Guns, Guns Guns

Daryl wrote:I'd agree that there is no statistical link between video games and violent acts. Sure many violent people do watch violent video games, but that's not surprising. People are drawn to what they already like.

As to mass murder and availability of guns, it is statistically obvious that the one developed country that has free access to guns has far and away the highest incidence of mass murder. Depending on your definition of mass shootings, one authority lists 298 in the USA in the first six months of 2015. To murder multiple people without guns is difficult and requires brains and endeavour. With auto or semiauto guns, any dope can do it easily.

Or access to a car(we had a spat of those a few years ago). Or access to household chemicals or ... really the list goes on and on. If someone is out to do mass murder say McVeigh how many did he get in one pop.

As has been pointed out, many times, guns are not the problem.

T2M

PS Thanks to SK for looking that stuff up.

thinkstoomuch wrote:

Daryl wrote:I'd agree that there is no statistical link between video games and violent acts. Sure many violent people do watch violent video games, but that's not surprising. People are drawn to what they already like.

As to mass murder and availability of guns, it is statistically obvious that the one developed country that has free access to guns has far and away the highest incidence of mass murder. Depending on your definition of mass shootings, one authority lists 298 in the USA in the first six months of 2015. To murder multiple people without guns is difficult and requires brains and endeavour. With auto or semiauto guns, any dope can do it easily.

Or access to a car(we had a spat of those a few years ago). Or access to household chemicals or ... really the list goes on and on. If someone is out to do mass murder say McVeigh how many did he get in one pop.

As has been pointed out, many times, guns are not the problem.

T2M

PS Thanks to SK for looking that stuff up.

Yet to many guns are the problem despite evidence to the contrary.

I believe its a fundamental difference in POVs regarding the Individual's place in society.

If sovereignty is held by the citizenry as a corporate body but not individually, then society is paramount. The law supports society first and foremost and individual finds a place where he or she may.

If sovereignty is held by the individual, then the individual is paramount. Society is simply the aggregated preferences of all the citizens. The law supports individuals first and foremost and society is shaped by what individuals choose to do.

The individual's right to bear arms is an expression that the individual is sovereign and has more than just a symbolic responsibility to defend that sovereignty and by extension the nation he/she lends his/her sovereignty to support. If a nation does not recognize the individual sovereignty of its citizens, there is no imperative to ensure that the individual has the tools to defend a sovereignty he or she does not possess. In this case government decides how the corporate sovereignty of the citizenry is defended.

The question has never been about defending freedom per se, it has always been about defending the liberty inherent the US's recognition of individual sovereignty.

I'm going to take this a step back. Please define what exactly you mean by sovereignity?

PeterZ wrote:Yet to many guns are the problem despite evidence to the contrary.

I believe its a fundamental difference in POVs regarding the Individual's place in society.

If sovereignty is held by the citizenry as a corporate body but not individually, then society is paramount. The law supports society first and foremost and individual finds a place where he or she may.

If sovereignty is held by the individual, then the individual is paramount. Society is simply the aggregated preferences of all the citizens. The law supports individuals first and foremost and society is shaped by what individuals choose to do.

The individual's right to bear arms is an expression that the individual is sovereign and has more than just a symbolic responsibility to defend that sovereignty and by extension the nation he/she lends his/her sovereignty to support. If a nation does not recognize the individual sovereignty of its citizens, there is no imperative to ensure that the individual has the tools to defend a sovereignty he or she does not possess. In this case government decides how the corporate sovereignty of the citizenry is defended.

The question has never been about defending freedom per se, it has always been about defending the liberty inherent the US's recognition of individual sovereignty.

The same the Oxford Dictionary defines it; the supreme power or authority.

Eyal wrote:I'm going to take this a step back. Please define what exactly you mean by sovereignity?

PeterZ wrote:Yet to many guns are the problem despite evidence to the contrary.

I believe its a fundamental difference in POVs regarding the Individual's place in society.

If sovereignty is held by the citizenry as a corporate body but not individually, then society is paramount. The law supports society first and foremost and individual finds a place where he or she may.

If sovereignty is held by the individual, then the individual is paramount. Society is simply the aggregated preferences of all the citizens. The law supports individuals first and foremost and society is shaped by what individuals choose to do.

The individual's right to bear arms is an expression that the individual is sovereign and has more than just a symbolic responsibility to defend that sovereignty and by extension the nation he/she lends his/her sovereignty to support. If a nation does not recognize the individual sovereignty of its citizens, there is no imperative to ensure that the individual has the tools to defend a sovereignty he or she does not possess. In this case government decides how the corporate sovereignty of the citizenry is defended.

The question has never been about defending freedom per se, it has always been about defending the liberty inherent the US's recognition of individual sovereignty.

Michael Everett wrote:Coyote attacks (and bear etc) do occur in certain areas of America. Guns are one of the cheapest way of preventing said attacks without wiping out the entire species. But in order to prevent said attack, the gun must be carried. It does no good locked in a super-secure-fifteen-padlocks gun cabinet.

Of course. But the place where the girl was killed for no good reason was an urban backyard.

Tell me a good reason for a kid to have easy and unchecked access to a firearm in that environment.

Which is of course why TTMs strawman personal attack was so irrelevant and useless, IF you actually bothered to think for even a second.

And why i replied in kind as i detest that kind of dishonest non-arguments and cowardly associative personal attacks.

Michael Everett wrote:The key (as far as I can see) is education! Catch the kids young and tell them that guns are tools that can be used, but must be used carefully!

And supervision. You just don´t let kids alone with dangerous things before you KNOW damn well that they can handle them beyond any shadow of doubt.

And really, what kind of family leaves children alone in a dangerous place?
Any place where a gun is truly a REQUIREMENT for safety, is not a place where you leave children alone. Or preferably do not move around alone regardless of age.

Unless you KNOW that they can handle it, guaranteed. And even then it is questionable.

Michael Everett wrote:Teach all school-age children the rules of gun safety and regularly drill them on it.

I think it would be a better idea to teach kids to understand what is dangerous and how to mitigate those dangers, because gun safety for all children would be really weird in most countries, as the probability of interacting with guns for most kids are close to nil.

Michael Everett wrote:Slam down hard on anyone who uses a gun to commit a crime (say, punishment for crime + X years for using firearm in course of crime). Slam down hard on those who commit a crime alongside someone who uses a gun.

Might work. Or at least help a bit.

Michael Everett wrote:Guns are tools. Specialized tools, but tools nonetheless.

No. Guns are weapons. Weapons can be used as tools, but weapons are primarily created to cause harm, while tools are not.

Michael Everett wrote:Interestingly, if you're within ten feet of someone who pulls out a gun, you've actually got a better chance of survival attacking them than running away, especially if you are using bare hands or a knife

Oh yes. Especially if the person with the gun thinks they´re superior pistoleros, but are not.

Of course, it´s still on average usually a better idea to run away, because you can´t know whether the person with the gun is a "gun-fu" fighter or exceptional pistolero, and running away both very quickly reduces the risk of getting hit by shots, and also reduces the probability of being fired at, as most shooters will fire first at whatever appears to be a danger.

Michael Everett wrote:Seriously.People who attack with guns tend to forget that they have feet, knees, elbows, a forehead and (usually) another hand to use. Stop them from hitting you with the gun and they generally don't adjust in time to stop you applying a knee to a place that'll stop anyone not wearing a cup.
A similar thing happens with knife-users, as I know from experience.

Yeah, but you really really do not want to try it against someone like me who is quite comfortable with using a gun in close combat.

Basic knowledge, if the person with a gun is holding it with an outstretched arm even though you´re very close, chances are decent they´re unable to handle getting engaged in hand to hand.

As for knives, if they´re holding it classic "downchop" ready style or almost like you might hold a candle(blade almost straight up with arm out in front of them), then they most likely don´t have a clue what they´re doing.

If you ever run into someone nasty who repeatedly keeps concealing the blade of the knife from you, run like hell, those are nearly always dangerous, either welltrained or psychos.

If they generally hold the blade near horizontal, chances are decent they´re competent with it.

Generalisations that are not automatically true, but often are.

PeterZ wrote:Those areas are much more numerous than is generally understood by those not living in the US. For example, I have seen coyotes in Denver. We have prairie dogs and rabbits all over our greenbelts and parks. So long as there are enough small game for them, they don't attack people. They do attack dogs and fences are not nearly the barrier they appear to be. The problem is much worse when the homes are outside the city and fenced animals are much easier prey than jackrabbits and prairie dogs.

I have a friend living in one of the mountain communities that walks his dogs armed with a pistol. He has seen bears and coyotes frequently enough to take precautions. If he feels at risk, won't youngsters be equally at risk?

I see coyotes regularly when I walk my dogs. My wife's lapdog represents a snack for one of them. We don't live outside the city.

There´s bear literally within sightrange here.
Wolves are in the area.
I´ve seen both at less than 30m. A wolf at less than 5m.

Why would i need a gun? I only got a glimpse of the bear because it instantly ran off when it noticed me.
The wolf i scared enough that when it became aware of me it jumped like a fricking rabbit and then rushed off as if chased by a flamethrower.

Elks are MUCH more dangerous. Boars likewise. Both are far more numerous.
And while badgers are not big enough to be as dangerous, they´re plenty dangerous enough because they are so damned aggressive.

It´s so totally ridiculous "those not living in the US"... It´s totally laughable. Australia is immensly more dangerous than USA on average.

And northern half of Sweden, where i live, easily has enough nasty wildlife to be a threat as much as all but the worst areas in the US.
The real difference that CAN be found is the absence of "big cats" here, and no rattlesnakes or similar aggressive/lethal snakes, but guns are somewhat useless against dangerous snakes anyway. If you see them early, they´re not really a major problem, if you see them late, you don´t really get a chance to shoot them.

smr wrote:1) Mass Shootings happen in countries where weapons are banned. Now, 1st pov shooter games make it easier to kill people by desensitizing people to shooting at human targets.

Yes, but just barely ever compared to where guns are common. For example, try listing the last 10 mass shootings in Japan.
And by the way, even there, guns are still NOT banned, just extremely restricted.

PeterZ wrote:
Yet to many guns are the problem despite evidence to the contrary.

I believe its a fundamental difference in POVs regarding the Individual's place in society.

If sovereignty is held by the citizenry as a corporate body but not individually, then society is paramount. The law supports society first and foremost and individual finds a place where he or she may.

If sovereignty is held by the individual, then the individual is paramount. Society is simply the aggregated preferences of all the citizens. The law supports individuals first and foremost and society is shaped by what individuals choose to do.

The individual's right to bear arms is an expression that the individual is sovereign and has more than just a symbolic responsibility to defend that sovereignty and by extension the nation he/she lends his/her sovereignty to support. If a nation does not recognize the individual sovereignty of its citizens, there is no imperative to ensure that the individual has the tools to defend a sovereignty he or she does not possess. In this case government decides how the corporate sovereignty of the citizenry is defended.

The question has never been about defending freedom per se, it has always been about defending the liberty inherent the US's recognition of individual sovereignty.

What a complete load of rubbish.


Evidence to the contrary, really. Strange how we haven´t seen much of that isn´t it.


And your delusions about differences in sovereignty is just strange. You keep bringing it up, yet you consistently fail to show that there´s any realism in the claim.
While others repeatedly and consistently show the that its bollocks.

PeterZ wrote:The same the Oxford Dictionary defines it; the supreme power or authority.

Ah yes, so lets see then, "All offentlig makt i Sverige utgår från folket.", that´s the first text of the first paragraph of what is the Swedish equal to the US constitution.

~"All public power in Sweden is based on/comes from the people."
That´s a quick and dirty translation as in this case it is simply not possible to make a perfect translation.

First part of 2nd paragraph "Den offentliga makten skall utövas med respekt för alla människors lika värde och för den enskilda människans frihet och värdighet." then extends on that to specify that the state must respect the individuals(equal value, freedom and dignity).

So, do explain how that differs from the US constitution, neh?

A big issue on the mass killings (less so on the individual ones) always seems to come back as mental health. These individuals almost always exhibit symptoms of mental illness well in advance of their attacks. Our mental health system is appalling. For those of you in other countries how do your mental health systems deal with individuals of this type? Keeping in mind that for every mass killer there is something like 10,000 people exhibiting similar symptoms who are not going to attack.