The PokéCommunity Forums Off-Topic Discussions Off-Topic
The one and only big fat thread about GUNS.

Off-Topic Hang out with people and talk about whatever. Feel free to suggest a better description for this forum as everyone seems to have an opinion. :D

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #151    
Old February 5th, 2013 (10:00 AM).
Esper's Avatar
Esper Esper is offline
  • Silver Tier
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: California
Posts: 10,350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renpuu View Post
One thousand gun deaths is surprisingly low to the vast amount of other killer diseases and other factors such as suicide. Suicide is higher than murder in the US.
Most of the gun violence is due to gang violence.
These special "shootings" are only a small blip in society compared to the vast amount of other problems facing the world.
It's gone past 1500 since I posted last. Just pointing this out.

And compared to many other causes of death, yes, guns aren't "as deadly" but they are still deadly (meaning still a problem that we can try to solve while still acknowledging other serious problem and simultaneously dealing with those) and deadly in different ways. There's no such thing as drive-by heart disease, for instance. There aren't typically "warning signs" like there are with diseases and suicide. (Well, you could say that an overabundance of guns is a warning sign, I suppose.) That makes gun deaths something extra dangerous because they are so sudden.
__________________
Reply With Quote

Relevant Advertising!

  #152    
Old February 6th, 2013 (9:54 AM).
Nihilego's Avatar
Nihilego Nihilego is offline
ユービーゼロイチ パラサイト
  • Administrator
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Manchester
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,650
Whooooops forgot to merge this one into the main gun thread. I'll get on that now.
__________________
s͎̭̚ ̪ͭͩy͔͚̰̻̗̩̺ͣ́ͨ̌͡ ̩̳̙̖̖̺͡m̷̱̘͎̝̘̣͒͌͒̚ ͇͖̔̐̔b̝̪͚̞̦ͬ ̢͔̱̟̞̝͙̮͌̅̈̓̿̿i͐̈̃͊ͯ̎҉̟̠͓ ͕̥̣̪̠̃͑͞ỏ̵͕̠̱̬̬̞͛̋ ̨͈̻̱̟̱͓̪n͒̒͂͊̀ ̻̰̰̜̅̃͒̂͞tͭ̍̈́ ͙͇̘͕͍̜̖ͫ̌̊̿ͫ̂̀:̵̾͒̔͂ ̟͉̜̽͒͌͜p͎͇͎̦̺̙͒͆͋́ͅ ̨̠̠̘͚͖̺ͫ͛̎̉a̲͍̫͖͗̄ ͓͖͍̯̤̼͙̿̆̂̂̄r̬̟̮͖̥̼̆̓͑̃̾ͬ̉͟ͅ ̬̼̗͊͛a̛̯̮ ̮̬͍̙̮̤́ͪŝ͊ͬ̒̎̃ ̧̝̮͎͙͆̓ì͈̹̻̱̾͝ ̘͉͕̭̊ͤ̉̓tͩͯ̉̐ͨͬ̚͏̻̺̖̮ ̞̘͂̋̋ͯ͑ͦ͗e̞͔̎̇ͫ͊͗
Reply With Quote
  #153    
Old February 6th, 2013 (2:20 PM).
Esper's Avatar
Esper Esper is offline
  • Silver Tier
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: California
Posts: 10,350
Adding to our lengthy thread is this sad story of a 3 year old boy who died after playing with a pink gun he thought was a toy. The pink gun (presumably it's color is why it was mistaken for a toy) accidentally discharged while the boy and his sister were playing with it. The parents were not home and apparently grandparents were in the next room. People said they would prefer people kept their guns in lock boxes, or "at least have them out of the reach of children."

Inevitably responses from the internet about this have been heated. Some say it proves that assault weapons bans would not do anything to stop things like this. Others rightly point out that assault weapons bans are intended to stop mass shootings and that the US is a crazy, crazy place for not having laws about how you store your guns.
Reply With Quote
  #154    
Old February 6th, 2013 (3:47 PM).
Shiny Celebi Shiny Celebi is offline
  • Gold Tier
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 2,402
Its a parent's responsibility to keep guns out of reach of children and teach them that they aren't toys, yes the gun shouldve been locked away. When you have children, you have the responsibility of making sure they are safe in the home and have no access to dangerous objects. Gun laws are not going to keep this from happening if people don't have the responiblity to keep them away from the children.
Reply With Quote
  #155    
Old February 6th, 2013 (8:11 PM). Edited February 6th, 2013 by Mr. X.
Mr. X's Avatar
Mr. X Mr. X is offline
It's... kinda effective?
  • Crystal Tier
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Age: 24
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
Posts: 2,385
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scarf View Post
Adding to our lengthy thread is this sad story of a 3 year old boy who died after playing with a pink gun he thought was a toy. The pink gun (presumably it's color is why it was mistaken for a toy) accidentally discharged while the boy and his sister were playing with it. The parents were not home and apparently grandparents were in the next room. People said they would prefer people kept their guns in lock boxes, or "at least have them out of the reach of children."

Inevitably responses from the internet about this have been heated. Some say it proves that assault weapons bans would not do anything to stop things like this. Others rightly point out that assault weapons bans are intended to stop mass shootings and that the US is a crazy, crazy place for not having laws about how you store your guns.
Or, even better - Stop making the guns look like toys. By this I mean stop painting them in bright, attractive, colors.

Anyway, personalized guns would solve a lot of issues. Basically, a personalized gun is a gun that will only fire for it's owner. Biometrics are cheap and reliable enough for them to be fitted to most guns, and locking the use of the gun to its owner would prevent a lot of cases like this.

Really, this solves more then this - It puts in place a way to prevent those guns from falling into criminals hands. Given that people will resale guns, gun manufactures would have to have systems in place to reset the security features on the guns. They would use this system to track ownership of that gun. With this, if a gun is used in a crime and recovered then the police would easily know the person who used it, and if applicable, the person who sold it to the criminal. And really, given that it's a crime for a person to, knowingly or unknowingly, purchase stolen items it really should be a crime for a person to, knowingly or unknowingly, sell a gun to a person who intends to use it for crime.

The technologies for personalized guns are in existance - fingerprint scanners and voice recognition are the basics although more sophisticated systems could be used.
Reply With Quote
  #156    
Old February 6th, 2013 (8:22 PM).
Sir Codin's Avatar
Sir Codin Sir Codin is offline
Welcome to the Federation Starship: USS Buttcrack
  • Crystal Tier
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: California Republic
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Nature: Quirky
Posts: 3,730
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. X View Post
Anyway, personalized guns would solve a lot of issues. Basically, a personalized gun is a gun that will only fire for it's owner. Biometrics are cheap and reliable enough for them to be fitted to most guns, and locking the use of the gun to its owner would prevent a lot of cases like this.

Really, this solves more then this - It puts in place a way to prevent those guns from falling into criminals hands. Given that people will resale guns, gun manufactures would have to have systems in place to reset the security features on the guns. With this, if a gun is used in a crime and recovered then the police would easily know the person who used it, and if applicable, the person who sold it to the criminal. And really, given that it's a crime for a person to, knowingly or unknowingly, purchase stolen items it really should be a crime for a person to, knowingly or unknowingly, sell a gun to a person who intends to use it for crime.

The technologies for personalized guns are in existence - fingerprint scanners and voice recognition are the basics although more sophisticated systems could be used.
This is perhaps one of the most agreeable gun control measures I have ever seen. Reminds me of the guns used in License to Kill and Skyfall where the gun would only fire if it was in the Bond's hands. They need to get on this.
__________________
The biggest flaw with voluntaryism is its inefficiency, caused by the basic condition of human selfishness.
Reply With Quote
  #157    
Old February 6th, 2013 (11:30 PM).
Mr. X's Avatar
Mr. X Mr. X is offline
It's... kinda effective?
  • Crystal Tier
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Age: 24
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
Posts: 2,385
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarcharOdin View Post
This is perhaps one of the most agreeable gun control measures I have ever seen. Reminds me of the guns used in License to Kill and Skyfall where the gun would only fire if it was in the Bond's hands. They need to get on this.
It was attempted in the past. The technology was more expensive back then. This, coupled with the NRA saying that personalized guns were a attempt to reduce a persons second amendment rights, ment that nothing ever got beyond the "Hey, this sounds like a good idea!" phrase.
Reply With Quote
  #158    
Old February 7th, 2013 (2:42 PM).
Pinkie-Dawn's Avatar
Pinkie-Dawn Pinkie-Dawn is offline
Space Waifu
     
    Join Date: Dec 2012
    Location: California
    Age: 24
    Gender: Male
    Nature: Quirky
    Posts: 9,139
    How exactly can personalized guns abridge second amendment rights? They would still have their guns in their arms.
    __________________
    And Mercy too.
    Reply With Quote
      #159    
    Old February 7th, 2013 (5:18 PM).
    Shiny Celebi Shiny Celebi is offline
    • Gold Tier
     
    Join Date: Jun 2011
    Posts: 2,402
    I think because it prevents other people except the owner from using it. Like say the owner was away, and someone who lived with them wouldnt be able to use it for self defense if someone was attemping to hurt them, at least I think that's what they mean.
    Reply With Quote
      #160    
    Old February 8th, 2013 (4:52 AM). Edited February 8th, 2013 by Mr. X.
    Mr. X's Avatar
    Mr. X Mr. X is offline
    It's... kinda effective?
    • Crystal Tier
     
    Join Date: Oct 2006
    Location: London
    Age: 24
    Gender: Male
    Nature: Quiet
    Posts: 2,385
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Shiny Celebi View Post
    I think because it prevents other people except the owner from using it. Like say the owner was away, and someone who lived with them wouldnt be able to use it for self defense if someone was attemping to hurt them, at least I think that's what they mean.
    The security measures could easily be designed to allow for multiple users though.

    The owner of the gun would be the person who determines just who can use the gun.

    Still - ensuring that only the owner of the gun is the only person able to use that gun does nothing to infringe upon their rights.
    Reply With Quote
      #161    
    Old February 9th, 2013 (11:11 PM).
    Crux's Avatar
    Crux Crux is offline
    Evermore
       
      Join Date: Sep 2012
      Location: 青い世界
      Age: 21
      Gender: Male
      Nature: Relaxed
      Posts: 1,324
      They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
      __________________





      {Never and Forever}

      Tees | Coming Soon | Coming Soon
      Reply With Quote
        #162    
      Old February 10th, 2013 (7:49 AM).
      Mr. X's Avatar
      Mr. X Mr. X is offline
      It's... kinda effective?
      • Crystal Tier
       
      Join Date: Oct 2006
      Location: London
      Age: 24
      Gender: Male
      Nature: Quiet
      Posts: 2,385
      Quote:
      Originally Posted by Rococo View Post
      They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
      Personalized guns don't take away a persons rights.

      If they want a gun, they have to buy their own - Really, personalized guns would enforce their rights.

      Besides - We've already given up rights for safety. Especially when it comes to the second amendment. The law against felons owning weapons is against the second amendment.
      Reply With Quote
      Reply
      Quick Reply

      Sponsored Links
      Thread Tools

      Posting Rules
      You may not post new threads
      You may not post replies
      You may not post attachments
      You may not edit your posts

      BB code is On
      Smilies are On
      [IMG] code is On
      HTML code is Off

      Forum Jump


      All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:22 PM.