40 Reasons to Support Gun Control

Post Reply New Topic

You're now trying to redirect the point. You mentioned our argument and then suggested sarcastically that we ought to just walk down the street shooting people. It's right here:

"What a simply brilliant argument..... Hey - why not be proactive, guy! Why sit around and wait for the 2AM knock? Why don't you just start walking down the street and start shooting everyone you simply don't like the look of? Then they won't be able to hassle you anymore..... Genius!! !! !"

That is being abusive to your opponents. When a debater begins to be abusive to his opponent, then that debater is no longer a serious contender.

OK, I don't think a redneck jerk sleeping with a revolver under his pillow is going to be capable of that either. Thankfully, that is not the only kind of person.

Not at all.... I was merely taking your argument to its logical, obvious conclusion, that's all..... Why is doing that abusive?

I feel just like Neo..... "I'll handle them!"

TAFKASH, just a comment about the following:

Guns are not hard to get hold of in the UK, quite the opposite. I'm sure even a semi-reclusive aspergic like me could get his hands on one (not that I would want to). I think their use in crime will increase due to the unwillingness of the police to actually do their job in inner city areas with large immigrant populations - you know, don't want to stir up racial tensions and all that, so just let the criminals run round and terrorise everyone . Oh, that's fact btw. That is police policy. Or, the policy they're told to use by our political masters who live in £1m+ properties in 'nice' areas, c/w sophisticated alarm systems and bodyguards.

If you run this scenario on a few decades, would a time not come when quality of life would be improved, for law abiding individuals, by allowing gun ownership? It's, perhaps, a psychological thing rather than a simple statistical comparison. You'd feel better knowing you had the means to defend yourself, but have to accept that overall more people would actually end up dead.

Unless you can demonstrate otherwise, you were not taking our argument to its logical conclusion. You made an abusive statement, by mentioning our argument then suggesting sarcastically that we ought to walk down the street shooting people. If you can demonstrate otherwise, then please do so. Making up things like that is abusive.

Right........

The fact is GUNS KILL PEOPLE! That is what they are designed for. That is all they are designed for. Killing people is all they do. Killing people is all they can do. You can't use them to freshen up your lavatory, or to take your dog for a walk, or to spread the cost of a loan into easily manageable monthly repayments, or to get the kids to school in the morning, or to clear leaves out of your gutter. You kill people with them. That's it. The end. Full stop. Period (if you're American).

A society that accepts that it is OK for private citizens to walk around carrying with them devices specifically designed to allow them the means to kill other members of that same society, is a society that is fundamentally doomed.

Bad things happen. In any society. People get mugged. People get raped. People get killed. People watch soap operas and game shows.

In a society with guns, these crimes involve the use of guns to a greater extent than a society without guns. FACT! Crimes involving guns are much more dangerous than crimes without guns. I would rather be mugged by someone without a gun than by someone with a gun. That is much more likely in the UK, for example, than the States, for example.

Bad men will always be able to get guns. I prefer a society that views this as a bad thing and will actively seek to stop it, to a society that thinks it is a good thing and will encourage it. Bad men are much less likely to use guns in the UK, for example, than in the States, for example.

Why should I have to carry a gun to defend myself against all the psychos you want to tool up anyway?

Maybe in your nirvana we can all walk around sweating, anxiously fingering our holstered Glocks and glancing suspiciously and furtively at everyone else walking down the street doing the same, wondering who is going to shot who. In your nirvana maybe people will go freely shooting each other dead over arguments about football. In your nirvana maybe we can have human recycling banks down Tescos next to the bottle banks to dump all of the corpses in. That just isn't my idea of nirvana though, sorry.

I now include a few more eye-rollies for old time's sake:

My name is TAFKASH. Good night!

First off, if the above was true, then I would be all for gun control. A gun is a tool in which one aspect is to kill people. Other uses of the tool include gathering food and clothing and recreation (target practice). To say that a guns only purpose is to kill people is outlandish at best. There are many other uses.

The fact of the matter is that a gun is an effective deterent to crime. Most people are generally less likely to mug, rape, or invade someones house when the person is home if there is a chance of getting killed. I think your picture of the United States is that of everyone carrying a gun and just shooting randomly at each other. That is a false picture. Most people in this country are law abiding citizens who carry or own guns, but use them only when necessary, for all of the uses said above. Most people are also trained in the safe use of a gun.

A "nirvana world" would be one where guns are not needed because all persons get along in harmony. In the real world (at least in the states), the people need a tool to protect themselves and the gun is an effective tool.

Guns are designed to propel projectiles with accuracy and at a high rate of speed. They can be used for target practice (many are designed for exactly this), for killing animals (whether for sport or food), for shooting down wasp nests, to punch a hole in a barrel, etc. The vast majority of guns are *never* used to kill or even injure a human being. Remove military use of guns and it drops to infinitesimal amounts. There are 80,000,000 (yes, that's 80 million) guns owned by private citizens in the US, there are about 9600 homicides (which includes justifiable homicide) committed with a gun in the US in the last year for which I have statistics. That's 0.012% of guns used to kill a human being. What the heck are the other 99.978% of guns being used for?



It isn't much more likely. It's not entirely possible to make a direct comparison since the statistics are recorded differently, but in the US, a gun is present in 7% of all violent crimes (muggings would be included here, but not pickpocketing, or other non-confrontational theft), the only similar statistic for violent crimes showing gun percentage is robberies, where 4.5% involve the use of a gun, but robberies in the UK includes non-confrontational thefts such as pickpocketing). Robberies are distinct from burglaries in that robberies are theft directly from a person, and burglaries are thefts from a car, home, or other such property). Note that in the US, statistics record a crime as gun-related if a gun is merely present (even if the victim had it), regardless of whether it was used to shoot or even brandish as a threat. In the UK, a gun is associated with a crime only if it was used to shoot or brandished as a threat.



I think this is a matter of perception, perhaps brought on by the portrayal of guns in American sourced media. There are stiff laws in many parts of the US that hugely increase one's sentence if a gun is used (even if a burglar has a gun in the car he drives to the scene and never carries it inside). For this reason, it's not uncommon for even criminals like bank robbers or convenience store robbers to use a knife with hostage taking rather than a gun.



What would you prefer to use to defend yourself from a psycho?



You're really engaging in hyperbole here. Have you ever visited the US with our 80,000,000 guns? We don't act that way, whether we are carrying or not. I've been to the UK, we pretty much act just like you do.

One thing a lot of folks outside the US don't seem to realize is that local laws (on guns and most other things) vary from state to state and sometimes from town to town.

I have often found that this is a new idea about the US, to people in countries like the UK, where such laws are far more homogeneous nationwide (and more centrally implemented.)

I think this small bit of missing information has resulted in a major, widespread misconception about guns in the US, by folks living outside the US, in the UK, Europe other places.

As others here have pointed out, most gun violence in the US happens in places that tightly restrict (or deny outright) the right of legal gun ownership. These are places like NYC, Chicago, DC, LA, Detroit, and NJ -- all familiar venues for gun violence, in the news as well as in countless films.

What a lot of people outside the USA (and some inside it) don't realize is that such shootings (and crime in general) are quite infrequent outside of those places. But since they don't know that about the US, or about the wide variations in local gun laws, they draw the 180° opposite conclusion of what is actually going on.

Given that limited set of information, they conclude that such shootings must be going on all over the US.

What they don't realize is that legal gun ownership in most of the US is keeping most of the US pretty quiet -- and that it's only the "gun control paradises" (aka crime and corruption hellholes) that are seeing these shootings.

They are coming to a conclusion that is 180° opposite from the actual situation.

One of the reasons I left the UK after several years there was the depressingly high rate of crime there, going up each year. Rapes and assaults running at 2-3 times the US rate (and the homicide rate measured differently), huge problems with witness and juror intimidation, and frequent incidents of the most appalling violence against seniors, mothers and fathers, and even children. All accompanied by ever more pathetic and useless responses from the government.

I would read these stories (some of which concerned incidents quite close to where I lived) and think, "This is outrageous, there is a PEACEFUL solution to this. Switzerland, Finland, Norway and 35 US states prevent such atrocities by letting people own guns, and have far lower crime rates than the UK. Why is this solution being denied to the kindly, admirable, reasonable people of England? Is this how a 'humane', 'caring' government takes care of its people?"

In the UK, "I know where you live!" is a credible, very chilling threat. In most of the US, while it's not the sort of thing you want to hear, you know that if a thug and his gang of 6 mates are foolish enough show up at your door, you have a credible deterrent.

In most of the US, "go away, I have a gun" is a credible threat. According to the US Department of Justice, it results in between 1.5 and 2.5 million deterrence events each year -- where the criminal simply leaves, and no one is hurt.

In the UK, "I have a gun" is likely to result in coarse laughter, or the criminals reporting you to the police for possessing a gun (just imagine their joy watching you being hauled away.) The same can happen in Chicago, NYC, or the other crime hellholes I mentioned. Visit NYC, and you will see bumper stickers on the police cars, providing a freephone number where you can call to report someone who you suspect of owning a gun.

Which system is more humane and caring?

Crikey - you must have one hell of a secure local store..... Or do you maybe use your gun as a crowbar to prise over-frozen items out of the chiller cabinet, perhaps?



In New York? Perhaps if you liked someone's trainers and wanted to mug them for them......

How many people do you ever see wandering around wearing self-killed bloody dear carcasses, anyway??????? Do you live at the Little Big Horn or something?



Since when does "I do it for recreation" validate the performance of an act? I like running people over in the High Street..... Could I call that my "recreation" and get away with it? Of course not..... A morally unsupportable act cannot be justified in the name of entertainment..... Get real...... I think you need to find yourself a new hobby mate, unfortunately.....



I hope you don't intend stirring my tea with yours then.... I won't thank you for it, you know.....



OK - I'll play the game...... Having guns reduces crime, sure it does (ahem)..... But is it morally acceptable to allow ordinary civilians to be able to kill each other on a whim to "reduce" crime...... Is that the world you want to live in? I sure as heck don't want to do so.....



Of course it isn't.... don't be silly.....



"When necessary"? When's that then? When they want to kill somebody? Or maybe when they fancy a new pair of moose-hyde sneakers perhaps (they're all the rage in yoof culture at the moment I understand.....)



How in the blue hell can you "safely" use a gun?????? "See you later darling! I'm just off to safely jump headfirst off the top of this 60 story building"......



No, in the real world, a society that doesn't engender fear, suspicion and paranoia in everyone by forcing us all into becoming the blinking Lone Ranger is the only "tool" we need.....

P.S. Terribly sorry kittymom, me old china, but I've got to ascend the old wooden hills to Bedfordshire right about now (01:10 already... tempus fugit in excelsior etc.), but don't you worry yourself - I'll sort you out tomorrow, OK? (unless I've gotten bored with guncrime by then and go back to doing gags about body parts or whatever..... We shall seee what the morrow brings)

Don't bother. I've come to the conclusion that we're all being trolled and I for one don't feel like providing you with entertainment anymore.

Actually, i believe that TAFKASH was not trolling, but was actually exercising his overly large sense of humor and sarcasm in order to counterpoint something said earlier in the post. I am also sure he will apologise for any offense caused to you and try to restrain his inner jester in the future, right TAFKASH? :shameonyou:

Trolling? Not at all - I was merely answering an.... amusing..... series of pro-gun arguments in the terms and in the tone in which they demanded to be addressed, that's all...... IF I caused an offence to any gun nuts out there, then I suppose they can come and shoot me for it, can't they.....



OK, fair dos.... Having reread your post, you only made exactly the same points as ljbouchard anyway, so my replys to their post can apply to yours too. You can do me a favour and do the cutting and pasting for me if you like - it'd be much appreciated.

By the way, I simply loved the wasp nest comment..... Next time Rentokil show up with M16s under their arms I'll know why..... "OK wasps, we've got you surrounded! Come out with your antennae up!" "You'll never take us alive, coppers! Bzzzzzzzzz!! !" I just hope I never need them around to sort out a rat infestation - they may need to bring in rocket launchers........ It'd cost a bomb to fix my skirting boards afterwards....

I agree he wasn't trolling. Still, he rarely directly responds to the points his opponents make and uses exaggerated humor instead. I do not think he is a serious contender. He responded to ljbouchard, who made some good arguments about opposing gun control, but he failed to respond to others who made other good and strong arguments opposing gun control. He's also made some abusive comments, which he has failed to apologize for, or even acknowledge. Because of this, I no longer consider TAFKASH a serious contender on this board. For example, one of his last posts is riddled with fallacies. I shall list what I've found by quote I believe the fallacies listed are largely self-evident, but if anyone wants me to explain how the quotes are fallacious like that, I shall.

Here they are:

"Since when does "I do it for recreation" validate the performance of an act? I like running people over in the High Street..... Could I call that my "recreation" and get away with it? Of course not..... A morally unsupportable act cannot be justified in the name of entertainment..... Get real...... I think you need to find yourself a new hobby mate, unfortunately....."
Quoted ljbouchard, who wrote, "....and recreation (target practice)....."

Strawman.

"OK - I'll play the game...... Having guns reduces crime, sure it does (ahem)..... But is it morally acceptable to allow ordinary civilians to be able to kill each other on a whim to "reduce" crime...... Is that the world you want to live in? I sure as heck don't want to do so....."
Quoted ljbouchard, who wrote, "The fact of the matter is that a gun is an effective deterent to crime. Most people are generally less likely to mug, rape, or invade someones house when the person is home if there is a chance of getting killed."

Strawman.

"When necessary"? When's that then? When they want to kill somebody? Or maybe when they fancy a new pair of moose-hyde sneakers perhaps (they're all the rage in yoof culture at the moment I understand.....) "
Quoted ljbouchard, who wrote, "That is a false picture. Most people in this country are law abiding citizens who carry or own guns, but use them only when necessary, for all of the uses said above."

Failure to take into account certain arguments by opponent that are material to the opponent's point. Strawman. Asked quesiton with no interest in learning the answer.

"How in the blue hell can you "safely" use a gun?????? Rolling Eyes "See you later darling! I'm just off to safely jump headfirst off the top of this 60 story building"...... "
Quoted ljbouchard, who wrote, "Most people are also trained in the safe use of a gun."

False analogy.

"No, in the real world, a society that doesn't engender fear, suspicion and paranoia in everyone by forcing us all into becoming the blinking Lone Ranger is the only "tool" we need....."
Quoted ljbouchard, who wrote, "A "nirvana world" would be one where guns are not needed because all persons get along in harmony. In the real world (at least in the states), the people need a tool to protect themselves and the gun is an effective tool."

Redirection.

"P.S. Terribly sorry kittymom, me old china, but I've got to ascend the old wooden hills to Bedfordshire right about now (01:10 already... tempus fugit in excelsior etc.), but don't you worry yourself - I'll sort you out tomorrow, OK? Wink (unless I've gotten bored with guncrime by then and go back to doing gags about body parts or whatever..... We shall seee what the morrow brings)"

Failure to fulfill promise.

OK fine - I'll quit my day job and spend all day mowing down gun nuts on these forums instead one-by-one then - would that make you happier? How are you going to compensate me for my loss of earnings then, by the way? We can collaborate on setting up a charitable trust fund to support me if you like......



Show me someone who can take me on then if you think that's the case..... I ain't seen nothing to even slow me down yet......