Gun Control is ridiculous

[Lonewulf]

Lonewulf (see? I spelled it right!)

I should give away T-shirts to people who do that for the first time.

"I spelled Lonewulf's name right, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."

 

[shanek]

No. I won't because there is no need to. Statistics have been presented to back up my argument. Now present some to back up yours. That's the way it works.

No, that's shifting the burden of proof. YOU are the one making the claim, YOU are the one that must back it up. It has been pointed out that you have committed a correlation/causation fallacy. You can't just say X>Y and then shut up. You must show that X>Y because of the presence of guns (and explain why crime has been going down lately despite additional guns and more concealed carry laws etc.) and not because of other factors such as the War on Drugs that have been pointed out to you.

You have NOT supported your argument. You need to do so.

 

[Lonewulf]

Yes, for over 10 years now, even as the number of firearms increases and the number of gun control laws dwindles.

How do the gun control nuts explain that???

Obviously, it's an important question. I mean, people like baron care about statistics and facts and the like, and we mean ol' gun nuts don't, right? Surely Baron will come up with a thoughtful and reasoned response to this? I can't wait!

 

[Yjacket]

Read it again: We are talking about the soldiers.

Not quite a fully factual statement. We are talking of your statement -

While in service - and only then - do they keep their rifle in their homes, along with 50 rounds of ammo.
We are talking about enlisted men.

as you want to ignore the Swiss document that says -

Between their regular annual service of two or three weeks per year, Swiss soldiers and officers keep their personal weapons at home. After they have left the army, they may keep those arms in order to continue practicing at rifle or pistol ranges managed by local communities.

so is not referring to just officers or just enlisted men. It plainly shows that your statement of "only while in active service" is incorrect.

Switzerland is not a member of the EU.

I did not say it was. What I did say is "I also recall that it was demands from EU that caused the changes, not the local population." How about reading for comprehension instead of trying to divert attention?

No, we are discussing firearms in general. The Swiss were brought up as an example of how prolific gun "ownership" meant a low rate of gun homicides. I showed that the premise was false.

Actually you did not show such a thing. What has been shown is that there is a significant inventory of firearms in the homes of Swiss citizens which blows the concept that the mere presence of firearms is the cause of crime.

Is Switzerland member of the EU?

As I have previously noted - I did not say it was or was not. However, to the best of my knowledge it is not. Please let me know if the information I have is correct or incorrect.

How many rounds of ammo are the Swiss soldiers issued with?

Suppose you tell us how many filled magazines are to be kept on hand. Also tell us how many cartridges he may obtain to practice shooting at the local range.

Are those who keep their weapon allowed to carry it around as they please?

Another attempt to divert attention. We are not on the topic of carrying it around. We are on the topic of your statement that the Swiss could keep military issue firearms in the home only so long as their status was active. But how are these people supposed to get the firearm to the range when they decide to go do some practice shooting? I suspect that they take the firearm with them when they go shooting.

Are those who keep their weapon allowed to fire it where they please?

I would suspect that like here in the US one must be careful about where one goes shooting. Here in the US it is against the law to set up some tin cans at Third and Cedar, or any other municipality intersection, and do some target practice.

 

[shanek]

Who said that? I totally missed that post.

Claus, as in CFLarsen, has said on many occasions that if he even so much as sees anyone on a plane with a gun, regardless of whether or not he's an Air Marshal, he'll jump and attack him and try to kill him.

 

[Lonewulf]

Are those who keep their weapon allowed to carry it around as they please?

Actually, "carrying it around as they please" is a non-issue in general for the argument of gun control. As there are Concealed Carry licenses you have to get even here in Texas. In order to carry a concealed weapon, you need to get certified, which is a fairly extensive process and gives you more responsibilities as an individual.

Claus, as in CFLarsen, has said on many occasions that if he even so much as sees anyone on a plane with a gun, regardless of whether or not he's an Air Marshal, he'll jump and attack him and try to kill him.

Riiiiiight.

I AM for one form of weapon control: I want CFLarsen to have no access to weaponry whatsoever, and be put into a place where he can't hurt anyone. Like a padded cell.

 

[baron]

Oh, okay, then.

What do you think will happen when you recall guns from every single citizen that owns them? Or is that your second step?

It may eventually be an option, but why are you putting words into my mouth? Why not address the issues that have already been tabled instead of trying to derail the discussion? Once you have done so, I will discuss subequent issues.

What if she doesn't want it deactivated? What if she wants it for self defense of her home and property?

First it's a treasured family heirloom, next it's being used to blam out the window at every swinging dick creeping by the porch. Your arguments are getting so shaky I can barely read your typing.

Will you then want her arrested?

No disrepect to your relatives, but I should let you know at this point that your grandmother's views on the deactivation of WWII weaponry doesn't figure highly when considering the control of a monstrous and unacceptable mortality rate.

Wow. You just cannot add two and two together, can you?

GUNS = ALREADY OUT THERE.

PEOPLE = CAN BUY GUNS OUTSIDE OF STORES.

GUNS = HARD TO MOP UP.

You're right, too difficult, best not even try then. Pretty difficult to stamp out murder, rape and robbery too. Might as well give up on those.

There, you might be able to understand that.

Just about. Don't go too fast though, I'm jus' a lil ol gun control freak, hyuk hyuk.

Let's put it this way: how would a gun banning and recollection be any different than Prohibition?

One relates to guns, the other to alcohol. Please keep other bizarre comparisons to yourself unless you're prepared to explain their relevance.

Certainly. I do research and I know what I read.

"Non-lethal"? Being beaten to death sure is non-lethal...

Yes, it seems you know absolutely nothing whatsoever about street fighting. Nevertheless, feel free to answer my question on the subject, for the third time of asking.

"Sensibly"? Like your comment on how people can't get guns illegally once you take them out of stores?

So many straw men I could be in the middle of a wheat field. Point me to the post where I said people cannot get guns if not from a store.

And what about when someone wants to defend himself? If he's unarmed, he cannot achieve his aim.

Billions of people throughout the world, who do not routinely arm themselves in and outside their homes, would beg to differ. For the fifth time, I refer you to the figures and invite you to address them.

You don't seem to comprehend this little fact.

And what exactly do you know about self-defence? Oh yes, you once read a book on street fighting. And gangs.

Then how come there are other gun-saturated societies where gun crimes are lower?

If you're anything to go by, they are probably more mature.

 

[Skibum]

First it's a treasured family heirloom, next it's being used to blam out the window at every swinging dick creeping by the porch. Your arguments are getting so shaky I can barely read your typing.

Where do you guys come up with the idea that self defense of her home and property equals blamming out the window at every swinging dick creeping by the porch? Why do you guys feel the need to constantly misrepresent others arguments in that way?


Hollywood strikes again!

 

[baron]

Where do you guys come up with the idea that self defense of her home and property equals blamming out the window at every swinging dick creeping by the porch? Why do you guys feel the need to constantly misrepresent others arguements in that way?

Yes, it was a misrepresentation. The argument had become so ridiculous that I posted stupidly. That was a mistake.

Now we've got that over with, how about somebody stop picking over piddly little matters and actually address the issues?

 

[baron]

Anyway, it'll have to wait now. I'm dead tired. I'm gun to bed.

 

[Lonewulf]

It may eventually be an option, but why are you putting words into my mouth? Why not address the issues that have already been tabled instead of trying to derail the discussion? Once you have done so, I will discuss subequent issues.

Because you're choosing not to look at the whole picture. Here, I'll guide you along:

First it's a treasured family heirloom, next it's being used to blam out the window at every swinging dick creeping by the porch. Your arguments are getting so shaky I can barely read your typing.

"At every swinging dick creeping by the porch"? That's a straw man, and further it's insulting to my grandmother. She has never used it to shoot at someone "creeping by". If you think so, please show me evidence. You love it, right?

No disrepect to your relatives, but I should let you know at this point that your grandmother's views on the deactivation of WWII weaponry doesn't figure highly when considering the control of a monstrous and unacceptable mortality rate.

Your "monstrous and unacceptable mortality rate" has yet to be sufficiently proven to be only a result of firearms access.

You're right, too difficult, best not even try then. Pretty difficult to stamp out murder, rape and robbery too. Might as well give up on those.

Another example of having no clue about the whole picture.

If you cannot take guns out of circulation, and make guns unavailable for purchase, then you have an unbalanced score: More criminals with guns, less law-abiding citizens with guns. Must I make it any easier on you?

Just about. Don't go too fast though, I'm jus' a lil ol gun control freak, hyuk hyuk.

Yes, I'm glad we sorted that out. Now are you prepared to "look at the facts" like you claimed you could do earlier on?

One relates to guns, the other to alcohol. Please keep other bizarre comparisons to yourself unless you're prepared to explain their relevance.

Explain the relevance? Wow, you really are... man. "Hyuk hyuk" indeed.

1) A significant portion of the population desired alcohol. The economy was also heavily based on it. A significant portion of the population desire handguns and firearms of various sorts for hunting, sports, and self defense.

2) Alcohol was banned, and it was illegal to own alcohol. Firearms, under your proposed system, would be banned, and it would eventually become illegal to own an armed firearm.

3) Number 2 would be greatly unpopular with a vast majority of the population. Thus, the laws wouldn't stick around long even if implemented.

Is that enough relevance? Or do you want more?

How about the arguments? Alcohol causes accidences and harm people. Therefore, we make it a moral imperative to ban alcohol in a misguided attempt to save lives. You want to ban guns because you think that it causes more accidents and harms people.

Both would not work, for the same reasons. I've already demonstrated that firearms hold a cultural value.

Yes, it seems you know absolutely nothing whatsoever about street fighting. Nevertheless, feel free to answer my question on the subject, for the third time of asking.

How so? How do I "know absolutely nothing"?

So many straw men I could be in the middle of a wheat field. Point me to the post where I said people cannot get guns if not from a store.

Well, obviously, it will OBVIOUSLY reduce crime by a MEGAGINORMOUS amount if you keep people from being able to buy them in stores. I mean, they can't get them from other sources, right? So it must make a significant difference, right? Otherwise, what's the point?

Wow, can't even keep up with your own argument?

Billions of people throughout the world, who do not routinely arm themselves in and outside their homes...

Many of them in different cultures and different environments. For many of them, that is not applicable.

would beg to differ. For the fifth time, I refer you to the figures and invite you to address them.

Fascinating. Already have. Correlation/causation fallacy. Please keep up.

And what exactly do you know about self-defence? Oh yes, you once read a book on street fighting. And gangs.

"Read a book"? Huh, I didn't say that. I said I did research. That's more than "reading a book". But please, go ahead, keep making up straw men and showing the title of this thread to be absolutely correct. You ARE right, though: This argument is completely and totally ridiculous. But not on my side.

So, what do I know about self-defense? I'm a self-practice practitioner of Krav Maga. I know friends that are ex-police, and do far more research on the subject of self defense. I know a man that studies knife-fighting and is one of those ex-police officers.

What do I know about firearms?

Actually, quite a bit. I know about pistols, revolvers, bolt-action rifles, automatic rifles, battle rifles, assault rifles, submachineguns... I can list off the number line for ya, from .45s to 9mms to 10mm's. Do you want me to prove any particular point of research, or are you just committing yet another Ad Hominem?

If you're anything to go by, they are probably more mature.

Nice one. Of course, you have been perfectly mature all throughout this thread, I'm sure? Like calling my grandmother someone that goes crazy with a firearm without sufficient evidence. So please, go on, tell me how my family acts, while going on about how everyone else is immature. Plus, please tell me what would happen if my grandmother did not want her pistol to be disarmed? What would the appropriate punishment be? Should it be a misdemeanor, a felony, or a capital crime? What degree? Should she serve time in jail?

See, I'm making a point, so I'll try to make it clearer for you: This isn't just my grandmother we're talking about. This is families all across the U.S., that use firearms from everything from hunting, sports shooting, and self defense. If any of them refuse to disarm, then they would be made into criminals.

So, let's go over your proposed amendments a few times:

1) Guns banned completely from stores. -- Average person cannot buy firearms. Criminals still have access.
2) Disarm guns that we know the ownership of. -- Keeps guns coming into the hands of criminals from legal sources. Many families choose not to give up their weapons, and thus they become criminals in the eyes of the law.
3) (A miracle happens here) Find all the guns that cannot be easily traced by paperwork, and disarm them. -- Impossible to do.

So the average citizen is not armed, but those that can gain illegal access are.

I can't see this working WITHOUT intervention of the Gun Fairies. Without them, your argument crumbles to dust.

 

[Lonewulf]

Now we've got that over with, how about somebody stop picking over piddly little matters and actually address the issues?

I've BEEN addressing the issues. You've just chosen to ignore almost all of my points, and focusing over the "piddly little matters". Many of my posts have attempted to be comprehensive at least to some degree.

Oh well. Now I'm beginning to think that "freaks" was an adequate terminology.

 

[shanek]

Now we've got that over with, how about somebody stop picking over piddly little matters and actually address the issues?

We're still waiting on you.

 

[Lonewulf]

Heh, I did some random googling for statistics. I like this one:

http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds_dying.jpg

"Total odds of dying, period: 1:1"

Don't know if that's national, international, etc... so until there's more info, not sure if it erally holds up for any point of an argument.

 

[shanek]

There's a really good book by W. Kip Viscusi of the Harvard Center for Risk Assessment called Rational Risk Policy. He has a graph where he shows that people tend to overestimate the risk of rare dangers and underestimate the risk of the most common threats.

 

[Lonewulf]

There's a really good book by W. Kip Viscusi of the Harvard Center for Risk Assessment called Rational Risk Policy. He has a graph where he shows that people tend to overestimate the risk of rare dangers and underestimate the risk of the most common threats.

Like how far more people die of normal everyday flu than from chicken flu or SARS?

 

[fuelair]

Like how far more people die of normal everyday flu than from chicken flu or SARS?

Or the idiot fears (in the US) of being harmed by a bomb in school - or even of being shot in school.
Though the thing I do find worrisome in the school situation is that in most schools, a majority of the students/teachers are evacuated to parking areas- with cars in them - during the bomb scare. Where is the best place (safest, no danger of bomb being spotted - even if quite large) for a bomb? You guessed it!!

 

[Lonewulf]

Or the idiot fears (in the US) of being harmed by a bomb in school - or even of being shot in school.
Though the thing I do find worrisome in the school situation is that in most schools, a majority of the students/teachers are evacuated to parking areas- with cars in them - during the bomb scare. Where is the best place (safest, no danger of bomb being spotted - even if quite large) for a bomb? You guessed it!!

In Korea, when I went to a Department of Defense High School, we had bomb threats made almost daily for a while. I think it was more or less from the same person, and they evacuated everyone each time, got in the Military Police, canvassed the area, and then allowed us back in school. They offered rewards for him and everything. It was a real panic, and the guy was in for a LOT of trouble.

But every time he called in, they HAD to take it seriously. And I have to say that it's a good thing that they did. If it had been a real bomber that called in each time, he could just be waiting for us to grow "lax" and not actually evacuate before he detonated the bomb.

None of us students were actually worried, though. We felt that the guy was a crank.

 

[Mycroft]

For some reason, it doesn't register that criminals are law-abiding citizens gone bad.

Have you ever met any criminals? That might describe some of them, but not all.

 

[Lonewulf]

Have you ever met any criminals? That might describe some of them, but not all.

Indeed. As was mentioned before, a lot of people thrown in jail for assault with a firearm have a long criminal record and previous offenses. Few are ordinary happy citizens that suddenly go crazy and shoot each other up.