Shoot to wound mentality

[Turambar]

This isn't really rocket science and it's been touched on time and time again. Whether for self defense, robberies, crime control, or military the more guns a country has, being produced, or in circulation the more people die.

They are meant to kill.

That must be why the US only has the 24th highest murder rate in the world.

[Avanarius]

This isn't really rocket science and it's been touched on time and time again. Whether for self defense, robberies, crime control, or military the more guns a country has, being produced, or in circulation the more people die.

They are meant to kill.

That must be why the US only has the 24th highest murder rate in the world.

die from guns.....

There's soooooo many other variables for influencing murder rate that just whooshed right over your head.

[Correction]

So the gun-involved murder rate is a complex subject but gun laws and the proposed abolishment of the 2nd amendment isn't? 'no guns == no gun murders guys c'mon it's so simple!!'

I thought we were talking about cops who abuse their authority to the point where people died.

[Beckwin]

This isn't really rocket science and it's been touched on time and time again. Whether for self defense, robberies, crime control, or military the more guns a country has, being produced, or in circulation the more people die.

They are meant to kill.

That must be why the US only has the 24th highest murder rate in the world.

You realize that all things considered, 24th is pretty embarrassingly high? I mean think of it like this:

1-23: the worst and most impoverished 3rd world countries in Africa, South/Central America, Southeast Asia.
24: America
25-???: less shitty poor or third world countries.
???-???: rest of the world

[Kaylia]

Defense is for defense against guns

The idea that you don't need a gun to defend your home if people breaking into your home don't have guns is completely ridiculous.

Is everyone supposed to be a trained martial artist, skilled in all manner of archery and knife-wielding?

I bet more robbers carry gun and are willing to use it when there is a high risk that the house they are robbing has one. They need to defend themselves too you know.

Most of the time, people break into your house while you're gone, having a gun wont do shit. If you happen to be there, chance you get hurt attacking the robber is still high. You never know how people will react when they feel in danger and panic.

[Correction]

I don't know of anybody who thinks a gun is a second line of defense behind a properly locked house, or owning a guard dog when you're not around...these derails are starting to feel like bad debates on 'Crossfire'

[Beckwin]

So the gun-involved murder rate is a complex subject but gun laws and the proposed abolishment of the 2nd amendment isn't? 'no guns == no gun murders guys c'mon it's so simple!!'

I thought we were talking about cops who abuse their authority to the point where people died.

Eh, you knew it was gonna get off topic eventually. I think there was some sort of consensus reached that while maybe the bill in question wasn't a well-written one, most support the idea that force shouldn't be used excessively whenever it can be helped (the suspect definitely having a gun is not one of those situations) and that some sort of code to help define it and proper punishment would probably be ok.

And please, say with a straight face that murder rates wouldn't go down if all the guns in the civilian populace disappeared overnight. It's not gonna get rid of murder (never gonna happen) but it would definitely reduce it, based on multiple homicides alone (you just can't do a drive by stabbing or run into a school with a crowbar and get the same results).

[Charla]

Not without a pipe bomb at least.

[Beckwin]

You don't carry a pipe-bomb in your jacket pocket for when someone pisses you off in traffic or at a bar either.

Face it, there's just no means of killing more convenient than firearms.

[Maxxthepenguin]

You don't carry a pipe-bomb in your jacket pocket for when someone pisses you off in traffic or at a bar either.

Face it, there's just no means of killing more convenient than firearms.

But...but...

FREEDOM

LIBERTY

2nd AMENDMENT

PATRIOTISM

9/11

[Correction]

So the gun-involved murder rate is a complex subject but gun laws and the proposed abolishment of the 2nd amendment isn't? 'no guns == no gun murders guys c'mon it's so simple!!'

I thought we were talking about cops who abuse their authority to the point where people died.

Eh, you knew it was gonna get off topic eventually. I think there was some sort of consensus reached that while maybe the bill in question wasn't a well-written one, most support the idea that force shouldn't be used excessively whenever it can be helped (the suspect definitely having a gun is not one of those situations) and that some sort of code to help define it and proper punishment would probably be ok.

And please, say with a straight face that murder rates wouldn't go down if all the guns in the civilian populace disappeared overnight. It's not gonna get rid of murder (never gonna happen) but it would definitely reduce it, based on multiple homicides alone (you just can't do a drive by stabbing or run into a school with a crowbar and get the same results).

And all bad things would stop happening if God Himself came down and smote all our enemies and made sure that people got along.

I'm pointing out the 'take away all the guns' argument as an equally fantastic scenario of no practical use in the U.S. It's been tried. It failed. What's not useful is repeating the rhetoric, even on a lolinternetforum. You can't disarm a country with 300 million people in it. Come up with something else.

[Beckwin]

So the gun-involved murder rate is a complex subject but gun laws and the proposed abolishment of the 2nd amendment isn't? 'no guns == no gun murders guys c'mon it's so simple!!'

I thought we were talking about cops who abuse their authority to the point where people died.

Eh, you knew it was gonna get off topic eventually. I think there was some sort of consensus reached that while maybe the bill in question wasn't a well-written one, most support the idea that force shouldn't be used excessively whenever it can be helped (the suspect definitely having a gun is not one of those situations) and that some sort of code to help define it and proper punishment would probably be ok.

And please, say with a straight face that murder rates wouldn't go down if all the guns in the civilian populace disappeared overnight. It's not gonna get rid of murder (never gonna happen) but it would definitely reduce it, based on multiple homicides alone (you just can't do a drive by stabbing or run into a school with a crowbar and get the same results).

And all bad things would stop happening if God Himself came down and smote all our enemies and made sure that people got along.

I'm pointing out the 'take away all the guns' argument as an equally fantastic scenario of no practical use in the U.S. It's been tried. It failed. What's not useful is repeating the rhetoric, even on a lolinternetforum. You can't disarm a country with 300 million people in it. Come up with something else.

Well, at least you concede that the "fantastic scenario" is true nonetheless.

So, when has it been tried? I can't recall a serious attempt to disarm the public in this country, but I'm not an expert on the subject.

Also a lot of European nations have imposed significant levels of restriction that seem to work rather well.

[Maxxthepenguin]

What's not useful is repeating the rhetoric, even on a lolinternetforum.

Then why is anyone posting here? lol

[Howard Roark]

So the gun-involved murder rate is a complex subject but gun laws and the proposed abolishment of the 2nd amendment isn't? 'no guns == no gun murders guys c'mon it's so simple!!'

I thought we were talking about cops who abuse their authority to the point where people died.

Eh, you knew it was gonna get off topic eventually. I think there was some sort of consensus reached that while maybe the bill in question wasn't a well-written one, most support the idea that force shouldn't be used excessively whenever it can be helped (the suspect definitely having a gun is not one of those situations) and that some sort of code to help define it and proper punishment would probably be ok.

And please, say with a straight face that murder rates wouldn't go down if all the guns in the civilian populace disappeared overnight. It's not gonna get rid of murder (never gonna happen) but it would definitely reduce it, based on multiple homicides alone (you just can't do a drive by stabbing or run into a school with a crowbar and get the same results).

And all bad things would stop happening if God Himself came down and smote all our enemies and made sure that people got along.

I'm pointing out the 'take away all the guns' argument as an equally fantastic scenario of no practical use in the U.S. It's been tried. It failed. What's not useful is repeating the rhetoric, even on a lolinternetforum. You can't disarm a country with 300 million people in it. Come up with something else.

uh what? at what point was this ever tried? failed bills to congress don't count
i'd really like to see the sheriffs mosey on down through the south and round up them thar guns, all those crazy bastards on their rocking chairs holding their sawed-offs would be reeeeal friendly

edit: a bit too slow

[jmc]

I don't know of anybody who thinks a gun is a second line of defense behind a properly locked house, or owning a guard dog when you're not around...these derails are starting to feel like bad debates on 'Crossfire'

People are more scared of dogs, then they are guns now.

heh

[Correction]

uh what? at what point was this ever tried? failed bills to congress don't count
i'd really like to see the sheriffs mosey on down through the south and round up them thar guns, all those crazy bastards on their rocking chairs holding their sawed-offs would be reeeeal friendly

edit: a bit too slow

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition_H

[Maxxthepenguin]

uh what? at what point was this ever tried? failed bills to congress don't count
i'd really like to see the sheriffs mosey on down through the south and round up them thar guns, all those crazy bastards on their rocking chairs holding their sawed-offs would be reeeeal friendly

edit: a bit too slow

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition_H

That's more or less a failed bill, since it never really got put into effect.

[Correction]

So all we need is a successful bill?

OK, I'm all ears on how you intend to pass it and have it survive the courts.

[Maxxthepenguin]

Um, we were talking about the realities of how such a bill would work and affect people, I thought.

If it never has a chance to be tried, than how can we have any kind of example?

[Correction]

My point: It's Fantasy Land with sugar drops and talking elves to enact nationwide disarmament of law abiding citizens. Attempts at such laws have failed and contrary to HR's assertion yes they do count.

How would such a bill affect people? Why does it matter? Comparing us to Europe/Australia/Japan is apples and oranges. We can't disarm our citizenry. If San Francisco can't pass such a law what hope does the rest of the nation have? Playing hypotheticals is fun and all but really now stuff like:

This isn't really rocket science and it's been touched on time and time again. Whether for self defense, robberies, crime control, or military the more guns a country has, being produced, or in circulation the more people die.

Adds zero to whatever practical solution may lie down the road. It's stating the obvious...the obviously impossible. What's so wrong about keeping the discussion in the world we live in? Why is the discussion forever doomed to unworkable fantasies like universal disarmament?