Seattle's Ferris wheel hit by drone

[zMeul]

So two different incidents are a stronger argument than the statistics of all murders committed with firearms. Riiiiiiight...

statistics ... people are not statistics

what I showed: your excuse is utter BS

furthermore, even without a firearm, if person A wants to murder person B will do so

[ICantThinkOfAnyGoodName]

statistics ... people are not statistics

what I showed: your excuse is utter BS

furthermore, even without a firearm, if person A wants to murder person B will do so

The thing is that person B will have a better chance of defending himself against person A if person A doesn't have a gun. And don't give me that bs argument that he will be better able to defend himself because he can also have a gun. When someone is pointing a gun at you, he can pull the trigger faster than you can pull your own gun.

Also I've noticed a common pattern when arguing with Americans. If someone is in favor of stricter gun laws, they immediately always use the same arguments and most of the time just call the other persons arguments bs.

[Technous285]

The thing is that person B will have a better chance of defending himself against person A if person A doesn't have a gun. And don't give me that bs argument that he will be better able to defend himself because he can also have a gun. When someone is pointing a gun at you, he can pull the trigger faster than you can pull your own gun.

Also I've noticed a common pattern when arguing with Americans. If someone is in favor of stricter gun laws, they immediately always use the same arguments and most of the time just call the other persons arguments bs.

You don't need a gun to kill somebody. Knifes, clubs, FISTS (hence the term "Fisticuffs" for what became Boxing). Those are just as valid killing items, and you're BORN with a pair of the damn things.

I could be walking down the street with a cane and slight limp due to a bung knee that can't take much weight unless locked in place. If someone tried to run up at me and steal my wallet all I'd need to do is lock that knee back then wallop the idiot thief with the cane as they pass by, and depending on the physics in motion (their mass, my mass, their movement speed, my swinging speed...) I could easily render them unconscious or even kill them with the cane a lot easier than it'd be to bother with a firearm or even knife.

That doesn't mean that "walking canes should be baneded!!!!111oneonone" because they could be used in a situation that possibly ends with someone's injury or death due to their own actions.

[ICantThinkOfAnyGoodName]

You don't need a gun to kill somebody. Knifes, clubs, FISTS (hence the term "Fisticuffs" for what became Boxing). Those are just as valid killing items, and you're BORN with a pair of the damn things.

I could be walking down the street with a cane and slight limp due to a bung knee that can't take much weight unless locked in place. If someone tried to run up at me and steal my wallet all I'd need to do is lock that knee back then wallop the idiot thief with the cane as they pass by, and depending on the physics in motion (their mass, my mass, their movement speed, my swinging speed...) I could easily render them unconscious or even kill them with the cane a lot easier than it'd be to bother with a firearm or even knife.

That doesn't mean that "walking canes should be baneded!!!!111oneonone" because they could be used in a situation that possibly ends with someone's injury or death due to their own actions.

See, I never argued that guns should be completely banned. But I think there should be stricter regulations than the US currently has. And your argument is, just like the other arguments that have been brought up by zMeul, not entirely valid. While it is possible to kill someone with a cane, it is definitely a lot easier to defend yourself against a cane than to defend yourself against a gun.

[dalekphalm]

and what makes you think regulating drones will stop this incidents?! people will still be stupid

car related deaths are above a million across the globe, and yet I don't see stricter rules and regulations

gun, drone car - these aren't the problem, the problem is the people

Well there are a number of reasons why regulating drones will help:

1. Licensing. Controlling access to the devices in the first place. Granted, lots of people already have drones, but not nearly as many as say, cars or guns.

2. Fear of punishment. You might be surprised to hear this, but a lot of crimes don't happen, simply because people are afraid of the consequences. Sure there are hardened criminals and mentally unstable people that won't care, but it will cut down A LOT on the regular every day people who just think they can get away with it or don't realize what they are doing is wrong. Think about it, 99% of the "Drone" news articles we're hearing about aren't hardened criminals - they are regular people doing stupid shit.

3. Your statistic of over a million car related deaths per year doesn't exactly help your case: There are ~7bn people on Earth.

1,000,000 / 7,000,000,000 = 0.014%

 

That's one percent of one percent. Globally, that's a pretty damn low rate.

 

cut the crap

the terrorist attack in France, Charlie Hebdo, was done with firearms, yes!? yes

the train incident on August 21, France, was done with firearms, yes?! yes

does France have very strict gun control laws, yes?! yes

what the fuck are you on about

Cut the crap? Cut the crap? Please, take a step back and look at this logically. Those statistics prove that a country that has banned guns (The UK), has a MUCH MUCH MUCH LOWER gun-related death count.

 

UK - 0.26 deaths per 100,000

USA - 10.5 deaths per 100,000

 

These stats also account for population size, since they are per capita. Hell, the UK even has lower gun-related deaths then Canada, which is sitting at 2.22 deaths per 100,000.

 

Just because there are two incidents in France, doesn't mean the system is broken. Would you rather there be seven firearm related terrorist attacks? Or forty-three?

 

There are literally 40.38 times MORE gun-related deaths - PER PERSON - in the USA then in the UK.

 

As for France?

3.01 deaths per 100,000

That means that the USA still has 3.49 times as many gun-related deaths compared to France.

 

No matter how you paint that picture, it shows a clear trend. Gun regulation in some form (Not necessarily saying outright ban them) does work.

 

Side note: Romania - which has extremely strict gun laws - has one of the lowest gun-related death counts in the world:

0.19 deaths per 100,000 people - That's twice as low as the UK.

[zMeul]

Also I've noticed a common pattern when arguing with Americans. If someone is in favor of stricter gun laws, they immediately always use the same arguments and most of the time just call the other persons arguments bs.

american!?   

mate ..

one - I am not an american, I'm was born and live in Romania

two - I do not own a firearm; I did however served in the military and currently have the rank of Sergeant, in reserve

---

 

have you heard of a country called Switzerland?!

this country has  about 5% of it's military as professionals, the rest are conscripts and/or volunteers (men and women) - and they all get to keep their service weapons at home, do you understand this? ~50% of Sweden has military equipment in their basement!

according to your BS arguments, this country would've wiped itself off the face of the earth ...

 

why doesn't it happen? because they have a solid education and medical system - people with head problems have a tough time getting their hands on a firearm

 

----

 

The thing is that person B will have a better chance of defending himself against person A if person A doesn't have a gun. And don't give me that bs argument that he will be better able to defend himself because he can also have a gun

according your your BS, the police should not have pistols as the standard equipment 

[Fate]

You don't need a gun to kill somebody. Knifes, clubs, FISTS (hence the term "Fisticuffs" for what became Boxing). Those are just as valid killing items, and you're BORN with a pair of the damn things.

I could be walking down the street with a cane and slight limp due to a bung knee that can't take much weight unless locked in place. If someone tried to run up at me and steal my wallet all I'd need to do is lock that knee back then wallop the idiot thief with the cane as they pass by, and depending on the physics in motion (their mass, my mass, their movement speed, my swinging speed...) I could easily render them unconscious or even kill them with the cane a lot easier than it'd be to bother with a firearm or even knife.

That doesn't mean that "walking canes should be baneded!!!!111oneonone" because they could be used in a situation that possibly ends with someone's injury or death due to their own actions.

Except it's way easier to kill somebody with a gun than with a knife, club, or your fists. 

I generally lean towards "pro-gun", but that argument is invalid. 

[zMeul]

2. Fear of punishment. You might be surprised to hear this, but a lot of crimes don't happen, simply because people are afraid of the consequences.

utter crap!

 

if that would be true, the prisons on the entire globe would have less murderers - guess what!

[dalekphalm]

american!?   

mate ..

one - I am not an american, I'm was born and live in Romania

two - I do not own a firearm; I did however served in the military and currently have the rank of Sergeant, in reserve

---

 

have you heard of a country called Switzerland?!

this country has  about 5% of it's military as professionals, the rest are conscripts and/or volunteers (men and women) - and they all get to keep their weapons at home, do you understand this? ~50% of Sweden has military equipment in their basement!

according to your BS arguments, this country would've wiped itself off the face of the earth ...

 

why doesn't it happen? because they have a solid education and medical system

That's but two parts to a larger system.

 

Switzerland is kind of a unique situation.

 

1. Guns might be fairly common, but ammunition is not. According to Swiss law, a person can only purchase ammunition for privately owned firearms. That means you cannot purchase ammo for your Military Issued Militia firearm. Presumably, you must get the ammo for that gun from the local armoury/military base, and only with valid reasons (I went sport shooting for fun is probably not a valid reason).

 

2. Interesting note, Switzerland has a lower gun ownership rate (Not counting Militia Guns, which, as stated, have highly restricted ammunition) compared to Germany, Austria, and France.

 

Gun Ownership isn't the problem. Regulation doesn't mean keeping guns away from people. It means keeping the guns away from the RIGHT people.

[zMeul]

1. Guns might be fairly common, but ammunition is not.

until 2007, swiss servicemen had ammunition too - and yet, this country still stands ... go figure 

 

 

Gun Ownership isn't the problem. Regulation doesn't mean keeping guns away from people. It means keeping the guns away from the RIGHT people.

and that's the problem with the US .. people that should not get 10m of a firearm, do so

headcases, instead of being institutionalized, roam free

better education and better health care is paramount

the problem is not not the firearm, the drone or the car - it's the fucking idiot handling it

[Letemburn]

UK has very strict gun control, people killing each other stopped?! no! not even obtaining illegal firearms

Gun control and the control of drones are 2 completely different issues. If drones were outright banned, I can promise you that drone related incidents would plummet.

[ICantThinkOfAnyGoodName]

american!?

mate ..

one - I am not an american, I'm was born and live in Romania

two - I do not own a firearm; I did however served in the military and currently have the rank of Sergeant, in reserve

---

have you heard of a country called Switzerland?!

this country has about 5% of it's military as professionals, the rest are conscripts and/or volunteers (men and women) - and they all get to keep their service weapons at home, do you understand this? ~50% of Sweden has military equipment in their basement!

according to your BS arguments, this country would've wiped itself off the face of the earth ...

As Dalek has said, it's not about keeping guns away from people, it's about keeping them away from the wrong people. And which argument are you talking about? No argument I've said implies that.

people with head problems have a tough time getting their hands on a firearm

Exactly. This is it.

according your your BS, the police should not have pistols as the standard equipment

Wat?

[NumLock21]

Slightly off topic, reminds me of this.

 

On June 7, 1998, a forty-nine-year-old African-American man from Texas, named James Byrd Jr., was brutally murdered by three men. While Byrd was still alive, the perpetrators tied his ankles to the back of a pickup truck and dragged him for three miles; Byrd was decapitated in the process. Two of Byrd’s three assailants were sentenced to death, with the third sentenced to life in prison without possibility of parole. Of the two given the death penalty, one still sits on Death Row. The other, Lawrence Russell Brewer, was executed by the state of Texas on September 21, 2011.

His last meal request was

two chicken-fried steaks with gravy and sliced onions; a triple-patty bacon cheeseburger; a cheese omelet with ground beef, tomatoes, onions, bell peppers and jalapeños; a bowl of fried okra with ketchup; one pound of barbecued meat with half a loaf of white bread; three fajitas; a meat-lover’s pizza; one pint of Blue Bell Ice Cream; a slab of peanut-butter fudge with crushed peanuts; and three root beers.

What he did with his last meal

The state provided him with this meal, costing hundreds of dollars and consisting of thousands of calories. Brewer, claiming he was not very hungry, ate exactly none of it.

What the State decided to do about it

The next day, state legislators asked the Department of Criminal Justice to end the tradition of “last meals.” One lawmaker stated, “It is extremely inappropriate to give a person sentenced to death such a privilege. It’s a privilege which the perpetrator did not provide to their victim.” The Department of Criminal Justice chairperson agreed, and the tradition ended. Since then, per the Houston Chronicle, “Last meals will consist of whatever is on the menu for all prisoners”— with no special adjustments for those about to be executed.

http://mentalfloss.com/article/60852/texass-last-last-meal-why-death-row-inmates-texas-dont-get-pick-their-last-meals