|
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 January 16 2013 08:50 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 08:46 WolfintheSheep wrote:On January 16 2013 08:43 micronesia wrote:On January 16 2013 08:35 bardtown wrote:
Look at the fucking stats you're posting. 40,000 of those deaths are drink driving. That's illegal. We do everything in our power to prevent it. It's fucking despicable. There are things we can do to help with that stat. For starters, we should see which types of alcohol are consumed the most by people who go on to drive while drunk and get into fatal accidents. We should ban the drinks of choice of murderous drunk drivers. Actually, to follow the example of recent gun legislation we should ban the types of alcohol that people are most bothered by, regardless of what percentage of drunk driving deaths it accounts for. For example, I heard that the guy who managed to kill 5 pedestrians with his hummer was drinking vodka that night so we should ban it. Killing 1 or 2 pedestrians is bad enough, but 5? Anyone who wants to drink should be allowed to... we learned that the hard way during the US prohibition. However, all purchases of alcohol should require a background check. Any purchase of more than 3 ounces of alcohol needs to be logged into a database which goes on to public record. In fact, I encourage newspapers to publish everybody's alcohol purchases. Shot glasses should no longer be bigger than 1 ounce... no doubles or triples! If a mental health professional determines that you are likely to drive while drunk, you should be placed on the 'do not sell liquor to' list which will come up during the background check when you go to buy a drink. You must be a registered drinker to by alcohol. You must recertify this permit every 5 years, without receiving a reminder in the mail, or else it is a class d felony. How about we just take away the driver's licenses of bad offenders. Any other stupid attempts at arguments you'd like to make? User was warned for this post I'm fine with that. Let's also take guns away from the people who go in and shoot up schools. Well I mean, we can pry it away from their cold, dead fingers, literally. I'm not trying to make a big deal out of the alcohol link as others do, but it's not fair to say that we already take the necessary precautions to prevent alcohol deaths, but don't with guns.
There are also a multitude of regulations and measures placed on alcohol that do not exist on guns at the moment. Liabilities placed on vendors, extremely high taxation, laws and regulations preventing access to facilities and services for someone who is clearly intoxicated, etc.
Alcohol has several restrictions that would have people up in arms if they were placed on their...well, arms.
|
On January 16 2013 08:41 Nagano wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 08:39 bardtown wrote:On January 16 2013 08:34 Nagano wrote:On January 16 2013 08:31 Millitron wrote:On January 16 2013 08:26 Jormundr wrote:On January 16 2013 07:52 Millitron wrote:On January 16 2013 07:24 bardtown wrote:On January 16 2013 07:07 Millitron wrote:On January 16 2013 06:28 Jormundr wrote:On January 16 2013 06:02 Millitron wrote:[quote] The National Academy of Sciences is one source: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2004/12/17/naspanel/http://people.duke.edu/~gnsmith/articles/myths.htmRead number 5, they cite academic articles I can't get without paying some exorbinant fee. In fact, read all of them. Gang culture is not a separate issue because you, and others, conflate the high crime rates with guns when in fact its the gangs and War and Drugs that cause most of it. Legalize pot, or get better at fighting it, and gangs lose their biggest market, and thus all their funding. With no money left to fight over, gang violence will plummet, and so will gun violence. Restricting guns is only treating the symptoms, not the disease. Again, look at DC, Detroit, Chicago, and Buffalo. All urban hellscapes, all with strict gun laws. [quote] Why do people always bring up nukes? That's such a ridiculous strawman. Besides, if you look at history, you will see that up until the invention of the nuclear bomb, wars were getting more destructive, and more widespread. Fear of the nuclear bomb, i.e. mutually assured destruction, prevented WW3. Further, it is in fact true that the vast majority of nukes have never killed anyone. Only two have ever been used in anger. I agree both sides statistics are biased, which is why I have never relied on them in this thread. I only posted them because the person I replied to seemed to not realize this. Just because nukes haven't killed anyone recently doesn't mean that it isn't their purpose. Just because I use cyanide to paint my house doesn't mean that it isn't a poison. Eating my own shit doesn't suddenly make it food. Similarly, firing a gun at a target range doesn't mean that its primary purpose is for fun and games. Unless you've taken the Hippocratic oath or double pinky promised to never ever shoot somebody. Guns are tools for killing people. If you cannot understand that, you are not mature enough to be near one. How about javelins? They were invented to kill. Same with bows. But people still use them in sporting events. On January 16 2013 06:40 bardtown wrote:
One thing immediately picked up on (paraphrasing): New York had over 15x the homicide rate of London for over 200 years, before England's gun control laws could come into place. They then say later "America did not, after all, suddenly become a gun-owning nation. The private possession of weapons has been an important feature of American life throughout its history." What a completely null point, then. It is well known that England had limitations on gun ownership beyond what America has ever had from before America's foundation.
I don't really have the time or the qualifications to critique these papers, but I will say that their data seems to ignore a key point. They say it is difficult to assess whether violent crimes which happen with guns would have happened in some other form were guns unavailable. It should be clear that school shootings are facilitated by the availability of guns and would not happen to the same extent with other forms of weaponry. For me, school shootings alone are sufficient reason for a blanket ban on firearms. The availability of firearms has no benefit, and endangers the lives of children. That's the bottom line.
They also use only statistics from within the US. This is questionable, as guns are prevalent throughout the country (also the conclusion of the paper is basically that the data available is insufficient to draw a conclusion. This is not in favour of gun ownership).
The ten myths one is ridiculously selective in its use of facts and not at all credible. For example, whilst gun ownership is high in Switzerland, guns are acquired after national service. The training they receive there adds a whole new level to their restriction of firearms in comparison with the US. They are not freely traded, and they do not have guns engrained into their national psyche. Look at it this way. You own a gun, you're a stable individual with no intent of using it, like those in Switzerland. And yet America has numerous problems with social inequalities and mental health that Switzerland either does not have or would be screened for in the national service process. The availability of guns in the US is therefore a more significant risk.
You are ignoring the fact that the availability of guns enables this gang culture and the levels of violence related with it. Did you see that the same day as the Newtown shooting, a man in China knifed around 20 schoolchildren? How about Timothy McVeigh? he just used fertilizer and a truck. Guns are not to blame, the individuals behind them are. The availability of alcohol has no benefit, and endangers the lives of children. That's the bottom line. If you want to save children, get rid of alcohol first, it kills far more kids than guns do. As for the statistics, I don't really care. Your statistics leave out just as many socioeconomic factors. There are no good, unbiased stats. I'm cool with not using the ones on my side if you're cool with not using yours. As for Switzerland and the mental health stuff, I'm all for background checks for purchasing guns. Violent criminals or the mentally infirm should not have guns. But gun violence is only a symptom, not the disease. Until we treat the disease, i.e. shitty mental healthcare, we'll just bounce from one crisis to the next, putting bandaids on each one when we really need open-heart surgery. Guns do not enable gang culture, the illegality of pot, and the porosity of the border does. If pot was legal, the market would fall out from under gangs, and they'd simply go out of business, per se. If the border was less porous, you could further shut down the illegal drug market. Take away the guns, and the gangs will just switch weapons, or even just get illegal guns. Take away their markets though, and that's game over. Make one valid point, please. Note that those children in China did not die. Had it been a gun attack, they would have. Bows and javelins are dangerous, but not to the extent that guns are. Want to provide an example of fertiliser as a weapon for each example I can cite for gun massacres? Again you try to divert the issue at hand. STOP BRINGING UP ALCOHOL AS A WAY TO AVOID THE ISSUE WE'RE DISCUSSING. Yes, gun crime is a symptom of deeper issues, but the restriction of guns can restrict the damage done by the symptom. America ABSOLUTELY NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSING ITS HEALTHCARE, SOCIAL AND LAW ENFORCEMENT ISSUES. NOBODY IS DENYING THIS. Cannabis is illegal in many countries. Those street dealers with the guns are selling crack, not weed. Maybe capslock will help your reading comprehension, but you want to ignore statistics anyway, because they're incomplete. You want an argument based on nothing but prejudice. You do not know that those children in china would have died had it been a gun. Being shot is not an automatic death sentence. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/03/nyregion/03shot.html?_r=0You also do not know that they would always live if he had not had a gun. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre8 killed, 13 wounded. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre7 killed, 10 injured. I'm not bringing up alcohol to avoid the issue. It's an analogy, and a fitting one at that. Alcohol has no legitimate uses beyond recreation. And alcohol causes thousands of deaths. Alcohol causes ~75,000 deaths a year: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6089353/ns/health-addictions/t/alcohol-linked-us-deaths-year/Even excluding cirrhosis, alcohol related accidents accounted for more deaths than ALL gun deaths in the US that year. Guns only cause ~31,000: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htmIf you want to save lives, why try to restrict the guns when alcohol kills over twice as many people, and is practically unrestricted? I'm going to guess it's because you have no experience with guns. They don't mean anything to you, while you do like alcohol. You're OK with legislating against things that have no importance to you, but you do enjoy a drink now and then. Well alcohol doesn't really mean anything to me, but I do enjoy shooting empty cans or cardboard boxes every now and then. I also appreciate the whole defense against tyranny thing, but I've covered that enough. I want an argument based on logic and reason. A Priori rationale means more to me than A Posteriori. Stats can be tweaked, poorly represented, or even forged outright, logic cannot. I never said legalizing cannabis would completely solve the gang issue. Remember the other half of my plan was to tighten border security to cut the flow of illegal drugs into the country. Edit: fixed a broken URL A poor argument. More people use alcohol with more frequency than people use guns. Hence more raw deaths per year. But you're right, alcohol is dangerous. That's why alcohol control laws have been put in place, similar to what needs to happen with guns. Thanks for agreeing with me. P.S. No takesies backsies How does the frequency of alcohol use make it any less worthy of legislation? The victims are just as dead. If anything, it's frequency should make it more worthy of legislation, i.e. there's more chance for things to go wrong. And what alcohol controls are in place? The drinking age, and open container laws are pretty much it, and they aren't even enforced that well. It's hoplophobia, don't even try to reason with them. They're the type to go into utter panic if they see a guy in the street exercising his right to open carry. Don't talk about reason and use a term that is completely unreasonable. It is not a phobia to fear people carrying lethal weapons. Coming from a country where they ban blades longer than 3 inches, I understand your fear. It's probably best you stay on that side of the Atlantic if you're so scared. Leave the preservation of constitutional principles to the Americans 
Hahaha, so true.
User was warned for this post
|
|
|
United States5162 Posts
Just in case anyone hasn't noticed, low content and/or poor posting is now being heavily moderated. Up your argument game.
|
On January 16 2013 08:57 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 08:54 Nagano wrote:On January 16 2013 08:53 bardtown wrote:On January 16 2013 08:41 Nagano wrote:On January 16 2013 08:39 bardtown wrote:On January 16 2013 08:34 Nagano wrote:On January 16 2013 08:31 Millitron wrote:On January 16 2013 08:26 Jormundr wrote:On January 16 2013 07:52 Millitron wrote:On January 16 2013 07:24 bardtown wrote:
[quote]
Make one valid point, please. Note that those children in China did not die. Had it been a gun attack, they would have. Bows and javelins are dangerous, but not to the extent that guns are. Want to provide an example of fertiliser as a weapon for each example I can cite for gun massacres? Again you try to divert the issue at hand.
STOP BRINGING UP ALCOHOL AS A WAY TO AVOID THE ISSUE WE'RE DISCUSSING.
Yes, gun crime is a symptom of deeper issues, but the restriction of guns can restrict the damage done by the symptom. America ABSOLUTELY NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSING ITS HEALTHCARE, SOCIAL AND LAW ENFORCEMENT ISSUES. NOBODY IS DENYING THIS.
Cannabis is illegal in many countries. Those street dealers with the guns are selling crack, not weed.
Maybe capslock will help your reading comprehension, but you want to ignore statistics anyway, because they're incomplete. You want an argument based on nothing but prejudice. You do not know that those children in china would have died had it been a gun. Being shot is not an automatic death sentence. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/03/nyregion/03shot.html?_r=0You also do not know that they would always live if he had not had a gun. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre8 killed, 13 wounded. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre7 killed, 10 injured. I'm not bringing up alcohol to avoid the issue. It's an analogy, and a fitting one at that. Alcohol has no legitimate uses beyond recreation. And alcohol causes thousands of deaths. Alcohol causes ~75,000 deaths a year: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6089353/ns/health-addictions/t/alcohol-linked-us-deaths-year/Even excluding cirrhosis, alcohol related accidents accounted for more deaths than ALL gun deaths in the US that year. Guns only cause ~31,000: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htmIf you want to save lives, why try to restrict the guns when alcohol kills over twice as many people, and is practically unrestricted? I'm going to guess it's because you have no experience with guns. They don't mean anything to you, while you do like alcohol. You're OK with legislating against things that have no importance to you, but you do enjoy a drink now and then. Well alcohol doesn't really mean anything to me, but I do enjoy shooting empty cans or cardboard boxes every now and then. I also appreciate the whole defense against tyranny thing, but I've covered that enough. I want an argument based on logic and reason. A Priori rationale means more to me than A Posteriori. Stats can be tweaked, poorly represented, or even forged outright, logic cannot. I never said legalizing cannabis would completely solve the gang issue. Remember the other half of my plan was to tighten border security to cut the flow of illegal drugs into the country. Edit: fixed a broken URL A poor argument. More people use alcohol with more frequency than people use guns. Hence more raw deaths per year. But you're right, alcohol is dangerous. That's why alcohol control laws have been put in place, similar to what needs to happen with guns. Thanks for agreeing with me. P.S. No takesies backsies How does the frequency of alcohol use make it any less worthy of legislation? The victims are just as dead. If anything, it's frequency should make it more worthy of legislation, i.e. there's more chance for things to go wrong. And what alcohol controls are in place? The drinking age, and open container laws are pretty much it, and they aren't even enforced that well. It's hoplophobia, don't even try to reason with them. They're the type to go into utter panic if they see a guy in the street exercising his right to open carry. Don't talk about reason and use a term that is completely unreasonable. It is not a phobia to fear people carrying lethal weapons. Coming from a country where they ban blades longer than 3 inches, I understand your fear. It's probably best you stay on that side of the Atlantic if you're so scared. Leave the preservation of constitutional principles to the Americans You're going to warn me for country bashing, micronesia? Nagano if you want to talk about fear, try living in my town without your gun. So you're saying you'd prefer to have one? Just FYI, I don't care about your distinction between assault rifles and pistols. All guns should be restricted. Single shot rifles for hunters as a possible exception.
Because this thread is discussing mainly U.S. gun policy, I'll just say that what you want--for all guns to be banned--will never happen here. It's against this country's constitution (see: U.S. Constitution, Heller v DC, Macdonald v Chicago). So what ended up happening in the thread is that we're talking about assault WEAPONS. ARs are already highly restricted and mostly banned since 1986 (visit the site I linked above so I wouldnt have to talk about this). AR-15 is not assault rifle, it stands for Armalite Rifle, it's not the same. So my point that I brought up is that we as a country are wrongfully focusing on assault weapons when they are not even the main issue to preventing these types of killings. Hope I cleared that up.
|
Ever consider that the states with high gun crime rates are more likely to try and enforce some restrictions? That's pretty complicated reasoning, right?
On January 16 2013 09:07 Nagano wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 08:57 bardtown wrote:On January 16 2013 08:54 Nagano wrote:On January 16 2013 08:53 bardtown wrote:On January 16 2013 08:41 Nagano wrote:On January 16 2013 08:39 bardtown wrote:On January 16 2013 08:34 Nagano wrote:On January 16 2013 08:31 Millitron wrote:On January 16 2013 08:26 Jormundr wrote:On January 16 2013 07:52 Millitron wrote:[quote] You do not know that those children in china would have died had it been a gun. Being shot is not an automatic death sentence. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/03/nyregion/03shot.html?_r=0You also do not know that they would always live if he had not had a gun. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre8 killed, 13 wounded. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre7 killed, 10 injured. I'm not bringing up alcohol to avoid the issue. It's an analogy, and a fitting one at that. Alcohol has no legitimate uses beyond recreation. And alcohol causes thousands of deaths. Alcohol causes ~75,000 deaths a year: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6089353/ns/health-addictions/t/alcohol-linked-us-deaths-year/Even excluding cirrhosis, alcohol related accidents accounted for more deaths than ALL gun deaths in the US that year. Guns only cause ~31,000: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htmIf you want to save lives, why try to restrict the guns when alcohol kills over twice as many people, and is practically unrestricted? I'm going to guess it's because you have no experience with guns. They don't mean anything to you, while you do like alcohol. You're OK with legislating against things that have no importance to you, but you do enjoy a drink now and then. Well alcohol doesn't really mean anything to me, but I do enjoy shooting empty cans or cardboard boxes every now and then. I also appreciate the whole defense against tyranny thing, but I've covered that enough. I want an argument based on logic and reason. A Priori rationale means more to me than A Posteriori. Stats can be tweaked, poorly represented, or even forged outright, logic cannot. I never said legalizing cannabis would completely solve the gang issue. Remember the other half of my plan was to tighten border security to cut the flow of illegal drugs into the country. Edit: fixed a broken URL A poor argument. More people use alcohol with more frequency than people use guns. Hence more raw deaths per year. But you're right, alcohol is dangerous. That's why alcohol control laws have been put in place, similar to what needs to happen with guns. Thanks for agreeing with me. P.S. No takesies backsies How does the frequency of alcohol use make it any less worthy of legislation? The victims are just as dead. If anything, it's frequency should make it more worthy of legislation, i.e. there's more chance for things to go wrong. And what alcohol controls are in place? The drinking age, and open container laws are pretty much it, and they aren't even enforced that well. It's hoplophobia, don't even try to reason with them. They're the type to go into utter panic if they see a guy in the street exercising his right to open carry. Don't talk about reason and use a term that is completely unreasonable. It is not a phobia to fear people carrying lethal weapons. Coming from a country where they ban blades longer than 3 inches, I understand your fear. It's probably best you stay on that side of the Atlantic if you're so scared. Leave the preservation of constitutional principles to the Americans You're going to warn me for country bashing, micronesia? Nagano if you want to talk about fear, try living in my town without your gun. So you're saying you'd prefer to have one? Just FYI, I don't care about your distinction between assault rifles and pistols. All guns should be restricted. Single shot rifles for hunters as a possible exception. Because this thread is discussing mainly U.S. gun policy, I'll just say that what you want--for all guns to be banned--will never happen here. It's against this country's constitution (see: U.S. Constitution, Heller v DC, Macdonald v Chicago). So what ended up happening in the thread is that we're talking about assault WEAPONS. ARs are already highly restricted and mostly banned since 1986 (visit the site I linked above so I wouldnt have to talk about this). AR-15 is not assault rifle, it stands for Armalite Rifle, it's not the same. So my point that I brought up is that we as a country are wrongfully focusing on assault weapons when they are not even the main issue to preventing these types of killings. Hope I cleared that up.
No actually, we've also discussed the irrationality of American attachment to a document that is outdated, and I've stated my opinion that the core of the problem is the American psyche and their romanticisation of such things. I'm sorry if you think their focus on assault weapons is inappropriate, but I think your desire to own weapons designed for mass murder is irrational and not a valid defense of legality which endangers lives. Hope I cleared that up.
|
On January 16 2013 08:57 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 08:54 Nagano wrote:On January 16 2013 08:53 bardtown wrote:On January 16 2013 08:41 Nagano wrote:On January 16 2013 08:39 bardtown wrote:On January 16 2013 08:34 Nagano wrote:On January 16 2013 08:31 Millitron wrote:On January 16 2013 08:26 Jormundr wrote:On January 16 2013 07:52 Millitron wrote:On January 16 2013 07:24 bardtown wrote:
[quote]
Make one valid point, please. Note that those children in China did not die. Had it been a gun attack, they would have. Bows and javelins are dangerous, but not to the extent that guns are. Want to provide an example of fertiliser as a weapon for each example I can cite for gun massacres? Again you try to divert the issue at hand.
STOP BRINGING UP ALCOHOL AS A WAY TO AVOID THE ISSUE WE'RE DISCUSSING.
Yes, gun crime is a symptom of deeper issues, but the restriction of guns can restrict the damage done by the symptom. America ABSOLUTELY NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSING ITS HEALTHCARE, SOCIAL AND LAW ENFORCEMENT ISSUES. NOBODY IS DENYING THIS.
Cannabis is illegal in many countries. Those street dealers with the guns are selling crack, not weed.
Maybe capslock will help your reading comprehension, but you want to ignore statistics anyway, because they're incomplete. You want an argument based on nothing but prejudice. You do not know that those children in china would have died had it been a gun. Being shot is not an automatic death sentence. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/03/nyregion/03shot.html?_r=0You also do not know that they would always live if he had not had a gun. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre8 killed, 13 wounded. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre7 killed, 10 injured. I'm not bringing up alcohol to avoid the issue. It's an analogy, and a fitting one at that. Alcohol has no legitimate uses beyond recreation. And alcohol causes thousands of deaths. Alcohol causes ~75,000 deaths a year: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6089353/ns/health-addictions/t/alcohol-linked-us-deaths-year/Even excluding cirrhosis, alcohol related accidents accounted for more deaths than ALL gun deaths in the US that year. Guns only cause ~31,000: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htmIf you want to save lives, why try to restrict the guns when alcohol kills over twice as many people, and is practically unrestricted? I'm going to guess it's because you have no experience with guns. They don't mean anything to you, while you do like alcohol. You're OK with legislating against things that have no importance to you, but you do enjoy a drink now and then. Well alcohol doesn't really mean anything to me, but I do enjoy shooting empty cans or cardboard boxes every now and then. I also appreciate the whole defense against tyranny thing, but I've covered that enough. I want an argument based on logic and reason. A Priori rationale means more to me than A Posteriori. Stats can be tweaked, poorly represented, or even forged outright, logic cannot. I never said legalizing cannabis would completely solve the gang issue. Remember the other half of my plan was to tighten border security to cut the flow of illegal drugs into the country. Edit: fixed a broken URL A poor argument. More people use alcohol with more frequency than people use guns. Hence more raw deaths per year. But you're right, alcohol is dangerous. That's why alcohol control laws have been put in place, similar to what needs to happen with guns. Thanks for agreeing with me. P.S. No takesies backsies How does the frequency of alcohol use make it any less worthy of legislation? The victims are just as dead. If anything, it's frequency should make it more worthy of legislation, i.e. there's more chance for things to go wrong. And what alcohol controls are in place? The drinking age, and open container laws are pretty much it, and they aren't even enforced that well. It's hoplophobia, don't even try to reason with them. They're the type to go into utter panic if they see a guy in the street exercising his right to open carry. Don't talk about reason and use a term that is completely unreasonable. It is not a phobia to fear people carrying lethal weapons. Coming from a country where they ban blades longer than 3 inches, I understand your fear. It's probably best you stay on that side of the Atlantic if you're so scared. Leave the preservation of constitutional principles to the Americans You're going to warn me for country bashing, micronesia? Nagano if you want to talk about fear, try living in my town without your gun. So you're saying you'd prefer to have one? I'm saying I'd rather face every drunk, abusive thug in the country than have a gun at the expense of children's lives. Just FYI, I don't care about your distinction between assault rifles and pistols. All guns should be restricted. Single shot rifles for hunters as a possible exception.
What about all the drunks that cause traffic accidents that kill children? Don't you care about them? How about all the kids who grow up with drunken, abusive parents?
Honestly, the parents are to blame for most gun deaths involving children. Either they were not taught proper gun safety, or the kids were suicidal and the parents should've known, and both gotten the kid help and kept their guns locked up. Very few are murders.
But there's nothing parents can do to prevent a drunk from running their kid down.
Your chart includes suicides, which is misleading. As I've already stated, 19000 of the 32,000 gun deaths are suicides. You are trying to make it seem like gun control reduces gun-related homicides, when that map does not say that. It says nothing, since it includes suicides. Perhaps NY, CT, and the other just have a lower suicide rate, or the suicidal people there prefer other means. The map certainly does not say that gun control reduces violent crime.
|
On January 16 2013 09:12 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 09:05 BronzeKnee wrote:Let's play a fun game! Based on the chart below, guess which states have the strictest laws controlling guns? ![[image loading]](http://cdn.theatlanticcities.com/img/upload/2012/07/20/GunDeaths.jpg) Answer:+ Show Spoiler +If you guessed CA, MA, NJ, CT, RI and NY, you win!
Seems to me that gun control does in fact lead to less gun violence...
Source: http://www.theatlanticcities.com/neighborhoods/2012/07/geography-gun-violence/2655/Ever consider that the states with high gun crime rates are more likely to try and enforce some restrictions? That's pretty complicated reasoning, right?
That isn't complicated, but is good reasoning, and good evidence why other states need to adopt and enforce those kind of restrictions, so every state can be shaded in yellow. There might have been a time when NY had the highest firearm deaths, but since the gun laws were introduced, it is among the lowest.
Best evidence there could be that gun control does work!
You do you understand that you just strengthened my argument with your reasoning, right?
|
United States24701 Posts
On January 16 2013 09:02 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Liabilities placed on vendors Who do what? Sell alcohol to drunk people? We also don't sell guns to people who are not legally allowed to buy them (and where there are loopholes those are rightly being fixed).
extremely high taxation
I'm fine with this but it isn't saving lives.
I don't see much being done to prevent drunk driving deaths, for example, other than strict penalties for violators, but this only works to a point, and the same thing is in effect with guns.
|
On January 16 2013 09:12 bardtown wrote:Ever consider that the states with high gun crime rates are more likely to try and enforce some restrictions? That's pretty complicated reasoning, right? Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 09:07 Nagano wrote:On January 16 2013 08:57 bardtown wrote:On January 16 2013 08:54 Nagano wrote:On January 16 2013 08:53 bardtown wrote:On January 16 2013 08:41 Nagano wrote:On January 16 2013 08:39 bardtown wrote:On January 16 2013 08:34 Nagano wrote:On January 16 2013 08:31 Millitron wrote:On January 16 2013 08:26 Jormundr wrote:
[quote]
A poor argument. More people use alcohol with more frequency than people use guns. Hence more raw deaths per year. But you're right, alcohol is dangerous. That's why alcohol control laws have been put in place, similar to what needs to happen with guns. Thanks for agreeing with me.
P.S.
No takesies backsies How does the frequency of alcohol use make it any less worthy of legislation? The victims are just as dead. If anything, it's frequency should make it more worthy of legislation, i.e. there's more chance for things to go wrong. And what alcohol controls are in place? The drinking age, and open container laws are pretty much it, and they aren't even enforced that well. It's hoplophobia, don't even try to reason with them. They're the type to go into utter panic if they see a guy in the street exercising his right to open carry. Don't talk about reason and use a term that is completely unreasonable. It is not a phobia to fear people carrying lethal weapons. Coming from a country where they ban blades longer than 3 inches, I understand your fear. It's probably best you stay on that side of the Atlantic if you're so scared. Leave the preservation of constitutional principles to the Americans You're going to warn me for country bashing, micronesia? Nagano if you want to talk about fear, try living in my town without your gun. So you're saying you'd prefer to have one? Just FYI, I don't care about your distinction between assault rifles and pistols. All guns should be restricted. Single shot rifles for hunters as a possible exception. Because this thread is discussing mainly U.S. gun policy, I'll just say that what you want--for all guns to be banned--will never happen here. It's against this country's constitution (see: U.S. Constitution, Heller v DC, Macdonald v Chicago). So what ended up happening in the thread is that we're talking about assault WEAPONS. ARs are already highly restricted and mostly banned since 1986 (visit the site I linked above so I wouldnt have to talk about this). AR-15 is not assault rifle, it stands for Armalite Rifle, it's not the same. So my point that I brought up is that we as a country are wrongfully focusing on assault weapons when they are not even the main issue to preventing these types of killings. Hope I cleared that up. No actually, we've also discussed the irrationality of American attachment to a document that is outdated, and I've stated my opinion that the core of the problem is the American psyche and their romanticisation of such things. I'm sorry if you think their focus on assault weapons is inappropriate, but I think your desire to own weapons designed for mass murder is irrational and not a valid defense of legality which endangers lives. Hope I cleared that up.
Wow, I didn't think I came off offensive. I was really trying to clear things up for you (terminology is important in this discussion since you wrongfully keep saying assault rifles). No need to get hostile.
What other parts of the document do you personally think are outdated? 4th? 5th? Those parts would also have to be violated to institute a complete ban on possession of firearms. You seem to be generalizing pretty hard here, the "American psyche and their romanticisation of such things." I'm speaking purely policy here, you cannot get a complete ban, it's unconstitutional. I'm not talking about feelings. If anything, it's the irrational fear of these things that is driving this whole debate.
I find it very sad that you feel these weapons are only for mass murder. If you really cared about human lives, you would focus on medical errors that alone kill 200,000 people in the U.S.. All the people from alcohol, drugs, swimming pools, knives (blunt objects are used to kill people significantly more than "assault weapons"). Yet, out of all of these, the biggest obsession is on the scary, black "assault weapon".
|
On January 16 2013 09:15 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 08:57 bardtown wrote:On January 16 2013 08:54 Nagano wrote:On January 16 2013 08:53 bardtown wrote:On January 16 2013 08:41 Nagano wrote:On January 16 2013 08:39 bardtown wrote:On January 16 2013 08:34 Nagano wrote:On January 16 2013 08:31 Millitron wrote:On January 16 2013 08:26 Jormundr wrote:On January 16 2013 07:52 Millitron wrote:[quote] You do not know that those children in china would have died had it been a gun. Being shot is not an automatic death sentence. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/03/nyregion/03shot.html?_r=0You also do not know that they would always live if he had not had a gun. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre8 killed, 13 wounded. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre7 killed, 10 injured. I'm not bringing up alcohol to avoid the issue. It's an analogy, and a fitting one at that. Alcohol has no legitimate uses beyond recreation. And alcohol causes thousands of deaths. Alcohol causes ~75,000 deaths a year: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6089353/ns/health-addictions/t/alcohol-linked-us-deaths-year/Even excluding cirrhosis, alcohol related accidents accounted for more deaths than ALL gun deaths in the US that year. Guns only cause ~31,000: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htmIf you want to save lives, why try to restrict the guns when alcohol kills over twice as many people, and is practically unrestricted? I'm going to guess it's because you have no experience with guns. They don't mean anything to you, while you do like alcohol. You're OK with legislating against things that have no importance to you, but you do enjoy a drink now and then. Well alcohol doesn't really mean anything to me, but I do enjoy shooting empty cans or cardboard boxes every now and then. I also appreciate the whole defense against tyranny thing, but I've covered that enough. I want an argument based on logic and reason. A Priori rationale means more to me than A Posteriori. Stats can be tweaked, poorly represented, or even forged outright, logic cannot. I never said legalizing cannabis would completely solve the gang issue. Remember the other half of my plan was to tighten border security to cut the flow of illegal drugs into the country. Edit: fixed a broken URL A poor argument. More people use alcohol with more frequency than people use guns. Hence more raw deaths per year. But you're right, alcohol is dangerous. That's why alcohol control laws have been put in place, similar to what needs to happen with guns. Thanks for agreeing with me. P.S. No takesies backsies How does the frequency of alcohol use make it any less worthy of legislation? The victims are just as dead. If anything, it's frequency should make it more worthy of legislation, i.e. there's more chance for things to go wrong. And what alcohol controls are in place? The drinking age, and open container laws are pretty much it, and they aren't even enforced that well. It's hoplophobia, don't even try to reason with them. They're the type to go into utter panic if they see a guy in the street exercising his right to open carry. Don't talk about reason and use a term that is completely unreasonable. It is not a phobia to fear people carrying lethal weapons. Coming from a country where they ban blades longer than 3 inches, I understand your fear. It's probably best you stay on that side of the Atlantic if you're so scared. Leave the preservation of constitutional principles to the Americans You're going to warn me for country bashing, micronesia? Nagano if you want to talk about fear, try living in my town without your gun. So you're saying you'd prefer to have one? I'm saying I'd rather face every drunk, abusive thug in the country than have a gun at the expense of children's lives. Just FYI, I don't care about your distinction between assault rifles and pistols. All guns should be restricted. Single shot rifles for hunters as a possible exception. What about all the drunks that cause traffic accidents that kill children? Don't you care about them? How about all the kids who grow up with drunken, abusive parents? Honestly, the parents are to blame for most gun deaths involving children. Either they were not taught proper gun safety, or the kids were suicidal and the parents should've known, and both gotten the kid help and kept their guns locked up. Very few are murders. But there's nothing parents can do to prevent a drunk from running their kid down.
You know nothing about me. I care more about protecting those children than you know. It plays a far bigger role in my life than any gun discussion. The relevance to this thread? Absolutely fucking nil. STOP BRINGING IT UP.
Bad parenting is a problem everywhere, it doesn't change the fact that they turn to guns and guns which are readily available.
|
On January 16 2013 09:19 Nagano wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 09:12 bardtown wrote:Ever consider that the states with high gun crime rates are more likely to try and enforce some restrictions? That's pretty complicated reasoning, right? On January 16 2013 09:07 Nagano wrote:On January 16 2013 08:57 bardtown wrote:On January 16 2013 08:54 Nagano wrote:On January 16 2013 08:53 bardtown wrote:On January 16 2013 08:41 Nagano wrote:On January 16 2013 08:39 bardtown wrote:On January 16 2013 08:34 Nagano wrote:On January 16 2013 08:31 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
How does the frequency of alcohol use make it any less worthy of legislation? The victims are just as dead. If anything, it's frequency should make it more worthy of legislation, i.e. there's more chance for things to go wrong.
And what alcohol controls are in place? The drinking age, and open container laws are pretty much it, and they aren't even enforced that well. It's hoplophobia, don't even try to reason with them. They're the type to go into utter panic if they see a guy in the street exercising his right to open carry. Don't talk about reason and use a term that is completely unreasonable. It is not a phobia to fear people carrying lethal weapons. Coming from a country where they ban blades longer than 3 inches, I understand your fear. It's probably best you stay on that side of the Atlantic if you're so scared. Leave the preservation of constitutional principles to the Americans You're going to warn me for country bashing, micronesia? Nagano if you want to talk about fear, try living in my town without your gun. So you're saying you'd prefer to have one? Just FYI, I don't care about your distinction between assault rifles and pistols. All guns should be restricted. Single shot rifles for hunters as a possible exception. Because this thread is discussing mainly U.S. gun policy, I'll just say that what you want--for all guns to be banned--will never happen here. It's against this country's constitution (see: U.S. Constitution, Heller v DC, Macdonald v Chicago). So what ended up happening in the thread is that we're talking about assault WEAPONS. ARs are already highly restricted and mostly banned since 1986 (visit the site I linked above so I wouldnt have to talk about this). AR-15 is not assault rifle, it stands for Armalite Rifle, it's not the same. So my point that I brought up is that we as a country are wrongfully focusing on assault weapons when they are not even the main issue to preventing these types of killings. Hope I cleared that up. No actually, we've also discussed the irrationality of American attachment to a document that is outdated, and I've stated my opinion that the core of the problem is the American psyche and their romanticisation of such things. I'm sorry if you think their focus on assault weapons is inappropriate, but I think your desire to own weapons designed for mass murder is irrational and not a valid defense of legality which endangers lives. Hope I cleared that up. Wow, I didn't think I came off offensive. I was really trying to clear things up for you (terminology is important in this discussion since you wrongfully keep saying assault rifles). No need to get hostile. What other parts of the document do you personally think are outdated? 4th? 5th? Those parts would also have to be violated to institute a complete ban on possession of firearms. You seem to be generalizing pretty hard here, the "American psyche and their romanticisation of such things." I'm speaking purely policy here, you cannot get a complete ban, it's unconstitutional. I'm not talking about feelings. If anything, it's the irrational fear of these things that is driving this whole debate. I find it very sad that you feel these weapons are only for mass murder. If you really cared about human lives, you would focus on medical errors that alone kill 200,000 people in the U.S.. All the people from alcohol, drugs, swimming pools, knives (blunt objects are used to kill people significantly more than "assault weapons"). Yet, out of all of these, the biggest obsession is on the scary, black "assault weapon".
One more fuckwit. Guns mean next to nothing to me, they do not feature in my life at all. I am not obsessed with them in any way, shape or form. I spend much more time considering the damages done to children through alcohol and abuse.
This thread is for discussing guns. That is the only reason I am in here DISCUSSING GUNS and not ALCOHOL. What is your problem with this distinction?
User was warned for this post
|
On January 16 2013 09:20 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 09:15 Millitron wrote:On January 16 2013 08:57 bardtown wrote:On January 16 2013 08:54 Nagano wrote:On January 16 2013 08:53 bardtown wrote:On January 16 2013 08:41 Nagano wrote:On January 16 2013 08:39 bardtown wrote:On January 16 2013 08:34 Nagano wrote:On January 16 2013 08:31 Millitron wrote:On January 16 2013 08:26 Jormundr wrote:
[quote]
A poor argument. More people use alcohol with more frequency than people use guns. Hence more raw deaths per year. But you're right, alcohol is dangerous. That's why alcohol control laws have been put in place, similar to what needs to happen with guns. Thanks for agreeing with me.
P.S.
No takesies backsies How does the frequency of alcohol use make it any less worthy of legislation? The victims are just as dead. If anything, it's frequency should make it more worthy of legislation, i.e. there's more chance for things to go wrong. And what alcohol controls are in place? The drinking age, and open container laws are pretty much it, and they aren't even enforced that well. It's hoplophobia, don't even try to reason with them. They're the type to go into utter panic if they see a guy in the street exercising his right to open carry. Don't talk about reason and use a term that is completely unreasonable. It is not a phobia to fear people carrying lethal weapons. Coming from a country where they ban blades longer than 3 inches, I understand your fear. It's probably best you stay on that side of the Atlantic if you're so scared. Leave the preservation of constitutional principles to the Americans You're going to warn me for country bashing, micronesia? Nagano if you want to talk about fear, try living in my town without your gun. So you're saying you'd prefer to have one? I'm saying I'd rather face every drunk, abusive thug in the country than have a gun at the expense of children's lives. Just FYI, I don't care about your distinction between assault rifles and pistols. All guns should be restricted. Single shot rifles for hunters as a possible exception. What about all the drunks that cause traffic accidents that kill children? Don't you care about them? How about all the kids who grow up with drunken, abusive parents? Honestly, the parents are to blame for most gun deaths involving children. Either they were not taught proper gun safety, or the kids were suicidal and the parents should've known, and both gotten the kid help and kept their guns locked up. Very few are murders. But there's nothing parents can do to prevent a drunk from running their kid down. You know nothing about me. I care more about protecting those children than you know. It plays a far bigger role in my life than any gun discussion.
Compared to guns, swimming pools are 100x more deadly to children. http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2001/07/27/levittpoolsvsguns/ Obama plans to surround himself with children when he talks about issuing his executive orders tomorrow. The "think of the children" is a tired mantra. We need to look at the cold facts regarding this issue instead of resorting to our emotions.
Benjamin Franklin said it best: They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
|
General observation: over the course of the last 20 or so pages, guess which side was able to provide statistical evidences and citation with surprising regularity whereas all I saw from the other side were whines and emotional appeals?
You know what, screw it, don't guess, go count. Seriously.
|
On January 16 2013 09:20 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 09:15 Millitron wrote:On January 16 2013 08:57 bardtown wrote:On January 16 2013 08:54 Nagano wrote:On January 16 2013 08:53 bardtown wrote:On January 16 2013 08:41 Nagano wrote:On January 16 2013 08:39 bardtown wrote:On January 16 2013 08:34 Nagano wrote:On January 16 2013 08:31 Millitron wrote:On January 16 2013 08:26 Jormundr wrote:
[quote]
A poor argument. More people use alcohol with more frequency than people use guns. Hence more raw deaths per year. But you're right, alcohol is dangerous. That's why alcohol control laws have been put in place, similar to what needs to happen with guns. Thanks for agreeing with me.
P.S.
No takesies backsies How does the frequency of alcohol use make it any less worthy of legislation? The victims are just as dead. If anything, it's frequency should make it more worthy of legislation, i.e. there's more chance for things to go wrong. And what alcohol controls are in place? The drinking age, and open container laws are pretty much it, and they aren't even enforced that well. It's hoplophobia, don't even try to reason with them. They're the type to go into utter panic if they see a guy in the street exercising his right to open carry. Don't talk about reason and use a term that is completely unreasonable. It is not a phobia to fear people carrying lethal weapons. Coming from a country where they ban blades longer than 3 inches, I understand your fear. It's probably best you stay on that side of the Atlantic if you're so scared. Leave the preservation of constitutional principles to the Americans You're going to warn me for country bashing, micronesia? Nagano if you want to talk about fear, try living in my town without your gun. So you're saying you'd prefer to have one? I'm saying I'd rather face every drunk, abusive thug in the country than have a gun at the expense of children's lives. Just FYI, I don't care about your distinction between assault rifles and pistols. All guns should be restricted. Single shot rifles for hunters as a possible exception. What about all the drunks that cause traffic accidents that kill children? Don't you care about them? How about all the kids who grow up with drunken, abusive parents? Honestly, the parents are to blame for most gun deaths involving children. Either they were not taught proper gun safety, or the kids were suicidal and the parents should've known, and both gotten the kid help and kept their guns locked up. Very few are murders. But there's nothing parents can do to prevent a drunk from running their kid down. You know nothing about me. I care more about protecting those children than you know. It plays a far bigger role in my life than any gun discussion. The relevance to this thread? Absolutely fucking nil. STOP BRINGING IT UP. Bad parenting is a problem everywhere, it doesn't change the fact that they turn to guns and guns which are readily available.
But alcohol does relate, as Micronesia and I have been saying. People seem to do nothing about alcohol, despite the fact that it causes more deaths, and has even fewer legitimate uses. If you do not want to completely ban alcohol, then you are a hypocrite.
|
On January 16 2013 09:24 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 09:19 Nagano wrote:On January 16 2013 09:12 bardtown wrote:Ever consider that the states with high gun crime rates are more likely to try and enforce some restrictions? That's pretty complicated reasoning, right? On January 16 2013 09:07 Nagano wrote:On January 16 2013 08:57 bardtown wrote:On January 16 2013 08:54 Nagano wrote:On January 16 2013 08:53 bardtown wrote:On January 16 2013 08:41 Nagano wrote:On January 16 2013 08:39 bardtown wrote:On January 16 2013 08:34 Nagano wrote:
[quote]
It's hoplophobia, don't even try to reason with them. They're the type to go into utter panic if they see a guy in the street exercising his right to open carry. Don't talk about reason and use a term that is completely unreasonable. It is not a phobia to fear people carrying lethal weapons. Coming from a country where they ban blades longer than 3 inches, I understand your fear. It's probably best you stay on that side of the Atlantic if you're so scared. Leave the preservation of constitutional principles to the Americans You're going to warn me for country bashing, micronesia? Nagano if you want to talk about fear, try living in my town without your gun. So you're saying you'd prefer to have one? Just FYI, I don't care about your distinction between assault rifles and pistols. All guns should be restricted. Single shot rifles for hunters as a possible exception. Because this thread is discussing mainly U.S. gun policy, I'll just say that what you want--for all guns to be banned--will never happen here. It's against this country's constitution (see: U.S. Constitution, Heller v DC, Macdonald v Chicago). So what ended up happening in the thread is that we're talking about assault WEAPONS. ARs are already highly restricted and mostly banned since 1986 (visit the site I linked above so I wouldnt have to talk about this). AR-15 is not assault rifle, it stands for Armalite Rifle, it's not the same. So my point that I brought up is that we as a country are wrongfully focusing on assault weapons when they are not even the main issue to preventing these types of killings. Hope I cleared that up. No actually, we've also discussed the irrationality of American attachment to a document that is outdated, and I've stated my opinion that the core of the problem is the American psyche and their romanticisation of such things. I'm sorry if you think their focus on assault weapons is inappropriate, but I think your desire to own weapons designed for mass murder is irrational and not a valid defense of legality which endangers lives. Hope I cleared that up. Wow, I didn't think I came off offensive. I was really trying to clear things up for you (terminology is important in this discussion since you wrongfully keep saying assault rifles). No need to get hostile. What other parts of the document do you personally think are outdated? 4th? 5th? Those parts would also have to be violated to institute a complete ban on possession of firearms. You seem to be generalizing pretty hard here, the "American psyche and their romanticisation of such things." I'm speaking purely policy here, you cannot get a complete ban, it's unconstitutional. I'm not talking about feelings. If anything, it's the irrational fear of these things that is driving this whole debate. I find it very sad that you feel these weapons are only for mass murder. If you really cared about human lives, you would focus on medical errors that alone kill 200,000 people in the U.S.. All the people from alcohol, drugs, swimming pools, knives (blunt objects are used to kill people significantly more than "assault weapons"). Yet, out of all of these, the biggest obsession is on the scary, black "assault weapon". One more fuckwit. Guns mean next to nothing to me, they do not feature in my life at all. I am not obsessed with them in any way, shape or form. I spend much more time considering the damages done to children through alcohol and abuse. This thread is for discussing guns. That is the only reason I am in here DISCUSSING GUNS and not ALCOHOL. What is your problem with this distinction? User was warned for this post
Because there is a targeted obsession with guns that is disproportionate in its exposure in legislation and in the media to its deadliness compared to, say, swimming pools (with regards to children since you brought that point up).
|
On January 16 2013 09:25 Nagano wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 09:20 bardtown wrote:On January 16 2013 09:15 Millitron wrote:On January 16 2013 08:57 bardtown wrote:On January 16 2013 08:54 Nagano wrote:On January 16 2013 08:53 bardtown wrote:On January 16 2013 08:41 Nagano wrote:On January 16 2013 08:39 bardtown wrote:On January 16 2013 08:34 Nagano wrote:On January 16 2013 08:31 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
How does the frequency of alcohol use make it any less worthy of legislation? The victims are just as dead. If anything, it's frequency should make it more worthy of legislation, i.e. there's more chance for things to go wrong.
And what alcohol controls are in place? The drinking age, and open container laws are pretty much it, and they aren't even enforced that well. It's hoplophobia, don't even try to reason with them. They're the type to go into utter panic if they see a guy in the street exercising his right to open carry. Don't talk about reason and use a term that is completely unreasonable. It is not a phobia to fear people carrying lethal weapons. Coming from a country where they ban blades longer than 3 inches, I understand your fear. It's probably best you stay on that side of the Atlantic if you're so scared. Leave the preservation of constitutional principles to the Americans You're going to warn me for country bashing, micronesia? Nagano if you want to talk about fear, try living in my town without your gun. So you're saying you'd prefer to have one? I'm saying I'd rather face every drunk, abusive thug in the country than have a gun at the expense of children's lives. Just FYI, I don't care about your distinction between assault rifles and pistols. All guns should be restricted. Single shot rifles for hunters as a possible exception. What about all the drunks that cause traffic accidents that kill children? Don't you care about them? How about all the kids who grow up with drunken, abusive parents? Honestly, the parents are to blame for most gun deaths involving children. Either they were not taught proper gun safety, or the kids were suicidal and the parents should've known, and both gotten the kid help and kept their guns locked up. Very few are murders. But there's nothing parents can do to prevent a drunk from running their kid down. You know nothing about me. I care more about protecting those children than you know. It plays a far bigger role in my life than any gun discussion. Compared to guns, swimming pools are 100x more deadly to children. http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2001/07/27/levittpoolsvsguns/ Obama plans to surround himself with children when he talks about issuing his executive orders tomorrow. The "think of the children" is a tired mantra. We need to look at the cold facts regarding this issue instead of resorting to our emotions. Benjamin Franklin said it best: They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
I cannot handle the ignorance in this thread, and arguing with people who won't listen is senseless. If you think pushing someone out of the discussion by completely avoiding any sensible points is a victory, then congratulations.
I'm abandoning ship.
And please don't reply with two-faced condescension.
|
On January 16 2013 09:31 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 09:25 Nagano wrote:On January 16 2013 09:20 bardtown wrote:On January 16 2013 09:15 Millitron wrote:On January 16 2013 08:57 bardtown wrote:On January 16 2013 08:54 Nagano wrote:On January 16 2013 08:53 bardtown wrote:On January 16 2013 08:41 Nagano wrote:On January 16 2013 08:39 bardtown wrote:On January 16 2013 08:34 Nagano wrote:
[quote]
It's hoplophobia, don't even try to reason with them. They're the type to go into utter panic if they see a guy in the street exercising his right to open carry. Don't talk about reason and use a term that is completely unreasonable. It is not a phobia to fear people carrying lethal weapons. Coming from a country where they ban blades longer than 3 inches, I understand your fear. It's probably best you stay on that side of the Atlantic if you're so scared. Leave the preservation of constitutional principles to the Americans You're going to warn me for country bashing, micronesia? Nagano if you want to talk about fear, try living in my town without your gun. So you're saying you'd prefer to have one? I'm saying I'd rather face every drunk, abusive thug in the country than have a gun at the expense of children's lives. Just FYI, I don't care about your distinction between assault rifles and pistols. All guns should be restricted. Single shot rifles for hunters as a possible exception. What about all the drunks that cause traffic accidents that kill children? Don't you care about them? How about all the kids who grow up with drunken, abusive parents? Honestly, the parents are to blame for most gun deaths involving children. Either they were not taught proper gun safety, or the kids were suicidal and the parents should've known, and both gotten the kid help and kept their guns locked up. Very few are murders. But there's nothing parents can do to prevent a drunk from running their kid down. You know nothing about me. I care more about protecting those children than you know. It plays a far bigger role in my life than any gun discussion. Compared to guns, swimming pools are 100x more deadly to children. http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2001/07/27/levittpoolsvsguns/ Obama plans to surround himself with children when he talks about issuing his executive orders tomorrow. The "think of the children" is a tired mantra. We need to look at the cold facts regarding this issue instead of resorting to our emotions. Benjamin Franklin said it best: They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. I cannot handle the ignorance in this thread, and arguing with people who won't listen is senseless. If you think pushing someone out of the discussion by completely avoiding any sensible points is a victory, then congratulations. I'm abandoning ship.
Sorry you feel that way, I don't understand why you feel this comparison is a wrong one. You said the main reason for your position is because of the children. My point is that there are plenty of other things that are far more deadly (swimming pools being 100x more deadly) than firearms, yet firearms are, to say the least, DISPROPORTIONATELY more targeted by individuals such as yourself. I'm saying if the children really are the issue there should be many other products that should be regulated or talked about.
I'm also sorry you have to view this debate as something you have to win or have a "victory" over. I'd venture to say that a lot of people are rightfully apprehensive about firearms. It's only through exposure to it and thus having a better understand if upcoming laws and whether or not they'd be efficacious do you realize that gun prohibition is not the answer (not to mention unconstitutional).
And I'd also venture to say that we were listening to you very well. It's in my best interest to maintain this right so I want to listen to individuals' arguments such as yourself. But you don't seem to like the response, Oh well!
|
On January 16 2013 09:31 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 09:25 Nagano wrote:On January 16 2013 09:20 bardtown wrote:On January 16 2013 09:15 Millitron wrote:On January 16 2013 08:57 bardtown wrote:On January 16 2013 08:54 Nagano wrote:On January 16 2013 08:53 bardtown wrote:On January 16 2013 08:41 Nagano wrote:On January 16 2013 08:39 bardtown wrote:On January 16 2013 08:34 Nagano wrote:
[quote]
It's hoplophobia, don't even try to reason with them. They're the type to go into utter panic if they see a guy in the street exercising his right to open carry. Don't talk about reason and use a term that is completely unreasonable. It is not a phobia to fear people carrying lethal weapons. Coming from a country where they ban blades longer than 3 inches, I understand your fear. It's probably best you stay on that side of the Atlantic if you're so scared. Leave the preservation of constitutional principles to the Americans You're going to warn me for country bashing, micronesia? Nagano if you want to talk about fear, try living in my town without your gun. So you're saying you'd prefer to have one? I'm saying I'd rather face every drunk, abusive thug in the country than have a gun at the expense of children's lives. Just FYI, I don't care about your distinction between assault rifles and pistols. All guns should be restricted. Single shot rifles for hunters as a possible exception. What about all the drunks that cause traffic accidents that kill children? Don't you care about them? How about all the kids who grow up with drunken, abusive parents? Honestly, the parents are to blame for most gun deaths involving children. Either they were not taught proper gun safety, or the kids were suicidal and the parents should've known, and both gotten the kid help and kept their guns locked up. Very few are murders. But there's nothing parents can do to prevent a drunk from running their kid down. You know nothing about me. I care more about protecting those children than you know. It plays a far bigger role in my life than any gun discussion. Compared to guns, swimming pools are 100x more deadly to children. http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2001/07/27/levittpoolsvsguns/ Obama plans to surround himself with children when he talks about issuing his executive orders tomorrow. The "think of the children" is a tired mantra. We need to look at the cold facts regarding this issue instead of resorting to our emotions. Benjamin Franklin said it best: They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. I cannot handle the ignorance in this thread, and arguing with people who won't listen is senseless. If you think pushing someone out of the discussion by completely avoiding any sensible points is a victory, then congratulations. I'm abandoning ship.
"I cannot handle ignorance in this thread"= My bleeding heart is unable to comprehend cold hard facts.
There are some good sources and numbers going around. It would be cool if someone compiled all of these(both for and against the gun control) as most of the discussion now is about how peoples feels are hurt.
|
On January 16 2013 09:45 SweetNJoshSauce wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 09:31 bardtown wrote:On January 16 2013 09:25 Nagano wrote:On January 16 2013 09:20 bardtown wrote:On January 16 2013 09:15 Millitron wrote:On January 16 2013 08:57 bardtown wrote:On January 16 2013 08:54 Nagano wrote:On January 16 2013 08:53 bardtown wrote:On January 16 2013 08:41 Nagano wrote:On January 16 2013 08:39 bardtown wrote:
[quote]
Don't talk about reason and use a term that is completely unreasonable. It is not a phobia to fear people carrying lethal weapons. Coming from a country where they ban blades longer than 3 inches, I understand your fear. It's probably best you stay on that side of the Atlantic if you're so scared. Leave the preservation of constitutional principles to the Americans You're going to warn me for country bashing, micronesia? Nagano if you want to talk about fear, try living in my town without your gun. So you're saying you'd prefer to have one? I'm saying I'd rather face every drunk, abusive thug in the country than have a gun at the expense of children's lives. Just FYI, I don't care about your distinction between assault rifles and pistols. All guns should be restricted. Single shot rifles for hunters as a possible exception. What about all the drunks that cause traffic accidents that kill children? Don't you care about them? How about all the kids who grow up with drunken, abusive parents? Honestly, the parents are to blame for most gun deaths involving children. Either they were not taught proper gun safety, or the kids were suicidal and the parents should've known, and both gotten the kid help and kept their guns locked up. Very few are murders. But there's nothing parents can do to prevent a drunk from running their kid down. You know nothing about me. I care more about protecting those children than you know. It plays a far bigger role in my life than any gun discussion. Compared to guns, swimming pools are 100x more deadly to children. http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2001/07/27/levittpoolsvsguns/ Obama plans to surround himself with children when he talks about issuing his executive orders tomorrow. The "think of the children" is a tired mantra. We need to look at the cold facts regarding this issue instead of resorting to our emotions. Benjamin Franklin said it best: They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. I cannot handle the ignorance in this thread, and arguing with people who won't listen is senseless. If you think pushing someone out of the discussion by completely avoiding any sensible points is a victory, then congratulations. I'm abandoning ship. "I cannot handle ignorance in this thread"= My bleeding heart is unable to comprehend cold hard facts. There are some good sources and numbers going around. It would be cool if someone compiled all of these(both for and against the gun control) as most of the discussion now is about how peoples feels are hurt.
Absolutely tired as fuck right now, but I fully intend on making a comprehensive list of the citations and sources provided over the course of the last 50 or so pages with a short comment on their credibility for each side tomorrow afternoon. You know. Just so we can show for all the world to see exactly who is the one living in fantasy land. Could be interesting?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
