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%
Page 125 of 169 FirstFirst ... 25 75 100 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 150 ... LastLast
Results 2,481 to 2,500 of 3368

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

  1. #2481
    Whukid's Avatar Senshi
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,511

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ciabhán View Post
    The thing is Whukid everyone understands the point but it's been made already and the horse has been beaten into a puddle of glop. The inanimate object is not responsible we get that. There are however better and fresher arguments that can be made.

    It would be better in fact if you want to equate vehicles and firearms to suggest a similar mandatory training to recieve a license to buy firearms. This license will also be reviewed periodically and will require one to have had a certain amount of hours of continued training to renew. Anyone who can currently legally purchase a firearm and attends the training gets a license. No one is disenfranchised unless they choose to be by not attending the training. It would only apply to newly purchased firearms. Currently owned firearms would be grandfathered and you need do nothing if you do not intend to purchase any.
    True, but this is where it gets hairy. Technically, at that point, you're giving the government the control to pick who gets to use their 2nd Amendment right and who doesn't at their whim (if we're to use the DMV as an example), and it completely undermines the reason the amendment was put in place. Is the federal government going to take advantage of this and stop everyone who says something bad about Obama from getting a license? maybe, however i don't think it'd be likely atleast at first. At some point however, the corruption and bureaucratic tendencies would take over and the administration would become a flop while either not really accomplishing anything (See: TSA) or violating the out of everyone's rights (also see: TSA)

    Even so, there's nothing to stop private sales going around this license thing without having a mandatory gun registry, which is a REALLY bad idea. The only way this could truly work is if it was in the hands of the state and local governments, which would be a massive cluster since no local government is run the same way as the next.

    If we're really going to get serious about bringing the crime rate down and stopping people from going on shooting sprees, we need to open the floodgates for open carry and concealed carry and allow people the right to defend themselves in malls, grocery stores, movie theaters, ect. Does this mean everyone should be armed without any training? no. I'd think that the current CCW permit policies would do just fine, however it's severely limited by where it's legal to use.

    Gun Free zones in general would have to disappear or armed guards would have to become the norm. It's a known fact that criminals don't follow laws and Law Abiding Citizens do. The latter aren't going to become crazed lunatics who embark on shooting sprees; the former doesn't give a damn what laws you pass because they won't stop them. At the very least, allowing teachers and professors to CCW would stop the vast majority of school shootings simply because the potential shooters know that their victims may be armed. (is that not the point of shooting up a "Gun Free zone"?)

    Some people seem to scoff at the last idea for some reason. Everyone got pissed at the police because they didn't stop the Columbine or Virginia Tech shooters in time, yet it seems these same people are opposed to allowing anyone the right to defend themselves. You can defend your home and vehicle, yet not yourself and fellow classmates while attending college courses on campus?
    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

  2. #2482
    motiv-8's Avatar Tribunus Laticlavius
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    16,304

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Whukid
    Technically, at that point, you're giving the government the control to pick who gets to use their 2nd Amendment right and who doesn't at their whim
    No, it's not a whim, it's a clearly delineated and described pathway. Frankly I don't know how you even come up with the word "whim" in response to a post describing licensing and mandatory training. The government does this every day with every kind of right. Like, for example, if you break the law you no longer have the right to privacy or really any other right strictly spelled out in the Constitution, because you did not live up to your responsibilities as a citizen. If you do not live up to your responsibility to drive safely, you will no longer have the privilege to drive a vehicle. This should be absolutely no different with firearms, and in fact should be held to an even greater standard because of the greater inherent danger that a firearm possesses.
    Some people seem to scoff at the last idea for some reason.
    Because it's retarded. I have absolutely no reason to trust that teacher or professor with a firearm without some kind of clearly mandated and meaningful training regiment for that person. I have no reason to trust that that person won't also be a potential perpetrator of crime, or are we supposed to live in a fantasy land where teachers and professors are only the most morally upstanding people not exposed to any flaws or evils?
    Everyone got pissed at the police because they didn't stop the Columbine or Virginia Tech shooters in time, yet it seems these same people are opposed to allowing anyone the right to defend themselves.
    Maybe because police are the ones specifically hired and trained for law enforcement, not teachers. You're making an argument for better response time or, at the very most, more police presence; not handing guns over to teachers just because. You haven't even specified under what conditions or according to what regulations or training these people are supposed to be given weapons, it's so utterly reckless and thoughtless.
    قرطاج يجب ان تدمر

  3. #2483
    Whukid's Avatar Senshi
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,511

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

    Quote Originally Posted by motiv-8 View Post
    No, it's not a whim, it's a clearly delineated and described pathway. Frankly I don't know how you even come up with the word "whim" in response to a post describing licensing and mandatory training. The government does this every day with every kind of right. Like, for example, if you break the law you no longer have the right to privacy or really any other right strictly spelled out in the Constitution, because you did not live up to your responsibilities as a citizen. If you do not live up to your responsibility to drive safely, you will no longer have the privilege to drive a vehicle. This should be absolutely no different with firearms, and in fact should be held to an even greater standard because of the greater inherent danger that a firearm possesses.
    Soo you're for invading the privacy of law abiding citizens because the minute (think hundredths of a percent) chance they may snap and kill someone with a gun is there? Maybe we should do away with the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments while we're at it. I mean, the chance that you're hiding something in connection with whatever crime the police are investigating is pretty high since they're at YOUR door, right? I'm not quite sure Orwell would be proud, but your ridiculously totalitarian outlook would certainly get his attention.

    Because it's retarded. I have absolutely no reason to trust that teacher or professor with a firearm without some kind of clearly mandated and meaningful training regiment for that person. I have no reason to trust that that person won't also be a potential perpetrator of crime, or are we supposed to live in a fantasy land where teachers and professors are only the most morally upstanding people not exposed to any flaws or evils?
    That part where I said they would have to get their CCW, the same way everyone else does. You apparently missed it. I don't see why you believe educators are so incapable of defending themselves; if they are truly that helpless they shouldn't be teaching. It's not like you're entrusting them with anything important like the lives of your children or anything.. I don't really understand how you're okay with letting ordinary Americans of all walks of life roam the streets with CCW's, yet the educators who are in charge of 30 young children are somehow too retarded and dangerous to handle a firearm.

    Maybe because police are the ones specifically hired and trained for law enforcement, not teachers. You're making an argument for better response time or, at the very most, more police presence; not handing guns over to teachers just because. You haven't even specified under what conditions or according to what regulations or training these people are supposed to be given weapons, it's so utterly reckless and thoughtless.
    Yea, only the police should have guns!

    http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/10/...ap-cook-women/

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Last edited by Whukid; January 08, 2013 at 08:54 PM. Reason: wrong picture
    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

  4. #2484
    motiv-8's Avatar Tribunus Laticlavius
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    16,304

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Whukid View Post
    Soo you're for invading the privacy of law abiding citizens because the minute (think hundredths of a percent) chance they may snap and kill someone with a gun is there? Maybe we should do away with the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments while we're at it. I mean, the chance that you're hiding something in connection with whatever crime the police are investigating is pretty high since they're at YOUR door, right? I'm not quite sure Orwell would be proud, but your ridiculously totalitarian outlook would certainly get his attention.
    So, this is a straw man. Now I know, I know, the "you lack reading comprehension" is a cliche around here, but really I have to wonder if you stop to take the time to fully read others' posts before you furiously type a response. I wonder this because I have absolutely NO -- none, nilch, zero -- idea how you got from my post to George Orwell and totalitarianism. Do you really think histrionics equates to debate? Why are you even referencing an Englishman in a discussion about American gun control?

    FYI George Orwell wrote, "That rifle on the wall of the labourer's cottage and in the working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It's our job to see that it stays there." I don't know about "symbol of democracy" seeing as how democracy is determined by free institutions, inclusiveness, and plurality and not by how many people have guns, but otherwise I completely agree with him.
    That part where I said they would have to get their CCW, the same way everyone else does. You apparently missed it.
    No, I didn't miss it, it's just that this is a completely laughable suggestion. CCW's are not in any way hard to get. $100 bucks and eight hours of your time gets one in North Carolina. Why in the hell should I, why should any parents, trust a person that in reality they don't know to carry a concealed weapon with THAT level of regulation? That's absurd.
    I don't see why you believe educators are so incapable of defending themselves; if they are truly that helpless they shouldn't be teaching. It's not like you're entrusting them with anything important like the lives of your children or anything.
    Speaking of absurd, what the hell is this? In what capacity does self-defense qualify a teacher? Teachers are NOT entrusted with the lives of students, they are entrusted with one thing and one thing only -- their education. Good god man, you're just making things up as you go aren't you?
    I don't really understand how you're okay with letting ordinary Americans of all walks of life roam the streets with CCW's, yet the educators who are in charge of 30 young children are somehow too retarded and dangerous to handle a firearm.
    This is a straw man. I'm NOT okay with letting just anybody walk the street with a CCW, for reasons I already mentioned -- and earlier in this thread, but again I get the feeling you're more concerned with making sure other people hear you rather than bothering to pay attention to whatever anybody else has to say, to the point that you're quoting your own posts in your signature; who does that.
    Yea, only the police should have guns!
    This is also a straw man, the third one in a single post. Seriously, brush up on your debating skills.
    And this is generalization fallacy. See above. For real. I spent as much time pointing out the flaws in youu argument as I did writing something meaningful. You're wasting my time and yours with this stuff.
    Last edited by motiv-8; January 08, 2013 at 09:11 PM.
    قرطاج يجب ان تدمر

  5. #2485
    Gelgoog's Avatar Jū kihei
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    8,370

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

    Quote Originally Posted by motiv-8 View Post
    Because they both, like, totally can kill people, so, like, they're totally the same thing. Also lightning and gila monsters, THEY KILL PEOPLE SO THEY'RE JUST LIKE GUNS! YOU HAVE TO BAN THEM TOO IF YOU BAN GUNS!

    Duh.
    Actually cars like guns in the wrong hands can become very dangerous.

    - Drunk drivers kill as many people a year as do firearms.

    - Texting resulted in 16,000 driving fatalities from 2001-2007

    Cars may not have been designed to kill, but they are exceedingly good at doing so.

    The point of the car/gun analogy is that they both serve a purpose in our society and so we allow them, but both can also be abused.

    Still have yet to hear anyone justify why we should ban guns and not ban alcohol and tobacco.

    Quote Originally Posted by Simon Cashmere View Post
    There are good arguments for gun ownership, but unfortunately the gun lobby for whatever reason is represented by people who are not good at presenting a logical argument. Like Alex Jones. There are the odd university professor who supports gun control, but CNN or NBC would never have them on their shows to make a rational case for gun ownership. They just invite the crazies on to say, see, these gun people are all wackadoo crazy da coconut.
    Do you really think they are going to invite someone on their show who is going to tear their weak argument apart? You do not see criminologists on piers morgan. What you see on piers is a bunch of liberals who admits they know nothing about firearms yet continue to spew their emotional appeal and red herring arguments. The last time I saw an ambush go wrong was when rosie odonnel invited tom selleck on her show.

    Jesse ventura is an Ahole, but he did have a lot of good points that peirs could not counter.





    Quote Originally Posted by Ummagumma View Post
    Not exactly. My BA & MA did cover art history though, as you'd expect. My BSc involved statistics, and data analysis.
    Do they offer a satisfaction or your money back guarantee?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ummagumma View Post
    Sorry, is the UNODC the Brady Bunch?
    You answered your own question.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ummagumma View Post
    I'm anti gun? Okay. I've been saying all along the the usual arguments and statistical wriggling are inconclusive at best. If having less guns was categorically safer, then those countries without guns would be safer. Or vice versa. But, they are not. There are 'safe' countries, with and without guns. There are violent places with or without guns. I hope that clears it up?
    Notice how only our homicide rate is the only statistical outlier? Car to look at the rest of our crime and compare it to those other countries? If guns have no impact then explain why our assault rate, our rape rate, our burglary rates are lower then most european nations. I am not attributing that to guns because it is only a correlation, but you are only focusing on firearms related homicides when compared to the US. How about you compare police response times in the US to the UK and see how effective police are at arriving just in the nick of time. Rural vs urban rates? Take guns out of the equation and you do not solve the issue, in many respects you make it a lot worse depending on the circumstances.
    Last edited by Gelgoog; January 08, 2013 at 10:22 PM.

  6. #2486
    Whukid's Avatar Senshi
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,511

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

    Quote Originally Posted by motiv-8 View Post
    So, this is a straw man. Now I know, I know, the "you lack reading comprehension" is a cliche around here, but really I have to wonder if you stop to take the time to fully read others' posts before you furiously type a response. I wonder this because I have absolutely NO -- none, nilch, zero -- idea how you got from my post to George Orwell and totalitarianism. Do you really think histrionics equates to debate? Why are you even referencing an Englishman in a discussion about American gun control?

    FYI George Orwell wrote, "That rifle on the wall of the labourer's cottage and in the working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It's our job to see that it stays there." I don't know about "symbol of democracy" seeing as how democracy is determined by free institutions, inclusiveness, and plurality and not by how many people have guns, but otherwise I completely agree with him.
    My bad. I misread what you meant and thought you were referring to the treatment of Convicts and their lack of rights due to their actions as a framework for how we should handle purchasing firearms. I.E. having insane amounts of background checks and mental health updates to get access to the 2nd Amendment and having that license updated every few years.

    No, I didn't miss it, it's just that this is a completely laughable suggestion. CCW's are not in any way hard to get. $100 bucks and eight hours of your time gets one in North Carolina. Why in the hell should I, why should any parents, trust a person that in reality they don't know to carry a concealed weapon with THAT level of regulation? That's absurd.
    Why should you not? They've taken it upon themselves to actively defend their students instead of hide behind the GUN FREE ZONE sign like everyone else. As you and I both know, firearms aren't exactly difficult to master, and you shouldn't have to be a Special Forces veteran to get a concealed carry permit. Am I saying that they're the equivalent of having a platoon of Navy SEALs? no. However there's only been one case of a CCW permit holder "murdering" someone under iffy standards in the past few years (think Trayvon Martin), while people killing in self defense is on the news regularly.

    In 1997, an Assistant Principal managed to stop a school shooter not with his body, but with his .45. The interesting part is that he never fired a bullet. Granted, he was in the Army Reserve, however I have a hunch that most of the teachers who would carry would have some sort of history either with firearms or the military. The rest tend to be afraid of them

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_High_School_shooting
    http://rogersparkbench.blogspot.com/...l#.UOzw1W872So

    Speaking of absurd, what the hell is this? In what capacity does self-defense qualify a teacher? Teachers are NOT entrusted with the lives of students, they are entrusted with one thing and one thing only -- their education. Good god man, you're just making things up as you go aren't you?
    it turns out that the School is in fact responsible for the well being of the child, and therefore so is the teacher. It's kind've why you had to bring home all those papers at the beginning of the year, and the same reason the Bill of Rights don't apply unless they intend to charge you with a crime, not to mention the grounds upon which a lawyer is suing the State of Connecticut for $100,000,000 following their failure to stop a madman.

    This is a straw man. I'm NOT okay with letting just anybody walk the street with a CCW, for reasons I already mentioned -- and earlier in this thread, but again I get the feeling you're more concerned with making sure other people hear you rather than bothering to pay attention to whatever anybody else has to say, to the point that you're quoting your own posts in your signature; who does that.
    Well, if they're not a convicted felon why should you care? They're not bothering you unless they pull their gun out, in which case we can probably assume that you should have yours drawn too because there's apparently something bad going on. People don't get CCW's to go on a killing spree

    Either way, the statement was about police and their arrival time on workplace and school shootings, both of which tend to be "gun free". We've already established that they were too late at Columbine, Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, ect., but what happens when they DO arrive on time? In the case of the NYPD, they ended up shooting 9 innocent people in the process of killing one man. (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/08/24...an-police-say/)

    Obviously, it's not a decent example of what might happen the next time they happen to not be 20 minutes late, but it hardly goes to bolster their track record.
    Last edited by Whukid; January 08, 2013 at 10:29 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

  7. #2487
    Dr Zoidberg's Avatar A Medical Corporation
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,844

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Gelgoog View Post
    Do they offer a satisfaction or your money back guarantee?
    And where exactly do you get off making personal attacks about the man's education simply because he disagrees with you?

    He was decent enough to outline his qualifications, perhaps you could do the same so we can all make snide remarks about the quality of your education...
    Young lady, I am an expert on humans. Now pick a mouth, open it and say "brglgrglgrrr"!

  8. #2488
    Gelgoog's Avatar Jū kihei
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    8,370

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Zoidberg View Post
    And where exactly do you get off making personal attacks about the man's education simply because he disagrees with you?

    He was decent enough to outline his qualifications, perhaps you could do the same so we can all make snide remarks about their quality...
    It is not a personal attack to point out that a person who has a degree in statistics yet constantly makes spurious arguments, makes wild assumptions of causality where none has been proven to exist, and seems incapable of understanding that to compare two vastly different variables you must first rid you comparison of all outlying variables. If he has a degree in statistics, then he certainly has not shown it in this thread. Either he does not have a degree or his university ripped him off. You can not have a degree in a subject and not know the basics of its core.

    I have already listed my qualifications on this subject several times in this thread

  9. #2489
    motiv-8's Avatar Tribunus Laticlavius
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    16,304

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Gelgoog View Post
    Actually cars like guns in the wrong hands can become very dangerous.

    - Drunk drivers kill as many people a year as do firearms.

    - Texting resulted in 16,000 driving fatalities from 2001-2007

    Cars may not have been designed to kill, but they are exceedingly good at doing so.
    Notice how the instances you're citing involve as the determinant cause not cars at all? Notice how because cars in the wrong hands can become very dangerous, you have to be licensed to drive one and pass tests to drive one and if you prove yourself incapable of responsibly using one (by say, drinking or texting while using one) you lose the privilege to drive one? I've no idea why you people insist on sticking with this flawed analogy when it flies in the face of all reason.
    The point of the car/gun analogy is that they both serve a purpose in our society and so we allow them, but both can also be abused.
    No, this is not an analogy, this is false equivalency fallacy. A vehicle serves a purpose that has great utility and economic benefit. A firearm serves only one purpose, period, and that is ending life. It's completely backwards that in some states there exists more restrictions and control over the ability to operate a motor vehicle than it does to own and fire a weapon.
    Still have yet to hear anyone justify why we should ban guns and not ban alcohol and tobacco.
    Uhhh, because that is straw man? I'm not advocating the banning of guns, nor alcohol, nor tobacco. And yet we have very restrictive laws on alcohol and tobacco reflecting the inherent dangers and consequences of their use, individual and (more importantly) on others. It's illogical and destructive to pretend that we shouldn't do the same with firearms.

    The real analogy is that alcohol, and guns, can be used either destructively or recreationally, and therefore like alcohol, firearms should be licensed and controlled to the point that their destructive use is first of all prevented, and then punished, as severely as possible.
    Quote Originally Posted by Whukid
    In the case of the NYPD, they ended up shooting 9 innocent people in the process of killing one man. (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/08/24...an-police-say/)

    Obviously, it's not a decent example of what might happen the next time they happen to not be 20 minutes late, but it hardly goes to bolster their track record.
    Here's what's fishy about the way this thread is going. Gelgoog goes on trying to lecture someone that has an educational background in statistics, but without actually making cogent points about why they're wrong (aside from "Hey you, you're wrong and/or stupid") and yet here we have possibly the most blatant misuse of statistics in the entire thread and not a peep. Do you have any idea how many shooting incidents police are involved in annually? In New York alone, there were 49 instances in 2011. You are not indicating a trend or anything that comes near representing the norm. This is blatant statistical generalization to try to force a point down our throats the police are unreliable and can't be trusted, and then trying to lead us from there that therefore as many civilians should be armed as possible because the chances are somehow better. This is just as insipid and unreasonable as someone who waves the Trayvon Martin case around and claims that this means people can't be trusted with carrying firearms.

    I mean seriously, what the Gelgoog, you sit there and act like you should be listened to in this debate, when you spend half your posts trying to convince us that Hollywood celebrities are the ones holding the "normal" position on gun control, that they're the norm, that it's you against "the ignorant Liberals"? ing a, how do you not even realize that you're spending half your time arguing against people that are IRRELEVANT and not even here to talk back? If I come back with a clip from Mean Girls with the young hillbilly talking about their Remington rifle and how it was destined to fight the dinosaurs and the homosexuals, does that count as the counter-argment? Is that how this discussion works? Whatever, here's my rebuttal to that excellent "position."
    Last edited by motiv-8; January 08, 2013 at 10:55 PM.
    قرطاج يجب ان تدمر

  10. #2490
    IlluminatiRex's Avatar The Illuminati Knows
    Content Staff

    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    The TARDIS.
    Posts
    2,463

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

    You know, there's something you gun banning activists don't think about.

    Alaska. Alaska is this nice little Remote state up next to Canada. Guess what roams near houses? Bear, Moose, and other assortment of creatures willing to kill you for food.

    Many homes also don't have indoor plumbing, so they have to go to the outhouse. Sometimes at night, when these creatures like roaming around.

    I was reading an article on Cracked.com and a commenter noted that his brother lives in Alaska and that a bear broke down their front door and started running around the house. Only the gun stopped the bear before anything was too far out of shape. No human lives lost, because of a gun.

    But if we took away his gun, he'd probably have died or been seriously wounded.
    I am the author of the "Classic Total War Recruitment" mod for Total War: Rome II! Now with a DeI compatible version!

  11. #2491
    Dr Zoidberg's Avatar A Medical Corporation
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,844

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

    Quote Originally Posted by bdd458 View Post
    You know, there's something you gun banning activists don't think about.

    Alaska. Alaska is this nice little Remote state up next to Canada. Guess what roams near houses? Bear, Moose, and other assortment of creatures willing to kill you for food.

    Many homes also don't have indoor plumbing, so they have to go to the outhouse. Sometimes at night, when these creatures like roaming around.

    I was reading an article on Cracked.com and a commenter noted that his brother lives in Alaska and that a bear broke down their front door and started running around the house. Only the gun stopped the bear before anything was too far out of shape. No human lives lost, because of a gun.

    But if we took away his gun, he'd probably have died or been seriously wounded.
    Two things:

    1) Please identify those calling for a complete banning of firearms. I think you'll find most on here are calling for better controls and regulations to try and prevent nutjobs shooting up schools.

    2) When bears starting roaming downtown New York, this random and irrelevant anecdote about 'some dude in Alaska' may have a point. Not before.
    Young lady, I am an expert on humans. Now pick a mouth, open it and say "brglgrglgrrr"!

  12. #2492
    motiv-8's Avatar Tribunus Laticlavius
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    16,304

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

    Kind of also why gun rights are devolved to the state level, aside from controlling weapons that you would never have any need to use to fight off a bear in Alaska...

    Does get pretty tiring when you're simply wondering why people in a quiet suburb should have AK-47s and the response you get is WHY ARE YOU TRYING TO TAKE ALL MY GUNS.
    قرطاج يجب ان تدمر

  13. #2493
    Gelgoog's Avatar Jū kihei
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    8,370

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

    Quote Originally Posted by motiv-8 View Post
    Notice how the instances you're citing involve as the determinant cause not cars at all? Notice how because cars in the wrong hands can become very dangerous, you have to be licensed to drive one and pass tests to drive one and if you prove yourself incapable of responsibly using one (by say, drinking or texting while using one) you lose the privilege to drive one? I've no idea why you people insist on sticking with this flawed analogy when it flies in the face of all reason.
    Actually Cars do not require a license to drive on your own property, only on governmental roads. I was riding motor cycles all the time as a kid on public land, to ride on the street would require a license. People can own as many firearms as they want and shoot them on public/private land. But to carry them on the street they require a license.





    Quote Originally Posted by motiv-8 View Post
    No, this is not an analogy, this is false equivalency fallacy. A vehicle serves a purpose that has great utility and economic benefit. A firearm serves only one purpose, period, and that is ending life. It's completely backwards that in some states there exists more restrictions and control over the ability to operate a motor vehicle than it does to own and fire a weapon.
    If its only purpose is to end life, then why does ever incident of a DGU not end up with someone dead? Where do armed civilians discharge their weapons in so few incidents when presented in a dangerous situation?



    Quote Originally Posted by motiv-8 View Post
    Uhhh, because that is straw man? I'm not advocating the banning of guns, nor alcohol, nor tobacco. And yet we have very restrictive laws on alcohol and tobacco reflecting the inherent dangers and consequences of their use, individual and (more importantly) on others. It's illogical and destructive to pretend that we shouldn't do the same with firearms.
    What are the strict laws on tobacco and alcohol if you don't mind me asking?
    And you are suggesting that we have no applicable laws in regulating firearms?


    Quote Originally Posted by motiv-8 View Post
    The real analogy is that alcohol, and guns, can be used either destructively or recreationally, and therefore like alcohol, firearms should be licensed and controlled to the point that their destructive use is first of all prevented, and then punished, as severely as possible.
    How can you prevent destructive use of an item via licensing when a license is only revoked upon misuse? We only take motor vehicle licenses away when people do things like drunk driving. Requiring a license has not prevented misuse, nor does it stop people from driving without one.


    Quote Originally Posted by motiv-8 View Post
    Here's what's fishy about the way this thread is going. Gelgoog goes on trying to lecture someone that has an educational background in statistics, but without actually making cogent points about why they're wrong (aside from "Hey you, you're wrong and/or stupid") and yet here we have possibly the most blatant misuse of statistics in the entire thread and not a peep. Do you have any idea how many shooting incidents police are involved in annually? In New York alone, there were 49 instances in 2011. You are not indicating a trend or anything that comes near representing the norm. This is blatant statistical generalization to try to force a point down our throats the police are unreliable and can't be trusted, and then trying to lead us from there that therefore as many civilians should be armed as possible because the chances are somehow better. This is just as insipid and unreasonable as someone who waves the Trayvon Martin case around and claims that this means people can't be trusted with carrying firearms.

    A) police are a reactionary force, they rely on people to alert them of a danger before they can respond.

    B) Police often are not called in very bad neighborhoods during violent events.

    C) Response times vary drastically around the country depending upon budget and the distance being patrolled.

    D) most violent assaults are oven within seconds if not a few minutes. Police are not going to be able to respond in a timely manner to save you.

    E) police are not legally bound to respond to your calls.

    F) I work in patrol, I know fully well what we are capable of doing and not doing. We can not replace the instant protection of firearms without putting on officer on every street corner in america. It is logistically impossible.

    Quote Originally Posted by motiv-8 View Post
    I mean seriously, what the Gelgoog, you sit there and act like you should be listened to in this debate, when you spend half your posts trying to convince us that Hollywood celebrities are the ones holding the "normal" position on gun control, that they're the norm, that it's you against "the ignorant Liberals"? ing a, how do you not even realize that you're spending half your time arguing against people that are IRRELEVANT and not even here to talk back? If I come back with a clip from Mean Girls with the young hillbilly talking about their Remington rifle and how it was destined to fight the dinosaurs and the homosexuals, does that count as the counter-argment? Is that how this discussion works? Whatever, here's my rebuttal to that excellent "position."
    Tom selleck was a spokesman for the NRA. Jesse ventura was the Governor of Minnesota and a navy seal. They also had very relevant points on gun control that you seemed to have missed. Your tangent went way out of the park with that one.
    Last edited by Gelgoog; January 08, 2013 at 11:28 PM.

  14. #2494
    motiv-8's Avatar Tribunus Laticlavius
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    16,304

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Gelgoog View Post
    Actually Cars do not require a license to drive on your own property, only on governmental roads.
    Um yeah, I know, I was riding motorcycles on dirt roads in Virginia when I was a kid too. Completely irrelevant information.
    If its only purpose is to end life, then why does ever incident of a DGU not end up with someone dead?
    Wow, what a stupid question. Are you ing serious with this? Am I seriously reading someone imply that because sometimes people happen to survive gunshot wounds, the purpose of a firearm isn't to kill? My god.
    What are the strict laws on tobacco and alcohol if you don't mind me asking?
    Another bad question. Age restriction, location restriction, escalating penalties for violation. This is all common knowledge
    And you are suggesting that we have no applicable laws in regulating firearms?
    And another terrible question. In fact there are plenty of laws extant, one of the problems is that they are not well enough enforced as it is. How many of the mass shootings this year were done with weapons legally bought? Aurora, Wisconsin, Newtown... Tucson, where a mentally unstable person with a criminal history was able to freely and easily purchase a firearm despite having been expelled from college due to mental issues, because the Gun Control Act says there has to be a full court proceeding deeming someone mentally unstable. Hm. Yet we keep getting fed nonsense like "criminals don't care about the law!" as if that's truly relevant. We have enough people legally getting weapons that shouldn't be.
    How can you prevent destructive use of an item via licensing when a license is only revoked upon misuse?
    Finally a good question.
    We only take motor vehicle licenses away when people do things like drunk driving. Requiring a license has not prevented misuse, nor does it stop people from driving without one.
    It's a combination of good law enforcement and really sometimes dumb luck. A person who's license is revoked -- or in the alcohol analogy, been penalized in some other way like being banned from bars, figuratively tied to a breathalizer, etc. Many of the instances of violations of these laws don't result in injury or loss of life, and come with follow-on penalties to repeat offenses including jail time. With firearms, violations can instantly mean bodily harm and death, thus the restrictions by necessity must be more severe, the penalties for ANY kind of violation must be more severe, the process must be more stringent, etc etc.
    A) police are a reactionary force, they rely on people to alert them of a danger before they can respond.

    B) Police often are not called in very bad neighborhoods during violent events.

    C) Response times vary drastically around the country depending upon budget and the distance being patrolled.

    D) most violent assaults are oven within seconds if not a few minutes. Police are not going to be able to respond in a timely manner to save you.

    E) police are not legally bound to respond to your calls.

    F) I work in patrol, I know fully well what we are capable of doing and not doing. We can not replace the instant protection of firearms without putting on officer on every street corner in america. It is logistically impossible.
    I am fully aware of all of this, and all of it still does not follow that arming every other person is the answer; that is a total non-sequitur. More guns are not the answer, never were the answer, and never will be the answer. If this is not your position all the better, that's great -- in fact my position is that gun control will not be a full solution at all so long as we fail to fix the societal problems that lead to violence in the first place, but more efficient policies and better enforcement can absolutely help.
    Tom selleck was a spokesman for the NRA. Jesse ventura was the Governor of Minnesota and a navy seal. They also had very relevant points on gun control that you seemed to have missed. Your tangent went way out of the park with that one.
    Yeah no, you just missed the point. Don't care to explain something so tangential, please feel free to continue yelling at all those "ignorant liberals" who aren't here as much as you want.
    Last edited by motiv-8; January 08, 2013 at 11:45 PM.
    قرطاج يجب ان تدمر

  15. #2495
    Surgeon's Avatar Equites Cohortales
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    4,288

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

    Quote Originally Posted by motiv-8 View Post
    Notice how the instances you're citing involve as the determinant cause not cars at all? Notice how because cars in the wrong hands can become very dangerous, you have to be licensed to drive one and pass tests to drive one and if you prove yourself incapable of responsibly using one (by say, drinking or texting while using one) you lose the privilege to drive one? I've no idea why you people insist on sticking with this flawed analogy when it flies in the face of all reason.
    In incidents involving firearm fatalities the determinant cause isn't the firearm either, since obviously the gun didn't compel anyone to commit homicide any more than the car crashed on its own. The car/alcohol/tobacco/x-factor analogy is to illustrate the fact that most gun control advocates aren't against guns because they're concerned for human lives, but because they simply don't like guns. If they were concerned for human safety they'd also be calling for measures to be taken against cars/alcohol/tobacco/etc. which cause lots of deaths yearly. Instead they insist that guns are the only one of these things that require restrictions because "guns are made to kill". For having the distinction of being such lethal objects they seem to pose little danger to the average man compared to other things. Going off statistics (IIRC) we know that
    - In the US about 50% of firearm fatalities are suicides
    - About 80-90% of firearm homicides are criminal-on-criminal violence
    - Firearm accidents account for ~1% or less of all yearly accidental deaths (about 2% of all yearly firearm deaths I think)
    This suggests that privately-owned guns aren't a particularly big threat to anyone. There is no need to infringe upon legal gun owners since it is the people who knowingly choose to turn guns on others that are the problem.

    In Soviet Russia you want Uncle Sam.

  16. #2496
    motiv-8's Avatar Tribunus Laticlavius
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    16,304

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Surgeon
    In incidents involving firearm fatalities the determinant cause isn't the firearm either, since obviously the gun didn't compel anyone to commit homicide any more than the car crashed on its own.
    No... Just no. You're attempting to equate a person shooting another person with a car accident. The analogy just fails harder and harder with each attempt.
    The car/alcohol/tobacco/x-factor analogy is to illustrate the fact that most gun control advocates aren't against guns because they're concerned for human lives. If they were concerned for human safety they'd also be calling for measures to be taken against cars/alcohol/tobacco/etc. which cause lots of deaths yearly.
    Again, utter nonsense because there are TONS of measures on the use of vehicles, alcohol, and tobacco. And you're STILL talking at/about people who aren't in this thread. I mean seriously, how hard is it to actually address people that are speaking instead of imaginary persons? I mean I literally AM arguing from the viewpoint of human lives!

    I'm not interested in vomiting statistics on a website. I know all of the major ones anyway. This is not ignoring them -- they simply don't change the fact that there were several high profile incidents this past year where a person with obvious problems was able to freely purchase a firearm with little trouble, because of gaping holes in control and enforcement of statutes. The Tucson shooting is an excellent demonstration that something needs to be done. Hey, I don't think that Joe Shmoe living in the suburbs owning a revolver or a a shotgun for home protection or the occasional trip to the range should be punished because of Jared Loughner by any means, but I don't think Joe should be able to waltz into a store and buy an AR-15 that he absolutely does not have any need for with the most cursory background checks just because "it's my right," nor should Joe be able to waltz in and buy anything after, say, getting fired from his job for mental instability and violence against coworkers. I love shooting the M-16, I would love to have an AR-15 too, but I don't need it, it's not going to make me any safer, and I have a whole community and society that I am beholden to so I don't have a problem if I can't have one outside of renting it at a range. Just my opinion. We have a constitutional right to own firearms, and while that much is absolutely clear, it's also about as specific as it gets. With rights come responsibilities, and with something like firearms, in such a densely populated society rife with challenges and problems, there should be a clear demonstration of responsibility in return for that right. The point of debate should be how that responsibility is demonstrating, I haven't figured it out yet and probably won't because a) that's not my job and b) I don't have the time to sit around and fully map out something that's not my job. So for now we'll just about it on an Internet forum.
    Last edited by motiv-8; January 09, 2013 at 12:03 AM.
    قرطاج يجب ان تدمر

  17. #2497
    The spartan's Avatar From silence
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    4,602

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Whukid View Post
    Because cars kill people, and there are safer alternatives to driving with such dangerous vehicles. Last time I checked, Drunk cyclists killing schoolchildren wasn't exactly a thing. (back to the inanimate objects debate)
    Cars are designed to kill people? Whose cars have you been buying?!
    They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.

  18. #2498
    Whukid's Avatar Senshi
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,511

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

    Quote Originally Posted by motiv-8 View Post
    Does get pretty tiring when you're simply wondering why people in a quiet suburb should have AK-47s and the response you get is WHY ARE YOU TRYING TO TAKE ALL MY GUNS.
    Because there's no reason to ban them whatsoever?

    Quote Originally Posted by motiv-8 View Post
    With rights come responsibilities, and with something like firearms, in such a densely populated society rife with challenges and problems, there should be a clear demonstration of responsibility in return for that right.
    So it's not a right, it's a privilege in your eyes. Last time I checked, unless you're in a Federal installation or in uniform, you retain your 4th, 5th, 6th, and 1st Amendment rights regardless of your criminal history or mental background. Repeat felons hiding knives, bombs, ect. are far more dangerous than Joe Schmoe with an AR in his basement, so what gives?

    This just goes to show that you're not really for other people owning weapons, just you. It pretty much justifies your "well I need to trust them" mentality

    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    Cars are designed to kill people? Whose cars have you been buying?!
    Yay! A use for my new found vocabulary word; "STRAW MAN".

  19. #2499
    Surgeon's Avatar Equites Cohortales
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    4,288

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

    Quote Originally Posted by motiv-8 View Post
    No... Just no. You're attempting to equate a person shooting another person with a car accident. The analogy just fails harder and harder with each attempt.
    Why not? Car accidents are caused by cars being in the wrong hands, ditto gun homicides. Ergo it wasn't the object that was the problem. If you're after decreasing deaths due to either then the proper thing to do is identify and tackle the actual problem, not the object. Millions of drivers do not misuse their vehicles, so it's unfair to punish them because of a few that do. The same applies to gun owners.

    Quote Originally Posted by motiv-8 View Post
    Again, utter nonsense because there are TONS of measures on the use of vehicles, alcohol, and tobacco. And you're STILL talking at/about people who aren't in this thread. I mean seriously, how hard is it to actually address people that are speaking instead of imaginary persons?
    The car/alcohol/whatever analogy is directed at those in this thread who insist that it's okay to infringe upon the rights of all gun owners for the faults of a few (hence cars/DUIs), justifying that it is different from other objects because "guns are designed to kill people". The analogy serves to illustrate the flaw of such generalizations. It's not comparing the utility of said objects. That is absolutely irrelevant. "Guns are designed to kill people" isn't a valid reason to infringe upon legal gun owners because they account for very few criminal homicides or accidental deaths. Yes you will find people in this thread who've said this almost verbatim. This analogy is for them.

    Edit:
    Quote Originally Posted by motiv-8 View Post
    I'm not interested in vomiting statistics on a website. I know all of the major ones anyway. This is not ignoring them -- they simply don't change the fact that there were several high profile incidents this past year where a person with obvious problems was able to freely purchase a firearm with little trouble, because of gaping holes in control and enforcement of statutes. The Tucson shooting is an excellent demonstration that something needs to be done. Hey, I don't think that Joe Shmoe living in the suburbs owning a revolver or a a shotgun for home protection or the occasional trip to the range should be punished because of Jared Loughner by any means, but I don't think Joe should be able to waltz into a store and buy an AR-15 that he absolutely does not have any need for with the most cursory background checks just because "it's my right," nor should Joe be able to waltz in and buy anything after, say, getting fired from his job for mental instability and violence against coworkers. I love shooting the M-16, I would love to have an AR-15 too, but I don't need it, it's not going to make me any safer, and I have a whole community and society that I am beholden to so I don't have a problem if I can't have one outside of renting it at a range. Just my opinion. We have a constitutional right to own firearms, and while that much is absolutely clear, it's also about as specific as it gets. With rights come responsibilities, and with something like firearms, in such a densely populated society rife with challenges and problems, there should be a clear demonstration of responsibility in return for that right. The point of debate should be how that responsibility is demonstrating, I haven't figured it out yet and probably won't because a) that's not my job and b) I don't have the time to sit around and fully map out something that's not my job. So for now we'll just about it on an Internet forum.
    What exactly is there to discuss on how responsibility is being demonstrated in regards to firearms? The numbers clearly show that the vast majority of legal gun owners are responsible. Shootings by wackos are rare. Them being "high profile" is irrelevant. People "not needing" something is irrelevant. Neither is a valid excuse to make laws tougher on legal gun owners. It is the wackos that need to be dealt with.
    Last edited by Surgeon; January 09, 2013 at 01:24 PM.

    In Soviet Russia you want Uncle Sam.

  20. #2500
    Baitai kihei
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    2,886

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Gelgoog View Post
    Do they offer a satisfaction or your money back guarantee?
    I've no idea. I assume you have a substantial postgrad qualification? And work for/as a reputable statistic consultancy? Or is it just ad hominem and 'those figures don't say what I want them to say, give me internet points!!'.
    Quote Originally Posted by Gelgoog View Post
    You answered your own question.
    I did? That's odd. I'd have thought that a body of professional statisticians with access to resources beyond our ability to gather, combined with the time to filter and process the data to bring some parity would be good. I suppose you have better methods, qualifications and professional ethics, however.
    Quote Originally Posted by Gelgoog View Post
    Notice how only our homicide rate is the only statistical outlier? Car to look at the rest of our crime and compare it to those other countries? If guns have no impact then explain why our assault rate, our rape rate, our burglary rates are lower then most european nations. I am not attributing that to guns because it is only a correlation, but you are only focusing on firearms related homicides when compared to the US. How about you compare police response times in the US to the UK and see how effective police are at arriving just in the nick of time. Rural vs urban rates? Take guns out of the equation and you do not solve the issue, in many respects you make it a lot worse depending on the circumstances.
    Not only firearms, murder in general. People dig too far when trying to shape statistics to make arguments, and it is mostly nonsense. You almost seem to realise that yourself. Guns = Safety is a false claim. Guns = Danger is a false claim. I wonder what the statistics are for people wearing Nike shoes compared to Airwalk in armed robbery? The only thing that can be said with absolute certainty is so inane it's hardly worth mentioning: Someone with a gun has 100% more chance of shooting someone than someone without. Other than that there is no clear cut case in either direction, only determination of argument (and/or quality of argument.. and this place is a laugh).

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

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