Guns in our society.

[Rajwa]

It's way to late to even think about banning guns. I personally know at least a dozen people who would die before giving up their right to bear arms, and I'm sure there is many more. They also have stocked up on ammunition (including illegal armor piercing rounds, which apparently are easy to find in Canada) for nearly a year just in case the day came. I'm pretty sure more deaths would result from just the revolts against the full out banning of guns then if they did nothing.

[bombard]

Comparing a gun to brewing alcohol is fucking retarded.

And your silly hypothetical is not backed up by statistics. Higher gun control = lower murder rates.

Shut the fuck up with the hypothetical maybes. This is the way it is and honestly you're fucking retarded for trying to fight this.

I love it when a self righteous smart mouthed punk tries to express his/her beliefs and feelings on something and totally demolishes any thread of credibility by verbally assaulting someone because they believe in something different.

Back on topic ---

I know I'm a responsible adult. If I want to own a gun, I should be able to. I don't need a RPG, but some assault rifles are neat to own/fire/use/clean (I used to be in the military). They should start teaching gun control in schools at an early age like they do STD's, underage drinking, Drugs, etc. Especially since we live in a Digital era now, where very graphic shooting/war games are a dime a dozen.

I believe in preventative education starts at home, but not everyone has parents that are worth their weight in shit -- hence why it should be instilled in the public/private education sectors as well. Education should always be a first step, and banning as a last -- not the first.

Let's close all Fast Food chains because they serve cheap and fatty foods, because people are too stupid to eat something else, I mean isn't heart disease one of the leading causes of death in the US, if not the number one cause? Save the defense of ignorance and poverty -- I've never known a steady diet of Ramen noodles to kill any poor college student.

Let's mandate all automakers to make the exact same vehicle with all the same parts, and if you operate any vehicle other than that one, you get arrested. All for safety reasons of course, because if everyone drove the 'safest' automobile, wouldn't that cut down on deaths from accidents (i think a 2005 CDC report has unintentional accidents as the #5 top killer in the US)?

You can ban all the guns you want, people are still going to own them, and obtain them in whatever fashion they have to. Shit, I probably have 10 things in my house that are considered illegal in some fashion if you wanted to really nitpick, yet somehow I get by everyday without committing mass murders. Nutjobs are Nutjobs and they're gonna be a nutjob anyway they can. So isolate the nutjob gene, chemical imbalance, whatever it is and win the nobel peace price.

I want the option to own a gun if I want one. I want the option to sit here and debate with you if gun laws are good , bad, need to be altered. I want the option to go eat a GD double quarterpounder with cheese dipped in a can of crisco with the buns deep fried. I want the option of owning a 3 mile per gallon muscle car that emits more smog than L.A.

[Eratosthenes]

I'm a machinist, and I would totally get in on the firearm black market if they're ever banned.

[Senoska]

How do you not see the comparisons you're marking are wrong? People chose to eat fatty foods, thats their choice. I highly doubt it is their choice to be pinned down and shot in the face by some hood rat who wants their ipod.

And your "option to own a gun" is irrelevant. I want the option to own a fucking artillery gun or a goddamn battle ship, but hey, guess what!

You cannot make an analogy to anything besides guns to guns. They are what they are. It is a lot easier to go and grab a gun and shoot someone in the face than it is to beat them to death or stab them. What you want and what reality is are two different things. The reality is that statistically, the countries who have gun laws are unbelievably safer than those that dont. It would only logically follow that if guns are hard to come by that chances are very good not everyone is going to have them. Some crazy person can't just walk down to the local gun show and pick up a gun like they can today and I promise you shit would change.

The arguement that everyone having guns makes shit safer is possibly the most retarded thing I've ever heard because when people are RAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGING they are not thinking logically, they know they have the means to kill someone and they will do it if they can. If anything, everyone having guns would only produce more innocent bystanders.

When I can own my long range ground to air missile, you can own your equally unneeded AK47.

[Senoska]

I'm a machinist, and I would totally get in on the firearm black market if they're ever banned.

And I'm sure if the law were done correctly you would be behind bars for the rest of your life, like how other countries do this shit. edit: Hoodrats don't get their shit off the black market, chances are good the handguns and rifles they have are stolen or bought. They were not made in some half ass machinists house. Guns are so easy to get. And I'm not the typical tree huger. I grew up around guns. I got my first .22 when I was about 12 years old and have several guns 3 feet away from me, but I only own them now because they are so easy to get. I would gladly give up my guns if a law were put in place.

[bombard]

How do you not see the comparisons you're marking are wrong? People chose to eat fatty foods, thats their choice. I highly doubt it is their choice to be pinned down and shot in the face by some hood rat who wants their ipod.

1) If you didn't choose to buy an iPod and live with these 'hoodrats', then you wouldn't be in that position. We can bounce the 'choosing' vs 'forced' argument until we are blue in the face.

[QUOTE=senoska;2628747]And your "option to own a gun" is irrelevant. I want the option to own a fucking artillery gun or a goddamn battle ship, but hey, guess what![quote]

2) You're playing the totally unrealistic card here. Mocking the argument is null.

You cannot make an analogy to anything besides guns to guns. They are what they are.

3) You're right, I didn't. I made more than one analogy. in an debate, you have to compare and contrast one subject to another with the same underlying issue, and this case I'd think it would be safe to assume causes of preventable fatalities was the issue. Gun - Bad - Death - Hoodrat were the four choices you but up for debate on the issue. So you have to compare guns with other things. We'll save how to debate 101 for another day.

It is a lot easier to go and grab a gun and shoot someone in the face than it is to beat them to death or stab them. What you want and what reality is are two different things.

4) Really? Where is your proof for this, any statistical data? If i was pissed off someone flipped me off while I was driving I could try to ram them off the road into oncoming traffic easier than I could stab them or beat them to death ... so you better take away my car in case I'm an irrational person.

The reality is that statistically, the countries who have gun laws are unbelievably safer than those that dont. It would only logically follow that if guns are hard to come by that chances are very good not everyone is going to have them. Some crazy person can't just walk down to the local gun show and pick up a gun like they can today and I promise you shit would change.

5) You talk like you live in Harlem in one paragraph, then in another you act like you're from the backwoods of Alabama where everyone has a gun rack, and .22's are issued with birth certificates. Take guns away from people, they'll evolve and find different methods for killing people. That's the thing about the human race -- adaptation is a bitch.

The arguement that everyone having guns makes shit safer is possibly the most retarded thing I've ever heard because when people are RAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGING they are not thinking logically, they know they have the means to kill someone and they will do it if they can. If anything, everyone having guns would only produce more innocent bystanders.

6) Being at the wrong place at the wrong time happens alot more than stray bullets. I do not believe in more guns = more safe, but I believe in my freedoms. Once again, if you're an unreasonable/unstable person, you're gonna do unreasonable/unstable things regardless if you have a gun or not.

When I can own my long range ground to air missile, you can own your equally unneeded AK47.

Again, another unreasonable statement from an unreasonable person. Please bring more to the table than silly comments, verbal assaults on other people whom don't agree with you, and the weak and contrary statement of owning guns because you can, but you'd give them up if they were made illegal.

[Senoska]

1) If you didn't choose to buy an iPod and live with these 'hoodrats', then you wouldn't be in that position. We can bounce the 'choosing' vs 'forced' argument until we are blue in the face.

I should be able to own things without the fear of being shot for them. I would say its sigificatly easier to shoot me and take my things than it is to try to fight me for them. If you have a gun, I'm not fighting you. It would end poorly for me. If you have a knife or fists, my chances are much greater to fuck your day up.

2) You're playing the totally unrealistic card here. Mocking the argument is null.

It's not unrealistic for the parallel I was drawing. I was implying that you shouldn't need high powered automatic rifles that are only used by the military for killing people in order to protect yourself or to "look cool."

3) You're right, I didn't. I made more than one analogy. in an debate, you have to compare and contrast one subject to another with the same underlying issue, and this case I'd think it would be safe to assume causes of preventable fatalities was the issue. Gun - Bad - Death - Hoodrat were the four choices you but up for debate on the issue. So you have to compare guns with other things. We'll save how to debate 101 for another day.

You're comparing apples to oranges, fast food and car data are irrelevant to malicious intent of someone with a gun. You can say that you can be malicious with a car, and you would be correct, but how many times do you see people mugging others while holding them at bumper-point?

4) Really? Where is your proof for this, any statistical data? If i was pissed off someone flipped me off while I was driving I could try to ram them off the road into oncoming traffic easier than I could stab them or beat them to death ... so you better take away my car in case I'm an irrational person.

Read the last thread or the last few pages.

5) You talk like you live in Harlem in one paragraph, then in another you act like you're from the backwoods of Alabama where everyone has a gun rack, and .22's are issued with birth certificates. Take guns away from people, they'll evolve and find different methods for killing people. That's the thing about the human race -- adaptation is a bitch.

A little bit of both, actually. I was born in northern (Very northern...) Michigan and live in Detroit. And no kidding there will be different methods of killing people but I'm willing to bet you it won't be as easy as pointing and pulling a trigger. Little thought or effort goes into that.

6) Being at the wrong place at the wrong time happens alot more than stray bullets. I do not believe in more guns = more safe, but I believe in my freedoms. Once again, if you're an unreasonable/unstable person, you're gonna do unreasonable/unstable things regardless if you have a gun or not.

You believe that you're part of a well regulated militia required for the security of the state? That's interesting.

Again, another unreasonable statement from an unreasonable person. Please bring more to the table than silly comments, verbal assaults on other people whom don't agree with you, and the weak and contrary statement of owning guns because you can, but you'd give them up if they were made illegal.

It's not unreasonable. What is unreasonable is you're saying that it should be valid and legal that I can own a military weapon for no other reason that looking cool. At what point is too powerful? A semi-automatic, an automatic? Fuck, a metal storm system surrounding my house? Enough to drop an entire army of people in less than a second? For what? Does it stop at miniguns or tanks? Where is the line here?

The only thing you've managed to do is try to make an appeal to emotion while people who support gun control have mountians of statistics behind them that show that banning guns lowers murder rates. If you're going to make appeals to emotion or play in silly hypotheticals, you're not worth listening too.

[Senoska]

64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.

Actually, there is roughly 1 firearm caused deaths in america every 16 minutes. And on top of that, there are news stories just by searching "Shooting" in google news and switching it to within the last day. Needless to say, this is just a flat out lie. Although, its hard to tell if you were being sarcastic or not.

[Beckwin]

guartz is right about one thing when it comes to guns/crime/murder: there are more factors involved other than just the amount of guns/regulation (even though the fewer number/higher regulation certainly does make a significant impact).

the thing is, guartz does not like the other main factor: economic stratification.

[Plow]

I'll just leave this here.

Penn and Teller: Bullshit! Gun Control Part 1
Penn and Teller: Bullshit! Gun Control Part 2
Penn and Teller: Bullshit! Gun Control Part 3

I haven't read most of the thread (nor will i read much of it since it's 90% guartz), but I'd just like to point out that I'm not even finished with the first one and already this is among the biggest crocks of bullshit I've ever seen/heard.

I actually had some respect for him before this, but just wow.


I'm partway through the 3rd one and it's just hurting my head too much.

I'm quoting here:

Penn: "What we need now is a guy who really knows a lot of shit about guns."

Shaded voice changed guy... I shit you not, this is exactly the credentials he gives: "My name is John Doe. I'm an O G gang member for life, I've been shot twice, stabbed twice, and I know a whole lot of shit about guns."


This is depressing, I'm suddenly questioning the validity of every bullshit episode ever.

[guartz]

guartz is right about one thing when it comes to guns/crime/murder: there are more factors involved other than just the amount of guns/regulation (even though the fewer number/higher regulation certainly does make a significant impact).

the thing is, guartz does not like the other main factor: economic stratification.

Oh, there you go bringing class into it again.

Fine, only very Rich can have a lot of guns, and corporations have no limits on how many firearms they own.

Yes, you can incorporate yourself and buy machine guns.

[Beckwin]

not just who can own them, guartzy, but motivation for using them in a civil society.

[Maxxthepenguin]

Oh, there you go bringing class into it again.

Well, that's what it's all about! If only people would...

[Jaybar]

I should be able to own things without the fear of being shot for them. I would say its sigificatly easier to shoot me and take my things than it is to try to fight me for them. If you have a gun, I'm not fighting you. It would end poorly for me. If you have a knife or fists, my chances are much greater to fuck your day up.

If anyone had ANYTHING that can harm you, especially if you are outnumbered, you will give him/her/them your iPod. Don't tell me you are a big man and can ward off someone with a knife/baseball bat/other weapon. You can try to run, but if someone were to put you into that situation, then you are probably already within striking distance. I will agree, if it's just a fist fight, your odds of getting away are much easier, unless your skin can break knife blades.

You're comparing apples to oranges, fast food and car data are irrelevant to malicious intent of someone with a gun. You can say that you can be malicious with a car, and you would be correct, but how many times do you see people mugging others while holding them at bumper-point?

Can we ban (name anything) then? Seriously? If you ban guns, the amount of times you get held up aren't going to go down. The only slight guarantee you'll have is that you probably won't get shot, but you probably wont get away clean either way. You are trying to connect guns to violence when they aren't directly connected. Yes, there are factors to violence, and it's been said many times already. Get over it.

And no kidding there will be different methods of killing people but I'm willing to bet you it won't be as easy as pointing and pulling a trigger. Little thought or effort goes into that.

You move from gun violence to just gun deaths? I understand how killing someone is much easier with a weapon that has great range that can guarantee a kill, but you should know that most weapons aren't even powerful enough to take down some people. There are plenty of weapons out there that are far more lethal blow per blow. You act like crime will go down because people won't be able to use guns (I'm avoiding a black market situation, I'm assuming everyone will not be allowed to operate or own a gun), when in fact, although correlated, is not the cause.

What I'm trying to say is that you are fighting a situation that can't be solved by simply banning guns.

It's not unreasonable. What is unreasonable is you're saying that it should be valid and legal that I can own a military weapon for no other reason that looking cool. At what point is too powerful? A semi-automatic, an automatic? Fuck, a metal storm system surrounding my house? Enough to drop an entire army of people in less than a second? For what? Does it stop at miniguns or tanks? Where is the line here?

It stops at reasonable. Sure you can own a surface to air missile if you so choose, but what purpose would it fit? Shoot down a random passenger jet? The problem is that you won't be able to conceal it. It's big, people will know it's there, and people will know if you used it to attack a traffic copter. The thing about guns is that it's concealable, and people can't directly identify someone using one so easily. Walking around with an army issued assault rifle is no different. Go watch Heat, that's likely the only good situation I can see one being used for.

The only thing you've managed to do is try to make an appeal to emotion while people who support gun control have mountians of statistics behind them that show that banning guns lowers murder rates. If you're going to make appeals to emotion or play in silly hypotheticals, you're not worth listening too.

Don't call out someone else on fallacies when you yourself use them (I'm sure I did as well). Slippery slopes, ad hominem, just to name a couple. What you are forgetting is that those statistics are mostly from other nations - other cultures. I want you to remember this. You of all people should know how vastly differing the cultures between even Japan and the United States are, and it's like that all around the world.

[Takedown3]

guns are for pussies get a knife

[Beckwin]

If anyone had ANYTHING that can harm you, especially if you are outnumbered, you will give him/her/them your iPod. Don't tell me you are a big man and can ward off someone with a knife/baseball bat/other weapon. You can try to run, but if someone were to put you into that situation, then you are probably already within striking distance. I will agree, if it's just a fist fight, your odds of getting away are much easier, unless your skin can break knife blades.




Can we ban (name anything) then? Seriously? If you ban guns, the amount of times you get held up aren't going to go down. The only slight guarantee you'll have is that you probably won't get shot, but you probably wont get away clean either way. You are trying to connect guns to violence when they aren't directly connected. Yes, there are factors to violence, and it's been said many times already. Get over it.



You move from gun violence to just gun deaths? I understand how killing someone is much easier with a weapon that has great range that can guarantee a kill, but you should know that most weapons aren't even powerful enough to take down some people. There are plenty of weapons out there that are far more lethal blow per blow. You act like crime will go down because people won't be able to use guns (I'm avoiding a black market situation, I'm assuming everyone will not be allowed to operate or own a gun), when in fact, although correlated, is not the cause.

What I'm trying to say is that you are fighting a situation that can't be solved by simply banning guns.



It stops at reasonable. Sure you can own a surface to air missile if you so choose, but what purpose would it fit? Shoot down a random passenger jet? The problem is that you won't be able to conceal it. It's big, people will know it's there, and people will know if you used it to attack a traffic copter. The thing about guns is that it's concealable, and people can't directly identify someone using one so easily. Walking around with an army issued assault rifle is no different. Go watch Heat, that's likely the only good situation I can see one being used for.



Don't call out someone else on fallacies when you yourself use them (I'm sure I did as well). Slippery slopes, ad hominem, just to name a couple. What you are forgetting is that those statistics are mostly from other nations - other cultures. I want you to remember this. You of all people should know how vastly differing the cultures between even Japan and the United States are, and it's like that all around the world.

and still missing the point that having a gun makes it easier to hold someone up, and thus a more attractive course of action.

[Melchiah]

If guns only killed 168 people there wouldn't be such outrage.

I'd like to counter that with this:

If every killing spree involving guns killed 168 people at once you'd have a valid point.

[MarkM.]

I am not saying I am for or against gun control, but you can not accurately post crime statistics that involve guns because they also lump suicide into this category. I can't recall the exact stat, but I've seen ranges from 10 to 25%. So, although the point does have some validity, it's not entirely accurate.

[Zeb]

Anyone ever find statistics on how many people the police kill each year? I'm not trying to weigh in, just curious as to the numbers and I figure some of you may know where to look.

[guartz]

not just who can own them, guartzy, but motivation for using them in a civil society.

I don't understand, what do you mean?