Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

So lets talk about guns and gun control. So as many of you know there have been quite a few shooting this year alone think we should take the time to discuss this issue
my argument can pretty much be summed up here

Muh freedumz! Obama's infringin' on muh rights.
But seriously though, if people get concealed gun carry permits, it can help reduce gun murders by protecting themselves, gun robberies because a bigger gun can beat a smaller gun in some cases, and it can help with jobs here in the US because the demand is going up and they need more jobs here.

Advanced Irony wrote:

But seriously though, if people get concealed gun carry permits, it can help reduce gun murders by protecting themselves, gun robberies because a bigger gun can beat a smaller gun in some cases…

Unfortunately, it can also make people foolhardy and run into situations where they don't know all of the details, getting themselves killed. Most notably from the recent Las Vegas shootings.

The bystander who was shot was identified as shopper Joseph Wilcox, 31. He was going to confront the suspects.

"He was carrying a concealed weapon, and he immediately and heroically moved toward the position of Jerad Miller. Upon completing that action, he did not realize that Amanda Miller was with Jerad Miller," McMahill said.

Amanda Miller shot him.

Wilcox died trying to protect others.

I, personally, do not believe that the ability to carry and conceal firearms protects many people in shooting situations. That is an opinion, though, however. Feel free to disagree or provide evidence to the contrary.

On one side, decent people need to be able to defend themselves. Personally I'm not moving out of my shitty neighborhood without getting my mom a firearm and training to use it.

On the other hand, she probably won't need an assault rifle.

I live in the UK where guns are controlled extremely well. You may own only a shotgun or a single-fire rifle for sporting purposes or for pest control, and even then it takes a lot of work to convince the police that you need one. On top of that, the guns and ammo must be well secured in your home, and police officers will regularly show up at your door to ensure this is the case. No concealable firearms are allowed, under any circumstances.

Despite all of this, I don't feel like my freedoms are being impinged upon whatsoever. If you grow up in a culture where nobody has access to guns, you don't feel like they're necessary. I can do everything I want to in my life without them. I really can't see how our country could be improved at all by relaxing firearm laws. People say that psychopaths will kill whether or not guns are available, but that simply isn't true. I mean, when's the last time somebody knifed 20 kids in a UK school?

I know that the situation in the US is different, and guns are so widespread that there's really no hope of removing them from public ownership altogether. Also, they're used for hunting purposes in some areas and it's a little harder to fault that (except in the cases where animals are shot simply for the fun of it – that's just fucked up). So, while I get that a complete crackdown on guns just isn't possible, I am generally in favour of gun control laws. While it may be fun to play around with fully automatic weapons and large magazines, it just isn't worth the violence that'll be caused by allowing public access to those weapons. And the guns are causing the violence; it's irresponsible to suggest otherwise. The murder rate in the US is about 5 times as high as it is in Western European countries with strict gun control. You can't attribute a difference of that magnitude to cultural differences alone.

The recent series of school shootings is just proof of how horrible it is that America can't enforce good gun laws. In my opinion, America should take the same path as countries like England and use strict gun control in the way that Algernon is describing in the post above. Sadly, thanks to the people like the NRA who complain that taking away guns shouldn't be allowed for stupid reasons such as it is "infringing on their rights", it will most likely never happen.

this taken straight from rational wiki
Gun control is a highly politicized issue in the United States, for many cultural and historical reasons that no one completely understands. It is often a moot topic in other civilized nations.
The first attempts at federal gun control legislation occurred during the 1930s. During that time unscrupulous weapons salesmen sold military-grade machine guns intended for use in World War I (especially the Thompson Submachine Gun) to criminals; the result was that gangsters and bank robbers were often better armed than many police forces (who may have only had side arms, or a rifle or shotgun at best) and could pretty much rob banks with impunity. Tommy Guns were also marketed to police during the 1920s.
Indeed, every major shooting in the US is usually followed by a round of both gun control advocates and gun nuts wailing that said incident would never have happened if only we had strict gun control laws or everyone packed heat Wild West-style, respectively. A meta-analysis on gun control research conducted by the National Research Council found efficacy for certain types of police intervention in reducing gun crime but also found that the literature was mixed and ambiguous on whether right-to-carry laws increased or decreased crime either way. In addition, gun nuts will inevitably cite the "research" of serial cherry-picker, data fabricator, and sock puppeteer John Lott. Some may also use the equally fraudulent arguments of Lott's source, the criminologist Gary Kleck.
Since both the creation of new gun control laws, and opposition to gun control laws, can be used to garner votes for politicians, the gun laws in the U.S. are a morass of often-contradictory rules, with either gaping loopholes or severe penalties for a misstep. The 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, for example, created an entirely new legal category of firearms -- "assault weapons" -- identified not by their lethality but by a list of scary-looking cosmetic features. Silencers are even more strictly controlled than the guns they can be attached to. Guns that have had their firing mechanism removed are legal, but "imitation guns" are completely forbidden. Firearms dealers must be licensed, and all sales through such a dealer are subject to a criminal background check; but online purchases and person-to-person transactions (in many red states) are technically exempt from background checks. This requirement generally does not apply to sales that are merely arranged online but for which an exchange is made in person, subject to a complex set of rules as to the states of residency for the seller and buyer. Individual states often supplement the federal laws with their own maze of legal dos-and-don'ts.

Who complain that taking away guns shouldn't be allowed for stupid reasons such as it is "infringing on their rights"

So, rights are stupid and should be stripped when they lose convenience?

Good idea. Since most people use the Internet to complain, I guess we can remove that bit about being able to gather in protest

A right is a right, for better or worse. You can give any argument imaginable, but saying that "infringing on their rights" is a stupid reason is beyond asinine.

I already made a gun control thread…

Is it, though? To a degree, many laws are meant to say that "infringing on your rights" doesn't hold water. That's what any law that says you can't do something is for, right? You can say what you want to say until it becomes hate speech or is yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater. You are able to run your own business as long as you treat your workers properly, dispose of waste in a proper way, fill out endless forms and acquire lots of different licenses. You are able to have private property that others have no control over, but it can't be people, or illicit drugs, or military-grade hardware, or exotic animals, etc. Most people don't find it an infringement on their rights to not be able to own a tiger, largely because they've never known they could. It's not wrong in it of itself for the government to move the boundaries between acceptable and unacceptable, it's only to what degree. Banning any and all guns is probably overkill, no pun intended. But I have to wonder if it's truly wrong, with the amount of deaths the U.S. has related to gun violence, levels that look more like war-torn, third world countries than G8 ones, to admit our laws might just be a little lax and say that we have to do something about the problem, since that is the government's job, no?
TL:DR: A right is a right, for better or worse, but not necessarily every version of that right. Sometimes rights must be edited in order for them to be better, rather than worse. To simply say that we can never edit our rights would be to live in a country that still allows slavery, racial discrimination, sexual discrimination, religious discrimination and pretty much undos every other right that at one point in time did not exist. Change happens. Rights shouldn't be stripped when they lose convenience, but they should be changed when they lose usefulness.

But I have to wonder if it’s truly wrong, with the amount of deaths the U.S. has related to gun violence, levels that look more like war-torn, third world countries than G8 ones, to admit our laws might just be a little lax and say that we have to do something about the problem, since that is the government’s job, no?

I never said whether it was "right" or "wrong". Right and wrong are terribly subjective. As for "the government's job", there's a long list of relatively similar arguments regarding whether "the government" or "the people" have explicit control over Rights, whether "the government" constitutes "the will" of "the people". Arguments I neither care about nor wish to discuss.

My only point, and the only thing I want to convince anyone of, is that a Right is precious and shouldn't be callously disregarded no matter its function.

TL;DR: Majority rules no matter what.

Arlon The Serene (Free Cake) said:

But I have to wonder if it’s truly wrong, with the amount of deaths the U.S. has related to gun violence, levels that look more like war-torn, third world countries than G8 ones, to admit our laws might just be a little lax and say that we have to do something about the problem, since that is the government’s job, no?

30,000 people are killed by guns in the US each year--of which 19,000 are suicides. That leaves 11,000 killings. The CDC does not provide data on how many of those were self defense. Have some context to that number.

>.0035% of the population is killed via guns by other people in the US.
>Heart disease kills twenty times more people than guns do.
>*Two and a half times* more people fall to their death than are killed by other people with guns.
>Out of every 10,000 incidents of homicide, roughly two are mass killings.
>Violent crime in the US is near thirty year lows.

It never ceases to amaze me when people bring up how many people are killed by guns when there's so many more preventable deaths by other things. Smoking kills 480,000 people per year in the US. In other words, smoking kills more people every ten days than gun murders do every year.

Sauces:
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fast_facts/
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/accidental-injury.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm
http://spectator.org/articles/59521/there-really-epidemic-mass-shootings
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/violent-crime/violent-crime
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/

umm i don't really have a strong opinion on gun control, as a canadian we do pretty good for no shootings (except for that guy in moncton who shot 3 cops a couple days ago), but I do have issue with the above post. those stats are true and all but your post is bad.

the thing about guns is they kill you pretty quick for the most part. cigarettes take their toll after a long period of time and heart disease doesn't develop and then kill you in a fraction of a second. If you start smoking or develop poor heart health there are ways to try to be healthy again. if an angry schizophrenic shoots you in the back of the head with his dad's winchester, you can't really discuss it with your doctor. so they aren't comparable.

you can't control people from getting fat, you can't control people from falling to their death. you can ban cigarettes, but that isn't the issue at hand. you can talk all "well more people die from thing A than thing B why do we care about thing B?" but when the victims of thing B are children, moviegoers, students and people who had no reason to die that day, while thing A are people of an advanced age who ACTIVELY CHOSE TO PARTAKE IN WHAT KILLED THEM then you should understand why.

in conclusion: shut up, beavis

@xTSGx
That other problems kill more people doesn't lessen the amount killed by this problem. All that says to me is that we need to work on gun control along with about a thousand other issues. But even if guns aren't the primary source of death, they still are one and still are a problem. It's not like we have to only focus on one issue at a time. A lesser priority is still a priority.
@Captain Blubber, who ninja'd me, but it's cool.
I didn't even think of that, but that's a better point than mine.

Not sure if it was the roving cigarette corporation bot that probably exists or you that downvoted TSG

But seriously here, guns are near the bottom of the list in terms of death rates, i could go out and get rabies/plague from a squirrel faster than i could get shot. (i live pretty far from undesirable places) But guns really are just that, a lesser priority, they are like a fraction of a droplet in a pool of death, even after you cut out natural causes, they still barely exist, heart disease and cigarettes and the like should take priority

Allow me to dig up some more shit here and say the following

You should not be allowing small children who have trouble deciphering reality to play Call of Duty, even as a hardcore gamer, i agree there needs to be an age.

You Should not in any form be keeping firearms, "safely locked away" or not in the presence of someone mentally unstable, or in a state of instability, in your home.

People of extreme mental instability should be /forced/ into treatment, allowing them to decline without treatment could end up costing their life, others lives, and even your life, regardless of how close you are with them

If you looked on my profile, you would know that I never downvote anyone.
As for the idea that gun violence is a lesser priority, please refer to Captain Blubber's post about why gun-related homicides differ from smoking or diseases.

I'm here to provide an outsider's perspective, if anyone wants it.

I am a resident of New Zealand. Gun control laws here are liberal in the political sense compared to the US, and liberal in the permissive sense compared to nearby countries in the pacific.

Pistols are allowed, but the police force here is going to give you a run for your money if you want to acquire one. The most basic firearms license, which allows you to purchase low-power firearms (usually for hunting) requires you to:

1. Attend a gun safety course
2. Pass a gun safety test after said course (sometimes several)
3. Prove that you are mentally fit (usually via another test)
4. Sit through an interview with a police officer
5. Have two referees (usually family members) sit through interviews with police officers
6. Have a police officer inspect your house
7. Prove that you have a secure location to store your low-power firearm
8. Have a spotless criminal record

Keep in mind that this is for the least dangerous category of firearm. The list becomes almost twice as long if you wish to acquire an assault rifle, and even then your assault rifle is not allowed to be in a functional condition. That's right: the only reason you would want an assault in New Zealand is if you're filming a movie or something along those lines.

Gun ownership here is close to 20 per 100 people, which is less than a quarter of the US's rate of gun ownership. Our gun violence rate is one of the lowest amongst developed nations, and gun law debates are practically non-existent as a result.

What is my opinion of US gun laws?

Well, up until recently, I was fully supportive of measures to outlaw assault rifles in the US. I absolutely could not believe how lax your gun control laws were, and pro-gun rhetoric alienated me ("guess who else wanted gun control? Hitler and Stalin!").

However, the problems with that soon became quite obvious. The US has a very pro-gun culture compared to NZ, and even minor attempts to pass gun control legislation would likely result in an immediate uptick in gun sales and reinvigorated black market activity.
Another problem is that introducing strict gun laws on a state-to-state basis (see: California) is not going to end well. You have to, in my opinion, either go federal or don't try at all. Having gun control "patches" with strict states right next to lax states is going to do nothing but encourage significant black market activity and inter-state smuggling.

If I were a US citizen, I would oppose bans but support vetting. Keep it possible (maybe even easy) to acquire pistols, but ensure that any old Joe can't just waltz in on the street corner and come out fully loaded. Keep it possible for citizens to acquire assault rifles, but make it much more difficult and vigorous than it is now. Legalize drugs to drive out gangs and gang violence.
Simply put: give everyone the option of arming themselves, but make it harder than it is now.

/godless communist homosexual foreigner rant over

I have crazy ideas for guns.

SMGs with laser scope.

Quadruple barrel shotguns.

Crossbows with a blowtorch attached so you can shoot flaming arrows.

I could think more.

Is everyone really just ignoring the fact that I made a gun control thread a day before this one? I posted the link above if you want to see for yourself. Someone could move everything on here over there or vice versa.

uh dude, your thread is locked.

Wuh? (checks)

Yeah… I regret all of this… Feel free to continue as you were. Sorry for being such a dick.

A shoulder-mounted minigun which rapidly fires homing robo-sharks.

don't worry about it

i assume that's a cultural thing and has to do with how you've been brought up, but i believe that the state monopoly on power is an important part of a well-functioning democracy. but i also believe in compulsive health insurance so feel free to ignore me. i'll even make a spoiler button for you:

Native Texan preachin' the good ol' southern way a-thinkin'.

…but not really. Just giving some of my input.

Gun control is a bit lax, to understate the matter. I know the laws backwards and forwards and fully utilize my rights as it were to bear arms. I have, from the time I was a child, been told that that's the normal thing to do, and I'd assume it's the opposite for others. While I'm all for stricter laws in regards to purchasing guns I'd also think that giving everyone in the world a gun would be interesting.

Overpopulation, famines, traffic jams, we'd solve a few problems in a natural, Darwinian way. Win/win?

(Jokes aside I'd say I side most with Cale, even his nihilism to a fair extent.)

I don't know who locked your thread, but yes, it was first and this thread should have been redirected there. It's not a huge deal as the conversation continues, but I understand that it's a bit disappointing to want to get a discussion going and not be able to do so despite your efforts.

Further, a pet peeve of mine are threads with misleading titles in General. Given "Internet" (i.e., straight white males what play violent video games), I assumed a thread entitled "Let's Talk About Guns" was about guns themselves and not gun control. As such, I only just now peeked in on this thread on the train ride into work. For whomever else, unless you just want a specific audience for a General thread, you may consider making a thread title that's not hyper ultra specific but isn't likely to be considered to be something that it's not.

Do what you want with titles in JFF, cuz bump all that mess, yo.

To stay on topic, I'm all for more gun "control" here in the US, although I would rather it be called "restrictive gun legislation and protocol" as I don't actually want the government to prevent any sound and trained American from owning firearms at all. I had an impromptu conversation with my brother who is actually military-trained to use heavy duty firearms and spent time in combat situations in Afghanistan. He would probably love to have an assault rifle and is actually trained to use one. But he said there's no point for him to have one as a civilian.

By name, an "assault rifle" is not a weapon used for self-defense. It is used to mow down. So no civilian needs anything beyond a hunting rifle or a personal handgun. I should hope most agree with that (unless you're into militias or something. That's another topic, I think.)

As for actually owning a handgun, within the realm of preventable handgun deaths (and admittedly, this is speculation), I figure that a person who mugs you will eventually be caught and your belongings returned. (I'd also guess most of us, minus Iamslow, don't even live in a situation where muggings happen in the first place.) If you have a gun on you in such situations, then you must be willing to pull it and fire accurately killing a person with no uncertainty. If not, then you're putting a potential gunner who just wanted to intimidate you more on edge than he or she already was. Bad juju.

Also, you have to pull out a gun whenever you think the other has an intent to fatally injure. You must do that before the potential gunner does. If you do it after, then you're already shot, because they probably already have the gun trained on you or already have it at the ready.

If you do it as the potential gunner does, then you:

1. Have to be faster at pulling out your gun and firing it accurately than they are when they already have it out.
2. You must pull the trigger when you get the gun out, no exceptions.
   1. Because when they see you pull out a gun, they will shoot, because now they are threatened because they see the power advantage they had being taken away by your action. The only way to keep that advantage is to actually use the dwindling power advantage they had. At that point, you're going to have to shoot another human being in the blink of an eye: blood, screams, and potentially at least one death included. All the stuff that can leave a same man with PTSD and makes me question the sanity of someone who is unaffected afterwards is now part of your vivid memory.

Personally, I think my chances of getting back to where I was before such a confrontation (i.e., mental health, physical health, whatever was taken) is to let law enforcement handle it after the fact than to rely on my ability to handle a life-or-death situation where 100% success relies on my skill with a handgun and my ability to make snap decisions.

(Also, I'm a black guy, so please forgive me if I don't want to give the judicial branch a reason to lock up an educated black man. That'd be, like, Bi-Winning for White Power groups.)

Obligatory playing of the race card aside (I do believe Hilter was already played, so I wanted to make sure everything was covered up until that point,) I can't say that all of those hesitations I have outweigh the actual need for protection for others. Law enforcement might not care about apprehending every single mugger or they might not be able to:

Ok, ma'am, what did the perpetrator look like?

…he was an average-sized white male with brown hair and brown eyes.

…

…Oh! He also said "Thanks for not snitchin'~" as he rode down the street on my bicycle.

That sort of description is probably very common. Even if you made that a black guy, that's still not very descriptive or helpful to a well-meaning law enforcement agency if there aren't cameras or the like around.

In this case, the chance that you get your stolen goods back is slim-to-none. Depending on your skill and acumen, you might take your chances at sizing up the situation and scaring the person off over letting the authorities handle it.

Also, you may live in a situation where such crimes happen a lot, so over time, being known as a person who has a firearm might save you trouble in the long-run. Furthermore, not every criminal has a gun themselves or has a firearm they themselves want to actually fire. If they have a knife and you have/can safely create distance on them, then you turn the situation into a "Don't bring a knife to a gun fight" thing. Just like there is a specific set of conditions where you'd pull out a gun and what you have to do and be willing to do when you do so, there are many situations where having that gun can prevent a lot of trouble. In the US, where gun violence is much higher than in other countries (the reasons for that being the case are somewhat irrelevant in the short-term), I think any sound, law-abiding citizen should be able to be trained, licensed, and be able to own a simple firearm. Even carrying it in some public venues.

I would like to bring up actual training and licensing though. It seems like other countries like Britland and New Kiwi have stricter protocols for being able to legally own and use firearms than Amerifat. It's true that a criminal probably isn't going to bother going through all of those hoops to get their hands on a firearm and use it. It's true that if they're willing to use it, then they have little issue of committing paperwork crimes (although, that's not always the case.)

Does anyone think that stricter testing, training, certifications, etc. is a bad thing? For most people, even if it took a year to legally own and be trained to use a gun properly, it's not likely a person will have to use it in a year's time anyway. For most people, a situation where a confrontation escalates to a point where you'd have to use a gun is very, very rare. And a lot of the checks that occur after you're licensed don't keep you from owning or using a gun. It's probably a 5-10 minute visit from a friendly police officer (unless you're me, then you get frisked anyway.)

But it would certainly prevent people who are currently mentally unstable or are very angry people from owning guns if they underwent a proper psychiatric battery, and it helps to make sure that the cases where a person chooses to use a firearm in the wrong situation or in the wrong way is reduced significantly.

--

Disclaimer: All jokes about Verbose being black and being mistreated by the authorities are largely inflated, overstated, and largely exaggerated for the sake and intent of "humor." Verbose has only experienced 1-2 cases of racial profiling by law enforcement authorities and those are heavily outweighed by other instances where Verbose was either in the wrong but was treated within the realm of normalcy or had relatively positive and helpful experiences in requesting help. Void where prohibited. See your local Congressperson for details. Please include $14.95 for shipping and handling. Please no CoD's.

A minigun that uses shotgun shells.
A crossbow with magazines.
An assault rifle with a katana bayonet.
A revolving, double-barreled shotgun.
i am so going to patent this shit

I am going to kill you with my robo-shark minigun when you walk into the patent office. Then I'll steal all your ideas.

A machine gun with the caliber of a sniper rifle.

Dude, that already exists, and there are a tonne of examples.

For example the Maxim machine gun, this one from as far back as 1895. It's chambered in .303 British, the same calibre used in the Lee Enfield, and that can be readily converted into a sniper rifle with the right know-how.

If you want to go bigger, there's the M2 Browning. Fires a .50 calibre round, same as the Barrett M82. In fact, the round fired by that rifle is called .50 BMG, which stands for "Browning Machine Gun". The machine gun came first in that instance.

Plus the M134 mini-gun fires 7.62mm NATO, and just about every modern sniper rifle in the western world is chambered for that (though recently a bunch of nations have been opting to use the .338 Lapua instead). The examples of machines guns that don't fire the same calibres as sniper rifles are the exception.

@xTSGx

You want to treat gun deaths as an issue? Great, inner city violence is tearing about our major cities, but when you ignore all the other death causes that kill a lot more people all it does is make you look like a hypocrite who’s more focused on the “gun” than on the “deaths” part.

Ugh, yes, you are right. There are more types of preventable deaths out there that kill more people than people with guns. That doesn't mean we can't talk about the issue of guns without bring up Cigarrettes or whatever.

The problem is, people don’t even mention anything other than guns. Where’s the news coverage of the cancer deaths, the accidental falls, the malpractice cases. Where’s the twitter hashtags, the press conferences? Why does something that’s not even in the top ten causes of preventable death in the US get all this attention when the things that kill multiples of ten more people is just written off as something only people of “advanced age” “actively choose” to do?

I see much more commercials about the evils of tobacco then guns. Actually, there is a lot being done to try to lessen the use of tobacco. Accidental falls? what is there to talk about? What are we gonna do? Ban falling? Cancer has multiple massive charities and there is little point to have news coverage about it since people are well aware of it. Sorry, but your argument is really dumb. Just because there are other accidental deaths doesn't mean guns aren't an issue as well.

Just like the strict drug control has made it impossible for people to illegal drugs.

As for what I think about it. I own a couple shotguns, so I am not against gun ownership, but that doesn't mean I am OK with how easy it is to obtain firearms in certain states.

Being a republican on the sight, I don't think I exactly need to tell folks on my views. However, since this thread is probably a ticking time bomb for trolls or two ninnies to smash up in a unreal rage, I think I might as well leave a short opinion.

Mare. . .is kind of right.

I've seen mixed stats for and against gun control. I usually tend to focus on the pro-gun stuff because bias reasons, but we here in the US have a rather strange gun culture. Statistically, higher gun control regulations often tend to result in higher gun crimes while lower gun regulation will result in lower crime.

Our stats as compared to the rest of the western world is a general annoyance. If anyone knows well of the US's problems, our gun violence often exclusive to gang vs gang violence which is amplified because of various criminal wars which for what I know is not exclusive in the rest of the western world as compared to here. School violence tends to be a publicized outlier which makes for a great tragic story. . .in which our wondrous media glorify's the murderer and makes more assholes seek their 15 minutes of fame. The problem is, these folks are often punks whom got their hands on their parent's firearms and decided to do the unthinkable. I personally think this could be easily avoided by giving schools the ability to hire private and secretive security, or hell even have a police officer make regular patrols near the school.

However the major thing is I am certain most republicans would be in favor of some changes, like have a stricter sense on whom actually gets a gun or even a slow process of improving those rights for legitimate owners and making it harder for untrained reactionaries to gaining a gun "because reasons". However, the problem tends to come up is whenever the democrats in congress decide they want to talk about gun control, they make sure we know perfectly well how much they don't like guns, often suggesting or hinting at total gun regulation, unrealistic laws, and just generally prodding at the NRA to make statements, and resulting in my republican kin taking a side of "defend all or lose all" stance. If there was less political pride, the world might be a more reasonable place I guess.

tl;dr evil gun toting republican wants to kill mayans and drink root beer.

xTSGx you really are a piece of work, comparing you to beavis was almost too much of a compliment, I'd say you are more of a mandark from dexter's lab without any redeeming qualities.

the issue at hand is NOT preventable deaths, but violent deaths. maybe behind your cloud of stats and numbers you've forgotten that unlike cancer, which is heartbreaking, gun violence is terrifying. they are such different things that i'm starting to think you think the world is pretty much simcity. Yes, cancer is awful and second hand smoke is very deadly but THAT IS NOT THE POINT AND NEVER HAS BEEN.

Look, let me try to slow this down so even someone so far up their own ass can understand.

- Some lunatic shoots up a place full of civilians
- Family of deceased and others ask "how can we stop this from happening"
- This is where you come in
[big nerd voice]: uhh, you can't keep people from dying, it's uh, a biological function… DUH, idiots.
- The news runs reports about gun deaths and mention they're preventable
- You again, fully aroused
[horny for stats nerd voice] ackshually, more people die from from choking on chicken bones then school shootings, look at this graph
-Mother of dead child, crying while being interviewed says no parent should go through this ever
- You,
[your voice] if you really want less dead children ban chicken bones… idiot bitch

Of course, that was mostly to mock you for being an idiot, but the point still stands, emboldened for your pleasure

We are not saying smoking, falling, or heart attacks aren't more common causes of death.
We are saying violent gun deaths are way too high
You are getting off topic

in conclusion: double shut up, Mandark

Google glass + Gun = IRL Tea Bagging

Well geez, using stats for a argument for a political issue is such a evil and dubious thing. Obviously, the only real and true appeal, is the emotional one where we paint the opposition as nerdy fucks with childish straw man insults.

Besides my sarcasm, if you are going to argue, be fucking civilized enough to present something feasible.

^
I agree. They both are using poor argument tactics. Lets keep emotions out of this discussion. As for xTSGx, just know that it's a logical fallacy to think that just because people are discussing Guns, other preventable deaths (Cancer, Smoking, etc.) aren't getting the attention they need.

i'm not really for or against gun control, I just think xtsgx is a bad poster :shrug:

There's a difference between using stats to support your argument and using stats incorrectly to support your argument. Not only did TSG use irrelevant statistics and rhetoric, it was a claim that has very little going for it. Both of those make him seem desperate, idiotic, pompous, or some amalgamation of all three. He posts bad and should feel bad.

OH YOU WANT SOME GUN CONTROL? WELL YOU JUST HAFTA HOLD YOUR GUN TIGHT OR IT'LL KICK YA TO A BRICK WALL!

@xTSGx

Instead of addressing my post that actually was refuting your argument, you went after Blubbers that was more of a personal attack. Do you even want to have a discussion?

If people were as passionate toward cancer research, or fixing malpractice issues as they are over a death issue that doesn’t even rank in the top ten, I think gun deaths would become a much larger problem as the death rates for the other problems trickle down.

This…. THIS RIGHT HERE, this is what all your posts have been about.

You seem to think that because we are talking about x, we must not care about y. Well, that's simply not true. let me just copy and paste what I said in my post before. "I see much more commercials about the evils of tobacco then guns. Actually, there is a lot being done to try to lessen the use of tobacco. Accidental falls? what is there to talk about? What are we gonna do? Ban falling? Cancer has multiple massive charities and there is little point to have news coverage about it since people are well aware of it. Sorry, but your argument is really dumb. Just because there are other accidental deaths doesn’t mean guns aren’t an issue as well."
The thing is, behind all the talk, many more things are being done for cancer research, Tobacco, starving children, etc. than guns. It's just not something you will see on the news because people are well aware of them. The fact we are talking about the issue of guns does not mean we don't care about cancer, K?

xTSGx you are a weiner, and I wasn't using "a strawman" i was making fun of you. but, all your reading too far into my post aside, at least you posted that you think all deaths are equal which i 100% disagree with. i'm tired of reading your posts and since we won't see eye-to-eye on this i'm dropping out of the race.

also a big LOL if you thing being nice is a rule worth anybody's time.

Can we just take this to another thread?

Putting words into someone else's mouth to attack said words is a Strawman, and in spite of xTSGx's post, he brings up a pretty damn good point.

You are a fucking moderator.

And

"also a big LOL if you thing being nice is a rule worth anybody's time."

Is not a fucking excuse for posting garbage statements and idiotically attacking xTSGx's post with personal attacks of his character.

If you really didn't exactly care and were tired of xTSGx's posts, you would have not have commented and dropped it to begin with, and instead are alienating him from the community in which as a moderator rule of;

"Be friendly. We want our forums to be welcoming place for both old and new users. Please keep your comments and posts constructive and considerate in tone. If you observe a user breaking a rule, try advising the user in the right direction instead of posting insults or harsh criticisms. If the user persists, contact a forum moderator."

A bazooka that can load four rockets.
A quadruple-barreled pistol.
A gun that shoots poison syringes.
A napalm grenade-shooting pistol.

Oh, wait…

@Dac
If the issue is about stopping preventable deaths than I think it should be treated proportionally. The thing that kills the most people should get the most attention, funding, lobbying, media exposure, etc. The next leading killer should get the next most, and so on.

On the matter of funding, you are correct. Cancer funding blows all other preventable deaths out of the water, which is great as it is the top killer right up their with heart disease. But I don't see cancer or any of the other deaths getting nearly the same amount of media exposure or lobbying that guns do.

At its peak, the American Cancer Society spent 10 million dollars on lobbying. In 2013, gun lobbying spent nearly twice that--at 18 million. As for exposure…

I'm not saying people don't care about the other preventable deaths, I'm saying people seem to care disproportionately about the gun deaths.

The thing is, behind all the talk, many more things are being done for cancer research, Tobacco, starving children, etc. than guns.

The statistics don't back this up. Cancer death rates have remained relatively flat since 1980. I was unable to get tobacco stats back that far so I'm uncertain how many of those are tobacco related. Since 1990, the number of people experiencing starvation has fallen 17%. Poverty (a key indicator of "starving children") in the US is at it's highest level since 1993.

In contrast, gun homicides peaked in 1993 (17,075) and have, generally, been on a downward trend since. In 2011, 8,583 people were killed by firearms--a 50% reduction from the peak in 93. From a statistical standpoint, it appears much more has been done to reduce the gun death rate than that of the other preventable death rates.

… but your average crazy teen or college student probably won’t be able to get a hold of a gun as easily.

It's actually very easy to get illegal guns these days. Restricting something even more will only lead to a bigger black market than already exists. It's basic economics. The more demand there is for something, the more people will try to take advantage of that demand.

Speakeasies weren't a thing until after prohibition started. Market forces ensured that alcohol continued to flourish even with a constitutional amendment. If guns ever get incredibly restricted. There will be an incredibly large black market. One that almost anyone could access.

Captain Blubber said:

…also a big LOL if you thing being nice is a rule worth anybody’s time.

I find it very, very sad that a site moderator has that kind of attitude toward site rules. It really puts into question your integrity as a mod.

@xTSGx

On the matter of funding, you are correct. Cancer funding blows all other preventable deaths out of the water, which is great as it is the top killer right up their with heart disease. But I don’t see cancer or any of the other deaths getting nearly the same amount of media exposure or lobbying that guns do.

Cancer is cancer, what news do we need to hear about it? The money the charities get go to research and treatment, exactly where it needs to go.

At its peak, the American Cancer Society spent 10 million dollars on lobbying. In 2013, gun lobbying spent nearly twice that--at 18 million.

Why is this a bad thing? Also, kudos to listing one Cancer foundation while grouping gun lobbying.

The statistics don’t back this up. Cancer death rates have remained relatively flat since 1980. I was unable to get tobacco stats back that far so I’m uncertain how many of those are tobacco related. Since 1990, the number of people experiencing starvation has fallen 17%. Poverty (a key indicator of “starving children”) in the US is at it’s highest level since 1993.
In contrast, gun homicides peaked in 1993 (17,075) and have, generally, been on a downward trend since. In 2011, 8,583 people were killed by firearms--a 50% reduction from the peak in 93. From a statistical standpoint, it appears much more has been done to reduce the gun death rate than that of the other preventable death rates.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that isn't a legitimate argument. You can't line them up like that and say " Well, gun crime has declined while cancer stays the same, therefore more is being done to prevent gun crimes." That's oversimplifying to an extreme degree. With the World Cup and work though, I don't really want to dive to deep into all this statistical talk.

It’s actually very easy to get illegal guns these days. Restricting something even more will only lead to a bigger black market than already exists. It’s basic economics. The more demand there is for something, the more people will try to take advantage of that demand.

First off, I said as easy as drugs. I can guarantee you that most users here could easily get a hold of Marijuana or some ecstasy, but a gun is a little more difficult. I don't believe strict gun control is the answer though, but better help for people with mental problems.

Really though, you are just derailing this thread. It's to discuss the issues of gun control, not how cancer kills more people than guns. Regardless of all these numbers your Google searches bring up, as John Hammond would say, "People are dying!". So it's not crazy to think that maybe its ok to talk about America and guns. Anyways, Let's try to keep this thread on topic, ok?

Since you guys are talking about scarecrow phalluses or something I'm just gonna post dragonfire shotgun shells doing their thing.