|
I don't really have a horse in this race, but "there are other, bigger problems" seems like a flimsy reason to gloss over something that kills 11k+ people a year. Like, you're not wrong, it's just ... you really should have something in your quiver more substantial than "there are other things that kill more people." vv- yeah, what this guy (paragon) said two posts down Toaster Beef fucked around with this message at 15:06 on Jul 9, 2015 |
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 14:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 15:37 |
|
|
Wade Wilson posted:Except for the part where we did that and things got a great deal worse. America doesn't need to ban booze, just progressively tax it more and more and attack producers with ever-more-stringent regulations. Engineer it out of society through taxation like it is pretty successfully doing with cigarettes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 14:32
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:Statistically, people who are gonna murder just do it, regardless of available weapons. Statistically, I'd like to see your data backing that claim up. We also, you know, don't have to make it easy. Wade Wilson posted:To be fair, obesity kills over 120k people every year in the US and that is far more easily preventable than violent gun deaths. In context for how we react to that, yeah, 12k deaths per year isn't too big a deal. The issues involved with obesity are far more complicated, actually. And one, much harder to solve, problem being deadlier does not mean we shouldn't do anything to solve the other problem. Also you just described a mid-sized municipalities worth of people dying every year as not being a big deal.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 14:34
|
|
|
Oh wait, cancer is killing a shitload of people, guess we can't do anything about car safety!
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 14:35
|
|
|
Wade Wilson posted:Except for the part where we did that and things got a great deal worse. What do you think would happen if the US tried a blanket ban? There is a massive supply of them. A good part of the population would (perhaps rightly) see the government as pissing all over the constitution and wouldn't comply. Enforcement costs would be staggering. quote:I hope you aren't going to try to argue that owning guns is an addiction like drinking booze. Do you really think there were enough people medically addicted to alcohol to keep bootleggers in business? paragon1 posted:Oh wait, cancer is killing a shitload of people, guess we can't do anything about car safety! We only have finite resources to throw at problems. If a given amount of $$ spent on cancer research will save 100x as many people as car safety, than yes we should prioritize. on the left posted:America doesn't need to ban booze, just progressively tax it more and more and attack producers with ever-more-stringent regulations. Engineer it out of society through taxation like it is pretty successfully doing with cigarettes. Once a cigarette is smoked, it's gone. With minimal maintenance a firearm will work a century later. How are you going to tax the 300 million guns already in existence, when you don't know for sure where they even are? tumblr.txt fucked around with this message at 14:49 on Jul 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 14:44
|
|
|
People aren't addicted to guns though. So hypothetically, how many people need to die from guns every year to convince you that some resources should be spent restricting access to guns?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 14:54
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:And one, much harder to solve, problem being deadlier does not mean we shouldn't do anything to solve the other problem. Also you just described a mid-sized municipalities worth of people dying every year as not being a big deal. Toaster Beef posted:Like, you're not wrong, it's just ... you really should have something in your quiver more substantial than "there are other things that kill more people." This isn't the first time I've seen this, and from a philosophical standpoint, you're on solid ground. There is no logical reason why we should not care about 11 thousand people dying, there is no reason that we cannot be concerned about them and something that kills a hundred thousand at the same time. If we had infinite resources, it would be immoral to not do something. Unfortunately, the world we will in has finite resources. The government only has so much money, manpower, and various capital. To spend its limited resources on gun control removes those resources from other endeavors, and we have to ask what is the return on investment? Even if 100% of homicides by firearm don't turn into homicide by knife of club or rock, I can't help but think that the hundreds of billions of dollars spent on the War on Guns would be better spent elsewhere. (Just like the War on Drugs, actually.) Edit: paragon1 posted:So hypothetically, how many people need to die from guns every year to convince you that some resources should be spent restricting access to guns? You mean, how many people would have to be murdered with a gun, right? I suppose you'd be perfectly happy if people were murdered with knives? Is it the act of murder that bothers you, or the tool selected by the person to commit their deed? In short, you're asking the wrong question. LeJackal fucked around with this message at 15:00 on Jul 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 14:56
|
|
|
Somehow I'm not concerned about the richest society in world history, whose government literally pays for sophisticated battle tanks that it just park in a desert, having the resources to restrict gun ownership and supply. Especially since very few people are talking about making all guns illegal for everyone forever always. It will just be too hard to make [thing] illegal will always be a weak as hell argument. Edit: Yes LeJackal I mean with a gun, that's what it literally says in my post that you quoted. Obviously I do not think all those murders and suicides by gun will translate to by knife or the wouldn't be much point, would there? paragon1 fucked around with this message at 15:02 on Jul 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 14:58
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:So hypothetically, how many people need to die from guns every year to convince you that some resources should be spent restricting access to guns? Do you have any specific proposals in mind?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 15:03
|
|
|
I think, call me crazy here, that the reason people kill other people with guns is because guns make that act significantly easier than other methods. In fact, I know this is stretching here, killing poo poo easier may in fact be the entire purpose of a firearm!
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 15:04
|
|
|
mugrim posted:Washington Post article on how hilariously wrong the idea of Swiss gun ownership in American minds is None of that will stop someone who wants to use a gun as a murder weapon, assuming they are already capable of legally acquiring one. Could regulation like having to go through a training program have an effect on gang violence? Maybe. But every time there's a mass shooting by someone like Dylan Roof, 'greater regulation' gets trotted out at as the cure, when the proposed regulation would have done absolutely nothing to stop him from obtaining a gun. mugrim posted:tldr: If you tell me "Lets have our gun laws look more like the swiss!" I'll say "yes please" in an instant. I'd be fine with that too, I find people carrying guns openly in public (into a Taco Bell or whatever) pretty obnoxious. ----------------
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 15:04
|
|
|
tumblr.txt posted:It depends on what you mean by "restricting access". Saying "All Guns are Illegal Now" would be a disaster. Banning certain rifles because they look black and scary won't actually accomplish much. Since the majority of gun-related deaths are suicides, studying ways to help with depression seems to be the best place to start. Severely restricting who has the right to own a handgun and how many are made would be a good start, since they aren't intended for hunting use and most suicides and murders with firearms are done with those.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 15:06
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Statistically, I'd like to see your data backing that claim up. We also, you know, don't have to make it easy. You missed the part where I said "In context for how we react to that," apparently. If nobody cares about the number of people who die every year because they're too fat, why would you expect a relatively miniscule number of deaths to impress someone? And 120k is just the low end estimate. Another source says it's actually 1 in 5 Americans every year and you extrapolate from there. Hell the NIH says it's 300k per year. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448478/ It should horrify people, fast food and being lazy is every bit as ingrained in American culture as guns, but guns have a measurably lower negative impact.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 15:08
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure there would be a decrease in overall murders if the number of guns in circulation was somehow sharply curtailed. And maybe it would be possible--politically, physically--to do so. But rights are usually abused and cost lives; freedom of religion, for example, causes all kinds of misery and death. We've decided the right is worth it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 15:08
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Severely restricting who has the right to own a handgun and how many are made would be a good start, since they aren't intended for hunting use and most suicides and murders with firearms are done with those. So - in your world, who gets the right to own a handgun? How is this enforced?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 15:09
|
|
|
tumblr.txt posted:Once a cigarette is smoked, it's gone. With minimal maintenance a firearm will work a century later. How are you going to tax the 300 million guns already in existence, when you don't know for sure where they even are? Bullets? No one is saying this would happen overnight or should be attempted to be done in a year. But a long draw down and restrictions to manufacturing seem pretty reasonable to me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 15:09
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Bullets? No one is saying this would happen overnight or should be attempted to be done in a year. But a long draw down and restrictions to manufacturing seem pretty reasonable to me. The problem with ammunition control is only a small amount is needed to cause great harm, but target shooters tend to own and use a huge amount. At the range I might fire a few hundred shots. I will buy .22 rounds by the box of 500 as it's cheaper that way. Each individual round is dirt cheap in the scheme of things. If a ban on ammunition was looming some people (not me of course) would gleefully go on a buying spree. Their hoard of ammunition, formerly worth maybe 50c a pop, would later be worth a fortune on the black market. It would only take a small percentage of people to decide to capitalize on that to ensure a steady supply for decades.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 15:15
|
|
|
Wade Wilson posted:You missed the part where I said "In context for how we react to that," apparently. A whole lot of people care about deaths from obesity and fast food actually. Maybe you just don't pay attention to those people? tumblr.txt posted:I'm not a huge Gun Control advocate, but I'm surprised that your position isn't more popular as it makes more sense than trying to ban AR-15s or .50BMGs. The military, some police, maybe security guards? I'd have to be convinced of anyone else needing them. It is enforced by having a grace period for people without the proper permits to turn over their handguns (in return for some compensation), after which anyone found in possession of a handgun has that weapon seized and is charged as they would be for any other crime. Gun dealers will only be allowed to sell to people with the proper permit. SedanChair posted:I'm pretty sure there would be a decrease in overall murders if the number of guns in circulation was somehow sharply curtailed. And maybe it would be possible--politically, physically--to do so. But rights are usually abused and cost lives; freedom of religion, for example, causes all kinds of misery and death. We've decided the right is worth it. When do I get my nuclear tipped ballistic missile then?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 15:18
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I'm pretty sure there would be a decrease in overall murders if the number of guns in circulation was somehow sharply curtailed. I'm not sure that homicide would be affected like that, or even how you would go about curtailing these numbers. If you look South at our friends in Mexico and Brazil, they have extremely strict firearm laws. However, they are ripped apart by violence done with guns smuggled, stolen, or built by criminal gangs and cartels. The fields and favelas are killing grounds. As long as there is motivation to have firearms for criminal acts, criminals will be acquiring them. Nevvy Z posted:Bullets? No one is saying this would happen overnight or should be attempted to be done in a year. But a long draw down and restrictions to manufacturing seem pretty reasonable to me. So adding more taxes to ammunition and firearms? How is this not discriminatory to the non-wealthy? (Like so many proposals seem to be.) How would this pass constitutional muster? Edit: paragon1 posted:The military, some police, maybe security guards? I'd have to be convinced of anyone else needing them. It is enforced by having a grace period for people without the proper permits to turn over their handguns (in return for some compensation), after which anyone found in possession of a handgun has that weapon seized and is charged as they would be for any other crime. Gun dealers will only be allowed to sell to people with the proper permit. You should read this paper on supply-side efforts.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 15:20
|
|
|
Shayu posted:Out of 2,596,993 people who died in 2013 in the U.S. only 11,208 of them were from firearms. That's 00.4% of all deaths in the U.S., seems like a really insignificant problem when you look at the whole of American society. A better question would be: is gun control necessary in today's America? What is your source for this number, as everything I see says it is at least triple what you posted?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 15:23
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:The military, some police, maybe security guards? I'd have to be convinced of anyone else needing them. It is enforced by having a grace period for people without the proper permits to turn over their handguns (in return for some compensation), after which anyone found in possession of a handgun has that weapon seized and is charged as they would be for any other crime. Gun dealers will only be allowed to sell to people with the proper permit. That's actually harsher than  . So, no Target Shooters, even with waiting periods and a police background check? Pistol shooting is an Olympic Sport. What about a former police officer, retired honorably, who has carried a firearm for years? What about a Doctor with a spotless criminal record, who has received credible threats to her life, and is willing to undertake a training course? Why security guards? If they're guarding money, why is defense of property worth more than people? If they're guarding celebrities or politicians, why should someone who can afford to hire guards be effectively protected by handguns, but dirt-poor Joe Smith with a psycho stalker isn't?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 15:27
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:I'm not sure that homicide would be affected like that, or even how you would go about curtailing these numbers. If you look South at our friends in Mexico and Brazil, they have extremely strict firearm laws. However, they are ripped apart by violence done with guns smuggled, stolen, or built by criminal gangs and cartels. The fields and favelas are killing grounds. As long as there is motivation to have firearms for criminal acts, criminals will be acquiring them. You operate on faith that guns are good or neutral, but there's no evidence of it. Spare us any more of your standard run through selective citation of other nations' gun laws and crime rates.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 15:28
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:What is your source for this number, as everything I see says it is at least triple what you posted? Mortality Report for 2013. CDC posted:Assault (homicide) by discharge of firearms (*U01.4,X93-X95) 11,208 SedanChair posted:You operate on faith that guns are good or neutral, but there's no evidence of it. I could lay the same accusation at many sets of feet - is there evidence that they are negative? What standards of proof and criteria do you want to use to determine this? In the absence of certainty, one must take take the stance of neutrality. LeJackal fucked around with this message at 15:31 on Jul 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 15:28
|
|
|
tumblr.txt posted:Statistically, I think you'll find this isn't the demographic killing people. Maybe, but they are the demographic that can call the police without a significant risk of making the situation worse for themselves, and therefore don't need guns unlike women and minorities. paragon1 posted:People aren't addicted to guns though. People totally are addicted to guns, though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 15:30
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Maybe, but they are the demographic that can call the police without a significant risk of making the situation worse for themselves, and therefore don't need guns unlike women and minorities. I've had a relative call the police when a nut tried to smash her door down. It took about 15 minutes for them to arrive. A lot can happen in 15 minutes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 15:32
|
|
|
tumblr.txt posted:That's actually harsher than Hmm, good point, no hand guns for security guards. Nope no target shooters, guess they'll have to settle for rifles. The former police officer no longer needs a gun to fulfill his duties. The Doctor is an interesting case, and I could see an exception being made if police protection is inadequate for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 15:32
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:A whole lot of people care about deaths from obesity and fast food actually. Maybe you just don't pay attention to those people? When was the last time we had a thread about it in D&D without it devolving into "gently caress fat people, they deserve to die" circle jerks until the thread went to the Gas Chamber? Nobody on these forums that discuss these kinds of issues cares. quote:When do I get my nuclear tipped ballistic missile then? How much money you got? Those things cost tax payers about $200million for the modern ones. Hell, you can legally own a fully automatic weapon, it's just prohibitively expensive for the ones that would do any good (talking about the tripod mounted ones like you'd get to play with if you won that charity fundraiser/contest to blow poo poo up with Arnold that is running this month).
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 15:32
|
|
|
Wade Wilson posted:When was the last time we had a thread about it in D&D without it devolving into "gently caress fat people, they deserve to die" circle jerks until the thread went to the Gas Chamber? Nobody on these forums that discuss these kinds of issues cares. D&Ds inability to talk about that or any other subject maturely does not mean no one cares about those issues as much as gun control, which was the claim being made. And yes you've hit upon my point, which is that the second amendment is the provision for citizen organized militias, to keep the federal government from having a monopoly on force. Which they will continue to have no matter how many firearms the citizenry does or does not have. Because they have tanks and air craft carriers and loving nukes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 15:36
|
|
|
tumblr.txt posted:I've had a relative call the police when a nut tried to smash her door down. It took about 15 minutes for them to arrive. A lot can happen in 15 minutes. Yeah, but she's a woman so under my proposal she could have a sweet M2 set up in her hallway to gun down any intruder in a hail of .50 cal Freedom. Problem solved!
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 15:48
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:D&Ds inability to talk about that or any other subject maturely does not mean no one cares about those issues as much as gun control, which was the claim being made. Maybe you should look up the definition of "monopoly."
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 15:50
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:That's a basic human right? Well, it's part of the right to life. If it comes down to you or the other guy, I'd say you have the perfect right, beyond reproach, to pick yourself living and you killing the other guy, instead of him killing you. Similarly, I think any level of force is appropriate to protect yourself from being maimed or raped or something. Should a woman be punished if, in fighting off somone trying to sexually assault her, she kills him? Should she be required by the law to have any consideration for the life of an attacker, while he is actively assaulting her? Doesn't "having the right to do something" just mean "being able to do something and not be punished for it?" So, if we believe that people shouldn't be punished for killing somone in self defense, then don't we admit that a person has the right to kill in self defense? hakimashou fucked around with this message at 16:01 on Jul 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 15:58
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:What is your source for this number, as everything I see says it is at least triple what you posted? That number is wrong, this person is only claiming firearm homicides as gun deaths and is ignoring suicides. Statistically, white men are the most likely to be killed by guns, often shot by white men (themselves).
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 16:00
|
|
|
pointsofdata posted:In what country is there a Right To Kill In Self Defence, and not an allowance for it in the manslaughter/murder laws? It's an allowance in manslaughter / murder laws specifically because it is something you have a right to do. And having a right to do something just means that you cannot be punished for doing it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 16:03
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Which they will continue to have no matter how many firearms the citizenry does or does not have. Because they have tanks and air craft carriers and loving nukes. That's a bit silly, the Taliban and Vietcong have shown us that you don't need tanks and planes to be an effective partisan force. ----------------
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 16:12
|
|
|
Narciss posted:That's a bit silly, the Taliban and Vietcong have shown us that you don't need tanks and planes to be an effective partisan force. If you have tanks and planes, then you don't need to be a partisan force. We're supposed to be able to fight for our rights, not hide in a jungle or mountains and keep it up until the other guy goes away.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 16:15
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:Don't bans on weapons violate the basic human right to kill in self defense? Which weapons? Where is the line? Do you have the right to landmine your property? Are you arguing that you should have this right?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 16:15
|
|
|
Also the skies above Vietnam were not exactly uncontested, for a while anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 16:17
|
|
|
But that isn't the same thing as "people who died in 2013 in the U.S. ... from firearms"
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 16:21
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Which weapons? Where is the line? Do you have the right to landmine your property? Are you arguing that you should have this right? No, I posted earlier in the thread that as far as this idea goes, if accepted, it would only really add weight to the argument for letting people carry pistols. There isn't any real controversy anymore about keeping guns in the home, not since the Supreme Court in DC v Heller made that central to their ruling. People disagree about keeping guns in the home but it isn't really a relevant issue anymore in America. Carrying guns is though. It comes down to, say somone is trying to murder or rape someone else, and if the victim had a handgun, she could have killed the attacker instead of being forced to undergo sexual assault or death. If we accept that the victim shouldn't be punished for killing the attacker in self-defense, then I'd say we concede that the victim has the right to kill the attacker in self defense, since she shouldn't be punished for doing it. If we accept this, it seems wrong to deprive her of the opportunity to keep a weapon like a handgun for that purpose.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 16:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 15:37 |
|
|
paragon1 posted:The military, some police, maybe security guards? I'd have to be convinced of anyone else needing them. It is enforced by having a grace period for people without the proper permits to turn over their handguns (in return for some compensation), after which anyone found in possession of a handgun has that weapon seized and is charged as they would be for any other crime. Gun dealers will only be allowed to sell to people with the proper permit. Really we'd need a whole new set of firearms classifications. There are sporting handguns specifically designed to act as a backup in the bush. Every handgun is designed to kill, but not every handgun is designed to kill people. Pretty much any magnum round above .357 is semi useless for going on a homicide spree despite what Dirty Harry would have you believe. I'd love to see a breakdown of violent crime by calibur, something tells me that .38, 380 and 9mm would be leading the pack with .45 moping slightly behind. EDIT: And since the topic is carry People who open carry like their guns are a loving badge of honor are weird. I view most CCW holders to be weird too. Who needs a gun to go grocery shopping? Rhymenoserous fucked around with this message at 16:57 on Jul 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 16:53
|
|