Gun Control

[RichieMcD]

Nobody saw this, please click.

 

You seem to think repeating the same statistics over and over again somehow adds to your argument.

 

No I just think that it has some good points and it seems like they're being ignored, so I just repost it. Not a big deal -.-.

 

 

 

That argument of less violent crime occurring is pretty void considering in many countries where guns are illegal violent crime rates are falling, last year in Ireland gun related murders amounted to 78, so far 46 this year. Improving the national police force like Ireland has done will reduce violent crime rates, not giving weapons created to kill to the average citizen.

[Kriegsmier]

not giving weapons created to kill to the average citizen.

 

 

 

What weapon won't kill?

 

 

 

I think the only gun law i don't agree with is South Carolina now lets 18 year olds buy and own handguns. Concealing still is 21, but still....18? Thats a little bit extreme. If you make it 18 i'd much rather see the requirement to show valid Military ID (since you have to be 21 to be a cop anyway...and no other profession could justify owning a gun) to purchase a gun.

[1_man_army]

And...? Since so many things can cause death, we may as well give up trying to reduce these preventable deaths?

 

 

 

You argue that you want to prevent deaths. So by what you're going by, why not take away knives, drugs, and cars too? Do I need to bring up the statistics about how many people die from those compared to guns?

 

 

 

 

Guns are designed with the3 sole intent to kill, cars are designed for transport, knives are a practical tool for cutting things (like your food) and drugs are designed either to a)cure disease b)alleviate pain or c)to bring pleasure via their abuse. There is a massive difference, comparing them is a strawman argument.

 

 

 

edit - we really need a strawman smilie...

[dangeresque]

And...? Since so many things can cause death, we may as well give up trying to reduce these preventable deaths?

 

 

 

You argue that you want to prevent deaths. So by what you're going by, why not take away knives, drugs, and cars too? Do I need to bring up the statistics about how many people die from those compared to guns?

 

 

 

 

Guns are designed with the3 sole intent to kill, cars are designed for transport, knives are a practical tool for cutting things (like your food) and drugs are designed either to a)cure disease b)alleviate pain or c)to bring pleasure via their abuse. There is a massive difference, comparing them is a strawman argument.

 

 

 

edit - we really need a strawman smilie...

 

Just because something is designed with the intent to kill doesn't mean that everyone actually uses them to kill (excluding hunting).

[1_man_army]

[hide=]

And...? Since so many things can cause death, we may as well give up trying to reduce these preventable deaths?

 

 

 

You argue that you want to prevent deaths. So by what you're going by, why not take away knives, drugs, and cars too? Do I need to bring up the statistics about how many people die from those compared to guns?

 

 

 

 

Guns are designed with the3 sole intent to kill, cars are designed for transport, knives are a practical tool for cutting things (like your food) and drugs are designed either to a)cure disease b)alleviate pain or c)to bring pleasure via their abuse. There is a massive difference, comparing them is a strawman argument.

 

 

 

edit - we really need a strawman smilie...

[/hide]

 

Just because something is designed with the intent to kill doesn't mean that everyone actually uses them to kill (excluding hunting).

 

 

 

A nuclear bomb could be used as the world's most extravagant paperweight but that doesn't negate the fact that it is a nuclear bomb. You have no point here, guns are designed to kill that is their function regardless of what people do with them.

[Zierro]

And...? Since so many things can cause death, we may as well give up trying to reduce these preventable deaths?

 

 

 

You argue that you want to prevent deaths. So by what you're going by, why not take away knives, drugs, and cars too? Do I need to bring up the statistics about how many people die from those compared to guns?

 

 

 

 

Guns are designed with the3 sole intent to kill, cars are designed for transport, knives are a practical tool for cutting things (like your food) and drugs are designed either to a)cure disease b)alleviate pain or c)to bring pleasure via their abuse. There is a massive difference, comparing them is a strawman argument.

 

 

 

edit - we really need a strawman smilie...

 

 

 

My point is that guns are designed to protect your own life.

[Lenticular_J]

Knives were actually designed to kill, animals. I'd wager poisons came before drugs.

 

 

 

It's not a design to kill, it's an obsession with safety.

[Dizzle229]

[hide=]

And...? Since so many things can cause death, we may as well give up trying to reduce these preventable deaths?

 

 

 

You argue that you want to prevent deaths. So by what you're going by, why not take away knives, drugs, and cars too? Do I need to bring up the statistics about how many people die from those compared to guns?

 

 

 

 

Guns are designed with the3 sole intent to kill, cars are designed for transport, knives are a practical tool for cutting things (like your food) and drugs are designed either to a)cure disease b)alleviate pain or c)to bring pleasure via their abuse. There is a massive difference, comparing them is a strawman argument.

 

 

 

edit - we really need a strawman smilie...

[/hide]

 

Just because something is designed with the intent to kill doesn't mean that everyone actually uses them to kill (excluding hunting).

 

 

 

A nuclear bomb could be used as the world's most extravagant paperweight but that doesn't negate the fact that it is a nuclear bomb. You have no point here, guns are designed to kill that is their function regardless of what people do with them.

 

 

 

 

 

Paperweight? I use mine as a doorstop.

[Quoi_Tu]

Knives were actually designed to kill, animals. I'd wager poisons came before drugs.

 

 

 

It's not a design to kill, it's an obsession with safety.

 

Comabt knives, sure, but I don't use my kitchen knives to kill anything. In fact, many of them were designed to fruits and vegetables specifically. Then there's my all around knife used for crafts and basic survival that would be a pain to kill anything with. Also, wood working tools.

 

 

 

Guns protect through the threat of death. If it wasn't for their inherent function to kill, they would not be good for safety.

[Lenticular_J]

I meant the very first slabs of stone. They were designed to kill more effectively, just as guns were designed to.

 

 

 

Meh, at least all knives aren't combat knives. I'd rather die from gunshots than be stabbed to death.

[dangeresque]

[hide=]

And...? Since so many things can cause death, we may as well give up trying to reduce these preventable deaths?

 

 

 

You argue that you want to prevent deaths. So by what you're going by, why not take away knives, drugs, and cars too? Do I need to bring up the statistics about how many people die from those compared to guns?

 

 

 

 

Guns are designed with the3 sole intent to kill, cars are designed for transport, knives are a practical tool for cutting things (like your food) and drugs are designed either to a)cure disease b)alleviate pain or c)to bring pleasure via their abuse. There is a massive difference, comparing them is a strawman argument.

 

 

 

edit - we really need a strawman smilie...

[/hide]

 

Just because something is designed with the intent to kill doesn't mean that everyone actually uses them to kill (excluding hunting).

 

 

 

A nuclear bomb could be used as the world's most extravagant paperweight but that doesn't negate the fact that it is a nuclear bomb. You have no point here, guns are designed to kill that is their function regardless of what people do with them.

 

But you can't use Nukes recreatinally in anyway, but however there are hundreds of thousands, probably millions of people the do in the US alone. And yes they were designed to kill, so what? Do most people use them to kill? No.

[1_man_army]

That wasn't the argument I was making and you know it. I was responding to a poster who suggested that drugs, cars and knives are comparable with guns as they all cause unintentional deaths. That was an argument which I rejected on the basis that, from that list, only guns are designed with the sole intent of killing.

 

 

 

Don't twist what I'm saying please, I didn't say that people don't use guns recreationally, I said that they are designed to kill - that is an undeniable fact.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hypothetically if you had a nuclear bomb you could you it recreationally to, say, blow giant holes in the earth...

[Zierro]

That wasn't the argument I was making and you know it. I was responding to a poster who suggested that drugs, cars and knives are comparable with guns as they all cause unintentional deaths. That was an argument which I rejected on the basis that, from that list, only guns are designed with the sole intent of killing.

 

 

 

Don't twist what I'm saying please, I didn't say that people don't use guns recreationally, I said that they are designed to kill - that is an undeniable fact.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hypothetically if you had a nuclear bomb you could you it recreationally to, say, blow giant holes in the earth...

 

 

 

Twisting words? No I'm just pointing out that guns have the side effect of keeping the peace. -.- Imagine a world without police.

 

 

 

Either way you look at it, a lot of things are causes of death but that doesn't mean you shouldn't look at the benefits.

[Maulmachine]

And...? Since so many things can cause death, we may as well give up trying to reduce these preventable deaths?

 

 

 

You argue that you want to prevent deaths. So by what you're going by, why not take away knives, drugs, and cars too? Do I need to bring up the statistics about how many people die from those compared to guns?

 

 

 

 

Guns are designed with the3 sole intent to kill, cars are designed for transport, knives are a practical tool for cutting things (like your food) and drugs are designed either to a)cure disease b)alleviate pain or c)to bring pleasure via their abuse. There is a massive difference, comparing them is a strawman argument.

 

 

 

edit - we really need a strawman smilie...

 

Illegal drugs don't always feel good, drugs are used to feed an addiction when used abusively.

[1_man_army]

That wasn't the argument I was making and you know it. I was responding to a poster who suggested that drugs, cars and knives are comparable with guns as they all cause unintentional deaths. That was an argument which I rejected on the basis that, from that list, only guns are designed with the sole intent of killing.

 

 

 

Don't twist what I'm saying please, I didn't say that people don't use guns recreationally, I said that they are designed to kill - that is an undeniable fact.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hypothetically if you had a nuclear bomb you could you it recreationally to, say, blow giant holes in the earth...

 

 

 

Twisting words? No I'm just pointing out that guns have the side effect of keeping the peace. -.- Imagine a world without police.

 

 

 

Either way you look at it, a lot of things are causes of death but that doesn't mean you shouldn't look at the benefits.

 

 

 

The twisting words bit was aimed at the post above mine, not yours.

[Zierro]

Oh my bad. :oops:

[warren211]

And...? Since so many things can cause death, we may as well give up trying to reduce these preventable deaths?

 

 

 

You argue that you want to prevent deaths. So by what you're going by, why not take away knives, drugs, and cars too? Do I need to bring up the statistics about how many people die from those compared to guns?

 

 

 

 

Guns are designed with the3 sole intent to kill, cars are designed for transport, knives are a practical tool for cutting things (like your food) and drugs are designed either to a)cure disease b)alleviate pain or c)to bring pleasure via their abuse. There is a massive difference, comparing them is a strawman argument.

 

 

 

edit - we really need a strawman smilie...

 

 

 

My point is that guns are designed to protect your own life.

 

 

 

From what? Oh yeah, other people with guns.

[venomai]

So we're talking about what is realistic and what isn't? This is coming from someone who thinks they can stop the demand of guns just from promoting anti-violence.

 

Let me tell you once more: that's not what I think.

 

 

 

... it's obvious criminals would have easy access to something much more efficient than that. If guns were gone, people would be using things that are still pretty lethal like pipes, bats, knives, etc. not pens. :roll:

 

Of course... It's an analogy

 

 

 

And while pipes, knives and bats can still be "pretty lethal," they are obviously far less lethal than a gun.

 

 

 

That is because people were ignorant about the consequences of what cigs could do to your health.

 

Anti-tobacco and anti-racism campaigns have made clear the detrimental effects of these things to society as a whole. Anti-gun campaigns attempt to do the same.

 

 

 

Yeah because correlation always implies causation, right?

 

Where does this apply?

 

 

 

And have you not seen Danger's link? Statistics work in both of our favors.

 

Although the site's conclusions are extremely broad, the statistics seem mostly accurate. Very few of them, however, appear to "work against" my claims. Which ones did you have in mind?

 

 

 

Well, sometimes guns don't ensure the victim's death either. You can miss, run out of bullets, it can jam, you can drop it, they can escape, then can fight back, etc. etc.

 

Fluke events and gun jams are irrelevant. We aren't talking about whether or not guns kill all the time; we are talking about whether or not criminals will try to kill all the time. And, as I've said, even when the criminal has a clear opportunity to take a victim's life, in the vast majority of cases they will not.

 

 

 

That still doesn't suggest that people don't need self-defense.

 

Nobody is saying there will be no need for self-defense...

 

 

 

---

 

 

 

Posting from gun-ridden Florida. :D Happy holidays.

[Zierro]

From what? Oh yeah, other people with guns.

 

 

 

Yeah, criminals - the people who will always find ways to get access to guns.

 

 

 

Let me tell you once more: that's not what I think.

 

 

 

Stop the demand from promoting anti-self-defense.* Is that better? ;)

 

 

 

Of course... It's an analogy

 

 

 

And while pipes, knives and bats can still be "pretty lethal," they are obviously far less lethal than a gun.

 

 

 

Yeah but when in the hands of a criminal who has the intent of killing, the outcome is always about the same. Pens wouldn't work this way. There is a limit of what can be a fairly easy replacement and what can't.

 

 

 

Where does this apply?

 

 

 

To your statistics that you are so attached to. I'm repeatedly ignoring them and I seem to be making an ignorantly wilfull move, remember?

 

 

 

Although the site's conclusions are extremely broad, the statistics seem mostly accurate. Very few of them, however, appear to "work against" my claims. Which ones did you have in mind?

 

 

 

Guns being an effective means of self-defense. Guns used for positive things more than negative things.

 

 

 

Fluke events and gun jams are irrelevant. We aren't talking about whether or not guns kill all the time; we are talking about whether or not criminals will try to kill all the time. And, as I've said, even when the criminal has a clear opportunity to take a victim's life, in the vast majority of cases they will not.

 

 

 

No, we're talking about when criminals try to kill. We're talking about decreasing the homicide rate, right? Most of the homicides are not accidental, right? That means we are talking about killing with the intent to do so and nothing else. You're arguing that criminals don't kill all the time. Well that's obvious! I'm saying that if they aim to kill someone then they have the intent, and that intent would stay there if they had a less lethal weapon. Why you bring up non-homicidal situations is beyond me. You're trying to argue that they don't always have the intent to kill - well in those situations it would be irrelevant because it has nothing to do with the homicide rate. We're talking about the situations where there was intentional homicide - situations where their weapons could change but their intent would not, and furthermore, the outcome most likely would not change either.

 

 

 

 

 

Nobody is saying there will be no need for self-defense...

 

 

 

The words "guns" and "self-defense" have a lot in common.

[folmer_veeman]

Venomai, FYI, if you cut someone's throat, it's WAY more lethal than a bullet (unless it's a head/heart shot ofcourse)

[venomai]

Venomai, FYI, if you cut someone's throat, it's WAY more lethal than a bullet (unless it's a head/heart shot ofcourse)

 

To remove bias when comparing lethality and mortality rates between weapons, we compare similarly placed wounds. For example, wounds to the heart, wounds to the abdomen, etc. Imagine if we were to argue that knives were more lethal than guns on the grounds that a stab wound to the heart is more lethal than a gunshot wound to the toe!

 

 

 

---

 

 

 

Stop the demand from promoting anti-self-defense.* Is that better? ;)

 

Or... Reduce the demand and availability by, among other things, promoting a change in methods of self-defense.

 

 

 

Pens wouldn't work this way. There is a limit of what can be a fairly easy replacement and what can't.

 

An arbitrary limit to suit your argument? How convenient. ;)

 

 

 

Replace pens with baseball bats, pipes or even knives and my argument remains the same. It's a lot more difficult to kill somebody with a baseball bat than with a gun.

 

 

 

To your statistics that you are so attached to. I'm repeatedly ignoring them and I seem to be making an ignorantly wilfull move, remember?

 

I'll ask again: where am I making the assumption that correlation always implies causation?

 

 

 

Guns being an effective means of self-defense. Guns used for positive things more than negative things.

 

I don't doubt that guns can be used effectively in self-defense, and often are. This isn't a statistic that goes against my claims.

 

 

 

The "positive" vs. "negative" argument is vague and unsubstantiated. Kleck's findings did not show more "positive" or "life saving" uses, it showed a high rate of self-reported self-defense. It would be foolish to assume that all of these acts of so-called self-defense would have been justified, let alone in the interest of society[1]. It's even more foolish to assume that all averted gun crime would have otherwise resulted in death or serious injury.

 

 

 

Most of the homicides are not accidental, right? That means we are talking about killing with the intent to do so and nothing else. I'm saying that if they aim to kill someone then they have the intent, and that intent would stay there if they had a less lethal weapon.

 

Like I said, it can be argued that intent exists at the moment the gun is fired or the knife is swung, but this doesn't mean the criminal will always follow through with that intent to the fullest of their ability (i.e. ensuring death), nor does it mean the entire crime (such as a robbery) was committed with the original intent of killing the victim.

 

 

 

Unless death is ensured by repeated stabbings/shootings (such as in premeditated murder, crimes of passion, etc), the outcomes will vary based on, among other factors, the relative lethality of the weapon used.

 

 

 

Why you bring up non-homicidal situations is beyond me.

 

Truly accidental shootings (such as accidental discharge) is not something I've yet to bring up, although it is another issue that would be reduced with substitution.

 

 

 

The words "guns" and "self-defense" have a lot in common.

 

"Nuclear warfare" and "self-defense" also have a lot in common. What is your point? That we should have the right to arm ourselves with the most destructive means of self-defense regardless of the outcome on the rest of society? :lol:

[Lenticular_J]

Guns =/= Nuclear arms. (You can't hug your children with nuclear arms.)

 

Handguns =/= Hunting weapons.

 

Handguns and hunting weapons =/= AK47s.

 

 

 

Guns are not all equal. Most people have for self defense: Handguns. For hunting: Rifles and shotguns.

[Zierro]

Or... Reduce the demand and availability by, among other things, promoting a change in methods of self-defense.

 

 

 

There is a difference between someone wanting a gun for self-defense and someone wanting a gun to commit a crime.

 

 

 

An arbitrary limit to suit your argument? How convenient. ;)

 

 

 

Replace pens with baseball bats, pipes or even knives and my argument remains the same. It's a lot more difficult to kill somebody with a baseball bat than with a gun.

 

 

 

Knives are and always were a common weapon for murder. Pens aren't like that.

 

 

 

I'll ask again: where am I making the assumption that correlation always implies causation?

 

 

 

I'll say it again: Your argument is that I continue to argue despite your statistics "so that says something about my position". ;)

 

 

 

I don't doubt that guns can be used effectively in self-defense, and often are. This isn't a statistic that goes against my claims.

 

 

 

The "positive" vs. "negative" argument is vague and unsubstantiated. Kleck's findings did not show more "positive" or "life saving" uses, it showed a high rate of self-reported self-defense. It would be foolish to assume that all of these acts of so-called self-defense would have been justified, let alone in the interest of society[1]. It's even more foolish to assume that all averted gun crime would have otherwise resulted in death or serious injury.

 

 

 

Being overly skeptical and cynical? How convenient.

 

 

 

Like I said, it can be argued that intent exists at the moment the gun is fired or the knife is swung, but this doesn't mean the criminal will always follow through with that intent to the fullest of their ability (i.e. ensuring death), nor does it mean the entire crime (such as a robbery) was committed with the original intent of killing the victim.

 

 

 

Unless death is ensured by repeated stabbings/shootings (such as in premeditated murder, crimes of passion, etc), the outcomes will vary based on, among other factors, the relative lethality of the weapon used.

 

 

 

Well I guess this is where I agree to disagree.

 

 

 

"Nuclear warfare" and "self-defense" also have a lot in common. What is your point? That we should have the right to arm ourselves with the most destructive means of self-defense regardless of the outcome on the rest of society?

 

 

 

Well, since guns are already sown into our society and a very strong black market thrives as we speak, yes that sounds about right.

[venomai]

There is a difference between someone wanting a gun for self-defense and someone wanting a gun to commit a crime.

 

I agree.

 

 

 

Knives are and always were a common weapon for murder. Pens aren't like that.

 

I'm not suggesting pens as weapons is realistic or common -- I'm suggesting that less lethal weapons, whether it be pens, pipes, baseball bats or knives, often result in less lethal outcomes.

 

 

 

... I continue to argue despite your any statistics "so that says something about my position".

 

It sure does...

 

 

 

Being overly skeptical and cynical? How convenient.

 

Cynicism? Try realism. And how about you respond to my arguments?

 

 

 

Well I guess this is where I agree to disagree.

 

Why? Why is it so difficult to grasp that less lethal weapons can often lead to less lethal outcomes, regardless of whether or not intent exists?

 

 

 

Well, since guns are already sown into our society and a very strong black market thrives as we speak, yes that sounds about right.

 

In other words... You really don't care to try and resolve the problem?

[Zierro]

I agree.

 

 

 

Apparently you don't when you think that by targeting self-defense seekers and making them anti-gun, you will solve this excess homicide issue. Just going by your edits here though.

 

 

 

I'm not suggesting pens as weapons is realistic or common -- I'm suggesting that less lethal weapons, whether it be pens, pipes, baseball bats or knives, often result in less lethal outcomes.

 

 

 

So you go to the extreme of using pens (something obviously not used in many violent acts) for your argument? Talk about convenience. That's not what I'm saying though. I'm saying that right now guns are par, and if you took them out of the picture, knives would move up and be the next par - and in terms of lethality plus the criminal intent, I don't think there would be that much of a change. For the millionth time, look at the world pre-gun invention.

 

 

 

It sure does...

 

 

 

*Hides behind Danger's link* There! Now I win!

 

 

 

Cynicism? Try realism. And how about you respond to my arguments?

 

 

 

"Your statistics are from an anti-gun party so they are meaningless to me." See, I can do it too.

 

 

 

Why? Why is it so difficult to grasp that less lethal weapons can often lead to less lethal outcomes, regardless of whether or not intent exists?

 

 

 

Why is it so difficult to grasp that people don't buy and load guns for no reason at all? If they want you dead then they want you dead. It's ignorant to assume that guns are the root of the homicide problem. What about changes in society? Increased population? The media? Take guns out of the equation and murder is still murder.

 

 

 

In other words... You really don't care to try and resolve the problem?

 

 

 

The problem? You mean murder? That thing that's been around forever? Good luck with that. Again, nice idea and you may call this cynicism but it's merely realism. You are trying to tamper with something way over your head - the evils of human nature.

 

 

 

And to answer your question, yeah if that's the negative connotation you want to add to it then be my guest. It's better than wanting to make things worse by letting criminals have weapons but leaving the innocent poor defenseless targets. You bad bad man! ;)