Second Amendment Repeal / Gun Control

[Wallenburg]

So according to http://www.bradycampaign.org/sites/default/files/GunDeathandInjuryStatSheet3YearAverageFINAL.pdf 100.000 people a year get shot on average in the U.S., and 31.537 people die from these injuries. So that's about 33% mortality, there's a reasonable chance that shooting someone wont kill them
Edit--unless you intend to kill

Wait a second, are you telling me that if you shoot to kill there is a 66% chance they won't die?

It is almost like "shooting to kill" and "shooting to wound" are the same thing

I don't think we should generalize like that. Shooting to kill will take 1/3 of the lives it tries to. Shooting to wound will take less. Summary execution (do not comment, I am being figurative, not literal) is not the optimal solution to this situation.

[Harpers Ferry]

God given is a bunch of nonsense. Constitutionally given, is just a fact. Besides an appeal is absolutely ludicrous to consider. It would never pass.

[Prezelly]

So according to http://www.bradycampaign.org/sites/default/files/GunDeathandInjuryStatSheet3YearAverageFINAL.pdf 100.000 people a year get shot on average in the U.S., and 31.537 people die from these injuries. So that's about 33% mortality, there's a reasonable chance that shooting someone wont kill them
Edit--unless you intend to kill

Not all those people are shot, per se. Many of them are struck.
That is, a ricochet, an overpenetration, flyoff of buck and the like significantly beyond its effective range.

It is wholly unrepresentative of standing afore of someone, shooting them, with the intention to wound.

Direct quote from the page, "More than 100,000 people in America are shot in murders, assaults, suicides & suicide attempts, accidents,
or by police intervention."
"31,537 people die from gun violence
11,583 people are murdered
18,783 people kill themselves
584 people are killed accidentally
334 are killed by police intervention.
252 die but intent is not known"
however, "71,386 people survive gun injuries:
51,249 people are injured in an attack.
3,627 people survive a suicide attempt.
15,815 people are shot accidentally.
694 people are shot by police intervention"

[Wallenburg]

Why should I waste my time researching hard facts when your side's previous behavior suggests you will either demand more evidence, reject it as biased or inaccurate, or, when you notice that it actually demonstrates that my argument is strong, simply ignore it and pretend that it never happened by switching to another aspect of the debate?

Also, that guns don't need permits is an obvious lie. There is no way to defend your argument on that. http://www.bsis.ca.gov/forms_pubs/fire_fact.shtml

You don't need a permit to own guns in most parts of the US, no one in my house has any paperwork and we own something like 9 guns.

That should be illegal. How many guns do you need before you feel safe?!

[Harpers Ferry]

Wait a second, are you telling me that if you shoot to kill there is a 66% chance they won't die?

It is almost like "shooting to kill" and "shooting to wound" are the same thing

I don't think we should generalize like that. Shooting to kill will take 1/3 of the lives it tries to. Shooting to wound will take less. Summary execution (do not comment, I am being figurative, not literal) is not the optimal solution to this situation.

No, he is correct. If you pull the trigger, you best be shooting to kill. There is no in between.

[Roski]

You don't need a permit to own guns in most parts of the US, no one in my house has any paperwork and we own something like 9 guns.

That should be illegal. How many guns do you need before you feel safe?!

Some people own guns because guns are fucking awesome like tanks ans supercars

[Korva]

That should be illegal. How many guns do you need before you feel safe?!

Same with people who have more than one car, like wtf. Those things kill people!

[Harpers Ferry]

You don't need a permit to own guns in most parts of the US, no one in my house has any paperwork and we own something like 9 guns.

That should be illegal. How many guns do you need before you feel safe?!

No, it shouldn't. Many people simply collect, or shoot recreationaly.

[Kernen]

You don't need a permit to own guns in most parts of the US, no one in my house has any paperwork and we own something like 9 guns.

That should be illegal. How many guns do you need before you feel safe?!

Spoiler alert: not all firearms are purchased with the intention of defending yourself. All but one of mine are range rifles, purchased with recreation in mind.

[Wallenburg]

I don't think we should generalize like that. Shooting to kill will take 1/3 of the lives it tries to. Shooting to wound will take less. Summary execution (do not comment, I am being figurative, not literal) is not the optimal solution to this situation.

No, he is correct. If you pull the trigger, you best be shooting to kill. There is no in between.

That is exactly the opposite of what I just said.

[Imperializt Russia]

So according to http://www.bradycampaign.org/sites/default/files/GunDeathandInjuryStatSheet3YearAverageFINAL.pdf 100.000 people a year get shot on average in the U.S., and 31.537 people die from these injuries. So that's about 33% mortality, there's a reasonable chance that shooting someone wont kill them
Edit--unless you intend to kill

Wait a second, are you telling me that if you shoot to kill there is a 66% chance they won't die?

It is almost like "shooting to kill" and "shooting to wound" are the same thing

It also misses the fact that 66% of firearm deaths are in fact suicides, in which instance people were very much intending to kill people - themselves.

IIRC a sizeable portion of firearm injuries are failed suicide attempts.

[Roski]

I don't think we should generalize like that. Shooting to kill will take 1/3 of the lives it tries to. Shooting to wound will take less. Summary execution (do not comment, I am being figurative, not literal) is not the optimal solution to this situation.

No, he is correct. If you pull the trigger, you best be shooting to kill. There is no in between.

Thats... Not even possible...

[Imperializt Russia]

Not all those people are shot, per se. Many of them are struck.
That is, a ricochet, an overpenetration, flyoff of buck and the like significantly beyond its effective range.

It is wholly unrepresentative of standing afore of someone, shooting them, with the intention to wound.

Direct quote from the page, "More than 100,000 people in America are shot in murders, assaults, suicides & suicide attempts, accidents,
or by police intervention."
"31,537 people die from gun violence
11,583 people are murdered
18,783 people kill themselves
584 people are killed accidentally
334 are killed by police intervention.
252 die but intent is not known"
however, "71,386 people survive gun injuries:
51,249 people are injured in an attack.
3,627 people survive a suicide attempt.
15,815 people are shot accidentally.
694 people are shot by police intervention"

None of those figures invalidate my statement.

[Kernen]

No, he is correct. If you pull the trigger, you best be shooting to kill. There is no in between.

That is exactly the opposite of what I just said.

http://www.pfoa.co.uk/110/shooting-to-wound

An excellent resource on the topic. You should give it a look

[Harpers Ferry]

No, he is correct. If you pull the trigger, you best be shooting to kill. There is no in between.

Thats... Not even possible...

How so?

[Ifreann]

There's something. Does the right to bear arms actually prevent tyranny in the US, as so many insist that it is intended to do?

Good question. Honestly, I don't have a solid answer. I imagine the balances system does a lot more to prevent that than the second amendment does however.

I've long maintained that if the US government ever became so tyrannical as to warrant an armed uprising to overthrow it, the outcome would not depend on the people being armed or not, it would depend on what the military did. If the US Armed Forces, or a large enough fraction of them, sided with the government they would be able to put down any rebellion, because if they're that tyrannical that they need to be overthrown, they're probably not going to have a problem with rounding up the families of rebel leaders for some torture, with opening fire on crowds of protesters, or with just straight up bombing towns and cities, civilian casualties be damned.

People often point out when I say this that the US military would not likely obey any order to do shit like that. And yeah, they probably wouldn't most of the time. Which means that they are still the key factor in the outcome of the rebellion. Not the people being armed. And people often point out that the Taliban in Afghanistan are "beating" the US military with guerilla tactics, so therefore the American people could do the same. But the US military is operating under the laws of a civilian government that is not so tyrannical as to warrant a popular armed uprising. It's unreasonable to suggest that Tyrannical America would have the same regard for civilian collateral damage as Real America.

[Roski]

Thats... Not even possible...

How so?

Well, firstly, shooting at the lower portion of center mass has a far less chance of dying.

Although, to be more humane, I'd just simply kill my attacker. I've heard bullets to the stomach are unbearably painful

[Prezelly]

Direct quote from the page, "More than 100,000 people in America are shot in murders, assaults, suicides & suicide attempts, accidents,
or by police intervention."
"31,537 people die from gun violence
11,583 people are murdered
18,783 people kill themselves
584 people are killed accidentally
334 are killed by police intervention.
252 die but intent is not known"
however, "71,386 people survive gun injuries:
51,249 people are injured in an attack.
3,627 people survive a suicide attempt.
15,815 people are shot accidentally.
694 people are shot by police intervention"

None of those figures invalidate my statement.

what I was arguing with this is that shooting to wound is not the same as shooting to kill. These suicides are shooting to kill, where there is 6/7 chance of death. Whereas, the murdered and injured in an attack leads to a 1/6 chance to die when attacked by a firearm, not even knowing those that are planned murders versus assaults gone wrong

[Harpers Ferry]

How so?

Well, firstly, shooting at the lower portion of center mass has a far less chance of dying.

Although, to be more humane, I'd just simply kill my attacker. I've heard bullets to the stomach are unbearably painful

No matter where you shoot someone, there is a chance of dying. Less of a chance is meaningless even an expert marksman would have near improbable odds of making a non lethal hit. If you are shooting someone, you better have the intent to kill. Kern has demonstrated why "shooting to wound" is not a good thing.

[Autonomous Titoists]

You don't need a permit to own guns in most parts of the US, no one in my house has any paperwork and we own something like 9 guns.

That should be illegal. How many guns do you need before you feel safe?!

Who gave you the power to decide right and wrong? Moral and immoral? Just and Unjust? To pull typical American propaganda, he can own as many guns as he wants because the Constitution protects his freedoms. I have around the same number quote putting gun owners in the same category as criminals.

[Sevvania]

You don't need a permit to own guns in most parts of the US, no one in my house has any paperwork and we own something like 9 guns.

That should be illegal. How many guns do you need before you feel safe?!

A deer rifle isn't a good duck gun. Neither can be used during muzzleloader season, and of those three, none are ideal for pest control against varmints like squirrels. If you want something you can keep in your bedside table, you're pretty much limited to a handgun. So those are a few reasons why someone might own more than one gun without being a homicidal maniac.

[Imperializt Russia]

None of those figures invalidate my statement.

what I was arguing with this is that shooting to wound is not the same as shooting to kill. These suicides are shooting to kill, where there is 6/7 chance of death. Whereas, the murdered and injured in an attack leads to a 1/6 chance to die when attacked by a firearm, not even knowing those that are planned murders versus assaults gone wrong

Shoot to wound is not a thing.
Let's just dwell on that until it sinks in, k?

Shooting a person is an unfathomably dangerous thing to do. If you shoot someone, you injure them 100% of the time. Sometimes, quite severely. Look at poor Jim Brady.

[Prezelly]

Well, firstly, shooting at the lower portion of center mass has a far less chance of dying.

Although, to be more humane, I'd just simply kill my attacker. I've heard bullets to the stomach are unbearably painful

No matter where you shoot someone, there is a chance of dying. Less of a chance is meaningless even an expert marksman would have near improbable odds of making a non lethal hit. If you are shooting someone, you better have the intent to kill. Kern has demonstrated why "shooting to wound" is not a good thing.

Most gunshots are nonlethal. out of the 100.000 that get shot annually in the US about 70% survive

[Prezelly]

what I was arguing with this is that shooting to wound is not the same as shooting to kill. These suicides are shooting to kill, where there is 6/7 chance of death. Whereas, the murdered and injured in an attack leads to a 1/6 chance to die when attacked by a firearm, not even knowing those that are planned murders versus assaults gone wrong

Shoot to wound is not a thing.
Let's just dwell on that until it sinks in, k?

Shooting a person is an unfathomably dangerous thing to do. If you shoot someone, you injure them 100% of the time. Sometimes, quite severely. Look at poor Jim Brady.

Intent to wound and intent to kill are quite different

[Imperializt Russia]

No matter where you shoot someone, there is a chance of dying. Less of a chance is meaningless even an expert marksman would have near improbable odds of making a non lethal hit. If you are shooting someone, you better have the intent to kill. Kern has demonstrated why "shooting to wound" is not a good thing.

Most gunshots are nonlethal. out of the 100.000 that get shot annually in the US about 70% survive

100% of gunshots are potentially fatal.
100% of gunshots are an injury on the person shot.

Why in the name of fuck are you contesting this?
Is fatality the only thing that matters to you?