So, why are guns necessary?

[Montmorency]

Nope.

Workplace.

Elderly.

Cool empathy, bro.

[spankythehippo]

Nope.

Workplace.

Elderly.

Cool empathy, bro.

So we need to attach harnesses to people who work and the elderly at all times? Puh-lease. Falling down is an accident. Shooting someone in the face is not.

I should be dead right now from all the injuries I have sustained through stupidity. So yeah, I guess I can empathise. I just don't show it.

[Montmorency]

Shooting someone in the face is not.

(Let's leave out suicide here, as I am a strong supporter of the Right to Death.)

10,000 die in one year from firearm homicides, many of them in criminal-on-criminal violence. The marginal cost to reduce this figure via "gun control" grows very quickly, soon reaching the point of enormous social and fiduciary upheaval for microscopic - or perhaps even negative - benefit.

25,000 die in one year from falls, and millions more are rushed to the ER in the same period for the same category. Massive reduction in deaths and injuries can follow from introducing minor new safety measures, or stringently upholding old ones - never mind introducing actual new legislation.

Which is the low-hanging fruit here?

[spankythehippo]

(Let's leave out suicide here, as I am a strong supporter of the Right to Death.)

10,000 die in one year from firearm homicides, many of them in criminal-on-criminal violence. The marginal cost to reduce this figure via "gun control" grows very quickly, soon reaching the point of enormous social and fiduciary upheaval for microscopic - or perhaps even negative - benefit.

25,000 die in one year from falls, and millions more are rushed to the ER in the same period for the same category. Massive reduction in deaths and injuries can follow from introducing minor new safety measures, or stringently upholding old ones - never mind introducing actual new legislation.

Which is the low-hanging fruit here?

I said "Shoot someone in the face". That "someone" is not yourself. I'll change it to "Shoot someone else in the face". There. Much better.

So, saving 10,000 people from homicidal maniacs is a "microscopic or negative" benefit? Since when is a life merely a statistic? And people say I have no morality because I'm an atheist.

I come from a 3rd world country. Most of you live in a privileged society/environment (I'm assuming). I'm also assuming you haven't witnessed an execution with shots to the knees, elbows and then head. Or even a hanging or beheading? These were not carried out by the police or the government. These were carried out by street thugs. I witnessed these things at the ripe age of 5. Did it leave an impact? Sure did (especially since I was on holiday at the time). Has a family member of mine been killed? Most certainly. To be fair, I never even met that family member. But to see such sadness and grief expressed by my family was disturbing, to say the least. Now, before some of you say "those executions could have been prevented with a gun", let me make this clear. Violence breeds more violence. Hate breeds more hate, which ultimately leads to violence. So I do not hate. I do not wish death upon a single person (kind of). There are several people in this world that I ever so slightly wish death upon. And they're people like this:

http://www.eutimes.net/2009/11/book-...ler-in-israel/

Why do I wish death upon this man? Because he wishes death upon many more.

I'm not saying to ban guns, since it seems the American population is too inept at parting with their inanimate objects. Just control it. It's very simple to do. If you desperately want a gun, submitting to a background check is hell of a lot easier than obtaining it illegally.


I don't particularly care anymore about the American gun debate. It's your choice, and if someone kills you or any of your family with a legally obtained firearm... well, I won't say anything. I'll just live in my world doing what I want to do peacefully, until I leave this hellhole of a planet.

[Montmorency]

So, saving 10,000 people from homicidal maniacs is a "microscopic or negative" benefit? Since when is a life merely a statistic?

Did you not get the part about marginal cost vs. marginal benefit? Gun control is not like a binary switch.

I come from a 3rd world country.

I thought you were ethnic Japanese living in Australia?

It's very simple to do. If you desperately want a gun, submitting to a background check is hell of a lot easier than obtaining it illegally.

Sure - but again, it's marginal cost vs. marginal benefit. The cost of such measures is very low; however, the benefit (in terms of "lives saved") is also very low.

That's the point.

and if someone kills you or any of your family with a legally obtained firearm... well, I won't say anything.

Why would that change my view on things? Personal tragedy should not cloud one's judgement.

Anyway, I live in New York.

[Goofball]

Why would that change my view on things? Personal tragedy should not cloud one's judgement.

You didn't answer the question. Let me put it to you (and everyone who is against background checks for gun purchases) another way: If someone you love was shot and killed by someone who had no business owning a gun (registered history of mental illness and violence, for example) with a gun that they had obtained legally at a gun show by doing nothing more than showing up with the cash, no questions asked, would you not then maybe, just maybe, think that background checks might have some value?

[Montmorency]

would you not then maybe, just maybe, think that background checks might have some value?

Perhaps I'm not being clear. I already do think that background checks have value - just not a very huge amount, in terms of preventing that sort of scenario. Most gun-crime is with illegally-obtained weapons.

As I said, the marginal cost is low, but the marginal benefit is as well.

There is no cure-all for gun-crime within gun regulation, even within the realm of the fantastic: e.g. full-on confiscation and proscription of all privately-owned firearms. For sure, even stringent checks would not prevent the thousands of deaths some seem to imagine it could. I doubt the effect of any increases to check-stringency would be beyond the magnitude of 1%.

someone you love

Does not compute.



As for spanky, I'll get to yours in 10 hours or so.

[spankythehippo]

I thought you were ethnic Japanese living in Australia?

Yeaaaaah. About that. That was a ruse. When I first started frequenting the internet, I was slightly paranoid about identity theft. So I created a new identity. The only fabrications I made were regarding my physical appearance, age and race. Don't ask me why I did it. I just did. After a while, I realised that identity theft wasn't that big of a threat that I imagined, but I stuck with the gimmick. It soon became "I wonder how long it'll take until someone confronts me?". Turns out, over the internet where your face isn't exactly published on every conceivable website, no one confronted me. I even left clues to my identity on a forum I frequented on (not this one). No one picked up on it. If they did, they didn't question it. So consider me impressed to see that someone remember's where I stated I was from on this forum. The other forum I was on was filled with stoners and metalheads, with all the threads ultimately leading to masturbation techniques, porn, Skyrim or pooping etiquette.

Why did I choose to make my new persona Japanese? I didn't. I had those spinny globe things, and quite literally spun it, closed my eyes and pointed. "Where ever my finger points is going to be my nationality". My finger was pointing at the middle of the Pacific Ocean, and the closest country was Japan.

Sure - but again, it's marginal cost vs. marginal benefit. The cost of such measures is very low; however, the benefit (in terms of "lives saved") is also very low.

That's the point.

But how can you know if the number of lives saved will be low? Even if it saves 1 life, I'd say it's worth it. But since people are very stingy with their cash, I doubt the value the life of a fellow human being over their money. Yeah, I can see your point.

Why would that change my view on things? Personal tragedy should not cloud one's judgement.

Anyway, I live in New York.

Of course. Personal tragedy should not cloud one's judgment, since it can lead to bad things. Since you live in New York (and I listen to a podcast based in New York, who often talk about local news), remember Lieby Kletzky? After he was found butchered, all the Hasidic Jews were yelling "LET'S ROUND UP THE BLACK PEOPLE! THEY DID IT!". Turns out, it was another Hasid. I can only imagine the tension if they started accusing ALL the black people (since Hasidic Jews are paranoid like that, apparently).

I am not swayed by my emotions in my judgment. I don't know how this may sound, but if I had to choose between the life of my mother and a random woman, I wouldn't be able to choose. What right do I have to dictate this random womans death? That should give you a little insight into how my mind works, or lack thereof.