School shooting in Connecticut
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/14/us/connecticut-school-shooting/index.html
Probably one of the worst school shootings I can remember. The person who did this is one messed up dude. I can still somewhat understand people wanting to take revenge on others who have hurt them, by hurting them back, but I can never understand why are there people going around killing innocent people who had nothing to do with the killer's own suffering.
School shooting is becoming a dangerous thing. Almost like a "trend" for psychopathic killers.
Probably one of the worst school shootings I can remember. The person who did this is one messed up dude. I can still somewhat understand people wanting to take revenge on others who have hurt them, by hurting them back, but I can never understand why are there people going around killing innocent people who had nothing to do with the killer's own suffering.
School shooting is becoming a dangerous thing. Almost like a "trend" for psychopathic killers.
Now if only I had a well heart, also hopefully those wounded can find Dink Smallwood to help them[not the DN so much].
Too bad one of the staff didn't have acid rain charged up, or a gun.
December 14th 2012, 07:00 PM
shevek
Too bad one of the staff didn't have acid rain charged up, or a gun.
The problem isn't that there aren't enough guns; it's that there are way too many. Giving some more to people who you hope can be trusted doesn't make things safer, because you will sometimes be mistaken in who to trust. AFAIK, the USA has many more shooting incidents than any country where weapons aren't so easily available. Especially in case of schools, where angry students go mad over things that seem very important to them (like being bullied), it is much better if they can't easily get their hands on a weapon. If many people around them have fire arms, it will be relatively easy to steal one. Here in the Netherlands, I wouldn't have a clue where to start looking if I'd want to get a weapon. And if I did start looking, chances are that the police would find me before I find a weapon.
I feel a lot safer knowing that almost nobody has a gun, than I would if I had one myself. Did you know that people who own a gun are more likely to get killed by a gun (possibly their own) if a criminal enters their house, than people who don't?
The problem isn't that there aren't enough guns; it's that there are way too many. Giving some more to people who you hope can be trusted doesn't make things safer, because you will sometimes be mistaken in who to trust. AFAIK, the USA has many more shooting incidents than any country where weapons aren't so easily available. Especially in case of schools, where angry students go mad over things that seem very important to them (like being bullied), it is much better if they can't easily get their hands on a weapon. If many people around them have fire arms, it will be relatively easy to steal one. Here in the Netherlands, I wouldn't have a clue where to start looking if I'd want to get a weapon. And if I did start looking, chances are that the police would find me before I find a weapon.
I feel a lot safer knowing that almost nobody has a gun, than I would if I had one myself. Did you know that people who own a gun are more likely to get killed by a gun (possibly their own) if a criminal enters their house, than people who don't?
I can steal one of my dad's if theirs a zombie invasion, also you kind of made a confession if the place is in need of guns shevek. Also if no one owned a gun, what if zombies attacked, we have melle[spellcheck], but we can take on some many[ 1,2, mabye 3] before being overwelmed, while if we had a gun and lets say a hammer we can shoot and defend if they come to close.
December 14th 2012, 08:28 PM
shevek
you kind of made a confession if the place is in need of guns shevek.
What did I confess? That I don't have a gun, and don't know where to get one? Sure, I'll confess that.
I can steal one of my dad's
Exactly my point, thank you.
what if zombies attacked
Um... Look, this is a serious discussion, please don't turn it into a joke. Actual people got killed because some lunatic with a gun started shooting. TheRainmaker was suggesting that this could have been prevented by adding more weapons. I know some people think everything can be solved by adding weapons (USA citizens seem to think this more than others), but it doesn't work that way. Especially violence can not be prevented by adding weapons to it. Even if it is natural violence.
What did I confess? That I don't have a gun, and don't know where to get one? Sure, I'll confess that.
I can steal one of my dad's
Exactly my point, thank you.
what if zombies attacked
Um... Look, this is a serious discussion, please don't turn it into a joke. Actual people got killed because some lunatic with a gun started shooting. TheRainmaker was suggesting that this could have been prevented by adding more weapons. I know some people think everything can be solved by adding weapons (USA citizens seem to think this more than others), but it doesn't work that way. Especially violence can not be prevented by adding weapons to it. Even if it is natural violence.
Getting rid of guns won't change a thing. If you take away toilets people will piss on the floor instead. The real change has to be at a cultural level.
In Australia, all the criminals with guns have acquired them illegally, and our murder rate is still quite high. Don't get me started on drive-by shooting incidences.
Firearms restrictions just mean that people who lawfully want a weapon such as farmers, collectors, and hunters are unable to acquire one while criminals run rampant gunning people down in the streets.
In Australia, all the criminals with guns have acquired them illegally, and our murder rate is still quite high. Don't get me started on drive-by shooting incidences.
Firearms restrictions just mean that people who lawfully want a weapon such as farmers, collectors, and hunters are unable to acquire one while criminals run rampant gunning people down in the streets.
US rate of homicide per person is 4.2 times greater than Australia source. The US, with higher rate and 15x the population, have so many homicides their media don't dwell and report on them as much as ours. Don't mistake that for more crime.. Australia is one of the safest places in the world if you look at the stats.
Hunters and farmers can get appropriate firearms.. and there's a big difference between that and being able to get military-grade semiautomatic weapons that you can carry openly down the street in some places in the US. Maybe some firearm restrictions limit hunters and farmers, but to say all is hyperbole
(For non-Australians, be aware that we have a distinct ecosystem that is threatened by many introduced species from the Americas and Asia/Africa/Europe supercontinent, so it's generally seen as ethical and encouraged for the introduced species to be hunted down to protect other wildlife etc. So I guess having access to guns is particularly important for us, yet we have much more firearm restrictions than the US)
Hunters and farmers can get appropriate firearms.. and there's a big difference between that and being able to get military-grade semiautomatic weapons that you can carry openly down the street in some places in the US. Maybe some firearm restrictions limit hunters and farmers, but to say all is hyperbole
(For non-Australians, be aware that we have a distinct ecosystem that is threatened by many introduced species from the Americas and Asia/Africa/Europe supercontinent, so it's generally seen as ethical and encouraged for the introduced species to be hunted down to protect other wildlife etc. So I guess having access to guns is particularly important for us, yet we have much more firearm restrictions than the US)
And people checks the killer's facebook account, finds out he likes Mass Effect. What does the common American think of first? Mass Effect is the cause of his behaviour.
What a bunch of freaks.
What a bunch of freaks.
Getting rid of guns won't change a thing.
That is the biggest reason things in America will never change. Denial. People are denying that taking guns away will reduce massacres like these, only so they could keep their beloved little rifles and shotguns on their wall as "ornaments". Of course it will change things! If nobody has a gun to shoot with, then nobody will get shot. Simple as that. Of course there will always be special cases, but many could have been avoided with a new law for getting rid of guns.
What's even more horrible, is that apparently Republicans passed a law under 24 hours before the shooting, which allows you to carry guns into kindergartens and schools.
That is the biggest reason things in America will never change. Denial. People are denying that taking guns away will reduce massacres like these, only so they could keep their beloved little rifles and shotguns on their wall as "ornaments". Of course it will change things! If nobody has a gun to shoot with, then nobody will get shot. Simple as that. Of course there will always be special cases, but many could have been avoided with a new law for getting rid of guns.
What's even more horrible, is that apparently Republicans passed a law under 24 hours before the shooting, which allows you to carry guns into kindergartens and schools.
>What's even more horrible, is that apparently Republicans passed a law under 24 hours before the shooting, which allows you to carry guns into kindergartens and schools.
How is this horrible? If lawful citizens are taking guns to schools, they would be able to stop school shootings more easily when they need to.
How is this horrible? If lawful citizens are taking guns to schools, they would be able to stop school shootings more easily when they need to.
December 15th 2012, 06:48 AM
shevek
If lawful citizens are taking guns to schools, they would be able to stop school shootings more easily when they need to.
And if not so lawful citizens are taking guns to schools, they would be able to start shootings more easily when they want to. If there are no guns, there are no shootings, so they don't need to be stopped.
And if not so lawful citizens are taking guns to schools, they would be able to start shootings more easily when they want to. If there are no guns, there are no shootings, so they don't need to be stopped.
YeoldeToast, that's exactly the typical way of thinking. Because of people like you have gotten their ideas jammed through in laws, things like these are still happening. People like you, and you, in fact, are contributing to the death of innocent people with thoughts and ideas like that. Civilians don't need guns, civilians don't require guns, and civilians most certainly should not have guns in their possession. You don't need "lawful citizens" taking guns to schools, if you simply take guns away from everybody. Your way of thinking is naive and stupid, and because of people like you, massacres like these are going to happen in the future as well. Sorry if I'm coming across as harsh, but it's true and you know it.
And what Quiztis said is exactly what is going to happen. A school shooting happens. A video game or a movie is blamed because it's easier than facing reality. The truth is forgotten between all this, and a few years if not months later another incident like this happens. Instead of blaming games and movies, how about people finally realize that there are always going to be insane, ducked up people in this world, who should not have dangerous death machines in their reach.
And what Quiztis said is exactly what is going to happen. A school shooting happens. A video game or a movie is blamed because it's easier than facing reality. The truth is forgotten between all this, and a few years if not months later another incident like this happens. Instead of blaming games and movies, how about people finally realize that there are always going to be insane, ducked up people in this world, who should not have dangerous death machines in their reach.
American gun laws are a blight on the modern "civilized" world.
This is a heartbreaking tragedy and it's hard to comprehend the mind of the individual who carried out the assault, but one thing is clear to me; if he didn't have such easy access to guns, those children would be alive today.
Something needs to change.
This is a heartbreaking tragedy and it's hard to comprehend the mind of the individual who carried out the assault, but one thing is clear to me; if he didn't have such easy access to guns, those children would be alive today.
Something needs to change.
Too many of these things keep happening by all these messed up people. R.I.P
Pretty embarrassing. Who shoots little kidleys? These guys should choose some military complex as the target for their extended suicide.
As for guns, I don't think stricter gun control goes a particularly long way at preventing school shootings and the like. (Gun-related crime in general is another matter.) School shootings seem to be purely the milieu of social recluses, ie. "responsible" people with no criminal record and nothing to prevent them from legally acquiring a gun. School shootings are also something that the person has been planning for a while, they don't just snatch their mom's sig sauer on a whim and start blasting at people. And it happens in countries such as Finland and Norway too, which have anything but lenient gun laws.
As for guns, I don't think stricter gun control goes a particularly long way at preventing school shootings and the like. (Gun-related crime in general is another matter.) School shootings seem to be purely the milieu of social recluses, ie. "responsible" people with no criminal record and nothing to prevent them from legally acquiring a gun. School shootings are also something that the person has been planning for a while, they don't just snatch their mom's sig sauer on a whim and start blasting at people. And it happens in countries such as Finland and Norway too, which have anything but lenient gun laws.
December 15th 2012, 10:23 AM
shevek
I don't think stricter gun control goes a particularly long way at preventing school shootings and the like.
When looking at such a large scale, it is important to be careful with generalizations. You seem to say (later) that stricter gun control will not result in preventing all shootings. I agree with that. However, you suggest that it will not have any effect. I disagree; I'm pretty sure that stricter gun control will significantly lower the number of shootings everywhere, including at schools.
School shootings seem to be purely the milieu of social recluses, ie. "responsible" people with no criminal record and nothing to prevent them from legally acquiring a gun.
I don't think this is correct. You're talking about the cases that make the world news. Those are the cases that are exceptionally "successful". Yes, for such results, you need planning. No, they aren't the only shootings that happen.
Plus, here in the Netherlands even responsible people have a pretty hard time getting a gun. Of course you can never prevent everything. But if you're looking at statistics, fewer guns means fewer deaths: people will use what they can get (probably knives), which means fewer deaths, and especially fewer deaths among innocent bystanders.
But all this isn't rocket science, and people who make those laws in the US aren't all stupid. They know this. And they don't care, because they have different priorities. What matters most to them, is that they are not depending on anyone else for their safety. They don't trust anyone but themselves. They know, that by giving the task of keeping things safe to the police, society will be safer. But they also know that they must then trust the police to do a good job. And they don't trust anyone. They take the decreased security of everyone, including themselves, as a price that they pay for not having to trust the police.
Ok, I changed my mind. Perhaps they are all stupid. Or ignorant. Let's hope they are ignorant. And let's hope they will some day understand all this, and live in peace.
When looking at such a large scale, it is important to be careful with generalizations. You seem to say (later) that stricter gun control will not result in preventing all shootings. I agree with that. However, you suggest that it will not have any effect. I disagree; I'm pretty sure that stricter gun control will significantly lower the number of shootings everywhere, including at schools.
School shootings seem to be purely the milieu of social recluses, ie. "responsible" people with no criminal record and nothing to prevent them from legally acquiring a gun.
I don't think this is correct. You're talking about the cases that make the world news. Those are the cases that are exceptionally "successful". Yes, for such results, you need planning. No, they aren't the only shootings that happen.
Plus, here in the Netherlands even responsible people have a pretty hard time getting a gun. Of course you can never prevent everything. But if you're looking at statistics, fewer guns means fewer deaths: people will use what they can get (probably knives), which means fewer deaths, and especially fewer deaths among innocent bystanders.
But all this isn't rocket science, and people who make those laws in the US aren't all stupid. They know this. And they don't care, because they have different priorities. What matters most to them, is that they are not depending on anyone else for their safety. They don't trust anyone but themselves. They know, that by giving the task of keeping things safe to the police, society will be safer. But they also know that they must then trust the police to do a good job. And they don't trust anyone. They take the decreased security of everyone, including themselves, as a price that they pay for not having to trust the police.
Ok, I changed my mind. Perhaps they are all stupid. Or ignorant. Let's hope they are ignorant. And let's hope they will some day understand all this, and live in peace.
Here's a thought: What if all of these shootings that have happened recently are because of the 2012 apocalypse that will supposedly happen?
Imagine, people are expecting the apocalypse, thus they do whatever they want because they think it will happen, thus their actions propitiate the apocalypse, thus they create, in some form or another, the apocalypse.
Imagine, people are expecting the apocalypse, thus they do whatever they want because they think it will happen, thus their actions propitiate the apocalypse, thus they create, in some form or another, the apocalypse.
That does make sense, but wouldn't there be more sooner and then tons on the projected day. Also I don't like my previous post being deleted.
The people who would off themselves in their basement see the shootings being spread around, the shooters becoming well known. They decide to kill a bunch of people, dying in a show of horrible 'glory' that makes them go from dying a nobody to dying a somebody. People who seek fame don't care if it's good or bad, especially if they're going to kill themselves.
(A side note: Even if the guy was Christian and asked for forgiveness, he'd still go to Hell because it's suicide. This particular tidbit is so that the question isn't brought up. Either way, the arsetard's going to burn eternally.)
(A side note: Even if the guy was Christian and asked for forgiveness, he'd still go to Hell because it's suicide. This particular tidbit is so that the question isn't brought up. Either way, the arsetard's going to burn eternally.)
Strict gun control and more counselling for mental health.
Should help out, I think.
Should help out, I think.
I was specificly talking about school shootings like this one, where some dude decides to off a bunch of people. Generic shooting incidents (on school grounds and elsewhere) happen a lot more often, of course.
And on that matter, I agree; less guns means fewer deaths, without a doubt.
But stricter gun control isn't an effective method of preventing a determined individual from getting a gun. I think it's a social problem more than anything (school shouldn't be such a shootty place for people that they later want to kill everyone there).
And on that matter, I agree; less guns means fewer deaths, without a doubt.
But stricter gun control isn't an effective method of preventing a determined individual from getting a gun. I think it's a social problem more than anything (school shouldn't be such a shootty place for people that they later want to kill everyone there).
So are you saying that people with psychological and mental problems have a higher chance of getting a gun? Well, it is actually true, but you'd have to be very determined to kill someone if you were to get a gun by any means necessary. And these cases are so rare that most of them could be prevented before happening, with stricker gun control.
Although I must admit, gun control may not always help in these situations. In China, on the same day that the Connecticut shooting took place, a man stabbed 22 schoolchildren between ages 6-11.
Although I must admit, gun control may not always help in these situations. In China, on the same day that the Connecticut shooting took place, a man stabbed 22 schoolchildren between ages 6-11.
December 16th 2012, 01:23 PM
shevek
Although I must admit, gun control may not always help in these situations. In China, on the same day that the Connecticut shooting took place, a man stabbed 22 schoolchildren between ages 6-11.
Actually this is a very good example that strict gun control does help. Both people were crazy, but the guy with a knife does a lot less damage than the one with a gun. (~20 injured vs ~20 dead.)
It also shows, as Scratcher says, that the actual problem (mentally ill people not being treated) isn't solved with gun control. But there will always be mistakes (people not being diagnosed, for example). These mistakes sometimes lead to incidents like those two. Strict gun control makes the results of the incident a lot more bearable.
Actually this is a very good example that strict gun control does help. Both people were crazy, but the guy with a knife does a lot less damage than the one with a gun. (~20 injured vs ~20 dead.)
It also shows, as Scratcher says, that the actual problem (mentally ill people not being treated) isn't solved with gun control. But there will always be mistakes (people not being diagnosed, for example). These mistakes sometimes lead to incidents like those two. Strict gun control makes the results of the incident a lot more bearable.
I have one question about this topic, what if one of us died in the shooting/stabbing/chaos?
Even if the guy was Christian and asked for forgiveness, he'd still go to Hell because it's suicide
Nope - have you read your bible? Ask and you shall be forgiven
Nowhere in there does it say if you commit suicide the forgiveness bit doesnt relate to you. God sees sin as sin not shades of it - either its sin or is not - black or white, simple huh 
So stealing is the same as murder - theyre both sin and both as bad as the other in His eyes.
Nope - have you read your bible? Ask and you shall be forgiven
Nowhere in there does it say if you commit suicide the forgiveness bit doesnt relate to you. God sees sin as sin not shades of it - either its sin or is not - black or white, simple huh So stealing is the same as murder - theyre both sin and both as bad as the other in His eyes. Way too soon for these donkeys.
GlennGlenn said: 'Strict gun control and more counselling for mental health.'
Actually, areas with gun control are safer than those without.
Another tidbit is that some students who were present at the Columbine Shooting wished they had a gun to stop the guy who shot everyone.
There's also the fact that there are a multitude of murders caused by weapons other than guns. Knives, broken beer bottles (Or other bottles), broken glass, nails, blunt objects, pens, pencils, razor blades, sharpened metal, sharpened spatulas, thumb nails, teeth, cleats, and a plethora of other objects can be used as a weapon of murder at any point in time.
It's easy to make a weapon, and even if there were strict gun control laws, do you think criminals and gangs would obey the laws? Do you think they'd bow down to Almighty Gov't and say, 'No more guns for us'?
GlennGlenn said: 'Strict gun control and more counselling for mental health.'
Actually, areas with gun control are safer than those without.
Another tidbit is that some students who were present at the Columbine Shooting wished they had a gun to stop the guy who shot everyone.
There's also the fact that there are a multitude of murders caused by weapons other than guns. Knives, broken beer bottles (Or other bottles), broken glass, nails, blunt objects, pens, pencils, razor blades, sharpened metal, sharpened spatulas, thumb nails, teeth, cleats, and a plethora of other objects can be used as a weapon of murder at any point in time.
It's easy to make a weapon, and even if there were strict gun control laws, do you think criminals and gangs would obey the laws? Do you think they'd bow down to Almighty Gov't and say, 'No more guns for us'?
KrisKnox, you can ALWAYS kill someone. You can use your fists to kill other people. Does that mean we should take fists away from people? Rest assured, that would be a baaaad decision, as I'm sure you know. The point is, it's much harder to kill another person with, let's say, a knife than it is with a gun. This China stabbing is a perfect example. The stabber didn't even manage to attack as many people as the gunman did, and from what I understand none of those stabbed actually got killed. In fact, looking at the past three years, I believe there's been closer to 15 of these school stabbings in China, yet the victim number is still pretty much as low as the two shooting massacres that have taken place during this year alone in America.
The point is, it's much harder to kill another person with, let's say, a knife than it is with a gun. This China stabbing is a perfect example. The stabber didn't even manage to attack as many people as the gunman did, and from what I understand none of those stabbed actually got killed. In fact, looking at the past three years, I believe there's been closer to 15 of these school stabbings in China, yet the victim number is still pretty much as low as the two shooting massacres that have taken place during this year alone in America.The massacres are products of hype, plain and simple.
As far as stabbings go, yeah, it's easier to kill with a gun, but it's also easier to protect yourself with one as well.
The fact of the matter is that criminals don't stop at laws, they laugh at the laws they break as easily as a man swiping away a spiderweb.
There's also the matter that everyone in my country has the right to bear arms and that that shouldn't be infringed upon in anyway.
How else are the normal people going to protect themselves and keep the gov't from becoming too powerful?
As far as stabbings go, yeah, it's easier to kill with a gun, but it's also easier to protect yourself with one as well.
The fact of the matter is that criminals don't stop at laws, they laugh at the laws they break as easily as a man swiping away a spiderweb.
There's also the matter that everyone in my country has the right to bear arms and that that shouldn't be infringed upon in anyway.
How else are the normal people going to protect themselves and keep the gov't from becoming too powerful?
You're proving that everybody over there is missing the point. The point is that nobody having a gun is much better than everybody having a gun.
Everybody having a gun = Risk: 95%, Benefit: 5%.
Nobody having a gun = The otherwise around.
Because honestly, how many people can say they've defended themselves with a gun? I can honestly say I remember only reading about one case in the last 10 years, where a person has really required a gun to defend herself.
Everybody having a gun = Risk: 95%, Benefit: 5%.
Nobody having a gun = The otherwise around.
Because honestly, how many people can say they've defended themselves with a gun? I can honestly say I remember only reading about one case in the last 10 years, where a person has really required a gun to defend herself.
If we took fists away from people, would we have to take them away from Dink?
I can honestly say I remember only reading about one case in the last 10 years, where a person has really required a gun to defend herself.
Because the GODdangED media focuses only on the dangED murders and the fact that some criminal had a gun, there are many people who have protected themselves and the media doesn't cover it.
Why?
Because nobody wants to hear a story about some random guy in the suburb who saved his ducking family because he pointed a gun at someone. It's anti-climatic, it's 'boring'. The media hypes everything bad up and ignores the good things. THAT is why gun control is such a huge deal, THAT is why people from other countries look at America and thinks that we're all a bunch of paranoid losers.
Now, if you'd use some common sense, unlike the other donkeys I've had to argue with today, who don't pay attention to the things outside of the media, you'd realize that CRIMINALS don't give two ducks to a rolling doughnut over a stupid law. Even if every danged weapon was taken away from America, they'd still get their hands on it, and then who would protect themselves?
People in general need to look beyond the news, they need to broaden their horizons beyond what people spoon-feed to them every day.
I'm sorry if I insulted you in any way shape or form, and that idiots comment was aimed mostly at the ducktards who couldn't tell me Connecticut from Kansas.
Because the GODdangED media focuses only on the dangED murders and the fact that some criminal had a gun, there are many people who have protected themselves and the media doesn't cover it.
Why?
Because nobody wants to hear a story about some random guy in the suburb who saved his ducking family because he pointed a gun at someone. It's anti-climatic, it's 'boring'. The media hypes everything bad up and ignores the good things. THAT is why gun control is such a huge deal, THAT is why people from other countries look at America and thinks that we're all a bunch of paranoid losers.
Now, if you'd use some common sense, unlike the other donkeys I've had to argue with today, who don't pay attention to the things outside of the media, you'd realize that CRIMINALS don't give two ducks to a rolling doughnut over a stupid law. Even if every danged weapon was taken away from America, they'd still get their hands on it, and then who would protect themselves?
People in general need to look beyond the news, they need to broaden their horizons beyond what people spoon-feed to them every day.
I'm sorry if I insulted you in any way shape or form, and that idiots comment was aimed mostly at the ducktards who couldn't tell me Connecticut from Kansas.
I know media covers certain stories much better than others. The media pretty much didn't cover this stabbing in China at all.
You are a fool if you think stricker gun control doesn't reduce crimes. What you are basically saying is that if we use bows in war instead of nuclear weapons, the risk of damage is much larger because nobody has nuclear weapons to defend themselves with.
You are a fool if you think stricker gun control doesn't reduce crimes. What you are basically saying is that if we use bows in war instead of nuclear weapons, the risk of damage is much larger because nobody has nuclear weapons to defend themselves with.
"even if there were strict gun control laws, do you think criminals and gangs would obey the laws?"
The point is that guns are much more accessible and more people have them when gun laws are looser. When they're stricter no one's saying that criminals can't get hold of guns if they don't want to, of course some thug with a life of crime who has a load of contacts can get hold of an illegal gun without too much trouble, but if some local nutter decides he wants to rampage through a school he can't just grab his mother's arsenal and start firing.
Your average criminal will think twice before attempting to get hold of a gun too if he knows he can go to jail just for possessing it.
It's also to do with attitude. Guns are treated lightly in America - in Switzerland for example everyone in military service keeps an assault rifle at home and they have really low gun crime.
"How else are the normal people going to protect themselves and keep the gov't from becoming too powerful?"
I hope you're joking
Things are in a sorry state if the government can't change gun laws because they're scared of the guns.
The point is that guns are much more accessible and more people have them when gun laws are looser. When they're stricter no one's saying that criminals can't get hold of guns if they don't want to, of course some thug with a life of crime who has a load of contacts can get hold of an illegal gun without too much trouble, but if some local nutter decides he wants to rampage through a school he can't just grab his mother's arsenal and start firing.
Your average criminal will think twice before attempting to get hold of a gun too if he knows he can go to jail just for possessing it.
It's also to do with attitude. Guns are treated lightly in America - in Switzerland for example everyone in military service keeps an assault rifle at home and they have really low gun crime.
"How else are the normal people going to protect themselves and keep the gov't from becoming too powerful?"
I hope you're joking
Things are in a sorry state if the government can't change gun laws because they're scared of the guns.
December 17th 2012, 06:15 AM
shevek
As far as stabbings go, yeah, it's easier to kill with a gun, but it's also easier to protect yourself with one as well.
Exactly my point: you say you need a gun if there are people with guns around. And you do: giving up your gun doesn't make you any safer in a place where many people have guns. But changing the law and making everyone, including you, give up their gun, makes it a lot safer indeed.
The fact of the matter is that criminals don't stop at laws
Right, they don't. And we, "the people", have hired the police to stop them. If a criminal is breaking into people's houses and shooting their guns, the police will be on their tails in no time. Yes, it's bad luck if you happen to be the first one where the criminal visits. But even with the risk of not being able to protect yourself in that case, you are still a lot safer. This is because the risk of you being the first is very low, and there are much fewer criminals with guns if there are fewer guns. Plus, from experience in the Netherlands, I can tell you that criminals with guns are mostly using those guns on other criminals (and the police doesn't care as much about that).
There's also the matter that everyone in my country has the right to bear arms and that that shouldn't be infringed upon in anyway.
Yes, this seems to be something holy to US citizens, and nothing can stop them (you?) from thinking this. Even in the face of clear evidence that you would be safer without this right. I cannot comprehend this.
How else are the normal people going to protect themselves and keep the gov't from becoming too powerful?
This is exactly what I wrote before: you don't trust the police to protect you, so you must protect yourself (against criminals and/or the police). The paradox is that this attitude makes you and the rest of your country less safe for everybody.
Do you realize that you live in a democratic country? The government is chosen by the people and they should do things that people cannot properly do themselves, for the benefit of the people. The most important of those things is keeping the country a safe place. They do this from the outside, by hiring soldiers to protect against attacks from other countries, and on the inside, by making and enforcing laws for traffic and how you can or cannot treat other people. Controlling the possession and use of weapons should be a part of that.
100 years ago, when the West was still Wild, there was no real government in there. It made sense to trust only yourself with something as important as your safety. But now things are different. You can trust the police. And you should trust the police. Because as long as you (as a society) don't, you will not live in a safe place.
Last but not least, what are you going to do against a power-grabbing government? You think they use guns to grab power? No, they will use Big Brother-techniques. They will overpower people one at a time. Your guns will not help you there. Your best bet is using the democratic process. Which, I fear is quite a bit flawed in the USA. Go fix that, instead of insisting that you must be allowed to carry guns. It will make you feel better in more ways than just your safety.
Exactly my point: you say you need a gun if there are people with guns around. And you do: giving up your gun doesn't make you any safer in a place where many people have guns. But changing the law and making everyone, including you, give up their gun, makes it a lot safer indeed.
The fact of the matter is that criminals don't stop at laws
Right, they don't. And we, "the people", have hired the police to stop them. If a criminal is breaking into people's houses and shooting their guns, the police will be on their tails in no time. Yes, it's bad luck if you happen to be the first one where the criminal visits. But even with the risk of not being able to protect yourself in that case, you are still a lot safer. This is because the risk of you being the first is very low, and there are much fewer criminals with guns if there are fewer guns. Plus, from experience in the Netherlands, I can tell you that criminals with guns are mostly using those guns on other criminals (and the police doesn't care as much about that).
There's also the matter that everyone in my country has the right to bear arms and that that shouldn't be infringed upon in anyway.
Yes, this seems to be something holy to US citizens, and nothing can stop them (you?) from thinking this. Even in the face of clear evidence that you would be safer without this right. I cannot comprehend this.
How else are the normal people going to protect themselves and keep the gov't from becoming too powerful?
This is exactly what I wrote before: you don't trust the police to protect you, so you must protect yourself (against criminals and/or the police). The paradox is that this attitude makes you and the rest of your country less safe for everybody.
Do you realize that you live in a democratic country? The government is chosen by the people and they should do things that people cannot properly do themselves, for the benefit of the people. The most important of those things is keeping the country a safe place. They do this from the outside, by hiring soldiers to protect against attacks from other countries, and on the inside, by making and enforcing laws for traffic and how you can or cannot treat other people. Controlling the possession and use of weapons should be a part of that.
100 years ago, when the West was still Wild, there was no real government in there. It made sense to trust only yourself with something as important as your safety. But now things are different. You can trust the police. And you should trust the police. Because as long as you (as a society) don't, you will not live in a safe place.
Last but not least, what are you going to do against a power-grabbing government? You think they use guns to grab power? No, they will use Big Brother-techniques. They will overpower people one at a time. Your guns will not help you there. Your best bet is using the democratic process. Which, I fear is quite a bit flawed in the USA. Go fix that, instead of insisting that you must be allowed to carry guns. It will make you feel better in more ways than just your safety.
On the thought of someone breaking into my home. I better buy a semi-automatic assault rifle just in case...
<insert wall of text>
<notice Shevek wrote practically the same thing>
<delete wall of text>
<notice Shevek wrote practically the same thing>
<delete wall of text>
Things are in a sorry state if the government can't change gun laws because they're scared of the guns.
The thing is, the government here is not supposed to be as powerful as it is. There's a lot of corruption in it and politicians are wasting time and wasting money to meet their own needs, not the needs of the people as it should be. The government should fear the people rather than the other way around.
The thing is, the government here is not supposed to be as powerful as it is. There's a lot of corruption in it and politicians are wasting time and wasting money to meet their own needs, not the needs of the people as it should be. The government should fear the people rather than the other way around.
December 17th 2012, 11:06 AM
shevek
the government here is not supposed to be as powerful as it is.
But you're dodging the question. You're saying that you need guns to protect yourself from a power-grabbing government. I claim that guns don't help for this purpose. So let me make it easier for you: please give me a realistic example of when a gun would be useful against the power-grabbing. Or against anything else that the police isn't supposed to protect you from.
But you're dodging the question. You're saying that you need guns to protect yourself from a power-grabbing government. I claim that guns don't help for this purpose. So let me make it easier for you: please give me a realistic example of when a gun would be useful against the power-grabbing. Or against anything else that the police isn't supposed to protect you from.
"please give me a realistic example of when a gun would be useful against the power-grabbing"
JFK
*cough*
JFK
*cough*
I would like to say, not all police will help[corrupt]. Also if we took guns away from people in America, what about those rednecks, they need their shotguns for their shotgun weddings.
Have you considered that police can't always get there in time? In Washington D.C, our own capital, it takes police an average of a half an hour to arrive to a distress call. It takes minutes to rob a house. Even in areas where the police are efficient, the chances of them stopping a crime of that nature in the process isn't likely. Imagine living in a ghetto or a rural area, the idea of the police actually arriving in time AND being able to stop a crime in the process in laughable. I live in a small, quiet suburban paradise and it took the police nearly 10 minutes to arrive to my parents house once. Huge amounts of damage can be inflicted in that amount of time, physical or financial.
Also, if we outlawed guns, do you really think it would stop criminals from obtaining them? Do anti-drug laws stop drug dealers? Do anti-violence laws stop psychopaths from shooting up schools? The key word is criminal, one who does not obey the law. Banning guns will will make ownership by law abiding citizens a crime and owner ship by criminals...a crime.
Lastly, alcohol and cigarette kill more people then guns.
Tobacco = 438,000 deaths/year
Firearms = 30,000 deaths/year
Tobacco kills 14.6x more people the guns.
We better put a nation wide ban on smoking.
And don't even get me started on alcohol, poor driving or an unhealthy diet.
http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/causes.html
Also, if we outlawed guns, do you really think it would stop criminals from obtaining them? Do anti-drug laws stop drug dealers? Do anti-violence laws stop psychopaths from shooting up schools? The key word is criminal, one who does not obey the law. Banning guns will will make ownership by law abiding citizens a crime and owner ship by criminals...a crime.
Lastly, alcohol and cigarette kill more people then guns.
Tobacco = 438,000 deaths/year
Firearms = 30,000 deaths/year
Tobacco kills 14.6x more people the guns.
We better put a nation wide ban on smoking.
And don't even get me started on alcohol, poor driving or an unhealthy diet.
http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/causes.html
I would like to say sometimes anti drug laws and such might stop some drug dealers.
I agree with TheRainmaker. It's obvious, that tobacco kills more people than guns do each year so let's just avoid talking about this please.
pls
What exactly do you need a semi-automatic assault rifle for? Please tell me man.
pls
What exactly do you need a semi-automatic assault rifle for? Please tell me man.
"I would like to say sometimes anti drug laws and such might stop some drug dealers."
>sometimes anti-drugs laws and such might stop drug dealers
>sometimes
>might
>drug-dealers
>sometimes anti-drugs laws and such might stop drug dealers
>sometimes
>might
>drug-dealers
"please give me a realistic example of when a gun would be useful against the power-grabbing"
I currently cannot think of anything except something that would invoke Godwin's Law, and something I dislike bringing up period because it ruins a perfectly good debate.
Anyway, what Rainmaker said is correct, and I wish I was the one to say it, but kudos go to the OP.
I currently cannot think of anything except something that would invoke Godwin's Law, and something I dislike bringing up period because it ruins a perfectly good debate.
Anyway, what Rainmaker said is correct, and I wish I was the one to say it, but kudos go to the OP.
"please give me a realistic example of when a gun would be useful against the power-grabbing"
What is Hitler?
What is Hitler?
Hitler was a fan of Cyanide and Happiness before it was mainstream mahhn.
I just got the support of GlennGlenn. My work here is done.
I just got the support of GlennGlenn. My work here is done.
So what your saying is that hipsters are neo-facist?
Since when were we playing Jeopardey, and A game created by Seth Robinson, who owns a Fansite with a variety of people, while Seth is the boss in the end of the game.
Those three consecutive posts make MUCH more sense with deleted posts viewable.
December 18th 2012, 03:05 AM
shevek
Have you considered that police can't always get there in time?
Yes, I have; I mentioned it in my post: It's bad luck if you happen to be the first one where the shooter breaks into, but then still you are safer without a gun in your house than with one. You are saying that you don't care if you get shot, as long as you can shoot a criminal. You're a hero. But you're also saying that you don't care if your neighbor gets shot, as long as you can shoot a criminal. You're forcing everyone to be a hero, and not everyone is capable of that...
Huge amounts of damage can be inflicted in that amount of time, physical or financial.
Yes. And with guns even more so. This doesn't at all support giving guns to people. With stricter gun control, most regular burglars won't have guns, and you'll be safer even when they do break into your house. They'll have more chance of staying alive, too, which you seem to consider a downside (I don't, by the way). So it comes down to what I just wrote: do you want him to die so much that you will risk dying yourself?
Also, if we outlawed guns, do you really think it would stop criminals from obtaining them?
That depends on which criminal you're talking about. We don't have to be so hypothetical; in large parts of the worlds guns are outlawed, so we can simply see shat the result is. As has been written multiple times here, organized criminals will still have guns, but they will mostly use them on each other. Simple robbers who think they can get some easy money will indeed be stopped from getting a gun. And the police knows them anyway. If anyone reports they were waving a gun around at any time, the police will search their house and arrest them for having it.
Lastly, alcohol and cigarette kill more people then guns.
Yes, but there is one big difference there: with alcohol, cigarettes and unhealthy food, people kill themselves, not others (well, with cigarettes this is debatable, but then I also support our laws which forbid smoking in public indoor places).
With traffic you do kill others, but there's a big difference, too: the driving itself is useful. We don't want to make it impossible to do useful things. But owning a gun is not useful in any way (for most people). I just asked for even one example and I didn't get one so far. There were two attempts, but they don't work:
JFK: I know this was a joke, but I'll respond anyway: this was probably a person who felt the government (or at least the president) was doing improper things, and he had to defend himself. It didn't work (the government didn't do different things after it), and it shows more that guns should be illegal, than that they shouldn't (even though this incident might not have been avoidable; such a determined person will probably be able to get a gun anyway).
A police state (with or without Godwin's law): If you've looked at the police states in history, there are several things they all make sure of: First, they will not upset everyone at once (so there will not be a revolution); this is mostly a matter of propaganda, which in the USA does seem to be a problem indeed. But guns will not stop it. And second, when they will arrest people (one at a time), they will hugely overpower them. Police state aren't stopped by citizens owning guns. If you think that you can defend your home against the national army (with or without guns), keep dreaming. But don't keep your dream so real that lots of people get killed because of it.
So my question remains: name me one realistic example where a normal person should own a gun for defending himself.
I may not sound like it, but if you give me a good example, you may actually convince me. I am hoping that you let yourself be convinced as well if you realize that you cannot find such an example.
Yes, I have; I mentioned it in my post: It's bad luck if you happen to be the first one where the shooter breaks into, but then still you are safer without a gun in your house than with one. You are saying that you don't care if you get shot, as long as you can shoot a criminal. You're a hero. But you're also saying that you don't care if your neighbor gets shot, as long as you can shoot a criminal. You're forcing everyone to be a hero, and not everyone is capable of that...
Huge amounts of damage can be inflicted in that amount of time, physical or financial.
Yes. And with guns even more so. This doesn't at all support giving guns to people. With stricter gun control, most regular burglars won't have guns, and you'll be safer even when they do break into your house. They'll have more chance of staying alive, too, which you seem to consider a downside (I don't, by the way). So it comes down to what I just wrote: do you want him to die so much that you will risk dying yourself?
Also, if we outlawed guns, do you really think it would stop criminals from obtaining them?
That depends on which criminal you're talking about. We don't have to be so hypothetical; in large parts of the worlds guns are outlawed, so we can simply see shat the result is. As has been written multiple times here, organized criminals will still have guns, but they will mostly use them on each other. Simple robbers who think they can get some easy money will indeed be stopped from getting a gun. And the police knows them anyway. If anyone reports they were waving a gun around at any time, the police will search their house and arrest them for having it.
Lastly, alcohol and cigarette kill more people then guns.
Yes, but there is one big difference there: with alcohol, cigarettes and unhealthy food, people kill themselves, not others (well, with cigarettes this is debatable, but then I also support our laws which forbid smoking in public indoor places).
With traffic you do kill others, but there's a big difference, too: the driving itself is useful. We don't want to make it impossible to do useful things. But owning a gun is not useful in any way (for most people). I just asked for even one example and I didn't get one so far. There were two attempts, but they don't work:
JFK: I know this was a joke, but I'll respond anyway: this was probably a person who felt the government (or at least the president) was doing improper things, and he had to defend himself. It didn't work (the government didn't do different things after it), and it shows more that guns should be illegal, than that they shouldn't (even though this incident might not have been avoidable; such a determined person will probably be able to get a gun anyway).
A police state (with or without Godwin's law): If you've looked at the police states in history, there are several things they all make sure of: First, they will not upset everyone at once (so there will not be a revolution); this is mostly a matter of propaganda, which in the USA does seem to be a problem indeed. But guns will not stop it. And second, when they will arrest people (one at a time), they will hugely overpower them. Police state aren't stopped by citizens owning guns. If you think that you can defend your home against the national army (with or without guns), keep dreaming. But don't keep your dream so real that lots of people get killed because of it.
So my question remains: name me one realistic example where a normal person should own a gun for defending himself.
I may not sound like it, but if you give me a good example, you may actually convince me. I am hoping that you let yourself be convinced as well if you realize that you cannot find such an example.
Look at this picture! It shows America has had more horrible mass shootings than the rest of the World combined in 50 years! This shows that even though these things CAN happen anywhere, countries with stricker gun control, don't have these things happen to them nearly as much! It's proven! Look at Africa! The place still mostly consists of forests where aborigine tribes live. These people haven't even "invented" a gun yet, thus showing that no guns means no mass shootings. That's pretty much the best proof you can have: If guns don't exist, there can't be mass shootings! However, if everybody owns a gun, like in America, there will be mass shootings. As I said, proven!
And yes, it is bad luck if you get robbed, but I can say 90% of the time, even if the police won't get there in time, the criminal gets catched within the next 24 hours. If not, then at least within the next 7 days.
As I've stated many times, nobody having a gun is better than everybody having a gun. Why won't some people just get this in their head?!
And yes, it is bad luck if you get robbed, but I can say 90% of the time, even if the police won't get there in time, the criminal gets catched within the next 24 hours. If not, then at least within the next 7 days.
As I've stated many times, nobody having a gun is better than everybody having a gun. Why won't some people just get this in their head?!
The One And Only Reason Behind Mass Shootings---->Easy Access To Guns.
but the thing is,there are already too many guns lying around,so it doesnt really matter if you revoke gun laws at this point of time.Something has to be done about the existing guns too.RIP all those kids.
but the thing is,there are already too many guns lying around,so it doesnt really matter if you revoke gun laws at this point of time.Something has to be done about the existing guns too.RIP all those kids.
Example?
A phycopath enters a school. He has a gun. The police aren't there.
More specifically Columbine, Virginia tech and now this.
The one and only true reason behind 9/11--------> Boxcutters
A phycopath enters a school. He has a gun. The police aren't there.
More specifically Columbine, Virginia tech and now this.
The one and only true reason behind 9/11--------> Boxcutters
All of Shevek's post is based on the thought of people not being able to get their hands on guns. Yet when he asks for an example, you come up with one that includes people having access to guns.
Good job on making yourself look smart there.
Good job on making yourself look smart there.
He asked me for an example of when a gun might be needed.
Way to make yourself look pretentious.
Did you start this thread so you could put down people who disagree with you, pretend that everything you say is foolproof, and thus feed your own ego?
After reading through your replies, I think you did.
Way to make yourself look pretentious.
Did you start this thread so you could put down people who disagree with you, pretend that everything you say is foolproof, and thus feed your own ego?
After reading through your replies, I think you did.
Y'know, Skull. This is a debate in America, not Finland or India or Korea or wherever.
I have looked at facts given to me and I've determined that guns deter criminals who would otherwise invade a home.
That said, there are multiple seriel killers who didn't use a gun.
Ted Bundy never used a gun when he went on his killing spree. He deliberately avoided firearms due to the noise they made and the ballistic evidence they left behind. He confessed to going after twenty-five people, five of who escaped from him.
Gary Ridgway confessed to murdering at least 71 people, all of them victims of strangulation.
John Wayne Gacy, who used rope for strangulation.
Here's a few killers outside of the States. I made sure to find out how they typically killed their victims:
Alexander Pichushkin.
Moses Sithole
Yang Xinhai
Serhiy Tkach
None of these people used any form of gun, and they caused more death than Columbine or the Colorado shootings or Virginia Tech. It's not the guns that facilitate mass murder any more than the insane mind that John Wayne Gacy held.
I have looked at facts given to me and I've determined that guns deter criminals who would otherwise invade a home.
That said, there are multiple seriel killers who didn't use a gun.
Ted Bundy never used a gun when he went on his killing spree. He deliberately avoided firearms due to the noise they made and the ballistic evidence they left behind. He confessed to going after twenty-five people, five of who escaped from him.
Gary Ridgway confessed to murdering at least 71 people, all of them victims of strangulation.
John Wayne Gacy, who used rope for strangulation.
Here's a few killers outside of the States. I made sure to find out how they typically killed their victims:
Alexander Pichushkin.
Moses Sithole
Yang Xinhai
Serhiy Tkach
None of these people used any form of gun, and they caused more death than Columbine or the Colorado shootings or Virginia Tech. It's not the guns that facilitate mass murder any more than the insane mind that John Wayne Gacy held.
Guns are bad.
I'll tell why guns are bad.
You are in a Bad and suicidal mood.every one bullies you.you feel like you don't wanna live anymore.
Scenario 1 :- You know that your father has a gun in his desk.You sneak in,steal the gun,go to your school,spray bullets,kill everyone,and then kill yourself.
Scenario 2 :- (happens in countries where guns aren't made available to 8 year olds)There are three mini scenarios in this one.
Mini scenario 1 :- Your thoughts just do not go to guns cause they're out of the question.you sleep.you dream that you've killed every one and yourself.you wake up.you forget it.you build up some guts and face your bullies.
Mini scenario 2 :- You still are full psycho and want to do some killing.You take a knife.You go to school and stab someone.The teacher there punches your face and you fall unconsious.You go to jail and the person you stabbed goes to hospital.
Mini scenario 3 :- You know a friend who has dealings with a gangster.you find about him and collect enough money to buy a gun.You go to him.He Thinks You are sent by the police and kills you.Or,the police find you before you find the gun.
You are in a Bad and suicidal mood.every one bullies you.you feel like you don't wanna live anymore.
Scenario 1 :- You know that your father has a gun in his desk.You sneak in,steal the gun,go to your school,spray bullets,kill everyone,and then kill yourself.
Scenario 2 :- (happens in countries where guns aren't made available to 8 year olds)There are three mini scenarios in this one.
Mini scenario 1 :- Your thoughts just do not go to guns cause they're out of the question.you sleep.you dream that you've killed every one and yourself.you wake up.you forget it.you build up some guts and face your bullies.
Mini scenario 2 :- You still are full psycho and want to do some killing.You take a knife.You go to school and stab someone.The teacher there punches your face and you fall unconsious.You go to jail and the person you stabbed goes to hospital.
Mini scenario 3 :- You know a friend who has dealings with a gangster.you find about him and collect enough money to buy a gun.You go to him.He Thinks You are sent by the police and kills you.Or,the police find you before you find the gun.
December 19th 2012, 04:18 AM
shevek
The problem of this discussion is that most people are very convinced that they are right, and the evidence is so clear to them that it seems anyone who doesn't accept it is ignorant, or an idiot (I wrote that almost literally in one of my own posts). This obviously doesn't lead to a nice discussion. I'm sure people don't mean to be such jerks (at least I don't). So everyone please try to be a bit more considerate for people who may not accept what you consider hard evidence. (Yes, that's a message to myself as well.)
He asked me for an example of when a gun might be needed.[i]
I did. But I expected that my other arguments would also be taken into account. It has been proven (the picture that Skull linked to shows it, too) that there are many more (mass and other) shootings if guns are easily available. The result of taking guns away means in most cases that there is no shooter. So in your current society, you say need a gun to defend yourself from those people. But this is no reason to allow people to have guns: with stricter gun control, both you and the shooter don't have a gun anymore. You say that if everyone else has a gun, you need one too. (Even that is not true, see below.) You don't explain that allowing everyone to have a gun is a good idea. And the facts show that it isn't.
I'll repeat myself on one point, because I think it wasn't well understood: You say you need a gun so you can shoot a lunatic with a gun. This means that in case there is a lunatic, you have given him a gun (by allowing everyone to have one), and then you go shoot him. So you have at least two dead people when someone goes crazy: their first victim, and themselves. If you're a bit slower, there are more victims.
On the other hand, with stricter gun control, they use a knife or similar. They may injure several people, but they are relatively easily stopped, probably before killing even a single person.
So the problem is that in some cases, even with strict gun control, a lunatic may still get their hands on a gun. And when they do, there's only the police to stop them, and they are slow. This is a problem, but it is also something for which you can calculate the risk. The nice thing is that there are examples of places with and without gun control in the world, so we can simply look at actual data, not just guesses.
The data says that there are very many more victims from mass shootings in the USA (with guns) than in the rest of the world (mostly without guns). Knowing this, choosing to allow guns in your country anyway means that you gain the benefit (as you see it) that everyone can handle their own safety (instead of leaving that to the police, as most other countries do). This comes at the price of reduced safety for everyone. You are more likely to die in a shooting because of this. Read that again: if you don't trust the police, your safety is reduced.
So yes, when a shooting lunatic shows up, I understand that you feel that the good guys should have guns too in a place like that. But experience shows that you get much better results if you try to take the guns away from the bad guys (and as a side effect also the good guys, because you can't tell them apart). Even if you don't always succeed, and some bad guys will still have guns.
[i]Y'know, Skull. This is a debate in America, not Finland or India or Korea or wherever.
Actually, this is only a debate about the USA, but it's everywhere. I saw a post on Facebook saying "In the USA, automatic weapons are allowed, but French cheese is forbidden, because it may be dangerous for your health", for example. The only thing is there doesn't seem to be much of a debate in the rest of the world; almost everybody agrees that guns are bad and should be banned.
I have looked at facts given to me and I've determined that guns deter criminals who would otherwise invade a home.
Wait, what? I would be very interested to see those facts. Can you share your sources, please?
Here's a scientific paper mildly claiming the exact opposite and one which is a lot stronger in its conclusions; here's the summary (the emphasis is mine):
This article summarizes the scientific literature on the health risks and benefits of having a gun in the home for the gun owner and his/her family. For most contemporary Americans, scientific studies indicate that the health risk of a gun in the home is greater than the benefit. The evidence is overwhelming for the fact that a gun in the home is a risk factor for completed suicide and that gun accidents are most likely to occur in homes with guns. There is compelling evidence that a gun in the home is a risk factor for intimidation and for killing women in their homes. On the benefit side, there are fewer studies, and there is no credible evidence of a deterrent effect of firearms or that a gun in the home reduces the likelihood or severity of injury during an altercation or break-in. Thus, groups such as the American Academy of Pediatrics urge parents not to have guns in the home.
Note also that this is about the USA, without even the need to ban guns in the country: having a gun increases the risk that people you care about will die. I previously thought (and wrote) that this was not the case; that it would only help if all (or at least most) people do away with their guns. But their research shows that even if everybody else has a gun, you not having one makes you safer.
there are multiple seriel killers who didn't use a gun.
Yes. Nobody claims that if you ban guns, there are no more crazy people. There will always be crazy people, and they should always be treated. The problem is that intelligent crazy people can do a lot of damage no matter what the rules are. This means that they are irrelevant for this discussion: both with and without guns, they kill many people. And they are intelligent enough to do it in a way that they are not caught. Which means that guns don't help: If you don't catch them, you can't shoot them.
What this is about, is the slightly intelligent people who go crazy. The ones who will try to do as much damage as they can, without thinking too much (and thus without much preparation). In the USA, those people are very likely to grab a gun and start shooting. In most other places, they are very likely to grab a knife and start stabbing. Both are bad. Both show that society needs to treat these people (and hopefully detects them before such a thing happens). And it also clearly shows that with guns, you have bigger problem when one of them "explodes".
None of these people used any form of gun, and they caused more death than Columbine or the Colorado shootings or Virginia Tech.
And none of them could be stopped by a gun, because they made sure that they were invisible. You are not making an argument for allowing guns here.
It's not the guns that facilitate mass murder any more than the insane mind that John Wayne Gacy held.
Yes, as we all agree, the problem is that there are crazy people. I hope we all agree that this problem can be reduced with treatment, but it will never be solved completely. Gun control helps for the cases where this problem shows up.
Here's an idea: we want the good guys to have guns, but not the bad guys. I propose we select some people with good screening that we know are good guys, give them a gun and training to use it, and don't allow anyone else to have a gun. We make sure to have enough of those good guys patrolling the streets that there's always one near, so if something happens they can come running and save the day. That should solve your problem, right?
We have that system in the Netherlands. It works great. We call those trusted people "the police". You should try it, too!
He asked me for an example of when a gun might be needed.[i]
I did. But I expected that my other arguments would also be taken into account. It has been proven (the picture that Skull linked to shows it, too) that there are many more (mass and other) shootings if guns are easily available. The result of taking guns away means in most cases that there is no shooter. So in your current society, you say need a gun to defend yourself from those people. But this is no reason to allow people to have guns: with stricter gun control, both you and the shooter don't have a gun anymore. You say that if everyone else has a gun, you need one too. (Even that is not true, see below.) You don't explain that allowing everyone to have a gun is a good idea. And the facts show that it isn't.
I'll repeat myself on one point, because I think it wasn't well understood: You say you need a gun so you can shoot a lunatic with a gun. This means that in case there is a lunatic, you have given him a gun (by allowing everyone to have one), and then you go shoot him. So you have at least two dead people when someone goes crazy: their first victim, and themselves. If you're a bit slower, there are more victims.
On the other hand, with stricter gun control, they use a knife or similar. They may injure several people, but they are relatively easily stopped, probably before killing even a single person.
So the problem is that in some cases, even with strict gun control, a lunatic may still get their hands on a gun. And when they do, there's only the police to stop them, and they are slow. This is a problem, but it is also something for which you can calculate the risk. The nice thing is that there are examples of places with and without gun control in the world, so we can simply look at actual data, not just guesses.
The data says that there are very many more victims from mass shootings in the USA (with guns) than in the rest of the world (mostly without guns). Knowing this, choosing to allow guns in your country anyway means that you gain the benefit (as you see it) that everyone can handle their own safety (instead of leaving that to the police, as most other countries do). This comes at the price of reduced safety for everyone. You are more likely to die in a shooting because of this. Read that again: if you don't trust the police, your safety is reduced.
So yes, when a shooting lunatic shows up, I understand that you feel that the good guys should have guns too in a place like that. But experience shows that you get much better results if you try to take the guns away from the bad guys (and as a side effect also the good guys, because you can't tell them apart). Even if you don't always succeed, and some bad guys will still have guns.
[i]Y'know, Skull. This is a debate in America, not Finland or India or Korea or wherever.
Actually, this is only a debate about the USA, but it's everywhere. I saw a post on Facebook saying "In the USA, automatic weapons are allowed, but French cheese is forbidden, because it may be dangerous for your health", for example. The only thing is there doesn't seem to be much of a debate in the rest of the world; almost everybody agrees that guns are bad and should be banned.
I have looked at facts given to me and I've determined that guns deter criminals who would otherwise invade a home.
Wait, what? I would be very interested to see those facts. Can you share your sources, please?
Here's a scientific paper mildly claiming the exact opposite and one which is a lot stronger in its conclusions; here's the summary (the emphasis is mine):
This article summarizes the scientific literature on the health risks and benefits of having a gun in the home for the gun owner and his/her family. For most contemporary Americans, scientific studies indicate that the health risk of a gun in the home is greater than the benefit. The evidence is overwhelming for the fact that a gun in the home is a risk factor for completed suicide and that gun accidents are most likely to occur in homes with guns. There is compelling evidence that a gun in the home is a risk factor for intimidation and for killing women in their homes. On the benefit side, there are fewer studies, and there is no credible evidence of a deterrent effect of firearms or that a gun in the home reduces the likelihood or severity of injury during an altercation or break-in. Thus, groups such as the American Academy of Pediatrics urge parents not to have guns in the home.
Note also that this is about the USA, without even the need to ban guns in the country: having a gun increases the risk that people you care about will die. I previously thought (and wrote) that this was not the case; that it would only help if all (or at least most) people do away with their guns. But their research shows that even if everybody else has a gun, you not having one makes you safer.
there are multiple seriel killers who didn't use a gun.
Yes. Nobody claims that if you ban guns, there are no more crazy people. There will always be crazy people, and they should always be treated. The problem is that intelligent crazy people can do a lot of damage no matter what the rules are. This means that they are irrelevant for this discussion: both with and without guns, they kill many people. And they are intelligent enough to do it in a way that they are not caught. Which means that guns don't help: If you don't catch them, you can't shoot them.
What this is about, is the slightly intelligent people who go crazy. The ones who will try to do as much damage as they can, without thinking too much (and thus without much preparation). In the USA, those people are very likely to grab a gun and start shooting. In most other places, they are very likely to grab a knife and start stabbing. Both are bad. Both show that society needs to treat these people (and hopefully detects them before such a thing happens). And it also clearly shows that with guns, you have bigger problem when one of them "explodes".
None of these people used any form of gun, and they caused more death than Columbine or the Colorado shootings or Virginia Tech.
And none of them could be stopped by a gun, because they made sure that they were invisible. You are not making an argument for allowing guns here.
It's not the guns that facilitate mass murder any more than the insane mind that John Wayne Gacy held.
Yes, as we all agree, the problem is that there are crazy people. I hope we all agree that this problem can be reduced with treatment, but it will never be solved completely. Gun control helps for the cases where this problem shows up.
Here's an idea: we want the good guys to have guns, but not the bad guys. I propose we select some people with good screening that we know are good guys, give them a gun and training to use it, and don't allow anyone else to have a gun. We make sure to have enough of those good guys patrolling the streets that there's always one near, so if something happens they can come running and save the day. That should solve your problem, right?
We have that system in the Netherlands. It works great. We call those trusted people "the police". You should try it, too!
Of course, it's not the guns that kill people. But I think guns help.
He asked me for an example of when a gun might be needed.
No, he asked for an example of a situation where you need a gun when you're not being threatened with one. However, you came up with an example where people were threatened with gun.
And stop trying to make this personal. I started this thread to let people know of the shooting, in case they didn't.
I posted this picture already, but I'm gonna do it again! That picture alone proves that guns should be controlled better in America. It has more killings that anywhere else combined! If the reason isn't lousy gun control, then gentlemen, please do tell me what it is. I doubt you are stupid enough to blame video games and movies, like most other people. You can also not blame the amount of people, since China has more people and there hasn't been a single as bad massacre as in America during the last 50 years.
So this leaves only one possible option: Lousy gun control, results in more shooting massacres.
And DinkDoodler, congrats for putting it in the shortest, yet probably the smartest form of words.
No, he asked for an example of a situation where you need a gun when you're not being threatened with one. However, you came up with an example where people were threatened with gun.
And stop trying to make this personal. I started this thread to let people know of the shooting, in case they didn't.
I posted this picture already, but I'm gonna do it again! That picture alone proves that guns should be controlled better in America. It has more killings that anywhere else combined! If the reason isn't lousy gun control, then gentlemen, please do tell me what it is. I doubt you are stupid enough to blame video games and movies, like most other people. You can also not blame the amount of people, since China has more people and there hasn't been a single as bad massacre as in America during the last 50 years.
So this leaves only one possible option: Lousy gun control, results in more shooting massacres.
And DinkDoodler, congrats for putting it in the shortest, yet probably the smartest form of words.
Hah. shevek really spends all his/her day posting here.
Here's my last two cents: Better mental health care, better police force, and better research regarding the presence of guns within an area. The latter, if it has been done correctly, could either support or go against gun control.
The fact of that matter is that everyone, including myself, has an opinion, and nobody wants to give any ground. This has gone from debate to argument, and thus isn't a fun discussion anymore. (At least, not for me.)
And now, A dose of fluffy cuteness.
The fact of that matter is that everyone, including myself, has an opinion, and nobody wants to give any ground. This has gone from debate to argument, and thus isn't a fun discussion anymore. (At least, not for me.)
And now, A dose of fluffy cuteness.
The NRA had an idea to stop school shootings. They want to put a civilian in schools with a gun. Yep. Some random guy in school with a gun, that's supposed to make it a safer place. I'm so disappointed in this country.
And the blaming of video games and movies has already begun. Hilarious!
December 22nd 2012, 07:18 AM
shevek
The fact of that matter is that everyone, including myself, has an opinion, and nobody wants to give any ground.
Actually, as I wrote, I would like to be convinced. But I havn't seen convincing arguments so far. The only pro-gun arguments have been "if bad guys have guns, good guys must have guns", which is no argument for allowing them. I showed scientific research that it doesn't even work.
But let's be honest. If one of us gets convinced that the other person is right, it won't change anything. It's not like the lawmakers pay any attention to the Dink Network.
This has gone from debate to argument, and thus isn't a fun discussion anymore. (At least, not for me.)
That is the best argument possible for stopping the discussion. I'm sorry for making things less fun for you; that was never my intention. If TheRainmaker (or anyone else) wants to continue, please ignore us.
And even though it wasn't fun for you in the end, I still thank you for participating; I liked it.
Actually, as I wrote, I would like to be convinced. But I havn't seen convincing arguments so far. The only pro-gun arguments have been "if bad guys have guns, good guys must have guns", which is no argument for allowing them. I showed scientific research that it doesn't even work.
But let's be honest. If one of us gets convinced that the other person is right, it won't change anything. It's not like the lawmakers pay any attention to the Dink Network.
This has gone from debate to argument, and thus isn't a fun discussion anymore. (At least, not for me.)
That is the best argument possible for stopping the discussion. I'm sorry for making things less fun for you; that was never my intention. If TheRainmaker (or anyone else) wants to continue, please ignore us.
And even though it wasn't fun for you in the end, I still thank you for participating; I liked it.
As someone who spec'd for melee, I really think ranged abilities need to be nerfed.
Striker:
As someone who spec'd for melee, I really think ranged abilities need to be nerfed.
S.T.F.U. Striker, go hybrid. Melee to economize ammo, and strafe as many ranged enemies as you can.
Actualy, you can mix fire balm with poison in ranged, while in the melee this means your weapon is one-use-only: you don't want to burn your best sword or axe.
If I start a shotout, half or 2/3 of the kills are ranged and the other ones are "bullet economic" kills. And if everything goes wrong and I run out of ammo, I'll keep the plan with magic and mana until I run out of mana, reinforcements and ammo. Only then I go purely melee.
But at this rate, actualy, the police may have come already and both my steel armor, my wizzard cap and my bullet proof of vest may had been worn out. Going melee is merely to become a martyr in the middle of a policemen machinegun blows.
As someone who spec'd for melee, I really think ranged abilities need to be nerfed.
S.T.F.U. Striker, go hybrid. Melee to economize ammo, and strafe as many ranged enemies as you can.
Actualy, you can mix fire balm with poison in ranged, while in the melee this means your weapon is one-use-only: you don't want to burn your best sword or axe.
If I start a shotout, half or 2/3 of the kills are ranged and the other ones are "bullet economic" kills. And if everything goes wrong and I run out of ammo, I'll keep the plan with magic and mana until I run out of mana, reinforcements and ammo. Only then I go purely melee.
But at this rate, actualy, the police may have come already and both my steel armor, my wizzard cap and my bullet proof of vest may had been worn out. Going melee is merely to become a martyr in the middle of a policemen machinegun blows.
Or Melee can be used for assassinations not just a last defense.
December 26th 2012, 05:39 PM
shevek
This was on the news in the Netherlands yesterday. Just to give you an idea of what happens when you ban guns:
Original Dutch version.
This was so special that it made the national news: the police fired warning shots after they got a report of a gun in a car, and some people tried to run away when they arrived.
Original Dutch version.
This was so special that it made the national news: the police fired warning shots after they got a report of a gun in a car, and some people tried to run away when they arrived.
Hybrid? What BS is this? Then you're just nerfing yourself by spreading your skillpoints too thin. Also, if you go unarmed, the fire balm is continuous use as they weren't willing to commit to do HP damage to the player. Sure, you do less damage overall, but it grants you a lot of special lockdown, surprise, and damage mitigation perks.
