Author Topic: Gun Control  (Read 78879 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline rookie

  • Miscreant, petty criminal, and all around nice guy
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 2200
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #30 on: December 12, 2012, 09:08:11 am »
How many bullets are you allowed in a magazine? Thirty rounds of 39 mm ammo will probably do MORE damage semi-auto than fired rock-and-roll.

Depends on what state, what gun, and what you're doing at the time.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2012, 09:10:54 am by rookie »
The difference between 0 and 1 is infinite. The difference between 1 and a million is a matter of degree. - Zack Johnson

Quote from: davedan board=pg thread=6573 post=218058 time=1286247542
I'll stop eating beef lamb and pork the same day they start letting me eat vegetarians.

Offline Material Defender

  • Food Scientist in Space
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 959
  • Gender: Male
  • Pilot of the Pyro-GX
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #31 on: December 12, 2012, 10:48:34 am »
Oh, ok. So it wasn't the gun that did the killing, it was a person using a gun.

So now guns aren't a problem, we should let anybody drive a car; qualified or not. Because cars don't have accidents, PEOPLE DO.

Cars are a privilege, not a right. You have to be old enough to own one, you have to be skilled enough to own one, and if you use it like a twat, it'll get taken away.

Whether Americans like it or not, Guns are basically the same way. You have to be old enough, you need to usually have a gun safety course before owning them (I live in Kansas and their pretty liberal with guns but the gun safety course is a requirement), and if you act like a twat you'll get them taken away.

I'm all personally for smart gun ownership and Privilege based gun control. Total bans or unreasonable restrictions make me lul.
The material needs a defender more than the spiritual. If there is a higher power, it can defend itself from the material. Thus denotes 'higher power'.

"Not to know is bad. Not to want to know is worse. Not to hope is unthinkable. Not to care is unforgivable." -Nigerian Saying

Offline rookie

  • Miscreant, petty criminal, and all around nice guy
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 2200
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #32 on: December 12, 2012, 11:01:24 am »
There is a tired old argument that still holds some truth. All the gun control in the world does nothing to address one simple point: the people going through the process of responsibly and legally owning guns are going to be the ones dealing with the gun control processes. And generally they aren't the problem.

It seems like rather than (or in addition to) trying to figure out which guns are "good" and which are "bad", we as a nation should be looking at ways to keep guns from those who shouldn't have them while still allowing others to. That was awkwardly worded. How do you let the safe responsible owner have a gun while keeping them away from someone who isn't safe and responsible? And that's a genuine question for anyone who wants to answer it, as I've got nothing.
The difference between 0 and 1 is infinite. The difference between 1 and a million is a matter of degree. - Zack Johnson

Quote from: davedan board=pg thread=6573 post=218058 time=1286247542
I'll stop eating beef lamb and pork the same day they start letting me eat vegetarians.

Offline DasFuchs

  • God
  • *****
  • Posts: 521
  • Gender: Male
  • Ruler of his own little world since 1977
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #33 on: December 12, 2012, 01:20:33 pm »
I'm sure that'll stop about the time you get stuff like this to stop;
Oh, ok. So it wasn't the gun that did the killing, it was a person using a gun.

So now guns aren't a problem, we should let anybody drive a car; qualified or not. Because cars don't have accidents, PEOPLE DO.

Admittedly I'm coming at it from a warped perspective as a non-American, so anybody possessing a handgun is sort of inconceivable. Just about everybody where I live has a shotgun or a rifle, and they seem to do the trick.

European style gun control could never work in America due to the sheer amount of guns already present and the way that the American psyche has got so used to guns over the years.


You'd be amazed how many people repeatedly make your prior argument in gun issues

And no, European gun control wouldn't work for that reason and because it's a listed right in our Constitution that people will defend

How many bullets are you allowed in a magazine? Thirty rounds of 39 mm ammo will probably do MORE damage semi-auto than fired rock-and-roll.

Like someone else said, depends on state and law. Some states have laws requiring only five rounds and any mags higher than that must be pinned or modified to only accept 5 (making an Enfield Rifle Mk1 from WWI  illegal) while other states have no limit so it depends on mag size whether the mag is a fixed item or a removable one. Then states have rules about how much you can have while hunting as opposed to shooting at a range since you don't need a 20 rounder to go shoot a deer (though when you miss a big buck the urge is definitely there to get that sum' bitch damn the ammo it takes, put it full box down range, get-r-done!).


As to the AK question earlier. No, civilian AKs are semi auto. All that movie bullshit where everyone owns a full auto ak (or where everyone gets full auto weapons like they were water) is just that; bullshit. If you by some chance have or modify any weapon to fire full auto it immediately falls under class III and if you don't have a license for it can see hard core butt raping fed prison time for it. the closest a normal civilian can get to full auto short of a class III are things like old timey gatling guns that are hand crank or "bump firing" which is the redneck version of "Yee haw I gots me a gun" (basically hook your thumb through the trigger and onto your belt loop and pull the gun forward with the other hand, the recoil bumps the gun back before you recover and pull it forward to make it look like full auto fire but is so inaccurate it's just a spastic waste of ammo).

At this point what we should be doing is trying to find these people prior to them shooting places up. Whether to stop hand waving off people that exhibit mental issues or just providing everyone with easy access to help when it's needed. In reality anyone deranged enough to go shoot up a mall or a school, or a theater, they'll always find a way to do it, the only difference is the body count which can go either way.
There are already thousands of gun laws on the books, so many that no one knows them all no matter which side of the issue they're on. Lot's of laws the anti gun crowds shout for are already there, they just don't know they are. Likewise gun people have a hard time at it too. For example modifying your weapons. With a Yugo sks 59/66, you pretty much can't do anything to without violating import laws set in the 80's. The way around it is you need to replace parts with US made parts off a list of parts from the BATFE until your gun has less then ten foreign parts on that list. It doesn't do anything, the gun is still the same, it's just considered a US weapon instead of an imported one now.
Other weapons are on a C&R list (curio and relic) which allows people to own them. Though once even the slightest modification is done (aside from refinishing the gunstock and "restoration" services), they lose that status and become subject to normal gun laws because the weapon is no longer in it's C&R original state, and restoring it to that point will not restore it's C&R status.


v Hah, I didn't even notice that. Yeah, you'd need horses or a truck to haul that around. By the time you got it set up and pushed in the right direction the cops would be there arresting you.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2012, 02:04:21 pm by DasFuchs »
"To a New Yorker like you, a hero is some type of weird sandwich. Not some nut that takes on two Tigers!" "You gotta hit'em point blank in the ass!" Oddball

Offline Damen

  • That's COMMODORE SPLATMASTER Damen, Briber of Mods
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1800
  • Gender: Male
  • The Dark Sex God
    • John Damen's Photography
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #34 on: December 12, 2012, 01:32:08 pm »
How many bullets are you allowed in a magazine? Thirty rounds of 39 mm ammo will probably do MORE damage semi-auto than fired rock-and-roll.

...39mm? Well, yeah, considering anything that can fire that is pretty much a cannon and the largest caliber round any American can legally own without delving into Class 3 licenses is .50 cal (12.7mm).

As for the question of magazine capacity, that's a two answer question. Weapons with an internal magazine usually have a fixed capacity while firearms with detachable magazines can usually accept any amount you can think of short of being belt fed.
"Fear my .45"

"If the liberties of the American people are ever destroyed, they will fall by the hands of the clergy" ~ Marquis De Lafayette

'Till Next Time,
~John Damen

Offline Askold

  • Definitely not hiding a dark secret.
  • Global Moderator
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 8358
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #35 on: December 12, 2012, 03:07:37 pm »
How many bullets are you allowed in a magazine? Thirty rounds of 39 mm ammo will probably do MORE damage semi-auto than fired rock-and-roll.

...39mm? Well, yeah, considering anything that can fire that is pretty much a cannon and the largest caliber round any American can legally own without delving into Class 3 licenses is .50 cal (12.7mm).

As for the question of magazine capacity, that's a two answer question. Weapons with an internal magazine usually have a fixed capacity while firearms with detachable magazines can usually accept any amount you can think of short of being belt fed.

I think he meant 7,62x39mm which is what AK47 uses.

Magazine sizes are rarely limited other than for hunting weapons. In hunting... Well personally I think that the limit is silly (in Finland only semiautomatic hunting weapons have limited capacity. 2 in the magazine plus one in the chamber.) since it is supposed to prevent people from shooting wildly and innacurately but iy usually only limits semiautomatics, so with a pump action or lever action you can go wild. And in any case this is a matter of self control so those who would do something like shooting wildly will probably just break the law by using a huge magazine anyway or use a weapon that has no such limits.

And besides: If the gun has detachable magazines then any limit on magazine size will not have much effect.

a) You can have simply carry more magazines. (like back when USA made that 10 cartridge limitation on handguns.)
b) Criminals can get bigger, illegal magazines the same way they get their illegal guns.
No matter what happens, no matter what my last words may end up being, I want everyone to claim that they were:
"If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine."
Aww, you guys rock. :)  I feel the love... and the pitchforks and torches.  Tingly!

Offline Damen

  • That's COMMODORE SPLATMASTER Damen, Briber of Mods
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1800
  • Gender: Male
  • The Dark Sex God
    • John Damen's Photography
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #36 on: December 12, 2012, 03:15:19 pm »
If we're referring to the AK itself, it just depends on what magazine you want it to have. Like the AR-15, they make 5 round, 10, 15, 20, 30 (standard), 40 and up. I think the largest an AK can go is a 70 round drum.

For hunting in the states, rifles have to be limited to 5 rounds; shotguns can't have more than 3 rounds.

a) You can have simply carry more magazines. (like back when USA made that 10 cartridge limitation on handguns.)
b) Criminals can get bigger, illegal magazines the same way they get their illegal guns.

Funnily enough, the 10-round limit on magazines was...ineffective. The law stated that new magazines couldn't hold more than ten rounds. However, the millions of magazines out there made before the ban were still readily available and perfectly legal. So, people would buy, say, a Beretta and shove the mag it came with (10 rounds) in a sock drawer, then hit a gun show, pawn shop, or private ads and buy their 15 round mags.
"Fear my .45"

"If the liberties of the American people are ever destroyed, they will fall by the hands of the clergy" ~ Marquis De Lafayette

'Till Next Time,
~John Damen

Offline booley

  • Pope
  • ****
  • Posts: 384
  • Gender: Male
  • Grand High Viceroy of the Eastern Expanses
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #37 on: December 12, 2012, 03:22:49 pm »



What bugs me is the total lack of awareness of what a straw man this is.

yes Seal Team Six killed Bin Ladin...  WITH FRIGGIN GUNS!  They didn't use swords or arrows or spatulas.  They used GUNS!  Because if you want to kill someone guns make it really really REALLY easy!

Which is the same reason psychos use guns.  and that was the point of gun control. Not that guns are self aware and shoot themselves.

GAhhH!!!!

And dont' even get me started on people who compare gun deaths to auto accidents or smoking.

While I have seen some bad arguments from the gun control side, I see it a lot more blatantly among those arguing against gun control.

It's like they just don't care if what they say makes sense or advances the debate as long as it affirms what they want to believe.
“The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. Instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views...which can be very uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering.”
The Doctor

Offline Atheissimo

  • Bishop
  • ***
  • Posts: 137
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #38 on: December 12, 2012, 03:32:26 pm »



What bugs me is the total lack of awareness of what a straw man this is.

yes Seal Team Six killed Bin Ladin...  WITH FRIGGIN GUNS!  They didn't use swords or arrows or spatulas.  They used GUNS!  Because if you want to kill someone guns make it really really REALLY easy!

Which is the same reason psychos use guns.  and that was the point of gun control. Not that guns are self aware and shoot themselves.

GAhhH!!!!

And dont' even get me started on people who compare gun deaths to auto accidents or smoking.

While I have seen some bad arguments from the gun control side, I see it a lot more blatantly among those arguing against gun control.

It's like they just don't care if what they say makes sense or advances the debate as long as it affirms what they want to believe.

Yes.

This is what I was trying to say with my misguided car analogy.
'You're not married, you haven't got a girlfriend... and you've never watched Star Trek? Good Lord.' - Sir Patrick Stewart

Offline Material Defender

  • Food Scientist in Space
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 959
  • Gender: Male
  • Pilot of the Pyro-GX
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #39 on: December 12, 2012, 03:44:55 pm »
There is a tired old argument that still holds some truth. All the gun control in the world does nothing to address one simple point: the people going through the process of responsibly and legally owning guns are going to be the ones dealing with the gun control processes. And generally they aren't the problem.

It seems like rather than (or in addition to) trying to figure out which guns are "good" and which are "bad", we as a nation should be looking at ways to keep guns from those who shouldn't have them while still allowing others to. That was awkwardly worded. How do you let the safe responsible owner have a gun while keeping them away from someone who isn't safe and responsible? And that's a genuine question for anyone who wants to answer it, as I've got nothing.

It is a difficult question to answer since we don't really have any good predictive models of criminality and other issues. Most that we do have come off as racist or ignore other factors.





What bugs me is the total lack of awareness of what a straw man this is.

yes Seal Team Six killed Bin Ladin...  WITH FRIGGIN GUNS!  They didn't use swords or arrows or spatulas.  They used GUNS!  Because if you want to kill someone guns make it really really REALLY easy!

Which is the same reason psychos use guns.  and that was the point of gun control. Not that guns are self aware and shoot themselves.

GAhhH!!!!

And dont' even get me started on people who compare gun deaths to auto accidents or smoking.

While I have seen some bad arguments from the gun control side, I see it a lot more blatantly among those arguing against gun control.

It's like they just don't care if what they say makes sense or advances the debate as long as it affirms what they want to believe.

So if someone makes more bad arguments for a certain side, it makes that argument invalid? No, that's not how it works? Good to know.

Look, gun control isn't a solution to gun violence. Criminals operate on a black market that already illegally transports drugs and gun modifications into America or any other country. All it does it make it less likely that someone will commit certain instances of violent crime, but most of those you can accomplish instead by using a sword or a knife. A gun just makes it somewhat easier. I mean, the main source of violence in the USA is gangs, poverty, lack of education, and ghettos. Guns simply give these people a means to be violent and deadly, but they are generally not purchased from legal suppliers anyways.

America's had major federal restrictions on automatic weapons for a long time. Other stuff is state by state.

Weapon restrictions and bans historically have more to do with government control. Same with death penalty (Who gets the worst penalty? Traitors of course.)

A gun doesn't care how rich or poor you are, doesn't care if you are fat, skinny, or muscular. It is an equalizer for those who who could not defend themselves without it and a terrible tool for those who cry tears of impotent rage.
The material needs a defender more than the spiritual. If there is a higher power, it can defend itself from the material. Thus denotes 'higher power'.

"Not to know is bad. Not to want to know is worse. Not to hope is unthinkable. Not to care is unforgivable." -Nigerian Saying

Offline DasFuchs

  • God
  • *****
  • Posts: 521
  • Gender: Male
  • Ruler of his own little world since 1977
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #40 on: December 12, 2012, 05:12:30 pm »
"In hunting... Well personally I think that the limit is silly (in Finland only semiautomatic hunting weapons have limited capacity. 2 in the magazine plus one in the chamber.) since it is supposed to prevent people from shooting wildly"

Ya know, funny, that was the excuse the military used to avoid getting repeating rifles for the military units and stick with their muskets and trap door mods which lead to some heavy losses.
"To a New Yorker like you, a hero is some type of weird sandwich. Not some nut that takes on two Tigers!" "You gotta hit'em point blank in the ass!" Oddball

Offline DasFuchs

  • God
  • *****
  • Posts: 521
  • Gender: Male
  • Ruler of his own little world since 1977
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #41 on: December 12, 2012, 05:24:33 pm »



What bugs me is the total lack of awareness of what a straw man this is.

yes Seal Team Six killed Bin Ladin...  WITH FRIGGIN GUNS!  They didn't use swords or arrows or spatulas.  They used GUNS!  Because if you want to kill someone guns make it really really REALLY easy!

Which is the same reason psychos use guns.  and that was the point of gun control. Not that guns are self aware and shoot themselves.

GAhhH!!!!

And dont' even get me started on people who compare gun deaths to auto accidents or smoking.

While I have seen some bad arguments from the gun control side, I see it a lot more blatantly among those arguing against gun control.

It's like they just don't care if what they say makes sense or advances the debate as long as it affirms what they want to believe.

Yes, but, that wasn't made to be serious, it's playing on the well overused argument that guns kill, not the people using them, just that guns do and banning/regulating the bejesus out of them will solve the problem.

Bath Michigan, Oklahoma City, 9/11, ALF, Army of God, Aryan Nations, JDL, KKK, on and on should be plenty to show that sick fucks will do their sick fuck things whether you have guns or not. The real solution is to help people with medical needs and find out what drives people to do this shit and how to stop it. Simply "Ban guns" or "overly control them" is a kneejerk reaction that does nothing but affect those that are legal law abiding people.
"To a New Yorker like you, a hero is some type of weird sandwich. Not some nut that takes on two Tigers!" "You gotta hit'em point blank in the ass!" Oddball

Offline booley

  • Pope
  • ****
  • Posts: 384
  • Gender: Male
  • Grand High Viceroy of the Eastern Expanses
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #42 on: December 13, 2012, 02:58:58 am »

So if someone makes more bad arguments for a certain side, it makes that argument invalid?

actually it kind of does. or I should say it weakens the argument.

If one cant' make a valid argument for a position, why should we believe that the position itself has validity?  The same reasoning that made a bad argument seem valid is the same reasoning that led someone to accept that position in the first place.  Indeed, being unable to make a credible argument and being unable to recognize that fact is indicative that one doesnt' really understand the issue.

That's why in debates, you do lose credibility for using fallacious arguments.

For instance...

Quote
Look, gun control isn't a solution to gun violence.

so you assert.  But assertion isn't evidence.

I mean when you wrote that, did you think to include what you meant by "gun control"?  You know gun control is a blanket term for a host of laws and strategies, right?
Some efforts at gun control have failed for one reason or another.
But as a matter of fact, some have worked.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/08/02/did-gun-control-work-in-australia/

right off you started with an absolutist statement which is so easy to counter.  All I had to do was find just one example of a gun control law that worked.  Even partial success works for my point.
And if you couldn't for see such an obvious flaw, what other flaws in your reasoning could exist?

I mean here's another one that's really obvious...

Quote
Criminals operate on a black market that already illegally transports drugs and gun modifications into America or any other country. All it does it make it less likely that someone will commit certain instances of violent crime, but most of those you can accomplish instead by using a sword or a knife.

For one if a law makes a crime "less likely" that's counted as working. So you just refuted your own statement while you were making it.

Also we can extend your logic to it's natural conclusion to all crimes.  Murder, theft, insider trading, littering.. all of these do still happen despite laws against them. Since no law can be said to have a 100% success rate at prevention, then by that logic we should just stop having laws.

worse, you imply that criminals operate in some alternate universe where the actions in our universe can never affect them.

The point of laws is not to create a utopia where laws are never broken. that's a straw man.  But if they help minimize the problem with tolerable consequences, that's a good law.

You will probably say that isnt' what you meant. I'll even believe you  But that's where your comment led.

So how did you not notice that?  What other blind spots do you have you arent' aware of?

Quote
A gun just makes it somewhat easier.


Somehwhat is a bit of a understatment. They make it a LOT easier.

I have personally used guns, bows and swords.

Two of those take quite  a bit of practice and athletic ability to use successfully. One does not.  Skill with a gun can improve one's ability but the bare minimum to us e a gun can be obtained pretty quickly(almost instantly.)

Not to mention guns are more lethal over all.

Quote
I mean, the main source of violence in the USA is gangs, poverty, lack of education, and ghettos.

No, you think that's the case.  and it might be.  But you provide no reason to believe that. You just assert it.

I mean, you could have provided some stats.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=43

Most violent crime involving guns are robberies.  Gang violence is a serious problem but interestingly crime over all has been going down.

And here are some more stats from the CDC:

In 2009, 31,347 persons died from firearm injuries in the United States (Tables 18 and 19), accounting for 17.7% of all injury deaths that year. The two major component causes of all firearm injury deaths in 2009 were suicide (59.8%) and homicide (36.7%). Firearm injuries (all intents) decreased 1.9% from 2008 to 2009. The age-adjusted death rate for firearm suicide did not change from 2008, whereas the death rate for firearm homicide decreased 5.0% in 2009 from 2008.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_03.pdf

IF we look into the specifics we find that over half of all murders (75% of which involved a gun) the murderer and victim knew each other intimately (family member, boyfriend, friend, ect.) While males are more likely to be killed by guns, female victims overwhelmingly were murdered by their spouses or boyfriends. that would seem to steer away from the your gang violence is the primary cause theory.  It would still be a factor in those situations.  but it seems unlikely.  And it isnt' helped by the fact that where motive was known, arguments were the leading cause, accounting for 41% of the murders.  Murders committed in the course of a crime was 22%
So what does that tell us?

That most gun deaths are split between suicide and crimes of passion, in both instances the presence of a gun exacerbated an already bad situation.  which means...


Quote
Guns simply give these people a means to be violent and deadly

Which is kind of the problem/point, isn't it?!

Quote
but they are generally not purchased from legal suppliers anyways.

And actually that's incorrect.  Most guns are purchased legally.  Even ones used in crimes.  A common tactic is a straw purchase.  And then the gun is "gifted" to whom ever paid the person for  the gun. And this all perfectly legal as long as the gun hasnt' yet been used in a crime.

remember when I said that the majority of female victims knew their murderer intimately?  Those guys aren't going into some black market for guns. (I doubt most of the them could find the black market) They go to the local pawn store and if necessary get a friend to buy the gun for them (assuming anything is stopping them from gettign the gun themselves)

Quote
America's had major federal restrictions on automatic weapons for a long time. Other stuff is state by state.

The Federal assualt weapons ban expired in 2004. Many state versions have either also expired or been over turned.
Not that it matetrs anyway since besides a small group that gravitated to them (spree killers for instance who wanted ahigh kill ratio) most murders were not using  these weapons.  Career criminals would not want something so showy and crimes of passion only need whatever gun is easiest to obtain.

Quote
Weapon restrictions and bans historically have more to do with government control.

Ok well lets think about that.

Which country would you say was more free during the 90s?

Great Britain?  Or Iraq?

Now, guess which country had more guns in the hands of it's citizens and a thriving gun culture.

Give you a clue. Its the country where there were so many guns (being fired on american troops ) that a deeply conservative US president made a speech about how civilized nation don't need guns. (not that it really worked)

What really is a lesson from History is that dictators have a wide array of means to control their populace.  Gun bans rarely play a major role since the populace at large supports the would be dictator (and uses their guns to back that support up)

(psst.  it was Iraq.Yes I am sure the UK has some gun culture but not like Iraq's)

Quote
A gun doesn't care how rich or poor you are, doesn't care if you are fat, skinny, or muscular.


Yes, regardless of physical ability, almost anyone can kill another with a gun. And guns are pretty cheap nowadays so even the poor can murder if they want too.

Oh sorry, was that not your point?

Quote
...It is an equalizer for those who who could not defend themselves without it and a terrible tool for those who cry tears of impotent rage.

And this is where we finally break down because to accept your premise requires thinking that westerns and dirty harry movies are accurate portrayals of real life.

Of course anyone who actually thought about it would realize the problem.

Guns are not shields.  They do not stop bullets.  What they do is allow one to fire back, assuming you have your gun on you ... and assuming you see clearly who is shooting at you ... and assuming they somehow missed hitting you in the first place ,,,, and assuming they gave you any chance at all.

That's a lot of assumptions.  Even in a war zone that's difficult (which is why despite out gunning the enemy, we still have thousands of dead american soldiers)

 Sure there might be exceptions where guns helped stop a would be murderer (especially if said murderer himself lacked a gun) but for the most part guns don't seem to really stop gun violence.  Even you admitted that in a back handed way when you mentioned gang members.  Who's more likely to be killed in gang violence? But who's also most likely to be armed?

Your statement fails even a brief amount of critical thinking.

And that's the problem.  That was my point above. Thats what I was ranting about.

You didn't think about that. You didn't research to make sure what you said was valid or true.

You assumed it was because it fit what you wanted to believe.

Believe it or not my problem here isnt' people who make arguments against gun control.

It's people who make poorly thought out, ignorant, fallacious arguments against gun control

You could have made a decent argument.

 You could have pointed that violent crime is actually decreasing (though we dont' know why it is decreasing, it still is even as gun ownership increases.  We don't know that the two are related but you could have mentioned it if you had taken the time to look at the stats)

You could have focused on specific laws that you think wouldn't work. Not all guns laws are the same. Gun control doesnt' automatically mean banning guns.

You could have proposed more moderate gun control laws that would still protect what you think is your constitutional right. (it's not as if we don't regulate other rights yet still possess them)

But you didn't.  Instead you gave me a crap argument full of bad logic and fewer facts.

We could have had a nice dialogue about what gun control laws may work and what wouldn't or would go too far.

But instead I had to explain why  almost everything you said is wrong.  (Which I am sure you will now ignore)

Or to put this in non PC terms....

many gun owners leave the impression they are idiots, unable to grok that they have  a deadly weapon... all the while insisting I should trust them with said deadly weapon.

if you want me to be ok with your ability to kill another human being, don't make me think you're an irresponsible idiot.  Because until you actually kill someone, I only have your words by which to judge your competency.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2012, 03:07:27 am by booley »
“The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. Instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views...which can be very uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering.”
The Doctor

Offline Askold

  • Definitely not hiding a dark secret.
  • Global Moderator
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 8358
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #43 on: December 13, 2012, 04:19:39 am »
Can I point out something?  Pro-gun =! against gun control.

Some of us simply disagree on the type of gun control we think would be the best.

I for one do not want guns in the hands of criminals and mass murderers I just want that law abiding sensible people are allowed to legally own guns.
No matter what happens, no matter what my last words may end up being, I want everyone to claim that they were:
"If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine."
Aww, you guys rock. :)  I feel the love... and the pitchforks and torches.  Tingly!

Offline Damen

  • That's COMMODORE SPLATMASTER Damen, Briber of Mods
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1800
  • Gender: Male
  • The Dark Sex God
    • John Damen's Photography
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #44 on: December 13, 2012, 04:22:37 am »
A little quiz on the Second Amendment. 12 questions, I missed one and got 92%. Surprised myself. ;D

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2011/1104/Second-Amendment-Quiz/Topic-of-Second-Amendment
"Fear my .45"

"If the liberties of the American people are ever destroyed, they will fall by the hands of the clergy" ~ Marquis De Lafayette

'Till Next Time,
~John Damen