California judge overturns state's 32 year ban on assault weapons

[valade16]

They may be choosing guns for aesthetic reasons, the shooter in NZ picked the AR-15 not because he liked the gun but because he wanted to be seen using THAT one in particular.
The reason that countries like Switzerland aren't seeing more shootings despite similar rates of gun ownership is likely for societal reasons.

One fact that researchers have found about high-profile mass shootings is that they happen in close proximity to one another and that the killers want the attention for doing it. If media refused to show pictures or run the names of the people who do this, we'd likely see less of them.

They may be using a specific gun for aesthetic reasons, but the reason they use a gun in the first place is they offer a unique combination of lethality, portability, and ease of use. This is common sense and really why it’s frustrating having any conversation about guns with pro-gun people, they simply refuse to admit the base facts.

And Switzerland actually sees more gun deaths than other European nations, and they’re the one with the most gun ownership... so even societally, countries with more guns see more gun deaths.

[corralski]

They may be using a specific gun for aesthetic reasons, but the reason they use a gun in the first place is they offer a unique combination of lethality, portability, and ease of use. This is common sense and really why it’s frustrating having any conversation about guns with pro-gun people, they simply refuse to admit the base facts.

And Switzerland actually sees more gun deaths than other European nations, and they’re the one with the most gun ownership... so even societally, countries with more guns see more gun deaths.

To your first sentence, doesn't the popularity of those rifles make your point? Are you looking for some sort of allocution here?

I believe you stated at one point owning one of these rifles yourself....

[valade16]

To your first sentence, doesn't the popularity of those rifles make your point? Are you looking for some sort of allocution here?

I believe you stated at one point owning one of these rifles yourself....

The popularity of guns used in general is what proves my point. He is of the belief that if there were no guns there’s be just as many deaths and mass incidents, people would just use trucks and knives instead. I’m looking for an admittance that is preposterous.

[corralski]

If I own firearms for reasons of self defense, do I not want ones that work well? That are adaptable for fit? Modular in nature so I can tailor it to suit my personal needs, needs that would make me more accurate should I decide to use it?

This is kind of a silly point to argue if you ask me....

[corralski]

The popularity of guns used in general is what proves my point. He is of the belief that if there were no guns there’s be just as many deaths and mass incidents, people would just use trucks and knives instead. I’m looking for an admittance that is preposterous.

Maybe, maybe not. I would agree that a firearm is a more convenient choice but individuals bent on committing death and mayhem would only be momentarily deterred...

[valade16]

Maybe, maybe not. I would agree that a firearm is a more convenient choice but individuals bent on committing death and mayhem would only be momentarily deterred...

Regarding suicide, I’ve already shown how guns increase the death toll (if you didn’t see that conversation let me know and I will restate).

Regarding mass shootings, I don’t think that’s altogether true. One, we are not seeing nearly as many mass incidents in Europe with alternative means and Two, even if we did here, a maniac with a knife is on average not going to kill nearly as many people as a maniac with a gun.

[valade16]

If I own firearms for reasons of self defense, do I not want ones that work well? That are adaptable for fit? Modular in nature so I can tailor it to suit my personal needs, needs that would make me more accurate should I decide to use it?

This is kind of a silly point to argue if you ask me....

Its silliness comes from your point about the benefits of a firearm undermining your other point that alternative means would have the same outcome.

I agree a firearm is better for home defense, that’s the whole point. It’s better, also for mass death. What you and Ciaban are trying to do is the equivalent of convincing me that a knife or a car are just as good for home defense as a gun.

There’s a reason a gun is better for home defense than a car or knife, and it’s the same reason it’s also better for mass death...

[ciaban2.0]

They may be using a specific gun for aesthetic reasons, but the reason they use a gun in the first place is they offer a unique combination of lethality, portability, and ease of use. This is common sense and really why it’s frustrating having any conversation about guns with pro-gun people, they simply refuse to admit the base facts.

And Switzerland actually sees more gun deaths than other European nations, and they’re the one with the most gun ownership... so even societally, countries with more guns see more gun deaths.

I'd like to state first and foremost, that I'm not a gun owner, never have been, and I've never had guns in my home growing up, I've fired a gun with friends at a gun range once in my entire life.
I'm not pro-gun.
1)
If they didn't have access to guns they'd use something else that's easy. We know this because we see it happening.
On top of all that, with the way 3D printing of guns AND bullets have come along, even if you got the worlds most perfect gun *buy-back* (lol that's not what it is but w/e) people could still just print a gun and bullets and do whatever they want.

Targeting the underlying symptoms of violence is the only method that will produce a reasonable and actionable change in violence.

2)
What's their murder rate? I mean what your saying is the equivalent of "homeowners with pools are more likely to drown"
There is nothing morally or ethically worse about being killed by a gun vs a knife or rope or bomb etc.

[ciaban2.0]

Its silliness comes from your point about the benefits of a firearm undermining your other point that alternative means would have the same outcome.

I agree a firearm is better for home defense, that’s the whole point. It’s better, also for mass death. What you and Ciaban are trying to do is the equivalent of convincing me that a knife or a car are just as good for home defense as a gun.

There’s a reason a gun is better for home defense than a car or knife, and it’s the same reason it’s also better for mass death...

Except we've seen bombs and cars and knives used for mass murder very effectively, obviously you can't use a car for home defense, but in an open area, why can't you run people over.

Guns offer certain situational advantages in mass murder, but cars also offer situational advantages in mass murder. So do knives.

[ciaban2.0]

Regarding suicide, I’ve already shown how guns increase the death toll (if you didn’t see that conversation let me know and I will restate).

Regarding mass shootings, I don’t think that’s altogether true. One, we are not seeing nearly as many mass incidents in Europe with alternative means and Two, even if we did here, a maniac with a knife is on average not going to kill nearly as many people as a maniac with a gun.

1)
In Australia (the gold standard of *Gun-Buybacks*) they saw no drop off in suicides in the years after their *successful* gun buyback program, people killed themselves at the same rate, they just used different methods.

2)
The vast majority of mass shootings involve less than 3 people.
And more to the point, the social conditions in Europe are different than in the US.

[corralski]

Its silliness comes from your point about the benefits of a firearm undermining your other point that alternative means would have the same outcome.

I agree a firearm is better for home defense, that’s the whole point. It’s better, also for mass death. What you and Ciaban are trying to do is the equivalent of convincing me that a knife or a car are just as good for home defense as a gun.

There’s a reason a gun is better for home defense than a car or knife, and it’s the same reason it’s also better for mass death...

I think it would be foolish to equate the efficiency of one to the other, knives to guns, clubs to guns, ball peen hammers to guns. Someone twisted enough to cause mayhem and death would take another path, just not be as efficient. I’m not trying to convince you of anything, your opinion is set on this matter. What I would say is that there is a very distinct line between someone that owns a firearm for self defense or sport and a criminal intent on breaking the law....

[corralski]

1)
In Australia (the gold standard of *Gun-Buybacks*) they saw no drop off in suicides in the years after their *successful* gun buyback program, people killed themselves at the same rate, they just used different methods.

2)
The vast majority of mass shootings involve less than 3 people.
And more to the point, the social conditions in Europe are different than in the US.

The gun buy backs were not very effective because there are a lot of guns that the government doesn’t know about. You won’t find criminals standing in line to hand over the tool of their trade.

And that is the point that I don’t hear anyone copping to, you can make all of the laws you like and only those that are already living lawful lives are going to comply. Criminals probably applaud gun control laws, makes for less resistance when they ply their trade.

There are no laws that will be effective in reducing gun violence until you can make sure that criminals can’t use them. I think that is the single biggest point that just chaps my hide is that legal gunowners are expected to comply first and not the criminals. From where I stand that leaves me just a wee bit vulnerable and I ain’t having none of it thank you very much...

[corralski]

Regarding suicide, I’ve already shown how guns increase the death toll (if you didn’t see that conversation let me know and I will restate).

Regarding mass shootings, I don’t think that’s altogether true. One, we are not seeing nearly as many mass incidents in Europe with alternative means and Two, even if we did here, a maniac with a knife is on average not going to kill nearly as many people as a maniac with a gun.

Suicide is a separate matter, I’m not trying to be insensitive here but the battle over guns is not about suicide....

[mngopher35]

Except we've seen bombs and cars and knives used for mass murder very effectively, obviously you can't use a car for home defense, but in an open area, why can't you run people over.

Guns offer certain situational advantages in mass murder, but cars also offer situational advantages in mass murder. So do knives.

Why are bombs/grenades/rockets illegal then?

I would even note cars have a lot of regulation in this country as well. As a society we absolutely take into account how deadly something has the potential to be most of the time and the uses.

That’s why more deadlier options are also illegal currently (or just like fireworks with just the potential to be too dangerous). Why not allow those other deadlier options if it’s simply a society problem and the tool doesn’t matter? I think you are aware certain tools make it much easier even if you potentially could use something else or there may be a one off situation here or there where something else could be effective still. None of that negates the dangers of the tool being discussed or how society often deals with very dangerous tools most of the time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Crovash]

Suicide is a separate matter, I’m not trying to be insensitive here but the battle over guns is not about suicide....

What?