Gun Control is ridiculous

[baron]

Alright, I'll retract it, though I won't apologize for it, unless you're willing to apologize for the insults you slung at me.

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

Mace? Rape alarm? Self-defence classes? (yes, they can prove very useful) Perhaps even a taser?

What you completely fail to account for is that a gun would be largely ineffective in this situation. If a woman is attacked for the purposes of rape it is highly unlikely she would have time to make effective response with a gun, unless she goes round pointing it at every suspicious-looking guy she sees.

For the record, I have intervened twice when a guy was violently threatening a woman. In both cases the guy was bigger than me, and certainly angrier, and in both cases everyone walked away unharmed. Although I have no proof, I can easily imagine that such a situation in the US could have resulted in one or more of us lying dead by the roadside.

 

[Darat]

That wasn't my point.

Then your point was a strawman?

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?

It is a simple piece of logic that I can't see how anyone can argue with i.e. no guns means no gun crime.

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 there is some evidence that for some societies this is not the case and this is where we can use a comparison of statistics so we can look at the overall murder rate in a two countries which whilst both having gun controls have quite different implementation of the controls (say the USA and the UK) and look if the murder rate stays constant. If the murder rate does stay constant that would give some support to the idea that a murder will happen no mater what weapon is available, however if there is a difference and the country with more stringent gun controls has a lower rate of murder it would give some support to the idea that more guns does result in more murders.

BUT and it is a bloody big BUT there are just two many variables to make a simple "lower gun ownership = less murders" statement, as if you research into the matter it soon becomes very obvious that there any many more factors that contribute to murder rates, crimes and so on then just gun ownership.

Indeed it may well be that if you could magically remove guns from the USA tomorrow that the USA would still have a much higher murder rate then the UK because of other factors.

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.

To harp back - no guns does equal no gun crime and no murders or injuries with guns. That can't be argued with.

However that's a simple "principle" if you will, and of course you can argue about that principle itself as well as how you could practically implement the principle.

I personally cannot see how the USA could significantly reduce the number of firearms given the society and culture as it stands today. However it is amazing when you look at a society over longer time spans how drastic changes can and quite often do occur. Although I say I cannot see how it could change there are some things I can see that would potentially reduce the number of murders and injuries caused by guns in the USA today.

 

[Lonewulf]

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.

???????

Who's been saying that? I guess I haven't been keeping up with the conversation as well...

My issue is with people saying that the U.S. needs greater gun control restrictions. I don't know the U.K., I haven't been born and raised into it, and I don't know the local culture enough to be able to tell much about how it should conduct domestic policy.

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.

Then very well, we agree here.

However, I would like to note that the point that you made is still an important issue of gun safety. Just because a man owns a gun does not mean that he leaves it lying around so that a child can run up and get it (though some people, notably those without proper safety training and without a healthy respect of firearms, actually do that; but then, some people shoot themselves to prove that the gun isn't loaded, which again is a case of gun safety and knowing that a bullet can lie in the chamber... and not to point a loaded gun at something you don't want to destroy.)

However, I am not trying to suggest how the U.K. should conduct it's domestic policy on firearms or all the rest. Heck, diversity is great.

 

[Lonewulf]

Mace? Rape alarm? Self-defence classes? (yes, they can prove very useful) Perhaps even a taser?

The whole point of her post was to point out that a taser would be unlikely to work, as there was more than one potential assailant. Mace would also be iffy as you'd have to target the eyes on more than one attacker. Rape alarm... yeah, that might work actually, assuming that anyone was nearby to hear it. Self-defense classes? Yeah, they can prove useful, but it's still a gamble when up against more than one opponent, especially if they are stronger than you are.

What you completely fail to account for is that a gun would be largely ineffective in this situation. If a woman is attacked for the purposes of rape it is highly unlikely she would have time to make effective response with a gun, unless she goes round pointing it at every suspicious-looking guy she sees.

Yet, in this case, she did use a gun effectively. Do you have any statistics or any evidence to back this claim up?

For the record, I have intervened twice when a guy was violently threatening a woman. In both cases the guy was bigger than me, and certainly angrier, and in both cases everyone walked away unharmed. Although I have no proof, I can easily imagine that such a situation in the US could have resulted in one or more of us lying dead by the roadside.

Yet, they didn't end up lying dead in the roadside. Why? Maybe we're not as crazy with our guns as you assume?

 

[Lothian]

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

How big is the pool ?

My question was not serious. Quads question was pointless so I posted a pointless reply.

 

[baron]

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?

You have edited your post to say the opposite after I have quoted you. Please refrain from doing this.

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?

I don't care if someone calls me an nut or an idiot. I would never demand an apology for that. What I do object to is someone claiming that I advocate the rape and murder of women.

 

[Quad4_72]

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

I would wish that I had not been such an irresponsible idiot and left my gun somewhere that he could get ahold of it. I would also wish that I had not been so stupid as to not educate my kid about gun safety.

 

[shanek]

How big is the pool ?

My question was not serious. Quads question was pointless so I posted a pointless reply.

Then you may consider my reply to be equally pointless as well.

 

[Ranb]

I could make the same argument for hand grenades.

Hand grenades are useful for hunting.

Hand grenades have sporting uses.

Hand grenades are not primarily intended for killing people.

What, I can't dispute?

That leads right back to the question: Why should we trust you with a gun? Because you haven't threatened or shot anyone - yet?

Why would that result in you being less prone to going off on a rampage? Does gun ownership come with anger management classes and a glass of Thorazine?

The difference between my handgun argument and your grenade crap is that handguns are actually useful for hunting, have sporting purposes, and are not primarily used for killing people. Make the argument, and then back it up with facts.

Sure you can dispute, but now it sounds like you are whining.

Why should you trust me with a gun? Well why shouldn’t you trust me with a gun? You really have no good reason not to.

Using the CF method, I could ask a man who wants to care for my kids; “Why should I trust you? You have a penis and might use it to molest my children.”

Is this stupid? Yes. Why? Because 99.99999% of men are equipped with a penis and very few are molesters. I could believe a man might be a molester for other reasons, not because he has a penis. To believe that I am a threat merely because I own a gun is rather alarmist. You are making your posts personal by implying I might go on a rampage.

That leads right back to the question: Why should I trust you with a penis? Because you haven't molested any kids - yet?

Ranb

 

[Lonewulf]

You have edited your post to say the opposite after I have quoted you. Please refrain from doing this.

Oh. Okay.

I kinda thought that was what people were suggesting I do...

What should I do after I'm "yellow carded"? Just write in another post that I retract my statement? I'm seriously not trying to cause a problem here, I just haven't been on the JREF long enough to really understand the "Savoir-Faire".

 

[CFLarsen]

The difference between my handgun argument and your grenade crap is that handguns are actually useful for hunting, have sporting purposes, and are not primarily used for killing people. Make the argument, and then back it up with facts.

Sure you can dispute, but now it sounds like you are whining.

Excuse me, but what gives you the right to decide what weapons of choice I use for hunting?

Why should you trust me with a gun? Well why shouldn’t you trust me with a gun? You really have no good reason not to.

I most certainly do. Guns are dangerous, there is no question about it. Even the staunchest gun proponent will tell you that it is a lethal weapon, especially in the hands of the wrong people.

Given that there are restrictions on how you can use your gun, how you can store it, what kinds of guns you can own, etc, etc, I would very much like to hear why I should trust you with a gun.

You have argued that guns are unsafe in some people's hands. I want to know why I should trust you with one.

Using the CF method, I could ask a man who wants to care for my kids; “Why should I trust you? You have a penis and might use it to molest my children.”

Is this stupid? Yes. Why? Because 99.99999% of men are equipped with a penis and very few are molesters. I could believe a man might be a molester for other reasons, not because he has a penis. To believe that I am a threat merely because I own a gun is rather alarmist. You are making your posts personal by implying I might go on a rampage.

That leads right back to the question: Why should I trust you with a penis? Because you haven't molested any kids - yet?

That has to be the most inappropriate comparison I have ever seen.

Are you born with a gun?

 

[shanek]

The difference between my handgun argument and your grenade crap is that handguns are actually useful for hunting, have sporting purposes, and are not primarily used for killing people.

I think there's a more important distinction. With a gun, you can target one specific person. There's a pretty good chance that you can do harm to that person and that person alone, with no collateral damage. With grenades, you tend to hurt or kill Everyone Who Happens To Be Around It At The Time.

 

[Lonewulf]

I most certainly do. Guns are dangerous, there is no question about it. Even the staunchest gun proponent will tell you that it is a lethal weapon, especially in the hands of the wrong people.

Given that there are restrictions on how you can use your gun, how you can store it, what kinds of guns you can own, etc, etc, I would very much like to hear why I should trust you with a gun.

You have argued that guns are unsafe in some people's hands. I want to know why I should trust you with one.

Okay, then.

Run a background check on me. I have no previous convictions. I have never been to a court of law or gone to jail. I do not imbibe alcohol. The one drug I'm addicted to is caffeine (and who isn't?). I have no previous history of assault, though I got into rather silly fights when in middle school (and they were more pathetic than anything else). I also understand basic gun safety. I have never struck, nor been tempted to strike another human being in anger.*

Please demonstrate how I cannot be trusted with a firearm?



*Though I HAVE squashed a few bugs in anger, does that count?

 

[CFLarsen]

Oh. Okay.

I kinda thought that was what people were suggesting I do...

What should I do after I'm "yellow carded"? Just write in another post that I retract my statement? I'm seriously not trying to cause a problem here, I just haven't been on the JREF long enough to really understand the "Savoir-Faire".

What could possibly make you think it is acceptable practice in any debate to change your post to say the opposite after someone has already quoted you?

That way, you are making a liar out of your opponent.

 

[CFLarsen]

Okay, then.

Run a background check on me. I have no previous convictions. I have never been to a court of law or gone to jail. I do not imbibe alcohol. The one drug I'm addicted to is caffeine (and who isn't?). I have no previous history of assault, though I got into rather silly fights when in middle school (and they were more pathetic than anything else). I also understand basic gun safety. I have never struck, nor been tempted to strike another human being in anger.

Please demonstrate how I cannot be trusted with a firearm?

How do I know you will never be so angry that you don't know what you are doing, and you cannot comprehend - or simply don't care - what the consequences of your actions will be?

 

[shanek]

Oh. Okay.

I kinda thought that was what people were suggesting I do...

What should I do after I'm "yellow carded"? Just write in another post that I retract my statement? I'm seriously not trying to cause a problem here, I just haven't been on the JREF long enough to really understand the "Savoir-Faire".

Take it from an old-timer: they're gonna lay into you no matter what you do. But you'd be in a better position to take the moral high ground if you don't delete anything you write. You can always strike through the text if you want to make it clear you've retracted it without appearing revisionist (okay, no, you can't, or I can't figure out the tag they've programmed for it...).

 

[Lonewulf]

I think there's a more important distinction. With a gun, you can target one specific person. There's a pretty good chance that you can do harm to that person and that person alone, with no collateral damage. With grenades, you tend to hurt or kill Everyone Who Happens To Be Around It At The Time.

Also, if you drop a gun after it's loaded, with modern guns they're not as likely to go off; with a grenade, after the pin is pulled, you're screwed.

 

[Lonewulf]

What could possibly make you think it is acceptable practice in any debate to change your post to say the opposite after someone has already quoted you?

That way, you are making a liar out of your opponent.

Alright, then. I apologize, and resolve never to do it again.

Happy?

How do I know you will never be so angry that you don't know what you are doing, and you cannot comprehend - or simply don't care - what the consequences of your actions will be?

How do you know that I couldn't kill the same person with a knife, or my fists, in that situation?

I have never been that angry, and I doubt I'll ever get to be that angry. There is no previous evidence that I will, and so all you have is speculation and assumption.

However, if I get to the point of rage where I have no control over my actions and am willing to:

1) Find the gun from the locked cabinet
2) Disengage the safety
3) Point it and shoot it

Then I can do any number of things with any number of things around the house that could adequately serve the same purpose. And, in most cases of rage, the two individuals are in close proximity.

Take it from an old-timer: they're gonna lay into you no matter what you do. But you'd be in a better position to take the moral high ground if you don't delete anything you write. You can always strike through the text if you want to make it clear you've retracted it without appearing revisionist (okay, no, you can't, or I can't figure out the tag they've programmed for it...).

My thanks, for the advice.

Whee!

(It's )

 

[shanek]

Also, if you drop a gun after it's loaded, with modern guns they're not as likely to go off; with a grenade, after the pin is pulled, you're screwed.

Actually (again unlike what you see in the movies) there's no reason I'm aware of why a modern semiauto would go off when dropped. I don't know about modern revolvers, but unless they're cocked, I don't see why they would, either.

 

[CFLarsen]

How do you know that I couldn't kill the same person with a knife, or my fists, in that situation?

I have never been that angry, and I doubt I'll ever get to be that angry. There is no previous evidence that I will, and so all you have is speculation and assumption.

No. What I have is human nature. Unless you live a life on Thorazine, you cannot possibly argue that you will never be so angry that you don't know what you are doing.

Nobody can claim to be able to control themselves at all times.

You doubting that you will never be that angry rings hollow, given the fact that you feel you have to have a gun to protect yourself. If you find yourself in a position where you are going to use it, you will not be cool, calm and collected. You will be scared out of your mind, but you will also be angry - angry enough to kill someone.

However, if I get to the point of rage where I have no control over my actions and am willing to:

1) Find the gun from the locked cabinet
2) Disengage the safety
3) Point it and shoot it

Then I can do any number of things with any number of things around the house that could adequately serve the same purpose. And, in most cases of rage, the two individuals are in close proximity.

Why should that make me feel any more comfortable?

Look,

You have cheated in a debate, by changing your post to the opposite, after it had already been quoted.

You insult people you disagree with.

You have falsely accused people of wanting a woman to be raped and killed, merely because they disagree with you on guns.

You don't strike me as someone who is in complete control at all times. You can't even think straight during a debate on an Internet forum. How can anyone trust you with a gun in real life?