Forum menu
Lets not get derailed by pointless comparisons of risk. The fact remains, if you took away the automatic right to own weapons, 99% of people would be completely unaffected. Take away the right to drive a car (or what ever) and the negative impact is massive. Which is why this is a discussion about gun control and not vehicular safety etc...
To date, no one has come up with a convincing argument as to why anyone (in general) needs to own a gun, and especially a high powered assault rifle etc. Yes, a small minority of people, people who hunt, outdoorsmen etc will need to and will be able to still own guns (just like they do in the uk), but for the average man in the street, who works in a IT firm, or in macdonalds or whatever, no, you can't an AR-15 just because its "fun"......
Kilo, I wasn’t limiting my discussion to mass shootings there, there’s a much wider problem with Guns in the US, I’m sure you would agree. Now, correlation is not causation but this has to indicate something:
Id also add (and I almost fear taking the discussion here, but it’s relevant) that public outrage and clamour for change, with licencing and restriction being the “obvious” solution isn’t necessarily a good indicator of anything. See the campaign to ban fixies and widespread media calls for licencing and registration in the wake of the Charlie Alliston case as a recent example...
Take away the right to drive a car (or what ever) and the negative impact is massive.
Really? you really want to go there?
Only because we’ve built a society that revolves around it and we have blinded ourselves to the effects of it, we have fooled ourselves that we can’t live without cars and they are a “freedom” that we don’t want to give up, despite utter f’king carnage on our roads by both legal and illegal users who get a slap on the wrists for killing people because nobody ought to not have a car.
how blind people can be when they want to be.
We’ve certainly had a lot of people killed with guns, mainly illegal ones....
No we haven't there were 571 homicides in the year ending March 2016 in England and Wales 26 were shootings, I would not regard that as lots either as a total or a percentage
[quote=Jimjam]
I’d suggest that if you’re going to use the Vietnam war (or any historical analogy) to make your point that it’s relevant to what’s being discussed in some way.
The relevance is that war (inc Vietnam) proves that the staple Hollywood film makers "a few good guys take on an take out bad guys without injury or collateral damage" scenario is utterly false.
Sure the VC were armed and supported and to a degree trained, but nothing like the US forces. And yet, often, a single VC machine gunner with an old, cheap, not very accurate AK-47 would inflict huge casualties on much larger groups of US forces.
In the films, the good guy rushes into a room full of machine gun toting baddies, and shoots them all, and is completely un-touched. In reality, he'd be full of holes about 3sec after bursting through the door. You don't "rush" up to anyone with an assault rifle and live to tell the tail very often.......
Really? you really want to go there?
Only because we’ve built a society that revolves around it and we have blinded ourselves to the effects of it, we have fooled ourselves that we can’t live without cars and they are a “freedom” that we don’t want to give up, despite utter f’king carnage on our roads by both legal and illegal users who get a slap on the wrists for killing people because nobody ought to not have a car.
how blind people can be when they want to be.
I agree with ninfan
(on the point above, and not much else).
Ninfan does that graph include police shootings because that in itself would explain the skewed figures.
Ninfan does that graph include police shootings because that in itself would explain the skewed figures.
It probably looks basically identical to the split of all violent deaths. In a country with a lot of guns and a lot of gun violence, the pattern of violent deaths will look like pattern of gun deaths. I'd wager it's not saying that black men who suffer a violent death are more likely to be shot than white men or black/white women are. The problem is that black men are more likely to suffer a violent death than white men or women or black women.
"Utter F-ing carnage"?
Wow, is Nin turning into one of his beloved Snowflakes?
Uk drivers drove 323 BILLION miles in 2016. (figures from UKGOV). 1,792 people died, meaning that motorists drove, on average 163million miles before killing someone.
You have a choice to get into a car (or cross a road) and if you think it's too dangerous then don't. But the fact remains, the risk to reward prospects is so heavily skewed towards reward that we no longer even consider the fact we might be killed or seriously injured when we get into our cars. Seriously, think about it. Can you tell me honestly the last time you unlocked your car, hopped in, belted up, turned the key and then actively thought "hmm, i'd better be careful, i could die". If you did, then you are in a tiny, tiny minority.
In return we get to live easy, convientent lives. We get to have goods and services delivered to our doors, to go and buy food when ever we want, we have easy access to life saving services (ambulance, fire, police etc) we get to live where we want, work where we want, to visit our friends and extended families, all things that contribute to living a furfilling, sane life. Take away our cars, and i'm going to suggest the death toll could well increase.
Anway, i digress, the fact is, comparing "cars" to "guns" is both erroneous and frankly stupid. Not owning an AK-47 isn't going to materially affect the majority of peoples lives in any way, compared to not owning a car, which will have an enourmous material affect.
(and finally, if Nin thinks our roads are too dangerous, what advanced or additional driver training and certification has he done to make himself a safer driver so as to help avoid all that "f-ing carnage"? I suspect, none, even though it's proven that driver training brings the biggest single safety improvement)
Aracer - every adult man in Switzerland has a semi automatic rifle in a cupboard in their house.
[i]ninfan wrote:[/i]
Id also add (and I almost fear taking the discussion here, but it’s [s]relevant[/s] a strawman) that public outrage and clamour for change, with licencing and restriction being the “obvious” solution isn’t necessarily a good indicator of anything. See the campaign to ban fixies and widespread media calls for licencing and registration in the wake of the Charlie Alliston case as a recent example…
It must absolutely terrify you to divert the discussion - I'm sending thoughts and prayers. But I fixed it for you - and here's a pic to help:
though it might just be:
[i]tjagain wrote:[/i]
Aracer – every adult man in Switzerland has a semi automatic rifle in a cupboard in their house.
Apart from other differences in gun control laws, the gun ownership rate per capita is still only 1/4 that of the US. Which tends to suggest that assertion is untrue (it would take a heavily skewed distribution of gender or age, or a mean longevity of 36).
Though it's interesting to see that even you have been sucked in by the claim that Switzerland (or Canada) disproves the suggestion that it's anything to do with the number of guns in circulation. To claim that it's in any way similar to the US is fake news.
But comparisons of risk aren't pointless. Why are we banging on about the thousands killed by guns in the USA and ignoring the bigger number killed by cars. It isn't about the fact banning cars would be too inconvenient. Getting U.S. road risk levels to match ours would save 20'000 lives a year out of 30'000. I don't feel anybody here is deprived of anything by our system.
The only reason I can see is that cars kill in small numbers while guns sometimes kill in big numbers.
So why the outrage about USA gun laws and not their road traffic laws and/or roads engineering, driver training.
Aracer – every adult man in Switzerland has a semi automatic rifle in a cupboard in their house.
For the Army Issued "Militia" weapons since 2011 only 2000 specialist have ammunition for their weapons. They only keep the weapon till they are 30 (34 for officers) after that date they have to obtain a permit if they wish to retain it. They can only then purchase rounds for the gun at federally approved ranges and can only fire the purchased round there.
i dont know how to quote re how many shot by cops - basically less than whites aree
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-black-americans-commit-crime
93% of black murder victims are killed by blacks
edit add link has an error is states black men are 13% of population - its half that, so about 6.5%
edit add link
https://www.snopes.com/do-police-kill-more-whites-than-black-people/
whatabouterry
Start a new thread on how to help the americans drive more safely; it has nothing to do with this issue - unless they crash their cars whilst cleaning their guns
whatabouterry
Quite. The argument "why are we discussing [one problem] when [another problem] exists?" implies that only one of these things is important. It's quite possible to be concerned about both (or either, or neither), these aren't mutually exclusive issues.
You want to start a thread discussing the evils of vehicular transport then fill your boots, it might make for an interesting discussion. But on a thread discussing guns it's an irrelevance, the only reason I can see for anyone to mention it is either a) they really don't like our reliance on cars and it's any excuse to bring it up, or b) they really don't want to talk about gun control and it's an attempt to deflect the thread.
Besides, we've already answered your question, read back.
cougar
You want to start a thread discussing the evils of vehicular transport then fill your boots, it might make for an interesting discussion. But on a thread discussing guns it’s an irrelevance, the only reason I can see for anyone to mention it is either a) they really don’t like our reliance on cars and it’s any excuse to bring it up, or b) they really don’t want to talk about gun control and it’s an attempt to deflect the thread.
I think there's some relevance to making a comparison, if only as a thought experiment. As maxtorque points out we have a tacit cultural agreement that the risks of cars are worth the reward in exchange for convenient easy lives. If legislation was proposed to impose limiters on every vehicle restricting them to 30mph on motorways and 10mph in towns there'd be outrage, despite the obvious life saving benefits.
Many of us believe we have a right to own a machine which can kill given a split second of inattentiveness and never make an error which will result in serious injury or death to others. We're also confident that we won't be taken by uncontrollable homicidal thoughts and deliberately plough our cars or vans into crowds of strangers. .....and so on. It's rough analogy and the car has a lot more utility than a rifle but perhaps it gets some of the way to understanding why certain states can't take legislative steps towards tighter gun controls.
Cars...yes but.. No-one thinks it's a great idea to let a 17yr old with no experience or insurance, no basic instruction, and without the ability to pass a dual part test to demonstrate at least basic comprehension and compliance with legislation; loose on the roads in any car he/she damn well pleases.
which is what US gun laws re any weapon anyone wants to posses. You may think Cars can be as equally dangerous as guns, but at least one has to demonstrate some ability before being allowed to own and use one.
which is what US gun laws re any weapon anyone wants to posses. You may think Cars can be as equally dangerous as guns, but at least one has to demonstrate some ability before being allowed to own and use one.
You might want to check your facts. I'm not aware of any states where anyone of any age can posses any weapon they want without any checks. Not to say their gun laws are reasonable or sensible, but if we're going to debate them we might as well debate the facts.
And there's this
Sure, the point I was making was that if you're going to compare cars and guns, the thing that no-one questions is that if you want to drive a car, there are some pretty extensive hoops one has to jump through, even in the states in order to get there. You can't just stroll into Walmart, and drive out in a V8
Sure, the point I was making was that if you’re going to compare cars and guns, the thing that no-one questions is that if you want to drive a car, there are some pretty extensive hoops one has to jump through, even in the states in order to get there. You can’t just stroll into Walmart, and drive out in a V8
How many people are killed by drunk, speeding, unregistered or banned drivers every year? Clearly licensing/registration doesn't work, and the only solution is a complete ban on public ownership (use of motor vehicles restricted to work uses by high trained professional drivers only - emergency services, bus drivers, HGV's etc)
Sure, the point I was making was that if you’re going to compare cars and guns, the thing that no-one questions is that if you want to drive a car, there are some pretty extensive hoops one has to jump through, even in the states in order to get there. You can’t just stroll into Walmart, and drive out in a V8
Not to be a complete contrarian but I used to go out with a Canadian girl who traveled to California to do her her driving test because (in her words) the test was a case of showing that you start the car, drive to the end of the street, turn and go back to where you started. So no, you can't stroll into wallmart and drive out with a V8 but you can pretty much stroll into the DMV, do your test and go buy a V8.
Junkyard - I have no idea what your issue is, any more than I can work out what bikebuoy’s point was.
Jimjam, the analogy falls down for lots of countries, there's more than enough that don't have much testing or insurance or MOT or whatever, and I imagine their road death rates are pretty high accordingly.
Having driven in Vancouver, that fact does not surprise me at all!
Yes Nick, I agree. The car / gun analogy isn't perfect. It's actually pretty rough as I said. It's more about the speed we're allowed to drive, or the sense of entitlement that we be allowed to do X mph against safety concerns and severity of potential accidents. I'm not really interested in flogging that horse too hard beyond that as I think America's gun laws are extremely complicated and really, this thread has been about gun laws in the context of a school shooting and it's worth remembering more American's die in "ordinary" shootings .
I agree, It's complex and I think ultimately perhaps we're too remote from it to make much comment other than "it seems to make no sense"
edit: wanted to say, I get completely your argument about entitlement, you're completely correct we do use cars unthinkingly, and in that at least is analogous to how some Americans think about their weapons and one then would understand their incomprehension about the threat to restrict their use.
Has this been posted already? CBA to look back through the thread.
A couple of years old now but still just as relevant.
The same sketch for people without FB (but poor sound quality and a bit missing from the start)
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4g8777
I saw that Jim Jeffries sketch the other day: It's great.
The gun and car comparison is simply there as a little game for the nra boys who insist that every other way people die must be fixed before they think about gun control. See the response to the guy driving a car into people in new york. The orange idiot was all over that one proposing hugely big changes.
An American shoots American kids well you know issues and stuff, t&p
I do wonder if a large number of people have watched so many US action movies that they genuinely believe that one person can take on a much larger force or armed assailants and “take them out” without being killed? (as regularly depicted in numerous films)
These will be the films Trump watches. He is very confident that an armed teacher would have had no trouble "taking out" the "sicko". By the time he put the chalk down and reached for his handgun the assailant would have killed him (or her). Future scenario, teachers are armed, assailant will shoot teacher before starting on the kids.
Interesting piece in the New Yorker about the 2nd Amendment, and how it’s been interpreted and mis-interpreted for political ends, basically because of the poor grammar and unclear wording, which has lead to the right-wing politicians and their supporters taking control of the NRA and the law-making process in Washington, more or less starting in the 80’s and Regan.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/so-you-think-you-know-the-second-amendment
Police in Amarillo shot an innocent man who helped foil a possible church shooting.
If only the innocent man was armed. He could have shot the police before they shot him.
Unbelievable - but true.
More like Annie bless your gun than Annie get your gun.
Unbelievable – but true
^^^ Those two look like they should probably Moisturise a bit more often........ 😉
That's what Republicans look like on the inside
[i]frankconway wrote:[/i]
Unbelievable – but true.
More like Annie bless your gun than Annie get your gun.
The intellectual disconnect is strong:
All of the weapons will be checked to make sure they are unloaded, Sanctuary Church President Richard Panzer said in an email. The church is also inviting local and state police to be on the premise so that "everything goes safely,"
I didn't think there was a problem with the safety of guns?
Trump says he would have run into the school unarmed if he had been there, when commenting on the actions of the officer accused of cowardness
Big words from a draft dodger...