U.S. Gun Violence

Page 5 of 34 [ 530 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 34 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Kurgan
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Apr 2012
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,132
Location: Scandinavia

19 Jan 2014, 5:22 am

91 wrote:

Kurgan wrote:

91 wrote:

American wrote:

There's no question begging because it's not an argument, it's a scenario. You're missing the point, which is that carrying a gun harms no one and therefore should not be banned.

The same is true of nerve gas. Nerve gas does not kill people, people kill people right? So it therefor should be legal, since objects cannot be effectively prohibited.... give us a break.

Nerve gas has few other uses beyond killing or injuring people. A gun has several other uses.

If we impose heavy restrictions on guns, we also need to impose them on anything that's equally or more dangerous. I don't think an emotionally unstable teenager with no farming experience would buy fertilizer to grow turnips, for instance. However, he can legally buy as much fertilizer as he want.

That statement makes no sense. If x is bad and y is also bad, the legality of x in no way makes legalising y a good idea. Further, many places do place restrictions on fertiliser.

If x is much, much more dangerous than y, then imposing strict regulations on y, while turning a blind eye on x makes very little sense. There are no national de-jure regulations on ammonium nitrate ferilizer in the US, despite the fact that suggestions were first made decades ago.

This was done with 110 lbs of diesel and fertilizer after the Bandidos MC headquarter was blown to pieces in Norway:

[img][800:546]http://gfx.dagbladet.no/labrador/391/391579/3915797/jpg/active/960x.jpg[/img]

91
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,063
Location: Australia

19 Jan 2014, 5:36 am

^^^

You are still making the same logical mistake. But sure... compound it by reposting. Both are dangerous, a lack of regulation on one is not an argument that leads to the conclusion that no regulation is needed on the other. The conclusion does not follow from your argument.

_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.

zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,615

19 Jan 2014, 8:22 am

Food for thought....

Why don’t the heroes who stop mass murderers get better press?

An excerpt....

Quote:

If I say Columbine, Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook and Aurora you will most likely think of the mass shootings that took place there.

I also think about all those places being gun free zones and how well that worked out.

But what would come to mind if I said: Pearl High, Parker Middle School Dance, Golden Market and Clackamas Town Center?

If you are like most Americans you probably don’t know anything about these places and that is a shame because they are all places where a law abiding gun owner STOPPED a mass murderer before they could ratchet up the body count. Does the media trumpet these citizen heroes and repeat their names ad nauseam so they become household words? No. Their names are often unreported save for the local press of their town because apparently stopping a mass murderer with the ability to kill hundreds isn’t as sexy as letting him murder his way into the headlines.

I think that is a load of steaming bull crap. As such, let me tell you a little about the aforementioned situations.

Kurgan
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Apr 2012
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,132
Location: Scandinavia

19 Jan 2014, 8:26 am

zer0netgain wrote:

Food for thought....

Why don’t the heroes who stop mass murderers get better press?

An excerpt....

Quote:

If I lived in a country with the homicide rate of the US, I'd own an assault rifle as well.

Kurgan
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Apr 2012
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,132
Location: Scandinavia

19 Jan 2014, 8:27 am

91 wrote:

My conclution is that there's plenty of stuff anyone can obtain that's far more deadly than a gun.

MoonGateClimber
Pileated woodpecker

Joined: 30 Apr 2013
Age: 27
Gender: Female
Posts: 181

19 Jan 2014, 9:44 am

I found it interesting that when the recent shooting rampage at the Navy Yard took place. The US Navy had to call the police for protection because they were not allowed to carry guns themselves.

AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

19 Jan 2014, 10:10 am

LKL wrote:

AceOfSpades wrote:

LKL wrote:

Kurgan wrote:

Strict gun laws make no sense whatsoever; criminals aren't exactly known to follow laws.

'Strict assault laws make no sense whatsoever; criminals aren't exactly known to follow laws.'

Do you really think you're persuading anyone with a condescending tone and a weak analogy? I got one for you; try strict drug laws.

Are you suggesting that guns are addictive and/or used to reduce the pain of a brutal, poverty-stricken existence?

Looks like you're suggesting that I bite on your loaded question. Too bad I'm not that suggestible. This:

AceOfSpades wrote:

Prohibiting possession of things like guns and drugs only serves to prop up a black market for them

Has absolutely nothing to do with addiction or escape. I've made the point clear enough here so I don't need help with putting words in my own mouth thank you very much.

LKL wrote:

The point is that 'criminals don't follow laws' is a really bad argument against laws.

It's not an argument against laws per se but an argument that gun control laws, laws which are meant to regulate gun circulation and violence, is only effective for people that already obey the law which defeats the purpose. This is why there's a distinction between "law-abiding citizens" and "criminals" in pro-gun arguments. Not that people who have a clean record are guaranteed to be law abiding, but that gun control treats the average person as a liability rather than the few who are habitually violent or f****d in the head.

91 wrote:

American wrote:

There's no question begging because it's not an argument, it's a scenario. You're missing the point, which is that carrying a gun harms no one and therefore should not be banned.

The same is true of nerve gas. Nerve gas does not kill people, people kill people right? So it therefor should be legal, since objects cannot be effectively prohibited.... give us a break.

I could sure use a break from slippery slope arguments like this. Anyone with half a brain would figure that a weapon as indiscriminate as nerve gas defeats the whole purpose of self-defense.

Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

19 Jan 2014, 1:56 pm

LKL wrote:

What's the ratio of time that licensed carriers are out in public with a gun, vs. the time that cops are out in public with a gun? Without knowing the exposure, you can't really give a meaningful virulence level.

Are you really trying to argue that simply being in public with a gun makes a person more likely to commit murder, and that the longer they're out there the more likely it becomes?

FYI, there are about 1 million cops and 6 million CCW holders in this country, and not only do we permit holders commit less crimes, we shoot more criminals and wound less innocent people doing it, yet the very same people who make uninformed bleating noises about the "dangers" of legally armed civilians don't bat an eye when the police cruiser with the AR15 in the console rack goes on by, a much larger threat to your safety.

_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez

Ann2011
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Jul 2011
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,843
Location: Ontario, Canada

19 Jan 2014, 5:07 pm

Dox47 wrote:

Are you really trying to argue that simply being in public with a gun makes a person more likely to commit murder, and that the longer they're out there the more likely it becomes?

The presence of a weapon increases the chance that someone will be injured by it. That's obvious. It could even go off accidentally - it happens.
In the original smoker vs gun carrier scenario, I still think it's safer not to be in the presence of a gun, even if someone is smoking.

_________________
People are strange, when you're a stranger
Faces look ugly when you're alone.
Morrison/Krieger

Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

19 Jan 2014, 6:46 pm

zer0netgain wrote:

Food for thought....

Why don’t the heroes who stop mass murderers get better press?

An excerpt....

Quote:

Not only are the massacres good press (if it bleeds it leads) but they also back up the anti-gun agenda in the eyes of the sheeple.

Ann2011 wrote:

Dox47 wrote:

Are you really trying to argue that simply being in public with a gun makes a person more likely to commit murder, and that the longer they're out there the more likely it becomes?

The presence of a weapon increases the chance that someone will be injured by it. That's obvious.

Obvious to you, maybe. If this is true (it’s not) then the streets would be running red with blood. This is a map of the states and their carry licensing statuses.

Quote:

It could even go off accidentally - it happens.

Guns don’t just go off accidentally. They are accidentally (read negligently) discharged by careless handling. A gun in public will most always be a handgun carried in a holster. It will not even touched unless absolutely necessary while in public.

Quote:

In the original smoker vs gun carrier scenario, I still think it's safer not to be in the presence of a gun, even if someone is smoking.

I missed the public smoking vs. gun analogy when it started but it sounds idiotic to me. You won’t know when you’re in the presence of a gun in public unless it’s on a cop’s duty belt. And there is nothing to back up the redneck stereotype you're no doubt thinking of when it comes to carry licensees.

_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson

Last edited by Raptor on 20 Jan 2014, 9:53 am, edited 1 time in total.

Ann2011
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Jul 2011
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,843
Location: Ontario, Canada

19 Jan 2014, 6:52 pm

Raptor wrote:

Yes they do. However you want to say it, they do and sometimes when deliberately discharged they hit the wrong target.

Raptor wrote:

It doesn't matter if you know or not.

_________________
People are strange, when you're a stranger
Faces look ugly when you're alone.
Morrison/Krieger

Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

19 Jan 2014, 6:56 pm

Ann2011 wrote:

Raptor wrote:

Yes they do. However you want to say it, they do and sometimes when deliberately discharged they hit the wrong target.

And how much experience do you have with firearms?

Ann2011 wrote:

Raptor wrote:

It doesn't matter if you know or not.

wut?

_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson

Ann2011
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Jul 2011
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,843
Location: Ontario, Canada

19 Jan 2014, 7:02 pm

Raptor wrote:

Ann wrote:

Yes they do. However you want to say it, they do and sometimes when deliberately discharged they hit the wrong target.

And how much experience do you have with firearms?

None; but lots with things going wrong.

Raptor wrote:

Ann2011 wrote:

It doesn't matter if you know or not.

wut?

I don't have to know specifically when I'm near someone with a weapon to know that I'd prefer not to be at any time.

_________________
People are strange, when you're a stranger
Faces look ugly when you're alone.
Morrison/Krieger

Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

19 Jan 2014, 7:16 pm

Ann2011 wrote:

Raptor wrote:

Ann wrote:

Yes they do. However you want to say it, they do and sometimes when deliberately discharged they hit the wrong target.

And how much experience do you have with firearms?

None; but lots with things going wrong.

That doesn't explain your fear of guns. A gun is not like a computer or a washing machine. There is only one way for a gun to discharge and there is no sorcery involved.

Ann2011 wrote:

Raptor wrote:

Ann2011 wrote:

It doesn't matter if you know or not.

wut?

I don't have to know specifically when I'm near someone with a weapon to know that I'd prefer not to be at any time.

Then I'd suggest staying out of the United States.
And BTW; there are more guns in Canada than you think. The laws pertaining to use of deadly force are different but there are still guns.

Really, I think your arguments have totally run out of steam.

_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson

91
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,063
Location: Australia

19 Jan 2014, 11:17 pm

AceOfSpades wrote:

91 wrote:

American wrote:

There's no question begging because it's not an argument, it's a scenario. You're missing the point, which is that carrying a gun harms no one and therefore should not be banned.

The same is true of nerve gas. Nerve gas does not kill people, people kill people right? So it therefor should be legal, since objects cannot be effectively prohibited.... give us a break.

I could sure use a break from slippery slope arguments like this. Anyone with half a brain would figure that a weapon as indiscriminate as nerve gas defeats the whole purpose of self-defense.

Umm... are you crazy? Take a look at this and ask who exactly was engaging in connecting unrelated data points. Perhaps, if you do, you might discover that I was satirizing a connection, not building one.

"That statement makes no sense. If x is bad and y is also bad, the legality of x in no way makes legalising y a good idea. Further, many places do place restrictions on fertiliser."

_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.

01001011
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Mar 2010
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 991

19 Jan 2014, 11:35 pm

AceOfSpades wrote:

91 wrote:

The same is true of nerve gas. Nerve gas does not kill people, people kill people right? So it therefor should be legal, since objects cannot be effectively prohibited.... give us a break.

I could sure use a break from slippery slope arguments like this. Anyone with half a brain would figure that a weapon as indiscriminate as nerve gas defeats the whole purpose of self-defense.

The quoted rhetoric has no mention of 'self defense' or 'indiscriminate' whatsoever. So the comparison is perfectly valid.

Indeed I plan to use chlorine gas as part of defenses against home invaders :lol:

Page 5 of 34 [ 530 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 34 Next

Jump to:

U.S. Gun Violence Post Reply New Topic

U.S. Gun Violence