God damned crazy motherfuckers.

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by fatbuckRTO

How is the primary purpose of an object relevant in regards to the number of deaths it causes? Or, to frame the question differently, what makes the thousands of deaths by motor vehicles more acceptable than the thousands of deaths by firearms?

How is it relevant? Because it shows a peculiar mindset.

[fatbuckRTO]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

How should they be viewed? For a start people should stop using euphemisms when talking about them. They're weapons. Firearms is almost as good a word to use, but ultimately the only word that fully applies is weapon.

I'm not sure what you mean here. I've only ever really heard them called guns, firearms, or specific types (pistol, handgun, rifle).

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

Thirdly, require an accredited training course (either hunting or defence) for firearm ownership. Accreditation would be performed by government, but training and testing would be performed by trained civilians. This would satisfy the "well regulated militia" portion of the Second Amendment, helping to instill proper reverence and practise in firearm owners.

I could definitely get behind this. I don't have any problem with regulation, just outright banning.

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

Fourth and last, have a NATIONAL firearms strategy. This mishmash of State laws is ridiculous. You're one country. Something this important shouldn't be dealt with on a virtual ad hoc basis.

I can get behind this for firearms and motor vehicles. I'm all for states' rights, but in both cases there is too much interstate travel / commerce involved. There needs to be one standard for each, coast to coast.

[fatbuckRTO]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

How is it relevant? Because it shows a peculiar mindset.

Mindset has no real bearing on the end result, when the end result is death. What does it matter what a person's intent was if they run over a pedestrian? Sure, you address intent in court, when doling out punishment if it is appropriate. But it doesn't make a damn bit of difference to the dead pedestrian that the motorist only bought that car to get to work. To the dead guy's family, he's just as dead as if he had been riddled with bullets.

So what makes the 41k or so deaths due to privately owned motor vehicles less of an issue than the 31k or so deaths due to privately owned firearms?* By the way, half of those 31k firearm deaths were suicides.



*2007 numbers, easiest I could find on Google

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by fatbuckRTO

I'm not sure what you mean here. I've only ever really heard them called guns, firearms, or specific types (pistol, handgun, rifle).

I could definitely get behind this. I don't have any problem with regulation, just outright banning.

I can get behind this for firearms and motor vehicles. I'm all for states' rights, but in both cases there is too much interstate travel / commerce involved. There needs to be one standard for each, coast to coast.

You haven't heard people refer to their firearms as their 'tools' or 'toys'? You haven't heard people refer to their guns in a way that makes you think that you could easily substitute the word 'toy'? I've heard both, from far too many people, and on far too many occasions. Not just in the US, while primarily there, but also less often in Canada where we have the sort of controls, some of which I: would recommend for your people.

I'm glad to see that you would agree with my on those two fronts. It's rather refreshing to read.

Originally Posted by fatbuckRTO

Mindset has no real bearing on the end result, when the end result is death. What does it matter what a person's intent was if they run over a pedestrian? Sure, you address intent in court, when doling out punishment if it is appropriate. But it doesn't make a damn bit of difference to the dead pedestrian that the motorist only bought that car to get to work. To the dead guy's family, he's just as dead as if he had been riddled with bullets.

So what makes the 41k or so deaths due to privately owned motor vehicles less of an issue than the 31k or so deaths due to privately owned firearms?* By the way, half of those 31k firearm deaths were suicides.

*2007 numbers, easiest I could find on Google

Once again, you're thinking on the wrong end of the equation. You're talking about what happens after the fact. I'm talking about trying to prevent the incident in the first place. From that point of view, mindset has a massive effect.

You're also minimizing the issue by making another invalid comparison; vehicular deaths to firearms deaths. In the United States there are roughly enough firearms to put one in the hands of every citizen over the age of 16 (rough estimate, based on the approximation that there are about 200,000 privately owned firearms in the US). Given that the majority of gun owners have more than one weapon, and that they are unlikely to all be taken out on a daily basis for their intended purpose, they are relatively unlikely to be involved in an incident. And yet they are.

On the flip-side of that you have road- going vehicles, the majority of which are used on a daily basis for their intended purpose. For this reason they are more likely to be involved in incidents resulting in death. Want a more valid comparison? Compare the number of wilful deaths resulting from both things and yes, a suicide is a wilful death.

[Turbo Ghost]

Originally Posted by RACER X

Sad how all the news agencys keep referring to an AR as the weapon used to kill all the kids, fact is that he used handguns, the ar was still in the car

We need to ban assault weapons, though handguns killed more people in Chicago!
Who am I?

The AR was the primary gun used. A shotgun was left in the car and not used.

[Turbo Ghost]

You have to look at the United States as a family. The parents are the federal government and the states are the children. The parents make the main rules but, each child must go out on its' own and make rules for its' own life. The children are still under the rule of the parents but, in their own homes, they make rules that more apply to their particular living conditions.
Example:
Here you have to go through a hunter safety course before you can get a hunting license. Would it make sense to require this course for someone in NYC that wants a handgun for self-defense? I know it's not the best analogy but, each state has a different set of circumstances. That's why each state is allowed to self-govern to a degree.

As for the weapon comparison, you do realize if you had buttered toast this morning, you used a weapon to butter it. I would be so bold as to say EVERY home on the planet has at least one knife. A madman recently killed a large number of children with a knife. Homicides by knife run about half as many as by handguns but, interestingly enough almost identicle to homicides by other types of guns (rifles/shotguns). Knives DO have more utilitarian uses than killing but, at their earliest iterations and from then on, one of their main uses is killing. Whether that be for homicide or food or defense that's what they were made for. A lot of people die from knives including suicides but, we don't talk about banning them or having training for them. On a side-note, looking at the charts, handgun related homicides rose dramatically between 1989 and 1996! Then they dropped sharply in 1997 and continued dropping until 2002 and it held steady through 2005. That was the end of the study.
The problem with guns is the ability to hurt multiple targets more easily than with any other weapon. That's also their greatest asset. If you want to kill a bunch of people, get a gun. If you need to defend yourself against a bunch of people, get a gun.
I'm all for training people properly in the use of guns. To be honest though, I would prefer more training and more restrictions in the driving of automobiles! I AM NOT trying to be funny! I've written letters to my representatives and the President trying to save the lives of our citizens especially the younger ones. Americans can't drive! No wonder considering the minimal level of training required to operate one of the most important machines you will ever be in charge of!
I make this point for a reason. My Bronco is a deadly device in the wrong hands. I KNOW I could find the right venue and kill dozens if not hundreds of people if I wanted. Just by being a poor driver, the odds of me killing someone are high! Yet despite the incredible odds that I will be involved in a wreck or incident involving injury, my testing for my license consisted of pulling out of a parking lot onto the main road and circling back in and parking. Good to go!
The same problem exists with guns. You can buy them without having a clue how to use them. People need to learn how to use something dangerous before being allowed to own it!
BUT, BUT, BUT!! Don't forget! The CT shooter STOLE his guns! I don't know what his mom was thinking allowing him access to the guns if she was aware of his state of mind but, it baffles me. Anyway, eventually my boss is going to wonder why I'm at the computer so much today so, I better get back at it! Keep up the debate!

Remember: My opinion! Make it yours!

[Turbo Ghost]

BTW, Papa Complex,
I would have sworn Tesla was The Sherminator from American Pie until I looked it up! Seperated at birth?

[fatbuckRTO]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

You haven't heard people refer to their firearms as their 'tools' or 'toys'? You haven't heard people refer to their guns in a way that makes you think that you could easily substitute the word 'toy'? I've heard both, from far too many people, and on far too many occasions. Not just in the US, while primarily there, but also less often in Canada where we have the sort of controls, some of which I: would recommend for your people.

I have heard that. I thought you meant in media / news. I do hear 'toys' and similar words used by individual people describing their weapons, usually when they are collectors. Personally, I was trained to call a firearm a 'weapon' or refer to it by it's type (rifle, pistol). But, while it goes against my grain to call a hand-held firearm by even a word like 'gun,'* I don't see it as a major issue. Usually when I hear 'toys' or the like, I understand it to be a tongue-in-cheek reference. I don't consider a motorcycle or car a toy either. They'll kill you quick.

But while I don't see terminology as being a major issue itself, I agree with you that lack of respect for firearms is a huge issue. The 4 safety rules should be taught along with phonics, in my opinion. There are too many firearms out there to just assume that a child will go his whole life without encountering one.

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

Once again, you're thinking on the wrong end of the equation. You're talking about what happens after the fact. I'm talking about trying to prevent the incident in the first place. From that point of view, mindset has a massive effect.

You're also minimizing the issue by making another invalid comparison; vehicular deaths to firearms deaths. In the United States there are roughly enough firearms to put one in the hands of every citizen over the age of 16 (rough estimate, based on the approximation that there are about 200,000 privately owned firearms in the US). Given that the majority of gun owners have more than one weapon, and that they are unlikely to all be taken out on a daily basis for their intended purpose, they are relatively unlikely to be involved in an incident. And yet they are.

On the flip-side of that you have road- going vehicles, the majority of which are used on a daily basis for their intended purpose. For this reason they are more likely to be involved in incidents resulting in death. Want a more valid comparison? Compare the number of wilful deaths resulting from both things and yes, a suicide is a wilful death.

I don't think that the difference in saturation or per capita numbers makes the comparison invalid. Deaths are deaths. If one type of death is worth risk management, all types of death are worth risk management. You say that you want to prevent the incident in the first place, so I don't understand why you wouldn't want to prevent automobile fatalities as much as you want to prevent firearm fatalities. My intent isn't to minimize the moral implications of firearm fatalities, but to realize that automobile fatalities are just as tragic. In my opinion, they are comparable in that there are identical measures we could take to reduce fatalities for both, but we have not taken those measures.

I differentiate firearm suicides because I believe that, if a person is serious enough to shoot himself to death, he is serious enough to find another method of suicide if a firearm is not available to him. I don't believe reducing the number of firearms in circulation will have any measurable effect on suicide rates.

We'll probably end up having to agree to disagree here. That said, I appreciate you actually addressing the argument, vice summarily dismissing it as "childish" like some others have done.





* I will call a weapon a 'gun' for brevity, depending on my audience, but it's something akin to running my fingernails down a chalkboard. Old habits, and what...

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by Turbo Ghost

You have to look at the United States as a family. The parents are the federal government and the states are the children. The parents make the main rules but, each child must go out on its' own and make rules for its' own life. The children are still under the rule of the parents but, in their own homes, they make rules that more apply to their particular living conditions.
Example:
Here you have to go through a hunter safety course before you can get a hunting license. Would it make sense to require this course for someone in NYC that wants a handgun for self-defense? I know it's not the best analogy but, each state has a different set of circumstances. That's why each state is allowed to self-govern to a degree.

And there is one issue: The States are still in the 'parents'' house. Want to make your own rules on major issues like firearms ownership/ Sucede. Then the 'kids' will be living in their own 'house.'

How we do it, is different classes of firearm; restricted and non restricted. a handgun or a rifle/carbine of under a certain barrel length (16.5" the last time I checked) are considered restricted, thereby requiring a different set of qualifications. That's one way to break down the training required.

As for the weapon comparison, you do realize if you had buttered toast this morning, you used a weapon to butter it. I would be so bold as to say EVERY home on the planet has at least one knife. A madman recently killed a large number of children with a knife. Homicides by knife run about half as many as by handguns but, interestingly enough almost identicle to homicides by other types of guns (rifles/shotguns). Knives DO have more utilitarian uses than killing but, at their earliest iterations and from then on, one of their main uses is killing. Whether that be for homicide or food or defense that's what they were made for. A lot of people die from knives including suicides but, we don't talk about banning them or having training for them. On a side-note, looking at the charts, handgun related homicides rose dramatically between 1989 and 1996! Then they dropped sharply in 1997 and continued dropping until 2002 and it held steady through 2005. That was the end of the study.

The knife that I buttered my toast with was flat, with a rounded tip, and without a sharpened edge. Unless I sharpen it and turn it into a shiv, it's primary function remains to butter my toast. It's no more a weapon than is a .22 blank firing nail gun, unless you defeat the safety features, at which point it becomes a VERY ineffective and clumsy firearm.

The problem with guns is the ability to hurt multiple targets more easily than with any other weapon. That's also their greatest asset. If you want to kill a bunch of people, get a gun. If you need to defend yourself against a bunch of people, get a gun.
I'm all for training people properly in the use of guns. To be honest though, I would prefer more training and more restrictions in the driving of automobiles! I AM NOT trying to be funny! I've written letters to my representatives and the President trying to save the lives of our citizens especially the younger ones. Americans can't drive! No wonder considering the minimal level of training required to operate one of the most important machines you will ever be in charge of!
I make this point for a reason. My Bronco is a deadly device in the wrong hands. I KNOW I could find the right venue and kill dozens if not hundreds of people if I wanted. Just by being a poor driver, the odds of me killing someone are high! Yet despite the incredible odds that I will be involved in a wreck or incident involving injury, my testing for my license consisted of pulling out of a parking lot onto the main road and circling back in and parking. Good to go!
The same problem exists with guns. You can buy them without having a clue how to use them. People need to learn how to use something dangerous before being allowed to own it!

I don't necessarily disagree with you regarding ownership of vehicles and additional training but, as a vehicle is not primarily a weapon and vehicular death statistics have been steadily going down (per capita) for decades, the best method of pursuing this would likely be via fiscal imperative (mandated insurance discounts).

But a vehicle still isn't a firearm.

BUT, BUT, BUT!! Don't forget! The CT shooter STOLE his guns! I don't know what his mom was thinking allowing him access to the guns if she was aware of his state of mind but, it baffles me. Anyway, eventually my boss is going to wonder why I'm at the computer so much today so, I better get back at it! Keep up the debate!

Remember: My opinion! Make it yours!

Hence my previous comments regarding storage requirements.

Originally Posted by Turbo Ghost

BTW, Papa Complex,
I would have sworn Tesla was The Sherminator from American Pie until I looked it up! Seperated at birth?

The Sherminator could have played the Tesla part, without needing the fake fangs. Stunt double?

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by fatbuckRTO

I have heard that. I thought you meant in media / news. I do hear 'toys' and similar words used by individual people describing their weapons, usually when they are collectors. Personally, I was trained to call a firearm a 'weapon' or refer to it by it's type (rifle, pistol). But, while it goes against my grain to call a hand-held firearm by even a word like 'gun,'* I don't see it as a major issue. Usually when I hear 'toys' or the like, I understand it to be a tongue-in-cheek reference. I don't consider a motorcycle or car a toy either. They'll kill you quick.

But while I don't see terminology as being a major issue itself, I agree with you that lack of respect for firearms is a huge issue. The 4 safety rules should be taught along with phonics, in my opinion. There are too many firearms out there to just assume that a child will go his whole life without encountering one.

I point to the terminology used and the flippant manner of its use, because it's indicative of the root of the problem. Not because it is a problem in and of itself.

I don't think that the difference in saturation or per capita numbers makes the comparison invalid. Deaths are deaths. If one type of death is worth risk management, all types of death are worth risk management. You say that you want to prevent the incident in the first place, so I don't understand why you wouldn't want to prevent automobile fatalities as much as you want to prevent firearm fatalities. My intent isn't to minimize the moral implications of firearm fatalities, but to realize that automobile fatalities are just as tragic. In my opinion, they are comparable in that there are identical measures we could take to reduce fatalities for both, but we have not taken those measures.

I differentiate firearm suicides because I believe that, if a person is serious enough to shoot himself to death, he is serious enough to find another method of suicide if a firearm is not available to him. I don't believe reducing the number of firearms in circulation will have any measurable effect on suicide rates.

We'll probably end up having to agree to disagree here. That said, I appreciate you actually addressing the argument, vice summarily dismissing it as "childish" like some others have done.

* I will call a weapon a 'gun' for brevity, depending on my audience, but it's something akin to running my fingernails down a chalkboard. Old habits, and what...

Regarding the vehicular issues, see my other post. Given how much has been done over the years to prevent deaths by vehicle use, and how relatively little has been done to prevent death by firearms, which should I think requires more immediate attention?