USA Politics Thread - *No gun debate*

[scrim 1]

Myke: I believe last year a man in China went over to a kindergarten and killed around 20 kids there with a knife. Personally, I think the death rates are what matters, not the weapon. To me, that indicates that perhaps the problem does not lie in the weapons available to criminals, but how a society deals with mentally disturbed persons. Was this Lanza guy in therapy at the time of the shootings, or had he just been prescribed some "magic" pill?

Tonci: It doesn't really matter, since anyone who even considers going to a school and killing children is so mentally disturbed that it doesn't matter if he'll have to use his bare hands or a tank. The same goes for criminals, they don't really feel much compassion for their victims, wether they chose to kill/injure them or not.

[[frl]myke 14]

@froggyluv

i heard about that china incident. Did all survived? I thought a few were heavily injured, not sure if they survived finally.

[froggyluv 2130]

Myke;2267911']

i heard about that china incident. Did all survived? I thought a few were heavily injured' date=' not sure if they survived finally.[/quote']

I'm not sure of end result but at least for 3 days they were all listed as injured.

It doesn't really matter, since anyone who even considers going to a school and killing children is so mentally disturbed that it doesn't matter if he'll have to use his bare hands or a tank.

I really just don't get how you see no disparity here?!? A tank...bare hands...this is trivializing a comparison to the extreme as to make your point moot. Obviously a bare handed assialant could do some damage to a 6 year old but would also be easily stopped and overpowered by the staff -I doubt even 1 fatality in that case.

Seriously with that sort of thinking -why regulate any weapon? Tac nukes, artillery landmines, there all just "tools" after all.....

[GRS 10]

This is an interesting dichotomy. The question I have and what like to know from forum-ites around the world - if guns are more regulated and restricted in your country than the US, do criminals run rampant constantly dominating the unarmed populace? Are gun death rates higher there?

There is another issue here that is generally downplayed in the public arena but one need only go to an NRA or pro-gun website to notice -that being that this isn't necessarily about losing your home protection pistol -that this about the need to stockpile heavy weaponry in the face of an assured Government or UN led invasion of America type conspiracy. Its rampant in that community.

Explain to me how what I just said is wrong or a "dichotomy". :j: And people are hardly running rampant. Media and leftist sensationalism at its best. Violent crime has been dropping consistently here for over a decade now. :j: The ONLY people that gun bans affect are those who follow such laws. It's not a difficult concept to grasp.

Myke;2267906']

Besides that i have to agree. Part of the problem is the obsession for firearms in the USA in general. This is completely different here' date=' we're by far not as obsessed by them, not even closely.[/quote']

"Obsession" with guns != crime. How that logically follows is beyond me.

Columbine happened right smack in the middle of the last AWB. Chicago has a very bad history of infringing on 2A rights, they are the worst in the nation when it comes to crime rates. BANNING TEH GUNZ WORKS!

Edited December 23, 2012 by GRS

[[frl]myke 14]

"Obsession" with guns != crime. How that logically follows is beyond me.

It's not a crime, you're right. It's just stupid, thats all. Being stupid also isn't a crime. It is pointless to try it to explain to simply because you wouldn't even try to understand as it would be completely contradictory to what you believe. I'm not interested in wasting my time with a impossible task.

[GRS 10]

Myke;2267944']It's not a crime' date=' you're right. It's just stupid, thats all. Being stupid also isn't a crime. It is pointless to try it to explain to simply because you wouldn't even try to understand as it would be completely contradictory to what you believe. I'm not interested in wasting my time with a impossible task.[/quote']

So my hobby is stupid? :j: given your username, it appears as though you are in some type of gaming group. Well that's just stupid. It is pointless to try it to explain to simply because you wouldn't even try to understand as it would be completely contradictory to what you believe. I'm not interested in wasting my time with a impossible task. Your hypocrisy is incredible.

I was not aware that you are the almighty determining authority on what is and is not "stupid." :j: Passing off your asinine and unfounded beliefs as fact is... well... asinine and unfounded. On the other hand, no matter how hard people try, it cannot be denied that the police cannot instantly help you and that criminals don't obey laws, among other issues with the anti-gunner's grand philosophy. If you face a home invasion, as I have before, I invite you to simply call the police and wait. Should that happen, I hope I will get to hear from you after the fact.

Also, the idea that people who like guns are violent is beyond dumb. This "evil" gun culture and NRA promotes safe and responsible use for sport and defense and condemns all gun crime. Why the hell would a group support the very thing that is used against them?

Edited December 23, 2012 by GRS

[scrim 1]

I really just don't get how you see no disparity here?!? A tank...bare hands...this is trivializing a comparison to the extreme as to make your point moot. Obviously a bare handed assialant could do some damage to a 6 year old but would also be easily stopped and overpowered by the staff -I doubt even 1 fatality in that case.

Seriously with that sort of thinking -why regulate any weapon? Tac nukes, artillery landmines, there all just "tools" after all.....

Terribly sorry, suppose I could make myself a bit clearer. In regards to Tonci's argument about knives, I wrote that the choise of weapon doesn't matter when we're dealing with someone who'd actually even consider carrying out a school massacre, as that person is already so mentally disturbed that for him the prospect of having to use a more "gory" weapon like a knife would not deter him. Due to that it wouldn't matter in the mind of the assailant, if he used "his bare hands or a tank."

[[frl]myke 14]

See? Exactly what i meant. You take a sentence and twist it to fit in your own personal view. I didn't called you or your hobby stupid, i was referencing to the obsession to firearms. But this didn't into your point of view so you twisted it to make it fit, regardless if the meaning is incorrect now.

And no, i'm not in a gaming group. Assuming this by simply reading three letters is not quite serious investigation.

I was not aware that you are the almighty determining authority on what is and is not "stupid."

Sorry, just thought it is common sense that any sort of obsession isn't considered smart. I stand corrected.

Also, the idea that people who like guns are violent is beyond dumb.

Please show me where i said that. Again you're putting words in mouth i never said just to fit into your point of view.

This "evil" gun culture and NRA promotes safe and responsible use for sport and defense and condemns all gun crime. Why the hell would a group support the very thing that is used against them?

Hmm...sports....i fail to see how pulling a trigger can be considered a sportive activity. Nor does it take strength to pull a trigger nor does it require a raised IQ (like in, let's say chess).

Also let me think why NRA, a group heavily supported by gun manufacturers by the way, promotes safe and responsible use. I'm not quite sure but i think it would look bad if they would promote the opposite. Probably it wouldn't help to sell more guns.

[Tonci87 163]

Terribly sorry, suppose I could make myself a bit clearer. In regards to Tonci's argument about knives, I wrote that the choise of weapon doesn't matter when we're dealing with someone who'd actually even consider carrying out a school massacre, as that person is already so mentally disturbed that for him the prospect of having to use a more "gory" weapon like a knife would not deter him. Due to that it wouldn't matter in the mind of the assailant, if he used "his bare hands or a tank."

Well running away from someone with a knife is much easier then running awayy from someone with a gun.

I like firearms as well but ask yourself this question. Do american citizens really need full automatic machineguns?

[[frl]myke 14]

Well running away from someone with a knife is much easier then running awayy from someone with a gun.

I like firearms as well but ask yourself this question. Do american citizens really need full automatic machineguns?

Excellent point. For the always upcoming argument "we need it to defend ourself": a single handgun with one magazine of bullets is more than enough to defend yourself. If you can't stop your attacker with 1-2 shots, you're dead anyway.

[GRS 10]

Myke;2267955']See? Exactly what i meant. You take a sentence and twist it to fit in your own personal view. I didn't called you or your hobby stupid' date=' i was referencing to the obsession to firearms. But this didn't into your point of view so you twisted it to make it fit, regardless if the meaning is incorrect now.

And no, i'm not in a gaming group. Assuming this by simply reading three letters is not quite serious investigation.

Sorry, just thought it is common sense that any sort of obsession isn't considered smart. I stand corrected.

Please show me where i said that. Again you're putting words in mouth i never said just to fit into your point of view.

Hmm...sports....i fail to see how pulling a trigger can be considered a sportive activity. Nor does it take strength to pull a trigger nor does it require a raised IQ (like in, let's say chess).

Also let me think why NRA, a group heavily supported by gun manufacturers by the way, promotes safe and responsible use. I'm not quite sure but i think it would look bad if they would promote the opposite. Probably it wouldn't help to sell more guns.[/quote']

I never said that you said it. Putting words into my mouth now huh?

And you don't think shooting is sport or requires knowledge or skill? Are you kidding me? That is just mind-blowingly ignorant.

You obviously just don't like guns and are unwilling to see beyond your fantasy world where they are the problem into the reality where they are inanimate objects controls by good or bad people. Fine, but don't you dare touch mine or send someone to take them.\

Myke;2267958']Excellent point. For the always upcoming argument "we need it to defend ourself": a single handgun with one magazine of bullets is more than enough to defend yourself. If you can't stop your attacker with 1-2 shots' date=' you're dead anyway.[/quote']

I cannot take you seriously anymore.It's clear that you know nothing of practical gun use. Your crystal ball is fake. What if you end up in a full on shootout? What if there are multiple attackers (you know, when having a gun would REALLY help)? Or should we trust in your famed police? Kinda like the ones around here that fired 137 rounds between the two of them (multiple reloads) at two people sitting in a car, not moving? Yup, believe it or not, the police are not infallible guardian angels. They are normal people with guns and fancy uniforms. I shoot more than most local officers (save the ones that shoot for hobby as well).

And Tonci, there are not many machine guns here and they are already VERY, VERY strictly regulated. The shear amount of ignorance about guns and gun law displayed by people who want them banned or controlled is astounding. My AR15's are not "high power assault machine gun sniper weapons", they are regular old rifles, whether you like it or not.

Or should we ban those pesky heat-seeking bullets and "shoulder things that go up" as well? :232:

Edited December 23, 2012 by GRS

[scrim 1]

Of course it's easier to run away, but the problem is that the school shooter will have an advantage, that of surprise. Everyone will be in their class rooms, around 30 kids in each. When he turns up there isn't many ways to go. He'll be in the door, and even if you're not to high up to jumo out the window, getting 30 persons out will take plenty of time. And since it won't sound as loudly, he just might be able to surprise another class, or even easier, jump a group of kids trying to get out as he won't walk around making loud noises by firing a rifle.

Besides, the Lanza guy used a semi automatic rifle that you can get in most European countries, just more papers to work through. AFAIK no school shooting in history has involved a machine gun, and considering how much harder it is to actually get a permit for a fully automatic weapon (it isn't just a matter of walking into a random gun shop and saying "one fully automatic machine gun please") those gun owners are far less likely to go shoot up a school as their mental problems would be discovered, and their access to fire arms very limited, if not completely cut off depending on the mental condition.

[GRS 10]

That or they get them illegally, which would defeat the purpose of banning them since criminals don't obey the law. Last I checked murder has been banned as well. People freak out because these so called "high capacity (normal capacity) assault clips (magazines)" allow a shooter to take out a larger number of people. Well here's one for you: a person can reload twice using 10 round magazines pretty damn quickly, and what difference would that make if nobody else there can stop them anyways? Anyways, fact is that mass shootings are VERY rare. Most murders are single or low body-count, so this worry about people constantly wiping out entire crowds (also not how guns work), is statistically insignificant.

And what about me? I have serious bilateral knee injuries and I'll probably never run again. Guess I'll just have to get stabbed... :( Sure, you can run away from a guy with a knife (maybe). And then he can run after you.

Oh but don't worry, I'm sure the police will come swooping down out of the heavens at the first sign of danger!

Edited December 23, 2012 by GRS

[[frl]myke 14]

It's clear that you know nothing of practical gun use.

I know you couldn't knew that before: i served in swiss army, i've earned the sharpshooter medal which is not that easy to achieve. Actually i do have a automatic rifle SIG550 in my basement but no ammo for it. I just need it when the military departement wants me to do a refreshing course. Also i'm trained in throwing grenades (not that much, actually just had 4 or 5 live grenades thrown, rest was just training rounds) and i'm also trained to shoot the Panzerfaust 3 (unguided AT, don't know exactly, probably between 20 to 30 live rounds, not counting training rounds)

So please, don't think i don't know anything about weapons.

And again, someone please tell me...all those illegal weapons those criminals have of which you need to defend yourself...where do all these illegal weapons come from? is there somewhere a factory that produces them?

[GRS 10]

So now you are saying that shooting DOES take skill? Make up your mind, Myke. And someone with expertise such as yourself should know that 1 or 2 rounds isn't the way real gunfights usually work.

I must say, it must be nice living in a country that doesn't have such a VIOLENCE CULTURE (note: not "gun") such as this one.

And those illegal guns come from everywhere. I find it hilarious that the very administration that wants to ban the things GAVE a ton of them to criminals over the border. Irony! And these are the same people that like to blame the NRA for gun deaths.

Edited December 23, 2012 by GRS

[[frl]myke 14]

So now you are saying that shooting DOES take skill? Make up your mind, Myke.

Sharpshooting does. Are you a trained sharpshooter? Basic shooting i found quite easy, even the 300m distance weren't challenging. Maybe i'm just good with this, i don't know and i don't care.

But now out of serious curiosity. You're sitting in front of your PC. How far is the next gun from your place? Are your windows Bulletproof? Let's play a mind game, shall we? Let's assume someone who would like to break in your house. He probably would first go around your house and check the situation. Probably he will see you sitting there. Now he has to decide: either abandon the plan or continue. Let's assume he decides to continue. He probably knows that civilians can be very well armed so he might assume that you do have weapons. Now simple logic: if he shoot you first through the (probably not bulletproof) window, he doesn't risk to get shot by you. Bang, you're dead even before you know that something was going to happen. Or when you sleep? Could someone possibly reaching your bed without you realizing it? Do you think the attacker will give you the time to grab for your weapon?

[GRS 10]

Yes, I could easily get to one of my guns, I wouldn't even need to move.

Now, more importantly, I'd like to know where you plan to take this. If he shoots me through a window from a distance, than how is my being armed or not armed significant in any way? That gives no reason to not have one either. You are going so far off track here it's getting absurd. So what next? The gun doesn't automatically make a difference, it CAN make a difference. Not having one makes MUCH less of one if it makes one at all. And we have this new thing called an alarm. Your own story points out the flaw in your thinking. The gun can only help, the victim would be even more helpless in such a situation if they were not armed. Nobody is making the claim that having a gun will, without a doubt, save you. But having one can help whereas not having one does not help the potential victim at all.

Now, let's turn the tables here. Your story suggests that criminals think and make conscious decisions (which they do), so then, why is so much blame placed on non-sentient objects by people who want them banned. This is directed at anti-gunners in general, not you per-say.

[scrim 1]

Well, let's put it like this shall we? Plenty of guns have already been sold in the States. Too many of those for comfort are already in the hands of criminals. At this point, it's sort of too late to do much about it.

[Tonci87 163]

Yes, I could easily get to one of my guns, I wouldn't even need to move.

Now, more importantly, I'd like to know where you plan to take this. If he shoots me through a window from a distance, than how is my being armed or not armed significant in any way? That gives no reason to not have one either. You are going so far off track here it's getting absurd. So what next? The gun doesn't automatically make a difference, it CAN make a difference. Not having one makes MUCH less of one if it makes one at all. And we have this new thing called an alarm. Your own story points out the flaw in your thinking. The gun can only help, the victim would be even more helpless in such a situation if they were not armed. Nobody is making the claim that having a gun will, without a doubt, save you. But having one can help whereas not having one does not help the potential victim at all.

Now, let's turn the tables here. Your story suggests that criminals think and make conscious decisions (which they do), so then, why is so much blame placed on non-sentient objects by people who want them banned. This is directed at anti-gunners in general, not you per-say.

Well my simple opinon:

Guns easy to obtain and widespread->Criminals and psychos are more likely to have guns

I´ll rather fight a criminal that isn´t armed with a gun, they are much easier to scare away.

[[frl]myke 14]

Now, more importantly, I'd like to know where you plan to take this. If he shoots me through a window from a distance, than how is my being armed or not armed significant in any way?

Exactly, it wouldn't make a difference.

And we have this new thing called an alarm.

So you think that a intruder will stay long enough there as soon the alarm goes off and wait until you show up with your gun?

Does someone know some serious numbers which say in how many cases a firearm really helped and in how many cases owning a firearm didn't helped a victim?

[GRS 10]

Oh, I agree, that'd be wonderful. However, see post #5193. Even if gun control worked, which it doesn't, it wouldn't even matter. It would create more victims than it would eliminate criminals.

---------- Post added at 09:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:59 PM ----------

Myke;2267982']Exactly' date=' it wouldn't make a difference.

So you think that a intruder will stay long enough there as soon the alarm goes off and wait until you show up with your gun?

Does someone know some serious numbers which say in how many cases a firearm really helped and in how many cases owning a firearm didn't helped a victim?[/quote']

You obviously didn't read the rest of my post where i address that issue since I knew that was the "point" you would try to make. No, if someone gets the drop on me like that, whether I am armed or not, I am probably dead. Life sucks; then you die. However, that is not always or even usually the case. Having the gun can only help. Now let's say I do catch on an need to defend myself, but I am unarmed because "it wouldn't make a difference." If you cannot see the blatant flaw in your reasoning, then I think I might cry.

And no, the intruder would probably take off upon the alarm sounding, all the better. What's your point?

And go look for the research yourself if you are so curious.

Edited December 23, 2012 by GRS

[[frl]myke 14]

Okay, let's see it from another angle. Can you agree that if you're going into a direct confrotation, you try to have a superior position to your opponent? So i would draw my gun before we meet. This puts me in a advantaged position as you don't have your gun in your hand. Even if you have a pistol holster, the time it takes you to draw, your opponent already shot you. There might be stupid criminals for sure but i doubt it is the majority. How do you prevent this disadvantage? No matter how close your gun is, a average criminal will always have a advantage which draws your gun useless.

And go look for the research yourself if you are so curious.

Just thought maybe someone had a link at hand. At least i thought someone interested in guns could know where to look first as it covers his hobby. But obviously i was wrong.

Btw, check your PM's.

[Hans Ludwig 0]

Myke;2267533']Ok' date=' i'm curious. Are there any serious studies comparing the numbers in which legal weapons actually prevented a crime with the numbers in which legal weapons were involved for committing a crime? I know pretty well, 100% security isn't possible but somehow i think that less weapons would actually mean less killed people. And there, always aim to reach the lower number.[/quote']

http://www.cato.org/multimedia/events/more-guns-less-crime-understanding-crime-gun-control-laws

ZRjxEAWwagc

Edited December 23, 2012 by Hans Ludwig

[ralphwiggum 6]

ok, I'm going to chime in at this point.

Usually, I clamp on these types of discussion early on because they more or less all end up going down the same way. I've been on this board for 10 years and have seen plenty of these types of situations

I did have some hopes of this discussion, but I am seeing signs of problem in this exchange of arguments. Please do not end up taking the whole thing down or making the discussion turn in to a flamefest.

We are really close to that point IMO

[GRS 10]

But, for Myke since I suppose I should walk the walk: "Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist in 1993. Prior to Dr. Kleck's survey, thirteen other surveys indicated a range of between 800,000 to 2.5 million DGU's (defensive gun uses) annually. " Now, I'm not so sure about 2.5 million, but there are many.

There is one study, the National Crime Victimization Survey (basically people are surveyed and tell if they were the victim of crimes in the past X time period[a very flawed system for age and other reasons]), which in 1993, estimated 108,000 DGU's annually. The NCVS however does not actually measure such things and the findings regarding DGU's have been heavily criticized (ex: does "use" mean actual shooting or scaring the assailant upon presentation?). Gun deaths in the US have been hovering right around 30,000 per year, but that is deaths total. The largest number of those between accidental discharges, homicides, and suicides, is suicides by a significant amount. I htink it's something like 19k suicides to 11k homicides or something to that matter. That part could use some third-party fact checking. So even if there are only those 108,000 DGU's, the numbers speak for themselves.

Now, honestly, it seems as though everybody is set in their views anyways, even I'd be ok with ceasing this one if that is how the staff decides it. I've made my points and so have others. I've been heated, but I'll do my best to continue civilly.

Edited December 23, 2012 by GRS