Another shooting in the USA. Remind me about the reason for having guns again.

Vasquez on 27/8/2012 at 06:01

Quote Posted by Volitions Advocate

The only difference between a shovel, a rake, and a gun is the training and licensing involved to get one.

Minor difference being, with a shovel or a rake it's not very easy to kill anyone by accident, if for example a small child gets a hold of it.

june gloom on 27/8/2012 at 06:05

But you can kill someone pretty handily with say, a chainsaw or a drill. A tool is a tool.

Volitions Advocate on 27/8/2012 at 06:15

Quote Posted by Vasquez

, if for example a small child gets a hold of it.

That's why the training involves safe storage and handling. I've been firing guns since I was 7, and I've been safe doing it since then because my Dad and later The Government taught me how to do it properly.

Otherwise we're just talking Darwinism here. I find it amazing when I hear about somebody who's gun went off when they were cleaning it and they nearly killed the neighbour. Those people are just fucktards who shouldn't have gotten their license. And they should be charged criminally for their "accident".

I also live in Canada, not the U.S. so things are quite a bit different as far as guns are concerned, and its a big headache for the CBSA.

Still. I can't get a Magazine for my varmint rifle bigger than 5 cartridges, and there are teenagers on the streets of Calgary with uzis. So I see a need personally to be allowed to continue owning my guns. I'm running off on a tangent here though and dont' really mean to take it there.

Vasquez on 27/8/2012 at 06:58

Quote Posted by dethtoll

But you can kill someone pretty handily with say, a chainsaw or a drill.

Drill someone to death by accident?

demagogue on 27/8/2012 at 07:30

He could make the same point with grievous wounds; don't get stuck with the semantics. I will bet there are vastly more missing or mangled bodyparts from knives, saws, drills, & fires than guns. The point is you have to respect dangerous tools if you're going to use them. It cuts in both directions... Guns can be as safe as other tools if you pay attention to safety, other tools can be as dangerous as guns if you don't.

Where you still have a point is that an accident with most other tools doesn't have the same cost as a gun. Usually you're talking about losing a finger. With a gun you're talking about a mortal harm.

Vivian on 27/8/2012 at 12:07

Right, just to clarify - when I say 'guns' I mostly mean pistols and pistol like things (SMGs or whatever) and assault rifles and things in general meant for killing people. Rifles for hunting and target pistols etc can also be used for killing people, yes, but it's not what they're for. An automatic pistol isn't a tool, it's a weapon.

I think we could copy and paste this entire thread from the archives from here on in, so here's a picture of a bald man with a water balloon exploding on his head instead:

Inline Image:

http://laughingsquid.com/wp-content/uploads/807114b915609aaf22b180341a4aa384-593x640.jpg

catbarf on 27/8/2012 at 19:25

Quote Posted by heywood

According to the BBC article, the perp killed his victim with a point blank headshot and tried to walk away. After being tipped off by a construction worker, the cops confronted him, he pulled his gun, and the cops fired 14 rounds to take him down. That means the 9 wounded were almost certainly hit by police rounds.

It's beyond me why two trained police officers both needed to empty their magazines (or nearly so) to take down a guy at close range. It's also beyond me why the police would try to confront someone who is armed with a firearm and pumped with adrenaline in the middle of a crowd.

A friend sent me this article, which might go some way towards explaining the collateral damage:

(http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/08/foghorn/nypds-choice-of-firearm-may-have-contributed-to-the-terrible-shooting/)

Basically, most police in the US are given poor weapons, are insufficiently trained on them, and then not required to maintain a reasonable standard of skill in their use. Emptying an entire magazine into someone, however, is very much the standard response. Unless a bullet strikes the heart or brain, it is unlikely to cause immediate incapacitation except through shock. Someone coked-up and carrying an assault rifle probably won't even pause at getting hit before returning fire.

catbarf on 27/8/2012 at 19:37

Quote Posted by Vivian

Handguns are overwhelmingly the weapons used in crime, not assault rifles or submachine guns. Also, automatic weapons are considered Class III firearms and already require an ATF tax stamp to own, not to mention are pretty expensive.

Semi-automatic rifles are almost never used by criminals. Handguns are pretty much the only firearms usable for public self-defense. For the former there's really no reason to ban or restrict them, for the latter it would prevent firearms from being used for self defense, which can be an issue given the number of handguns already on the black market.

When it comes down to it, there's no substantial difference between a semi-automatic AR15 and something like a Ruger hunting rifle. There is no single feature, or even collection of features, that distinguishes a hunting weapon from a combat weapon. About the biggest difference might be magazine capacity, but California and New York both have heavy restrictions on magazine size and it's done nothing useful. The Aurora shooting, for example, wouldn't have been prevented if the guy had to spend two or three seconds changing magazines every ten rounds.

Please don't take this as me being pro-gun and jumping down your throat about it, because if there's one thing I agree on it's that more regulation is necessary. To my knowledge there isn't anywhere in the US where you can buy a gun without at least an instant background check, and things like documented psychological issues or criminal records should be immediate red flags. Lawmakers, however, seem much more interested in making laws based on trivial or irrelevant characteristics of guns like whether or not it has a folding stock or bayonet mount. More importantly, the kinds of guns the public thinks 'scary' are overwhelmingly more likely to be in the hands of a hunter, competition shooter, or plain guy defending his family against a break-in than in the hands of a criminal.

Volitions Advocate on 27/8/2012 at 20:32

I like the way you put that last paragraph catbarf.

Having to unload an entire magazine (2 in this case with 2 cops) on a guy to get him to hit the ground is pretty terrible. And the collateral damage is obviously a big concern ( 12 lbs? Double action only? are they friggen nuts? )

Truth being that with my guns at home, a single shot could kill a person instantly or at least dismember the area they get hit with. In my mind a rifle cartridge is infinitely more terrifying than a pistol cartridge. And its mainly the hunters and home hobbyists that have them, because no street banger will carry a winchester .300 around with them because they can't hide it in their pocket.

Granted, that doesn't mean I don't think handguns aren't scary. Every time I pick up a gun I assume its loaded, which means controlling the muzzle direction and never horsing around with it. I open the breach to take a look every single time I lay my hands on one. The type of damage a single bullet can do is terrifying, no matter the caliber. This again, comes down to training. And obviously its an issue for police too.

I can't get over that 12lbs double action only for police service pistols. The whole point in owning a firearm for defensive purposes is to defend yourself from the people who want to do you harm. So handicapping the police is just as bad as taking civilians guns away. Give the criminal who doesn't obey laws the upper hand? I dont understand the argument.

I've heard a lot of people arguing that if somebody in the Aurora theater had a gun, then things would've gone differently. I think that's an asinine argument. I *DO* however think that it has a vein of truth, and here's why:

If I were able to carry a pistol with me legally for the purposes of self defense (or good samaritan or whatever) I think I would be responsible in my conduct. I've been trained how to use it safely, I know how dangerous a firearm is, and I know what the consequences of misuse or horseplay are. I wouldn't be the guy pulling it out in the parking lot at wal mart to let me buddy "take a look" and pointing it at passing cars to "practice my aim". It would stay hidden and hopefully never ever used. I'd have a license, both to buy the gun and ammunition for it, and a license to carry it with me.

There is not only training for simple safe use, handling, and storage, but there are many schools and camps in the U.S. that teach proper self defense. How to use your vehicle as a barrier between you and the aggressor, watching the background and not shooting bystanders. All of that good stuff that the police (should) know.

Now you have 2 or 3 of those people, who know about guns, know the difference between a pistol and an assault rifle or a shotgun and could tell the difference, who are licensed, trained, competent and responsible, and yet just ordinary citizens, and put them in that colorado theater, and I WILL bet you things had gone differently, even if buddy had a shit load of body armor on. Those guys would've understood the risks and most likely wouldn't have mistakenly shot each other or anybody else in the theater except the bad guy. Training, Licensing. Both take effort, and both should be fully supported under the law of whatever country has the gun culture to work around, and then you give 100 people a fighting chance against a psychopath for 10 minutes until the cops can actually get there to respond.

That and you'd probably avoid situations like that Zimmerman asshole, who obviously wasn't trained to stop and think before pulling his dick out.

I guess i'm a little more passionate about the topic than I thought. I do think the USA should revise their legislation regarding guns, but I'm a Canadian and we have our own system. I wish I had a bit more freedom but there you have it. I'm not planning on doing anything illegal to get what I want in any case.

catbarf on 27/8/2012 at 21:04

I guess the real sticky issue is that the kinds of weapons criminals favor are also the only ones suitable for self-defense, and the big scary ones used by these mass shooters happen to be almost always in the hands of responsible citizens. There's no single class of gun, or feature, or accessory that is both used by criminals and for which there is no reasonable civilian use. Various lawmakers keep trying, but their approach is so ham-handed and more fueled by 80s action movies than evidence (ban pistol grips they let you shoot from the hip just like rambo!!1!1) that the almost rabid opposition by pro-gun lobbyists is not at all surprising.

Until it is sufficiently demonstrated that the issue lies in who has the hardware rather than any specific characteristic of the hardware itself, I don't think any real progress is going to be made.