All-purpose news and politics thread: Two Steps Beyond!

[Tendrin]

Slate did an excellent breakdown (despite being liberal shills) of a study from the CDC on gun violence:

http://www.slate.com/articles/health...gs_from_a.html

Half of the arguments in this thread are without basis.

1) AR-15's and other "assault rifles" aren't the problem... it's handguns

In general, the answer is yes. Handguns are the real driving force behind America's gun homicide problem. However, it's the AR-15 that was used in the most recent shooting. It can perpetuate a massive act of violence like what we saw yesterday with far greater ease than a handgun. It's still a problem even if it's not the entirety of the problem, and it's a problem that can easily be solved. If he hadn't gotten an AR-15 assault rifle, a lot of people would still be alive.

2) Almost 2/3rd's of gun deaths are suicides

This is also true. But, again, it doesn't change the fact that we still have a huge number of gun homicides.

3) Gun violence and crime has actually decreased steadily over the past decade

we're down from where we were. Where are we compared to the rest of the world, though? Oh right.

4) Mass shootings don't kill that many people... comparatively speaking

Oh, well. Let's continue to be indifferent to them, then.

5) There are more defensive gun uses than violent crimes involving a firearms

This statistic is deeply, deeply debatable and contested since it relies on a lot of self-reporting. We've already seen Americans aren't the best judge of what a proper defensive use of a gun is.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

While opinions will differ, I have never seen a knife jam or misfire. A knife can slit my throat even if you are really lousy with a knife. There is no really good way for me to grab a knife if you are trying to kill me with it.

Knife.

And one crazy bastard with a knife, or Bruce Lee level martial arts skills can't kill dozens of people in a matter of seconds like one can with an assault rifle. Just saying.

[worstblogever]

You can also still jam a broken knife into a human throat repeatedly.

A gun that has misfired? Not so much.

You can jam a ball point pen into a human throat repeatedly. How many pen-killing sprees do you hear about people going on?

Knives and pens, and any object you could name have purposes outside of being instruments of death. That is what guns are designed to do. This is not complicated, nor is the need for this argument new to this forum.

I will now outsource any need to debate ridiculous arguments to here, to save the effort of having to type them all out for people still regurgitating them. Here's the relevant part for the current phase of the exercise:

While it is true that guns are simply tools and have no ability to harm anybody on their own, the assertion that they have no part in the perpetration of violence is absurd.

If properly motivated, somebody can kill their enemy with a pair of nail-clippers, but this is irrelevant to the greater regulatory scheme. Just because there are other ways for people to kill one another, it doesn’t mean that it isn’t in the public interest to restrict the most common way people currently kill each other.

Guns give people a quick, easy, cheap, and relatively detached (compared to stabbings/beatings) method of killing people—even large numbers of people. By making killing easy, guns directly contribute to the thought process that must go into a killing and facilitate even higher body counts. Without guns, people would still kill others, but it would be far more difficult to accrue high body counts.

There is a good reason why guns have become the mass murderer’s weapon of choice; they are simply the most efficient way of getting the job done. Weapons other than guns can be used to kill large numbers of people, but none are as easy to obtain or use as guns:

Bombs may be lethal to large numbers of people, but they take expertise to build and are very risky for an amateur to handle (just look at the number of people who manage to mangle themselves playing with fireworks).
Knives are lethal in the right hands, but they can only kill one person at a time and have no ability to kill at a distance.
Cars can been used to kill people but they are far too large and unwieldy to replace guns (you can’t exactly put one in your backpack to sneak into a school).

A tool may simply be a shortcut to a desired result, but it isn’t fair to say that the tool has no part in achieving a result. A man with a hammer and a man with a gun could kill an identical number of people, but the gun certainly makes it more likely that the person will succeed, faster in their killing spree, and more likely to kill their specific targets.

Guns don’t kill people; people kill people. However, people with guns can easily and quickly kill a lot of people, while those who don’t have guns, cannot. In a country flooded with guns, the mass murderer (or simply the person who wishes to kill one person) is able to obtain their weapon easily and without much risk. Gun control laws may not be perfect, but they are a start on a long road towards a safer America

[MECHANO]

In general, the answer is yes. Handguns are the real driving force behind America's gun homicide problem. However, it's the AR-15 that was used in the most recent shooting. It can perpetuate a massive act of violence like what we saw yesterday with far greater ease than a handgun. It's still a problem even if it's not the entirety of the problem, and it's a problem that can easily be solved. If he hadn't gotten an AR-15 assault rifle, a lot of people would still be alive.



.

the gun used was not an AR-15. It was an HK MPX carbine. But, y'know, AR-15 fits so much better when it comes to the media's narrative...

[MECHANO]

I will now outsource any need to debate ridiculous arguments to here[/URL], to save the effort of having to type them all out for people still regurgitating them. Here's the relevant part for the current phase of the exercise:

it's funny how the debate becomes ridiculous when someone decides to start injecting facts into the discussion.

[Tendrin]

the gun used was not an AR-15. It was an HK MPX carbine. But, y'know, AR-15 fits so much better when it comes to the media's narrative...

Last I saw in the media, it was an AR-15 or 'AR-15 Style' assault rifle. Regardless of the exact definition of the weapon used, it /was an assault weapon/ which allowed him to murder over fifty people with relative ease. Forgive me if I don't really give a crap if the exact model was slightly different. The AR-15 is the most commonly used assault weapon to perpetuate mass murder.

[Kirby101]

Why does anyone need to own an assault weapon?

[Tendrin]

Why does anyone need to own an assault weapon?

To keep the gubmint from taking your other guns, of course!

[MECHANO]

Why does anyone need to own an assault weapon?

It really isn't about the need. It's about the right. There are a lot of things we don't need. But as it stands right now, it is your right, as a free United States citizen (unless you're a felon or mentally adjunct) to own one.

[worstblogever]

it's funny how the debate becomes ridiculous when someone decides to start injecting facts into the discussion.

Facts without relevance. Saying "people can also be killed with a knife"? Hey, that's a fact. It's true. But knives are not designed to kill a room full of 50 people, are they?

You can continue to beat the horse that is a silly argument, but the vet's already showed up and declared it D.O.A., man.

[Tendrin]

It really isn't about the need. It's about the right. There are a lot of things we don't need. But as it stands right now, it is your right, as a free United States citizen (unless you're a felon or mentally adjunct) to own one.

The modern conception of the right to bear arms is ridiculous and not supported even by originalist arguments since there was actual state level gun control back in the day.

[MECHANO]

Facts without relevance. Saying "people can also be killed with a knife"? Hey, that's a fact. It's true. But knives are not designed to kill a room full of 50 people, are they?

You can continue to beat the horse that is a silly argument, but the vet's already showed up and declared it D.O.A., man.

If you want to wail and gnash your teeth over the 248 rifle homicides per year as opposed to the 1,567 knife homicides... that's your business.

[Tendrin]

If you want to wail and gnash your teeth over the 248 rifle homicides per year as opposed to the 1,567 knife homicides... that's your business.

When one person with a knife murders 50 people and wounds 42 others, let me know.

[Kirby101]

It really isn't about the need. It's about the right. There are a lot of things we don't need. But as it stands right now, it is your right, as a free United States citizen (unless you're a felon or mentally adjunct) to own one.

What right, they were banned with a law that held up to a Court challenge. It was allowed to lapse by the GOP Congress. But they can be banned again. What purpose do the serve except mass killings.

[MECHANO]

What right, they were banned with a law that held up to a Court challenge. It was allowed to lapse by the GOP Congress. But they can be banned again. What purpose do the serve except mass killings.

You are correct. They were banned in 1994 through 2004. At that point, citizens gained the right to own them again. Interestingly enough, firearm violence dropped the decade following the lift of the ban.