Potent_Ambition: Let's see.

Pro Gun-Control- Look, he had a knife and nobody got killed, just injured.

Anti Gun-Control- Look, he had a knife and was still able to go on a rampage,

A rampage in which nobody died.

Your summations seem far from equivalent.

The facts (a rampage occurred but nobody died) seem to favor one position over the other.

Bravo Two: Very few people understand this, and THINK firearms are the way to go. You really have to hit the brain stem or use a type of firearm that causes enough trauma to the brain to cause cessation of all neurological function for it to not make a difference to the physical body.

Agreed.... if I was to that point, I'd much rather take some sort of delayed-reaction poison before I went to sleep and just not wake up.

So..no one died?

We've got a 350+ thread about an attack where NO ONE died?

phenn: lennavan: phenn: Not sure how effective pepper spray and tasers are when the YouTubes is filled with videos of people shaking it off like a sneeze.

YouTube is also filled with videos of people dropping like flies when they're hit with a taser.  What exactly is your point?  There's just no way your point can be a gun is more likely to drop someone quickly and more effectively than a taser, right?

phenn: When someone is coming at them, I can guarantee you they reach for their piece.

That's odd because YouTube is filled with cops tasering people when someone is coming at them.

My point is that my best line of defense against a home invader is my firearm.

As I've said in these threads before, I've been a victim and have no intention of going back there.

You can slice the argument any way you choose. Matters not to me. I have a right to defend my life. And my revolver or rifle are the best tools I have to do so.

Who has threatened to take them away?

lostcat: gunrunner:
.....then we are in agreement....if we could get more people to embrace this solution I think we could progress further in making our nation safer.

dletter: Bravo Two: Very few people understand this, and THINK firearms are the way to go. You really have to hit the brain stem or use a type of firearm that causes enough trauma to the brain to cause cessation of all neurological function for it to not make a difference to the physical body.

Agreed.... if I was to that point, I'd much rather take some sort of delayed-reaction poison before I went to sleep and just not wake up.

This. I started studying ballistics and wound trauma because of my being suicidal. I know a hell of a lot about how bullets work in the body, to the point of understanding how to inflict the most damage per shot possible. What I also know is that if I'm going to go for a quick, painless death, I'm going for an overdose of morphine or horse trainquilizer rather than a gun. Shoot up enough of that stuff, you WILL die and it WILL NOT hurt because it will both put the brain into a comatose state and dull the pain recepters enough to not even notice.

Then there's always going out by being frozen to death. In a cold enough environment, it happens in seconds, and your body quickly goes from really fscking cold to warm, and then you fall asleep.

Even jumping in front of a train isn't 100%. The body is far more resilient than we give it credit for, much to the detriment of people who just want to farking die.

lostcat: gunrunner: justtray: lostcat: justtray: MassAsster: Honestly - it's just proof that banning crap doesn't work

Because this wacko couldn't , or didn't get a hold of a gun, he found another weapon to use..  Crazy is crazy, doesn't matter what you ban or restrict, how about fixing the god damn crazy...

Not sure if stupid or retarded...

Bravo Two: WTF Indeed: It's a good thing gun control advocates have been pushing a massive mental health overhaul instead of banning weapons rarely used in gun crimes.

I know!

We're waiting for that massive mental health overhaul plan. Lay it on us whenever you think we're ready for it. Be sure to explain where the funding comes from as well, can't wait to hear your response on that.

Come on...The Replublican-controlled congress is clearly motivated to increase funding for programs that would aid those with mental health issues. Haven't they made that clear by all of their historic votes?

I just love how exactly 0 of the people who make the better mental health argument have proposed even a single mental health solution. Biggest deflection ever.

      fine..you want it, you got it....Bring back the psychiatric hospitals that used to be a safe haven for those who seek to do harm to themselves and others.  It is practically impossible to institutionalize someone in the modern day America.  So what happens?...well, the mentally ill are forced to live on the street and try to scrape by on begging or prostitution and are often preyed upon by others.  Those caught committing crimes are tossed into a already overburdened department of corrections system are are preyed upon by fellow inmates.  Psychiatric hospitals currently now are used to house the criminally insane "forensic studies" inmates and most are basically ultra max prisons. In Illinois, we used to have about 10 psychiatric hospitals and now I believe only 2 or 3 are open and those are at greatly reduced capacity.
        The benefit of psych hospitals threefold.  Patients are ...

I think I also covered this to some degree, but basically, there are ways to do it and make it pretty transparent/cost effective. However, unfortunately, it's not popular.

phenn: Lionel Mandrake: Who has threatened to take them away?

No one. Today. But, if you read these threads, some on the pro-gun control side of the debate get mighty agitated. There's been plenty of ban all guns quacking on Fark as of late.

You think anonymous people on FARK are representative of...something?

If a politician suggested banning handguns, how long would s/he last?  Especially in a position of significant authority.

I'm all for some gun control, and certainly I'm all for discussing (realistic) options, but if someone suggested banning handguns I'd be the first to tell them to STFU.

Well, probably not the first...but I'd do it

JungleBoogie: 3) So, if we're going to have lethal weapons freely available in society, the only alternative, if we wish to reduce the frequency and severity of massacres, is to focus on the mental health of the population, and create a legal system which allows more in-patient treatment and outright institutionalization in mental hospitals, of those deemed to be a threat to themselves or to society. And also, the need to create a more robust mental health system in general.

That's crazy talk.

JungleBoogie: So, if we're going to have lethal weapons freely available in society, the only alternative, if we wish to reduce the frequency and severity of massacres, is to focus on the mental health of the population, and create a legal system which allows more in-patient treatment and outright institutionalization in mental hospitals, of those deemed to be a threat to themselves or to society. And also, the need to create a more robust mental health system in general.

Hey, if we get universal health care, including mental health care, that focuses on people and not profit, I'll shut the hell up about guns forever.  Whatever the effect on school shootings, there would be a net decrease in overall fatality and a net increase in quality of life for most people.  I'll take that trade.

Sweaty Dynamite: [i641.photobucket.com image 720x344]

Crazy people with a gun are far more dangerous than crazy people without one.

Your post is as stupid as "banning all guns will eliminate gun violence"

justtray: Are you trolling or just a moron?

You think the right to not quarter soldiers in peacetime is of equal importance to the 1st? or 2nd?

So if they are equal, you're clearly not opposed to registering all weapons, just like you have to register to vote then right?

Idiot.


Speaking of idiots have you looked in the mirror Lately?

Yes they are all equal; but your false equivalency isn't.

When you vote do they record who you vote for? Didn't think so; registering to vote is like the background check when you purchase a firearm, it verifies that you are legally able to exercise that right, it has nothing to do with the govt. keeping track of how you exercise that right, like gun registration does. See the difference Moron?

lennavan: phenn: Not sure how effective pepper spray and tasers are when the YouTubes is filled with videos of people shaking it off like a sneeze.

YouTube is also filled with videos of people dropping like flies when they're hit with a taser.  What exactly is your point?  There's just no way your point can be a gun is more likely to drop someone quickly and more effectively than a taser, right?

phenn: When someone is coming at them, I can guarantee you they reach for their piece.

That's odd because YouTube is filled with cops tasering people when someone is coming at them.

A taser, just for the fun of it, operates by using an electrical charge to override the impulses going to the muscles, involuntarily causing them to lock up and/or cause enough feedback in the central nervous system to cause the subject to pass out.

A gunshot wound is essentially nothing more than a piercing trauma, no different than shoving a stick, sword, spear, or other bluntish object through the body. It does not cause any level of massive injury disproportionate to any other object of similar energy.  In fact, with the exception of heavy rifle calibers, the damage done is pretty limited only to the wound channel created and the tissue immediately surrounding it.  This is why if you're looking for rapid incapacitation, the rule of thumb is larger holes and more energy (velocity/projectile weight).

If anything, the taser is a superior weapon in that it's more likely to stop an attacker *Right there*, but it's also an inferior weapon in that you basically have to give it up and/or stop applying electricity in order to retreat, making something that's shoot-it-and-forget-it a better choice.

If I had the option to carry nonlethal electric pulse projectiles in my firearm instead of bullets, and knew that they would discharge for X seconds allowing me to get the hell away, I might choose to have my primary mag loaded with that instead such that I only resort to lethal force if I absolutely have to.

JungleBoogie: gunrunner:

So you agree.   Dude...why can't some politicians just browse FARK for talking points....we know they are already here for the boobies and stories about stuff up people's butts.

lennavan: Bravo Two: Some of us here attempt to have reasonable discussions with intelligent, considered positions, regardless of the shiathole we must conduct them in.

Look, I don't want you to lose what I'm saying here.  You've outlined your position, which I bet I agree with your conclusions, or at least most of them.  But part of your reasoning is regulating guns is irrelevant to suicide and bans/regulations don't work.  Both of those are demonstrably false.

You think if someone doesn't have a gun, they'll find a different way to commit suicide.  When handguns were banned in DC, suicide by handguns went down.  Suicide by all other means combined stayed the same.  That directly contradicts what you are saying.  The data do not support your reasoning.

Be against handgun bans because the pros don't outweigh the cons.  But don't pretend like those pros don't exist.

Okay, i'll concede that point. :)

vrax: lennavan: phenn: lennavan: I agree you have a right to defend your life. I agree with your right to own a firearm to defend yourself. I don't agree with your pretending like it is the only or best method to do so. You own a gun, you are therefore significantly more likely to die from a gun. That's fine, that's your choice to make. I get it, you'd rather have a higher chance of dying as a result of your own actions than a lower chance of dying where you can't do anything about it. It's about maintaining power instead of being helpless. I completely get it.

But there's just no way you can make a societal argument guns are the best method of defense. It's a personal choice

Okay. Name a better tool that is legal for me to own.

Why don't you drop your raged up defense of guns for just a second and re-read what I just posted.  I cannot name a better tool for you to own.  For your own personal situation, a gun is the best.  You're okay with a higher chance of death in return for increasing the chance you control the situation.  Fine.  But for others, maximizing their chances of survival defines what is better so owning a farking toothbrush or a candy bar instead would be better.

He just doesn't understand these things:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check

We all by now agree that having an object increases the risk that that object may be involved in something bad happening to us. I'm more likely to get in a car accident if I own/drive a car. I'm more likely to get bitten by a dog if I own a dog than if I don't.

However, isn't it just a wee bit disingenuous to assume correlation = causation and ignore every other factor? Because I'm pretty sure if we continue with that logic, we could pretty much correlate availability of doughnuts and fast food with obesity rates, too.

Now back the  the  actual subject, I just found this on  the  Bee about Slashy:

Chalfan described the man as "eccentric," saying he often wore gloves and was known to carry stuffed animals. He said although the man was teased by fellow students, he remained friendly.

Yup no mental issues here folks!


Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/04/09/5328177/1-arrested-in-stabbing-at-ho u ston.html#storylink=cpy

lennavan: Bravo Two: Honestly? because if someone wants to commit suicide, they will commit suicide

That's a fundamentally incorrect view of suicide.  Much like pretty much everything, you need both means and motive.  Just because someone has the motive to kill themselves, does not mean they will actually do it.  If you ban handguns, suicide rates go down.  As it turns out, it's a teensie bit easier to kill yourself with a gun than it is with something else, so the bar to suicide is a bit lower with a gun.

And if i'm committed to killing myself, then I'll do what I have to do.

Besides, Japan and other countries have a much higher incidence of suicide with a much lower gun ownership rate. How do you figure that, if it's just a matter of a gunmaking it convenient? Wouldn't that mean that the US should be the highest rate in suicides, simply because we have the highest number of guns?

udhq: To my knowledge, no one is suggesting it is an either/or between gun access reforms and mental healthcare.

I do, however, find myself having this same argument with a lot of people who spent the last 4 years fighting the expansion of mental healthcare in the ACA.

From all the people who failed to support healthcare reform--including the NRA--the mental healthcare argument is merely a smokescreen, a roundabout way of arguing that we should do nothing to address the issue of gun violence.

I, personally, am arguing that it's a very real issue that affects far more americans in far more ways than gun violence, which is already declining, and that the ratio of gun control : mental healthcare/resolving the causative issues of gun violence should be much more weighted towards the latter.

Frankly, I'm disinterested in addressing any kind of violence or problem merely by bandaiding the means to commit it. I'm more interested in resolving the problem by seeking out and treating what caused the person to go that route in the first place.

But, as I said upthread, It's far easier and simpler for people to combat the problems by simply removing the tools with which the problem manifests, rather than fighting the root, because that would take more effort and much more introspection and long-term planning, along with a fundamental shift in society's views about being committed to actually helping each other. It's much more simplistic to simply say "nope, you don't get to have a gun" and wipe their hands of the mess, even if that didn't really fix the individual.  And THAT pisses me off, as does half-assing ANY solution.

I wouldn't, for example, go into a house with a leaking roof that caused rot in ceiling plaster and beams and simply replace the plaster with waterproof stuff and say "there, now the roof can't cave in or rot because the materials aren't subject to it!" and figure I'd fixed the problem. The leak's still there, it just can't damage those particular items.

Likewise, I wouldn't look at my kid who liked to beat the dog for fun and say "Gee, well, I'll just get rid of the dog, so then he can't beat it!" instead of saying "Gee, my kid's farked up and needs help".

But, sure, let's continue to ignore the problems of the individual person and instead be a society that just keeps restricting things because we're afraid of the tool and not the wielder.

BSABSVR: Farking gingers

[img.gawkerassets.com image 640x360]

Hahahaha the last post

"You are so going to get laid. Don't mess with texas!"

lennavan: Bravo Two: Besides, Japan and other countries have a much higher incidence of suicide with a much lower gun ownership rate. How do you figure that, if it's just a matter of a gunmaking it convenient?

You simply cannot be suggesting I might think suicide is solely a function of access to guns, can you?

No, i'm simply pointing out that it's silly to argue that the removal of a tool used for suicide automatically permanently reduces the number, because in other cases where that tool is not available, the rates are as high as or higher. And, I suspect, once the initial change has worn off and people need to be more creative or look at other alternatives to commit their deed, the numbers will go back up again, just with other means being used.