[QUOTE=Swebonny;48546173]I assume the anti- vs pro-gun debates in US have touched on whether guns make it easier and "less traumatic" to kill a person, than let's say using a bat or a knife. It seems to be a more fitting thing to discuss than about implementing an impossible mass-ban on guns across USA.[/QUOTE]
Stopping power hasn't fully been studied yet, but it's generally agreed upon that higher caliber = better stopping power. Of course, an injury by even a low caliber gun in a vulnerable area (large artery, lung, throat, heart, or brain) can be enough to kill somebody instantly/leave them to bleed out rapidly, since the location of the trauma is also important.
Force is unimportant; it's the resultant damage (loss of blood/central nervous damage/hydrostatic shock) that plays the bigger role in stopping power in a case of ballistic trauma.
[QUOTE=Fort83;48546186]Most don't, but it does happen. It's delusional to think otherwise.[/QUOTE]
So, wait, you've been talking about how people can suddenly just "snap", and have been using that as an argument against gun ownership. Then, let me ask you, how do you feel about police and security personnel having guns? Since they're people too, they can snap just as easily as everyone else. What makes someone with a badge and a unifrom more trustworthy than anyone else?
[QUOTE=WarriorWounds;48546204]A gun with 7 bullets in it can kill people in less than 7 seconds.
I don't think the average person with a knife can do the same thing as [U]quickly[/U].
Speed is key in stopping the perpetrator, knives are inherently less lethal in terms of KILLS PER SECOND than knives. Less dangerous as a result, at least for MASS murders. This isn't disputable[/QUOTE]
That's not true though. A gun with 7 bullets can not kill 7 in less than 7 seconds... Hell, my Mosin has 5 bullets in a magazine, can it kill 5 in 5 seconds?
[QUOTE=Antdawg;48544614]Is being mentally ill somehow a prerequisite for being able to commit violent crime?
[/QUOTE]
I don't know man if a guy runs up and shoots two people that he has never met before out of sheer spite I think there is something wrong with him.
[QUOTE=Pilot1215;48546212]That's not true though. A gun with 7 bullets can not kill 7 in less than 7 seconds... Hell, my Mosin has 5 bullets in a magazine, can it kill 5 in 5 seconds?[/QUOTE]
Semantics police, sigh, obviously a rapid fire semi automatic weapon, or automatic weapon with 7 bullets in it can do it, bolt actions or pump shotguns would be slower. I get that, my point was the potential of certain firearms to do it.
Most pistols are either semi automatic or automatic, and as the easiest to conceal, it makes sense to think of them as the most dangerous murder weapons because they are the hardest to detect with the highest output at their detection level.
[QUOTE=WarriorWounds;48546204]A gun with 7 bullets in it can kill 7 people in less than 7 seconds.
I don't think the average person with a knife can do the same thing as [U]quickly[/U].
Speed is key in stopping the perpetrator, knives are inherently less lethal in terms of KILLS PER SECOND than knives. Less dangerous as a result, at least for MASS murders. This isn't disputable[/QUOTE]
To date the most efficient tool (in terms of deaths for effort put in) for mass murders has been [B]arson[/B]. Arson attacks have been popular in Australia and killed more than anyone with a gun could have. Surprisingly, guns are far from the best choice. There's a reason "mass killings" committed with firearms generally do not exceed five to six. There are exceptions, naturally, but this holds true for most cases - in exceptions, poor police response time can most often be blamed. Additionally, most victims in these cases were vulnerable for one reason or another and would have been easily got at with another type of weapon.
[editline]26th August 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Michael haxz;48546214]I don't know man if a guy runs up and shoots two people that he has never met before out of sheer spite I think there is something wrong with him.[/QUOTE]
He had met these two and had previously accused them of making racist remarks toward him. This was premeditated, not random.
[QUOTE=Canary;48545594]No, knives are tools he wouldn't have done this with a knife.[/QUOTE]
Don't people literally get beheaded in your nation with machetes?
[QUOTE=paul simon;48546203]As it turns out, it's more common and far more easy to kill people with modern guns than with ancient weaponry.
It would be fantastic if guns were taken away from (most) people, as by now they seem to cause more problems than their hobby/utility value makes up for.[/QUOTE]
My point is take illegal or unregistered guns off the streets and out of the hands of criminals and psychos, don't force law abiding, well to do citizens to relinquish one of their core rights. If you're going to make the argument to ban all guns on the basis that all they do is kill people, then you need to apply the same logic to all things whose sole purpose is to kill people. Even if Cloak didn't say it directly or imply it, I'm mentioning it on the basis that I know too many people who think a blanket ban is the only way to fix this problem, when it would only make the problem worse.
[QUOTE=BANNED USER;48546248]My point is take illegal or unregistered guns off the streets and out of the hands of criminals and psychos, don't force law abiding, well to do citizens to relinquish one of their core rights. If you're going to make the argument to ban all guns on the basis that all they do is kill people, then you need to apply the same logic to all things whose sole purpose is to kill people. Even if Cloak didn't say it directly or imply it, I'm mentioning it on the basis that I know too many people who think a blanket ban is the only way to fix this problem, when it would only make the problem worse.[/QUOTE]
Cloak did imply it though he's going to pretend he didn't so he can call you out on your epic fallacy.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48546262]Cloak did imply it though he's going to pretend he didn't so he can call you out on your epic fallacy.[/QUOTE]
you know it's true because grenadiac is the master of discerning the real opinion of posts on the internet
also because he too said something that was utterly unsubstantiated
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;48546279]you know it's true because grenadiac is the master of discerning the real opinion of posts on the internet
also because he too said something that was utterly unsubstantiated[/QUOTE]
This is exactly what I'm talking about
"I'm anti gun and don't think anyone should have guns but can you point out where I said the exact words "blanket ban?" haha no didn't think so checkmate colonist!"
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;48546161]I'm waiting to see a good argument from the anti-gun side. Not seen one yet, seems like I won't, so I have low expectations. If you took it personally though, well, more entertainment for me.[/QUOTE]
Not that anti-gun side hasn't made a good argument, it's more of you being pretentious and not accepting any.
Also, "toying with people" is pretty fucked up, you should get that checked
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48546283]This is exactly what I'm talking about
"I'm anti gun and don't think anyone should have guns but can you point out where I said the exact words "blanket ban?" haha no didn't think so checkmate!"[/QUOTE]
are you trying to make fun of the fact that at no point did i say that I wanted a blanket ban of guns, and yet you assumed that i did based on very little
are you making fun of yourself?
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48546221]To date the most efficient tool (in terms of deaths for effort put in) for mass murders has been [B]arson[/B]. Surprisingly, guns are far from the best choice.[/QUOTE]
Mmmm, this is a reaaaallly ambiguous assumption on your end. Obviously things like a building burning down full of people is more lethal, let's stick to realistic standards for this discussion and stop moving to goal post to all the ridiculous ways you could murder people. With that line of reasoning I could go run on and on with it and include it to the rates of death tolls for the 9/11 incident, or we could talk about the pilots of bomber aircraft, then you'd be saying piloting a plane is the most efficient way to kill people, for the sake of sanity for both of us lets keep this in the realms of handheld weapons. Things that are actually capable to control.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48546221]
There's a reason "mass killings" committed with firearms generally do not exceed five to six. There are exceptions, naturally, but this holds true for most cases
[/QUOTE]
I hate doing this to people on the internet, but can you show me the source of those numbers? it's only because you are claiming it as an accepted fact and I would be interested to see it myself if it holds true.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48546221]
- in exceptions, poor police response time can most often be blamed. Additionally, most victims in these cases were vulnerable for one reason or another and would have been easily got at with another type of weapon.
[/QUOTE]
Lets take a theater massacre as a general example. Is it possible to kill as many people in a theater with a knife as it is with a gun? In the same amount of time?
Cool, page after page of irrelevant gun argument drivel over a handgun. Never change facepunch.
Like seriously how can this shit even be related to a gun debate?
There are a wide range of things which cause shootings such like this,
I believe it's more of a cultural thing rather than a gun issue.
America just has a rather bad attitude when it comes to guns compared to many other countries.(Guns are rather easy to obtain legally in the UK)
I think that issues such as this come from a lack of universal healthcare (including mental health), being alienated by other citizens and of course, the weaponry culture which arguably quite fanatical in some groups.
I do personally find the wide range of lethal weaponry and high tier ammunition to be a personal issue. It serves not practical purpose other than hunting and that's for a limited number of gun owners.
[QUOTE=Gwoodman;48546303]Not that anti-gun side hasn't made a good argument, it's more of you being pretentious and not accepting any.
[/QUOTE]
Well, not really though.
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;48546304]are you trying to make fun of the fact that at no point did i say that I wanted a blanket ban of guns, and yet you assumed that i did based on very little
are you making fun of yourself?[/QUOTE]
You are still doing literally exactly what I said you were doing
[QUOTE=WarriorWounds;48546318]Mmmm, this is a reaaaallly ambiguous assumption on your end. Obviously things like a building burning down full of people is more lethal, let's stick to realistic standards for this discussion and stop moving to goal post to all the ridiculous ways you could murder people. With that line of reasoning I could go run on and on with it and include it to the rates of death tolls for the 9/11 incident, then you'd be saying piloting a plane is the most efficient way to kill people, for the sake of sanity for both of us lets keep this in the realms of handheld weapons. [b]Things that are actually capable to control[/b].[/QUOTE]
Let's just say you can control all of the firearms in legal circulation. What the hell are you going to do to stop murders from happening with other weapons, tools, or firearms from black markets?
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48546325]You are still doing literally exactly what I said you were doing[/QUOTE]
i'm real fucking confused. i'm still doing it, because you did it. you assumed something based on nothing to make a point, i said that you were wrong and had no grounds for thinking that (other than assumptions you've had from other posters and arguments) and now you're mad that you assumed something based on nothing??
also i missed the colonist bit, LOL, good one!
[QUOTE=CoilingTesla;48546337]Let's just say you can control all of the firearms in legal circulation. What the hell are you going to do to stop murders from happening with other weapons, tools, or firearms from black markets?[/QUOTE]
Nothing, unless additional legislation was also passed to strengthen control against those types of threats, obviously you can't eliminate every verifiable way of killing people, but limiting the most efficient ways of doing it will help mitigate mass murders.
Pages and pages of gun control debate.
How about you guys stop using this as an excuse to parade your politics and feel some sympathy for once?
[QUOTE=WarriorWounds;48546318]Mmmm, this is a reaaaallly ambiguous assumption on your end. Obviously things like a building burning down full of people is more lethal, let's stick to realistic standards for this discussion and stop moving to goal post to all the ridiculous ways you could murder people. With that line of reasoning I could go run on and on with it and include it to the rates of death tolls for the 9/11 incident, then you'd be saying piloting a plane is the most efficient way to kill people, for the sake of sanity for both of us lets keep this in the realms of handheld weapons. Things that are actually capable to control.[/quote]
I'm saying that the problem isn't guns, because even without them, people will still find ways to do it - the problem is that lunatics go unchecked and [I]will[/I] kill.
[quote]I hate doing this to people on the internet, but can you show me the source of those numbers? it's only because you are claiming it as an accepted fact and I would be interested to see it myself if it holds true.[/quote]
[url]http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/08/united-states-world-mass-shooters[/url]
I know this isn't really citing a source but it's all I can find that's already collated the numbers, if you give me more time I'll do the math myself - here it shows an average of 6.9 deaths but I think the mode casualty number is 5. It also shows that mass shootings outside of America generally have more casualties which I think is because America considers 2+ deaths in a public place a mass shooting.
[quote]Lets take a theater massacre as a general example. Is it possible to kill as many people in a theater with a knife as it is with a gun? In the same amount of time?[/QUOTE]
This can't really be proven without demonstrating and I don't feel like being the one to do it, but I think if you took a big knife into a theatre and went on a hacking spree after the movie started you could do way more damage with the knife than with the amount of ammunition you could hide for a firearm.
Can you people take this shit over to the Mass Debate board? OH WAIT, SOMEONE FUCKED UP AND REMOVED IT.
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Very constructive, useful post that adds a lot to the discussion, which is obviously what we (as moderators) are trying to prevent" - Big Dumb American))[/highlight]
[img]http://s22.postimg.org/xibso4y9t/1440630713110_0.jpg[/img]
i refuse to believe this is real
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;48546348]i'm real fucking confused. i'm still doing it, because you did it. you assumed something based on nothing to make a point, i said that you were wrong and had no grounds for thinking that (other than assumptions you've had from other posters and arguments) and now you're mad that you assumed something based on nothing??
also i missed the colonist bit, LOL, good one![/QUOTE]
You have demonstrated your opposition to gun ownership and think that nobody should own them. But you aren't in favor of a ban? My ass.
[QUOTE=Te Great Skeeve;48546358]Pages and pages of gun control debate.
How about you guys stop using this as an excuse to parade your politics and feel some sympathy for once?[/QUOTE]
Killing is bad, I feel sorry for the victims.
Did me typing that sentence into the forum serve any justice for the victims? Did that solve anything beyond making you feel more comfortable about the death of some of my fellow citizens?
I feel plenty of sympathy, I don't need white knights to tell me to display it as a throwaway gesture.
[QUOTE=Te Great Skeeve;48546358]Pages and pages of gun control debate.
How about you guys stop using this as an excuse to parade your politics and feel some sympathy for once?[/QUOTE]
Pages and pages of "rip" isn't going to help either, condolences were expressed and now we're using the forum for its intended purpose, discussion, in this case attempting to come to terms with the situation that led to this occurrence.
[QUOTE=WarriorWounds;48546355]Nothing, unless additional legislation was also passed to strengthen control against those types of threats, obviously you can't eliminate every verifiable way of killing people, but limiting the most efficient ways of doing it will help mitigate mass murders.[/QUOTE]
So, take firearms away from the law abiding populace and then just expect murder to stop? Are you going to completely change our police force to protect us from the much better armed criminals? There are a lot of factors affecting this, if you take guns away from the populace, you put much more responsibility on the police to actually show up on time or actually be around when crimes happen.
That video was beyond brutal.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.