guns vs conspiracy - General

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48512308]what a lazy copout you haven't even read the research papers i posted here, and replied with newspaper articles that i doubt you read either the question of whenever or not the availability of firearms impacts on crime rates is a public policy question dependent on evidence and shit. it's not to do with "understanding culture" because it's irrelevant to the argument.[/QUOTE] I don't care what you posted. I've lived in several gun free and pro-gun areas. The pro gun areas are always safer. I was robbed by two people on an empty street with no one around, and I was unarmed... two weeks after moving to Maryland. Had I been able to protect myself things would have happened differently. Also had people casing my neighborhood when I moved to another part of Maryland and had to chase someone away with my 45 when they tried to bust my door down in that same neighborhood. Guess what, didn't fire a shot. These criminals know "most" people aren't armed or don't carry in public so they know who are easy targets. Your stupid stories are not true, and I have seen this firsthand. Your "arguments" are just as biased as you claim mine are. Live in the US and maybe you'll stop going Piers Morgan to every pro-gun argument. Otherwise, just agree to disagree. Guns save lives, and it's clearly saved mine, potentially, before...along with several people I know with similar stories.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48512308]what a lazy copout you haven't even read the research papers i posted here, and replied with newspaper articles that i doubt you read either the question of whenever or not the availability of firearms impacts on crime rates is a public policy question dependent on evidence and shit. it's not to do with "understanding culture" because it's irrelevant to the argument. it's easy to come into the middle of a debate, proclaiming all of the posters to be idiots, and then sit there feeling like you contributed to the thread when you didn't actually do anything. we've got a thread in general discussion where people are arguing about videogame journalism of all things, go complain to them for arguing about "the same goddamn thing"[/QUOTE] No I read all 6 pages, you guys are literally trying to change each others' views by jamming articles and newspaper reports into everyone's faces going "look i'm right, these statistics back up my opinions!" who gives a fuck, you're just shitting up a thread repeating the same shit over and over. But that's with any Sensationalist Headlines-esque thread. It's aggravating as fuck People on FP will argue about anything and everything

[QUOTE=EvilMattress;48512363]No I read all 6 pages, you guys are literally trying to change each others' views by jamming articles and newspaper reports into everyone's faces going "look i'm right, these statistics back up my opinions!"[/QUOTE] People can have their minds changed. However they generally wait until the argument is over before actually thinking about it in a way that isn't about just outdoing the other guy. [QUOTE=EvilMattress;48512085]This thread is fucking retarded, you guys aren't gonna change each others' minds. Just leave it be instead of making a 6 page long argument about the same goddamn thing.[/QUOTE] Whats the point of even saying this? "Quit arguing, theres no point" could be said about any topic. However stuff like gun rights is quite important.

[QUOTE=agentfazexx;48512328]I don't care what you posted. I've lived in several gun free and pro-gun areas. The pro gun areas are always safer. I was robbed by two people on an empty street with no one around, and I was unarmed... two weeks after moving to Maryland. Had I been able to protect myself things would have happened differently. Also had people casing my neighborhood when I moved to another part of Maryland and had to chase someone away with my 45 when they tried to bust my door down in that same neighborhood. Guess what, didn't fire a shot. These criminals know "most" people aren't armed or don't carry in public so they know who are easy targets. Your stupid stories are not true, and I have seen this firsthand.[/QUOTE] you haven't even replied to any specific arguments of mine. the point is that the research done by john lott that "more guns = less crime" is heavily flawed for a variety of reasons related to the shortcomings of his method of statistical analysis. the reason i focus on john lott is because the bulk of his research forms the basis of the contemporary view that having more guns available to a well-armed population assists in the reduction of crime. his research has been discredited, and the papers and research i have linked makes a very convincing argument. i wish to ask, have you read the papers i sent you? i mean, i at least read your fox news article and your anecdotes. [QUOTE=EvilMattress;48512363]No I read all 6 pages, you guys are literally trying to change each others' views by jamming articles and newspaper reports into everyone's faces going "look i'm right, these statistics back up my opinions!" who gives a fuck, you're just shitting up a thread repeating the same shit over and over. But that's with any Sensationalist Headlines-esque thread. It's aggravating as fuck[/QUOTE] what are you even doing here then? i mean it's obvious what people are talking about in this thread. i mean people argue about trivial bullshit on forums all the time, if you don't want to do that or read it that's fine, but don't come into threads and call everybody idiots if you have no intention of contributing to the debate

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;48512382]People can have their minds changed. However they generally wait until the argument is over before actually thinking about it in a way that isn't about just outdoing the other guy.[/QUOTE] Based on what? agentfazexx is pretty adamant on his views based on personal experience. You or anyone else will not change his view because some article/chart/graph/statistical evidence says "guns are bad." [QUOTE=Rangergxi;48512382] Whats the point of even saying this? "Quit arguing, theres no point" could be said about any topic. However stuff like gun rights is quite important.[/QUOTE] Because there is no point, as much as I hate saying this, people like Sobotnik who live in the UK aren't exposed to Firearms on a culture basis are going to dislike guns far more likely than someone from the U.S. in a gun-dense area. Sobotnik just goes and posts equally biased articles compared to agentfazexx arguing for gun control. It kind of gets to the point where it's like, what are you trying to prove? That you're right based on some statistics someone posted in an article on the internet?

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;48512382]People can have their minds changed. However they generally wait until the argument is over before actually thinking about it in a way that isn't about just outdoing the other guy. [/QUOTE] Except it seems in this thread, opinions are based on personal experiences. At least with myself and a few others. I have personally been saved from grievous injury and/or death through the use of a firearm. I have friends who were saved by the presence of a firearm. Other people have had similar experiences in this thread. Therefore, no amount of speaking in theoreticals is going to sway me/us. At the end of the day, that's all it is. The gun control argument is based on theory. There is no guarantee removing guns will remove crime (just as adding guns doesn't guarantee less crime), people are essentially saying we should give up a constitutional right just to have a [I]chance[/I] at improving the state of things. For someone who is indifferent about the subject, perhaps they can be swayed with statistics and claims of, "Muh Europe." But to someone who has seen firsthand the security having a firearm can have, the way it can change a situation from dire to survivable, theoreticals aren't going to change their mind.

[QUOTE=EvilMattress;48512400]Sobotnik just goes and posts equally biased articles compared to agentfazexx arguing for gun control.[/QUOTE] the articles i have been posting are usually research papers by researchers, criminologists, etc i am also curious, because none of the articles i've posted advocate for gun control

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48512450]the articles i have been posting are usually research papers by researchers, criminologists, etc i am also curious, because none of the articles i've posted advocate for gun control[/QUOTE] Regardless, you aren't going to sway anyone's opinion that you are currently arguing against Read: [QUOTE=MaverickIB;48512422]Except it seems in this thread, opinions are based on personal experiences. At least with myself and a few others. I have personally been saved from grievous injury and/or death through the use of a firearm. I have friends who were saved by the presence of a firearm. Other people have had similar experiences in this thread. Therefore, no amount of speaking in theoreticals is going to sway me/us. At the end of the day, that's all it is. The gun control argument is based on theory. There is no guarantee removing guns will remove crime (just as adding guns doesn't guarantee less crime), people are essentially saying we should give up a constitutional right just to have a [I]chance[/I] at improving the state of things. For someone who is indifferent about the subject, perhaps they can be swayed with statistics and claims of, "Muh Europe." But to someone who has seen firsthand the security having a firearm can have, the way it can change a situation from dire to survivable, theoreticals aren't going to change their mind.[/QUOTE] Because frankly, I don't want to repeat what he said

[QUOTE=EvilMattress;48512363]No I read all 6 pages, you guys are literally trying to change each others' views by jamming articles and newspaper reports into everyone's faces going "look i'm right, these statistics back up my opinions!" who gives a fuck, you're just shitting up a thread repeating the same shit over and over. But that's with any Sensationalist Headlines-esque thread. It's aggravating as fuck People on FP will argue about anything and everything[/QUOTE] What's aggravating is seeing someone go into a thread that has clearly been about discussion and discourse over a specific topic for days then acting like everyone is wrong for discussing the topic in it. You don't want to watch this argument? Nobody is strapping you to a chair and forcing you. These people want to discuss gun control, what about that effects you?

Just wanna say that the the appeal for guns to be protected *just* because they are in the constitution is basically a non-arguement. Who cares if an old document says you have a right to have guns? Same reason it wouldn't be persuasive if the constitution said every America needed to be circumcised. A law isn't objective, it was made by people for a particular crime - and if you want people to continue to follow it, you need arguements for its continuation.

[QUOTE=Rebi;48512463]What's aggravating is seeing someone go into a thread that has clearly been about discussion and discourse over a specific topic for days then acting like everyone is wrong for discussing the topic in it. You don't want to watch this argument? Nobody is strapping you to a chair and forcing you. These people want to discuss gun control, what about that effects you?[/QUOTE] i liek guns i want to keep muh guns

[QUOTE=EvilMattress;48512453]Regardless, you aren't going to sway anyone's opinion that you are currently arguing against[/QUOTE] all you're doing here is derailing the thread and are trying to make the posters here feel bad for talking about something you don't like to read just leave the thread if you don't plan on contributing

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48512478]all you're doing here is derailing the thread and are trying to make the posters here feel bad for talking about something you don't like to read just leave the thread if you don't plan on contributing[/QUOTE] I'm not trying to make you feel bad there Sobotnik, I'm just saying it's pointless to argue against someone who's opinion on guns is formed based on personal experience with them Because I have personal experience with guns in which I defended myself and was not harmed due to my protection Also, how am I derailing, I'm talking about the same shit you guys are? I was just saying it's pointless and dumb, but w/e

[QUOTE=EvilMattress;48512486]I'm not trying to make you feel bad there Sobotnik, I'm just saying it's pointless to argue against someone who's opinion on guns is formed based on personal experience with them[/QUOTE] One of the hallmarks of rational thinking is being able to use your personal experience to INFORM your beliefs, but also be willing to recognize if your personal experience is the exception not the rule - and be willing to weigh evidence that comes from both.

Why discount a personal experience? Its not like its some impossible to improve miracle that goes against the facts. Stories where people have protected themselves with guns or have been harmed by guns by criminals are quite common.

[QUOTE=Flameon;48512470]Just wanna say that the the appeal for guns to be protected *just* because they are in the constitution is basically a non-arguement. Who cares if an old document says you have a right to have guns? Same reason it wouldn't be persuasive if the constitution said every America needed to be circumcised. A law isn't objective, it was made by people for a particular crime - and if you want people to continue to follow it, you need arguements for its continuation.[/QUOTE] The right to bear arms isn't a law. It's a right. An unalienable right. Just like all of the other rights in the Bill of Rights. Saying the document's age nullifies it means all of those other rights are just as irrelevant. Who cares is an old document says you have a right to freely express yourself or practice any religion you wish? Besides, there are many extremely valid arguments for the continuation of the 2nd amendment. Your entire point is invalid on two levels.

[QUOTE=Flameon;48512498]One of the hallmarks of rational thinking is being able to use your personal experience to INFORM your beliefs, but also be willing to recognize if your personal experience is the exception not the rule - and be willing to weigh evidence that comes from both.[/QUOTE] Well of course it's the exception, I'm one person out of hundreds of millions. Not arguing against that. I'm not trying to argue on a grand scale in which we weigh evidence and debate and debate and debate. My opinions are my opinions, and I believe I would like to keep my guns regardless of any evidence that is thrown my way that guns =/= less crime

[QUOTE=Flameon;48512498]One of the hallmarks of rational thinking is being able to use your personal experience to INFORM your beliefs, but also be willing to recognize if your personal experience is the exception not the rule - and be willing to weigh evidence that comes from both.[/QUOTE] I'd say 48 thousand people a year is far from being an exception.

[QUOTE=MaverickIB;48512510]The right to bear arms isn't a law. It's a right. An unalienable right. Just like all of the other rights in the Bill of Rights. Saying the document's age nullifies it means all of those other rights are just as irrelevant. Who cares is an old document says you have a right to freely express yourself or practice any religion you wish? Besides, there are many extremely valid arguments for the continuation of the 2nd amendment. Your entire point is invalid on two levels.[/QUOTE] For sure, and the debate should be about the value of the 2nd ammendment. I don't think its valueable to say (Well, this old crusty document says I have this right, so I have it). Not saying there havent been valid arguements in this thread (there absolutely have, you have made them), but sometimes people would sprinkle in a little, "But its my right!" Like, yes, the document says it is your right, but we need to debate the merits of that 'right', because God didn't invent the 2nd ammendment, people did.

[QUOTE=Flameon;48512527]For sure, and the debate should be about the value of the 2nd ammendment. I don't think its valueable to say (Well, this old crusty document says I have this right, so I have it). Not saying there havent been valid arguements in this thread (there absolutely have, you have made them), but sometimes people would sprinkle in a little, "But its my right!" Like, yes, the document says it is your right, but we need to debate the merits of that 'right', because God didn't invent the 2nd ammendment, people did.[/QUOTE] It's not that some crusty old document says he has the right, it's enforced by the current government of the United States, ey.

[QUOTE=EvilMattress;48512548]It's not that some crusty old document says he has the right, it's enforced by the current government of the United States, ey.[/QUOTE] I wasn't aware this was a technical legal discussion about what constitutes a right to bear arms through the history of judicial review. I'm joking. I just don't think its productive debate to have - especially since ammendments are subject to change. (or rather it can be productive, but its a bit disingenuous to use it to answer the question: should there be guns)

[QUOTE=Flameon;48512562]I wasn't aware this was a technical legal discussion about what constitutes a right to bear arms through the history of judicial review. I'm joking. I just don't think its productive debate to have - especially since ammendments are subject to change.[/QUOTE] Are they though? Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't they have to add an amendment in order to nullify a previous one? Which if so, good luck to Congress in passing one that nullifies the second amendment

Legally you correct. Ammending the constitution will not erase the 2nd ammendment, but one could, in theory, have an ammendment added which repeals the 2nd. Congress also doesn't have to do it, there could be a constitutional convention by the states. I just think the legal question: do we have a right to bear arms? is seperate from the question: should we have a right to bear arms? So saying its your right in the constitution when confronted with the second is a bit disingenuous, thats all.

[QUOTE=Flameon;48512586]Legally you correct. Ammending the constitution will not erase the 2nd ammendment, but one could, in theory, have an ammendment added which repeals the 2nd. Congress also doesn't have to do it, there could be a constitutional convention by the states. I just think the legal question: do we have a right to bear arms? is seperate from the question: should we have a right to bear arms? So saying its your right in the constitution when confronted with the second is a bit disingenuous, thats all.[/QUOTE] I believe we should have the right to bear arms. If I didn't have that right, I might as well be dead

[QUOTE=EvilMattress;48512486]I'm not trying to make you feel bad there Sobotnik, I'm just saying it's pointless to argue against someone who's opinion on guns is formed based on personal experience with them Because I have personal experience with guns in which I defended myself and was not harmed due to my protection[/QUOTE] Well that may be true, but when it comes to formulating public policy we should conduct research that scrutinizes CCW laws (among other things) in order to determine if it is something that could be generalized into practical policies that could reduce crime rates. Although there are peoples personal experiences and all, it doesn't give them the right to dismiss research. Either one should say "yes, this research should form the basis of gun policy" or "no, this right is inalienable and shouldn't be infringed, even if research suggests we should modify gun policy". [QUOTE=Flameon;48512586]I just think the legal question: do we have a right to bear arms? is seperate from the question: should we have a right to bear arms? So saying its your right in the constitution when confronted with the second is a bit disingenuous, thats all.[/QUOTE] One of the interesting things about it is that the interpretation of the 2nd amendment has changed with time. The right to /bear/ arms for instance, does not cover concealed weapons, if you can store loads of munitions and guns, weapons inspections, permits, etc. Depending on the judge in the court or the legislator in the debating chamber, they could very well choose to restrict or expand all sorts of regulations. As time goes on, interpretations could start to noticeably drift even more as the USA changes as a country, while the English language itself will inevitably change.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48512616]Well that may be true, but when it comes to formulating public policy we should conduct research that scrutinizes CCW laws (among other things) in order to determine if it is something that could be generalized into practical policies that could reduce crime rates. Although there are peoples personal experiences and all, it doesn't give them the right to dismiss research. Either one should say "yes, this research should form the basis of gun policy" or "no, this right is inalienable and shouldn't be infringed, even if research suggests we should modify gun policy".[/QUOTE] Research like that has been done. That's why only a couple states are left in the US that have may issue instead of shall issue. There are tons of gifs out there that animate state's changes thru the years with color coding so you can understand easily. If guns are so dangerous and only cause violent crime, why are there only a couple states left in the US that won't issue carry permits, and why are they about to change those laws in remaining states? Hmm... Like how are you discounting that owning a gun does not help save lives? [B]I have personally saved my own life and know tons of others that have used firearms to save lives without firing a shot. How can you argue against this?[/B] Your dumb links don't do shit but quote some people that go hunting for anti-gun stats to prove whatever stupid point they are out to prove. Anything and everything has a bias. You can find any fact you want on the interwebs to prove your point. Tons of us have real world experience with firearms and can vouch that they save lives. I'd love to see your stats to counter that, buddy.

[QUOTE=agentfazexx;48512638]Research like that has been done. That's why only a couple states are left in the US that have may issue instead of shall issue. There are tons of gifs out there that animate state's changes thru the years with color coding so you can understand easily.[/QUOTE] This still doesn't address the actual impact of the policies covered by the research however. Much of the existing literature I have seen has shown little to no appreciable impact on reducing crime rates. [quote]Like how are you discounting that owning a gun does not help save lives? [B]I have personally saved my own life and know tons of others that have used firearms to save lives without firing a shot. How can you argue against this?[/B] Your dumb links don't do shit but quote some people that go hunting for anti-gun stats to prove whatever stupid point they are out to prove. Anything and everything has a bias. You can find any fact you want on the interwebs to prove your point. Tons of us have real world experience with firearms and can vouch that they save lives. I'd love to see your stats to counter that, buddy.[/QUOTE] I'm arguing against it because we are looking at the long term impact that these policies have. It may save a particular persons life, but has it reduced crime overall? Like, can this policy be generalized and adopted in places, and will it actually reduce crime rates? To give an example, say if you took a particular pill that reputedly treated a form of cancer. It might work for you, but does it work for everybody else? If these pills were distributed out to the population of a whole state, would you see a reduction in deaths caused by that form of cancer?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48512702]This still doesn't address the actual impact of the policies covered by the research however. Much of the existing literature I have seen has shown little to no appreciable impact on reducing crime rates.[/QUOTE] Well stop reading Piers Morgan bullshit then. You literally have no argument against those of us with real world experience with guns, albeit it's rare to have to use them but hey, I'd rather be safe than cowering in a corner like a pussy without a way to defend myself. The shit you are reading, you're searching for from an anti-gun standpoint I'd venture to guess. Explain to me why in the pro-gun states I have lived in that allow CCW have basically no crime, and where the anti-gun/no CCW states I've lived in have the worst crime. Please do elaborate on that with more statistics. I'm SO curious.

[QUOTE=agentfazexx;48512708]Explain to me why in the pro-gun states I have lived in that allow CCW have basically no crime, and where the anti-gun/no CCW states I've lived in have the worst crime. Please do elaborate on that with more statistics. I'm SO curious.[/QUOTE] Because these are different places with different exogenous factors at play. [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation[/url] This is an important factor when doing research. A state with low crime and CCW does not necessarily have low crime /because/ of CCW. You have to go in deep and study it, and determine whenever or not if the CCW really is responsible for a consistent reduction in crime rates. Another point I wish to make clear: [b]the articles I have been linking are generally /not/ suggesting that gun control policies should be adopted and reduce crime, only that CCW policies do not reduce crime[/b]

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48512736]Because these are different places with different exogenous factors at play. [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation[/url] This is an important factor when doing research. A state with low crime and CCW does not necessarily have low crime /because/ of CCW. You have to go in deep and study it, and determine whenever or not if the CCW really is responsible for a consistent reduction in crime rates.[/QUOTE] Did you totally miss what I posted before? [B]States are passing shall issue laws and their crime goes down.[/B] California just recently did, and that should say something. Detroit is now telling people to arm themselves. Like what criminal is going to mug people when they are probably armed? Criminals go after gun free zones because they know nobody is armed.