Massacre in Virginia: 33 students dead

Chanak · Post by **Chanak** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 9:45 am

@TEMPLAR67: I think it's intellectually dishonest to compare a substance such as alcohol with a tool such as a firearm. It's like comparing an apple to a lead pipe, really. Not only that, but the figures you mention in your post don't trivialize what firearms are, nor even have an impact on this discussion since apples don't really compare to lead pipes. You want to make a more relevant comparison? Try guns and knives.

In fact, to run with your logic a little bit...how many lives are lost every year because of drowning? How much property damage is caused by water in the United States? How many people have been left homeless and disenfranchised because of water? And don't you know that water erodes top soil, and can be toxic if too much is consumed? Should we ban water?

Sounds absurd, doesn't it? That's exactly the same track you used in your post, comparing firearms to alcohol and tobacco.

Really, I have yet to hear a reasonable argument against more robust gun control here in the U.S. A firearm is designed for one thing, and one thing only: to take life, or at the very minimum leave flesh a mangled ruin. Semi-automatic and assault models further that mission by taking ballistics to the next level. Hollow point ammunition helps ensure the grisly task is done even more efficiently. And so on...

TEMPLAR67 · Post by **TEMPLAR67** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 9:57 am

I'm fairly certain that those 11 000 who died from guns didn't chose to have that bullet fired at them.

Im also fairly certain that the people who were slammed into and killed by drunk drivers chose to go that way either.

You want to make a more relevant comparison? Try guns and knives.

I cant find any knife injury and death stats if you can find some lemme know.

Really, I have yet to hear a reasonable argument against more robust gun control here in the U.S.

In fact, to run with your logic a little bit...how many lives are lost every year because of drowning? How much property damage is caused by water in the United States? How many people have been left homeless and disenfranchised because of water? And don't you know that water erodes top soil, and can be toxic if too much is consumed? Should we ban water?

and water is necessary for life, tobacco and alcohol arent, i think you went a bit over the top with that comparison

I would really like to know exactly what you would like to see happen with guns in the US, just how "controlled" would you like to see our guns, and we'll go from there

Chanak · Post by **Chanak** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 10:02 am

I would really like to know exactly what you would like to see happen with guns in the US, just how "controlled" would you like to see our guns, and we'll go from there

Well, let's clear up one thing first: they're not "our" guns. I don't own any. You would know that if you read one of my earlier posts in the thread, which leads me into answering the rest of your question here: I've already stated exactly what I would like to see here in the US regarding gun control. I'm not going to repeat the entire thing again. Read it and you'll find out.

EDIT: I didn't catch a part of your post since it appears you added it while I was writing this one up, so I'll respond:

and water is necessary for life, tobacco and alcohol arent, i think you went a bit over the top with that comparison

Not at all. Certainly not any further than you strayed with your comparisons. It was merely a continuation using the same logic. The point I made by exposing the absurdity is accomplished: how can you compare a tool such as a firearm to a consumable substance such as alcohol? I can assure you that there's a world of difference between someone reaching for a Glock 19 vs. a shot of whiskey.

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 10:24 am

TEMPLAR67 wrote:You can never have an exact # of people whose lives were saved by guns annually as we dont know what "could" have happened. But guns annually kill about 11,000 ppl in the u.s. every year, omg thats so many ppl right , well not really when you consider that alcohol is responsible for about 32,000 deaths in 06 and just in the UK cigarettes kill about 120,000 people per year and in the US it is even more, almost half a million people every year , so should we ban cigarettes an alcohol too?if we heard about it every time someone died because of alcohol or cigarettes we would probable be having a different discussion right now.

While actually impossible to compare, we can spin it around for a while.
For comparison effect, you'll need to find out how many people die of the primary effect of alcohol and tobacco, as opposed to the primary effect of a gun.
A gun's primary effect is shooting. Alcohol is drinking and tobacco is smoking.

Also you need to figure into the equation drinks per capita, and cigarettes per capita when comparing numbers.

Then you'll have to compare the amount of usage per death. How many "shots" per death of guns, drinks per death of alcohol and cigarettes per death for tobacco.

*Then* you'll start to get a more accurate view of comparison.

However, that is also completely irrelevant to what you were responding to.
Your response earlier was that "guns save lives as well", however you do not know that because the alternative outcomes are unknown, so you do not know if a gun was needed to live. And you do not know how "actual saves" compares to deaths, so your argument is faulty.

Moonbiter · Post by **Moonbiter** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 10:31 am

TEMPLAR67 wrote:You can never have an exact # of people whose lives were saved by guns annually as we dont know what "could" have happened. But guns annually kill about 11,000 ppl in the u.s. every year, omg thats so many ppl right

No they don't. Check your facts. According the ATF and FBI gun related deaths in the US has been between 30 to 35 000 for the last five years, but is currently on the rise in certain urban areas and parts of the nation. As for self defence: Of the 32819 registered gun related deaths in the US in the year 2003, only 164 was justifiable self defence, so that argument is moot. Guns are the second largest killer of young people aged 16-24 in the US after automobile accidents.

Fiberfar · Post by **Fiberfar** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 10:53 am

TEMPLAR67 wrote:Im also fairly certain that the people who were slammed into and killed by drunk drivers chose to go that way either.

And we can compare heaven and hell if we want to. That's not the point. If say 100 000 decide to use drugs and die from it, it's their fault. If 100 000 people get gunned down, manslaughter or first degree, it's not.

TEMPLAR67 · Post by **TEMPLAR67** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 11:49 am

That's not the point. If say 100 000 decide to use drugs and die from it, it's their fault. If 100 000 people get gunned down, manslaughter or first degree, it's not.

FACT:In 2004 (the most recent year for which data is available), there were 29,569 gun deaths in the U.S:

* 16,750 suicides (56% of all U.S gun deaths),
* 11,624 homicides (40% of all U.S gun deaths),
* 649 unintentional shootings, 311 from legal intervention and 235 from undetermined intent (4% of all U.S gun deaths combined).

I guess most of those people did chose to die:speech:
thats where i got my 11000 from, i dont count people who shoot themselves because they would have killed themselves anyway, thats what really tall buildings are for.

Obsidian · Post by **Obsidian** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 12:55 pm

From your stats Templar, under legal intervention, there were 311 kills made by police. 649 by accident, and 11 THOUSAND murders!?

If the police, those sanctioned by law and legally required to take out dangerous people, only find it necessary to use lethal force from a firearm 311 times in a year, across a nation of several hundred million, how can you justifiably say you need guns to defend yourself.

Tasers, mace, hell, a crossbow, would all be just as good in a home defence situation.

I'm liking the crossbow idea.

Twang

TEMPLAR67 · Post by **TEMPLAR67** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 1:15 pm

If the police, those sanctioned by law and legally required to take out dangerous people, only find it necessary to use lethal force from a firearm 311 times in a year, across a nation of several hundred million, how can you justifiably say you need guns to defend yourself.

Because like i said earlier it can take up to 15 mins for the police to arrive and that is if you can get to a phone as soon as they get in. a gun is much faster and more effective that a telephone.

Tasers, mace, hell, a crossbow, would all be just as good in a home defence situation.

I'm liking the crossbow idea.

all good suggestions but my shotgun with 8 rounds of 00 buckshot is a little more intimitating, and it evens the playing field if they have a gun as well

Gilliatt · Post by **Gilliatt** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 1:24 pm

Obsidian wrote:From your stats Templar, under legal intervention, there were 311 kills made by police. 649 by accident, and 11 THOUSAND murders!?

If the police, those sanctioned by law and legally required to take out dangerous people, only find it necessary to use lethal force from a firearm 311 times in a year, across a nation of several hundred million, how can you justifiably say you need guns to defend yourself.

Thanks Obsidian, that is exactly what I meant when I talked about my father who never killed anyone during his years as a policeman. He had to deal with criminals way more than any normal citizen would do and he never had to rely on his gun.

@ C Elegans, thank you for the well put info.

TEMPLAR67 · Post by **TEMPLAR67** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 1:29 pm

Thanks Obsidian, that is exactly what I meant when I talked about my father who never killed anyone during his years as a policeman.

Im not supprised that he didnt, most cops even in big cities wont ever kill anyone

Gilliatt · Post by **Gilliatt** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 1:35 pm

TEMPLAR67 wrote:Im not supprised that he didnt, most cops even in big cities wont ever kill anyone

Yes, and that is the point we are trying to insist on: if policemen don't need to kill people, why would normal citizens need weapons to do so? Are normal citizens more at risk than the police?

TEMPLAR67 · Post by **TEMPLAR67** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 1:43 pm

Yes, and that is the point we are trying to insist on: if policemen don't need to kill people, why would normal citizens need weapons to do so? Are normal citizens more at risk than the police?

well the police unfortunently cant be everywhere so they may not be around when somebody needs killin.
and like i said earlier

In some cases it can take as long as 15 min for police to arrive on the scene of a break in, and that is if your lucky enough to get to a phone the moment they get in. your chances of at the very least frightening a would be criminal into leaving are much better if you have a firearm.

Vicsun · Post by **Vicsun** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 1:59 pm

TEMPLAR67 wrote:well the police unfortunently cant be everywhere so they may not be around when somebody needs killin.
and like i said earlier

"when somebody needs killin"

I rest my case for gun control.

Gilliatt · Post by **Gilliatt** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 2:09 pm

@ Templar67, I had noticed those comments, the reason we ask the question is not because we have not red what you said, but because we are not convinced by your answers. Our question is not "is it faster to rely on yourself or to rely on the police?", but "why would someone who is not at risk as much as the police need to be more protected than the police is?"

I'll make a stupid analogy to illustrate this (not because I consider you stupid, but because I love stupid analogies - Chanak can confirm this!

)

A construction worker needs a helmet because it can save his life if something big falls on his head. Does a secretary need a helmet?

So the question is: "If even a policeman does not really need a weapon on his everyday life, why would a janitor need one?"

TEMPLAR67 · Post by **TEMPLAR67** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 2:11 pm

What can i say, its true

:laugh:

:laugh:. and id like to ask a ?, how many of you were happy when the assault weapons ban was imposed by clinton and upset when bush allowed it to expire by bush? you dont have to live in this country to have an opinion, im open to everyone

TEMPLAR67 · Post by **TEMPLAR67** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 2:24 pm

why would someone who is not at risk as much as the police need to be more protected than the police is?"

How can you determie weather or not someone is at risk, anybody can be a target for robbers, murderers, or rapists. you cannot say that because somone is a civilian that they do not need protection.

A construction worker needs a helmet because it can save his life if something big falls on his head. Does a secretary need a helmet?

a secretary does not need one because she is not at risk of something falling on her head.(unless she worked at a library, ive seen books hit ppl on the head before

)

If even a policeman does not really need a weapon on his everyday life, why would a janitor need one?"

a cop has a much higher possibility of needing one while he is at wk than a janitor. the janitor has no need for one at wk (unless he wks at one of the schools in dallas or fort worth, but thats somethin else entirely

)but at home, especially if he lived in a bad part of town where breakins are frequent, he may need one.

hope these answers are "convincing" enough

Gilliatt · Post by **Gilliatt** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 4:52 pm

TEMPLAR67 wrote:How can you determie weather or not someone is at risk, anybody can be a target for robbers, murderers, or rapists. you cannot say that because somone is a civilian that they do not need protection.

a secretary does not need one because she is not at risk of something falling on her head.(unless she worked at a library, ive seen books hit ppl on the head before )

a cop has a much higher possibility of needing one while he is at wk than a janitor. the janitor has no need for one at wk (unless he wks at one of the schools in dallas or fort worth, but thats somethin else entirely )but at home, especially if he lived in a bad part of town where breakins are frequent, he may need one.

hope these answers are "convincing" enough

I understand your point, but that makes a lot of "if" and "may". You have more chances of dying in a car accident than being attacked by an armed robber while at home. That does not make people stop taking their car. It is something that can happen, but the probability is extremely low. So the question I, and many others, ask themselves, is if it is worth to let everyone have free access to weapons just so people can protect themselves if something happens. Organized crime don't waste their time robbing houses. The goal of gun control is not to make normal people angry it is to make life harder to the little criminals (if we can call them that way) and to reduce the non-premiditated killings. We all agree that gun control will have no impact on organized crime, but it will have some on the weekend car stealers, house robbers, etc.

That is why some of us also insisted on the police force. The janitor watching his monday night football at home is not in as much danger has a policeman on duty. So if the policeman does not really need his weapons why would the janitor watching monday night football need one? Just in case the very low probability happens? Then why don't we all have anti-nuclear vaults in our backyard just in case? Why don't I have anti-venom at home just in case a viper gets free from the zoo that is 15 km from my home? Why don't we all have an anti-radioactivity suit, just in case another tragedy like Chernobyl happens?

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 4:55 pm

Several posts have been removed.

This isn't a topic for the discussion of gun use. It's a topic for discussing just what the title says: "Massacre in Virginia: 33 students dead." That includes guns, but only as they have anything to do with the terrible events at Virginia Tech.

Guys, show a little sensitvity. If you can't, don't post.

Gilliatt · Post by **Gilliatt** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 5:15 pm

fable wrote:Several posts have been removed.

This isn't a topic for the discussion of gun use. It's a topic for discussing just what the title says: "Massacre in Virginia: 33 students dead." That includes guns, but only as they have anything to do with the terrible events at Virginia Tech.

Guys, show a little sensitvity. If you can't, don't post.

Point taken, Fable. I felt bad in the begining to use that thread for something else than a mourning to the victims, but I have to admit that after some time I kind of forgot what the initial post was about.