FourAceDeal's possibly less than adequate first post.

[Calandale]

Let's look at the auto argument for a bit. All that regulation and licensing, while I'm sure that it
HELPS reduce automobile deaths, it simply isn't doing a sufficient job. As per http://asirt.org/initiatives/informing-road-users/road-safety-facts/road-crash-statistics
we're looking at an average of 1.3 MILLION deaths per year. What kind of fucking insanity is this?


Even just in the US, it's 37,000 per year. We need to do something about car culture.


It's not just the deaths, but more importantly the environmental impact. Guns, at least, aren't threatening
the ecosystem.

[Jack]

Thought you approved of population control. The Wikipedia link for that information is better, because it has a sortable table. US motor vehicle death rates are about triple that of most European countries. Can't even blame it all on more cars, as the death per vehicle rate is still about double.

[Jack]

Forgot to add the link. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate

[Calandale]

Thought you approved of population control.  

Oh, I do. I don't approve of traffic congestion due to accidents.

The Wikipedia link for that information is better, because it has a sortable table. US motor vehicle death rates are about triple that of most European countries. Can't even blame it all on more cars, as the death per vehicle rate is still about double.

I think 'mericans are just homicidal.

[Jack]

I think 'mericans are just homicidal.

The numbers are small and make it unfitting as a generalization, but yes, probably more so than some other places.

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

Let's look at the auto argument for a bit. All that regulation and licensing, while I'm sure that it
HELPS reduce automobile deaths, it simply isn't doing a sufficient job. As per http://asirt.org/initiatives/informing-road-users/road-safety-facts/road-crash-statistics
we're looking at an average of 1.3 MILLION deaths per year. What kind of fucking insanity is this?


Even just in the US, it's 37,000 per year. We need to do something about car culture.


It's not just the deaths, but more importantly the environmental impact. Guns, at least, aren't threatening
the ecosystem.

I own a car.

I am not in denial that cars are as dangerous as fuck and that cars damage the environment.

If I came on here and tried to make a bunch of illogical and factually incorrect justifications for my ownership of a car.... I would expect to be called out on that!

Instead I choose to acknowledge the readily available statistics that show just how dangerous cars are. And how much CO2 they pump into the atmosphere. And admit that I still own a car because I enjoy the time that it saves me and the freedom that it provides to me. And I simply don't like catching public transport or walking in the rain.

[Calandale]

And admit that I still own a car because I enjoy the time that it saves me and the freedom that it provides to me. And I simply don't like catching public transport or walking in the rain.

In the US, owning a car is pretty necessary. Public transport is crap, and rentals aren't a good option if you're
even just making a few trips a year - the cost runs up significantly. I wouldn't blame any individual for owning a
car. But, as with guns, there is a culture which prevents us from facing the overall costs to society of a system
largely based upon the private automobile.


It's not all that different from the same political facts surrounding guns - except that it is more widespread.
Gun culture feels more under siege, and thus defensive, so they reach harder.

[odeon]

A friend of mine was looking up school mass shootings dating back to the one in the 60's - and found the majority were done with handguns.

That makes sense because they're easier to conceal.

It doesn't hurt that the definition of a 'mass shooting' is only four people.

What would be a better number for the definition of mass murder?

I dunno. Maybe 10?


4 shot is a local news story in most cases. The events that make the
national headlines are when the body count is higher.


But, I don't know that the definition needs to change. It's just more difficult to take
out larger numbers with a handgun. If you raise that number a little, the total (already
low) number of deaths due to mass shootings drops dramatically,

It's a sad state of affairs in a country when four people shot to death will only make the local news.

[odeon]

Let's look at the auto argument for a bit. All that regulation and licensing, while I'm sure that it
HELPS reduce automobile deaths, it simply isn't doing a sufficient job. As per http://asirt.org/initiatives/informing-road-users/road-safety-facts/road-crash-statistics
we're looking at an average of 1.3 MILLION deaths per year. What kind of fucking insanity is this?


Even just in the US, it's 37,000 per year. We need to do something about car culture.


It's not just the deaths, but more importantly the environmental impact. Guns, at least, aren't threatening
the ecosystem.

Guns are designed to kill. Cars are designed to get you from A to B faster. It's a no-brainer to get rid of the former and improve the latter.

Or do you have a Tesla gun in mind?

[odeon]

Thought you approved of population control. The Wikipedia link for that information is better, because it has a sortable table. US motor vehicle death rates are about triple that of most European countries. Can't even blame it all on more cars, as the death per vehicle rate is still about double.

Maybe your requirements for legally handling a car are lacking? Just a thought.

But here is a case in point: I have a friend who moved (from Sweden) to the US - Indiana, to be a bit more precise. In Sweden, his eyesight wasn't deemed good enough to hold a driver's license. In Indiana, he had no problems getting one.

[Jack]

Thought you approved of population control. The Wikipedia link for that information is better, because it has a sortable table. US motor vehicle death rates are about triple that of most European countries. Can't even blame it all on more cars, as the death per vehicle rate is still about double.

Maybe your requirements for legally handling a car are lacking? Just a thought.

But here is a case in point: I have a friend who moved (from Sweden) to the US - Indiana, to be a bit more precise. In Sweden, his eyesight wasn't deemed good enough to hold a driver's license. In Indiana, he had no problems getting one.

That's a possibility. What was wrong with his eyesight?

[odeon]

Thought you approved of population control. The Wikipedia link for that information is better, because it has a sortable table. US motor vehicle death rates are about triple that of most European countries. Can't even blame it all on more cars, as the death per vehicle rate is still about double.

Maybe your requirements for legally handling a car are lacking? Just a thought.

But here is a case in point: I have a friend who moved (from Sweden) to the US - Indiana, to be a bit more precise. In Sweden, his eyesight wasn't deemed good enough to hold a driver's license. In Indiana, he had no problems getting one.

That's a possibility. What was wrong with his eyesight?

A neurological issue causing his eye muscles to spasm. The only way to make the muscles stop is apparently to inject a nerve paralyser. Not an optimal solution.

[Calandale]

Guns are designed to kill. Cars are designed to get you from A to B faster. It's a no-brainer to get rid of the former and improve the latter.

Other objects with utility are more safely constrained. I'm not postulating an equivalence here - but that the automobile
culture is, if anything, a worse problem. There might be areas where personal vehicles (and guns for that matter) are
the only reasonable solution - but that doesn't mean you need either in cities.

[Calandale]

A neurological issue causing his eye muscles to spasm. The only way to make the muscles stop is apparently to inject a nerve paralyser. Not an optimal solution.

I knew an epileptic who had a license.

[Arya Quinn]

Meh, both sides have the same victory conditions in a duel. I prefer assymetrical sports.

Teacher with a handgun vs student with an assault rifle should be right up your alley then.

For the 4,628,496th time, an AR-15 is NOT an "assault rifle".

Assault rifles are by definition, capable of full auto fire.

A well trained person with a handgun can, at very minimum, tie up the shooter while reinforcements arrive. Most schools would create a tactical situation where the teacher can engage the gunman inside of 100 yards, well within the range of a handgun, which would even the odds.

https://www.charlottefive.com/arming-teachers/

Anything but your precious guns.

This is the problem. I find myself having to force myself into whether to engage in this or not. I am thinking on one side "It has nothing to do with you. This is America and you are in Australia. Fuck those Seppos"

Then I go back to brass tacks and look at this logically and detached.

A child walks into the school with an Ar-15 rifle and a teacher is alerted to the commotion and pulls out a colt-45. she sees the threat and fires 4 shots and one wounds, and one kills the target.

The problem is ....................something. Right?

Yes, namely that the kid got hold of an AR-15 to begin with.

Also based on both guns who's to say that the teacher would even be able to fire off those shots before the AR-15 (45 rounds per min)?
Not to mention you're asking a teacher, not a police officer nor a military professional to handle it. Who's to say they'll pull the trigger or hit the target?

And yes I know Trump said something along the lines of giving the teachers some level of training but that's simply a profession that's not used to handling firearms.