.

[Omar]

The same applies for gun control--in the same way nuclear weapons provide incentives not to start wars between nations for fear of mutually assured destruction, the existence of guns create incentives to avoid crime because of how much more dangerous it becomes. The Aurora shooter went out of his way to go to a theatre in which guns were banned, because that made it much less likely that he would get shot before murdering as many people as he wanted. When you disarm citizens, you make the law-abiding ones defenseless against those who were going to break the law anyway by attempting violent crime--getting a weapon illegally is not going to faze them.

The argument that more guns means more safety is, of course, total bollocks. You have more guns in circulation now than ever before and more gun violence as a result.

Correlation is not causation. Gun violence has been decreasing in the US since about 1992, if I remember correctly. The amount of users of Internet Explorer also. That does not mean that people murder each other out of anger about IE less and less. Norway and Iceland have liberal laws on gun ownership but they don't have the same problem as in the US.

Don’t you think that maybe, just maybe, it’s time to give LESS guns a try? It’s been tried elsewhere in the world and worked everywhere.

No, I don't. Just because you ban things, doesn't make them disappear; drugs and alcohol are a great example, but the same is true for anything that can be profitable, because when you make them hard to get, you make them more profitable to supply. If you're going to convince me that insofar as it's feasible, guns should not be allowed in the hands of citizens, you have to explain why this makes sense theoretically considering people respond to incentives, but somehow it doesn't end up happening in practice. You're never going to be able to pull this off in the US anyway with the amount of guns already in circulation.

P.S. ~ Not to mention that your “nuclear war” scenario is equally bollocks. The enduring legacy of the program of Mutually Assured Destruction was that it simply created an arms race that bankrupted two “superpowers”.

That's the whole point. Would you rather one of them nuke the other?

[Ember]

.

[Z_Berenice]

Correlation is not causation. Gun violence has been decreasing in the US since about 1992, if I remember correctly. The amount of users of Internet Explorer also. That does not mean that people murder each other out of anger about IE less and less. Norway and Iceland have liberal laws on gun ownership but they don't have the same problem as in the US.

Or Switzerland where everybody owns a gun but more suicides with such guns happen than actual crimes compared to Mexico, a country with a nation-wide gun ban where people are better armed than most smaller countries defense forces... What works on x, doesn't necessarily works with y...

 

And just what the hell is bollocks? some sort of soccer mom slang?

[Ember]

.

[Omar]

Bullshit, more or less. I don't think she'll take you seriously if you insult her.

[Z_Berenice]

Bullshit, more or less. I don't think she'll take you seriously if you insult her.

Not like I can read her, but I wasn't insulting her. It just sounds like the type of stuff you expect soccer moms to say.

 

No, I don't. Just because you ban things, doesn't make them disappear; drugs and alcohol are a great example, but the same is true for anything that can be profitable, because when you make them hard to get, you make them more profitable to supply. If you're going to convince me that insofar as it's feasible, guns should not be allowed in the hands of citizens, you have to explain why this makes sense theoretically considering people respond to incentives, but somehow it doesn't end up happening in practice. You're never going to be able to pull this off in the US anyway with the amount of guns already in circulation.

So much this. And to quote a great quote (worth the redundance): "We can do to guns the same thing we did to drugs; create an underground multimillionaire business that we have absolultely no control over".

[Ember]

.

[Z_Berenice]

Question - Are people in your country liable for crimes committed with their gun e.g. If I had a licenced gun and it ended up in your hands and you committed murder, how liable am I?

If there's no intent to supply a prohibited person with a firearm, the firearm is reported missing/stolen as required by law, and there wasn't some gross negligence, there would be little or no legal liability.

 

If I were to steal a car from you, go on a high-speed run, and run over half a dozen kids while cutting through a park, what would your legal liabilities look like?

 

What if I were to rob your house and use that money to buy illegal drugs or to commission a hit?

 

As I said, he didn't even bother to read the thread. That was one of the first points I touched:

In fact, there's not a single record of any sort of incident involving the use of legal arms, hell there's only a handful of incidents that happened with guns stolen from legal owners (and guess who saves you here? that's right, that register you did when you bought that gun and you were smart enough to report the gun as stolen the moment it happened)...

 

Edit: here's an interesting watch. Mexico has a nation-wide gun ban, yet people seem to ignore how incredibly weaponized carteles are... The irony here, is that the carteles get to keep their guns, while the people trying to defend themselves from the cartels are often clashed with police trying to take their guns, when the police should be clashing with carteles for their guns instead...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XiSnCt9fDc

 

Can we all agree that the idiocyncrasy of each country plays a big role regarding the effect of guns?

[Ginger_Warrior]

I don't think your use of the word "idiosyncrasy" is appropriate in the context, but we can all agree there are a wide range of factors in each country in relation to gun ownership and its effect on gun crime, yes. Although, by admitting this, you also have to admit that your previous attempt in this thread to link a rise in violent crime in the UK to the firearms ban was not fully appreciative of all the factors involves in that rise, and so the ban can't necessarily be blamed for it.

 

If you're willing to do that, then we agree.

[Ember]

.

[Ginger_Warrior]

All those factors are present everywhere, yes, but it's ridiculous to even think they're the same everywhere you go to. It's culturally unacceptable to hold a gun in some countries, while that's clearly not the case in others.

[Z_Berenice]

I don't think your use of the word "idiosyncrasy" is appropriate in the context, but we can all agree there are a wide range of factors in each country in relation to gun ownership and its effect on gun crime, yes. Although, by admitting this, you also have to admit that your previous attempt in this thread to link a rise in violent crime in the UK to the firearms ban was not fully appreciative of all the factors involves in that rise, and so the ban can't necessarily be blamed for it.

 

If you're willing to do that, then we agree.

I'm using the term in the effect of "what happens in x, might not be normal in y". As for UK, I wasn't trying to, as I told you back then, my point was another and there were indeed other factors. If I wanted to link gun control to violent crime rise, I would've used Mexico, but as you just said, there are other factors.

 

Glad we're back to civil mode, hope it stays like this for a while >.<

[Guest Smelly Paws]

Nope, I was answering alg, don't put words in my mouth.

Lol fine. Don't include me in your quotes in future then.

 

So does policemen, should we take guns away from them aswell?

They have to answer for it and I'm pretty sure it's not a slap on the wrist.

 

Crimes with stolen *legal* guns happened 4 times in here, but I already discussed that pages before (which I'm guessing you didn't even bother to look at). Crimes with legal guns by law abiding citizens never happened here.

No I didn't bother to look at it. I'm sure you read every single page and pick through every single post you for each topic you post. :rolleyes:. If that's so offensive don't respond.

 

If there's no intent to supply a prohibited person with a firearm, the firearm is reported missing/stolen as required by law, and there wasn't some gross negligence, there would be little or no legal liability.

Perhaps if people were made more liable for their ownership then there might be less gun ownswership and less problems overall.

[Ember]

.

[Guest Smelly Paws]

That's inconsistent with liabilities for owning other potentially dangerous items. I can't help but notice that you did not respond to my questions regarding other stolen and misused items.

You also apparently assume that gun ownership causes problems. Further victimizing a victim isn't going to make things better.

 

Our discussion is about firearms. Using other items is deflection tactics from what we're talking about here. If you think we should regulate other things start another thead on it. A gun owner isn't a victim, they're supposed to be a responsible citizen. Blyaunte explained quite clearly about responsibility and liability to you. Do you wish to discuss both of these or am I wasting my time?

[Alg]

Our discussion is about firearms. Using other items is deflection tactics from what we're talking about here. If you think we should regulate other things start another thead on it. A gun owner isn't a victim, they're supposed to be a responsible citizen. Blyaunte explained quite clearly about responsibility and liability to you. Do you wish to discuss both of these or am I wasting my time?

But didn't you bring up the whole robbery angle a page or two back? This is a fairly reasonable extension of it; if you're responsible when someone commits a crime with a gun they stole from you, why aren't you responsible if they do the same with any other object? :huh:

 

And this is even before we get into the semantics of the word "victim"...

[Omar]

Our discussion is about firearms. Using other items is deflection tactics from what we're talking about here.

a) So I imagine you don't use analogies and comparisons at all, correct? Really, if you wanted to show other items are irrelevant, you would point to an essential difference between guns and other items. For example, if I wanted to argue for nuke control but not gun control, I would say that a nuke is essentially a gun that is pointed at everyone simultaneously--a constant threat, whereas this is not the case for guns.

b) Please stop assuming people who don't agree with you have malicious intent.

[Ember]

.

[sees_all1]

Our discussion is about firearms. Using other items is deflection tactics from what we're talking about here.

I'd like to understand why anti-gun arguments are exclusive to guns. Why are guns so special?

[Z_Berenice]

Nope, I was answering alg, don't put words in my mouth.

Lol fine. Don't include me in your quotes in future then.

Again nope, I was answering Alg; I just multi-quoted.

 

They have to answer for it and I'm pretty sure it's not a slap on the wrist.

Again, I posted about this before, here:

In fact, there's not a single record of any sort of incident involving the use of legal arms, hell there's only a handful of incidents that happened with guns stolen from legal owners (and guess who saves you here? that's right, that register you did when you bought that gun and you were smart enough to report the gun as stolen the moment it happened)...

 

No I didn't bother to look at it.

Exactly. Yet, here you are replying :roll:

 

I'm sure you read every single page and pick through every single post you for each topic you post.

If you bothered reading, you would've noticed I did so with this thread, or are you appealing to once = all?

 

If that's so offensive don't respond.

Some sort of ultimatum in place of proper argument I'm guessing?

 

Our discussion is about firearms. Using other items is deflection tactics from what we're talking about here.

Didn't you do that by appealing to liability and responsability? And you were given an asnwer that you refuse to acknowledge.

[Guest Smelly Paws]

But didn't you bring up the whole robbery angle a page or two back? This is a fairly reasonable extension of it; if you're responsible when someone commits a crime with a gun they stole from you, why aren't you responsible if they do the same with any other object? :huh:

 

And this is even before we get into the semantics of the word "victim"...

Apples and oranges. Don't guns require to be under lock and key or some sort of security system as well as being registered at this time? Cars...no. As soon as cars are under the same restrictions bring that to the table. Besides, cars are not built and sold as an offensive/defensive weapon. Guns are sold under that premise.

 

People have always used something else to compare to when they don't want to talk about the original subject e.g. when smoking bans came into effect some, whose interest was in smoking, wanted to talk about the evils of alcohol.

 

I'm not sure deflection means the same thing to me as it does to you. I'm not changing the topic to magical rainbow ponies (or suggesting that applying logic to gun control suggestions is off-topic in a thread about gun control) to distract from ; I'm highlighting, in response to your suggestion that people should be liable for damage caused by items which were stolen from them, that imposing the same liability for other items with potential for abuse is ridiculous. Failing some relevant distinction between firearms and other items with potential for abuse, imposing that liability on a person who has had a gun stolen must also be ridiculous.

I think I've covered that with Alg.

 

Probably a bit of both. I'm not opposed to discussing responsibility or liability, as they pertain to owning firearms. In particular, I'm quite keen to discuss whether it is reasonable to impose a greater liability on a person who has a gun stolen from them than if similar damages had been inflicted with something that is not a gun, but it seems you have an aversion to that line of discussion.

 

This is what I want to discuss with you, not avoid it. It is reasonable to impose some sort of liability on a firearm owner if their gun was used in crime. Imo there has to be something more substantial than declaring it as stolen. There should be some sort of punitive measure, even if it is a reasonablly substantial fine to compensate the victim or harsher, as in imprisonment. People would then be asked to consider whether the liability is worth owning one, and I think that sorts those that do from those that don't. It's a start.

[Alg]

People have always used something else to compare to when they don't want to talk about the original subject e.g. when smoking bans came into effect some, whose interest was in smoking, wanted to talk about the evils of alcohol.

It might be because that's how arguments work. If you try to argue that something should be restricted, you look for a similar situation and compare them. We have an entire legal system built on that premise; which is why people compare the current drug system to prohibition.

 

...Either way, I think I'm done here. You're essentially arguing that evidence a distraction so that you don't have to address it. :wall:

[Omar]

If something is irrelevant, you should be able to point out why. After all, if we use different words to denote two things, that is more often than not because they are not the same. Calling deflection tactics won't convince anyone other than yourself because if the argument was made in good faith (which is not something you can really know), your assertion will look like deflection tactics (see Alg's reply), especially considering you should be able dismantle his argument if it's false, but you chose not to.

So tell me: which characteristic of guns is it that separates them from drugs in such a way that banning the former won't create a dangerous black market, even though it has in the latter?

[sees_all1]

Apples and oranges. Don't guns require to be under lock and key or some sort of security system as well as being registered at this time? Cars...no. As soon as cars are under the same restrictions bring that to the table. Besides, cars are not built and sold as an offensive/defensive weapon. Guns are sold under that premise.

Explain to me why slingshots, bows and arrows, spears, swords, clubs, crossbows and bolts, switchblades, darts, blowguns, catapults, daggers, shields or flails are any different.

[Ginger_Warrior]

I don't want to argue too heavily against Smelly Paws

. :(