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

[QUOTE=BFG9000;39031675]->is met with better logic then their own ->calls opponent a troll You've already done this multiple times now. Stahp.[/QUOTE] What? Nobody has yet to refute my points here, I've mostly been met with fallacious arguments and insults.

[QUOTE=gay_idiot;39032113]What? Nobody has yet to refute my points here, I've mostly been met with fallacious arguments and insults.[/QUOTE] Really? We've pretty much refuted all of your claims, and you're the one insulting us. All you're doing is baselessly claiming that the arguments presented against you are full of fallacy.

[QUOTE=gay_idiot;39032113]What? Nobody has yet to refute my points here, I've mostly been met with fallacious arguments and insults.[/QUOTE] Your "points" have been refuted time and time again, read the damn thread

[QUOTE=gay_idiot;39032113]What? Nobody has yet to refute my points here, I've mostly been met with fallacious arguments and insults.[/QUOTE] Really? "you are clearly trolling" "Yeah - you have no clue what you're talking about. " CAPTAIN OF THE DEBATE TEAM

Here's my statement that I always use in relation to gun control. Let's take a little example to get things going; You and a friend walk into a Bar downtown and start having drinks. Everything is going well until a specific gentleman walks into the door, this guy has it out for you and your friend. Be it history or something you guys did before you came in, either way he has it out for you. He approaches you at the bar and removes a pistol from his coat. Points it at you and your friend. What do you do? As it stands, your options are to sit still and die or run. That's it. No one can help you because this man, aside from the police, is likely the only one with a weapon in the area. Anyone who he deems to kill, can and likely will be killed. NOW! Let's take a trip to the past, shall we? Let's say 1806. You and your buddy head into a Saloon in town to grab a drink after a hard days work out on the ranch. You both sit down and order drinks while that same gentleman from above. As before he approaches you and withdraws his weapon. Demands retribution for your mistakes and points the gun at you. What happens next? Everyone in the Saloon is loaded to bat. Whether they have a rifle next to them at the table or a pistol on their hip. No one wants bullets flying for no reason and dead folks on the saloon floor. So as soon as that guy pulls his weapon, so does everyone else. I doubt very much the man would be willing to sacrifice his life then and there just for a little revenge. I think he'd rather live. If he doesn't and shoots anyways. He may only get a single kill or two before the rest of the saloon blows him the fuck away. So you tell me, which scenario would you rather be apart of? An Armed society is a polite society. [img]http://i.imgur.com/KRpti.png[/img]

[QUOTE=Keys;39042528] An Armed society is a polite society. [img]http://i.imgur.com/KRpti.png[/img][/QUOTE] What you can conclude from that graph is that there's no relation between the two variables. I'm against gun control but the classical "guns reduce crime" argument is bullshit. [url]http://islandia.law.yale.edu/ayers/Ayres_Donohue_article.pdf[/url]

[QUOTE=Black Milano;39043048]What you can conclude from that graph is that there's no relation between the two variables. I'm against gun control but the classical "guns reduce crime" argument is bullshit. [url]http://islandia.law.yale.edu/ayers/Ayres_Donohue_article.pdf[/url][/QUOTE] I have to agree. Here in Australia there is this chain mail floating around talking about how after the 96 buyback the crime and murder rates skyrocketed. In reality they continued to decline at the same rate as they had for the past 20 years

[QUOTE=Keys;39042528][img]http://i.imgur.com/KRpti.png[/img][/QUOTE] Even ignoring the lack of any correlation in this graph, it's comparing 'the total number of owned firearms' to the 'violent crime rate'. In order for this to work it would have to be 'the total number of owned firearms' and 'the total number of firearm-related violent crimes', or 'the total firearm ownership rate per capita' and 'the firearm-related violent crime rate'.

[QUOTE=Megafan;39047489]Even ignoring the lack of any correlation in this graph, it's comparing 'the total number of owned firearms' to the 'violent crime rate'. In order for this to work it would have to be 'the total number of owned firearms' and 'the total number of firearm-related violent crimes', or 'the total firearm ownership rate per capita' and 'the firearm-related violent crime rate'.[/QUOTE] No, actually, it really wouldn't, as firearms are just one small facet of violent crime. If a country, like Britain, has gun crime go down after prohibitions (and actually it hasn't, it's gone up 98%), though in that same time frame knife crime jumps (as it has in Britain, about 300%), is the society safer? No, of course it isn't. The objective of gun control is, in theory and as propagated, to make a country safer. If the country is no safer after gun control is enacted, then gun control has failed. To try to isolate gun control's effectiveness to only select types of crime (IE gun crime) is to ignore the fact that it was never the gun causing crime in the first place, it was underlying social issues. If a society, after gun control, is just as, if not more, violent, even if it's by different means than a gun, then gun control has failed to solve the issues of violence in the country, regardless of where the rates of gun crime stand. [editline]1st January 2013[/editline] As for the correlation, during the period on which that graph shows the most dramatic decrease, and indeed the graph for US homicides will show an equally dramatic decrease as well, that period was when most US States enacted a shall-issue concealed-carry law. More people being able to defend themselves led to a lower violent crime rate.

Gun control is completely ineffective if the murder rate remains the same because criminals have moved onto other weapons

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;39051933]As for the correlation, during the period on which that graph shows the most dramatic decrease, and indeed the graph for US homicides will show an equally dramatic decrease as well, that period was when most US States enacted a shall-issue concealed-carry law. More people being able to defend themselves led to a lower violent crime rate.[/QUOTE] Levitt and Donohue argue that the main factor explaining the decline of crime rate is legalized abortion. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Impact_of_Legalized_Abortion_on_Crime[/url] Other people claim that zero tolerance policies and new police tactics did the trick, or CC. Truth be told, other than common sense stuff (income, education) we know jack shit about what moves crime rates around, let alone mass murders, suicides and the like. Gun control policies are just punches in the dark. [editline]1st January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=download;39051979]Gun control is completely ineffective if the murder rate remains the same because criminals have moved onto other weapons[/QUOTE] We have tight gun controls here and criminals make their own 12 gauge shotguns out of pipes. [img]http://spd.fotolog.com/photo/13/1/86/ragnarok88/1247888719949_f.jpg[/img] They take about 10 minutes to make and cost around 5$, no welding needed. You just can't compete against that, and hell, a 12 gauge round has some serious power.

[B]The USA won't be able to draw the line anymore.[/B] There's already millions and millions of firearms residing into homes of men, women and children alike. I live in the Netherlands and we're not even allowed to carry around a plastic pistol or whatsoever. (Not that I do, that is) Point is, I have seen multiple videos and scenes of real life documentaries (I advise watching Bowling for Columbine) whereas Michael Moore basically finds out how he is able to receive a free rifle in exchange for having an account at a specific bank. I have no hatred against America, but if you're legalizing firearms and people get murdered randomly, you should've expected that a long time ago, Obama.

[QUOTE=Lockhart;39128312][B]The USA won't be able to draw the line anymore.[/B] There's already millions and millions of firearms residing into homes of men, women and children alike. I live in the Netherlands and we're not even allowed to carry around a plastic pistol or whatsoever. (Not that I do, that is) Point is, I have seen multiple videos and scenes of real life documentaries (I advise watching Bowling for Columbine) whereas Michael Moore basically finds out how he is able to receive a free rifle in exchange for having an account at a specific bank. I have no hatred against America, but if you're legalizing firearms and people get murdered randomly, you should've expected that a long time ago, Obama.[/QUOTE] So you join FP, and your first post is in MD, in one of the most controversial threads... Right...

[QUOTE=download;39128474]So you join FP, and your first post is in MD, in one of the most controversial threads... Right...[/QUOTE] And why would that be a problem? I can post wherever I want to, right? Wether that's in Minecraft or in Mass Debate.

[QUOTE=Lockhart;39128505]And why would that be a problem? I can post wherever I want to, right? Wether that's in Minecraft or in Mass Debate.[/QUOTE] To me that's the sign of someone who wants to argue using an alt so they're not associated with eachother. If you're not: you probably should read the thread in its entirety, and not use Moore as an example.

We need to work on licensing firearms, not selling one without a background check. Banning them is redundant. Your a fool if you think a someone who has a mental illness or determined to kill someone with a assault rifle is going to follow a weapons ban.

I'll just leave this here. [video=youtube;W6-FtsnIFsc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6-FtsnIFsc&list=UU193r5YXcpQJV34N99ZbhzQ&index=4[/video] [editline]7th January 2013[/editline] Celebrities and the government are the most hypocritical of them all. Celebrities have armed security, they shouldn't even be talking about gun control, Obama and his family should have no say in gun control since they have Secret Service following them, Dianne Feinstein should have no say since she conceal carries and has armed security. If you want to talk gun control, get rid of your weapons and armed security personnel.

[QUOTE=Michael haxz;39129236]We need to work on licensing firearms, not selling one without a background check. [/QUOTE] What are you trying to diminish?

The way I see it is, if some crazy ass dude wants to kill people, they are going to find a way, guns or not. Someone could do more damage racing their car down a popular sidewalk than walking around with a gun, honestly. Someone did it in my town years ago -- Should have we banned cars? The people who are against guns because they are deadly in the wrong hands are straight delusional. Getting rid of guns wont solve crazy people doing crazy things.

[QUOTE=GravyKing;39131784]I'll just leave this here. [video=youtube;W6-FtsnIFsc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6-FtsnIFsc&list=UU193r5YXcpQJV34N99ZbhzQ&index=4[/video] [editline]7th January 2013[/editline] Celebrities and the government are the most hypocritical of them all. Celebrities have armed security, they shouldn't even be talking about gun control, Obama and his family should have no say in gun control since they have Secret Service following them, Dianne Feinstein should have no say since she conceal carries and has armed security. If you want to talk gun control, get rid of your weapons and armed security personnel.[/QUOTE] People are entitled to their opinions, even if they have guards. Also i don't like the guy in the video when he makes derisive comments about gun control legislators around Sandy Hook. Or when he says that Gun control people jump on the shootings, the other side is guilty of this too. The NRA blames everything but guns whenever this sort of thing happens.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39136663]People are entitled to their opinions, even if they have guards. Also i don't like the guy in the video when he makes derisive comments about gun control legislators around Sandy Hook. Or when he says that Gun control people jump on the shootings, the other side is guilty of this too. The NRA blames everything but guns whenever this sort of thing happens.[/QUOTE] Opinions can be hypocritical, which was the point of that video. If you are for strict gun control, but have armed guards there is hypocrisy. On one hand you are saying that guns need to be much more controlled and on the other hand you are using hired people with firearms to protect yourself.

[QUOTE=Valnar;39136867]Opinions can be hypocritical, which was the point of that video. If you are for strict gun control, but have armed guards there is hypocrisy. On one hand you are saying that guns need to be much more controlled and on the other hand you are using hired people with firearms to protect yourself.[/QUOTE] Most of what that guy is saying makes it sound as though he's clueless, or doing it for expediency. He says you are a hypocrite for believing in the first amendment whilst supporting gun control.

I have a feeling, that this piece of legislation is a part of something much bigger. I will stop here; [url]http://www.examiner.com/article/president-obama-could-get-3-terms-if-h-j-res-15-abolishes-term-limits[/url] [editline]7th January 2013[/editline] Something big, unexpected, words can't define my fear.

[QUOTE=GravyKing;39137458]I have a feeling, that this piece of legislation is a part of something much bigger. I will stop here; [url]http://www.examiner.com/article/president-obama-could-get-3-terms-if-h-j-res-15-abolishes-term-limits[/url] [editline]7th January 2013[/editline] Something big, unexpected, words can't define my fear.[/QUOTE] Their is no fucking way that term limits will be repealed.

[QUOTE=DuCT;39137540]Their is no fucking way that term limits will be repealed.[/QUOTE] I hope so, but what if there was some "accident" that would happen to the house? Sound familiar.

[QUOTE=GravyKing;39137458]I have a feeling, that this piece of legislation is a part of something much bigger. I will stop here; [url]http://www.examiner.com/article/president-obama-could-get-3-terms-if-h-j-res-15-abolishes-term-limits[/url] [editline]7th January 2013[/editline] Something big, unexpected, words can't define my fear.[/QUOTE] How does this tie in to gun control? Secondly, this all sounds borderline conspiracy. [editline]8th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=GravyKing;39137559]I hope so, but what if there was some "accident" that would happen to the house? Sound familiar.[/QUOTE] Oh don't tell me you plan on shooting up the place.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39137594]How does this tie in to gun control? Secondly, this all sounds borderline conspiracy. [editline]8th January 2013[/editline] Oh don't tell me you plan on shooting up the place.[/QUOTE] For fuck's sake, no. House is the only thing standing in the way of these 2 bills. Senate and Congress are controlled by the democrats. Think. [editline]7th January 2013[/editline] To be honest, I hope to God I'm wrong.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39137594]How does this tie in to gun control? Secondly, this all sounds borderline conspiracy. [/QUOTE] I have to agree with Sobotnik, that has nothing to do with Gun Control, make another thread for it [editline]8th January 2013[/editline] If you had bothered to read the article you would also have seen that attempts to repeal it happen all the time

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39137594]How does this tie in to gun control? Secondly, this all sounds borderline conspiracy. [editline]8th January 2013[/editline] Oh don't tell me you plan on shooting up the place.[/QUOTE] I agree with you on the conspiracy bit, but I do see the angle he's talking about. He's basically saying the government wants to disarm us so they can do whatever they damn well please with no risk of repercussions from their own citizens. I'm not usually one to buy into conspiracy theories and I don't buy into this one, but I'm not gonna lie, the idea scares me.

[QUOTE=Ekalektik_1;39139429]I agree with you on the conspiracy bit, but I do see the angle he's talking about. He's basically saying the government wants to disarm us so they can do whatever they damn well please with no risk of repercussions from their own citizens. I'm not usually one to buy into conspiracy theories and I don't buy into this one, but I'm not gonna lie, the idea scares me.[/QUOTE] There will never be a required nationwide taking of firearms in the U.S. because any politician even saying anything about supporting that would be committing political suicide. Nobody in the U.S. likes the idea of the government taking any type of property away.