Another Gun Thread When home defence goes wrong.

[Tomorrow]

Originally Posted by zioxide

When will you realize that people want guns restricted or banned because they can hurt or kill people who have no connection whatsoever to the person with the gun?

You mean like a pedestrian being hit by a car?

[Eraserhead]

Originally Posted by Tomorrow

You mean like a pedestrian being hit by a car?

There are great efforts that have been made to make cars safer for pedestrians.

And every child gets taught how to safely cross the road.

[Tomorrow]

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

There are great efforts that have been made to make cars safer for pedestrians.

And every child gets taught how to safely cross the road.

There's still a massive hole in the argument. Thousands of pedestrians still get killed by cars, regardless of how safe they're made. Choose another argument.

[eric/]

Originally Posted by zioxide

How long are you going to keep making these horrible comparisons in the gun threads?

When will you realize that people want guns restricted or banned because they can hurt or kill people who have no connection whatsoever to the person with the gun? (Like kids just going to school to learn or a girl just going to a bus shelter because it's cold out)

That's the difference between guns and the comparison you tried to make with skydiving.

Yeah, sky diving is dangerous. So is doing a double backflip on a dirtbike in the XGames. So is football. And many other activities that people choose to participate in. Anyone who decides to participate in these types of activities does it willfully and they do it knowing that there's a possibility they could be seriously injured or killed doing these types of activities. Some businesses that run activities like this even make you sign waivers absolving them of any liabilities if you do get hurt or killed.

Those 20 kids didn't go to Sandy Hook school on December 14th going in to an activity where they knew there was a possibility of getting killed. They were just going to school.

The girl who performed at the inauguration who got shot in a bus shelter a few blocks from her school was just going in to a bus shelter to take cover from the elements, she wasn't going in to some extreme activity that could result in injury or death.


If you can't see the difference here and are just going to continue to make bad and fallacious comparions there is no point in even debating with you. The only time your comparison could even hold any water whatsoever is if a person was using a gun solely to put a bullet in their own head. Go for it then. I'm not trying to legislate against people willfully killing themselves.

Then don't make the argument that you have a statistically shorter life span by owning a gun. Idk, you can't just sit there and make those types of arguments and then ignore the philosophical implications.

[Mac'nCheese]

Originally Posted by Tomorrow

There's still a massive hole in the argument. Thousands of pedestrians still get killed by cars, regardless of how safe they're made. Choose another argument.

No there isn't. The pedestrians get killed by cars is a stupid beyond belief argument. Cars are made for transportation not to kill. Guns are made to kill. Sometimes, cars are used to kill but its not their primary function. Guns are used for target practice but thats not their primary function. Its simple really.

[zioxide]

Originally Posted by Tomorrow

There's still a massive hole in the argument. Thousands of pedestrians still get killed by cars, regardless of how safe they're made. Choose another argument.

The hole in the argument is in your comparison here.

Getting hit by a car is an accepted risk that everyone knows about when crossing the street. Everyone is taught at a very early age they have to be careful, look both ways, etc.

Same way that getting hurt or killed in a car accident is an accepted risk that you take when you get in your car to drive to work, the super market, etc.


Getting shot by some idiot with a gun is NOT an accepted risk of going to first grade class on a friday morning or going to take cover in a bus shelter because it's cold out.

Originally Posted by eric/

Then don't make the argument that you have a statistically shorter life span by owning a gun. Idk, you can't just sit there and make those types of arguments and then ignore the philosophical implications.

I never said any of that. You're confusing yourself now.

And that doesn't change the fact that your comparison was ridiculous and fallacious. Seems like you need to take your own advice before repeating those lines again.

[eric/]

Originally Posted by Mac'nCheese

No there isn't. The pedestrians get killed by cars is a stupid beyond belief argument. Cars are made for transportation not to kill. Guns are made to kill. Sometimes, cars are used to kill but its not their primary function. Guns are used for target practice but thats not their primary function. Its simple really.

Why would that matter?

----------

Originally Posted by zioxide

Getting shot by some idiot with a gun is NOT an accepted risk of going to first grade class on a friday morning or going to take cover in a bus shelter because it's cold out.

Says who?

Originally Posted by zioxide

I never said any of that. You're confusing yourself now.

No, go back and re-read what was written.

Originally Posted by zioxide

And that doesn't change the fact that your comparison was ridiculous and fallacious. Seems like you need to take your own advice before repeating those lines again.

i didn't make the initial comparison. Only pointed out that people die from doing all sorts of stuff, so saying "well statistically you're more likely to die" is a silly argument, because it applies to everything.

[Moyank24]

Originally Posted by zioxide

The hole in the argument is in your comparison here.

Getting hit by a car is an accepted risk that everyone knows about when crossing the street. Everyone is taught at a very early age they have to be careful, look both ways, etc.

Same way that getting hurt or killed in a car accident is an accepted risk that you take when you get in your car to drive to work, the super market, etc.

And for what's it's worth, there are restrictions in place for both pedestrains and automobile drivers - stop lights / cross walks / jaywalking laws / signs telling a pedestrian when they can cross - in an effort to prevent unnecessary injuries and deaths.

[eric/]

Originally Posted by Moyank24

And for what's it's worth, there are restrictions in place for both pedestrains and automobile drivers - stop lights / cross walks / jaywalking laws / signs telling a pedestrian when they can cross - in an effort to prevent unnecessary injuries and deaths.

There are those same laws for firearms. Have to be carried a certain way in your vehicle, can't discharge them out in public, have to take a class to conceal carry, have to be a certain age to purchase/own.

[Moyank24]

Originally Posted by eric/

There are those same laws for firearms. Have to be carried a certain way in your vehicle, can't discharge them out in public, have to take a class to conceal carry, have to be a certain age to purchase/own.

Exactly.

And most of the gun legislation being proposed doesn't involve banning guns - so why is everyone acting like that's all that everyone wants to do?

Every time something is brought up, someone says "maybe they should ban those" - funny, maybe, but completely unrealistic comparisons because we know that guns aren't going to be banned anytime soon in the US. And certainly nobody is coming to take away the guns you already own.

Education, obviously, is key - both about gun safety and our treatment of the mentally ill. Also, education about what is actually being proposed should be important as well. Because most haven't stopped listening to the party line long enough to educate themselves.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by Moyank24

Education, obviously, is key - both about gun safety and our treatment of the mentally ill. Also, education about what is actually being proposed should be important as well. Because most haven't stopped listening to the party line long enough to educate themselves.

The problem with education is, how do you actually do pull it off?

Who are you educating? Everybody?

Do we add Gun Safety to Reading, Writing and Arithmetic?

Or if you just educate legal and registered gun owners, then you're missing out educating all those who possess or will possess a gun illegally.

I'm not saying that education isn't a component to the solution.

It's just isn't a solution in itself.

[eric/]

Originally Posted by Moyank24

Exactly.

And most of the gun legislation being proposed doesn't involve banning guns - so why is everyone acting like that's all that everyone wants to do?

Every time something is brought up, someone says "maybe they should ban those" - funny, maybe, but completely unrealistic comparisons because we know that guns aren't going to be banned anytime soon in the US. And certainly nobody is coming to take away the guns you already own.

Education, obviously, is key - both about gun safety and our treatment of the mentally ill. Also, education about what is actually being proposed should be important as well. Because most haven't stopped listening to the party line long enough to educate themselves.

To be fair, many people on here are seeking to ban AR-15s and 30 round clips. Hence the problem. I for one am perfectly fine with more education, training, and safety. More time and background checks for obtaining weapons, and working to treat mental illness so people aren't killing themselves.

But whenver the conversation starts with banning or restricting weapons anymore than they are now (except that stupid shoulder thing from a month ago) it's a non-starter.

[Tomorrow]

Originally Posted by Mac'nCheese

No there isn't. The pedestrians get killed by cars is a stupid beyond belief argument.

Originally Posted by zioxide

The hole in the argument is in your comparison here.

Yes, it's a stupid argument - and identical to this one:

Originally Posted by zioxide

When will you realize that people want guns restricted or banned because they can hurt or kill people who have no connection whatsoever to the person with the gun?

If that's your best argument, you're not going to convince many people - it's as flawed as the one I posted about cars and pedestrians.

[dextertangocci]

For those of you who are against gun ownership, come live in South Africa for a while and see for yourself why you would want to sleep with a pistol close by. Burglars here routinely break into homes with the intention of raping and/or killing the occupants before they start stealing. Calling the police is often useless as many times they take hours to respond to a call.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by dextertangocci

For those of you who are against gun ownership, come live in South Africa for a while and see for yourself why you would want to sleep with a pistol close by. Burglars here routinely break into homes with the intention of raping and/or killing the occupants before they start stealing. Calling the police is often useless as many times they take hours to respond to a call.

I looked at the numbers and South Africa is an interesting case.

Population
South Africa — 50,586,757
United States — 313,914,040

You've got 16% of the U.S. population.

Number of guns per capita by country (per 100 residents)
South Africa — 12.7
United States — 88.8

14% of the guns per capita.

Firearm Homicides (2007)
South Africa — 8,319
United States — 12,632

Yet 66% of firearm homicides.

Homicide (2009)
South Africa — 16,834
United States — 16,799

And nearly identical numbers of overall homicides.



It's estimated that South Africa has 5,950,000 privately owned firearms. In order to equal the United States' rates, you'd have to bring in 37,554,611 more guns into South Africa.

My question ...

Do you think putting 37,554,611 more guns into the hands of the South African population would increase or decrease the amount of violence your country is experiencing?

[eric/]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

Do you think putting 37,554,611 more guns into the hands of the South African population would increase or decrease the amount of violence your country is experiencing?

What if you put that many guns into Germany. Do you think it would have the same effect?

Of course not, because Germans aren't South Africans. There aren't people being shot while protesting at mines and whatnot.

[Mac'nCheese]

Originally Posted by dextertangocci

For those of you who are against gun ownership, come live in South Africa for a while and see for yourself why you would want to sleep with a pistol close by. Burglars here routinely break into homes with the intention of raping and/or killing the occupants before they start stealing. Calling the police is often useless as many times they take hours to respond to a call.

You cant expect people to base the laws in their countries by what happens in another.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by Mac'nCheese

You cant expect people to base the laws in their countries by what happens in another.

BTW, just to make sure it gets a mention somewhere here in PRSI.

Orange County man kills three (and self) in random shooting.

Doesn't even make a top story on Google News this morning.

Ho-hum. Just another rampage in the U.S.

[eric/]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

BTW, just to make sure it gets a mention somewhere here in PRSI.

Orange County man kills three (and self) in random shooting.

Doesn't even make a top story on Google News this morning.

Ho-hum. Just another rampage in the U.S.

In other news:

the vast majority of Americans who own firearms never commit a crime

[GermanyChris]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

BTW, just to make sure it gets a mention somewhere here in PRSI.

Orange County man kills three (and self) in random shooting.

Doesn't even make a top story on Google News this morning.

Ho-hum. Just another rampage in the U.S.

Should it have?

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by GermanyChris

Should it have?

Nah. No biggie.

[GermanyChris]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

Nah. No biggie.

I agree, it's no biggie. A criminal killed some folks today, like just every day in America..

New's flash..politicians lie

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by GermanyChris

I agree, it's no biggie. A criminal killed some folks today, like just every day in America..

Stories I read say the shooter had no prior criminal record.

But of course the logic is circular ...

If he shoots somebody he is therefore a criminal.

Thus it's just another criminal killing some folks.

Just like every day in America.

[GermanyChris]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

Stories I read say the shooter had no prior criminal record.

But of course the logic is circular ...

If he shoots somebody he is therefore a criminal.

Thus it's just another criminal killing some folks.

Just like every day in America.

You need a criminal record to be a criminal?

OK let me restate then..

Dude freaks out and kills three people, this is non-new's.

Like or dislike doesn't change the fact that this is non-news.

[zioxide]

Originally Posted by GermanyChris

You need a criminal record to be a criminal?

OK let me restate then..

Dude freaks out and kills three people, this is non-new's.

Like or dislike doesn't change the fact that this is non-news.

You could start an entirely new 24 hour cable news network dedicated just to reporting gun violence in this country.

This isn't a top story because it's just another day in America. Only 4 people died this time? Not bad. If they were kids or a pretty blonde model, this would be all over the news for weeks, but if not, who gives a **** right?