Gun Control is ridiculous

[Lonewulf]

Examples of shanek completely losing control:

Source

Source

Source

Source

Source

Source

Ah, yes, I see your point.

But you don't have real-life experience with violence, so you don't know how you would react.

So the default assumption is that I'd go crazy and kill innocent people? Please.

Let me remind you of your post #573. You used the argument that, unless people had actual experience with something, it was a "factor in the argument".

Which you did not agree to. So using tactics you don't agree to is good? By your own logic, I shouldn't trust you with a firearm then. Or any weapon, period.

It isn't a question of what I would do. It's a question of what gun proponents would do.

Then show me statistics! Out of the average gun owner, how many have actually gone crazy and killed someone?

Do you feel confident that you know enough Krav Maga to adequately defend yourself in a violent situation?

Yes. Not all situations, but enough so that it matters. I know what to look for and what to do against an opponent. I'm not saying I'm a master at it, but I know how to handle myself more than the average person without training.

It proves that you are not in as much control as you would like to think you are.

Actually, I know how much control I have. I get angry in discussions and sometimes say what I don't mean. This is not news to me. However, please prove how this proves that I will go into a rage and kill innocent people?

Please, prove it, and don't just sit here speculating all day and wasting my time. Thank you.

There are quite many people on death row who also said what you said. What makes you any different? What makes you such a special human being?

How many people on death row? Most of the people that go on death row are guilty of very heinous acts. Shooting at another person in anger, as far as I know, has a far less chance of causing someone to get the death penalty than someone who kills more than one person (which is usually not a crime of passion), rapes and kills, or kills children.

Please back your statements up with valid evidence.

 

[Skibum]

That doesn't answer the question.

Sure it does, You just can't grasp the notion of using violence as a last resort.

 

[CFLarsen]

Ah, yes, I see your point.

And you could be in this mood, too.

So the default assumption is that I'd go crazy and kill innocent people? Please.

No, the default position is that you are a human being, and therefore not being able to control your anger at all times, in all situations.

Surely, you can see that arguing otherwise is not a tenable position?

Which you did not agree to. So using tactics you don't agree to is good? By your own logic, I shouldn't trust you with a firearm then. Or any weapon, period.

That's exactly my point: You shouldn't.

Do you?

Then show me statistics! Out of the average gun owner, how many have actually gone crazy and killed someone?

You have already been presented with how many gun deaths there is. You think that is acceptable, I disagree.

Yes. Not all situations, but enough so that it matters. I know what to look for and what to do against an opponent. I'm not saying I'm a master at it, but I know how to handle myself more than the average person without training.

How do you know that you know enough?

Trying something out on your friends, and being in the actual situatiobn are two very different things. Are you sure you are not grossly overestimating your Krav Maga abilities?

Actually, I know how much control I have. I get angry in discussions and sometimes say what I don't mean. This is not news to me. However, please prove how this proves that I will go into a rage and kill innocent people?

Please, prove it, and don't just sit here speculating all day and wasting my time. Thank you.

Note that I didn't say you would. I said you could - which you have admitted.

How many people on death row? Most of the people that go on death row are guilty of very heinous acts. Shooting at another person in anger, as far as I know, has a far less chance of causing someone to get the death penalty than someone who kills more than one person (which is usually not a crime of passion), rapes and kills, or kills children.

Please back your statements up with valid evidence.

How far do you think "as far as I know" will get you on a skeptics' forum?

Sure it does, You just can't grasp the notion of using violence as a last resort.

Apart from the fact that it doesn't, what you are saying paints a very discomforting picture of the United States.

Given the much higher number of gun deaths in the US compared to other countries, you are really saying that the population of the United States are far more prone to using violence as a last resort.

When you consider that, why do you think it is still a good idea to arm the population?

 

[Lonewulf]

And you could be in this mood, too.

Yes. You're right! Wow, look at Shanek gun apart that entire school! OMG! He just shot a pregnant woman! WOW! He's so amazingly gun crazy over a few words on a screen!

Please.

No, the default position is that you are a human being, and therefore not being able to control your anger at all times, in all situations.

Please demonstrate that that equates me to killing another human being? Show me statistics that says it's likely. Statistics that DIRECTLY demonstrates gunshots made in anger, AND by people with no prior history of violence.

Surely, you can see that arguing otherwise is not a tenable position?

Then show me the odds. Show me how likely it is that I will kill another human being if I had access to firearms than if I did not. Otherwise, you're just speculating and guessing.

That's exactly my point: You shouldn't.

I said "by your logic". Which isn't logical at all.

You don't trust yourself with a firearm, and I don't trust you with a firearm. Great, glad that's settled. I trust myself with a firearm and I trust the average person (who would *not* kill an Air Marshal on sight) with a firearm as well. You may feel free to disagree, but until you provide me with evidence that it's likely that any given person will go crazy and kill with a gun over any other weapon, then you're still just speculating.

You have already been presented with how many gun deaths there is. You think that is acceptable, I disagree.

And it has been explained to you the differences in numbers and how you're getting more out of the statistics than is shown. How many of those statistics were just some wife getting angry and pulling the trigger over an experienced criminal or self-defense gunshot? Last I checked, not only was gun violence (and violence in general) going down in the U.S., but the majority of people convicted of murder had a prior criminal record. Doesn't scream to me like someone that just "went crazy". Please demonstrate otherwise with actual facts, not speculation.

Trying something out on your friends, and being in the actual situatiobn are two very different things. Are you sure you are not grossly overestimating your Krav Maga abilities?

I'm always willing to learn more, don't get me wrong. But yes, I am confident. You can only guess what my capabilities are; you do not know. Me, I have prior experience with what I have practiced and not practices.

Note that I didn't say you would. I said you could - which you have admitted.

When the hell did I admit that I could fall into a rage powerful enough to kill an innocent person? Quote me on that.

If it is a possibility, it is so remote I'm not even worried about it. I am more worried about someone else being able to attack or steal from me than I am about me going so angry that I could shoot someone.

How far do you think "as far as I know" will get you on a skeptics' forum?

That's strange 'cause, I haven't seen you actually acting too skeptical.

 

[shanek]

Ah, yes, I see your point.

Getting mad at a liar is completely losing control? I typed exactly what I intended to.

 

[Lonewulf]

Getting mad at a liar is completely losing control? I typed exactly what I intended to.

Good point, you were still in control. I wasn't in that discussion, so I can't tell how justifiable your responses were, but you did seem a bit over-the-top from just a simple glimpse. However, I shall reserve all judgement.

Nonetheless, from the sounds of it, I'd still trust you at my back if something bad were to happen. Words do not denote actions. If a man shouts loudly, that doesn't make him more likely to strike someone, it just means that he shouts loudly.

 

[CFLarsen]

Yes. You're right! Wow, look at Shanek gun apart that entire school! OMG! He just shot a pregnant woman! WOW! He's so amazingly gun crazy over a few words on a screen!

Please.


Please demonstrate that that equates me to killing another human being? Show me statistics that says it's likely. Statistics that DIRECTLY demonstrates gunshots made in anger, AND by people with no prior history of violence.


Then show me the odds. Show me how likely it is that I will kill another human being if I had access to firearms than if I did not. Otherwise, you're just speculating and guessing.

Are you seriously saying that you will never, ever be so angry that you don't know - or care - what you do?

No matter what happens?

I said "by your logic". Which isn't logical at all.

You don't trust yourself with a firearm, and I don't trust you with a firearm. Great, glad that's settled. I trust myself with a firearm and I trust the average person (who would *not* kill an Air Marshal on sight) with a firearm as well. You may feel free to disagree, but until you provide me with evidence that it's likely that any given person will go crazy and kill with a gun over any other weapon, then you're still just speculating.

What is the matter with you? Do you have a problem with understanding the written word?

Nowhere have I said it was "likely". Nowhere have I said that you would kill someone.

Don't you think you would be better off if you argued against what I had really said, instead of what you imagine that I said?

And it has been explained to you the differences in numbers and how you're getting more out of the statistics than is shown. How many of those statistics were just some wife getting angry and pulling the trigger over an experienced criminal or self-defense gunshot? Last I checked, not only was gun violence (and violence in general) going down in the U.S., but the majority of people convicted of murder had a prior criminal record. Doesn't scream to me like someone that just "went crazy". Please demonstrate otherwise with actual facts, not speculation.

Are you saying there is a direct link between the number of guns and gun violence, as in "the more guns, the less gun crime"?

I'm always willing to learn more, don't get me wrong. But yes, I am confident. You can only guess what my capabilities are; you do not know. Me, I have prior experience with what I have practiced and not practices.

But no prior experience of what you will do in a violent situation. And, from what you have told me about your abilities in Krav Maga, you strike me as someone who are, in fact, grossly overestimating himself.

In how he will react in a violent situation.

In how he is able to defend himself, using techniques other people need years of training of.

Sorry, but you are not making a convincing argument.

When the hell did I admit that I could fall into a rage powerful enough to kill an innocent person? Quote me on that.

I may have misunderstood you. You claim that you can't? Really? You simply cannot fall into a rage powerful enough to kill an innocent person?

Would you say this is a general human trait? Or are you, somehow, better equipped to control your anger?

If it is a possibility, it is so remote I'm not even worried about it. I am more worried about someone else being able to attack or steal from me than I am about me going so angry that I could shoot someone.

I think this is symptomatic of how gun proponents think: They simply can't imagine that they themselves can be in a situation where they become a danger to others.

That's strange 'cause, I haven't seen you actually acting too skeptical.

It will get you nowhere.

 

[CFLarsen]

Getting mad at a liar is completely losing control? I typed exactly what I intended to.

If you think you were in control when you made those post, you have a serious problem.

 

[Lonewulf]

Are you seriously saying that you will never, ever be so angry that you don't know - or care - what you do?

No matter what happens?

What are the possibilities that I will? Give me a set number. We can sit here speculating all day -- I could speculate that someday, a miracle will happen and you'll suddenly someday change your mind on this subject, but I'm certainly not going to act as if you will.

I'm sorry, but until you provide statistics to show that it is *likely* I will fall into a rage as strong as you denote, then I consider you just as paranoid as people were claiming I was. Moreso, even. You obviously live in a world where everyone is just a teeming sack of hate and anger ready to leap out at you at any moment.

What is the matter with you? Do you have a problem with understanding the written word?

Nowhere have I said it was "likely". Nowhere have I said that you would kill someone.

Don't you think you would be better off if you argued against what I had really said, instead of what you imagine that I said?

You're considering it a valid argument to suggest that if I have a chance of getting into this unlikely "rage", then it circumvents my want to protect myself against an unlikely attack. Baron said to weigh the pros and cons, and you have yet to demonstrate the weight of your suggested con.

Are you saying there is a direct link between the number of guns and gun violence, as in "the more guns, the less gun crime"?

I am saying that gun violence has gone down the past few years. Whatever we're doing, we're doing it right. And it hasn't been through strict restrictions on firearms.

I don't live in a world of oversimplifications, of black and white, of simple answers to complicated questions. I live in the real world. And in the real world, I prefer to consider all the aspects of anything.

But no prior experience of what you will do in a violent situation. And, from what you have told me about your abilities in Krav Maga, you strike me as someone who are, in fact, grossly overestimating himself.

Then that is your opinion. I do not agree with you.

I may have misunderstood you. You claim that you can't? Really? You simply cannot fall into a rage powerful enough to kill an innocent person?

Would you say this is a general human trait? Or are you, somehow, better equipped to control your anger?

I think that the kind of rage you're describing is not common, yes. I also think that it may very well be just as unlikely as my chances of running into a rapist, or a gangster, or a killer, yes. Do you have statistics that show otherwise? Until you demonstrate them, then I will cease to respond to your posts.

I think this is symptomatic of how gun proponents think: They simply can't imagine that they themselves can be in a situation where they become a danger to others.

And it's symptomatic of how you Total Gun Control types think: You simply cannot imagine that we could actually be responsible human beings that can be trusted with anything. You even think that a grenade can be equated to a pistol. Truly hilarious.

(Yes, overgeneralizing is both easy and fun! It's also a logical fallacy. Thank you for playing!)

 

[Yjacket]

How about realizing that, since Switzerland is not a member of the EU, the EU has no say in what happens in Switzerland?

You made a mistake by thinking that Switzerland was a member of the EU. But you won't admit to it.

ROTFLMAO. I made no mistake such as thinking that Switzerland is a member of the EU. You wish I had done so. I will not hold my breath but I will suggest it anyway - link us to a post where I said or implied that Switzerland is a member of the EU. What I did say was "I also recall that it was demands from EU that caused the changes, not the local population." In case you had not noticed many national groups put pressure on other national groups since it is wanted that changes be made. It is one of those international politics things. Nations do it all the time.

Ah, yes, the old Kleck/Lott "2-3 million defensive gun uses" ruse.
Snip - -
Now, Kleck relied on what people told him. He didn't check one single story. So, already, his data falls through.

Ah yes, thank you CFLarsen for demonstrating conclusively that you do not read what is posted, nor do you read the links, nor do you actually keep up with the topic. You just want to blow smoke. No where has anyone said a thing about a Kleck/Lott 2-3 million defensive gun uses. To the best of my knowledge Kleck and Lott have not joined forces to study or publish anything.

BTW in an address to the National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Panel on the Understanding and Prevention of Violence Dr. Kleck noted However, as a modest body of reliable evidence (and an enormous body of not-so-reliable evidence) accumulated, so it would seem that your accusation of not checking anything is questionable. Actually Kleck and staff worked hard to eliminate false positives so it would seem that it is your opinion that falls through. It is the elimination of false positives that caused Cook/Ludwig to think that Kleck had been too conservative and may have eliminated as false items which were valid.

No wonder you repeatedly bad keyboarded this thread and feel that there is nothing more to be said. Your posts keep me ROTFLMAO.

 

[CFLarsen]

What are the possibilities that I will? Give me a set number. We can sit here speculating all day -- I could speculate that someday, a miracle will happen and you'll suddenly someday change your mind on this subject, but I'm certainly not going to act as if you will.

I'm sorry, but until you provide statistics to show that it is *likely* I will fall into a rage as strong as you denote, then I consider you just as paranoid as people were claiming I was. Moreso, even. You obviously live in a world where everyone is just a teeming sack of hate and anger ready to leap out at you at any moment.

I am asking what you think you are capable of.

You keep harping on the fact that I don't know you. You're right, I don't. So, have a go at the question:

Are you seriously saying that you will never, ever be so angry that you don't know - or care - what you do? No matter what happens?

Just yes or no.

I am saying that gun violence has gone down the past few years. Whatever we're doing, we're doing it right. And it hasn't been through strict restrictions on firearms.

I don't live in a world of oversimplifications, of black and white, of simple answers to complicated questions. I live in the real world. And in the real world, I prefer to consider all the aspects of anything.

But, when you say it hasn't been through strict restrictions on firearms, what is it, then? Guns have nothing to do with gun crime?

Then that is your opinion. I do not agree with you.

And you will not even entertain the idea that you could be grossly overestimating yourself.

I think that the kind of rage you're describing is not common, yes. I also think that it may very well be just as unlikely as my chances of running into a rapist, or a gangster, or a killer, yes. Do you have statistics that show otherwise? Until you demonstrate them, then I will cease to respond to your posts.

I didn't ask if it was common or not. I asked if it was a general human trait.

Are humans generally capable of flying into a blind rage, yes or no?

And it's symptomatic of how you Total Gun Control types think: You simply cannot imagine that we could actually be responsible human beings that can be trusted with anything. You even think that a grenade can be equated to a pistol. Truly hilarious.

(Yes, overgeneralizing is both easy and fun! It's also a logical fallacy. Thank you for playing!)

I note that you didn't address my point, but instead chose to turn to tables.

You really have a hard time admitting that you could, in fact, fly into a blind rage, don't you?

 

[CFLarsen]

ROTFLMAO. I made no mistake such as thinking that Switzerland is a member of the EU. You wish I had done so. I will not hold my breath but I will suggest it anyway - link us to a post where I said or implied that Switzerland is a member of the EU. What I did say was "I also recall that it was demands from EU that caused the changes, not the local population." In case you had not noticed many national groups put pressure on other national groups since it is wanted that changes be made. It is one of those international politics things. Nations do it all the time.

Then, show evidence that it was the EU who put "pressure" on Switzerland, to the point where the Swiss population felt pressured enough to obey.

Ah yes, thank you CFLarsen for demonstrating conclusively that you do not read what is posted, nor do you read the links, nor do you actually keep up with the topic. You just want to blow smoke. No where has anyone said a thing about a Kleck/Lott 2-3 million defensive gun uses. To the best of my knowledge Kleck and Lott have not joined forces to study or publish anything.

Nobody has said they had.

BTW in an address to the National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Panel on the Understanding and Prevention of Violence Dr. Kleck noted However, as a modest body of reliable evidence (and an enormous body of not-so-reliable evidence) accumulated, so it would seem that your accusation of not checking anything is questionable. Actually Kleck and staff worked hard to eliminate false positives so it would seem that it is your opinion that falls through. It is the elimination of false positives that caused Cook/Ludwig to think that Kleck had been too conservative and may have eliminated as false items which were valid.

No wonder you repeatedly bad keyboarded this thread and feel that there is nothing more to be said. Your posts keep me ROTFLMAO.

Yes, yes, you're a riot.

Can you explain where the 190,900 cases of someone being wounded or killed show up in the statistics?

 

[Lonewulf]

As CFLarson has not provided the evidence that I asked for, and seems to have misconstrued my argument entirely, I hereby will not respond to any of his posts as he has nothing vital to add to the discussion.

We now return you to your normally scheduled thread in progress. Thank you.

 

[CFLarsen]

As CFLarson has not provided the evidence that I asked for, and seems to have misconstrued my argument entirely, I hereby will not respond to any of his posts as he has nothing vital to add to the discussion.

We now return you to your normally scheduled thread in progress. Thank you.

It's "CFLarsen".

Are you seriously saying that you will never, ever be so angry that you don't know - or care - what you do? No matter what happens? Just yes or no.

When you say it hasn't been through strict restrictions on firearms, what is it, then? Guns have nothing to do with gun crime?

Are humans generally capable of flying into a blind rage, yes or no?

 

[The Painter]

A gun is neither evil nor good. It is an inanimate object. You can not give moral characteristics to an inanimate object.

In all the anti-gun talk here, how is it character of the individual is so quickly overlooked? All the numbers thrown about for murders with guns, suicides with guns, accidents with guns, how about the association of the use or sale of drugs with these numbers. It’s over 50%. Most murders are committed by criminals with previous records. It is not normal law abiding people who all of a sudden go nuts. It is criminals with ILLEGAL guns.


http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvmurd.html#table1


There are over 20,000 gun laws. Is having 20,001 really going to make a difference?

 

[Lonewulf]

It's "CFLarsen".

My apologies.

Are you seriously saying that you will never, ever be so angry that you don't know - or care - what you do? No matter what happens? Just yes or no.

I'm saying that it's extremely unlikely. Do you disagree? Yes or no?

When you say it hasn't been through strict restrictions on firearms, what is it, then? Guns have nothing to do with gun crime?

Certainly. If there are no guns to go around, people cannot commit gun crimes. They commit knife crimes and axe crimes and crowbar crimes, but not gun crimes.

But so what? I have yet to see a single proposal in this thread that will solve the situation here in the U.S., just worsen it.

Are humans generally capable of flying into a blind rage, yes or no?

Capable? Yes. Likely? Not at all. And, what's your point?

Is it possible I will ever run into a situation where I would need a firearm to protect myself? Yes or no?

We can run these "yes or no" questions all day long. Until you provide the odds that I will fall into a rage, it's only so much hot air, and you just prove how "skeptical" you really are.

 

[Skibum]

Apart from the fact that it doesn't, what you are saying paints a very discomforting picture of the United States.

I'm not sure how or why you keep trying to extrapolate questions directed at me personally into the bigger picture of the United States. If you want to hear an answer pertaining to the U.S. in general please ask the question in that manner.

So yes, your question was answered perfectly, if you would like to rephrase it differently please do so.

Given the much higher number of gun deaths in the US compared to other countries, you are really saying that the population of the United States are far more prone to using violence as a last resort.

Perhaps this might help. This is the question you asked......

If you have no real-life experience with violence, how do you know how you will react in a violent situation?

Notice that nowhere does it ask anything about the population of the United States. It would greatly be appreciated if you would refrain from your silly little word games and putting words into others mouths.

When you consider that, why do you think it is still a good idea to arm the population?

Because after all is said and done, the risk from firearms is still less than other risks many people are willing to accept in day to day life.

 

[Lonewulf]

Because after all is said and done, the risk from firearms is still less than other risks many people are willing to accept in day to day life.

Aren't your risks of drowning higher than your risk of getting shot by a gun? Then we should ban boats and swimming pools, period. It saves lives, after all, so therefore no one should be able to have 'em.

Quid pro quo.

 

[Skibum]

Aren't your risks of drowning higher than your risk of getting shot by a gun? Then we should ban boats and swimming pools, period. It saves lives, after all, so therefore no one should be able to have 'em.

Quid pro quo.

Ah, but you are forgetting the "intended use" mumbo jumbo.

 

[Lonewulf]

Ah, but you are forgetting the "intended use" mumbo jumbo.

Boats are intended to go into water. Therefore, they're dangerous devices. Swimming pools are meant to give you close access to the dangerous dihydrogen monoxide. Therefore, their "intended use" is to put you in danger.


(I'd add something about "years of training" in martial arts: Krav Maga was selected by police forces and militaries across the world because some of the most important moves taught within it was not difficult to learn; in a few weeks of intensive training, police officers and military soldiers have been able to adequately defend themselves in numerous situations, from dealing with knives, clubs, firearms, and even some unarmed situations. So pardon me if I'm a bit confident in the style that has been shown to actually work).