Guns are the problem?

[Loren Pechtel]

https://medium.com/handwaving-freakoutery/the-magic-gun-evaporation-fairy-f12497990098

Then why is there effectively no correlation between per capita guns and the murder rate? In fact, other than the US the correlation is very slightly negative but the data points are so scattered it means nothing.

 

[ronburgundy]

https://medium.com/handwaving-freakoutery/the-magic-gun-evaporation-fairy-f12497990098

Then why is there effectively no correlation between per capita guns and the murder rate? In fact, other than the US the correlation is very slightly negative but the data points are so scattered it means nothing.

The US being an outlier in Guns is the sole factor than can account for the US being an outlier in homicides. The very small variations in homicide rates between other countries have other causes. Also, the vast majority of guns in the US are handguns which are used more to shoot people than to hunt. In contrast, a far higher % of guns in those other countries (like Norway) are hunting rifles, b/c a far higher % of their populations hunt.

 

[Patooka]

I pointed out the profound lack of clear correlation between gun ownership rate and gun homicide rate on a state by state basis in the USA, as well as a similarly profound lack of correlation between guns per capita and gun homicide rate globally.

Said without irony.

There is a reason you could eat crayons in my Math 1301 class at university and yet my schoolteacher in fifth grade felt the need to scream "All children! Hands on heads!". Figure it out.

Incidentally, no one ate a single crayon, nor gave a fuck when attitudes were made in effect at the Upper Quad at UNSW in 2000

Weird, huh? The only people who did give a fuck were closeted crayon eaters. Which is despicable because if that is your thing, I am certainly not one to judge.

But I digress, we were talking about sensible regulation about an object that can cause more harm than what takes you to work everyday (see: vehicle), but fuckit. An AR-15 makes you impervious to government overreach.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I pointed out the profound lack of clear correlation between gun ownership rate and gun homicide rate on a state by state basis in the USA, as well as a similarly profound lack of correlation between guns per capita and gun homicide rate globally.

Said without irony.

There is a reason you could eat crayons in my Math 1301 class at university and yet my schoolteacher in fifth grade felt the need to scream "All children! Hands on heads!". Figure it out.

Incidentally, no one ate a single crayon, nor gave a fuck when attitudes were made in effect at the Upper Quad at UNSW in 2000

Weird, huh? The only people who did give a fuck were closeted crayon eaters. Which is despicable because if that is your thing, I am certainly not one to judge.

But I digress, we were talking about sensible regulation about an object that can cause more harm than what takes you to work everyday (see: vehicle), but fuckit. An AR-15 makes you impervious to government overreach.

Except for the little detail that AR-15s and the like aren't responsible for very many murders.

 

[Jarhyn]

I pointed out the profound lack of clear correlation between gun ownership rate and gun homicide rate on a state by state basis in the USA, as well as a similarly profound lack of correlation between guns per capita and gun homicide rate globally.

Said without irony.

There is a reason you could eat crayons in my Math 1301 class at university and yet my schoolteacher in fifth grade felt the need to scream "All children! Hands on heads!". Figure it out.

Incidentally, no one ate a single crayon, nor gave a fuck when attitudes were made in effect at the Upper Quad at UNSW in 2000

Weird, huh? The only people who did give a fuck were closeted crayon eaters. Which is despicable because if that is your thing, I am certainly not one to judge.

But I digress, we were talking about sensible regulation about an object that can cause more harm than what takes you to work everyday (see: vehicle), but fuckit. An AR-15 makes you impervious to government overreach.

Except for the little detail that AR-15s and the like aren't responsible for very many murders.

Except when they are used to murder a huge number of people in a heavily populated location.

You are right though, usually they are just used by ammosexuals to achieve an erection, and to receive the resultant ejaculation. Again excepting the occasional mass murder.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Except for the little detail that AR-15s and the like aren't responsible for very many murders.

Except when they are used to murder a huge number of people in a heavily populated location.

You are right though, usually they are just used by ammosexuals to achieve an erection, and to receive the resultant ejaculation. Again excepting the occasional mass murder.

You're still trying to confuse the issue by blaming assault rifles for the overall murder rate. Crime guns are overwhelmingly handguns.

 

[Trausti]

Except for the little detail that AR-15s and the like aren't responsible for very many murders.

Except when they are used to murder a huge number of people in a heavily populated location.

You are right though, usually they are just used by ammosexuals to achieve an erection, and to receive the resultant ejaculation. Again excepting the occasional mass murder.

You're still trying to confuse the issue by blaming assault rifles for the overall murder rate. Crime guns are overwhelmingly handguns.

My impression is that everyone knows most gun homicides are with handguns; but the perpetrators are overwhelmingly young black men killing other young black men and uninvited party guests. It's politically incorrect to notice that.

 

[Jarhyn]

Except for the little detail that AR-15s and the like aren't responsible for very many murders.

Except when they are used to murder a huge number of people in a heavily populated location.

You are right though, usually they are just used by ammosexuals to achieve an erection, and to receive the resultant ejaculation. Again excepting the occasional mass murder.

You're still trying to confuse the issue by blaming assault rifles for the overall murder rate. Crime guns are overwhelmingly handguns.

No, I'm blaming assault rifles for a particular type of dangerous murder. The other kinds of murders are bad and are addressable by regulations on hand guns specifically. You mentioned assault rifles, I talked to assault rifles.

What, you want to criticize me now for fucking being on topic to your response?

Seriously though, we can talk about handguns too: there is no reason to allow handguns in public either.

 

[Gun Nut]

But I digress, we were talking about sensible regulation about an object that can cause more harm than what takes you to work everyday (see: vehicle)

Anti-gun folk REALLY hate the automobile argument... because it is a strong one.

with a single gallon of gasoline, I can run over thousands of people. With a single magazine of bullets, I can only kill a dozen. Cars hold more than ten gallons of fuel easily... tens of thousands of deaths potential, just so you can get to work everyday without messing up your hair.

 

[Jarhyn]

But I digress, we were talking about sensible regulation about an object that can cause more harm than what takes you to work everyday (see: vehicle)

Anti-gun folk REALLY hate the automobile argument... because it is a strong one.

with a single gallon of gasoline, I can run over thousands of people. With a single magazine of bullets, I can only kill a dozen. Cars hold more than ten gallons of fuel easily... tens of thousands of deaths potential, just so you can get to work everyday without messing up your hair.

No, we hate it because it's a fucking PRATT.

They are not comparable. I've explained this to you repeatedly and then always you bring it up in the next thread like a shocked Pikachu.

But here I am explaining it again: objects in nature have work functions and alternative functions, a series of actions in space that they can be used for.

For guns, that work function is "make shit die". That's all it's got. "Make shit be dead". Cars have a large variety of work functions. ONE of those is "make shit dead".

When a gun is involved, the destination you can arrive at is somewhere on the route to "making something dead". Period.

When a car is involved, lots of other things can be on your destination, quite literally.

Even so we have all kinds of regulations, licensing, and insurance required to operate something that CAN make someone dead IF they happen to be in a road, in front of the car, and unaware the car is coming in the time epoch of "15 seconds".

With a gun, the calculus is CAN ONLY make someone dead if operated IF someone is in front of it at all, regardless of curbs, buildings, corners, trees or most other minor terrain, and regardless of whether or. It they are aware the bullet is coming, because bullets move orders of magnitude faster than cars.

There is no comparison. One is an easily avoided machine that you cannot be used to strike down an arbitrary Target in most circumstances that we still heavily regulate, a d the other is a machine made explicitly for easily striking down arbitrary targets that we barely regulate at all.

 

[laughing dog]

But I digress, we were talking about sensible regulation about an object that can cause more harm than what takes you to work everyday (see: vehicle)

Anti-gun folk REALLY hate the automobile argument... because it is a strong one.

with a single gallon of gasoline, I can run over thousands of people. With a single magazine of bullets, I can only kill a dozen. Cars hold more than ten gallons of fuel easily... tens of thousands of deaths potential, just so you can get to work everyday without messing up your hair.

That's true. If you are fucking psychopath, as we learned, an airplane is even more dangerous. Or fertilizer placed in the right place.

Of course, neither automobiles, planes or fertilizers were designed to kill people - they have other nonviolent purposes. Guns do not. For some odd reason, anti-gun regulation people cannot seem to grasp that simple concept which allows them to come up with most inane arguments.

 

[Gun Nut]

But I digress, we were talking about sensible regulation about an object that can cause more harm than what takes you to work everyday (see: vehicle)

Anti-gun folk REALLY hate the automobile argument... because it is a strong one.

with a single gallon of gasoline, I can run over thousands of people. With a single magazine of bullets, I can only kill a dozen. Cars hold more than ten gallons of fuel easily... tens of thousands of deaths potential, just so you can get to work everyday without messing up your hair.

That's true. If you are fucking psychopath, as we learned, an airplane is even more dangerous. Or fertilizer placed in the right place.

Of course, neither automobiles, planes or fertilizers were designed to kill people - they have other nonviolent purposes. Guns do not. For some odd reason, anti-gun regulation people cannot seem to grasp that simple concept which allows them to come up with most inane arguments.

but guns and automobiles are both made out of metal. so they are identical Why is the original thought of an inventor meaningful but the fact they are made out of the same materials not?

The person that invented the "horseless carriage" was just trying to eliminate all horses
The person that invented the gun was just trying to help feed the hungry.

Zygon B (sp?) was a chemical fertilizer designed to help feed the starving, due to being highly effective and cheap to produce. It's good right? All about it right? Well the Germans found another use for it.. they used it to kill over 1 million Jews in gas chambers. Oh, now it's suddenly a bad thing, I guess... that inventor should be killed, right?

That happened again with Agent Orange... the inventor was doing agriculture and the military usurped it for war...

Very famously, the inventor of TNT, who intended to revolutionize mining to make it safer and more efficient, was quite put off when dynamite was used to blow people up.

Don't even get me started on Leaded Gasoline. That's the automobile's accessory we had in the past that almost wiped out humanity.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

That's true. If you are fucking psychopath, as we learned, an airplane is even more dangerous. Or fertilizer placed in the right place.

Of course, neither automobiles, planes or fertilizers were designed to kill people - they have other nonviolent purposes. Guns do not. For some odd reason, anti-gun regulation people cannot seem to grasp that simple concept which allows them to come up with most inane arguments.

but guns and automobiles are both made out of metal. so they are identical Why is the original thought of an inventor meaningful but the fact they are made out of the same materials not?

The person that invented the "horseless carriage" was just trying to eliminate all horses
The person that invented the gun was just trying to help feed the hungry.

Feed the hungry? You misspelled developed as a weapon of war.

 

[laughing dog]

That's true. If you are fucking psychopath, as we learned, an airplane is even more dangerous. Or fertilizer placed in the right place.

Of course, neither automobiles, planes or fertilizers were designed to kill people - they have other nonviolent purposes. Guns do not. For some odd reason, anti-gun regulation people cannot seem to grasp that simple concept which allows them to come up with most inane arguments.

but guns and automobiles are both made out of metal. so they are identical Why is the original thought of an inventor meaningful but the fact they are made out of the same materials not?

The person that invented the "horseless carriage" was just trying to eliminate all horses
The person that invented the gun was just trying to help feed the hungry. ....

Are you serious? Guns were designed to kill, none of the other products that you mentioned were. Citing misuse of products to defend the intended use if a product is illogical,

 

[Gun Nut]

That's true. If you are fucking psychopath, as we learned, an airplane is even more dangerous. Or fertilizer placed in the right place.

Of course, neither automobiles, planes or fertilizers were designed to kill people - they have other nonviolent purposes. Guns do not. For some odd reason, anti-gun regulation people cannot seem to grasp that simple concept which allows them to come up with most inane arguments.

but guns and automobiles are both made out of metal. so they are identical Why is the original thought of an inventor meaningful but the fact they are made out of the same materials not?

The person that invented the "horseless carriage" was just trying to eliminate all horses
The person that invented the gun was just trying to help feed the hungry. ....

Are you serious? Guns were designed to kill, none of the other products that you mentioned were.

I am of the opinion the inventor's intent is irrelevant. Guns were "designed to kill people" just as much as cars were "designed to eliminate the Horse Trade".

Guns were originally invented by the Chinese to DEFEND against invasion. In other words.. to save people's lives.

Citing misuse of products to defend the intended use if a product is illogical

Wait a second... Citing intended use of products to defend the misuse is equally illogical.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're still trying to confuse the issue by blaming assault rifles for the overall murder rate. Crime guns are overwhelmingly handguns.

No, I'm blaming assault rifles for a particular type of dangerous murder. The other kinds of murders are bad and are addressable by regulations on hand guns specifically. You mentioned assault rifles, I talked to assault rifles.

What, you want to criticize me now for fucking being on topic to your response?

Seriously though, we can talk about handguns too: there is no reason to allow handguns in public either.

The number killed by assault rifles in mass shooting is less than the number saved in self-defense cases. Assault rifles are much more likely to be used in defense as concealment is not an issue.

 

[laughing dog]

Are you serious? Guns were designed to kill, none of the other products that you mentioned were.

I am of the opinion the inventor's intent is irrelevant. Guns were "designed to kill people" just as much as cars were "designed to eliminate the Horse Trade".

Not only is that utter bs in its own right, it is a straw man. I wrote guns were designed to kill,

Guns were originally invented by the Chinese to DEFEND against invasion. In other words.. to save people's lives.

By killing the invaders. Duh

Wait a second... Citing intended use of products to defend the misuse is equally illogical.

Since no one is doing that, what are you babbling about?

 

[Patooka]

But I digress, we were talking about sensible regulation about an object that can cause more harm than what takes you to work everyday (see: vehicle)

Anti-gun folk REALLY hate the automobile argument... because it is a strong one.

with a single gallon of gasoline, I can run over thousands of people. With a single magazine of bullets, I can only kill a dozen. Cars hold more than ten gallons of fuel easily... tens of thousands of deaths potential, just so you can get to work everyday without messing up your hair.

No, you are missing the point.

I live in a country where you require a license not just to drive, but to also purchase a firearm. My opinion is that if you want to own a firearm, you should be put through an aptitude test much like a drivers license.

Crazy, I know, right?

I also think firearms should be treated like vehicles in the sense that if I have used a firearm irresponsibly (perhaps under the influence of alcohol), I should be disqualified from owning a firearm for a specific period of time. You,know, like a DUI.
I also think that firearm safety should be treated like an esafety or pink slip for a car in New South Wales. If you are a responsible gun owner, you have no less to fear than a responsible car owner. If you are an irresponsible car owner, you lose your privilege to drive. If you are an irresponsible gun owner you lose your right to own firearms. I'm surprised that this is controversial as apparently guns are less lethal than cars.
I also believe that a firearm registry should be as advanced as what one would receive at the RTA. In other words, If you get pulled over, a copper usually can determine if you own the car in a matter of minutes. For gun ownership it is 11 weeks minimum. That's bullshit.
Oh, and when I purchase a vehicle, I must also purchase [url-https://www.greenslips.com.au/calculator.html]Compulsory Third Party Insurance[/url].

So yes, I think that gun violence in the US would be fixed if only they treated firearms superior than what was used on Normandy D-Day with the same care and skepticism as they do vehicles.

 

[Jarhyn]

But I digress, we were talking about sensible regulation about an object that can cause more harm than what takes you to work everyday (see: vehicle)

Anti-gun folk REALLY hate the automobile argument... because it is a strong one.

with a single gallon of gasoline, I can run over thousands of people. With a single magazine of bullets, I can only kill a dozen. Cars hold more than ten gallons of fuel easily... tens of thousands of deaths potential, just so you can get to work everyday without messing up your hair.

No, you are missing the point.

I live in a country where you require a license not just to drive, but to also purchase a firearm. My opinion is that if you want to own a firearm, you should be put through an aptitude test much like a drivers license.

Crazy, I know, right?

I also think firearms should be treated like vehicles in the sense that if I have used a firearm irresponsibly (perhaps under the influence of alcohol), I should be disqualified from owning a firearm for a specific period of time. You,know, like a DUI.
I also think that firearm safety should be treated like an esafety or pink slip for a car in New South Wales. If you are a responsible gun owner, you have no less to fear than a responsible car owner. If you are an irresponsible car owner, you lose your privilege to drive. If you are an irresponsible gun owner you lose your right to own firearms. I'm surprised that this is controversial as apparently guns are less lethal than cars.
I also believe that a firearm registry should be as advanced as what one would receive at the RTA. In other words, If you get pulled over, a copper usually can determine if you own the car in a matter of minutes. For gun ownership it is 11 weeks minimum. That's bullshit.
Oh, and when I purchase a vehicle, I must also purchase [url-https://www.greenslips.com.au/calculator.html]Compulsory Third Party Insurance[/url].

So yes, I think that gun violence in the US would be fixed if only they treated firearms superior than what was used on Normandy D-Day with the same care and skepticism as they do vehicles.

I thought I just heard a WOOSH... I suspect that it is this argument flying over the head of an ammosexual, yet again.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But I digress, we were talking about sensible regulation about an object that can cause more harm than what takes you to work everyday (see: vehicle)

Anti-gun folk REALLY hate the automobile argument... because it is a strong one.

with a single gallon of gasoline, I can run over thousands of people. With a single magazine of bullets, I can only kill a dozen. Cars hold more than ten gallons of fuel easily... tens of thousands of deaths potential, just so you can get to work everyday without messing up your hair.

No, you are missing the point.

I live in a country where you require a license not just to drive, but to also purchase a firearm. My opinion is that if you want to own a firearm, you should be put through an aptitude test much like a drivers license.

Crazy, I know, right?

I also think firearms should be treated like vehicles in the sense that if I have used a firearm irresponsibly (perhaps under the influence of alcohol), I should be disqualified from owning a firearm for a specific period of time. You,know, like a DUI.
I also think that firearm safety should be treated like an esafety or pink slip for a car in New South Wales. If you are a responsible gun owner, you have no less to fear than a responsible car owner. If you are an irresponsible car owner, you lose your privilege to drive. If you are an irresponsible gun owner you lose your right to own firearms. I'm surprised that this is controversial as apparently guns are less lethal than cars.
I also believe that a firearm registry should be as advanced as what one would receive at the RTA. In other words, If you get pulled over, a copper usually can determine if you own the car in a matter of minutes. For gun ownership it is 11 weeks minimum. That's bullshit.
Oh, and when I purchase a vehicle, I must also purchase [url-https://www.greenslips.com.au/calculator.html]Compulsory Third Party Insurance[/url].

So yes, I think that gun violence in the US would be fixed if only they treated firearms superior than what was used on Normandy D-Day with the same care and skepticism as they do vehicles.

A license to possess a gun is something I've suggested many times over the years. A registry of what guns you own I'm not fine with--history shows that's often a prelude to confiscation. How often does the cop need to quickly know if it's your gun or stolen? And note that just because a car doesn't come back as registered to the driver doesn't mean anything's wrong. The cop only cares if the car comes back as stolen. Likewise, guns have serial numbers, all the cop should care about is if the serial number comes back as stolen.

As for insurance, it's for accidents. The number of cases where insurance would pay is low. Mandatory insurance is another attempt to make guns expensive and get a backdoor list of all the guns out there.