Gun Control

[Zierro]

Right... That's the whole idea.

 

 

 

Mortality rate is far higher when a gun is used than when a knife is used: people are far more likely to survive a stab wound to the heart or chest than a gunshot wound to the heart or chest.[2][3] That, and the fact that guns can be used effectively at a distance, is what makes them "more lethal weapons" than knives and, therefore, more intimidating weapons. This is not "just my opinion," the vast majority would agree that a loaded gun is a "more lethal weapon" than a knife.

 

 

 

We're talking about psychology here though. Let me show you what I mean.

 

 

 

1.) Someone with a gun only has to pull their finger back. Someone with a knife has to use their whole arm. The idea of someone working harder to kill can be more frightening to some. It is a more grotesque and primal thought. I don't know about you but the hairs on my neck would probably stand up if I saw someone running at me with a battle axe. Extreme, I know, but I hope it clarified my point. Chopping someone limb from limb sounds worse than getting shot in the head, but yet which one is more lethal?

 

 

 

2.) Blades don't jam or run out of ammunition like a gun does. You may say blades have a shorter reach, but guns aren't always that accurate from afar anyways. And most confrontations are done within a short distance.

 

 

 

3.) Guns are the most traditional weapon so stepping outside of this norm can show that you are more 'deranged' than your average criminal for lack of a better term. "They really mean business."

 

 

 

We could argue about this all day, but I'd just like to say my only point is that you're stating your opinion not an objective "fact".

 

 

 

This, on the other hand, is your own opinion.

 

 

 

So people kill other people even though they don't want to? Say what?? I know it was a good opportunity for a comeback but it doesn't help your argument much. What is your reason for thinking people kill other people without an intent? We're talking about the worst sin possible - there has to be a good reason.

 

 

 

It doesn't. I've been explicitly clear in many of my posts: murder is not a "new thing."

 

 

 

"I feel like a broken record. Yes, people kill people. Yes, people kill people without using guns."

 

 

 

Then why do you seem to think guns are mostly to blame for this?

 

 

 

Change the mind of society and, in time, the government will change as well. Either as a response to society's wishes (i.e. not wanting to lose votes) or as a direct result of new politicians.

 

 

 

I meant that it's harder to convince everyone than just a select few. And this is a bit off topic, but what about marijuana? People have been wanting that legalized for ages but the government still disagrees.

 

 

 

And until everybody agrees on equality to gays, blacks and women, it too must be a useless cause... Cut the crap, please.

 

 

 

Wow, that went over your head. We're not talking about gays - we're talking about a need for self-defense. If some (criminals) don't listen to the gun policy you propose - which they most likely won't (hello, "criminals") - then there is still a need for self-defense.

 

 

 

Also I like how you didn't answer my question so here it is again. How?

 

 

 

See above.

 

 

 

You too.

[venomai]

1.) Someone with a gun only has to pull their finger back. Someone with a knife has to use their whole arm. The idea of someone working harder to kill can be more frightening to some. It is a more grotesque and primal thought. I don't know about you but the hairs on my neck would probably stand up if I saw someone running at me with a battle axe. Extreme, I know, but I hope it clarified my point. Chopping someone limb from limb sounds worse than getting shot in the head, but yet which one is more lethal?

 

 

 

2.) Blades don't jam or run out of ammunition like a gun does. You may say blades have a shorter reach, but guns aren't always that accurate from afar anyways. And most confrontations are done within a short distance.

 

 

 

3.) Guns are the most traditional weapon so stepping outside of this norm can show that you are more 'deranged' than your average criminal for lack of a better term. "They really mean business."

 

You're arguing semantics.

 

 

 

1. Just imagine how hard the criminal would have to work to kill you with a butter knife or some safety scissors! Does that make these weapons more intimidating than a gun? No.

 

 

 

2. And some knives break apart, while others are dull... Just because a gun can jam or run out of ammo doesn't make it a less lethal or less intimidating weapon.

 

 

 

3. A butter knife... That man must really mean business.

 

 

 

Obviously, though, we aren't about to argue that butter knives are "more effective at intimidating victims than a gun" on the sole grounds that a few select people think this way.

 

 

 

What is your reason for thinking people kill other people without an intent? We're talking about the worst sin possible - there has to be a good reason.

 

You've never heard of ricochets? Bar fights? Domestic violence?

 

 

 

People kill people.

 

Then why do you seem to think guns are mostly to blame for this?

 

Because, when they are used, they tend to be more lethal.

 

 

 

I've said it so many times now that I'm beginning to wonder if you even understand the term. Lethailty is the "quality of being lethal" -- the more lethal something is, the more likely it will cause death. The less lethal something is, the less likely it will cause death. This is a very simple concept.

 

 

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lethality

 

 

 

As it stands, firearm self-defense in no way balances out the above mentioned increase in homicides.

 

 

 

but what about marijuana? People have been wanting that legalized for ages but the government still disagrees.

 

It wasn't until recently that marijuana law reform has been gaining the support of the majority. This isn't a process that happens overnight. Mind you, we have been seeing change in many U.S. jurisdictions (decriminalization, reduced arrests, prioritization of police efforts, etc).

 

 

 

http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=5052

 

http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=6322

 

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle-old ... nada.shtml

 

 

 

If some (criminals) don't listen to the gun policy you propose - which they most likely won't (hello, "criminals") - then there is still a need for self-defense.

 

I'm not asking for a change in policy akin to "We are not to use guns." Obviously stating that in law will do nothing to improve the current situation. How many times do I need to say this? I'm not suggesting a change in law.

 

 

 

Also I like how you didn't answer my question so here it is again. How?

 

How do we stop murder world-wide and influence every individual to to make a huge moral advancement?

 

 

 

I have no f***ing clue. I'm not proposing anything of the sort.

[folmer_veeman]

You're arguing semantics.

 

 

 

1. Just imagine how hard the criminal would have to work to kill you with a butter knife or some safety scissors! Does that make these weapons more intimidating than a gun? No.

 

 

 

.. #-o

 

Why do you even take the example of a butterknife. Anyone who'd try to kill you with a butterknife would be developmentally delayed (though you could rather easily penetrate someone's torso with it). If you want to kill someone with a household object, you could take a hedge cutter, claw hammer, kitchen knife, hatchet, whatever you long for. Any of those objects would almost guarantee a one chop kill.

 

 

 

 

2. And some knives break apart, while others are dull... Just because a gun can jam or run out of ammo doesn't make it a less lethal or less intimidating weapon.

 

 

 

 

If you have a kitchen knife/butcher knife/hedge cutter/claw hammer/hatchet that breaks apart, you should really buy better quality ones next time -.-

 

 

 

 

3. A butter knife... That man must really mean business.

 

 

 

Obviously, though, we aren't about to argue that butter knives are "more effective at intimidating victims than a gun" on the sole grounds that a few select people think this way.

 

 

 

Imagine, a muscled guy charging at you with a claw hammer/kitchen knife/hatchet/whatever, would you happily wait for him because you think he wants to cuddle you? :wall:

 

 

You've never heard of ricochets? Bar fights? Domestic violence?

 

 

 

Here you got it right.

 

 

Because, when they are used, they tend to be more lethal.

 

 

 

I've said it so many times now that I'm beginning to wonder if you even understand the term. Lethailty is the "quality of being lethal" -- the more lethal something is, the more likely it will cause death. The less lethal something is, the less likely it will cause death. This is a very simple concept.

 

 

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lethality

 

 

 

As it stands, firearm self-defense in no way balances out the above mentioned increase in homicides.

 

Hatchet/claw hammer (who'd do that anyway)/butcher knife to the neck, if it doesn't break the neck or cut crucial blood vessels you'll almost certainly bleed to death. Lethal? HELL YES. Legal? HELL YES.

 

 

 

 

It wasn't until recently that marijuana law reform has been gaining the support of the majority. This isn't a process that happens overnight. Mind you, we have been seeing change in many U.S. jurisdictions (decriminalization, reduced arrests, prioritization of police efforts, etc).

 

 

 

http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=5052

 

http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=6322

 

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle-old ... nada.shtml

 

Here you got it right again.

 

 

 

I'm not asking for a change in policy akin to "We are not to use guns." Obviously stating that in law will do nothing to improve the current situation. How many times do I need to say this? I'm not suggesting a change in law.

 

Then what ARE you?

 

 

 

 

 

Better points than last time, and please don't use butter knives for example when talking about killing people. :x

[Zierro]

You're arguing semantics.

 

 

 

1. Just imagine how hard the criminal would have to work to kill you with a butter knife or some safety scissors! Does that make these weapons more intimidating than a gun? No.

 

 

 

2. And some knives break apart, while others are dull... Just because a gun can jam or run out of ammo doesn't make it a less lethal or less intimidating weapon.

 

 

 

3. A butter knife... That man must really mean business.

 

 

 

Obviously, though, we aren't about to argue that butter knives are "more effective at intimidating victims than a gun" on the sole grounds that a few select people think this way.

 

 

 

Yes I am. Intimidation is related to psychology. Something that isn't as simplistic as you make it out to be. I don't know why you're arguing otherwise. And those are nice reasons for why you think guns are more intimidating but remember that's your opinion.

 

 

 

You've never heard of ricochets? Bar fights? Domestic violence?

 

 

 

It was just a matter of time until you brought up accidental (by definition) homicides. :roll:

 

 

 

I've said it so many times now that I'm beginning to wonder if you even understand the term. Lethailty is the "quality of being lethal" -- the more lethal something is, the more likely it will cause death. The less lethal something is, the less likely it will cause death. This is a very simple concept.

 

 

 

Like I said numerous times, even without something as lethal as guns, murders will still be very widespread. This is a very simple concept.

 

 

 

I'm not asking for a change in policy akin to "We are not to use guns." Obviously stating that in law will do nothing to improve the current situation. How many times do I need to say this? I'm not suggesting a change in law.

 

 

 

Who is using semantics now? By "policy" I meant "whatever you propose about the gun culture".

 

 

 

How do we stop murder world-wide and influence every individual to to make a huge moral advancement?

 

 

 

I have no f***ing clue. I'm not proposing anything of the sort.

 

 

 

Then you're saying you have nothing of use to propose.

[snowager286]

I've always wondered way you anti-gun control people never seem to bring up the moments and places in American history where a good part of the population had guns. Like the wild west where nearly everybody had a gun. They still tons of shootings. (more than in any part of east, where guns were less common.)

 

 

 

The whole idea that if everybody was armed 24/7 their would be fewer murders, relies on the belief that humans will always think rationally in any situation. They don't, a simple misunderstanding could lead to a death and as long as you think you can shoot faster then the other person, then you care if they have a gun or not. The fundamental problem with having an armed society is that when you have a gun, every problem is a target.

[Zierro]

I've always wondered way you anti-gun control people never seem to bring up the moments and places in American history where a good part of the population had guns. Like the wild west where nearly everybody had a gun. They still tons of shootings. (more than in any part of east, where guns were less common.)

 

 

 

The whole idea that if everybody was armed 24/7 their would be fewer murders, relies on the belief that humans will always think rationally in any situation. They don't, a simple misunderstanding could lead to a death and as long as you think you can shoot faster then the other person, then you care if they have a gun or not. The fundamental problem with having an armed society is that when you have a gun, every problem is a target.

 

 

 

On the other hand, I would think people would be less likely to do something 'stupid' if they know other people around them probably have guns in their possession.

[Quoi_Tu]

I've always wondered way you anti-gun control people never seem to bring up the moments and places in American history where a good part of the population had guns. Like the wild west where nearly everybody had a gun. They still tons of shootings. (more than in any part of east, where guns were less common.)

 

 

 

The whole idea that if everybody was armed 24/7 their would be fewer murders, relies on the belief that humans will always think rationally in any situation. They don't, a simple misunderstanding could lead to a death and as long as you think you can shoot faster then the other person, then you care if they have a gun or not. The fundamental problem with having an armed society is that when you have a gun, every problem is a target.

 

 

 

On the other hand, I would think people would be less likely to do something 'stupid' if they know other people around them probably have guns in their possession.

 

 

 

If I've learned anything in life, it's that people are selfish, greedy, and egocentric. A much worse combination when a gun is added.

[Zierro]

If I've learned anything in life, it's that people are selfish, greedy, and egocentric. A much worse combination when a gun is added.

 

 

 

Exactly, that's why it's fair for innocent people to have them.

[Quoi_Tu]

If I've learned anything in life, it's that people are selfish, greedy, and egocentric. A much worse combination when a gun is added.

 

 

 

Exactly, that's why it's fair for innocent people to have them.

 

 

 

Those same selfish, greedy, and egocentric innocent people? People are corrupted by power. A gun gives people more power. It expands the crime of opprotunity category.

 

 

 

 

 

Also, I'm just talking about self defense gun use not hunting. Just in case anyone was wondering.

[Zierro]

Those same selfish, greedy, and egocentric innocent people?

 

 

 

Nice twist on the word 'innocent' you used there.

 

 

 

People are corrupted by power. A gun gives people more power. It expands the crime of opprotunity category.

 

 

 

*Points to past again when guns didn't exist yet crime/murder was just as prevalent*

 

 

 

Also, I'm just talking about self defense gun use not hunting. Just in case anyone was wondering.

 

 

 

Wait, you think guns for hunting are okay?

[venomai]

And those are nice reasons for why you think guns are more intimidating but remember that's your opinion.

 

Right.. it's "just my opinion," as well as the opinion of the vast majority. More importantly, it's also "just" the opinion of the criminals: they choose guns over knives because they believe them to be more effective at intimidating their victims.

 

 

 

What is your point?

 

 

 

It was just a matter of time until you brought up accidental (by definition) homicides.

 

You asked why a criminal would kill somebody if it wasn't their original intention. An accidental homicide is, by definition, an unintended homicide.

 

 

 

Like I said numerous times, even without something as lethal as guns, murders will still be very widespread. This is a very simple concept.

 

You've gotta be bloody kidding me... We just discussed this.

 

 

 

[hide=]

 

 

How does that debunk the fact that murder will always be around

 

It doesn't. I've been explicitly clear in many of my posts: murder is not a "new thing."

 

 

 

"I feel like a broken record. Yes, people kill people. Yes, people kill people without using guns."

 

Then why do you seem to think guns are mostly to blame for this?

 

/ snip /

 

Like I said numerous times, even without something as lethal as guns, murders will still be very widespread.

[/hide]

 

 

 

What part of my posts do you not understand? Let me spell it out for you.

 

 

 

1. Assaults resulting in victim death (i.e. homicide) will occur with or without guns. In other words, I acknowledge that "murder will always be around," even without guns.

 

 

 

2. My point? When a gun is used in an assault, rather than a less lethal weapon (i.e. a knife), the chances of the assualt resulting in death are higher due to guns being more lethal. In other words, a decrease in gun crime would result in less deaths (i.e. homicides) even when this decrease is replaced by an increase in other (less lethal) weapons.

 

 

 

By "policy" I meant "whatever you propose about the gun culture".

 

And as I've made clear, my proposal is not some simple 'rule' that criminals 'probably won't even listen to' (which sounds a lot like written law).

 

 

 

Then you're saying you have nothing of use to propose.

 

Yep... any proposal that comes short of creating world peace has nothing of use to our society. :roll:

[Quoi_Tu]

Those same selfish, greedy, and egocentric innocent people?

 

 

 

Nice twist on the word 'innocent' you used there.

 

 

 

 

I like to be cynical.

 

 

 

People are corrupted by power. A gun gives people more power. It expands the crime of opprotunity category.

 

 

 

*Points to past again when guns didn't exist yet crime/murder was just as prevalent*

 

 

 

Irrelevent? What does the past have to do with gun giving more powerto an individual?

 

 

 

Also, I'm just talking about self defense gun use not hunting. Just in case anyone was wondering.

 

 

 

Wait, you think guns for hunting are okay?

 

 

Yes.

[BlueLancer]

 

Wait, you think guns for hunting are okay?

 

 

 

Hunting rifles provide a real function in society; Reducing wild game population that upon overpopulating can cause damage to other wildlife, traffic zones and other humans.

 

 

 

A 9mm handgun has absolutely no other purpose than to kill another human being. It can be also concealed in pants, a jacket's inside pocket, hidden ankle holster.. It has no useful function in a society besides "target shooting" which has zero productive value considering the risks of misuse happening outside of the range once the person is still in control of the weapon/it gets stolen

 

 

 

It's not even a necessary 'finishing' weapon for hunting trips if encountering trapped animals, I've hunted in forests with my grandfather since childhood, nobody in the group even brought handguns when long barreled rifles were available.

 

 

 

I'm not "anti-guns". I'm not 'scared' of any weapons. I fired, disassembled and cleaned handguns in the military countless times. They are very effective weapons. What's disturbing is civilians in some countries, namely the US, can obtain one way too easily. Unlike other 'potential' killing tools such as kitchen knives, woodcutting axes, scissors, screwdrivers, cables... A concealable handgun is solely designed to take the life from another human.

 

 

 

A civilian should have a very good reason for owning such a tool, possibly in the duty of a security guard or the transfer of valuable goods. An unemployed drunk from Louisiana shouldn't be able to even have *remote* access to handguns. I'm using that state as a "redneck" example because southern states, where gun proliferation has the widest support, have a grossly overproportinonate amount of murders by handgun compared to their population [1]

 

 

 

Can you honestly argue it's just semantics or a coincidence that the states with the most relaxed gun laws also have the highest murder rates? How come a state such as California (with 34 million inhabitants) with much stricter gun laws, has half the amount of murders compared to southern states such as Louisiana (with 4 million inhabitants) where practically anyone is eligible for multiple guns?

[Zierro]

Right.. it's "just my opinion," as well as the opinion of the vast majority. More importantly, it's also "just" the opinion of the criminals: they choose guns over knives because they believe them to be more effective at intimidating their victims.

 

 

 

What is your point?

 

 

 

For someone who loves using logical fallacies in an argument you sure do break a lot. Argumentum ad populum. Now I foresee you somehow saying, "Nuh uh, I'm not breaking that one!"

 

 

 

You said, "Guns are more intimidating for the reason that they are more lethal." I can say, "Knives are more intimidating for reason 1, 2, and 3 (which I went over before)." What's the difference? We're both giving our opinions. Or is it because it is a two-way street that you cannot understand this?

 

 

 

You asked why a criminal would kill somebody if it wasn't their original intention. An accidental homicide is, by definition, an unintended homicide.

 

 

 

Did you forget what context we were using "kill" in or something? Let me bring it back up:

 

 

 

If someone buys a gun, I think they know fully well that they are probably going to be using it to kill someone. If they just meant it as intimidation, why would it even be loaded?

 

 

 

Or are you saying it was an accident that they bought the gun and loaded it?

 

 

 

I understand that there are accidental deaths, but that's something different. Accidental deaths occur all the time. Should we get rid of cars too? I thought we were arguing about crime anyways - something intentionally bad.

 

 

 

1. Assaults resulting in victim death (i.e. homicide) will occur with or without guns. In other words, I acknowledge that "murder will always be around," even without guns.

 

 

 

2. My point? When a gun is used in an assault, rather than a less lethal weapon (i.e. a knife), the chances of the assualt resulting in death are higher due to guns being more lethal. In other words, a decrease in gun crime would result in less deaths (i.e. homicides) even when this decrease is replaced by an increase in other (less lethal) weapons.

 

 

 

You are still ignoring several factors.

 

 

 

1. If someone has a less lethal weapon, they will try harder to make it into a more lethal one. People want guns right? Why? Because it's more lethal. Well, what happens when people don't have guns? They are stuck with something less lethal. What do they do now? They try to make it a more lethal weapon, like a gun, by exerting more effort. Point: a weapon is a weapon.

 

 

 

2. You hear about murder all the time in a world of guns. Our ancestors heard about murder all the time in a world of swords. Point: a weapon is a weapon.

 

 

 

And as I've made clear, my proposal is not some simple 'rule' that criminals 'probably won't even listen to' (which sounds a lot like written law).

 

 

 

Then what in the world is it?

 

 

 

Yep... any proposal that comes short of creating world peace has nothing of use to our society. :roll:

 

 

 

Okay once again...

 

 

 

Wow, that went over your head. We're not talking about gays - we're talking about a need for self-defense. If some (criminals) don't listen to the gun policy you propose - which they most likely won't (hello, "criminals") - then there is still a need for self-defense.

 

 

 

PS: You still didn't answer my question. How?

 

 

 

A 9mm handgun has absolutely no other purpose than to kill another human being.

 

 

 

And in the context of self-defense for the innocent, how is that a worse reason than hunting animals?

 

 

 

Irrelevent? What does the past have to do with gun giving more powerto an individual?

 

 

 

See my response to Venomai above.

[Quoi_Tu]

Irrelevent? What does the past have to do with gun giving more powerto an individual?

 

 

 

See my response to Venomai above.

 

 

 

What are you talking about? Seriously, you're not making any sense.

[Zierro]

1. If someone has a less lethal weapon, they will try harder to make it into a more lethal one. People want guns right? Why? Because it's more lethal. Well, what happens when people don't have guns? They are stuck with something less lethal. What do they do now? They try to make it a more lethal weapon, like a gun, by exerting more effort. Point: a weapon is a weapon.

 

 

 

2. You hear about murder all the time in a world of guns. Our ancestors heard about murder all the time in a world of swords. Point: a weapon is a weapon.

[BlueLancer]

 

A 9mm handgun has absolutely no other purpose than to kill another human being.

 

 

 

And in the context of self-defense for the innocent, how is that a worse reason than hunting animals?

 

 

 

 

Buy pepper spray. Get an alarm system. A portable hand cannon that kills instantly is not a self-defense tool. People in every single other western country (Switzerland as an exception) can survive without widespread use of handguns. USA has more murders than every other industrialized nation & China combined together.

 

 

 

Only India and South Africa are as barbaric in terms of reported murders per year, in both countries handgun laws practically don't exist and civilians can obtain them even from official stores or import them in suitcases through border customs by bribery without any kind of license [1]

 

 

 

USA shouldn't be even remotely comparable to those - no offense - hellholes as a country priding itself on freedom. It's absolutely ridiculous and only a result of improper legislation. Problems arise in every part of the world where portable guns are abudant

[Quoi_Tu]

1. If someone has a less lethal weapon, they will try harder to make it into a more lethal one. People want guns right? Why? Because it's more lethal. Well, what happens when people don't have guns? They are stuck with something less lethal. What do they do now? They try to make it a more lethal weapon, like a gun, by exerting more effort. Point: a weapon is a weapon.

 

 

 

2. You hear about murder all the time in a world of guns. Our ancestors heard about murder all the time in a world of swords. Point: a weapon is a weapon.

 

 

 

I can walk into a mall full of people and kill as many people as there are bullets in my gun. If I had a knife, I would not be able to kill the same amount of people in the same time. A weapon is a weapon, but a gun is not a knife. This is why I'm confused.

[Zierro]

Buy pepper spray. Get an alarm system. A portable hand cannon that kills instantly is not a self-defense tool. People in every single other western country (Switzerland as an exception) can survive without widespread use of handguns. USA has more murders than every other industrialized nation & China combined together.

 

 

 

Alright, you listed alternatives for self-defense. Fair enough, but now it's my turn to do the same for hunting: traps. Plus getting rid of handguns would just make people move on to rifles.

 

 

 

I can walk into a mall full of people and kill as many people as there are bullets in my gun. If I had a knife, I would not be able to kill the same amount of people in the same time. A weapon is a weapon, but a gun is not a knife. This is why I'm confused.

 

 

 

Hypothetically speaking, you can wait in an alley and stab an infinite amount of people without ever having to load it or worry about attracting attention like what gunshots do. They each got their pros and cons. My point is if you think guns are the source of our problems then just take a look at what things were like even without guns. Murder might be a little worse, but the invention of guns wasn't the only thing that changed since then - we now have drugs, violent media, the gangster culture, banks, etc. So just basing the trend on guns alone doesn't sound right to me.

[Lateralus]

Right.. it's "just my opinion," as well as the opinion of the vast majority. More importantly, it's also "just" the opinion of the criminals: they choose guns over knives because they believe them to be more effective at intimidating their victims.

 

 

 

What is your point?

 

 

 

For someone who loves using logical fallacies in an argument you sure do break a lot. Argumentum ad populum. Now I foresee you somehow saying, "Nuh uh, I'm not breaking that one!"

 

 

 

This doesn't work. Argumentum ad populum means that the number of people who believe something has nothing to do with it being true or not. It's for objective facts. There's no fallacy here because the point was that more people find guns to be intimidating, which is a subjective opinion obviously. To the majority of people, guns are the scariest weapon.

[Quoi_Tu]

I can walk into a mall full of people and kill as many people as there are bullets in my gun. If I had a knife, I would not be able to kill the same amount of people in the same time. A weapon is a weapon, but a gun is not a knife. This is why I'm confused.

 

 

 

Hypothetically speaking, you can wait in an alley and stab an infinite amount of people without ever having to load it or worry about attracting attention like what gunshots do. They each got their pros and cons. My point is if you think guns are the source of our problems then just take a look at what things were like even without guns. Murder might be a little worse, but the invention of guns wasn't the only thing that changed since then - we now have drugs, violent media, the gangster culture, banks, etc. So just basing the trend on guns alone doesn't sound right to me.

 

 

 

Therein lies my confusion, I never said guns are the source of our problems. Guns are tools used to make killing easier. C'est tout.

[Roberthree]

This is going no where. Let me just ask pro-gun people one thing;

 

 

 

What do you NEED a gun for?

 

 

 

Self defense? Yea right. Pulling a gun on a criminal will get you SHOT FASTER. Any self defense instructor can tell you the best defense is simply giving the criminal what he wants. He steals your wallet? Big deal. You loose 20 bucks and have to cancel some credit cards. At least you don't RISK YOUR LIFE.

 

 

 

Hunting? I can sympathize with this a bit more. Shooting stuff is fun. But why do you need a handgun? Or better yet, why not just set up places to hunt where they hand you a weapon on the way in and you hand it back on the way out?

[Zierro]

This doesn't work. Argumentum ad populum means that the number of people who believe something has nothing to do with it being true or not. It's for objective facts. There's no fallacy here because the point was that more people find guns to be intimidating, which is a subjective opinion obviously. To the majority of people, guns are the scariest weapon.

 

 

 

Exactly... it's an opinion. The way he said it didn't sound like an opinion, so that's why I used that fallacy. He said that, "because it is more lethal it is also more intimidating". Some people disagree with that. Bringing up the fact that more people agree with him might not technically be AAP but it's still illogical to make an argument out of that. What would his point for saying it be? That those on his side are more right? That doesn't sound like an opinion at all. Imagine if someone were to say something like, "More people think gay is wrong than people think it's okay." How much weight does that hold? Even for something subjective, the population has nothing to do with the other party's opinions being unjustified.

 

 

 

I for one would be more afraid of someone with a big axe than a gun, and less afraid of someone with a bazooka than a handgun. When it comes down to that, I think it's because people don't think about the chance of death as much as the idea of how grotesque or primal their death would sound. There are more factors to intimidation than lethality. I'm more intimidated by spiders than dogs but which are more capable of harming you? It's psychology - that's all there is to it.

 

 

 

Self defense? Yea right. Pulling a gun on a criminal will get you SHOT FASTER. Any self defense instructor can tell you the best defense is simply giving the criminal what he wants. He steals your wallet? Big deal. You loose 20 bucks and have to cancel some credit cards. At least you don't RISK YOUR LIFE.

 

 

 

That's hypothetical. What about a situation where the criminal doesn't have a gun? What about a situation where the criminal doesn't even know you are in the house he just broke into yet? What about a situation where the criminal is going to do much worse than just asking for your money?

[Zierro]

In that case, it would be best to, I dunno, take out a phone, call the cops and hide in the attic?

 

 

 

And if you say you have no attic, then you probably don't even have a gun.

 

 

 

And what about in the meantime before the cops get there? Also, I don't have an attic. Attics are very very very rare here in Florida, but guns, probably not so much. My point is not to bring up something as hypothetical as that because then it just leads to big hypothetical trains such as this one.

[Wisp]

Self defense? Yea right. Pulling a gun on a criminal will get you SHOT FASTER. Any self defense instructor can tell you the best defense is simply giving the criminal what he wants. He steals your wallet? Big deal. You loose 20 bucks and have to cancel some credit cards. At least you don't RISK YOUR LIFE.

 

 

 

That's hypothetical. What about a situation where the criminal doesn't have a gun? What about a situation where the criminal doesn't even know you are in the house he just broke into yet? What about a situation where the criminal is going to do much worse than just asking for your money?

 

 

 

In that case, it would be best to, I dunno, take out a phone, call the cops and hide in the attic?

 

 

 

And if you say you have no attic, then you probably don't even have a gun.

 

Demographics wise, I'd guess if you have no attic you're more likely to have a gun.