Gun control: the results are in?
- Thread starter Nasor
- Start date
- Status
Undecided, I'm not going to argue with you about this any more. I'm convinced that I've presented a good case for my contention, and that no amount of reasoned argument will ever get you to change your mind. Frankly, arguing with you isn't worth my time any more.
I'm sure you'll interpret this as proof that your arguments are unassailable and an admission on my part that my arguments are invalid, but I'll leave that up to the judgement of the other readers of this thread. Assuming anyone else is still even paying attention here.
Cognitive surrender? I’ve never seen it so blatant!
Nasor, your argument was based on nothing. Your argument was based on this:
I'm sure you'll interpret this as proof that your arguments are unassailable and an admission on my part that my arguments are invalid, but I'll leave that up to the judgement of the other readers of this thread. Assuming anyone else is still even paying attention here.
Cognitive surrender? I’ve never seen it so blatant!
Nasor, your argument was based on nothing. Your argument was based on this:Even you agreed with that premise as shown here: While corelation doesn't imply causation, it's still very strong evidence.I don’t need to say anything more, you said it all for me.
You seem to be missing the point. People are violent with or without guns. Guns are NOT the cause, and will NOT help reduce murders.
Why then is gun related murders in Canada decreasing, about 10% since the beginning of gun control? You seem to miss the point of the conversation, it’s not to say violence and murder will disappear forever the argument is why allow a innately dangerous weapon to exist in innately violent people?
Not that they outlawed wife-beating, not the belt that the guy used
The belt is not a weapon a gun is…
Why then is gun related murders in Canada decreasing, about 10% since the beginning of gun control? You seem to miss the point of the conversation, it’s not to say violence and murder will disappear forever the argument is why allow a innately dangerous weapon to exist in innately violent people?
Not that they outlawed wife-beating, not the belt that the guy used
The belt is not a weapon a gun is…
L
laughing weasel
Guest
What they are saying undecided is why do you want to remove our right to bear arms. If it is to reduce your chances of being killed by a gun then it will work. You will reduce your chances of being killed by a gun however you will increase your chances of being murdered by some other means by the exact same amount. If there were 40 murders committed in Canada last year and thirty of them were caused by guns and you reduced the number of gun deaths to 10 then the number of deaths caused by other instruments would go up by twenty. This would result in no gain for society or you there are still 40 dead people. There are also many upset people because you have imposed on their freedoms for no reason.
L
laughing weasel
Guest
It is up to you to prove that the removal of the weapon will contribute to public welfare. It has been established that it probably would not contribute to public welfare. It is a fact that it would be a restriction on many people’s rights. Just because other peoples rights are not important to you does not mean that is sufficient cause to remove their rights. You have failed to show any justification for you argument other than guns are evil. You have chosen to ignore the facts presented to you while continuing to argue that a gun is only designed to kill. You are imposing your anti-gun religion on us.
I think the problem is that the american society is a violent one and hence guns should be restricted. In general you are not fit to have a gun.
This would result in no gain for society or you there are still 40 dead people. There are also many upset people because you have imposed on their freedoms for no reason.
Firstly I want to know how long it took for post-gun murders took to make up for the lack of gun violence. Secondly most people agree with my stance in the US, indicating that their rights are being violated as well. Gun violence depreciates that’s the only goal that gun control laws have, you are doing something that is not the goal of gun control laws, and it’s not murder control laws. Until Gun supporters get this VERY BASIC concept your arguments are moot, because the laws work.
Just because other peoples rights are not important to you does not mean that is sufficient cause to remove their rights. You have failed to show any justification for you argument other than guns are evil. You have chosen to ignore the facts presented to you while continuing to argue that a gun is only designed to kill. You are imposing your anti-gun religion on us.
Their rights to own guns run in correlation with militia’s most gangsters in Compton are not part of a militia, so that is a moot point. I have shown my justification numerous times, I suggest you re-read what I wrote in this entire thread, and I never said guns are evil. I said that guns are designed for one thing, to kill/maim nothing else. Answer this question then:
Anthrax is surely more dangerous then my fertilizer, sure it is. A gun is more dangerous then my spoon, but why do we ban Anthrax for public consumption rather then a gun, they both can kill the same amount of people, Anthrax is notoriously hard to spread. I don’t see the difference btwn 5 bullets and 5 Anthrax viruses. 5 easily preventable deaths.
Do you?
What facts have been presented to me to suggest that guns aren’t designed to kill? I asked 3 ppl to tell me what other use the gun has, no one has answered. My anti-gun religion, more like logic, I'm sorry if I am not co-opted by the NRA.
Firstly I want to know how long it took for post-gun murders took to make up for the lack of gun violence. Secondly most people agree with my stance in the US, indicating that their rights are being violated as well. Gun violence depreciates that’s the only goal that gun control laws have, you are doing something that is not the goal of gun control laws, and it’s not murder control laws. Until Gun supporters get this VERY BASIC concept your arguments are moot, because the laws work.
Just because other peoples rights are not important to you does not mean that is sufficient cause to remove their rights. You have failed to show any justification for you argument other than guns are evil. You have chosen to ignore the facts presented to you while continuing to argue that a gun is only designed to kill. You are imposing your anti-gun religion on us.
Their rights to own guns run in correlation with militia’s most gangsters in Compton are not part of a militia, so that is a moot point. I have shown my justification numerous times, I suggest you re-read what I wrote in this entire thread, and I never said guns are evil. I said that guns are designed for one thing, to kill/maim nothing else. Answer this question then:
Anthrax is surely more dangerous then my fertilizer, sure it is. A gun is more dangerous then my spoon, but why do we ban Anthrax for public consumption rather then a gun, they both can kill the same amount of people, Anthrax is notoriously hard to spread. I don’t see the difference btwn 5 bullets and 5 Anthrax viruses. 5 easily preventable deaths.
Do you?
What facts have been presented to me to suggest that guns aren’t designed to kill? I asked 3 ppl to tell me what other use the gun has, no one has answered. My anti-gun religion, more like logic, I'm sorry if I am not co-opted by the NRA.
L
laughing weasel
Guest
My rights are not dependent on the government all of its rights are dependent on me. That is something you liberals refuse to acknowledge (Isn’t name calling fun?). If the government wants to disenfranchise me then it has to present a compelling reason to do so. Changing the nature of how people die is not a good enough reason. If removing my weapons increased peoples lifespan then it might be a worth while goal. It does not increase people’s lifespan it only changes how they die. They are still dead and they are still murdered the only change is how they are killed. Using the disease model it would do no good to cure some one of cancer if he was going to die at 3:00 by lethal injection.
L
laughing weasel
Guest
Guns are designed to kill and to intimidate. If criminal breaks into my house he gets to hear one of the scariest sounds in the world the sound of a shogun being cocked. I really hope that this will convince him that he is in the wrong house and to leave quietly. A weapon is also the last defense against a tyrannical government. Even if you believe that the United States or Canada or whatever country you are from can defy the odds and remain free fat and happy forever I do not and if necessary I would like the option to attempt to defend my freedom from all enemies foreign and domestic. That is the purpose that weapons serve and unless you present a more compelling argument then no you cannot take my weapons.
My rights are not dependent on the government all of its rights are dependent on me.
Maybe in anarchy but obviously that’s really just ideological dribble, you live in a social contract with the state and you are only allowed to things the state deems legal. Do you kill people because you consider it your right too? Do you flash people? Obviously not, you aren’t fooling me, the only right you have to own a gun is if you are in a militia are you?
That is something you liberals refuse to acknowledge (Isn’t name calling fun?).
Although I can’t be considered a liberal, I don’t find the term insult; rather it is rather satisfying considering that most liberals are generally more educated. So thank you…I’m flattered.
If the government wants to disenfranchise me then it has to present a compelling reason to do so. Changing the nature of how people die is not a good enough reason.
So then I guess using your logic we can just bring up the old Anthrax, since we can’t ban things that change the way people die, I guess we should legalize everything as well.
They are still dead and they are still murdered the only change is how they are killed.
According to Canadian stats 10% of the population that died in 1999 was saved.
Using the disease model it would do no good to cure some one of cancer if he was going to die at 3:00 by lethal injection.
That’s a unproven assumption, I have to see actual evidence to support a direct link btwn the gun and murder rates.
Maybe in anarchy but obviously that’s really just ideological dribble, you live in a social contract with the state and you are only allowed to things the state deems legal. Do you kill people because you consider it your right too? Do you flash people? Obviously not, you aren’t fooling me, the only right you have to own a gun is if you are in a militia are you?
That is something you liberals refuse to acknowledge (Isn’t name calling fun?).
Although I can’t be considered a liberal, I don’t find the term insult; rather it is rather satisfying considering that most liberals are generally more educated. So thank you…I’m flattered.
If the government wants to disenfranchise me then it has to present a compelling reason to do so. Changing the nature of how people die is not a good enough reason.
So then I guess using your logic we can just bring up the old Anthrax, since we can’t ban things that change the way people die, I guess we should legalize everything as well.
They are still dead and they are still murdered the only change is how they are killed.
According to Canadian stats 10% of the population that died in 1999 was saved.
Using the disease model it would do no good to cure some one of cancer if he was going to die at 3:00 by lethal injection.
That’s a unproven assumption, I have to see actual evidence to support a direct link btwn the gun and murder rates.
My god... you have to be kidding me. You think thatUndecided said:
lowering the number of gun murders is a goal in itself, even if the number of murders stay the same?
Who the fuck cares if people use a bat or a gun to kill someone? You aren't fixing the problem at all. Hell, you aren't even addressing it. It's like outlawing cupcakes because people eat to much.
You think that
lowering the number of gun murders is a goal in itself, even if the number of murders stay the same?
Yes, that the purpose of gun control laws, we have another law called murder that should deal with the rest. Why give someone the ability to kill in the first place, all other machinations are not designed to kill a gun is. Why give a nuclear weapon to NK if she is only going to use conventional bombs anyway, see this your argument. Think about the categorical imperative here, what if everyone adhered to your mores?
Who the fuck cares if people use a bat or a gun to kill someone?
I do, because the bat is not supposed to be used for that a gun is.
You aren't fixing the problem at all. Hell, you aren't even addressing it.
How can I address an imaginary and unproven link? I hear the Galileo complex coming against oh Pope.
lowering the number of gun murders is a goal in itself, even if the number of murders stay the same?
Yes, that the purpose of gun control laws, we have another law called murder that should deal with the rest. Why give someone the ability to kill in the first place, all other machinations are not designed to kill a gun is. Why give a nuclear weapon to NK if she is only going to use conventional bombs anyway, see this your argument. Think about the categorical imperative here, what if everyone adhered to your mores?
Who the fuck cares if people use a bat or a gun to kill someone?
I do, because the bat is not supposed to be used for that a gun is.
You aren't fixing the problem at all. Hell, you aren't even addressing it.
How can I address an imaginary and unproven link? I hear the Galileo complex coming against oh Pope.
Last edited:
Sorry I haven't been around the past several days. Work has me particularly busy at the moment for the IOC rollout this September, and I'm off to Shemya, Alaska at the end of the week. Such is life. Anyway:
Also, concealed weapons have been credited with a marked decrease in crime in communities with a shall-issue policy toward them. Criminals are much less ostentacious when it is questionable how equipped their victims are to defend themselves. (See Lott's study I linked to a few pages back).
In other news: A report from Scotland Yard shows that gun crime in London, England, has increased by nearly 90 percent, This is London reported Dec. 19..
Statistics like these so completely trump the arguments of folks like nico and tiassa that I'm wondering why they even continue to this day. The sooner you folks admit that this stuff isn't working as it was sold, the better it will be for your own credibility.
I wonder how many more years of failed policy it is going to take to convince the gun grabbers that their transitory nostrum is entirely ineffective at dealing with this purported epidemic of gun crime we are supposed to be afraid of.
Edit: And I still have yet to see ANY of you address the simple fact that firearm custody is a right enumerated in the US Constitution. Good luck trying to change that.
Ignoring this obvious personal issue you seem to have with me, you've explained nothing. Let's go back to the picture I posted. What was wrong with it?tiassa said:
As I suspected, neither you nor tiassa are capable of addressing what I posted. Thanks for making my job easier. Anyway:Undecided said:
True yet irrelevant. As has been shown, firearm restrictions will only apply to honest citizens who volitionally relinquish their guns to authorities. Not to criminals. So, you are only disarming honest citizens (who you seem to have an innate fear of) and in so doing giving the criminal element a larger advantage than they already have. Yeah, that'll work.tiassa said:
You have no idea what the 2nd Ammendment really says, do you? By all means let me know if you need anything clarified, and I'll help you out.b0urgeoisie said:
Also, concealed weapons have been credited with a marked decrease in crime in communities with a shall-issue policy toward them. Criminals are much less ostentacious when it is questionable how equipped their victims are to defend themselves. (See Lott's study I linked to a few pages back).
Good man. Argumentum ad nauseam is one of his favorite tools to scramble for after being schooled. But don't worry - he admitted to not knowing much about this several pages ago, so he is, for our purposes, irrelevant.Nasor said:
In other news: A report from Scotland Yard shows that gun crime in London, England, has increased by nearly 90 percent, This is London reported Dec. 19..
Statistics like these so completely trump the arguments of folks like nico and tiassa that I'm wondering why they even continue to this day. The sooner you folks admit that this stuff isn't working as it was sold, the better it will be for your own credibility.
I wonder how many more years of failed policy it is going to take to convince the gun grabbers that their transitory nostrum is entirely ineffective at dealing with this purported epidemic of gun crime we are supposed to be afraid of.
Edit: And I still have yet to see ANY of you address the simple fact that firearm custody is a right enumerated in the US Constitution. Good luck trying to change that.
Last edited:
spuriousmonkey said:
There are many people who scare me in my country. The fact that Michael
Moore needs bodyguards, or the sincere death threats that Ted Rall regularly receives do not make me want to get rid of my firearms. I know that, no matter what, those psychos will have firearms.
I'll keep mine, thank you.
Repo Man said:
I can sincerely understand your dilemma, but don't you think that maybe it is time to act, instead of letting things escalate even further?
Basically you are saying that the US is locked into an arms race just as once the US and the USSR were?
L
laughing weasel
Guest
http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
This is what the declaration of independence means to me government is at my sufferance. It should not be overthrown lightly. Every one has a duty in its preservation creation and maintenance. It does not have any rights it has powers that the citizens grant it no more i do not get my right from the bill of rights they are mine to begin with. I give the government set powers limited to what is stated in the constitution. If the government wants more powers it can argue for them with the Supreme Court or pass an amendment to get them. i do not derive my right to own guns from any of the constitutional amendments. It is an inherent right to own property. Anthrax can be considered a clear and present danger to the community at large. Anthrax is not an effective form of self defense and is not useful for any thing but a preemptive strike. It is not even used by our military for this reason. This puts it in the category of things that may be regulated by the federal government.
This is what the declaration of independence means to me government is at my sufferance. It should not be overthrown lightly. Every one has a duty in its preservation creation and maintenance. It does not have any rights it has powers that the citizens grant it no more i do not get my right from the bill of rights they are mine to begin with. I give the government set powers limited to what is stated in the constitution. If the government wants more powers it can argue for them with the Supreme Court or pass an amendment to get them. i do not derive my right to own guns from any of the constitutional amendments. It is an inherent right to own property. Anthrax can be considered a clear and present danger to the community at large. Anthrax is not an effective form of self defense and is not useful for any thing but a preemptive strike. It is not even used by our military for this reason. This puts it in the category of things that may be regulated by the federal government.
Legalize drugs.
L
laughing weasel
Guest
How is it constitutional to outlaw drugs but not alcohol? It’s a real question.
What do you mean 'escalate even further'? The murder rate in the U.S. has been dropping for over a decade, even as most state have relaxed their gun control laws. It's kind of hard for me to get excited about gun control when it has failed to lower crime rates in any of the countries that try it, yet crime rates are decreasing here in the 'gun crazy' United States.spuriousmonkey said:
- Status