The general gun control thread

[Imperializt Russia]

A romantic triangle and a brawl is inherently an argument.
An argument that was escalated to gun violence.

True, but I think the original point was that they were arguments over entirely trivial things. I doubt a love triangle or cheating spouse is considered by many as trivial. Not saying it merits blowing heads, but it is far above the seriousness of a minor traffic accident for instance.

On what possible logical level?

[Llamalandia]

True, but I think the original point was that they were arguments over entirely trivial things. I doubt a love triangle or cheating spouse is considered by many as trivial. Not saying it merits blowing heads, but it is far above the seriousness of a minor traffic accident for instance.

On what possible logical level?

Because love tends to inflame the passions of people more than does a minor fender bender. Don't get me wrong they are both upsetting but on an emotional level a spouse cheating for instance is far more serius to most people than a few dents on their car.

[Imperializt Russia]

On what possible logical level?

Because love tends to inflame the passions of people more than does a minor fender bender. Don't get me wrong they are both upsetting but on an emotional level a spouse cheating for instance is far more serius to most people than a few dents on their car.

Which is precisely what makes it idiotic.
The emotional level is what drives people to shoot others over traffic incidents - being shoved in bars - or over a tip.

Pretty sure I used the term "logical level".

[Llamalandia]

Because love tends to inflame the passions of people more than does a minor fender bender. Don't get me wrong they are both upsetting but on an emotional level a spouse cheating for instance is far more serius to most people than a few dents on their car.

Which is precisely what makes it idiotic.
The emotional level is what drives people to shoot others over traffic incidents - being shoved in bars - or over a tip.

Pretty sure I used the term "logical level".

I know but that is the wrong question to be ask. Hence why I put emotional level in Bold. It is a matter of which emotions lead to more or less understandable actions. It is unreasonable to be so pissed off about a minor dent to kill someone, it is far less unreasonable and more understandable to kill the guy you catch sleeping with your wife. Doesn't necessarily excuse the crime, but their is a clear hierarchy of events from the trivial to the serious.

[Spirit of Hope]

I wasn't arguing over the level of the argument or whatever. I was simply arguing that the numbers may be be as high as he presented them. Overall it is a rather minor thing to argue over though since we are probably talking about a difference of between 100 and 200 homicides and how they are classified.

[Tule]

you're two times more likely to be killed by an animal crashing through your damn windscreen.

1. <citation needed>
2. Guns also help with that problem via hunting.

1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deer%E2%80 ... collisions
I've already linked to the FBI for statistics for 2013 that show the number of burglary related deaths.

2) I don't have a problem with people owning guns for hunting. I have a problem with average middle-class people owning guns for protection, because it's an oxymoron. When you bring a gun home you aren't protecting yourself, you're providing the people most likely to murder you with a firearm.

Many recreational activities have risks. Guns have them, sports cars have them, alcohol has them, swimming pools have them and tobacco smoking has them. Guns are no exception.

I believe people and respect their intentions when they say they like alcohol because of the taste and the pleasant effects it produces. But getting blackout drunk every weekend and then citing studies that alcohol has medical benefits is ludicrous.

[Imperializt Russia]

Which is precisely what makes it idiotic.
The emotional level is what drives people to shoot others over traffic incidents - being shoved in bars - or over a tip.

Pretty sure I used the term "logical level".

I know but that is the wrong question to be ask. Hence why I put emotional level in Bold. It is a matter of which emotions lead to more or less understandable actions. It is unreasonable to be so pissed off about a minor dent to kill someone, it is far less unreasonable and more understandable to kill the guy you catch sleeping with your wife. Doesn't necessarily excuse the crime, but their is a clear hierarchy of events from the trivial to the serious.

On a pure numerical scale it may be "less" unreasonable and "more" understandable, it is still factually neither of those things.

[Spirit of Hope]

1. <citation needed>
2. Guns also help with that problem via hunting.

1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deer%E2%80 ... collisions
I've already linked to the FBI for statistics for 2013 that show the number of burglary related deaths.

2) I don't have a problem with people owning guns for hunting. I have a problem with average middle-class people owning guns for protection, because it's an oxymoron. You aren't protecting yourself, you're arming the people most likely to murder you.

The BJS puts defensive gun uses at 338,700. It isn't an oxymoron if you consider more situations than just home invasion.

[Llamalandia]

I know but that is the wrong question to be ask. Hence why I put emotional level in Bold. It is a matter of which emotions lead to more or less understandable actions. It is unreasonable to be so pissed off about a minor dent to kill someone, it is far less unreasonable and more understandable to kill the guy you catch sleeping with your wife. Doesn't necessarily excuse the crime, but their is a clear hierarchy of events from the trivial to the serious.

On a pure numerical scale it may be "less" unreasonable and "more" understandable, it is still factually neither of those things.

Ok so what? Facts and logic aren't all that matter in life. I mean on a purely factual basis rape doesn't cause much more physical harm to the victim than does a serious felony assault. We still treated rape more seriously because of the emotional and psychological impact on the victim. Likewise, given the emotional strain caused by a cheating spouse, it is more excusable to use violence than it is to use violence in a minor fender bender. Because of the emotional and psychological impact of one is far greater than the other.

[Llamalandia]

1. <citation needed>
2. Guns also help with that problem via hunting.

1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deer%E2%80 ... collisions
I've already linked to the FBI for statistics for 2013 that show the number of burglary related deaths.

2) I don't have a problem with people owning guns for hunting. I have a problem with average middle-class people owning guns for protection, because it's an oxymoron. When you bring a gun home you aren't protecting yourself, you're providing the people most likely to murder you with a firearm.

Many recreational activities have risks. Guns have them, sports cars have them, alcohol has them, swimming pools have them and tobacco smoking has them. Guns are no exception.

I believe people and respect their intentions when they say they like alcohol because of the taste and the pleasant effects it produces. But getting blackout drunk every weekend and then citing studies that alcohol has medical benefits is ludicrous.

Ok so as long as 100 million people own guns for the fun of it, you have no problem with them owning guns? Ok fair enough. I'm betting most gun owners including those who own them nominally for protection have also enjoyed the occasional day at the range. Thus in that sense they all use them for recreation, so problem solved.

[Llamalandia]

1. <citation needed>
2. Guns also help with that problem via hunting.

1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deer%E2%80 ... collisions
I've already linked to the FBI for statistics for 2013 that show the number of burglary related deaths.

2) I don't have a problem with people owning guns for hunting. I have a problem with average middle-class people owning guns for protection, because it's an oxymoron. When you bring a gun home you aren't protecting yourself, you're providing the people most likely to murder you with a firearm.

Many recreational activities have risks. Guns have them, sports cars have them, alcohol has them, swimming pools have them and tobacco smoking has them. Guns are no exception.

I believe people and respect their intentions when they say they like alcohol because of the taste and the pleasant effects it produces. But getting blackout drunk every weekend and then citing studies that alcohol has medical benefits is ludicrous.

Ok but then isn't the real problem that you live with people who want to murder you? Maybe find some different roomies.

[Tule]

1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deer%E2%80 ... collisions
I've already linked to the FBI for statistics for 2013 that show the number of burglary related deaths.

2) I don't have a problem with people owning guns for hunting. I have a problem with average middle-class people owning guns for protection, because it's an oxymoron. You aren't protecting yourself, you're arming the people most likely to murder you.

The BJS puts defensive gun uses at 338,700. It isn't an oxymoron if you consider more situations than just home invasion.

And how many "offensive" gun uses are there? How many of those defensive gun uses are in fact offensive gun uses?
Everyone is a protagonist in their own life. Most people who pull guns on others don't feel like they aren't in the right.

Do you really think that criminals carry guns because they go: "Gee, I really feel like killing someone today! I'm going to bring my gun just in case I see some vulnerable looking family home to commit a massacre in!"

No, they carry guns because they are scared of other criminals carrying guns, or because they feel that it makes them badass (Don't deny it, a lot of lawful gun owners do this for that reason too)

[Imperializt Russia]

Likewise, given the emotional strain caused by a cheating spouse, it is more excusable to use violence than it is to use violence in a minor fender bender.

The fuck?

[Llamalandia]

Likewise, given the emotional strain caused by a cheating spouse, it is more excusable to use violence than it is to use violence in a minor fender bender.

The fuck?

Sorry it should have read understandable.

[Tule]

1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deer%E2%80 ... collisions
I've already linked to the FBI for statistics for 2013 that show the number of burglary related deaths.

2) I don't have a problem with people owning guns for hunting. I have a problem with average middle-class people owning guns for protection, because it's an oxymoron. When you bring a gun home you aren't protecting yourself, you're providing the people most likely to murder you with a firearm.

Many recreational activities have risks. Guns have them, sports cars have them, alcohol has them, swimming pools have them and tobacco smoking has them. Guns are no exception.

I believe people and respect their intentions when they say they like alcohol because of the taste and the pleasant effects it produces. But getting blackout drunk every weekend and then citing studies that alcohol has medical benefits is ludicrous.

Ok so as long as 100 million people own guns for the fun of it, you have no problem with them owning guns? Ok fair enough. I'm betting most gun owners including those who own them nominally for protection have also enjoyed the occasional day at the range. Thus in that sense they all use them for recreation, so problem solved.

Well, 48% of gun owners cite protection as the main reason for owning a gun.
That's not an insignificant percentage.

And yes, I think America would benefit a lot from just dropping the home invasion fantasy and respecting firearms for what they are: Potentially dangerous hobbies.

[Llamalandia]

Ok so as long as 100 million people own guns for the fun of it, you have no problem with them owning guns? Ok fair enough. I'm betting most gun owners including those who own them nominally for protection have also enjoyed the occasional day at the range. Thus in that sense they all use them for recreation, so problem solved.

Well, 48% of gun owners cite protection as the main reason for owning a gun.
That's not an insignificant percentage.

And yes, I think America would benefit a lot from just dropping the home invasion fantasy and respecting firearms for what they are: Potentially dangerous hobbies.

Ok, so are really just upset about the mindset people have then? I mean, in that case I would think you'd be arguing for better gun related education. Like, you know making clear that the movies and real life are different things. Maybe get some testimonials from people who have actually been in that real life home invasion scenario and used a gun to defend themselves and how they felt at the time and how they felt afterwards about taking a life (even defensively) etc.

[Spirit of Hope]

The BJS puts defensive gun uses at 338,700. It isn't an oxymoron if you consider more situations than just home invasion.

And how many "offensive" gun uses are there? How many of those defensive gun uses are in fact offensive gun uses?
Everyone is a protagonist in their own life. Most people who pull guns on others don't feel like they aren't in the right.

There are around 400,000 criminal uses of a gun each year in the United States. I guess that is what you would qualify as an offensive gun use."

While the study can't be perfect it is designed to find guns used in response to being victimized by a crime.

If you have some evidence that defensive gun uses aren't that high please present them. I would love to look them over.

Do you really think that criminals carry guns because they go: "Gee, I really feel like killing someone today! I'm going to bring my gun just in case I see some vulnerable looking family home to commit a massacre in!"

No, they carry guns because they are scared of other criminals carrying guns, or because they feel that it makes them badass (Don't deny it, a lot of lawful gun owners do this for that reason too)

I'm not sure what your point is here, but a good number of criminals use guns because they are very effective tools, not because they are fearful of other criminals. Guns allow you to much better control a crowd as you rob a store, better insure that a cashier will hand over money, etc.

And even if people only want to carry guns because they think it makes them cooler, so long as it isn't hurting anyone else or braking the law I don't care.

[Gun Manufacturers]

I see, we can't have those lowly serfs to have the ability to keep and bear arms. So because of your unfounded fear of people carrying weapons for self protection and protection of others would have you become a recluse? Not a way to live.

There's nothing unfounded about it. People unable to control their emotions and/or act rationally should not be allowed to carry weapons, not even for self-protection, and they do. The US has a homicide rate of four times the rest of the western world to prove that much. And there's no point trying to make this a classist talking point because one's mental ability to not go postal isn't exactly relatable to their social standing. Fortunately, I need not be a recluse. I live in a great country where all the firearms I desire are available to me and not to those who shouldn't have them.

I open carry almost daily, and have yet felt the need to randomly unholster and point my weapon at someone, I mean come on, a majority of people just do not do that.

You're right, they don't. And yet, every day people get murdered over the most trivial of things.

I greatly dislike that term. There are much more dangerous jobs. Hell, there's just about as many soldiers that have been killed by their fellow soldiers, as people that have worked for the post office.

[Imperializt Russia]

The fuck?

Sorry it should have read understandable.

Still no.

[Llamalandia]

Sorry it should have read understandable.

Still no.

Ok then why?

[Llamalandia]

I see, we can't have those lowly serfs to have the ability to keep and bear arms. So because of your unfounded fear of people carrying weapons for self protection and protection of others would have you become a recluse? Not a way to live.

There's nothing unfounded about it. People unable to control their emotions and/or act rationally should not be allowed to carry weapons, not even for self-protection, and they do. The US has a homicide rate of four times the rest of the western world to prove that much. And there's no point trying to make this a classist talking point because one's mental ability to not go postal isn't exactly relatable to their social standing. Fortunately, I need not be a recluse. I live in a great country where all the firearms I desire are available to me and not to those who shouldn't have them.

I open carry almost daily, and have yet felt the need to randomly unholster and point my weapon at someone, I mean come on, a majority of people just do not do that.

You're right, they don't. And yet, every day people get murdered over the most trivial of things.

Sorry what country do you live in again?

[Imperializt Russia]

Still no.

Ok then why?

Because it's not?
It's not hard to get, really.

[Llamalandia]

Ok then why?

Because it's not?
It's not hard to get, really.

Ok so wait why not, cause I don't get it.

[Imperializt Russia]

Because it's not?
It's not hard to get, really.

Ok so wait why not, cause I don't get it.

Suggesting there is a sliding scale at which point certain levels of violence become acceptable (or "more" acceptable) legitimises the use of those levels of violence.

I'm sure you're going to tell me that spousal homicide or domestic abuse are neither acceptable nor "partly acceptable".
So why put them on a sliding scale of understandable violent reactions?

They should not feature on that scale. From a logical perspective, they don't.

[Gun Manufacturers]

And you think that it is only a small minority that are capable of passing a background check and a psychological evaluation? Even in America the vast majority of people are neither criminals nor crazy.

I'm not sure if I ever said "small minority" but I'll humor you. Yes, I only think a small minority of people are capable of passing a background check because I have exceedingly low expectations of humanity, driven in equal part by NSG and dumbass co-workers. Before you ask, yes I am a complete asshole and I truly do think I'm better than everybody else.

I've passed every background check I've ever had run on me. I've had a background check run when I worked at both tribal casinos in CT, when I started at the USPS, and when I've purchased EVERY ONE of my firearms.

I know a LOT of people that have also passed background checks, for jobs or firearms purchases. My brother in law, his father, his brother, some of my friends, and every one of my co-workers at the USPS.