Gun Control is ridiculous

[Quad4_72]

Nothing if that is what tickles your fancy. However, you don't need to carry a gun at all times in case you feel the urge to go target shooting or hunting.

Skibum said that anyone can attack at anytime. It follows that to protect himself from anyone at anytime he must always be armed. I said that I did not have the same fear of being attacked.

Sure if you want to go target shooting or hunting you need a gun but the point I was making was the constant need to be armed not the occasional leisure shooting times.

Just out of curiosity, if you were attacked at one point by two guys that wanted to kill you, would you wish you had a gun?

 

[Lonewulf]

So no one has actually made that point?

I thought it was. I'm toot ired to root through this entire thread to find it.

Fine, then. So guns are evil, but killing people in other ways is just fine. Glad to clear that up.

 

[shanek]

For 15 pages I have repeatedly asked you and other gun supporters to address the issue - the actual statistics.

And I have asked you to support the statistics you say. The last time was on the previous page when I said this:

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.

This was met with silence from you. Will you address it, or would you just rather trade personal insults?

 

[shanek]

As far as I know gun control laws are about controlling guns not knives or axes.

So, where do you stand on the issue of knife control or axe control?

 

[Lonewulf]

Nothing if that is what tickles your fancy. However, you don't need to carry a gun at all times in case you feel the urge to go target shooting or hunting.

Then your main issue is with concealed carry laws? Or No Guns Zones?

Here's a question for ya: Can anyone be trusted with a firearm, if they're shown to be safe enough and demonstrate all the correct precautions?

If so, then would you accept a tighter regulation on concealed carry permits?

If not, then why? If they have a history of being prone to anger, and we revoke their ability to conceal a firearm or own a firearm, would that be more acceptable? If they have a history of being drunk, and their firearm was taken away, would that be more acceptable?

Skibum said that anyone can attack at anytime. It follows that to protect himself from anyone at anytime he must always be armed. I said that I did not have the same fear of being attacked.

Sure if you want to go target shooting or hunting you need a gun but the point I was making was the constant need to be armed not the occasional leisure shooting times.

Yet some here want to ban all handguns, period. In fact, it seems like Baron and the like are advocating a ban on *all* guns.

Here in Corpus Christi, there's plenty of people walking around with concealed firearms. When talking with the local gun dealership, the people there told me of at least 2 cases where their firearm was necessary, and both times they never actually fired it, just threatened with it.

Sure, it's anecdotal. But it's two people here, within the city of Corpus Christi, living almost right next to me that needed the ability to defend themselves at one time, and if they did not have that ability they would have ended up in very very dire straights.

I just don't see what's so wrong about wanting them to keep that ability to defend themselves, and I have yet to get shot up by some crazed person with a gun that got the "gun virus", even though the majority of the populace here walks around with a concealed firearm. Heck, I didn't even know that people even had concealed firearms until I talked to the local gun dealership when going target practice.

 

[baron]

I can't resist this one...

In fact, getting shot in the head, assuming it doesn't hit your brain (or the most vital parts of your brain), you can survive

Why assume that somone shot in the head wouldn't have a brain injury? I'm willing to believe there might be an element of truth in your case, but for most people... Nope.

According to Aarabi, 20,000 people in the United States die each year from gunshot wounds to the head. The survival rate is about 5 percent, with only 3 percent achieving a good quality of life afterward.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/na...,0,4888985.story?coll=bal-nationworld-utility

A consecutive series of 178 civilians with gunshot wounds of the brain was retrospectively analyzed. The overall mortality was 93%...

http://www.springerlink.com/content/u44q166188806414/

Many people have died from being BEATEN to death. One of my friends has been beaten (almost to death) several times, making it out through only force of will.

And if your friend had been shot several times, do you think they'd still be alive? Er, no.

And how do the stats compare? Surely you have some, no? Show your figures that list the ratio of deaths in non-firearm conflicts to the ratio of deaths in firearm conflicts.

I consider being stabbed with a knife, or hit in the head with a crowbar or axe, to be only slightly worse than being shot.

Being hit on the head with a crowbar is slightly worse than being shot? Are you in any way serious?

Maybe you want to apply your made-up statistics to the child fatality rates I posted earlier.

Yet here I only see guns statistics thrown about

The title of the thread gives a hint as to why this is.

I would urge you strongly to go away now and do some research. Read up on the difference between a gunshot and a stab wound, or a bang on the head. Read about what really happens when you're shot, how a single bullet can ricochet inside a person, breaking their bones and turning their organs into mush.

When you've learned something, report back.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

Fine, then. So guns are evil, but killing people in other ways is just fine. Glad to clear that up.

I'm sorry I cannot agree with your view that only murder carried out using a gun is wrong - I think murder with any weapon is wrong.

 

[baron]

And I have asked you to support the statistics you say. The last time was on the previous page when I said this:



This was met with silence from you. Will you address it, or would you just rather trade personal insults?

No, it was not met with silence. I have responded fully to this several posts ago. You just haven't read it.

 

[Lonewulf]

I'm sorry I cannot agree with your view that only murder carried out using a gun is wrong - I think murder with any weapon is wrong.

That wasn't my point.

If the contention here is that banning guns will lower gun crime in the U.S. (which I disagree with and have made points on, in previous posts), then will the non-gun crime stay the same, or increase proportionately?

If it changes proportionately that the less guns are available the more people kill each other with non-guns, then all you've done is change the weapon used.

But I'd rather focus on the point that you cannot take weapons out of the hands of the average criminal that is willing to buy guns on the black market. That's much more pertinent for discussion about U.S. banning.

 

[CFLarsen]

Yet her story was handwaved away. This suggests to me that people really don't care about her ability to defend herself, or that people actually exist that need to defend themselves.

People like Baron seem to assume that, quite frankly, you can only pull the trigger with a firearm. There's no such thing as simply threatening or saying, "I HAVE A GUN!", which alleviates many potential hostile situations.

"This suggests to me"....??

That's it? That's your reason to claim that some people here want to see a woman raped and killed?

You have absolutely no reason to come to such an outrageous conclusion.

 

[shanek]

No, it was not met with silence. I have responded fully to this several posts ago. You just haven't read it.

I reviewed all of your posts and I didn't see it. Can you link to it?

EDIT: Oh, and calling someone a "first class idiot" doesn't count.

 

[Lonewulf]

"This suggests to me"....??

That's it? That's your reason to claim that some people here want to see a woman raped and killed?

You have absolutely no reason to come to such an outrageous conclusion.

Very well.

So she no longer has a firearm. What should she do, then?

Should she let them rape her? Or kill her?

 

[baron]

"This suggests to me"....??

That's it? That's your reason to claim that some people here want to see a woman raped and killed?

You have absolutely no reason to come to such an outrageous conclusion.

I wouldn't waste your time. He's already been yellow-carded for this but still won't retract his astonishing statement.

 

[baron]

I reviewed all of your posts and I didn't see it. Can you link to it?

Here

Statistics have shown massively disporportionate fatalities and injuries involving guns in the US. The statistics for other types of violence are largely comparable, sometimes favourably, to European countries. I asked you to explain this. You mutter about the "war on drugs" and then say I should prove that the deaths would not have occurred if no guns had been involved.

I will not do this because only a first class idiot could believe that a conflict involving fists or knives or bats is anywhere near as likely to result in death as one involving guns. I don't know the stats, no, but I would estimate you're talking thousands of orders of magnitude.

Therefore, I ask you for the sixth or seventh time, explain the figures.

 

[Lonewulf]

I wouldn't waste your time. He's already been yellow-carded for this but still won't retract his astonishing statement.

Alright, I'll retract it, and I even apologized for it. No, are you willing to apologize for the insults you slung at me? Or is it okay to call someone dumb, paranoid, and a nut here?

However, what should that woman have done, then, in the situation she was in? If you care, then please, give me an answer.

 

[Lothian]

Just out of curiosity, if you were attacked at one point by two guys that wanted to kill you, would you wish you had a gun?

Just out of curisoity. If your 8 year old took your gun and shot themselves, would you wish you didn't have a gun ?

 

[shanek]

Here

That's you avoiding the question, not answering it. Your figures don't even do the minimum necessary to account for other factors (do you even know what a regression analysis is???).

 

[Lonewulf]

Just out of curisoity. If your 8 year old took your gan and shot themselves, would you wish you didn't have a gun ?

Then your issue is with locked cabinets, then? And safeties?

If the safety is on, it's unlikely the child would disable it. If the gun is unloaded altogether, or stored in a locked compartment, then that further causes the accidental gun death to be unlikely.

Further, "accidental gun deaths" are far less common than other forms of gun violence. It's a very very small piece of the pie.

But seriously, this falls under "safe gun keeping", as well as raising your child to have a healthy respect for firearms (though an 8 year old is way too young to really understand that, so I'd just keep it out of his hands altogether).

 

[Lothian]

Then your main issue is..................

No my main issue is with Americans (mainly) telling me that the Uk has a gun problem and that we should drop our gun laws.

I don't tell Americans that they should not be allowed to carry guns or that they should change their laws (I apologise if I have). As you (I think) said the two cultures are different.

 

[shanek]

Just out of curisoity. If your 8 year old took your gan and shot themselves, would you wish you didn't have a gun ?

If your 8-year-old drowned, would you wish you didn't have a swimming pool? That actually happens more often than gun accidents.