RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
sounds quite pornographic
was the elephant painting a nude ?
Why is gun control so difficult in the US?
- Thread starter Saint
- Start date
was the elephant painting a nude ?
Lott and Kleck are like the only people who have found that. it has be consistently debunked time and time again. the CDC botched here. their are plenty of rebuttals to this argument. if anything the CDC mentioning this is an indication of why it needs to be funded to do gun violence research. if we take these numbers as gospel as you do you'd have to believe more burgalries are prevented by defensive gun use than actual burgerlries happen when people are home and awake. for that number to be arcurate gun owning home would have to almost exclusively be the target which is a mathematical impossibility. the studies the cdc is mention are coming from a rather small and select group of researchers all of whom like you self have an ax to grind and are looking for data to say a certain thing. ie that guns are good.
your begging the question. first off the second amendment is not to protect from tyranny at least not in the sense you mean. a national gun registry is not counter to the second amendment it facilitates it. the second amendment was about ensuring the state miltias cannot be disarmed. as they no longer exist the second amendment is quite literally a meaningless anachronism. the you dopn't understand this is based on your own idealogically biased misunderstanding of the second amendment.
untrue princess. i'm willing to here you out. if you had anything other than the same tired fraudlent arguments i'd be more inclined to a deeper debate but you don't have anything other than the same craptastic talking points. actually if you ever bothered to ask i don't have any problem with people owning guns. i'm not idealogically against guns. i'm scientifically against guns. i dislike the culture of irresponsibility of gun owners in this country. bull shit you might not make the threats you self but you condone the gun owners who do make threats that if you cant get what you get what you want you'll use you bullets. threats is all your side has. you will lose eventually. your butchers bill will be paid eventually. untill than have fun getting kids killed because your gun more important to than peoples lives.
as an aside heres a link showing why the defensive gun use statistics are bullshit
https://www.armedwithreason.com/debunking-the-defensive-gun-use-myth/
RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
LoL
thats straight out of a tabloid speech writers note book
thats a very scientific determination of hard data
hard hitting straight talking statistics ...
i love how the language shifts tectonically from the statistics to being touchy-feely-inference(aka brain washing) and dogma renaissance.
just wait theres more ! (queue the "you dont know what its like" so im going to bully and terrorrise you)...
Yeah and there is no reason there are not superior options to a gun for such home defense either, just a loud alarm that supposedly calls the police automatically (you know a home alarm systems, like the ones that have been sold for decades now) would probably be just as effective with less kids blowing off their face with daddy's gun or this: https://www.thedailybeast.com/open-carry-militia-mom-murders-family
oh no no no, modern rightwing judges can reinterpret the second amendment to mean what ever the fuck the gun lobby says it means.
Oh no no no, they claim they are all well trained and responsible, they can't all be lying.
Oh, no no no, they will do it, they will take over, totally, stop all the tyrannical liberals, especially the communist socialist fascist Muslim African president obama, who is plotting his evil take over and third term now.
No seriously lets take a look at the, fighting tyranny with there guns: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Malheur_National_Wildlife_Refuge
Pathetic, truth is they have guns to make them self feel powerful but really when push comes to shove they shrivel like cold balls, tiny mincy shriveled balls. I don't own a gun to defend my self from a criminal or the big bad government, I own a gun to kill rats, because they chew through the barns walls. I don't have a problem with people owning guns, they just need be sane with those guns, like be willing to have a background check and yes a registry.[/quote][/QUOTE]
Last edited:
Yet another attempt at strawmanning by the official media, and further illustration of the unique bothsides nature of this mess.
The attempt to substitute killing in self defense with using in self defense,
which is flagrantly bad argument - missing altogether the essential nature of self defense and how it works, obviously and seriously overlooking the self defense benefits of guns whatever they are -
joins a long list of other bad arguments in carrying the implication that gun control proponents are essentially and personally justified in their efforts by nothing but such arguments.
That alienates, even threatens, a large fraction of observers - leads to mistrust of gun control proponents. And in that respect it joins a fairly large number of similar arguments - gun control as similar to car and driver control, the tens of thousands of gun deaths represented by the smallest fractions of them, incompetently derived statistical inferences from poorly considered data of various kinds, weird and flagrantly aberrant misreadings of the Constitution, etc - that sit wrong with not only gun owners but all careful and reasonable people.
Statistically, by the polling data: If not for the level of mistrust earned by gun control proponents via too many of these bad arguments and misuses of statistics and so forth, we would have sane gun control now. It's not that people don't want it - it's that they mistrust the proponents of it, the enforcement of it, etc.
The degree to which that mistrust is well-earned has been, imho, vastly underestimated by a great many gun control proponents. There are plenty of good arguments for sane regulation of firearms - why indeed are so many people making such bad ones?
Last edited:
A strawman is a fake argument you substitute for the real argument, because your fake argument is easier for you to win.
What the article is about - the ratio of self defense killing to the killing of innocent people
Your strawman - "The attempt to substitute killing in self defense with using in self defense"
You may find that easier to argue, but it is not what the article is about.
Primarily because of tactics like yours.
"We propose a partial ban on larger magazines in order to . . . "
"Did you hear that? They want to GRAB YOUR GUNS! All of them! They want you to DIE!"
In this case, the fake argument uses the ratio of gun killings as a measure for the ratio of attack to defense, and a real argument would include some measure of actual defensive gun usage.
Exactly. And it substitutes that for the argument it pretends to be about, which is the prevalence of the use of guns in self defense. That's a strawman argument, textbook.
How do I know it is pretending to be about self defense rather than just killings? By reading it - for example:
The author specifically claims that the data on killings measure the use of guns in self defense. Explicitly.
In clear and plain and simple language, the author uses data on killings to claim contradiction with claims of usage in self defense.
You didn't read the article, apparently. My description is completely accurate, in letter and in spirit.
Yours is not - the article does not even address that ratio, consider it as a topic. For example, the article does not even hint at an analysis of why self defense usage kills so few people compared with assault usage or suicide. It's not about that at all.
Comically wrong choice of example, dumbass.
I am, as far as I know, the single most insistent and repeated proponent of a ban on large magazines on this forum. That specific recommendation.
It's something I've brought up several times, over and over, as an example of the many kinds of gun control immediately available and without Constitutional or other major issues.
Now, having illustrated my point: you need to figure out, and explain, how to get people to overlook that kind of behavior by gun control proponents;
why - for example - I should trust somebody who just
1) completely screwed up their analysis of the simplest of WaPo bullshit on guns, and then
2) posted that more or less comical misreading of my role in the entire thread situation, apparently motivated by an irrational bigotry capable of wiping out their entire prefrontal cortex,
to have legislative power over me?
Last edited:
Oh so you saw the NRA commercial already.
btw: long as we're in it
So all the not self defense killings were of innocent people. That's the denominator in their ratio.
Therefore:
Suicides are innocent. Gun suicides, anyway. Of course they are also the perpetrators of a crime, in which they used a gun. And a lot of the domestic killings, mass shootings, etc, end in suicide (are those guys counted twice?). And it's fairly difficult to imagine what kind of gun control law would be useful in preventing straight suicides without, y'know,confiscating reducing the accessibility of some guns, which we are assured is off the table, not even being considered, no way, how could that even come up? So - - - We're to include suicide to pad stats, but not acknowledge them otherwise.
Criminals killed in gang fights or gang violence are innocent.
Police who kill people are innocent.
And accidents, of course - regardless of circumstance, accidents are all innocent.
Because if these are not included, the remaining comparison would be gun assaults on noncriminal people leading to death by gunfire vs gun defense by noncriminal people leading to death by gunfire - and that would be not only a less impressive number, but an even more obviously confused comparison in an article on self defense.
It wasn't, but let's pretend for a second:
So all the not self defense killings were of innocent people. That's the denominator in their ratio.
Therefore:
Suicides are innocent. Gun suicides, anyway. Of course they are also the perpetrators of a crime, in which they used a gun. And a lot of the domestic killings, mass shootings, etc, end in suicide (are those guys counted twice?). And it's fairly difficult to imagine what kind of gun control law would be useful in preventing straight suicides without, y'know,
Criminals killed in gang fights or gang violence are innocent.
Police who kill people are innocent.
And accidents, of course - regardless of circumstance, accidents are all innocent.
Because if these are not included, the remaining comparison would be gun assaults on noncriminal people leading to death by gunfire vs gun defense by noncriminal people leading to death by gunfire - and that would be not only a less impressive number, but an even more obviously confused comparison in an article on self defense.
Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
If you really want to know the problem in the US, watch NRATV.
That's a fairly small and isolatable fraction of the public. The political jamb has more extensive roots.
Yeah but they vote and are very outspoken, because half the US population does not vote, and those the do vote rarely get politically active beyond that, the squeakest alex jonesian screaming wheel gets the attention.
Once again, what is so wrong with universal background checks? Preventing those with mental illness from having guns, heck just a fortnight waiting period for all guns could reduce suicide, reduce impulsive killing.
Nothing, and almost everyone favors them (even a large fraction of those opposed to new law - they think such background checks already exist).
That's not the problem.
Then why, why for the love of god can't we even get it legislated?!?! What is preventing that huh?
Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
And the political gospel is preached there. You can recognize every talking point the gun huggers use on that channel, mainly because they're the source for them.
The gun huggers are isolatable - something like a small multiple of 3% of the population, according to your link - assuming economic restrictions on arsenal accumulation to the 20% and every arsenal owner a gun hugger, an upper bound of 5 x 3% or 15% of the population. Normal modifications to those assumptions would reduce that fraction.
The congregation is not as big, or as devoted, as seems to be assumed in the public discussion.
One major problem that you can address directly is that nobody trusts you - the "we" - with legislative power over them, and in many the mistrust outweighs their fear of their neighbor's guns.
One major reason they don't is that you accept bad arguments and falsehoods as a proper basis for screwing around with the Constitution and other people's lives.
The gun control "side" (the fraction of gun control favor that is loudly and actively occupying the public arena of discussion) is legislatively - apparently - not controlled by reason and sense. They are talking about misreading and/or rewriting the Bill of Rights, for example, on the basis of such argument as appears in the link in post 504 above.
The fear of the lack of law control is as real as the fear of lack of gun control - and rather better based, in history and evidence.
Notice, for example, the lack of public health advice delivered in good faith to the reaction purchasers after mass shootings - the obvious and expected first reaction by the genuinely concerned in such emergencies. "In time of fear you may decide to purchase a gun. We recommend that you not do that, but if you plan to or have already here's some tips and good advice from people who know how to handle firearms safely." Something like that, in a concerted campaign.
Nope. No nationwide ads or public announcements showing safe storage and handling tips for the first time or inexperienced gun owner, no advice on model and ammunition, no face of experience on TV calm-talking the newbies and wannabes - after Sandy Hook the reactionary purchase statistical blip in accidental death by gunfire was about 60 people (including 20 children), every single one of them preventable without the slightest threat to the Constitution or even the passage of ordinary statute, and the entire scene predicted years in advance.
If prevention of such deaths were the real motive behind the gun control media voices, it was hard to see. So you can understand the lack of trust, no?
Last edited:
Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
You missed the point about half of Americans owning a gun.
I simply assumed that ownership of a gun did not make a gun hugger out of a person. Was I wrong?