USA Politics Thread - *No gun debate*

[[frl]myke 14]

More than 500 children die annually from accidental gunshots.

Source: http://www.momlogic.com/2008/08/protect_your_kids_from_guns.php

But hey, at least you have your freedom, what do you care about 500 accidentally killed children. Surely they deserved it if their parents couldn't take better care of them.

[kireta21 13]

Myke;2268484']Accidents happen' date=' always will.[/quote']

So what? Accidents happen, always, everywhere, 2500 people die every year by falling of their own beds.

I drive motorbike on daily basis. I do understand car or bus is safer, but I still preffer my bike. Should I put it in garage and drive by car or bus, just because I might get hit by truck? There's risk, sure, but I accept that risk.

On side note, how many fatal accidents with guns happen yearly in USA, country with 315 million people and 270 million guns?

Myke;2268484']Don't know' date=' maybe because the solely purpose of these pieces of metal, wood and plastic is to kill?[/quote']

That's like saying that only purpose of sports car is to brake speed limits and putting people in danger.

[Hillsbills 1]

That's odd, in 9 years there was a little over 500 accidental deaths for kids under 14.

http://rmpc.bitnamiapp.com/wordpress/

[[frl]myke 14]

Guns are made to kill, period. If it's about sports, precision shooting, a paintball gun would be sufficient. You can't do anything else than punching holes into something. With a sports car you can do (legal) races, you can drive them normally. A sports car purpose is bring you from A to B, just with more style.

[GRS 10]

I'll bet you my life savings that more children are killed in car accidents. Oh but cars have every-day utility (because self-preservation isn't every day apparently). Wouldn't that mean we should ban cars because they are used so much, yet are so dangerous? And again, I point to that statistical evidence that you yourself asked for. the bare minimum defensive gun uses (as estimated by an office of government) is over 100,000 per year. I guess those 100,000 people should have just been helpless or significantly less prepared just to maybe or maybe not prevent the accidents involving only 500 other people. It's for the children after all! Seriously, 100,00 (likely many more) vs. 500, and you tell me to care more about the 500? Not to mention the good old "innocent until proven guilty" theme we have going in this country. I didn't do anything wrong, so step off.

And how can you be ok with people owning one of the type of gun used most in homicide (by a very large margin) but not two or one of the others? If they can handle having one, they can handle having two or nine or six hundred.

Edit: a paintball gun for precision shooting?! PFFAHAHA, man that's rich.

[Hillsbills 1]

Myke;2268507']Guns are made to kill' date=' period. If it's about sports, precision shooting, a paintball gun would be sufficient. You can't do anything else than punching holes into something. With a sports car you can do (legal) races, you can drive them normally. A sports car purpose is bring you from A to B, just with more style.[/quote']

Paintballs aren't precise, never will be.

[Dosenmais 10]

I admit that i don't like guns and i clearly think nobody should have them.

It isn't in your might to say what people should have and what not. Its a total personal decision to decide what to buy and to own or to build. You don't like guns? Don't buy one, don't build one. But let others alone, don't stick your nose in other peoples businesses.

And to show my respect for your, maybee selfish, believes: I swear not to use a firearm to detain a bulglar, rapist or murderer from entering your home. I wouldn't dare to involve a gun in the event.

Source: http://www.momlogic.com/2008/08/prot..._from_guns.php

The National Safety Council says the Numbers for 2011 are not even near 500. Infact, it says the children(0-14) who died by firearm accidents where 150. There are more children dying because they drow in the swimming pool, but everyone likes swimming pools and no one would dare to call for a ban of them.

Surely they deserved it if their parents couldn't take better care of them.

Polemic doesn't help your lack of knowledge, facts and basic use of logic.

Why are people so afraid of metal, wood, and plastic objects?

Typical the Anti-Gun person is a leftwing etatist, who believes in the government with his buildings look like feeding breasts is a free-stuff wellfare agency instead the dangeroust organisation in human histroy, is afraid because of three main reasons:

1. They are so weak and cowardly, that they are afraid they would shoot themself in an accident.

2. They are afraid their wifes would shoot them because of the weaklings they are.

3. They are afraid their dumbed down by public school and filled up with drugs by medical doctors Kids would go postal.

PS:

[FRL]Myke

although the debate here got heated, until now we managed to not insult each other. To keep it this way, you are banned from this thread.

Okay, imagine he wouldn't be just a moderator but someone with real authorities in real live. He already throws me out of the debate after he's being polemic and using wrong facts. Imagine this guy would a politician in this hole gun debate. What do you think would he act? Do you think he would let you make free decision about owning a gun or not? Count 1 and 1 together.

Edited December 25, 2012 by Dosenmais

[kireta21 13]

I'll bet you my life savings that more children are killed in car accidents.

True. In fact it's No.1 cause of death of children up to 12 yo. Most because their parents don't use child seats...

@Dosenmais: Why so harsh?

More like because only "contact" they have with guns is through TV, spoon feeding them with reports how scary guns are. They understand about guns and their uses as much as tribals of Vanuatu understood planes cutting their sky. And huge gap in their knowledge is purposely exploited.

See, gun-control supporters propose actually good things to prevent crime. Background checks, psychological evaluation and such. And what they do, once given green light? Ban pistol grips, folded stocks or .50 rifles (was there at least one crime done with .50 rifle in CA? Or entire USA?), things that have little to nothing to do with crime prevention. And most of their supporters is OK with that because those guns look "big and scary", not noticing this have nothing to do with actual purpose of gun-control.

Edited December 25, 2012 by boota

[[frl]myke 14]

@Dosenmais

although the debate here got heated, until now we managed to not insult each other. To keep it this way, you are banned from this thread.

BTT.

Ok, Paintballs are a horrible example, my apologies. Sadly i don't know a better comparison but basically i think you understand what i tried to say with it. And please don't try to pull away the attention towards car accidents. Every death is one death too much. But on the other hand it is also a good comparison: we need more cars to protect our children...sounds completely wrong, doesn't it?

[GRS 10]

Except that cars cannot easily be used to protect children. Arming yourself can. It worked for ~100,000 (at the very least) other people per year.

Edited December 25, 2012 by GRS

[scrim 1]

Well, it's the matter of taste and choice. Most of heavy SUVs or sportcars aren't used for driving in the countryside or racing during all their service life. But they are sold and bought despite of this fact. People buy 300-400 hp cars and then drive only at the cities or travel between them abiding speed limits and thus using barely 20-30% of their car potential. Frankly speaking every car that has more than 150 hp engine is just useless if you don't travel at long distances. The same goes to the guns.

Except that the AR-15 that I wrote about is based of a military assault rifle, and it has 30 round magazines because soldiers tend to have a need to fire many rounds, quickly, and not straight on target, but close enough to suppress it. Compare this to target shooting as a sport, where you fire few rounds, with more time, and they all have to hit much closer. Would you really recommend the same rifle to both the soldier and the target shooter?

[JdB 151]

Except that cars cannot easily be used to protect children. Arming yourself can.

It's a terrible idea to have loads of people in public places carrying guns for "protection". It looks so simple when the military or SRT units do it so it must be really easy for the average gun owner to engage with a heavily armed lunatic in a heavily crowded area. Do you think more or less people will die in such shooting sprees if more people are armed, of which well over 50% will be in a state of complete panick and fear* like most people would be when they have had neither the training nor the experience of close quarters combat and end up just firing at everything that moves? Just because someone owns a gun doesn't mean they are capable to protect themselves with it without endangering other innocent people. Shooting the bullseye on a paper target each and every time doesn't mean a thing in such a situation. Introducing more guns into the equasion in most cases will only increase the death toll. The only thing you can hope for is that someone involved has specific training for this, like the police officer in the movie theater shootout that happened just after Newtown.

* These people would also likely be completely in the dark about what is going on. They don't know someone holding a gun. Is he a killer or another armed civilian like themselves? In the confusion and fear, that will likely result in everyone shooting at everyone. Experienced trained soldiers suffer from fear, stress and

disinformation in combat, it will be many times worse for the average soccer mom or average Joe, even many of those that have been shooting guns all their life.

Regarding gun ownership in terms of self defense: I can to a certain point understand the concerns about protecting your home, family and property with a gun, especially in a country more rife with violent crime as the US is than many other western nations. Even if you were to take the legal guns off the street there would still be plenty of illegal ones left so that wouldn't solve the criminals using them like they do not completely rule out crimes involving guns in other countries. But I don't see the logic in protecting your home with semi automatic assault rifles and heavy caliber sniper rifles. Handguns with a reasonable amount of rounds (no extended magazines etc) and a pump action shotgun with buckshot are more than enough to stop the average burglar, rapist or home invader. It only takes a shot or two to either incapacitate the intruder or make them reconsider their choice to enter. If someone gets into a situation where they need military grade firepower to survive, they should review their way of life since they've apparently managed to seriously piss off either the police or a drug cartel.

Edited December 25, 2012 by JdB

[GRS 10]

You cannot know what a situation will require untill you are in it so to say that X, Y, or Z will suffice cannot be possible. I just keep the best option for me possible so I don't have to worry as much.

As for the claim that free-for-all shootouts would occur... Well, two things. First, we already have many CHL holders that carry regularly. I have yet to hear of even one case in which a large FFA broke out in a crowd. Fun fact, at the prior shooting at the Portland Mall, a CHL holder drew but held their fire because of people in the background. You cannot say people will or will not react a certain way. Second, what is the alternative? It is a one-sided massacre. I'll take a frantic two-way shootout over a one-sided massacre any day.

[spooky lynx 73]

Except that the AR-15 that I wrote about is based of a military assault rifle, and it has 30 round magazines because soldiers tend to have a need to fire many rounds, quickly, and not straight on target, but close enough to suppress it. Compare this to target shooting as a sport, where you fire few rounds, with more time, and they all have to hit much closer. Would you really recommend the same rifle to both the soldier and the target shooter?

Sometimes you fire more than 100 rnds during the firing session at the range. So having 30 rnd mag at least gives you an ability to change the mag less times.

[Hillsbills 1]

Since rifles of all types are only used in about 0.5% of homicides per year, I'd love to see the numbers of assault rifles owned versus those used for evil. People are up in arms to ban something for what it could do ignoring what they don't do 99% of the time.

[spooky lynx 73]

Look at amount of people got killed or badly wounded during car accidents. But nobody wants to ban cars with too powerful engines, ban private cars at all or something similar. Why? Speaking about my country about 30000 people die annually in car accidents. It's twice more than our army lost during 10 years of warfare in Afghanistan! But nobody cares. Nobody wants to forbid people having their own cars. And if somewhere, even in other country one idiot kills somebody with a gun a shitestorm appears in a minute, and many people scream about gun ban, restriction of magazine capacity, stocks etc. But shouldn't we ban cars with more than 70-75 hp engine at first? So people won't have an ability to drive more than 60 km/h and kill pedestrians and other drivers, eh?

[GRS 10]

2A has nothing to do with sport anyways. If it did, I shoot 3-gun, so I do need 30 round mags. Done.

[Hans Ludwig 0]

Myke;2268467']My car is unlocked and unprotected in front of my house' date=' my front door is unlocked and i feel perfectly comfortable and safe. Utopia exists...if you want to.[/quote']

Exhibit "A"

March 13, 1996 - BRITAIN - Gunman Thomas Hamilton burst into a primary school in the Scottish town of Dunblane and shot dead 16 children and their teacher before killing himself.

April 28, 1996 - AUSTRALIA - Martin Bryant unleashed modern Australia's worst mass murder when he shot dead 35 people at the Port Arthur tourist site in the southern state of Tasmania.

April 1999 - UNITED STATES - Two heavily-armed teenagers went on a rampage at Columbine High School in Littleton, Denver, shooting 13 students and staff before taking their own lives.

July 1999 - UNITED STATES - A gunman killed nine people at two brokerages in Atlanta, after apparently killing his wife and two children. He committed suicide five hours later.

June 2001 - NEPAL - Eight members of the Nepalese Royal family were killed in a palace massacre by Crown Prince Dipendra who later turned a gun on himself and died few days later. His youngest brother also died later raising the death toll to 10.

April 26, 2002 - GERMANY - In Erfurt, eastern Germany, 19-year-old Robert Steinhauser opened fire after saying he was not going to take a math test. He killed 12 teachers, a secretary, two pupils and a policeman at the Gutenberg Gymnasium, before killing himself.

Oct. 2002 - UNITED STATES - John Muhammad and Lee Malvo killed 10 people in sniper-style shooting deaths that terrorized the Washington, D.C., area.

April 16, 2007 - USA - Virginia Tech, a university in Blacksburg, Virginia, became the site of the deadliest rampage in U.S. history when a gunman killed 32 people and himself.

Nov. 7, 2007 - FINLAND - Pekka-Eric Auvinen killed six fellow students, the school nurse, the principal and himself with a handgun at the Jokela High School near Helsinki.

Sept. 23, 2008 - FINLAND - Student Matti Saari opened fire in a vocational school in Kauhajoki in northwest Finland, killing nine other students and one male staff member before killing himself.

March 11, 2009 - GERMANY - A 17-year-old gunman dressed in combat gear killed nine students and three teachers at a school near Stuttgart. He also killed one other person at a nearby clinic. He was later killed in a shoot-out with police. Two additional passers-by were killed and two policemen seriously injured, bringing the death toll to 16 including the gunman.

June 2, 2010 - BRITAIN - Gunman Derrick Bird opened fire on people in towns across the rural county of Cumbria. Twelve people were killed and 11 injured. Bird also killed himself.

April 9, 2011 - NETHERLANDS - Tristan van der Vlis opened fire in the Ridderhof mall in Alphen aan den Rijn, south of Amsterdam, killing six before turning the gun on himself.

July 22, 2011 - NORWAY - Police seize a gunman who killed 69 people at a youth summer camp of Norway's ruling political party, on the small, holiday island of Utoeya. Anders Behring Breivik is later charged with the killings, as well as with an earlier bombing in Oslo which killed eight people. The trial ended last month with Breivik saying that his bombing and shooting rampage was necessary to defend the country - prompting a walk-out by relatives of his victims.

Dec. 13, 2011 - BELGIUM - Gunman Nordine Armani killed three people, including a 17-month-old toddler, wounding 121 in a central square in the eastern city of Liege, before shooting himself. The next day Belgian investigators found the body of a woman in warehouse used by the gunman raising the death toll, including the killer, to five.

July 20, 2012 - UNITED STATES - A masked gunman killed 14 people and wounded 50 others when he opened fire on moviegoers at a showing of new Batman film "The Dark Knight Rises" in the city of Denver.

SOURCE:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/mass-shooting-incidents-last-two-decades

Edited December 25, 2012 by Hans Ludwig

[Tonci87 163]

It's a terrible idea to have loads of people in public places carrying guns for "protection". It looks so simple when the military or SRT units do it so it must be really easy for the average gun owner to engage with a heavily armed lunatic in a heavily crowded area. Do you think more or less people will die in such shooting sprees if more people are armed, of which well over 50% will be in a state of complete panick and fear* like most people would be when they have had neither the training nor the experience of close quarters combat and end up just firing at everything that moves? Just because someone owns a gun doesn't mean they are capable to protect themselves with it without endangering other innocent people. Shooting the bullseye on a paper target each and every time doesn't mean a thing in such a situation. Introducing more guns into the equasion in most cases will only increase the death toll. The only thing you can hope for is that someone involved has specific training for this, like the police officer in the movie theater shootout that happened just after Newtown.

* These people would also likely be completely in the dark about what is going on. They don't know someone holding a gun. Is he a killer or another armed civilian like themselves? In the confusion and fear, that will likely result in everyone shooting at everyone. Experienced trained soldiers suffer from fear, stress and

disinformation in combat, it will be many times worse for the average soccer mom or average Joe, even many of those that have been shooting guns all their life.

Regarding gun ownership in terms of self defense: I can to a certain point understand the concerns about protecting your home, family and property with a gun, especially in a country more rife with violent crime as the US is than many other western nations. Even if you were to take the legal guns off the street there would still be plenty of illegal ones left so that wouldn't solve the criminals using them like they do not completely rule out crimes involving guns in other countries. But I don't see the logic in protecting your home with semi automatic assault rifles and heavy caliber sniper rifles. Handguns with a reasonable amount of rounds (no extended magazines etc) and a pump action shotgun with buckshot are more than enough to stop the average burglar, rapist or home invader. It only takes a shot or two to either incapacitate the intruder or make them reconsider their choice to enter. If someone gets into a situation where they need military grade firepower to survive, they should review their way of life since they've apparently managed to seriously piss off either the police or a drug cartel.

^this

Imagine this situation:

A large crowded mall:

Many people are armed because they have the right to do so. Everyone is a civilian.

One lunatic starts a shootout randomly shooting at everything that moves, lets call him shooter.

Other people draw their guns to stop him, lets call this group of people group A

Group A manages to kill the shooter but other civilians get killed in the crossfire.

Other people who couldn´t see the original shooter but see people from group A shooting think that these people are the ones that started he shootout and try to kill them.

Everyone is in panic, since most of the people don´t have military training, basic instincts take over and everyone tries to save his own life by killing the threat

Soon everyone is shooting at every other person who has a gun because no one knows who the original shooter is.

Police arriving at the scene will have no clue what to do and won´t have a choice but to lock the place since going in is to dangerous. Medical stuff won´t be able to go in as well.

Welcome to the modern Deathmatch.

[scrim 1]

Sometimes you fire more than 100 rnds during the firing session at the range. So having 30 rnd mag at least gives you an ability to change the mag less times.

Yeah, a rifle isn't going to break if you reload it more than 3-4 times, so that a nonsense argument. 30 round magazines are intended for military/law enforcement use, where the ability to fire many rounds quickly without reloading is vital to the task at hand. Target shooting, no, you don't need a 30 round magazine for that. You don't even need a 10 round magazine. If you're so lazy you can't be bothered to reload 20 times, it's not a problem, because you'll be so lazy that morbid overweight has killed you years ago.

And the reason we don't ban cars is that despite the fact that they kill people, they are used to get around. Modern society is dependent on them. What modern society on the other hand isn't dependent on is everyone and their cat being able to buy an assault rifle with high capacity magazines without at least having very stringent background and permit checks. Actually, we can do without the 30 round magazines, they're neccesary in war, not for self defence.

[spooky lynx 73]

Heh, how modern society is dependant on all the sportcars, luxury SUVs and all the cars that can ride with twice more speed than permitted on the highway? Had dikk measurement become vital part of our life?:D

[scrim 1]

The thing is that while they are allowed, if driven above the speed limit it is illegal. They are trusted to keep below the speed limit, and if they don't obey it too many times, they lose their license. Your nonsense argument about cars doesn't work, because compared to magazines, it'd be like buying a 30 round magazine and only loading it with five rounds. And the sport car will still be used for transporting someone.

[GRS 10]

^this

Imagine this situation:

A large crowded mall:

........................

.

I've already covered this many times. You cannot know that, and the statistical evidence disagrees. I will not explain it again. You've been proven wrong, yet you choose to ignore all proof because it doesn't fit your unfounded belief.

Yeah, a rifle isn't going to break if you reload it more than 3-4 times, so that a nonsense argument. 30 round magazines are intended for military/law enforcement use, where the ability to fire many rounds quickly without reloading is vital to the task at hand. Target shooting, no, you don't need a 30 round magazine for that. You don't even need a 10 round magazine. If you're so lazy you can't be bothered to reload 20 times, it's not a problem, because you'll be so lazy that morbid overweight has killed you years ago.

And the reason we don't ban cars is that despite the fact that they kill people, they are used to get around. Modern society is dependent on them. What modern society on the other hand isn't dependent on is everyone and their cat being able to buy an assault rifle with high capacity magazines without at least having very stringent background and permit checks. Actually, we can do without the 30 round magazines, they're neccesary in war, not for self defence.

We the people can have what we want for defense against all enemies, foreign and domestic. It is not a difficult concept to grasp.

And again, I've provided you all with the statistical evidence that you wanted. Yet I keep reading the same BS, unfounded arguments..... Oh yes, let's ban regular capacity magazines because they are the smallest part of the problem and that will solve the millions and millions of mass shootings that we don't have. Face it, the facts disagree with your personal beliefs. You can choose to accept that you are wrong, and also don't understand US law or the BoR, or you can continue to argue despite having all proof against you. At least you'll be right in your own mind.

Edited December 25, 2012 by GRS

[Tonci87 163]

I've already covered this many times. You cannot know that, and the statistical evidence disagrees. I will not explain it again. You've been proven wrong, yet you choose to ignore all proof because it doesn't fit your unfounded belief.

We the people can have what we want for defense against all enemies, foreign and domestic. It is not a difficult concept to grasp.

And again, I've provided you all with the statistical evidence that you wanted. Yet I keep reading the same BS, unfounded arguments..... Oh yes, let's ban regular capacity magazines because they are the smallest part of the problem and that will solve the millions and millions of mass shootings that we don't have. Face it, the facts disagree with your personal beliefs. You can choose to accept that you are wrong, and also don't understand US law or the BoR, or you can continue to argue despite having all proof against you. At least you'll be right in your own mind.

No you ignore proof.

I´m sure that you are a responsible person and that you do know how to handle guns. But I also bet that you know a dozen peple who should never ever have access to a firearm. And thats were the danger is. There are always Idiots and they will ruin the day for everyone else.

[GRS 10]

And again, I am not the one ignoring proof, you are. I've provided the statistics: 100,000 DGU's per year (very lowest estimate), 11,000 Homicides and somewhere around 800-900 accidental discharges. Suggesting that the mistakes and poor choices of about (combined) 20,000 people outweigh the self preservation and victim prevention of at least 100,000 (estimates go up to 2.5 million) is absurd. You have yet to produce any fact what-so-ever to support the claims that you are making up. There will always be idiots, but there ARE always far, FAR more non-idiots. I'm not ignoring facts, I PRESENTED THE ONLY ONES in this discussion, and they all disprove your made-up "facts."

Sorry guys, but this is just getting sad. You cannot pass off your fear of people misusing guns so often as to outweigh the good they do as fact. It is simply not true no matter how hard you try to tell me I am wrong. I do know a dozen people that should not use guns (in my opinion) and I know hundreds who I trust to (kinda like those statistics you keep ignoring).

Sorry, but to say that I am the one ignoring statistics here is just stupid. You are, quite simply, wrong and have been proven as such. go ahead and claim otherwise but any rational person who reads this thread can clearly see who has presented facts and reason and who has presented opinion and uninformed speculation. Hell, I even used the least beneficial statistics to my argument and they still prove you wrong...

I'm not going to sit here and argue over who is ignoring the facts. Re-read this entire discussion and it is completely obvious who is and is not.

Edit: oh, and it's hard for me to ignore facts that don't exist, so how I apparently managed to do that is beyond me.

Edited December 25, 2012 by GRS