|
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 04 2013 09:47 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2013 09:20 white_horse wrote:On February 04 2013 09:10 EpiK wrote:
answer: no.
It's embarrassing that this is still a hotly debated issue in the states. A gun is just a tool that efficiently pierces through flesh. That's what it was made for and that's its most common use. Why the hell would you give that to a civilian? Even with strict regulation and training programs, why run the risk of giving people such a destructive tool? What benefits could there be? And if you say self-defense then instead of just focusing on ways to arm civilians look at why civilians feel the need to arm themselves in the first place. What danger poses a threat to them, and what's the root of that threat?
Hunters and gun enthusiasts should just shut up and find a new hobby. Yeah, they may be sensible enough not to use their guns irresponsibly but realize that not all people who have access to these guns have the same restraint. Why defend something for the sake of a mere past-time that that something can disrupt civilized society? Brother, you risk the wrath of all the frenzy alex joneses in TL. What I don't understand about gun proponents is the die-hard, absolutist defense of gun rights. We can always respect the 2nd amendment while having reasonable laws in place. But stronger gun laws don't prevent all mass shootings? By that logic, why do we require people to wear seatbelts in cars if seatbelts don't save people 100% of the time? Why wear a helmet in war if it only increases the chance of you surviving a headshot by 25%? That 25% is worthless simply because it isn't 100%? What the hell? There's no difference here. Pretty much every sensible, law-abiding citizen has the right to own a car, a gun, a personal plane, etc. But those are all things that can be used to cause damage to themselves or to other people. That's why our governments require us to have drivers license, pilots license, etc. Does requiring a drivers license somehow infringe upon your right to drive a car? Is it an evil government encroachment on our personal liberties? If the answer is no, then why should guns be any different? There are people both on TL and elsewhere that advocate for almost total removal of guns from society. As a result, people who disagree with that often overcompensate to the point where they are against any seemingly anti-gun ideas. Many people also believe that a new gun restriction opens the door to a stricter one down the road. It is not surprising why people on the pro-gun side act the way they do.
Do you agree with those people? Are you against any further regulation of guns?
|
United States24578 Posts
On February 04 2013 10:05 mynameisgreat11 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2013 09:47 micronesia wrote:On February 04 2013 09:20 white_horse wrote:On February 04 2013 09:10 EpiK wrote:
answer: no.
It's embarrassing that this is still a hotly debated issue in the states. A gun is just a tool that efficiently pierces through flesh. That's what it was made for and that's its most common use. Why the hell would you give that to a civilian? Even with strict regulation and training programs, why run the risk of giving people such a destructive tool? What benefits could there be? And if you say self-defense then instead of just focusing on ways to arm civilians look at why civilians feel the need to arm themselves in the first place. What danger poses a threat to them, and what's the root of that threat?
Hunters and gun enthusiasts should just shut up and find a new hobby. Yeah, they may be sensible enough not to use their guns irresponsibly but realize that not all people who have access to these guns have the same restraint. Why defend something for the sake of a mere past-time that that something can disrupt civilized society? Brother, you risk the wrath of all the frenzy alex joneses in TL. What I don't understand about gun proponents is the die-hard, absolutist defense of gun rights. We can always respect the 2nd amendment while having reasonable laws in place. But stronger gun laws don't prevent all mass shootings? By that logic, why do we require people to wear seatbelts in cars if seatbelts don't save people 100% of the time? Why wear a helmet in war if it only increases the chance of you surviving a headshot by 25%? That 25% is worthless simply because it isn't 100%? What the hell? There's no difference here. Pretty much every sensible, law-abiding citizen has the right to own a car, a gun, a personal plane, etc. But those are all things that can be used to cause damage to themselves or to other people. That's why our governments require us to have drivers license, pilots license, etc. Does requiring a drivers license somehow infringe upon your right to drive a car? Is it an evil government encroachment on our personal liberties? If the answer is no, then why should guns be any different? There are people both on TL and elsewhere that advocate for almost total removal of guns from society. As a result, people who disagree with that often overcompensate to the point where they are against any seemingly anti-gun ideas. Many people also believe that a new gun restriction opens the door to a stricter one down the road. It is not surprising why people on the pro-gun side act the way they do. Do you agree with those people? Are you against any further regulation of guns?
The people I mainly disagree with are the ones who believe there should be no new regulation on guns in the USA, and those who think we should have major sweeping changes such as a unilateral gun ban.
|
On February 04 2013 10:11 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2013 10:05 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 04 2013 09:47 micronesia wrote:On February 04 2013 09:20 white_horse wrote:On February 04 2013 09:10 EpiK wrote:
answer: no.
It's embarrassing that this is still a hotly debated issue in the states. A gun is just a tool that efficiently pierces through flesh. That's what it was made for and that's its most common use. Why the hell would you give that to a civilian? Even with strict regulation and training programs, why run the risk of giving people such a destructive tool? What benefits could there be? And if you say self-defense then instead of just focusing on ways to arm civilians look at why civilians feel the need to arm themselves in the first place. What danger poses a threat to them, and what's the root of that threat?
Hunters and gun enthusiasts should just shut up and find a new hobby. Yeah, they may be sensible enough not to use their guns irresponsibly but realize that not all people who have access to these guns have the same restraint. Why defend something for the sake of a mere past-time that that something can disrupt civilized society? Brother, you risk the wrath of all the frenzy alex joneses in TL. What I don't understand about gun proponents is the die-hard, absolutist defense of gun rights. We can always respect the 2nd amendment while having reasonable laws in place. But stronger gun laws don't prevent all mass shootings? By that logic, why do we require people to wear seatbelts in cars if seatbelts don't save people 100% of the time? Why wear a helmet in war if it only increases the chance of you surviving a headshot by 25%? That 25% is worthless simply because it isn't 100%? What the hell? There's no difference here. Pretty much every sensible, law-abiding citizen has the right to own a car, a gun, a personal plane, etc. But those are all things that can be used to cause damage to themselves or to other people. That's why our governments require us to have drivers license, pilots license, etc. Does requiring a drivers license somehow infringe upon your right to drive a car? Is it an evil government encroachment on our personal liberties? If the answer is no, then why should guns be any different? There are people both on TL and elsewhere that advocate for almost total removal of guns from society. As a result, people who disagree with that often overcompensate to the point where they are against any seemingly anti-gun ideas. Many people also believe that a new gun restriction opens the door to a stricter one down the road. It is not surprising why people on the pro-gun side act the way they do. Do you agree with those people? Are you against any further regulation of guns? The people I mainly disagree with are the ones who believe there should be no new regulation on guns in the USA, and those who think we should have major sweeping changes such as a unilateral gun ban.
I understand that some people are pushing for total gun bans. Still, if you say you resist any changes because it will eventually lead us to the point of total gun bans, nothing will ever change.
And this is a point that can be argued, but I can't ever see guns being completely banned in this country, period. I think resisting universal background checks on those grounds is ridiculous.
|
On February 04 2013 10:26 mynameisgreat11 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2013 10:11 micronesia wrote:On February 04 2013 10:05 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 04 2013 09:47 micronesia wrote:On February 04 2013 09:20 white_horse wrote:On February 04 2013 09:10 EpiK wrote:
answer: no.
It's embarrassing that this is still a hotly debated issue in the states. A gun is just a tool that efficiently pierces through flesh. That's what it was made for and that's its most common use. Why the hell would you give that to a civilian? Even with strict regulation and training programs, why run the risk of giving people such a destructive tool? What benefits could there be? And if you say self-defense then instead of just focusing on ways to arm civilians look at why civilians feel the need to arm themselves in the first place. What danger poses a threat to them, and what's the root of that threat?
Hunters and gun enthusiasts should just shut up and find a new hobby. Yeah, they may be sensible enough not to use their guns irresponsibly but realize that not all people who have access to these guns have the same restraint. Why defend something for the sake of a mere past-time that that something can disrupt civilized society? Brother, you risk the wrath of all the frenzy alex joneses in TL. What I don't understand about gun proponents is the die-hard, absolutist defense of gun rights. We can always respect the 2nd amendment while having reasonable laws in place. But stronger gun laws don't prevent all mass shootings? By that logic, why do we require people to wear seatbelts in cars if seatbelts don't save people 100% of the time? Why wear a helmet in war if it only increases the chance of you surviving a headshot by 25%? That 25% is worthless simply because it isn't 100%? What the hell? There's no difference here. Pretty much every sensible, law-abiding citizen has the right to own a car, a gun, a personal plane, etc. But those are all things that can be used to cause damage to themselves or to other people. That's why our governments require us to have drivers license, pilots license, etc. Does requiring a drivers license somehow infringe upon your right to drive a car? Is it an evil government encroachment on our personal liberties? If the answer is no, then why should guns be any different? There are people both on TL and elsewhere that advocate for almost total removal of guns from society. As a result, people who disagree with that often overcompensate to the point where they are against any seemingly anti-gun ideas. Many people also believe that a new gun restriction opens the door to a stricter one down the road. It is not surprising why people on the pro-gun side act the way they do. Do you agree with those people? Are you against any further regulation of guns? The people I mainly disagree with are the ones who believe there should be no new regulation on guns in the USA, and those who think we should have major sweeping changes such as a unilateral gun ban. I understand that some people are pushing for total gun bans. Still, if you say you resist any changes because it will eventually lead us to the point of total gun bans, nothing will ever change. And this is a point that can be argued, but I can't ever see guns being completely banned in this country, period. I think resisting universal background checks on those grounds is ridiculous.
Why should the gun owners have to compromise on all the wrong points? It's all well and good to discuss what would be ideal in this thread, but if you look at what gets proposed, why should we accept stupid shit like an "assault weapon" ban? Arbitrary restrictions that demonstrably have little to do with the actual crimes committed aren't a reasonable compromise, they are an attack on our rights.
Legislation to protect people would, at first glance, not be arbitrary, and wouldn't turn 30+% of our adult population into felons overnight. It wouldn't put us at the mercy of the existing criminal population, and it wouldn't require us to forfeit our property.
Anything that does a LOT of those things is not good lawmaking. It's not us compromising, it's rights being taken away.
The second the laws are, visibly, a token, ineffectual gesture to placate with minimal or no capacity to help or protect the people, our government is doing it wrong. And that's exactly the sort of places you don't compromise.
If we give up all the rights to weapons that don't get used in many crimes, what the hell are we going to be left with when the government comes around later to ban the weapons that are used in crimes? A slingshot?
|
1019 Posts
On February 04 2013 10:42 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2013 10:26 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 04 2013 10:11 micronesia wrote:On February 04 2013 10:05 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 04 2013 09:47 micronesia wrote:On February 04 2013 09:20 white_horse wrote:On February 04 2013 09:10 EpiK wrote:
answer: no.
It's embarrassing that this is still a hotly debated issue in the states. A gun is just a tool that efficiently pierces through flesh. That's what it was made for and that's its most common use. Why the hell would you give that to a civilian? Even with strict regulation and training programs, why run the risk of giving people such a destructive tool? What benefits could there be? And if you say self-defense then instead of just focusing on ways to arm civilians look at why civilians feel the need to arm themselves in the first place. What danger poses a threat to them, and what's the root of that threat?
Hunters and gun enthusiasts should just shut up and find a new hobby. Yeah, they may be sensible enough not to use their guns irresponsibly but realize that not all people who have access to these guns have the same restraint. Why defend something for the sake of a mere past-time that that something can disrupt civilized society? Brother, you risk the wrath of all the frenzy alex joneses in TL. What I don't understand about gun proponents is the die-hard, absolutist defense of gun rights. We can always respect the 2nd amendment while having reasonable laws in place. But stronger gun laws don't prevent all mass shootings? By that logic, why do we require people to wear seatbelts in cars if seatbelts don't save people 100% of the time? Why wear a helmet in war if it only increases the chance of you surviving a headshot by 25%? That 25% is worthless simply because it isn't 100%? What the hell? There's no difference here. Pretty much every sensible, law-abiding citizen has the right to own a car, a gun, a personal plane, etc. But those are all things that can be used to cause damage to themselves or to other people. That's why our governments require us to have drivers license, pilots license, etc. Does requiring a drivers license somehow infringe upon your right to drive a car? Is it an evil government encroachment on our personal liberties? If the answer is no, then why should guns be any different? There are people both on TL and elsewhere that advocate for almost total removal of guns from society. As a result, people who disagree with that often overcompensate to the point where they are against any seemingly anti-gun ideas. Many people also believe that a new gun restriction opens the door to a stricter one down the road. It is not surprising why people on the pro-gun side act the way they do. Do you agree with those people? Are you against any further regulation of guns? The people I mainly disagree with are the ones who believe there should be no new regulation on guns in the USA, and those who think we should have major sweeping changes such as a unilateral gun ban. I understand that some people are pushing for total gun bans. Still, if you say you resist any changes because it will eventually lead us to the point of total gun bans, nothing will ever change. And this is a point that can be argued, but I can't ever see guns being completely banned in this country, period. I think resisting universal background checks on those grounds is ridiculous. Why should the gun owners have to compromise on all the wrong points? It's all well and good to discuss what would be ideal in this thread, but if you look at what gets proposed, why should we accept stupid shit like an "assault weapon" ban? Arbitrary restrictions that demonstrably have little to do with the actual crimes committed aren't a reasonable compromise, they are an attack on our rights. Legislation to protect people would, at first glance, not be arbitrary, and wouldn't turn 30+% of our adult population into felons overnight. It wouldn't put us at the mercy of the existing criminal population, and it wouldn't require us to forfeit our property. Anything that does a LOT of those things is not good lawmaking. It's not us compromising, it's rights being taken away. The second the laws are, visibly, a token, ineffectual gesture to placate with minimal or no capacity to help or protect the people, our government is doing it wrong. And that's exactly the sort of places you don't compromise. If we give up all the rights to weapons that don't get used in many crimes, what the hell are we going to be left with when the government comes around later to ban the weapons that are used in crimes? A slingshot?
Even if the government proposed something reasonable - such as a good way to prevent people with mental illnesses from getting guns - your gun lobby friends would still react the same way. I'm totally convinced that the gun lobby isn't interested in any sort of compromise after I saw alex jones come out on national TV and act the way he did. That was pathetic.
And the slippery slope argument is complete garbage. Please don't use it. I can use the seatbelt law as a comparison again. Does requiring drivers to wear seatbelts automatically create the assumption that there are going to be stricter seatbelt laws in the future? Have we ever increased the fine for not wearing a seatbelt? Have we ever made a national big-brother-database of drivers who got caught not wearing a seatbelt? Is there a lawmaker who is currently trying to push a bill about it through congress? If the answer is no, why would guns be any different? Why does a new gun law somehow suggest that the government is going to make even more new gun bills? So if the government created a new law that requires automakers to reduce car emissions by a certain amount, does that automatically mean that the government is going to pursue a zero emissions law in the future? Does that sound reasonable to you? Is it in any way reasonable that a combustion engine car can produce zero emissions? I don't understand how the gun lobby can argue against logic and still attract the support of millions of americans. It just reflects the collective stupidity of the citizens of our country. Totally embarrassing.
|
United States24578 Posts
On February 04 2013 10:44 white_horse wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2013 09:47 micronesia wrote:On February 04 2013 09:20 white_horse wrote:On February 04 2013 09:10 EpiK wrote:
answer: no.
It's embarrassing that this is still a hotly debated issue in the states. A gun is just a tool that efficiently pierces through flesh. That's what it was made for and that's its most common use. Why the hell would you give that to a civilian? Even with strict regulation and training programs, why run the risk of giving people such a destructive tool? What benefits could there be? And if you say self-defense then instead of just focusing on ways to arm civilians look at why civilians feel the need to arm themselves in the first place. What danger poses a threat to them, and what's the root of that threat?
Hunters and gun enthusiasts should just shut up and find a new hobby. Yeah, they may be sensible enough not to use their guns irresponsibly but realize that not all people who have access to these guns have the same restraint. Why defend something for the sake of a mere past-time that that something can disrupt civilized society? Brother, you risk the wrath of all the frenzy alex joneses in TL. What I don't understand about gun proponents is the die-hard, absolutist defense of gun rights. We can always respect the 2nd amendment while having reasonable laws in place. But stronger gun laws don't prevent all mass shootings? By that logic, why do we require people to wear seatbelts in cars if seatbelts don't save people 100% of the time? Why wear a helmet in war if it only increases the chance of you surviving a headshot by 25%? That 25% is worthless simply because it isn't 100%? What the hell? There's no difference here. Pretty much every sensible, law-abiding citizen has the right to own a car, a gun, a personal plane, etc. But those are all things that can be used to cause damage to themselves or to other people. That's why our governments require us to have drivers license, pilots license, etc. Does requiring a drivers license somehow infringe upon your right to drive a car? Is it an evil government encroachment on our personal liberties? If the answer is no, then why should guns be any different? There are people both on TL and elsewhere that advocate for almost total removal of guns from society. As a result, people who disagree with that often overcompensate to the point where they are against any seemingly anti-gun ideas. Many people also believe that a new gun restriction opens the door to a stricter one down the road. It is not surprising why people on the pro-gun side act the way they do. The slippery slope argument is complete garbage. I can use the seatbelt law as a comparison again. Does requiring drivers to wear seatbelts automatically create the assumption that there are going to be stricter seatbelt laws in the future? Have we ever increased the fine for not wearing a seatbelt? Have we ever made a national big-brother-database of drivers who got caught not wearing a seatbelt? Is there a lawmaker who is currently trying to push a bill about it through congress? If the answer is no, why would guns be any different? I don't understand how the gun lobby can argue against logic and still attract the support of millions of americans. It just reflects the collective stupidity of the citizens of our country. Totally embarrassing.
You are overreacting. Nobody should say that passing a slight gun restriction will automatically mean stricter ones will be proposed immediately afterwards, but passing weaker gun laws with the intention of passing stricter ones later is a viable strategy that many people actually plan to use (even if you do not). These are sometimes the same people who wait until media frenzies like Newtown to suddenly push their gun agenda... the 'gun nuts' that make up a portion of the people who are against most recently proposed gun restrictions are not the only ones who are being disingenuous here.
As Jinglehell has spoken about, many proposed laws are not good ideas. While some proposal are good, all the prospective gun laws are getting lumped together, the same way "pro-gun" people are getting lumped together, and we get this quagmire that can't be navigated. This is the dangerous part of saying things like how an argument of the other side is complete garbage.
|
On February 04 2013 10:44 white_horse wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2013 09:47 micronesia wrote:On February 04 2013 09:20 white_horse wrote:On February 04 2013 09:10 EpiK wrote:
answer: no.
It's embarrassing that this is still a hotly debated issue in the states. A gun is just a tool that efficiently pierces through flesh. That's what it was made for and that's its most common use. Why the hell would you give that to a civilian? Even with strict regulation and training programs, why run the risk of giving people such a destructive tool? What benefits could there be? And if you say self-defense then instead of just focusing on ways to arm civilians look at why civilians feel the need to arm themselves in the first place. What danger poses a threat to them, and what's the root of that threat?
Hunters and gun enthusiasts should just shut up and find a new hobby. Yeah, they may be sensible enough not to use their guns irresponsibly but realize that not all people who have access to these guns have the same restraint. Why defend something for the sake of a mere past-time that that something can disrupt civilized society? Brother, you risk the wrath of all the frenzy alex joneses in TL. What I don't understand about gun proponents is the die-hard, absolutist defense of gun rights. We can always respect the 2nd amendment while having reasonable laws in place. But stronger gun laws don't prevent all mass shootings? By that logic, why do we require people to wear seatbelts in cars if seatbelts don't save people 100% of the time? Why wear a helmet in war if it only increases the chance of you surviving a headshot by 25%? That 25% is worthless simply because it isn't 100%? What the hell? There's no difference here. Pretty much every sensible, law-abiding citizen has the right to own a car, a gun, a personal plane, etc. But those are all things that can be used to cause damage to themselves or to other people. That's why our governments require us to have drivers license, pilots license, etc. Does requiring a drivers license somehow infringe upon your right to drive a car? Is it an evil government encroachment on our personal liberties? If the answer is no, then why should guns be any different? There are people both on TL and elsewhere that advocate for almost total removal of guns from society. As a result, people who disagree with that often overcompensate to the point where they are against any seemingly anti-gun ideas. Many people also believe that a new gun restriction opens the door to a stricter one down the road. It is not surprising why people on the pro-gun side act the way they do. The slippery slope argument is complete garbage. I can use the seatbelt law as a comparison again. Does requiring drivers to wear seatbelts automatically create the assumption that there are going to be stricter seatbelt laws in the future? Have we ever increased the fine for not wearing a seatbelt? Have we ever made a national big-brother-database of drivers who got caught not wearing a seatbelt? Is there a lawmaker who is currently trying to push a bill about it through congress? If the answer is no, why would guns be any different? I don't understand how the gun lobby can argue against logic and still attract the support of millions of americans. It just reflects the collective stupidity of the citizens of our country. Totally embarrassing.
Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you.
Speaking of logic, I suppose seat belts and guns are just such a perfect comparison, right? Since guns are, in the words of the anti-gun types, only there to kill other people, where seat belts are only there to save your own life. Now, if a gun could ONLY kill the person holding it, maybe this would be a fair comparison...
Admit it, you're so busy getting off on the fact that you're being allowed to violate every rule of civil discourse in this thread that you've actually dropped all pretense of rational debate. Every time you come in here, it's with ad homs, flame-bait, trash talking, and vehement rhetoric.
So, in the spirit of your own attitude, get off your whitehigh horse. You don't get any moral high ground when you can't even insult the people you disagree with without coming off as a pretentious little hypocrite. Go fuck yourself, you need to hear it.
User was warned for this post
|
1019 Posts
On February 04 2013 10:52 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2013 10:44 white_horse wrote:On February 04 2013 09:47 micronesia wrote:On February 04 2013 09:20 white_horse wrote:On February 04 2013 09:10 EpiK wrote:
answer: no.
It's embarrassing that this is still a hotly debated issue in the states. A gun is just a tool that efficiently pierces through flesh. That's what it was made for and that's its most common use. Why the hell would you give that to a civilian? Even with strict regulation and training programs, why run the risk of giving people such a destructive tool? What benefits could there be? And if you say self-defense then instead of just focusing on ways to arm civilians look at why civilians feel the need to arm themselves in the first place. What danger poses a threat to them, and what's the root of that threat?
Hunters and gun enthusiasts should just shut up and find a new hobby. Yeah, they may be sensible enough not to use their guns irresponsibly but realize that not all people who have access to these guns have the same restraint. Why defend something for the sake of a mere past-time that that something can disrupt civilized society? Brother, you risk the wrath of all the frenzy alex joneses in TL. What I don't understand about gun proponents is the die-hard, absolutist defense of gun rights. We can always respect the 2nd amendment while having reasonable laws in place. But stronger gun laws don't prevent all mass shootings? By that logic, why do we require people to wear seatbelts in cars if seatbelts don't save people 100% of the time? Why wear a helmet in war if it only increases the chance of you surviving a headshot by 25%? That 25% is worthless simply because it isn't 100%? What the hell? There's no difference here. Pretty much every sensible, law-abiding citizen has the right to own a car, a gun, a personal plane, etc. But those are all things that can be used to cause damage to themselves or to other people. That's why our governments require us to have drivers license, pilots license, etc. Does requiring a drivers license somehow infringe upon your right to drive a car? Is it an evil government encroachment on our personal liberties? If the answer is no, then why should guns be any different? There are people both on TL and elsewhere that advocate for almost total removal of guns from society. As a result, people who disagree with that often overcompensate to the point where they are against any seemingly anti-gun ideas. Many people also believe that a new gun restriction opens the door to a stricter one down the road. It is not surprising why people on the pro-gun side act the way they do. The slippery slope argument is complete garbage. I can use the seatbelt law as a comparison again. Does requiring drivers to wear seatbelts automatically create the assumption that there are going to be stricter seatbelt laws in the future? Have we ever increased the fine for not wearing a seatbelt? Have we ever made a national big-brother-database of drivers who got caught not wearing a seatbelt? Is there a lawmaker who is currently trying to push a bill about it through congress? If the answer is no, why would guns be any different? I don't understand how the gun lobby can argue against logic and still attract the support of millions of americans. It just reflects the collective stupidity of the citizens of our country. Totally embarrassing. Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you. Speaking of logic, I suppose seat belts and guns are just such a perfect comparison, right? Since guns are, in the words of the anti-gun types, only there to kill other people, where seat belts are only there to save your own life. Now, if a gun could ONLY kill the person holding it, maybe this would be a fair comparison... Admit it, you're so busy getting off on the fact that you're being allowed to violate every rule of civil discourse in this thread that you've actually dropped all pretense of rational debate. Every time you come in here, it's with ad homs, flame-bait, trash talking, and vehement rhetoric. So, in the spirit of your own attitude, get off your whitehigh horse. You don't get any moral high ground when you can't even insult the people you disagree with without coming off as a pretentious little hypocrite. Go fuck yourself, you need to hear it.
I can't believe you are talking about civil discourse with a post like that. Alex jones! alex jones! alex jones!
|
On February 04 2013 10:44 white_horse wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2013 10:42 JingleHell wrote:On February 04 2013 10:26 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 04 2013 10:11 micronesia wrote:On February 04 2013 10:05 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 04 2013 09:47 micronesia wrote:On February 04 2013 09:20 white_horse wrote:On February 04 2013 09:10 EpiK wrote:
answer: no.
It's embarrassing that this is still a hotly debated issue in the states. A gun is just a tool that efficiently pierces through flesh. That's what it was made for and that's its most common use. Why the hell would you give that to a civilian? Even with strict regulation and training programs, why run the risk of giving people such a destructive tool? What benefits could there be? And if you say self-defense then instead of just focusing on ways to arm civilians look at why civilians feel the need to arm themselves in the first place. What danger poses a threat to them, and what's the root of that threat?
Hunters and gun enthusiasts should just shut up and find a new hobby. Yeah, they may be sensible enough not to use their guns irresponsibly but realize that not all people who have access to these guns have the same restraint. Why defend something for the sake of a mere past-time that that something can disrupt civilized society? Brother, you risk the wrath of all the frenzy alex joneses in TL. What I don't understand about gun proponents is the die-hard, absolutist defense of gun rights. We can always respect the 2nd amendment while having reasonable laws in place. But stronger gun laws don't prevent all mass shootings? By that logic, why do we require people to wear seatbelts in cars if seatbelts don't save people 100% of the time? Why wear a helmet in war if it only increases the chance of you surviving a headshot by 25%? That 25% is worthless simply because it isn't 100%? What the hell? There's no difference here. Pretty much every sensible, law-abiding citizen has the right to own a car, a gun, a personal plane, etc. But those are all things that can be used to cause damage to themselves or to other people. That's why our governments require us to have drivers license, pilots license, etc. Does requiring a drivers license somehow infringe upon your right to drive a car? Is it an evil government encroachment on our personal liberties? If the answer is no, then why should guns be any different? There are people both on TL and elsewhere that advocate for almost total removal of guns from society. As a result, people who disagree with that often overcompensate to the point where they are against any seemingly anti-gun ideas. Many people also believe that a new gun restriction opens the door to a stricter one down the road. It is not surprising why people on the pro-gun side act the way they do. Do you agree with those people? Are you against any further regulation of guns? The people I mainly disagree with are the ones who believe there should be no new regulation on guns in the USA, and those who think we should have major sweeping changes such as a unilateral gun ban. I understand that some people are pushing for total gun bans. Still, if you say you resist any changes because it will eventually lead us to the point of total gun bans, nothing will ever change. And this is a point that can be argued, but I can't ever see guns being completely banned in this country, period. I think resisting universal background checks on those grounds is ridiculous. Why should the gun owners have to compromise on all the wrong points? It's all well and good to discuss what would be ideal in this thread, but if you look at what gets proposed, why should we accept stupid shit like an "assault weapon" ban? Arbitrary restrictions that demonstrably have little to do with the actual crimes committed aren't a reasonable compromise, they are an attack on our rights. Legislation to protect people would, at first glance, not be arbitrary, and wouldn't turn 30+% of our adult population into felons overnight. It wouldn't put us at the mercy of the existing criminal population, and it wouldn't require us to forfeit our property. Anything that does a LOT of those things is not good lawmaking. It's not us compromising, it's rights being taken away. The second the laws are, visibly, a token, ineffectual gesture to placate with minimal or no capacity to help or protect the people, our government is doing it wrong. And that's exactly the sort of places you don't compromise. If we give up all the rights to weapons that don't get used in many crimes, what the hell are we going to be left with when the government comes around later to ban the weapons that are used in crimes? A slingshot? Even if the government proposed something reasonable - such as a good way to prevent people with mental illnesses from getting guns - your gun lobby friends would still react the same way. I'm totally convinced that the gun lobby isn't interested in any sort of compromise after I saw alex jones come out on national TV and act the way he did. That was pathetic. And the slippery slope argument is complete garbage. Please don't use it. I can use the seatbelt law as a comparison again. Does requiring drivers to wear seatbelts automatically create the assumption that there are going to be stricter seatbelt laws in the future? Have we ever increased the fine for not wearing a seatbelt? Have we ever made a national big-brother-database of drivers who got caught not wearing a seatbelt? Is there a lawmaker who is currently trying to push a bill about it through congress? If the answer is no, why would guns be any different? Why does a new gun law somehow suggest that the government is going to make even more new gun bills? So if the government created a new law that requires automakers to reduce car emissions by a certain amount, does that automatically mean that the government is going to pursue a zero emissions law in the future? Does that sound reasonable to you? Is it in any way reasonable that a combustion engine car can produce zero emissions? I don't understand how the gun lobby can argue against logic and still attract the support of millions of americans. It just reflects the collective stupidity of the citizens of our country. Totally embarrassing.
The chief of the San Diego, California police has said that he believes that it will take only a generation to confiscate nearly all privately held firearms (from the date that a total confiscation program would begin, not from today), and that this is a desirable goal for the State to undertake.
Total gun confiscation is also widely supported in the left wing of the Democratic Party.
You can call names and heap scorn all you want, it doesn't change the fact that there are significant, powerful figures in the United States who would eagerly implement a European- or Australian-style near-100% gun confiscation program, if they thought they could get away with it.
|
On February 04 2013 10:55 white_horse wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2013 10:52 JingleHell wrote:On February 04 2013 10:44 white_horse wrote:On February 04 2013 09:47 micronesia wrote:On February 04 2013 09:20 white_horse wrote:On February 04 2013 09:10 EpiK wrote:
answer: no.
It's embarrassing that this is still a hotly debated issue in the states. A gun is just a tool that efficiently pierces through flesh. That's what it was made for and that's its most common use. Why the hell would you give that to a civilian? Even with strict regulation and training programs, why run the risk of giving people such a destructive tool? What benefits could there be? And if you say self-defense then instead of just focusing on ways to arm civilians look at why civilians feel the need to arm themselves in the first place. What danger poses a threat to them, and what's the root of that threat?
Hunters and gun enthusiasts should just shut up and find a new hobby. Yeah, they may be sensible enough not to use their guns irresponsibly but realize that not all people who have access to these guns have the same restraint. Why defend something for the sake of a mere past-time that that something can disrupt civilized society? Brother, you risk the wrath of all the frenzy alex joneses in TL. What I don't understand about gun proponents is the die-hard, absolutist defense of gun rights. We can always respect the 2nd amendment while having reasonable laws in place. But stronger gun laws don't prevent all mass shootings? By that logic, why do we require people to wear seatbelts in cars if seatbelts don't save people 100% of the time? Why wear a helmet in war if it only increases the chance of you surviving a headshot by 25%? That 25% is worthless simply because it isn't 100%? What the hell? There's no difference here. Pretty much every sensible, law-abiding citizen has the right to own a car, a gun, a personal plane, etc. But those are all things that can be used to cause damage to themselves or to other people. That's why our governments require us to have drivers license, pilots license, etc. Does requiring a drivers license somehow infringe upon your right to drive a car? Is it an evil government encroachment on our personal liberties? If the answer is no, then why should guns be any different? There are people both on TL and elsewhere that advocate for almost total removal of guns from society. As a result, people who disagree with that often overcompensate to the point where they are against any seemingly anti-gun ideas. Many people also believe that a new gun restriction opens the door to a stricter one down the road. It is not surprising why people on the pro-gun side act the way they do. The slippery slope argument is complete garbage. I can use the seatbelt law as a comparison again. Does requiring drivers to wear seatbelts automatically create the assumption that there are going to be stricter seatbelt laws in the future? Have we ever increased the fine for not wearing a seatbelt? Have we ever made a national big-brother-database of drivers who got caught not wearing a seatbelt? Is there a lawmaker who is currently trying to push a bill about it through congress? If the answer is no, why would guns be any different? I don't understand how the gun lobby can argue against logic and still attract the support of millions of americans. It just reflects the collective stupidity of the citizens of our country. Totally embarrassing. Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you. Speaking of logic, I suppose seat belts and guns are just such a perfect comparison, right? Since guns are, in the words of the anti-gun types, only there to kill other people, where seat belts are only there to save your own life. Now, if a gun could ONLY kill the person holding it, maybe this would be a fair comparison... Admit it, you're so busy getting off on the fact that you're being allowed to violate every rule of civil discourse in this thread that you've actually dropped all pretense of rational debate. Every time you come in here, it's with ad homs, flame-bait, trash talking, and vehement rhetoric. So, in the spirit of your own attitude, get off your whitehigh horse. You don't get any moral high ground when you can't even insult the people you disagree with without coming off as a pretentious little hypocrite. Go fuck yourself, you need to hear it. I can't believe you are talking about civil discourse with a post like that. Alex jones! alex jones! alex jones!
Jinglehell has contributed pretty extensively to this thread unlike you. Further more aren't you a staff member? Should you really "troll people to see their reaction" as your pre edit post states?
|
I'm sad nobody commented on the uruguayan plan regarding guns I posted a few pages back  .. It's a pretty extreme example being actually applied in a country that has been pretty gun-favoring in the past
|
On February 04 2013 10:55 white_horse wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2013 10:52 JingleHell wrote:On February 04 2013 10:44 white_horse wrote:On February 04 2013 09:47 micronesia wrote:On February 04 2013 09:20 white_horse wrote:On February 04 2013 09:10 EpiK wrote:
answer: no.
It's embarrassing that this is still a hotly debated issue in the states. A gun is just a tool that efficiently pierces through flesh. That's what it was made for and that's its most common use. Why the hell would you give that to a civilian? Even with strict regulation and training programs, why run the risk of giving people such a destructive tool? What benefits could there be? And if you say self-defense then instead of just focusing on ways to arm civilians look at why civilians feel the need to arm themselves in the first place. What danger poses a threat to them, and what's the root of that threat?
Hunters and gun enthusiasts should just shut up and find a new hobby. Yeah, they may be sensible enough not to use their guns irresponsibly but realize that not all people who have access to these guns have the same restraint. Why defend something for the sake of a mere past-time that that something can disrupt civilized society? Brother, you risk the wrath of all the frenzy alex joneses in TL. What I don't understand about gun proponents is the die-hard, absolutist defense of gun rights. We can always respect the 2nd amendment while having reasonable laws in place. But stronger gun laws don't prevent all mass shootings? By that logic, why do we require people to wear seatbelts in cars if seatbelts don't save people 100% of the time? Why wear a helmet in war if it only increases the chance of you surviving a headshot by 25%? That 25% is worthless simply because it isn't 100%? What the hell? There's no difference here. Pretty much every sensible, law-abiding citizen has the right to own a car, a gun, a personal plane, etc. But those are all things that can be used to cause damage to themselves or to other people. That's why our governments require us to have drivers license, pilots license, etc. Does requiring a drivers license somehow infringe upon your right to drive a car? Is it an evil government encroachment on our personal liberties? If the answer is no, then why should guns be any different? There are people both on TL and elsewhere that advocate for almost total removal of guns from society. As a result, people who disagree with that often overcompensate to the point where they are against any seemingly anti-gun ideas. Many people also believe that a new gun restriction opens the door to a stricter one down the road. It is not surprising why people on the pro-gun side act the way they do. The slippery slope argument is complete garbage. I can use the seatbelt law as a comparison again. Does requiring drivers to wear seatbelts automatically create the assumption that there are going to be stricter seatbelt laws in the future? Have we ever increased the fine for not wearing a seatbelt? Have we ever made a national big-brother-database of drivers who got caught not wearing a seatbelt? Is there a lawmaker who is currently trying to push a bill about it through congress? If the answer is no, why would guns be any different? I don't understand how the gun lobby can argue against logic and still attract the support of millions of americans. It just reflects the collective stupidity of the citizens of our country. Totally embarrassing. Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you. Speaking of logic, I suppose seat belts and guns are just such a perfect comparison, right? Since guns are, in the words of the anti-gun types, only there to kill other people, where seat belts are only there to save your own life. Now, if a gun could ONLY kill the person holding it, maybe this would be a fair comparison... Admit it, you're so busy getting off on the fact that you're being allowed to violate every rule of civil discourse in this thread that you've actually dropped all pretense of rational debate. Every time you come in here, it's with ad homs, flame-bait, trash talking, and vehement rhetoric. So, in the spirit of your own attitude, get off your whitehigh horse. You don't get any moral high ground when you can't even insult the people you disagree with without coming off as a pretentious little hypocrite. Go fuck yourself, you need to hear it. I can't believe you are talking about civil discourse with a post like that. Alex jones! alex jones! alex jones!
He responds to everything with hyper aggression when it isn't called for. You'll learn to get used to it...
|
On February 04 2013 10:44 white_horse wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2013 10:42 JingleHell wrote:On February 04 2013 10:26 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 04 2013 10:11 micronesia wrote:On February 04 2013 10:05 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 04 2013 09:47 micronesia wrote:On February 04 2013 09:20 white_horse wrote:On February 04 2013 09:10 EpiK wrote:
answer: no.
It's embarrassing that this is still a hotly debated issue in the states. A gun is just a tool that efficiently pierces through flesh. That's what it was made for and that's its most common use. Why the hell would you give that to a civilian? Even with strict regulation and training programs, why run the risk of giving people such a destructive tool? What benefits could there be? And if you say self-defense then instead of just focusing on ways to arm civilians look at why civilians feel the need to arm themselves in the first place. What danger poses a threat to them, and what's the root of that threat?
Hunters and gun enthusiasts should just shut up and find a new hobby. Yeah, they may be sensible enough not to use their guns irresponsibly but realize that not all people who have access to these guns have the same restraint. Why defend something for the sake of a mere past-time that that something can disrupt civilized society? Brother, you risk the wrath of all the frenzy alex joneses in TL. What I don't understand about gun proponents is the die-hard, absolutist defense of gun rights. We can always respect the 2nd amendment while having reasonable laws in place. But stronger gun laws don't prevent all mass shootings? By that logic, why do we require people to wear seatbelts in cars if seatbelts don't save people 100% of the time? Why wear a helmet in war if it only increases the chance of you surviving a headshot by 25%? That 25% is worthless simply because it isn't 100%? What the hell? There's no difference here. Pretty much every sensible, law-abiding citizen has the right to own a car, a gun, a personal plane, etc. But those are all things that can be used to cause damage to themselves or to other people. That's why our governments require us to have drivers license, pilots license, etc. Does requiring a drivers license somehow infringe upon your right to drive a car? Is it an evil government encroachment on our personal liberties? If the answer is no, then why should guns be any different? There are people both on TL and elsewhere that advocate for almost total removal of guns from society. As a result, people who disagree with that often overcompensate to the point where they are against any seemingly anti-gun ideas. Many people also believe that a new gun restriction opens the door to a stricter one down the road. It is not surprising why people on the pro-gun side act the way they do. Do you agree with those people? Are you against any further regulation of guns? The people I mainly disagree with are the ones who believe there should be no new regulation on guns in the USA, and those who think we should have major sweeping changes such as a unilateral gun ban. I understand that some people are pushing for total gun bans. Still, if you say you resist any changes because it will eventually lead us to the point of total gun bans, nothing will ever change. And this is a point that can be argued, but I can't ever see guns being completely banned in this country, period. I think resisting universal background checks on those grounds is ridiculous. Why should the gun owners have to compromise on all the wrong points? It's all well and good to discuss what would be ideal in this thread, but if you look at what gets proposed, why should we accept stupid shit like an "assault weapon" ban? Arbitrary restrictions that demonstrably have little to do with the actual crimes committed aren't a reasonable compromise, they are an attack on our rights. Legislation to protect people would, at first glance, not be arbitrary, and wouldn't turn 30+% of our adult population into felons overnight. It wouldn't put us at the mercy of the existing criminal population, and it wouldn't require us to forfeit our property. Anything that does a LOT of those things is not good lawmaking. It's not us compromising, it's rights being taken away. The second the laws are, visibly, a token, ineffectual gesture to placate with minimal or no capacity to help or protect the people, our government is doing it wrong. And that's exactly the sort of places you don't compromise. If we give up all the rights to weapons that don't get used in many crimes, what the hell are we going to be left with when the government comes around later to ban the weapons that are used in crimes? A slingshot? Even if the government proposed something reasonable - such as a good way to prevent people with mental illnesses from getting guns - your gun lobby friends would still react the same way. I'm totally convinced that the gun lobby isn't interested in any sort of compromise after I saw alex jones come out on national TV and act the way he did. That was pathetic. And the slippery slope argument is complete garbage. Please don't use it. I can use the seatbelt law as a comparison again. Does requiring drivers to wear seatbelts automatically create the assumption that there are going to be stricter seatbelt laws in the future? Have we ever increased the fine for not wearing a seatbelt? Have we ever made a national big-brother-database of drivers who got caught not wearing a seatbelt? Is there a lawmaker who is currently trying to push a bill about it through congress? If the answer is no, why would guns be any different? Why does a new gun law somehow suggest that the government is going to make even more new gun bills? So if the government created a new law that requires automakers to reduce car emissions by a certain amount, does that automatically mean that the government is going to pursue a zero emissions law in the future? Does that sound reasonable to you? Is it in any way reasonable that a combustion engine car can produce zero emissions? I don't understand how the gun lobby can argue against logic and still attract the support of millions of americans. It just reflects the collective stupidity of the citizens of our country. Totally embarrassing.
The slippery slope argument might not be complete garbage in this case. The UK did the same thing. They passed gun registration laws, saying they weren't trying to take them away. Then, they took them away, using the registration to find the people who had them.
Don't blame the gun-lobby, blame the system that allows such ridiculous lobbying in the first place.
Besides, Alex Jones isn't even in the gun-lobby. He's just some crazy conspiracy theorist. Piers Morgan only had him on because he wanted an easy target, especially after getting wrecked by someone whose name escapes me, Ben Shapiro maybe? In any case, he absolutely does not represent all gun owners in any way, and thinking he does is a sign that you don't actually care what's right, you just want to win.
|
Some stats taught at my restricted weapons licensing test today.
In Canada a study found that 80% of all gun deaths in Canada is from suicides, Accidents make up 5% (most of which include a fence) while the rest are murders/justifiable homicide/cop shootings etc.
In Alberta during an economic down turn the suicide rate to gun death went up to 95%.
People like to paint guns as killing machines but the vasssttttt majority of bullets fired I would guess the high 90%s were used lawfully during hunting or target shooting.
Something else we talked about and that I found interesting. Recently a man was in his home when some people started throwing molotovs at his home in Ontario. His house was burning and he was burned badly when he went to his safe and got a gun. he fired 3 rounds in the ground in front of the thugs. They ran off and then when the police showed up later he got charged with unlawful use of a firearm. How is that not fucked up?
Every single post of Whitehorse has an insult in it for gun owners lol. Pretty sad to resort to name calling...
|
On February 04 2013 16:32 tokicheese wrote:
Some stats taught at my restricted weapons licensing test today.
In Canada a study found that 80% of all gun deaths in Canada is from suicides, Accidents make up 5% (most of which include a fence) while the rest are murders/justifiable homicide/cop shootings etc.
In Alberta during an economic down turn the suicide rate to gun death went up to 95%.
People like to paint guns as killing machines but the vasssttttt majority of bullets fired I would guess the high 90%s were used lawfully during hunting or target shooting.
Something else we talked about and that I found interesting. Recently a man was in his home when some people started throwing molotovs at his home in Ontario. His house was burning and he was burned badly when he went to his safe and got a gun. he fired 3 rounds in the ground in front of the thugs. They ran off and then when the police showed up later he got charged with unlawful use of a firearm. How is that not fucked up?
Every single post of Whitehorse has an insult in it for gun owners lol. Pretty sad to resort to name calling...
I'm not sure how the "interesting" story helps your argument at all... All it does is paint you as a paranoid gun-proponent (and thus people may infer that you want your guns because you think the government is coming to get you)
As far as those statistics go, you made a point about what most guns are used for, but not what all guns are used for. You also made no comment on a connection between gun ownership and gun usage, numbers of gun accidents, numbers of suicides, escalation of violence, etc. As well, you assert that your made up percentage on the number of bullets used for target practice somehow justifies the rest of the bullets being used for other things like killing people...
So basically you disregard any connection between your statistics and actual relevance to whether someone should own a gun or not...
|
On February 04 2013 18:29 StayPhrosty wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2013 16:32 tokicheese wrote:
Some stats taught at my restricted weapons licensing test today.
In Canada a study found that 80% of all gun deaths in Canada is from suicides, Accidents make up 5% (most of which include a fence) while the rest are murders/justifiable homicide/cop shootings etc.
In Alberta during an economic down turn the suicide rate to gun death went up to 95%.
People like to paint guns as killing machines but the vasssttttt majority of bullets fired I would guess the high 90%s were used lawfully during hunting or target shooting.
Something else we talked about and that I found interesting. Recently a man was in his home when some people started throwing molotovs at his home in Ontario. His house was burning and he was burned badly when he went to his safe and got a gun. he fired 3 rounds in the ground in front of the thugs. They ran off and then when the police showed up later he got charged with unlawful use of a firearm. How is that not fucked up?
Every single post of Whitehorse has an insult in it for gun owners lol. Pretty sad to resort to name calling... I'm not sure how the "interesting" story helps your argument at all... All it does is paint you as a paranoid gun-proponent (and thus people may infer that you want your guns because you think the government is coming to get you) As far as those statistics go, you made a point about what most guns are used for, but not what all guns are used for. You also made no comment on a connection between gun ownership and gun usage, numbers of gun accidents, numbers of suicides, escalation of violence, etc. As well, you assert that your made up percentage on the number of bullets used for target practice somehow justifies the rest of the bullets being used for other things like killing people... So basically you disregard any connection between your statistics and actual relevance to whether someone should own a gun or not...
Here are statistics (in bold) that are relevant that show how gun control may be backfiring:
Harvard Study: Gun Control Is Counterproductive
I've just learned that Washington, D.C.'s petition for a rehearing of the Parker case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit was denied today. This is good news. Readers will recall in this case that the D.C. Circuit overturned the decades-long ban on gun ownership in the nation's capitol on Second Amendment grounds.
However, as my colleague Peter Ferrara explained in his National Review Online article following the initial decision in March, it looks very likely that the United States Supreme Court will take the case on appeal. When it does so - beyond seriously considering the clear original intent of the Second Amendment to protect an individual's right to armed self-defense - the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court would be wise to take into account the findings of a recent study out of Harvard.
The study, which just appeared in Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence." Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is "no." And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.
The findings of two criminologists - Prof. Don Kates and Prof. Gary Mauser - in their exhaustive study of American and European gun laws and violence rates, are telling:
Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. The study found that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population).
For example, Norway has the highest rate of gun ownership in Western Europe, yet possesses the lowest murder rate. In contrast, Holland's murder rate is nearly the worst, despite having the lowest gun ownership rate in Western Europe. Sweden and Denmark are two more examples of nations with high murder rates but few guns. As the study's authors write in the report:
If the mantra "more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death" were true, broad cross-national comparisons should show that nations with higher gun ownership per capita consistently have more death. Nations with higher gun ownership rates, however, do not have higher murder or suicide rates than those with lower gun ownership. Indeed many high gun ownership nations have much lower murder rates. (p. 661)
Finally, and as if to prove the bumper sticker correct - that "gun don't kill people, people do" - the study also shows that Russia's murder rate is four times higher than the U.S. and more than 20 times higher than Norway. This, in a country that practically eradicated private gun ownership over the course of decades of totalitarian rule and police state methods of suppression. Needless to say, very few Russian murders involve guns.
The important thing to keep in mind is not the rate of deaths by gun - a statistic that anti-gun advocates are quick to recite - but the overall murder rate, regardless of means. The criminologists explain:
[P]er capita murder overall is only half as frequent in the United States as in several other nations where gun murder is rarer, but murder by strangling, stabbing, or beating is much more frequent. (p. 663 - emphases in original)
It is important to note here that Profs. Kates and Mauser are not pro-gun zealots. In fact, they go out of their way to stress that their study neither proves that gun control causes higher murder rates nor that increased gun ownership necessarily leads to lower murder rates. (Though, in my view, Prof. John Lott's More Guns, Less Crime does indeed prove the latter.) But what is clear, and what they do say, is that gun control is ineffectual at preventing murder, and apparently counterproductive.
Not only is the D.C. gun ban ill-conceived on constitutional grounds, it fails to live up to its purpose. If the astronomical murder rate in the nation's capitol, in comparison to cities where gun ownership is permitted, didn't already make that fact clear, this study out of Harvard should.
source: http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/
|
On February 04 2013 18:40 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2013 18:29 StayPhrosty wrote:On February 04 2013 16:32 tokicheese wrote:
Some stats taught at my restricted weapons licensing test today.
In Canada a study found that 80% of all gun deaths in Canada is from suicides, Accidents make up 5% (most of which include a fence) while the rest are murders/justifiable homicide/cop shootings etc.
In Alberta during an economic down turn the suicide rate to gun death went up to 95%.
People like to paint guns as killing machines but the vasssttttt majority of bullets fired I would guess the high 90%s were used lawfully during hunting or target shooting.
Something else we talked about and that I found interesting. Recently a man was in his home when some people started throwing molotovs at his home in Ontario. His house was burning and he was burned badly when he went to his safe and got a gun. he fired 3 rounds in the ground in front of the thugs. They ran off and then when the police showed up later he got charged with unlawful use of a firearm. How is that not fucked up?
Every single post of Whitehorse has an insult in it for gun owners lol. Pretty sad to resort to name calling... I'm not sure how the "interesting" story helps your argument at all... All it does is paint you as a paranoid gun-proponent (and thus people may infer that you want your guns because you think the government is coming to get you) As far as those statistics go, you made a point about what most guns are used for, but not what all guns are used for. You also made no comment on a connection between gun ownership and gun usage, numbers of gun accidents, numbers of suicides, escalation of violence, etc. As well, you assert that your made up percentage on the number of bullets used for target practice somehow justifies the rest of the bullets being used for other things like killing people... So basically you disregard any connection between your statistics and actual relevance to whether someone should own a gun or not... Here are statistics (in bold) that are relevant that show how gun control may be backfiring: Show nested quote +Harvard Study: Gun Control Is Counterproductive
I've just learned that Washington, D.C.'s petition for a rehearing of the Parker case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit was denied today. This is good news. Readers will recall in this case that the D.C. Circuit overturned the decades-long ban on gun ownership in the nation's capitol on Second Amendment grounds.
However, as my colleague Peter Ferrara explained in his National Review Online article following the initial decision in March, it looks very likely that the United States Supreme Court will take the case on appeal. When it does so - beyond seriously considering the clear original intent of the Second Amendment to protect an individual's right to armed self-defense - the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court would be wise to take into account the findings of a recent study out of Harvard.
The study, which just appeared in Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence." Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is "no." And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.
The findings of two criminologists - Prof. Don Kates and Prof. Gary Mauser - in their exhaustive study of American and European gun laws and violence rates, are telling:
Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. The study found that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population).
For example, Norway has the highest rate of gun ownership in Western Europe, yet possesses the lowest murder rate. In contrast, Holland's murder rate is nearly the worst, despite having the lowest gun ownership rate in Western Europe. Sweden and Denmark are two more examples of nations with high murder rates but few guns. As the study's authors write in the report:
If the mantra "more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death" were true, broad cross-national comparisons should show that nations with higher gun ownership per capita consistently have more death. Nations with higher gun ownership rates, however, do not have higher murder or suicide rates than those with lower gun ownership. Indeed many high gun ownership nations have much lower murder rates. (p. 661)
Finally, and as if to prove the bumper sticker correct - that "gun don't kill people, people do" - the study also shows that Russia's murder rate is four times higher than the U.S. and more than 20 times higher than Norway. This, in a country that practically eradicated private gun ownership over the course of decades of totalitarian rule and police state methods of suppression. Needless to say, very few Russian murders involve guns.
The important thing to keep in mind is not the rate of deaths by gun - a statistic that anti-gun advocates are quick to recite - but the overall murder rate, regardless of means. The criminologists explain:
[P]er capita murder overall is only half as frequent in the United States as in several other nations where gun murder is rarer, but murder by strangling, stabbing, or beating is much more frequent. (p. 663 - emphases in original)
It is important to note here that Profs. Kates and Mauser are not pro-gun zealots. In fact, they go out of their way to stress that their study neither proves that gun control causes higher murder rates nor that increased gun ownership necessarily leads to lower murder rates. (Though, in my view, Prof. John Lott's More Guns, Less Crime does indeed prove the latter.) But what is clear, and what they do say, is that gun control is ineffectual at preventing murder, and apparently counterproductive.
Not only is the D.C. gun ban ill-conceived on constitutional grounds, it fails to live up to its purpose. If the astronomical murder rate in the nation's capitol, in comparison to cities where gun ownership is permitted, didn't already make that fact clear, this study out of Harvard should. source: http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/
Hey, thanks for actually posting a somewhat relevant statistic. At least we can have a conversation now.
Well that website you found the article on is hardly unbiased, but I would say the harvard study is more credible. The problem is that the researchers themselves stated that their study neither proves that gun control causes higher murder raters nor that increased gun ownership actually leads to lower murder rates.
Personally I'm a little mystified how having a gun around makes you less suicidal, so I'm led to believe that these statistics are more heavily influenced by the underlying cultural/societal issues and crime rates than actual gun ownership. As well, I'm a little confused by the statistics on overall murder rates. I mean, those European per-capita rates are relevant, but not a conclusion in themselves. Just for a comparison from wikipedia:
"in 2007 for example, the homicide rate for the city of Toronto was 3.3 per 100,000 people, yet for Detroit (33.8), Atlanta (19.7), Chicago (15.5), San Francisco (13.6), Boston (10.3) and New York City (6.3) it was higher, while it was only marginally lower in Vancouver (3.1), San Jose (2.9) and Montreal (2.6). Toronto's robbery rate also ranks low, with 207.1 robberies per 100,000 people, compared to Detroit (675.1), Chicago (588.6), Los Angeles (348.5), Vancouver (266.2), New York City (265.9), Montreal (235.3) and San Diego (158.8).[2][3][4][5][6][7]"
I think perhaps a more detailed analysis of the statistics would be necessary (though a thorough conclusion is likely impossible in such a complex situation). Perhaps a logical discussion on the merits of being able to defend yourself versus the need to defend yourself would be helpful. I, for one, am more afraid of being mugged than being hunted by some unknown assailant or having my home invaded. I think there's a real distinction in the debate between defending yourself against a common thug and defending yourself against an unknown group of violent home invaders. Anyways what do you think?
|
Zurich15313 Posts
I find the inter-European gun and murder rate comparisons largely meaningless as in pretty much every European country you are not allowed to own a gun for self defense purposes anyway. So I really fail to see how gun ownership would influence crime and/or gun crime significantly.
As to the differences quoted in the study. The central and northern European countries have a long tradition of hunting and competition shooting - something that just isn't there in the same extend in the southern countries. At the same time they (North/Central) happen to be better off economically, educationally, and in pretty much every other factor that would influence crime.
|
On February 04 2013 22:06 zatic wrote:
I find the inter-European gun and murder rate comparisons largely meaningless as in pretty much every European country you are not allowed to own a gun for self defense purposes anyway. So I really fail to see how gun ownership would influence crime and/or gun crime significantly.
As to the differences quoted in the study. The central and northern European countries have a long tradition of hunting and competition shooting - something that just isn't there in the same extend in the southern countries. At the same time they (North/Central) happen to be better off economically, educationally, and in pretty much every other factor that would influence crime.
I would agree with your final bit, if not everything, that it's no coincidence that Northern and Central European countries are better off in all the areas (economy, education etc) that would influence crime. This is probably the biggest reason the difference between the United States and those parts of Europe, it's no secret that Americans (and Canadians I might add) don't have the best public education systems nor economical institutes to negate the criminal effect. That being said, I would think Canada higher if not just for nationalistic reasons 
|
On February 04 2013 22:06 zatic wrote:
I find the inter-European gun and murder rate comparisons largely meaningless as in pretty much every European country you are not allowed to own a gun for self defense purposes anyway. So I really fail to see how gun ownership would influence crime and/or gun crime significantly.
As to the differences quoted in the study. The central and northern European countries have a long tradition of hunting and competition shooting - something that just isn't there in the same extend in the southern countries. At the same time they (North/Central) happen to be better off economically, educationally, and in pretty much every other factor that would influence crime.
Just because Europeans are generally not allowed to own guns for self defense does not mean that those weapons cannot be used in self defense.
Would you rather get the shit kicked out of you, and possibly die, or would you choose a little jail time for a weapons charge?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
