Obama wants to bust your balls, and heads for renewing the assault weapons ban - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;37129023]I couldn't bring myself to kill someone. Perhaps I have an enormous guilt complex, but I would never do it. I'm not going to insult you for what you are willing to do, you're probably more reasonable than me. But I will not use something like a gun to defend myself on these grounds.[/QUOTE] Would you use a knife to defend yourself even though your attacker may die? Or would you just sit there and take it in the ass while he steals everything you own and rapes your wife? I'm sorry but I don't see this as a valid reason for advocating gun control. I called you out on it because there is no logical reason for regulating guns other than you're afraid of their potential. Do you drive a car?

[QUOTE=dogmachines;37128981]Total murders is more relevant.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Zillamaster55;37128985][B]Illinois, Total Murders[/B] [U]453[/U] That is from his source[/QUOTE] oh well then i don't see what you're complaining about dogmachines i just looked through disastercenter's sources (which are more disastercenter pages), the numbers for crime in illinois seems to only go up to 2005 in each individual county report. also could you help me find sources hosted by illinois PD's because it seems like disastercenter is posting the info and claiming it's from the PDs but i can't find the actual source for each stat. not trying to nitpick but i kinda trust the FBI more than i do disastercenter

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;37129023]I couldn't bring myself to kill someone. Perhaps I have an enormous guilt complex, but I would never do it. I'm not going to insult you for what you are willing to do, you're probably more reasonable than me. But I will not use something like a gun to defend myself on these grounds.[/QUOTE] I'm glad to see you recognize that, and I am glad to see that you are honest with the rest of us, as well as with yourself. That said, I don't see any reason to block the sale of weapons to people willing to defend themselves, just because you're not, do you?

[QUOTE=Xenomoose;37128584]Thanks for completely missing my point. My point, and it was even in that fucking post, was that if someone doesn't have a particular weapon, they'll find a replacement. Don't have a gun? Use a sword. Don't have that? How about a knife? Not even that? Well, it's possible to just use your bare hands.[/QUOTE] I saw your point, and it's a ridiculous point to draw from the facts you posted, hence why I was making fun of your point. Just because criminals will switch to knives if they can't get guns as easily doesn't mean we shouldn't restrict guns. That's just bad logic. Even if they do find a replacement, the replacement won't be nearly as deadly. [i]My[/i] point was that the example you used pretty much proved the opposite of what you were arguing for, that making a weapon readily available to everyone makes it easier for criminals to use it in violent crime. Personally, I believe Protocol has the right idea about making an effort to reduce the root societal causes of crime, but at the same time we also need to make an effort to reduce the availability of weapons, because they only add to the violence in a society with lots of crime such as ours (or the UK's, as in your example).

[QUOTE=Kopimi;37129084]oh well then i don't see what you're complaining about dogmachines i just looked through disastercenter's sources (which are more disastercenter pages), the numbers for crime in illinois seems to only go up to 2005 in each individual county report. also could you help me find sources hosted by illinois PD's because it seems like disastercenter is posting the info and claiming it's from the PDs but i can't find the actual source for each stat. not trying to nitpick but i kinda trust the FBI more than i do disastercenter[/QUOTE] I didn't bring up Illinois, I brought up DC. My statement was more in regards to the way people ignore total murder numbers when trying to argue against guns though.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;37128985][B]Illinois, Total Murders[/B] [U]453[/U] That is from his source[/QUOTE] "How bad is gun crime in the US? The latest data from the FBI's uniform crime reports is out and it provides a fascinating picture of the use of firearms in crimes across America." [url]http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010[/url]

Woah, over 500 posts. Where do the hours go?

[QUOTE=Echo 199;37129102]I saw your point, and it's a ridiculous point to draw from the facts you posted, hence why I was making fun of your point. Just because criminals will switch to knives if they can't get guns as easily doesn't mean we shouldn't restrict guns. That's just bad logic. Even if they do find a replacement, the replacement won't be nearly as deadly. [I]My[/I] point was that the example you used pretty much proved the opposite of what you were arguing for, that making a weapon readily available to everyone makes it easier for criminals to use it in violent crime. Personally, I believe Protocol has the right idea about making an effort to reduce the root societal causes of crime, but at the same time we also need to make an effort to reduce the availability of weapons, because they only add to the violence in a society with lots of crime such as ours (or the UK's, as in your example).[/QUOTE] Statistics for homicides where an attacker was killed get lumped in with homicides where the victim was killed. Removing weapons from law abiding citizens only removes a way for them to defend themselves adequately.

[QUOTE=reedbo;37129083]Would you use a knife to defend yourself even though your attacker may die? Or would you just sit there and take it in the ass while he steals everything you own and rapes your wife? I'm sorry but I don't see this as a valid reason for advocating gun control. I called you out on it because there is no logical reason for regulating guns other than you're afraid of their potential. Do you drive a car?[/QUOTE] I love how much it annoys you that I will not make the same decisions that you will. You simply cannot stand the fact that I don't think like you, do you? You're probably going to sit there and post a load of scenarios where I have to kill someone to save a loved one or some similar garbage. You probably want to paint me as some scared little man afraid of guns blah blah blah. No, I will defend loved ones. But I will not kill, or I will do everything in my power to stop someone from being killed. This includes not using guns. Very simple.

[QUOTE=dogmachines;37129110]I didn't bring up Illinois, I brought up DC. My statement was more in regards to the way people ignore total murder numbers when trying to argue against guns though.[/QUOTE] but we already went over this DC's crime rate spike directly correlated with with crack epidemic, and even after their harsh gun control was overruled in 2007 (or was it 2005?) their crime rate was higher than other cities, which means it looks like gun control wasn't the issue.

[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;37129116]"How bad is gun crime in the US? The latest data from the FBI's uniform crime reports is out and it provides a fascinating picture of the use of firearms in crimes across America." [url]http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010[/url][/QUOTE] Once again you ignore the total crime rate to focus exclusively on one kind of crime. [editline]7th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Kopimi;37129144]but we already went over this DC's crime rate spike directly correlated with with crack epidemic, and even after their harsh gun control was overruled in 2007 (or was it 2005?) their crime rate was higher than other cities, which means it looks like gun control wasn't the issue.[/QUOTE] I'm not talking about the spike in the 90s. I'm talking about the fact that's it so high right now.

[QUOTE=Kartoffel;37129100]I'm glad to see you recognize that, and I am glad to see that you are honest with the rest of us, as well as with yourself. That said, I don't see any reason to block the sale of weapons to people willing to defend themselves, just because you're not, do you?[/QUOTE] I would never recommend the blocking of sales of guns because I would not use them to defend myself. That is true. But I will never think of them are being necessary or justified. I think this might just be our differences.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;37129143]I love how much it annoys you that I will not make the same decisions that you will. You simply cannot stand the fact that I don't think like you, do you? You're probably going to sit there and post a load of scenarios where I have to kill someone to save a loved one or some similar garbage.[/QUOTE] That brings an interesting question; would you kill someone to save a loved one? [editline]7th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Cloak Raider;37129159]I would never recommend the blocking of sales of guns because I would not use them to defend myself. That is true. But I will never think of them are being necessary or justified. I think this might just be our differences.[/QUOTE] I think this is the case. I think it is safe to say that we can agree to disagree. Congratulations, we've made more progress than the average politician. [sp]For some reason, I feel like a diplomat now.[/sp]

[QUOTE=Echo 199;37129102]I saw your point, and it's a ridiculous point to draw from the facts you posted, hence why I was making fun of your point. Just because criminals will switch to knives if they can't get guns as easily doesn't mean we shouldn't restrict guns. That's just bad logic. Even if they do find a replacement, the replacement won't be nearly as deadly. [i]My[/i] point was that the example you used pretty much proved the opposite of what you were arguing for, that making a weapon readily available to everyone makes it easier for criminals to use it in violent crime. Personally, I believe Protocol has the right idea about making an effort to reduce the root societal causes of crime, but at the same time we also need to make an effort to reduce the availability of weapons, because they only add to the violence in a society with lots of crime such as ours (or the UK's, as in your example).[/QUOTE] That was another point I made in my original post in this thread. After rooting out all the societal issues that cause crime, that's when you actually hit the legal gun stores. Since citizens should feel safer with the reduced crime, they should have no real objections to any gun control laws introduced afterwords. "Self Defense? Against what?" one might say in this hypothetical scenario.

[QUOTE=Kartoffel;37129161]That brings an interesting question; would you kill someone to save a loved one? [editline]7th August 2012[/editline] I think this is the case. I think it is safe to say that we can agree to disagree. Congratulations, we've made more progress than the average politician. [sp]For some reason, I feel like a diplomat now.[/sp][/QUOTE] I'm going to say that you feel like a diplomat because you're the only one in this thread who hasn't snidely insulted me in almost every post, and that I might actually be able to discuss something with you without a knee jerk reaction. In answer to the question, I don't know. I find every scenario where I have to kill to save a loved one unrealistic, there's always another way. So I have no way of answering. What I want to say is that I will not kill. Ever.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;37129199]I'm going to say that you feel like a diplomat because you're the only one in this thread who hasn't snidely insulted me in almost every post.[/QUOTE] Hey, don't push your luck. :v:

[QUOTE=reedbo;37129136]Statistics for homicides where an attacker was killed get lumped in with homocides where the victim was killed. Removing weapons from law abiding citizens only removes a way for them to defend themselves adequately.[/QUOTE] Those are still citizens dying, and we should be trying to prevent that. And it doesn't [i]only[/i] remove a method of defense, it also greatly reduces the number of criminals who are using that weapon to attack someone in the first place. But still, we do also need to try to combat the underlying causes of violent crime in addition to the conduit.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;37129143]I love how much it annoys you that I will not make the same decisions that you will. You simply cannot stand the fact that I don't think like you, do you? You're probably going to sit there and post a load of scenarios where I have to kill someone to save a loved one or some similar garbage.[/QUOTE] It doesn't bother me that you have a different opinion it bothers me that you insist that your opinion is the only opinion that matters and that it should take precedent over others. My scenarios are just a way of expressing how I feel about the situation. No hard feelings. About the car question, driving car implies that you have the possibility of crashing into someone else killing them in the process. It's not the car that killed someone it's the person driving the car that kills someone else. I'm not trying to attack you but simply state that your opinion is bad and shouldn't influence the way others defend themselves.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;37129199]In answer to the question, I don't know. I find every scenario where I have to kill to save a loved one unrealistic, there's always another way. So I have no way of answering. What I want to say is that I will not kill. Ever.[/QUOTE] Just something I'd like to point out, you are right by saying that there is always another way. But often times, whenever you're in the heat of the moment, you don't take the time to think about it when a loved one's life is in danger. People in this situation usually act upon impulse.

[QUOTE=dogmachines;37129150]Once again you ignore the total crime rate to focus exclusively on one kind of crime. [editline]7th August 2012[/editline] I'm not talking about the spike in the 90s. I'm talking about the fact that's it so high right now.[/QUOTE] detroit's murder rate (per 100k) in 2011: 48.2 DC's murder rate (per 100k) in 2011: 17.4

[QUOTE=reedbo;37129240]It doesn't bother me that you have a different opinion it bothers me that you insist that your opinion is the only opinion that matters and that it should take precedent over others. My scenarios are just a way of expressing how I feel about the situation. No hard feelings. About the car question, driving car implies that you have the possibility of crashing into someone else killing them in the process. It's not the car that killed someone it's the person driving the car that kills someone else. I'm not trying to attack you but simply state that your opinion is bad and shouldn't influence the way others defend themselves.[/QUOTE] No problem. No hard feelings either. Clarification, on killing I'll never suggest that anyone should hold my opinion of it. Ethics is another question that everyone has to deal with personally. It is just my opinion that killing is the outright worst possible action, and that I'll do everything in my power to lessen the chances of it. But I'll never force this on another.

Wow, there's several separate conversations going on here. :v:

Cloak, my whole entire goal is not to belittle you but to reason out the root cause for why you would advocate gun control. If you had just said that you wouldn't be able to live with yourself after killing someone we would have never even had this whole discussion. Actually, I find it very respectable that you can't stand the thought of killing someone else, bad intentions or not, but to say that there should be stricter gun control because of that is just silly.

[QUOTE=reedbo;37129299]Cloak, my whole entire goal is not to belittle you but to reason out the root cause for why you would advocate gun control. If you had just said that you wouldn't be able to live with yourself after killing someone we would have never even had this whole discussion. Actually, I find it very respectable that you can't stand the thought of killing someone else, bad intentions or not, but to say that there should be stricter gun control because of that is just silly.[/QUOTE] Quite alright. I find it respectable that you're willing to stand up to someone who would do harm to loved ones or you. In all honestly I feel rather silly having gotten so stressed and angry over this argument. It is just a difference of opinion over these key issues after all. Feel like I've learned something.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;37129319]Quite alright. In all honestly I feel rather silly having gotten so stressed and angry over this argument. It is just a difference of opinion over these key issues after all. Feel like I've learned something.[/QUOTE] I value my life over anyone else who decides that they want to inflict harm on me or my loved ones and I wouldn't hesitate to end theirs. that's the difference between us. Too bad politicians can't figure this shit out...

[QUOTE=Xenomoose;37129187]That was another point I made in my original post in this thread. After rooting out all the societal issues that cause crime, that's when you actually hit the legal gun stores. Since citizens should feel safer with the reduced crime, they should have no real objections to any gun control laws introduced afterwords. "Self Defense? Against what?" one might say in this hypothetical scenario.[/QUOTE] Ah, so we're not that ideologically different. I think what you said is about 90% right, but I still feel we can do more to reduce gun prevalence right now.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;37129319]Quite alright. In all honestly I feel rather silly having gotten so stressed and angry over this argument. It is just a difference of opinion after all. Feel like I've learned something.[/QUOTE] Welcome to politics, where everything causes stress and anger, leaving the participants feeling either pissed off or silly. This whole aggravating discussion was actually a factor in me feeling burned out in my drawing class in college today. :v: [editline]7th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=reedbo;37129330]I value my life over anyone else who decides that they want to inflict harm on me or my loved ones and I wouldn't hesitate to end theirs. that's the difference between us. [b]Too bad politicians can't figure this shit out...[/b][/QUOTE] It's like they're all stupid or something! :v: [editline]7th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Xenomoose;37129187]Since citizens should feel safer with the reduced crime, they should have no real objections to any gun control laws introduced afterwords..[/QUOTE] You know, apart from the obvious "we think these guns are cool, and we'd like to have them". :v:

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YY5Rj4cQ50[/media] OH I'M SORRY I THOUGHT THIS WAS AMERICA

[QUOTE=Neat!;37129377][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YY5Rj4cQ50[/media] OH I'M SORRY I THOUGHT THIS WAS AMERICA[/QUOTE] Don't stir up the beehive, boy. :v:

[QUOTE=Echo 199;37129343]Ah, so we're not that ideologically different. I think what you said is about 90% right, but I still feel we can do more to reduce gun prevalence right now.[/QUOTE] We probably could, but it'd be hard to do without incurring the wrath of the more enthusiastic pro-gun activists like the NRA.