US factory worker in gun rampage

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: shawmutt Again, two wackos out of the millions of safe kids. I'm not sure what point you're driving at, but it's an extremely weak premise.

Two wackos who were perfectly law-abiding young men, carefully trained by NRA gun safety instruction, bearing perfectly legal firearms... right up to the second they pulled those triggers.

You folks seem to think "Criminals" are born with records and the word 'criminal' imbedded on their foreheads. It's not that they were wackos that was a problem... it was that they were wackos with easy access to firearms.

But I suppose it was their victims faults... for not all being armed themselves.

Quote by: shawmutt I'm not sure what the illegal act of drunk driving has to do with the legal ownership of firearms.

It has to do with your callous disregard for the misery of thousands of Americans whose lives are forever shattered by this nations gun lust, because, in your words, their "stories" still pale in comparison to the number of households with guns where nothing bad ever happens."

Automobiles are absolutely vital to the social and economic functioning of this nation, and based on usage, tens of thousands of times safer than firearms, so while unfortunate, automobile injuries are acceptable, although the public continues to push for safer and safer autos. There's no such redeeming necessity for firearms, no such thing as a safer firearm, and all things considered, people own firearms simply because they like owning firearms. Justifying this nation's inexcusable rate of death and injury by gunfire because there's so many people who don't get shot is just... I don't even know how to define it.

People like owning guns, people like drinking and driving... sure, they're both inherently dangerous, but why should we worry about either when so many millions aren't affected. Right?

.

[shawmutt]

Two wackos who were perfectly law-abiding young men, carefully trained by NRA gun safety instruction, bearing perfectly legal firearms... right up to the second they pulled those triggers.

The firearms were still legal even after they pulled the trigger. Firearms don't kill people, people kill people.

You folks seem to think "Criminals" are born with records and the word 'criminal' imbedded on their foreheads. It's not that they were wackos that was a problem... it was that they were wackos with easy access to firearms. But I suppose it was their victims faults... for not all being armed themselves.

You assume too much, and are insulting besides.

It has to do with your callous disregard for the misery of thousands of Americans whose lives are forever shattered by this nations gun lust, because, in your words, their "stories" still pale in comparison to the number of households with guns where nothing bad ever happens."

Do you have anything other than appeal to emotion?

tens of thousands of times safer than firearms

You made this up out of whole cloth, for one. For two, firearms are as safe as their operator.

There's no such redeeming necessity for firearms

To you, don't try to impress your feelings on my rights.

no such thing as a safer firearm,

A firearm is as safe as its user.

and all things considered, people own firearms simply because they like owning firearms.

Interesting concept. Even if this was the case, don't try to impress your feelings on my rights. It is however, certainly not the case. My firearms are used at least every weekend.

It seems logic is quickly being thrown out the window in your appeal to emotion nonsense and your anthromorphism of firearms. It seems you are too emotionally attached to this issue to listen to reason to the contrary of your position.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: shawmutt The firearms were still legal even after they pulled the trigger. Firearms don't kill people, people kill people.

No, the bullets do. Firearms are weapons. Their purpose, the one reason they were invented and designed, is to kill from a distance.

Quote by: shawmutt Do you have anything other than appeal to emotion?

Heck yeah... feel free to review my posts on other gun threads.

And this thread. I'm just a fountain of empirical knowledge and logic.

Quote by: shawmutt You made this up out of whole cloth, for one. For two, firearms are as safe as their operator.

Actually, no, I didn't. Some time back, Milton Bradley (or Morgan Freeman, or Osborn Enready... seems I've debated them all on this) kept insisting that cars were as dangerous as firearms and that usage didn't matter, so for his benefit I went through the whole exercise. I looked up the number of automobiles and trucks registered in the U.S. and estimated that they were operated at least twice a day. Then I looked up the number of crimes involving guns, the high estimate of the number of times guns were used defensively, the number of hunters in the U.S. and the average of how often the went hunting, the number of shooting ranges in the U.S., both indoor and outdoor, and how many people use them per month, including police. Ask Milton if I did.

I'm not going to do it again, but you can try it yourself. However, you can do a much easier visual demonstration. Sit on a bluff overlooking a major freeway for one hour in the late afternoon and guesstimate how many cars pass by. That's in one hour on one stretch of freeway.

Now, bearing in mind that only 33% of American households own firearms, guesstimate how many time firearms are operated in your entire county in one month! Like I said, automobiles are operated literally tens of thousands of times more often than firearms.

Quote by: shawmutt To you, don't try to impress your feelings on my rights.

What, did I hit a button? You want the right to have guns because you like guns... right?

Like I've said, if every automobile in the U.S. were to suddenly disappear, our nation would collapse into chaos. If every firearm were to suddenly disappear, absolutely nothing would happen, except that several thousand fewer people would die.

We have a natural right to feed and clothe our families, we have a natural right to have shelter, to receive medical care, to travel wherever we see fit. Yet none of those rights is guaranteed by the Constitution. How Scalia sees owning a deadly weapon as a natural right, beyond what the founders actually designed, is simply beyond me.

Quote by: shawmutt A firearm is as safe as its user.

Then apparently the United States has more unsafe users per capita the most of the civilized world.

My firearms are used at least every weekend.

Four times a month. And how often are your car(s) driven?

.

[shawmutt]

What, did I hit a button? You want the right to have guns because you like guns... right?

No buttons hit here. I deal with anti-gun emotion froth a lot. I have the right to have guns because they are the instruments in sports that I like to partake in. Are you going to try and outlaw bows and arrows next because "Their purpose, the one reason they were invented and designed, is to kill from a distance" and you just can't see why anyone would want to own one? What about throwing knives? Blowguns?

What makes you think "the most murderous nation" would become less murderous by the removal of a firearm?

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: shawmutt I have the right to have guns because they are the instruments in sports that I like to partake in.

So what you're saying is that it's fair for 200,000+ Americans to be killed, maimed and injured every year so that you're free to enjoy your pastime. I have that about right?

Quote by: shawmutt Are you going to try and outlaw bows and arrows next because "Their purpose, the one reason they were invented and designed, is to kill from a distance" and you just can't see why anyone would want to own one? What about throwing knives? Blowguns?

Bows and arrows, blowguns, ballistas, bolos and butcher knives don't kill, maim and injure 200,000 Americans a year. Otherwise I might.

Simple enough?

.

[shawmutt]

So what you're saying is that it's fair for 200,000+ Americans to be killed, maimed and injured every year so that you're free to enjoy your pastime. I have that about right?

More appeal to emotion crap. You just keep padding them numbers don't ya? Injured? Maimed? Define that. I dropped my rifle on my foot at the range once, and nearly broke my toe. A buddy of mine got a cut above his eye when a rifle kicked back and the scope hit him. How sad, I guess we are among the statistics of injured now.

Bows and arrows, blowguns, ballistas, bolos and butcher knives don't kill, maim and injure 200,000 Americans a year. Otherwise I might.

Neither do firearms. Again with the anthromorphism of guns. Criminals kill. Criminals exist with or without guns.

[Chaossaber314]

Devil's advocate, Sonart. How many of those are from law abiding people going through the proper channels to obtain a firearm for perfectly peaceful reasons like hunting or target shooting or home defense who then commit a crime, vs those who had no legal business with a firearm in the first place?

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Chaossaber Devil's advocate, Sonart. How many of those are from law abiding people going through the proper channels to obtain a firearm for perfectly peaceful reasons like hunting or target shooting or home defense who then commit a crime, vs those who had no legal business with a firearm in the first place?

Apparently few enough to make the United States among the most murderous, violent developed nations on earth. There has to come a point where you ask yourself, which is more important... allowing a few sportsmen an unrestricted right to their dwindling pastime, or the reasonable safety of our citizens. Being among the deadliest does not strike me as reasonable safety.

There was once a time when barn-storming pilots were free to fly here and there across the country, wherever they chose, literally as free as the birds. But eventually aviation became so crowded that maintaining such unrestricted freedom became a serious threat to public safety, so now aviation is highly regulated and pilots simply have to accept it. You can still own an airplane and still fly, but you just don't have the right to it anywhere and any way you like.

Quote by: shawmutt More appeal to emotion crap.

Tell that to the victims.

Quote by: shawmutt Criminals exist with or without guns.

It's vastly harder for them to kill people without them.

.

[ironeagle]

I don't argue that guns kill people, when a person carrying the gun chooses to use it to murder, but that does not mean that people who are allowed to keep arms, in a way where they are actually useable, shouldn't have the right to own one to defend against those who won't care if there is a gun ban, and will use them anyway. Besides it has been our constitutional right to have guns for our protection since the constitution was written and signed.

[Nono]

So right. I think they should be distributed to toddlers. Never too soon learn how to defend yoreself.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: ironeagle Besides it has been our constitutional right to have guns for our protection since the constitution was written and signed.

No it hasn't ironeagle... not for the last 70 years. It was only last week that the Court reversed the standing SCOTUS definition.

You gotta pay attention.

Quote by: ironeagle that does not mean that people who are allowed to keep arms, in a way where they are actually useable, shouldn't have the right to own one to defend against those who won't care if there is a gun ban, and will use them anyway.

One more time....

Ironeagle, Americans have the highest percentage of households with guns than any nation on earth. Therefore, if having more guns makes us safer, and we have the most guns per person than anyone, then we should be the safest nation on earth, right?

Yet the exact opposite is true... we are among the most murderous and violent developed nations on earth, and among the top third most violent of ALL nations, including the dregs of the 3rd world.

So why is that the case if we already have more than enough guns?

.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Sonart Apparently few enough to make the United States among the most murderous, violent developed nations on earth.

I don't disagree, but is it the people already predisposed to commit crime, many of whom are already forbidden from owning firearms, or is it the people with spotless criminal records who may also just happen to be gun nuts on the side. Tragedies and crimes of passion do happen, but are they more likely than a criminal holding onto an illegal firearm for the use in further illegal acts?

[ironeagle]

It makes no difference wether the court ruled the other day or not it has still always been our right. Besides there have not been bans placed in most of the 50 states, also you must understand that D.C is district of Columbia and is not a state at all.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: ironeagle It makes no difference wether the court ruled the other day or not it has still always been our right. Besides there have not been bans placed in most of the 50 states, also you must understand that D.C is district of Columbia and is not a state at all.

If you believe in the constitutionality of the second amendment then you believe in the power of the judiciary to decide matters of constitutionality. It's either all valid simply for being part of the constitution or none of it is.

[shawmutt]

It's vastly harder for them to kill people without them.

Is it? Nearly half the people murdered in the US are murdered without a gun. It's more like "sorta", not "vastly".

NationMaster - Murders (most recent) by country
NationMaster - Murders with firearms (most recent) by country

Tell that to the victims.

You still have yet to define "injured" and "maimed" with your padded "200,000"+ number, instead you rely again on logical fallacy and display an obvious cognitive bias. I'll help you out--a person is considered "injured" by a gun even if it is brandished in an altercation. A person can also be injured by a gun if it is used as a blunt instrument, and in those cases what good would outlawing guns do? Any blunt item would work just as well. To be sure, there are people shot and not killed, and therefore injured, but I wonder if your information breaks that down.

As far as maimed, c'mon now. A kid in a foreign country steps on a landmine and gets a leg blown off--that's maimed. A kid is playing with a handgun in this country and what--blows a finger off? A toe? Maybe somewhere, somehow, someone loses an ear once a year. That's more "injured" than "maimed". You're either cutting and pasting stats or just being disingenuous.

There has to come a point where you ask yourself, which is more important... allowing a few sportsmen an unrestricted right to their dwindling pastime, or the reasonable safety of our citizens.

I'm not sure what sportsmen and their "dwindling pastime" have to do with anything. You said you would try to outlaw bows and arrows if they hurt many people, but they don't so it's a moot point. Handguns are what kill most people, and except for a few specialized hunts, rifles and shotguns are what's used by most sportsmen. Why do you feel the need to support a ban of all firearms when only handguns have been shown to be an issue?

Furthermore, except for your few exceptions such as two kids "trained to kill by the NRA", criminals with illegal handguns are what are murderous. Trying to build a case that Americans are murderous is disingenuous and logically inconsistent.

[Thanatos]

Quote by: shawmutt Is it? Half the people murdered in the US are murdered without a gun.

Think! Suppose you were out to kill everybody in your factory. Do you grab a pistol or a kitchen knife?

Killing one person with a knife is easy. Its often the better weapon for typical single murders because it does not make noise and is easier to get. Killing the second and the third factory worker is much harder unless you're also a track star because all your potential victims have to do is scatter. Once in a while some psycho will manage to kill multiple people with melee weapons but it is usually a situation where the victims were all either individually surprised or the psycho was slashing in a dense crowd where people are unable to scatter, or stampede while trying to.

The gun is definitely the superior weapon for fighting multiple people.

[shawmutt]

Think! Suppose you were out to kill everybody in your factory. Do you grab a pistol or a kitchen knife?

I would get a different job, because I understand that killing is wrong.

Think! Nearly half the people in the US are murdered without the benefit of a firearm.

Think! In 2005, a bit over 750 people out of 300,000,000 died as a result of a multiple homicide. Are these "office/school rampages" really the pandemic they are made out to be by the anti-gun nuts? Should the actions of a few crazy individuals dictate legislation for the masses?

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: shawmutt Is it? Nearly half the people murdered in the US are murdered without a gun. Think! Nearly half the people in the US are murdered without the benefit of a firearm.

I don't know how on earth you arrived at that figure.

--"70.3 percent of the homicides that occurred in 2004 were committed with firearms."-- Department of Justice, FBI

Quote by: shawmutt You still have yet to define "injured" and "maimed" with your padded "200,000"+ number, instead you rely again on logical fallacy and display an obvious cognitive bias.

Injured means they received a wound of some sort. Maimed means an injury that results in crippling... the loss of a limb, paralysis, etc. What did you think they meant?

Quote by: shawmutt As far as maimed, c'mon now. A kid in a foreign country steps on a landmine and gets a leg blown off--that's maimed.

--"Since 2000, motor vehicle crashes account for nearly 50 percent of all reported SCI cases, according to the Spinal Cord Injury Information Network. The second most common cause are acts of violence – primarily gunshot wounds – and third are recreational sporting activities." --

Officer's Leg Amputated as He Struggles to Survive Gunshot Wounds

I realize you're eager to dismiss the affects of gun violence on our society, but it's not like it doesn't happen, shawmutt. The U.S. is way more violent than it should be as a supposed leader of the Free World, and it's the incredible love for and availability of guns that has made us this way.

Quote by: shawmutt I'm not sure what sportsmen and their "dwindling pastime" have to do with anything.

Quite simple, the sport of hunting is markedly declining in the U.S.

--"New figures from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service show that the number of hunters 16 and older declined by 10 percent between 1996 and 2006 — from 14 million to about 12.5 million. The drop was most acute in New England, the Rocky Mountains, and the Pacific states, which lost 400,000 hunters in that span."--

That means that with the violent crime rate once again rising - and likely to rise faster as the economy collapses - more people will be dying for the benefit that fewer and fewer people for whom owning guns is a pastime.

To say nothing of the coming proliferation of guns as the Court's decision reverberates through the legal system and gun control laws are swept aside.

.

[Thanatos]

Quote by: shawmutt I would get a different job, because I understand that killing is wrong. Think! Nearly half the people in the US are murdered without the benefit of a firearm. Think! In 2005, a bit over 750 people out of 300,000,000 died as a result of a multiple homicide. Are these "office/school rampages" really the pandemic they are made out to be by the anti-gun nuts? Should the actions of a few crazy individuals dictate legislation for the masses?

And what if you decided to make an exception? Play the scenarios out in your head. They say General Colt made all men equal. No premeditation, no sneaking, no physical ability required. Sonart beat me to it on the statistical aspect but apparently the majority think I'm right. If there are few multiple homicides they even agree with my new General Colt saying related line of argument.

[shawmutt]

Quote by: sonart ]I don't know how on earth you arrived at that figure.

I linked my source. Apparently 2005 was a better year for non-gun killers.

Injured means they received a wound of some sort. Maimed means an injury that results in crippling... the loss of a limb, paralysis, etc. What did you think they meant?

You may want to check the definitions that go with the stats. You are incorrect. Do you have a link for the 200,000 stat?

"Since 2000, motor vehicle crashes account for nearly 50 percent of all reported SCI cases, according to the Spinal Cord Injury Information Network. The second most common cause are acts of violence – primarily gunshot wounds – and third are recreational sporting activities." --

You get your information from ambulance chasers? Interesting. Do you have any actual numbers to go with that "information"?

Officer's Leg Amputated as He Struggles to Survive Gunshot Wounds

There's always an exception to every rule. This time your appeal to emotion comes in the form of anecdote? C'mon, let's see some facts, not sniveling drivel.

I realize you're eager to dismiss the affects of gun violence on our society, but it's not like it doesn't happen, shawmutt. The U.S. is way more violent than it should be as a supposed leader of the Free World, and it's the incredible love for and availability of guns that has made us this way.

Who says we are more violent? Does total homicides dictate total violence? We're #24 in per capita homicides, and there are a few areas in the country that contribute a large amount to that number, including our nation's capital as mentioned in the other thread--you know, the place where handguns were banned outright.

Quite simple, the sport of hunting is markedly declining in the U.S.

It has nothing to do with the topic at hand, and certainly has no bearing on wackos going on a rampage.

To say nothing of the coming proliferation of guns as the Court's decision reverberates through the legal system and gun control laws are swept aside.

Unfounded and a slippery slope fallacy. I'm sure there will be plenty of crap news coverage when a handful of DC citizens legally purchase handguns, but overall the "gun population" won't be changed that much.

Quote by: thanatos And what if you decided to make an exception?

I wouldn't "make an exception". And in fact people rarely do. So rarely, in fact, that legislating legal firearms out of citizen's hands will not do anything to curb this "rampage" sort of violence.

Let's say, for instance, Sonart gets his way and every legal firearm is legislated out of existence. Let's also ignore the fact that most criminals use illegally obtained handguns, for argument's sake. Let's also say the quantity of firearms became so low in this country that most people only read about them in history books. Phew...that's a stretch, isn't it...

Will the wackos who want to take out people only exist in the history books too? How many guns were used in the 9/11 attacks? What is the leading cause of casualty for American troops in Iraq? What is the leading cause of casualty in the Israel-Palistine conflict?