AsAboveSoBelow said:

so? do you believe everything you read in the news about how drugs are the devil?

---

Prisoner#1 said:

the spiral said:

I forget what percentage of all gunshot wounds are inflicted by the victim's gun - I think it's pretty high.

---

I think you're wrong, there's 600,000,000 legally owned firearms in this
country, how many shootings in total are there? .0003% in comparison to
the number of legal firearms, just how many of those shootings were self
inflicted and how the hell can it be a high percentage

---

Silversoul said:

Disclaimer:  I come in peace.  I am not here to take away your guns or extend the waiting period or anything like that.  I'm just trying to inquire about your interest in guns.  Please don't shoot.


So, what's the deal?  What do you get out of guns?  I mean, I understand having a hunting rifle, and I think hunting can be a good thing compared to eating factory-farmed animals.  I also understand why you might want to be armed in case someone breaks into your house while you're there, however unlikely that might be.  But those are practical concerns, and would just make guns another tool.  What I don't get is the whole "gun enthusiast" thing.  What's so awesome about guns that you'd want to arm yourself to the teeth?  I've shot a shotgun and a rifle before, and I suppose it was fun, but not enough to spend thousands of dollars building an arsenal.  What is it about guns that gets people drooling over some assault rifle?

I don't get it.

---

the spiral said:

Carrying a gun increases your risk of getting shot and killed - New Scientist, 2009

---

the spiral said:

I wasn't only referring to self-inflicted wounds, but also to situations where an intruder gets their paws on your gun and shoots you with it

---

Prisoner#1 said:

the spiral said:

I wasn't only referring to self-inflicted wounds, but also to situations where an intruder gets their paws on your gun and shoots you with it

---

mind showing real statistics then, not some slanted crap that originated from American Journal of Public Health
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/AJPH.2008.143099v1

the FBI compiles the real crime statistics, not some study done by liberals

---

Prisoner#1 said:

let's look at the
columnbine shooting, the VA Tech shootings and the dozens of others that
have happened over the years, how many of those victims were armed?

---

the spiral said:

I don't have a political dog in this fight, I'm just trying to offer up some ideas. If I was being political about this, though, I still don't think it would be fair to discredit a study, not on its merits, but only on its authors.

---

Quote:

The claim that "if everyone was armed, there would be much less crime" is one that troubles me, though.  Even if that claim was true, when a (gun) crime was committed the outcome could potentially be horrific!  It can be quite difficult for a bystander to place where a gun's report comes from with any accuracy, and if everyone drew their weapons when some idiot shot some other idiot in public, the panicked, armed crowd could end up the victims of a bloody chain reaction that could result in a massacre.

---

Quote:

I do find it somewhat compelling that the US has the most gun crime (per capita) of any country in the world

---

the spiral said:

Prisoner#1 said:

let's look at the
columnbine shooting, the VA Tech shootings and the dozens of others that
have happened over the years, how many of those victims were armed?

---

The two kids at columbine and the VA tech guy (and the guy who shot up the congresswoman the other day) would never have been able to rack up the incredible number of casualties they did without firearms.  I find those awful events to beg the more fundamental question, "why the heck was it so easy for those psychopaths to obtain firearms, and thus the ability to murder dozens of people in mere moments?" more strongly than the more tangential question "what if one of their potential victims was armed?" 

---

the spiral said:

Prisoner#1 said:

let's look at the
columnbine shooting, the VA Tech shootings and the dozens of others that
have happened over the years, how many of those victims were armed?

---

The two kids at columbine and the VA tech guy (and the guy who shot up the congresswoman the other day) would never have been able to rack up the incredible number of casualties they did without firearms.  I find those awful events to beg the more fundamental question, "why the heck was it so easy for those psychopaths to obtain firearms, and thus the ability to murder dozens of people in mere moments?" more strongly than the more tangential question "what if one of their potential victims was armed?" 

---

the spiral said:

I'm not arguing in favor of gun control or making guns illegal (though the 31-bullet clip does seem kind of unnecessary)

---

the spiral said:

I'm not arguing in favor of gun control or making guns illegal (though the 31-bullet clip does seem kind of unnecessary), and you're right about my massacre scenario - I'm interested in engaging in a thought experiment, not advocating for one particular point of view or another.

---

Prisoner#1 said:

the spiral said:

I'm not arguing in favor of gun control or making guns illegal (though the 31-bullet clip does seem kind of unnecessary)

---

why blame the weapon when it's the person weilding it, not a single one of
the guns I or millions of other americans own have ever been used to kill
anyone either in self defense or offense, I dont blame the hammer or the
nail when I hit my thumb

---

the spiral said:

Without his gun(s), a would-be mass murderer would practically be rendered impotent, and without the person, the gun is perfectly harmless.  Guns are what make the mass-murderer able to become a mass-murderer; besides ordnance like bombs, there's simply no other way for one person to kill so many other people in such a short time.

---