It not about a "gun culture," but a "death culture."

[elohiym]

Think of how stupid the average person is.

Let me guess, you see yourself as above average, right?

Now, remember that half the population is below that.

You are claiming that half the population is below average and average is stupid. Ironic.

The average IQ in the United States is 98, according to this source.

I do not want those people carrying firearms.

"A sample of 174 IQs of serial killers had a median IQ of 93..."

I do not believe all individuals are capable of making life/death decisions on the fly.

You have a stupid method of determining who those individuals are.

 

[Quetzal]

Let me guess, you see yourself as above average, right?



You are claiming that half the population is below average and average is stupid. Ironic.



"A sample of 174 IQs of serial killers had a median IQ of 93..."



You have a stupid method of determining who those individuals are.

Deep breath, feel better? You do know the definition of a literary device, right? In this case it is a series humorous or sarcastic few statements to try and prove a point. Obviously to you it wasn't funny. Anyway, allow me to clarify. Again, all my opinion with no data to back it up. Just my thoughts on the issue, so you can put your little red pen away, professor.

When you give someone a firearm you are giving them a series of choices on how to use that firearm. One of those choices is whether or not to use that gun on someone else. Speaking in regards to the American population we are a very paranoid bunch. There are a large number of people who want to actively pursue and eliminate Muslims (some of which are on this very forum). There is another group who would love it if members of the LGBT community were persecuted, too. Bias and prejudice flood through social media faster than a fire through a hay field. So, forgive me for hesitating about giving those very same people open and accelerated access to weapons meant to kill things.

If you think knee-jerk reactions are rough on a message board, I can only imagine what it might be like if everyone was open carrying AR-15s with the mental belief that they are empowered to take action at their own discretion. To promote and actively advocate the arming of everyone who can physically carry carry a gun is a very risky gamble that you can't take back. I'm sorry, but I am not ready to play that game.

 

[elohiym]

Inventing silly labels like "death culture" ...

Yet you essentially acknowledged the "death culture" on the Halloween thread when you wrote:

I do think we should focus more on it being attached to the fall harvest then on death and ghosts and all that.

 

[elohiym]

Deep breath, feel better? You do know the definition of a literary device, right?

Is that what you are going to claim every time you stick your foot in your mouth?

When you give someone a firearm you are giving them a series of choices on how to use that firearm. One of those choices is whether or not to use that gun on someone else.

You are focusing on guns while ignoring all the other things you could similarly regulate, for similar reasons, but don't. I've given you the example of knives several times already.

Speaking in regards to the American population we are a very paranoid bunch. There are a large number of people who want to actively pursue and eliminate Muslims (some of which are on this very forum). There is another group who would love it if members of the LGBT community were persecuted, too. Bias and prejudice flood through social media faster than a fire through a hay field. So, forgive me for hesitating about giving those very same people open and accelerated access to weapons meant to kill things.

Are you advocating intelligence tests or religious tests for gun ownership? Last post, it was about low intelligence, now it's about religious views.

If you think knee-jerk reactions are rough on a message board, I can only imagine what it might be like if everyone was open carrying AR-15s with the mental belief that they are empowered to take action at their own discretion.

Why would possessing AR-15s suddenly cause people to start murdering each other? They don't need guns to murder each other, and could do it now without guns in a variety of ways ... but they don't generally. There are very few murderers, relatively speaking.

To promote and actively advocate the arming of everyone who can physically carry carry a gun is a very risky gamble that you can't take back. I'm sorry, but I am not ready to play that game.

That's not what I'm advocating. I don't want you to play that game, so you don't need to apologize to me.

 

[Quetzal]

Is that what you are going to claim every time you stick your foot in your mouth?



You are focusing on guns while ignoring all the other things you could similarly regulate, for similar reasons, but don't. I've given you the example of knives several times already.



Are you advocating intelligence tests or religious tests for gun ownership? Last post, it was about low intelligence, now it's about religious views.



Why would possessing AR-15s suddenly cause people to start murdering each other? They don't need guns to murder each other, and could do it now without guns in a variety of ways ... but they don't generally. There are very few murderers, relatively speaking.



That's not what I'm advocating. I don't want you to play that game, so you don't need to apologize to me.

It's remarkable you swung and missed on all of my points by looking at the trees and ignoring the woods. We are done. Cheers. :e4e:

 

[Granite]

It's remarkable you swung and missed on all of my points by looking at the trees and ignoring the woods. We are done. Cheers. :e4e:

Anything that threatens or even questions "guns good, no guns bad" just gets written off.

 

[Quetzal]

Anything that threatens or even questions "guns good, no guns bad" just gets written off.

Right, I don't mind debate. Rocketman brought up some strong points and I thought we had a fun back and forth. My discussion with Elo, unfortunately, came up short. No biggie.

 

[PureX]

So, it is your assertion that the guns being used in crimes in Chicago are bought legally from the burbs? Really, the problem is not the legal purchase of guns but, trafficking of weapons into Chicago from "straw purchases" & other illegal means from out of state. Your ten minute drive to the burbs scenario is just not the case in Chicago and even with stricter rules criminals will find a way to kill in Chicago...it is the hearts of men that must change if you want murder to decrease, gun control is just an attempt to treat the symptom, while ignoring the disease.

I lived in Chicago for nearly 25 years. Chicago is a half hour drive from Wisconsin. And a ten minute drive from Indiana. It's also surrounded by a bunch of small suburbs that are happy to make money at the expense of the safety of the people living in the city. So if you want to call driving less than a couple of miles to any of three different states with three different disconnected sets of regulations "trafficking" then I think your bias is making you stupid.

And the fact that some criminals will disobey the law in no way mitigates the need for having the rule of law. Some people will disobey our traffic laws and regulations, too, but that lends no credence whatever to the proposition that we should eliminate all our traffic laws and regulation.

If you can't be at least a little bit sensible about this subject, there's no point in discussing it with you.

 

[Alate_One]

No amount of murder is acceptable to me. That is why I don't focus on the guns but focus on the death culture that breeds murderers who will use knives and other things to commit murder.

But fewer people would be killed if guns were less available.

A woman's right to privacy is not the right to murder another person.

A Person's second amendment right does not extend to a gun they may use to kill someone or could be accidentally used to kill a child. And yet you pretend as if gun laws are bad because they infringe on such rights.

The law in the majority of states and federal law recognize a fetus as a person, and for that reason have fetal homicide laws. It can't be true that it's murder if a stranger kills her unborn child but only the mother exercising her right to privacy if she goes to a doctor to have her unborn child killed. A right to privacy isn't a license to commit murder or allow someone to murder another in your care.

As a right to own a gun isn't a licence to commit murder, but yet there are many people that are killed with guns, suicides, accidents as well as murders (not included in your numbers).

The problem with laws against abortion is they do infringe on a woman's right to privacy. You want to protect an unborn child. The problem is until a certain point of development, a pregnant woman is indistinguishable from a woman that is not pregnant without an invasive procedure.

You can only effectively protect this life by invading a woman's privacy to find out said life is there. You can ban abortion, but how do you propose to find out if a woman goes to a woman's health clinic whether she's getting an abortion or a pap smear or something else?

Abortion is murder. I oppose murderers and their evil deeds.

What are you doing about knives? Over 12% of the people murdered in 2014 were killed with knives.

Knives are an essential part of ordinary things like cooking. Much like cars and driving.

Guns, not so much.

 

[musterion]

***

 

[rocketman]

Wrong, it is only a punishment if they use a gun to kill someone, a very specific sort of crime, you see.

What is wrong? using the death penalty? or using the death penalty as the deterrent for gun crime? what is wrong about it? you want a meaningful solution, that is a meaningful solution and you don't punish the law abiding in the process...see how easy that is?

I hate that right, I really do. It is outdated and its original purpose is no longer relevant. That is my opinion, I don't expect it to change anything. But if I had it my way and if I had a magic wand to make all guns go away from the general populace unless they underwent intensive training/investigations, I would in a heart beat.

And that is why your not in charge, and lack the backbone & foresight to pen the constitution of a unique nation such as the United States that is based upon the rights of citizens, not the whims of a minority sect of the populace. Just saying...lain:

Nice dodge of the point being made about taking peoples rights because a small minority abuse them. Epic Fail!

 

[elohiym]

It's remarkable you swung and missed on all of my points by looking at the trees and ignoring the woods.

Rather, you dodged my points and made none.

We are done.

Okay.

 

[elohiym]

Anything that threatens or even questions "guns good, no guns bad" just gets written off.

You are implying poster Quetzal was arguing "guns bad, no guns good," else she could not be making points that "threaten or even questions" the idea "guns good, no guns bad."

 

[Lon]

Sure, how am I supposed to cut my steak?

Plastic knife, chainsaw, or simply bite off pieces from the fork?

See, you are illustrating the point: You will NEVER use that to do another harm. The vast majority of us, exponentially, never would. Whatever we abolish, shouldn't just be about taking away "what I don't personally use or care if it disappears."

In this case, guns truly are 'blamed.'
"What good are they for?"

"Why do we have them?"

If I ate my steak without a knife, I might ask the same question and WRONGLY put the blame for stabbing on knives.

1) YES we all could get along without them, but the inconvenience would be an inconvenience.
Likewise, 'inconvenience' doesn't necessarily apply to all gun owners, but the removal of them does indeed deprive them of guaranteed self-protection and protection of those they love, as well as in many cases, what they provide for their families with them as well. Sure, you can break this down, but in the end, such at least similarly and empathetically applies to our steak knives as well. I 'would' use a steak knife for protection, especially of others. I would likely use a gun, more effectively (more than likely, I'm proficient). 2) That anyone would misuse a steak knife or a gun, is unconscionable. Criminals 'think' that these things are weapons to harm another with and hurt them for selfish reasons. They should be denied access to spoons, imho and we should be paying attention, when we see the warning signs. In most cases, the writing was on the wall, long before the crime ever happened and simply 'removing guns' is but one of many things on my list to remove from them.

Listen: I'm fairly certain I have no problem with you owning and using dynamite. I'd 'want' you to have a little training, but you have every right to remove that stump on your property, or collapse that dangerous mine on your property. Just because a terrorist would misuse it, doesn't mean I don't trust you with it, or shouldn't have it. I would simply ask you to not be irresponsible with it, to lock it up, to not accidentally blow yourself up, etc. There is a bit more involved with both guns and dynamite, but I'm saying abolishing them isn't the answer. You should be able to cut your steak without resorting to acts of a caveman. If the bad-guy were deprived of a steak-knife, because everyone was deprived of a steak-knife, he'd use a rock or she'd use poison. Have your steak-knife, I'll work on keeping everything from the bad-guy &/or removing the bad-guy. -Lon

 

[Delmar]

...I don't claim the murders are acceptably low, just that there is a misplaced focus that the low numbers don't justify ...

this

 

[Delmar]

... If the bad-guy were deprived of a steak-knife, because everyone was deprived of a steak-knife, he'd use a rock or she'd use poison. Have your steak-knife, I'll work on keeping everything from the bad-guy &/or removing the bad-guy. -Lon

:up:

 

[This Charming Manc]

tell that to the idiots in australiia, England, Canada, ....

You mean those places that don't have school shootings every six months, or have multiple instances of children shooting parents and each other every year?

 

[This Charming Manc]

Low?

Depends what you compare it with, its outrageous high compared to other western democracies in terms of numbers of people killed by guns per capita population.

Its very high compared to numbers of terrorist deaths, roughly 200,000 gun homicides since 911 happened.

Of course you can minimise gun deaths, but its suggest to me they have been that common in your experience via the news, what is an abhorrent waste to me juts seems like a fact of life to you.

Why would that *low number of victims merit any infringement on the right of millions to bear arms? There is presently a misplaced focus by some on the law abiding "gun culture," when they should be focused on the "death culture" that creates murderers who will kill with a knife if they can't get a gun.

* Relative to the U.S. population of 318,900,000 in 2014. For an interesting comparison,

 

[This Charming Manc]

hmm have you not realised that some are tools and vehicles designed to various and useful tasks and guns are weapons designed to kill.

They are different items designed for different things and therefore different levels of restrictions should apply.

Or do you believe that all items should be freely available by all people as they are just items, without inherent threat value of there own?

Your a bright guy Lon so I think you would agree that nuclear and biological weapons shouldn't be in the hands of private citizens, neither should deadly toxins or explosives without serious regulation.

This are items which are so dangerous virtually all of us would agree that these items can and should be restricted due to there nature.

So if this the case the argument that items should not be regulated or hold inherent risk is null and void.

The items of debate should be which items are so dangerous that need to be restricted and regulated and to what level.

Feel free top disagree with me about guns fall in this hierarchy, but please don't suggest that guns shouldn't be regulated because they are item which no intrinsic threat of there own as you are willing to apply that logic to other items.

Bumper sticker: "If guns kill people: then pencils make mistakes, cars drive off the road, and spoons make fat people, and we should abolish them!"

 

[oatmeal]

In 2014, .0000043% of the U.S population was murdered. The death toll was 13,853. According to one accounting, 69% of those murders were committed with guns and 12% were committed with knives. If we searched the histories of the .000003011% of the U.S. population murdered with guns that year we would likely find a significant percentage of them were criminals and gang members, and we would also likely find a significant percentage of the guns used to murder them were acquired illegally.

Why would that *low number of victims merit any infringement on the right of millions to bear arms? There is presently a misplaced focus by some on the law abiding "gun culture," when they should be focused on the "death culture" that creates murderers who will kill with a knife if they can't get a gun.

* Relative to the U.S. population of 318,900,000 in 2014. For an interesting comparison, a 2013 study estimated premature deaths associated with preventable harm to patients was at more than 400,000 per year, and serious harm 10-20 fold more. In other words, doctors killed far more people negligently in 2014 than were murdered with guns.

Good post!

Morality of character is the issue, not what kind of things a person owns.

When people decide it is more important to work (renewing the mind, Romans 12:2) to become a good moral person instead of a sinful person then we are solving the real issue.

Until the new heavens and new earth, evil will influence people to do evil things