Gun Control is ridiculous

[shanek]

I don't know, and at this juncture it's irrelevant. Like shanek you flat out refuse to discuss the base figures and instead ask for more detailed stats to be presented.

Oh, we ask for details! How horrible!!!

Do you really need in-depth stats to see that there's something seriously wrong here?

There is something wrong; no one is denying that. But you have not shown that this wrong thing is legally available firearms.

If you admit there's something amiss, but deny gun control is part of the answer, then please state what solution you propose.

End the War on Drugs and all other victimless "crimes" such as gambling and prostitution. You'd see the black market all but dry up, there's no longer any profit in turf wars, violence goes WAY down, organized crime withers.

 

[baron]

Oh, we ask for details! How horrible!!!

Not horrible, illogical, as you haven't yet addressed the base data.

There is something wrong; no one is denying that. But you have not shown that this wrong thing is legally available firearms.

Firearms. Forget illegal or legal, for now. Firearms. Stop trying to muddy the issue. The thread is about "gun control" not "legal gun control."

End the War on Drugs and all other victimless "crimes" such as gambling and prostitution. You'd see the black market all but dry up, there's no longer any profit in turf wars, violence goes WAY down, organized crime withers.

I have no idea what you're talking about. "End the War on Drugs and all other victimless "crimes"..." Drug abuse is victimless? Or do you want to legalise all drugs? You think that might help?

Are you saying gambling and prostitution (victimless?) are the major causes of death by firearm? Are you serious? "Organized crime withers?" You're saying organised crime is a significant factor in gun deaths? I won't go on here because I may be wrong in my interpretation.

 

[Lothian]

But it did affect the number of hot burglaries. Do you deny this?

I don’t know. Can you post the stats.
It suggests here that burglary is 50% down on the figures from 12 years ago before the handgun ban.

I do note however since the handgun ban there has been a large increase in the crimes of 'frauds by company directors' and 'blackmail'.

Do you think there is a connection or does identifying a link require causation as opposed to correlation ?

 

[Skibum]

How is that illogical?

Don't just dogmatically declare that This Is So.

Explain.

I figured you were intelligent enough to realize that you don't have to be in a car or drive one to be killed by one, I guess I was wrong. You expect me to back up my "this is so" rebuttal to your unsubstantiated "this is so" statement?

You can even be killed by one while in the safety of your own home.

If you never fly, you won't be killed in a plane crash. If you never drive, you won't be killed in a car crash.

Since you are so insistant of people backing up the obvious, please back up your claim or admit you are wrong (like that will happen).

 

[shanek]

Not horrible, illogical, as you haven't yet addressed the base data.

The base data is worthless unless you account for the details we bring up! Why don't you get that? Otherwise, it's a correlation/causation fallacy!

Firearms. Forget illegal or legal, for now. Firearms. Stop trying to muddy the issue. The thread is about "gun control" not "legal gun control."

I'm not. You're the one obfuscating and avoiding important points. There is NO WAY any amount of gun control can stop illegal firearm sales. That's what the black market is!

I have no idea what you're talking about. "End the War on Drugs and all other victimless "crimes"..." Drug abuse is victimless? Or do you want to legalise all drugs? You think that might help?

All of the data say that it would. We didn't have this massive crime when drugs were legal. We did in Prohibition, and ending Prohibition ended the crime.

 

[CFLarsen]

I figured you were intelligent enough to realize that you don't have to be in a car or drive one to be killed by one, I guess I was wrong. You expect me to back up my "this is so" rebuttal to your unsubstantiated "this is so" statement?

You can even be killed by one while in the safety of your own home.



Since you are so insistant of people backing up the obvious, please back up your claim or admit you are wrong (like that will happen).

That doesn't explain why you think my post was illogical.

 

[shanek]

I don’t know. Can you post the stats.

Just look at the breakdown of hot burglaries vs. cold burglaries.

Do you think there is a connection or does identifying a link require causation as opposed to correlation ?

Of course there's a connection. Burglars generally don't like breaking in when people are there, especially if they could be armed. But take away that possibility, and add home alarm systems that are active when people are away, and this shifts the incentives for burglars to prefer breaking in when people are home.

I would think that would be obvious.

 

[shanek]

(Piggybacking)

If you never fly, you won't be killed in a plane crash. If you never drive, you won't be killed in a car crash.

First part: tell that to the victims of 9/11. Second part: tell that to my late wife (she wasn't driving).

 

[CFLarsen]

(Piggybacking)



First part: tell that to the victims of 9/11. Second part: tell that to my late wife (she wasn't driving).

If you want to discuss anything with me, stop pretending that you have me on ignore.

It is plainly dishonest to discuss this way: You want to argue against my points, but you refuse to listen to my replies.

 

[Skibum]

That doesn't explain why you think my post was illogical.

Now you're going to rely on your silly antics.

Please back up your statement.

Perhaps I could have used stupid, daft, retarded or something else, but I tried to keep as nice as I could.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

(Piggybacking)



First part: tell that to the victims of 9/11. Second part: tell that to my late wife (she wasn't driving).

Might like to edit that as the quote was not originally Skibum's but could be read that way as it stands.

 

[Skibum]

(Piggybacking)



First part: tell that to the victims of 9/11. Second part: tell that to my late wife (she wasn't driving).

Don't forget the thousands of pedestrians killed each year as well.

 

[Darat]

But it did affect the number of hot burglaries. Do you deny this?

Yes.

 

[CFLarsen]

Don't forget the thousands of pedestrians killed each year as well.

Don't go out in traffic, and you won't get killed in traffic.

But if there are other people around me with guns, I can get shot.

 

[Skibum]

Don't go out in traffic, and you won't get killed in traffic.

But if there are other people around me with guns, I can get shot.

That doesn't back up your statement.

As I said You can also be killed by one while in the safety of your own home.

Please, stop with the silly games you like to play when stuck.

 

[The Painter]

But if there are other people around me with guns, I can get shot.

Only if they don't like you.

 

[Lothian]

Just look at the breakdown of hot burglaries vs. cold burglaries.

Where ?

Of course there's a connection. Burglars generally don't like breaking in when people are there, especially if they could be armed. But take away that possibility, and add home alarm systems that are active when people are away, and this shifts the incentives for burglars to prefer breaking in when people are home.

I would think that would be obvious.

I presume you have seen Darat's post where he points out that the handgun ban in the UK did not materially change the gun ownership in the UK. Assuming the guns were evenly spread the handgun ban will have reduced the number of homes with a gun from 13.86% to 13.63%. In reality guns are not evenly spread as many people own more than 1 gun. As such the percentages and the decrease would be much lower.

The chances that a burglar would come across an armed householder did not significantly change after the ban so, if there was a rise, the ban was obviously not the cause.

 

[Ranb]

So, I can use a hand grenade for hunting?

You are aware that the restrictions are there because other people cannot be trusted with guns?

I'm not lying at all.

Would you trust me with a nuclear weapon? It's an inanimate object, so it shouldn't make you mistrust me.

I do not think it is legal anywhere to hunt with hand grenades, and it is certainly not well suited for hunting game. Leave it up to your own conscience. This means no, unless you can show me where it is legal.

You know I am aware that there are restrictions on guns due to people who are not trustworthy.

Yes you did lie when you when you claimed I was saying something I did not.

Guns are not nukes. I am much more likely to trust a person with a gun than a nuke. But I would not trust an irrational lying troll such as you with a heated butter knife.

Ranb

 

[CFLarsen]

Only if they don't like you.

Accidental shootings don't happen?

I do not think it is legal anywhere to hunt with hand grenades, and it is certainly not well suited for hunting game. Leave it up to your own conscience. This means no, unless you can show me where it is legal.

If you want to point to legality, then that is another discussion. We were talking about usage of weapons.

Can I use a hand grenade for hunting, yes or no?

You know I am aware that there are restrictions on guns due to people who are not trustworthy.

Good! Who are not trustworthy, and why?

Yes you did lie when you when you claimed I was saying something I did not.

Guns are not nukes. I am much more likely to trust a person with a gun than a nuke.

Cars are not guns. I am much more likely to trust a person with a car than a nuke.

See how ridiculous such comparisons are? Let's stick to comparing guns with no guns.

But I would not trust an irrational lying troll such as you with a heated butter knife.

It is simply incomprehensible to you that I could have misunderstood you? No, I have to be a "liar".


It seems almost a Pavlovian reaction of gun proponents to try to paint their opponents in the worst possible light. It seems a tad aggressive. Is that why they want guns so much?

 

[Darat]

Where ?
...snip...

handgun ban will have reduced the number of homes with a gun from 13.86% to 13.63%. In reality guns are not evenly spread as many people own more than 1 gun. As such the percentages and the decrease would be much lower.

The chances that a burglar would come across an armed householder did not significantly change after the ban so, if there was a rise, the ban was obviously not the cause.

It was actually an even less significant reduction in the chances of a burglary coming across a resident with a loaded gun. The change in the law did not affect anyone's right to have a loaded handgun in their home, (say in your bedside cabinet) since that did not exist prior to 1997 - ammunition and any handgun you could legally own had to be stored away under lock and key.