1. The DLP Story Competition is back!!!!11one! Get the details in the announcement and break out your favorite editor, because it's time to enter the December 2017 competition.

    Don't let us down, Guest.
    Dismiss Notice

2nd amendment / gun discussion thread: Keep it in here

Discussion in 'Politics' started by LogrusMage, Nov 20, 2008.

  1. Nazgus

    Nazgus Death Eater

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2011
    Messages:
    960
    Location:
    USA
  2. Download

    Download Chief Warlock DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2014
    Messages:
    1,533
    Location:
    Adelaide, Australia
    Want to actually try citing a study and not a news article? The fact they won't even name the study should set alarm bells ringing.
     
  3. Psychotic Cat

    Psychotic Cat Order Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    800
    Suicide in the Home in Relation to Gun Ownership, New England Journal of Medicine(1992)

    Quoted you a tldr from the summary of the conclusion. I'm nice like that.
    This isn't new information, it isn't surprising, and it really isn't a matter of legitimate debate.
    If you were trying to argue that it's an acceptable price to pay for the freedom to easily acquire guns then I'd disagree with you, but I'd at least take you seriously and accept it as a matter of opinion and one you're entirely entitled to hold.
     
    Last edited: Sep 29, 2017
  4. PomMan

    PomMan Professor

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2011
    Messages:
    489
    Location:
    Queensland, Australia.
  5. Chengar Qordath

    Chengar Qordath The Final Pony Prestige

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2008
    Messages:
    726
    High Score:
    1,802
    Yeah, I don't think it's controversial to say that having easy access to a quick and reasonably effective way to commit suicide increases the odds that a suicidal person will actually go through with it.

    That said, a quick Google/Wikipedia check says that Belgium, South Korea, and Japan have both restrictive gun laws and a higher suicide rate than the US, so there's clearly more to suicide than gun ownership. I'd say there are probably a lot of ways to reduce the suicide rate that don't involve taking away a fundamental right. Of course, a lot of those are social/cultural/economic issues that are kind of hard to deal with on a government policy level. Frex, despite a lot of public and government efforts to address it, the LGBTQ suicide rate is still three times the national average.
     
  6. Darth_Revan

    Darth_Revan Secret Squirrel Prestige DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    245
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Empire City
    High Score:
    2810
    Clearly it's not.

    Re-frame the scenario and you will have a more accurate depiction of the situation: The rate of depression that leads to suicide varies by country for myriad reasons, but the rate at which a suicide attempt is successful is vastly higher when the available method is death by gunshot. There will still be people who kill themselves, whatever we do, but by reducing the availability of firearms, the chances that a person will either a) back off their attempt or b) nevertheless be rescued or c) fail to affect their attempt to the point where they can be recovered would rise dramatically.

    Similar to that issue is the time-to-decision component. The best way to reduce the possibility of having to deploy deadly force is to increase the time that you have before you have to make a decision. The reason so many cops are in situations these days where they shoot too quickly is that they are poorly trained and don't give themselves the breathing room to de-escalate a situation.

    The same is true for violent situations of all kinds. A person is much more likely either to not commit violence, or to fail in effectively commit violence (thereby saving their victim's life) if they cannot deploy violence in a way that is instantly effective and impersonal. It's a lot harder (generally) for the average person to kill someone by bludgeoning them or by stabbing them or by whatever other method you can think of than it is to shoot them. By increasing the time, effort, and personal nature of the situation, fewer people will get killed.
     
  7. Darth_Revan

    Darth_Revan Secret Squirrel Prestige DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    245
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Empire City
    High Score:
    2810
    Today, like every example of this kind, is another stark reminder about how even if you support the idea of people being able to own a handgun for their self-defense, the idea that citizens should be able to own weapons of war is absurd.
     
  8. tikkier2000

    tikkier2000 First Year

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2016
    Messages:
    28
    Location:
    Northern Hemisphere
    High Score:
    0
    I do agree with that. Those who say the right to own an AK-47 is because they want to "protect themselves against government tyranny" are off their rockers. (And let's be honest here---if anything like that did ever happen, you can literally 3D print most of the parts for weapons like that anyway.) There's no reason to own anything like that except for killing a shit ton of people.

    My issue is with handguns mostly. And that Armalite Rifles shouldn't be entirely banned en masse. There can be legitimate reasons to own some form of assault rifle, though I wouldn't be opposed to a case-by-case basis here if there was an efficient way to go about it.

    Even when the Bill of Rights was written, canons didn't fall under it. I would argue that it's the same idea with weapons designed only for killing as many people as possible as efficiently as possible. The kind that can't be used for hunting or sport or self-defense.
     
  9. Paladin

    Paladin Second Year

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2015
    Messages:
    65
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Oklahoma, USA
    High Score:
    0


    "government oppression"
     
  10. tikkier2000

    tikkier2000 First Year

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2016
    Messages:
    28
    Location:
    Northern Hemisphere
    High Score:
    0
    First off, I'm going to apologize in advance if I misinterpreted your post. But I took this as saying government oppression isn't a thing. That's not what I'm saying at all. I was referring to the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. In many other countries I don't agree with their handling of firearm rights, but that's not my business because I'm not a citizen of any other country. I'm a citizen of the US. I'm debating the reach of 2nd Amendment rights not how Spanish riot police handle situations. Also, that clip is 25 seconds long and out of context. I have no idea what went on just from that clip and I wouldn't draw any conclusions until I'm more informed.

    Secondly, since your location states Oklahoma, USA, I'll ask your opinion on what I was originally referring to: is it likely that the United States government would so egregiously violate some of the most highly valued and important of our inalienable rights? Because if the answer is anything other than a firm yes, there is absolutely no reason to own weapons of war.

    By the way, automatic weapons can't hit the broad side of a barn. If for some outlandish reason Trump tomorrow decides to enact marshal law and start executing people in the street or something, close-quarters urban settings would be the worst way to use automatic firearms. Talk about a friendly-fire nightmare.
     
  11. Chengar Qordath

    Chengar Qordath The Final Pony Prestige

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2008
    Messages:
    726
    High Score:
    1,802
    I don't mind the idea of reasonable common-sense regulation, but these days the issue is so polarized that it's not likely to happen. It seems like all the players on both sides refuse to accept anything less than "Freedom to own anything short of tactical nuke (or heck, allow those too) or an absolute ban on anything more dangerous than a closed fist (and will then probably try to ban that too).
     
  12. awinarock

    awinarock Alchemist

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2009
    Messages:
    2,370
    Location:
    Texas
    This is just a though experiment, nothing serious, but why shouldn't a citizen be allowed to own a tactical nuke? I mean, it's hilariously easy to make assuming you can get a hold of the required materials and certain organizations try everything they can to do so, whether through the black market or by bartering with government actors/agents. It's because it's dangerous as fuck, right? But that's only a a matter of scale. Anything can be deadly and it's so easy to kill large numbers of people with household chemicals that banning certain weapons is ridiculous imo. Just wanna hear your opinions.
     
  13. Erotic Adventures of S

    Erotic Adventures of S Denarii Host

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    2,207
    Location:
    New Zealand
    Why, cause a guy just killed 59 people with guns and it is the worst attack of its kind in US history. How many would be dead dying with even a small nuke right now?
     
  14. awinarock

    awinarock Alchemist

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2009
    Messages:
    2,370
    Location:
    Texas
    Don't know, but I can think of creative ways to kill large numbers of people without having to resort to guns and nukes, but people will always die. The question is, can we stop the people responsible and I don't believe we always can. With regards to the nukes, like I said, it's only matter of scale and, eventually, time. Someone will get ahold of one. Whether it's due to the CIA playing puppeteers, Pakistan being a fucking shit show, or nuclear Armageddon, who knows. I don't beleive we can stop people, groups, or organizations attempting to hurt people from doing so. Stopping them will only delay them, so the best way to deal with the threat, IMO, is to neutralize it. That is, cut off it's head and salt the earth it sprouted from.
     
  15. TheWiseTomato

    TheWiseTomato Tactical Tomato DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2009
    Messages:
    3,057
    Location:
    Australia.
    That is a contender for one of the dumbest 'thought experiments' I have ever heard.
     
  16. awinarock

    awinarock Alchemist

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2009
    Messages:
    2,370
    Location:
    Texas
    Please tell me it's top 3...
     
  17. Aekiel

    Aekiel Angle of Mispeling Prestige DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Messages:
    853
    Location:
    The Mouth of Ports
    High Score:
    9,373
    The reason explosives are generally restricted, even in the US, is because they're indiscriminate weapons. You can't control who they hit beyond choosing the location. Guns, at least, require you to actually aim at a target and pull the trigger.

    Nukes are several orders of magnitude beyond what is readily available to the average person. Also they fucking irradiate everything.
     
  18. Darth_Revan

    Darth_Revan Secret Squirrel Prestige DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    245
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Empire City
    High Score:
    2810
    A person who is determined to hurt someone likely will succeed in doing so, but taking that and giving into nihilism and inaction is idiotic. There's zero reason I should make it easy for them. If we were responsible, we'd be throwing up every roadblock and impediment we could think of.
     
  19. Chengar Qordath

    Chengar Qordath The Final Pony Prestige

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2008
    Messages:
    726
    High Score:
    1,802
    Every roadblock and impediment we can think of that wouldn't be unreasonably restrictive, at least. I mean, we could probably cut the rate of violence way down by forcing the entire human race into solitary confinement, but I don't think anyone wants that.
     
  20. Arthellion

    Arthellion Professor

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2017
    Messages:
    474
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Georgia, USA
    High Score:
    0
    The only reasonable argument for not restricting guns if to provide the common citizen with the ability to revolt against tyrannical government or to provide defense against a foreign invader.

    Good guy with a gun is an incredibly flawed argument that the NRA should drop if they want to maintain any logical credibility (they won't.)

    However to answer the earlier question, it cannot be guaranteed that the United States would never see the rise of a Tyrannical government that oppresses its people. Heck, if Trump could get away with it you know he would happily be dictator. After all, he could "shoot someone on the street and be cheered for it." Considering our current president is more sympathetic to nazis than peaceful protestors it could easily happen.

    Therefore, while my heart is pained at these deaths...58 people don't matter when compared to the potential death toll imposed by a tyrannical US government.

    Call me cynical, but history has proven over and over that if a government or ruler can take more power...they will.