More guns, no guns, gun control? *BANG! BANG!!*

[Ace Rimmer]

The point is that in such cases, the killing is not an act of aggression, but an act of mercy (from the killer's point of view). The aggressor is more likely to be depressed than angry, and generally wants to make things quick and painless. The superior speed and strength are less likely to be a factor, as beating or choking a person to death fails to meet the quick and painless criteria. Assuming that the football player fell into this rationale, it is entirely possible that his partner would still be alive if not for the gun. It is, unfortunately, unknowable, but perfectly reasonable to make the claim.

I would like to argue that guns are not the most effective and quick methods of killing. Mythbusters!

Fun fact: Googleing this: "are guns the most effective killing weapon" produces many sites about killing zombies. Hahahaha.

[xander]

The point is that in such cases, the killing is not an act of aggression, but an act of mercy (from the killer's point of view). The aggressor is more likely to be depressed than angry, and generally wants to make things quick and painless. The superior speed and strength are less likely to be a factor, as beating or choking a person to death fails to meet the quick and painless criteria. Assuming that the football player fell into this rationale, it is entirely possible that his partner would still be alive if not for the gun. It is, unfortunately, unknowable, but perfectly reasonable to make the claim.

I would like to argue that guns are not the most effective and quick methods of killing. Mythbusters!

Fun fact: Googleing this: "are guns the most effective killing weapon" produces many sites about killing zombies. Hahahaha.

The point was about perception, not reality. Most people believe that guns are quick and painless.

xander

[Ace Rimmer]

Well, if you're serious enough to go through with killing others as well as yourself, you'd probably want to find out reality and not rely on perception. Yes?

Also,

[Feud]

Speaking of all this, nothing like a quick oil and maintenance during a study break.

[xander]

Well, if you're serious enough to go through with killing others as well as yourself, you'd probably want to find out reality and not rely on perception. Yes?

Also, :P

I have repeatedly suggested that crazy people don't think straight, and your rebuttal is that a sane person wouldn't think in the manner in which a crazy person would think. I don't understand what your point is.

xander

[Ace Rimmer]

I was mostly being silly, however, I'd argue most sane people don't think straight.

In truth, I think in the situation we're talking about, there was at least some amount of planning as he went to have a chat before he killed himself. In this situation, I don't think it's at all out of line to suggest he would have had a reason and taken time himself to find out the best method of 'quick and painless', which was your assertion. Most likely, he was probably going for 'quick and easy'.

My rebuttal wasn't that a crazy person would think sanely. Crazy people do think with some amount of sanity all the time. In fact, who's to say he was crazy? That is, what defines a crazy person?

[xander]

In truth, I think in the situation we're talking about,

I was originally making a large generalization. I don't know very much about this particular situation. What I said was that there are circumstances that appear superficially similar to the current situation in which a lack of access to a firearm would probably save lives. In this particular situation (or any specific situation), it is impossible to say. I am speaking of aggregate data, not specific examples.

...there was at least some amount of planning as he went to have a chat before he killed himself.

Planning does not preclude bad planning. Having the time to make a plan does not mean that the person making the plan is competent to choose the quickest and most painless methods available. The planner may honestly believe that firearms are quick an painless---I mean, they certainly look that way on TV! You are projecting your superior knowledge onto a class of people who may not have that knowledge.

In this situation, I don't think it's at all out of line to suggest he would have had a reason and taken time himself to find out the best method of 'quick and painless', which was your assertion. Most likely, he was probably going for 'quick and easy'.

This does not contradict anything I said.

My rebuttal wasn't that a crazy person would think sanely. Crazy people do think with some amount of sanity all the time. In fact, who's to say he was crazy? That is, what defines a crazy person?

Again, I said that a person who is willing to kill another probably is not thinking like you or I, and you rebut by claiming that if you were to kill someone, you would do it differently. It is irrelevant. And now you want to argue semantics.

xander

[Ace Rimmer]

Perhaps I just like provoking responses from a better debater. Stewsburntmonkey isn't around anymore.

Also, it's funny you mention TV when I posted a clip from TV... (yes, yes, not entirely the 'same' discussion, but funny regardless)

The planner may honestly believe that firearms are quick an painless---I mean, they certainly look that way on TV! You are projecting your superior knowledge onto a class of people who may not have that knowledge.

[Raventhorne]

Trying to ban guns is a waste of time. Making them illegal wont stop criminals.. it's already illegal for them to have them, yet they do... so why ban us from protecting ourselves?

[zjoere]

Because we are insane?

[xander]

Trying to ban guns is a waste of time. Making them illegal wont stop criminals.. it's already illegal for them to have them, yet they do... so why ban us from protecting ourselves?

That is the most vacuous logic that I have ever heard. First, there is no 100% effective way of stopping a motivated person from doing anything. However, making it more difficult to do something is going to weed out all but the very most motivated. Second, you are painting a black and white picture: either everyone gets all the guns they want, or we ban them. Only the lunatic fringes on either side believe either of these statements. Most people would call for something between the ends. Personally, I would like to see registration of firearms, deeper background checks, bans on more powerful weapons (honestly---what do you need a AR15 for?), and a reduction in availability overall. Finally, you are making the assumption that possession of a firearm would allow someone to protect themselves. On the other hand, it could just as easily escalate a bad situation---imagine if there had been one or two well armed citizens in that darkened theater in Aurora a few months back. Do you really think that they would have been able to do much of anything to help in all of the confusion and panic? Would it really have been helpful for the staff of Sandy Hook to have firearms? or would it have been a potential risk to the students? Your single run on sentence of a post if so full of false dichotomies and straw men that I honestly don't see how anyone could take it seriously...

xander

[Foxsake]

You're much more likely to be a victim of a shooting if you're carrying a gun. (By about 4.5 times)
For me, that's a pretty good reason not to carry a gun.

One other interesting thing is comparing the stats in Feud's 2004 BBC story to much more recent stats, 8 years on. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3761626.stm

Also, articles like this, stating 35% rise in UK gun crime http://www.humanevents.com/2012/12/15/g ... re-banned/ and then citing a daily mail article which was written nine years earlier...

When the actual 'raw' stats (all I could find is London, but that's going to be worse than the UK average, and it supports my point) http://www.citizensreportuk.org/news/20 ... 2006-2011/

I don't use stats to prove a particular point, more than they are usually presented with opinion dressed up as fact and conclusion.

Of course this is quite funny too, but it could just as easily something random like the number of pirates or shopping malls per capita too. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringo ... graph.html

[Feud]

You're much more likely to be a victim of a shooting if you're carrying a gun. (By about 4.5 times)
For me, that's a pretty good reason not to carry a gun.

Those statistics generally don't factor into whether you're obeying the law or not. A gang member getting shot by a rival gang member, for example, would count. When you remove such factors, the numbers drop a lot.

Also, everyone argues about escalation. I'd like to see some facts to actually back that up.

[rus|Mike]

You're much more likely to be a victim of a shooting if you're carrying a gun. (By about 4.5 times)

Do you have an explanation for that? I find it really hard to believe that it's happening for any reason other than the one Feud pointed to.

That is the most vacuous logic that I have ever heard. First, there is no 100% effective way of stopping a motivated person from doing anything. However, making it more difficult to do something is going to weed out all but the very most motivated.

Am I not understanding something? I was under impression that criminals use criminally obtained weapons anyway and ban of legal weapons is not going to affect them.

Myself being from the country where firearms are "banned", I can tell you that law-abiding citizens are the only ones affected by this ban. In fact, the statistics on gun violence seem to be so bad that they don't even release them. But if we apply UN data on average percentage of gun homicides in all homicides (60%) to an official number of murders in Russia (10.2 per 100k), we will get a figure (6.12 per 100k) that is actually twice as big as the US one (3.7 per 100k).

I would like to see guns most suited for self-defense (pistols, etc) being available to anyone who wishes to go through registration process and military-grade weapons (AK-47, etc) either banned or only available after strict background checks for people who can justify a need to own such weapon.

[Xocrates]

That is the most vacuous logic that I have ever heard. First, there is no 100% effective way of stopping a motivated person from doing anything. However, making it more difficult to do something is going to weed out all but the very most motivated.

Am I not understanding something? I was under impression that criminals use criminally obtained weapons anyway and ban of legal weapons is not going to affect them.

Most of gun based crime occurs with legally obtained guns. Therefore reducing access to guns could dissuade a fair amount of potential criminals.

Myself being from the country where firearms are "banned", I can tell you that law-abiding citizens are the only ones affected by this ban. In fact, the statistics on gun violence seem to be so bad that they don't even release them. But if we apply UN data on average percentage of gun homicides in all homicides (60%) to an official number of murders in Russia (10.2 per 100k), we will get a figure (6.12 per 100k) that is actually twice as big as the US one (3.7 per 100k).

Russia is not the US.

If you compare the US with countries with similar standards of living but with gun bans, the numbers aren't quite as favourable. Assuming this or this to be correct, the US has murder rates that quadruple most of EU, or countries like Canada or Australia.

Russia has a notoriously high rate, as does Africa and South America. But there are larger social issues at hand there, those are mostly absent in the US which really has no excuse for its murder/firearm crime rate.