DescentBB

I would like to know what state allows a 7 year old to walk around unattended with a loaded firearm. You may be thinking when hunting a 7 year old can carry a .22 while hunting with a parent. Firearm laws have also tightened. No longer can you buy firearms through the mail unless they get shipped to a ffl dealer. All guns must be registered when bought. Background checks are required (any background checks for alcohol?). Extra prison time for using a firearm in a crime (any extra time for crimes committed while drunk). Much more control over firearms than alcohol.

vision wrote:.. .

And for the record it seems that everyone here agrees that you can kill all sorts of people with all sorts of things, so if we ban all the guns that shouldn't make too much of a difference, right? You can use a bow & arrow, a spear, a knife, a lamp... all fantastic ways to protect yourself and your family.

Good to know! You said it yourself!

Silly logic.
You think saddling the potential victim pool with the less efficient weapons is a good thing? Unless your removal of guns is going to be done with magic because criminals tend to ignore laws...

And the safety regulations on automobiles....I can't think of any that aren't designed to protect the user. No one is trying to say ban a certain type of car because it can run over more bodies on a sidewalk than is reasonable.

Alcohol? No one is telling us we should have mandatory locks on the refrigerators to keep the six pack out of the hands of teenagers....

Some of the comparisons of these other 'more dangerous' items are flawed in the attempt to paint guns as 'less regulated'.

woodchip wrote:I would like to know what state allows a 7 year old to walk around unattended with a loaded firearm.

Illinois(no minimum age for possession) and Montana, to cite two. Neither states parental responsibility in their laws, as I've understood it.There are, as you note, several more that allow children of very young age into the field with adults.

You may be thinking when hunting a 7 year old can carry a .22 while hunting with a parent. Firearm laws have also tightened. No longer can you buy firearms through the mail unless they get shipped to a ffl dealer. All guns must be registered when bought. Background checks are required (any background checks for alcohol?). Extra prison time for using a firearm in a crime (any extra time for crimes committed while drunk). Much more control over firearms than alcohol.

except that one group(the NRA) has been applying pressure upon Congress to prevent any enforcement of the laws which it can. Prevented an ATF agency head from being appointed for nearly a decade, fights staffing of agencies to prevent regular checks of sales records, and so on. To my knowledge, there has been nothing like the pressure exerted around alcohol regulations.

Finally, if the sum of your argument is that alcohol isn't regulated tightly enough, I might agree, but that doesn't seem to be the thrust.

I looked it up…

The minimum age for purchase and possession of both hand and long guns in Illinois is 21.

So I didn’t even bother to check the other state mentioned…

And that was from a gun control website.

From that site…

“Many of these laws contain exceptions which allow younger children to possess long guns where the minor’s parent or guardian is present, or when the minor is engaged in hunting or target shooting. In Illinois, persons must obtain a Firearm Owners Identification or “FOID” card in order to lawfully purchase or possess a long gun”

don't know where you are reading, but this is the only requirement around age in Illinois:
"It is unlawful for any person under the age of 18 to buy or possess a handgun or other concealable firearm"

nothing about long guns at all. Nothing. The stuff about the transfer rules(FOID) is only for transfer as I read it.

Will Robinson wrote:You think saddling the potential victim pool with the less efficient weapons is a good thing?

Uh oh, you just proved my point!

vision wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:You think saddling the potential victim pool with the less efficient weapons is a good thing?

Uh oh, you just proved my point!

I'm curious. What point does my asking that question prove?

Ya. the point that guns facilitate gun crimes or in stupid terms. Guns facilitate crimes committed with guns. uuuuuhhhhhh DUH

CUDA wrote:Ya. the point that guns facilitate gun crimes...

Amazing. After repeated participation in this thread you are not capable of understanding my point even after it is explained to you different ways. I'll do it again for fun because I imagine there are other, equally dense people reading this thread:

Guns, being an extremely efficient tool for killing, facilitate certain crimes where killing someone, or many people, swiftly and effortlessly is desired. The result is an increase in death and injury from violence.

vision's point, once again, is one that is so brain-dead obvious that none should question it.....but, sadly, that isn't the case.

vision wrote:
Guns, being an extremely efficient tool for killing, facilitate certain crimes where killing someone, or many people, swiftly and effortlessly is desired. The result is an increase in death and injury from violence.

Well Mr Obvious, we can also re-phrase what you posted to read, " Guns, being an extremely efficient tool for protection, facilitate the prevention of certain crimes where killing someone, or many people is the desire of the criminal and can be done swiftly and effortlessly. The result is the saving from death or injury a innocent victim". See, two can play the clever word manipulation game.

wow, Fred Astaire and Ginger Rodgers would have been brought to tears by the above dance. Along with being provably false, it was a dance spectacular!!

and only someone that was brain dead wouldn't see that Woody.

they see ONLY what they want to see. there are many efficient ways to kill people, guns just being one of them. but because they have a Hate-on for guns that's all that they CHOOSE to see

callmeslick wrote: Along with being provably false, :

prove it's false

Ahhh... OK, I get it.

Here's were you miss the whole important part though. The part that makes any obvious fact relevant to the discussion or not...

Watch this.


A nail gun makes framing a new house easier, more framing/ houses can be built. That whole efficiency thing you were pointing at is there, be it nail gun or handgun.

But no one in their right mind would suggest in a conversation discussing housing starts...new home construction...building trade economics..etc etc not once has the nail gun been credited/blamed for the number of houses framed. No one would suggest banning or increasing the nail gun availability to effect house framing/building.

The smart people ALWAYS attribute the state of housing trends to the activity of....wait for it.....PEOPLE!

Sure you could make the observation that controlling the nail gun could, at least for a brief time, control the number of houses framed but it would be moronic to say controlling the nail gun will solve any housing problem. Absolutely moronic.

So be at least smarter than a moron.

sure, guns make neat stuff like this easy!
http://news.msn.com/crime-justice/us-ho ... h-shooting

he goes to jail for life, and aren't we all so much safer? Guns, FTW!!!

callmeslick wrote:sure, guns make neat stuff like this easy!
http://news.msn.com/crime-justice/us-ho ... h-shooting

he goes to jail for life, and aren't we all so much safer? Guns, FTW!!!

I disagree, guns only made his efforts more efficient, he was a dumbass without any help from the gun.
So you should have said 'Dumbasses FTW'

By the way slick, if you are to be believed, you are a supporter of that dumbass' right to have that shotgun.
I don't think I've heard you admit to any gun control desires that would have prevented him from shooting that girl.

So I guess it could also be 'slicks gun rules FTW'....

callmeslick wrote:sure, guns make neat stuff like this easy!
http://news.msn.com/crime-justice/us-ho ... h-shooting

he goes to jail for life, and aren't we all so much safer? Guns, FTW!!!

tell me you're not basing your whole argument off of one or two stupid people. tell me please that you have actual statistics that prove that you are not safer if you own a gun.

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:sure, guns make neat stuff like this easy!
http://news.msn.com/crime-justice/us-ho ... h-shooting

he goes to jail for life, and aren't we all so much safer? Guns, FTW!!!

I disagree, guns only made his efforts more efficient, .

NICE.

CUDA wrote:tell me you're not basing your whole argument off of one or two stupid people. tell me please that you have actual statistics that prove that you are not safer if you own a gun.

this citation was purely tongue in cheek. However,CUDA, there is a pile of documentation(and I've linked it here in the past, exhaustively) that CLEARLY shows that those who own guns are significantly more likely to die a violent death than those who do not. Of course, this will bring the usual suspects out to cry that somehow the numbers are skewed by gang members, or other common 'perhaps, I suppose, what if' type smokescreens. But, the cold, hard numbers are very consistent through study after study. And, I might add, the added risk is VERY much greater than any level of statistical significance.....around a 40-60% higher likelihood of violence or death, depending on study.

callmeslick wrote:...However,CUDA, there is a pile of documentation(and I've linked it here in the past, exhaustively) that CLEARLY shows that those who own guns are significantly more likely to die a violent death than those who do not. Of course, this will bring the usual suspects out to cry that somehow the numbers are skewed by gang members, or other common 'perhaps, I suppose, what if' type smokescreens. But, the cold, hard numbers are very consistent through study after study. And, I might add, the added risk is VERY much greater than any level of statistical significance.....around a 40-60% higher likelihood of violence or death, depending on study.

slick how can you be that foolish? I mean that not as an insult but purely out of incredulity at the nonsensical thing you just posted.

IF the numbers are statistically as you say, and they include the extremely prolific murdering subgroup of gang bangers, then the numbers ARE NOT "skewed"...they are representative of the group. A group loaded with enough murdering thugs that it brings the risk factor through the roof for all the other poor souls that you foolishly put in the group.

Where things get skewed is when you try to imply that people in general who own guns, most of them NOT GANGBANGERS....most of them NOT NEARLY as prone to kill or be killed by guns, are properly characterized by your assertion. By your skewed rhetorical bullshiz.

But I'm betting you're not that foolish. I'm betting you are that dishonest.

see above, CUDA? And, I'd almost be willing to bet you at least double checked or remembered the data I've posted in the past. Will just went into his dance and shuffled off to Buffalo. As I predicted......

callmeslick wrote:see above, CUDA? And, I'd almost be willing to bet you at least double checked or remembered the data I've posted in the past. Will just went into his dance and shuffled off to Buffalo. As I predicted......

I just posted the truth and you were caught redhanded pushing lies.
And rather shamelessly since you loaded the back end of your lie with the attempt to discredit the truth about statistics and groups and what is skewed and what isn't.

If you load a group with enough high performance contributors then the groups performance, as represented by an overall tally, is what it is.
The lie is when you try to suggest everyone in the group performs the same way.

I think everyone on this forum is smart enough to know what you just did...and which one of us is dancing away from the reality of it.

callmeslick wrote:sure, guns make neat stuff like this easy!
http://news.msn.com/crime-justice/us-ho ... h-shooting

he goes to jail for life, and aren't we all so much safer? Guns, FTW!!!

Well, you were right…a shotgun is all you need.

...................

Ok I was wrong...all you need is a knife...from the same website...

http://news.msn.com/crime-justice/17-ye ... -tub-death

Knives FTW!!!

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote:tell me you're not basing your whole argument off of one or two stupid people. tell me please that you have actual statistics that prove that you are not safer if you own a gun.

this citation was purely tongue in cheek. However,CUDA, there is a pile of documentation(and I've linked it here in the past, exhaustively) that CLEARLY shows that those who own guns are significantly more likely to die a violent death than those who do not. Of course, this will bring the usual suspects out to cry that somehow the numbers are skewed by gang members, or other common 'perhaps, I suppose, what if' type smokescreens. But, the cold, hard numbers are very consistent through study after study. And, I might add, the added risk is VERY much greater than any level of statistical significance.....around a 40-60% higher likelihood of violence or death, depending on study.

And the question still remains…so what.

Skydiving involves some risk, and so does owning a firearm.

And your numbers are total BS.

Will Robinson wrote:Watch this.

Watch what? Watch you extend a metaphor inappropriately in order to make it seem weak? You already admitted my point of efficiency was made.

Will Robinson wrote:But no one in their right mind would suggest in a conversation discussing housing starts...new home construction...building trade economics..etc etc not once has the nail gun been credited/blamed for the number of houses framed.

LOL! are you sure about that Will?

Goodrum & Gangwar wrote:In the wood and plastic division, circular saws operated at higher revolutions per minute, and the pneu-matic nail gun required less human energy than a hand held hammer. Most site-work machinery increased in horsepower output including front-end loaders, dump trucks, backhoes, bulldozers, graders, asphalt pavers and scrapers. As seen in Figure 3, 49.5% of construction activities experienced a change in the amount of human control needed from 1976 to 1998.

And just to be clear, some nail guns have regulations like firearms.

Will Robinson wrote:No one would suggest banning or increasing the nail gun availability to effect house framing/building.

The smart people ALWAYS attribute the state of housing trends to the activity of....wait for it.....PEOPLE!

Sure you could make the observation that controlling the nail gun could, at least for a brief time, control the number of houses framed but it would be moronic to say controlling the nail gun will solve any housing problem. Absolutely moronic.

Riiiight... but my point is still that people choose one tool over the other and that makes a difference. You haven't discredited anything I have said. Changing the availability of certain tools would have an impact on housing. If your "housing problem" is to make houses swiftly and with less effort, then yes, there would be an issue with removing nail guns*

* Not that we use nail guns with the same frequency as in the 20th Century since construction continues to evolve.

Will Robinson wrote:So be at least smarter than a moron.

You first. I'll follow your example.

Vision’s point:

½ Statement of the totally obvious.

¼ Mostly valid concept

¼ Speculative opinion

The crying shame is vision probably doesn’t even know which part is the last quarter.

Hint:

It’s the part where he believes the woman wouldn’t choose another weapon, if no gun were available, and refuses to see the importance of this particular conclusion to the rest of his point.

But instead chooses to deride the intelligence of anybody who doesn’t reach the same conclusion. (based on the false idea that it's a misunderstanding of the simple parts, rather than the conclusions drawn)

Spidey wrote:It’s the part where he believes the woman wouldn’t choose another weapon, if no gun were available, and refuses to see the importance of this particular conclusion to the rest of his point.

Show me where I said that, tough guy. Show me where I said the woman who shot a man in the previously linked article would not have chosen another weapon. Going to keep making stuff up like the rest of them?

vision wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:But no one in their right mind would suggest in a conversation discussing housing starts...new home construction...building trade economics..etc etc not once has the nail gun been credited/blamed for the number of houses framed.

LOL! are you sure about that Will?

Goodrum & Gangwar wrote:In the wood and plastic division, circular saws operated at higher revolutions per minute, and the pneu-matic nail gun required less human energy than a hand held hammer. Most site-work machinery increased in horsepower output including front-end loaders, dump trucks, backhoes, bulldozers, graders, asphalt pavers and scrapers. As seen in Figure 3, 49.5% of construction activities experienced a change in the amount of human control needed from 1976 to 1998.

Yes vision, I'm sure.

And I'd love for you to try and explain how that piece on the evolution of creating more efficient tools proves me wrong.

You might want to focus on the difference between the 'cause of housing starts' vs. how much easier it might be using power tools to build one....once a human decides he wants one built. Because my comments clearly were about one and not the other.
My analogy was clearly based on one and not the other.

Then, if you really want to get up to speed on the issue you could wonder to yourself what the significance of the distinction is that I'm pointing out to you.

I have led the horse to water, my job is done.

Will Robinson wrote:And I'd love for you to try and explain how that piece on the evolution of creating more efficient tools proves me wrong.

Well, for starters you said no one ever credited nail guns with the number of houses framed and then I showed you someone crediting them. WRONG! LOL!

vision wrote:

Spidey wrote:It’s the part where he believes the woman wouldn’t choose another weapon, if no gun were available, and refuses to see the importance of this particular conclusion to the rest of his point.

Show me where I said that, tough guy. Show me where I said the woman who shot a man in the previously linked article would not have chosen another weapon. Going to keep making stuff up like the rest of them?

Yea well, I guess I must have misunderstood your carpenter analogy then.

“Some people will just say "screw it" and forget about pounding nails altogether.”

Now if you want to make the argument that you never said those exact words, well I would have to concede, but that was the impression I got from the words you did use.

.....................

Isn’t a large part of your position that guns enable certain kinds of crime?

I’m really confused now…

Good thing none of these people own guns….

http://news.msn.com/crime-justice/flori ... g-grandson
http://news.msn.com/crime-justice/alaba ... ex-on-fire
http://news.msn.com/crime-justice/flori ... y-from-car
http://news.msn.com/crime-justice/mom-g ... -for-trial
http://news.msn.com/crime-justice/star- ... bbery-plan
http://news.msn.com/crime-justice/polic ... f-daughter
http://news.msn.com/crime-justice/ohio- ... -with-body
http://news.msn.com/crime-justice/12-ye ... d-stabbing
http://news.msn.com/crime-justice/polic ... -nightclub
http://news.msn.com/crime-justice/17-ye ... -tub-death
http://news.msn.com/crime-justice/jury- ... ask-on-her
http://news.msn.com/crime-justice/vegas ... illed-baby
http://news.msn.com/crime-justice/4-tee ... ents-death

Spidey wrote:Yea well, I guess I must have misunderstood your carpenter analogy then.

Yes I see that. I appear to have wildly overestimated my audience since slick is the only one who understood it and you all call him stupid.

Spidey wrote:Isn’t a large part of your position that guns enable certain kinds of crime?

Absolutely. Any time where there is a need to kill a person (or many persons) efficiently, and there is a choice of weapons, most often that choice is a gun. Their efficiency increases the number of killed and injured or the likelihood of injury or death when violent situations arise. This is exactly what guns are designed to do, so it should be no surprise. The most obvious of scenarios is mass murder. Wikipedia has a List of Rampage Killers which illustrate this point nicely. The list mentions what type of weapon was used. (Note: The ranged weapon category includes things other than guns, but I looked through dozens of linked articles and could not find a single US killer that did not use a firearm.) Surely these killers had choices. They could have used any number of weapons, but again "could have" does not mean a thing. Spiderman "could have" saved the day in each of those killings but he didn't.*

Now, it is easy to say "guns don't kill people, people kill people" and that is a perfectly true statement. However, guns make killing significantly easier than other traditional weapons and their existence makes the world less safe by the same degree.

* While browsing the list you might notice the increased frequency of mass killings from the 1980's onward. We know gun sales spike after mass shootings, yet this does nothing to stop mass killing or similar crime. More guns does not equal more safety and we are a couple hundred years too late for a "less guns" policy.

Finally, I reject the argument that arming every citizen would reduce crime. If I had a gun and wanted to commit a crime I would give absolutely zero cares if my victim had a gun. It's all about who draws first, and as an attacker the element of surprise would be in my favor. Go in with your game-face or go home.

 

but I looked through dozens of linked articles and could not find a single US killer that did not use a firearm.

I see you missed this little quailifier

F – Firearms and other ranged weapons, especially rifles and handguns, but also bows and crossbows, grenade launchers, flamethrowers, or slingshots

vision wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:And I'd love for you to try and explain how that piece on the evolution of creating more efficient tools proves me wrong.

Well, for starters you said no one ever credited nail guns with the number of houses framed and then I showed you someone crediting them. WRONG! LOL!

Why did you leave out the important part? The part that makes the analogy relevant to the comparison of guns blamed for death rate?

I know why. Because then your silly word game falls apart.
In a conversation of guns and death rate you have the number of deaths as the result.
In a conversation of nail guns and building houses you have the number of houses being built as the result.
How efficiently a single house goes up is irrelevant to 'problem' of houses going up...

You left out where I said: in a 'conversation of housing starts'....if you are looking to increase or decrease them, you don't go after the carpenters tools to make that change. People deciding they want a new house are the cause of houses being built and if all the nail guns were magically banned by vision the houses would still be built.

People deciding they want to kill are the cause of murder.
Seems pretty simple and obvious but you might be surprised at the lengths some will go to to protect the people at the root of high murder rates. Or you may not, if you are one of them doing the protecting.

If people want to kill they will use a gun usually but the number of murders you could prevent by passing a ban on guns is nominal AND fewer than the number of lives saved by NOT banning guns because only the law abiding would have turned in their guns.


Yes, guns are more efficient. Yes, in case where someone decides to go kill multiple victims the gun makes it easier to get the high body count. Those instances, inspite of the high profile they have in media, are very rare. Common every day self defense is...well...common.

So the point you are evading is the crux of the conversation....the efficiency of the gun is NOT the cause of any murderers act, and unless you have a magic wand to remove ALL guns, shouldn't be pursued as a solution to stopping murders because it has a negative result by disarming ONLY the victim pool. And doesn't even even disarm the small number of spontaneous murderers, the criminals-of-passion as has been implied here because they will still have access to clubs, bricks, poisons, gasoline, automobiles and knives, etc.

Yes, you are the winner in the do guns make killing more efficient debate.
But who the hell was interested in that narrow aspect of guns in the larger discussion of guns, murder and mayhem?

Will Robinson wrote:Yes, you are the winner in the do guns make killing more efficient debate.
But who the hell was interested in that narrow aspect of guns in the larger discussion of guns, murder and mayhem?

anyone who wishes common sense be used to develop consistent gun regulations, background checks and prevent senseless murders(not ALL senseless murders, but some) ought to be interested in that line of thinking. Because, that obvious, but largely ignored fact is central to the issue.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Yes, you are the winner in the do guns make killing more efficient debate.
But who the hell was interested in that narrow aspect of guns in the larger discussion of guns, murder and mayhem?

anyone who wishes common sense be used to develop consistent gun regulations, background checks and prevent senseless murders(not ALL senseless murders, but some) ought to be interested in that line of thinking. Because, that obvious, but largely ignored fact is central to the issue.

And how many regulations are on the books now? How many more are need to appease your total gun ban mentality?

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Yes, you are the winner in the do guns make killing more efficient debate.
But who the hell was interested in that narrow aspect of guns in the larger discussion of guns, murder and mayhem?

anyone who wishes common sense be used to develop consistent gun regulations, background checks and prevent senseless murders(not ALL senseless murders, but some) ought to be interested in that line of thinking. Because, that obvious, but largely ignored fact is central to the issue.

I'd disagree that guns are central to the issue if by central you imply root causes.
I agree wholeheartedly that many sensible regulations are blocked by an extreme defensive posture of pro gun owner advocates.

Unfortunately the other side of that debate has
1) given good cause for that defensiveness by way of pursuing extreme regulation instead of just sensible regulation.

And 2) the other side of the debate demagogues the topic/issue to great political advantage so a genuine pursuit of results is secondary to the political gains they make by keeping the debate raging.

Excluding the pro gun side from a 'lets-find-a-solution' discussion turns a problem solving session for all into a pep rally for the anti gun side.

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Yes, you are the winner in the do guns make killing more efficient debate.
But who the hell was interested in that narrow aspect of guns in the larger discussion of guns, murder and mayhem?

anyone who wishes common sense be used to develop consistent gun regulations, background checks and prevent senseless murders(not ALL senseless murders, but some) ought to be interested in that line of thinking. Because, that obvious, but largely ignored fact is central to the issue.

I'd disagree that guns are central to the issue if by central you imply root causes.
I agree wholeheartedly that many sensible regulations are blocked by an extreme defensive posture of pro gun owner advocates.

Unfortunately the other side of that debate has
1) given good cause for that defensiveness by way of pursuing extreme regulation instead of just sensible regulation.

please provide examples that have been put forth by anyone in power. Ever.

And 2) the other side of the debate demagogues the topic/issue to great political advantage so a genuine pursuit of results is secondary to the political gains they make by keeping the debate raging.

nonsense. They are merely sick of the killing. Nothing more, nothing less.It ought not be political, but for some reason has become so.

Excluding the pro gun side from a 'lets-find-a-solution' discussion turns a problem solving session for all into a pep rally for the anti gun side.

that far too many gun owners opt out of participation is their loss, and society's.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote: 1) given good cause for that defensiveness by way of pursuing extreme regulation instead of just sensible regulation.

please provide examples that have been put forth by anyone in power. Ever.

Are you seriously, in good faith, trying to propose no one on the left has pushed for unreasonable gun control measures?!?
Is your predictable little qualifier game you always play here in play again? With the words "in power"?
Is that your planned escape from any challenge? You get to tell us how anti gun lobbies aren't powerful enough to qualify? Any lefty politician who's attempt at extreme gun control legislation isn't an example of 'someone with power'?

I'm letting this silly position of yours stand as is, just flopping around on the deck.
There is no need for me to prove water is wet.

Further, your ploy is just proof of how disingenuous you leftys are in the debate. You don't want reasonable and your denial that your side has done this in the light of how it has been blatantly obvious for decades is all the proof any one needs to see you for what you are.