Quote: Original post by PouyaCat
Why buy a gun if it doesn't save yourself...? Eh... because if /everyone/ has a gun, and every damn crazy wanting to shoot multiple people is immediatly shot himself, nobody will perhaps consider shooting multiple people? Wouldn't work anyway.

(... so they go back to explosives. HRM.)

That's pretty much what happened in Israel :P

Quote: Original post by stlfbr1
Sure if everyone has a gun then they would get shot so you'd have only 2 deaths, but if everyone didn't have a gun there wouldn't have been any!

There are these things, you see, called knives, or fists, or clubs, or a big stick. People will always find a way to kill others :P

One of the advantages of a firearm is that, for the most part, it doesn't require the user to be stronger than their opponent. You may think that's a bad thing, but I think it helps those that are generally weaker in a physical sense (females, handicapped, etc).

Quote: Original post by stlfbr1
We certainly can make it much more difficult but the only way to stop it would be...stop making guns?

Impossible. Have you ever seen any of the videos of Pakistan's gun markets?

Now, imagine a country with tens of thousands of CNC machines (*cough* USA *cough*). Good luck.

The only way to prevent firearms proliferation would be complete state control similar to Brave New World, where everyone is brainwashed and drugged from the day they are grown in vats.

Honestly, I'd really prefer if people had some reasonable comments, not 'WE NEED TO BAN GUNS, Oh how I wish they would just all disappear', because that's really not even a physically possible outcome.

Quote: Original post by Programmer One
What is it with you and guns?

I generally don't talk about firearms all the time, not here or in RL. I will point out inconstancies if I see anyone mention something about firearms, and if there are parts of a discussion that involve firearms, I will probably be more knowledgeable in that area. It's a hobby, it's like if I enjoyed cars, I would be able to answer car questions better. For this thread, there was a rather high-profile news show on the topic, so I thought it'd be interesting to discuss it.

Quote: Original post by ChaosEngine
I'm not sure I see your point. If having a gun isn't going to protect you from getting shot, what's the point of it? Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm reading this as "well, I may get shot but at least I'll get the other guy too"?

Well it was a bit of an exaggeration. The chances of getting shot are pretty high, but not 100%. It depends on many factors, like the situation, skill levels involved, firearms involved, etc, etc. My point is, many people think it's like movies, and they are the heroes. They are going to be disappointed when they are laying on the ground with some large holes in them.

Quote: Original post by ChaosEngine
Terrible analogy. The desire to have sex is built-in to us. It is not only tolerated but expected that at some point in your life your will have sex. OTOH, I can quite easily go through life without the need to ever use a firearm or even encounter one (assuming we don't end up in some sort of post-apocalyptic wild-west scenario). I no more need firearms training than I need piloting lessons. Granted, if I wanted to go shooting I'd be an idiot not to take a firearms safety course beforehand. It's not like firearms are lying in the street.

Not really. Let me go get my Glock manual:

"Warning - Children are attracted to and can operate firearms that can cause severe injuries or death."

Firearms are increasingly being considered a public health problem, rather than a criminal problem. Just a quick google came up with this.

It may be a bad analogy, but the gun-grabbers should stop using it then.

Quote: Original post by Codeka
Surely the better option would be to stop the crazy people having guns, then nobody would get shot! If that means nobody can have guns, then so be it. I've survived these past 29 years without ever touching a gun.

How do you find crazy people? And saying nobody can have guns is ridiculous. Even in Australia many people own firearms, but now since they are banned only criminals own them, instead of being out gunned by non-criminals.

Quote: Original post by PouyaCat
1) Nobody has guns. A kills B. Then C. Then D. Then E. ... Then Z. 25 die.

2) Everyone has guns. A shoots B, B shoots back, both die. 2 die.

So you won't be saving yourself; you WILL be saving a lot of other people.

From my personal experience, this is the exact attitude that many europeans dislike, because that attitude is naive.

Strangely, in germany a thousand times more people die or get hurt in roadtraffic accidents than due to firearms. And that altough only a minority has access to firearms.

When I think about it, it would be a very intelligent idea if I mount a flak cannon onto my car, just in case a "motorist driving against the traffic on motorways" *, because if I don't sacrifice him, how many will he sacrifice? Should be a very sane idea, as more people die on such things, than due to firearms here.

*(sorry, dict gives me that translation; I mean if a driver decides to drive into the wrong direction on the Autobahn)


OT: What I personally find odd, is that in the US, it seems to me, kissing gays, or just a pair of boobs, in a movie, are worse then weapons at supermarkets. Like, everyone might have the power to kill, but about sexuality one shall not talk.

Actually, we also have a culture of guns here, but it is mostly and sanely regulated; we have no basic right on shooting weapons.

Quote: Original post by PouyaCat

Consider person A going on a rampage. Two scenarios:

1) Nobody has guns. A kills B. Then C. Then D. Then E. ... Then Z. 25 die.

2) Everyone has guns. A shoots B, B shoots back, both die. 2 die.

3) A shoots at B, C, D, E. C and D shoot at A, B and E have died.

C is a bad shot and has just killed F's kid, F pulls their weapon and starts firing back at C and D. G being a good person always willing to help their fellow man pulls out their weapon and starts shooting at C and D too!


60 seconds later, there are fifty or more people dead or badly wounded because everyone carries a weapon and are strung so tightly by hysteria and fear that someone who had too much coffee and too little sleep snaps when the car driving past him happens to back fire,...

Quote: Original post by Codeka
Perhaps, but criminals tend to kill other criminals, not go on school shooting rampages.

Huh? If they go on a school shooting rampage they're a criminal.

it boggles the mind...

Anyone wants to play spot the looney?

Quote: Original post by curtmax_0
The only way to prevent firearms proliferation would be complete state control similar to Brave New World, where everyone is brainwashed and drugged from the day they are grown in vats.

The possession of many types of recreational drugs is illegal. Why hasn't that resulted in completely brainwashed population? Or perhaps it already has in your opinion?

Quote: Original post by Talroth

Quote: Original post by PouyaCat

Consider person A going on a rampage. Two scenarios:

1) Nobody has guns. A kills B. Then C. Then D. Then E. ... Then Z. 25 die.

2) Everyone has guns. A shoots B, B shoots back, both die. 2 die.

3) A shoots at B, C, D, E. C and D shoot at A, B and E have died.

C is a bad shot and has just killed F's kid, F pulls their weapon and starts firing back at C and D. G being a good person always willing to help their fellow man pulls out their weapon and starts shooting at C and D too!


60 seconds later, there are fifty or more people dead or badly wounded because everyone carries a weapon and are strung so tightly by hysteria and fear that someone who had too much coffee and too little sleep snaps when the car driving past him happens to back fire,...

This doesn't happen often. I can't really find any events where a shooting clusterfuck commences and a bunch of random people are gunned down by other random people trying to gun down the random people shooting at them, etc.

People have been making this argument for years, but in reality it has never materialized. You know that it's already legal in many states to carry firearms at schools right? In Utah, state universities cannot even expel students for carrying firearms. We haven't had any clusterfucks yet.

Quote: Original post by phresnel
OT: What I personally find odd, is that in the US, it seems to me, kissing gays, or just a pair of boobs, in a movie, are worse then weapons at supermarkets. Like, everyone might have the power to kill, but about sexuality one shall not talk.

I agree that the acceptance of violence in media, but the controversy over sexuality is rather retarded. Also, buying firearms at Wal*Mart is retarded. They only carry crap, and the employees are incompetent. I'm surprised they can even call in 4473s correctly.

What's generally wrong with selling firearms at a discount store though? Should you only sell firearms at a 'firearms place' and nowhere else? Why does Wal*Mart sell TVs then? Only TV stores should sell TVs. There are still hardware stores around here that carry firearms. Makes sense, it's just a tool store.

I'm planning on getting an FFL. Just depends on if I move somewhere with zoning restrictions. Would that make me evil? Selling guns from my garage?

Quote: Original post by phresnel

Quote: Original post by PouyaCat
1) Nobody has guns. A kills B. Then C. Then D. Then E. ... Then Z. 25 die.

2) Everyone has guns. A shoots B, B shoots back, both die. 2 die.

So you won't be saving yourself; you WILL be saving a lot of other people.

From my personal experience, this is the exact attitude that many europeans dislike, because that attitude is naive.

That, or your understanding of said attitude.

Quote:
Strangely, in germany a thousand times more people die or get hurt in roadtraffic accidents than due to firearms. And that altough only a minority has access to firearms.

It seems as if you are implying the US is different in any qualitative manner here, but then again, that wouldnt make any sense. Im confused.

Quote:
OT: What I personally find odd, is that in the US, it seems to me, kissing gays, or just a pair of boobs, in a movie, are worse then weapons at supermarkets. Like, everyone might have the power to kill, but about sexuality one shall not talk.

What I personally find odd, is that havnt been able to find this US of moore-ian propaganda myself. As far as i know, it exists only in the heads of people such as yourself.

Not sure how reliable that source of information is, but I think I've seen a similar diagram elsewhere:


Another, seemingly more neutral source says:

Quote: RESULTS: During the one-year study period, 88 649 firearm deaths were reported. Overall firearm mortality rates are five to six times higher in HI and UMI countries in the Americas (12.72) than in Europe (2.17), or Oceania (2.57) and 95 times higher than in Asia (0.13). The rate of firearm deaths in the United States (14.24 per 100 000) exceeds that of its economic counterparts (1.76) eightfold and that of UMI countries (9.69) by a factor of 1.5. Suicide and homicide contribute equally to total firearm deaths in the US, but most firearm deaths are suicides (71%) in HI countries and homicides (72%) in UMI countries.

Quote: Original post by Talroth

Quote: Original post by PouyaCat

Consider person A going on a rampage. Two scenarios:

1) Nobody has guns. A kills B. Then C. Then D. Then E. ... Then Z. 25 die.

2) Everyone has guns. A shoots B, B shoots back, both die. 2 die.

3) A shoots at B, C, D, E. C and D shoot at A, B and E have died.

C is a bad shot and has just killed F's kid, F pulls their weapon and starts firing back at C and D. G being a good person always willing to help their fellow man pulls out their weapon and starts shooting at C and D too!


60 seconds later, there are fifty or more people dead or badly wounded because everyone carries a weapon and are strung so tightly by hysteria and fear that someone who had too much coffee and too little sleep snaps when the car driving past him happens to back fire,...

A third interpretation comes to mind:

A sneakily murders B in B's house, B's wife C awakes and is insteadly killed, too. A goes upstairs, founds a bunch of ammunition and another gun; he decides to take that gun because he's low on ammu for his own rifle. In the neighbourhood, D and his son E awake from the sound of the shot. D and E step outside with D's rifle.

A faces D and E. D has never shot at a human before, and is paralyzed by the fear to kill another man, whereas son E, who holds a small 9mm gun, is paralyzed as well, but from the fear that is caused by A aiming at them both.

A is more rational, because he already killed men and boys when he served in a remote war. He knows from looking into D's and E's eyes that the kid is more dangerous and fragile, so A decides to kill the kid first, further paralyizing the father, then he kills the father himself. What luck, a small gun. Ideal to be used in an indoor environment, contrary to his rather clumsy rifle. He takes that gun, and on his trip decides to barricade in another house; 9mm gun comes in handy, upstairs another family is sacrificed, and another few rifles are found.

Et cetera.

Actually, shooting at people is not that trivial as many believe, and in most cases requires a kind of drill to it (e.g. in military or police training). Hence, being a "Hero" is more a cowboy fantasy that goes into the same direction as this.

Quote: Original post by Eelco

Quote: Original post by phresnel

Quote: Original post by PouyaCat
1) Nobody has guns. A kills B. Then C. Then D. Then E. ... Then Z. 25 die.

2) Everyone has guns. A shoots B, B shoots back, both die. 2 die.

So you won't be saving yourself; you WILL be saving a lot of other people.

From my personal experience, this is the exact attitude that many europeans dislike, because that attitude is naive.

That, or your understanding of said attitude.

See my other, equally naive, mindplay.

Quote:

Quote:
Strangely, in germany a thousand times more people die or get hurt in roadtraffic accidents than due to firearms. And that altough only a minority has access to firearms.

It seems as if you are implying the US is different in any qualitative manner here, but then again, that wouldnt make any sense. Im confused.

Bad wording there, sorry. I wanted to prepare the following argumentation about justifying flak cannons on cars to prevent "ghost-drivers" or stone-throwers on bridges.

Quote:

Quote:
OT: What I personally find odd, is that in the US, it seems to me, kissing gays, or just a pair of boobs, in a movie, are worse then weapons at supermarkets. Like, everyone might have the power to kill, but about sexuality one shall not talk.

What I personally find odd, is that havnt been able to find this US of moore-ian propaganda myself. As far as i know, it exists only in the heads of people such as yourself.

Or Eric Frey'ian. Or just statistics that I find in books and in newspapers sometimes, or like in my above post.

Actually, I haven't killed anyone, but when I absolved my service at the Bundeswehr and hold those rifles and guns in my hands, I recognized that I am not able to understand why one wants to own such a weapon. Shooting can be fun (and I personally find it enjoyable to shoot (not at animals, hunting and killing animals solely for the joy of it is perverse in my mind; nothing against hunting for food)), but for that we have firing ranges and gun control in germany. In the end, the primary purpose of guns is to A) kill, or B) hurt.

(another sideeffect of the military service was that I am now of the opinion that you don't learn shooting in "killer-games")