Stop using guns to kill things!

Post Reply New Topic

And bears, and turkeys, and deer, and cougars and coyotes. You'll understand once you get out of the city, kiddo.

You can kill more people in a movie theater using a bladder full of urine and bleach than using a tommy gun. Let's ban urine and bleach.

You said this:



I responded by giving two example where gun control was enacted in an era of rising crime. There were other factors like assassinations and high profile tommy gun massacres but the crime trend probably influenced the perception of the events. You then insinuated that gun control was rooted in "ignorance" and I noted that many features of gun control have been very good ideas.



I'm not aware of a single random spree shooting in the United States (in my lifetime) that has involved what the law would consider a "machine gun". A fully automatic weapon that fires more than one round per trigger pull. And that's a good thing. They are just not convenient for spree killers to get their hands on. Now and again a bank robber or gangster will have a modified weapon but it's pretty rare stuff.

I wasn't trying to say all forms of gun control are bad, my point was that gun control often gets enacted because of public panic over a few major incidents. The crime trend was definitely a factor in regulating tommy guns, but I think for the most part the few major incidents weigh the most heavily whether or not there's a crime wave.

Spree killers are a small sample size. If you're talking about a law designed in response to gangsters, it would be logical to see how that law affects them rather than just random weirdos. There's still plenty of drive bys with macs and tecs as well as shooting with AK's and M16's. Gang bangers can still get their hands on automatic weapons easily. For the most part though, pistols and shotguns are preferred since gang bangers prefer something concealable so there isn't gonna be as much of a demand for assault rifles whether or not the law allows it.

Also, crime is a very very complex topic that even intellectuals oversimplify. There are many things besides gun laws that affect crime rates. Sometimes it really has jack s**t to do with gun laws one way or the other. The huge spike in violence in the 80's would've occurred whether or not the US enacted stronger regulations. I don't believe gun laws significantly impact murder rates one way or the other since it mostly involves crooks murdering other crooks, but an increase in legal gun ownership seems to reduce overall crime. Even then it's not that simple since every country's justice system defines crime differently. On top of that, there are policies other than the ones that involve guns that could be contributing to a rise of violence, so it's best not to have such a narrow focus. Like if let's say a new law is passed allowing people to run businesses 24/7, that's gonna be a lot more opportunities to get robbed early in the morning and late at night.

i'm scottish! i take exception at that comment!

Darling, several of the women in my family carry guns when they're hunting or horseback riding in order to kill deer and/or cougars (the latter occasionally attack riding parties). My grandfather has shot two bears that were on his back deck looking for ways to get in...about five miles from where I live now.
You know what, though? They use handguns with regular clips, or hunting rifles. They don't use AR15's with drum clips, or glocks with extended clips. You know why? Because they are good enough shots to hit what they aim at, and cougars or bears - and generally even coyotes - don't attack en masse. The only reason to have that much firepower is if you're unsure of your aim (in which case, you're best off with a shotgun) or if you want to cause lots of casualties. Or if you want to play with them - and I'm fine with having special, regulated ranges where people can go and check out these guns to play with them, and then give them back at the end of the day.

Only if the urine has already been metabolized to ammonia by bacteria. If you want to cause problems, use straight ammonia and bleach - but first, you'll have to get them concentrated down to levels that will produce enough chlorine gas to kill someone, because the concentrations sold in stores aren't enough to cause mass casualties in a theatre with a mere few cups of either product. And, for that matter, even concentrated a few cups of either aren't going to produce enogh chlorine gas to kill anyone who doesn't have their face right over the reaction vessel.

Interestingly, I think that while you might be right wrt. gun ownership and reducing crime within the US (at least, I've seen some stats showing that the case is arguable), the opposite seems to be true outside the US. I wonder what that says about the American psyche.
That said, being for the right for people to own handguns with regular clips, or hunting rifles, or shotguns, for their own self defense, does not necessarily compel one to also be for the right for average Joe Neurology Student to anonymously buy thousands of rounds on the internet and the extended clips and war-oriented weaponry to use that ammunition to kill lots of people.

It is meant to be a literal statement, not an insult. I was referring to a discovery channel program that clearly stated that Scotland is the only place on earth that enough of that type weapon wounds happen frequently enough to be studied.

i did get that, my comment was meant jokingly. the part of scotland in which i reside does have something of a reputation for violence of various sorts, and regularly comes in for stick from those in other regions of scotland, unfairly, i feel.

Glasgow?

ha ha ha how did you guess??

It's a bit distasteful to try and score political points off a tragedy when the bodies are still warm and the facts are still far from clear. Further, the fact that "supporting one's position" involves a bunch of emotional appeals doesn't speak to the supportability of that position under normal circumstances, making what's going on classic fear mongering and scare tactics. If it was a sensible position, it wouldn't need a big event and an emotionally vulnerable audience to sell it.

In how many murders are large capacity clips a factor? Here's a number I recently saw online:



IIRC, among the mass shootings, only 3 in the US have ever involved extended magazines, the Long Island Transit shooting in the 90's, the Giffords shooting, and now the Aurora shooting. That's it. Outside the high profile category it's harder to find any information, but I think it's really the large shootings we're talking about here. Yes it's tragic now, but really its a statistical drop in the bucket and hardly worth restricting the rights of millions of innocent civilians over. Did I mention the political cost? Hello massive GOP gains in congress! Is fighting for an ineffective magazine restriction really worth that?

The rifle he was using a drum magazine with jammed anyway. Extended magazine or not, it didn't apparently make much of a difference in the shooting

I think it shows you that there are other factors than just gun ownership. How many of these other 'civilized' countries share a 2000 mile border with a third world country? How many of them have a ridiculous 'War On Drugs' that incarcerates its own citizens at a rate that we do? Do they have a comparable level of poverty? Top it off with a broken mental health system. If anything, crime should be worse than it is considering the circumstances.