2013 America (and Friends!) Gun Violence Thread No Plows Allowed!

[Salodin]

Archi: my data was on deaths by gun per 100k going up about .05-.1 every year. Yours is specifically homicide, so maybe thats the difference. I'm at work on mobile or I'd link ya.

So thunder, what are your qualms? We want pretty much the same regulation, but your issue is I point out people will still die? I already explained that statement. It's not because of the gun but because of the person; that some one who wants a revenge kill will have his revenge kill regardless of gun restrictions or not. Yes that needs to be said when we make comments like "well if this guy had to wait a month maybe this wouldn't have happened". The ease of access to a firearm didn't kill this woman, the premeditation of a man upset with this world did. Maybe you disagree with that?

Edit: to further illustrate, if he didn't have access to a firearm he could have still done this with a knife. Sure the camera man would have probably lived, but he wasn't the target any way; he was just an opportunity next to his target. I'm not convinced, from what we know so far, that any of the regulation mentioned so far would have stopped this man.

[FNH]

Shit stopping power, leaves wounded animals suffering much longer, people who do it are douchebags, etc etc

You do not know what you are talking about.

Which also brings up a problem with the legislation of gun control. I don't like that people who are not experts write laws about certain subjects.

[archibaldcrane]

I do know you sure as fuck don't need to use handguns to hunt. Arguing you do makes you a douchbag, but I already covered that in my first pass of this topic.

[Headspace]

I do know you sure as fuck don't need to use handguns to hunt. Arguing you do makes you a douchbag, but I already covered that in my first pass of this topic.

Roll Damn Tide

[FNH]

I do know you sure as fuck don't need to use handguns to hunt. Arguing you do makes you a douchbag, but I already covered that in my first pass of this topic.

Confirmed nogunz, can't hunt.

Hangun hunting is more sporting and requires more skill than rifle hunting. You must get closer to take a shot, similar to bow/crossbow.

[archibaldcrane]

Right, and if a person who hunts with a handgun wasn't a huge douchebag, they'd use a bow instead. But they are, universally and without exception, so we don't have to worry about their "hunting rights" as we seek to address the gun violence problem in the US.

[Aksannyi]

You don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

In PA, where I used to hunt, there are different laws concerning which weapons you can hunt with and when. If you want to hunt with a bow, you hunt during the bow season. If you want to hunt with a firearm, you hunt during the firearm season. These are actual and legitimate things that exist, at least as of 9 years ago (the last hunting season I lived in PA).

There's an entirely different strategy to hunting with a bow than hunting with a firearm, including handgun hunting. I have personally never hunted with a handgun because I don't own one, but I certainly don't purport to look down upon someone who does, as it would most assuredly be a more challenging way to hunt.

[archibaldcrane]

Great, I'm glad Aks is here to let me know there are different hunting seasons for various weapons.

Phew.

[Thunder]

So thunder, what are your qualms? We want pretty much the same regulation, but your issue is I point out people will still die? I already explained that statement. It's not because of the gun but because of the person; that some one who wants a revenge kill will have his revenge kill regardless of gun restrictions or not. Yes that needs to be said when we make comments like "well if this guy had to wait a month maybe this wouldn't have happened". The ease of access to a firearm didn't kill this woman, the premeditation of a man upset with this world did. Maybe you disagree with that?

Edit: to further illustrate, if he didn't have access to a firearm he could have still done this with a knife. Sure the camera man would have probably lived, but he wasn't the target any way; he was just an opportunity next to his target. I'm not convinced, from what we know so far, that any of the regulation mentioned so far would have stopped this man.

Yeah, I have issue with that because it's a completely irrelevant point when discussing gun control. When one side says,

gun control will curb gun violence and deaths

And you go out and say

well even if we have gun control people will die

... that's retarded. What does that have to do with the original statement of gun control will curb gun violence? In fact, it's hurting the potential legislation of gun control if people like you are running around "ah we'll have violence anyway". It's one of those throw the baby out with the bathwater type logical fallacies, and you're reinforcing it

And no, it DOESN'T need to be said when someone goes, "well maybe it would have been prevented with stricter gun laws" cause you know what? Maybe it would have.

Edit: to further illustrate, if he didn't have access to a firearm he could have still done this with a knife. Sure the camera man would have probably lived, but he wasn't the target any way; he was just an opportunity next to his target. I'm not convinced, from what we know so far, that any of the regulation mentioned so far would have stopped this man.

ya sure the cameraman would have probably lived, decreasing the mortality rate of this incident by 50% - if it even were to occur under stricter gun control laws which would be 100%! Sick 'further illustration' point there lol

If you're convinced stricter gun control laws COULD NOT have stopped this man from doing what he did then idk what to tell you. Look up some science behind anger issues and diffusion strategies within neurology, psychiatry, domestic abuse homes, clinics, etc. That's boring, so you could instead find some cool podcasts on the issues somewhere out there. Or forever be out of your depth on the subject, idk. Most of the people who commit violent crimes are not crazy ass people, just like most of the people struggling with addiction aren't crazy ass people - they're normal people, mostly.

[Rooney]

Do any of you that want a full on ban of firearms think about the impact to the economy? That is a lot of jobs lost between manufacturer of the firearms and ammunition and dealers. Even restricting certain weapons would lose quite a bit of jobs.

Little late, but do you think the major gun/ammo manufacturers aren't already working on this? We have several large-scale projects in my office that are literally about making the process more efficient and automated. No, it won't cut out all the people in the process, but don't act like the companies are providing lots of jobs when they are actively trying to get rid of them.

[Aksannyi]

Great, I'm glad Aks is here to let me know there are different hunting seasons for various weapons.

Phew.

Well you're clearly clueless about how hunting works.

[FNH]

Right, and if a person who hunts with a handgun wasn't a huge douchebag, they'd use a bow instead.

Because some people think a bow has:

Shit stopping power, leaves wounded animals suffering much longer, people who do it are douchebags, etc etc

[FNH]

Little late, but do you think the major gun/ammo manufacturers aren't already working on this? We have several large-scale projects in my office that are literally about making the process more efficient and automated. No, it won't cut out all the people in the process, but don't act like the companies are providing lots of jobs when they are actively trying to get rid of them.

The automotive industry was thought to be completely replaced with automated equipment also. While automation does cut jobs, a gun ban would completely remove an industry.

[archibaldcrane]

Because some people think a bow has:

Other than the douchebag part, that would be correct! It's damn hard to properly double-lung a large animal and drop it in its tracks with a bow.

[Thunder]

The automotive industry was thought to be completely replaced with automated equipment also. While automation does cut jobs, a gun ban would completely remove an industry.

There's a really big difference here though that I don't think you're aware of? There's a new level of automation coming down the pipeline that'll hit and disrupt the job market in a big way in the next 5-10 years.

Also, fuck this fear of removing an industry just for the sake of jobs. When I brought up the automated thing it was basically rhetorical. You wont stand in the way of automated cars even if it takes out hundreds of thousands of taxi/truck/uber drivers, right?

[Salodin]

How many times do I have to say gun control would lower gun crimes in America? pretty sure I mentioned it in almost every post. Would it have stopped this specific instance? Probably not, given what we know right now. I'm curious how else I would have to write that before you get it.

[archibaldcrane]

It's a moot point, noone is Australia-ing the US, because a constitutional amendment isn't forthcoming.

A DMV for guns is about as far as we could hope for.

[Thunder]

How many times do I have to say gun control would lower gun crimes in America? pretty sure I mentioned it in almost every post. Would it have stopped this specific instance? Probably not, given what we know right now. I'm curious how else I would have to write that before you get it.

Yeah, you don't get it. You seem to think because he shot someone with a go pro on that somehow classifies him above the people you think it would prevent crime from. It doesn't. He's about as regular a person as you can get - nothing in this scenario would make it an extreme case.

You're still hanging on the "they're deraged and you can't fix that!" loop that conservatives are on when it comes to gun control & criminals, pharmaceutical regulation & addicts, or weed regulation & pot smokers.

Further, even you were right - which you aren't - and we could tell with 100% certainty that this scenario would not be preventable with gun control, you running around and responding to people's gun control propositions with, "yeah I agree but we'd still have gun violence" is so stupid - why even post when that's all you have to say, of course it will still happen? Stop patronizing people and thinking you're some kind of sherlock holmes for predicting that there will still be crime after gun laws. Only stupider is when called out about it you say, "yeah but we agree wtf?"

[FNH]

Other than the douchebag part, that would be correct! It's damn hard to properly double-lung a large animal and drop it in its tracks with a bow.

You can just admit you are wrong and that you do not know anything about firearms or hunting. Even rifle hunting doesn't drop a deer dead in it's tracks every time, especially in a shoulder shot. Handgun hunting can have just the same stopping power as a rifle and more so than a bow. Bow hunting relies on bloodletting, which is a long process sometimes. Most of the time I will take 30 minutes to pack up before even walking a blood trail. Whereas, it's about 15 minutes with a firearm and I rarely walk up on one still dying.

[archibaldcrane]

How does that contradict anything I just said? We're in agreement that it's hard to drop an animal in its tracks with a bow, especially compared to a hunting rifle.