"I guess it's pretty intimidating here"

[Shelbyblues]

Yeah, you're right - it was inflammatory, and I apologise.


What I should have said - which was what I meant - was, "Hang on, you accept that the cost of this proposition is that innocent people will get shot sometimes?


Because this is not a theoretical thing here - it's happening pretty regularly."

I've rather diverted the course of this discussion with one ill-considered line, which is a pity because I'd worked so hard to keep it rational up to that point.

Again, I apologise.

Yes... because innocent people get shot all over the world whether their Gov. allows them be armed or not.

 

[Cruznolfart]

Thank you, gentlemen, I was a-feared we was circling the drain.

 

[markbastable]

Yes... because innocent people get shot all over the world whether their Gov. allows them be armed or not.

This is true. But we're talking here about the correlation between the incidence of gun ownership and the incidence of gun-related death. And in the US there are a lot of guns and a lot of gun-related death per capita. And in most places where guns are restricted, there's negligible gun-related death per capita.

It's perfectly supportable, it seems to me, to say, as Henry Hill has, that, yeah, if you have a lot of guns, you have to accept that people are going to be killed by guns. I mean, I think it's a crazy bargain to make, but it's a considered bargain when Henry makes it, and he has a right to.

It's less supportable, I think, to imply that countries that heavily restrict gun ownership have problems with gun-related deaths that are even in the same ballpark as those faced by the US.

I don't think many of us would disagree that the use of guns is a huge and unignorable problem in the States. All we disagree about is how it should be addressed, and what principles need to be considered when addressing it.

 

[Cruznolfart]

This is true. But we're talking here about the correlation between the incidence of gun onwership and the incidence of gun-related death. And in the US there are a lot of guns and a lot of gun-related death per capita. And in most places where guns are restricted, there's negligible gun-related death per capita.

It's perfectly supportable, it seems to me, to say, as Henry Hill has, that, yeah, if you have a lot of guns, you have to accept that people are going to be killed by guns. I mean, I think it's a crazy bargain to make, but it's a considered bargain when Henry makes it, and he has a right to.

It's less supportable, I think, to imply that countries that heavily restrict gun ownership have problems with gun-related deaths that are even in the same ballpark as those faced by the US.

I don't think many of us would disagree that the use of guns is a huge and unignorable problem in the States. All we disagree about is how it should be addressed, and what principles need to be considered when addressing it.

I think you'd find more agreement to the MIS-use of guns as problematic. I don't see any problems at all with the responsible and proper use of guns.

 

[markbastable]

I think you'd find more agreement to the MIS-use of guns as problematic. I don't see any problems at all with the responsible and proper use of guns.

Except then we'd get into defining the proper use of guns. For the sake of this discussion, I'm using 'use' like 'luck' - it can be either good or bad.

 

[TheX]

OMG make it stop!!

Train wrecks are hard to stop.

 

[Cruznolfart]

Except then we'd get into defining the proper use of guns. For the sake of this discussion, I'm using 'use' like 'luck' - it can be either good or bad.

With respect: For the sake of this discussion, there's little need to lump good with bad. It's never a good thing to take an innocent life, or multiple lives. The vast majority of (civilian) gun use is NOT in the taking of lives. Ergo, responsible gun ownership and use could not be viewed as "bad". Unless one's agenda is simply that "guns are bad".

 

[tag2]

This is true. But we're talking here about the correlation between the incidence of gun ownership and the incidence of gun-related death. And in the US there are a lot of guns and a lot of gun-related death per capita. And in most places where guns are restricted, there's negligible gun-related death per capita.

It's perfectly supportable, it seems to me, to say, as Henry Hill has, that, yeah, if you have a lot of guns, you have to accept that people are going to be killed by guns. I mean, I think it's a crazy bargain to make, but it's a considered bargain when Henry makes it, and he has a right to.

It's less supportable, I think, to imply that countries that heavily restrict gun ownership have problems with gun-related deaths that are even in the same ballpark as those faced by the US.

I don't think many of us would disagree that the use of guns is a huge and unignorable problem in the States. All we disagree about is how it should be addressed, and what principles need to be considered when addressing it.

I disagree with that assumption. I think you would find the most Americans would also disagree. The majority of gun deaths are gang vs. gang. If we were able to actually get all firearms from the criminals, deaths by knives, axes, hammers, etc., would rise. A firearm does not have the ability to make a good person turn evil. They are already evil and will always find a way to carry out their deeds.

I suspect the statistics would show knife attacks higher in the UK than the U.S. The world has a people problem.

 

[markbastable]

With respect: For the sake of this discussion, there's little need to lump good with bad. It's never a good thing to take an innocent life, or multiple lives. The vast majority of (civilian) gun use is NOT in the taking of lives. Ergo, responsible gun ownership and use could not be viewed as "bad". Unless one's agenda is simply that "guns are bad".

I agree that the 'the vast majority of (civilian) gun use' is not harmful to anyone. The problem, for me, is that the total amount of gun use in the US is so huge that even if the vast majority isn't harmful, the remaining minority is big enough to be terribly harmful. I mean, every couple of months a multiple killing in the US. I could look up the numbers, but what's the point - we all know that there are too many.

And this, then, is where I part company with HenryHill and possibly you Cruz and of course with darling KP - I don't think it's worth it. I'd say - heretic though it may be - that the freedom to bear arms isn't more valuable, more cherishable, more justifiable than the deaths that the misuse of arms leads to.

Then we get on to the question of how the hell do you intend to enforce that rainbowfarting idea, Mark, old love? Dunno. That's a question of implementation. Right now, we're discussing the principle rather than the practice.

And I'm lucky, aren't I - I can push that discussion merrily along, because to me, as a Londoner, it's a moral and ethical problem, rather than a practical and cultural one. I can see how my even taking part could be irksome to those of you who live amongst it - but, y'know, that's what discussion's for.

 

[KTM]

I disagree with that assumption. I think you would find the most Americans would also disagree. The majority of gun deaths are gang vs. gang. If we were able to actually get all firearms from the criminals, deaths by knives, axes, hammers, etc., would rise. A firearm does not have the ability to make a good person turn evil. They are already evil and will always find a way to carry out their deeds.

I suspect the statistics would show knife attacks higher in the UK than the U.S. The world has a people problem.

This article from 2005, linked below, almost sounds like a story from The Onion.

BBC NEWS | Health | Doctors' kitchen knives ban call

The researchers say legislation to ban the sale of long pointed knives would be a key step in the fight against violent crime.

EDIT: More on knives: BBC - Search results for kitchen knife

 

[Shelbyblues]

I agree that the 'the vast majority of (civilian) gun use' is not harmful to anyone. The problem, for me, is that the total amount of gun use in the US is so huge that even if the vast majority isn't harmful, the remaining minority is big enough to be terribly harmful. I mean, every couple of months a multiple killing in the US. I could look up the numbers, but what's the point - we all know that there are too many.

And this, then, is where I part company with HenryHill and possibly you Cruz and of course with darling KP - I don't think it's worth it. I'd say - heretic though it may be - that the freedom to bear arms isn't more valuable, more cherishable, more justifiable than the deaths that the misuse of arms leads to.

Then we get on to the question of how the hell do you intend to enforce that rainbowfarting idea, Mark, old love? Dunno. That's a question of implementation. Right now, we're discussing the principle rather than the practice.

And I'm lucky, aren't I - I can push that discussion merrily along, because to me, as a Londoner, it's a moral and ethical problem, rather than a practical and cultural one. I can see how my even taking part could be irksome to those of you who live amongst it - but, y'know, that's what discussion's for.

The talking points have been beat to death.

Lets just agree to disagree and leave it that.

 

[KP]

The talking points have been beat to death.

Lets just agree to disagree and leave it that.

For some people that is impossible. No matter how many facts or legal precedences are provided; they will continue to believe only their version of reality.

 

[KTM]

BBC NEWS | UK | Magazine | The point of knives

However, objections to the doctors' proposal have not just been culinary. A common response has been to point out that inflicting a knife injury is already illegal, and that government effort would be better expended on enforcing existing laws.

 

[PeteK]

BBC NEWS | UK | Magazine | The point of knives

Ban knives!

Wait, the joke's not as funny if it's true.....

 

[Deus Vult]

have you ever taken a dump so big your pants fit better afterwards?

 

[PeteK]

have you ever taken a dump so big your pants fit better afterwards?

Oh yeah! Bigger than Bono!

 

[Deus Vult]

seriously, i think part of my colon fell out. i thought i was gonna puke after i gave myself a courtesy flush.

 

[parts]

 

[Shelbyblues]

have you ever taken a dump so big your pants fit better afterwards?

Only in the back...

 

[SteveGangi]

have you ever taken a dump so big your pants fit better afterwards?

Why yes I have!