Firearms

[Esau of Isaac]

Do I need to? Is this more "I WAS JUST TESTING YOU" bullshit?

Yes. Asking you for sources to show that in most situations a person armed with a gun causes substantially more death is testing you.

Really; do you know that guns causes higher deaths in crime? Have you viewed data that shows this to be true? So why are you claiming it as fact?

"I WAS JUST TESTING YOU"

Kindly fuck off if all you're going to do is be deliberately disingeneous and play devil's advocate.

I'm not being the devil's advocate, I'm asking if you actually know anything about what you're claiming as fact. In this case, surprise, you didn't. Way to get bent out of shape after simple questions lead this to light.

For the record, if it's what you're going nutso over, when I responded to the use of the word "tools", I was referring to things you use for construction. Saying that you need tools to rifle is like saying you need food to eat. It's an obvious statement that doesn't need saying.

Um, killing someone with a baseball bat will take much more than just a few hits. Not to mention that if someone wants to go on a killing spree in a public center with a baseball bat, he is going to be stopped pretty darn quickly by others. A knife wielder can also be much more easily stopped, all it takes is to grab his hand. Which yes, it sounds easier said than done and there would still be casualties and such but not as much as if there was a gun. If there was a gun, he'd be harder to stop as its far easier for him to shoot his victims before they get close enough to him to stop him.

I'm talking in practice. I could argue why it could be harder to kill in a crowd with a gun at times. There are multiple people with a weapon that has a set number of shots per magazine, which you often need multiple shots of to kill a single person. You have to reload the weapon every set number of shots, and you have a limited amount of ammunition. It's a very loud weapon, so people know who and where to run away from. And unless trained in its use, you run the risk of missing multiple times, wasting precious ammunition.

In a one-on-one combat situation, with both of us spaced apart a fair distance, yes, I'm going to be substantially more capable of harming you. But it would be erroneous to assume that in every situation we will be doing more harm with this weapon as compared to other forms of attack.

Edited September 3, 2012 by Esau of Isaac

[Anouleth]

Yes. Asking you for sources to show that in most situations a person armed with a gun causes substantially more death is testing you.

Really; do you know that guns causes higher deaths in crime? Have you viewed data that shows this to be true? So why are you claiming it as fact?

I don't think it's going out of my way to say that "guns are deadlier than knives" will be our null hypothesis here and the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence to show that knives are in fact deadlier than guns in the situation we are talking about.

I'm not being the devil's advocate, I'm asking if you actually know anything about what you're claiming as fact. In this case, surprise, you didn't. Way to get bent out of shape after simple questions lead this to light.

As it turns out, simple logic led me to the right conclusion. I don't need to know anything specifically about gunsmithing to be able to tell that these devices are too complicated for the average person to make in their basement, any more than I need to know anything specifically about microbiology to know that the average joe couldn't breed anthrax in their kitchen sink, or I need to know anything about criminal psychology to know that preventing people from going off the deep end is more difficult that just teaching "respect for guns" in schools.

For the record, if it's what you're going nutso over, when I responded to the use of the word "tools", I was referring to things you use for construction. Saying that you need tools to rifle is like saying you need food to eat. It's an obvious statement that doesn't need saying.

Yeah, that's why I mentioned specifically "specialist tools". That is not an obvious statement.

[Esau of Isaac]

I don't think it's going out of my way to say that "guns are deadlier than knives" will be our null hypothesis here and the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence to show that knives are in fact deadlier than guns in the situation we are talking about.

Consider I haven't stated that knives are deadlier than guns, no, I will not be searching for any statistics.

I have not asked whether a knife is deadlier than a gun, I am asking whether guns in crime cause substantially more death and harm. Or even if it really causes more death and harm in general. Have you seen the statistics? Or are you just saying that they must be higher because of common sense?

As it turns out, simple logic led me to the right conclusion.

How do you know this is the right conclusion?

Yeah, that's why I mentioned specifically "specialist tools". That is not an obvious statement.

You said "specialist knowledge and tools". I interpreted that as specialist knowledge+tools, not specialist knowledge+specialist tools. My apologies if I misinterpreted your words there.

Edited September 3, 2012 by Esau of Isaac

[Anouleth]

Consider I haven't stated that knives are deadlier than guns, no, I will not be searching for any statistics.

I have not asked whether a knife is deadlier than a gun, I am asking whether guns in crime cause substantially more death and harm. Or even if it really causes more death and harm in general. Have you seen the statistics? Or are you just saying that they must be higher because of common sense?

Common sense.

How do you know this is the right conclusion?

Five minutes of research with the eminent Dr. Wikipedia.

You said "specialist knowledge and tools". I interpreted that as specialist knowledge+tools, not specialist knowledge+specialist tools. My apologies if I misinterpreted your words there.

You could have easily have interpreted it from the context. I would hardly say that building firearms is difficult because it requires a screwdriver and a hammer, it's more likely that I was referring to specialist tools.

[Zanarkin]

I'm talking in practice. I could argue why it could be harder to kill in a crowd with a gun at times. There are multiple people with a weapon that has a set number of shots per magazine, which you often need multiple shots of to kill a single person. You have to reload the weapon every set number of shots, and you have a limited amount of ammunition. It's a very loud weapon, so people know who and where to run away from. And unless trained in its use, you run the risk of missing multiple times, wasting precious ammunition.

In a one-on-one combat situation, with both of us spaced apart a fair distance, yes, I'm going to be substantially more capable of harming you. But it would be erroneous to assume that in every situation we will be doing more harm with this weapon as compared to other forms of attack.

Yes, but a few bullets can often incapacitate many people much faster than a bat or knife. Not to mention that if people are to go on a killing spree, they usually have more than 1 loaded gun.

I agree with you, most cases a gun won't be doing a lot of damage compared to others. A car can go through a park and run over a lot of people in short time and run away. However in a lot of crimes, like bank robbery and killing sprees guns are much more efficient than a bat or a knife would be.

all i'm saying here is that a madman will definitely be able to kill more people with guns than a knife or a bat.

[Junkhead]

I thought this was going to be a topic to talk about how cheap and cowardly of a weapon guns are.

[Raven]

I think this topic has derailed a bit. However there seem to be a few camps in opinion formed here. Two of those are those who think firearm laws should be reformed, and those who think reforming wouldn't make a difference. I fall into the former crowd.

Maybe we should go back to the timezone in which that second amendment was made. That amendment was created in 1791, an age where the most powerful handheld firearm available was not a semi-automatic flesh-tearing monster of a gun, but a single-shot weapon loaded through the muzzle. I think it needs to be updated and amended to consider today's vast catalog of weapon types and calibers. I think it's nuts it hasn't been done yet and people have been allowed to purchase such unnecessarily powerful weapons capable of mowing down crowds of people.

Edited September 3, 2012 by Raven

[Esau of Isaac]

Common sense.

Common sense says the Sun revolves around the Earth. It is only after more exacting interpretation of data that we come to the realization that this is untrue.

So, in that vein; does gun crime cause such a substantially higher case of death and wounded or not?

Five minutes of research with the eminent Dr. Wikipedia.

Okay. Can you post your source?

Yes, but a few bullets can often incapacitate many people much faster than a bat or knife. Not to mention that if people are to go on a killing spree, they usually have more than 1 loaded gun.

Can they? I mean yeah you can shoot out more bullets at someone, but it varies wildly depending on bullet and stab wounds. And do people going on killing sprees usually have more than one loaded gun?

all i'm saying here is that a madman will definitely be able to kill more people with guns than a knife or a bat.

In a perfect vacuum, I can agree. But in practice it's not always clear that will happen.

[Rewjeo]

Have any of you ever tried defending against a knife? Honestly, it's harder than defending against a gun, assuming you're close enough to your opponent. If you go after their hand, odds are your hand is going to get cut up BADLY, and anyone who knows how to use a knife at all will go for major arteries, and there isn't a whole ton you can do to stop them short of running, and in a big crowd that can be hard. Then there's also the part where someone could very, very easily have more than one knife on them, so grabbing one hand or getting one knife away from them is not going to necessarily help.

I agree gun law could use a reform. I don't think firearms should be banned, however.

[Hash Jar]

People who think knives aren't less dangerous are being foolish. Unless the knife is thrown, I can not be killed from a distance. Do you know how easy it is to aim and shoot? Really easy. A gun is also very cowardly and provides a much easier way to kill someone (IMO, there are more cowards in the world).

Also, lol, it is not harder to defend from a knife. Just run, move, throw something, kick, punch (who cares if I get cut, lol, I live). Unless there are multiple stabbers or you are caught off guard, I don't think knives are harder to defend against.

Edit

I'm not saying knives kill less often by the way. A stab wound may very well kill me just as easily as a gun shot wound. I just don't think knives are harder to defend against.

Edited September 4, 2012 by Hash Jar

[eclipse]

People who think knives aren't less dangerous are being foolish. Unless the knife is thrown, I can not be killed from a distance. Do you know how easy it is to aim and shoot? Really easy. A gun is also very cowardly and provides a much easier way to kill someone (IMO, there are more cowards in the world).

Also, lol, it is not harder to defend from a knife. Just run, move, throw something, kick, punch (who cares if I get cut, lol, I live). Unless there are multiple stabbers or you are caught off guard, I don't think knives are harder to defend against.

Edit

I'm not saying knives kill less often by the way. A stab wound may very well kill me just as easily as a gun shot wound. I just don't think knives are harder to defend against.

Knives are plenty hard to defend against. A stray slash can do anything from distract you to incapacitate you to kill you. A stab will incapacitate, at least. Just 'cause it looks easy in the movies doesn't mean it's easy in real life.

Not sure about guns, as I've never shot one seriously before.

[Anouleth]

Common sense says the Sun revolves around the Earth. It is only after more exacting interpretation of data that we come to the realization that this is untrue.

If you're talking about the heliocentric and the geocentric models of the Solar System, the key distinction of those two systems is whether the other planets revolved around the Earth or the Sun, not whether the Sun revolved around the Earth or vice-versa.

So, in that vein; does gun crime cause such a substantially higher case of death and wounded or not?

Yes: that's common sense. In the absence of more exacting interpretation, the null hypothesis holds.

Okay. Can you post your source?

I did a few posts ago.

Can they? I mean yeah you can shoot out more bullets at someone, but it varies wildly depending on bullet and stab wounds. And do people going on killing sprees usually have more than one loaded gun?

More "just testing you" bullshit.

[MacLovin]

People who think knives aren't less dangerous are being foolish. Unless the knife is thrown, I can not be killed from a distance. Do you know how easy it is to aim and shoot? Really easy. A gun is also very cowardly and provides a much easier way to kill someone (IMO, there are more cowards in the world).

Also, lol, it is not harder to defend from a knife. Just run, move, throw something, kick, punch (who cares if I get cut, lol, I live). Unless there are multiple stabbers or you are caught off guard, I don't think knives are harder to defend against.

Edit

I'm not saying knives kill less often by the way. A stab wound may very well kill me just as easily as a gun shot wound. I just don't think knives are harder to defend against.

Coming from someone who's dealt with martial arts and defense against knives.

It all depends on speed, reflexes and luck.

I wouldn't do it, because deadly weapon and horrible way of dying.

[Esau of Isaac]

People who think knives aren't less dangerous are being foolish. Unless the knife is thrown, I can not be killed from a distance. Do you know how easy it is to aim and shoot? Really easy. A gun is also very cowardly and provides a much easier way to kill someone (IMO, there are more cowards in the world).

It is difficult to hit a moving target with a gun, moreso than media would lead you to believe, especially one running for their lives. This is not to say that people are not killed while running, but doing so usually requires a shot or burst to "slow them down," usually towards the torso, and then a second volley to finish the job or completely incapacitate them. At least this is what I have been told in various war stories from family and friends that were in the military, so take that with a grain of salt I suppose.

Though I must ask, how is a gun more cowardly? This sounds rather antiquated, like a medieval spearman claiming that a bow and arrow is a cowardly weapon.

If you're talking about the heliocentric and the geocentric models of the Solar System, the key distinction of those two systems is whether the other planets revolved around the Earth or the Sun, not whether the Sun revolved around the Earth or vice-versa.

Are you seriously debating with me over the definition of heliocentrism and geocentrism? You realize the point I am making right?

Yes: that's common sense. In the absence of more exacting interpretation, the null hypothesis holds.

If it's common sense then it should be easy to prove, shouldn't it?

I did a few posts ago.

I am not seeing in your Wikipedia entry where it says that the average man could not do rifling in his own basement.

More "just testing you" bullshit.

So then, the entirety of your argument is built on "common sense" and just making shit up, and when you're asked to substantiate your claims you will instead play the victim?

My bad. You're right. Why did I ever think of casting into doubt something you say in a debate? How silly of me.

Edited September 4, 2012 by Esau of Isaac

[Anouleth]

Are you seriously debating with me over the definition of heliocentrism and geocentrism? You realize the point I am making right?

Yes. But your point is stupid.

If it's common sense then it should be easy to prove, shouldn't it?

Often, things that are common sense are very difficult to prove, especially when it comes to subjects that are impossible to test. We can't do a controlled experiment on whether a nutter with a gun kills more people than a nutter with a knife. And without controlled experiments, it's very hard to scientifically prove anything. And it's difficult to just look over the list of existing cases and look for patterns since the sample size is very small. If you would suggest a way to make these kinds of attacks less deadly, what would you suggest? Your attitude seems to be pretty much "well we can't PROVE guns make these attacks more deadly so we should do nothing".

I am not seeing in your Wikipedia entry where it says that the average man could not do rifling in his own basement.

I don't think the average person owns and is proficient with machine tools. Anders Breivik, James Holmes, and Martin Bryant were almost certainly not.

So then, the entirety of your argument is built on "common sense" and just making shit up, and when you're asked to substantiate your claims you will instead play the victim?

Because my claims are so obvious that I don't really need evidence, and the evidence is practically impossible to acquire. Well, aside from a buttload of circumstantial evidence.

Edited September 4, 2012 by Anouleth

[Esau of Isaac]

Yes. But your point is stupid.

How is my point stupid? It illustrates perfectly what I am stating to you. One appears to be true at first glance, but requires deeper inspection to realize that it is untrue. Similarly, it may seem logical to conclude that firearm-related crime results in more damage because of the pure potentiality of the weapon and their superiority in overall use, but with more data that may not necessarily be true because of the circumstances of their use and the individuals they are used by.

For example, how do we compare the potential lethality of a complete stab from a 7-inch serrated combat knife to a 9mm bullet? Would you agree that in terms of pure potential mass the knife will probably cause more harm in that regard?

Another point of consideration would be the direct application of the weapon. Firearms do not require any application of muscle, no need to physically stab a slab of metal into another human being. Because of this, we may need to consider the psychological application of the weapon. Maybe it's harder to kill someone with a knife mentally, unless the person is predisposed towards doing so.

Again, in a vacuum, I would agree with you. But there are a lot of factors that go into crime, and many more in the application of tools used in it. I can't just say that knife-related crime is so much more manageable and less problematic simply because we would prefer to use a firearm in ideal situations.

Often, things that are common sense are very difficult to prove, especially when it comes to subjects that are impossible to test. We can't do a controlled experiment on whether a nutter with a gun kills more people than a nutter with a knife.

You don't need to. I'm not asking you to prove Mars doesn't exist or something, but data to substantiate the claim that gun crime causes a substantially higher death and injury rate than knife crime. That require a simple compilation of data. That's not an intangible area of reality.

And without controlled experiments, it's very hard to scientifically prove anything. And it's difficult to just look over the list of existing cases and look for patterns since the sample size is very small. If you would suggest a way to make these kinds of attacks less deadly, what would you suggest? Your attitude seems to be pretty much "well we can't PROVE guns make these attacks more deadly so we should do nothing".

My attitude has never been anything of the sort. It has instead been a staunch skepticism towards your statements of fact that you even acknowledge are anything but. If you state as a fact that gun crime results in substantially higher death tolls you should be capable of backing that up. Otherwise you wouldn't state it as a fact, right?

I don't think the average person owns and is proficient with machine tools. Anders Breivik, James Holmes, and Martin Bryant were almost certainly not.

Does this mean that making a chair requires specialist tools and knowledge? It is not relevant whether or not they personally had the knowledge to make their own firearms, the point has been whether it would be feasible for "bootleg" guns to be constructed and distributed to the populace in the event of a gun ban, and their capability and effectiveness compared to mass-produced military-grade weaponry.

Because my claims are so obvious that I don't really need evidence, and the evidence is practically impossible to acquire. Well, aside from a buttload of circumstantial evidence.

There are mountains of statistics regarding firearm and knife-related weaponry and their use in crime, and there is concrete, observable data regarding their potentiality for harm and their application in combat.

If you state something as a fact in a debate, you need evidence to back it up. That includes something you construe to be simple fact when others do not. Sorry that I have to ride your ass on something so simple, but being a douche about it isn't going to make me stop.

Edited September 5, 2012 by Esau of Isaac

[Anouleth]

How is my point stupid? It illustrates perfectly what I am stating to you. One appears to be true at first glance, but requires deeper inspection to realize that it is untrue. Similarly, it may seem logical to conclude that firearm-related crime results in more damage because of the pure potentiality of the weapon and their superiority in overall use, but with more data that may not necessarily be true because of the circumstances of their use and the individuals they are used by.

For example, how do we compare the potential lethality of a complete stab from a 7-inch serrated combat knife to a 9mm bullet? Would you agree that in terms of pure potential mass the knife will probably cause more harm in that regard?

Another point of consideration would be the direct application of the weapon. Firearms do not require any application of muscle, no need to physically stab a slab of metal into another human being. Because of this, we may need to consider the psychological application of the weapon. Maybe it's harder to kill someone with a knife mentally, unless the person is predisposed towards doing so.

Again, in a vacuum, I would agree with you. But there are a lot of factors that go into crime, and many more in the application of tools used in it. I can't just say that knife-related crime is so much more manageable and less problematic simply because we would prefer to use a firearm in ideal situations.

I imagine James Holmes didn't buy an assault rifle instead of a knife so he could give his victims a fighting chance.

You don't need to. I'm not asking you to prove Mars doesn't exist or something, but data to substantiate the claim that gun crime causes a substantially higher death and injury rate than knife crime. That require a simple compilation of data. That's not an intangible area of reality.

That wouldn't tell us anything, though. More people are killed by guns than are killed by say, tanks. Does that mean that a tank is less deadly than a gun? Of course not.

Even if there is more deaths due to knife crime than deaths due to gun crime, that doesn't mean that overall deaths would not be reduced by restricting guns.

My attitude has never been anything of the sort. It has instead been a staunch skepticism towards your statements of fact that you even acknowledge are anything but. If you state as a fact that gun crime results in substantially higher death tolls you should be capable of backing that up. Otherwise you wouldn't state it as a fact, right?

Except that's not what I'm saying! I don't think it matters at all how many people die overall because of guns or how many people die overall because of knives. I am saying that James Holmes, Anders Breivik and Martin Bryant would have killed fewer people with a knife than with a gun. And when the next crazy person shows up, the same will be true for him. Therefore, if gun laws had prevented them from acquiring guns, then fewer people would have died. And it's a statement that's impossible to prove barring travelling back in time and changing their weapons and seeing how many they kill.

Does this mean that making a chair requires specialist tools and knowledge? It is not relevant whether or not they personally had the knowledge to make their own firearms, the point has been whether it would be feasible for "bootleg" guns to be constructed and distributed to the populace in the event of a gun ban, and their capability and effectiveness compared to mass-produced military-grade weaponry.

Probably not. We can't say for sure, because we have no evidence, but common sense would suggest that since firearms are more difficult to make than alcohol, especially ones as effective as modern assault rifles, it would probably not be possible.

If you state something as a fact in a debate, you need evidence to back it up. That includes something you construe to be simple fact when others do not. Sorry that I have to ride your ass on something so simple, but being a douche about it isn't going to make me stop. :smug:

I do not have to prove every tiny little thing I say. If I say "the sky is blue" I do not have to find sources that back up my point. If I say "a gun is deadlier than a knife" I do not have to find sources that back up my point or perform a controlled experiment. I am not construing this as a simple fact. It IS a simple fact.

You'll find that the only douche here is you. "Sorry that I have to ride your ass"? Shut the fuck up. You are not my fucking teacher, this is not debate class, don't pretend to be sorry for being intentionally clueless and "testing me" with constant bullshit. You are not teaching me some sort of valuable life lesson about backing up your points with data, because I don't give one shit about being rigorous when I already know I'm completely correct. No, I don't need to PROVE that Martin Bryant would have killed fewer people if he had been wielding a knife. No, I don't need to prove that James Holmes could not have designed and built a semi-automatic assault rifle in the basement that he didn't have.

[Esau of Isaac]

I imagine James Holmes didn't buy an assault rifle instead of a knife so he could give his victims a fighting chance.

Of course. Because in a vacuum, in the most ideal of situations, the gun is clearly the more powerful weapon. Or more importantly, most safe for the user while doing the most harm. I think you'd probably agree that a twelve-inch butcher knife stabbed into the chest will cause more damage through sheer mass than the average 9mm bullet, but one can be used at several yards away while the other requires more personal distance and effort from the user.

That wouldn't tell us anything, though. More people are killed by guns than are killed by say, tanks. Does that mean that a tank is less deadly than a gun? Of course not.

Even if there is more deaths due to knife crime than deaths due to gun crime, that doesn't mean that overall deaths would not be reduced by restricting guns.

Well, yes, that is exactly what it can mean. If more deaths arise from knife crime than gun crime, then it may be that by removing access to firearms and thus restricting the environment to knife crime that you end up with more deaths.

Note that I am not stating this is a factual event, but was pointing out that if you make a factual statement you should back it up.

Except that's not what I'm saying! I don't think it matters at all how many people die overall because of guns or how many people die overall because of knives. I am saying that James Holmes, Anders Breivik and Martin Bryant would have killed fewer people with a knife than with a gun. And when the next crazy person shows up, the same will be true for him. Therefore, if gun laws had prevented them from acquiring guns, then fewer people would have died. And it's a statement that's impossible to prove barring travelling back in time and changing their weapons and seeing how many they kill.

I am contesting that in every situation, someone that used a gun in crime will have killed less when using a knife. That is precisely why I am asking you to provide data that shows that in crime more are harmed through use of firearms than knives.

Yes, if you magically removed the guns from these peoples' hands literally right when they were about to commit the crime and replaced them with knives, they would in those situations almost definitely have killed less people. But you're confusing that with these people actually killing less innocents in an environment that bears no legal access to firearms. Those are two completely different situations.

Probably not. We can't say for sure, because we have no evidence, but common sense would suggest that since firearms are more difficult to make than alcohol, especially ones as effective as modern assault rifles, it would probably not be possible.

How is your common sense leading you in this direction? Do you know what kinds of tools and materials you need to make a firearm? Do you know what a firearm even constitutes, and how effective a homemade firearm would have to be to at least match the use of mass-produced ones for one singular event?

You'll find that the only douche here is you. "Sorry that I have to ride your ass"? Shut the fuck up. You are not my fucking teacher, this is not debate class, don't pretend to be sorry for being intentionally clueless and "testing me" with constant bullshit.

Why are you using quote marks around "testing me"? The only one that has stated anything of that nature is yourself, so it's kind of odd to use that notation. I did not state I was testing you, and in later clarifying points in fact pointed out completely different intentions. In addition, I'm not attempting to be smug as you implied with your emoticons, or some kind of condescending teacher, but genuinely apologetic for seemingly riling you up over something you find minor and unimportant. If you dislike my behavior for questioning what you deem common knowledge then that's fine. That makes sense.

But don't imagine behaviors that don't exist. I am not saying I am smarter or above you by questioning your knowledge of these topics you are discussing, and I am not attempting to belittle you in any of my rebuttals. I try to be above that more often than not in serious discussions, and I assume from posts of yours I have seen that you do as well. So, seriously, don't take anything said here now or later as personal. It wasn't, isn't, and won't be.

You are not teaching me some sort of valuable life lesson about backing up your points with data, because I don't give one shit about being rigorous when I already know I'm completely correct. No, I don't need to PROVE that Martin Bryant would have killed fewer people if he had been wielding a knife. No, I don't need to prove that James Holmes could not have designed and built a semi-automatic assault rifle in the basement that he didn't have.

I did not say that you need to prove that Martin Bryant would have killed fewer people if he had been wielding a knife. I did not ask you to prove that James Holmes could not have designed and built a semi-automatic assault rifle in the basement that he did not have. I asked you to prove that gun crime causes a significantly larger amount of fatalities and damage compared to knife crime --lending credence to the ideal of banning it to save lives--, and I asked you for evidence that showed manufacturing a firearm required intense specialist capabilities that the average man could not have, both things you stated as fact. You might think of these thing as common sense, but I am skeptical of them and ask that you prove them to be true.

Edited September 6, 2012 by Esau of Isaac

[Anouleth]

Well, yes, that is exactly what it can mean. If more deaths arise from knife crime than gun crime, then it may be that by removing access to firearms and thus restricting the environment to knife crime that you end up with more deaths.

No, that doesn't make sense at all!

I am contesting that in every situation, someone that used a gun in crime will have killed less when using a knife. That is precisely why I am asking you to provide data that shows that in crime more are harmed through use of firearms than knives.

I don't see why that's relevant at all. In my country, there's more hospitalisations due to knife crime than gun crime, but that reflects the greater availability of knives to guns, rather than guns being a less deadly weapon.

Yes, if you magically removed the guns from these peoples' hands literally right when they were about to commit the crime and replaced them with knives, they would in those situations almost definitely have killed less people. But you're confusing that with these people actually killing less innocents in an environment that bears no legal access to firearms. Those are two completely different situations.

What's the difference? I don't think that Holmes and Breivik realistically could have access to the black market, and even if they did it would be a lot more expensive. As for the theory that they would have just used lots of bombs... there aren't really many bombings in the UK, so I doubt it.

How is your common sense leading you in this direction? Do you know what kinds of tools and materials you need to make a firearm? Do you know what a firearm even constitutes, and how effective a homemade firearm would have to be to at least match the use of mass-produced ones for one singular event?

Nope, and I don't feel I need to.

I did not say that you need to prove that Martin Bryant would have killed fewer people if he had been wielding a knife. I did not ask you to prove that James Holmes could not have designed and built a semi-automatic assault rifle in the basement that he did not have. I asked you to prove that gun crime causes a significantly larger amount of fatalities and damage compared to knife crime --lending credence to the ideal of banning it to save lives--, and I asked you for evidence that showed manufacturing a firearm required intense specialist capabilities that the average man could not have, both things you stated as fact.

No, I said a rifle. A rudimentary shotgun could probably be built by the average person, although he'd need to buy the ammunition from somewhere.

You might think of these thing as common sense, but I am skeptical of them and ask that you prove them to be true.

What evidence do you want specifically?

[Esau of Isaac]

No, that doesn't make sense at all!

I don't understand how it does not make sense.

I don't see why that's relevant at all. In my country, there's more hospitalisations due to knife crime than gun crime, but that reflects the greater availability of knives to guns, rather than guns being a less deadly weapon.

Well, I wasn't looking for you to compare total deaths of each case, as that would give skewed results. Instead average hospitalizations or fatalities arriving from knife or gun crime situations in areas where they are both legal weapons, would likely give less skewed results, I would think.

What's the difference? I don't think that Holmes and Breivik realistically could have access to the black market, and even if they did it would be a lot more expensive. As for the theory that they would have just used lots of bombs... there aren't really many bombings in the UK, so I doubt it.

The black market isn't some seedy place, it's just a market that the government does not condone. If it's a small market, then yeah, the possibility of finding it is not so great. But for something huge and culturally ingrained suddenly banned such as guns? I can definitely believe that many would be capable of finding it.

And why is the theory that they would have just used a lot of bombs crazy? They both already used bombs to begin with. I am simply saying that in lieu of a more convenient tool, they would simply use others to achieve the same effect.

Nope, and I don't feel I need to.

But then don't you think that damages your credibility of what you conceive to be common sense in this situation? What if rifling is as simple as using one specific tool on a piece of piping? What if making a rudimentary semi-automatic firearm that will function capably is as simple as constructing a chair?

No, I said a rifle. A rudimentary shotgun could probably be built by the average person, although he'd need to buy the ammunition from somewhere.

Why the distinction? What makes a rifle more complex than a homemade semi-automatic handgun?

What evidence do you want specifically?

Preferably data that shows firearms to cause more death specifically in their use than with alternatives, and data that shows the construction of rifles is beyond the scope of any average man in a nationwide ban situation.

[Anouleth]

Well, I wasn't looking for you to compare total deaths of each case, as that would give skewed results. Instead average hospitalizations or fatalities arriving from knife or gun crime situations in areas where they are both legal weapons, would likely give less skewed results, I would think.

I don't know: guns aren't always wielded with the intent to kill. Low caliber handguns are unlikely to kill someone in one shot. However, they can still be more deadly than a knife if wielded with the intent to kill. How could you distinguish between crimes in which the criminal had intent to kill and crimes in which they did not?

The black market isn't some seedy place, it's just a market that the government does not condone. If it's a small market, then yeah, the possibility of finding it is not so great. But for something huge and culturally ingrained suddenly banned such as guns? I can definitely believe that many would be capable of finding it.

Even if a ban on guns is functionally impossible in the United States because the place is already saturated, it can still be a desirable thing in theory. And as I have mentioned before there are constitutional reasons not to ban guns.

And why is the theory that they would have just used a lot of bombs crazy? They both already used bombs to begin with. I am simply saying that in lieu of a more convenient tool, they would simply use others to achieve the same effect.

In the case of Breivik, acquiring the weapons was more inconvenient than making the bomb because he had to travel to Czechslovakia and smuggle guns through Norwegian customs.

But then don't you think that damages your credibility of what you conceive to be common sense in this situation? What if rifling is as simple as using one specific tool on a piece of piping? What if making a rudimentary semi-automatic firearm that will function capably is as simple as constructing a chair?

Then I guess I'll be wrong.

Why the distinction? What makes a rifle more complex than a homemade semi-automatic handgun?

I don't know about a handgun.

Preferably data that shows firearms to cause more death specifically in their use than with alternatives, and

So a controlled experiment comparing firearms to alternatives? Impossible.

data that shows the construction of rifles is beyond the scope of any average man in a nationwide ban situation.

And how could such data be acquired?

[Camus The Dark Knight]

Your viewed on this are naive and far too optimistic. Taking guns away would have no effect on crime rate and would arguably make it worse. Those who have the intent to kill will do so regardless of whether or not the guns they use are legally or illegally obtained. If guns were banned, said killer would get them via another means or just use another weapon. A gun is a tool, simple as that. I can kill someone with a hammer, should hammers be banned? I could kill someone with the steak knife I used to eat dinner with, should those be banned as well?

Guns give citizens power for them to protect themselves when shit goes down-hill, many people own guns and never have to use them, they don't vocalize it because they don't want to put up with the BS that surrounds the topic. Banning guns it an ill-thought out solution to a problem that has been debated for some time, and would have a large impact, just not the one you are thinking will happen.

[Zanarkin]

I find the comparison of a gun to something everyone uses everyday a little ridiculous. Sure you can kill someone with a hammer, but the fact is, not everyone has a hammer with the intention of hurting/killing/committing crime against someone. Same with a steak knife, a bat, or common everyday items used by everybody. Most people buy guns for protection against crime (which incase anyone here is going to nitpick most of these would require actually shooting the gun rather than just flashing it as it has been stated before, the thief might call your bluff) Source. So if guns are made to protect against crime they are made to injure people and therefore can be considered in a different category than a hammer or a steak knife (which is for animal meat, not human meat).Not to mention that a bat and a hammer are relatively less dangerous to the life of a human than a gun (though a knife is dangerous but i'd argue that a person has more possibility of escape or chance of fighting back in said instance).

Edited September 8, 2012 by SlayerX

[Rehab]

(doh, edit) Sorry to ask somebody to spell things out for me, but has anybody in the topic linked to examples of countries that banned semi/automatic weaponry and saw little difference in death toll or gun violence? I think I remember Esau and Aere mentioning something to the effect, at least.

I remember somebody, I think Rewjeo, saying Canada has a lot of gun owners, though I seemed to get the impression from a news piece I saw recently that their gun laws are generally much stricter than those of the U.S. A brief wikipedia survey got me that all firearms were required to be registered until just a couple months ago, but since April 6 this year, "the registration of non-restricted firearms is no longer required in any province or territory, except for Quebec, pending litigation."

Again, just a cursory glance here, but they appear to group all firearms into broad categories of prohibited, restricted, and non-restricted, restricted being only allowed at gun ranges for the sake of competition. The only non-restricted weapons are the rifles and shotguns that are unbanned, generally used for the sake of hunting I assume. All handguns and semi-automatics are either restricted if not prohibited, and all automatic weapons are prohibited. Did Brendor ever say he was from Canada? That could explain the things he said about what guns are allowed where he is.

Regardless, saying we'd see an influx of [semi/automatic] guns from Canada to the U.S. in the event they were outlawed here, uh, seems a little odd to me.

Edited September 8, 2012 by Rehab

[Anouleth]

Your viewed on this are naive and far too optimistic. Taking guns away would have no effect on crime rate and would arguably make it worse. Those who have the intent to kill will do so regardless of whether or not the guns they use are legally or illegally obtained. If guns were banned, said killer would get them via another means or just use another weapon. A gun is a tool, simple as that. I can kill someone with a hammer, should hammers be banned? I could kill someone with the steak knife I used to eat dinner with, should those be banned as well?

If you think it would be possible for Anders Breivik to murder, what was it, 60+ people with a hammer or a steak knife, you are an idiot. Moreover, steak knives and hammers have important functions such as hammering nails and cutting steaks. I cannot think of any function for an assault rifle other than killing people. While I acknowledge the argument that some people view firearms as having intrinsic beauty and want to collect them, there are many beautiful things that can't be used to kill people. Try stamps.

Guns give citizens power for them to protect themselves when shit goes down-hill, many people own guns and never have to use them, they don't vocalize it because they don't want to put up with the BS that surrounds the topic. Banning guns it an ill-thought out solution to a problem that has been debated for some time, and would have a large impact, just not the one you are thinking will happen.

Then why is crime so high in America, which has some of the most liberal gun laws in the world? If guns reduce gun crime, you would expect America to have a lot less gun crime. America in particular has a history of bloody mass shootings such as Columbine, and more recently, the James Holmes killings.

And I've said before that simply having a federal law against guns would probably be ineffective in America because it's saturated with firearms. That being said, Americans should acknowledge that one of the reasons they have high rates of violent gun crime is because of the prevalence of legal firearms. In theory, the mere legality of firearms isn't really a problem: it's that so many Americans own one, that they're so cheap and easy to purchase, and that even extremely high-powered firearms are available to the public. If it were a niche item, with only farmers and hunters owning single or double gauge shotguns and maybe a handful of collectors with other weapons, there would be no issue, but as it is, any nutjob can go into a store in America and load up on assault rifles, automatic shotguns, semi-automatic handguns, and ammunition to kill a thousand people. As James Holmes did. You should count yourselves lucky that he didn't kill more people, since he clearly had the means and the motive. I'd also like to point out that despite these liberal gun laws that you champion, it wasn't some brave armed civilian that disarmed James Holmes but the police.

Edited September 8, 2012 by Anouleth