Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Gun Control


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Gun Control Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Gun Control - 7/31/2015 10:16:36 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

A gun is a tool just like a hammer or whatever. you sit it on the table and it does nothing. you swing a hammer and it does its work (although not with the desired outcome sometimes), you pull the trigger and depending on the gun, it goes boom or not. I have a gun that I purchased in 1977. It has never been loaded. I gave it to my father who used it as a decoration at Rondevious. I have another one with the same .58 caliber that I have fired, and used as a decoration at rondevious (rifle competition). I have the cap, powder, patch and ball for both of them. Dad chose not to enter. His choice. Even the olympics accept weapons as a sport. What I want to know is what makes them evil just sitting there on the table with any other tool.

What makes them evil is in the eye of the beholder.
Some (who don't have a background around them) can't imagine having firearms without the nefarious use of them.
Some attribute qualities to them that inanimate objects simply do not have.
If there are evil guns does it not follow that there are guns that are inherently good?
Are not those that you and I have not good guns as they have put an end to violence without harming even the bad people? (as they were surely influenced by their evil weapons whatever type they may have been). Aren't these people living in a maximum overdrive world were any inanimate object may attack them at any time.
Perhaps we should just send the bad guns to re-education camps.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to KenDckey)
Profile   Post #: 41
RE: Gun Control - 7/31/2015 11:43:17 PM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
quote:

According to FBI statistics, 46,313 Americans were murdered with firearms during the time period of 2007 to 2011.

Jesus Christ ... that's staggering.

The United States is a big country.

In 2010 the total number of homicides globally was estimated to be 468,000. More than a third (36%) were estimated to have occurred in Africa, 31% in the Americas, 27% in Asia, 5% in Europe and 1% in the tropical Pacific region. ~United Nations 2011 global study on homicide

Europe = 468,000 * .05 = 23,400

Assuming that the homicide count stayed relatively constant, and since the period from 2007 to 2011 covers five years, we can estimate the five year homicide toll in Europe as 122,250. How's that for staggering? But hey, at least only a small percentage were caused by evil firearms!


What's funny about the information is how much bullshit is being shoveled here. That cars are tested not just the statistics of them. All aspects of the car are tested. From the machine itself, to the driver, possible passengers, to the road, and road conditions. Not with just one model of car, but every type and model. Observations on collisions, roll overs, multi-vehicle accidents, and fire.

What do we learn from all of this? How to many cars better. Handle a crumble zone while keeping the passenger compartment mostly intact. Airbags and seat belts. Improving road conditions (resetting speed limits or how roads are decided). And we educated motorists to slow down during bad weather.

How much testing do we do with firearms? Compared to cars, its 'nil'. Compared to how often we test Space Shuttles in 2015, the answer is still 'nil'.

Yes, there are accidents on the roadways. Some of it is driver error, some of it is mechanic error, some of it is road conditional error. And people study to figure out how better to keep those errors from taking place. However, the older the system, the less likely it is to hold newer technological improvements. Likewise, many drivers lose 'proper driving' skills and get sloppy, creating the same accident conditions.

The amount of study that goes in to automobiles keeps the numbers far lower than they should be if nothing was done. Yet, we do nothing with firearms, and they bitch about mass shootings every other week. How about we test firearms and their operators to the same level as we do motors and vehicles? Then hold those firearm users and their arms to higher standards.

We'll never see 'no auto accidents' nor 'firearm accidents'. But the grand majority of vehicles are not used to kill people; where as the grand majority of firearms are used to kill people.

We can keep arguing back and forth. Yet the moment I say "Lets test is all out in the laboratory", all the gun folks get dead silent. I'm 'OK' with testing all the myths and beliefs surrounding firearms. Never see one gun nut brave enough to do the same. Now why do you suppose that is?

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 42
RE: Gun Control - 7/31/2015 11:48:49 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

NI'm 'OK' with testing all the myths and beliefs surrounding firearms. Never see one gun nut brave enough to do the same. Now why do you suppose that is?

It's because you're lying again.

K.





< Message edited by Kirata -- 7/31/2015 11:53:04 PM >

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 43
RE: Gun Control - 7/31/2015 11:54:29 PM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey
A gun is a tool just like a hammer or whatever. you sit it on the table and it does nothing. you swing a hammer and it does its work (although not with the desired outcome sometimes), you pull the trigger and depending on the gun, it goes boom or not. I have a gun that I purchased in 1977. It has never been loaded. I gave it to my father who used it as a decoration at Rondevious. I have another one with the same .58 caliber that I have fired, and used as a decoration at rondevious (rifle competition). I have the cap, powder, patch and ball for both of them. Dad chose not to enter. His choice. Even the olympics accept weapons as a sport. What I want to know is what makes them evil just sitting there on the table with any other tool.


A firearm is not a simple tool like a hammer or 'whatever'. A firearm is a multi-part device created to activate a charged device that propels a (usually) solid piece of metal from the confines of the device itself. A firearm's primary purpose is to kill. That it has many secondary applications should not be ignored (i.e. collection, modification, hunting, self-defense, target shooting, etc).

A car on the other hand is a much more complex device composed of many other smaller devices operating to allow the whole of the car to operate. Its primary purpose is three fold:

1 ) Transport people from A to B
2 ) Transport cargo from A to B
3 ) Transport people and cargo from A to B

That a car has many secondary purposes like the firearm (i.e. collection, modification, killing, racing, etc).

Can a gun do evil if sitting just on a table? An argument used by gun nuts many times over to 'justify' it being save. Yes, a 100 megaton nuclear weapon sitting on a table is harmless as well. Would I want either in the hands of someone whom is not mentally, emotional, and/or morally stable? FUCK and NO! An in anyone else's hands? Only those whom have the proper background checks (physical, mental, emotional, criminal) whom are trained, and held to the same responsibilities as anyone else handling the device. So if you had the firearm; your held to the same standards as a police officer. Anything less is just reckless and careless on the part of society!

Likewise, how easy is it for little Timmy to kill his brother by accident with most tools in a mechanic box? Compare that to a firearm they might think was a toy.....

....Plenty of examples in which that 'toy' brought misery to thousands of families in the nation. Siblings that killed their own while very young? Will carry that mistake for the totality of their lives. Marriages are ripped apart by such acts.

That you consider a firearm a 'simple' tool shows you have little respect for such a device and probably shouldn't have one....


(in reply to KenDckey)
Profile   Post #: 44
RE: Gun Control - 7/31/2015 11:59:53 PM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

I'm 'OK' with testing all the myths and beliefs surrounding firearms. Never see one gun nut brave enough to do the same. Now why do you suppose that is?

It's because you're lying again.


How am I lying? I'm all for testing out myths and beliefs. Found the Mythbusters quite an interesting show when it first came out. They took beliefs people had in things, and tried to create the concept. If it failed to produce the myth, they would figure out (with science and engineering) how to make it work. They tried the 'if your under water, will the bullets hit you'. It stunned them on their initial findings, but did show that two feet of water can stop large rifles (including the .50 cal) from hitting a target and doing damage.

We should demand to have this stuff tested out. Could be quite interesting. There is already many things we know from medical science with regards to the human body. And many things we know from human behavior through psychology. So now we just run experiments given the myths and see what happens.

Doesn't sound like I'm lying here. What it does sound like is your....AFRAID.....to have your myths tested. An you can't admit it!

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 45
RE: Gun Control - 8/1/2015 12:41:44 AM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

I'm 'OK' with testing all the myths and beliefs surrounding firearms. Never see one gun nut brave enough to do the same. Now why do you suppose that is?

It's because you're lying again.

How am I lying? I'm all for testing out myths and beliefs.

Yeah, no. Almost everything you've ever posted about guns has been pure crap, and the claim you made above is just more of the same.

In 2004, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences released its evaluation from a review of 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, and some original empirical research. It failed to identify any gun control that had reduced violent crime, suicide, or gun accidents. The same conclusion was reached in 2003 by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control’s review of the extant studies...

Comparison of "homicide and suicide mortality data for thirty-six nations (including the United States) for the period 1990-1995" to gun ownership levels showed "no significant (at the 5% level) association between gun ownership levels and the total homicide rate." Consistent with this is a later European study of data from 21 nations in which "no significant correlations [of gun ownership levels] with total suicide or homicide rates were found."


Source: Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy

Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010).

On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.

A different issue is whether defensive uses of guns, however numerous or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gun-wielding crime victim. Studies that directly assessed the effect of actualdefensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was "used" by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies (Kleck, 1988; Kleck and DeLone, 1993; Southwick, 2000; Tark and Kleck, 2004).


Source: National Research Council

And that's without even mentioning your famous "two sentences" of the 2nd Amendment.

K.


< Message edited by Kirata -- 8/1/2015 1:37:54 AM >

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 46
RE: Gun Control - 8/1/2015 4:15:58 AM   
bounty44


Posts: 6374
Joined: 11/1/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

According to FBI statistics, 46,313 Americans were murdered with firearms during the time period of 2007 to 2011.


Jesus Christ ... that's staggering.


what the original poster did not do in his reply there, was delineate between murders that took place in the home---which is what he is implying given the conversation immediately preceding it---and murders that took place on the streets so to speak.


(in reply to PeonForHer)
Profile   Post #: 47
RE: Gun Control - 8/1/2015 6:13:08 AM   
KenDckey


Posts: 4121
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline
quote:

A firearm is not a simple tool like a hammer or 'whatever'. A firearm is a multi-part device created to activate a charged device that propels a (usually) solid piece of metal from the confines of the device itself. A firearm's primary purpose is to kill. That it has many secondary applications should not be ignored (i.e. collection, modification, hunting, self-defense, target shooting, etc).


My training is that the purpose of a firearm was to wound. Yes, you don't shoot straight and it can kill (which happens way to often). If you wound, you take more than one person out of the equation because it takes several to carry him/her out of harms way and to treat through recovery. The exception being for hunting where you want to kill to feed yourself and your family. Since I don't hunt, which I haven't done since 1969, I prefer to kill engineer stakes to hone that accuracy.

quote:

Can a gun do evil if sitting just on a table? An argument used by gun nuts many times over to 'justify' it being save. Yes, a 100 megaton nuclear weapon sitting on a table is harmless as well. Would I want either in the hands of someone whom is not mentally, emotional, and/or morally stable? FUCK and NO! An in anyone else's hands? Only those whom have the proper background checks (physical, mental, emotional, criminal) whom are trained, and held to the same responsibilities as anyone else handling the device. So if you had the firearm; your held to the same standards as a police officer. Anything less is just reckless and careless on the part of society!


quote:

Can a gun do evil if sitting just on a table? An argument used by gun nuts many times over to 'justify' it being save. Yes, a 100 megaton nuclear weapon sitting on a table is harmless as well. Would I want either in the hands of someone whom is not mentally, emotional, and/or morally stable? FUCK and NO! An in anyone else's hands? Only those whom have the proper background checks (physical, mental, emotional, criminal) whom are trained, and held to the same responsibilities as anyone else handling the device. So if you had the firearm; your held to the same standards as a police officer. Anything less is just reckless and careless on the part of society!


I appreciate your view, but think your standard of training is to low. When I train someone, they must learn things that far exceed those of the police training systems.

quote:

Likewise, how easy is it for little Timmy to kill his brother by accident with most tools in a mechanic box? Compare that to a firearm they might think was a toy.....

....Plenty of examples in which that 'toy' brought misery to thousands of families in the nation. Siblings that killed their own while very young? Will carry that mistake for the totality of their lives. Marriages are ripped apart by such acts.

That you consider a firearm a 'simple' tool shows you have little respect for such a device and probably shouldn't have one....


When "Johnny" shoots "Timmy" it is a definate failure. When my dad gave me my first cap gun (in the 1950's) he emphasized that all guns can kill by blowing up a stick of explosives with it. Blew a nice hole in the desert. Secondly, when they don't adequately secure a weapon around a child it is another failure. When a child or one of my adult sons comes around the weapons I have are either locked in my steel cabinet or in my neighbors home. My son is old enough to know how to use bolt cutters since he is in his 40's now and a certified "crazy" that we all fear. During a party where alcohol is involved, same thing. Guns to the neighbor.

When I train, I use engineer stakes as targets ("death to engineer stakes") because it is a pass fail situation. you hit it in it's sharpie smiley face and it is a pass. You miss and it is a fail. There are other things involved. People that use spray and pray are hopefully either on a range or in combat. I prefer a semiautomatic because it is easier to load, carries several rounds, and doesn't require me to take my eye off of the target to reload. I own one semi-auto pistol. I have a lever action rifle, two .58 and one .45 cal cap and ball muzzleloader weapons. My wife has one semi-auto pistol, one revolver, a shotgun, and a pump .22LR. the 2 pistols are personal defense. the revolver is loaded with snake shot. The .22 is for targets the shotgun and semi-auto are personal defense against intruders intent on doing harm.

Do I respect my tools? yes. Do I know how much damage they can do? yes. Do I know the cost of abuse? yes.

(in reply to bounty44)
Profile   Post #: 48
RE: Gun Control - 8/1/2015 12:17:06 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

I'm 'OK' with testing all the myths and beliefs surrounding firearms. Never see one gun nut brave enough to do the same. Now why do you suppose that is?

It's because you're lying again.

How am I lying? I'm all for testing out myths and beliefs.

Yeah, no. Almost everything you've ever posted about guns has been pure crap, and the claim you made above is just more of the same.

In 2004, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences released its evaluation from a review of 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, and some original empirical research. It failed to identify any gun control that had reduced violent crime, suicide, or gun accidents. The same conclusion was reached in 2003 by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control’s review of the extant studies...

Comparison of "homicide and suicide mortality data for thirty-six nations (including the United States) for the period 1990-1995" to gun ownership levels showed "no significant (at the 5% level) association between gun ownership levels and the total homicide rate." Consistent with this is a later European study of data from 21 nations in which "no significant correlations [of gun ownership levels] with total suicide or homicide rates were found."


Source: Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy

Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010).

On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.

A different issue is whether defensive uses of guns, however numerous or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gun-wielding crime victim. Studies that directly assessed the effect of actualdefensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was "used" by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies (Kleck, 1988; Kleck and DeLone, 1993; Southwick, 2000; Tark and Kleck, 2004).


Source: National Research Council

And that's without even mentioning your famous "two sentences" of the 2nd Amendment.

K.


Another factor in determining an accurate number of defensive gun uses is the fact that it is grossly under reported. I account for about a half dozen unreported cases by myself.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 49
RE: Gun Control - 8/1/2015 12:39:01 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

A firearm's primary purpose is to kill.

If that were true, they would easily qualify as the engineering failure of the century.

Abdominal gunshot wounds. An urban trauma center's experience ~Ann Surg
Unusually low mortality of penetrating wounds of the chest ~J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg
Surveillance for Fatal and Nonfatal Firearm-Related Injuries ~CDC
One Bullet Can Kill, but Sometimes 20 Don’t, Survivors Show ~NY Times

K.


< Message edited by Kirata -- 8/1/2015 1:03:32 PM >

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 50
RE: Gun Control - 8/1/2015 1:22:42 PM   
PeonForHer


Posts: 19612
Joined: 9/27/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

A firearm's primary purpose is to kill.

If that were true, they would easily qualify as the engineering failure of the century.

Abdominal gunshot wounds. An urban trauma center's experience ~Ann Surg
Unusually low mortality of penetrating wounds of the chest ~J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg
Surveillance for Fatal and Nonfatal Firearm-Related Injuries ~CDC
One Bullet Can Kill, but Sometimes 20 Don’t, Survivors Show ~NY Times

K.



Thanks for those links, K. OK, guns don't kill all that well - but who cares? They do cause lots of mouth-wateringly lovely painful wounds! Yummy! As so often, I wish that all first world countries could be just like the USA when it comes to gun freedom!

_____________________________

http://www.domme-chronicles.com


(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 51
RE: Gun Control - 8/1/2015 7:31:01 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

Thanks for those links, K. OK, guns don't kill all that well - but who cares? They do cause lots of mouth-wateringly lovely painful wounds! Yummy! As so often, I wish that all first world countries could be just like the USA when it comes to gun freedom!

Jeeez, Peon, I don't want to insult one of your kinks, but euuuuuu.... too much information.

K.


(in reply to PeonForHer)
Profile   Post #: 52
RE: Gun Control - 8/2/2015 8:17:00 AM   
MercTech


Posts: 3706
Joined: 7/4/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

Having a gun in the house only increases the chance of a homicide in the home.


Just like having a condom in the house increases the chance of pregnancy.

(in reply to cloudboy)
Profile   Post #: 53
RE: Gun Control - 8/2/2015 8:34:29 AM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline
in my house it wasnt the condoms.

_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to MercTech)
Profile   Post #: 54
RE: Gun Control - 8/2/2015 8:45:28 AM   
KenDckey


Posts: 4121
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline
mine either LOL

(in reply to Lucylastic)
Profile   Post #: 55
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Gun Control Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.078