New Zealand Mosque Shooting

[abrahamx]

We have Quote and Reply features. They send Alerts to people so they know that they have been quoted.

"High capacity magazines" are a modification that allows a gun to hold and fire more ammunition without reloading. The Kel-Tec PMR30 has a 30-round capacity as standard - no modifications.

Yes, you'd need a few of them. But that's fine, it seems.

Remember, Ardern's proposed change to the firearms laws isn't "guns are bad, let's get rid of them", but "these guns are bad, because you can kill too many people at once with them, but others are fine". This argument means that you have an non-zero upper limit on how many people it's okay to kill with one gun.

And it's always guns. This dick had pipebombs in his car. If he'd chucked a couple into a prostrate group of praying Muslims, would we still be talking about the guns he had - or is murdering several people only bad when you use the wrong type of gun to do it?

I think the point is that a gun is almost always the weapon of choice. For good reason. You cant go buy a pipe bomb as easy as a gun. It just does not happen very often. A once off thing is just that. We are talking about a re occurring issue involving the same weapon. A "assult" weapon(be it a gun or otherwise) is just that. I could go farther and say, personally I would like to see all cops and military get rid of guns. They are the worst perpetrators of the killings. Really if you want to go kill a bunch of people then go join the military. People will always try and kill people, the gun just makes it way easier. I swear, if my daughter gets killed by one of these gun men after all this and nothing being done(here in the US) I would freak out. And no, of course we would not be talking about guns if this was done with pipebombs, why would we? And its not just about murdering several people. Its about thousands getting killed at random all over. Murdering several people is always bad no matter the weapon. Its just that the gun thing is way more prevalent than other issues because its just WAY worse when a gun is involved. I'm not into guns but I dont have a problem with some one owning one. Just not an assault gun. Thats for killing a bunch of people with.

Hey, I have a great idea. Lets create and manufacture something that can make killing people way easier. And lets sell it to the general public. Wonderful idea, if you are on a suicide mission. OR stand to make a bunch of money off it and dont care about the ramifications? The fact is, that none of these issues that we are talking about would have ever happened without guns. Period.

 

[Famine]

I think the point is that a gun is almost always the weapon of choice.

The weapon of choice for?

I think the point is that people want to focus on the method and not the act, because it's a lot easier to blame and attempt to regulate the tools used than it is to find out why someone wants to kill lots of other people.

People accept that cars kill four times as many people through incompetence than guns do on purpose, because they accept that cars are useful. They don't understand that guns have uses too, and keep bringing up notions like "their only use is to kill people" (which is tripe), so they think that banning them won't negatively affect them and therefore anyone else.

We're about two posts away from "yes, but nobody needs a gun that can [insert random gun objection here]" at this point, like what people need matters.

I swear, if my daughter gets killed by one of these gun men after all this and nothing being done(here in the US) I would freak out.

That's a pretty insane level of specificity. Would you not freak out if she's stabbed to death, or blown up in a car bomb?

And its not just about murdering several people. Its about thousands getting killed at random all over.

Like the 520% more people killed at random by incompetent car drivers?

I'm not into guns but I dont have a problem with some one owning one. Just not an assault gun. Thats for killing a bunch of people with.

Ignoring the fact that you think "an assault gun" only has the purpose of killing a bunch of people (which is still tripe), you're drawing exactly the same arbitrary line Ardern has - that it's fine to kill people with guns, so long as it's not the wrong type of gun and you don't kill too many people.

I'd love to know how this line gets drawn, where a 17+1-round 9mm Glock pistol is fine, but a 20-round generic AR15 derivative is the tool of a mass murderer and should be banned.

But then I still would like to know how you draw the line where an object becomes unacceptable for public ownership due to accidental deaths and why the line is apparently 520% higher than for a different object due to deliberate killings.

 

[BobK]

they are not migrants running over people on purpose though.

They're still dead.

A car accident and someone going into a public place and opening fire on strangers is not even in the same ballpark.

They're still dead.

If all those deaths were done on purpose I would be all for banning cars.

So you're fine with lots of people dying so long as it's accidental then, right?

 

[Isbo 17]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.al...on-zealand-mosque-attack-190315015927391.html

Unbelievable how this happened in New Zealand.

Rest in peace to the victims and condolences to their families.

Footage was livestreamed i recommend people not to watch it neither post it here it is awful.

Any Gt Planet members in Christchurch please stay safe.

The world is in a disgusting state where some people have no value of life, rip to all those who have crossed over

 

[abrahamx]

They're still dead.

They're still dead.

So you're fine with lots of people dying so long as it's accidental then, right?

I dont like seeing lots of people die but an accident is an accident. Lots of people do die. I thought we were talking about some one murdering a lot of people at one time(a mass shooting). You cant ban an accident but you can take steps to help insure our community is not at a greater risk because assault weapons are sold. I am not even following your logic. Of course people have accidents and some even die, and ofcourse people will always be out there who want to rape and kill but that is not what we are talking about here. Were talking about people who get an assault weapon and go out in public and randomly kill for whatever reason. Imagine if we sold nuke bombs or chemical weapons, or missiles like we do with guns. I would imagine there would be a huge problem, like now, but worse. You dont see it happening because we dont make it easy to get these items. To answer your question, yes, I am fine with lots of people dying if its accidental. Its a fact of life. I would also like to see these accidents that kill people looked into and an effort made to help insure they happen less often if at all. You know, do your best to try and stop it. We have not tried the gun ban thing yet so why not try it and see if it works. If not try something else. At least try something instead of just ignoring it.

The weapon of choice for?

I think the point is that people want to focus on the method and not the act, because it's a lot easier to blame and attempt to regulate the tools used than it is to find out why someone wants to kill lots of other people.

People accept that cars kill four times as many people through incompetence than guns do on purpose, because they accept that cars are useful. They don't understand that guns have uses too, and keep bringing up notions like "their only use is to kill people" (which is tripe), so they think that banning them won't negatively affect them and therefore anyone else.

We're about two posts away from "yes, but nobody needs a gun that can [insert random gun objection here]" at this point, like what people need matters.

That's a pretty insane level of specificity. Would you not freak out if she's stabbed to death, or blown up in a car bomb?

Like the 520% more people killed at random by incompetent car drivers?

Ignoring the fact that you think "an assault gun" only has the purpose of killing a bunch of people (which is still tripe), you're drawing exactly the same arbitrary line Ardern has - that it's fine to kill people with guns, so long as it's not the wrong type of gun and you don't kill too many people.

I'd love to know how this line gets drawn, where a 17+1-round 9mm Glock pistol is fine, but a 20-round generic AR15 derivative is the tool of a mass murderer and should be banned.

But then I still would like to know how you draw the line where an object becomes unacceptable for public ownership due to accidental deaths and why the line is apparently 520% higher than for a different object due to deliberate killings.

A good point and its up to opinion on the matter I guess. If I were king I would just ban all guns period. If I had the task of drawing the line, to me a 17+1 round 9mm glock pistol is absolutely not fine. No gun with a clip. A revolver with 6 shots, a bolt action rifle, a single shot shotgun would be acceptable. No glocks, no plasitc guns, no 38 specials. I dont think any one, certainly not me is saying its fiine to kill people, at all, with anything. So to me ok for public ownership is no clips, no more than 6 bullets in the gun at one time(that is even a little much) but 6 people at a time is better than 50. of course its still not right but its a step in the right direction. And to take it even further I dont believe the government, military, police or anyone else should own them, not just the public. I have not followed the story to see where new zealand is drawing the line but it would be interesting to see. Why do you not want to do anything? Why are you so seemingly defensive about guns? Whats in it for you? Im just curious to hear why you would side with guns over these instances. I dont know anyone who got killed but it is getting scary and I sure would not mind less guns around. Other than folks making money off selling guns would be worried I would think. How does it hurt someone to not be able to own a assault rifle? Not many people are bitching because they cant buy a tank. I just dont see why some people get all worked up over the thought of not being able to purchase one of these things. I mean, what, you wont be able to go to the range and do some shooting? Its not that big of a deal, unless one is bummed that they cant get one to kill a bunch of people. What else are you going to do with it other than target practice for fun or killing some folks or just to look at on your shelf. It aint going to help you change your flat tire, or pass that job interview, or enjoy your family. I dont get the big deal vs. all these people getting killed and terrorized.

The weapon of choice for?

I think the point is that people want to focus on the method and not the act, because it's a lot easier to blame and attempt to regulate the tools used than it is to find out why someone wants to kill lots of other people.

People accept that cars kill four times as many people through incompetence than guns do on purpose, because they accept that cars are useful. They don't understand that guns have uses too, and keep bringing up notions like "their only use is to kill people" (which is tripe), so they think that banning them won't negatively affect them and therefore anyone else.

We're about two posts away from "yes, but nobody needs a gun that can [insert random gun objection here]" at this point, like what people need matters.

That's a pretty insane level of specificity. Would you not freak out if she's stabbed to death, or blown up in a car bomb?

Like the 520% more people killed at random by incompetent car drivers?

Ignoring the fact that you think "an assault gun" only has the purpose of killing a bunch of people (which is still tripe), you're drawing exactly the same arbitrary line Ardern has - that it's fine to kill people with guns, so long as it's not the wrong type of gun and you don't kill too many people.

I'd love to know how this line gets drawn, where a 17+1-round 9mm Glock pistol is fine, but a 20-round generic AR15 derivative is the tool of a mass murderer and should be banned.

But then I still would like to know how you draw the line where an object becomes unacceptable for public ownership due to accidental deaths and why the line is apparently 520% higher than for a different object due to deliberate killings.

I would freak out if my daughter was killed in any regard. The thing is we are here discussing a mass shooting, so I am not going to talk about everything under the sun. A weapon of choice for? Killing a bunch of people at one time. Is that not what we are talking about. Im not comming to a mass shooting thread to talk about what gun would be your weapon of choice to hunt squirrels. And really? How would one go about regulating or finding out why someone wants to kill a bunch of people. Most likely you wont even know they want to kill a bunch of people till they do. Lets at least make it harder for them to do. Its blaring obvious that the countries that make it hard or impossible to buy guns have a way less occurrence of these type crimes. We are all human and I would argue that within a close margin most countries have a similar amount of people who want to kill lost of people, or just kill one person. So I would have to deduce that the ease of getting guns must have something to do with it. We have to be reasonable here because we can only do so much. Till the time comes when we can do a mandatory brain scan to find out if you want to kill someone I think taking away the weapons is a good step in the right direction. We can get philisophical and down in the weeds about what something was designed for, or what some corporation "says" its designed for. And ofcourse anything can be used as a weapon. But the ones that are hard to get are not being used in these cases. I dont say one gun is fine and another is not. I say they are all bad. I think swords are bad. Chinese throwing stars, nunchucks, pocket knives, even butter knives. I dont like any of them but a compromise with gun lovers is fine. Just that they are not willing to compromise anything.

 

[Imari]

I say they are all bad. I think swords are bad. Chinese throwing stars, nunchucks, pocket knives, even butter knives.

You're not making a terribly strong case for your opinion being reasoned and rational here.

 

[abrahamx]

but that is just one sentence of my retort. I dont have the time but I could go pick and choose alot of similar statements for the opposite argument. Besides, I am not trying to make a case and have always said I have radical opinions. I thought I made alot of good points. Why take one sentence and forget the rest. We all have our opinions and just cuz I think all weapons are bad does not discount my other points about a specific situation and how to handle that one issue. I'm not asking for all weapons to be banned, just giving my perspective so one know where I am coming from. I'm not claiming to be representing or arguing your case or other peoples case(not sure where you stand on the issue). I am merely giving my opinion on a website forum that holds very little weight when it comes to these issues. I would never consider jumping into a conversation with people who really know what they are talking about in these things. Truth be told I dont care much what is done either way. It just seems like common sense though to do something about guns. I just cant imagine they have nothing to do with the issue like some folks would have you believe. Now that really does not help them make a strong case about their opinion being reasoned and rational. It in fact makes them seem like they are completely delusional and in denial. Or just super selfish.

 

[Famine]

Imagine if we sold nuke bombs or chemical weapons, or missiles like we do with guns.

Can you use these things without harming other people's rights?

A revolver with 6 shots, a bolt action rifle, a single shot shotgun would be acceptable
...
So to me ok for public ownership is no clips, no more than 6 bullets in the gun at one time(that is even a little much) but 6 people at a time is better than 50. of course its still not right but its a step in the right direction.

Again, this is a ludicrously arbitrary line. Were your daughter slain by someone able to fire six bullets per gun (with no limit on the number of guns they can carry), would you be happier than if she were gunned down by someone able to fire seven? I'd really rather doubt it.

Why do you not want to do anything?

Please bring forward the post where I said no action should be taken.

Why are you so seemingly defensive about guns?

I'm not, I'm defensive about rights.

Whats in it for you?

Not having people's rights trampled on.

Im just curious to hear why you would side with guns over these instances.

Guns are just tools. They're tools that some people abuse in order to harm other people. The tool isn't the problem, the person abusing them is the problem.

I dont know anyone who got killed but it is getting scary and I sure would not mind less guns around.

I will wager that if you are looking down the barrel of one (owned by a criminal, because banning guns makes gun owners criminals, and criminals aren't really that bothered by breaking laws) you sure would not mind having one more gun, in your hand, pointing the other way.

How does it hurt someone to not be able to own a assault rifle?

It hurts someone who already owns one to be made into a criminal overnight.

I just dont see why some people get all worked up over the thought of not being able to purchase one of these things. I mean, what, you wont be able to go to the range and do some shooting? Its not that big of a deal, unless one is bummed that they cant get one to kill a bunch of people. What else are you going to do with it other than target practice for fun or killing some folks or just to look at on your shelf. It aint going to help you change your flat tire, or pass that job interview, or enjoy your family.

Just because you can't see the merit or use of something doesn't mean it has none (or has the sole use of killing people, which you keep bringing up for some reason). My PlayStation isn't going to help me change a flat tyre, or pass a job interview, or enjoy my family either.

We all own things we don't need because we want them. It's insane to focus on one thing and say nobody needs it as if it's an argument against people owning it.

Banning things you don't see a use for is literally one step away from banning things you do see a use for but other people don't - because once you give the mandate for a majority (or even a plurality) to ban things you don't see a use for, you give the mandate to them to ban things they don't see a use for.

A weapon of choice for? Killing a bunch of people at one time. Is that not what we are talking about.

Yes we are, but for some reason you don't want to see that "killing a bunch of people" is the problem...

Remember, the guy also built pipe bombs, but it's all about the guns and not the desire to murder loads of people right?

And really? How would one go about regulating or finding out why someone wants to kill a bunch of people. Most likely you wont even know they want to kill a bunch of people till they do.

The guy who killed a bunch of people in Christchurch did so after sending a huge white supremacist manifesto to officials and people in positions of power around New Zealand. It was too soon before he carried out the murders and didn't contain any actionable details for anyone to act on, but very few people can write that quantity of that kind of offensive material without anyone noticing.

It's certainly not easy to address why people want to kill other people before they do, but to dismiss it is almost worse than acting like guns are the issue and banning them will fix it.

Its blaring obvious that the countries that make it hard or impossible to buy guns have a way less occurrence of these type crimes.

Actually the numbers are kind of all over the place. The USA has loads of guns (90 per 100 population), but a relatively low homicide rate (around 7 per 100,000 population). Honduras has few guns (8/100) but a relatively high homicide rate (60/100,000). Switzerland and France have high gun ownership rates (45 and 30) and very low homicide rates (<1 apiece) while New Zealand has twice as many homicides with half as many guns (~22 and 2).

There's no real correlation between gun ownership and homicides - although it's very tough to say because there's no real way to properly quantify either, as countries don't agree on what's a homicide (murder on its own, or any instance of a human dying outside of natural causes?) and registered guns aren't the same as guns that people own (also do we prefer number of guns per people, or number of people with guns?).

There seems to be a closer correlation between gun ownership and gun deaths, but then that's to be expected - some 30% of the USA's gun deaths are suicide by firearm. But if we focus on that we're saying we literally don't care that people are murdered if they're not murdered by guns, which is a horrifying position to hold.

We are all human and I would argue that within a close margin most countries have a similar amount of people who want to kill lost of people, or just kill one person.

The violent crime rates don't agree with you. Also did you know that just 2% of the USA's districts account for more than half of all homicides? It's not even within a close margin from town to town.

Perhaps there's some merit to finding out why some people want to slaughter other people when the overwhelming majority of us don't after all?

Till the time comes when we can do a mandatory brain scan to find out if you want to kill someone I think taking away the weapons is a good step in the right direction.

Ah yes, we can either abuse people's rights or abuse people's rights. Great plan.

I dont say one gun is fine and another is not. I say they are all bad. I think swords are bad. Chinese throwing stars, nunchucks, pocket knives, even butter knives.

That must make preparing food a nightmare in your house.

I dont like any of them but a compromise with gun lovers is fine. Just that they are not willing to compromise anything.

Perhaps they would if you didn't insult them because you don't understand their hobby and want to take it away from them by making them criminals:

I mean, what, you wont be able to go to the range and do some shooting? Its not that big of a deal, unless one is bummed that they cant get one to kill a bunch of people. What else are you going to do with it other than target practice for fun or killing some folks or just to look at on your shelf.

Also I'm still confused as to why it's acceptable to you that people abusing cars causes 520% more deaths than people abusing guns. Sure, they're "accidents", but they're always caused by at least one person not using their car correctly.

 

[abrahamx]

I typed a reply only to have it accidentally deleted. Basically though you make alot of points that are off topic and not really talking about the topic. Like talking about a homicide rate when we are not talking homicide rates. We are specifically discussing a particular problem that my country is having. So amount of guns compared to mass shootings, not guns compared to homicide rate. I did not insult any gun owner and even if I did i dont think that stopping would be the deal breaker. The car issue you present is because your talking accidents not someone purposefully trying to kill some one. Also when I say you I was not actually refering to you personally just saying you like saying "one" or just someone in general. Discussion is fine but no need to go getting personal talking about my house and my dinner there. I know I brought up my daughter first but you are going there quite alot. Its a ludicrous argument because you know I would not care how many bullets were in a gun. Any one would be upset if some one they know were killer but again we are talking mass killings. Its in a league of its own. I do know and I believe we all know the issue is some one killing a bunch of people. Thats what we are here talking about so we can do something to try and prevent it or at least slow it(and since we are talking mass killings via a gun then it just seems a simple common sense deduction that getting rid of guns would solve the problem one cant shoot someone with a gun if they do not have a gun). I have a lot of friends who have the gun hobby and I do under stand it. I dont think preserving a hobby is worth all these lives. Its like have these issues and keep your hobby or lose the hobby and stop these killings. I'd gladly give up sailboat racing(my hobby) if somehow people were using their boats to kill 20-50 people at a time and it came to this big of an issue. Like I said, I'm all for compromise and like you said maybe if I did not insult them they would compromise. lol). What compromise would you offer or do you not even think its a problem? I guess I just value human life more than material things. I think thats pretty much what it comes down to in the end with this issue to me anyway. No sense arguing with me, I'm not a perfect writer and have not composed a legit arguement about it. I'm just talking off the top of my head, lets argue the issue and the topic. Plus, I do use a butter knife at my house and own a couple guns and a hunting knife. I never said I follow the law. Even if they were banned I would still use them. I do my own thing regardless of the law. and I know that leads to your point that some one would just use them either way, but if butter knives were banned even though I may still use one, it sure would make it alot harder to get and I may just choose to use something else if I cant afford one or find one. And sure it would not spread butter as well either.

 

[PocketZeven]

Guns and cars are tools that can be used for enjoyment (without harming the rights of others) and a practical purpose (without harming the rights of others) or be misused and put others at risk. So are explosives - blowing crap up is fun.

I'm not sure what the practical purpose or fun uses of nerve agents and "cyberwarfare utilities" (you may have to explain that) are that do not harm the rights of others.

Guns are purposely built to kill and cars are built for transport.

 

[Famine]

Guns are purposely built to kill and cars are built for transport.

Neither of these things are true.

Are you just as happy to have misuse of cars being 520% as deadly as misuse of firearms too?

 

[Exorcet]

Guns are purposely built to kill and cars are built for transport.

Purpose doesn't directly translate into effectiveness. I think in the line of thinking that you're using, effectiveness should be weighed more heavily. When it comes to effectiveness at killing, many things that aren't labeled as weapons can be deadly.

 

[PocketZeven]

Neither of these things are true.

Are you just as happy to have misuse of cars being 520% as deadly as misuse of firearms too?

That is irrelevant. I was just stating the primary purpose.

 

[Famine]

That is irrelevant. I was just stating the primary purpose.

And wrongly at that.

Nevertheless, the question stands.

 

[Danoff]

and since we are talking mass killings via a gun then it just seems a simple common sense deduction that getting rid of guns would solve the problem one cant shoot someone with a gun if they do not have a gun

Timothy McVeigh (again)

 

[Dennisch]

Timothy McVeigh (again)

Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel.

Way more recent and his weapon of choice was a lot simpler.

 

[BobK]

@Dennisch and @Danoff, what you fail to understand is that it's much better to be killed accidentally than murdered, and furthermore that it's much better to be blown to bits or stabbed or bludgeoned than to be shot.

I'm not sure why, you're dead either way, but that seems to be the thrust of the argument.

 

[Danoff]

Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel.

Way more recent and his weapon of choice was a lot simpler.

Yea, I know, the boston bombings are another good one. The thing is, I like to bring McVeigh up (over the others) for two reasons. 1) He killed more people than the vegas shooter, and just about any of these incidents. and 2) he has admitted that he didn't want to kill kids, and so had he been wielding a gun, we know for sure the body count would have been lower (and lacked children victims).

@Dennisch and @Danoff, what you fail to understand is that it's much better to be killed accidentally than murdered, and furthermore that it's much better to be blown to bits or stabbed or bludgeoned than to be shot.

I'm not sure why, you're dead either way, but that seems to be the thrust of the argument.

Honestly I'd rather be shot than stabbed, bludgeoned, or partially blown to bits (and probably run over, depends on how).

 

[Imari]

Guns are purposely built to kill and cars are built for transport.

Some guns are purposely built to kill, others are not.

Some cars are built for transport, others are not. On a Gran Turismo forum, I think it's safe to assume that you're aware of race cars, whose primary purpose is very much not transport.

Both are items that can be used to inflict serious damage or kill, regardless of original design intent. That's true of a lot of things, and the level of control society chooses to enforce depends on a number of factors, including the risk, the usefulness of the item, and the ability for other items to replace it. If teleporters existed, you'd probably see much stronger restrictions on casually driving cars around at high speed. But they don't, cars are incredibly useful, and so we allow them with moderate limitations despite them being one of the most deadly things most people come into contact with on a daily basis.

The same logic can be applied to guns (or any other dangerous item) to come up with a reasonable justification for regulation or banning instead of trying to blanket ban things based on some nonsensical idea of design purpose.

 

[PocketZeven]

And wrongly at that.

Nevertheless, the question stands.

Please explain how I am wrong?

As for your claim of 520% more deadly. Do you consider the total amount of carowners?

Edit:

Actually your claim was inaccurate. US gunrelated death per 100k exceeds car related deaths.
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2018/12/11/18135976/gun-deaths-us-2017-suicide

Some guns are purposely built to kill, others are not.

Some cars are built for transport, others are not. On a Gran Turismo forum, I think it's safe to assume that you're aware of race cars, whose primary purpose is very much not transport.

Both are items that can be used to inflict serious damage or kill, regardless of original design intent. That's true of a lot of things, and the level of control society chooses to enforce depends on a number of factors, including the risk, the usefulness of the item, and the ability for other items to replace it. If teleporters existed, you'd probably see much stronger restrictions on casually driving cars around at high speed. But they don't, cars are incredibly useful, and so we allow them with moderate limitations despite them being one of the most deadly things most people come into contact with on a daily basis.

The same logic can be applied to guns (or any other dangerous item) to come up with a reasonable justification for regulation or banning instead of trying to blanket ban things based on some nonsensical idea of design purpose.

The logic is sound. Racing is a biproduct of its original purpose. Like for guns, recreational shooting was a biproduct. Guns were not invented for other means then killing. Like swords have practically no other purpose then killing. The biproduct is sports like fencing. Which is based around stabbing someone. Guns recreationally are used to be accurate and kill animals.

One can kill with any random item, but weapons like swords, tanks, guns are all built to kill. It is interesting how some are deflecting with examples that cant be compared 1 on 1. The argument of when you have to ban cars, because they cause more deaths is silly. While you can use cars to kill, its beneficial use as transport far exceeds its use as deadly weapon. Where in guns it is the opposite. People opencarry guns not for the purpose of targetpractice or hunting, but to kill enemies. If it really was meant for defense there are other non-lethal alternatives.

 

[Famine]

While you can use cars to kill, its beneficial use as transport far exceeds its use as deadly weapon.

They kill 520% more people, by accident, than a deadly weapon does even when normalised for numbers. You're willing to accept that because you find the first tool useful but not the second tool.

Sounds rather selfish, really, for all those people to have to die for you.

 

[PocketZeven]

They kill 520% more people, by accident, than a deadly weapon does even when normalised for numbers. You're willing to accept that because you find the first tool useful but not the second tool.

Sounds rather selfish, really, for all those people to have to die for you.

I edited my post. in 2017 guns killed more then cars in the US. How do you get 520%? That number would be logical is you add countries which have strict gunlaws.

Also I would consider your argument legit if car related deaths were lower then comparable countries. Which in reality much higher then my country. 11.4 (death per 100k) vs 3.4. And oviously we have much lower gunrelated deaths per 100k as well. 12.2 vs 0.58. Also the amount of intentional homicidal deaths is also much lower. 5.35 vs 0.55 (2016). Then you could say that my country probably have much more law enforcement per 100k people, but the US have 284 vs 381. While we have more its only 35% police officers per 100k vs almost 1000% more homicides.

With an important difference between USA and Netherlands relevant stats are gunlaws and ownership.
Do you see why I conclude that gunlaws are directly related to mass shootings, violent crime and deaths by guns?

 

[Famine]

I edited my post. in 2017 guns killed more then cars in the US. How do you get 520%?

Almost 1.3 million people die annually because people can't use cars responsibly, and that's fine, while 250,000 people - less than 20% of that number - die annually* because people can't use guns responsibly, but that's not fine?

What's your threshold for acceptable death tolls from accidents with an object before the object is too dangerous for the public to have? What's your threshold for acceptable death tolls from deliberate acts with an object before the object is too dangerous for the public to have? Are these limits different, and why?


*Some 27% of which are suicides**
**Fun fact, that's one death per 4,000 guns, but one death per 1,000 cars. Yep, a car is four times more likely to kill you by accident than a gun is on purpose, even including times when you point the gun at yourself...

Incidentally, there's nearly 250 million cars on the USA's roads and nearly 400 million guns. That's one death per 10,000 guns (400m/40k) and one death per 9,000 cars (250m/27k), so even in the USA, and even including suicides by gun, a car is deadlier than a gun...

 

[PocketZeven]

Incidentally, there's nearly 250 million cars on the USA's roads and nearly 400 million guns. That's one death per 10,000 guns (400m/40k) and one death per 9,000 cars (250m/27k), so even in the USA, and even including suicides by gun, a car is deadlier than a gun...

Kind of far off from 520%. You also need to seperate intentional deaths vs unintentional.

See my edited post I added more data that points out how guns kill people and not just people.

 

[Famine]

Kind of far off from 520%.

I knew when you dodged the question twice that you wouldn't have bothered to read it:

Almost 1.3 million people die annually because people can't use cars responsibly, and that's fine, while 250,000 people - less than 20% of that number - die annually* because people can't use guns responsibly, but that's not fine?

Divide 1.3 million by 250,000 for me.

Normalised to ownership, it's 400%:

**Fun fact, that's one death per 4,000 guns, but one death per 1,000 cars. Yep, a car is four times more likely to kill you by accident than a gun is on purpose, even including times when you point the gun at yourself...

And that includes suicides by gun, which are 30% of the total!

You also need to seperate intentional deaths vs unintentional.

Why?

Which in reality much higher then my country. 11.4 (death per 100k) vs 3.4. And oviously we have much lower gunrelated deaths per 100k as well. 12.2 vs 0.58.

What does your country have to do with anything? Do you think that it's fine that 1.2 million people are killed each year because you only have 600? You don't seem to think it's fine that 250,000 people are killed each year, even though you only have 100 (edit: amusingly, that's one death per 4,500 guns, making each individual gun only 12.5% less dangerous in the Netherlands than in the USA).

If anything, that exposes even more the hypocrisy of being so anti-gun while absolving the car of any wrongdoing.

People not using cars responsibly kill 1.2 million people every year. People not using guns responsibly* kill 250,000 people every year. It's mad to be fine with the first one because you have a use for the tool but obdurately against the other because you don't.

*Although this includes suicides (which aren't necessarily very responsible), self-defence (which may be) and lawful killings (which are).

 

[PocketZeven]

I knew when you dodged the question twice that you wouldn't have bothered to read it:

Divide 1.3 million by 250,000 for me.

Normalised to ownership, it's 400%:

And that includes suicides by gun, which are 30% of the total!

Why?
What does your country have to do with anything? Do you think that it's fine that 1.2 million people are killed each year because you only have 600? You don't seem to think it's fine that 250,000 people are killed each year, even though you only have 100.

If anything, that exposes even more the hypocrisy of being so anti-gun while absolving the car of any wrongdoing.

People not using cars responsibly kill 1.2 million people every year. People not using guns responsibly* kill 250,000 people every year. It's mad to be fine with the first one because you have a use for the tool but obdurately against the other because you don't.

*Although this includes suicides (which aren't necessarily very responsible), self-defence (which may be) and lawful killings (which are).

The stats I posted are per capita and not absolute. (x per 100k people).

I never said it was "fine". I was stating that high homicidal rate is related to high gunownership. If I look at the USA stats I agree that you guys also have a car problem.
You again choose to ignore the data that is relevant. Accidental car/gun deaths are not related to crime. Homicide is.

Edit:

But you are again not putting it in perspective. Intentional deaths are significantly higher in the USA compared to car related deaths in europe.

 

[Famine]

The stats I posted are per capita and not absolute. (x per 100k people).

I'd like to think that a person's life matters to them.

I was stating that high homicidal rate is related to high gunownership.

Yes, you were taking actual deaths out of the equation in favour of the kind of deaths you want to beat on.

If I look at the USA stats I agree that you guys also have a car problem.

I'm not American.

But you are again not putting it in perspective. Intentional deaths are significantly higher.

I think that the perspective is pretty clear. People not using cars properly are responsible for 520% more deaths each year than people not using guns properly, even if you include all lawful killings and suicides, and each individual car is 400% deadlier than each individual gun.

You want to attack guns and hand-wave away how deadly cars are, because you find cars useful but don't understand guns - which is why you pretend they're made to kill.

 

[PocketZeven]

I'd like to think that a person's life matters to them.

Yes, you were taking actual deaths out of the equation in favour of the kind of deaths you want to beat on.

I'm not American.

I think that the perspective is pretty clear. People not using cars properly are responsible for 520% more deaths each year than people not using guns properly, even if you include all lawful killings and suicides, and each individual car is 400% deadlier than each individual gun.

You want to attack guns and hand-wave away how deadly cars are, because you find cars useful but don't understand guns - which is why you pretend they're made to kill.

Arent we talking about intentional deaths?

 

[Famine]

Arent we talking about intentional deaths?

At no point in any of the posts I've made which you've steadfastly ignored have I mentioned intentional deaths. I have repeatedly asked why 1.2 million people being killed each year as a result of the misuse of cars is better than 250,000 people bring killed each year as a result of the misuse of guns, and you have repeatedly pretended the question doesn't exist (as usual).

Why is being killed by accident by someone not using a tool properly better than being killed on purpose by someone not using a tool properly? Why does it matter to the person killed?

 

[Exorcet]

The logic is sound. Racing is a biproduct of its original purpose. Like for guns, recreational shooting was a biproduct. Guns were not invented for other means then killing. Like swords have practically no other purpose then killing. The biproduct is sports like fencing. Which is based around stabbing someone. Guns recreationally are used to be accurate and kill animals.

Drone aircraft were not invented to endanger civil aviation or close airports. Does this mean we shouldn't consider them when thinking about security in those cases?

One can kill with any random item, but weapons like swords, tanks, guns are all built to kill.

What difference does the purpose make?

It is interesting how some are deflecting with examples that cant be compared 1 on 1. The argument of when you have to ban cars, because they cause more deaths is silly. While you can use cars to kill, its beneficial use as transport far exceeds its use as deadly weapon. Where in guns it is the opposite. People opencarry guns not for the purpose of targetpractice or hunting, but to kill enemies. If it really was meant for defense there are other non-lethal alternatives.

It is a 1 on 1 comparison though. Both cars and guns are effective at killing, so it stands to reason if death by one is a problem, so is death by the other. Yet guns seem to get more attention when it comes to this. If you want to keep the benefits of car transport while reducing vehicle related deaths you can. Most cars allow their users to drive in ways that are considered unsafe for most roads, namely speeding. Some cars even advertise their capability for exceeding normal behavior on roads. There are also prevention measures available to keep unsafe drivers off the road like alcohol measuring keys. Yet people just seem turn away from placing tight restrictions on vehicle use, accepting deaths that might result, for the sake of convenience or fun. That's their choice, but then it seems odd to turn around and act completely different when it comes to something else.

By the way, even if you're carrying a gun around for self defense it's still not for the purpose of killing (unless maybe the carrier is insane). You can defend yourself through fear (deterrence). Even if you have to shoot at someone you can do it through injury and not outright trying to kill. In any case, "purpose" still doesn't matter, because anyone can use anything for whatever purpose they want.