|
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 18 2012 10:12 Nagano wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 10:10 warshop wrote:On December 18 2012 10:07 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 10:04 warshop wrote:On December 18 2012 09:46 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 09:44 warshop wrote:On December 18 2012 09:30 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 09:28 warshop wrote:On December 18 2012 08:54 Jisall wrote:Have some evidence as to why it might be safer to have everyone carrying then nobody at all. http://gunowners.org/fs0404.htm I hope you do realize that your evidence comes from "gunowners". You might as well cite Fox News if you're at it... I can see how that might look. Always judge a piece by its sources, however. But who's to say that this piece was objective in its evaluation...? Obviously, someone who advocates something will probably cite sources that are beneficial to its purpose.. That's why if you don't believe it, it's best to start googling everything you can on gun control efficacy and judge for yourself. I've never met someone who thought banning was a good idea after letting them go off on their own and figuring it out for themselves. If you need help with where to start, try here: http://www.reddit.com/r/guns/comments/q5xty/gun_debate_basics/To quote it: We live in a time where massive amounts of reliable information is available to us within seconds, if you know what to look for and how to look for it. To me there is no longer any excuse for the continued spread of misinformation, the very wellspring from which bad decisions and terrible suffering has flowed from for all of history. I thank you for that post, but I stand by the fact that his source is unreliable. It only states one side of the debate, which is to advocate guns. A good source would post both sides and be unbiased of such. Isn't that what your source states? To objectively quantity the value of one's source? You are right though, the number of information available to us these days are outstanding. I'll cite a few ones for instance : 1993 - International correlations between gun ownership and rates of homicide and suicide.CONCLUSION: Larger studies are needed to examine more closely possible confounding factors such as the national tendency toward violent solutions, and more information on the type and availability of guns will be helpful in future studies. Nevertheless, the correlations detected in this study suggest that the presence of a gun in the home increases the likelihood of homicide or suicide. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1485564/2006 - The association between changes in household firearm ownership and rates of suicide in the United States, 1981–2002Conclusion
Changes in household firearm ownership over time are associated with significant changes in rates of suicide for men, women, and children. These findings suggest that reducing availability to firearms in the home may save lives, especially among youth. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2563517/ This is why quoting numbers doesn't work. In firearm related deaths nationwide, nearly half are from suicides. What else you got.. You do understand that, the gunowners source is a huge quote of numbers? My point is, the only thing the anti-gun crowd uses is number of deaths, failing to mention a large chunk of it comes from suicides. As you look, you'll begin to see what I'm saying though. The anti-gun crowd is severely lacking in evidence from sources of ALL kinds. It's just not a close matchup. http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/
I'm sorry, but what you just posted has no references nor citations to any work.
Do you know why quoting numbers is dangerous?
|
On December 18 2012 09:33 frantic.cactus wrote:
I think that change is needed, and I believe that Obama will at least make moves in the direction of greater regulation and checks for gun purchases. The legislation will be what it will be.
However, I don't think that it will be enough. What needs to change is the 'gun culture' in America. When you compare the US to Switzerland and Israel who also have high gun ownership per capita the difference in the number of deaths caused is startling. I believe that this can be traced back to the influence of military life on society in these countries. People are taught to handle and respect their weapon and become professionals with it. In America it seems that the mentality is not one of a 'military society' (sorry for clunky phrasing) but a militant society that lacks systems for training and indoctrinating all gun owners but has relatively easy access to weapons.
Also, this has probably been brought up but the sillyness of the gun vs knife debate is illustrated by events in China just last week. A man walked into a school and attacked 22 children and adults with a knife (hard to get a gun legally in China). There were no fatalities. In the same week a 20 year old with three or four guns walked into a school and slaughtered 27 children and adults. Yes people will kill people, but we don't need to make it easier for the psychos to inflict their inner pain on society at large.
Don't get me started on the media coverage of this tragic event. It was like a pack of hyenas that had caught the scent of blood on the air. Despicable subversion of ethical standards to be the first to break the story and get those ratings up.
I don't believe this holds true for the mid-western / rural areas of the U.S. at all. Most everyone in these regions grow up around firearms with respect of their capabilities and knowledge of their use.
|
On December 18 2012 10:25 warshop wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 10:12 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 10:10 warshop wrote:On December 18 2012 10:07 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 10:04 warshop wrote:On December 18 2012 09:46 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 09:44 warshop wrote:On December 18 2012 09:30 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 09:28 warshop wrote:On December 18 2012 08:54 Jisall wrote:Have some evidence as to why it might be safer to have everyone carrying then nobody at all. http://gunowners.org/fs0404.htm I hope you do realize that your evidence comes from "gunowners". You might as well cite Fox News if you're at it... I can see how that might look. Always judge a piece by its sources, however. But who's to say that this piece was objective in its evaluation...? Obviously, someone who advocates something will probably cite sources that are beneficial to its purpose.. That's why if you don't believe it, it's best to start googling everything you can on gun control efficacy and judge for yourself. I've never met someone who thought banning was a good idea after letting them go off on their own and figuring it out for themselves. If you need help with where to start, try here: http://www.reddit.com/r/guns/comments/q5xty/gun_debate_basics/To quote it: We live in a time where massive amounts of reliable information is available to us within seconds, if you know what to look for and how to look for it. To me there is no longer any excuse for the continued spread of misinformation, the very wellspring from which bad decisions and terrible suffering has flowed from for all of history. I thank you for that post, but I stand by the fact that his source is unreliable. It only states one side of the debate, which is to advocate guns. A good source would post both sides and be unbiased of such. Isn't that what your source states? To objectively quantity the value of one's source? You are right though, the number of information available to us these days are outstanding. I'll cite a few ones for instance : 1993 - International correlations between gun ownership and rates of homicide and suicide.CONCLUSION: Larger studies are needed to examine more closely possible confounding factors such as the national tendency toward violent solutions, and more information on the type and availability of guns will be helpful in future studies. Nevertheless, the correlations detected in this study suggest that the presence of a gun in the home increases the likelihood of homicide or suicide. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1485564/2006 - The association between changes in household firearm ownership and rates of suicide in the United States, 1981–2002Conclusion
Changes in household firearm ownership over time are associated with significant changes in rates of suicide for men, women, and children. These findings suggest that reducing availability to firearms in the home may save lives, especially among youth. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2563517/ This is why quoting numbers doesn't work. In firearm related deaths nationwide, nearly half are from suicides. What else you got.. You do understand that, the gunowners source is a huge quote of numbers? My point is, the only thing the anti-gun crowd uses is number of deaths, failing to mention a large chunk of it comes from suicides. As you look, you'll begin to see what I'm saying though. The anti-gun crowd is severely lacking in evidence from sources of ALL kinds. It's just not a close matchup. http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/ I'm sorry, but what you just posted has no references nor citations to any work.
Did you read the article? It's right there... http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
|
There should be no gun control, there is no problem. From my experiences in USA, if you're a criminal, you have easy access to illegal weaponry. It's as simple as changing your status to "criminal", and then illegal firearm offers from underground dealers will be getting thrown at you from every direction. For example, I changed my status to criminal and walked into an alley, I was surprised to see gun dealers offering me military grade rifles, grenades, explosives and machine guns.
More guns equate to less crime, it's statistically proven if you look at no relevant statistics. To prove how ineffective gun control is, look at the states with strict gun laws. They still have a lot of violent crime, albeit statistically they're proven to have the least gun violence and the states with lax gun control have statistically the most gun violence - it doesn't matter because there is violence! An apt observant may make a logical argument that it's simple to move to a different state and obtain firearms legally there, and travel back to the state with strict gun laws, well to that argument, I rebut with: Ha! I am better than you!
Lets also look at other things that kill you, did you know tobacco kills millions while firearms only kill people in the tens of thousands? Point proven! We need a war against tobacco! Some guy the other day pointed out that you can't kill someone with tobacco, and oh my, what a dumb argument to make! I've personally seen a shop held up by a lit cigarette, and I've witnessed several brutal gang murders by cigarette too.
Now that my beast has been unleashed, I will now point out the killing argument to any form of gun control. Lets talk about the war on drugs. Look at just how effective the war on drugs are! The Government spends millions of dollars and I still see people buying drugs, it just shows that if something is illegal, it is still obtainable! I've heard someone say that while its illegal, it still makes it more difficult to obtain for the average person, and that not all people can get drugs no matter how badly they want it. But they're liars! Everyone can get drugs! Just change your status to "drug user" and drug dealers will flock to you!
Secondly, distributing guns and drugs are exactly the same! You don't need to get fancy with all that "price disparity", "ammunition as a complementary good", "gun control increases prices even further" and "drugs can be home made easily while guns can't" talk! Just trust me! All those people that talk about that fancy stuff are wrong, because I don't understand it!
If that argument didn't change your stance on gun control, this smoking gun will! Lets look at Mexico. Yes, only Mexico. Disregard other countries that have strict gun control where it's successful, we are only going to focus on Mexico because it supports our argument. Those Mexicans get all their U.S military grade firearms from buying it down in the store! See how easy it is to get weapons? There is no illegal smuggling or corrupt officials selling them these firearms, they get their military grade weapons from buying it in a store that the store produced themselves! And look at how much these Mexicans kill people! You would have heard about it!
Don't fall for someone saying that their country successfully implemented gun control, their country's situation is completely different to ours! If they bring out statistics that refute our argument, point out that we have more maniacs than them for some reason that no one can rationally explain, which makes it more sensible for firearms to be easily available. Otherwise look up statistics like the fact they have more crime than us, which um, I am not sure where this goes because less people are being killed, but take that!
As we all know, guns = freedom. Without weapons, we have no freedom. America is the best country in the world for its freedom! Someone told me that countries with strict gun control have freedom as well, but that isn't true freedom! I just looked at the very credible source wikipedia for the rationale for the Second Amendment:
- Deterring undemocratic government;
- Repelling invasion;
- Suppressing insurrection;
- Facilitating a natural right of self-defense;
- Participating in law enforcement;
- Enabling the people to organize a militia system.
Disregard that 3 of those reasons contradict each other and that another reason is covered by a public service, while another reason has statistically proven to increase crime and violence - the rationale for the second amendment is bulletproof and has been the legislation that has safeguarded our nation for many years.
So take that haters! Gun control is dumb!
|
On December 18 2012 10:25 warshop wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 10:12 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 10:10 warshop wrote:On December 18 2012 10:07 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 10:04 warshop wrote:On December 18 2012 09:46 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 09:44 warshop wrote:On December 18 2012 09:30 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 09:28 warshop wrote:On December 18 2012 08:54 Jisall wrote:Have some evidence as to why it might be safer to have everyone carrying then nobody at all. http://gunowners.org/fs0404.htm I hope you do realize that your evidence comes from "gunowners". You might as well cite Fox News if you're at it... I can see how that might look. Always judge a piece by its sources, however. But who's to say that this piece was objective in its evaluation...? Obviously, someone who advocates something will probably cite sources that are beneficial to its purpose.. That's why if you don't believe it, it's best to start googling everything you can on gun control efficacy and judge for yourself. I've never met someone who thought banning was a good idea after letting them go off on their own and figuring it out for themselves. If you need help with where to start, try here: http://www.reddit.com/r/guns/comments/q5xty/gun_debate_basics/To quote it: We live in a time where massive amounts of reliable information is available to us within seconds, if you know what to look for and how to look for it. To me there is no longer any excuse for the continued spread of misinformation, the very wellspring from which bad decisions and terrible suffering has flowed from for all of history. I thank you for that post, but I stand by the fact that his source is unreliable. It only states one side of the debate, which is to advocate guns. A good source would post both sides and be unbiased of such. Isn't that what your source states? To objectively quantity the value of one's source? You are right though, the number of information available to us these days are outstanding. I'll cite a few ones for instance : 1993 - International correlations between gun ownership and rates of homicide and suicide.CONCLUSION: Larger studies are needed to examine more closely possible confounding factors such as the national tendency toward violent solutions, and more information on the type and availability of guns will be helpful in future studies. Nevertheless, the correlations detected in this study suggest that the presence of a gun in the home increases the likelihood of homicide or suicide. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1485564/2006 - The association between changes in household firearm ownership and rates of suicide in the United States, 1981–2002Conclusion
Changes in household firearm ownership over time are associated with significant changes in rates of suicide for men, women, and children. These findings suggest that reducing availability to firearms in the home may save lives, especially among youth. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2563517/ This is why quoting numbers doesn't work. In firearm related deaths nationwide, nearly half are from suicides. What else you got.. You do understand that, the gunowners source is a huge quote of numbers? My point is, the only thing the anti-gun crowd uses is number of deaths, failing to mention a large chunk of it comes from suicides. As you look, you'll begin to see what I'm saying though. The anti-gun crowd is severely lacking in evidence from sources of ALL kinds. It's just not a close matchup. http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/ Do you know why quoting numbers is dangerous?
Causation. That's why you need to look at the quality of the resources out there available to you. The anti-gun crowd will not win this issue because there is overwhelming evidence of the failure of pro-ban policies.
|
On December 18 2012 10:20 Nagano wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 10:13 frantic.cactus wrote:
So you can't arm people who aren't licensed for the weapons. It will decrease the amount of weapons in the public sector creating a safer society with no discernible effect on responsible gun owners. This is because they aren't Goro and can't wield more than one gun, so whats the point in then owning multiple copies of the same style weapon. I'm for better mental health regulation for firearms, as well as some sort of proficiency standard. Are you advocating that you cannot buy more than 1 type of gun? Because you can't hold more than 2 guys you should not be able to buy more than that. Am I correct in that assessment of what you typed? Show nested quote +
I meant that competing views that seem to have equal amounts of factual backing is unproductive to the discussion at large as both sides feel that their position is unassailable and factually sound. What I think is needed is some Government commission of enquirey into the effects of widespread gun ownership in America society.
The evidence is HEAVILY in favor of guns rights--against bans. From all types of sources, university studies AND government studies.
I am arguing that it is illogical to allow a single mother of two to own 4 hand guns and a rifle. Reason dictates that she would need one handgun, and one rifle. The excess just increases the number of weapons on the market. You are only allow 2 handguns if you are Neo.
Perhaps this is a personal flaw of mine but I can't read an academic document without being a little suspicious of the motives behind their publication. In my opinion idependant inquiries are the best way to get a wholesome and unbiased view of the situation.
|
The federal governement puts people in danger in the first place by having "gun free zones" and by not letting teachers have concealed carry on campus. Even if you have strict gun control or total gun bans, the criminals will still get them, the only thing the federal government does is make people an easy target by not letting them defend themselves. There's a reason these shootings happen in gun free zones like schools or movie theaters, these psychos know there is no one there who can fight back against them, these murderers usually kill themselves too as police/swat teams move in on them.
This is just another attempt by a few in the federal government to use a tragedy to take away more of our rights. 9/11 could've been avoided if the pilots were allowed to have concealed carry. They don't allow pilots to carry guns and make them an easy target for terrorists or criminals. Then everyone loses more rights, we have TSA at every airport treating us like criminals, patting us down, body scanning us etc. They use the tragedy to pass the Patriot Act that lets the government SPY on its citizens that is unconsititutional. The mainstream media is just a giant propaganda machine that's used to get its anti-American, anti-consitution laws passed. The whole "a few bad guys do a few bad things" so "everyone, including law abiding citizens, have to lose more rights" way of thinking.
It's ironic that the federal government wants citizens more restricted and less armed and less able to defend themselves while all government officials and federal officials are all protected by armed body guards, secret service, etc etc.
|
@consummate Your utter ignorance to the US situation in gun control is incredibly obvious in your first paragraph. Try doing a bit of research before wasting your time typing a wall of sarcasm that makes no valid point.
|
On December 18 2012 10:30 frantic.cactus wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 10:20 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 10:13 frantic.cactus wrote:
So you can't arm people who aren't licensed for the weapons. It will decrease the amount of weapons in the public sector creating a safer society with no discernible effect on responsible gun owners. This is because they aren't Goro and can't wield more than one gun, so whats the point in then owning multiple copies of the same style weapon. I'm for better mental health regulation for firearms, as well as some sort of proficiency standard. Are you advocating that you cannot buy more than 1 type of gun? Because you can't hold more than 2 guys you should not be able to buy more than that. Am I correct in that assessment of what you typed?
I meant that competing views that seem to have equal amounts of factual backing is unproductive to the discussion at large as both sides feel that their position is unassailable and factually sound. What I think is needed is some Government commission of enquirey into the effects of widespread gun ownership in America society.
The evidence is HEAVILY in favor of guns rights--against bans. From all types of sources, university studies AND government studies. I am arguing that it is illogical to allow a single mother of two to own 4 hand guns and a rifle. Reason dictates that she would need one handgun, and one rifle. The excess just increases the number of weapons on the market. You are only allow 2 handguns if you are Neo. Perhaps this is a personal flaw of mine but I can't read an academic document without being a little suspicious of the motives behind their publication. In my opinion idependant inquiries are the best way to get a wholesome and unbiased view of the situation.
Harvard, one of the most reliably liberal bastions the left has, has a study coming out against gun control. Along with almost everyone else on the subject. And it's still not good enough
Why don't you just come out and say you'll never agree with reality unless its bias favors yours.
|
I'll give you a little help.
Gun control is counter-intuitive.
You might think, well hey if we just remove guns, that'll fix the problem.
Don't try to reinvent the wheel here. This happens every time a mass shooting comes up and the media goes bloodthirsty for it.
|
On December 18 2012 10:32 heliusx wrote:
@consummate Your utter ignorance to the US situation in gun control is incredibly obvious in your first paragraph. Try doing a bit of research before wasting your time typing a wall of sarcasm that makes no valid point.
255+ pages and only one side is continuously offering its facts and expertise on the situation while the other has already made up its mind and won't look at anything you give them showing otherwise.
|
+ Show Spoiler +
In all seriousness though, since the Connecticut shooting, there's been a lot of debate on the subject. I'm hearing all sort of nonsense like the teachers should have guns too to defend themselves and the kids...
What if the teacher goes mad and start shooting kids himself?
The best solution would be to prohibit guns, but Americans are not ready to give up on their "Right to defend themselves" (the right to carry a gun basically)
|
On December 18 2012 10:38 crbox wrote:+ Show Spoiler +In all seriousness though, since the Connecticut shooting, there's been a lot of debate on the subject. I'm hearing all sort of nonsense like the teachers should have guns too to defend themselves and the kids... What if the teacher goes mad and start shooting kids himself? The best solution would be to prohibit guns, but Americans are not ready to give up on their "Right to defend themselves" (the right to carry a gun basically)
I wish this thread had a better format for keeping all the information in one place 
Every so often a guy comes in loaded with "common sense" advocating bans without knowing past and current policy, efficacy of laws, or a respect for facts.
|
United States24701 Posts
On December 18 2012 10:38 crbox wrote:+ Show Spoiler +In all seriousness though, since the Connecticut shooting, there's been a lot of debate on the subject. I'm hearing all sort of nonsense like the teachers should have guns too to defend themselves and the kids... What if the teacher goes mad and start shooting kids himself? The best solution would be to prohibit guns, but Americans are not ready to give up on their "Right to defend themselves" (the right to carry a gun basically)
Ah good, finally, someone figured out the solution... let's prohibit guns. Problem solved!
You do realize the issue is more complex than that, right? This has been covered many times in this thread by people of almost all viewpoints.
|
On December 18 2012 10:40 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 10:38 crbox wrote:+ Show Spoiler +In all seriousness though, since the Connecticut shooting, there's been a lot of debate on the subject. I'm hearing all sort of nonsense like the teachers should have guns too to defend themselves and the kids... What if the teacher goes mad and start shooting kids himself? The best solution would be to prohibit guns, but Americans are not ready to give up on their "Right to defend themselves" (the right to carry a gun basically) Ah good, finally, someone figured out the solution... let's prohibit guns. Problem solved! You do realize the issue is more complex than that, right? This has been covered many times in this thread by people of almost all viewpoints.
Of almost all viewpoints, but not all with equal preparedness, evidence, and integrity 
|
Do any of the gun ownership advocates believe that civilians should be allowed to own nuclear weapons? I'm just curious if we are actually having a pricipled debate, or are we just at odds over how many people a civilian should be capable of killing?
|
On December 18 2012 10:30 frantic.cactus wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 10:20 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 10:13 frantic.cactus wrote:
So you can't arm people who aren't licensed for the weapons. It will decrease the amount of weapons in the public sector creating a safer society with no discernible effect on responsible gun owners. This is because they aren't Goro and can't wield more than one gun, so whats the point in then owning multiple copies of the same style weapon. I'm for better mental health regulation for firearms, as well as some sort of proficiency standard. Are you advocating that you cannot buy more than 1 type of gun? Because you can't hold more than 2 guys you should not be able to buy more than that. Am I correct in that assessment of what you typed?
I meant that competing views that seem to have equal amounts of factual backing is unproductive to the discussion at large as both sides feel that their position is unassailable and factually sound. What I think is needed is some Government commission of enquirey into the effects of widespread gun ownership in America society.
The evidence is HEAVILY in favor of guns rights--against bans. From all types of sources, university studies AND government studies. I am arguing that it is illogical to allow a single mother of two to own 4 hand guns and a rifle. Reason dictates that she would need one handgun, and one rifle. The excess just increases the number of weapons on the market. You are only allow 2 handguns if you are Neo. Perhaps this is a personal flaw of mine but I can't read an academic document without being a little suspicious of the motives behind their publication. In my opinion idependant inquiries are the best way to get a wholesome and unbiased view of the situation.
No reason does not dictate that you shouldn't only have one gun... I have 4 a .22 for target shooting/plinking, a 30-06 and a shotgun and an SKS. The 22 costs next to nothing to shoot like a penny per round but I can't hunt with it. Anything shot with a .22 would more than likely not die unless it was a squirrel or something. My 30-06 is for hunting deer Ypu are required by law to use a large bullet for buying and ethically shooting a deer with a large hollow point minimizes suffering as much as possible. It also costs like $2 per 30-06 round. My SKS/Shotgun are for fun. Semi auto and blowing away frozen turkeys and shit with a huge deer slug is hilarious.
Guns are fucking tools you need to use the right tool for the job... Having one gun pretty much limits your shooting to one thing.
|
On December 18 2012 10:44 YumYumGranola wrote:
Do any of the gun ownership advocates believe that civilians should be allowed to own nuclear weapons? I'm just curious if we are actually having a pricipled debate, or are we just at odds over how many people a civilian should be capable of killing?
Yeah, totally. I think we should all drive to work in government subsidized F-22's also.
|
On December 18 2012 10:34 Nagano wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 10:30 frantic.cactus wrote:On December 18 2012 10:20 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 10:13 frantic.cactus wrote:
So you can't arm people who aren't licensed for the weapons. It will decrease the amount of weapons in the public sector creating a safer society with no discernible effect on responsible gun owners. This is because they aren't Goro and can't wield more than one gun, so whats the point in then owning multiple copies of the same style weapon. I'm for better mental health regulation for firearms, as well as some sort of proficiency standard. Are you advocating that you cannot buy more than 1 type of gun? Because you can't hold more than 2 guys you should not be able to buy more than that. Am I correct in that assessment of what you typed?
I meant that competing views that seem to have equal amounts of factual backing is unproductive to the discussion at large as both sides feel that their position is unassailable and factually sound. What I think is needed is some Government commission of enquirey into the effects of widespread gun ownership in America society.
The evidence is HEAVILY in favor of guns rights--against bans. From all types of sources, university studies AND government studies. I am arguing that it is illogical to allow a single mother of two to own 4 hand guns and a rifle. Reason dictates that she would need one handgun, and one rifle. The excess just increases the number of weapons on the market. You are only allow 2 handguns if you are Neo. Perhaps this is a personal flaw of mine but I can't read an academic document without being a little suspicious of the motives behind their publication. In my opinion idependant inquiries are the best way to get a wholesome and unbiased view of the situation. Harvard, one of the most reliably liberal bastions the left has, has a study coming out against gun control. Along with almost everyone else on the subject. And it's still not good enough Why don't you just come out and say you'll never agree with reality unless its bias favors yours.
No need to get snarky. Why is it that gun control seems to be working fine in most other developed countries? What is it about America that makes it so exceptional?
Also, you haven't responded to my China example or my reasoning that it unnecessary to own more guns than you could possible use. So please debate my assertions but don't accuse me of bias, there is no need to get personal.
Finally, over the military/militant definition I use. Sure recreational use of firearms is reasonable and justified. The reason that I make the distinction that many Americans rationalize their procurement of guns based on their 2nd amendment rights. Their right to bare arms against goverment and establish MILITIAS (organized armed groups outside of government control). If the case for gun ownership is as cut and dry as you have argued then people would be pointing to the Harvard study, rather than some relic of the past in your constitution.
|
On December 18 2012 10:44 YumYumGranola wrote:
Do any of the gun ownership advocates believe that civilians should be allowed to own nuclear weapons?
Do you believe civilians should be able to own a Death Star that can destroy Alderaan?
I'm just curious if we are actually having a pricipled debate, or are we just at odds over how many people a civilian is capable of killing?
You don't comprehend why there was a discussion about killing power of a weapon. People want an "assault weapon" ban because of its killing power as a result of mass shootings, all the while failing to recognize some of the most heinous shootings were with a handgun or hunting rifle. It wasn't because the gun rights advocates believed you should own everything up to the Death Star, it was to illustrate that the problems we are trying to fix (mass shootings) are a result not of the weapon type but of the mental health of the person.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://sphotos-b.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/63997_10151185738566840_1770010132_n.jpg)
