Gun Control

[Wisp]

You don't have to even shoot someone with a gun to stop them with it.

[venomai]

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'll be as clear and explicit as I can be:

 

 

 

Guns are, in the opinion of the vast majority of the population, seen as more intimidating weapons than knives; often for the simple reason that they are more lethal (although, I will admit, not always for that reason). A criminal that intends to intimidate his victim will seek what is 'most effective at intimidating' -- that is to say, what will be intimidating to the majority of victims.

 

 

 

While I recognize that these are all "just opinions," it is these opinions which drive the choice for the criminal to use the most intimidating weapons they can acquire. Guns are seen as more effective at intimidating than a knife because of this majority view.

 

 

 

My argument is not that "guns intimidate humans because the majority consider them intimidating" (ad populum). Rather, I'm arguing that "guns are seen as 'more intimidating' because the majority of people are more intimidated by them" and, therefore, that "criminals would rather use guns than knives because they are seen as more intimidating."

 

 

 

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?"

 

And just because a husband buys a gun for self-defense doesn't mean he intends to use it on his wife a year later, even if that's how it turns out.

 

 

 

If a robber walks into a store with a loaded gun, being a robber, his intention is to get money (not to kill the clerk). Because the clerk dies doesn't mean that the criminal's mission was to kill him (rather, as we already noted, it was to get more money).

 

 

 

I understand that there are accidental deaths, but that's something different.

 

Part of my argument is that, since many of the homicides were not the original intention of the criminal (including such things as ricochets and domestic violence), there would be far fewer deaths had these cases involved less lethal weapons.

 

 

 

If someone has a less lethal weapon, they will try harder to make it into a more lethal one.

 

... Only if we assume that the goal of all gun crime is to kill the victim (which clearly is not the case).

 

 

 

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.

 

Who cares about how much murder we hear about in the media? It's an awful representation of the relative homicide rates per capita.

 

 

 

Then what in the world is it?

 

A change in perspective that involves, among other things, less emphasis on guns as a means of self-defense and, more generally, far less emphasis on owning a firearm in the first place. Changes in law will naturally follow, and over time the availability of firearms will drop.

 

 

 

In a democratic society, laws change due to a change in public opinion.

[RussianFed55]

Gun control is as ideological as Communism and Anarchism, in a perfect world they won't even work, not even in Thomas Moore's Utopia.

 

 

 

The fact is, Switzerland has one of the world's lowest crime rates, because everyone has a gun, you don't dare shoot anyone, and this mentality is bred from youth. To ban guns would only give them to the inner city gangs whom would kill the masses who have no form of protection, such is already happening in the UK since the banning of not only guns, not only knives, but self-defense altogether.

[snowager286]

Gun control is as ideological as Communism and Anarchism, in a perfect world they won't even work, not even in Thomas Moore's Utopia.

 

 

 

The fact is, Switzerland has one of the world's lowest crime rates, because everyone has a gun, you don't dare shoot anyone, and this mentality is bred from youth. To ban guns would only give them to the inner city gangs whom would kill the masses who have no form of protection, such is already happening in the UK since the banning of not only guns, not only knives, but self-defense altogether.

 

 

 

Switzerland is a country famous for its pacifism. The U.S... not some much. Give me some hard facts, some historical precedent. You people are arguing about Attics for god's sake!

 

 

 

You have to look at human nature, humans are just plain stupid, their is just no getting around that. We rarely base our decisions off of cold hard reason and logic. We never think all of our actions through to their logical conclusion. For example, lets say John Smith is and average guy. Someone goes up to him and calls his wife a word that remains with door, the man then proceeds to laugh at John's anger and John then punches the man. Lets say that John had a gun, do you still think he would have just punched the man? Humans almost always respond to a threat with the most force possible. If you give a man a pistol and a can of powerful pepper spray and then have another man threaten him with a gun he will always choose the gun.

[Zierro]

My argument is not that "guns intimidate humans because the majority consider them intimidating" (ad populum). Rather, I'm arguing that "guns are seen as 'more intimidating' because the majority of people are more intimidated by them" and, therefore, that "criminals would rather use guns than knives because they are seen as more intimidating."

 

 

 

And my argument is that there is a difference between intimidating and killing. I'm not arguing that criminals don't pick guns more. I'm arguing that the reason they pick guns (and load them) is because they are going to have an intention to kill:

 

 

 

Which goes back to my point... Guns are more effective because they can kill people easier. Point: they do have an intent to kill. Oh and before you say, "No I meant they are more effective at intimidation," you are the one who keeps bringing up the fact that we're talking about homicide rates (killing) - not just crime rates.

 

 

 

If a robber walks into a store with a loaded gun, being a robber, his intention is to get money (not to kill the clerk). Because the clerk dies doesn't mean that the criminal's mission was to kill him (rather, as we already noted, it was to get more money).

 

 

 

You're comparing his main intention to an obvious subsequence and saying they are two different stories. No. If the robber didn't have the intention of killing, why would he buy and load the gun? I think pulling out a knife on a banker would have pretty much the same effect.

 

 

 

And of course they don't *only* have the intention to kill but it's silly to ignore the rest of the equation. What rule says you can't have more than one intention? Maybe you're using the wrong definition of intent. Intent means something that is intended. If you are saying the killing wasn't an intent, then you are saying it is an accident. I don't see how that's possible when they purposely bought and loaded a gun and pulled it out in public.

 

 

 

Part of my argument is that, since many of the homicides were not the original intention of the criminal (including such things as ricochets and domestic violence), there would be far fewer deaths had these cases involved less lethal weapons

 

 

 

Now you are saying that ownership of a gun - no matter what the reason - can turn into a disaster if something accidentally goes wrong. Now, I'd like you to think for a moment about how things would be like if cops weren't allowed to have guns. I mean, they are dangerous and accidents do happen, so 'commonsense' says that because they are more lethal, the world would be better if they were taken out of the equation. That is absolutely correct. One catch though... criminals will always get guns!

 

 

 

... Only if we assume that the goal of all gun crime is to kill the victim (which clearly is not the case).

 

 

 

So instead we assume that people buy guns and load guns and still think to themselves, "I'm not going to kill anyone!"?

 

 

 

Who cares about how much murder we hear about in the media? It's an awful representation of the relative homicide rates per capita.

 

 

 

You missed my point. I'm talking about how murder happens a lot. How we hear about it has nothing to do with it.

 

 

 

A change in perspective that involves, among other things, less emphasis on guns as a means of self-defense and, more generally, far less emphasis on owning a firearm in the first place. Changes in law will naturally follow, and over time the availability of firearms will drop.

 

 

 

In a democratic society, laws change due to a change in public opinion.

 

 

 

How is that any different than saying, "We can have world peace if everyone agrees."? Nice idea, but this is reality we're talking about - not a fantasy land. And you keep missing something here. The reason people want guns for self-defense is because of the crazies who get guns illegally and use them. Do you honestly think that crazies are going to suddenly stop their criminal ways? No, there will always be bad people around *points to past*. Criminals won't listen, so that means people still have a reason to want self-defense.

[venomai]

I'm arguing that the reason they pick guns (and load them) is because they are going to have an intention to kill ... And of course they don't *only* have the intention to kill but it's silly to ignore the rest of the equation. What rule says you can't have more than one intention?

 

If this were the case, criminals would simply shoot all their victims after having robbed them. Fortunately, this doesn't happen.

 

 

 

Just because somebody buys a loaded gun for whatever reason (including sport, collection and self-defense) doesn't mean they intend to kill people.

 

 

 

The reason people want guns for self-defense is because of the crazies who get guns illegally and use them. Do you honestly think that crazies are going to suddenly stop their criminal ways?

 

Keep in mind; the reason crazies can get guns so easily is because they are so widely available in America. This is the heart of the problem. Throwing more guns into the equation is no way to resolve it.

 

 

 

Call me optimistic, but I now see a black man as your president. A century ago it would have been considered fantasy. Culture tends to change over time. :)

[fastortoise]

Since I always relate everything back to Canada:

 

The way I see it is that here in Quebec, guns are banned, and the rate of deaths by firearms is lower than in the US, where guns are legal. Of course people still have guns here, that's not the point.

 

Hmmm... let's see. So, no guns = less deaths... yet people still argue guns should be legal.

 

Sorry, I just don't get it :|

[BlueLancer]

Gun control is as ideological as Communism and Anarchism, in a perfect world they won't even work, not even in Thomas Moore's Utopia.

 

 

 

The fact is, Switzerland has one of the world's lowest crime rates, because everyone has a gun, you don't dare shoot anyone, and this mentality is bred from youth. To ban guns would only give them to the inner city gangs whom would kill the masses who have no form of protection, such is already happening in the UK since the banning of not only guns, not only knives, but self-defense altogether.

 

 

 

Switzerland issues single-action carbine rifles to home militias, because they have no organised army at all. That's not something you can just hide in your pocket or tuck in your pants & whip out in a bank or convenience store to rob it. Also the following conditions must be met to obtain other weapons than the government-issued rifle

 

 

 

 

-stating plausibly the need to carry firearms to protect oneself, other people, or real property from a specified danger

 

-passing an examination proving both weapon handling skills and knowledge regarding lawful use of the weapon

 

 

 

Every 20-year old male is given annual training with their personal weapon up until age 30 (for ranks above sergeant, 34 years), and it's locked away in their home the rest of the time. Homes are subject to frequent inspections and you can recieve severe fines if the ammunition packs have been opened for an invalid reason.

 

 

 

As far as I know USA has no such requirements, as a result the US has 90 firearms per 100 people & the highest murder rate in the western world [1]

[Ginger_Warrior]

Gun control is as ideological as Communism and Anarchism, in a perfect world they won't even work, not even in Thomas Moore's Utopia.

 

I looked at your username and realised where that silly comparison came from.

 

 

 

The fact is, Switzerland has one of the world's lowest crime rates, because everyone has a gun, you don't dare shoot anyone, and this mentality is bred from youth. To ban guns would only give them to the inner city gangs whom would kill the masses who have no form of protection, such is already happening in the UK since the banning of not only guns, not only knives, but self-defense altogether.

 

Weird. I live in the UK, in an area with inner-city gangs and I've never even so much as been shouted at, let alone been the victim of a mass killing. I'm beginning to wonder whether you have a clue about 'inner-city' life.

[Furah]

For self defence perposes I wouldn't want a gun with more than 2 shots before needing to be reloaded, mainly due to the fact that I wouldn't need to fire more then 1 shot, and just incase my warning shot wasn't good enough...

 

 

 

infact the only reason I would want a handgun is because they are light and I could easily fire it with 1 hand, I wouldn't want something powerful anyways, if I could get one with low penetration (and a gun licence) I would be happy> I am far away from the police (nobody in my town is in the police force, next nearest town is 15 mins away) so if I can scare the idiot off, and disarm if needed, then I would not have to worry that loved ones would be long dead before help arrives.

[RichieMcD]

The fact is, Switzerland has one of the world's lowest crime rates, because everyone has a gun, you don't dare shoot anyone, and this mentality is bred from youth. To ban guns would only give them to the inner city gangs whom would kill the masses who have no form of protection, such is already happening in the UK since the banning of not only guns, not only knives, but self-defense altogether.

 

 

 

Well I could completely contradict you by saying by America is the most armed nation in the world yet they're known throughout the world for having one of, if not the most violent gun culture.

 

 

 

Do you even live within 40 miles of a city, because that comment sounds like utter [cabbage]? I've come across gang members, I used to hang around with gang members yet they don't "kill the masses" considering Ireland is an unarmed nation (illegalized guns for private ownership and only our Swat units of the police force carry guns, normal patrols don't) yet The only murders heard of here is the Drug gangs fighting for control which is very rare, only 15 in a city with a population of 1.5 million so far this year. Now peace talks are in the works to stop more killings.

 

 

 

Gangs in London aren't "killing the masses". They're killing opposite gang members 9/10 of the time. Sadly enough there is a small minority of those killed through stray bullets or mistaken identity, but quite commonly a gun wouldn't have offered them protection anyway. If arming the citizens will prevent gang culture then please explain the current situation in LA or Chicago as they contradict your analogy of it.

 

 

 

If you think you need a gun for self-defense then all it shows from my point of view is that you can't trust your own countries police force and you are a person living in fear of a very small statistic occurring.

[Quoi_Tu]

Since I always relate everything back to Canada:

 

The way I see it is that here in Quebec, guns are banned, and the rate of deaths by firearms is lower than in the US, where guns are legal. Of course people still have guns here, that's not the point.

 

Hmmm... let's see. So, no guns = less deaths... yet people still argue guns should be legal.

 

Sorry, I just don't get it :|

 

 

 

How do you kill a moose without a gun?

 

 

 

Hunting is good, hunting people is bad (but makes for a great movie).

[fastortoise]

Since I always relate everything back to Canada:

 

The way I see it is that here in Quebec, guns are banned, and the rate of deaths by firearms is lower than in the US, where guns are legal. Of course people still have guns here, that's not the point.

 

Hmmm... let's see. So, no guns = less deaths... yet people still argue guns should be legal.

 

Sorry, I just don't get it :|

 

 

 

How do you kill a moose without a gun?

 

 

 

Hunting is good, hunting people is bad (but makes for a great movie).

 

 

 

You lure it out of it's igloo and run it over with your skidoo, duh.

 

Tourist.

[Zierro]

Just because somebody buys a loaded gun for whatever reason (including sport, collection and self-defense) doesn't mean they intend to kill people.

 

 

 

No, but they do have the idea in their mind, "Hmm... I just bought a weapon that kills and loaded it." They might not have the intent to kill at the time it was bought and loaded, but it's silly to say "they have no clue what they're getting into". Just because it wasn't their original intent, it doesn't mean that their new intent doesn't count.

 

 

 

If it is not by accident, then it was done intentionally. I don't see what you are trying to say unless you're arguing that they cause lots and lots of lethal accidents. In that case, I agree... but so do cars and knives.

 

 

 

Keep in mind; the reason crazies can get guns so easily is because they are so widely available in America. This is the heart of the problem. Throwing more guns into the equation is no way to resolve it.

 

 

 

Wait, I thought your plan was to stop the demand? You're speaking of stopping the supply now by bringing up their availability here.

 

 

 

Call me optimistic, but I now see a black man as your president. A century ago it would have been considered fantasy. Culture tends to change over time. :)

 

 

 

Yeah, and hopefully world hunger will end. Hopefully.

[Quoi_Tu]

Since I always relate everything back to Canada:

 

The way I see it is that here in Quebec, guns are banned, and the rate of deaths by firearms is lower than in the US, where guns are legal. Of course people still have guns here, that's not the point.

 

Hmmm... let's see. So, no guns = less deaths... yet people still argue guns should be legal.

 

Sorry, I just don't get it :|

 

 

 

How do you kill a moose without a gun?

 

 

 

Hunting is good, hunting people is bad (but makes for a great movie).

 

 

 

You lure it out of it's igloo and run it over with your skidoo, duh.

 

Tourist.

 

 

 

...

 

 

 

Awesome!

 

 

 

What do I lure it out with?

[dangeresque]

Just because somebody buys a loaded gun for whatever reason (including sport, collection and self-defense) doesn't mean they intend to kill people.

 

 

 

No, but they do have the idea in their mind, "Hmm... I just bought a weapon that kills and loaded it." They might not have the intent to kill at the time it was bought and loaded, but it's silly to say "they have no clue what they're getting into". Just because it wasn't their original intent, it doesn't mean that their new intent doesn't count.

 

 

 

If it is not by accident, then it was done intentionally. I don't see what you are trying to say unless you're arguing that they cause lots and lots of lethal accidents. In that case, I agree... but so do cars and knives.

 

 

 

Keep in mind; the reason crazies can get guns so easily is because they are so widely available in America. This is the heart of the problem. Throwing more guns into the equation is no way to resolve it.

 

 

 

Wait, I thought your plan was to stop the demand? You're speaking of stopping the supply now by bringing up their availability here.

 

 

 

Call me optimistic, but I now see a black man as your president. A century ago it would have been considered fantasy. Culture tends to change over time. :)

 

 

 

Yeah, and hopefully world hunger will end. Hopefully.

 

The "crazies" as you call them usually kill with illegal weapons - speaking of school massacres and such. Look at the columbine incident, For one thing, the kids weren't old enough to purchase a gun. and Second, the guns were illegal, sawed off shotguns and Tec 9's aren't legal -.-.

 

 

 

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. Yes, there are more deaths do to handguns, I'm for more control over them as well, but I don't see the reason for taking them away from law abiding citizens due to some thugs in the hood somewhere, that, in my mind, just isn't right.

 

 

 

Also, It would really hurt gun companies if they were to ban handguns. And if they were to ban guns as a whole it would just be terrible. A lot of people over look that but whatever.

 

 

 

And to people who say that shooting for sport isn't a good reason to own a gun, why? Just wondering.

 

 

 

edit:

 

...

 

 

 

Awesome!

 

 

 

What do I lure it out with?

 

With maple syrup tied to a hockey stick of course :

[venomai]

Just because it wasn't their original intent, it doesn't mean that their new intent doesn't count.

 

You're still assuming that they must have the intent to kill their victims. "If this were the case, criminals would simply shoot all their victims after having robbed them."

 

 

 

Criminals know that a bullet or two to the chest won't always ensure death. If their intention is truly to kill the victim, they would put another bullet in the head (which isn't difficult when the victim is already incapacitated).

 

 

 

You're forgetting the whole point of this. You argued earlier that criminals will try harder to kill their victims if given a less lethal weapon -- but this is only true in cases where a criminal had the deliberate intent of killing their victim (i.e. premeditation).

 

 

 

Wait, I thought your plan was to stop the demand? You're speaking of stopping the supply now by bringing up their availability here.

 

In a society with such lax gun views, higher demand will inevitably result in higher availability. I've argued this many times before.

 

 

 

Yeah, and hopefully hunger in America will be reduced in future generations. Hopefully.

 

Fixed.

[Zierro]

You're still assuming that they must have the intent to kill their victims. "If this were the case, criminals would simply shoot all their victims after having robbed them."

 

 

 

Unless it was an accident, yes they do. It was either done intentionally or not. And why are you using that as an example? I can do that too. "If this were the case (they had no intention of killing), then criminals simply wouldn't load their guns in the first place."

 

 

 

Your example still doesn't take away the fact that guns are obviously instruments of murder. If the criminal does kill the victims after robbing them, then that would have been intentional murder. If he doesn't kill them, then it is irrelevant because it wouldn't be murder. You are trying to say that their main intent was to kill - but I am just saying the reason behind wanting a gun is because of it's better ability to kill - and it's obvious to the person buying the gun and loading it, so I don't see anything accidental or unintentional about it.

 

 

 

Criminals know that a bullet or two to the chest won't always ensure death. If their intention is truly to kill the victim, they would put another bullet in the head (which isn't difficult when the victim is already incapacitated).

 

 

 

No, but like you said, a bullet is more lethal than a knife wound. Criminals know knives require more energy to be as effective as a gun, so they would most likely exert more energy.

 

 

 

You're forgetting the whole point of this. You argued earlier that criminals will try harder to kill their victims if given a less lethal weapon -- but this is only true in cases where a criminal had the deliberate intent of killing their victim (i.e. premeditation).

 

 

 

It only implies to 1st Degree Murders? How so? Even if the murder wasn't premeditated, it could still be done intentionally.

 

 

 

In a society with such lax gun views, higher demand will inevitably result in higher availability. I've argued this many times before.

 

 

 

But you're talking about the other way around. Proposing anti-violent ideas to society works by lowering the demand. I don't see how this makes guns suddenly vanish physically though.

 

 

 

Yeah, and hopefully hunger in America will be reduced in future generations. Hopefully.

 

 

 

You got really lucky there that we happened to be talking about hunger and America. :lol: Allow me to explain. We can theorize about making the world a better place all the time. The thing is, it's a lot easier said than done. There are numerous factors you have to take into account, and even more steps you must take to make it effective rather than counterproductive. Like, would criminals actually be swayed by this or not? Will self-defense seekers have no reason for having self-defense anymore? And I don't see why you think trying to take guns out of the equation will make that much difference anyways. Criminals always have the black market and other weapons to rely on. People have been dying forever so I don't see why you think guns are the root of this.

[venomai]

snip

 

I'm not arguing that absolutely no intent ever exists; surely carrying a loaded weapon for self-defense (or theft) suggests that the criminal has some knowledge that it may be used at some time on another human being, and surely there will be intent to kill (or at the very least to cause serious injury) at the moment the trigger is pulled. This, however, does not necessarily translate to the criminal making it their goal to kill the victim even after (s)he is incapacitated, nor does it mean that the criminal's original intention was to kill or even injure the victim.

 

 

 

The simple fact that we see so many victims of knife and gun crime who weren't "finished off" by the criminals seems to suggest that, regardless of what kind of intent existed at the moment the criminal swung the knife or pulled the trigger, most criminals aren't following through to the end. In other words, although they may put more force into swinging a knife than they would pulling a trigger, in neither case are they putting so much as to ensure the death of the victim (something that often requires repeated stabbings or shootings). We may see this in crimes of passion and premeditated murder, but rarely is it seen in carjackings, robberies, barfights, domestic violence and other violent crimes 'gone wrong'.

 

 

 

I don't see how this makes guns suddenly vanish physically though.

 

Gun availability will be lower, not non-existent.

 

 

 

In response to lower demand, less guns will be manufactured. Old guns won't "vanish," but over time many of them will become lost, broken or destroyed.

 

 

 

We can theorize about making the world a better place all the time. The thing is, it's a lot easier said than done.

 

Well, "I have a dream..." ;)

 

 

 

"Like, would criminals actually be swayed by this or not?"

 

If most of them can't acquire firearms, does it really matter?

 

 

 

"Will self-defense seekers have no reason for having self-defense anymore?"

 

No, they will just have to seek alternative means of self-defense, as is the case in any other industrialized country.

 

 

 

"Criminals always have the black market and other weapons to rely on."

 

Only so long as guns remain highly available on the black market. And, as we've already mentioned, the other weapons are less lethal, thus tend to cause less deaths.

 

 

 

"People have been dying forever so I don't see why you think guns are the root of this."

 

Guns are the root of the sharp incline in the United States homicide rate. How many people murdered others in the distant past is irrelevant.

[dangeresque]

I don't think you saw mmy post venomai, or you jsut ignored it or forgot to post about it or whatever the case, I'm ging to restate my main point:

 

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. Yes, there are more deaths do to handguns, I'm for more control over them as well, but I don't see the reason for taking them away from law abiding citizens due to some thugs in the hood somewhere, that, in my mind, just isn't right.

[Zierro]

Yes, there are more deaths do to handguns, I'm for more control over them as well, but I don't see the reason for taking them away from law abiding citizens due to some thugs in the hood somewhere, that, in my mind, just isn't right.

 

 

 

Exactly... there are two options. Take guns from only some of the crazies and all of the innocent, or take guns from no one.

 

 

 

The simple fact that we see so many victims of knife and gun crime who weren't "finished off" by the criminals seems to suggest that, regardless of what kind of intent existed at the moment the criminal swung the knife or pulled the trigger, most criminals aren't following through to the end. In other words, although they may put more force into swinging a knife than they would pulling a trigger, in neither case are they putting so much as to ensure the death of the victim (something that often requires repeated stabbings or shootings). We may see this in crimes of passion and premeditated murder, but rarely is it seen in carjackings, robberies, barfights, domestic violence and other violent crimes 'gone wrong'.

 

 

 

I don't get what you're saying though. Because my point only applies to specific cases that makes it invalid? The point I was making was that sometimes guns can be replaced with knives pretty easily.

 

 

 

You're saying that people shouldn't want guns because they cause unintentional deaths - just like drugs and cars. Everything has their ups and downs. We can't have a world without death.

 

 

 

Gun availability will be lower, not non-existent.

 

 

 

In response to lower demand, less guns will be manufactured. Old guns won't "vanish," but over time many of them will become lost, broken or destroyed.

 

 

 

That will take a loooong time though, based off the amount of guns we already have here. How long are we talking here? Oh and plus... 'Prohibition!!'

 

 

 

Guns are the root of the sharp incline in the United States homicide rate. How many people murdered others in the distant past is irrelevant.

 

 

 

Are you 100% sure that "guns are to blame"? There are usually much more than only one factor that plays a role in the statistics. The gun wasn't the only world-changing thing to happen to us.Times change and so do other things.

 

 

 

No, they will just have to seek alternative means of self-defense, as is the case in any other industrialized country.

 

 

 

Hmmm sounds familiar... "Criminals will have to seek alternative means of committing crimes." And you can say that "we're not only talking about criminals here" all you want, but you can't deny that a lot of this has a lot to do with a lot of them. If we're just talking about unintentional deaths, then what about all the other non-gun unintentional deaths that have been happening?

 

 

 

A large amount of deaths were intentional murders - murders where self-defense is necessary, as a matter of fact.

[venomai]

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.

 

 

 

 

 

The point I was making was that sometimes guns can be replaced with knives pretty easily.

 

I don't doubt that guns may be substituted with other (less lethal) weapons. I've said this a hundred times. The point you were making is that replacing guns with knives would have no effect on the homicide rate due to the criminals 'trying harder not to fail [to kill their victims].'

 

 

 

You're saying that people shouldn't want guns because they cause unintentional deaths - just like drugs and cars. Everything has their ups and downs. We can't have a world without death.

 

Unintended does not mean unpreventable. It humours me that you demand better protection for American citizens when, in reality, you don't seem to care about anyone but yourself. You shrug off your country's abnormally high homicide rate as if it's not something to be concerned with. Yet, gun homicide is a huge issue in the United States right now.

 

 

 

That will take a loooong time though, based off the amount of guns we already have here. How long are we talking here?

 

Longer than a few years, of course. The changes in culture and law will help speed up the process.

 

 

 

Oh and plus... 'Prohibition!!'

 

What?

 

 

 

Are you 100% sure that "guns are to blame"? There are usually much more than only one factor that plays a role in the statistics. The gun wasn't the only world-changing thing to happen to us.Times change and so do other things.

 

Although lax gun law/attitude is the primary factor for the high homicide rate, it is not the sole factor.

 

 

 

Hmmm sounds familiar... "Criminals will have to seek alternative means of committing crimes."

 

And, as we've discussed, there is a good chance that the crime rate of other (less lethal) weapons will increase. But, as we've also discussed, less lethal weapons will result in less deaths. Sound familiar?

 

 

 

A large amount of deaths were intentional murders - murders where self-defense is necessary, as a matter of fact.

 

Intentional as in premeditated? A large amount, maybe, but certainly not the majority.

 

 

 

Self-defense is necessary in almost any violent crime. A gun, though, is not a necessary means of self-defense.

 

 

 

If we're just talking about unintentional deaths, then what about all the other non-gun unintentional deaths that have been happening?

 

There is a clear distinction between violent crimes and unlucky accidents. It is no accident that the criminal pulled the trigger with the intention to cause serious bodily harm, if not death. Just because it wasn't the criminal's original intent doesn't mean we should classify it as an "accidental death."

[Zierro]

I don't doubt that guns may be substituted with other (less lethal) weapons. I've said this a hundred times. The point you were making is that replacing guns with knives would have no effect on the homicide rate due to the criminals 'trying harder not to fail [to kill their victims].'

 

 

 

No effect? When did I say that? Maybe you got 'small effect' mixed up with 'no effect'. You plan on decreasing homicides right? Well taking guns out of the problem would effect that - but not on a desirable level. You can argue that 999 deaths are better than 1000 but I honestly don't see that as a reason to act because there are many setbacks to your anti-gun plan.

 

 

 

Unintended does not mean unpreventable. It humours me that you demand better protection for American citizens when, in reality, you don't seem to care about anyone but yourself. You shrug off your country's abnormally high homicide rate as if it's not something to be concerned with. Yet, gun homicide is a huge issue in the United States right now.

 

 

 

Exactly, but I like how you added a negative connotation to that. I don't care about the death toll. I don't see what you don't understand about that. I'll say it again. Statistics aren't relevant to the point I'm making. I'm talking about injustice here which is why I'm in favor of self-defense. Yeah, deaths are tragic but what does "trying to decrease them" accomplish in actuality? How much would society actually change? If you can change all of society, I implore you, please do so. But you see, you are only human. I'm not saying it's impossible - just highly unlikely and we shouldn't rely on "anyone's guesses" when it comes to issues such as this.

 

 

 

I think you just don't seem to understand that there is a line between wanting to defend your own life (something pretty damn ensuring) and wanting to persuade people not to demand guns (anyone's guess). And instead of acknowledging the existence of that line, you continue to bring up the fact that instead of using guns there are alternative methods to self-defense... and I continue to bring up the fact that there are alternative ways to die... And the cycle continues...

 

 

 

Longer than a few years, of course. The changes in culture and law will help speed up the process.

 

 

 

Yeah it would. Now good luck with that.

 

 

 

What?

 

 

 

Not everyone follows the rules. The Prohibition Act is a prime example of that. And I know you're thinking, "That's a law - I'm talking about culture." But like I said before, it's harder to change everyone's mind than just the minds of a select few. Plus in this context there really isn't that much of a difference between laws and folkways, because if people don't conform to them then they aren't fulfilling their purposes.

 

 

 

Although lax gun law/attitude is the primary factor for the high homicide rate, it is not the sole factor.

 

 

 

Perfect, instead of saying guns in general you helped me out by saying it has to do with the attitude - good luck with changing that.

 

 

 

And, as we've discussed, there is a good chance that the crime rate of other (less lethal) weapons will increase. But, as we've also discussed, less lethal weapons will result in less deaths. Sound familiar?

 

 

 

Taking away drugs would result in less deaths - what a great revolution!

 

 

 

Intentional as in premeditated? A large amount, maybe, but certainly not the majority.

 

 

 

No, as in purposely murdering.

 

 

 

Self-defense is necessary in almost any violent crime. A gun, though, is not a necessary means of self-defense.

 

 

 

What a cherry picker. You say taking away guns will result in less deaths (they are lethal) but when talking about self-defense they suddenly lose their lethality and there are 'better alternatives'? This is another two-way street. If you bring up alternative self-defense, then I'll bring up alternative methods of dying.

 

 

 

There is a clear distinction between violent crimes and unlucky accidents. It is no accident that the criminal pulled the trigger with the intention to cause serious bodily harm, if not death. Just because it wasn't the criminal's original intent doesn't mean we should classify it as an "accidental death."

 

 

 

Okay, this is like the millionth time you took "intentional" into the wrong context. Allow me to enlighten you:

 

 

 

intentional: done with intention or on purpose

 

 

 

You see that? On purpose! How is a violent crime "not on purpose"? Not on purpose = accidental.

[venomai]

You can argue that 999 deaths are better than 1000 but I honestly don't see that as a reason to act

 

This isn't a difference of one or two deaths. We are talking about thousands of deaths (not to mention disabling injuries) that can be prevented.

 

 

 

I'll say it again. Statistics aren't relevant to the point I'm making. I'm talking about injustice here which is why I'm in favor of self-defense.

 

Statistics -- specifically, the impact of lax gun control -- is very much relevant to the question of whether firearm self-defense is justified.

 

 

 

If you can change all of society, I implore you, please do so. But you see, you are only human.

 

This is a verbal debate on a Runescape fanboard. I am not an activist at a rally, nor am I trying to change the world. I am proposing an argument in favour of gun control. Whether or not I personally do anything to change the world is completely irrelevant to my points.

 

 

 

And I am well aware of the difference between self-defense and persuasion. I'm not so sure, however, what the difference between these two concepts -- both of which have predictable outcomes (i.e. it's not "anyone's guess" as to what will happen) -- has to do with my arguments.

 

 

 

you continue to bring up the fact that instead of using guns there are alternative methods to self-defense... and I continue to bring up the fact that there are alternative ways to die... And the cycle continues...

 

Sounds like a red herring to me. And I've already acknowledged that there are alternative methods of self-defense as well as murder.

 

 

 

Perfect, instead of saying guns in general you helped me out by saying it has to do with the attitude - good luck with changing that.

 

Why would I blame "guns in general"? Countries like Norway and Switzerland have proven that, with proper control (i.e. attitude/law), high gun ownership doesn't necessarily mean high homicide rates.

 

 

 

Taking away drugs would result in less deaths - what a great revolution!

 

Diminishing the impact of certain harmful drugs, such as cigarettes, by means of cultural changes (education, etc.) will result in less deaths. A great revolution indeed.

 

 

 

You say taking away guns will result in less deaths (they are lethal) but when talking about self-defense they suddenly lose their lethality and there are 'better alternatives'?

 

Where did I say this? I suggested that, although self-defense may be necessary for the victim, gun ownership is not.

 

 

 

How is a violent crime "not on purpose"?

 

What are you going on about? Where did I say this?

[Zierro]

This isn't a difference of one or two deaths. We are talking about thousands of deaths (not to mention disabling injuries) that can be prevented.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Statistics -- specifically, the impact of lax gun control -- is very much relevant to the question of whether firearm self-defense is justified.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

This is a verbal debate on a Runescape fanboard. I am not an activist at a rally, nor am I trying to change the world. I am proposing an argument in favour of gun control. Whether or not I personally do anything to change the world is completely irrelevant to my points.

 

 

 

Okay then you would be right. 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. The problem is, until that is actually done, it is only an unlikely idea.

 

 

 

Sounds like a red herring to me. And I've already acknowledged that there are alternative methods of self-defense as well as murder.

 

 

 

What is rule #1 about bringing up red herrings? Bringing that up is a red herring in itself.

 

 

 

Why would I blame "guns in general"? Countries like Norway and Switzerland have proven that, with proper control (i.e. attitude/law), high gun ownership doesn't necessarily mean high homicide rates.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Diminishing the impact of certain harmful drugs, such as cigarettes, by means of cultural changes (education, etc.) will result in less deaths. A great revolution indeed.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

Where did I say this? I suggested that, although self-defense may be necessary for the victim, gun ownership is not.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

What are you going on about? Where did I say this?

 

 

 

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