No matter how proficient someone may be, accidents happen. Accidents with knives and tasers are far less deadly. Period.
I would wager, readily, that most gun accidents are caused by a lack of proficiency and/or poor decision making. If everyone followed the basic rules of gun safety, most gun accidents would never happen.
As for determining who's proficient, I would say we have police give gun training courses. Seems reasonable to me.
No matter how proficient a person is in particular training and testing scenarios, it doesn't account for human rage, fear, or adrenaline.
Which apply toallweapons, not just guns. If somebody is pissed off at you enough to want to kill you, they'll useanythingwithin reach that could be a weapon.
Yes, but they will be more effective with a gun. Thus the point. Also, if someone get angry enough to hit someone with a frying pan or stab them with a knife, they then have the option of stopping and possibly keeping the person alive. With a gun, fatality is far more likely.
I would contend that someone in a homicidal rage most likely isn't going to stop, no matter what happens. According to Cremlian's statistics, the murder rate in the US is 55 per million people, with 14% being by blades. That's a rate of about 8 blade murders per million people. The rate in England/Wales is about 4 blade murders per million. We just have a higher rate of crime.
The real question with all the US gun crime is: how many are committed with legally registered firearms?
Sure, in the old west, when everyone walked around with a gun, the murder rates were in the single digits or tens.
I should not HAVE to tiptoe around life in order to feel safe. If that were the case, Scott Rubin would have been killed years ago. Assholes and outspoken people deserve to live, and to live without fear.
Outspoken-ness is not a blank check to piss people off and push people's buttons. Safety in our world is an illusion, you could die at any moment for almost any reason. And I'd just like to point out that you have considerably greater odds or being killed on your car ride home today than getting shot.
I would contend that someone in a homicidal rage most likely isn't going to stop, no matter what happens. ?
Based on....?
The real question with all the US gun crime is: how many are committed with legally registered firearms?
No, seriously, answer how many stabbings v. how many fatalities. Also, it isn't just rage crimes, accidents with guns are more likely to be fatal than an accident with a taser, this is a given.
Outspoken-ness is not a blank check to piss people off and push people's buttons.
The cost of true free speech is that idiots, assholes, jerks, and bastards do in fact get a blank check to "piss people off" and "push people's buttons." This cost is, in my opinion, definitely worth the benefits of a truly free society.
There is never a justification for meeting words with violence. Never.
Sure, in the old west, when everyone walked around with a gun, the murder rates were in the single digits or tens.
I should not HAVE to tiptoe around life in order to feel safe. If that were the case, Scott Rubin would have been killed years ago. Assholes and outspoken people deserve to live, and to live without fear.
Outspoken-ness is not a blank check to piss people off and push people's buttons. Safety in our world is an illusion, you could die at any moment for almost any reason. And I'd just like to point out that you have considerably greater odds or being killed on your car ride home today than getting shot.
I am not arguing this fact, and I am not concerned with my individual safety as much as I am with little children in bad neighborhoods getting gunned down, or hunters shooting other hunters because they decided to drink with they were out hunting. Those deaths are preventable. Making every gun illegal makes it easy to spot an illegal gun (because it would be ANY gun) and getting it off the street. Moreover, criminals will commit crimes, but an otherwise law abiding citizen that shoots his daughter accidentally will not have that stupidity available to them/ Fewer guns around reduces every one's likelihood of being killed by a gun. Also, outspokenness should never, ever be a death sentence. If you are arguing that (which I hope you aren't) then you need to talk to Kilarney about anti-American sentiment.
That's irrelevant. No matter how "angry" you get, unless you are directly defending someone's safety or property, no use of force is ever justified. The person throwing the punch, except in these cases, is always in the wrong.
This is the kind of mentality that starts wars, specifically World War II and the lack of backbone by the British and French before the official start of the war. Violence is the natural escalation of a conflict. Sure it's wrong, but once your face has been beaten in the moral superiority doesn't count for much. If you want to be a dick, go nuts, but not everyone as a eloquent as you are.
That's irrelevant. No matter how "angry" you get, unless you are directly defending someone's safety or property, no use of force is ever justified. The person throwing the punch, except in these cases, is always in the wrong.
This is the kind of mentality that starts wars, specifically World War II and the lack of backbone by the British and French before the official start of the war. Violence is the natural escalation of a conflict. Sure it's wrong, but once your face has been beaten in the moral superiority doesn't count for much. If you want to be a dick, go nuts, but not everyone as a eloquent as you are.
This isn't about eloquence and your WWII example doesn't fit. Please, take a logic class. I am not saying you have to agree with us, just think critically. EDIT: More importantly, your point of view that it is justifiable to resort to violence when you disagree with someone is the actual cause for many wars, particularly religious wars.
This isn't about eloquence and your WWII example doesn't fit. Please, take a logic class. I am not saying you have to agree with us, just think critically.
I am, and the idea of pacificism is very very dangerous. "We have achieved peace in our time" to quote Chamberlain after having signed a treaty with Hitler agreeing that they would let him keep all the territory he took. Hitler then conquered Austria I believe. After reading writings of Hitler, they discovered that if the League of Nations had actually stood up to him he would have backed down and stopped.
EDIT: More importantly, your point of view that it is justifiable to resort to violence when you disagree with someone is the actual cause for many wars, particularly religious wars.
No, my point is that this is just the way conflicts are resolved. In our society, we have moved away from armed conflicts for most conflict resolution, but it's still the method of last resort. Wrong as it may be in our society, I think we would should all keep it in our mind that someone will come to blows if pushed too far.
You completely missed the point of my argument. I said:
There is never a justification for meeting words with violence. Never.
I said nothing on the subjects of how to respond to threats of violence or violence itself. For your sake, I'll make my stance more clear.
Words must be met with words in kind, or with simply silence. Violence must be met with words if possible, but with violence if not.
Threats are just words, but they are either a prelude to violence or altogether bluster. If threats are to be met with violence, you must be willing to accept all blame if your violence was unjustified.
My convictions are fairly straightforward on this point.
You completely missed the point of my argument. I said:
There is never a justification for meeting words with violence. Never.
I said nothing on the subjects of how to respond to threats of violence or violence itself. For your sake, I'll make my stance more clear.
Words must be met with words in kind, or with simply silence. Violence must be met with words if possible, but with violence if not.
Threats are just words, but they are either a prelude to violence or altogether bluster. If threats are to be met with violence, you must be willing to accept all blame if your violence was unjustified.
My convictions are fairly straightforward on this point.
I find nothing objectionable with your convictions and in fact hold the same convictions myself. But not everyone plays by our rules. Some people will come to blows over words, and it's a good idea to treat overs as if they might. I'm a bit of an asshole to my friends, but nicer to people I don't know at all, for example.
"We have achieved peace in our time" to quote Chamberlain after having signed a treaty with Hitler agreeing that they would let him keep all the territory he took. Hitler then conquered Austria I believe.
Wrong. Germany had annexed Austria without any fighting before the Munich Agreement. Then came the annexation of the Sudetenland. No one was really worried about that, since the Sudetenland was composed primarily of ethnic Germans. Then came the Munich Agreement.
After reading writings of Hitler, they discovered that if the League of Nations had actually stood up to him he would have backed down and stopped.
This is the first I've ever heard of that. You have any proof?
Wrong. Germany had annexed Austria without any fighting before the Munich Agreement. Then came the annexation of the Sudetenland. No one was really worried about that, since the Sudetenland was composed primarily of ethnic Germans.Thencame the Munich Agreement.
Aw damn it, I thought I had it backwards.
This is the first I've ever heard of that. You have any proof?
Only what my history professor has told me, but he has a Doctorate.
This is the first I've ever heard of that. You have any proof?
Only what my history professor has told me, but he has a Doctorate.
Many people who have doctorates are insane. If you can cite some proof, then we'll accept that you were right, but we're not going to believe your un-named professor guy.
I am not arguing this fact, and I am not concerned with my individual safety as much as I am with little children in bad neighborhoods getting gunned run down, or hunters shooting driving into over other hunters because they decided to drink with they were out hunting. Those deaths are preventable. Making every gun car illegal makes it easy to spot an illegal gun car(because it would be ANY gun car) and getting it off the street. Moreover, criminals will commit crimes, but an otherwise law abiding citizen that shoots hits his daughter accidentally will not have that stupidity available to them/ Fewer guns carsaround reduces every one's likelihood of being killed by a gun car.
The CDC's most recent report says that automobile accidents are the number one cause of child related deaths in the past few years (approximately 8000 per year). Drowning, burns, falls, and accidental poisoning round out the top five killers of children. Child gun deaths show that of the 3000 killed in 2005, about 2000 of them were homicide, 822 suicide and less than 200 were accidental. Looking at statistics from the past few years, it shows that gun deaths in general have been dropping severely the past decade.
The vast majority of gun related deaths for children are criminal and intentional killings, while a fraction of those are accidental. So, before you get all emotional I suggest actually researching some facts before you form an argument.
I am not arguing this fact, and I am not concerned with my individual safety as much as I am with little children in bad neighborhoods gettinggunnedrundown, or huntersshootingdriving intoover other hunters because they decided to drink with they were out hunting. Those deaths are preventable. Making everyguncarillegal makes it easy to spot an illegalguncar(because it would be ANYguncar) and getting it off the street. Moreover, criminals will commit crimes, but an otherwise law abiding citizen thatshootshitshis daughter accidentally will not have that stupidity available to them/ Fewergunscarsaround reduces every one's likelihood of being killed by aguncar.
TheCDC's most recent report says that automobile accidents are the number one cause of child related deaths in the past few years (approximately 8000 per year). Drowning, burns, falls, and accidental poisoning round out the top five killers of children.Child gun deathsshow that of the 3000 killed in 2005, about 2000 of them were homicide, 822 suicide and less than 200 were accidental. Looking at statistics from the past few years, it shows that gun deaths in general have beendroppingseverely the past decade.
So, before you get all emotional, the vast majority of gun related deaths for children are criminal and intentional killings, while a fraction of those are accidental. I suggest actually researching some facts before you form an argument.
Problem with your argument: A car's primary and sole use is not that of a weapon. Your example is not relevant.
Problem with your argument: A car's primary and sole use is not that of a weapon. Your example is not relevant.
I thought we were talking about accidents here. Oh, I'm sorry, do you want to change your argument so you don't contradict yourself? I mean, we are talking about preventable deaths, right? Besides, I would appreciate not resorting to strawmen attacks.
Problem with your argument: A car's primary and sole use is not that of a weapon. Your example is not relevant.
I thought we were talking about accidents here? Oh, I'm sorry, do you want to change your argument so you don't contradict yourself? I mean, we are talking about preventable deaths, right? Besides, I would appreciate not resorting to strawmen attacks.
We are talking about accidents with WEAPONS. You want to talk knives, bows, and so forth, then go ahead. To equate an accident with a vehicle whose primary function is travel and a gun whose primary function is to injure and kill; then make the comparison. On face value it falls flat. Make your case. I am not resorting to strawman attacks. I am outright saying that I am discussing accidental and purposeful deaths involving weapons, you are discussing accidental deaths overall. I feel these are two distinct discussions.
As someone who used to show up about 10 minutes after the guns were fired, I can tell you that the problem with the high gun crime rate in the U.S. is ghettos. This isn't a racial statement. This is an economic statement.
As someone who used to show up about 10 minutes after the guns were fired, I can tell you that the problem with the high gun crime rate in the U.S. is ghettos. This isn't a racial statement. This is an economic statement.
See, I think that one innocent life is a high price to pay, and that is not restricted to ghettos. Economic and social reforms are great, they reduce crime overall, and that is key.
We are talking about accidents with WEAPONS. You want to talk knives, bows, and so forth, then go ahead. To equate an accident with a vehicle whose primary function is travel and a gun whose primary function is to injure and kill; then make the comparison. On face value it falls flat. Make your case. I am not resorting to strawman attacks. I am outright saying that I am discussing accidental and purposeful deaths involving weapons, you are discussing accidental deaths overall. I feel these are two distinct discussions.
A weapon is just an object that grants the ability to transform energy and force into a given direction with the intent to injure or kill. If I try to run someone over with a car, it's a weapon. If I cut vegetables with a knife, it's not a weapon, But If I try to cut a person with a knife, it's a weapon. Definitions will give you no respite in this argument.
We are talking about accidents with WEAPONS. You want to talk knives, bows, and so forth, then go ahead. To equate an accident with a vehicle whose primary function is travel and a gun whose primary function is to injure and kill; then make the comparison. On face value it falls flat. Make your case. I am not resorting to strawman attacks. I am outright saying that I am discussing accidental and purposeful deaths involving weapons, you are discussing accidental deaths overall. I feel these are two distinct discussions.
A weapon is just an object that grants the ability to transform energy and force into a given direction with the intent to injury or kill. If I try to run someone over with a car, it's a weapon. If I cut vegetables with a knife, it's not a weapon, But If I try to cut a person with a knife, it's a weapon. Definitions will give you no respite in this argument.
What other purpose does a GUN have? Really, you want to make this argument? Also the kinds of knives used as weapons and a kitchen knife are usually very different kinds of knives. All a gun can do is injure or kill. If it served another purpose, then I would be less against them. The only decent argument anyone can make is the hunting argument, and I believe that a human life is worth more than a sport. Also, I am not looking for a respite in this argument, just a decent and convincing point. A paper clip can be lethal, doesn't mean it is its ONLY function and that someone can ACCIDENTLY kill someone with it without a freak occurrence.
What other purpose does a GUN have? Really, you want to make this argument? Also the kinds of knives used as weapons and a kitchen knife are usually very different kinds of knives. All a gun can do is injure or kill. If it served another purpose, then I would be less against them. The only decent argument anyone can make is the hunting argument, and I believe that a human life is worth more than a sport.
I would argue that it is HUMANS that assign a metaphysical meaning to inanimate objects. Also, lets face it. There is a real POINT to be made in the self-defense argument of handguns. The issue lays in lack of proper education and respect for guns. Fear of GUNS will not solve the issue. WE must strive to understand what are the underlying socio-economic issues that drive people to resort to VIOLENCE. An all out BAN of GUNS would not achieve your goals, but rather exponentiate them I'm afraid. GUN violence is a symptom of larger and far more scarier issues.
Did my accents help strengthen my argument? Besides, do you have an issue with people wishing to test their dexterity and hand-eye coordination with target shooting?
What other purpose does a GUN have? Really, you want to make this argument? Also the kinds of knives used as weapons and a kitchen knife are usually very different kinds of knives. All a gun can do is injure or kill. If it served another purpose, then I would be less against them. The only decent argument anyone can make is the hunting argument, and I believe that a human life is worth more than a sport.
I wouldarguethat it is HUMANS thatassignametaphysicalmeaning to inanimate objects. Also, lets face it. There is a real POINT to be made in theself-defenseargument ofhandguns. The issue lays in lack of proper education andrespectfor guns. Fear of GUNS will not solve the issue. WE must strive tounderstandwhat are the underlying socio-economic issues that drive people to resort toVIOLENCE. An all out BAN of GUNS would not achieve yourgoals, but rather exponentiate them I'm afraid. GUN violence is a symptom of larger and far more scarier issues.
Did my accents help strengthen my argument?
I am not saying that banning guns will end violence, nor even end gun violence. I am saying it is an excellent start to lessening it. The self defense point falls apart when statistics repeatedly show that own/utilize guns for self defense have a high rate of being injured or having a loved one injured by that very gun. As I said before, you can do all the education and training you want, but how a human will react in a stressful situation is not a certain thing. Taking out an unnecessary and dangerous element from that equation will equal less injury and less death.
I am not saying that banning guns will end violence, nor even end gun violence. I am saying it is an excellent start to lessening it. The self defense point falls apart when statistics repeatedly show that own/utilize guns for self defense have a high rate of being injured or having a loved one injured by that very gun. As I said before, you can do all the education and training you want, but how a human will react in a stressful situation is not a certain thing. Taking out an unnecessary and dangerous element from that equation will equal less injury and less death.
Citation needed. ^_^
And why are accidents involving guns more valid or more preventable than other accidents? Do you still have furniture in your house, it's a menace! MENACE I SAY!!!
In 1993, research showed 2.1 - 2.3 million defensive gun uses; the large majority of those uses did not involve firing, as the mere presence or threat of a gun was sufficient deterrent. That same year, there were 600,000 violent crimes committed with guns. Conclusions: guns prevented 4 times more crime than they caused in 1993.
The question I want answered, more than any other question in this thread, is why the fuck does the US have so much violent crime in the first place? Even if we have fewer crimes committed with knives than guns, we have a higher rate of knife crime than, say, the UK. Can we really blame the implements, or is there something else at work here?
The self defense point falls apart when statistics repeatedly show that own/utilize guns for self defense have a high rate of being injured or having a loved one injured by that very gun.
Source please. Oh, I see. You're just biased against guns. I mean, when you own a car and need to get around because it's serves a purpose, it's ok that it kills so many people. But when a gun saves one life, JUST ONE LIFE, it's still evil. I again revert back to my sources when it showed that only a fraction of child deaths related to guns are accidents.
Taking out an unnecessary and dangerous element from that equation will equal less injury and less death.
Think of how many people we could save if we eliminated cars! I mean, they aren't necessary anyways, we can just bike to work. Besides, it will save the environment too!
Channel Changer, Back-Scratcher, Padlock Destroyer. The list is really endless with a little creativity!
But, in all honesty, there is an important factor to the definition of weapons which is being forgotten. In a lot of cases of "good" gun owners, they're motivation is not to hurt anybody, but just to use it as an equalizer. One warning shot will send any harassers running.
Oh, and WhaleShark, I knew about that other topic. I just didn't really feel like searching.
Comments
The real question with all the US gun crime is: how many are committed with legally registered firearms?
There is never a justification for meeting words with violence. Never.
Fewer guns around reduces every one's likelihood of being killed by a gun.
Also, outspokenness should never, ever be a death sentence. If you are arguing that (which I hope you aren't) then you need to talk to Kilarney about anti-American sentiment.
EDIT: More importantly, your point of view that it is justifiable to resort to violence when you disagree with someone is the actual cause for many wars, particularly religious wars.
You completely missed the point of my argument. I said: I said nothing on the subjects of how to respond to threats of violence or violence itself. For your sake, I'll make my stance more clear.
Words must be met with words in kind, or with simply silence.
Violence must be met with words if possible, but with violence if not.
Threats are just words, but they are either a prelude to violence or altogether bluster. If threats are to be met with violence, you must be willing to accept all blame if your violence was unjustified.
My convictions are fairly straightforward on this point.
The vast majority of gun related deaths for children are criminal and intentional killings, while a fraction of those are accidental. So, before you get all emotional I suggest actually researching some facts before you form an argument.
All a gun can do is injure or kill. If it served another purpose, then I would be less against them. The only decent argument anyone can make is the hunting argument, and I believe that a human life is worth more than a sport. Also, I am not looking for a respite in this argument, just a decent and convincing point. A paper clip can be lethal, doesn't mean it is its ONLY function and that someone can ACCIDENTLY kill someone with it without a freak occurrence.
Did my accents help strengthen my argument? Besides, do you have an issue with people wishing to test their dexterity and hand-eye coordination with target shooting?
And why are accidents involving guns more valid or more preventable than other accidents? Do you still have furniture in your house, it's a menace! MENACE I SAY!!!
In 1993, research showed 2.1 - 2.3 million defensive gun uses; the large majority of those uses did not involve firing, as the mere presence or threat of a gun was sufficient deterrent. That same year, there were 600,000 violent crimes committed with guns. Conclusions: guns prevented 4 times more crime than they caused in 1993.
The question I want answered, more than any other question in this thread, is why the fuck does the US have so much violent crime in the first place? Even if we have fewer crimes committed with knives than guns, we have a higher rate of knife crime than, say, the UK. Can we really blame the implements, or is there something else at work here?
But, in all honesty, there is an important factor to the definition of weapons which is being forgotten. In a lot of cases of "good" gun owners, they're motivation is not to hurt anybody, but just to use it as an equalizer. One warning shot will send any harassers running.
Oh, and WhaleShark, I knew about that other topic. I just didn't really feel like searching.