.

[nine naked men]

Apples and oranges. Don't guns require to be under lock and key or some sort of security system as well as being registered at this time? Cars...no. As soon as cars are under the same restrictions bring that to the table. Besides, cars are not built and sold as an offensive/defensive weapon. Guns are sold under that premise.

Explain to me why slingshots, bows and arrows, spears, swords, clubs, crossbows and bolts, switchblades, darts, blowguns, catapults, daggers, shields or flails are any different.

 

because they aren't comparable in efficiency or possibility of lethality

[Z_Berenice]

because they aren't comparable in efficiency or possibility of lethality

You're not aware of the 21 foot rule aren't you? Efficiency is very relative. In the time someone takes to change magazines, someone else is able to kill just as much people with a knife... I know people who are hella slow switching mags, but I also know others that fire arrows at ridiculously fast rates. I was shown how to hip-shoot so the 21 rule is more like 10 rule for me, but that's not necessarily the case for everybody else.

[Saradomin_Mage]

If you unleashed one guy with a gun onto a crowd, wouldn't he get more kph than a guy with a spear/knife? I'm simply assuming it's easier to start firing from a distance into an unwitting crowd as opposed to running up behind people and stabbing them, but then again I don't have experience in either field.

Edited April 30, 2013 by Saradomin_Mage

[Z_Berenice]

If you unleashed one guy with a gun onto a crowd, wouldn't he get more kph than a guy with a spear/knife? I'm simply assuming it's easier to start firing from a distance into an unwitting crowd as opposed to running up behind people and stabbing them, but then again I don't have experience in either field.

I'll just ignore the kph...

And if you unleash one guy driving a hummer he would prob get as many kills aswell. I dunno why people think that shooting a gun is really that simple... How many of you have actually ever shot a gun? Just wondering.

[Saradomin_Mage]

I've used a semi-automatic rifle before, but I preferred to ask you about the gun/spear/knife comparison. In my head it's much easier to kill a crowd with that rifle than a knife.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Annndddd the thread's gone into hypothetical scenarios again.

[Saradomin_Mage]

I thought we were discussing Langzor's point :P Sorry, I'll back out of here.

[Z_Berenice]

I'm asking because it seriously worries me how everyone thinks guns are like what you see in cod or whatever kids play these days, or what's worse, what they see in the movies... I've had mags melt on me before, I don't carry a 1911 because it's not as reliable as a 92fs, etc... It's not hypothetical scenarios, it's people who know nothing about guns saying stupid crap about them... good lord... (sorry for language).

 

 

I've used a semi-automatic rifle before.

Which?

[Saradomin_Mage]

I'm asking because it seriously worries me how everyone thinks guns are like what you see in cod or whatever kids play these days, or what's worse, what they see in the movies... I've had mags melt on me before, I don't carry a 1911 because it's not as reliable as a 92fs, etc... It's not hypothetical scenarios, it's people who know nothing about guns saying stupid crap about them... good lord... (sorry for language).

 

 

I've used a semi-automatic rifle before.

Which?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAR_21

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15

[Z_Berenice]

I'm asking because it seriously worries me how everyone thinks guns are like what you see in cod or whatever kids play these days, or what's worse, what they see in the movies... I've had mags melt on me before, I don't carry a 1911 because it's not as reliable as a 92fs, etc... It's not hypothetical scenarios, it's people who know nothing about guns saying stupid crap about them... good lord... (sorry for language).

 

 

I've used a semi-automatic rifle before.

Which?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAR_21

Either you have some really cool friends, or some really cool shooting range close to you lol. I'm jelly.

 

Edit: Ban assault bows!

[Ember]

.

[sees_all1]

because they aren't comparable in efficiency or possibility of lethality

We're shown time and again that someone on a rampage with a knife is able to do just as much damage as someone with a gun. In Texas earlier this month, 14 people were stabbed with an exacto knife; the only reason he stopped was because his knife broke.

 

On the same day as Sandy Hook, 22 children were slashed in China, where the assailant was cutting off fingers and ears instead of slashing throats.

 

The only reason these stories are buried several months later is because no one has the agenda to try and ban knives.

[Ember]

.

[Omar]

because they aren't comparable in efficiency or possibility of lethality

Now we're getting somewhere!

[Z_Berenice]

The only reason these stories are buried several months later is because no one has the agenda to try and ban knives.

Except in the UK? :D

 

On a more serious note, I'm WAY MORE afraid of someone with a karambit than someone with a gun against me...

[nine naked men]

because they aren't comparable in efficiency or possibility of lethality

If that's true, it causes a natural cap on liability with the reduced potential for damage through misuse; it does not explain why no such liability would be imposed.

I'm not entirely sure what you're saying here? Like, laws?

 

because they aren't comparable in efficiency or possibility of lethality

We're shown time and again that someone on a rampage with a knife is able to do just as much damage as someone with a gun. In Texas earlier this month, 14 people were stabbed with an exacto knife; the only reason he stopped was because his knife broke.

 

On the same day as Sandy Hook, 22 children were slashed in China, where the assailant was cutting off fingers and ears instead of slashing throats.

 

The only reason these stories are buried several months later is because no one has the agenda to try and ban knives.

But nobody died in either of those scenarios. 26 died at Sandy Hook. I don't know how that's "just as much damage" in any way.

 

 

[Alg]

But nobody died in either of those scenarios. 26 died at Sandy Hook. I don't know how that's "just as much damage" in any way.

True. They were 'only' permanently disfigured (ears) and/or disabled (fingers). Granted, I wouldn't wish them dead, but it's still bittersweet at best.

[sees_all1]

But nobody died in either of those scenarios. 26 died at Sandy Hook. I don't know how that's "just as much damage" in any way.

If the person wanted to slash their throats instead of cut off their fingers, I'd imagine it would've taken less effort.

[nine naked men]

But nobody died in either of those scenarios. 26 died at Sandy Hook. I don't know how that's "just as much damage" in any way.

If the person wanted to slash their throats instead of cut off their fingers, I'd imagine it would've taken less effort.

Well then find me 26 people dead by having their throats slashed in one incident, I guess. Stab wounds aren't as damaging as gun shot wounds. That's how they aren't comparable. It's not hard to understand. (source)

 

But nobody died in either of those scenarios. 26 died at Sandy Hook. I don't know how that's "just as much damage" in any way.

True. They were 'only' permanently disfigured (ears) and/or disabled (fingers). Granted, I wouldn't wish them dead, but it's still bittersweet at best.

Okay? I don't know what your point is.

[Z_Berenice]

But nobody died in either of those scenarios. 26 died at Sandy Hook. I don't know how that's "just as much damage" in any way.

If the person wanted to slash their throats instead of cut off their fingers, I'd imagine it would've taken less effort.

Well then find me 26 people dead by having their throats slashed in one incident, I guess. Stab wounds aren't as damaging as gun shot wounds. That's how they aren't comparable. It's not hard to understand. (source)

I can think of a few but not as many as 26. Nevertheless, the funny thing is that far more people are killed with pistols than "military style assault riffles" (that one always makes me giggle). Also, I always found it fascinating how small is the % of incidents with legally obtained guns in the U.S. Last I saw it was 0.01% chance of happening per individual or something? In a way, the stadistics in the U.S. extrapolate those of my country: you can expect that at some point between 4m population vs hundreds of millions some incidents happen.

 

I really wish the media gave out percentages instead of wholes, by those standards, of course thousands sound like a lot, but then you look at how much those thousands represent and you realize you're more likely to die in your own kitchen... Not to forget those incidents have been going down steady for a good 20 years.

 

Now back on knives, I might be able to say a thing or two about how effective they are in the right hands, since that seems to be what we're talking about now.

[Guest Smelly Paws]

It might be because that's how arguments work. If you try to argue that something should be restricted, you look for a similar situation and compare them. We have an entire legal system built on that premise; which is why people compare the current drug system to prohibition.

 

...Either way, I think I'm done here. You're essentially arguing that evidence a distraction so that you don't have to address it. :wall:

If something is irrelevant, you should be able to point out why. After all, if we use different words to denote two things, that is more often than not because they are not the same. Calling deflection tactics won't convince anyone other than yourself because if the argument was made in good faith (which is not something you can really know), your assertion will look like deflection tactics (see Alg's reply), especially considering you should be able dismantle his argument if it's false, but you chose not to.

So tell me: which characteristic of guns is it that separates them from drugs in such a way that banning the former won't create a dangerous black market, even though it has in the latter?

No. Arguments work like that when you have at least something comparable to work with. I don’t need to sit there and dismantle this type of thing because I use a little common sense and ignore it. If you want to sit there and debate cars vs guns or whatever be my guest. If I did you'd be on the usual bandwagons of screaming "off-topic" or "troll!".

 

Explain to me why slingshots, bows and arrows, spears, swords, clubs, crossbows and bolts, switchblades, darts, blowguns, catapults, daggers, shields or flails are any different.

 

In that sense, they aren’t. Misandrist is right if you’re comparing on his terms but they’re still built as offensive weapons. Do you have any form of homicide statistics where we could compare them e.g. guns and knives?

 

I don't want to argue too heavily against Smelly Paws

. :(

For that.......here you go :wink:

[sees_all1]

But nobody died in either of those scenarios. 26 died at Sandy Hook. I don't know how that's "just as much damage" in any way.

If the person wanted to slash their throats instead of cut off their fingers, I'd imagine it would've taken less effort.

Well then find me 26 people dead by having their throats slashed in one incident, I guess. Stab wounds aren't as damaging as gun shot wounds. That's how they aren't comparable. It's not hard to understand. (source)

26 is a lot by any measurement, only a handful of killing sprees have more. Most of those are bombings.

Primarily using an ax:

http://en.wikipedia....ki/William_Unek

Using a paring knife and sickle:

http://en.wikipedia....arsari_massacre

 

http://en.wikipedia....rampage_killers

 

EDIT: and let's not forget

[hide]

9/11 was perpetrated using box cutter knives.

[/hide]

 

Explain to me why slingshots, bows and arrows, spears, swords, clubs, crossbows and bolts, switchblades, darts, blowguns, catapults, daggers, shields or flails are any different.

 

In that sense, they aren’t. Misandrist is right if you’re comparing on his terms but they’re still built as offensive weapons. Do you have any form of homicide statistics where we could compare them e.g. guns and knives?

I don't need any form of homicide statistic when your argument is "guns are weapons and should be banned." Guns are banned, another weapon becomes a criminal's favorite.

http://frontpagemag....-end-stabbings/

EDIT: And lets not forget all of history before gunpowder, shall we?

[Omar]

If something is irrelevant, you should be able to point out why. After all, if we use different words to denote two things, that is more often than not because they are not the same. Calling deflection tactics won't convince anyone other than yourself because if the argument was made in good faith (which is not something you can really know), your assertion will look like deflection tactics (see Alg's reply), especially considering you should be able dismantle his argument if it's false, but you chose not to.

So tell me: which characteristic of guns is it that separates them from drugs in such a way that banning the former won't create a dangerous black market, even though it has in the latter?

No. Arguments work like that when you have at least something comparable to work with. I don’t need to sit there and dismantle this type of thing because I use a little common sense and ignore it. If you want to sit there and debate cars vs guns or whatever be my guest. If I did you'd be on the usual bandwagons of screaming "off-topic" or "troll!".

No, I wouldn't be; I made a point regarding positivism in social sciences in this thread, so I'm not exactly in a position where I can criticize people for going off-topic. I don't understand what you're saying about having nothing to work with. Drugs and guns, how are they different in those regards that affect their exchange? It's a simple question, and we're having this exact type of discussion about how dangerous guns are in relation to other weapons, so why do you refuse to do it about this? There is demand for guns, just like there is demand for drugs; there is supply for guns, just like there is supply for drugs. In my mind that is all that is required for a black market to exist when the law gets in the way. But I'm waiting to be proven wrong.

 

Suppose that guns were banned in the US and that a dangerous black market, was created, costing us lives in the same way drug wars do, and more of them than before prohibition, was created. Would this not change your views about gun control? It seems evident to me that you and I are both getting at the same thing--we want to save lives--but don't agree on the method. What I'm telling is that I'm on your side, but you're not; what you will end up doing is just compounding the problem. Hopefully, this clears up the importance of the question.

 

PS: appealing to common sense is like saying "I just know".

[Ember]

.

[Guest Smelly Paws]

No, I wouldn't be; I made a point regarding positivism in social sciences in this thread, so I'm not exactly in a position where I can criticize people for going off-topic. I don't understand what you're saying about having nothing to work with. Drugs and guns, how are they different in those regards that affect their exchange? It's a simple question, and we're having this exact type of discussion about how dangerous guns are in relation to other weapons, so why do you refuse to do it about this? There is demand for guns, just like there is demand for drugs; there is supply for guns, just like there is supply for drugs. In my mind that is all that is required for a black market to exist when the law gets in the way. But I'm waiting to be proven wrong.

 

Suppose that guns were banned in the US and that a dangerous black market, was created, costing us lives in the same way drug wars do, and more of them than before prohibition, was created. Would this not change your views about gun control? It seems evident to me that you and I are both getting at the same thing--we want to save lives--but don't agree on the method. What I'm telling is that I'm on your side, but you're not; what you will end up doing is just compounding the problem. Hopefully, this clears up the importance of the question.

 

PS: appealing to common sense is like saying "I just know".

Right I think we're on the same wavelengths here. My apologies I was getting confused with being asked to compare all and sundry with guns. Ok lets deal with the points in turn:

 

Guns vs other weapons - I'll assume that you mean 'weapons' as in knives etc. Give me something to work with. I've already asked for evidence about homicides. Let's start with that. What weapons dominate US homicides? We'll work it from there. If you ask me to compare guns with cars it doesn't work as I was asked to do because "a car can be used as an offensive weapon". Jason Bourne can use a biro pen as one so should be discuss those too. Do you see what I'm getting at here? It totally derails the topic completely and ends up with stupid conversations. I just know *Cough*

 

Black Markets - Tough one. I believe that if you're going to ban something then follow it through. Better that than doing nothing at all. I think guns are too embedded in american culture to ban completely imo. If it was a ban I'd support it. You will get casualties as with anything like this. More deaths than currently - I've no crystal ball on the subject.

 

Interesting article - http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/21/boston-marathon-bombs-us-gun-law

 

I don't need any form of homicide statistic when your argument is "guns are weapons and should be banned." Guns are banned, another weapon becomes a criminal's favorite.

http://frontpagemag....-end-stabbings/

EDIT: And lets not forget all of history before gunpowder, shall we?

No idea what you're talking about. I haven't called for guns to be banned, just for more responsibility and liability of ownership. I merely requested something that might actually aid your point. Forget it :thumbdown:

 

You don't want to talk about the logic behind your suggestions for fear of going off-topic, but we can talk about going off-topic. Oh, and here's a meerkat. :wall:

Doesn't understand irony or sense of humor - Noted.