpowered car or gun makes them special.

[woj]

Originally Posted by Rochard

The difference is an 800 hp super car isn't designed to kill a person.

it's a tool "designed to kill a person" in the same sense as a hammer is a tool designed to hammer in nails... in a naive sense it is, but there is a bigger picture, you buy it for a certain purpose, perhaps to build a house with it, not to "hammer in nails"...

likewise the purpose of a gun is not to "kill a person", but it's to defend oneself...

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by Rochard

We have now gotten to the point where the very best military grade weapons designed for special forces can purchased by ANYONE. And this doesn't seem to concern anyone at all.

More rochard nonsense.

[candyflip]

Originally Posted by Rochard

This is a weapon designed to kill people.
.

Uh, aren't most weapons designed to kill?

Bunch of idiots getting caught up in the way something looks.

[woj]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

How many innocent lives is it worth to keep your right to own the guns that are pointless?

Yes limiting the power of cars is sensible. Again how many lives is it worth to own a car that is pointless?

Of course, if you can give us a valid reason for overpowered cars or guns, we can debate that.

This goes for any moron who thinks an overpowered car or gun makes them special.

The whole thing isn't even about guns I think, it's left vs right divide about the role of the government...

"left" thinks they know best and that it's government's job to tell people how to live their lives, their justification is that it's for the greater good, to save lives, etc... so they do that by restricting people's rights/freedoms, by redistributing people's hard earned $$ to social programs, etc...

"right" is opposed to policies like that, "right" believes that each person knows best how to live their own lives and so they should be the ones making the decisions not some corrupted politician...

[galleryseek]

I'll give you all the philosophical grounding from which we should be able to own any type of gun we fucking want.


1. (a) You own your body and (b) property you've gained via original appropriation or voluntary exchange.

2. In regards to (a), this is irrefutable, even if you assert that you do not own your body. The act of using your body to communicate that you don't own it, is a performative contradiction. Each of us owns our body, and (b) property.

3. With property rights established above, the non-aggression axiom is validated. The non-aggression axiom is the recognition that it's wrong to initiate or threaten the initiation of force against a person or their property.

^- Points 1, 2 and 3 therefore legitamize owning anything as long as it does not break #3 from above (The non-aggression axiom, sometimes referred to as the NAP [non-aggression principle]) -- because the act of simply owning an object, is not a violation of the NAP.

This is why any "crimes" that are based on victimless activities are null. Whether it's owning weapons, using or selling drugs, prostitution; it's all victimless and therefore should be permissible.

The point at which a person threatens or initiates force against someone, they've broken the NAP and action should be taken against them.

So again.

(a) A person owns a gun.
(b) A person owns a gun and threatens or uses it to injure someone.

(a) is okay.
(b) is not.


I understand most of you have undergone 13+ years of government indoctrination centers as youngsters, and have watched enough mainstream mind-numbing media that it can make this type of logic difficult to process. But for christ's sake, it's time to put our big boy pants on.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by woj

The whole thing isn't even about guns I think, it's left vs right divide about the role of the government...

"left" thinks they know best and that it's government's job to tell people how to live their lives, their justification is that it's for the greater good, to save lives, etc... so they do that by restricting people's rights/freedoms, by redistributing people's hard earned $$ to social programs, etc...

"right" is opposed to policies like that, "right" believes that each person knows best how to live their own lives and so they should be the ones making the decisions not some corrupted politician...

So it's not about saving lives. And the Right is happy to see more die because killing people is your freedom.

It's about the Arms Industry profits and share prices. You know that and so does everyone else.

How much does it cost for a Right Wing politician to get elected? So they can block any move that makes guns less deadly and the arms industry bosses richer?

[Joshua G]

Originally Posted by woj

I agree, no one "needs" a gun like that... but maybe the owner feels safer owning one, maybe he derives pleasure from going to a gun range and shooting it, maybe his cock grows 2 inches when he shows it off to his friends, etc... who are we to judge?

is it really any different from an owner of a 800hp supercar that goes from 0-60 in 2 seconds and reaches 200mph? Does he "need" a car like that? Isn't it likely (I mean actually 100% certain) that he will drive it recklessly putting everyone at risk?

yeah, there is a difference. when a person loses his mental health & decides to kill, he never reaches for the keys of his supercar as the weapon of choice. maybe gun lovers can live with a little less firepower at the gun range, or wherever, & still get their rocks off, while making military guns not-easily-available to freshly cracked insanity.

i think NRA stands for assault weapons due to the slippery slope. next up for ban is handguns if liberals get the ARs...

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

So it's not about saving lives. And the Right is happy to see more die because killing people is your freedom.

It's about the Arms Industry profits and share prices. You know that and so does everyone else.

How much does it cost for a Right Wing politician to get elected? So they can block any move that makes guns less deadly and the arms industry bosses richer?

you may want to get updated on the fact the left, up to and including BO, hasn't done jack shit about the gun problems.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

you may want to get updated on the fact the left, up to and including BO, hasn't done jack shit about the gun problems.

So when you vote for Sanders, you can rely on him to do something.

I agree with you. And so long as the Arms Industry pays for politicians on both sides nothing will get done. This is the freedom Woj talks about, they have bought your freedom to buy guns you don't need to make them richer and like Woj don't care if they're used to kill kids.

He uses stupid analogies like cars. What's the most people one man has killed with a car?

Or GS. So after a person has committed a crime, police can react. Prevention is not an issue.

There's one thing that's guaranteed to come from the Right. Dipshit logic.

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

So when you vote for Sanders, you can rely on him to do something.

I agree with you. And so long as the Arms Industry pays for politicians on both sides nothing will get done. This is the freedom Woj talks about, they have bought your freedom to buy guns you don't need to make them richer and like Woj don't care if they're used to kill kids.

He uses stupid analogies like cars. What's the most people one man has killed with a car?

Or GS. So after a person has committed a crime, police can react. Prevention is not an issue.

There's one thing that's guaranteed to come from the Right. Dipshit logic.

it's way past time to drop the r v l issues re: gun problems. just like with climate change, the argument will overshadow action. and just like what is happening, nothing will happen. this is a people problem, not a political problem. the more both sides point their finger at the other side, the other side will defend their views, when you need to form a consensus, telling the people, whom you need to agree with you, that they are idiots, the problem, dipshit logic, etc, is not the way to reach a consensus.

[flashfire]

does anyone really want to ban guns in general? I mean I'm sure there are some

seriously though there is no need for a civilian to have an assault rifle...yes people will still be shot but guns but it will be harder to carry out mass attacks. To say "it won't stop gun violence" is ignorant.

that is like saying get rid of seat belts because people still die in car crashes so it doesn't help

[Vendzilla]

Originally Posted by wehateporn

Awesome, thanx for that

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

it's way past time to drop the r v l issues re: gun problems. just like with climate change, the argument will overshadow action. and just like what is happening, nothing will happen. this is a people problem, not a political problem. the more both sides point their finger at the other side, the other side will defend their views, when you need to form a consensus, telling the people, whom you need to agree with you, that they are idiots, the problem, dipshit logic, etc, is not the way to reach a consensus.

By dipshit logic I mean replies like people drown so ban water, etc. Or the NRA is about people's freedoms. Those people are not going to change.

It is a political problem, all it needs is a countrywide referendum. More limits on the power of weapons the general public can own, or leave it. The arms one can bear is already limited, so can be done.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by flashfire

does anyone really want to ban guns in general? I mean I'm sure there are some

seriously though there is no need for a civilian to have an assault rifle...yes people will still be shot but guns but it will be harder to carry out mass attacks. To say "it won't stop gun violence" is ignorant.

that is like saying get rid of seat belts because people still die in car crashes so it doesn't help

It's simple logic. 1 bullet can only kill 1 person, or 2 if it goes through. A semi-automatic and loads of bullets can kill 50 or more.

If it's illegal top own a fully automatic machine gun that can spit out 100s a minute. Why not assault weapons and large magazines?

[galleryseek]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

It's simple logic. 1 bullet can only kill 1 person, or 2 if it goes through. A semi-automatic and loads of bullets can kill 50 or more.

If it's illegal top own a fully automatic machine gun that can spit out 100s a minute. Why not assault weapons and large magazines?

Please see my previous post for why your position is immoral.

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

It's simple logic. 1 bullet can only kill 1 person, or 2 if it goes through. A semi-automatic and loads of bullets can kill 50 or more.

If it's illegal top own a fully automatic machine gun that can spit out 100s a minute. Why not assault weapons and large magazines?

USA had an assault weapons ban for 10 years once. mass shootings went down as did the # of murdered during mass shooting attacks.