Gun Control

[venomai]

But when you look at the big picture, how much weight does your argument hold? If we got rid of cars, drugs. and knives, millions of lives would be saved.

 

I'm not saying we just "get rid" of all dangerous things -- I'm saying better gun control is necessary if we wish to reduce the high rate of homicide in America.

 

 

 

Statistics don't bring up exceptions, other factors or controls, and stuff like that. They are far too broad.

 

Slight influences from confounding factors should be expected, but that doesn't mean statistics are irrelevant or useless to your argument.

 

 

 

Hypothetically, if you could change the mind of tons and tons of people to be anti-violent, it would make the world a better place.

 

My argument is anti-gun, not anti-violence.

 

 

 

Bringing that up is a red herring in itself.

 

Uhh.. no, it's not.

 

 

 

Wait, do you know how many anti-cig commercials we have here? A lot. It still doesn't do that much though.

 

Well placed campaigns, such as truth, have shown to be very effective in reducing cigarette use and addiction.[1][2] Over the years, antitobacco sentiments, campaigns, education, etc. have contributed to a very steady decline in smoking rates[3].

 

 

 

And I suggested that, although deaths happen all the time, guns aren't the only cause of it.

 

Are you kidding? I'm not saying guns are the only cause of death.

 

 

 

Ya know... the whole "intentional vs unintentional" argument.

 

Which you've twisted completely. I'm not arguing that violent crime is unintended, as it quite clearly is intended, nor am I suggesting that intent to kill never exists at the moment a criminal pulls the trigger. I'm arguing that intent to kill does not always exist originally and, more importantly, regardless of whether intent to kill existed at some point during the crime, rarely (aside from premeditated murder, of course) do we see the criminal follow through with it to the point that death is ensured. In other words: if given a less lethal weapon, there is no indication that all criminals will "try harder not to fail [to kill the victim]."

[Zierro]

I'm not saying we just "get rid" of all dangerous things -- I'm saying better gun control is necessary if we wish to reduce the high rate of homicide in America.

 

 

 

Uhh... and what would the difference be?

 

 

 

Slight influences from confounding factors should be expected, but that doesn't mean statistics are irrelevant or useless to your argument.

 

 

 

You say slight and I say major.

 

 

 

My argument is anti-gun, not anti-violence.

 

 

 

What does correcting trivial mistakes like that accomplish? Either way you look at it, I don't see how that does anything to effect my argument...

 

 

 

Uhh.. no, it's not.

 

 

 

Red herring - arguing about something other than the argument at hand. You were arguing about red herrings - does that have to do with gun control?

 

 

 

Well placed campaigns, such as truth, have shown to be very effective in reducing cigarette use and addiction.[1][2] Over the years, antitobacco sentiments, campaigns, education, etc. have contributed to a very steady decline in smoking rates[3].

 

 

 

That's great, but it's not anywhere near enough. Like I said, unless your gun plan is practically foolproof then it is practically useless since things will be practically the same. And don't bring up any analogies here because guns are instruments of murder - cigs are drugs.

 

 

 

Are you kidding? I'm not saying guns are the only cause of death.

 

 

 

You don't get my point. You keep bringing up the fact that you don't need a gun for self-defense, so I bring up the fact that you don't need a gun to die... (You know, your whole argument about how Guns = death)

 

 

 

Which you've twisted completely. I'm not arguing that violent crime is unintended, as it quite clearly is intended, nor am I suggesting that intent to kill never exists at the moment a criminal pulls the trigger. I'm arguing that intent to kill does not always exist originally and, more importantly, regardless of whether intent to kill existed at some point during the crime, rarely (aside from premeditated murder, of course) do we see the criminal follow through with it to the point that death is ensured. In other words: if given a less lethal weapon, there is no indication that all criminals will "try harder not to fail [to kill the victim]."

 

 

 

Yeah but when did I say all criminals? I was just saying that knives can be replaced with guns pretty damn easily. What would the intention of buying and loading a gun be? To kill. It's that simple. Guns are meant to kill. Take that some person who bought that gun, take away their gun - do their bad intentions still exist? Yeah. Add a knife into the equation - now sit back and watch the effectiveness of gun control!

 

 

 

PS: I think it's funny how you respond to everything except the main point which we were both agreeing on.

 

 

 

"This really clears a lot in between you and I. :) I'd like to see proper control, I just don't think it would be as easy with a place like the US."

[venomai]

I'm not saying we just "get rid" of all dangerous things -- I'm saying better gun control is necessary if we wish to reduce the high rate of homicide in America.

 

Uhh... and what would the difference be?

 

I think you can figure this one out on your own.

 

 

 

What does correcting trivial mistakes like that accomplish? Either way you look at it, I don't see how that does anything to effect my argument...

 

I'm not suggesting we try to reduce violence. I'm suggesting we try to reduce lax gun control and availability. These are two completely separate concepts.

 

 

 

Red herring - arguing about something other than the argument at hand. You were arguing about red herrings - does that have to do with gun control?

 

A "red herring," in this context, refers to a logical fallacy. Refuting with a logical fallacy -- i.e. pointing out the flawed logic in an argument -- is not a digression (and therefore not a red herring).

 

 

 

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... rring.html

 

 

 

That's great, but it's not anywhere near enough. Like I said, unless your gun plan is practically foolproof then it is practically useless since things will be practically the same.

 

Smoking rates have been cut in half since the decline (and anti-tobacco movement) began in the mid 60s -- the rates of cigarette smoking have fallen from around 40% of all American adults to around 20%[1]. If tens of millions of people is "not anywhere near enough" for you, then I'm not sure what is.

 

 

 

Few movements are completely foolproof. Flaws and problems are expected; we tend to move past them.

 

 

 

And don't bring up any analogies here because guns are instruments of murder - cigs are drugs.

 

I'm just rolling (pun!) with your earlier drug analogy.

 

 

 

You don't get my point. You keep bringing up the fact that you don't need a gun for self-defense, so I bring up the fact that you don't need a gun to die... (You know, your whole argument about how Guns = death)

 

I've already acknowledged that you don't need a gun to die. What is your point? Because people die from knives and baseball bats, we may as well give up trying to reduce America's abnormally high gun crime and homicide rates?

 

 

 

What would the intention of buying and loading a gun be? To kill. It's that simple. Guns are meant to kill. Take that some person who bought that gun, take away their gun - do their bad intentions still exist? Yeah. Add a knife into the equation - now sit back and watch the effectiveness of gun control!

 

We've covered this pages ago. You're talking about premeditated murder, in which a firearm is purchased with the intention of using it to kill another person. It's foolish to assume that, just because a person (criminal or not) purchases a loaded gun for self-defense, they must be intending to kill people.

 

 

 

I've repeated it several times now; if it was the case that armed criminals made it their 'purpose' (intention) to kill all their victims, they would be taking extra measures to ensure death (i.e. repeated stabbings or shootings). This is not the case.

 

 

 

I think it's funny how you respond to everything except the main point which we were both agreeing on.

 

There's not much to say.

[dangeresque]

The problem with banning handguns all together is this - you will be taking away the guns that are either not used or responsibly used for sport or otherwise away from law abiding citizens.

 

I don't see this as a problem. Handguns are designed to kill people -- these are not toys to fool around with or stamps to be collected.

 

 

 

Continued ownership of handguns, especially for mere recreational use, is not worth the increase in homicide rate that comes with it.

 

Yes, handguns are designed to kill people, but to the people that don't kill people they are recreational items and they use them at a completely safe firing range somewhere back in the sticks and there is absolutely no harm done. And people do collect them, and why can't they? They're not going to kill anyone with them.

 

 

 

And recreational use isn't a good reason? Why not? You can use your computer can't you? You could kill someone with that if you really tried. Granted it will be a lot harder but my point stands. And yet again, people will always kill people whether it be with illegal firearms or with something else, they'll do it.

 

 

 

Here is a fact sheet showing how many crimes are prevented with the presence of firearms. Yeah it's biased but facts are facts.

 

http://www.gunowners.org/fs0101.htm

[Quoi_Tu]

The problem with banning handguns all together is this - you will be taking away the guns that are either not used or responsibly used for sport or otherwise away from law abiding citizens.

 

I don't see this as a problem. Handguns are designed to kill people -- these are not toys to fool around with or stamps to be collected.

 

 

 

Continued ownership of handguns, especially for mere recreational use, is not worth the increase in homicide rate that comes with it.

 

Yes, handguns are designed to kill people, but to the people that don't kill people they are recreational items and they use them at a completely safe firing range somewhere back in the sticks and there is absolutely no harm done. And people do collect them, and why can't they? They're not going to kill anyone with them.

 

 

 

And recreational use isn't a good reason? Why not? You can use your computer can't you? You could kill someone with that if you really tried. Granted it will be a lot harder but my point stands. And yet again, people will always kill people whether it be with illegal firearms or with something else, they'll do it.

 

 

 

Here is a fact sheet showing how many crimes are prevented with the presence of firearms. Yeah it's biased but facts are facts.

 

http://www.gunowners.org/fs0101.htm

 

 

 

A computer's sole design is not to kill another person. People will always kill people, true. However, by your argument we should legalize nuclear weapons, because people are going to kill people whether they're legal or not. (in other words, bad argument that's been repeated before in the thread. Don't use it)

 

 

 

Also, if you just want to be able to shoot handguns at targets, then ranges could get permits from the government allowing handguns on the property, while not allowing people to keep handguns in private households.

[Zierro]

I think you can figure this one out on your own.

 

 

 

Guns are dangerous things because they can lead to accidental deaths as you've stated. Drugs, cars, and knives also do this.

 

 

 

I'm not suggesting we try to reduce violence. I'm suggesting we try to reduce lax gun control and availability. These are two completely separate concepts.

 

 

 

:wall: What is the point of a gun? To kill. Is that not essentially violence? You say you want to decrease the demand for guns - that doesn't mean you don't want people to be less violent?

 

 

 

A "red herring," in this context, refers to a logical fallacy. Refuting with a logical fallacy -- i.e. pointing out the flawed logic in an argument -- is not a digression (and therefore not a red herring).

 

 

 

My argument is that guns aren't the only things that kill people. Your argument is that guns aren't the only things that can defend people. And instead of refuting, you bring up red herrings.

 

 

 

Smoking rates have been cut in half since the decline (and anti-tobacco movement) began in the mid 60s -- the rates of cigarette smoking have fallen from around 40% of all American adults to around 20%[1]. If tens of millions of people is "not anywhere near enough" for you, then I'm not sure what is.

 

 

 

Few movements are completely foolproof. Flaws and problems are expected; we tend to move past them.

 

 

 

I meant in the context of guns so you wouldn't try and pull up any analogous statistics. My point was that if there is a flaw - criminals still find ways to get guns - then I don't see how that makes self-defense any less necessary (you know, the whole thing I've been arguing about).

 

 

 

I've already acknowledged that you don't need a gun to die. What is your point? Because people die from knives and baseball bats, we may as well give up trying to reduce America's abnormally high gun crime and homicide rates?

 

 

 

What is yours? Because sometimes other alternatives of self-defense can be helpful so we should give up letting innocent people arm themselves with the same thing criminals will always be getting their hands on?

 

 

 

We've covered this pages ago. You're talking about premeditated murder, in which a firearm is purchased with the intention of using it to kill another person. It's foolish to assume that, just because a person (criminal or not) purchases a loaded gun for self-defense, they must be intending to kill people.

 

 

 

How is that foolish? I repeat, what is the point of owning and loading a gun...? Handguns are designed to kill people. So what would your intention for buying one be?

 

 

 

I've repeated it several times now; if it was the case that armed criminals made it their 'purpose' (intention) to kill all their victims, they would be taking extra measures to ensure death (i.e. repeated stabbings or shootings). This is not the case.

 

 

 

And I've repeated many times that if they had no intention of killing someone then they wouldn't buy or load the gun in the first place.

 

 

 

There's not much to say.

 

 

 

But there is. I would like to live in a world without guns, but I don't think that's very possible so that's why I think the innocent are entitled to self-defense.

[venomai]

Guns are dangerous things because they can lead to accidental deaths as you've stated. Drugs, cars, and knives also do this.

 

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

 

 

 

You say you want to decrease the demand for guns - that doesn't mean you don't want people to be less violent?

 

Whether or not you consider guns to be violent objects, substituting guns with knives will not make a violent criminal "less violent."

 

 

 

My argument is that guns aren't the only things that kill people. Your argument is that guns aren't the only things that can defend people. And instead of refuting, you bring up red herrings.

 

I've acknowledged this several times now: "Yes, people kill people without using guns."

 

 

 

The problem with your rebuttal is that it is not relevant (i.e. it is a red herring). It does not address my points, and it only states the obvious: that alternatives exist for many acts in life.

 

 

 

It must be realized that although alternatives exist, they are not all equal in efficacy. And, by this understanding, a reduction in guns will impact both criminals as well as law-abiding citizens in that it will force them to use less lethal (and perhaps less intimidating/effective) weapons for crimes, self-defense, etc. However, this is a worthwhile loss for the citizens because of the overall reduction in lethal crime (i.e. lower homicide rates).

 

 

 

In other words, I would rather see a reduction in firearm availability than an increase in firearm self-defense. I "sacrifice" my right to use certain weapons in self-defense (e.g. handguns, assault rifles, bazookas) because I realize that the risks of introducing them into households outweigh the benefits.

 

 

 

My point was that if there is a flaw - criminals still find ways to get guns - then I don't see how that makes self-defense any less necessary (you know, the whole thing I've been arguing about).

 

Nobody is saying that self-defense will be "less necessary" if criminals are using kinves instead of guns.

 

 

 

With proper control and low availability, the vast majority of criminals will not be able to acquire guns. There "may" be some serious flaws that need correcting, but everything "may" also go perfectly smoothly. (These blind speculations will get us nowhere, though.)

 

 

 

What is yours? Because sometimes other alternatives of self-defense can be helpful so we should give up letting innocent people arm themselves with the same thing criminals will always be getting their hands on?

 

Yep; with the intention that criminals will no longer "always" be getting their hands on guns.

 

 

 

Handguns are designed to kill people. So what would your intention for buying one be?

 

Other than sport and collection? Self-defense.

 

 

 

Anyone who values self-defense, regardless of whether they purchase a weapon, may have a "general intent" to kill whomever puts their life at risk. This, however, does not mean that the criminal purchases the gun with the intention of kiling the store clerk, or that the law-abiding citizen purchases the gun with the intention of killing his wife a year later in a fit of rage.

 

 

 

In no way does this mean that the robber will, if given a less lethal weapon, "try harder to kill his victims."

 

 

 

I would like to live in a world without guns, but I don't think that's very possible so that's why I think the innocent are entitled to self-defense.

 

I'm not looking for a world without guns, I'm looking for a world with less guns. I see this as realistic and as possible as any other movement -- from gay rights, to women's rights, to marijuana law reform.

[Dizzle229]

Such a big argument over our right to hang a pair of bear arms on our wall.

[dangeresque]

Nobody saw this, please click.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Nobody saw this, please click.

 

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

[dangeresque]

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 -.-.

[1_man_army]

So now you're declaring that you want to go around in circles? I think this is the point where discussion officially dies.

[dangeresque]

So now you're declaring that you want to go around in circles? I think this is the point where discussion officially dies.

 

Errr, no. christ people I just didn't think anyone saw it so I re-posted it. Do you want me to copy and paste or something? srysly -.-

[Ginger_Warrior]

So now you're declaring that you want to go around in circles? I think this is the point where discussion officially dies.

 

Errr, no. christ people I just didn't think anyone saw it so I re-posted it. Do you want me to copy and paste or something? srysly -.-

 

srysly, if you're that insecure about whether your posts get seen by people, I wouldn't trust you within 1,000 miles of a gun.

[dangeresque]

So now you're declaring that you want to go around in circles? I think this is the point where discussion officially dies.

 

Errr, no. christ people I just didn't think anyone saw it so I re-posted it. Do you want me to copy and paste or something? srysly -.-

 

srysly, if you're that insecure about whether your posts get seen by people, I wouldn't trust you within 1,000 miles of a gun.

 

Oh please, I just reposted a link big woop. I'm not insecure I just thought it had some valid points and it got overlooked. So can we stop talking about the fact that I reposted a link and making minute insults about me and get back on point? Sheesh -.-

[Quoi_Tu]

Oh please, I just reposted a link big woop. I'm not insecure I just thought it had some valid points and it got overlooked. So can we stop talking about the fact that I reposted a link and making minute insults about me and get back on point? Sheesh -.-

 

Maybe when you reposted the link you should of pulled some main points from it. Otherwise we could all just post links and not discuss anything.

[dangeresque]

Oh please, I just reposted a link big woop. I'm not insecure I just thought it had some valid points and it got overlooked. So can we stop talking about the fact that I reposted a link and making minute insults about me and get back on point? Sheesh -.-

 

Maybe when you reposted the link you should of pulled some main points from it. Otherwise we could all just post links and not discuss anything.

 

Well hell I'll copy and paste stuff if you really want. Maybe later though. Yeah I should have posted some made points, but still no reason to freak out over it and call me insecure and the like.

[snowager286]

Oh please, I just reposted a link big woop. I'm not insecure I just thought it had some valid points and it got overlooked. So can we stop talking about the fact that I reposted a link and making minute insults about me and get back on point? Sheesh -.-

 

Maybe when you reposted the link you should of pulled some main points from it. Otherwise we could all just post links and not discuss anything.

 

Well hell I'll copy and paste stuff if you really want. Maybe later though. Yeah I should have posted some made points, but still no reason to freak out over it and call me insecure and the like.

 

 

 

 

 

Your right, but, your initial reaction should have been different and less defensive. You would have come off in a much better light. Also, Ginger was a little to aggressive, and inspired the defensive response from Dangeresque.

[Dizzle229]

Apparently this is the therapy thread now.

[dangeresque]

Yeah...back on track now please or I'll just have this locked.

 

 

 

I'll edit in some stuff when I get enough time.

[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?

 

 

 

Whether or not you consider guns to be violent objects, substituting guns with knives will not make a violent criminal "less violent."

 

 

 

You're agreeing that guns will easily be substituted with knives? Well that's not really fixing anything if you ask me...

 

 

 

It must be realized that although alternatives exist, they are not all equal in efficacy. And, by this understanding, a reduction in guns will impact both criminals as well as law-abiding citizens in that it will force them to use less lethal (and perhaps less intimidating/effective) weapons for crimes, self-defense, etc. However, this is a worthwhile loss for the citizens because of the overall reduction in lethal crime (i.e. lower homicide rates).

 

 

 

This goes back to my earlier point. Even if they are not as efficient, if the intentions are the same, then they can just as easily become as efficient. Like I said, murder was a commonplace forever. Taking guns out of the equation probably isn't going to help as much as you think.

 

 

 

In other words, I would rather see a reduction in firearm availability than an increase in firearm self-defense. I "sacrifice" my right to use certain weapons in self-defense (e.g. handguns, assault rifles, bazookas) because I realize that the risks of introducing them into households outweigh the benefits.

 

 

 

Whether it outweighs the benefits or not is only your subjective opinion. In my opinion, there is no reason to give up your own security.

 

 

 

With proper control and low availability, the vast majority of criminals will not be able to acquire guns. There "may" be some serious flaws that need correcting, but everything "may" also go perfectly smoothly. (These blind speculations will get us nowhere, though.)

 

 

 

Yes, but that's if it were "proper" - but that's only possible in this imaginative world you keep bringing up.

 

 

 

Yep; with the intention that criminals will no longer "always" be getting their hands on guns.

 

 

 

I wish. Some people are bad. Some people want money. Now just add America in (while we're in a bad economic situation, at that) - and you got yourself one good reason to want to protect yourself. ;)

 

 

 

Other than sport and collection? Self-defense.

 

 

 

Anyone who values self-defense, regardless of whether they purchase a weapon, may have a "general intent" to kill whomever puts their life at risk. This, however, does not mean that the criminal purchases the gun with the intention of kiling the store clerk, or that the law-abiding citizen purchases the gun with the intention of killing his wife a year later in a fit of rage.

 

 

 

In no way does this mean that the robber will, if given a less lethal weapon, "try harder to kill his victims."

 

 

 

Yes, there is a general intent. I wasn't talking about the specific intent. The general intent of owning and loading a gun is to kill someone - the general intent of using a replacement for a gun would obviously be to kill someone, so why would you not exert more effort?

 

 

 

Even in a fit of rage, someone using a gun would hardly be any different than someone using a knife. They would both want to use their weapon successfully. The only exceptions would be accidental deaths.

 

 

 

I'm not looking for a world without guns, I'm looking for a world with less guns. I see this as realistic and as possible as any other movement -- from gay rights, to women's rights, to marijuana law reform.

 

 

 

Not good at all. That's giving a few bad people more power than the general population - including all the good people since you aim to make guns an unnecessary means of self-defense.

[I_am_Geed]

Hey there, I was just talking to a friend today about guns, gun laws, etc. And I thought "what does TIF think?" :

 

 

 

So here it is, what are your views on gun control and gun laws? What firearms are acceptable, which aren't? Etc.

 

 

 

My views:

 

~ Automatics & Assault rifle's regulated fairly heavily.

 

~ Hand guns allowed, but permit required.

 

~ 21+ for handgun permit, same age limit maybe older for concealed weapon permit.

 

~ Concealed weapons allowed as long as you have a permit for the gun and for it being concealed, and it can't be visible to the public.

 

~Semi automatic hunting rifle and shotguns allowed, but permit requird (don't think it requires one atm, atleast in the US.)

 

~No handgun permit if you have a semi-serious offense on your criminal record.

 

 

 

I probably have more, can't think of any more atm though. Basically I think that anyone (excluding past criminals) should be able to own a gun, shoot it (not at people ;) ), hunt with it, do whatever as long as it is not harming anyone and is for legal/fun purposes only.

 

 

 

Discuss.

 

 

 

Assault Rifles are for military and police personel ONLY! I would move if i knew the neighbor next to me owned an Ak-47

 

 

 

Hand Guns need strict permits, but for obvious reasons only semi-automatic and single-shot (revolvers with barrel-relaoders)

 

 

 

I like the idea of the 21+, because of the maturity levels of humans.

 

 

 

Same with the concealed weapons idea

 

 

 

I'm a little shakey with the semi's for hunting rifles. Iv grown up in a family hunting with bolt-actions, and they seem to work 1 time. A good hunter doesnt need to spray a deer with 6 bullets from something like an M-21, they only need 1 from a bolt-action.

 

 

 

Agreement also on the not allowing permits if you have somewhat serious offences against you. For obvious reasons

[Lenticular_J]

So now you're declaring that you want to go around in circles? I think this is the point where discussion officially dies.

 

...This discussion was alive?

[venomai]

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?

 

Taking away all weapons, all drugs, or all vehicles is far less realistic than substituting one weapon, one drug, or one vehicle for a less destructive alternative.

 

 

 

Even if they are not as efficient, if the intentions are the same, then they can just as easily become as efficient.

 

I don't doubt it. In the right situation, I can turn a ballpoint pen into a deadly weapon. Obviously, though, if criminals were using ballpoint pens instead of guns and knives, we would be seeing a sharp decline in violent crime related deaths simply because of the extra skill and effort that it would take to kill somebody with a pen (in other words: due to the difference in the weapon's lethality).

 

 

 

Like I said, murder was a commonplace forever.

 

Likewise, cigarette use was commonplace in the past. But, regardless of whether it will be commonplace in the future (which doesn't appear to be the case), it's clear that the anti-tobacco movement has made a significant impact on rates of cigarette use and, subsequently, tobacco-related deaths.

 

 

 

In my opinion, there is no reason to give up your own security.

 

... An opinion based not on statistics or reason, but emotion and wilfull ignorance. The fact that you've repeatedly (and deliberately) ignored the statistics presented in this thread tells us something about your position.

 

 

 

The general intent of owning and loading a gun is to kill someone - the general intent of using a replacement for a gun would obviously be to kill someone, so why would you not exert more effort?

 

More effort is inevitable. Instead of pulling a trigger, they will have to swing their entire arm. In neither case, though, is there so much effort as to ensure the victim's death.

 

 

 

That's giving a few bad people more power than the general population - including all the good people since you aim to make guns an unnecessary means of self-defense.

 

I'd much rather see destructive weapons in the hands of a few bad people than in the hands of all bad people.

 

 

 

--

 

 

 

snip

 

Some of those statistics are pretty good, while others are broad and unfounded. I can't care to go over each one, but which did you have in mind specifically?

 

 

 

Anyways... happy holidays. :) I'll reply in a week or so.

[Zierro]

Taking away all weapons, all drugs, or all vehicles is far less realistic than substituting one weapon, one drug, or one vehicle for a less destructive alternative.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

I don't doubt it. In the right situation, I can turn a ballpoint pen into a deadly weapon. Obviously, though, if criminals were using ballpoint pens instead of guns and knives, we would be seeing a sharp decline in violent crime related deaths simply because of the extra skill and effort that it would take to kill somebody with a pen (in other words: due to the difference in the weapon's lethality).

 

 

 

Pens are much different from guns than knives are. I think bringing up pens is pretty lame since 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:

 

 

 

Likewise, cigarette use was commonplace in the past. But, regardless of whether it will be commonplace in the future (which doesn't appear to be the case), it's clear that the anti-tobacco movement has made a significant impact on rates of cigarette use and, subsequently, tobacco-related deaths.

 

 

 

That is because people were ignorant about the consequences of what cigs could do to your health. The anti-tobacco campaigns scared people by letting them now how much of a detriment to your health it is. I don't see how that would apply to guns. Criminals already know the consequences for gun use - incarceration obviously. You don't need campaigns to point that out.

 

 

 

... An opinion based not on statistics or reason, but emotion and wilfull ignorance. The fact that you've repeatedly (and deliberately) ignored the statistics presented in this thread tells us something about your position.

 

 

 

Yeah because correlation always implies causation, right? And have you not seen Danger's link? Statistics work in both of our favors.

 

 

 

More effort is inevitable. Instead of pulling a trigger, they will have to swing their entire arm. In neither case, though, is there so much effort as to ensure the victim's death.

 

 

 

So you agree that they will use more effort now, but you are arguing that they won't be successful 100% of the time? 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.

 

 

 

I'd much rather see destructive weapons in the hands of a few bad people than in the hands of all bad people.

 

 

 

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