Leave the guns alone!!! - DPChallenge Forums

01/10/2011 03:03:51 PM · #51

Originally posted by coryboehne:

Regulate away, it won't make a damned bit of difference I suspect... The people who want to do this type of insane shit will always be able to find a way, it's just that their method will be chosen based upon what is available - and humans are very creative, especially when it comes to violence.

You can "suspect" all you want, but the actual evidence appears to suggest otherwise. This isn't surprising. That the relatively availability of some mechanism that makes it easier to kill and/or seriously harm would correlate to the rate of death and/or harm, is not some counterintuitive surprise. (Like I said, if know of some studies that do not show a correlation between increased rates of injury/death and the availability of guns, I would seriously be interested in looking at them.)

To throw a bone your way, however, I would agree with the idea that it is not so much the presence of guns per se that is the problem, but rather the glorification of gun violence that is prevalent in the culture. From the six-gun desperado and the "rogue" cop with his Magnum to the gang-banger with 9mm and the tommy-gun toting mobster to the full-auto Matrix free-for-alls, the message is that guns are cool and violence is a legitimate response. The problem is that one drives the other and that the glorification of gun culture leads otherwise rational people to make dumb arguments in its defense.

Message edited by author 2011-01-10 15:04:57.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/10/2011 03:06:46 PM · #52

Originally posted by coryboehne:

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

You keep erroneously equating regulation with prohibition/banning. DIFFERENT THINGS :D

No I'm not...

For example, morphine is highly regulated... Heroin is the street name for Morphine... It's not banned, it's regulated, but still - people on the street (criminals, because it is illegal - back to where I got involved in this damned thing) are able to get the stuff just fine...

You are 100% incorrect -- heroin is not the "street name" for morphine, it is/was the brand name for an opium derivative patented by Bayer early in the 20th Century.

It was later made a Schedule I drug (no recognized medical use) in the USA (though it is still used therapeutically in Great Britain) when the wrong sorts of people (black jazz mussicians, for example) started using it recreationally.

Heroin is more "concentrated" and has a longer half-life than morphine, and so is the most commonly abused non-presscription opioid.

Morphine is a Schedule II (written prescription required) drug in common use in hospitals (I had some after my recent surgery). It is very short-acting in its most common form, and thus is less practical as a drug of abuse; it's not very common on the street.

Of course, the really stupid thing is that, as a close analog of a compound we make in our own bodies (endorphins -- from "endogenous morphine") the opioids are -- if used within safe tolerances -- about the safest and least-damaging to the body substances we could ingest. The laws criminalizing their use/abuse are way out of proportion with their effect on public health.

FWIW I've worked in a clinic which treats people with opioid addictions since 1986.

Pentax D-FA* 70-200mm f/2.8 ED DC AW

01/10/2011 03:07:18 PM · #53

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

Originally posted by coryboehne:

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

Thing is, we can't stop trying just because the occasional mishaps happen. We can't stop trying just because fringe components of society abuse it. We can't stop trying just because of the occasional failing. We're trying to PROGRESS here, not regress. The last thing I want is a return to Old West justice. To Neanderthal thought processes. If you are a decent, good, deserving member of society and you want a weapon then you should be able to have one, but you should have to PROVE on a reasonable level that you can be responsible enough to deal with having one. That criminals can get weapons regardless is meaningless to me. That should never be a reason to just allow any Joe, Dick and Harry to randomly purchase any weapon they want whenever they want to.

There's a huge difference between being able to walk into a Wal-Mart and just anonymously purchase a gun, and having to work to find some street thug to buy one off of. A huge difference.

The problem with this is that eventually the people who follow the rules have nothing, and the outlaws have everything.. I don't think that's a good model.

Beyond this, let's just talk about society and the failings of "proof"... Essentially, if you haven't acted out or been caught acting out, or somehow otherwise established a reason to be distrusted, you are automatically "trusted" in that you can "prove" that you are not a nutjob.. Aside from that, I know I've had my moments of temporary insanity, and while I might not be Joe Normal, I'm pretty sure he has his moments of insanity as well. It's just that I happened to have the self control to act logically, which is what I feel probably separates the sane from the insane when it comes to those "moments".

This is where our small group "tribe" setting was superior to our modern society... Neanderthals at least KNEW their tribe members, all of them, in great detail - and you can bet that the f-ing fool who acted insanely would have been either made an oracle or fed to the wolves. Today we don't have the ability to really know if the person we're talking to is insane or not, or, even if we can tell they are obviously insane, we have no idea what sort of insanity they are likely to display. I know a couple of nut-jobs that I have no problem with them owning guns - despite the fact they are bat-shit crazy... I also know a couple of perfectly sane people with really bad tempers that should NEVER be allowed to own a gun.... Trying to detect this via a system of regulation is an impossibility, therefore regulation of this is doomed to fail IMO..

As for the Walmart gun thing... In any case, it's damned easy to follow the legal purchaser home and then violently steal their weapon - or just steal it while they are away..

Wow dude. I didn't realize you were so firmly entrenched in the Church of Nihilism. Happy (or not so happy) Trails.

You really are all about the red herring aren't you?

So, basically you think I'm somehow negating important aspects of life then? Or are you saying that I don't think live has meaning or value? Actually, it's time for you to go ahead and respond with more than once sentence again sniper boy... What exactly do you mean?

K3Master

Pentax K-3

01/10/2011 03:12:14 PM · #54

Originally posted by coryboehne:

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

Originally posted by coryboehne:

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

Thing is, we can't stop trying just because the occasional mishaps happen. We can't stop trying just because fringe components of society abuse it. We can't stop trying just because of the occasional failing. We're trying to PROGRESS here, not regress. The last thing I want is a return to Old West justice. To Neanderthal thought processes. If you are a decent, good, deserving member of society and you want a weapon then you should be able to have one, but you should have to PROVE on a reasonable level that you can be responsible enough to deal with having one. That criminals can get weapons regardless is meaningless to me. That should never be a reason to just allow any Joe, Dick and Harry to randomly purchase any weapon they want whenever they want to.

There's a huge difference between being able to walk into a Wal-Mart and just anonymously purchase a gun, and having to work to find some street thug to buy one off of. A huge difference.

The problem with this is that eventually the people who follow the rules have nothing, and the outlaws have everything.. I don't think that's a good model.

Beyond this, let's just talk about society and the failings of "proof"... Essentially, if you haven't acted out or been caught acting out, or somehow otherwise established a reason to be distrusted, you are automatically "trusted" in that you can "prove" that you are not a nutjob.. Aside from that, I know I've had my moments of temporary insanity, and while I might not be Joe Normal, I'm pretty sure he has his moments of insanity as well. It's just that I happened to have the self control to act logically, which is what I feel probably separates the sane from the insane when it comes to those "moments".

This is where our small group "tribe" setting was superior to our modern society... Neanderthals at least KNEW their tribe members, all of them, in great detail - and you can bet that the f-ing fool who acted insanely would have been either made an oracle or fed to the wolves. Today we don't have the ability to really know if the person we're talking to is insane or not, or, even if we can tell they are obviously insane, we have no idea what sort of insanity they are likely to display. I know a couple of nut-jobs that I have no problem with them owning guns - despite the fact they are bat-shit crazy... I also know a couple of perfectly sane people with really bad tempers that should NEVER be allowed to own a gun.... Trying to detect this via a system of regulation is an impossibility, therefore regulation of this is doomed to fail IMO..

As for the Walmart gun thing... In any case, it's damned easy to follow the legal purchaser home and then violently steal their weapon - or just steal it while they are away..

Wow dude. I didn't realize you were so firmly entrenched in the Church of Nihilism. Happy (or not so happy) Trails.

You really are all about the red herring aren't you?

So, basically you think I'm somehow negating important aspects of life then? Or are you saying that I don't think live has meaning or value? Actually, it's time for you to go ahead and respond with more than once sentence again sniper boy... What exactly do you mean?

I mean that I do believe you don't think life has much value. Or at least, you think that the only value it has is in personal survival by any means. I was using the term Nihilism a little freely, hence the addition of "church of", anyway. My point was just that we are in completely opposite camps, and that arguing with you is pointless, and I recognize that, so I'm letting it all go.

01/10/2011 03:18:18 PM · #55

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Originally posted by coryboehne:
Regulate away, it won't make a damned bit of difference I suspect... The people who want to do this type of insane shit will always be able to find a way, it's just that their method will be chosen based upon what is available - and humans are very creative, especially when it comes to violence.

You can "suspect" all you want, but the actual evidence appears to suggest otherwise. This isn't surprising. That the relatively availability of some mechanism that makes it easier to kill and/or seriously harm would correlate to the rate of death and/or harm, is not some counterintuitive surprise. (Like I said, if know of some studies that do not show a correlation between increased rates of injury/death and the availability of guns, I would seriously be interested in looking at them.)

To throw a bone your way, however, I would agree with the idea that it is not so much the presence of guns per se that is the problem, but rather the glorification of gun violence that is prevalent in the culture. From the six-gun desperado and the "rogue" cop with his Magnum to the gang-banger with 9mm and the tommy-gun toting mobster to the full-auto Matrix free-for-alls, the message is that guns are cool and violence is a legitimate response. The problem is that one drives the other and that the glorification of gun culture leads otherwise rational people to make dumb arguments in its defense.

*shrug* statistics lie... We all know that..

The problem with this is that while the statistics may show a decline in, say, gun use... They really can not show the increase in stabbings, beatings, vehicular homicides, etc - due to the large number of variables - essentially it's impossible to figure out what the guy that didn't shoot someone did instead.

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

(Like I said, if know of some studies that do not show a correlation between increased rates of injury/death and the availability of guns, I would seriously be interested in looking at them.)

Ever hear of Rwanda? They didn't have guns, but BOY do they know their violence... Turns out a machete is a pretty good weapon.

Funny enough, in response to the "gun culture" point, I think it's really that knives are more of a known quantity, while guns are more of a mystery... Let me explain: Have you been shot? Have you been cut? I'm betting that for most people the answer are, respectively, "No" and "Yes", we can extend this out to have you seen anyone be cut / shot... We all know what a knife does at the moment of impact, but many people's understanding of projectile physics is limited to the Hollywood version of reality. Therefore guns are more useful to producers/writers/the movie industry in general than knives because the director can make them do things that are fantastic, but completely out of touch with reality.. (how many times have you seen a handgun cause a car to blow up like it was hit with a half-dozen RPG's?)

I also think that's why most people can't actually believe that if you really want to kill someone a knife is a better tool than a gun... And to tie this all in to this rant, you can regulate guns all you want, but knives are not something you can successfully regulate.. Actually, I'd argue that we should all be thankful for the gun regulation debate, as it fools the general population into thinking guns are the weapon that is the most effective and dangerous.

01/10/2011 03:21:13 PM · #56

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

Originally posted by coryboehne:

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

Originally posted by coryboehne:

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

Thing is, we can't stop trying just because the occasional mishaps happen. We can't stop trying just because fringe components of society abuse it. We can't stop trying just because of the occasional failing. We're trying to PROGRESS here, not regress. The last thing I want is a return to Old West justice. To Neanderthal thought processes. If you are a decent, good, deserving member of society and you want a weapon then you should be able to have one, but you should have to PROVE on a reasonable level that you can be responsible enough to deal with having one. That criminals can get weapons regardless is meaningless to me. That should never be a reason to just allow any Joe, Dick and Harry to randomly purchase any weapon they want whenever they want to.

There's a huge difference between being able to walk into a Wal-Mart and just anonymously purchase a gun, and having to work to find some street thug to buy one off of. A huge difference.

The problem with this is that eventually the people who follow the rules have nothing, and the outlaws have everything.. I don't think that's a good model.

Beyond this, let's just talk about society and the failings of "proof"... Essentially, if you haven't acted out or been caught acting out, or somehow otherwise established a reason to be distrusted, you are automatically "trusted" in that you can "prove" that you are not a nutjob.. Aside from that, I know I've had my moments of temporary insanity, and while I might not be Joe Normal, I'm pretty sure he has his moments of insanity as well. It's just that I happened to have the self control to act logically, which is what I feel probably separates the sane from the insane when it comes to those "moments".

This is where our small group "tribe" setting was superior to our modern society... Neanderthals at least KNEW their tribe members, all of them, in great detail - and you can bet that the f-ing fool who acted insanely would have been either made an oracle or fed to the wolves. Today we don't have the ability to really know if the person we're talking to is insane or not, or, even if we can tell they are obviously insane, we have no idea what sort of insanity they are likely to display. I know a couple of nut-jobs that I have no problem with them owning guns - despite the fact they are bat-shit crazy... I also know a couple of perfectly sane people with really bad tempers that should NEVER be allowed to own a gun.... Trying to detect this via a system of regulation is an impossibility, therefore regulation of this is doomed to fail IMO..

As for the Walmart gun thing... In any case, it's damned easy to follow the legal purchaser home and then violently steal their weapon - or just steal it while they are away..

Wow dude. I didn't realize you were so firmly entrenched in the Church of Nihilism. Happy (or not so happy) Trails.

You really are all about the red herring aren't you?

So, basically you think I'm somehow negating important aspects of life then? Or are you saying that I don't think live has meaning or value? Actually, it's time for you to go ahead and respond with more than once sentence again sniper boy... What exactly do you mean?

I mean that I do believe you don't think life has much value. Or at least, you think that the only value it has is in personal survival by any means. I was using the term Nihilism a little freely, hence the addition of "church of", anyway. My point was just that we are in completely opposite camps, and that arguing with you is pointless, and I recognize that, so I'm letting it all go.

Whose posts are you reading anyway? I don't recall talking about personal survival at all, let alone by any means...

I was talking about society, freedoms, regulation, and killing.

And quite the contrary, I think life itself is the root of all value, it's the basic condition that allows for value to exist.

***

ETA: You are, btw, the freaking champ of disagreeing and telling me I'm wrong, or at odds with you, without ever putting a single value or belief of your own out there... Not exactly a great risk taker are you... It's quite a bit easier to criticize the ideas and words of others than it is to offer your own. I'd like to see you try to actually disagree using ideas, words and concepts that are more expansive than "I think you're wrong, and I'm right".. Basically, I'm calling you out here as a useless member of this conversation - as you've not yet actually tried to discuss the issue, but have instead managed to make this more about me than the actual subject of "Leave the guns alone"... Every post I have made has managed to address that point, you have yet to actually make a statement about anything other than me or my opinions. In the end, I guess I'm kinda flattered that I matter so much to you.

Message edited by author 2011-01-10 15:32:41.

01/10/2011 03:42:31 PM · #57

Originally posted by coryboehne:

*shrug* statistics lie... We all know that..

So if you can't prevail on the evidence, you will just attack the mechanism? I suspect that if you had studies that backed up your arguments, you would feel otherwise.

Originally posted by coryboehne:

The problem with this is that while the statistics may show a decline in, say, gun use... They really can not show the increase in stabbings, beatings, vehicular homicides, etc - due to the large number of variables - essentially it's impossible to figure out what the guy that didn't shoot someone did instead.

Actually, it's not. This is exactly what looking at the rate of serious injury and/or death relating to violent crimes shows - all other things held equal, when guns are more available, the rates of death/serious injury resulting from violent crime and suicide go up. You don't like that conclusion, which is why you attack the concept of statistical analysis, but it doesn't change the evidence.

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

(Like I said, if know of some studies that do not show a correlation between increased rates of injury/death and the availability of guns, I would seriously be interested in looking at them.)

Originally posted by coryboehne:

Ever hear of Rwanda? They didn't have guns, but BOY do they know their violence... Turns out a machete is a pretty good weapon.

Yes, and Rwanda provides such a good demographically equivalent (apples to apples) point of comparison to the United States. But I'm sure your right, if only the Hutu majority had (more) guns Rwanda would be an utopian paradise.

Originally posted by coryboehne:

Funny enough, in response to the "gun culture" point, I think it's really that knives are more of a known quantity, while guns are more of a mystery... Let me explain: Have you been shot? Have you been cut? I'm betting that for most people the answer are, respectively, "No" and "Yes", we can extend this out to have you seen anyone be cut / shot... We all know what a knife does at the moment of impact, but many people's understanding of projectile physics is limited to the Hollywood version of reality. Therefore guns are more useful to producers/writers/the movie industry in general than knives because the director can make them do things that are fantastic, but completely out of touch with reality.. (how many times have you seen a handgun cause a car to blow up like it was hit with a half-dozen RPG's?)

I also think that's why most people can't actually believe that if you really want to kill someone a knife is a better tool than a gun... And to tie this all in to this rant, you can regulate guns all you want, but knives are not something you can successfully regulate.. Actually, I'd argue that we should all be thankful for the gun regulation debate, as it fools the general population into thinking guns are the weapon that is the most effective and dangerous.

Just keep digging on the "knife is more deadly than a gun" line. I'm sure that the knife's inherent killing superiority in all circumstances is why all modern armies have completely shelved their guns and are equipping all their soldiers with sabers and hunting knives.

Frankly, I'm going to take the example of K10DGuy to heart and disengage from you as well. It's possible to have a rational discussion about gun rights versus regulation, but you aren't doing that - your arguments are just amalgamations of magical thinking, delusion and deliberate obfuscation. Have fun in your bunker.

Message edited by author 2011-01-10 15:44:27.

01/10/2011 03:46:57 PM · #58

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by coryboehne:

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

You keep erroneously equating regulation with prohibition/banning. DIFFERENT THINGS :D

No I'm not...

For example, morphine is highly regulated... Heroin is the street name for Morphine... It's not banned, it's regulated, but still - people on the street (criminals, because it is illegal - back to where I got involved in this damned thing) are able to get the stuff just fine...

You are 100% incorrect -- heroin is not the "street name" for morphine, it is/was the brand name for an opium derivative patented by Bayer early in the 20th Century.

It was later made a Schedule I drug (no recognized medical use) in the USA (though it is still used therapeutically in Great Britain) when the wrong sorts of people (black jazz mussicians, for example) started using it recreationally.

Heroin is more "concentrated" and has a longer half-life than morphine, and so is the most commonly abused non-presscription opioid.

Morphine is a Schedule II (written prescription required) drug in common use in hospitals (I had some after my recent surgery). It is very short-acting in its most common form, and thus is less practical as a drug of abuse; it's not very common on the street.

Of course, the really stupid thing is that, as a close analog of a compound we make in our own bodies (endorphins -- from "endogenous morphine") the opioids are -- if used within safe tolerances -- about the safest and least-damaging to the body substances we could ingest. The laws criminalizing their use/abuse are way out of proportion with their effect on public health.

FWIW I've worked in a clinic which treats people with opioid addictions since 1986.

Fair enough, my statement was somewhat inaccurate (but morphine is as much like heroin as hash is like marijuana, so I'd argue that I'm not 100% incorrect - just not as well informed as you about opiates).

But my argument remains valid I think, FWIW I know a person who happens to posses a single 30mg Morphine pill. It's well hidden, and he actually never intends to use it, but should he find that he needs a serious pain killer, that is available to him as a backup plan.. Now, morphine is regulated, yet... Oddly I happen to personally know someone who has it illegally, and I even know they have it. Same is true of explosives, I know several people with illegal caches of high explosives - granted, they have reason (mining), but it doesn't change the fact that these are high explosives that have managed to be procured without following the regulated channels. And yet people are arguing that gun control / regulation / bans, etc, can actually work... I can not see how.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/10/2011 03:51:54 PM · #59

Originally posted by coryboehne:

You really are all about the red herring aren't you?

As they say in the schoolyard, "it takes one to know one."

~~I notice you haven't responded to my noting your own error of fact -- perhaps you are just in the arms of Morpheus ...~~ You posted while I was typing ...

No one is denying the right of a mentally competent, law-abiding adult to have a gun. However, it is the government's duty to make a person demonstrate that they are a competent, law-abiding adult before getting one.

Message edited by author 2011-01-10 15:52:38.

Art Roflmao

Canon EOS-6D Mark II

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

01/10/2011 03:54:27 PM · #60

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/10/2011 03:54:59 PM · #61

Originally posted by coryboehne:

I know several people with illegal caches of high explosives - granted, they have reason (mining), but it doesn't change the fact that these are high explosives that have managed to be procured without following the regulated channels. And yet people are arguing that gun control / regulation / bans, etc, can actually work... I can not see how.

Those laws would work better of "law-abiding" citizens like you would report the miscreants to the proper authorities instead of abetting them in their felonious conduct.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

01/10/2011 03:57:09 PM · #62

Originally posted by coryboehne:

But my argument remains valid I think, FWIW I know a person who happens to posses a single 30mg Morphine pill. It's well hidden, and he actually never intends to use it, but should he find that he needs a serious pain killer, that is available to him as a backup plan.. Now, morphine is regulated, yet... Oddly I happen to personally know someone who has it illegally, and I even know they have it. Same is true of explosives, I know several people with illegal caches of high explosives - granted, they have reason (mining), but it doesn't change the fact that these are high explosives that have managed to be procured without following the regulated channels. And yet people are arguing that gun control / regulation / bans, etc, can actually work... I can not see how.

Are you seriously arguing that any policy that is not 100% effective is a failed policy?

Cory, in this entire discussion you're coming across as somebody who think he understands the "real world", but to those of us arguing with you, it seems like you're living in some bizarro, upside-down fairytale land.

R.

01/10/2011 03:58:20 PM · #63

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Originally posted by coryboehne:
*shrug* statistics lie... We all know that..

So if you can't prevail on the evidence, you will just attack the mechanism? I suspect that if you had studies that backed up your arguments, you would feel otherwise.

Seriously? Not at all, I'm attacking my own statistics as well... They do lie, and it's all in the interpretation (assuming that the data is correct)

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Originally posted by coryboehne:
The problem with this is that while the statistics may show a decline in, say, gun use... They really can not show the increase in stabbings, beatings, vehicular homicides, etc - due to the large number of variables - essentially it's impossible to figure out what the guy that didn't shoot someone did instead.

Actually, it's not. This is exactly what looking at the rate of serious injury and/or death relating to violent crimes shows - all other things held equal, when guns are more available, the rates of death/serious injury resulting from violent crime and suicide go up. You don't like that conclusion, which is why you attack the concept of statistical analysis, but it doesn't change the evidence.

Post your study, I'd like to read it, but as it is I see you asking for links and information that verifies what I've said (which I posted and you dismissed as useless), while I don't see you posting any supporting evidence for your view points...

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
(Like I said, if know of some studies that do not show a correlation between increased rates of injury/death and the availability of guns, I would seriously be interested in looking at them.)

Originally posted by coryboehne:
Ever hear of Rwanda? They didn't have guns, but BOY do they know their violence... Turns out a machete is a pretty good weapon.

Yes, and Rwanda provides such a good demographically equivalent (apples to apples) point of comparison to the United States. But I'm sure your right, if only the Hutu majority had (more) guns Rwanda would be an utopian paradise.

Yeah, not my argument was it... Did I manage somehow to imply that guns bring peace to the troubled? I thought I was implying that guns are a tool like any other.

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Originally posted by coryboehne:
Funny enough, in response to the "gun culture" point, I think it's really that knives are more of a known quantity, while guns are more of a mystery... Let me explain: Have you been shot? Have you been cut? I'm betting that for most people the answer are, respectively, "No" and "Yes", we can extend this out to have you seen anyone be cut / shot... We all know what a knife does at the moment of impact, but many people's understanding of projectile physics is limited to the Hollywood version of reality. Therefore guns are more useful to producers/writers/the movie industry in general than knives because the director can make them do things that are fantastic, but completely out of touch with reality.. (how many times have you seen a handgun cause a car to blow up like it was hit with a half-dozen RPG's?)

I also think that's why most people can't actually believe that if you really want to kill someone a knife is a better tool than a gun... And to tie this all in to this rant, you can regulate guns all you want, but knives are not something you can successfully regulate.. Actually, I'd argue that we should all be thankful for the gun regulation debate, as it fools the general population into thinking guns are the weapon that is the most effective and dangerous.

Just keep digging on the "knife is more deadly than a gun" line. I'm sure that the knife's inherent killing superiority in all circumstances is why all modern armies have completely shelved their guns and are equipping all their soldiers with sabers and hunting knives.

No, they only give knives to the people who actually know how to kill rather than "spray and spray".. You might want to check into what special ops guys actually carry. Of course regular military folks aren't expected to be killing at personal contact distances, they rightly prefer to keep the fight at a distance, hence the use of guns.. The special ops guys love their knives, they're silent and very effective, albeit at a range disadvantage (then again, guns are at a serious disadvantage in a close combat situation..) But we're talking about an incident that did occur at arms length (point blank range) and therefore falls under different conditions which change the situational dynamic.

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Frankly, I'm going to take the example of K10DGuy to heart and disengage from you as well. It's possible to have a rational discussion about gun rights versus regulation, but you aren't doing that - your arguments are just amalgamations of magical thinking, delusion and deliberate obfuscation. Have fun in your bunker.

I simply don't see that... I'm working from real world examples, of real incidents.. You seem to be quite comfortable in your palace of beliefs though, so I'll try not to disturb you with reality any more...

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

01/10/2011 04:10:47 PM · #64

Originally posted by coryboehne:

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Frankly, I'm going to take the example of K10DGuy to heart and disengage from you as well. It's possible to have a rational discussion about gun rights versus regulation, but you aren't doing that - your arguments are just amalgamations of magical thinking, delusion and deliberate obfuscation. Have fun in your bunker.

I simply don't see that... I'm working from real world examples, of real incidents.. You seem to be quite comfortable in your palace of beliefs though, so I'll try not to disturb you with reality any more...

See Robert's post directly above. Also look up "psychological projection" and the "Dunning-Kruger Effect."

posthumous

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

01/10/2011 04:12:20 PM · #65

I'm impressed that people are willing to fight so hard for the right of paranoid schizophrenics to buy semiautomatic weapons. That's America for you. Come and visit us real soon!

I particularly enjoyed Cory's argument that this kid would have killed more than 6 people and wounded more than 17 others if he'd had a boxcutter.

Louis

Nikon D800

01/10/2011 04:15:19 PM · #66

Wrong, a hunting boxcutter.

01/10/2011 04:16:28 PM · #67

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by coryboehne:
But my argument remains valid I think, FWIW I know a person who happens to posses a single 30mg Morphine pill. It's well hidden, and he actually never intends to use it, but should he find that he needs a serious pain killer, that is available to him as a backup plan.. Now, morphine is regulated, yet... Oddly I happen to personally know someone who has it illegally, and I even know they have it. Same is true of explosives, I know several people with illegal caches of high explosives - granted, they have reason (mining), but it doesn't change the fact that these are high explosives that have managed to be procured without following the regulated channels. And yet people are arguing that gun control / regulation / bans, etc, can actually work... I can not see how.

Are you seriously arguing that any policy that is not 100% effective is a failed policy?

Cory, in this entire discussion you're coming across as somebody who think he understands the "real world", but to those of us arguing with you, it seems like you're living in some bizarro, upside-down fairytale land.

R.

*shrug*

Perhaps my life experiences are sufficiently different from normal that I do perceive this place a bit differently.

Or, perhaps, just perhaps, have you considered that I might actually have a broader experience base than most in this realm? You appreciate, I'm sure, the fact that you effectively know very little about me, and that I may have lived a life that was indeed very "upside-down bizarro"... But, I can assure you that the word fairytale hardly plays into the reality... And while I'm sure it was not a carefully chosen word, I'd like to ask you, personally a few questions that will establish your qualifications of determining what is and what is not reality..

Have you ever watched someone you cared about bleed out in front of you?
Have you ever been the victim or assailant in a violent crime?
Have you ever actually been involved in buying / selling of black market items?
Have you ever actually done anything outside of the "prescribed life" you know so much about? (I know you've taught and traveled, but that doesn't in any way demonstrate a knowledge of the darker side of reality...)
How many people do you know personally that have actually murdered someone?
How many long term acquaintances of yours are in prison right now, or have been at any time?
Do you know anyone who you think would gladly kill you for your possessions if only they thought they could get away with it?
Do you know what it feels like to be stabbed or shot?
Gotten into a street fight?

I can go on with these, and just to clarify, I'm a yes on every point above...

I just doubt that you are qualified to tell me about the "real" world, I don't honestly expect that you can ever appreciate just exactly how "bizarro" the real world is - your Cape Cod fantasy life isn't reality Bear, it's actually about as far from the "real" world as you can get..

01/10/2011 04:19:25 PM · #68

Originally posted by posthumous:

A box cutter was absolutely not what I had in mind.. I was thinking more along the line of a couple of very high quality kitchen knives, probably somehow secured to his hands preventing loss of the weapons... - a box cutter would have clearly not functioned well for this.

Sigh, and hell no crazies shouldn't have guns... I just don't think we can stop them.

Message edited by author 2011-01-10 16:20:08.

posthumous

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

01/10/2011 04:21:58 PM · #69

Originally posted by coryboehne:

Originally posted by posthumous:
I'm impressed that people are willing to fight so hard for the right of paranoid schizophrenics to buy semiautomatic weapons. That's America for you. Come and visit us real soon!

I particularly enjoyed Cory's argument that this kid would have killed more than 6 people and wounded more than 17 others if he'd had a boxcutter.

A box cutter was absolutely not what I had in mind.. I was thinking more along the line of a couple of very high quality kitchen knives, probably somehow secured to his hands preventing loss of the weapons... - a box cutter would have clearly not functioned well for this.

Sigh, and hell no crazies shouldn't have guns... I just don't think we can stop them.

Just provide some examples of Columbines, Virginia Techs, or Tucson Walgreens that were perpetrated with kitchen knives, and you win the argument.

01/10/2011 04:24:23 PM · #70

Originally posted by posthumous:

Originally posted by coryboehne:

Originally posted by posthumous:
I'm impressed that people are willing to fight so hard for the right of paranoid schizophrenics to buy semiautomatic weapons. That's America for you. Come and visit us real soon!

I particularly enjoyed Cory's argument that this kid would have killed more than 6 people and wounded more than 17 others if he'd had a boxcutter.

A box cutter was absolutely not what I had in mind.. I was thinking more along the line of a couple of very high quality kitchen knives, probably somehow secured to his hands preventing loss of the weapons... - a box cutter would have clearly not functioned well for this.

Sigh, and hell no crazies shouldn't have guns... I just don't think we can stop them.

Just provide some examples of Columbines, Virginia Techs, or Tucson Walgreens that were perpetrated with kitchen knives, and you win the argument.

A whole Google full of them for you.. Notice I restricted that to chinese alone (they seem to have a thing for this in the last few years), but there are other examples..

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/10/2011 04:24:56 PM · #71

You can run away from someone with a knife -- they'd have to be pretty handy (and not have them affixed to their hands) to kill you at more than a few-foot range. The likelihood he could have killed six and maimed fourteen people with a knife before someone clobbered him with a chair has somewhat worse odds than the congressperson being hit by a falling Sputnik ...

01/10/2011 04:28:30 PM · #72

Originally posted by coryboehne:

I'm not responsible for your education, but here Let Me Google That For You.

A sampling from the first page of links that you'll get.

//www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html
A literature review, listing and summarizing relevant studies indicating correlation between increased gun ownership/availability and death and/or serious injuries.

//canada.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/rs/rep-rap/1998/wd98_4-dt98_4/p57.html
Another literature review, this one from our friends to the North. Of particular note on the knife versus gun angle is this finding that: "shootings were 12 times more likely to result in death than assaults with a sharp instrument. The case-fatality rate was at 16.2 percent in incidents involving firearms, as opposed to 1.3 percent in those involving knives (Barber et al., 1996: 488). While firearms are surely lethal weapons, the severity of an injury sustained in an attack also depends on the intention of the attacker. The previous review (Gabor, 1994: 31-35) looked at the question of intent and noted its complexity. Among other considerations, the author outlined how the offender does not always premeditate the crime, nor is the offender always motivated to kill. The judgement of the offender may be impaired by alcohol or drugs; and the decision to shoot may be impulsive. Each of these empirical observations remain valid."

//www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=63E04EC510C7A299B5031DDCF42B8FD4.inst3_3b?docId=5000574216
"A higher incidence of weapon-carrying, and guns in particular, among youths has been identified as a key factor in the recent increase in youth violence. Weapon-carrying increases risk of death and serious injury to both the carrier and others."

Message edited by author 2011-01-10 16:30:52.