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
29-04-2015, 04:28 PM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(29-04-2015 04:21 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(29-04-2015 04:09 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I've read the threads and never seen these claims substantiated.

Nuh-uh - read the response. You asked me to substantiate two claims, that was the response to the first.

Quote:Let's say that the rate of home invasion is 5 per 100,000 people (that seems too high, but whatever). Most of these are likely to occur in urban areas, but that is okay.

It seems to me that the likelihood of home invasion in an isolated setting would be greater.

Quote:If you live in an area with 10,000 people, and the rate is 0.00005%, the odds of your home being broken into is amazingly small.

Your math is wrong. It's 0.005%.

Quote:"I'll ask you again, do you want me not to have a firearm? In my living and activity circumstances, it seems reasonable to have a firearm.
Do you want me to have only a firearm that you approve of?"


When did I talk about taking away your guns? I am asking you to substantiate the claims you need them or that they are the most effective form of self-defense.

You are claiming that guns are neither necessary nor effective. Do you think I should get rid of my guns? I don't.

Quote:As far as the "approved firearm", you think any and all firearms should be available to the general population? I can't imagine you do, so we already agree that only approved firearms should be obtainable.

There is no need of a .50 Cal. machine gun in the general population. It wouldn't bother me much if those were entirely illegal. They're not, by the way.

The useful discussions to have are those about reasonable restrictions, but this discussion demonstrates that it is difficult to have that discussion when one side is not knowledgeable enough about what it is they are trying to restrict.

"You are claiming that guns are neither necessary nor effective. Do you think I should get rid of my guns? I don't." I am asking you to substantiate your claims, stop trying to shift the burden of proof around some straw man that I am advocating for removing your guns.

"Your math is wrong. It's 0.005%."
5 / 100,000 = 0.00005%.
In a place of 10,000 homes, 0.5 homes per year (on average) will be broken into.
I know how to divide.

"There is no need of a .50 Cal. machine gun in the general population. It wouldn't bother me much if those were entirely illegal. They're not, by the way."
And where you draw the line seems unreasonable to me, I think that the restrictions should be more restrictive.

I am still wondering how your fear-mongering arguments differ from Pascal's wager.... 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
29-04-2015, 04:30 PM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
"The useful discussions to have are those about reasonable restrictions, but this discussion demonstrates that it is difficult to have that discussion when one side is not knowledgeable enough about what it is they are trying to restrict."

I am still just trying to get you to back your claims up. Like the one where you said guns are the MOST EFFECTIVE form of self-defense.

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
29-04-2015, 04:34 PM
Photo RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(29-04-2015 04:30 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  "The useful discussions to have are those about reasonable restrictions, but this discussion demonstrates that it is difficult to have that discussion when one side is not knowledgeable enough about what it is they are trying to restrict."

I am still just trying to get you to back your claims up. Like the one where you said guns are the MOST EFFECTIVE form of self-defense.

None. They do make good self defence but it is not te best.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2015, 04:40 PM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(29-04-2015 04:28 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(29-04-2015 04:21 PM)Chas Wrote:  "You are claiming that guns are neither necessary nor effective. Do you think I should get rid of my guns? I don't."
I am asking you to substantiate your claims, stop trying to shift the burden of proof around some straw man that I am advocating for removing your guns.

I have pointed out that a firearm is the most effective weapon for the physically limited. I would also say that it is the most effective whenever there is a large physical disparity between assailant and victim.

I didn't say you were advocating removing my guns - I asked your opinion about whether I should get rid of my guns.

Quote:"Your math is wrong. It's 0.005%."
5 / 100,000 = 0.00005%.
In a place of 10,000 homes, 0.5 homes per year (on average) will be broken into.
I know how to divide.

5/100,000 = 0.00005 = 0.005%

Quote:"There is no need of a .50 Cal. machine gun in the general population. It wouldn't bother me much if those were entirely illegal. They're not, by the way."
And where you draw the line seems unreasonable to me, I think that the restrictions should be more restrictive.

But I haven't drawn a line. I was merely stating a fact about where the line is now.

Quote:I am still wondering how your fear-mongering arguments differ from Pascal's wager.... Consider

It is neither fear-mongering (I am not out mongering) nor is it anything like Pascal's Wager. Maybe you could explain how it is.

You have not addressed this:
Quote:The useful discussions to have are those about reasonable restrictions, but this discussion demonstrates that it is difficult to have that discussion when one side is not knowledgeable enough about what it is they are trying to restrict.

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
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
29-04-2015, 04:46 PM
"More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(29-04-2015 04:40 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(29-04-2015 04:28 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I am asking you to substantiate your claims, stop trying to shift the burden of proof around some straw man that I am advocating for removing your guns.

I have pointed out that a firearm is the most effective weapon for the physically limited. I would also say that it is the most effective whenever there is a large physical disparity between assailant and victim.

I didn't say you were advocating removing my guns - I asked your opinion about whether I should get rid of my guns.

Quote:"Your math is wrong. It's 0.005%."
5 / 100,000 = 0.00005%.
In a place of 10,000 homes, 0.5 homes per year (on average) will be broken into.
I know how to divide.

5/100,000 = 0.00005 = 0.005%

Quote:"There is no need of a .50 Cal. machine gun in the general population. It wouldn't bother me much if those were entirely illegal. They're not, by the way."
And where you draw the line seems unreasonable to me, I think that the restrictions should be more restrictive.

But I haven't drawn a line. I was merely stating a fact about where the line is now.

Quote:I am still wondering how your fear-mongering arguments differ from Pascal's wager.... Consider

It is neither fear-mongering (I am not out mongering) nor is it anything like Pascal's Wager. Maybe you could explain how it is.

You have not addressed this:
Quote:The useful discussions to have are those about reasonable restrictions, but this discussion demonstrates that it is difficult to have that discussion when one side is not knowledgeable enough about what it is they are trying to restrict.

You've said a lot, but you have not demonstrated it is true.

Your argument is that you need guns because it is better to safe than sorry.

Pascal's wager is that it is better to believe because it is better to be safe than sorry.

As far as the percent question, 0.005% might be right, my brain is fried from grading all damn day.

As far as shifting the conversation to another topic, let's stick with your claims first. (Pretty sure I've outlined my idea of reasonable restrictions before on another thread)

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
29-04-2015, 05:06 PM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(13-04-2015 04:44 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  What is the point of hunting moose?

It might be tasty! Have you tried it? I haven't tried it ... yet. Like I said, it might be tasty and probably nutritious. Who knows? Anyone here eat moose?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2015, 05:11 PM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(29-04-2015 05:06 PM)TheBear Wrote:  
(13-04-2015 04:44 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  What is the point of hunting moose?

It might be tasty! Have you tried it? I haven't tried it ... yet. Like I said, it might be tasty and probably nutritious. Who knows? Anyone here eat moose?

If it is good then i will be the first in line to hunt a moose.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2015, 05:49 PM
"More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(29-04-2015 03:38 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  More fear-mongering.

If fear can't compel me to believe in god, why would you think it would compel me that your arguments for guns are valid?

On that point, what separates your fear arguments from that of theists like Aquinas? Consider

Since guns are real and we have them the onus is on you to prove that we shouldn't have them not the other way around.

You actually sound like the religious nut that is trying to make me believe a fantasy opinion of yours.

I can show you my gun and what it is capable of doing (tangible). You can't show me anything but rather want me to believe your fantasy (faith).

You are the one sprinkling holy water around not me. I'm not trying to convince you to get a gun. You are in fact trying to convince me that I shouldn't have one.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2015, 05:51 PM
"More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(29-04-2015 05:49 PM)KUSA Wrote:  
(29-04-2015 03:38 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  More fear-mongering.

If fear can't compel me to believe in god, why would you think it would compel me that your arguments for guns are valid?

On that point, what separates your fear arguments from that of theists like Aquinas? Consider

Since guns are real and we have them the onus is on you to prove that we shouldn't have them not the other way around.

You actually sound like the religious nut that is trying to make me believe a fantasy opinion of yours.

I can show you my gun and what it is capable of doing (tangible). You can't show me anything but rather want me to believe your fantasy (faith).

You are the one sprinkling holy water around not me. I'm not trying to convince you to get a gun. You are in fact trying to convince me that I shouldn't have one.

More strawman and shifting of the burden of proof.

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
29-04-2015, 05:55 PM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(29-04-2015 05:06 PM)TheBear Wrote:  
(13-04-2015 04:44 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  What is the point of hunting moose?

It might be tasty! Have you tried it? I haven't tried it ... yet. Like I said, it might be tasty and probably nutritious. Who knows? Anyone here eat moose?

Yup... I've eaten moose.

I've eaten deer, antelope, elk, racoon, alligator, turtle, frogs and more than a bug or two on my motorcycle.... (not really on purpose)...

And moose rates much higher than Junebugs.....

....

Fact --- We still have the guns and don't care if you're offended...

Have a nice day...

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: