The Gun Debate That Will Happen Whether You Like It Or Not

[xcorps]

Yes, I made a generalization comment. Am I to expect legal papers for a court case?

Nope, just calling out your fallacy.

[tarvu]

The average response time of a police officer in the US is about 10 minutes. They're also not obligated to keep you safe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_...ct_of_Columbia), and are well known for abusing the law. In fact, in some places, the populace (Detroit) have completely given up on calling 911
http://www.thedaily.com/page/2012/02...igilantes-1-5/


But let's not stop there. You seem to believe that the only way to commit a violent crime is with a gun, and that gun deaths are the biggest problem. That's a retarded way of thinking. if you really wanted to create peace, wouldn't you want to stop crime all across the board? By your logic, we should ban knives, beer, drugs, fast cars, violent movies, violent video games, violent books, violent magazines, ect.

Secondly, you fail to comprehend that Connecticut had an assault weapons ban on AR-15's, and Adam Lanza wasn't old enough to legally own the pistols he used in the shooting (he stole them). The Columbine shooters used weapons made illegal by the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban (it happened in 1999, just incase you were wondering), and the Oklahoma city bomber killed 5 times as many people with fertilizer and diesel fuel.

Why not solve the whole problem and just make murder illegal? oh wait..

Choose to believe what you will, I believe that the police are necessary and effective. Certainly much more than citizens with guns.

Also throw all the hyperbole at me you want, I live in the real world where a gun is a dangerous weapon to be feared more than a magazine or beer. Also local law enforcement does not have the capability or the cause to search every home in America to see if they have illegal firearms. This is why we need national gun control that keeps dangerous guns out of irresponsible hands.

If we did this then no, Klebolt wouldn't have had the guns he used, Lambert neither, and thousands of gun deaths in cities (even those with gun bans in place) could be prevented. It is quite simple, eliminate loopholes like those at gun shows for background checks, and make people be responsible for their guns after purchase (quite simple really with a registry to tell who are legitimate victims of a legitimate theft and who are engaged in illegal arms dealings or just irresponsible ownership both of which should be a crime).

[PointOfViewGun]

I looked, and I seem to be the only person making that claim. Good try though

You and Gelgoog are the ones I remember. Gelgoog just recently implied that an intruder deserves to be shot many times.

Nope, just calling out your fallacy.

It's not really a fallacy. You're free to claim it so though. It's the impression that I get from my conversation (which is not limited to this thread) with people who want no gun control. That is my perception. If you have a problem with it, tough luck. However, what you can do is to actually provide an argument against it which you haven't done yet.

[motiv-8]

If you pay attention to people who argue for free gun use who use such stories and more, you will realize that they're not really after self-defense but revenge.

I'm sorry, who am I trying to get "revenge" against? Let's get some quotes and actual evidence for what appears to be the one of the most massive straw men arguments of this entire thread.

[PointOfViewGun]

I'm sorry, who am I trying to get "revenge" against? Let's get some quotes and actual evidence for what appears to be the one of the most massive straw men arguments of this entire thread.

You voted for "Somewhere in between" so why are you talking as if you're the subject of the statement? And you're the one talking about straw man arguments?

[motiv-8]

You voted for "Somewhere in between" so why are you talking as if you're the subject of the statement? And you're the one talking about straw man arguments?

I voted "somewhere in between" in response to the question, "what is our (The United States'} stance on gun control, because factually and legally, the United States is, well, "somewhere in between." We permit the licensed ownership and use of certain weapons, and ban others.

And yes, I'm talking about straw man arguments because you're making a claim about a position without having brought in any documentary and factual evidence that it has been used, and then trying to characterize that position as the norm, again without any documentary and factual evidence, and that is the position you are arguing against. That is literally a straw man.

Or, conversely, you could do what any half-decent debater would do and provide quotes and statistics about the people who hold that position so that there's actually something to talk about. This is a grand opportunity for you to do something useful and make something of this, rather than trade the pointless personal barbs that you are known for. What's it going to be?

[PointOfViewGun]

I voted "somewhere in between" in response to the question, "what is our (The United States'} stance on gun control, because factually and legally, the United States is, well, "somewhere in between." We permit the licensed ownership and use of certain weapons, and ban others.

And yes, I'm talking about straw man arguments because you're making a claim about a position without having brought in any documentary and factual evidence that it has been used, and then trying to characterize that position as the norm, again without any documentary and factual evidence, and that is the position you are arguing against. That is literally a straw man.

Or, conversely, you could do what any half-decent debater would do and provide quotes and statistics about the people who hold that position so that there's actually something to talk about. This is a grand opportunity for you to do something useful and make something of this, rather than trade the pointless personal barbs that you are known for. What's it going to be?

I just realized it. It should have been "your". I believe that's what most people responded to anyways. My apologies to everyone for my typo if it caused any misunderstandings.

You're jumping from one straw man of yours (I assume you're not for no gun control whatsoever) to an other. I never characterized it as a norm. I merely made a generalizing comment based on my perception. This is your second straw man. However, one example was Whukid. He admitted this only a few posts ago and if you read my posts properly instead of jumping in to make a such a failure of a post you'd realize an other example was Gelgoog. Do you really need quotations from a previous page?

You're not accomplishing anything other than making an ironic post by making a personal attack. I have no idea why you'd need to use such straw man arguments and personal attacks.

[motiv-8]

You're jumping from one straw man of yours

Sigh, no, I crafted no straw man at all. I am directly referencing your stated position that "most people who are pro-gun and use 'this kind of story' (meaning a self-defense story) are not after self-defense but revenge." I directly quoted it. I'm sorry, but that's not a straw man. I could link you to some Internet pages about straw men and other fallacies if it would help you understand.

I merely made a generalizing comment based on my perception.

A generalization IS a rhetorical device making something the norm based on select evidence. That is exactly what a generalization is! Please, for your own sake, just don't use terms if you don't understand their meanings and the implications. You're only causing trouble for yourself and others.

However, one example was Whukid. He admitted this only a few posts ago and if you read my posts properly instead of jumping in to make a such a failure of a post you'd realize an other example was Gelgoog.

Alright, I'll let you off with not citing or sourcing any of your claims and give you the benefit of the doubt. So, okay, we now have two guys that you are basing your generalization and your assertion on. Anecdotal evidence. Now, xcorps and myself believe in gun ownership for self-defense, not "Revenge." So that cancels that out. What else you got?

[PointOfViewGun]

Sigh, no, I crafted no straw man at all. I am directly referencing your stated position that "most people who are pro-gun and use 'this kind of story' (meaning a self-defense story) are not after self-defense but revenge." I directly quoted it. I'm sorry, but that's not a straw man. I could link you to some Internet pages about straw men and other fallacies if it would help you understand.

Then why are you misrepresenting what I said? I said "free gun" meaning those people who voted for no gun control whatsoever. If you're one of them, then say so, if not, then I'm afraid you're using a straw man argument as you were never the subject of my statement.

A generalization IS a rhetorical device making something the norm based on select evidence. That is exactly what a generalization is! Please, for your own sake, just don't use terms if you don't understand their meanings and the implications. You're only causing trouble for yourself and others.

Not really. You're merely shooting blanks to get out of a mess you created. If I were to be picky I'd point out that you claimed how I tried to characterize it as a norm after I made my statement. If we were to look at my posts after the initial one (post# 2272) you wouldn't see such a characterization.

Norm is too strong term. It's a kind that requires definitive proof. What I did was inference based on a number of specific cases. I'm not gonna be childish and think that you need me to post definition of each word. Next time, simply make sure that you're right when you're gonna try to ridicule someone else.

Alright, I'll let you off with not citing or sourcing any of your claims and give you the benefit of the doubt. So, okay, we now have two guys that you are basing your generalization and your assertion on. Anecdotal evidence. Now, xcorps and myself believe in gun ownership for self-defense, not "Revenge." So that cancels that out. What else you got?

Once again, you're not gonna accomplish my misrepresenting my position and explanation. It merely adds to the irony of you crying straw man for my initial post. If I am to take what you say for granted, then you should know that responding a straw man with an other straw man never really works.

[Mithridate]

So because there's less of a chance of getting attacked with an AK variant means you shouldn't be allowed to have a rifle for self defense? That's kind've really stupid. Tell me again why your mom told you not to play outside during thunderstorms...? (hint: what I'm getting at here is the likelihood of someone getting struck by lightning, even though everyone is told to stay inside)

The chance of getting attacked with an AK-47 is so small that if you use it as an argument for having something equivalent, you might as well argue that everyone should be allowed to have their personal Tank Granted, in time the chance might actually become relevant if your line of reasoning is embraced...

The odds you will be attacked by the the former or latter is miniscule, neither are a problem and to use it as an argument to keeping said weapons is pointless.

What discussion, exactly? we're squabbling over a completely irrelevant point in the argument. Whether criminals use AK-47's depends on the criminals, their intent, and whether or not they want to lug the damn thing around, but it does happen. If someone wants to be prepared for such an occasion or whether they want the ability to use the extremely modular AR platform for self defense should be their prerogative, not yours.

Funny, you where the one whom brought it up when he strictly used statistics to show the line of reasoning utterly flawed

When people around me start to army up, it does concern me. Even when its distant America, only to an miniscule extent. Though as im not an american, i can only voice my opinion and not really do anything about it.

However: Blindly citing rights will get you nowhere fast, things change.

Lastly, you don't need any of those things. Airplanes were used to kill thousands of people over the last 100 years, so they should be banned too. When cars and trains crash, they don't bring down 110 story buildings in the process

I have to say, your insistence on these extreme cases is... beyond me

Then again, half baked strawmen...

[Valiant Champion]

I bet the chance of dying in a mass shooting is less than being struck by lightening, or even dying in a plane crash. I bet incredibly lower than dying in a car accident or a severe storm, flood or hurricane.

Anyway it is not about guns. It's about us angry privileged white men.

[Gelgoog]

You and Gelgoog are the ones I remember. Gelgoog just recently implied that an intruder deserves to be shot many times.

What is wrong with me shooting a criminal in the face 5 times if he breaks into my house and I am in reasonable fear for my life? And where have I made statements about revenge?

Or are you siding with the brady campaign?

[PointOfViewGun]

What is wrong with me shooting a criminal in the face 5 times if he breaks into my house and I am in reasonable fear for my life? And where have I made statements about revenge?

You're in reasonable fear the first time you shoot him and he goes down. You're merely trying to kill a guy if you're shooting him 5 times in the head.

Or are you siding with the brady campaign?

How nice of you to post a poster that is fake. I didn't know about the Brady Campaign but a 5 minute Google search revealed that two fake posters were created. This is one of them.

[Mangalore]

You're in reasonable fear the first time you shoot him and he goes down. You're merely trying to kill a guy if you're shooting him 5 times in the head.

Funny how in Germany the police made a public statement that around the winter months break ins are at an all time high, in parts facilitated by amateurs who need quick cash, in other times by professionals.

Their suggestion:
Make noise and ensure that your house looks inhabited.

Their reasoning: Neither the amateurs nor the professionals want to increase their risks or waste more than 5 minutes on someone's property in an attempt to break in so they will abort at any sign of trouble.

Their source: The criminals

Nice to have such a civilized criminal underworld. And btw: The police wouldn't make such public suggestions if it get them into trouble and they were uncertain about it that the overwhelming number of thieves avoid confrontation at all costs.

[Gelgoog]

You're in reasonable fear the first time you shoot him and he goes down. You're merely trying to kill a guy if you're shooting him 5 times in the head.

You keep shooting until the threat is incapacitated. I do not take one shot and wait to see if that dropped him. Putting bullets into him when he is on the ground unconscious is murder, shooting him as many times until he drops and is no longer a threat is self defense.

Just because someone is fatally wounded does not mean they are out of the fight, that is the first thing you learn in a serious training course. If it takes 5 shots to the head then that is what it takes. If I am pulling the trigger then I am using lethal force, my goal is not to try and and wound them. That merely endangers my life and opens me up to later civil suit and criminal prosecution.

How nice of you to post a poster that is fake. I didn't know about the Brady Campaign but a 5 minute Google search revealed that two fake posters were created. This is one of them.

O' Riley? Then why did they post it on their facebook page?



The fake ones came after they made that poster to lambast it.

Here is an example of fake brady posters.

[PointOfViewGun]

Funny how in Germany the police made a public statement that around the winter months break ins are at an all time high, in parts facilitated by amateurs who need quick cash, in other times by professionals.

Their suggestion:
Make noise and ensure that your house looks inhabited.

Their reasoning: Neither the amateurs nor the professionals want to increase their risks or waste more than 5 minutes on someone's property in an attempt to break in so they will abort at any sign of trouble.

Their source: The criminals

Nice to have such a civilized criminal underworld. And btw: The police wouldn't make such public suggestions if it get them into trouble and they were uncertain about it that the overwhelming number of thieves avoid confrontation at all costs.

Same in Turkey. Most thieves, if not all, would avoid a house if there was any lights on. Defending your house should merely be scaring away or stopping a criminal from getting in. The fact is criminals are just like us. They like to stay alive.

You keep shooting until the threat is incapacitated. I do not take one shot and wait to see if that dropped him. Putting bullets into him when he is on the ground unconscious is murder, shooting him as many times until he drops and is no longer a threat is self defense.

Just because someone is fatally wounded does not mean they are out of the fight, that is the first thing you learn in a serious training course. If it takes 5 shots to the head then that is what it takes. If I am pulling the trigger then I am using lethal force, my goal is not to try and and wound them. That merely endangers my life and opens me up to later civil suit and criminal prosecution.

You are not fighting Dr. Doom. A normal person goes down with a single shot to the head.

Let me highlight something:

If I am pulling the trigger then I am using lethal force, my goal is not to try and and wound them. That merely endangers my life and opens me up to later civil suit and criminal prosecution.

One of the reasons you want to kill an intruder is because you don't want to get sued later on for wounding him. I don't think that needs commenting....

O' Riley? Then why did they post it on their facebook page?

Simple, they didn't. There is a thing called photoshop. They did, however, posted a notice pointing out that that poster was a fake.

[Condottiere 40K]

As I recall, two quick shots in the direction of the chest are justified, and usually enough to kill anyone.

[Modestus]

What is wrong with me shooting a criminal in the face 5 times if he breaks into my house and I am in reasonable fear for my life? And where have I made statements about revenge?

Well the statistics seem to suggest and assuming its someone that is try to kill you that more then likely you will have invited that person into the house, put it this way if someone is going to try and kill you more than likely you will know them.

If its a burglar more then likely he just wants your TV but yes you do have a right to defend your property and by all means if you have a gun shoot him in the face that will then go into the numbers as a homicide victim attempting a burglary shot by a private citizen ( 583 cases between 2000 and 2010 in the US)

If we make that burglar a stranger its 193 and unknown relationship its 219 (Why the relationship between the victim and the killer remains unknown I do not understand ) You know how many husbands killed their wife’s with a gun in the same period 3,670, you know how many wife’s killed their husbands with a gun in the same period 796

[Mithridate]

More guns into the schools, weapons for everyone!

That will would turn out pretty... Sorry, im just repulsed by the notion five shots to the face is remotely reasonable

[Surgeon]

If it's self defense then "reasonable" should be when you're no longer in danger. If you have to shoot him twenty times and then beat him over the head with your gun because he's still coming after you that's not unreasonable.