Conquer Club

Gabon:

If Hitler wasn't addicted to drugs, what was his doctor pumping him up with? Aside from contradictory prescriptions to stuff might to ease his stomach cramps but gave him either constipation or the runs? Might it have had something to do with his apparent zeal and energy, then his sullen and wretched health later on?

All that aside, don't use hybrid Strawman/Red Herring agruments to back up your position. Just don't.

Dancing Mustard wrote:So you're saying that the way to stop Satanic cults from kidnapping and killing people, is to arm them to the teeth with handguns?

Yeah, thanks for the suggestion. But I think we're going to have to pass on that one.

GabonX wrote:Unlike the general population, degenerates (people with criminal records or known major psychological disorders) should be restricted as to what they can and cannot own.

Well obviously there should be even greater restrictions on what criminals can own than on what regular citizens should own. Agreed.

The point is that in a society in which lethal weapons are freely available, then all of the safeguards you put in place to stop criminals from purchasing guns are quickly rendered almost completely impotent. When a populace is saturated with weapons, then a criminal (or 'degenerate') doesn't really have any difficult in acquiring the weapons through other channels; so simply banning them from purchase is an inadequate safeguard.
Furthermore, because it's legal for everybody to own guns, there's nothing you can do about the harm intending criminal until he actually has a gun in his possession (in the UK for example, the authorities can stop the crime before it occurs by taking the gun out of circulation at any point along the supply-chain).

Put simply, the point is that a two-tier (non-crims, crims) system with high levels of weapon proliferation just isn't going to work. Crossover of weapons is just too easy (as the USA so frequently demonstrates. See: LA, South Central), and 'degenerates' can still easily become armed to the teeth.

GabonX wrote:Even if the killers had been armed with guns alongside the victims the outcome may have been different.

Perhaps... but as Snorri says, it would probably just have gone from "Gang kills man" to "Gang kills man with gun", or "Shoot-out between gang and man results in multiple fatalities".

Don't mind me, but I don't regard either situation as being a particularly significant improvement.

GabonX wrote:Indeed these youths may have been discouraged to the point where they would not have committed these acts if they lived in a society where they faced the prospect of an armed population.

Look, you keep saying this... but it's just not true.

Do you honestly think that this gang of kidnappers would have been discouraged from snatching their lone victim because he might have had a gun? Or do you just think that they'd have hit him / shot him a bit quicker and harder than usual, concussing/incapacitating him before he could retaliate?

The gun is not some magic ward of protection; the fact that an individual might have a gun is not going to scare off (probably equally well armed) gangs of attackers/kidnappers. Sure, you can say it will a hundred times... but your supposition is just irrational. What danger do you think your single pistol really presents to a gang of armed kidnappers, acting with planning and surprise on their side?

Yes, we can do the "one man robbing a shop filled with gun-owners" straw-man argument again if you like. But the fact is that arming citizens just forces (now gun armed) criminals to commit crimes with a greater levels of intimidation and violence. They stop perpetrating crimes alone and do it with the assistance of gangs, they stop robbing the customer-filled store, and begin robbing empty liquor stores, or just committing late-night street muggings.

Giving everyone guns doesn't make criminals disappear; it just gives them access to better weapons, and forces them to be more violent.

GabonX wrote:Even in a worst case scenario where the Satanists had been armed with guns that they had obtained legally and the victims had opted not to be able to defend themselves it would have made no difference to them accept that the manner of their deaths would have been much less painful.

Actually, I think that the 666 stab-wounds were probably symbolic... I imagine that they'd have done those anyway and only used the guns to assist the kidnapping/incapacitation of their victim. But this particular tangent is a bit of a red-herring.

GabonX wrote:I agree. I don't think it's the Government's place to tell a person what they can and cannot possess or can and cannot do with their body.

Quite right! If I want to own an atom bomb, a midtown swine-farm, stashes of child-porn, or to carve racist symbols into my forehead, then who is the government to prohibit me?

Come on Gabon... that statement is just ridiculously sweeping. Surely you're not being serious?

b.k. barunt wrote:I'd love to see it become like GB over here, but it's not. If they oultlaw guns here, the predators will still have them and the law abiding cows will not.

This is a very sensible point.

The thing is that I'm not arguing that the best thing to do in the USA would be to declare "hand in your guns by midnight, they are illegal now". A sudden blanket ban wouldn't be the correct way to go about solving the problem... it'd just be over-simplistic and would lead to precisely the problem you describe.

I think that what we anti-gunners have in mind when we argue for a gun ban in the USA would be a gradually rolled out program of incremental banning, supported by a well funded police campaign of weapon confiscation. Banning, say, shotguns by the end of December, would give citizens adequate time to hand in their existing shotguns, and would then give the police force the power to round up large numbers of remaining shotguns from criminals... but this wouldn't have the effect of creating some sort of overnight law-abiding citizen weapon-vacuum (as there'd be all the other types of weapon left in the hands of law-abiders).
Gradually, ever couple of years, you keep banning classes of weapons... allowing citizen amnesty, then following up with a rounding up and confiscation of remaining illegally held weapons. And after a great number of years (and yes, I don't dispute that this would take decades, and would cost a great deal of money) you reach the point where you have a total ban, and you're left with a (largely) gun-free nation.
Yes it'd take time, money, and it wouldn't be a 100% smooth transition. But it's probably the only option that can feasibly give American's a society where they don't feel the need to carry a lethal weapon for self defence.

Decrease the amount of firearms in circulation and you will have fewer deaths, but thats not really the issue, its all about toys for boys !

joecoolfrog wrote:Decrease the amount of firearms in circulation and you will have fewer deaths, but thats not really the issue, its all about toys for boys !

I don't think that you would have fewer deaths. people intent on killing other people will just use something else. the problem is the society, not the methods used by the society.

Tough one isn't it BK! Firstly on a personal level and aside from how i feel the law should be, i respect what you did and the position you were in.

In reality i was referring to the UK as it is what i empirically understand. Though i still think the general principal holds, I do concede that the culture and founding history has a huge influence. In practice that makes our nations too different to consider in the same way.
Indeed the area you are talking about somewhat represents the culture which non-proliferation would hope to keep us from.

As I say i have in the past carried what would be deemed a weapon under UK Law, i would not expect my actions to be sanctioned if i hit someone on the arm with a rounders bat whilst defending myself from crazed knife wielding drug-dealer. I have walked into a situation where i knew there was the possibility of violence.
I do not need special dispensation for that, you pay your money and you take your choice.

the point you are making is that some people do not have a choice and their existence, by the nature of locale, is perilous. Sadly that is the reality of most Urban Societies but Guns are still an alien tool on the Streets of the UK. Or should i say: guns are only in the hands of the gansta's or those who wish to be so.
Weapons, generally, are a necessary tool in illegal trades.

So you say if the criminals have got them i should be able to have them! To my mind this accepts defeat and escalates the problem.

It will be very rare for a person to be mugged at gunpoint in this country.. Jesus, being shot by the police or being sent to prison for armed robbery all for the contents of someones wallet? It does not add up.
If there are Robberies at gun point this is again by professional criminal gangs on wealthy individuals or large corporations. In this situation insurance will replace the money and guns in the hands of the robbed will get them killed.

To make armed robbery viable on individuals there needs to be a lot of cash, that means that largely it will be criminal gangs robbing other criminal gangs. Do we want to legalise the robbed criminal gangs right to defend their cash with a gun? Maybe, they could be the decent ones.

So then we are left we the peculiar tinpot mirroring of American society itself (or the reflection of a mirror, via yardy culture); our youts aspire to aspects of tough America 'gang' culture and all the rough-neck trimmings. Alpha males with gold and guns, sitting on thrones with toned, barely clad arses reverberating at their whim!
this is not to diminish the realities which place our desperate urban youths in the position to be intoxicated but there is a self perpetuation at work here, as i am sure there is in US culture too.

the rule in British society is that a tool which can not be reasonably explained as anything other than one of violence is illegal. (the Gun most certainly falls here)

If we change that rule to anticipate the small amount of random and purposeless attacks upon people not engaged in criminal activity, we increase the problem. A person who may be saved by luck and a gun will lower average safety of every other member of society.
Now that is our individual choice and the one you had to make to do the right thing. I respect your choice to be armed in that district but i still don't agree that society should make it legal for everyone to be armed to allow for such an eventuality.

Think of this: At this moment most muggers have knives in the UK, still lethal and not nice to have on pulled on you! but legalise peoples right to carry guns and the mugger will certainly need a gun.

b.k. barunt wrote:

jiminski wrote:
If we do accept a two tier interpretation of the law, in which some areas allow citizens to carry a weapon due to the in-situ danger (the very matter of existing is deemed self defence) then we have already given up on these places and people. What that breads is the lawless, hopeless ghetto.

Have to disagree with you on this one Jim. The right to bear arms in our constitution was for 2 purposes: self defence, and so that an armed populace could be ready should a tyrant sieze rule. Evidently the latter is no longer necessary, or junior George would've been shot full of holes, but the first still holds true.

There are a lot of neighborhoods over here in which the predators are armed. To stay out of those neighborhoods because of that is to give up on them, which i guess is a reverse of your supposition. 5 years ago i supervised 2 Americorps literacy teams in 2 of the black schools in New Orleans. We also ran an after school program and a summer camp for the kids in the community center that i worked out of. This was in the Hollygrove neighborhood (not as cute as it sounds), and you could google it to see what type of place it is. From sunrise to about 5pm you could drive through it fairly safe, but after that . . .

Problem was, i got one of the local crackheads into rehab, and he asked me to stop by his house at 11pm each night to make sure no one was trashing it. His house was on the main corner for the colorful night life there. A lot of the locals knew me, but some didn't, and when i went to check that house i was armed to the teeth - illegally. Had a couple of exciting moments, but i never had to shoot anyone - however, if i hadn't been armed, i myself would have been shot.

I'd love to see it become like GB over here, but it's not. If they oultlaw guns here, the predators will still have them and the law abiding cows will not. Most law abiding citizens stay out of places like Hollygrove. They've given up on these areas - i haven't, but i have a sense of self preservation which causes me to sometimes carry a gun.

black elk speaks wrote:

joecoolfrog wrote:Decrease the amount of firearms in circulation and you will have fewer deaths, but thats not really the issue, its all about toys for boys !

I don't think that you would have fewer deaths. people intent on killing other people will just use something else. the problem is the society, not the methods used by the society.

well i know what you mean... but convenience is a very strong catalyst to action!

the easier something is to do, the more people will do it. The gun is to murder what the remote control is to TV.

jiminski wrote:

black elk speaks wrote:

joecoolfrog wrote:Decrease the amount of firearms in circulation and you will have fewer deaths, but thats not really the issue, its all about toys for boys !

I don't think that you would have fewer deaths. people intent on killing other people will just use something else. the problem is the society, not the methods used by the society.

well i know what you mean... but convenience is a very strong catalyst to action!

the easier something is to do, the more people will do it. The gun is to murder what the remote control is to TV.

True dat.

The fact is that in a gun-free culture, you have to give a whole lot more of a shit before you can put the killing process into action. I mean yes, there are some murders that will still happen without guns... some people are pretty fucking serious about killing certain people, granted.

But what won't happen are:

(1) So many acts of spontaneous lethal violence. Without the tools, people don't have the means, and great numbers 'cool off' while looking to find them. When you're forced to get a knife/club to go take out your anger with, the physical and mental barriers are far harder for would-be attackers to surmount, and many will never carry their actions to fruition.
Indeed, I once watched a documentary (convincing academic material, I know) about surgeons in Florida, and one of them explicitly said "Yeah, the majority of people who we end up yanking bullets out of, got shot by angry spouses/girlfriends when they found out they were being cheated on."... now I'm no sexist, but I can't imagine too many women who'd knife their boyfriends (certainly not to death) because they discovered they were being cheated on. A simple point and shoot, maybe... but a full blown close-quarters knife attack? I think not.

(2) What you also don't get in gun-free cultures is the same levels of mass public homicide. Without guns you simply can't kill so many people in such short periods of time. Your knives, cricket bats, and bow and arrows simply don't do the job quickly and efficiently enough.
The multi-death school/shopping mall/high-street shootings just can't take place without firearms, no matter how serious you are about pulling them off. In fact, the only non-firearm utilising example I can think of was that chap in Japan recently, and that incident was so shocking and isolated that it made global news.


The point is simple; forcing people to improvise is a barrier to many small-scale murders, and an almost complete bar to mass homicides. Crime statistics prove it, and so does simple logic and reasoning. Not every murderer is a hell-bent killer, and a great number of people's potentially criminal actions are stopped entirely, or greatly reduced in severity, by denying them tools with which to effectively perpetrate them.

black elk speaks wrote:I don't think that you would have fewer deaths. people intent on killing other people will just use something else. the problem is the society, not the methods used by the society.

however, for that split second i lost my cool during some time of stress, i would be unable to reach for a gun and let off a few rounds before i had come to my senses. people would still kill each other granted, but you would lose a lot of the 'spur of the moment' sort of killings.

edit: my bad, mustard seems to have said just that. oh well, bed time for me.

Dancing Mustard wrote:your bow and arrows simply don't do the job quickly and efficiently enough.

living in norfolk, i am all too familiar with the inefficiency of a bow and arrow when dealing with delinquents/rowdy crowds.

I think, in DM's last two posts, he has completely torn this topic apart. I am incredibly impressed.

Neoteny wrote:

GabonX wrote:

Neoteny wrote:

GabonX wrote:Hitler was addicted to cocaine and methamphetamines and despite being a vegetarian his favorite meal was stuffed Quail. Not that any of that has any relevance...

It seems you've missed the point twice now. Grotz.

The point was that Hitler did not do drugs and and was a vegetarian but that doing drugs and eating meat would not be a means to oppose Hitler. Aside from the fact that neither of these assertions are wholly accurate they bear no relevance to the topic at hand because while eating meat and doing drugs would not have diminished Hitler's influence if the victims in these crimes had been armed the outcome may have, and probably would have been different. Hence there was no point of any relevance made.

Three times. Should we keep a count?Aside from the fact that there is nothing in the picture you posted to indicate that that was the point you were trying to make the accusation is still invalid. The position that people here seem to hold is that regardless of the people that could be saved by a law enabling people to carry an instrument of self defence it would do more harm than good. Despite the fact that all data gathered on the topic speaks to the

My point is that you created a straw man and then made your point based on it. Nice try, though.

Even though there is nothing in the picture you posted to indicate that this is the point you were trying to make the point is still invalid. As I understand it the position that most people who are active in this debate maintain is that regardless of whether or not a law enabling a person to carry an instrument of self defense would save lives such a law would case more harm than good. The line which I think your referring to (it would be nice if when trying to make a point you were specific in doing so) states "Thank God nobody was stupid enough to carry a gun hence saving these obviously mentally unwell individuals from being shot in their heads." This was a direct play on a statement made by Spuzzell in another thread about guns.

Spuzzell wrote:Should those people on the train have done something to help the victim? Of course. Should they have shot an obviously mentally unwell man in the head? Of course not.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=62559&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=15

If anyone is guilty of misrepresenting some one's positions this is where it happened. Nowhere have I said that people should go around like vigilantes shooting each other in the head and just because people have guns does not mean that this will be the result. It certainly is not in the United States. I read a quote somewhere "we shoot to stop, death is sometimes an unintended consequence" or something like this which does a good job of explaining the position of a responsible gun owner. Most guns, even hand guns, are never used to shoot a person and most people who are shot survive the incident barring that the bullet hits one of the body's vital regions. While a bullet may kill typically a bullet passes through a person, and while this does cause injury and a more lasting deterrent in the criminal than any sentence a judge could order, most people survive without being crippled in the process.

On a side note I'm beginning to notice a trend where people here will make up an unfounded accusation against someone who does not have identical views with them. Others who are to uncreative to have come up with the accusation themselves then go on to chide in and repeat the same thing without anything to substantiate the claim. It happened in another thread when people accused me of not reading a book (as though there is any way people could know whether or not I had) and it happened here as well. Hopefully this will not continue.

Jenos Ridan wrote:Gabon:

If Hitler wasn't addicted to drugs, what was his doctor pumping him up with? Aside from contradictory prescriptions to stuff might to ease his stomach cramps but gave him either constipation or the runs? Might it have had something to do with his apparent zeal and energy, then his sullen and wretched health later on?

All that aside, don't use hybrid Strawman/Red Herring agruments to back up your position. Just don't.

I said that Hitler WAS addicted to drugs. It's the third post in this topic..
Now who set up a straw man again? or did you just not bother to read enough to have the full perspective of what's being discussed?

GabonX wrote:

Neoteny wrote:

GabonX wrote:

Neoteny wrote:

GabonX wrote:Hitler was addicted to cocaine and methamphetamines and despite being a vegetarian his favorite meal was stuffed Quail. Not that any of that has any relevance...

It seems you've missed the point twice now. Grotz.

The point was that Hitler did not do drugs and and was a vegetarian but that doing drugs and eating meat would not be a means to oppose Hitler. Aside from the fact that neither of these assertions are wholly accurate they bear no relevance to the topic at hand because while eating meat and doing drugs would not have diminished Hitler's influence if the victims in these crimes had been armed the outcome may have, and probably would have been different. Hence there was no point of any relevance made.

Three times. Should we keep a count?

My point is that you created a straw man and then made your point based on it. Nice try, though.

Even though there is nothing in the picture you posted to indicate that this is the point you were trying to make the point is still invalid. As I understand it the position that most people who are active in this debate maintain is that regardless of whether or not a law enabling a person to carry an instrument of self defense would save lives such a law would case more harm than good. The line which I think your referring to (it would be nice if when trying to make a point you were specific in doing so) states "Thank God nobody was stupid enough to carry a gun hence saving these obviously mentally unwell individuals from being shot in their heads." This was a direct play on a statement made by Spuzzell in another thread about guns.

Spuzzell wrote:Should those people on the train have done something to help the victim? Of course. Should they have shot an obviously mentally unwell man in the head? Of course not.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=62559&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=15

If anyone is guilty of misrepresenting some one's positions this is where it happened. Nowhere have I said that people should go around like vigilantes shooting each other in the head and just because people have guns does not mean that this will be the result. It certainly is not in the United States. I read a quote somewhere "we shoot to stop, death is sometimes an unintended consequence" or something like this which does a good job of explaining the position of a responsible gun owner. Most guns, even hand guns, are never used to shoot a person and most people who are shot survive the incident barring that the bullet hits one of the body's vital regions. While a bullet may kill typically a bullet passes through a person, and while this does cause injury and a more lasting deterrent in the criminal than any sentence a judge could order, most people survive without being crippled in the process.

On a side note I'm beginning to notice a trend where people here will make up an unfounded accusation against someone who does not have identical views with them. Others who are to uncreative to have come up with the accusation themselves then go on to chide in and repeat the same thing without anything to substantiate the claim. It happened in another thread when people accused me of not reading a book (as though there is any way people could know whether or not I had) and it happened here as well. Hopefully this will not continue.

First of all, there seems to be a forum where people who don't understand my sense of humor can go and agree with each other (and Tonka just talks to himself). You should try that out.

Apart from that, I'm not here to argue for or against Spuzzel's comment. I will say that his statement is not necessarily representative of the sentiment you are attributing it to. The point of my picture was to indicate how ridiculous I thought your attempt at persuasion was. If you would like me to elaborate further, I shall, but DM has already posed rather intelligent reasons for strict gun control.

The problem with DM's solution is an inherent mistrust of the government. While i was considering the subject matter of this thread, i realized a depressing truth - cops have done me far more harm in my life than thugs. Not only that, but i see more theft and violent crimes committed by our government than i do by street criminals.

I don't care what kind of plan they institute to disarm America - i trust neither their honesty or their capability to implement something of such magnitude without fucking it sideways. Give my weapons to federal wankers? * * Homey the Clown voiceover * * i don't think so.


Honibaz

Again, sensible stuff from the B.K.

b.k. barunt wrote:The problem with DM's solution is an inherent mistrust of the government.

I think this is one for another thread, but this severe distrust of the police is something which seems to be endemic within the USA. I'm not saying that it's unfounded, but it's another cultural difference that seems to divide us Euros and you Americans. I mean, I'm not saying all Euros 100% trust 100% of the police, but the levels of distrust and dislike seem to be far more widespread and intense over in the New World.

Anyway, tangent over... but it's something I really think warrants a thread of its own.

b.k. barunt wrote:I don't care what kind of plan they institute to disarm America - i trust neither their honesty or their capability to implement something of such magnitude without fucking it sideways.

Well there we go... until your government puts itself in a position where it has gained the required levels of trust from you all, then I suppose a disarmament program can't be effectively rolled out.

That's not to say that I think a disarmament wouldn't be the best thing for the USA, just that perhaps you aren't in a position where you and your administrators are ready to go about putting the wheels in motion. In other words, there's some other fairly pressing issues which US Society needs to work out before widespread gun-proliferation can be addressed.


PS. Please don't take that as a patronising "well the USA has a worse govt than we do" put-down, because that's really not how I mean it. I'm not beginning to deny that we Euros have our own set of equally serious (though different) "Citizens Vs State" issues, and they stop us making progress in all manner of other areas.

personally, i would feel a lot more sure that no violence was about to happen if i could carry a gun everywhere. yup, that sure would stop anything violent happening involving me.

Dancing Mustard wrote:

b.k. barunt wrote:I don't care what kind of plan they institute to disarm America - i trust neither their honesty or their capability to implement something of such magnitude without fucking it sideways.

Well there we go... until your government puts itself in a position where it has gained the required levels of trust from you all, then I suppose a disarmament program can't be effectively rolled out.

How is it going to do that? Were are looking at nearly three generations of distrust:

Gen-Xers and Baby Boomers don't trust the Federal Government and whatever the current up-and-coming generation is called thinks it is all the fault of free-wheeling Baby Boomers and pathologically lazy Gen-Xers. It is generational as well as being deep-rooted in the Amerikan psyche that the Federal government is something that should NOT be all-pervasive. To say nothing about cultural and ethnic diffusion.

Dancing Mustard wrote:Again, sensible stuff from the B.K.

b.k. barunt wrote:The problem with DM's solution is an inherent mistrust of the government.

I think this is one for another thread, but this severe distrust of the police is something which seems to be endemic within the USA. I'm not saying that it's unfounded, but it's another cultural difference that seems to divide us Euros and you Americans. I mean, I'm not saying all Euros 100% trust 100% of the police, but the levels of distrust and dislike seem to be far more widespread and intense over in the New World.

Anyway, tangent over... but it's something I really think warrants a thread of its own.
quote]

I've often noted the difference in British bobbies and Amerikan cops. to put it concisely, bobbies are professional and courteous, and and Amerikan cops are ass holes. They love to bully people with their authority, and the poor folks get it the worst.

State cops are more professional and courteous than the locals , at least in Louisiana, and federal cops, i.e. FBI, DEA and ATF are fucking storm troopers - especially since junior George took office. I spent 2 1/2 days in jail myself without a phone call under the "patriot act".

b.k. barunt wrote:

Dancing Mustard wrote:Again, sensible stuff from the B.K.

b.k. barunt wrote:The problem with DM's solution is an inherent mistrust of the government.

I think this is one for another thread, but this severe distrust of the police is something which seems to be endemic within the USA. I'm not saying that it's unfounded, but it's another cultural difference that seems to divide us Euros and you Americans. I mean, I'm not saying all Euros 100% trust 100% of the police, but the levels of distrust and dislike seem to be far more widespread and intense over in the New World.

Anyway, tangent over... but it's something I really think warrants a thread of its own.
quote]

I've often noted the difference in British bobbies and Amerikan cops. to put it concisely, bobbies are professional and courteous, and and Amerikan cops are ass holes. They love to bully people with their authority, and the poor folks get it the worst.

State cops are more professional and courteous than the locals , at least in Louisiana, and federal cops, i.e. FBI, DEA and ATF are fucking storm troopers - especially since junior George took office. I spent 2 1/2 days in jail myself without a phone call under the "patriot act".

I made a thread already for this very interesting tangent to blossom in.

Thor Son of Olaf wrote:

Dancing Mustard wrote:

b.k. barunt wrote:I don't care what kind of plan they institute to disarm America - i trust neither their honesty or their capability to implement something of such magnitude without fucking it sideways.

Well there we go... until your government puts itself in a position where it has gained the required levels of trust from you all, then I suppose a disarmament program can't be effectively rolled out.

How is it going to do that? Were are looking at nearly three generations of distrust:
quote]

Three generations? How about since "Honest" Abe Lincoln raped our constitution up the arse by denying the southern colonial states their right to secede?


Honibaz

The1exile wrote:ooh, ooh, me too.

Or just copy it, remove personal details and put it on pastebucket, and link that here.

I forgot about this - it's actually a very boring article written for men in suits but i'll certainly pm you chaps a link when it's published next week. As long as none of you are serial killers or in marketing, it should be fine, right?

Well i'm not in marketing.


Honibaz

black elk speaks wrote:

joecoolfrog wrote:Decrease the amount of firearms in circulation and you will have fewer deaths, but thats not really the issue, its all about toys for boys !

I don't think that you would have fewer deaths. people intent on killing other people will just use something else. the problem is the society, not the methods used by the society.

Hugely simplistic and of course simply not true as is born out by statistics from other developed countries. The vast amount of violent deaths are not planned but are the result of spontaneous anger/aggression or just plain accidents. Its pretty difficult to kill somebody accidently with a knife or baseball bat but an awfull lot of people get killed or maimed because of gun accidents.

Deaths due to firearm accidents don't appear to be very common.


http://www.the-eggman.com/writings/death_stats.html

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr56/nvsr56_10.pdf

Matroshka wrote:Deaths due to firearm accidents don't appear to be very common.

I note however that they're a whole lot more common than 'accidental knife discharge' deaths, 'accidental baseball/cricket bat discharge' deaths, and 'accidental knuckle-duster discharge' deaths.

Sure, only 776 people died from accidental firearm discharges in 2002... I mean, that's a really big achievement. Gosh, can you believe that only the population of a small town (For example: Crawford, Texas) were butchered by by gun accidents in a whole year?

Accidental gun-discharge isn't really the issue that anti-gunners care about, and this is all a bit of a red-herring. But while we're on the subject, let me just say that I think I'd rather live in a nation that didn't lose a village every year to fatal gun-related accidents, than in one which did.

Put it this way Matroshka: All the other negative aspects of gun-culture aside, if you didn't have them, then every year a whole village of people would be saved from stupid and pointless deaths caused by civilian proliferation of dedicated lethal weapons.
No, gun-mistakes aren't as big a killer as cancer, but even accidental deaths caused by them are a large enough number to be quantified on your yearly death registry. Doesn't that tell you something about how unsafe it is to let them loose in society?