Gun Control is ridiculous

[quixotecoyote]

I get what you're saying, I think. The difference is in my paradise people have decided to get rid of the bad things, not just have them and not use them. To me that would result in a much more insecure paradise.

 

[Lonewulf]

The thing is, in order to develop, we need "bad" things. We need to use chemicals that are hazardous if used wrongly. We need to use energy that emits radiation. Even if you go all-solar (which is, quite frankly, unlikely), you'll end up causing tons of pollution just from the creation of the panels. There is no such thing as a light existance of paradise; at least, not if we want to get anywhere.

That argument may not work too well with firearms for the common citizen, because that doesn't really "improve" us; firearms for the average citizen don't really increase our abilities at science, technology, or anything else. But, speaking philosophically (which is the turn this convo has taken), taking away all of the "dangerous" things that we have, will end up leaving us utterly defenseless. Everything is dangerous. Heck, if you drink too much water, you can die of overhydration. Too much sun, you get skin cancer. You can drown in the same stuff that you need to drink to live. Oxygen at a high enough concentration can kill. Fire keeps you warm, but can burn. So, the philosophical idea that we need to get rid of the "bad" things depends entirely on your definition of what a "bad" thing actually is.

 

[quixotecoyote]

True enough. But in the example of guns and fat food they aren't necessary. Well, badf food definately not, and as my paradise has an unshakable loyal robot military and/or has already anihilated all possible outside threats.

Then again limiting guns to the military (and police if the black market doesn't die out), might work just as well. Even in this country, if the military was used against the citizens there's ****-all we could do about it at this point. You can go after them with your handguns, but if there's a coup in progress it'd already be a no holds barred situation and I imagine we'd find ourselves hopelessly outmatched, so I don't see leaving them with the guns changes much.

 

[Lonewulf]

Gives 'em a chance, at the least. I'd rather have a spitwad than my bare fists.

Honestly, if there was a coup, it would probably cause a division in the military that already exists... plus, you might be surprised at how powerful some of those hunting rounds are. A 7.62mm hunting round is actually more powerful than the 5.56mm battle rifle round that you'll see in the M4A1.

Though, I don't think we have the ability to take on Apache helicoptors or tanks. That may prove a bit of an issue.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Oh I'm sure we could put up a spritied resistance for a month or two, but if we're involved warfare on Americans we're going to be doing the town burning, mass-slaughter, starvation tactics, not the 'hearts and minds' stuff that's dragging us down in Iraq.

I used to support guns in every home as per the 2nd amendent intent as a provision against tyranny/oppression, but it just isn't a practical use anymore.

eta:
ok my spelling skills are shot for the night, I'm packing it up.

 

[CFLarsen]

Slavery was the default position of American society in that time period. Some people came up and provided evidence that slavery was wrong. It was countered, but eventually the abolitionists won through. And, at one point of time, it was common knowledge that if blacks were freed, then blacks would overtake society and destroy it; hence, the idea of colonization, or sending all the blacks back to Africa, in Liberia. That didn't work out none too well.

Eventually the viewpoint that blacks should be freed altogether won through, namely through a change of feelings in the religious and throughout the Civil War.

And why? Because sound arguments were made that persuaded enough people. People grew wiser.

Slavery is not the same as owning a firearm, however.. Slavery, by definition, involves the taking of freedom from another individual. That's by definition.

No, no, no: At the time, slaves didn't have, by definition, freedom. You can't take away what they don't have.

Because I am not 180% likely to be struck by a car, nor am I 800% likely to be injured in my lifetime. Further, as mentioned earlier, those statistics change as you become more specific with individuals. C'mon, man, you're a self-proclaimed skeptic, act like it.

Now you know that your numbers are wrong.

Whether or not I feel it is my task is not relevant to whether or not it is the default position.

Really? You don't feel people who want slavery again need to defend their views?

Nope.
1,6170,000 : 300,000,000=
1,617,000 / 301,617,000=
=0.5%

That's not good.

It doesn't. that was non-fatal injuries, and mainly was based on trips to the hospital. If you went to the hospital, got some stitches, and were let out, then you would be one of those statistics. This includes for accidental and incidental gunfires, I'd add, so even a graze from a firearm that you go to the hospital for would be included in the estimate.

And it's automatically non-fatal; the worst condition you could have was "hospitalized, but eventually got better." There were no fatal figures involved. Though I guess a coma might count, if you aren't legally dead?

Whoa... We are not talking about being injured from a scissor, we are talking about a gun going off, sending a bullet flying, hitting a body.

Do you want to take your chances, if you are in harms way of a bullet?

Because if a person is not a felon, there is no one who actively intervenes in the purchase or ownership of a firearm.

Yes, there is: That's why there is a waiting period. To prevent people like Britney Spears to buy a gun in a state of severe distress.

Unless you are prepared to believe the 2nd amendment applies to an individuals right to own guns, then there were no laws in the past allowing gun ownership. There are also very few laws requiring it. Americans are allowed to own any firearms they want unless there is a law prohibiting them. If you take a look at our gun laws, they say, “can’t own this, can’t own that” sometimes with certain exceptions. If there is no law prohibiting something, then that is the default position. Or do you have a different definition of default?

What happens when a new "something" is introduced in society today? We immediately look for harmful effects. That's why new drugs, cars, food products, you name it, have to pass vigorous tests.

If slavery was allowed in my state, then I would be opposed to it. I damn well would be arguing against it.

But would you feel you were the one who needed to argue against it? Shouldn't it be the slave proponents who should argue in favor of slavery?

Lying on the 4473 is a crime. The NICS check exposes (or should) those who lie. Not many people are caught lying on the forms; you can take my word on this.

I didn't ask how many were caught lying on the form. I asked how you knew the number of people lying on the form was so small.

The number of burglaries is far bigger than the number of burglars caught.

Because it is appropriate to draw lines closer to where I live if I want to apply statistics to myself. The USA is a big place.

Where do you draw the line? Why? How "close"?

Default position seems to imply the status quo. I think CFLarsen is thinking more of a "natural position", as guns are something that has to be artifically created in a society as opposed to things such as social heirarchies or languages. The natural condition would require positive reasons for introducing anything, from clothing to guns.

And that's exactly what happens: Invent a new product, and you have to prove that it isn't harmful.

My interpretation of CFLarsens point as to contribute to understanding. I'm arguing this as a philosophical issue, because there's no way to seperate the gun-owners from the guns. It's an unbreakable cultural identity thing. I think that's wrong, and I'm arguing against it, but I recognize that the most I can hope for on this issue is being right, not having my ideas implemented

It is exactly as unbreakable cultural identity thing as slavery once was.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Really? You don't feel people who want slavery again need to defend their views?

There is no logical way for you to arrive at that conclusion from what I wrote, therefore I feel under absolutely no obligation to deal with such a clearly nonsensical statement.

 

[CFLarsen]

There is no logical way for you to arrive at that conclusion from what I wrote, therefore I feel under absolutely no obligation to deal with such a clearly nonsensical statement.

You pointed to availability to determine what the default position is.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

You pointed to availability to determine what the default position is.

This is inaccurate and in no way justifies the conclusion you came to.

If you are incapable of understanding what "default position" means, a concept grasped perfectly easily by everybody else in this thread, that is your problem not mine.

 

[Lonewulf]

And why? Because sound arguments were made that persuaded enough people. People grew wiser.

Have I disputed this point?

No, no, no: At the time, slaves didn't have, by definition, freedom. You can't take away what they don't have.

A pedantic point, and you know it.

Now you know that your numbers are wrong.

The numbers may very well be correct. It was my mathematics that I extrapolated that were faulty. Baron helped correct that.

Really? You don't feel people who want slavery again need to defend their views?

Of course I do. Slavery is no longer the default in society.

Whoa... We are not talking about being injured from a scissor, we are talking about a gun going off, sending a bullet flying, hitting a body.

Do you want to take your chances, if you are in harms way of a bullet?

I trust that I'm safe enough to not be involved in one of these accidents. However, you're still more likely to end up injured than you are to end up dead in an accident.

Yes, there is: That's why there is a waiting period. To prevent people like Britney Spears to buy a gun in a state of severe distress.

I think the waiting period depends on what state you're in, I don't think it's a federal law... but I may be wrong on that.

What happens when a new "something" is introduced in society today? We immediately look for harmful effects. That's why new drugs, cars, food products, you name it, have to pass vigorous tests.

But guns are not something that is "new" to society. We've had them available since the revolutionary war, and all we've done is make a few changes. Important changes, but nonetheless changes.

But would you feel you were the one who needed to argue against it? Shouldn't it be the slave proponents who should argue in favor of slavery?

They did. Eventually, they lost. An argument has two sides, not one; you are trying to redefine "default position" until you convince us that we cannot argue with you, and hence your viewpoint is automatically correct. This is not how skepticism should work.

Slavery was a position that was difficult to defend in a free society. It took time and effort, but eventually slavery was overthrown.

And that's exactly what happens: Invent a new product, and you have to prove that it isn't harmful.

What "new" product? Seriously, what do you mean "new"? The Colt 1911, for instance, has been around since WWII, and even before that. Revolvers have been around since the mid-1800s. There is nothing "new".

It is exactly as unbreakable cultural identity thing as slavery once was.

But guns are not slavery. And you missed the point about how it would be practically impossible to ban firearms within the United States.

Okay, seriously. Why don't we ban McDonald's food, or any unhealthy fast food? You can even say that it was made with intent to kill, just like you make the same point of firearms; if you eat too much of it, your lifespan is increased dramatically, just like cigarettes and booze. So, ban them; it's the only solution.

Personally, I don't want to live in a society that treats me like an irresponsible child. But maybe that's just me.

 

[baron]

The funny thing about this thread is how the the pro-gun group start out by demanding stats and when stats are presented they're either ignored or groundlessly dismissed.

Amongst others we've had the firearm murder rate stats. Shanek refuses to acknowledge these at all, hiding behind the irrelevant concept of "regression analysis". Quixotecoyote calculates the risk of death or injury by firearm as 0.05% and states that it's acceptable. When he's proved wrong and the chances are shown to be 10X higher he starts discussing something else and thinks we'll all forget.

The firearms death rate for children was also posted, showing the US having about 50X the casualty rate of the UK (from memory). How was this explained? It wasn't.

We also have seriously damning stats from Oklahoma State Department for Health. Lonewulf was the only one to attempt to address these, although his comments that they're not representative of the US is no argument because that factor has already been dealt with and quantified (they are 8% higher than the average for the US - reduce the figures by 8% and they're still horrific). Everyone else is content to have these figures slip by.

So I'm now calling for stats to be posted to prove that guns do not need further control. And I promise I won't ignore them.

 

[Lonewulf]

So I'm now calling for stats to be posted to prove that guns do not need further control. And I promise I won't ignore them.

The statistics for the lowering of crime rates have already been provided.

Also: 8% less... and? You're saying that the rate of accidental shootings and normal shootings are the exact same in every other state? So every factor is exactly the same? Sounds like bullcrap to me.

I still don't get how you think a ban would even work. Until you can demonstrate that it can (and you can't, considering our track record), then ultimately this is useless. I find it interesting how Total Gun Control proponents just skip over that question... so, do you really think that just passing a government ban will cause everyone to say, "Sure! No problem! We'll do exactly what you say!"?

 

[baron]

The statistics for the lowering of crime rates have already been provided.

Can you provide a link, I don't recall proof that firearms use lowers crime.

Also: 8% less... and? You're saying that the rate of accidental shootings and normal shootings are the exact same in every other state? So every factor is exactly the same? Sounds like bullcrap to me.

Why would you think I'm saying that? I'm talking about the average statistics for the US. I don't see figures based on average statistics as being in any way controversial or unacceptable.

I still don't get how you think a ban would even work. Until you can demonstrate that it can (and you can't, considering our track record), then ultimately this is useless.

You're jumping the gun, so to speak. First, the need must be established, then the method can be discussed.

 

[Lonewulf]

Can you provide a link, I don't recall proof that firearms use lowers crime.

An interesting way to interpret what I said...

What I meant was that violence was decreasing in the U.S. overall in the past 10 years. Since there is no inclination of gun violence, I don't see why we need to swoop in and expend yet more resources.

Why would you think I'm saying that? I'm talking about the average statistics for the US. I don't see figures based on average statistics as being in any way controversial or unacceptable.

Because an "8% difference", the way you spoke it, seems to mean that the rate of accidents and all the other figures based on the Oklahoma website stay at the same ratio. But I don't think that they do, hence, I'm skeptical about claiming that every other state has all aspects "just" 8% differentiated in their ratio.

You're jumping the gun, so to speak. First, the need must be established, then the method can be discussed.

Why not ban fast food first, though? Obesity and heart disease are far more common than gunshot victims.

 

[baron]

An interesting way to interpret what I said...

What I meant was that violence was decreasing in the U.S. overall in the past 10 years. Since there is no inclination of gun violence, I don't see why we need to swoop in and expend yet more resources.

OK, you didn't make that connection, I was expecting too much. I saw that violent crime and gun crime is decreasing, but why does that mean there is no need for tighter gun control? Are the stats that I and others posted (mentioned above) acceptable, even though they might be reduced over previous years?

Because an "8% difference", the way you spoke it, seems to mean that the rate of accidents and all the other figures based on the Oklahoma website stay at the same ratio. But I don't think that they do, hence, I'm skeptical about claiming that every other state has all aspects "just" 8% differentiated in their ratio.

It's 8% averaged. Of course elements will vary. Some will be comparatively worse, and some better, than other states. The stats are still there and still need addressing. Or do you think gun control should be implemented in Oklahoma but nowhere else?

Why not ban fast food first, though? Obesity and heart disease are far more common than gunshot victims.

Because fast food is normally a personal choice. Nobody will ever kill me with a burger or bucket of fries, I guarantee it. What an adult does to their own body is largely (no pun intended) their own business. Fat people, and people who wheeze when climbing stairs, hold no fear for me.

 

[Lonewulf]

OK, you didn't make that connection, I was expecting too much. I saw that violent crime and gun crime is decreasing, but why does that mean there is no need for tighter gun control? Are the stats that I and others posted (mentioned above) acceptable, even though they might be reduced over previous years?

Yes. They are acceptable. There was nothing mind-blowing about the statistics, honestly. Once more, FAR more people die from FAR more common sources. I'm not going to stay inside all of my life because I'm more likely to be hit by a vehicle.

It's 8% averaged. Of course elements will vary. Some will be comparatively worse, and some better, than other states. The stats are still there and still need addressing. Or do you think gun control should be implemented in Oklahoma but nowhere else?

Different states have different gun control laws already. I don't support a federal restriction, as I believe that each state knows best how to handle it's own territory.

Because fast food is normally a personal choice. Nobody will ever kill me with a burger or bucket of fries, I guarantee it. What an adult does to their own body is largely (no pun intended) their own business. Fat people, and people who wheeze when climbing stairs, hold no fear for me.

An a person that accidentally shoots himself is a result of his own responsibility. A person that is shot would instead be stabbed.

 

[baron]

I don't have much time, so my answers are brief...

Yes. They are acceptable. There was nothing mind-blowing about the statistics, honestly. Once more, FAR more people die from FAR more common sources. I'm not going to stay inside all of my life because I'm more likely to be hit by a vehicle.

The fact that people die of other causes has little bearing on the matter. What if scientists decided not to bother researching HIV cures because people have a far greater chance of dying from cancer. Would that be reasonable? If vehicles had no purpose other than to kill then I would recommend they be banned too.

Different states have different gun control laws already. I don't support a federal restriction, as I believe that each state knows best how to handle it's own territory.

Oklahoma clearly doesn't.

An a person that accidentally shoots himself is a result of his own responsibility.

Of course.

A person that is shot would instead be stabbed.

No - might be stabbed. On balance it's far easier to shoot someone, if you have a mind, than to stab them, and it's a damn sight easier to shoot someone accidentally than stab them accidentally. And that's not taking account of the damage a bullet can do to the body as opposed to a knife.

 

[Lonewulf]

Oklahoma clearly doesn't.

Neither does Washington, D.C. And yet, they banned firearms.

No - might be stabbed. On balance it's far easier to shoot someone, if you have a mind, than to stab them, and it's a damn sight easier to shoot someone accidentally than stab them accidentally. And that's not taking account of the damage a bullet can do to the body as opposed to a knife.

While that may be true, guns also act as an equalizer. A small female has a more significant chance to protect herself from a large male with a firearm.

 

[Quad4_72]

you have placed restrictions....no course attendance...no gun. How is this not a restriction?? Do people have to pass this course you advocate? Or can they turn up and sleep.

The type of restrictions I am refering to are restrictions such as: where you can take your firearm, how many you can have, what type you can have, etc. The title of this thread is misleading in what I actually believe. I am not COMPLETELY opposed to gun control. I obviously think that there do need to be background checks and such.

you are misrepresenting what I said.
Advocating gun controls makes you a gun control advocate. You can "believe" anything you like but you are advocating a control not a belief. No course...no gun. You are simply another Gun control advocate trying to push your gun controls as the most appropriate. Some other gun control advocates who want even less controls as you would describe you as anti-gun, you are just going to have to get used to it.

I am not sure I have heard of anyone who thinks that people should just be able to buy guns whenever they want regardless of criminal record. I never said I was completely opposed to all types of gun control. I have a feeling that nobody in here is completely opposed to gun control. If you had been reading the thread, I have been debating the "Gun Control Freaks". This is the term I have mainly used. This term is in direct reference to those who want extreme gun control laws or an outright ban. Do you see the difference now?

 

[Quad4_72]

Quad4: Gun Control involves controlling who the guns go out to. If you don't hand out a firearm to a criminal, then you are attempting to control who the gun goes out to; not giving a firearm to a criminal means that the criminal is not being armed, and you are discriminating (logically) who the firearm should and should not be given to. It isn't Gun Control that you're against, it's the level of Gun Control. Either way, as long as you're willing to cause a legal discrimination of who the guns go to, or any legal attempt to control who the firearms go out to, then you are for Gun Control. No Gun Control = selling firearms to whoever wants 'em, without any restrictions.

Yes I have been trying to clarify this. I thought that while debating in here, me using the term for the people who want out right bans and heavy restrictions as "Gun Control Freaks" would emphasize my position enough. Obviously there has been some confusion. I AM NOT COMPLETELY AGAINST ALL TYPES OF GUN CONTROL. That would be silly. "Here you go 3rd strike felon who just escaped from prison after being convicted of murder. Have a gun." I am against the heavy restrictions and an outright ban.