Texas mother, a vocal gun rights advocate, killed by police after fatally shooting her two daughters - Polidicks

[QUOTE=ScumBunny;50602821]You know that you need a license to drive a car, right? And that it can be revoked? Because cars can kill people? Do you see where I'm going with this?[/QUOTE] Only on public land

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50602061]you seem to give a little ground in each discussion but default to "BAN ALL GUNS" in each new thread whats the deal with that[/QUOTE] Ok what the fuck are you talking about I literally explicitly say that I am not for banning all guns, stop talking out of your ass. [editline]27th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=ColdAsRice;50602562]Great idea, lets ban swimming pools because somebody let their toddler fall in. Nobody [I]needs[/i] a swimming pool right? Let's also ban any car with more horsepower than a Trabant, you don't [I]need[/I] a car that can break speed limits, speeding kills, and every life saved by every person being limited to slow cars mean that the ends justify the means right?[/QUOTE] You do know that there are regulations and restrictions to owning both of those things right? and again I'm not advocating a ban, come ON people how hard is it to read: [QUOTE=Duck M.;50598702]This too. Listen, most of us refuting this tired and shitty argument of "someone who wants to kill will do it no matter what they have!" are not out to ban guns or anything. I know better than that, the US is a very unique nation in its size, population, moral values, culture, etc. that gun control is a very tall and rocky mountain to climb that isnt as straight forward as just stepping on the gas until you reach the top. It is going to take years of research and experimentation until we find something that works uniquely for us. Sadly congress continues to shoot down anything that even tries.[/QUOTE] How in the world do you people continue to construe my desire for somewhat stricter gun control as "BAN ALL GUNS" (Grenadiac actually said that I was saying this???)

Consider me absolutely triggered right now. Let's begin: [QUOTE=Saturn V;50596166]i'd say the threshold for murder is much much lower with guns than with knifes and etc.[/QUOTE][QUOTE=Rainboo;50596810]I'd wager that murdering someone without a gun would require more effort and creativity than just picking up a gun and shooting them.[/QUOTE][QUOTE=Rainboo;50596810]but if you americans want to pretend that killing someone with a knife/a baseball bat/your fists/whatever is as easy as killing someone with a gun just to make your hobby more convenient for you idk anymore[/QUOTE][QUOTE=Killuah;50597547]I'm sorry but saying that the same would've happened without guns because knives/other weapons is fucking retarded.[/QUOTE][QUOTE=Headhumpy;50597715]Murderous person + knife = bad things happen Murderous person + gun = VERY bad things happen Guns make it a lot easier (both physically and mentally) to kill someone. With any other weapon you have to invest a lot more effort into killing; with a gun you just aim and pull the trigger and you're done. They're highly optimised to cause a maximum amount of damage with a minimum amount of effort, it's precisely the reason why they were invented in the first place.[/QUOTE][QUOTE=Headhumpy;50598252]It's far easier to kill someone with a gun than a knife. Stop being obtuse.[/QUOTE][QUOTE=HL_Tentacle;50598396]I would rather have someone attack me with their bare hands than a gun, in fact any close combat weapon is better than long ranged, because you can run away from them, can't do that with guns.[/QUOTE](cutting in here, but contrary to popular belief guns aren't 100% accurate, gang bangers shoot at each other every day in the United States without success)[QUOTE=ScumBunny;50598444]Still being obtuse. Murder attempts with makeshift weapons or none at all are less likely to lead to actual death.[/QUOTE][QUOTE=Rainboo;50598544]The thing is, a murder attempt with a gun is more likely to succeed than without. It's easier to shoot someone with a gun than to kill with a baseball bat or whatever other makeshift weapon.[/QUOTE][QUOTE=Rainboo;50598601]Are you guys really gonna say that guns don't make murder easier?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Luni;50598657]It is very hard to kill, with your bare hands, someone who does not want to die. It also takes a while, and the physical effort required means that if you kill them, you [i]really, really meant to.[/i] Grabbing someone, physically overpowering them and strangling them to death over the course of 60-90 seconds or beating their head against a wall or however else, while they are screaming and struggling, is not something you do without [b]100% wanting them to die.[/b] With a handgun all you have to do is put a little pressure on the trigger in a moment of anger without thinking of the consequences. It's as easy as slapping someone. Saying "oh but you can kill with a pencil too ban pencils :^)" is intentionally ignoring everything about the situation. It's easier to stop someone with knives/fists, it's easier to flee from them, [i]it's easier for the attacker to realize "wait a minute, holy shit, I'm killing my own child, I was angry but I didn't mean to do [b]this[/b]."[/i] It's not even a valid argument.[/QUOTE][QUOTE=DMGaina;50598678]A gun is an arguably easier killing tool than a knife, a hammer or your bare hands not only from the way you "use" it but makes psychologically a HUGE difference.[/QUOTE]This post and the post immediately above provoked me to actually respond, wild conjecture like this makes this little vein in my head pop out. [QUOTE]I once was in a situation when I was younger when I had to use a knife on someone in self defense.[/QUOTE][QUOTE]If I had a gun in that situation, I would have just shot him and probably would have killed him (no matter of intended or not) because a firearm is a very abstract in it's function.[/QUOTE]Oh, it's anecdote time I guess. Let me try: Earlier today I got into an argument about politics [B][I]with a gun in my hand the entire time, it became so heated that I walked away.[/I][/B] Nobody was shot, it never once occurred to me to use that weapon of iron and wood in my hand to kill somebody because I'm not a fucking lunatic. Good goddamn it, have you ever even held a gun? They're not magic talismans.[QUOTE=Rusty100;50601264]Let's break it down for those who don't get it - pulling a trigger is the easiest thing in the world. When people get angry, they get irrational and impulsive. Grabbing a gun, aiming at someone from a distance, and pulling the trigger in a fit of rage, is a lot more passive than swinging something or plunging a knife into someone - yes it happens still, but it's less likely for an angry person to do those things as they take effort and usually your brain goes hey wait a sec, i shouldn't be doing this! But with a gun, that moment may not happen until after you've pulled a trigger. It's just such a simple, longer ranged, and impersonal way of hurting a person, that it happens more frequently. They are simply just more unsafe than anything else in the house.[/QUOTE](see above)[QUOTE=Rainboo;50601458]She would have TRIED to murder her children, yes. That's the key word there. TRIED. And she wouldn't necessarily have succeeded without the gun. She can't as easily kill her two children(who are pretty much adults) without a gun than with a gun.[/QUOTE] Firstly let's put this link up: [url]http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/news/news_releases/2014/01/band/[/url] Turns out GSW are just like any other deep penetrating wound and survival rates are more or less the same if you bring somebody to the hospital immediately. So let's take a look at gunshot wounds, they're the big topic. According to [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/03/nyregion/03shot.html?_r=1]this[/url] article there's actually a really good chance of surviving a gunshot wound, if you're all too lazy to read I'll break it down to just this for you: basically 80% of the human body can endure a gunshot and if your heart is still beating when they bring you in you've apparently got a "95% chance" of survival. Since we've already determined that the gunshots and stabbings and slashings that are treated have roughly the same mortality then it comes down to the actual mechanics of a gunshot wound. Well apparently even getting [url=http://www.medicinenet.com/surviving_a_gunshot_wound_to_the_head/views.htm]shot in the head[/url] isn't as awful as people make it out to be, it's still terrible yes but it certainly isn't guaranteed fatal. [url=https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5002a1.htm]Here's what the CDC has to say[/url] about gunshot wounds, fatal and nonfatal. I was reluctant to include the CDC link because of the CDC's previous bias and my dwindling amount of interest in this post. I included it anyway, but I think I've demonstrated well enough that gun-inflicted and blade-inflicted injuries aren't different. I'm not going to bother with some psychology of "what it takes to stab somebody" despite having been stabbed myself; it's largely all bullshit anyway. All of that is right along with the jungle of biased misinformation I had to hack through from anti-gun sources, (I avoided pro-gun sources as well) I tried to focus on things with real numbers. That said though, I've backed up my position so I'd love to see the [I]dubious assertions[/I] made by people in this thread. Oh, and for clarification I'm not disputing that guns are an "easy" method to inflict force on other people. They're really the one thing available to anyone to do it [I]equally[/I] which is an important distinction; even ignoring the comparable lethality of other methods the gun's egalitarian nature lets even the most frail and weak to compete effectively. I am disputing that guns are wildly more lethal because of undefined reasons, I'm also disputing that murder with a gun is somehow psychologically somehow different than murdering with a knife. You're actively trying to end the life of another human being, if you're not affected by this then I'm pretty sure that makes you a sociopath no matter what flavor of murder you're choosing. Moving on: [QUOTE=Duck M.;50602977]How in the world do you people continue to construe my desire for somewhat stricter gun control as "BAN ALL GUNS" (Grenadiac actually said that I was saying this???)[/QUOTE]That's the agenda you're arguing for, so it's no wonder we're looking at your plaintive suggestions and skipping to the end. Handguns aren't politically comfortable to restrict anymore because minorities and women use them to protect themselves, and "grandpa's hunting rifle" was never acceptable to restrict so that leaves one thing: black rifles. Or rather "high powered assault weapons" if you're going to go with the agenda, but this is a position argued out of ignorance. Gun owners and indeed people who compete professionally are [I]well aware[/I] that mechanically, an oh-so-scary black rifle is no different than that hunting rifle that's forbidden to touch. Hell, both together are [url=https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2009-2013.xls]statistically irrelevant[/url] and bare-handed beatdowns have accounted for more deaths year after year. (even shotguns and rifles combines aren't enough to out-do hands-on methods) So when "stricter gun control" is discussed it's always chasing after something that is [U]never[/U] a problem. Gun owners have been asking "why that?" for decades, and the only sensible answers are, "it's just to make people feel good," and more importantly, "it's the first big step to taking them all." We don't hear "sensible" and "common sense" because it [I]isn't[/I] but we do hear the "gun control" part quite clearly.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50603190]Consider me absolutely triggered right now. Let's begin: (cutting in here, but contrary to popular belief guns aren't 100% accurate, gang bangers shoot at each other every day in the United States without success) This post and the post immediately above provoked me to actually respond, wild conjecture like this makes this little vein in my head pop out. Oh, it's anecdote time I guess. Let me try: Earlier today I got into an argument about politics [B][I]with a gun in my hand the entire time, it became so heated that I walked away.[/I][/B] Nobody was shot, it never once occurred to me to use that weapon of iron and wood in my hand to kill somebody because I'm not a fucking lunatic. Good goddamn it, have you ever even held a gun? They're not magic talismans.(see above) Firstly let's put this link up: [URL]http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/news/news_releases/2014/01/band/[/URL] Turns out GSW are just like any other deep penetrating wound and survival rates are more or less the same if you bring somebody to the hospital immediately. So let's take a look at gunshot wounds, they're the big topic. According to [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/03/nyregion/03shot.html?_r=1"]this[/URL] article there's actually a really good chance of surviving a gunshot wound, if you're all too lazy to read I'll break it down to just this for you: basically 80% of the human body can endure a gunshot and if your heart is still beating when they bring you in you've apparently got a "95% chance" of survival. Since we've already determined that the gunshots and stabbings and slashings that are treated have roughly the same mortality then it comes down to the actual mechanics of a gunshot wound. Well apparently even getting [URL="http://www.medicinenet.com/surviving_a_gunshot_wound_to_the_head/views.htm"]shot in the head[/URL] isn't as awful as people make it out to be, it's still terrible yes but it certainly isn't guaranteed fatal. [URL="https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5002a1.htm"]Here's what the CDC has to say[/URL] about gunshot wounds, fatal and nonfatal. I was reluctant to include the CDC link because of the CDC's previous bias and my dwindling amount of interest in this post. I included it anyway, but I think I've demonstrated well enough that gun-inflicted and blade-inflicted injuries aren't different. I'm not going to bother with some psychology of "what it takes to stab somebody" despite having been stabbed myself; it's largely all bullshit anyway. All of that is right along with the jungle of biased misinformation I had to hack through from anti-gun sources, (I avoided pro-gun sources as well) I tried to focus on things with real numbers. That said though, I've backed up my position so I'd love to see the [I]dubious assertions[/I] made by people in this thread. Oh, and for clarification I'm not disputing that guns are an "easy" method to inflict force on other people. They're really the one thing available to anyone to do it [I]equally[/I] which is an important distinction; even ignoring the comparable lethality of other methods the gun's egalitarian nature lets even the most frail and weak to compete effectively. I am disputing that guns are wildly more lethal because of undefined reasons, I'm also disputing that murder with a gun is somehow psychologically somehow different than murdering with a knife. You're actively trying to end the life of another human being, if you're not affected by this then I'm pretty sure that makes you a sociopath no matter what flavor of murder you're choosing. Moving on: That's the agenda you're arguing for, so it's no wonder we're looking at your plaintive suggestions and skipping to the end. Handguns aren't politically comfortable to restrict anymore because minorities and women use them to protect themselves, and "grandpa's hunting rifle" was never acceptable to restrict so that leaves one thing: black rifles. Or rather "high powered assault weapons" if you're going to go with the agenda, but this is a position argued out of ignorance. Gun owners and indeed people who compete professionally are [I]well aware[/I] that mechanically, an oh-so-scary black rifle is no different than that hunting rifle that's forbidden to touch. Hell, both together are [URL="https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2009-2013.xls"]statistically irrelevant[/URL] and bare-handed beatdowns have accounted for more deaths year after year. (even shotguns and rifles combines aren't enough to out-do hands-on methods) So when "stricter gun control" is discussed it's always chasing after something that is [U]never[/U] a problem. Gun owners have been asking "why that?" for decades, and the only sensible answers are, "it's just to make people feel good," and more importantly, "it's the first big step to taking them all." We don't hear "sensible" and "common sense" because it [I]isn't[/I] but we do hear the "gun control" part quite clearly.[/QUOTE] Wait, are we looking at the same figures? In the link you provided firearms account for a total of 8500-9000 murders every year, knives and sharp objects to less than 2000 and blunt objects and personal weapons (including hands and feet) to several hundred deaths each.

[QUOTE=ScumBunny;50603237]Wait, are we looking at the same figures? In the link you provided firearms account for a total of 8500-9000 murders every year, knives and sharp objects to less than 2000 and blunt objects and personal weapons (including hands and feet) to several hundred deaths each.[/QUOTE] He is referring to rifles. Not handguns. Since the anti-gun lobby is only going after "assault weapons" at the moment.

[QUOTE=Kigen;50603266]He is referring to rifles. Not handguns. Since the anti-gun lobby is only going after "assault weapons" at the moment.[/QUOTE] Whuh? But his entire post was about guns. That anecdote about arguing gun in his hand and so on? Pretty much every argument he quoted is about the ease of shooting someone with a gun in the heat of the moment. No one was making an argument about how much easier it is to kill people with an assault rifle than it is with a spoon.

[QUOTE=ScumBunny;50603280]Whuh? But his entire post was about guns. That anecdote about arguing gun in his hand and so on? Pretty much every argument he quoted is about the ease of shooting someone with a gun in the heat of the moment. No one was making an argument about how much easier it is to kill people with an assault rifle than it is with a spoon.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50603190] Moving on: That's the agenda you're arguing for, so it's no wonder we're looking at your plaintive suggestions and skipping to the end. Handguns aren't politically comfortable to restrict anymore because minorities and women use them to protect themselves, and [b]"grandpa's hunting rifle"[/b] was never acceptable to restrict so that leaves one thing: [b]black rifles[/b]. Or rather [b]"high powered assault weapons"[/b] if you're going to go with the agenda, but this is a position argued out of ignorance. Gun owners and indeed people who compete professionally are [I]well aware[/I] that mechanically, an oh-so-scary [b]black rifle[/b] is no different than that [b]hunting rifle[/b] that's forbidden to touch. Hell, [b]both together[/b] are [url=https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2009-2013.xls]statistically irrelevant[/url] and bare-handed beatdowns have accounted for more deaths year after year. (even shotguns and rifles combines aren't enough to out-do hands-on methods) So when "stricter gun control" is discussed it's always chasing after something that is [U]never[/U] a problem. Gun owners have been asking "why that?" for decades, and the only sensible answers are, "it's just to make people feel good," and more importantly, "it's the first big step to taking them all." We don't hear "sensible" and "common sense" because it [I]isn't[/I] but we do hear the "gun control" part quite clearly.[/QUOTE] If we end the drug war then the total number of homicides would go down significantly. Banning guns would not alter our homicide rate.

[QUOTE=Kigen;50603289][/QUOTE] [QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50603190]Moving on: [B]That's the agenda you're arguing for[/B], so it's no wonder we're looking at your plaintive suggestions and skipping to the end. Handguns aren't politically comfortable to restrict anymore because minorities and women use them to protect themselves, and "grandpa's hunting rifle" was never acceptable to restrict so that leaves one thing: black rifles. Or rather "high powered assault weapons" if you're going to go with the agenda, but this is a position argued out of ignorance. Gun owners and indeed people who compete professionally are well aware that mechanically, an oh-so-scary black rifle is no different than that hunting rifle that's forbidden to touch. Hell, both together are statistically irrelevant and bare-handed beatdowns have accounted for more deaths year after year. (even shotguns and rifles combines aren't enough to out-do hands-on methods) So when "stricter gun control" is discussed it's always chasing after something that is never a problem. Gun owners have been asking "why that?" for decades, and the only sensible answers are, "it's just to make people feel good," and more importantly, "it's the first big step to taking them all." We don't hear "sensible" and "common sense" because it isn't but we do hear the "gun control" part quite clearly.[/QUOTE] But that's not actually the agenda everyone in the quotes above are arguing for, is it? All these quotes (including Jack's own gun-arguing example) talk about firearms in general, and hand guns in particular. To put aside American gun politics, which really don't matter to anyone not American making this point about guns, [B]all guns[/B] are dangerous and need to be regulated at least as much as cars. Is that better? [editline]27th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Kigen;50603289]If we end the drug war then the total number of homicides would go down significantly. Banning guns would not alter our homicide rate.[/QUOTE] How do you know? How can you certain all those 9000 people that get shot to death each year would still die if they were just stabbed or beaten?

[QUOTE=ScumBunny;50603316]But that's not actually the agenda everyone in the quotes above are arguing for, is it? All these quotes (including Jack's own gun-arguing example) talk about firearms in general, and hand guns in particular. To put aside American gun politics, which really don't matter to anyone not American making this point about guns, [B]all guns[/B] are dangerous and need to be regulated at least as much as cars. Is that better? [editline]27th June 2016[/editline] How do you know? How can you certain all those 9000 people that get shot to death each year would still die if they were just stabbed or beaten?[/QUOTE] The availability of guns does not alter anything. Besides, guns are already very heavily regulated. Because other countries have tried. And their homicide rates did not alter in any statistically significant way. So its better to address the root causes of violence than the method by which that violence is perpetrated.

[QUOTE=ScumBunny;50602821]You know that you need a license to drive a car, right? And that it can be revoked? Because cars can kill people? Do you see where I'm going with this?[/QUOTE] You need a license for a gun as well so no, I don't see where you're going with this.

[QUOTE=ScumBunny;50603280]Whuh? But his entire post was about guns. That anecdote about arguing gun in his hand and so on? Pretty much every argument he quoted is about the ease of shooting someone with a gun in the heat of the moment. No one was making an argument about how much easier it is to kill people with an assault rifle than it is with a spoon.[/QUOTE][QUOTE=ScumBunny;50603316]But that's not actually the agenda everyone in the quotes above are arguing for, is it? All these quotes (including Jack's own gun-arguing example) talk about firearms in general, and hand guns in particular.[/QUOTE]Yeah there was a reason why I said, "moving on." Those two points you're mixing up are separate, and I specifically explained why "I'm not arguing for banning guns!!!" is a position that is supporting [B]banning guns.[/B] There's an ulterior motive with the agenda, if it was truly about crime prevention and saving lives every single piece of gun control legislation put forward in this country would be radically different. All of that aside though, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt on this one and chalk this up to a Hebrew to English mishap. [QUOTE=ScumBunny;50603316]To put aside American gun politics, which really don't matter to anyone not American making this point about guns, [B]all guns[/B] are dangerous and need to be regulated at least as much as cars. Is that better?[/QUOTE]Except for the fact that we have a right to gun ownership and the dangers of firearms (all causes, fatal and non-fatal incidents) are statistically irrelevant. [QUOTE=Annoyed Grunt;50603427]You need a license for a gun as well so no, I don't see where you're going with this.[/QUOTE]You don't need a license for a gun in the United States, that's where he was going with that.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50603489]Yeah there was a reason why I said, "moving on." Those two points you're mixing up are separate, and I specifically explained why "I'm not arguing for banning guns!!!" is a position that is supporting [B]banning guns.[/B] There's an ulterior motive with the agenda, if it was truly about crime prevention and saving lives every single piece of gun control legislation put forward in this country would be radically different. All of that aside though, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt on this one and chalk this up to a Hebrew to English mishap. Except for the fact that we have a right to gun ownership and the dangers of firearms (all causes, fatal and non-fatal incidents) are statistically irrelevant. You don't need a license for a gun in the United States, that's where he was going with that.[/QUOTE] Look, I understand the whole gun control argument is kind of convoluted in the US right now, because like healthcare or free speech it is affected by politics and preconceptions you guys have on this. So again. When you hear "gun control" you're thinking about whatever limp wristed excuse for gun control your local gun control proponents dare even think about because anything else would be considered a violation of your most basic of human rights, the right to own a tool built specifically to kill other people. However many of the people here arguing for gun control (like those you quote in your reply) probably don't care about American "gun control". They are, like me, arguing in favor of the general idea of regulating firearms. And in that context replying that "yeah but American gun control doesn't make sense" is, well, I mean, no shit Eisenstein. It's fucked up. You need to regulate all guns is what we're saying. And yes, I understand you have a right. You also have a right to free speech. And just like that right, it can be limited, by legislation even, whenever society has other equally important things your right can interfere with. Free speech doesn't give you the right to violate copyright or to publish child pornography, for example. Finally, like it or not the dangers of firearms are not "statistically irrelevant". I live in a country that is involved in actual armed conflict pretty much on a daily basis as well as an ongoing violent terror campaign and [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate"]our firearm related death rate is still about a fifth of yours[/URL] (or a third if you just look at murders). Even by your own figures firearm related homicides make up the majority of murders in the US, with no other type of weapon even coming close. If we're correct and people are less likely to be attacked if less guns are available, or if they are less likely to die from being attacked with other weapons than you will most definitely see a decrease in homicide rate. You're welcome to disagree of course, but let's at least argue about the same thing.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50603190] Oh, it's anecdote time I guess. Let me try: Earlier today I got into an argument about politics [B][I]with a gun in my hand the entire time, it became so heated that I walked away.[/I][/B] Nobody was shot, it never once occurred to me to use that weapon of iron and wood in my hand to kill somebody because I'm not a fucking lunatic. [/QUOTE] How does this compare to the other situation or is a valid comparison in general? Did you even try to get a valid point across or was it a random collection words because you were angry? [QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50603190] Good goddamn it, have you ever even held a gun? They're not magic talismans.(see above) [/QUOTE] Yes I did, I am in a shooting club, altough, I don't have my own gun yet (thanks to german regulations), I shoot monthly on a 25m course with handguns one hour away from my workplace. You can't always go the easy route by saying that everything is fine and guns had absolutely no impact on the situation at all. Gun was there and misused by a mentally ill person - If gun wasn't there, the damage would have been less severe.

[QUOTE=Kigen;50603336]The availability of guns does not alter anything. Besides, guns are already very heavily regulated. Because other countries have tried. And their homicide rates did not alter in any statistically significant way. So its better to address the root causes of violence than the method by which that violence is perpetrated.[/QUOTE] As mentioned before Australia did try in 1996, and it did affect their homicide rates. See [URL="http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html"]here[/URL], and [URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/08/02/did-gun-control-work-in-australia/"]here[/URL].

[QUOTE=ScumBunny;50603639]As mentioned before Australia did try in 1996, and it did affect their homicide rates. See [URL="http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html"]here[/URL], and [URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/08/02/did-gun-control-work-in-australia/"]here[/URL].[/QUOTE] I see no evidence that their homicide rate was altered by the gun ban. [img]http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/tandi_image/269/figure_02.gif[/img] They banned almost all guns in 96-97 time frame.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50603489]Yeah there was a reason why I said, "moving on." Those two points you're mixing up are separate, and I specifically explained why "I'm not arguing for banning guns!!!" is a position that is supporting [B]banning guns.[/B] There's an ulterior motive with the agenda, if it was truly about crime prevention and saving lives every single piece of gun control legislation put forward in this country would be radically different. All of that aside though, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt on this one and chalk this up to a Hebrew to English mishap. Except for the fact that we have a right to gun ownership and the dangers of firearms (all causes, fatal and non-fatal incidents) are statistically irrelevant. You don't need a license for a gun in the United States, that's where he was going with that.[/QUOTE] You don't? Oh well that sucks. I, agree there should be a licence before being able to buy weapons.

[QUOTE=Kigen;50603679]I see no evidence that their homicide rate was altered by the gun ban. [img]http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/facts/2008/figure_12.png[/img] [img]http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/aic/research/homicide/homiciderate2.png[/img] They banned almost all guns in 96-97 time frame.[/QUOTE] Really? The graph says murder rates dropped from over 300 a year to around 250, and if you look at more recent figures they're still dropping (around 230 in 2014 IIRC).

[QUOTE=ScumBunny;50603699]Really? The graph says murder rates dropped from over 300 a year to around 250, and if you look at more recent figures they're still dropping (around 230 in 2014 IIRC).[/QUOTE] Updated the image (still from AIC). Do you not see that it was continuing its general trend from BEFORE the gun ban? The gun ban did not alter the decline they were already on.

[QUOTE=ScumBunny;50603595]Look, I understand the whole gun control argument is kind of convoluted in the US right now, because like healthcare or free speech it is affected by politics and preconceptions you guys have on this.[/QUOTE]It's not convoluted, it's pretty cut and dry despite the attempts to obfuscate everything. [QUOTE]So again. When you hear "gun control" you're thinking about whatever limp wristed excuse for gun control your local gun control proponents dare even think about because anything else would be considered a violation of your most basic of human rights, the right to own a tool built specifically to kill other people.[/QUOTE]Yeah I'm well aware our ~kooky American way~ is foreign to you. [QUOTE]However many of the people here arguing for gun control (like those you quote in your reply) probably don't care about American "gun control". They are, like me, arguing in favor of the general idea of regulating firearms.[/QUOTE]Yeah. This is about the USA. You're arguing for gun control, i.e. [I]gun control in the USA[/I] and we already have the "general idea of regulating firearms" in practice so why the [B]fuck[/B] are you people even commenting like we don't have any? We do. We have more than enough, so much so that a big, big part of the population thinks we should have either the same amount or less regulation; a smaller portion thinks we should have far, far less. [QUOTE]And yes, I understand you have a right. You also have a right to free speech. And just like that right, it can be limited, by legislation even, whenever society has other equally important things your right can interfere with. Free speech doesn't give you the right to violate copyright or to publish child pornography, for example.[/QUOTE]We don't allow child pornography because it comes from the sexual abuse of a child, owning a gun hurts nobody and argue all you want a [I]potential[/I] for violence is not equivalent to the act of sexual exploitation. This is why we cannot take you seriously, what the fuck. [QUOTE=DMGaina;50603597]How does this compare to the other situation or is a valid comparison in general?[/QUOTE]You argue that simply having the gun plus emotion will equal murder and I demonstrated that no, you're wrong. I know this doesn't fit with the point you were trying to make but the point I was making was your point [I]was dumb.[/I] [QUOTE]You can't always go the easy route by saying that everything is fine and guns had absolutely no impact on the situation at all. Gun was there and misused by a mentally ill person - If gun wasn't there, the damage would have been less severe.[/QUOTE]Sure I can and sure, they have an impact. That doesn't matter though because like any murder weapon their presence didn't cause the crime, they were just the means to make it happen. Putting it into perspective if the murder was suicide and the gun was heroin it would be called [I]drug abuse[/I] because nobody intended for that heroin to be used by an addict. We don't offer the same courtesy for guns though, in every instance they're a murder machine acting out their evil, evil will and we need to [I]control them[/I] and [I]control the people who use them.[/I] Why isn't murder "gun abuse" anyway? Nobody ever manufactures guns for them to be used in murders, clearly every gun used to murder has been severely misused. All that aside I have demonstrated that [I]no, the damage wouldn't necessarily be less severe[/I] and I'm waiting for you to prove that stabbing somebody is significantly more difficult than shooting them. This is the bullshit speculation that I was talking about, don't give me some wishy-washy anecdote in lieu of some real goddamn evidence.

[QUOTE=Kigen;50603704]Updated the image (still from AIC). Do you not see that it was continuing its general trend from BEFORE the gun ban? The gun ban did not alter the decline they were already on.[/QUOTE] That graph also shows a faster decline in rates between 2006 and 2008 before the previous rate of decline resumed. Edit: If you read the study in my second link there was also a much more significant decline in suicide rates. That counts as well.

[QUOTE=ScumBunny;50603720]That graph also shows a faster decline in rates between 2006 and 2008 before the previous rate of decline resumed.[/QUOTE] I'm going to assume you mean 1996 and 1998. And you appear to be misinterpreting the graph based on your preconceived notions. Here is another from the AIC for you. Which specifically list only firearms related deaths. [img]http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/facts/2006/figure_13.png[/img] Notice the slump it was already on well before the gun ban.

[QUOTE=Rainboo;50601458] In the worst case scenario, being chased with a melee weapon is preferable to being shot at with a gun. You seem to be ignoring that fact and that's just plain ridiculous.[/QUOTE] I'm not ignoring a single thing. If the story ended with a woman chasing her children down and stabbing one with a knife while the other escaped, I wouldn't shake my head and remark on how terrible it is that the availability of knives makes arguments turn violent. Yet somehow people get a free pass when they say the same of guns, as if having a gun compels ordinarily rational people to murder their children over an argument. You can say what you will about guns making violent conflict more lethal but it's stupid to blame the gun for the conflict turning violent in the first place as several in this thread have done.

[QUOTE=Kigen;50603733]I'm going to assume you mean 1996 and 1998. And you appear to be misinterpreting the graph based on your preconceived notions. Here is another from the AIC for you. Which specifically list only firearms related deaths. [img]http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/facts/2006/figure_13.png[/img] Notice the slump it was already on well before the gun ban.[/QUOTE] You'll need a graph extending beyond 2003 to see how rates were affected. But more importantly, if there was a significant slump in rates right after the ban and then the existing rate of decline returned that's still a significant chunk of yearly deaths that went away faster than it would have and isn't coming back. And again- you should also consider the change in suicide rates, which is even more significant.

[QUOTE=ScumBunny;50603720] Edit: If you read the study in my second link there was also a much more significant decline in suicide rates. That counts as well.[/QUOTE] [t]https://cdn2.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/0x_bkxiuhv8HchFLTgYHEfA4qc0=/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/4124128/firearm%20suicides%20australia.jpg[/t] Here is one from Vox, an anti-gun site. Notice the trend from BEFORE the gun ban (Vox ignores this).

You know who else wanted gun control? Hitler.

[QUOTE=ScumBunny;50603752]You'll need a graph extending beyond 2003 to see how rates were affected. But more importantly, if there was a significant slump in rates right after the ban and then the existing rate of decline returned that's still a significant chunk of yearly deaths that went away faster than it would have and isn't coming back. And again- you should also consider the change in suicide rates, which is even more significant.[/QUOTE]Suicide success is the one thing that is obviously affected by the presence of a firearm, other methods require time and energy and are less conducive toward a spur of the moment decision. (which most suicides are, unfortunately) This isn't even remotely a good enough reason to crush the rights of millions of law-abiding people.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50603716] You argue that simply having the gun plus emotion will equal murder and I demonstrated that no, you're wrong. I know this doesn't fit with the point you were trying to make but the point I was making was your point [I]was dumb.[/I] [/QUOTE] You completely missed the point by 5 000 lightyears. It was not about having a gun makes you automaticly a murderer when you're angry, it's about the inhibition threshold of using a knife vs. using a gun on a distance. And before you continue ranting and rambling about heroin and child porn, I DID speak about misuse of the gun.

[QUOTE=BioWaster;50603756]You know who else wanted gun control? Hitler.[/QUOTE]Kind of, gun ownership was expanded under the Nazis but obviously the laws were bent to exclude Jews and other minorities, which is why having laws "on the books for when we need them" is a dumb idea. (right along with any statement that begins with, "if you have nothing to hide," made when discussing the relationship between citizen and state) [editline]27th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=DMGaina;50603766]You completely missed the point by 5 000 lightyears.[/QUOTE]I did? [QUOTE]It was not about having a gun makes you automaticly a murderer when you're angry, it's about the inhibition threshold of using a knife vs. using a gun on a distance.[/QUOTE]Which I want you to prove and you're not proving, instead you're saying shit like this: [QUOTE]And before you continue ranting and rambling about heroin and child porn, I DID speak about misuse of the gun.[/QUOTE] How do you expect me to respond to this? I don't know how you expect me to treat you when this is the [I]second[/I] time you've dismissed my points as "ranting," but I can tell you that I'm quickly losing interest in whatever it is you have to say.

[QUOTE=ScumBunny;50603752]And again- you should also consider the change in suicide rates, which is even more significant.[/QUOTE] Not only did the drop in suicide simply keep following a pre-existing trend, the overall suicide rate INCREASED following the gun ban, as did violent crime and homicide. What you see are people restricting their analysis to [I]gun[/I] homicide and [I]gun[/I] suicide and then when those fall pat themselves on the back for doing such a good job, ignoring the people who turn to other means to carry out the same task. The suicide rate in Australia actually peaked a year after the firearm ban. [IMG]http://www.gunsandcrime.org/suichisty.gif[/IMG]

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50603716]It's not convoluted, it's pretty cut and dry despite the attempts to obfuscate everything. Yeah I'm well aware our ~kooky American way~ is foreign to you. Yeah. This is about the USA. You're arguing for gun control, i.e. [I]gun control in the USA[/I] and we already have the "general idea of regulating firearms" in practice so why the [B]fuck[/B] are you people even commenting like we don't have any? We do. We have more than enough, so much so that a big, big part of the population thinks we should have either the same amount or less regulation; a smaller portion thinks we should have far, far less. We don't allow child pornography because it comes from the sexual abuse of a child, owning a gun hurts nobody and argue all you want a [I]potential[/I] for violence is not equivalent to the act of sexual exploitation. This is why we cannot take you seriously, what the fuck. You argue that simply having the gun plus emotion will equal murder and I demonstrated that no, you're wrong. I know this doesn't fit with the point you were trying to make but the point I was making was your point [I]was dumb.[/I] Sure I can and sure, they have an impact. That doesn't matter though because like any murder weapon their presence didn't cause the crime, they were just the means to make it happen. Putting it into perspective if the murder was suicide and the gun was heroin it would be called [I]drug abuse[/I] because nobody intended for that heroin to be used by an addict. We don't offer the same courtesy for guns though, in every instance they're a murder machine acting out their evil, evil will and we need to [I]control them[/I] and [I]control the people who use them.[/I] Why isn't murder "gun abuse" anyway? Nobody ever manufactures guns for them to be used in murders, clearly every gun used to murder has been severely misused. All that aside I have demonstrated that [I]no, the damage wouldn't necessarily be less severe[/I] and I'm waiting for you to prove that stabbing somebody is significantly more difficult than shooting them. This is the bullshit speculation that I was talking about, don't give me some wishy-washy anecdote in lieu of some real goddamn evidence.[/QUOTE] Your own figures prove exactly that: if people were just as likely to try and kill eachother with anything lying around the house, and just as likely to die from it than you would have seen an equal distribution of homicide methods rather than an overwhelming majority of firearm related deaths. On the other hand, if you look at the distribution of homicides in the UK where guns are regulated you'll see [URL="http://www.statista.com/statistics/288166/homicide-method-of-killing-in-england-and-wales-uk-by-gender/"]most murders are knife related[/URL]. Guns are also used much more in other violent crimes than in comparable countries like the UK. The homicide rate in the US is of course [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate#By_country"]four times that of the UK[/URL], despite the rate of violent crimes in the UK being almost double that of the US. [IMG]http://i1.wp.com/www.criminaljusticedegreehub.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Violent-Crime-Hybrid3.jpg?w=900[/IMG] [QUOTE]With gun restrictions making it harder to obtain private weapons in the UK, violent crimes involving guns have greatly decreased. The number of total violent crimes, however, is almost double that of the US. Of those crimes, only 19% even involve a weapon, and only 5% of those involve a firearm. That means that of you’re roughly 1/100 chance of being involved in a violent crime in Britain and Wales in any given year, you have roughly a 1/10,000 chance of being in a violent crime involving a gun. In the US your chances of being involved in a violent crime are less than 1/250. Alternately, in the US your chances of being involved in a violent crime are less than 1/250. Of those involved with violent crimes, however, you have greater than a 1/10,000 chance of being involved in a violent crime involving a gun. In a country with less than half the violent crime, you have a greater chance of being the victim of a violent crime involving a gun.[/QUOTE] From [URL="http://www.criminaljusticedegreehub.com/violent-crime-us-abroad/"]here[/URL]. [editline]27th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=catbarf;50603797]Not only did the drop in suicide simply keep following a pre-existing trend, the overall suicide rate INCREASED following the gun ban, as did violent crime and homicide. What you see are people restricting their analysis to [I]gun[/I] homicide and [I]gun[/I] suicide and then when those fall pat themselves on the back for doing such a good job, ignoring the people who turn to other means to carry out the same task. The suicide rate in Australia actually peaked a year after the firearm ban. [IMG]http://www.gunsandcrime.org/suichisty.gif[/IMG][/QUOTE] Fair enough. I stand corrected.