Gun Control is ridiculous

[fuelair]

And you could be in this mood, too.



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?



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

Do you?



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



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?




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



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



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?

You know my view on this pretty well. Here is exactly what happened in my case the last time violence occured - this was a few years ago in a line for a film. For unimportant reason, a male about twice my mass but roughly my height grabbed my shirt with both hands and threatened me. I did not A)stab him (was capable and knived), or B) put his testes in his stomach and compact his solar plexus or use his sternum tip to chop his liver though these were the easiest of the options. Instead, I casually placed my fingers around his extended thumbs. Why did I limit myself to that? Because at that point, anything I did was self defence, from the time my fingers got around his thumbs he had no chance and I follow the law - and I knew that he had no functional knowledge of fighting because I was able to get his thumbs - and nobody leaves them extended because they break at 10-15 lb. pressure at most and it is rather painful when that happens. No one was hurt because it wasn't necessary. If he had actually known how to fight, I might and would have had to cut him but he had not attacked anyone but me and he could not do me any damage so..... I have, by the by, been attacked 6 times in my life (not counting my time in Vietnam) three required a physical response, none resulted in a permanent injury for the other person/persons - or me. I carry a gun now because certain crimes have gone up and I have my wife to think of - and I am getting older. Unless the police/government can guarantee complete freedom from crime I do not plan to change that - even if the law changes.

 

[shanek]

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.

Don't get the wrong idea about Claus.

















He's like that in every thread.

 

[Yjacket]

OK, let's assume you're correct (I am not for a moment saying you are) but let's just assume. Let's say there are 8 million guns being sold in the US every year (EDITED), not 14 million. How does that affect my argument? (Hint, you need to understand my argument before you answer.)

Ah no, I do not need to understand your argument before I answer. You have no argument because you used as a source a document that is incorrect. There is no assumption that I am correct because your source listed a reference for the information and I provided you a link to that reference as well as quoting the reference. Since it is so easy to demonstrate that your source is incorrect, very possibly with intent, that invalidates anything that source has to say.

Here is an interesting stat about how well the citizens of the US control their guns.

Not really. You see you nor anyone else has addressed the issue of the black market in firearms. You keep wanting to insinuate that the law-abiding are the cause of the carnage taking place with firearms and that if we just banned firearms from the possession of the law-abiding this carnage would cease. The vast majority of criminals procure their firearms illegally. Please do something about the criminals in our society. Of that 5285 in the US how many are in the 15 to 19 years of age category and were killed as a result of drug and gang activity?

 

[shanek]

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.

In fact, Kleck heavily criticizes Lott's findings in Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control.

 

[Quad4_72]

It seems that Larsens only argument is that he does not trust people with guns. But the thing is, we live in the real world here, and we are NEVER going to fully get rid of guns. Criminals will always get ahold of them. Occasionally someone with a gun who has not committed any previous crimes may go into a rage or something and kill somebody. But if they go into a rage to where they are intent on taking someones life, they will use other means if a gun is not available. This can be seen throughout history where people get stabbed to death in a fit of rage.

Trying to outright ban guns in the US is just a silly idea. It would not work, and it would simply leave law abiding citizens defenseless. Yes we know that the gun control advocates think that they live in such a perfect world where they don't have to worry about crime. Reality is, we do NOT live in a perfect world. Guns will always be readily available to criminals no matter how illegal guns become.

 

[Lonewulf]

In fact, guns are almost entirely banned in Washington D.C., yet it's one of the most dangerous cities in the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Washington,_D.C.

 

[Yjacket]

Nobody has said they had.

Sorry there fella but it was you back in post at post 647 who said " Ah, yes, the old Kleck/Lott "2-3 million defensive gun uses" ruse." To me at least that indicates you feel that Kleck and Lott have collaborated at some point. You and only you mention a Kleck/Lott bit of information.

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

It is your statement so perhaps you should explain it.

 

[shanek]

In fact, guns are almost entirely banned in Washington D.C., yet it's one of the most dangerous cities in the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Washington,_D.C.

DC is just about the worst for everything. In another thread, I pointed out it's the worst for poverty. Anyone looking for the Federal government to take care of us would do well to look closely at DC; it's the only place where the Feds have total control under the Constitution.

 

[Ranb]

But when you tell me what weapons I can use for hunting, you are doing the exact same thing that you complain gun control proponents are doing.

I don't suffer from hoplophobia.

Is it impossible that you become so angry that you don't know - or care - what you do?

But having a penis is the default position. Do you see gun ownership as the default position?

You don't think women can commit sexual crimes?

You suggested you could claim that grenades are useful for hunting, are sporting, and not primarily intended for killing people. I said that was a crap argument.

You followed up with “Excuse me, but what gives you the right to decide what weapons of choice I use for hunting?”

Nowhere did I address what you should be able to choose or not choose for hunting.

You said that because there are restrictions on guns, that I should not be trusted to have them. It does not make sense that I should not be trusted with guns just because there are restrictions on them.

Here is where you lied “But when you tell me what weapons I can use for hunting, you are doing the exact same thing that you complain gun control proponents are doing.” I never said anything to you about what you can hunt with. Lying is is a very weak position to argue from, it does not become you at all.

Take a look here for info on hoplophobia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoplophobia . You mistrust me just because I say I have firearms. It really makes no sense that an inanimate object should have such an effect on you.

I think it is very unlikely that I will become so angry that I will not know or care what I do. I think you are not in any position to judge my character.

My penis/gun analogy was about choices people make, not about how we are born. And no I do not think women never commit sexual crimes

Ranb

 

[Darat]

...snip... What I did say was "I also recall that it was demands from EU that caused the changes, not the local population."

...snip...

Can you provide any support for this claim?

 

[luchog]

Your figures are out of date. The firearm murder rate in the UK is 0.00075 per 1000 people or 1 in 1.32 million. In the USA it is 0.035 per 1000 or 1 in 28,000. You are nearly 50 times more likely to be killed by a gun in America than the UK. That is not in my opinion moderately lower.

I like how you avoided the non-firearm-related murder rate, as well as the overall violent crime rate. Makes it almost look like you had a valid point.

 

[luchog]

Ay, there's the rub.

A law-abiding citizen is only "safe" with a gun as long as he obeys the law.

Wow, and that just proves that Claus has a solid and firm grasp of the bleeding obvious; while still managing to completely ignore the actual point and context of what he was replying to.

 

[luchog]

This is why gun control people seem to be very misanthropic to me. They act like we're all just a bunch of killers deep down inside waiting to come out.

Actually, it's more a case of magical thinking. They tend to talk, at least, like they believe that people are inherently good; but that firearms are magical objects that will invariably corrupt people and cause violent behaviour that otherwise who have had no impetus to exist.

 

[LuxFerum]

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? ?

Are you seriously saying that he will?

Just yes or no.?

Will that make it easier to follow your discussion algorithm?

Are humans generally capable of flying into a blind rage, ?

Are you saying that they are always unjustifiable?

yes or no?

I will take the other one.

 

[luchog]

Additionally, they had homemade explosives which, thankfully, did not detonate, but certainly presented as much, or more, of a threat to others as the firearms did.

Had the bombs, two propane fuel-air explosives, actually worked, estimates are that they would have leveled half the school and killed a whole lot more people than they managed with the firearms.

 

[Lonewulf]

Is Luchog going from the beginning of this thread and responding to all points from there?

Hoo boy. This may take a while.

 

[luchog]

According to Wikipedia, they were obtained through a "straw purchase", meaning they were bought legally. The guns were legal, Shane. Those boys weren't the legal owners, but the guns were bought and registered within the confines of the law. Until they picked up the guns to use them, until Robyn Anderson gave them the weapons, the weapons were legal.

You don't know what a straw purchase is, do you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_purchase

A straw purchase is illegal by it's definition. Had Anderson purchased the firearms for himself, then they would have been legal. His giving the firearms to Klebold and Harris would have been an illegal act, since they were not legally permitted to own or possess firearms. The fact that he purchased them on behalf of an ineligible third party means that the purchase itself was illegal, not merely his transfer to Klebold and Harris.

 

[luchog]

It doesn't matter if guns are obtained legally or illegally. It highlights the fact that if you want a gun, you will get it. There are so many guns in the US, and so many people willing to provide guns for whoever wants them.

And according to officials in the UK and Australia, this is equally true for those nations as well. The difference is that fewer criminals choose to use one, although that is changing with the increase in gang activity.

 

[luchog]

Read the sources that are provided for you, instead of going off - pun intended - half-cocked.

Yes, do in fact read the source[/url=, since it it doesn't say anything near what Claus claims it does.

Not going to go over a point-by-point refutation, since I simply don't have the time or energy (due to lots of work and increasing illness), but I'll make a couple small comments.

Nearly 50% of fatal gunshot wounds, and nearly 90% of non-fatal gunshot wounds were black males, 15-24. This closely matches federal statistics on gang-related violence. Furthermore the "28% were killed because of an argument" statistic is misleading, since many one-on-one gang-related shootings are classified as "argument" unless they are part of a larger gang-related activity (such as a drug transaction, or a stated intent relating to gang activity, such as revenge shootings).

It just continues to support the fact that the vast majority of firearm violence in the US, just like the UK and Australia, is gang-related; not general citizenry going around shooting each other like most of the rest of the world likes to portray.

 

[luchog]

I already speculated that the reason the US murder rate is high and the burglary rate low compared to the UK is that, in the States, burglary is more likely to end murder.

However, you speculated wrong, since the reason that the murder rate is so high is because of gang activity, predominantly disputes over drug sources, transportation, and distribution territory; and the resulting culture of violence created in gang-dominated regions and populations.

In short, go waving a gun at a burglar, he'll shoot you. Do you doubt that?

Yes, because there is plenty of both statistic and anecdotal evidence that this is not the case.