Pro-gun vs No-gun America

[SemiAuto]

Background checks impede ineligible people from buying guns. A ban on high-capacity magazines slows down the shooter's rampage. Both make sense to me.

Yet neither would stop a determined killer. Heck, they don't even stop petty gang bangers some of who are not exactly the brightest people.

So it looks to me that you're engaging in feel good measures that won't work. That does not make sense to me.

[soulflower]

Yes. Even self defense is not an intent on committing violence. It is a defense against violence. The best outcome is to never have it come to that.

Violence is violence. I'm not making a distinction between intentional and unintentional or controlled or uncontrolled. I'm not saying that all forms of violence are bad or unjustifiable.

Guns can be used for offense or self-defense but there's no doubt that guns are intended to be weapons.

With millions of guns out there I'd wager that most people who own them don't intend on violence either. If they are then they're pretty bad at it.

I don't intend to ever have to use my fire extinguisher but the purpose of a fire extinguisher is to put out fires.

[Grindelwald]

Yet neither would stop a determined killer. Heck, they don't even stop petty gang bangers some of who are not exactly the brightest people.

So it looks to me that you're engaging in feel good measures that won't work. That does not make sense to me.

Are you an expert on criminal behavior?

[regularguy]

Yet neither would stop a determined killer. Heck, they don't even stop petty gang bangers some of who are not exactly the brightest people.

So it looks to me that you're engaging in feel good measures that won't work. That does not make sense to me.

You jump from "wouldn't stop a determined killer" to "won't work". I'm fine with measures that may avert a mass murder by an impulsive mentally-ill person, and measures that might limit the mayhem caused by the determined "sane" ones. If that concept makes me "feel good"... well, I have no problem with feeling good.

[SemiAuto]

Violence is violence. I'm not making a distinction between intentional and unintentional or controlled or uncontrolled. I'm not saying that all forms of violence are bad or unjustifiable.

Guns can be used for offense or self-defense but there's no doubt that guns are intended to be weapons.

Then you're almost getting the point. Intent doesn't matter. The action of the person does. If you were at home, hanging a picture in the living room and someone breaks in and threatens you then I'll wager that hammer you have handy, which you never intended to be a weapon, instantly becomes one.

I don't intend to ever have to use my fire extinguisher but the purpose of a fire extinguisher is to put out fires.

The same goes with keeping a gun for self defense. The idea is not to seek out violence. In the meantime, if you want to shoot up some cans on a range, that is not violence.

If the only purpose of a gun is violence then a lot of us gun owners are epic failures at it. Or, more realistically, your premise is wrong.

[SemiAuto]

You jump from "wouldn't stop a determined killer" to "won't work". I'm fine with measures that may avert a mass murder by an impulsive mentally-ill person, and measures that might limit the mayhem caused by the determined "sane" ones. If that concept makes me "feel good"... well, I have no problem with feeling good.

Yet if your only result is to feel good then you haven't accomplished your goal. You're simply tilting at windmills.

[regularguy]

Yet if your only result is to feel good then you haven't accomplished your goal. You're simply tilting at windmills.

Go back and read what I wrote. I'd feel good because I think such laws would have the intended benefits.

[soulflower]

Then you're almost getting the point. Intent doesn't matter. The action of the person does. If you were at home, hanging a picture in the living room and someone breaks in and threatens you then I'll wager that hammer you have handy, which you never intended to be a weapon, instantly becomes one.

Intention of the weapons matter. Guns and nun-chucks aren't intended to be used as garden tools.

The same goes with keeping a gun for self defense.

Exactly.

A gun is a weapon. Weapons are made for violence. A weapon becomes practical when violence is necessary just as a fire extinguisher can be used as intended when there's a fire.

The idea is not to seek out violence.

I haven't accused you or any other gun owner of seeking out violence.

If the only purpose of a gun is violence then a lot of us gun owners are epic failures at it.

Or perhaps you're using it for something other than what it's intended for sort of like using a hammer as a weapon or using a fire extinguisher for something other than putting out fires.

[slapshot]

Yet the irony here is that blunt objects are used more often to kill people than rifles.

Well, now you are parsing. While a hammer is a blunt object, there are many other blunt objects - ie, bats, crow bars, bottles, tree branches, etc. You increased the grouping to include ALL blunt objects, while narrowing the gun grouping to only include rifles.

Here is the list I found:

http://www.statisticbrain.com/murder-weapon-statistics/

#1 is firearms
#2 is knives
#3 is body parts - hands, feet, head
#4 is blunt objects
#5 arson


It should also be noted that these statistics are ONLY for murders, and do NOT include the body count of accidental, or suicides by guns. When was the last time you heard of an accidental death, or suicide by hammer or baseball bat?

Accidental death and/or suicide by guns is an important issue.

[regularguy]

The same goes with keeping a gun for self defense. The idea is not to seek out violence. In the meantime, if you want to shoot up some cans on a range, that is not violence.

If the only purpose of a gun is violence then a lot of us gun owners are epic failures at it. Or, more realistically, your premise is wrong.

The purpose of a gun is violence, whether it is ever used for that purpose or not. Shooting at a range is preparing yourself for the possibility of doing violence. Shooting competitions make a sport out of preparing to do violence.
Almost nobody acquires a gun unless they will - or foreseeably might - use it do violence against a person or animal. (That's certainly why I have guns.)

[slapshot]

Yet the two methods you list are highly unlikely to stop a determined mass murderer.

That seems to be the age old argument used by people that want to deflect...."Highly unlikely". Do you have data that proves this point?

But even if you do, let's say that it only stops one Sandy Hook incident and has no impact on other lunatics....sooooo, isn't that reason enough? I say it is.

Know this - No solution will stop all killings. Won't happen. I am 99.9999999999999 certain of that. As I said earlier, life is about probabilities. So even if the probability is low, as long as there's some chance it may stop a Sandy Hook in the future, then I think we have to try.

[Grindelwald]

http://www.sporcle.com/games/g/murderweapons

Anyone up for a game?

[Grindelwald]

Are you an expert on criminal behavior?

Didn't think so.

[SemiAuto]

Intention of the weapons matter. Guns and nun-chucks aren't intended to be used as garden tools.

Yet would you use a hammer (or any other item) as a weapon if it were handy and you were threatened? If the answer is yes then intent is meaningless.

Exactly.

A gun is a weapon. Weapons are made for violence. A weapon becomes practical when violence is necessary just as a fire extinguisher can be used as intended when there's a fire.

Yet almost anything can be weapon so intent doesn't matter. You may buy your garden hose for watering the lawn or washing the car but if your house catches on fire you may attempt to use it for something you didn't intend.

The same goes for guns. Their only purpose is not intentional acts of violence.

I haven't accused you or any other gun owner of seeking out violence.

Then why this argument that guns are only about violence? Clearly they are not. If your argument were true then I'm an abject failure at being violent. The guns I own have nothing to do with it.

Or perhaps you're using it for something other than what it's intended for sort of like using a hammer as a weapon.

Correct. Target shooting is the main intent and that is not violent.

[slapshot]

Correct. Target shooting is the main intent and that is not violent.

The intended action of any gun is to shoot. What is shot at, however, is very much at the discretion of the gun holder.

[SemiAuto]

That seems to be the age old argument used by people that want to deflect...."Highly unlikely". Do you have data that proves this point?

But even if you do, let's say that it only stops one Sandy Hook incident and has no impact on other lunatics....sooooo, isn't that reason enough? I say it is.

Know this - No solution will stop all killings. Won't happen. I am 99.9999999999999 certain of that. As I said earlier, life is about probabilities. So even if the probability is low, as long as there's some chance it may stop a Sandy Hook in the future, then I think we have to try.

A background check did not stop Sandy Hook killer Adam Lanza. He got the guns from his mother.
Magazine restrictions? The VA Tech shooter had 19 magazines and 400 rounds of ammo.
Beltway Sniper? The gun was stolen. The magazine size didn't matter.
The Green River killer... oh wait. He didn't use a gun and it is possible that he killed more than the first three combined.

[soulflower]

Yet would you use a hammer (or any other item) as a weapon if it were handy and you were threatened? If the answer is yes then intent is meaningless.

Hammers have plenty of non-violent uses. Guns have few uses outside of being weapons.

Yet almost anything can be weapon so intent doesn't matter. You may buy your garden hose for watering the lawn or washing the car but if your house catches on fire you may attempt to use it for something you didn't intend.

And if you find yourself being shot at and you have a garden hose in one hand and a gun in the other hand, you're not going to point your hose at the person who is shooting at you.

If your argument were true then I'm an abject failure at being violent. The guns I own have nothing to do with it.

No. You just haven't had an opportunity to use a gun for it's intended purpose(I'm assuming).

Rather than let your shooting skills get rusty or your gun collect dust, you take it out for sport or practice every now and then. None of that changes the purpose of a gun or any other type of weapon.

You own it for the purpose of responding to violence in the event that you have to respond to violence

[slapshot]

A background check did not stop Sandy Hook killer Adam Lanza. He got the guns from his mother.
Magazine restrictions? The VA Tech shooter had 19 magazines and 400 rounds of ammo.

Again, that is a single example. Although, had his mother done a better job in securing the guns, they wouldn't have been available that instant when he was triggered to kill. Most reports/studies that I have read said that many killings are triggered by an event, and it is the easy and read availablility of guns that allows this triggered emotion to be turned into a mass killing spree. If memory serves me, he did try to get guns on his own and was turned down?

For every example, there are always counter examples.

But the bottom line (and I'll say it again): No matter what you do, it will never be 100% fullproof. For example - take it to the extreme,,,and arm every teacher. I guarentee you that a dedicated individual can enter a classroom, take out a teacher, before the 8AM bell rings.

There just is no one answer, for every possible scenario....there are only solutions that have some probability of deterring. But the dedicated psycho is gonna find a way no mater what you do.

[SemiAuto]

Hammers have plenty of non-violent uses. Guns have few uses outside of being weapons.

Then how do you explain millions of guns out there not being used for violent ends? How do you explain blunt objects beating out rifles as murder weapons?

And if you find yourself being shot at and you have a garden hose in one hand and a gun in the other hand, you're not going to point your hose at the person who is shooting at you.

And if you only have a garden hose and shovel and somebody attacks you then what are you going to use?
I'm gonna guess the shovel, depending on what they're using and how close they are.

No. You just haven't had an opportunity to use a gun for it's intended purpose(I'm assuming).

Rather than let your shooting skills get rusty or your gun collect dust, you take it out for sport or practice every now and then. None of that changes the purpose of a gun or any other type of weapon.

You own it for the purpose of responding to violence in the event that you have to respond to violence

Yet the intent is not violence. As long as you keep ignoring this you won't get it.

[SemiAuto]

Again, that is a single example. Although, had his mother done a better job in securing the guns, they wouldn't have been available that instant when he was triggered to kill. If memory serves me, he did try to get guns on his own and was turned down?

Yet he still succeeded in getting guns.

Even some of the dumbest criminals who shouldn't have access to guns how it is now manage to get guns.

For every example, there are always counter examples.

But the bottom line (and I'll say it again): No matter what you do, it will never be 100% fullproof. For example - take it to the extreme,,,and arm every teacher. I guarentee you that a dedicated individual can enter a classroom, take out a teacher, before the 8AM bell rings.

There just is no one answer, for every possible scenario....there are only solutions that have some probability of deterring. But the dedicated psycho is gonna find a way no mater what you do.

Guns aren't the problem. The point you bring up in the last sentence is.