Gun control - murderer control?

[Orogun01]

Life isn't action movie, and guns far more commonly used by criminal elements then some regular joe who saves the day. So this is the exception that prove the rule.

 

It reminds me an old statistic that showed that people who trained in martial arts are far more likely to be involved in fight and require medical attention.

About that statistic, how many of those fights were justified in self defense or in the defense of others?

[licketysplit]

The idea that an armed civilian can be ready to act in such a dire occasion is so rare it should not even be taken into account when discussing gun regulation. You'd have better success with pepper spray, at least then aiming is less of an issue. If a few of those Chinese commuters had pepper spray, half of those bastards would have been neutralized. Of course pepper spray isn't quite manly enough for many gun owners...

 

Btw, the accuracy rate for police under such events is abysmally low. Cops. You know, the guys who train with guns? They miss all the time.

[alanschu]

 

Generally speaking the bottom line is that guns are far more effective/lethal then knifes.

This is not true at all, the effectiveness of a tool depends on the situation, the circumstances and the environment. Weapons are no different.

Things like concealability, remote control of a weapon and those kind of things have to be considered. This happened at an airport so maybe there is a reason why knives were used.

 

About the ease of use of guns, knives are FAR easier to use. Also its always hard to spot the attackers when knives are used in a crowd, the ensuing chaos and the small size of the weapon gives them a certain amount of concealment so they can do a  LOT of damage before they can be identified and stopped. 

 

 

Ehhhh, when someone uses the term "generally speaking," I think it's safe to say they're referring to a wide case of situations.

 

A knife my, in a particular situation, be a better choice than a fire arm.  But there's a reason why armed forces and police services and the like are armed with firearms and not knives.

 

I disagree with the notion that a gun is not more lethal and more effective at killing people, generally speaking.

[Bryy]

Here we go again...

 

I'll sum it up quicklike. The truth is, anyone who is for gun control is either naive or downright evil. 

Wait what?

 

What the heck is this? Did I just enter the forum for Fox News? 

[Meshugger]

The attack could've been easily avoided if the chinese had an amandment that allow all their citizens the right to bear knives. 

 

But seriously, muslims again?!!! They are really not making a good case for themselves. 

[Valsuelm]

But seriously, muslims again?!!! They are really not making a good case for themselves. 

 

Keep in mind it's China we're getting our news from, and they aren't known for their honesty in regards to telling the world of their internal affairs. Also that the Uyghur people have been oppressed to put it lightly under the Chinese government.

 

Whoever did it, there's more than currently meets the eye in regards to why, especially given the location of the attack in relation to where those who China is saying did it are from.

 

[Walsingham]

The attack could've been easily avoided if the chinese had an amandment that allow all their citizens the right to bear knives. 

 

But seriously, muslims again?!!! They are really not making a good case for themselves. 

 

Blaming muslims again? What is it with you whatever you ares?

Edited March 2, 2014 by Walsingham

[Walsingham]

I'm sorry I started the damn thing now.

[Meshugger]

 

The attack could've been easily avoided if the chinese had an amandment that allow all their citizens the right to bear knives. 

 

But seriously, muslims again?!!! They are really not making a good case for themselves. 

 

Blaming muslims again? What is it with you whatever you ares?

 

 

I know it is low when you complain about the snake being a snake when it bites, but i cannot help myself sometimes

 

Back to knive-control, i presume? I think i actually agree with Volourn this time, even if it makes me feel dirty.

[Rostere]

I've discussed this question a lot before, and it's pretty clear that it boils down to a moral question: some people believe it would be wrong to outlaw private ownership of weapons, regardless of what statistics and common sense (might) say. Sometimes the argument moves towards statistics and which point of view those would favour. It's a very similar discussion to the one you have with people who want to legalize prostitution, or heavy addictive and psychoactive drugs. Ultimately it shows a difference between people's ethical points of view - some people believe that you should never outlaw something which MIGHT not be harmful, while some people believe that you should always outlaw something that is (or seems) generally harmful.

 

Sure, there are instances where prostitution might be 100% consensual, cocaine might be used for legitimate experimental or recreational purposes (without anyone coming to harm) and guns might be used for good. But me and many others simply do not want to live in a society which make such bets.

 

But there are some people who stand on the opposite side in this, and I greatly respect that - there being two sides is essential to the political debate. Generally speaking, the existence of both naïve moral liberals (in American: "libertarians") and pragmatists is crucial to the political debate, so that we have a vigorous discussion on every law that is passed. Of course I believe that the pragmatist approach towards reaching correct decisions is fundamentally the correct one, but a strong liberal opposition to everything makes it harder for awful special interest groups to trick politicians into banning things they really should not. I mean to say that there is obviously a gradual scale - soft air guns and beer can also be harmful to society, but in the big picture they are not. Without people pushing hard from both sides it would be difficult for the law to converge to the "sweet spot" of this scale.

 

There are also people who say any country should be allowed to construct nuclear weapons, that would be the analogue of this discussion with nations in the place of people and WMDs in the place of guns.

[Guard Dog]

I've discussed this question a lot before, and it's pretty clear that it boils down to a moral question: some people believe it would be wrong to outlaw private ownership of weapons, regardless of what statistics and common sense (might) say. Sometimes the argument moves towards statistics and which point of view those would favour. It's a very similar discussion to the one you have with people who want to legalize prostitution, or heavy addictive and psychoactive drugs. Ultimately it shows a difference between people's ethical points of view - some people believe that you should never outlaw something which MIGHT not be harmful, while some people believe that you should always outlaw something that is (or seems) generally harmful.

 

Sure, there are instances where prostitution might be 100% consensual, cocaine might be used for legitimate experimental or recreational purposes (without anyone coming to harm) and guns might be used for good. But me and many others simply do not want to live in a society which make such bets.

 

But there are some people who stand on the opposite side in this, and I greatly respect that - there being two sides is essential to the political debate. Generally speaking, the existence of both naïve moral liberals (in American: "libertarians") and pragmatists is crucial to the political debate, so that we have a vigorous discussion on every law that is passed. Of course I believe that the pragmatist approach towards reaching correct decisions is fundamentally the correct one, but a strong liberal opposition to everything makes it harder for awful special interest groups to trick politicians into banning things they really should not. I mean to say that there is obviously a gradual scale - soft air guns and beer can also be harmful to society, but in the big picture they are not. Without people pushing hard from both sides it would be difficult for the law to converge to the "sweet spot" of this scale.

 

There are also people who say any country should be allowed to construct nuclear weapons, that would be the analogue of this discussion with nations in the place of people and WMDs in the place of guns.

Rostere, you and I are seldom on the same side of any political issue and I disagree with you a little here. But... well said!

[Guard Dog]

Again what I'm about to say here applies mainly to the US but when you get right down to it, gun control is nothing more than a group of politicians/political activists trying to take away something that you legally own, and have done nothing illegal with, away from you simply because they don't think you should have it. It is a small group of people with a little bit of political power asserting themselves as the ultimate arbiters of your life and property. That should offend anyone who has even the slightest inclination towards freedom and individual liberty. If nothing else it sets and awful precedent. If they can take away your legally owned property in this case, why not take away something else the powers that be don't think you should have next time? The precedent is set.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Well, it happened with booze and is currently happening with drugs, are you really suprised GD?

[Volourn]

"Well, it happened with booze and is currently happening with drugs, are you really suprised GD?"

 

And, we all saw how it worked out for the booze banning and how the whole 'war on drugs' is working out, righty? Not so well.

[Hurlshort]

I really dislike how the term gun control has become this black and white deal.  We should all be working to prevent tragedies, we should be discussing all options and weighing the pros and cons.

 

This knife attack shows that crazy extremists are going to find a way to be crazy.  But it is futile to argue that this means anything in regards to gun control.  One side will argue that guns aren't the cause of violence, the other will argue that guns could have made it much worse.  What we really should be focusing on is how to stop extremism.  

[Meshugger]

^I actually agree with you there for once

 

//EDIT: Goddamn page break

Edited March 2, 2014 by Meshugger

[213374U]

 What we really should be focusing on is how to stop extremism.  

 

Really? How many people die in the US of "extremist" attacks yearly? And how many just die of gunshot wounds?

 

Please explain to me how exactly extremism is the bigger threat.

Edited March 2, 2014 by 213374U

[Hurlshort]

 

 What we really should be focusing on is how to stop extremism.  

 

Really? How many people die in the US of "extremist" attacks yearly? And how many just die of gunshot wounds?

 

Please explain to me how exactly extremism is the bigger threat.

 

 

What in the world are you talking about?

 

 

edit:  I guess if you want to just address the wounds, we can discuss a skin treatment plan that makes us bulletproof?  Seriously though, what in the world are you talking about again?

Edited March 2, 2014 by Hurlshot

[213374U]

 

 

 What we really should be focusing on is how to stop extremism.  

 

Really? How many people die in the US of "extremist" attacks yearly? And how many just die of gunshot wounds?

 

Please explain to me how exactly extremism is the bigger threat.

 

 

What in the world are you talking about?

 

 

edit:  I guess if you want to just address the wounds, we can discuss a skin treatment plan that makes us bulletproof?  Seriously though, what in the world are you talking about again?

 

 

Yeah, nevermind me. I'm in a total read fail-mode this afternoon. I apparently missed the "this means nothing with regards to gun control" part. Time for a time out.

 

Herpity derpity doo.

[Mor]

I really dislike how the term gun control has become this black and white deal.  We should all be working to prevent tragedies, we should be discussing all options and weighing the pros and cons.

I agree, many people seem to associate 'gun control' with 'banning guns'. Personally, I have no problem with people owning firearms for protection or as a hobby. However, we need gun control to educate the masses about firearm use/safety and regulating the process of possession and acquisition so we don't enable criminal elements. None of those ideas are new and applied to every other dangerous substance/item.

 

 

Life isn't action movie, and guns far more commonly used by criminal elements then some regular joe who saves the day. So this is the exception that prove the rule.

 

It reminds me an old statistic that showed that people who trained in martial arts are far more likely to be involved in fight and require medical attention.

About that statistic, how many of those fights were justified in self defense or in the defense of others?

 

How many of those guys were hothead macho's who escalated or instigate the fight because they had bone to pick or wanted to play the hero. The answer to both is that your guess is as good as mine.

[Walsingham]

I took a couple steps back and wondered what my real point was.

 

I guess my point was that I regard the human being as the crux of all these issues wrt weapons. The crusades were fought with slightly elongated knives. The Mongols conquered half the known world with bows and arrows. Tools aren't the issue. Man is the issue.

 

At this point I think the question subdivides. My question to the USA is whether one can have the guarantees on personal freedom enshrined in the constitution when the individual is capable of wreaking havoc far beyond anything even imaginable to the Framers. My second question is to Europeans who smugly contend that since we restrict private gun ownership we are somehow now safe and sound.

 

I think neither position is rooted in fact.

[mkreku]

I will never understand why so many people think gun control = banning guns.

 

I love guns. I am also for strict gun control. How is that combination possible? I believe in the system we have in Sweden. If you are going to buy a gun, you need to prove you are sane, that you can handle the gun and that you have no history of violence. Also, you need to keep the gun safe. That means you need to keep the actual gun in one weapons safe, the bolt in another safe and the ammunition in a third (I think, not sure about that one).

 

In Sweden you are allowed to own any weapon you want (below caliber .50, above is classified as a cannon..) if you follow these rules. Yes, even fully automatic assault weapons (my father owned an AK-4 up until a few years ago).

 

Again what I'm about to say here applies mainly to the US but when you get right down to it, gun control is nothing more than a group of politicians/political activists trying to take away something that you legally own, and have done nothing illegal with, away from you simply because they don't think you should have it. It is a small group of people with a little bit of political power asserting themselves as the ultimate arbiters of your life and property. That should offend anyone who has even the slightest inclination towards freedom and individual liberty. If nothing else it sets and awful precedent. If they can take away your legally owned property in this case, why not take away something else the powers that be don't think you should have next time? The precedent is set.

 

This above argument.. "someone trying to take away something you legally own and has done nothing illegal with". Does this end with guns? I mean, most people find it pretty natural that we can't buy hand grenades or rocket launchers in Walmart. But according to this logic, we should be able to. No-one should be able to tell someone else what they can or can't legally own. Or is it just guns? Is it because of that paper all Americans seem to hold so dear?

 

The line is arbitrary, before guns, after guns, after hand grenades.

[Guard Dog]

I really dislike how the term gun control has become this black and white deal.  We should all be working to prevent tragedies, we should be discussing all options and weighing the pros and cons.

 

This knife attack shows that crazy extremists are going to find a way to be crazy.  But it is futile to argue that this means anything in regards to gun control.  One side will argue that guns aren't the cause of violence, the other will argue that guns could have made it much worse.  What we really should be focusing on is how to stop extremism.  

Gun Control has become a back and white issue because it always was. It was just not marketed that way. The political forces that want it want it completely. Total disarmament. They are willing to accept it incrementally while continuously working towards their ultimate goal: no one has guns but them. You own Senator, Diane Feinstein has said as much. That is why I, and millions of people just like me, will not accept even the most "reasonable" restrictions because it will not end there. Each new law is only a step towards the next. The government is not dealing with us honestly. So you see, it really is black and white.

 

This is one cause I will fight for. This is one thing I will take up arms to defend. And if they day comes when they do come for mine I will kill as many as I can and they can take them from my corpse. And I know for a fact there are hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of my fellow Americans that feel the same way. So again, to those who want it here, are you willing to break the country to get it?

[alanschu]

 

 

The line is arbitrary, before guns, after guns, after hand grenades.

 

I saw someone use the response "those are ordinance, not arms, and there's a difference" which made me chuckle.

[Guard Dog]

I will never understand why so many people think gun control = banning guns.

 

I love guns. I am also for strict gun control. How is that combination possible? I believe in the system we have in Sweden. If you are going to buy a gun, you need to prove you are sane, that you can handle the gun and that you have no history of violence. Also, you need to keep the gun safe. That means you need to keep the actual gun in one weapons safe, the bolt in another safe and the ammunition in a third (I think, not sure about that one).

 

In Sweden you are allowed to own any weapon you want (below caliber .50, above is classified as a cannon..) if you follow these rules. Yes, even fully automatic assault weapons (my father owned an AK-4 up until a few years ago).

 

Again what I'm about to say here applies mainly to the US but when you get right down to it, gun control is nothing more than a group of politicians/political activists trying to take away something that you legally own, and have done nothing illegal with, away from you simply because they don't think you should have it. It is a small group of people with a little bit of political power asserting themselves as the ultimate arbiters of your life and property. That should offend anyone who has even the slightest inclination towards freedom and individual liberty. If nothing else it sets and awful precedent. If they can take away your legally owned property in this case, why not take away something else the powers that be don't think you should have next time? The precedent is set.

 

This above argument.. "someone trying to take away something you legally own and has done nothing illegal with". Does this end with guns? I mean, most people find it pretty natural that we can't buy hand grenades or rocket launchers in Walmart. But according to this logic, we should be able to. No-one should be able to tell someone else what they can or can't legally own. Or is it just guns? Is it because of that paper all Americans seem to hold so dear?

 

The line is arbitrary, before guns, after guns, after hand grenades.

Hand grenades and other military grade munitions are already illegal and always have been. That is not the same as kicking in your door and seizing property you have always had and that was suddenly made illegal by legislative fiat.