Poll: Do you think more guns means less crime?
Yes
No
I did until I saw these data
[Show Results]
Note: This is a public poll, other users will be able to see what you voted for.
"More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-04-2015, 07:21 AM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(16-04-2015 07:20 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(16-04-2015 07:09 AM)Chas Wrote:  I'm not cherry-picking - that was a definition (linked) from a legal site.


The correct usage of loophole is that you avoid the intent without breaking the letter of the law. If you don't agree with that, fine - you are wrong.

This is an example of a general problem in the gun debate - poor terminology. Some is chosen for its emotional impact over truth, some is just ignorant.
Both sides are guilty of this.

I've already explained to you how (including using examples you provided) how it is still a loophole.

The examples I used supported the correct definition. And you are still wrong.

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
16-04-2015, 07:27 AM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(16-04-2015 07:21 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(16-04-2015 07:20 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I've already explained to you how (including using examples you provided) how it is still a loophole.

The examples I used supported the correct definition. And you are still wrong.

You keep saying that, but I have already pointed out the issues with the examples you provided (from the wikipedia page) as well as your other examples (like the speeding one) and how they would be amended to be comparable to the inadequate and insufficient privates sales laws.

If only there were a synonym for inadequate and insufficient that would make it easier to convey my message. Something to do with a hole and a circumvention of said hole in sort of of hooped or looped fashion? Consider

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-04-2015, 07:27 AM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
I don't think I have seen you address the OP at all either there Chas. And you don't seem to have answered the poll. Do you believe that more guns means less crime?

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-04-2015, 07:33 AM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(16-04-2015 07:27 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I don't think I have seen you address the OP at all either there Chas. And you don't seem to have answered the poll. Do you believe that more guns means less crime?

Whoops, you did answer the poll, my bad Thumbsup

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-04-2015, 07:42 AM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(16-04-2015 07:27 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(16-04-2015 07:21 AM)Chas Wrote:  The examples I used supported the correct definition. And you are still wrong.

You keep saying that, but I have already pointed out the issues with the examples you provided (from the wikipedia page) as well as your other examples (like the speeding one) and how they would be amended to be comparable to the inadequate and insufficient privates sales laws.

If only there were a synonym for inadequate and insufficient that would make it easier to convey my message. Something to do with a hole and a circumvention of said hole in sort of of hooped or looped fashion? Consider

I have provided two citations for definitions the specifically say that the letter of the law is followed, and examples of that.

Every example in the Wikipedia article supports my contention.

Using inaccurate terminology in the debate merely lessens the users' credibility.

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
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
16-04-2015, 08:48 AM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(16-04-2015 07:33 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(16-04-2015 07:27 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I don't think I have seen you address the OP at all either there Chas. And you don't seem to have answered the poll. Do you believe that more guns means less crime?

Whoops, you did answer the poll, my bad Thumbsup

Yes, the NRA's statement is an example of bad argumentation from that side.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
17-04-2015, 02:48 PM (This post was last modified: 17-04-2015 02:57 PM by Patriot10mm.)
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
When I watch the news, every few months they'll be a story about a child finding a gun and shooting another child. It's rare but it happens. Sometimes its a murder suicide. Then you have mass shooters, which are also rare. Most of the time, it's a Gruber killing another Gruber, or a Gruber getting killed by a legal gun owner during a home invasion. If Grubers want to keep ending up dead I'm fine with it.

Maybe that's why Grubers want gun control? So their victims can't fight back?

If Grubers didn't commit so much gun violence America wouldn't have this problem.

Death is a debt we all must pay.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-04-2015, 05:41 PM (This post was last modified: 17-04-2015 05:48 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(17-04-2015 02:48 PM)Patriot10mm Wrote:  When I watch the news, every few months they'll be a story about a child finding a gun and shooting another child. It's rare but it happens. Sometimes its a murder suicide. Then you have mass shooters, which are also rare. Most of the time, it's a Gruber killing another Gruber, or a Gruber getting killed by a legal gun owner during a home invasion. If Grubers want to keep ending up dead I'm fine with it.

Or quite often a Gruber killing an innocent, armed or not. If there weren't so many Grubers we wouldn't be having this discussion. Gun control discussions would be as mundane as food safety. "How long can I store ammo before it blows up in my face?" be as casual as "How long can I store chicken in the fridge before it blows up in my gut?"

(17-04-2015 02:48 PM)Patriot10mm Wrote:  Maybe that's why Grubers want gun control? So their victims can't fight back?

And there you go diving off the deep end into the fucking lunatic fringe again. You are such a fucking asshole. Equating those who think gun control is warranted precisely because of the Grubers with the Grubers themselves. Grubers want free unrestricted access to guns you disingenuous prick.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-04-2015, 08:42 PM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
I had intended to make a post earlier but didn't have a chance to at the time, and every time I look there's like 10 new pages.

I'm not going to read them all. Instead I'll simply state my opinion and a few random thoughts, which will serve no purpose since most of you have already decided whether or not you're gonna agree with me based on your preexisting stance on guns.

First, to answer the question: No, I do not believe guns reduce crime as a whole. I also do not believe they increase crime as a whole. The same is true for gun control initiatives. The crime rate in the U.S. is, for the most part, a sociological issue, and has very little to do with gun control.

That said, here's a few random opinions I hold both off the top of my head and in response to a few things I saw as I quickly skimmed through a few of the pages.

1. I do believe that me being armed makes me safer in certain scenarios. It also might put me at more risk, given that if shit goes down, me being armed would make me more likely to jump into said shit head first. I'm okay with that, however, and I want to have that option. I'm a warrior, not a bubble dweller. That probably sounds cheesy to a lot of you, and I don't care.

2. Yes, I have in fact hunted for meat as a primary means of providing food for myself. (Going into childhood story mode, feel free to skip this part of you've heard this story before) I not only grew up in the sticks, but in different types of sticks. My stepfather was a commercial fisherman. For about 2/3 of the year I'd live in Washington State on an island. When I was home I fished or dove for crabs, getting for free a regular supply of seafood that would have otherwise been quite costly, saving a lot of money for my parents and eating well in the process. Granted, it was more of a convenience, as stores were available, though kind of a pain in the ass to go to regularly. The other 1/3 of the year I spent in a seasonal fishing village in Alaska. The general store had a few dried goods and that's it. If we wanted meat, we hunted. Period. It was just another chore. We'd arrive, my stepfather and the guys he worked with would start prepping the boat, and I'd go catch dinner. A moose if I was lucky, because a good sized bull moose would last us more than a month properly dried and preserved.

And no, I'm not gonna poke a 1,500 pound animal with a stick. Hell I was lucky if it even acknowledged the bullet. Contrary to what childhood stories and a few random videos on Animal Planet might have lead you all to to believe, a healthy bull moose can decimate an entire pack of wolves without breaking a sweat, and I sure as hell wouldn't want to take my chances with it on a regular basis with anything other than a gun given that my primary intent was to put food on the table, not for sport. That's not to say I didn't enjoy it, I did.

3. The potential for protection from petty criminals during relatively stable times is an added bonus, but not the primary reason I own scary black assault rifles, making all that data completely irrelevant to me.

4. I don't give a damn how the rest of the world judges me as a 'merican. The industrialized world was built on the back of British, French, Spanish, and more recently, American resource domination. Enjoy your peaceful culture if you want, but that's not me. I'm nuts even by American standards. If there's a fight, and the outcome of that fight affects me in some way, I wanna be able to jump into it and have my say in regards to how it ends. If you'd rather disarm yourself and give all of your leverage to an entity that has no inherent reason to protect your interests and just hope for the best, that's great. But it isn't short sighted local crime statistics you should be worried about.

'Murican Canadian
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like yakherder's post
18-04-2015, 07:14 AM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
This site carries the number of guns in each individual country, the ownership laws and the number of people being killed by guns.

http://www.gunpolicy.org/

Turns out the countries with the most guns also have the highest gun related death rates.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes abaris's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: