Firearms

[Esau of Isaac]

But if something less powerful can do the job just as well, then there's no point in keeping the overpowered stuff out there for the bad apples to abuse them.

Why do you use a steak knife? A butter knife can do the same job.

If your life is threatened I can tell you right now that you're going to feel a hell of a lot safer holding an AK47 than a Beretta.

Making alcohol is very easy and requires no specialist knowledge, equipment, or chemicals.

It's a good thing no one died from shoddily made bootleg in those times then, huh?

It is impossible to mass-produce guns in someone's basement: hell, I would be surprised if anyone but a few specialists could make even one!

That would be because there is no cultural need for the construction of guns in your basement. Why is it impossible again?

The only reason why it's even possible for you to equate the two in your mind is because America has an irrational culture built around guns.

Either way he's correct that the government will not be capable of just saying they're illegal and expecting everyone to hand them over. Unlike other nations the United States has a strong lover for its firearms, the government can't simply say one day "Hey guys, all guns are illegal now, hand 'em over." It doesn't work like that.

James Holmes bought his firearms legally. Anthony Breivik bought his firearms legally. Martin Bryant bought his firearms legally. And from what I gather, they didn't exactly have amazing black market contacts.

And all of these people are murderers with or without guns. You know what would have helped stop Holmes, Breivik, and Bryant? Someone with a gun.

Edited August 30, 2012 by Esau of Isaac

[Rewjeo]

There also wouldn't be as much of a need for homemade firearms as for homemade alcohol. You drink alcohol and it's done. You shoot a gun, and then you shoot some more, and there are already so many guns out there that it wouldn't be hard for them to end up on the black market. Add onto that the fact that America has massive borders with both Mexico and Canada, and I don't see much in the way of a shortage of guns following a ban. The UK is entirely islands, and while there are obviously many possible ways to smuggle in firearms, I don't think any of them really compare to the massive border we share with Canada that I can't imagine can be completely controlled, never mind the issues we're already having with bordering Mexico.

[Zanarkin]

Sure, Slayer, but the lunatics who really want to go kill somebody can easily buy one off the black market.

I still sustain the fact that things in the black market are more expensive and therefore these people wouldn't be able to afford as much if any at all.

[Anouleth]

It's a good thing no one died from shoddily made bootleg in those times then, huh?

People did die from shoddily made bootleg, and prohibition of alcohol was a resounding failure: my point is that it's a false analogy to use that to suggest that prohibition of guns would also be a resounding failure.

Also, I don't think it's the responsibility of the government to stop people from doing incredibly stupid shit like making guns in their basement by making guns legally available.

That would be because there is no cultural need for the construction of guns in your basement. Why is it impossible again?

Mass production of guns requires stuff like an assembly line, multiple workers, including specialists, machinery, etcetera. Well out of the grasp of any one person.

Either way he's correct that the government will not be capable of just saying they're illegal and expecting everyone to hand them over. Unlike other nations the United States has a strong lover for its firearms, the government can't simply say one day "Hey guys, all guns are illegal now, hand 'em over." It doesn't work like that.

What's your argument? I'm arguing that the prevalence of legal firearms in America is a partial cause of it's high gun crime. You seem to be agreeing with me.

And all of these people are murderers with or without guns. You know what would have helped stop Holmes, Breivik, and Bryant? Someone with a gun.

It seems like it would be more effective to prevent them from getting guns in the first place, rather than banking on someone with a gun being nearby at all times. After all, there was a (presumably armed) security officer at the camp that Breivik targeted: he was the first to die, if I recall. Bryant killed a man and woman in a bed and breakfast (they would have had little opportunity to defend themselves even if they had a gun). When he attacked in public, he killed 12 people in 15 seconds, and ended up taking a hostage anyway. So yeah, maybe he wouldn't have killed as many people if there had been someone with a gun (which are legal in Australia). But he would still have killed a heck of a lot of people.

[Brendor]

People did die from shoddily made bootleg, and prohibition of alcohol was a resounding failure: my point is that it's a false analogy to use that to suggest that prohibition of guns would also be a resounding failure.

Sarcasm which you obviously missed and why exactly is it a failed analogy?

Mass production of guns requires stuff like an assembly line, multiple workers, including specialists, machinery, etcetera. Well out of the grasp of any one person.

No you're misunderstanding. People would craft firearms singularly in their basements and the criminals with more funds, resources, and influence would mass produce them ie the formerly mentioned Al Capone #2

What's your argument? I'm arguing that the prevalence of legal firearms in America is a partial cause of it's high gun crime. You seem to be agreeing with me.

It seems like it would be more effective to prevent them from getting guns in the first place, rather than banking on someone with a gun being nearby at all times. After all, there was a (presumably armed) security officer at the camp that Breivik targeted: he was the first to die, if I recall. Bryant killed a man and woman in a bed and breakfast (they would have had little opportunity to defend themselves even if they had a gun). When he attacked in public, he killed 12 people in 15 seconds, and ended up taking a hostage anyway. So yeah, maybe he wouldn't have killed as many people if there had been someone with a gun (which are legal in Australia). But he would still have killed a heck of a lot of people.

No the high crime rates is due to an abundance of criminals, not an abundance of legal firearms. When will you start blaming criminals for the crimes instead of the tools used to perpetrate them?

[Esau of Isaac]

People did die from shoddily made bootleg, and prohibition of alcohol was a resounding failure: my point is that it's a false analogy to use that to suggest that prohibition of guns would also be a resounding failure.

It's not a false analogy because it would fail for the same reasons; people in America like guns. They enjoy the right to own them. If the government were to make it illegal it wouldn't change the fact that people are okay with doing it and don't think it's wrong.

Mass production of guns requires stuff like an assembly line, multiple workers, including specialists, machinery, etcetera. Well out of the grasp of any one person.

I was responding to the claim that only specialists can make guns and that it is impossible for people in a prohibition-environment to put them together. It is obviously beyond the capability for anyone to mass-produce pretty much anything by themselves.

What's your argument? I'm arguing that the prevalence of legal firearms in America is a partial cause of it's high gun crime. You seem to be agreeing with me.

I have stated and clarified my argument repeatedly over the course of this topic.

It seems like it would be more effective to prevent them from getting guns in the first place, rather than banking on someone with a gun being nearby at all times.

Or you could just not blame the guns for the fact that they did it because they are murderers and illegal or not they would have killed many people.

[Keiya]

Ah, the firearms debacle.

I think the main problem with controlling items, or creating exceptions, is that that only difference between legal and illegal purchase is who you're getting it from. If you ban guns, then you cut off the supply from people who want to get them legally, but you're not stopping any illegal firearms trading in any way whatsoever. That creates a society where the only people who have guns are either the government, or criminals. In Japan, for example, the yakuza can control their territories through fear and extortion precisely because the government can't do anything about their presence, and the individuals can't defend themselves against these large, gun-toting organizations that can burn down their establishments in a moment's notice.

However, "gun control can't stop anyone who is unfit to use guns" is a different statement from "gun control can't stop everyone who is unfit to use guns". Because owning a gun is a big responsibility, we should properly educate everyone about firearms and their use. There's a big difference between the person who knows that guns are tools that are to be treated with the gravity of their ability, and those who see them just as a status symbol.

Moreover, we should understand that there are limitations to people's freedom to bear and purchase guns. Therefore, people who are selling guns should be careful not to sell their arms to people who are mentally ill or are otherwise morally incapable of using guns for self-defense. If it requires that I carry a permit to use my firearm, or that I take a test before I can own a gun, then so be it. We don't allow people to drive on the streets unless they are of age, are of reasonable mental and physical well-being, and have completed a test that allows them to carry a card saying, "I can drive". I think the same should be done for gun ownership.

Will it stop all criminals from getting guns? Hardly. Will it prevent mentally ill people from getting guns? Perhaps not. However, it will prevent a good percentage of people otherwise incapable of using firearms properly from using them, and that alone should give people some pause to reconsider.

[Aere]

While these murderers did purchase legal guns, I hardly think they would have sat down and say "Well, I guess I'm beat" if they couldn't. The black market is LOADED with guns, as I said before, and the supply hugely overshadows the demand.

If guns were outlawed, the demand wouldn't necessarily go up. The demand for illegal guns, yes, but the supply is so unbelievably massive that the price would not skyrocket. If somebody really wanted to go kill people, he could easily obtain the firearms.

[Brendor]

Ah, the firearms debacle.

I think the main problem with controlling items, or creating exceptions, is that that only difference between legal and illegal purchase is who you're getting it from. If you ban guns, then you cut off the supply from people who want to get them legally, but you're not stopping any illegal firearms trading in any way whatsoever. That creates a society where the only people who have guns are either the government, or criminals. In Japan, for example, the yakuza can control their territories through fear and extortion precisely because the government can't do anything about their presence, and the individuals can't defend themselves against these large, gun-toting organizations that can burn down their establishments in a moment's notice.

However, "gun control can't stop anyone who is unfit to use guns" is a different statement from "gun control can't stop everyone who is unfit to use guns". Because owning a gun is a big responsibility, we should properly educate everyone about firearms and their use. There's a big difference between the person who knows that guns are tools that are to be treated with the gravity of their ability, and those who see them just as a status symbol.

Moreover, we should understand that there are limitations to people's freedom to bear and purchase guns. Therefore, people who are selling guns should be careful not to sell their arms to people who are mentally ill or are otherwise morally incapable of using guns for self-defense. If it requires that I carry a permit to use my firearm, or that I take a test before I can own a gun, then so be it. We don't allow people to drive on the streets unless they are of age, are of reasonable mental and physical well-being, and have completed a test that allows them to carry a card saying, "I can drive". I think the same should be done for gun ownership.

Will it stop all criminals from getting guns? Hardly. Will it prevent mentally ill people from getting guns? Perhaps not. However, it will prevent a good percentage of people otherwise incapable of using firearms properly from using them, and that alone should give people some pause to reconsider.

Thank you. So much. Finally a person who truly understands! We need proper firearm education as core criteria in the school system so children learn things about responsibility and proper ownership not only will that combat illegal and malicious gun use and increase the number of law-abiding firearm owners simultaneously but it will teach core values early on like responsibility and appreciation for their freedoms. That is THE solution, I believe.

Edited August 31, 2012 by Brendor the Brave

[1st Mate Bob]

Webster defines a weapon as: "something used to injure, defeat, or destroy". If the handgun just lays on the dresser never used, it cannot be considered a weapon because it wasn't used to harm someone. Although some objects are more potent if used as weapons, they cannot be weapons if they don't fit the criteria.

Webster also defines a firearm as "a weapon from which a shot is discharged by gunpowder." So yeah, that's that.

Thank you. So much. Finally a person who truly understands! We need proper firearm education as core criteria in the school system so children learn things about responsibility and proper ownership not only will that combat illegal and malicious gun use and increase the number of law-abiding firearm owners simultaneously but it will teach core values early on like responsibility and appreciation for their freedoms. That is THE solution, I believe.

As wonderful as that would be, that's going to be a very difficult thing to accomplish. I'm not saying don't try, just saying that it would be nice if a lot more people in the world thought education was important.

[Anouleth]

It's not a false analogy because it would fail for the same reasons; people in America like guns. They enjoy the right to own them. If the government were to make it illegal it wouldn't change the fact that people are okay with doing it and don't think it's wrong.

Perhaps I should qualify then: the prevalance of firearms is a partial cause of America's high rates of gun crime and shootings, and a partial cause of that is firearms being legal. If people in America did not insist on owning guns, there would be less of this crime. And if there was such a law and people followed it, then it would certainly reduce this crime.

I was responding to the claim that only specialists can make guns and that it is impossible for people in a prohibition-environment to put them together.

It's possible to home-craft rudimentary shotguns and the like, as a google search will show: but these weapons are far less effective than mass-produced shotguns or assault rifles. I highly doubt that Holmes or Breivik would have been able to kill nearly as many people with a home made shotgun (and even then, you have to buy the ammunition).

It is obviously beyond the capability for anyone to mass-produce pretty much anything by themselves.

Yes.

Or you could just not blame the guns for the fact that they did it because they are murderers and illegal or not they would have killed many people.

It seems far easier to restrict people's access to firearms than make sure that nobody in society ever ever goes off the deep end. Barring police-state style monitoring of people, how could attacks like Breivik's be anticipated?

Sarcasm which you obviously missed and why exactly is it a failed analogy?

Because the demand for alcohol and ease of production is much greater than that for firearms. It's easier to produce alcohol on your own than it is to make an effective firearm. And the incentives to do so are greater. Moreover, the law against alcohol was poorly enforced.

No you're misunderstanding. People would craft firearms singularly in their basements and the criminals with more funds, resources, and influence would mass produce them ie the formerly mentioned Al Capone #2

The firearms made in people's basements would be far less effective than any mass-produced firearm, and I personally don't think that laws against firearms would be very effective against organised criminals, but I think they would be effective in preventing or mitigating shootings like that of James Holmes or Anders Breivik. People will sometimes not follow the law, that is true, but that does not mean the law has no effect.

No the high crime rates is due to an abundance of criminals, not an abundance of legal firearms. When will you start blaming criminals for the crimes instead of the tools used to perpetrate them?

This argument is not about whose "fault" a crime is, I couldn't care less who is to blame. It's about what the most effective way to prevent such crimes is. And I think that restricting access to firearms, along with other forms of crime prevention, can be effective in reducing rates of gun crime, and this shooting in Colorado is further evidence of that. Could this shooting have been prevented, or at least mitigated if James Holmes had not been able to purchase his weapons legally? I believe so.

While these murderers did purchase legal guns, I hardly think they would have sat down and say "Well, I guess I'm beat" if they couldn't. The black market is LOADED with guns, as I said before, and the supply hugely overshadows the demand.

I don't believe the black market is as easy to access or as cheap as you make out.

If guns were outlawed, the demand wouldn't necessarily go up. The demand for illegal guns, yes, but the supply is so unbelievably massive that the price would not skyrocket. If somebody really wanted to go kill people, he could easily obtain the firearms.

And why is the supply so unbelievably massive? Because there is a thriving, legal gun industry in America.

Thank you. So much. Finally a person who truly understands! We need proper firearm education as core criteria in the school system so children learn things about responsibility and proper ownership not only will that combat illegal and malicious gun use and increase the number of law-abiding firearm owners simultaneously but it will teach core values early on like responsibility and appreciation for their freedoms. That is THE solution, I believe.

We all know how effective anti-drug education was, after all...

[Aere]

The black market is hardly difficult to access in any metropolitan area.

The United States exports about 50% of guns in the world, and that includes those for its defense/military.

[Esau of Isaac]

Perhaps I should qualify then: the prevalance of firearms is a partial cause of America's high rates of gun crime and shootings, and a partial cause of that is firearms being legal. If people in America did not insist on owning guns, there would be less of this crime. And if there was such a law and people followed it, then it would certainly reduce this crime.

Right, it logically follows that if you remove the presence of guns gun crime will go down. If you're looking to at least harm the presence of gun crime, then yes, outright banning any and all firearms will obviously change that.

But it's not actually changing anything. You have done nothing to combat actual crime, just some of the tools being used. And you didn't just harm the criminals in your actions, you also harmed everyone else too.

It's possible to home-craft rudimentary shotguns and the like, as a google search will show: but these weapons are far less effective than mass-produced shotguns or assault rifles. I highly doubt that Holmes or Breivik would have been able to kill nearly as many people with a home made shotgun (and even then, you have to buy the ammunition).

How does this comment on the point made here? If you're talking about pure potentiality of harm then yes, obviously an assault rifle will in general situations be capable of causing greater harm. It doesn't change that an astoundingly large amount of damage and death can be wrought with a simple knife. You can say that if they acted the exact same way with these weaker weapons that they would have ended less lives, but who is to say that they would have acted the same exact way? In lieu of an advanced rifle, what if Holmes had just used a huge assortment of bombs and killed twice the number of people? What if Breivik had done the same?

Finally, are you experienced enough in the construction of homemade firearms to say that one made with similar parts in a household would be so incredibly less effective as to drastically reduce the amount of harm they could cause?

It seems far easier to restrict people's access to firearms than make sure that nobody in society ever ever goes off the deep end. Barring police-state style monitoring of people, how could attacks like Breivik's be anticipated?

You can't. I'm not saying we will ever be able to do that. I am saying that we need to concentrate on the people to solve the problem, not the guns. The assault rifle doesn't pull the trigger to kill dozens of people, the person holding it does.

[Anouleth]

Right, it logically follows that if you remove the presence of guns gun crime will go down. If you're looking to at least harm the presence of gun crime, then yes, outright banning any and all firearms will obviously change that.

Well, some people claim that increasing the volume of guns in society and making them more socially acceptable will reduce gun crime because people will be able to defend themselves. I don't think this holds water, and I'm glad to see you agree with me.

But it's not actually changing anything. You have done nothing to combat actual crime, just some of the tools being used.

So if criminals don't actually need guns to commit crimes, why is there any gun crime at all?

And you didn't just harm the criminals in your actions, you also harmed everyone else too.

A criminal relies on having a weapon far more than an ordinary citizen (who will likely never use it) does, and the only reason a non-criminal might get one is to protect himself from crime anyway. I think people are better protected by reducing the prevalence of guns in society.

How does this comment on the point made here? If you're talking about pure potentiality of harm then yes, obviously an assault rifle will in general situations be capable of causing greater harm. It doesn't change that an astoundingly large amount of damage and death can be wrought with a simple knife.

It's possible to kill people with your bare hands. Obviously it would be nice if nobody ever killed anyone and we could all just get alooooong, but the reality is that people do kill other people, and since they do we should probably try to prevent dangerous weapons like assault rifles, automatic shotguns, tanks etc falling into their hands.

I would like to see a story of someone going on a stabbing spree with a knife, because it seems like it would be a good deal harder to kill 12 people in 15 seconds with a knife. Outside of Call of Duty multiplayer, ofc.

You can say that if they acted the exact same way with these weaker weapons that they would have ended less lives, but who is to say that they would have acted the same exact way? In lieu of an advanced rifle, what if Holmes had just used a huge assortment of bombs and killed twice the number of people? What if Breivik had done the same?

I don't see what this has to do with gun laws. Are you saying that it's okay to put guns into the hands of mentally unstable people because then they'll be more likely to go on shootings than blow up buildings?

Finally, are you experienced enough in the construction of homemade firearms to say that one made with similar parts in a household would be so incredibly less effective as to drastically reduce the amount of harm they could cause?

No, but I am experienced enough in the art of maths and economics to determine that people aren't going to spend large amounts of money on mass-produced weapons unless these weapons offer something above and beyond what could be made in your own home.

You can't. I'm not saying we will ever be able to do that. I am saying that we need to concentrate on the people to solve the problem, not the guns. The assault rifle doesn't pull the trigger to kill dozens of people, the person holding it does.

And what exactly are you proposing by this statement?

[Esau of Isaac]

So if criminals don't actually need guns to commit crimes, why is there any gun crime at all?

Because it's the most effective tool at their disposal? When you ban guns and knife crime skyrockets, what, did knives suddenly become fashionable or something? No, it's just the next best thing.

A criminal relies on having a weapon far more than an ordinary citizen (who will likely never use it) does, and the only reason a non-criminal might get one is to protect himself from crime anyway. I think people are better protected by reducing the prevalence of guns in society.

Literally hundreds of thousands of people collect guns as a hobby. The only use of them is not to kill people that are bad.

It's possible to kill people with your bare hands. Obviously it would be nice if nobody ever killed anyone and we could all just get alooooong, but the reality is that people do kill other people, and since they do we should probably try to prevent dangerous weapons like assault rifles, automatic shotguns, tanks etc falling into their hands.

Yeah, let's just ban everything possibly dangerous in the world so that criminals won't have things that could potentially cause harm. Let's make everyone's lives more miserable in a vain effort to stop bad people from having things.

I would like to see a story of someone going on a stabbing spree with a knife, because it seems like it would be a good deal harder to kill 12 people in 15 seconds with a knife. Outside of Call of Duty multiplayer, ofc.

Well gee it's only eight, but hey that's, what, a helicopter strike? I don't play CoD much. And hey if the article's to be believed someone killed almost twenty and wounded more than fifty.

I don't see what this has to do with gun laws. Are you saying that it's okay to put guns into the hands of mentally unstable people because then they'll be more likely to go on shootings than blow up buildings?

No, I am not saying that. I am saying that your banning of weaponry is not innately safer in every situation. Banned guns don't stop killing sprees, as shown above.

No, but I am experienced enough in the art of maths and economics to determine that people aren't going to spend large amounts of money on mass-produced weapons unless these weapons offer something above and beyond what could be made in your own home.

What are you talking about? This is talking about homemade firearms in the event of a probihition, not mass-produced firearms.

And what exactly are you proposing by this statement?

The same thing I've been proposing the entire topic: To refrain from the banning of things in an attempt to stop criminals, when it can potentially harm law-abiding citizens as well.

[Raven]

I am sure there were no underlying motives or suggestions from your post, of course.

If I had an underlying motive or suggestion, I'd be saying it. What you read is what you get with me. Not my problem if my opinion "I'm not even surprised [by firearms incidents in the US] any more" offends you to the point where you need to retort with a sarcastic statement about mental people and knife crimes in Scotland. You're probably right. I mean in just my little town of Maesteg in Wales with a population of 20,000 people, there's been at least three murders that I know of involving knives in as many years. I'm not going to defend the UK here against knife crime because I know it's rife, primarily since knives are so common and easily accessible. Even your common kitchen knife can be turned into a murder weapon. It's why our police officers on the beat wear stab-proof vests as opposed to bulletproof.

On that note, there aren't many things that do surprise me.

[Anouleth]

Because it's the most effective tool at their disposal? When you ban guns and knife crime skyrockets, what, did knives suddenly become fashionable or something? No, it's just the next best thing.

So you admit that taking guns away from criminals makes them less effective.

Literally hundreds of thousands of people collect guns as a hobby. The only use of them is not to kill people that are bad.

Yes, they are also used for hunting and sport, occasionally.

Yeah, let's just ban everything possibly dangerous in the world so that criminals won't have things that could potentially cause harm. Let's make everyone's lives more miserable in a vain effort to stop bad people from having things.

I'm not suggesting that everything dangerous be banned: but guns are very dangerous and don't have a lot of alternative uses. And I don't see the problem with permitting single or double gauge shotguns, which are permitted in the UK.

Well gee it's only eight, but hey that's, what, a helicopter strike? I don't play CoD much. And hey if the article's to be believed someone killed almost twenty and wounded more than fifty.

Your reading comprehension is poor: the article is saying that knife attacks in general have killed almost twenty, presumably not all committed by one person.

No, I am not saying that. I am saying that your banning of weaponry is not innately safer in every situation. Banned guns don't stop killing sprees, as shown above.

But they do mean that fewer people die in them.

What are you talking about? This is talking about homemade firearms in the event of a probihition, not mass-produced firearms.

I'm saying that home-made firearms are much less effective than mass-produced firearms. Therefore, even if criminals use homemade firearms in the event of a prohibition, their effectiveness will still be reduced.

The same thing I've been proposing the entire topic: To refrain from the banning of things in an attempt to stop criminals, when it can potentially harm law-abiding citizens as well.

Except that it doesn't harm law-abiding citizens. Taking away your guns is not "harm". People in Britain are not "hurting" because they can't own handguns. I'd struggle to even call it inconvenient, since what is convenient about an assault rifle or a handgun?

[Esau of Isaac]

So you admit that taking guns away from criminals makes them less effective.

In a straight situation, yes. In terms of actual application to mass murder, I can't say for sure one way or the other. I'm not sure precisely how effective firearms tend to be in mass-murder situations, given that I'm not a real buff. One would imagine they'd be more effective, but it seems except in cases of extreme pre-meditation like Holmes and Breivik that isn't the case.

But yes, I will agree that I fear a person less holding a knife than a gun. Guns are obviously a more effective tool in the general use of making people insides become outsides.

I'm not suggesting that everything dangerous be banned: but guns are very dangerous and don't have a lot of alternative uses.

It doesn't need to have a lot of alternative uses. As long as individuals derive enjoyment from them that is enough for them to be a valid use of resources to construct.

Your reading comprehension is poor: the article is saying that knife attacks in general have killed almost twenty, presumably not all committed by one person.

Right you are. I was going to say, fuckin' Ryu Hayabusa decided to go postal or something.

But they do mean that fewer people die in them.

Sometimes. Sometimes not. The shooting that occurred at my school resulted in two deaths and thirteen wounded. Sourced knife attack above came out with four times that number.

I'm saying that home-made firearms are much less effective than mass-produced firearms. Therefore, even if criminals use homemade firearms in the event of a prohibition, their effectiveness will still be reduced.

How is a homemade rifle innately much less effective than a mass-produced one? What about it is going to be less effective that it will not kill the same number of people in a shooting spree?

Except that it doesn't harm law-abiding citizens. Taking away your guns is not "harm". People in Britain are not "hurting" because they can't own handguns. I'd struggle to even call it inconvenient, since what is convenient about an assault rifle or a handgun?

What is convenient about owning paintings? How the hell should I know? Some people derive enjoyment from having them. Denying them that enjoyment is harm.

Edited September 2, 2012 by Esau of Isaac

[Anouleth]

It doesn't need to have a lot of alternative uses. As long as individuals derive enjoyment from them that is enough for them to be a valid use of resources to construct.

I doubt that the value from those alternative uses is greater than the value in reducing deaths from gun crime.

Sometimes. Sometimes not. The shooting that occurred at my school resulted in two deaths and thirteen wounded. Sourced knife attack above came out with four times that number.

Just because some knife attacks are deadlier than some rifle attacks doesn't mean that in general, a given person with a knife is less dangerous than a given person with a gun.

How is a homemade rifle innately much less effective than a mass-produced one? What about it is going to be less effective that it will not kill the same number of people in a shooting spree?

Well, unless you have specialist technology and knowledge, constructing a rifle is quite hard. Unless you have the capability to make a barrel with helical grooves, the projectile won't spin and will be less precise, with a lower range, and be prone to tumbling, so you probably wouldn't be able to use standard rifle ammunition either (before the invention of rifling, firearms used round pellets which don't penetrate as well).

[Esau of Isaac]

I doubt that the value from those alternative uses is greater than the value in reducing deaths from gun crime.

What is the value of both or either, to you? When is it valid for people to own something they like when others die from their production? When does it cross the line?

Just because some knife attacks are deadlier than some rifle attacks doesn't mean that in general, a given person with a knife is less dangerous than a given person with a gun.

Okay, but you just said it causes less deaths in large situations. That's not always true. I'm not huge on statistics, but I'm not even sure if it counts for most of the time.

Well, unless you have specialist technology and knowledge, constructing a rifle is quite hard. Unless you have the capability to make a barrel with helical grooves, the projectile won't spin and will be less precise, with a lower range, and be prone to tumbling, so you probably wouldn't be able to use standard rifle ammunition either (before the invention of rifling, firearms used round pellets which don't penetrate as well).

What makes you think that rifling would be difficult to do with homemade weapons?

Edited September 2, 2012 by Esau of Isaac

[Anouleth]

What is the value of both or either, to you? When is it valid for people to own something they like when others die from their production? When does it cross the line?

I don't need to say exactly where the line is. Personally, my values suggest that guns aren't worth letting people own. It's fine if you disagree and think that the damage to "freedom" or the impact on people who own assault rifles and automatic shotguns for sport or hunting or aesthetic value is less than the cost of having more gun crime, but my point in this thread has been that reducing the prevalence of legal guns will reduce gun crime, and unless you disagree with that statement, I don't see why you're continuing to argue with me.

Okay, but you just said it causes less deaths in large situations. That's not always true. I'm not huge on statistics, but I'm not even sure if it counts for most of the time.

No, I really do think that most of the time, a crazy dude with a gun will kill more than a crazy dude with a knife or a baseball bat.

What makes you think that rifling would be difficult to do with homemade weapons?

I guess I don't know for sure, it just seems like it would be quite difficult.

But judging by this, it does sound like specialist knowledge and tools are necessary.

Edited September 2, 2012 by Anouleth

[eclipse]

No, I really do think that most of the time, a crazy dude with a gun will kill more than a crazy dude with a knife or a baseball bat.

There's far more weapons that can be used than just knives and guns. I'd worry about street thugs with knives; if someone really wanted to premeditate something, I'd worry about cars, explosives, and the like.

[Esau of Isaac]

I don't need to say exactly where the line is. Personally, my values suggest that guns aren't worth letting people own. It's fine if you disagree and think that the damage to "freedom" or the impact on people who own assault rifles and automatic shotguns for sport or hunting or aesthetic value is less than the cost of having more gun crime, but my point in this thread has been that reducing the prevalence of legal guns will reduce gun crime, and unless you disagree with that statement, I don't see why you're continuing to argue with me.

I am continuing to argue with you because that is obviously not the only point you are making, given that I acknowledged this point posts ago.

No, I really do think that most of the time, a crazy dude with a gun will kill more than a crazy dude with a knife or a baseball bat.

Okay. Can you reliably prove that?

I guess I don't know for sure, it just seems like it would be quite difficult.

But judging by this, it does sound like specialist knowledge and tools are necessary.

Yes, tools are obviously necessary. I was probing to see how well your evaluation of homemade gunsmanship was, since you seemed to make pretty definite statements as to what can and can't be done by an average person in their garage.

[Anouleth]

Okay. Can you reliably prove that?

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

Yes, tools are obviously necessary. I was probing to see how well your evaluation of homemade gunsmanship was, since you seemed to make pretty definite statements as to what can and can't be done by an average person in their garage.

"I WAS JUST TESTING YOU"

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

[Zanarkin]

Okay. Can you reliably prove that?

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.