|
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 09 2013 03:53 LOveRH wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2013 01:02 Donger wrote:On February 09 2013 00:09 LOveRH wrote:On February 08 2013 19:24 starcon wrote:
Moral argument: let's forbid guns so that we can lower crime and save people.
Solution: government passes a law and the problem will be solved.
But we aren't talking about true gun control, removing guns from society, just about centralizing weaponry in the lands of the state. If the police/military laid down their guns then private citizens would be more inclined to do so as well.
Otherwise is to create a double standard. Guns only in the hands of government and police.
To solve the problem of the moral argument laws aimed at criminal misuse of firearms are proven crime deterrents. Mandatory penalties for using a firearm in a violent crime in 1975 led to: Virginia's murder rate dropped 23% and robbery 11% in 15 years, South Carolina recorded a 24% murder rate decline between 1975 and 1990, Florida's homicide rate down 33% over a 17 year span, Delaware's homicide rate down 33% in a 19 year span, Montana's homicide rate down 42% from 1976-1992 and New Hampshire's homicide rate down 50% 1977-1992.
One interesting thing to note James Holmes, the Batman shooter, had 7 theatres nearby to choose from. He choose the furthest from his house because it was a gun-free zone. What do you mean by this? That he picked a movie theater because he knew the customers wouldn't have guns to shoot back? That's exactly it. The same logic is used for almost every mass shooting within the United States. I do not know of one that hasn't taken place in a gun-free zone. Why does it matter if a shooter attacks in a 'gun free zone' over the opposite? From my point of view most shootings the shooter is pretty much crazy and a lot of the time shoots himself after. I really don't think a shooter picks gun free zones for that propose. I think you are giving the shooters sanity a lot more credit then it deserves.
I wouldn't necessarily call it sanity. To me they want to get a high kill count before ending their own life and maybe being remembered as the next Columbine or Virginia Tech. Easiest place to do that is in a location where people won't shoot back ending your spree.
|
On February 09 2013 10:27 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2013 09:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 09 2013 09:36 sunprince wrote:On February 09 2013 09:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 09 2013 09:26 sunprince wrote:On February 09 2013 09:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 09 2013 08:39 sunprince wrote:On February 09 2013 07:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 09 2013 07:31 sunprince wrote:On February 09 2013 07:17 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Then maybe you should take a look at your own evidence.
Per the wiki article you linked: "Much of scientific evidence is based upon a correlation of variables[17] – they tend to occur together. Scientists are careful to point out that correlation does not necessarily mean causation. The assumption that A causes B simply because A correlates with B is a logical fallacy – it is not a legitimate form of argument. However, sometimes people commit the opposite fallacy – dismissing correlation entirely, as if it does not imply causation. This would dismiss a large swath of important scientific evidence.[17]" And the point, which you're still missing, is that I didn't just dismiss the correlations, I explained them. In statistical/empirical terms, I've argued that the "guns cause gun violence" is completely overlooking a confounding factor: the United States has high rates of violence independent of gun ownership. However, high gun ownership in the US correlating to high gun violence in the US is not disproved by the existence of non-gun violence in the US no matter how high--that would be a strawman. The correlation still exists and would need proof to refute it--not simply relative comparisons but actual explanations for why the correlation exists. Stick to the facts--the US has a lot of guns, the US has a lot of gun violence. Saying its on the downturn does not negate it. Saying there are other non-gun violence being committed does not negate it. Those are just strawmen walking away from the data. Stick to the data. Does your reading comprehension suck or are you being deliberately dense? I didn't argue that gun violence is on the decline, even though it is. My argument is that the United States has very high rates of violent crime in general, which means that guns can't be the cause when there are high rates of crimes that have nothing to do with guns. Consider all the facts, instead of covering your eyes and ignoring the other factors. The existence of high non-gun violence does not dismiss the existence of high gun violence. That is a strawman. It does not dismiss it, but it implies that other factors are at work. Also, you don't seem to understand what a strawman is. To use your own argument, the existence of high gun violence is correlated with high non-gun violence. So wouldn't you say this implies that the high amount of non-gun violence is the cause? On February 09 2013 09:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Is there more guns than normal in the US compared to similar ranked countries? Yes. Is there more gun violence than normal in the US compared to similar ranked countries? Yes. Due to this correlation people feel that there is a possible causal relationship between the two statistics. And I've explained why this causal relationship doesn't exist because of a confounding factor. On February 09 2013 09:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Saying that there are other variables that you care about more than the variables initially presented is a strawman. Please study up on what a confounding factor is, as well as what the word "strawman" means. The discussion is on gun violence and its possible causal relationship with gun possession. If you wish to start a separate conversation about a causal relationship between gun violence and non-gun violence then you are free to start that separate conversation--you bringing it up is a strawman. Wrong. The topic of this discussion is whether people should be allowed to own firearms. The key to this question is whether gun ownership causes harm. One of the arguments that this does cause harm is suggesting that gun ownership causes gun violence. The counterargument is that gun violence is caused not by gun ownership, but the same problems that cause non-gun violence. On February 09 2013 09:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:
You see, a strawman argument is using a separate data point instead of the actual data point in question. The discussion is on the existence of gun violence--you wanting to bring up other topics is you using a strawman to discuss outside topics from the main topic at hand. Wrong. I can't tell whether you're just incredibly ignorant or trolling. Um... let me quote the opening sentence of the OP "The other thread is going off topic with people debating about the general right to own and carry guns." So uh... you're wrong. Empirically so. Once again, your reading comprehension fails you. The other one was intended to discuss the right of ex-convicts to own guns. This thread is the off-shoot in order to discuss the general right to own and carry guns. Also, you are once again using a word you don't know the meaning of; in this case, "empirical". Show nested quote +On February 09 2013 09:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:
"The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument
Person 1 has position X.
Person 2 disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y."
Person one--gun violence correlates with gun ownership in the US
Person two (this is you by the way)-- non-gun violence is also high
One person points out that gun violence is something that needs to be talked about, you counteract by saying non-gun violence is also present. Your reading comprehension fails you again. I didn't present a superficially similar position. A strawman is a misrepresentation of your argument, and I'm not doing that. I'm explaining why your argument is wrong. Show nested quote +On February 09 2013 09:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:
How does that in any way address the actual existence of gun violence? It doesn't. We don't stop talking about gun violence just because non-gun violence is also present. It does address the actual existence of gun violence, because it disputes the causative relationship you keep trying to advance without any proof. Person 1 (you): Gun ownership causes gun violence. Person 2 (me): No, it doesn't. Other problems cause violence, of which gun violence is only a subset. Gun ownership does not cause gun violence for the same reason that knife ownership does not cause knife violence.
I don't think his argument is that gun ownership causes violence. It seems like you're misrepresenting his position in order to refute it thoroughly.
It seems to me that he may be suggesting that it may be possible that higher rates of gun ownership contribute to higher rates of gun violence. That is, there being a larger amount of guns around seems to correlate strongly with the rate of violence involving guns. Of course, it is not a good idea to stop there and conclude outright that guns cause gun violence -- but that is not what he is doing. He is merely suggesting that due to the strong positive correlation, it is worth investigating whether or not there is a direct causal link (this is how we advance science, by the way).
So while you can argue that guns don't cause gun violence all you want, you aren't actually "refuting" anything. Granted I haven't scoured your conversation, but I'm willing to bet that he did not state anywhere "guns cause gun violence".
Finally, while reading over this mini debate between you two (and others), I can't help but notice a strong and consistent theme of condescension and unnecessary rudeness (I'm guilty of this too sometimes, but I make an effort to catch myself and especially listen to others if they warn me that I'm getting into that mean mode). It seems that in many of your posts you make an effort to insult your opponent for reading comprehension, trolling, ignorance, and other things. Even if these qualities are accurate, it's never a good idea to include them in your debate -- this only detracts from the power of your argument. If you have a really concise and strong argument supported by sound reasoning and valid evidence, you really won't need to waste any breath on personal insults.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, ignoring the part where that's going to be an opinion vs an opinion, as to whether the VP is anti-gun, even if he's just pro gun control, he's being completely ignorant. Shotguns are more difficult to use, and more difficult for a lot of people to practice with, due to the heavy recoil.
(I've seen a soldier break his nose with a 12ga.)
All that aside, the FBI's Homicide stats show clearly that shotguns get used in more homicides than all rifles, a category that encompasses more than just "assault weapons". In other words, banning shotguns makes more sense than banning rifles, to reduce homicide.
And, of course, if we take him at face value about how theoretically easy it is to use shotguns in self defense, why doesn't the military issue them to everybody? Oh, right, they have lots of drawbacks that make them less ideal for making bad people dead instead of yourself than an AR. Like the fact that they're painful to a lot of people to use, shorter effective range, less selectivity of targets.
|
On February 23 2013 08:56 JingleHell wrote:Well, ignoring the part where that's going to be an opinion vs an opinion, as to whether the VP is anti-gun, even if he's just pro gun control, he's being completely ignorant. Shotguns are more difficult to use, and more difficult for a lot of people to practice with, due to the heavy recoil. (I've seen a soldier break his nose with a 12ga.) All that aside, the FBI's Homicide stats show clearly that shotguns get used in more homicides than all rifles, a category that encompasses more than just "assault weapons". In other words, banning shotguns makes more sense than banning rifles, to reduce homicide. And, of course, if we take him at face value about how theoretically easy it is to use shotguns in self defense, why doesn't the military issue them to everybody? Oh, right, they have lots of drawbacks that make them less ideal for making bad people dead instead of yourself than an AR. Like the fact that they're painful to a lot of people to use, shorter effective range, less selectivity of targets.
you don't seem to understand what I'm saying do you?
The administration is not against the ownership of guns--we know because they outright tell you to own one.
They are in favor of gun control--we know because they're trying to pass gun control laws.
IE--the administration wants to regulate guns without overstepping the bounds of gun ownership by encouraging the ownership and use of guns.
IE--this thread makes no sense because the administration it is railing against supports the ownership of guns.
if the government is okay with you having guns, then why are you upset about the government supposedly taking away guns? Because America is not taking away anybodies guns. The American government, verbatim, tells you to own a gun, for the specific purpose of your safety, which is what everyone on this thread is talking about.
Conclusion. The US Government wants you to keep guns for your safety. It also wants to put out laws to control what types of guns are available. These are not mutually exclusive goals.
|
United States24670 Posts
On February 23 2013 09:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2013 08:56 JingleHell wrote:Well, ignoring the part where that's going to be an opinion vs an opinion, as to whether the VP is anti-gun, even if he's just pro gun control, he's being completely ignorant. Shotguns are more difficult to use, and more difficult for a lot of people to practice with, due to the heavy recoil. (I've seen a soldier break his nose with a 12ga.) All that aside, the FBI's Homicide stats show clearly that shotguns get used in more homicides than all rifles, a category that encompasses more than just "assault weapons". In other words, banning shotguns makes more sense than banning rifles, to reduce homicide. And, of course, if we take him at face value about how theoretically easy it is to use shotguns in self defense, why doesn't the military issue them to everybody? Oh, right, they have lots of drawbacks that make them less ideal for making bad people dead instead of yourself than an AR. Like the fact that they're painful to a lot of people to use, shorter effective range, less selectivity of targets. you don't seem to understand what I'm saying do you? The administration is not against the ownership of guns--we know because they outright tell you to own one. They are in favor of gun control--we know because they're trying to pass gun control laws. IE--the administration wants to regulate guns without overstepping the bounds of gun ownership by encouraging the ownership and use of guns. IE--this thread makes no sense because the administration it is railing against supports the ownership of guns. if the government is okay with you having guns, then why are you upset about the government supposedly taking away guns? Because America is not taking away anybodies guns. The American government, verbatim, tells you to own a gun, for the specific purpose of your safety, which is what everyone on this thread is talking about. Conclusion. The US Government wants you to keep guns for your safety. It also wants to put out laws to control what types of guns are available. These are not mutually exclusive goals.
You are oversimplifying this when you say that concerned gun owners shouldn't be making a fuss.
- Gun owners often want to have choices about what guns to own and how to use them (obviously not unrestricted entirely); laws that limit choices without a good reason (this is being argued i.e. assault weapons) are going to be objected to and fought. Obviously by this I don't mean people should be allowed to have a nuclear-grenade launcher.
- At a more local level, some states/counties/cities actually have very strict gun laws that are not supportive of a "you can have guns as long as we have reasonable control" mindset; they are far more left leaning.
- Laws which outlaw guns and don't grandfather them permanently usually result in a financial loss for affected gun owners, either upon confiscation after the law is signed, or when the item cannot be passed on to an heir.
- Lots of proposed gun laws can be argued have the opposite effect of their stated, noble goal. This is another reason to argue against some gun laws
I certainly don't think all new proposed gun laws are bad or that the USA has nailed it already, but to say that there is no need to worry about the possibility of the government taking your guns is probably wrong.
|
On February 23 2013 09:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2013 08:56 JingleHell wrote:Well, ignoring the part where that's going to be an opinion vs an opinion, as to whether the VP is anti-gun, even if he's just pro gun control, he's being completely ignorant. Shotguns are more difficult to use, and more difficult for a lot of people to practice with, due to the heavy recoil. (I've seen a soldier break his nose with a 12ga.) All that aside, the FBI's Homicide stats show clearly that shotguns get used in more homicides than all rifles, a category that encompasses more than just "assault weapons". In other words, banning shotguns makes more sense than banning rifles, to reduce homicide. And, of course, if we take him at face value about how theoretically easy it is to use shotguns in self defense, why doesn't the military issue them to everybody? Oh, right, they have lots of drawbacks that make them less ideal for making bad people dead instead of yourself than an AR. Like the fact that they're painful to a lot of people to use, shorter effective range, less selectivity of targets. you don't seem to understand what I'm saying do you? The administration is not against the ownership of guns--we know because they outright tell you to own one. They are in favor of gun control--we know because they're trying to pass gun control laws. IE--the administration wants to regulate guns without overstepping the bounds of gun ownership by encouraging the ownership and use of guns. IE--this thread makes no sense because the administration it is railing against supports the ownership of guns. if the government is okay with you having guns, then why are you upset about the government supposedly taking away guns? Because America is not taking away anybodies guns. The American government, verbatim, tells you to own a gun, for the specific purpose of your safety, which is what everyone on this thread is talking about. Conclusion. The US Government wants you to keep guns for your safety. It also wants to put out laws to control what types of guns are available. These are not mutually exclusive goals.
Honestly, I'm pretty sure you don't understand what you're saying, rather than me. Because if you're speaking English, you're trying to turn your opinion into fact by saying it. Which doesn't work.
I'd personally consider it to be very anti-gun to start by banning a subset of the type of guns used in the smallest percentage of homicides. Because odds are reasonable that when that doesn't work, they move on to something else, and I'd bet they don't unban the old guns and mail them back.
I wouldn't say it's impossible for a politician to say something to try and placate, which is exactly what I find the arbitrary and ridiculous suggestions about using a double barreled shotgun for self defense to be. Oh, and that's an opinion. Character judgments tend to be subjective, so don't tell me I'm wrong if you expect to be taken seriously.
If you want to debate the merits of a shotgun for self defense, we can do that, but it would be my second choice, and that wouldn't be with some breech loaded trap gun, it would be a pump. And the only reason I rate it above an AR is the fact that I've dealt with too many of the crappy M4s and M16s the Army buys, the civilian ones are much more reliable, I just dislike the things on principle now.
|
Did I say anything about Biden being anti-gun? I was pointing out that he said something completely idiotic and basically thinks he knows what "the American people" want even though that doesn't apply to all of the American people.
|
|
|
United States24670 Posts
This is the result of the government's intentions directly challenging the wishes of many citizens, rightly or wrongly. I bet a lot of New Yorkers who are fans of particular long guns that were recently banned in New York are glad they ran out to a store and bought it before the legislation was passed to ban them from future sales.
|
To be fair, the market for guns and ammo is highly irrational and non-predictive in the first place. Unless things like Heller v. D.C. really were part of a UN/Illuminati plan to grab guns, it doesn't make sense that ammo prices shot up so much in response to the election of a president who thus far only loosened gun control and presided over an era where gun rights were cemented more than ever.
|
On February 20 2012 03:10 Macabre wrote:
People killed people just fine before guns. And they will continue to do so for the rest of time, with or without them.
Yes, but people kill people a hell of a lot more efficiently with the help of guns.
|
On March 08 2013 11:18 codonbyte wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 03:10 Macabre wrote:
People killed people just fine before guns. And they will continue to do so for the rest of time, with or without them. Yes, but people kill people a hell of a lot more efficiently with the help of guns.
People also defend themselves a hell of a lot more efficiently with the help of guns as well.
|
Michael Bloomberg could easily buy all the publicly traded gun companies 4 or 5 times over.
Most are privately held (by Cerberus/Freedom Group).
To put it in perspective... Smith & Wesson is a $650 millon company.
You have to be almost $5 billion to make the Fortune 500.
So in reality...gun manufactuers are very..VERY small.
Here's one of the ones at the bottom of the Fourtune 500. http://www.smucker.com/
They were around $5 billon last year and now around $10 billion.
Grape Jelly (Smuckers) is 15x larger than .357 Mag (S&W).
Remington...they employ around a 1,000 people in New York (lol--for now). And another 1,000 or so in North Carolina. That's it.
So people can keep claiming how "strong gun" companies are. But they aren't... they are sooo tiny it's pitiful.
|
On March 06 2013 18:19 HunterX11 wrote:To be fair, the market for guns and ammo is highly irrational and non-predictive in the first place. Unless things like Heller v. D.C. really were part of a UN/Illuminati plan to grab guns, it doesn't make sense that ammo prices shot up so much in response to the election of a president who thus far only loosened gun control and presided over an era where gun rights were cemented more than ever.
You have concluded that ammo prices shot up "in response to the election" ? Are you sure it didn't have more to do with the aftermath of the Newtown massacre ?
|
On February 20 2012 03:10 Macabre wrote:
People also defend themselves a hell of a lot more efficiently with the help of guns as well.
However without people attacking you with guns, there is no reason to have guns to defend yourself. Because acquiring a gun in america is relatively simple in comparison to say Australia, the issue cannot be resolved by simply restricting the gun laws now. Too many people already have guns in america and since there is no way to get people to give up the guns, the issue cannot be resolved. Long story short if you dont want people to have guns or carry guns, dont make guns available. Move to a country with stricter laws.
|
United States24670 Posts
On March 08 2013 14:32 sUgArMaNiAc wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 03:10 Macabre wrote:
People also defend themselves a hell of a lot more efficiently with the help of guns as well. However without people attacking you with guns, there is no reason to have guns to defend yourself. Because acquiring a gun in america is relatively simple in comparison to say Australia, the issue cannot be resolved by simply restricting the gun laws now. Too many people already have guns in america and since there is no way to get people to give up the guns, the issue cannot be resolved. Long story short if you dont want people to have guns or carry guns, dont make guns available. Move to a country with stricter laws.
You do realize this has been discussed thousands of times and it just isn't that simple, right? This is a long term 'project' with many people who haven't done anything wrong being affected. Also, it can be reasonably (although certainly not infallibly) argued that you're not right when you say "without people attacking you with guns, there is no reason to have guns to defend yourself."
|
On March 08 2013 13:47 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2013 18:19 HunterX11 wrote:To be fair, the market for guns and ammo is highly irrational and non-predictive in the first place. Unless things like Heller v. D.C. really were part of a UN/Illuminati plan to grab guns, it doesn't make sense that ammo prices shot up so much in response to the election of a president who thus far only loosened gun control and presided over an era where gun rights were cemented more than ever. You have concluded that ammo prices shot up "in response to the election" ? Are you sure it didn't have more to do with the aftermath of the Newtown massacre ?
I'm talking about the 2008 election. We all know how Kenyan socialist Muslims hate guns...
|
On March 08 2013 12:17 RCMDVA wrote:
So people can keep claiming how "strong gun" companies are. But they aren't... they are sooo tiny it's pitiful.
Yep. People who talk about how big bad and evil the NRA is make me chuckle. The NRA is mainly fueled by private citizens memberships and contributions, not some big evil cigar smoking trillionaire gun manufacturing CEO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
