Guns, guns, guns

[Bal-Sagoth]

An American hero? That term must've lost a lot of meaning if you're applying it to some random guy at a protest.

Also, he didn't exactly own Chris Matthews. Chris Matthews just asks questions, and the dude answers them.

More or less exaggerating on the American Hero bit, I just thought the entire situation was funny. And no, Chris Matthews owned himself by looking like a complete douche with all the yelling/cussing and side stepping into issues that were not relevant.

The way he acted just made people more likely to side with the protester.

 

[welsh]

ANd yet, despitel all these ways to kill people, guns seem to be the preferred method of slaughter

Maybe that's why our murder rate is comparable to Armenia and Bulgaria and not the countries of Western Europe. According to this, the US is ranked 24th in murder rates. Socio-economic differences may explain rates of violence, but guns make violence more lethal.

@ El Prez, so you agree with some reasonable restrictions on gun use? If so, you can be both pro-gun and pro-gun control.

There is a difference between a complete banning of guns and wanting to control guns, like there are those who may be pro-guns who also can see why there might be some gun control.

I have not argued here that there should be a complete ban on guns. Taking this argument to an extreme position creates false alternatives. There is a middle ground that people can agree on.

I assume that we can agree that if we allowed guns to get to people who are dangerous we can expect more criminal gun violence. Likewise, I don't see a problem with limiting the flow of guns to those who are likely to own criminals.

For instance, you argue that many criminals get their guns from the illegal black market. So why not impose controls to make that black market more regulated or use of guns more expensive. If criminals are getting guns through illegal means, make it harder for them to get guns. This could include everything from registration of guns, to controlling sales of straw purchasers, making guns less easy to steal, regulating gun fairs so its harder to get guns. Consider, for instance, the loophole covered here or video.

I'm fine with citizens owning guns to shoot targets, hunt or just to collect. What I am against is guns getting into dangerous hands, just as I am against cars getting into the hands of reckless drivers or explosives being used by those not licensed to use them.

Why is this such a problem for the pro-gun group? Its generally not your guns that are being targetted but those users who are likely to use guns against you.

What it seems like is that the pro-gun crowd's agenda is not to protect their guns but to normalize private use of guns in society by ending all forms of gun control. How many mortalities do you need to have before some regulation of guns is justified?

 

[DammitBoy]

A guns primary function is to kill. That of a car is transportation. That's nowhere in the same league.

Then why do cars kill so many more people than guns do in America?

Blaming guns for violence is like blaming spoons for people being obese.

Your statement has nothing to do with what i wrote.

Really? You're confused? Why?

It's fairly simple. You stated a guns primary function was to kill. You also stated a cars primary function was transportation.

You are wrong. A guns primary function is as a deterrent. This is why most cops carry a gun for 20-30 years and never fire it at anyone. In most cases when a gun is displayed, the robber/attacker/rapist/thief runs away. The firearm has served it's purpose without killing anyone or anything.

Additionally, I own several firearms that will not ever be fired. They are too old and too fragile, too collectable to be fired. Their primary function is to be interesting and rare.

I also have several firearms whose primary function is to punch small holes in paper. They are not meant for hunting or self-defense. They are target rifles and pistols.

While vehicles primary function is transportation, their primary by-product is lots of death. Disporportionally overwhelming when one considers that the number of evil guns out there, that only exist to kill - are not killing anything.

Many things are capable of producing death. All this ranting about guns being the main culprit is just plain silly. It's people who should be blamed, punished, and restricted - not guns.

it's funny how many of you reacted when confronted with fewer vehicles causing more deaths than firearms. The first thing they posted was - well, the guns aren't being used. Which is exactly the point. The firearms are not the problem.

Americans are just bloodthirsty savages who like to kill things. This is why comparisions to milktoast europeans and their weak death tolls doesn't apply to America.

 

[[PCE]el_Prez]

We say that gun's make 'killing' really easy. Uh, sorry but isn't killing someone fairly simple to start with? Even with guns being illegal, if someone really want to go on a path of destruction they would find a way. Homemade bombs are only a website away. Even the smallest automobile is powerful enough to mow down a crowd of people.

Welsh's point is that it makes any normal conflict inherently more dangerous if a very destructive tool is always at hand. This goes mostly for unplanned, incidental conflicts, not the pre-planned destruction you're referencing.

I understand his point but i'm not buying it. First of all, those kinds of "confrontations" where someone gets so enraged that they pull out a gun and blow the other person away - those are pretty rare on the grand scheme of things. Also - unless your a complete psychopath - most people understand the consequences of drawing a gun. What I don't think most foreigners understand is: Let's say you get into an argument with someone and your so pissed off that you pull out a weapon. Right there - you can be convicted of assault. If you choose to shoot that person - now your looking at life in prison. For the most part - people aren't in a hurry to go to jail for manslaughter.

 

[TheGM]

And God said "Be fruitful and multiply" and then he gave us guns to make room for the new ones.

 

[Crni Vuk]

You are wrong. A guns primary function is as a deterrent. This is why most cops carry a gun for 20-30 years and never fire it at anyone. In most cases when a gun is displayed, the robber/attacker/rapist/thief runs away. The firearm has served it's purpose without killing anyone or anything.

And the deterrence comes from the deadliness a gun inherently represents which is a difference to a usual knive found in the kitchen, a hammer or car which are seen either as tools or article of daily use. And as long youre not a hunter or forester I think It would not be realy feasible to speak about weapons as "basic commodity" and compare it with cars. But even in such situations its purpose is still "defence" or "killing" in some way or another.

You can explain or twist it in which ever way you want the main purpose of a "weapon" is to kill, particularly for guns while any other object is designed with other things in mind. Thats pretty important to keep in minde in my eyes.

- You could probably say that in Biathlon the purpose of weapons is a completely different one (today) which has only the competition and sport in mind but even here its a known fact that the "sport" we know today was born originaly from the military training and competitions. It is comparable with some other sport today particularly in relation with "weapons" like archery with bows which came from the need to train usual civilians and increase their knowledge with the weapon at some point in medieval Britain it was even the only alowed sport.

The only reason I can see why some (not meaning directly you DB!) might argue about weapons beeing a every-day item which is just as usual like a car or tool are somewhat to have a acceptance in society so it would need no thoughts anymore about restrictions or eventual safety as soon its preceived in general like a "usual tool".

...
What it seems like is that the pro-gun crowd's agenda is not to protect their guns but to normalize private use of guns in society by ending all forms of gun control. How many mortalities do you need to have before some regulation of guns is justified?

But I think thats somewhat not a good path. No one can really denny the general purpose of "weapons" in the first place. What the user makes out of it of course is a completely different story. A gun makes no one inherently a murder. But that a gun does not change (normal) people doesnt change the original function of a "weapon" what it was designed and manufactured for. And that has nothing to do with it for what people use their "weapons" later I doubt that most people actualy "buy" a firearm to kill someone but I think most people would agree that the gun they bought would be capable of doing that fairly easy and efficiently compared to something that is not called a weapon. That alone though shows what it stands for that we call guns weapons and not tools. If guns would have the same purpose or level as tools we would be call them that way and see it as that but in general guns are not seen as tools but on a large scale as "weapons" even when used only for competitions and sport. I would guess that if someome just throws the word "tool" in a group the first thing one might imagine are screwdrivers, hammers or anything alike but most probably not a gun. Thats a important difference in my eyes.

 

[DammitBoy]

Maybe that's why our murder rate is comparable to Armenia and Bulgaria and not the countries of Western Europe. According to this, the US is ranked 24th in murder rates.

24th? Shit, we can do better than that!

 

[welsh]

el_Prez]

We say that gun's make 'killing' really easy. Uh, sorry but isn't killing someone fairly simple to start with? Even with guns being illegal, if someone really want to go on a path of destruction they would find a way. Homemade bombs are only a website away. Even the smallest automobile is powerful enough to mow down a crowd of people.

Welsh's point is that it makes any normal conflict inherently more dangerous if a very destructive tool is always at hand. This goes mostly for unplanned, incidental conflicts, not the pre-planned destruction you're referencing.

I understand his point but i'm not buying it. First of all, those kinds of "confrontations" where someone gets so enraged that they pull out a gun and blow the other person away - those are pretty rare on the grand scheme of things. Also - unless your a complete psychopath - most people understand the consequences of drawing a gun. What I don't think most foreigners understand is: Let's say you get into an argument with someone and your so pissed off that you pull out a weapon. Right there - you can be convicted of assault. If you choose to shoot that person - now your looking at life in prison. For the most part - people aren't in a hurry to go to jail for manslaughter.

And yet we have a murder rate ranked 24th in the world. Far below the standards set in Europe. Guns are the most widely used instruments for death. Doesn't that matter?

Rare on the Grand Scheme of Things? How many lives are worth reasonable regulations? I am not saying a complete ban, but regulations that I think that most people can agree with.

El Prez- it doesn't make a difference if the person is charged with assault. Most times they won't be. And even if they are, they won't go to jail. And even if there was 100% conviction rate for 100% of the times that a gun is pulled out, in the end, people will do it because they are just pissed off.

Your assumption is that people are always rational, all the time. Yet we know that's not true. People are often reckless, negligent or emotional in their outbursts. That's part of being human.

Fair enough, a lot of the guns used in homicides involve a small part of our society- urban, young, male, usually minority. But a lot of the murders that happen in the rest of society occur because someone is pissed off about something. These are acquaintance killings- you know this person who is trying to kill you. Look at the DOJ stats.

This are personal killings, often done in the heat of the moment.

The ideal of 100% rationality is insane and false- its not real.

I would argue that people have an inherent capacity to kill based on their genetic makeup and a history of violence. Guns make killing easier. That's why they exist- not to put a hole in a piece of paper and only indirectly at best to deter. Sometimes people act irrationally, even when they are usually rational.

 

[DammitBoy]

A) And yet we have a murder rate ranked 24th in the world. Far below the standards set in Europe. Guns are the most widely used instruments for death. Doesn't that matter?

B) Guns make killing easier. That's why they exist- not to put a hole in a piece of paper and only indirectly at best to deter.

a) It's because americans are inherently more violent than europeans - that's why we need guns, tp protect ourselves from other nutjob americans.

b) Ummmm, guns are used to deter crime significantly more often then they are used to kill people. Check the FBI crime lab stats, lil feller...

c) You do realize we have shitloads of regulations, rules, and laws concerning firearms right? What more do you propose we do to stop 'irrational' 'reckless' unpredictable crimes of passion? Are you going to make emotions illegal?

d)

e) Profit!

 

[Crni Vuk]

a) It's because americans are inherently more violent than europeans - that's why we need guns, tp protect ourselves from other nutjob americans.

Uhm? To put it simply. No? More "Violant" then europeans? I guess one forgot the French and their politics around colonies, maybe the east european states and the revolution against soviet machinery which ended more then once in casualties? German History maybe? What is with Russia which is if they admit it or not part of the "European landmass" and Britain? Spain? Ever heard how they treated "terrorists" like the IRA and ETA during the 70s and 80s? Guantanamo looks like a holiday trip compared to that. Quite a lot of today western Europan states have been states with dictatorial tendenzies (Grece or Spain with its Franco regime). And I guess I dont have to remember anyone to the Balkan area which still is one of the more violant places in Europe. Itally with its crime syndicates in the South are neither that peacefully there have been countless books and movies based on real stories about it. Truth is the US is not even a inch "more" violant then most "European" states realtively speaking of course. That you have more violant people compard "directly" to a nation like Germany is obvious cause of numbers alone but we are not just comparing numbers against numbers.

c) You do realize we have shitloads of regulations, rules, and laws concerning firearms right? What more do you propose we do to stop 'irrational' 'reckless' unpredictable crimes of passion? Are you going to make emotions illegal?

Question is just,

Are those rules everywhere the same kind of rules? How to stop illegal share of weapons from state to state? Ist hat even restricted effectively? Most european states have here laws that work everywhere the same. Germany is a federalistic nation very comparable (when it comes to states and their freedom regarding laws) to the US. THough certan laws are everywhere the same. Like the restrictions regarding weapons.

Second how well are those regulations executed (again it seems to be from state to state different).

 

[DammitBoy]

a) It's because americans are inherently more violent than europeans - that's why we need guns, tp protect ourselves from other nutjob americans.

Uhm? To put it simply. No? More "Violant" then europeans? I guess one forgot the French and their politics around colonies, maybe the east european states and the revolution against soviet machinery which ended more then once in casualties? German History maybe? What is with Russia which is if they admit it or not part of the "European landmass" and Britain? Spain?

Those are euros from another era. Todays euroweenie is a sheeple lead around by the nose by his government who starts sucking on the governmemt teet from birth and stays on it his whole life.

Americans are savages by comparision.

And the slavic third world and all the muslims you are importing don't count.
---

Alsoplustoo - if you have to ask what our laws are, why are you debating a topic you know virtually nothing about? Shouldn't you have some knowledge of a topic before you attempt to discuss it?

 

[Crni Vuk]

why do they not count? Cause they are not part of the "european community" ? You refered to "Europe" should make a difference here between the continent and the community of states.

Today we have a lot less "armed" conflicts if you mean that. thats true (though question is why and thats somewhat what we talk about here since most european nations haev some form of regulations regarding firearms and their use ...).

But violance? Or the tendency to violance? Sorry mate thats still present here and there. Like the riots in France, or the Chaosdays. Also the numerious times when Holigans decided to start a war in the one or other city.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGyaalNPvOY&feature=PlayList&p=CC51A0FF2E77EF41&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=2[/youtube]
Well one of the reasons I am happy for such strict gun controls in Germany.

 

[Dreadwolf]

It's because americans are inherently more violent than europeans - that's why we need guns, tp protect ourselves from other nutjob americans.

Thanks, that made me laugh

 

[[PCE]el_Prez]

Your assumption is that people are always rational, all the time. Yet we know that's not true. People are often reckless, negligent or emotional in their outbursts. That's part of being human.

People are also couragous, heroic, calm under pressure, and simply brilliant in the face of danger and/or high stress situations. I don't think its fair to lump people all into any category. Some people are irrational in the face of danger, some people are heroic. Many people lie somewhere in between.

I've never said I oppose all gun control. As we all know there are many restrictions on purchasing and carrying firearms in the U.S. and I support most of them whole-heartedly.



Also, can we stop comparing the U.S. to European Nations when it comes to crime statisitics? The extrenal variables are vast. The biggest factor is population. U.S. has WAY more people than any European nation. More people means more difficult to control/police. Plus, the more law enforcement needed - the more likely departments hire sub-par employees.

The U.S. also has WAY more poverty as well as WAY more wealth. Meaning more people willing to steal and more easy targets for criminals. We are also the most diverse nation on the planet when it comes to race. Most European nations don't have to worry about racial crime.

Anyways, don't want to get too much off topic but can we please stop comparing US and Europe crime statistics?

 

[Julius]

An interesting thing to note is that Finland, having the most liberal gun laws in Western Europe, is also the Western European nation with by far the highest murder rate.

 

[Julius]

Those are euros from another era. Todays euroweenie is a sheeple lead around by the nose by his government who starts sucking on the governmemt teet from birth and stays on it his whole life.

Americans are savages by comparision.

And the slavic third world and all the muslims you are importing don't count.

 

[Phil the Nuka-Cola Dude]

I've been doing a pretty good job of staying out of this so far, but I've gotta comment on one facet of this debate. Let me say first and foremost that I don't like being around guns. Movies/Games? Sure, but not out here in the real world.

That said; bringing up split-second rage killings in the argument for putting greater restrictions on firearms seems a bit sideways to me.

Consider the situations where these type of killings occur... where one moment a person becomes so enraged that they get the compulsion to kill, and then act on it. If they didn't have a gun nearby, don't you think they'd reach for something else just as deadly to attack with? A knife, a screwdriver, a pen, a beer bottle or even their bare hands could do the deed.

Unless they're carrying the gun on their person, chances are that an object that could be used as a deadly weapon is already within arms-reach. The gun is probably just the first thing that crosses their mind when the situation goes down.

Anyway, just food for thought.

 

[Julius]

The existence of firearms basically means that many more situations end in death than what would otherwise be the case. It's kind of like introducing testosterone into a closed mouse population. Every situation is more tense, and once a situation is escalating there's a good chance that it'll escalate very far.

 

[Crni Vuk]

I guess we reached the part where things just seem to repeat and repeat and repeat ... them self.

That said; bringing up split-second rage killings in the argument for putting greater restrictions on firearms seems a bit sideways to me.

...

Rare on the Grand Scheme of Things? How many lives are worth reasonable regulations? I am not saying a complete ban, but regulations that I think that most people can agree with..

----------------------------------------------------------------

Those are euros from another era. Todays euroweenie is a sheeple lead around by the nose by his government who starts sucking on the governmemt teet from birth and stays on it his whole life.

Americans are savages by comparision.

And the slavic third world and all the muslims you are importing don't count.

You should try to explain it a bit as I am not sure if that is a serous thing or just fun (I guess ironic, but is against europes or against US ?)

 

[DammitBoy]

The existence of firearms basically means that many more situations end in death than what would otherwise be the case.

Because, before there were firearms - nobody died a violent death and homicides were statiscally much, much lower?