Guns, Guns, Guns!!!

[jeager106]

Mindmaster:
I LOVE YOU BRO!!!!!
I have a LOT of firearms & have always had firearms.
I was a career cop and designated sniper.
I NEVER hurt anyone for which I'm greatful.
Assault weapons simply pale compared to the 12 bore shotgun at ranges under
about 30 yards.
I've seen up close & personal wounds from a s.g. and they are horrific.
Seldom does a victim recover from such wounds.
Almost never.
I've seen a few that did recover but they will poo and pee in a baggy for ever.
They only recovered because they got to an e.r. quickly and were gut shot.
ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww.
My "go to" weapon, should there be a need inside a house, would be the s.g.
Less likely to shoot through walls and into the next house. opps.
Handguns are nice because they are so................handy!

 

[Neo Deist]

I agree with your overall post (something I rarely find myself thinking) however we both know that statistic was pulled out of your behind and is exaggerated.

You are correct. It is actually 99.5%...

 

[Mindmaster]

You are correct. It is actually 99.5%...

It's actually unmeasurable, but I thought saying zero was pretty arrogant, lol.

 

[Mindmaster]

Source this please?

The cops and the army alone would make up more than 0.5% of ownership and they are far from harmless.

I don't consider them civilians, but actually the civilians have a better safety record than the cops. If we want to get to tacks...

 

[Mindmaster]

What do you mean by safety record? Sorry I don't understand.
Could you rephrase?

If you are trying to say more cops get killed by civilians than vice versa get off whatever fox news-esque reporting you've been listening to.

300 million guns

323 million people

11,000 deaths per year

At this rate of death, it takes 30,000 years to kill the population

You have a 0.000034055727554179566 percent chance to die from a gun each year.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm

Number of deaths for leading causes of death

• Heart disease: 614,348
  • Cancer: 591,699
  • Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 147,101
  • Accidents (unintentional injuries): 136,053
  • Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 133,103
  • Alzheimer's disease: 93,541
  • Diabetes: 76,488
  • Influenza and pneumonia: 55,227
  • Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 48,146
  • Intentional self-harm (suicide): 42,773

Basically, your chances of getting killed with a gun are extremely low. Guns, not even on the list unless you count suicides.

However, if you decide to deal drugs or do them your chances of dying by guns skyrocket, some people say up to the 50% range... I think it's ludicrous somewhat, but I can see it being a little higher.

We should ban sugar containing items, because they make people die of diabetes 7x more than guns.

 

[fantome profane]

THE LARGEST MASS SHOOTING IN US HISTORY HAPPENED December 29,1890. When 297 Sioux Indians at Wounded Knee Creek on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota were murdered by federal agents & members of the 7th Cavalry who had come to confiscate their firearms “for their own safety and protection”. The slaughter began after the majority of the Sioux had peacefully turned in their firearms. The Calvary began shooting, and managed to wipe out the entire camp. 200 of the 297 victims were women and children.

Good point, but that massacre was not the work of a single person like the recent massacre in Orlando was.

 

[fantome profane]

I don't see what that changes.
I think the point was that we should have gun access so we can prevent government-sanctioned attacks.

If either of you think that you can prevent a government-sanction attack in 2016 you are delusional. No matter how many AR15s you have

 

[Mindmaster]

I don't see what that changes.
I think the point was that we should have gun access so we can prevent government-sanctioned attacks.

Re: the other post, I was just insinuating (rather rightly) that gun owners are pretty safe with their weapons or the death counts would be tons higher.

 

[jeager106]

Good point, but that massacre was not the work of a single person like the recent massacre in Orlando was.

Quite right and I see your point clearly.
I think this is the highest death toll by a single murderer in one place at one time.

 

[jeager106]

If either of you think that you can prevent a government-sanction attack in 2016 you are delusional. No matter how many AR15s you have

Sadly that is the truth.
No matter how many guns or how much ammo the "one" is a gonner and quickly.
However I have no intention of being stupid enough to shoot up a government
sanctioned attack on me.
I can't imagine why our government would attack me in the first place.
That said if 10 gobblins attacked me at my home and I had a chance to grab
up something quickly there would very likely be 10 dead gobblins.

 

[Mindmaster]

Mindmaster:
I LOVE YOU BRO!!!!!
I have a LOT of firearms & have always had firearms.
I was a career cop and designated sniper.
I NEVER hurt anyone for which I'm greatful.
Assault weapons simply pale compared to the 12 bore shotgun at ranges under
about 30 yards.
I've seen up close & personal wounds from a s.g. and they are horrific.
Seldom does a victim recover from such wounds.
Almost never.
I've seen a few that did recover but they will poo and pee in a baggy for ever.
They only recovered because they got to an e.r. quickly and were gut shot.
ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww.
My "go to" weapon, should there be a need inside a house, would be the s.g.
Less likely to shoot through walls and into the next house. opps.
Handguns are nice because they are so................handy!

Lol, the shotgun has the 2am defense factor. You need neither skill or eyesight to use it. Put the glowing green bead on whatever needs to disappear. For most humans, the mere sound of racking the action is enough and rarely does anyone need to fire these things. You can hit a man-sized target at 100 yds with a shotgun if you get one with a ghost ring sight. You can use the same gun for deer, defense, hitting clay, and more. Really, the shotgun is the gun to get first -- they are probably the most useful gun to own. If the authorities see one in your house no one thinks you're trying to start a militia. Handguns should be kept as a backup, every single gun jams once or twice and you don't have time to clear it in a crisis. Get a .357 mag revolver for backup and you are set -- these things never fail, but load it with .38 if you are in a suburb-type place. You don't want them flying off through walls, and .38 will do the job. The ammo is cheap, and you can get a lot of practice. People always want these .44 mag and whatever, they are just not practical, and .357 will go through your house and the neighbors. I used to like .45 acp, but after seeing them jam a lot I'm not too convinced semi-auto is the 100% always works backup weapon. 9mm bullets just seem too small to me... I dunno why.

 

[Theweirdtophat]

I really wish people wouldn't bring up the whole "muskets" thing.

Do people think the Founding Fathers were that stupid? They said people have a right to bear arms in general. And while the guns they used were not nearly as great as they are now, they weren't oblivious. It never occurred to some people that the founding fathers would know that such things would become more advanced over time? I mean, they did have a concept of science. Surely the idea of more powerful guns was not beyond their comprehension. They wanted people to be armed in general so they did not have a repeat of the old times where empires would prohibit weapons because it was easier to control the populace.

I'm pretty sure the founding fathers knew guns would become more advanced. They knew things became more advanced over time as they practiced science and knew over time, science would develop.

 

[Glaurung]

I'm pretty sure the founding fathers knew guns would become more advanced. They knew things became more advanced over time as they practiced science and knew over time, science would develop.

Of course, but the concept of personal weapons powerful enough to mow down scores of people very quickly was probably not something they could not imagine. Do you really believe allowing any one person that capability is a good idea? I don't think any of your "founding fathers" were that moronic.

But you in the US will continue this dance over and over every time someone decides to put that firepower to use.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Because that was the weapon technology of the time.

It was also a quirk of the time that when the second amendment was written, militia members supplied their own weapons.

The second amendment doesn't say that the people have a right to own arms; it says they have a right to "keep and bear" arms. In the context of a militia, "keeping and bearing" arms could refer to weapons issued by (and controlled by) the government to militia members, Switzerland-style.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I really wish people wouldn't bring up the whole "muskets" thing.

Do people think the Founding Fathers were that stupid? They said people have a right to bear arms in general. And while the guns they used were not nearly as great as they are now, they weren't oblivious. It never occurred to some people that the founding fathers would know that such things would become more advanced over time? I mean, they did have a concept of science. Surely the idea of more powerful guns was not beyond their comprehension. They wanted people to be armed in general so they did not have a repeat of the old times where empires would prohibit weapons because it was easier to control the populace.

I'm pretty sure the founding fathers knew guns would become more advanced. They knew things became more advanced over time as they practiced science and knew over time, science would develop.

Of course they knew about weapons more powerful than muskets. Such weapons existed at the time: cannons, for instance.

And private ownership of cannons was universally illegal.

BTW: as far as the Founding Fathers go, some of them were rather anti-gun. Take Washington: he famously confiscated all sorts of privately owned weapons during the Whiskey Rebellion. Arguably, one of the reasons for the Second Amendment a few years layer was to change the legal framework for guns to something less stringent than the Founding Fathers set up in the first place.

 

[YmirGF]

As a non-gun totting outsider I can't help but ask, "What is the point of introducing stringent fire arms controls when you already have 300 million + guns in circulation?" Isn't it a tiny bit too late for all that?

Second stupid question. Does the 300+ million number include illegal guns too?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As a non-gun totting outsider I can't help but ask, "What is the point of introducing stringent fire arms controls when you already have 300 million + guns in circulation?" Isn't it a tiny bit too late for all that?

"What's the point if banning asbestos if it's already in every home in the country?"

 

[YmirGF]

"What's the point if banning asbestos if it's already in every home in the country?"

Because it is a major health hazard, better forms of insulation exist and there is no constitutional right to have asbestos?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Because it is a major health hazard, better forms of insulation exist and there is no constitutional right to have asbestos?

- firearms are also a major health hazard.
- better forms of defense exist. In fact, having a defensive firearm usually results in a net safety decrease, so even nothing at all is a better alternative.
- laws can be changed.

But none of this is relevant to the point you made that I responded to: the mere fact that a problem is widespread and socially acceptable doesn't mean we can't do anything about it. In this regard, gun violence is no different from drinking and driving, seat belt non-compliance, asbestos, or any number of other problems that were very entrenched in society.

 

[YmirGF]

- firearms are also a major health hazard.
- better forms of defense exist. In fact, having a defensive firearm usually results in a net safety decrease, so even nothing at all is a better alternative.
- laws can be changed.

But none of this is relevant to the point you made that I responded to: the mere fact that a problem is widespread and socially acceptable doesn't mean we can't do anything about it. In this regard, gun violence is no different from drinking and driving, seat belt non-compliance, asbestos, or any number of other problems that were very entrenched in society.

Overall, I do agree, Penguin. Background checks should be mandatory, across the board, but even that wouldn't catch people who develop mental illness after they make their purchase. The biggest problem I see is getting enough people to agree on what needs to be done.... without them resorting to shooting each other during the heated debates.