|
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 May 01 2013 11:30 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2013 09:56 Nachtwind wrote:On May 01 2013 05:12 Millitron wrote:On May 01 2013 03:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 01 2013 03:31 kmillz wrote:On May 01 2013 03:13 stevarius wrote:
Hearing someone break into your house giving you time to pull out your gun and prepare yourself is another matter--but in the hypothetical woman is about to raped scenario--the gun won't help much unless you pull it out early--in which case you'll get into the stand your ground case in Florida where a guy shot a defenseless kid in self defense because he was wearing a hoodie.
Look what we have here guys.... Another backseat news-watching judge and jury. I don't even know what to make of his comparison of a woman rape scenario and the Trayvon Martin shooting. Is the woman rape victim supposed to be Zimmerman and is the rapist supposed to be Trayvon? If someone is attacking you, at 21 feet you don't have time to pull out your gun. This leaves two options of shoot someone from a distance--Travyon case. Or get attacked. he suggested you can pull out your gun while they're on top of you--in which case you have no hands to defend yourself and you're fucked. In either case--self defense classes would be a better way to protect yourself than trying to brandish a weapon and hope you don't shoot someone who was just walking around. George Zimmerman was on the ground, getting his head bashed in when he shot Trayvon Martin. He wasn't just "Walking around". On May 01 2013 04:37 Nachtwind wrote:
If weapons and all are so good for the society then why they need to whitewash or hide numbers the studies would have gathered? I don´t understand. Because the news gets ahold of statistics, and plays them off as saying things they don't all the time. Hence the terms "Assault Weapon", and "Gun-show loophole".
People who don't really know the issue latch on to the terms, vote for representatives who are support uninformed positions, and end up making stupid legislation.Look at NY. People who know nothing about guns have banned most rifles, and practically all pistols with their new "SAFE Act". The rifles, even old, bolt-action hunting rifles, were banned because they could mount a bayonet, which somehow makes it an assault weapon. ![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4e/Mosin-Nagant_M1891_-_Ryssland_-_AM.032971.jpg/800px-Mosin-Nagant_M1891_-_Ryssland_-_AM.032971.jpg) This gun, a bolt-action rifle capable of holding only 5 rounds invented over 100 years ago, is an assault weapon in NY. Now, this invalidates the statistics because the polls often ask "Do you believe we should ban Assault Weapons?" and the person being polled assumes that assault weapons are machine guns or grenade launchers or something. That´s your argument that disallow scientist and journalists to collect data? The result is for example ".. devastating for the field of gun violence prevention," So you´re against gun violation prevention? You people must be kidding me that you think it´s something good when you disallow science, journalists to even collect date. Because that´s the problem - not how different groups evaluate this data if it would be accessible to the publicity. Sure, if you fear the outcome because the negative aspects could objectively outweight the positive aspects, it´s clear why. But you must allow people to gather this data and access to this data if you want a honest discussion about this matter. Did you not read any of the other posts about the research? Him, I, and a few others made it pretty clear why the agenda-based research was disallowed. (Hint: see bolded letters)
I never talked even about the initial CDC study or why it was closed. (While it´s more embrassing and laughable that your lobby controlled politics or "marionettes" have closed this research mostly out of finacial interest of the weapons lobby.)
I´m talking about that scientist or journalist are not even allowed access to those data now or that they get deleted. And that the science about gun controll is near non existent in the US.
Talking about freedome and everything and not seeing that you´re controlled by the weapons lobby and you as a scientiest are not free. What´s that for a logic i must ask?
And let us go further to 2004 you had a study where they simply said we DON`T FUCKING KNOW BECAUSE WE DON`T HAVE ENOUGH DATA. Imagin that, in 2004.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309091241
If you don´t wanna see it that parts of your goverment is simply against research of those things because it´s a money thing and controlled through the weapon lobby you´re simply blind or ignorant.
We have now 2013 and they say your research in those things is back in the mid 1990. What´s wrong with you to not see it. All this “We have the right to bear arms because of the threat of government taking over the freedoms that we have.” is not a excuse for not letting scientist do their work and see if there are problems or not.
That´s a equivalent to book burning.
At least obama thinks also a bit so
http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/15/16532333-obama-plan-eases-freeze-on-cdc-gun-violence-research?lite
I only hope your congress will share his opinion but i have a bad feeling about those marionettes
|
On May 01 2013 23:49 micronesia wrote:
Again, without taking an actual stance I want to point out:
To get good enough at hand-to-hand combat that a 90 pound woman can defend herself from a 200 pound determined attacker takes years of rigorous training. To get competent enough at carry and use of a personal firearm takes many times less training (although I admit many people have too little in this regard).
in close combat it doesn't matter if she has a gun, or a taser, or mace. She'll get overpowered before she gets to use her defense mechanism.
The way to fix crime is to target the root causes of it, not arm every citizen. It's pretty apparent that this is true when you see that the poorest areas of the country are the areas with the highest incidences of violent crime. It's even more apparent that removing guns from the equation reduces crime when you look at literally every other developed country in the world.
The only exception is Switzerland, and that's because they have well-enforced regulations and are a small enough country that there is cultural unity with respect to their opinions about guns.
|
On May 01 2013 23:49 micronesia wrote:
Again, without taking an actual stance I want to point out:
To get good enough at hand-to-hand combat that a 90 pound woman can defend herself from a 200 pound determined attacker takes years of rigorous training. To get competent enough at carry and use of a personal firearm takes many times less training (although I admit many people have too little in this regard).
Do we have any statistics on how many women actually carry guns as a means of self defence? This is just from my experience but it seems to be mostly men (have no statistics of my own, however).
|
On May 01 2013 22:53 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2013 09:32 sunprince wrote:On May 01 2013 09:19 kmillz wrote:On May 01 2013 06:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 01 2013 05:22 Millitron wrote:On May 01 2013 05:16 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Can we stop shitting up this thread debating the Trayvon Martin murder thing? There is an entire thread devoted to it. Would make more sense to take that discussion there where there are plenty of interested people Totally agree, but Magpie was using it as a bludgeon to argue against gun rights. Its related as far as that goes. It's an anecdotal quip showing an example of some neighborhood watch guy being too nervous around black youth. My argument has been that it doesn't matter what weapon you have--you don't have time against anyone 21 feet from you and most of the time it's a lot less than 21 feet. Say you're a 120 lb woman and some 200 lb man bum rushes you. No amount of gun training will allow you to pull the gun out in time and once he's on top of you no amount of "struggling" is going to allow you to pull out your gun and flick the safety, during a panic, when someone is on top of you that is double your size. The gun is useful if you're already at the ready, and keeping people at a distance. Which is why house break ins make sense. But at that point--a bat would also work. A katana as well if you really want to kill them. But saying some random person walking down the street is safer because they have a gun? No, not at all relevant. For example http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/man-turns-tables-shotgun-wielding-attacker-141851442.htmlThe criminals had the gun out at the ready--but once he got close it simply took fast hands to disarm him. Why? Because guns are useless at close range like that. If the robber had kept his distance, and didn't allow the man to get near him, then the gun would have worked. But close proximity situations is pointless if you're already overpowered. Proper self-defense coupled with a concealed weapon can save your life. What if the 120 lb woman knows basic escapes from positions on the ground such as the mount? Do you know what "shrimping" is in ground-fighting terms? Say she gets a knee between her and the aggressor and then pulls her weapon out. I really hate getting into these finer details but your just saying "You either shoot someone from ~20 feet away or it is IMPOSSIBLE for you to shoot them" and anytime someone says "but what about x, y, or z" circumstance you just repeat yourself and ignore other outcomes. You can also sprawl hard on the bum rush and push them away to draw your weapon, pull closed guard and control them while you draw your weapon, sweep them and draw your weapon, etc. Funny how only people completely ignorant of combat think that firearms are useless. By that logic, I guess police officers should stop carrying handguns. well actually, there are police forces in the world that by and large don't use guns. Most prominent example is the police in the UK: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_use_of_firearms_in_the_United_KingdomWhen no one has guns, there's no particularly good reason for the police to have them either.
These are the exceptions that prove the rule, and you know it.
On May 01 2013 22:53 wherebugsgo wrote:
The whole "freedom" part of this gun-owning argument is pretty much bullshit. I don't think you would argue that people have the right to own bombs, or nukes, or anthrax, or drones, or tanks, or flamethrowers. All of these things can be used the same way guns can be used-in self defense, but it doesn't change the fact that they all (in general) were designed for one purpose: to inflict harm upon other humans.
Except those aren't banned because they're designed to inflict harm upon other humans. After all, swords, war bows, and cestuses are all designed to inflict harm upon other humans, yet are legal. Therefore, the whole notion of "designed to hurt other people" is irrelevant here.
Firearms are permitted because they are the modern form of personal defense weapon. Bombs, nukes, anthrax, tanks, or flamethrowers are not; they are designed for much more militarized purposes (I did not include drones on that list, because civilian use of drones is perfectly legal, even if bombs they might carry are not). This is reflected in the fact that the typical member of the infantry is armed with a firearm for personal defense. The other things you listed are not only unnecessary for that purpose, but actually less optimal.
On May 01 2013 22:53 wherebugsgo wrote:
Obviously the U.S. will not ban guns any time in the near future, or maybe even the next century, but certainly it would be nice to see some stricter regulations in place. I imagine the country would be much better off if guns were restricted solely for hunting purposes, but even so, I think game hunting (for sport) is pretty much out of the question too. Hunting for sport IMO is barbaric.
And here lies the crux of the issue: people want to ban guns because they think they are barbaric. Our rights end where your feelings begin. Guess it's not just conservatives who try to legislate their version of morality onto everyone else.
|
On May 01 2013 23:57 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2013 22:53 wherebugsgo wrote:On May 01 2013 09:32 sunprince wrote:On May 01 2013 09:19 kmillz wrote:On May 01 2013 06:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 01 2013 05:22 Millitron wrote:On May 01 2013 05:16 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Can we stop shitting up this thread debating the Trayvon Martin murder thing? There is an entire thread devoted to it. Would make more sense to take that discussion there where there are plenty of interested people Totally agree, but Magpie was using it as a bludgeon to argue against gun rights. Its related as far as that goes. It's an anecdotal quip showing an example of some neighborhood watch guy being too nervous around black youth. My argument has been that it doesn't matter what weapon you have--you don't have time against anyone 21 feet from you and most of the time it's a lot less than 21 feet. Say you're a 120 lb woman and some 200 lb man bum rushes you. No amount of gun training will allow you to pull the gun out in time and once he's on top of you no amount of "struggling" is going to allow you to pull out your gun and flick the safety, during a panic, when someone is on top of you that is double your size. The gun is useful if you're already at the ready, and keeping people at a distance. Which is why house break ins make sense. But at that point--a bat would also work. A katana as well if you really want to kill them. But saying some random person walking down the street is safer because they have a gun? No, not at all relevant. For example http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/man-turns-tables-shotgun-wielding-attacker-141851442.htmlThe criminals had the gun out at the ready--but once he got close it simply took fast hands to disarm him. Why? Because guns are useless at close range like that. If the robber had kept his distance, and didn't allow the man to get near him, then the gun would have worked. But close proximity situations is pointless if you're already overpowered. Proper self-defense coupled with a concealed weapon can save your life. What if the 120 lb woman knows basic escapes from positions on the ground such as the mount? Do you know what "shrimping" is in ground-fighting terms? Say she gets a knee between her and the aggressor and then pulls her weapon out. I really hate getting into these finer details but your just saying "You either shoot someone from ~20 feet away or it is IMPOSSIBLE for you to shoot them" and anytime someone says "but what about x, y, or z" circumstance you just repeat yourself and ignore other outcomes. You can also sprawl hard on the bum rush and push them away to draw your weapon, pull closed guard and control them while you draw your weapon, sweep them and draw your weapon, etc. Funny how only people completely ignorant of combat think that firearms are useless. By that logic, I guess police officers should stop carrying handguns. well actually, there are police forces in the world that by and large don't use guns. Most prominent example is the police in the UK: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_use_of_firearms_in_the_United_KingdomWhen no one has guns, there's no particularly good reason for the police to have them either. These are the exceptions that prove the rule, and you know it.
So what's the reason that it's viable in the UK but not in the United States?
Also, many Irish police forces, Australian, Canadian, and Kiwi police forces don't carry guns anywhere near as much as police in the U.S. do. So why again are their firearm homicide rates lower? How are these countries exactly "exceptions"?
Can you name a single country that has banned firearms that has a higher rate of violence after the ban than before?
Can you name a single country that has legalized/loosened firearm regulation that has a lower rate of violence after than before?
On May 01 2013 23:57 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2013 22:53 wherebugsgo wrote:
The whole "freedom" part of this gun-owning argument is pretty much bullshit. I don't think you would argue that people have the right to own bombs, or nukes, or anthrax, or drones, or tanks, or flamethrowers. All of these things can be used the same way guns can be used-in self defense, but it doesn't change the fact that they all (in general) were designed for one purpose: to inflict harm upon other humans. Except those aren't banned because they're designed to inflict harm upon other humans. After all, swords, war bows, and cestuses are all designed to inflict harm upon other humans, yet are legal. Therefore, the whole notion of "designed to hurt other people" is irrelevant here.
No, it isn't.
The reason swords/bows etc. aren't banned for possession is because they're niche, are hard to use, and have historical/sport usage. For the same reason I would be completely fine with keeping guns used for target practice or clay pigeon shooting legal (as long as there is a rigorous vetting/registration process involved). It takes quite a bit of effort to modify these types of things for criminal purposes, and that effort is enough to deter enough criminals from using them (along with their ease of use/effectiveness)
In fact, most bows made today aren't made to kill people, they're made for sport or hunting. Guns are purchased precisely for self defense/criminal activity and they're the most readily available and inflict the most harm out of any of these.
On May 01 2013 23:57 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2013 22:53 wherebugsgo wrote:
Obviously the U.S. will not ban guns any time in the near future, or maybe even the next century, but certainly it would be nice to see some stricter regulations in place. I imagine the country would be much better off if guns were restricted solely for hunting purposes, but even so, I think game hunting (for sport) is pretty much out of the question too. Hunting for sport IMO is barbaric. And here lies the crux of the issue: people want to ban guns because they think they are barbaric. Our rights end where your feelings begin. Guess it's not just conservatives who try to legislate their version of morality onto everyone else.
Well, if your version of "morality" is that your rights for owning a gun are more valuable than someone else's right to life, then sure, keep on trucking with those "gun rights" of yours.
|
On May 02 2013 00:06 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2013 23:57 sunprince wrote:On May 01 2013 22:53 wherebugsgo wrote:On May 01 2013 09:32 sunprince wrote:On May 01 2013 09:19 kmillz wrote:On May 01 2013 06:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 01 2013 05:22 Millitron wrote:On May 01 2013 05:16 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Can we stop shitting up this thread debating the Trayvon Martin murder thing? There is an entire thread devoted to it. Would make more sense to take that discussion there where there are plenty of interested people Totally agree, but Magpie was using it as a bludgeon to argue against gun rights. Its related as far as that goes. It's an anecdotal quip showing an example of some neighborhood watch guy being too nervous around black youth. My argument has been that it doesn't matter what weapon you have--you don't have time against anyone 21 feet from you and most of the time it's a lot less than 21 feet. Say you're a 120 lb woman and some 200 lb man bum rushes you. No amount of gun training will allow you to pull the gun out in time and once he's on top of you no amount of "struggling" is going to allow you to pull out your gun and flick the safety, during a panic, when someone is on top of you that is double your size. The gun is useful if you're already at the ready, and keeping people at a distance. Which is why house break ins make sense. But at that point--a bat would also work. A katana as well if you really want to kill them. But saying some random person walking down the street is safer because they have a gun? No, not at all relevant. For example http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/man-turns-tables-shotgun-wielding-attacker-141851442.htmlThe criminals had the gun out at the ready--but once he got close it simply took fast hands to disarm him. Why? Because guns are useless at close range like that. If the robber had kept his distance, and didn't allow the man to get near him, then the gun would have worked. But close proximity situations is pointless if you're already overpowered. Proper self-defense coupled with a concealed weapon can save your life. What if the 120 lb woman knows basic escapes from positions on the ground such as the mount? Do you know what "shrimping" is in ground-fighting terms? Say she gets a knee between her and the aggressor and then pulls her weapon out. I really hate getting into these finer details but your just saying "You either shoot someone from ~20 feet away or it is IMPOSSIBLE for you to shoot them" and anytime someone says "but what about x, y, or z" circumstance you just repeat yourself and ignore other outcomes. You can also sprawl hard on the bum rush and push them away to draw your weapon, pull closed guard and control them while you draw your weapon, sweep them and draw your weapon, etc. Funny how only people completely ignorant of combat think that firearms are useless. By that logic, I guess police officers should stop carrying handguns. well actually, there are police forces in the world that by and large don't use guns. Most prominent example is the police in the UK: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_use_of_firearms_in_the_United_KingdomWhen no one has guns, there's no particularly good reason for the police to have them either. These are the exceptions that prove the rule, and you know it. So what's the reason that it's viable in the UK but not in the United States? Also, many Irish police forces, Australian, Canadian, and Kiwi police forces don't carry guns anywhere near as much as police in the U.S. do. So why again are their firearm homicide rates lower? How are these countries exactly "exceptions"? Can you name a single country that has banned firearms that has a higher rate of violence after the ban than before? Can you name a single country that has legalized/loosened firearm regulation that has a lower rate of violence after than before? Show nested quote +On May 01 2013 23:57 sunprince wrote:On May 01 2013 22:53 wherebugsgo wrote:
The whole "freedom" part of this gun-owning argument is pretty much bullshit. I don't think you would argue that people have the right to own bombs, or nukes, or anthrax, or drones, or tanks, or flamethrowers. All of these things can be used the same way guns can be used-in self defense, but it doesn't change the fact that they all (in general) were designed for one purpose: to inflict harm upon other humans. Except those aren't banned because they're designed to inflict harm upon other humans. After all, swords, war bows, and cestuses are all designed to inflict harm upon other humans, yet are legal. Therefore, the whole notion of "designed to hurt other people" is irrelevant here. No, it isn't. The reason swords/bows etc. aren't banned for possession is because they're niche, are hard to use, and have historical/sport usage. For the same reason I would be completely fine with keeping guns used for target practice or clay pigeon shooting legal (as long as there is a rigorous vetting/registration process involved). It takes quite a bit of effort to modify these types of things for criminal purposes, and that effort is enough to deter enough criminals from using them (along with their ease of use/effectiveness) In fact, most bows made today aren't made to kill people, they're made for sport or hunting. Guns are purchased precisely for self defense/criminal activity and they're the most readily available and inflict the most harm out of any of these. Show nested quote +On May 01 2013 23:57 sunprince wrote:On May 01 2013 22:53 wherebugsgo wrote:
Obviously the U.S. will not ban guns any time in the near future, or maybe even the next century, but certainly it would be nice to see some stricter regulations in place. I imagine the country would be much better off if guns were restricted solely for hunting purposes, but even so, I think game hunting (for sport) is pretty much out of the question too. Hunting for sport IMO is barbaric. And here lies the crux of the issue: people want to ban guns because they think they are barbaric. Our rights end where your feelings begin. Guess it's not just conservatives who try to legislate their version of morality onto everyone else. Well, if your version of "morality" is that your rights for owning a gun are more valuable than someone else's right to life, then sure, keep on trucking with those "gun rights" of yours.
It may surprise you to learn that humans are mammals. We have similar vital organs to game animals such as deer, hogs, and bears. Guns and bows made to hunt animals are also highly effective at killing humans. Guns are purchased for hunting because they are easier to use and tremendously more humane than other weapons. Your statement that "Guns are purchased precisely for self defense/criminal activity" is false. Also, they are harder to obtain than bows and swords.
|
Yeah, all those Hunters running around with Handguns...
|
There is a reason why US has the highest amount of gun crime/accident.
Simple logic really.
Ban guns = reducing gun crime rate in US.
|
On May 02 2013 00:19 Zealotdriver wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 00:06 wherebugsgo wrote:On May 01 2013 23:57 sunprince wrote:On May 01 2013 22:53 wherebugsgo wrote:On May 01 2013 09:32 sunprince wrote:On May 01 2013 09:19 kmillz wrote:On May 01 2013 06:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 01 2013 05:22 Millitron wrote:On May 01 2013 05:16 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Can we stop shitting up this thread debating the Trayvon Martin murder thing? There is an entire thread devoted to it. Would make more sense to take that discussion there where there are plenty of interested people Totally agree, but Magpie was using it as a bludgeon to argue against gun rights. Its related as far as that goes. It's an anecdotal quip showing an example of some neighborhood watch guy being too nervous around black youth. My argument has been that it doesn't matter what weapon you have--you don't have time against anyone 21 feet from you and most of the time it's a lot less than 21 feet. Say you're a 120 lb woman and some 200 lb man bum rushes you. No amount of gun training will allow you to pull the gun out in time and once he's on top of you no amount of "struggling" is going to allow you to pull out your gun and flick the safety, during a panic, when someone is on top of you that is double your size. The gun is useful if you're already at the ready, and keeping people at a distance. Which is why house break ins make sense. But at that point--a bat would also work. A katana as well if you really want to kill them. But saying some random person walking down the street is safer because they have a gun? No, not at all relevant. For example http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/man-turns-tables-shotgun-wielding-attacker-141851442.htmlThe criminals had the gun out at the ready--but once he got close it simply took fast hands to disarm him. Why? Because guns are useless at close range like that. If the robber had kept his distance, and didn't allow the man to get near him, then the gun would have worked. But close proximity situations is pointless if you're already overpowered. Proper self-defense coupled with a concealed weapon can save your life. What if the 120 lb woman knows basic escapes from positions on the ground such as the mount? Do you know what "shrimping" is in ground-fighting terms? Say she gets a knee between her and the aggressor and then pulls her weapon out. I really hate getting into these finer details but your just saying "You either shoot someone from ~20 feet away or it is IMPOSSIBLE for you to shoot them" and anytime someone says "but what about x, y, or z" circumstance you just repeat yourself and ignore other outcomes. You can also sprawl hard on the bum rush and push them away to draw your weapon, pull closed guard and control them while you draw your weapon, sweep them and draw your weapon, etc. Funny how only people completely ignorant of combat think that firearms are useless. By that logic, I guess police officers should stop carrying handguns. well actually, there are police forces in the world that by and large don't use guns. Most prominent example is the police in the UK: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_use_of_firearms_in_the_United_KingdomWhen no one has guns, there's no particularly good reason for the police to have them either. These are the exceptions that prove the rule, and you know it. So what's the reason that it's viable in the UK but not in the United States? Also, many Irish police forces, Australian, Canadian, and Kiwi police forces don't carry guns anywhere near as much as police in the U.S. do. So why again are their firearm homicide rates lower? How are these countries exactly "exceptions"? Can you name a single country that has banned firearms that has a higher rate of violence after the ban than before? Can you name a single country that has legalized/loosened firearm regulation that has a lower rate of violence after than before? On May 01 2013 23:57 sunprince wrote:On May 01 2013 22:53 wherebugsgo wrote:
The whole "freedom" part of this gun-owning argument is pretty much bullshit. I don't think you would argue that people have the right to own bombs, or nukes, or anthrax, or drones, or tanks, or flamethrowers. All of these things can be used the same way guns can be used-in self defense, but it doesn't change the fact that they all (in general) were designed for one purpose: to inflict harm upon other humans. Except those aren't banned because they're designed to inflict harm upon other humans. After all, swords, war bows, and cestuses are all designed to inflict harm upon other humans, yet are legal. Therefore, the whole notion of "designed to hurt other people" is irrelevant here. No, it isn't. The reason swords/bows etc. aren't banned for possession is because they're niche, are hard to use, and have historical/sport usage. For the same reason I would be completely fine with keeping guns used for target practice or clay pigeon shooting legal (as long as there is a rigorous vetting/registration process involved). It takes quite a bit of effort to modify these types of things for criminal purposes, and that effort is enough to deter enough criminals from using them (along with their ease of use/effectiveness) In fact, most bows made today aren't made to kill people, they're made for sport or hunting. Guns are purchased precisely for self defense/criminal activity and they're the most readily available and inflict the most harm out of any of these. On May 01 2013 23:57 sunprince wrote:On May 01 2013 22:53 wherebugsgo wrote:
Obviously the U.S. will not ban guns any time in the near future, or maybe even the next century, but certainly it would be nice to see some stricter regulations in place. I imagine the country would be much better off if guns were restricted solely for hunting purposes, but even so, I think game hunting (for sport) is pretty much out of the question too. Hunting for sport IMO is barbaric. And here lies the crux of the issue: people want to ban guns because they think they are barbaric. Our rights end where your feelings begin. Guess it's not just conservatives who try to legislate their version of morality onto everyone else. Well, if your version of "morality" is that your rights for owning a gun are more valuable than someone else's right to life, then sure, keep on trucking with those "gun rights" of yours. It may surprise you to learn that humans are mammals. We have similar vital organs to game animals such as deer, hogs, and bears. Guns and bows made to hunt animals are also highly effective at killing humans. Guns are purchased for hunting because they are easier to use and tremendously more humane than other weapons. Your statement that "Guns are purchased precisely for self defense/criminal activity" is false. Also, they are harder to obtain than bows and swords.
wut
I can go to the nearest retail store here and purchase a slew of different types of guns.
http://www.walmart.com/cp/Guns-Rifles-Ammunition/1088608
Harder to obtain my ass.
As for the hunting part, I have no particular problems with letting people purchase guns for the sole purpose for hunting, but the problem is not that guns are purchased for hunting to begin with. Gun ownership for hunting purposes is clearly the minority, and it always has been. (think about it-hunters don't generally use handguns, and handguns easily comprise
around 1/3 of all guns in the U.S.)
In 2011 for example, 13.7 million Americans hunted. 12.7 of those used guns.
http://digitalmedia.fws.gov/utils/getfile/collection/document/id/860/filename/861
How many gun owners are there in the U.S.? According to the NRA, somewhere between 70 and 80 million.
http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/fact-sheets/2011/firearm-fact-card-2011.aspx?s=&st=&ps=
That means anywhere between 82 and 85% of gun owners in the United States do not hunt, and so purchased guns for other purposes.
e: also while we're at it, if we're going to argue on the grounds of humanely hunting for sport, well...
I think the most humane thing to do would be to, you know...not kill an animal just to display its severed head in your log cabin.
|
On May 02 2013 00:06 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2013 23:57 sunprince wrote:On May 01 2013 22:53 wherebugsgo wrote:On May 01 2013 09:32 sunprince wrote:On May 01 2013 09:19 kmillz wrote:On May 01 2013 06:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 01 2013 05:22 Millitron wrote:On May 01 2013 05:16 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Can we stop shitting up this thread debating the Trayvon Martin murder thing? There is an entire thread devoted to it. Would make more sense to take that discussion there where there are plenty of interested people Totally agree, but Magpie was using it as a bludgeon to argue against gun rights. Its related as far as that goes. It's an anecdotal quip showing an example of some neighborhood watch guy being too nervous around black youth. My argument has been that it doesn't matter what weapon you have--you don't have time against anyone 21 feet from you and most of the time it's a lot less than 21 feet. Say you're a 120 lb woman and some 200 lb man bum rushes you. No amount of gun training will allow you to pull the gun out in time and once he's on top of you no amount of "struggling" is going to allow you to pull out your gun and flick the safety, during a panic, when someone is on top of you that is double your size. The gun is useful if you're already at the ready, and keeping people at a distance. Which is why house break ins make sense. But at that point--a bat would also work. A katana as well if you really want to kill them. But saying some random person walking down the street is safer because they have a gun? No, not at all relevant. For example http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/man-turns-tables-shotgun-wielding-attacker-141851442.htmlThe criminals had the gun out at the ready--but once he got close it simply took fast hands to disarm him. Why? Because guns are useless at close range like that. If the robber had kept his distance, and didn't allow the man to get near him, then the gun would have worked. But close proximity situations is pointless if you're already overpowered. Proper self-defense coupled with a concealed weapon can save your life. What if the 120 lb woman knows basic escapes from positions on the ground such as the mount? Do you know what "shrimping" is in ground-fighting terms? Say she gets a knee between her and the aggressor and then pulls her weapon out. I really hate getting into these finer details but your just saying "You either shoot someone from ~20 feet away or it is IMPOSSIBLE for you to shoot them" and anytime someone says "but what about x, y, or z" circumstance you just repeat yourself and ignore other outcomes. You can also sprawl hard on the bum rush and push them away to draw your weapon, pull closed guard and control them while you draw your weapon, sweep them and draw your weapon, etc. Funny how only people completely ignorant of combat think that firearms are useless. By that logic, I guess police officers should stop carrying handguns. well actually, there are police forces in the world that by and large don't use guns. Most prominent example is the police in the UK: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_use_of_firearms_in_the_United_KingdomWhen no one has guns, there's no particularly good reason for the police to have them either. These are the exceptions that prove the rule, and you know it. So what's the reason that it's viable in the UK but not in the United States? Also, many Irish police forces, Australian, Canadian, and Kiwi police forces don't carry guns anywhere near as much as police in the U.S. do. So why again are their firearm homicide rates lower? How are these countries exactly "exceptions"?
The United States has an astronomically high crime rate for a first-world nation. Fewer firearms are needed in other first world nations simply because they are safer to begin with.
On May 02 2013 00:06 wherebugsgo wrote:
Can you name a single country that has banned firearms that has a higher rate of violence after the ban than before?
Can you name a single country that has legalized/loosened firearm regulation that has a lower rate of violence after than before?
Correlation does not imply causation.
On May 02 2013 00:06 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2013 23:57 sunprince wrote:On May 01 2013 22:53 wherebugsgo wrote:
The whole "freedom" part of this gun-owning argument is pretty much bullshit. I don't think you would argue that people have the right to own bombs, or nukes, or anthrax, or drones, or tanks, or flamethrowers. All of these things can be used the same way guns can be used-in self defense, but it doesn't change the fact that they all (in general) were designed for one purpose: to inflict harm upon other humans. Except those aren't banned because they're designed to inflict harm upon other humans. After all, swords, war bows, and cestuses are all designed to inflict harm upon other humans, yet are legal. Therefore, the whole notion of "designed to hurt other people" is irrelevant here. No, it isn't. The reason swords/bows etc. aren't banned for possession is because they're niche, are hard to use, and have historical/sport usage. For the same reason I would be completely fine with keeping guns used for target practice or clay pigeon shooting legal (as long as there is a rigorous vetting/registration process involved). It takes quite a bit of effort to modify these types of things for criminal purposes, and that effort is enough to deter enough criminals from using them (along with their ease of use/effectiveness)
Crossbows aren't hard to use, and have no sport usage. Cestuses and similar weapons (don't let the name fool you, it's essentially just a combat glove) aren't niche, aren't hard to use, and have no sport usage. Swords are hard to use well, but can be used just fine to kill unarmed people (and similarly, daggers are even easier and have no sport usage).
"Historical" usage is a crappy reason, since there are plenty of "historical" firearms.
On May 02 2013 00:06 wherebugsgo wrote:
In fact, most bows made today aren't made to kill people, they're made for sport or hunting. Guns are purchased precisely for self defense/criminal activity and they're the most readily available and inflict the most harm out of any of these.
It doesn't matter what most bows are made for today; we don't ban war bows at all despite them fulfilling the criteria of being intended to kill people. Guns are often purchased for sport and hunting as well.
On May 02 2013 00:06 wherebugsgo wrote:they're the most readily available and inflict the most harm out of any of these.
What does this have to do with anything? If you make firearms less available, then some other weapon will simply take its place as "most readily available and inflicts the most harm". Is there some arbitrary amount of "ready availability" or "harm inflicted" that is too much or something?
On May 02 2013 00:06 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2013 23:57 sunprince wrote:On May 01 2013 22:53 wherebugsgo wrote:
Obviously the U.S. will not ban guns any time in the near future, or maybe even the next century, but certainly it would be nice to see some stricter regulations in place. I imagine the country would be much better off if guns were restricted solely for hunting purposes, but even so, I think game hunting (for sport) is pretty much out of the question too. Hunting for sport IMO is barbaric. And here lies the crux of the issue: people want to ban guns because they think they are barbaric. Our rights end where your feelings begin. Guess it's not just conservatives who try to legislate their version of morality onto everyone else. Well, if your version of "morality" is that your rights for owning a gun are more valuable than someone else's right to life, then sure, keep on trucking with those "gun rights" of yours.
"Well, if your version of "morality" is that your rights for owning a car are more valuable than someone else's right to life, then sure, keep on trucking with those "car rights" of yours."
After all, cars kill many more people than guns do.
|
On May 02 2013 00:27 FakeDeath wrote:
There is a reason why US has the highest amount of gun crime/accident.
Simple logic really.
Ban guns = reducing gun crime rate in US.
You have no evidence for any of your claims.
|
On May 02 2013 00:29 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 00:19 Zealotdriver wrote:On May 02 2013 00:06 wherebugsgo wrote:On May 01 2013 23:57 sunprince wrote:On May 01 2013 22:53 wherebugsgo wrote:On May 01 2013 09:32 sunprince wrote:On May 01 2013 09:19 kmillz wrote:On May 01 2013 06:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 01 2013 05:22 Millitron wrote:On May 01 2013 05:16 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Can we stop shitting up this thread debating the Trayvon Martin murder thing? There is an entire thread devoted to it. Would make more sense to take that discussion there where there are plenty of interested people Totally agree, but Magpie was using it as a bludgeon to argue against gun rights. Its related as far as that goes. It's an anecdotal quip showing an example of some neighborhood watch guy being too nervous around black youth. My argument has been that it doesn't matter what weapon you have--you don't have time against anyone 21 feet from you and most of the time it's a lot less than 21 feet. Say you're a 120 lb woman and some 200 lb man bum rushes you. No amount of gun training will allow you to pull the gun out in time and once he's on top of you no amount of "struggling" is going to allow you to pull out your gun and flick the safety, during a panic, when someone is on top of you that is double your size. The gun is useful if you're already at the ready, and keeping people at a distance. Which is why house break ins make sense. But at that point--a bat would also work. A katana as well if you really want to kill them. But saying some random person walking down the street is safer because they have a gun? No, not at all relevant. For example http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/man-turns-tables-shotgun-wielding-attacker-141851442.htmlThe criminals had the gun out at the ready--but once he got close it simply took fast hands to disarm him. Why? Because guns are useless at close range like that. If the robber had kept his distance, and didn't allow the man to get near him, then the gun would have worked. But close proximity situations is pointless if you're already overpowered. Proper self-defense coupled with a concealed weapon can save your life. What if the 120 lb woman knows basic escapes from positions on the ground such as the mount? Do you know what "shrimping" is in ground-fighting terms? Say she gets a knee between her and the aggressor and then pulls her weapon out. I really hate getting into these finer details but your just saying "You either shoot someone from ~20 feet away or it is IMPOSSIBLE for you to shoot them" and anytime someone says "but what about x, y, or z" circumstance you just repeat yourself and ignore other outcomes. You can also sprawl hard on the bum rush and push them away to draw your weapon, pull closed guard and control them while you draw your weapon, sweep them and draw your weapon, etc. Funny how only people completely ignorant of combat think that firearms are useless. By that logic, I guess police officers should stop carrying handguns. well actually, there are police forces in the world that by and large don't use guns. Most prominent example is the police in the UK: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_use_of_firearms_in_the_United_KingdomWhen no one has guns, there's no particularly good reason for the police to have them either. These are the exceptions that prove the rule, and you know it. So what's the reason that it's viable in the UK but not in the United States? Also, many Irish police forces, Australian, Canadian, and Kiwi police forces don't carry guns anywhere near as much as police in the U.S. do. So why again are their firearm homicide rates lower? How are these countries exactly "exceptions"? Can you name a single country that has banned firearms that has a higher rate of violence after the ban than before? Can you name a single country that has legalized/loosened firearm regulation that has a lower rate of violence after than before? On May 01 2013 23:57 sunprince wrote:On May 01 2013 22:53 wherebugsgo wrote:
The whole "freedom" part of this gun-owning argument is pretty much bullshit. I don't think you would argue that people have the right to own bombs, or nukes, or anthrax, or drones, or tanks, or flamethrowers. All of these things can be used the same way guns can be used-in self defense, but it doesn't change the fact that they all (in general) were designed for one purpose: to inflict harm upon other humans. Except those aren't banned because they're designed to inflict harm upon other humans. After all, swords, war bows, and cestuses are all designed to inflict harm upon other humans, yet are legal. Therefore, the whole notion of "designed to hurt other people" is irrelevant here. No, it isn't. The reason swords/bows etc. aren't banned for possession is because they're niche, are hard to use, and have historical/sport usage. For the same reason I would be completely fine with keeping guns used for target practice or clay pigeon shooting legal (as long as there is a rigorous vetting/registration process involved). It takes quite a bit of effort to modify these types of things for criminal purposes, and that effort is enough to deter enough criminals from using them (along with their ease of use/effectiveness) In fact, most bows made today aren't made to kill people, they're made for sport or hunting. Guns are purchased precisely for self defense/criminal activity and they're the most readily available and inflict the most harm out of any of these. On May 01 2013 23:57 sunprince wrote:On May 01 2013 22:53 wherebugsgo wrote:
Obviously the U.S. will not ban guns any time in the near future, or maybe even the next century, but certainly it would be nice to see some stricter regulations in place. I imagine the country would be much better off if guns were restricted solely for hunting purposes, but even so, I think game hunting (for sport) is pretty much out of the question too. Hunting for sport IMO is barbaric. And here lies the crux of the issue: people want to ban guns because they think they are barbaric. Our rights end where your feelings begin. Guess it's not just conservatives who try to legislate their version of morality onto everyone else. Well, if your version of "morality" is that your rights for owning a gun are more valuable than someone else's right to life, then sure, keep on trucking with those "gun rights" of yours. It may surprise you to learn that humans are mammals. We have similar vital organs to game animals such as deer, hogs, and bears. Guns and bows made to hunt animals are also highly effective at killing humans. Guns are purchased for hunting because they are easier to use and tremendously more humane than other weapons. Your statement that "Guns are purchased precisely for self defense/criminal activity" is false. Also, they are harder to obtain than bows and swords. wut I can go to the nearest retail store here and purchase a slew of different types of guns. http://www.walmart.com/cp/Guns-Rifles-Ammunition/1088608Harder to obtain my ass.
Zealotdriver is referring to the fact that there are restrictions on firearms availability that do not exist for bows and arrows, e.g. background checks.
On May 02 2013 00:29 wherebugsgo wrote:
e: also while we're at it, if we're going to argue on the grounds of humanely hunting for sport, well...
I think the most humane thing to do would be to, you know...not kill an animal just to display its severed head in your log cabin.
You're a bleeding heart liberal who wants to impose your morality on others, yes, we get it already.
|
United States24701 Posts
On May 01 2013 23:56 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2013 23:49 micronesia wrote:
Again, without taking an actual stance I want to point out:
To get good enough at hand-to-hand combat that a 90 pound woman can defend herself from a 200 pound determined attacker takes years of rigorous training. To get competent enough at carry and use of a personal firearm takes many times less training (although I admit many people have too little in this regard). Do we have any statistics on how many women actually carry guns as a means of self defence? This is just from my experience but it seems to be mostly men (have no statistics of my own, however).
Something to keep in mind is that men are probably more likely to be open about it than women are... especially in places that aren't very pro-gun.
On May 02 2013 00:52 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 00:27 FakeDeath wrote:
There is a reason why US has the highest amount of gun crime/accident.
Simple logic really.
Ban guns = reducing gun crime rate in US. You have no evidence for any of your claims.
Not to mention he hasn't addressed the other affects it would have besides theoretically reducing gun crime. What about other types of crime? What about other problems besides crime? If it was so simple this wouldn't be as controversial as it is.
|
We are going to need the guns when revolution comes about in the near future. Capitalism country always end in the same faith in history. The rich got so rich by exploiting the middle class till a point where majority of the people are starving. At that point revolution will begin and history will repeat themselves. This is the same trend that's been happening to all the capitalism countries.
|
On May 02 2013 00:51 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 00:06 wherebugsgo wrote:On May 01 2013 23:57 sunprince wrote:On May 01 2013 22:53 wherebugsgo wrote:On May 01 2013 09:32 sunprince wrote:On May 01 2013 09:19 kmillz wrote:On May 01 2013 06:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 01 2013 05:22 Millitron wrote:On May 01 2013 05:16 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Can we stop shitting up this thread debating the Trayvon Martin murder thing? There is an entire thread devoted to it. Would make more sense to take that discussion there where there are plenty of interested people Totally agree, but Magpie was using it as a bludgeon to argue against gun rights. Its related as far as that goes. It's an anecdotal quip showing an example of some neighborhood watch guy being too nervous around black youth. My argument has been that it doesn't matter what weapon you have--you don't have time against anyone 21 feet from you and most of the time it's a lot less than 21 feet. Say you're a 120 lb woman and some 200 lb man bum rushes you. No amount of gun training will allow you to pull the gun out in time and once he's on top of you no amount of "struggling" is going to allow you to pull out your gun and flick the safety, during a panic, when someone is on top of you that is double your size. The gun is useful if you're already at the ready, and keeping people at a distance. Which is why house break ins make sense. But at that point--a bat would also work. A katana as well if you really want to kill them. But saying some random person walking down the street is safer because they have a gun? No, not at all relevant. For example http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/man-turns-tables-shotgun-wielding-attacker-141851442.htmlThe criminals had the gun out at the ready--but once he got close it simply took fast hands to disarm him. Why? Because guns are useless at close range like that. If the robber had kept his distance, and didn't allow the man to get near him, then the gun would have worked. But close proximity situations is pointless if you're already overpowered. Proper self-defense coupled with a concealed weapon can save your life. What if the 120 lb woman knows basic escapes from positions on the ground such as the mount? Do you know what "shrimping" is in ground-fighting terms? Say she gets a knee between her and the aggressor and then pulls her weapon out. I really hate getting into these finer details but your just saying "You either shoot someone from ~20 feet away or it is IMPOSSIBLE for you to shoot them" and anytime someone says "but what about x, y, or z" circumstance you just repeat yourself and ignore other outcomes. You can also sprawl hard on the bum rush and push them away to draw your weapon, pull closed guard and control them while you draw your weapon, sweep them and draw your weapon, etc. Funny how only people completely ignorant of combat think that firearms are useless. By that logic, I guess police officers should stop carrying handguns. well actually, there are police forces in the world that by and large don't use guns. Most prominent example is the police in the UK: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_use_of_firearms_in_the_United_KingdomWhen no one has guns, there's no particularly good reason for the police to have them either. These are the exceptions that prove the rule, and you know it. So what's the reason that it's viable in the UK but not in the United States? Also, many Irish police forces, Australian, Canadian, and Kiwi police forces don't carry guns anywhere near as much as police in the U.S. do. So why again are their firearm homicide rates lower? How are these countries exactly "exceptions"? The United States has an astronomically high crime rate for a first-world nation. Fewer firearms are needed in other first world nations simply because they are safer to begin with. Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 00:06 wherebugsgo wrote:
Can you name a single country that has banned firearms that has a higher rate of violence after the ban than before?
Can you name a single country that has legalized/loosened firearm regulation that has a lower rate of violence after than before? Correlation does not imply causation. Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 00:06 wherebugsgo wrote:On May 01 2013 23:57 sunprince wrote:On May 01 2013 22:53 wherebugsgo wrote:
The whole "freedom" part of this gun-owning argument is pretty much bullshit. I don't think you would argue that people have the right to own bombs, or nukes, or anthrax, or drones, or tanks, or flamethrowers. All of these things can be used the same way guns can be used-in self defense, but it doesn't change the fact that they all (in general) were designed for one purpose: to inflict harm upon other humans. Except those aren't banned because they're designed to inflict harm upon other humans. After all, swords, war bows, and cestuses are all designed to inflict harm upon other humans, yet are legal. Therefore, the whole notion of "designed to hurt other people" is irrelevant here. No, it isn't. The reason swords/bows etc. aren't banned for possession is because they're niche, are hard to use, and have historical/sport usage. For the same reason I would be completely fine with keeping guns used for target practice or clay pigeon shooting legal (as long as there is a rigorous vetting/registration process involved). It takes quite a bit of effort to modify these types of things for criminal purposes, and that effort is enough to deter enough criminals from using them (along with their ease of use/effectiveness) Crossbows aren't hard to use, and have no sport usage. Cestuses and similar weapons (don't let the name fool you, it's essentially just a combat glove) aren't niche, aren't hard to use, and have no sport usage. Swords are hard to use well, but can be used just fine to kill unarmed people (and similarly, daggers are even easier and have no sport usage). "Historical" usage is a crappy reason, since there are plenty of "historical" firearms. Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 00:06 wherebugsgo wrote:
In fact, most bows made today aren't made to kill people, they're made for sport or hunting. Guns are purchased precisely for self defense/criminal activity and they're the most readily available and inflict the most harm out of any of these. It doesn't matter what most bows are made for today; we don't ban war bows at all despite them fulfilling the criteria of being intended to kill people. Guns are often purchased for sport and hunting as well. Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 00:06 wherebugsgo wrote:they're the most readily available and inflict the most harm out of any of these. What does this have to do with anything? If you make firearms less available, then some other weapon will simply take its place as "most readily available and inflicts the most harm". Is there some arbitrary amount of "ready availability" or "harm inflicted" that is too much or something? Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 00:06 wherebugsgo wrote:On May 01 2013 23:57 sunprince wrote:On May 01 2013 22:53 wherebugsgo wrote:
Obviously the U.S. will not ban guns any time in the near future, or maybe even the next century, but certainly it would be nice to see some stricter regulations in place. I imagine the country would be much better off if guns were restricted solely for hunting purposes, but even so, I think game hunting (for sport) is pretty much out of the question too. Hunting for sport IMO is barbaric. And here lies the crux of the issue: people want to ban guns because they think they are barbaric. Our rights end where your feelings begin. Guess it's not just conservatives who try to legislate their version of morality onto everyone else. Well, if your version of "morality" is that your rights for owning a gun are more valuable than someone else's right to life, then sure, keep on trucking with those "gun rights" of yours. "Well, if your version of "morality" is that your rights for owning a car are more valuable than someone else's right to life, then sure, keep on trucking with those " car rights" of yours." After all, cars kill many more people than guns do.
Except cars aren't designed for killing people! Guns are, and they're even bought precisely for that purpose. People don't buy cars to kill others. (in b4 some sort of dumb terrorist analogy here)
If your best argument is that correlation does not imply causation and a shitty, outdated analogy to cars killing more people than guns, therefore my logic bad, then I have nothing more to say-until you and the millions of self-righteous other Americans just like you realize that the evidence is overwhelmingly against these arguments, people will continue to die in droves in this country due to guns.
On May 02 2013 00:55 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 00:29 wherebugsgo wrote:On May 02 2013 00:19 Zealotdriver wrote:On May 02 2013 00:06 wherebugsgo wrote:On May 01 2013 23:57 sunprince wrote:On May 01 2013 22:53 wherebugsgo wrote:On May 01 2013 09:32 sunprince wrote:On May 01 2013 09:19 kmillz wrote:On May 01 2013 06:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 01 2013 05:22 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
Totally agree, but Magpie was using it as a bludgeon to argue against gun rights. Its related as far as that goes. It's an anecdotal quip showing an example of some neighborhood watch guy being too nervous around black youth. My argument has been that it doesn't matter what weapon you have--you don't have time against anyone 21 feet from you and most of the time it's a lot less than 21 feet. Say you're a 120 lb woman and some 200 lb man bum rushes you. No amount of gun training will allow you to pull the gun out in time and once he's on top of you no amount of "struggling" is going to allow you to pull out your gun and flick the safety, during a panic, when someone is on top of you that is double your size. The gun is useful if you're already at the ready, and keeping people at a distance. Which is why house break ins make sense. But at that point--a bat would also work. A katana as well if you really want to kill them. But saying some random person walking down the street is safer because they have a gun? No, not at all relevant. For example http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/man-turns-tables-shotgun-wielding-attacker-141851442.htmlThe criminals had the gun out at the ready--but once he got close it simply took fast hands to disarm him. Why? Because guns are useless at close range like that. If the robber had kept his distance, and didn't allow the man to get near him, then the gun would have worked. But close proximity situations is pointless if you're already overpowered. Proper self-defense coupled with a concealed weapon can save your life. What if the 120 lb woman knows basic escapes from positions on the ground such as the mount? Do you know what "shrimping" is in ground-fighting terms? Say she gets a knee between her and the aggressor and then pulls her weapon out. I really hate getting into these finer details but your just saying "You either shoot someone from ~20 feet away or it is IMPOSSIBLE for you to shoot them" and anytime someone says "but what about x, y, or z" circumstance you just repeat yourself and ignore other outcomes. You can also sprawl hard on the bum rush and push them away to draw your weapon, pull closed guard and control them while you draw your weapon, sweep them and draw your weapon, etc. Funny how only people completely ignorant of combat think that firearms are useless. By that logic, I guess police officers should stop carrying handguns. well actually, there are police forces in the world that by and large don't use guns. Most prominent example is the police in the UK: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_use_of_firearms_in_the_United_KingdomWhen no one has guns, there's no particularly good reason for the police to have them either. These are the exceptions that prove the rule, and you know it. So what's the reason that it's viable in the UK but not in the United States? Also, many Irish police forces, Australian, Canadian, and Kiwi police forces don't carry guns anywhere near as much as police in the U.S. do. So why again are their firearm homicide rates lower? How are these countries exactly "exceptions"? Can you name a single country that has banned firearms that has a higher rate of violence after the ban than before? Can you name a single country that has legalized/loosened firearm regulation that has a lower rate of violence after than before? On May 01 2013 23:57 sunprince wrote:On May 01 2013 22:53 wherebugsgo wrote:
The whole "freedom" part of this gun-owning argument is pretty much bullshit. I don't think you would argue that people have the right to own bombs, or nukes, or anthrax, or drones, or tanks, or flamethrowers. All of these things can be used the same way guns can be used-in self defense, but it doesn't change the fact that they all (in general) were designed for one purpose: to inflict harm upon other humans. Except those aren't banned because they're designed to inflict harm upon other humans. After all, swords, war bows, and cestuses are all designed to inflict harm upon other humans, yet are legal. Therefore, the whole notion of "designed to hurt other people" is irrelevant here. No, it isn't. The reason swords/bows etc. aren't banned for possession is because they're niche, are hard to use, and have historical/sport usage. For the same reason I would be completely fine with keeping guns used for target practice or clay pigeon shooting legal (as long as there is a rigorous vetting/registration process involved). It takes quite a bit of effort to modify these types of things for criminal purposes, and that effort is enough to deter enough criminals from using them (along with their ease of use/effectiveness) In fact, most bows made today aren't made to kill people, they're made for sport or hunting. Guns are purchased precisely for self defense/criminal activity and they're the most readily available and inflict the most harm out of any of these. On May 01 2013 23:57 sunprince wrote:On May 01 2013 22:53 wherebugsgo wrote:
Obviously the U.S. will not ban guns any time in the near future, or maybe even the next century, but certainly it would be nice to see some stricter regulations in place. I imagine the country would be much better off if guns were restricted solely for hunting purposes, but even so, I think game hunting (for sport) is pretty much out of the question too. Hunting for sport IMO is barbaric. And here lies the crux of the issue: people want to ban guns because they think they are barbaric. Our rights end where your feelings begin. Guess it's not just conservatives who try to legislate their version of morality onto everyone else. Well, if your version of "morality" is that your rights for owning a gun are more valuable than someone else's right to life, then sure, keep on trucking with those "gun rights" of yours. It may surprise you to learn that humans are mammals. We have similar vital organs to game animals such as deer, hogs, and bears. Guns and bows made to hunt animals are also highly effective at killing humans. Guns are purchased for hunting because they are easier to use and tremendously more humane than other weapons. Your statement that "Guns are purchased precisely for self defense/criminal activity" is false. Also, they are harder to obtain than bows and swords. wut I can go to the nearest retail store here and purchase a slew of different types of guns. http://www.walmart.com/cp/Guns-Rifles-Ammunition/1088608Harder to obtain my ass. Zealotdriver is referring to the fact that there are restrictions on firearms availability that do not exist for bows and arrows, e.g. background checks. Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 00:29 wherebugsgo wrote:
e: also while we're at it, if we're going to argue on the grounds of humanely hunting for sport, well...
I think the most humane thing to do would be to, you know...not kill an animal just to display its severed head in your log cabin. You're a bleeding heart liberal who wants to impose your morality on others, yes, we get it already.
You wanna argue with shitty analogies?
Time to whip out the shitty analogies.
My rights to own anthrax should not be affected by some morons using anthrax in letter bombs. Why should I have to give up my constitutionally-granted right to bear biological weapons simply because of some terrorists using it for their maligned purposes?
Is arguing against private ownership of chemical and biological weapons imposing my morality on others?
This isn't even getting into the fact that I never once said that I thought banning guns for the sake of hunting was a good idea. I said that I am personally against hunting for sport, not that I would be for banning it, at least for now. Right now banning guns for hunting would be an incredibly dumb idea, given that it would actually hinder the gun control movement.
On May 02 2013 00:57 micronesia wrote:
Not to mention he hasn't addressed the other affects it would have besides theoretically reducing gun crime. What about other types of crime? What about other problems besides crime? If it was so simple this wouldn't be as controversial as it is.
This is nothing more than fear mongering.
It IS that simple, clearly, as other countries have already done it. Most of the gun rights advocates in this country are just simply ignorant of that fact. Their best arguments are to the tune of "the same situation doesn't apply because the United States is different" but they never are able to actually qualify this with any sort of meaningful evidence.
Same goes for you-all you're saying is that there are side effects. You assert this as if it's fact, without any sort of backing. Nothing more than hot air.
e: the funniest part is that I'm being accused of being a bleeding heart liberal. Is that supposed to refute my argument? Calling me a liberal?
Congratulations sunprince, you called me a liberal! I guess I'm wrong because my ideology is on the left! What a convincing argument you have!
|
United States24701 Posts
On May 02 2013 01:15 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 00:57 micronesia wrote:
Not to mention he hasn't addressed the other affects it would have besides theoretically reducing gun crime. What about other types of crime? What about other problems besides crime? If it was so simple this wouldn't be as controversial as it is. This is nothing more than fear mongering. It IS that simple, clearly, as other countries have already done it. Most of the gun rights advocates in this country are just simply ignorant of that fact. Their best arguments are to the tune of "the same situation doesn't apply because the United States is different" but they never are able to actually qualify this with any sort of meaningful evidence. Same goes for you-all you're saying is that there are side effects. You assert this as if it's fact, without any sort of backing. Nothing more than hot air.
No, it is not fear mongering. A statement such as the one I was quoting was being disingenuous. I'm not saying there shouldn't be more restrictions on guns, but when someone posts something that is objectively wrong I will often call them out on it, especially if they are trying to use it to argue their case on a controversial issue.
To say that 'massive changes to gun legislation will not have any negative side effects' is to show that you have zero understanding of this issue and should not be discussing it. Saying "other countries did it!" without actually providing specific, relevant, qualified evidence is useless. Also, why are you using what I said to go on a tirade about what you perceive to be a common opinion of many people who argue for a more conservative approach to gun legislation? The more you group people into one of two camps, the less progress you will make, as recent attempts by the Obama administration to apply common-sense reform has shown.
|
On May 02 2013 01:19 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 01:15 wherebugsgo wrote:On May 02 2013 00:57 micronesia wrote:
Not to mention he hasn't addressed the other affects it would have besides theoretically reducing gun crime. What about other types of crime? What about other problems besides crime? If it was so simple this wouldn't be as controversial as it is. This is nothing more than fear mongering. It IS that simple, clearly, as other countries have already done it. Most of the gun rights advocates in this country are just simply ignorant of that fact. Their best arguments are to the tune of "the same situation doesn't apply because the United States is different" but they never are able to actually qualify this with any sort of meaningful evidence. Same goes for you-all you're saying is that there are side effects. You assert this as if it's fact, without any sort of backing. Nothing more than hot air. No, it is not fear mongering. A statement such as the one I was quoting was being disingenuous. I'm not saying there shouldn't be more restrictions on guns, but when someone posts something that is objectively wrong I will often call them out on it, especially if they are trying to use it to argue their case on a controversial issue. To say that 'massive changes to gun legislation will not have any negative side effects' is to show that you have zero understanding of this issue and should not be discussing it. Saying "other countries did it!" without actually providing specific, relevant, qualified evidence is useless. Also, why are you using what I said to go on a tirade about what you perceive to be a common opinion of many people who argue for a more conservative approach to gun legislation? The more you group people into one of two camps, the less progress you will make, as recent attempts by the Obama administration to apply common-sense reform has shown.
His statement had nothing to do with negative consequences of banning guns. There aren't many, and they aren't very serious at all. Can you come up with any? Can you come up with evidence for them?
His statement was simple: the reason that the United States has a high violent crime rate is because there is a high gun ownership rate. He said banning guns would reduce the violent crime rate. Do you disagree with that? The evidence is actually against you if you disagree. You cannot discount that evidence simply because it comes from other countries, since legislation often is based upon the impacts of similar legislation in other countries. It's a tried and true approach, not useless. In almost every other field, countries have used existing models in other countries to influence their own legislation. Name a field, and it's probably happened. For whatever reason, in this particular case (probably because of the massive gun lobby) this evidence simply does not apply.
On May 02 2013 01:19 micronesia wrote:
The more you group people into one of two camps, the less progress you will make, as recent attempts by the Obama administration to apply common-sense reform has shown.
I'm not a policymaker, I'm just stating my opinion.
I am fairly confident the United States will never really make any progress on this issue in the near future, along with a slew of other issues. That's why I don't intend on living here when I gain the ability to move elsewhere-the country as a whole is just too conservative. It's slipping fast.
|
On May 02 2013 01:15 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 00:51 sunprince wrote:On May 02 2013 00:06 wherebugsgo wrote:On May 01 2013 23:57 sunprince wrote:On May 01 2013 22:53 wherebugsgo wrote:On May 01 2013 09:32 sunprince wrote:On May 01 2013 09:19 kmillz wrote:On May 01 2013 06:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 01 2013 05:22 Millitron wrote:On May 01 2013 05:16 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Can we stop shitting up this thread debating the Trayvon Martin murder thing? There is an entire thread devoted to it. Would make more sense to take that discussion there where there are plenty of interested people Totally agree, but Magpie was using it as a bludgeon to argue against gun rights. Its related as far as that goes. It's an anecdotal quip showing an example of some neighborhood watch guy being too nervous around black youth. My argument has been that it doesn't matter what weapon you have--you don't have time against anyone 21 feet from you and most of the time it's a lot less than 21 feet. Say you're a 120 lb woman and some 200 lb man bum rushes you. No amount of gun training will allow you to pull the gun out in time and once he's on top of you no amount of "struggling" is going to allow you to pull out your gun and flick the safety, during a panic, when someone is on top of you that is double your size. The gun is useful if you're already at the ready, and keeping people at a distance. Which is why house break ins make sense. But at that point--a bat would also work. A katana as well if you really want to kill them. But saying some random person walking down the street is safer because they have a gun? No, not at all relevant. For example http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/man-turns-tables-shotgun-wielding-attacker-141851442.htmlThe criminals had the gun out at the ready--but once he got close it simply took fast hands to disarm him. Why? Because guns are useless at close range like that. If the robber had kept his distance, and didn't allow the man to get near him, then the gun would have worked. But close proximity situations is pointless if you're already overpowered. Proper self-defense coupled with a concealed weapon can save your life. What if the 120 lb woman knows basic escapes from positions on the ground such as the mount? Do you know what "shrimping" is in ground-fighting terms? Say she gets a knee between her and the aggressor and then pulls her weapon out. I really hate getting into these finer details but your just saying "You either shoot someone from ~20 feet away or it is IMPOSSIBLE for you to shoot them" and anytime someone says "but what about x, y, or z" circumstance you just repeat yourself and ignore other outcomes. You can also sprawl hard on the bum rush and push them away to draw your weapon, pull closed guard and control them while you draw your weapon, sweep them and draw your weapon, etc. Funny how only people completely ignorant of combat think that firearms are useless. By that logic, I guess police officers should stop carrying handguns. well actually, there are police forces in the world that by and large don't use guns. Most prominent example is the police in the UK: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_use_of_firearms_in_the_United_KingdomWhen no one has guns, there's no particularly good reason for the police to have them either. These are the exceptions that prove the rule, and you know it. So what's the reason that it's viable in the UK but not in the United States? Also, many Irish police forces, Australian, Canadian, and Kiwi police forces don't carry guns anywhere near as much as police in the U.S. do. So why again are their firearm homicide rates lower? How are these countries exactly "exceptions"? The United States has an astronomically high crime rate for a first-world nation. Fewer firearms are needed in other first world nations simply because they are safer to begin with. On May 02 2013 00:06 wherebugsgo wrote:
Can you name a single country that has banned firearms that has a higher rate of violence after the ban than before?
Can you name a single country that has legalized/loosened firearm regulation that has a lower rate of violence after than before? Correlation does not imply causation. On May 02 2013 00:06 wherebugsgo wrote:On May 01 2013 23:57 sunprince wrote:On May 01 2013 22:53 wherebugsgo wrote:
The whole "freedom" part of this gun-owning argument is pretty much bullshit. I don't think you would argue that people have the right to own bombs, or nukes, or anthrax, or drones, or tanks, or flamethrowers. All of these things can be used the same way guns can be used-in self defense, but it doesn't change the fact that they all (in general) were designed for one purpose: to inflict harm upon other humans. Except those aren't banned because they're designed to inflict harm upon other humans. After all, swords, war bows, and cestuses are all designed to inflict harm upon other humans, yet are legal. Therefore, the whole notion of "designed to hurt other people" is irrelevant here. No, it isn't. The reason swords/bows etc. aren't banned for possession is because they're niche, are hard to use, and have historical/sport usage. For the same reason I would be completely fine with keeping guns used for target practice or clay pigeon shooting legal (as long as there is a rigorous vetting/registration process involved). It takes quite a bit of effort to modify these types of things for criminal purposes, and that effort is enough to deter enough criminals from using them (along with their ease of use/effectiveness) Crossbows aren't hard to use, and have no sport usage. Cestuses and similar weapons (don't let the name fool you, it's essentially just a combat glove) aren't niche, aren't hard to use, and have no sport usage. Swords are hard to use well, but can be used just fine to kill unarmed people (and similarly, daggers are even easier and have no sport usage). "Historical" usage is a crappy reason, since there are plenty of "historical" firearms. On May 02 2013 00:06 wherebugsgo wrote:
In fact, most bows made today aren't made to kill people, they're made for sport or hunting. Guns are purchased precisely for self defense/criminal activity and they're the most readily available and inflict the most harm out of any of these. It doesn't matter what most bows are made for today; we don't ban war bows at all despite them fulfilling the criteria of being intended to kill people. Guns are often purchased for sport and hunting as well. On May 02 2013 00:06 wherebugsgo wrote:they're the most readily available and inflict the most harm out of any of these. What does this have to do with anything? If you make firearms less available, then some other weapon will simply take its place as "most readily available and inflicts the most harm". Is there some arbitrary amount of "ready availability" or "harm inflicted" that is too much or something? On May 02 2013 00:06 wherebugsgo wrote:On May 01 2013 23:57 sunprince wrote:On May 01 2013 22:53 wherebugsgo wrote:
Obviously the U.S. will not ban guns any time in the near future, or maybe even the next century, but certainly it would be nice to see some stricter regulations in place. I imagine the country would be much better off if guns were restricted solely for hunting purposes, but even so, I think game hunting (for sport) is pretty much out of the question too. Hunting for sport IMO is barbaric. And here lies the crux of the issue: people want to ban guns because they think they are barbaric. Our rights end where your feelings begin. Guess it's not just conservatives who try to legislate their version of morality onto everyone else. Well, if your version of "morality" is that your rights for owning a gun are more valuable than someone else's right to life, then sure, keep on trucking with those "gun rights" of yours. "Well, if your version of "morality" is that your rights for owning a car are more valuable than someone else's right to life, then sure, keep on trucking with those " car rights" of yours." After all, cars kill many more people than guns do. Except cars aren't designed for killing people ! Guns are, and they're even bought precisely for that purpose.
I explained over and over already that this isn't a factor, since we allow swords, crossbows, etc. that are designed for killing people. The designed purpose of a tool is not relevant to considering it's legal permissibility.
On May 02 2013 00:29 wherebugsgo wrote:
People don't buy cars to kill others. (in b4 some sort of dumb terrorist analogy here)
Anything can be bought to kill others, including cars, knives, or rat poison. We don't ban things simply because they
On May 02 2013 00:29 wherebugsgo wrote:
If your best argument is that correlation does not imply causation and a shitty, outdated analogy to cars killing more people than guns, therefore my logic bad, then I have nothing more to say-until you and the millions of self-righteous other Americans just like you realize that the evidence is overwhelmingly against these arguments, people will continue to die in droves in this country due to guns.
Except there isn't any actual evidence to show that gun ownership is responsible for America's high rate of gun violence. America has an astonishingly high violent crime rate for a first-world nation in absolute terms, and the high gun crime rate is a mere symptom of this. Pick up some criminology textbooks sometime; the topic of gun ownership was been beaten to death by actual academics long before political ideologues got involved.
On May 02 2013 00:29 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 00:55 sunprince wrote:On May 02 2013 00:29 wherebugsgo wrote:On May 02 2013 00:19 Zealotdriver wrote:On May 02 2013 00:06 wherebugsgo wrote:On May 01 2013 23:57 sunprince wrote:On May 01 2013 22:53 wherebugsgo wrote:On May 01 2013 09:32 sunprince wrote:On May 01 2013 09:19 kmillz wrote:On May 01 2013 06:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:[quote] It's an anecdotal quip showing an example of some neighborhood watch guy being too nervous around black youth. My argument has been that it doesn't matter what weapon you have--you don't have time against anyone 21 feet from you and most of the time it's a lot less than 21 feet. Say you're a 120 lb woman and some 200 lb man bum rushes you. No amount of gun training will allow you to pull the gun out in time and once he's on top of you no amount of "struggling" is going to allow you to pull out your gun and flick the safety, during a panic, when someone is on top of you that is double your size. The gun is useful if you're already at the ready, and keeping people at a distance. Which is why house break ins make sense. But at that point--a bat would also work. A katana as well if you really want to kill them. But saying some random person walking down the street is safer because they have a gun? No, not at all relevant. For example http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/man-turns-tables-shotgun-wielding-attacker-141851442.htmlThe criminals had the gun out at the ready--but once he got close it simply took fast hands to disarm him. Why? Because guns are useless at close range like that. If the robber had kept his distance, and didn't allow the man to get near him, then the gun would have worked. But close proximity situations is pointless if you're already overpowered. Proper self-defense coupled with a concealed weapon can save your life. What if the 120 lb woman knows basic escapes from positions on the ground such as the mount? Do you know what "shrimping" is in ground-fighting terms? Say she gets a knee between her and the aggressor and then pulls her weapon out. I really hate getting into these finer details but your just saying "You either shoot someone from ~20 feet away or it is IMPOSSIBLE for you to shoot them" and anytime someone says "but what about x, y, or z" circumstance you just repeat yourself and ignore other outcomes. You can also sprawl hard on the bum rush and push them away to draw your weapon, pull closed guard and control them while you draw your weapon, sweep them and draw your weapon, etc. Funny how only people completely ignorant of combat think that firearms are useless. By that logic, I guess police officers should stop carrying handguns. well actually, there are police forces in the world that by and large don't use guns. Most prominent example is the police in the UK: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_use_of_firearms_in_the_United_KingdomWhen no one has guns, there's no particularly good reason for the police to have them either. These are the exceptions that prove the rule, and you know it. So what's the reason that it's viable in the UK but not in the United States? Also, many Irish police forces, Australian, Canadian, and Kiwi police forces don't carry guns anywhere near as much as police in the U.S. do. So why again are their firearm homicide rates lower? How are these countries exactly "exceptions"? Can you name a single country that has banned firearms that has a higher rate of violence after the ban than before? Can you name a single country that has legalized/loosened firearm regulation that has a lower rate of violence after than before? On May 01 2013 23:57 sunprince wrote:On May 01 2013 22:53 wherebugsgo wrote:
The whole "freedom" part of this gun-owning argument is pretty much bullshit. I don't think you would argue that people have the right to own bombs, or nukes, or anthrax, or drones, or tanks, or flamethrowers. All of these things can be used the same way guns can be used-in self defense, but it doesn't change the fact that they all (in general) were designed for one purpose: to inflict harm upon other humans. Except those aren't banned because they're designed to inflict harm upon other humans. After all, swords, war bows, and cestuses are all designed to inflict harm upon other humans, yet are legal. Therefore, the whole notion of "designed to hurt other people" is irrelevant here. No, it isn't. The reason swords/bows etc. aren't banned for possession is because they're niche, are hard to use, and have historical/sport usage. For the same reason I would be completely fine with keeping guns used for target practice or clay pigeon shooting legal (as long as there is a rigorous vetting/registration process involved). It takes quite a bit of effort to modify these types of things for criminal purposes, and that effort is enough to deter enough criminals from using them (along with their ease of use/effectiveness) In fact, most bows made today aren't made to kill people, they're made for sport or hunting. Guns are purchased precisely for self defense/criminal activity and they're the most readily available and inflict the most harm out of any of these. On May 01 2013 23:57 sunprince wrote:On May 01 2013 22:53 wherebugsgo wrote:
Obviously the U.S. will not ban guns any time in the near future, or maybe even the next century, but certainly it would be nice to see some stricter regulations in place. I imagine the country would be much better off if guns were restricted solely for hunting purposes, but even so, I think game hunting (for sport) is pretty much out of the question too. Hunting for sport IMO is barbaric. And here lies the crux of the issue: people want to ban guns because they think they are barbaric. Our rights end where your feelings begin. Guess it's not just conservatives who try to legislate their version of morality onto everyone else. Well, if your version of "morality" is that your rights for owning a gun are more valuable than someone else's right to life, then sure, keep on trucking with those "gun rights" of yours. It may surprise you to learn that humans are mammals. We have similar vital organs to game animals such as deer, hogs, and bears. Guns and bows made to hunt animals are also highly effective at killing humans. Guns are purchased for hunting because they are easier to use and tremendously more humane than other weapons. Your statement that "Guns are purchased precisely for self defense/criminal activity" is false. Also, they are harder to obtain than bows and swords. wut I can go to the nearest retail store here and purchase a slew of different types of guns. http://www.walmart.com/cp/Guns-Rifles-Ammunition/1088608Harder to obtain my ass. Zealotdriver is referring to the fact that there are restrictions on firearms availability that do not exist for bows and arrows, e.g. background checks. On May 02 2013 00:29 wherebugsgo wrote:
e: also while we're at it, if we're going to argue on the grounds of humanely hunting for sport, well...
I think the most humane thing to do would be to, you know...not kill an animal just to display its severed head in your log cabin. You're a bleeding heart liberal who wants to impose your morality on others, yes, we get it already. You wanna argue with shitty analogies? Time to whip out the shitty analogies. My rights to own anthrax should not be affected by some morons using anthrax in letter bombs. Why should I have to give up my constitutionally-granted right to bear biological weapons simply because of some terrorists using it for their maligned purposes?
What legitimate purpose do biological weapons serve you? Firearms serve the purpose of personal defense; that is why police and infantry are issued firearms. They are not, however, issued biological weapons since these are offensive weapons of mass, indiscriminate destruction.
Typical person incapable of defending themselves wishing others to be just as helpless.
On May 02 2013 00:29 wherebugsgo wrote:
Is arguing against private ownership of chemical and biological weapons imposing my morality on others?
If it was based on the notion that they are "barbaric" as opposed to rationally analyzing the harms and benefits, then yes.
The main problem here is that you don't have any understanding of the legal philosophy behind why we allow some tools but not others. You instead make up arbitrary decision based on your own personal views. Here's how we figure it out:
Does something serve a legitimate purpose? If yes, then there should not be an infringement the right to own it and use it for that purpose.
|
Except cars aren't designed for killing people! Guns are, and they're even bought precisely for that purpose. People don't buy cars to kill others. (in b4 some sort of dumb terrorist analogy here)
If your best argument is that correlation does not imply causation and a shitty, outdated analogy to cars killing more people than guns, therefore my logic bad, then I have nothing more to say-until you and the millions of self-righteous other Americans just like you realize that the evidence is overwhelmingly against these arguments, people will continue to die in droves in this country due to guns.
What is more important to the discussion? The purpose of guns/cars or the function of guns/cars? The purpose doesn't really matter because you can still very easily kill just as many, if not more people, with a large 2000+ lb projectile that can travel over 100 mph than a gun. The function is what causes people to die, not the purpose.
Everything in that paragraph about correlation =/= causation was just ad hominem nonsense that doesn't bear any weight in a meaningful discussion.
You wanna argue with shitty analogies?
Time to whip out the shitty analogies.
My rights to own anthrax should not be affected by some morons using anthrax in letter bombs. Why should I have to give up my constitutionally-granted right to bear biological weapons simply because of some terrorists using it for their maligned purposes?
Thanks for the shitty analogy, at least you admitted it was useless before you said it.
Is arguing against private ownership of chemical and biological weapons imposing my morality on others?
Who is trying to fight for the right to own chemical and biological weapons? I doubt anyone, so no.
This isn't even getting into the fact that I never once said that I thought banning guns for the sake of hunting was a good idea. I said that I am personally against hunting for sport, not that I would be for banning it, at least for now. Right now banning guns for hunting would be an incredibly dumb idea, given that it would actually hinder the gun control movement.
This is nothing more than fear mongering.
It IS that simple, clearly, as other countries have already done it. Most of the gun rights advocates in this country are just simply ignorant of that fact. Their best arguments are to the tune of "the same situation doesn't apply because the United States is different" but they never are able to actually qualify this with any sort of meaningful evidence.
Same goes for you-all you're saying is that there are side effects. You assert this as if it's fact, without any sort of backing. Nothing more than hot air.
e: the funniest part is that I'm being accused of being a bleeding heart liberal. Is that supposed to refute my argument? Calling me a liberal?
Congratulations sunprince, you called me a liberal! I guess I'm wrong because my ideology is on the left! What a convincing argument you have!
The funniest part is that you say "I have nothing more to say-until you and the millions of self-righteous other Americans just like you realize that the evidence is overwhelmingly against these arguments"
and then "the funniest part is that I'm being accused of being a bleeding heart liberal. Is that supposed to refute my argument? Calling me a liberal?"
Absurd amounts of hypocrisy in your post.
|
On May 02 2013 01:34 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 01:15 wherebugsgo wrote:On May 02 2013 00:51 sunprince wrote:On May 02 2013 00:06 wherebugsgo wrote:On May 01 2013 23:57 sunprince wrote:On May 01 2013 22:53 wherebugsgo wrote:On May 01 2013 09:32 sunprince wrote:On May 01 2013 09:19 kmillz wrote:On May 01 2013 06:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 01 2013 05:22 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
Totally agree, but Magpie was using it as a bludgeon to argue against gun rights. Its related as far as that goes. It's an anecdotal quip showing an example of some neighborhood watch guy being too nervous around black youth. My argument has been that it doesn't matter what weapon you have--you don't have time against anyone 21 feet from you and most of the time it's a lot less than 21 feet. Say you're a 120 lb woman and some 200 lb man bum rushes you. No amount of gun training will allow you to pull the gun out in time and once he's on top of you no amount of "struggling" is going to allow you to pull out your gun and flick the safety, during a panic, when someone is on top of you that is double your size. The gun is useful if you're already at the ready, and keeping people at a distance. Which is why house break ins make sense. But at that point--a bat would also work. A katana as well if you really want to kill them. But saying some random person walking down the street is safer because they have a gun? No, not at all relevant. For example http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/man-turns-tables-shotgun-wielding-attacker-141851442.htmlThe criminals had the gun out at the ready--but once he got close it simply took fast hands to disarm him. Why? Because guns are useless at close range like that. If the robber had kept his distance, and didn't allow the man to get near him, then the gun would have worked. But close proximity situations is pointless if you're already overpowered. Proper self-defense coupled with a concealed weapon can save your life. What if the 120 lb woman knows basic escapes from positions on the ground such as the mount? Do you know what "shrimping" is in ground-fighting terms? Say she gets a knee between her and the aggressor and then pulls her weapon out. I really hate getting into these finer details but your just saying "You either shoot someone from ~20 feet away or it is IMPOSSIBLE for you to shoot them" and anytime someone says "but what about x, y, or z" circumstance you just repeat yourself and ignore other outcomes. You can also sprawl hard on the bum rush and push them away to draw your weapon, pull closed guard and control them while you draw your weapon, sweep them and draw your weapon, etc. Funny how only people completely ignorant of combat think that firearms are useless. By that logic, I guess police officers should stop carrying handguns. well actually, there are police forces in the world that by and large don't use guns. Most prominent example is the police in the UK: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_use_of_firearms_in_the_United_KingdomWhen no one has guns, there's no particularly good reason for the police to have them either. These are the exceptions that prove the rule, and you know it. So what's the reason that it's viable in the UK but not in the United States? Also, many Irish police forces, Australian, Canadian, and Kiwi police forces don't carry guns anywhere near as much as police in the U.S. do. So why again are their firearm homicide rates lower? How are these countries exactly "exceptions"? The United States has an astronomically high crime rate for a first-world nation. Fewer firearms are needed in other first world nations simply because they are safer to begin with. On May 02 2013 00:06 wherebugsgo wrote:
Can you name a single country that has banned firearms that has a higher rate of violence after the ban than before?
Can you name a single country that has legalized/loosened firearm regulation that has a lower rate of violence after than before? Correlation does not imply causation. On May 02 2013 00:06 wherebugsgo wrote:On May 01 2013 23:57 sunprince wrote:On May 01 2013 22:53 wherebugsgo wrote:
The whole "freedom" part of this gun-owning argument is pretty much bullshit. I don't think you would argue that people have the right to own bombs, or nukes, or anthrax, or drones, or tanks, or flamethrowers. All of these things can be used the same way guns can be used-in self defense, but it doesn't change the fact that they all (in general) were designed for one purpose: to inflict harm upon other humans. Except those aren't banned because they're designed to inflict harm upon other humans. After all, swords, war bows, and cestuses are all designed to inflict harm upon other humans, yet are legal. Therefore, the whole notion of "designed to hurt other people" is irrelevant here. No, it isn't. The reason swords/bows etc. aren't banned for possession is because they're niche, are hard to use, and have historical/sport usage. For the same reason I would be completely fine with keeping guns used for target practice or clay pigeon shooting legal (as long as there is a rigorous vetting/registration process involved). It takes quite a bit of effort to modify these types of things for criminal purposes, and that effort is enough to deter enough criminals from using them (along with their ease of use/effectiveness) Crossbows aren't hard to use, and have no sport usage. Cestuses and similar weapons (don't let the name fool you, it's essentially just a combat glove) aren't niche, aren't hard to use, and have no sport usage. Swords are hard to use well, but can be used just fine to kill unarmed people (and similarly, daggers are even easier and have no sport usage). "Historical" usage is a crappy reason, since there are plenty of "historical" firearms. On May 02 2013 00:06 wherebugsgo wrote:
In fact, most bows made today aren't made to kill people, they're made for sport or hunting. Guns are purchased precisely for self defense/criminal activity and they're the most readily available and inflict the most harm out of any of these. It doesn't matter what most bows are made for today; we don't ban war bows at all despite them fulfilling the criteria of being intended to kill people. Guns are often purchased for sport and hunting as well. On May 02 2013 00:06 wherebugsgo wrote:they're the most readily available and inflict the most harm out of any of these. What does this have to do with anything? If you make firearms less available, then some other weapon will simply take its place as "most readily available and inflicts the most harm". Is there some arbitrary amount of "ready availability" or "harm inflicted" that is too much or something? On May 02 2013 00:06 wherebugsgo wrote:On May 01 2013 23:57 sunprince wrote:On May 01 2013 22:53 wherebugsgo wrote:
Obviously the U.S. will not ban guns any time in the near future, or maybe even the next century, but certainly it would be nice to see some stricter regulations in place. I imagine the country would be much better off if guns were restricted solely for hunting purposes, but even so, I think game hunting (for sport) is pretty much out of the question too. Hunting for sport IMO is barbaric. And here lies the crux of the issue: people want to ban guns because they think they are barbaric. Our rights end where your feelings begin. Guess it's not just conservatives who try to legislate their version of morality onto everyone else. Well, if your version of "morality" is that your rights for owning a gun are more valuable than someone else's right to life, then sure, keep on trucking with those "gun rights" of yours. "Well, if your version of "morality" is that your rights for owning a car are more valuable than someone else's right to life, then sure, keep on trucking with those " car rights" of yours." After all, cars kill many more people than guns do. Except cars aren't designed for killing people ! Guns are, and they're even bought precisely for that purpose. I explained over and over already that this isn't a factor, since we allow swords, crossbows, etc. that are designed for killing people. The designed purpose of a tool is not relevant to considering it's legal permissibility.
And I've already explained why it's not necessary to ban these things.
It's a waste of time and money to legislate specifically for things like this when they are so rarely used (and when they are possessed, it's usually for some sort of cultural or historical significance). Guns, on the other hand, are extremely common.
On May 02 2013 01:34 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 00:29 wherebugsgo wrote:
People don't buy cars to kill others. (in b4 some sort of dumb terrorist analogy here) Anything can be bought to kill others, including cars, knives, or rat poison. We don't ban things simply because they
So why do we ban anthrax?
On May 02 2013 01:34 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 00:29 wherebugsgo wrote:
If your best argument is that correlation does not imply causation and a shitty, outdated analogy to cars killing more people than guns, therefore my logic bad, then I have nothing more to say-until you and the millions of self-righteous other Americans just like you realize that the evidence is overwhelmingly against these arguments, people will continue to die in droves in this country due to guns. Except there isn't any actual evidence to show that gun ownership is responsible for America's high rate of gun violence. America has an astonishingly high violent crime rate for a first-world nation in absolute terms, and the high gun crime rate is a mere symptom of this. Pick up some criminology textbooks sometime; the topic of gun ownership was been beaten to death by actual academics long before political ideologues got involved.
So why are we discounting the mountains of evidence in other countries? Of course there is no evidence for such a qualification for America specifically because it's almost impossible to separate crime from the source when there have historically never been any bans on guns in this country. However, there ARE studies that support the idea that gun control reduces gun violence. I'll cite one in a second.
Your best argument against the existing mountains of evidence was "correlation != causation" and "different countries."
So, let's end your shitty arguments for good:
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1661390
What're you gonna say this time, I wonder? That it states more studies need to be done because "correlation != causation"? Lol.
On May 02 2013 01:34 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 00:29 wherebugsgo wrote:On May 02 2013 00:55 sunprince wrote:On May 02 2013 00:29 wherebugsgo wrote:On May 02 2013 00:19 Zealotdriver wrote:On May 02 2013 00:06 wherebugsgo wrote:On May 01 2013 23:57 sunprince wrote:On May 01 2013 22:53 wherebugsgo wrote:On May 01 2013 09:32 sunprince wrote:On May 01 2013 09:19 kmillz wrote:
[quote]
Proper self-defense coupled with a concealed weapon can save your life. What if the 120 lb woman knows basic escapes from positions on the ground such as the mount? Do you know what "shrimping" is in ground-fighting terms? Say she gets a knee between her and the aggressor and then pulls her weapon out. I really hate getting into these finer details but your just saying "You either shoot someone from ~20 feet away or it is IMPOSSIBLE for you to shoot them" and anytime someone says "but what about x, y, or z" circumstance you just repeat yourself and ignore other outcomes. You can also sprawl hard on the bum rush and push them away to draw your weapon, pull closed guard and control them while you draw your weapon, sweep them and draw your weapon, etc. Funny how only people completely ignorant of combat think that firearms are useless. By that logic, I guess police officers should stop carrying handguns. well actually, there are police forces in the world that by and large don't use guns. Most prominent example is the police in the UK: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_use_of_firearms_in_the_United_KingdomWhen no one has guns, there's no particularly good reason for the police to have them either. These are the exceptions that prove the rule, and you know it. So what's the reason that it's viable in the UK but not in the United States? Also, many Irish police forces, Australian, Canadian, and Kiwi police forces don't carry guns anywhere near as much as police in the U.S. do. So why again are their firearm homicide rates lower? How are these countries exactly "exceptions"? Can you name a single country that has banned firearms that has a higher rate of violence after the ban than before? Can you name a single country that has legalized/loosened firearm regulation that has a lower rate of violence after than before? On May 01 2013 23:57 sunprince wrote:On May 01 2013 22:53 wherebugsgo wrote:
The whole "freedom" part of this gun-owning argument is pretty much bullshit. I don't think you would argue that people have the right to own bombs, or nukes, or anthrax, or drones, or tanks, or flamethrowers. All of these things can be used the same way guns can be used-in self defense, but it doesn't change the fact that they all (in general) were designed for one purpose: to inflict harm upon other humans. Except those aren't banned because they're designed to inflict harm upon other humans. After all, swords, war bows, and cestuses are all designed to inflict harm upon other humans, yet are legal. Therefore, the whole notion of "designed to hurt other people" is irrelevant here. No, it isn't. The reason swords/bows etc. aren't banned for possession is because they're niche, are hard to use, and have historical/sport usage. For the same reason I would be completely fine with keeping guns used for target practice or clay pigeon shooting legal (as long as there is a rigorous vetting/registration process involved). It takes quite a bit of effort to modify these types of things for criminal purposes, and that effort is enough to deter enough criminals from using them (along with their ease of use/effectiveness) In fact, most bows made today aren't made to kill people, they're made for sport or hunting. Guns are purchased precisely for self defense/criminal activity and they're the most readily available and inflict the most harm out of any of these. On May 01 2013 23:57 sunprince wrote:On May 01 2013 22:53 wherebugsgo wrote:
Obviously the U.S. will not ban guns any time in the near future, or maybe even the next century, but certainly it would be nice to see some stricter regulations in place. I imagine the country would be much better off if guns were restricted solely for hunting purposes, but even so, I think game hunting (for sport) is pretty much out of the question too. Hunting for sport IMO is barbaric. And here lies the crux of the issue: people want to ban guns because they think they are barbaric. Our rights end where your feelings begin. Guess it's not just conservatives who try to legislate their version of morality onto everyone else. Well, if your version of "morality" is that your rights for owning a gun are more valuable than someone else's right to life, then sure, keep on trucking with those "gun rights" of yours. It may surprise you to learn that humans are mammals. We have similar vital organs to game animals such as deer, hogs, and bears. Guns and bows made to hunt animals are also highly effective at killing humans. Guns are purchased for hunting because they are easier to use and tremendously more humane than other weapons. Your statement that "Guns are purchased precisely for self defense/criminal activity" is false. Also, they are harder to obtain than bows and swords. wut I can go to the nearest retail store here and purchase a slew of different types of guns. http://www.walmart.com/cp/Guns-Rifles-Ammunition/1088608Harder to obtain my ass. Zealotdriver is referring to the fact that there are restrictions on firearms availability that do not exist for bows and arrows, e.g. background checks. On May 02 2013 00:29 wherebugsgo wrote:
e: also while we're at it, if we're going to argue on the grounds of humanely hunting for sport, well...
I think the most humane thing to do would be to, you know...not kill an animal just to display its severed head in your log cabin. You're a bleeding heart liberal who wants to impose your morality on others, yes, we get it already. You wanna argue with shitty analogies? Time to whip out the shitty analogies. My rights to own anthrax should not be affected by some morons using anthrax in letter bombs. Why should I have to give up my constitutionally-granted right to bear biological weapons simply because of some terrorists using it for their maligned purposes? What legitimate purpose do biological weapons serve you? Firearms serve the purpose of personal defense; that is why police and infantry are issued firearms. They are not, however, issued biological weapons since these are offensive weapons of mass, indiscriminate destruction. Typical person incapable of defending themselves wishing others to be just as helpless.
Self defense, of course!
I can use biological weapons in self defense the same way you can use guns.
I can use bombs too. Hell, I could use a flamethrower, or a tank, or almost any lethal weapon. It doesn't mean that it should be legal.
On May 02 2013 01:34 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 00:29 wherebugsgo wrote:
Is arguing against private ownership of chemical and biological weapons imposing my morality on others? If it was based on the notion that they are "barbaric" as opposed to rationally analyzing the harms and benefits, then yes. The main problem here is that you don't have any understanding of the legal philosophy behind why we allow some tools but not others. You instead make up arbitrary decision based on your own personal views. Here's how we figure it out: Does something serve a legitimate purpose? If yes, then there should not be an infringement the right to own it and use it for that purpose.
So if I can find a "legitimate" purpose for anthrax I should be allowed to own it?
If I can create my own nuclear reactor and use it to power my home, I should be allowed to own one? (some teenager actually did this btw, FBI came to his house and seized the thing)
Also there's this kid who did it too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hahn
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
