God damned crazy motherfuckers.

[Papa_Complex]

Turbo Ghost,

Everyone brings out the motorcycle comparison and it's a completely invalid one. A motorcycle, of whatever type, has as it's primary purpose for being the transportation of a person. The primary function of a firearm is to project a bullet at sufficient velocity to kill. Comparisons like that are a big reason why I say that Americans MUST change their view of firearms.

Fewer guns is as much of a problem? Sorry, but I can't agree. Just who is training and regulating the 'militia'?

[pauldun170]

...

[Turbo Ghost]

They are different but, when it comes to wants and needs, the comparison is valid especially when in a life or death situation you will want more power from both your bike and your gun.
Who's training the militia (us)? That's the exact problem I refered to earlier. Generations before us were actually trained by those in the know and those skills were passed down from parent to child but, over the last several generations, that skill and respect has disappeared. Even here in the South it's waning terribly. When I was young, after school there would be a mass of youths heading into the woods to hunt squirrels. There would literally be dozens of us within a mile or less. No one ever got hurt or even hinted at hurting anyone. We were taught by our parents how to handle guns and the responsibility that goes along with the potential of a gun.
I personally was amazed at how much pressure and responsibility I felt once I received my carry permit. It is entirely possible I may be someone's (or my own) last line of defense in a bad situation. Before I could carry, I always felt responsible for the care of others if needed but, I feel it more so now.
I actually feel a bit guilty for not actually carrying yet. I'm usually the most calm and level-headed in any situation. Nothing rattles me. (titties don't count) and I've always been able to talk my way out of every bad situation I've encountered and I believe I will be able to continue that tradition. However, IF I can't, I do have another option. I hope it never comes to that and it probably won't but, ya never know.

So, how exactly ARE we supposed to change our view of firearms? What are we supposed to be thinking? How should we view them?

[Turbo Ghost]

Paul,
That's funny. "It's funny cause it's true!": Homer Simpson

[fatbuckRTO]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

Turbo Ghost,

Everyone brings out the motorcycle comparison and it's a completely invalid one. A motorcycle, of whatever type, has as it's primary purpose for being the transportation of a person. The primary function of a firearm is to project a bullet at sufficient velocity to kill. Comparisons like that are a big reason why I say that Americans MUST change their view of firearms.

How is the primary purpose of an object relevant in regards to the number of deaths it causes? Or, to frame the question differently, what makes the thousands of deaths by motor vehicles more acceptable than the thousands of deaths by firearms?

Nobody is really talking about doing away with assault rifles, or any other types of firearms. The discussion is about disallowing their private ownership. I think that makes the question of all types of motor vehicles a valid question. If you aim to reduce the number of deaths attributed to firearms by restricting their possession and operation to professional organizations (police, security guards, etc.), then where is the push to restrict the possession and operation of motor vehicles to professional organizations (taxis, busses)? By the numbers, motor vehicles are far more deadly machines. Disallowing their private ownership would go a long way toward reducing those fatalities. Is convenience of transportation really worth a life?

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by fatbuckRTO

How is the primary purpose of an object relevant in regards to the number of deaths it causes? Or, to frame the question differently, what makes the thousands of deaths by motor vehicles more acceptable than the thousands of deaths by firearms?

How is it relevant? Because it shows a peculiar mindset.

[fatbuckRTO]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

How is it relevant? Because it shows a peculiar mindset.

Mindset has no real bearing on the end result, when the end result is death. What does it matter what a person's intent was if they run over a pedestrian? Sure, you address intent in court, when doling out punishment if it is appropriate. But it doesn't make a damn bit of difference to the dead pedestrian that the motorist only bought that car to get to work. To the dead guy's family, he's just as dead as if he had been riddled with bullets.

So what makes the 41k or so deaths due to privately owned motor vehicles less of an issue than the 31k or so deaths due to privately owned firearms?* By the way, half of those 31k firearm deaths were suicides.



*2007 numbers, easiest I could find on Google

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by fatbuckRTO

I'm not sure what you mean here. I've only ever really heard them called guns, firearms, or specific types (pistol, handgun, rifle).

I could definitely get behind this. I don't have any problem with regulation, just outright banning.

I can get behind this for firearms and motor vehicles. I'm all for states' rights, but in both cases there is too much interstate travel / commerce involved. There needs to be one standard for each, coast to coast.

You haven't heard people refer to their firearms as their 'tools' or 'toys'? You haven't heard people refer to their guns in a way that makes you think that you could easily substitute the word 'toy'? I've heard both, from far too many people, and on far too many occasions. Not just in the US, while primarily there, but also less often in Canada where we have the sort of controls, some of which I: would recommend for your people.

I'm glad to see that you would agree with my on those two fronts. It's rather refreshing to read.

Originally Posted by fatbuckRTO

Mindset has no real bearing on the end result, when the end result is death. What does it matter what a person's intent was if they run over a pedestrian? Sure, you address intent in court, when doling out punishment if it is appropriate. But it doesn't make a damn bit of difference to the dead pedestrian that the motorist only bought that car to get to work. To the dead guy's family, he's just as dead as if he had been riddled with bullets.

So what makes the 41k or so deaths due to privately owned motor vehicles less of an issue than the 31k or so deaths due to privately owned firearms?* By the way, half of those 31k firearm deaths were suicides.

*2007 numbers, easiest I could find on Google

Once again, you're thinking on the wrong end of the equation. You're talking about what happens after the fact. I'm talking about trying to prevent the incident in the first place. From that point of view, mindset has a massive effect.

You're also minimizing the issue by making another invalid comparison; vehicular deaths to firearms deaths. In the United States there are roughly enough firearms to put one in the hands of every citizen over the age of 16 (rough estimate, based on the approximation that there are about 200,000 privately owned firearms in the US). Given that the majority of gun owners have more than one weapon, and that they are unlikely to all be taken out on a daily basis for their intended purpose, they are relatively unlikely to be involved in an incident. And yet they are.

On the flip-side of that you have road- going vehicles, the majority of which are used on a daily basis for their intended purpose. For this reason they are more likely to be involved in incidents resulting in death. Want a more valid comparison? Compare the number of wilful deaths resulting from both things and yes, a suicide is a wilful death.

[fatbuckRTO]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

You haven't heard people refer to their firearms as their 'tools' or 'toys'? You haven't heard people refer to their guns in a way that makes you think that you could easily substitute the word 'toy'? I've heard both, from far too many people, and on far too many occasions. Not just in the US, while primarily there, but also less often in Canada where we have the sort of controls, some of which I: would recommend for your people.

I have heard that. I thought you meant in media / news. I do hear 'toys' and similar words used by individual people describing their weapons, usually when they are collectors. Personally, I was trained to call a firearm a 'weapon' or refer to it by it's type (rifle, pistol). But, while it goes against my grain to call a hand-held firearm by even a word like 'gun,'* I don't see it as a major issue. Usually when I hear 'toys' or the like, I understand it to be a tongue-in-cheek reference. I don't consider a motorcycle or car a toy either. They'll kill you quick.

But while I don't see terminology as being a major issue itself, I agree with you that lack of respect for firearms is a huge issue. The 4 safety rules should be taught along with phonics, in my opinion. There are too many firearms out there to just assume that a child will go his whole life without encountering one.

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

Once again, you're thinking on the wrong end of the equation. You're talking about what happens after the fact. I'm talking about trying to prevent the incident in the first place. From that point of view, mindset has a massive effect.

You're also minimizing the issue by making another invalid comparison; vehicular deaths to firearms deaths. In the United States there are roughly enough firearms to put one in the hands of every citizen over the age of 16 (rough estimate, based on the approximation that there are about 200,000 privately owned firearms in the US). Given that the majority of gun owners have more than one weapon, and that they are unlikely to all be taken out on a daily basis for their intended purpose, they are relatively unlikely to be involved in an incident. And yet they are.

On the flip-side of that you have road- going vehicles, the majority of which are used on a daily basis for their intended purpose. For this reason they are more likely to be involved in incidents resulting in death. Want a more valid comparison? Compare the number of wilful deaths resulting from both things and yes, a suicide is a wilful death.

I don't think that the difference in saturation or per capita numbers makes the comparison invalid. Deaths are deaths. If one type of death is worth risk management, all types of death are worth risk management. You say that you want to prevent the incident in the first place, so I don't understand why you wouldn't want to prevent automobile fatalities as much as you want to prevent firearm fatalities. My intent isn't to minimize the moral implications of firearm fatalities, but to realize that automobile fatalities are just as tragic. In my opinion, they are comparable in that there are identical measures we could take to reduce fatalities for both, but we have not taken those measures.

I differentiate firearm suicides because I believe that, if a person is serious enough to shoot himself to death, he is serious enough to find another method of suicide if a firearm is not available to him. I don't believe reducing the number of firearms in circulation will have any measurable effect on suicide rates.

We'll probably end up having to agree to disagree here. That said, I appreciate you actually addressing the argument, vice summarily dismissing it as "childish" like some others have done.





* I will call a weapon a 'gun' for brevity, depending on my audience, but it's something akin to running my fingernails down a chalkboard. Old habits, and what...

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by fatbuckRTO

I have heard that. I thought you meant in media / news. I do hear 'toys' and similar words used by individual people describing their weapons, usually when they are collectors. Personally, I was trained to call a firearm a 'weapon' or refer to it by it's type (rifle, pistol). But, while it goes against my grain to call a hand-held firearm by even a word like 'gun,'* I don't see it as a major issue. Usually when I hear 'toys' or the like, I understand it to be a tongue-in-cheek reference. I don't consider a motorcycle or car a toy either. They'll kill you quick.

But while I don't see terminology as being a major issue itself, I agree with you that lack of respect for firearms is a huge issue. The 4 safety rules should be taught along with phonics, in my opinion. There are too many firearms out there to just assume that a child will go his whole life without encountering one.

I point to the terminology used and the flippant manner of its use, because it's indicative of the root of the problem. Not because it is a problem in and of itself.

I don't think that the difference in saturation or per capita numbers makes the comparison invalid. Deaths are deaths. If one type of death is worth risk management, all types of death are worth risk management. You say that you want to prevent the incident in the first place, so I don't understand why you wouldn't want to prevent automobile fatalities as much as you want to prevent firearm fatalities. My intent isn't to minimize the moral implications of firearm fatalities, but to realize that automobile fatalities are just as tragic. In my opinion, they are comparable in that there are identical measures we could take to reduce fatalities for both, but we have not taken those measures.

I differentiate firearm suicides because I believe that, if a person is serious enough to shoot himself to death, he is serious enough to find another method of suicide if a firearm is not available to him. I don't believe reducing the number of firearms in circulation will have any measurable effect on suicide rates.

We'll probably end up having to agree to disagree here. That said, I appreciate you actually addressing the argument, vice summarily dismissing it as "childish" like some others have done.

* I will call a weapon a 'gun' for brevity, depending on my audience, but it's something akin to running my fingernails down a chalkboard. Old habits, and what...

Regarding the vehicular issues, see my other post. Given how much has been done over the years to prevent deaths by vehicle use, and how relatively little has been done to prevent death by firearms, which should I think requires more immediate attention?