[QUOTE=shlver]Of course alcohol can directly cause death.[/QUOTE]
I assume you mean alcohol poisoning? Or someone being hit over the head with a glass of bottle? Or lung related injuries?
Printable View
[QUOTE=shlver]Of course alcohol can directly cause death.[/QUOTE]
I assume you mean alcohol poisoning? Or someone being hit over the head with a glass of bottle? Or lung related injuries?
[QUOTE=BMOGEFan]Switzerland all people own a gun...lowest homicide rate in the world. Please explain the causation/correlation[/QUOTE]
And all guns are banned in the UK. Check where they are on the chart.
[IMG]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2012/12/firearm-OECD-UN-data3.jpg[/IMG]
Maybe... culture has something to do with it too?
(PS All guns are banned in Japan too)
The case for gun control is a good one. I would ban all firearms except hunting rifles and shotguns for home protection. With the current state of affairs, real money is at stake here and any attempt at regulation is met by heavily funded opposition. If the shooting at the elementary school is the real deciding issue, then why isn't school security being discussed? Why are assault weapons being banned and not handguns which are the majority of gun homicides in the US?
[QUOTE=Droid101]And all guns are banned in the UK. Check where they are on the chart.
[IMG]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2012/12/firearm-OECD-UN-data3.jpg[/IMG]
Maybe... culture has something to do with it too?
(PS All guns are banned in Japan too)[/QUOTE]
And they're banned in Mexico which has a death rate so high it doesn't fit on the chart.
Already posted in another thread.
[QUOTE=ripthekik]I assume you mean alcohol poisoning? Or someone being hit over the head with a glass of bottle? Or lung related injuries?[/QUOTE]
Alcohol poisoning is a direct cause of death by alcohol.
[QUOTE=BMOGEFan]Switzerland all people own a gun...lowest homicide rate in the world. Please explain the causation/correlation[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]
The Swiss army has long been a militia trained and structured to rapidly respond against foreign aggression. Swiss males grow up expecting to undergo basic military training, usually at age 20, after which Swiss men remain part of the "militia" in reserve capacity until age 30 (or age 34 for officers). Each such individual is required to keep his army-issued personal weapon Sig 550 rifle for enlisted personnel and/or the 9mm SIG-Sauer P220 semi-automatic pistol for officers, medical and postal personnel) at home.
When their period of service has ended, militiamen have the choice of keeping their personal weapon and other selected items of their equipment. In cases of retention, the rifle is sent to the weapons factory where the fully automatic function is removed; the rifle is then returned to the discharged owner as a semi-automatic or self-loading rifle.
To carry firearms in public or outdoors (and for an individual who is a member of the militia carrying a firearm other than his Army-issue personal weapons off-duty), a person must have a permit, which in most cases is issued only to private citizens working in occupations such as security.[/QUOTE]
When the U.S. has also implemented these policies, then we can talk.
[QUOTE=shlver]Alcohol poisoning is a direct cause of death by alcohol.[/QUOTE]
Yes, I have mentioned it in my previous post. Alcohol poisoning is indeed a direct cause of death by alcohol. But do you really want to compare the death rates of alcohol poisoning and death by gunshot? I thought it really wasn't worth even being talked about.
[QUOTE=ripthekik]Yes, I have mentioned it in my previous post. Alcohol poisoning is indeed a direct cause of death by alcohol. But do you really want to compare the death rates of alcohol poisoning and death by gunshot? I thought it really wasn't worth even being talked about.[/QUOTE]
? You posted something wrong then bring up something completely irrelevant to what you said.:lol
[QUOTE=Droid101]Another bad example, until they start regulating guns as much as they regulate cars.
[IMG]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-TpyCfRO6Wf0/UA26RNJIgII/AAAAAAAAB1g/ARDwJpua558/s1600/zz.png[/IMG][/QUOTE]
Great point. I heard over the radio yesterday.
There was a caller that identified himself as a hotdog vendor. After a day of work, he was robbed. So he decided to get a gun. It took seven days for him to get a license to carry a firearm. Then it dawned on him, it took three months to get a license to sale hotdogs.
[QUOTE=shlver]? You posted something wrong then bring up something completely irrelevant .:lol[/QUOTE]
What??? What are you talking about?
So do you want to compare death rate caused by alcohol poisoning now? I'm saying the chances of that happening is so miniscule.. it's pretty much possible to consider that alcohol does not cause death.
It's like saying scissors cause death because 5 kids per year are killed by it. It's so little, the chances of it happening are so slim, you have a higher chances of seeing an unicorn wearing a leather jacket than it happening.
[QUOTE=ripthekik]What??? What are you talking about?
So do you want to compare death rate caused by alcohol poisoning now? I'm saying the chances of that happening is so miniscule.. it's pretty much possible to consider that alcohol does not cause death.
It's like saying scissors cause death because 5 kids per year are killed by it. It's so little, the chances of it happening are so slim, you have a higher chances of seeing an unicorn wearing a leather jacket than it happening.[/QUOTE]
What are you talking about? YOU said that alcohol doesn't directly cause death. I said you were wrong, then you brought up something irrelevant to your initial statement. You go off in random tangents and make assumptions. You did it with my earlier post as well. Stay on topic of what I write, not what you want to write to save face.
[QUOTE=shlver]What are you talking about? YOU said that alcohol doesn't directly cause death. I said you were wrong, then you brought up something irrelevant to your initial statement. You go off in random tangents and make assumptions. You did it with my earlier post as well. Stay on topic of what I write, not what you want to write to save face.[/QUOTE]
I gave up on this guy...no one knows what he is talking about.
I stopped when he said alcohol doesn't cause deaths.
[QUOTE=shlver]What are you talking about? YOU said that alcohol doesn't directly cause death. I said you were wrong, then you brought up something irrelevant to your initial statement. You go off in random tangents and make assumptions. You did it with my earlier post as well. Stay on topic of what I write, not what you want to write to save face.[/QUOTE]
:facepalm
Ok, I'll play your game.
So alcohol causes death directly through alcohol poisoning. Should we ban alcohol because of alcohol poisoning?
What are the death per year caused by alcohol poisoning divided by consumption of alcohol (in a session)?
Compare that with death per year caused by guns divided by usage of a gun (in a session)?
You want me to eat my words and make this comparison? How does this help anything or your point? My point was made: alcohol is no where comparable to guns. You just wanted to argue with semantics.
Stop discussing things that go no where. Alcohol is not comparable to guns. If you want to dispute that point, go ahead.
[QUOTE=BMOGEFan]I gave up on this guy...no one knows what he is talking about.
I stopped when he said alcohol doesn't cause deaths.[/QUOTE]
What happened after I shut up your argument with bringing up Switzerland?
Alcohol causes death? OK, fine. I did the math formula above. You think it has any, ANY chance at all at being higher than guns?
So many retards here, seriously.
[QUOTE=ripthekik]:facepalm
Ok, I'll play your game.
So alcohol causes death directly through alcohol poisoning. Should we ban alcohol because of alcohol poisoning?
What are the death per year caused by alcohol poisoning divided by consumption of alcohol (in a session)?
Compare that with death per year caused by guns divided by usage of a gun (in a session)?
You want me to eat my words and make this comparison? How does this help anything or your point? My point was made: alcohol is no where comparable to guns. You just wanted to argue with semantics.
Stop discussing things that go no where. Alcohol is not comparable to guns. If you want to dispute that point, go ahead.[/QUOTE]
Once again, YOU made the claim that supposedly made it a void comparison. Your claim was wrong. Proportionality is a completely different comparison. Why do you insist on changing the discussion we were having?
[QUOTE=shlver]Once again, YOU made the claim that supposedly made it a void comparison. Your claim was wrong. Proportionality is a completely different comparison. Why do you insist on changing the discussion we were having?[/QUOTE]
Sure, my claim in saying it doesn't cause direct death was wrong, I fixed it, now I set it up above for comparison. Since you challenged me on that, now why don't you take on the comparison and tell me which is likely to cause more death?
This bill is gonna fail, too many assault weapons in circulation for a ban to be effective. And NRA/Republicans will still resist it.
[QUOTE=shlver]Once again, YOU made the claim that supposedly made it a void comparison. Your claim was wrong. Proportionality is a completely different comparison. Why do you insist on changing the discussion we were having?[/QUOTE]
Just ignore him. He still doesn't believe mental illness is the biggest contributor to murders. He still believes guns are the biggest factor.
[QUOTE=daily]And they're banned in Mexico which has a death rate so high it doesn't fit on the chart.
Already posted in another thread.[/QUOTE]
Mexico's cartels are more powerful than their government. They can't enforce anything, let alone any kind of weapons ban.
[QUOTE=Graviton]This bill is gonna fail, too many assault weapons in circulation for a ban to be effective. And NRA/Republicans will still resist it.[/QUOTE]
The bill will NOT be retroactive...as in it will not effect the assault weapons that people already have...it will ban further purchases.
I think it's a decent start. Look, obviously most gun deaths aren't from these types of weapons. These weapons are still the ones most capable of mass killing and overall convey and uphold a culture of gun obsession and gun nurturing. I would be fine with having a specific license with an extensive process to allow people like hunters to have these weapons...but they don't belong in anyone's house or in the streets of our neighborhoods.
[QUOTE=Droid101]Mexico's cartels are more powerful than their government. They can't enforce anything, let alone any kind of weapons ban.[/QUOTE]
The deaths cannot be compared.
One is a nut case, shoot up innocents at a school, while the other are shooting up drug dealers and for territory.
[QUOTE=shlver]If someone really wanted to commit an extreme crime like this, they will find a way to do it. What should be discussed is finding and implementing better security measures and fixing the broken infrastructure of our schools.[/QUOTE]
there is just no way to play defensive against these attacks. they're so random and its so easy for anyone to walk into a school during a random time of day and start blowing people away. just think of how easy something like that would be for you to do....and then to think they're supposed to be on the lookout for you 365 days a year at every hour? yeah right...
then again i feel the same way about our defensive posture vs terrorism. eventually its going to happen again until you can do something about the sources of it all.
[QUOTE=BMOGEFan]Just ignore him. He still doesn't believe mental illness is the biggest contributor to murders. He still believes guns are the biggest factor.[/QUOTE]
I'll take your word for it. Mental illness is the biggest contributor to murders.
What is the solution? How about getting guns out of their hands while helping them? How do we do that? Gun restriction, accountability, so on.
Thinking guns will have absolutely no effect is naiive. Give a nutcase access to a knife and a gun will give you totally different scenarios.
[QUOTE=BMOGEFan]The deaths cannot be compared.
One is a nut case, shoot up innocents at a school, while the other are shooting up drug dealers and for territory.[/QUOTE]
[IMG]http://mjcdn.motherjones.com/preset_51/fatalities2-01_0.png[/IMG]
[IMG]http://www.motherjones.com/files/images/possessedandobtained_225.gif[/IMG]
[QUOTE=BMOGEFan]lets just ban cars for everyone since there are drunk drivers and asian female drivers[/QUOTE]
- You are the road....in a vehicle that mostly is built for transportation/safety.....you take a chance everytime you operate a motorized vehicle in wich is useful to 99% of the population....someone could cuase a accident...I'am fully aware of that everytime I Drive.
- Going to Kindergarden?......to the movies?.....shopping?......with a threat of someone with high powered Firearm ( a firearm That is 99% useless to the civilian population) Killing everyone in sight....
weak sauce.....not even in the same area code kid.
next
[QUOTE=ripthekik]Sure, my claim in saying it doesn't cause direct death was wrong, I fixed it, now I set it up above for comparison. Since you challenged me on that, now why don't you take on the comparison and tell me which is likely to cause more death?[/QUOTE]
There is a comparison imo. Alcohol is heavily regulated because of the danger it causes. It is illegal in some places like public areas, while legal in some where it is managed like homes and bars. If used improperly, as in the case of drunk driving, it does cause harm which comes with legal ramifications. Similarly, I agree, that something that is designed to kill should be heavily regulated. There is a comparison there. Not an outright ban, but heavy regulation.
[QUOTE=D-Rose]The bill will NOT be retroactive...as in it will not effect the assault weapons that people already have...it will ban further purchases.
I think it's a decent start. Look, obviously most gun deaths aren't from these types of weapons. These weapons are still the ones most capable of mass killing and overall convey and uphold a culture of gun obsession and gun nurturing. I would be fine with having a specific license with an extensive process to allow people like hunters to have these weapons...but they don't belong in anyone's house or in the streets of our neighborhoods.[/QUOTE]
I would agree with that. I am just wondering if they will go for handgun bans next if another nut kills 30+ people while duel wielding pistols. Outright bans are never the answer because you don't know where they will stop.
[QUOTE=Graviton]I would agree with that. I am just wondering if they will go for handgun bans next if another nut kills 30+ people while duel wielding pistols. Outright bans are never the answer because you don't know where they will stop.[/QUOTE]
They won't do outright bans...it's impractical and literally impossible here too. If that became an issue too, I'd imagine more background checks,etc before being able to buy a gun.
[QUOTE=AlphaWolf24]- You are the road....in a vehicle that mostly is built for transportation/safety.....you take a chance everytime you operate a motorized vehicle in wich is useful to 99% of the population....someone could cuase a accident...I'am fully aware of that everytime I Drive.
- Going to Kindergarden?......to the movies?.....shopping?......with a threat of someone with high powered Firearm ( a firearm That is 99% useless to the civilian population) Killing everyone in sight....
weak sauce.....not even in the same area code kid.
next[/QUOTE]
read my other post regarding why gun advocates make an argument regarding drunk drivers.
[QUOTE=Godzuki]there is just no way to play defensive against these attacks. [B]they're so random and its so easy for anyone to walk into a school during a random time of day and start blowing people away. [/B]just think of how easy something like that would be for you to do....and then to think they're supposed to be on the lookout for you 365 days a year at every hour? yeah right...
then again i feel the same way about our defensive posture vs terrorism. eventually its going to happen again until you can do something about the sources of it all.[/QUOTE]
Isn't that a problem?:lol That's what my post is addressing. Security of schools.
[QUOTE=shlver]Isn't that a problem?:lol That's what my post is addressing. Security of schools.[/QUOTE]
I don't know how there can be a solution to this problem though. How can you protect every single public place? Schools aren't the only places shooting can occur. The next shooting could be at another movie theater, park, church. The main problem here isn't school shooting, it's shooting.
You'd need to hire so much manpower and security guards and forces, it wouldn't really be efficient in the end.
[QUOTE=BMOGEFan]You are a ****ing idiot. so you want to punish hunters, sports recreationalist all due to a nut case?[/QUOTE]
What's the "sport" in hunting with assault rifles? I could take down a rhino with a AK-47 equipped with a grenade launcher...hell, gimme a bazooka and I'll be the GOAT hunter, Dumbo and his pack won't have a chance:bowdown:
You want sport? Tackle a silverback gorilla mano a mano, fakkit, shooting him from 100 yards away with a high powered sniper rifle doesn't make you more of a man.
[QUOTE=ripthekik]I don't know how there can be a solution to this problem though. How can you protect every single public place? Schools aren't the only places shooting can occur. The next shooting could be at another movie theater, park, church. The main problem here isn't school shooting, it's shooting.
You'd need to hire so much manpower and security guards and forces, it wouldn't really be efficient in the end.[/QUOTE]
By attacking the real underlying problems of criminality.It does have its roots in mental health, culture, and yes it is influenced by ease of access. You're missing the point about schools. It is our responsibility to provide a safe environment where children can learn. A place that can be entered by ANY individual is not safe and is irresponsible. My point about legislation is that our political system is so influenced by money that any regulation is futile. Better to invest in our rundown schools and make them safer than to start another congressional deadlock.
[QUOTE=shlver]Isn't that a problem?:lol That's what my post is addressing. Security of schools.[/QUOTE]
But schools aren't the only places where mass shootings occur. What about movie theaters, malls, parks, buses, subways, etc and so on? Is your solution to have guards with M-16s or metal detectors in those places 24/7? The issue that some people keep bringing up ridiculous and nonsensical comparisons to deflect is guns and people's access to them. If I'm not mistaken, the school where the massacre occurred upped their security in the days/weeks leading up to the massacre. But someone with legally obtained killing machines made that null and void.
Give me one good reason why the populace should have access to these weapons (without counting 'fighting tyranny' like this is 1776, or 'it's a more fun hobby than playing poker').
[QUOTE=DonDadda59]But schools aren't the only places where mass shootings occur. What about movie theaters, malls, parks, buses, subways, etc and so on? Is your solution to have guards with M-16s or metal detectors in those places 24/7? The issue that some people keep bringing up ridiculous and nonsensical comparisons to deflect is guns and people's access to them. If I'm not mistaken, the school where the massacre occurred upped their security in the days/weeks leading up to the massacre. But someone with legally obtained killing machines made that null and void.
Give me one good reason why the populace should have access to these weapons (without counting 'fighting tyranny' like this is 1776, or 'it's a more fun hobby than playing poker').[/QUOTE]
I don't have a good reason because I think they should be banned alongside handguns. The only firearms I think should be allowed are hunting rifles and shotguns for home protection and those should be heavily regulated.
[QUOTE=shlver]I don't have a good reason because I think they should be banned alongside handguns. The only firearms I think should be allowed are hunting rifles and shotguns for home protection and those should be heavily regulated.[/QUOTE]
Well then we agree on the ban. But pouring money into securing schools from mass shootings (don't know how you would even be able to do that in a huge college campus effectively) does absolutely nothing to address the real issue. After Aurora, there were police stationed at most theaters across the country during TDKR's run. That was to make sure no more mass shootings occured in a movie theater. Then a shooting occurred in a mall... now in a school. If you pour all your effort into beefing up security in schools and pass that off as doing something to address the issue, what do you do when the next attack happens in central park, or in a bus, etc? Do we just keep moving the goal posts and do the whole 'oh, guns don't kill people' thing?
If this wasn't a wake-up call, then I don't know what it will take. Guess we'll just do the usual- deflect and then twiddle our thumbs and wait on the next one.
[QUOTE=shlver]I don't have a good reason because I think they should be banned alongside handguns. The only firearms I think should be allowed are hunting rifles and shotguns for home protection and those should be heavily regulated.[/QUOTE] It's time. The need for non hunting guns has run it's course. Guns are designed for one thing and that's killing there's no other use for them so why have them around. The recent events have made it clear changes need to be made.
I'll keep my shotguns and the cap and ball, give up the Beretta.
[QUOTE=ripthekik]The probability that a death is caused by alcohol is smaller than winning a lottery, getting in a planecrash, or getting hit by thunder.[/QUOTE]
:facepalm
[QUOTE=DonDadda59]Well then we agree on the ban. But pouring money into securing schools from mass shootings (don't know how you would even be able to do that in a huge college campus effectively) does absolutely nothing to address the real issue. After Aurora, there were police stationed at most theaters across the country during TDKR's run. That was to make sure no more mass shootings occured in a movie theater. Then a shooting occurred in a mall... now in a school. If you pour all your effort into beefing up security in schools and pass that off as doing something to address the issue, what do you do when the next attack happens in central park, or in a bus, etc? Do we just keep moving the goal posts and do the whole 'oh, guns don't kill people' thing?
If this wasn't a wake-up call, then I don't know what it will take. Guess we'll just do the usual- deflect and then twiddle our thumbs and wait on the next one.[/QUOTE]
Saw this on another site. Liked it:
I think this is very much a worthwhile discussion. Amendment 2 did make sense at one point, especially for a small nation without a standing military. It does not today fall on the individual citizen to protect the country from foreign invasion, and modern wars are not fought that way. We have a fantastic military that is exceptionally capable of defending the nation's shores.
Even the argument that an armed populace is the last defense against tyrannical government doesn't make much sense in the drone age. Your ability to engage in a firefight is worth very little against the largest standing military on the planet. In truth, the best safeguard against tyrannical government is the conscience, compassion and individual values of our service members and law enforcement personnel, like the Egyptian soldiers who refused to fire on unarmed civilians.
I do believe in the principle of private ownership, but we're not using our right to own guns to defend or shores or keep our government in check. We're using them to kill each other. I'm fine putting Amendment 2 on the table. Effective government should be a running experiment, not unwavering devotion to the best ideas of previous centuries.
[QUOTE=DonDadda59]Well then we agree on the ban. But pouring money into securing schools from mass shootings (don't know how you would even be able to do that in a huge college campus effectively) does absolutely nothing to address the real issue. After Aurora, there were police stationed at most theaters across the country during TDKR's run. That was to make sure no more mass shootings occured in a movie theater. Then a shooting occurred in a mall... now in a school. If you pour all your effort into beefing up security in schools and pass that off as doing something to address the issue, what do you do when the next attack happens in central park, or in a bus, etc? Do we just keep moving the goal posts and do the whole 'oh, guns don't kill people' thing?
If this wasn't a wake-up call, then I don't know what it will take. Guess we'll just do the usual- deflect and then twiddle our thumbs and wait on the next one.[/QUOTE]
You're right. Even if we protect one soft target, these kinds of people will find a multitude of other soft targets.
People are ignorant of how many people die from firearms daily because it is not news worthy unless something like the elementary school shooting happens. A significant portion of this country accept that those daily deaths are an acceptable price to pay for gun possession. Unless public ignorance and attitude changes, we have to figure out how to fix a psychological/cultural problem without infringing on a large portion of the US that believes that gun possession is their civil liberty.