The question really is if the U.S. realistically could restrict gun laws beyond the details.
The question really is if the U.S. realistically could restrict gun laws beyond the details.
UNDER THE PROUD PATRONAGE OF ABBEWS
According to this poll, 80%* of TGW fans agree that "The mod team is devilishly handsome" *as of 12/10
You can train a car? That's a new concept. I mean, google did come up with the autonomous driver last year, but really?
Even so, a firearms purpose isn't to kill; it's to send a projectile in a given direction at Mach 6. You CAN use it to kill, however most people tend to make neat little holes in cardboard boxes or paper.
No sources/ stats= no valid argument.
Is it really that paranoid? Name one tyrannical government that DIDN'T outlaw firearmsPoint 2: Guns are needed to protect the civilians against a tyrannical government.
If every country without access to firearms was living in a totalitarian state, this might be true. If there was reason to suggest the (US in this case) government was a sinister agency just waiting to strike, it might be true. But instead, 'first world' countries by and large are democracies, and there is no imminent (or otherwise) threat from a sinister government. Which makes that argument paranoid at best.
See the first response. Your lack of anything besides hot air is really time consuming and annoyingSo, really, any of these arguments do not work to ~promote~ gun ownership, and the first one does not work to dent it either. Guns are not a factor in relation to other nations (of similar socio-economic development).
Folks arguing ~against~ guns, can only really do so from a personal viewpoint (finding guns to be abhorrent), and pro-gun folks can argue that they can, so they will. Both are equally valid. But the justifications, used by both sides, are.. curious.
Yes, defending myself and family from whoever wishes to do harm is so mystical and confusing that no man with half a brain could ever figure it out!
I think it's ironic that you can only hold the higher murder statistic up as if it's worth its' weight in gold (it's not, and I already debunked it. Feel free to go back a page and take it apart), but forego the violent crime rate, downplaying it as if the UK's higher rape and assault rate per capita is somehow justification for gun control. To be honest, you got me thinking, so I've done some of my own math and come to conclusions that I think we can agree on;
In 2011, 1.2 million people in the US were arrested for Assault (not aggravated assault). Even if every single arrest (note, these aren't convicted crimes. just arrests) went to trial and the suspect convicted, the violent crime rate in the US is still 50% lower than that of the UK. The difference between the rest of the crimes is negligible, but feel free to do your own research;
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publica...12?view=Binary (Page 16)
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...tables/table-1
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...ables/table-29
Here. I found a picture for you, from your friends at the Brady Campaign. It sums up your argument rather nicely;
So what you're saying is that even with all these licensing and insurance laws, cars still kill alot of people? I wonder what would happen if we made laws like that for guns...Also quit with the cars nonsense, its not related in the slightest to gun control. Sure cars kill a lot of people but 99% of those are going to be accidental and society as we know it could not function without people getting to places in cars. To drive a car you need to take a good 24 hours+ training and an official license which can be revoked if you say drive too fast, you also need insurance etc in order to control the potential for accidental damage. Its not the case with a gun.
Last edited by Whukid; January 08, 2013 at 11:11 AM.
That is the flaw in your theory, gentlemen and I will not help you out of it. If you choose to deal with men by means of compulsion, do so. But you will discover that you need the voluntary co-operation of your victims, in many more ways than you can see at present. And your victims should discover that it is their own volition - which you cannot force - that makes you possible. I choose to be consistent and I will obey you in the manner you demand. Whatever you wish me to do, I will do it at the point of a gun. If you sentence me to jail, you will have to send armed men to carry me there - I will not volunteer to move. If you fine me, you will have to seize my property to collect the fine - I will not volunteer to pay it. If you believe that you have the right to force me - use your guns openly. I will not help you to disguise the nature of your action. -Hank Rearden
The fun being that the guy who did the youtube video you got this argument from started his video with (paraphrasing): "You cannot compare crime statistics between countries."
Then he compares crime statistics between countries...
Aka the UK police insists they rate a wide variety of offenses as violent other countries don't. I haven't verified that but you have your original source and the UK police agreeing in invalidating his own argument... a bit weird outcome.
Last edited by Mangalore; January 08, 2013 at 11:39 AM.
"Sebaceans once had a god called Djancaz-Bru. Six worlds prayed to her. They built her temples, conquered planets. And yet one day she rose up and destroyed all six worlds. And when the last warrior was dying, he said, 'We gave you everything, why did you destroy us?' And she looked down upon him and she whispered, 'Because I can.' "
Mangalore Design
Bah.
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-a...e-Systems.html
http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-...nd_Justice.pdf
Even wikipedia, if like.
Look at all those countries with/without guns, and the high/low crime rates. Vice-versa, etc., etc. Having guns does not make a population safe. Not having guns does not make a population safe. There is no causality. The only direct relation, is that places with high levels of gun ownership, logically, involves guns more in violent crime (thus more deaths). Blaming guns for either causing, or reducing, crime is false (on a global scale). Which is worse: 12 people with a split lip and a limp, or 3 people dead with gunshot wounds?
Irrelevant, Historical/technological/moral/cultural/socio-economic differences are too great to compare. However, comparible governments show zero signs of totalitarianism. It:
1: Requires reasonable suspicion that the democracy - in fact whole political structure, is not fit for purpose.
2: Presumes that the (professional, yet still citizen) military will wish to follow the orders.
3: Implies that standard domestic weapons will actually be of any reasonable efficiency against modern military hardware and tactics.
Name one time within the last 50 years when there was any major legislation changes in first world countries directly attributed to civilians holding a gun to the politicians head - as opposed to other peaceful, legislative, political means. If there is a widespread mistrust of the government, then make changes to the government. Seems rather feudal to need to hold a sword at the throat of your representatives. Oh well.
Why so defensive? Did any post I made threaten to remove the precious, precious guns, or sacred liberty? No. I'm just saying the arguments used are bunk, and the comparisons are thin indeed. It's classic misdirection.
Missed the point. But that is par for the course here. In response to that statement, I'd say that wanting your family to be safe is good. My family is as safe as they can be. Do you provide a constant, vigilant, armed escort for your children? Do you constantly carry a weapon yourself? Do you think it is quite disappointing if you need to? Bad things can happen. What if you are assaulted in your kitchen, when you quite neglectfully had a moment when you thought society was safe, and left your gun in a room you can no longer reach? I'd not have the energy, or the memory, to live in such a state of high alert. But, I have no reason to.
If you want a gun, and can have one, do it. If not, don't. But all the 'sporks can be a lethal weapon/the government are tyrants/I need personal security' arguments.. seem to be missing something. Something other than comedy, they have much of that.
These threads are most curious. Utterly polarising, in that 'if you're not with us, you're against us'. I'm indifferent, it's just the actual arguments used are entertaining. I wonder at what point it can be considered masochism to wade through such emotive, irrational arguments? I must be close!
pew pew pew pew.
I think you missed the point of the argument; you can't compare statistics between countries based off just the crime rate and the numbers alone.
Here's what he was saying;
The US has 5.8 times as many urban centers with a population density of over 250,000, places where both gun control laws and crime sprees are rampant, as the UK. The latter, however, has a violent crime rate 4 times the size of the US crime rate, and twice the size if you level the playing field and add in US misdemeanors.
If gun control works to reduce crime, shouldn't the UK have far less crime than the United States?
That is the flaw in your theory, gentlemen and I will not help you out of it. If you choose to deal with men by means of compulsion, do so. But you will discover that you need the voluntary co-operation of your victims, in many more ways than you can see at present. And your victims should discover that it is their own volition - which you cannot force - that makes you possible. I choose to be consistent and I will obey you in the manner you demand. Whatever you wish me to do, I will do it at the point of a gun. If you sentence me to jail, you will have to send armed men to carry me there - I will not volunteer to move. If you fine me, you will have to seize my property to collect the fine - I will not volunteer to pay it. If you believe that you have the right to force me - use your guns openly. I will not help you to disguise the nature of your action. -Hank Rearden
It doesn't work towards either value. Looking at many countries with many rules, there is no clear indicator of guns having any effect. If there was any clear-cut argument of causality, it would have been noticed by people a lot more skilled than us at dealing with statistics, and would have been presented as undeniable proofs to the global community. Instead, it is just a nonsense argument, used for points scoring. Sorry for not actually picking sides and continuing beating dead horses with enthusiasm, but.. It is what it is.
Once again you cannot compare assault in the US and UK (differing definitions and levels of severity) like you can compare Murder (killing someone).
As for rape the US over the past 10 years has had more rapes per capita, its only in the last year or so that has changed, its not a great difference either.
As for your tyranny rubbish the Nazi party in fact liberalised stricter weimar gun laws. Anyway i thought these people would get their hands on guns anyway because gun control doesn't work?
Last edited by The Hedge Knight; January 08, 2013 at 12:41 PM.
An alcohols primary purpose is to intoxicate the individual causing it to impair their inhibitions and exacerbate their personal defects. What purpose does this serve in society other then being the root cause for a lot of domestic violence, murder and a huge amount of arrests. What about tobacco that kills over 400,000 people a year in the US and serves no purpose? Should we ban those?
Again with the spuriousness. Seriously you need to take some classes in statistics and research methods, you arguments are embarrassing.
Lack of an immediate threat does not mean there will not be one in the future. Do you not have health insurance because you are not sick at the moment?
Those arguments that you outlined do not work because your grasp of statistics is woefully lacking. Your constant use of spurious arguments and hanging onto outlying variables only proves as much.
Actually one side has a metric ton of statistical evidence showing that guns are not the problem and that banning them in no way has reduced the level of violent crime or made for a safer society in those countries that have done that.
Where as the other side only has the "this country banned guns and do not have as many gun deaths anymore" argument, ignoring the fact that banning goes did nothing to reduce violent crime. That is called cherry picking your statistics and misrepresenting them. The anti-gun position has no legs to stand on. We can throw mountains of evidence at you and you do nothing but squawk the same spurious arguments over and over.
Last edited by Gelgoog; January 08, 2013 at 01:08 PM.
How nice of you to pick an organization trying to ban guns internationally. Would you like me to use the NRA website as the source for my argument?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybel...rs-up-in-arms/
The questions following your endeavor are misleading. Was any of the people shot dead in self defense?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...214574462.htmlThe FBI data don't capture all homicides. The states' reporting is voluntary, and the country's thousands of police agencies aren't consistent in how they report. Some states, including New York, reported no justifiable homicides at all for some years.
Irrelevant, Historical/technological/moral/cultural/socio-economic differences are too great to compare. However, comparible governments show zero signs of totalitarianism. It:
1: Requires reasonable suspicion that the democracy - in fact whole political structure, is not fit for purpose.
2: Presumes that the (professional, yet still citizen) military will wish to follow the orders.
3: Implies that standard domestic weapons will actually be of any reasonable efficiency against modern military hardware and tactics.
Sources supporting this would be nice, or any individual with firearm experience for that matter.
Here; I'll post a few of my own.
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/au...SqZzZFrtV6Y.99Originally Posted by Heinrich Himmler
http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/col...ricans_guns-0/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbUYZ4XUL1Q
Yes, because governments never get out of control or murder anybody..Name one time within the last 50 years when there was any major legislation changes in first world countries directly attributed to civilians holding a gun to the politicians head - as opposed to other peaceful, legislative, political means. If there is a widespread mistrust of the government, then make changes to the government. Seems rather feudal to need to hold a sword at the throat of your representatives. Oh well.
Why so defensive? Did any post I made threaten to remove the precious, precious guns, or sacred liberty? No. I'm just saying the arguments used are bunk, and the comparisons are thin indeed. It's classic misdirection.
But why would you want to make it illegal for me to secure my family? You say you're indifferent, yet you consistently say that people don't need guns.Missed the point. But that is par for the course here. In response to that statement, I'd say that wanting your family to be safe is good. My family is as safe as they can be. Do you provide a constant, vigilant, armed escort for your children? Do you constantly carry a weapon yourself? Do you think it is quite disappointing if you need to? Bad things can happen. What if you are assaulted in your kitchen, when you quite neglectfully had a moment when you thought society was safe, and left your gun in a room you can no longer reach? I'd not have the energy, or the memory, to live in such a state of high alert. But, I have no reason to.
That is the flaw in your theory, gentlemen and I will not help you out of it. If you choose to deal with men by means of compulsion, do so. But you will discover that you need the voluntary co-operation of your victims, in many more ways than you can see at present. And your victims should discover that it is their own volition - which you cannot force - that makes you possible. I choose to be consistent and I will obey you in the manner you demand. Whatever you wish me to do, I will do it at the point of a gun. If you sentence me to jail, you will have to send armed men to carry me there - I will not volunteer to move. If you fine me, you will have to seize my property to collect the fine - I will not volunteer to pay it. If you believe that you have the right to force me - use your guns openly. I will not help you to disguise the nature of your action. -Hank Rearden
English is obviously not your first language. I clearly said "YOU train to drive a car". This means or implies that you train yourself to operate a motor vehicle.
Do you train a gun to shoot at people? No. So I clearly ing said you train yourself to fire a firearm as well.
The firearm wasnt designed with the sole purpose make holes in cardboard. We have holepunchers and drills for that. This "Target practice" you speak of is exactly what I mentioned already. Training to operate a firearm. Preparing yourself to hit a target.
I guess I won't buy car insurance or wear a seat belt, because the risk of me actually being in a crash is statistically low, just like a home invasion where I would need to defend myself.
That's what many of you gun ban proponents sound like, a moron with less than half a brain. Take a minute to think and stop making decisions with your emotions.
I am the author of the "Weaker Towers" and "Officers Of" series of mods for Total War: Warhammer!
Originally Posted by Richard HolmesOriginally Posted by Jackie Fisher
'When people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing — they believe in anything. '
-Emile Cammaerts' book The Laughing Prophets (1937)
Under the patronage of Nihil. So there.
Yes, I only have a degree, and I bow to your superior grasp of statistical analysis. I would support your endeavour to join the also woefully lacking teams of professional statisticians that have wasted vast amounts of time and resources in generating the same conclusions as I did. No doubt your substantial post-graduate education will ensure you are taken seriously in such a position.
So paranoia is reasonable? And, I have no health insurance. I don't need any. Got to love the NHS.
Again, I bow to your infinitely superior grasp of statistics, and look forward to your upcoming publications that shall, beyond doubt, prove to the world that you are right and all the others are wrong.
And I'm the one with problems of statistical analysis? Okay. I'm less enthusiastic about reading your paper now.
Here we go again. I win the internetz? Those specific pieces of information do not include unintentional death by screwdriver, or whatever else. Because we of course are unable to use broad brush strokes on a games forum if the data is not concurrent with our argument. The mire of pedantic wriggling has stalled many discussions, and no doubt will continue to.
And I didn't realise that the UN, an unaligned international agency of which the US is a member state, was trying to remove all of your guns. Democratic opinion/resolution sucks when it is not the same as your own. (My government sucks, and so does Eastenders. But people in turn voted for them, and watch it regularly. Oh well..)
*insert any of a number of quotes by Ghandi as a proponent of peaceful revolution* This is getting silly now.
You should strike now before they have a chance! ¡Viva la Revolución! It is only a matter of time, obviously....
Do I? I know I don't need them, but I couldn't care less about what you think you need. I just find the justifications rather amusing - on both sides of the argument. I lean more towards an idealistic, peaceful, worldview (thanks to being raised in a peaceful, armament-free environment) but if you can't leave your house without needing to be armed, then it's your choice/problem.
It's quite interesting to see how I am viewed as an opponent of the the pro-gun argument, simply by not being part of it. It is a polarising, and uniquely American, thing.
So by your logic, everyone is secretly training for NASCAR? I mean, let's be honest here; who hasn't gone fast on an interstate at 1AM or out on some forsaken country road. It must mean we all have a secret, burning desire to oust Dale Earnhardt Jr.
Aaaaand we have the reason Piers picked Alex Jones to go on his show..
So tell me, do you view all Baptists as nutjobs who hate gays and soldiers because of the Westboro Baptist Church?
That is the flaw in your theory, gentlemen and I will not help you out of it. If you choose to deal with men by means of compulsion, do so. But you will discover that you need the voluntary co-operation of your victims, in many more ways than you can see at present. And your victims should discover that it is their own volition - which you cannot force - that makes you possible. I choose to be consistent and I will obey you in the manner you demand. Whatever you wish me to do, I will do it at the point of a gun. If you sentence me to jail, you will have to send armed men to carry me there - I will not volunteer to move. If you fine me, you will have to seize my property to collect the fine - I will not volunteer to pay it. If you believe that you have the right to force me - use your guns openly. I will not help you to disguise the nature of your action. -Hank Rearden
'When people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing — they believe in anything. '
-Emile Cammaerts' book The Laughing Prophets (1937)
Under the patronage of Nihil. So there.
Lol. Only the facts that suit your argument, eh?
Let's look at the murder rate in the UK over the past 20 years;
http://world.time.com/2012/12/17/whe...and-australia/
So why have such strict gun control if it doesn't do anything?As for rape the US over the past 10 years has had more rapes per capita, its only in the last year or so that has changed, its not a great difference either.
Last edited by Whukid; January 08, 2013 at 02:47 PM.
That is the flaw in your theory, gentlemen and I will not help you out of it. If you choose to deal with men by means of compulsion, do so. But you will discover that you need the voluntary co-operation of your victims, in many more ways than you can see at present. And your victims should discover that it is their own volition - which you cannot force - that makes you possible. I choose to be consistent and I will obey you in the manner you demand. Whatever you wish me to do, I will do it at the point of a gun. If you sentence me to jail, you will have to send armed men to carry me there - I will not volunteer to move. If you fine me, you will have to seize my property to collect the fine - I will not volunteer to pay it. If you believe that you have the right to force me - use your guns openly. I will not help you to disguise the nature of your action. -Hank Rearden
That is the flaw in your theory, gentlemen and I will not help you out of it. If you choose to deal with men by means of compulsion, do so. But you will discover that you need the voluntary co-operation of your victims, in many more ways than you can see at present. And your victims should discover that it is their own volition - which you cannot force - that makes you possible. I choose to be consistent and I will obey you in the manner you demand. Whatever you wish me to do, I will do it at the point of a gun. If you sentence me to jail, you will have to send armed men to carry me there - I will not volunteer to move. If you fine me, you will have to seize my property to collect the fine - I will not volunteer to pay it. If you believe that you have the right to force me - use your guns openly. I will not help you to disguise the nature of your action. -Hank Rearden
'When people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing — they believe in anything. '
-Emile Cammaerts' book The Laughing Prophets (1937)
Under the patronage of Nihil. So there.
I am the author of the "Weaker Towers" and "Officers Of" series of mods for Total War: Warhammer!
Originally Posted by Richard HolmesOriginally Posted by Jackie Fisher