Gun control: the results are in?

Status
Not open for further replies.
nico, I am sorry if I don't pay lip service to your reductio ad absurdum derail, but I was trying to make tiassa's job as a mod a bit easier by injecting some relevant data to get the discussion back on its original line of bearing.

If you care to reciprocate, I'll be around until Saturday.

If not, you could go post another poll to have me banned again.
emot-lol.gif
 
Wing 'em

but I was trying to make tiassa's job as a mod a bit easier by injecting some relevant data to get the discussion back on its original line of bearing
Click to expand...

Gee, thanks. After your propagandous contribution in the form of a picture, your efforts are much appreciated.

As to that picture:

• Three items: A computer, a box of matches, a block of kitchen knives.
• A slogan: "No one sees a hacker, a slasher, and an arsonist here."
• One item: A rifle
• A slogan: "Why be afraid of mere things?"

First off, the tagline is mere bait.

Secondly, a computer is not designed specifically for hacking; a set of kitchen knives are not designed specifically for killing someone; a box of matches are not designed specifically for burning down buildings.

Thirdly, a rifle is designed for killing things. We know that Homer Simpson is wrong--you do not change channels and turn out the lights with a gun.

When guns were introduced to various royal courts, the following conversation did not take place:

"Amazing device. You can kill the enemy with it?"
--Well, Sire, we were thinking more of "winging" them. You know, a toe here, a finger there. Set them to flight. And you should see Bill open his garage door from a hundred paces!

Your propaganda treats the devices differently. Nobody sees distortions in the first three, so you tell me--why should we distort the purpose of the gun?

You know ... my neighbor asked me today if I wanted to go hunting with him this year. I said, "I'm not real big on killing things." He replied, "No worries. We're just going to go cripple a few animals. We won't kill anything."

He was shocked at the idea that his rifle was designed to kill anything at all.
 
Last edited:
nico, I am sorry if I don't pay lip service to your reductio ad absurdum derail,

You mean my intellectual rape of your distorted lies and propaganda? You know it’s easy to use logical fallacies in the wrong context, we can all do it. But if you really knew what you were talking about (which you don’t) you would have no problem answering my assertions. So Stokes: Can you stick a gun up your anus? you should know I assume, since you have so much experience with hiding guns?

But I was trying to make tiassa's job as a mod a bit easier by injecting some relevant data to get the discussion back on its original line of bearing.

What relevant data, you mean lies oh yes those. The reason why you wanted to make Tiassa’ s job easier is because you would have ad hom-ed me as you usually do in substitution for a real argument. Typical Stokes argument methods, we are already used to it.

If not, you could go post another poll to have me banned again.

That’s pretty pathetic; I thought you supposedly had a life. Obviously not, if you have time to search for a long dead thread. Stop lying to yourself, and to us it’s already to the point of absurdum
 
For (strict firearm control)

I love guns; the power, the fun. But I have to admit I'd rather live in a society without them. I live in the UK, so it is illegal to own a pistol - but of course criminals are not the types to hand in their firearms when new legislation is brought into effect.

I doubt you would see a major shift in gun related killings (within the sub-cultures) for some years until a reasonable quantity have been confiscated.

Removing guns will solve some of the problem. Obviously if you really want to kill/harm someone you could use a knife, car or even poison. But firearms are powerful and kill at a distance. So although pre-meditative murderers will find other methods I'm sure people trying to fend off police or rob a shop will have more difficulty in doing so.

The cats out of the bag. People already own guns. We might as well now make sure that the 'right' people have guns
Click to expand...

So everyone would have to carry one on themselves. What are the chances of having a firearm right to hand when someone mugs you in the street? To have the right to a gun and to carry it in public - that's dangerous.
 
tiassa said:
Gee, thanks. After your propagandous contribution in the form of a picture, your efforts are much appreciated.
Click to expand...
You're welcome. I know it's more than some others can do, but hey, I'll get in where I fit in.

tiassa said:
As to that picture:

• Three items: A computer, a box of matches, a block of kitchen knives.
• A slogan: "No one sees a hacker, a slasher, and an arsonist here."
• One item: A rifle
• A slogan: "Why be afraid of mere things?"

First off, the tagline is mere bait.

Secondly, a computer is not designed specifically for hacking; a set of kitchen knives are not designed specifically for killing someone; a box of matches are not designed specifically for burning down buildings.

Thirdly, a rifle is designed for killing things. We know that Homer Simpson is wrong--you do not change channels and turn out the lights with a gun.
Click to expand...
A genuine thanks for elucidating your point. Also, an appreciation for the Simpsons reference (favorite show of mine throughout the years). I completely understand what you are saying and now that you've explained, I agree with your thesis.

Here's the caveat: a rifle does not kill wantonly and indiscriminately. In fact, in its static form, it is markedly more innocuous than a box of matches or a set of cutlery (though the computer is decidedly more benign, I think).

The rifle in that picture, a lever action .45-70, is a modern rendition of the classic repeating rifles used by the US Army in the reconstruction period from 1880-1903 (at which point the M1895 .45-70 was replaced by the M1903 Springfield .30-06 as the standard infantry long arm). Nowadays, such a rifle would be used for hunting large game in thicker brush, because the .45-70 is a heavy (about 500 grains) and blunt bullet that has a lot of inertia, meaning it's great for penetrating brush because its path stays true due to its heavy weight.

So, nowadays, I wouldn't choose a Marlin 1895 for a bank robbery, because much more potent weapons exist. Nowadays, they are categorically hunting arms. And here's why I explained this:

Without sounding too much like a Firearms 101 lecture; we now have some context as a preamble to the following - while guns are designed to kill, what they kill is entirely dependent upon the operator. That is why it is completely valid to juxtapose the rifle with matches, knives, and a computer - each one of those items could cause serious harm, but won't unless somebody with an able body and bad intentions gets their hands on them. If you look at what nico said that I was responding to, it was an angsty and fear-ridden diatribe about how guns are designed with the express purpose of killing him. In other words, their existence alone makes him nervous. Is that a logical position to take? Until firearms become sentient, I don't think so. If he had said, "I'm scared that some bad dudes might get their hands on them and use them to hurt me" then he'd have an iota of basis for his argument.

But he didn't do that.
 
Without sounding too much like a Firearms 101 lecture; we now have some context as a preamble to the following - while guns are designed to kill, what they kill is entirely dependent upon the operator. That is why it is completely valid to juxtapose the rifle with matches, knives, and a computer - each one of those items could cause serious harm, but won't unless somebody with an able body and bad intentions gets their hands on them. If you look at what nico said that I was responding to, it was an angsty and fear-ridden diatribe about how guns are designed with the express purpose of killing him. In other words, their existence alone makes him nervous. Is that a logical position to take? Until firearms become sentient, I don't think so. If he had said, "I'm scared that some bad dudes might get their hands on them and use them to hurt me" then he'd have an iota of basis for his argument.
Click to expand...

I doubt it would surprise you if I read Undecided's post differently. Anthropologically, it's not too bizarre to wonder how tall an achievement it is that humanity can design things with the specific intent of killing one another.

But then again, we can look back to the rifle in the picture. I'm actually dragging through statistics right now and, while I have yet to correlate those stats with key dates in gun control, the number of deaths caused by firearms took a massive downward spiral when compared to the US population between 1980 and 2000. But even those stats are interesting, inasmuch as what is a person's sense of scale? How impressive is one in six-thousand? How impressive is one in nine-thousand?

Compared against the general tone of gun control rhetoric, there seems to be an initial conflict. But that general tone of creeping fear is deceptive inasmuch as it may be overstated, so it would be premature to draw anything resembling a conclusion. I have no idea yet what the injury statistics will show, as they're not nearly as clearly defined or readily available. (e.g. Two sources provide population statistics: Census Bureau tallies on the decades, and Census Bureau estimates; mortality stats are fairly easy to come by in cohesive blocks; injury statistics, however, are scattered to the winds.) Somewhere in there, we'll end up revisiting the notion of what is or isn't a "responsible gun owner." No, I don't expect to be held up with a Marlin 1895, or most other hunting rifles. But crime is not the only issue.

At any rate, I have no idea how long the research will take, I expect the laundry list of data needed to grow as soon as I get the injury statistics.
 
Stokes I hope you don’t think I am against hunting arms; all I want banned is handguns. I understand that the design of a hunting gun is different then a hand gun in that hunting guns are made for…hunting. I am against handguns, assault weaponry, anything basically that involves an urban setting.
 
Source: NewsOK
Link: http://www.newsok.com/article/1286577/?template=home/main
Title: "Ice cream man in Enid accused of packing heat"
Date: August 3, 2004

As long as the discussion involves the idea of a "gun culture", it's worth mentioning this story out of Oklahoma.

An ice cream van driver was arrested Sunday evening on a complaint of carrying a semi-automatic weapon and firing shots during an argument with customers . . . .

. . . . Police think Miller had a disagreement with a woman who approached the van to buy ice cream. A male friend of the woman then intervened. Sgt. Eric Holtzclaw said police were told the argument began when the driver made a derogatory remark about the woman.

The driver pulled a semi-automatic weapon from the van and fired two rounds toward the ground, police said. Debris kicked up by the shot struck the woman in the shoulder and collarbone, but she refused medical treatment . . . .

. . . . Albert Rodriguez, manager of Summer Song Inc., which leased the van to Miller, said he was waiting to talk with Miller about what happened.

"They're not even allowed to carry a gun in the trucks," he said. "The protection is inside the truck. Get in your seat and drive off."

However, Rodriguez said he could understand if Miller felt threatened, because ice cream vans are robbed frequently, even though they only have a small amount of money . . . .

. . . . Peggie Green said she and her 15-year-old daughter, Rebecca, saw some neighborhood residents arguing with the driver and throwing things at the van.

"What we didn't see was where the shots came from," Peggie Green said. "He probably felt threatened, but the sad thing is, you don't do it in a residential neighborhood. Kind of scary in your own neighborhood.

"There's a lot of children in this neighborhood."

(Marks)
Click to expand...

I wonder what they threw? Rocks? Trash? This will be an interesting case to follow.

Even more strangely, another news source, Channel Oklahoma, notes that the shooter "was not supposed to be in Enid. Officers said his only route was in Del City."

What the hell is going on here?

The video feed (RealMedia) from the Channel Oklahoma story clarifies even further. Apparently the shooting was not spontaneous inasmuch as it was an immediate response to threat, but the driver pulled away, stopped, and shot back toward the people he had been arguing with.

Who knows? Maybe someone asked him directions.

Such is the news from Oklahoma this week.
____________________

• Channel Oklahoma. "One Injured, One Arrested In Ice Cream Truck Shooting." August 2, 2004. See http://www.channeloklahoma.com/news/3608112/detail.html
• Marks, Dawn. "Ice cream man in Enid accused of packing heat." NewsOK.com (The Oklahoman), August 3, 2004. See http://www.newsok.com/article/1286577/?template=home/main
 
Undecided what evidence would be acceptable to you as proof that the removal of weapons would not lower the total rate of murders? If the answer is nothing would convince you that there is no effect on the total murders and you cannot prove that gun control has lowered the total murder rates in any country then we are not having a scientific debate. We are arguing about religion or an article of faith that cannot be disproved is that what you are saying? If you agree that it does not matter how you are murdered then what reason are you offering to remove guns?
 
Undecided what evidence would be acceptable to you as proof that the removal of weapons would not lower the total rate of murders?

Well… a start would be to understand that I do not care about the total number of murders because that is attributable to socio-economic conditions. Understanding is the first step to comprehending.
 
You do not care about total murders and you do not care how people are murdered so you are against guns because why?
 
You do not care about total murders and you do not care how people are murdered so you are against guns because why?

I don’t care about total murders because the goal of gun laws is not to decrease the total size of murders in x country. So far I’ve seen evidence to suggest that gun laws are working, gun related crime has gone down in Canada. I obviously care how people are killed otherwise this wouldn’t be an issue. I am against guns because they are something that we can control, because they only serve only one purpose. Why does a society allow these weapons in the hands of people we innately don’t trust? That’s the real mental question…
 
So we finally have convinced you of at least one point. That removal of weapons does not cause a reduction in murders. What crimes do you believe removing weapons will specifically reduce?
 
Gun crimes...that's what matters and it is you not me or the government who assert otherwise. Don't be satisfied though, because there hasn't been a correlation btwn reducing in gun crime and increase in non-gun crime, other then conjecture.
 
Laughing Weasel et. al.

Changing gun laws obviously won't change murder rate specifically, as perps will already have them or get them on the black market. But it would make a good start to begin cleaning up.

Personally, if I had my way the hoodlums and slum-dwellers would be whipped into shape and given some disciplin.
 
Gun Control Laws Are all SHIT
I Believe that crime is much less likely to hapen if the victim has a gun

That little old lady with the blue hair, in her old Caddilac could have a gun, i sure as shit ain't gonna try to rob her!
 
Its culture that matters. That and proper enforcement of laws relating to carrying an offensive weapon etc.

As for ready avilability of guns preventing crime, I am reminded of the recent case where a gang of hunters was shot at. I think 6 of them were killed. So, this is a group of hunters, used to shooting at things, yet when they get shot at they all run and hide and dont shoot back at the murderer? So how will having loads of armed people about really help prevent crime? Apart from the simple fact that actually being good and safe with a gun takes time and effort, and would you trust half the people you meet out shopping, not to accidentally shoot you when they're going for the criminal, let alone how do the police tell the criminals from the gangsters when they walk into a gun fight?
 
guthrie said:
As for ready avilability of guns preventing crime, I am reminded of the recent case where a gang of hunters was shot at. I think 6 of them were killed. So, this is a group of hunters, used to shooting at things, yet when they get shot at they all run and hide and dont shoot back at the murderer?
Click to expand...
I believe that in this incident only one of the hunters had a rifle, and he was the first one killed by the attacker.
 
Also, it's a bit ridiculous to contemplate banning all weapons. You can easily kill people with steak knives, baseball bats, bricks,, hammers, screwdrivers...pretty much anything is a weapon if you swing it hard enough. What are you going to do, arrest people for carrying a baseball bat if they can't prove that they were on their way to a baseball game? Confiscate people's screwdrivers if they can't prove that they're construction workers? What about running people over with my car, or poisoning people with any number of commonly available chemicals?
Click to expand...




Except of course those items were not made with the intention to kill while a gun is obviously made to do so. How about some of the school shootings that were done a couple of years ago here in America........how many people would have died if they would have tried that with the weapons you named?...I lived in Iceland for a year which nobody had guns and people seemed just fine without them. It's a popular trick of the NRA to say "if you dont have a gun you cant protect your family" or "if you dont have a gun you (a woman) will get raped when you walk the streets at night"......whats wrong with society when people have to this scared of one another? I could be the most cautious safest responsible gun owner in the world but if you or somebody else isnt then we all are in danger.....does that seem fair? For a safer more peaceful society I would gladly give up the right to own a gun :m:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top