bjack on 22/5/2016 at 04:54
My story was not bullshit. My wife and I are still living in fear of being murdered by friends of her relative.
demagogue on 22/5/2016 at 05:08
Quote Posted by Muzman
The mechanical aspect to their appeal is really strong, with me especially. I don't know if there's a word for this, but I have decided to call it the 'cachunk' factor. It's something to do with assembling and operating something of precisely engineered tolerances. Some people get the same feeling from automatic machinery and engines as well. But there's something else about fine machinery that you have to operate yourself.
I think cameras and other such things prod the same nerves.
Yeah, analog things anyway, speaking of cameras. The digitalization of every other thing is taking that away. You can't even open a car hood anymore without seeing some computer-operated closed block. Guns are one of the things resisting that trend where you can still viscerally feel the mechanical parts working together (and even then they're not completely immune).
Quote Posted by Pyrian
Excluding suicide? That's insane. A handy gun increases the suicide rate so much it exceeds all other forms of gun violence combined.
Quote Posted by Starker
Actually, it doesn't seem to be the case. From what US crime statistics I've looked into, there seems to be a very weak correlation...
Gun violence isn't something I've researched, so if these are what statistics say then sounds logical to me, although then these are in tension, considering suicide is associated with mental illness. (I understand Starker said "crime stats." I'm making a broader point that mental illness and guns still don't mix well via suicide.) Anyway, I'm all in favor, for regulation purposes, that it's probably best to look at each issue discretely ... suicide, gang related, substance abuse, accidents, etc... and be careful not to mix apples and oranges in arguing about policies. Or rather, be transparent that for certain policies you're explicitly mixing the apples and oranges, and here's the relative contribution of each...
So I don't even think the argument about which to care about the most, or what people want to latch on to to argue for/against guns, has to matter that much in terms of picking the best policies (e.g., if arguments about mental illness & suicide say nothing about the criminal use & social factors, or vice versa), except just in the general sense, if you're a policy-maker and want to treat all lives with equal value, you'd want direct about the same amount of resources to save each marginal life (e.g., you'd want more resources going to stem guns' role in suicides than in accidental deaths). But that's a pretty general level that doesn't tell you much detail of the best actual policies. Anyway, that's how we think about things in risk regulation law.
Starker on 22/5/2016 at 05:58
I'm not particularly against or for guns, myself. I've shot at targets for fun, though I much rather prefer to shoot animals with a camera instead. But it seems to me that gun accidents alone are reason enough to limit and regulate their use.
SubJeff on 22/5/2016 at 13:04
[video=youtube;lmOfcXlbv1U]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmOfcXlbv1U[/video]
Thinking Robot on 22/5/2016 at 18:35
I also know a funny video:
[video=youtube;paxk_LPmdMI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paxk_LPmdMI[/video]
:cheeky:
Coming back to topic, the most relevant question of gun ownership is not wether to allow guns or not, rather it is a question about handling the gun correctly.
I will now speak about the usage of a gun for defending yourself or others in need. (Shooting at a firing range for sports and enjoyment is another topic.)
To handle a gun correctly, it requires training and also knowledge about the mechanics about the gun; also the consequences of firing and to take responsibility for the taken action are important.
I do not trust many private gun owners in these said points, there are many accidents just because people do not know how to handle a gun or just because they neglet professional (and expensive) training. To own a gun should be a burden of responsibility. A trained owner may know the usage - not for shoot primary, rather to use a gun for deescalating a critical situation. Untrained or poorly trained owners will shoot "too early" and this may cause fatal consequences. It is sad to hear about every single extinquished living being, especially
if it could be avoided. Shooting a man causes a great amount of mental stress, many gun owners don´t really mind this in the moment of buying the said gun. If a man is shot, they just drop unconsciously to the ground. A gun owner, who doesn´t have the mental power to shoot (at) another human being, is a danger to himself or another people. They could simply lose the gun in a fight, turning the situation worse for the "former" owner of the gun, who is now threated by the now "armed" assailant.
And because many people couldn´t handle a gun correctly it may be a good idea to give the gun control to the police, like here in Europe and especially here in Germany. If a citizen buys a gun in case of "need" he should know the way to use it correctly and also should have the said mental power. This is a burden of responsibility, not only for himself, but also for other people. If the potential gun owner can´t handle this burden, he shouldn´t buy one.
heywood on 22/5/2016 at 20:14
Quote Posted by Thinking Robot
And because many people couldn´t handle a gun correctly it may be a good idea to give the gun control to the police, like here in Europe and especially here in Germany.
In many U.S. states, the police control handgun licensing. In 2 out of the 4 states I've lived, I needed a license/permit just to own a handgun, not even concealed carry, and in both of those states the permit process goes through the police. In MA, I also had to demonstrate basic gun handling and shooting skills to the chief of police of my town. I imagine this is a common requirement for concealed carry permits in most states, but I wouldn't know.
Volitions Advocate on 24/5/2016 at 03:47
In Canada the RCMP controls all of it. There is a bit of jumping back and forth right now between the current government and the official opposition which formed the previous government about it. Personally. I think that putting police in charge of enforcing the laws passed by government makes sense. The problem in Canada is that the police are also given the power to enforce laws that don't exist, laws they make up in their own jurisdictions. This is ironically the opposite of what the gun control lobby SHOULD want, because it sets a precedent allowing Canada to follow a more American style of governance. The Police should not be allowed to arbitrarily make up rules as they go just because they are "experts" (they really aren't, not up here anyway). The way I see it, the people who make the laws should be the people I can hold accountable on election day, and I can't do that with the police.
heywood on 24/5/2016 at 14:54
The town police chiefs get to make up their own rules in Massachusetts. So you have some chiefs, mostly in smaller towns in the center and Western part of the state, which are generally pro-gun rights and are very liberal about approving gun permits. And there are other chiefs which are very anti-gun rights who put up roadblocks and additional restrictions. Such as requiring applicants to submit an essay explaining why they need the permit, or refusing to grant permits to people who own certain classes of firearms, or not granting permits to anyone under 25, or just arbitrarily deciding based on a person's look, background, race etc. In my opinion, it is unfair to allow such different standard from town to town and it has been challenged in court.
In New York State, where I first had to get a handgun permit, the process was overly long (9 months in my case) but the requirements & qualifications were consistent across the state except New York City.
bjack on 25/5/2016 at 00:43
Just wondering why no one responded to anything I posted. I think my wife’s and my case is pretty poignant in this discussion, but this subject is met with silence. Why is that? I think it is because this site is more of a mental masturbation club than anything. You love to speak your minds, but when some reality comes your way... all bets are off. Not in all cases of course, but this one is a winner.
Vae on 25/5/2016 at 00:58
Quote Posted by bjack
Just wondering why no one responded to anything I posted.
Why, you ask?...As I've said before,
there isn't any logical rebuttal against the right to effectively protect oneself...That is, not until the cops are able to teleport to the scene of the crime within seconds of a distress call...:laff:
