|
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 February 01 2013 12:33 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2013 12:27 FallDownMarigold wrote:On February 01 2013 12:11 kmillz wrote:
I'm only summarizing this because you asked, but I have been responding to things that stuck out to me in the ongoing discussion and I don't generally leave my entire position completely outlined in every post. Personally, I don't even own a gun, but I believe in the right for someone to own one for many reasons. First of all, the Constitution is not the reason I believe in everyones right to have one, I believe in your right to protect yourself. A knife does not stop a gun. Guns won't disappear in the U.S., that is the real fantasy if anyone were using one. You keep arguing that tyranny is a fantasy and unrealistic despite it happening in several times in history. You have a scary amount of confidence in the government to never succumb to corruption, even though you already disagree with the constitution. Ok, thanks. Sorry if that was a little bit of a hassle, but I think you'll agree it was more productive than our previous tangent-pursuing. So: A) You firmly believe in the right to protect yourself. Currently, the US has many guns in circulation. Therefore, cutting them off suddenly to the public would not address the fact that there are already guns out there. Response: A gradual implementation of gun control would be a good idea. Challenging, but surely better than doing nothing at all. B) You believe that without guns, a US tyranny is very plausible. Response: This is not a good debate point for us to pursue. This is just a matter of differing opinions. You think it's plausible while I don't. When you appeal to past instances of tyranny, it does not serve as evidence for current or future possibilities. That tyranny was likely X years ago does not mean it's still likely, or less likely. What I am saying here is that neither one of us can really prove or disprove anything here -- it's just a matter of opinion. Just stop, this is deteriorating so quickly, stick to the issue. What I'm trying to do is to cut the bullshit, kill of the meaningless tangents, and move on to what matters: responding to coherent viewpoints in favor of no gun control. First, I need to see some coherent arguments to respond to. Thanks again for yours. Jingle can provide his when he's ready, or not. Do you think women should be allowed to shoot a rapist if that is her only way of stopping him? Do you think you should be allowed to shoot someone dead if they are trying to murder your family? Do you think having no guns will stop those things from happening?
A) I believe that a woman with a pistol should go ahead and use it if she's being raped/killed/etc.
B) I believe that a person with a pistol should go ahead and shoot someone dead if that person is trying to rape/kill/etc a family.
C) I believe that gradual implementation of gun control will eventually lead to lower gun violence statistics in the US, even if the process is not something that can be implemented and succeed in one day, month, year, or even decade.
|
On February 01 2013 12:37 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2013 12:33 kmillz wrote:On February 01 2013 12:27 FallDownMarigold wrote:On February 01 2013 12:11 kmillz wrote:
I'm only summarizing this because you asked, but I have been responding to things that stuck out to me in the ongoing discussion and I don't generally leave my entire position completely outlined in every post. Personally, I don't even own a gun, but I believe in the right for someone to own one for many reasons. First of all, the Constitution is not the reason I believe in everyones right to have one, I believe in your right to protect yourself. A knife does not stop a gun. Guns won't disappear in the U.S., that is the real fantasy if anyone were using one. You keep arguing that tyranny is a fantasy and unrealistic despite it happening in several times in history. You have a scary amount of confidence in the government to never succumb to corruption, even though you already disagree with the constitution. Ok, thanks. Sorry if that was a little bit of a hassle, but I think you'll agree it was more productive than our previous tangent-pursuing. So: A) You firmly believe in the right to protect yourself. Currently, the US has many guns in circulation. Therefore, cutting them off suddenly to the public would not address the fact that there are already guns out there. Response: A gradual implementation of gun control would be a good idea. Challenging, but surely better than doing nothing at all. B) You believe that without guns, a US tyranny is very plausible. Response: This is not a good debate point for us to pursue. This is just a matter of differing opinions. You think it's plausible while I don't. When you appeal to past instances of tyranny, it does not serve as evidence for current or future possibilities. That tyranny was likely X years ago does not mean it's still likely, or less likely. What I am saying here is that neither one of us can really prove or disprove anything here -- it's just a matter of opinion. Just stop, this is deteriorating so quickly, stick to the issue. What I'm trying to do is to cut the bullshit, kill of the meaningless tangents, and move on to what matters: responding to coherent viewpoints in favor of no gun control. First, I need to see some coherent arguments to respond to. Thanks again for yours. Jingle can provide his when he's ready, or not. Do you think women should be allowed to shoot a rapist if that is her only way of stopping him? Do you think you should be allowed to shoot someone dead if they are trying to murder your family? Do you think having no guns will stop those things from happening? A) I believe that a woman with a pistol should go ahead and use it if she's being raped/killed/etc. B) I believe that a person with a pistol should go ahead and shoot someone dead if that person is trying to rape/kill/etc a family. C) I believe that gradual implementation of gun control will eventually lead to lower gun violence statistics in the US, even if the process is not something that can be implemented and succeed in one day, month, year, or even decade.
Do you have any supporting statistics, instances where it was tried and worked, etc.? Taking away weapons specifically, that is.
|
On February 01 2013 12:39 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2013 12:37 FallDownMarigold wrote:On February 01 2013 12:33 kmillz wrote:On February 01 2013 12:27 FallDownMarigold wrote:On February 01 2013 12:11 kmillz wrote:
I'm only summarizing this because you asked, but I have been responding to things that stuck out to me in the ongoing discussion and I don't generally leave my entire position completely outlined in every post. Personally, I don't even own a gun, but I believe in the right for someone to own one for many reasons. First of all, the Constitution is not the reason I believe in everyones right to have one, I believe in your right to protect yourself. A knife does not stop a gun. Guns won't disappear in the U.S., that is the real fantasy if anyone were using one. You keep arguing that tyranny is a fantasy and unrealistic despite it happening in several times in history. You have a scary amount of confidence in the government to never succumb to corruption, even though you already disagree with the constitution. Ok, thanks. Sorry if that was a little bit of a hassle, but I think you'll agree it was more productive than our previous tangent-pursuing. So: A) You firmly believe in the right to protect yourself. Currently, the US has many guns in circulation. Therefore, cutting them off suddenly to the public would not address the fact that there are already guns out there. Response: A gradual implementation of gun control would be a good idea. Challenging, but surely better than doing nothing at all. B) You believe that without guns, a US tyranny is very plausible. Response: This is not a good debate point for us to pursue. This is just a matter of differing opinions. You think it's plausible while I don't. When you appeal to past instances of tyranny, it does not serve as evidence for current or future possibilities. That tyranny was likely X years ago does not mean it's still likely, or less likely. What I am saying here is that neither one of us can really prove or disprove anything here -- it's just a matter of opinion. Just stop, this is deteriorating so quickly, stick to the issue. What I'm trying to do is to cut the bullshit, kill of the meaningless tangents, and move on to what matters: responding to coherent viewpoints in favor of no gun control. First, I need to see some coherent arguments to respond to. Thanks again for yours. Jingle can provide his when he's ready, or not. Do you think women should be allowed to shoot a rapist if that is her only way of stopping him? Do you think you should be allowed to shoot someone dead if they are trying to murder your family? Do you think having no guns will stop those things from happening? A) I believe that a woman with a pistol should go ahead and use it if she's being raped/killed/etc. B) I believe that a person with a pistol should go ahead and shoot someone dead if that person is trying to rape/kill/etc a family. C) I believe that gradual implementation of gun control will eventually lead to lower gun violence statistics in the US, even if the process is not something that can be implemented and succeed in one day, month, year, or even decade. Do you have any supporting evidence of statistics, instances where it was tried and worked, etc.? Taking away weapons specifically, that is.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe you are asking:
"Do you know of any cases where gun control is associated with lower rates of gun violence?"
Response:
I believe that many countries in Europe serve as good, although imperfect examples. The chief distinction is that in the US guns have already been around for a while, hence the necessity for and my agreement with the idea to implement gun control in a very gradual and controlled fashion. No taking guns away from anyone right away -- that would be the opposite of a gradual implementation of gun control.
|
On February 01 2013 12:42 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2013 12:39 kmillz wrote:On February 01 2013 12:37 FallDownMarigold wrote:On February 01 2013 12:33 kmillz wrote:On February 01 2013 12:27 FallDownMarigold wrote:On February 01 2013 12:11 kmillz wrote:
I'm only summarizing this because you asked, but I have been responding to things that stuck out to me in the ongoing discussion and I don't generally leave my entire position completely outlined in every post. Personally, I don't even own a gun, but I believe in the right for someone to own one for many reasons. First of all, the Constitution is not the reason I believe in everyones right to have one, I believe in your right to protect yourself. A knife does not stop a gun. Guns won't disappear in the U.S., that is the real fantasy if anyone were using one. You keep arguing that tyranny is a fantasy and unrealistic despite it happening in several times in history. You have a scary amount of confidence in the government to never succumb to corruption, even though you already disagree with the constitution. Ok, thanks. Sorry if that was a little bit of a hassle, but I think you'll agree it was more productive than our previous tangent-pursuing. So: A) You firmly believe in the right to protect yourself. Currently, the US has many guns in circulation. Therefore, cutting them off suddenly to the public would not address the fact that there are already guns out there. Response: A gradual implementation of gun control would be a good idea. Challenging, but surely better than doing nothing at all. B) You believe that without guns, a US tyranny is very plausible. Response: This is not a good debate point for us to pursue. This is just a matter of differing opinions. You think it's plausible while I don't. When you appeal to past instances of tyranny, it does not serve as evidence for current or future possibilities. That tyranny was likely X years ago does not mean it's still likely, or less likely. What I am saying here is that neither one of us can really prove or disprove anything here -- it's just a matter of opinion. Just stop, this is deteriorating so quickly, stick to the issue. What I'm trying to do is to cut the bullshit, kill of the meaningless tangents, and move on to what matters: responding to coherent viewpoints in favor of no gun control. First, I need to see some coherent arguments to respond to. Thanks again for yours. Jingle can provide his when he's ready, or not. Do you think women should be allowed to shoot a rapist if that is her only way of stopping him? Do you think you should be allowed to shoot someone dead if they are trying to murder your family? Do you think having no guns will stop those things from happening? A) I believe that a woman with a pistol should go ahead and use it if she's being raped/killed/etc. B) I believe that a person with a pistol should go ahead and shoot someone dead if that person is trying to rape/kill/etc a family. C) I believe that gradual implementation of gun control will eventually lead to lower gun violence statistics in the US, even if the process is not something that can be implemented and succeed in one day, month, year, or even decade. Do you have any supporting evidence of statistics, instances where it was tried and worked, etc.? Taking away weapons specifically, that is. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe you are asking: "Do you know of any cases where gun control is associated with lower rates of gun violence?" Response: I believe that many countries in Europe serve as good, although imperfect examples. The chief distinction is that in the US guns have already been around for a while, hence the necessity for and my agreement with the idea to implement gun control in a very gradual and controlled fashion. No taking guns away from anyone right away -- that would be the opposite of a gradual implementation of gun control.
You are pretty staunch anti-gun if you really think it is wise to gradually strip people of their arms. I don't know how you can justify such a thing by making it sound like it isn't as bad if we slowly do it.
|
I think it is wise to gradually implement gun control because I believe it will lead to lower rates of gun violence in the US. Currently gun violence in the US is far above other similar Western places, and I think we need to address this problem directly, and I think we should start sooner rather than later.
If you don't mind, could you share specifically why you think it would not be wise to gradually implement gun control? (Excluding, of course, the two things that we already covered a couple posts back http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=313472¤tpage=398#7955 )
|
On February 01 2013 13:01 FallDownMarigold wrote:
I think it is wise to gradually implement gun control because I believe it will lead to lower rates of gun violence in the US. Currently gun violence in the US is far above and beyond that of its European friends & others.
If you don't mind, could you share specifically why you think it would not be wise to gradually implement gun control? (Excluding, of course, the two things that we already covered between couple posts back <http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=313472¤tpage=398#7955>)
Specifically because of your lack of supporting evidence. The burden of proof is on you to take away the peoples guns. Currently a potential victim to an assault crime can defend their life and their body and their property by shooting their attacker. You have to convince me with actual statistics (not your feeling based on completely different countries) that they are safer overall without their weapon for protection.
|
But this request is problematic because it is impossible to prove in the forward direction with statistics that gradually implementing gun control would address our gun violence problem in the US without trying it in the US. We've never done it before, so what should I reference if not other countries that have implemented gun control? Signs point to gun control being an effective means of reducing levels of gun violence in these countries - therefore it would be beneficial to give it a shot in the US.
What statistics are you asking for exactly? I'm having trouble understanding what evidence I am burdened to provide.
|
On February 01 2013 13:09 FallDownMarigold wrote:
But this request is problematic because it is impossible to prove in the forward direction with statistics that gradually implementing gun control would address our gun violence problem in the US without trying it in the US. We've never done it before, so what should I reference if not other countries that have implemented gun control? Signs point to gun control being an effective means of reducing levels of gun violence in these countries, therefore it would be beneficial to give it a shot in the US.
What statistics are you asking for exactly? I'm having trouble understanding what evidence I am burdened to provide.
Specific places in the U.S. where guns are more strictly enforced, like Chicago, how is their gun control working?
|
On February 01 2013 13:13 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2013 13:09 FallDownMarigold wrote:
But this request is problematic because it is impossible to prove in the forward direction with statistics that gradually implementing gun control would address our gun violence problem in the US without trying it in the US. We've never done it before, so what should I reference if not other countries that have implemented gun control? Signs point to gun control being an effective means of reducing levels of gun violence in these countries, therefore it would be beneficial to give it a shot in the US.
What statistics are you asking for exactly? I'm having trouble understanding what evidence I am burdened to provide. Specific places in the U.S. where guns are more strictly enforced, like Chicago, how is their gun control working?
But this is problematic because for this to work, it would need to be a nationwide implementation, and not something restricted to one city. One glaring problem is the fact that someone can exit Chicago, purchase a weapon without the hassle found in Chicago, and then travel back into Chicago. Trans-border gun trafficking, on the other hand, although possible, is far less of a feasibility than intranational trafficking
|
On February 01 2013 13:16 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2013 13:13 kmillz wrote:On February 01 2013 13:09 FallDownMarigold wrote:
But this request is problematic because it is impossible to prove in the forward direction with statistics that gradually implementing gun control would address our gun violence problem in the US without trying it in the US. We've never done it before, so what should I reference if not other countries that have implemented gun control? Signs point to gun control being an effective means of reducing levels of gun violence in these countries, therefore it would be beneficial to give it a shot in the US.
What statistics are you asking for exactly? I'm having trouble understanding what evidence I am burdened to provide. Specific places in the U.S. where guns are more strictly enforced, like Chicago, how is their gun control working? But this is problematic because for this to work, it would need to be a nationwide implementation, and not something restricted to one city. One glaring problem is the fact that someone can exit Chicago, purchase a weapon without the hassle found in Chicago, and then travel back into Chicago. Trans-border gun trafficking, on the other hand, although possible, is far less of a feasibility than intranational trafficking
So outlawing guns in the entire U.S. would mean guns can't ever get smuggled into the U.S. right?
|
On February 01 2013 13:18 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2013 13:16 FallDownMarigold wrote:On February 01 2013 13:13 kmillz wrote:On February 01 2013 13:09 FallDownMarigold wrote:
But this request is problematic because it is impossible to prove in the forward direction with statistics that gradually implementing gun control would address our gun violence problem in the US without trying it in the US. We've never done it before, so what should I reference if not other countries that have implemented gun control? Signs point to gun control being an effective means of reducing levels of gun violence in these countries, therefore it would be beneficial to give it a shot in the US.
What statistics are you asking for exactly? I'm having trouble understanding what evidence I am burdened to provide. Specific places in the U.S. where guns are more strictly enforced, like Chicago, how is their gun control working? But this is problematic because for this to work, it would need to be a nationwide implementation, and not something restricted to one city. One glaring problem is the fact that someone can exit Chicago, purchase a weapon without the hassle found in Chicago, and then travel back into Chicago. Trans-border gun trafficking, on the other hand, although possible, is far less of a feasibility than intranational trafficking So outlawing guns in the entire U.S. would mean guns can't ever get smuggled into the U.S. right?
Of course not, that is why I predicted your response correctly and made sure I included:
"Trans-border gun trafficking, on the other hand, although possible, is far less of a feasibility than intranational trafficking"
Gun control isn't perfect in Europe. Guns still get through to people who shouldn't have them. However, the fact that they are difficult to get is enormously helpful. Due to the amount of guns currently in the US, perhaps it will be quite some time before we're at a point where it will begin to make a difference. We have to strive to reach that point somehow, though, and ignoring the notion of gradually implementing gun control altogether seems to be a poor choice.
|
Murder rate
![[image loading]](http://sphotos-e.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/6107_10100113177793196_1664301245_n.jpg)
Murders using guns
![[image loading]](http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/65311000/gif/_65311537_gun_deaths_dev_countries_464.gif)
These figures don't even account for people who accidentally kill or injure other people with their guns.
The stats show that guns mean more deaths and more murders. This is why the burden of proof is on YOU to show that the right to own guns outweighs all those who have been killed rights to live.
|
On February 01 2013 13:28 deathly rat wrote:Murder rate Murders using guns These figures don't even account for people who accidentally kill or injure other people with their guns. The stats show that guns mean more deaths and more murders. This is why the burden of proof is on YOU to show that the right to own guns outweighs all those who have been killed rights to live.
I've found I prefer the approach where you try and be kind of like socratic or something, get a light discussion going, and get them to spell out their own reasons for no gun control, get them to see if it even makes sense to themselves when they actually spell it out. Seems like just shoving statistics and such in their faces only instigates the angry tangents etc.
|
On February 01 2013 13:28 deathly rat wrote:Murder rate Murders using guns These figures don't even account for people who accidentally kill or injure other people with their guns. The stats show that guns mean more deaths and more murders. This is why the burden of proof is on YOU to show that the right to own guns outweighs all those who have been killed rights to live.
Correlation does not imply causation. The burden is on YOU to prove that guns mean more murders.
In reality, the United States has a very high non-gun violent crime rate as well. The problems with the US stem from income inequality, racial heterogeneity, the War on Drugs, demographic problems like fatherlessness, a poor education system, and the list goes on. The availability of guns only means that criminals kill with guns instead of other means, and even if you removed every firearm the violent crime rate would still be ridiculously high compared to Europe.
|
Sorry you're probably right, I have a purely evidence based approach to these kinds of things. It really bothers me that people just use anecdotal evidence and illogical rhetoric to argue the untenable when the reality is staring them in the face.
Especially when its talking about the reality of people dying needless deaths
|
United States24747 Posts
On February 01 2013 13:28 deathly rat wrote:Murder rate + Show Spoiler [spoilered out graphs] +Murders using guns These figures don't even account for people who accidentally kill or injure other people with their guns. The stats show that guns mean more deaths and more murders. This is why the burden of proof is on YOU to show that the right to own guns outweighs all those who have been killed rights to live.
You should source this data better, and specify the conditions for which it applies (years, etc).
Also, it would be more compelling if you qualified the implication here by pointing out some reasons which would explain the apparent discrepancy other than the conclusion that the number of legal guns per capita in a country is one-to-one with the number of murders per capita in that country. As we all know, correlation does not imply causation.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On February 01 2013 13:37 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2013 13:28 deathly rat wrote:Murder rate Murders using guns These figures don't even account for people who accidentally kill or injure other people with their guns. The stats show that guns mean more deaths and more murders. This is why the burden of proof is on YOU to show that the right to own guns outweighs all those who have been killed rights to live.
"Correlation does not imply causation. The burden is on YOU to prove that guns mean more murders."
+ Show Spoiler +In reality, the United States has a very high non-gun violent crime rate as well. The problems with the US stem from income inequality, racial heterogeneity, the War on Drugs, demographic problems like fatherlessness, a poor education system, and the list goes on. The availability of guns only means that criminals kill with guns instead of other means, and even if you removed every firearm the violent crime rate would still be ridiculously high compared to Europe.
Actually relevant correlation strongly implies causation, it just doesn't prove causation, and I can't really see the situation in which it could be scientifically proven to someone who is willing to look for any unreasonable reason not to agree.
In this case the stats are the best kind of proof you can get.
|
United States24747 Posts
On February 01 2013 13:44 deathly rat wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 01 2013 13:37 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2013 13:28 deathly rat wrote:Murder rate Murders using guns These figures don't even account for people who accidentally kill or injure other people with their guns. The stats show that guns mean more deaths and more murders. This is why the burden of proof is on YOU to show that the right to own guns outweighs all those who have been killed rights to live. "Correlation does not imply causation. The burden is on YOU to prove that guns mean more murders." + Show Spoiler +In reality, the United States has a very high non-gun violent crime rate as well. The problems with the US stem from income inequality, racial heterogeneity, the War on Drugs, demographic problems like fatherlessness, a poor education system, and the list goes on. The availability of guns only means that criminals kill with guns instead of other means, and even if you removed every firearm the violent crime rate would still be ridiculously high compared to Europe.
Actually relevant correlation strongly implies causation, it just doesn't prove causation, and I can't really see the situation in which it could be scientifically proven to someone who is willing to look for any unreasonable not to agree. In this case the stats are the best kind of proof you can get.
Why are you completely ignoring the point about how you need to look at murder rates without guns as well? You just seem like you have an agenda here.
|
On February 01 2013 13:45 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2013 13:44 deathly rat wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 01 2013 13:37 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2013 13:28 deathly rat wrote:Murder rate Murders using guns These figures don't even account for people who accidentally kill or injure other people with their guns. The stats show that guns mean more deaths and more murders. This is why the burden of proof is on YOU to show that the right to own guns outweighs all those who have been killed rights to live. "Correlation does not imply causation. The burden is on YOU to prove that guns mean more murders." + Show Spoiler +In reality, the United States has a very high non-gun violent crime rate as well. The problems with the US stem from income inequality, racial heterogeneity, the War on Drugs, demographic problems like fatherlessness, a poor education system, and the list goes on. The availability of guns only means that criminals kill with guns instead of other means, and even if you removed every firearm the violent crime rate would still be ridiculously high compared to Europe.
Actually relevant correlation strongly implies causation, it just doesn't prove causation, and I can't really see the situation in which it could be scientifically proven to someone who is willing to look for any unreasonable not to agree. In this case the stats are the best kind of proof you can get. Why are you completely ignoring the point about how you need to look at murder rates without guns as well? You just seem like you have an agenda here.
Sources
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21033709
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
Since when was it a crime to have an agenda? Does anybody not have an agenda?
I'm not ignoring murders without guns. Clearly murder rate is a complex issue, but what you have here are all developed countries. You have one hugely significant piece of statistical evidence, combined with what seems common sense that guns are incredibly dangerous because they are designed to kill people.
What those people who think guns are a necessary evil, which I hope would any sane person arguing they need guns, should be wondering is this. Is it really possible to live in a utopia where these terrible things which cause death and misery are not widely available, and where people go their whole lives without even seeing a gun. The answer is yes, in many countries, and you could live in that place too, if you really wanted to.
|
When you can buy a gun at your local Wal-Mart in the US, there is something wrong there....just saying
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
