EPTOn December 09 2007 04:35 IntoTheWow wrote:
Unfortunately, USA's guns business has a lot to do with the world and not just your country.
Unfortunately, USA's guns business has a lot to do with the world and not just your country.
Another Teenage Shooting/Suicide - Page 26
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
SK.Testie
Canada11084 Posts
| ||
|
qgart
Canada89 Posts
Mayson, you say that we call you troll because you destroyed our logic. It's quite the contrary. Many ppl destroyed your arguments. When that happened, you simply started ignoring them, waiting on someone else to post something, and divert the attention to the new poster. According to you, the typical canadian is in favor of rape, murder... Does that make you any different than that lazerflip kid who said that there are less crime in Canada because there are less blacks? According to you, pro-gun control ppl are condescending. If I remember correctly, you are the one who started with the "baaaaa goes the sheep", the "all you do is regurgitate the Brady campaign", the "all pro-gun control ppl can't think for themselves", the "you do not comprehend English very well"... so on and so forth. Everything I mentioned above makes you a troll. | ||
|
aRod
United States758 Posts
| ||
|
Alexx3
Canada12 Posts
A 1993 survey found that one-half of all Canadian women have experienced at least one incident of sexual or physical violence. Almost 60% of these women were the targets of more than one violent incidents. (Statistics Canada, "The Violence Against Women Survey," The Daily, November 18, 1993) We could say then, by having a weapon, 1/2 of women in canada would have shot a man? How many millions people shot would that be? Holy... But still, sexual assault is NOT something to laugh about..... yet im not going any further with that thought. haha. Personally, im pro gun control. Canada has a fairly strict gun control policy and has fewer gun related deaths (per capita? im not sure and im NOT gona google again lol) And from what ive overheard on the news and radio, a very very high percentage of the illegal guns come from the states anyways. But anyways. Don't feel like reading more than the last page of the posts to contribute  cheers | ||
|
Skye_MyO
Singapore107 Posts
On December 09 2007 07:32 qgart wrote: Mayson, you say that we call you troll because you destroyed our logic. It's quite the contrary. Many ppl destroyed your arguments. When that happened, you simply started ignoring them, waiting on someone else to post something, and divert the attention to the new poster. According to you, the typical canadian is in favor of rape, murder... Does that make you any different than that lazerflip kid who said that there are less crime in Canada because there are less blacks? According to you, pro-gun control ppl are condescending. If I remember correctly, you are the one who started with the "baaaaa goes the sheep", the "all you do is regurgitate the Brady campaign", the "all pro-gun control ppl can't think for themselves", the "you do not comprehend English very well"... so on and so forth. Everything I mentioned above makes you a troll. I disagree, he conducted himself extremely well for the majority of the discussion until the unending insults caused him to retaliate. And no, nobody "destroyed" his logic. If anything, after a barrage of insults, Mayson would respond with facts, statistics and sources and they kept quiet, only to return several pages later with more insults. On December 09 2007 07:56 aRod wrote: I know Mayson has quite deliberately ignored my posts. When you're inundated with "Fuck you's" from a variety of angry people, you may miss a couple of legitimate posts. Perhaps you can restate your question or post, and I'm sure he'll respond again. Or perhaps I could respond, since I take the anti-gun control position. | ||
|
Servolisk
United States5241 Posts
On December 09 2007 11:45 Skye_MyO wrote: I disagree, he conducted himself extremely well for the majority of the discussion until the unending insults caused him to retaliate. And no, nobody "destroyed" his logic. If anything, after a barrage of insults, Mayson would respond with facts, statistics and sources and they kept quiet, only to return several pages later with more insults. One of the first, if not the first, to be insulting was Mayson, which I think you'll find if you go back and reread. And while you are there, you can also find where he was refuted but failed to respond, and just kept rewording his original position over and over and over, except a little bit more tastelessly each time. qgart brought up multiple times that Mayson's claim that legal gun ownership is actually a deterrent in crime rate, using Mayson's own source. I and others brought up the flaw in his logic in saying that gun controls only noticeable effect was to remove the self-protection that regular citizens have against armed criminals. The first problem is the one I just mentioned. The other is that it is demonstrably false: I already showed a source that said how most guns are obtained through the same sources intended for legal use. Whether stealing the guns from legal owners (10-15%), or easily circumventing gun laws, almost 100% of criminal sources of guns stem from legal sources. Almost all of the ways guns are currently obtained by criminals would be removed, yet he says, over and over, that there would be no noticeable effect on criminals. He just rewords what he already said, intentionally ignoring the rebuttal while playing a victim, becoming insulting, and praising himself for his "logic". This is in order to annoy people or get attention, or something similarly pathetic. This is why we insult/ignore him, at this point. I won't be reading any of his posts. I'm happy to debate with you, but don't waste your time defending a lowly false persona. | ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
Servolisk, you are the one ignoring facts. You and baal are pretty much of the same mindset, saying that removal of legal sources of guns would remove the supply that illegal owners garner from. How do you differentiate the situation created by outlawing guns from that of prohibition and war on drugs? Drug trafficking will simply be amongst gun trafficking. The market always prevails. Criminals create a demand for guns, not vice versa. This has been stated in many different ways throughout this thread by several people, yet you completely ignore it. You are ignoring the failures of your ideas when applied to other domains. Statistics and historical precedent defeat you. And I'll stop busting your balls when you stop busting mine; you came in with implied ad hominem ("people like HeadBangaa") and I answered in step. | ||
|
SK.Testie
Canada11084 Posts
Don't be frontin' He ain't scurred. | ||
|
qgart
Canada89 Posts
On December 09 2007 11:45 Skye_MyO wrote: I disagree, he conducted himself extremely well for the majority of the discussion until the unending insults caused him to retaliate. And no, nobody "destroyed" his logic. If anything, after a barrage of insults, Mayson would respond with facts, statistics and sources and they kept quiet, only to return several pages later with more insults. Look, my hockey team just lost pretty badly. So I'm not going to waste the night in front of my computer copy/pasting arguments from my previous posts. Let's just say that when one of my argument challenged his logic, he showed his true colors by making racist remarks. After that he just rewinded his tape, waited for a new post and rolled his tape again on the new poster, seemingly making it look like he has answers to everything. If you think Mayson did not insult anyone, read the very first sentence of the very first post he made. It's on page 6 if I'm correct. When you start being condescending to ppl for pages and pages, ppl will react to it. Also, you should notice how you can pretty much find anything you want to find with Google. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if a big chunk of his posts are directly copy/pasted from the websites he found. | ||
|
SwedishHero
Sweden869 Posts
And intothewow. If you dont know what statistics out of context is, ask a lawyer and he will write you a book about it. Edit: I mean I agree in how he has dominated most part of this thread except a few important things he didnt want to reply to , think it was one of servolisk posts. Oh and yea iam totally for Gun control. I actually attended a seminarium regarding gun control, and the PHD proffesor who was leading it brought up the Usa situation. After those hours one couldnt possibly argue against him, he crushed everything. | ||
|
Servolisk
United States5241 Posts
On December 09 2007 12:30 HeadBangaa wrote: This topic is spent. Servolisk, you are the one ignoring facts. You and baal are pretty much of the same mindset, saying that removal of legal sources of guns would remove the supply that illegal owners garner from. How do you differentiate the situation created by outlawing guns from that of prohibition and war on drugs? Drug trafficking will simply be amongst gun trafficking. The market always prevails. Criminals create a demand for guns, not vice versa. This has been stated in many different ways throughout this thread by several people, yet you completely ignore it. You are ignoring the failures of your ideas when applied to other domains. Statistics and historical precedent defeat you. First of all, there are some notable differences between the manufacturing of alcohol, drugs, and guns. Any amateur can follow guides and make the first two, and there can be small operations all over the place. Guns are obviously a lot more difficult. They also don't compare well when it comes to transportation. You can't swallow a gun and then...retrieve it later, after you've passed through customs. Wouldn't you imagine moving guns would be a great deal more difficult than inconspicuous little things that are measured in grams? I disagree on the point that criminals create the demand for guns. Far more demand in the US comes from non-criminals, going by who buys more guns. As for a comparison to prohibition... I'm not entirely sure you are correct that it was a failure to enforce. I've heard before that alcohol consumption was down a great deal, and that it would of continued to decrease if it had stayed as a law longer. A quick google finds, A word about prohibition: lots of you hear the argument that alcohol prohibition failed---so why are drugs still illegal? Prohibition did work. Alcohol consumption was reduced by almost 60% and incidents of liver cirrhosis and deaths from this disease dropped dramatically (Scientific American, 1996, by David Musto) http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07342/840222-55.stm As for precedent, what about the precedent of other countries with total bans on guns, plenty of criminals, yet they have managed not to only let a minor portion of criminals get a hold of guns? I'm not sure, but I believe Russia is an example of that. | ||
|
qgart
Canada89 Posts
On December 09 2007 12:30 HeadBangaa wrote: How do you differentiate the situation created by outlawing guns from that of prohibition and war on drugs? Drug trafficking will simply be amongst gun trafficking. The market always prevails. Criminals create a demand for guns, not vice versa. This has been stated in many different ways throughout this thread by several people, yet you completely ignore it. You are ignoring the failures of your ideas when applied to other domains. Statistics and historical precedent defeat you. A lot of people covered that already. To put it simply: - Drugs are easier to smuggle. Smuggling a small quantity of drugs still pays off. - Firearms are harder to smuggle. You would need to smuggle a crapload of it if you want to see some profit. So if it is hard to smuggle firearms through borders and it doesn't pay off nearly as much as other illegal businesses, it is logical to think that either firearms availibilty will decrease, or/and firearms cost will skyrocket. | ||
|
SwedishHero
Sweden869 Posts
Lets say Usa banned guns , so that only The military can have it and no else , not even the weapons used for hunting. Then you close all the gun stores, you let the country's people know that they have 2 months to turn in the weapons to , lets say their local policestation. you also let everyone know that anybody who is caught with a gun/rifle will get sentenced to jail for a minimum of 20 years. Dont you think that after a few years almost none will own a weapon? Ofcourse the rifle is only the means that is used to carry out an criminal act, but you cant get from the fact that guns make it whole lot of fucking easier, and you can pick of many people. if you dont belive that we can might aswell allow tanks, attack helikopters, f35's , fucking nukes for the society to buy. This way only mainly the really , really large criminals will be able to obtain weapons, and they hardly get them to go picking of people at a school... | ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
On December 09 2007 12:53 Servolisk wrote: First of all, there are some notable differences between the manufacturing of alcohol, drugs, and guns. Any amateur can follow guides and make the first two, and there can be small operations all over the place. Guns are obviously a lot more difficult. They also don't compare well when it comes to transportation. You can't swallow a gun and then...retrieve it later, after you've passed through customs. Wouldn't you imagine moving guns would be a great deal more difficult than inconspicuous little things that are measured in grams? A bit naive. I'm smoking Mexican mota as we speak. And it wasn't transported by-the-gram in some chilango's ass; it's bricked (low quality) or sealed, and transported in bulk. Their is a distribution heirarchy on this side of the border. I disagree on the point that criminals create the demand for guns. Far more demand in the US comes from non-criminals, going by who buys more guns. Yeah that's true, but I was speaking about criminal ownership. As for a comparison to prohibition... I'm not entirely sure you are correct that it was a failure to enforce. I've heard before that alcohol consumption was down a great deal, and that it would of continued to decrease if it had stayed as a law longer. A quick google finds, Doesn't say anything to support your points, though. Surely, if guns became 100% illegal/zero-tolerance, all law-abiding gun owners would turn in their guns. Effectively, there would be less guns per civilian. Effectively, only criminals would have guns, or seek to obtain them. I'm not saying gun control produces no results, I'm saying that the results are negative: you make it illegal to defend yourself against criminals. This is like any policy which is based on mistrust of the reasonability of the average person. eg, 'Individuals driving in private cars' is not a necessity. We could implement a pure-public transportation system, and surely the results would be outstanding. No more drunk driving deaths, no more road-ragers. But at the cost of disenfranchisement. And it's not like "car-trafficking" would be easy, but is that really the issue? You remove the choice from the people, because you don't trust the people. You take this for granted, because people have been driving cars your whole life. I presume that, if cars were invented in the cultural context you subscribe to, the priviledge to drive would be as suspect as the priviledge to own a gun. And I don't need to post statistics about vehicle-related deaths. But I'm sure you'll waive this point off as riduculous, simply because you take driving for granted. As for precedent, what about the precedent of other countries with total bans on guns, plenty of criminals, yet they have managed not to only let a minor portion of criminals get a hold of guns? I'm not sure, but I believe Russia is an example of that. If we ignore all the significant geopolitical and domestic differences between the USA and Russia, that makes sense, yeah. | ||
|
SwedishHero
Sweden869 Posts
and one thing, if you owned a gun , who would you protect ur self against and point a gun at , even shoot?. the guy who hits you for lets say accidently pushing him?, are you gonna shoot someone who is trying to rob a store with lets say a bat?, or you are out one night walking in a park and a guy is walking towards you and you get the idea that he is out after you, are you gonna draw ur gun?. Its the fucking society that is fucked up that makes these things happen, and throwing rifles and sidearms into the soup aint gonna make it a safer place. Forza Pro gun control | ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
On December 09 2007 13:50 SwedishHero wrote: And yes , it would occur situations where perhaps having a gun would of bin the only way to save your self, that doesnt mean that they should be allowed. I fundamentally disagree with you on this point. Your assumptions are different than mine based on cultural context. Your statement is counter-intuitive to the average American, I'm sure. That is, to say, if we assume a situation where a gun would save you, yet on principle, shouldn't have the right to use it, yes, that's certainly an odd opinion. | ||
|
SwedishHero
Sweden869 Posts
and its not only on principle. lets say i had that gun and I was a criminal, should you then have the right to have a bazooka cause it beats the gun, but then bazookas would be allowed and the criminal would have it, should you then be allowed to have a tank that you role in and take that punk bazooka dude out, hah, that was abit exagarated. but what I want to say is that it will escalade..and just bigger, and more casualties. say you met that criminal in the park one day(a thief or somethinh, little G) and guns were banned in the states since 10 years back, he would try to rob you bye maybe punching you, you would punch back, he maby runs, he maby knocks you out or vice-versa , whatever no one has to die. | ||
micronesia
United States24496 Posts
On December 09 2007 14:05 SwedishHero wrote: You really should think and/or take some magic sources (to improve INT) before you try to prove your point. First of all, yes he understood what you meant about not all guns being taken care of yet. Second of all, if we shouldn't allow guns because then we'll need to allow bazookas... then we shouldn't allow bats because then we need to allow swords. And we shouldn't allow knives, because then we'll need to allow bats. It's a spectrum and where to draw the line is quite subjective. Your decision to draw the line just below guns is not so obvious and intuitive as you are making it sound. I also am surprised you think if guns are actually out of the picture that means all muggings will become nonlethal punching battles... well at least that shows you aren't directly a danger to society...Banga, what I forgot to say was that those situations where a gun only would save you are in the stage where all guns havent bin taken care of yet. After a couple of years(let it be 10 years) that will not be the issue anymore. and its not only on principle. lets say i had that gun and I was a criminal, should you then have the right to have a bazooka cause it beats the gun, but then bazookas would be allowed and the criminal would have it, should you then be allowed to have a tank that you role in and take that punk bazooka dude out, hah, that was abit exagarated. but what I want to say is that it will escalade..and just bigger, and more casualties. say you met that criminal in the park one day(a thief or somethinh, little G) and guns were banned in the states since 10 years back, he would try to rob you bye maybe punching you, you would punch back, he maby runs, he maby knocks you out or vice-versa , whatever no one has to die. | ||
|
aRod
United States758 Posts
| ||
|
KaasZerg
Netherlands927 Posts
| ||
| ||
