An honest unusual discussion about firearms

a reply to: RAY1990

Having worked several years in acute care, admissions units in mental health the one thing I can say for sure: someone who wants to be dead rarely fails, save for fate or luck intervening (seen a .45 ricochet off someones tooth when they should certainly be dead).

People who try and fail...typically have no interest in dying. It could be a cry for help, a cry for attention, or any other number of motivators. But people who truly want to die rarely fail.

a reply to: DBCowboy


Thanks for the discussion, lets hope it doesn't turn in to a measuring contest like any mention of firearms and gun control usually does.

I think firearms are a wonderful but also lethal piece of engineering invented to make killing easier, just like the club, spear, and sword, be it an animal or another human being.

Western style civilizations that have gun control have usually changed their laws after a mass shooting, with the public opinion changing on gun ownership, America being the exception I believe, because of their belief in the second amendment, and how this put goverment changes on gun control in the "no-no" section with some of the public.

One of the things I find strange about the whole "Constitution, Amendments and the Bill of Rights", is how the average American puts this on an untouchable pedestal because of it being part of America's creation, yet it was still being amended and ratified till 1992. The 2nd was added because slave owning southerners wanted to be able to create a "gang" of gun owners to go get their property back when "they" run away, the amendments were created in the first place to change the "rights" of the people, so why is it such a negative thing now? Here in Great Britain we have the Magna carta which is a lot older (approx. 500 years) than the Constitution, it's held in high regard but society changes and shouldn't that mean that rights and laws should change too?

Gun crime, like most crime, has many complex issues like a few posters have pointed out and commented on, from inequality, densely over-populated inner cities, gang culture, and youngsters with no hope, to mental health issues.

I will be back.......

a reply to: Erno86

Sounds like a fun time, if that's what you enjoy.

I, for one, am glad people can't own AR's and AK's here. There is no need for them, other than having a little fun at the range. The risk that they could be used for mass shootings is too great.

When I said they may have made a mistake with banning semi's, I was thinking more along the lines of .22 semi's, not AR's or AK's. I'm happy to stick with my bolt-actions for now.

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: caterpillage
a reply to: Kryties

Our politicians here are pretty stupid.

I think most people from around the world would say that ALL politicians are stupid, no matter what country they are from

Thats a statement I can totally agree with!!!

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: Erno86

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Edumakated

If a concerted effort was put in place to eliminate firearms, then even in urban areas, the death rate would surely decrease.

There would still be multiple issues regarding inner cites, but deaths by firearms would be reduced.

How so, 99% of the firearms used in those crimes are already illegally owned. Your surely don't think gang members and thugs are going to voluntarily turn in their illegally owned firearms do you? Are you planning to go house to house to confiscate?

Firearms are a tool. Without bullets, then they become nothing more than paperweights.

A person can "pistol whip" somebody...

And don't forget that rifles can have bayonets so they're basically short spears.

In other words, the solution is to put long bayonets onto handguns just in case you run out of bullets. If bayonets were good enough for the founding fathers' soldiers, then why aren't they good enough for today's gun owners? Sounds like today's gunowners are a little uppity and elitist to me...

Bayonets can get a bit unwieldy at times, unless you figure you might be doing some hand to hand combat. If I have a unfixable jam on my primary weapon (rifle) --- I would usually dump it (because it's only a piece of metal and plastic at this time) --- and proceed to draw my secondary weapon (pistol).

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I've got a knack for memory but yes, usually it ends in fatality.

Again I really don't want to go into details, an overdose if caught in time can be somewhat reversed but the internal damage will cripple for a lifetime, a 100 fall drop in essence will kill you but there's a small chance you'll just be a cripple for life and the old noose method won't always be quick... It will leave you with brain damage though.

Where I live we have a high bridge in the center of town that naturally has the Samaritans number, one woman was miraculously saved at high tide (didn't get stuck in the mud) we have a really good volunteer sea rescue around here, usually though their attempts are in vein.

It really depends on intervention, if nobody is around to help then it usually ends in death.

Feel free to remove this post or pm me and I'll take it down. I know it's a touchy subject.

a reply to: Kryties

Pointing out that you're making things up and attributing them to me so that you can attack them, but not what I've actually said, isn't an argument.

Pointing out that you point blank said you're not a gun owner is not an argument.

So no, my arguments aren't getting ridiculous because no argument was presented.

I'm sorry you're out of breath. I imagine it gets tiresome trying to hurriedly type up random ideas you think people must have so that you can attack them for the ideas you've created. Perhaps if you stopped that you might not get winded so easily.

a reply to: DBCowboy

before you can have any real discussion on firearms, you need to set definitions of terms and what sources are considered unbiased.

are gang related deaths to be included?
are mass shootings to be included?
are deaths by race to be included?
are firearm injuries included?
are firearm accidents included?
are income levels of the reported firearms incidents to be considered?
are education levels to be considered?

what source? NRA? center for disease control? federal government statistics? state by state statistics?

we need to have ground rules in place first before a debate of this nature can happen.

a reply to: Shamrock6

You're a very angry man aren't you? I'll bet you're a hoot at parties.

Keep up the insults and abuse and you'll get nothing from me.

a reply to: Kryties

You're a very angry man aren't you?

Not really. I'd wager the person resorting to making things up about other people in an effort to attack them is the one more likely to be angry than the one pointing out the behavior.

I'll bet you're a hoot at parties.

Okay.

Keep up the insults and abuse and you'll get nothing from me.

He said, after insulting me. Hopefully that's a promise, though.

originally posted by: Kryties
a reply to: Erno86

Sounds like a fun time, if that's what you enjoy.

I, for one, am glad people can't own AR's and AK's here. There is no need for them, other than having a little fun at the range. The risk that they could be used for mass shootings is too great.

When I said they may have made a mistake with banning semi's, I was thinking more along the lines of .22 semi's, not AR's or AK's. I'm happy to stick with my bolt-actions for now.

I became somewhat upset...when Maryland (where I live) banned the sale of AK's --- because I have a deep respect for the function and reliability of the AK...plus, it's fun to shoot at the range --- and put certain restrictions on the sale of AR's and magazine capacity's. I'm one of the last of the breed (one who owns an AK) in Maryland.

a reply to: Shamrock6

It's quite simple. You mocked people who "don't own guns" having a say here. You started it.

I simply pointed out I have owned guns in the past and intend to own more in the future - thereby saying that, even by your ridiculous metric, I DO have a right to have a say.

You then continued to insult, abuse and basically use any old excuse to try and denigrate me.

You are clearly trying to suppress opinions you don't like. On a public forum. Your tactics are highly visible and are utterly disgraceful.

FOR SHAME.

originally posted by: DBCowboy



Australia has 13 firearms per 100,000 people.

America has 101 firearms per 100,000 people.

Australia's death rate (total) per 100,000 is 1

America's death rate (total) per 100,000 is 12

So it does, on the surface, look like there is a direct correlation between the amount of firearms and firearm-related deaths.

What is death rate?

We know that people kill no matter what and Australia does have the advantage of sparse populations, so I'm not sure if that country is the best match. If we look at England that has a closer density to the US they have a murder rate of 1.2 per 100,000 compared to 4.8 per 100,000 in the US. The problem here is we can't even answer whether this is bad or not or how much of the 4.8 is inflated due to gang violence or a plethora of other factors that have nothing to do with guns at all.

To say we are 4 times may seem like a lot because we say 4 TIMES! and not actually look at the numbers. We saw this in a earlier post that said rent was going up 3 TIMES! the rate for HUD families as a dig to Ben Carson in suggesting he was screwing over the poor. I was like holy crap! and thought about paying 8,000 per month, but then we found out that their rent now was 50 bucks and was going up to 150 per month... 3 TIMES!!!! ya OK...

The hardest thing in science to do is to prove that correlation equals causation, and this is also the most abused part of science when people consistently assume correlation/causation is there when in fact it is not.

If you have ten times as many firearms,

Once again this is hard thing to correlate. We might have 10 times the firearms but they are in only 47% of households, so 1 person may have many. Its like saying you own 10 cars and your neighbor owns 1 so you are 10 times more likely to get into an accident than your neighbor. It would be closer to suggest that 5 times as many people have guns than to say we have 10 times as many guns.

a reply to: Kryties

It's quite simple. You mocked people who "don't own guns" having a say here. You started it.

I mocked asking people who don't own guns if they feel like they lost anything thanks to gun control. Thread #2 you've tried to pick a fight over a misconception that's entirely of your own doing.

I simply pointed out I have owned guns in the past and intend to own more in the future - thereby saying that, even by your ridiculous metric, I DO have a right to have a say.

Neat. The question I asked was about asking non gun-owners, which you are. What you "plan to do" is irrelevant.

You then continued to insult, abuse and basically use any old excuse to try and denigrate me.

Pointing out your use of straw man arguments is not an insult or abuse. If you feel that it is, that's a you problem, not a me problem. Pointing out that you're insulting me at the very moment you claim to be a victim of insults is not an insult.

You are clearly trying to suppress opinions you don't like. On a public forum. Your tactics are highly visible and are utterly disgraceful.

Am I? What actions have I taken in an effort to suppress anybody's opinion? Answer: none, aside from expressing my own opinion. If that's suppression of others' opinions, then it's fair to say you're attempting to suppress my opinion.

I always question the motives of those who want to take guns away. Why? Guns aren't anywhere near the top 10 of reasons why Americans die. Talking on cell phones while driving, DUI's, speeding, sugar, booze, smoking, and bad diets among other things, kill FAR more people than guns. So if you can tell me why, precisely, you focus on gun deaths, then we can have a convo about why you want to take away my right.

Are you for banning sugar, fat, tobacco, cars, stairs, knives, and the other things attributed to top 10 deaths? Those are people rights, yet they kill 20x more than a gun does.

Again, please describe why a gun holds more sway than a car when a car kills 20-40-50X more people. What is your endgame...is it saving lives? Reducing crime? Making life safer?

ETA...4000 people a WEEK die of the flu, where are your threads on that?
fortune.com...

originally posted by: subfab
a reply to: DBCowboy

before you can have any real discussion on firearms, you need to set definitions of terms and what sources are considered unbiased.

are gang related deaths to be included?
are mass shootings to be included?
are deaths by race to be included?
are firearm injuries included?
are firearm accidents included?
are income levels of the reported firearms incidents to be considered?
are education levels to be considered?

what source? NRA? center for disease control? federal government statistics? state by state statistics?

we need to have ground rules in place first before a debate of this nature can happen.

I would add a couple to that list:

Who determines what are "reasonable" gun restrictions?

Are the gun restrictions to be applied equally? Would law enforcement, Secret Service, and private security be subject to the same restrictions as John Q. Public?

originally posted by: DBCowboy
So the "good" reputation personality is a Mason?

Only an Original Post like this one could do that for me.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Kryties

I mocked asking people who don't own guns if they feel like they lost anything thanks to gun control.

Great to see you're admitting to mocking and not actually contributing. It's a start.

Neat. The question I asked was about asking non gun-owners, which you are. What you "plan to do" is irrelevant.

Regardless of whether I owned guns now, in the past or in the future I still have every right to comment here. Your mocking and insulting does nothing to change that.

Pointing out your use of straw man arguments is not an insult or abuse. If you feel that it is, that's a you problem, not a me problem. Pointing out that you're insulting me at the very moment you claim to be a victim of insults is not an insult.

No straw man. I owned guns in the past and shall do in the future. That, even by your ridiculous metric, gives me every right to comment - and that's aside from the fact I have a right anyway despite your mocking and insulting.

Am I? What actions have I taken in an effort to suppress anybody's opinion? Answer: none, aside from expressing my own opinion. If that's suppression of others' opinions, then it's fair to say you're attempting to suppress my opinion.

Mocking and insulting. Neither of those actually contribute to the debate, they serve only to try to silence people. It is also a reflection on how much of an "argument" you truly have - being none whatsoever.

Anyone with two eyes in their head and is even mildly literate can see that's exactly what you're doing. It's pathetic.

originally posted by: Kurokage

I think firearms are a wonderful but also lethal piece of engineering invented to make killing easier, just like the club, spear, and sword, be it an animal or another human being.

In the end though, humans will kill no matter what, will continually fight for superiority over other humans with either numbers and/or power. We see this now with knives and vehicles as they replace the gun in many instances as the weapon of choice.

The 2nd was added because slave owning southerners wanted to be able to create a "gang" of gun owners to go get their property back when "they" run away...

The second was part of the first 10, bill of rights... What you are suggesting above has more to do with the wording of using "state" over "nation" and not the whole 2nd amendment which would not make much sense to suggest that without the 2nd slave owners could not hunt down their property.

a reply to: Kryties

Great to see you're admitting to mocking and not actually contributing. It's a start.

I never said otherwise. You're the one who made something else up and pretended it's what I did.

Regardless of whether I owned guns now, in the past or in the future I still have every right to comment here. Your mocking and insulting does nothing to change that.

And, again, I haven't done anything to stop you from doing so. My initial comment wasn't even directed at you, but because you chose to read it and twist it into an attack on yourself, you've tried to pick another fight over something I didn't even say. Much like you're doing now, with the continued fantasy that I'm doing something to stop you from commenting or have told you to stop commenting.

No straw man. I owned guns in the past and shall do in the future. That, even by your ridiculous metric, gives me every right to comment - and that's aside from the fact I have a right anyway despite your mocking and insulting.

Saying you didn't use a straw man doesn't make it true. A straw man is when you, repeatedly, have attacked points I haven't made. Like now: I didn't claim that your comments on past or future gun ownership were a straw man. I said they're irrelevant to the question I initially asked. Ergo, trying to claim that I stated your comments on past or future gun ownership are a straw man is in and of itself a straw man.

Mocking and insulting. Neither of those actually contribute to the debate, they serve only to try to silence people. It is also a reflection on how much of an "argument" you truly have - being none whatsoever.

You feel mocked and insulted. I haven't mocked or insulted you. There's a difference. Beyond that, you said a while ago you weren't going to continue to engage with me because of it yet here you are.

Anyone with two eyes in their head and is even mildly literate can see that's exactly what you're doing. It's pathetic.

I'm hoping so, it's always good for people to be able to see repeated examples of logical fallacies in action. I'm happy to point them out for others.