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 15:32 TheFrankOne wrote: More fun facts! + Show Spoiler +
"we find (among other results) that the likelihood of gun carrying increases markedly with the prevalence of gun ownership in the given community. We also analyze the propensity to carry other types of weapons, finding that it is unrelated to the local prevalence of gun ownership. The prevalence of youths carrying both guns and other weapons is positively related to the local rate of youth violence (as measured by the robbery rate), confirmatory evidence that weapons carrying by youths is motivated in part by self-protection."
"theoretical considerationsdo not provide much guidance in predicting the net effects of widespread gun ownership. Guns in the home may pose a threat to burglars, but also serve as an inducement, since guns are particularly valuable loot. Other things equal, a gun-rich community provides more lucrative burglary opportunities than one where guns are more sparse. The new empirical results reported here provide no support for a net deterrent effect from widespread gun ownership. Rather, our analysis concludes that residential burglary rates tend to increase with community gun prevalence."
"This paper examines the relationship between gun ownership and crime. Previous research has suffered from a lack of reliable data on gun ownership. I exploit a unique data set to reliably estimate annual rates of gun ownership at both the state and the county levels during the past two decades. My findings demonstrate that changes in gun ownership are significantly positively related to changes in the homicide rate, with this relationship driven almost entirely by an impact of gun ownership on murders in which a gun is used. The effect of gun ownership on all other crime categories is much less marked. Recent reductions in the fraction of households owning a gun can explain one-third of the differential decline in gun homicides relative to nongun homicides since 1993."
Why the robberies with guns bit was relevant: "Criminologist Philip J. Cook hypothesized that if guns were less available, criminals might commit the same crime, but with less-lethal weapons. He finds that the level of gun ownership in the 50 largest U.S. cities correlates with the rate of robberies committed with guns, but not with overall robbery rates." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
Next sentence in the article: Overall robbery and assault rates in the United States are comparable to those in other developed countries, such as Australia and Finland, with much lower levels of gun ownership.
Our overall crime is really not much different, it's just the murder rate that's much higher. The more I read the stronger I lean towards more gun control. A murder rate as high as ours is a tragedy that is real, some sort of tyrannical boogeyman isn't. The 14,000 people actually dying matter far more than this fear of "oppression from a non-representative government HINT HINT"
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause... It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. - Antonin Scalia
Bumping this because not a single pro-gun replied to it. Surely these points demand some refuting, no? Strong points. How about instead of chasing down each other about who is arguing in poor form or who is using strawmen, someone responds to some of this?
I'm particularly interested in responses to Scalia's quote. Provided unlimited rifles, what good would it even do vs. the US military? Absolutely nothing! Seems to be a pretty rock solid point against the need for assault rifles in the hands of the public.
My response is the set of statistics I just linked. Statistically, if you want to reduce gun homicides, keep rifles and ban other firearms.
The fact that it's just as misguided as anything else targeting the wrong guns is exactly why I ignore it.
Just like it pointed out, the guns are getting used in the existing crimes. It's a lot easier to involve a gun in a crime if you can conceal it, you draw less attention to yourself. If you want to conceal a gun, you want a handgun.
Ergo, banning "evil assault rifles etc etc rhetoric blah blah blah", statistically, would have the least effect on murder rates overall.
At no point in that post did I say a word about banning assault rifles. I posted several studies pointing out links to overall gun prevalence and its relation to homicide rates and gun use in other crimes which increases homicides committed during those crimes. I also posted a quote by a Supreme Court justice admitting a huge discrepancy between the intent and reality of the 2nd amendment.
You have apparently read a whole lot into my argument that I never said.
On February 01 2013 15:32 TheFrankOne wrote: More fun facts! + Show Spoiler +
"we find (among other results) that the likelihood of gun carrying increases markedly with the prevalence of gun ownership in the given community. We also analyze the propensity to carry other types of weapons, finding that it is unrelated to the local prevalence of gun ownership. The prevalence of youths carrying both guns and other weapons is positively related to the local rate of youth violence (as measured by the robbery rate), confirmatory evidence that weapons carrying by youths is motivated in part by self-protection."
"theoretical considerationsdo not provide much guidance in predicting the net effects of widespread gun ownership. Guns in the home may pose a threat to burglars, but also serve as an inducement, since guns are particularly valuable loot. Other things equal, a gun-rich community provides more lucrative burglary opportunities than one where guns are more sparse. The new empirical results reported here provide no support for a net deterrent effect from widespread gun ownership. Rather, our analysis concludes that residential burglary rates tend to increase with community gun prevalence."
"This paper examines the relationship between gun ownership and crime. Previous research has suffered from a lack of reliable data on gun ownership. I exploit a unique data set to reliably estimate annual rates of gun ownership at both the state and the county levels during the past two decades. My findings demonstrate that changes in gun ownership are significantly positively related to changes in the homicide rate, with this relationship driven almost entirely by an impact of gun ownership on murders in which a gun is used. The effect of gun ownership on all other crime categories is much less marked. Recent reductions in the fraction of households owning a gun can explain one-third of the differential decline in gun homicides relative to nongun homicides since 1993."
Why the robberies with guns bit was relevant: "Criminologist Philip J. Cook hypothesized that if guns were less available, criminals might commit the same crime, but with less-lethal weapons. He finds that the level of gun ownership in the 50 largest U.S. cities correlates with the rate of robberies committed with guns, but not with overall robbery rates." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
Next sentence in the article: Overall robbery and assault rates in the United States are comparable to those in other developed countries, such as Australia and Finland, with much lower levels of gun ownership.
Our overall crime is really not much different, it's just the murder rate that's much higher. The more I read the stronger I lean towards more gun control. A murder rate as high as ours is a tragedy that is real, some sort of tyrannical boogeyman isn't. The 14,000 people actually dying matter far more than this fear of "oppression from a non-representative government HINT HINT"
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause... It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. - Antonin Scalia
Bumping this because not a single pro-gun replied to it. Surely these points demand some refuting, no? Strong points. How about instead of chasing down each other about who is arguing in poor form or who is using strawmen, someone responds to some of this?
I'm particularly interested in responses to Scalia's quote. Provided unlimited rifles, what good would it even do vs. the US military? Absolutely nothing! Seems to be a pretty rock solid point against the need for assault rifles in the hands of the public.
My response is the set of statistics I just linked. Statistically, if you want to reduce gun homicides, keep rifles and ban other firearms.
The fact that it's just as misguided as anything else targeting the wrong guns is exactly why I ignore it.
Just like it pointed out, the guns are getting used in the existing crimes. It's a lot easier to involve a gun in a crime if you can conceal it, you draw less attention to yourself. If you want to conceal a gun, you want a handgun.
Ergo, banning "evil assault rifles etc etc rhetoric blah blah blah", statistically, would have the least effect on murder rates overall.
At no point in that post did I say a word about banning assault rifles. I posted several studies pointing out links to overall gun prevalence and its relation to homicide rates and gun use in other crimes which increases homicides committed during those crimes. I also posted a quote by a Supreme Court justice admitting a huge discrepancy between the intent and reality of the 2nd amendment.
You have apparently read a whole lot into my argument that I never said.
Read the final quote. I'm not sure if you think "gun nuts" are a pack of idiots, or if you don't understand it, but it's saying we have no need for the weapons currently being targeted as "assault weapons". An untested hypothesis, like the first bit, well, that's up to the guy who made it to prove.
As for the middle paragraph, the "Hint hint" crap turned it into flamebaiting, so why respond? Even without that, it's inflammatory, impossible to prove, and requires us to accept your assertion that our system of government is infallible.
On February 01 2013 14:45 FallDownMarigold wrote: Micronesia, I appreciate your thorough academic approach! What would you say to those arguing that tyranny etc. is something important and at stake here? I probably missed your comments directed at them since I have not gone over the entire thread. You are replying in the same rigorous fashion to them right? Just curious!
I don't think I've replied to anyone making an evidence-supported case regarding tyranny or rebellion from a government. The only thing I recall discussing on the topic is how we shouldn't be quick to dismiss people who worry about what situations might arise, even if they seem kind of ridiculous. Obviously "aliens might attack us" won't sway me for why we need a gun in every house, but "invasion from foreigners", while crazy to imagine today, might be possible in the future.
Or oppression from a non-representative government. HINT HINT.
Not flamebaiting, I was directly quoting a poster a little bit above that post. What the quote is actually saying is that the prefatory clause of the 2nd amendment is wholly detached from the right it protects largely due to technological changes. It strikes me as a problem that we have this disconnect. Also I never asserted our government is infallible, I quoted a supreme court justice on matters of the constitution, reasonable authority to go to there.
Finishing the quote: " But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right."
Different quote from an interview: CHRIS WALLACE: What about…a weapon that can fire a hundred shots in a minute? SCALIA: We’ll see. Obviously the amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried—it’s to keep and “bear”, so it doesn’t apply to cannons—but I suppose there are hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes, that will have to be decided.
WALLACE: How do you decide that if you’re a textualist?
SCALIA: Very carefully.
Edit: I did call fears of tyranny a boogeyman and I stand by that, we have an unknown risk of some sort of tyrannical government in the near to far future but that's not happening now. We do have 14,00 murders per year, now.
On February 02 2013 01:52 heliusx wrote: @theivingmagpie
If you were actually interested in a debate you wouldn't fill your posts with strawmen or use blanket statements to paint anyone who disagrees with you as a crazy "gun nut". It's no wonder no one bothers to take the time to respond to you in a well thought out response. As for bringing up atomic weapons, thats just the inability to compose a logical argument.
I'm simply pointing out that there are many more american regulations that attack liberties that don't get attacked--but when the Obama administration tries to pass laws against Assault Rifles while at the same time VP Biden tells people that they should get a shotgun instead if they wanted to protect themselves shows that there is no argument.
The Vice President of the United States while trying to add regulations against assault rifles flat out tells people to buy a shotgun since its better for people who don't have the training to aim a full auto. And yet people still freak out that their guns are being pried from their cold dead hands?
Its obvious that people against the restrictions are not arguing against the restrictions for any other reason than to troll american policy. The policy does not get rid of guns, the policy simply regulates guns much like american policies regulate everything else in the US. The 2nd amendment isn't being attacked in any way or shape by it--you know why? BECAUSE YOU CAN STILL GET GUNS. THE VP OF THE UNITED STATES WHO IS SPEARHEADING THIS IS TELLING YOU TO BUY GUNS.
Do you want to know why I put on A-Bombs? Because the entire defense for reduced regulations have looked like a strawman since page one of this thread. Regulations get made to protect citizens, suddenly all these arguments about self defense, defense against tyranny, weapon statistics, crime statistics, etc... gets brought up despite the fact that it is irrelevant to the policies being passed.
All defense arguments are pretty much shit when the leaders of the US tells you to buy guns to protect yourself.
All crime arguments are pretty much shit when the reason for the regulation is to increase safety and not to reduce crime--crime reduction is a local government task that is usually a task force based policy between community engagement and police presence. ie-the president of the united states of america has bigger fish to fry that to regulate gangbangers.
People going against gun regulation has no argument and have spent the entirety of the thread throwing strawmen.
On February 01 2013 22:42 mijagi182 wrote: Why dont the government just give an atomic bomb to everyone? It makes more sense than allowing guns, since warfare changed from when the 2nd amendment was introduced. And if someone gets killed, one can always say "hey, atomic bombs dont kill people, people do".
Because atomic bombs aren't precise enough? DUH. Dude, you only need to kill one or two people. Not an entire city. You're just going way overboard with that idea. Plus, fissile material is really expensive and difficult to handle. I don't think most Americans could deal with that. On top of that, you'd need a proper delivery vehicle, which is also really expensive. Most people don't even own their own houses. I doubt they could afford individual missile silos.
Also, nowadays people don't use atomic bombs. They use nuclear warheads. Atomic bombs are a relic of WW2. You have to keep up, especially if you want to debate CURRENT social issues.
Your argument that atomic bombs don't kill people is false too, because radioactive fallout can kill a lot of people on accident. It's not like a gun where when you pull the trigger you have a general idea where the bullet is going to go. Ofc innocent bystanders can still be killed sometimes, but it's not as bad as radiation poisoning.
That's why guns are good. Because they cover that middle area between bare hands and nuclear warheads, where you have a decent level of force projection at an economically viable price with a reliable degree of precision. So no, the gov't should not "just give an atomic bomb to everyone." And shame on you for trying to push that agenda.
1. I don't agree dude. Deep inside, i think you need to kill no one. 2. Lol, think of a-bomb reference as a mental shortcut for nucelar weapon (as it was for me). Note that eng is not my native language. 3. No, guns ARE NOT safer for bystanders than a-bomb...really. 4. I feel those who push pro guns agenda should feel ashamed.
1. People NEED to kill. We are apex predators. We didn't get there by singing kumbayah. This is the gritty reality of life on our little mudball called Earth. 2. But it's not. A bomb is not a missile, an atom bomb is not a nuclear warhead. HUGE differences. You might as well call a sling shot a machine gun because they both shoot kinetic projectiles. 3. Guns are more precise in their killing. I don't know why you'd argue this. 4. No shame in my game. Guns make me feel powerful. And I like that.
On February 02 2013 01:52 heliusx wrote: @theivingmagpie
If you were actually interested in a debate you wouldn't fill your posts with strawmen or use blanket statements to paint anyone who disagrees with you as a crazy "gun nut". It's no wonder no one bothers to take the time to respond to you in a well thought out response. As for bringing up atomic weapons, thats just the inability to compose a logical argument.
I'm simply pointing out that there are many more american regulations that attack liberties that don't get attacked--but when the Obama administration tries to pass laws against Assault Rifles while at the same time VP Biden tells people that they should get a shotgun instead if they wanted to protect themselves shows that there is no argument.
The Vice President of the United States while trying to add regulations against assault rifles flat out tells people to buy a shotgun since its better for people who don't have the training to aim a full auto. And yet people still freak out that their guns are being pried from their cold dead hands?
Its obvious that people against the restrictions are not arguing against the restrictions for any other reason than to troll american policy. The policy does not get rid of guns, the policy simply regulates guns much like american policies regulate everything else in the US. The 2nd amendment isn't being attacked in any way or shape by it--you know why? BECAUSE YOU CAN STILL GET GUNS. THE VP OF THE UNITED STATES WHO IS SPEARHEADING THIS IS TELLING YOU TO BUY GUNS.
Do you want to know why I put on A-Bombs? Because the entire defense for reduced regulations have looked like a strawman since page one of this thread. Regulations get made to protect citizens, suddenly all these arguments about self defense, defense against tyranny, weapon statistics, crime statistics, etc... gets brought up despite the fact that it is irrelevant to the policies being passed.
All defense arguments are pretty much shit when the leaders of the US tells you to buy guns to protect yourself.
All crime arguments are pretty much shit when the reason for the regulation is to increase safety and not to reduce crime--crime reduction is a local government task that is usually a task force based policy between community engagement and police presence. ie-the president of the united states of america has bigger fish to fry that to regulate gangbangers.
People going against gun regulation has no argument and have spent the entirety of the thread throwing strawmen.
Yet again, a post laden with blanket statements. You have no place in this debate. You cannot just paint everyone who disagrees with you with the same brush just because it's easier for you to argue against, what a pathetic tactic.
Ah, fair enough on that. Well, I'm not some hardcore separatist or closet anarchist, but I also do believe that any government can turn bad, given the wrong stimulus. It's not like tyranny requires some evil intent, just doing the wrong things for the right reasons. One misstep can cause turmoil. We're going to have to agree to disagree on the possibility of that, I think.
I retain my point regarding small arms: The quote directly implies that if you take the anti-tyranny angle as the prime reason, small arms (which basically is everything civilians can own) won't do shit. Which I partially agree with, however it also mentions banning those items as part of that, since those firearms aren't "relevant" in large scale armed conflict. Take it how you will. I don't find my interpretation to be unreasonable. Oh, and fyi, a good authority on the Constitution is in no way guaranteed to be a good authority on firearms.
Therefore, my response and point still stand: While banning small arms may not be 100% relevant to the "resist tyranny" angle (which I consider to be more of a "die trying" angle, but hey), banning the "assault weapons" isn't how you reduce homicide significantly.
On February 02 2013 02:41 JingleHell wrote: Therefore, my response and point still stand: While banning small arms may not be 100% relevant to the "resist tyranny" angle (which I consider to be more of a "die trying" angle, but hey), banning the "assault weapons" isn't how you reduce homicide significantly.
Banning assault weapons is not how you reduce homicide, we have agreed on this earlier.
On February 02 2013 01:52 heliusx wrote: @theivingmagpie
If you were actually interested in a debate you wouldn't fill your posts with strawmen or use blanket statements to paint anyone who disagrees with you as a crazy "gun nut". It's no wonder no one bothers to take the time to respond to you in a well thought out response. As for bringing up atomic weapons, thats just the inability to compose a logical argument.
I'm simply pointing out that there are many more american regulations that attack liberties that don't get attacked--but when the Obama administration tries to pass laws against Assault Rifles while at the same time VP Biden tells people that they should get a shotgun instead if they wanted to protect themselves shows that there is no argument.
The Vice President of the United States while trying to add regulations against assault rifles flat out tells people to buy a shotgun since its better for people who don't have the training to aim a full auto. And yet people still freak out that their guns are being pried from their cold dead hands?
Its obvious that people against the restrictions are not arguing against the restrictions for any other reason than to troll american policy. The policy does not get rid of guns, the policy simply regulates guns much like american policies regulate everything else in the US. The 2nd amendment isn't being attacked in any way or shape by it--you know why? BECAUSE YOU CAN STILL GET GUNS. THE VP OF THE UNITED STATES WHO IS SPEARHEADING THIS IS TELLING YOU TO BUY GUNS.
Do you want to know why I put on A-Bombs? Because the entire defense for reduced regulations have looked like a strawman since page one of this thread. Regulations get made to protect citizens, suddenly all these arguments about self defense, defense against tyranny, weapon statistics, crime statistics, etc... gets brought up despite the fact that it is irrelevant to the policies being passed.
All defense arguments are pretty much shit when the leaders of the US tells you to buy guns to protect yourself.
All crime arguments are pretty much shit when the reason for the regulation is to increase safety and not to reduce crime--crime reduction is a local government task that is usually a task force based policy between community engagement and police presence. ie-the president of the united states of america has bigger fish to fry that to regulate gangbangers.
People going against gun regulation has no argument and have spent the entirety of the thread throwing strawmen.
Yet again, a post laden with blanket statements. You have no place in this debate. You cannot just paint everyone who disagrees with you with the same brush just because it's easier for you to argue against, what a pathetic tactic.
The policy restricts some guns but not all in an attempt to increase civilian safety. What defense can you possibly make against that?
The answer is that there isn't really a defense against that because thats what people want. So what do people who are against the regulation do? Bring up everything except the actual reason and effects of the regulation being passed. ie--strawmen arguments.
Are they taking your guns? They're telling you to buy guns. Are they saying no to all weapons? No, they're regulating full auto weapons and clip sizes.
What argument is there against them? That's right--none.
Let's step away from blanket statements then.
The American Government wants to add regulations to guns but tells you to buy shotguns to better protect yourselves. What is your arguments against that--the empirical literal thing that is actually happening right now in our lifetime in recent history this year 2013. The American Government tells its people to buy guns to protect themselves while adding some regulations against assault weapons.
On February 02 2013 01:52 heliusx wrote: @theivingmagpie
If you were actually interested in a debate you wouldn't fill your posts with strawmen or use blanket statements to paint anyone who disagrees with you as a crazy "gun nut". It's no wonder no one bothers to take the time to respond to you in a well thought out response. As for bringing up atomic weapons, thats just the inability to compose a logical argument.
I'm simply pointing out that there are many more american regulations that attack liberties that don't get attacked--but when the Obama administration tries to pass laws against Assault Rifles while at the same time VP Biden tells people that they should get a shotgun instead if they wanted to protect themselves shows that there is no argument.
The Vice President of the United States while trying to add regulations against assault rifles flat out tells people to buy a shotgun since its better for people who don't have the training to aim a full auto. And yet people still freak out that their guns are being pried from their cold dead hands?
Its obvious that people against the restrictions are not arguing against the restrictions for any other reason than to troll american policy. The policy does not get rid of guns, the policy simply regulates guns much like american policies regulate everything else in the US. The 2nd amendment isn't being attacked in any way or shape by it--you know why? BECAUSE YOU CAN STILL GET GUNS. THE VP OF THE UNITED STATES WHO IS SPEARHEADING THIS IS TELLING YOU TO BUY GUNS.
Do you want to know why I put on A-Bombs? Because the entire defense for reduced regulations have looked like a strawman since page one of this thread. Regulations get made to protect citizens, suddenly all these arguments about self defense, defense against tyranny, weapon statistics, crime statistics, etc... gets brought up despite the fact that it is irrelevant to the policies being passed.
All defense arguments are pretty much shit when the leaders of the US tells you to buy guns to protect yourself.
All crime arguments are pretty much shit when the reason for the regulation is to increase safety and not to reduce crime--crime reduction is a local government task that is usually a task force based policy between community engagement and police presence. ie-the president of the united states of america has bigger fish to fry that to regulate gangbangers.
People going against gun regulation has no argument and have spent the entirety of the thread throwing strawmen.
Yet again, a post laden with blanket statements. You have no place in this debate. You cannot just paint everyone who disagrees with you with the same brush just because it's easier for you to argue against, what a pathetic tactic.
The policy restricts some guns but not all in an attempt to increase civilian safety. What defense can you possibly make against that?
The answer is that there isn't really a defense against that because thats what people want. So what do people who are against the regulation do? Bring up everything except the actual reason and effects of the regulation being passed. ie--strawmen arguments.
Are they taking your guns? They're telling you to buy guns. Are they saying no to all weapons? No, they're regulating full auto weapons and clip sizes.
What argument is there against them? That's right--none.
Let's step away from blanket statements then.
The American Government wants to add regulations to guns but tells you to buy shotguns to better protect yourselves. What is your arguments against that--the empirical literal thing that is actually happening right now in our lifetime in recent history this year 2013. The American Government tells its people to buy guns to protect themselves while adding some regulations against assault weapons.
Please, try to argue against that.
Already did. Rifles, which includes "assault weapons" as well as "hunting rifles", get used in less murders than shotguns or handguns.
Slightly less than shotguns, a metric fuckton less than handguns.
As long as we trust the government enough to give up our weapons, why stop at just the second amendment. I can think of a lot of amendments that get in the way of preventing crime.
Repealing the 4th amendment means police would not need warrants and it would be easier to find out who the bad guys are. Repealing the 5th amendment means criminals would be forced to lie under oath or testify against themselves. Repealing the 6th and 7th amendments would eliminate juries. Combined with the 5th amendment these would make convictions easier to come by. Repealing the 8th amendment would allow the government to impose "cruel and unusual" punishments on those convicted.
On February 02 2013 01:52 heliusx wrote: @theivingmagpie
If you were actually interested in a debate you wouldn't fill your posts with strawmen or use blanket statements to paint anyone who disagrees with you as a crazy "gun nut". It's no wonder no one bothers to take the time to respond to you in a well thought out response. As for bringing up atomic weapons, thats just the inability to compose a logical argument.
I'm simply pointing out that there are many more american regulations that attack liberties that don't get attacked--but when the Obama administration tries to pass laws against Assault Rifles while at the same time VP Biden tells people that they should get a shotgun instead if they wanted to protect themselves shows that there is no argument.
The Vice President of the United States while trying to add regulations against assault rifles flat out tells people to buy a shotgun since its better for people who don't have the training to aim a full auto. And yet people still freak out that their guns are being pried from their cold dead hands?
Its obvious that people against the restrictions are not arguing against the restrictions for any other reason than to troll american policy. The policy does not get rid of guns, the policy simply regulates guns much like american policies regulate everything else in the US. The 2nd amendment isn't being attacked in any way or shape by it--you know why? BECAUSE YOU CAN STILL GET GUNS. THE VP OF THE UNITED STATES WHO IS SPEARHEADING THIS IS TELLING YOU TO BUY GUNS.
Do you want to know why I put on A-Bombs? Because the entire defense for reduced regulations have looked like a strawman since page one of this thread. Regulations get made to protect citizens, suddenly all these arguments about self defense, defense against tyranny, weapon statistics, crime statistics, etc... gets brought up despite the fact that it is irrelevant to the policies being passed.
All defense arguments are pretty much shit when the leaders of the US tells you to buy guns to protect yourself.
All crime arguments are pretty much shit when the reason for the regulation is to increase safety and not to reduce crime--crime reduction is a local government task that is usually a task force based policy between community engagement and police presence. ie-the president of the united states of america has bigger fish to fry that to regulate gangbangers.
People going against gun regulation has no argument and have spent the entirety of the thread throwing strawmen.
First bold second: Assault rifles are not fully automatic rifles. They are cosmetic modifications that, for the most part, reduce the accuracy of a gun.
Second bold section: This is what people are afraid of when they talk about the government. (I know this was during the Bush administration)
Personally, I think that the type of guns available to the civilian population is fine. If you look at what spawned this notion of needing more gun regulation it is the mass murders that have taken place so recently. The two most recent ones the killers appear to have a mental health issues. That is the true epidemic plaguing our nation. Solve that problem and you will see a greater decline in mass murders.
On February 02 2013 02:53 meadbert wrote: As long as we trust the government enough to give up our weapons, why stop at just the second amendment. I can think of a lot of amendments that get in the way of preventing crime.
Repealing the 4th amendment means police would not need warrants and it would be easier to find out who the bad guys are. Repealing the 5th amendment means criminals would be forced to lie under oath or testify against themselves. Repealing the 6th and 7th amendments would eliminate juries. Combined with the 5th amendment these would make convictions easier to come by. Repealing the 8th amendment would allow the government to impose "cruel and unusual" punishments on those convicted.
Who is suggesting we do that in this thread? If you'd like to reply to a specific poster's view on gun control, that would probably be more productive than calling out an illusory straw man in order to spout some nonsense about amendment repeal. Almost no one that is pro-gun control is arguing for the total removal of weapons.
There are nonlethal self defense weapons and if your assailant doesn't have a gun they are very effective. This "criminals will always have guns" arguments is just not supported by any sort of good research. Most people don't make rifles in their garage, there is significant evidence pointing to an overall reduction in gun prevalence causing a reduction in gun use during the process of committing other crimes, and that more guns cause more homicides with little effect on most criminal behavior.
Some people are more open to facts than others, I really didn't support gun control the way I do now even a few months ago but all the progun people seem to have is accusing others of strawmen, ad hominem and putting an unreasonable burden of proof on their opponents. Then they do some yelling about tyranny and city wide gun control bans. There is zero substance to the arguments, and the more facts I see the less sense America's gun laws make.
Edit: Yup, there's you with the ad hominem accusations a few posts up. Don't do anything to refute the rest of his point, just say he loses cause he called you a name. (Side note: 'm not sure what sort of response his points deserve, tbh)
I have underlined some key points. Here is something I don't understand about people who want heavy regulation of guns:
Why do they always say things like "Gun regulation prevents gun deaths" or "Gun regulation prevents gun crime." Why would one not simply say "Gun regulation prevents murder," or "Gun regulation prevents violent crime"?
I can answer that question for you. It is because the latter is not true and does not help their argument. Gun regulation does not prevent murder or violent crime. Violent crime rates are actually much greater in the UK than in the US. The highest violent crime rates in the US are in the most gun-unfriendly cities. Additionally, in the US, burglary (break-ins while homeowners are not home) is more common than robbery (break-ins while homeowners are home)--it is the other way around in the UK. Why? If someone in the US invades the space where you have a right to feel safe and secure, they are taking a pretty big risk.
On February 02 2013 02:53 meadbert wrote: As long as we trust the government enough to give up our weapons, why stop at just the second amendment. I can think of a lot of amendments that get in the way of preventing crime.
Repealing the 4th amendment means police would not need warrants and it would be easier to find out who the bad guys are. Repealing the 5th amendment means criminals would be forced to lie under oath or testify against themselves. Repealing the 6th and 7th amendments would eliminate juries. Combined with the 5th amendment these would make convictions easier to come by. Repealing the 8th amendment would allow the government to impose "cruel and unusual" punishments on those convicted.
Who is suggesting we do that in this thread? If you'd like to reply to a specific poster's view on gun control, that would probably be more productive than calling out an illusory straw man in order to spout some nonsense about amendment repeal. Almost no one that is pro-gun control is arguing for the total removal of weapons.
Got to agree. As far as I'm concerned, this straw man is as bad as the nuke one.
On February 02 2013 02:53 meadbert wrote: As long as we trust the government enough to give up our weapons, why stop at just the second amendment. I can think of a lot of amendments that get in the way of preventing crime.
Repealing the 4th amendment means police would not need warrants and it would be easier to find out who the bad guys are. Repealing the 5th amendment means criminals would be forced to lie under oath or testify against themselves. Repealing the 6th and 7th amendments would eliminate juries. Combined with the 5th amendment these would make convictions easier to come by. Repealing the 8th amendment would allow the government to impose "cruel and unusual" punishments on those convicted.
Who is suggesting we do that in this thread? If you'd like to reply to a specific poster's view on gun control, that would probably be more productive than calling out an illusory straw man in order to spout some nonsense about amendment repeal. Almost no one that is pro-gun control is arguing for the total removal of weapons.
Fine: As long as we trust the government enough to give up most of our weapons, why stop there? Giving up most warrant requirements would make it easier to find the bad guys. Allowing people to testify against themselves would speed up convictions. Allowing more cruel and unusual punishments would make sure these "clearly" guilty people suffer enough.
On February 02 2013 01:52 heliusx wrote: @theivingmagpie
If you were actually interested in a debate you wouldn't fill your posts with strawmen or use blanket statements to paint anyone who disagrees with you as a crazy "gun nut". It's no wonder no one bothers to take the time to respond to you in a well thought out response. As for bringing up atomic weapons, thats just the inability to compose a logical argument.
I'm simply pointing out that there are many more american regulations that attack liberties that don't get attacked--but when the Obama administration tries to pass laws against Assault Rifles while at the same time VP Biden tells people that they should get a shotgun instead if they wanted to protect themselves shows that there is no argument.
The Vice President of the United States while trying to add regulations against assault rifles flat out tells people to buy a shotgun since its better for people who don't have the training to aim a full auto. And yet people still freak out that their guns are being pried from their cold dead hands?
Its obvious that people against the restrictions are not arguing against the restrictions for any other reason than to troll american policy. The policy does not get rid of guns, the policy simply regulates guns much like american policies regulate everything else in the US. The 2nd amendment isn't being attacked in any way or shape by it--you know why? BECAUSE YOU CAN STILL GET GUNS. THE VP OF THE UNITED STATES WHO IS SPEARHEADING THIS IS TELLING YOU TO BUY GUNS.
Do you want to know why I put on A-Bombs? Because the entire defense for reduced regulations have looked like a strawman since page one of this thread. Regulations get made to protect citizens, suddenly all these arguments about self defense, defense against tyranny, weapon statistics, crime statistics, etc... gets brought up despite the fact that it is irrelevant to the policies being passed.
All defense arguments are pretty much shit when the leaders of the US tells you to buy guns to protect yourself.
All crime arguments are pretty much shit when the reason for the regulation is to increase safety and not to reduce crime--crime reduction is a local government task that is usually a task force based policy between community engagement and police presence. ie-the president of the united states of america has bigger fish to fry that to regulate gangbangers.
People going against gun regulation has no argument and have spent the entirety of the thread throwing strawmen.
Yet again, a post laden with blanket statements. You have no place in this debate. You cannot just paint everyone who disagrees with you with the same brush just because it's easier for you to argue against, what a pathetic tactic.
The policy restricts some guns but not all in an attempt to increase civilian safety. What defense can you possibly make against that?
The answer is that there isn't really a defense against that because thats what people want. So what do people who are against the regulation do? Bring up everything except the actual reason and effects of the regulation being passed. ie--strawmen arguments.
Are they taking your guns? They're telling you to buy guns. Are they saying no to all weapons? No, they're regulating full auto weapons and clip sizes.
What argument is there against them? That's right--none.
Let's step away from blanket statements then.
The American Government wants to add regulations to guns but tells you to buy shotguns to better protect yourselves. What is your arguments against that--the empirical literal thing that is actually happening right now in our lifetime in recent history this year 2013. The American Government tells its people to buy guns to protect themselves while adding some regulations against assault weapons.
Please, try to argue against that.
Already did. Rifles, which includes "assault weapons" as well as "hunting rifles", get used in less murders than shotguns or handguns.
Slightly less than shotguns, a metric fuckton less than handguns.
Sigh... of course they're used in less--they're harder to get. There's more christians in China than in the US--could it be because China is more christian than the US or could it be because china has more than a billion people and the US only has 300million skewing the statistic?
Oh right! The harder it is to get a weapon--be it cost/regulation/availability the less likely it is to be used for whatever it is used for. More people die from heart disease than from murders--which has more restrictions, fast food restaurants or guns sales?
Availability is also something that skews statistics. More people die from automobile accidents--because there are more people that drive cars around than there people that carry guns around.
And another problem with your strawman--the government is adding regulations to increase safety but telling people to buy shotguns. You counter by saying assault rifles are used in less murders than shotguns or hand guns--which is you saying that yes it is used in murders. You're attempting to create this idea that since handguns are in more murders that Assault Rifles should be given a free pass. But lets go back to what's actually happening in reality.
The US wants to regulate big guns--like Assault Rifles--while telling people to stock up on smaller guns--like shotguns and hand guns. The end result? Less people are killed by big guns than small guns. Your straw man is trying to create the false comparison that since hand guns murder more people that the murders of assault rifles shouldn't count. But the reality is that the government wants there to be less deaths by assault rifles. The existence of other weapons that are either more dangerous or have killed more people is irrelevant to the discussion. But if we are to pretend that they are somehow in someway relevant (at all) to the discussion, the only thing it shows is that the more regulated the gun the less its able to kill people as opposed to less regulated guns.
Heck--there's a reason Mexico had a sudden surge of killings when the US tried selling "traceable" assault rifles to drug cartels a few years ago and then proceed to lose track of who had all those assault rifles and lo and behold killings in Mexico skyrocketed. So yes, what your saying not only doesn't say anything but is also an argument that is attempting to distract from the actual policies present in reality.
On February 01 2013 22:42 mijagi182 wrote: Why dont the government just give an atomic bomb to everyone? It makes more sense than allowing guns, since warfare changed from when the 2nd amendment was introduced. And if someone gets killed, one can always say "hey, atomic bombs dont kill people, people do".
Because atomic bombs aren't precise enough? DUH. Dude, you only need to kill one or two people. Not an entire city. You're just going way overboard with that idea. Plus, fissile material is really expensive and difficult to handle. I don't think most Americans could deal with that. On top of that, you'd need a proper delivery vehicle, which is also really expensive. Most people don't even own their own houses. I doubt they could afford individual missile silos.
Also, nowadays people don't use atomic bombs. They use nuclear warheads. Atomic bombs are a relic of WW2. You have to keep up, especially if you want to debate CURRENT social issues.
Your argument that atomic bombs don't kill people is false too, because radioactive fallout can kill a lot of people on accident. It's not like a gun where when you pull the trigger you have a general idea where the bullet is going to go. Ofc innocent bystanders can still be killed sometimes, but it's not as bad as radiation poisoning.
That's why guns are good. Because they cover that middle area between bare hands and nuclear warheads, where you have a decent level of force projection at an economically viable price with a reliable degree of precision. So no, the gov't should not "just give an atomic bomb to everyone." And shame on you for trying to push that agenda.
1. I don't agree dude. Deep inside, i think you need to kill no one. 2. Lol, think of a-bomb reference as a mental shortcut for nucelar weapon (as it was for me). Note that eng is not my native language. 3. No, guns ARE NOT safer for bystanders than a-bomb...really. 4. I feel those who push pro guns agenda should feel ashamed.
1. People NEED to kill. We are apex predators. We didn't get there by singing kumbayah. This is the gritty reality of life on our little mudball called Earth. 2. But it's not. A bomb is not a missile, an atom bomb is not a nuclear warhead. HUGE differences. You might as well call a sling shot a machine gun because they both shoot kinetic projectiles. 3. Guns are more precise in their killing. I don't know why you'd argue this. 4. No shame in my game. Guns make me feel powerful. And I like that.
1. No we are better than this, we are not even from Earth - watch Prometheus (2012) 2. For me, how its carried to the target is not THAT important 3. Really? ok, more precise or not, you still have a better chance of getting job done with a nuclear weapon. 4. Imagine how powerful nuclear warhead would make you feel! isnt it tempting?
On February 01 2013 22:42 mijagi182 wrote: Why dont the government just give an atomic bomb to everyone? It makes more sense than allowing guns, since warfare changed from when the 2nd amendment was introduced. And if someone gets killed, one can always say "hey, atomic bombs dont kill people, people do".
Because atomic bombs aren't precise enough? DUH. Dude, you only need to kill one or two people. Not an entire city. You're just going way overboard with that idea. Plus, fissile material is really expensive and difficult to handle. I don't think most Americans could deal with that. On top of that, you'd need a proper delivery vehicle, which is also really expensive. Most people don't even own their own houses. I doubt they could afford individual missile silos.
Also, nowadays people don't use atomic bombs. They use nuclear warheads. Atomic bombs are a relic of WW2. You have to keep up, especially if you want to debate CURRENT social issues.
Your argument that atomic bombs don't kill people is false too, because radioactive fallout can kill a lot of people on accident. It's not like a gun where when you pull the trigger you have a general idea where the bullet is going to go. Ofc innocent bystanders can still be killed sometimes, but it's not as bad as radiation poisoning.
That's why guns are good. Because they cover that middle area between bare hands and nuclear warheads, where you have a decent level of force projection at an economically viable price with a reliable degree of precision. So no, the gov't should not "just give an atomic bomb to everyone." And shame on you for trying to push that agenda.
1. I don't agree dude. Deep inside, i think you need to kill no one. 2. Lol, think of a-bomb reference as a mental shortcut for nucelar weapon (as it was for me). Note that eng is not my native language. 3. No, guns ARE NOT safer for bystanders than a-bomb...really. 4. I feel those who push pro guns agenda should feel ashamed.
1. People NEED to kill. We are apex predators. We didn't get there by singing kumbayah. This is the gritty reality of life on our little mudball called Earth. 2. But it's not. A bomb is not a missile, an atom bomb is not a nuclear warhead. HUGE differences. You might as well call a sling shot a machine gun because they both shoot kinetic projectiles. 3. Guns are more precise in their killing. I don't know why you'd argue this. 4. No shame in my game. Guns make me feel powerful. And I like that.
1. No we are better than this, we are not even from Earth - watch Prometheus (2012) 2. For me, how its carried to the target is not THAT important 3. Really? ok, more precise or not, you still have a better chance of getting job done with a nuclear weapon. 4. Imagine how powerful nuclear warhead would make you feel! isnt it tempting?
On February 02 2013 01:52 heliusx wrote: @theivingmagpie
If you were actually interested in a debate you wouldn't fill your posts with strawmen or use blanket statements to paint anyone who disagrees with you as a crazy "gun nut". It's no wonder no one bothers to take the time to respond to you in a well thought out response. As for bringing up atomic weapons, thats just the inability to compose a logical argument.
I'm simply pointing out that there are many more american regulations that attack liberties that don't get attacked--but when the Obama administration tries to pass laws against Assault Rifles while at the same time VP Biden tells people that they should get a shotgun instead if they wanted to protect themselves shows that there is no argument.
The Vice President of the United States while trying to add regulations against assault rifles flat out tells people to buy a shotgun since its better for people who don't have the training to aim a full auto. And yet people still freak out that their guns are being pried from their cold dead hands?
Its obvious that people against the restrictions are not arguing against the restrictions for any other reason than to troll american policy. The policy does not get rid of guns, the policy simply regulates guns much like american policies regulate everything else in the US. The 2nd amendment isn't being attacked in any way or shape by it--you know why? BECAUSE YOU CAN STILL GET GUNS. THE VP OF THE UNITED STATES WHO IS SPEARHEADING THIS IS TELLING YOU TO BUY GUNS.
Do you want to know why I put on A-Bombs? Because the entire defense for reduced regulations have looked like a strawman since page one of this thread. Regulations get made to protect citizens, suddenly all these arguments about self defense, defense against tyranny, weapon statistics, crime statistics, etc... gets brought up despite the fact that it is irrelevant to the policies being passed.
All defense arguments are pretty much shit when the leaders of the US tells you to buy guns to protect yourself.
All crime arguments are pretty much shit when the reason for the regulation is to increase safety and not to reduce crime--crime reduction is a local government task that is usually a task force based policy between community engagement and police presence. ie-the president of the united states of america has bigger fish to fry that to regulate gangbangers.
People going against gun regulation has no argument and have spent the entirety of the thread throwing strawmen.
Yet again, a post laden with blanket statements. You have no place in this debate. You cannot just paint everyone who disagrees with you with the same brush just because it's easier for you to argue against, what a pathetic tactic.
The policy restricts some guns but not all in an attempt to increase civilian safety. What defense can you possibly make against that?
The answer is that there isn't really a defense against that because thats what people want. So what do people who are against the regulation do? Bring up everything except the actual reason and effects of the regulation being passed. ie--strawmen arguments.
Are they taking your guns? They're telling you to buy guns. Are they saying no to all weapons? No, they're regulating full auto weapons and clip sizes.
What argument is there against them? That's right--none.
Let's step away from blanket statements then.
The American Government wants to add regulations to guns but tells you to buy shotguns to better protect yourselves. What is your arguments against that--the empirical literal thing that is actually happening right now in our lifetime in recent history this year 2013. The American Government tells its people to buy guns to protect themselves while adding some regulations against assault weapons.
Please, try to argue against that.
Already did. Rifles, which includes "assault weapons" as well as "hunting rifles", get used in less murders than shotguns or handguns.
Slightly less than shotguns, a metric fuckton less than handguns.
Sigh... of course they're used in less--they're harder to get. There's more christians in China than in the US--could it be because China is more christian than the US or could it be because china has more than a billion people and the US only has 300million skewing the statistic?
Oh right! The harder it is to get a weapon--be it cost/regulation/availability the less likely it is to be used for whatever it is used for. More people die from heart disease than from murders--which has more restrictions, fast food restaurants or guns sales?
Availability is also something that skews statistics. More people die from automobile accidents--because there are more people that drive cars around than there people that carry guns around.
And another problem with your strawman--the government is adding regulations to increase safety but telling people to buy shotguns. You counter by saying assault rifles are used in less murders than shotguns or hand guns--which is you saying that yes it is used in murders. You're attempting to create this idea that since handguns are in more murders that Assault Rifles should be given a free pass. But lets go back to what's actually happening in reality.
The US wants to regulate big guns--like Assault Rifles--while telling people to stock up on smaller guns--like shotguns and hand guns. The end result? Less people are killed by big guns than small guns. Your straw man is trying to create the false comparison that since hand guns murder more people that the murders of assault rifles shouldn't count. But the reality is that the government wants there to be less deaths by assault rifles. The existence of other weapons that are either more dangerous or have killed more people is irrelevant to the discussion. But if we are to pretend that they are somehow in someway relevant (at all) to the discussion, the only thing it shows is that the more regulated the gun the less its able to kill people as opposed to less regulated guns.
Heck--there's a reason Mexico had a sudden surge of killings when the US tried selling "traceable" assault rifles to drug cartels a few years ago and then proceed to lose track of who had all those assault rifles and lo and behold killings in Mexico skyrocketed. So yes, what your saying not only doesn't say anything but is also an argument that is attempting to distract from the actual policies present in reality.
My strawman? I've posted evidence, have you? Where exactly are you drawing your statistics from, because this doesn't sound fact-checked. Pistols require you to be 21, rifles require 18, the background checks are the same. You've already proven you're dead wrong about which is harder to get.
If we factor in prices, well, there's cheap rifles and pistols. But I bet if you find statistics regarding numbers of guns in the US, handguns are still used in a disproportionate amount of murders, because they can be concealed. As it turns out, if I walk into a liquor store with a rifle in my hands in Texas, somebody is going to notice, and I'll either be locked out or shot.
If I walk in, pull a pistol out from under my coat, I've got better odds of getting away with whatever I'm doing.
So, unless you're going to support this, don't accuse me of a strawman, because right now you sound silly.
EPT
