Woman shot in the head after knocking on door and asking for help - Polidicks

I wouldn't call taking 80 years to call for an outright gun ban "slippery"

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;42811713]Which has been largely the case as it relates to gun control. The US AWB of 1994 only disappeared because it had an expiry date, like the Untraceable Weapons Act will later this year, but the only countries I know of that have reversed any enacted gun control in the legislature are Canada and Italy in the last 80 years, and both were incredibly minimal (the elimination of part of the gun registry for the former and the removal of magazine limits for the other). Once gun control is enacted in a country, it's an incredible uphill battle against propaganda, special interest groups, the media, and public opinion to try and get it repealed, and after every shooting there's always a renewed push down the slope, after the Cumbria shooting in 2010 people were pushing England to basically ban all guns, which is about the only place they can really go from where they are now.[/QUOTE] Why is it that people who want gun control are swayed by "propaganda, special interest groups, the media, and public opinion", whilst those fighting against gun control are the opposite? Does it not seem possible that some democracies actually practice democracy sometimes and do what their populace wants?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42811709]Not everybody who is for gun control wants to abolish firearms. You keep putting everybody who seeks to introduce gun legislation into the same camp, as something "negative" to be ignored. Let us imagine not a single law existed on firearms of any kind. Would that be acceptable, or would you seek to legislate something?[/QUOTE] What I seek is for less legislation than is on the table currently in my country. Gun control is a delicate issue, and the issue of the slope largely comes from other people wanting more control, and then it becomes a battle of public opinion and propaganda, and the person who the media gives the microphone to will win that battle. Do I want absolutely on legislation? No, but trying to maintain a permissive level of legislation is nigh impossible, since there's always an intense push for more gun control, and everywhere but the US there isn't a great enough force to push back. If you were to just reset gun control globally to where I want it to be, within a year it'd be more restrictive just about everywhere, whether or not there's evidence that it needs to be, whether or not there's facts saying that that level of gun control is dangerous.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;42811788]What I seek is for less legislation than is on the table currently in my country. Gun control is a delicate issue, and the issue of the slope largely comes from other people wanting more control, and then it becomes a battle of public opinion and propaganda, and the person who the media gives the microphone to will win that battle. Do I want absolutely on legislation? No, but trying to maintain a permissive level of legislation is nigh impossible, since there's always an intense push for more gun control, and everywhere but the US there isn't a great enough force to push back. If you were to just reset gun control globally to where I want it to be, within a year it'd be more restrictive just about everywhere, whether or not there's evidence that it needs to be, whether or not there's facts saying that that level of gun control is dangerous.[/QUOTE] Why do you think people in these countries demand gun control?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42811753]Why is it that people who want gun control are swayed by "propaganda, special interest groups, the media, and public opinion", whilst those fighting against gun control are the opposite? Does it not seem possible that some democracies actually practice democracy sometimes and do what their populace wants?[/QUOTE] That's what supports the idea in the greater public opinion. Media bias plays a great deal in how the public perceives an issue, and who they give the airtime to is the opinion the public hears. The issues, in many other countries than the US especially, are also an argument of fact versus emotion. As I always use my own country as an example, a landmark study was conducted showing our gun control has done absolutely nothing to help curb crime whatsoever. There is now research to support the idea that gun control doesn't work here as a fact rather than an opinion. In response to this study, the Coalition for Gun Control literally invented a number of people, 550, they say the long gun registry in particular has somehow saved, without any research basis behind that number. The media then begins propagating that number, and 2 of our 3 major political parties oppose the abolition of the registry, citing that number from a special interest group as a fact, without any evidence behind it. The vast majority of media sources decry the abolition of the gun registry, claiming it makes us more American and that somehow, despite having evidence to the contrary, that it will make our country a more dangerous place. Of course it didn't, we're still just as safe, but every murder it's brought up again, despite the vast majority of murders being committed with handguns. Whenever a gun rights group attempts to propagate an opinion to the general public, the vast majority of the media decry them as an extremist, and say their suggestions will make us a more dangerous country, again with evidence pointing contrarily. 2 of the 3 major political parties also try to propagate an opinion formed by the Coalition for Gun Control that we somehow have a big, evil gun lobby bankrolling the one party that doesn't support more gun control and that the opinions of gun rights advocates are potentially dangerous to the safety of the country, and that we need more gun control. Their idea of what gun control we need more of? It is exactly the same as the idea the Coalition for Gun Control has for what gun control we need more of. The reality of the situation is 10% of people care strongly about it for each side of the argument, and 80% of people don't care. However 2/3 of our major political parties think we need more of it, as does at least 80% of the media, so the opinion that we need more of it is what's propagated, and that less of it is dangerous. Opinions to the contrary are either ignored, derided, or spoken over. This strong push for more gun control has been happening largely since 1989, when one gunman killed 14 women in Montreal. I said fact versus emotion, there's the emotion, without gun control another massacre will take place. The fact? Research done by an independent source, and peer-reviewed, that says gun control is ineffective. The only extensive study done into gun control and its effects in this country, which analyzed the data more than 20 different ways, each of which came to the same conclusion. Which one wins an argument, fact or emotion? Emotion every time, because you appeal to the way a person feels rather than the way they think. America is the only country where there's emotional arguments on both sides of the debate, and enough mouthpieces for both of them to propagate their opinion without near universal derision. Here, if gun rights advocates tried to appeal to emotion, the media would deride them to kingdom come, and they have in the past. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;42811843]Why do you think people in these countries demand gun control?[/QUOTE] By and large people don't care, it's about who can be more vocal in their opinion to politicians, and who can more easily sway the opinions of people. Emotional arguments are easy to sway people with, they're also easy to make after a mass shooting. When fact supports the emotion, it is used for double effect, but when it doesn't, it is ignored. Obama commissioned the CDC to study the effects gun control would have, and the media made a huge deal about him commissioning this study, expecting it to come out in support of gun control. When the CDC found that it would be ineffective, the media was largely silent, not wanting to propagate that opinion. Largely, whenever fact opposes emotion, it is ignored or spoken over. And it's not just guns that this happens with, why do you think people and politicians still support the "war on drugs," despite all the research saying it's been totally useless? Why do people still think marijuana is destructive and harmful, despite the research saying it isn't? They appeal to emotion, they appeal to people on the basis of what drugs can do to a person. They make them feel, they don't make them think. They make them feel bad for the person, they feel angry at the cartels and dealers, they feel disgusted at the side-effects. They don't think about whether or not the methods being used are working, whether they can work, whether a person should be able to make the choice to do drugs themselves, or whether it would be safer for a person to destroy themselves with narcotics they know have no additives. Similar arguments are used to support the "war on terror" as well. Whoever gets their opinion felt is who gets their opinion enacted. It needs to be more than just heard, it needs to be felt, and people don't feel facts, they feel emotion.

this thread is 20 pages long please fucking lock it [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Why reply? - Ban history" - Megafan))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=Whiterfire;42812141]this thread is 20 pages long please fucking lock it[/QUOTE] This is nothing, after Newtown and Aurora the threads went on for more than 50.

People who are batshit insane like this will always do batshit insane things, armed with a gun or not. If it wasn't a shotgun, it would have been a knife or something else. Mass-killings like Columbine etc. however can only be executed with firearms and that is a solid argument against gun ownership. Unless you have a fully automatic knife or something

Yeah he's going to jail...

I hate how the article title is so focused on her being black, like wtf seriously?

[QUOTE=Cabbage;42812188]People who are batshit insane like this will always do batshit insane things, armed with a gun or not. If it wasn't a shotgun, it would have been a knife or something else. Mass-killings like Columbine etc. however can only be executed with firearms and that is a solid argument against gun ownership. Unless you have a fully automatic knife or something[/QUOTE] Yo, China would like a word. [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_(2010–12)#December_2012[/URL]

[QUOTE=CheeseMan;42786423]Tbh the fact that shit like this happening [B]constantly [/B]isn't a wake-up call to Americans then I guess there isn't much we can do except wall you guys off[/QUOTE] yeah, everytime I leave my house I get to see innocent civilians gunned down

[QUOTE=zerglingv2;42815827]Yo, China would like a word. [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_(2010–12)#December_2012[/URL][/QUOTE] [quote]...All of the victims survived...[/quote] Hm. [editline]10th November 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=FunnyBunny;42815855]yeah, everytime I leave my house I get to see innocent civilians gunned down[/QUOTE] [quote]Mass killings -- defined by the FBI as four or more victims, not including the killer -- have occurred across the U.S. at the rate of about one every two weeks since 2006.[/quote]

[QUOTE=zerglingv2;42815827]Yo, China would like a word. [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_(2010–12)#December_2012[/URL][/QUOTE] Why is it the only examples of knife killings ever cited in these threads are school attacks where all or nearly all victims survived? Surely if your point is to prove that knives can do just as much damage as guns then you'd have a better one to show.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42811753]Why is it that people who want gun control are swayed by "propaganda, special interest groups, the media, and public opinion", whilst those fighting against gun control are the opposite? Does it not seem possible that some democracies actually practice democracy sometimes and do what their populace wants?[/QUOTE] Both sides claim that the other side is controlled by special interest groups.

I wish weapons were just as illegal as drugs. Except for knifes.

[QUOTE=Megafan;42816054]Why is it the only examples of knife killings ever cited in these threads are school attacks where all or nearly all victims survived? Surely if your point is to prove that knives can do just as much damage as guns then you'd have a better one to show.[/QUOTE] My apologies, Facepunch wouldn't let me edit my post. [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_(2010–12)[/URL] meant to post this link. [QUOTE]Zheng Minsheng,41, murdered eight children with a knife in an elementary school in Nanping[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Wu Huanming, 48, killed seven children and two adults and injured 11 other persons with a cleaver at a kindergarten in Hanzhong[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Fang Jiantang slashed more than 20 children and staff with a 60 cm knife, killing 3 children and 1 teacher. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE]In September 2011, a young girl and three adults taking their children to nursery school were killed in Gongyi,[25] Henan by 30-year-old Wang Hongbin with an axe [/QUOTE] Guns aren't the problem, crazy fuckers are.

[QUOTE=KingOrthos;42815656]I hate how the article title is so focused on her being black, like wtf seriously?[/QUOTE] it's sorta important when there is a context of poc being killed by white people for flimsy reasons and often getting away with it. and before you guys say anything i'm not even talking bout martin/zimmerman, the problem is a lot bigger than just a few cases.

Whenever i read gun discussions like these, this song plays in my head: [video=youtube;4DNGMoMNLRY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DNGMoMNLRY[/video]

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42811753] Does it not seem possible that some democracies actually practice democracy sometimes and do what their populace wants?[/QUOTE] The thing is that the people who want gun control and the people who don't will be pissed off one way or the other. Maybe make this a state's rights thing? That way more people will be satisfied (It'll be unfortunate for people in banned states though)

[QUOTE=Lurker;42785885]This is why guns are bad.[/QUOTE] No no, calm down everyone we just ban door knocking. Instead notify your visit with a mail in the box a day before or throw a rock in the window or you can just carry a bulletproof west and at all times.

[QUOTE=zerglingv2;42816149]My apologies, Facepunch wouldn't let me edit my post. [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_(2010–12)[/URL] meant to post this link. Guns aren't the problem, crazy fuckers are.[/QUOTE] Okay but would you rather have a crazy fucker with a gun or a crazy fucker with a knife?

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;42829035]Okay but would you rather have a crazy fucker with a gun or a crazy fucker with a knife?[/QUOTE] What would you rather have a crazy fucker with a knife or would you rather don't have a crazy fucker in the first place? Cause all the money you're going to throw at the "War on Guns" (which is going to be super effective just as the War on Drugs is) cannot be used on improving mental health and fixing poverty, which would actually fix the problem instead of just hiding it. Cause lets face it people getting shot is not the problem by itself, it's a result of a problem. That there are people willing to kill you. If you take the guns away from them (like you could actually do that), these people won't disappear. The only thing you're going to change is (apart from spending billions) that they will be just less lethal, which people like you are going to use as proof that they've fixed the problem.

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;42829246]What would you rather have a crazy fucker with a knife or would you rather don't have a crazy fucker in the first place? Cause all the money you're going to throw at the "War on Guns" (which is going to be super effective just as the War on Drugs is) cannot be used on improving mental health and fixing poverty, which would actually fix the problem instead of just hiding it. Cause lets face it people getting shot is not the problem by itself, it's a result of a problem. That there are people willing to kill you. If you take the guns away from them (like you could actually do that), these people won't disappear. The only thing you're going to change is (apart from spending billions) that they will be just less lethal, which people like you are going to use as proof that they've fixed the problem.[/QUOTE] Yes, I agree with you that reducing the number of mentally ill people is indeed an important goal. But shouldn't we also remove the means by which such people can easily maim or kill others? Having mentally ill people and giving them ready access to lethal weaponry are two different things. I am suggesting that we fix both sides of the problem. I am personally in favour of an outright gun ban, but I live in a different society from the USA. I will concede that it is neither practical nor achievable to outright eradicate guns in a country where guns are deeply ingrained in the culture. However, I still feel that more can be done to ensure that incidences like this are reduced, both by ensuring that such people are properly treated, and by ensuring that they do not have access to lethal weapons.

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;42829246]What would you rather have a crazy fucker with a knife or would you rather don't have a crazy fucker in the first place? Cause all the money you're going to throw at the "War on Guns" (which is going to be super effective just as the War on Drugs is) cannot be used on improving mental health and fixing poverty, which would actually fix the problem instead of just hiding it. Cause lets face it people getting shot is not the problem by itself, it's a result of a problem. That there are people willing to kill you. If you take the guns away from them (like you could actually do that), these people won't disappear. The only thing you're going to change is (apart from spending billions) that they will be just less lethal, which people like you are going to use as proof that they've fixed the problem.[/QUOTE] But isn't it at least making the problem less lethal?

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;42829300]Yes, I agree with you that reducing the number of mentally ill people is indeed an important goal. But shouldn't we also remove the means by which such people can easily maim or kill others? Having mentally ill people and giving them ready access to lethal weaponry are two different things. I am suggesting that we fix both sides of the problem. I am personally in favour of an outright gun ban, but I live in a different society from the USA. I will concede that it is neither practical nor achievable to outright eradicate guns in a country where guns are deeply ingrained in the culture. However, I still feel that more can be done to ensure that incidences like this are reduced, both by ensuring that such people are properly treated, and by ensuring that they do not have access to lethal weapons.[/QUOTE] You can't have both that's the point. You simply can't afford it. Do you have any idea how expensive the ban on all guns would be in US? First you need to get rid of all the guns, then you have to keep them away. It's going to be pretty hard because the moment you ban guns, the US will become the largest demand for illegal guns. And since there are drugs in the most secure prisons and illegal immigrants in US (who can't be disassembled into small parts and assembled after crossing the border) I'm pretty sure guns will always make it to US. Second, you can't "remove the means by which such people can easily maim or kill others". You'd have to take away all sharp or heavy objects. Taking away the guns would take the most lethal ones away, but don't even try to make it look like you are getting rid of all possible means of killing people. Third, I support mental and background checks and gun training for gun owners. Because it's the crazy and irresponsible people and criminals who shouldn't have guns. Forth, I find it repulsive that you think it's okay to take away people's shit because there are some who misuse them. Most legal guns are never fired at people. [editline]11th November 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Chili Banan;42829433]But isn't it at least making the problem less lethal?[/QUOTE] You can fight the problem itself or fight to make it less lethal. Pick one. You can't afford both.

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;42829438]You can't have both that's the point. You simply can't afford it. Do you have any idea how expensive the ban on all guns would be in US? First you need to get rid of all the guns, then you have to keep them away. It's going to be pretty hard because the moment you ban guns, the US will become the largest demand for illegal guns. And since there are drugs in the most secure prisons and illegal immigrants in US (who can't be disassembled into small parts and assembled after crossing the border) I'm pretty sure guns will always make it to US. Second, you can't "remove the means by which such people can easily maim or kill others". You'd have to take away all sharp or heavy objects. Taking away the guns would take the most lethal ones away, but don't even try to make it look like you are getting rid of all possible means of killing people. Third, I support mental and background checks and gun training for gun owners. Because it's the crazy and irresponsible people and criminals who shouldn't have guns. Forth, I find it repulsive that you think it's okay to take away people's shit because there are some who misuse them. Most legal guns are never fired at people. [editline]11th November 2013[/editline] You can fight the problem itself or fight to make it less lethal. Pick one. You can't afford both.[/QUOTE] Why can't you afford both? Because your argument depends on it? The easier it is for sane people to get guns, the easier it is for everyone else to get guns, and that includes mentally ill people.

[QUOTE=BFG9000;42826712]The thing is that the people who want X and the people who don't will be pissed off one way or the other.[/QUOTE] This has happened with literally every single law ever created in the history of the world. Why is gun control in particular special?

[QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;42830784]Why can't you afford both? Because your argument depends on it? The easier it is for sane people to get guns, the easier it is for everyone else to get guns, and that includes mentally ill people.[/QUOTE] Actually I'd say it has something to do with our massive debt and our not wanting to inflate it exponentially. Sure in an ideal dream world we could but this is the real world where there are debts and budget constraints.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42830942]This has happened with literally every single law ever created in the history of the world. Why is gun control in particular special?[/QUOTE] Because again, it's protected in the constitution. I know you think the constitution is stupid and everything but if I'm going to be frank, a lot of people on this end think the same of Common Law.