• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Gunman opens fire in Florida nightclub, many dead

Status
Not open for further replies.

miami

Established Member
Joined
3 Oct 2015
Messages
3,305
It's 1755GMT on June 14th, or 1355 on the East Coast of America.

So far today more people have been killed by guns in the USA than were killed in Orlando.

Since the Orlando shootings finished, about 200 people have died from guns in the US, with about 60 of them being murders.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,850
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
It's 1755GMT on June 14th, or 1355 on the East Coast of America.

So far today more people have been killed by guns in the USA than were killed in Orlando.

Since the Orlando shootings finished, about 200 people have died from guns in the US, with about 60 of them being murders.

Perhaps we should return to the gun control part of the debate, then, having been distracted by a particular part of the issue...
 

miami

Established Member
Joined
3 Oct 2015
Messages
3,305
Perhaps we should return to the gun control part of the debate, then, having been distracted by a particular part of the issue...

On the other hand so far today more people have died on America's roads than died in the Orlando shooting. I don't hear any calls to ban cars.
 

radamfi

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2009
Messages
9,267
It's 1755GMT on June 14th, or 1355 on the East Coast of America.

So far today more people have been killed by guns in the USA than were killed in Orlando.

Since the Orlando shootings finished, about 200 people have died from guns in the US, with about 60 of them being murders.

Yes, it makes little sense to focus all our sympathy/empathy on a few people when that is a tiny proportion of suffering as a whole. We need to eliminate all suffering, not just in America, and not just from guns.
 

Harbornite

Established Member
Joined
7 May 2016
Messages
3,627
Yes, it makes little sense to focus all our sympathy/empathy on a few people when that is a tiny proportion of suffering as a whole. We need to eliminate all suffering, not just in America, and not just from guns.

Easier said than done, most rational people would want that to be the case but we need to take one small step at a time. One such step is tighter gun control, then the issue of young muslims turning to radical islam needs to be addressed.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
On the other hand so far today more people have died on America's roads than died in the Orlando shooting. I don't hear any calls to ban cars.

We're not saying that guns should be banned, just CONTROLLED more than they currently are. Why shouldn't the USA attempt to reduce the number of gun related deaths? Anyway, cars are designed as tools of transportation, they aren't designed with the purpose of killing people.
 

me123

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2007
Messages
8,510
On the other hand so far today more people have died on America's roads than died in the Orlando shooting. I don't hear any calls to ban cars.

What a ridiculous thing to say.

Cars serve a useful purpose in society. Cars are primarily a mode of transport. They serve a purpose that people find useful. As such, their use supports the economy, facilitating creation of jobs and transportation of goods and so on. Most people who are involved with cars enjoy uneventful journeys. When used as intended by the manufacturer, cars do not cause direct physical harm.

Guns do not serve a useful purpose in society. They are primarily weapons, which are designed to maim or kill when used as intended by the manufacturer. They do not serve any other purpose. Their use does not support the economy, as their effects limit their victims ability to be economically useful.

As cars are a useful thing in society, it is worthwhile trying to prevent injuries and deaths whilst continuing to allow their use. As guns are not a useful thing in society, it is not worthwhile continuing to allow their use - on the contrary, it is the most sensible approach to restrict their use with the express purpose of preventing injury and death.

When the intended effect of the object in question is the effect that you are trying to prevent, it would be foolish to allow the objects continued use. Surely you can see that, whilst guns and cars can kill people, only one of those objects is primarily used with the intent of doing so.
 

GB

Established Member
Joined
16 Nov 2008
Messages
6,564
Location
Somewhere
Their use does not support the economy, as their effects limit their victims ability to be economically useful.

Its a multi billion dollar industry that creates and sustains jobs and raises billions in taxation. Its hard to see how that doesn't support their economy.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,850
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
On the other hand so far today more people have died on America's roads than died in the Orlando shooting. I don't hear any calls to ban cars.

Cars, and motor vehicles generally, bring far more benefit to society than guns. Were they simply recreational, I can see that they would be much more strongly controlled.
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
32,950
Location
Fenny Stratford
On the other hand so far today more people have died on America's roads than died in the Orlando shooting. I don't hear any calls to ban cars.

ludicrous :roll:

Are you suggesting that there is any rational reason for a normal person to own an AR15/Sig-Sauer MCX. Honestly? You think there is a practical, every day reason to own this gun? An assault rifle? Really?
 

WelshBluebird

Established Member
Joined
14 Jan 2010
Messages
5,627
On the other hand so far today more people have died on America's roads than died in the Orlando shooting. I don't hear any calls to ban cars.

Cars have a use that isn't to injure / kill / intimidate.
Literally, the only non violent use of a gun is for sport. And there is no reason why that cannot be controlled as it is in other countries.

Its a multi billion dollar industry that creates and sustains jobs and raises billions in taxation. Its hard to see how that doesn't support their economy.

If you contrast the economic benefits of the gun industry to the economic costs, I wonder what you'll come out with!
Taking into account things like hospital bills for gun inflicted injuries, money lost due to injured or dead victims not being able to contribute to society, the costs associated with caring for the families of victims (including children who may well be orphans now) etc etc.
And that is before even thinking about the social costs.
 

radamfi

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2009
Messages
9,267
Certainly a lot more lives would be saved by banning private cars compared to banning guns. It is possible to live without them. Some people avoid car ownership for ethical and environmental reasons and mass car ownership is a relatively modern phenomenon. But countries and societies have decided that the carnage is worth it. Death and illness due to atmospheric pollution caused by motor vehicles may affect even more people than accidents and the technology to prevent such pollution is already available, but again world society has chosen death over spending money to replace the offending vehicles.
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
32,950
Location
Fenny Stratford
Certainly a lot more lives would be saved by banning private cars compared to banning guns. It is possible to live without them. Some people avoid car ownership for ethical and environmental reasons and mass car ownership is a relatively modern phenomenon. But countries and societies have decided that the carnage is worth it. Death and illness due to atmospheric pollution caused by motor vehicles may affect even more people than accidents and the technology to prevent such pollution is already available, but again world society has chosen death over spending money to replace the offending vehicles.

don't be silly. :roll: Another person suggesting that owning a car is worse than owning an AR15. That owning a car is more dangerous than owning a machine gun? Are you actually making that argument? Seriously?
 
Last edited:

WelshBluebird

Established Member
Joined
14 Jan 2010
Messages
5,627
Certainly a lot more lives would be saved by banning private cars compared to banning guns. It is possible to live without them. Some people avoid car ownership for ethical and environmental reasons and mass car ownership is a relatively modern phenomenon. But countries and societies have decided that the carnage is worth it. Death and illness due to atmospheric pollution caused by motor vehicles may affect even more people than accidents and the technology to prevent such pollution is already available, but again world society has chosen death over spending money to replace the offending vehicles.

Well done for missing the point.

The reason we accept the risks (numerous as they are, as you explain) of private cars is because, as has been said a few times already, at the end of the day they are useful and provide us with transport and the ability to do many things. The benefit to us, at the moment anyway (of course this will chance as Global Warming becomes an actual serious topic that isn't ignored by many politicians!), is greater than the cost.

All guns do is provide us with a way of committing acts of violence, or sport (and the sport side you can use a licence system for, funnily enough similar to cars!).
 
Last edited:

Harbornite

Established Member
Joined
7 May 2016
Messages
3,627
Certainly a lot more lives would be saved by banning private cars compared to banning guns. It is possible to live without them. Some people avoid car ownership for ethical and environmental reasons and mass car ownership is a relatively modern phenomenon. But countries and societies have decided that the carnage is worth it. Death and illness due to atmospheric pollution caused by motor vehicles may affect even more people than accidents and the technology to prevent such pollution is already available, but again world society has chosen death over spending money to replace the offending vehicles.

Oh for f*ck's sake, you really are a cheery one. Firstly you didn't want people to have children, now you are basically saying that cars should be banned. Thats completely not OTT is it? Anyway, most car manufacturers are taking measures to improve safety and reduce the emissions of their vehicles. :roll:
 
Last edited:

radamfi

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2009
Messages
9,267
Oh for f*ck's sake, you really are a cheery one. Firstly you didnt't want people to have children, now you are basically saying that cars should be banned. Thats completely not OTT is it? Anyway, most car manufacturers are taking measures to improve safety and reeuce the emissions of their vehicles. :roll:

I drive so I am therefore willing to kill people so that people can continue to drive private cars. I was pointing out that is the prevailing view worldwide.
 

Harbornite

Established Member
Joined
7 May 2016
Messages
3,627
I drive so I am therefore willing to kill people so that people can continue to drive private cars. I was pointing out that is the prevailing view worldwide.

Most people don't drive with the intention of murdering people. That's why cars have safety features. Anyway it's stupid to compare guns and cars, that's clutching at straws.
 

backontrack

Established Member
Joined
2 Feb 2014
Messages
6,399
Location
The UK
Most people don't drive with the intention of murdering people. That's why cars have safety features. Anyway it's stupid to compare guns and cars, that's clutching at straws.

Perhaps we could go full circle and compare them to Voyagers? On here they're described as being as bad as guns, so... :lol:

I haven't commented on the actual event yet, but it's been an absolutely terrible loss of life. Thoughts go out to the families of the 50. Stay strong.
 

radamfi

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2009
Messages
9,267
Well done for missing the point.

I'm not stupid. Clearly I know that argument and the replying posts are the obvious replies. But if the top priority is to reduce the number of deaths then sort out the biggest killers first. I'm not a fan of guns. I don't like violence of any kind, even verbal violence. A substantial proportion of the population suffer from depression so you could say that we should focus on that first, before sorting out deaths from cars. Imagine what the knock on effect of curing depression soon after birth would be?
 

me123

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2007
Messages
8,510
I drive so I am therefore willing to kill people so that people can continue to drive private cars. I was pointing out that is the prevailing view worldwide.

Perhaps if you are, in your own words, "willing to kill people" then you shouldn't be driving. :idea:
 

radamfi

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2009
Messages
9,267
Most people don't drive with the intention of murdering people. That's why cars have safety features. Anyway it's stupid to compare guns and cars, that's clutching at straws.

But every time you drive you do so with the possibility that death or injury will be a consequence of that action. Driving has become such a socially acceptable action that people don't think about that, but it is a fact nevertheless, regardless of the intention. If you are serious about avoiding that possibility, then don't drive. There is always an (albeit small) risk.

People even drive cars more polluting than a small economy car. You can't really say that has any kind of utility. That is for pure luxury/comfort/excitement/fun.
 

WelshBluebird

Established Member
Joined
14 Jan 2010
Messages
5,627
But if the top priority is to reduce the number of deaths then sort out the biggest killers first

But that is exactly the point you are missing. We aren't talking about "reducing the number of deaths" as some kind of arbitrary general thing. We are talking about specifically reducing the number of needless deaths caused by inventions whose purpose is purely violence.

We don't ban cars because they are actually useful to society. Although we are always making them safer and trying to reduce harmful emissions, so it isn't like we are doing nothing.

We don't just cure depression soon after birth because that isn't really possible! For a start we simply don't understand enough about what causes depression or what we can do to cure it. That kind of research takes time and money, but it is happening.

But putting greater control on the purchasing of guns, especially assault rifles and the like. That could be done now.

Sure curing depression, or cancer, or finding a way to replace cars with something that is 100% safe would stop more deaths than gun control in one country. But it is about the greatest impact for the least effort. Passing gun controls into law is a lot easier than curing depression!
 
Last edited:

radamfi

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2009
Messages
9,267
We don't just cure depression soon after birth because that isn't really possible! For a start we simply don't understand enough about what causes depression or what we can do to cure it. That kind of research takes time and money, but it is happening.

There is a pitiful amount of research into mental illness and depression, and that is why we don't know much about it.
 

radamfi

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2009
Messages
9,267
But that is exactly the point you are missing. We aren't talking about "reducing the number of deaths" as some kind of arbitrary general thing. We are talking about specifically reducing the number of needless deaths caused by inventions whose purpose is purely violence.

Gun control isn't that much of an issue. Most countries regulate guns heavily. The USA is just one country and most people don't live there. I would much rather focus on the issues/illnesses that cause the most suffering. Depression is probably up there at or near the top of the list.
 

90019

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2008
Messages
6,891
Location
Featherstone, West Yorkshire
That is for pure luxury/comfort/excitement/fun.

Oh no, how dare people want to enjoy themselves and not drive round in crappy econoboxes!

Presumably you live in the smallest dwelling you're able to and don't travel unless it's absolutely necessary? Because doing any leisure travelling that isn't walking or cycling will be making pollution that could otherwise have been avoided, which just isn't good enough.

I was going to suggest you hurry up and move to the Netherlands already, but you'll have to do an awful lot of polluting to get you and your stuff there, so perhaps you'd better not.
 

radamfi

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2009
Messages
9,267
Oh no, how dare people want to enjoy themselves and not drive round in crappy econoboxes!

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a saint. I do a lot of flying so I am a horrendously bad for the environment. I do drive a econobox, primarily because I want to save money.
 

Harbornite

Established Member
Joined
7 May 2016
Messages
3,627
Gun control isn't that much of an issue. Most countries regulate guns heavily. The USA is just one country and most people don't live there. I would much rather focus on the issues/illnesses that cause the most suffering. Depression is probably up there at or near the top of the list.

Again, this is stupid. the USA is one of the world's most populous countries, but why bother trying to reduce the number of gun-related fatalities? :roll:
 

radamfi

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2009
Messages
9,267
Again, this is stupid. the USA is one of the world's most populous countries, but why bother trying to reduce the number of gun-related fatalities? :roll:

I didn't say that the USA shouldn't sort out their gun laws. It goes without saying. What I'm saying is that there are far more important things to do.

Over 90% of the population does not live in the USA.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top