Does the USA have a gun problem?

[Monsieur Artificer]

._. so many suggestions that wouldn't work well.

[Riviera de la Mancha]

Capt Buckner CTO

Riviera de la Mancha

Capt Buckner CTO

Riviera de la Mancha

Michael Noire

America has a culture problem with guns. This problem began shortly after the movie industry, although I'm not certain if it was after black and white switched to technicolor.

Traditional America has no gun problem, and to their credit, many modern movements in gun culture have started to restore the elements of what made American gun culture once a brilliant standard.

When Old Yeller is shot, the reverence for the target and the weapon are sound. When John Wayne depicts guns as weapons, you understand that they are life and death devices, that can be used in the same way as any deadly tool like a knife, sword, or bow.

The idea of trick shooting, target practice, and clear awareness of the dangers of firearms, and their shortcomings, that is good gun culture.

the idea that a gun makes a man a god, or suddenly makes someone more manly, or a criminal, or dark and mysterious, or is somehow a game changer, that's actually a really unrealistic view of guns. If someone pulls out a gun, most guns are not so terrible that they surpass the killing capacity of many other more easily acquired tools you could name. As to range, bows can do that too. If anything, the mystique of "all guns" really needs to be specialized to certain types of guns deserving of that mystique.

A sniper system is definitely outside the ballpark of swords and bows. No bow goes out for over a mile that I know of. A sword is pretty deadly, and some swords are super deadly, and over a 10 minute combat period, the body count could be enormous... but miniguns and similar 100+ round capacity automatic weapons ARE in another category to themselves, which even AK-47s and Uzis or M16s will never match. a Tommy Gun is about half way to this "i have stupid amounts of bullets and can kill an entire crowded mall" game changing killing capacity.

But let's be real, outside of hollywood, real guns almost never fit into these three categories.

category 1: obscenely powerful - can cause bodies to fly back or explode. Can kill dinosaurs and put holes in tanks
category 2: miles and miles range - can kill people from so far away you can't even see the shooter in broad day light with no cover
category 3. infinite rate of fire with nigh endless ammo - can fire more bullets or other projectiles than you will ever need to wipe out the neighborhood in such a high speed that other people with swords or bows or guns are basically crimson confetti before they can get one shot.

Hollywood has tried to make all guns and thus all gun culture fit into these three categories. That's bullshit. Most guns are no more deadly than a steak knife. Most shootings happen at the same range a thrown cast iron skillet or brick can be 100% lethal. The actual lethality and threat of most guns is equal to or inferior to medieval fantasy weapons of Europe and Asia.

Most guns are no more deadly than a steak knife.------- You

See, this is where the gun crowd goes wacko and is partially why I think the US has a gun problem at all. They start off just fine when, like this poster, they recognize that guns have power, and the many take that idea and put it into practice by getting themselves trained, training their families, etc.

Then the logic train takes a hard right to Crazy Town when they say that most guns are "no more deadly than a steak knife." I mean, let's cut the s**t and just be honest; a gun is a dangerous tool. Its main purpose is to hit and ideally kill whatever it hits. While people could throw skillets or bricks, they don't generally do that. They take out a gun and shoot the person. And if I pulled a gun on them, I can be fairly sure they are going to do their best statue impersonation.

A gun is a weapon.

The sad thing in the US is that statement, that guns are dangerous weapons, should not be controversial because its not and has no policy implications in and of itself. Yet here in the US, we treat guns like how we treat sex; we tell you what's dangerous about it with one side of the mouth while encouraging you to do it as soon as possible to be a wo/man with the other.

I have a sword, three knives, two rifles, and two handguns all within arms reach. Aside from one of the rifles which was my grandpa's deer rifle, I have never killed anything with any of them. A weapon is no more deadly than its user.

Again, that's just a bullshit position to take. I don't need to have killed anyone with my car to say that my car, or any car really, is dangerous. I mean for ******** sake, its an iron box on wheels which can travel 85 miles an hour (my car is old). That's ******** dangerous.

That shouldn't be controversial to note, yet you denying this weakens your credibility.

Not really. Anything controlled by a human is really no more dangerous than the human is, be them responsible, irresponsible, careless, murderous, or just plain inept.

Yes, both guns and cars have the capability to be extremely dangerous, but they're not autonomous.

Like I said, that's bullshit.

I have never called them autonomous. I said that guns are dangerous, just by their sheer character and design. Its simply the result of making a device which is designed to fire small pieces of hot metal at high rates of speed with the ideal being that it kills or seriously hurts whatever it hits, generally speaking.

The longer you adhere to the view, the weaker the position, because its so obvious. And to top it all off, its not even relevant to the pro-gun position, or to addressing the US's gun problem. We have plenty of things which are fairly dangerous that manage to be decently regulate (ex. explosives, certain chemicals, cars, etc.) and are highly dangerous. That a gun is dangerous therefore does not, and should not, mean any and all guns are, say, banned.

Yet its like trying to fix an old junker car with three issues; needs a new battery, needs a new cylinder head, and a new fan. With a situation like that, the new battery is the least of the issues, and in the grand scheme of things incredibly minor. Yet if you never recognize that is the battery needs to be replaced, then the car is never going to work, even if you fix the cylinder head and get a new fan.

In the same way, fixing the US gun problem can't really begin til everyone arrives at what ought to be commonsense: guns are dangerous.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Riviera de la Mancha

Suicidesoldier#1

Riviera de la Mancha

Suicidesoldier#1

Riviera de la Mancha

Michael Noire

America has a culture problem with guns. This problem began shortly after the movie industry, although I'm not certain if it was after black and white switched to technicolor.

Traditional America has no gun problem, and to their credit, many modern movements in gun culture have started to restore the elements of what made American gun culture once a brilliant standard.

When Old Yeller is shot, the reverence for the target and the weapon are sound. When John Wayne depicts guns as weapons, you understand that they are life and death devices, that can be used in the same way as any deadly tool like a knife, sword, or bow.

The idea of trick shooting, target practice, and clear awareness of the dangers of firearms, and their shortcomings, that is good gun culture.

the idea that a gun makes a man a god, or suddenly makes someone more manly, or a criminal, or dark and mysterious, or is somehow a game changer, that's actually a really unrealistic view of guns. If someone pulls out a gun, most guns are not so terrible that they surpass the killing capacity of many other more easily acquired tools you could name. As to range, bows can do that too. If anything, the mystique of "all guns" really needs to be specialized to certain types of guns deserving of that mystique.

A sniper system is definitely outside the ballpark of swords and bows. No bow goes out for over a mile that I know of. A sword is pretty deadly, and some swords are super deadly, and over a 10 minute combat period, the body count could be enormous... but miniguns and similar 100+ round capacity automatic weapons ARE in another category to themselves, which even AK-47s and Uzis or M16s will never match. a Tommy Gun is about half way to this "i have stupid amounts of bullets and can kill an entire crowded mall" game changing killing capacity.

But let's be real, outside of hollywood, real guns almost never fit into these three categories.

category 1: obscenely powerful - can cause bodies to fly back or explode. Can kill dinosaurs and put holes in tanks
category 2: miles and miles range - can kill people from so far away you can't even see the shooter in broad day light with no cover
category 3. infinite rate of fire with nigh endless ammo - can fire more bullets or other projectiles than you will ever need to wipe out the neighborhood in such a high speed that other people with swords or bows or guns are basically crimson confetti before they can get one shot.

Hollywood has tried to make all guns and thus all gun culture fit into these three categories. That's bullshit. Most guns are no more deadly than a steak knife. Most shootings happen at the same range a thrown cast iron skillet or brick can be 100% lethal. The actual lethality and threat of most guns is equal to or inferior to medieval fantasy weapons of Europe and Asia.

Most guns are no more deadly than a steak knife.------- You

See, this is where the gun crowd goes wacko and is partially why I think the US has a gun problem at all. They start off just fine when, like this poster, they recognize that guns have power, and the many take that idea and put it into practice by getting themselves trained, training their families, etc.

Then the logic train takes a hard right to Crazy Town when they say that most guns are "no more deadly than a steak knife." I mean, let's cut the s**t and just be honest; a gun is a dangerous tool. Its main purpose is to hit and ideally kill whatever it hits. While people could throw skillets or bricks, they don't generally do that. They take out a gun and shoot the person. And if I pulled a gun on them, I can be fairly sure they are going to do their best statue impersonation.

A gun is a weapon.

The sad thing in the US is that statement, that guns are dangerous weapons, should not be controversial because its not and has no policy implications in and of itself. Yet here in the US, we treat guns like how we treat sex; we tell you what's dangerous about it with one side of the mouth while encouraging you to do it as soon as possible to be a wo/man with the other.

Define "power". Guns are convenient, having a long range and only taking a small amount of pressure to activate them, but otherwise they aren't really "powerful". They poke small holes in things, be it a paper target or what have you. As terrible as it is, people are extremely fragile and small holes pretty much anywhere in their body are extremely harmful, but, they are not particularly dangerous or deadly.

Guns do take a degree of finesse and skill to use as well, so they don't just give anyone the ability to kill anyone, at least not more so than any other weapon. They aren't magic death machines; people don't fly back when hit, they don't make things explode, especially not gas tanks in cars, and they don't really do a whole lot of damage.


Now while I actually particularly hate these videos, they are more or less a basic demonstration of the difference in what a gun will do just compared to a club. While the club they're trying to sell honestly is a piece of crap, it still more or less cleaved the skull in two, which is just because it's a club. Then we look at what say, an axe can do, which is a far more devastating injury.

Something say, 1.5 kilograms traveling at 6-8 or 13.5 to 18.5 mph, would still produce around 27,000 to 32,000 joules, and around 9 to 12 kg/ms of momentum. A standard .223, something say found in an AR-15, produces about 1800 joules, and about 3.854 kg/ms. So, a simple crowbar produces significantly more energy, and axe traveling much faster and being much heavier will do a LOT more damage to the target.


It's obvious that an axe or even a poorly designed club will do a lot more damage than a bullet, simply because it's larger and has more tissue displacement.

While a gun is deadly, it's not really super powerful or anything, the main advantage is range and speed.

*sigh* I never once even used or referred to "power". Classic Suicidesoldier; "Type long, say little, never be on point." Try again.

Ctrlf + F "Power"

"See, this is where the gun crowd goes wacko and is partially why I think the US has a gun problem at all. They start off just fine when, like this poster, they recognize that guns have power, and the many take that idea and put it into practice by getting themselves trained, training their families, etc. "

Now if only you could also be on point and do so without being both vapid and long-winded.

Guns aren't super powerful, an axe will cause far more damage to a person. Guns are very weak, but convenient and efficient. They aren't incredibly powerful weapons, they just have a long range and are quick to use, utilizing hand eye coordination and skill over brute strength and raw physical speed.

As sad as it is, guns are very efficient. They poke small holes in people, but generally this is all that is needed for most people to drop out of a fight.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Riviera de la Mancha

Capt Buckner CTO

Riviera de la Mancha

Capt Buckner CTO

Riviera de la Mancha

Michael Noire

America has a culture problem with guns. This problem began shortly after the movie industry, although I'm not certain if it was after black and white switched to technicolor.

Traditional America has no gun problem, and to their credit, many modern movements in gun culture have started to restore the elements of what made American gun culture once a brilliant standard.

When Old Yeller is shot, the reverence for the target and the weapon are sound. When John Wayne depicts guns as weapons, you understand that they are life and death devices, that can be used in the same way as any deadly tool like a knife, sword, or bow.

The idea of trick shooting, target practice, and clear awareness of the dangers of firearms, and their shortcomings, that is good gun culture.

the idea that a gun makes a man a god, or suddenly makes someone more manly, or a criminal, or dark and mysterious, or is somehow a game changer, that's actually a really unrealistic view of guns. If someone pulls out a gun, most guns are not so terrible that they surpass the killing capacity of many other more easily acquired tools you could name. As to range, bows can do that too. If anything, the mystique of "all guns" really needs to be specialized to certain types of guns deserving of that mystique.

A sniper system is definitely outside the ballpark of swords and bows. No bow goes out for over a mile that I know of. A sword is pretty deadly, and some swords are super deadly, and over a 10 minute combat period, the body count could be enormous... but miniguns and similar 100+ round capacity automatic weapons ARE in another category to themselves, which even AK-47s and Uzis or M16s will never match. a Tommy Gun is about half way to this "i have stupid amounts of bullets and can kill an entire crowded mall" game changing killing capacity.

But let's be real, outside of hollywood, real guns almost never fit into these three categories.

category 1: obscenely powerful - can cause bodies to fly back or explode. Can kill dinosaurs and put holes in tanks
category 2: miles and miles range - can kill people from so far away you can't even see the shooter in broad day light with no cover
category 3. infinite rate of fire with nigh endless ammo - can fire more bullets or other projectiles than you will ever need to wipe out the neighborhood in such a high speed that other people with swords or bows or guns are basically crimson confetti before they can get one shot.

Hollywood has tried to make all guns and thus all gun culture fit into these three categories. That's bullshit. Most guns are no more deadly than a steak knife. Most shootings happen at the same range a thrown cast iron skillet or brick can be 100% lethal. The actual lethality and threat of most guns is equal to or inferior to medieval fantasy weapons of Europe and Asia.

Most guns are no more deadly than a steak knife.------- You

See, this is where the gun crowd goes wacko and is partially why I think the US has a gun problem at all. They start off just fine when, like this poster, they recognize that guns have power, and the many take that idea and put it into practice by getting themselves trained, training their families, etc.

Then the logic train takes a hard right to Crazy Town when they say that most guns are "no more deadly than a steak knife." I mean, let's cut the s**t and just be honest; a gun is a dangerous tool. Its main purpose is to hit and ideally kill whatever it hits. While people could throw skillets or bricks, they don't generally do that. They take out a gun and shoot the person. And if I pulled a gun on them, I can be fairly sure they are going to do their best statue impersonation.

A gun is a weapon.

The sad thing in the US is that statement, that guns are dangerous weapons, should not be controversial because its not and has no policy implications in and of itself. Yet here in the US, we treat guns like how we treat sex; we tell you what's dangerous about it with one side of the mouth while encouraging you to do it as soon as possible to be a wo/man with the other.

I have a sword, three knives, two rifles, and two handguns all within arms reach. Aside from one of the rifles which was my grandpa's deer rifle, I have never killed anything with any of them. A weapon is no more deadly than its user.

Again, that's just a bullshit position to take. I don't need to have killed anyone with my car to say that my car, or any car really, is dangerous. I mean for ******** sake, its an iron box on wheels which can travel 85 miles an hour (my car is old). That's ******** dangerous.

That shouldn't be controversial to note, yet you denying this weakens your credibility.

Not really. Anything controlled by a human is really no more dangerous than the human is, be them responsible, irresponsible, careless, murderous, or just plain inept.

Yes, both guns and cars have the capability to be extremely dangerous, but they're not autonomous.

Like I said, that's bullshit.

I have never called them autonomous. I said that guns are dangerous, just by their sheer character and design. Its simply the result of making a device which is designed to fire small pieces of hot metal at high rates of speed with the ideal being that it kills or seriously hurts whatever it hits, generally speaking.

The longer you adhere to the view, the weaker the position, because its so obvious. And to top it all off, its not even relevant to the pro-gun position, or to addressing the US's gun problem. We have plenty of things which are fairly dangerous that manage to be decently regulate (ex. explosives, certain chemicals, cars, etc.) and are highly dangerous. That a gun is dangerous therefore does not, and should not, mean any and all guns are, say, banned.

Yet its like trying to fix an old junker car with three issues; needs a new battery, needs a new cylinder head, and a new fan. With a situation like that, the new battery is the least of the issues, and in the grand scheme of things incredibly minor. Yet if you never recognize that is the battery needs to be replaced, then the car is never going to work, even if you fix the cylinder head and get a new fan.

In the same way, fixing the US gun problem can't really begin til everyone arrives at what ought to be commonsense: guns are dangerous.

Cars are dangerous, and kill more people than guns every year.

...?

[Riviera de la Mancha]

Suicidesoldier#1

Riviera de la Mancha

Capt Buckner CTO

Riviera de la Mancha

Capt Buckner CTO

I have a sword, three knives, two rifles, and two handguns all within arms reach. Aside from one of the rifles which was my grandpa's deer rifle, I have never killed anything with any of them. A weapon is no more deadly than its user.

Again, that's just a bullshit position to take. I don't need to have killed anyone with my car to say that my car, or any car really, is dangerous. I mean for ******** sake, its an iron box on wheels which can travel 85 miles an hour (my car is old). That's ******** dangerous.

That shouldn't be controversial to note, yet you denying this weakens your credibility.

Not really. Anything controlled by a human is really no more dangerous than the human is, be them responsible, irresponsible, careless, murderous, or just plain inept.

Yes, both guns and cars have the capability to be extremely dangerous, but they're not autonomous.

Like I said, that's bullshit.

I have never called them autonomous. I said that guns are dangerous, just by their sheer character and design. Its simply the result of making a device which is designed to fire small pieces of hot metal at high rates of speed with the ideal being that it kills or seriously hurts whatever it hits, generally speaking.

The longer you adhere to the view, the weaker the position, because its so obvious. And to top it all off, its not even relevant to the pro-gun position, or to addressing the US's gun problem. We have plenty of things which are fairly dangerous that manage to be decently regulate (ex. explosives, certain chemicals, cars, etc.) and are highly dangerous. That a gun is dangerous therefore does not, and should not, mean any and all guns are, say, banned.

Yet its like trying to fix an old junker car with three issues; needs a new battery, needs a new cylinder head, and a new fan. With a situation like that, the new battery is the least of the issues, and in the grand scheme of things incredibly minor. Yet if you never recognize that is the battery needs to be replaced, then the car is never going to work, even if you fix the cylinder head and get a new fan.

In the same way, fixing the US gun problem can't really begin til everyone arrives at what ought to be commonsense: guns are dangerous.

Cars are dangerous, and kill more people than guns every year.

...?

Exactly - cars are dangerous. That's an obvious statement, and not controversial. We as a society just recognize it and regulate them appropriately. No one freaks out around a car generally. We all pretty much have one and take it around town, with no one really freaking out.

Yet you try to get the pro-gun ground to admit this basic truth, and you get waffling like a early bird special at I-Hop. It makes no sense and only weakens the pro-gun crowd. They just can't recognize that the car needs a new battery.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Divine_Malevolence

Isn't it like the #3 cause of death behind medical things(including old age) and car accidents?


Like, on all the lists I can see the top killers are 1) Something medical, I believe it's respiratory problems.
2) Something medical.
3-5) Something medical.
6) Car crashes
7) Guns.
8-6 cool Something medical.



All things considered, every method of old age related death is something medical, so's I can't see much wrong with that.
And we do a truly exorbitant amount of regulating when it comes to cars and such.


But we basically do jack and s**t when it comes to the second biggest not-purely-medical cause of death. Which is a problem.

CDC leading cause of death.

1. Heart disease: 596,577
2. Cancer: 576,691
3. Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 142,943 (Brought on typically by Heart disease)
4. Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 128,932 (Brought on typically by Heart disease)
5. Accidents (unintentional injuries): 126,438
6. Alzheimer's disease: 84,974
7. Diabetes: 73,831 (Correlated with Heart disease)
8. Influenza and Pneumonia: 53,826
9. Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 45,591 (Brought on typically by Heart disease)
10. Intentional self-harm (suicide): 39,518

In some states, it does actually get around 15, and makes it in the top 15 some of time. (2011)

11. Homicide with Guns: 11,068


It's not really a good thing, but it is relatively low in comparison. Unintentional fall deaths kill about twice as many, or 27,483. Now, if we include suicides with guns, it is much higher. However, since suicides are not caused by guns, it's not really a major cause for concern. Japan with immense gun regulations has roughly twice as many suicides as us, and most country's have actually seen suicides go up after gun law bans. There may be no correlation, but if there is, it may be that people are focusing suicide prevention efforts towards removing guns, rather than treating the underlying psychological issues.



As for our gun control laws, there's quite a few. Mandatory background checks, can't sell to felons or crazy people, guns with barrels over .5 inches (excluding unrifled barrels, like shotguns), fully automatic weapon bans, and so on. Rocket launchers have been illegal since 1934, and any cartridge with an exploding bullet, even a small one, is illegal. The gun control act of 1968 can detail this for you, and the Brady laws can show you the restrictions. Firearm purchases and sells are banned to people who:

1. Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
2. Is a fugitive from justice;
3. Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;
4. Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution;
5. Is an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States;
6. Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
7. Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced U.S. citizenship;
Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner, or;
8. Has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Riviera de la Mancha

Suicidesoldier#1

Riviera de la Mancha

Capt Buckner CTO

Riviera de la Mancha

Capt Buckner CTO

I have a sword, three knives, two rifles, and two handguns all within arms reach. Aside from one of the rifles which was my grandpa's deer rifle, I have never killed anything with any of them. A weapon is no more deadly than its user.

Again, that's just a bullshit position to take. I don't need to have killed anyone with my car to say that my car, or any car really, is dangerous. I mean for ******** sake, its an iron box on wheels which can travel 85 miles an hour (my car is old). That's ******** dangerous.

That shouldn't be controversial to note, yet you denying this weakens your credibility.

Not really. Anything controlled by a human is really no more dangerous than the human is, be them responsible, irresponsible, careless, murderous, or just plain inept.

Yes, both guns and cars have the capability to be extremely dangerous, but they're not autonomous.

Like I said, that's bullshit.

I have never called them autonomous. I said that guns are dangerous, just by their sheer character and design. Its simply the result of making a device which is designed to fire small pieces of hot metal at high rates of speed with the ideal being that it kills or seriously hurts whatever it hits, generally speaking.

The longer you adhere to the view, the weaker the position, because its so obvious. And to top it all off, its not even relevant to the pro-gun position, or to addressing the US's gun problem. We have plenty of things which are fairly dangerous that manage to be decently regulate (ex. explosives, certain chemicals, cars, etc.) and are highly dangerous. That a gun is dangerous therefore does not, and should not, mean any and all guns are, say, banned.

Yet its like trying to fix an old junker car with three issues; needs a new battery, needs a new cylinder head, and a new fan. With a situation like that, the new battery is the least of the issues, and in the grand scheme of things incredibly minor. Yet if you never recognize that is the battery needs to be replaced, then the car is never going to work, even if you fix the cylinder head and get a new fan.

In the same way, fixing the US gun problem can't really begin til everyone arrives at what ought to be commonsense: guns are dangerous.

Cars are dangerous, and kill more people than guns every year.

...?

Exactly - cars are dangerous. That's an obvious statement, and not controversial. We as a society just recognize it and regulate them appropriately. No one freaks out around a car generally. We all pretty much have one and take it around town, with no one really freaking out.

Yet you try to get the pro-gun ground to admit this basic truth, and you get waffling like a early bird special at I-Hop. It makes no sense and only weakens the pro-gun crowd. They just can't recognize that the car needs a new battery.

Even a teddy bear or soda can is and can be dangerous.

The argument is about the level of danger.

Also I don't think batteries make cars more dangerous...

[black_wing_angel]

Divine_Malevolence

black_wing_angel

Fair enough. Now what about all the pre-cybernetic manufactured guns? And homemade guns?

Most of them are in hands that aren't problematic. Leave 'em alone until such a time the people decide to get 'em looked at.

black_wing_angel

Unless you're shooting someone with a .22 ( which isn't especially reliable for a human target ), if there's nobody within earshot of the bang....then you have to ask yourself why you went wherever you are...

Even my dad, who lives in the a**-crack of nowhere, has neighbors close enough to hear a gunshot...

People that'll do anything?

black_wing_angel

The best one being abandoning this overcomplicated plan...

It's a halfway decent idea, but simply not feasible.

It's not even that complicated.
Comparatively simple when placed next to half the s**t we do.

When you put everything together, it will simply never work. Not even worth pursuing. Just look at the gun they have out, that will never fire, unless it's extremely close to a special watch. Nobody's buying it.

Quote:

black_wing_angel

....No...that really just depends on where you place it. If you place it on the outermost doors of the school, they don't really have the ability to get far into the doors. Maybe 3 feet.

Which is inside the school.
My plan would involve identifying them as potential threats far before they get to the school, which would allow for much more preperation, including the locking of all outer school doors and summoning any security personnel.

That might work for the White House, but the average school? No. It's not going to be nearly that overly dramatic. And if it was...well there's a wonderful waste of tax dollars...

Quote:

black_wing_angel

Except that there are a lot more teachers than there are shooters. The numbers game alone works against the shooter.

See, that's exactly why you never hear of someone successfully robbing a gun store. Because these guys are armed. And you might get 1 shot off, but you will not get 2.

So, what, the teachers run off on a blind manhunt and leave the kids completely unprotected?

No, they hunker down with the students, and if the shooter enters the room, the fight's on. Other staff, such as the principal, very well may come running, though.

Quote:

As it stands, there isn't generally more than one teach per classroom.

1 gun is better than zero.

Quote:

And the reason I assume people don't rob gun stores is because the only thing they could get there they probably already have enough of if they're in a position to rob a gun store.

Nope. It's specifically because it's suicidal. Trust me, "I already have enough of those" is not something you'll commonly hear a criminal say.

Quote:

black_wing_angel

You do realize that military bases are, ironically, gun free zones, for anyone who is not on guard duty, right?

Which means that they're not gun free zones.

Actually...they still are. Gun free zones always make the exception for authorized individuals. Typically police. Anyone on security at a military base, would have the same status as a cop. However, anyone else, is strictly forbidden from being armed. Which I do find entirely ironic...

Quote:

black_wing_angel

Actually...they do. It's a statistically proven fact. In places that have more lax gun control ( in the US, at least ), gun violence tends to be lower than in places with more strict laws. This is because criminals don't obey laws, but average citizens do. So when the law says "YOU SHALL NOT HAVE A GUN!" to the criminal, this means "Nobody can oppose you!". But when every single Johnny Come-Lately can, and probably does, have a firearm of their own, James Do-Bad must now rethink his position. He no longer has the high ground that he does against disarmed people.

Incorrect.
Yes, there is a correlation between higher gun laws and higher gun crime, much like there's a correlation between stop signs and intersections.
You don't see less traffic accidents on the straightaways because of lax stop sign coverage, you see less stop signs on the straightaways because there are less accidents there.
You'll note that the highest gun violence zones have, generally, pretty ineffective gun laws and a s**t ton of guns.

ALL gun laws are ineffective, because they only really affect those who willfully choose to be bound by them. Chicago, IL has only recently lifted the ban on firearms in the city. Despite that, for many years over, it's been one of,....if not THE crime capital of the US. After the ban was lifted? Crime rates went down. Because the criminals are no longer the only ones packing heat.

Quote:

Wherein within autonomous countries that can get their s**t together, gun laws lower the murder rate altogether.

That's honestly not as cut and dry as you think it is. Those countries have lower crime rates, not because they have more strict laws. They have lower rates, because they have better cultures and economies.

Quote:

black_wing_angel

Think of it this way. If you're in a room full of people with no arms, and you fancy a good boxing match...what risk are you actually at? Beat the hell out of everyone! Nobody can defend themselves! It's almost too easy!

If a murderer's intention was just to kill a bunch of random people they'd go wild on a crowd in their car.

Not necessarily. Everyone has their own ideas. Timothy McVeigh used a vehicle, and was the single most successful domestic terrorist in our country's history, to boot. But he didn't run people under the tires. He blew them to Hell.

Quote:

black_wing_angel

Now if everyone has perfectly operational arms, you're probably not going to be so keen on picking a fight, because the odds of you walking out on your own feet, are significantly lower.

Considering how often they commit suicide after I highly doubt they give a ********]

They commit suicide to avoid being taken into custody. It's sort of an escape from consequence, more than anything else.

Quote:

black_wing_angel

Again, there's the whole "abandon it" approach.

Sometimes it's better to not just do nothing when the third most prevalent cause of death in your country can be summed up as "Guns".

Actually, it's not guns. It's people.

But using that same logic, shouldn't we be doing something about the SECOND most leading cause of death? Car accidents? Why are we so keen on "WE GOTZ TA DU SUMTING ABOWT DA GUNZEZ!!", but just stand by and let people die in car accidents in higher numbers?

Oh. I know why. Because people LIKE their cars. So those accidents are just the price we're willing to pay, to stay comfortable with 8 cylinders, 6 CDs and iPod, power windows, and a needle that can hit 130.

People say "You don't need more than 10 rounds, or a telescoping stock, or laser sight!" Well yeah....but you don't need more than 2 cylinders, music player, or A/C. But it's nice to know you can, if you want, isn't it?

Quote:

Admittedly we should probably also do something more about "Cars". I say get everyone a Tesla.

******** Tesla. If I can't hear the engine running, I am only to assume it's broken.
Bitches love Teslas.

Bitches love Mustangs, more.

People laugh at Teslas, worse than they laugh at Priuses.

Quote:

black_wing_angel

Might as well be. Have you even considered how much a gun with all of this technology would COST? Miss Maggie cost me almost $500, alone. And that's just a standard .357 Magnum. No gadgets. The only potentially "fancy" thing to it, is that it's a 7 shooter, instead of a 6.

Oh damn they're that expensive at base line?
s**t.
Then you wouldn't worry 'cause I'd speculate that for an individual gun it'd cost at most about as much an Iphone.

I seriously doubt that. It would much more likely cost about as much as 90" TV.

Quote:

Which you can get for about $50.

Depends on the model. Mine cost me $100. iPhone 5C. 5S for $200.

Quote:

black_wing_angel

And a lot of guns cost more than $1000, for absolutely nothing special. Slap on Smartphone technology, which itself is ungodly expensive, and you're essentially telling people "If you don't have an a**-load of disposable income, you can go get ********! Preferably by a rapist! biggrin "

5% price hike.
******** you probably pay more than that in sales tax.

This magical technology is going to cost more than 5% of the cost of the weapon. And for absolutely nothing necessary.

Quote:

black_wing_angel

How do you come to that conclusion?

Because it doesn't.

That's not an acceptable answer.

Quote:

black_wing_angel

That all just depends on the person. A man who's been handling guns as long as he's been able to hold one, has an unmistakable advantage over anyone dumb enough to hold the thing sideways to look "thuggin'", no matter what side of the exchange he's on. Those bullets aren't heat-seekers, you know.

Yeah, always pit the best against the worst, that makes a good point.

When your point is that the aggressor always has advantage, yes, it's a damn good point.

Quote:

Nevermind the woman who listened to your little plan, got a piece for protection, never practices due to the cost of extra ammunition and general dislike for the sound even through the earpiece, against a career hardened criminal who's been on the streets in a gang war for most of his life.

"Gang members" are not professional firearms users. They're typically THE most amateur shooters out there. My 6 year old cousin is a better shot than Thugnificent. And he shoots a BB gun...

Quote:

Pit two people on an equal playing field against eachother and it's a 9-1 advantage to the guy who's on the offensive.

Lucky us, that the guys who choose to use guns for dasterdly deeds, are almost never "on the level" with a carrying civilian, huh? Because as it turns out, criminals don't typically have the respect for firearms that those who choose to carry for good reasons typically do. Because we actually care about what we're doing, the implications, and safety protocols. And we typically clock more range time.

[Mr Ransom 2]

Depends on the area, I own three, one my wife carries in her car and one I have in mine and one in the house. Where I come from they are pretty much banned too, all about responsible use I guess. I do not understand the point of carrying one into a restaurant or walmart or something though, seems very.... American though

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Your mother has a gun problem. talk2hand

[Old Blue Collar Joe]

Riviera de la Mancha

Suicidesoldier#1

Riviera de la Mancha

Capt Buckner CTO

Riviera de la Mancha

Capt Buckner CTO

I have a sword, three knives, two rifles, and two handguns all within arms reach. Aside from one of the rifles which was my grandpa's deer rifle, I have never killed anything with any of them. A weapon is no more deadly than its user.

Again, that's just a bullshit position to take. I don't need to have killed anyone with my car to say that my car, or any car really, is dangerous. I mean for ******** sake, its an iron box on wheels which can travel 85 miles an hour (my car is old). That's ******** dangerous.

That shouldn't be controversial to note, yet you denying this weakens your credibility.

Not really. Anything controlled by a human is really no more dangerous than the human is, be them responsible, irresponsible, careless, murderous, or just plain inept.

Yes, both guns and cars have the capability to be extremely dangerous, but they're not autonomous.

Like I said, that's bullshit.

I have never called them autonomous. I said that guns are dangerous, just by their sheer character and design. Its simply the result of making a device which is designed to fire small pieces of hot metal at high rates of speed with the ideal being that it kills or seriously hurts whatever it hits, generally speaking.

The longer you adhere to the view, the weaker the position, because its so obvious. And to top it all off, its not even relevant to the pro-gun position, or to addressing the US's gun problem. We have plenty of things which are fairly dangerous that manage to be decently regulate (ex. explosives, certain chemicals, cars, etc.) and are highly dangerous. That a gun is dangerous therefore does not, and should not, mean any and all guns are, say, banned.

Yet its like trying to fix an old junker car with three issues; needs a new battery, needs a new cylinder head, and a new fan. With a situation like that, the new battery is the least of the issues, and in the grand scheme of things incredibly minor. Yet if you never recognize that is the battery needs to be replaced, then the car is never going to work, even if you fix the cylinder head and get a new fan.

In the same way, fixing the US gun problem can't really begin til everyone arrives at what ought to be commonsense: guns are dangerous.

Cars are dangerous, and kill more people than guns every year.

...?

Exactly - cars are dangerous. That's an obvious statement, and not controversial. We as a society just recognize it and regulate them appropriately. No one freaks out around a car generally. We all pretty much have one and take it around town, with no one really freaking out.

Yet you try to get the pro-gun ground to admit this basic truth, and you get waffling like a early bird special at I-Hop. It makes no sense and only weakens the pro-gun crowd. They just can't recognize that the car needs a new battery.

Cars are easier to buy than guns, yet more dangerous. Maybe part of it is you are ignoring that making the gun the boogey man is part of the issue, rather than the reality of the situation?

[Old Blue Collar Joe]

black_wing_angel

Incorrect.
Yes, there is a correlation between higher gun laws and higher gun crime, much like there's a correlation between stop signs and intersections.
You don't see less traffic accidents on the straightaways because of lax stop sign coverage, you see less stop signs on the straightaways because there are less accidents there.
You'll note that the highest gun violence zones have, generally, pretty ineffective gun laws and a s**t ton of guns.

Bad analogy. They actually DO enforce their gun laws, stringently so. The problem is, those laws only disarm the populace, and criminals prefer working in areas where their risk is minimal, which means they go to areas where it's illegal for civilians to own a firearm and defend themselves.
If you took away the four cities with the toughest gun laws in the nation, we're fourth from the bottom in terms of gun crimes.
If you take the word 'gun' out of the equation, we're not much different than any other first world country. The difference is filtering the results to come up with a sought after figure. In other words, lie and skew the facts.

black_wing_angel

Then you wouldn't worry 'cause I'd speculate that for an individual gun it'd cost at most about as much an Iphone.

I seriously doubt that. It would much more likely cost about as much as 90" TV.

Quote:

Which you can get for about $50.

Depends on the model. Mine cost me $100. iPhone 5C. 5S for $200.



This shows a severe lack of critical thought. You do NOT get a brand new iPhone 4 or 5C/5S for $50.00 to $200.00, and to believe that is a huge ignoring of facts.
You put DOWN 50 to 200 dollars, and the phone companies finance the rest of the cost, which is why you sign a two year contract for that ******** phone.
You're actually paying about the same price as most guns for it, you're just financing it and not paying attention to that fact.
This shows a very short sighted thought process.

[Riviera de la Mancha]

Suicidesoldier#1

Riviera de la Mancha

Suicidesoldier#1

Riviera de la Mancha

Capt Buckner CTO

Not really. Anything controlled by a human is really no more dangerous than the human is, be them responsible, irresponsible, careless, murderous, or just plain inept.

Yes, both guns and cars have the capability to be extremely dangerous, but they're not autonomous.

Like I said, that's bullshit.

I have never called them autonomous. I said that guns are dangerous, just by their sheer character and design. Its simply the result of making a device which is designed to fire small pieces of hot metal at high rates of speed with the ideal being that it kills or seriously hurts whatever it hits, generally speaking.

The longer you adhere to the view, the weaker the position, because its so obvious. And to top it all off, its not even relevant to the pro-gun position, or to addressing the US's gun problem. We have plenty of things which are fairly dangerous that manage to be decently regulate (ex. explosives, certain chemicals, cars, etc.) and are highly dangerous. That a gun is dangerous therefore does not, and should not, mean any and all guns are, say, banned.

Yet its like trying to fix an old junker car with three issues; needs a new battery, needs a new cylinder head, and a new fan. With a situation like that, the new battery is the least of the issues, and in the grand scheme of things incredibly minor. Yet if you never recognize that is the battery needs to be replaced, then the car is never going to work, even if you fix the cylinder head and get a new fan.

In the same way, fixing the US gun problem can't really begin til everyone arrives at what ought to be commonsense: guns are dangerous.

Cars are dangerous, and kill more people than guns every year.

...?

Exactly - cars are dangerous. That's an obvious statement, and not controversial. We as a society just recognize it and regulate them appropriately. No one freaks out around a car generally. We all pretty much have one and take it around town, with no one really freaking out.

Yet you try to get the pro-gun ground to admit this basic truth, and you get waffling like a early bird special at I-Hop. It makes no sense and only weakens the pro-gun crowd. They just can't recognize that the car needs a new battery.

Even a teddy bear or soda can is and can be dangerous.

The argument is about the level of danger.

Also I don't think batteries make cars more dangerous...

*Sigh* And now we are back on the crazy-train...

If you seriously are equally as afraid as when I take a teddy-bear to your head as when I take a loaded gun, then I got a bridge in Brooklyn I want to sell you.

[Divine_Malevolence]

Gah this is going to be confusing to navigate.

black_wing_angel

When you put everything together, it will simply never work. Not even worth pursuing. Just look at the gun they have out, that will never fire, unless it's extremely close to a special watch. Nobody's buying it.

....And?
There are two possibilities with the system when put in place regarding people and the guns.
Either they buy 'em or they don't.
If they do, they give adequate forewarning before shooting up any places that want a forewarning.
If not, they don't have a gun.
Either way...

black_wing_angel

That might work for the White House, but the average school? No. It's not going to be nearly that overly dramatic. And if it was...well there's a wonderful waste of tax dollars...

"Tax dollars" he says.
Hah.

black_wing_angel

No, they hunker down with the students, and if the shooter enters the room, the fight's on. Other staff, such as the principal, very well may come running, though.

Then the shooter enters the room, quickly ascertains where the most valid target is, and caps 'em instantly.

black_wing_angel

1 gun is better than zero.

I don't think you thought that through.
One gun implies that there's only a gun in the hand of the guy shooting things up.
Zero implies that there are no guns. Which is easily the best situation, because even if everyone in the school has no idea what they're doing, the sheer numbers advantage says that the assailant's probably not going to do anything.
And two guns is basically a toss up.
So 0>2>1, you'd say. I say that 0>>>2==1

black_wing_angel

Nope. It's specifically because it's suicidal. Trust me, "I already have enough of those" is not something you'll commonly hear a criminal say.

Because they wouldn't even think of it.
Seriously. When's the last time a guy was ever like, "Hey, we've already got these boomsticks to do whatever nefarious things we're going to do with it. Lets waste our time getting more by stealing them!"
It's completely ******** stupid. If they tried, and I highly doubt they'd have much difficulty succeeding, it would inform the cops and the sheer nature of the events would put so much heat on their asses that anything they actually wanted to do with the guns wouldn't be something they could do.
It's a stupid target if you don't have guns and it's a useless target if you already do.
Unless you're the terminator and the cops can't touch you.

black_wing_angel

Actually...they still are. Gun free zones always make the exception for authorized individuals. Typically police. Anyone on security at a military base, would have the same status as a cop. However, anyone else, is strictly forbidden from being armed. Which I do find entirely ironic...

Which means the "There won't be any guns there" line is completely flawed.

black_wing_angel

ALL gun laws are ineffective, because they only really affect those who willfully choose to be bound by them. Chicago, IL has only recently lifted the ban on firearms in the city. Despite that, for many years over, it's been one of,....if not THE crime capital of the US. After the ban was lifted? Crime rates went down. Because the criminals are no longer the only ones packing heat.

Tell that to China.
Wanna know why city based gun laws don't work?
Because cities don't have the tools to do anything about it.
Countries do.

black_wing_angel

That's honestly not as cut and dry as you think it is. Those countries have lower crime rates, not because they have more strict laws. They have lower rates, because they have better cultures and economies.

Somewhat idealistic there, don't you think?
No, it's also because whenever someone in those countries tries something stupid like a mass murder with the tools they have available....
Like a knife....
They fail miserably.
It's why I find it particularly humorous whenever someone says something stupid like a steak knife is as dangerous as a gun.
So where're the mass steak knifings?
The answer is in places where you can't get a gun.
And they're less mass steak knifings and more attempted mass steak knifings. On account of the necessity to spend a lot more time on any given target chasing them down, getting past the arms, not getting the crap beaten out of you by the now desperate whoever, what have you.

When a country is able to actually control arms, it doesn't matter how insane the people get, the whole murder thing just doesn't work so well.
The factors in a murder are motive and method. Take away either and everyone's going to be dying because of old age'n s**t.
Motives are usually things like poverty and mental problems. If we adopted the Nordic style of governing the economy we'd probably get rid of most of 'em right quick.
But the second is still the method. And by far the easiest, most successful method is a high velocity piece of lead.

black_wing_angel

Not necessarily. Everyone has their own ideas. Timothy McVeigh used a vehicle, and was the single most successful domestic terrorist in our country's history, to boot. But he didn't run people under the tires. He blew them to Hell.

He didn't use the vehicle, he used a ton of explosives.
And it isn't the explosives that killed most of the people. It was the shoddy architecture.

black_wing_angel

They commit suicide to avoid being taken into custody. It's sort of an escape from consequence, more than anything else.

Which means that they don't give a ******** about making it through the event and really wouldn't care about getting shot.

black_wing_angel

Actually, it's not guns. It's people.

Not people with knives.
Not people with their bare hands.
Not people with blocks of concrete.
Not people with grenades.
People with guns.
Take either half out and you don't have the full equation, sure, but considering that we really only care about it in regards to people that's always going to be there, and the only factor that matters ends up being the guns.

black_wing_angel

But using that same logic, shouldn't we be doing something about the SECOND most leading cause of death? Car accidents? Why are we so keen on "WE GOTZ TA DU SUMTING ABOWT DA GUNZEZ!!", but just stand by and let people die in car accidents in higher numbers?

Oh. I know why. Because people LIKE their cars. So those accidents are just the price we're willing to pay, to stay comfortable with 8 cylinders, 6 CDs and iPod, power windows, and a needle that can hit 130.

People say "You don't need more than 10 rounds, or a telescoping stock, or laser sight!" Well yeah....but you don't need more than 2 cylinders, music player, or A/C. But it's nice to know you can, if you want, isn't it?


******** Tesla. If I can't hear the engine running, I am only to assume it's broken.

Bitches love Mustangs, more.

People laugh at Teslas, worse than they laugh at Priuses.

*Snicker*
It's okay. You will soon all bow before the ridiculously safe, aerodynamic, BA Tesla overlords.

black_wing_angel

I seriously doubt that. It would much more likely cost about as much as 90" TV.

Depends on how much they want to overprice it.
The market value's really based more on what people will pay than it is on how much you need to put into anything.
Hell, if they were interested in keeping customers from the sound of it they'd be able to get by not hiking the cost at all.

black_wing_angel

Depends on the model. Mine cost me $100. iPhone 5C. 5S for $200.

Yeah, but we're going baseline
And even $50's sort of high for what'd be necessary.

black_wing_angel

This magical technology is going to cost more than 5% of the cost of the weapon. And for absolutely nothing necessary.

Barring what could otherwise save countless lives.
No, nothing necessary.

black_wing_angel

That's not an acceptable answer.

When your point is that the aggressor always has advantage, yes, it's a damn good point.

No it's not.
Aggressor still has the advantage when they're dumb and the person they're trying to kill is a lot better than them. Get into a crowd, put it to their back, can't really ******** it up.
They can blow the advantage, sure, but if they actually want the dude dead and aren't particularly interested in doing anything pointless they'll win it.

black_wing_angel

"Gang members" are not professional firearms users. They're typically THE most amateur shooters out there. My 6 year old cousin is a better shot than Thugnificent. And he shoots a BB gun...

Bonus points for thinking being a better shot than some guy who's actually weird enough to name himself "Thugnificent" means anything.

black_wing_angel

Lucky us, that the guys who choose to use guns for dasterdly deeds, are almost never "on the level" with a carrying civilian, huh? Because as it turns out, criminals don't typically have the respect for firearms that those who choose to carry for good reasons typically do. Because we actually care about what we're doing, the implications, and safety protocols. And we typically clock more range time.

Yeah, they're not going to be as good at hitting a small target a distance away.
Still got a 9-1 advantage if they want you dead. And the only people they're at a disadvantage against is the enthusiasts.
Your whole idea of 'more guns' would just put them in the hands of people who don't really want or need them. They wouldn't practice and they wouldn't show the proper respect for them.
Odds are that many would end up shooting themselves on accident or leaving the things in places where young people shoot themselves on accident.
Which is a thing that happens.
Put a gun in the hands of every teacher and principal in the country? Most of them won't be able to use the things worth s**t.
Force 'em to practice?
Doubt it. That's actually invasive.
Either way, by the sound of it, it would end up costing people a lot more than my idea with ease, and the heaviest burden would be on the people who don't want anyone to die pointlessly instead of the people who just want their useless little toys.

All for something that wouldn't work.

[Riviera de la Mancha]

Old Blue Collar Joe

Riviera de la Mancha

Suicidesoldier#1

Riviera de la Mancha

Capt Buckner CTO

Not really. Anything controlled by a human is really no more dangerous than the human is, be them responsible, irresponsible, careless, murderous, or just plain inept.

Yes, both guns and cars have the capability to be extremely dangerous, but they're not autonomous.

Like I said, that's bullshit.

I have never called them autonomous. I said that guns are dangerous, just by their sheer character and design. Its simply the result of making a device which is designed to fire small pieces of hot metal at high rates of speed with the ideal being that it kills or seriously hurts whatever it hits, generally speaking.

The longer you adhere to the view, the weaker the position, because its so obvious. And to top it all off, its not even relevant to the pro-gun position, or to addressing the US's gun problem. We have plenty of things which are fairly dangerous that manage to be decently regulate (ex. explosives, certain chemicals, cars, etc.) and are highly dangerous. That a gun is dangerous therefore does not, and should not, mean any and all guns are, say, banned.

Yet its like trying to fix an old junker car with three issues; needs a new battery, needs a new cylinder head, and a new fan. With a situation like that, the new battery is the least of the issues, and in the grand scheme of things incredibly minor. Yet if you never recognize that is the battery needs to be replaced, then the car is never going to work, even if you fix the cylinder head and get a new fan.

In the same way, fixing the US gun problem can't really begin til everyone arrives at what ought to be commonsense: guns are dangerous.

Cars are dangerous, and kill more people than guns every year.

...?

Exactly - cars are dangerous. That's an obvious statement, and not controversial. We as a society just recognize it and regulate them appropriately. No one freaks out around a car generally. We all pretty much have one and take it around town, with no one really freaking out.

Yet you try to get the pro-gun ground to admit this basic truth, and you get waffling like a early bird special at I-Hop. It makes no sense and only weakens the pro-gun crowd. They just can't recognize that the car needs a new battery.

Cars are easier to buy than guns, yet more dangerous. Maybe part of it is you are ignoring that making the gun the boogey man is part of the issue, rather than the reality of the situation?

Eh, depends, but in general, exactly. And no one in society really has a problem with this. We as a society manage to at once get that cars are dangerous and not weird out when near one or with making them easy-ish to buy.

Since you brought it up, I agree that guns are not "boggie-man" level scary because that's just the opposite end of the spectrum and over-hyping them. That's a problem, but that's got nothing to do with the pro-gun crowd doing the polar opposite and thinking, like suicidesoldier does, that a teddy bear and a gun are substantively similar. Its just moronic.

No side seems able to just be reasonable and acts like conceding what is a meaningless point will destroy their positions, so they fight tooth and nail over it. The end result? Hella people look stupid.