14 replies to this topic

[Manoka]

Jim Jones killed over 900 people by poisoning Kool-aid. The 9/11 attacks killed 3,000 by crashing a plane in to a building. The Oklahoma city bombing attacks produced 680 casualties with fertilizer and gasoline. The Australian Black Saturday fires were started by an Arsonist who, lead to the deaths of 173 people. Any moron can get their hands on a box cutter, rat poison, fertilizer, or gasoline and with that they could literally kill hundreds of people. 

 

The Orlando shooter killed roughly 49 people. While tragic, he went through background check after background check, was interviewed by the FBI, was put on the terrorist watchlist, underwent over 60 hours of training, and despite all of this, nothing stopped him. With the combination of his handgun and his rifle, he killed nearly 49 people. While tragic, one has to wonder; was it really the gun that did it? 

 

Would better lists and background checks have stopped him from getting a gun? And let's assume that it did. Let's assume that somehow, despite illegal smuggling, illegal black market production, the overwhelming volume of nearly 300 million firearms in the U.S., and the simple fact that handguns and other weapons have proven to be just as deadly in these events (The Texas Tower shooting, the Norway Shootings with pistols, the Texas Tech shooting with handguns). If a single mass shooter had used arson, bombings, or even poison instead, he could have killed far more people. Potentially orders of magnitude more. So, even if we kept a gun out of his hands, would it have prevented a massacre at a nightclub where he could have poisoned the punch, placed a bomb or lit it ablaze and barricaded the doors instead?

 

 

And even if by some miracle it did, would America be patting itself on the back? If just one life was saved because he used a knife or a handgun, would America be patting itself on the back saying "Gee, I'm glad only 48 people died instead of 49!". Would anyone even notice a difference. So why, then, is this the argument? Why do people support the insane idea that if somehow, we changed the weapon but let a mad-man continue to go out on the street that somehow America would be safer? That if half the people died, it's somehow a victory? It's not a victory unless no-one dies, unless we prevent this from happening. For some reason people, and namely politicians, are laboring under the delusion that it somehow is something we should fight for, assuming it would work, which it likely wouldn't. 

 

This is common sense. This isn't anything you aren't aware of. A gun takes stalking each and every person in a building, with a loud bang after each shot fired, to get their attention. It takes aim, accuracy and skill to use it correctly, and you can at best, with 100% accuracy, kill one person at a time. A bomb not only can kill far more people, it can do it in a fraction of a second, and when you aren't even there. Other weapons are more deadly and easier to use and obtain. So, what good will gun control do? What point is there to sitting in and shutting down Congress and throwing a temper tantrum if you don't get your way?

 

I'm not proposing we do nothing. Far from it, in fact. I've listed many ways to prevent tragedies, from mandatory psychological screenings to EMT training, that would save far more lives than just in mass shootings. I've offered up solutions to stop organized crime, who is responsible for smuggling guns, people and drugs across the border. I've mentioned on numerous occasions how training and education will help people manage these problems. But I've also mentioned how gun control won't work. It can't work. It makes no sense, it robs people of their freedoms and will only turn the police and civilians against teach other. All while achieving nothing. You may be naive enough to believe that the U.S. has the most gun violence in the world, which is patently false. [1][2] You may be naive enough to believe that gun control lowered homicide rates in other countries, which is also false. [3][4] You may be naive enough to believe everything the Democrats say without even questioning it for a second. Or even that all of Islam is evil for a handful of attacks that occurred that were by Islam, when over 90% in the U.S. weren't. 

 

 

But I am going to beg you, going to ask you, going to plead with you, to stop, stop drinking the Kool-aid. Stop with Trump, stop with Hillary. 

 

Find a better way America. I know you can do it.

[Haflinger]

Would better lists and background checks have stopped him from getting a gun?

No. Bureaucracy isn't the solution. I know Americans love it, but it only works in certain kinds of situations, and this isn't one of them.

 

The answer is to remove high-rate-of-fire assault weapons from the market entirely.

[Manoka]

Would better lists and background checks have stopped him from getting a gun?

No. Bureaucracy isn't the solution. I know Americans love it, but it only works in certain kinds of situations, and this isn't one of them.

 

The answer is to remove high-rate-of-fire assault weapons from the market entirely.

I'd like to see evidence that A- removing them from the civilian market will drastically impact the black market B- that the rate of fire of a weapon is what determines it's lethality and C- to see if this is even a possible solution in America where we have over 300 million firearms and a huge smuggling problem where people, guns, drugs, and everything else comes flooding in.

[Nord Belka]

Sorry sir, it was Flavor Aid... but yeah, people freak out too much about guns and completely overlook the mass stabbing problem in China. Not that we need to divert our attention to china on this but think about it... a society with no civilian gun ownership whatsoever and they still have mass killings by lone psychos.

[Manoka]

A guy with an 18-wheeler in paris recently killed 80 people, which is more than the worst single person mass shooting in history. Because you can't ban cars, criminals will still be able to get ahold of them and more likely, kill even more people.

 

Banning guns then even if we could get rid of guns by doing it doesn't really solve our problem. Unless we go after the criminals, we're still at risk.

Edited by Manoka, 20 July 2016 - 08:01 PM.

[Haflinger]

Yeah, of course I'd like to get rid of most of our cars too but that's a different argument. Cars have uses that assault rifles don't have. Still, that guy in Nice with a truck also had a gun.

 

Most black market guns start out in civilian hands. Where do you think they come from?

[Manoka]

Yeah, of course I'd like to get rid of most of our cars too but that's a different argument. Cars have uses that assault rifles don't have. Still, that guy in Nice with a truck also had a gun.

 

Most black market guns start out in civilian hands. Where do you think they come from?

Actually most come from foreign conflicts and illegal weapons sales. Russia and China sell weapons to Iran or African warlords, which then end up in the hands of Hezbollah, the Taliban and so on, which then end up in the hands of cartels or criminal organizations because these terrorist groups sell them for profit. Hell, it wasn't even a secret that Cuba was supplying the Colombian cartels straight up with weapons that came from, Russia. If you look at most black market weapons, they're of soviet and Chinese origin. And they make up the bulk of the weapons. There's like, 100 million Ak-47's in the world and they go for 30-120 dollars. I can't even buy a civilian legal one that's semiautomatic for like less than 600 bucks.

 

Secondly, my point is not to ban cars. It's that because you can't ban cars, banning guns will do no good. Any killer that would use a gun, instead would use a car. And then we're back at square 1. Banning guns would have no benefit as long as cars are around, just like how banning knives would have no benefit just so long as guns were around.

 

 

You also have a pretty baseless assumption that the rate of fire of a weapon is what determines it's lethality. You know, not things like caliber, accuracy, range and so on.

 

My entire point though is that more deadly weapons that can kill even more people will be just as available because, quite frankly you aren't going to ban cars, fertilizer, and common household chemicals. So, if that's the case, than banning guns isn't going to even begin to target the issue. You have to go, after the people who would kill others. Because they will still possess the means whether or not you ban guns.

Edited by Manoka, 25 July 2016 - 12:41 PM.

[Haflinger]

That's where AK-47s come from. The majority of guns in the hands of criminal organizations are not assault rifles, but in fact are handguns. You need to stop basing your view of the world on Hollywood. Inner city gangbangers are not toting rifles around on the streets.

[Manoka]

That's where AK-47s come from. The majority of guns in the hands of criminal organizations are not assault rifles, but in fact are handguns. You need to stop basing your view of the world on Hollywood. Inner city gangbangers are not toting rifles around on the streets.

China and Russia also produce imitation glocks and other handguns. The fact of the matter is though, most of these gangs have such weapons, but they don't use them. 

 

First, 79% of weapons used in the commission of a crime have an illegal origin. There's an even higher proportion for murder. 

 

Secondly, despite making up around 1-2% of all crimes, so called "assault weapons" were owned by about 8% of criminals, and much higher for juvenile offenders (20%). [page 6] It seems like they have the weapons, but prefer not to use them. Which only enhances my point that banning these firearms is a bad idea. My point about this is that if they can smuggle Ak-47's across the border, they can smuggle handguns.

 

Criminals clearly have access to illegally smuggled weapons, and due to their proliferation on the black market, just like drugs, you can get them in almost any school or street corner in America. Therefore, banning guns wouldn't even stop guns from getting in to the hands of the majority of criminals. And even if you could, other weapons that would be just as available have proven to be even more deadly, so it wouldn't even do us any good. The reality of the situation is that we have to focus on the people, and not the weapons, since weapons that can kill people, even lots of people, will always exist and be attainable by those who want them.

Edited by Manoka, 25 July 2016 - 08:52 PM.

[Haflinger]

Yeah. The most common illegal origin is theft. You appear to misunderstand statistics; illegal origin doesn't mean they were manufactured in some kind of illegal underground gun factory but rather that they were distributed by criminal means to their eventual users.

 

The vast majority of ilegally smuggled weapons across the world come from the U.S. You are the world's largest supplier of firearms used in crime. Also the world's largest supplier of firearms, period.

 

From the 20-year-old report you cited: "In 1994, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) received over 85,132 requests from law enforcement agencies for traces of guns used in crime. Over three-quarters of the guns traced by the ATF in 1994 were handguns (mostly pistols), and almost a third were less than 3 years old." And "Little information exists about the use of assault weapons in crime. The information that does exist uses varying definitions of assault weapons that were developed before the Federal assault weapons ban was enacted." What that means is that lots of guns that weren't AK-47s or even anything remotely similar were classified as assault waepons by statistical analyses at the time. From page 6: "In general, assault weapons are semiautomatic firearms with a large magazine of ammunition that were designed and configured for rapid fire and combat use. An assault weapon can be a pistol, a rifle, or a shotgun."

 

A pistol. That's right. A Glock can be an assault weapon under this definition; a semiautomatic firearm with a large magazine. Yep.

Edited by Haflinger, 27 July 2016 - 06:43 AM.

[Manoka]

You are the world's largest supplier of firearms used in crime.

 

...really? You really think so?

 

Alright, do you have any evidence of this?

 

 

I mean, given the 100 million Ak's out there, the 10 million RPG-7's, the numerous landmines and other weapons currently in use by terrorists, dictators and so on, you really think we're the biggest supplier?

 

Sure yeah, show me the evidence. 

 

 

At this point, this is literally based on nothing on your part.

 

Anyways, here's an infographic in the UK after they banned guns and the homicide rate after that. Now, if guns are illegal, and you can only get guns from your own countries markets, and guns are absolutely essential for high murder rates, how did that happen? Must be one of life's little mysteries. Crime rates stayed higher for about 25 or so years than before they implemented their strict gun bans.

 

Edited by Manoka, 27 July 2016 - 03:28 PM.

[Haflinger]

100 million AK-47s in the hands of criminals. Are you serious?

 

Or, do you mean 100 million AK-47-type weapons in existence. That's ... moderately plausible.

 

Most of those are in the hands of militias and former eastern bloc armies. Boko Haram and its ilk are problems, but they're not organized crime and do not belong in the same category as streetgangs in the U.S.

 

(Of course the U.S. manufactures a large amount of AK-47-type weapons itself. It's an efficient design, and many gun buyers recognize that.)

 

Still. In 2013 alone, the U.S. manufactured over 10 million firearms according to the ATF, of which just under 400K were exported (legally). That's one year. The U.S. is the major global leader in firearms manufacturing for civilian hands; when you look at small arms manufacture in any other country around the world, you are looking at guns being supplied to military forces.

 

CFR has a pretty good article: http://www.cfr.org/a...americas/p31155 It's focused on the Latin America problem which is a different set of problems from what we face in Canada (because of corrupt police forces), but it's related.

 

ATF numbers for legal gun manufacturing in the U.S.: https://www.atf.gov/...rce-us/download

[Thrash]

Glad to see you've come around to recognizing the gangs as criminals and not justify their behavior.

[Manoka]

100 million AK-47s in the hands of criminals. Are you serious?

 

Or, do you mean 100 million AK-47-type weapons in existence. That's ... moderately plausible.

 

Most of those are in the hands of militias and former eastern bloc armies. Boko Haram and its ilk are problems, but they're not organized crime and do not belong in the same category as streetgangs in the U.S.

 

(Of course the U.S. manufactures a large amount of AK-47-type weapons itself. It's an efficient design, and many gun buyers recognize that.)

 

Still. In 2013 alone, the U.S. manufactured over 10 million firearms according to the ATF, of which just under 400K were exported (legally). That's one year. The U.S. is the major global leader in firearms manufacturing for civilian hands; when you look at small arms manufacture in any other country around the world, you are looking at guns being supplied to military forces.

 

CFR has a pretty good article: http://www.cfr.org/a...americas/p31155 It's focused on the Latin America problem which is a different set of problems from what we face in Canada (because of corrupt police forces), but it's related.

 

ATF numbers for legal gun manufacturing in the U.S.: https://www.atf.gov/...rce-us/download

Literally none of that is actually proof that the U.S. is the primary supplier of illegal arms in the world. In fact, it doesn't even seem to mention it at all. 

 

All of this rests on the implication that the majority of firearms used are produced domestically, not based on proof that they are. While it's impossible to know for sure, there's at least 70 million to 100 million Ak weapons out there, and even more copies. The majority ended up in the hands of, militia groups and criminals since Russia passed them out like Candy (most of these militia groups are criminal organizations). It also shouldn't be a surprise that Russia is supplying Iran with S-300 missiles and Hezbollah has over 80,000 missiles of, Russian origin. So, the biggest illicit arms supplier for the last 50 years has been, Russia. In fact, they are the biggest arms supplier in the world, next to China.

 

As well, the Taliban for instance supplies 90% of the world's Heroin, and the Cartels supply 90% of the worlds cocaine. The simple fact that they are a militia group does not in fact mean, they are not also criminals and not also, smugglers. That's something to bear in mind. This is a global problem, not just a domestic one. It's naive at best to think otherwise.

[Haflinger]

Glad to see you've come around to recognizing the gangs as criminals and not justify their behavior.

What are you talking about?

 

You're the one who's usually trying to justify criminal behaviour here.