RE: Gun Control And Tragedy

RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Real0ne -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/20/2007 10:18:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer Likely about similar odds that they have been trained to effectivly fight off an attack at all, weapon or not. I'm not advocating wild west gun totin, I'm advocating trained use if you're gonna have one for defense then get training real training. something beyond the calm day at the range as you say. Actually multiple training is even better, the same training SInergy advocates would do alot of good for folks who augment their defense with firearms. The methods of cutting through the fuzziness would be transferable to any defense method. compete with paintball :) gets plenty of adrenalin flowing, next best thing to being there :)

seeksfemslave -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/21/2007 1:52:58 AM)
quote: Ms JO said My Daddy is a woman's self defense instructor that does full contact adrenaline response self defense training so that people can learn to defend themselves in all sorts of scenarios by training the part of their brain that responds in a crisis. There are all sorts of situations that involve the fear response that do not involve physical conflict, such as traffic accidents. Your higher functions turn off, the very ones that society supposedly taught you, and you have no access to that knowledge at times. So someone that learned to use a gun on a calm day at the shooting range is not going to know how to fire it perhaps when an assailant attacks them. Why doesn't your 2nd para. also apply to what dear old Daddy teaches ? With scatalogical relish I might add.

meatcleaver -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/21/2007 2:23:15 AM)
Yep all this talk about adrenilin response training appears to be just talk to me. Why have American troops got the name for being trigger happy by their allies if training is supposed to make you so calm under fire?

Sinergy -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/21/2007 8:41:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Yep all this talk about adrenilin response training appears to be just talk to me. Why have American troops got the name for being trigger happy by their allies if training is supposed to make you so calm under fire? Depends on what you mean by being calm under fire. Adrenalin has certain effects on a person. A person trained under adrenalin understands these effects on a visceral level and learns to manage them to some degree. Sinergy

Pulpsmack -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/21/2007 11:07:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Yep all this talk about adrenilin response training appears to be just talk to me. Why have American troops got the name for being trigger happy by their allies if training is supposed to make you so calm under fire? Ahh, Meatcleaver... Good to see you back. I trust your night of stimulation was fruitful in your land of Utopian freedoms. Now that you are back, you may feel free and either try to rationalize your position that Americans who have a desire to own guns are just a bunch of paranoids in the face of the statitistics of crime in the US that I have submitted (post # 307), or you can admit you are wrong. No, I have not forgotten this charge on you, and no I am not going to forget it. Put up or shut up.

SeekingMatureSub -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/21/2007 11:32:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Pulpsmack quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Yep all this talk about adrenilin response training appears to be just talk to me. Why have American troops got the name for being trigger happy by their allies if training is supposed to make you so calm under fire? Ahh, Meatcleaver... Good to see you back. I trust your night of stimulation was fruitful in your land of Utopian freedoms. Now that you are back, you may feel free and either try to rationalize your position that Americans who have a desire to own guns are just a bunch of paranoids in the face of the statitistics of crime in the US that I have submitted (post # 307), or you can admit you are wrong. No, I have not forgotten this charge on you, and no I am not going to forget it. Put up or shut up. Just wondering.... Is this all starting to read like a really bad super hero comic book to anyone else, or is it just me? lol j/k

meatcleaver -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/21/2007 12:26:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Pulpsmack FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO HAVE HELD OUT FOR STATISTICS... http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_02.html http://webapp.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe According to the FBI: our near 300, million population has only experienced 16,692 murders in 2005 which includes ALL murders. The Center for disease control published in 2004 649 deaths So, pretending for a moment that ALL murders committed were committed with guns and you add the two, you have 17,341 fatal firearms incidents Total violent crime: 1,390,695 (this is only the reported, successful crimes, not the attempts) Motor vehicle deaths: 45,113 Thus, cars are more than twice as deadly, and for 17,000 firearms deaths, there were 1,390,695 incidents where someone could have benefitted from the protection of one. I have stated several times why violent crime statistics are meaningless and even more meaningless when one country is compared to another. The only stats that are accurate enough to consider are murders because their is a body that can't be buried in the out tray. You mention 17,000 firearm deaths. I don't know if you mean murder by firearms or fatal incidents but according to this link in 2001 ( a little out of date maybe) there were 29,000 deaths, homicides and accidents etc etc. I think accidents with firearms are a significant part in the argument for gun control because while it is easy to beat someone's brains in with a baseball bat, it takes a real idiot to beat ones own brains in with a baseball bat. However, with firearms, accidents are a lot easier to come by. http://thegreenman.net.au/mt/gun_deaths_in_usa.htm This sites says 1,400 children and teens are shot to death each year. A lot of greaving parents and for why? I bet some parents wish they never had a gun in the home to fend off intruders. http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2005/09/usa_today_accid.php

Pulpsmack -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/21/2007 12:50:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver I have stated several times why violent crime statistics are meaningless and even more meaningless when one country is compared to another. The only stats that are accurate enough to consider are murders because their is a body that can't be buried in the out tray. I see. So, all documented cases of aggrevated assaults, rapes, etc AKA all other instances where the victim would have a justifiable use for a firearm just fall by the wayside and simply don't exist because it's not packaged neatly enough for you. The FBI has published numbers that by my illustration amount to over 3 million potential instances where the victims access to a firearm would be justified, and over one million absolute instances where deadly force would have been authorized. But since there could be SOME deviation, more than one million cases suddenly evaporate into meaninglessness, and we are left with some 16,000 instances. Your position is utterly absurd. quote: You mention 17,000 firearm deaths. I don't know if you mean murder by firearms or fatal incidents but according to this link in 2001 ( a little out of date maybe) there were 29,000 deaths, homicides and accidents etc etc. I think accidents with firearms are a significant part in the argument for gun control because while it is easy to beat someone's brains in with a baseball bat, it takes a real idiot to beat ones own brains in with a baseball bat. However, with firearms, accidents are a lot easier to come by. I believe I made it perfectly clear in the evidence cited that there were only 649 Accidental shootings and that pertains to children as well as adults. But seeing how you like precise numbers, I am going back and narrowing the pool to <1 to 17.... ready??? Of the 649 deaths by accidental shootings, only 105 are aged <1 to 17 in the year 2004. Go play with the numbers to your heart's content http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html So, if 649 accidental deaths out of a population of 300,000,000 is a compelling argument for banning something, I would hate to live in your world. quote: http://thegreenman.net.au/mt/gun_deaths_in_usa.htm This sites says 1,400 children and teens are shot to death each year. A lot of greaving parents and for why? I bet some parents wish they never had a gun in the home to fend off intruders. http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2005/09/usa_today_accid.php That site coincides with the numbers from my source at the CDC as well (1300+ in 2004). But let's filter through the bullshit, shall we? If there are 1,300+ children dead from firearms in 2004, and 105 were accidental, then it's clear the remaining 1,200+ deaths were caused deliberately (either a murder of an innocent, or the justifiable killing of a juvenile). Although 105 sets of parents might wish there was no gun in the household, it seems 1,200+ sets of parents on the other hand, would have wished somebody had a gun to kill the fucker who deliberately killed their child before he had the chance. That's nearly 12 times the arguments for access to guns for the defese of children against killers than against having guns in the household to safeguard child safety. Again... statistically, NOTHING you say adds up.

meatcleaver -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/21/2007 1:33:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Pulpsmack quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver I have stated several times why violent crime statistics are meaningless and even more meaningless when one country is compared to another. The only stats that are accurate enough to consider are murders because their is a body that can't be buried in the out tray. I see. So, all documented cases of aggrevated assaults, rapes, etc AKA all other instances where the victim would have a justifiable use for a firearm just fall by the wayside and simply don't exist because it's not packaged neatly enough for you. The FBI has published numbers that by my illustration amount to over 3 million potential instances where the victims access to a firearm would be justified, and over one million absolute instances where deadly force would have been authorized. But since there could be SOME deviation, more than one million cases suddenly evaporate into meaninglessness, and we are left with some 16,000 instances. Your position is utterly absurd. Not for comparisons between countries in any detail, just a broad sweep. It is widely accepted in Britain that the statistics have been politicized and are unreliable due to government targets and everyone manipulating the stats to suit their own interests. Then you have Holland which collates stats more methodically without the politicization of applying and judging services by setting targets. You tell me how the US collates them, the British use management theories imported from the States. Dead bodies are the only reliable stats for comparison. quote: ORIGINAL: Pulpsmack quote: You mention 17,000 firearm deaths. I don't know if you mean murder by firearms or fatal incidents but according to this link in 2001 ( a little out of date maybe) there were 29,000 deaths, homicides and accidents etc etc. I think accidents with firearms are a significant part in the argument for gun control because while it is easy to beat someone's brains in with a baseball bat, it takes a real idiot to beat ones own brains in with a baseball bat. However, with firearms, accidents are a lot easier to come by. I believe I made it perfectly clear in the evidence cited that there were only 649 Accidental shootings and that pertains to children as well as adults. But seeing how you like precise numbers, I am going back and narrowing the pool to <1 to 17.... ready??? Of the 649 deaths by accidental shootings, only 105 are aged <1 to 17 in the year 2004. Go play with the numbers to your heart's content http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html So, if 649 accidental deaths out of a population of 300,000,000 is a compelling argument for banning something, I would hate to live in your world. I used your site. Death by firearms 29,000 http://webapp.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe All Children and teenagers 0-20 killed by firearms 3,628 Children's accidental deaths 0-20 167 I said nothing about the deaths being accidental. I said death by firearms and the stats are worse than I originally found. However you look at it, there are still a lot of greaving parents.

Pulpsmack -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/21/2007 2:02:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver All Children and teenagers 0-20 killed by firearms 3,628 Children's accidental deaths 0-20 167 I said nothing about the deaths being accidental. I said death by firearms and the stats are worse than I originally found. However you look at it, there are still a lot of greaving parents. You said "I think accidental deaths are a compelling reason for gun control" (Post 367) Total accidental deaths from firearms is 649 out of 29,000 Your total accidental deaths for minors is 167 out of 1,385 (I got 105, but we'll use your numbers) The US population where these occured is 290-some million. According to those numbers, accidental deaths given the number are no reason to even consider gun control Moreover 167 sets of grieving parents in a year isn't crap. Not by comparison to the number of children deliberately killed by firearms (where another gun in play could have saved the life), and certainly not by comparison to the amount of child fatalities via other means in this country.

meatcleaver -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/21/2007 2:09:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Pulpsmack Moreover 167 sets of grieving parents in a year isn't crap. Not by comparison to the number of children deliberately killed by firearms (where another gun in play could have saved the life), and certainly not by comparison to the amount of child fatalities via other means in this country. Now you're having a laugh! LOL You really are scrapping the barrel on this one. The hypothetical hero. Didn't 9/11 show there aren't any Hollywood heroes to save the day. Prevention is way before hand in all the boring unheroic stuff, not at the last minute. There really is no 7th Cavalry coming over the hill. Can't argue though, it's 11.00pm here and friends and the town are calling.

Pulpsmack -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/21/2007 2:24:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: Pulpsmack Moreover 167 sets of grieving parents in a year isn't crap. Not by comparison to the number of children deliberately killed by firearms (where another gun in play could have saved the life), and certainly not by comparison to the amount of child fatalities via other means in this country. Now you're having a laugh! LOL You really are scrapping the barrel on this one. The hypothetical hero. Didn't 9/11 show there aren't any Hollywood heroes to save the day. Prevention is way before hand in all the boring unheroic stuff, not at the last minute. There really is no 7th Cavalry coming over the hill. Can't argue though, it's 11.00pm here and friends and the town are calling. It's quite interesting how the best quips and all the nightlife plans seem to coincide with adverse data being presented, but I suppose we can leave that at sheer coincidence. Everything between "Now you're having a laugh", and "Cant argue though..." made no sense. Of course, the commentators on American law and history from across the Atlantic (as usual) seem to be missing the facts. There were more acts of selfless-heroism displayed in the events that unfurled during 9/11 than any peacetime incident I can think of. The most germane were those who fought the terrorist(s) unarmed and managed to bring the plane down in a field instead of its intended target. Nevertheless, it's hard to know whether or not any heroes are left when you tie everybody's hands before the bad guys even arrive.

Pulpsmack -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/21/2007 2:25:36 PM)
.

Rule -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/21/2007 3:28:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Pulpsmack The most germane were those who fought the terrorist(s) unarmed and managed to bring the plane down in a field instead of its intended target. It never happened. There was no plane.

Pulpsmack -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/21/2007 3:36:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule quote: ORIGINAL: Pulpsmack The most germane were those who fought the terrorist(s) unarmed and managed to bring the plane down in a field instead of its intended target. It never happened. There was no plane. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_Terrorist_Attack "Passengers and members of the flight crew on the fourth aircraft (United Airlines Flight 93) attempted to retake control of their plane from the hijackers;[5] that plane crashed into a field near the town of Shanksville in rural Somerset County, Pennsylvania". Speaking of hijacks... Perhaps this might be (somewhat) more relevent to the discussion 25 handguns missing from sheriff's office in Machias http://bangordailynews.com/news/t/news.aspx?articleid=148882&zoneid=500 This is one of many reasons why taking firearms from the hands of law-abiding citizens will never cure violent crimes committed with firearms.

Rule -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/21/2007 3:41:18 PM)
A fairy tale. Show me evidence. There ain't any.

Pulpsmack -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/21/2007 3:47:45 PM)
Have it your way. It's a fairy tale... and it's irrelevent for the purposes of the discussion, so you win and we move on.

Page: << < prev 15 16 17 18 [19]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

3.100586E-02