Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 05-10-2019, 08:33 PM
Magiver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 28,644
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Compare the murder rate in England to the murder rate in the U.S.:
England-1.22 per 100,000.
United States-5.35 per 100,000.
that might mean something if cars, knives and guns killed people. Since they don't it's a meaningless cite.
  #52  
Old 05-10-2019, 08:50 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
they're especially effective at defending people.
But not attacking? Oh no! Please tell our military. They'll need to get rid of all their guns and get cars!

In all seriousness, is it really too much to ask you to agree that yes, guns are the easiest and most effective way to kill people in certain circumstances (like, say, desiring to kill the people you hate at your school)?

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 05-10-2019 at 08:51 PM.
  #53  
Old 05-10-2019, 09:21 PM
Magiver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 28,644
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
But not attacking? Oh no! Please tell our military. They'll need to get rid of all their guns and get cars!

In all seriousness, is it really too much to ask you to agree that yes, guns are the easiest and most effective way to kill people in certain circumstances (like, say, desiring to kill the people you hate at your school)?
Easier than sitting in a comfortable seat and mowing them down? How many bodies to the gallon does the average family car get?

More to the point, if you take away all the guns in the world, ALL OF THEM, it doesn't reduce the urge to kill by any amount. Columbine would have been a bus driven through a classroom or a fire bombing or some other form of murder.
  #54  
Old 05-10-2019, 09:27 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,358
Let people have all the urges they want. Semiautomatics just make it a lot easier for them to put their urges into lethal action with high efficiency.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
Columbine would have been a bus driven through a classroom or a fire bombing or some other form of murder.
Columbine was a bombing, in the sense that the killers brought bombs. It turns out their homemade explosives weren't nearly as dangerous as their off-the-shelf firearms.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.

Last edited by Bryan Ekers; 05-10-2019 at 09:29 PM.
  #55  
Old 05-10-2019, 09:27 PM
Zakalwe's Avatar
Zakalwe is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Posts: 4,992
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
Columbine would have been a bus driven through a classroom or a fire bombing or some other form of murder.
And in which of those situations would a gun have been:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver
...especially effective at defending people.
Huh?
  #56  
Old 05-10-2019, 09:40 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
Easier than sitting in a comfortable seat and mowing them down? How many bodies to the gallon does the average family car get?



More to the point, if you take away all the guns in the world, ALL OF THEM, it doesn't reduce the urge to kill by any amount. Columbine would have been a bus driven through a classroom or a fire bombing or some other form of murder.
I haven't suggested taking any guns away. If you're just gonna make straw man arguments, and if you aren't even able to admit obvious things like "guns can be the most effective way to kill people in certain circumstances", then there's no point in discussion.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #57  
Old 05-10-2019, 10:17 PM
Magiver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 28,644
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
Let people have all the urges they want. Semiautomatics just make it a lot easier for them to put their urges into lethal action with high efficiency.
Easier? Do you think theses shootings are about efficiency? These are fantasies played out. The guns are for their excitement and your benefit. thanks to powerful home computers it's life imitating art.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
Columbine was a bombing, in the sense that the killers brought bombs. It turns out their homemade explosives weren't nearly as dangerous as their off-the-shelf firearms.
Again, all of this was for their entertainment. If efficiency was their goal it would have been far worse but probably less entertaining. Take away the gun and something else would have been substituted to meet their needs.

Children have always had the capacity to kill. I carried a boy scout knife to school from the 3rd grade on. I made a foot long knife in shop class in high school. The rural schools had gun clubs. I learned to shoot at school (after hours).

Last edited by Magiver; 05-10-2019 at 10:18 PM.
  #58  
Old 05-10-2019, 11:13 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,358
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
Easier? Do you think theses shootings are about efficiency? These are fantasies played out. The guns are for their excitement and your benefit. thanks to powerful home computers it's life imitating art.
I'm starting to feel like there's a language barrier or a funhouse mirror between us - we're talking about how guns uniquely enable most any random individuals to inflict a great deal of damage in a short period of time and you're determined to talk about motive, or literally anything other than simple functional reality. You are aware of how guns work, right?
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.

Last edited by Bryan Ekers; 05-10-2019 at 11:13 PM.
  #59  
Old 05-10-2019, 11:41 PM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 36,699
Magiver, you asked how things would be better if we could magically get rid of all guns in America. You got rid of all the hard stuff, like how the bad guys will still have guns. They don't--we magically got rid of them.

So now a school shooting is impossible. There can be some other sort of killing, but none as efficient as using a gun. You created a hypothetical that causes you to lose. I do not know why you did this.

The real world issue is that you can't actually make guns go away like magic. So therein lies the debate if some gun control is better than none. The problem is that every attempt at smaller things is treated like we're taking away your right to bear arms.

Maybe it won't work. But we could try. The pro-gun side doesn't have anything to propose, and is actively weakening the laws that already exist (like background checks) that are designed to help. You don't just support the status quo, but want to make it easier for everyone, including the bad guys, to get access to guns. It boggles our minds, and genuinely makes us think you don't care.
  #60  
Old 05-11-2019, 12:26 AM
Magiver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 28,644
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
I'm starting to feel like there's a language barrier or a funhouse mirror between us - we're talking about how guns uniquely enable most any random individuals to inflict a great deal of damage in a short period of time and you're determined to talk about motive, or literally anything other than simple functional reality. You are aware of how guns work, right?
Yes, I'm determined to talk about motive because people die from the intent to kill.

We carried knives to school when I was growing up. Guns were easily available. In other words, it was EASIER to kill each other when I went to school. You don't seem to grasp this.

As long as the desire to kill is there then alternate methods will be used. If the Columbine murderers had used cars they could have killed far more children because the scene of the crime would have been in constant motion. The police would be driving from one pile of dead bodies to another chasing after them. The kids could have driven from place to place and stabbed the driver of their next assault vehicle to throw off the police. That took all of 5 seconds of planning. How long do you think they spent planning the school shooting?

So explain to me how you're going to stop kids from killing who have less access to weapons than we had when I was a kid. You can legislate anything you'd like and we will discuss it as if it happens overnight. I'm not suggesting that removing all guns is a fantasy. That's not the argument. The argument is that removing them will cause a shift in methodology.

Last edited by Magiver; 05-11-2019 at 12:27 AM.
  #61  
Old 05-11-2019, 12:51 AM
scr4 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Alabama
Posts: 16,189
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
If the Columbine murderers had used cars they could have killed far more children because the scene of the crime would have been in constant motion.
How do you figure that?? Cars are specifically designed to minimize damage to pedestrians in a collision. You have to hit a pedesrian at 42 mph just to have a 50% chance of killing him/her.

The most deadly car attack I know of is the Akihabara Massacre in Tokyo, where a man drove a truck into a crowd, then got off and stabbed more people. He only managed to kill 3 people with the truck - and in an area that usually looks like this. (I've been there numerous times, it's always like that on a Sunday which is when the massacre occurred.) That's way more pedestrians than you'll ever see in any US school.

Last edited by scr4; 05-11-2019 at 12:54 AM.
  #62  
Old 05-11-2019, 01:00 AM
Lamoral's Avatar
Lamoral is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 2,902
86 people were killed in a truck attack in France in 2016.
  #63  
Old 05-11-2019, 01:08 AM
scr4 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Alabama
Posts: 16,189
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamoral View Post
86 people were killed in a truck attack in France in 2016.
Ah, thanks for that reminder.

Not exactly a car though, how easy is it for a teenager to get hold of a 19-ton cargo truck?
  #64  
Old 05-11-2019, 01:15 AM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 11,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
More to the point, if you take away all the guns in the world, ALL OF THEM, it doesn't reduce the urge to kill by any amount. Columbine would have been a bus driven through a classroom or a fire bombing or some other form of murder.
Are you seriously suggesting that, hypothetically, removing all guns would not change the incidence of mass murder like this one single bit? If so, you're completely delusional in disregarding the following evidence: the entire civilized world outside the US. The US suffered more school shootings in the first 19 weeks of this year -- weeks, not months or years -- than any other civilized country has had in its entire history, to the best of my knowledge. In a CDC study of gun violence affecting children, among the 12 OECD countries studied, the US had more childhood deaths from guns than all 11 other countries combined.

And the most dramatic difference between all those countries and the US is not in culture, or general crime rate, or any other notable statistic; it is entirely in the absence of the US-specific subculture of gun worship and the universal presence -- everywhere except in the US -- of strong gun laws. Ignoring this fact is just willful ignorance.
  #65  
Old 05-11-2019, 06:55 AM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,358
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
Yes, I'm determined to talk about motive because people die from the intent to kill.
Intent alone isn't enough. The means to kill is also important, and the handy availability of semiautomatic firearms allows virtually anyone with the intent to kill to do so on a large scale.

Quote:
We carried knives to school when I was growing up. Guns were easily available. In other words, it was EASIER to kill each other when I went to school. You don't seem to grasp this.
Of course I grasp it. I don't know how old you are, but the murder rate in the U.S. is about as low now as it was in 1965. The idea of a weekly school shooting is fairly recent, though.

Quote:
As long as the desire to kill is there then alternate methods will be used. If the Columbine murderers had used cars they could have killed far more children because the scene of the crime would have been in constant motion.
I'm afraid you're sliding into pure fantasy here, and I can't keep trying to pull you out.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #66  
Old 05-11-2019, 07:00 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,872
If guns are useful for self-defense, then they're useful for murder as well. It's childish to pretend that it's just as easy to kill people without a gun as with one. If this were true, then military and police (and home defense and hunting, for that matter) would be just as effective without guns as with them, and that's just beyond stupid.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 05-11-2019 at 07:00 AM.
  #67  
Old 05-11-2019, 09:56 AM
Magiver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 28,644
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
Intent alone isn't enough. The means to kill is also important, and the handy availability of semiautomatic firearms allows virtually anyone with the intent to kill to do so on a large scale.
We had more of the means to kill when I was in school. By your reasoning there should have been more killings.

It is the person who kills.
  #68  
Old 05-11-2019, 10:35 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
We had more of the means to kill when I was in school. By your reasoning there should have been more killings.

It is the person who kills.
Yes, strongly affected by culture. At this moment, there's something in the culture that pushes disgruntled young men to be more likely to address their grievances with violence, and in particular gun violence. The tools available have an impact on how deadly these incidents can be. Certain types of guns are more effective at killing lots of people in enclosed spaces (i.e. schools and churches) than other types. For example, a short barrel carbine is much easier to maneuver in an enclosed space than a long rifle, while also being far more accurate at short and mid-ranges than a pistol. Rifle-caliber ammunition is more likely to result in deadly wounds than pistol-caliber ammunition. And other factors -- most of which I learned in the military. There's a reason why cops, soldiers, special forces, etc., all have different types of weapons available for different scenarios. Some are better than others in different scenarios -- this is true for criminals and murderers as well as soldiers and cops.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 05-11-2019 at 10:36 AM.
  #69  
Old 05-11-2019, 10:47 AM
Magiver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 28,644
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
If guns are useful for self-defense, then they're useful for murder as well. It's childish to pretend that it's just as easy to kill people without a gun as with one. If this were true, then military and police (and home defense and hunting, for that matter) would be just as effective without guns as with them, and that's just beyond stupid.
You can kill with a knife, a gun, a car, baseball bat, a can of gas, or an infinite number of tools. While a gun makes up one method to kill a person it is the lion's share of defensive tools. Police carry them for that reason.

You are blaming school shootings on the gun and not the person. If you take away the gun you're still left with the person and the reason behind the murders. It is not a rational act and will not go away if a tool is removed. Another tool will be used.

Violence is committed by people and you have to address it on that level.
  #70  
Old 05-11-2019, 10:50 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
You can kill with a knife, a gun, a car, baseball bat, a can of gas, or an infinite number of tools. While a gun makes up one method to kill a person it is the lion's share of defensive tools. Police carry them for that reason.

You are blaming school shootings on the gun and not the person. If you take away the gun you're still left with the person and the reason behind the murders. It is not a rational act and will not go away if a tool is removed. Another tool will be used.

Violence is committed by people and you have to address it on that level.
You're arguing with straw men, since I never blamed school shootings on "the gun". I haven't made any of the arguments you're disputing.
  #71  
Old 05-11-2019, 11:06 AM
Magiver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 28,644
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Yes, strongly affected by culture. At this moment, there's something in the culture that pushes disgruntled young men to be more likely to address their grievances with violence, and in particular gun violence. The tools available have an impact on how deadly these incidents can be. Certain types of guns are more effective at killing lots of people in enclosed spaces (i.e. schools and churches) than other types. For example, a short barrel carbine is much easier to maneuver in an enclosed space than a long rifle, while also being far more accurate at short and mid-ranges than a pistol. Rifle-caliber ammunition is more likely to result in deadly wounds than pistol-caliber ammunition. And other factors -- most of which I learned in the military. There's a reason why cops, soldiers, special forces, etc., all have different types of weapons available for different scenarios. Some are better than others in different scenarios -- this is true for criminals and murderers as well as soldiers and cops.
So if we just get children to use the society approved gun then school murders will go away or be diminished in number killed? I disagree. It presumes kids are stupid and can't work around such a minor problem.

We agree there is a cultural component to the issue. We disagree on the proportion of the component.
  #72  
Old 05-11-2019, 11:10 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
So if we just get children to use the society approved gun then school murders will go away or be diminished in number killed? I disagree. It presumes kids are stupid and can't work around such a minor problem.
So you believe special forces can be just as effective with a deer rifle and a revolver vice a submachine gun and a multi-functional assault rifle? That seems like magical thinking. In my understanding and experience, some guns really are more effective than others, and having different weapons available can lead to differences in outcomes. If all guns can be equally effective at killing people in all circumstances, then there would be no need for different types of guns.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 05-11-2019 at 11:14 AM.
  #73  
Old 05-11-2019, 11:10 AM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 11,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
You can kill with a knife, a gun, a car, baseball bat, a can of gas, or an infinite number of tools. While a gun makes up one method to kill a person it is the lion's share of defensive tools.
Again, you're just completely ignoring the wealth of evidence from all other countries around the world that this is false. Knives, cars, baseball bats, cans of gas, and "an infinite number of tools" are all readily available in these countries, yet despite being basically culturally similar, and having average crime rates that are not dramatically different, the rate of mass killings in the US -- almost always performed with guns -- is orders of magnitude higher than in other developed countries. Some of the statistics are just mind-boggling. If you're just going to ignore the facts and disingenuously equate a high-capacity assault rifle with a baseball bat, it's a waste of time trying to discuss this with you.
  #74  
Old 05-11-2019, 11:18 AM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
You can kill with a knife, a gun, a car, baseball bat, a can of gas, or an infinite number of tools. While a gun makes up one method to kill a person it is the lion's share of defensive tools. Police carry them for that reason.

You are blaming school shootings on the gun and not the person. If you take away the gun you're still left with the person and the reason behind the murders. It is not a rational act and will not go away if a tool is removed. Another tool will be used.

Violence is committed by people and you have to address it on that level.
Everybody loves to twist a hypothetical to their advantage. How about we try reality for a change?

Pick a recent school shooting, synagogue shooting, church shooting, concert shooting. How many casualties would you estimate in any of the given scenarios if the killer had a bat or a knife?

But if you want to stick with hypotheticals... you are unarmed in a room with someone intent on killing you and everyone in the room with you. Would you rather the killer had a bat, a knife or a gun?
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #75  
Old 05-11-2019, 11:18 AM
Magiver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 28,644
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
You're arguing with straw men, since I never blamed school shootings on "the gun". I haven't made any of the arguments you're disputing.
would it be safe to say you blame certain types of guns with the number killed per event and that by removing specific guns the numbers will go down?
  #76  
Old 05-11-2019, 11:30 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
would it be safe to say you blame certain types of guns with the number killed per event and that by removing specific guns the numbers will go down?
No, not at all. I believe it's reasonable to talk about the types of guns that shooters are using, and what characteristics are most effective in killing people in certain circumstances.

Also, what current restrictions have been effective? For example, very few mass shootings involve fully automatic weapons, even though fully automatic weapons can be effective in indiscriminate killing (i.e. shooting into a crowd). This is because regulations and restrictions on fully automatic weapons have generally been effective in making these weapons rare and difficult to acquire.

These are the types of adult, complex discussions we can have about this complex issue. Not silliness about banning guns or "blaming the gun", but actual in-depth conversations about the technical characteristics of firearms and shootings in America. Such conversations may shed light on the type of policies that may have a chance at reducing the body counts of future deadly shootings.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 05-11-2019 at 11:30 AM.
  #77  
Old 05-11-2019, 11:48 AM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
Easier than sitting in a comfortable seat and mowing them down? How many bodies to the gallon does the average family car get?
Less than advertised. YMMV.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Linked above
CEP has documented at least 40 vehicular terrorist attacks since 2006,
collectively resulting in the deaths of at least 197 people and the injury
of at least 1,066 others.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
More to the point, if you take away all the guns in the world, ALL OF THEM, it doesn't reduce the urge to kill by any amount.
More to the point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Linked above
Firearms were used in fewer than 10 percent of the attacks but accounted for 55 percent of fatalities, the researchers reported online in October in JAMA Internal Medicine. They found guns to be significantly deadlier than vehicular, explosive, biological, chemical or incendiary methods. The U.S. accounted for the greatest proportion of firearm attacksó20 percentófollowed by the Netherlands, with 14 percent.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #78  
Old 05-11-2019, 12:34 PM
Magiver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 28,644
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
Everybody loves to twist a hypothetical to their advantage. How about we try reality for a change?

Pick a recent school shooting, synagogue shooting, church shooting, concert shooting. How many casualties would you estimate in any of the given scenarios if the killer had a bat or a knife?
Obviously the number would go down if that were the only choice. Now pick any person committing the crime. Would they choose a baseball bat if the intent was to kill many people?

Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
But if you want to stick with hypotheticals... you are unarmed in a room with someone intent on killing you and everyone in the room with you. Would you rather the killer had a bat, a knife or a gun?
The operative word here is killer. A person intent on killing. They are not limited by your intentions to regulate tools. They are limited by your ability to defend yourself.

I've been confronted by a group of people intent on harming myself and another person. My preference then is the same as it is now. That I'm not injured or killed. A gun made that preference a reality. Nobody was harmed because the ability to defend myself made it possible.

When I was young I thought my father's service in WW-II was dawn of a new age. An age of reason and a society that understood the value of life. An age where a gun was an anachronism. The cold war killed that on a national scale but post war America saw the dawn of social change. And I'm not glamorizing that as a smooth transition but we as a nation prevailed.

In my generation, at least in my little corner of the world, kids solved their differences with words and the occasional dust-up. If it came to a fight then there were rules of civility. Of course there were exceptions to the rule and there has always been evil around us. But not to the extent I'm seeing today.

The casual disregard for life is culturally personified with gun violence in the US. If we eliminated all guns then gun violence would cease immediately. It would be replaced with some other violence until changes are made that restore the value of life.
  #79  
Old 05-11-2019, 12:43 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 85,488
Guns do not enable you to defend yourself. If they did, then the US would have lower rates of all forms of violence than the rest of the world, instead of higher rates. Gun control laws enable you to defend yourself.

And the gun culture in the US is the cultural disregard for life. The first change to make to restore the value of life would be to get rid of the guns.
  #80  
Old 05-11-2019, 12:47 PM
Superdude's Avatar
Superdude is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Fortress of Solidude
Posts: 10,671
As Jon Stewart* brilliantly put it when he was still on The Daily Show, referring to Wayne LaPierre's comment about gun control:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayne Lapierre
But drunk driving kills more people than guns do, and we keep don't stop driving cars
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Stewart
No, but we do enact stricter blood alcohol limits, ramp up enforcement penalties, and charge bartenders who serve drunks, and launch campaigns to stigmatize the dangerous behavior in question. And we do all those things because it might just help bring drunk driving rates down, I don't know, by two-thirds in a few decades
*Anyone else miss Jon Stewart, and what would have been his nightly coverage of the Trump administration?
__________________
I can't help being a gorgeous fiend. It's just the card I drew.
  #81  
Old 05-11-2019, 12:54 PM
Magiver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 28,644
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Guns do not enable you to defend yourself.
I think most police officer's would disagree with you. They are quite effective in self defense.
  #82  
Old 05-11-2019, 01:03 PM
Superdude's Avatar
Superdude is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Fortress of Solidude
Posts: 10,671
Missed the edit window.

I was going from memory - always a bad idea. I think that was actually said by Jesse Ventura, not Wayne LaPierre. Mea Culpa
__________________
I can't help being a gorgeous fiend. It's just the card I drew.
  #83  
Old 05-11-2019, 02:25 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,358
I was just musing on Columbine and the killers did indeed build and bring a lot of homemade bombs, but because of their amateur skills, none of the bombs detonated with any serious energy. The potential was there to level the building and kill hundreds, though, instead of the partly few dozen that were felled with banal boring guns.

So, if we're to take Miller's position seriously, America shouldn't be any more dangerous a place if blocks of C4 and reliable programmable detonators (surely there will be apps for that) became widely available, right? The tools are irrelevant, only the intent matters, apparently.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #84  
Old 05-11-2019, 04:18 PM
Northern Piper is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back, dammit!
Posts: 29,953
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
I think most police officer's would disagree with you. They are quite effective in self defense.


So guns don't kill anyone, people do, but guns by themselves are effective in self-defence? Have I got that right?

(Piper frantically scribbles notes, trying to keep up. Sheesh this Gunn stuff is complicated. )
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #85  
Old 05-11-2019, 06:20 PM
JXJohns's Avatar
JXJohns is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Middle of the Midwest
Posts: 2,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
So guns don't kill anyone, people do, but guns by themselves are effective in self-defence? Have I got that right?

(Piper frantically scribbles notes, trying to keep up. Sheesh this Gunn stuff is complicated. )
A gun by itself is an inanimate hunk of metal. Add that as a footnote.
  #86  
Old 05-11-2019, 06:28 PM
Magiver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 28,644
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
So guns don't kill anyone, people do,
correct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
but guns by themselves are effective in self-defence?
Guns are inanimate objects so that would not be an accurate statement. Guns are an effective tool for self defense. This is why police officers carry them and why with training we are allowed to do the same in the US.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
(Piper frantically scribbles notes, trying to keep up. Sheesh this Gunn stuff is complicated. )
Not really. People are complicated. guns are not.
  #87  
Old 05-11-2019, 06:33 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
Guns are an effective tool for self defense.
Yes! This has been my main point. Guns are effective tools, both for self-defense and for murder. And some guns are better at each in different circumstances than others.

Yes!
  #88  
Old 05-11-2019, 06:59 PM
Magiver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 28,644
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
I was just musing on Columbine and the killers did indeed build and bring a lot of homemade bombs, but because of their amateur skills, none of the bombs detonated with any serious energy.
It's interesting you bring this up because the US government use to produce pamphlets on how to make explosives. They were for farmers who wanted to remove tree stumps.

The best way to deal with violence is to fix the cause of it and not the tools used to commit it. Tools are easily replaced.
  #89  
Old 05-11-2019, 08:12 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,358
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
It's interesting you bring this up because the US government use to produce pamphlets on how to make explosives. They were for farmers who wanted to remove tree stumps.

The best way to deal with violence is to fix the cause of it and not the tools used to commit it. Tools are easily replaced.
So what do you think is wrong with American culture that isn't as wrong as, say, Canadian culture? We watch all the same movies and TV shows and whatnot and while we also get the occasional school shooting, it's a a far lower rate, even per capita.

The problem isn't guns at all - they haven't become deadlier in the last fifty years (I suppose manufacturing techniques have improved somewhat, making tolerances tighter and reliability improved), but maybe you just can't have them because you're too stupid/immature to use them wisely and tighter restrictions are necessary on that basis.

It's a hypothesis.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #90  
Old 05-11-2019, 10:29 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 11,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
So guns don't kill anyone, people do, but guns by themselves are effective in self-defence? Have I got that right?

(Piper frantically scribbles notes, trying to keep up. Sheesh this Gunn stuff is complicated. )
Forget the notes. As of this post, I think it's clear that trying to discuss this with Magiver is a waste of time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JXJohns View Post
A gun by itself is an inanimate hunk of metal. Add that as a footnote.
Another footnote: so is a hunk of enriched uranium. Or, more accurately, two finely machined hunks of enriched uranium that fit together perfectly to form a critical mass. Just inanimate metal. It's people that are the problem, right, not the inanimate metal? When do I get my enriched uranium? I'd like a side order of plutonium-239, too, please. It's just metal. As a law-abiding citizen, I just want to look at it and fondle it. What could possibly go wrong?

Last edited by wolfpup; 05-11-2019 at 10:30 PM.
  #91  
Old 05-11-2019, 10:33 PM
Magiver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 28,644
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
So what do you think is wrong with American culture that isn't as wrong as, say, Canadian culture? We watch all the same movies and TV shows and whatnot and while we also get the occasional school shooting, it's a a far lower rate, even per capita.

The problem isn't guns at all - they haven't become deadlier in the last fifty years (I suppose manufacturing techniques have improved somewhat, making tolerances tighter and reliability improved), but maybe you just can't have them because you're too stupid/immature to use them wisely and tighter restrictions are necessary on that basis.

It's a hypothesis.
I can only speak for US culture but It seems much different than the 60's and 70's. I would say my parents were probably mature adults at 18 and that number gets pushed higher as time goes by. Obviously the family unit shifted from a 1 income to 2 income environment. Television is far more violent by many factors and video games are amazingly violent. I can remember being shocked at how realistic the blood and gore had gotten on TV and that was in the late 70's.

I'm not going to wax nostalgic but my childhood was much more...... subdued? Simpler? Less violent?
  #92  
Old 05-11-2019, 10:56 PM
Magiver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 28,644
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
Forget the notes. As of this post, I think it's clear that trying to discuss this with Magiver is a waste of time.
How is attacking a poster you disagree with useful in this discussion? do you think the kids who commit mass murder are respectful of their classmates? It seems to me that's what is lacking in the first place.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
Another footnote: so is a hunk of enriched uranium. Or, more accurately, two finely machined hunks of enriched uranium that fit together perfectly to form a critical mass. Just inanimate metal. It's people that are the problem, right, not the inanimate metal? When do I get my enriched uranium? I'd like a side order of plutonium-239, too, please. It's just metal. As a law-abiding citizen, I just want to look at it and fondle it. What could possibly go wrong?
I don't think your atomic bomb rhetoric is a rational response.
  #93  
Old 05-11-2019, 11:13 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,985
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
Forget the notes. As of this post, I think it's clear that trying to discuss this with Magiver is a waste of time.
I think a lot of it comes down to just fundamental different world views. At some point people of your persuasion will throw up their hands and say what's the point. You seem to take it as obvious your point of view, and it is incredulous that anyone could think differently.

Whereas on Friday I talked to a co-worker whose kids go to the school where the shooting took place. He thinks there should be armed guards at every ingress and egress point. That wouldn't necessarily be my tact, but I do think it's worth while understanding that reasonable people can disagree.
  #94  
Old 05-11-2019, 11:14 PM
JXJohns's Avatar
JXJohns is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Middle of the Midwest
Posts: 2,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
Forget the notes. As of this post, I think it's clear that trying to discuss this with Magiver is a waste of time.

Another footnote: so is a hunk of enriched uranium. Or, more accurately, two finely machined hunks of enriched uranium that fit together perfectly to form a critical mass. Just inanimate metal. It's people that are the problem, right, not the inanimate metal? When do I get my enriched uranium? I'd like a side order of plutonium-239, too, please. It's just metal. As a law-abiding citizen, I just want to look at it and fondle it. What could possibly go wrong?
If left alone a loaded gun will do nothing for years until a spring maybe fails and it might go off. I'm guessing that radioactive materials, not unlike the bucket of uranium at the Grand Canyon pose a threat without any human intervention.

Just a thought.
  #95  
Old 05-11-2019, 11:46 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,358
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
I can only speak for US culture but It seems much different than the 60's and 70's. I would say my parents were probably mature adults at 18 and that number gets pushed higher as time goes by. Obviously the family unit shifted from a 1 income to 2 income environment. Television is far more violent by many factors and video games are amazingly violent. I can remember being shocked at how realistic the blood and gore had gotten on TV and that was in the late 70's.

I'm not going to wax nostalgic but my childhood was much more...... subdued? Simpler? Less violent?
Okay, so what do you think modern Canada is like? The U.S. in 1970? Or another country that watches the exact same TV and movies as in the U.S., has seen the same economic changes as the U.S., and yet doesn't have weekly school shootings like the U.S.?

I suggest guns are pretty much the same, but for some reason Canadians don't use them to fulfill lethal fantasies and Americans do, hence considering taking guns away from Americans is worth considering.
  #96  
Old 05-12-2019, 12:34 AM
Magiver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 28,644
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
Okay, so what do you think modern Canada is like? The U.S. in 1970? Or another country that watches the exact same TV and movies as in the U.S., has seen the same economic changes as the U.S., and yet doesn't have weekly school shootings like the U.S.?

I suggest guns are pretty much the same, but for some reason Canadians don't use them to fulfill lethal fantasies and Americans do, hence considering taking guns away from Americans is worth considering.
We don't have the same demographic makeup. Black on black homicides are about 4 times higher than average and that drives the average up considerably.
  #97  
Old 05-12-2019, 01:10 AM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,358
Gee, I was wondering how long it would take for race to come up.

Well, America, I guess you have a choice - give up guns or give up black people, if you want to stop all those white kids from gunning down their classmates.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #98  
Old 05-12-2019, 01:41 AM
Magiver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 28,644
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
Gee, I was wondering how long it would take for race to come up.

Well, America, I guess you have a choice - give up guns or give up black people, if you want to stop all those white kids from gunning down their classmates.
Are you disputing my cite? Are you really going to suggest we don't have issues that break down demographically? Do you not understand the difference between race and culture? Do you not understand The United States has a history of slavery that is different from Canada?

Last edited by Magiver; 05-12-2019 at 01:44 AM.
  #99  
Old 05-12-2019, 02:15 AM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,358
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
Are you disputing my cite?
It's irrelevant to school shootings, and certainly Columbine. Are you claiming most school shootings are done by black students at mostly black schools?
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #100  
Old 05-12-2019, 06:19 AM
Isamu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Osaka
Posts: 6,615
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post

Whereas on Friday I talked to a co-worker whose kids go to the school where the shooting took place. He thinks there should be armed guards at every ingress and egress point. That wouldn't necessarily be my tact, but I do think it's worth while understanding that reasonable people can disagree.
Then he should volunteer to be one of those guards. The guards usually get taken out first because they are the most obvious targets and they have the element of surprise against them.

And who is paying for these guards? Money taken away from learning?

Last edited by Isamu; 05-12-2019 at 06:23 AM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:28 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017