You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
April 23, 2017, 09:14:23 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)  (Read 18574 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Vergil Tanner

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #350 on: November 02, 2015, 08:42:26 PM »
Also, I feel the need to point something out:

As far as I am aware, even before the banning of firearms, gun crime was in the vast minority of violent crime in the UK (something like 5% or so), so if banning guns reduced that to 1% but other crimes increased due to - for example - a harsh recession hitting then of course the crime rates will increase a little rather than decrease, even if gun crime itself decreases because the percentage that decreased wasn't that high in the first place.

HOWEVER, that wouldn't be the same case necessarily with the USA, since gun crime makes up 61% of all violent crime rather than the measly 5/10% that it was in the UK. So as much as our cultures are similar, you have to take that into account as well.

Offline Tairis

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #351 on: November 02, 2015, 09:10:58 PM »
Still, that isn't quite on the level of being several days away from law enforcement.

Let me wait 30 minutes while someone breaks into my house, tries to kill me, tries to rape a family member, etc. I'm sure everyone will be just fine in the half hour it takes the cops to show up.

Quote
And what exactly is your definition of a "drone?" You seem to be pretty staunchly anti-government...what kinds of things do you not want people turning to the government for help with, when the governments (ideal) primary purpose is the safeguarding and...well...governing of the people it represents?

The governments job is to provide a standing military against foreign threats, to maintain and improve the infrastructure of its system, and protect the rights of its citizens.

I'm not anti-government. I'm pro-reality. The government is not an omni-present authority figure. The police do not protect you from danger unless they are physically present, their job is to apprehend criminals after the fact. The role of the government should to be give everyone a level playing field. Not to hold their hands.

Quote
Actually, that's a misrepresentation of the law in the UK. You can easily buy a Katana, as long as it's dulled and sold by a licensed seller, which I think is perfectly reasonable. I could order a replica Katana for display on my wall right now from several locations and have a low chance of there being any issues with it. I personally collect replica weaponry, and I currently have a shield, two (blunted) swords and a (blunted) double-headed axe.

So you can buy a replica. I don't want a replica. I collect weapons as well, ranging from custom knives to antiques. I don't need my government to decide for me that I'm not responsible enough to own a knife with an edge on it, to tell me I can't own a century and a half old saber given to me by my father because its 'too dangerous' or, even worse, ruin it by taking a sander to it to remove its edge and point.

Quote
No, but it's harder to kill several people with a baseball bat than with a gun. Remember, as far as I'm aware homicides only take into account one crime. You're creating a kind of...I don't know. It's not a misrepresentation, but it's certainly not the whole picture. Remember, homicide is ONE victim. What about serial killers and mass murderers? The rates of MASS killings went down. The rate of SEVERAL victims by the same person in one "sitting" went down. What was the gap between a mass shooting in the UK again? Oh yeah, 14 years.

See above. It certainly led to a sharp drop in one killer killing several people, since it didn't happen again until 2010.

So you had less mass shootings... and more individual citizens dying. Tell me again how its better for those individual citizens? 'Oh hey, you didn't get killed by a mass shooter along with 7 other people. Instead you got stabbed by a mugger or beaten to death by a burglar'. Too bad you didn't have a way to defend yourself but, well, we had to curtail those mass shootings even though it did nothing to curb our actual homicide rate.

Also homicides are indeed, one victim. A mass shooter that kills 7 people would add 7 homicides to the statistics. Not one.

Quote
Again with this fallacy; yes, if somebody wants to kill somebody, they'll do it somehow. It's all about making it harder for them to do it, and remember, guns aren't just used in homicides and robberies, they're also used in suicides...in terms of suicides, a gun is a momentary decision of "pull the trigger, bang you're dead." At least by making it harder for people to kill themselves, it gives them a chance to back out before they do it.
Besides. If you lock your doors, burglars are just going to smash the windows and go in that way. Does that mean you don't lock your doors?
And again: 58 times more likely to be shot in the USA and only 1.2 times more likely to be stabbed in the UK. Gun control doesn't increase other types of crime, generally speaking. There are other factors to consider, of course, but suggesting that it does is erroneous.

Except you still haven't shown me how the UK has saved any actual lives. All the statistics just say OTHER people are dying instead. That's not an 'improvement'. That's a side grade.

Quote
You're no safer WITH your gun, since how often do you take it, loaded, out and about around town?

Every single day. The only day I haven't in the last year was 2 days ago on Halloween because I was going to be in multiple bars and also didn't have anywhere to reasonably carry on my costume. Of course I also was carrying a sword and a knife.

Quote
Well THAT'S an exaggeration. The government is going a tad overboard ATM, it's true, but I don't see how restricting minors access to dangerous weapons is being "terrified of the real world." If what you say is true, we wouldn't be allowed cars or cigarettes or alcohol or any kind of pointy object AT ALL....you're acting like the government took away the knives, when that is patently untrue. All they did was say "you're not allowed to sell knives of a certain minimum length and sharpness to people under 18." That's all. You're playing the sensationalist a little here.

Again, slippery slope fallacy. They didn't BAN knives, as I just explained, and they didn't ban ALL guns...and I highly doubt they're going to try and ban rocks. This particular argument is off topic and utterly ridiculous.

Really? Because it sure looks like they did to me on your own government's website:

https://www.gov.uk/buying-carrying-knives

With gems like this:

shuriken (also known as ‘death stars’ or ‘throwing stars’)
kusari (weight attached to a rope, cord or wire)

I mean... ignoring the fact that a kusari isn't a knife in the first place or even a weapon capable of slashing OR piercing... you have a government that has literally outlawed owning a rope with a rock tied to the end.

Quote
Yeah, but Sweden and Switzerland are just so fucking chilled out all the time. It's the drugs. People are too busy getting high and eating chocolate to kill people. Legalise weed, that will mellow people out a little.

Seriously, though, they have higher gun ownership BUT they have more checks and balances to gun ownership. High gun ownership isn't necessarily the issue...it's just the ease with which loonies can get them.

And how easily accessible certain tools are.

Except in Switzerland they have military combat rifles in their home. Thousands and thousands of them. And yes, they do keep the military ammunition locked up at the training facilities. There is nothing stopping them from buying civilian ammo (which is the same ammo we're using here in the states). So why don't they have the same amount of mass shootings?

Could it be that OWNING a gun doesn't make you more likely to be a mass shooter. Instead mental illness, cultural upbringing, racial tensions, and economic status might be much more significant?
« Last Edit: November 02, 2015, 09:12:28 PM by Tairis »

Online Vergil Tanner

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #352 on: November 02, 2015, 09:41:30 PM »
Let me wait 30 minutes while someone breaks into my house, tries to kill me, tries to rape a family member, etc. I'm sure everyone will be just fine in the half hour it takes the cops to show up.

You've got to stop doing that, because it's starting to irritate me past what I consider normal for a heated discussion.

Nowhere did I say that half an hour is an adequate response time. I just noted that it's gotten a lot better since the olden days and that half an hour is a better response time than several days.

The governments job is to provide a standing military against foreign threats, to maintain and improve the infrastructure of its system, and protect the rights of its citizens.

I would also add "protect its citizens from harm as far as is reasonable and provide protection and care to those that need it."

I'm not anti-government. I'm pro-reality. The government is not an omni-present authority figure. The police do not protect you from danger unless they are physically present, their job is to apprehend criminals after the fact. The role of the government should to be give everyone a level playing field. Not to hold their hands.

Well, unless hands need holding...but that's a different topic. Big Government is effective and I think preferable in certain circumstances, whereas Small Government is better in others.
The role of the government is to govern the people. Hence the name.


So you can buy a replica. I don't want a replica. I collect weapons as well, ranging from custom knives to antiques. I don't need my government to decide for me that I'm not responsible enough to own a knife with an edge on it, to tell me I can't own a century and a half old saber given to me by my father because its 'too dangerous' or, even worse, ruin it by taking a sander to it to remove its edge and point.

Again, a slight misrepresentation of the law. You can buy a replica without a licence or any kind of background check because it's relatively harmless. You CAN buy an actual weapon - like a katana or something - with an edge, but as I understand it, only if you have a specific licence (which I think is sensible; a basic background check so they know they're not giving a dangerous psychopath a deadly weapon) and as long as you don't take it into the street and start waving it about. Also, again, the government isn't banning knives. It's saying that knives of a certain length and/or type can't be sold directly to minors. Once again, you're sensationalising and exaggerating the story to the point where you're grossly misrepresenting the law to make it sound worse than it actually is. I don't agree with all of the laws here in England, but if you're going to ridicule them, at least ridicule laws that actually exist. Like the one that says it's still legal to kill a Welshman with a longbow so long as it's within the walls or York and it's past midnight.

So you had less mass shootings... and more individual citizens dying.


Which as I noted later on, had nothing to do with the gun laws. America has more of both. What's your point?

Tell me again how its better for those individual citizens?


It isn't, and I never said it was. I would appreciate it if you stopped putting words in my mouth, thank you.


Too bad you didn't have a way to defend yourself but, well, we had to curtail those mass shootings even though it did nothing to curb our actual homicide rate.

*snort* the idea of more guns making people safer has been debunked just by the fact that you have a gun for every man, woman and child in America and yet you have more shootings than anywhere else in the Western World. The thing is, self defence isn't "gun or nothing." There are a variety of weapons and techniques and tactics that are, technically speaking, more effective in an enclosed space than a firearm is. That's just an attempt at an emotional prodding. How about I turn that back on you?
"Oh, I'm sorry that somebody broke into your house and shot your daughter, but we have to protect our citizens right to be armed, now don't we?"

Also homicides are indeed, one victim. A mass shooter that kills 7 people would add 7 homicides to the statistics. Not one.

As I understand it, crime is categorised slightly differently in the UK. I may be wrong, but I think that Mass Murder is classified differently to Homicide. Not sure though, since I'm not a Forensic Investigator, cool as that would be.

Except you still haven't shown me how the UK has saved any actual lives. All the statistics just say OTHER people are dying instead. That's not an 'improvement'. That's a side grade.

Again, if the rate of gun crime is low to begin with, any further dip probably won't make a blip on the graph, especially when circumstances are leading to more crimes in general. The fact is, stepping back from the UK for a moment, that every country that has increased gun regulation has seen a dip in gun crime. Other crime rates depend on the country and the time being looked at - since obviously recessions lead to more poverty and therefore more crime, generally speaking - but since none of them had a majority of crime being gun crime in the first place, you wouldn't see much change in the overall statistics anyway.

Every single day. The only day I haven't in the last year was 2 days ago on Halloween because I was going to be in multiple bars and also didn't have anywhere to reasonably carry on my costume. Of course I also was carrying a sword and a knife.

That's actually kind of terrifying. I wouldn't feel safe knowing that anybody around me could be packing, but then, that's just me; I have grown up in a country where the worst that people are likely - statistically - to be carrying is a particularly sharp keychain. It might also have to do with my area being relatively modern and wealthy, so there's that too. I personally wouldn't feel the need to carry that much weaponry around, and honestly, I don't think deadly weapons should be allowed in public places....but that's just me.

Really? Because it sure looks like they did to me on your own government's website:

https://www.gov.uk/buying-carrying-knives

With gems like this:

shuriken (also known as ‘death stars’ or ‘throwing stars’)
kusari (weight attached to a rope, cord or wire)

You're saying that Shurikens and Kusari's aren't deadly weapons that should be treated with caution? And why would you want to carry one of those with you anyway?


you have a government that has literally outlawed owning a rope with a rock tied to the end.

Except no. A Kusari is more complicated than that; it's a double-weighted metal chain designed to strike from a concealed spot. It's not "literally a rock tied to a piece of rope," otherwise conkers would be banned as well. Kusari's are most often solid, heavy metal chains. Not quite the exaggeration you're trying to portray. You seem rather fond of that tactic.


Except in Switzerland they have military combat rifles in their home. Thousands and thousands of them. And yes, they do keep the military ammunition locked up at the training facilities. There is nothing stopping them from buying civilian ammo (which is the same ammo we're using here in the states). So why don't they have the same amount of mass shootings?

I don't know. Maybe because they're just less violent than you lot. Maybe it's because they keep them as display pieces rather than actual self defence weapons. Maybe it's because - as you noted - handguns are the weapons of choice for murderers and serial killers because of the ease you can hide them, whereas assault and automatic weapons aren't favoured due to their size and obviousness. Maybe it's because they're saving all their ammo in case the Chinese invade. I don't know.

Could it be that OWNING a gun doesn't make you more likely to be a mass shooter. Instead mental illness, cultural upbringing, racial tensions, and economic status might be much more significant?

Yes, and once again, you're putting words in my mouth and strawmanning my position. I never once said that owning a gun made you more likely to shoot people. I said that the loose restrictions on firearms makes it easier for those people to get ahold of a gun. Would you mind not accusing me of holding a position or saying something that I don't hold or didn't say, please?

The comment you are responding to specifically has me saying:

"Seriously, though, they have higher gun ownership BUT they have more checks and balances to gun ownership. High gun ownership isn't necessarily the issue...it's just the ease with which loonies can get them, and how easily accessible certain tools are."
« Last Edit: November 02, 2015, 09:42:39 PM by Vergil Tanner »

Offline Tairis

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #353 on: November 02, 2015, 10:29:35 PM »
You've got to stop doing that, because it's starting to irritate me past what I consider normal for a heated discussion.

Nowhere did I say that half an hour is an adequate response time. I just noted that it's gotten a lot better since the olden days and that half an hour is a better response time than several days.

If 1/2 hour isn't an an adequate response time, what is? What response time is adequate that you have the right to take away my ability to do so?

Quote
I would also add "protect its citizens from harm as far as is reasonable and provide protection and care to those that need it."

Well, unless hands need holding...but that's a different topic. Big Government is effective and I think preferable in certain circumstances, whereas Small Government is better in others.
The role of the government is to govern the people. Hence the name.

This is too far off topic but needless to say we're never going to agree on this one either.

Quote
Again, a slight misrepresentation of the law. You can buy a replica without a licence or any kind of background check because it's relatively harmless. You CAN buy an actual weapon - like a katana or something - with an edge, but as I understand it, only if you have a specific licence (which I think is sensible; a basic background check so they know they're not giving a dangerous psychopath a deadly weapon) and as long as you don't take it into the street and start waving it about. Also, again, the government isn't banning knives. It's saying that knives of a certain length and/or type can't be sold directly to minors. Once again, you're sensationalising and exaggerating the story to the point where you're grossly misrepresenting the law to make it sound worse than it actually is. I don't agree with all of the laws here in England, but if you're going to ridicule them, at least ridicule laws that actually exist. Like the one that says it's still legal to kill a Welshman with a longbow so long as it's within the walls or York and it's past midnight.

Really? Because I've now provided 3 different links in this thread where, in the UK, your government and organizations has advocated the banning of kitchen knives, stated that is 100% illegal to carry a switchblade, any form of straight bladed knife, or even a swing assisted pocket knife. It is also 100% illegal to own, at all (again from your government's website) a butterfly knife or a katana. So please point out exactly what I am exaggerating when I am providing you links to your own government and media to support my claims.

Quote
Which as I noted later on, had nothing to do with the gun laws. America has more of both. What's your point?
 

My point is all you've repeated in this thread is 'we banned guns so we have less gun crime'. Which I already stated earlier in the thread I'm not going to argue against, it's just logical. My argument is very simple: reduced gun crime is 100% irrelevant if your crime level stays the same. This shows mathematically that your ban has had no effect on the crime rate because the crime rate didn't change, just the method of the crime.

Quote
It isn't, and I never said it was. I would appreciate it if you stopped putting words in my mouth, thank you.

Then tell me what exactly are you saying?

Quote
*snort* the idea of more guns making people safer has been debunked just by the fact that you have a gun for every man, woman and child in America and yet you have more shootings than anywhere else in the Western World. The thing is, self defence isn't "gun or nothing." There are a variety of weapons and techniques and tactics that are, technically speaking, more effective in an enclosed space than a firearm is. That's just an attempt at an emotional prodding. How about I turn that back on you?
"Oh, I'm sorry that somebody broke into your house and shot your daughter, but we have to protect our citizens right to be armed, now don't we?"

Do go ahead and explain to me these weapons and techniques and tactics that are more effective in an enclosed space than a firearm.

Let me go ahead and take a guess what you're going to provide:

Tasers. Wonderful little devices and I highly recommend having one. Guess what the problem with a taser is? They're not close to 100% effective and you get one shot. Miss? Out of luck. It takes even someone practiced at it a good 30 seconds to reload a taser.

Akido, Judo, some other martial art technique they teach at the local boys and girls club? A skilled practitioner of any martial art is going to have a much better chance against an untrained attacker. Problem with that is 'skilled'. To actually be effective as anything more than a 'you might remember enough of this to save yourself, but probably not' it takes years of discipline, sparring, and training.

How many of these techniques are you trained in to the degree that you could stop a man that outweighs you by 40 lbs and with, say, just an extra 3 inches of reach on you?

Quote
Again, if the rate of gun crime is low to begin with, any further dip probably won't make a blip on the graph, especially when circumstances are leading to more crimes in general. The fact is, stepping back from the UK for a moment, that every country that has increased gun regulation has seen a dip in gun crime. Other crime rates depend on the country and the time being looked at - since obviously recessions lead to more poverty and therefore more crime, generally speaking - but since none of them had a majority of crime being gun crime in the first place, you wouldn't see much change in the overall statistics anyway.

So you've disarmed your citizens for... a non existent change or an increase in your crime rate.

Quote
That's actually kind of terrifying. I wouldn't feel safe knowing that anybody around me could be packing, but then, that's just me; I have grown up in a country where the worst that people are likely - statistically - to be carrying is a particularly sharp keychain. It might also have to do with my area being relatively modern and wealthy, so there's that too. I personally wouldn't feel the need to carry that much weaponry around, and honestly, I don't think deadly weapons should be allowed in public places....but that's just me.

It's called being a responsible gun owner. Considered my permit is to carry concealed you'd never even have known I was carrying it in the first place.

Quote
You're saying that Shurikens and Kusari's aren't deadly weapons that should be treated with caution? And why would you want to carry one of those with you anyway?

This. This is why nobody that actually has weapons gets frustrated and stops taking gun control advocates seriously. Shurikens are deadly weapons? You know who thinks shurkiens are deadly weapons? People that watch too many movies and get them confused with reality. Kusari? Kusari is literally a length of chain. And this has nothing to do with Carrying either. The link that I just posted states that these items are illegal for sale. It's not you can't carry it. Its 'you can't own it'.

Quote
Except no. A Kusari is more complicated than that; it's a double-weighted metal chain designed to strike from a concealed spot. It's not "literally a rock tied to a piece of rope," otherwise conkers would be banned as well. Kusari's are most often solid, heavy metal chains. Not quite the exaggeration you're trying to portray. You seem rather fond of that tactic.

Just going to quote, again, your own governments definition that you even quoted yourself:

kusari (weight attached to a rope, cord or wire)

Your government is defining a kusari as a weight attached to a rope, cord, or wire.

Quote
I don't know. Maybe because they're just less violent than you lot. Maybe it's because they keep them as display pieces rather than actual self defence weapons. Maybe it's because - as you noted - handguns are the weapons of choice for murderers and serial killers because of the ease you can hide them, whereas assault and automatic weapons aren't favoured due to their size and obviousness. Maybe it's because they're saving all their ammo in case the Chinese invade. I don't know.

Handguns are the weapons of choice for criminals. Very few serial killers in history have used firearms by comparison. But even you say right here. You don't know.

What DO we know? We know the Swiss own guns at a rate higher than any other european country yet do not have proportionate gun crime, mass shootings, or general crime. So what I do seem to know is that gun ownership in any format does not seem to have a direct correlation to crime rate.

Quote
Yes, and once again, you're putting words in my mouth and strawmanning my position. I never once said that owning a gun made you more likely to shoot people. I said that the loose restrictions on firearms makes it easier for those people to get ahold of a gun. Would you mind not accusing me of holding a position or saying something that I don't hold or didn't say, please?

The comment you are responding to specifically has me saying:

"Seriously, though, they have higher gun ownership BUT they have more checks and balances to gun ownership. High gun ownership isn't necessarily the issue...it's just the ease with which loonies can get them, and how easily accessible certain tools are."

What checks and balances? The ones that I already suggested in this same thread regarding national background checks, mental health restrictions, and reasonable waiting periods? I'm not strawmanning anything. Your entire argument seems to be 'we should ban handguns because we did it in the UK and its great'. I have provided you multiple statistics showing where:

Your crime rate didn't go down.

Your own government then banned knives of almost every flavor.

Your crime rate still didn't go down.

The US, whose gunownership laws have only gotten LESS strict has not had an increase in crime but instead has followed the fairly global trend of a slow decline since the 90s.

So what is your argument, exactly?
« Last Edit: November 02, 2015, 10:31:38 PM by Tairis »

Offline TheGlyphstone

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #354 on: November 02, 2015, 11:10:07 PM »
Personally, if I'm in a place where an attacker's weight and reach matter, I'd much rather they have a gun than a knife. Granted, I'm horridly out of shape and screwed in both cases, but the gun will be more useful as a club in grappling range than a projectile weapon.

Offline eBadger

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #355 on: November 03, 2015, 02:02:47 AM »
Now, 10 people per 100,000 doesn't sound like much, but bare in mind that that is ten times more than most other "First World Countries."

If we're going to talk about all violent crime with firearms, I will keep pointing to the "rate has cut in half in 20 years and continues to go down" success story.  There is a problem, but it is getting better.  Sure, we can still talk about reducing guns, but the issue is not a crisis, it is an improving situation that we would like to improve more.   

If you're going to point at the mass shootings, I'll keep noting "isolated and incredibly rare incidents that are being used by the media to fuel paranoia and panic."  Again, we can still have a discussion but I'm going to balance limiting the rights of 350,000,000 people with the odds of being killed in a mass shooting being about the same as being killed by lightning. 

The goal should be to make everybody as safe as possible.

An interesting notion.  That's not our goal regarding most other things: we're much more likely to die to heart disease or auto accidents, but as safe as possible certainly isn't our legislation with either.

Is your families protection worth the lives of hundreds, perhaps thousands of innocent schoolkids?

A fallacy of false dichotomy. 

And how easily accessible certain tools are.

Sure; but all the evidence seems to indicate that's the least important issue in regards to gun violence and crime generally.  After all, you can commit a crime at any moment: every house you walk or drive past is the opportunity to commit burglary.  Why don't you? 

That's actually kind of terrifying. I wouldn't feel safe knowing that anybody around me could be packing, but then, that's just me

It is a bit.  Particularly if you're considering a crime.  There's no handy statistic available to demonstrate how many people decided not to do something because they might take a shotgun to the face. 



Offline Cassandra LeMay

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #356 on: November 03, 2015, 02:14:54 AM »
If we're going to talk about all violent crime with firearms, I will keep pointing to the "rate has cut in half in 20 years and continues to go down" success story.  There is a problem, but it is getting better.

You tend to use the 20 year time frame in your arguments, but that hides the fact that the per-capita rate of gun deaths has been rather stagnant since about 2001. The ratio of gun crime vs. suicide in the total number of gun deaths varies a little over time, but, by and large, both (and the total) show far less of a decline with only a small change in the baseline for the comparison.

Online Vergil Tanner

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #357 on: November 03, 2015, 07:59:01 AM »
Really? Because I've now provided 3 different links in this thread where, in the UK, your government and organizations has advocated the banning of kitchen knives, stated that is 100% illegal to carry a switchblade, any form of straight bladed knife, or even a swing assisted pocket knife. It is also 100% illegal to own, at all (again from your government's website) a butterfly knife or a katana. So please point out exactly what I am exaggerating when I am providing you links to your own government and media to support my claims.

All I stated is that in that specific circumstance, you're exaggerating how difficult it is, since - as I pointed out - it's possible to get a Collectors Licence that lets you have that sort of thing. It's just illegal for you to go out and buy one from the corner shop without any kind of checks. I'm not arguing that it's a sensible law - I think on this matter, people are going a bit too far - I'm just saying that it isn't quite as bad as you're trying to make out, and that even if it was, the same thing isn't going to happen in America because of the differences in cultures (for example, as Badger helpfully pointed out, England has a precedent of restricting access to weaponry). And yes, there are advocates of banning kitchen knives, but to the best of my knowledge, they're not about to do that (maybe ban people from taking them into the street, but not ban them outright). The point of my objection to your example was that it IS a Slippery Slope Fallacy because you're saying "It WILL lead to this, so we can't do this other thing," when there's no evidence and - given the cultural differences that are present - no logical way that the American government could even TRY to start banning knives without a general revolt from its people.

My argument is very simple: reduced gun crime is 100% irrelevant if your crime level stays the same. This shows mathematically that your ban has had no effect on the crime rate because the crime rate didn't change, just the method of the crime.

No it doesn't, for the simple reason I outlined earlier; before the ban, the minority of crime was committed with firearms anyway, so decreasing that number further wasn't going to have a massive effect on crime anyway, since the majority of crime wasn't committed with firearms.
Plus, you seem to be working under the assumption that the law passed and then suddenly nobody had a firearm. That isn't how it works. In England, a Parliamentary Bill takes a few years to come into effect both legally and practically; new systems had to be set up, regulated and refined and police had to be trained on the new laws. That took a couple of years, and once the system came into full effect and all the kinks were worked out, crime started to decline again (which was increasing largely due to the recession). It's less clear cut, but gun legislation DID have an effect on crime, just not an immediate one.

And let's take a more clear example: Australia.

In 1996, about 50-60 people were killed or injured by a lone gunman at Port Arthur. In 12 days, the government managed to propose and pass a Gun Legislation Act that banned most types of semi-automatic, self loading and pump action firearms. Each weapon required a licence with a 28-day waiting period, and if you owned a gun, you would go on the National Firearm Registration System. Only licensed sellers could sell weapons and there were limits placed on what ammo could be sold to civilians. Owners had to be 18, complete a safety course and have a "genuine reason" for wanting a gun (sport, hunting, professional reasons, etc etc. "Personal Protection" wasn't included as a genuine reason). Licenses lasted 5 years and could be revoked by the police if they found evidence of mental or physical factors that made the person "unsuitable for gun ownership." They also started a national buyback program for newly illegal weapons. 700,000 weapons were bought back (or voluntarily handed in), though to date roughly 260,000 illegal weapons are still in circulation...though out of all the weapons, that's not too bad a proportion.

Do you want to know what happened?

A study in 2012 by staff from the Australian National University showed that gun homicide rates dropped by 59%, firearm suicide rate dropped by 65% and that there was no proportional rise in non-firearm Homicide and suicide rates. So yes, the UK wasn't clear cut because gun crime was already in the vast minority so couldn't drop much anyway, but surely the statistics from Australia - who had far more gun crime than the UK - bears out exactly what you're trying to deny; that less guns in a country with a high gun crime rate = less violent homicides (As opposed to non-violent homcides? I dunno).

Then tell me what exactly are you saying?

I'm not going to bother rising to that bait, since it should be obvious that I'm not trying to suggest that knife death is somehow better than gun death. I never said that and now you're trying to make me out in a negative way for....some reason.


Do go ahead and explain to me these weapons and techniques and tactics that are more effective in an enclosed space than a firearm.

Let me go ahead and take a guess what you're going to provide:

Tasers. Wonderful little devices and I highly recommend having one. Guess what the problem with a taser is? They're not close to 100% effective and you get one shot. Miss? Out of luck. It takes even someone practiced at it a good 30 seconds to reload a taser.

Akido, Judo, some other martial art technique they teach at the local boys and girls club? A skilled practitioner of any martial art is going to have a much better chance against an untrained attacker. Problem with that is 'skilled'. To actually be effective as anything more than a 'you might remember enough of this to save yourself, but probably not' it takes years of discipline, sparring, and training.

How many of these techniques are you trained in to the degree that you could stop a man that outweighs you by 40 lbs and with, say, just an extra 3 inches of reach on you?

Dead bloody wrong. This is why you don't go ahead and put words in somebodies mouth, because you risk assuming too much and looking silly.

I was actually going to say that in terms of close quarters, enclosed spaces, knives are generally more effective than guns. And you scoff, but martial arts - if you're trained to a high level like I am - are also FAR more effective in an enclosed space than a gun, especially if you aren't trained in its use. Even if you aren't trained to a high level, all you need to do is remember some very basic techniques and you'll be fine (unless the attacker is trained in MA's). Or just use the age-old strategy of giving them a hefty kick to the baby-maker.

http://offgridsurvival.com/close-quarter-attacks-gun-vs-knife/

A nice example. Not exactly applicable to what we're talking about, but it does illustrate some key things, like just how easy it is to close distance quickly without giving them time to aim and fire.


So you've disarmed your citizens for... a non existent change or an increase in your crime rate.

Actually, the gun laws didn't have an impact on increasing crime; that was down to other factors and since gun crime was low to begin with, it obviously didn't make much of a difference. And you know what? If it didn't decrease the amount of violent crime overall but didn't increase it either, but DID stop another mass shooting from happening for another 14 years, I call that a victory.

It's called being a responsible gun owner. Considered my permit is to carry concealed you'd never even have known I was carrying it in the first place.

And you don't see an issue with the fact that anybody could be carrying a loaded weapon on them at all times? That would worry me.


This. This is why nobody that actually has weapons gets frustrated and stops taking gun control advocates seriously. Shurikens are deadly weapons? You know who thinks shurkiens are deadly weapons?

I dunno, I've seen somebody go to hospital with a shuriken embedded in their shoulder. Ok, they were being a dumbass so kind of deserved it, but the point is that they're still dangerous. That doesn't mean I necessarily agree with them being outright banned, however. Banned from being owned by dumbasses who are going to end up stabbing themselves, perhaps, but not outright 100% banned.

Kusari is literally a length of chain. And this has nothing to do with Carrying either. The link that I just posted states that these items are illegal for sale. It's not you can't carry it. Its 'you can't own it'.

If you get a licence, you can. But you try being hit by a weighted length of chain and tell me it's "just a piece of chain." I've gotten clipped by a length of chain before, and it almost broke my wrist. It fucking hurt. >.>


What DO we know? We know the Swiss own guns at a rate higher than any other european country yet do not have proportionate gun crime, mass shootings, or general crime. So what I do seem to know is that gun ownership in any format does not seem to have a direct correlation to crime rate.

Except in Australia.
Plus, as I outlined, they have lower crime because they have tighter control and lower crime in general due to them having - generally - a higher standard of living, better average education and decent law enforcement.


Your entire argument seems to be 'we should ban handguns because we did it in the UK and its great'. I have provided you multiple statistics showing where:

I've hit those bullet points already in this post, I think, so I'll just address this:
I'm saying that although I personally think that handguns should at least be more heavily regulated, I'm not advocating taking your handguns away because I know that would never happen and that it would be a lot more difficult in a larger country like America. My "entire argument" is that even though I personally think guns should be extremely heavily regulated, I'm advocating the more realistic "meet half way" thing. You're arguing against things that I'm not saying should happen in America.

The US, whose gunownership laws have only gotten LESS strict has not had an increase in crime but instead has followed the fairly global trend of a slow decline since the 90s.

You still have the highest gun crime rate in the world, though. Imagine what would happen if less loonies could get ahold of deadly weapons.

So what is your argument, exactly?

I've already explained it to you, but I'll do it again here one more time.

I personally think that firearms should be extremely heavily regulated.
However, I know that UK levels of restriction isn't going to happen, mostly due to it being a logistical and cultural nightmare to do.
Therefore, I advocate tighter gun control along similar lines as Australia (minus, perhaps, the "personal protection" not being a valid reason, since that in and of itself is going to cause a lot of problems with people who think that owning a gun you're not trained to use  automatically makes you safer) but not outright gun banning.

Is that clear enough for you?


Personally, if I'm in a place where an attacker's weight and reach matter, I'd much rather they have a gun than a knife. Granted, I'm horridly out of shape and screwed in both cases, but the gun will be more useful as a club in grappling range than a projectile weapon.

True, but then a baseball bat or a heavy object would do the same thing....so why would you need the gun? In enclosed, close-quarters spaces, guns used as actual guns are less effective than a nearby golf club or kitchen knife, for example.


If we're going to talk about all violent crime with firearms, I will keep pointing to the "rate has cut in half in 20 years and continues to go down" success story.  There is a problem, but it is getting better.  Sure, we can still talk about reducing guns, but the issue is not a crisis, it is an improving situation that we would like to improve more.

Cassandra has already addressed this below.


If you're going to point at the mass shootings, I'll keep noting "isolated and incredibly rare incidents that are being used by the media to fuel paranoia and panic."

And I'll keep noting that that is false, since you have a mass shooting at least once every couple of months. How in the world is that "incredibly rare" when, even allowing for population size, that is still at least a 6 times higher rate than most other places?

Again, we can still have a discussion but I'm going to balance limiting the rights of 350,000,000 people with the odds of being killed in a mass shooting being about the same as being killed by lightning.

Well, how many people do you know who can hurl lightning bolts? The odds of being hit by lightning is officially about 1 in 700,000 in the USA. Getting shot and killed? 1 in 10,000. So not exactly comparable odds.


An interesting notion.  That's not our goal regarding most other things: we're much more likely to die to heart disease or auto accidents, but as safe as possible certainly isn't our legislation with either.

It should be, though. A governments first priority should be protecting its citizens, from other citizens that are breaking the law if need be. It's why we have (ideally) government run Watchdogs and balancing agencies, like the UK has OfCom and various consumer support groups. The NHS, too, is effectively free health care paid for by taxes to protect the citizens right to not die of flu because they couldn't afford private health care.


A fallacy of false dichotomy.

I know...I thought I would illustrate the issue with your one with one of my own.


Sure; but all the evidence seems to indicate that's the least important issue in regards to gun violence and crime generally.  After all, you can commit a crime at any moment: every house you walk or drive past is the opportunity to commit burglary.  Why don't you?

Because as far as I know, they don't have any cool shit that I want enough to risk going to prison. I agree that people who REALLY want to kill people will find a way, but there are people who commit gun murder in the heat of the moment who regret it afterwards. It's also about limiting their efficacy. As I noted earlier; Australia heavily regulated firearms, and their crime rate dropped since a large proportion of their crime statistics was gun crime, and gun crime dropped sharply with no corresponding increase in - for example - knife crime.


It is a bit.  Particularly if you're considering a crime.  There's no handy statistic available to demonstrate how many people decided not to do something because they might take a shotgun to the face. 

No, unfortunately...but there are statistics that show that "good guy with a gun" doesn't happen all that often. I wouldn't carry a gun because A) I'd be more likely to shoot myself with it somehow, and B) I don't think I have it in me to pull the trigger. I'm just not somebody who enjoys hurting others. I get guilty and a bit nervous when I get into a brawl with somebody and burst their nose open. I can't imagine how bad I would feel if I actually shot somebody, even if it was to save somebody else. I guess I'm just too much of a "softy" to use firearms. XD
« Last Edit: November 03, 2015, 10:37:09 AM by Vergil Tanner »

Offline TheGlyphstone

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #358 on: November 03, 2015, 10:26:03 AM »
In case it wasn't clear, I was agreeing with you. The weight/reach are non-issues at a range where a gun is superior to a melee weapon, so if my theoretical attacker is handicapping himself by trying to attack with a gun in close quarters, I'm better off.

Online Vergil Tanner

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #359 on: November 03, 2015, 10:34:49 AM »
In case it wasn't clear, I was agreeing with you. The weight/reach are non-issues at a range where a gun is superior to a melee weapon, so if my theoretical attacker is handicapping himself by trying to attack with a gun in close quarters, I'm better off.

Oh, I got that! Sorry if I came across like I was arguing, haha. I was just saying that I agreed with you and that a heavy object would be equally as effective. Didn't mean to come across in a combative way ^_^

Offline eBadger

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #360 on: November 03, 2015, 12:19:36 PM »
You tend to use the 20 year time frame in your arguments, but that hides the fact that the per-capita rate of gun deaths has been rather stagnant since about 2001. The ratio of gun crime vs. suicide in the total number of gun deaths varies a little over time, but, by and large, both (and the total) show far less of a decline with only a small change in the baseline for the comparison.


And again I note your reading is just as selective.  That graph shows a small but continuing decrease in gun violence; the "stagnant" interpretation is brought about by an increase in suicides and the apparent fact that Americans are 75% more likely to shoot themselves than be shot by someone else.  You also selectively pick a low before a slight increase, but we've had a downturn since and continue to steadily decrease.   



The 2011 homicide rate was, in fact, the lowest since 1960. 

In other words, your graph is a solid argument for improving mental health in the US, and less about guns.  Limiting access would help, of course, and should be done within reason but I think we can respond to the increasing rate of suicide with something better than taking away everything dangerous in the country until people can't find a way to kill themselves. 

Well, how many people do you know who can hurl lightning bolts? The odds of being hit by lightning is officially about 1 in 700,000 in the USA. Getting shot and killed? 1 in 10,000. So not exactly comparable odds.

US population: 318.9 million.  Deaths from mass shootings in 2014: 383.  Or 1 in 819,000. 

Sure, it's something we can address; but my point was that, while mass shootings are all over the news and touted as some omnipresent threat, they are in fact quite rare and a logical fear of them shouldn't be a huge motivator for national policy and individual rights.  Gun deaths are a thing that needs a response, but Sandy Hook style shootings are a media-magnified boogeyman and it's getting very old to see them bandied about as the reason we need to give up rights. 

It should be, though. A governments first priority should be protecting its citizens

Another interesting notion, and again possibly a cultural difference.  I think our government's first priority should be preserving as much of our freedom as possible while providing reasonable protection. 

I know...I thought I would illustrate the issue with your one with one of my own.

*Blinks* I don't believe I've posited my gun ownership and your anger and disgust as an either/or issue. 

It's also about limiting their efficacy.

Crimes of passion, sure, there's a valid discussion there.  I'm not claiming opportunity doesn't have an effect; I'm just stating that it has a much smaller effect than other factors, which would be (have been) a better way to address the issue. 

I don't think I have it in me to pull the trigger.

Great; I'm not telling you to get one.  All I'm saying is don't impose your values on me. 

Online Vergil Tanner

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #361 on: November 03, 2015, 12:37:08 PM »
US population: 318.9 million.  Deaths from mass shootings in 2014: 383.  Or 1 in 819,000.

But even proportionally speaking, the USA has far more mass shootings than most other places. We can't control lightning. We can control who gets a gun.


Sure, it's something we can address; but my point was that, while mass shootings are all over the news and touted as some omnipresent threat, they are in fact quite rare and a logical fear of them shouldn't be a huge motivator for national policy and individual rights.  Gun deaths are a thing that needs a response, but Sandy Hook style shootings are a media-magnified boogeyman and it's getting very old to see them bandied about as the reason we need to give up rights.

I'm more talking about gun crime in general, and using mass shootings at schools as an example. You can say that proportionally speaking it doesn't happen often, but it still happens more than most other countries, and one every two months is still depressingly common and something should be done about it.


Another interesting notion, and again possibly a cultural difference.  I think our government's first priority should be preserving as much of our freedom as possible while providing reasonable protection.

Well, obviously I include "not infringing on our freedoms too much" as part of the "as much as is possible" bit.


*Blinks* I don't believe I've posited my gun ownership and your anger and disgust as an either/or issue.

You did, though through implication, so I may be misreading it. My point is that my position isn't based on my anger and disgust, so accusing me of using that as justification to "take away your rights" is incorrect. I'm saying "guns kill way too many people in the USA, even proportionally speaking, so gun control needs to be tightened." if you're not about to go and shoot somebody, I'm not infringing your rights since you would still be able to own a gun. If you WOULD go and shoot somebody, then I'm not infringing your rights because your right to swing your arms around ends at somebodies face.


Crimes of passion, sure, there's a valid discussion there.  I'm not claiming opportunity doesn't have an effect; I'm just stating that it has a much smaller effect than other factors, which would be (have been) a better way to address the issue.

But when 61% of your violent crime is gun crime and when places with high levels of gun crime enact gun control and crime drops - like in Australia, where crime dropped sharply after gun crime dropped by around 60% - surely that suggests that gun control reduces crime in areas that have a higher gun crime rate. There could be an argument that the same amount of people attempt crime, but if they only attempt it and aren't successful because they have less effective tools, I call that a win.

Great; I'm not telling you to get one.  All I'm saying is don't impose your values on me. 

And I'm not. I think we would both say that kids being gunned down is bad. I'm saying "I personally don't get owning guns and I'm fine and happy with the UK not having very many of them, but since the USA and the UK are different, I'll take tighter gun control over attempting an outright ban on every firearm." You can have a gun...you just need to jump through a couple of hoops to get it to make certain you're not a loony person who's going to go off and kill an ex partner with it. When handing out deadly weapons, it's only sensible to make certain that you know who is getting it and whether they can be trusted with it. Also, I'm a HUGE advocate of what the Australians did in another way: If you buy a gun, you HAVE to take a gun safety course. It's just common sense to train people how to use the weapons safely if you're handing them out.
Lesson one: Never point it at somebody unless in a life or death scenario, even if it's unloaded. That's, like, gun safety 101.

Offline eBadger

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #362 on: November 03, 2015, 01:46:55 PM »
Well, obviously I include "not infringing on our freedoms too much" as part of the "as much as is possible" bit.

Actually, that doesn't seem obvious at all when I see things like this:

I don't see why we shouldn't try and push for tighter gun control in the USA.

You seem willing to compromise and I respect that.  But you also sound very much in favor of bans ("You don't want to have your guns banned. Whilst I think that's probably the best way to curtail gun violence, I know you Americans will never give up your guns"), and don't seem to recognize any reason not to other than the practical issue of an unreasonable opposition ("It's mah right!").

My point is that my position isn't based on my anger and disgust, so accusing me of using that as justification to "take away your rights" is incorrect.

So why do you?  I assume you feel something about the issue that motivates your opinion.  Statistically speaking, as I've shown, mass shootings are inconsequential. 

like in Australia, where crime dropped sharply after gun crime dropped by around 60% - surely that suggests that gun control reduces crime in areas that have a higher gun crime rate

And the US crime rate dropped by about 50% in the same period without banning guns, so I'm not as impressed with your numbers as you are.  Certainly banning guns would have an effect.  But it's not a simple answer and isn't without a cost that you don't seem to see at all ("I personally don't get owning guns"). 

And I'm not. I think we would both say that kids being gunned down is bad.

I'm not planning on gunning down any kids.  Taking away my weapon won't have any impact on that. 

You can have a gun...you just need to jump through a couple of hoops to get it to make certain you're not a loony person who's going to go off and kill an ex partner with it. When handing out deadly weapons, it's only sensible to make certain that you know who is getting it and whether they can be trusted with it. Also, I'm a HUGE advocate of what the Australians did in another way: If you buy a gun, you HAVE to take a gun safety course. It's just common sense to train people how to use the weapons safely if you're handing them out.

Sure, all that seems reasonable. 

Again, I'm in favor of regulation.  But when I see comments about not seeing any reason to own a gun, that it's just a "toy", that self protection isn't really a right, or that opposing bans means we're all against tighter gun control, I'm going to speak up. 

Online Vergil Tanner

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #363 on: November 03, 2015, 02:05:12 PM »
But you also sound very much in favor of bans

Because I am; I personally don't see why you guys need quite so many guns when gun ownership in the UK is relatively low and we aren't out rioting in the streets and the government isn't actively oppressing us, but that's a cultural difference; I was raised in an environment that never had that many guns around, so I just can't understand it on a personal level because I can't empathise across cultures.

But does it really matter why I'm willing to compromise if I'm willing to compromise? You have the right to think that I'm wrong, but in the end, a compromise is a compromise regardless of the motivations behind it. A man is judged by his actions, not his intent, so if somebody hypothetically did the right thing for bad reasons...he still did the right thing. So to a certain extent, my motivations for compromising don't really matter, since I'm still compromising. At least, that's how I see it.


So why do you?  I assume you feel something about the issue that motivates your opinion.  Statistically speaking, as I've shown, mass shootings are inconsequential.

Well, that's a matter of perspective. I doubt the people at that school or the families of the victims find it inconsequential, and I use it as an example because it's the most visible one. Even though you consider it "rare," the fact of the matter is that even proportionally speaking, America has far, far more mass shootings than anywhere else. You can say "Oh, it only happens to one in a thousand people" (hypothetically speaking), but if every other Western Country has it only happening to one in ten thousand people, that's still a noteworthy enough difference to say "Ok, well...what are they doing differently that makes such horrific crimes even rarer?" The fact that you guys have this sort of thing every two months is not a good thing. Or are you trying to argue that it's ok really, because at least it isn't five times every two months?

And the US crime rate dropped by about 50% in the same period without banning guns, so I'm not as impressed with your numbers as you are.  Certainly banning guns would have an effect.  But it's not a simple answer and isn't without a cost that you don't seem to see at all ("I personally don't get owning guns"). 

Those statistics have already been picked apart; your crime rate has remained relatively stable recently, and it wasn't as sharp a drop as Australia's was.


I'm not planning on gunning down any kids.  Taking away my weapon won't have any impact on that.

I'm going to say this one more damn time, and then I'll stop saying it because I'm getting sick of repeating myself. I've said this to you about three times now.

Yes, I think that guns don't really belong in the public sphere and I have no issue with them being banned in England.

HOWEVER - and this is the important bit - a gun ban in America is never going to happen, so I advocate tighter gun regulation such as background checks, a national database, banning certain types of weapons - such as automatic and explosive weapons - gun safety training for all gun owners, etc etc. I am NOT saying "ban all the guns," and I've been explicitly clear that that is not what I'm saying should be pushed for in America. Yes, purely out of practical reasons, but since I'm not arguing for that course of action here, could you please stop addressing it like I am? Please and bloody thank you.

As the very next thing you replied to in my post specified, I am not saying that America needs to take away all the guns, because it would be impractical in many, many ways, so I simply advocate tighter gun laws in regards to America rather than an outright ban. Please stop acting as if I'm trying to take your guns away. That is the last time I'm going to clarify that particular position.


But when I see comments about not seeing any reason to own a gun,

Well, I don't. And I doubt you're ever going to convince me of the need for one, since I've grown up in a country where you DON'T need one and very few people think that you do. Again, cultural difference, but I can defend myself very well without a gun and I would never use one anyway, so I don't PERSONALLY see a reason to have one. Good luck arguing me out of my aversion to using firearms...and while you're at it, you can try and convince me that Poseidon causes Hurricane Katrina because he dislikes the gaudy fashion of New Orleans.


that it's just a "toy",

I was being facetious there.


that self protection isn't really a right,

Of course it's a right. I just don't think lethal self protection is an inalienable, inherent right, since a gun is made to kill, not injure.


or that opposing bans means we're all against tighter gun control,

I never said that. I outright said that that was how I interpreted Tairis's remarks, and that if I was incorrect, I apologise.

Offline eBadger

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #364 on: November 03, 2015, 03:27:20 PM »
But does it really matter why I'm willing to compromise if I'm willing to compromise?

Fair enough.  I'm just trying for an understanding of other points of view. 

Well, that's a matter of perspective. I doubt the people at that school or the families of the victims find it inconsequential, and I use it as an example because it's the most visible one.

It's statistically inconsequential.  I consider my daughter the center of the world, but I don't expect national policy to be changed based on her experience.   

Let me put this another way: about 450 people die each year from falling out of beds.   More than die in mass shootings, and probably preventable with design requirements and a bed buy-back without removing anyone's constitutional protections.  About 300 people drown in bath tubs each year and could be saved by a bath tub ban. I'm sure their families are upset, yet those issues provoke ambivalence - or even humor?  Are you laughing with me at the bath tub ban? - and aren't something we fear or are internationally concerned about. 

The shootings are instead an emotional issue, one that's important because of our subjective experience but logically speaking aren't a very convincing argument. 

could you please stop addressing it like I am? Please and bloody thank you.

I get that, and I think we're both coming across as far more polarized than we really are.  I think the issue is that I keep addressing bans because that's what you keep citing as support.  Instead, pull some info from regulation to support regulation. 

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #365 on: November 03, 2015, 03:32:23 PM »
I have to say something about that.  People who die falling out of beds or in bathtubs (barring very specific circumstances) do not die because of someone else's deliberate actions.  Everyone who dies in a mass shooting dies because of someone else's deliberate actions.

Online Vergil Tanner

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #366 on: November 03, 2015, 03:53:38 PM »
Let me put this another way: about 450 people die each year from falling out of beds.   More than die in mass shootings, and probably preventable with design requirements and a bed buy-back without removing anyone's constitutional protections.  About 300 people drown in bath tubs each year and could be saved by a bath tub ban. I'm sure their families are upset, yet those issues provoke ambivalence - or even humor?  Are you laughing with me at the bath tub ban? - and aren't something we fear or are internationally concerned about.

I second Oniya here where there is a difference in terms of intent.

Secondly, that's a slight misrepresentation; I only use mass shootings as an example. Do you know how many people die from gun violence in the USA? 30 a day (roughly). That means that the number of gun deaths then equals the number of bed-deaths after only just under two weeks. If the ONLY gun deaths were Mass Shootings, you'd have a point, but over 30,000 people die from gun violence annually in the USA. That number is WAY too damn high.

Think about it: Japan has less than 50 gun deaths annually. Germany, Italy, France and the like have roughly 100 annually. Canada has about 200-ish. America has 30,000. Even controlling for population, that's a HUGE statistical difference.

Some more statistics:

It is estimated that every time a firearm is used in self defence, one is used 11 times in suicide (both successful and attempted), 7 times in a break in or assault and 4 times in an unintentional shooting death or injury, so the idea that more guns make you safer is statistically false.

It's also shown that cities with lower gun ownership have lower gun death rates, but that's just a logical deduction so there's not really much to talk about there.

Most scarily, 40% of all gun sales last year in the USA were done with no background checks whatsoever. That is fucking terrifying.

Statistically speaking, homicide - the vast majority of which is committed with a firearm - is the second leading cause of death among 15-24 year olds overall, and the leading cause of death among African Americans of the same age group. Not so inconsequential, is it?


Instead, pull some info from regulation to support regulation. 

I did. See Australia. I used the UK as an extreme example, of course, but it was more to make the point that gun control lowers gun crime, and in Australia's case, it lowered crime overall because their proportion of gun crime was higher than the UK's, which was never that high in the first place.
« Last Edit: November 03, 2015, 03:59:51 PM by Vergil Tanner »

Offline eBadger

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #367 on: November 03, 2015, 05:58:35 PM »
Everyone who dies in a mass shooting dies because of someone else's deliberate actions.

I second Oniya here where there is a difference in terms of intent.

And yet so much concern about intentional self-harm once guns are mentioned. 

Secondly, that's a slight misrepresentation; I only use mass shootings as an example.

Yes; you and the media have latched on to one of the only statistics that is on the rise and use it as an "example" for all gun crime, despite the obvious flaw in doing so.  And when called on it, the topic quickly shifts to the overall crime rate until someone mentions how we're the lowest in over 50 years and trending downward, and then it's back to the "example" of how many mass shootings are on the news. 

Online Vergil Tanner

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #368 on: November 03, 2015, 06:06:21 PM »
And yet so much concern about intentional self-harm once guns are mentioned.

I've used it as an example several times in this thread. If you want to end your life, then go ahead, that's your right. It's your life, you decide whether to end it or not. However, a gun is a snap decision that you don't get to take back that can be made and carried out in an instant. Hanging yourself, ODing, self-asphyxiation, drowning, etc etc all take premeditation and a certain degree of preparation that gives you plenty of time to "back out," as it were.


Yes; you and the media have latched on to one of the only statistics that is on the rise

So are you denying that it being on the rise is a problem?


and use it as an "example" for all gun crime, despite the obvious flaw in doing so.  And when called on it, the topic quickly shifts to the overall crime rate until someone mentions how we're the lowest in over 50 years and trending downward, and then it's back to the "example" of how many mass shootings are on the news. 

Except that isn't what I've done here. I've outright said "yeah, the crime is dipping, but gun crime is still stupidly high compared to everywhere else in the Western World." Can you stop accusing me of employing evasive tactics when I'm quite demonstrably not using them, please?
And you can say that it's the lowest it's been in fifty years, true, but as your graph showed, it's remained constant over the last six or seven. So it's not quite the rapid decline you're trying to present.


Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #369 on: November 03, 2015, 06:20:05 PM »
And yet so much concern about intentional self-harm once guns are mentioned. 

Intentionally killing yourself by falling out of bed, or by drowning yourself in the bathtub is pretty difficult.

Offline Cycle

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #370 on: November 03, 2015, 06:27:26 PM »
Intentionally killing yourself by falling out of bed, or by drowning yourself in the bathtub is pretty difficult.

Yeah, but your odds go way up when you can do both at the same time.




Online Vergil Tanner

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #371 on: November 03, 2015, 06:31:29 PM »
What? Who thought that was a good idea? MOATS ONLY WORK IF THE ATTACKER CAN'T SWIM. Jeez, some people don't understand how security systems work...

Offline TheGlyphstone

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #372 on: November 03, 2015, 06:34:43 PM »
Yeah, but your odds go way up when you can do both at the same time.

Yeah, but imagine if there were machine guns mounted on the bedposts.

Offline eBadger

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #373 on: November 03, 2015, 06:54:15 PM »
So are you denying that it being on the rise is a problem?

I'm saying it's a problem that should be considered in proper proportion to the solution, and one that is developing in response to unique factors which have arisen recently and independent of other gun violence. 

IMHO they are a direct response to the media frenzy centered on each incident.  A developing, depressed teen feeling outcast and unnoticed is presented with the opportunity to be the center of national attention, with presidential press conferences and years of psychologists unraveling their state of mind and a public eager to place blame on their family or rivals.  It could be better addressed by a more responsible media, a less reactionary public, and improved access to mental health. 

That's not scientific, I'll grant; but since guns have been around for quite a while, and more often used than currently, it seems logical to assume there is some other factor at work. 

Offline Tairis

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #374 on: November 03, 2015, 06:55:51 PM »
Quote
No it doesn't, for the simple reason I outlined earlier; before the ban, the minority of crime was committed with firearms anyway, so decreasing that number further wasn't going to have a massive effect on crime anyway, since the majority of crime wasn't committed with firearms.
Plus, you seem to be working under the assumption that the law passed and then suddenly nobody had a firearm. That isn't how it works. In England, a Parliamentary Bill takes a few years to come into effect both legally and practically; new systems had to be set up, regulated and refined and police had to be trained on the new laws. That took a couple of years, and once the system came into full effect and all the kinks were worked out, crime started to decline again (which was increasing largely due to the recession). It's less clear cut, but gun legislation DID have an effect on crime, just not an immediate one.

*snip*

A study in 2012 by staff from the Australian National University showed that gun homicide rates dropped by 59%, firearm suicide rate dropped by 65% and that there was no proportional rise in non-firearm Homicide and suicide rates. So yes, the UK wasn't clear cut because gun crime was already in the vast minority so couldn't drop much anyway, but surely the statistics from Australia - who had far more gun crime than the UK - bears out exactly what you're trying to deny; that less guns in a country with a high gun crime rate = less violent homicides (As opposed to non-violent homcides? I dunno).

Except where I pointed out earlier: your homicide rate STILL didn't drop to anything approaching a pre-ban level until 2011 at the earliest. So your claim is its taken a decade and a half but now we're going to credit the gun ban with the reduction?

Looking at Australia's murder rate they've had a steady decline from 2000 on until they're nearing the same levels as most the European developed countries. Funny thing is, those same developed countries experienced an almost proportional decrease in their own murder rates during those times despite not doing anything involving guns.

Australia 2000: 1.89 2009: 1.34 (.55)
Denmark 2000: 1.48 2009: 1.01 (.47)
France 2000: 1.74 2009: 1.09 (.66)
Italy 2000: 1.31 2009: 0.98 (.33)
Switzerland 2000: .98 2009: .66 (.32)

I never denied that if you take away peoples guns you're going to reduce gun deaths. But I find it funny that anytime the gun debate comes up people point and go 'look they banned guns, look how much their crime went down' when we can point to dozens of other countries that didn't alter their gun laws in any way and saw a proportional drop in their own murder rates.

As if homicide rate doesn't have much to do with what weapons you have access to and more to do with your culture and socioeconomic status?

Quote
Dead bloody wrong. This is why you don't go ahead and put words in somebodies mouth, because you risk assuming too much and looking silly.

I was actually going to say that in terms of close quarters, enclosed spaces, knives are generally more effective than guns. And you scoff, but martial arts - if you're trained to a high level like I am - are also FAR more effective in an enclosed space than a gun, especially if you aren't trained in its use. Even if you aren't trained to a high level, all you need to do is remember some very basic techniques and you'll be fine (unless the attacker is trained in MA's). Or just use the age-old strategy of giving them a hefty kick to the baby-maker.

http://offgridsurvival.com/close-quarter-attacks-gun-vs-knife/

A nice example. Not exactly applicable to what we're talking about, but it does illustrate some key things, like just how easy it is to close distance quickly without giving them time to aim and fire.

Really? Because the 2nd thing that you again quoted was you're going to tell me about how some martial art is much better than a gun. Which is exactly what you just did.

You're well trained in your martial art of choice. Good for you. So are you going to provide similar training to the rest of our citizens? How many hours have you trained? How many real world situations have you been in that you've actually had to use said training? Can you provide the same level of expertise to a 108 lb woman with minimal upper body strength? How about a 70 year old veteran with bad knees?

We developed guns because they were easy to use and most importantly their lethality was not directly tied to the physical prowess of the one using them. They are force multipliers. And you're welcome think that you're good enough to take a gun away from someone that draws it on you. I'm going to take the word of the police officers and instructors I've dealt with over the years: the people that like to tout how guns aren't that great 'if you get close' are usually the ones in the ER after being shot.

The scenarios we are talking about are not first person shooters with enemies running at you with the only desire to cut your throat. We're talking about real world situations: robberies, muggings, rapes. I know full well how effective a knife is within that half dozen yard range. It doesn't change the fact that no amount of wishful thinking or YMCA self defense training 'basic techniques' is going to make a regular 45 year old housewife physically equivalent to a 20 year old burglar.

Quote
And you don't see an issue with the fact that anybody could be carrying a loaded weapon on them at all times? That would worry me.

Why? I've been around people with loaded weapons my entire life and oddly nobody has ever went on a shooting rampage. Because, as eBadger as attempted to point out over and over, you are more likely to get hit by lightning than targeted by a mass shooter.

Quote
I dunno, I've seen somebody go to hospital with a shuriken embedded in their shoulder. Ok, they were being a dumbass so kind of deserved it, but the point is that they're still dangerous. That doesn't mean I necessarily agree with them being outright banned, however. Banned from being owned by dumbasses who are going to end up stabbing themselves, perhaps, but not outright 100% banned.

If you get a licence, you can. But you try being hit by a weighted length of chain and tell me it's "just a piece of chain." I've gotten clipped by a length of chain before, and it almost broke my wrist. It fucking hurt. >.>

That's rather my point. Based upon the guidelines your country has set down that weighted length of chain is illegal. I've got a 10 foot chain with a hitch nut on the end in my truck. By UK Law I'm driving around with an illegal weapon. It's absurd.

Your country has decided to ban things because they are afraid of them. Not because any data, logic, or anything else as shown them to be more dangerous. But because they would rather quell hysterical idiots with 'tough laws' than tell people 'this is ridiculous, no one is running around South London killing people with ninja stars this isn't Big Trouble in Little China'.

I find that abhorrent because you are telling people how to live their lives, telling them what they can and cannot own, not out of reason and rational decisions but out of fear and complacency. "Well I don't want this thing and its scary to me, so I don't think other adult citizens should have it either."


Quote
I've already explained it to you, but I'll do it again here one more time.

I personally think that firearms should be extremely heavily regulated.
However, I know that UK levels of restriction isn't going to happen, mostly due to it being a logistical and cultural nightmare to do.
Therefore, I advocate tighter gun control along similar lines as Australia (minus, perhaps, the "personal protection" not being a valid reason, since that in and of itself is going to cause a lot of problems with people who think that owning a gun you're not trained to use  automatically makes you safer) but not outright gun banning.

Is that clear enough for you?

That would be great if not contradictory. You keep saying 'oh well I dont think banning handguns would work' but then say we should copy Australia which... banned handguns for pretty much all extents and purposes.

I've mentioned multiple compromise solutions, but everyone on the pro-control side always seems to want to jump to 'you shouldn't be able to have X'.