Guns don't kill people - DPChallenge Forums

08/13/2012 08:51:17 PM · #551

Originally posted by Cory:

Guns really are better used on animals and targets IMO.

Explosives are better used for fireworks and mining, too, but enabling everyone unfettered access to them guarantees more nefarious purposes.

08/13/2012 11:35:18 PM · #552

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Cory:
Guns really are better used on animals and targets IMO.

Explosives are better used for fireworks and mining, too, but enabling everyone unfettered access to them guarantees more nefarious purposes.

Would you agree that Aluminum, Bleach, and Non-Sodium salt alternative are pretty much available to everyone, without any sort of restrictions?

That is everything that is needed to make very good flash powder, and as I see it, those items are available to pretty much everyone.

The good news is that the psychopaths tend to live in a fantasy world where guns are the proper tools for their "job"... If we take away the guns, you should be worried that they may start to actually engage their brains and think.

Message edited by author 2012-08-13 23:51:54.

08/14/2012 12:11:22 AM · #553

Originally posted by Cory:

The good news is that the psychopaths tend to live in a fantasy world where guns are the proper tools for their "job"... If we take away the guns, you should be worried that they may start to actually engage their brains and think.

Ha! Glad I stopped in. And the outcome of this engagement is what? Are suggesting this as an argument to keep them armed with guns?

08/14/2012 12:15:18 AM · #554

Originally posted by Cory:

Now you're just being ridiculous. Steel and flint are readily available, too, and those are everything needed to make a gun. Ammonium nitrate fertilizer is facing restrictions for the same implied reason. Making flash powder is an extremely fringe purpose for aluminum and bleach, while shooting people is hardly an unusual purpose for guns.

Originally posted by Cory:

So you're suggesting we DON'T restrict the gun ownership of psychopaths?

Message edited by author 2012-08-14 00:18:24.

08/14/2012 12:31:53 AM · #555

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Cory:
Would you agree that Aluminum, Bleach, and Non-Sodium salt alternative are pretty much available to everyone, without any sort of restrictions?

That is everything that is needed to make very good flash powder, and as I see it, those items are available to pretty much everyone.

Now you're just being ridiculous. Steel and flint are readily available, too, and those are everything needed to make a gun. Ammonium nitrate fertilizer is facing restrictions for the same implied reason. Making flash powder is an extremely fringe purpose for aluminum and bleach, while shooting people is hardly an unusual purpose for guns.

Originally posted by Cory:
The good news is that the psychopaths tend to live in a fantasy world where guns are the proper tools for their "job"... If we take away the guns, you should be worried that they may start to actually engage their brains and think.

So you're suggesting we DON'T restrict the gun ownership of psychopaths?

Nothing of the sort... But looking at the Batman shooter, clearly he could have done much more, from chemical agents like mustard gas, to explosive setups, for some reason he chose a gun, and I can't imagine that that choice didn't end up saving lives.

What do you think he would have done if he couldn't have gotten a gun? Do you think he would have just said, "ah, screw it, if I can't shoot people, then what's the point of killing them"?

08/14/2012 12:52:18 AM · #556

Originally posted by bspurgeon:

Originally posted by Cory:

The good news is that the psychopaths tend to live in a fantasy world where guns are the proper tools for their "job"... If we take away the guns, you should be worried that they may start to actually engage their brains and think.

Ha! Glad I stopped in. And the outcome of this engagement is what? Are suggesting this as an argument to keep them armed with guns?

Just to be very clear here.

You are engaging, probably willfully, in a fallacy here.

Essentially you are implying that the only options are to disarm everyone in order to keep guys like this from having guns, or to arm the psychopaths to keep them from hurting people (not at all what I said btw).. Useless! You darn well know that wasn't at all my point, and you zeroed in on that small bit like a darn mosquito to bad breath.

I see that both of you continue with the rhetoric, without actually engaging your brains... Think for a few, and I cannot imagine that you won't see that taking away the guns doesn't stop these people. Sure it might stop some impulsive killings, and some gang-land bullshit, if you could get the guns out of their hands anyway... But people who want to kill people, lots of people, easy access to guns really won't make much difference, and I really don't think that any law could actually get what you propose done.

So, I think the more useful question here is how do we identify and manage folks who are likely to do this sort of thing? That's a much harder answer than "get rid of the guns", and I suspect that's why so many people continue to bleat on about how guns are the problem, or about why guns are made for killing things so people who want to kill people need guns, etc.. It's all useless, since it'll never happen, and since even if it did, it probably would make a shocking small difference.

In short? It's my opinion that we've gotta change the culture, not the freedoms.

Message edited by author 2012-08-14 01:00:26.

08/14/2012 12:52:58 AM · #557

Originally posted by Cory:

So by this argument, we shouldn't restrict weapons on planes because terrorists might find another way. We should instead count our lucky stars that they only used planes on 9/11 because it could have been SO much worse with nuclear or chemical weapons. Who are you, and what have you done with normally-rational Cory?

08/14/2012 12:53:54 AM · #558

Originally posted by Cory:

What do you think he would have done if he couldn't have gotten a gun? Do you think he would have just said, "ah, screw it, if I can't shoot people, then what's the point of killing them"?

This is an important question. The answer likely can be inferred from a country with more robust gun laws, and a culture similar to our own. It is possible that the event would not have occurred, but nobody can make that claim with certainty.

08/14/2012 12:54:23 AM · #559

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Cory:
Nothing of the sort... But looking at the Batman shooter, clearly he could have done much more, from chemical agents like mustard gas, to explosive setups, for some reason he chose a gun, and I can't imagine that that choice didn't end up saving lives.

So by this argument, we shouldn't restrict weapons on planes because terrorists might find another way. We should instead count our lucky stars that they only used planes on 9/11 because it could have been SO much worse with nuclear or chemical weapons. Who are you, and what have you done with normally-rational Cory?

Oh for crying out loud Shannon, the planes were what happened when somebody started thinking.

ETA: And I had no problem carrying a beer bottle onto a flight in Dallas the other day. My girlfriend flew seven or eight trips with her mace before anyone noticed and took it away... Yeah, no weapons on planes... pfft... The air marshals seem to be VERY effective, the TSA... not so much. So hell yes, I do think there should be weapons ~~allowed~~ required on every flight, in the hands of the responsible.

Message edited by author 2012-08-14 00:58:17.

08/14/2012 12:57:15 AM · #560

Cory, your statement: In short? It's my opinion that we've gotta change the culture, not the freedoms.

Bingo. (I knew what you meant BTW)

08/14/2012 12:59:17 AM · #561

Originally posted by bspurgeon:

Cory, your statement: In short? It's my opinion that we've gotta change the culture, not the freedoms.

Bingo. (I knew what you meant BTW)

It absolutely is. Taking away guns won't make much of a difference in my opinion if the culture remains the same.

08/14/2012 01:02:20 AM · #562

If you change the culture, as a whole, then there will be no need for guns.

08/14/2012 01:03:46 AM · #563

Originally posted by Cory:

You are engaging, probably willfully, in a fallacy here.

Essentially you are implying that the only options are to disarm everyone in order to keep guys like this from having guns, or to arm the psychopaths to keep them from hurting people

Uh, no. What YOU just did is a fallacy... specifically a false dichotomy. As far as I know, nobody here has suggested disarming everyone. We can, however, consider limiting the potential for mass destruction with guns available for sale (no full auto, small capacity magazines...) and restrict guns from nutcases to the extent that they can be reasonably identified (mental patients, felons...). Just because killers might find another way is no reason to make it easy for them. Just because we won't catch them all is no reason to ignore the problem.

And, yes, culture has to be a part of that, just as it was in Rio. It's not feasible to limit gun violence while cutting social programs aimed at poverty, hunger, mental health and education. Desperation is often what motivates people to kill.

Message edited by author 2012-08-14 01:12:38.

08/14/2012 01:08:59 AM · #564

The reality is that our country is violent, and prefers violence in games, movies, sporting events, and even when defining social status on the streets and in schools. Yes, it's not the gun. Our fine country does not know how to live in peace, so why provide a legal path to more violence?

08/14/2012 01:09:09 AM · #565

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Cory:
You are engaging, probably willfully, in a fallacy here.

Essentially you are implying that the only options are to disarm everyone in order to keep guys like this from having guns, or to arm the psychopaths to keep them from hurting people

Uh, no. What YOU just did is a fallacy... specifically a false dichotomy. As far as I know, nobody here has suggested disarming everyone. We can, however, consider limiting the potential for mass destruction with guns available for sale (no full auto, small capacity magazines...) and restrict guns from nutcases to the extent that they can be reasonably identified (mental patients, felons...). Just people killers might find another way is no reason to make it easy for them. Just because we won't catch them all is no reason to ignore the problem.

Just an interesting thought: The high capacity drum magazine jammed and saved lives....

And frankly, I don't think your argument is sound - you note that "just because we won't catch them all is no reason to ignore the problem"

First, what exactly is the "problem" as you see it? Secondarily, if they want to kill people, determination will overcome all obstacles, just making it a harder to do only stops those who don't care.

08/14/2012 01:10:10 AM · #566

Originally posted by bspurgeon:

There's the "problem" as I see it...

Unfortunately, I don't see the legality of the path affecting those who have the real desire (ie, criminals, mass killers, etc). The increase in difficulty of obtaining guns would simply stop everyone else, and I do mean EVERYONE else, before it stops more than 10% of the criminals.

Message edited by author 2012-08-14 01:12:42.

08/14/2012 01:15:16 AM · #567

Originally posted by scalvert:

Who are you, and what have you done with normally-rational Cory?

And why do you always go here with me in this thread, as if somehow, when I point out that your suburban reality doesn't give you a good grasp of the entire scope of how the world works, I instantly become non-rational.

I don't really mind, it's just an oddity to me.

Message edited by author 2012-08-14 01:15:36.

08/14/2012 01:17:55 AM · #568

Originally posted by Cory:

And frankly, I don't think your argument is sound - you note that "just because we won't catch them all is no reason to ignore the problem"
First, what exactly is the "problem" as you see it? Secondarily, if they want to kill people, determination will overcome all obstacles, just making it a harder to do only stops those who don't care.

The problem is mass murder with guns and frequent gun homicides. Seat belts don't prevent every auto fatality, but we don't abandon them for that reason. Sure, a determined killer will try to find a way, but if we just shrug and make it easy, we are complicit that that act. Shall we remove metal detectors and x-ray security on the premise that a determined killer will find a way?

Message edited by author 2012-08-14 01:23:35.

Melethia

Canon EOS-80D

08/14/2012 01:19:14 AM · #569

So here's my two cents, only because I can't seem to stop myself from reading this damn thread, and I know better.

Stop putting the flag at half mast when these massacres occur. What's the point? At least 12 people die every day - probably every hour, for that matter - from horrible circumstances. An angry spouse, an incurable disease, a car wreck - heck, a flying piano, for that matter. Let's quit glorifying the killers, for that's what we do when we have this massive reaction (overreaction?) to senseless killings by psychos.

And for all that is good and holy, PLEASE quit showing the faces of the shooters. (So far, we haven't been graced by the knife-wielding mass murders of China - they don't have guns, apparently, but are very effective with knives!)

Just quit showing their faces. If the news media feels compelled to continue to saturate the Interwebs with stories, at least show the victims instead, please.

We cannot remove guns in this country. There is simply no sense in trying. That horse has been out of the barn for so long it has procreated many times over. Heck, there are more guns in the US than cars.

And guns were made to kill. Period. No other purpose whatsoever. They have been adapted to sporting purposes - hey, they're fun! - but the initial and continued purpose for a gun is to kill. An animal, an enemy, a lover. To kill.

We simply must accept that having guns means those who want to use them destructively will do so. It is the "price to pay" as they say. I do feel for the families of the victims, but when you come down to it, there's just not much that can be done. (I used to be in favor of "gun control laws" but really, not much use. The Colorado shooter obtained all of his weaponry and ammo legally.)

08/14/2012 01:20:46 AM · #570

Cory, I have no knowledge of numbers with this topic, but let's use your 10%. Forget that 10% for the moment. Why do the other 90% need guns to perpetuate our culture of violence? A small number of accidental deaths would be eliminated. In my mind, one child's life is worth the ban, not to mention the lack of exposure and desensitization to guns and violence.

Message edited by author 2012-08-14 01:23:00.

08/14/2012 01:23:13 AM · #571

Originally posted by Cory:

Always as in "once"? Instant or not, your argument makes little sense in any reality.

08/14/2012 01:29:36 AM · #572

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Cory:
And frankly, I don't think your argument is sound - you note that "just because we won't catch them all is no reason to ignore the problem"
First, what exactly is the "problem" as you see it? Secondarily, if they want to kill people, determination will overcome all obstacles, just making it a harder to do only stops those who don't care.

The problem is mass murder with fund and frequent gun homicides. Seat belts don't prevent every auto fatality, but we don't abandon them for that reason. Sure, a determined killer will try to find a way, but if we just shrug and make it easy, we are complicit that that act. Shall we remove metal detectors and x-ray security on the premise that a determined killer will find a way?

I don't quite know what you mean by "with fund and frequent gun homicides", but I know it's a typo of some sort...

Probably not important, since I agree that mass murder is a problem, as are gun homicides...

The issue I take is that seatbelts and airbags work with a high degree of regularity and predictability, humans do not.... Seat belt laws have saved many lives - gun bans don't seem likely to be nearly so effective in my opinion...

As for your attempted reductio ad absurdum - yes, I would actually be very much in favor of reducing the TSA by about 85%, and I do fly very regularly, so you could even say I'm disproportionately at risk.

Nah, I'm far more worried about budget cuts affecting maintenance and staffing, that's far more likely to kill me, and the TSA is effectively conducting security theater resultant in statistical murder. Same thing would hold true for a gun ban, the cost of enactment and enforcement are likely to FAR outweigh the benefits, put the money and effort somewhere where it'll make a greater difference.

That underscores another problem with our society - we tend to pay attention to the fantastic and forget the mundane, even when the mundane has a far greater effect upon us. The guns make lots of noise and are scary, so people tend to pay a disproportionate amount of attention to them. As the thread says, guns don't kill people - it's the people who are the problem, not the weapon du jour.

08/14/2012 01:30:26 AM · #573

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Cory:
And why do you always go here with me in this thread, as if somehow, when I point out that your suburban reality doesn't give you a good grasp of the entire scope of how the world works, I instantly become non-rational.

Always as in "once"? Instant or not, your argument makes little sense in any reality.

Was it a different thread? Seemed to give me deja vu.

08/14/2012 01:34:37 AM · #574

Originally posted by bspurgeon:

The 90% will not be stopped. That's my point. 10% of criminals might be stopped... 100% of law abiding citizens would be stopped, leaving about 90% of the criminals armed in an unarmed populace..

How the heck is that an improvement?

The average law abiding gun owner perpetuates a culture of respect, for people, for nature, for guns, for many things..... Responsible gun owners aren't anything like the picture you are trying to paint.

You'd be far better off banning violent video games. That's frankly the reason why many of these people use guns IMO, because their fantasy training programs have guns as the most universal weapon.

I'd honestly argue that banning violent TV and video games would have a FAR FAR FAR greater effect upon firearm homicide rates in 25 years than any gun ban of any sort, with any level of enforcement.