What does it take?

[Rob C]

"Quote from: Rob C on July 12, 2016, 02:30:10 PM

... nobody sets out to kill somebody else in a car..."


"... a truck drove into a large crowd during Bastille Day celebrations Thursday night, officials said. A local official told French TV there were "about 30 73 dead."

No machine gun needed.

"Bringing in comparisons between gun and car deaths, as some do attempting to prove a flawed red herring, is nonsense; nobods sets out to kill somebody else in a car; unless premeditated murder, it's not the purpose or function of a car. A gun, on the other hand, has no purpose or function beyond the delivery or threat of delivery of death."


Slobodan, you quoted part of my paragraph, leaving out the critical element that made my point. I redo it, the omitted part, in bold, just to help clarify.

Rob

[Peter McLennan]

... the premise is that without guns there wouldn't be that many casualties, I was just proving otherwise.

So, Slobodan, what's your response to the Australian experience in this regard?

[MattBurt]

What France needs now is stricter truck laws. Truck free zones probably would help.

Actually it may not be with laws, but I would be surprised if they didn't take some kind of action to help prevent this in the future. Probably a physical barrier like barricades. It's only logical that when someone does something like this that people try to make it harder in the future.
Trucks, guns, knives, whatever.

[pegelli]

What France needs now is stricter truck laws. Truck free zones probably would help.

I find this a pretty sick, cynical and tasteless joke given what happened last night in Nice, especially given the opinion you have on stricter gun laws in the US.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

"Bringing in comparisons between gun and car deaths, as some do attempting to prove a flawed red herring, is nonsense; nobods sets out to kill somebody else in a car; unless premeditated murder, it's not the purpose or function of a car. A gun, on the other hand, has no purpose or function beyond the delivery or threat of delivery of death."


Slobodan, you quoted part of my paragraph, leaving out the critical element that made my point. I redo it, the omitted part, in bold, just to help clarify.

Rob

I know Rob, I did it on purpose, as I was planning to respond separately to exactly that part of your quote that is now in bold at some point.

So, it is about "original purpose or function." My answer to that is: "So what?" You (rhetorical you) tend to focus on purpose, I tend to focus on the ultimate use. Baseball bat is #1 weapon of choice in America in committing crimes, which was certainly not the original purpose or function.

On the other hand, if legitimately owned guns are used only between 3% and 11% for crime, does it really matter what was the intended purpose?  Yes, they are designed to kill, but the vast majority (of legal guns) are not used that way. While some other things, not designed to kill, end up being used, quite efficiently, for that: fertilizers, pressure cookers, cardboard knives, cars, trucks, etc.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

So, Slobodan, what's your response to the Australian experience in this regard?

I do not know much about Australia, Peter. My point is that it is not easy to transplant what works in one country to another. Especially when they are so different in size, history, and culture. One thing that comes to mind though is that, being an island, thousands of miles from the nearest shores, it seems more difficult to smuggle arms into.

Another thing that sets America apart is its role in the world affairs. For better or worse, it is very engaged and powerful, thus provoking resentment and strong response. Something that can't be said for Australia. Until recently. If I am not mistaken, Islamic radicals are starting to target Australia too and already had several attacks and/or attempts. And they do not necessarily need guns for that.

[LesPalenik]

According to a StatsCan report from 2012 – the most recent year available – the U.S. suffered a total of 8,813 murders involving the use of firearms that year. Canada, in the same year, recorded just 172 firearms-related homicides.

“When looking at firearm-related homicide rates in comparable countries, Canada’s rate is about seven times lower than that of the United States (3.5 per 100,000 population), although it is higher than several other peer countries. While Canada’s firearm-related homicide rate is similar to those in Ireland and Switzerland, it is significantly higher than the rates in Japan (0.01 per 100,000 population) and the United Kingdom (0.06 per 100,000 population),” states StatsCan’s findings

[Justinr]

What France needs now is stricter truck laws. Truck free zones probably would help.

Having just come back from a bike trip to Brittany I can assure you that France already does have many village and town centres with a 3.5 tonne limit.

[Peter McLennan]

I do not know much about Australia, Peter. My point is that it is not easy to transplant what works in one country to another. Especially when they are so different in size, history, and culture.

I disagree.  In fact, they're very similar in many respects in size, history and culture. Their population is less, and the physical geography differs significantly, but culturally, not so much.  Have you been to Australia?

One thing that comes to mind though is that, being an island, thousands of miles from the nearest shores, it seems more difficult to smuggle arms into.

Largely irrelevant in my view, since many guns in the US aren't imported. American culture revolves around guns and Americans love their Colts and Smith and Wessons, someone said here recently, provoking angst.

Another thing that sets America apart is its role in the world affairs. For better or worse, it is very engaged and powerful, thus provoking resentment and strong response. Something that can't be said for Australia. Until recently. If I am not mistaken, Islamic radicals are starting to target Australia too and already had several attacks and/or attempts. And they do not necessarily need guns for that.

Again, irrelevant. Americans aren't shooting each other because America is a world power.  Several mass shootings were by American citizens with no connection to Islam.



I'm surprised that you're unaware of the Australian experience with gun laws.

Briefly: Following several mass shooting incidents, the Australian government of the day invoked draconian laws on who could own firearms.  To eliminate the existing stock of firearms already in the possession of the citizenry, they bought them all, at a one-time cost of $500 million dollars. A bold and effective move.

Guess what happened to gun-related crime, murders and suicides by firearms?

Pasted from Wikipedia:

Following the National Agreement on Firearms, the number of deaths by firearms in Australia, initially declined slowly. Overall homicides immediately after, saw a decrease of less than one per 100,000 persons. Over the medium term homicide by firearm dropped from 1/200,000 to 1/670,000.[28]
Between 2010-2014, gun related homicides across all of Australia had dropped to 30-40 per year. Firearms in 2014 were used in less than 15% of homicides, less than 0.1% of sexual assaults, less than 6% of kidnapping/abductions and 8% of robberies.[29]

Since the 1996 legislation the risk of dying by gunshots was reduced by 50% in the following years and stayed on that lower level since then. The rate of gun related suicide was greatly reduced as well.[27] In 2010, a study reported a 59% decrease in firearm homicides in Australia between 1995 and 2006 (0.37 per 100,000 people in 1995 to 0.15 per 100,000 people in 2006). They also reported that the non-firearm homicides fell by the same rate. The decreasing rate for homicide with a firearm was a continuation of a pre-existing decline prior to the 1996 reforms, and several analyses of these trends have been conducted and claimed that the reforms have had a statistically insignificant effect on homicide rates with a firearm .[30]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia

[Justinr]

Talking about nutters with guns, some come in uniform -

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/13/body-camera-footage-released-dylan-noble-police-shooting

[RSL]

I find this a pretty sick, cynical and tasteless joke given what happened last night in Nice, especially given the opinion you have on stricter gun laws in the US.

Why is that, Pieter? Is it because truck murders just demonstrated that removing guns from a society and making it impossible to procure them won't keep people from murdering people? The truck made my point. You seem to be incapable of seeing what's absurdly obvious.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Why is that, Pieter? Is it because truck murders just demonstrated that removing guns from a society and making it impossible to procure them won't keep people from murdering people? The truck made my point. You seem to be incapable of seeing what's absurdly obvious.

Russ,

The sick absurdity is in your suggestion that trucks, like guns, are built to kill people (instead of transporting goods).

Cheers,
Bart

[RSL]

Really Bart? Is that why almost every farm and ranch -- at least in the US -- has at least one rifle and one shotgun? How about knives? How about axes? Are they designed to kill people? You're staring into your blind spot my friend. That particular truck was designed to kill people, and it was a hell of a lot more effective than most guns.

I still laugh at the cartoon of the murderer standing in the shadows, his gun on the ground, and the TV reporter holding his microphone out to the gun and asking why it did it. You could have been that reporter.

[pegelli]

Why is that, Pieter? Is it because truck murders just demonstrated that removing guns from a society and making it impossible to procure them won't keep people from murdering people? The truck made my point. You seem to be incapable of seeing what's absurdly obvious.

No Russ, that's not my point, I thought you were smarter than that. I'm just reacting to what I find a crude and tasteless joke over the backs of too many innocent killed and wounded victims. You can read this whole thread and I have never claimed that taking away guns will stop murdering of people, so don't put words in my mouth that I never said.

[John Koerner]

"Bringing in comparisons between gun and car deaths, as some do attempting to prove a flawed red herring, is nonsense; nobods sets out to kill somebody else in a car; unless premeditated murder, it's not the purpose or function of a car. A gun, on the other hand, has no purpose or function beyond the delivery or threat of delivery of death."

Russ,
The sick absurdity is in your suggestion that trucks, like guns, are built to kill people (instead of transporting goods).
Cheers,
Bart

Guns can kill any number of things, not just people.

Hate to break the news to you, but the ability to kill something, quickly and efficiently, is a useful function.

If you need to eat, or if you need to protect yourself from getting killed, it is good to have immediate access to a firearm.

That people abuse these tools does not limit or negate their usefulness; it only underscores the need to be prepared yourself.

And how about when you're outside of cell phone range?

I have carried pretty much every time I've gone to a remote place to hike, but have never shot anyone or anything.

However, if a mountain lion or bear were to come after me, it's nice to be armed. Likewise, if I ever encountered a group of thugs who wanted to harm me or take my property, it's nice to know that I am armed.

Never had either of those things happen, but am glad I am prepared for it, should the need arise, thanks to the laws of our nation that allow me to "keep and bear arms."

I also don't remember anybody answering my question a few pages back: what would you rather have right next to you, if your home were invaded, a phone or a gun?

It's amazing how so many people want to be sheep ... weaponless, defenseless ... and think this world would be "safe" if law-abiding citizens could no longer own guns.

On the contrary, it would be more dangerous.

[Peter McLennan]

... and think this world would be "safe" if law-abiding citizens could no longer own guns.
On the contrary, it would be more dangerous.

That's an opinion, not a fact.

With regard to guns, urban Canada, with strict gun laws, is demonstrably a far safer place to live than urban America.

With regard to EXurban situations: We have far more life-threatening wildlife in Canada than does America. The best firearm to defend yourself in the wild when challenged by a large animal is a shotgun. Enormous firepower and no skill required. 

But I'll bet you don't "carry" a shotgun on your hikes.

[John Koerner]

Peter, aren't you the guy who said, "OMG," 3 posts in a row, soiling yourself at the talk of weapons?

And now you're speaking as an expert

That's an opinion, not a fact.

No, it's a fact. Having a gun is better than not having a gun, if you need a gun.

That is not a matter of "opinion," it is a matter of fact.

With regard to guns, urban Canada, with strict gun laws, is demonstrably a far safer place to live than urban America.

Canada doesn't have the testosterone of the US, nor the diversity, nor the history of slavery, nor the inundation with other 3rd world influences.

Canada has "some" diversity, but nowhere near the complicated history of America.

It's comparing apples to oranges.

With regard to EXurban situations: We have far more life-threatening wildlife in Canada than does America.

That is your opinion, not fact.

The FACT is, the largest, most dangerous bears in the world are in Alaska, which (if memory serves) is part of the USA, not Canada.

Mountain lions are also far more prevalent in the US than Canada.

A standard brown bear in Montana is the same as a brown bear in Canada. Same with moose; same with elk.

The best firearm to defend yourself in the wild when challenged by a large animal is a shotgun. Enormous firepower and no skill required. 
But I'll bet you don't "carry" a shotgun on your hikes.

The best what? I'm sorry, say that again?

The best what?

Oh, FIREARM. You mean those things you soiled yourself over and sought to abolish, right?

Let me tell you something pal.

What I carry doesn't need to be "the best," it only needs to work.

I can truthfully-promise you that a Glock .40 with Federal 157-grain Hydra-Shok rounds has the highest-percentage 1-shot stop (92%) record of any pistol round made. And with 2 extra clips on my belt, I am feeling pretty safe

Now, it may not carry the wallop of a shotgun round, but it is quicker, easier to carry, and easier to access than a shotgun on a hike, being on my hip and not slung over my shoulder as I carry a tripod and camera.

You would realize all this, if you actually had any experience. Shotguns are for home defense, genius, not to be carried on a hike with photography gear.

Jack

PS: Please also note that either option is better than no option, and can only exist in a free society where you're allowed to keep and bear arms

[Peter McLennan]

Peter, aren't you the guy who said, "OMG," 3 posts in a row, soiling yourself at the talk of weapons?

Actually, I said OMFG.  But it offended Slobodan, so I stopped using it. I stand by my sentiment, though.

And now you're speaking as an expert

If you're speaking of firearms, I am no such thing.  I just read the news.

Canada doesn't have the testosterone of the US, nor the diversity, nor the history of slavery, nor the inundation with other 3rd world influences.

I won't even touch any of that.

The FACT is, the largest, most dangerous bears in the world are in Alaska, which (if memory serves) is part of the USA, not Canada.

Mountain lions are also far more prevalent in the US than Canada.

A standard brown bear in Montana is the same as a brown bear in Canada. Same with moose; same with elk.

I'd love to see some attributions to those statements.  "Our grizzlies are bigger than your grizzlies"  Really?

Let me tell you something pal.

Nice talk.  Must be that American testosterone you were referring to.

This has degenerated quickly and unfortuntely into incivility.

We're done.

[John Koerner]

Actually, I said OMFG.  But it offended Slobodan, so I stopped using it. I stand by my sentiment, though.

It was both alarmist and profane.

If you're speaking of firearms, I am no such thing.  I just read the news.

I could tell

I won't even touch any of that.

Nor can you.

I'd love to see some attributions to those statements.  "Our grizzlies are bigger than your grizzlies"  Really?

Yes, really.

The record brown bear and polar bear sizes are Alaskan, not Canadian.

Nice talk.  Must be that American testosterone you were referring to.

Must be.

This has degenerated quickly and unfortuntely into incivility.

I am pretty sure your OMFG started that ... but go ahead and bury your head in the sand if you like.

This has degenerated quickly and unfortuntely into incivility.
We're done.

Are you trying to say your OMFG responses were either civil or rational?

It's okay if "we're done," so long as you promise not to say anything which only reveals your own ignorance, lack of familiarity with guns, as well as lack of familiarity with record sizes in both polar and brown bears.

Have a great weekend,

Jack

PS: I like shotguns too, and agree with you on home-defense. This bad boy is under my bed, whilst my Glock is on my night stand

[John Koerner]

Record Kodiak Bear (Alaska)

Record Polar Bear (Alaska)

Record Grizzly Bear (Alaska)

Record Black Bear (Utah)

Record Mountain Lion (Canada)

Record Wolf (Canada)

Record Moose (Alaska)

Record Elk (Utah)