These Students will change US gun landscape

[Audie]

Cars are given a clean pass when intentionally used to kill people? I'd assume it's due to the rarity of use in that case. People will go for guns much quicker than cars.

One is meant to kill, the other is not.

Intent resides in the user, not the object.

A nuclear tipped ICBM is not made with the intent to use it,
nor does intent reside in the object.

There is some large number-look it up if you care to-
that weapons, be they baseball bat or "assault rifle" are used
with the intent of preventing crime, scaring away an attack.

Far more than that are used with (human) intent to kill.

My little rosewood handled pistol (long gone now)
had no intent. I did not intend to shoot anyone.

I did intend, "never again".

By far the use of weapons, be they nukes or police sidearms
or the armies of the world, is to prevent, not to kill.

In the event when the capacity to kill was built into the car, carving knife
or bottle of pills, it is not really correct to say that is the intended use.

 

[Nous]

--invest in education, mental health, and poverty reduction

Specifics? Does any of that work better than preventing access to guns?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Specifics? Does any of that work better than preventing access to guns?

Is there a reason we can't do both?

 

[Audie]

If firearms were something new, I probably agree with you.

Short answer is obvious nobody wants death to happen. But I can tell you it's not guns, it's societal attitudes and behaviors for which something else is going on that's causing people to go crazy enough to run out and kill people.

Totally agree.

There is a law of unintendec consequences ...

What would the carzies turn to if deprived of guns?

Something way worse?

I took chemistry enough to know things that are not to
even mention.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Intent resides in the user, not the object.

A nuclear tipped ICBM is not made with the intent to use it,
nor does intent reside in the object.

There is some large number-look it up if you care to-
that weapons, be they baseball bat or "assault rifle" are used
with the intent of preventing crime, scaring away an attack.

Far more than that are used with (human) intent to kill.

My little rosewood handled pistol (long gone now)
had no intent. I did not intend to shoot anyone.

I did intend, "never again".

By far the use of weapons, be they nukes or police sidearms
or the armies of the world, is to prevent, not to kill.

In the event when the capacity to kill was built into the car, carving knife
or bottle of pills, it is not really correct to say that is the intended use.

Intent is an important factor, but let's not forget accidents and suicides. Also the fact that someone intending to kill has a much easier time of it with a weapon explicitly designed to cause injury than they would with something they had to make do with.

 

[Nous]

Is there a reason we can't do both?

Do "both" of what?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Totally agree.

There is a law of unintendec consequences ...

What would the carzies turn to if deprived of guns?

Something way worse?

I took chemistry enough to know things that are not to
even mention.

Just look what happened in Australia, and what the crazies started using when access to guns was made more difficult!

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Do "both" of what?

Have education, mental health, and poverty reduction AND a tightening of gun laws

 

[Audie]

Just look what happened in Australia, and what the crazies started using when access to guns was made more difficult!

Tell us.

 

[joe1776]

No, it isn't. For one thing, it's littered with naysayers that think themselves clever.

I explained why the solution offered isn't simple. If I'm wrong, and it's simple, you should be able to explain why.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Tell us.

Oh, the horror of what happened after we changed our gun laws! It's unspeakable!

 

[Curious George]

Specifics? Does any of that work better than preventing access to guns?

You mean are these correlated to crime more so than guns? I am not certain, but I would imagine that socioeconomic status, decreased education, and lack of sufficient mental health are indeed more highly correlated with crime (including murder) than is gun ownership.

 

[Nous]

Do "both" of what?

Have education, mental health, and poverty reduction AND a tightening of gun laws

I know what laws are needed to prohibit the purchasing and possession of guns. I don't know what measures are being referred to under the rubric "invest in education, mental health, and poverty reduction," therefore I don't know that any such measures or investments would be effective in reducing gun crime or deaths or injuries to any noticeable degree.

 

[Nous]

You mean are these correlated to crime more so than guns? I am not certain, but I would imagine that socioeconomic status, decreased education, and lack of sufficient mental health are indeed more highly correlated with crime (including murder) than is gun ownership.

Other than your certainties, what "investments" specifically are you proposing?

 

[Audie]

Intent is an important factor, but let's not forget accidents and suicides. Also the fact that someone intending to kill has a much easier time of it with a weapon explicitly designed to cause injury than they would with something they had to make do with.

The chain saw and the butcher-knife are specifically designed to be
very efficient at disassembling organic things. Accidents, and the occasional
murder are inevitable. Explicitely designed to cause injury?

Yes and no. The nuclear bomb is designed to be able to kill.
Its actual use is something quite different.

A gun in defensive use is used far more often to prevent than to cause injury.


The car is de(signed to go very fast, which is inherently dangerous.
Accidents are inevitable. You get suicide, sometimes murder. Secondary
effects, where a knife is exactly for slicing flesh, the primary function.

The distinctions that might be made between primary and secondary
properties is academic, really.

We wont outlaw cars to prevent murder or suicide, nor accidents.

To outlaw guns to prevent suicide would be pretty ridiculous.
In Hong Kong, preferred metod is to step off the balcony.
Cant outlaw those. There is always a way.

FWIW, I was looking down from 17th floor in HK. I was going to kill
myself over something that happened in the USA. Something I could
have avoided if I'd had any means of defending myself.

This is all a bit disconnected, sorry, I am cooking and doing three things
at once.

Im sure you can find the sense in it tho. Right?

 

[Brickjectivity]

The time when NRA lobby and paranoid gun owners blocked stricter gun ownership laws is ending. The path is simple. Reducing gun crimes from legally owned guns to zero and making the state accountable for every life destroyed by a gun the state legally allowed the criminal to possess.

So you advocate total disarmament if it will save even just one life from criminals. No legal guns for anybody is Ok with you if I read your comment correctly. It sounds like you feel citizens like myself should not be permitted to have guns if it at all increases chances for someone to be killed. This seems extreme to me, not taking into account that people like to own guns and that people do not feel safe. Fear is the number one reason people buy guns, and you want to take those guns away. How reasonable is that?

The automobile argument goes both ways. People drive day to day in opposite directions passing only a foot or two from each other which is a testament that the public can be trusted. So, yes people should not be afraid, but no that does not support seizing our guns either. Seizing the guns is what happens when the government pursues a course like the one you are describing.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

You mean are these correlated to crime more so than guns? I am not certain, but I would imagine that socioeconomic status, decreased education, and lack of sufficient mental health are indeed more highly correlated with crime (including murder) than is gun ownership.

Being homicidal isn't a mental illness.

 

[Woberts]

a break in would be all
but impossible anyway.

That's a very confident statement. Did you coat your walls in vibranium or something?

Far more strict laws are needed as guns are immensly more dangerous and far less useful than cars.

Yeah, I can agree with that. Personally, I would prefer if the guy sitting next to me at a café didn't have a gun on each hip, one on each shoulder, and one shoved down his pants for good measure.

 

[Audie]

Oh, the horror of what happened after we changed our gun laws! It's unspeakable!

Um, is that sarcasm or?

Does Oz have a population of frustrated terrorists or crazies who are, um, doing what?

Prease exprain.

 

[BSM1]

How old do you have to be to own a car?

You can own a car at any age.