YAMST El Paso Wall Mart

[fskimospy]

Ive read the summaries backing your opinion. Its essentially similar to if you own a car youre more likely to be in an accident. I get it.

Right, so more guns means more gun violence, all else being equal. That's my point! We need to reduce the number of guns.

There are also studies that show training and licensing reduce gun violence. THIS for example.

Yes, licensing CAN be effective at reducing gun violence. How does it do this? By preventing certain people from owning guns. Fewer guns - less gun violence.

As far as training goes it can be effective in reducing accidental deaths by firearms but I'm unaware of any evidence that it reduces firearm homicides or suicides.

And agreeing to disagree doesnt mean you think the other persons point is valid.

It does to some extent. There are plenty of opinions I disagree with that I consider valid, but that's because they're based in evidence and there's plenty of topics with grey areas in them. I am aware of no credible source that indicates that gun training is a meaningful factor in mitigating homicide rates however, so I don't consider it valid.

If someone tells me chemtrails are a government mind control plot and I think they aren't I'm not going to agree to disagree - I'll just say they're nuts.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Uh, Switzerland is not socialist. They are quite free.

Which version of 'socialist' are you using? The self-conjured image of ragged USSR citizens waiting for their daily potato? Or the one where everyone contributes to the greater good, such as universal healthcare, education, and economic prosperity?

 

[blackangst1]

Good. Then let us adopt the Swiss gun laws. Tell your buddies at the NRA. See how quickly they put you on mute.

What people forget about the NRA is that no one provides proper gun training for all ages than the NRA. In fact, on most gun ranges, they wont hire you if you arent certified by the NRA (having taken the training courses). You think our society would be safer by removing that training? You think accidental shooting would go down?

Personally I think training courses should be required for any gun purchase.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Uh, Switzerland is not socialist. They are quite free.

Derp, Switzerland is not a Nordic country, lol....

 

[fskimospy]

Uh, Switzerland is not socialist. They are quite free.

All I can say is this, and you know it's 100% true.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Uh, Switzerland is not socialist. They are quite free.

You are right, I confused Switzerland and Sweden. Switzerland is happy because they are among the wealthiest and lowest populations on the planet.

 

[ImpulsE69]

I don't think training of any kind would make or break what is happening. I believe it is the mental health of the country.

Actually it often does. People that use knifes and blunt objects tend to mostly do superficial damage. While those that use firearms tend to kill.

Firearms are easy. It is a hell of a lot harder to actually go through with violence when you have to do it up close and personal. Most people will not go through with the violence if they have to use a weapon that takes effort.

Beyond that it greatly limits just how much damage they can do before they are stopped. We rarely ever hear of a mass baseball bat killing.

The thing that people skipped was that those same experts explain why guns are used. Males use them because they are quick and sensational. Females usually don't go that route. The reality is, people will commit suicide. People will commit murder. We can argue the 'not as many people at once' all day, but we all know that is false. History says otherwise. For some reason I guess most people seem to think knives are the only alternative. I'm not even advocating guns so much as I think you guys are barking up the wrong tree. With over 350m guns around, it will be a good 50 years before we even see a dent in gun deaths unless you actually start looking at what the reasons are people considering killing others. I'm looking for a more rooted solution. Remember when your parents took your stuff because you were bad? And you snuck and got it anyway? Or you were grounded and you snuck out anyway? Same thing. Fix the mentality behind wanting to kill people.

I would be curious to ask someone from a banned country if that had anything to do with thier day to day happiness or thoughts of 'die mfkr die'. Look at the suicide rates in Japan. It is completely blamed on culture.....yet here in the states, we ignore culture and say it has nothing to do with it (and i know many of you think that way because I've stated this multiple times).

 

[blackangst1]

Right, so more guns means more gun violence, all else being equal. That's my point! We need to reduce the number of guns.

And how would you do that?

Yes, licensing CAN be effective at reducing gun violence. How does it do this? By preventing certain people from owning guns. Fewer guns - less gun violence.

Im partially in agreement with you here. Ive stated previously I would support so called red flag laws.

If someone tells me chemtrails are a government mind control plot and I think they aren't I'm not going to agree to disagree - I'll just say they're nuts.

Similarly, if someone tells me the government can manage health care, based on how its handled on Indian reservations and the VA...uh no thanks. I would say people that think that...are nuts.

 

[Amused]

What people forget about the NRA is that no one provides proper gun training for all ages than the NRA. In fact, on most gun ranges, they wont hire you if you arent certified by the NRA (having taken the training courses). You think our society would be safer by removing that training? You think accidental shooting would go down?

Personally I think training courses should be required for any gun purchase.

Good. Than every gun must be permitted every 6 months, each owner licensed, Ammo tightly controlled with ammo for militia weapons banned for sale. Every gun owner must be a trained militia member. And random home weapon and weapon storage inspections on demand.

I mean, you seem to like the Swiss way, so ALL of it. Not just voluntary training the NRA offers now. The full thing or nothing.

 

[blackangst1]

You are right, I confused Switzerland and Sweden. Switzerland is happy because they are among the wealthiest and lowest populations on the planet.

And, on topic, amongst the highest per capita gun ownership countries in the world.

 

[blackangst1]

Good. Than every gun must be permitted every 6 months, each owner licensed, Ammo tightly controlled with ammo for militia weapons banned for sale. Every gun owner must be a trained militia member. And random home weapon and weapon storage inspections on demand.

I mean, you seem to like the Swiss way, so ALL of it. Not just voluntary training the NRA offers now. The full thing or nothing.

Nope. Not all or nothing.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

And, on topic, amongst the highest per capita gun ownership countries in the world.

And some of the tightest gun and ammunition regulations.

 

[Amused]

Similarly, if someone tells me the government can manage health care, based on how its handled on Indian reservations and the VA...uh no thanks. I would say people that think that...are nuts.

And yet, the Swiss does just that. Along with every other first world country in the world. Who is the one who is nuts? The one who thinks it can be done because every other nation in the world does it at half the cost with better health outcomes, or the one who claims it cannot be done because (insert strawman reason here)

 

[fskimospy]

I don't think training of any kind would make or break what is happening. I believe it is the mental health of the country.

The thing that people skipped was that those same experts explain why guns are used. Males use them because they are quick and sensational. Females usually don't go that route. The reality is, people will commit suicide. People will commit murder.

The empirical evidence strongly disagrees with you there. First of all homicides are frequently committed during periods of extreme anger or fear. If lethal means are not available then that's simply not an option. This is the primary reason why having a gun in the house makes you more likely to be the victim of homicide - people have arguments all the time but a gun in the house potentially turns a fistfight into a gunfight. You walk away from a fistfight 99% of the time. A gunfight? Not so much.

The evidence is even stronger that suicide is undertaken in a moment of acute distress as the majority of those who attempt suicide never do so again, meaning the means by which someone attempts suicide matter a TON. Guns are by far the most deadly commonly used method of suicide so if we switched all those gun attempts to say, swallowing pills, we would have a lot more people alive today.

We can argue the 'not as many people at once' all day, but we all know that is false. History says otherwise. For some reason I guess most people seem to think knives are the only alternative.

Uhmmm, I don't know where you got the idea of what we all know but I'm quite confident that it is true. For that to be false would mean the ease of acquiring means of mass murder and the relative effectiveness of those means has nothing to do with the number of people killed in mass murders. To put it lightly that claim is... dubious.

I'm not even advocating guns so much as I think you guys are barking up the wrong tree. With over 350m guns around, it will be a good 50 years before we even see a dent in gun deaths unless you actually start looking at what the reasons are people consider killing others.

Sounds like we should start now then, huh?

 

[blackangst1]

And some of the tightest gun and ammunition regulations.

And required training.

 

[blackangst1]

And yet, the Swiss does just that. Along with every other first world country in the world. Who is the one who is nuts? The one who thinks it can be done because every other nation in the world does it at half the cost with better health outcomes, or the one who claims it cannot be done because (insert strawman reason here)

I dont see people from all over the world flocking to Switzerland for health care. I do see them flocking to the US, however.

edit: Top 10 countries for medical tourism

Costa Rica
India
Malaysia
Mexico
Singapore
South Korea
Taiwan
Thailand
Turkey
United States

 

[soulcougher73]

And yet, the Swiss does just that. Along with every other first world country in the world. Who is the one who is nuts? The one who thinks it can be done because every other nation in the world does it at half the cost with better health outcomes, or the one who claims it cannot be done because (insert strawman reason here)

To be fair. I do think all those other countries care about their citizens. I don't think ours does.

 

[SMOGZINN]

We can argue the 'not as many people at once' all day, but we all know that is false. History says otherwise.

I'm supposing you are talking about bombs? Guess what, we outlawed explosives as well. I wonder why?

With over 350m guns around, it will be a good 50 years before we even see a dent in gun deaths unless you actually start looking at what the reasons are people considering killing others.

Actually, I am pretty sure we could do a lot better than that. Yes, there are a lot of guns out there and it would take time to make a significant dip in them, but we have to start somewhere.

Fix the mentality behind wanting to kill people.

Excellent! I'm all behind that. Now, what was your suggestion for doing that again? Because I hear people say this all the time, what I have not heard is one single solution that would work faster than that 50 year timeframe that you put on disarming the population.

 

[ImpulsE69]

The empirical evidence strongly disagrees with you there. First of all homicides are frequently committed during periods of extreme anger or fear. If lethal means are not available then that's simply not an option. This is the primary reason why having a gun in the house makes you more likely to be the victim of homicide - people have arguments all the time but a gun in the house potentially turns a fistfight into a gunfight. You walk away from a fistfight 99% of the time. A gunfight? Not so much.

The evidence is even stronger that suicide is undertaken in a moment of acute distress as the majority of those who attempt suicide never do so again, meaning the means by which someone attempts suicide matter a TON. Guns are by far the most deadly commonly used method of suicide so if we switched all those gun attempts to say, swallowing pills, we would have a lot more people alive today.



Uhmmm, I don't know where you got the idea of what we all know but I'm quite confident that it is true. For that to be false would mean the ease of acquiring means of mass murder and the relative effectiveness of those means has nothing to do with the number of people killed in mass murders. To put it lightly that claim is... dubious.



Sounds like we should start now then, huh?

So how do you explain Japan? It's proven a cultural thing, yet here everyone keeps saying culture has nothing to do with it (unless of course you blame gun culture...except carrying a gun and using a gun are two different things) and they don't use guns. Since we are going to now just generalize gun violence in general, we may as well compare every society in every circumstance to prove any point we want.

You could ban every gun in this country, you could confiscate every gun in this country, it won't stop the violence. You might save 1 or 2 lives here or there, but as NDT said, there's many other things out there killing people (and just as evil) but until you actually fix the reason behind the violence, violence will exist guns or no guns.

 

[zinfamous]

Again, I don't care how many mass shootings happen

The difference between you and humans is that you will only change your mind when it effects you. How about one of your family becomes a victim of this gun-fetishing murderporn that you "don't care about"? I'm sure you still won't care, right?

All the while, humans actually care about other people being effected. We don't have the world perspective of a piss-ant squirrel like yourself. We know that everyone is effected, always.

 

[soulcougher73]

There are many complex factors and angles to look at when trying to understand mass shootings, but the one thing they all have in common is a gun. Just sayin.

 

[fskimospy]

So how do you explain Japan? It's proven a cultural thing, yet here everyone keeps saying culture has nothing to do with it (unless of course you blame gun culture...except carrying a gun and using a gun are two different things) and they don't use guns. Since we are going to now just generalize gun violence in general, we may as well compare every society in every circumstance to prove any point we want.

Gun ownership makes homicide and suicide more likely, all else being equal. If you added more guns to Japan you would likely see an increase in homicide and suicide rate.

You could ban every gun in this country, you could confiscate every gun in this country, it won't stop the violence. You might save 1 or 2 lives here or there, but as NDT said, there's many other things out there killing people (and just as evil) but until you actually fix the reason behind the violence, violence will exist guns or no guns.

Saying we would save 1 or 2 lives is nonsense, the empirical research indicates we would save far more than that. Can you provide any empirical research that shows that an elimination or large scale reduction would have such a limited effect?

 

[fskimospy]

I'm supposing you are talking about bombs? Guess what, we outlawed explosives as well. I wonder why?

Actually, I am pretty sure we could do a lot better than that. Yes, there are a lot of guns out there and it would take time to make a significant dip in them, but we have to start somewhere.

Excellent! I'm all behind that. Now, what was your suggestion for doing that again? Because I hear people say this all the time, what I have not heard is one single solution that would work faster than that 50 year timeframe that you put on disarming the population.

I love how people simultaneously argue these two things:

1) massively reducing or eliminating gun ownership is impossible
2) massively reducing or eliminating the human inclination towards violence is more achievable

 

[soulcougher73]

So how do you explain Japan? It's proven a cultural thing, yet here everyone keeps saying culture has nothing to do with it (unless of course you blame gun culture...except carrying a gun and using a gun are two different things) and they don't use guns. Since we are going to now just generalize gun violence in general, we may as well compare every society in every circumstance to prove any point we want.

You could ban every gun in this country, you could confiscate every gun in this country, it won't stop the violence. You might save 1 or 2 lives here or there, but as NDT said, there's many other things out there killing people (and just as evil) but until you actually fix the reason behind the violence, violence will exist guns or no guns.

People are lazy. A gun is a lazy murders dream weapon. Most nuts don't want to take the effort to go around stabbing people or hitting them with golf clubs etc. Instead they grab something easy that sprays bullets from a distance in mass quantities. Plus its way more lethal than the above as well. Its whole reason for being is to kill things. Cant say that about many other things an average person would have available to them.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

And required training.

You think training would prevent mass shootings?