View Poll Results: What is our stance on gun control in general?

Voters
427. You may not vote on this poll
  • No gun control whatsoever.

    35 8.20%
  • As little gun control as possible.

    73 17.10%
  • Strict gun control.

    143 33.49%
  • Somewhere in between.

    103 24.12%
  • Ban it all together.

    54 12.65%
  • Not sure.

    2 0.47%
  • Don't care.

    17 3.98%

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

  1. #2401
    Aanker's Avatar Concordant
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    7,072

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

    The question really is if the U.S. realistically could restrict gun laws beyond the details.

    Quote Originally Posted by Adar View Post
    Russia have managed to weaponize the loneliest and saddest people on the internet by providing them with (sometimes barechested) father figures whom they can adhere to in order to justify their hatred for the current establishment and the society that rejects them.

    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

  2. #2402

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MathiasOfAthens View Post
    WTF dude do you have a comprehension problem?

    A car's expressed purpose is to transport individuals.
    A firearm's expressed purpose is to kill in either defence or offensive situations.

    You train to drive a car safely.
    You train to shoot a gun to kill or wound.

    Do you ing get it? What other purpose does a firearm have if not to kill?
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ummagumma View Post
    This is getting rather misdirected. But, it is the TWC!

    Point 1: Claims that firearms 'keep the peace', and as such are needed by civilians.
    If countries ~with~ guns had lower crime figures than those without, then this would be a truth. Instead, Countries have differing levels of crime, with or without guns - therefore they are not actually a cause, or a deterrent. I can't be bothered to google-fu, I threw down some statistics on another similar thread some time ago. Some countries with high levels of gun ownership have insignificant levels of crime (violent or otherwise). So do some countries with highly regulated gun ownership. Therefore, guns are mostly irrelevant to that issue, it is something more related to national culture.
    No sources/ stats= no valid argument.

    Point 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.
    Is it really that paranoid? Name one tyrannical government that DIDN'T outlaw firearms

    So, 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).
    See the first response. Your lack of anything besides hot air is really time consuming and annoying

    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!


    Quote Originally Posted by The Hedge Knight View Post
    Stop beating this dead horse. Your assertion is both false and misrepresenting statistics. For a start in the UK more crimes are recorded as violent because a larger variety of crimes are classified as violent. US rates for example only include aggravated assault and robbery whereas the Uk rates include all assaults. Remembering shoving someone is considered a minor assault in the UK.

    Homicide rate per capita
    UK: 1.4
    US: 4.8

    70% of US homicides involved firearms, less than 50 (not a percentage) involved firearms in the UK. If you cannot see a vague link between firearms and Homicides from this then you must be mad.
    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;


    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.
    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...
    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

  3. #2403

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

    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

  4. #2404
    Custom User Title
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    3,009

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Whukid View Post
    No sources/ stats= no valid argument.
    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?
    Quote Originally Posted by Whukid View Post
    Is it really that paranoid? Name one tyrannical government that DIDN'T outlaw firearms
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Whukid View Post
    See the first response. Your lack of anything besides hot air is really time consuming and annoying
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Whukid View Post
    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!
    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.

  5. #2405

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Mangalore View Post
    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.
    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

  6. #2406
    Custom User Title
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    3,009

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Whukid View Post
    If gun control works to reduce crime, shouldn't the UK have far less crime than the United States?
    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.

  7. #2407
    The Hedge Knight's Avatar Fierce When Cornered
    Artifex

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    England
    Posts
    5,875

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Whukid View Post

    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;

    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.

  8. #2408

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ummagumma View Post
    Yeah. The UK 4 times the level of violent crime... yet the US has at least 3 times the murders. I wonder why?
    The UK has 1 or 2 mass killings in a decade. The US.. will do that in a few months.
    I don't think I've ever known anyone here think they need to be armed because of some imagined tyrannical government.

    Maybe they should have more fist fights over there? It would save a lot of folks from being killed.



    Quote Originally Posted by motiv-8 View Post
    It sounds stupid when you talk about logic and then fail to exercise any. A car's primary and express purpose is to transport people quickly and safely from one point to another. A firearm's primary and express purpose is to cause mortal harm to another living thing. Comparing the two as the same in utility is not logical or rational in any way.

    Your drunk driving analogy was also illogical because the determinant factor in drunk driving is not the vehicle, but alcohol. Alcohol being a substance that causes poor judgement and emotional swings, it also leads to such things as... Shootings.

    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ummagumma View Post
    This is getting rather misdirected. But, it is the TWC!

    Point 1: Claims that firearms 'keep the peace', and as such are needed by civilians.
    If countries ~with~ guns had lower crime figures than those without, then this would be a truth. Instead, Countries have differing levels of crime, with or without guns - therefore they are not actually a cause, or a deterrent. I can't be bothered to google-fu, I threw down some statistics on another similar thread some time ago. Some countries with high levels of gun ownership have insignificant levels of crime (violent or otherwise). So do some countries with highly regulated gun ownership. Therefore, guns are mostly irrelevant to that issue, it is something more related to national culture.
    Again with the spuriousness. Seriously you need to take some classes in statistics and research methods, you arguments are embarrassing.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ummagumma View Post
    Point 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.
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ummagumma View Post
    So, 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).
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ummagumma View Post
    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.
    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.

  9. #2409

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ummagumma View Post
    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?
    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?

    The 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.
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...214574462.html

    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Heinrich Himmler
    Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA - ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State.
    http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/au...SqZzZFrtV6Y.99

    http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/col...ricans_guns-0/
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbUYZ4XUL1Q

    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.
    Yes, because governments never get out of control or murder anybody..

    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.
    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.
    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

  10. #2410
    MathiasOfAthens's Avatar Comes Rei Militaris
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Stockholm, Sverige
    Posts
    22,877

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Whukid View Post
    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.
    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.

  11. #2411
    IlluminatiRex's Avatar Are you on the square?
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Illuminati Outpost #5123
    Posts
    3,693
    Blog Entries
    4

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

    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!
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Holmes
    One of the problems with trying to write about the First World War is that most people have already read Wilfred Owen and Siegfried Sassoon, Pat Barker and Sebastian Faulks before you get to them.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jackie Fisher
    Can the Army win the war before the Navy loses it?

  12. #2412

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

    Quote Originally Posted by bdd458 View Post
    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.
    And this is how you all sound to us-



    Terrified Paranoiacs.
    '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.

  13. #2413
    Custom User Title
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    3,009

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Gelgoog View Post
    Again with the spuriousness. Seriously you need to take some classes in statistics and research methods, you arguments are embarrassing.
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Gelgoog View Post
    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?
    So paranoia is reasonable? And, I have no health insurance. I don't need any. Got to love the NHS.
    Quote Originally Posted by Gelgoog View Post
    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.
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Gelgoog View Post
    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.
    And I'm the one with problems of statistical analysis? Okay. I'm less enthusiastic about reading your paper now.
    Quote Originally Posted by Whukid View Post
    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.html
    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..)
    Quote Originally Posted by Whukid View Post
    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.99
    http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/col...ricans_guns-0/
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbUYZ4XUL1Q
    *insert any of a number of quotes by Ghandi as a proponent of peaceful revolution* This is getting silly now.
    Quote Originally Posted by Whukid View Post
    Yes, because governments never get out of control or murder anybody..
    You should strike now before they have a chance! ¡Viva la Revolución! It is only a matter of time, obviously....
    Quote Originally Posted by Whukid View Post
    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.
    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.

  14. #2414

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MathiasOfAthens View Post
    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.
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Markas View Post
    And this is how you all sound to us-



    Terrified Paranoiacs.

    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

  15. #2415

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Whukid View Post

    So tell me, do you view all Baptists as nutjobs who hate gays and soldiers because of the Westboro Baptist Church?
    Not necessarily the soldiers bit. The nutjob and homosexuals bit yeah. I mean come on, they're Christians.
    '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.

  16. #2416

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

    Quote Originally Posted by The Hedge Knight View Post
    Once again you cannot compare assault in the US and UK (differing definitions and levels of severity) like you can compare Murder (killing someone).
    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/

    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.
    So why have such strict gun control if it doesn't do anything?
    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

  17. #2417

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Markas View Post
    Not necessarily the soldiers bit. The nutjob and homosexuals bit yeah. I mean come on, they're Christians.
    ...and therefore all muslims have a burning desire to blow themselves up for allah, right?


    Gun rights advocates are clearly the racists..
    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

  18. #2418

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Whukid View Post
    ...and therefore all muslims have a burning desire to blow themselves up for allah, right?


    Gun rights advocates are clearly the racists..
    Well Muslim isn't a race so perhaps you should look at your own preconceptions first.
    '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.

  19. #2419
    IlluminatiRex's Avatar Are you on the square?
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Illuminati Outpost #5123
    Posts
    3,693
    Blog Entries
    4

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Markas View Post
    Well Muslim isn't a race so perhaps you should look at your own preconceptions first.
    Followers of Islam are called Muslims...
    I am the author of the "Weaker Towers" and "Officers Of" series of mods for Total War: Warhammer!
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Holmes
    One of the problems with trying to write about the First World War is that most people have already read Wilfred Owen and Siegfried Sassoon, Pat Barker and Sebastian Faulks before you get to them.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jackie Fisher
    Can the Army win the war before the Navy loses it?

  20. #2420

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


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •