9,146 gun homicides in US. 16,885 killed by drunk drivers.

[Chas]

(30-12-2012 07:39 AM)yongkykun Wrote:  

(30-12-2012 02:53 AM)Vosur Wrote:  You can do that at the shooting range (or wherever you store your firearm) as well.

I didn't say that, did I?

No. Does it matter? It's nearly impossible to acquire a gun in my country and it's demonstrably better that way.




I never said that you don't have the right to use a firearm. You seem to be either misunderstanding or deliberately straw-manning my actual position. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that it is the former one. Anyway, I'm not for banning guns in the US, I'm for stricter gun control so that the number of irresponsible people who own guns is reduced. If you can handle a gun and are a mentally stable person, I don't mind you owning a gun. You would have to be absolutely delusional to deny that it is currently far too easy to acquire a gun in the United States.

Hear hear! I can't even understand the childish mentality of people who don't want strict gun control. It's as though they're 8 and we're trying to take away their bb gun. Gun should be controlled because it makes killing large numbers of people so much easier, faster and efficient. If you're happy with hunting rifles and handguns, no prob, but if you have rocket launcher like that bloke in LA, then I question your reasoning for owning them.

Do you own a gun to defend yourself or because it gives you power and authority or because it looks cool and therefore makes you look cool? If the former doesn't take precedence over the latter ones, you're a gun aficionado and gun control shouldn't even be a problem because you can still go to a shooting range and fire assault rifles/guns/whatever over there for a price. I simply don't understand the need for a gun in your house much less assault riffles. How many accidents and homicide that need to happen to other people before it happens to you or your family? THINK!

Reasons for having a gun at home:

• Self defense.
• Accessibility.
• Security of ownership; if all guns are centrally located, they can be taken away more easily.

[Diablo]

(29-12-2012 04:53 PM)Chas Wrote:  

(29-12-2012 04:27 PM)Diablo Wrote:  Ok, sure but banning alcohol doesn't work. It is way too easy to make.

Banning assault rifles, which are clearly not useful for hunting, does work for the most part.


You are merely comparing apples to oranges. It is a ridiculous argument worthy of Faux Noise.

Alcohol is useful for what, exactly? What justifies the carnage?

I never said anything about something being useful.

What does useful mean exactly? If people buy something, then they deem it to be useful, do they not?

[Vosur]

(30-12-2012 07:55 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, V. I can plink in my backyard. I can hunt in my backyard.

I can store firearms safely in my home.

Yes, you can do that. If anyone was as responsible as you, there would be no need for gun control, but that's obviously not the case. I'm not after you or anyone else on this forum who is mentally sane and knows how to take care of a firearm, I want to prevent irresponsible and mentally unstable peeps from getting their hands on guns. It's currently easy for them to do so, because all you require is a background check and a couple hundred dollar.

[Diablo]

(29-12-2012 05:16 PM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  

(29-12-2012 04:27 PM)Diablo Wrote:  Ok, sure but banning alcohol doesn't work. It is way too easy to make.

Banning assault rifles, which are clearly not useful for hunting, does work for the most part.


You are merely comparing apples to oranges. It is a ridiculous argument worthy of Faux Noise.

A few things

1) Real Assault Rifles ARE ALREADY BANNED as they are Title II NFA weapons and the only available samples are used, require a mountain of paperwork and taxes for civilian transfer and cost a fortune (see my previous posts).

2) I have never seen anywhere where an assault weapons ban stopped crime. It didn't work in Newtown CT which has a state level AWB and it sure as hell hasn't worked elsewhere.

3) You CAN hunt with 'assault weapons', depending on the type. AR-15s can be good deer rifles, if properly scoped. A TEC-9, not so much.

4) And finally, WE DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO OWN GUNS FOR HUNTING IN THE UNITED STATES. WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO OWN GUNS TO PROTECT US FROM A TYRANNY OF THE GOVERNMENT. Lets stop this bullshit about guns are a hunter's right, right now!

1) Many can easily be modified to fully automatic again. Not that it matters, because this is still not an argument for assault rifles.
2) It obviously won't stop a crime. There are lots of guns more easily accessible, but they are far less dangerous as well.
3) You CAN hunt with a grenade and a bazooka. Grenades are awesome at catching fish!
4) I got no problem with hunting. Its necessary to some degree. Hunting Rifles = Fine.
No gun would protect you from the tyranny of govt. Its absolute nonsense.... 1 M1 Abraham tank >>> an army of rednecks with guns. You would be better off with a shovel than a gun in such a situation.

Recap,
Hunting Rifles = fine (I would even say necessary. Some people live in areas where danger from wild life is a common occurrence.)
Hand guns = ban. (Unless someone could give me a reason an easily concealable weapon is necessary to stalk a deer)
Assault weapons & huge clips = ban (Serve no purpose but to kill people)

The argument that the criminals have said items, thus you need them is absolutely rubbish. If they are banned, then it will be extremely difficult for either party to acquire such things.

[Hafnof]

These gun debate threads seem loaded with logical fallacy and light on fact. Let me lay out a simple debate format for you guys:
1. Let each side present their best and most reliable statistics for whether gun ownership in general or specific kinds of gun ownership yield undesirable outcomes
2. Let the facts of the matter be more or less settled between the two sides as to what the negative impact of gun ownership amounts to - maybe you guys can't get past this point but if you can't there is really no point considering the rest
3. Let each side present their argument that the agreed negative impact either is outweighed or is not outweighed by the positive impact of guns and the negative impact on liberty that banning guns or classes of guns would yield
4. Refer to the US constitution and on each side resolve to defend the relevant amendment and current legal interpretation or overturn it.

I'll start!

"David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center and the Harvard Youth Violence Prevention Center, notes that most types of crime don’t necessarily involve guns – car theft or muggings or rape, for instance. But other crimes, such as murder, often do. Studies that have looked at gun ownership and murder rates, he says, have shown "yes, there’s a strong relationship." Such studies, Hemenway says, have controlled for certain variables, comparing urban areas to other urban areas or households in violent areas to other households in violent areas. With those types of studies, "the evidence is very compelling." There’s more gun murder in areas with more guns, and more murder overall, he says.

That’s not to say that taking the guns away from such areas would necessarily lead to a reduction in the murder rate. Such studies have shown a statistically significant relationship between guns and murder but not a causal one.

One of Hemenway’s studies, published in 2004 and coauthored by Lisa M. Hepburn, reviewed commonly cited research from peer-reviewed journals. It found that studies of the United States or U.S. cities, states and regions "generally find a statistically significant gun prevalence-homicide association." The report said that the evidence from such "U.S. cross-sectional studies is quite consistent … where there are higher levels of gun prevalence, homicide rates are substantially higher, primarily due to higher firearm homicide rates." Hemenway’s report also found that international studies "typically show that in high-income countries with more firearms, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide." So where there are guns, there is likely a higher rate of murders committed with guns in particular. However, the report noted, "None of the studies can prove causation. They merely examine the statistical association between gun availability and homicide."
Source: http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/violent...ownership/

"The homicide rate (the number of murders per 100,000 inhabitants) is a more reliable measure of a country’s safety level because, unlike other crimes, murders are usually always reported to the police. According to the latest OECD data, the United States’ homicide rate is 5.0, higher than the OECD average of 2.1 and one of the highest in the OECD. In the United States, men are far more likely to be murdered than women, as the homicide rate for men is 7.8 compared with 2.2 for women."
Source - http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/topics/safety/
The US is ranked 32 out of 36 for homocide in the OECD, ahead only of Estonia, the Russian Federation, Mexico and Brazil.

[germanyt]

Absolutely ridiculous. It's astounding to me that you can't see how silly your argument against assault weapons are. Much less handguns.

[TheBlackKnight]

(30-12-2012 02:53 AM)Vosur Wrote:  

(30-12-2012 02:32 AM)TheBlackKnight Wrote:  Bullshit. "No need to have it at home"? How do dryfire practice? Change parts? Clean it and keep from rusting?

You can do that at the shooting range (or wherever you store your firearm) as well.

(30-12-2012 02:32 AM)TheBlackKnight Wrote:  A gun cant be stored at a house safely?

I didn't say that, did I?

(30-12-2012 02:32 AM)TheBlackKnight Wrote:  Have you even known someone who owns a gun, like, at all?

No. Does it matter? It's nearly impossible to acquire a gun in my country and it's demonstrably better that way.

(30-12-2012 02:32 AM)TheBlackKnight Wrote:  Let my remind everyone once again that"eliminating life" is nor illegal, nor morally wrong. Hunting is legal and ethical, deer populations have to be kept in check, otherwise too many fight over the same resources. This happens every couple years in state parks and they have to bring in hunters to cull the numbers. Killing evil people who try to harm honest people is also well justified. People have the innate right of self defense.

(30-12-2012 02:32 AM)TheBlackKnight Wrote:  You dont have to right to tell me I cant use a firearm.

I never said that you don't have the right to use a firearm. You seem to be either misunderstanding or deliberately straw-manning my actual position. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that it is the former one. Anyway, I'm not for banning guns in the US, I'm for stricter gun control so that the number of irresponsible people who own guns is reduced. If you can handle a gun and are a mentally stable person, I don't mind you owning a gun. You would have to be absolutely delusional to deny that it is currently far too easy to acquire a gun in the United States.

You seem to want to take the firearms out of my house, which isnt going to happen.

Its no surprise you have no practical knowledge of guns.

[Logica Humano]

(30-12-2012 10:53 AM)TheBlackKnight Wrote:  

(30-12-2012 02:53 AM)Vosur Wrote:  You can do that at the shooting range (or wherever you store your firearm) as well.

I didn't say that, did I?

No. Does it matter? It's nearly impossible to acquire a gun in my country and it's demonstrably better that way.




I never said that you don't have the right to use a firearm. You seem to be either misunderstanding or deliberately straw-manning my actual position. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that it is the former one. Anyway, I'm not for banning guns in the US, I'm for stricter gun control so that the number of irresponsible people who own guns is reduced. If you can handle a gun and are a mentally stable person, I don't mind you owning a gun. You would have to be absolutely delusional to deny that it is currently far too easy to acquire a gun in the United States.

You seem to want to take the firearms out of my house, which isnt going to happen.

Its no surprise you have no practical knowledge of guns.

It is no surprise that you are a defensive fuck who can't provide a good argument.

[Vosur]

(30-12-2012 10:53 AM)TheBlackKnight Wrote:  You seem to want to take the firearms out of my house, which isnt going to happen.

Its no surprise you have no practical knowledge of guns.

So, it turns out that you actually are deliberately attacking a straw man argument.

[TheBeardedDude]

Shit, I can't even get my arguments acknowledged.