|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On December 15 2012 08:18 Reaps wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 08:16 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 08:15 Reaps wrote:On December 15 2012 08:13 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 08:11 Reaps wrote:On December 15 2012 08:09 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 08:07 Reaps wrote:On December 15 2012 08:05 Esk23 wrote:On December 15 2012 08:04 Reaps wrote:On December 15 2012 08:02 Nagano wrote:
[quote]
I wouldn't call it stubborn. I would prefer to look at it as I'm trying to just let you know the facts. If you came across a flat-earther, or someone who didn't believe in climate change, or evolution, I'm sure you would feel as strongly about getting the facts across as I do. I understand that, but its also a good idea to keep an open mind, espically because you're biased as you are american + own a gun. LOL. "Keep an open mind." "Because you're biased as you are American + own a gun." Hypocrite much? Oh its you again, and yet again you bring nothing to the disscussion. Try harder. Actually, he pointed out something completely relevant. The irony in a nutshell. If you read through my posts i have actualy said i understood americans wanting to have guns for self defence. What you and him are saying is just plain blind stupidity though. He says to keep an open mind while stereotyping the person he doesn't know over the internet. We observed it and now we're plain blind and stupid. Namecalling, this debate is getting rather dull. Namecalling? im not directing them to you as i dont actualy know you, im directing them to your posts, its a little diffrent. The debate got dull a long time ago. What about my posts is plain blind stupid? The part that tells you to google everything you can on the subject before talking? If information is plain blind and stupid to you, then there's nothing else we can discuss. Keep believing what you wanna believe while the rest of us work off reality. Thats what i am saying though, your perception of reality is wrong, im not insulting you im just saying that you are wrong, nothing wrong with that, and there has been multiple people saying that you are wrong too.
How is it wrong? Because you said so? Because you "believe" guns are bad? Because I've got news for you, gun control doesn't work. Information is key here, please use your time to study everything you can first.
You can spout that I'm wrong or you can read up.
|
On December 15 2012 08:17 flexgd wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 08:12 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 08:11 jinorazi wrote:On December 15 2012 08:05 flexgd wrote:On December 15 2012 07:59 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 07:51 flexgd wrote:On December 15 2012 07:44 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 07:43 Reaps wrote:On December 15 2012 07:43 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 07:42 Reaps wrote:
[quote]
What do i have to fear? lol.
And i do get it perfectly, like i said, it seems to work in other country's, why is that may i ask? Apples and oranges. There is a whole internet of facts that does not agree with you. You can accept that or you can keep fearing firearms. Choice is yours. Yet you still refuse to answer my question Oo I answered both. Different countries, apples and oranges. And a fear of firearms. Please learn to read. no u said gun controls dont work but what you actually say is "gun controls wouldnt work in the us". apples and oranges dude. you cant compare other nations gun controls to hypothetical us gun controls. what you are basically admitting is "i live in a country that is so oversaturated with guns that a gun ban would be logistically impossible and i dont trust the authorities enough so i feel like i need to own a gun to defend myself" and that is pretty sad isnt it? You're exactly right, you cannot compare other nation's gun control to the US. This is what I've been saying. Gun control would not work here. Now, I do not know where your next point came from. I don't trust authorities enough so I feel like I need a gun to defend myself? That's a little projection there, don't you think? This is not true at all, I just have a respect for the constitution and personal liberties. And facts. I suggest you have the same. well then tell me please why else you would want to own a gun other than "i own a gun because some dudes a few hundred years ago said it was ok". i mean "cause i can" is not a reason. what is going on in your mind when buying a gun i plan on getting a gun as a hobby, enthusiast. i dont see it any different than golf or car enthusiasm. home safety is the least of my concern. He's trying really hard to keep his argument afloat. Facts always have a way of becoming obstacles. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." doesnt say anything about carrying guns as a hobby. so do you think the u.s. needs "a well regulated militia to secure the free state" nowadays?
You forgot to address the second part of that constitutional amendment, bro.
|
On December 15 2012 08:16 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 08:10 Antyee wrote:On December 15 2012 08:06 BluePanther wrote:On December 15 2012 07:54 Synk wrote:
You bring a gun to a fight, people get shot. You bring a bat to a fight, someone gets knocked out. I think this is wrong. If you gave me a bat and a gun for a weapon in a fight, I'd be less likely to kill someone with the gun. One swing from the bat would likely kill the average person. No it wouldn't. If you could hit someone to death with 1 swing from a baseball bat, you would already be under mental treatment. Only those who are mentally unstable will try to deal a lethal blow to another living person. I honestly don't think I'd be able to fend off an attacker with a baseball bat without dealing a blow that would kill them. They have to be within an arms reach for me to hit them, at which point I can't risk it--I'd swing as hard as I could. To stop them, I'd probably have to hit them in the torso or head. I have no doubt I'd cause some very serious internal bleeding with one blow.
If you know how to swing a baseball bat and the attacker is a human being and has any kind of natural reflex, which is kinda mandatory in order to attack you in the first place, you would most likely crush his arm, which is more than enough to stop them; yet not deadly. If you hit him after that, then you should be taken to prison and checked mentally, since beating a harmless person to death with a baseball bat is not too ethical.
Especially is he has some kind of weapon of his own. You will unconsciously try and negate the threat first.
On December 15 2012 08:21 jinorazi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 08:15 Antyee wrote:And this is when the authority should decide if you can be a responsible gun owner, or not. With tests and stuff.
Because the safety of people is more important then your enthusiasm.
This is how it should be working. i agree, i'm all for very strict gun laws. there are many people that has guns that shouldnt own it, i'd same the same for people with cars though. i personally think slow drivers in the fast lane deserve jail time...joking but just to make a point.
They get the same penalty here as if they were going way faster then they should.
|
On December 15 2012 08:11 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 08:03 mcc wrote:On December 15 2012 07:38 BluePanther wrote:On December 15 2012 07:31 Eps wrote:On December 15 2012 07:24 BluePanther wrote:On December 15 2012 07:23 HardlyNever wrote:On December 15 2012 07:19 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 07:12 HardlyNever wrote:
Clearly the answer to gun violence is to arm the entire populace. Those kindergarteners should have been packing heat; they could have defended themselves. I think we should start giving guns to all citizens straight after birth.
</sarcasm>
Seriously, how many people have to die before we take gun control in this country in the right direction (more control) and stop letting an uneducated minority (looking at you NRA) hold the rest of the country hostage because their dick is small and they need to carry a gun to compensate. I'm sick of this bullshit. The evidence is overwhelming that more control = less deaths and the 2nd amendment was written in a time when the reality of state vs populace military power was very different.
The constitution can be changed for a reason. We need to exercise THAT right.
Nearing 300 million guns, almost 1 per citizen, in this country. And your solution is to forcefully ban them all. You also say the evidence is overwhelming that more control = less deaths. HA! If you really believe that, there's a news channel that's great for a person like you (who doesn't like facts), it's called Fox news. I'm liberal by all means but gun control laws are one of the few things the left has completely, COMPLETELY wrong information on. Facts are your friend, google is your friend. Use it! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rateNotice the countries with stronger gun country policies have less deaths. Show me your "facts" now. I imagine you're going to just attack mine without any evidence of your own, though. http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-listwhile there is a correlation there, it's rather weak. I don't see anything weak about it. These are all the countries mentioned in the thread that have more stricter forms of gun regulation. Sweden - 0.41 - Homicide Rate related to gun violence Gun ownership - 45.7/100 Canada - 0.51 - Homicide Rate related to gun violence Gun ownership - 30.8/100 Serbia - 0.46 - Homicide Rate related to gun violence Gun ownership - 37.8/100 United States - 2.97 - Homicide Rate related to gun violence Gun ownership - 88.8/100 Keep in mind we're comparing countries with gun regulation versus well, the US. There's nothing weak about the correlations. We're debating facts. Switzerland - 0.77 Gun Ownership - 45.7/100k Finland - 0.45 Gun Ownership - 45.3/100k Trinidad and Tobago - 27.31 Gun Ownership - 1.6/100k Ecuador - 12.73 Gun Ownership - 1.3/100k While I would agree that there is somewhat of a correlation, it is by no means a strong one. While I agree with you that the correlation is very weak and does not prove causation, his examples were better as they were at least trying to control for economic wealth and other factors that might influence the actual rates. Examples of what, exactly? He's trying to prove something that wasn't being questioned. The statement was whether strict controls on gun ownership lowered gun crime rates. My statement was simply "the correlation for such is low." Now he's trying to change it to only include "very similar, first-world, Westernized countries." And even if it were, he's trying to prove his hypothesis with data that can't prove it. With a sample size far too small to draw a definite conclusion.
My point is that limiting yourself to first-world countries when trying to prove such a thing is more than reasonable. Or in general countries with similar economic and social level of development. So mixing in Trinidad and Ecuador is not really counter-argument. And there is enough first-world countries for reasonable sample size.
|
On December 15 2012 08:22 Nagano wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 08:17 flexgd wrote:On December 15 2012 08:12 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 08:11 jinorazi wrote:On December 15 2012 08:05 flexgd wrote:On December 15 2012 07:59 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 07:51 flexgd wrote:On December 15 2012 07:44 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 07:43 Reaps wrote:On December 15 2012 07:43 Nagano wrote:
[quote]
Apples and oranges. There is a whole internet of facts that does not agree with you. You can accept that or you can keep fearing firearms. Choice is yours.
Yet you still refuse to answer my question Oo I answered both. Different countries, apples and oranges. And a fear of firearms. Please learn to read. no u said gun controls dont work but what you actually say is "gun controls wouldnt work in the us". apples and oranges dude. you cant compare other nations gun controls to hypothetical us gun controls. what you are basically admitting is "i live in a country that is so oversaturated with guns that a gun ban would be logistically impossible and i dont trust the authorities enough so i feel like i need to own a gun to defend myself" and that is pretty sad isnt it? You're exactly right, you cannot compare other nation's gun control to the US. This is what I've been saying. Gun control would not work here. Now, I do not know where your next point came from. I don't trust authorities enough so I feel like I need a gun to defend myself? That's a little projection there, don't you think? This is not true at all, I just have a respect for the constitution and personal liberties. And facts. I suggest you have the same. well then tell me please why else you would want to own a gun other than "i own a gun because some dudes a few hundred years ago said it was ok". i mean "cause i can" is not a reason. what is going on in your mind when buying a gun i plan on getting a gun as a hobby, enthusiast. i dont see it any different than golf or car enthusiasm. home safety is the least of my concern. He's trying really hard to keep his argument afloat. Facts always have a way of becoming obstacles. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." doesnt say anything about carrying guns as a hobby. so do you think the u.s. needs "a well regulated militia to secure the free state" nowadays? You forgot to address the second part of that constitutional amendment, bro.
Being which?
|
On December 15 2012 08:20 magicmUnky wrote:
People are delusional if they think that an armed society will rid itself of crime due to deterrence. If someone intrudes in to your home, will you take their life? So many instances of mistaken identity killings too (recall the father shooting son incident recently). Unfortunately the United States is a boiling pot of information and bias (some good, some bad) so it's really hard to form an opinion there without being influenced by the countless parties trying to form your opinion for you.
At the end of the day, guns are deadly and make it really easy to kill people. Gun control reduces gun-crime by making it much harder for people to obtain guns, body armor, whatever. It also means it's extremely hard to obtain very deadly weapons (automatics, body armor).
People also seem to think that gun control means to outlaw firearms, which is garbage. You can own guns in Australia too, it's just much harder and takes time.. you need to be certified, trained and regulated. The point is, criminals are regularly found with unlicensed firearms that are taken away. Gun advocates would say that's evidence that it doesn't work but in reality it's a disincentive for them to carry firearms and also makes it more difficult to obtain replacements... not to mention it's virtually impossible for an ordinary person to obtain ANYTHING automatic (pistol, SMG, assault, rifle).
As long as you want to live in fear of your fellow citizens arming themselves with deadly force, enjoy living in a country without gun control.
It makes sense when you first think of it. It should be common sense right? Take away guns, gun crime reduced. History and past policy shows this not to be the case, however. Especially in the United States.
|
On December 15 2012 08:23 flexgd wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 08:22 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 08:17 flexgd wrote:On December 15 2012 08:12 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 08:11 jinorazi wrote:On December 15 2012 08:05 flexgd wrote:On December 15 2012 07:59 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 07:51 flexgd wrote:On December 15 2012 07:44 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 07:43 Reaps wrote:
[quote]
Yet you still refuse to answer my question Oo I answered both. Different countries, apples and oranges. And a fear of firearms. Please learn to read. no u said gun controls dont work but what you actually say is "gun controls wouldnt work in the us". apples and oranges dude. you cant compare other nations gun controls to hypothetical us gun controls. what you are basically admitting is "i live in a country that is so oversaturated with guns that a gun ban would be logistically impossible and i dont trust the authorities enough so i feel like i need to own a gun to defend myself" and that is pretty sad isnt it? You're exactly right, you cannot compare other nation's gun control to the US. This is what I've been saying. Gun control would not work here. Now, I do not know where your next point came from. I don't trust authorities enough so I feel like I need a gun to defend myself? That's a little projection there, don't you think? This is not true at all, I just have a respect for the constitution and personal liberties. And facts. I suggest you have the same. well then tell me please why else you would want to own a gun other than "i own a gun because some dudes a few hundred years ago said it was ok". i mean "cause i can" is not a reason. what is going on in your mind when buying a gun i plan on getting a gun as a hobby, enthusiast. i dont see it any different than golf or car enthusiasm. home safety is the least of my concern. He's trying really hard to keep his argument afloat. Facts always have a way of becoming obstacles. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." doesnt say anything about carrying guns as a hobby. so do you think the u.s. needs "a well regulated militia to secure the free state" nowadays? You forgot to address the second part of that constitutional amendment, bro. Being which?
"... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
|
On December 15 2012 08:24 Nagano wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 08:23 flexgd wrote:On December 15 2012 08:22 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 08:17 flexgd wrote:On December 15 2012 08:12 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 08:11 jinorazi wrote:On December 15 2012 08:05 flexgd wrote:On December 15 2012 07:59 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 07:51 flexgd wrote:On December 15 2012 07:44 Nagano wrote:
[quote]
I answered both. Different countries, apples and oranges. And a fear of firearms. Please learn to read.
no u said gun controls dont work but what you actually say is "gun controls wouldnt work in the us". apples and oranges dude. you cant compare other nations gun controls to hypothetical us gun controls. what you are basically admitting is "i live in a country that is so oversaturated with guns that a gun ban would be logistically impossible and i dont trust the authorities enough so i feel like i need to own a gun to defend myself" and that is pretty sad isnt it? You're exactly right, you cannot compare other nation's gun control to the US. This is what I've been saying. Gun control would not work here. Now, I do not know where your next point came from. I don't trust authorities enough so I feel like I need a gun to defend myself? That's a little projection there, don't you think? This is not true at all, I just have a respect for the constitution and personal liberties. And facts. I suggest you have the same. well then tell me please why else you would want to own a gun other than "i own a gun because some dudes a few hundred years ago said it was ok". i mean "cause i can" is not a reason. what is going on in your mind when buying a gun i plan on getting a gun as a hobby, enthusiast. i dont see it any different than golf or car enthusiasm. home safety is the least of my concern. He's trying really hard to keep his argument afloat. Facts always have a way of becoming obstacles. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." doesnt say anything about carrying guns as a hobby. so do you think the u.s. needs "a well regulated militia to secure the free state" nowadays? You forgot to address the second part of that constitutional amendment, bro. Being which? "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
read again its right there
|
Canada11265 Posts
On December 15 2012 07:49 ArmOfDeath wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 07:37 Zandar wrote:On December 15 2012 07:28 ArmOfDeath wrote:On December 15 2012 07:11 Zandar wrote:
ArmOfDeath,
Clearly you are passionate about this subject and thanks for keeping replying.
But please could you tell me why the USA has more deaths by schoolshootings than all other countries in the world COMBINED.
I think it's the gun laws, many people do.
You don't think so. But how do you explain this then I wonder. This is very simple. Guns are banned on school grounds. Guns are also banned in government offices, and in certain places on military bases. If you know that there is a ban on guns, meaning that no one OTHER than a person who is going to break that law is going to have no gun to protect themselves, then your chances of dying while trying to perpetrate the crime are going to be 0. Do the majority of criminals want to die? Or do they want to do what they are going to and then get away? Alive? Where do you have the highest chance of being successful at this? Places where there are bans on bringing a gun. Most of the time, criminals linger and try to keep killing, and that means that the police will show up and then they're screwed. If you went in and just shot a couple people and disappeared, then they would have an extremely high chance of getting away alive. Let's go back to the Dark Knight movie shooting. The shooter in that case had 7 theaters that he could've chosen to go to and do his crime, all withing the same distance as the one he chose. Out of those 7 theaters, only one of them had a total ban on guns. Guess which theater that was? Now, you also have to factor in, that of any of the countries that you use in your statistics like Sweden or Denmark, or any of the other extremely small population countries that you cite, the reason that you don't see crime numbers like you do in the US is because you have (in most of these cases) less than 10% of the population that the US does. Higher population means that you will have more instances of specific violence, and a higher chance that you'll have a larger group of mentally disturbed people that are going to do those crimes. I bet the US also has the highest rate of vehicular manslaughter, drug selling, rape, and identity theft. But that is just what's to be expected with a country with as many freedoms as the US and as high of a population. Europe has an enormous amount of diversity too. Even within countries. I don't think the USA and Europe are that different in that matter. Also, the schoolshooting wiki lists ALL known shootings, in ALL countries. So also much bigger countries than the USA like China and India. Still the USA has more deaths by shooting than all countries combined. I bet the US also has the highest rate of vehicular manslaughter, drug selling, rape, and identity theft I bet not. I was hoping you would bring up China/India in this. Yes, they have a much larger population than the US does. They also have ~30% (China) and ~68% (India) of their total populations living in poverty (international poverty opposed to the countries individual poverty line. If we put the US in the international poverty line, then it has 0% of its population there). Which would be more important to you in this situation, trying to feed yourself/your family, or buying a gun that you can't afford? Also, because no one actually keeps statistics on this, I would bet my life that both China and India have a significantly higher homicide rate with knives than the US does. Again, this comes back to my original point. If a criminal wants to hurt other people, he will find a way, with, or without guns.
That may very well be. But it is a little difficult to mass with a knife. You can't exactly mow down a crowd with a knife.
I don't at all advocate total gun bans. I don't think it would work and I'm all for long guns and hunting even if I don't do it myself. I will also accept the self-defence/ home invasion argument even if I don't own a gun at all and don't feel the need to own one for defensive purposes.
However, I do think it is worth looking at further restricting the number of automatic weapons and the like for the average private citizen. "Criminals will find a way" I'll grant, but that doesn't necessitate having society awash with automatic weapons, assault weapons and the like.
"You can kill a person with a knife too" ignores the rapid destruction capable from military grade weapons. The comparison is not equivalent. Yeah, domestic violence leading to murder can start with a frying pan all the way up to a machine gun or a rocket launcher. We might not stop the domestic murder as we're not going to ban frying pans, but the potential for destruction in a machine gun or rocket launcher is considerably more than an iron-cast pan.
I don't the question is should citizens have access to firepower at all, but to what extent?
|
On December 15 2012 08:25 flexgd wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 08:24 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 08:23 flexgd wrote:On December 15 2012 08:22 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 08:17 flexgd wrote:On December 15 2012 08:12 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 08:11 jinorazi wrote:On December 15 2012 08:05 flexgd wrote:On December 15 2012 07:59 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 07:51 flexgd wrote:
[quote]
no u said gun controls dont work but what you actually say is "gun controls wouldnt work in the us". apples and oranges dude. you cant compare other nations gun controls to hypothetical us gun controls. what you are basically admitting is "i live in a country that is so oversaturated with guns that a gun ban would be logistically impossible and i dont trust the authorities enough so i feel like i need to own a gun to defend myself" and that is pretty sad isnt it? You're exactly right, you cannot compare other nation's gun control to the US. This is what I've been saying. Gun control would not work here. Now, I do not know where your next point came from. I don't trust authorities enough so I feel like I need a gun to defend myself? That's a little projection there, don't you think? This is not true at all, I just have a respect for the constitution and personal liberties. And facts. I suggest you have the same. well then tell me please why else you would want to own a gun other than "i own a gun because some dudes a few hundred years ago said it was ok". i mean "cause i can" is not a reason. what is going on in your mind when buying a gun i plan on getting a gun as a hobby, enthusiast. i dont see it any different than golf or car enthusiasm. home safety is the least of my concern. He's trying really hard to keep his argument afloat. Facts always have a way of becoming obstacles. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." doesnt say anything about carrying guns as a hobby. so do you think the u.s. needs "a well regulated militia to secure the free state" nowadays? You forgot to address the second part of that constitutional amendment, bro. Being which? "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." read again its right there
I said you did not ADDRESS it. You quoted it but only addressed/acknowledged the first part, phrasing your question with only regard to the part about militias.
|
On December 15 2012 08:22 Antyee wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 08:16 BluePanther wrote:On December 15 2012 08:10 Antyee wrote:On December 15 2012 08:06 BluePanther wrote:On December 15 2012 07:54 Synk wrote:
You bring a gun to a fight, people get shot. You bring a bat to a fight, someone gets knocked out. I think this is wrong. If you gave me a bat and a gun for a weapon in a fight, I'd be less likely to kill someone with the gun. One swing from the bat would likely kill the average person. No it wouldn't. If you could hit someone to death with 1 swing from a baseball bat, you would already be under mental treatment. Only those who are mentally unstable will try to deal a lethal blow to another living person. I honestly don't think I'd be able to fend off an attacker with a baseball bat without dealing a blow that would kill them. They have to be within an arms reach for me to hit them, at which point I can't risk it--I'd swing as hard as I could. To stop them, I'd probably have to hit them in the torso or head. I have no doubt I'd cause some very serious internal bleeding with one blow. If you know how to swing a baseball bat and the attacker is a human being and has any kind of natural reflex, which is kinda mandatory in order to attack you in the first place, you would most likely crush his arm, which is more than enough to stop them; yet not deadly. If you hit him after that, then you should be taken to prison and checked mentally, since beating a harmless person to death with a baseball bat is not too ethical. Especially is he has some kind of weapon of his own. You will unconsciously try and negate the threat first.
I'm assuming they have a knife or something like that, and that merely breaking an arm won't "stop" them. You said "knock them out" in your original post. It didn't say "hurt their ego and make them run off with their tail between their legs." I'm assuming I'd have to land one shot to the head or one really good shot to the torso to put them on the ground for good. And I swing a bat as hard as anyone. With a gun (I'm a marksman), I think I have more ability to be discriminate in what I hit. That doesn't mean I'll never kill them, but I think it's less of a chance than with the bat.
|
On December 15 2012 08:26 Nagano wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 08:25 flexgd wrote:On December 15 2012 08:24 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 08:23 flexgd wrote:On December 15 2012 08:22 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 08:17 flexgd wrote:On December 15 2012 08:12 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 08:11 jinorazi wrote:On December 15 2012 08:05 flexgd wrote:On December 15 2012 07:59 Nagano wrote:
[quote]
You're exactly right, you cannot compare other nation's gun control to the US. This is what I've been saying. Gun control would not work here. Now, I do not know where your next point came from. I don't trust authorities enough so I feel like I need a gun to defend myself? That's a little projection there, don't you think? This is not true at all, I just have a respect for the constitution and personal liberties. And facts. I suggest you have the same.
well then tell me please why else you would want to own a gun other than "i own a gun because some dudes a few hundred years ago said it was ok". i mean "cause i can" is not a reason. what is going on in your mind when buying a gun i plan on getting a gun as a hobby, enthusiast. i dont see it any different than golf or car enthusiasm. home safety is the least of my concern. He's trying really hard to keep his argument afloat. Facts always have a way of becoming obstacles. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." doesnt say anything about carrying guns as a hobby. so do you think the u.s. needs "a well regulated militia to secure the free state" nowadays? You forgot to address the second part of that constitutional amendment, bro. Being which? "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." read again its right there I said you did not ADDRESS it. You quoted it but only addressed/acknowledged the first part, phrasing your question with only regard to the part about militias.
obviously i did i was asking if the right to keep and bear arms to secure the free state via militias was still necessary
|
On December 15 2012 08:20 Nagano wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 08:17 mcc wrote:On December 15 2012 08:07 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 08:05 mcc wrote:On December 15 2012 07:43 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 07:42 Reaps wrote:On December 15 2012 07:41 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 07:38 Reaps wrote:On December 15 2012 07:36 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 07:33 Benjamin99 wrote:
I give up arguing with my fellow US TL members. It seems you been indoctrinated since child hood and is beyond help. (Good job to the US gun industry I must say). All I got to say you reap what you sow. And when the next gun mass school killing happens in the US and you looking for someone to blame. Look in the mirror guys US gun industry? If anything school has taught me respect for the constitution, liberty, personal freedoms, and to question everything. I grew up anti-gun but it was through facts and exposure to those facts that shape my opinions today. The reason I want everyone to know that gun control laws do not work is because it's true. I would not tell you to google anything and everything you can on it if it were not true. Unfortunately, that is the reason why I believe you to be the indoctrinated one. It is because you don't look at the facts, at all the studies done by the government and universities throughout the decades showing that gun control does not work. Use your head, it's your best weapon. Yeah... you keep saying gun control does not work, we get it. Seems to work in other countrys though. You don't seem to get it because I know your mind is not changed. It's not my job to change your mind. It's your duty to yourself to arm yourself with facts rather than clinging to an irrational fear. What do i have to fear? lol. And i do get it perfectly, like i said, it seems to work in other country's, why is that may i ask? Apples and oranges. There is a whole internet of facts that does not agree with you. You can accept that or you can keep fearing firearms. Choice is yours. Could you stop preaching as the internet is full of "facts" that disagree with every possible statement ever made. I've kept repeating myself that you find reputable sources. There are university studies on this subject, try google scholar. There are US government studies on gun control efficacy. I'm not pointing you to some weird area 52, Roswell conspiracy theorist websites. I know, but it is a bad argument to tell someone to search for papers and studies in such an ambiguous and conflicted topic. Just post ones you consider supporting your argument. Anyway, I read a lot of them in the past and the only thing they prove is that gun controls that were implemented, all of them limited in area and time, failed or did not have positive results in the timespan allotted by the studies. Considering how that does not really say much about harsher gun control measures or long term effects I find your absolute statements doubtful. Gun ownership is at an all time high. Violence at an all time low. Through all record in the US. I'd say that's a good enough correlation relevant to the point you brought up about time.
And you talk about thinking logically and facts ? Your argument is as bad as the one people bring up when they use other countries to show that guns are solely behind US violence.
|
Is this the thread where gun enthusiasts try to defend the America's entirely lax, inconsistent and poorly enforced gun laws by comparing guns (poorly) to cars, bats, and knives?
In some cities it's illegal to have a sell or own a concealable folding knife (switch blade), but you can get a concealed carry permit. Hilarious!
|
On December 15 2012 08:26 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 07:49 ArmOfDeath wrote:On December 15 2012 07:37 Zandar wrote:On December 15 2012 07:28 ArmOfDeath wrote:On December 15 2012 07:11 Zandar wrote:
ArmOfDeath,
Clearly you are passionate about this subject and thanks for keeping replying.
But please could you tell me why the USA has more deaths by schoolshootings than all other countries in the world COMBINED.
I think it's the gun laws, many people do.
You don't think so. But how do you explain this then I wonder. This is very simple. Guns are banned on school grounds. Guns are also banned in government offices, and in certain places on military bases. If you know that there is a ban on guns, meaning that no one OTHER than a person who is going to break that law is going to have no gun to protect themselves, then your chances of dying while trying to perpetrate the crime are going to be 0. Do the majority of criminals want to die? Or do they want to do what they are going to and then get away? Alive? Where do you have the highest chance of being successful at this? Places where there are bans on bringing a gun. Most of the time, criminals linger and try to keep killing, and that means that the police will show up and then they're screwed. If you went in and just shot a couple people and disappeared, then they would have an extremely high chance of getting away alive. Let's go back to the Dark Knight movie shooting. The shooter in that case had 7 theaters that he could've chosen to go to and do his crime, all withing the same distance as the one he chose. Out of those 7 theaters, only one of them had a total ban on guns. Guess which theater that was? Now, you also have to factor in, that of any of the countries that you use in your statistics like Sweden or Denmark, or any of the other extremely small population countries that you cite, the reason that you don't see crime numbers like you do in the US is because you have (in most of these cases) less than 10% of the population that the US does. Higher population means that you will have more instances of specific violence, and a higher chance that you'll have a larger group of mentally disturbed people that are going to do those crimes. I bet the US also has the highest rate of vehicular manslaughter, drug selling, rape, and identity theft. But that is just what's to be expected with a country with as many freedoms as the US and as high of a population. Europe has an enormous amount of diversity too. Even within countries. I don't think the USA and Europe are that different in that matter. Also, the schoolshooting wiki lists ALL known shootings, in ALL countries. So also much bigger countries than the USA like China and India. Still the USA has more deaths by shooting than all countries combined. I bet the US also has the highest rate of vehicular manslaughter, drug selling, rape, and identity theft I bet not. I was hoping you would bring up China/India in this. Yes, they have a much larger population than the US does. They also have ~30% (China) and ~68% (India) of their total populations living in poverty (international poverty opposed to the countries individual poverty line. If we put the US in the international poverty line, then it has 0% of its population there). Which would be more important to you in this situation, trying to feed yourself/your family, or buying a gun that you can't afford? Also, because no one actually keeps statistics on this, I would bet my life that both China and India have a significantly higher homicide rate with knives than the US does. Again, this comes back to my original point. If a criminal wants to hurt other people, he will find a way, with, or without guns. That may very well be. But it is a little difficult to mass with a knife. You can't exactly mow down a crowd with a knife. I don't at all advocate total gun bans. I don't think it would work and I'm all for long guns and hunting even if I don't do it myself. I will also accept the self-defence/ home invasion argument even if I don't own a gun at all and don't feel the need to own one for defensive purposes. However, I do think it is worth looking at further restricting the number of automatic weapons and the like for the average private citizen. "Criminals will find a way" I'll grant, but that doesn't necessitate having society awash with automatic weapons, assault weapons and the like. "You can kill a person with a knife too" ignores the rapid destruction capable from military grade weapons. The comparison is not equivalent. Yeah, domestic violence leading to murder can start with a frying pan all the way up to a machine gun or a rocket launcher. We might not stop the domestic murder as we're not going to ban frying pans, but the potential for destruction in a machine gun or rocket launcher is considerably more than an iron-cast pan. I don't the question is should citizens have access to firepower at all, but to what extent?
Can you define an assault weapon? People will soon realize they cannot. California tried and came up with terms like "evil looking features". You'll find you're going to be coming up with a lot of weird terms and conditionals for it to work. What's the difference between an AR-15 semi-automatic and a .223 sporting rifle? What makes one an assault rifle and the other a sporting one? They can be the same but also "different" at the same time? Machine guns are already banned in most places, but that's not what assault rifles are.
The point is that gun control laws are propagated mostly by people who do not understand or know enough about the topic. This leads to many problems with policy.
|
On December 15 2012 08:30 Defacer wrote:
Is this the thread where gun enthusiasts try to defend the America's entirely lax, inconsistent and poorly enforced gun laws by comparing guns (poorly) to cars, bats, and knives?
In some cities it's illegal to have a sell or own a concealable folding knife (switch blade), but you can get a concealed carry permit. Hilarious!
no, i think the sane people are advocating stricter gun laws but not being ignorant to implications of completely banning guns in USA.
|
On December 15 2012 08:23 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 08:11 BluePanther wrote:On December 15 2012 08:03 mcc wrote:On December 15 2012 07:38 BluePanther wrote:On December 15 2012 07:31 Eps wrote:On December 15 2012 07:24 BluePanther wrote:On December 15 2012 07:23 HardlyNever wrote:On December 15 2012 07:19 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 07:12 HardlyNever wrote:
Clearly the answer to gun violence is to arm the entire populace. Those kindergarteners should have been packing heat; they could have defended themselves. I think we should start giving guns to all citizens straight after birth.
</sarcasm>
Seriously, how many people have to die before we take gun control in this country in the right direction (more control) and stop letting an uneducated minority (looking at you NRA) hold the rest of the country hostage because their dick is small and they need to carry a gun to compensate. I'm sick of this bullshit. The evidence is overwhelming that more control = less deaths and the 2nd amendment was written in a time when the reality of state vs populace military power was very different.
The constitution can be changed for a reason. We need to exercise THAT right.
Nearing 300 million guns, almost 1 per citizen, in this country. And your solution is to forcefully ban them all. You also say the evidence is overwhelming that more control = less deaths. HA! If you really believe that, there's a news channel that's great for a person like you (who doesn't like facts), it's called Fox news. I'm liberal by all means but gun control laws are one of the few things the left has completely, COMPLETELY wrong information on. Facts are your friend, google is your friend. Use it! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rateNotice the countries with stronger gun country policies have less deaths. Show me your "facts" now. I imagine you're going to just attack mine without any evidence of your own, though. http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-listwhile there is a correlation there, it's rather weak. I don't see anything weak about it. These are all the countries mentioned in the thread that have more stricter forms of gun regulation. Sweden - 0.41 - Homicide Rate related to gun violence Gun ownership - 45.7/100 Canada - 0.51 - Homicide Rate related to gun violence Gun ownership - 30.8/100 Serbia - 0.46 - Homicide Rate related to gun violence Gun ownership - 37.8/100 United States - 2.97 - Homicide Rate related to gun violence Gun ownership - 88.8/100 Keep in mind we're comparing countries with gun regulation versus well, the US. There's nothing weak about the correlations. We're debating facts. Switzerland - 0.77 Gun Ownership - 45.7/100k Finland - 0.45 Gun Ownership - 45.3/100k Trinidad and Tobago - 27.31 Gun Ownership - 1.6/100k Ecuador - 12.73 Gun Ownership - 1.3/100k While I would agree that there is somewhat of a correlation, it is by no means a strong one. While I agree with you that the correlation is very weak and does not prove causation, his examples were better as they were at least trying to control for economic wealth and other factors that might influence the actual rates. Examples of what, exactly? He's trying to prove something that wasn't being questioned. The statement was whether strict controls on gun ownership lowered gun crime rates. My statement was simply "the correlation for such is low." Now he's trying to change it to only include "very similar, first-world, Westernized countries." And even if it were, he's trying to prove his hypothesis with data that can't prove it. With a sample size far too small to draw a definite conclusion. My point is that limiting yourself to first-world countries when trying to prove such a thing is more than reasonable. Or in general countries with similar economic and social level of development. So mixing in Trinidad and Ecuador is not really counter-argument. And there is enough first-world countries for reasonable sample size.
You put together a list of countries you find proper (with objective criteria) find the r^2, and prove me wrong then. He refuted a blanket statement, not a statement with particular qualifiers.
|
On December 15 2012 08:30 Defacer wrote:
Is this the thread where gun enthusiasts try to defend the America's entirely lax, inconsistent and poorly enforced gun laws by comparing guns (poorly) to cars, bats, and knives?
In some cities it's illegal to have a sell or own a concealable folding knife (switch blade), but you can get a concealed carry permit. Hilarious!
Yeah and the best part the guy who said that calls himself "ArmofDeath" :D
|
On December 15 2012 08:28 flexgd wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 08:26 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 08:25 flexgd wrote:On December 15 2012 08:24 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 08:23 flexgd wrote:On December 15 2012 08:22 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 08:17 flexgd wrote:On December 15 2012 08:12 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 08:11 jinorazi wrote:On December 15 2012 08:05 flexgd wrote:
[quote]
well then tell me please why else you would want to own a gun other than "i own a gun because some dudes a few hundred years ago said it was ok". i mean "cause i can" is not a reason. what is going on in your mind when buying a gun i plan on getting a gun as a hobby, enthusiast. i dont see it any different than golf or car enthusiasm. home safety is the least of my concern. He's trying really hard to keep his argument afloat. Facts always have a way of becoming obstacles. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." doesnt say anything about carrying guns as a hobby. so do you think the u.s. needs "a well regulated militia to secure the free state" nowadays? You forgot to address the second part of that constitutional amendment, bro. Being which? "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." read again its right there I said you did not ADDRESS it. You quoted it but only addressed/acknowledged the first part, phrasing your question with only regard to the part about militias. obviously i did i was asking if the right to keep and bear arms to secure the free state via militias was still necessary
You see what you did right there? You used the right to keep and bear arms clause as a requisite of the first part of the amendment. You're twisting the entire amendment without even knowing where the wording of that amendment even came from. Hint: Commentaries on the Laws of England
|
On December 15 2012 08:31 Nagano wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 08:26 Falling wrote:On December 15 2012 07:49 ArmOfDeath wrote:On December 15 2012 07:37 Zandar wrote:On December 15 2012 07:28 ArmOfDeath wrote:On December 15 2012 07:11 Zandar wrote:
ArmOfDeath,
Clearly you are passionate about this subject and thanks for keeping replying.
But please could you tell me why the USA has more deaths by schoolshootings than all other countries in the world COMBINED.
I think it's the gun laws, many people do.
You don't think so. But how do you explain this then I wonder. This is very simple. Guns are banned on school grounds. Guns are also banned in government offices, and in certain places on military bases. If you know that there is a ban on guns, meaning that no one OTHER than a person who is going to break that law is going to have no gun to protect themselves, then your chances of dying while trying to perpetrate the crime are going to be 0. Do the majority of criminals want to die? Or do they want to do what they are going to and then get away? Alive? Where do you have the highest chance of being successful at this? Places where there are bans on bringing a gun. Most of the time, criminals linger and try to keep killing, and that means that the police will show up and then they're screwed. If you went in and just shot a couple people and disappeared, then they would have an extremely high chance of getting away alive. Let's go back to the Dark Knight movie shooting. The shooter in that case had 7 theaters that he could've chosen to go to and do his crime, all withing the same distance as the one he chose. Out of those 7 theaters, only one of them had a total ban on guns. Guess which theater that was? Now, you also have to factor in, that of any of the countries that you use in your statistics like Sweden or Denmark, or any of the other extremely small population countries that you cite, the reason that you don't see crime numbers like you do in the US is because you have (in most of these cases) less than 10% of the population that the US does. Higher population means that you will have more instances of specific violence, and a higher chance that you'll have a larger group of mentally disturbed people that are going to do those crimes. I bet the US also has the highest rate of vehicular manslaughter, drug selling, rape, and identity theft. But that is just what's to be expected with a country with as many freedoms as the US and as high of a population. Europe has an enormous amount of diversity too. Even within countries. I don't think the USA and Europe are that different in that matter. Also, the schoolshooting wiki lists ALL known shootings, in ALL countries. So also much bigger countries than the USA like China and India. Still the USA has more deaths by shooting than all countries combined. I bet the US also has the highest rate of vehicular manslaughter, drug selling, rape, and identity theft I bet not. I was hoping you would bring up China/India in this. Yes, they have a much larger population than the US does. They also have ~30% (China) and ~68% (India) of their total populations living in poverty (international poverty opposed to the countries individual poverty line. If we put the US in the international poverty line, then it has 0% of its population there). Which would be more important to you in this situation, trying to feed yourself/your family, or buying a gun that you can't afford? Also, because no one actually keeps statistics on this, I would bet my life that both China and India have a significantly higher homicide rate with knives than the US does. Again, this comes back to my original point. If a criminal wants to hurt other people, he will find a way, with, or without guns. That may very well be. But it is a little difficult to mass with a knife. You can't exactly mow down a crowd with a knife. I don't at all advocate total gun bans. I don't think it would work and I'm all for long guns and hunting even if I don't do it myself. I will also accept the self-defence/ home invasion argument even if I don't own a gun at all and don't feel the need to own one for defensive purposes. However, I do think it is worth looking at further restricting the number of automatic weapons and the like for the average private citizen. "Criminals will find a way" I'll grant, but that doesn't necessitate having society awash with automatic weapons, assault weapons and the like. "You can kill a person with a knife too" ignores the rapid destruction capable from military grade weapons. The comparison is not equivalent. Yeah, domestic violence leading to murder can start with a frying pan all the way up to a machine gun or a rocket launcher. We might not stop the domestic murder as we're not going to ban frying pans, but the potential for destruction in a machine gun or rocket launcher is considerably more than an iron-cast pan. I don't the question is should citizens have access to firepower at all, but to what extent? Can you define an assault weapon? People will soon realize they cannot. California tried and came up with terms like "evil looking features". You'll find you're going to be coming up with a lot of weird terms and conditionals for it to work. What's the difference between an AR-15 semi-automatic and a .223 sporting rifle? What makes one an assault rifle and the other a sporting one? They can be the same but also "different" at the same time? Machine guns are already banned in most places, but that's not what assault rifles are. The point is that gun control laws are propagated mostly by people who do not understand or know enough about the topic. This leads to many problems with policy.
If they want to shoot something and call it a sport hand them a bow and a quiver, at least they wont be able to shoot 27 people with this ... so why is shooting a gun a sport, I could also make grenade throwing a sport or shooting bazookas it makes as much sense as shooting rifles as a sport.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
