Gun Control (is Bullshit?)
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-06-2012, 08:06 PM
RE: Gun Control (is Bullshit?)
This is a question that cannot reasonably be decided based on rational inquiry alone, but must also be evidence-based. If high availability of guns causes more violence than moderate to low levels or less violence than the same, then the law should work in favour of the less violent outcome.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Hafnof's post
10-06-2012, 08:02 AM
RE: Gun Control (is Bullshit?)
(09-06-2012 06:53 PM)Hughsie Wrote:  1) Quoting the Daily Mail is the UK equivalent of quoting Fox News.

2) If we accept those figures as fair (which they probably aren't) then all you've managed to do is spectacularly prove my point. If I live in such a crime hot-spot yet don't need a firearm for self-defence then why the hell do you?
1 - Thanks for the tip, I didn't know it was Foxy.
2 - "... yet don't need a firearm for self-defence ..." You don't believe you need one, which is not the same thing as not needing one.

I stated elsewhere in this thread that due to my situation, I believe it prudent for me to have a firearm for self-defense. You do not believe that your situation warrants your having one.

Do you believe I have the right to self-defense or that I have no such right?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-06-2012, 08:09 AM
RE: Gun Control (is Bullshit?)
(09-06-2012 08:06 PM)Hafnof Wrote:  This is a question that cannot reasonably be decided based on rational inquiry alone, but must also be evidence-based. If high availability of guns causes more violence than moderate to low levels or less violence than the same, then the law should work in favour of the less violent outcome.
Many studies have been done and the data are available. There is no consistent correlation between the availability of firearms and violent crime. [Please don't trot out gun violence statistics in place of violent crime statistics.] In the several states in the U.S. that have passed Right To Carry or "Shall Issue" laws, the violent crime rate has dropped.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-06-2012, 10:33 AM
RE: Gun Control (is Bullshit?)
(10-06-2012 08:02 AM)Chas Wrote:  1 - Thanks for the tip, I didn't know it was Foxy.
2 - "... yet don't need a firearm for self-defence ..." You don't believe you need one, which is not the same thing as not needing one.

I stated elsewhere in this thread that due to my situation, I believe it prudent for me to have a firearm for self-defense. You do not believe that your situation warrants your having one.

Do you believe I have the right to self-defense or that I have no such right?

I believe you have a right to self defence, but not that you need a firearm for self defence.

The vast majority of home invaders will flee from an unarmed person anyway. They know full well that if they are convicted of burglary they will be out again pretty quickly, if they hurt someone then their sentence suddenly becomes a lot longer.

Best and worst of Ferdinand .....
Best
Ferdinand: We don't really say 'theist' in Alabama. Here, you're either a Christian, or you're from Afghanistan and we fucking hate you.
Worst
Ferdinand: Everyone from British is so, like, fucking retarded.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Hughsie's post
10-06-2012, 03:12 PM
RE: Gun Control (is Bullshit?)
(10-06-2012 10:33 AM)Hughsie Wrote:  
(10-06-2012 08:02 AM)Chas Wrote:  1 - Thanks for the tip, I didn't know it was Foxy.
2 - "... yet don't need a firearm for self-defence ..." You don't believe you need one, which is not the same thing as not needing one.

I stated elsewhere in this thread that due to my situation, I believe it prudent for me to have a firearm for self-defense. You do not believe that your situation warrants your having one.

Do you believe I have the right to self-defense or that I have no such right?
I believe you have a right to self defence, but not that you need a firearm for self defence.

The vast majority of home invaders will flee from an unarmed person anyway. They know full well that if they are convicted of burglary they will be out again pretty quickly, if they hurt someone then their sentence suddenly becomes a lot longer.
You clearly live in a different society than I do. Do you have any real data on home invaders who flee?

Be that as it may, I suppose you think that a bat, or a machete, or martial arts would serve the same purpose. If so, you either haven't thought it through or are unfamiliar with the fact that those implements require strength, dexterity, and a very close encounter with the bad guy - therefore a risky encounter. With a firearm, I keep the bad guy at a safe distance while awaiting the police. Or he runs like hell. Or he persists and he dies.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-06-2012, 03:30 PM
RE: Gun Control (is Bullshit?)
(10-06-2012 03:12 PM)Chas Wrote:  You clearly live in a different society than I do. Do you have any real data on home invaders who flee?

Be that as it may, I suppose you think that a bat, or a machete, or martial arts would serve the same purpose. If so, you either haven't thought it through or are unfamiliar with the fact that those implements require strength, dexterity, and a very close encounter with the bad guy - therefore a risky encounter. With a firearm, I keep the bad guy at a safe distance while awaiting the police. Or he runs like hell. Or he persists and he dies.

I think 99% of confrontations wouldn't even require that. They would simply require me to be there. Like I said, most home invaders want to avoid confrontation at all costs. Once they attack someone they're likely to see their sentence at least double. Plus, most people would call the police before confronting the person. That means that by the time the confrontation happens the police are already on their way. Again, why would someone waste precious time attacking you, they'd get the hell outta there.

You must live in a very different society to me. Over here home invaders tend to be after valuables whilst avoiding repercussions at all costs. According to what I'm hearing on this thread, on your side of the Atlantic home invaders tend to want nothing more than to harm anyone they come across with no regard for the consequences.

Best and worst of Ferdinand .....
Best
Ferdinand: We don't really say 'theist' in Alabama. Here, you're either a Christian, or you're from Afghanistan and we fucking hate you.
Worst
Ferdinand: Everyone from British is so, like, fucking retarded.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2012, 07:51 AM
RE: Gun Control (is Bullshit?)
(10-06-2012 03:30 PM)Hughsie Wrote:  
(10-06-2012 03:12 PM)Chas Wrote:  You clearly live in a different society than I do. Do you have any real data on home invaders who flee?

Be that as it may, I suppose you think that a bat, or a machete, or martial arts would serve the same purpose. If so, you either haven't thought it through or are unfamiliar with the fact that those implements require strength, dexterity, and a very close encounter with the bad guy - therefore a risky encounter. With a firearm, I keep the bad guy at a safe distance while awaiting the police. Or he runs like hell. Or he persists and he dies.


I think 99% of confrontations wouldn't even require that. They would simply require me to be there. Like I said, most home invaders want to avoid confrontation at all costs. Once they attack someone they're likely to see their sentence at least double. Plus, most people would call the police before confronting the person. That means that by the time the confrontation happens the police are already on their way. Again, why would someone waste precious time attacking you, they'd get the hell outta there.

You must live in a very different society to me. Over here home invaders tend to be after valuables whilst avoiding repercussions at all costs. According to what I'm hearing on this thread, on your side of the Atlantic home invaders tend to want nothing more than to harm anyone they come across with no regard for the consequences.


I think you nailed the difference here! Most house robberies here are perfomed by people that do not want confrontation. That is why proper lighting, dogs and alarms deter them.

Home invasions are performed with the expectation (probably a goal of) confrontation. I fully support the rights of individuals to protect themselves in their homes. With that comes a lot of repsonsibility and where I live you'd better get it right or you'll be in the dock.

" Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous."
David Hume
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2012, 08:19 AM
RE: Gun Control (is Bullshit?)
(10-06-2012 10:33 AM)Hughsie Wrote:  
(10-06-2012 08:02 AM)Chas Wrote:  1 - Thanks for the tip, I didn't know it was Foxy.
2 - "... yet don't need a firearm for self-defence ..." You don't believe you need one, which is not the same thing as not needing one.

I stated elsewhere in this thread that due to my situation, I believe it prudent for me to have a firearm for self-defense. You do not believe that your situation warrants your having one.

Do you believe I have the right to self-defense or that I have no such right?

I believe you have a right to self defence, but not that you need a firearm for self defence.

The vast majority of home invaders will flee from an unarmed person anyway. They know full well that if they are convicted of burglary they will be out again pretty quickly, if they hurt someone then their sentence suddenly becomes a lot longer.
And when the homeowner is armed they mysteriously become enraged, take the gun from them and kill them with it?? Just using your logic.

"IN THRUST WE TRUST"

"We were conservative Jews and that meant we obeyed God's Commandments until His rules became a royal pain in the ass."

- Joel Chastnoff, The 188th Crybaby Brigade
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2012, 08:48 AM
RE: Gun Control (is Bullshit?)
(11-06-2012 08:19 AM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  And when the homeowner is armed they mysteriously become enraged, take the gun from them and kill them with it?? Just using your logic.

Now you're trying to tell me that no has ever shot dead a home invader in cold-blood? In the entire history of mankind such an event has never occurred? Not even once? Really?

Even if I accepted your rather bold statement you think that just because something hasn't happened yet it shouldn't be legislated for? Just because in your little world no-one has ever shot a burglar in cold-blood there should be no laws preventing people from doing so?

Oh, and just to shatter your perfect little world I'll give you an example. Tony Martin was an English farmer who's house had been burgled on several occasions. One night he awoke to the sound of people in the house. When he disturbed them they tried to flee through a window yet he still fired at them killing one and injuring another. The dead intruder was a 16 year old. Judging by what I've heard the kid was no great loss to society but that's not really the point.

Best and worst of Ferdinand .....
Best
Ferdinand: We don't really say 'theist' in Alabama. Here, you're either a Christian, or you're from Afghanistan and we fucking hate you.
Worst
Ferdinand: Everyone from British is so, like, fucking retarded.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2012, 09:11 AM
RE: Gun Control (is Bullshit?)
Quote:"the evidence is very compelling." There’s more gun murder in areas with more guns, and more murder overall... where there are higher levels of gun prevalence, homicide rates are substantially higher, primarily due to higher firearm homicide rates... 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.


The National Academies report noted that drawing a causal inference is "always complicated and, in the behavioral and social sciences, fraught with uncertainty." ... In comparing the United States to industrialized democracies, the Academies says data show the U.S. has the highest rate of homicide and firearm-related homicide. But this also raises a chicken-and-egg question. "A high level of violence may be a cause of a high level of firearms availability instead of the other way around."
http://factcheck.org/2008/03/violent-cri...ownership/

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: