Gun Control: Where do you draw the line? - General

[QUOTE=download;39026577]How the hell is that a slippery slope fallacy? [/QUOTE] It's the exact definition of slippery slope. You're implying that changing one thing will result in many other things becoming true, which it isn't.

[QUOTE=gay_idiot;39026595]It's the exact definition of slippery slope. You're implying that changing one thing will result in many other things becoming true, which it isn't.[/QUOTE] No it's not. I'm saying that taking away the more popular method will simply lead to people choosing other methods To me it just sounds like you're going "oh no, he beat me, gotta throw out a logical fallacy claim so he's wrong!" [editline]30th December 2012[/editline] That's called a fallacy fallacy

[QUOTE=download;39026635]No it's not. I'm saying that taking away the more popular method will simply lead to people choosing other methods To me it just sounds like you're going "oh no, he beat me, gotta throw out a logical fallacy claim so he's wrong!" [editline]30th December 2012[/editline] That's called a fallacy fallacy[/QUOTE] Now you're just trolling dude, if you had an actual argument that wasn't fallacious then I will challenge it.

[QUOTE=gay_idiot;39026521]Slippery slope fallacy. People aren't spree killing with knives and cars in nearly as high numbers as people do with guns, and in areas where guns are banned they didn't increase. It'd almost certainly be the same for suicides.[/QUOTE] Killing sprees are rare occurrences. Since 1982 there have been about 62 mass shootings. In 2009 in the U.S. there were "13,636 total murder victims" and of those murder victims around 9800 of them were killed by a firearm. Also in 2009 for the U.S. "10,839 fatalities in crashes involving a driver with a BAC of .08 or higher" Killing sprees have accounted for a minuscule amount of the overall fatalities that occur in the United states. Drunk driving is also a comparable to homicide in total number of fatalities. If you are in support of banning guns to solve homicides, than would you also be in support of banning alcohol to solve drunk driving fatalities? [URL]http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_information/homicide.html[/URL] [URL]http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics.html[/URL]

Lets use Australia as an example. In 96 we had many guns banned, but our suicide rate continued to decline at the rate it hat been for 10 years. Showing that a ban did nothing to increase the rate of fall [editline]30th December 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=gay_idiot;39026645]Now you're just trolling dude, if you had an actual argument that wasn't fallacious then I will challenge it.[/QUOTE] Funny, I was here thinking you're the troll. You're quite happy to include irrelevant data in an attempt to inflate your statistics. Do you seriously think that owning a gun make people more likely to kill themselves?

[QUOTE=Valnar;39026650] Drunk driving is also a comparable to homicide in total number of fatalities. If you are in support of banning guns to solve homicides, than would you also be in support of banning alcohol to solve drunk driving fatalities? [/QUOTE] No, because one of those is intentionally using a weapon to kill, another is someone being stupid and getting behind the wheel of a vehicle while intoxicated. Deaths from drunk driving are rare occurrences, and they've decreased 52% since 1982. [url]http://www.centurycouncil.org/drunk-driving/drunk-driving-fatalities-national-statistics[/url]

[QUOTE=gay_idiot;39026672]No, because one of those is intentionally using a weapon to kill, another is someone being stupid and getting behind the wheel of a vehicle while intoxicated. Deaths from drunk driving are rare occurrences, and they've decreased 52% since 1982. [url]http://www.centurycouncil.org/drunk-driving/drunk-driving-fatalities-national-statistics[/url][/QUOTE] And what? It's better to die because someone got drunk instead of by a gun? [editline]30th December 2012[/editline] Unlike guns, alcohol has no use in society and therefore should be banned

[QUOTE=download;39026686]And what? It's better to die because someone got drunk instead of by a gun?[/QUOTE] No. But the intent differs greatly, nobody gets behind the wheel of a car to drive home and intends to kill someone. A spree killer however, [b]does[/b] intend to kill someone with the gun(s) they have. So, while the numbers maybe be similar, it is not relevant to gun crime and gun violence and to imply those who are anti-gun are also in favor of banning alcohol or driving are laughable. [editline]30th December 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=download;39026686] Unlike guns, alcohol has no use in society and therefore should be banned[/QUOTE] I agree. But this thread isn't about drug prohibition.

[QUOTE=gay_idiot;39026701] I agree. But this thread isn't about drug prohibition.[/QUOTE] Wow, you definitely are a troll then.

[QUOTE=gay_idiot;39026672]No, because one of those is intentionally using a weapon to kill, another is someone being stupid and getting behind the wheel of a vehicle while intoxicated. Deaths from drunk driving are rare occurrences, and they've decreased 52% since 1982. [URL]http://www.centurycouncil.org/drunk-driving/drunk-driving-fatalities-national-statistics[/URL][/QUOTE] Why does intention matter? Dead is dead regardless of the intention. Does it make those 10000 drunk driving fatalities mean anything less because the drunk driver didn't intend to get anyone killed? Why is it that guns get the blame and should be banned for homicides, but alcohol shouldn't get banned when it is the root cause of more deaths? How does the intention of the killer change the fact that someone died?

I take it you're one of those idiots who think every measure should be taken to save lives at the expense of liberty then? Going to have a speed cap on cars so you can't go over 5km/h are you?

I'd like to reiterate that mass murder is less than 1% of all firearm homicide in the U.S., so using mass murder as a reason to enact gun control is probably the stupidest thing you could do.

[QUOTE=Valnar;39026711]Why does intention matter? Dead is dead regardless of the intention.[/QUOTE] The law seems to think it matters, otherwise we wouldn't have a distinction between homicide and manslaughter. [QUOTE=Valnar;39026711] Does it make those 10000 drunk driving fatalities mean anything less because the drunk driver didn't intend to get anyone killed?[/QUOTE] No, why would it? [QUOTE=Valnar;39026711] Why is it that guns get the blame and should be banned for homicides, but alcohol shouldn't get banned when it is the root cause of more deaths?[/QUOTE] Because they are used in a disproportionate amount of homicides, and are a go-to weapon for criminals, street thugs and organized alike. [url]http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/weapons.cfm[/url]

[QUOTE=gay_idiot;39026735] No, why would it? [/QUOTE] Because the idiot who gets behind the wheel of a car drunk knows the consequences are fatal. I call that intentional

[QUOTE=download;39026750]Because the idiot who gets behind the wheel of a car drunk knows the consequences are fatal. I call that intentional[/QUOTE] Well, you can call it whatever you want, but in most places the law doesn't define it the way you do.

[QUOTE=gay_idiot;39026770]Well, you can call it whatever you want, but in most places the law doesn't define it the way you do.[/QUOTE] The law is not infallible, I'm not sure how this supports your argument.

[QUOTE=gay_idiot;39026735]The law seems to think it matters, otherwise we wouldn't have a distinction between homicide and manslaughter. No, why would it? Because they are used in a disproportionate amount of homicides, and are a go-to weapon for criminals, street thugs and organized alike. [URL]http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/weapons.cfm[/URL][/QUOTE] I was never arguing about how the law sees murder or manslaughter. How the law sees a death is irrelevant to my argument because we aren't dealing with the punishment of killers we are dealing with the issue of how to stop these deaths from happening.

[QUOTE=Valnar;39026786]I was never arguing about how the law sees murder or manslaughter. How the law sees a death is irrelevant to my argument because we aren't dealing with the punishment of killers we are dealing with the issue of how to stop these deaths from happening.[/QUOTE] The best option to stop gun crime is to outlaw guns entirely. Sure, they will still be around, and the black market will always exist, but the average dude or thug doesn't have these connections and isn't going to end up with a handgun or assault rifle with relative ease.

[QUOTE=gay_idiot;39026819]The best option to stop gun crime is to outlaw guns entirely. Sure, they will still be around, and the black market will always exist, but the average dude or thug doesn't have these connections and isn't going to end up with a handgun or assault rifle with relative ease.[/QUOTE] Care to back that up with something? Because that's moronic

[QUOTE=gay_idiot;39026819]The best option to stop gun crime is to outlaw guns entirely. Sure, they will still be around, and the black market will always exist, but the average dude or thug doesn't have these connections and isn't going to end up with a handgun or assault rifle with relative ease.[/QUOTE] There are 8 pages of this thread that prove why this doesn't work. Please cease trolling.

[QUOTE=gay_idiot;39026819]The best option to stop gun crime is to outlaw guns entirely. Sure, they will still be around, and the black market will always exist, but the average dude or thug doesn't have these connections and isn't going to end up with a handgun or assault rifle with relative ease.[/QUOTE] I'll leave you with this one question. Why would a gun ban work to stop gun fatalities, but an alcohol ban wouldn't work to stop alcohol fatalities? And if they both would "supposedly" work, then why aren't you for banning alcohol?

[QUOTE=Protocol7;39026830]There are 8 pages of this thread that prove why this doesn't work. Please cease trolling.[/QUOTE] How else do you explain there being much less gun crime in countries like the UK, South Korea, and Japan then? It's CONSIDERABLY lower than places where guns proliferate easily like the US.

[QUOTE=gay_idiot;39026841]How else do you explain there being much less gun crime in countries like the UK, South Korea, and Japan then? It's CONSIDERABLY lower than places where guns proliferate easily like the US.[/QUOTE] Try Switzerland, New Zealand, and Scandinavia where guns are everywhere and crime rates are very low It might have something to do with America barely qualifying as a first world country. Lacking a mental health system, a healthcare system, a terrible social security system, a failure of a war on drugs and a massive part of their population below the poverty line?

[QUOTE=Valnar;39026833]I'll leave you with this one question. Why would a gun ban work to stop gun fatalities, but an alcohol ban wouldn't work to stop alcohol fatalities? And if they both would "supposedly" work, then why aren't you for banning alcohol?[/QUOTE] Because alcohol has been a well-known recreational drug for several thousand years now, that is easy to make or acquire and has a large portion of the population (well over half) drinking it once in their life or regularly. Guns, however, do not have any of these perks and therefore would not be impacted the same by a ban than would alcohol. [editline]30th December 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=download;39026848] It might have something to do with America barely qualifying as a first world country. Lacking a mental health system, a healthcare system, a terrible social security system, a failure of a war on drugs and a massive part of their population below the poverty line?[/QUOTE] Yeah - you have no clue what you're talking about.

[QUOTE=gay_idiot;39026860]Because alcohol has been a well-known recreational drug for several thousand years now, that is easy to make or acquire and has a large portion of the population (well over half) drinking it once in their life or regularly. Guns, however, do not have any of these perks and therefore would not be impacted the same by a ban than would alcohol.[/quote] Funny, because her in Australia, despite a gun ban, it's still pretty easy to get illegal guns [quote] Yeah - you have no clue what you're talking about.[/QUOTE] I was going to say the same thing. Tell me, where am I wrong then?

[QUOTE=gay_idiot;39021334]But that's not true, because in countries where guns are banned there aren't just as many or more spree killings with other methods. Face it: guns are the reason there's more spree killings happening than ever before.[/QUOTE] Again There are several countries with a high rate of firearm ownership/possession that are actually ridiculously low in violent crime, let alone firearm homicide. Sweden for example, almost every male over the age of 18 has a legitimate military issue assault rifle in their homes, yet barely any firearm homicide.....why? Please keep up with the thread so we dont have to keep doing this circular debate bullshit

[QUOTE=gay_idiot;39026841]How else do you explain there being much less gun crime in countries like the UK, South Korea, and Japan then? It's CONSIDERABLY lower than places where guns proliferate easily like the US.[/QUOTE] Gun crime, sure. But we are talking about crime in general. I'll bet there is very little car crime in Kenya, but that doesn't mean that a ban on cars works everywhere.

I could walk into a hardware store and leave with everything I need to make a gun for less than $200, a prohibition wouldn't stop anything. Alcohol serves no useful purpose to society, it turns people to idiots and clouds their judgement. You can't feed your family fo even a week with a 24 of beer, but you can feed them indefinitely with just 1 gun. You can't protect your family with a bottle of Jack, but you can with a gun. Firearms have a positive use, alcohol doesn't.

It is important to also factor democide and governmental exploitation into the equation as well, as that is done at the equivalent of a gun. Is any monopoly of force capable of not using their guns?

[QUOTE=gay_idiot;39026645]Now you're just trolling dude, if you had an actual argument that wasn't fallacious then I will challenge it.[/QUOTE] ->is met with better logic then their own ->calls opponent a troll You've already done this multiple times now. Stahp.