Gun Control is ridiculous

[volatile]

Thats great when do we start forcing everyone to live in locked rooms?

Look, the basic premise is that, from a baseline position, the presence of guns make you less safe, not more.

If you want to then suggest that guns make you safer, you need to overcome that basic fact just to get back to the baseline position before you even start making the case that gun ownership makes you less likely to be injured.

Furthermore, from a political perspective, it seems prudent to suggest that the aim of the legistlature should be to reduce, not increase gun ownership, as the ideal "safe" position is total abolition of firearms as illustrated by the locked room scenario

 

[shanek]

Shanek, something just came to me.

You seem to have drawn your conclusions on human behaviour from Hollywood, where the good guys never die and the bad guys can be forced to flee by the protagonist waving a gun in their face.

Your version of reality seems to be based on prime-time cop dramas, or R. Kelly's Trapped in the Closet video, where any tense situation involves the good guy brandishing his weapon and the bad guy backing down, with no shots ever being fired.

I get absolutely 0% of my data from Hollywood. This is just absurd jactitation and a pathetic attempt to distract from the meat of the arguments.

Many, many crimes are stopped just from the criminals noticing their would-be victim is armed. That doesn't have the first damned thing to do with Hollywood! If anything, Hollywood shows the exact opposite. It's that way because that's what the data show.

Your behavior in this thread is laughable; I have never seen anyone resort to such absurd arguments--not even Claus!

 

[shanek]

Posit a locked room. Sealed, so as to be impenetrable. Two people inside, otherwise empty.

Is that room safer for those within in - ie is there a great risk of injury, or death - if those people have guns on their person, or if the room is empty.

The obvious answer, seeing as guns are designed for the express purpose of causing death or injury, is that the room is not safer when guns are present. Therefore, dear man, we can posit that guns do not make people safer, but actually increase the risk of injury or death.

Patnently, those people are not safer when armed, and your obstinate refusal to acknowledge that plain fact is duly noted.

Part of being a skeptic means questioning the "obvious" answers. "Guns are designed for the express purpose of causing death or injury" does not have the first thing to do with what people are going to do. If one person wants to murder the other, he's going to try to do that with whatever's handy, guns or no guns. The only question is, how easily can the other person defend himself?

 

[Mephisto]

Let's say Britney Spears had gone through all the controls and "training", and obtained a gun. Not unlikely, given that she is in the spotlight, and has been for quite a while. There are wackos out there, and some go after celebrities.

Would anyone trust Britney Spears with a gun today?

Until she's done something violent and against the law there's no point in arguing this; does anyone trust Britney Spears with a child?

Hell, we can't even trust our astronauts with diapers and duct tape, but until they've broken the law you don't know - would banning duct tape cut back on abductions by psychos?

This whole debate closely resemble the debate on violent video games - it's not the dedicated gamers who are shooting people and it's not the law-abiding gun owners who are shooting people either.

 

[shanek]

Look, if you carry a gun in case you encounter a vanishingly unlikely situation when it might be effective

Is it any less likely than me needing my fire extinguisher? Both are so low as to be practically zero.

Having a firearm gives you an illusion of safety and gives everyone else (and you too, actually) an increased risk of danger. Selfish, ignorant and misguided are three of the first adjectives that spring to mind

Your need to resort to personal insults has been noted.

Do you pack a rucksack with rope in case you fall off a cliff?

If I know I'm going to be around cliffs, I just might.

Carry round a defibrillator in case you have a heart attack?

I actually know people who do.

carrying a gun in the first place puts you at greater risk anyway!

Except that you haven't shown that it does, and the data show otherwise.

Why is it, then, that gun owners are more likely to be shot?

They aren't.

Why are your gun crime and homicide rates so much higher than ours?

Because of the War on Drugs.

Oh, right. So pointing out that people with guns are quite capable of killing other people with guns doesn't undermine your position that guns stop people getting killed, because those people are criminals.

Riiiggghhttt....

Oh, sure, gun control is going to stop criminal drug dealers from shooting each other, because criminals never get guns illegally.

Riiiggghhttt....

 

[volatile]

Part of being a skeptic means questioning the "obvious" answers. "Guns are designed for the express purpose of causing death or injury" does not have the first thing to do with what people are going to do. If one person wants to murder the other, he's going to try to do that with whatever's handy, guns or no guns. The only question is, how easily can the other person defend himself?

So, guns aren't designed to kill then?

I already said that exact same thing about murder - if he wants to kill you, he'll damn well try, armed or not. Having a gun does not stop you being killed, as people with guns routinely get shot themselves.

What having a gun does, as the statistics demonstrate, is that more guns does not lead to a "deterrent" of homicide. All it does is increases the likelihood that non-killer criminals will take weapons to carry out more prosaic crimes such as burglary and robbery in order to defend themselves.

You argued that guns don't make you safe, then you argued that they do. Your argument is absurd, and grounded in an irrational, paranoid fear of "The Criminal", (who is totally distinguishable from "The Law-Abiding Citizen") coupled with a macho, gung-ho machismo that you could outgun anyone who dared do you wrong.

 

[Quad4_72]

Geez. I posted on this thread last night and then went to bed. I wake up this morning and there are like a million more posts. I have tried to read through them.

Well here are a couple of questions that I do not believe have been answered yet. To all of you gun control fans and specifically Larsen since it was first addressed to him and he never got around to answering the questions:

1. Do you believe that education and more responsibility would help cut down on gun related deaths?

2. If an invader broke into your home, and was coming up the steps towards your room or your children's rooms, would you wish that you had a gun?

 

[Lothian]

1. Do you believe that education and more responsibility would help cut down on gun related deaths?

Yes, but no matter how much education you do you would not get down to the UK level.

2. If an invader broke into your home, and was coming up the steps towards your room or your children's rooms, would you wish that you had a gun?

No.

 

[volatile]

Is it any less likely than me needing my fire extinguisher? Both are so low as to be practically zero.

220,000 housefires in the UK per year. 765 homicides in the UK last year, including the 52 victims of the July 7th bombings, plus 18,825 offences of more serious wounding or other act endangering life.

Looks like housefires are ten times more likely than being attacked by someone wanting to kill you.

Oh, sure, gun control is going to stop criminal drug dealers from shooting each other, because criminals never get guns illegally.

Riiiggghhttt....

That wasn't my point, and again you're being wilfully obtuse. You seem think that a gun will stop you getting shot. The fact that people with guns get shot by other people with guns with regularity seems to pass you by.

Why do criminal drug gangs have guns? 'Cause the other ones do.

 

[Skibum]

What having a gun does, as the statistics demonstrate, is that more guns does not lead to a "deterrent" of homicide. All it does is increases the likelihood that non-killer criminals will take weapons to carry out more prosaic crimes such as burglary and robbery in order to defend themselves.

I may have overlooked your post showing those statistics, would you mind reposting them?

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

If one person wants to murder the other, he's going to try to do that with whatever's handy, guns or no guns. The only question is, how easily can the other person defend himself?

Why is that the only question? Why is it not valid to ask how easily the attacker can achieve his desired outcome?

The possession of a gun makes it much easier to kill someone. Therefore the presence or absence of a gun in the potential murderers hands is clearly relevant to whether he will kill.

If Thomas Hamilton had not had guns it is highly unlikely that he could have killed 16 children and their teacher, despite prince Philip's nonsense about cricket bats.

 

[fuelair]

Would you shoot a man dead if he was robbing your house? If he was stealing your wallet? Do you advocate the death penalty for pick-pocketing?

I hear all this talk of "self-defence", but all that really means is the establishment of a vigilante culture where the gun-owning individual is free to dispense summary execution at the moment of his or her choosing. Say someone robs you in a dark alley - he doesn't want to kill you, just steal your mobile phone. Would you pull the gun on that guy? Is street robbery a capital crime?

YES! (Caught pickpocketing, I would just break his arm.) Any crime where he has weapon if you are dumb enough to assume robber won't try to kill you the odds are good you won't live to report on it yourself.
Fortunately,on this item anyway, I live in Florida.

 

[volatile]

YES! (Caught pickpocketing, I would just break his arm.) Any crime where he has weapon if you are dumb enough to assume robber won't try to kill you the odds are good you won't live to report on it yourself.
Fortunately,on this item anyway, I live in Florida.

Guess I really don't get this mindset. You would take a human life for $200 worth of electronics?

Man, that's callous.

 

[shanek]

So, guns aren't designed to kill then?

I never said that or anything even remotely approaching it.

Having a gun does not stop you being killed,

Evidence? Why do all the data say otherwise? Again, look at the video in the OP.

[yet more personal insults deleted]

 

[Lothian]

YES! (Caught pickpocketing, I would just break his arm.) Any crime where he has weapon if you are dumb enough to assume robber won't try to kill you the odds are good you won't live to report on it yourself.
Fortunately,on this item anyway, I live in Florida.

Really ? Is it true that over half of robbers in Florida with guns kill their victims ?

 

[Shaun from Scotland]

If Thomas Hamilton had not had guns it is highly unlikely that he could have killed 16 children and their teacher, despite prince Philip's nonsense about cricket bats.

105 rounds in 3 minutes, 4 at the most. Yup that's just like a cricket bat Philip.....

 

[shanek]

220,000 housefires in the UK per year.

How many of those could have been combated with a fire extinguisher?

765 homicides in the UK last year,

How many of those could have been prevented by armed citizens?

That wasn't my point, and again you're being wilfully obtuse. You seem think that a gun will stop you getting shot. The fact that people with guns get shot by other people with guns with regularity seems to pass you by.

No, what keeps passing you by is that no one is claiming anywhere near any kind of guarantee. Many house fires happen even with a fire extinguisher; does that mean that fire extinguishers don't do you any good?

Why do criminal drug gangs have guns? 'Cause the other ones do.

And how are you going to stop that?

 

[shanek]

Why is that the only question? Why is it not valid to ask how easily the attacker can achieve his desired outcome?

Because as I said, if he's determined to kill, he's going to, and the only thing that will stop him is whatever means the would-be victim has of defending himself.

The possession of a gun makes it much easier to kill someone. Therefore the presence or absence of a gun in the potential murderers hands is clearly relevant to whether he will kill.

Sorry, but the latter just doesn't follow from the former.

If Thomas Hamilton had not had guns it is highly unlikely that he could have killed 16 children and their teacher, despite prince Philip's nonsense about cricket bats.

What if the teacher had had a gun?

 

[Thanz]

1. Do you believe that education and more responsibility would help cut down on gun related deaths?

Of course more responsibility and education would help cut down on accidental gun deaths. I like the idea of a true gun license that has actual training and safety requirements attached. I think that hardcore gun people (NRA), while advocating training, oppose mandatory training as it would inhibit the right to bear arms.

2. If an invader broke into your home, and was coming up the steps towards your room or your children's rooms, would you wish that you had a gun?

The first flippant answer is that I would want a gun if zombies attacked my house, or the dinosaurs from Jurassic Park broke loose, or if a gang of drug crazed indy professional wrestlers decided to have their battle royal in my living room with me as the guy who has to get repeatedly beaten with a metal chair. But I don't see any of those as likely.

The second flippant answer is that I live in a bungalow. No upstairs.

The serious answer is that in order for the gun to be of any use, it would have to be accessible quickly in a groggy state in the middle of the night. But I don't want to have a gun that accessible in my house.

 

[Shaun from Scotland]

What if the teacher had had a gun?

A primary school teacher, doing roll call for 6 year olds, armed?

Ok.....