Gun control: the results are in?

[Nasor]

Net deaths from car accents have been higher since the introduction of seat belts, it obviously does not contribute to the human good if more people are dying now from car accents then prior to the introduction of seat belts.

Are you really so stupid that you don't understand the concept of a death 'rate'?

Seatbelt laws decrease your likelihood of dying. Gun control laws don't. After passing seatbelt laws, society is safer. After passing gun control laws, society is not safer.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2004-08-10-traffic-deaths_x.htm

 

[Undecided]

Are you really so stupid that you don't understand the concept of a death 'rate'?

I know what death rate is biatch...but gross and net deaths are still higher, you mention THOSE as they key to determining whether or not the gun control mechanism is successful, so rate is irrelevant because you did not mention that in the current conversations, instead net was used. Also before you post things u should read it:

But while the ratio of deaths to miles traveled is low, the number of people killed in traffic accidents in 2003 — 42,643 — was higher than it has been in almost every year since 1990. The number of miles driven has been steadily rising each year, which has helped push down the death rate.

Hmmmmmmmmm….what an illiterate can do…what wonders.+

BAN THE SEAT BELT...

So Hemmorrhoid I assume your idiocy is over...along with ur fascist friends?

 

[Nasor]

Christ, now I remember why I gave up on trying to discuss this with you before. What's the point? You aren't even interested in a real discussion, you just like to hurl childish insults while deliberately misinterpreting other people's arguments. I think that by now you've thoroughly convinced everyone where that you're a moron, so I'm not going to waste any more time with you.

 

[Undecided]

What's the point? You aren't even interested in a real discussion, you just like to hurl childish insults while deliberately misinterpreting other people's arguments.

What insult did I throw out that wasn't warranted? Remember it was you who called me a “dumb ass” you haemorrhoid, so it’s the pot calling the kettle black eh hypocrite? Why do I talk to ppl like you? Simple to see at what lengths they will go to until they eventually end up in the heap of cognitive surrenders. As I can see I threw some pretty valid questions against you and you instead TOTALLY ignore them and post some stupid article that only proved my point further, and now you have the unmitigated gaul to complain? The only thing u have to complain about is your arrogance in the way of your intelligence.

I think that by now you've thoroughly convinced everyone where that you're a moron, so I'm not going to waste any more time with you.

How can you call me a moron when I proved you wrong? If you think calling you a bunch of names is a big deal, get out of the diapers and grow that second ball.

 

[Repo Man]

I don't approve of mandatory seatbelt laws. Some dumbass wants to play Superman after hitting something, happy landings I say. I'll always be wearing mine, but forcing me to is wrong.

The criminals will always be armed. We can't keep drugs out of the country, I promise you the same would be true of firearms. Disarming me won't change that.

 

[Stokes Pennwalt]

I respect what you’re saying here, but really this level of argument isn’t even necessary. Since gun control laws have repeatedly and consistently failed to achieve any sort of net positive result for society, the burden is now on the gun control advocates to explain why gun control laws would benefit society here even though they’ve failed to benefit every other society that tries them.

If someone could produce convincing evidence that gun control laws make people safer, then it might be necessary for you to argue that the government doesn’t have the authority to restrict gun ownership – but until someone can produce such evidence, there’s not really any point.

Yeah, I know it was kind of a derail but I was trying to answer his question more thouroughly.

Stokes, a fundemental right to own firearms? The government can do whatever it likes in that respect since the constitution only regards "The right to bear arms" rather than firearms specifically

Your definition of "arms" is incorrect.

Yes and in that constitution it states something about a militia...as I assume ALL American gun owners are part of.

All able-bodied Americans between 17 and 42 are protected under the 2A, yes. But the 2A doesn't grant a thing, and without it, we'd still have the RTKBA.

Tell me Stoky boy why are the demands of the citizens of your country being ignored by those same legislators? You Stokes and your gang of compensators stop being fascists and allow the people the democratic right to enact laws for the majority not the Viagra poping losers who need a gun to feel like a man.

Ha ha. You lose. I love it when effeminite gun-fearing pantwaists try to spin this innuendo without bothering to read.

"A fear of weapons is the sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." Sigmund Freud, Introduction to Psychoanalysis

 

[Spyke]

Replace smoking with crack cocaine…now be quiet.

So I take that as your admission your smoking analogy was worthless, yes? But obviously only to be replaced with an even more pointless analogy.

 

[Collision]

Guns are the domestic equalizer and will never be physically illegalized, because technology is too diffussed to make it impossible to make firearms in ones own garage with readily available resources.

If you are standing in front of someone who is acting aggressively toward you and it is in their potential to kill you, you have a right to gun them down. Although, many people are too stupid to understand this in regular society and because of that, you shouldn't do it because of the threat of unjust imprisonment, unless you know can get away with it.

I see it this way: If someone is threatening to take my life and I know it's possible they can do it, I should be able to kill them. Why? Because I'm a good person who would never do that to another human being and I deserve the same respect I give to them, the right to live. But, respect is a two way street. If they are willing to kill me, then I comprehend and respect that they have less value for human life, so I am superior and may take their life, because I care more and they don't, so I'm the one who should live of us two. This is what the Iraqis feel toward American soldier murdering their citizens and turning their own brothers against them.

I'd never threaten anyone, so I'm out the stupid circle of those who be killed by people like me who threaten. This should be the standard cultural law, because it's always been our natural law for all of human history.

I want the whole world to have nukes. Only the stupidest of us actually think we'd let them off and turn the world into an unliveable one. That's one of the problem towards world peace. Put it this way, if Saddams nuclear plant was never bombed by Israeli's little shit inferior leadership, innocent Iraqis would not be being murdered today and 911 would have never occured. We'd be trading respectfully instead of taking advantage of their macro inability to defend their state and resources.

 

[Spyke]

 

[Redbull]

If gun control doesn't work, why does the US have such high murder rates compared to the other countries you mention (UK, Australia, etc)?

 

[guthrie]

If you are standing in front of someone who is acting aggressively toward you and it is in their potential to kill you, you have a right to gun them down.

No, you have the right to defend yourself. You do not have the right to kill them if they are simlpy acting aggressively. Or american law could be different of course. Here in the UK we call it murder.

 

[Undecided]

All able-bodied Americans between 17 and 42 are protected under the 2A, yes. But the 2A doesn't grant a thing, and without it, we'd still have the RTKBA.

That’s great, you still haven’t really answered the question fascist? Mind explaining to me how the militia specification has been somehow deleted from the argument here? I mean lookie here not the Right To Keep and Bear Arms isn’t dependent on the constitution Stokes? Even though you have repeatedly bleated out the same constitutional law? Wow Stokes you must really think your smart.

Ha ha. You lose.

Lose what? I didn’t lose your nation has lost…I live in Canada I could really give less of a shit if you idiots kill each other into a bloody pulp, all I know is that you are losing, stop sending us refugees already, its kind of sad when we get refugees from the “bastion of freedom” isn’t it? If I lose Stokes, you’d be dead.

I love it when effeminite gun-fearing pantwaists try to spin this innuendo without bothering to read.

I love it when a retarded poster thinks he knows what he is talking about, making grand assumptions about things he does not know anything about, alas a the majority of the American population, and that of the world. So Stokes is 50+% of the American population a bunch of fags? Or are the real fags those who need a gun to feel like a man? I think it’s the latter by a large margin. I do know this it is commoningly known that most gun owners have tiny little penis’ so Stokes are you compensating for the lack of a “shot” in bed with your Verde Marriage? So here is solution for you Stokes:

http://www.gazette.uwo.ca/2004/March/16/arts_and_entertainment2.asp

Guys, it’s probably occurred to many of you by now that we can’t all have a gigantic penis. This dilemma often leads men to “overcompensate” for their shortcomings. Buying guns and huge cars are two of the more obvious, quick solutions, while other men are led to uncontrollable cursing.

What car do you drive Big man?

"A fear of weapons is the sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." Sigmund Freud, Introduction to Psychoanalysis

Since I am SURE you read his book can you give me a full citation for where the quote came from and the context in which the quote was found? Ya thanks…get an education and STFU.

 

[Undecided]

So I take that as your admission your smoking analogy was worthless, yes? But obviously only to be replaced with an even more pointless analogy.

No it wasn't and please don't portend to think you know what I am saying. The smoking analogy was a limited one in the sense that the gov’t enacts laws that protect the greater good that was the essence of the argument. Which was the more pointless analogy hmmmmmm? The seat belts? If anything they are the most poignant because even according to the retarded logic of fascistic little gun owners, seat belt laws are useless and should be stricken from the books…LET FREEDOM REIGN right?

 

[Tiassa]

Mod Hat - Intervention

So, uh, is this just going to carry on this way?

The topic is closed, temporarily at least, for a necessary scrubbing.

 

[Tiassa]

Mod Hat - Update, Closure

The briefest perusal shows I simply haven't been paying enough attention to this topic. For that, you have my apology. However, this topic will remain closed, and the issue can arise anew.

I've considered looking into the processes of a "moderated" discussion; I can't recall one ever taking place. I'm of the opinion right now that none of us would like that. If I'm wrong, let me know.

But please, people. There are fundamental points to this debate that, in my opinion, both sides ignore. It is not my place to list them here. In the past, people have made the point that we're only Sciforums, and it's not like we're important, or anything. And while there are obscure perspectives that would argue with such an assertion, and while I acknowledge at least one of them involving spiders and crawlers and who and why, we can take comfort in stressful debate that we're more than likely not going to solve the issue once and for all in any given debate. As a personal observation, time has been very kind to me in terms of irony. If we take a step back, get that deep breath, and consider the actual value any one of us awards the issue, we might find that the issue is more important to us than we treat it. In another forum I've been in an essentially ugly exchange. We haven't been cussing each other senseless, but we're sniping over the most superficial points and that gets nobody anything but a headache, and I'm pretty sure it has nothing to do with the topic. I owe it at least to myself to restructure my argument to focus more on the points I find essential, that cause the very nature of the counterpoint at hand to be so frustrating. And so I will ask of us here.

For some, this issue is as important as their fundamental rights. For others, society itself comes into question. Call me crazy, but I find those notions to be rather important. Liberal hysteria and conservative belligerence represent that priority poorly, I think. And so I declare.

When I go to the Sciforums front page, it still says "intelligent community" at the top of my browser. And so it should be.

I will, however, say it one more time--

Please?​