Bleach violence, weapons of war, and the numbers game. What problem are we trying to solve? (Page 2)

Why can't I have a 12 round semi-automatic grenade launcher? Why can't I have 20kg of C4 for my farm? Why can't I have a stinger missile launcher? 

Well yeah where would you keep all that stuff anyway? 

On a more serious note, I'm not really for nor against - but I live in Australia, if someone breaks into my house and intends to do me harm - I got nothing.  I can probably get to the kitchen and find a knife of some sort - by which time this armed intruder (because yes our criminals are also gun wielding) will have inflicted the damage he came to do.

It's funny coz everyone here thinks y'all gun crazy over there.  They think there aren't guns here.  I could if I really wanted probably get hold of a gun in the next hour - if I really wanted.

But perhaps you could join us on the discussion of "weapons of war". You probably didn't watch the video.

Can you define what a "weapon of war" is? (Don't bother with google, one does not exist) But... a "reasonable" person might conclude a weapon of war is a weapon one wages war with... obviously tanks an fighter jets. To fight them you would need some rocket launchers, artillery.... maybe some satchel charges... high explosives. M60 machine gun probably for holding a line against an offensive strike.

So when does a personal arm cross the line to "weapon of war"? We have had semi-auto firearms for a hundred years. Why is a .30-06 semi-auto deer rifle with a 5 round mag a "sport" gun and a 13 rnd .45APC pistol an "assault weapon" (as defined by new Fienstien) What about a semi-auto shotgun with 8 in the tube? What exactly makes a semi-auto personal firearm a "sport weapon" that kills things over a "weapon of war"?

One, because you can't afford a Stinger Missle Launcher. But if you had $20,000 laying around, you could own a M-16.

Two, because explosives are covered under the National Firearm Act, and so are grenade launchers.

Have you EVER heard the NRA argue for grenade launchers? Have you ever heard them argue for claymore mines?

More misinformation and diversion. What we are arguing about is personal fire arms protected under the 2A... specifically mentioned... and defined in numerous cases across the land.

We could discuss why you can't have a unicorn, but I do not see the relavence to the discussion on gun control.

I happen to like shooting at the range. I could also afford a stinger if they'd sell me one.

But you were asking the problem you are trying to solve - which is what exactly is "an ok weapon for everyone to have" - ie, comparing a pistol to a knife or a sword vs what's a "silly weapon of mass destruction". Belt-fed M60 good? Or should it only be revolvers? Why is 30 rnd AK-47 ok for some people where others say only a 4 rnd bolt action is the max? How is an unstable neighbour with a couple of frag grenades more scary than same guy with 2 loaded mp5s? THAT's the point the gun-guys don't get. You believe he's no worse than a guy with a switchblade, where someone else thinks he's comparable to a nut with a bazooka. You'll never all be on the same page.

If it was up to me, I'd treat it like tobacco or booze (and pot) - and gradually tax the crap out of it but don't make em illegal. Progressive tax on all weapons, and 100-200% tax on ammo. Take a bite out of the deficit as well. Even better if there was more certification/classes required. People are more careful with expensive stuff.

You can buy an AK for 50$ in many places in Africa - that's not the kind of place most of you would want to live. 

I happen to like shooting at the range. I could also afford a stinger if they'd sell me one.

But you were asking the problem you are trying to solve - which is what exactly is "an ok weapon for everyone to have" - ie, comparing a pistol to a knife or a sword vs what's a "silly weapon of mass destruction". Belt-fed M60 good? Or should it only be revolvers? Why is 30 rnd AK-47 ok for some people where others say only a 4 rnd bolt action is the max? How is an unstable neighbour with a couple of frag grenades more scary than same guy with 2 loaded mp5s? THAT's the point the gun-guys don't get. You believe he's no worse than a guy with a switchblade, where someone else thinks he's comparable to a nut with a bazooka. You'll never all be on the same page.

If it was up to me, I'd treat it like tobacco or booze (and pot) - and gradually tax the crap out of it but don't make em illegal. Progressive tax on all weapons, and 100-200% tax on ammo. Take a bite out of the deficit as well. Even better if there was more certification/classes required. People are more careful with expensive stuff.

You can buy an AK for 50$ in many places in Africa - that's not the kind of place most of you would want to live. 

As a member of a demographic of which upwards of 30% of us attempt suicide at some point, I do not like it when people decide that since people dying due to suicide is suicide, that it shouldn't count, or doesn't matter with respect to the larger issue of guns. The easy availability of guns makes it just that much easier to for people to kill themselves. Perhaps if guns were not so readily available, some of these souls would have tried a less lethal method and failed, or not tried at all. Or perhaps if there was a longer waiting period for purchasing a gun, some of these souls might have had second thoughts or a "cooling-off" period and still be with us.

A bullet ripping through one's head is pretty GD violent, if you ask me. And to discount those who commit suicide is heartless.

• ¹ Total number of murders for which supplemental homicide data were received.
• ² Pushed is included in hands, fists, feet, etc.
• ³ Limited supplemental homicide data were received.

Looking at these stats tell me why going after the ar15 style weapons makes any sense?

Why can't I have a 12 round semi-automatic grenade launcher? Why can't I have 20kg of C4 for my farm? Why can't I have a stinger missile launcher? 

Well... if the problem you are trying to solve is what is an appropriate personal arm... OK... but that was not the problem I thought we were trying to solve. I thought that problem was how do we stop more Sandy Hooks.

I know full well how dangerous a mentally unstable person is with a semi-auto rifle. Much more deadly than one with a switch blade. I have never heard anyone argue that a mentally unstable person with a semi-auto rifle and 500 rounds of ammo is a good thing. What I know for a fact though is that the 40 million AR-15s owned by people does not equal 40 million shootings. In fact, the percentage of AR-15 that are involved in shootings is "maybe" 2%. I fail to see how 2% of 34,000 deaths warrants the entire ban of all semi-auto rifles when there are around 100 million owners that do not have a problem with them.

All this debate over guns... and not one single recomendation rolled out yet for the mentally unstable. Not one peep from the American Psyciatric Association.

You might not be familiar with the U.S. Constitution.... but you can't tax rights. Poll taxes were already struck down. Never heard of a speech tax. Never heard of a fee levied so I can have due process.

Thus the rub; you can't ever prevent another Sandy. Any security/police will always be reactionary. But it becomes a forest vs trees thing - big picture. Education in general would solve a lot of your/our problems but since it would take 20-30 years to see results no one is interested. I've heard many editorials bringing mental illness up, but I agree it won't last. It's too vague, too hard to put your finger on.

A lady forgot to buckle her daughter into her SUV. She then backed up over her, killing her. They are now trying to force backup cameras in every new car which works out to 100s of millions of dollars in cost to prevent 1 death. It's never logical.

But 2% is not trivial either. A nutjob in China went on a stabbing spree in a classroom shortly after Sandy - stabbed 20+ kids. Horrible, but the difference is they are most, if not all, still alive. I can run away from someone with a knife or a chainsaw.

You don't pay sales tax or county tax when you buy bullets at Walmart? Or on the 20 million new guns per year? 

I'm glad you are still with us!  Good for you!

I wouldn't want to venture a guess as to how many suicides I've been to in my career.......one a month is too low and that would be over 300, so who knows?  I think  it is fair to say, even though I don't have numbers, that the majority of them were with guns.  As you stated.....it's pretty effective so you don't get alot of "saves", or attempts.

Here is where you are wrong.  I honestly can't think of a single case of the gun being recently purchased for the purpose of suicide.  I just can't.  I think THAT'S the true straw-man argument in this deal.  I'm sorry, it just is.

Again, it's cool that you are here to make that post, but I'm sorry, the suicide rate will not decrease one bit with less guns or longer waiting periods.

Well, I know, or used to know, two people who purchased a gun and then went and blew their brains out shortly thereafter. I do think longer waiting periods might have helped them, at least.

Oh, and kind of unrelated... that's not quite a strawman argument. It's when someone makes a point, and then someone who responds misrepresents that point, "Oh, so you're saying X...." X being different than the original point made. 

Again, it's laughable because it's ALL emotion.  

Go on....look at the number of murders with rifles.....and then remember that the black rifles you are so afraid of is a subset of "rifles", so the number of murders with those is even lower.....go ahead, look hard to find the justification for your fear.

Go ahead, compare rifle murders with people who were stabbed or beaten to death (go ahead and separate knives and beatings if you wish)......I dare you.  Tell me what you are trying to accomplish.

Sorry.

So how long is appropriate? It takes two weeks for any meds to kick in... give it 6 because they have to try a couple. Couple more to stabilize. Therapy.... what is the appropriate wating period a clerk should follow to make sure this isn't going to be used to take ones life?

I'm really not trying to flip. You do not know the shoes I have wore. I could walk out of any doctors office with enough dope to kill myself any time I want. I have flat out told doctors I will not take narcotic medication and they INSIST. "Just take the script home, you do not have to fill it." I mean SERIOUSLY! It would take less time than a 20 minute back ground check.

It doesn't matter what you're "not trying" to do, what matters is what you're doing.

Once again, a pro-gun person compares something which does not exist for the express purpose of killing things with something that does.

What I don't completely understand is why there is a "Firearm (unknown type)" category?  The difference between a handgun bullet and wound is different from a rifle bullet or wound - unless they are 22lr  (which it could be, 22lr is the #2 or #3 most used caliber in crimes) - and different from a shotgun wound.

I apologize if I offended. Seriously. But you lost me. What does not exist?

I wondered the same.

Prescription drugs don't exist for the express purpose of killing things.

Guns do exist for the express purpose of killing things.

So in my mind, the two are not comparable when it comes to discussions about waiting periods and such.

Back to the original topic... is the problem we are trying to solve to lower suicide rates and get people help they need, or is it to just get rid of guns?

I feel a rope strangling me to death is a violent act, but we don't call it rope violence. 100,000 people die from drug interactions a year. Prescription medication is the most abused form of drugs out now. If we want to help those suffering, those addicted, those dying, then there are some glaring big ticket items we can turn our attention to... if we want to ban guns... sure... let's talk about "gun violence" and "weapons of war".

Well, I know, or used to know, two people who purchased a gun and then went and blew their brains out shortly thereafter. I do think longer waiting periods might have helped them, at least.

Oh, and kind of unrelated... that's not quite a strawman argument. It's when someone makes a point, and then someone who responds misrepresents that point, "Oh, so you're saying X...." X being different than the original point made. 

You HAVE misrepresented the result of waiting periods.....you will find no data to back up your assumption that a waiting period will lead to fewer suicides.  None.

I think that for some, making it more difficult or requiring more hoops to jump through before obtaining a gun would give them more time to change their mind or get help. Risk factors for suicide on instruments such as the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale don't list "Has access to rope?" as a risk factor for suicide. "Has access to gun?" is.