Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WSMV Nashville)   Senator Campfield posted a photo that has been circulating on many gun rights websites, showing what is titled as an "assault pressure cooker" and includes labels such as "tactical pistol grip" and "can cook for hours without reloading"   (wsmv.com) divider line 270
    More: Dumbass, Campfield, Channel 4 News, assault pressure cooker, Sandy Hook Elementary School, senator  
•       •       •

3712 clicks; posted to Politics » on 23 Apr 2013 at 10:11 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



270 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-23 11:46:01 AM  

vpb: Gun nuts take that "we can't have gun control because other things kill people too" argument seriously.
I don't think it's trolling.


The argument is that it's not the guns that are killing people. It's the crazy people behind them. Take away a crazy person's gun and they'll still manage to kill people with other objects. Let's work on reducing the crazy person problem instead of the object problem.
 
2013-04-23 11:47:29 AM  
I don't get this, it wasn't the pressure cooker that killed folks, it was the explosives, and those are already pretty controlled.  After all, they had to resort to black powder or smokeless, as oppose to something more deadly like dynamite, CD, ANFO, etc.

And don't explosives have markers these days to better track sources?

If you wanted to subject guns to the same amount of regulation, I don't think many gun saftey folks would object.
 
2013-04-23 11:47:56 AM  

jrodr018: So I am not sure what your intentions are, and you may have the best intentions in the world, but why would you even compare them to our specific situation then? Even Sweden has a far more strict gun control, you need to be a citizen in good standing (maybe do a check on a person background, let's call it a "personal background check"), I do not need to be part of a hunting club for at least 6 months,etc. Sorry for the snark, but I hate it when people bring out these countries and make them out to be a gun utopia, it is a gun utopia because people are actually responsible with their weapons. But what the hell do I know?


That's the nail on the head, people are responsible with their weapons. What makes them responsible? That's what we need to focus on. Is there legislation? Mental health? Societal Influence? Economic influence? Maybe we're looking in the wrong place.

I compared them in response to an argument:

jrodr018: that countries with strict gun regulation have dramatically lower rates of gun violence and homicide in general

 
2013-04-23 11:48:05 AM  

Lando Lincoln: vpb: Gun nuts take that "we can't have gun control because other things kill people too" argument seriously.
I don't think it's trolling.

The argument is that it's not the guns that are killing people. It's the crazy people behind them. Take away a crazy person's gun and they'll still manage to kill people with other objects. Let's work on reducing the crazy person problem instead of the object problem.


They kill a lot less people, which is kind of the goal
 
2013-04-23 11:51:15 AM  

MichiganFTL: PopularFront: Dimensio: vpb: Gun nuts take that "we can't have gun control because other things kill people too" argument seriously.
I don't think it's trolling.

Gun ban advocates claim that pistol grips and collapsing stocks enhance the lethality of a rifle. I know that it is not trolling; they really are that stupid.

Technically, they make the gun viable in scenarios that they would otherwise be unwieldy -- like indoors or in close quarters.   It doesn't make the bullets any more deadly but it does make the weapon more deadly.

If that was their big concern, they would have grabbed a bullpup.


I'm surprised it wasn't on their list.   Their lack of technical knowledge about guns has certainly been an obstacle for them.  I think it's disingenuous, however, to pretend that certain guns aren't better for mass shootings than others.
 
2013-04-23 11:54:30 AM  

CPennypacker: Lando Lincoln: vpb: Gun nuts take that "we can't have gun control because other things kill people too" argument seriously.
I don't think it's trolling.

The argument is that it's not the guns that are killing people. It's the crazy people behind them. Take away a crazy person's gun and they'll still manage to kill people with other objects. Let's work on reducing the crazy person problem instead of the object problem.

They kill a lot less people, which is kind of the goal


Bombs, arson and crashes are better for widespread indiscriminate killing. Even a shouted word can easily kill more people in the proper circumstance than a lone madman with an AR-15.

Is an AR-15 good for defending from the three home invaders in your living room? Yes.

Is it ideal for killing as many people as possible, as quickly as possible? No.

This is question we have to propose for our mass murder/spree killer, what tool is 'ideal'. You cannot judge different tools by different standards and call it equitable, or claim that a gun is more efficient than anything else without some reasoning behind it. Here, let me show you a demonstration using some real-world examples.

Virginia Tech massacre.
Perpetrator: Seung-Hui Cho, a physically healthy senior at Virginia Tech.
Resources: Two handguns, over 170 rounds fired.
Planning Elements: Brought along chains to seal doors to prevent escape/police response.
Death toll: 32 (5.3 bullets per death)

Daegu Metro Fire
Perpetrator: Kim Dae-han, a 56 year-old unemployed former taxi driver who had suffered a stroke that left him partly paralyzed.
Resources: Two milk cartons of gasoline, a lighter.
Planning Elements: None.
Death Toll: 198

There we go: whats more efficient for killing a bunch of people, some pistols or a jug of gasoline?

Lets take it to the theoretical, and assume a pair of people that want to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible, with similar planning and execution resources, including time, money, and intelligence.

Firearms:
Planning: Seek a location free of possible threat, like a school. Find a suitable target that can be isolated to prevent escape/interference. Discover time and approach methods most efficient to entrap as many people as possible and render them helpless for execution.
Resources: Chains for door securing, guns, magazines, ammunition, transport.
Expected Death Toll: 6-70
Examples: Seung-Hui Cho, Brevik.

Arson:
Planning: Many options - a possible target is nightclubs.
Resources: Chains, pipes (for wedging doors<--->alley wall), flammable materials (may also be found on site). Transport.
Expected Death Toll: 7-309 Examples: Kiss nightclub fire, The Station nightclub fire
Bonus: Greater chance of escaping police custody and repeating actions.
 
2013-04-23 11:54:59 AM  

CPennypacker: Lando Lincoln: vpb: Gun nuts take that "we can't have gun control because other things kill people too" argument seriously.
I don't think it's trolling.

The argument is that it's not the guns that are killing people. It's the crazy people behind them. Take away a crazy person's gun and they'll still manage to kill people with other objects. Let's work on reducing the crazy person problem instead of the object problem.

They kill a lot less people, which is kind of the goal


Reducing the number of crazed and dispossessed people reduces the number of people they kill just the same as reducing the effectiveness of each individual crazed and dispossessed.
 
2013-04-23 11:55:47 AM  

PopularFront: MichiganFTL: PopularFront: Dimensio: vpb: Gun nuts take that "we can't have gun control because other things kill people too" argument seriously.
I don't think it's trolling.

Gun ban advocates claim that pistol grips and collapsing stocks enhance the lethality of a rifle. I know that it is not trolling; they really are that stupid.

Technically, they make the gun viable in scenarios that they would otherwise be unwieldy -- like indoors or in close quarters.   It doesn't make the bullets any more deadly but it does make the weapon more deadly.

If that was their big concern, they would have grabbed a bullpup.

I'm surprised it wasn't on their list.   Their lack of technical knowledge about guns has certainly been an obstacle for them.  I think it's disingenuous, however, to pretend that certain guns aren't better for mass shootings than others.


Well, thankfully, most of the people who've gone on mass shootings have been about as proficient in firearms as a gun control advocate (poor equipment choice, inability to clear a jam, etc.), it's saved lives.
 
2013-04-23 11:58:14 AM  

MichiganFTL: jrodr018: So I am not sure what your intentions are, and you may have the best intentions in the world, but why would you even compare them to our specific situation then? Even Sweden has a far more strict gun control, you need to be a citizen in good standing (maybe do a check on a person background, let's call it a "personal background check"), I do not need to be part 

I compared them in response to an argument:

jrodr018: that countries with strict gun regulation have dramatically lower rates of gun violence and homicide in general


Please do not quote me on something I did not say. Feel free to check back on the thread. An actual serious discussion on all of the issues you mentioned is warranted, but, when the NRA side counterargument is the picture of a pressure cooker, man, come on, really? Why can we talk about actually licensing people, like all of the countries you listed? how about carrying weapons in safes, like all the countries you listed? That is thrown out of the discussion as soon as is brought up. THAT is the problem with gun debate. As far as I know, on the gun control side, only crazies advocate that ALL weapons are taken away, because most reasonable people understand we have that right and that right cannot be taken away.
 
2013-04-23 11:58:20 AM  

Lord_Baull: Really? Because last time I checked, pressure cookers weren't specifically manufactured to mortally wound stuff.


Neither were these.

http://cdn102.iofferphoto.com/img/item/286/189/92/o_DCP03365.JPG
 
2013-04-23 12:00:10 PM  

Ned Stark: CPennypacker: Lando Lincoln: vpb: Gun nuts take that "we can't have gun control because other things kill people too" argument seriously.
I don't think it's trolling.

The argument is that it's not the guns that are killing people. It's the crazy people behind them. Take away a crazy person's gun and they'll still manage to kill people with other objects. Let's work on reducing the crazy person problem instead of the object problem.

They kill a lot less people, which is kind of the goal

Reducing the number of crazed and dispossessed people reduces the number of people they kill just the same as reducing the effectiveness of each individual crazed and dispossessed.


How would you say we do that?

Oh I know! We could check a person's background before they buy a gun to see if they are crazed or dispossessed. That's a great idea!
 
2013-04-23 12:00:32 PM  

Lando Lincoln: Let's work on reducing the crazy person problem instead of the object problem.


If we reduce the fetishization of guns in this country we can also solve the problem of gun violence. There's a stark difference between a passionate hobbyist and some gun nut whose entire being is defined by guns and gun ownership. It's culturally ingrained into a lot of people that their status and worth as a person is dependent on their ability to possess and shoot firearms for a lot of people.

It's the opposite side of the coin that Obama mentioned a few years ago about people clinging to guns and gods. It's not just that somebody wants to make background checks mandatory. It's that in this scary and changing world these people are holding tight to whatever they can to make sense of it. So when somebody proposes making background checks mandatory - because two dozen five-year-olds were viciously murdered - it's an assault on their core belief structure. Rationality has no part in it because these people aren't rational.

They're scared children - much like those kindergarteners felt as they begged for their lives - clinging to a life raft in a world that has no place for them.
 
2013-04-23 12:01:04 PM  

vpb: Gun nuts take that "we can't have gun control because other things kill people too" argument seriously.
I don't think it's trolling.


It's such a specious, worthless argument to boot. Anyone with a shred of critical thinking ability sees that it's wrong on its face.

Cars are not guns. Bombs are not guns. Kitchen knives are not guns. They're not even apples and oranges...more like apples and bricks.
 
2013-04-23 12:01:10 PM  

plewis: When used correctly, a gun results in a dead person/thing.


Far from true.
 
2013-04-23 12:03:51 PM  

CPennypacker: Oh I know! We could check a person's background before they buy a gun to see if they are crazed or dispossessed. That's a great idea!


Again, that doesn't do anything to reduce the crazy person problem.

Why are we so goddamned afraid to try to tackle mental health problems?
 
2013-04-23 12:04:32 PM  

jrodr018: MichiganFTL: jrodr018: So I am not sure what your intentions are, and you may have the best intentions in the world, but why would you even compare them to our specific situation then? Even Sweden has a far more strict gun control, you need to be a citizen in good standing (maybe do a check on a person background, let's call it a "personal background check"), I do not need to be part 

I compared them in response to an argument:

jrodr018: that countries with strict gun regulation have dramatically lower rates of gun violence and homicide in general

Please do not quote me on something I did not say. Feel free to check back on the thread. An actual serious discussion on all of the issues you mentioned is warranted, but, when the NRA side counterargument is the picture of a pressure cooker, man, come on, really? Why can we talk about actually licensing people, like all of the countries you listed? how about carrying weapons in safes, like all the countries you listed? That is thrown out of the discussion as soon as is brought up. THAT is the problem with gun debate. As far as I know, on the gun control side, only crazies advocate that ALL weapons are taken away, because most reasonable people understand we have that right and that right cannot be taken away.


I apologize, that was Chummer45, not you. I just clicked the quote button too quick, my mistake. The NICS system and 'licensing' people are only as good as the information put into them. Without adequate mental health reporting/intervention (difficult on the intervention part), we'll still have a few slip through the cracks, so that needs to be tied up too. The NICS needs to have a civilian version where I can put in a person's Name, DOB, DL# and get a simple yes/no to be able to buy a gun so I know who I'm selling to is legit.

I don't know how we can carry weapons in safes, so I'm lost on that one, my safe is like 2,000 lbs empty.
 
2013-04-23 12:05:17 PM  

CPennypacker: Ned Stark: CPennypacker: Lando Lincoln: vpb: Gun nuts take that "we can't have gun control because other things kill people too" argument seriously.
I don't think it's trolling.

The argument is that it's not the guns that are killing people. It's the crazy people behind them. Take away a crazy person's gun and they'll still manage to kill people with other objects. Let's work on reducing the crazy person problem instead of the object problem.

They kill a lot less people, which is kind of the goal

Reducing the number of crazed and dispossessed people reduces the number of people they kill just the same as reducing the effectiveness of each individual crazed and dispossessed.

How would you say we do that?

Oh I know! We could check a person's background before they buy a gun to see if they are crazed or dispossessed. That's a great idea!


I think what he's saying is that getting those who need it proper mental health treatment would have a similar result.  In response to both of you, why not do both?  We both agree tackling the situation from one angle is just as effective as the other, so why not do both?  Why not require the buyer to provide proof of a recent gun safety course as well as an all-clear from at least two therapists of psychiatrists?  Just a thought.
 
2013-04-23 12:05:42 PM  

MichiganFTL: jrodr018: MichiganFTL: jrodr018: So I am not sure what your intentions are, and you may have the best intentions in the world, but why would you even compare them to our specific situation then? Even Sweden has a far more strict gun control, you need to be a citizen in good standing (maybe do a check on a person background, let's call it a "personal background check"), I do not need to be part 

I compared them in response to an argument:

jrodr018: that countries with strict gun regulation have dramatically lower rates of gun violence and homicide in general

Please do not quote me on something I did not say. Feel free to check back on the thread. An actual serious discussion on all of the issues you mentioned is warranted, but, when the NRA side counterargument is the picture of a pressure cooker, man, come on, really? Why can we talk about actually licensing people, like all of the countries you listed? how about carrying weapons in safes, like all the countries you listed? That is thrown out of the discussion as soon as is brought up. THAT is the problem with gun debate. As far as I know, on the gun control side, only crazies advocate that ALL weapons are taken away, because most reasonable people understand we have that right and that right cannot be taken away.

I apologize, that was Chummer45, not you. I just clicked the quote button too quick, my mistake. The NICS system and 'licensing' people are only as good as the information put into them. Without adequate mental health reporting/intervention (difficult on the intervention part), we'll still have a few slip through the cracks, so that needs to be tied up too. The NICS needs to have a civilian version where I can put in a person's Name, DOB, DL# and get a simple yes/no to be able to buy a gun so I know who I'm selling to is legit.

I don't know how we can carry weapons in safes, so I'm lost on that one, my safe is like 2,000 lbs empty.


Feel free to read up on how the countries you listed do it.
 
2013-04-23 12:08:01 PM  

Lando Lincoln: Why are we so goddamned afraid to try to tackle mental health problems?


Because the puritanical, prosperity gospel-ish society in which we inhabit states that good things come to good people and bad things happen to bad people, which leads to a great many people believing that mental illness is a moral failure instead of a medical issue. Compound that mentality with the belief that any increase in taxes is an abomination unto us as a society and you have both those with mental illness keeping quiet about it and those who don't possess the means to treat themselves being left to their own devices.
 
2013-04-23 12:09:05 PM  

Tomahawk513: CPennypacker: Ned Stark: CPennypacker: Lando Lincoln: vpb: Gun nuts take that "we can't have gun control because other things kill people too" argument seriously.
I don't think it's trolling.

The argument is that it's not the guns that are killing people. It's the crazy people behind them. Take away a crazy person's gun and they'll still manage to kill people with other objects. Let's work on reducing the crazy person problem instead of the object problem.

They kill a lot less people, which is kind of the goal

Reducing the number of crazed and dispossessed people reduces the number of people they kill just the same as reducing the effectiveness of each individual crazed and dispossessed.

How would you say we do that?

Oh I know! We could check a person's background before they buy a gun to see if they are crazed or dispossessed. That's a great idea!

I think what he's saying is that getting those who need it proper mental health treatment would have a similar result.  In response to both of you, why not do both?  We both agree tackling the situation from one angle is just as effective as the other, so why not do both?  Why not require the buyer to provide proof of a recent gun safety course as well as an all-clear from at least two therapists of psychiatrists?  Just a thought.


I don't think any gun control advocate is against providing better mental healthcare for Americans. The way those lines fall, its ironically the people shouting about how mental health is the problem that want to reduce the care people get, be it medicare/medicaid or healthcare reform in general. They don't actually care about mental health issues, they just want a scapegoat.
 
2013-04-23 12:09:20 PM  

jrodr018: MichiganFTL: jrodr018: MichiganFTL: jrodr018: So I am not sure what your intentions are, and you may have the best intentions in the world, but why would you even compare them to our specific situation then? Even Sweden has a far more strict gun control, you need to be a citizen in good standing (maybe do a check on a person background, let's call it a "personal background check"), I do not need to be part 

I compared them in response to an argument:

jrodr018: that countries with strict gun regulation have dramatically lower rates of gun violence and homicide in general

Please do not quote me on something I did not say. Feel free to check back on the thread. An actual serious discussion on all of the issues you mentioned is warranted, but, when the NRA side counterargument is the picture of a pressure cooker, man, come on, really? Why can we talk about actually licensing people, like all of the countries you listed? how about carrying weapons in safes, like all the countries you listed? That is thrown out of the discussion as soon as is brought up. THAT is the problem with gun debate. As far as I know, on the gun control side, only crazies advocate that ALL weapons are taken away, because most reasonable people understand we have that right and that right cannot be taken away.

I apologize, that was Chummer45, not you. I just clicked the quote button too quick, my mistake. The NICS system and 'licensing' people are only as good as the information put into them. Without adequate mental health reporting/intervention (difficult on the intervention part), we'll still have a few slip through the cracks, so that needs to be tied up too. The NICS needs to have a civilian version where I can put in a person's Name, DOB, DL# and get a simple yes/no to be able to buy a gun so I know who I'm selling to is legit.

I don't know how we can carry weapons in safes, so I'm lost on that one, my safe is like 2,000 lbs empty.

Feel free to read up on how the countries you listed do ...


www.powermate.info

This just seems cumbersome, those crazy Swedes.
 
2013-04-23 12:11:46 PM  

Tomahawk513: I think what he's saying is that getting those who need it proper mental health treatment would have a similar result. In response to both of you, why not do both? We both agree tackling the situation from one angle is just as effective as the other, so why not do both? Why not require the buyer to provide proof of a recent gun safety course as well as an all-clear from at least two therapists of psychiatrists? Just a thought.


Because it is a right. The state has to prove that it should be taken away from you. You do not have to prove that you deserve it.
 
2013-04-23 12:12:33 PM  

MichiganFTL: jrodr018: MichiganFTL: jrodr018: So I am not sure what your intentions are, and you may have the best intentions in the world, but why would you even compare them to our specific situation then? Even Sweden has a far more strict gun control, you need to be a citizen in good standing (maybe do a check on a person background, let's call it a "personal background check"), I do not need to be part

I compared them in response to an argument:

jrodr018: that countries with strict gun regulation have dramatically lower rates of gun violence and homicide in general

Please do not quote me on something I did not say. Feel free to check back on the thread. An actual serious discussion on all of the issues you mentioned is warranted, but, when the NRA side counterargument is the picture of a pressure cooker, man, come on, really? Why can we talk about actually licensing people, like all of the countries you listed? how about carrying weapons in safes, like all the countries you listed? That is thrown out of the discussion as soon as is brought up. THAT is the problem with gun debate. As far as I know, on the gun control side, only crazies advocate that ALL weapons are taken away, because most reasonable people understand we have that right and that right cannot be taken away.

I apologize, that was Chummer45, not you. I just clicked the quote button too quick, my mistake. The NICS system and 'licensing' people are only as good as the information put into them. Without adequate mental health reporting/intervention (difficult on the intervention part), we'll still have a few slip through the cracks, so that needs to be tied up too. The NICS needs to have a civilian version where I can put in a person's Name, DOB, DL# and get a simple yes/no to be able to buy a gun so I know who I'm selling to is legit.

I don't know how we can carry weapons in safes, so I'm lost on that one, my safe is like 2,000 lbs empty.


Agreed. Although I am not sure how we can regulate mental health, and I don not know we should. Seems like regulating free access to guns via licensing/training requirements would make me (on a personal level) feel a lot better. But at least would start a frank discussion.
 
2013-04-23 12:12:45 PM  
I didn't know boiled corn was an armor piercing round.
Using a pressure cooker as a bomb: not used as intended
Using an assault rifle to kill people: used exactly as intended

I guess those affected by the Boston bombing should just "deal with it" as well?
 
2013-04-23 12:13:05 PM  

Lando Lincoln: vpb: Gun nuts take that "we can't have gun control because other things kill people too" argument seriously.
I don't think it's trolling.

The argument is that it's not the guns that are killing people. It's the crazy people behind them. Take away a crazy person's gun and they'll still manage to kill people with other objects. Let's work on reducing the crazy person problem instead of the object problem.


Let's pretend a gun is like any other object first, that way your thoughts won't sound so simple minded.

Or the fact that other "objects" that are manufactured with the lethality of a gun are heavily regulated or not available at all.

Thank god the two brothers didn't just get a couple of ak's and a shiat load of ammo. If they had done that and just opened fire on opposites sides of the crowd they could have killed a lot more people. I'm selling my guns right now, prices are high and I'm tired of being associated with assholes.
 
2013-04-23 12:14:27 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Because it is a right. The state has to prove that it should be taken away from you. You do not have to prove that you deserve it.


Tell that to all of the people who were disenfranchised in the past few years by Republican voter ID laws. Tell that to all of the people having to jump through incredible hoops to have an abortion because of Republican state legislatures. Why are guns the only thing people care about when it comes to constitutional rights?
 
2013-04-23 12:16:26 PM  
Ha ha muzzle "break"

25.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-04-23 12:16:35 PM  

CPennypacker: Ned Stark: CPennypacker: Lando Lincoln: vpb: Gun nuts take that "we can't have gun control because other things kill people too" argument seriously.
I don't think it's trolling.

The argument is that it's not the guns that are killing people. It's the crazy people behind them. Take away a crazy person's gun and they'll still manage to kill people with other objects. Let's work on reducing the crazy person problem instead of the object problem.

They kill a lot less people, which is kind of the goal

Reducing the number of crazed and dispossessed people reduces the number of people they kill just the same as reducing the effectiveness of each individual crazed and dispossessed.

How would you say we do that?

Oh I know! We could check a person's background before they buy a gun to see if they are crazed or dispossessed. That's a great idea!


That is definitely an effectiveness approach.

As to what I would reccomend, the drug war is the obvious elephant in the room when it comes to manufacturing outcasts. Legalize all that shiat. Whipe records.

Endemic poverty to. A higher minimum wage, slash the payroll tax, bigger welfare payouts, lots of other shiat.

Mental healthcare should be single payer. If someone feels like they are starting to lose their grip they shouldn't be wording about picking between help and groceries.
 
2013-04-23 12:16:45 PM  

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Because it is a right. The state has to prove that it should be taken away from you. You do not have to prove that you deserve it.

Tell that to all of the people who were disenfranchised in the past few years by Republican voter ID laws. Tell that to all of the people having to jump through incredible hoops to have an abortion because of Republican state legislatures. Why are guns the only thing people care about when it comes to constitutional rights?


I dunno, I think recently we've seen people care a bit about that free speech, right to a trial, and that whole 'cruel and unusual punishment' thingy seems to get people all bitey.
 
2013-04-23 12:20:47 PM  
kapaso:
Thank god the two brothers didn't just get a couple of ak's and a shiat load of ammo. If they had done that and just opened fire on opposites sides of the crowd they could have killed a lot more people. I'm selling my guns right now, prices are high and I'm tired of being associated with assholes.

Bombs, arson and crashes are better for widespread indiscriminate killing. Even a shouted word can easily kill more people in the proper circumstance than a lone madman with an AR-15.

Is an AR-15 good for defending from the three home invaders in your living room? Yes.

Is it ideal for killing as many people as possible, as quickly as possible? No.

This is question we have to propose for our mass murder/spree killer, what tool is 'ideal'. You cannot judge different tools by different standards and call it equitable, or claim that a gun is more efficient than anything else without some reasoning behind it. Here, let me show you a demonstration using some real-world examples.

Virginia Tech massacre.
Perpetrator: Seung-Hui Cho, a physically healthy senior at Virginia Tech.
Resources: Two handguns, over 170 rounds fired.
Planning Elements: Brought along chains to seal doors to prevent escape/police response.
Death toll: 32 (5.3 bullets per death)

Daegu Metro Fire
Perpetrator: Kim Dae-han, a 56 year-old unemployed former taxi driver who had suffered a stroke that left him partly paralyzed.
Resources: Two milk cartons of gasoline, a lighter.
Planning Elements: None.
Death Toll: 198

There we go: whats more efficient for killing a bunch of people, some pistols or a jug of gasoline?

Brevik, who pulled off about the most successful single perpetrator gun massacre after years of planning, didn't hit triple digits. Paralyzed stroke victims with no planning but milk cartons of gasoline hit triple digits easily.
 
2013-04-23 12:23:47 PM  

Tomahawk513: CPennypacker: Ned Stark: CPennypacker: Lando Lincoln: vpb: Gun nuts take that "we can't have gun control because other things kill people too" argument seriously.
I don't think it's trolling.

The argument is that it's not the guns that are killing people. It's the crazy people behind them. Take away a crazy person's gun and they'll still manage to kill people with other objects. Let's work on reducing the crazy person problem instead of the object problem.

They kill a lot less people, which is kind of the goal

Reducing the number of crazed and dispossessed people reduces the number of people they kill just the same as reducing the effectiveness of each individual crazed and dispossessed.

How would you say we do that?

Oh I know! We could check a person's background before they buy a gun to see if they are crazed or dispossessed. That's a great idea!

I think what he's saying is that getting those who need it proper mental health treatment would have a similar result.  In response to both of you, why not do both?  We both agree tackling the situation from one angle is just as effective as the other, so why not do both?  Why not require the buyer to provide proof of a recent gun safety course as well as an all-clear from at least two therapists of psychiatrists?  Just a thought.


I absolutely object to the all clear from psychiatrists provision. It is a dangerous politicization of healthcare.

Mandated gun safty training sounds fine to me. I doubt its passable though.
 
2013-04-23 12:24:50 PM  

PsyLord: [wsmv.images.worldnow.com image 489x322]

Evil, black.  ?!?!?!


wellsy.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-04-23 12:27:32 PM  
Ned Stark:
I absolutely object to the all clear from psychiatrists provision. It is a dangerous politicization of healthcare.

Why not just make health care, including mental health, freely accessible. As in free.

Mandated gun safety training sounds fine to me. I doubt its passable though.

Just make it a mandated course in school. "Guns are not toys, Stop, leave, tell an adult" stuff in grade school, then safe handling and markmanship in middle and high school. Then everyone has the training.
 
2013-04-23 12:28:50 PM  

BayouOtter: Ned Stark:
I absolutely object to the all clear from psychiatrists provision. It is a dangerous politicization of healthcare.

Why not just make health care, including mental health, freely accessible. As in free.

Mandated gun safety training sounds fine to me. I doubt its passable though.

Just make it a mandated course in school. "Guns are not toys, Stop, leave, tell an adult" stuff in grade school, then safe handling and markmanship in middle and high school. Then everyone has the training.


Worked on drugs/sex, will work on guns.

/kidding, I'm for that.
 
2013-04-23 12:31:48 PM  
So he is saying guns should be regulated, licensed and investigated as stringently as explosives? That sounds fine, I wonder what made him leapfrog the gun control side of the debate and head deep into levels of regulation that have never been suggested in recent history.
 
2013-04-23 12:32:37 PM  

BayouOtter: Why not just make health care, including mental health, freely accessible. As in free funded by tax revenues.


FTFY

BayouOtter: Just make it a mandated course in school. "Guns are not toys, Stop, leave, tell an adult" stuff in grade school, then safe handling and markmanship in middle and high school. Then everyone has the training.


I'm very OK with that.
 
2013-04-23 12:33:08 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2013-04-23 12:33:49 PM  

BayouOtter: CPennypacker: Lando Lincoln: vpb: Gun nuts take that "we can't have gun control because other things kill people too" argument seriously.
I don't think it's trolling.

The argument is that it's not the guns that are killing people. It's the crazy people behind them. Take away a crazy person's gun and they'll still manage to kill people with other objects. Let's work on reducing the crazy person problem instead of the object problem.

They kill a lot less people, which is kind of the goal

Bombs, arson and crashes are better for widespread indiscriminate killing. Even a shouted word can easily kill more people in the proper circumstance than a lone madman with an AR-15.

Is an AR-15 good for defending from the three home invaders in your living room? Yes.

Is it ideal for killing as many people as possible, as quickly as possible? No.

This is question we have to propose for our mass murder/spree killer, what tool is 'ideal'. You cannot judge different tools by different standards and call it equitable, or claim that a gun is more efficient than anything else without some reasoning behind it. Here, let me show you a demonstration using some real-world examples.

Virginia Tech massacre.
Perpetrator: Seung-Hui Cho, a physically healthy senior at Virginia Tech.
Resources: Two handguns, over 170 rounds fired.
Planning Elements: Brought along chains to seal doors to prevent escape/police response.
Death toll: 32 (5.3 bullets per death)

Daegu Metro Fire
Perpetrator: Kim Dae-han, a 56 year-old unemployed former taxi driver who had suffered a stroke that left him partly paralyzed.
Resources: Two milk cartons of gasoline, a lighter.
Planning Elements: None.
Death Toll: 198

There we go: whats more efficient for killing a bunch of people, some pistols or a jug of gasoline?

Lets take it to the theoretical, and assume a pair of people that want to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible, with similar planning and execution resources, including time, money, and i ...



It takes a pretty depraved mind to come up with an argument like this.
 
2013-04-23 12:36:34 PM  

BayouOtter: Ned Stark:
I absolutely object to the all clear from psychiatrists provision. It is a dangerous politicization of healthcare.

Why not just make health care, including mental health, freely accessible. As in free.

Mandated gun safety training sounds fine to me. I doubt its passable though.

Just make it a mandated course in school. "Guns are not toys, Stop, leave, tell an adult" stuff in grade school, then safe handling and markmanship in middle and high school. Then everyone has the training.


1 yeah I said that up a few posts :)

2 we did this at my schools. Seemed to work OK.
 
2013-04-23 12:37:21 PM  

xria: So he is saying guns should be regulated, licensed and investigated as stringently as explosives? That sounds fine, I wonder what made him leapfrog the gun control side of the debate and head deep into levels of regulation that have never been suggested in recent history.


An 18yr old kid can buy tannerite with a driver's license at a department store without a second look or gunpowder at a sporting goods store with some beef jerky and not get even a question or a 'background check'. Military grade explosives (Semtex, C4, Astrolite, etc.) like the equivalent of the M16, AK47, P90, G18 are regulated heavily. Civilian grade explosives (blackpowder, Tannerite, etc.) like the equivalent of the AR-15, PS90, G17, WASR are regulated accordingly.
 
2013-04-23 12:37:48 PM  

Chummer45: BayouOtter: CPennypacker: Lando Lincoln: vpb: Gun nuts take that "we can't have gun control because other things kill people too" argument seriously.
I don't think it's trolling.

The argument is that it's not the guns that are killing people. It's the crazy people behind them. Take away a crazy person's gun and they'll still manage to kill people with other objects. Let's work on reducing the crazy person problem instead of the object problem.

They kill a lot less people, which is kind of the goal

Bombs, arson and crashes are better for widespread indiscriminate killing. Even a shouted word can easily kill more people in the proper circumstance than a lone madman with an AR-15.

Is an AR-15 good for defending from the three home invaders in your living room? Yes.

Is it ideal for killing as many people as possible, as quickly as possible? No.

This is question we have to propose for our mass murder/spree killer, what tool is 'ideal'. You cannot judge different tools by different standards and call it equitable, or claim that a gun is more efficient than anything else without some reasoning behind it. Here, let me show you a demonstration using some real-world examples.


It takes a pretty depraved mind to come up with an argument like this.

I'm in Risk Analysis, thinking dispassionately and logically about worst case scenarios and avenues of damage are what I do. Usually more of an industrial setting, but the same techniques apply here.

Do you have an actual disagreement or point you'd like to contest? Other than trying to call me creepy and dismiss it on that basis.
 
2013-04-23 12:39:43 PM  
I had a student who was going all nuts with the "ban crock pots!" stuff and trying to play it up for laughs.  I said, "we know that the crock pot bombs killed three people.  How many people do you think would have been killed if both of the men had AR-15s or even a few Glocks?"

\silence
 
2013-04-23 12:41:13 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Tomahawk513: I think what he's saying is that getting those who need it proper mental health treatment would have a similar result. In response to both of you, why not do both? We both agree tackling the situation from one angle is just as effective as the other, so why not do both? Why not require the buyer to provide proof of a recent gun safety course as well as an all-clear from at least two therapists of psychiatrists? Just a thought.

Because it is a right. The state has to prove that it should be taken away from you. You do not have to prove that you deserve it.


That's not entirely accurate.  The amendment states that for the purpose of maintaining a readily available militia, and thereby protecting against foreign attack, the right to own weapons shall not be infringed (paraphrasing, whatever).  I agree that this is a legitimate interest of the state.  Therefore, it makes sense that the state would also have a vested interest in making sure that those who would fill its militia's ranks are mentally healthy individuals.  The state also has an interest in making sure the right to life for an individual is not violated by another individual.  If the state could show that person with criteria x, y, and z are  n% more likely to misuse that right, it could then put forth the argument that allowing the person in question to exercise his/her second amendment rights puts the rights of other people in jeopardy. For example, if research showed that Divorced Adult Male Veterans with Children and Diagnosed PTSD were 350% more likely to harm themselves or someone else than the national average, the state could push for stipulations, such as mental health clearance, or outright revocation of that person's 2nd amendment rights.  We have a precedent for this behavior since criminals are not authorized to purchase firearms.
 
2013-04-23 12:41:53 PM  

whizbangthedirtfarmer: I had a student who was going all nuts with the "ban crock pots!" stuff and trying to play it up for laughs.  I said, "we know that the crock pot bombs killed three people.  How many people do you think would have been killed if both of the men had AR-15s or even a few Glocks?"


Less than if they had been better bombers? Or used another method better suited for mass indiscriminate murder?
 
2013-04-23 12:44:52 PM  
It's interesting that we live in a country where a lot of its residents are utterly convinced that they will someday heroically defend life or property with their firearm, hollywood style, and sit around thinking of all the potential hypothetical scenarios.

I've got news for my fellow gun owners - the likelihood that you will ever use your gun in self-defense is extremely slim.  The likelihood that someone in your household will be injured/killed/commit suicide with one of your guns is much higher.

Can we please stop pretending that guns are harmless tools (on the same footing as a knife, sword, club, car, or pressure cooker) that are not associated with any special responsibility on the part of the owner? Can we quit pretending that society and the government has no legitimate right or obligation to regulate gun ownership?   Can we stop worshiping guns as if they were something more than an inanimate object designed to fire projectiles that wound or kill people/animals?

Like I said earlier in this thread, I like owning guns too.  I hunt and go out shooting.  But the gun fetishism in this country is completely ridiculous.
 
2013-04-23 12:47:27 PM  

BayouOtter: Chummer45: BayouOtter: CPennypacker: Lando Lincoln: vpb: Gun nuts take that "we can't have gun control because other things kill people too" argument seriously.
I don't think it's trolling.

The argument is that it's not the guns that are killing people. It's the crazy people behind them. Take away a crazy person's gun and they'll still manage to kill people with other objects. Let's work on reducing the crazy person problem instead of the object problem.

They kill a lot less people, which is kind of the goal

Bombs, arson and crashes are better for widespread indiscriminate killing. Even a shouted word can easily kill more people in the proper circumstance than a lone madman with an AR-15.

Is an AR-15 good for defending from the three home invaders in your living room? Yes.

Is it ideal for killing as many people as possible, as quickly as possible? No.

This is question we have to propose for our mass murder/spree killer, what tool is 'ideal'. You cannot judge different tools by different standards and call it equitable, or claim that a gun is more efficient than anything else without some reasoning behind it. Here, let me show you a demonstration using some real-world examples.

It takes a pretty depraved mind to come up with an argument like this.

I'm in Risk Analysis, thinking dispassionately and logically about worst case scenarios and avenues of damage are what I do. Usually more of an industrial setting, but the same techniques apply here.

Do you have an actual disagreement or point you'd like to contest? Other than trying to call me creepy and dismiss it on that basis.


So if we regulated guns like explosives or vehicles that would be OK with you.
 
2013-04-23 12:48:27 PM  

BayouOtter: Chummer45: BayouOtter: CPennypacker: Lando Lincoln: vpb: Gun nuts take that "we can't have gun control because other things kill people too" argument seriously.
I don't think it's trolling.

The argument is that it's not the guns that are killing people. It's the crazy people behind them. Take away a crazy person's gun and they'll still manage to kill people with other objects. Let's work on reducing the crazy person problem instead of the object problem.

They kill a lot less people, which is kind of the goal

Bombs, arson and crashes are better for widespread indiscriminate killing. Even a shouted word can easily kill more people in the proper circumstance than a lone madman with an AR-15.

Is an AR-15 good for defending from the three home invaders in your living room? Yes.

Is it ideal for killing as many people as possible, as quickly as possible? No.

This is question we have to propose for our mass murder/spree killer, what tool is 'ideal'. You cannot judge different tools by different standards and call it equitable, or claim that a gun is more efficient than anything else without some reasoning behind it. Here, let me show you a demonstration using some real-world examples.

It takes a pretty depraved mind to come up with an argument like this.

I'm in Risk Analysis, thinking dispassionately and logically about worst case scenarios and avenues of damage are what I do. Usually more of an industrial setting, but the same techniques apply here.

Do you have an actual disagreement or point you'd like to contest? Other than trying to call me creepy and dismiss it on that basis.


I would take issue with your overall point, which (I think) is that crazy people are more dangerous when they don't have access to AR-15s.
 
2013-04-23 12:54:55 PM  

BayouOtter: Chummer45: BayouOtter: CPennypacker: Lando Lincoln: vpb: Gun nuts take that "we can't have gun control because other things kill people too" argument seriously.
I don't think it's trolling.

The argument is that it's not the guns that are killing people. It's the crazy people behind them. Take away a crazy person's gun and they'll still manage to kill people with other objects. Let's work on reducing the crazy person problem instead of the object problem.

They kill a lot less people, which is kind of the goal

Bombs, arson and crashes are better for widespread indiscriminate killing. Even a shouted word can easily kill more people in the proper circumstance than a lone madman with an AR-15.

Is an AR-15 good for defending from the three home invaders in your living room? Yes.

Is it ideal for killing as many people as possible, as quickly as possible? No.

This is question we have to propose for our mass murder/spree killer, what tool is 'ideal'. You cannot judge different tools by different standards and call it equitable, or claim that a gun is more efficient than anything else without some reasoning behind it. Here, let me show you a demonstration using some real-world examples.

It takes a pretty depraved mind to come up with an argument like this.

I'm in Risk Analysis, thinking dispassionately and logically about worst case scenarios and avenues of damage are what I do. Usually more of an industrial setting, but the same techniques apply here.

Do you have an actual disagreement or point you'd like to contest? Other than trying to call me creepy and dismiss it on that basis.



Also, as a risk analyst, surely you realize that focusing on only one variable (crazy people) is kind of dumb.

Are you saying that imposing relatively strict regulations on guns will not reduce the risk of crazy people shooting places up?  If so, please provide your risk analysis.   Otherwise, I'm beginning to think that you're just some assclown trying to add credibility to your standard run-of-the-mills "guns don't kill people" argument, by claiming that your argument comes purely from an objective and logical risk management position.
 
2013-04-23 01:02:03 PM  

BayouOtter: whizbangthedirtfarmer: I had a student who was going all nuts with the "ban crock pots!" stuff and trying to play it up for laughs.  I said, "we know that the crock pot bombs killed three people.  How many people do you think would have been killed if both of the men had AR-15s or even a few Glocks?"

Less than if they had been better bombers? Or used another method better suited for mass indiscriminate murder?


Nope and no.  Security had robbed them of any options other than something you can place in a backpack or easily conceal.  It's not as if they can drag a few barrels of fertilizer out without raising suspicion.  Essentially, they were relegated to what they could shove in the pack, which was a small bomb, or, a few glocks.
 
2013-04-23 01:02:27 PM  

Chummer45: It's interesting that we live in a country where a lot of its residents are utterly convinced that they will someday heroically defend life or property with their firearm, hollywood style, and sit around thinking of all the potential hypothetical scenarios.


I think you're projecting here. I don't relish the thought of using any one of my guns on a human being, nobody I know sits around fapping to the thought either. Like any safety or security concern, I've thought about it, just like I thought about where to mount the fire extinguisher in my kitchen or how I set up my workshop.

I've got news for my fellow gun owners - the likelihood that you will ever use your gun in self-defense is extremely slim.

I've already had to use a gun to defend my sister's health and safety once (not from a human assailant, but still). I'm not going to put my life or the life of someone I care about in jeopardy on your guarantee.

  The likelihood that someone in your household will be injured/killed/commit suicide with one of your guns is much higher.

Kellerman? Several academic papers have been published severely questioning Kellerman's methodology, selective capture of data, and refusal to provide raw data from his gun-risk studies so as to substantiate his methods and result validity. While Kellerman has backed away from his previous statement that people are "43 times more likely" to be murdered in their own home if they own and keep a gun in their home, he still proposes that the risk is 2.7 times higher. The critiques included Henry E. Schaffer, J. Neil Schuman, and criminologists Gary Kleck, Don Kates, and others.

Can we please stop pretending that guns are harmless tools (on the same footing as a knife, sword, club, car, or pressure cooker) that are not associated with any special responsibility on the part of the owner?

Knives, clubs, cars and pressure cookers are all tools, and they can all be used to harm. My circular saw is a powerful and useful tool, but if used improperly it can seriously injure or kill someone. Cars kill more people than guns in the US.

Nobody is pretending anything. You're projecting.

Can we quit pretending that society and the government has no legitimate right or obligation to regulate gun ownership?

Governments do not have rights, they have powers. Rights are for the people.

Can we stop worshiping guns as if they were something more than an inanimate object designed to fire projectiles that wound or kill people/animals?

You're the one attributing supernatural powers to firearms, not I.

Chummer45:
I would take issue with your overall point, which (I think) is that crazy people are more dangerous when they don't have access to AR-15s.

Not quite.
My point is that an AR-15 or equivalent is not the ideal tool for indiscriminate mass murder.
Secondary, even if you remove the gun from the madman's hand, he still can and will kill people. Probably a lot of people.


I'll try again:
'Problems' with guns as mass murder tools:
1. Puts the shooter at great personal risk during the shooting, unlike a bomb or arson attack.
2. Takes time to kill a large number of people, as most people being shot at tend to try to GTFO as fast as possible. Most shooters have trouble hitting moving targets at any real distance, especially when under stress.
3. Long guns and other weapons which are more 'effective' in the abstract increase the risk of a shooter being detected before he's in optimal position. Which is why most shootings involve concealable weapons.
4. Very personal, unlike a bomb. Many shooters suffer some kind of mental or physical fatigue and give up, choosing to kill themselves part way through the massacre even when they could have conceivably killed more people before going down.
5. Usually a one-way-trip as the shooter's location will become known very fast and every law enforcement officer in a ten mile radius will converge on it. With bombings/arson, the murderer may be able to carry out multiple attacks before being identified.
6. Requires significant skill with a weapon if killing more than one or two victims is the intent. Any idiot can walk up to someone and shoot them, but everyone nearby will flee afterwards. This is why the more destructive mass shootings involved trapped victims.
In other words: There's a reason that terrorists, rebels, and militaries use explosives for most of their high body count attacks.
 
Displayed 50 of 270 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report